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.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar emphatically declared an end to the moratorium on October 12.  “We are open for business,” Salazar said at the time. “We will be taking applications for drilling in the deep water.”  Were that truly the case, pending drilling permits should have been considered and approved or rejected by now.  Instead, the pending permits remain in limbo, leaving our domestic energy industry, along with thousands of families throughout the Gulf, hanging in the balance.

Somewhere along the line, Washington bureaucrats lost sight of the impact that Gulf of Mexico energy exploration and production has on our energy independence, our energy security, and our economy.  More than 30 deepwater rigs were drilling safely in the Gulf of Mexico at the time the moratorium was imposed.  Those rigs remain idled, along with their massive workforce and support infrastructure.

Without an end to the permitorium coupled with clarity from the Administration to jumpstart the permitting process, energy exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico will come to a halt for good, resulting in disaster for Gulf economies and forcing the U.S. to rely on foreign countries to meet our country’s ever growing demand for energy.

Enough is enough.  People in Louisiana and throughout the Gulf are suffering, and the future of our country’s energy independence and security is being jeopardized.  We must end this permitorium and the Administration must do its part by laying out a clear path that allows permits to be issued using safer standards that quickly get people back to work.

The Administration needs to stop playing games with the people who work in America’s energy industry.  While the moratorium was lifted one month ago, the Department of Interior is not moving forward on exploration plans and drilling applications, and, despite the Administration’s claims, this permitorium still wreaks havoc throughout the Gulf.

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., is a member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

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!

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.

Yay.

This is the same Interior Department which lifted a moratorium on shallow-water drilling in May. Since then, it has issued all of seven drilling permits for shallow-water operators in the Gulf. Some one-third of the shallow-water drilling fleet sits idle in port now, with another 30 percent scheduled to join them within the next six weeks unless permitting speeds up.

Even Salazar admitted the lifting of the moratorium is a tepid endorsement of drilling at best.

“The policy position that we are articulating today is that we are open for business,” Salazar told a news conference. The action comes as a federal judge weighed a drilling company’s bid to overturn the moratorium.

It also comes less than a month before midterm elections in which Democrats face widespread criticism for overextending government actions on the economy, including the health care overhaul, the economic stimulus plan and the drilling moratorium.

A federal report said the moratorium likely caused a temporary loss of 8,000 to 12,000 jobs in the Gulf region. While the temporary ban on exploratory oil and gas drilling is lifted immediately, drilling is unlikely to resume for at least a few weeks.

Drilling companies must meet a host of new safety regulations before they can resume operations — including a requirement that the CEO of the company responsible for the well certifies it has complied with all regulations. That could make the person at the top of the company liable for any future accidents.

“Operators who play by the rules and clear the higher bar can be allowed to resume,” Salazar said.

The secretary said he knows that some people in the oil industry and along the Gulf Coast will say the new rules are too onerous.

“Others will say that we are lifting the deep water drilling suspension too soon. They will say there are still risks involved with deep water drilling,” he said.

The truth is, there will always be such risks, Salazar said.

“As we transition to a clean energy economy,” he added, “we will still need oil and gas from the Gulf of Mexico to power our homes, our cars, our industry.”

The new rules imposed by the administration will make oil and gas drilling in the Gulf “safer than it has ever been,” Salazar said.

Making a CEO personally responsible for spills is perhaps the most ridiculous idea Salazar could offer. The CEO’s of major producers like Shell, BP or Exxon own only a small part of their companies’ stocks; personal liability for spills would needlessly induce those CEO’s to opt to drill elsewhere and cost American jobs.

Naturally, the Louisiana congressman whose district is most negatively impacted by Obama’s offshore exploration policies thinks it’s just swell that the moratorium has been “lifted,” calling it great news for the oil industry and its workers. Sen. Mary Landrieu was less moronic in her reaction…

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, has blocked a Senate vote to confirm President Barack Obama’s choice of Jacob Lew to head the Office of Management and Budget to protest the moratorium.

She applauded the decision to lift the ban but said she would not release her hold on Lew.

“Today’s decision is a good start, but it must be accompanied by an action plan to get the entire industry in the Gulf of Mexico back to work,” Landrieu said, calling on the administration to accelerate permit approvals for drilling in shallow and deep water and provide greater certainty about regulations industry must meet.

On the other side of the aisle, the vitriol was a lot more pronounced. Todd Hornbeck, CEO of Covington-based Hornbeck Offshore, the plaintiff in the lawsuit which judicially voided the moratorium twice, said “We’re still in the dark” until the government starts issuing actual drilling permits based on understandable rules.

