OKC Mayor Race 2014

[Bellaboo]

you're confusing the half baked not ready for prime time MAPSIII with a quite popular franchise.
Did you notice OKC taking a page out of the national voter suppression playbook and limiting early voting opportunities, no more Saturday voting limiting the avaiabilty of working stiffs to the polls. I wouldn't worry Mayor Mick fans. If you compare facebook likes Mick will win by about 5000 votes, and is there a better barometer than social media, unless there are tea partiers and fiscal conservatives who secretly plan on voting for Shadid but don't want to publically like a guy who may have smoked crack with a gay prostitute. Interesting race. has any polling been done. I honestly know equal numbers of supporters on both sides. what's the gut feeling? Impossible to know?

Steve H....I mean Edgar, tell me you're smarter than this.... the city has nothing to do with this.

[betts]

Maybe we do need more diversity. If only Ed had been in a position to do something about that the last couple of years.

Another interesting thing for me. How come in all of Ed's campaign materials I've received I've yet to see anything that states one thing Mr. Shadid has accomplished as a city council person. You would think he would have one accomplishment he could brag about.

He's afraid to mention the LGTB anti-discrimination policy he worked to pass, because he doesn't want to turn off conservative voters. I believe that is his sole accomplishment. The "Stop the Boulevard" work was not his idea, but rather was led by Bob Kemper. He jumped on the bandwagon. His urban chicken proposal was not well thought out enough to pass and so it was modified by others who are perhaps a bit savvier. He failed in his attempt to stop the streetcar. That pretty much sums it up I think.

[PhiAlpha]

Crap, I didn't realize you had to register 24 days prior to a city election to vote. I've been out of town for two weeks and haven't transferred my registration from Norman back to OKC yet...that's frustrating.

So does anyone else think that the addition of Phil Hughes and Joe Sarge to the ballot will hurt Shadid more than Cornett?

[David]

I'm cautiously thinking that. At the very least it should spread the "not Cornett" and "not the incumbent" votes around a little.

[CaptDave]

I think the combined affect of Hughes and Sarge will be about 50 votes shifting away from Shadid or Cornett - maybe.

[Edgar]

Citing challengers' tone, mayor rejects debates | News OK
What? no push polls asking about Shadid's gay agenda for OKC. I got a fifty that says otherwise.

[Urban Pioneer]

I'm pretty thrilled that Mayor is not going to waste his time with somebody like Ed. Basically giving him any time at all simply elevates Ed's gaseous rhetoric. After he has demonstrated to the people who worked so hard to help him get elected in his Ward 2 campaign his willingness to stab them in their back (not to mention the general voting public) and outright lie about his positions, why should we believe anything that he might say or pledge in a debate?

A debate in my mind is absolutely meaningless with somebody like Ed.

[jerrywall]

Exactly. Why treat a troll as a serious challenger? I have a feeling this election may make the Taco Bell guy look like a professional politician.

[zookeeper]

I am all for Mick! However, in the interest of civics 101, I don't see how a debate could hurt. This is a political consultant's decision. Candidates debate challengers with a negative tone all the time. Whether we like it or not, Ed has a competing vision and is a sitting member of the City Council. It's not like debating a "nobody" (as much as many of us think Shadid is just that). A little disappointed in the lack of confidence and the political calculations, there's no reason he shouldn't debate Shadid. Ed's been lying, what a great time to defend your positions! Everyone (and I understand) will look at this as "why should he?" from a political perspective. From a good government perspective, this shows poor leadership, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, and just a mistake for civic involvement by not allowing the voters to sum up the candidates side-by-side. Eye to eye. Man to man. Incumbents crawling under a rock and running away to avoid opponents, and only relying on 30-second ads is anathema to me. Mick's done a great job, but to me, this decision alone shows he's very far from perfect. Weak, weak, weak decision.

Please, no flames. I can't stand Ed Shadid. But, he's a sitting member of the council, a legitimate candidate on the ballot with an opposing vision for the city. Mick shouldn't use the old incumbent mindset of "I'll just hunker down and ride my way into re-election." A good, strong mayor should have no difficulty defending his record and putting Ed Shadid to bed. Honestly, this decision disappoints me.

[Urban Pioneer]

Ed gets to debate Mick every Tuesday if he wants and its on television- public comments included.

[zookeeper]

Ed gets to debate Mick every Tuesday if he wants and its on television- public comments included.

