Republicans Outflanked Themselves in Louisiana

CapitolHillBlue.com ^ | 12/9/02 | LEE HOCKSTADER & ADAM NOSSITER

[Station 51]

I just find the hypocrisy interesting, and quite entertaining.

Hypocrisy? What do you mean hypocrisy? Are you actually saying that just because some hold democrats to higher standards than republicans that they are hypocritical?

[kms61]

Well, actually, the rumor going around is that those signs were also put out by Republicans to depress the black vote. Whether there's any truth to it or not, the fact is that blacks turned out for Landrieu, and Terrell got fewer votes in many of her core precincts than she did in the primary.

Folks here are trying to spin this as a moral victory or whatever, but the fact remains, that there were two elections here that were there for the taking, and the Republican party lost both of them. Folks can make excuses, charge fraud, and try to convince themselves it was really a moral victory--and a lot of posters on FR are doing just that--or they can 1) Own up to the fact that the Republican candidates could have run much more effective campaigns 2) admit that were outworked by their opponents, and that their base didn't turn out in the numbers necessary for victor, and 3) try to learn something from the defeat and move on.

[kms61]

Terrell will NOT be the next governorlf Louisiana.

[kms61]

W did go to Monroe.

[kms61]

With all due respect to Rush, knows next to nothing about Louisiana politics. Ditto for the other talking heads that have been pontificating since Saturday night.

If the incident he references happened, the only reason it was critical is that Terrell's base didn't turn out in sufficient numbers. Fact is, she LOST white voters from the primary.

[Miss Marple]

I agree. We will be fools if we don't realize that as Common Tator says, the democrats changed strategy at half time.

The large mistake was in not recognizing this. I myself didn't recognize it, so I do not claim expertise. I thought she would win.

However, Michael Barone pointed out that once the November elections were past, the Republicans had the majority, so swing voters were free to vote based on local issues.

In addition, Mary was able to portray herself as a poor little Louisianan who was being picked on by Washington. Not only did Clinton's non-appearance help, but I think we overkilled on visits from Washington. I think when Karen Hughes shows up to campaign, we can say it was overkill.

Terrell was a weaker cndidate than I would have preferred, but she still could have won if a few things had been done differently.

I am certain there was a certain amount of fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. We are stronger in Louisiana than we used to be, but still not strong enough.

Also, those Republicans who didn't endorse until late should be ashamed.

And the O'Neill dismissal was a certain factor. Cheney should have known that O'Neill would go nuts and shouldn't have told him until late Saturday.

One other thing: I think President Bush could not have campaigned on Thursday. If I remember correctly, there was some event that he had to be in DC for on that day.

[What Is Ain't]

My sincere condolences to your dear friend, Max Cleland.

[Darlin']

No, W did not go to Monroe. GHWB went to Momroe.

[Darlin']

Hey, I wasn't excusing the loss but merely asking a question. Those signs might have been legitimate, they might have been a republican ploy that failed, they might have been a democrat ploy that worked. The election results notwithstanding the sentiment expressed is one I had heard from others long before Saturday and I believe I've heard it said by Cleo Fields.

[Illbay]

O'Neill resignation on Friday was bad for Terrell....

I find statements like this hilarious. Typical of the "I'm a wonk, you're a wonk, wouldn't you like to be a wonk, too?" attitude that prevails among the politically informed.

NEWS FLASH: The typical voter doesn't give a hoot 'n' holler who the SecTreas is. Not one iota's worth of a d*mn.

If you ask the typical voter, in Louisiana, who Paul O'Neill is, 90% would give you a blank stare. If you asked "what do you think of Pres. Bush's replacement of Paul O'Neill at Treasury? Do you support the President or oppose his move?" 90% (or more) would say "support," because everyone knows who Pres. Bush is, everyone--even in Louisiana--supports Pres. Bush, and the assumption would be if our trusted President replaced some guy it must have been the right decision.

This had ZILCH, ZIP, ZERO, NADA, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the election results in Louisiana.

