Louisiana Election Turnout Thread- Here come the results

C-SPAN ^ | Dec. 6, 2002 | Brian Lamme

[ewing]

Tell us how crowded/not crowded it was when you went to vote!

Did you see voter fraud and what is the talk about exit polling and the possible outcome?

[danelectro]

Racism this - racism that - racism on and on and on and on. Shut the HELL up.

tell it to trent lott, because he make donna brazile's job much easier today.

[EDINVA]

Ways and Means Committee is in the HOUSE ... Landrieu has had a seat on the Appropriations Committee in the SENATE.

[unspun]

SoCar, I agree with your essay on good tactics in general. Good points. I especially like making Dem's take a position on slavery reparations.

But good tactics on the less fundamental issues doesn't mean that people who thoroughly respect that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to Life are narrow minded, of course. We're just mindful of the right without which the others don't exactly mean much. (Which is why it's listed first, in our nation's most foundational document.)

Abortion will never be safe, legal, and rare. That is a Clintonesque ruse. (But what does "rare" mean for you, anyway, if it's your life?)

No flame, just fact and reason.

[SoCar]

No I'm not a seminar poster I can assure you. I just have been a regular lurker then poster here since 1998. I know that the prevailing view is staunchly pro-life.

Over the years, especially through the tough times like the 2000 election, I have come to rely on and greatly admire the words of wisdom and much needed laughter that I find here.

Not a day goes by that I do not check out this web site. I embrace the majority of frequent posters as kindred spirits and voices of reason in an increasingly unreasonable world.

Throughout it all I have tried to avoid the subject of abortion here. If Randall Terry is a 10 and Patricia Ireland is a 1 on the abortion issue, I would consider mysekf a 7. From what I have seen through the years, the vast majority here are a 9 or 10. There are few here that are at my level of 7 that are not RINOS or disupters. If I am wrong on this please set me straight.

Maybe it's the word "dogmatic" that labels me in your eyes a seminar poster. My first vote ever was for Reagan in '84 and I have not voted for a Rat ever, nor would I, even for dog catcher. I just simply disagree on the hard line taken on the abortion issue. Is that allowed here by your standards?

[unspun]

Sugar, plus the two White House beheadings right before the election. The GOP regained the Senate because the public saw that the Democrats had no plan (but to hold up the plans of the White House). The two resignations made the Republicans look like the ones without an effective economic plan.

Plus the debates showed there was just a bit of a haunting similarity between this race and Clinton vs. Dole. That brings us back to the tactical errors that SoCal mentioned.

[unspun]

Not to speak for Texas Eagle, but I'm sure the prevelate opinion is that FreeRepublic is for real, social conservatives of many divergent views.

But how can you call protecting the right of a tiny child a "hard line?" We're not the ones drawing the line on the matter, or doing what comes from a hard heart.

[unspun]

(prevelant)

[SoCar]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Rare for me means to recognize that some women who unexpectantly or accidently become pregnant are in extremely precarious positions in their lives. Maybe they have just dumped an abusive husband/boyfriend/lover and are in no way financially able to support themselves through a pregnancy, much less support a new life. Maybe it's a poor young woman who has just recieved a scholarship to a prestigious medical school and she will lose her ticket out of poverty if she needs to take time off for pregnancy and childbirth. Maybe we have to understand that some women in some circumstances do not view a first tri-mester abortion as traumatic as giving up the baby they just gave birth to for adoption and wondering their whole lives what became of that child and feeling guilty that they made the wrong decision.

To make abortion rare maybe we should donate funds to support preganant poor woman and give them the means to keep and raise their babies instead of standing around abortion clinics protesting with posters of aborted fetuses. Maybe we should realize that not everyone in this country shares our religious beliefs, but that does not mean they are not good decent people. Maybe we should set our sites on providing stable homes for the thousands of hard to place difficult needs children in care of the states. Perhaps we should not look at this issue in stark terms of black and white, right and wrong. Maybe we should try to support preganat women more and help them keep and support their children. Perhaps we can join forces with groups like Planned Parenthood when it comes to issues such as preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe we can be more helpful and understanding when it comes to the trauma in the life of a young girl alone and pregnant.

