Duking Bobby Jindal(Republican favorite in Louisiana done in by special appeals to white ethnics)

At the beginning of last week, with the Louisiana gubernatorial run-off election set for Saturday, Republican Bobby Jindal had a comfortable lead in the polls. Though his opponent, Kathleen Blanco, picked up momentum in late polling, many prognosticators (including Larry Sabato, RealClearPolitics, and your correspondent) thought that the 32-year-old, born in Baton Rouge to Indian immigrants and sporting an impressive resume, would still pull it off. He didn't. What happened?

A Rhodes scholar, Jindal was Secretary of the state Department of Health and Hospitals at 24; he went on to stints running the state university system and shaping Medicare policy as an assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration before running for governor. His rise to frontrunner status was typical of Jindal's meteoric career, but his campaign, flawless in the first five weeks of the six-week campaign, faltered in the sixth. In the final debate, Jindal had won on points, many observers agreed. But voters responded less to Jindal's command of policy than to Blanco's teary recollection of her son's death, in response to a question about the defining moments of the candidates' lives. The theme of the campaign up until then seemed to be an insurgent conservative whiz-kid representing Louisiana's future against a creature of the entrenched Democratic establishment representing the state's past. The debate was the beginning of Blanco's effort to shift the theme into a match between a sensitive and seasoned leader against a robotic young wonk.

The key to getting that message out was an attack ad claiming that, as head of the Department of Health and Hospitals, when Jindal cleaned up a $400 million accounting mess, he ruined the state's Medicaid system for the poor. Jindal's campaign failed to answer with an ad that substantively challenged the message, a mistake that proved fatal.

So why did I think Jindal would win? The demographics seemed stacked in his favor. Throughout the South, a formula exists for Democratic victory, typically 40% of the white vote plus 90% of the black vote. "Increasingly over the years," writes Senator Zell Miller in his new book A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, "it has been easier to get 90 percent of the African-American vote than 40 percent of the white vote. I believe that the margin of African-American votes for the Democrats is going to change soon. It only has to change a fraction in the South to make a huge difference." In Louisiana, the formula is even more lopsided -- a Democrat shoots for closer to a third of the white vote and 95% of the black vote.

Jindal would have been the first nonwhite governor of Louisiana since Reconstruction. He was endorsed by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a black Democrat. In some polls, he was getting as much as 15% support from blacks. According to exit poll analysis done for the New Orleans Times-Picayune by the consulting firm GCR and Associates, Jindal ultimately won 9% of the black vote statewide -- 11% in New Orleans. That would have tipped the scales for most Louisiana Republicans.

So how did Blanco win? By getting 40% of the white vote. That didn't come from New Orleans, where 70% of whites voted for Jindal, but from the poorer, more rural areas, where Blanco won 52% of the white vote -- a coup for a Democrat in culturally conservative areas. The Medicaid ad was well-tailored for this demographic; the speaker in the ad, a doctor who used to work in the public health system and is now in a wheelchair, ends his statement with the words, "'By the way, I'm a staunch Republican."

But there's a less savory reason that Blanco made inroads in northern Louisiana. This is where former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke got the votes in 1991 that propelled him into the run-off election against the corrupt former governor Edwin Edwards. (The latter is now serving time in jail for taking bribes; this was the race that gave us the classic bumper sticker, "Vote for the Crook. It's Important.")

"If there was a racist backlash against Jindal anywhere, it would be in north Louisiana, in Duke country," Louisiana political analyst John Maginnis told Rod Dreher of National Review Online after the race. To some extent, Blanco laid the groundwork for a such a backlash herself. She dusted off her maiden name and campaigned as Kathleen Babineaux Blanco. Voters encountered the full name on the ballot, where her opponent was listed as "Bobby" Jindal, complete with quotation marks (Jindal's given name is Piyush). Appealing to tribal instincts in the only state where Frenchness is still considered a virtue, Blanco's packaging of herself was designed to make it clear who had the deeper roots in Cajun country.

