Officials debate drop in voting Apparently there’s been a lot of jaw-flapping going on about the meaning of the 46 percent turnout in the governor’s contest, some four to five percent below the elections for that office in 2003, with Democrat politicians arguing it signals that politicians are failing to “inspire.” As a statement of what primarily caused the drop, that sentiment is utter tripe. The primary reason is very simple – Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes and, to a lesser extent, Jefferson, have kept a number of people on the voting rolls who are not residents of their parishes because they left and haven’t returned from the 2005 hurricane disasters and, without extraordinary efforts being made by candidates, will not vote. Just look at the provisional figures recently released by the state – two of the three lowest turnouts of the highest-turnout contests in a parish were Orleans at 29.2 percent and St. Bernard at 37 percent; Madison got in just below at 36.3 percent. Jefferson was a few places higher at 42.8 percent. But compare the 2003 numbers: among all but Orleans, St. Bernard, and Jefferson, the state had 1,096,733 of 2,244,867 vote, or 48.9 percent – less than 1.5 percent below the 2003 primary total. And that 1.5 percent may have been an artifact of two different things: first, lack of a hot parish-wide race on the ballot especially in populous parishes (in the ten highest turnouts, eight were registered by a sheriff’s or parish president’s race while only two came from the gubernatorial contest) and blacks (besides those displaced from Orleans) turning out in noticeably few numbers (for example, from what I could derive, black turnout dropped a couple of percent in Caddo Parish but the bottom fell out in East Baton Rouge, down about 10 percent). It’s interesting that Republican politicians pointed to the storms or, as a longer-term cause of a decline in turnout, legal changes that produced more registered voters but disproportionately fewer who would turn out. The Democrats may blame candidates because they may perceive the reduced excitement in the black community. However, the Democrats in blaming politicians may have a political motive behind it. By ignoring the impact of the hurricanes’ displacement, they can attempt to make the problem out to be bigger than it really is – a mathematical artifact of essentially inaccurate representations of reality. This could give impetus to efforts to dilute ballot security in an effort to crease turnout for its own sake, such as by the unnecessary and wasteful laws passed in the wake of the hurricanes that applied to the New Orleans city elections of 2006. It also may be an attempt to try to reduce the legitimacy of Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal’s landslide win. The fewer people that voted, the more impetus it gives to trying to deny Jindal’s win wasn’t what it was – a mandate for reform and conservative agendas. The fact is, …
Read More...

October 26, 2007….The elections of 2007 seem destined to usher in a new type of politics for Louisiana. Although the turnout was not high at only 46%, the results were earth shattering. For the first time in many years, Louisiana might finally be ready to turn a corner. The old Huey Long style of politics may be nearing the end. For decades, Louisiana has suffered by an unfortunate dependence on a strong state government. During the Blanco administration, the public sector grew with abandon while the private sector contracted. In fact, in the most recent labor department report, the more jobs were created in state government than in all of the segments of the private sector combined. With this situation as the backdrop, enter newly elected Governor Bobby Jindal. On Saturday October 20, he easily defeated 12 opponents in the primary election, winning 54% of the vote. A state that placed former KKK leader David Duke in a gubernatorial runoff in 1991, elected its first ethnic minority as Governor since Reconstruction. It is not a racist state, but one in which people are tired and unhappy with corruption and politics as usual. Jindal combines the conservative message hijacked by David Duke in the 1990’s without his legacy of hate and bigotry. In fact, the Governor elect is a true conservative who believes in smaller government, ethics reform, tax cuts, and sweeping changes in how the State Capitol is operated. By electing a Rhodes Scholar, Louisiana is showing the world that it is finally ready for bright, intelligent leadership that will finally move our state forward and give us a chance to compete with neighboring states for jobs and businesses. Jindal will become the second youngest Governor in Louisiana history and the first Indian American Governor in the nation. Jindal’s victory means that the voters of Louisiana are tired of weak leadership that was displayed in the days after Katrina. It also means that the Democratic Party in the state is facing tremendous troubles. The Louisiana Democratic Party displayed its utter incompetence in the elections. It failed to enter candidates in several of the statewide races and could not even force Jindal into a runoff. The strongest Democratic candidates did not even enter the race against Jindal. In contrast, the election results are a positive sign for the Republican Party, which has a chance to win six of seven statewide offices after the runoff elections in November. It looked so bleak for Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom that he withdrew from the runoff against State Representative Mike Strain (R-Covington). Odom knew he would lose against Strain and did not want to face the embarrassment of a humiliating defeat. In the fall elections, Louisiana Republicans made some gains in the legislature and have a chance to take control of the State House for the first time since Reconstruction. The GOP now has an opportunity in Louisiana to show the nation how conservative leadership can work. It might give the national Republican Party some …
Read More...

