According to the average of polls, 38% of North Carolinians approve of the job Pat McCrory is doing, while 43% disapprove. On the other hand, 43% approve of the job Roy Cooper is doing as Attorney General, while only 31% disapprove.
Numbers like that mean that chances are about 50/50 as to whether or not McCrory gets a second term. The governor’s strategists hope that his ratings will improve to the extent that they’ll be comfortable making the race a referendum on the governor’s performance in office. Failing that, they’ll turn to Plan B, the strategy of choice for most endangered incumbents: make the race a choice, not a referendum. To that end, they’ll need to disqualify McCrory’s prospective opponent, Roy Cooper.
They’ll attempt to do so through multiple angles. The first is character. Already we’re seeing the state party attack Cooper for stonewalling records. We’ll probably see ads questioning Cooper’s first election as Attorney General, when he ran a possibly libelous ad against his Republican opponent, sparking a feud that lasted 14 years and which resulted in a $75,000 settlement. The takeaway will be that Roy Cooper is an ambitious politician with no qualms about using false attacks to further his career – and, perhaps, that his campaign cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
The second angle is competence. Cooper’s oversight of the SBI crime lab offers the best opportunity for this. It’s not important for voters to understand all the details, but it is important for folks to come away with the idea that something happened and this reflects poorly on the Attorney General.
The next is conviction. This is the old strategy Jesse Helms used very effectively against Jim Hunt back in 1984. It could be a particularly potent line of attack for the McCrory campaign because Cooper has a reputation as a moderate Democrat with a tendency to take politically popular stands. At the same time, McCrory’s team will hammer Cooper as being an ultra-liberal who supports the Moral Monday agenda. Message: Roy Cooper is not trustworthy. Probably in regards to his support for Medicaid expansion, we’re going to see Cooper tied to President Obama, in order to keep as many anti-Obama independents in the McCrory column as possible. If Hillary Clinton is unpopular enough, she’ll make an appearance too.
At the same time, McCrory’s team will make the case that Cooper is a throwback to the old days when corrupt Democrats ran the state, that he represents the past, not the future. Ironically, this is similar to Barack Obama’s campaign message in 2012: the forces that resisted change in the first place are back and want to bring us back to the failed policies of the past. In the end, voters decided that even if the economy wasn’t so great, they were ready to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. That same patience from voters could benefit McCrory in 2016. And if the state’s economy noticeably improves and the governor is not plagued by major scandal, forget about it – it’s four more years for Governor Pat. It’s hard to defeat an incumbent, after all.
Because the race looks like a toss-up, expect this upcoming governor’s race to start earlier than any in the past. The GOP will work early to discredit Cooper and to drive up his negative ratings. Cooper’s team better be prepared for the onslaught, and the Attorney General should savor those high approvals while he has them – they’re about to go down.
John Wynne is the “conservative voice” at PoliticsNC, where he also provides polling analysis and commentary on legislative campaigns. When not writing about politics, he enjoys gardening and listening to opera. Contact: johncwynne@gmail.com.
There are only two words I have to say about dirty politics: ‘Jesse Helms’, the father of modern republikan political strategy
You’ve said all that needs to be said about this article.
Do you not hear yourself, John Wynne?
You write: “It’s not important for voters to understand all the details, but it is important for folks to come away with the idea that something happened and this reflects poorly on the Attorney General.”
Reread that sentence; think about it; parse it: it’s not important that voters understand details; what’s important is that “folks … come away with the idea that something happened,” and that this “something” “reflects poorly” on someone else.
I think that’s a good working definition of innuendo, and I think innuendo is pretty nasty stuff, in politics and in life. Some would call it dishonorable. I think that when we hear innuendo, we ought to call it out and try to stop it. Maybe you disagree.
A charitable interpretation is that you’re simply predicting (perhaps based on your experience in and knowledge of Republican campaigns and tactics) that Republicans will resort to innuendo. The implications of that are pretty interesting, but let’s move one and not get sidetracked.
An uncharitable interpretation is that you’re suggesting or perhaps even encouraging Republicans to use innuendo. That’s a stretch, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But it seems plain that you’re tolerating and condoning the use of innuendo. If I’m wrong about that (or anything else in this post), please correct me.
Meanwhile, here’s a thought experiment: imagine that people are purposefully talking to lots of other people about you, John Wynne, and your professional life. Imagine that the people talking about you are glossing over or leaving out details (because understanding details is “not important”). And imagine that those people are doing all of this with the specific aim of convincing their audience that “something happened,” and that that something “reflects poorly” on your and your professional life.
Would you want those of us who are hearing that kind of talk to tolerate or condone it, or would you want us to call it out and try to stop it?
Politics may not be beanbag, as the saying goes, but it doesn’t have to be dishonorable. Maybe you disagree.
On the local level, and it’s a great deal different I know, I ran 7 successful campaigns. I never mentioned an opponent’s name in public. I spoke of myself, my record and my plans. I wish all campaigns were run that way. But, it’s not a perfect world.
OK. Let’s use the same approach to disqualify McCrory, hey? It’s actually much easier to do!
Character: McCrory played it wrong by offering civil protesters a plate of cookies instead of a serious back-and-forth on the issue, and by saying his schedule wouldn’t allow excuse meeting time when he was actually playing catch with an aide. And before the Dan River spill let the cat out of the bag, he was about to sign a sweetheart agreement (carrying a paltry fine of $99K) with Duke-Energy (his former employer) on coal ash waste that would have placed numerous water bodies and NC citizens’ health at risk. And finally, instead of being the engaging and open elected official, he gets a restaurant worker fired when the worker got in his face about the gov’s party and policies.
Competence: Talk about serving up a softball pitch! This gov STILL allows one of the most incompetent state agency directors to call the shots at DHHS, where she (Wos) has screwed up Medicaid personal mailings and budget numbers, has caused her most veteran and experienced staff to go packing for other jobs in other states, and spent millions on GOP-friendly consultants to help fix things. And in talking about the gov’s incompetence, do I really have to bring up the poet laureate fiasco?
Conviction: McCrory is not trustworthy. While campaigning, we said he would not change state regs relating to a women’s right or access to an abortion, but as soon as he took office he signed a bill that made such limiting changes. And how many times has McCrory whined about a bill that the GOP-led NCGA sent his way, but then meekly affixed his signature??
Sure, Cooper has few (very few) actions/beliefs that the GOP can attack him on, but the list of failings that McCrory can be skewered on is very long, very recent, and nowhere near the long stretches that the GOP will have to make in trying to tar Cooper.