This same ignorance infested Marrs also IMHO. Just because he was a retired fire chief means really nothing. Moving up in city government is more hiney smooching than ability. If you doubt this ask any fireman who is below the rack of Major and many Majors would tell you legions of horror stories about his so called administration of the OCFD. Most were ecstatic to see him go. Many are laughing again to see him kicked to the curb.

I am open minded to the new guy. He needs to be given the opportunity to show what he is made of. It really is churlish/low brow behavior to frog gig him before he has even set his posterior in the chair on the horseshoe.


Aloof and arrogant for sure, a man who leads an organization should at least acknowledge his employees. Chief Marrs often did not do this, ignoring people even at a simple morning greeting. As for connections, he obviously had them. He was promoted to District Chief over another candidate who scored higher on the exam. He was smart and knew his job, as for a leader I never gave him passing marks. He came to the Union hall to seek an endorsement. He got it because Mr. Griener is totally anti union and feels they should be abolished.

But with that job not doing anything is exactly the problem. I know constituents he didn't bother calling back and you do that enough times and yeah, people are voting against you because you're not doing anything.

I'll take a do-nothing over a wingnut 7 days a week.

Are Bible thumpers bad people? Yes. They seek to deprive others of the equal protection of the law because they want to impose their religious world view on non-believers. It's immoral, and frankly, evil.

Immoral and evil is the ignroant diatribe spewed by the low born Liberal Democrats and there minions of darkness.

Aloof and arrogant for sure, a man who leads an organization should at least acknowledge his employees. Chief Marrs often did not do this, ignoring people even at a simple morning greeting. As for connections, he obviously had them. He was promoted to District Chief over another candidate who scored higher on the exam. He was smart and knew his job, as for a leader I never gave him passing marks. He came to the Union hall to seek an endorsement. He got it because Mr. Griener is totally anti union and feels they should be abolished.

Connections, yes. Hiney smoocher, DEFINITELY. You get promoted to Chief at OCFD not be being smart or good but hiney smooching. Pure and simple. History bears this fact out.

Immoral and evil is the ignroant diatribe spewed by the low born Liberal Democrats and there minions of darkness.

Puhlease. You all need to take this to the politics forum so we don't have to read this crap. Or, if you're joking, please give us a winky face:p. And it's "their" minions of darkness.

Religious thinkers ... homosexual agenda ... Jesus Christ rode around on the back of a pterodactyl ... comes down to.

FWIW, I'm a Christian. I imagine myself to be a religious thinker. You've got to get out more if you think all Christians are defined like that. I hope someday you can see me as an individual free of your pre-conceived notions of what a Christian is.

Okay, so let me clarify.

I think someone who runs because some invisible man in the sky communicated that he should run is either a liar or should be diagnosed with schizophrenia and medicated.

Anyone who can't make sense of the world without the Bible despite mountains of science and facts is someone who ignores facts and truth when making decisions and instead relies on dogma. For me to think that person is going to be an awful decision maker is not prejudice, it's fact.

Is a voter unsophisticated if the only message they received about a candidate was the exact same thing every single Republican candidate in Oklahoma prints on their flyers? Or if they vote that way because the candidate appeals to their religious beliefs, saying zero (his campaign never took any position on anything having to do with running the city, except to say the government should stick to "core functions" [he didn't define those]) are they unsophisticated voters? I'd have to say yes.

Are Bible thumpers bad people? Yes. They seek to deprive others of the equal protection of the law because they want to impose their religious world view on non-believers. It's immoral, and frankly, evil.

What does the Bible say about streetcars and convention centers? Not a damn thing.
Spot on, Midtowner.

When a candidate for city council, or, actually, any public office, wears god on his/her sleeve as his sole credentials for public office and declines to voice opinions about the practical issues which are relevant to the office being sought, and even goes to the point of saying, "God made me do it," we've got trouble in river city.

