During the campaign season for state and local offices, you are going to hear a lot of rhetoric both verbal and written coming from various candidates. There’s no truth-in-advertising stricture regarding these ads, so it’s interesting to discover what information some candidates aren’t going to volunteer.
One action that trips up some incumbents is signing onto the Blueprint Louisiana agenda. This reform organization has almost all good ideas that would promote economic development and run government more efficiently. Yet several area incumbents who indicated they supported the agenda in fact even as recently as this past legislative session acted in ways directly contradicting what they now say they support.
For example, part of the agenda is to move the state away from a charity hospital system as the cornerstone of indigent care and pursue more sensible strategies to get matching federal funds. Yet signers Senate incumbents Democrat Robert Adley, Republican Sherri Smith Cheek, and House incumbent Republican Billy Montgomery cast votes that would do exactly the opposite.
17.10.07
Democrats doing whatever it takes to prevent meltdown
If Louisiana Democrats put up such a desultory showing this Saturday as many foresee, it would be hard to blame the efforts of their operatives in Orleans Parish for this as in some cases they have gone the extra(legal) mile to get Democrats into voting booths.
Democrats have fretted that the hurricane disasters of 2005 disproportionately reduced Democrat registration relative to Republicans, and that a lack of statewide candidates attractive to blacks will hurt the party’s chances in these elections. But in Orleans, local candidates and contests may ameliorate at least the concern of lower turnout due to lack of enthusiasm.
Both the 95th and 98th House districts, nominally majority black, became vulnerable to Democrats from storm displacement. Despite the current 95th seat-holder term-limited state Rep. Alex Heaton having switched to the GOP, the 98th probably is more competitive in a partisan sense. Still, the threat of a Republican takeover of both is something that will ensure enthusiastic turnout among Democrats, especially blacks.
Additionally, the unexpected opening up of an at-large New Orleans City Council spot also has got many fired up. When former member black Democrat Oliver Thomas resigned after a guilty plea to influence peddling, there was some concern because this is the so-called “black” seat of the two at-large positions (an informal custom is that a white hold one and a black the other). Democrats have fielded competitive white and black candidates for this seat, but the desire of some to keep this seat “black” also will spur turnout for Democrats that could translate into help for legislative or even statewide candidates.
But perhaps the biggest boost came from the parish Registrar of Voters, Sandra Wilson. Months ago, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne made a special effort to remove voters registered in other states from Louisiana rolls. But the final call was left in the hands of the parish registrars, who went around making extra effort to give people on the list for those to be dropped the chance to demonstrate Louisiana residency.
Parishes around Orleans, with much smaller totals than its 6,857 names, trimmed theirs by about 2 percent. By contrast, Orleans kept less than 2 percent – a situation described in an understated way as “The reduction in New Orleans is startling when compared with how the same type of voter lists were handled by other parishes.” Seems that Wilson enlisted the help of volunteers to go through the list, and a person was not removed from the rolls who could prove their Louisiana residency by providing “information by mail, fax or in person that would offer proof that they were living in New Orleans and intended to remain or else that they had canceled their registrations in other states” – in other words, not a the highest burden of proof.
So will we see a huge cache of absentee ballots swarm into Orleans with many from people who had been on this list? Don’t put it past Democrats who know otherwise their days in power in Louisiana are growing more finite in number as each days passes.
Democrats have fretted that the hurricane disasters of 2005 disproportionately reduced Democrat registration relative to Republicans, and that a lack of statewide candidates attractive to blacks will hurt the party’s chances in these elections. But in Orleans, local candidates and contests may ameliorate at least the concern of lower turnout due to lack of enthusiasm.
Both the 95th and 98th House districts, nominally majority black, became vulnerable to Democrats from storm displacement. Despite the current 95th seat-holder term-limited state Rep. Alex Heaton having switched to the GOP, the 98th probably is more competitive in a partisan sense. Still, the threat of a Republican takeover of both is something that will ensure enthusiastic turnout among Democrats, especially blacks.
Additionally, the unexpected opening up of an at-large New Orleans City Council spot also has got many fired up. When former member black Democrat Oliver Thomas resigned after a guilty plea to influence peddling, there was some concern because this is the so-called “black” seat of the two at-large positions (an informal custom is that a white hold one and a black the other). Democrats have fielded competitive white and black candidates for this seat, but the desire of some to keep this seat “black” also will spur turnout for Democrats that could translate into help for legislative or even statewide candidates.
But perhaps the biggest boost came from the parish Registrar of Voters, Sandra Wilson. Months ago, Secretary of State Jay Dardenne made a special effort to remove voters registered in other states from Louisiana rolls. But the final call was left in the hands of the parish registrars, who went around making extra effort to give people on the list for those to be dropped the chance to demonstrate Louisiana residency.
Parishes around Orleans, with much smaller totals than its 6,857 names, trimmed theirs by about 2 percent. By contrast, Orleans kept less than 2 percent – a situation described in an understated way as “The reduction in New Orleans is startling when compared with how the same type of voter lists were handled by other parishes.” Seems that Wilson enlisted the help of volunteers to go through the list, and a person was not removed from the rolls who could prove their Louisiana residency by providing “information by mail, fax or in person that would offer proof that they were living in New Orleans and intended to remain or else that they had canceled their registrations in other states” – in other words, not a the highest burden of proof.
