f it wasn’t enough self-deception on the part of (for now) Republican Louisiana gubernatorial candidate John Georges in his even getting into a race he could win, he may add on some more by thinking a party switch (or abandonment) will get himself elected – illustrating the big problems he and the other dwarves face in trying to prevent Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal from winning that contest.
A poll he commissioned showed that he would more than double his intended vote if he ran as an independent rather than as a Republican, so now he’s considering the idea – only a couple of weeks after he gave an interview in which he clearly identified himself as a Republican and with the party. He thinks the poll shows him the switch marginally could improve his chances to get into the general election runoff with Jindal.
One must shake his head trying to figure out this thought process. Yes, he might pick up some votes – going from 3 to 8 percent; twice nothing is still nothing compared to Jindal’s 50 percent-plus the survey caught. And he doesn’t seem to understand how such a move may look to voters when he’s the guy who’s been going around and saying he’s not a typical politician which is a reason to vote for him – it looks blatantly political switching just because you think it will pick up more votes. (He’s not the only one, obviously, in this race or in others.)
But let’s say its works and somehow he does make it to a runoff as Jindal does not get better than half of the vote. If the party change got him that far, what next, another after Oct. 20? Or is his strategy to hope Jindal gets caught with a live boy or a dead girl before election day? Clearly, whatever the strategy has been to this point, it flounders against Jindal.
(More delusional thinking from the Georges camp about this poll: his pollster thinks it’s wonderful that his name recognition has hit 55 percent – but that’s meaningless when you’re only pulling 3 percent of the vote. And that Georges comes off as the best second-choice vote – so what if the first choice is running away with it?)
What Georges has to understand is winners get elected on the basis of their personalities, their messages, and their campaigns. Jindal comes off as a sincere, somewhat experienced but not self-absorbed politician with a credible message that he will change the way things are done in Louisiana to positive effect, and he’s got a solid campaign organization. That’s hard to beat no matter how many gimmicks like party changes you try to throw into a campaign. So why should he chuck aside one thing that many think he does have going for him, sincerity?
Who knows whether Georges will make the switch come the end of qualifying Sep. 7? But if he does, we will know that Georges wasn’t all that authentic in his assertion that he was not your typical politician.
22.8.07
Jindal defends while Foti starts more political strikes
In the past couple of days, two prominent candidates for statewide office – one to defend himself, one to kickstart a flagging campaign – have taken actions regarding assertions of legality the undeniable impact of each will be felt politically.
Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal sent requests to television stations to halt airing of attack ads that claimed he denigrated people of certain religious beliefs on the basis of their false nature. (Note: I don’t have copies of the articles in question, but I recall reading some of these at the time they came out, and from what I remember there was nothing inflammatory about them at all; indeed, I was struck by their serious, thoughtful tone and was intrigued somebody in his mid-twenties could produce them.) This course of action emphasized the “no gifts” strategy Jindal has adopted when negative information of a distorted nature is disseminated by Democrats.
The producer of the ads, the state’s Democrat Party refused to backtrack from their airing in select markets, and major Democrat candidates for governor state Sen. Walter Boasso and Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell to their discredit did not repudiate the ads. (It’s telling, however, that while the Democrats have provided a website to amplify the ad, it does not reproduce the entire articles – probably because they fear doing so would show how wildly out of context are taken Jindal’s passages.)
Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal sent requests to television stations to halt airing of attack ads that claimed he denigrated people of certain religious beliefs on the basis of their false nature. (Note: I don’t have copies of the articles in question, but I recall reading some of these at the time they came out, and from what I remember there was nothing inflammatory about them at all; indeed, I was struck by their serious, thoughtful tone and was intrigued somebody in his mid-twenties could produce them.) This course of action emphasized the “no gifts” strategy Jindal has adopted when negative information of a distorted nature is disseminated by Democrats.
The producer of the ads, the state’s Democrat Party refused to backtrack from their airing in select markets, and major Democrat candidates for governor state Sen. Walter Boasso and Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell to their discredit did not repudiate the ads. (It’s telling, however, that while the Democrats have provided a website to amplify the ad, it does not reproduce the entire articles – probably because they fear doing so would show how wildly out of context are taken Jindal’s passages.)
