According to GOP sources, the new map includes two vertical districts in northern Louisiana, a plan similar to what Republicans had proposed in their map, which failed to pass. The new map would keep boundaries in southern Louisiana the same as suggested in the Democratic plan that failed to pass the state House on Wednesday.

The new map is essentially the bill named for Democratic state Sen. Lydia Jackson, except that the two horizontal districts in northern Louisiana in that version are flipped on their ends.

“It’s not the perfect district for me or for Rodney, but I think it’s something that we can get enough votes to pass,” Rep. John Fleming (R) told Roll Call late Wednesday night, referring to his own political fate and that of Rep. Rodney Alexander (R).

Republicans thought they had agreed on a map that would have left freshman Rep. Jeff Landry (R) without a district in a state that is losing a House seat after reapportionment because of population loss from Hurricane Katrina. But earlier this week, Rep. Charles Boustany (R) switched and threw his support behind the Democratic Jackson plan.

Read more: Republicans Ready to Unveil Compromise Map in Louisiana

The four – Reps. Bill Cassidy, Steve Scalise, Charles Boustany and Rodney Alexander, signed on to a letter to EPA head Lisa Jackson demanding that higher standards for ozone levels be revisited before implementation. EPA is attempting, apparently by regulatory fiat and not through established procedure, to mandate that ozone “attainment levels” be improved across the country from the pre-2008 standard of .084 parts per million to somewhere between .060-.070 ppm. This, obviously, will cripple the state’s industrial sector.

The letter to Jackson, who is incidentally a native New Orleanian despite her agency’s seemingly relentless assault on Louisiana’s economy, reads as follows…

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

We write to you today to express our concern regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reconsideration of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone.  This action departs from the normal five-year NAAQS review schedule established by the Clean Air Act.   We strongly support protecting the environment and ensuring the health of our constituents, but we have serious concerns that EPA’s departure from regular order in relation to an Ozone NAAQS review will have a significant negative impact on the economies of our states without enhancing air quality.  We are concerned proposals to lower the recently revised NAAQS will hurt working families and greatly increase operating costs for manufacturers during this time of serious economic difficulty.

As you know, the Clean Air Act requires that EPA conduct a detailed review of each NAAQS every five years.  This review, with extensive process, public input and comment, was last completed for the ozone standard in 2008.  Some groups argued for a significant tightening of the standard and others, including respected members of the scientific community, believed that the existing ozone standard was adequately protective.  In the end, EPA strengthened its existing 0.084 ppm standard to a much more stringent 0.075 ppm, declared that level adequately protective of human health and the environment, and commenced preparations for the next five year review. 

When EPA changed the ozone standard in 2008, many of our states were still coming into attainment of the old .084 ppm standard, and suffered significant economic and growth restrictions under the required state implementation plan (SIP).  States must again revise their SIPs to meet EPA’s more stringent 0.075 ppm standard, with even more adverse economic impacts.

This year, despite being midway through the ongoing five year NAAQS review process, EPA has proposed to bypass the transparency and technical input afforded by that statutory process and apply a more aggressive and costly ozone mandate.  Moreover, it does not appear that EPA is relying on any new scientific evidence in its decision, but is simply using the same data from 2008 to now reach a different conclusion.    

Areas that will not be able to meet EPA’s proposed new NAAQS will face increased costs to businesses, restrictions on development and expansion, and limits on transportation funding.  EPA’s new proposed standard could nearly triple the number of nonattainment areas and, under the high end of EPA’s own estimate, add $90 billion dollars per year to already high operating costs faced by  manufacturers, agriculture, and other sectors.  

In addition, recent studies indicate that each affected state could lose tens of thousands of jobs, if not more.  If our local businesses can’t compete, our constituents will lose their jobs, their health care and other employee benefits for their families.  Our communities will also lose local tax revenue critical to funding public education and municipal infrastructure. 

We believe that we can and should continue to improve our environment, but we are concerned that EPA’s action has real, detrimental impacts on the people they are trying to protect.  Given the heavy job loss potential this policy could result in and the absence of any new scientific data, we strongly believe changing the current NAAQS standard outside of the ongoing five year review process is unnecessary.

