Monday, December 07, 2009

Mitch Again?

According to sources close to the Landrieu political operation, Mitch Landrieu is expected to announce his candidacy for Mayor of New Orleans.

This totally rearranges the field.

Maybe he liked what he heard out of that poll he was running a few weeks ago.


Clay said...

DuBose sums it up:

One thing's for sure: this is a ballsy move. He'll either be the phoenix rising from the ashes or this will KILL his political career for good.

oyster said...

hey E, did you break this story?

jeffrey said...

It seems to have appeared here before anywhere else I read it. Does E win a gumdrop or something? Anyway, the more I think about this the more it makes sense for Landrieu to try this. I think his chances of becoming Governor were slim and becoming slimmer given Jindal's continuing popularity. If he still wants to be king of something he might as well try this again.

Donze's story speculates that Jacobs is considering getting out. I guess she feels a little punked at this point. I'm suddenly interested in trying to handicap this thing. I'd like to see the final field first but let's play with this a little bit.

Let's just look at the white vote for a second. Here are the top white vote getters from the 2006 primary (Of course, a number of white voters will vote for a black candidate. Perry and, I think surprisingly for some Murray, are banking on it. I'll try and factor for that later. But what I'm breaking down here are votes from 2006 FOR white candidates. It's imperfect terminology I guess. So be it.) :

Landrieu: 31,499

Forman: 18,734

Couhig: 10,287

Boulet: 2,367

Wilson: 772

Let's assume for now that Jacobs is in. If she's really optimistic right now she's looking at [Most of Boulet] + [something like 1/4 or maybe a bit more of Forman] + [a percentage of Mitch which has suddenly slipped from 1/2 to maybe 1/8 optimistically]

Couhig will probably get most of his 2006 vote but will lose some percentage of that to Georges. He will get most or all of Wilson.

Mitch and Georges are basically fighting for what's left which is the part of Forman + Mitch '06 that Jacobs leaves on the table.

Just speculating, since I have no idea what the polling looks like, I'll say that Georges (if he's optimistic) is good for [about 1/2 of Forman] + [1/4 of Mitch '06] (I could have that apportionment exactly backwards. We're talking about a very similar pool of voters here)

This leaves Mitch with [1/4 Forman + 5/8 Mitch '06]

So here I've rounded the above values down to the nearest thousand (or hundred in the case of Wilson) and if we take into account the fact that I am bleary eyed and likely to have made a stupid mistake (not to mention that this whole premise comes directly from my ass) we get this approximate result.

Mitch: 23,875

Georges: 16,750

Jacobs: 10,675

Couhig: 9,700

Last time around, Mitch ran second with 31,499 votes. Don't know if 23,000 is enough to get him in the runoff but it sure as shit screws Georges and Jacobs. Maybe someone should try swearing at their dog. See if that helps.

Dambala said...


Why are you equating Jacobs to Boulet's vote? Female vote? Just curious.

I like your reasoning but I would swap Jacobs and Georges numbers...or even them out more. With or without Mitch I think Jacobs pulls down more votes than Georges, and I think a lot of the Forman vote goes to Leslie, with Mitch out. The Forman voters are the most critical in my opinion and I think 95% of them go Landrieu or Jacobs.

If Leslie drops out...that totally drives the nail in the coffin for Georges. The only hope he has of beating Landrieu is if she stays in or the off chance that Sapir throws his hat in as well, and then who the hell knows what happens. That scenario could put Troy Henry in the runoff with Murray.

BTW, I found out today that there is a moniker for paid, political operatives who comment about candidates on blogs, websites, etc. Astroturfers...I love that. As opposed to grass roots, these guys are the fake stuff.

jeffrey said...

No it doesn't have anything to do with gender. I was afraid it might be taken that way. I've just got this idea of how the white vote in Orleans is partitioned and what I think of as Boulet people almost all fit within the set of Jacobs people. In 2006 2300 people voted who had an opportunity to vote for Landrieu or Forman chose instead to vote for Boulet. Where else could these people possibly go if not to Jacobs? I don't think they are Georges people.