Maybe someone who believes all abortion is murder can explain the rape and incest clause almost all pro-life politicians include. If you believe that abortion at any stage is murder of an innocent life then why is there an exception in these cases? It seems that there is a greater compassion for the women here than the unborn child. I feel that the more compassion and help we provide for women with unwanted pregnancies, the less abortions we will have. Compassion, help, and understanding can make abortions rare, not strident preaching or laws that are no where near having the support they need to pass.

[calebcar]

I wrote this post earlier. Seems to fit in here. Hindsight's 20-20. I'm only expressing this view in hindsight. The one time I had a bad feeling about this election was when Terrell was asked by Tim Russert if she'd support a constitutional amendment banning abortion. After ducking once or twice( a bad sign right there she said she would. I could see the minds of the pro choice women I know hearing that and saying "I'm pro-choice but I'm busy saturday." to "Who does she think she is.When's the runoff."
Policically and ethically this(editted by someone who could reduce it to a soundbyte)would have been a better answer.

"If I were Governor of Louisiana I would sign a complete ban on abortion. If I were a Louisiana legislator I would vote for a ban on abortion. As a U.S. Senator I would not support a constitutional amendment for the same reason I would oppose Roe v. Wade. The spirit of the Constitution is declared in the Declaration of Independence that government obtains its authority by the consent of the governed. The letter of the Constitution says that powers not specifically given to the Federal Government in the Constitution are given to the States. Roe v. Wade violates both. Abortion was made the virtually irreversible law of the land by people appointed to office. Those opposing it were given recourse to an amendment process hurdled 17 times sinse the bill of rights. One would have to contort into a pretzel to interpret that the Constitution says anything one way or the other aboutalmost any Federal authority over abortion.
The nation remains profoundly divided over abortion. Roe v. Wade disenfranchised opponents of abortion , radicalized debate and eroded civil discourse. An abortion amendment would continue that process
As much as I morally oppose it, I believe I serve both my pro-life stance and my constituents by opposing abortion where the Federal Government has a role(e.g.Federal funding,minors across state lines and working to make abortion an issue which is determined in the State legislatures.

p.s.-Norm Coleman’s handling of the in his debate with Mondale was a model of a reasonable pro-life stance.

[KQQL]

FINAL NUMBERS.. 3,912 of 3,912 precincts reporting
643,359 52% Mary Landrieu [D]
603,293 48% Suzanne Haik Terrell [R]

Terrell was right of W on the abortion issue ...and kept shifting her position......not a smart move..............

Plus most Americans want the right to abortion if the person is raped or in a incest situation..her position looked right of the center for majority of the American people who are pro-life.............. Plus non-Catholics are for birth Control...so she was not on the majority position there too... ( bottom line Terrell was not polished..she should have paid attention to how W, Coleman , Talent .etc deal with the abortion issue ...and show some compassion )

[Miss Marple]

I don't think it a minor loss. I just don't think it a devastating one. I think it is important to understand WHY we lost, and I don't think it is because Mrs. Terrell was too conservative.

It has come to my attention that the White House wanted O'Neill's resignation letter released on Monday, but he released it on Friday, probably out of anger and disappointment. I think this was a failure to understand how some people react to disappointing news.

I think the failure to get on top of the sugar issue also hurt. Apparently the charges were a lie, but Terrell's reaction was not strong enough, probably shaving off a couple thousand votes from her camp.

In addition, Mary Landrieu was very smart in keeping all DC Rats out of her state. It allowed her to frame the debate as Louisiana against the world, and also allowed her to portray herself as an underdog.

I think the tone of the election changed from November to December. It is possible that the run-off strategy, while looking good statistically, was actually counterproductive.