The Congressmen are following up to some degree on another letter, this one from the Baton Rouge Clean Air Coalition – a consortium of state regulatory agencies, business groups and academicians – which had objected to increased EPA mandates on ozone for several reasons. Among them…

• “We have reviewed EPA’s report and analysis of studies used to support revision of the ozone standard and find the health impact assessments very tenuous. … This information certainly doesn’t provide a strong, irrefutable basis for a decision with the potential impacts of a lower ozone standard.”
• “Louisiana’s ozone problems are minor and the imposition of the new lower ozone standards is unwarranted overreach by EPA”
• “…at the lower end of EPA’s proposed primary ozone standard, every monitoring site in the state would be designated nonattainment.”
• “Increased costs for utilities, fuel, food, consumer goods, etc. that will accompany the implementation of a new, lower ozone standard will likely reduce the standard of living for many and may force families with limited budgets to reduce spending for nutrition and health care.”
• “Each of the parishes designated nonattainment under the proposed standards will have their economic development activities seriously impaired by the stigma of ozone nonattainment. Industries in these parishes will see increased regulatory burdens, more costly emission controls, extensive monitoring and reporting, and more difficult permitting. Communities in these parishes can expect to be subject to auto emissions testing, possible transportation restrictions, and requirements that their transportation plans conform to state ozone attainment plans. Most of the potentially‐affected parishes do not have the financial and human resources to deal with the new federal regulatory burdens.”

The long and short of the new EPA rule will be another significant imposition of cost upon Louisiana’s economy at a time the state simply can’t afford a new rope around its neck. If you’re in a “non-attainment” area, which virtually each of the state’s markets will become should a new standard take effect, industrial permits will be impossible to get. That could wipe out efforts to lure Hawker Beechcraft to Baton Rouge or halt the planned construction of Nucor Steel’s facility in St. James Parish, not to mention any significant upgrades or expansions to refineries or petrochemical plants along the Mississippi.

But that’s not all. Because traffic is a generator of ozone, road projects in “non-attainment” areas will likely be halted. That’s lousy news for the future of Baton Rouge’s infrastructure, and it’s also likely a death knell for the completion of I-49 where it isn’t finished.

And the fact that the EPA’s rules on permitting will require the purchase of “offsets” for emissions merely impose Cap And Trade through regulatory fiat.

The good news here is that the EPA isn’t the only player in the game. In 2008, the Bush administration proposed pushing the .084 ppm standard to .075 ppm, but legal challenges kept that standard from being implemented. The same will likely happen now. And the GOP majority in the House beginning in January will have the ability to rein in the EPA through the power of the purse.

Still, there are those who are pleased with the EPA’s attempts to tighten the noose. The Louisiana Environmental Action Network, a group which has camped out in court on this issue in the past, hails the new standard of .060-.070 ppm.

“We will be thrilled if they get to that number,” said Mary Lee Orr, LEAN executive director. “The citizens will be so happy to have more protective standards for themselves. It’s taken a long time to get here.”

Whether the “citizens” will be happy with the loss of blue-collar jobs in Louisiana industry as a result of efforts to attain an imperceptible reduction in ozone is debatable. But another Usual Suspect in the emissions battle, Tulane’s Environmental Law Clinic, is crowing as well. Said Adam Babitch, a spokesman for the law clinic…

“It should mean cleaner air and fewer health care problems,” Babitch said. “The bottom line is that Baton Rouge has never been in compliance. We have made progress, but it’s a dollar late and day short.”

Baton Rouge, in fact, met EPA standards on ozone in September for the first time since the standards were enacted. Babitch is correct that if the EPA continues to move the goalposts the five-parish area around the Capitol City will remain in noncompliance. Compliance with the national unemployment rate, however, might be more attainable if the industrial sector is subjected to harsher regulation.

Overall, the GOP did very well in Congressional races in Louisiana. While the delegation remained 6-1 Republican, the Democrats picked up a seat in New Orleans that was won by a Republican under unusual circumstances while losing, as expected, Democrat Charlie Melancon’s seat in south Louisiana.  

Continue reading at http://winwithjmc.com/archives/2090

John Couvillon is a political consultant. His company is JMC Enterprises of Louisiana, Inc. with expertise in the data analysis aspects of political campaigns, such as poll sample development/analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy, and demographic consulting. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

It is my highest duty and honor to represent the veterans of Louisiana’s 5th District. Hearing their stories of sacrifice and bravery, and having the opportunity to learn about their war-time experiences, leaves me deeply proud and forever indebted.

Because of the valor, resolve, and love of country embodied by our men and women in uniform, we have the privilege to live our lives in freedom. They are humble champions whose devotion and service have left an indelible model of character on our culture. From the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of today, America’s heroes have never failed to answer our nation’s call to arms.

With more than 150,000 of our sons and daughters currently deployed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, a new generation is answering the call of duty without fail. They are fighting to keep terrorism off our soil, and to bring the gift of peace to regions of the world once deemed unthinkable.

Although no single tribute or day could suffice to fully honor their service, Veterans Day serves as a strong reminder of how our nation’s liberty and integrity continues to be preserved by the dedication of our armed forces. This date underscores our country’s commitment to its veterans and their families and serves as a beacon of the debt for which we will never be able to pay. Today, our nation stands together to celebrate the American hero.

