You are required to vote again for some reason

Here is your AG guide in case that helps.

I can't say much about what's on the ballot today other than this. 

1) The Republican candidates are all going to win the remaining statewide offices. Murrill winning Attorney General is particularly troubling because that will green light a lot of the coming monkey business that Jeff Landry is about to throw at us. Republicans holding the Sec of State office would be a problem in the Presidential election if Louisiana were at all in play. It could still be an issue as struggles over voter registration and access in New Orleans become more of an issue.  It often doesn't matter who the Treasurer is. But John Fleming will figure out how to be a bad one. For example, if Landry wants to keep attacking the city via the bond commission, Fleming won't stand in his way. Anyway, there's nothing anyone can do about any of that at this point. Go vote against the bad guys. But they are going to win today.

2) There are some runoffs in legislative races still pending. Locally the new District 23 in Mid-City is on some of your ballots. Like a lot of things this cycle, the field attracted by that brand new open seat was disappointing. All of the candidates were either empty retreads from among the usual suspects or clueless novelties. The remaining two are one of each of those. Pick your poison. 

3) All four of the constitutional amendments are basically bad. At least if number 2 passes, it doesn't actively harm anything. But I'd vote against it anyway. There are also some of those private security districts up for renewal in a few neighborhoods. None of those should exist. 

In any case, the news is bad. It's all bad. But here we are. The 2020s have not been a fun time for anyone anywhere. In Louisiana, they're about to become more difficult. We'll start working on what to do about all that next year. 

But for now, just be careful out there. 

Starting to think none of these Republicans wants to be Governor

I guess the big tell was when Landry and Kennedy declined to run. There's still plenty time for them to change their minds, of course. But the way I read their current stance plus the lack of overall strategy happening here, is they must not actually think they can win.

Hey, Louisiana Republican Party, how’s that uniting-behind-a-single-gubernatorial-candidate thing going?

Not so well, apparently.

Party elders are openly pining for a single candidate, the better to avoid a divisive primary fight and unite votes against Democratic incumbent John Bel Edwards. But so far two candidates, U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham and businessman Eddie Rispone, have launched campaigns.

And now comes word that a third might join them. Former U.S. Rep. John Fleming, who left Congress following a failed bid for U.S. Senate and joined the Trump administration, says he’s considering a run, according to LAPolitics.com. Fleming, of Minden, has been working as a deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year President Donald Trump nominated him to be the Commerce Department’s assistant secretary for economic development, but he never got a confirmation vote. His name has now been resubmitted.

Here are some additional facts about John Fleming.



Fleming describes himself as a doctor. But most of his $6.3 million income (as of 2011, anyway) comes from the sandwich shop and parcel store franchises he owns.  In Congress, Fleming quickly associated himself with the 'Tea Party" movement and a virulent opponent of the Obamacare law which he described as "the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed in Congress.” He was also among the Louisiana Republicans who infamously voted against relief for Hurricane Sandy victims in 2012. While in Washington, Fleming also became momentarily famous for thinking an Onion story was real.

He ran for Senate in 2016 and fared poorly.  At one point in that campaign, Rob Maness accused "the thugs behind the John Fleming campaign" of trying to bribe him to drop out. This was probably true, although with Maness, one never knows.  

So anyway, good luck to John if he want to run.  Meanwhile one of the announced candidates is already dealing with a controversy of his own today.

Running for Congress in 2014 as a political outsider, Dr. Ralph Abraham made a pledge that resonated with voters in his conservative northeast Louisiana district: He would not collect his salary if he went to Washington.

“It Should Be An Honor And A Privilege To Serve Your Country And NOT A Paid Position,” Abraham said on his campaign website. “YOU Should Not Pay A Penny For Representation.” He said he would donate his salary to charity. Abraham won the race, but it turns out that voters in Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District are indeed paying for his representation, at a cost of $174,000 per year.

Okay well, Ralph made a stupid campaign promise that turned out to be impractical for a bunch of reasons.  That's embarrassing. But it's not the actual scandal here. This is. 

Roll Call, a Washington newspaper that covers Congress, estimated a year ago that Abraham had a net worth of $4.8 million, making him the 65th wealthiest member of Congress.

The actual number of millionaires who should be in Congress is zero.  Here we have a millionaire Congressman and a millionaire ex-Congressman who want to be Governor. But neither of those should even exist in the first place. What are we even doing here?

Kennedy's deplorable basket

Picked up Governor Landry earlier. And now here is the Sandwich Man.   Still waiting on David Duke to say something.

Rigging the Election Guide Part Two: The #lasen swamp

On Election Day 2016 there are over twenty candidates in the race to replace retiring U.S. Senator and noted disgrace to humanity David Vitter. Only two of them can qualify for the runoff, of course. And at this stage, everything we've seen in the polling indicates that one of them will be the dripping mound of animated smarm known as John Neely Kennedy. Kennedy is a despicable person. But he's got the highest job approval and name recognition among this field. And he's the only candidate who has successfully run for statewide office. As difficult as it is to stomach, he's always had the clearest path to the runoff among Republican candidates. So the game really is about who squeezes into that other slot.

Louisiana political convention tells us that spot should go to the strongest Democrat.  In fact, that is still the most likely outcome Tuesday. But it isn't a lock.  Early in the year Democratic poobahs were busy figuring out how to replicate their series of happy accidents winning strategy from the 2015 governor's race. 

Handwerk said the party’s current inclination is to attempt to mimic the gubernatorial race — to come up with a strong, possibly lesser-known candidate to rally behind early while Republicans battle each other for a spot in the runoff.

Yeah that didn't happen. This is the case because of a split among Democratic power brokers initiated by the increasingly exasperating candidacy of Caroline Fayard.

The Fabulous Fayards

Why is Fayard in the race? At first it seemed okay. For a while, a popular parlor game involved figuring a way to game the abnormally large field into a double Democrat runoff. This became an especially tantalizing  prospect after David Duke jumped in.  The now infamous Raycom poll even had Duke polling at 5 percent. If that's a reliable number (it probably isn't) it was thought the presence of Duke and other fringe candidates might have captured enough of the Republican vote in the Year of Trump to deny even Kennedy a runoff spot. But that was always a long shot and the math never really worked out.  Duke is still running as a spoiler. But he's probably there to spoil somebody besides Kennedy. More on that in a bit.

