Bloodless Coup

Yah, if you ever want to see successful gerrymandering in action, check out how many races in which the other party doesn't even bother to run a candidate in Louisiana. Being a cynic, I just assume that either Jindal isn't plugged into the good old boy network, in which case he won't be able to get anything past the legislature, or he is connected, in which case it'll be more of the same.

Actually Louisiana isn't a state you'd expect to see much gerrymandering. The governor last time it came around (Mike Foster) didn't care about it, and the legislature tends to organize itself on lines that aren't particularly partisan. Though sure, lines are often drawn to protect incumbents. But just because no one runs, that doesn't mean there's gerrymandering. I'm not an expert on state politics, but I think a lot of that comes from the fact that there are relatively few sources of political money in the state, and state/political media is often terrible - so even voters who want to learn more about what's going on have a hard time doing so.

As to the big races, the conservative Jindal becomes the country's first Indian-American governor, incumbent Attorney General Foti was turned out of office (there'll be a run-off for his job between Caldwell and Alexander), and long-time Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom has been forced into a run-off with Republican Mike Strain.

Looks like the party balance in the legislature will be pretty much the same as last time (probably a few Republican gains in the House), though a few of the individual races didn't go quite as I'd have thought.

"I'm not an expert on state politics, but I think a lot of that comes from the fact that there are relatively few sources of political money in the state, and state/political media is often terrible - so even voters who want to learn more about what's going on have a hard time doing so."

Yah, thank God for talk radio. In our area, incumbent Taylor Townsend lost, and Billy Montgomery who's avoiding term limits by switching to the State Senate is forced to a runoff. Arguably three of his opponents, Murrell, Shaw, and Peacock are anti-incumbent candidates, so if the runoff turnout is like the general election, he may go down too. But there just doesn't appear to be enough anti-incumbent energy for a so called reformer like Jindal to get traction in the legislature if he doesn't already have it.

It is good news about Odom being forced to a runoff, although I have mixed feelings about Foti, what with him standing up for the gambling treatment referral program, on the cutting edge of treating gambling addiction related crimes the way drug and alcohol addiction crimes are treated, legally. But sometimes changes happen for the better.

I'm very mixed on Foti too. Was he problematic? You betcha. Are the other guys too? You betcha.

I don't quite get how moving from one constituency to another and one house to another is "avoiding term limits". The limits exist and everyone has to comply. If someone wants to run for something else, that's their business.

Rep. Townsend losing his state senate race is, to me, the big surprise of the election in North Louisiana. I mean he had great connections, was really well known, a prominent guy in the legislature, and was running to replace a retiring Democratic senator.

And in what universe is Buddy Shaw anti-incumbent? He's been in the House for years (as basically a bad/irrelevant member, serving there after he did what he could to run my old high school into the ground when he was principal there - he's a horrible example of the victory of name recognition in elections).

Buddy Shaw ran on an established record of voting against a good number of big tax increases. In a state that just increased the size of its budget by 20% in one, single year, that's going against the grain, albeit not technically anti-incumbent.

Yes, because in the wake of Katrina and Rita, the last thing the state needs right now is more money, right? :)

And sure, Shaw's firmly right-wing (don't take the rich folks' money, take away people's rights to privacy and right to do what they want with their body, etc etc). But yeah, that doesn't have much to do with incumbency.

You've been out of Louisiana for a few years now, so maybe you simply aren't aware of taxes here. People here start paying taxes under five thousand dollars. For 2006, if an individual makes 21,000, hardly rich, they pay $500 in taxes. If they make just over 30,000, they pay $1000. You want to talk about Katrina, fine. Blanco has paid out eight billion dollars for her road home program, up to 150K for individual homeowners. Is that not enough? Is 150K not enough to start over again?

If government taxes and services were the solution, the 9th ward would have been quite different, people wouldn't have stolen the plumbing pipes out of government housing to sell for scrap metal, long before Katrina hit. But if you give people something for nothing long enough, they feel entitled to take something and give back nothing. That's what government entitlement programs taught the people of the 9th ward. That's why they're killing each other at probably the highest rate of anywhere in the country. Krupp is building their steel mill in Alabama, not Louisiana, even though our governor and legislature offered them $400 million of our dollars. They chose lower taxes. So, yes, I support a smaller government than Pennsylvania, and consequently I support Shaw.

Is 150K not enough? No, I imagine for some it's not enough.

And yes, government services are such a terrible burden on society aren't they? Education, health care for the poor - we must wipe 'em out, right?

I'm not touching your 9th Ward comments.

And if you want to vote for a face in the crowd (Shaw's been in the legislature for ages, but has never been a leader on much of anything - and yes, I do keep up on state political news as best I can) who'll happily march behind the oppressive policies of the James Dobsons, Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons of the world, hey, no one is stopping you.

"Is 150K not enough? No, I imagine for some it's not enough."

