Professor Danley has been cranking out content like a machine lately and I can’t say that I’m surprised, even only having known him for a little less than a year now. He’s definitely a great role model for someone like me trying to find my way in a new city with the motivation to help as much as I can and I’m really grateful for the opportunity to be a part of the Local Knowledge Blog team! (Just thought I’d put that out there because this election season has been taking a toll on us so far and some encouragement is always appreciated)
Much of Steve’s analysis of the mayoral debate went into three specific points of content: the horserace, the election as a referendum on changes in the city, and themes from the debate looking towards the future. To even things out, and because my mind works more on a broad scale rather than analytically towards details, my analysis and round up will focus more on the overarching context of the debate – leading up, during, and directly following the event.
Even though I knew that I would attend the debate, not many people in the rest of the city could be as sure as I was. Steve wrote a post in preparation for the debate discussing the quasi-disenfranchisement of events such as these being held during the middle of a Thursday/work day: “If a debate happens on a weekday, with no one to hear it, does it really happen at all?” And while this speaks to a larger concern I have always had about the lack of interest from or understanding in the need for citizens to be actively engaged in their political communities, I know that there are still many people in Camden that would have loved nothing more than to leave work for two hours and watch this debate.
What’s even more saddening is the fact that other than a Facebook invite (that I was lucky enough to be connected with the right people to receive), there was little to no press or advertisement around this event. Even in the most advanced of ages in technology that we currently find ourselves, I know from both experience and understanding that there are still many people in this city (and around the country) that don’t have ease of access to certain kinds of technology such as computers or cell phones. And despite those that may have had the access to the technology, the access to the information was just as inaccessible – the only reason I knew about the debate was because of a Facebook invite I received from the Lamboy campaign’s page and because I overheard some of my coworkers that deal with community engagement in the city talking about attending the debate.
This all folds into what will essentially be a strong echo of what Steve has already written and also ties into a larger point about the preparation, or lack thereof, in campaign strategy from current Democratic administrations. Whether or not this (lack of) preparation is fully intentional will never be explicitly expressed and it’s important for those of us who are skeptical of the entrenched Democratic party to be mindful of such things. It is not a new technique that debates are poorly advertised, or are at least advertised to a targeted and isolated population (usually those who already have a strong grasp of the local or statewide political landscape), mainly because it is one that works. To keep those who indeterminately support you so close that you marginalize all other by default (even though they might vote for you if they had the chance to hear you discuss your policy stances) guarantees solid numbers of support – and that’s what the Democratic party has become as of late: guaranteed minimum effort to secure and maintain power and control. And if you don’t believe that, I’d love to talk about how the Mayor for the largest metropolitan city in South Jersey only needs less than 10,000 votes (1/8 of the population) to win an election.
Moving into the debate itself, there is much to be said about the questions, responses, and content overall (and again I defer to Professor Danley’s post) though I will be focusing on the surroundings of the debate as it was happening. It was great having all three candidates at this debate because it presented the opportunity to give voters an increased and encompassing understanding of those that they might vote for. In an exhibition of powerful support for Council President Frank Moran, many prominent Democratic names found themselves in the front row of the auditorium including Mayor Dana Redd, Assemblypersons Pat Jones and Arthur Barclay, and Camden County Freeholder Bill Moen. As mentioned in Steve’s post, there was expected applause in Moran’s amplification of previous policies enacted in the state from those in the front rows. What was most interesting were the responses from the audience that seemed to bring strong support for Theo Spencer. Many times that both Moran and Ray Lamboy spoke toward certain questions (especially those concerning public education and criminal justice in the city) these supporters became extremely vocal and voiced information that was (most likely purposefully) omitted by the other two candidates.
Around the 2:35 mark you can hear community members voicing concern and contradicting Lamboy’s claims of holding charter schools accountable with one audience member yelling out “You voted for it!” a few times which was then reiterated around the 2:50 mark again as Moran begins to answer this question.
