Suchergebnisse

Ahead of the Taiwan's presidential and legislative elections, many reports have emerged alleging Beijing is attempting to swing the voters' choice.

Defending the former Pope's legacy may only swing a relatively small number of voters, but in a closely fought election this could be decisive in helping the right-wing ruling party to secure another outright parliamentary majority. Abuse cover-up claims and counterclaims Last month, a documentary aired by the US-owned TVN24 news channel claimed to show […]

The 2020 election will soon be upon us. As usual, news outlets will play a crucial role informing the public about the candidates. But could their decisions actual swing elections?

That's the argument put forward by Prof. Gregory Martin from Stanford University in a recent paper. The data he's collected shows that the decisions made by reporters and editors may have surprising effects on who voters support.

Paper: https://web.stanford.edu/~gjmartin/papers/Milestones%20Jan%202020.pdf

John Heilemann is a journalist, author, television commentator, editor-in-chief of The Recount, and host of Showtime's The Circus. He joins David fresh from a swing through Iowa to share his assessment of the leading Democratic candidates, what he thinks matters most to voters in Iowa, why he believes Trump is politically underestimated, and whether or not impeachment will impact Trump in 2020.
To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Roughly three in four Democrats support a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, according to a new poll from Data for Progress that highlights the sharp divide between the Democratic Party and its supporters as Israel resumes its ground campaign in the war-torn strip. A total of 61% of Americans polled said they were in favor of a ceasefire.While the Biden administration has signaled that it is concerned about the level of civilian casualties in Gaza, the White House maintains that any sustained pause in fighting would embolden Hamas and enable future attacks against Israel. The administration's hard-line position stands in contrast to the growing support for a ceasefire in the House, where roughly half of the Democratic caucus has called for an end to the war. Biden's policy has, however, earned a better reception in the Senate, with only two Democrats saying they back a ceasefire.The poll, which surveyed roughly 1,200 likely voters between Nov. 22 and 25, also found that a plurality (49%) of Republican voters support a ceasefire, though that number dropped by more than 10 points when respondents were told that such a move would "keep Hamas in power and allow them to prepare another attack against Israel."The survey highlights the political headwinds facing Biden as he continues to publicly back Israel's assault in Gaza, which has left more than 15,000 Palestinians dead, the majority of whom are women or children.A coalition of Arab American and Muslim leaders have launched a campaign calling on their supporters to not vote for Biden in the 2024 election. The #AbandonBiden movement, which focuses on swing states with significant Arab or Muslim populations, could have a significant impact on the Democratic president's reelection chances, according to Shadi Hamid of the Washington Post."If the 2024 election is close, Arab and Muslim Americans could be numerous enough to make a difference," Hamid wrote in a recent column. "If Arab and Muslim voters abstain in unusually large numbers, others might follow suit. Note that 70 percent of young voters of all ethnicities disapprove of Biden's handling of the war."The new poll confirms the finding that Hamid referenced: 63% of respondents under 45 said they support a ceasefire, while only 22% said they were opposed.Voters also overwhelmingly support the idea that weapons sales to Israel should be conditioned on human rights, according to the survey. That trend is particularly strong among Democrats, 76% of whom say Tel Aviv should only receive weapons if it uses them in accordance with "our standards for human rights."The Biden administration, however, has shown little interest in conditioning aid to Israel despite its own policy on arms transfers, which says the U.S. will not give weapons to a country that will "more likely than not" use them to commit serious violations of human rights.That position has drawn some blowback in the Senate, with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) saying that it "would be irresponsible for us to provide an additional $10.1 billion in unconditional military aid that will allow the Netanyahu government to continue its current offensive military approach." But Sanders' opposition will likely not be enough to block a funding package for Israel given the broad, bipartisan support that Tel Aviv enjoys in Congress.When asked which actions the Biden administration should take in response to the war, only 19% of Democrats and 34% of Republicans said the U.S. should prioritize sending weapons to Israel. A slim majority of Democratic respondents said the White House should prioritize diplomatic talks aimed at de-escalating violence and securing the release of hostages.

Louisiana's state senators need to emulate their
House counterparts and give voters the chance to declare constitutionally that
the state's elections aren't for sale, and in timely fashion.

HB 311 by
Republican state Rep. Blake Miguez
would amend the Constitution to prohibit foreign governments or nongovernmental
sources to fund elections. Somewhat
vaguely the prohibition exists in statute, but doesn't apply to local
elections, so passage of this by voters this fall would put it beyond statute's
reach and cover all elections.

The political left opposes such matters because
its forces have had success in putting the thumb on the scale by outsourcing
elections. Hundreds of millions of dollars from private sources, overwhelmingly
funded by big-money donors who support leftist causes, problematically either
disproportionately were directed towards election units that disproportionately
vote for Democrats and/or funded outreach efforts of lower ballot security that
invited unscrupulous behavior.

It and its media
lapdogs disingenuously allege those bucks had no impact on electoral
outcomes by observing states with greater Republican control received more money
collectively. Of course, this ignores that the money didn't go to states but to
local governments and that when making
comparisons at this level those jurisdictions saw substantially more money
per voter go to those that voted for Democrats for president over the past two
cycles, had substantially higher voter turnout in Democrat-held areas compared
to 2016, and saw a vote swing towards Democrats compared to basically no movement
in two-party vote for those that didn't receive such funds.

