I know there are many here who didn't support Bartlett but now that he is elected we need to get behind him. The main thing we as citizens need to do is push him to continue the momentum of PlaniTulsa. I do hope his experience running a business will help him run the city as we face a major budget shortfall and reversing that needs to be a top priority.
Who in this forum should be on suicide watch?
I'm not so sure what the big deal is. Partisan politics doesn't play much into municipal office. You do remember LaFortune, right? And the fact that even the semi-right wing were bashing Bartlett as a RINO right off the bat. I doubt much will change, but any of the three candidates that answer would have applied as well.
So much for those who pooh-poohed that poll. The undecideds largely split evenly for the mayoral candidates by election day, so the poll was pretty much on the money.
And, as many people learned in during the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the dropping use of land lines doesn't affect poll accuracy much.
The real oddity was that the voters overwhelmingly approved a charter provision that requires the city auditor to be a CPA or a Certified Internal Auditor, then elected a candidate to that office that doesn't meet those qualifications over an incumbent who did. I guess they weren't paying attention, didn't read about the candidates, and didn't want to believe that the Republicans would nominate someone who didn't meet those qualifications. Of course, he doesn't really need to meet them until 2011.
Otherwise, there were no surprises except possibly Roscoe Turner's margin over David Patrick, he didn't get a majority. Turner seems to win every other election, but I'm not sure he's won this one yet. Because I wasn't paying attention, is there a runoff if no candidate gets 50%+1? The city charter seems to be silent on this issue.
^No runoff. If that were the case, there would be a runoff between Dewey & Adelson.
Even though I was an Adelson fan, I congratulate Dewey. I know that he is a good guy, and I just hope that he chooses smart, good people to work with.
Bartlett as mayor...a real misstep for Tulsa. We almost got it right, taking back the council - but we blew it on the chief executive. How sad that we passed on the chance to elect a real leader with a genuine sense of principle and desire to serve.
Don't give up on us, Tom. Surely we'll wise-up soon!
Quote from: pmcalk on November 10, 2009, 10:38:44 PM
^No runoff. If that were the case, there would be a runoff between Dewey & Adelson.
Even though I was an Adelson fan, I congratulate Dewey. I know that he is a good guy, and I just hope that he chooses smart, good people to work with.
I honestly can't really see where either administration between Bartlett and Adelson would have differed vastly on priorities and issues. Let's face it, Dewey more or less served at will under Mayor Taylor. He was going to endorse her until she bailed. Adelson was the obvious serious Democrat party loyalist to replace the outgoing Mayor. He'd played well with mid town voters as a State Senator.
For as bright a guy as Tommy Adelson is, he comes off as incredibly inarticulate or shy. He had to have too much media coverage to run for a city-wide position and he wilted under the bright lights. I also think his handlers made some serious mistakes in strategy. They should have kept their cool and not gone back after Dewey for his attack ads. He should have ignored the ads and continued to campaign on issues. There was never any reason to get pissy with Joe Kelley. I think Tom was wrongly led to believe that Joe Kelley would be biased or hostile against the Democrat candidate. I suspect Kelley is conservative, but I've always seen him as being fair to all candidates unless that candidate is a troll, like Paul Tay. Now there's a recording of Adelson bragging about giving almost $100K to Obama. That's NEVER going to play well for a U.S. House seat or Senate seat. He will get totally ripped over that. Wow, sorry to keep going on, but that was a painfully disappointing performance as a candidate.
We will get a better public speaker out of Dewey. I suspect both men run in similar circles and have similar influences for the order of business in the city. In all honesty, I don't think there's one particular lobby or special interest which would have lost either way. These are both guys who would represent development/developers and our major players in banking, the newspaper, and downtown real estate. Adelson might bring some more depth of thought, but he has a hard time communicating it. I would also hope that Bartlett will engage Adelson to help get some more of our sales tax returned to us from the Senate in OKC.
I'm most concerned with his (at least what I've seen and read in his surveys) lack of embrace and enthusiasm for PlaniTulsa. Not saying he won't get it and support it eventually but I don't get the feeling that he's going to aggressively pursue it's implementation. This guy thinks that good economic development lies out there in the some 30 sq. miles of undeveloped land remaining in Tulsa (from an Oct. World survey).
