OKC Mayor Race 2014

[CuatrodeMayo]

Was stolen from Fox News or were they being serious?

It was like I was reading a story from The Onion.

[mkjeeves]

To marginalize it means it was respected and considered worthy in the first place...

Seems like half the posters in this thread read it religiously, quote and link to it frequently. I guess as long as you put food on the man's table he will keep it up.

[OSUFan]

Seems like half the posters in this thread read it religiously, quote and link to it frequently. I guess as long as you put food on the man's table he will keep it up.

I highly doubt the Red Dirt Report is a money making venture.

[mkjeeves]

I highly doubt the Red Dirt Report is a money making venture.

Keeping him in beer money? Stroking his ego? Google ranks his page as 3 out of 10. Same as OKCtalk.

[betts]

Not me. I've read it three times I think. But I doubt he makes much on it. Although, perhaps it's the (dare I even call it left?) alternate version of the McCarville Report, which might make money and has a better editor.

[mkjeeves]

I never heard of the RDR until I saw it linked here. There's probably more links to it and posts about the content in this thread than to the DOK.

[catcherinthewry]

Congratulations to Andy Griffin and his fine attempt at creative writing. I'm sure Aunt Bea and all of Mayberry are proud of him.

[DoctorTaco]

I highly doubt the Red Dirt Report is a money making venture.

I honestly just assumed the Shadid campaign was keeping them afloat.

I also know that the new owners of Beatnix are sponsors, which honestly made me not want to go to Beatnix anymore. But then I try to stop from being vindictive. They seem like nice folks and they make a good Sonoran hot dog.

[betts]

I have some friends who have "liked" the RDR on facebook. I suspect he's a friend of one of their kids and they were asked to like it. Or I hope so.

[gopokes88]

It was like I was reading a story from The Onion.

Sounds fun.

Ed Shadid, who was recently was obliterated in a mayoral election, to run for a higher office.

City councilman and failed mayoral candidate Ed Shadid has decided to run for governor or US Senate. Shadid who just yesterday lost an election by 30+ points has decided his ceiling is higher then mayor despite the fact he achieved little to no support for the smaller office.
"The people of OKC are just generally ignorant rednecks. They simply can't see why better bus shelters are a fantastic idea. So I'm off to Tulsa and rural Oklahoma to start laying the groundwork for my grassroots campaign. The state for far too long has relied on farming, ranching and oil. I'm going to show them that with a comprehensive bus system throughout rural Oklahoma and Tulsa, we can start to wean ourselves off of it. People in OKC can go f themselves, they won't be getting a single bus"

Shadid had many troubles throughout his mayoral campaign. There were incidents from sending out ridiculous flyers accusing Mick Cornett of hating/loving gays to being unable to clearly state what the hell he hated about Cornett's policies. Shadid offered this,

"For starters were just against the stuff Cornett does. You know like all the stuff he does."

The Onion asked like MAPS 3 maybe? Shadid responded with,

"Exactly, look at MAPS 3, we're gonna spend all this money on a convention center however, I don't think we should. Sure it was passed in an election by a majority, and it's funded with taxpayer money not mine, but we all know okc voters are idiots and I'm the mayor. So let's scrap that and build bus shelters."

When asked what he would have done differently Shadid responded by saying,

"I would have kidnapped Cornett and made him debate me. That would have shown the voters who the real genius is here."

The Onion asked Cornett why he wouldn't debate Shadid he responded by saying,

"He's a lunatic and we're enjoying watching him meltdown."

Shadid said he would flip a coin to decide whether to run for Senate or Governor. Shadid states,

"We all know I don't support all those things Mary Fallin supports, so we could easily win that race. We just have to make sure the media doesn't nuke my campaign. They'll bring up things like my past with hookers, so what I've killed a few hookers, who hasn't? It has no effect on my ability to get bus shelters into this state. As far as US senate goes I think that could be a great option too. Frank Underwood has really opened a lot of doors for guys like me. Just work up a good scheme, kill if need be, and boom big things can happen."

I'm Doyle Redland reporting.

*The Shadid campiagn insists that he does not think the people of OKC are idiots and that a rogue campaigner put this out there. He also says he hasn't ever killed a hooker who didn't already have it coming. So it's pretty much ok. He also stated that he knows Frank Underwood is a fictional character, but that he is based on a real person or persons.

[DoctorTaco]

My day-after dissection of the Shadid defeat, with hand-wringing.

Doctor Taco's Rocks and Tacos: The Day After the Election

[Bellaboo]

Just wonder how many bus shelters Shadid could have built with the money he wasted on the election ? He could have been a hero.

