There’s a right way and a wrong way to perform negative advertising, and for this round of elections in Louisiana it looks as if the Republicans got it right and the Democrats got it wrong.
Republicans have targeted Democrat Secretary of State candidate Francis Heitmeier in what, practically speaking, will be a three-man contest between him and Republicans state Sen. Jay Dardenne and businessman Mike Francis. This follows the prime logic of negative advertising: because it dislodges supporters of the target, you should do it only when you’re reasonably sure another dynamic will shift those votes to benefit your candidate.
That is reasonably clear in this case, since discouraged presumed Heitmeier voters either would not vote at all or would not vote for any of the minor candidates. Still, it’s not that likely to work, for two reasons. First, despite what some have speculated, Heitmeier’s chances of making the general election runoff are very high. Even if you could argue that 100,000 more black than white voters have fled New Orleans after the hurricane disasters of 2005, the state’s black proportion of the electorate still comprises 25 percent so with blacks only slightly less likely to turn out than whites and almost all blacks voting for Heitmeier, it wouldn’t take many white liberals’ votes to get him there, making this effort a longshot.
Also, if the GOP goal is to get both of its candidates into the runoff, Heitmeier defectors must disappear from the voting booth or be attracted to one or both GOP candidates in a way that accomplishes this goal. For example, if one candidate leads Heitmeier, the defectors would have to vote for the trailing candidate; there’s no way the GOP can guarantee that these defectors will vote for the trailing candidate. All in all, however, it’s worth a flier – nothing ventured, nothing gained.
By contrast, state Democrat efforts to influence the Shreveport mayor’s race promise no good payoff and might even damage its cause. These ads attack frontrunner former city attorney and Republican Jerry Jones. Behind him tags along Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and city spokeswoman Liz Swaine. The theory would be that sloughing off potential Jones voters might push him behind both Glover and Swaine.
But that tactic has almost no chance of success. Best that can be told, Jones has a double-digit lead on these Democrats so that would be a lot of ground to make up. This might be more realistic if some of these voters found their ways into the Democrats’ columns but few would go for Swaine and practically none to Glover (although the disproportion in favor of Swaine is enough for Democrats supporting Glover to complain of the tactic, cloaking their political motive in rhetoric along the lines of the ad campaign makes Democrats look “bad”).
Further, the detached voters could wander their way into the arms of former city economic developer Arlena Acree, a Republican. If for some reason Jones lost a significant chunk of support, it probably would head her way rather than Swaine’s and both she, with her new support, and Jones, whose lead is big enough to handle some defectors, could ace out any Democrat being in the runoff.
While the Republicans’ launching their negative campaign on Heitmeier may not work, it could and won’t have any negative consequences. However, the Democrats’ strike against Jones almost certainly represents a total waste of resources, and may even backfire on the party.
27.9.06
Shreveport elections may create Caddo Commission fireworks
Depending upon the vagaries of the electorate, starting in December things might get very interesting around the Caddo Parish Commission and the situation could last for as many as five months.
This is because four current Commission members are running for Shreveport City Council seats, Democrat Joyce Bowman and Republicans Bob Brown, Michael Long, and Ron Webb. In fact, all would have to be considered favorites in their contests for, respectively, Districts G, D, C, and E.
Regardless of whether any of them win outright in the primary, they would be seated on the Council in late November. State election law then kicks in with the tendering of their resignation, and the provisions of R.S. 18:402 would put the election to fill these seats on Apr. 7, 2007. Winners would take their seats in early May.
In the meantime, this means the Commission soldiers on undermanned. And while the important decision of who should be the next parish administrator should be resolved before, if any, of them depart, at least one big decision will be made by a potentially-depleted Commission – the 2007 budget.
Note that if any of these commissioners resign early to take on a new elective job, the partisan balance of the Commission likely will change. At 6-all Democrat/Republican presently, depending upon who leaves could alter radically the scales, with the most extreme possibility being Bowman fails while all three of the GOP succeed, giving Democrats a 6-3 advantage for several months.
While it may be fashionable, particularly for Democrats, to claim that party affiliation really doesn’t matter when it comes to local government, the fact is an officeholder’s label does usually convey a stable set of attitudes and expected behavior of those choosing that label. At this level of government, simply put Democrats will favor larger government utilizing more of the people’s resources, and disproportionately for funding social service kinds of activities, than will Republicans who generally want smaller government taking less of the citizens’ money and would more likely spend that on public safety activities.
The budget should be an early indication of whether a new majority will take advantage of the changed balance. Last year some allocations to community groups slightly were scaled back. If Bowman only goes, Republicans could accelerate that process. But if Bowman doesn’t and at least one GOP commissioner does, or even if she does but joined by two such GOP commissioners, Democrats will minimize that option in this era of relatively declining parish revenues and look for other sources of revenue before cuts elsewhere. The nightmare scenario for conservatives would be the 6-3 ratio, allowing the Commission to roll forward property tax rates which it deferred doing so when the previous round of property assessments came out.