I'm sure he's a likable guy - so was/is Bill LaFortune. I want my Mayor to get me and others excited about being a Tulsan!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2009, 11:03:38 PM
For as bright a guy as Tommy Adelson is, he comes off as incredibly inarticulate or shy. He had to have too much media coverage to run for a city-wide position and he wilted under the bright lights. I also think his handlers made some serious mistakes in strategy. They should have kept their cool and not gone back after Dewey for his attack ads. He should have ignored the ads and continued to campaign on issues. There was never any reason to get pissy with Joe Kelley. I think Tom was wrongly led to believe that Joe Kelley would be biased or hostile against the Democrat candidate. I suspect Kelley is conservative, but I've always seen him as being fair to all candidates unless that candidate is a troll, like Paul Tay. Now there's a recording of Adelson bragging about giving almost $100K to Obama. That's NEVER going to play well for a U.S. House seat or Senate seat. He will get totally ripped over that. Wow, sorry to keep going on, but that was a painfully disappointing performance as a candidate.
Marvin and Hillary did the boy in....you are correct about those retaliation ads....
C Streeters have set this deal up for Dewey....his handlers are the worst of worse....and they all are Jimminy Inhofes people. Tulsa is a sheeples paradice.
Actually, Dewey owes Perkins big time....he took %18 away and %70 of that number would have voted for TA making him Mayor....
Perkins is "The Spoiler"!
Now....on with the fun! PollStar, FOTD!
Darn, an ABLE commission apologist. That issue aside, I will support him. Guido's new avatar is awesome by the way.
Quote from: OurTulsa on November 10, 2009, 11:05:02 PM
This guy thinks that good economic development lies out there in the some 30 sq. miles of undeveloped land remaining in Tulsa (from an Oct. World survey).
While I would much rather see infill development in existing neighborhoods and especially in and around downtown I do think it's important to develop the undeveloped land on the NW side and that will only happen if the Gilcrease Loop is finished. Families will build new houses somewhere, it might as well be in the city of Tulsa with the nearest commercial center being downtown. If the Gilcrease Loop were finished it would be nice to see a greenbelt around it with a biking trail like the Creek South Loop. I truly think the NW side would be a great place for new neighborhoods if TPS invests in renovating/expanding the schools in that area, including Central HS, and if downtown continues to revitalize making it more attractive to live closer to it. It's a really scenic area with the nearby hills, the Centennial Gardens and trails plus close proximity to Keystone and Skiatook lakes
I think the citizens can have an effect on how Dewey sees PlaniTulsa by showing him we care about it and want it implemented. I think the council is behind it too which helps.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2009, 11:03:38 PM
I honestly can't really see where either administration between Bartlett and Adelson would have differed vastly on priorities and issues. Let's face it, Dewey more or less served at will under Mayor Taylor. He was going to endorse her until she bailed. Adelson was the obvious serious Democrat party loyalist to replace the outgoing Mayor. He'd played well with mid town voters as a State Senator.
For as bright a guy as Tommy Adelson is, he comes off as incredibly inarticulate or shy. He had to have too much media coverage to run for a city-wide position and he wilted under the bright lights. I also think his handlers made some serious mistakes in strategy. They should have kept their cool and not gone back after Dewey for his attack ads. He should have ignored the ads and continued to campaign on issues. There was never any reason to get pissy with Joe Kelley. I think Tom was wrongly led to believe that Joe Kelley would be biased or hostile against the Democrat candidate. I suspect Kelley is conservative, but I've always seen him as being fair to all candidates unless that candidate is a troll, like Paul Tay. Now there's a recording of Adelson bragging about giving almost $100K to Obama. That's NEVER going to play well for a U.S. House seat or Senate seat. He will get totally ripped over that. Wow, sorry to keep going on, but that was a painfully disappointing performance as a candidate.
We will get a better public speaker out of Dewey. I suspect both men run in similar circles and have similar influences for the order of business in the city. In all honesty, I don't think there's one particular lobby or special interest which would have lost either way. These are both guys who would represent development/developers and our major players in banking, the newspaper, and downtown real estate. Adelson might bring some more depth of thought, but he has a hard time communicating it. I would also hope that Bartlett will engage Adelson to help get some more of our sales tax returned to us from the Senate in OKC.