In the past two years bills similar to this
clarifying the matter in statute went far in the legislative process. One made it to
Democrat Gov. John
Bel Edwards' desk, but predictably he vetoed it, and it wasn't called up
during the veto session even though original passage put it just a vote shy
from a successful override in the House and it had enough in the Senate. Last year, it fell
one senator short to obtain a supermajority for late consideration after Sen.
Pres. Page Cortez slow-walked
the bill through the chamber. While a two-thirds vote is required both for
legislators to propose an amendment and to override vetoes, placing the matter
in the Constitution both makes it more secure and is appropriate as it
addresses a matter fundamental to an unbiased electoral system.

But what a difference an election year makes. This
year, the matter garnered a House
supermajority, even with three Republicans not voting who had favored the
two earlier versions. That's because four past Democrats – two of whom have
switched to the GOP since – currently Democrat state Reps. Robby Carter
and Mack Cormier
and Republican state Reps. Jeremy LaCombe
and Malinda
White after voting against or conveniently absenting themselves from votes
on the previous two versions suddenly took to voting in favor of the present
version. Three want to run for reelection and White wants to pursue another political
office.

The bill now lies with the Senate and Governmental
Affairs Committee, and once again the clock is ticking. Last year, in the crush
of last-day business a couple of GOP senators were absent, presumably working
on other last-minute pieces of legislation, that allowed for the vote outcome bottling
it up. Additionally, as a constitutional amendment, the bill may have to make another
committee stop if the panel makes changes. Let's hope chamber leaders don't act
dilatorily to sidetrack again a bill with strong majorities and demonstrated need
to keep elections free and fair, joining nearly half of all other states by doing
so.

It's still advantage Democrat Henry Whitehorn, but,
if allegations made by his opponent for Caddo Parish Sheriff Republican John Nickelson prove correct, that may
end up switching things for good – eventually.

Initial tallies on Nov. 18 gave Whitehorn a single
vote lead out of over 43,000 cast. Certification by the parish could occur as
late as 4 PM Nov. 27, which involved the board of election supervisors
verifying machine totals and early voting and absentee totals, with the
additional task of conducting a recount as requested by Nickelson. Keep in mind
that a recount only comes from absentee ballots, 7,780 in this instance, because
these are the only ones not entered electronically but are scanned.

This put Nickelson at a partisan disadvantage. The
board is comprised of the clerk of Court, Democrat Mike Spence; Registrar no
party Dale Sibley,
Democrat Gov. John
Bel Edwards' appointee Democrat Brenda
Traylor, and representatives one each from the major political parties. The
board as part of its duties reviews absentee ballots that initially didn't optically
read correctly to discern, if possible and by majority vote, the intent of the
voter – a process engineered by a "recopying" technique.

That equated to adding
three votes to each candidate, leaving the Whitehorn one-vote margin intact.
Nickelson immediately sued, citing a number of irregularities. Clearly,
Nickelson's legal team had done its homework. Its petition
noted problems including at least two voters voting both early and on Nov. 18,
some voters claiming their votes didn't register, at least one voter saying he
supposedly was registered legally at a precinct but denied being able to vote
even provisionally, at least four voting unable to do so legally as interdicted
under law, and as many as six votes cast on election day from people deceased.

Further, the filing questioned the administration
of the recount. It alleged imprecision in the machine recount that demanded a
hand recount of all absentee ballots that the board denied in the interests of
time, improper retention for counting of ballots with disqualifying marks, and improper
witnessing and voter signing on the envelopes in which ballots were sealed.

The filing asked the district court, which by law
will hear the case at 10 AM Dec. 1, to order a hand recount, and declare a
winner if possible, or schedule a new election which would be held on the
statutorily-designated day of Dec. 16. This almost certainly guarantees a new election,
because unless the hand count is allowed and shows a remarkably large swing in
favor of one candidate, the other who then otherwise would be declared the
loser can claim that so many irregularities exist that even a small lead leaves
open the possibility with so many tainted votes out there that this makes the
original election's outcome unknowable.

And if it does come to that, Nickelson may come
out the winner. Nickelson in the general election racked up 45 percent of the
vote because in precincts where white Democrats and Republicans made up at
least 70 percent of registrants, Republican candidates averaged 91 percent of
the vote, while Whitehorn got 35 percent because in precincts where black
Democrats made up at least 70 percent of registrants, black Democrats averaged
88.8 percent of the vote. In that election, turnout in precincts where at least
75 percent of the registrants were white averaged 27.9 percent of the vote,
while in precincts where at least 75 percent of the registrants were black
averaged 14.8 percent.

But in the runoff, turnout in those mostly-white
precincts fell 5.3 points while in those mostly-black precincts actually rose 1.2
points. If these numbers reverted even slightly to the general election form,
Nickelson wins a special election.