And this is exactly the problem. It's never enough. Minimum wage is never enough, health care is never enough, because somewhere, somebody's not getting as much and as good. Why stop at 150K, why not 200K, or 300K, or a million, or a billion? This is the problem when Hillary talks about taking our money, this is her idea. And you like arguing with a straw man because that's the only way you can win, talking as though I think all government services are bad all the time. If you're interested in responding to my argument, then respond to why government shouldn't be the provider of last resort.

Nobody wants to go to Louisiana charity hospitals, because they're run by government, as beaurocracies, and given the choice people won't wait 10 hours in an emergency room. They are the last resort, as they should be, because beaurocracies end up being corrupt useless, as Hayek makes the point in Road to Serfdom. People in our nation can't individually defend us from other nations, so as a last resort we must have a national military to defend ourselves from other nations.

If government is viewed as more than a last resort but becomes a first resort provider, then quality declines; just look at socialist health care systems and public schools. Those who view the everyday provision of services to be the government's job are taking the emergency picture to be a typical one. Government must do it because people can't. As you say, FEMA sucks. I wonder how much better recovery would be if people hadn't waited on FEMA or on the Road Home program, if people had as a community worked to solve their problems, if there hadn't been a government on whom they rely and resent, for its inefficiency. Inefficiency is government.

The only reason our military is as good as it is is that it relies on private sector technology. This is why we won the cold war, because our people were motivated by reward, not empty slogans of equality. People rely on government as a way to curb their compulsion to control and exploit their environments. When a tragedy occurs, it is in the liberal view a failure of government. When people don't overcome their circumstances, that too is a failure of government.

But in disowning their difficulties, liberals lose touch with their pride and desire to be better people, they won't even admit there's such a thing as a better person for fear it would make someone else out to be a failure. Liberals focus on the negative, taking the emergency picture, in which people fail, to be the typical one. Every irrational belief of which liberals accuse religions people regarding God is expressed in similar form by liberals regarding government.

Okay, to make it really simple: As far as I'm aware (and correct me if I'm wrong), the biggest items states spend money on are health care and education (though of late, perhaps prisons are getting up there in many states). If you want to cut health care you are in all likelihood making it impossible for some poor people to get medical care they need. And given what we always hear in the press about our failing schools (and our tendency to rank below a lot of other countries on education), do you really want to cut education? You can decry bureaucracies all you like, but the fact is that if you cut them, a lot of people will be hurt in the process - and those are more likely than not going to be people who are in the weakest position to protect yourselves.

I find your absolutist views on private vs. public sector about as silly as your views about "private sector technology" being the base of our military strength and power. Talk about big government subsidized welfare queens - are there any bigger than the "military industrial complex"? Just who do you think it is that funds those "private" corporations. And the idea that everything they make is great is silly - Littoral Combat Ship? Deep Blue? Osprey? Blackwater? Are those proof that the "private sector" is great?

Some bureaucracies are fine. Some private companies are fine. Some of both fail and are corrupt. There's nothing that makes something worse merely because it's government run. And the idea that you want to turn over core parts of life (our ability to live healthy lives, our ability to be educated) to groups that exist solely to make profits for themselves is fairly odd given the general tone of your comment.

And no, I don't think government is responsible for everything. But when it has asserted responsibility for something, been tasked with it, and it fails to deliver, then sure, I'll point out that it's a great big failure.

Good lord. I just looked at the parish by parish results. Jindal won 60. Campbell won 2 small ones in the Northwest (his base). Boasso won St. Bernard (his base). And "Independent" (former Republican) John Georges won Orleans (with the help of Mayor Nagin). What astounds me are the numbers in Orleans. Campbell, the only person in the race who has been a Democrat for over a year won less than 8% of the vote there. Less than 8%!

And on the turnout question, this is the end of a story in today's Times Picayune:

The overall turnout statewide Saturday was about 46 percent of registered voters. In New Orleans, the turnout was about 27 percent, with about 40 percent participation among white voters and 20 percent among black voters, according to GCR & Associates Inc., a New Orleans company that conducts voter trend analysis for the Louisiana secretary of state.

"This is a real significant issue for New Orleans," said GCR's Greg Rigamer, who consulted for about 50 candidates during this election, including Jindal. "You've got a real significant difference here. This isn't marginal."

In the gubernatorial primary of 2003, about 122,000 people voted in New Orleans. Nine months after Katrina, about 115,000 people voted in the runoff for New Orleans mayor. On Saturday, 75,880 voted in the city. Rigamer thinks the decline reflects a trend of more residents giving up their New Orleans homes.

"I think this is an indication that people have moved on," Rigamer said.

Rigamer's post-election analysis says African-American turnout statewide was 35 percent, compared with white turnout of 51 percent. Jindal got 63 percent of the white vote and about 10 percent of the black vote, Rigamer estimated. Independent pre-election polls showed Jindal with 15 percent of the black vote, but the lower actual support on election day was more than offset by low turnout.

Boasso led the African-American vote with 36 percent, followed by Campbell with 28 percent and Georges with 21 percent.