“The devil is in the details, as they say, and the industry hasn’t seen the final requirements for what we would have to do to be able to actually get a permit issued,” he added. “Until that is done, lifting the moratorium may be just a moot or perfunctory act. … Right now, I’m skeptical that it will be anytime soon that permits will be issued even if the moratorium is lifted.”

Sen. David Vitter blasted the administration as well.

“I guess this is movement in the right direction, but it’s painfully slow.  It’s clear that President Obama is going to preside over a continuing de facto moratorium for months or years, with new drilling held back to a fraction of previous levels.  I’ll keep fighting until real drilling happens and jobs are actually created,”

And Steve Scalise, who represents Louisiana’s 1st District in Congress, hit today’s announcement hard.

“Today’s announcement does nothing to address the uncertainty that has caused thousands of people to lose their jobs in the energy industry,” Scalise said.  “Until they lay out a clear path toward the issuing of new drilling permits, the Obama administration continues to send the message that they’ve established a ‘permitorium’ that denies people the ability to go back to work even if they’re complying with increased safety standards.

“The administration needs to stop playing games with the people who work in America’s energy industry, and finally lay out a clear path that allows permits to be issued using safer standards that quickly get people back to work. One of the biggest factors leading to job losses in the energy industry is the uncertainty that exists in the permitting process, and today’s announcement does nothing to address those concerns.”

In sum, deepwater exploration is now in the same sorry state shallow-water exploration is. The Obama administration, with today’s announcement, gets to claim credit for stopping his moratorium and heading off another judicial disaster. But the actual effect is a de-facto ban on drilling; incomprehensible drilling rules, slow-motion permitting and thousands of jobs lost overseas.

Today, Southern Methodist University released a study claiming 40,000 jobs are at risk from the slow permitting in shallow water alone…

“[T]he Interior Department’s drastic slowdown in approving permits for shallow-water drilling operations has very serious economic implications for the region that rival, or exceed, those of the spill and moratorium. Thus far, this impact has attracted little attention from Congress, the media, or third-party analysts despite the fact that the nearly 40,000 jobs related to the Gulf of Mexico’s shallow-water drilling industry have been placed in jeopardy by the Department of the Interior’s apparent decision to slow-walk the shallow-water permit approval process,” the report states.

Those horrendous effects, applied to deepwater exploration, could do the same damage without the accompanying political fallout to the Obama administration. A rule of thumb is that each working deepwater exploration rig directly or indirectly contributes to 1,500 jobs. If one-third of the 30 remaining Gulf deepwater rigs are idled five months from now as a result of the slow permitting in deepwater (which is analogous to what has happened in shallow water), that’s 15,000 jobs at risk. If another third of those rigs are idled six months from now, it’s another 15,000. And deepwater rigs are much less likely to sit idle based on their cost, mobility and demand.

This is a disaster. It’s also a fraud. Obama’s moratorium hasn’t gone away; the administration has just found a friendlier way to say no. But the economy of Louisiana will suffer just as acutely now as yesterday, and the damage to thousands of households and businesses will continue.

Click on the bad-ass image to donate!

It’s from last year, and it’s Hall Of Fame stuff. It’s his total evisceration of global warming fraudster, accused masher and adulterer and all-around arrogant ass Al Gore. And it’s a terrible shame this has only been seen on YouTube 16,000 times.

Let’s make it another 16,000. Forward this around to everybody you know.

• 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.

(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.

On the primary front, it has been relatively quiet this month. The Alabama runoff has been the only election held since June 22, and it provided yet another example of voters (in this case, in the Republican runoff for governor) choosing someone other than the preferred candidate of the local political establishment, by an unambiguous 56-44% margin.

There has been more action, however, with Congressional/gubernatorial filings; in the past week, filing has concluded in Maryland, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and New York, for a total of 48 states (all but Delaware and Hawaii have concluded their congressional qualifying). Thus far, 37 House members (31 Republicans and 6 Democrats) will not have major party opposition; this list expanded by two when after the close of Louisiana’s qualifying, Democrats decided not to compete for the seats held by Rodney Alexander (R-Quitman) and Charles Boustany (R-Lafayette). (7/18 Editor’s updates: (1) As of press time, candidate filing has concluded in New York, but a finalized list of candidates is not yet available until sometime before August 9, according to their Board Of Election. We currently believe that four New York City Democrats will have no Republican opposition, and once we have the final list, we will revise the paragraph above; (2) We had incorrect dates for filing deadlines for Minnesota and Vermont, and in fact, their filing deadlines have passed)

While Congressional qualifying concludes, the only other electoral action this month will be the Georgia primary on July 20 and the Oklahoma primary on July 27. We are watching two races in Georgia - the governor’s race and a U.S. House race in the suburbs of Atlanta.