On the one hand, as overall turnout slipped between
elections 2.4 points, Whitehorn did better with his base, so another election
that could be expected to feature even more reduced turnout the trend would
indicate he would do better still. But on the other hand, and perhaps more compellingly
with just a single contest on the ballot, fewer than ten days before Christmas,
and where Nickelson by the latest campaign finance reports would appear to hold
a significant funding advantage necessary to drive turnout of his base, he
might be in better shape to hold onto voters.

That resolution may or may not happen anytime
soon. Depending on what happens in district court, appeals could go all the way
to the state Supreme Court, and may push any election into 2024. Its certification
may have been completed, but this contest is far from over.

 In my last post, I said that Donald Trump's strong position in the race for the Republican nomination is not the result of his personal hold on Republican voters, but of support (or at least lack of opposition) from Republican elites.  A Republican who doesn't pay much attention to politics is likely to recall that things went pretty well while Trump was in office (up until Covid, which wasn't his fault), and therefore will be inclined to give Trump another chance unless he's given a reason not to.  The obvious reasons are Trump's weak performance in general elections and his campaign to overthrow the 2020 results, but leading Republicans haven't emphasized either one.  On the first point, here's a comparison of the 2012-2020 results:                      Rep         Dem        Other2012             47.2%      51%          1.8%2016             45.9%      48%           6.1%2020             46.8%      51.3%        1.9%In 2012, Mitt Romney was running against an incumbent president who was a skilled politician.  In 2016, Trump was running against an opponent who was neither an incumbent nor a skilled politician.  In 2020, Trump was an incumbent himself, and in addition to the normal advantage of incumbency, there's a tendency to rally round the leader in times of national emergency.   Yet both times he fell short of Mitt Romney's share of the vote in 2012.  Usually after a candidate loses an election, people in his party start talking about why he lost, what the party needs to do differently, what kind of leaders it needs moving forward, etc.  That's never really happened with Trump.  On his campaign to overturn the election, for a few weeks after January 6, it seemed like many Republican leaders were ready to turn against him.  But since then, the dominant tendency has been to downplay it by saying that even if the 2020 election wasn't "stolen," there was something wrong with it, or that the Democrats are engaged in "election interference" themselves.  For example, when Maine's Secretary of State ruled that Trump shouldn't appear on the primary ballot, Susan Collins denounced the decision on Twitter.  She didn't have to say anything--she could have waited until a reporter asked and then just said it was up to the courts.  Or she could have said while Trump's conduct might not qualify as insurrection, it was a serious matter, and that was why she had voted to impeach Trump and would not be voting for him in the primary.   Other Republicans went farther, saying that there is or will be a Democratic push to get Trump taken off the ballot.  So why haven't Republican elites made the case against Trump?  I think that some of it is that they thought his support would fade away after he left office and didn't command as much media attention.  A second is that the appearance of disunity usually hurts a party with voters.  Right-wing Republicans have been willing to engage in intra-party fights in order to get what they want.   Rather than fighting back, moderate and mainstream Republicans have tried to placate them in order to maintain as much party unity as they can.  This is partly because of electoral considerations--moderate and mainstream Republicans are more likely to be from swing states or districts where they have to get some support from Democrats and independents.   I think it may also because their long period of being in the minority in Congress gave Republicans a tradition of being concerned with sticking together.  So someone like Collins, who is clearly not a fan of Trump, gives a generic Republican response rather than taking the opportunity to try to weaken him.

 A few days ago, the New York Times published an opinion piece  by Matthew Schmitz which said that Donald Trump "isn't edging ahead of Mr. Biden in swing states because Americans are eager to submit to authoritarianism.  . . . Mr. Trump enjoys enduring support because he is perceived by many voters — often with good reason — as a pragmatic if unpredictable kind of moderate."  This was once true-- September 2016, a survey found that only 47% thought that Trump was a conservative, compared to about 60% for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008.  But a lot has happened since 2016--is it still true?  In November 2023, a survey sponsored by Marquette Law School found that 78% thought Trump was conservative.  That is, perceptions are very different today than they were in 2016.   Comparing Trump with some Republican presidents and candidates from the past:                                    VL    SL    M     SC  VC   DK   meanReagan 04/1980           5 15 33 30 7 10 0.21Reagan 01/1981         2 7 15 38 24 15 0.87Reagan 01/1983    4 7 16 28 28 16 0.83Reagan 02/1984     4 10 31 26 19 10 0.51Bush 06/1999         2 12 27 31 9 19 0.41Bush 01/2000      3 11 19 38 10 19 0.51Bush 03/2000         6 13 22 31 17 11 0.45Bush 10/2000         5 10 18 39 20 8 0.64Bush 11/2003         6 9 19 39 22 5 0.65Bush 07/2004         2 6 19 43 24 5 0.86McCain 12/2007         2 8 32 39 6 12 0.45Romney 12/2007         1 8 22 39 8 21 0.58McCain 01/2008         2 10 27 35 7 19 0.43McCain 03/2008         4 7 31 29 17 12 0.55McCain 06/2008         2 8 34 29 19 8 0.60McCain 10/2008         2 8 26 45 17 3 0.68Romney 12/2011         2 9 53 22 7 7 0.25Romney 10/2012         5 9 21 40 16 9 0.58Romney 11/2012         4 5 26 37 19 9 0.68Trump 09/2016         8 12 21 30 17 13 0.41Trump 07/2022         6 4 11 30 48 1 1.11Trump 11/2023         7 3 13 30 48 0 1.08Unfortunately, the question doesn't seem to have been asked between 2016 and 2022, so we can't say just when perceptions changed, but they have definitely changed--Trump is now seen as more conservative than GW Bush, Romney, or even Reagan ever was.  This isn't surprising, because he governed as a conservative Republican (as Alan Abramowitz, a professor of Political Science at Emory University, pointed out in a letter to the editor today).  As far as why Trump leads Biden in most recent polls, a more likely explanation is the tradition of the two-party system--if people don't think Biden is doing a good job, they turn to the Republicans.  And Republican elites haven't made an effort to discredit Trump or push him aside, so ordinary voters treat him as a normal representative of the party.  [Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

