At the time of publishing, William did not provide a website, Facebook fan page, or twitter account. He can be reached via email at William.Ward@hro.com.

Here are William’s answers to my absurd questions:

1)      How long have you lived in your district and what made you move there in the first place? Moved to North Salt Lake in 2004, after looking at 65+ houses all over the valley.  Combination of short commute to downtown, liked the house and, liked the size of the community.

2)      What does your family look like (married; kids; pets)? Married for 17 years, three kids, ages 11, 8, and 2

3)      What do you drive? What is your dream vehicle? I drive a 1996 Geo Prizm that I purchased with student loan dollars while in law school.  I am trying to see if I can drive it for 20 years then give it to my daughter when she turns 16.  She will love that.

4)      What was the last book you finished? Traveled to Washington D.C. recently and so I read “His Excellency” about George.

5)      What is your favorite store and/or restaurant in your district? The Nacho House in North Salt Lake has a pork burrito that is awesome.

6)      Turn your head to the right, what do you see? I have a pretty sweet view out my window at Wells Fargo Building out to the West.

7)      In 25 words or less, explain why you are a Democrat. I have always identified with liberal ideals, including that my government should be a tool to correct injustice and raise the standard of living for all people.

8)      Who would win if a bear and a shark fought each other (feel free to explain)? I love the esoteric questions.  If they were in water, the shark would win because the bear would be to busy not drowning. If they were out of water the shark would be suffocating and easy prey for the bear.  Its all about home court.

9)      In 50 words or less, explain why you want to be a public servant. I would like a chance to show the people of the district that a Democrat could provide effective and thoughtful representation.

10)  What was the last cultural event you went to? Would the concert series at library square count.? If not, maybe my daughters dance performance.

11)  What are the three things you plan to fight for when elected? Public education funding.  Transparency and accountability of the legislative process.  To kill so called message legislation.

12)  Do you know what OMGWTFBBQ stands for? I admit I hadn’t seen it with the ending reference to cooked food before.

13)  What is the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights? Easy answer would be first, but I am kind of partial to the fourth because it acts as a check on the powers of the police.

14)  What is your favorite band? Local band called The Black Arrows.

15)  If you could change one thing about your district, what would it be? I don’t think we have a strong sense of community.  Probably true for most suburbs.  I grew up in a small town and I miss that sense of place that I felt growing up.

***

To see other responses in the Meet the Candidates series, click here.

*Disclaimer – The opinions expressed in candidate responses are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Blue in Red Zion or its author. Every candidate with a working email address has received these same questions and are welcome to respond. If you are a candidate and did not receive these questions, please email curtis.haring@gmail.com in order to provide your own answers. The publication of a candidate’s questions should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of said candidate.

Please note that readers are welcome to use the comment section to express their own opinion. As per the disclaimer on the right, comments will only be deleted if they can be widely viewed as offensive or not germane – though the final decision will be made by the administrator.

If you want to help out the campaign and have some good food while you are at it, I strongly suggest you attend Diane Turner’s reception.

Politics can be an ugly thing, and, indeed I witnessed some of the dirtiest (and I dare argue in some cases slanderous and libelous) campaign statements I have ever seen from a campaign during this previous campaign cycle. As an example, the Young Democrats of Utah was accused of taking bribes and forcing endorsements – when the tactic of out and out lying failed, they effectively turned their ire towards supporters who legitimately wanted to see some good from the loss they received last Tuesday.

Although it may seem like a bold statement to make, there are other organizations who attempt to use propaganda, lies, and manipulation to get their way, and who feel that anything but a pure, lockstep allegiance must be met with open hostility and rejection from the group. These organizations are typically called fundamentalist, and can explain many of the troubles in this world.

I understand, when you are an underdog, how easy it can be to lash out against the established community. But it is precisely when you are the underdog when you have to perform with class and dignity, otherwise you are simply proving to others why you should not be listened to in the first place. It is a shame, too, that many good, honest, and hard working people who wanted to make a difference have had their name dragged through the mud because of a few zealots who could care less about the fact that people need to work together to succeed.