21.8.07
Democrats signal surrender with new Jindal attack ads
It’s official: Louisiana state Democrats have thrown in the towel, conceded that Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal will become the state’s next governor, if the kinds of attack ads they have started to run in select parts of the state indicate anything.
When encountering a candidate such as Jindal that has high positive evaluations from the electorate at large, and has a runaway lead in the polls, the only way he can be beaten (absent some major campaign blunder on his part) is to try to poison feelings about him in order to detach voters, and then direct them to an acceptable alternative. But there are more and less effective ways of doing this.
Democrats’ first salvo, about health care issues, demonstrated an attempt to try to do it the way that might actually succeed. If voters can be shown a candidate does not pursue broad policy options that they share, they will look for an alternative. However, Jindal began countering that ad immediately with effective responses which is the recommended strategy to negate the impact of such ads.
Now the Democrats have given a lesson on how not to do it, attacking Jindal not for any policy preferences, but for his religious views and people who donate to his campaign. Ad campaigns based upon personal smearing (with the exception of corruption issues) will tend to detach some voters, but they usually backfire in creating sympathy for a candidate seen as being unfairly treated through an invasion of his private life separate from the public square, and disgusts and thus discourages voters from participating including many who would have voted for other candidates. Even if they detach voters, since the attack is personal and not on the basis of issues, they are given no reason to vote for Democrats or anybody else. In other words, unlike the other strategy, this one cannot turn a winner into a loser and losers into winners; it best it depresses support for everybody and at worst actually helps the attacked candidate by generating sympathy for him.
But that’s the entire point of the state Democrats’ intentions. With the launching of these kinds of attempted character assassination and guilt-by-association ads, they tell us they have given up keeping Jindal out of the Governor’s Mansion. Rather, knowing political tides heavily favor Jindal and any Republican that can catch his coattails, with these ads Democrats aim to accomplish two things: limit downballot damage to the party’s candidates now and to try to contain Jindal from becoming a national threat in the future.
While the ads may not reduce Jindal’s support relative to other candidates enough to stop his winning, it may keep enough voters away who would have flipped levers for Republicans in other contests, or even (in a macabre kind of amputation of one part to save another) motivate uninvolved Democrats appalled at the attacks to hit the polls in Jindal’s favor, but who also then vote Democrat for other offices. And national Democrats fear Jindal becoming a national force so a pre-emptive strike of this nature, years before Jindal becomes a serious White House contender, is designed to signal Jindal and his supporters what they can expect if he goes national in order to discourage such thinking. (State Democrats’ noncommittal comments about the religious attack ads indicate it really is the national party driving this one.)
Louisiana voters deserve campaign information about things that matter. Desperate Democrats have waved the white flag on Jindal and will do all they can to prevent any serious discussion about issues affecting the state through election day.
When encountering a candidate such as Jindal that has high positive evaluations from the electorate at large, and has a runaway lead in the polls, the only way he can be beaten (absent some major campaign blunder on his part) is to try to poison feelings about him in order to detach voters, and then direct them to an acceptable alternative. But there are more and less effective ways of doing this.
Democrats’ first salvo, about health care issues, demonstrated an attempt to try to do it the way that might actually succeed. If voters can be shown a candidate does not pursue broad policy options that they share, they will look for an alternative. However, Jindal began countering that ad immediately with effective responses which is the recommended strategy to negate the impact of such ads.
Now the Democrats have given a lesson on how not to do it, attacking Jindal not for any policy preferences, but for his religious views and people who donate to his campaign. Ad campaigns based upon personal smearing (with the exception of corruption issues) will tend to detach some voters, but they usually backfire in creating sympathy for a candidate seen as being unfairly treated through an invasion of his private life separate from the public square, and disgusts and thus discourages voters from participating including many who would have voted for other candidates. Even if they detach voters, since the attack is personal and not on the basis of issues, they are given no reason to vote for Democrats or anybody else. In other words, unlike the other strategy, this one cannot turn a winner into a loser and losers into winners; it best it depresses support for everybody and at worst actually helps the attacked candidate by generating sympathy for him.