Early polling showed Fayard didn't have the numbers to compete. Her campaign was always light on substance anyway. To illustrate this, I refer you to political consultant Lamar White's endorsement of her in this September 2 blog post. The points on which Lamar makes his argument for her are these.

1) She is relatively young. 

If she is successful, at 38, she would be the youngest woman ever elected to the United States Senate. All told, 116 different people have been elected to the Senate in their thirties; not a single one of them was a woman.

2) She hold a prestigious degree.

Caroline is an Ivy League graduate; she finished at the front of her class at one of the top five law schools in the country.

3) She's worked with and for powerful people.

She’s worked at one of the most successful financial institutions in the world (and even at the White House). She’s taught law at Loyola in New Orleans, and as a lawyer, she’s worked on some of the biggest environmental damages cases in American history. Last year, she helped her brother launch a new airline company. A friggin airline company.

LOL "A friggin airline company," exclaims a breathless Lamar there.  Does Donald Trump have one of those?  Also the "successful financial institution" was Goldman Sachs.

4) Caroline represents "a new generation of leadership in Louisiana" whatever the hell that means.

At no point does Lamar say anything specific about what Senator Fayard's agenda is for a tenure in the US Senate. What constituencies does she represent?  Who will she fight against? Lamar doesn't say.  All that matters to him here is the personal profile. The post most reminded me of an old Gambit cover story by Jeremy Alford where then rising star Bobby Jindal was celebrated for his "Geek Appeal" rather than substantively analyzed for his policy agenda. As if to drive home the geek cred point, the post is accompanied by a podcast where Lamar interviews Fayard. See, she's cool. She'll come on this website and chat with us.

Lamar is a friend so I don't want to be too harsh here. I hope if he reads this he takes it as constructive criticism.  But in recent years, especially, he seems to base more of his political pronouncements on his personal knowledge of the individual candidates. Too many of his endorsements can be summarized as "I've met candidate so and so and they were very nice to me."  That's great. But it's not helpful to most readers. If anything, this personality based approach represents the opposite of "new generation" style politics.  It's just a repackaged version of good ol' boy networking. (Fayard is not an ol' boy, though, so I guess it's #woke.)

Anyway back to the race. Once it became apparent that she wasn't an early contender, it made more sense for Fayard to drop out, endorse Campbell, "unite the party" so to speak, and let the Democrats claim their default runoff spot. That didn't happen, though. It's a curious thing. Again, I'm not sure why Fayard stayed in the race. But I'm pretty clear on the effect of her being there. And her behavior in the meantime has ranged from plain embarrassing to downright suspicious.

And the Fayards are a suspicious lot to begin with. I've pointed you over to AZ for some background on this previously.  Calvin and Caroline Fayard have played dubious roles profiteering off of the BP settlement and Wisner trust disputes.  Caroline likes to call this "taking on BP" in her campaign ads. It's nothing of the sort, of course. Hilariously, she won't even endorse the state's attempt to sue the oil and gas industry over coastal erosion. But we've covered that already too.

Here is a more recent AZ post reminding us that Calvin Fayard was among the brigade of Uptown New Orleans aristocrats who, during the post-Katrina aftermath, barricaded themselves in their mansions behind their own guns and private security while taking verbal pot shots at the "demographics" of the city. This is from the Vanity Fair article Jason quotes.

Some of the city’s richest residents stepped into the breach, taking security into their own hands. In New Orleans’s upscale Uptown neighborhood, well-heeled and well-armed property owners, sometimes with security guards to assist them, kept possible looters at bay, carrying firearms openly in their neighborhoods and looking after neighbors’ homes and valuables—even keeping a close watch on friends’ irreplaceable art collections. Attorney Calvin Fayard—one of the region’s major political fund-raisers for the Democratic Party, and the owner of the so-called Wedding Cake House, one of the city’s grand mansions—would remain at home and on guard with a coterie of like-minded friends. Some would use their powerboats to rescue the marooned. Their neighbors would dine on gourmet food from nearby specialty stores. Some would bathe in their stagnant swimming pools. One or two would take the opportunity to fly by helicopter to the office to shred potentially sensitive business documents—to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, should law and order break down altogether.

You might remember some of the other members of this A-Team.  Here is Ashton O'Dwyer in 2005 being interviewed from his stronghold.

In rich white enclaves like Uptown, residents are wary of sounding racist. But with their deep business and family connections, they say they are determined to ensure the new city will be very different than the old one, which for so long has been associated with crime, poor schools and corruption.

"Whatever you do, don't put people back in the city who are criminals and who are incapable of, or unwilling to, help themselves," said Mr. O'Dwyer, a volatile, white 57-year-old lawyer.

"What was once unacceptable in polite, respectable society has not only become commonplace over the past 30 years of Negro rule in this city, but it has become acceptable and I am not going to stand for it any more," said the fifth-generation New Orleans resident. "If we return to the same old, same old . . . I'm outta here."

And this is Jimmy Reiss. 

The new city must be something very different, Mr. Reiss says, with better services and fewer poor people. "Those who want to see this city rebuilt want to see it done in a completely different way: demographically, geographically and politically," he says. "I'm not just speaking for myself here. The way we've been living is not going to happen again, or we're out."

So these are the Fayards.  This is the world they come from.  And here is how they've applied these values to their political activities.  Caroline was a contributor to former Louisiana Congressman Richard Baker. Baker famously declared after Katrina that God had "cleaned up public housing" in New Orleans. That's pretty well in keeping with the Fayard ethos as laid out above. But there's more.

Much has been made in the news (even today, in fact) of the Fayards' close associations with the Clintons. In 2008 Calvin Fayard was a big time fundraiser for Hillary associated with a group calling themselves "Hillraisers." You may recall that after Hillary lost the nomination to Barack Obama, some of these people had a difficult time reconciling themselves to that fact. Fayard was among them.  Here he is at a McCain/Palin fundraiser aimed at courting disappointed Democrats. Fayard and his "liberal Democrat" friends were especially awed by Sarah Palin.

John Coale, an attorney in Washington, D.C. who is married to Greta Van Susteren, has worked with John McCain on tobacco legislation, and includes Nancy Pelosi among his friends, estimates he single-handedly brought in "50 percent" of the people who attended the fundraiser. He, too, was upset at how "Obama and Howard Dean and the crew" handled the situation as Clinton faced misogyny. He also questioned Obama's fitness for the job: "I've met with Obama three times… I think he was full of platitudes then and he's still full of platitudes now."

