- Bobby Jindal (R) 45.0%
- Hillary Clinton (D) 40.4%
- Undecided 14.6%
Please tell me whether you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Bobby Jindal.
- Favorable 45.0%
- Unfavorable 46.7%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Bobby Jindal is doing as governor?
- Approve 46.7%
- Disapprove 48.5%
Survey of 600 registered voters was conducted March 24-26, 2014. The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points. Party registration: 48% Democrat; 36% Republican; 12% Independent; 4% Other. Political ideology: 51% Conservative; 30% Moderate; 13% Liberal.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal
1. Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination based on everything we know about past nominating trends. He has tremendous establishment support, mega donors already committed to him should he run after having nearly convinced him to jump into the 2012 race, and favorable/unfavorable ratings that would be the envy of every other candidate, including Hillary Clinton. The governor is the most popular Republican in America, and after an easy reelection and a tour as RGA chairman, he will be poised to enter the race with a national base of support and poll numbers that will make even the Clinton machine nervous.
2. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida
Despite the setback immigration reform has become for the Florida senator among the conservative base, Marco Rubio is still well positioned to be the party’s standard bearer in 2016. He has picked up tremendous backing in establishment circles for going all-in on immigration, and the donor community will reward his risk. He also remains one of the most gifted speakers in politics and once he’s back on the stump many will remember why they liked him so much the first time around.
3. Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky
The junior senator from Kentucky has quickly establishment himself in the early states as the Tea Party candidate, building off of his father’s network of supporters and benefiting from their takeover of a number of local and state GOP parties. Paul has worked to distance himself from his father’s more extreme elements, but he still has some work to do as his recent “southern avenger” staffer problem pointed out.
4. Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin
If any candidate can claim “next in line” status from the 2012 election, it will be Rep. Paul Ryan, not former Sen. Rick Santorum. Ryan is still a very popular figure in conservative circles, and fears over how his budget would be portrayed never really panned out. Ryan would have the advantage of having been in a national campaign before and would likely have access to Mitt Romney’s formidable donor base.
5. Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida
The scion of the Bush dynasty may finally be ready to jump into the presidential pool. Gov. Bush has been far more open to a run this time than he has the past two cycles, and with his brother’s poll numbers finally on the rise, he may take his shot to become the third President Bush. Still, Bush will find that unlike his brother, he will be unable to clear the field of opposition, and he will come across a Tea Party base more than willing to take on the Bush legacy. Jeb will need every bit of his family’s extensive network to survive the challenge.
6. Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
The governor of Wisconsin has become a folk hero to many in the conservative base for his heroic stand against public sector unions in his state. The left’s attempt to recall Scott Walker not only backfired, but helped the governor build a national donor base that may be even larger than Chris Christie’s. Walker will have real conservative governance to run on, as well as a record of being battle-tested against the left’s best attacks.
7. Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas
The junior senator from Texas has quickly made a name for himself after taking office just a few months ago. The Harvard Law graduate and former debating champion is putting his skills to use antagonizing both the Democrats and establishment Republicans, winning plaudits from Tea Party groups and scorn from Beltway elites. Sen. Cruz has the combination of brains and toughness that could make him an ideal Tea Party insurgent in 2016.
8. Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana
The former congressman has quietly gone about his new job, replacing popular Gov. Mitch Daniels, and continuing conservative reforms in the state. While only recently elected governor, Pence has a dozen years in Congress already under his belt and several years more as a talk radio host helped mold him into an excellent communicator. He was nearly recruited to run in 2012, but chose the governorship instead. By 2016, Pence could bridge the divide between fiscal and social conservatives and become a major dark horse candidate.
9. John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Ohio Gov. John Kasich flirted with a presidential campaign back in 1999, but was quickly overwhelmed by the daunting Bush machine. After twenty years in Congress, Kasich became governor of Ohio, and after initial troubles, has turned both his numbers and the state’s economy around. Should he win reelection in 2014, Kasich could once again look at a presidential run, this time as not only a fiscal hawk, but also the leader of the most important swing state.
10. Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
The governor of Louisana has seen his star fade somewhat over the past few years. Originally pegged to be the GOP’s counter to Barack Obama, Gov. Jindal flopped in his national debut giving the State of the Union response. Far from being a mortal wound, the governor had plenty of time to rebound from a bad speech. However, a poorly thought out tax reform plan in his state has led to a collapse in his numbers. He still has the brains, talent, and time to rebound, and he will need to in order to launch the national campaign he clearly wants to run.
Honorable Mention: Susana Martinez, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley
A conversation featuring Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, and Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.
The McCloskey Speaker Series is a longstanding summer series of wide-ranging discussions on US public affairs issues such as leadership and decision-making, the strength of the national economy and more. Featuring distinguished speakers who have far-reaching impacts on society, the series is made possible by a generous donation from the McCloskey Family Charitable Foundation.
-Hat-tip: The Argo Journal
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has an op-ed today on Politico that essentially tells the Republican Party to stop analyzing the 2012 election and start doing…something:
Let’s stop defeating ourselves, get on offense, and go kick the other guys around. If you’ve followed the news over the past month, they are certainly asking for it. We are the conservative party in America — deal with it. We have a lot of dissenting voices. So what? Deal with it. The American public waxes and wanes. Fine. It will wax again soon enough. Deal with it, and start fighting for our principles instead of against them, so we can be in position to create the next wave.
I find this to be an odd piece of advice from the Governor. We Republicans have lost two elections in a row. Yet, the Governor feels that our Party needs to stop looking at what we have done wrong and what we need to do differently and instead get on with implementing a strategy to get back to winning.
This would be great advice, if the Republican Party had unanimity about what to do next. Instead, what we have now is a Party that is divided on strategy, tactics and policy. We can’t move forward with a policy or strategy because the people in the Party don’t agree on the path forward. On issues like immigration, foreign policy, and gay marriage, there are real, passionate opinions on both sides. These opinions can’t be swept under the rug, and in fact should be debated. Moderates, conservatives, libertarians and people who are combinations of all three are in the Republican Party and they aren’t going to agree on everything. Even if there was a unanimous opinion on policy, there are divisions between pragmatists, who think that the Party has to change with the times, and hard-liners who think that the GOP must return to Reaganite conservatism. Again, these are real, passionately held beliefs and they are not likely to give them up anytime soon in order to “move on” or “get over it”.
Governor Jindal himself has, since the November election, offered up his two cents on what the Party needs to do, often in harsh tones. He has called the GOP “the stupid party” and has said that the Party is too obsessed with fiscal issues. Of course, the Governor might want to focus a little closer to home, but I digress.
