Saturday, December 09, 2006

Post-Election Stuff

Can't say I'm surprised. I could tell in the last few days that the one demographic that I thought would be motivated to vote -- white Orleans Parish voters -- weren't looking very likely to vote. Don't know what I was hoping to accomplish with my last two hurriedly thrown together posts.

I haven't heard so much West Bank/East Bank nonsense since I went to Franklin in the late 70's. I wondered if people who lived in Algiers identified more with the West Bank or with Orleans Parish. It's obvious which it is in Jackie Clarkson's case. If her channel 6 interview shows up on WDSU's website, watch it. She was visibly elated to see the West Bank flex its muscle, even it was the west bank of Jefferson Parish. Remember that if she ever runs for office again.

I couldn't vote for Troy Carter in the primary election because I was afraid of a Shepherd/Jefferson run-off. I really don't want to see that see that snake (Shepherd) entrenched in power. Whether the next election's more likey to be in six months or two years, it's time to start the anyone but Shepherd movement. I take his endorsement of Jefferson as proof that I was right about him, it's not a Christian value to help elect an extortionist for your own selfish reasons. Anybody who tries to elect the viler candidate because he thinks he'll be able to get elected (or play kingmaker) doesn't deserve your vote (or respect).

I heard some Jefferson Parish official say something about electing somebody from Jefferson next time; apparently, they want both of the Jefferson/Orleans seats. With people on the east bank of Jefferson thinking in terms of Jefferson/Orleans, and people on the west bank of both parishes thinking East Bank/West Bank, it could happen. Anyone but Shepherd.

Clancy DuBos made one good point: if Jefferson survives the indictment, the party primary system will make it almost impossible to unseat him in two years. That's something for all the clever strategic voters who voted for Jefferson in hopes of getting a better choice after the indictment to think about.

Hedge-Morrell had the best comment of the night. It was something about the election showing that we still had much bigger problems than Katrina. She was talking about Jefferson and Orleans being divided, but the line was funny.

Finally, Ed Renwick thinks Carter should have gone more positive because the voters already knew the anti-Jefferson stuff. I disagree, I don't she could have gone more negative, but I think she could have been more effectively negative. That spelling bee commercial certainly made the classic mistake of putting cleverness ahead of effectiveness. She should have had the kid spell "extortion." Renwick was wrong about people knowing the negative stuff about Jefferson. Most people think he's in trouble for accepting bribes, and most people expect politicians to accept bribes. Most people don't realize than solicitation of bribery is extortion minus the threat of physical violence. Carter didn't mention the extortion of an African-American businessman until the end of the campaign. I also didn't hear her mention the bankruptcy bill until Friday. I know that outside of the liberal blogosphere, the bankruptcy bill doesn't get much traction. So I don't think it's a winning issue, in and of itself, but she could have used it as both a negative and a positive to point out a difference between her and Jefferson. Who knows, she might have even been able to tie it into some people's post-Katrina difficulties.

Addition: For anybody from out-of-town who stumble across this, this post from Adrastos will help explain some of the East Bank/West Bank, Jefferson/Orleans dynamics and Harry Lee's role in the election. This one helps explain the apathy.

BTW: For anybody interested ina friendly wager, I'll bet anybody a small amount of money, or a meal at a moderately priced restaurant, that Jefferson votes against net neutrality -- I suspect that there will be a high correlation betwen how congressmen voted on the bankruptcy bill and how they'll vote on a net neutrality. Again net neutrality and the bankruptcy aren't near the top of many people's list of issues, but along with the gay-bashing, they were two more reasons to vote for the new new crook.

The truly fun thing about this analysis is that you were obligated to specify which "snake" you referenced.

Some sickly sad part of me is smiling at that.
Also.. I think you're right about Jefferson's net neutrality vote. Except that I think that NN has more overall support in the new Congress.
And then this message before the ellection to diswade people from voting for one over the other is just a typical Carl Rove like strategy. "Rove, eager to see Clements in the governor's seat again, drafts a memo that foreshadows future Rove campaigns. He quotes Napoleon, advising candidates to put forth "a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, [sic] followed by rapid and audacious attack." In a later memo, he tells his candidates to focus on suburban voters, emphasizing education, traditional values and lower taxes and to take pains to appear "compassionate.""
I agree about the Karl Rove-like strategy, although I don't think Karl Rove invemted it. He gets credit for being smart when he's really just conscience-less.

I said high corrrelation about NN, not total. But I suspect that most Dems who voted for the bankruptcy bill will vote against NN, unless the last election causes them to re-evaluate. I think they're a few Repubs who voted for the bankruptcy bill who've shown signs of being on the riight side on NN, but I can't think of them off hand.

Or as Wikipedia says "strategists say that an effect of negative campaigning is that while it motivates the base of support it can alienate centrist and undecided voters from the political process, reducing voter turnout and radicalizing politics.
Check out the story and Video here.
Good stuff, David. Thanks for the double mention. Karen was such a lame candidate that the more she spoke the more she turned people off. It wasn't just Harry, it was the candidate.
See my comments in Schroeder's analysis post here:

My guess is that white Algereens voted more like white Eastbankers than like white West Jeffersonians.
so you don't have a stance on this issue, no big deal right? Well what about this issue? Is there any since of urgency here or is your head in the sand?

"Ice is melting so fast in the Arctic that the North Pole will be in the open sea in 30 years, according to a team of leading climatologists.

Ships will be able to sail over the top of the world and tourists will be able visit what was, until climate change, one of planet’s most inaccessible landscapes.

Researchers assessing the impact of carbon emissions on the world’s climate have calculated that late summer in the Arctic will be ice-free by 2040 or earlier - well within a lifetime.

Some ice would still be found on coastlines, notably Greenland and Ellesmere Island, but the rest of the Arctic Ocean, including the pole, would be open water.

The Nasa-funded US team of researchers said the ice retreat is likely to remain fairly constant until 2024 when there will be a sudden speeding up of the process.

In between 30 and 50 years, they concluded, summer sea ice will have vanished from almost the entire Arctic region.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Old Favorites
  • Political Boxing (untitled)
  • Did Bush Take His Ball and Go Home
  • Teratogens and Plan B
  • Foghorn Leghorn Republicans
  • Quote of the Day
  • October's News(Dec.1)
  • untitled, Nov.19 (offshore revenue)
  • Remember Upton Sinclair
  • Oct. Liar of thr month
  • Jindal's True Colors
  • No bid contracts