The Tennessee 3rd District race is over, and incumbent GOP Rep. Chuck Fleischmann has fought back a challenge from Weston Wamp. According to the state election site, Fleischmann defeated Wamp by about 1,700 votes out of some 90,000 cast.
This was one of the most fascinating races I’ve ever seen. A 51-year-old, conservative Republican two-term Congressman, who always votes in line with his conservative constituents, had to fight for his political life against a 27-year-old (from his own party) who has never been elected to anything. Two years ago, the incumbent had to do the same thing, plus run against Scotty Mayfield, whose very name invokes ice cream and bow ties. Fleischmann won both these bloody battles, and may now be able to cruise for years to come. Would anyone want to spend a few hundred thousand dollars to fight this guy again?
It’s true, Fleischmann must still defeat Democrat Mary Headrick in November, as he had to do in 2012. But if Thursday’s election taught us nothing else, it is this: Hamilton County, and the 3rd district, is GOP country. Popular, respected Democrats like incumbent Criminal Court Clerk Gwen Tidwell, Public Defender Ardena Garth and County Commission candidate Kenny Smith were all beaten in large part because of the (D) beside their names. Which brings us to: the President of the United States.
Is it possible that Weston Wamp lost this election because of this photograph?
In July 2013, the President visited Amazon’s Chattanooga facility. Weston Wamp, and his father Zach, the former 3rd District Congressman, were on hand to greet the president. As was widely reported, the incumbent Congressman, Chuck Fleischmann was not present. Throughout the campaign, Fleischmann and his supporters used every opportunity to show this photo, and to use Wamp’s own quotes (in and out of context) to illustrate that Wamp would not constantly differ with Obama, in direct contrast to Fleischmann. Wamp would not characterize himself as a Friend Of Obama, but stressed that he would “reach across the aisle” to the President and other Democrats to fight the stalemate that has largely paralyzed Washington. Judging from the results, a slight majority of 3rd District residents liked Fleischmann’s message better than Wamp’s.
Wamp also characterized the campaign as a referendum on negative advertising. Again, by a 51-49 margin, negative advertising came out on top. The most widely cited example was this photoshopped image, distributed by the Fleischmann campaign, of Wamp (or at least his head, attached to someone else’s body) “burning” a passport:
Some observers considered this repulsive. One former elected official, who backed Fleischmann in the campaign, told me on Thursday that Fleischmann would win this election 51-49, which he did. He said, “But he has no clue about how to be a candidate. He’s not a bad Congressman, but this race shouldn’t even be close. The fact that he has to resort to (negative advertising) against an unproven opponent tells me he’s getting a lot of bad advice.” I can’t help but wonder, though: Did the negative ads put Fleischmann over the top? Or did they turn many voters against him, making the race closer than it should have been?
Two weeks ago, internal campaign polls showed the two candidates running about even, each with about 44 percent of the vote. At the time, one insider revealed to me that a large number of voters weren’t voting “for” either candidate; they were voting “against” one or the other. Each was showing high negative numbers. Wamp was surely hurt because of his youth and inexperience, along with the purported “Obama connection” and his ill-advised taping of a conversation at Mayfield’s home. Other voters were turned off by Fleischmann’s negative tone, and his shrill performance in a televised debate.
However, by Thursday three people in a position to know told me that Fleischmann’s numbers started to improve in the final week of the campaign. All three said they expected Fleischmann to score a narrow victory, in the 1-2 percent range. They were spot-on. The major surprises were Wamp’s failure to win Hamilton County, as he did in 2012, and his better-than-expected showing in the northern part of the district. Evidently, his decision to invest in an RV, spending many a night in Anderson, Roane and Union counties was a wise one, but may have cost him his edge at home in Hamilton.
No doubt, there’s a lot of second-guessing in the Wamp camp. Just like losing a close baseball game, which play made the difference? Welcoming Obama to Amazon? Taping Mayfield at his home? Not striking back with negative ads? We’ll never really know. It’s also possible that by painting himself closer to the center, Wamp alienated the far right. Moderates, by definition aren’t as passionate about their politics. Perhaps some of them didn’t bother to vote. Red-meat conservatives, on the other hand, always go to the polls, come hell or high water.
Now with Fleischmann heavily favored to win a third term in November, what may we expect in 2016? President Obama won’t be on the ballot, but his name and legacy will likely be present in our local Congressional campaign. That is, IF any Republican dares to challenge Fleischmann. Let’s be real: in 2012 and 2014, fellow Republicans have thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars at this supposedly vulnerable incumbent, to no avail. This year, Wamp got the match-up he wanted: one on one. Yet the results are the same. The Wamp-Fleischmann blood rivalry, reminiscent of the Ewing-Barnes battles on “Dallas,” probably won’t go away, despite Fleischmann’s victory speech invitation for the Wamps to “join us.” The Wamps have now lost three straight high-profile elections (Zach’s gubernatorial race in 2010, plus Weston’s two failed attempts at Congress). Both are quite young, in political years. Weston is 27, Zach is 56. (Senator Lamar Alexander was just re-elected to a six-year term at 74). One, or both of them have plenty of time to get back in the arena.
After Thursday, though, I doubt it will be any time soon.