So will we see a huge cache of absentee ballots swarm into Orleans with many from people who had been on this list? Don’t put it past Democrats who know otherwise their days in power in Louisiana are growing more finite in number as each days passes.
16.10.07
Motives differ for not admitting Jindal's upcoming win
I’ll give New Orleans Times-Picayune columnist James Gill a hand over his latest column – both in the sense of his being the first old media political observer to have enough guts and/or common sense to state the obvious, and in the sense to assist him in answering his question in the column about this upcoming Saturday’s governor’s election – answers that may not make everybody happy.
Gill asked a very simple question – if two independent polls showed Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal with about half the vote, his opponents combined having about a quarter of the vote, and the other quarter undecided, why are no pollsters and pundits stating the obvious: it looks very likely that Jindal will win outright. About the best he could get from them was that Jindal “could win.”
I understand why the pollsters/political scientists might be cautious. We academicians know that political behavior still has many mysteries to us, and, as social scientists, we don’t like to pronounce things with certainty until they are demonstrated with an extraordinarily high degree of confidence. Nobody likes to make a definitive statement not being sure the situation really is definitive because if it does turn out the other way, one’s credibility as a scholar and researcher is damaged.
Gill asked a very simple question – if two independent polls showed Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal with about half the vote, his opponents combined having about a quarter of the vote, and the other quarter undecided, why are no pollsters and pundits stating the obvious: it looks very likely that Jindal will win outright. About the best he could get from them was that Jindal “could win.”
I understand why the pollsters/political scientists might be cautious. We academicians know that political behavior still has many mysteries to us, and, as social scientists, we don’t like to pronounce things with certainty until they are demonstrated with an extraordinarily high degree of confidence. Nobody likes to make a definitive statement not being sure the situation really is definitive because if it does turn out the other way, one’s credibility as a scholar and researcher is damaged.
15.10.07
Likely higher black vote for Jindal to give him outright win
At 30 percent of the total electorate, blacks comprise one of the largest minority voting blocs of any state in the Union. If Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal wins the governor’s election outright this Saturday, it well may be in part to his expansion in votes relative to his previous attempt from the black community. And a significant increase in that vote is likely to happen.
Two independent polls put Jindal at about 20 percent of blacks who are registered and say they intend to vote this weekend. Since this marks an approximate doubling of his estimated total from the 2003 campaign, some have questioned it. To understand the validity of the doubts, let me relate some pieces of inside information from my days working on polls.
First, polls tend to reflect a little “bandwagon” effect – the favorite tends to run a little higher in polls than the actual vote because some people with minimal information about the contest, but who plan on acquiring more before the actual vote, will say the frontrunner. However, when it is a nonincumbent involved in a race such as this, the effect tends to be small. So Jindal might be picking up a couple of percentage points this way from blacks, and everybody, polled.
Second, blacks tend to indicate in larger proportions that they are undecided than whites. This is because they are more likely to say they intend to vote, then don’t do it. Assuming a majority of blacks who vote cast them against Jindal, the more of them that abstain, the better off Jindal is electorally.
Third, if a black respondent says he will vote for a Republican, he usually means it. Since fewer than 10 percent typically register as Republicans and given the pressure members of the black community are under by their “leaders” to vote the Democrat party line, for a black respondent to indicate preference for a Republican candidate means there has been some thought put into it and to make such a psychological break means this is a pretty solid commitment.
(Something pollsters have noted is if the race of the phone interviewer is detectable, blacks to a small degree give different answers to perceived white interviewers than to perceived black interviewers which can inflate totals of candidates that are believed to be “favored” by “whites.” However, pollsters generally negate this tendency by assigning black and/or female callers to black registrants to the degree that is possible, and this probably was done by both the polling operations.)
So when a black elected official says some people want to be associated with a winner, he’s right – but that represents a pretty small percentage of those blacks saying they plan to vote for Jindal and who then don’t. And when a black minister who has run for statewide office before indicates that many black community leaders automatically reject Jindal because of his partisan and/or ideological status, it shows why there is doubt Jindal will do much better than in 2003 among black voters – because they are missing the relative surge in Jindal’s support in the community either because they are denying it to themselves, or because some blacks are, to put it delicately, not being honest with them about their vote intention because they think it would upset these leaders to hear they intend to vote for Jindal.
Some doubters point out that even black Republican candidates have not run well statewide among blacks – for example, Lynn Swann got only an estimated 13 percent of the black vote in his run for Pennsylvania governor. But that’s about where the polls had him before the election, and he ended up with 40 percent of the total vote. So if polls tend to be accurate on black intended votes for Republicans (for reasons stated above), we can be very confident in Jindal’s receiving at least 15 percent, maybe even 20 percent, of the black vote – a significant increase from 2003.
Which leaves a final question – why? One obvious, although perhaps not exclusive, explanation presents itself. Jindal is running against, in terms of major candidates, a Democrat white, moderately conservative businessman, an independent white, moderately conservative businessman, and a Democrat white rural liberal populist from north Louisiana who is underfinanced and has no reputation at all for working with and making special initiatives to target the black community in Louisiana. None of these characteristics especially appeal to black voters and so, in that case, why not go with the candidate who is a racial minority even if he is a Republican?
With a field displaying these dyanmics, given the inevitability surrounding Jindal’s coming victory, and that almost no intra-party competition will occur in any legislative district that has a significant black vote, black turnout probably will be down helping Jindal to run in the black community competitively with his opposition, meaning he is likely to win outright.