This has nothing to do with Christians of whatever stripe (or Jews, Muslim, etc.) having rational opinions on such issues. It has nothing to do with the political opinions on the issues receiving fair consideration whether voiced by a Christian, etc., or not. People of any (or no) religious persuasion can, will, and do have legitimate different opinions, regardless of their religious persuasion. They put their opinions forward into the discussion/debate, and those opinions are not blended with or decided by a god-trump card.

It has only to do with those who might say, "God made me do it, and, so, you know, I must be right ... once I get around to expressing germane opinions on what voters might have been interested in knowing in the first place. I will have my tablets for you in the near future, after I've had further consultation with him/her/the man in the sky on these topics. Stay tuned. I will keep you advised."

Puhlease. You all need to take this to the politics forum so we don't have to read this crap. Or, if you're joking, please give us a winky face:p. And it's "their" minions of darkness.
Love it! +1

Connections, yes. Hiney smoocher, DEFINITELY. You get promoted to Chief at OCFD not be being smart or good but hiney smooching. Pure and simple. History bears this fact out.

Of the 5 Chiefs I have served under so far, he wasnt the best at Kissing A$$! The one we have now, not at all! He was the best candidate and is a great Chief.

Emphasis on downtown Oklahoma City development takes a hit in election, council member says | News OK (http://newsok.com/emphasis-on-downtown-oklahoma-city-development-takes-a-hit-in-election-council-member-says/article/3779533)

I disagree with this assessment of the election by others on the council. I think, in Ward 1 especially, it's more a result of low turnout, voter apathy, and the ability of the winner use personal contact to turn out the vote. I live in that ward and have heard absolutely no sentiments like the ones expressed in the article.

Emphasis on downtown Oklahoma City development takes a hit in election, council member says | News OK (http://newsok.com/emphasis-on-downtown-oklahoma-city-development-takes-a-hit-in-election-council-member-says/article/3779533)

I disagree with this assessment of the election by others on the council. I think, in Ward 1 especially, it's more a result of low turnout, voter apathy, and the ability of the winner use personal contact to turn out the vote. I live in that ward and have heard absolutely no sentiments like the ones expressed in the article.

Yeah, I found this article to be odd. Did they lose because there was a downtown backlash or because one was a drunk and the other acted like he didn't care.

Suburban decay is becoming a real issue in some parts of this city, bu I have a hard time believing 2 wards that voted for MAPs, with much higher turnout btw, are now souring on them before any project has even got going.

Yeah, I found this article to be odd. Did they lose because there was a downtown backlash or because one was a drunk and the other acted like he didn't care.

Suburban decay is becoming a real issue in some parts of this city, bu I have a hard time believing 2 wards that voted for MAPs, with much higher turnout btw, are now souring on them before any project has even got going.

I concur. The article made it seem like MAPS3 was something foisted on the citizens of Wards 1 and 7 by the city council, rather than an issue that THEY ALL VOTED ON THEMSELVES.

I am going to agree with the last 3 posts as well. That story didn't even make sense.

I am going to agree with the last 3 posts as well. That story didn't even make sense.

I've read the story three times now and fail to see how the writer came to that conclusion. Some of those interviewed are attempting to shape public opinion for their own purposes obviously.

Not to mention the fact that it was Councilor Kelly's legal issues that likely decided that election. Mr. Greiner probably had his entire church turn out, and that would likely be enough to make a difference. It wasn't the issues, it was the candidates.

It's as if the writer took an editorial sampling of a few voters/residents and made that the basis of his story. There are a variety of reasons that Gary Marrs was defeated, most having to do with him running out of gas. For Skip Kelly the die was cast when he crashed his car while drunk.

It seems like the pro urbanism, especially the transit supporters really wanted to change out Marrs, as well as being thrilled with Shadid. Sometimes you need to be careful what you ask for. Make sure who you are ousting isn't better than who you allow to take power. It also points out the political reality that you need to start the influencing by working at getting the right people to run and then work harder to get them elected. Now we have at least three wild cards who suddenly pose a real threat to urban progress.

