Poll Analysis: Mayor’s Race Is Up for Grabs

     With five weeks remaining until voters go to the polls to choose a new mayor for Los Angeles, James K. Hahn has taken an early lead from the crowded pack of candidates, according to a new Los Angeles Times Poll. In the second tier, the candidates are tightly bunched up with no candidate overwhelming the othersóformer State Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa, businessman and Parks Commissioner Steve Soboroff, U.S. Congressman Xavier Becerra, City Councilman Joel Wachs and State Controller Kathleen Connell. However, about a quarter of likely voters are undecided at this point.
     Among likely voters:
     ïJames Kenneth Hahn24%
     ïAntonio Villaraigosa12%
     ïSteve Soboroff12%
     ïJoel Wachs11%
     ïXavier Becerra10%
     ïKathleen Connell8%
     ïUndecided23%
     Since no candidate will get the 51% needed to avoid a June 5th runoff, and a low turnout is expected, it is imperative that the candidates mobilize and energize their core voters. Who will the two candidates be? The race is wide open. Most of the candidates have not made a case for her/himself. This is a different race than when Richard Riordan ran in 1993. He was running in the first primary in 20 years without Tom Bradley, the incumbent , the Rodney King episode was de-escalating, race relations were severely damaged because of the riots and the city was in the throes of a recession. Riordan was able to come in as a successful businessman, not seen as beholden to any special interests. He ran on change, not the status quo. (It was the right message for the right time.) He beat the entrenched city politician, Councilman Michael Woo by 54% to 46%. Today, the voters feel that the economy is doing well, the city is going in the right direction and traffic, not the economy (as in í93), is one of the most important problems facing the city. What separates the candidates from each other? The differences are blurred and the voters are having a hard time deciding what the mayoral candidates stand for and who they want as their new mayor.
     Since most voters are not focusing on the election yet and most of the leading candidates for mayor have not started their media campaign, it is too early to rule out any of the candidates fighting to get in the mayoral runoff. Steve Soboroff has been the exception to this and his ads have helped him gain some recognition. In a late March/early April 2000, Times Poll, Soboroff received 1% of registered voters. He started his campaign earlier than most of the other candidates and he has been showing ads on television for about a month. Jimmy Hahn just started his media campaign on Saturday, coincidentally the day the Times Poll started interviewing. So it is no surprise that most of the candidatesí support is soft with the exception of Hahn. (Wachs and Connell have more solid support than the other 3 major candidates.) More than 7 in 10 of his likely voters are certain they will vote for Hahn in April.
     As you know Soboroff is the only candidate that will not take matching funds. The candidates who did take matching funds had a cap on spending of $2.2 million unless a candidate who didnít take matching funds spent more than that. Soboroff has exceeded the spending cap, so now all candidates can spend more than the cap and still receive matching funds. This will be the most expensive mayorís race the city ever had.

     Riordanís effect on the election
     About three in 10 likely voters want to continue the policies that Riordan put in place over his two terms in office, while a similar 27% want to change a lot of his policies and 36% want to only change a few specific things. The Westside and white voters, Riordanís strongholds, are more solicitous of the mayorís policies than other groups.
     ï39% of likely Westside voters want to continue Riordanís policies
     ï34% of white likely voters
     Among voters who want to continue Riordanís policies, 24% would vote for Hahn and 19% would vote for Soboroff. If the voters want to change a lot of his policies, then all candidates benefit (even Soboroff at 13%). And if the voters want to change just a few things, 24% would vote for Hahn and 15% would vote each for Becerra and Villaraigosa.
     Soboroff was endorsed by Richard Riordan but this fact seems to have little effect on why people are voting for him. Two-thirds of likely voters say it would have no effect on their vote, while nearly twice as many voters say it would have a negative rather than positive effect on their vote (21% to 11%).