In ones career, you only get one chance to take on the establishment head on in such a direct and obvious way. I know this all too well as I still feel the sting of a decision I made over a year ago. When taking such a gamble, one must accept that you may lose and that you will have to pay penance for your actions – hoping to be re-accepted into the group. One can make this penance go by quicker by not burning bridges at every opportunity, to accept, with honest respect to the winner, that they have earned the right to lead the people they represent.

By burning bridges, you inherently say that you do not want to be part of the group anymore. In politics this is the equivalent of exile as your party will not accept you anymore and that an opposing party is not eager to accept into their ranks someone who has already been outspoken against their own party’s ideas, let alone theirs. In politics the only thing you have at the end of the day, is the ability to get others behind your ideas. When you attack your own supporters, why should anyone listen to you…ever?

But the worse part of this individual’s hubris, along with the support their cronies provided, is that they are blissfully unaware of the fact that they have done so much damage to themselves and others. They were so focused on attacking the establishment that they lost sight of what a campaign should be about – victory. I sense that they feel the system has failed them when, in reality, they have gone out of their way to ignore the rules associated with civility and are offended when people don’t respond positively to their actions.

Indeed, I have it on good authority that several people within the campaign felt that digging trenches was the worst possible strategy, but old habits die hard and I suspect that 1960′s-esque mentality of sticking it to the man was just too hard to shake. I do find it ironic that their militant campaign only went to solidify people around an “establishment” candidate.

In the end, only one question remains in my mind: it is not so much reason for the actions, but what inspires someone to become so angry about an election in the first place. Our system, despite its many flaws, is defined by frequent elections, especially for the office being discussed in the first place. Passion is a good thing, an honorable thing, but dogmatic intolerance leads to lost friendships and damaged reputations.

When you advocate a democratic process and then blame the voters for making a bad decision, it shows that you care little about advancing a cause and more about advancing your ego. When you question the reputation of an organization and the people within it with little proof and even less disregard for the consequences, it shows your lack of even the most basic of political skills. When you attack supporters who lack ideological “purity” you show that your ideas can not tread in even the shallowest of waters.

And when you act like a child, don’t be surprised when you are called one.

That’s right, it is that time of the year when the Young Democrats of Utah hold their annual BBQ.  This year, we have teamed up with the Salt Lake County Democratic party to host a Unity BBQ that will bring all of the campaigns together under one big pavilion.

The BBQ will be at Sherwood Park from 2:00 to 4:00 PM. The food is free and the times shall be good.

Sherwood Park is located at 1500 West 400 South in Salt Lake (MAP).  To RSVP, visit the events Facebook page.

Utah Federal Senate – Republican Primary:

Mike Lee v. Tim Bridgewater

First off, I must admit that I defer much of my knowledge to MRF on this one as I am certainly not the target demographic these two races are after.  That being said, MRF and I both agree that Lee’s campaign seems to have the wheels coming off of it.  Many far right conservatives are learning about Lee’s lobbying past and are being turned off by it. Bridgewater, on the other hand, seems to be surging right when he needs to – with endorsements from many notable lawmakers, including current Senator Bob Bennett.

Prediction:

Lee will perform well in rural Utah but may not have what it takes to win in more metropolitan areas where more moderate Republicans reside. Bridgewater, I predict, will win by six points.

Utah Federal House District 2 – Democratic Primary

Jim Matheson v. Claudia Wright

If you have read my blog at all, you know where I stand on this issue.  That being said, I must admit that Wright has done a very good job at gaining grassroots support.  There are two main “X” factors come election day 1) Wright supporters are vocal, but are there enough to carry her over the top 2) Matheson supporters are more numerous, but not necessarily as motivated to vote in a primary.

Prediction:

In the end, and with my bias in mind, I still think Matheson has what it takes to gain victory.  The battle ground is in southern and eastern Utah where Democratic voters may be hesitant to take a bet on a new Democrat on the ticket that has not proven that she can win. I feel that the Wasatch front may go to Wright, but it is difficult to call.