"I'm a liberal Democrat," Cole continued. "Sarah Palin just reinforced the reason I'm for McCain. I think she probably has more experience [than Obama], but I think it's appalling the way she has been treated," referring again to perceived sexism.

Calvin Fayard, another lawyer in New Orleans, said he "came away a lot more comfortable" with Palin after meeting her. "She struck me as being very energetic, very knowledgeable, and at least in touch with the rest of the world."

Oy! Here is an NYT account of the same event. 

More than 1,000 people paid $1,000 each for tickets to the main fund-raiser. Nearly 250 people who contributed $25,000 got dinner beforehand with Mr. McCain. 

The reception for former Clinton supporters, which also was attended by Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, was spearheaded by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications entrepreneur and “Hillraiser” who brought in more than $100,000 for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign; Calvin Fayard, also a former Hillraiser and longtime Democratic donor from Louisiana, and Miguel Lausell, a former senior political adviser to the Clinton campaign from Puerto Rico.

The Hillraisers and the PUMA movement they spawned went on from their infatuation with Palin to other such luminous achievements as spreading (possibly initiating, actually) the disgusting racist "Birther" movement against Obama which, in turn, became a primary vehicle by which Donald Trump entered our national political discourse.  So it turns out we have Calvin Fayard, who is now spending his own money and calling in political favors from within the Landrieu-Carville orbit to push his daughter's Senate candidacy, to thank for a lot of things.  Just keep all of that in mind as we look at how Caroline has conducted her campaign, particularly where it concerns her David Duke fixation.

Usually we talk about David Duke's maneuverings with special attention to his grifting.  Sure, he's a deplorable white supremacist. But the actual reason he even shows up above ground is because he has a nose for money.  The most likely reason Duke is in the Senate race is because one way or another someone is paying him to be there. Recall that when his name first came up as a possible candidate this year, Duke was rumored to be entering as a challenger to US Rep Steve Scalise. At the time we speculated that perhaps some Democrat leaning jokers were attempting to highlight Scalise's controversial association with Duke by placing the two of them together on a ballot much the same way they once tried to run a porn star against David Vitter. At the last minute, though, Duke suddenly found himself running for Senate.  What happened there?  Did he find a more generous patron? 

On the other hand, Duke's motivation for running could be as simple as Duke thinking he could pull in a few extra donations or online followers by attaching his brand to Donald Trump. That's reasonable. Not doubt he has benefited from doing just that.

Similarly, Caroline Fayard has benefited from attaching her brand to David Duke.  Remember, Duke has never polled any better than 3 to 5 percent. But Fayard, has treated him as though he were her principal opponent. From the moment Duke entered the race, Fayard leaped at the opportunity to make the fringe candidate who deserves nobody's attention the center of her campaign. She was the most aggressive at throwing herself into the national media circus Duke inevitably generates.  Here she is on the Maddow show back in August soliciting donations.   All of the candidates tried some version of this, of course. But Fayard has themed the bulk of her advertising and fundraising appeals with the Duke bogeyman.  

The Fayard campaign's most reprehensible use of Duke was a disgusting attack on Foster Campbell that distorted his words and one photograph into an easily disproven lie that Campbell is in some way allied with Duke. Once the lie was exposed, Fayard was roundly shamed for it in the press. Here, for example, is Stephanie Grace giving her the whatfor.  The Alliance For Good Government even withdrew its endorsement of her.  A lot of the people her campaign had drawn into its corner began to feel like they had been used.

But then Fayard doubled down. Refusing to back off from the absurd assertions of her ads, she continued running them. Even more shockingly, she stood by them in person during the second debate at Dillard. Had Duke himself not been on the same stage ranting about Jews, Fayard's bald faced lie would have been the evening's low point by far.

There are people who insist, though, that Fayard's internal polling shows her morally indefensible strategy is working.  Even if they're correct (and we'll know soon enough) that won't necessarily put her in the runoff.  It will keep Campbell out, though.  I hope they're real proud of that "win" if they get it.

Given her, lack of experience in government, her poor positioning in the polls and her campaign's lack of substance, we've often asked why the heck Fayard is even in this race. Her behavior over the final weeks of the election suggest her sole purpose may be to deny Campbell a slot in the runoff.  I don't know enough to say why that is happening.  But I've tried to make it clear that the Fayards aren't exactly trustworthy.  And if it turns out they have friends of friends in common with friends of friends of another candidate well... a lot of these people have friends is all I'm saying. The Fayards are friends and neighbors with wealthy plutocrats who wanted New Orleans ethnically cleansed after Katrina.  That Caroline wants us to think of her now as the anti-Duke is a staggering insult.

Buying in/Buying out

David Duke doesn't have any friends, of course.  But, as we said, he does like money. Cue Clancy. 

Clancy DuBos, a political commentator who has covered Mr. Duke for decades, dismissed the media attention as “cheap headlines and click bait.”

“He’s not in this to win the Senate, he’s in this to make money,” he said.

I continue in my disappointment that no one else has asked about his angle in those terms. It's a natural thread to pull on given what we know about Duke.  He is and always has been a hustler. But he's only one of twenty something candidates here which makes him a hustler among hustlers. So while we're asking why Duke might have been bought out of a congressional race and into the Senate race, we should ask about some of these other transactions as well.

Duke isn't the only Republican angling for the hard core Trumpista vote.  And this has to be frustrating as hell for sandwich magnate John Fleming. Back when he announced his candidacy, on December 7, 2015 (a day that will live in infamy) Fleming had to figure he would be the most extreme right wing nut in the game. Fleming has devoted his tenure in Congress to making a name for himself as a petulant Tea Party insurgent. He has frothed frequently against Obama's health insurance reforms. His hard stance against reproductive rights is so out of touch with reality that he shared an Onion article about an "Abortionplex" thinking it was actual news. Most embarrassing to him and to the entire flood prone state of Louisiana was his vote against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy.

And still Fleming can't corner the market on reactionary assholery.  Not with Duke hanging around. And not with Rob Maness flanking him among Trump supporters as well. Maness is more flamboyantly pro-gun and pro-life than Fleming but adds just a bit of the populist skepticism of Republican establishment policies with regard to war and Wall Street that puts him slightly more in tune with Trump's schizophrenic messaging than Fleming is.

