Republicans Outflanked Themselves in Louisiana

NEW ORLEANS -- The Republican playbook for deposing Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana was fine-tuned in Washington and battle-tested with glorious results elsewhere in the South: Recruit a plausible challenger. Unleash attack ads skewering the Democrat on taxes and abortion. And for the grand finale, bring in President Bush to campaign at the Republican candidate's side.

But something went wrong in the Bayou State. Landrieu, who just a week ago seemed to fit the GOP blueprint's definition of a vulnerable incumbent, held off the challenge and won a convincing victory in a runoff election Saturday. She beat the Republican, elections commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell, 52 percent to 48 percent.

Today, as Republicans licked their wounds, Democrats crowed at what amounted to one of their few bright spots in an otherwise disastrous political year. Some dubbed the winner -- whose triumph Saturday dwarfed her 5,788-vote margin of victory in 1996 -- "Landslide Landrieu."

Democratic operatives and political analysts said the Republicans were guilty of political hubris, believing in their own invincibility and therefore overplaying their hand by relying too heavily on negative advertising, and counting too much on Bush's electoral magic.

Bush's eleventh-hour visit, and the relentless barrage of advertising attacks on Landrieu, may even have backfired, analysts said, and were probably factors in generating a higher turnout in the core Democratic base of African Americans.

"The president's visit energized the conservative base, but it also energized the Democratic base," said Marc Morial, the Democratic former mayor of New Orleans.

At a morning news conference today in downtown New Orleans, Landrieu stressed the role of blacks in her victory. Standing beside U.S. Rep. William J. Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat who is perhaps Louisiana's most influential black politician, Landrieu declared, "The soul of our party is the African American community, and they stood up.''

Analysts also credited Landrieu with running a more nimble campaign, one that took advantage of Louisiana's demographic and political peculiarities -- it is poorer, more progressive, more Catholic and more African American than some other Southern states. She benefited enormously by her close alliance with Sen. John Breaux, the state's hugely popular senior Democratic senator, who accompanied her in many campaign appearances throughout the month-long runoff. The Democrats' "Breaux factor" may partly have offset the Republicans' "Bush factor," some analysts said.

But Landrieu also took other lessons from the Republican victories on Nov. 5. Chief among them was the importance of devising some message, strategy or issue that would offset the president's formidable personal popularity with a local issue that played to the Democrats' advantage. In Landrieu's case, the issue was sugar.

The day after Bush's campaign visit to the state last Tuesday, Landrieu's campaign began airing an ad charging that the White House had struck a "secret deal" to double Mexican sugar imports to the United States. The imports would hurt Louisiana's 27,000 sugar farmers and the state's $1.7 billion sugar industry.

The ad hung on a slender thread of evidence: a single, unsourced article in the Mexican newspaper Reforma. The White House denied the existence of any such "deal" to flood the United States with cheap Mexican sugar. Nonetheless, the point seemed to hit home, dovetailing with Landrieu's message that she would put "Louisiana first" while Terrell -- by now appearing in television ads side by side with the president -- would be a rubber stamp for the administration who would disregard the state's interests.

"The momentum definitely shifted when we came out with the sugar issue," said Mitch Landrieu, a Democratic member of the state's House of Representatives who served as a key unofficial campaign operative for his older sister Mary. "It played directly into our theme and proved our point that a senator's supposed to be for Louisiana first and Suzie [Terrell] and George Bush are linked at the hip."

The sugar ad was critical in reassembling the Democratic coalition in Louisiana of working-class whites, especially farmers, and urban blacks, about 90 percent of whom are believed to support Landrieu. And it played on the populist traditions of a poor, small state whose more indigent residents have traditionally seen Washington and big business as hostile forces.

"It reinforced a suspicion in Louisiana that we're going to get it in the neck," said John Maginnis, a political analyst in Baton Rouge, La., and the publisher of a political newsletter. "It used an economic issue to reconnect rural whites and blacks."