U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, represents the 5th Congressional District and serves on the House Appropriations Committee. He can be reached at the Monroe District Office (318-322-3500), the Alexandria District Office (318-445-0818) or Washington, D.C. (202-225-8490.) Visit Alexander’s Web site at alexander.house.gov or write him at 316 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

WINNERS

1. David Vitter. Three years ago this guy was political dead meat. Tonight, he’s one of the strongest Republicans in the Senate. Vitter’s 57-38 blowout of Charlie Melancon tells us three things. First, his DC Madam scandal is over. Done. Melancon’s camp never did get the message that the people of Louisiana heard about it, processed it and decided it was none of their business. You can say we’re permissive of scandal here, and maybe you’re right. But at the end of the day, what the electorate decided was that they’re more interested in what Vitter can do to represent them than what he does in his personal life – or did 10 years ago.

Vitter will also return to a Senate that, while it didn’t flip to the GOP, will be far more heavily populated with ideological cohorts than the one he left for the campaign last month. The Rand Pauls, Pat Toomeys, Mike Lees, Marco Rubios and Ron Johnsons of the world will be much more likely to stand with Vitter than with Lindsey Graham, and as a result Vitter will find himself with more allies come January.

2. Jay Dardenne. Dardenne’s campaign was low-key, despite being blamed for “attacks” on Caroline Fayard. That was a ridiculous charge, as the Republican merely pointed out a few facts about Fayard’s history and background that were not of a personal nature. She’s a lefty, despite what she attempted to cast herself as. Dardenne also did a nice job of generally limiting his campaign to things the Lt. Governor actually does. It’s clear the voters responded positively. Dardenne won a 57-43 race which was several points higher than his people expected.

3. Jeff Landry. For a first-time Congressional candidate, Landry’s 64-36 blowout of Ravi Sangisetty in the 3rd District race was definitely impressive. Landry annihilated Sangisetty in the debates and he outworked the Democrat on the campaign trail, as the parish-by-parish numbers attest:

• Ascension: Landry, 61-39
• Assumption: Landry, 58-42
• Iberia: Landry, 71-29
• Jefferson: Landry, 75-25
• Lafourche: Landry, 68-32
• Plaquemines: Landry, 69-31
• St. Bernard: Landry, 67-33
• St. Charles: Landry, 64-36
• St. James: Sangisetty, 55-45
• St. John: Sangisetty, 56-44
• St. Martin: Landry, 72-28
• St. Mary: Landry, 65-35
• Terrebonne: Landry, 63-37

Sangisetty is from Terrebonne, which should give an indication of how big a win this was. And despite the nastiness of the race, there was an impressive 41 percent turnout in LA-3. The narrative we were sold was that Landry was toxic and a wider electorate would reject him. That narrative was a lie; Landry won huge majorities in 11 of the 13 parishes in the district. He’s got a big future in Louisiana politics, though it’s pretty clear he’s going to have to wade through nasty campaigns every time he gets a race.

4. Cedric Richmond. Richmond’s 65-33 destruction of Joseph Cao was the biggest surprise of the state’s races, though given the size of the margin one wonders if it didn’t reflect an implosion on the part of the Republican incumbent. But Richmond did what he did without getting help from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which thought about making a buy for him and ultimately opted not to. He clearly benefited from street money Caroline Fayard’s campaign spent in New Orleans.

Richmond’s race also indicated something not dissimilar to Vitter’s victory; namely, that voters in tonight’s Louisiana elections are more interested in how they’ll be represented in terms of policy than in the personal histories and/or failings of their politicians. Vitter survived the DC madam scandal because a large majority of Louisiana’s voters approve of his conservative Senate record, and in like manner Richmond won despite a rather frightening ethical record because at the end of the day the majority of the voters in New Orleans want a typical Congressional Black Caucus member, and he’s certainly that.

5. Charles Boustany. Boustany might be the biggest beneficiary of the GOP House takeover, as he’s set to take over a subcommittee in Appropriations. That, of course, could be good for Louisiana as a whole – though it’s unlikely anybody is getting much pork in the next Congress given the public mandate for fiscal discipline shown tonight. But Boustany isn’t alone; Steve Scalise is expected to get a key spot on the Steering Committee and Rodney Alexander is expected to get a subcommittee chair in Ways and Means. John Fleming is also in line to pick up a spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would increase his profile and also give the folks involved in the Haynesville Shale play a larger voice in fighting federal efforts to strangle natural gas production through regulatory enslavement.

