visit another NewsHorn site
In their enthusiasm to validate certain agendas, some observers are (again) using Louisianans' voting behavior as a means by which to attempt to do this. Thus, it is imperative to set the record straight.
Upon observing that, according to exit polls, Sen. Barack Obama improved upon his proportion of white voters in many parts of the country but not in some deep South states such as Louisiana, some argue it was Obama's race (officially mulatto but thought of as black) that primarily explained this. That is, vestiges of racism remained in some white Louisianans who otherwise would have voted for Obama on the basis of other qualities, according to this view.
While such a hypothesis might support a larger ideological view that racism is thereby still too ingrained in American society and therefore would justify activist government to "correct" for it, one obviously very ignored and blatant piece of evidence cannot be admitted by these advocates for it to stand: last year, an overwhelming proportion of white voters in the state touched the screen for a very dark-skinned Gov. Bobby Jindal, even when there were plenty of white alternative candidates.
This points us to the real reason behind much greater white enthusiasm for Jindal than Obama - ideology. Jindal's Republican identification and rhetoric made clear his conservative credentials, and although Obama intentionally muddied his liberalism with generic bromides, this and his Democrat label clarified to all but the most causal voter that he was liberal. White voters in the state are overwhelmingly conservative (exit polling shows of all voters 42 percent call themselves conservative and only 16 percent liberal; half of the latter figure is probably nonwhites) and these elections have shown that they will respond accordingly if given at least minimal amounts of cues about candidates.
While undoubtedly a few whites will harbor racial prejudice in their voting behavior, the notion that it is widespread or generally significant to an election outcome cannot be sustained by the facts (as I demonstrated elsewhere), at least in Louisiana. Give Obama Jindal's rhetoric and not only would he have done much better in the state, he would have won; paint Obama paler and little would have changed. Until analysts understand this basic truism, their conjectures on voting behavior in the Pelican State largely will be useless.
(If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 week, 4 days, 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
"Katrina effect" didn't hurt Landrieu's bid
Sen. Mary Landrieu was quick to assert that the "Katrina effect" appeared nonexistent in her reelection bid. She and others should have concentrated more on the unusual reasons why it did not appear to exist.
First, we must recognize that the "effect" - that depopulation of New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 had disproportionately affected blacks who in turn disproportionately vote for Landrieu or other Democrat candidates - is there to happen. After all, the 7/1/2007 census estimate put Orleans Parish's population at 239,124, of which 146,631 or 61.3 percent were black, compared to the 7/1/2005 estimate of 453,726 of which 304,268 or 67.1 percent were black. (Around the time of her last Senate race, on 7/1/2002 estimated population was 472,085 of which 317,672 or 67.3 percent were black).
But registration figures alter the picture considerably. Using information related to her last Senate contest, 2002, Orleans had 298,776 people registered to vote of which 187,289 or 62.3 percent were black, while as of last month there were 278,677 registrants of which 175,431 or 63 percent were black. The contrast is even greater when viewing the 2005 second quarter numbers - 299,369 total voters of which 189,628 or 63.3 percent black.
In other words, Orleans Parish has moved from a situation where, as a proportion of the population blacks were under-registered, now they are over-registered compared to whites. So, even if absolute numbers have dropped, they've dropped in all categories so Landrieu and other Democrats would not be disproportionately harmed, and of those remaining, Democrats now actually have picked up a small advantage relative to where they were.
However, this brings up another astonishing point. Even if we conceded that by October of this year Orleans had 324,000 residents and assuming that of the 125,000 or so missing relative to 2005 that, using historical data, 85,000 of them would have been registered to vote, registrations have dropped only about 20,000 from 2002 but turnout for Tuesday's election for the Senate race of 141,968 was almost 10,000 more than for the 2002 runoff and over 15,000 for the 2002 primary. In other words, in 2002 registrations were 63.3 percent of the population of which 44.4 percent of the registrants and 28.1 percent of the population voted, while in 2008 registrations were 86 percent of the population of which 50.9 percent of the registrants and 43.8 percent of the population voted.
