State Rep. Billy Montgomery switched his partisan affiliation Monday to Republican. Term-limited in his House seat, Montgomery has eyes on the Senate District 37 seat held by also term-limited Republican Max Malone. Malone has perhaps the most conservative voting record in the Senate, matching that this perhaps is the most conservative Senate district in Louisiana, and as an election ploy Montgomery, whose views are no different today than last week, is trying to discourage GOP competition for the seat. (At the same time he changed his registration, he also changed his tax records to reflect a residence in the district.)
It won’t work, principally because of a voting record favoring tax-and-spend priorities and wasteful government as usual that Montgomery has racked up in his almost two decades in Baton Rouge. Here’s a list of his 10 most liberal/populist votes from just the past couple of years:
2005 Regular Session
HB 763 – voted for higher gasoline prices by mandating a government-determined artificial floor to be placed on its price
HB 887 – voted for a “sick tax” of 1.5 percent that would be passed along in many cases to health care consumers
HB 1 (vote on Tucker amendment) – voted against raising teachers’ salaries without raising taxes
2005 First Extraordinary Session
SB 44 – voted against construction standards that would increase building safety
2006 First Extraordinary Session
SB 22 – voted for the wasteful satellite voting centers which cost Louisiana taxpayers about $375 a voter (nearly 40 times the normal cost per voter) when the perfectly good, far cheaper, and as effective early voting system by mail was an option
2006 Regular Session
HB 194 – voted for raising the minimum wage for state employees which would waste taxpayer dollars by overpaying even more than ever instead of wages being determined by market conditions
HB 685 – voted for mandating the sale of ethanol in gasoline regardless of whether it was higher priced
HB 1028 – voted for creating preferential availability to taxpayer-backed insurance for state legislators (which caused such a hue and cry that it later was vetoed)
HB 1129 – voted for enabling more money to be easily spent on wasteful, dubious “economic development” projects, in this instance Poverty Point Reservoir
HB 1281 – voted for subsidizing with taxpayer dollars a private golf course
Note that this doesn’t include his committee votes which perhaps even more display a liberal/populist record. Stretching the time frame back a number of years turns up plenty of similar such votes. By contrast, District 37 encompasses House District 8, represented by conservative Republican Mike Powell; on these 10 votes over the past two years, Powell voted the opposite of Montgomery on nine of them.
It’s not that Montgomery is an irredeemable liberal and populist; for example, he did sponsor HB 645 this past session which would have reduced cable television rates (although even though he is one of the longest-serving members he lacked the political clout to prevent a veto of it). It’s just that District 37 Republicans and conservatives who make up the district’s majority are unlikely to accept the less-than-half a loaf with which Montgomery presents them ideologically. There is little doubt that Caddo-Bossier Republican activists will do their best to search for and support a genuine conservative, probably of long standing in the party. If Montgomery thought a switch now would discourage this, he’s probably wrong.
3.10.06
Unusually-informed electorate passed amendments
With all 13 amendments to the Louisiana Constitution, some easily, others narrowly, passing last Saturday, what does say about the electorate’s preferences?
First, there appears to be confusion in the interpreting this event. One observer believes that all succeeded, despite the fact that questionable wording on two of them means they may not do what was intended, because “chronic” voters registered affirmative votes out of “trust” of government. Those in political science who study voting behavior and turnout relating to ballot propositions could not concur in that assessment.
This election featured largely isolated propositions – that is, only two statewide special election contests for state offices joined them on the ballot. These are precisely the kinds of elections that disproportionately attract the most informed kind of voters, people with a higher degree of interest in politics. Those with lower interest are more likely to stay home, because there are not on the ballot high profile partisan contests, widely and regularly reported in the media with aggressive campaign organizations spewing forth electioneering materials to the public. So if we equate “chronic” with higher-interest, as a behavioral pattern of these kinds of voters, this does not mean they “trust” government more and vote accordingly, because we also know that there is no relationship between trust in government and higher- and lower-interest people. Therefore, we cannot say that it is greater “trust” that disproportionately produced “yes” votes.
Where they may be a relationship, however, is in the relative level of turnout and the likelihood of approval or disapproval. As turnout increases, more and more marginal voters appear who often are distrusting of the propositions which by definition change things. As less-involved citizens, they are more likely to take the attitude, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” and, being less informed and probably more in doubt of what propositions mean, become more likely to vote against something. If anybody, they would “trust” government more.
While a retired colleague in the profession argues the passage of over two-thirds of state amendments since the 1974 Constitution shows a tendency to vote affirmative demonstrates the electorate’s pliability to supporting government initiatives, in fact a more discriminating view indicates otherwise. In the 21st century, 49 amendments have been proposed of which 14 (the other besides last Saturday’s being the prohibition against same-sex marriage in 2004) have not had any of a presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial election at the top of the ballot. All have passed. Of the others that did have big races topping the ballot, only 22 of 35 have passed.