After two electoral defeats, a Republican post-mortem was inevitable. McCain’s loss could be dismissed. With the financial crisis, the deep unpopularity of the Bush Administration, and the Messianic nonsense of the Obama campaign, victory by November 2008 was virtually impossible. 2012 was different though; given the poor economy, and that the President’s signature legislative accomplishment wildly disliked, defeat was not inevitable. Republicans felt towards the end of the 2012 campaign that we had at least a decent chance of winning. That was shattered on election night. For the Party to simply ignore what happened in 2008 and 2012 would be a folly in the extreme. Governor Jindal might have a lot of good ideas, but simply moving on for the sake of moving on is not one of them.
It might be hard to believe, but in less than a year, the U.S. will already be deeply involved in another national election.
The occupant in the Oval Office will not be running this time, and if history is any guide, he will be a “lame duck” with diminishing influence.
Nor is it likely that control of the U.S. house will be at stake, considering how current reapportionment protects most incumbents, including Democrats in most of the nation’s cities, and a larger number of Republicans in most of the exurban and rural areas.
What will probably be at stake is control of the U.S. senate and a significant number of governorships across the country. In the senate races, many more Democratic incumbents are running for re-election, and are vulnerable. Republicans need to win six Democratic seats to gain control, and 10-12 now seem potentially at play. The advantage in the gubernatorial races, however, is with the Democrats. Not only are there many more GOP incumbent races, many more Republican governors (or their successor candidates if they are term-limited or retire) potentially have close races next year.
A sub-theme of these elections will also be the 2016 presidential election, like it or not. The presidential nominations for both major parties will be open that year, and likely very competitive. Nominees usually emerge from the U.S. senate and the nation’s governors, either current or former. Current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, current Virginia Senator Mark Warner are among many names already seriously being circulated and promoted on the Democratic side; current Florida Senator Marco Rubio, current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and current Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal are among many names being put forward for the Republicans.
It is very, very early in the 2016 race, of course, but it is nevertheless likely that the 2014 elections will set the stage for the direction the nation will go after the two Obama administration terms.
The prospect for the duration of 2013 is for political stalemate on most issues, especially economic ones. There is a lot of scrambling for political “position” and ‘branding” going on in the nation’s capital, and an obsessive preoccupation with public relations aimed at short-term leverage and advantage, but it is not at all clear whether Obamanomics and Obamacare will work or not. Much of the “action” for some time has been in the states where conservative governors (and legislatures) have attempted to innovate and program alternative and competitive solutions to the problems facing U.S. society in the prolonged economic downturn.
Democrats are hoping that recent stock market gains correctly anticipate a rebound of the U.S. economy and predict an end to the current prolonged unemployment. Republicans continue to point out that higher taxes and continued federal deficits make the goal shared by all problematic. The next 9-12 months should reveal which side of this debate is more accurate than the other.
The 2014 national elections will therefore be only an interim decision, albeit an important one. If by 2014, the protracted economic problems persist, an impatient electorate might well signal a new and longer-term political direction.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
I’m going to read you a list of names and for each one I’d like you to please tell me if you think that person would make a good president or not. If you have never heard of a person, please just say so.
- Yes 55%
- No 42%
- Yes 43%
- No 43%
- Yes 37%
- No 33%
- Yes 37%
- No 46%
- Yes 35%
- No 59%
- Yes 26%
- No 56%
- Yes 25%
- No 29%
- Yes 16%
- No 25%
- Yes 16%
- No 39%
- Yes 6%
- No 19%
- Yes 6%
- No 22%
- Yes 5%
- No 18%
Survey of 1,010 registered voters was conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D)/Shaw & Company Research (R) February 4-6, 2013. The margin of error is ± 3 percentage points. Party ID: 39% Democrat; 35% Republican; 24% Independent/Other.
Inside the numbers:
Clinton (62 percent) and Rice (44 percent) capture more support among women voters than any of the other figures tested.
They are also the top picks among men voters: 47 percent think Clinton would make a good president and 42 percent feel that way about Rice. Ryan (40 percent), Christie (39 percent) and Biden (35 percent) are close behind among men.
Clinton is also the candidate who receives the highest level of support from his or her own party. She would be a good president in the eyes of 83 percent of self-identified Democrats, while with 62 percent support Ryan receives the most backing among self-described Republicans.
Among Democrats, Clinton is followed by Biden (60 percent), Cuomo (25 percent), Patrick (8 percent) and O’Malley (6 percent).
Among Republicans, Rice comes in second to Ryan at 54 percent. She’s followed closely by Bush at 47 percent, Christie at 43 percent and Rubio at 41 percent. Jindal is the only other Republican to receive double-digit support (24 percent).
Ryan (59 percent) and Rice (55 percent) both receive majority backing among self-described very conservative voters.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal
Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) is throwing down a tax reform gauntlet, proposing the complete elimination of state income and corporate taxes. Here’s more from the Times-Picayune out of New Orleans:
Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to eliminate Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes and pay for those cuts with increased sales taxes, the governor’s office confirmed Thursday. The governor’s office has not yet provided the details of the plan.
“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity,” Jindal said in a statement released by his office. “It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”
Jindal said the plan would be revenue-neutral and that the goal would be to keep sales taxes “aslow and flat as possible.”
The governor’s office has not yet confirmed or denied an article in The Monroe News-Star that reports eliminating the state income tax could require increasing the state sales tax from 4 percent to 7 percent.
The governor’s full statement on the tax overhaul plan:
“We are meeting with every legislator over the coming weeks to discuss the details of the tax reform plan. Our goal is to eliminate all personal income tax and all corporate income tax in a revenue neutral manner. We want to keep the sales tax as low and flat as possible.
“Eliminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs.
“Tax reform will remove administrative burdens from families and small businesses and improve Louisiana’s business prospects; create more business investment opportunities with increased job growth; and raise the state’s profile in national business rankings.
“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity. It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”
Gov. Bobby Jindal is quickly becoming one of my favorite presidential aspirants for 2016 as he continues to attempt to find ways to diffuse the various cultural “wedge issues” that the Left has successfully used to divide the nation’s former center-right coalition that ruled the country from 1968-2008. Jindal’s issue du jour is making birth control an issue that can truly be left up to the conscience of the individual by taking insurers out of the equation:
(CNN) – The political battle earlier this year over health insurance coverage for contraception wouldn’t be repeated if women could buy birth control without a prescription, Louisiana’s Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal wrote in an op-ed Friday.
Jindal was advocating a recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who took the stance in November that birth control pills should be sold over-the-counter in drugstores. Currently contraception pills require a prescription from a doctor, many of whom are represented by the ACOG.