Since registration changes can lag actual population changes by a few years, the relatively small drop in registrations is understandable. And it's also the case that the voting-age-eligible proportion of the population rose from about 70.6 percent in 2002 to …
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 week, 6 days, 15 hours, 23 minutes ago
Cassidy wins 6th District over Cazayoux
The major lesson for Louisiana, and perhaps for the country as a whole, from federal elections in the state is that in this era where the main Democrat strategy is to demonize Republicans, the GOP triumphs if their candidates are genuine conservatives, run as a conservatives, and explain honestly issue preferences when they seem to deviate from conservatism.
Those in the know did not take seriously Sen. Mary Landrieu's claim of a huge lead over state Treasurer John Kennedy for her reelection, but Kennedy's loss was not surprising either. Landrieu actually won by more than a pittance for the first time in her Senate-chasing career because of doubts about Kennedy's genuineness as a conservative, having run just four years earlier espousing some liberal issue preferences. Suspicious about Kennedy, enough voters decided that if they had to choose between the liberal-but-trying-to-appear moderate Landrieu and the conservative-now-but-liberal-past Kennedy, they would go with the she-devil they knew.
But it's possible that the "Obama effect" also may have contributed to Landrieu's win. With a black at the top of the Democrat ticket, although we will know for sure in a few days when the final statistics are compiled, I'm willing to estimate that black turnout (reviewing almost all-black precincts in Caddo Parish from 2004 and 2008) was up about 5 percent. Computing that to the number of registered blacks in time for this election and assuming almost all voted for Landrieu as long as Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy had gotten them to the polls gives Landrieu another 42,000 or so votes. These two factors together probably gave Landrieu the win.
In other words, had Kennedy not run to the left in the 2004 Senate contest as a political expediency to separate himself from other candidates and had Sen. Hillary Clinton been this year's Democrat presidential nominee, Landrieu would not have successfully tempted fate again.
But no such luck spared Democrat Rep. Don Cazayoux in his defeat for reelection to the 6th Congressional district by Republican state Sen. Bill Cassidy. (Note to aspiring Louisiana politicians - get yourself a medical degree, as Cassidy joins another physician Rep. Charles Boustany who won an easy reelection in the state's delegation and Dr. John Fleming captured the Fourth's GOP nomination where he will be a slight favorite to win in December.) Cazayoux …
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 2 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 15 minutes ago
There's no point in writing anything today about Louisiana politics. The big stuff happens tonight, and the relevance of it won't be known until tomorrow. Instead, I invite you to participate in making a small bit of history.
Starting at 6 PM tonight I will be one fo the guest analysts for KSLA, CBS channel 12 in Shreveport. I done this many times for a myriad of outlets but what makes this different and relevant to you readers is much of the time I will be pounding away on a live blogging session in the studio. Some attention will be devoted to the 4th Congressional District contests, and also to the national picture, but for you Louisiana politics junkies I'll covering the Senate race and the constitutional amendments and, if the spirit moves me, maybe throw in a little of the state's other important contests as well at all levels.
Making matters more interesting, you all can dive in as well. The facility allows you to enter comments that, if they are perspicacious enough, I can have posted for the world to see and respond to them. As for making history, the software creates a log of everything so when it's finally over, it is archived and can be replayed, so your input can be played and replayed for all eternity.
Go to KSLA's site to find the blog. Meanwhile, if you haven't already, go vote.
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 2 weeks, 1 day, 23 hours, 46 minutes ago
Bayou State is turning into Turnout State
There appears to be a lot of hyperventilating concerning potential turnout tomorrow in federal elections in Louisiana. Facts rather deflate the idea that there will be anything unprecedented concerning it.
What seems to have gotten some to guess there could be record turnout for a presidential election is the highest degree of early voting ever. But to view this in isolation ignores the fact that it has been since the last presidential election that significant relaxation of early voting requirements occurred which has encouraged people who would have voted tomorrow to have voted already. In other words, most of the increase in early voting from 2004 will constitute a decrease of those who vote tomorrow.