But that’s the entire point of the state Democrats’ intentions. With the launching of these kinds of attempted character assassination and guilt-by-association ads, they tell us they have given up keeping Jindal out of the Governor’s Mansion. Rather, knowing political tides heavily favor Jindal and any Republican that can catch his coattails, with these ads Democrats aim to accomplish two things: limit downballot damage to the party’s candidates now and to try to contain Jindal from becoming a national threat in the future.
While the ads may not reduce Jindal’s support relative to other candidates enough to stop his winning, it may keep enough voters away who would have flipped levers for Republicans in other contests, or even (in a macabre kind of amputation of one part to save another) motivate uninvolved Democrats appalled at the attacks to hit the polls in Jindal’s favor, but who also then vote Democrat for other offices. And national Democrats fear Jindal becoming a national force so a pre-emptive strike of this nature, years before Jindal becomes a serious White House contender, is designed to signal Jindal and his supporters what they can expect if he goes national in order to discourage such thinking. (State Democrats’ noncommittal comments about the religious attack ads indicate it really is the national party driving this one.)
Louisiana voters deserve campaign information about things that matter. Desperate Democrats have waved the white flag on Jindal and will do all they can to prevent any serious discussion about issues affecting the state through election day.
20.8.07
LA GOP closing of primaries politically astute move
The Louisiana Republican Party made the right call in closing its federal-office primaries to improve its electoral fortunes, and in doing so have put Democrats into a quandary.
The GOP’s Central Committee voted overwhelmingly to bar independent (‘no-party,” technically) registrants from being able to participate in its party primaries to make for a true closed primary system. The new state law allowing parties to do this had an option to allow for open primaries such as in Texas where any voter can participate in just one party’s primary, but that was left up to the parties.
While some argued that not allowing non-party registrants the possibility of voting in GOP primaries for federal office (and there are almost as many of them in the state as there are Republicans) was exclusionary, others noted that the most important decision a party can make is who its nominee will be and that should be a privilege only of those wishing to officially affiliate with it, and not something to be decided at least partially by non-members.
The GOP’s Central Committee voted overwhelmingly to bar independent (‘no-party,” technically) registrants from being able to participate in its party primaries to make for a true closed primary system. The new state law allowing parties to do this had an option to allow for open primaries such as in Texas where any voter can participate in just one party’s primary, but that was left up to the parties.
While some argued that not allowing non-party registrants the possibility of voting in GOP primaries for federal office (and there are almost as many of them in the state as there are Republicans) was exclusionary, others noted that the most important decision a party can make is who its nominee will be and that should be a privilege only of those wishing to officially affiliate with it, and not something to be decided at least partially by non-members.
19.8.07
Hotel opens critical investigation of Hightower governance
This summer, Shreveport citizens got some unpleasant reminders about how badly former mayor Keith Hightower used their resources. Hopefully, such memories will linger if the citizenry gets asked to consider any political comeback Hightower may attempt.
In June, the Hilton Hotel connected to the city’s Convention Center finally opened. Hightower was the driving force behind both ideas being implemented. The Center was questionable from the start, given the economics of the matter, with many experts arguing the city’s idea that its costs would be exceeded by the benefits of convention business was a dream.
The hotel matched the center for dubiousness as a money-making enterprise. No study ever showed it making money for the city (in fact, to justify the state paying about 20 percent of it, Hightower took an existing study which showed it losing big money, altered some assumptions of it in an unrealistic fashion to reverse that conclusion, and brazenly presented it to the State Bond Commission which fell for it).
In June, the Hilton Hotel connected to the city’s Convention Center finally opened. Hightower was the driving force behind both ideas being implemented. The Center was questionable from the start, given the economics of the matter, with many experts arguing the city’s idea that its costs would be exceeded by the benefits of convention business was a dream.
The hotel matched the center for dubiousness as a money-making enterprise. No study ever showed it making money for the city (in fact, to justify the state paying about 20 percent of it, Hightower took an existing study which showed it losing big money, altered some assumptions of it in an unrealistic fashion to reverse that conclusion, and brazenly presented it to the State Bond Commission which fell for it).