Salt Lake County Council 1 - Democratic Primary:

Arlyn Bradshaw v. Cal Noyce

Next to the Wright/Matheson race, this race has been one of the most contentious race amongst Democrats. Bradshaw has the support of every Democratic County Council member, along with with County Mayor Corroon and the Young Democrats of Utah, just to name a few. On the flip side, Noyce has the endorsement of Corroon as well, along with many labor organizations and the Stonewall Democrats – a possible factor in this race as both candidates are openly gay and, as Senator Hatch put so well, they vote. I will admit that I support Bradshaw and have worked with (and against) him in the past – I really do feel that he is a smart and talented individual who can get the job done.

Predicition:

The biggest factor in this race will be turnout, specifically between the east and west side of Salt Lake. When you couple this with the fact that the east side will come out more anyway due to State House race 25 and Congressional District 2, it is easy to see that the east side will come out strong.  Bradshaw, as an east-side resident, has the clear advantage, and has been working hard in these areas to make sure it materializes. Noyce seems to have become somewhat reactionary, not a good sign for victory.  I predict Bradshaw wins by 10 points.

Utah House District 25: Democratic Primary

Anthony Kaye v. Joel Briscoe

This race has been one of the most entertaining to watch as there are two strong candidates, each of which would do a great job on the hill.  Kaye is much more aggressive and in your face – not surprising for a New York native and could easily be the attack dog for the Dems.  On the flip side, Briscoe is the proven administrator, knowing how to work the system to get things done.

Prediction:

I hate to say it, but this one is too close to call. We are just going to have to wait and see.

In the interest of fairness, I invited him to write his own counter article. I submitted mine a day before it was published in order to give him a fair amount of time to respond.

And so, for the first time in BiRZ’s history, I have invited a guest writer to discuss his views on a particular issue. And so, here is Ashley Anderson on the Wright campaign (please note that the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Blue in Red Zion or its management) :

—

I would like to thank Curtis for graciously offering me a chance to post on his blog.  I may disagree with his opinion about Claudia, but I certainly respect him and call him a friend.  The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of Claudia Wright, her campaign or strategy. I am posting here because I think it is crucial that when delegates vote on May 8th, they can do so with the confidence of having an accurate view of what is possible. I hope that my perspective will add to that confidence.

Emphatically declaring that “this is the way things are,” is not a valid substitute for a discussion of what is possible.  People deeply embedded in a system often have a hard time imagining the system working any other way.  By proclaiming that what he has seen happen is the only thing that could possibly happen, Curtis is asking us to surrender to inevitabilities that simply do not exist.

Curtis points to the 47% of registered voters who actually turn up as a political fact of life rather than a result of the choices voters were given in previous elections.  The mass of people who feel unrepresented by the narrow range of choices presented by conventional candidates is further evidenced by the fact that only 36.7% of eligible Utah voters turned up in 2006, the worst turnout in the country. The fact that the large majority of eligible voters don’t show up is one of the reasons that no race is ever impossible to win.  Any race is winnable by a candidate who reaches those who feel unrepresented by our political system.  Claudia has already shown her ability to do that.

Curtis also accepts the superficial view that the political spectrum is a straight line from liberal to conservative.  While convenient for the mainstream media, this analysis ignores the more complicated reality of political views.  Currently, the most powerful forces across the political spectrum are disgusted with Washington politics and outraged at the corporate control of our political system.  If the Republicans run a career politician like Morgan Philpot and the Dems run Claudia Wright, a high school history teacher, Claudia is the anti-Washington candidate who can appeal to populist rage.  Claudia’s cornerstone issue of getting corporate money out of politics has broad appeal for conservatives upset about bank bailouts and handouts to health insurance companies.

At least on the fundraising front, I am encouraged by Curtis’s analysis.  I don’t know if he intended his $145k price tag to be intimidating, but it certainly isn’t.  Claudia’s unique story of responding to a Craigslist help-wanted ad and going on to take on Matheson at convention has inspired the imagination of the nation.  If Claudia gets 60% of the delegates on May 8^th, she can easily bring in $145k within two weeks! Remember that when MoveOn decided to bring attention to Bill Halter’s attempt to replace Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln, they helped him raise $1 million within days. PAC’s are watching this race very closely. They are ready to rally, if Utah delegates prove that they are.

