Roy Cooper for Senate? Nah...
Submitted by phoenixdem on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 2:42pm
Roy Cooper is, for many Democrats, a dream candidate. He's won two statewide elections, and has a strong political base. He has a great resume, having served in the legislature, and he has unquestionable "law and order" cred. Furthermore, Cooper's good-looking, telegenic, and right in line with where most North Carolinians are. Yes, North Carolina Democrats would be fortunate if Cooper were to run against Dole.
But he won't. And if I were Cooper's political advisor, I would tell him not to run. Why?
1. It's a Presidential and gubernatorial election. Voters in 2008 will be thinking about lots of other things, making it harder for a Democratic message to resonate in a blue state. If Hillary Clinton's at the top of the ticket, let's face it: Democrats will suffer all the way down the ballot.
2. Dole will be well-funded and hard to beat. While Dole is vulnerable, she's a strong politician, and she'll have a lot of national cash. It's getting to be crunch time for Cooper's political career, and if he goes down in 2008, it'll be hard to come back.
3. It's too late to crowd out the field. Sure, Cooper's name ID might be enough to push Miller, et al out of the race, but we can't be sure. If Cooper's going to win the race, he needs to avoid a competitive primary and train his sights on Dole. The only Democrat who can clear the field is Mike Easley, and he won't run.
Overall, the best reason for Cooper not to run is Richard Burr. Burr will be up again in 2010, and that will be the prime opportunity for Cooper to run. It will be an off-year, and Cooper can start preparing right after his re-election as AG. Burr is nowhere near as popular as Dole, without the national help - he's going down.
As Democrats, we'll have a good candidate against Dole, and we have a good chance of beating her. But that candidate will not be Roy Cooper.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://bluenc.com/trackback/6366
- phoenixdem's blog
- Login or register to post comments
My sentiments are similar
When Cooper asked me for money last year, I said I'd contribute, but only if he was running for AG. I couldn't see any wisdom in a three-way for Governor (just like I don't see any wisdom in a two-way either). As you say, he'll have a lock on the AG and then can run against Dick Burr from a safe seat. Plus, by then Burr will have shot himself in the foot so many times he'll be a crippled as Liddy is, trying to pretend she's actually from North Carolina.
Plus his famous quote about it not being Congress' job to tell the military what to do will come back to haunt him again and again . . . not to mention all the other stupid things he'll say over the next few years.
The only thing I disagree with is the vulnerability of Liddy Dole. The Party of Greed is hemorrhaging on all fronts and will have lots of campaigns to prop up with limited resources. Liddy can't help but continue to stand by her "man" in the White House, which means she's chained and locked that dead weight around her neck completely. She can only hope the water's not that deep - but in my view, it's VERY deep and she doesn't have much chance of floating.
I agree that Dole is
I agree that Dole is vulnerable - I was just trying to say that Burr will be more vulnerable in 2010 than she is this time around. As far as odds go, they're both decent bets to lose their seats, but I would say that Burr is the safer bet.
Special Reasons
There are some special reasons why Liddy is vulnerable too. One of these days one of the more conservative blogs will probably break the news . . .
You got it, Jerimee
but it's not going to be you or me (we are the nice guys). She will probably do it to herself.
You know, Jerimee,
It's bad form to play "I know a secret" without sharing.
:-)
Thomas S. Brock
www.brocknet.net
http://blogs.brocknet.net/brocklog/
she won't be debating anyone
from what I understand
"85% of Republicans are Democrats who don't know what's going on." -Robert Kennedy, Jr.
Course she won't
that would require actually coming to North Carolina, which we know gives her the hives.
Huh? Maybe I'm out of the
Huh? Maybe I'm out of the loop here, but I don't know what you guys are talking about. Oh well, guess if it's big enough news it'll come out eventually.
I'm out of that loop too
if there is a loop, which I doubt there really is.
:)
this sucks.
DAmmit, I thought I had all the "inside" poop, and no one has more...errr....inside....pooop than Liddy.
One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson
With friends like these
1. You're seriously suggesting national trends won't benefit a Democrat? Also Hillary is a LONG way from being the Nominee.
2. The race MAY be difficult so we should not field one of our best candidates? Even if he waits until 2010 as some people seem to argue, that's a long time, think of where the Dems were two years ago. Two years is a long time in politics you gotta take your chances when you can. Burr may be a softer candidate but who knows what will happen to either Burr or Cooper in the intervening time. I think if anyone advised me not to do something because it may be difficult they wouldn't be my advisor for too long.
3. Too late? It's Early 2007 and a slightly more than half-interested Brad Miller does not constitute a "crowded field" as much as I may like him.
Couple of points: 1. I think
Couple of points:
1. I think national trends are favoring Democrats. But NC is still a red state. It's still more likely to give its electoral votes to the Republican candidate. And I would argue that neither Hillary nor Obama would be able to win NC - what are the combined odds of one of those two being the nominee?
2. The race will surely be difficult - as any campaign is. The question is: which race carries the best likelihood of success? I'd love for Cooper to get in, but from his point of view, he has a greater chance of winning in 2010. Sure, it may change, but you act on the current trends, and nothing would suggest to me that Burr's going to get any better as a politician, or that the current swing towards Democrats will fade out in the next three and a half years.
3. Part of the crowding of the field, I would argue, comes from the lack of a real, committed candidate. When no one jumps in, even to a small degree, the money starts to dry up. At this stage of the game, nobody's going to sweep the money primary, meaning that it'll be easier for an insurgent to become the nominee. Cooper needs a scenario in which he is anointed the nominee from Day One, and he can do that right after winning re-election as AG.
Still disagree
1. Sure the electoral votes are most likely to go to the Republican candidate, but that hasn't kept Democrats out of any office in the state. NC does not fit easily into the Red/Blue State cookie cutters people, especially those who sit in Washington and have never been to NC, seem to like so much. Furthermore in your previous post you argued that the major issue of the 08 election will be Iraq and Sen. Dole is on the wrong side of it, surely there being a Presidential election will shed more light on her if she is still defending such a precarious position, not distract from the race. Not that I agree with the analysis in your previous post either but you seem to be contradicting your self between posts.
2. I see no reason to believe current trends are anything more than current. Based on current (at the time) trends Al Gore should have won in a landslide. Based on current trends 2-3 years ago (the time frame you're discussing) Republicans should be in control of congress and their contenders should be leading the Presidential hunt. There is no logical reason to believe anything in politics continues without change. And since when has a Republican being inept kept them from being successful?
3. I'm still unclear as to how a race with no declared candidates worth talking about is 'crowded' or even 'competitive'. As to money drying up, its a bit early to discuss that when Dems at all levels are outraising Republicans, and the best way to stop money from drying up is...getting a high profile challenger in the race.
Could playing it safe make some sense? Sure. Political Graveyards are full of politicians who play it safe. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being a multi-term Attorney General of our fair state, however if you want to achieve something more you have to take the oppurtunities presented to you, even when they don't fit the plan.