This is because of the bias of marginal voters against changing the constitution. Further proof may be obtained by noting in 2006 two measures basically identical to two 2002 failed measures ended up passing – investments in equities for Medicaid funds and by institutes of higher learning. They won this time with about 610,000 and 595,000 total votes, respectively (each winning handily) while in 2002 they both (narrowly) lost with about a million votes cast for each.
In other words, perhaps half of the electorate this time was better-informed voters (note: even at this level they still only comprise 11 percent of the total electorate), and the other half not. Propositions won because the more-informed voters saw merit in them (the vast majority on some items, but even about half of them with the flawed amendments, which, one should note, may or may not be defective in wording; their flaws are because of possible multiple interpretations of them, but that does not mean they won’t be interpreted in the way their authors’ intended – still, the safest thing to do with them is to try again).
So the 2006 amendment results are not a product of an electorate trustful of government, but of a more-discriminating electorate than typically seen deciding on ballot propositions. Understanding current Louisiana electoral behavior requires understanding this.
First, there appears to be confusion in the interpreting this event. One observer believes that all succeeded, despite the fact that questionable wording on two of them means they may not do what was intended, because “chronic” voters registered affirmative votes out of “trust” of government. Those in political science who study voting behavior and turnout relating to ballot propositions could not concur in that assessment.
This election featured largely isolated propositions – that is, only two statewide special election contests for state offices joined them on the ballot. These are precisely the kinds of elections that disproportionately attract the most informed kind of voters, people with a higher degree of interest in politics. Those with lower interest are more likely to stay home, because there are not on the ballot high profile partisan contests, widely and regularly reported in the media with aggressive campaign organizations spewing forth electioneering materials to the public. So if we equate “chronic” with higher-interest, as a behavioral pattern of these kinds of voters, this does not mean they “trust” government more and vote accordingly, because we also know that there is no relationship between trust in government and higher- and lower-interest people. Therefore, we cannot say that it is greater “trust” that disproportionately produced “yes” votes.
Where they may be a relationship, however, is in the relative level of turnout and the likelihood of approval or disapproval. As turnout increases, more and more marginal voters appear who often are distrusting of the propositions which by definition change things. As less-involved citizens, they are more likely to take the attitude, “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” and, being less informed and probably more in doubt of what propositions mean, become more likely to vote against something. If anybody, they would “trust” government more.
While a retired colleague in the profession argues the passage of over two-thirds of state amendments since the 1974 Constitution shows a tendency to vote affirmative demonstrates the electorate’s pliability to supporting government initiatives, in fact a more discriminating view indicates otherwise. In the 21st century, 49 amendments have been proposed of which 14 (the other besides last Saturday’s being the prohibition against same-sex marriage in 2004) have not had any of a presidential, senatorial, or gubernatorial election at the top of the ballot. All have passed. Of the others that did have big races topping the ballot, only 22 of 35 have passed.
This is because of the bias of marginal voters against changing the constitution. Further proof may be obtained by noting in 2006 two measures basically identical to two 2002 failed measures ended up passing – investments in equities for Medicaid funds and by institutes of higher learning. They won this time with about 610,000 and 595,000 total votes, respectively (each winning handily) while in 2002 they both (narrowly) lost with about a million votes cast for each.
In other words, perhaps half of the electorate this time was better-informed voters (note: even at this level they still only comprise 11 percent of the total electorate), and the other half not. Propositions won because the more-informed voters saw merit in them (the vast majority on some items, but even about half of them with the flawed amendments, which, one should note, may or may not be defective in wording; their flaws are because of possible multiple interpretations of them, but that does not mean they won’t be interpreted in the way their authors’ intended – still, the safest thing to do with them is to try again).
So the 2006 amendment results are not a product of an electorate trustful of government, but of a more-discriminating electorate than typically seen deciding on ballot propositions. Understanding current Louisiana electoral behavior requires understanding this.
2.10.06
Chehardy vote signals coming anti-incumbent wave
So were the results of Louisiana’s primary special elections a sign of trouble ahead for incumbent officeholders of any kind, even those running for a different office in 2007, particularly Democrats who comprise the majority of them? You could argue not, but you’d probably be wrong.
Let’s take arguments on both sides:
PRO: Turnout of 22 percent meant a lot of people were turned off by contests headlining old faces; matters will be different next year with regular elections when the abstaining, irritated majority will be mobilized to turn out incumbents.
CON: But in a special election like this with a low turnout usually signals those that did turn out disproportionately were there to toss out incumbents; in a regular election, the less-motivated who feel happy about incumbents will be mobilized to offset the unhappy.
PRO: Libertarian S.B.A. Zaitoon in the Insurance Commissioner’s contest drew 11 percent of the vote, far above the non-major party norm, nearly throwing this contest with two GOP incumbent officials into a general election runoff.
CON: The contest between incumbent Commissioner Jim Donelon and state Sen. James David Cain was so nasty that maybe a majority of votes for Zaitoon were because of that characteristic, eliciting voter disgust, that were specific to that contest and not indicative of a larger anti-incumbent trend.