The Fleming campaign actually attempted to buy Maness out of the race last month. Not unusual, that. What was unusual was Maness' choice not to take the money and instead run to the papers with the story. What is he getting that is better than whatever Fleming offered?  It's hard to say.  We did notice that he's had a few TV ads running paid for by something called "Warrior PAC."

Warrior PAC, which is being run out of California, is backing retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness. It has raised $10,000 from Bo Reily of the William B. Reily Company in New Orleans and has roughly that same amount in the bank. PAC director Robert San Luis said via email that Reily has also paid for polling. 

You may know the William B. Reily Company as Reily Foods, a century old New Orleans based grocery distributor. It owns several well-known brands most notably Luzianne tea, CDM coffee, and Blue Plate mayonnaise... which is amusing to those of us who have been in the habit of pronouncing Maness's name the way New Orleanians sometimes say, "Mah-nezz."  It's also funny to think that Maness didn't sell out to the Sandwich Man because he already had too much Mayonnaise money.

But here's the other thing about the Reilys.  They're not just a prominent New Orleans family. They are a Prominent New Orleans Business Family. To get a sense of this, please take a minute to peruse this January obituary of Boatner Reily III The CV portion of it really gains momentum toward the end. 

Reily also served on the New Orleans Aviation Board.

He attended Metairie Park Country Day School, Woodberry Forest School in Virginia, Yale University and Tulane, from which he graduated in 1950. He was a captain in the Rex organization for 10 years and reigned as Rex in 1982.

An avid runner, he started the Rex organization’s “royal run” around Audubon Park on Mardi Gras morning. In that inaugural run, he wore running shoes painted gold and decorated with colorful ribbons.

Reily was a major contributor to Tulane. The Reily Family Foundation contributed to the Tulane Hospital and Clinic for the construction of the Reily Foundation Pavilion, which opened in 1991, and was a major contributor to the Reily Student Recreation Center.

Cowen said he met Reily when Cowen was interviewing for the president’s job at Tulane.

“He asked incredibly perceptive questions and was extraordinarily kind in the delivery of those questions and listened with great intent,” he said.

Cowen said he often met with Reily in the first years of his tenure leading Tulane. “He provided great insight to New Orleans, its culture and the university,” he said.

He called Reily, the Reily family and its foundation “one of the pillars of Tulane University for generations. They’ve been incredibly generous philanthropically and with their time.”

Rex captain, GNOF founder, Tulane benefactor, personal friend of Scott fucking Cowen. That's all very pleasant.  One more thing about that, though.  While it's certainly believable that these blue bloods and their scions would be enthusiastic Tea Partiers, they prefer to identify as patricians.  The Reilys just don't have all that much in common with the typical Maness voter. In fact, they're actually a lot more like.. the Fayards. But we'll come back to that.

First let's note that one candidate actually was successfully bought out of the race.  His name is Abhay Patel. He dropped out on October 20. See, during the course of the campaign, Patel happened to make a friend.

But during campaign appearances, Patel had an opportunity to visit with (US Rep. Charles) Boustany. He found that he and the Lafayette Republican shared many of same pastimes – they both are avid readers who enjoy talking history – and both see the world through a similar political prism.

"Though we are not in the position we hoped to be in, I am committed to working tirelessly to ensure that we elect a conservative Republican to the United States Senate," Patel said of his endorsement of Boustany.

“I found him a very bright, very articulate young man,” Boustany said in an interview, recalling their first encounter at a Jefferson Parish GOP function.

“Abhay Patel’s passion and knowledge for conservative values, small government, and the Constitution have impressed me over that last several months. His campaign has been focused on ideas and substance rather than platitudes and lip service," Boustany said.

Patel, a lawyer, said he and Boustany talked about creating a committee that could advise Boustany on who to recommend for federal judges and prosecutors in Louisiana; what kind of positions a conservative lawyer would take.

How sweet. They got along famously. I hope Boustany kept the receipt.

Boustany in the Bayou

Oh yeah. Hey, by the way, Charles Boustany is also a candidate here. Did you forget?  He's not out of the running by any stretch. In addition to Patel's backing, he also enjoys the endorsement of the Times-Picayune as well as the always influential Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand. Stephanie Grace even gave him something of a compliment during the final debate when she described him as the "policy wonk in the mix."  Of course, if the policy you are wonking about involves protecting his friends' right to exploit virtual slave labor, or voting 60 times to repeal Obamacare, it's difficult to see that as a positive.

Boustany has two paths to the runoff. One of those would be going through Kennedy.  And he has tried this. His direct attack on Kennedy, this ad featuring an adorable pug and Kennedy's all around sliminess, was the best produced by any campaign. But, as we said at the outset of this post, Kennedy's slot is pretty well entrenched. If Boustany can't edge him out of the runoff, then Plan B is edge out everyone else. How would someone like Charles Boustany go about accomplishing that?

Well, first of all, let's remember that the seemingly mild mannered bespectacled Boustany is actually something of a heavy.  This is where Ethan Brown's Murder In the Bayou is instructive. I say this, not so much because of the book's allegation that Boustany may have been a client of some of the murdered prostitutes in Jennings. I can't really speak to the veracity of that. Having read the book, though, I'd say his connection to the Boudreaux Inn and its operators is more than just circumstantial.

We don't have time to get too far into it here but I do recommend the book. It's disappointing to see the political press brush this off. Their oft-repeated mantra that Brown's chapter on Boustany is "unsourced" is flat out untrue. Brown cites testimony by witnesses interviewed by the task force investigating the murders, ex-employees of the motel, a high profile drug dealer he interviews, as well as, yes, some anonymous sources.  But even anonymous sources are.. you know.. sources.  Unfortunately the media herd tends to steer clear of stuff like this while they're in campaign mode. Maybe they'll come back to it at some point.

What Brown clearly shows, in any case, is that Boustany field rep, Martin Guillory, was running the motel during the peak of its infamy and that he was familiar with the victims and several of the suspects. It's also obvious that Guillory was more than just a bit player in Boustany's world. And that's really the point here.
Boustany's power base in Southwest Louisiana is tied up with a decades-old system dominated by corrupt and brutal Sheriffs along the I-10 drug route. Brown's book focuses on Jeff Davis Parish but the problem is more widespread. Not only is it conceivable that the Congressman's political operation would connect to these criminals somewhere along the line, it's actually more difficult to imagine that it wouldn't.