[Midtowner]

That RDR article is just bat**** crazy. Your opponent just demolished you, humiliatED you and you're somehow a "rising star"? Shadid needs to work on his message. He needed to state a clear vision. What he brought to the table was conspiracy theories and harsh rhetoric. Here's a free lesson to him: If the product of a backroom cabal of millionaires is wildly popular, most people aren't going to care very much about the process. All of this bluster about transparency... if Clay Bennett had been "transparent," the Sonics would still be playing in Seattle or KC or someplace not OKC.

And why, God, why would he target the same people (disaffected voters, TPers, public employee unions and liberals) who would have voted for him anyhow? Steve Hunt did that and got 42% of the vote vs. Shadid's 33%. Since MAPS was brought into this world, it has been a machine. It has simply rolled over anyone who gets in its way. Shadid was smart enough not to get in the way the 1st time when he ran for Ward 2, but now? He needs to step back and maybe, if he's smart, sell us his vision for MAPS IV or his plans to expand public transit or his plans to work with PlanOKC to build this city more sustainably. His plans to fully implement UN Agenda 21. His plans to Let MAPS III be a done deal.

His campaign had enough money to win. It was his message which lost people. Any Shadid supporter I have ever spoken with, I have shown them how he has done a 180 on MAPS, who he's working with, his lack of consistency, that he's against MAPS and can't actually deliver on a single thing he promises. I have a 100% conversion rate.

[catch22]

Here is my analysis, and it contacts a few of your points, Dr. Taco.

Shadid could have won. There is a strong urban movement to capitalize on. There is a growing liberal base in the core.

But, his tone turned so negative, and his rhetoric turned so ill willed, that he gave the voters two choices yesterday:

1. Status Quo. Keep the trajectory we are on. It's not broken, don't fix it. Keep the current mayor.

2. Tear it down. We aren't going the right direction. It's broken, and we need to start over.

Most people don't agree with Option 2. If option 2 would have been "I am very proud of what we have done, I think we need to keep moving this same direction. I do have a few ideas to make us even better. I can get us more buses, and stronger police and fire support, without affecting the other great projects we are working on", he would have made it a much closer race. (Just talking in a vacuum where he has a record of keeping promises (which he doesn't))

So, his option 2 plus his horrendous record of keeping promises made this a very clear and easy choice for the voters. We don't need to burn the city down and start from scratch. 65% are happy with where we have been, where we are, and where we are going.

[DoctorTaco]

This is really good analysis ^^^ wish I had written it.

[Drake]

I've been told for a long time that Farley was / is in the tank for Shadid, and it's my understanding his "questions" were quite loaded.

This is 2nd publication that Tim Farley has been fired in a year

[kevinpate]

Shadid's problems, from an outsider perspective:

Started out negative, and went sharply downhill to downright nastyville at a rapid clip. Even when campaigns go negative, the candidate is often on his or her own upbeat message while others handle the deficiencies the campaign wants to highlight in an opponent. Candidate Shadid went with a nearly 180 degree approach, leaving to (too few) others to say he had a plan and a vision, while he was his own self appointed attack dawg from day one. Folk don't mind a rough and tumble leader, but few want to line up behind a junkyard dawg, even if his coat is shiny and he's well bathed.

Romney syndrome - Believing that wanting it, and feeling deserving of it, is enough. Discounting any message that is not positive as mere proof of the problem with the other guy, not as a sign there may be something amiss closer to home.

And speaking of something amiss, in OK, own your past, demonstrate it is the past, but good gravy, don't try to lie about it and pretend it is not there. This is not the 40's. Most everyone is jacked in and when the truth comes out over your denials, that genie is not going to go back in the bottle.

Own your word. No one can be everything to everyone. But if you do not own your own word, too few are going to see you as someone who can be anyone to them.
More than anything else, not owning his own word was, in my opinion, why a man with charisma, educated, decently financed or better, with a strong following of folks who truly want to believe, could not fare better than Mr. Hunt did, despite Hunt having run on a shoe string and who was never taken seriously except by the aginners who will accept any leader brave enough to do what they will not, stand in front of the crowd.

And with that, good luck OKC. I'm out.