It seems like the pro urbanism, especially the transit supporters really wanted to change out Marrs, as well as being thrilled with Shadid. Sometimes you need to be careful what you ask for. Make sure who you are ousting isn't better than who you allow to take power. It also points out the political reality that you need to start the influencing by working at getting the right people to run and then work harder to get them elected. Now we have at least three wild cards who suddenly pose a real threat to urban progress.

It is too close for comfort indeed. I think we may even have a 5-4 split on the council: Greiner, Shadid, White, Pettis v. Cornett, McAtee, Greenwell, Salyer, Ryan when it comes to MAPS. Greenwell may even be a wild card; Salyer as well if the tea leaves for the next office show there is an undercurrent of opposition to future MAPS initiatives.

Doesn't matter what the voters actual sentiments were. Ed can claim a mandate to overturn MAPS.

It is too close for comfort indeed. I think we may even have a 5-4 split on the council: Greiner, Shadid, White, Pettis v. Cornett, McAtee, Greenwell, Salyer, Ryan when it comes to MAPS. Greenwell may even be a wild card; Salyer as well if the tea leaves for the next office show there is an undercurrent of opposition to future MAPS initiatives.

I think it is a little too early to worry about that. Political reality is a little different then campaign fantasy. Just ask any politican who went to Washington to clean it up. And it isn't like the 2 that got ousted were streetcar advocates anyhow. Heck, Skip Kelly wanted to make the whole thing single track and there is a reason Spartan uses "Gary Marrs go back to Mars" as a tag line.

I think it is a little too early to worry about that. Political reality is a little different then campaign fantasy. Just ask any politican who went to Washington to clean it up. And it isn't like the 2 that got ousted were streetcar advocates anyhow. Heck, Skip Kelly wanted to make the whole thing single track and there is a reason Spartan uses "Gary Marrs go back to Mars" as a tag line.

Ha ha - true to an extent. Skip usually made his statements of opposition or outrage, but then voted with the rest after the bluster. Marrs was at least fairly reliable in voting for what was "promised" to MAPS voters. Mr Pettis is a complete unknown to me and some of Mr Greiner's campaign material statements concern me. No way to know for sure until they start flipping the voting lights on the horseshoe though.

Rover is right though, step 1 is getting a candidate on the ballot that you don’t have to wonder about. I would still be in favor of making downtown OKC and the downtown adjacent neighborhoods their own district, maybe even with their own taxing authority and council seperate from the rest of OKC - kind of like central London, a City within a City.

Rover is right though, step 1 is getting a candidate on the ballot that you don’t have to wonder about. I would still be in favor of making downtown OKC and the downtown adjacent neighborhoods their own district, maybe even with their own taxing authority and council seperate from the rest of OKC - kind of like central London, a City within a City.

no

Rover is right though, step 1 is getting a candidate on the ballot that you don’t have to wonder about. I would still be in favor of making downtown OKC and the downtown adjacent neighborhoods their own district, maybe even with their own taxing authority and council seperate from the rest of OKC - kind of like central London, a City within a City.

Terrible idea. Just terrible.

It would alleviate the perception from suburban OKC that too much attention and funds were being dedicated to downtown.

It would alleviate the perception from suburban OKC that too much attention and funds were being dedicated to downtown.

A lot more citizens from other wards use the infrastructure downtown than the residents of downtown, for example, would dine at the Italian restaurant at NW Expressway and Council. While I live in Ward 1, I work in midtown OKC. A lot of folks live and work in different wards. That's one of the great things about having a big city like this. We have to understand that out of state companies aren't judging our city based on the amenities at NW Expressway and Rockwell or 23rd and MLK. They're judging us based on our downtown. That's why the citizens in all wards overwhelmingly have supported downtown investment.

A lot more citizens from other wards use the infrastructure downtown than the residents of downtown, for example, would dine at the Italian restaurant at NW Expressway and Council. While I live in Ward 1, I work in midtown OKC. A lot of folks live and work in different wards. That's one of the great things about having a big city like this. We have to understand that out of state companies aren't judging our city based on the amenities at NW Expressway and Rockwell or 23rd and MLK. They're judging us based on our downtown. That's why the citizens in all wards overwhelmingly have supported downtown investment.