Two independent polls put Jindal at about 20 percent of blacks who are registered and say they intend to vote this weekend. Since this marks an approximate doubling of his estimated total from the 2003 campaign, some have questioned it. To understand the validity of the doubts, let me relate some pieces of inside information from my days working on polls.
First, polls tend to reflect a little “bandwagon” effect – the favorite tends to run a little higher in polls than the actual vote because some people with minimal information about the contest, but who plan on acquiring more before the actual vote, will say the frontrunner. However, when it is a nonincumbent involved in a race such as this, the effect tends to be small. So Jindal might be picking up a couple of percentage points this way from blacks, and everybody, polled.
Second, blacks tend to indicate in larger proportions that they are undecided than whites. This is because they are more likely to say they intend to vote, then don’t do it. Assuming a majority of blacks who vote cast them against Jindal, the more of them that abstain, the better off Jindal is electorally.
Third, if a black respondent says he will vote for a Republican, he usually means it. Since fewer than 10 percent typically register as Republicans and given the pressure members of the black community are under by their “leaders” to vote the Democrat party line, for a black respondent to indicate preference for a Republican candidate means there has been some thought put into it and to make such a psychological break means this is a pretty solid commitment.
(Something pollsters have noted is if the race of the phone interviewer is detectable, blacks to a small degree give different answers to perceived white interviewers than to perceived black interviewers which can inflate totals of candidates that are believed to be “favored” by “whites.” However, pollsters generally negate this tendency by assigning black and/or female callers to black registrants to the degree that is possible, and this probably was done by both the polling operations.)
So when a black elected official says some people want to be associated with a winner, he’s right – but that represents a pretty small percentage of those blacks saying they plan to vote for Jindal and who then don’t. And when a black minister who has run for statewide office before indicates that many black community leaders automatically reject Jindal because of his partisan and/or ideological status, it shows why there is doubt Jindal will do much better than in 2003 among black voters – because they are missing the relative surge in Jindal’s support in the community either because they are denying it to themselves, or because some blacks are, to put it delicately, not being honest with them about their vote intention because they think it would upset these leaders to hear they intend to vote for Jindal.
Some doubters point out that even black Republican candidates have not run well statewide among blacks – for example, Lynn Swann got only an estimated 13 percent of the black vote in his run for Pennsylvania governor. But that’s about where the polls had him before the election, and he ended up with 40 percent of the total vote. So if polls tend to be accurate on black intended votes for Republicans (for reasons stated above), we can be very confident in Jindal’s receiving at least 15 percent, maybe even 20 percent, of the black vote – a significant increase from 2003.
Which leaves a final question – why? One obvious, although perhaps not exclusive, explanation presents itself. Jindal is running against, in terms of major candidates, a Democrat white, moderately conservative businessman, an independent white, moderately conservative businessman, and a Democrat white rural liberal populist from north Louisiana who is underfinanced and has no reputation at all for working with and making special initiatives to target the black community in Louisiana. None of these characteristics especially appeal to black voters and so, in that case, why not go with the candidate who is a racial minority even if he is a Republican?
With a field displaying these dyanmics, given the inevitability surrounding Jindal’s coming victory, and that almost no intra-party competition will occur in any legislative district that has a significant black vote, black turnout probably will be down helping Jindal to run in the black community competitively with his opposition, meaning he is likely to win outright.
14.10.07
Key to conservative agenda success lies in LA Senate
While the chances of Louisiana Republicans to take a majority of seats in the House are less than even and almost nonexistent in the Senate, can the party end up governing Louisiana? Or, more generally, can a conservative majority take control of the state?
By now, it is almost certain that Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal will win a four-year residence in the Governor’s Mansion, and better than even he’ll accomplish that without a general election runoff. It’s also almost certain that the Republicans will make some gains in the House and minimal gains in the Senate. Still, they probably will end up a few seats short in the House, and would have about 40 percent of the seats in the Senate. So, on paper, at least the Legislature will remain in Democrat hands.
But consider the assertion of co-chairman of the Legislative Republican Caucus Jim Tucker, that his faction is taking the House “philosophically.” Term limits are doing what they theoretically should – bringing the aggregate of legislators closer to the views of the median voter which in this state have been more to the right than those of officials. Even Democrat Caucus Chairman Eric LaFleur admits his party intentionally fielded more moderate, even conservative, candidates.
This creates a situation potentially akin to that in 1980, when conservative Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan won the White House. Even though he faced a House firmly controlled by Democrats, enough of them were conservative on taxing and spending issues that he got through some monumental legislation of a conservative kind, such as large tax cuts. A Gov. Jindal likely has the same ability to use the powers, both formal and informal, of his office to appeal to these more conservative Democrats to enact much of his conservative, reform agenda.
However, the comparison breaks down when viewing the Senate. Reagan actually had a Republican majority to work with there, while Jindal might be down about 7 seats of 39. Nonetheless, with enough more moderate Democrat senators, Jindal might have a chance to fashion majorities there as well.
If this is what would have to transpire for Jindal to succeed, reviewing the last three years worth of scores on the ideology/reform index used in my Louisiana Legislature Log reveals Jindal might have a rough go of it. The index is scaled so that a score of 0 represents a perfect liberal/populist voting record, while 100 represents a perfect conservative/reformist voting record.