+1 on the analysis.
I should add that I thought the turning point in the race was when Bartlett came out swinging against Adelson immediately after the primary. I suspect that Bartlett, when he ran against Adelson for state senate and lost, thought he could coast on his name.
Bartlett wasn't going to make the same mistake twice, and it was Adelson who, strangely enough, seemed to coast.
Adelson's campaign seemed strangely passive for a long time. It's almost as if he acted like a football team in early in the fourth quarter with a lead that suddenly went conservative with its play-calling and ditched the strategy that got it the lead in the first place. Bartlett knew he couldn't rest on his laurels, started hammering Adelson, and forced him into a number of big errors.
Quote from: FOTD on November 10, 2009, 11:14:17 PM
Actually, Dewey owes Perkins big time....he took %18 away and %70 of that number would have voted for TA making him Mayor....
Perkins is "The Spoiler"!
I agree--look at the map and numbers from the World this morning:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091111_16_A10_hUnoff920232
When you look at the Brookside precincts on the east side of Peoria you see good margins for Perkins in mid-town. I think these were the "Taylor Republicans" that voted for her over Bill in 2006. In a two-way race she carried almost every one of those precincts--15 out of 18 in HD-71. This area also did well for Obama, Rice and Roth in 2008-full of moderate Republicans.
For example--Brookside Baptist Church-Pct. 66-area north and east of 36th & Peoria-south of 31st east to Lewis.
2006 KT 409 BL 286 Total 695
2009 TA 228 + MP 112 = (340) DB 302 Total 642
See also Pct. 67-Trinity UMC, 3737 S. Peoria
2006 KT 296 BL 247 Total 543
2009 TA 176 + MP 97 = (273) DB 227 Total 500
In this kind of 3-way race, Dewey was able to position himself on the right (despite the inside baseball of him being regarded as a RINO) and with Perkins running, those moderate mid-town Republicans who were totally turned off by Dewey were given the option of Perkins rather than forced to vote for Adelson or stay home or undervote.
The Adelson strategy seemed to be to peal Republicans off from the right in south Tulsa --more Medlock than Medlock on the south Tulsa bridge- going on KFAQ- talking about Dewey as a tax and spender. This might have worked in a two-way race, but the Inhofe-Coburn-Obama triangulation was just too strong in those solid R areas. In a 3-way race for the moderate mid-town voter, they were split-- and the solid south held for Dewey.
At least for much of south Tulsa it appears we have a firm partisan nationally polarized electorate. It seems to me that Bartlett's handlers decided this was true and stayed mostly on message (a deceptive and negative one) but still on message for the duration.
Note: There were also some interesting Perkins numbers in the near east side of north Tulsa--see Pct. 11-3200 blk of E. Tecumseh--DB-62, TA-112, MP-60; Pct. 17 -714 N. Harvard--DB-40, TA-80, MP-28. Not sure what this suggests.
Quote from: FOTD on November 10, 2009, 11:14:17 PM
Actually, Dewey owes Perkins big time....he took %18 away and %70 of that number would have voted for TA making him Mayor....
Perkins is "The Spoiler"!
I don't buy it. The poll before the election showed that Perkins was peeling voters from Adelson and Bartlett equally, and the breakdown on election night showed that this trend largely continued. I see no evidence whatsoever that Adelson would have gained 70 percent of the Perkins voters. You could make a strong argument that all the Republicans complaining about Bartlett being a RINO (see Michael Bates) were a huge chunk of Perkins voters.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 11, 2009, 08:26:39 AM
I don't buy it. The poll before the election showed that Perkins was peeling voters from Adelson and Bartlett equally, and the breakdown on election night showed that this trend largely continued. I see no evidence whatsoever that Adelson would have gained 70 percent of the Perkins voters. You could make a strong argument that all the Republicans complaining about Bartlett being a RINO (see Michael Bates) were a huge chunk of Perkins voters.
That's the logic behind my statement this morning of business as usual in city hall. As someone alluded to earlier, Dewey didn't decide to run until KT withdrew, and the right wingers came out bashing him. Except for Inhofe, which is a little odd. I guess the letter makes more difference than ideology when it comes to municipal politics.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 11, 2009, 08:26:39 AM
The poll before the election showed that Perkins was peeling voters from Adelson and Bartlett equally, and the breakdown on election night showed that this trend largely continued.