PRO: All right, then consider the other statewide race for Secretary of State, where the only major candidate who was not a state senator, Mike Francis, got 26 percent of the vote. He nearly made the runoff against two sitting senators, Republican Jay Dardenne and Democrat Francis Heitmeier, who between them only got 58 percent.
CON: But Francis plunked down enough money to seem like an incumbent, much self-financed. The two senators spent the vast majority of the money in the race, sitting on big campaign warchests built up over the years, and next fall few will be as lucky as Francis to have enough personal funds to compete. Besides, Francis still finished third.
In order to make the case that the 2006 elections indicate a rocky 2007 for incumbents, we have to find an instance where a political unknown does well against incumbents solely because she has some name recognition but also has not held elective office. Zaitoon could have provided for such confirmation, except that his showing could be explained away by the “mudslinging” argument proffered above. Francis could have as well, except one could argue his past role as Republican Party chairman and high self-financing make his case exceptional.
But there was such a candidate that could provide this confirmation, in the Secretary of State’s race – Mary Chehardy from Metairie, who spent almost nothing on the race. Only her name attracted votes (being the aunt of longtime Jefferson Parish assessor Lawrence Chehardy and having run twice for the office, picking up 26 percent of the vote in another big ant-incumbent year, 1991). Lost in the election night analyzing was the fact that, running as a Republican, she pulled 9 percent of the statewide vote, again with almost no advertising.
Even more interesting, in the Republican leaning suburb parishes around Orleans, her vote totals were impressive. She hit the jackpot at home with 21 percent in Jefferson, finishing third ahead of Francis, and also finished third ahead of him with percentages substantially above her statewide figure in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, and Washington Parishes, and fourth above her statewide figure in St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Had she not run and if even a third of her vote had gone to Francis (and little to Heitmeier), it would be an all-GOP runoff in November. Or, another way to look at it is Francis and Chehardy together beat either of incumbents Dardenne or Heitmeier.
Her totals cannot be explained by a mudslide of Biblical proportions triggered by other candidates against each other or by the efforts of a wealthy party insider. Where her name had some cachet, in parishes around Orleans, her support was a pure protest vote against incumbent senators and Francis who may also have been seen as too closely tied to the existing political alignment. There’s no reason to expect the sentiment that produced this will decline dramatically in 2007.
It’s true that in 2007 voters apathetic to these contests will get mobilized, and they will vote for familiar names disproportionately. But simultaneously, an untapped reservoir of those upset with current politicians exists who did not have enough direction by campaigns to make it to the polls in 2006. With the increased efforts of campaigning present as a consequence of regular elections in 2007, all it will take to activate this bloc is some vigorous electioneering on behalf of newcomers. Because of this, current state officeholders, both executive and legislative, need to be wary regardless of the office they run for next year, for all signs are that an anti-incumbent wave may wash away their political careers.
Let’s take arguments on both sides:
PRO: Turnout of 22 percent meant a lot of people were turned off by contests headlining old faces; matters will be different next year with regular elections when the abstaining, irritated majority will be mobilized to turn out incumbents.
CON: But in a special election like this with a low turnout usually signals those that did turn out disproportionately were there to toss out incumbents; in a regular election, the less-motivated who feel happy about incumbents will be mobilized to offset the unhappy.
PRO: Libertarian S.B.A. Zaitoon in the Insurance Commissioner’s contest drew 11 percent of the vote, far above the non-major party norm, nearly throwing this contest with two GOP incumbent officials into a general election runoff.
CON: The contest between incumbent Commissioner Jim Donelon and state Sen. James David Cain was so nasty that maybe a majority of votes for Zaitoon were because of that characteristic, eliciting voter disgust, that were specific to that contest and not indicative of a larger anti-incumbent trend.
PRO: All right, then consider the other statewide race for Secretary of State, where the only major candidate who was not a state senator, Mike Francis, got 26 percent of the vote. He nearly made the runoff against two sitting senators, Republican Jay Dardenne and Democrat Francis Heitmeier, who between them only got 58 percent.
CON: But Francis plunked down enough money to seem like an incumbent, much self-financed. The two senators spent the vast majority of the money in the race, sitting on big campaign warchests built up over the years, and next fall few will be as lucky as Francis to have enough personal funds to compete. Besides, Francis still finished third.
In order to make the case that the 2006 elections indicate a rocky 2007 for incumbents, we have to find an instance where a political unknown does well against incumbents solely because she has some name recognition but also has not held elective office. Zaitoon could have provided for such confirmation, except that his showing could be explained away by the “mudslinging” argument proffered above. Francis could have as well, except one could argue his past role as Republican Party chairman and high self-financing make his case exceptional.