Unless all four fail in their bids or just Bowman and a Republican wins, look for some policy changes to come out of the Commission for at least a few months.
This is because four current Commission members are running for Shreveport City Council seats, Democrat Joyce Bowman and Republicans Bob Brown, Michael Long, and Ron Webb. In fact, all would have to be considered favorites in their contests for, respectively, Districts G, D, C, and E.
Regardless of whether any of them win outright in the primary, they would be seated on the Council in late November. State election law then kicks in with the tendering of their resignation, and the provisions of R.S. 18:402 would put the election to fill these seats on Apr. 7, 2007. Winners would take their seats in early May.
In the meantime, this means the Commission soldiers on undermanned. And while the important decision of who should be the next parish administrator should be resolved before, if any, of them depart, at least one big decision will be made by a potentially-depleted Commission – the 2007 budget.
Note that if any of these commissioners resign early to take on a new elective job, the partisan balance of the Commission likely will change. At 6-all Democrat/Republican presently, depending upon who leaves could alter radically the scales, with the most extreme possibility being Bowman fails while all three of the GOP succeed, giving Democrats a 6-3 advantage for several months.
While it may be fashionable, particularly for Democrats, to claim that party affiliation really doesn’t matter when it comes to local government, the fact is an officeholder’s label does usually convey a stable set of attitudes and expected behavior of those choosing that label. At this level of government, simply put Democrats will favor larger government utilizing more of the people’s resources, and disproportionately for funding social service kinds of activities, than will Republicans who generally want smaller government taking less of the citizens’ money and would more likely spend that on public safety activities.
The budget should be an early indication of whether a new majority will take advantage of the changed balance. Last year some allocations to community groups slightly were scaled back. If Bowman only goes, Republicans could accelerate that process. But if Bowman doesn’t and at least one GOP commissioner does, or even if she does but joined by two such GOP commissioners, Democrats will minimize that option in this era of relatively declining parish revenues and look for other sources of revenue before cuts elsewhere. The nightmare scenario for conservatives would be the 6-3 ratio, allowing the Commission to roll forward property tax rates which it deferred doing so when the previous round of property assessments came out.
Unless all four fail in their bids or just Bowman and a Republican wins, look for some policy changes to come out of the Commission for at least a few months.
26.9.06
Bumbling Blanco burns political capital for nothing
Besides advocating policies harmful to Louisiana, another reason Gov. Kathleen Blanco will not win a second term is that events subsequent to her successful foisting of some bad policies on the state made them, and her expenditure of political capital and unfavorable publicity she got doing so, moot without any benefits.
With next to no publicity, this past legislative session the Legislature, with Blanco’s blessing, quietly repealed the misnamed “Healthcare Affordability Act.” Better known to Louisiana as the “sick tax,” Blanco spent a lot of energy and took big political damage over her support of its passage in 2005, which would have assessed a fee of 1.5 percent on hospitals that would have passed it along to consumers. In light of the seismic changes wrought upon the state health care system by the 2005 hurricane disasters, Blanco thought better of imposing this on hospitals and consumers.
The same political result now may be happening in reference to a piece of 2006 legislation, also supported by Blanco, which mandates that ethanol be sold with gasoline if ethanol production reaches a certain level. The legislation is seriously flawed because it allows political considerations to trump the marketplace, meaning a large transfer of wealth from consumers to a few special interests producing ethanol.
With next to no publicity, this past legislative session the Legislature, with Blanco’s blessing, quietly repealed the misnamed “Healthcare Affordability Act.” Better known to Louisiana as the “sick tax,” Blanco spent a lot of energy and took big political damage over her support of its passage in 2005, which would have assessed a fee of 1.5 percent on hospitals that would have passed it along to consumers. In light of the seismic changes wrought upon the state health care system by the 2005 hurricane disasters, Blanco thought better of imposing this on hospitals and consumers.
The same political result now may be happening in reference to a piece of 2006 legislation, also supported by Blanco, which mandates that ethanol be sold with gasoline if ethanol production reaches a certain level. The legislation is seriously flawed because it allows political considerations to trump the marketplace, meaning a large transfer of wealth from consumers to a few special interests producing ethanol.
25.9.06
Money attracted to quality in Shreveport mayor race
A canard about elections frequently circulated, often by those who should know better is “the more money spent, the more chance you have of being elected.” Not only does this phrasing not demonstrate as direct of a correlation as one may think, it also fundamentally misunderstands the role of money in elections.
Upon receiving this statement, one might be forgiven for making the next logical inference, which would be something like “money buys victory.” It does not, and let’s start with an empirical demonstration why not. Just to use one example, in 2004 in U.S. Senate elections, of the 34 of them, only 75 percent of the top 20 spenders won election. Further, in 4 of the 34, the lower spender won. Finally, 18 of the races weren’t competitive – the winner got better than 60 percent of the vote. In the competitive 16 contests was where the four lower spenders won. (The only defeated incumbent outspent his rival 3:2.)
