Years ago I volunteers to work on a local campaign to help a candidate. I use to think local elections were different as well, but during that time I realized local elections are pretty much just as screwed up as elections on the state/national level. It all comes down to money, advertising and building a narrative.

People don't pay attention to what mayors actually do, plus a terrible mayor can live off the planning of the previous administration for most of their term in office (and thereby take credit for things they didn't touch).

None of that means that it isn't worth showing up to vote against an obviously terrible local candidate.

I'm not aware of any elections where you can "vote against" a candidate.

A semantician strikes again!

If you are actually confused about my meaning I'd be glad to explain further.

I'm not confused about your meaning, but disputing such characterization of the situation. A vote for a candidate is a vote for that candidate, an endorsement of their subsequent actions. Don't get tricked by subjectively slightly "less worse" candidates.

You should instead run for office, campaign on mainstream things and then do what you want once in office.