Boustany is tough and shrewd. He's also backed by people who are themselves tough and shrewd. Newell Normand is one example. Sheriffs like this guy, I guess. He's also the only candidate who we're pretty sure has successfully manipulated the field. It's interesting that Patel can be bought out by Boustany but Maness can't be bought out by Fleming. Duke, perhaps the most corrupt person in the race, apparently can't be bought out by anybody.  Meanwhile the Fayards who just happen to be in the same category of plutocrat as the Maness-backing Reilys are stubbornly running interference against Foster Campbell.

It would be a stretch to tie all of that together into one conspiracy.  That's not really what I'm trying to say. It's just that sometimes the maneuverings of different but similarly interested parties accidentally work toward the same purpose. In this case, it is pretty neat the way all of that lines up in a way that could clear Fleming and Campbell out of Boustany's way, isn't it?  He might not make it, but Boustany certainly is an interesting character. Watch out for that guy.

Tuesday Night Debateball

(Some of) Your 2016 Louisiana U.S. Senate Candidates take the field tonight in Ruston. The debate is carried by LPB and you can (probably) stream it here. I suppose this means we should note a few recent developments in the race this week to get ourselves hyped up.

First of all, there is this JMC poll out. More than anything else, it appears to show a little Campbellmentum.



There are people (real people... seriously reputable people.. not just me) out there who have been speculating for months about the possibility of sneaking two Democrats into the runoff somehow. Theoretically, this still might might be ever so slightly mathematically possible if we assume enough of that 16% undecided vote are Democrats.  It's hard to know just what the electorate will look like in this crazy year. But we do have this tantalizing take on the scenario via this week's Gambit cover story.

That outcome would be a nightmare for the GOP, and the chances of that nightmare becoming a reality increase as front-running Republicans play it safe on the issues in order to protect their respective bases around the state. For example, all are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-oil, anti-Obama, anti-Hillary Clinton, anti-union and, of course, pro-Trump — though some may be less enthusiastic in their support of the GOP presidential nominee after his latest pronouncements.

  The same could be said of the leading Democrats, except there are only two of them to divide the 40-42 percent of the electorate that reliably votes "D" in national elections. On the Republican side, at least four major candidates — plus at least two more with 5-8 percent of the vote on average — will be competing for the other 58-60 percent of the vote. Add to that another 5 to 8 percent gobbled up by the 15 or more also-rans and it's easy to see how "jungle" is an apt political metaphor in Louisiana this year.

One thing else to consider here is this particular national election could skew the electorate slightly more Dem than usual given waning enthusiasm for Trump among "moderate" (I know, I know, just go with it) Republicans combined with the much stronger and more professional "ground game" operation on behalf of Hillary and the general understanding... even among Trumpistas... that the election is pretty much over at this point.   Given all of that, it is conceivable that the Democrats get a significant edge in turnout. Consider also that the Republicans who do turn out are likely to be  Trump true believers who split more of their vote somewhere along the Duke-Flemming-Maness end of the field and you can still sort of see that Double D runoff happening.

Of course it's a long shot.  For what it's worth, JMC's own analysts  don't think it's worth mentioning in their narrative.  According to them, the demographic trends don't look favorable for Fayard.

Four candidates now have a viable path to the December runoff. Democrat Foster Campbell essentially has clinched one of the runoff spots, while Republicans John Fleming, John Kennedy, and Charles Boustany are competing for the second runoff spot.

Foster Campbell is essentially a lock for the runoff because his lead among black voters has expanded from 33-24% to 48-18% over Fayard; if undecided “leaners” are included, his lead among this demographic expands to 52-18%

Meanwhile, as for the Republican front-runners, there's a bit of news about them this week as well.  Hillariously, NOLA.com/The Times-Picayune endorsed Boustany. Their editorial board writes that Boustany  is "poised to play a significant role in reforming the Affordable Care Act."  Actually he wants to repeal it and has boasted of the 60 times he voted to do just that. They also praise his work to "stop China from unfairly subsidizing shrimp to undercut U.S. producers."  But they don't mention his work to help his friends in the Louisiana seafood processing industry to "compete" with imports via the use of virtual slave labor.  But oh well.  Of course, we all remember last year when the T-P endorsed David Vitter for Governor. Maybe they just like candidates who prefer a certain kind of lifestyle.

Speaking of David Vitter, today's Stephanie Grace column is about the similarities in style and strategy between last year's failed Vitter campaign and this year's John Kennedy operation. 

But with Kennedy facing tough competition from fellow Republicans Charles Boustany and John Fleming for a spot in the December runoff, he's clearly hoping the plan that helped Vitter ward off GOP rivals Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle will work for him as well.

The strategy that Vitter's affiliated Super PAC used, its executive director Joel DiGrado explained at a post-gubernatorial election discussion at LSU’s Manship School of Mass Communication, was to make sure that neither of the other Republicans emerged as the single alternative in voters' minds. So when one seemed to be rising in the polls, the group would target that person for attack.

“Every week, we had to reassess who we’re beating up,” said DiGrado, who likened the exercise to playing “whack-a-mole on a balance beam.”

Kennedy also has an affiliated Super PAC, called ESAFund, It's ostensibly independent even though most of its money came from Kennedy's state campaign fund, and it just so happens to be run by Vitter's former campaign manager, Kyle Ruckert. And it too is running harsh attacks against fellow Republicans, with an obvious eye toward keeping either of Kennedy's main GOP rivals from edging him out or joining him in an all-GOP runoff, when he'd clearly prefer to face a Democrat.

This, of course, is the part of the plan that worked for Vitter. His Super PAC's brutal attacks against Dardenne and Angelle may have kept either from catching up to him at the polls.

But being a big aggressive asshole to Dardenne and Angelle came back to haunt Vitter in the runoff when both of those guys were all too eager to hit back at him. Even at the height of his power, it was pretty much a given that Everybody Hated David Vitter. But they were also afraid of him. That worked for a long time. Until it didn't.  Everybody may hate John Kennedy too before this is over but I don't think anybody is all that scared of him.

Anyway, happy debating, kids.

Update: Sorry. I missed this little intrigue today between fringe Trumpista Rob Maness and The Man Who Would Be King Of All Fringe Trumpistas John Flemming. 