FWIW, I think your other points were good. Just this one is way, way off base.

[gop_gene]

"The president's visit energized the conservative base, but it also energized the Democratic base," said Marc Morial, the Democratic former mayor of New Orleans.

Apparently it didn't energize the democratic base in New Hampshire, Missouri, Minnesota, Georgia, Colorado, Texas etc etc etc . . . I could go on and on. What a simple, shallow excuse--Mary got plenty of white votes, that's why she won.

[Illbay]

Isn't this the same place Huey Long came from?

Forget "The Kingfish." This is the place that elected Edwin Edwards TWICE, even though he'd been indicted, acquitted, and then indicted and convicted of racketeering.

Edwards is STILL incredibly popular in Louisiana.

[Illbay]

What about the rift between Terrell and at least one of her opponents during the "primary election" on Nov. 5? No one is talking about that.

I am also ignorant of LA politics, and I will bow to you in that respect: You're right that other pundits--including Rush, most of the folks on TV and probably 95% of the people on this thread--have no idea what they're talking about because LA politics is a singular topic.

So, do you think this rift had any bearing on not GOTV for Terrell?

[Illbay]

And the O'Neill dismissal was a certain factor. Cheney should have known that O'Neill would go nuts and shouldn't have told him until late Saturday.

Sorry, again, you're wrong. As I've said before: No one pays the slightest bit of attention to "Inside the Beltway" shenanigans out in the hustings. It wouldn't have had any effect in Virginia, and it didn't have any effect on this election.

In fact, I consider myself fairly well-informed re politics, and I have NO IDEA what you're talking about, O'Neill "going nuts."

[goldstategop]

It was all the blacks turning out in New Orleans in the afternoon that sunk Suzie Terrell. No way a GOP candidate could win with that kind of turnout. The GOPers voted in ther morning but after a phone call from Bubba, Cleo Fields cranked up the Dem machinery in the afternoon. It worked its Cajun magic and look who's back in Washington for a second time from the Pelican State.

[Miss Marple]

O'Neill was told on Thursday and was requeted not to say anything until Monday, because of the election. Instead, he released the information on Friday and then left DC.

I agree this wasn't the most important factor in the election, but it certainly could have affected a few thousand people. Apparently the White House thought there was enough of a problem to ask for a delay on releasing the info.

But as I said, this wasn't the most important thing. I honestly believe there were many factors involved in the loss.

[kms61]

No problem. I was talking about a lot of the stuff I've seen posted here in the last few days, not just your post in general.

Cleo and Landrieu had a feud going back to his run for governor two elections ago, when he wasn't happy with her lack of support for him. They buried the hatchet last summer and there's been much speculation about what it took to get him on board. Apparently Jefferson got his people out in New Orleans as well. However, in Shreveport turnout was significantly lower. That's the home of Greg Tarver, another black politician who doesn't like Landrieu. Apparently he didn't get the message, or didn't take it to heart. Interesting to see if there will be any repercussions for him.

[deport]

I honestly believe there were many factors involved in the loss.

IMO, you are correct that it was many factors most likely.... In time the results will be published in detail by precinct and we'll have some better numbers to look at showing voter makeup. There were two distinctly different campaigns being orchastrated. One had all the big hitters of the beltway involved and the other kept them out of the lime light even though they were in the background. The ads apparently got nasty and that grates on people after awhile. Even Suzie mentioned getting calls about them from her supporters.

I'm not sure something like O'Neil impacted the voters that much... Sugar a bit more in the 20 or so parishes that are producers, the infighting among the Republicans in the 5th CD didn't help and they had a much lower turnout than in the Primary. The overall turnout for the Senate race was the same as in the Primary but of a different make up apparently.

Remember Mary at 46% going in only had to move 4% points to get to the magical 50%..... And she had a democrat primary opponent that had 2% of that.

I think it all gets down to the .........

..... And... away we go....

[marajade]

So what happens when there isn't enough Blacks to make a difference? I believe there will come a day when that will be the case...