Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Politics / Woods Does Cooper's '94 Loss Offer a Midterm Lesson for Democrats?
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM
First, the history. Blue Dog Democrats who abandoned Bill Clinton on health care in 1994 were conspicuous among the casualties of that November's congressional elections. Their flight from Clinton alienated Democrats without placating other voters. Just ask Senator David McCurdy of Oklahoma or Senator Jim Cooper of Tennessee. Oops, they're not Senators. Both were favorites who lost their respective races after calculated decisions to turn away from Clintoncare. If they had stayed the course, they might not have won; but in 1994, they and others proved that apostasy is not the path to victory. (McCurdy now runs a trade association. Cooper is back in Congress after eight years in the wilderness.)I don't know about McCurdy, but this argument is preposterous as it pertains to Cooper. He lost mainly because Fred Thompson made a really good TV ad. Thompson stood next to his red pickup truck by a split-rail fence, talked directly into the camera and said exactly what nearly everyone wanted to hear in '94: Throw the bums out. As soon as that ad went on the air, Thompson's poll numbers started jumping off the charts. In the public mind, Thompson was John Wayne. Cooper was the career politician of the Thompson campaign caricature. If anything, Cooper was helped in that election by his opposition to Clintoncare. Bill Clinton was about as popular as Pol Pot in this state then. As for Shrum's larger point--"that Democrats are better off being Democrats than trying to triangulate themselves into some dubious pale blue mutation"--it's hard to know whether that's true in Tennessee. Liberals make the argument all the time. But how long has it been since anyone in Tennessee won a statewide election by running as a true Democrat?
Comments (19)
Showing 1-19 of 19
When's the last time anyone tried? Sara Kyle ran as a true Democrat to the Public Service Commission and won statewide in 1994. Some say it doesn't count because it was for a little known office down the ballot. However, a win is a win and the further down the ballot you are the more the top of the ticket is supposed to affect your success. She won anyway.
You're right, Cooper would've lost anyway. However, he wouldn't have received an absolute ass beating. If you go back and look, of the three Democrats on the statewide ballot that year that lost, he lost by the most. He only got 38% while the other Democrats drew mid 40's or won. The reason is simple, many Democrats couldn't stand to vote for him. He was soundly rejected.
like
dislike
Woods says: "Bill Clinton was about as popular as Pol Pot in this state then."
And yet, when election time came around 2 years later, Clinton won Tennessee. He was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win the state.
So I fail to see Woods' evidence to this ludicrous statement, unless he has some polling information that I don't. And he doesn't.
Just out of curiosity, Jeff, how long have YOU lived in Tennessee to make such sweeping, knowledgable statements about our politics?
Please stop defending a corporate sellout like Jim Cooper - it is beyond pathetic.
Look, '94 was a nationalized election, a tsunami for Democrats everywhere. Sure, Cooper didn't run a particularly good campaign, and Thompson effectively tapped into the anti-incumbant, anti-Democratic sentiment that was emerging everywhere, Tennessee in particular. Nothing, though, would have made a difference in that year's outcome. (And it's comical to suggest that Fred's TV spot was determinative. It wasn't. Not even close. He would have won had he campainged in a clown suit. Election would have been closer. But he would have won. It was that kind of year.)
I remember when:
Woods has it right. Cooper lost in 94 by the largest margin because Tennesseans thought they were voting for Reagan - which was the same reason the party faithful encouraged Fred to run for president in 08. Cooper didn't stand a chance because the GOP recruited a more electable candidate. The real shocker that year wasn't Cooper - it was Sasser - who was slated to be the next senate majority leader had both he and the Democrats stayed in power. Instead, we got Frist and the Democrats narrowly chose Daschle who led them into the wilderness for a decade. The reality is that neither Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson would have won election to the senate as a democrat from Tennessee in 1994. Suggesting that Cooper's innovative health care plan helped his loss shows that Shrum doesn't know Tennessee.
And don't forget the other issues that hurt Democrats in 94--tax increases, gays in the military, etc. It is probably true that Cooper would have lost anyway, but Shrum--as usual--is full of it when he thinks Cooper will be hurt more if he opposes Obamacare.
Jim Cooper is owned by the banks and Fortune 100's. He might as well be named Bush
Senor, there is no such thing as Obamacare. You'd think teabaggers and anti-gov't paranoids would have learned this by now. Back in the Clinton days, there was Clintoncare because the White House was crafting reform internally. Congress is in charge of it this time.
Hargrove, you're wasting your time. Senor is going to give more credence to Glenn Beck and Hannity than you, and that's what they call it. Facts don't have a cherished place on talk-radio, Fox News, or the right-wing blogosphere, only tired talking points. But it doesn't matter because all of that "success" they had in August with the town-hall meetings and angry vitriol, is waning and showing that the tea-party segment of our population is good at barking and growling, but not so good at actually stopping progress.
"Congress is in charge of it this time."
Maybe you should send Obama a memo and let him know that.
Because he's spent a whole lot of time running around making pronouncemnts about what the legislation will and won't do.
So much wrongness, so little time.
Mr. Woods is grossly reporting the 1994 elections. Thompson got an immediate boost in his poll numbers from the momentum of the first primary in modern Tennessee history where Republican turnout surpassed Democrat. Then fred went up with an excellent ad.