LOSERS

1. The Fayards. To have spent the kind of money the Fayard campaign spent on a special-election Lieutenant Governor’s race, when the job comes up for re-election next year, is enough to put her at the top of this list. But to have gone through that much money and lost, and to be left with the questions about how the campaign was financed which remain in its wake, make tonight a very, very bad night for Louisiana’s premier Democrat campaign funding family.

Caroline Fayard did create some name recognition for herself in this race, which it was clear she was trying to do. But getting trounced 57-43 after a poll earlier this week showed her just eight points down indicates she perhaps underperformed.

And at the end of the day, accusations of money-laundering from her father through the Louisiana Democrat Party to her campaign are likely to haunt Fayard and perhaps hamper her future political prospects. She’s likely to be back, but it’s clear voters were not comfortable with what they saw from the Fayard family. And a 14-point spread says it’s not just that she was a Democrat running in a Republican year.

2. The Louisiana Democrat Party. The Fayard campaign-finance issues are likely to land the state’s Democrats in a pickle with the state Board of Ethics, which raised lots of questions particularly when the party failed to file 48-hour reports in the two weeks prior to the election after the money-laundering issue was raised. That amounts to a cherry on top of the otherwise devastating results for the Democrats – who, it appears, don’t seem to be competitive almost anywhere. They failed to even run candidates in the 1st and 7th Districts, and outside of Richmond no Democrat congressional candidate did better than Ravi Sangisetty’s 36 percent.

We’ll have to do a full count tomorrow, but the number we’ll be looking for is how many parishes were won by Democrat candidates tonight compared to Republicans. From the looks of it, that’s going to be a very lopsided number. And that indicates the Democrats aren’t competitive on a statewide level anymore. What this portends for next year will be interesting; they’ll have a tough time mounting challenges to any statewide races save for Attorney General, which Buddy Caldwell will be a favorite to hold.

3. Charlie Melancon. We didn’t see his concession speech live, but we’re told it was an exercise in bitterness, bile and classlessness. If that’s true, then it’s of a piece with the shameful way Melancon conducted himself in the last debate, in which he acted like he was trying to start a brawl rather than offer leadership to Louisiana through the Senate seat he was running for.

Melancon’s campaign was a joke, frankly. He sent Anzalone Liszt out to push-poll the people of Louisiana and lie to the voters (and prospective donors) about the state of the race, he failed completely to offer a vision for the state he’d present as our senator, he couldn’t offer us anything more than hookers and troubled Vitter staffers and he told a lot of provable lies throughout the campaign. For him not to own up, after it was over and the result was a surprise to no one, to the fact that the voters soundly rejected what he had to offer indicates that despite what he repeated time and time again about Vitter’s ethics the reality is that there might be more questions about the former sugar-cane lobbyist and Edwin Edwards crony from a character standpoint than about his intended victim.

Melancon’s next stop is likely Washington, where he’ll probably land some cush gig as the Undersecretary of Bass Fishing in the Department of Nothing. One would hope so. After his performance in Congress over the past year and the way he embarrassed himself in this campaign it’s unlikely he’ll be able to pull a Billy Tauzin or John Breaux and cash in as a lobbyist. And as for ever getting elected to office again, he can flat-out forget it.

4. Bobby Jindal. Jindal spent a great deal of time and effort outside of Louisiana working for gubernatorial and senatorial candidates, and as best we can tell he actually managed to pick a decent number of winners with his endorsements. But if Jindal’s goal in all that galivanting was to boost his national stature, outside of making himself the subject of a FOIA request from Democrat National Committee opposition researchers to the Pentagon it doesn’t appear he put himself on the map as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, a lot of hay was made about Jindal’s lack of endorsements for Vitter, Dardenne and the state’s GOP congressional candidates. As it turned out, none of them needed the governor to pitch in, other than perhaps Joseph Cao (who was probably helpless anyway). Jindal could argue that he didn’t hurt anybody by not endorsing, and that’s probably true. But he didn’t help anybody, either, and a governor is supposed to help to build his state’s party. Jindal clearly didn’t do that, and there will be a lot of ruffled feathers for him to smooth over – and he’ll have to set about doing it immediately.

Because Jindal is going to have a massive budget fight on his hands. And in state treasurer John Kennedy, who is the most ambitious politician in Louisiana, he now has an adversary with designs on his job and a nose for media attention. The more contentious that budget fight gets, the more Jindal might think he would have liked to have gathered and/or strengthened allies among the state’s politicians and their supporters.

5. Joseph Cao. Re-election was always going to be a heavy lift for Cao, and when Fayard made the runoff and spread street money all over New Orleans it got a lot tougher. So the fact that he lost tonight isn’t necessarily all that terrible a disgrace.