But there was such a candidate that could provide this confirmation, in the Secretary of State’s race – Mary Chehardy from Metairie, who spent almost nothing on the race. Only her name attracted votes (being the aunt of longtime Jefferson Parish assessor Lawrence Chehardy and having run twice for the office, picking up 26 percent of the vote in another big ant-incumbent year, 1991). Lost in the election night analyzing was the fact that, running as a Republican, she pulled 9 percent of the statewide vote, again with almost no advertising.
Even more interesting, in the Republican leaning suburb parishes around Orleans, her vote totals were impressive. She hit the jackpot at home with 21 percent in Jefferson, finishing third ahead of Francis, and also finished third ahead of him with percentages substantially above her statewide figure in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, and Washington Parishes, and fourth above her statewide figure in St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Had she not run and if even a third of her vote had gone to Francis (and little to Heitmeier), it would be an all-GOP runoff in November. Or, another way to look at it is Francis and Chehardy together beat either of incumbents Dardenne or Heitmeier.
Her totals cannot be explained by a mudslide of Biblical proportions triggered by other candidates against each other or by the efforts of a wealthy party insider. Where her name had some cachet, in parishes around Orleans, her support was a pure protest vote against incumbent senators and Francis who may also have been seen as too closely tied to the existing political alignment. There’s no reason to expect the sentiment that produced this will decline dramatically in 2007.
It’s true that in 2007 voters apathetic to these contests will get mobilized, and they will vote for familiar names disproportionately. But simultaneously, an untapped reservoir of those upset with current politicians exists who did not have enough direction by campaigns to make it to the polls in 2006. With the increased efforts of campaigning present as a consequence of regular elections in 2007, all it will take to activate this bloc is some vigorous electioneering on behalf of newcomers. Because of this, current state officeholders, both executive and legislative, need to be wary regardless of the office they run for next year, for all signs are that an anti-incumbent wave may wash away their political careers.
1.10.06
Jones primary performance points to runoff victory
Three lessons were learned from Saturday’s balloting in Shreveport:
1. White Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones is the man to beat in the general election runoff against black Democrat state Rep. Cedric Glover. Even as both candidates expressed wishes that race not be factor in their upcoming contest, the fact is that history shows at least 85 percent of whites will vote for a white Republican and over 90 percent of blacks will vote for a black Democrat. In terms of registered voters, white registration numbers outdistance those of blacks by over 1,500, and whites typically have turned out at a rate of about 2 percent higher than blacks, but Jones’ 39 percent exceeded those standards. Conveniently assigning Republican candidate votes to Jones and Democrat candidate votes to Glover except for those of white Democrat Liz Swaine, Jones has 46 percent of the vote, meaning all he would have to get is a third of Swaine’s vote to win in November. He probably will get better than half, so Glover will have to kick up high get-out-the-vote efforts in November; Glover has no chance to win unless he can dramatically increase black turnout. (The issue is not, as one observer speculated, black voters are getting disproportionately older and female, because, other characteristics equal, these people actually are more likely to vote -- it's that, in this particular contest, the white-black gap opened considerably beyond historical norms.)
Interim statewide race results bode ill for Democrats
Having all of the amendments to the Louisiana Constitution pass (with more on the way) was interesting. That two Republicans almost made the Louisiana Secretary of State’s general election runoff was telling. But fascinating was the fact that, with just a Libertarian to kick around, the Insurance Commissioner race just missed going to a runoff.
Even as the campaigns tried to spin matters away from the fact, simply it was the relentless negative campaigning, with both current Commissioner Jim Donelon and state Sen. James David Cain slinging mud at each others’ ethics, which caused about 11 percent of the vote to go the way of S.B. Zaitoon. Negative campaigning is great to detach a voter from a candidate, but if the camp doing it is to benefit, they must make sure enough of those defecting votes find their way to its candidate.
Instead, neither Donelon nor Cain gave voters much reason to vote for each, and so the beneficiary was Zaitoon. Eleven percent won’t get you to a runoff – but it was enough of a protest vote over the lack of either Donelon or Cain expressing reasons why they could do a good job. And, along with results from the other statewide elective contest, hints at what is to come in 2007.
The close finish among Secretary of State leader Republican Jay Dardenne, ahead of Democrat state Sen. Francis Heitmeier, leaving out of the runoff but not by much Republican businessman Mike Francis, in the long term may be more significant. This result especially bodes ill for the Democrats in next year’s elections. The fact that a white New Orleans-area Democrat barely got into the runoff shows the party has been weakened by demographic trends accelerated by the citizen displacement caused by the Katrina hurricane disaster.
Both Zaitoon’s and Francis’ performance, along with other minor candidates in the Secretary of State’s race which swept up with Francis 42 percent of the vote, shows that incumbents may have a pretty rocky time – and they disproportionately are Democrats, both statewide and in legislative districts.
With Dardenne likely to get most of Francis’ votes, the GOP will rack up two wins here in November, potentially ushering in a strong party performance in 2007.