     Second choice
     When asked likely voters who would be their second choice:
     ïConnell received 17% of likely voters
     ïWachs, 16%
     ïVillaraigosa, 14%
     ïHahn, 14%
     ïSoboroff, 8%
     ïBecerra, 6%
     ïLess than one in 10 would not have a second choice
.     It looks like Wachs is being hurt more by Soboroff being in the race than the other way around. A plurality of Soboroffís voters say that Wachs is their second choice, but a plurality of Wachís voters say Hahn is their second choice, followed by Soboroff and Villaraigosa. (More Wachsí voters did not have a second choice.) Both Latino candidates, as predicted, are siphoning off Latino voters to the detriment of each other. Interestingly, Becerraís voters would opt for Villaraigosa then Connell as their second choice, while Villaraigosaís voters mention Hahn, then Becerra and Connell as their second choice.
     However, when asked who they could not support for mayor, a third of likely voters say there was no one they couldnít support and 36% say they donít know if they couldnít support someone. But of those who could name a candidate they wouldnít support, 10% mentioned Soboroff, 9% Wachs, 7% Villaraigosa, 5% Becerra, 4% Connell and 4% Hahn.

     Whoís voting for whom?
     For the twenty years that Bradley was mayor, he used a voter model that worked for himóblacks, Jews and Westsiders. For the two terms that Riordan was mayor, he changed the voter model to white Westsiders, San Fernando Valleyites and the moderate to affluent voter. Will Soboroff be able to use Riordanís model as his campaign strategy (as he is trying to do)? Hahn and Villaraigosa are using other models. Will there be a new voter coalition this election or not?
     A look at some of the demographic groups voting for each of the candidates.

     Hahn voters:
     ïPredictably received the most blacks likely to vote (58%)
     ï19% of Latino voters (similar to the percent Villaraigosa received)
     ïVoters living in the southern part of the city (46%)
     ï24% of the likely voters in Central city (He does slightly better than Villaraigosa and Becerra with these voters, 18%, 16% respectively)
     ïThe less affluent, those voters with households earning less than $40,000 (31%)
     ïThe elderly voters (44%)
     ïMore than a quarter of likely Democratic voters
     ïAlmost a third of self-described moderate voters; 22% of self-described conservative voters (Soboroff received 21%)
     ïAbout a fourth of voters that are in union households. Although Villaraigosa received the bulk of labor endorsements, he received 16% of voters in union households.
     ïMore than a third of single women voters
     ïNearly a fifth of married women voters
     ïAbout a fifth of married male voters (Soboroff is competitive in this group at 17%) and a fifth of single male voters (Villaraigosa is competitive at 19%)
     Latinos are likely to play a larger role in this mayoral election than they did in the 1993 or 1997 elections. In 1993, they were 8% of the electorate, while they rose slightly to 15% in 1997 and the survey indicates it will be higher this election. It was a concern in the beginning of the campaign that the two Latino candidates would wash each other out with this voter group. Overtures were made to both candidates for either one to drop out. It appears in this survey that the concerns were valid. Likely Latino voters are torn between the two Latino candidates with Becerra receiving three out of 10 of the Latino vote compared to about a fifth for his opponent, Villaraigosa. Another way to look at this is by each of the candidateís voters. Becerraís strength is coming mostly from Latinos, while Villaraigosaís is a more diverse group. He said he wanted to be a coalition builder and his vote looks like it is paralleling that vision. His votes are almost equally split among whites and Latinos with a smaller likely black voting group.
     An encouraging finding is that nearly four out of five likely voters believe that having a mayor with the same background or ethnicity is not important, while a fifth believe it is. Half of likely Latino voters, however, believe it is important and they are voting more for Becerra than Villaraigosa.