In 2005, the Senate was 6 points more liberal/populist with the gap between the typical Democrat and Republican was 21. In 2006, the Senate overall was slightly more liberal/populist but the difference between party averages narrowed to 14. In 2007, the gap opened considerably to 47 even as the Senate scored slightly more conservative/reformist than the House.
So unless the GOP does better than anticipated in the Senate and/or more conservative Democrat senators get elected, the Senate could turn into the graveyard of reform for Jindal. This is because the set of fairly extremist senators now present for Democrats would be unlikely to support many conservative initiatives. Further complicating matters is how many liberal Republican senators may get elected – for example, liberal Sherri Smith Cheek looks likely to be reelected, and with the term-limitation of perhaps the most conservative Sen. Max Malone it’s possible that liberal current state Rep. Billy Montgomery could replace him.
This means that the focus of attention over the next five weeks really should not be so much on the House, but the Senate, to see if ideas sponsored by the GOP will make much headway in Louisiana over the next four years.
By now, it is almost certain that Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal will win a four-year residence in the Governor’s Mansion, and better than even he’ll accomplish that without a general election runoff. It’s also almost certain that the Republicans will make some gains in the House and minimal gains in the Senate. Still, they probably will end up a few seats short in the House, and would have about 40 percent of the seats in the Senate. So, on paper, at least the Legislature will remain in Democrat hands.
But consider the assertion of co-chairman of the Legislative Republican Caucus Jim Tucker, that his faction is taking the House “philosophically.” Term limits are doing what they theoretically should – bringing the aggregate of legislators closer to the views of the median voter which in this state have been more to the right than those of officials. Even Democrat Caucus Chairman Eric LaFleur admits his party intentionally fielded more moderate, even conservative, candidates.
This creates a situation potentially akin to that in 1980, when conservative Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan won the White House. Even though he faced a House firmly controlled by Democrats, enough of them were conservative on taxing and spending issues that he got through some monumental legislation of a conservative kind, such as large tax cuts. A Gov. Jindal likely has the same ability to use the powers, both formal and informal, of his office to appeal to these more conservative Democrats to enact much of his conservative, reform agenda.
However, the comparison breaks down when viewing the Senate. Reagan actually had a Republican majority to work with there, while Jindal might be down about 7 seats of 39. Nonetheless, with enough more moderate Democrat senators, Jindal might have a chance to fashion majorities there as well.
If this is what would have to transpire for Jindal to succeed, reviewing the last three years worth of scores on the ideology/reform index used in my Louisiana Legislature Log reveals Jindal might have a rough go of it. The index is scaled so that a score of 0 represents a perfect liberal/populist voting record, while 100 represents a perfect conservative/reformist voting record.
In 2005, the Senate was 6 points more liberal/populist with the gap between the typical Democrat and Republican was 21. In 2006, the Senate overall was slightly more liberal/populist but the difference between party averages narrowed to 14. In 2007, the gap opened considerably to 47 even as the Senate scored slightly more conservative/reformist than the House.
So unless the GOP does better than anticipated in the Senate and/or more conservative Democrat senators get elected, the Senate could turn into the graveyard of reform for Jindal. This is because the set of fairly extremist senators now present for Democrats would be unlikely to support many conservative initiatives. Further complicating matters is how many liberal Republican senators may get elected – for example, liberal Sherri Smith Cheek looks likely to be reelected, and with the term-limitation of perhaps the most conservative Sen. Max Malone it’s possible that liberal current state Rep. Billy Montgomery could replace him.
This means that the focus of attention over the next five weeks really should not be so much on the House, but the Senate, to see if ideas sponsored by the GOP will make much headway in Louisiana over the next four years.
11.10.07
Jindal untouched by stones thrown from glass houses
As polls continue to show Republican Bobby Jindal with a good chance of winning the Louisiana governor’s race outright, opponents irritated at his unwillingness to take their barbs at public forums desperately keep tossing those stones from glass houses in an effort to keep their faint hopes alive.
According to results of the latest gubernatorial poll, by Southeastern Louisiana University, Jindal will win outright on Oct. 20. He has just a shade under 50 percent of the registered vote, but about 21 percent are undecided. Only a small portion of those have to decide on Jindal and it’s all over. His major opponents, Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso, independent businessman John Georges, and Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell barely can crack double-digits, if even that. Thus, they know not only must they entice these undecided voters to themselves to finish second, but in order for that to mean anything they have to wrench voters from Jindal because there’s no other source of voters for them and to keep jindal from garnering a majority..
(And that 21 percent probably is divided largely into a couple of categories: those who aren’t that enthusiastic about Jindal and are wondering if any of the others can indicate something significantly impressive to convince them not to vote for Jindal in favor of that other, and those who definitely doesn’t want to vote for Jindal but can’t decide which of the others to vote for. That first group will not respond to negative attacks on Jindal and are likely to vote for him because if the others haven’t done anything to impress these undecided intended voters by now, they are unlikely to do it at all.)
Jindal knows his opponents only can gain at his expense if he’s around to have them attack him and maybe goad him into blunders, so he committed only to three forums (which is about as many statewide venues he participated in during his 2003 run). This appears to frustrate them and actually leads to a role reversal where they start saying distorted, if not silly, things that invite observers to remind them of their own failings.