But when you get beat 65-33, you can’t sugar-coat it. That’s a mudhole being stomped in your butt. It’s hard to even analyze such a poor performance. Maybe at the end of the day, you just can’t pull black vote in LA-2 unless you’re black. It sure doesn’t look like Cao could despite his effort at doing so.

• Any talk about David Vitter’s vulnerability in a primary or general election is just that – talk. He received a whopping 88% of the vote against two primary opponents (one of whom, Chet Traylor, initially got plenty of favorable press time to promote his candidacy), with at least 66% of the vote in each parish.
• If anything, Charlie Melancon ought to be more concerned. His two opponents were even less known to Democratic/Independent voters than Vitter’s opponents,  yet he only received 71% of the vote. More revealing is the distribution of that vote – while his highest percentages were in parishes with a large black population and/or his own Congressional district, his performance in several rural parishes was downright embarrassing. In fact, in five rural north Louisiana parishes, he received less than 50% of the vote.

Melancon Vote By Parish

• Republican enthusiasm was present at the polls today, just like it was for early voting. Though only 26% of the voters are registered Republican, Republican turnout was 2.5 times that of Democratic/Independent turnout (Independents can only vote in Democratic primaries), which resulted in 47% of the vote being cast in the Republican primary.
• Congressional primaries, with one major exception, were uneventful. Five Republican Congressmen (Steve Scalise of Metairie, “Joseph” Cao of New Orleans, John Fleming of Minden, Bill Cassidy of Baton Rouge, and Charles Boustany of Lafayette) received no primary opposition. Six year incumbent Rodney Alexander dispatched his primary opponent with 89% of the vote (he received at least 79% of the vote in each parish), which is identical to the 90% of the vote he received in the Republican primary two years ago.
• On the Democratic side, both contested primaries ended up being settled tonight. In New Orleans, state representative Cedric Richmond won his primary with 60% of the vote against three opponents – it didn’t hurt that he had the Landrieu endorsement. Up in northwest Louisiana, Methodist minister David Melville won his primary with 81% of the vote.
• (UPDATED 8/31 AM) The one primary which was bitterly contested, and will go into a runoff, was the Republican primary for Charlie Melancon’s vacated House seat, which stretches from Chalmette to New Iberia as far north as Gonzales. Former House Speaker (and former Democrat) Hunt Downer started off the heavy favorite, but made a critical error near the end of the campaign: he backed out of a candidate debate sponsored by the Baton Rouge Tea Party – to attend a fundraiser. This cancellation enraged Tea Party activists, who immediately began blasting Downer for this, for his legislative voting record, and the fact that he had served in the (Democratic) Blanco administration. While attorney Jeff Landry benefitted from this “establishment vs insurgent” matchup, engineer Kristian Magar also made a respectable showing, with a considerable assist from Tea Party activists through energetic use of social networking sites like Facebook.  In the end, Landry received 49.6% of the vote, compared to 36% for Downer and 14% for Magar. Will there be a runoff ? In addition to the fact that Landry was about 100 votes short of winning outright, the distribution of the vote should give Downer pause while he ponders whether it is worth the time and expense to contest the runoff. Basically, Downer was a “one parish candidate” –though he carried his home parish of Terrebonne with a very respectable 64% of the vote (versus Landry’s 26% and Magar’s 10%), he lost every other parish to Landry. In fact, outside of Terrebonne, 59% of the Republican vote went to Landry, while Downer received 25% and Magar received 16% - it’s important to note that both Landry and Magar shared an Iberia Parish voting base. Curiously, the absentee vote (which made up 17% of the total) went 52-40% for Landry, while those who voted on Election day gave Landry 49%, Downer 35%, and Magar 16%.

(UPDATED 8/31 AM) In addition to the Republican runoff for the 3^rd Congressional district, the “everything else” primary is in five weeks on Saturday, October 2. While the Lieutenant Governor’s race at the top of the ticket, there is also a myriad of judgeship races and municipal/school board races. The deadline to register to vote in this election is Wednesday, September 1. Early voting will be from September 18 to 25, and the deadline to mail in a ballot (that is, if the voter will be unable to make it to the polls on Election Day) is Friday, October 1.