Such tapping of identity politics for ethnic whites is nothing particularly unusual or scandalous. The shamrock incorporated into Irish-American candidates' names is a staple of local politics across much of the Midwest and Northeast. It would be unfair to suggest that Blanco ran a racist campaign. At the same time, isn't it worth noting that the usual suspects, to whom unfairness rarely gives pause, haven't so much as raised an eyebrow?

It might be useful to file this case away as a yardstick for the future. There was a small amount of coverage of northern Louisiana's racial politics during the race -- Adam Nossiter's AP dispatch from last Friday, a set of quotes culled to make the town of Amite, Louisiana, sound as awful as possible (sample: "Really, you got a foreigner and a woman. So it's a hard choice to make"), was typical -- but the "Babineaux Blanco" appeal to "Duke country" has gone mostly unnoticed. The next time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Kweisi Mfume or any similar rabble-rouser announces a whiff of racism (or "racial insensitivity"), measure the grievance cited against this non-event. The comparison might be illuminating.

John Tabin is a Baltimore-based freelance writer whose website is JohnTabin.com.

As a Louisiana native, the real problem is the voters are just plain stupid here. It wasn't so much about race as it was fear of a young energetic college educated go getter. The majority of this state doesn't want to change. They like things the way they are.

If we get somebody in who might take us somewhere, they may have to change their ways and do something for themselves for a change.

I didn't even know that Jindal wasn't white until the PRESS pounded it into my head. (I live in S. La.)

I have cajun relatives darker than Bobby. It wasn't the race thing, if it was then he would have carried the black precincts.

It's the fact that the majority of this state prefer to stay in the dung heep instead of becoming all that we can become here. They are afraid of change.

I think Jindal's loss was due to many factors. Now alot of white people in their fifties and up voted Blanco even tho they are conservative. They just felt Bobby was too young, had never run and held elective office and had done jobs by appointment for short terms. Blanco had a long history of elective office, was fairly clean and a cajun. I have to admit as I voted for Jindal I had some misgivings. It is a complicated state with alot of corruption,,I wondered if a young guy could get his arms around it. Politics is alot different from stepping into a position with clear objectives and alot of power. Bobby may need some seasoning,,he ought to run for a lesser office first. Mayor of Baton Rouge, House of Rep, something along those lines or get a job which is non government.

I think you are right.
I followed this race closely, because having seen both candidates, I couldn't believe Blanco had a chance. Jindal had her beaten on every issue. So it really wasn't issues. Most elections aren't based on issues, but rather on perceptions and fear, which is why politics is such a nasty game.

If there's a silver lining in this loss...it'll be to motivate La pubblies to work harder next time..in '04...I tbelieve Breaux's gonna retire..wither next year, or even earlier, to allow the new gov to appoint a senator.....and W.s real popular in your state..he'll be atop the ticket..and it'll be an interestign message for La voters.."lessee,,you now have a dem gov..two Dem senators..and the most powerful republican int he state..( Tauzin) has retired...so when you need something done for La in DC..who you gonna call?,,and oh yeah, of course, Mary Mandrieu ain't ont he Armed Forced Committee, is she?"

I know that polling is of course an inexact science, but Jindal was up by 10% just a couple of days before the election. It's almost unheard of in a major election for someone to fall that far that fast, even when you factor in the undecided swing vote. It's pretty difficult not to come to the conclusion that a substantial number of people were lying to the pollsters about their intention to vote for Jindal.

I live in N. Louisiana... way up north near the ArKansas line.

The ad that killed Jindal was a wheelchair-bound former physician who said that Bobby Jindal's actions in cleaning up Medicaid in Louisiana "was a disaster for people" and that he caused great suffering. The tag line was this guy adding "oh, and by the way, I'M A STAUNCH REPUBLICAN".

Medicaid = "insurance" in Louisiana. The terms are used interchangeably. So the ads saying Bobby was going to rip off "insurance coverage" for thousands hit the average N. LA resident as "you're going to lose your [private] insurance". They never stopped to think, just voted to the left.

There were also ads stating that Jindal cost 70+ thousands their coverages when in fact, changes in the welfare act and an improved economy accounted for disqualification of many from Medicaid - er, "insurance".