Louisiana Senate candidate Rob Maness said Tuesday he was asked to drop out of the race and throw his support to GOP opponent John Fleming in return for significant funding in a future race.

Maness told The Advocate that he met Paul Dickson over coffee at Abita Roasting Company in Madisonville on Monday afternoon. There, Dickson, who identified himself as the person “running the John Fleming PAC” and a decision maker with the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority, offered support to Maness’ future political endeavors, he said.

“He told me that he would provide opportunities for my future, if I left the race for Senate and endorsed John Fleming. But, if I didn't do it before (Tuesday night’s statewide televised) debate, I'd be finished as a politician,” Maness said. “Although I'm not naive, the unethical threats and power play by the thugs behind the John Fleming campaign against me was shocking even by Louisiana standards.”

It's certainly a believable story. But then again, Maness is kind of a nut so who knows? Also, isn't there usually a private investigator filming surreptitiously whenever these little coffee shop meetings happen?  Maybe a tape will turn up.

Mysteries of the #LASEN cosmos

There are more candidates running for Senate in Louisiana this year than most voters would probably care to contemplate.  Astronomers estimate the actual number may be too high to bother trying to count. The interesting thing about that, though, is that when we break out the higher mathematics necessary to describe such an election, we approach a universe where every candidate cancels some other candidate out.

“The Fleming-Maness mini-primary won’t matter unless one of them breaks away,” veteran campaign strategist Roy Fletcher said about the two major GOP contenders for the party’s super-conservative wing, U.S. Rep. John Fleming, of Minden, and retired Air Force colonel Rob Maness, of Madisonville.

That goes a long way in explaining the past week’s narrative when Fleming’s campaign touted a poll showing him up to 14 percent, nipping on the heels of the establishment Republican candidates – U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany, of Lafayette, and State Treasurer John N. Kennedy, of Madisonville.

It’s a gambit that seemed to pay dividends when Fleming was included but Maness, who polled 4 percent, was left off the stage in the CABL/LPB debate that will be televised statewide on Oct. 18.

Maness might cancel out Fleming. David Duke might cancel out Maness. The two Democrats might cancel each other out. The front runners.. are there front runners? Is it possible that nobody comes out of this black hole alive?   Actually, we're saving that for a different post.  Today we learned more about what some of the lesser candidates are doing to try and defy gravity.

Troy Hebert is one such lesser candidate.  His strategy appears to involve pretending to sue people.

U.S. Senate candidate Troy Hebert, no party, said he filed a lawsuit today in state court to block one of the televised Senate debates because he said the criteria to participate was "unconstitutional.

Hebert, former commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, sent members of the media a news release and a copy of an unofficial petition seeking a preliminary injunction. But as of early afternoon, the suit had not yet been filed, according the the clerk's office for the 19th Judicial District. 

Hebert called a press conference to talk about his not yet lawsuit which he used as a platform to talk about how badly "the system is rigged" against "the 'lil man'" which is probably true although Hebert's own standing as the "'lil man" is dubious.  Even so, despite this being an obvious stunt, he does raise an interesting point.

Last week, the good government nonprofit Council for a Better Louisiana announced it had set its criteria for its Oct. 18 Senate debate which will air across the state on Louisiana Public Broadcasting stations. Candidates had to have raised at least $1 million and polled at at last 5 percent in an independent poll.

In a way, Hebert is suing (if he actually files a lawsuit) to protest the notion of a "money primary" where candidates are determined to be viable based on the clout of their donor list.  If he were at all sincere, it might be a laudable windmill to tilt at.  Although, the Supreme Court has already ruled that money is speech so it's hard to figure he's got precedent on his side there.

What's really interesting about this is that it isn't even the only lawsuit announced by a Senate candidate today. 

Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette, has sued the author of a book that contained allegations he was involved with prostitutes in Jefferson Davis Parish who were later murdered, according to his attorney, Jimmy Faircloth.

Boustany, a U.S. Senate candidate, filed the defamation suit against Ethan Brown and the New York publishing company Simon & Schuster Monday (Oct. 3) in state court in Lafayette. Brown's book, "Murder on the Bayou," cited several anonymous sources who said they had knowledge that Boustany was a client of three sex workers in Jennings. Boustany has vehemently denied the accusations and blasted his chief competitor in the Louisiana Senate race, state Treasurer John Kennedy for peddling the story to the media.

Boustany must think he is Hulk Hogan or something. Pretty sure S&S has the resources to withstand the nasty SLAP lawsuit. It probably won't get very far anyway. But that's hardly the point. Boustany, like Hebert, is just posturing.

You have to feel bad for Hebert, though. The cosmic mysteries being what they are and all, it's pretty amazing that a U.S. Senate candidate can't even announce a lawsuit on a given day without it being overshadowed by a different candidate's lawsuit. What are the odds, right? Astronomical, I'm sure. But that's another consequence of having so many people in the race. In the same way the vastness of the universe increases the probability that life exists on other planets, the size of the field increases the chances of something like this happening. Still, in either case, the evidence of intelligent life anywhere is yet to be discovered.

Will the pie explode again?

President Obama is slated to arrive in Baton Rouge this afternoon to survey flood damage and talk about recovery efforts.  We're still in the process of gathering data right now, but certainly there's going to be plenty of work to do.

While the final numbers won't be known for some time, Gov. John Bel Edwards' office has estimated 60,646 houses were damaged and 30,000 people rescued; other people escaped on their own. FEMA says 109,398 people or households have applied for housing help, and 25,000 National Flood Insurance Program claims have been filed. The American Red Cross called it the worst natural disaster since Hurricane Sandy struck New Jersey in 2012.

Now a new analysis offers another set of numbers. Ezra Boyd of Mandeville, who holds a Ph.D. in geography from LSU and runs the website DisasterMap.net, said Monday (Aug. 22) that as many as 188,729 occupied houses and 507,495 people -- 11 percent of the state's population -- were "affected" by the flood.

Last week, the Advocate reported the estimated cost of the damage at $20 billion. The same analysis suggests that "far fewer" than 50 percent of the homes affected by the flood were insured. Here's why that's a problem.

