Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom proved his intense loyalty to Louisiana Democrats by taking one for his party by his withdrawal from the contest for an eighth term.
Odom was unlikely to win against challenger Republican state Rep. Mike Strain, given the electoral calculus even though he narrowly led Strain 41-40 percent after the primary. It was anticipated that almost no votes from the other two defeated GOP challengers would come Odom’s way in the general election runoff.
Normally, that would not have been a consideration given that Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal polished off his competition in the primary. With highly motivated voters for change pushing buttons for Jindal at the voting booth, his removal from the general election runoff ordinarily would have meant disproportionately Republican voters would have stayed home without Jindal on the ballot, giving Odom a fighting chance. Odom had the most comprehensive political organization among state Democrats, with the ability to most easily activate Democrats to turn out and vote for him and the party’s other candidates.
But the problem was Odom polarized and activated Republican voters as well. He became the symbol of the excesses inherent to liberalism and populism in Louisiana. Having himself on the ballot would energize Republicans and reformers to turn out to vote against him – and, along the way, disproportionately to vote against other Democrats as well.
Which is why he made the decision to bail out. His chances were less than even to beat Strain, and by his deferral the chances of Democrat James “Buddy” Caldwell to defeat Republican Royal Alexander for attorney general increase, as well as the chances of Democrat legislative candidates to win their runoffs. The desire to support Jindal and to defeat Odom animated Republican and reform voters. Jindal by natural circumstances is now off the ballot, and by choice Odom has removed himself as well.
This means GOP candidates like Alexander will have to work harder to secure victory in November. Without antipathy to Odom to drive some of their voters to the polls, they’ll have to find other ways to get them fired up enough to turn out in sufficient number to bring victory, to offset the organization that Odom still controls that will do its best to get Democrat voters to the polls even without him on the ballot.
It’s fitting that Odom ends his political career this way, putting the needs of his party first. For him, it never was about what was best for Louisiana but, rather, what was best for himself and his allies. Nonetheless, it is a welcome end to an undesirable chapter in Louisiana political history.
24.10.07
To overcome Democrats, Jindal will need much skill
The question is, can Louisiana Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal govern effectively especially in enacting his program into law with a Legislature of whom the majority could be hostile towards it?
Because his conservative platform is a radical shift from the state’s populist past preferred by the vast majority of Democrats (and a few RINOs) in previous Legislatures, only by Republicans winning a majority in both chambers would there be a margin of error for Jindal in accomplishing these policy goals. But at the start of his term there won’t be such a majority in the Senate, where last weekends election results put Democrats in line to have a minimum of 22 seats, two more than majority with four partisan contests to go. In the House, they are assured of at least 46 seats, seven short of the majority with 16 partisan contests to go (since one features a Democrat vs. independent match).
We can gauge the likely partisan composition of the next Legislature by using a formula I discovered in assessing the power of incumbency, and thereby the effect term limits would have on this election cycle, which I used in a presentation of a paper at a professional meeting earlier this year. That is, when an incumbent doesn’t run, Republicans win if the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is less than 2.66, and Democrats win if it is greater than 2.66.
Applying this to races outstanding, the final composition of the chambers would be a split of remaining races in the Senate to make it 24-15, and in the House the formula says Democrats will pick up 6 and the GOP 8 (two other contests feature an incumbent from each party). However, since the winner of the Democrat vs. independent match likely will caucus with Democrats (just as the existing reelected independent caucuses with the Republicans), Democrats look very good to retain a majority, if a slim one.
That means the House won’t be too much trouble for Jindal. On his legislation, he’ll almost always be able to find a few votes across the aisle, even if a Republican here or there abandons him, given the more conservative nature of some Democrat newcomers.. The Senate is another story. He’ll need more than a fifth of the projected Democrat contingent to defect on these votes – assuming perfect loyalty among Republicans. He could get that on some issues, but particularly in the areas of tax cutting and changing budget priorities this will be a hard sell given liberal/populist background of almost all of the Democrats.
On these bills will come the true test of Jindal’s skill. On the one hand, Jindal had said he will not allow “slush funds” to go forward – ladling out state money for local projects that appear of low priority, if not are dubious, in nature. On the other hand, blessing such measures in the capital budget may be the surest way to attract some Democrat votes.