The fact that it is up compared to last year's governor's election, when the new rules were in effect although people were less familiar with the brand-new rules then, is because of black Democrat enthusiasm for their party's nominee Sen. Barack Obama and, to a lesser extent, Republican horror at the most liberal candidate since 1972's George McGovern, and perhaps ever. The election also is relatively close, so we can expect that as well to drive turnout to levels approximating last election's 59 percent.
(Note: there are several ways to define just what is "turnout." Most common is by voting age population which is 59 percent. Less common because it is less accurate is the measure as a proportion of all registered voters, which in 2004 was 66 percent in Louisiana. Most accurate but the most difficult to compute is by voting eligible population, which excludes people who have lost the right to vote for some reason such as conviction of a felony or not being a citizen, which was 61 percent in the state in 2004. Given Louisiana's past discrimination against blacks from roughly 1900-64 in not allowing them to register which prevented otherwise voting-age-eligible people from registering, for comparative purposes proportion of registration will be used to define "turnout.")
But some observers let their enthusiasm get the best of the known historical facts and theories concerning voting turnout. One crowed it would be the "highest in Louisiana history" while another at least limited to saying it would be the highest in what he termed "modern electoral history," since 1948.
Both are unlikely to happen. The highest ever mark known to be was in 1868 (credit Tulane historian Laurence Powell for pretty much getting this), after Reconstruction when turnout was 77 percent, driven by carpetbag Republicans and Democrats desperate to hold onto power (in those days, governor's elections almost always were on the same days, probably boosting turnout for both offices). We aren't going to get there this year, and we're unlikely to even …
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 2 weeks, 2 days, 21 hours, 15 minutes ago
Reversal on DHH cuts irks lawmakers
First there was, then there wasn't, and now one must wonder whether there's more than meets the eye to spending decisions made concerning Louisiana's Medicaid program. In September, Secretary of Health and Hospitals Alan Levine asked permission from the Legislature (through its Joint Committee on the Budget) to cut some spending as a result of a projected deficit. Most of his requests were acceded to after criticism about how perhaps the action was premature or accounting practices weren't painting an accurate picture. Then, Levine announced days after this was granted that, rather than a deficit, there was an even larger surplus. This appeared because of fewer demands on services as a result of delayed entry of people into the health care system as a result of the hurricanes blowing over the state in September. Levine specifically mentioned some 400 waiver slots for home- and community-based care programs going unfilled that did not make claim on resources. He also pointed out that these expenses were going to happen, they just had been postponed. The timing seemed curious, as some observed that the 2005 hurricane experiences could have been used to make better projections, while others thought the predictive historical data being used were too sparse, and still others thought the projected deficit of $81 million could be worked through internally with a $7 billion annual Medicaid budget without budgetary intervention. However, state Rep. Jim Fannin ascribed political motives when he wondered whether Levine already had known the number might come in better before arguing for the fixes. Fannin's musings certainly seem credible. And Levine's numbers don't quite add up: if there was $181 million swing in resources, for 400 waiver slots on an annual basis the typical recipient might cost about $70,000 annually, that's only $28 million of concern. It's possible that Levine's actions are accounted for by larger policy and budgetary concerns. With the state looking more certain to encounter future difficult budgetary times and a major component to reduce those being restructuring of health care, the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration may have seen this projected deficit at the time as being a persuasive element to start implementing a move from the less efficient institutional-cased health care system to a more cost-effective home- and community-based system. The changes accepted by the committee for the most part addressed money going to institutions. The one change that was not sanctioned, which essentially would have lowered payments going to rural hospitals, also did. It is possible that the Jindal Administration thought these kinds of changes - many in fact which appeared to be …
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 2 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 2 minutes ago
State warns of lean year ahead
That the state may be looking at a shortfall of over $1 billion for 2009-10 is unfortunate. That to some degree this could have been mitigated is unquestioned. That it can be managed with a minimum of budgetary agony should not be doubted, if we start now.