 I wasn't going to have another post on this topic, but then I read an article in the New York Times that drew parallels between Biden's position today and Obama's and George W. Bush's positions when they were running for re-election.  It suggested that discouraging early polls had led Obama and Bush to "retool" and "recast" their campaigns.  But the figures in my last post shows that both led in the polls at the corresponding point in the campaign, and that their performance in the election was very close to what would have been predicted from the polls a year before.  Of course, this doesn't mean that the campaign efforts didn't matter--holding onto a narrow lead is an accomplishment, but it's a different accomplishment from "turning around a struggling campaign."The story contrasted GW Bush and Obama to "George H.W. Bush in 1992, [who] failed to heed polls showing voters distressed about the economy and ready for a change after 12 years of Republicans in the White House."  I hadn't included that race in my post because there were no surveys about Bush vs. Clinton in November 1991.  But there were surveys in October and December, and then more starting in January 1992.   In the October 1991 survey, Bush had a big lead:  58% said they would vote for Bush and 22% for Clinton.  Bush's lead in the surveys through early April 1992:His lead diminished pretty steadily, with maybe an upturn in late March, but he was consistently ahead:  out of 25 surveys, 24 had Bush in the lead, and one had them tied.  So the early polls weren't showing warning signs.  I had forgotten that Bush was far ahead for so much of the campaign, and not just against Clinton--he led by similar margins in matchups with other potential Democratic candidates.  I remembered that he had been very popular after the end of the Gulf War, but thought that faded pretty quickly and that the presidential race was competitive from the beginning.  It looks like the New York Times writers made the same mistake.  The growth of partisan polarization means that a swing of this size couldn't happen today.  But the 1992 election may be relevant in  another way.  Going by basic economic statistics, things weren't great, but weren't that bad either, but popular perceptions of the economy were very negative.    As far as I know, there's no generally accepted explanation for the gap.  Either the Bush campaign didn't make enough effort to turn the perceptions around, or their efforts weren't successful.  Either way, the experience may have some lessons for today.[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

So, who from Louisiana's political left is right
about the morass of the state's Democrats? The veteran political analyst who
foresees the light at the end of the tunnel as very distant? Or the academician
who thinks the party's political fortunes can improve dramatically?

As
part of his television gig, longtime editor of the shopper New Orleans
Gambit – no longer a shopper since The Advocate chain gulped it up a few
years ago – Clancy DuBos doesn't see much hope for the party that ruled the
state uncontested starting over a century ago for six decades, and still was in
the majority until about 15 years. He declared the party on "life support" and,
boldly asserting perhaps the surest thing in state political history, foresaw a
major shakeup in state party leadership within the next few months.

That's axiomatic for a state party with a single
out of eight members of Congress, without a single statewide executive, standing
on the wrong sides of supermajorities in each legislative chamber, soon to be
down 9-2 on the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and in three years
likely to lose ground on the one elected body where it isn't in a steep minority,
the Public Service Commission. Having no candidate come within 25 points of
Republican winners in any statewide race and ceding even more supermajority
ground to the GOP in the Legislature as a result of this year's election makes leadership
change a question not of if, but of when.

Possibly the party's state central committee will
act sooner, at its next quarterly meeting, to dump current Chairwoman Katie Bernhardt
and others. Being that they are the ones that put her there originally, they
may not and concentrate instead on winning reelection next spring and then have
the new group make the change.

Regardless of when, expect its happening to eject
from leadership the final vestiges of the rent-seeking/trail lawyer/courthouse
liberal populist gang of whites lording over the party. The facts are that of all
the 48 state office elected Democrats – two on the PSC, two on BESE, 11 in the
Senate, and 33 in the House – all but seven are black, and blacks comprise 61
percent of the party registrants. Black political elites must take primary
control of the party to help shape candidacies that will attract a majority black
base that will inspire a turnout that among that base which likely was below 20
percent in the general election runoff.

On the point that new, if unspecified other than
it needs to raise more money, leadership is needed, Dillard University
professor Robert Collins agrees.
Yet he thinks, with that in hand, there's a way forward for Democrats, based
upon observations of other odd-year state election results. Specifically, he
views the success of an amendment to Ohio's constitution to make abortion less
restricted, of Virginia Democrats' ability to stave off further Republican
gains there in legislative elections, and Kentucky Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear to
win narrowly reelection as object lessons towards reinvigorating Louisiana
Democrats.