I completely agree. I know a hundred people who voted for Perkins and I would bet they are half republican and half democrat.
Perkins got the young democrats and the old republicans in my book.
Screwey used that derogative term that his daddy championed much to the dismay of hundreds of thousands of smart Oklahomans. It took two decades to rid ourselves of the label and the mayor Elect used it right off the bat. NOT GOOD!
DON'T BE ANOTHER DUMB OKIE, SCREWEY!
Do you live in 1938? "Okie" lost its pejorative meaning years ago.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2009, 09:59:59 AM
I completely agree. I know a hundred people who voted for Perkins and I would bet they are half republican and half democrat.
Perkins got the young democrats and the old republicans in my book.
Ok, I'll bite: what was Perkins' big appeal, other than he was fresh-faced and unaffiliated? I saw him speak at one of the mayoral forums and came away completely unimpressed. He didn't have a platform, he used a lot of earnest but vague platitudes, and repeatedly kicked the can down the road by promising to study X issue further.
Help me here, people. Why did you like this guy?
Quote from: Floyd on November 11, 2009, 11:27:30 AM
Do you live in 1938? "Okie" lost its pejorative meaning years ago.
Do you live just inside the state....rest the cuntry looks at us as dumb Okies because of Inhofe and Coburn.
Screwey doesn't need to add to our stereotype even if his daddy tried to repopularize the derogatory term.
The devil awaits this guys term. He's another GOP pin head.
Quote from: we vs us on November 11, 2009, 11:37:04 AM
Ok, I'll bite: what was Perkins' big appeal, other than he was fresh-faced and unaffiliated? I saw him speak at one of the mayoral forums and came away completely unimpressed. He didn't have a platform, he used a lot of earnest but vague platitudes, and repeatedly kicked the can down the road by promising to study X issue further.
Help me here, people. Why did you like this guy?
Largely because of the alternatives. Bartlett had no platform. His #1 priority once he takes office? According to his speech last night, putting a grocery store in North Tulsa. So his #1 priority during a budget crisis is tilting at a 5yr old windmill that the city physically cannot make happen. Adelson had some good ideas (most of which Perkins also shared) but no ability to deal with politics and PR and showed himself to be bad at one of the biggest duties a Mayor has, public relations.
Perkins did no negative campaigning and lthough he had a few stumbles, handled the public generally well. He was for evaluating a lot of the anti-business practices in our zoning and codes and eliminating duplication of services between the city and county.
I'll take someone vaguely swinging the right way over someone earnestly swinging the wrong one.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2009, 09:59:59 AM
I completely agree. I know a hundred people who voted for Perkins and I would bet they are half republican and half democrat.
Perkins got the young democrats and the old republicans in my book.
1/2 Democrat, 1/2 Republican? What color are they? Purple?
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 11, 2009, 12:54:14 PM
Largely because of the alternatives. Bartlett had no platform. His #1 priority once he takes office? According to his speech last night, putting a grocery store in North Tulsa. So his #1 priority during a budget crisis is tilting at a 5yr old windmill that the city physically cannot make happen. Adelson had some good ideas (most of which Perkins also shared) but no ability to deal with politics and PR and showed himself to be bad at one of the biggest duties a Mayor has, public relations.
Perkins did no negative campaigning and lthough he had a few stumbles, handled the public generally well. He was for evaluating a lot of the anti-business practices in our zoning and codes and eliminating duplication of services between the city and county.
I'll take someone vaguely swinging the right way over someone earnestly swinging the wrong one.
+1.
Quote from: Bledsoe on November 11, 2009, 07:55:09 AM
I agree--look at the map and numbers from the World this morning:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091111_16_A10_hUnoff920232
When you look at the Brookside precincts on the east side of Peoria you see good margins for Perkins in mid-town. I think these were the "Taylor Republicans" that voted for her over Bill in 2006. In a two-way race she carried almost every one of those precincts--15 out of 18 in HD-71. This area also did well for Obama, Rice and Roth in 2008-full of moderate Republicans.
For example--Brookside Baptist Church-Pct. 66-area north and east of 36th & Peoria-south of 31st east to Lewis.
