Monday, December 07, 2009
Mitch Landrieu expected to run for Mayor of N.O.
Good gracious. I had discounted the recent polling he was doing, and didn't think he would jump in.
This certainly scrambles the political dynamics, and as a longtime fan of Mitch I'm pretty darn pleased. I'm going to think this over before doing much analysis or prognostication. My initial thought, though, is that it's difficult to believe that this decision was made because of a positive showing in a recent poll. I don't care how weak the field is, and how promising the angles look, it's difficult to envisage a scenario where Mitch is a shoo-in. Why give up the Lt Governor's seat? If he wants to be Governor some day, how does running for Mayor of New Orleans help? Are Gov Jindal's proposed
budget cuts in the tourism office a factor? Does Mitch know about
some things that are coming down the pike? Assuming he makes the runoff, how does he intend to secure a winning number of (so-called) "crossover" votes from an antsy black electorate?
I'm intrigued by all of this. Might go to Cafe Reconcile to see the announcement tomorrow.
Labels: Elections and Campaigns, Mitch Landrieu
9 comments
DiggIt!
Del.icio.us
9 Comments:
Never one to think first, I've started to try and figure out some numbers which I explained over at E's. If Jacobs drops out, I don't know how much of her vote goes to Mitch. Probably most of it. Maybe it's enough to put him in the runoff but it's close.
Gambits analysis is FAR better than the dead tree Times-Pic. I'm already starting to pick up a twinge of anti-Landrieu bias.
What time is the announcement? I might walk over to catch it.
Now it gets interesting.
I think Mitch will get a huge lift from voters remorse, much like Jindal got after Blanco.
This kills Couig, who was already a Zombie candidate. Pretty much everyone I know thought the "strategic" vote for Nagin came out far worse than they anticipated.
The only real question now is how to get a crossover vote. Although with low turnout Mitch might not need it.
OK OK OK, ……crap……. one sec....got to turn off that annoying video, rebel girl. oooster, good god, give it a break. Palin does not deserve all this attention. (But I'd do her in a freakin' second, I pray every night on my knees that they find a video of her doin' herself. Jesus, I'd give anything to see that)
Look; this Mayor's thing. The numbers just don't work. Count how many people are running. No way there can be that many people living in New Orleans who are not felons.
Also, did you know that Ginger on Gilligan's Island was the illegitimate child of Larry Fine and Marilyn Monroe??????
I've made my prediction. It's all about the scheduling. So does anyone know who/what decides when to hold these things?
Secretary of State decides when....Jay Dardene.
He's following protocol.
You bring up a salient point. Who is watching the election this year locally?
@Dambala: Thanks for the info. So "protocol" would be... holding New Orleans' mayoral election during the crappiest time possible? Seriously though, I'd love to know how they chose this date. It was held in April/May during 2006, but that may have been a post-Katrina thing.
The election has been held in Feb-March since the race of 1982 -- when Dutch Morial ran for re-election. Dutch got the law changed from the previous election date of Nov-Dec (after he first one in 1977) because after his first election he had a 5-month transition period ... and no paycheck (cuz he had to resign his judgeship to run for mayor). This is historical fact, not opinion or speculation.
Rather than shorten his tenure (the City Charter puts inauguration day at the first Monday in May), Dutch got the Lege to push the election back to Feb-March and it's been there ever since. Makes no sense, I know, but that's how and why it happened. The election needs to get changed back to the fall (Oct-Nov) with the new mayor taking office the third Monday in March (after the latest possible date of Mardi Gras), which also would give new mayors a 4-month transition, which is needed to put an administration together. Also, moving the inauguration date up would make it more difficult for outgoing mayors to overspend and leave the new mayor broke (as Dutch did to Sidney in 1986, and as Nagin no doubt will do to his successor).
Anyway, that's why the election is held when it's held.
@Clancy: Thank you! That's what I wanted to know. Oct-Nov sounds much better. Now if only we could get them to move it back.