[betts]

As someone who has watched Shadid pretty closely over the past couple of years he, as I've said before, has a very low political IQ and a bit of a messianic complex. I don't know this for sure, but I truly believe that 20 years of being the god in the operating room and in the office has lost him years of opportunity to learn how to work with people, how to compromise, how to be pragmatic. In those two settings, your word is law and your every whim catered to. During this campaign, and after the last, he simply did whatever he wanted, with no thought for consequences. Because there had never been any. Perhaps due the desperation induced by the unthought of possibility of losing (saviors aren't supposed to) or because he's innately unethical, he became completely Machiavellian during this campaign. I agree with Midtowner though, he had no plan for expanding his base. It was supposed to happen. I suspect people like Glover, Griffen and Hunt, all deluded themselves, were feeding his ego throughout.

Ed's message, when it is coherent, is one that will find more and more people who will respond to it. But people who want something different from what Cornett offers need to look elsewhere. Because that man isn't right and maybe hasn't been for a long time. The end never justifies the means because the means show who you are.

[betts]

As someone who has watched Shadid pretty closely over the past couple of years he, as I've said before, has a very low political IQ and a bit of a messianic complex. I don't know this for sure, but I truly believe that 20 years of being the god in the operating room and in the office has lost him years of opportunity to learn how to work with people, how to compromise, how to be pragmatic. During this campaign, and after the last, he simply did whatever he wanted, with no thought for consequences. Because there had never been any. Perhaps due the desperation induced by the unthought of possibility of losing (saviors aren't supposed to) or because he's innately unethical, he became completely Machiavellian during this campaign. I agree with Midtowner though, he had no plan for expanding his base. It was supposed to happen. I suspect people like Glover, Griffen and Hunt, all deluded themselves, were feeding his ego throughout.

Ed's message, when it is coherent, is one that will find more and more people who will respond to it. But people who want something different from what Cornett offers need to look elsewhere. Because that man isn't right and maybe hasn't been for a long time. The end never justifies the means because the means show who you are.

And with that, I'm done with this thread. Time to move on.

[RickOKC]

For those of us who are following this race closely, it can be easy for us to get caught up in the details--the give and take of good days and bad days for each candidate (we are already at 60+ pages of discussion and will no doubt hit 100+ before the election). Doing so could cause us to miss the obvious and very predictable outcome that is before us. Mick Cornett will win re-election. Handily. Here's why...

Consider what Mayor Cornett has going for him:

1) The local economy is doing fantastically, in spite of occasional uncertainty and lay-offs from individually unstable companies. Look at Mick's lead graphic on his campaign website; by any account, that list of #1 national rankings for Oklahoma City is astounding. We have gotten so used to such rankings that we may forget how special of a time this is in Oklahoma City's history. While Mayor Cornett cannot claim total responsibility for these distinctions, they have happened during his watch as mayor. He has every right to claim at least some ownership of these results, as we all know a mayor's ineptitude could certainly keep such prosperity from happening.
2) Mick enjoys broad appeal and support from people across the political spectrum. In a politically conservative place like Oklahoma, and even Oklahoma City, Mick's appeal is an impressive and venerable accomplishment. If you look at the names of the people who have already signed up to support Mick's campaign, it reads like a who's who list of Oklahoma City influence. And we're not just talking about right-wing tea party-types; many progressives, liberals, and democrats seem to appreciate the good that Mick has done for our city. Even those who may disagree with his personal social stands recognize that he has been an even-handed and civic-minded leader for all residents and has been a good friend to many common-sense progressive causes.
3) In his time as mayor, Mick has racked up some significant accomplishments. Some people on this forum question whether these accomplishments rightly belong to Mick. Fine. Let's say we give you that ground. Let's just call these controversial accomplishments his "perceived accomplishments." That's good enough in the political world. But whether we are talking about the presence of the NBA's best franchise or positive coverage on national news networks and publications, Mayor Cornett must, if even begrudgingly, be given some credit for a successful career as Oklahoma City's cheerleader-in-chief. He has been an able communicator of a fresh and bold civic vision.
4) MAPS 3 is beginning to produce visible results in communities all over the metro (with sidewalks and trails), and, contrary to its detractors' hopes otherwise, has broad support in both the overall MAPS brand, as well as the individual projects. Despite occasional concerns, Mick has navigated the passage and implementation of MAPS 3 in a way that has been simultaneously active and yet prudent. Without some capable leadership, the MAPS brand, and some of Oklahoma City's current accomplishments, would have been stillborn. Not everybody has to agree with all of how we have arrived here. The collectively accomplished results include something that everyone should find reason to celebrate.