On the Democratic side of the governor’s race, we have yet another example (in addition to California, Iowa, Maryland, and Oregon) of a former governor wanting his old job back. Democrat Roy Barnes was defeated by a Republican when he ran for re-election in 2002 (incidentally, the victor was the first and only Republican to win that office since Reconstruction), and is seeking a comeback now that the Republican is term-limited. While he’s expected to win the Democratic primary easily, the more interesting race is the Republican primary. With this being an open seat race, a crowded field of seven candidates is seeking the nomination. What makes this race interesting is that it is yet another test of the power of the Sarah Palin endorsement, as she has thrown her support behind Secretary of State Karen Handel, who leads in a recent poll with 32%.

We are also watching a House race in the eastern suburbs of Atlanta. This majority black district has seen a series of contested Democratic primaries since 2002, and was the district that twice rejected former Congresswoman (and firebrand) Cynthia McKinney. The person who defeated her in 2006, Hank Johnson, is now in some political trouble himself: his two primary opponents have made hay over recent remarks he made in a committee hearing asserting that “…relocating Navy personnel to Guam would cause the small island to ‘become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize’…” . As a result, the picture they are painting to Democratic primary voters in that district is that he is “aloof and out of touch”, and that he “runs his campaign by press releases.”

Shortly after the Georgia and Oklahoma primaries, Congressional qualifying concludes in Delaware on July 30, and contested primaries return with a vengeance, starting on August 3. Throughout the month of August, 14 states (including Louisiana’s August 28 Congressional party primaries) will be holding primaries, and we have summarized those races below (7/18 Editor’s note: We have found out that Minnesota and Vermont have their primaries in August and not on 9/14, as we originally thought):

August 3: Kansas, Michigan, and Missouri – We are focusing on the Republican primary for Senate in Kansas. While throughout the election cycle, “political establishment” candidates have suffered defeat after defeat, Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin have been more successful in their endorsements whenever they weigh in on a race. And in Kansas, two Republican Congressmen are seeking the nomination for this open seat, and Sarah Palin has endorsed Todd Tiahrt, whose endorsement list is a “who’s who” of conservatives: Sean Hannity, Steve Forbes, the Tea Party Express, and Focus On the Family.

August 5: Tennessee: While the Kansas primary will be a test of the power of Sarah Palin’s endorsement, we are following a Democratic House primary in Memphis, Tennessee to assess how viable the use of the “race card” still is in black majority districts. In this situation, two-term incumbent Steve Cohen is a white liberal representing an inner city district that voted 78-22% for Barack Obama. His holding this seat for two terms has ruffled the feathers of the local black political establishment, so pugnacious former Mayor Willie Herenton (who is black) is challenging Cohen in the primary. Yet in this contest, the racial overtones have been counteracted by endorsements Rep. Cohen has received from both members of the Congressional Black Caucus and of President Obama.

August 10: Colorado, Connecticut, and Minnesota: The Colorado Senate race features contested Democratic and Republican primaries. The Democratic primary is an interesting proxy battle between President Obama and former President Clinton. This senate seat initially became vacant at the start of the Obama administration when former Senator Ken Salazar was appointed Secretary of the Interior. To fill the vacancy, Colorado’s Democratic governor appointed Michael Bennet, who was at the time the superintendent of Denver’s public schools. Though Bennet has compiled a generally liberal record and has the strong support of the Democratic establishment (including President Obama), some local politicians like former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff felt slighted, and Romanoff is challenging Bennet in the primary with the endorsement of former President Clinton.  This “national vs local establishment” subtext to this race seems similar to the Specter/Sestak race in Pennsylvania, except that Bennet has always been a Democrat who has worked within the political system, and he has (unsurprisingly) led in the polls throughout the campaign.

On the Republican side, the Colorado Senate primary is, like Kentucky and Nevada, another test of the strength of the Tea Party movement in Republican primaries. DA Ken Buck is running with Tea Party support. His main opponent is Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, who is viewed as more of an establishment favorite.

August 17:Washington and Wyoming: In Washington, the GOP scored a recruiting coup when former state senator (and two time gubernatorial candidate) Dino Rossi agreed to run against three term incumbent Patty Murray, the “Mom in tennis shoes.” However, local Tea Partiers are not enthusiastic about his candidacy, and have rallied behind former Washington Redskins tight end Clint Didier. Didier also claims the endorsements of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, so in a sense, this race is also a test of the power of the Palin endorsement. Washington State, however, is a more hospitable environment for political moderates and/or moderate Republicans, so we believe that Rossi will survive the primary and become the Republican challenger to Senator Murray.