Does Pete White and Dr. Shadid know this? They seem to think that OKC residents are growing tired of spending money on downtown.

Does Pete White and Dr. Shadid know this? They seem to think that OKC residents are growing tired of spending money on downtown.

The MAPS votes would dictate otherwise.

The MAPS votes would dictate otherwise.

I hope you are right but maybe we can revisit this topic again if public opinion really does start to change, or if the new council members 'think' public opinion is starting to change.

No. For the MAPS brand to be successful, the city must deliver on the promises it makes. MAPS III was very much based on a "trust us, we'll do all of these things" premise. Myself and others stated that we would prefer to have the city required to complete all of the projects as promised, but that's not what we got. Many of us were optimistic in that the combination of the monied interests these projects will benefit as well as councilmen and women entrusted to carry them out would keep the pressure on. If there's no follow through, that might well be the doom of MAPS IV.

No. For the MAPS brand to be successful, the city must deliver on the promises it makes. MAPS III was very much based on a "trust us, we'll do all of these things" premise. Myself and others stated that we would prefer to have the city required to complete all of the projects as promised, but that's not what we got. Many of us were optimistic in that the combination of the monied interests these projects will benefit as well as councilmen and women entrusted to carry them out would keep the pressure on. If there's no follow through, that might well be the doom of MAPS IV.

well said

That WILL be the doom of MAPS IV. I've been as big a supporter of MAPS as anyone, have campaigned for the proposals, talked friends into voting, written letters in support, etc. If MAPS 3 monies are apportioned by the City Council as they see fit, then they have spit in the public's eye as far as I'm concerned. I will throw the weight of my efforts into people running against any councilors who vote for their own self-interest, rather than upholding the voters' decision.

I was at the Placemaking conference in Norman yesterday. Never saw Shadid there. I am not sure which of our council members bothered to show up.

That WILL be the doom of MAPS IV. I've been as big a supporter of MAPS as anyone, have campaigned for the proposals, talked friends into voting, written letters in support, etc. If MAPS 3 monies are apportioned by the City Council as they see fit, then they have spit in the public's eye as far as I'm concerned. I will throw the weight of my efforts into people running against any councilors who vote for their own self-interest, rather than upholding the voters' decision.

The new persons elected have no practical experience and no allegiances to anyone but their district. This is very much like Tea Party politics. Use very simple overgeneralize statements which pander to a narrow view protectionist constituent who will go vote for you. It isn't about bettering the city, but pandering to your neighborhood. They won't feel like they represent the city, but they believe they are only representing those that vote for them. They aren't necessarily educated in city issues, but rather in potholes, barking dogs, and stopping the shootings. If they don't feel like they are getting money back from Maps they won't be worried about the next one not passing. They will prefer bond issues and re-allocation of expenditures, not the vote of the city as a whole. They will think they are successful if they just get less complaints from their voters. They will be tactical, not strategic.

At least this is my concern. This will be back to the old OKC. Not good.

No. For the MAPS brand to be successful, the city must deliver on the promises it makes. MAPS III was very much based on a "trust us, we'll do all of these things" premise. Myself and others stated that we would prefer to have the city required to complete all of the projects as promised, but that's not what we got. Many of us were optimistic in that the combination of the monied interests these projects will benefit as well as councilmen and women entrusted to carry them out would keep the pressure on. If there's no follow through, that might well be the doom of MAPS IV.

Then the powers that be need to look at themselves for the failure if it ix. My concern has always been ignorant blind faith vs provable follow thru. Follow thru I can and will support. Blind faith is for fools and dolts that are too stupid to live. Politicians are liars and I base all decisions upon documented proof. Now the powes that lie are admitting problems with the convention center due to no hotel. Well duh!!!

At least this is my concern. This will be back to the old OKC. Not good.

Opinion and NOT fact. We all know that that is worth around here.

That WILL be the doom of MAPS IV. I've been as big a supporter of MAPS as anyone, have campaigned for the proposals, talked friends into voting, written letters in support, etc. If MAPS 3 monies are apportioned by the City Council as they see fit, then they have spit in the public's eye as far as I'm concerned. I will throw the weight of my efforts into people running against any councilors who vote for their own self-interest, rather than upholding the voters' decision.