I think Georges is a function of Landrieu '06 + Forman + a little Couhig maybe. I think he thinks he's also got some black vote nobody expects but I think he's also wrong about that. Anyway, he's got a lot of the same people in his pocket that Forman and Landrieu kind of shared last time. Maybe you're right and all the interest in him goes away with Mitch in. Or maybe people are tired of Mitch. Don't know yet.

These are all obviously spur-of-the-moment guesses on my part but I just wanted to throw together a rough draft of the white vote when I learned that Landrieu was in. At least something got us thinking a bit more seriously about this thing than the stupid ads we've been talking about so far.

Anonymous said...

>This totally rearranges the field.

Maybe he liked what he heard out of that poll he was running a few weeks ago.<

A. No **** it rearranges the field - that's why he's doing it.

B. The poll didn't tell him anything he didn't already know months before; the more recent poll only gave him cover to get back in.

Jeebus Tadancing, this is not good news.

Jeffrey is the ONLY guy who gets this.

Landrieu is in this to keep others from winning; and he is not in it to win it himself.

Please somebody somewhere tie this in with the timing of Nagin's appearance on wbok and his comments there.

My guess is Murray profits most from this, &/or maybe someone else alpha soup/machine connected who will now finish second.

Because let's face it, this knocks Georges out of the runoff, and kills whatever steam Jacobs ever could have gotten (not to mention any ethics related issues she may have generated because you can be *sure* Landrieu won't raise them), AND THAT'S WHY LANDRIEU'S RUNNING.

Clay said...

No way Landrieu isn't in it to win this time. The political cost of not winning would kill him.

Don't forget about one thing: there will be almost NO voter interest until the election. Established candidates with high name recognition have a HUGE edge. Nobody has really heard of Murray, Jacobs, Henry, etc. Eddie could make it interesting, but I don't see him in after this.

One final thing to note:

It seems like the Times-Pic anti-Landrieu bias is slowly starting to creep up...

Dambala said...

- Landrieu is in this to keep others from winning; and he is not in it to win it himself.

That's ridiculous. Of all the speculation in this thread, the one thing I can assure you is that he is in this race to win.

Anonymous said...

Ok, guys [same anon], well then where Jeffrey says, "Last time around, Mitch ran second with 31,499 votes. Don't know if 23,000 is enough to get him in the runoff but it sure as shit screws Georges and Jacobs."...

....Is that right or wrong?

Because he sure seems right there, glaringly so. And if Jeffrey knows that it's very hard to imagine Mitch does not. If so then why run? Hubris? Hero riding in on steed thing?

Here's another reason why I say he did not run to win last time: Landrieu last time could barely utter the words "corruption" or "insider contracting" or "self-dealing", etc., last time. Does he just not recognize what is going on or he unwilling to say it? If he stays relatively mum on that again we will just see the same old result polls-wise.

jeffrey said...


I don't think I mean to conclude that he has some purpose other than winning in mind. I'm just playing with some of the numbers to get a gauge on how his entry affects the race at this point. Keep in mind, this little faux analysis completely ignores the majority of available voters and other major candidates.

E said...

I think Clancy went up about 45 seconds after me. So I do get gumdrops from all the other reporters.

jeffrey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
E said...

But man that thing spread like fire. It took no more than ten minutes for it to be everywhere.

jeffrey said...

See here's where I'm already wrong. I gave all of the Wilson vote to Couhig. But then just this morning I spotted Peggy Wilson's car which had a "Women for Georges" sticker in the window.

jeffrey said...

Correction: I might be reporting that incorrectly. Here's Wilson's actual car when it had a McCain sticker on it. I think the one I saw this morning was different. But it had a Scalise sticker so it's a close enough sample.

Adrastos said...

Jeffrey,you should really post your analysis at your blog; not everyone reads down in comment threads.

jeffrey said...

Maybe. But if you're looking for wonky talk and/or handicapping you're more likely to look for it here. All you get at my blog is football and bad grammar.

E said...

I like when jeffrey stands inside the the wcbf tent peeing out rather than on the yellow blog, where i think he just pees on himself. How DID it get so yellow over there?

Kaylee said...

Astonishing! In autumn, this present throughout bright colors.