Round One

WITH RETURNS IN for most of Boston's voting precincts, the scene on election night at State Senator Joseph Timilty's campaign headquarters was festive. At the Boston Sheraton, however, where incumbent Mayor Kevin White and his supporters watched the same returns, the atmosphere was more subdued. Ordinarily these contrasting moods would suggest that Senator Timilty had emerged victorious in this preliminary contest and would pose a threat to the incumbent mayor in the November 4 final election. But even Timilty's assertion that his returns represented "a victory for the people" could not hide the actual results: in what was essentially a two-candidate race, he lost by 11 per cent of the vote.

Timilty did gain a psychological victory over White, surprising even some of his own supporters with his unexpectedly strong showing. White's organization had hoped to pick up 60 per cent of the vote and possibly even carry every ward in the city. These expectations were reinforced by a pre-election poll conducted by The Boston Globe, which predicted that White's margin of victory would be 2 to 1.

Timilty, however, demonstrated the depth of his support by winning in areas of the city with deep anti-busing sentiments, South Boston and Charlestown, in addition to carrying his home neighborhood, Hyde Park, and nearby Dorchester. Timilty was also helped by the rain, which probably held down turnout among elderly and black voters, two groups which have consistently supported White in the past.

In fact, voter turnout was unusually low for a mayoral preliminary, with only 37 per cent of registered voters casting ballots. In a city where busing has been a prominent emotional issue for almost two years, such apathy is at first glance hard to understand. Voters may have stayed home, however, because the only two major candidates, White and Timilty, were already virtually guaranteed a place in the November final. Moreover, with both men voicing similarly reserved opposition to forced busing, the campaign essentially disregarded the most conspicuous issue in Boston.

Last spring, when anti-busing forces were mobilizing political power, several prominent foes of busing expressed interest in entering the race for mayor. At first, the number of possible candidates hindered attempts among busing opponents to form a political base. By the time the deadline for filing nomination papers rolled around, only State Senator William Bulger of South Boston remained as a potential entry.

BULGER WAITED until the filing date to announce his decision not to run. Limited campaign funds and his status as an unknown would, at any rate, have severely crippled his chances of mounting a threat against either Timilty or White in the preliminary. Besides, Bulger is already a powerful figure in the State Senate, destined perhaps for the Senate presidency.

As a result, Boston voters were faced in the preliminary with a choice between two men opposed to forced busing, but unable to entirely capture the allegiance of the anti-busing forces. The results of the preliminary bore this out: Timilty won in South Boston by a margin of less than 3 to 2. Louise Day Hicks, a strong anti-busing candidate, carried that neighborhood by 2 to 1 over White in the 1971 preliminary.

At the outset of the campaign, both candidates agreed that the principal election issue would be White's eight-year record as mayor. Timilty attacked allegedly corrupt fund-raising among city employees and criticized White's preference for appointing old-style politicians to office. He also pointed out that the city's tax rate rose by about $80 during White's two terms as mayor.

White responded by defending his record. He noted that although the tax rate rose during his first term, it has remained stable for the past four years. He also stressed the importance of his "Little City Halls," set up throughout Boston to allow individuals greater access to city government.

WHETHER TIMILTY WILL convince the voters of Boston that he does represent a "viable alternative" to White's style of government is uncertain. If White's political organization is more fective in getting his supporters to the polls in the final election, then Timilty's chances do not look good. For one thing, a better turnout would ensure White of increased support in his traditional strongholds in black and elderly neighborhoods, where turnout was exceptionally low in the preliminary. Moreover, White's 11 per cent margin is considered by some analysts an insurmountable edge.

Timilty is further handicapped by having collected only one third as much campaign money as White. Nevertheless, he will certainly get no fewer votes in the final election. And if his new credibility as a candidate attracts more money and his campaign remains as energetic as ever, he could pose a serious threat to White in November.

Even if Timilty is not victorious in the mayoral race, he may put a crimp in White's plans for 1975. A landslide victory by the mayor in a city torn by racial strife would considerably improve his chances of realizing his national political aspirations. Kevin White, a near vice-presidential nominee in 1972, recognizes the value of such a victory; but a determined Joe Timilty may keep it beyond his grasp.