As a supporter of Claudia’s campaign, I certainly don’t think that the recent negative campaigning from Matheson supporters is any sort of conspiracy. However, the obvious problem with constantly declaring Claudia “unelectable” is that after next month, we will likely all have to work together to get her elected.  Beyond that, it doesn’t seem very healthy for the Democratic Party to try to convince the base that their views cannot possibly be represented in Congress.  The “unelectable” mantra promotes the view that we cannot be effective agents of change and that the only role for progressives in our political system is that of victims.  Convincing your most passionate allies to give up on their ideals is anything but pragmatic.  It is a strategy of self-disempowerment, and it will come back to haunt the whole Democratic ticket in November.

Democrats are the only ones who can make a progressive unelectable.  If enough of us join this chorus in proclaiming that progressives can’t win, we will be right.  Betting against yourself is always a safe bet.  But we would be doing a disservice to ourselves and our allies like Peter Corroon.  We have plenty of real opponents who are trying to get us to give up on our goals.  We should not be doing their job for them.

In these times of political chaos and genuine crises, we need more enlightened thinking than this:

Those who claim that they would prefer a full Republican over a half (or quarter, or whatever) Democrat in office so that we can beat them in two years are either too naive or too comfortable about their own situation. There is simply no other explanation for these thoughts.

Aside from the fact that the above statement misrepresents any actual claims I have seen expressed, it shows a close-minded and destructive disregard for different opinions.  Perhaps folks have noticed that Chaffetz and Bishop have had no impact in a Democratically controlled government while Jim Matheson uses his significant influence to first weaken bills like health care and climate legislation, and then votes against them anyway.  Perhaps they see a need for more fundamental reforms than the Democratic Party is currently willing to address.  Regardless of their reasons, the fact is that a lot of Democrats are willing to risk that seat in an effort to catalyze change.  Those are our people, and they should not be belittled as naïve or lavish.  If we want them on our side, we need a more respectful attempt to understand their positions.

It has become abundantly clear that getting strong Democratic majorities is not enough to accomplish the progressive reforms this country needs.  A realistic pragmatist would see that it takes more than a D after someone’s name to actually move the country in the direction we want it to go.  To maintain the sole priority of electing the safest candidate willing to call himself a Democrat is dogmatic partisanship.  Our goal as Democrats is to have a healthy, equitable and prosperous country.  Pragmatism means doing what is necessary to actually achieve those goals.

I don’t know anyone in Claudia’s campaign who thinks that a victory in November will be easy or is in any way assured.  We are supporting Claudia because we know that progress never comes without a struggle or without risking the status quo.  We know that every great step forward for our country came not because the odds were in our favor, but because courageous visionaries believed in their power to create a better world.

All the the following information is public information and I am happy to provide it or point you in the direction to find it.

Let us begin with the most basic of analysis. In Congressional District 2, the most recent voter information file shows that there are 477,877 registered voters. Of those 237,763, or 49.7% of voters are registered Unaffiliated, 182,588, or 38.2% are Republicans, and 48,375, or 10.1% are Democrats. The remaining 9,151, or 1.9% comprise various third parties. But just because there are a little less than 475,000 registered voters, it does not mean that they all turn out to vote.

We must, therefore, look at voter turnout in 2006 and 2002 to determine average turn out.  Those two years are picked because they are what are known as “off years” or years when we are not voting for the president. Because of less overall excitement for the election, off years always have lower turn out. As a point of fact, in the last two off year elections nearly the same number of people voted in CD 2.  In 2002 224,098 people voted, in 2006 224,198 people voted – in short about 47% of the people who can vote, do.

So this means that you need about 112,301 people to vote for you to win. It is naive to think that every single Democrat that can vote will, but I will give it to Wright.  Let us suppose that every single Democrat comes out – she still needs  63,926 voters to win. However, if even half of the Republicans in the district show up (and history says they will), the Republican will already have 91,294 votes in the bag.  Here is the breakdown so far:

Wright          Republican

48,375          91,294 : Votes in the bag

63,926         21,007 : Still needed

In other words, under the best possible scenario (up to this point) Wright would need to gain supporters at more than a 3:1 ratio to be victorious. How is she to do this?