Jindal made the case Friday in the Wall Street Journal that such a shift in policy would eliminate the political back-and-forth over contraception policy, which divided many Americans in early last year.
“As a conservative Republican, I believe that we have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control. It’s a disingenuous political argument they make,” Jindal wrote.
This is a brilliant maneuver, in my view, that allows devout Roman Catholic employers to continue to abide by the teachings of the Holy See when it comes to contraception without leaving female employees sans contraception coverage, thus decreasing support for government mandates and subsidies when it comes to health care, which, of course, is the Left’s true goal. It also removes the need for the Right to maintain an official policy position on contraception other than “freedom to choose,” which puts the Right back in the position of being the party of personal liberty, and prevents the Left from suggesting that conservatives are simply using the contraception issue as a back door for a government takeover of individuals’ sex lives or reproductive decisions.
Finally, Jindal, as a devout Catholic himself and a favorite of social conservatives, is able to make such a suggestion without stoking fears on the Right that he himself is a progressive who is trying to use the government to encourage lower fertility rates, contraceptive use, or specific sexual lifestyles. The takeaway message is that the GOP is promoting a policy that enhances liberty, broadens consumer choice, and allows freedom of conscience for everyone, while removing burdensome regulations. That seems to be the sort of tack that Republicans will need to take on issues across the policy spectrum if they want to start rebuilding a party that seems to be on the verge of death by demographics.
As often happens after an electoral defeat, the losing side is going through a period of soul-searching. Right now a whole variety of figures on the right are proposing their own remedies and solutions to help the Republicans out of our current rut. Some are suggesting changes in policy, others in style, and others are for hunkering down. Regardless of what prescription is the way the party will go forward, I feel that any sort of trashing of the GOP brand is the absolute wrong way to go.
By trashing the brand I am referring mostly right now to Governor Bobby Jindal who is calling on the Republicans to stop being the “stupid party”. Not only is this offensive to millions of Republican voters, activists and candidates but it is also very unhelpful to both the Party and to Governor Jindal himself. Firstly, by having a Republican refer to the GOP as the “stupid party”, it is giving the media further license to do so. We Republicans can be furious at the overt bias in the media, but it does exist and we have to adapt to dealing with it. Now the media can turn to every other Republican politician and ask “do you think the Republicans are the stupid party?” or “what is it about the GOP that makes it the stupid party?” It puts other Republicans in a very awkward spot and gives the left and the media (but I repeat myself) a new cudgel to whack the Republicans in the head with.
More important than just causing headaches, the big problem with trashing the Republican brand is that the public will start to hear it and believe it. A Republican politician denouncing the Republican Party is one of the things that can get into the public consciousness. That means that the next time we present a policy, the damage done to the Republican brand by Republican politicians will make it that much harder for Republicans to persuade the public on that policy.
If this is not enough to persuade politicians to stop tarnishing the Republican brand, then one thing above all should; self-interest. After all, attacking the Republican Party is very likely to alienate Republican voters who’ll decide who leads the party in 2016. Look at Jon Huntsman’s bid in 2012. The Ambassador’s disdain for his own party was extremely self-evident during his run for the nomination and Republican voters rewarded him for it by making him place third in the one state he competed in.
So, you may ask, how do we change without going after the Republican brand? It’s not the easiest thing in the world to do, but a skillful politician can do it. British Prime Minister David Cameron and President Bill Clinton are two examples of politicians who changed the image of their party without directly trashing their own parties. It caused some headaches and it was definitely a bumpy road, but the Democrats in 1992 and the Conservative Party in 2010 managed to persuade enough voters that their parties had changed to propel both back into power after long droughts.
With our defeat in 2012 the Republican Party does need to do some soul-searching. It’s the healthy and right thing to do as we look towards the future. But the idea that the only way we can move forward is by telling everyone how awful Republicans are is not the way to go. All the self-loathing will do is give more ammunition to those who have no interest in helping the Republican Party.
Hat-Tip: The Argo Journal
Gov. Jindal provides his vision for a winning Republican coalition going forward:
In the aftermath of the presidential election, Republicans have been inundated with advice to moderate, equivocate, and even abandon their core principles as a necessary prerequisite for winning future elections.
That is absurd. America already has one liberal political party; there is no need for another one.
Make no mistake: Despite losing an election, conservative ideals still hold true.
Government spending still does not grow our economy. American weakness on the world stage still does not lead to peace. Higher taxes still does not create prosperity for all. And, more government still does not grow jobs.
The Republican party does have a lot of work to do. But changing our principles is not a winning strategy. We need to modernize, not moderate. Here are seven lessons Republicans should learn in order to move forward.
1. Stop looking backward. We have to boldly show what the future can look like with the free market policies that we believe in. Conservative ideals are aspirational, and our country is aspirational.
2. Compete for every single vote. The 47% and the 53%. And any other combination of numbers that adds up to 100 percent. President Barack Obama and the Democrats can continue trying to divide America into groups of warring communities with competing interests, but we will have none of it. We are going after every vote as we try to unite all Americans.
3. Reject identity politics. The old notion that ours should be a colorblind society is the right one, and we should pursue that with vigor. Identity politics is corrosive to the great American melting pot and we reject it. We will treat all people as individuals rather than as members of special interest groups.
4. Stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It’s time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. Enough of that.
5. Stop insulting the intelligence of voters. We need to trust the smarts of the American people. We have to stop dumbing down our ideas and stop reducing everything to mindless slogans and tag lines for 30-second ads. We must be willing to provide details in describing our views.
6. Quit “big.” We are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, or big anything. We must not be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive. We are the party whose ideas will help the middle class, and help more folks join the middle class. We are a populist party and need to make that clear.
7. Focus on people, not government. We must stop competing with Democrats for the job of “Government Manager,” and come up with ideas that can unleash the dynamic abilities of the American people. We need to lead the way with policies that can create prosperity. We believe in organic solutions, not big government solutions. We need a bottom-up government that fits the digital age. Right now we have an outdated centralized government trying to manage a decentralized economy.
There are many challenges facing our country. For example, our education system seems to be in the Stone Age and miserably outdated. It’s time to update traditional public schools, charter schools, home schools, online schools and parochial schools. Let the dollars follow the child instead of forcing the child to follow the dollars, so that every child has the opportunity to attain an education.
Our energy policy is outdated as well, stuck in old ideological arguments which harm our ability to create a more sustainable future where energy independence can actually be achieved. We have to change that.