I understand. However, turn this around and it was Shadid that was hiding from debates, we would all be livid. What happens on the shoe is not a replacement for a campaign debate on the issues. I love Mick, I just think this is typical incumbent politics and serves nobody but Mayor Mick not wanting anything to spoil the coronation. I believe in good government. We would benefit from these two candidates facing each other man to man. It's a political campaign and incumbents that want to avoid any "potential mindfields" are only thinking of old-style, insider campaigns where money, connections, and name recognition is key. This city deserves better. No, it doesn't deserve Ed Shadid, but he's on the ballot and we should have the opportunity to size these men up side-by-side. Many municipalities and states are codifying standard models of debates so candidates cannot run away. They make it part of the process whether they want to or not.

[betts]

I am all for Mick! However, in the interest of civics 101, I don't see how a debate could hurt. This is a political consultant's decision. Candidates debate challengers with a negative tone all the time. Whether we like it or not, Ed has a competing vision and is a sitting member of the City Council. It's not like debating a "nobody" (as much as many of us think Shadid is just that). A little disappointed in the lack of confidence and the political calculations, there's no reason he shouldn't debate Shadid. Ed's been lying, what a great time to defend your positions! Everyone (and I understand) will look at this as "why should he?" from a political perspective. From a good government perspective, this shows poor leadership, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, and just a mistake for civic involvement by not allowing the voters to sum up the candidates side-by-side. Eye to eye. Man to man. Incumbents crawling under a rock and running away to avoid opponents, and only relying on 30-second ads is anathema to me. Mick's done a great job, but to me, this decision alone shows he's very far from perfect. Weak, weak, weak decision.

Please, no flames. I can't stand Ed Shadid. But, he's a sitting member of the council, a legitimate candidate on the ballot with an opposing vision for the city. Mick shouldn't use the old incumbent mindset of "I'll just hunker down and ride my way into re-election." A good, strong mayor should have no difficulty defending his record and putting Ed Shadid to bed. Honestly, this decision disappoints me.

Why debate a liar? How can you win when he says things that aren't true but take too long to prove incorrect? We're a sound-bite public. If you can't get it done in a minute or two, you've lost your audience.

The most interesting thing about a debate would be to see precisely what Ed's vision is. But, I suspect he would basically talk around the subject regardless. It would also be interesting to see who he decided was his best chance for election. Suck up to the ultraconservatives with an anti-tax, pro-police message or go the opposite direction and talk about massive expenditures for transit, education, assistance for the mentally ill? Or go with the pro-neighborhood, anti-downtown message? Decisions, decision. Listening to Ed is like trying to capture the willow-the-wisp. It takes him a long time to get to whatever his point is, although he does it in a very soft, thoughtful voice, and by the time he's gotten there you've forgotten where he started. Go back and watch a few of the City Council meetings where he goes off and you'll get an idea.

[soonerguru]

I am all for Mick! However, in the interest of civics 101, I don't see how a debate could hurt. This is a political consultant's decision. Candidates debate challengers with a negative tone all the time. Whether we like it or not, Ed has a competing vision and is a sitting member of the City Council. It's not like debating a "nobody" (as much as many of us think Shadid is just that). A little disappointed in the lack of confidence and the political calculations, there's no reason he shouldn't debate Shadid. Ed's been lying, what a great time to defend your positions! Everyone (and I understand) will look at this as "why should he?" from a political perspective. From a good government perspective, this shows poor leadership, lack of confidence, lack of transparency, and just a mistake for civic involvement by not allowing the voters to sum up the candidates side-by-side. Eye to eye. Man to man. Incumbents crawling under a rock and running away to avoid opponents, and only relying on 30-second ads is anathema to me. Mick's done a great job, but to me, this decision alone shows he's very far from perfect. Weak, weak, weak decision.

Please, no flames. I can't stand Ed Shadid. But, he's a sitting member of the council, a legitimate candidate on the ballot with an opposing vision for the city. Mick shouldn't use the old incumbent mindset of "I'll just hunker down and ride my way into re-election." A good, strong mayor should have no difficulty defending his record and putting Ed Shadid to bed. Honestly, this decision disappoints me.

I agree with and understand your spirit. But don't overthink this. Ed refuses to publicly state his positions. He refuses to even say how he will vote on important city issues -- such as his months-long stonewalling on his streetcar position. Basically, he's completely full of hot air. So why bother having a debate? Can't the guy just tell the voters what he plans to do? Is that too much to ask?

We know what the Mayor is going to do. He's not the one who has anything to prove.

I agree a debate would be in order if one of the candidates wasn't such a duplicitous liar.