16.8.07
Jindal in no mood for gifts regarding baseless attacks
In political campaigning, no matter how outrageously untrue an opponent’s charge may be against a candidate, there must be some kind of response. It’s a lesson Republican candidate for Louisiana governor Rep. Bobby Jindal apparently has learned, reducing Democrat party officials to lying about their own lies about Jindal.
Earlier this week, the state Democrats launched an attack ad campaign against Jindal with this ad making wildly distorted statements about Jindal’s record. One example was the claim that Jindal supported raising the Medicare eligibility age requirement – presumably imputing this to him since he served on a panel to make recommended changes regarding Medicare where the idea was discussed. But the panel itself never made that recommendation.
On this and other assertions in the ad Jindal rapidly distributed to media (seen at his campaign website) replies showing that in every case the statements made about Jindal either did not have a basis in fact (such as the Medicare one) or were not matters of fact in the first place (such as the opinion that Jindal’s vote against letting the federal government negotiate drug prices for use in federal programs meant he was against lower prices; a congressional study concluded there probably wouldn’t be any reduction in price, and prices go could higher through extra administrative costs, as well as rationing of medicine may occur). We can look for Jindal campaign ads along these themes to appear shortly, if the campaign is as on the ball as they were with the speed of the dissemination of the rebuttals.
The state Democrats’ spokeswoman sniffed, “Our ads are not based on any kind of opinion. They're based on facts.” Neither statement is true, and one wonders how the party would take it if some candidate ran an ad concerning Democrat candidate state Sen. Walter Boasso that argued he was for reducing the retirement benefits of state workers, a charge that would lack the same context and be every bit as distorting as what Democrats tried to pass off concerning Jindal.
The impact of this event in the 2007 campaign won’t really come from the baseless charges, or the easy refutation Jindal’s camp makes of them. That Jindal responds will be the most significant outcome and shows there will be no gifts given this season, to the detriment of Democrat electoral fortunes in Louisiana.
Earlier this week, the state Democrats launched an attack ad campaign against Jindal with this ad making wildly distorted statements about Jindal’s record. One example was the claim that Jindal supported raising the Medicare eligibility age requirement – presumably imputing this to him since he served on a panel to make recommended changes regarding Medicare where the idea was discussed. But the panel itself never made that recommendation.
On this and other assertions in the ad Jindal rapidly distributed to media (seen at his campaign website) replies showing that in every case the statements made about Jindal either did not have a basis in fact (such as the Medicare one) or were not matters of fact in the first place (such as the opinion that Jindal’s vote against letting the federal government negotiate drug prices for use in federal programs meant he was against lower prices; a congressional study concluded there probably wouldn’t be any reduction in price, and prices go could higher through extra administrative costs, as well as rationing of medicine may occur). We can look for Jindal campaign ads along these themes to appear shortly, if the campaign is as on the ball as they were with the speed of the dissemination of the rebuttals.
The state Democrats’ spokeswoman sniffed, “Our ads are not based on any kind of opinion. They're based on facts.” Neither statement is true, and one wonders how the party would take it if some candidate ran an ad concerning Democrat candidate state Sen. Walter Boasso that argued he was for reducing the retirement benefits of state workers, a charge that would lack the same context and be every bit as distorting as what Democrats tried to pass off concerning Jindal.
The impact of this event in the 2007 campaign won’t really come from the baseless charges, or the easy refutation Jindal’s camp makes of them. That Jindal responds will be the most significant outcome and shows there will be no gifts given this season, to the detriment of Democrat electoral fortunes in Louisiana.
15.8.07
Clinton success may cause LA Dems' luck to run out
Louisiana Democrats have more to worry about that just electoral success of Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal. As many Democrats privately begin to worry about the effect that a Sen. Hillary Clinton nomination for the presidency in 2008 might have on other contests held that year, two of the most worried elected Democrats on that account should be Sen. Mary Landrieu and Rep. Charlie Melancon.