Meanwhile, the Landrieu campaign's all-out push to maximize black turnout got an unexpected -- and unintended -- assist from the Republicans. The more the Republicans flooded the airwaves with ads attacking Landrieu as a liberal, the more it galvanized black support for her, and reinforced their resolve to vote, analysts said.

"It just got out of control," said Silas Lee, a sociologist at Xavier University in New Orleans. "African American voters wanted a more positive message."

In addition, workers in the Landrieu campaign cited what appeared to be unusually aggressive Republican efforts to dampen black turnout. They produced a flyer they said had been distributed in black public housing complexes in New Orleans, apparently designed to mislead black voters.

The flyer reads, in part: "Vote!!! Bad Weather? No problem!!! If the weather is uncomfortable on election day (Saturday December 7th) Remember you can wait and cast your ballot on Tuesday December 10th."

With two Democratic U.S. senators, both of them Catholics, the state remains what it has always been: a Deep South anomaly. The ethnic and religious mix is different here. And as Louisiana slips in national economic indicators, its poverty may be influencing voting behavior.

During the campaign, Landrieu shied away from direct attacks on the Bush administration, fearing the personal popularity of a president whose approval rating in Louisiana stands above 70 percent. At one point, she even touted her record of having voted with the White House three-quarters of the time.

But today, emboldened by victory, she dropped her reticence. "People in Louisiana have maybe had it harder than most. They can recognize injustice," she said. "Because we are a poor state, people really do depend on the government. They are very disappointed at what they are seeing coming out of the White House, and they just expressed that anger."

Well, actually, the rumor going around is that those signs were also put out by Republicans to depress the black vote. Whether there's any truth to it or not, the fact is that blacks turned out for Landrieu, and Terrell got fewer votes in many of her core precincts than she did in the primary.

Folks here are trying to spin this as a moral victory or whatever, but the fact remains, that there were two elections here that were there for the taking, and the Republican party lost both of them. Folks can make excuses, charge fraud, and try to convince themselves it was really a moral victory--and a lot of posters on FR are doing just that--or they can 1) Own up to the fact that the Republican candidates could have run much more effective campaigns 2) admit that were outworked by their opponents, and that their base didn't turn out in the numbers necessary for victor, and 3) try to learn something from the defeat and move on.

I agree. We will be fools if we don't realize that as Common Tator says, the democrats changed strategy at half time.

The large mistake was in not recognizing this. I myself didn't recognize it, so I do not claim expertise. I thought she would win.

However, Michael Barone pointed out that once the November elections were past, the Republicans had the majority, so swing voters were free to vote based on local issues.

In addition, Mary was able to portray herself as a poor little Louisianan who was being picked on by Washington. Not only did Clinton's non-appearance help, but I think we overkilled on visits from Washington. I think when Karen Hughes shows up to campaign, we can say it was overkill.

Terrell was a weaker cndidate than I would have preferred, but she still could have won if a few things had been done differently.

I am certain there was a certain amount of fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. We are stronger in Louisiana than we used to be, but still not strong enough.

Also, those Republicans who didn't endorse until late should be ashamed.

And the O'Neill dismissal was a certain factor. Cheney should have known that O'Neill would go nuts and shouldn't have told him until late Saturday.

One other thing: I think President Bush could not have campaigned on Thursday. If I remember correctly, there was some event that he had to be in DC for on that day.

Hey, I wasn't excusing the loss but merely asking a question. Those signs might have been legitimate, they might have been a republican ploy that failed, they might have been a democrat ploy that worked. The election results notwithstanding the sentiment expressed is one I had heard from others long before Saturday and I believe I've heard it said by Cleo Fields.

O'Neill resignation on Friday was bad for Terrell....

I find statements like this hilarious. Typical of the "I'm a wonk, you're a wonk, wouldn't you like to be a wonk, too?" attitude that prevails among the politically informed.

NEWS FLASH: The typical voter doesn't give a hoot 'n' holler who the SecTreas is. Not one iota's worth of a d*mn.

