James Lankford (R OK-5) to run for Tom Coburn's Senate Seat

[Maxwell]

What about polling in this Senate campaign?

The only thing that matters is the primary because whether it's Shannon or Lankford who wins in June, there's no chance Constance Johnson wins and would be lucky if she even got 30%. She's too liberal (even for me) to do well at all in OK. From what I found on her, she wants to raise the minimum wage, is very pro-choice, and truly believes she can legalize, regulate and tax marijuana in a state where the legislature and Governor Fallin would never do such thing. She's quoted as saying it's a "winnable race" to even though Dems haven't won a Senate race in OK since 1990 and haven't held this seat since 1968, so her optimo-meter has gone off the deep end.

And considering the large proliferation of the state party that aren't liberals, she may actually do worse than a generic Oklahoma Democrat would do, but she'll nonetheless beat out Jim Rogers for the nomination and do better than his 2010 performance. On the plus side, her run did give Brad Henry the opportunity to decline a run in the shadows without having to feel guilty or anything. It still would have been nice to see Boren run for the seat, though.

I'm not so sure your right. I haven't seen a Black Democrat run in Oklahoma, so I think she may pull some voters from the poorest neighborhoods in Tulsa to vote harder than normal. She'll probably end up a little worse than usual, but I think it would be surprising.

She would also have stronger infrastructure than a 20% performance, just by being a state senator.

And if it were Lankford, who is a religious conservative who has a meh record on fiscal policy, and Johnson, who has the bravery to be very liberal, I would give her some consideration.

[Maxwell]

Guys, you could never hold elected office in your life and still be part of the "Establishment." It's all about who you're cozy with. The point (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing because I know next to nothing about Lankford) is that he's been close to the House leaders who are generally regarded as Establishment forces.

Thank you. It's really not that hard to see.

[Maxwell]

Oh boy!

As a Tulsa voter, I am totally undecided between Shannon and Brogdon. Lankford has been an Religious Righter and affiliated with Republican leadership, and that's unacceptable to me. Not that Shannon isn't, but Lankford has certainly embraced those values and said no to Fiscal Conservatism by comparison to other Oklahoma Republicans.

[Maxwell]

oh if only we lived in a theocracy

[Maxwell]

In Lankford's district, the first openly gay Democratic state senator is running for the nomination - State Senator Al McAffrey. Besides being, well, openly gay, he seems to have a good reputation, but that may be a bridge too far for Oklahoma.

Not sure he'd be any worse than Tom Guild, the 2012 nominee running again, he did a couple points worse than Obama in the district. Then again, Lankford was the incumbent, so it may have been a solid performance.

OK-5 is the least Republican District in the state, but it's also the most culturally Republican - I think they've gone the longest since a Democrat has represented them.

[Maxwell]

you're from OK-5. Does anyone look like a front-runner in the GOP primary, is it just a blood mess?

[Maxwell]

Thanks Grant. I'll be watching this race to see what happens here, but it looks like there are at least 3 [maybe Russell too] candidates who could make the run-off.

[Maxwell]

Max,

I'm new to OK-1.  Do you know if there are any viable candidates running for Bridenstine's seat on either side of the aisle?  How do you like Bridenstine?

OK-1 is extremely Republican [even for Oklahoma], and Bridenstine isn't going face a credible challenger, to his right or to his left. The only reason Sullivan was held to relatively weak margins for a long time was because he had a relatively strong opponent and he's scandal ridden and rehab prone. Since Sullivan's been defeated, this district won't be competitive any time soon.

In fact, Bridenstine is running completely unopposed.

Bridenstine is one of the better House Republicans in mind - fairly anti-leadership, voted with the Amash defund the NSA bill. That being said, he's also kind of a fringe character, more in line with Ted Cruz than Rand Paul. You probably won't like him.

[Maxwell]

Shannon's going to win this, right? Or is Oklahoma too racist? This would be the second black-on-black Senate race after Obama vs. Keyes 2004, right?

Shannon has momentum on his side. I could see a large win for him. Lankford is doing too little too late.

[Maxwell]

Could Lankford be rebounding?

I don't think so. I would be super surprised if he were. The poll for the Lankford uptick was done at the same time as the first poll to show Shannon ahead. If Lankford manages to win, I would be shocked.

[Maxwell]

I'm not sure I believe a poll that has Shannon ahead with moderates, considering the way Shannon is jockeying.

[Maxwell]

Regarding the recent poll, Shannon trails among Tea Partiers, conservatives, and religous voters.

Edit 1: Also, Poll results by congressional district. Shannon's winning in Tulsa and the SE, Lankford's winning in OKC and the NW.

Edit 2: If anyone cares enough, Lankford, Shannon, and Brogdon all do a Q&A on a Tulsa radio show.

Racists.

Um, Tulsa is definitely farther to the right than Oklahoma City. If the Republican primary voters of Oklahoma were in fact voting for Lankford and against Shannon because the former is white and the latter is black, it seems more likely that Shannon would be most competitive in Oklahoma City and not lead anywhere else in the state.

Simfan is obviously joking, but that's beside the point.

I think that's a fair point, but Oklahoma City is far more Republican than Tulsa, if that makes sense.

[Maxwell]

Least surprising endorsement in the world: Watts for Shannon.

Not surprising but nevertheless helpful. Watts is still a popular name here, even though he hasn't been in congress for years.

[Maxwell]

This is lack of party discipline at work. The party grandees know it would be good for the party for Shannon to win. Yet they aren't able to make this Lankford fellow see this and act in the good of the party.

So you're against the crazy Tea Party loons like Dave Brat (and get pretty riled up and existential when they win), except when they're black, then you're for them?

Is there much ideological difference between Shannon and Lankford though? My (rather distant) understanding is that this isn't the archetypical Tea Party vs Establishment race and that both are pretty close on that spectrum.

It's sort of like the Nebraska race where it's more that Lankford has ties to establishment characters while Shannon has ties with the Tea Party (though he was a staffer for Tom Cole). However, I would say that Lankford is defined a bit more by socon-ness and by not being a bomb thrower.

[Maxwell]

Man, Oklahoma still has some Bradley effect for statewide Republican primary. tsk tsk.

[Maxwell]

Not sure when the run-off is, but I feel like I should re-register Democrat to vote for Johnson. She certainly has my vote against Lankford.

[Maxwell]

Maxwell, any speculation as to how Rogers keeps getting nominated?

Does anyone have an answer?

Because he faces equally incompetent candidates or, in the case of Johnson, faces candidates too liberal for the Oklahoma Democratic Electorate. There is black population in Oklahoma, but chances are, they don't turn out. ever.

Add to that a general lack of enthusiasm from Oklahoma Dems about any Democrat running for office, especially since Obama has been in office.