That is what I have been preaching to the ignoramuses on this narrow minded forum from my first post. Thank you for realizing the facts of the matter. WOW it has taken far to long for the wake up to occur. I guess the late riders have finally stopped drinking the stupid kool-aid. Congratulations for finally seeing he light that the powers that be are liars and only interested in lining there own pockets.

No. For the MAPS brand to be successful, the city must deliver on the promises it makes. MAPS III was very much based on a "trust us, we'll do all of these things" premise. Myself and others stated that we would prefer to have the city required to complete all of the projects as promised, but that's not what we got. Many of us were optimistic in that the combination of the monied interests these projects will benefit as well as councilmen and women entrusted to carry them out would keep the pressure on. If there's no follow through, that might well be the doom of MAPS IV.

How does it feel to be played for the FOOL???

That is what I have been preaching to the ignoramuses on this narrow minded forum from my first post. Thank you for realizing the facts of the matter. WOW it has taken far to long for the wake up to occur. I guess the late riders have finally stopped drinking the stupid kool-aid. Congratulations for finally seeing he light that the powers that be are liars and only interested in lining there own pockets.

Mustang - I think you'll be much happier running your own message board instead of having to put up with the narrow-minded ignoramuses on this one. Thank you for your sermons, and let me be the first to wish you well with all of your posts on another board.

Blah, blah, blah...

To quote Steve Martin:

Yeah, I remember my first beer.

Mustang - I think you'll be much happier running your own message board instead of having to put up with the narrow-minded ignoramuses on this one. Thank you for your sermons, and let me be the first to wish you well with all of your posts on another board.

You think you know what I would be happier with. You have no clue! I enjoy poking sticks in inferiors eyes, like you.

I was at the Placemaking conference in Norman yesterday. Never saw Shadid there. I am not sure which of our council members bothered to show up.

Lackmayer blogged that there was a quorum of our city councilors there. He didn't name which ones though.

That is what I have been preaching to the ignoramuses on this narrow minded forum from my first post. Thank you for realizing the facts of the matter. WOW it has taken far to long for the wake up to occur. I guess the late riders have finally stopped drinking the stupid kool-aid. Congratulations for finally seeing he light that the powers that be are liars and only interested in lining there own pockets.

Wow. That's a little condescending and rude to everyone on this forum. I have to agree with OKCTalker that maybe your own blog or forum would be better for you.
Oh, and it's "their" own pockets.

How does it feel to be played for the FOOL???

Serious question: are you drunk?

MAPS III is a 10 year project. Declaring it failed this early in the game is a bit premature. Some councilmen talking about making changes is not the same as them acting. They can rest assured that if they tinker with MAPS, they'd better just go ahead and clear out their offices.

MustangGT did you recently read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"? Might want to try it again. :wink:

Lackmeyer blogged that there was a quorum of our city councilors there. He didn't name which ones though.

In attendance: Mick Cornett, Ed Shadid, Meg Salyer and Pat Ryan for sure... I suspect Larry McAtee was there too, but I didn't see him.

Should have been a requirement for everyone in the planning department to go.

That is what I have been preaching to the ignoramuses on this narrow minded forum from my first post. Thank you for realizing the facts of the matter. WOW it has taken far to long for the wake up to occur. I guess the late riders have finally stopped drinking the stupid kool-aid. Congratulations for finally seeing he light that the powers that be are liars and only interested in lining there own pockets.

Actually, I don't agree at all. It's not that I think city councilors lie more than anyone, nor do I think they are lining their pockets. I think attitudes are a combination of paternalism (we know what you plebeians need/should want better than you) and lack of realization that their control over city expenditures is different than a MAPS vote. If they don't want the people deciding anything, then don't ask us to begin with, is the way I see it. Once you ask, it's your duty to deliver. If you don't see it as your duty, voters may beg to differ.

Should have been a requirement for everyone in the planning department to go.


