KCOS Municipal Debate

For those of you that didn't get a chance to see the debate last week between the candidates for El Paso City Council District 1, well you really didn't miss anything.

Let me pause for a moment to make a point that I think needs to be made. City council races have long been known to feature the weirdos of El Paso that have nothing better to do with their time than run for office.

So it's not out of the ordinary for some eccentric people to be on the ballot.

That's not to say that there isn't a huge talent gap that still exists among the candidates, particularly the incumbents. The incumbents pretty much appear to be coasting to victory and are facing candidates that basically have no chance at winning.

That being said, the overall quality of candidate in this go-around is much higher than in years past.

That's no more evident than in the 6 candidate battle royal for District 1. 

The debate was remarkable in the sense that everyone's performance was pretty unremarkable. I thought Bertha Gallardo and Al Weisenberger both missed an opportunity to really make an impression. They didn't do a bad job, they just weren't outstanding.

No one was.

In fact, the danger for many of them now is the fact that they all pretty much sound the same, have the same (very general) platform, and give similar answers.

It's like if they were all brands of soda at the soda fountain they'd all be Coke. Maybe one is diet Coke, cherry Coke, lemon-lime coke, Coke zero, etc...but they are all still coke.

Obviously the only different one in terms of policy is Manny Hinojosa. He has a different and decidedly more conservative platform than the other candidates.

Basically the only part of the debate that really even stood out was when Danny Lopez had trouble with a question about smart growth. He had trouble with that and went off on a tangent about HOAs and the American flag. But even then, that wasn't all that terrible.

So what does it mean when they all pretty much sound the same? It means voters aren't given a clear choice in policy vision so they are more likely to vote for the names that are most familiar to them. So someone like Weisenberger or Bonart might fair better under those circumstances. But it also means whoever touches the most voters will have an even better shot, so the races with good field programs will have an even bigger advantage.

As always in a big race it comes down to turn-out, turn-out, turn-out.