This example, which is typical, points out several things which help us understand the relationship between spending and electoral performance. First of all, given the composition of the jurisdiction and perceptions of the candidate (usually an incumbent), in the majority of cases no amount of spending is going to make a difference, in that one candidate will clearly win regardless. (Perhaps the best example ever being the $64 million Democrat Tony Sanchez spent in 2002, $40 million more than his Republican incumbent opponent, to lose by 18 percent in a bid for the Texas governorship.)
Second, money is a relative thing: for example, in 2004 Sen. Arlen Specter raised the most money and won a close election while former Sen. Tom Daschle was close behind in spending yet lost his close election – even though Specter outspent his opponent by $17 million and Daschle outspent his by $7 million. (There were plenty out there who won by far bigger margins who didn’t spend much more than their opponents, or who spent among the lowest amounts of all the winners – the average competitive winner spent almost $13 million while the average noncompetitive winner spent under $6 million.)
Third, focusing on absolute spending misses the entire relevance of money in elections, because it rests on the untenable (and, as demonstrated above, empirically unsupported notion) that money creates quality in the minds of the electorate. In fact, that is the reverse of reality: it is candidate quality that attracts money. What money gets raised is the key, not what gets spent, and more gets spent (and thus raised) the more opponents spend (because they are able to raise it). In short, spending is wholly dependent upon the number of quality candidates in a contest; more than one elevates spending because more money is raised as each tries to fend off a quality opponent.
People (usually) are not irrational when comes to investments, which is what a donation to a political candidate is. The put their money down, so to speak, because they believe the candidate has quality and, therefore, has a chance to win. Unless you have unshakeable ideological convictions and are acting purely on principle, you don’t want to put your money where you know it will be wasted in defeat. Candidates who are perceived as higher quality are able to raise more because people (who for whatever reasons want them elected) see them as decent bets to win, and need to raise more if they face a similar quality opponent. That is, they raise more because they need to, and because they can.
Former city attorney Jerry Jones, the leading money-raiser in the race, well may win the mayor’s race and spend the most doing so. But that will only be a reflection of the quality of a candidate he is – both in terms of getting donations and votes – not because he “bought” any victory that may be his.
Upon receiving this statement, one might be forgiven for making the next logical inference, which would be something like “money buys victory.” It does not, and let’s start with an empirical demonstration why not. Just to use one example, in 2004 in U.S. Senate elections, of the 34 of them, only 75 percent of the top 20 spenders won election. Further, in 4 of the 34, the lower spender won. Finally, 18 of the races weren’t competitive – the winner got better than 60 percent of the vote. In the competitive 16 contests was where the four lower spenders won. (The only defeated incumbent outspent his rival 3:2.)
This example, which is typical, points out several things which help us understand the relationship between spending and electoral performance. First of all, given the composition of the jurisdiction and perceptions of the candidate (usually an incumbent), in the majority of cases no amount of spending is going to make a difference, in that one candidate will clearly win regardless. (Perhaps the best example ever being the $64 million Democrat Tony Sanchez spent in 2002, $40 million more than his Republican incumbent opponent, to lose by 18 percent in a bid for the Texas governorship.)
Second, money is a relative thing: for example, in 2004 Sen. Arlen Specter raised the most money and won a close election while former Sen. Tom Daschle was close behind in spending yet lost his close election – even though Specter outspent his opponent by $17 million and Daschle outspent his by $7 million. (There were plenty out there who won by far bigger margins who didn’t spend much more than their opponents, or who spent among the lowest amounts of all the winners – the average competitive winner spent almost $13 million while the average noncompetitive winner spent under $6 million.)
Third, focusing on absolute spending misses the entire relevance of money in elections, because it rests on the untenable (and, as demonstrated above, empirically unsupported notion) that money creates quality in the minds of the electorate. In fact, that is the reverse of reality: it is candidate quality that attracts money. What money gets raised is the key, not what gets spent, and more gets spent (and thus raised) the more opponents spend (because they are able to raise it). In short, spending is wholly dependent upon the number of quality candidates in a contest; more than one elevates spending because more money is raised as each tries to fend off a quality opponent.
People (usually) are not irrational when comes to investments, which is what a donation to a political candidate is. The put their money down, so to speak, because they believe the candidate has quality and, therefore, has a chance to win. Unless you have unshakeable ideological convictions and are acting purely on principle, you don’t want to put your money where you know it will be wasted in defeat. Candidates who are perceived as higher quality are able to raise more because people (who for whatever reasons want them elected) see them as decent bets to win, and need to raise more if they face a similar quality opponent. That is, they raise more because they need to, and because they can.
Former city attorney Jerry Jones, the leading money-raiser in the race, well may win the mayor’s race and spend the most doing so. But that will only be a reflection of the quality of a candidate he is – both in terms of getting donations and votes – not because he “bought” any victory that may be his.