The need to get a favorable Legislature also may test Jindal’s statement that he would not be intervening in these runoffs or in the selection process of the officers of the chambers. This is particularly relevant in the Senate not just because it will have a bigger Democrat majority, but because the oft-named Democrat president candidate, state Sen. Joe McPherson, is a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of Jindal’s plans to modernize health care in the state. McPherson, who has interests in nursing homes, has consistently opposed shifting the emphasis away from the state’s costly and wasteful emphasis on institutional-based health care towards the more efficient and effective focus on community- and individual-based care. Jindal cannot afford to have such an obstacle in the way of reforming the most costly discretionary function of state government.
Hardcore liberals in the Legislature are going to resist Jindal with everything they’ve got because his priorities will endanger their power and privilege as success by him will invalidate their worldviews and arguments in the eyes of voters – and failure on his part will do the opposite and discredit him in the eyes of some. But if Jindal plays for keeps, even the Senate may have enough votes for his programs so it doesn’t become a roadblock to needed change.
Because his conservative platform is a radical shift from the state’s populist past preferred by the vast majority of Democrats (and a few RINOs) in previous Legislatures, only by Republicans winning a majority in both chambers would there be a margin of error for Jindal in accomplishing these policy goals. But at the start of his term there won’t be such a majority in the Senate, where last weekends election results put Democrats in line to have a minimum of 22 seats, two more than majority with four partisan contests to go. In the House, they are assured of at least 46 seats, seven short of the majority with 16 partisan contests to go (since one features a Democrat vs. independent match).
We can gauge the likely partisan composition of the next Legislature by using a formula I discovered in assessing the power of incumbency, and thereby the effect term limits would have on this election cycle, which I used in a presentation of a paper at a professional meeting earlier this year. That is, when an incumbent doesn’t run, Republicans win if the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is less than 2.66, and Democrats win if it is greater than 2.66.
Applying this to races outstanding, the final composition of the chambers would be a split of remaining races in the Senate to make it 24-15, and in the House the formula says Democrats will pick up 6 and the GOP 8 (two other contests feature an incumbent from each party). However, since the winner of the Democrat vs. independent match likely will caucus with Democrats (just as the existing reelected independent caucuses with the Republicans), Democrats look very good to retain a majority, if a slim one.
That means the House won’t be too much trouble for Jindal. On his legislation, he’ll almost always be able to find a few votes across the aisle, even if a Republican here or there abandons him, given the more conservative nature of some Democrat newcomers.. The Senate is another story. He’ll need more than a fifth of the projected Democrat contingent to defect on these votes – assuming perfect loyalty among Republicans. He could get that on some issues, but particularly in the areas of tax cutting and changing budget priorities this will be a hard sell given liberal/populist background of almost all of the Democrats.
On these bills will come the true test of Jindal’s skill. On the one hand, Jindal had said he will not allow “slush funds” to go forward – ladling out state money for local projects that appear of low priority, if not are dubious, in nature. On the other hand, blessing such measures in the capital budget may be the surest way to attract some Democrat votes.
The need to get a favorable Legislature also may test Jindal’s statement that he would not be intervening in these runoffs or in the selection process of the officers of the chambers. This is particularly relevant in the Senate not just because it will have a bigger Democrat majority, but because the oft-named Democrat president candidate, state Sen. Joe McPherson, is a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of Jindal’s plans to modernize health care in the state. McPherson, who has interests in nursing homes, has consistently opposed shifting the emphasis away from the state’s costly and wasteful emphasis on institutional-based health care towards the more efficient and effective focus on community- and individual-based care. Jindal cannot afford to have such an obstacle in the way of reforming the most costly discretionary function of state government.
Hardcore liberals in the Legislature are going to resist Jindal with everything they’ve got because his priorities will endanger their power and privilege as success by him will invalidate their worldviews and arguments in the eyes of voters – and failure on his part will do the opposite and discredit him in the eyes of some. But if Jindal plays for keeps, even the Senate may have enough votes for his programs so it doesn’t become a roadblock to needed change.