Boasso already has run afoul of this during one forum attended by Jindal by his insisting Jindal intended one thing about a big expansion in federal government health care spending when Jindal not a day earlier said the exact opposite. One of Boasso’s themes has been that Jindal is “dishonest” for not being “truthful” about things, but this remark made Boasso look silly if not hypocritical
Georges’ turn to look the same came at a forum not attended by Jindal when he implied Jindal for not being present therefore was dodging the public: “We need a governor who won't hide.” He then implied Jindal was on the take when he said Jindal should return any donations from contractors (Jindal is not a multi-millionaire like Georges, who has financed almost entirely his campaign from his own resources.)
But that very day the media reported that Georges, who had made a public display of “divesting” himself of gambling interests and told a statewide audience he was out of the business completely, still directed a gambling operation. Which makes it a fair question to Georges about why he is “hiding” his continued connection to gambling and perhaps he should give away whatever proportion of his campaign fund that came from money he made off of gambling interests to … well, maybe people who lost money gambling?
(Even though Campbell steered clear of jumping on Jindal, in some ways he treads on thin ice as well. During the forum he talked of the dangers of lobbyists and their blandishments. Yet Campbell received substantial campaign support from an operator of a Ouachita Parish water system with over 150 violations while the PSC did little initially to address the situation. This doesn’t indicate that Campbell or any of the commissioners were being unduly influenced, but it does start to strain credibility when Campbell argues for ethics reform when he hasn’t made sure his own backyard is in order.)
It has been the hopes of the dwarves of the gubernatorial contest to use the forums to eat into Jindal’s advantage by putting him on the defensive in them. Instead, if anything the tactic is backfiring as their own statements open themselves up to criticism.
According to results of the latest gubernatorial poll, by Southeastern Louisiana University, Jindal will win outright on Oct. 20. He has just a shade under 50 percent of the registered vote, but about 21 percent are undecided. Only a small portion of those have to decide on Jindal and it’s all over. His major opponents, Democrat state Sen. Walter Boasso, independent businessman John Georges, and Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell barely can crack double-digits, if even that. Thus, they know not only must they entice these undecided voters to themselves to finish second, but in order for that to mean anything they have to wrench voters from Jindal because there’s no other source of voters for them and to keep jindal from garnering a majority..
(And that 21 percent probably is divided largely into a couple of categories: those who aren’t that enthusiastic about Jindal and are wondering if any of the others can indicate something significantly impressive to convince them not to vote for Jindal in favor of that other, and those who definitely doesn’t want to vote for Jindal but can’t decide which of the others to vote for. That first group will not respond to negative attacks on Jindal and are likely to vote for him because if the others haven’t done anything to impress these undecided intended voters by now, they are unlikely to do it at all.)
Jindal knows his opponents only can gain at his expense if he’s around to have them attack him and maybe goad him into blunders, so he committed only to three forums (which is about as many statewide venues he participated in during his 2003 run). This appears to frustrate them and actually leads to a role reversal where they start saying distorted, if not silly, things that invite observers to remind them of their own failings.
Boasso already has run afoul of this during one forum attended by Jindal by his insisting Jindal intended one thing about a big expansion in federal government health care spending when Jindal not a day earlier said the exact opposite. One of Boasso’s themes has been that Jindal is “dishonest” for not being “truthful” about things, but this remark made Boasso look silly if not hypocritical
Georges’ turn to look the same came at a forum not attended by Jindal when he implied Jindal for not being present therefore was dodging the public: “We need a governor who won't hide.” He then implied Jindal was on the take when he said Jindal should return any donations from contractors (Jindal is not a multi-millionaire like Georges, who has financed almost entirely his campaign from his own resources.)
But that very day the media reported that Georges, who had made a public display of “divesting” himself of gambling interests and told a statewide audience he was out of the business completely, still directed a gambling operation. Which makes it a fair question to Georges about why he is “hiding” his continued connection to gambling and perhaps he should give away whatever proportion of his campaign fund that came from money he made off of gambling interests to … well, maybe people who lost money gambling?
(Even though Campbell steered clear of jumping on Jindal, in some ways he treads on thin ice as well. During the forum he talked of the dangers of lobbyists and their blandishments. Yet Campbell received substantial campaign support from an operator of a Ouachita Parish water system with over 150 violations while the PSC did little initially to address the situation. This doesn’t indicate that Campbell or any of the commissioners were being unduly influenced, but it does start to strain credibility when Campbell argues for ethics reform when he hasn’t made sure his own backyard is in order.)
It has been the hopes of the dwarves of the gubernatorial contest to use the forums to eat into Jindal’s advantage by putting him on the defensive in them. Instead, if anything the tactic is backfiring as their own statements open themselves up to criticism.
10.10.07
Supreme Court looks likely to end LA blanket primary
I was wondering how long it would take the Louisiana media to get around to noticing that the opening-day case argued by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning Washington state’s blanket primary system might have an impact on Louisiana. It now officially has, nine days later, but didn’t report why the law would be in trouble, or that, from oral argumentation, it appears this will be the last statewide election that operates under the blanket primary system.
It started with a California case decided in 2000 that had permitted a “partisan” blanket primary (the official name scholars give to Louisiana’s system, largely ignored by the state’s media and politicians, is a nonpartisan blanket primary). For decades California had allowed cross-nomination – a candidate could seek nominations from more than one party – but then changed to allow all voters the opportunity to vote in any party’s primary for any office, with winners fro each party advancing to the general election. This is in contrast to an “open” primary system where a voter regardless of affiliation may choose one particular party’s primary in which to participate.