Jindal & Co. failed miserably in countering those claims. And, imho, it cost him the election. Race had little to do with it. Age may have caused some to pause, but it was "insurance" that frightened them into pulling the Democratic lever.

My $0.02
Smoke6

"October 30, 2000 RCP Electoral College Analysis: Bush 446 Gore 92"?

Why you gotta be a hater?

In the unlikely event that Gore is able to close the gap to under 2% [like a last-minute DWI revelation], THEN the state polls will become relevant. If that happens, America will have the "dead heat" race the media has been talking about and Gore would be in a position to accumulate the 270 electoral votes needed to win. But with no more debates and Gore unwilling to campaign with President Clinton, there is little reason to think the trend of this race since the three debates will change.

Jindal & Co. failed miserably in countering those claims.

Okay, so why did it only cost him among rural whites and not among urban or suburban populations, where he did very well?

Well, this is kind of a shame. I was hoping this election would be the one to show that race DOESN'T matter, but no sooner than Jindal loses - by a very tight margin - do they start reminding us that David Duke almost became Governor there.

How about we just leave it at an age difference, and that she managed to project a less-than-complementary image over him at a critical juncture, and leave it at that?

J

Many of the older generation are rightly or wrongly suspicious of young people who seem to be ambitious or on the political "make."

or maybe just that 1/2 of America is just plain STUPID!!

That was in the seventh paragraph, the previous 6 are all full of things such as:
"The size of the Bush victory is the only real question remaining ."
"... an objective reading of the FACTS makes it clear Al Gore is LOSING."
"With the national polls looking grim for Mr. Gore, the national media has turned their focus to state polls in order to perpetuate the farce that this is still a 50/50 election."
"A conservative electoral estimate would call for a Bush win in the neighborhood of 350-188. However, we suspect Bush will continue to slowly extend his lead ..."

In other races they often do the same thing, only providing a weasel "out" at the end. Reliance on their prognostications is, in reality, just wishful thinking.

Don't hate them just realize that their predictions have a record of not being reliable.

I was just going to write that about Woody Jenkins when I read your post.

Also, I believe last minute Dem scare tactics made a difference. We were traveling in LA day of the voting and I heard ads on the radio warning about Jindal having cut some programs and would continue to cut out the goodies Dem groups love. Probably, he just cut out one thing to make something else better.

i know here in AL, the Dems said my rep voted against the Ed. bill, and other bills He probably did vote against at least one version of it. What they never say is that there were several votes on variations of a bill and the rep. voted against some and for the best one. The Dems just want people to believe Republicans are against education, medicare, etc. I don't know how you fight last minute lies like this.

vaudine

Don't hate them just realize that their predictions have a record of not being reliable.

Aw, you're a hater, admit it. How do you know that their prediction wasn't right on based on the conditions when it was made? For example:

"... an objective reading of the FACTS makes it clear Al Gore is LOSING."

I don't think that's even debatable. He WAS losing. He needed a big shift at the very end out of the Blue, and he got it.

Why hate?

I just checked from facts from 30 years ago. In 1972, David C. Treen (R) lost to Edwin Washington Edwards (D) for governor. Treen won 27 parishes, compared to Jindal's 12 parishes.

Here are the North LA parishes won by Treen that Jindal lost:

LaSalle (68 percent, Treen's largest margin statewide)
Lincoln (66)
Winn (64)
Caddo (63)
Caldwell (63)
Morehouse (62)
West Carroll (62)
Franklin (61)
Grant (59)
Union (58)
Beaureagard (56) This may have been a Blanco parish.
Sabine (56)
Rapides (56)
Webster (55)
Richland (54)
Claiborne (54)
Jackson (53)
Catahoula (51)
Concordia (51)
Bienville (51)

Treen lost by 160,000 total votes. Edwards was believed to have received 202,000 black votes statewide.

North LA has swung far more Democrat in gubernatorial and senatorial elections in the past 30 years.

In 1972, the GOP had 40,000 registered voters statewide. Now it has almost exactly 600,000. Yet the GOP is regressing in many areas of LA.

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.