Finally, West Virginia is having a special election this November to fill the seat of the late senator Robert Byrd. The primry to choose party nominees was held tonight, but was relatively uneventful. Governor Joe Manchin received 73% of the Democratic primary vote, while mining company owner John Raese (who has run several times before statewide and lost) received 71% of the vote in the Republican primary.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

(1) We expect that the Congressional primaries will be a low turnout affair, based on the early voting volume. Now that mail in ballots have been cast, 28203 early votes have been cast. We project that in the end, there will be an estimated 6-19% overall turnout. To put this figure in perspective, in the moderate turnout 2007 Governor’s primary, 139400 early voted. And in the high turnout 2008 Presidential race, 283500 early voted;

(2) While there are contested Democratic and Republican primaries statewide for the Senate and in four Congressional districts, Republican enthusiasm was higher than the Democrats/Independents (Independents can vote in Democratic primaries). In a state where Democrats and Independents outnumber registered Republicans 2.9 to 1, 3.35 Republicans showed up for every Democrat/Independent who did. Overall, 54% of the early vote was cast by Republicans, 42% by Democrats, and 4% by Independents. This level of GOP enthusiasm is unprecedented., although it is worth noting there was a “Democratic surge” from the mail in ballots: 60% of the mail ins were from Democrats, compared to 36% from Republicans. And 32% of the mail ins were from black voters.  Overall, in 42 parishes, more Republicans physically showed up, with especially strong Republican early voting turnout, percentage-wise, in Lafourche, St Martin, St Tammany, and Terrebonne;

(3) Curiously, a significant number (26%) of the early ballots cast were mail in ballots, while 74% early voted in person. For comparison’s sake, in 2007 and 2008, 95% voted in person and 5% mailed in their ballot;

(4) To put the Republican early voting enthusiasm (i.e., the 54-42% lead) in perspective, in the 2007 Governor’s race, Democrats led 52-36% in early voting, while in the 2008 Presidential race, Democrats led 58-29%;

(5) To what extent are Congressional primaries driving this turnout ? For the Democrats, not very much, while for the Republicans, it has helped quite a bit. While the Senate primaries are at the top of the ballot, there are also four contested House primaries. Democrats are holding Congressional primaries in the 2nd Congressional District (most of New Orleans and the Westbank) and 4th Congressional District (northwest Louisiana). Republican primaries are in the 3rd Congressional District (“Bayou country” between New Iberia and St Bernard Parish) and 5th Congressional District (northeast and central Louisiana). When we looked at the parishes where Democratic Congressional primaries are being held, we noticed that 0.6% of Democrats/Independents early voted, which equals the statewide average. If we look at the parishes where Republican Congressional primaries are being held, we find that 3.2% have early voted, compared to a statewide average of 2.0%. In other words, even with a hotly contested Democratic primary in New Orleans, Republicans are more enthusiastic about their House candidates where there are serously contested races, with the three way Republican primary in the 3rd district between Hunt Downwer, Kristian Magar, and Jeff Landry being the biggest attention getter – in fact, 3.6% of Republicans have already cast a ballot before polls have even opened. To put this number in perspective, we think that 13-20% of the GOP vote in that district has already been cast.

Finally, it’s worth repeating again that we are making somewhat of a big deal about the early vote volume, because when the Legislature essentially established “no fault” early voting several years ago, more and more people have chosen to early vote, so a constituency of 5-15% of the total vote is something a politician would be foolish to ignore – especially in a closely contested race. These early voting numbers are the ones that are typically reported on the TV screen several minutes after polls close at 8 PM. 

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

In  Florida, the Senate race that we’ve anticipated for some time (a three way race between former House Speaker Marco Rubio, black Miami Congressman Kendrick Meek, and Governor Charlie Crist) is now official. Though Meek received spirited competition from billionaire Jeff Greene, numerous aspects about Greene’s background left him vulnerable to attack ads. His financial dealings left him vulnerable to the attack that he “bet on and benefitted from the housing collapse” His yacht was also the subject of considerable scrutiny. At one point, Greene was alleged to have used it to travel to Cuba in defiance of the travel ban (thus offending Cuban Democrats in Miami). There were also allegations of the yacht’s anchor being dropped onto a  UN recognized, environmentally protected coral reef and destroying it. Though outspent, Meek had the support of former President Clinton and (officially, at least) President Obama, and easily won the Democratic Senate primary 57-31%.

Despite the viciousness of this primary, we believe (as we mentioned several months ago in this post ) that having a Democratic nominee selected will start the process of Democrats’ migrating back to their candidate. This predicted Democratic migration will cause the independent candidacy of Governor Charlie Crist to collapse. Right now, his electoral position is deceptively strong because of his having a considerable amount of white and black Democratic support. Without that support, he has nowhere to go electorally, since the GOP vote has been locked up by Rubio for some time now.

Florida Republicans had their own vicious primary campaign, although in this case, healthcare executive and multimillionaire Rick Scott (whose campaign tagline is “let’s get to work”) narrowly defeated Republican establishment favorite, Attorney General and 10 term former Congressman Bill McCollum by a 46-43% margin in the GOP primary for Governor. In this race, the controversy was that Scott’s former company (Columbia/HCA) had to pay the federal government a sizeable $1.7 billion dollars in fines for Medicare and Medicaid fraud.  While the Governor’s race has been set, the likely outcome is up in the air at this point because, like the Senate race, there will be a three way race between Scott, Democratic CFO (which is a statewide elected position in Florida) Alex Sink, and Independent “Bud” Chiles, whose father was Senator then Governor for nearly three decades. The big question about this race is whether the Republicans can unite behind their nominee like the Democrats have with theirs.

