Crying Fowl

posted by Josh Goodman

Oklahoma State University political scientist Bob Darcy has just done his best to dispel me of one of my favorite urban rural legends: That Brad Henry was elected governor of Oklahoma because of cockfighting.

First, here's the story. In 2002, in addition to the race for governor between Henry, a fairly conservative Democrat, and Steve Largent, a Republican congressman, there was a referendum on the ballot to ban cockfighting. At the time, Oklahoma was one of only three states to allow the fowl fights.

Largent decried the practice as "barbaric" and supported the ban, but Henry opposed the ban, saying the penalties were too harsh. As the story goes, conservative, rural Democrats showed up in big numbers as a result and propelled Henry to his upset victory.

But, according to Darcy, only a birdbrain would believe that.

He points out that the journalists who like to repeat the story often ignore an important fact: The voters approved the ban on cockfighting by a health margin, 56-44%. So, if cockfighting had truly been the dominant issue for most voters, Largent would have won. "It's a great story to write," Darcy says, but adds, "It's kind of a cheap shot at Oklahomans and it trivializes the election itself."

Instead, Darcy says Largent focused too much on divisive issues, while Henry capitalized by exuding non-ideological competency. It didn't hurt either that Henry had the endorsement of former Oklahoma University football coach Barry Switzer.

This was all very depressing to me, since I love a good yarn more than most. However, I'm planning on traveling to Arizona next week and hoping to find some solace there. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano was only elected because her opponent was viewed as soft on polygamy. At least that's what they say.

   

Comments

[Alan Ehrenhalt]

I don't follow Darcy's logic. The statewide votein favor of the cockfighting ban doesn't preclude an unusual number of rural Democrats coming out to vote on the pro-cockfighting side, and also giving a booost to Henry, does it?

[Josh]

It certainly doesn't. Although he didn't say it in so many words, I think Darcy believes that urban or suburban voters felt more comfortable with Largent because of his stand against cockfighting, making the issue a wash.
I still am inclined to think it was a net benefit to Henry, since, at least from observing from more than 1,000 miles away, it seems that the people who felt more intensely about the issue were the cockfighting supporters. And, given that Henry's margin was only a few thousand votes, it probably made enough of a difference to explain his entire margin. But with an election that was that tight, probably almost any factor, up to and including what color ties the candidates wore to the debates, shifted enough to "decide" the election. Darcy clearly thought others besides cockfighting were more important.