Tuesday Night Debateball

EWE vs. Garret Graves.  It's on the internet! You should watch.

This ain't Columbus Day

You can stop that after 40 seconds if you want to. [YOU DON'T HAVE TO NOW. I FIXED IT] But vote.. you know... if you want to.

Here are some Election Day links for you.

Voter suppression is still very much in style.

The Crosscheck list of suspected double voters has been compiled by matching names from roughly 110 million voter records from participating states. Interstate Crosscheck is the pet project of Kansas’ controversial Republican secretary of state, Kris Kobach, known for his crusade against voter fraud.

The three states’ lists are heavily weighted with names such as Jackson, Garcia, Patel and Kim — ones common among minorities, who vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, fully 1 in 7 African-Americans in those 27 states, plus the state of Washington (which enrolled in Crosscheck but has decided not to utilize the results), are listed as under suspicion of having voted twice. This also applies to 1 in 8 Asian-Americans and 1 in 8 Hispanic voters. White voters too — 1 in 11 — are at risk of having their names scrubbed from the voter rolls, though not as vulnerable as minorities.

If even a fraction of those names are blocked from voting or purged from voter rolls, it could alter the outcome of next week’s electoral battle for control of the U.S. Senate — and perhaps prove decisive in the 2016 presidential vote count.

What's the matter with Kansas now?

Of the various Kansas races, it is the Pat Roberts–Greg Orman Senate matchup that has captured the attention of poll-parsers and odds-makers from coast to coast, because it presents them with an alluring double uncertainty: Not only is the race itself too close to call, but if the independent Greg Orman wins, we don’t know which party he will line up with. In fact, we know remarkably little about Orman’s politics generally, because he didn’t come up by conventional partisan means; he moved sideways into public life after a successful career running a private equity firm. Over the years he has had dalliances with both R’s and D’s, and today he presents himself as an anti-politician, assailing (as he put it in a TV debate a few weeks ago) “partisans of both parties” who refuse to “roll up your sleeves [and] start solving problems.”

As races come down to the wire all over the country, it seems ever more possible that the fate of the Senate lies in the hands of this one unknown figure, who could conceivably deliver control of that august body to either side. The possibilities have beguiled the science-minded men of the consensus, who for weeks have speculated back and forth on this or that possible scenario, with the enigmatic Orman always hovering over the outcome.

Who is benefiting from the new age of unlimited money?

Republican dark money groups are outspending their Democratic counterparts by an incredible margin, according to data from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

During this cycle, conservative groups that do not disclose their donors have spent more than $94 million, while liberal dark money groups have spent more than $28 million.

Does that mean the Republicans will take the Senate?

Republicans have a 76.2% chance of winning a majority.

Whose fault is this?

Oh good lord. If the Democratic Party wants to know what's wrong with the Democratic Party it isn't the "professional left" or the "emoprogs" it's the institutional Democrats who run to press and whine like infants every time the Party looks like it's about to lose an election --- even if it was entirely predictable and is completely reversible 2 years later

But, of course, everyone will blame "the liberals."  Even though "the liberals" are more likely than anyone to turn out and vote for the terrible Democratic candidates who hate them. Worry instead about the voters you haven't reached. 

BILL MOYERS: This, to me, is this fundamental question facing Bernie Sanders. How do you get your message directly to those who need it most? And you know who they are. They're conservative working people, who don't realize that their party has been sold all these years to the financial and business interests that are rigging the rules against them. How do you reach those people?

BERNIE SANDERS: Well, believe me, I wish I had the magic answer. You're asking exactly the right question. There are parts of this country, Bill, where the only information people get is on radio. You got Rush Limbaugh. 95 percent of talk radio is extreme right wing. You got Fox Television, which does an extraordinary job of deflecting attention away from the real issues.
The idea that you have these working-class people who are voting for candidates who refuse to raise the minimum wage, who refuse to provide health care for their kids, who want to send their jobs to China, who want to give tax breaks to corporations, it blows my mind. And that is the issue that we have to figure out.

BILL MOYERS: But is there no way to make a concerted effort to reach out conservative working people, people who share, I think, a populous bias in behalf of government by, and for the people. Wouldn't you bolster your credentials as someone willing to really shake things up, get beyond this distracting tedium of left and right and horserace mentalities that you're asked about all the time on the radio. Is there a way to make a campaign out of that?