One House race we were watching in Florida for strength of liberal anger was a Democratic House primary in north Florida, in a district that is a mixture of rural counties, conservative beach areas, and liberal Tallahassee. Though this district voted 55% for John McCain, it re-elected Blue Dog Allen Boyd for 14 years with little fuss. However, Tallahassee liberals have been unhappy with his voting record for some time (despite the fact that Rep Boyd voted for “cap and trade” and for healthcare reform), and black state senator Al Lawson challenged him in the primary. Though Rep Boyd outspent Sen. Lawson 11 to 1, he narrowly survived the primary with 52% to Lawson’s 48%. He can’t rest easy, though - the Republicans are putting up a stiff challenge to Rep Boyd in November.

We have been tracking the level of GOP enthusiasm in contested statewide primaries, and Florida was yet another state where there was more enthusiasm on the GOP side of the primary ballot; in this case, 58% of its voters voted in the Republican primary, despite the fact that Democrats lead 41-36% in voter registration.

(UPDATED 8/25 AM) In Arizona, the main story is that despite a stiff challenge from the right by former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, John McCain comfortably won his primary 56-32%. In our view, McCain was only vulnerable in theory, as his voting record (as well as his public statements) took an unambiguous turn to the right after President Obama was inaugurated. Senator McCain was also able to gain additional traction by noting Hayworth’s connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Most damaging, in our opinion, was an infomercial Hayworth once did promoting “free money” from the government, because anything smacking of bailouts is extremely unpopular with Republican primary voters this year, and that association is especially damning for conservative candidates.

Like Florida, Arizona was another state where voter enthusiasm was clearly on the Republican side. In this case, 67% of primary voters voted in the Republican primary, despite a narrow 36-32% Republican registration advantage in the state.

(UPDATED 8/25 AM) A final note on Arizona: the state’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, was universally given up for dead last year when she increased taxes. Her standing up to the federal government on immigration, however, brought her back to life with a vengeance earlier this year and made her somewhat of a rock star in conservative circles. And, accordingly, she won her primary with 87% of the vote against two opponents.

(UPDATED 9/4) In Alaska, a third Senate (and a seventh Congressional) incumbent has been defeated in the primary. With only a handful of absentees to be counted, freshman Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski trailed in the Republican primary 49-51% against attorney Joe Miller, who was endorsed by Tea Partiers and by Sarah Palin. Senator Murkowski has always had electoral problems ever since her father, whose seat she filled when he was elected governor in 2002, appointed her to his seat. Since then, her pork barrel tendencies and her pro choice stance on abortion have upset many Republicans.

(UPDATED 8/25 AM) Like Florida and Arizona, Alaska was yet another state where voter enthusiasm was clearly on the Republican side. In this case, 70% of primary voters voted in the Republican primary, despite a narrow 26-15% Republican registration advantage in the state.

Once Alaska’s primary has concluded, we will be in the home stretch of primary season, as 41 states have now held their primaries. Primary season finally comes to Louisiana this Saturday, as it chooses party nominees for U.S. House and U.S. Senate races. This will be a closed primary, meaning that (1) only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, (2) Democrats or Independents can vote in the Democratic primary,  and (3) if any candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, he/she will have to compete in a runoff on October 2. This election date coincides with various statewide and local primary races.

Also holding elections this Saturday will be West Virginia. It is conducting a special primary to fill the seat of the late Robert Byrd. The winners will face each other in the November general election. After the weekend primaries, there will be a plethora of primaries on Tuesday September 14, which we are dubbing “Super Tuesday II.” On that date, there will be contested primaries in Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. After “Super Tuesday II”, the last Congressional primary to be held will be in Hawaii on Saturday September 18.

 John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

(1) We expected that the Congressional primaries would be a low turnout affair, and the early voting numbers still confirm this expectation. As of Tuesday evening, 12065 early votes have been cast. We project that in the end, there will be a early voting volume of 27300 (which equates to an estimated 6-19% overall turnout). To put this figure in perspective, in the moderate turnout 2007 Governor’s primary, 139400 early voted. And in the high turnout 2008 Presidential race, 283500 early voted;

(2) While there are contested Democratic and Republican primaries statewide for the Senate and in four Congressional districts, Republican enthusiasm has consistently been higher than the Democrats/Independents (Independents can vote in Democratic primaries). In a state where Democrats and Independents outnumber registered Republicans 2.85 to 1, 3.46 Republicans yesterday have shown up so far (this is an improvement from Saturday’s 3.22) for every Democrat/Independent who did. In fact, in 42 parishes, more Republicans physically showed up, with especially strong Republican early voting turnout in St Martin, Terrebonne, and Lafourche;