23.10.07
Left reacts to growing Jindal threat to its power, privilege
Already liberals and their media allies are finding creative ways to rain on Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal’s parade. Expect them to do their best to continue this over the next four years because of the fundamental threat Jindal represents to their hold on power and privilege.
Upon Jindal’s election, news reports surfaced about how his relatives and others of Indian heritage celebrated the win. So the next day a story appears to inform us that “not all Indian-Americans were celebrating.” One must wonder where this came from, or why it was a story at all. Did the Louisiana Gannett News Service editors see the other story and suddenly felt inspired to find somebody of Indian background to provide an opposing view? Or did some political operatives, displeased at Jindal’s election, volunteer to give an opposing view?
Regardless of how he came to the attention of the media, one Toby Chaudhuri said he had “mixed feelings” about Jindal’s election. He said Jindal wasn’t the “typical Indian-American” because he was a conservative Republican and because of his Catholic faith. Of course, it would appear that this Chaudhuri is something of a moron because he called the Republican Party “historically a white-only party” and also asserted that “Jindal may have cornered the Mother Teresa vote, but Mahatma Gandhi certainly would have opposed him on principle.”
Upon Jindal’s election, news reports surfaced about how his relatives and others of Indian heritage celebrated the win. So the next day a story appears to inform us that “not all Indian-Americans were celebrating.” One must wonder where this came from, or why it was a story at all. Did the Louisiana Gannett News Service editors see the other story and suddenly felt inspired to find somebody of Indian background to provide an opposing view? Or did some political operatives, displeased at Jindal’s election, volunteer to give an opposing view?
Regardless of how he came to the attention of the media, one Toby Chaudhuri said he had “mixed feelings” about Jindal’s election. He said Jindal wasn’t the “typical Indian-American” because he was a conservative Republican and because of his Catholic faith. Of course, it would appear that this Chaudhuri is something of a moron because he called the Republican Party “historically a white-only party” and also asserted that “Jindal may have cornered the Mother Teresa vote, but Mahatma Gandhi certainly would have opposed him on principle.”
22.10.07
Black votes for Jindal least of LA Democrats' worries
So just what was the black vote for Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal, and how does the black vote play into the larger picture of Louisiana state politics going forward?
While one demographer asserts Jindal got about 10 percent of the vote, another demographer claims it was in the “low single digits.” There’s no real way to tell unless one polled a sample of the black electorate, but one common trick to find a figure is to take heavily black-majority precincts and use them as an estimator of vote.
So I did. There are 204 precincts across Louisiana where blacks outnumber whites at least 40:1 and blacks comprise at least 95 percent of the registered electorate (as of Oct. 1). Upon calculating the Jindal vote proportion overall in them (representing nearly 139,000 black registrants, or about a sixth of the state’s total), the figure was about 7 percent.
That splits the middle between 10 and low single digits, and is half of what I thought he would pull, but his real total probably is closer to 10 if not higher. This is for two reasons. First, early voting tends to attract upper-income people, blacks included, who were more likely to vote for Jindal (he had over 60 percent of that vote) which, because demographic information doesn’t exist that can be associated with these voters in state statistics, means that Jindal’s vote proportion among regular voters, including blacks, will be lower, although not by much.
More contaminating is that almost every of the 204 precincts studied is lower-income in nature. Obviously the majority of the state’s blacks don’t live in these and a significant portion is higher income. These blacks are more likely to vote Republican but there is no way to disaggregate their data.
(Interestingly, Republican-turned-independent candidate John Georges got over 27 percent of this estimated vote, most prominently in the New Orleans area, while the two major Democrats pulled about 61 percent. In other words, over a third of blacks voted for essentially Republican candidates.)
This technique also yields a statewide turnout total for blacks of 29 percent (one of the demographers estimated 35 percent which stands to reason since higher-income individuals which were disproportionately few in the precincts studied turn out at higher rates). Notably, estimated New Orleans black turnout was less than half the rates of Shreveport and Baton Rouge, both estimated at 39 percent while New Orleans scraped in at 17 percent. Even if these figures likely are low compared to the actual ones to be released by the state in a few days, New Orleans’ black turnout may not be even half of the 40 percent level of 2003.