Even as the campaigns tried to spin matters away from the fact, simply it was the relentless negative campaigning, with both current Commissioner Jim Donelon and state Sen. James David Cain slinging mud at each others’ ethics, which caused about 11 percent of the vote to go the way of S.B. Zaitoon. Negative campaigning is great to detach a voter from a candidate, but if the camp doing it is to benefit, they must make sure enough of those defecting votes find their way to its candidate.
Instead, neither Donelon nor Cain gave voters much reason to vote for each, and so the beneficiary was Zaitoon. Eleven percent won’t get you to a runoff – but it was enough of a protest vote over the lack of either Donelon or Cain expressing reasons why they could do a good job. And, along with results from the other statewide elective contest, hints at what is to come in 2007.
The close finish among Secretary of State leader Republican Jay Dardenne, ahead of Democrat state Sen. Francis Heitmeier, leaving out of the runoff but not by much Republican businessman Mike Francis, in the long term may be more significant. This result especially bodes ill for the Democrats in next year’s elections. The fact that a white New Orleans-area Democrat barely got into the runoff shows the party has been weakened by demographic trends accelerated by the citizen displacement caused by the Katrina hurricane disaster.
Both Zaitoon’s and Francis’ performance, along with other minor candidates in the Secretary of State’s race which swept up with Francis 42 percent of the vote, shows that incumbents may have a pretty rocky time – and they disproportionately are Democrats, both statewide and in legislative districts.
With Dardenne likely to get most of Francis’ votes, the GOP will rack up two wins here in November, potentially ushering in a strong party performance in 2007.
28.9.06
Negative campaigns likely to help GOP, harm Democrats
There’s a right way and a wrong way to perform negative advertising, and for this round of elections in Louisiana it looks as if the Republicans got it right and the Democrats got it wrong.
Republicans have targeted Democrat Secretary of State candidate Francis Heitmeier in what, practically speaking, will be a three-man contest between him and Republicans state Sen. Jay Dardenne and businessman Mike Francis. This follows the prime logic of negative advertising: because it dislodges supporters of the target, you should do it only when you’re reasonably sure another dynamic will shift those votes to benefit your candidate.
That is reasonably clear in this case, since discouraged presumed Heitmeier voters either would not vote at all or would not vote for any of the minor candidates. Still, it’s not that likely to work, for two reasons. First, despite what some have speculated, Heitmeier’s chances of making the general election runoff are very high. Even if you could argue that 100,000 more black than white voters have fled New Orleans after the hurricane disasters of 2005, the state’s black proportion of the electorate still comprises 25 percent so with blacks only slightly less likely to turn out than whites and almost all blacks voting for Heitmeier, it wouldn’t take many white liberals’ votes to get him there, making this effort a longshot.
Also, if the GOP goal is to get both of its candidates into the runoff, Heitmeier defectors must disappear from the voting booth or be attracted to one or both GOP candidates in a way that accomplishes this goal. For example, if one candidate leads Heitmeier, the defectors would have to vote for the trailing candidate; there’s no way the GOP can guarantee that these defectors will vote for the trailing candidate. All in all, however, it’s worth a flier – nothing ventured, nothing gained.
By contrast, state Democrat efforts to influence the Shreveport mayor’s race promise no good payoff and might even damage its cause. These ads attack frontrunner former city attorney and Republican Jerry Jones. Behind him tags along Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and city spokeswoman Liz Swaine. The theory would be that sloughing off potential Jones voters might push him behind both Glover and Swaine.
But that tactic has almost no chance of success. Best that can be told, Jones has a double-digit lead on these Democrats so that would be a lot of ground to make up. This might be more realistic if some of these voters found their ways into the Democrats’ columns but few would go for Swaine and practically none to Glover (although the disproportion in favor of Swaine is enough for Democrats supporting Glover to complain of the tactic, cloaking their political motive in rhetoric along the lines of the ad campaign makes Democrats look “bad”).
Further, the detached voters could wander their way into the arms of former city economic developer Arlena Acree, a Republican. If for some reason Jones lost a significant chunk of support, it probably would head her way rather than Swaine’s and both she, with her new support, and Jones, whose lead is big enough to handle some defectors, could ace out any Democrat being in the runoff.
While the Republicans’ launching their negative campaign on Heitmeier may not work, it could and won’t have any negative consequences. However, the Democrats’ strike against Jones almost certainly represents a total waste of resources, and may even backfire on the party.
Republicans have targeted Democrat Secretary of State candidate Francis Heitmeier in what, practically speaking, will be a three-man contest between him and Republicans state Sen. Jay Dardenne and businessman Mike Francis. This follows the prime logic of negative advertising: because it dislodges supporters of the target, you should do it only when you’re reasonably sure another dynamic will shift those votes to benefit your candidate.
That is reasonably clear in this case, since discouraged presumed Heitmeier voters either would not vote at all or would not vote for any of the minor candidates. Still, it’s not that likely to work, for two reasons. First, despite what some have speculated, Heitmeier’s chances of making the general election runoff are very high. Even if you could argue that 100,000 more black than white voters have fled New Orleans after the hurricane disasters of 2005, the state’s black proportion of the electorate still comprises 25 percent so with blacks only slightly less likely to turn out than whites and almost all blacks voting for Heitmeier, it wouldn’t take many white liberals’ votes to get him there, making this effort a longshot.