We need an equal opportunity society, one in which government does not see its job as picking winners and losers. Where do you go if you want special favors? Government. Where do you go if you want a tax break? Government. Where do you go if you want a handout? Government. This must stop. Our government must pursue a level playing field. At present, government is the un-leveler of the playing field.
This is a pathway forward for the Republican party, one that honors our principles, the American people, and also, will help us win elections.
And as always, have at it in the comments!
Politico has the story:
“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said at a press conference that opened the RGA’s post-election meeting here. “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.
“And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”
He reiterated the points for emphasis.
“I don’t think that represents where we are as a party and where we’re going as a party,” he said. “That has got to be one of the most fundamental takeaways from this election: If we’re going to continue to be a competitive party and win elections on the national stage and continue to fight for our conservative principles, we need two messages to get out loudly and clearly: One, we are fighting for 100 percent of the votes, and secondly, our policies benefit every American who wants to pursue the American dream. Period. No exceptions.”
Then, without prompting, Jindal circled back to the topic as the press conference wrapped up.
Considered a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, he blamed Romney’s defeat last week on his failure to outline a vision for where he wanted to take the country.
“Gov. Romney’s an honorable person that needs to be thanked for his many years of public service, but his campaign was largely about his biography and his experience,” he said. “And it’s a very impressive biography and very impressive set of experiences. But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision. You have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don’t think the campaign did that, and as a result this became a contest between personalities. And you know what? Chicago won that.”
Be sure to read the full story here.
Hat-tip: The Argo Journal
It’s a real shame Bobby Jindal isn’t from a swing-state- if he was, he’d be as ubiquitous a surrogate as Rob Portman and deservedly so. Here are three excellent appearances post-debate.
First, in the CNN spin room:
On Fox and Friends:
Then finally on Morning Joe:
Here’s to hoping the final three weeks feature extensive Jindal surrogacy work. No one- not even Romney or Ryan- has a better command of the facts. Exit question: Is Secretary of HHS or Education a waste of Jindal’s talents? I’ve been bearish on the usefulness of Jindal taking Landrieu’s seat, if only because the Senate isn’t the ideal place from which to pursue high office, but maybe adding some foreign policy to his portfolio will make Jindal Ryan’s natural running-mate in 2020.
Is the race for 2016 already underway? If it’s not, Iowa is certainly becoming a popular hub for potential Republican presidential contenders these days. First, a certain New Jersey governor seems to have found his way to Sioux City:
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie officially endorsed Iowa Congressman Steve King today, at an appearance in Sioux City as keynote speaker for King’s 5th Annual Defenders of Freedom fundraiser.
King, however, wasn’t at his own event! According to his campaign, King flew to Washington D.C. yesterday to continue fighting for the passage of the Farm Bill.
That didn’t stop Governor Christie from coming out and supporting King, and the Romney campaign.
Christie campaigning for Romney and for down-ballot Republicans may just be the governor displaying his creds as a good party man, but still, the choice of venue seems…interesting.
And who could miss Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal, riding the So-Con Express to the Hawkeye State!
Former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum heads to Iowa next week to join a bus tour led by the social conservative group the Family Leader, furthering speculation that he’s looking ahead to another presidential run in 2016 if President Barack Obama defeats challenger Mitt Romney in November.
The bus tour, which takes place Sept. 24 to Sept. 27, will take Santorum to Des Moines, Pella and Ottumwa on Monday the 24th. It’s intended to protest retaining Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, who joined the 2009 ruling that made same-sex marriage legal in Iowa.
The Family Leader endorsed Santorum for president in 2011.
Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal will also join the tour and is scheduled to travel to Mason City, Marshalltown, Fort Dodge and Carroll on Wednesday the 26th.
More than once I’ve suggested that the race for 2016 would begin on the morning of November 7th. I was wrong. It’s already here.
Exceedingly odd. He gets into the Veep stuff at about 1:35.
Ok, does this happen unless Jindal’s already been told he’s not the guy? I don’t see how.
It’s not every day that the Republican Party gets some positive mainstream media coverage about minority inclusion, but we’ll take it when we can get it, especially from the Washington Post:
Ted Cruz’s come-from-behind victory in the Texas GOP Senate runoff on Tuesday — and the near-certainty that he will cruise to a general election win in November — ensures he will immediately join a rapidly growing group of rising national Republican stars that have one big thing in common: None of them are white.
…For a party that has struggled in recent years to escape the caricature that it is dominated by old, white men, the spate of minority faces rising to statewide office is a welcome development.
Since elected officials obviously serve as the most public faces of a party, this definitely represents a positive for the GOP. After all, in politics, perception is everything.
Jonathan Karl reports that two of the potential Veeps have been put on “standby” for an announcement. I’m assuming standby means “don’t plan anything else”. Given that, who seems to be otherwise occupied? Well, the Republican Governor’s Association has meetings all this week and Jindal, McDonnell, and Christie are attending. So they’re out, I suppose? Curiously, the buzz around Ryan seems to be heating up and Karl reports that Ryan makes the final three (with Portman and Pawlenty). It seems like we will indeed get our launch prior to the swing-state tour. Who will it be?
Update: It appears that Romney will be making an appearance at one of these meetings, so perhaps the attendees aren’t quite out of consideration.
Political Ticker reveals some details about an upcoming multi-state bus tour which are being leaked out by the Romney camp — and quotes the source of the leak as saying, “Sounds like VP week…”
On August 11, Romney (and his VP?) will be campaigning in the three largest media markets in Virginia – metro D.C., Richmond, and Norfolk. August 12 takes him through the media markets in North Carolina. August 13 finds him doing a Florida swing through Jacksonville, Orlando, and Miami. And tour dates are being added in Ohio – and potentially other states – for the end of the tour.
It sure sounds like a VP rollout to me, as well, and the timing really makes perfect sense. It gives Mitt and his VP two weeks to campaign together, building momentum up to the RNC on August 27. The Romney campaign, for what it’s worth, have confirmed that the leaked schedule is accurate, but are saying only that Romney will be discussing his vision for the economy during the bus tour.
I thought it’d be interesting, while Romney’s away, to rate the potential VP’s in terms of how well they fit into Romney’s agenda. Since Romney himself has placed an overwhelmingly emphasis on the economy, we have a handy method of making this assessment: rate the Veeps in each category of Romney’s oft-stated 5-point economic plan. Here’s how Romney described this plan in last night’s Brian Williams interview:
Well, let me describe– actually, there are five things that I believe are necessary to get this economy going. One, take advantage of our energy resources, particularly natural gas, but also coal, oil, nuclear, renewables. That’s number one. A huge opportunity for us, and doing so is gonna bring manufacturing back, because low-cost, plentiful energy is key to manufacturing, in many industries.