Well, the mantra being chanted over and over is that true grassroots support will win this for her. They point to President Obama as their champion in this, and indeed he has run one of the most impressive and successful grassroots campaigns I have ever seen. In Obama’s Presidential campaign he spent $133.2 million on “miscellaneous media,” $32 million on campaign events, $7.7 million on materials, and $900,000 on get out the vote efforts. All of these point to grassroots support and total $173.8 million – meaning that this impressive grassroots effort cost Obama $2.50 per vote  he received (69,500,000).

In many ways Wright would need to invest even more in grassroots support, per voter, because this is a more local race and she will not have the benefits of a mass media reporting her every step. Therefore, I don’t think it is unreasonable to up her grassroots support to $3.00 per vote gained.  This would meant that, in order to get those 63,926 votes, she would need about $192,000.

As of the last reporting period, Wright had an account balance of -$642. To put things into perspective, the loosing candidates in CD 1 and 3 raised $67,164 combined in 2006.

Again, all of  this is assuming that each and every Democrat will vote for her and that Wright will not need to spend a dime on getting registered Democrats to the polls.

There is another fact I think Wright supporters are forgetting, Congressional District 2 is more than just Salt Lake County and the sections of Moab we like – it is the entire southern part of the state.  Allow me to refresh your memory with this map of CD 2:

See all of those areas south of Salt Lake? Kind of big, I know. I have taken the liberty of showing you the difference, by percentage, of Republicans versus Democrats in each county to give you an idea of how great the task of winning CD 2 really is.

Not a single county favors Democrats, though Carbon has the closest fight with just a .5% difference between R’s and D’s. The Average difference, by county, is 34%. Even the region in Salt Lake favors has nearly 20% more registered Republicans than Democrats.

And yet, the Wright campaign feels that it can win be being more liberal and more Democratic? This is where I lose respect for the campaign. I understand and respect those wishing to support Wright because they feel that she better represents their interests.  Indeed, that is what our representative form of government should be about. But in the same breath they seem to forget that CD 2 is a large area with many varied interests that any representative will have to balance if they want to succeed.

I am telling you now, there is simply no way that Wright can win on a left platform. I am not a party elite, I do not have any particular vested interest in this race as I do not live in the district, lord knows I don’t have money to contribute. I am simply a guy who knows how to look at the numbers. When the Wright campaign claims that some sort of secret memo is going around or that Matheson supporters are spreading rumors about how Wright can’t win, I have to laugh. The secret memo is election data, the spreading rumors have to do with common sense.

Finally, I would like to close with this thought. For as long as I could remember, I have had a Republican representing me at nearly every level of government. I will tell you this – it sucks. Those who claim that they would prefer a full Republican over a half (or quarter, or whatever) Democrat in office so that we can beat them in two years are either too naive or too comfortable about their own situation. There is simply no other explanation for these thoughts.

Yes, we as Democrats are all pissed at Matheson over this issue or that, but you have not had a representative that continually and willfully ignores your issues time and time again…trust me, you haven’t. Bishop is smart and partisan, Chaffetz is stupid and partisan, but they are both partisan. Matheson breaks away from our party, sure, but he sure as hell votes for it more often than the other two combined.

It is a miracle Matheson was ever able to win that seat in the first place; the district was so gerrymandered that it should have all but guaranteed a Republican seat since 2002 – but its not. Even now, there is talk of carving up Utah even further to make four potential Republican seats, again, with no chance of the Democrat winning.

In the end this whole debate comes down to a discussion of philosophies. On the one side we have idealistic Wright supporters, on the other we have realistic Matheson supporters. As you can clearly tell, I am a realist when it comes to this race and I think it behooves us all to keep in mind that though Matheson may not win this November, Wright will not.

For those of you who did not attend, I can tell you that this was, by far, one of the largest conventions I have seen in years for Salt Lake County, and for good reason. There were no less than three major races up for grabs, and each campaign made it abundantly clear that they expected their supporters to show up in force.