Both have won two terms through good fortune. Landrieu initially scraped into office in 1996 when the national GOP ran a lackluster candidate and campaign and winner Pres. Bill Clinton had yet to commit a federal crime while in office to sully all Democrats. Her winning margin of fewer than 6,000 votes likely came from fraud but could not be legally proven as its source. In 2002, she added slightly to her total against a weak Republican challenger.
Melancon also got a lot of help his first time and a little more of it for his run for reelection. A divisive primary between two Republicans barely put Melancon into the general election runoff. The candidate barely out of the money, state Sen. Craig Romero, apparently decided that rather than support another Republican his best chance of eventually getting into Congress would be to wage a scorched-earth post-campaign against the other Republican to elect Melancon and then try to knock off Melancon in 2006. The first part worked but the second didn’t, as Melancon was aided by national fortunes swinging the Democrats’ way last year to defeat Romero.
But what comes around goes around, and Lady Luck dressed as Hillary Clinton might desert the only two white Democrats elected to federal office in Louisiana. With polling showing about half of Americans unwilling to vote for Clinton for president, her nomination would energize Republicans, drawing more than the typical number than without such a divisive opposition candidate. A majority of these extra voters likely will punch straight tickets, creating a disadvantage for down-ballot Democrats like Landrieu and Melancon.
Liberals dressed in moderates’ clothing, both know they have little margin for error in a state and district with which whose populations they are out of touch on the issues by and large. Clinton’s attempt to appear more moderate will fool few who remember her First Lady days and this will be imputed to Landrieu and Melancon, breaching the carefully-crafted shields of moderate political personas they have tried so hard to build.
Melancon may catch yet another break as this GOP advantage can work only with a good candidate, and none seems yet to have emerged. But quality Republicans seem ready to challenge Landrieu, and it would be ironic if the woman with whom she often votes on the same side next year will turn out to be the straw that breaks that back of Landrieu’s Senate career.
Both have won two terms through good fortune. Landrieu initially scraped into office in 1996 when the national GOP ran a lackluster candidate and campaign and winner Pres. Bill Clinton had yet to commit a federal crime while in office to sully all Democrats. Her winning margin of fewer than 6,000 votes likely came from fraud but could not be legally proven as its source. In 2002, she added slightly to her total against a weak Republican challenger.
Melancon also got a lot of help his first time and a little more of it for his run for reelection. A divisive primary between two Republicans barely put Melancon into the general election runoff. The candidate barely out of the money, state Sen. Craig Romero, apparently decided that rather than support another Republican his best chance of eventually getting into Congress would be to wage a scorched-earth post-campaign against the other Republican to elect Melancon and then try to knock off Melancon in 2006. The first part worked but the second didn’t, as Melancon was aided by national fortunes swinging the Democrats’ way last year to defeat Romero.
But what comes around goes around, and Lady Luck dressed as Hillary Clinton might desert the only two white Democrats elected to federal office in Louisiana. With polling showing about half of Americans unwilling to vote for Clinton for president, her nomination would energize Republicans, drawing more than the typical number than without such a divisive opposition candidate. A majority of these extra voters likely will punch straight tickets, creating a disadvantage for down-ballot Democrats like Landrieu and Melancon.
Liberals dressed in moderates’ clothing, both know they have little margin for error in a state and district with which whose populations they are out of touch on the issues by and large. Clinton’s attempt to appear more moderate will fool few who remember her First Lady days and this will be imputed to Landrieu and Melancon, breaching the carefully-crafted shields of moderate political personas they have tried so hard to build.
Melancon may catch yet another break as this GOP advantage can work only with a good candidate, and none seems yet to have emerged. But quality Republicans seem ready to challenge Landrieu, and it would be ironic if the woman with whom she often votes on the same side next year will turn out to be the straw that breaks that back of Landrieu’s Senate career.
14.8.07
Dems attack Jindal to prevent party electoral meltdown
Louisiana Democrats received another blow when a poll announced that Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal had a stranglehold on the electorate for the governor’s race – and the news could get worse courtesy of one of their own.
Jindal has the intended vote of 63 percent of the sampled electorate, according to the poll. Almost 50 points behind come the rest of the dwarves – Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, and Republican businessman John Georges, with Boasso leading them in at 14 percent. Only 17 percent say they are undecided.
