Mayoral Race Leaves Los Angeles Cold

It is one of America's biggest cities, the motor at the centre of the Californian economic powerhouse and its cultural reach knows no bounds. So why does nobody seem to care who runs it?

Six weeks ago the first-round vote for mayor of Los Angeles attracted just 26% of the electorate.

In four weeks, voters will be offered a second chance to choose between the two front-runners from the first vote: the incumbent, Jim Hahn, seeking a second term, and his challenger, Antonio Villaraigosa, vying to become the city's first Latino mayor for 133 years.

At stake is not only the opportunity to run the city and inject some dynamism into a strangely lacklustre administration, but also a salary of $186,000 (£100,000) and an annual invitation to the Oscars. It is enough to make Ken Livingstone green with envy.

But despite the high stakes, the campaign has failed to raise emotions. Debates between the two candidates have been scheduled at decidedly off-peak hours, there is little to separate the two on policy (the most divisive issue appears to be about the regulation of school districts), and even the issue of race, in a city where half the population is Latino, has been studiously ignored.

For some the lack of interest reflects the deficiencies of the incumbent. But others argue that the reason Los Angeles does not have the same political dynamic as its east coast rival New York lies not so much with the politicians but in the nature of the city itself.

While New York has a recognisable city centre and a concentration of power, commerce and people in Manhattan, Los Angeles epitomises urban sprawl. As Gertrude Stein famously wrote: "There is no there there."

The sense of dislocation feeds through to its politics, and especially the perception of its politics from afar. Ask an outsider to name the last two mayors of New York and it would not be a surprise to hear the names Bloomberg and Giuliani. Ask an outsider - or indeed an Angeleno - to name the last two mayors of LA and it would not be a surprise to be met with a puzzled expression.

That this year's election could herald a major shift in the city's politics and its fortunes - Villaraigosa supporters in particular expect a more energetic, outgoing mayor to promote a more energetic, outgoing city - does little to dispel the sense of ennui surrounding it.

Perhaps that should come as little surprise. The last mayoral race to bring with it an epochal shift in the city's fortunes bears striking similarities to this year's battle.

In 1973 the incumbent, Sam Yorty, faced the challenger he had beaten in a run-off four years earlier, Tom Bradley. Mr Bradley, an African-American former police lieutenant went on to rule the city for 20 years. But at the time, the seismic shift in the city's politics attracted little interest. As one newspaper headline noted: Voter Reaction to Mayor's Race: Dissatisfaction, Boredom.

Both candidates in this non-partisan election are Democrats, and both ran against each other in the final round four years ago. Mr Hahn is the consummate bureaucrat, a charisma-free zone who could probably wander unrecognised through his own city hall. What name recognition he has, he owes to his father, a much-respected former county supervisor.

Mr Villaraigosa is a different proposition, a charismatic, sharply-dressed mover and shaker. A recent poll showed him with what seems an insurmountable 18-point lead.

Mr Hahn's support, meanwhile, has dwindled dramatically, for myriad reasons. He sacked the city's black police chief, Bernard Parks; his administration has been mired in allegations of corruption; few of the economic and social indicators provide comfort for the incumbent; and his presence has been, to say the least, low-key. Simply put, say his opponents, it is time for a change.

But the result is not a foregone conclusion. Mr Hahn has a reputation as a redoubtable campaigner. He has never lost a city-wide election, and came from behind - although not as far behind - four years ago to defeat Mr Villaraigosa. That time the killer blow was a commercial depicting Mr Villaraigosa as soft on drugs: in reference to a request he had made for clemency in a drug case, the Hahn campaign depicted the candidate's face with a crack pipe superimposed over it. Mr Villaraigosa failed to respond, the less-than-subtle inference did the trick and Mr Hahn won the election.

This time around, Mr Villaraigosa is not making things so easy. While promising to run a clean, issues-based campaign, he has rushed to rebuttal at the first hint that the incumbent may be playing dirty. The challenger has made strenuous efforts not to be cast solely as the Latino candidate.

But regardless, should Mr Villaraigosa win, said Matt Barreto of Loyola Marymount University's centre for the study of Los Angeles, "it will be a huge step forward for the Latino community".

He added: "Los Angeles has not had a charismatic leader for along time. Maybe in a few years people will start to see Los Angeles politics in the same way they talk about New York."