BERNIE SANDERS: This is something that I'm thinking about hard. When they ask Tea Party people, and I've seen some of the polls, do you think we should cut Social Security? You know what they say overwhelmingly? No. Should you cut Medicare? No. Tea Party working-class people will be shocked to know that the people who founded the Tea Party, the Koch brothers, want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, the concept of minimum wage. In other words, the ideology of the Koch brothers, who put the initial money in to found the Tea Party, is very different from the average, working-class person. And you're saying how do we reach out to get to work in coalition with those folks is something that we have got to do.

Here is the important point about that.  It is 100% the Democrats' own fault. Democrats lose elections like this one because they defend a half good/half bad health care law when they should be pushing for a better one. Democrats lose elections like this one because they brag about having "saved" the corrupt financial industry at a time when they should be running against income inequality.

People are angry and pretty much hopeless.  The moment calls for insurrection. But the Democrats fail to deliver that.  Meanwhile, the Republicans offer a false version of it spiked with fear and ignorance.  Maybe you think you're morally superior or whatever.. but it's hard to blame voters for either choosing the latter out of spite or tuning out altogether.

The good news is, it probably doesn't even matter who controls Congress for the next 2 years.  They don't even do anything.  Here's an amusing John Oliver segment on state legislatures, where the real.. and often terrifying... action is these days.



So, you know, remember to buy local in the future.

To that end, today's ballot (preview your sample ballot here) is full of local stuff.  In Orleans Parish, there are three city charter changes, and seventy million judicial elections to contend with on top of the fourteen proposed state constitutional amendments.  You'll probably need help navigating that stuff.  Here are some links that will help with that.

The League of Women Voters publishes a guide to all candidates, amendments, and propositions here.

This year, The Lens, spent a great deal of time focusing on the judicial races. Here is their comprehensive guide to the candidates.

Jules Bentley wrote this amusing guide to every race in Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard.  I don't necessarily agree with his recommendations, although I do admire the spirit in which he makes them.

PAR puts out, by far, the most useful of all the guides to the constitutional amendments. That document includes a detailed explanation of each along with the prevailing arguments for and against.

I tweeted out an..um.. alternate version of this explainer last night.  I've been asked to put that together in a list so sorry but here is that. 


Anyway... WHO IS GOING TO WIN?  Luckily, I know some of the answers to that too.

First of all, we have to make some Congresspersons. Obviously Cedric Richmond is well on his way to becoming District 2 Congressman For Life so there isn't much to say about that race.

This week, TPM named botth the LA-05 and LA-06 races among their list of "Six Most Interesting House Races To Watch"  Which is weird because the New York Times recently declared Louisiana politics officially uninteresting anymore.  They're probably both a little bit right.

For example, the 6th District race is absolutely nuts and pretty wide open to boot. If fate were to somehow deal us a Lenar Whitney vs Edwin Edwards runoff, it will be the sort of stuff we tell to our grandchildren.. or to Edwards' children, I guess.

Sadly this isn't going to happen. Instead, Edwards will end up in a runoff with one of the other 70 Republicans running. Judging from the bizarre run of last minute attacks against him, this will probably be Paul Dietzel But who knows?  Anyway whoever it is will beat Edwards.  So it's an interesting race but not a really interesting race.

Same thing in District 5 where the goddamned Duck Dynasty people are trying to see if they can just randomly name congressmen from now on.  Interesting because Vance McAllister won his first election running with the DD endorsement but also against Bobby Jindal's refusal to accept the Medicaid expansion. Now he's running against DD absent any issue that might actually matter to people this time around.  So it's interesting in that it might serve as a referendum on Duck Dynasty. But not for any other reason.

Anyway I think McAllister makes the runoff vs Jamie Mayo who is just kind of there as part of the furniture.

As for the local races, I don't think I can make a call on those. My guess is Sens and Marullo win.. which I'm sure will lead to much tooth gnashing.

Finally, I don't think the Louisiana race will determine the balance of power in the Senate.  The GOP path to victory looks like it comes via wins in Alaska, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina tonight. Many people disagree with me! Especially about North Carolina but just you watch.

There's also a slight chance that Kansas Independent Greg Ormon finds himself elected President Of Everything but I don't think that's going to happen.

The upshot is Louisiana will have a runoff to decide its Senator and that runoff won't matter to anyone at all.  Which is fine because these candidates are terrible people. This is an actual transcript of their first debate I made in case you need evidence of this.  I guessed some numbers on this earlier.. where did I put.. oh here it is.

Mary: 45%
Cassidy: 42%
Maness: 10%
Other 3%

Anyway, have fun pushing the buttons out there today.