About a dozen OKC planners were there, including the director. Saw Wenger and a couple of MAPS office staff, but not sure if any other city engineering staff made it. Most metro-area cities seemed well-represented and were mentioned at lunch. Except I didn't hear Edmond mentioned. Were any Edmond leaders there?

Maybe they saw too many Don't Edmond my Norman stickers and left?

That is what I have been preaching to the ignoramuses on this narrow minded forum from my first post. Thank you for realizing the facts of the matter. WOW it has taken far to long for the wake up to occur. I guess the late riders have finally stopped drinking the stupid kool-aid. Congratulations for finally seeing he light that the powers that be are liars and only interested in lining there own pockets.

There is a difference between holding city officials accountable (which I agree with) and not doing something just to prove a point (which I don't agree with). If Shadid gets his way and gets to move a large sum of money from the streetcar to take care of the bus system, I will probably not be voting for the next MAPs. If it gets built and the hub gets taken care of and all the other projects are seemingly close to what was promised, I will not only vote for another MAPS, I will advocate and petition for another MAPS.

No. For the MAPS brand to be successful, the city must deliver on the promises it makes. MAPS III was very much based on a "trust us, we'll do all of these things" premise. Myself and others stated that we would prefer to have the city required to complete all of the projects as promised, but that's not what we got. Many of us were optimistic in that the combination of the monied interests these projects will benefit as well as councilmen and women entrusted to carry them out would keep the pressure on. If there's no follow through, that might well be the doom of MAPS IV.
So much truth here. But then again the City leaders will turn around and say that they never made the promise. Use legal loopholes to get out of it or semantics as to exactly who made the promise (i.e., the Mayor during the Campaign but no recorded position by the Council for the same item in question)



Serious question: are you drunk?

MAPS III is a 10 year project. Declaring it failed this early in the game is a bit premature. Some councilmen talking about making changes is not the same as them acting. They can rest assured that if they tinker with MAPS, they'd better just go ahead and clear out their offices.
True, declaring MAPS 3 a failure in it's entirety is premature. But there have been numerous documented failures to this point (Trails, Sidewalks, Senior Aquatic Centers). Does anyone seriously believe the the most expensive MAPS 3 project, the Convention Center isn't going to have serious failure issues as well? the cost of the Transit Hub for the streetcars has gone from the earmarked $10 million to $128 million. The land/building cost for the transit hub is unsettled (potentially a budget buster). Then there is the cost of the rail & Streetcars themselves. Do we have any idea yet if they are going to come anywhere close to the 'average" per mile cost that was pitched to voters? Until a route is finalized and they start tearing up streets and laying tracks, what unexpected expensive cost issues are going to happen? Granted at this point because of Project 180, their shouldn't be that many unknowns underground by then. City history on the subject is replete with costly unknowns or miscalculations or didn't-even-attempt-to-find-out until after the fact.

Not sure why you seem so confident about the tinkering with MAPS statement? While I would like to believe it, it just isn't true. Eventually, maybe, but not so far. Again, they have done just that and the next one gets approved anyway. Somehow they convince enough voters and use slogans like "promises made, promises kept" when they clearly weren't according to the factual evidence.


Actually, I don't agree at all. It's not that I think city councilors lie more than anyone, nor do I think they are lining their pockets. I think attitudes are a combination of paternalism (we know what you plebeians need/should want better than you) and lack of realization that their control over city expenditures is different than a MAPS vote. If they don't want the people deciding anything, then don't ask us to begin with, is the way I see it. Once you ask, it's your duty to deliver. If you don't see it as your duty, voters may beg to differ.
Except by state law, any new tax or tax increase is part of the equation, they are required to get voter approval. If they don't want voter approval, they have to use existing revenue streams or get creative. While your "hold them accountable" is laudable, that only applies to those that were in office when the issue passed. if someone comes after that and campaigns against it, and gets elected, it is the voters essentially telling them "we changed our mind. Don't pay any attention to what I said before, listen to me now."