24.9.06
Third District Race could determine U.S. House majority
Even though this contest is not on the ballot this Saturday, the frontrunners in the Louisiana Third Congressional District race already are playing for keeps concerning an election which may gain national attention for weeks after the national election day.
Incumbent Democrat Charlie Melancon and Republican state Sen. Craig Romero square off again from 2004, when Melancon barely squeaked by Romero in the primary and then barely beat his opponent, lobbyist Billy Tauzin III, in no small part to Romero’s attacking Tauzin after the primary through ads. Romero seemed to think this necessary out of a belief Tauzin had done the same prior to the primary.
It also might have been a strategy looking forward to this year. In a GOP-leaning district, he knew that if the Republican Tauzin got in he might not have been dislodged by anybody for a long tine, so his one chance was to get a more vulnerable Democrat elected at first, and then take him on again this year. In fact, Pres. George W. Bush scored 58 percent of the vote in this district, the highest he would draw in any district won by a Democrat in 2004.
21.9.06
Voters need to reject Caddo, Bossier Parish tax increases
Both Caddo and Bossier Parishes are requesting on Sep. 30 that their citizens allow their taxes to be increased. In both cases, the people are better off keeping their money.
It doesn’t take much thought to reject the Caddo request. It is almost the same request made a couple of years ago rejected at the polls, but things have been changed since that may more efficiently use taxpayers’ dollars in funding juvenile justice in the parish – if given the time. State Rep. Mike Powell got passed a law that reorganizes operations in that area to a certain extent, and this needs to be given a couple of years trial before more costly solutions are tried.
Bossier presents a stronger case but ultimately its request deserves rejection as well. An analysis of the request and a stroll through the parish’s financial reports shows why.
To begin, note that the kinds of road improvements that comprise the request are the kind that would be nice and convenient to have, but are not crucial, at least relative to the most recent big road project of the parish, widening of Airline Drive. Yes, they probably would reduce traffic hassles for some, but they do not have the impact justifying almost tripling the current level of the tax.
In reality, the vast majority of the request actually is more a favor to Bossier City than the parish – lengthening of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway to loop over to Highway 71, connecting a thruway to two parts of the city almost all of which would go through non-city jurisdiction. By that standard, it’s better to work out some deal with the city since it will mainly benefit it than to have parish taxpayers foot the bill.
(And the city has every incentive to cooperate, to gain control over where to site the extension given the presence of a federal wildlife refuge close by. Both the city and parish let that get by, causing a panicked reaction last spring by some city and parish officials who felt so insecure about the situation that they had circulated fliers asking residents to contact the federal government about this. Fortunately, a satisfactory solution to all parties for now was worked out.)
Especially when removing that from taxpayer considerations, the remainder of the requests easily may be accomplished given existing resources (which means renewing the tax at its existing assessed 1.99 mills level, not the requested 6.40 mills level). The parish is flush with over $5 million in its highway fund at the end of 2005 (so much so in fact, it transferred out nearly $4.5 million after collecting about $1.5 million above expenditures, mainly due to higher sales tax revenues and lower expenses, most of the excess going to the Airline Drive work which now is winding down, although $75,000 went to general government expenses). Economic trends give no indication that the fund will not see continued surpluses moved into it over the next few years.
And if other revenues were needed, the parish’s current financial health is such that no additional resources are necessary. Reviewing the highway fund for this year, through the first eight months of the year (that is, 75 percent of it) only 62.59 percent of the budget was spent. This shows that there is enough slack to be allocated for other purposes (however, governments typically spend up to their budgeted amounts because they want to make it appear that they need all the money they have available, so look for the fourth quarter to be a big spending quarter on roads in Bossier Parish).
As for the rest of the parish’s operations, results from 2005 showed strong revenue-over-expenditure growth expected in 2006, a condition likely to continue. Again, this leaves no reason to believe that the lesser improvements around which the increased request was formulated could not be financed in a pay-as-you-go situation, or even the entire package.
n short, the importance of the roads to the parish relative to its existing financial health does not justify extracting an extra $2 million or more a year out of property owners (in reality, just a handful of them given the homestead exemption). Bossier Parish voters need to turn this down, with the Police Jury coming back next year asking for a renewal of just 2 mills which is all they need if they want to pursue this agenda.
It doesn’t take much thought to reject the Caddo request. It is almost the same request made a couple of years ago rejected at the polls, but things have been changed since that may more efficiently use taxpayers’ dollars in funding juvenile justice in the parish – if given the time. State Rep. Mike Powell got passed a law that reorganizes operations in that area to a certain extent, and this needs to be given a couple of years trial before more costly solutions are tried.
Bossier presents a stronger case but ultimately its request deserves rejection as well. An analysis of the request and a stroll through the parish’s financial reports shows why.
To begin, note that the kinds of road improvements that comprise the request are the kind that would be nice and convenient to have, but are not crucial, at least relative to the most recent big road project of the parish, widening of Airline Drive. Yes, they probably would reduce traffic hassles for some, but they do not have the impact justifying almost tripling the current level of the tax.