The federal disaster declaration triggers assistance for those whose homes and businesses have been damaged or displaced. Those who don't have flood insurance can still qualify for grants up to $33,000 for repairs. Temporary housing assistance will also become available

That's not going to cover rebuilding (and mandatory elevation) expenses in, dare we say, most cases. Unless more money is found (and we mean a lot more money) a regional economic recovery isn't likely to happen at all.. much less take only one year as this LSU economist seems to say. 

It could take a full year for southeast Louisiana to recover from horrific flood damage sustained during last week's historic rain event, according to one of the state's most trusted economists.

“You can count certain things (right now), such as the number of homes that were flooded, business that were flooded, public facilities such as schools that may have been flooded … then you start asking, ‘what are the real issues that are going to be coming over the next year?’” said economist and professor Jim Richardson to LSU University Relations.

Richardson, also a member of the state's Revenue Estimating Conference, said recovery expenses could generate a boost to local economies in the first year.

He predicted businesses would bounce back the quickest.

“Businesses, for the most part, will get back up and running quickly," he said. "Perhaps not some small businesses in areas badly hit like Denham Springs … but national chains will have resources and additional dollar amounts to get (going again).”

That seems pretty optimistic considering everything we've learned over the past decade in New Orleans. (Are we really even "recovered" now?  That's a different post.)  Furthermore, Richardson appears to be describing a consumer driven "recovery" where flood victims have access to the funds and credit necessary to do the consuming. Will they, though? There are problems. First among these problems is, Louisiana's congressional delegation sucks.

Louisiana's delegation could find itself seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for unmet needs just a few years after several of its members spurned such requests in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. And the delegation, which has few senior members, will be calling for cash from a tight-fisted Republican Congress during an exceptionally heated election season that will end with at least two and possibly three of its members leaving Capitol Hill.

The second thing is, Congress itself also sucks.

In major disasters, the assistance offered under the Stafford Act, which provides funds to both individuals and local government agencies to cover some of their costs, is often only one part of the equation. As of Friday afternoon, FEMA had already approved more than $7 million in individual assistance, which includes money for housing and other needs.

The rest is provided through supplemental funding from Congress, which dedicates money through programs like Community Development Block Grants to meet additional needs.

That extra money is going to be needed to cover costs that aren't met by insurance and to provide for other needs, such as providing vouchers to contractors who can gut houses.

But its availability is dependent on the willingness of lawmakers to go along with the plan, something that's hardly a sure thing.

For just one example of the gridlock in Congress, take the ongoing fight over funding to combat the spread of the Zika virus. In February, the White House requested $1.9 billion to battle the mosquito-born virus, which is present in Florida and could threaten other states, but fights over provisions tacked onto the bill have left it in limbo.

Thirdly... did we mention that our delegation sucks? Because they suck in specific ways that might cause others to have no sympathy with their appeals for help given their own behavior. 

Call it logrolling or one hand washing the other, a generally recognized fact in Washington is that if you want something for your district, it pays to agree to the same thing for another guy’s district.

That point may have been lost on three Louisiana congressmen when they voted against a $50.5-billion relief package for the victims of Superstorm Sandy. The 2012 storm ravaged coastal communities in New Jersey and New York. Now they’re in the position of needing the same sort of aid for their own state. How will that play out?

The three lawmakers, all Republicans, are Rep. Steve Scalise (currently the House majority whip); Bill Cassidy, who moved up to the Senate last year; and John Fleming. They’re all likely exemplars of another Washington truism: fiscal responsibility is great, until it’s your own district that’s getting fiscally hammered.

Despite so much cheery crap you may have read over the years about how the New Orleans economy "bucked the trend" during the recession because it had "resilience" and because hipster entrepreneurs showed up to make apps and open juice bars, the actual recovery.. such as it was.. depended on billions of dollars worth of federal spending. This meant FEMA reimbursement, new flood control projects, and hundreds of millions of dollars in community block grants.   

In the aftermath of Katrina, the federal government gave New Orleans a $411 million pot of CDBG disaster money. Designed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as “flexible grants to help cities, counties, and states recover from Presidentially declared disasters, especially in low-income areas,” such money comes with relatively few restrictions beyond guidelines that projects must “principally” benefit areas or groups wherein a majority of people live in households with low-to-moderate incomes. In New Orleans, with a median income of $37,079, that means funded projects must principally benefit households with an annual income between $18,500 and $42,000.

When Ray Nagin told us about "this economic pie that's getting ready to explode" in New Orleans, he knew the federal stimulus was coming.  We can have a separate discussion about whether the CDBG money really did "principally benefit" people with low-to-moderate incomes. (It didn't. But, again, that's another post.)  But we can say that it did stimulate the economic activity we typically associate with Post-K "recovery."  If the political will isn't there to, pardon the image, make it rain again, none of that other stuff is going to happen this time.

Here is a letter Governor Edwards submitted to the President today. In it he asks for, among other things, these items:

A reduction in the state's cost share for damages from 25% to 10%

$125 million for the Army Corps of Engineers in order to complete the Comite River diversion

Expedited emergency relief highway funding

A waiver of the state's $100 million annual obligation to pay for federal hurricane protection systems. (A big deal of granted)

And, finally, an as-yet unspecified amount in CDBG-DR funds.  This one is the real key and the one that will have the hardest time fighting its way through Congress. But if we want to make the pie explode again, that's how it will happen.

The angry Senators

One thing every candidate running for Senate in Louisiana seems to agree on is voters are angry.

It’s the third Independence Day in a row that will mark the unofficial kickoff to major campaigns for elective office in Louisiana. This time around, the candidates are noting an angrier tenor among voters — harsher questions, fewer smiles. Maybe it’s vitriol from the presidential race, or fear from a series of terrorist attacks, or an economy that has rebounded only in parts of the country.

“It is all tied together,” Fleming said, pointing out Brexit, in which indignant British voters chose to exit the European Union. The vote upended political leadership in the United Kingdom and threw international financial markets into chaos. The Brits, like many Americans, are unhappy with their government leaders and are taking their frustrations to the ballot box.

“The American people feel like Washington is completely disconnected from them, just the same way the people of Great Britain feel disconnected,” Fleming said. “That’s the same feeling we’re seeing here in Louisiana.”

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. All I can think of is we have a really slow recovery” from the recession, Kennedy said.