No, I don't think it's viable to argue that the voters simply changed their mind. Turnout for these elections is typically very low as they never seem to line up with anything else of import. Compare that to the well publicized city-wide MAPS election. No contest.

The fact is that voters overwhelmingly and in much greater numbers approved the "trust us to do these things" platform. 75,421 voted in the MAPS election, which was won by a 54% majority. James Greiner won 57% of 3,108 votes and John Pettis won 62% of 3,142 votes. Not exactly a mandate.

Mid: I addressed this in another thread but you have to compare apples to apples (city wide election to the individual wards). On a per-capita basis, what were the results? How did the wards in question vote on MAPS 3? Did they vote the same way or did they effectively change their minds? Council members are the ones that have the final say on all MAPS matters. Their elections are the only means for the voter to hold anyone accountable for MAPS. Have to remember to that contrary to the norm, the runoff elections for those wards resulted in higher turnout than the primary... by several percentage points, without looking it up, roughly a 25% to almost 50% increase. Very rare.

Larry, I'd attribute that to a hell of a ground game from both Greiner and Pettis. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Greiner knocked on every door in Ward 1. He knocked on my door. I was at work, but I got a flier. Marrs, on the other hand, sort of reminded me of Charlie Swinton's campaign. No ground game to speak of, thought he could win the day with editorial endorsements and that sort of thing. Local politics is local. Maybe too much time at the horseshoe can lead one to forget.

Very astute post Midtowner. Not not to take pot shots at the consultants, but they've won many elections dumping money on campaigns. And these are typically the same consultants involved in most civic campaigns.

Politics and the mechanics of winning are completely different in OKC now for small races. The Mayoral race can be won through broad messaging because it involves the entire city.

But undoubtedly, the ground game has been discounted in the Swinton and Greiner races. As somebody who has personally run several major ground games, the power of organizing people through social media on short notice and the impact of that "spear like" effect can never be discounted in today's political environment.

Mid: I addressed this in another thread but you have to compare apples to apples (city wide election to the individual wards). On a per-capita basis, what were the results? How did the wards in question vote on MAPS 3? Did they vote the same way or did they effectively change their minds? Council members are the ones that have the final say on all MAPS matters. Their elections are the only means for the voter to hold anyone accountable for MAPS. Have to remember to that contrary to the norm, the runoff elections for those wards resulted in higher turnout than the primary... by several percentage points, without looking it up, roughly a 25% to almost 50% increase. Very rare.

You're assuming, Larry, that the city council elections were a referendum on MAPS 3. But we have no idea why people voted the way they did. Perhaps they were voting against another candidate. Perhaps they were extended family, friends, fellow church members. Perhaps each person voting had a different reason for voting the way they did. Without an exit poll, all we can make are assumptions which can be colored by our personal biases. The only referendum on MAPS 3 was the actual MAPS election, and we know the results of that. And if we're going to divide up how each Ward voted on MAPS, perhaps we should do the same for every bond issue. If your ward didn't support the bond issue, then you don't get new roads, sidewalks, schools. We can carry it further: if your ward doesn't make much money on sales tax and other revenue sources, then we cut police and fire protection to you.

We are a city, not a group of ward-states. If we can't see ourself as such, we are poorer for that.

Very astute post Midtowner. Not not to take pot shots at the consultants, but they've won many elections dumping money on campaigns. And these are typically the same consultants involved in most civic campaigns

But the consultants seem to have fallen into a one size fits all rut and often underestimate the ground game. They do tick me off with how certain uniform "conservative" messages win campaigns, hands down. Whoever advised Greiner, hats off.

Pettis was a semi celebrity from the start and Kelly was weak, so anyone could've called that. I'm surprised by Greiner. I won't take back any of my concerns about my councilman's critical thinking abilities, but he ran a good campaign.

But the consultants seem to have fallen into a one size fits all rut and often underestimate the group game.

Yeah. That's what I said in the 3rd paragraph. It's a different political world and their tactics haven't changed to deal with it.

You're assuming, Larry, that the city council elections were a referendum on MAPS 3. ...
No. The rest of your post is complete nonsense.