In reality, the vast majority of the request actually is more a favor to Bossier City than the parish – lengthening of the Arthur Ray Teague Parkway to loop over to Highway 71, connecting a thruway to two parts of the city almost all of which would go through non-city jurisdiction. By that standard, it’s better to work out some deal with the city since it will mainly benefit it than to have parish taxpayers foot the bill.
(And the city has every incentive to cooperate, to gain control over where to site the extension given the presence of a federal wildlife refuge close by. Both the city and parish let that get by, causing a panicked reaction last spring by some city and parish officials who felt so insecure about the situation that they had circulated fliers asking residents to contact the federal government about this. Fortunately, a satisfactory solution to all parties for now was worked out.)
Especially when removing that from taxpayer considerations, the remainder of the requests easily may be accomplished given existing resources (which means renewing the tax at its existing assessed 1.99 mills level, not the requested 6.40 mills level). The parish is flush with over $5 million in its highway fund at the end of 2005 (so much so in fact, it transferred out nearly $4.5 million after collecting about $1.5 million above expenditures, mainly due to higher sales tax revenues and lower expenses, most of the excess going to the Airline Drive work which now is winding down, although $75,000 went to general government expenses). Economic trends give no indication that the fund will not see continued surpluses moved into it over the next few years.
And if other revenues were needed, the parish’s current financial health is such that no additional resources are necessary. Reviewing the highway fund for this year, through the first eight months of the year (that is, 75 percent of it) only 62.59 percent of the budget was spent. This shows that there is enough slack to be allocated for other purposes (however, governments typically spend up to their budgeted amounts because they want to make it appear that they need all the money they have available, so look for the fourth quarter to be a big spending quarter on roads in Bossier Parish).
As for the rest of the parish’s operations, results from 2005 showed strong revenue-over-expenditure growth expected in 2006, a condition likely to continue. Again, this leaves no reason to believe that the lesser improvements around which the increased request was formulated could not be financed in a pay-as-you-go situation, or even the entire package.
n short, the importance of the roads to the parish relative to its existing financial health does not justify extracting an extra $2 million or more a year out of property owners (in reality, just a handful of them given the homestead exemption). Bossier Parish voters need to turn this down, with the Police Jury coming back next year asking for a renewal of just 2 mills which is all they need if they want to pursue this agenda.
20.9.06
Going negative helps, hurts Shreveport mayoral hopefuls
There’s not been much negativity in the Shreveport mayor’s contest to date. That well may change in the closing days of the contest, but certain candidates will do better than others from it – if they pick the correct targets to demonize.
Polling consistently has shown that Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones essentially has secured a place in the general election runoff Nov. 7. Other Republican candidates that have the potential to do well, state Sen. Max Malone and former city economic developer Arlena Acree, might be tempted to sling some mud his way to capture some of his intended voters.
However, the problem is that while negative campaigning, or pointing out other candidates’ faults real or imagined, often is effective, all it can do is dislodge some votes from candidates and cannot guarantee that these freed votes will go to the one doing this campaigning. In other words, if Acree goes negative on Jones, she might be sending votes Malone’s way, and vice versa. To compound their difficulty, Jones has such a lead on the rest of the field at this point that he still probably has more than enough support to make the runoff despite any barrage of negative campaigning.
By contrast, former city spokeswoman and Democrat Liz Swaine has almost the opposite problem. Given her name recognition that produced benign feelings about her prior to the contest, her best strategy would have been to run a campaign as issueless as possible. Instead, by design or accident, she foolishly allowed her opponents to put her into the position of defending her employer Democrat Mayor Keith Hightower who in the past four years has made a number of decisions not well-received in Shreveport. Negative attacks on her only will compound her sinking status.
Worse for her, she has little to gain by adopting that strategy. For one thing, it would further erode the good feelings about her which has kept her as a viable candidate. Also, she has no good target on which to unleash an attack that would benefit her. Since Jones also holds a big lead over her she would waste resources attacking him. And she rests in a position where she cannot really attack the opponents closest to her that she must in order to get into a runoff with Jones, Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and former television executive Ed Bradley. This is because she is unlikely to peel off members of their mainly-black base; instead, successful attacks on her part would send Glover voters to Bradley and vice versa, with few coming her way.
In reality, only Jones, Bradley, and Glover would benefit from a negative strategy. Jones could cement his chances of a runoff against a black Democrat by going after Swaine (but he really doesn’t need to do this, given his current position and Swaine’s decline), while Glover attacks on Bradley would pull the latter’s voters to him, and vice versa. So in these final few campaign days, look for a spirited skirmish across media that disproportionately attracts a black audience to see which black Democrat can pull himself into a runoff with Jones.
Polling consistently has shown that Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones essentially has secured a place in the general election runoff Nov. 7. Other Republican candidates that have the potential to do well, state Sen. Max Malone and former city economic developer Arlena Acree, might be tempted to sling some mud his way to capture some of his intended voters.
