Mississippi

Mississippi Governor’s Race: 

Can Democrat Jim Hood Pull Off A Shocking Upset?

On November 5, 2019, the states of Kentucky and Mississippi will host their gubernatorial elections. In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant (R) is term limited and will pass the torch to either his Lieutenant Governor Tate Reeves (R) or to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood (D). Like in Kentucky, rural voters will make up a large amount of the electorate. In Mississippi, 50.3% of the state’s population is considered rural, but unlike in Kentucky, a large portion of Mississippi’s rural population is African American. African Americans make up 37.59% of Mississippi’s total population and many of these individuals live in rural areas. The so-called "Black Belt" in Mississippi is home to a plethora of majority African American rural towns and constitutes the heart of the Democrat’s voter base in the state. 

Kentucky and Mississippi share a number of similarities in addition to being heavily rural. Republicans currently dominate national politics in the two states and both are considered to be among the reddest states in the country. However, on the local level each state has historically voted Democrat, but has seen Republicans dominate in recent years. In addition, the Democrat’s candidates for governor in Mississippi and Kentucky also happen to be their respective state’s Attorney General. That, however, is where the similarities largely end between the two states and between Democratic candidates Jim Hood of Mississippi and Andy Beshear of Kentucky. 

Jim Hood is not your typical Democrat. He is anti-abortion, owns a large stock of firearms, yet has taken up popular Democrat positions, such as prosecuting former members of the KKK, Medicaid expansion, and increased funding for education. Hood also notably refused to file suit against the Affordable Care Act during the Obama Administration. 

Medicaid expansion is perhaps Hood’s biggest rallying cry. In Mississippi’s first gubernatorial debate on October 10, 2019, Hood lambasted his gubernatorial opponent, Tate Reeves, for refusing to take “a billion dollars a year” in federal money to expand Medicaid in Mississippi. Under Gov. Bryant, Mississippi has refused to take federal funds to expand Medicaid and other health programs despite the fact it would cost the state nothing to do so. In the debate, Hood also argued that Reeves’ initiatives, as Lieutenant Governor, have failed, and that he has not done enough for working people. 

Tax cuts are another issue that Hood has attacked Reeves on. Hood has accused Reeves and Gov. Bryant of handing out “$765 million in tax giveaways, mainly to benefit large, out-of-state corporations.” Continuing to focus on the issues, Hood has implored voters to look at their own pocketbooks rather than listen to what politicians are saying about the tax cuts. This messaging is potent in a state with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 

Tate Reeves, as Lieutenant Governor, has had little choice but to embrace the policies of Gov. Bryant’s administration, especially on their signature issue of tax cuts. In 2016, Governor Bryant signed into law a sweeping tax overhaul, which did the following:

1.     Eliminated corporate franchise taxes;

2.     Eliminated the 3% individual income and corporate income tax brackets; and 

3.     Allowed self-employed Mississippians to exempt a portion of their federal self-employment tax in their state tax filings. 

Lieutenant Governor Reeves spearheaded this tax cut and he has stood by the approximately $700 million in tax breaks that were handed out during the Bryant administration. These tax breaks have come at the expense of hundreds of millions of lost state revenue. 

Jim Hood has relentlessly attacked the tax cuts for being a handout to corporations and ignoring working people. A 2013 study by Mississippi’s Department of Revenue showed that 111 of the state’s 150 largest companies paid no income tax. Paired with the Bryant/Reeves tax bill, Mississippi now has almost no way to tax corporations. Mississippi also has the highest sales tax on food in the country, at 7%, despite having the highest poverty rate in the nation. Hood has, and needs, to keep hammering home the point that the tax cuts only have benefitted corporations and not working people. In a state with high poverty this message is not only potent, but necessary to get the Democrat across the line to victory. 

A candidate must control the messaging/narrative of a campaign and attack the strengths of the opposing candidate to win. Jim Hood has both controlled the narrative of this race and successfully attacked many of Tate Reeves’ strengths. Reeves would argue that his biggest strength is that he has lowered the tax burden on Mississippi citizens and created a strong economy. While Reeves can point to being pro-gun and anti-abortion, these points are somewhat moot since Hood also holds these positions. The lack of difference between the two candidates on these positions has allowed Hood to focus almost entirely on Reeves’ tax and economic policies. Policies which have arguably contributed to a sputtering local economy and a stagnant population growth.

Mississippi ranks dead last among U.S. states in per capita income. The much-ballyhooed tax cut, while still early in its cycle, will in no way be enough to turn around these ghastly economic facts Mississippi citizens earn more than 10% less than the next lowest state, per capita. Economically, the state has been completely left behind in every facet. It is against this background that Reeves simply cannot win solely on his economic and tax record. To be the poorest state in the country, but still not accept a billion dollars in Medicaid funds is economic malfeasance and Hood has been relentless in hammering this point home. 

At no point has Tate Reeves controlled the narrative of the election in his matchup against Hood. Republicans and Reeves simply do not know how to handle Jim Hood’s candidacy. Throughout the campaign, Reeves seemingly has been unable to undercut any of Hood’s attacks. Even more alarming is that Reeves has had trouble espousing his vision for Mississippi. To “stand with President Trump to ring the alarm about the emergency on our border,” as Reeves discusses on his campaign page about crime, is not a real vision for improving Mississippi. Talking points like this one will certainly play well in Trump’s reelection campaign, but unlike Trump, Reeves is not running for President. 