However, there's much less to the eye here than he
argues. First, Louisiana is not a swing state like Ohio – slightly red – or
Viriginia – slightly blue. It's a solidly center-right state slowly becoming less
of the former and more of the latter. So, among the three states, only Kentucky
is comparable.

That doesn't mean the issue of state regulations
on abortion can't be used as a wedge to pry some voters away from Republicans. Except
that Collins misreads the inherent power of that issue not just in Louisiana,
but nationally. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court (rightfully through one of
the most
erudite decisions in its history) disabused the notion that the Constitution
contained a right to snuff the unborn, the degree to which only constrained by
state action within the bounds of an incoherent Court decision made a
half-century ago, now with states empowered to decide abortion's boundaries they
have engaged in an equilibrium exercise to align their laws with their people's
prevailing moral beliefs as enunciated through their elected representatives or
through instruments of direct democracy.

Since the decision, states have wandered their ways
towards their individual median preferences. Soon, that will resolve and the
issue will cease to grant either political party more than a miniscule
advantage or disadvantage, which will include Louisiana because it pretty much
rested at equilibrium from the moment the decision came down.

Collins mistakenly doesn't think so, citing a
recent poll (and he could have gone with another
a bit older) showing slightly more Louisianans oppose the current law that
allows for abortions only in the case of a threat to the mother's physical health
or is unviable than support it, using this factoid to argue that a Democrat running
hard on the issue to loosen restrictions could gain major traction.

The problem with this is abortion for decades
among Louisianans (and nationally) has been far down the list of voter concerns.
Most recently, issues towards the top (from the poll Collins cited) swing very
much against Democrats, and in Louisiana in particular because the negative
outcomes the state experiences on these come precisely from decades of governance
by liberal Democrat populists – and voters increasingly are acknowledging that
role in the state's economic destruction.

Running hard on liberalizing abortion in Louisiana
– often described as the most
pro-life state in America and with the oldest and deepest Catholic roots of
any – is a fool's errand. It will hardly move the needle in a state suffering depopulation,
economic development running behind almost all others, and educational quality
still lagging just about any other. (As shown in the Senate District 12 race last
month where an avowedly
pro-abortion candidate lost 78-13 percent.)

Nor can the lesson in the one state Collins mentioned
with a similar political environment to Louisiana, Kentucky and the Democrat Beshear
win, translate to Louisiana Democrats. What Collins doesn't know or
disregards is Beshear won only because his last name is Beshear. His father
having been governor from 2007-15 and the last name on state ballots 15 times
in the last 44 years, the dynastic familiarity with the name made him an
extreme outlier in a system that in every other way mirrors Louisiana –
supermajorities in the state legislature and Republicans controlling every
other statewide office.

There's no such Democrat in Louisiana now or for the
foreseeable future. And almost certainly in Kentucky in 2027, when Beshear is
term-limited, we'll see a Jeff Landry-like
Republican seize the office to give the Kentucky GOP a clean sweep. In essence –
in one of the few instances where Louisiana isn't behind the times now –
Kentucky is four years behind Louisiana.

DuBos, running against type over the past couple
of decades, is right: Louisiana Democrats have no immediate hope of becoming a
relevant party again. But he does miss the caveat: unless they make a concerted
effort to move closer to the median voter. Since the election of Democrat Pres.
Barack
Obama, the party has emulated its national level, becoming shriller as its
leadership sprinted to the far left, embracing tighter identity politics and conspiratorial
economics.

The ensuing trickle down to its candidates gushes
precisely against the prescriptions of its waning Great Society base who argue
any platform that doesn't put first and foremost, beyond any other issue such
as climate alarmism, defunding police, gender affirmation, etc., economic policy
to address working class concerns will not win elections. That goes triple in
Louisiana, where the irony is the population already is sensitized to the folly
of the economic policies these liberals have stumped for since the Great
Society.

Moving towards the Louisiana median voter will be
a hard thing for the party to do with all the pressure coming from the national
party that predicates its issue preferences on what New York, Illinois, and
California Democrats want. But pulling rabbit candidates out of hats, pinning
hopes on insignificant single issues, or pining for leadership that is just old
wine in new bottles won't make it; shedding radicalism is the only hope for
Louisiana Democrats to gain anything but episodic and rarely consequential
influence over policy-making in the state.

With all but one contest at the state and local
levels resolved, elections this cycle in Bossier Parish demonstrated that to come
close to beating its political establishment, you had to have a pretty organized
effort behind you.

At stake were all the seats on the Police Jury as
well as two state Senate and two state House of Representative slots, with a
couple of House posts already decided when House District 10 incumbent
Republican Wayne
McMahen and House District 5 newcomer Republican Dennis Bamburg didn't draw
opponents, as well as a few juror positions with just incumbents filing. Among
the others, in all but one Jury and one House seat establishment forces had a
rooting interest in, if not intense involvement supporting, a particular candidate.