Ironically, I think Cornett would destroy Ed in a debate. Ed is so discombobulated in his positions (if he ever even takes them). The mayor is very studied in his positions. He knows why the hell he's doing something.

Ed is just trying to create a campaign issue, but that is no substitute for a plan.

[betts]

Just for fun, though, what questions would we like to see in a debate? Nothing at all general or vague for me. I would kill to get the real answers to these questions. Well, maybe not but a little truth serum would be vastly entertaining.

The problem with a debate is that I want to ask them different questions. And I want real, concrete answers, not the vague generalities that are usually given in debates.

For Ed:

1. Why did you really not vote in any city elections before your City Council Elections, and don't give me that crap about feeling marginalized.
2. Why did you tell the voters in your ward that you would make sure MAPS was completed as promised and then do the opposite?
3. Do you care if we have a MAPS 4?
4. What are your precise plans for policemen and firemen, what will it cost and how do you plan to pay for it?
5. What are your precise plans for a bus system and bus shelters, what will they cost, and how do you plan to pay for it?
6. What is your vision for the direction Oklahoma City will be going by 2018?
7. Do you care if momentum downtown stops as a result of your actions to stop MAPS?
8. Have you ever been to a meeting at the Cox Convention Center? If the answer is yes, do you think it functions adequately now as our only central meeting place for the city and do you think it will continue to function well for the next 20-30 years?
9. What would you do if the Thunder ownership told you they need a new arena and they want it to be included in MAPS 4? (I don't think that's going to happen, but I'd love to hear his answer).


That would be enough for me, if I could get a straight and honest answer.

For Mick:
1. Are you thinking about a MAPS 4? If yes, what projects do you see as part of it?
2. What would you do if the Thunder ownership told you they need a new arena and they want it to be included in MAPS 4? (fair is fair - both get to answer this one)
3. What do you think the city could do to help struggling neighborhoods?
4. Do you think we should add additional city councilmen or women to give our Hispanic population a greater voice and how would you accomplish that?
5. What do you think about a regional transit district?
6. Would you be willing to support a permanent sales tax funding source for regional transit?
7. Have you considered reorganizing EMSA and the fire department's response to 911 calls to improve efficiency? Do we need more firemen or better organization of those we have?
8. Do you think we need more policemen? If so, what will it cost and can we afford them? If we need them, does the money have to come from someplace else and, if so, where?
9. Are you really a lackey of the Chamber junta and the plutocrats (couldn't resist throwing that one in there!)????

[OSUFan]

I don't see much what a debate accomplishes either way. Whether you love or hate him Mayor Cornett has a pretty extensive track record. If Mayor Cornett is re elected we know exactly what we are going to get.

[mkjeeves]

Good questions. I'd add one more for Mick.

Mick, have you ever used illegal drugs?

But none of this matters. I'm sure Mick has done the polling to know it's his to lose and he might as well wait it out under the bed.

[mkjeeves]

Okay, two. That one and one about how deep he's willing to go into tax payer pockets for a CC hotel if and when the time comes.

[bradh]

Okay, two. That one and one about how deep he's willing to go into tax payer pockets for a CC hotel if and when the time comes.

just like you paid for the Skirvin and the Renaissance?

[mkjeeves]

just like you paid for the Skirvin and the Renaissance?

Is that his answer for the record? Cite?

[bradh]

i can't cite an informal talk i heard, but from his mouth, the land under the Skirvin is city owned, and what I think I heard from it was that public funds were used for portions of the Renaissance. doesn't bother me one bit though

[mkjeeves]

If that's the level of depth on a CC hotel he would ask us to go and would support himself, I'd like to hear it from him, on the record.

[bradh]

Nothing was said about level of depth of support of a CC hotel. A question was asked, and he mentioned those past projects, and to paraphrase, proposals would be reviewed when we even get to that point, and if it's a good investment for the city they might do it, and if it's not then they won't. no type of committment at all (at least that i heard).

[mkjeeves]

I'm sure his answer in this debate we aren't going to have would be evasive enough to not leave anything in the record he couldn't go back on later.

Fine with me to not have it. I won't need to watch that.

[bradh]

I'm sure his answer in this debate we aren't going to have would be evasive enough to not leave anything in the record he couldn't go back on later.

what any politician who's worth their weight would do, right?

that seems to be Ed's problem, saying stuff that continually contradicts prior comments

[mkjeeves]

what any politician who's worth their weight would do, right?

that seems to be Ed's problem, saying stuff that continually contradicts prior comments

Without a doubt, Mick is more skilled in that department than Ed.