Reeves’ focus on national politics certainly does carry some benefit but it also has allowed for Hood to control the narrative on local and state policy initiatives. Voters are attracted to Hood’s policy proposals on Medicaid expansion and pay raises for educators. Hood has been relentless in addressing those topic and Reeves has not been forceful enough in defending his own policies, especially on health care. 

Reeves is still the favorite in this race, but his campaign’s portrayal of himself as a continuation of the Bryant administration and as a loyal foot soldier for Trump has done him no favors. Neither of these visions undercut any of Hood’s strengths or give Reeves any personality. Reeves should be a more compelling candidate. He became Mississippi’s State Treasurer at only 29 years of age and was also the first Republican in the state’s history to be elected to the position. Despite his biography, Republicans and Reeves are banking entirely on nationalizing the governor’s race instead of making Reeves himself the focal point. 

Reeves has continued to spout generic, national Republican attack lines against Hood, despite Hood’s well-defined brand. On his campaign issues page, Reeves does not mention Hood at all on health care but instead mentions Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Reeves has also engaged directly with Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Twitter instead of focusing all of his fire on Hood. 

It is clear that Republicans and Reeves prefer to nationalize this election, but it has transformed Reeves into a generic candidate with no personality or attention paid to local issues. Additionally, nationalizing the race has done nothing to undercut any of the strengths that voters like about Jim Hood. For these reasons, recent polls show Reeves only maintaining a three point edge over Hood, despite Mississippi’s overwhelmingly dark red hue.

Tate Reeves does carry three advantages over Jim Hood. The first is that the election is taking place in Mississippi. Donald Trump carried Mississippi by about 18 points over Hillary Clinton and Democrats have only won the governor’s mansion oncesince 1991. While Mississippi boasts the highest percentage of African Americans for any U.S. state, white voters are still in the majority.

White voters without college degrees made up 37% of the electorate in Mississippi’s 2018 Senatorial election. These voters gave Republican Roger Wicker an astounding 87-11 percent margin over Democrat David Baria in 2018. While Hood has been elected Attorney General every year since 2003, and thus won a greater share of white voters without a college degree than Baria did, he will face stiffer headwinds than previous elections.  

Reeves’ second advantage is that he has an ace up his sleeve in Donald Trump. Trump will likely visit the Magnolia State on November 1, 2019, and members of Trump’s family have already campaigned in the state as well. Trump’s campaigning in Mississippi, in 2018, was a contributing factor to carrying scandal-ridden U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde Smith (R) across the finish line to victory. Republicans have every reason to nationalize Mississippi’s governor’s race and take advantage of Trump’s vast popularity in the state. 

Reeves’ third advantage is money. In the last documented quarter, Reeves raised a solid $5.8 million as opposed to Hood’s $2.2 million. As of September, Hood only had $1.1 million in cash, as opposed to Reeves’ $3.2 million. It is likely that Hood won’t receive much more outside funding either. Hood’s positions on abortion and guns are out of step with many Democrat donors. Hood’s reluctance to be tied to national Democrats means he likely will not seek out those donors and will be limited in the amount of money he can raise. Reeves, meanwhile, can continue to count on outside Republican money. 

Perhaps an unseen fourth advantage for Reeves could be Mississippi’s bizarre Jim Crow-era constitution. Mississippi’s 1890 state constitution requires a statewide candidate to not only win a majority of votes, but to also win a majority of the state’s 122 House districts. If no candidate achieves both then the state legislature will get to choose, between the top two vote-getters, who becomes the next governor. 

This requirement was made in 1890 for the sole purpose of preventing African American candidates from achieving any statewide election victories. Indeed, despite having the highest percentage of African Americans in the entire country, no African American has ever won a statewide office since this law was enacted. The law is currently being challenged in federal court. 

It is entirely feasible that Jim Hood could win a majority of votes while Tate Reeves wins a majority of the state’s 122 House districts. This scenario happened in 1999, when Democrat Ronnie Musgrove won about 9,000 more votes than Republican Mike Parker, but the two opponents tied in electoral votes won. Mississippi’s then-Democrat led State House voted to appoint Musgrove as governor in 1999. With Republicans now dominating the Mississippi State House, however, it is possible that Hood could win a majority of votes, only to see the State House appoint Reeves as governor. Only time will tell to see if this outdated election quirk rears its head in this election. 

Unlike Kentucky’s gubernatorial election, Mississippi likely will not provide any insight into the 2020 presidential election. Mississippi will undoubtedly vote Republican in 2020 and the state’s high African American rural population will not provide the same bellwether as Kentucky for rural voters as a whole. Mississippi is only as close as it is in the polls due to Jim Hood. Hood has done the unthinkable and made the state a toss up for governor. 

Despite Hood’s efforts, however, the partisan tilt of Mississippi will be just enough to give Tate Reeves the victory. Reeves’ money advantage coupled with Donald Trump’s visit to the Magnolia State will be just enough to avoid an embarrassing defeat for the Republicans in Mississippi. 

PREDICTION: Tate Reeves (R) defeats Jim Hood (D) by a 2-4 point margin