The House race it didn't particularly care about
was the District 2 matchup between Caddo Parish Democrats Terence Vinson from
the School Board and Steven Jackson from the Parish Commission. It offered a contrast
in styles both in terms of candidates and campaigns: Vinson utilizing
traditional canvassing methods and with a steady record in office, while
Jackson spent more overall and more on media to go with his more controversial
personality, most recently being convicted
for impersonation of a police officer. That apparently didn't faze enough
voters, who gave him a narrow win.

Bossier political powers-that-be did care about
the House District 9 race between Republicans state Rep. Dodie Horton and
businessman Chris Turner, with them backing the challenger. Horton decisively
turned him back, in part because of the assistance she received from the Louisiana Freedom Caucus through its
political action committee, a group of consistent conservative House
members of which she is a member and is led by another area House member,
Republican Alan
Seabaugh.

Seabaugh himself was on the ballot and in the
crosshairs of the establishment – not just Bossier's but of other big government,
get-along-go-along politicians and special interests across the state – for
Senate District 31. Those forces aggravated at his reform and smaller
government agenda propped up to oppose him retired basketball coach Mike
McConathy running under the GOP label. Seabaugh prevailed in a contest that,
when all is said and done, likely in terms both of dollars spent by the campaigns
and by others on their behalf, will end up as the most expensive in state
history.

Thus, strong candidate organizations and allied
interests could maintain their foothold against the establishment. That lesson
also was the case in the other Senate contest, District 36, that turned into a
big establishment win, but not so much because of its efforts. There, GOP
incumbent Robert Mills lost
handily to Republican Bossier Parish School Board member Adam Bass.

Mills had angered conservatives by voting in the
Senate this year not to hold back surplus money to pare down pension
obligations and deposit more into the state's Budget Stabilization Fund savings
account, against the preferences of Horton, Seabaugh, and the Freedom Caucus.
The politically ambitious Bass, who had been testing the waters for Bossier
City mayor in 2025 with establishment backing, stepped into an ideal situation where
he could have that support and benefitted from some conservatives deserting
Mills (for example, Seabaugh, busy with his own campaign, didn't aid Mills as
he had in 2019). Despite the Mills campaign gaining an advantage monetarily in
the closing weeks of the campaign, conservative acceptance of Bass and local
powerbroker backing (in a district that had changed to his favor through
reapportionment) was more than enough to make Mills the only incumbent senator
to lose this cycle.

That establishment success, minus reformist or small
government conservative backing with one possible exception, was more pronounced
in Jury races. All but one incumbent ran again, and in the District 10 exception
former School Board member Democrat Julius Darby, the incumbent's brother, qualified,
with most finding success without great difficulty

Given their level of campaigning, resources
committed, and district demographics, three Republican challengers – all reformers
and conservatives – had the best shot to win of all challengers. In District 1,
small businessman Mike Farris took on GOP incumbent Bob
Brotherton; in District 5, former juror Barry Butler faced off against GOP
incumbent Julianna
Parks; and in District 12, small businessman Keith Sutton squared off against
GOP incumbent Mac
Plummer.

Brotherton looked vulnerable given his health that
made him difficult for him to attend Jury meetings, much less campaign. He and
Parks both served, likely
illegally, on the parish-appointed Library Board of
Control and certainly illegally had appointed Parish Administrator Butch
Ford as interim director of libraries for several months. They and Plummer had
made Ford administrator in full knowledge legally he didn't qualify, a matter still
in doubt nearly two years later.

Yet Brotherton supporters are dug in like ticks in
a district that swings north to south along the eastern edge of the parish –
his wife represents a very similar district on the School Board – and his
surrogates campaigned well enough for him to win without a runoff. And Parks
was able to draw upon her connections – her husband Santi is Bossier City's
elected judge – to seal a comfortable win.

 However, Sutton knocked off Plummer and did so because
of superior organization. South Bossier has gained a reputation as the most
rebellious part of the parish to the existing power elite, with reformist political
activism from a handful of elected (past and present) officials that are allies
of Sutton's, including former School Board member Shane Cheatham (his podcast
partner), Bossier City Councilor Brian Hammons,
and Bamburg (Republicans all), as well as from others not in office. Sutton
also aggressively canvassed the district on foot and by mail.

 As things turned out, he might be the only
reformer on the new Jury. One other incumbent lost, but that came from District
9's tilt between two establishmentarians, Democrat incumbent Charles
Gray and Republican former Bossier City chief administrative officer Pam
Glorioso. Demographics favored Gray with a Democrat voter registration advantage
of 2:1 and a near-majority black registration (Gray is black).

Perhaps
overconfidently given those demographics, Gray concentrated on outdoor
advertising while Glorioso ran a more retail-oriented campaign. Also hurting
Gray was dispirited turnout by black Democrat voters, who weren't excited by
their party's offerings at the state level, and possibly reputationally in being
a Library Board of Control member likely serving illegally who also approved of
Ford's illegal service in two different capacities. So, Glorioso won a
low-turnout contest, but she won't join any reformist efforts Sutton might
back.

Sutton
might get help from an unlikely source. In District 10, despite the Darby's
family hold over that area of town (brother Jeff is on the Bossier City Council
and sister Samm is on the School Board), Julius got pushed into a runoff by Democrat
military retiree Mary Giles, who herself courted controversy with careless
placement of campaign signs. It's the only legislative or local race left
to be decided on Nov. 18.

