The Wilder Effect - Why Bobby Jindal lost in Louisiana, despite being ahead in the polls.

Weekly Standard ^ | 11/17/03 | FredBarnes

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

BOBBY JINDAL'S DEFEAT in the Louisiana governor's race Saturday is a bigger loss for Republicans than just an office they've held for eight years. For now, it denies the party an impressive new national figure, a 32-year-old Indian-American who's destined to be a political star sometime--but not yet.

Why did Jindal lose after leading his Democratic opponent, Kathleen Blanco, in statewide polls in the weeks before the election? In a word, race. What occurred was the "Wilder effect," named after the black Virginia governor elected in 1989. Wilder, a Democrat, polled well, then won narrowly. Many white voters, it turned out, said they intended to vote for a black candidate when they really didn't. Questioned by pollsters, they were leery of being seen as racially prejudiced.

Jindal's advisers worried that he might lose the "Bubba vote," rural whites unwilling to vote for a black candidate or even a dark-skinned Indian-American. The Jindal camp's fears were realized. A Republican normally needs two-thirds of the white vote to win in Louisiana to compensate for losing nearly all of the black vote. But Jindal got only 60 percent of whites, according to an analysis by GCR & Associates Inc., a political consulting firm. Its findings were reported in the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

Had Jindal fared better among blacks, he might have won despite losing white votes. But he got only 9 percent of blacks, this after mounting a highly-publicized effort to attract black voters. Jindal was endorsed by several black political organizations, a former associate of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, who is black. Nonetheless, he did only slightly better among blacks than Republicans normally do.

Jindal, whose parents moved to Baton Rouge from India shortly before he was born, won 70 percent of the white vote in the New Orleans area. But outside that urban hub in the more rural and poorer parts of the state, only 48 percent of whites voted for Jindal, according to the GCR analysis.

Blanco's victory was hailed by Democrats, and for good reason. It broke the Republican winning streak in governor's contests this year. (One of those new Republican governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is being sworn in today in California.) Republicans also won in Kentucky and Mississippi, seats that had also been held by Democrats. In Louisiana, Republican Gov. Mike Forster is stepping down after two terms. His successor, Blanco, is a conservative Democrat opposed to abortion and tax increases and closer philosophically to Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia than to most national Democrats.

Jindal, a Brown University graduate and Rhodes Scholar with a dazzling résumé, ran a positive campaign, calling himself a "problem solver." When Blanco ran a TV commercial attacking his tenure as head of Louisiana's hospitals, he didn't respond directly to the charges, though he criticized her for going negative. Some Republican strategists thought his campaign was simply too nice for the rough and tumble of Louisiana politics, especially when he left serious charges unrefuted.

Had he won, Jindal would surely have emerged as a national spokesman for the Republican party. For one thing, he is a policy wonk who talks knowledgeably about health care, Medicare reform, and education. For another, he would add to the ethnic diversity of Republican leaders. But his time has not yet come.

[justshutupandtakeit]

So the dumbassed crackers let us down again, what a surprise.

[jordan8]

First rule of American public debate: It's always safe to bash whitey. (Esp. Southern whitey).

Jindal led the primaries and got 60% of the white vote but it's never enough for the hate-spewing genocidal left and their "conservative" collaborators.

I wonder if Fred Barnes will ever write a article about the "LeRoy vote".

[Ima Lurker]

I don't think his dark skin was as much a problem as he was perceived by some to be a foreigner....a foreigner from the middle east at that. As far as the black vote goes, we can forget that. The majority of blacks are not going to vote for a Republican no matter what color he is.

[hunter112]

...they were both pretty conservative when you boiled it all down

That's a good point, both were Catholic in a state where that is heavily important, and both were pro-life, at least nominally. We don't have to worry about Blank-o being given a major speaking role at the Rat convention, they absolutely abhor anyone who is not pro-abortion.

Here's another thing: Just four years ago, Bobby Jindal was exactly half of Blanko's age. People aren't extremely comfortable having the top executive office in their state being considered an entry-level government position. Sure, there is Arnold, but he was able to exploit a unique set of circumstances. And he has a track record of success in other endeavors, plus over 35 years of living life as an adult, more than Bobby's been breathing on this planet.