If you ask the typical voter, in Louisiana, who Paul O'Neill is, 90% would give you a blank stare. If you asked "what do you think of Pres. Bush's replacement of Paul O'Neill at Treasury? Do you support the President or oppose his move?" 90% (or more) would say "support," because everyone knows who Pres. Bush is, everyone--even in Louisiana--supports Pres. Bush, and the assumption would be if our trusted President replaced some guy it must have been the right decision.

This had ZILCH, ZIP, ZERO, NADA, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the election results in Louisiana.

FWIW, I think your other points were good. Just this one is way, way off base.

"The president's visit energized the conservative base, but it also energized the Democratic base," said Marc Morial, the Democratic former mayor of New Orleans.

Apparently it didn't energize the democratic base in New Hampshire, Missouri, Minnesota, Georgia, Colorado, Texas etc etc etc . . . I could go on and on. What a simple, shallow excuse--Mary got plenty of white votes, that's why she won.

Isn't this the same place Huey Long came from?

Forget "The Kingfish." This is the place that elected Edwin Edwards TWICE, even though he'd been indicted, acquitted, and then indicted and convicted of racketeering.

Edwards is STILL incredibly popular in Louisiana.

What about the rift between Terrell and at least one of her opponents during the "primary election" on Nov. 5? No one is talking about that.

I am also ignorant of LA politics, and I will bow to you in that respect: You're right that other pundits--including Rush, most of the folks on TV and probably 95% of the people on this thread--have no idea what they're talking about because LA politics is a singular topic.

So, do you think this rift had any bearing on not GOTV for Terrell?

And the O'Neill dismissal was a certain factor. Cheney should have known that O'Neill would go nuts and shouldn't have told him until late Saturday.

Sorry, again, you're wrong. As I've said before: No one pays the slightest bit of attention to "Inside the Beltway" shenanigans out in the hustings. It wouldn't have had any effect in Virginia, and it didn't have any effect on this election.

In fact, I consider myself fairly well-informed re politics, and I have NO IDEA what you're talking about, O'Neill "going nuts."

It was all the blacks turning out in New Orleans in the afternoon that sunk Suzie Terrell. No way a GOP candidate could win with that kind of turnout. The GOPers voted in ther morning but after a phone call from Bubba, Cleo Fields cranked up the Dem machinery in the afternoon. It worked its Cajun magic and look who's back in Washington for a second time from the Pelican State.

O'Neill was told on Thursday and was requeted not to say anything until Monday, because of the election. Instead, he released the information on Friday and then left DC.

I agree this wasn't the most important factor in the election, but it certainly could have affected a few thousand people. Apparently the White House thought there was enough of a problem to ask for a delay on releasing the info.

But as I said, this wasn't the most important thing. I honestly believe there were many factors involved in the loss.

No problem. I was talking about a lot of the stuff I've seen posted here in the last few days, not just your post in general.

Cleo and Landrieu had a feud going back to his run for governor two elections ago, when he wasn't happy with her lack of support for him. They buried the hatchet last summer and there's been much speculation about what it took to get him on board. Apparently Jefferson got his people out in New Orleans as well. However, in Shreveport turnout was significantly lower. That's the home of Greg Tarver, another black politician who doesn't like Landrieu. Apparently he didn't get the message, or didn't take it to heart. Interesting to see if there will be any repercussions for him.

I honestly believe there were many factors involved in the loss.

IMO, you are correct that it was many factors most likely.... In time the results will be published in detail by precinct and we'll have some better numbers to look at showing voter makeup. There were two distinctly different campaigns being orchastrated. One had all the big hitters of the beltway involved and the other kept them out of the lime light even though they were in the background. The ads apparently got nasty and that grates on people after awhile. Even Suzie mentioned getting calls about them from her supporters.

I'm not sure something like O'Neil impacted the voters that much... Sugar a bit more in the 20 or so parishes that are producers, the infighting among the Republicans in the 5th CD didn't help and they had a much lower turnout than in the Primary. The overall turnout for the Senate race was the same as in the Primary but of a different make up apparently.

Remember Mary at 46% going in only had to move 4% points to get to the magical 50%..... And she had a democrat primary opponent that had 2% of that.

I think it all gets down to the .........

..... And... away we go....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.