Also, if the GOP goal is to get both of its candidates into the runoff, Heitmeier defectors must disappear from the voting booth or be attracted to one or both GOP candidates in a way that accomplishes this goal. For example, if one candidate leads Heitmeier, the defectors would have to vote for the trailing candidate; there’s no way the GOP can guarantee that these defectors will vote for the trailing candidate. All in all, however, it’s worth a flier – nothing ventured, nothing gained.
By contrast, state Democrat efforts to influence the Shreveport mayor’s race promise no good payoff and might even damage its cause. These ads attack frontrunner former city attorney and Republican Jerry Jones. Behind him tags along Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and city spokeswoman Liz Swaine. The theory would be that sloughing off potential Jones voters might push him behind both Glover and Swaine.
But that tactic has almost no chance of success. Best that can be told, Jones has a double-digit lead on these Democrats so that would be a lot of ground to make up. This might be more realistic if some of these voters found their ways into the Democrats’ columns but few would go for Swaine and practically none to Glover (although the disproportion in favor of Swaine is enough for Democrats supporting Glover to complain of the tactic, cloaking their political motive in rhetoric along the lines of the ad campaign makes Democrats look “bad”).
Further, the detached voters could wander their way into the arms of former city economic developer Arlena Acree, a Republican. If for some reason Jones lost a significant chunk of support, it probably would head her way rather than Swaine’s and both she, with her new support, and Jones, whose lead is big enough to handle some defectors, could ace out any Democrat being in the runoff.
While the Republicans’ launching their negative campaign on Heitmeier may not work, it could and won’t have any negative consequences. However, the Democrats’ strike against Jones almost certainly represents a total waste of resources, and may even backfire on the party.
27.9.06
Shreveport elections may create Caddo Commission fireworks
Depending upon the vagaries of the electorate, starting in December things might get very interesting around the Caddo Parish Commission and the situation could last for as many as five months.
This is because four current Commission members are running for Shreveport City Council seats, Democrat Joyce Bowman and Republicans Bob Brown, Michael Long, and Ron Webb. In fact, all would have to be considered favorites in their contests for, respectively, Districts G, D, C, and E.
Regardless of whether any of them win outright in the primary, they would be seated on the Council in late November. State election law then kicks in with the tendering of their resignation, and the provisions of R.S. 18:402 would put the election to fill these seats on Apr. 7, 2007. Winners would take their seats in early May.
In the meantime, this means the Commission soldiers on undermanned. And while the important decision of who should be the next parish administrator should be resolved before, if any, of them depart, at least one big decision will be made by a potentially-depleted Commission – the 2007 budget.
Note that if any of these commissioners resign early to take on a new elective job, the partisan balance of the Commission likely will change. At 6-all Democrat/Republican presently, depending upon who leaves could alter radically the scales, with the most extreme possibility being Bowman fails while all three of the GOP succeed, giving Democrats a 6-3 advantage for several months.
While it may be fashionable, particularly for Democrats, to claim that party affiliation really doesn’t matter when it comes to local government, the fact is an officeholder’s label does usually convey a stable set of attitudes and expected behavior of those choosing that label. At this level of government, simply put Democrats will favor larger government utilizing more of the people’s resources, and disproportionately for funding social service kinds of activities, than will Republicans who generally want smaller government taking less of the citizens’ money and would more likely spend that on public safety activities.
The budget should be an early indication of whether a new majority will take advantage of the changed balance. Last year some allocations to community groups slightly were scaled back. If Bowman only goes, Republicans could accelerate that process. But if Bowman doesn’t and at least one GOP commissioner does, or even if she does but joined by two such GOP commissioners, Democrats will minimize that option in this era of relatively declining parish revenues and look for other sources of revenue before cuts elsewhere. The nightmare scenario for conservatives would be the 6-3 ratio, allowing the Commission to roll forward property tax rates which it deferred doing so when the previous round of property assessments came out.
Unless all four fail in their bids or just Bowman and a Republican wins, look for some policy changes to come out of the Commission for at least a few months.
This is because four current Commission members are running for Shreveport City Council seats, Democrat Joyce Bowman and Republicans Bob Brown, Michael Long, and Ron Webb. In fact, all would have to be considered favorites in their contests for, respectively, Districts G, D, C, and E.
Regardless of whether any of them win outright in the primary, they would be seated on the Council in late November. State election law then kicks in with the tendering of their resignation, and the provisions of R.S. 18:402 would put the election to fill these seats on Apr. 7, 2007. Winners would take their seats in early May.
In the meantime, this means the Commission soldiers on undermanned. And while the important decision of who should be the next parish administrator should be resolved before, if any, of them depart, at least one big decision will be made by a potentially-depleted Commission – the 2007 budget.