It is my hope that Frist and Rove look at these results and analyze all the parameters of why this election was lost. Sometimes one can be too clever by half, and this may have been one of those times. I don't think this is Terrell's last election, and I am almost certain she will still have a career.

Now, I hope you understand my point. I don't like to lose, but it does no good if when we lose we immediately go around shouting "We're doomed!"

[Nuke'm Glowing]

IMHO, she was a weak candidate. The pubbies could not find a "Breux like" figure to run against Mary so now they pay the price. It's up to the party to find strong candidates not just pray that Bush's reputation will win every election....

[Miss Marple]

I think the failure to find a strong candidate was the reason that they went with the run-off strategy. I still think she would have had a chance if all the things I detailed above hadn't come into play.

I do know that they looked at Billy Tauzin and I also think they tried to get a governor to run (can't remember whether it was the current one or a former gov).

[Mr. K]

just a durn minute here.... they are tied (almost) everwhere and ONE LOCATION has an 5 to 1 margin against???

ONE LOCATION won it for landrool????

we need to look into voting irregularities in that location

[Faithfull]

I'm not ready to jump into voting fraud investigations although looking at the stats from this election Republicans need to know the specifics.I'd like to see the Republicans make more of the issue that this election- like so many others- has been decided by one location. It's time we make an issue of this across the country as many voters don't realize it and it tends to motivate the apathetic vote. All Republicans on Sunday talk shows should be armed with the statistics about Terrel's showing in most locations vs. Orleans.

[Johnny Shear]

The reason Terrell lost?

Easy...

She's ugly.

[Miss Marple]

And the reason Barbara Mikulski wins is that she is beautiful?

Thank you so much for your insight.

[Johnny Shear]

And the reason Barbara Mikulski wins is that she is beautiful?

Thank you so much for your insight.

Thanks for the kind reply! :-)

I'm not sure by how much Mikulski won by, nor do I remember who her oponent was, so I can't answer that.

Terrell was the pick of an ugly litter. But hey...She moved up from 29% to 48%. That's pretty good! Not as much as I had hoped but more than I expected after the November 5th results.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Got the hots for Mary Landrover?

UGH!!

[puroresu]

The abortion issue didn't hurt Terrell. The idea that there's this huge mass of pro-abort women is a media-created myth. There are SOME pro-abort women but they aren't swing voters, they're hardcore Demo-rats.

If supporting abortion was beneficial, Landrieu wouldn't have gone as far as she did to lie about her own position. She even flat-out lied to her own church on a questionnaire, claiming to support legislation to protect human life from the moment of conception (i.e., legislation to ban abortion). She then flooded the airwaves with ads claiming to be "pro-adoption, not pro-abortion".

The "liberal" media want the Republicans to drop all of their conservative positions. It's the same nonsense over and over. We're told the Republicans must support affirmative action or they'll "lose the black vote". They must support open borders and welfare for illegal aliens or they'll "lose the Hispanic vote". They must support gun control or they'll "lose the soccer mom vote". They must support more welfare programs or they'll "lose the poor vote". And, of course, they must support abortion or they'll "lose the women's vote".

By the time we get through "moderating" our positions to accommodate the Dan Rather and Peter Jennings vision of what the Republican Party should be, we'll be the Republicrat Party. One party of 'rats is enough. We don't need two.

Just look at Europe, where truly right-wing parties are either banned or kept on the margins by constant media intimidation. The whole continent is dying. Voters there have a choice between leftist parties or so-called Conservative parties, which are in reality just slghtly less leftist than the leftist parties. You can vote for a leftist who favors abortion, the gay agenda, gun control, massive immigration, and lots of socialism, or vote for a so-called conservative who supports abortion, the gay agenda, gun control, massive immigration, and slightly less socialism.

That's the vision of the United States that awaits us if we abandon true conservative principles to satisfy a few elite media liberals.