The Court, reaffirming lower court decisions, struck this down, the majority arguing that it infringed on the free association rights of political parties. That is, it prevented parties from disassociating themselves with candidates who in the main could be chosen by non-party affiliates. At the time, the majority made clear the ruling did not impact the open primary, because in having to choose one party’s primary in which to participate the voter was making an affirmation of allegiance, or the nonpartisan blanket primary, since the general election could advance two members of the same party which, in the Court’s words, “This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee.”
Washington had a similar system, so in response a popular initiative was proposed, and passed by voters, that dispensed with the party nominee aspect and instead would advance the top two vote getters to the general election. It is like Louisiana’s in every way except that Washington did not claim that candidates would run as a representative of a party but instead would indicate a “personal party preference” in an attempt to obviate the claim that they were running in a nomination contest. Lower courts have rejected this wording as cosmetic. In addition, oral argumentation last week in front of the Court appeared to indicate that it was skeptical of the Washington law as well.
Louisiana’s nonpartisan blanket primary now is threatened because, in the most recent case, lower courts are providing a more exact definition of “nonpartisan” which was not really addressed in the Court decision concerning California. To them, the term defines an election such as held in Nebraska where there is no party affiliations listed on the ballots at all (even as candidates publicize their affiliations). If the Court agrees, this means that neither Washington’s nor Louisiana’s systems are “nonpartisan” and thus are in violation of the associational rights of political parties. If it does, then the only way Louisiana could keep its present system is to remove partisan labels from ballots.
Court decisions, even with seemingly-strong evidence from oral arguments, are hard to predict, and this obviously won’t be decided until after state and local elections, and then someone would have to challenge Louisiana’s system. But if the Court goes in the direction it seems to indicate, one huge matter the next Legislature will have to tackle is replacing its blanket primary system.
It started with a California case decided in 2000 that had permitted a “partisan” blanket primary (the official name scholars give to Louisiana’s system, largely ignored by the state’s media and politicians, is a nonpartisan blanket primary). For decades California had allowed cross-nomination – a candidate could seek nominations from more than one party – but then changed to allow all voters the opportunity to vote in any party’s primary for any office, with winners fro each party advancing to the general election. This is in contrast to an “open” primary system where a voter regardless of affiliation may choose one particular party’s primary in which to participate.
The Court, reaffirming lower court decisions, struck this down, the majority arguing that it infringed on the free association rights of political parties. That is, it prevented parties from disassociating themselves with candidates who in the main could be chosen by non-party affiliates. At the time, the majority made clear the ruling did not impact the open primary, because in having to choose one party’s primary in which to participate the voter was making an affirmation of allegiance, or the nonpartisan blanket primary, since the general election could advance two members of the same party which, in the Court’s words, “This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party's nominee.”
Washington had a similar system, so in response a popular initiative was proposed, and passed by voters, that dispensed with the party nominee aspect and instead would advance the top two vote getters to the general election. It is like Louisiana’s in every way except that Washington did not claim that candidates would run as a representative of a party but instead would indicate a “personal party preference” in an attempt to obviate the claim that they were running in a nomination contest. Lower courts have rejected this wording as cosmetic. In addition, oral argumentation last week in front of the Court appeared to indicate that it was skeptical of the Washington law as well.
Louisiana’s nonpartisan blanket primary now is threatened because, in the most recent case, lower courts are providing a more exact definition of “nonpartisan” which was not really addressed in the Court decision concerning California. To them, the term defines an election such as held in Nebraska where there is no party affiliations listed on the ballots at all (even as candidates publicize their affiliations). If the Court agrees, this means that neither Washington’s nor Louisiana’s systems are “nonpartisan” and thus are in violation of the associational rights of political parties. If it does, then the only way Louisiana could keep its present system is to remove partisan labels from ballots.
Court decisions, even with seemingly-strong evidence from oral arguments, are hard to predict, and this obviously won’t be decided until after state and local elections, and then someone would have to challenge Louisiana’s system. But if the Court goes in the direction it seems to indicate, one huge matter the next Legislature will have to tackle is replacing its blanket primary system.
9.10.07
Georges disconnect from voters hampers election bid
Now it’s John Georges that has gone into desperation mode? As Louisiana gubernatorial candidates flail against Rep. Bobby Jindal’s juggernaut, they keep criticizing him over things that frankly don’t matter or are entirely distorted.
Last week it was state Sen. Walter Boasso who tried to make Jindal out to be supporting one thing when Jindal’s own words previously that day entirely contradicted Boasso’s assertion. In effect, it made Boasso look small in comparison to Jindal (which is really saying something). Boasso recognizes that Jindal is threatening to win outright without a general election runoff, and has pledged to do anything to win himself.
Now Georges, running as an independent although previously calling himself a Republican, is playing the petulance card. He probably has realized that he could be the second-choice voter among more of the Republican Jindal’s supporters than Democrat Boasso or Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, so if he detaches Jindal voters, by negative attacks, he thinks they’ll float on over to him.
Even though he claims he’s not a politician, Georges is making the same mistake that so many do: winning votes is not just a matter of getting others not to vote for somebody else, but then to get them to vote for you. His latest whining about Jindal shows how little he understands this.