All in all, it was amazing that he even came this close, given all the things he had going against him. In about eight or twelve years, Louisiana will be ready for Bobby, and he'll be even more ready for them. He has a lot of time to analyze what went wrong, and being the intelligent person he is, he'll figure out how to overcome all of them. I know that he's proud of himself for not going negative, it would be worse to win an election, yet lose yourself in the process.

[kimoajax]

This is why it has and will for a long time to come continue to be a waste of effort for Republicans to court the Black vote.

I have good Black friends that in every respect, save party affiliation and voting, hold the same social values and opinions as conservative Republicans. Yet, year after year, they simply cannot bring themselves to vote for a Republican over a Democrate.

There are some foundational notions steeped in Black culture and history that explain such stark inconsistency. Notions to which Blacks desperately cling and which from a cultural perspective provide a sense of understanding, identity and emotional security. Notions which current Black leaders have every reason to continue to cultivate.

One notion Blacks cling cling to is the belief that they have only made progress as a race when they have successfully hung together as a group...no matter what. Voting Repulican when the majority of the Black vote is expected to vote Democrate is understood as selling out your race.

Second, Blacks tend to only trust leaders they see as being one of their own. To be seen as such, a leader cannot be too different. So, Republicans can put forward all the strong independent self made Black Republicans condidates they want, such as Rice and others, and they will not be viewed by Blacks as one of their own and will therefore make little real difference in terms of changing Black perspectives.

You see exhisting Blacks leaders have a very useful labels for Republican alternatives. One is that he or she is an "Uncle Tom"....which is code for House slave. Others are that they are an up-ity N????r or not black enough. Such a labels quickly and effectively communicate to Black voters that such examples are from the outside, too different and therefore paint them as some sort of undermining challenge to Black indentity and security.

Unfortunately this sort of group loyalty means Blacks not only tend to overly exhalt "their" leaders, they also tend to not hold "their" leaders accountable. Being one of their own gives "their" leaders a pass on all kinds of gaffs and faults which would otherwise disqualify from leadership. Even worse...such exhaltation apparently even extends even to the point where it is not even a requirement Black voters agree with "their" leaders in order for them to vote how they are told to vote.

The only explanation that can be offered by my Black friends when confronted with such stark contaditions is for them to tell me "well, you would have to be Black to understand."

Years ago I finally came to accept this explanation and no longer resist it. Folks it is what it is and we must realize change is nearly futile when the victims themselves have become corrupt. Change will occur only from within the Black community and only from "their" leaders. From what I can tell, that day is a long way off.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yes, I know Foster is a Republican. So is Mike Huckabee. The two states are hopelessy Democrat cesspools, though.

[warchild9]

Alan Keyes reminds me of my daddy, except that he's black. My father also is chronically angry--but I'm convinced that he'd also resist becoming a puppet as is W. Add to that his uncompromising pro-life stance, and he's someone I can support, win or not.
Does he have the temperament to be president? Probably not. It's a conscience thing on my part.

[Southack]

"Yes, I know Foster is a Republican. So is Mike Huckabee. The two states are hopelessy Democrat cesspools, though."

Nonsense. Defeatists once said that same sort of thing about Alabama and Georgia, neither of which could be called bastions for Democrats any longer.

[warchild9]

I apologize for my twisted syntax; I'm typing this at work.
You know what I meant, hm?

[warchild9]

Someone should point out that the majority of Indians here in the Triangleo--those who are citizens and not H-1B's--are Republicans. They're actually very conservative people, for the most part.

[JNB]

On the big issues such as abortion, guns and even race, Blanco did little to alienate social conservatives. Between a Democrat who is socially conservative(Ralph Hall) and a Republican who is socially conservative but a neo lliberal on economics such as Dick Armey, I would vote for the Democrat no questions asked.

[No Dems 2004]

I wanted Bobby Jindal to win - I really did. I was rooting for him right to the end. But, deep down inside, we all knew that his ethnicity was a potential drag on his electability in the Deep South. I think this should serve as a caution to the Republican Party when it ponders running unconventional (i.e., not a white man) candidates in the future, especially in the South. It's okay under certain circumstances, but, as a rule, white men do tend to fair the best for the GOP.

Consider all the great victories lately: California, Mississippi, Kentucky, the GOP's Senate sweep in 2002, etc, etc. The GOP needs to remember where its bread is buttered. Like I said, there are some exceptions, but let's be careful before we get too excited about the prospects of unconventional candidates in the future.

