Should I run for City Council this year, or wait four years?

January 28, 2019 1:03 AM

My city has about half a million people and major challenges. I have been active in politics for about three years. I had been planning to run for a seat on the City Council in 2023, but now I am considering doing it this year.

The incumbent has held the seat since 2007. Including that year, she has had opposition only once, from a fellow Republican in 2011. Republicans have held the seat since at least 1995. I am a Democrat. The election is nonpartisan.

The election is in the fall. There is no primary. If a runoff is needed (unlikely), that would be about a month later.

My intention would be to get public financing.

The few people who know I am considering this have said they would support me. I have my wife’s blessing.

I feel like this is the most appropriate public office for me to run for.

Reasons to wait:
* I would have more time to prepare.
* I would have time to take the classes for a graduate degree, which should improve my regular job, which is about 75 percent boring.
* If I wait, I might be able to work my regular job only part-time (instead of full-time) after I get elected, which would help balance the demands of the council duties. I would not be able to cut back to part-time for at least a couple of years.

Reasons not to wait:
* There is a lot of energy for Dems now, including more in my area. We elected a Democratic rep for the state House. In fact, I’m pretty sure that every Dem in the city and county that ran in 2018 was elected, for various positions. That energy might make a Dem win easier now than in four years.
* I don’t know whether a Dem can be found to run in the district now. If one is found, I don’t how good they might be, etc. If a Dem does win, I don’t know if I would run oppose him or her in four years.

Throwaway e-mail address is:
[e-mail]

posted by anonymous to Law & Government (8 answers total)

So what's not clear to me here is how much you actually want to do this job as compared to focusing on your current job. But assuming you do want it and think you'd be good at it (or at least better at it than the incumbent) I'd run now.

Running a cycle or so earlier than planned seems like a win-win for you, all else being equal. First off, obviously, you might win the race and get the job! But even if you don't, you'll learn how to campaign, gain useful information about the state of play in your district, make valuable connections of all kinds, and raise your public profile. All of these things will pay dividends if you run again in the next cycle. I don't think being defeated in your first run would be held against you, either, unless you manage to really blow it somehow. As long as you run a serious, competent, credible campaign, I think you will win even if you lose.

However, you need to decide for sure if you would even want the job, should you win the race. That's your call to make and yours alone. Don't run unless you are sincerely prepared take on the job and give it all the time and energy your constituents deserve from their elected representatives.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:59 AM on January 28, 2019 [13 favorites]

I came to say basically the same as above: If you want the job, it's worth it to run early, even if you might not win, because you'll learn a lot along the way, make connections, and basically make it so you're not starting from zero next time.
posted by spindrifter at 5:52 AM on January 28, 2019 [1 favorite]

In my 250k-ish city, new candidates generally win (if they're going to) on their second/third try. Some get the job right out the gate, but the ones who do run intense campaigns, and campaigning intensely is no guarantee, especially not when the incumbent still wants the job. Whether that pattern holds generally, I don't know, but that's what I'd be looking for as a relatively new name that the average voter may have zero or only peripheral awareness of in even another four years. A competently-run campaign that "fails" merely because the incumbent got more votes is fantastic advertising.
posted by teremala at 6:07 AM on January 28, 2019 [2 favorites]

Do it now! So many things may change between now and 2023; go ahead and jump in while there is momentum and opportunity. And of course I agree with everyone's points above about using this cycle for learning and building connections and name recognition.
posted by aka burlap at 6:10 AM on January 28, 2019

> A competently-run campaign that "fails" merely because the incumbent got more votes is fantastic advertising.

This is my advice, too. Get your name out there with the public and get yourself into the policy conversations you can have as an actual candidate. You'll be able to make valuable political connections, and you will get a crash course on how navigate the behind-the-scenes drama and favoritism of city council politics.

I don't really see any downside to running now nor any significant advantage to waiting. Losing the election as a first-time candidate will not reflect badly on you even a tiny little bit. You sound like you've been thinking about this for awhile and have educated opinions on the issues, so I can't imagine any preparation you could do over the next several years that will be as valuable as what you'll get by actually running.
posted by desuetude at 7:22 AM on January 28, 2019 [1 favorite]

Run this year. From your description, it sounds like a bit of an uphill battle for even a better Democratic candidate to win this seat. Worry less about the outcome (winning), and more about the process (learning how to do this successfully).

None of your downsides really seem like downsides. Indeed, having a job that's 75% boring might actually be a plus if you do win, since you won't have to allocate as many mental resources to it.

Also, regarding work, when I was active in politics 20 years ago, it was common for political networking to have professional results. For example, the chairman of the county party was a lawyer, and after he arranged an interview between one of his clients and an unsuccessful but promising candidate for an open position the client had. I don't know how common this is, but it's definitely something to consider if your current work situation isn't amenable to council service.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:27 AM on January 28, 2019 [1 favorite]

I think you should run, but don't run just to get the experience. Run to win. You will learn a lot more and might actually win. I know people who have run for a local office of a city about 1/10th the size of yours, and they all say it was worth it, that you have to be committed to it, and for those who won, you have no idea how much work it is no matter how many people tell you it is going to be a lot of work.
posted by AugustWest at 8:28 AM on January 28, 2019

Yes, run this year. You may or may not win; it takes time and often a couple election cycles to get your name really into people's minds. But even assuming you lose, you will still learn a shit-ton about the practicalities of running for office, which is really important, and you will be taken much more seriously in local policy discussions as a prior candidate. And you'll meet a lot of people who will be helpful in your next go-round. Running a good campaign (even if you lose) will get you at the table with a lot of Democratic leaders in the area and get you invited to networking events, to limited access things, etc. They'll be like, "This is Joe, he is a slugger, he took a run at a safe Republican seat they've held since 1995, usually uncontested, and he ran a great race, forced a debate on climate initiatives in the city, really moved the public debate on school funding, he's a guy you want to talk to. Didn't win this time, but he's an up-and-comer who's shown he can run a competent campaign and isn't afraid of a fight." That's the kind of thing that earns you influential endorsements and donations the second time around, and opens doors for you in city and state politics -- maybe you're an architect and the state is putting together a green architecture blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes to state building code, and your Democratic rep to the statehouse says to his leadership, "Hey, what about Joe? He's a real up-and-comer in Democratic politics, ran a great race with a focus on climate issues, and he's an architect." Or the city's appointing people to the citizen's police review board. Or a spot on the liquor commission opens up. Or a non-profit board needs a new director.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:51 PM on January 28, 2019 [1 favorite]