Number two, trade. I want tre– to dramatically increase trade and particularly with– with Latin America.Number three, take action to get America on track to have a balanced budget. Now those three things, by the way, are things which we have not been doing over the last few years, which I think are essential to getting this economy going again.
Number four, we’ve got to show better training and education opportunities for our current re– workers and for coming workers. And then finally what I call restoring economic freedom. That means keep our taxes as low as possible, have regulations modern and up to date, get health care costs down. These things will restore economic freedom.
My rating system is pretty simple. I’ll rate each potential VP on a scale of 1-5 in each category. A rating of 1 means the VP will hurt the Romney narrative in this category; a rating of 2 means the VP will neither hurt nor help, etc.
Now how am I determining what constitutes a 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5? Roughly but, I think, reasonably. A rating of 3 indicates the VP has meaningfully dealt with this issue but it hasn’t been a focus of his career. So, for instance, a generic governor would receive a 3 for the “balanced budget” issue. All governors balance budgets, but most are constitutionally required to do so, diminishing the accomplishment. A rating of 4 indicates the VP has made the issue a key goal in his career but hasn’t necessarily accomplished much of significance. Someone like Chris Christie might receive a 4 for the “economic freedom” plank, due to his prominent- but somewhat unsuccessful- push to lower NJ taxes. A rating of 5 indicates the VP has made the issue a key goal in his career and has major accomplishments towards that goal. A Condoleeza Rice might warrant a 5 in the “trade” plank, due to her work as Secretary of State.
To the ratings. First up:
Energy (2)– Looking through the 103 bills Portman has sponsored, I find no hint of an interest in energy. The words “energy”, “coal”, “oil”, and “gas” are nowhere to be found in the titles. Portman is from a state which produces coal but he seems remarkably unconcerned with the resource.
Trade (4)– As the former US Trade Rep, Portman’s experience here is substantial and unquestioned. That said, he convince Bush to oppose a potentially popular tariff on Chinese steel. This could potentially complicate Romney’s efforts in the rust belt (hat tip: Mass Con).
Balanced Budget (4)– On the one hand, Portman was the director of OMB for a year; a substantial bit of experience. On the other, unlike a trade Rep, which feels something like a diplomat, the head of OMB is closely associated with his President and his President’s policies. Bush’s budget policies complicate any effort to make this experience an unalloyed positive.
Education/Workforce Training (2)– Again, a close look at the list of Portman sponsored bills yields no sense of emphasis on this issue. Education shows up nowhere in the bill titles and the only bills dealing with work seem to be workers benefits bills.
Economic Freedom (4)– I find 11 bills Portman bills dealing with minor tax credits, 3 bills dealing with regulations and 1 bill dealing with health-care. Nothing major, but a sign that Portman is well-versed on these issues and has a story to tell.
Total Score: 16/25
Energy (5)– As a governor of a gulf state, and one who dealt with energy related issues in the aftermath of the BP Oil spill, Jindal has significant experience on energy-related matters. Additionally, he has taken to the national stage to criticize the President’s energy policy.
Trade (1)– Jindal has conducted no trade missions and, while in Congress, had a record as something of a protectionist (he voted against CAFTA). That said, he shares Romney’s belligerent attitude towards China’s currency manipulation. Ultimately though, he might complicate Romney’s message of expanding trade.
Balanced Budget (3)– Jindal has balanced his budget and stands in for a generic Governor here. While I can find plenty of instances of Jindal calling for a national balanced budget amendment, he doesn’t seem to have been a particular leader in this regard.
Education/Workforce training (5)– Earlier this year, Jindal passed the most sweeping education reforms in the country. Additionally, Jindal has focused specifically on workforce training, implementing reforms in ’08 which have led to write-ups in the Economist and to 3 consecutive years at #1 in Business Facilities’ state rankings of workforce training programs.
Economic Freedom (5)– Between Jindal’s passage of the largest income tax cut in Louisiana history, his various reforms designed to boost the state’s business climate (reforms which have shot Louisiana up several spots in various “business friendly” rankings), and his health-care experiences in the late 90s, Jindal is very well positioned to further Romney’s message of economic freedom.
Total Score: 19/25
I’ll rate the next batch of Veeps either later today or on Sunday night.
Yesterday, National Review conducted a VP poll of the four men who most frequently turn up on alleged Veep shortlists: Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal, and Paul Ryan. They had nearly 16k respondents. The results?
Paul Ryan: 54%
Bobby Jindal: 28%
Rob Portman: 10%
Tim Pawlenty: 7%
Now, obviously this excluded at least one very popular potential Veep (Rubio). Still, it’s another data point.
The Hill reports that Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal will be stumping for Romney in Pennsylvania and Ohio as a counterweight to Obama’s bus tour:
The two Romney surrogates will hit the battleground states on the same days that Obama launches his first campaign bus tour of the year through those swing states…
A Romney campaign official said Jindal and Pawlenty would be in “several of the same areas” as the president “to make sure the Romney message gets out.”
What to make of this pairing of Pawlenty and Jindal? Pawlenty is practically Romney’s most frequent surrogate; Jindal has never appeared with Romney anywhere. Pawlenty has obvious appeal in Rust Belt states; Jindal’s appeal is less obvious. It seems strange to pair the two for anything, at this stage, let alone a major campaign swing. I haven’t put much stock in the Eagle’s rumblings but this seems awfully coincidental. If Pawlenty and Jindal are the finalists, it makes sense to have them “squaring off” and a busy 4th of July weekend would camouflage the significance.
Although I’m happy to finally see some sign that Team Romney is aware of Jindal’s existence, I’m not sure how I feel about this theory. Jindal has never stumped for Romney before. It would be more than passing strange to expect him to engage in a high-stakes tryout now. It’d be like giving a great minor league prospect his first at-bat in game seven of the World Series. At any rate, it may be worth watching some of these events. Oh, and Happy Independence Day!
Chris Moody of Yahoo helpfully digs up the ideological rankings of some of Romney’s top potential running-mates. You should read the whole thing but I’m going to highlight two rankings- National Journal’s and the Club for Growth’s- and list each person’s standing within the caucus (those with higher percentiles are more conservative). Note: these are last year’s rankings.