     Villaraigosa voters:
     ï19% of likely Latino voters
     ï18% of voters living in the central part of the city
     ï16% of voters who are in union households
     ï16% of voters whose household income is between $40,000 and $60,000; 13% of HH incomes less than $40,000
     ï15% of voters 18 to 44 years of age
     ï15% of Democratic voters
     ï21% of voters who consider themselves liberal
     ïAbout a fifth of single male voters (Hahn receives 20% of this group)
     ïA fifth of Democratic male voters (Hahn is competitive at 19%)
     ï22% of liberal Democratic voters (Hahn also competitive at 18%)

     Becerra voters:
     ï30% of likely Latino voters
     ï16% of voters living in the central part of the city and 14% of voters living in the southern part of the city
     ï14% of voters from union households
     ï16% of voters whose household income is between $40,000 and $60,000
     ï18% of voters between 18 and 44 years of age
     ï17% of voters who are less educated

     Soboroff voters:
     ï22% of likely white voters
     ï26% of likely Republican voters
     ï21% of likely voters who voted for Riordan in April í93, but 18% of voters who supported Riordan in April í97 (Hahn received 25% of the 4/97 voters)
     20% of Westside voters (his support is competitive with Hahn at 18% and Villaraigosa at 17%)
     18% of San Fernando Valley voters (he is competing with Wachs and Hahn, both at 14%)
     15% of male voters (Villaraigosa also gets 15% from this cohort)
     21% of the self-described conservative voters
     23% of the affluent voters (households earning more than $60,000)
     16% of the most highly educated voters
     17% of married male voters

     Wachs voters:
     14% of likely Republican voters
     14% of voters living in the San Fernando Valley
     20% of white voters
     14% of women voters
     16% of elderly voters (65 and over)
     15% of highly educated voters (college or more)
     14% of Democratic women voters
     14% of voters whose household income is between $40,000 and $60,000
     14% of married women voters
     13% of single women voters
     14% of self-described moderate voters

     Connell voters:
     14% of voters between the ages 45 and 64
     10% of voters who self-describe themselves as liberal; 9% who say they are conservative
     13% of Democratic male voters
     12% of Liberal Democratic voters
     14% of married male voters

     Impressions of the six candidates and characteristics voters want in their candidates
     Of the six major mayoral candidates, only Hahn and Wachs are fairly known by the likely voters interviewed, while the other four are not as recognizable.

			Havenít Heard
	Favorable	Unfavorable	or Don't Know
Hahn	60%	16%	24%
Wachs	51%	19%	30%
Connell	40%	14%	46%
Villaraigosa	36%	14%	50%
Soboroff	30%	14%	56%
Becerra	28%	10%	62%

     A third of likely voters think education should be the top priority for the new mayor to tackle, followed by police matters and behavior (21%) and crime (20%). Among likely voters concerned about these top issues, Hahn is the candidate of choice.
     Education: 23% Hahn; 18% Villaraigosa; 14% Wachs; 12% Soboroff; 8% Becerra and 4% Connell
     Police matters: 27% Hahn; 18% Connell; 12% Villaraigosa, 12% Wachs; 11% Soboroff; and 6% Becerra
     Crime: 27% Hahn; 17% Soboroff; 14% Becerra; 10% Connell; 7% Wachs and 4% Villaraigosa
     Once again Hahn goes to the front of the line in terms of what characteristics are important for the new mayor to have. Nearly two out of five likely voters mentioned honesty and integrity and about a fifth cited they wanted a strong leader.
     Honesty and integrity: 22% Hahn; 16% Wachs; 13% Villaraigosa; 12% Soboroff; 8% Connell and 5% Becerra
     Strong leader: 29% Hahn; 22% Villaraigosa; 15% Soboroff; 8% Wachs; 4% Becerra and 3% Connell

     How the Poll Was Conducted
     The Times Poll contacted 532 likely voters in Los Angeles city by telephone Feb. 24ñMarch 1, 2001. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the city of Los Angeles. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. The entire sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error for the entire sample is plus or minus 4 percentage points. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Asians were interviewed as part of the overall sample, but there were not enough likely voters to break out as a separate subgroup.