[Clemenza]

Blanco is as conservative as Mary Landrieu, who is a flaming feminist/socialist.

[JNB]

Conservatism on paper might be colorblind, but do not begin to think working class social conservatives vote for Republicans based on the entire package. The GOP has worked itself into t he majority by picking orff voters whose main issues are guns, abortion and race, thats it, and not only i n the South it also has applied in the rural/small city Midwest and mountain West as well. Gov. Elect Blanco took those 3 issues off the table, and it showed with Jindal losing the rural white vote, somthing that Susie Terrell did not even manage to do last year.

[presidio9]

[Rice] isn't even close to being presidential material.

What makes you say that?

[Southack]

"The only explanation that can be offered by my Black friends when confronted with such stark contaditions is for them to tell me "well, you would have to be Black to understand."

In all fairness, Republicans haven't been in the trenches fighting side by side with Blacks over modern issues...at least, that's the perception that the *media* gives. Certainly the news media harps on Republican opposition to Affirmative Action.

But that's the past.

Right now Republicans have just started a new advertising campaign. We're calling private school choice vouchers "equal opportunity scholarships."

And you know what, we are going to get these scholarships passed into law for the city of Washington, D.C.

And then we are going to go to inner-city after inner-city, touting the success of those scholarships, all while leading the charge for more and more of them.

Faced with dismal, losing, failing public schools in their own inner-cities, Blacks are going to go for this Republican program in a big way...much to the detriment of the powerful teachers' unions and entrenched Democratic Party politicians (who rely on their public school teachers for much of their activism and recruitment for/from their own benches).

But there is something else going on here. What Blacks (not individuals, but en masse) have always needed is proof that the Republican Party officially cared about them on a big issue crucial to their needs. Once a big issue like vouchers (ooops, scholarships) gets momentum, Blacks en masse are going to recognize that Republicans also share their values. We're all pro-life. We're all pro-military. We're all pro-religion. Suddenly faith-based charity initiatives take on an entirely new dimension.

And once this realization sets in at a cultural level, it will be *Democrats* who have to explain why Blacks should vote for pro-choice candidates, anti-military candidates, and even for anti-religious candidates (e.g. no school prayer, no 10 Commandments).

This is doubly true for Blacks in the South, as the Democrats seem to be abandoning this entire region.

Of course, some Democratic Party issues are going to still play well to some Blacks, just as they do to lily white crackers. Some people simply favor the Kyoto Global Warming nonsense, gun control, and abortion.

But I don't see those sorts of issues playing very well on the street. I don't see Jackie Sixpack being swayed for those issues.

Of course, we aren't to that point yet. There has to be a *major* issue on which Democrats are against and Republicans disagree, and that Blacks favor. Only such a *major* issue can cause a fundmental cultural reassesment of loyalties, much as White Southern voters faced as they left the Democratic Party in droves decades ago. Until that point was reached, White Southern voters would hold their noses and vote for liberal Democratic Party Yankees, if they had to, rather than for a dreaded "Republican".

But just as White Southern voters changed from (D) to (R), so too can Blacks, if only Republicans will fight in the trenches *and* come up with a major Black issue that the Democrats can't support (union votes, gay votes, enviro-votes, abortion votes, there are several angles).

[JNB]

To see who has been sucessful in the south for the GOP, look at the profile of sucessful statewide canidates. In AL, GA and now MS, the sucessful canidates have been white conservative men from rural areas. Even in KY, Gov elect Fletcher talked about his Kentucky roots and played the populist role as much as someone who is a doctor could. Liddy Dole was a horible campiagner but her name ID and Bush coat tails is what brought her though, and in South Carolina, Gov Stanford who is not from a rural area nor has South Carolina roots did have experience holding a elected position, and the SC GOP is probably the strongest in the south that got him to defeat a incumbent. The GOP needs to look at electoral reality. Even in TX, Gov Perry origianlly elected as a Democrat in the state legislature from a rural county.

[cyborg]

Why wouldn't you want Condi Rice as president?

[Mudbug]

Jindal should have been courting the white vote instead of wasting his time.

I couldn't disagree more. I think Republicans candidates need to do more to try to reach black voters. Jindal made the effort and was able to pull historical double digits from New Orleans black voters.

[warchild9]

"Crackers?" Let's get it clear that refers to Deep-South mule drivers, and not to Sons of Dixie like yours truly.

Crackers! Indeed!