Why MAPS3 passed - ineffective opposition?
Renzi Stone has an excellent analysis "Why MAPS3 Passed," but I think he missed a small contributing factor. I don't want to take away from the absolutely stunning victory Mayor Cornett's team pulled off. Considering the recession, the dreadful weather on election day, and the opposition of police and firefighters, they really pulled off a miracle. So, yes, their execution was near perfect. Perhaps a lesser contributing factor was the ineffectiveness of the opposition.
The opposition was undisciplined in its message, negative toward the city, and pessimistic overall. Its visual appeals were very poor. The "Not This Maps" signs were almost illegible - black signs with red and white text. Who wants to be affiliated with this dark imagery, with this negativity toward your own city?
I heard one radio ad in which the announcer had the thickest southeast southeastern Oklahoma accent one could possibly imagine - it was really more of a parody than a real dialect. It didn't speak to aspiration, and it certainly didn't speak to urban voters. I don't know who they thought their audience was, but they missed. Overall, the NO alliance depended on negativity - they didn't offer any meaningful alternative. Surely this poor message and poor execution played a part in their loss. What do you think?
Comments [0]