Leadership bids begin Of those persons who have presented themselves as potential leaders for the Louisiana Senate starting next year, the question of who would best serve the state in this positions is juxtaposed with who politically can win, meaning some compromise may have to occur in the hopes of getting this balky institution moving in the right direction. Republican Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal has stated that, unlike almost every previous governor, that he will not dictate the process of choosing legislative leaders. Traditionally, governors would impose leadership on the bodies by dangling out the threat of line-item vetoes and the ability of the governor to organize too many capital budget requests making claim on too little money. Jindal says he will eschew this past practice, in all likelihood because he plans to depoliticize to a large degree the capital outlay process – to move items through not on the basis of political expedience, but on genuine need. However, deferring in this way risks his reform agenda, for, of the declared candidates for Senate President, some hostile to his agenda definitely have put themselves into the running. Two such obstacles to progress in Louisiana would be Democrat state Sens. Joe McPherson and Robert Adley. Not only does McPherson have a fairly liberal/populist voting record (as a check of voting scorecard postings on the Louisiana Legislature Log will show), but he also is a major shill for the industry in which he has a financial interest, nursing homes. Probably the biggest area of savings in the budget that Jindal has pledged to scrub is in health care which, thanks to the influence of legislators like McPherson, has a heavy tilt towards institutionalized rather than community- or individual-based care. This has led to, as studies and Legislative Auditor reports have shown, one of the most expensive and least efficient long-term health care systems in the nation, and one of the least efficient and worst-performing indigent care systems in the country. Unfortunately, McPherson probably has done more to prevent meaningful reform in this area than any other legislator. His actions have particularly been at odds with Jindal’s emphasis of shifting health care away from a government-run, one-size-fits-all operation to maximizing individual autonomy and choice, a stance just re-articulated by Jindal over the weekend. Further, Jindal’s ethics reforms also likely would restrict McPherson’s activities in the nursing home sector, giving McPherson another reason to be as obstinate as possible with helping Jindal change the state. Few choices could be worse as Senate leader. Adley would represent minor improvement. His voting record is better but, if Jindal’s premier issue is ethics reform, few legislators have proven themselves more of an impediment to this than him. Last session, with current Sen. Pres. Don Hines, Adley derailed an ethics reform bill much like favored by Jindal despite it having virtually unanimous support in the Legislature. Adley claims he had to kill the bill …
Read More...

La. GOP aims for majority The head of the Louisiana Democrats, Chris Whittington, has had to do an awful lot of whistling into the wind these past couple of years, and he was working up to a grand finale of it when asked about his party’s chances in the remaining legislative contests on Nov. 17. Whittington asserted that “polling” showed that, of 17 House races remaining that did not pit a Democrat vs. Democrat, he saw Democrats ahead in 13 with one undecided. For the Senate, he conceded just one of four with one also too close to call. One must wonder who did this “polling,” or if it even was done. In the Senate, I guess the one that will get away is in District 32 where Republican Neal Riser came within 550 votes of winning Oct. 20 with 49 percent. Maybe the one that is up-in-the-air is District 25 where although Republican state Rep. Blade Morrish trailed Democrat state Rep. Gil Pinac 39-32 percent, a Republican newcomer got 30 percent of the vote – and the bulk of that will be going to Morrish. Likewise, Whittington appears to be doing a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm imitation with his House numbers. There are several districts where the sum of total Democrat votes are less than the sum of Republican votes (and in the one Democrat vs. no party contest, adding the GOP votes to the latter goes over the 50 percent mark), and a few others where GOP candidates scored better than 40 percent or a combination of the runoff and defeated Republicans get that high. In other words, three or four seats not won by Democrats seem optimistic to say the least. Throughout the election season Whittington has offered a Pollyanna view of Democrats’ chances (such as his last comments on the governor’s race). But his hopes may come close to realization if state Republicans let it. Without Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal or outgoing Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom on the ballot, because some incentives to vote for those interested in reform may have gone away, the party and its campaigning candidates may squander this opportunity to come close to a House majority and to make minor gains in the Senate. To make Whittington look foolish again, Republicans needs to take the following steps:

The state party and allied organizations need to target their resources wisely; for example, best not give additional aid to contests like Senate District 7 where the Democrat was …
Read More...

posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 year, 2 months, 1 week, 2 days, 20 hours, 35 minutes ago