However, the problem is that while negative campaigning, or pointing out other candidates’ faults real or imagined, often is effective, all it can do is dislodge some votes from candidates and cannot guarantee that these freed votes will go to the one doing this campaigning. In other words, if Acree goes negative on Jones, she might be sending votes Malone’s way, and vice versa. To compound their difficulty, Jones has such a lead on the rest of the field at this point that he still probably has more than enough support to make the runoff despite any barrage of negative campaigning.
By contrast, former city spokeswoman and Democrat Liz Swaine has almost the opposite problem. Given her name recognition that produced benign feelings about her prior to the contest, her best strategy would have been to run a campaign as issueless as possible. Instead, by design or accident, she foolishly allowed her opponents to put her into the position of defending her employer Democrat Mayor Keith Hightower who in the past four years has made a number of decisions not well-received in Shreveport. Negative attacks on her only will compound her sinking status.
Worse for her, she has little to gain by adopting that strategy. For one thing, it would further erode the good feelings about her which has kept her as a viable candidate. Also, she has no good target on which to unleash an attack that would benefit her. Since Jones also holds a big lead over her she would waste resources attacking him. And she rests in a position where she cannot really attack the opponents closest to her that she must in order to get into a runoff with Jones, Democrats state Rep. Cedric Glover and former television executive Ed Bradley. This is because she is unlikely to peel off members of their mainly-black base; instead, successful attacks on her part would send Glover voters to Bradley and vice versa, with few coming her way.
In reality, only Jones, Bradley, and Glover would benefit from a negative strategy. Jones could cement his chances of a runoff against a black Democrat by going after Swaine (but he really doesn’t need to do this, given his current position and Swaine’s decline), while Glover attacks on Bradley would pull the latter’s voters to him, and vice versa. So in these final few campaign days, look for a spirited skirmish across media that disproportionately attracts a black audience to see which black Democrat can pull himself into a runoff with Jones.
19.9.06
Jones waits on Bradley, Glover for Shreveport mayor's runoff
We get a look at the “Between the Lines echo effect” again with another poll released by the Shreveport Times, confirming the trends articulated and predicted here last month.
Perhaps most notable about the results here is, frankly, just how poorly this poll is tapping into vote intentions. Undecided voters going up? Almost every candidate losing support? Combine these oddities with the fact that a couple of weeks out from the primary election a third of the electorate, with almost half of blacks, remain undecided, these results tell us either we are seeing a once-in-a-lifetime contest, or people just aren’t responding well to this polling.
(This explanation certainly is more valid than the one offered by the pollster, who claimed it was an artifact of “negative” campaigning. That guess defies much of what we know about the impact of political campaigns; typically, undecided respondents’ numbers drop, particularly this close to an election – and in one where there was little negative advertising up to the time of the polling. It was unusual to have a third undecided almost a month ago; it’s incredible to have even more undecided only days away from the contest. A far more plausible explanation is that many prior, older responses were given only on the basis of name recognition and did not indicate any real intention of future voting, which is especially apparent among black respondents. It’s only now, reflected in the results of this poll, that you are registering serious vote intentions.)
Let’s do assume for the moment that we do have a good poll (meaning the sample does in fact represent the views of the population polled; a standard in the industry is that one out of twenty times it won’t). If so, what was predicted in this space last month is coming to pass; specifically:
Republican former city attorney Jerry Jones is cruising to a spot in the general election runoff and is the favorite to win that, although that depends on his competition there.
State Sen. Max Malone, also a Republican, simply started campaigning too late. He will draw much more of the vote than what he is polling (2 percent), but not enough to make the runoff
As more people pay attention to the campaign and as more information comes out, Democrat former city spokeswoman Liz Swaine is going nowhere, if not losing ground. It’s almost lights out now for Swaine, because the results suggest she hasn’t made enough inroads with white voters to challenge for a runoff spot and she’s running out of them – fewer than a quarter are undecided.
Former city economic developer Arlena Acree was the only candidate other than Jones to make progress, but she appears to be making more headway among undecided whites than Swaine. But, like Swaine, it won’t be enough to put her in the runoff.
This is because the vast majority of undecided black voters will not break in either females’ direction. Instead, they will go for one of state Rep. Cedric Glover or former television executive Ed Bradley, Democrats both. Even if they each only took 20 percent each of that 46 percent black undecided, both would be close to 20 percent of the total vote and each might still edge out Swaine. If either can get at least two-thirds of the black undecided vote, Swaine has no chance.
So really there’s just one question left now over the next ten days: can either Glover or Bradley seize a majority of the black vote and thereby put himself in the runoff with Jones? The odds favor Glover succeeding in this quest, but Bradley’s not out of it. And if one of the black Democrats does get the upper hand, it likely makes Jones Shreveport’s next mayor.
Perhaps most notable about the results here is, frankly, just how poorly this poll is tapping into vote intentions. Undecided voters going up? Almost every candidate losing support? Combine these oddities with the fact that a couple of weeks out from the primary election a third of the electorate, with almost half of blacks, remain undecided, these results tell us either we are seeing a once-in-a-lifetime contest, or people just aren’t responding well to this polling.