Maybe this is a leap on my part but one imagines this is similar to what Senate and congressional candidates are experiencing "on the ground" in races across the country this year. It makes for an interesting contrast with the Presidential election where the only viable candidate certainly inevitable winner is an avatar for every status quo element voters on both the right and left are so angry about.

What an interesting contrast the new President and Congress will likely have in their perceived mandates come next year.

Kiddie table

Seems like the conflict here is between accommodating candidates (and thus voters and, basically, you know, democracy) vs accommodating the logistical preferences of the luncheon clubs who put on these forums and press pools who cover them.   You'd think the preference should be to err on the side of the former but, well, not so much.

Is Louisiana’s U.S. Senate race, like this year’s Republican presidential primary season, going to feature a kids’ table?

Maybe, based on how a recent candidate forum before a group of business associations went down.

No fewer than 11 candidates have indicated they plan to seek retiring U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s seat this fall, but the National Federation of Independent Business, the Louisiana Restaurant Association and the Louisiana Retail Association invited just four to participate in a lunchtime forum this week. One of the candidates, Democratic Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, had a conflict, so only three Republicans, state Treasurer John Kennedy and U.S. Reps. Charles Boustany and John Fleming, got to make their pitches.

On the other hand, this really kind of a tempest in a teapot built around one mid-day business forum in late June. We only know about it at all because Caroline Fayard wasn't invited and decided to make an issue of it. No doubt, there will be plenty opportunities to see your favorite candidates in various combinations during the coming months.  I do hope they manage to get the whole ensemble together for a few of those. 

Mitch is not gonna run for Senate

Mitch Landrieu has all sorts of options for life as a former mayor.  He can become President Hillary Clinton's first ever National Resilience Czar or some such.  He can go to work for any number of consulting groups or think-tanks promoting neo-liberal urban policies all over the country.  He can take up permanent residence on the cot backstage at Aspen. Closer to home, he sit on one of the tourism promotion boards or, knowing him, create a new one all his own to chair.

Any of these options should prove at least as lucrative and certainly a heck of a lot easier than becoming a US Senator. He says he doesn't want to do it. But that won't stop pollsters from throwing his name in with every survey between now and the final day of qualifying.

Although Mitch Landrieu told LaPolitics last week he’s not interesting in running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by David Vitter, a new statewide poll shows the Democratic New Orleans mayor ahead of four Republican candidates who have either announced a run or are expected to.

The survey, conducted by Gulf Breeze, Florida-based Market Research Insight on Dec. 2-4 with 600 likely voters, shows Landrieu leading the pack with 30% of support. Trailing him are Republicans Scott Angelle at 24%, Charles Boustany and John Kennedy at 15% each, and John Fleming at 5%. The other 11% of respondents say they’re undecided.

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

December 7, 2015

Republican U.S. Rep. John Fleming, of Minden, announced Monday his intentions to run for the U.S. Senate in a three-minute video.

“The true test of a reformer is not their rhetoric when they’re running for office but what happens after they get elected and enter the lion’s den,” Fleming said in the video. “We have too many in Washington who are all too willing to go along with the status quo and not make any waves.”

John Fleming: A man with the courage to wave at lions. 

Well now we're gonna need a new Senator

You may think it's as simple as going down to the pound and adopting another one but, no, there's all sorts of stuff to put up with.  For example, we now have to put up with a full year of Charles Boustany saying things.

BATON ROUGE — U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany is making it clear he intends to run for the U.S. Senate next year, after Republican David Vitter announced he won't seek re-election.

Boustany released a statement Monday (Nov. 23) saying Louisiana deserves a senator "who can lead in times of challenge, offer conservative, workable solutions to complex problems and bring unity in times of division."

Boustany has to be relieved that he doesn't have to run against David Vitter after spending the gubernatorial campaign working to get him elected. Same goes for John Kennedy and John Fleming.  Those guys might be vulnerable to attacks from Scott Angelle (who is also likely to run) should he decide to tie his opponents to their unpopular friend Vitter. Everyone knows how Angelle feels about Vitter now. 

That's assuming Vitter will even be relevant anymore next year which he may not be. Meanwhile, expect more rumors that Russel Honore might run right up until he decides not to. The same can be said for Mitch Landrieu although, he will probably decide three different ways before not qualifying.  John Georges is probably already polling his own name just in case.  And, as always, there's this.

Did somebody say "Open Senate seat?"

— Biscuit ForLA (@Biscuit4LA) November 22, 2015

Anyway, it's almost time to start politickin' again.  Better gas up the party bus.

Lamar White: "Everything Wrong With Louisiana Republicans"

Today's essential read delivers exactly what the title promises.

Handicappin'

Bob Mann is looking ahead to a "wild ride" in Louisiana politics over the next couple of years.

Quick reaction from me: I think Mary Landrieu would stomp all over John Fleming but would have trouble with anyone else in the pool of potential challengers. Meanwhile the gubernatorial field is pretty jumbled.

So far, there’s only one announced candidate – the House Democratic leader, Rep. John Bel Edwards of Amite. Republican state Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain is reportedly telling friends and associates that he plans to run.

Other likely candidates include: Dardenne, who has made no secret of his desire to be governor; Vitter, who seems to be gearing up for a run; state Treasurer John Kennedy, who has positioned himself as Jindal’s nemesis, especially over the governor’s mismanagement of the state’s budget; PSC Commissioner Scott Angelle, Jindal’s former National Resources secretary and the man the governor appointed as acting lieutenant governor when former Mitch Landrieu left that job to become New Orleans mayor; and Republican state Sen. Gerald Long of Natchitoches.

There is also Mitch Landrieu, one of the best-known and most-popular Democratic officials in Louisiana. A PPP poll recently showed Mayor Landrieu tied with Vitter in a gubernatorial matchup, and ahead of Dardenne by two points.

Though, since we noted earlier, Pope Mitch is  focused on becoming a six-term mayor right now, he's maybe not so likely a candidate here.

Aside from the Landrieus, there still aren't any strong Democratic candidates to speak of in Louisiana which back in pre-Katrina, pre-Obama times was the "bluest" of the typically "red" states. Yeah yeah John Bel Edwards is running. Let's see how far ahead of Biscuit4LA he finishes. 

In any case, get ready for another Republican Governor and (unless that Governor ends up being David Vitter)  probably many more years of Senators Vitter and Landrieu.   Not sure how that makes the ride all that "wild" but it does look like we're likely to pick up a case of motion sickness anyway.