0 Comments | Report Spam

La. GOP aims for majority The head of the Louisiana Democrats, Chris Whittington, has had to do an awful lot of whistling into the wind these past couple of years, and he was working up to a grand finale of it when asked about his party’s chances in the remaining legislative contests on Nov. 17. Whittington asserted that “polling” showed that, of 17 House races remaining that did not pit a Democrat vs. Democrat, he saw Democrats ahead in 13 with one undecided. For the Senate, he conceded just one of four with one also too close to call. One must wonder who did this “polling,” or if it even was done. In the Senate, I guess the one that will get away is in District 32 where Republican Neal Riser came within 550 votes of winning Oct. 20 with 49 percent. Maybe the one that is up-in-the-air is District 25 where although Republican state Rep. Blade Morrish trailed Democrat state Rep. Gil Pinac 39-32 percent, a Republican newcomer got 30 percent of the vote – and the bulk of that will be going to Morrish. Likewise, Whittington appears to be doing a Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm imitation with his House numbers. There are several districts where the sum of total Democrat votes are less than the sum of Republican votes (and in the one Democrat vs. no party contest, adding the GOP votes to the latter goes over the 50 percent mark), and a few others where GOP candidates scored better than 40 percent or a combination of the runoff and defeated Republicans get that high. In other words, three or four seats not won by Democrats seem optimistic to say the least. Throughout the election season Whittington has offered a Pollyanna view of Democrats’ chances (such as his last comments on the governor’s race). But his hopes may come close to realization if state Republicans let it. Without Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal or outgoing Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom on the ballot, because some incentives to vote for those interested in reform may have gone away, the party and its campaigning candidates may squander this opportunity to come close to a House majority and to make minor gains in the Senate. To make Whittington look foolish again, Republicans needs to take the following steps:

The state party and allied organizations need to target their resources wisely; for example, best not give additional aid to contests like Senate District 7 where the Democrat was …
Read More...

posted by Jeff Sadow, 1 year, 2 months, 1 week, 2 days, 20 hours, 35 minutes ago

0 Comments | Report Spam

La. agriculture chief abandoning race for eighth term 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 42-41 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. (If you'd like to have Prof. Sadow's column mailed to you, go to http://www.between-lines.com and click on "Join the mailing list!" on the left-hand side.)
Read More...

Race still on to see which party controls the state House 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 …
Read More...

Some Indian-Americans not celebrating Jindal's victory 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.” Where to begin in the face of such ignorance? First, while few systematic studies have looked at the Indian-American community in terms of political attitudes, they conclude there aren’t many differences between it and the American public at large. This would imply more of them call themselves conservatives than liberals and more Democrats than Republicans. This guy probably doesn’t know there is at least some organization of Indian-Americans favoring the GOP. So, politically at least, Jindal isn’t that different from others of his ethnic background. Second, this dummy obviously needs a history lesson. The Republican Party started as an organized abolitionist movement that branched out into electoral politics just prior to the Civil War. In fact, its rise to prominence triggered the Civil War, among other causes, as southern Democrats believed the new party would be able to roll back slavery of blacks. After the Civil War, many blacks were elected as Republicans both at the state and national level – until Democrats began to find ways to prevent them from even participating in politics in the south. Currently dozens of blacks serve as GOP elected officials. If anything, it’s been Democrats who for so long (and maintained this by law) were “historically whites-only.” Third, as near as I can tell from the almost incomprehensible, if not bigoted (and ignorant – Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a Macedonian of Albanian descent) statement Chaudhuri made about religion, he seems to imply that Jindal and Gandhi would be political opponents. Rather, they have more in common than differences. For example, Gandhi hoped to liberate Indians …
Read More...

Low turnout in N.O. bolsters state's GOP shift 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 …
Read More...

Jindal wins 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 above 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.” These conjectures fundamentally misunderstand why Jindal won, and that misunderstanding begins with the fact that Jindal is a conservative Republican. Very simply, the majority of Louisianans recognize, at both simple and complex levels, the wisdom of conservatism, the province of the Republican Party, as the proper mode by which to formulate public policy. But conservative preferences will drive voting behavior only when a candidate really believes them, openly articulates them, and does so effectively – and the man and moment intersected with Jindal’s campaign in 2007. Jindal will become Louisiana’s first true conservative governor in all ways – economically, socially, and culturally. He is the first to present a genuine vision of smaller government aimed at not interfering in people’s lives except to preserve their autonomies and freedoms from encroachment by others or by government. And he very effectively articulated this plan by talking to, probably when all is said and done over four years, hundreds of thousands of people many of whom he persuaded that he had the right agenda for them. You don’t scare away some potentially formidable opponents because of “breaks.” You don’t raise $11 million from 19,000 people because of “buyer’s remorse.” You don’t handily fend off all comers who do run who outspend you almost double with all running explicitly against you because too few people are jacked up about your agenda to care to go to the polls. You accomplish all of these things because you articulated and disseminated a conservative message that resonated so well among the receptive populace that smart opponents stayed out …
Read More...