Even if
Sutton remains the only juror not tied into the Bossier good-old-boy-and-girl
network, at least citizens will have one voice on the Jury to question
orthodoxy and bad decisions such as those surrounding the library and Ford's
employment. And that this
cycle attracted more competition than any since 1987, even if most challengers
lost, foists more pressure for accountability onto the nine returning
incumbents, knowing that questionable actions will provoke a need to campaign
ending possibly in losing.

 Last night, at the big conference dinner, a Finnish attendee asked me about the big question of 2024 in the US (yes, US are super worried and they should be).  I first said that I don't do predictions anymore, given my blogging/tweeting/facebooking debacle of 2016.  Then she pushed, so I discussed how I am slightly optimistic but that was diminishing with the potential impact of Gaza on Democratic turnout.  And then I woke up this morning after another Democratic run of success--that the GOP has pretty much lost every election since 2016.  So, I am feeling a bit more positive than I was last night.  So, what am I thinking now these days?  First, I am concerned about Gaza/Israel as it may turn off Arab Americans particularly in Michigan.  I don't think that these folks will vote for Islamophobic, xenophobic Trump and his party that is now tyring to get Palestinians living in the US kicked out.  But they may not turn out as much--that Dem turn out has been the key since 2016. So, not great. The Jewish vote?  Oh, where it is strong, it is not going to swing anything---not in California, New York, or, ha, Florida.Second, the vote yesterday matters far more than various polls.  In each election since 2016, the GOP has underperformed.  Why? It turns out switching from being vaguely racist, more obliquely misogynist, only somewhat theocratic to being rabidly racist, wildly Christian nationalist, and actually depriving women control over their bodies (arresting moms for transporting their daughters for abortions? jailing them?) has made a dent.  In 2016, people could argue that Trump wasn't a real conservative and wouldn't appoint theocrats and their pals to the courts. Now?  Yeah, people are mighty upset that radical courts matter, that state legislatures and various governors are very enthusiastic about making many Americans miserable in so many ways.  So, abortion is a vote winner for the Dems, and that's not going to change anytime soon.  The part that stunned me the most was the wipeout of the Christian nationalists on school boards.  Local politics is hard, people don't turn out, but the batshit crazy folks with their book banning and trans and homophobia hate, indeed, triggered the Libs.  Trump and the GOP will be wearing this shit next year as the primary campaign is going to define the party as, well, freaking crazy and way outside the mainstream.  Third, on the big "issues" that the GOP want to use against Biden--his age, his son's crimes--Trump is far, far worse.  Biden may be old, but there is not the record of him losing his train of thought and saying truly bizarre stuff compared to Trump.  Of course, the media will false equivalence this stuff away, but that still means that Trump can't get much of an edge on this.Fourth, I was asked what happens if Trump is in jail in November.  I said unless it is for the documents case, I believe he will still be the GOP candidate.  There is simply way too much fear in the party regarding Trump's supporters--both because they are violent and because candidates want their support if Trump were to somehow be eliminated.  Trump's criminal behavior is already priced in, however, so it won't hurt him as much as it should.  His voters both want power and are super resentful, so they don't care. Do enough non Trumpist Republicans exist that might stay at home?  Um, I made a gamble about that last time, and it didn't work out--power matters more.  HOWEVER, the big promise for non-Trumpist GOP folks last time was getting the courts, and that is not going to change with another four years of Biden.  So, maybe they won't be so motivated to vote?Fifth, the GOP is not going to learn any lessons right now about what is causing their electoral defeats.  Why?  Because their primary processes are still going to reward extremism, so they will still send proto-Nazis and theocrats to compete for otherwise winnable Senate seats and then lose those races.  In red states, they can win those races, but in purple ones, they can't--playing to the extremist base may aid in some turnout but hurts more than it helps... at least that is how I read 2018, 2020, 2022, and now 2023.Sixth, the Dems?  Damned if I know whether they will learn the key lessons and apply them well.  Biden's presidency has been a mixed bag with the media emphasizing the mistakes and the losses.  If the recession still doesn't happen, if jobs remain plentiful and wages going up, the inflation narrative may fade a bit. Will they make progress on making housing more affordable?  Probably not.  Oh, and that foreign policy stuff?  It won't matter except to various diasporas, but some of those are in key locations.  So... 🤷Oh, and a Canadian note: the Conservative Party has been plagiarizing a bunch of GOP bullshit--trans phobia, using woke as a slur, etc.  I am thinking now that if the Canadian electorate is at all like the American one, these stances are going to hurt the Tories, not help.  So, will Polievre snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?  Probably.But that would be a prediction, and I suck at those.

Reapportionment shook up Caddo and Bossier Parish
representation in the Louisiana Legislature, setting up for some new faces, refugees
from other local offices, and intense clashes on this fall's ballot.

The area's overall declining population rearranged
things considerably. Which boundaries are coming and going will create some
interesting dynamics.

In the House of Representatives, District 1 won
last time for his first term by Republican Danny
McCormick, retreated from Bossier Parish to become a completely Caddo-based
entity. He will again face Republican Randall Liles in a race that
could be closer than last time. Although McCormick eked out a general election
win without runoff, he ran six percentage points better in Bossier than Caddo.
Still, the foothold he has established over the past four years and votes reflecting
the district's ideological tilt should be enough to reelect him.