Note that if any of these commissioners resign early to take on a new elective job, the partisan balance of the Commission likely will change. At 6-all Democrat/Republican presently, depending upon who leaves could alter radically the scales, with the most extreme possibility being Bowman fails while all three of the GOP succeed, giving Democrats a 6-3 advantage for several months.
While it may be fashionable, particularly for Democrats, to claim that party affiliation really doesn’t matter when it comes to local government, the fact is an officeholder’s label does usually convey a stable set of attitudes and expected behavior of those choosing that label. At this level of government, simply put Democrats will favor larger government utilizing more of the people’s resources, and disproportionately for funding social service kinds of activities, than will Republicans who generally want smaller government taking less of the citizens’ money and would more likely spend that on public safety activities.
The budget should be an early indication of whether a new majority will take advantage of the changed balance. Last year some allocations to community groups slightly were scaled back. If Bowman only goes, Republicans could accelerate that process. But if Bowman doesn’t and at least one GOP commissioner does, or even if she does but joined by two such GOP commissioners, Democrats will minimize that option in this era of relatively declining parish revenues and look for other sources of revenue before cuts elsewhere. The nightmare scenario for conservatives would be the 6-3 ratio, allowing the Commission to roll forward property tax rates which it deferred doing so when the previous round of property assessments came out.
Unless all four fail in their bids or just Bowman and a Republican wins, look for some policy changes to come out of the Commission for at least a few months.
26.9.06
Bumbling Blanco burns political capital for nothing
Besides advocating policies harmful to Louisiana, another reason Gov. Kathleen Blanco will not win a second term is that events subsequent to her successful foisting of some bad policies on the state made them, and her expenditure of political capital and unfavorable publicity she got doing so, moot without any benefits.
With next to no publicity, this past legislative session the Legislature, with Blanco’s blessing, quietly repealed the misnamed “Healthcare Affordability Act.” Better known to Louisiana as the “sick tax,” Blanco spent a lot of energy and took big political damage over her support of its passage in 2005, which would have assessed a fee of 1.5 percent on hospitals that would have passed it along to consumers. In light of the seismic changes wrought upon the state health care system by the 2005 hurricane disasters, Blanco thought better of imposing this on hospitals and consumers.
The same political result now may be happening in reference to a piece of 2006 legislation, also supported by Blanco, which mandates that ethanol be sold with gasoline if ethanol production reaches a certain level. The legislation is seriously flawed because it allows political considerations to trump the marketplace, meaning a large transfer of wealth from consumers to a few special interests producing ethanol.
With next to no publicity, this past legislative session the Legislature, with Blanco’s blessing, quietly repealed the misnamed “Healthcare Affordability Act.” Better known to Louisiana as the “sick tax,” Blanco spent a lot of energy and took big political damage over her support of its passage in 2005, which would have assessed a fee of 1.5 percent on hospitals that would have passed it along to consumers. In light of the seismic changes wrought upon the state health care system by the 2005 hurricane disasters, Blanco thought better of imposing this on hospitals and consumers.
The same political result now may be happening in reference to a piece of 2006 legislation, also supported by Blanco, which mandates that ethanol be sold with gasoline if ethanol production reaches a certain level. The legislation is seriously flawed because it allows political considerations to trump the marketplace, meaning a large transfer of wealth from consumers to a few special interests producing ethanol.
25.9.06
Money attracted to quality in Shreveport mayor race
A canard about elections frequently circulated, often by those who should know better is “the more money spent, the more chance you have of being elected.” Not only does this phrasing not demonstrate as direct of a correlation as one may think, it also fundamentally misunderstands the role of money in elections.
Upon receiving this statement, one might be forgiven for making the next logical inference, which would be something like “money buys victory.” It does not, and let’s start with an empirical demonstration why not. Just to use one example, in 2004 in U.S. Senate elections, of the 34 of them, only 75 percent of the top 20 spenders won election. Further, in 4 of the 34, the lower spender won. Finally, 18 of the races weren’t competitive – the winner got better than 60 percent of the vote. In the competitive 16 contests was where the four lower spenders won. (The only defeated incumbent outspent his rival 3:2.)
This example, which is typical, points out several things which help us understand the relationship between spending and electoral performance. First of all, given the composition of the jurisdiction and perceptions of the candidate (usually an incumbent), in the majority of cases no amount of spending is going to make a difference, in that one candidate will clearly win regardless. (Perhaps the best example ever being the $64 million Democrat Tony Sanchez spent in 2002, $40 million more than his Republican incumbent opponent, to lose by 18 percent in a bid for the Texas governorship.)
Second, money is a relative thing: for example, in 2004 Sen. Arlen Specter raised the most money and won a close election while former Sen. Tom Daschle was close behind in spending yet lost his close election – even though Specter outspent his opponent by $17 million and Daschle outspent his by $7 million. (There were plenty out there who won by far bigger margins who didn’t spend much more than their opponents, or who spent among the lowest amounts of all the winners – the average competitive winner spent almost $13 million while the average noncompetitive winner spent under $6 million.)
