Stealth Surprise : Low-Profile Foe Grabs 26% of Vote but Antonovich Still Gets His Biggest Win

So who is Dan Kumaus, and why did 72,107 people vote for him?

Kumaus--a low-profile county bureaucrat who hardly bothered to campaign, raised almost no money and spent in the neighborhood of just $500 for the race--surprised even himself by collecting 26% of the vote in Tuesday’s 5th Supervisorial District election.

Four-term Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, on the other hand, raised more than $900,000, spent more than half that amount and won easily with 207,791 votes, or 74%.

Although he got thrashed, Kumaus, who presented himself as a kind of “un-candidate” (he wanted to win, but not by sullying his quest by seeking money or by twisting arms) declared a victory of sorts Wednesday anyway.

“I have accomplished the goal of giving people an option,” said the county deputy assessor, who said he entered the race, in part, to keep Antonovich from running unopposed. “And Mike obviously felt insecure enough to take all that money and run a full-blown campaign.”

Antonovich, though, said taking three of every four votes cast in the sprawling district was nothing to be ashamed of--no matter how little his opponent tried to win.

“The election reaffirms our leadership and foresight,” Antonovich said. “We are on the cutting edge of the issues, in sync with the people.”

Indeed, the results represented the best performance to date in a supervisorial election for Antonovich, who won his post in 1980. The difference this time was that a single, low-key opponent--instead of a field of challengers--garnered so much of the vote.

“Being a stealth candidate combined with the ‘Anybody but Mike’ vote may be a strategy someone would want to garner,” said USC political science professor H. Eric Shockman. “If there had been many more of these stealth candidates, Mike could have been in trouble, maybe even been forced into a runoff.”

Political strategist Arnie Steinberg, who has worked for Antonovich in past campaigns, said the anti-incumbent vote had little to do with Kumaus’ ideas--which even Kumaus acknowledged lacked specifics.

“It sounds like the guy [Kumaus] got a baseline anti-incumbent vote,” Steinberg said. “The longer you are in office as a supervisor, the more you are going to alienate groups of people based on the votes you make.”

Said consultant Joe Cerell: “I don’t think anybody voted for this guy [Kumaus] except his friends, neighbors and relatives.”