Heckuva job

Today at a 6th Congressional District candidates' forum:

During the forum, the moderator asked each candidate to rate both President Barack Obama and Louisiana's governor, on a scale of one to 10.

The 5.6 rating is generous, too, since Jindal's highest rating of 10 was delivered in a somewhat joking tone from Garrett Graves, Jindal's former coastal restoration director. "I give (Jindal) a 10 on coastal restoration."

Bob Mann's EWE derrangement syndrome

It's been showing up a lot lately.  Mann gets a few quotes in this MoJo article about the District 6 race.

With most of the polling in-state focusing on the back-and-forth Senate race, there's no consensus on who the Republican entry in the runoff will be. But whoever emerges as the second candidate in the head-to-head race is in good shape. "I don't think Edwards could beat anybody, unless the person he's running against has committed a worse crime than him," says Bob Mann, a former aide to Democratic ex-Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

Edwards, one of a handful of Southern congressmen to support extending the Voting Rights Acts during his stint in Congress, always won black voters by huge margins. But his new district is significantly whiter than the rest of a state that's become increasingly polarized. No voter under the age of 41 has ever seen Edwards on the ballot; many of the people who ever voted for him are dead; and, also, he went to prison. "Even in his best election, he probably only got about 50 percent of the white vote," Mann says. "I don't think that's possible for any Democrat now."

Not saying his analysis is wrong. Although... Edwards vs. Lenar Whitney would be a thing I might buy a ticket to.  But more to the point, there are worse things than electing an 87 year old progressive Democrat with a colorful history to serve 2 years in Congress. Many of those worse things are on the ballot.  Not sure what Mann is all worked up about.

QOTD

Mary Landrieu responding to criticism about her appearance at an LSU tailgate over the weekend.

On another issue, Landrieu laughed off a question about her role on Saturday at an LSU tailgate site where she briefly held a beer spigot for a thirsty beer lover.

“They need to get a sense of a humor, and they need to get a life,” she said of GOP critics.

“It’s just the way we roll. The gentleman that did that is 28 years old and he has also graduated. He has a master’s in business. So I think he can make a decision for himself what he’d like to do.

“I thought I did pretty well by not doing it myself and just helping him,” Landrieu said with a laugh.

Most people know that LSU football tailgates are a marquee stop along the Louisiana campaign trail.  During major elections, you can eat pretty well just mooching off of the spreads set up by the several campaigns.  A keg stand assist in this environment is basically the equivalent of a baby kiss elsewhere.

Of minor note in this story is that Mary tactfully declined to endorse Edwin Edwards in the District 6 congressional race. But that isn't really news. The two of them have never really gotten along.

Can't make it any worse

Very trippy photo of a Krewe Du Vieux "Edwards Now More Than Ever" float circa 2007

Yesterday, the Louisiana Democratic Party endorsed former Governor Edwin Edwards in the Sixth District Congressional race.

“I am pleased to have this and other endorsements from groups that are helping people who have an interest in promoting a better life for our nation and the district,” Edwards said in a statement. “I appreciate the vote of everyone because I am going to serve everyone.”

Louisiana Democratic Party Vice Chairman Shane Riddle said Democrats see a path to victory amid the crowded Republican slate.

“The 6th Congressional District is more challenging terrain for Democratic candidates since it was redrawn in 2011,” Riddle said. “I am impressed with the team and the energy coming from Team Edwards — and I have often been told to never count out Edwin Edwards.”

Can't imagine anyone would be surprised.  Edwards is the lone Democrat in a crowded field and presents the party with a legitimate chance to steal a seat.  The whole thing is a fascinating story.

Naturally there are pearl-clutchers.

.@austinstukins @LaDemos I'll soon no longer be a Democrat. Time to become an Independent.
— Robert Mann (@RTMannJr) September 9, 2014

Seriously that's a bit much.  Not that I don't sympathize.  There are legitimate reasons to be fed up with the Democratic Party.  In national politics, it is far too cozy with the financial industry.  I know it's a tall order for any President to put the brakes on our leviathan national security/surveillance state, but the current Democrat in office has only opened the throttle wider.   In Louisiana, our most prominent Democrats wholly owned by oil and gas.   It can be very frustrating.

But there's absolutely no value in laying down for the sake of "optics" or the "state's image" or whatever that nonsensical vanity issue is.  As Edwards himself says, electing him certainly can't make it any worse.

Edwards has no illusions about the state of partisan politics in Washington D.C. Still he is baffled by the inability to find common ground on some issues. “I find it difficult to understand why the Republican controlled House of Representatives won’t address equal pay. Won’t address minimum wage. Won't make at least an effort to provide a solution to immigration.”

