[elli1]

I don't make much of it either. Jindal had a lot of negatives as far as "electability" is concerned. Not white, only 32 years old, extreme anti-abortion stance (against abortion even in cases of incest & rape), Roman Catholic... And, I'll even add that his being a Rhodes scholar is something of a negative taken in the context of bubba & clark. My opinion is that his views on abortion were a deciding factor--even some pro-lifers would disagree w/ his position.

[ExSoldier]

Okay...but what did the RAT say in her race about the RAT positions on guns? And is the Loooosiana legislature still pro-gun enough so as not to allow any advancement of a gun control agenda?

[gbaker]

Not white, only 32 years old, extreme anti-abortion stance (against abortion even in cases of incest & rape), >>

You make some good points but it doesn't explain the polling. Personally I think the GOP needs to understand the power of negative advertising used in the last week or two before the election. This is why the undecided (read politically ignorant) broke for Gore in the last week, could have sunk Arnold (except for his star power), and did get Jindal. Lessons hopefully to be learned for 2004. Do I advocate negative advertising? Yes, but mainly right a the end before the media can make much of an issue of it.

[Samurai_Jack]

My opinion is that his views on abortion were a deciding factor--even some pro-lifers would disagree w/ his position.

Oh yeah, I didnt realize that Jindal was running on the extreme anti-abortion stance. Extremism on either side in these times requires a surrender of judgement.

[Verginius Rufus]

It is interesting that Jindal is being described as "not white." I thought that people from India were regarded as "white" whatever their complexion, at least for affirmative action purposes.

In one of Robert Penn Warren's novels, there's a character who is supposedly an Indian guru, who turns out to be African American. The fakir was a faker.