In a candidate forum not attended by Jindal, Georges asserted, “When someone applies for a job and doesn’t show up for the interview, you don’t give him the job.” Forgetting for the moment that while Jindal may have only twice participated in these forums he has “interviewed” hundreds, if not thousands, of times across the state in church, civic, and other gatherings, when has Georges ever even interviewed for a real job? He’s spent his career stepping right into the family business, from a privileged background.
This puts him in marked contrast to his three major competitors, all of whom come from working class or lower middle class immigrant backgrounds, whose families and they had to work hard even to approach the level of affluence into which Georges was born. And this is what Georges doesn’t get: one senses that his campaign is baffled why it doesn’t do better with all the money and the agenda he has (which doesn’t differ from Jindal’s by much), because they do not understand that you just don’t walk into a political executive’s job depending upon the people’s votes no matter how successful you have been in the business world.
Despite his darker skin and obvious high-faluting intelligence, Jindal does a much better job of showing how his wants and desires, and the ideas he proposes to achieve them through government, match those of the typical citizen of Louisiana. In short, Georges doesn’t grasp what Jindal, or even Boasso and Campbell, understand about the lives of ordinary Louisianans.
It’s why his form of criticism of Jindal came out the way it did. It’s also why he will be fortunate to get into a runoff with Jindal, and why he will lose with or without one.
Last week it was state Sen. Walter Boasso who tried to make Jindal out to be supporting one thing when Jindal’s own words previously that day entirely contradicted Boasso’s assertion. In effect, it made Boasso look small in comparison to Jindal (which is really saying something). Boasso recognizes that Jindal is threatening to win outright without a general election runoff, and has pledged to do anything to win himself.
Now Georges, running as an independent although previously calling himself a Republican, is playing the petulance card. He probably has realized that he could be the second-choice voter among more of the Republican Jindal’s supporters than Democrat Boasso or Democrat Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, so if he detaches Jindal voters, by negative attacks, he thinks they’ll float on over to him.
Even though he claims he’s not a politician, Georges is making the same mistake that so many do: winning votes is not just a matter of getting others not to vote for somebody else, but then to get them to vote for you. His latest whining about Jindal shows how little he understands this.
In a candidate forum not attended by Jindal, Georges asserted, “When someone applies for a job and doesn’t show up for the interview, you don’t give him the job.” Forgetting for the moment that while Jindal may have only twice participated in these forums he has “interviewed” hundreds, if not thousands, of times across the state in church, civic, and other gatherings, when has Georges ever even interviewed for a real job? He’s spent his career stepping right into the family business, from a privileged background.
This puts him in marked contrast to his three major competitors, all of whom come from working class or lower middle class immigrant backgrounds, whose families and they had to work hard even to approach the level of affluence into which Georges was born. And this is what Georges doesn’t get: one senses that his campaign is baffled why it doesn’t do better with all the money and the agenda he has (which doesn’t differ from Jindal’s by much), because they do not understand that you just don’t walk into a political executive’s job depending upon the people’s votes no matter how successful you have been in the business world.
Despite his darker skin and obvious high-faluting intelligence, Jindal does a much better job of showing how his wants and desires, and the ideas he proposes to achieve them through government, match those of the typical citizen of Louisiana. In short, Georges doesn’t grasp what Jindal, or even Boasso and Campbell, understand about the lives of ordinary Louisianans.
It’s why his form of criticism of Jindal came out the way it did. It’s also why he will be fortunate to get into a runoff with Jindal, and why he will lose with or without one.
8.10.07
LA atty. gen. race may act as GOP, reform bellwether
Perhaps the best indicator of partisan fortunes in Louisiana state elections this year will come from a contest that typically does not generate a lot of excitement, that for attorney general. It also can tell much about how anti-incumbent sentiment there is out there that will tend to favor Republican candidates.
There’s no doubt that the best Democrats can hope for in this cycle is to minimize losses. They may be able to prevent any losses in the state Senate but will lose some seats in the House. They also look highly likely to lose most statewide offices (that all but one major candidates running for governor was a Republican six months ago and the only long-time Democrat in the race was considered to be a second-tier choice and continues to lag the others in funding is telling).
On primary election day, we will know whether the GOP is headed for big or minimal success, or somewhere in between by the end of the general election day next month, on the outcomes of the governor’s, agriculture commissioner’s, and attorney general’s races. For governor, Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal faces the “original” Democrat, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat, and a Republican-turned-independent as major foes. For agriculture commissioner, incumbent Democrat Bob Odom faces two major Republicans. For attorney general, incumbent Democrat Charles Foti faces Republican Royal Alexander and Democrat Buddy Caldwell.
There’s no doubt that the best Democrats can hope for in this cycle is to minimize losses. They may be able to prevent any losses in the state Senate but will lose some seats in the House. They also look highly likely to lose most statewide offices (that all but one major candidates running for governor was a Republican six months ago and the only long-time Democrat in the race was considered to be a second-tier choice and continues to lag the others in funding is telling).
On primary election day, we will know whether the GOP is headed for big or minimal success, or somewhere in between by the end of the general election day next month, on the outcomes of the governor’s, agriculture commissioner’s, and attorney general’s races. For governor, Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal faces the “original” Democrat, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat, and a Republican-turned-independent as major foes. For agriculture commissioner, incumbent Democrat Bob Odom faces two major Republicans. For attorney general, incumbent Democrat Charles Foti faces Republican Royal Alexander and Democrat Buddy Caldwell.
