Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.
What Went Wrong?

First of all, LAist apologizes for not getting our election story in–we were out at various election night parties to all hours and didn’t have time to write anything.
The obvious story to write about is the rematch: Hahn vs. Villaraigosa, Part II. But we’ll be able to talk about that for the next ten weeks. For now, the most interesting question for the City’s political insiders is where Hertzberg went wrong on his campaign, what could have happened or might have happened differently, and where he goes from here.
The top three finishers ended up as follows: Villaraigosa, 33.07%, 124,561 votes; Hahn 23.68%, 89,189 votes; Hertzberg 22.15%, 83,420 votes. So while Villaraigosa won handily, as most consultants expected, Hahn edged Hertzberg by a relatively tiny fraction of 6,000 votes. So what was to blame for Hertzberg’s failure?
LAVoice has been hosting a discussion (see the comments) on “How Hertzberg failed.” We think many of their points are correct; see blogger AverageJoe’s comments in particular for an intelligent breakdown of the Council District results. To summarize, while Hertzberg led in his major targeted areas: CD-3 and CD-12 (the West Valley) and CD-5 (Encino and the eastern Westside, the most heavily Jewish area of the City), in other sections of the City he got almost no support whatsoever. Blogger Jzasloff retorts that Hertzberg intended to get half the Valley and half the Westside, and not focus on the rest of the City, and places the blame on Hertzberg’s Get Out The Vote efforts, which, if stronger, might have provided the difference.
At the same time, this is all very technical and parochial, for lack of a better word. We tend to think Hertzberg had the correct formula, generally speaking, but on a more systemic level, he had two major problems from the very start:
1. Fundraising and staffing: Hertzberg came in with a massive fundraising deficit to the Mayor, and needed to do more with his money from the very start. While Mayor Hahn had the luxuries of City staff (and it's naive to think the City staff wasn't "volunteering on their own time" at every turn) and the sheer manpower of almost every union in town, Hertzberg had to spend on staff from the very beginning, plus had to spend on ads just to increase his name recognition. Meanwhile Hahn could spend on negative ads or mailers or other things, because as an incumbent with a famous name, he didn't have that obstacle. Perhaps more judicious spending or active fundraising could have helped Hertzberg-his expenditures were consistently higher on staff and other expenses throughout the campaign.
2. Post-November problems: We tend to think that the Hertzberg brain trust underestimated the disenchantment with Republicans that liberals felt after November and Kerry's loss to Bush, and the waning popularity, especially among Democrats, of the Governator. We has run into many, many people who have told us, "I would have loved to vote for Hertzberg, but I just didn't like how he was pandering to Republicans," or, "I think breaking up LAUSD is a terrible idea and I can't vote for him." We believe that Hertzberg thought that he could pick up the Westside and the Valley by "running to the right," and that just being Jewish, or having been a former Assembly Speaker would be enough to carry the Westside. But there wasn't enough there to appeal to Westside voters. Why should they vote for this guy who seems to be almost a Republican himself instead of the well-known and well-liked Antonio Villaraigosa? Hertzberg didn't give Westside liberals any good reasons. Now, could he have done nearly as well as he did without making breakup his #1 issue? Probably not, but it's a catch-22.
So where does Hertzberg go from here? Does he endorse? We don't see him endorsing anyone. After bashing Hahn ferociously for months, endorsing him would look incredibly hypocritical and crass; it would be an endorsement for pure political gain (or due to personal hatred) that anyone could see through. As for Villaraigosa, their politics match, and their Westside bases overlap. Why wouldn't Hertzberg endorse Villaraigosa?
Two reasons: first, they hate each other. Really, really hate each other. This goes back to their Assembly days and is based on the speakership succession and some Democratic Party cash that Villaraigosa raided against his word, but this is all water under the bridge. Suffice it to say that there's no love. Second, Hertzberg knows very well that Villaraigosa entered the race partly to prevent him (i.e. Bob) from becoming Mayor. He knew that with Parks in the race, Hertzberg would take the Valley and Westside enough to absolutely destroy Hahn in an election, perhaps even beating him in the Primary. Villaraigosa realized that Hertzberg would have won and stayed for eight years, further delaying his ambitions for higher office-so he bit the bullet, broke his promise to CD-14 to serve two terms on the council, and jumped in. To his credit, he ran a strong campaign and it looks like the gamble paid off. But don't expect Hertzberg to forget the fact that Villaraigosa cost him the Mayoralty.
In the end, we expect Hertzberg simply to go back to his law practice, at least for the next few years. As for Hahn vs. Villaraigosa, there will be plenty more to say over the next couple months.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
After rising for years, the number of residential installations in the city of Los Angeles began to drop in 2023. The city isn’t subject to recent changes in state incentives, but other factors may be contributing to the decline.
-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.