Why Respond To Your Opponent?

Tate Reeves and Delbert Hosemann have one thing in common that we have seen from both campaigns that may raise questions. As the favorites, they both responded to criticism and took their opponents on. Hosemann was in a much stronger position that Reeves, and he never affected his likability in my opinion, but I was pretty shocked in his mailer and Neshoba speech directly going after Ricky Dombrowski.

As for Reeves, he was the early frontrunner. For some time, Billy Hewes had been pretty aggressive. Reeves though didn’t have the lead like Hosemann does in my opinion, but his campaign was showing him up 40. But for the past month or so, it has basically been back-and-forth between the two. Reeves also agreed to a debate, something Hewes had been calling for for awhile now. I don’t think Reeves lost anything because of it, but there is the old belief that a frontrunner has nothing to gain and everything to lose in that type of forum.

Would completely ignoring Hewes have even been possible for Reeves? I don’t know, but Jim Hood and Phil Bryant largely have done it and are in good shape. But you could argue that Hewes’ attacks, if left unchecked, would have greatly driven Reeves’ negatives up and cost him by doing nothing. Certainly two sides to this debate.

When you analyze this race, Reeves just isn’t running it like someone with that substantial of a lead. Just based on the way the campaign has gone recently, it feels a lot closer than the conventional wisdom. There may or may not be anything to that.