7.10.07
Landrieu unable to think for herself, to LA's detriment
Democrats are retreating in trying to use a comment made by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh to distract the American public from their poor, politicized judgment about the Iraq war. Unfortunately for Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, the realization this was a losing issue came too late for her and gave her the opportunity again to show her contempt for free speech and to remind the public of her mistaken policy prescriptions associated with the prosecution of that war.
Recently, Limbaugh referred to the left’s penchant for producing people who claim the U.S. military regularly commits atrocities in Iraq but who are found never to have witnessed such things because they haven’t served there as “phony soldiers.” A hack front organization for liberal operatives connected to Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton then tried to promote the idea that Limbaugh had referred to anyone in the military who opposed the war, which a review of the context of the remarks shows to be utterly mistaken and thereby driven by politics. The goal of this distraction was to try to establish an equivalency between these remarks and those made by an allied leftist pressure group that questioned in a newspaper ad the commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus’ honesty, competence, and patriotism that Democrats saw no problem with until public opinion turned decisively against them, in order to deflect criticism.
But as public awareness of the vapidity of this attempt increased, most Senate Democrats embarrassed themselves by sending a letter to the head of Limbaugh’s network asking for a disavowal of his remarks (naturally declined, for there was nothing offensive about calling someone who lied about his service a “phony soldier”). While a few Democrat senators were sensible and could think with enough independence from their party not to sign it, Landrieu possessed neither the intelligence nor wisdom to do so indicated by her signing on to this foolishness.
Certainly Landrieu has been looking for a way to turn the Louisiana public’s attention away from the series of bad choices she has made marching in lockstep with Democrats’ efforts to bring about American defeat in Iraq since victory dos not serve their political agenda. Only last month, after Petraeus reported the increase in U.S. force commitment and strategic alterations known as the “surge” were increasing stability and suppressing violence in Iraq, Landrieu acknowledged his testimony then flatly said his expert testimony did not change her closed mind.
And would the fact that, as widely reported yesterday, since the surge’s implementation there has been a continual decrease in military and civilian deaths that continues to accelerate change her mind? As of today, there’s no indication that she has woken up on this issue.
Signing the mistaken letter is consistent with Landrieu’s pro-censorship policy concerning political debate. And no doubt she hoped it also would get peoples’ minds off of her connections to disgraced Democrat fundraisers who she now claims she barely knows, another inconvenient item about her that came to light last month.
But as the vapidity of the attempt to create a controversy becomes more apparent, rather than redirect citizens’ concerns, Landrieu has made it only clearer that, like a lockstep Democrat lemming that she is, on important issues she would rather follow her national party’s liberal leadership than to think for herself – and thus make her less likely to chose policies for the betterment of Louisiana and the country instead of a bankrupt ideology.
Recently, Limbaugh referred to the left’s penchant for producing people who claim the U.S. military regularly commits atrocities in Iraq but who are found never to have witnessed such things because they haven’t served there as “phony soldiers.” A hack front organization for liberal operatives connected to Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton then tried to promote the idea that Limbaugh had referred to anyone in the military who opposed the war, which a review of the context of the remarks shows to be utterly mistaken and thereby driven by politics. The goal of this distraction was to try to establish an equivalency between these remarks and those made by an allied leftist pressure group that questioned in a newspaper ad the commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus’ honesty, competence, and patriotism that Democrats saw no problem with until public opinion turned decisively against them, in order to deflect criticism.
But as public awareness of the vapidity of this attempt increased, most Senate Democrats embarrassed themselves by sending a letter to the head of Limbaugh’s network asking for a disavowal of his remarks (naturally declined, for there was nothing offensive about calling someone who lied about his service a “phony soldier”). While a few Democrat senators were sensible and could think with enough independence from their party not to sign it, Landrieu possessed neither the intelligence nor wisdom to do so indicated by her signing on to this foolishness.
Certainly Landrieu has been looking for a way to turn the Louisiana public’s attention away from the series of bad choices she has made marching in lockstep with Democrats’ efforts to bring about American defeat in Iraq since victory dos not serve their political agenda. Only last month, after Petraeus reported the increase in U.S. force commitment and strategic alterations known as the “surge” were increasing stability and suppressing violence in Iraq, Landrieu acknowledged his testimony then flatly said his expert testimony did not change her closed mind.
And would the fact that, as widely reported yesterday, since the surge’s implementation there has been a continual decrease in military and civilian deaths that continues to accelerate change her mind? As of today, there’s no indication that she has woken up on this issue.
Signing the mistaken letter is consistent with Landrieu’s pro-censorship policy concerning political debate. And no doubt she hoped it also would get peoples’ minds off of her connections to disgraced Democrat fundraisers who she now claims she barely knows, another inconvenient item about her that came to light last month.
But as the vapidity of the attempt to create a controversy becomes more apparent, rather than redirect citizens’ concerns, Landrieu has made it only clearer that, like a lockstep Democrat lemming that she is, on important issues she would rather follow her national party’s liberal leadership than to think for herself – and thus make her less likely to chose policies for the betterment of Louisiana and the country instead of a bankrupt ideology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)