Kelly Ayotte: 17th most conservative Senator (64th percentile within caucus)
Rob Portman: 35th most conservative Senator (25th percentile within caucus)
Marco Rubio: 13th most conservative Senator (72nd percentile within caucus)
Paul Ryan: 150th most conservative House member (38th percentile within caucus)
John Thune: 24th most conservative Senator (49th percentile within caucus)
Kelly Ayotte: 8th most conservative Senator (17th percentile within caucus)
Rob Portman: 29th most conservative Senator (38th percentile within caucus)
Marco Rubio: 10th most conservative Senator (79th percentile within caucus)
Paul Ryan: 101st most conservative House member (58th percentile within caucus)
John Thune: 20th most conservative Senator (57th percentile within caucus)
There’s also a little bit of info about the Governor’s under consideration- Jindal and Pawlenty primarily- but, generally, Governor’s receive fewer grades: basically, CATO is the only game in town. Jindal and Pawlenty scored 2nd and 3rd in the last CATO rankings, both receiving A’s.
The Grassroots has a new king, per Hot Air’s newest Vice-Presidential Survey, and his name is Bobby Jindal. Here are June’s results:
Some ballpark math. More than a quarter of respondents prefer Jindal, while the two front-runners (according to Intrade) clock in a less than 2% (Portman) and just over 4% (Pawlenty).
As Hot Air’s Patrick Ishmael notes, this is the first survey which Marco Rubio hasn’t led. May’s results had (again, ballpark) Rubio collecting around 40% of the votes while Jindal managed just 5%. So maybe the putative front-runners will yet catch the grassroots’ imagination. For now though, we have a new king. Your move, Mitt.
As soon as Mitt Romney had clinched the Republican nomination for president several weeks ago, I wrote a column with my own list of prominent persons who might be considered for vice president. I have been observing and writing for presidential politics long enough to know it was no more that. My list included Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Governor Robert McDonnell of Virginia, and Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Soon after that, more lists appeared, many of them including other names. The person I have thought to be the most likely choice, Senator Portman, has appeared on virtually every list, and seems to be the first choice of several observers.
Speculation about a vice presidential choice is one of the most inevitable, and least useful, aspects of a presidential campaign. With the exception of 1956 Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson, only the nominee makes the choice after a highly confidential vetting process (a process heightened after 1972 Democratic nominee Geroge McGovern’s initial choice had to resign from the ticket after public disclosures about his health). I say “least useful” because so much that is written and said about who will be chosen before the choice is announced is wrong.
Already, we read published speculations that former Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota is the new frontrunner, if not the certain choice, to be picked by
2012 presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. Senator Portman, these speculations also say, has been eliminated from consideration. Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, it is also said, is the second choice, and Governor McDonnell has also been taken off the list. The basis for most of these speculations is that certain politicians have “bonded” with Mr. Romney, and others have not.
It appears, however, that the vetting process has only begun, and that Mr. Romney is only now becoming better acquainted with the men and women he might choose.
Publications and networks, most of which have been hostile to the Republican cause, are breathlessly reporting “unnamed sources” with inside information about who is in and who is out. A recent such report, allegedly from high sources in the Romney campaign, stated that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and a major Romney ally, was not being vetted. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, promptly refuted the report, stating that Mr. Rubio was being fully vetted.
My rule of thumb is that ANY report before the official announcement, no matter how high (always anonymous) the sources from which it came, is to be viewed with considerable skepticism. Ninety-plua per cent of such reports, to be blunt, are false. (And those that are true are lucky guesses.)
Only one person knows who the nominee will be (Mr. Romney) and only one other person (Beth Myers, who he placed in charge of the nomination vetting process) knows fully who is being vetted, who is not, and the status of that process. As the date of the announcement approaches, more facts may be known, but the final choice will be a very tightly kept secret. The whole purpose of drawing out the process, other than the practical efficacy of the vetting, is to create suspense, and maintain news interest in the campaign. It is unlikely the final choice will be announced any time soon.
A lot of folks with various connections to the Romney campaign, to the Republican Party, and even to Mr. Romney personally, will be tempted to
parade their self-importance (hiding behind anonymity) to members of the news media by “leaking inside information.” And virtually everyone (myself included) will indulge in speculation about who the final choice will be.
But only Mitt Romney and Beth Myers will really know the facts, and they won’t be revealing anything until the final choice is made.
A little anecdote from the 2008 campaign: I was told by VERY HIGH sources the day before Senator John McCain was to make his vice presidential choice known that it would be then Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Living in Minneapolis, I drove over to the governor’s residence in St. Paul that evening to see if the secret service were now protecting the residence, as they would have to do if Mr. Pawlenty had been chosen. No secret service were visible. In fact, they WERE quite visible that night accompanying Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska (who had been chosen.)
Mr. Pawlenty might be chosen this time, or it might be Mr Portman. It might be someone else. But no one knows who it will be now, and until a few hours before the announcement, no one but Mitt Romney will know.
You don’t have to wait for the fat lady to sing, but it will be a good idea to watch for which vice presidential hopeful is suddenly joined by a small horde of figures with little devices in their ears.
-Copyright (c) 2012 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved. Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
Two major conservative voices chiming in for Jindal + a major health care op-ed.
First, Grover Norquist:
Romney would do well to have a wing man who can astutely explain the flaws in President Barack Obama’s policies and lay out the GOP’s innovative, pro-growth alternatives. There are many attractive prospects out there, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal can do not just all that, he has already implemented the sort of bold reforms at the state level that are now desperately needed at the federal level.
Education could be the No. 1 civil rights issue of our time and has major implications for the nation’s future. When it comes to education reform, Obama has offered gimmickry, with contests and calls to throw more money at the problem, lest he upset the teachers union bosses who help bankroll Democratic campaigns.
Jindal, in stark contrast, last month signed one of the most significant school choice bills in U.S. history. It allows 380,000 students from low- and middle-income households across Louisiana to escape substandard schools. Sadly, Obama’s 2013 budget would trap 1,600 low-income Washington, D.C., children in failing schools by ending the District’s successful and popular school voucher program. Students in the D.C. voucher program have a 91 percent graduation rate, compared with 55 percent for union-run D.C. public schools. Meanwhile, Jindal just created the nation’s second-largest school voucher program, second only to the one Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed last year.
While Obama has doomed the future of children from some of the District’s poorest sections, Jindal has offered hope and opportunity to hundreds of thousands of families — empowering parents, rewarding success and instituting accountability.
There is probably no issue area where Obama’s policies have been more economically destructive than energy. And there is perhaps no person better suited to explain the White House’s energy policies than Jindal — who has 88 percent of the offshore U.S. rigs on his state’s outer continental shelf…
If Romney wanted to provide voters with a clear choice on tax policy, he would be hard-pressed to do better than add Jindal, one of 13 governors committed to not raising taxes, to his ticket.