2006 KT 409 BL 286 Total 695
2009 TA 228 + MP 112 = (340) DB 302 Total 642
See also Pct. 67-Trinity UMC, 3737 S. Peoria
2006 KT 296 BL 247 Total 543
2009 TA 176 + MP 97 = (273) DB 227 Total 500
In this kind of 3-way race, Dewey was able to position himself on the right (despite the inside baseball of him being regarded as a RINO) and with Perkins running, those moderate mid-town Republicans who were totally turned off by Dewey were given the option of Perkins rather than forced to vote for Adelson or stay home or undervote.
The Adelson strategy seemed to be to peal Republicans off from the right in south Tulsa --more Medlock than Medlock on the south Tulsa bridge- going on KFAQ- talking about Dewey as a tax and spender. This might have worked in a two-way race, but the Inhofe-Coburn-Obama triangulation was just too strong in those solid R areas. In a 3-way race for the moderate mid-town voter, they were split-- and the solid south held for Dewey.
At least for much of south Tulsa it appears we have a firm partisan nationally polarized electorate. It seems to me that Bartlett's handlers decided this was true and stayed mostly on message (a deceptive and negative one) but still on message for the duration.
Note: There were also some interesting Perkins numbers in the near east side of north Tulsa--see Pct. 11-3200 blk of E. Tecumseh--DB-62, TA-112, MP-60; Pct. 17 -714 N. Harvard--DB-40, TA-80, MP-28. Not sure what this suggests.
Good job on crunching the numbers. There were quite a few Republicans I knew willing to vote for Adelson who had the same reaction I did after he started stepping on his necktie in public. They all fled to Perkins as well. A lot of people voiced concerns about Dewey being LaFortune 2 and were not going to vote for him regardless. That's at least the way I read it. I honestly think if Tom had run it different and didn't come off as such an indignant twit, he could have won and Perkins might have gotten 3 or 4% of the vote and siphoned off the other candidates evenly. I hope future candidates for Mayor will take note of the distaste the voters had for this race.
Quote from: FOTD on November 11, 2009, 12:28:14 PM
Do you live just inside the state....rest the cuntry looks at us as dumb Okies because of Inhofe and Coburn.
Screwey doesn't need to add to our stereotype even if his daddy tried to repopularize the derogatory term.
The devil awaits this guys term. He's another GOP pin head.
To answer your question--no. I haven't lived in Oklahoma since 2004. Which suggests I may have a better perspective on what the rest of the country thinks of the state than you . . .
Additionally, if you were right about the term "Okie" being derogatory, then "dumb Okie" would be redundant, no? I call myself an Okie, proudly. The term got reclaimed from Steinbeck and California long ago.
And I won't speak as to respect for Inhofe (or lack thereof), but Coburn commands respect from all quarters for his principles, agree or disagree (for his rhetoric, not so much). At least, the folks at GQ and NYT seems to love him . . .
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/200911/50-most-powerful-people-in-dc#slide=28
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/tom-coburn-senator
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/health/policy/30coburn.html
In other words, get over your embarrassment. It's unwarranted.
Back on topic, regarding Dewey . . . I'm not excited.
Quote from: Floyd on November 11, 2009, 01:34:42 PM
To answer your question--no. I haven't lived in Oklahoma since 2004. Which suggests I may have a better perspective on what the rest of the country thinks of the state than you . . .
Additionally, if you were right about the term "Okie" being derogatory, then "dumb Okie" would be redundant, no? I call myself an Okie, proudly. The term got reclaimed from Steinbeck and California long ago.
And I won't speak as to respect for Inhofe (or lack thereof), but Coburn commands respect from all quarters for his principles, agree or disagree (for his rhetoric, not so much). At least, the folks at GQ and NYT seems to love him . . .
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/200911/50-most-powerful-people-in-dc#slide=28
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/tom-coburn-senator
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/health/policy/30coburn.html
In other words, get over your embarrassment. It's unwarranted.
Back on topic, regarding Dewey . . . I'm not excited.
You have to remember where FOTD gets most of his political news: moonbat leftist weblogs and chat rooms.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2009, 01:51:26 PM
You have to remember where FOTD gets most of his political news: moonbat leftist weblogs and chat rooms.
Okie dokie....
