Now that the saga of Jack Kelly and David Oh is nearing to a close, it seems like a good time to take a moment and collect your thoughts on a race that normally wouldn't merit 2 or 3 lines of copy at the bottom of an election results story. I mean, we are talking about two guys fighting for one of the two seats that their party gets on City Council because of the Home Rule Charter's version of the "mercy rule."
Yet, due to the closeness of the race and the drama surrounding its eventual outcome, the public has gotten a slightly bigger dose of candidates Kelly and Oh than it otherwise would have gotten. We learned that Oh, seeking to become the first Asian-American on City Council, worked hard to cultivate a more independent image and seemed to be running as a Republican not necessarily because of his strict adherence to a traditional Republican platform but because it guaranteed him a slot in one of the first two columns on the ballot. As such he gained a lot of "cross over" appeal (the buzz phrase for the 2007 elections), earning the votes of Democrats in many of the city's traditionally liberal areas.
We learned that Kelly, champion of the animals, took a lot of heat from some active Republicans in his strong areas in Northeast Philly for his support of the city's decision to hold the local Boy Scout council accountable for discriminatory policies against gays. We also learned that Frank Keel will work for Republicans as long as they're not named Sam Katz.
But can we take away anything else away from this race? Was Oh's success a signal for the Republican Party that it should get away from the machine politics (albeit on a smaller scale than their Democratic counterparts) that it has used for decades to shuffle candidates up for "higher offices?" Or did Oh just benefit from crazy low turnout that meant that Oh-motivated voters turned out in high percentages? What about the implications for City Council in general?
Can similar insurgent campaigns, who are willing to put in the hard work and do the tough campaigning take on other entrenched office holders and, at the very least, keep those office holders on their toes?
Does Oh's apparent "cross over" appeal mean that there could be space in this town for a vigorous independent or third party to spring up and give voters a choice that isn't the straight ticket D's or "holding their noses" to vote for an R?
Or maybe it was just one of those fluke things.
Comments (8)
It seems the Oh-Kelly race basically came down to luck, although Kelly's machine's experience with absentee ballots apparently put him over the top. Still, I think the verdict is that Oh, showed his floor and Kelly probably showed his ceiling. It's unfortunate we have to wait four years for another election.
Posted by Anonymous | November 21, 2007 9:18 PM
I disagree. This race did not come down to luck, it came down to maintaining the status-quo. What will Kelly owe Local 98 and others for their re-election help in winning the absentee portion, after all he did lose the election day vote as well the provisional and military count. Also, was the help Kelly received actually without compromise ethically and legally?
Posted by Anonymous | November 21, 2007 10:52 PM
I watched the returns with you and Wendy election night, and I will say again, that it showed me that my vote really does count. In my mind, my vote was one of the seven that put Oh over Kelly, until the absentee ballots were tallied.
This race meant alot, more in the sense that the pols will have to pay attentiion, and maybe not take things for granted.
Posted by Mark Chalupa | November 22, 2007 10:50 AM
This was the city's best chance to elect a reform candidate over an entrenched machine politician. It's hard not to be dissapointed with the result being so close, but it goes to show that a strong, energetic candidate with fresh ideas really can put up a vigorous fight. I just wish more progressives could've seen beyond the R and voted for a real reform candidate.
Posted by Roman | November 23, 2007 1:16 PM
Here's a question I never looked into: who funded Oh's campaign, anyway?
Posted by Adam B. | November 23, 2007 11:04 PM
Do not overvalue Local 98. They are very overated. Their boss John DOugherty is in trouble and everyone knows it, so it is alot of smoke and mirrors and other peoples'dues.
Posted by Anonymous | November 24, 2007 2:04 PM
I'm not sure who funded Oh's campaign but the last numbers I saw suggested Kelly spent more than twice as much as him.
Posted by Anonymous | November 24, 2007 3:38 PM
Campaign finance reports are public record, go to the city's web site, search for campaign finance and the election cycles will be in the margin; choose any candidate or PAC to review. There are more interesting names and amounts on the Kelly reports than Oh's.
Posted by Anonymous | November 24, 2007 6:28 PM