Analysis: Nixon, Opponents Rely Too Heavily on Too Few Arguments

Missouri governor Jay Nixon faced both of his challengers in his reelection bid at a debate sponsored by the Missouri Press Association on Friday morning. Nixon, a Democrat, is running for a second four-year term against St. Louis businessman Dave Spence, a Republican, and Libertarian candidate Jim Higgins. The hour-long debate covered topics ranging from jobs and education to health care to the Army Corps of Engineers’ policies toward the Missouri river.

All three candidates took fairly simple approaches to their arguments. Nixon relied primarily on his record as governor, citing such actions as bringing Ford and General Motors plants to Missouri and passing record levels of K-12 education funding. Spence centered his argument around private sector jobs, claiming most of Missouri’s job growth has been in government jobs. Preliminary Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the state added a little more than 10,000 government jobs in August 2012, a roughly 0.8 percent change from 12 months earlier. Higgins build his argument around the size of government, claiming government in Missouri and throughout the country has become too large and intrusive.

Since Nixon is the incumbent, he has the advantage of being able to run on his existing gubernatorial record. He should beware of letting this make him complacent, however. During the debate, Nixon spoke primarily about what he had done or was currently doing, not what he would do if elected to a second term. The “stay the course” argument will work up to a point, but Nixon would do well to spend a little more time talking about his ideas for a second term in future debates.

Spence offers a compelling argument that more private sector jobs would fix most or all of Missouri’s problems. In truth, more employment would mean more income to tax, which would mean more tax revenue. Spence did offer several ideas for spurring job growth, including tort and workers’ compensation reform, enacting right-to-work legislation, and eliminating pay-to-play. The problem is, Spence relied too heavily on the jobs argument. He did address improving government efficiency but did not give this problem the attention he did the jobs argument. According to RealClearPolitics, Spence faced a nine-point deficit to Nixon in the polls on August 23, although it should be noted this spread was calculated by a Democratic-leaning polling firm. Spence will need to go beyond merely talking about jobs if he is going to close this gap.

Higgins’ arguments were more philosophical than solutions-oriented. Throughout the debate, he called for letting the market decide how to best allocate services and allowing greater individual freedom. He offered very few specific ideas throughout the debate as to what sorts of policies he might pursue as governor, ideas which would have made his arguments much more compelling. When he did offer up specific ideas, he was able to start a solid debate about a particular policy idea. At one point in the debate, Higgins proposed allowing school vouchers, a policy which both Nixon and Spence subsequently repudiated. The Libertarian withdrew from further argument, but he had successfully instigated a back-and-forth debate over a concrete policy proposal of his. It would be in Higgins’, and the voters’, interest to spark more such debates. Doing so would draw more attention to his ideas, to say nothing of putting all the candidates’ ideas on display for voters to consider.

All three candidates should strongly consider expanding their argument stockpiles both for future debates and for the remainder of the campaign. They make grand philosophical arguments, but more concrete examples of what they would like to do as governor would make for much more interesting and informative debates. Doing this would allow Spence or Higgins, or both, to gain ground in the polls, or allow Nixon to extend or maintain his current lead.