While the president’s budget entails historically high levels of spending and taxation, it’s also noteworthy because it never balances during any time window. Jindal has balanced a budget every year as governor and never resorted to higher taxes.
In fact, Jindal has made his commitment to veto all tax hikes a key selling point in his successful efforts to persuade employers to expand or relocate to Louisiana. Any site selection consultant will confirm that businesses care a great deal about certainty — and under Jindal, they know that if they invest and create jobs in Louisiana, their tax burden will not rise.
And the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein:
It is hard to predict who Mitt Romney will ultimately choose as his vice presidential running mate. But it is clear which pick would be the strongest: Louisiana’s Republican governor, Bobby Jindal…
Jindal’s strength is that he threads the needle between these two competing models. He’s more exciting than Portman and more experienced than Rubio…
With his deep understanding of policy and ability to absorb facts, Jindal would easily pass the “Meet the Press” test. That is, Romney could announce he was picking Jindal on a Friday, and the campaign could book him on every political show that Sunday, confident he’d be able to field questions on any subject while remaining on message. He’d also be able to run circles around Vice President Joe Biden in a debate…
Having taken over Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Jindal presided over a remarkable revival. Louisiana rocketed from 47th place in Chief Executive Magazine’s ranking of the best places to do business, to 13th. The state’s unemployment rate, currently 7.1 percent, has consistently been below the national average. He cut taxes and spending, and enacted tough ethics reforms in a state that had been notorious for political corruption. This year, he signed landmark education reforms to expand school choice and improve teacher performance.
Finally, a snippet from an excellent Jindal Repeal and Replace Op-Ed:
The American health insurance marketplace simply does not work as it should today. It actually does not resemble any reasonably functioning insurance system. The idea of insurance should be to pool risk over large populations and time to protect individuals against unpredictable and potentially overwhelming risk. Obviously, different people with different income, assets, and medical conditions will have different levels of overwhelming risk. Yet, health insurance, especially individual coverage, today often effectively screens out the sick, offering coverage when we least need it, and too often simply offers prepaid health care coverage.
A good way to understand the failings of the marketplace is to compare health care insurance with other insurance. For example, most of us don’t file claims with our auto insurers for every ding our car doors get in the parking lot, knowing the resulting increase in premiums and hassle in paperwork aren’t worth the payout. We either pay to fix the car door ourselves or live with the scratches. Yet, we have been trained to expect first dollar coverage for minor procedures, while more and more employers and plans are capping coverage with episodic, annual, or lifetime limits. Also, most of us aren’t frustrated at the end of the year that our homes haven’t flooded or burned down, expecting refunds for our property insurance premiums. We don’t set fire to a bedroom at the end of the year to ensure we get our money’s worth! Yet, many patients flood their doctors’ offices or refill prescriptions early towards the end of the year once they have exceeded their deductibles, determined to get their money’s worth.
Part of the problem is that our health insurance system has evolved over time almost by accident in response to wage controls, tax policies, and other pressures so that most Americans get their coverage through their employers. The resulting subsidy and economies of scale are important benefits, but it is time to modernize our health care system since neither the status quo nor the President’s prescribed fix is acceptable.
All three articles are worth reading in full.
-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
I feel I’ve been spending the better part of a year shouting into a hurricane where Bobby Jindal’s concerned. First, my all but ignored draft efforts; more recently, the seeming deafening silence on the VP front, as all sorts of poorer choices drew murmurs from the chattering class and apparent interest from Team Romney. Well, at last, someone has written a major story (Frum’s didn’t count, as Jindal was tacked on to a broader argument) about Jindal’s excellent qualifications and obvious appeal. From CBS News (via RCP):
The Louisiana governor has a tendency to speak faster than his audience is able to think, so when it came time to deliver the Republican response to President Obama’s first address to a joint session of Congress in 2009, the most important speech of Jindal’s political life, he made sure to take it slow.
What resulted was an oratorical disaster.
On live national television, Jindal spoke in a jarring, singsong pitch that replaced his natural rapid-fire monotone. Even longtime friends found it difficult to concentrate on what he was saying, and the reviews were almost uniformly withering.
The man who had been regarded as the future of the Republican Party was suddenly the butt of a national joke.
“The delivery was absolutely awful,” Jindal recalled of the notorious speech in a phone interview with RCP from his Baton Rouge office on Wednesday. “But if you look beyond the delivery and actually look at the substance, the whole point of my speech at that point in time was to say that the president is proposing a nearly $800 billion stimulus plan. Our country can’t afford this level of spending and borrowing.”
And with that, Jindal launched into a blizzard of statistics on the growth of the GDP, a list of negative outcomes of health care reform and, for good measure, a quotation from Napoleon Bonaparte about leadership before finally coming up for air several minutes later…
Though the years since that 2009 speech have been undeniably fruitful for Jindal on the legislative front, it was his leadership during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill that helped solidify his reputation in Louisiana and rejuvenated his standing among national Republicans as a party heavyweight…
“The difference between him after the BP oil spill and his Democratic predecessor [Gov. Kathleen Blanco] after Katrina could hardly have been more stark,” Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — whose neighboring state suffered a lesser impact from the most recent environmental disaster in the Gulf — told RCP. “He was decisive, he was knowledgeable, and he was working hard for his people. There was never any question — there was no uncertainty…”
As the counterweight to a presidential nominee blessed with wealth and privilege, Jindal’s stirring life story as the child of Indian immigrants — who bestowed upon himself at the age of 4 the all-American name of the youngest son in “The Brady Bunch” — could be especially appealing.
A Rhodes scholar who helmed the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals — the state’s largest agency — at the almost absurd age of 25, Piyush “Bobby” Jindal’s aptitude and credentials for the nation’s second-highest office would be difficult for anyone to question seriously.
Like Jindal, Romney was an academic overachiever who may never have been the life of the party but was the kind of kid that moms hoped their daughters would bring home one day, and the two men are similar in mind-set and temperament.
Though he does not share Romney’s decades of business experience, Jindal did have a brief post-collegiate stint working as a business consultant at McKinsey & Company before entering politics, and he shares the Bain Capital co-founder’s hyper-analytical approach to governing.
Able to point to a long list of accomplishments in a state with a constitutionally strong governorship, Jindal is among those who most clearly fit the bill.
“A lot of the thrust of the Romney campaign is going to be that on the other side you have flash and dash and big speeches, but we need someone who can run a country,” said one Republican consultant who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s not just, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ It’s going to be, ‘And do you think these guys can make it better over the next four years?’ And in order to double down and make sure that answer is ‘no,’ I think there’s a pretty good chance he would pick someone with executive experience.”