These figures confirm the conventional wisdom that depopulation of New Orleans as a result of the hurricane disasters is affecting elections. That 23 percent drop represents about 42,000 black, mainly Democrat, voters. Combine this with non-estimated totals of depopulation of St. Bernard Parish, to a smaller degree Jefferson Parish (both which would be more Democrats than Republicans, although not as unbalanced as the Orleans losses), and turnout in this election probably is higher than in 2003.
Regardless, the preliminary numbers do suggest that 2005’s Katrina has made electoral life more difficult for Democrats at the statewide level.
While one demographer asserts Jindal got about 10 percent of the vote, another demographer claims it was in the “low single digits.” There’s no real way to tell unless one polled a sample of the black electorate, but one common trick to find a figure is to take heavily black-majority precincts and use them as an estimator of vote.
So I did. There are 204 precincts across Louisiana where blacks outnumber whites at least 40:1 and blacks comprise at least 95 percent of the registered electorate (as of Oct. 1). Upon calculating the Jindal vote proportion overall in them (representing nearly 139,000 black registrants, or about a sixth of the state’s total), the figure was about 7 percent.
That splits the middle between 10 and low single digits, and is half of what I thought he would pull, but his real total probably is closer to 10 if not higher. This is for two reasons. First, early voting tends to attract upper-income people, blacks included, who were more likely to vote for Jindal (he had over 60 percent of that vote) which, because demographic information doesn’t exist that can be associated with these voters in state statistics, means that Jindal’s vote proportion among regular voters, including blacks, will be lower, although not by much.
More contaminating is that almost every of the 204 precincts studied is lower-income in nature. Obviously the majority of the state’s blacks don’t live in these and a significant portion is higher income. These blacks are more likely to vote Republican but there is no way to disaggregate their data.
(Interestingly, Republican-turned-independent candidate John Georges got over 27 percent of this estimated vote, most prominently in the New Orleans area, while the two major Democrats pulled about 61 percent. In other words, over a third of blacks voted for essentially Republican candidates.)
This technique also yields a statewide turnout total for blacks of 29 percent (one of the demographers estimated 35 percent which stands to reason since higher-income individuals which were disproportionately few in the precincts studied turn out at higher rates). Notably, estimated New Orleans black turnout was less than half the rates of Shreveport and Baton Rouge, both estimated at 39 percent while New Orleans scraped in at 17 percent. Even if these figures likely are low compared to the actual ones to be released by the state in a few days, New Orleans’ black turnout may not be even half of the 40 percent level of 2003.
These figures confirm the conventional wisdom that depopulation of New Orleans as a result of the hurricane disasters is affecting elections. That 23 percent drop represents about 42,000 black, mainly Democrat, voters. Combine this with non-estimated totals of depopulation of St. Bernard Parish, to a smaller degree Jefferson Parish (both which would be more Democrats than Republicans, although not as unbalanced as the Orleans losses), and turnout in this election probably is higher than in 2003.
Regardless, the preliminary numbers do suggest that 2005’s Katrina has made electoral life more difficult for Democrats at the statewide level.
21.10.07
Media already trying to rewrite meaning of Jindal win
Not a dozen hours had passed since Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal had captured this prize when at least one media outlet began to rewrite the history and meaning of his victory, publicizing a mythology sure to be replicated across his term of service as governor the next four years.
Regular readers of this space know I present as a lead-in to the posting a media product concerning the subject of the column. If you click on the link at the end and read the article, you’ll find some facts and a lot of – often erroneous – speculation, but there are two things you will not discover from it: that Jindal is a Republican and he is a conservative.
Throughout, the article goes to great lengths to deny why Jindal really won. It implies that turnout was lower than it should have been, making the win seem less legitimate. It also appears to ascribe his achievement as one of luck, by catching a “break” here and there that conspired to give him weak opposition. Finally, echoing a theme sure to become conventional wisdom in the media much as the mistaken idea that Jindal lost in 2003 because social conservatives disproportionately did not vote for him (in reality my published research demonstrates his lack of support among blacks and social liberals and populists cost him), it says people voted for him out of “buyer’s remorse.”