(3) To put the Republican early voting enthusiasm in perspective, the early vote as of Tuesday was 54-42% Republican (up from 53-43% Republican on Saturday). In the 2007 Governor’s race, Democrats led 52-36% in early voting, while in the 2008 Presidential race, Democrats led 58-29%;

(4) To what extent are Congressional primaries driving this turnout ? For the Democrats, not at all, while for the Republicans, it has helped quite a bit. While the Senate primaries are at the top of the ballot, there are also four contested House primaries. Democrats are holding Congressional primaries in the 2nd Congressional District (most of New Orleans and the Westbank) and 4th Congressional District (northwest Louisiana). Republican primaries are in the 3rd Congressional District (“Bayou country” between New Iberia and St Bernard Parish) and 5th Congressional District (northeast and central Louisiana). When we looked at the parishes where the Democratic Congressional primaries are being held, we noticed that 0.25% of Democrats/Independents early voted, which is about the statewide average of 0.26%. If we look at the parishes where Republican Congressional primaries are being held, we find that 1.24% have early voted, compared to a statewide average of 0.86%. In other words, even with a hotly contested Democratic primary in New Orleans, Republicans are even more enthusiastic about their House candidates where there are serously contested races.

Finally, there are a couple of things about early voting that need to be noted: (1) early voting is usually heaviest on the first and last days, and we are therefore not expecting the volume of early voting to increase until the last day; (2) we are making somewhat of a big deal about the early vote volume, because when the Legislature essentially established “no fault” early voting several years ago, more and more people are choosing to early vote, so a constituency of 5-15% of the vote is something a politician would be foolish to ignore – especially in a closely contested race; (3) these numbers are the ones that are typically reported on the TV screen several minutes after polls close at 8 PM.

John is a political consultant and blogger with JMC Enterprises with expertise in poll sample development and analysis, development of targeted voter files for phone canvassing or mail outs, campaign strategy and demographic consulting, among other things. See his site at WinWithJMC.com for more information.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

At a time when our nation’s economy is suffering, increasing taxes will do more harm than good.  As your representative, it is my duty to protect, promote and preserve the values of our nation and the prosperity of each American family.  I believe extra money in the bank accounts of struggling families, not in the hands of Uncle Sam, could go a long way. 

Unfortunately, congressional leadership and the president continue to push policies that increase taxes and add to the already out-of-control government spending.  To continue down this reckless path, especially when approximately 15 million Americans remain unemployed, is unfathomable.

I have never heard of any nation that has ever taxed itself into prosperity. But it seems that’s what the federal government is currently trying to do.

If Congress does not take proactive steps, on January 1, 2011, marginal income tax rates would increase for all taxpayers, the marriage penalty would come back, families with children would see the child tax credit halved and the federal “death tax” would return with a maximum tax rate of 55 percent.   To make matters worse, the Alternative Minimum Tax would claim more than 25 million taxpayers, and higher taxes would be levied on investments.

If this isn’t bad enough, 94 percent of small businesses would be subject to the unprecedented tax hike.  These entrepreneurs are responsible for employing 60.2 million individuals – more than 50 percent of the nation’s workforce.

Nowadays, small businesses are hesitant to hire and scared to expand due to the uncertainty created by Washington’s harmful policies.  It frustrates me to imagine how many potential entrepreneurs and small business owners have been discouraged because our tax policies hamper the entrepreneurial spirit.

Still in the midst of a fragile economic climate, raising taxes will essentially eliminate even more jobs; it will bring job creation and economic recovery to a screeching halt.  Times are tough enough without bringing massive tax hikes into the equation.

I am adamantly fighting to ensure that taxpayers no longer fund Washington’s wasteful spending. I have joined my Republican colleagues in cosponsoring the Taxpayer Certainty Act which halts these pending tax increases. 

The American people should not be obligated to compensate for a deficit caused by mismanagement.  And we certainly cannot raise taxes on small businesses and families at a time when they can least afford it. 

Rest assured, I will continue to fight the Democrats’ massive tax hikes on families and small businesses. We must create stability for our nation’s job creators, provide incentives for investment, and rein in out-of-control spending once and for all.

U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, represents the 5th Congressional District and serves on the House Appropriations Committee. He can be reached at the Monroe District Office (318-322-3500), the Alexandria District Office (318-445-0818) or Washington, D.C. (202-225-8490.) Visit Alexander’s Web site at alexander.house.gov or write him at 316 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.