One Victory, Two Elections, Four Lessons For Republicans

Since this column is focused like a laser beam on the 2008 presidential election, I don't have all that much to say about down ballot races and elections.

But given the recent Massachusetts CD 5 special election and Bobby Jindal's victory in LA, a few points come to mind.

(1) Even without Katrina, Louisiana has a political milieu all of its own, and Jindal ran as an anti-corruption, can-do reformer. You would not know, from his ads, that he was a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent.

(2) Jim Ogonowski was universally regarded as a better candidate that Nikki Tsongas; this war vet he ran to the left of many Democratic presidential candidates on the war; he benefited from grassroots Republican internet support; Tsongas was treated roughly by the press; -- talented Republicans who run campaigns that comport to the moods of their districts can be competitive against Democrats.

(2.5) -- Backed by the national party, Tsongas defeated a popular Lowell councilwoman in the Democratic primary; shades of Tammy Duckworth: Tsongas drew the resentment of liberal activists whose candidate she defeated.

(3) The RNC's get-out-the-vote machinery is still potent and formidable; they greatly assisted Jindal in voter registration, voter re-registration and his GOTV efforts.

(4) Neither Jindal nor Ogonowski ran as ideological ciphers; not as social conservatives (although Jindal is a social conservative), not as a doctrinaire free-marketeer, not as national security conservatives. They ran specifically, not generally.

Comments

For some strange reason, Ambinder omits the fact that one of Ognowski's key issues was opposition to illegal immigration. Even some of our wonderful elites have noticed that.

Posted by TLB | October 22, 2007 2:36 PM

TLB:

You're right. And in a special election when you're basically running on base turnout, the illegal immigration is a strong issue - especially in a state like Massachusetts, where it gives a Republican a chance to simultaneously (1) generate base turnout by beating the drums on the immigration issue and (2) separate themself from the GOP brand by bashing Bush!

I'm not fully convinced that you can win in the general election on immigration, because the issue is too murky. You have national Republicans (like Bush and McCain and conservative op-ed writers) pushing for amnesty. Most red state Democrats voted against the grant compromise (and Bush and the GOP DC Elite) in the end, so I'm not sure how this issue helps anybody. Plus, with so many hispanic-heavy swing states in the presidential election, I'm not sure how the Republicans can pull this off without facing a net negative among hispanic voters. I know it's a good issue for both base turnout and swing voters (enforcement first polls at like 65%), but with the distinctions blurred between Dems and the GOP thanks to Bush, I'm not sure how the Republicans use the issue effectively - except in a few scattered cases.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | October 22, 2007 3:54 PM

I believe the author when he says "this column is focused like a laser beam on the 2008 presidential election." It obviously wasn't well-focused on the LA governor's race.

In a state with a nonpartisan blanket primary (for now), seldom do candidates mention their party identification in their ads. But everybody knew Jindal was a conservative Republican and he ran on explicitily conservative themes. Ethics platform aside, he visibly and constantly preached his governorship would reduce the size of government, would set new priorities in spending that were going to displease some people, would cut taxes, and struck other conseravtive notes such as more accountability and classroom discipline in education, more access of faith-based programs to perform services, and slashing regulatory impediments to business.

In addition, it was not so much the GOP in Louisiana, which is relatively weak as state parties go, that helped in the campaign, but Jindal's own organization that smashed fundraising records. Jindal also was a tireless campaigner, making hundreds of camapign stops in front of churches and civic groups.

Jindal won because of his energetic campaigning that explained a conservative message to a majority conservative audience in the state. To think otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the contest and Louisiana.

Posted by Jeff Sadow | October 22, 2007 7:06 PM

Agreed with Jeff above. Jindal ran as a conservative. Part of his appeal, as Jeff points out, lay in the fact that he could organize so doggone well - he's a former consultant with McKinsey, and it showed.

In particular, Jindal managed to connect with rural white Protestant voters in a way that he had not before, and this had a lot to do with his conservatism - general distrust of politicians (which may work against Republicans in the general election considering how long they were in power), strong anti-crime and pro-morality messages (small facts such as that the minimum sentence for child molestation is only a year, and instead of being monitored those sickos should be locked up instead of being tracked) played a large role in his campaign and stump speech.

That said, never, ever underestimate the importance of race in Southern elections. The formula for victory for a Democrat in Louisiana remains 'high black turnout and ~90% of the black vote + 1/3 of the white vote = victory'. You can be amazed by any part of that formula that you want to be - that moderate Democrats would have trouble getting a third of the white vote, or that blacks vote so en masse. However, in any case, black voter turnout was low - Jindal did not represent a boogeyman they could rally against; he had no links to David Duke or anyone of that character - and that played a large role in his general election victory.

Posted by Vermando | October 22, 2007 9:36 PM