The Oklahoman: 'Tried Rice'

Editorial/The Oklahoman ~ Politicians caught in an indiscretion are said to have some 'splainin' to do. Front-runners who fail to dominate their primary election have some catchin' up to do.

Andrew Rice has some 'splainin' and catchin' up to do.

Rice, the state senator from Oklahoma City, should have walloped his no-name opponent in Tuesday's Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Instead, the opponent got 40 percent of the vote. Worse, Rice lost 19 counties and came close to losing a half dozen others. Even worse, most of these counties are Democratic strongholds.

Meanwhile, incumbent Sen. Jim Inhofe, who already has an edge over Rice in name recognition and popularity, beat three no-name challengers in the Republican primary with 84 percent of the vote.

Rice took the primary seriously, with a vigorous ad campaign and personal appearances. His legislative voting record, while solidly Democratic, is more centrist than Republican strategists would have you believe. So why did Rice surrender so many votes to Jim Rogers?

Rogers is virtually unknown, spent no money to campaign and offered voters little reason to choose him. Either his support was more anti-Rice than pro-Rogers or Rice hasn't yet made a name for himself, even among Democrats.

Four years ago, the Democratic nominee for a Senate seat won with 79 percent support in a five-man race.

Rice got 60 percent in a two-man contest. He lost the three Panhandle counties and most southern tier counties. His strongest support came in urban counties, but even there he failed to top 72 percent. And in Okmulgee County, which came as close as any county in Oklahoma to give majority support to John Kerry in 2004, Rice failed to reach 70 percent.

A 60 percent win is a landslide by any measure. But when your opponent is unknown (and perhaps unknowable), the landslide is more like a Slip 'n Slide — exciting but potentially dangerous.

Share |