Another interesting moment occurred when a question was posed to Moran about criminal justice. Here, Moran seemed to tip-toe around the question and focus on broader talking points about this policy issue mentioning that the quality of public safety has increased and that he stands by the decisions made by the city’s governing body (over which he presides). Lamboy seems to dodge the question at first (he’s circled back to at the end of the video and also gives broad talking points around this issue) and so Spencer jumps in and essentially addresses the question head on, “Let me provide a little clarity on the question. Essentially, the idea of going to a county police force was supposed to come up on the ballot, and I believe the Mayor and President of City Council basically took residents to court to take our ability to put that issue on the ballot.” The reaction from the community was one of strong adulation from a candidate that brought the ugliness of a policy decision to light and I think it speaks to a point that Professor Danley has mentioned leading up to a following this debate. One purpose of this debate that was expected to play out from either or both Lamboy and Spencer (as Moran is the presumptive front runner at the moment) was to find solid footing in being able to articulate why they would be the stronger candidate to defeat Moran.
While it’s not my intent to choose a winner, and I won’t because there are many good and not-so-good points that came from all three candidates, what I can say is that Spencer definitely took advantage of the opportunity expected of him – to show how he could be seen just as strong as Frank Moran when it came to answering questions of policy and citizen concerns. Having his own supportive and vocal group of community members (who many times overwhelmed the audience compared to that of Moran and Lamboy combined) as well being able to distance himself from the “machine” that the Lamboy campaign has vocalized as its major opponent in Moran showed promise for Spencer’s chances come Tuesday.
A shocking final point that I want to make as well is that of Moran’s temperament. To digress for a second, I wrote a post a few weeks ago in response to gubernatorial candidate Jim Johnson’s town hall event here in the city and mentioned that candidate’s with knowledge and no passion can be just as ineffective as those with passion and no knowledge (my father would call the latter “stupidity on fire”). Lamboy seemed quite reserved throughout the debate, sticking closely to his talking points while taking the occasional and expected jab at Moran, and I think that this “knowledge without passion” idea has come up more and more as I watch the days dwindle down to the primary on June 6th. Of course these events do very little in terms of shifting large swaths of voter mindset from one candidate to the other but passion can go a long way in turning an opposing voter into a potential one and I’m not sure that Lamboy can count on any of those turns. Moran’s passion showed throughout the debate, whether you agree with the content behind the passion or not, but in his closing statement the Council President jumped fully past the line of passion without knowledge. A completely unexpected last gut shot to both Lamboy and Spencer by Moran – he speaks about Lamboy living in Cherry Hill for years before moving to Camden and that Spencer only shows up in the city every four years when he wants to run for office – showed a lack of control and poise from a city official who, in my opinion, has displayed nothing but those qualities since I came to Camden last year. As I (and Professor Danley have) mentioned earlier, I don’t think that debates do much in turning the tide of potential voters from one candidate to another – many people have made their minds up about the election long before this debate – but last minute surprises like those of Moran’s ad hominin closing statement make me a little less confident in fully believing that they don’t.
To fully wrap up the debate, I bumped into a few audience members afterwards and have attached their responses to the debate in this post as well. I won’t do any analysis on these responses as some viewpoints may not accurately reflect those of the Local Knowledge Blog and I am sure that these folks would want their words to speak for themselves.
Our election coverage is coming to a close but but check out our video and keep an eye out for a few last posts with some really great information, analysis, videos, and everything in between!
And don’t forget to vote in the primary on June 6th! No matter who you support, it’s important to make your voice heard and to show younger generations the necessity of being engaged and connected to local democracy – being the change you wish to see in the world!
Jared Hunter is a current student at Rutgers-Camden pursuing his Masters in Public Administration in the community development track. His research focus includes disparities between marginalized communities and local governments as well as community development centers and anchor institutions.
Share it!