(This explanation certainly is more valid than the one offered by the pollster, who claimed it was an artifact of “negative” campaigning. That guess defies much of what we know about the impact of political campaigns; typically, undecided respondents’ numbers drop, particularly this close to an election – and in one where there was little negative advertising up to the time of the polling. It was unusual to have a third undecided almost a month ago; it’s incredible to have even more undecided only days away from the contest. A far more plausible explanation is that many prior, older responses were given only on the basis of name recognition and did not indicate any real intention of future voting, which is especially apparent among black respondents. It’s only now, reflected in the results of this poll, that you are registering serious vote intentions.)
Let’s do assume for the moment that we do have a good poll (meaning the sample does in fact represent the views of the population polled; a standard in the industry is that one out of twenty times it won’t). If so, what was predicted in this space last month is coming to pass; specifically:
So really there’s just one question left now over the next ten days: can either Glover or Bradley seize a majority of the black vote and thereby put himself in the runoff with Jones? The odds favor Glover succeeding in this quest, but Bradley’s not out of it. And if one of the black Democrats does get the upper hand, it likely makes Jones Shreveport’s next mayor.
18.9.06
LA property owners better off with amendment passages
The three constitutional amendments designed to define better the expropriation powers of Louisiana government, numbers 4, 5 and 6, have drawn criticism from various quarters. Nevertheless, with criticisms ranging from the thin to absurd, they deserve passage on Sep. 30.
Some of the critiques do have merit, if only in an improbable, hypothetical sense. Lawyer Paul Hurd has argued that the expropriation amendments create a Trojan horse situation that actually could increase government power in this area. Hurd envisions scenarios apocalyptic even by Louisiana hyper-politicized standards where an unseemly coalition of political elites could manipulate the process.
However, he probably misjudges the checks and balances involved. The judiciary would have to be corrupt all the way to the top (or wishes to engage in unfettered activism as in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent majority decision to ignore the Constitution regarding pardons and convicted felons running for office), but that’s no different from the present arrangement. And the public may well have its own say in these decisions, having to vote on bond issuances to fund these projects. That a justification that something fits an exempted prohibited category improves upon the current situation, where now basically this step is skipped because anything qualifies.
(Note also that the text of some of these amendments in large came from language provided by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has provided some outstanding work in the protection of liberty for many years; this group defended property owners in the Connecticut case that opened the floodgates for government usurpation of private property last year. A measure endorsed by this organization provides a lot reassurance that this measure will do what it is intended.)
This increased difficulty actually brings complaints from others. Despite its many exceptions, they claim it will impede government in sponsoring recovery from the hurricane disasters of 2005 and would cause “confusion.”
But this attitude belies a faith in government and a belief that government from the bench rather than by its majoritarian institutions is best. The exact problem caused by the current arrangement is that the power to decide whether any expropriation could occur rests in the hands of judges. These changes would limit the kinds of expropriation to occur – change brought about by the majoritarian branches and the people directly through their votes – so that the matter of expropriation becomes one defined mostly by the people where judges must justify exceptions, rather than putting the burden on opponents of expropriation to show any request without limitations would have deleterious effects.
It is much better to have the people remove most expropriation instances from consideration, limiting the scope of judicial activism on this matter, than to decline setting standards leaving it wide open for judicial mischief. This “confusion” objected to by opponents to the rest of the state is seen as vital safeguards ensuring liberty; purposes clearly qualifying as a genuine societal need will not be affected. What will be affected is the agenda of those who believe government should direct economic activity; now, one tool to do so will be removed from their collectivist arsenal.
While these amendments are not entirely perfect (for example, allowing expropriation for projects like convention centers which usually are a waste of taxpayer dollars: see this example), they do strengthen liberty in Louisiana, and therefore must be approved.
Some of the critiques do have merit, if only in an improbable, hypothetical sense. Lawyer Paul Hurd has argued that the expropriation amendments create a Trojan horse situation that actually could increase government power in this area. Hurd envisions scenarios apocalyptic even by Louisiana hyper-politicized standards where an unseemly coalition of political elites could manipulate the process.
However, he probably misjudges the checks and balances involved. The judiciary would have to be corrupt all the way to the top (or wishes to engage in unfettered activism as in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s recent majority decision to ignore the Constitution regarding pardons and convicted felons running for office), but that’s no different from the present arrangement. And the public may well have its own say in these decisions, having to vote on bond issuances to fund these projects. That a justification that something fits an exempted prohibited category improves upon the current situation, where now basically this step is skipped because anything qualifies.
(Note also that the text of some of these amendments in large came from language provided by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that has provided some outstanding work in the protection of liberty for many years; this group defended property owners in the Connecticut case that opened the floodgates for government usurpation of private property last year. A measure endorsed by this organization provides a lot reassurance that this measure will do what it is intended.)