The Bossier precincts largely transfer into
District 10, the Webster Parish-based district held by an unopposed Republican
Wayne McMahen. The district him for currently has Bossier's most southern
precinct as a footnote, but starting in 2024 his Bossier portion swings north
and grows substantially.

The other district within Bossier that largely was
an afterthought, the Caddo-based District 2 currently held by the leader of
Democrats' House caucus Sam Jenkins, expanded somewhat around old Bossier City.
Jenkins will try for the Senate District 39 seat of term-limited Democrat Greg
Tarver, and in his place Democrat Caddo School Board Member Terence Vinson will
make his second try for the seat in eight years. He is joined by Democrat Caddo
Parish Commissioner Steven Jackson.

Vinson's familiarity with the district should
help, but his main asset is the quite erratic and controversial tenure that Jackson
has had in office. In Bossier, Jackson committed his most recent and biggest
folly, convicted
for impersonating a police officer, which should just add to fodder that
ends Jackson's political career.

Joining Jenkins in pursuit of a Senate seat is
District 4 Democrat Cedric Glover. That House territory open, school board
member Democrat Jasmine Green, term-limited Democrat commissioner Lyndon
Johnson, and former District 3 candidate Democrat Joy Walters, who in 2019 lost narrowly
to Democrat Tammy Phelps, who didn't draw an opponent this year, when she lived
in that district. This could go in any direction, likely to the candidate who most
convincingly runs to the far left ideologically while conveying an ability to
bring home the bacon.

District 5 shifted eastward, still containing southeastern
Caddo but with much of it now outside the parish, the plurality of that in southern
Bossier and the remainder scattered well south into Red River Parish. Former
Bossier Parish School Board Member Republican Dennis Bamburg played his cards
right to become only one of three rookies to enter the House next year without
drawing any opposition.

While that district entered Bossier, District 6
exited it and will pick up a new representative as GOP state Rep. Thomas Pressly will gun for Senate District
38 that moved over to grab east Shreveport. Michael Melerine, present Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education member, also will take part in musical chairs
by running for this spot. He is a big favorite against no party public defender
Evan McMichael and Democrat theater
manager and activist Robert Darrow.

In recent years, the traditional afterthought House
district in Caddo has been District 7, as most of it is in rural parishes to
the south. GOP incumbent Larry Bagley
is heavily favored to retain that seat for a final term. In Bossier, the
boundaries shoved a bit north, District 8 Republican Raymond Crews faces no opposition for
another term.

As
previously noted, district boundary changes and Bossier political
establishment annoyance will create a rugged reelection battle for Republican Dodie Horton to secure a final term. She
squares off against businessman Chris
Turner, the establishment's pick. Her solid conservative legislative record
might be enough to hold him off.

The reconfigured Senate District 38, open as
incumbent Barry Milligan declined to run for a second term, that drew in Pressly
managed to retain former Democrat now Republican former seat holder John Milkovich.
Voters after one term grew sour on his taste
for big government in particular and Milligan handily defeated him last
time. Pressly is favored over him and also banker but previously political
operative Republican Chase
Jennings.

Spanning both parishes with a little presence in
Bossier, the District 39 race that attracted Glover and Jenkins also brought
back Democrat former state Rep. Barbara Norton, who tried to contest Tarver
last time but who
ran afoul of the residency requirement. With all three having tasted success
in running in parts of the district, this also will be a contest where the winning
candidate most convincingly runs to the left and shows an ability to pile up
the pork. Making things even more interesting, perennial GOP candidate Jim
Slagle is back, with his impact uncertain on who will make the runoff, or even
against him. However, Glover's track record also as Shreveport mayor perhaps
gives him a slight edge.

Perhaps receiving the award for most far-flung district
touching multiple parishes, the plurality of new District 31's residents lie in
Bossier and Caddo, washing over the southern reaches of each. As in the case of
House District 9 but for somewhat different reasons, this turned out as a battle
of the Bossier political establishment, if not of the rump grouping of white northwest
Louisiana Democrats whose power steadily has faded, against conservative insurgents. As previously noted, establishment forces back retired basketball coach Republican Mike McConathy while insurgents are
behind one of the Legislature's most prominent disruptors of traditional
liberal populism, term-limited Republican state Rep. Alan Seabaugh in a race sure to be close.
Again, a long legislative conservative record may allow Seabaugh to move into
the upper chamber.

Finally, as
previously noted another contest in which the establishment has a vested
interest occurs in District 36, which has migrated south and mostly out of
Webster Parish. Republican incumbent Robert
Mills, who beat an establishment incumbent last time that spent the most money
on a legislative race in history, takes on another establishment favorite in
the form of Republican Bossier Parish School Board Member Adam Bass. Mills has run into difficulty
among area conservatives by not backing an effort to hold the line on spending
hundreds of millions more dollars on capital outlay this past year, and this
disgruntlement presented an opportunity for the establishment to jump on him.
Mills will have to hope an otherwise solidly conservative voting record carries
him to victory.