I've been watching the Anderson-Chaney race like a hawk for anything resembling coded racism. So far, I haven't been able to find any. Sure, Chaney is using his opponent's photo (as most candidates do in negative advertising)--but if Anderson's strategy rests in any way on voters not knowing he's black, I think that's a mistake. 68% of voters in 2003 had no idea who he was, according to a poll taken a few days before the election; if they did, they would have perhaps discovered that he was Musgrove's CFO, and by far more qualified than his 29-year-old bank teller opponent.
As a visible candidate, Anderson is incredibly solid. As an invisible candidate, Anderson is, like nearly all invisible candidates, not terribly competitive. I'll be voting for him and I hope he wins, but I have to say I haven't seen much of him this election cycle after the primaries ended. The only people who really seem to be getting behind him are DFA.
Mike Chaney is too strong a candidate, and too qualified a candidate, and too well-liked, to be taken lightly. I'm afraid Anderson will lose again, and I'm afraid it will once again be cited as proof that black candidates can't win statewide office in Mississippi. And that tends to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mr. Head, I completely disagree. Anderson is a very visible candidate. I guess it just depends on what you're reading and who you're hanging out with. Evidently, not people who think this insurance seat is vitally important to Mississippi's future. If you did, you would know that it would be a disaster for Chaney to win this race. Why? He's taking loads of money from insurance companies and he will be beholden to their interests, not ours. He even traveled to Baton Rouge last month for a little insurance hosted fundraiser. You might not see that in print or visible in his reports, but it happened. Gary is poised to win this campaign. He has policy holders from north to south working for him. A Gary Anderson win is an exciting prospect for many people in Mississippi. I believe he will win. While I read a lot of your posts and frankly agree with many of them, your authoritative tenor here is just off the mark. Just because you will it, doesn't mean it'll happen.
I agree that racism has not played a major or publicly visable role in this campaign and do not believe that Mike Chaney has encouraged any racist attacks. I think Chaney is actually a fine man, but the wrong man for the job.
I've been watching the Anderson-Chaney race like a hawk for anything resembling coded racism. So far, I haven't been able to find any. Sure, Chaney is using his opponent's photo (as most candidates do in negative advertising)--but if Anderson's strategy rests in any way on voters not knowing he's black, I think that's a mistake. 68% of voters in 2003 had no idea who he was, according to a poll taken a few days before the election; if they did, they would have perhaps discovered that he was Musgrove's CFO, and by far more qualified than his 29-year-old bank teller opponent.
ReplyDeleteAs a visible candidate, Anderson is incredibly solid. As an invisible candidate, Anderson is, like nearly all invisible candidates, not terribly competitive. I'll be voting for him and I hope he wins, but I have to say I haven't seen much of him this election cycle after the primaries ended. The only people who really seem to be getting behind him are DFA.
Mike Chaney is too strong a candidate, and too qualified a candidate, and too well-liked, to be taken lightly. I'm afraid Anderson will lose again, and I'm afraid it will once again be cited as proof that black candidates can't win statewide office in Mississippi. And that tends to function as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
TH, I'm in complete agreement. The issue is not his ethnicity. It's the campaign they've run. And this is true up and down the ballot.
ReplyDeleteand by far more qualified than his 29-year-old bank teller opponent.
ReplyDeleteReeves's resume spoke for itself in 2003. Nice pot-luck shot Mr. Head. I believe Tate Reeves has done a fine job. Age is nothing but a number.
Mr. Head,
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree. Anderson is a very visible candidate. I guess it just depends on what you're reading and who you're hanging out with. Evidently, not people who think this insurance seat is vitally important to Mississippi's future. If you did, you would know that it would be a disaster for Chaney to win this race. Why? He's taking loads of money from insurance companies and he will be beholden to their interests, not ours. He even traveled to Baton Rouge last month for a little insurance hosted fundraiser. You might not see that in print or visible in his reports, but it happened. Gary is poised to win this campaign. He has policy holders from north to south working for him. A Gary Anderson win is an exciting prospect for many people in Mississippi. I believe he will win. While I read a lot of your posts and frankly agree with many of them, your authoritative tenor here is just off the mark. Just because you will it, doesn't mean it'll happen.
I agree that racism has not played a major or publicly visable role in this campaign and do not believe that Mike Chaney has encouraged any racist attacks. I think Chaney is actually a fine man, but the wrong man for the job.
ReplyDelete