It's not like we weren't warned, certainly often enough by this space. Under Gov. Kathleen Blanco, when it became apparent that federal disaster relief spending was going to fatten state coffers, the immediate impulse should have been to start bankrolling this bonanza in the Budget Stabilization Fund to the tune of $1 billion-plus a year. Instead, Blanco withdrew funds from it. At least Gov. Bobby Jindal didn't buckle so badly to legislative demands when he had a shot to infuse money into it in 2008, but that he only dumped in the minimum showed a lack of foresight in planning. And here we are again, with a chance to put the entire projected surplus for 2007-08 into the fund.
Had these suggestions been followed which would have pushed the fund to $4 billion, for this upcoming fiscal year the entire projected deficit could have been withdrawn from the fund (a third may be taken every two years). This would have bought time for the 2008 tax cuts to kick in that will add hundreds of millions from increased economic activity to come to fruition. Regardless, it's not too late to send the entire projected last year surplus to the fund where maybe it could support a third of this year's projected deficit.
Besides better revenue management, spending also must be addressed. Given the state's eccentric eligibility of funds reduction without extraordinary measures, health care is the single largest item by far where controls would have to be instituted. The looming crisis once again demonstrates that Louisiana must rid itself on a fixation for institutionalized solutions both for triage and long-term care. As regards the former, restructuring the health care system to move away from overwhelming dependence on state-owned facilities to provide indigent care will save funds. As regards the latter, putting more care into home- and community-based care by getting rid of the tremendous reliance on nursing homes to produce more efficient and effective solutions will save the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Jindal Administration obviously is acting correctly to identify areas of savings now, but it needs to be more proactive in seeking out reduced expenses and banking money. That …
Read More...
posted by Jeff Sadow, 2 weeks, 6 days, 21 hours, 46 minutes ago
Sponsors
 |
 |
 |
|
Member Blogs
Doc Fleming’s immigrant busing service
HeartlessJoe, 08/20/2008
cleslie, 07/23/2008
laboruniontruth, 06/16/2008
laboruniontruth, 06/06/2008
PoliticsLA.com Editor, 06/03/2008
Site design by Gatorworks Web Design
With disarray, Jindal's value rises
No doubt governors would prefer to be in the shoes of Alaska's Sarah Palin, with a budgetary state surplus especially in these times where a slowing economy that, if they do what they say, will be slowed even further by Democrat control of the federal majoritarian branches which in turn will reduce federal largesse to states. Louisiana's Gov. Bobby Jindal does not have this luxury - which may turn out to elevate his chances for higher political office.
The long-warned bubble economy infused with recovery dollars is coming to an end in Louisiana which will test Jindal's governing ability. Already its looming has forced Jindal into tough decisions, the highest profile of which was his hesitancy to embrace this year's income tax cut which will only start to come to fruition next year. Many more appear to be on the way.
But if he can get the Legislature to handle it with a minimum of pain to the state, he sets himself up as a devastatingly strong candidate for the presidential ticket in 2012 as the worst nightmare for a White House incumbent of Barack Obama. If Obama and Congressional Democrat leaders do what they promised they will do, the country will be in its worst economic shape since the 1970s with a daunting "misery index" and deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product the highest since World War II. Guiding Louisiana to a better economic picture will stand in stark contrast to that.
This is where Jindal would have the edge on today's leading Republican for the 2012 national ticket, Palin, who has show she can govern in good times for her state but not yet the bad ones. Further, to some degree the Democrats aided by the media (who treated the first female vice presidential candidate from a major party Geraldine Ferraro with skepticism, but added outright hostility to coverage of Palin) demonized Palin aided by a narrow time frame which may have created enough of a negative lasting first impression to voters that also could give Jindal the edge.
Of course, Jindal must succeed, which means producing a balanced budget that also shifts priorities to areas that appear both necessary and popular despite an environment of increasing costs in some areas and decreasing revenues. But if he does, the fear he has struck into Democrats ever since he …
Read More...