Third, focusing on absolute spending misses the entire relevance of money in elections, because it rests on the untenable (and, as demonstrated above, empirically unsupported notion) that money creates quality in the minds of the electorate. In fact, that is the reverse of reality: it is candidate quality that attracts money. What money gets raised is the key, not what gets spent, and more gets spent (and thus raised) the more opponents spend (because they are able to raise it). In short, spending is wholly dependent upon the number of quality candidates in a contest; more than one elevates spending because more money is raised as each tries to fend off a quality opponent.
People (usually) are not irrational when comes to investments, which is what a donation to a political candidate is. The put their money down, so to speak, because they believe the candidate has quality and, therefore, has a chance to win. Unless you have unshakeable ideological convictions and are acting purely on principle, you don’t want to put your money where you know it will be wasted in defeat. Candidates who are perceived as higher quality are able to raise more because people (who for whatever reasons want them elected) see them as decent bets to win, and need to raise more if they face a similar quality opponent. That is, they raise more because they need to, and because they can.
Former city attorney Jerry Jones, the leading money-raiser in the race, well may win the mayor’s race and spend the most doing so. But that will only be a reflection of the quality of a candidate he is – both in terms of getting donations and votes – not because he “bought” any victory that may be his.
Upon receiving this statement, one might be forgiven for making the next logical inference, which would be something like “money buys victory.” It does not, and let’s start with an empirical demonstration why not. Just to use one example, in 2004 in U.S. Senate elections, of the 34 of them, only 75 percent of the top 20 spenders won election. Further, in 4 of the 34, the lower spender won. Finally, 18 of the races weren’t competitive – the winner got better than 60 percent of the vote. In the competitive 16 contests was where the four lower spenders won. (The only defeated incumbent outspent his rival 3:2.)
This example, which is typical, points out several things which help us understand the relationship between spending and electoral performance. First of all, given the composition of the jurisdiction and perceptions of the candidate (usually an incumbent), in the majority of cases no amount of spending is going to make a difference, in that one candidate will clearly win regardless. (Perhaps the best example ever being the $64 million Democrat Tony Sanchez spent in 2002, $40 million more than his Republican incumbent opponent, to lose by 18 percent in a bid for the Texas governorship.)
Second, money is a relative thing: for example, in 2004 Sen. Arlen Specter raised the most money and won a close election while former Sen. Tom Daschle was close behind in spending yet lost his close election – even though Specter outspent his opponent by $17 million and Daschle outspent his by $7 million. (There were plenty out there who won by far bigger margins who didn’t spend much more than their opponents, or who spent among the lowest amounts of all the winners – the average competitive winner spent almost $13 million while the average noncompetitive winner spent under $6 million.)
Third, focusing on absolute spending misses the entire relevance of money in elections, because it rests on the untenable (and, as demonstrated above, empirically unsupported notion) that money creates quality in the minds of the electorate. In fact, that is the reverse of reality: it is candidate quality that attracts money. What money gets raised is the key, not what gets spent, and more gets spent (and thus raised) the more opponents spend (because they are able to raise it). In short, spending is wholly dependent upon the number of quality candidates in a contest; more than one elevates spending because more money is raised as each tries to fend off a quality opponent.
People (usually) are not irrational when comes to investments, which is what a donation to a political candidate is. The put their money down, so to speak, because they believe the candidate has quality and, therefore, has a chance to win. Unless you have unshakeable ideological convictions and are acting purely on principle, you don’t want to put your money where you know it will be wasted in defeat. Candidates who are perceived as higher quality are able to raise more because people (who for whatever reasons want them elected) see them as decent bets to win, and need to raise more if they face a similar quality opponent. That is, they raise more because they need to, and because they can.
Former city attorney Jerry Jones, the leading money-raiser in the race, well may win the mayor’s race and spend the most doing so. But that will only be a reflection of the quality of a candidate he is – both in terms of getting donations and votes – not because he “bought” any victory that may be his.
24.9.06
Third District Race could determine U.S. House majority
Even though this contest is not on the ballot this Saturday, the frontrunners in the Louisiana Third Congressional District race already are playing for keeps concerning an election which may gain national attention for weeks after the national election day.
Incumbent Democrat Charlie Melancon and Republican state Sen. Craig Romero square off again from 2004, when Melancon barely squeaked by Romero in the primary and then barely beat his opponent, lobbyist Billy Tauzin III, in no small part to Romero’s attacking Tauzin after the primary through ads. Romero seemed to think this necessary out of a belief Tauzin had done the same prior to the primary.
It also might have been a strategy looking forward to this year. In a GOP-leaning district, he knew that if the Republican Tauzin got in he might not have been dislodged by anybody for a long tine, so his one chance was to get a more vulnerable Democrat elected at first, and then take him on again this year. In fact, Pres. George W. Bush scored 58 percent of the vote in this district, the highest he would draw in any district won by a Democrat in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)