Consider what Ed Shadid has going against him:

1) Ed Shadid suffers from a lack of name recognition and/or significant previous accomplishments. Being a one-term city council member and a local physician does not give the city at-large the opportunity to be acquainted with an individual they would consider as mayor. To mount a successful campaign against a well-liked mayor, Shadid will have to overcome systemic restrictions to becoming well-known. Money alone won't do it; TV ads and glossy mailers will not make up for lack of stable, consistent, accomplishment in the public sphere. Besides functioning as a capable dissident to other's plans (which is welcome and needed in its place), what has Ed Shadid done, exactly? Some politicians are able to overcome these odds by their unique setting, timing, and charisma--not this politician, not this time.
2) In an environment that is typically and socially conservative, Shadid's positions on social issues will prove toxic to a successful civic campaign--at least this time around. That would not have to be true of every candidate in every situation, but the previously referenced Okie article points out that this problem is closely linked to Shadid's next problem...
3) A fractured and fragmented constituency/support base. The very people Shadid wishes to reach with his unique blend of fiscal priorities are the very people that will find his social positions unacceptable. And the very people who will appreciate Shadid's social progressiveness will shudder at his fiscal priorities. What coalition would Shadid build that will somehow constitute a majority of Oklahoma City citizens? Extreme social progressives and the law enforcement unions? It's simply not plausible.
4) As people have given Councilman Shadid an opportunity to make his case, he has consistently let them down through tactical missteps, miscalculations, and mishandling of issues. Some have complained that Shadid has been downright duplicitous and under-handed, but let's give Shadid the same benefit of the doubt we can assign to Cornett. Let's say Shadid's campaign and overall message have not been deceitful. If they have not been deceitful, then they have certainly been confusing, disjointed, and disorganized--not good qualities for the mayor of a major metropolitan city.

So, apart from a totally unforeseen occurrence (dark horse candidate, financial meltdown, damaging allegations, etc.) here's how this thing plays out:
1) Shadid blusters loud and long and spends significant amounts of money trying to create an anti-incumbency fervor that does not exist (it's the only way he can build a coalition). In the process, he may be able to pick up a few disenchanted residents, until...
2) Cornett gently but noticeably "kneecaps" Shadid on his social positions, lack of accomplishments, and other odd statements (or allows others to do it for him) and continues to present a positive vision for Oklahoma City's future (backed up by corroborating evidence and heavy-hitting endorsements).
3) Mick wins.

With all that being said, this outcome is exactly what should happen. Why? Stated in total fairmindedness... Mick has done a sufficient job to have earned his re-election with no major errors to warrant his removal. Ed has prematurely run for mayor before collecting stable accomplishments (that could otherwise have earned him election) and has voiced suspicious reversals, as well as committed unforced spoken and leadership errors, that should justifiably deny him the opportunity to be mayor at such an important time.

Since others have re-posted their pre-election predictions, I will do the same. I wrote this back in November. I'm n

[RickOKC]

Sorry for the disjointed/incomplete post. My thumbs are bigger than my phone keypad letters and sometimes post early. As I was saying... In re-posting my prediction, I'm not bragging at all. In fact, I wrote this before the Oklahoman's exposé on Shadid; I didn't see that one coming in that form. Really, I just want to reinforce my original point in my original post. This was all fairly predictable. Those who make it their business and interest to follow these things - those who care - can get all concerned about what COULD happen. But what happened last night was already fairly set by factors that were clear months ago. And again, things turned out exactly as they SHOULD have. As someone said earlier - thank God and the good people of Oklahoma City.

[PhiAlpha]

I'm thinking high office is a good idea, so high he's out of state. I wouldn't wish him on San Francisco but he seriously would have a far better chance there than here.

"high" office indeed. He might have a shot in CO, CA, or WA.

[ljbab728]

A good interview with Mick that show what a good perspective he has on the issues.

Oklahoma City mayoral election results validate city's course, Cornett says | News OK

[David]

From the article accompanying that interview, I'm a tad confused.

Cornett swept suburban precincts in Cleveland and Canadian counties, failing to win just one where nobody voted.

Shadid won 35 precincts.

Cornett and Shadid tied in four precincts, including a 128-128 tie in Precinct 193, which flanks NW 23 Street near Shepherd Mall. No votes were recorded for either candidate in 14 precincts.

OKC has precincts where nobody votes? I know voter turnout percentages can be bad, but that just seems terrible. I have to wonder what the population is in those areas.

[David]

And what the heck is wrong with that first commenter?

Not one mention by Cornett of "neighborhoods", I'm sure it was just an oversight.

Yeah, expect the part of the interview where he explicitly talked about neighborhoods. Gah, what the hell, people.