The Young Democrats, too, had a strong showing, and I was impressed that nearly every candidate and lawmaker, from the state on down, took the time to wait and speak to our caucus. I counted at least 35 candidates lining up just to speak to our group. In the end the body chose to endorse Arlyn Bradshaw for County Council District 1, Sim Gill for District Attorney, and Rebecca Chavez-Houck for House District 24. Asside from Bradshaw, both Gill and Chavez-Houck made it out of convention with out much trouble.

And it turns out that that was the big story from the convention. The race between Bradshaw and Cal Noyce would span three votes and two hours – resulting in an eventual primary run that will take place on June 6th. Now, there is a whole blog post in and of itself about why this race will prove interesting and you can expect one coming soon.

The convention was abuzz about the impending decision delegates will have to make regarding House District 2. Both Claudia Wright and Jim Matheson were present, and both were pressing the flesh in an attempt to gain supporters. Wright at the Young Democrats meeting called those (such as myself) who say that she is unelectable “fearmongerers” and that conventioneers should not believe the hype.

I still think that Wright victory is wishful thinking and that I am not so much fearmongering as looking at reality, however I have invited Ashley Anderson, a staunch Wright supporter and political activist, to write on this blog why he feels Wright can win.

Finally, I would like to tell a nice story about Salt Lake County Mayor (and hopefully next Governor of Utah), Peter Corroon. I stepped outside to get some cool air, as tradition seems to be to never turn on the air conditioning at these events, when I spotted Mayor Corroon playing with his two young boys. Encouraging them to work off a little steam after a long day standing around boring adults, he tells them to run from one side of West High’s football field to the other. After returning, one of his children challenge him to another foot race. Sure enough, Mayor Corroon, in full suit and tie mind you, goes running across the field. Now, I am convinced that Corroon threw the race and let his son win (I know, right?), but I think it speaks volumes about his character.

I, like you, was disappointed to hear Representative Jim Matheson’s no vote on healthcare reform on Sunday, and I suspect that your precinct caucus meeting last night probably had harsh words towards Representative Matheson just as mine did.  Indeed, I have been critical of Matheson in the past regarding his previous no vote.

But please keep in mind the important role Representative Matheson plays in Utah politics before quickly casting your vote for another candidate. Also, keep in mind your role as a delegate.

Matheson is our only Democrat on a national stage, and probably will be until we gain an extra congressional district in 2012.  If districts are drawn fairly we could, in theory, have one moderate Democrat and one liberal Democrat representing the state of Utah on a national level – think of it, two out of the four seats are blue…an astounding feat to say the least.

If Matheson can prove to the national party that he can win in tough districts such as Southern Utah, imagine the resources the party could potentially pump into our state, bolstering candidates down the ticket.  And if there is one thing Democratic candidates need to win, it is more resources. Don’t forget that people come out for Matheson, and the people that do are more likely to vote for Corron, Granato, your local House and Senate member, and anyone who may be running for county and local government.  Without Matheson, you can count on anywhere from a three to five point reduction in your Democratic turnout.

Let us also not forget that the district could turn red in a heartbeat. Yes, we like to complain that Matheson does not represent our interests on issues such as health care (and indeed, this was a major failing on his part), but consider the work he has done to protect Utah’s environment and his work with downwinders, acknowledging climate change, education, and honestly trying to reduce our nations deficit.

To put it bluntly, if Matheson is booted at convention, there is no doubt that a Republican will win the seat. No offense to Claudia Wright, the other Democratic contender, but anything more than a moderate leftist could never win the seat, and anyone who thinks otherwise has not talked to the locals. Matheson has been able to speak to those voters for the past eight years, and, if anything, his no vote represents their interests. Don’t forget that healthcare did pass, and it would have regardless of Matheson’s vote.

Let us also not forget the duty of a delegate – to choose candidates who represent our interests AND win elections – it can not be one or the other. History has shown, time and time again, that parties who only run on one issue and that are not pragmatic soon fade away. The delegate must weigh both of these options when casting their vote for a particular candidate as they have a responsibility to both the people who elected them and the party they represent.  We as Democrats are already in a tough fight, and we will make it tougher by removing Matheson.

In short, lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.