Regular readers of this space know I present as a lead-in to the posting a media product concerning the subject of the column. If you click on the link at the end and read the article, you’ll find some facts and a lot of – often erroneous – speculation, but there are two things you will not discover from it: that Jindal is a Republican and he is a conservative.
Throughout, the article goes to great lengths to deny why Jindal really won. It implies that turnout was lower than it should have been, making the win seem less legitimate. It also appears to ascribe his achievement as one of luck, by catching a “break” here and there that conspired to give him weak opposition. Finally, echoing a theme sure to become conventional wisdom in the media much as the mistaken idea that Jindal lost in 2003 because social conservatives disproportionately did not vote for him (in reality my published research demonstrates his lack of support among blacks and social liberals and populists cost him), it says people voted for him out of “buyer’s remorse.”
Big night in LA for GOP, bigger for reformers, newcomers
As many anticipated, it is a good night for Republicans in Louisiana, but an even bigger night for reformers and newcomers in state politics.
Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal made history by winning the governor’s race as a non-incumbent without a general election runoff. Republican state Rep. Mike Strain forced incumbent Bob Odom into a runoff, and is likely to win there. And although he probably is the underdog, Republican Royal Alexander edged out incumbent Charles Foti to meet northeast Louisiana District Attorney James “Buddy” Caldwell. This means the Louisiana GOP now has a majority of the 7 statewide offices, and probably will have 5, maybe 6 of them after November 17.
In the Senate, Republicans made good progress. In District 31, a political newcomer knocked off a veteran Democrat House member for a pickup. In District 32, the same almost happened with Republican Neal Riser coming within a few votes of winning outright, which he probably will do in November. In District 1, a battle of House incumbents was won by A.G. Crowe to capture another seat. If Riser wins this would be a net GOP gain of 2, but Republican candidates will have to hold seats in districts 22 and 25 against experienced Democrats.
The House also trended in the GOP’s direction, a net gain for sure of 3. But more interesting than partisan results was the fact that incumbents and holdovers of all kinds had trouble. One GOP pickup was in House District 27 where incumbent Rick Farrar was annihilated. A GOP hold came in Senate District 11 where Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider similarly was blown away. In District 14 state Rep. Yvonne Dorsey could not put away a political newcomer, both Democrats. District 38 incumbent Sherri Smith Cheek barely held off another Republican who she outspent considerably. In House District 31, Republican state Rep. Don Trahan won by 33 votes over an independent.
This continues the trend noted over the past year in special elections – newcomers benefiting from trends in the voting public, and Republicans most often being those newcomers.
Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal made history by winning the governor’s race as a non-incumbent without a general election runoff. Republican state Rep. Mike Strain forced incumbent Bob Odom into a runoff, and is likely to win there. And although he probably is the underdog, Republican Royal Alexander edged out incumbent Charles Foti to meet northeast Louisiana District Attorney James “Buddy” Caldwell. This means the Louisiana GOP now has a majority of the 7 statewide offices, and probably will have 5, maybe 6 of them after November 17.
In the Senate, Republicans made good progress. In District 31, a political newcomer knocked off a veteran Democrat House member for a pickup. In District 32, the same almost happened with Republican Neal Riser coming within a few votes of winning outright, which he probably will do in November. In District 1, a battle of House incumbents was won by A.G. Crowe to capture another seat. If Riser wins this would be a net GOP gain of 2, but Republican candidates will have to hold seats in districts 22 and 25 against experienced Democrats.
The House also trended in the GOP’s direction, a net gain for sure of 3. But more interesting than partisan results was the fact that incumbents and holdovers of all kinds had trouble. One GOP pickup was in House District 27 where incumbent Rick Farrar was annihilated. A GOP hold came in Senate District 11 where Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider similarly was blown away. In District 14 state Rep. Yvonne Dorsey could not put away a political newcomer, both Democrats. District 38 incumbent Sherri Smith Cheek barely held off another Republican who she outspent considerably. In House District 31, Republican state Rep. Don Trahan won by 33 votes over an independent.
This continues the trend noted over the past year in special elections – newcomers benefiting from trends in the voting public, and Republicans most often being those newcomers.
18.10.07
This election, look at records, not just candidate rhetoric
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)