Despite the realities, he is an optimist rattling off a classic EWE quip, “I tell people don’t worry I can’t make it any worse, but maybe I can make it a little better.”

As the interview wound down, Edwards spoke softy and earnestly about his reasons for running. “I like public service. I like to be in a position where I can get things done. A lot of average citizens have noone to turn to. I have experience being someone that listens and helps… I believe that I can make a contribution and I’m going to try.”

Apparently this is Make Lenar Whitney Happen Week

Edwin Edwards yard sign spotted in Uptown New Orleans yesterday.  (New Orleans is not part of the Sixth Congressional District where Edwards is a candidate.)


You do seem to attract more flies with crazy. David Wasserman was impressed, anyway.

As a House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, I’ve personally interviewed over 300 congressional candidates over the course of seven years, both to get to know them and evaluate their chances of winning. I’ve been impressed by just as many Republicans as Democrats, and underwhelmed by equal numbers, too. Most are accustomed to tough questions.

But never have I met any candidate quite as frightening or fact-averse as Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney, 55, who visited my office last Wednesday. It’s tough to decide which party’s worst nightmare she would be.

Oftentimes the the hyper-crazy niche is more of a fundraising strategy than anything else.  Candidates like Whitney pop up in congressional races across the country and serve as poster children for various right wing PACs to splash all over their websites. Whatever money is raised via this modern form of televangelism then gets piped around to other races all over the country where it might be useful to GOP candidates.

Both sides rely on interlocking networks of political action committees, party organizations and nonprofit groups, often based in states with forgiving campaign finance rules, that work in concert to raise contributions and shuffle money to thousands of local races around the country. In some states, liberal or conservative donors have established political nonprofits that function like shadow parties, often exempt from the contribution limits or disclosure requirements that apply to candidates and traditional parties.

Not unlike a political version of Cayman Islands banks, the networks allow political strategists to sidestep regulations and obscure the source of funds. Campaign contributions that would be banned or restricted in one state can be sent to a state where the rules allow money to flow more freely, often scrubbed of the identity of the original donor. Some groups work behind the scenes to orchestrate “money bombs” of smaller contributions from hundreds of different donors, allowing the groups to provide candidates with large doses of cash — fingerprint-free — even in states with low contribution limits.

Thus Whitney, who calls herself the "Palin of the South," could be part of a con similar the one her idol just launched.  

Given the content available and the affectedly simple presentation, it’s hard not to see the new Sarah Palin Channel as simply a moneymaking enterprise.

Her competitor Glenn Beck’s vertically integrated TV-website-dogwhistle aggregator, the Blaze, takes in $36m per year before ad revenue. And, as both Rick Perlstein and Alex Pareene have noted, one of the animating principles of the conservative movement over the last 40 years has been soaking every last dollar out of people whose intellectual incuriosity has never been an impediment to further rage and paranoia.

It works the same way for Democrats too, of course.  Their fundraising shadow banks are just as happy to frighten their donors with right wing boogeymen as Republicans are to show them off for the Palinistas.

This is why you see Republicans and Democrats arguing with one another about who really wants to see impeachment discussed all over the news this week.  Each side is accusing the other of a cynical but effective ploy to raise money. They're both right, of course.

This isn't to say that the Republicans won't go ahead and impeach the President at some point if they think they can get away with it.  They will definitely cut off all of our noses to satisfy their own spite... and hopefully raise a little more scratch in the process.

Similar can be said for Louisiana Democrats who, as Wasserman suggests with that "which party's nightmare" remark, appear to be cheerleading Whitney a bit from afar. They think she might be the most beatable target for Edwin Edwards who will probably squeeze into a runoff with one of a crowded field of GOP candidates.  I'd caution against such alchemy.  You never know when you're going to create a monster.

Besides, Edwards seems to be handling the regular clowns well enough as it is.

Watch Lamar interview former Governor Edwin Edwards

Link!

I saw candidate Edwards in action a few months ago at a Loyola forum. Lamar asked him some of the same questions that came up there and his answers don't seem to have changed much.

The highlight of this for me is the way he frames the question of accepting the Medicaid expansion... a far more popular idea with Louisiana voters than Bobby Jindal's stubborn posturing might lead one to believe, by the way. Anyway Edwards says, basically, "Even if you are not a believer in the words of Jesus (that the sick should be cared for)... then look at it from the conservative point of view..."

He needs to keep running with that.  Anyway, go watch.