Such a magnitude of the vote, if it holds close to this level, will cause state Democrats major problems this fall beyond surrendering the Governor’s Mansion. Candidates at the top of a ticket such as presidential, since the most important race draws the most attention, have the most impact on turnout and subsequent voting behavior for all contests on a ballot. A very popular candidate discourages turnout from other parties’ voters who otherwise would show up to tick off semi-consciously candidates for lower-level offices from that party on the ballot.
In most states, the impact of a candidate having a large gubernatorial lead would be minimal since that contest gets overshadowed by the presidential race, since the majority of states have their elections in years divisible by four, or even by senatorial contests in the dozen or so states that have them in even-numbered years not divisible by four. But a few like Louisiana have theirs in odd numbered years where federal electoral forces have minimal sway, putting the focus clearly on the governor’s race. And at these levels, Jindal’s predicted performance may tip several competitive state legislative races into the Republican column.
And it can get worse. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin continues to talk about a quixotic run for the office, with the poll showing he would come in second. Having such a divisive figure, with the poll showing four-fifths of whites disapproving but almost as many blacks approving of him, running as a Democrat makes the highly unlikely scenario that Boasso or Campbell somehow making it into the general election runoff with Jindal impossible since Nagin apparently would ace them out. Knowing this would discourage turnout of white Democrats further with amplified down-ballot repercussions.
As state Democrats launch an attack ad campaign against Jindal, they do so not out of any real hope that a Democrat can defeat him in the fall, but to energize their base and minimize the aura of inevitability of Jindal’s election that could trickle down into a meltdown of other state and local Democrat office-winning chances.
Jindal has the intended vote of 63 percent of the sampled electorate, according to the poll. Almost 50 points behind come the rest of the dwarves – Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso, Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, and Republican businessman John Georges, with Boasso leading them in at 14 percent. Only 17 percent say they are undecided.
Such a magnitude of the vote, if it holds close to this level, will cause state Democrats major problems this fall beyond surrendering the Governor’s Mansion. Candidates at the top of a ticket such as presidential, since the most important race draws the most attention, have the most impact on turnout and subsequent voting behavior for all contests on a ballot. A very popular candidate discourages turnout from other parties’ voters who otherwise would show up to tick off semi-consciously candidates for lower-level offices from that party on the ballot.
In most states, the impact of a candidate having a large gubernatorial lead would be minimal since that contest gets overshadowed by the presidential race, since the majority of states have their elections in years divisible by four, or even by senatorial contests in the dozen or so states that have them in even-numbered years not divisible by four. But a few like Louisiana have theirs in odd numbered years where federal electoral forces have minimal sway, putting the focus clearly on the governor’s race. And at these levels, Jindal’s predicted performance may tip several competitive state legislative races into the Republican column.
And it can get worse. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin continues to talk about a quixotic run for the office, with the poll showing he would come in second. Having such a divisive figure, with the poll showing four-fifths of whites disapproving but almost as many blacks approving of him, running as a Democrat makes the highly unlikely scenario that Boasso or Campbell somehow making it into the general election runoff with Jindal impossible since Nagin apparently would ace them out. Knowing this would discourage turnout of white Democrats further with amplified down-ballot repercussions.
As state Democrats launch an attack ad campaign against Jindal, they do so not out of any real hope that a Democrat can defeat him in the fall, but to energize their base and minimize the aura of inevitability of Jindal’s election that could trickle down into a meltdown of other state and local Democrat office-winning chances.
13.8.07
Boasso's ineffective strategy flounders against Jindal
In yesterday’s posting I didn’t refer to the other major dwarf in the Louisiana governor’s race, Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso, but the giant in the contest Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal also is causing him fits.
As a demonstration of such, last month Boasso’s camp proudly proclaimed that their polling showed him down only 31 points to Jindal in intended vote. As have other polls, this one showed a tremendously large base already established for Jindal, meaning opponents would have to go an extra mile in trying to defeat him: not only would they have to corral voters, but in order to get enough of them, they would have to find a way to detach them first from Jindal.
