Strong negative feelings toward both Republican gubernatorial candidates could make the final week a test of which voters are willing to show up for a choice they do not particularly like.
By Tim Allen, Managing Editor
Don Hoover and I were friends for more than 40 years. He was a broadcaster, political consultant and one of Oklahoma politics’ great phrase-makers.
When a campaign left voters unhappy with both candidates, Hoover had a description for what would happen on Election Day: They would vote while “holding their noses.”
I heard him use that phrase many times. Not that the choice was unimportant. Instead, it meant many voters felt they could not enthusiastically support either candidate.
Pollster Pat McFerron offered much the same assessment when we discussed the latest findings from Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates.
“People will choose the lesser of two evils,” McFerron said—or, as his father used to put it, “the evil of two lessers.”
The line is funny because it captures an uncomfortable political truth. Voters do not always choose someone they like. Sometimes they choose the person they dislike less.
Oklahoma’s Republican runoff for governor may be one of those campaigns.
The latest survey did not show Gentner Drummond or Mike Mazzei broadly disliked by the Republican electorate. But as OK Politics Today reported earlier this week, strong negative feelings outweighed strong positive ones for both candidates.
The survey also found voters who dislike both candidates but have chosen one anyway. McFerron said others may just stay home, even if they previously described themselves as likely to participate.
In a deadlocked runoff, the difference between a reluctant vote and a dissatisfied voter who stays home could decide the outcome.
What a reluctant vote means
With no third candidate in the race, dissatisfied Republicans must support Drummond, support Mazzei or sit out the Aug. 25 contest. Those who participate may cast affirmative ballots because they believe their candidate is the better choice—or defensive ballots primarily to prevent the other candidate from winning.
Their reservations are hardly surprising. Both campaigns have spent weeks giving voters reasons to reject the other candidate. The poll cannot prove that the rhetoric caused the unfavorable ratings, but the strategy makes political sense: In a close, two-person runoff, it may be easier to disqualify the opponent than to make your own candidate more appealing.
The risk is that both sides succeed, leaving voters unenthusiastic about either alternative. That risk could grow as the campaigns intensify their arguments during the final week.
One candidate will win the Republican nomination. Elections count ballots, not enthusiasm, so the result will not reveal how much of the winner’s support reflected genuine enthusiasm and how much was resistance to the alternative.
Don Hoover understood that distinction. Candidates do not always win by inspiring voters. Sometimes being the least offensive choice is enough.