This increased difficulty actually brings complaints from others. Despite its many exceptions, they claim it will impede government in sponsoring recovery from the hurricane disasters of 2005 and would cause “confusion.”
But this attitude belies a faith in government and a belief that government from the bench rather than by its majoritarian institutions is best. The exact problem caused by the current arrangement is that the power to decide whether any expropriation could occur rests in the hands of judges. These changes would limit the kinds of expropriation to occur – change brought about by the majoritarian branches and the people directly through their votes – so that the matter of expropriation becomes one defined mostly by the people where judges must justify exceptions, rather than putting the burden on opponents of expropriation to show any request without limitations would have deleterious effects.
It is much better to have the people remove most expropriation instances from consideration, limiting the scope of judicial activism on this matter, than to decline setting standards leaving it wide open for judicial mischief. This “confusion” objected to by opponents to the rest of the state is seen as vital safeguards ensuring liberty; purposes clearly qualifying as a genuine societal need will not be affected. What will be affected is the agenda of those who believe government should direct economic activity; now, one tool to do so will be removed from their collectivist arsenal.
While these amendments are not entirely perfect (for example, allowing expropriation for projects like convention centers which usually are a waste of taxpayer dollars: see this example), they do strengthen liberty in Louisiana, and therefore must be approved.
17.9.06
Louisiana can do better than "follow-the-leader" Blanco
In Louisiana politics there are leaders and then, well, there’s Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Once again, the barn door has closed and she’s off chasing a horse, this time one connected rationality in the state budgeting process.
One of the more irrational features of the process is typically the capital outlay bill having more spending in it than is constitutionally allowed. Fiscal year 2007 is no exception and Blanco’s staff recently released the list of projects that made the cut, that can be funded with the money available (this being one way in which the Legislature allows the governor to push it around, by letting her office make in essence the final decision on what gets funded).
With the releasing of the list, her staff took the opportunity to tout how they chose to segregate requests into different categories, and then choosing on the basis of priority (defined by them) within categories. It’s a small step that might produce funded projects more on merit and less on politics, in contrast to attempts last year at this time.
However, the idea itself is nothing new as the person who oversees the next step of the process, the authorizing of bond sales to cover the costs, state Treasurer John Kennedy, last year suggested that the body responsible for this, the Bond Commission, be able to do essentially the same. He offered this idea to the Commission in the post-disaster environment where dollars were more precious than ever – and the plan got incinerated by the Commission, controlled by a majority of Blanco, her appointee, and legislative loyalists.
Maybe Kennedy should try again as it seems he would get a much better reception this time. But the episode is yet another example revealing Blanco’s base political instincts – a blend of liberalism and populism where politics, not principle, guides most decision-making, where governing is done primarily on behalf of supportive constituencies with the rest of the state’s citizens represent mere afterthought. Only when the citizenry voice sufficient complaint does Blanco change course more to their liking.
We’ve seen it time and time again – her resistance to flood control reform that resulted in millions being spent on an extra special session, her not wanting to provide a partial bailout of homeowner’s insurance premiums triggered by failures of state administration that she now seems to favor, and then this. Wouldn’t Louisiana be better off by having a governor who naturally leads by putting the people ahead of cronies, instead of having to drag Blanco along to accomplish the same?
One of the more irrational features of the process is typically the capital outlay bill having more spending in it than is constitutionally allowed. Fiscal year 2007 is no exception and Blanco’s staff recently released the list of projects that made the cut, that can be funded with the money available (this being one way in which the Legislature allows the governor to push it around, by letting her office make in essence the final decision on what gets funded).
With the releasing of the list, her staff took the opportunity to tout how they chose to segregate requests into different categories, and then choosing on the basis of priority (defined by them) within categories. It’s a small step that might produce funded projects more on merit and less on politics, in contrast to attempts last year at this time.
However, the idea itself is nothing new as the person who oversees the next step of the process, the authorizing of bond sales to cover the costs, state Treasurer John Kennedy, last year suggested that the body responsible for this, the Bond Commission, be able to do essentially the same. He offered this idea to the Commission in the post-disaster environment where dollars were more precious than ever – and the plan got incinerated by the Commission, controlled by a majority of Blanco, her appointee, and legislative loyalists.
Maybe Kennedy should try again as it seems he would get a much better reception this time. But the episode is yet another example revealing Blanco’s base political instincts – a blend of liberalism and populism where politics, not principle, guides most decision-making, where governing is done primarily on behalf of supportive constituencies with the rest of the state’s citizens represent mere afterthought. Only when the citizenry voice sufficient complaint does Blanco change course more to their liking.
We’ve seen it time and time again – her resistance to flood control reform that resulted in millions being spent on an extra special session, her not wanting to provide a partial bailout of homeowner’s insurance premiums triggered by failures of state administration that she now seems to favor, and then this. Wouldn’t Louisiana be better off by having a governor who naturally leads by putting the people ahead of cronies, instead of having to drag Blanco along to accomplish the same?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)