Boasso has been trying to detach, but ineffectively. Carrying around cardboard cutouts of Jindal in person and on broadcasts may tickle funnybones, but barely perceptible from it is Boasso’s message that Jindal has no substance especially since Jindal has made a lot of votes in Congress that seem to make a lot of Louisiana voters happy.
More substantively, Boasso also has run ads criticizing Jindal’s fairly congruent voting record to Pres. George W. Bush. Again, that’s not going to work that well in a state where Bush still has pretty decent approval ratings and the office in question has nothing to do with governing at the federal level. Jindal recently threw more cold water onto that strategy by contradicting it with his pledge (with the entire state congressional delegation) to vote to override a threatened presidential veto regarding in part flood protection projects for the state.
For attack ads to work, they must seem credible and relevant, and Boasso’s, who has staked the major part of his campaign on them concerning Jindal, don’t do well being either so he can’t begin to chip into Jindal’s support. While in the physical world Boasso’s bulk overshadows slender Jindal, in the political world Boasso still comes off puny compared to Jindal.
As a demonstration of such, last month Boasso’s camp proudly proclaimed that their polling showed him down only 31 points to Jindal in intended vote. As have other polls, this one showed a tremendously large base already established for Jindal, meaning opponents would have to go an extra mile in trying to defeat him: not only would they have to corral voters, but in order to get enough of them, they would have to find a way to detach them first from Jindal.
Boasso has been trying to detach, but ineffectively. Carrying around cardboard cutouts of Jindal in person and on broadcasts may tickle funnybones, but barely perceptible from it is Boasso’s message that Jindal has no substance especially since Jindal has made a lot of votes in Congress that seem to make a lot of Louisiana voters happy.
More substantively, Boasso also has run ads criticizing Jindal’s fairly congruent voting record to Pres. George W. Bush. Again, that’s not going to work that well in a state where Bush still has pretty decent approval ratings and the office in question has nothing to do with governing at the federal level. Jindal recently threw more cold water onto that strategy by contradicting it with his pledge (with the entire state congressional delegation) to vote to override a threatened presidential veto regarding in part flood protection projects for the state.
For attack ads to work, they must seem credible and relevant, and Boasso’s, who has staked the major part of his campaign on them concerning Jindal, don’t do well being either so he can’t begin to chip into Jindal’s support. While in the physical world Boasso’s bulk overshadows slender Jindal, in the political world Boasso still comes off puny compared to Jindal.
12.8.07
Gubernatorial dwarves confounded by giant Jindal
Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal’s Louisiana gubernatorial campaign keeps cruising along, much to the consternation of his foes who continue to shut their eyes to reality when they are not trying to convince him to help them defeat him.
Longshot hope Republican businessman John Georges got more confirmation of his status with his own poll showing that Jindal essentially has locked up 38 percent of the intended vote. Interestingly, his campaign stressed that aspect of the survey, not his own standing likely because it is still in the low single digits.
Georges’ whistling in the dark in response to the numbers was along the lines that Jindal only had 38 percent “before our campaign,” simultaneously embracing the fictions that his campaign hadn’t already started and was doing poorly and that somehow Jindal wouldn’t get much else support beyond that level. To put it in perspective, in the 2003 primary, Jindal’s actual vote was only 33 percent; chances are better than even at this level he’ll pick up at least another 12 percent regardless of what Georges or anybody else does, absent a David Vitter-like skeleton in the closet.
Longshot hope Republican businessman John Georges got more confirmation of his status with his own poll showing that Jindal essentially has locked up 38 percent of the intended vote. Interestingly, his campaign stressed that aspect of the survey, not his own standing likely because it is still in the low single digits.
Georges’ whistling in the dark in response to the numbers was along the lines that Jindal only had 38 percent “before our campaign,” simultaneously embracing the fictions that his campaign hadn’t already started and was doing poorly and that somehow Jindal wouldn’t get much else support beyond that level. To put it in perspective, in the 2003 primary, Jindal’s actual vote was only 33 percent; chances are better than even at this level he’ll pick up at least another 12 percent regardless of what Georges or anybody else does, absent a David Vitter-like skeleton in the closet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)