August 24: Alaska, Arizona, Florida, and Vermont: In Alaska, Sarah Palin (and Tea Partiers, for that matter)  is supporting the insurgent candidacy of attorney Joe Miller against eight year incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the GOP primary. There is a personal aspect to this endorsement: former Senator Frank Murkowski (the incumbent senator’s father) was elected Governor in 2002 and promptly appointed his daughter to the seat. This appointment proved to be bad politics for both father and daughter. While Lisa was barely elected to a full term in a year George W. Bush was carrying Alaska with over 60% of the vote, Governor Murkowski was politically humiliated in his 2006 re-election bid. Not only was he defeated in the Republican primary by Sarah Palin, but he came in third place.

The Palin endorsement also is playing itself out in Arizona as well, although this time, Sarah Palin is endorsing the incumbent. In the Republican Senate primary, four term incumbent John McCain has stiff opposition from sportscaster/former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, and Hayworth’s candidacy is an outlet for Arizona Republicans who’ve felt that over the years McCain is not conservative enough. There is a very simple reason for Palin endorsing the incumbent: simple gratitude for McCain’s making her his running mate in his unsuccessful 2008 Presidential candidacy. Also on the ballot is the gubernatorial primary, which was effectively settled on the Republican side when formerly embattled incumbent Jan Brewer decided to enforce federal immigration laws on her own and has since attained hero status with conservatives across the country and in Arizona.

For months, the Republican primary for an open Senate seat in Florida was a marquee event, especially after Governor Charlie Crist saw his poll numbers steadily decline after embracing President Obama during a 2009 visit to the state. When he decided to change parties and run as an Independent (thus bypassing any party primaries), former House Speaker Marco Rubio effectively became the Republican nominee. The race took another twist on the Democratic side, however, when presumptive nominee, Kendrick Meek (a black Congressman from Miami) got a primary challenge from controversial billionaire Jeff Greene. This has been a hard fought 3 way race for several months now, and will continue to be competitive after the primary.

August 28: Louisiana Congressional Party Primaries: This is the last year that Louisiana will hold party primaries for Congressional races (this practice started with the 2008 election cycle and has never been very popular with voters comfortable with Louisiana’s open primaries). There are several races worth following, however. Keep in mind that only Republicans can vote in Republican Congressional primaries, while Democrats and/or unaffiliated voters can vote in Democratic Congressional primaries:

Senate – While both David Vitter and Charlie Melancon face two opponents each in their respective party primaries, we are most interested in the percent of the vote in each parish that Senator Vitter’s challengers will receive, since that vote represents the potential defections Senator Vitter may face in November to any of the 10 independent candidates running. What makes the Republican primary race especially interesting is the last minute entry of former Supreme Court Justice Chet Traylor; his candidacy was borne out of disgust at Senator Vitter’s prior conduct with a prostitute, as well as assault charges facing one of his aides.

House – There are also several Congressional  primaries we are watching: (1) in New Orleans, can the Democrats unite behind a single challenger to vulnerable Republican freshman “Joseph” Cao, or will they be pushed into a runoff, thus giving Cao an additional month to campaign and raise money ?; (2) in New Iberia/Houma/Chalmette, three Republicans are seeking Democrat Charlie Melancon’s vacated House seat. Will the financial firepower of attorneys Jeff Landry and Hunt Downer put them in the runoff against each other, or can political newcomer Kristian Magar use his grassroots support to pull off an upset by making it into the runoff ?;(3) Three term incumbent Rodney Alexander is facing a primary opponent this year who is questioning his credibility as a conservative. Rep. Alexander similarly faced a more conservative primary challenger in 2008, and whipped him 90-10%. Will the challenger (Todd Slavant), with his Tea Party affiliations, make it a more competitive race in this anti incumbent year?

After the gauntlet of August primaries, all will be quiet on the political front until “Super Tuesday II” on September 14, when 7 states hold their primaries on that day. “Super Tuesday II” pretty much concludes primary season nationally, although Hawaii has a primary on September 18, and on October 2, Louisiana will have (if necessary) party runoffs for Congress, as well as “open primary” races for statewide (Lt Governor, PSC) and local (judge, school board, etc) races. And if no one in those local/statewide races receives a majority, they will have to compete in a runoff held on the same day as the midterm elections.

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.