Quote from: Floyd on November 11, 2009, 01:34:42 PM
To answer your question--no. I haven't lived in Oklahoma since 2004. Which suggests I may have a better perspective on what the rest of the country thinks of the state than you . . .
Additionally, if you were right about the term "Okie" being derogatory, then "dumb Okie" would be redundant, no? I call myself an Okie, proudly. The term got reclaimed from Steinbeck and California long ago.
And I won't speak as to respect for Inhofe (or lack thereof), but Coburn commands respect from all quarters for his principles, agree or disagree (for his rhetoric, not so much). At least, the folks at GQ and NYT seems to love him . . .
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/200911/50-most-powerful-people-in-dc#slide=28
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/tom-coburn-senator
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/health/policy/30coburn.html
In other words, get over your embarrassment. It's unwarranted.
Back on topic, regarding Dewey . . . I'm not excited.
Me neither....Okie.
To quote Pete Townshend "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Want an outsider's perspective? I grew up in the Great Lakes (obviously).
As far as we knew, Oklahoma was just like Texas only fewer Mexicans. Talk funny, open spaces, they all have guns, they're friendly but don't mess with 'em. Okie had no connotation, it was a nickname like Buckeye, Hoosier, Mainer, etc.
Now to call somebody a Pittsburg Steelers fan, that was an insult.
Sorry to jump back off topic, but some things are so absurd a person just can't let them slide.
I voted for Perkins. I'd be happy to send his inexperience to the office, he'd quickly recognize the ridiculous practices of local government for what they are, unlike the already initiated/mildly corrupted candidates.
Quote from: buckeye on November 12, 2009, 11:23:26 AM
Want an outsider's perspective? I grew up in the Great Lakes (obviously).
As far as we knew, Oklahoma was just like Texas only fewer Mexicans. Talk funny, open spaces, they all have guns, they're friendly but don't mess with 'em. Okie had no connotation, it was a nickname like Buckeye, Hoosier, Mainer, etc.
Now to call somebody a Pittsburg Steelers fan, that was an insult.
Sorry to jump back off topic, but some things are so absurd a person just can't let them slide.
I voted for Perkins. I'd be happy to send his inexperience to the office, he'd quickly recognize the ridiculous practices of local government for what they are, unlike the already initiated/mildly corrupted candidates.
I think Perkins will get his chance in the next election. He was a complete nobody when he first announced he was running and ended up taking 18% of the vote as an Independent getting his name out there in the process. I'm not sure where he lives but think it would be better for his political aspirations if he runs for a council seat first, or another city office.
I wonder with the budget crisis and the 'no new taxes' Bartlett as mayor if that means we shouldn't expect any kind of grand public improvements package like Vision 2025 or OKC's MAPS? OKC has a conservative mayor like Bartlett but at least their mayor understands how public improvements can change a city.
I think the main public improvements we need to see is with our schools (that includes colleges) and public safety/health, and adopting the new master plan.
We have got a lot of bling and good sized projects lately (areana, ballpark, river parks trails, good start expanding colleges, road repair should start soon, etc.) But now I think its time to focus on some structural, zoning, financing, how things work and operate (that inculdes schools), type things. Of course keep an eye on continuing to nurture the budding revitalization of downtown and north Tulsa, but imo lets shift away from that being the main topic of conversation/argument. For by doing those things I mentioned, we will be helping downtown and north Tulsa, actually the whole city, anyway.
He's gonna walk around and learn stuff.
http://www.slickdawg.com/showpost.php?p=1970790624&postcount=10
A couple of threads to address ...
I grew up in the Midwest, a few states over from Oklahoma, and I don't know anyone who viewed the term "Okie" as demeaning. It was equivalent to calling someone from Texas as a Texan. It was a regional identifier, and nothing more.
Perhaps Okie was an insult many, many moons ago, but that's no longer the case and hasn't been for a very long time.
I don't think Perkins will do much to add to his political capital. His 18 percent of the vote came not so much from him being a viable candidate as much as a significant percentage of voters didn't like Adelson or Bartlett. He was little more than a protest vote. I thought the video he put out a couple of days before the election showed he didn't handle things well when pressed, and that doesn't bode well for him taking a campaign to another level in the future.