The turning point was not the ad. That is the sort of 'Tennesseans who disagree with my stand are stupid rubes' theme that has been a staple of the Scene for years.
In reality the Cooper campaign responded to the Thompson bump by immediately picking fights with Senior Citizens and unions. Running to the Right might have been a viable strategy except that the national tide was running against Democrats as a group.
Cooper was also hurt by the presence of Sasser and Bredesen on the ticket. Bredesen came off as rich and detached and cold (mistakes he wisely avoided in 2002) while Sasser managed to be annoying and nasty enough to make Tom Perdue seem like St. Francis of K Street.
Also Mr. Woods neglects to mention the impact of the debates where Cooper, erudite and thoughtful, came off badly against the erudite, thoughtful and ressuring Fred.
By October the Cooper Campaign was in disarry to the point that vultures were circling. When they unrolled their "The Hunt for Fred in October" theme, it flatlined.
spaz, Cooper has never been a 'corporate sellout.' He is a thoughtful legislator. One can disagree with his positions but not his integrity. Even the Thompson people would tell you that.
B, Sasser's defeat was not so shocking. Some of us predicted in 1993 that, having gone DC and not really run since 1976, he was very beatable. Had Cooper run a better race, Frist's win might have been the greater of the two. If you think this is hindsight, remember that this race was refought in 2000 when Gore, another Tennessee expatriate, got clobbered in the state. Gore and Sasser went DC and paid for it.
Lest we forget, the only statewide race in 2010 is the Governor's office. Alexander's in until 2014; Corker is up again in 2012.
I love all this spouting off with arrogant certitude about the game-changing Tennessee election of 15 years ago. Lots of revisionist history; lots of looking back at it through partisan lens -- on both sides.
So I'm going to do the same:
Cooper would have lost no matter what. It was a Republican revolution year and nothing was going to hold it back in Tennessee. However, Cooper lost by the biggest margin of the Democratic trio that year IN LARGE PART because key elements of the Democratic base -- particularly unions, and to a lesser degree, African Americans -- felt no urgency to elevate to the Senate a congressman who played a leading role in defeating universal health care, a Democratic ideal for -- at that time -- more than 60 years. Sasser's race was closer because those base Democrats did not abandon him.
Sure, Fred's charisma helped. But aside from the Republican tsunami that year, Cooper's biggest problem was with his own party's base.
I agree w/ Pith writer. If Cooper had stuck close to Clinton he would have been slaughtered to an even greater extent.
http://tomoveanation.com
That's why all you're doing, Interested, is writing a blog that nobody reads and which you have to come on here to promote.
Sasser was perceived as a Clinton ally and his margin was much closer. And as somebody said earlier, Clinton-Gore DID carry Tennessee again 2 years later.
You don't have a clue. Therefore, no one ever clicks on your silly link.
Well put, Mark Rogers. The election was lost for mostly structural/national reason, but Cooper never connected with the Democratic base in this state and was swamped as a consequence.
Not sure what lessons this holds for the present, however. To hold (and inspire) one's base, while attracting the swing vote is always the tightrope at election time, and it's particularly challenging for Democrats these days given the current environ nment in Tennessee.
"To hold (and inspire) one's base, while attracting the swing vote is always the tightrope at election time, and it's particularly challenging for Democrats these days given the current environ nment in Tennessee."
True enough but Cooper isn't running statewide now. I haven't seen polling but I'd be willing to bet that a public option is popular in his district. Lieberman on the other hand is probably just trying to get attention because his stance makes no political sense and because he's supported similar things in the past. I saw one poll that said 74% of the electorate in CT is for a public option and Lieberman is already treading on thin ice in that state as it is. He is also risking having his chairmanship stripped. Lieberman will not win in 2012, whether because he retires or tries to run and gets beaten, which he will unless something drastic changes with his electorate between now and then. Cooper on the other hand probably can get away with it, largely because he won't attract any significant opposition and he is probably still popular due to other issues.
Cooper would have lost in 1994 for two reasons identified by previous commenters, but not focused on at the same time. (1) He was and remains a poor candidate who does not seem to enjoy hand-shaking and meeting people the way most in politics do. (2) It was a Republican year, and how he acted on health care would not have mattered.
It is noteworthy, however, that Cooper's dalliance's against true health care reform does not protect him from any surge in 2010. While it is unlikely Cooper would lose a general election in 2010, the primary is another story. There are angry Republican and independent voters worried the Democrats are spending too much money. And there are angry Democrats and independents worried Cooper is dithering on health care. 2010 could be his time to go, as the angry Republicans will be in the GOP gov primary, leaving a tough fight on the left for Cooper.
I would like to add one more thought however. In 1993, Cooper was pivotal in bringing down health care. Clinton, who won TN twice, lost some political capital and briefly lost popularity thanks in part to Cooper's blockage of the 93 health care bill. Had Cooper not blocked it, there would have been a much higher probability that health care would have passed in the House. This could have been a game changer and Clinton would have appeared more of a success in '94 than he was thanks to Cooper's sinking of the health reform proposal. Had Cooper not been such a problem to Clinton, health care may have advanced at least through the House, and Clinton could have claimed it as an accomplishment. This would have made Clinton's numbers go up, thus helping Democrats in TN and all over the country in '94.
Cooper would have lost in 94 no matter what, but his blocking of health care in '93 caused a bunch of other Democrats across the country to lose as well. Shame on Coop.