I think Perkins simply was in the right place at the right time for a semi-viable third-party candidacy, but that he will sink into obscurity and be little more than a trivia question in a few years. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
Well, if nothing else, RW. It might get a drink or beer bought for him every now and then. "I ran for mayor of Tulsa once".
Quote from: rwarn17588 on November 13, 2009, 09:22:47 AM
I think Perkins simply was in the right place at the right time for a semi-viable third-party candidacy, but that he will sink into obscurity and be little more than a trivia question in a few years. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
I know the guy pretty well and watched him campaign from a distance with curiosity. I can tell you three things about him: 1) he's 100% invested in Tulsa; 2) he cannot stand the myopia and pettiness of the current stewards of either party; 3) he's very charismatic and knows just about every Tulsan under 35.
Put those three together and think about it . . . you haven't heard the last of Mark Perkins.
Quote from: Floyd on November 13, 2009, 10:52:59 AM
I know the guy pretty well and watched him campaign from a distance with curiosity. I can tell you three things about him: 1) he's 100% invested in Tulsa; 2) he cannot stand the myopia and pettiness of the current stewards of either party; 3) he's very charismatic and knows just about every Tulsan under 35.
That's fine 'n' dandy. A good attitude is good. His heart's in the right place.
But talk is cheap. What's his solutions? What's his approach? What's going to set him apart from any other schlep that wants better things for his town? Zeal without knowledge or ability doesn't mean much, and can actually be harmful.
This isn't meant to be tough on him. But if Perkins is really going to break the stranglehold of the two major parties, he'd better come up with some really innovative remedies and, even more importantly, the ability to implement them. He's got to be able to really stand out from the crowd in a tangible way.
Because the two major parties have presented so many effective solutions to tough problems themselves, eh? Perkins just needs to say something besides, "I'll look into it."
Quote from: buckeye on November 13, 2009, 11:43:06 AM
Because the two major parties have presented so many effective solutions to tough problems themselves, eh? Perkins just needs to say something besides, "I'll look into it."
I never said the two major parties had good solutions for anything.
But the fact is the two major parties have huge, inherent advantages in getting voters. Independent candidates do not. That is indisputable.
Therefore, Perkins really needs to stand out from the crowd and have really good ideas to get mainstream support. Maybe it sucks that he has to work twice or three times as hard as a Republican or Democrat to get voters, but that's the way it is. He can't change reality.
Here's my thinking:
I don't think Perkins ever thought he'd wind up with near the votes he did when he got in the race. No one really took a good look at him until the primaries were over. I don't know if he got in for idealogical reasons as an independent or felt he'd be lost in a crowded GOP primary. I tend to think the latter.
However, I think between Adelson and Bartlet (sic) annihillating each other, he got a second look as a viable candidate. Sure it was a "no" vote for some voters, but for many, like myself, I honestly felt he was the least owned of the three real candidates.
Now he's got name recognition and enough votes to be taken seriously. He's certainly better versed on city issues than he was six months ago, and if he's really interested in the office, he'll come off a lot sharper in four years. So long as he wants to be a part of the process, he's got a seat at the table and a following.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 13, 2009, 12:53:56 PM
Here's my thinking:
I don't think Perkins ever thought he'd wind up with near the votes he did when he got in the race. No one really took a good look at him until the primaries were over. I don't know if he got in for idealogical reasons as an independent or felt he'd be lost in a crowded GOP primary. I tend to think the latter.
However, I think between Adelson and Bartlet (sic) annihillating each other, he got a second look as a viable candidate. Sure it was a "no" vote for some voters, but for many, like myself, I honestly felt he was the least owned of the three real candidates.
Now he's got name recognition and enough votes to be taken seriously. He's certainly better versed on city issues than he was six months ago, and if he's really interested in the office, he'll come off a lot sharper in four years. So long as he wants to be a part of the process, he's got a seat at the table and a following.
I'm pretty sure he wants nothing to do with the local Republican party. From his point of view it's a worthless vestige. He doesn't want to have to pander to the absurdities of the paranoid grassroots on one hand (see, e.g., his sarcastic reference to his home in the "midtown money belt" in his rebuttal to Bartlett's ads) and the entrenched development lobby that acts sub rosa on the other. From his point of view, it doesn't make sense that such different groups caucus together locally just because neither likes Nancy Pelosi. So he's determined to act outside of local party politics.