Read the whole thing, of course.
-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
After dismissing the case for Rubio based on economics (Latinos vote Democrat because Latinos are generally poorer and Rubio is unlikely to sway many of them) Frum gives a Jindal pitch:
And to the extent that symbolic politics can sway votes, Republicans should be looking to groups more receptive to the core Republican message than Mexican-Americans are likely to be.
The Asian-American population is also growing fast, and many Asian groups — Vietnamese-Americans and Indian-Americans to name only two — are gaining their success in small business. They are natural targets for Republican recruitment.
In Britain, Australia, and Canada, conservative parties have done well with these immigrant groups. In fact, in the federal election of 2010, Canada’s Conservatives won a plurality of the vote among voters who spoke Chinese at home.
For these voters, inclusion does matter. Symbols of inclusion canwork.
As symbols go, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is a doozy: a brilliant policy mind with an inspirational life story who has run an effective government in corruption-tainted Louisiana. He can talk data with Romney and credibly sit at the kitchen tables of the struggling middle class.
Which leads to this thought: Bobby Jindal for vice president!
As is usually the case, I don’t entirely accept Frum’s premises. But his conclusion? Well, obvious answers make for strange bedfellows. First Things contributor Pete Spiliakos echoes Frum, while also questioning his premises.
David Frum thinks that Bobby Jindal would be a better vice presidential candidate than Marco Rubio. So do I, but I can’t endorse Frum’s reasoning. Frum writes that Republicans are better off going after Asian-American voters with Jindal as VP than going after Latino voters with Rubio as VP. I think that Jindal and Rubio are better contrasted based on who is better prepared to be President, who has more political accomplishments and who would be better at helping Romney sell his message. I think Jindal wins on all of those counts (though I can see grounds for reasonable disagreement on the last one.)
It’s nice to see Jindal receiving some much-deserved buzz. Next up: getting Jindal and Romney in the same room at the same time.
-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
In the first part of this series, I discussed three ways a VP Jindal would help the Romney ticket; in this part, I’ll add a fourth. I’ve noted a few features of the Jindal coalition in passing (urban, concentrated in Southern Louisiana, etc) but I haven’t really sketched the Jindal voter (a voter to whom Jindal seems more appealing than a traditional Republican). I will do so now. He is urban, white, and Catholic. There are two ways of showing this; unfortunately, the easier of the two- looking at exit poll data- isn’t available to us. I was able to find comprehensive exit poll data for Louisiana elections in 2004, 2008, and 2010, but only fragments from articles for Jindal’s elections. The second option is more roundabout but equally helpful: find the Louisiana parishes (counties) where Jindal performed unusually well, and then look to survey data (the census, where available) to mark the salient features of these parishes.
First, I wanted to know: where did Jindal perform unusually well? To that end, I’ve looked at every major Louisiana election since 2000: 4 Senate contests, 3 Presidential elections, and 3 Gubernatorial elections. Republicans won 8 of these contests and lost two (Landrieu ’02 and Landrieu ’08). To facilitate comparison, I’ve separated these elections into Jindal elections and non-Jindal elections. I’m collapsing a lot of spreadsheet work into one table and one map, highlighting just 3 parishes: Jefferson Parish, Orleans Parish, and Caddo Parish.
I picked these three parishes because A.) They’re all urban (containing Metairie, New Orleans, and Shreveport respectively), and B.) Leaving aside population trends (Orleans lost a significant number of voters after Katrina), they don’t appear to have become significantly more Republican over the last decade. I.e, the same kinds of voters are voting for Republicans and Democrats. As you can see, Jindal has run significantly ahead of the average Republican in Jefferson and Orleans, while basically mirroring the average (adjusted for statewide numbers) in Caddo. Here’s a map, with Jefferson and Orleans in red, and Caddo in blue.
What distinguishes Jefferson and Orleans, on the one hand, from Caddo, on the other? The Catholic vote. I’ve had trouble finding census data (at least on the census site) of religious affiliation at the county level, so I’ve turned to city-data.com. Now, city-data breaks down religious affiliation in a funny way, seemingly excluding some non denominational churches and historically black churches, but it nonetheless provides a good estimate of the proportion of adherents who affiliate with one of the major denominations. Here are the charts it provides on the these three parishes:
Jefferson and Orleans are bursting at the seams with Catholics; Caddo, not so much. All three, by the way, have significant African-American populations (though Orleans’ is more than twice as large, as a percentage of the population, as Jefferson’s) and Caddo’s is actually somewhere between Orleans and Jefferson’s, so an over-performance with African Americans cannot explain Jindal’s numbers.
So Jindal does really, really well with urban Catholics. Why does this matter, you wonder? Well, three reasons. First, these folks tend to be Louisiana’s swing voters. They’ve been more resistant to Louisiana’s reddening than voters in the Protestant north. Mary Landrieu, for instance, carried Jefferson Parish in ’08 and performed creditably there in ’02. Catholics in Jefferson and Orleans are pretty much the only white voters that strong Democrat candidates can occasionally win. So they’re not that conservative.
Second, these folks tend to be Democrats. Again, elsewhere in Louisiana, white Democrats have been voting increasingly Republican for better than a decade: party affiliation seems to be little more than an affectation. Not so in Jefferson and, especially, Orleans. Rather wonderfully, Louisiana’s elections website provides parish-wide voting data by party affiliation, race, and race within party affiliation, for every single election. I’ve therefore gone through the data for 5 elections- the three Jindal contests and the last two Senate contests- and created tables highlighting two numbers: the percentage of the vote the Republican candidate won, relative to the white vote, and the percentage of the non-Republican electorate the Republican candidate won (assuming he won 95% of the Republican vote), in Jefferson and Orleans.
White voters- especially white, Catholic Democrats- still tend to vote for strong Democrat candidates in Orleans and (to a lesser extent) Jefferson. Even strong Republican candidates hit a barrier in Orleans. Not so with Jindal. It’s worth emphasizing just how impressive Jindal’s numbers are in Orleans. The “non-Republican-electorate” is, in fact, heavily Democrat (over 80% Democrat) and heavily African-American (over 60% African-American). Given a ceiling of 20% of the African American vote, Jindal won probably 50% of the white Democrat/Independent vote in Orleans (a population which is majority Catholic). The average Republican probably wins about 20%.
Which brings us to the third, and final, reason Jindal’s appeal to Catholic voters matters: because there are a goodly number of important counties, in important states, with a robust Catholic vote. I’ll highlight just two states: Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Here’s how this is going to work: I’m going to present you with two maps for each state; one simply colors in the Catholic counties (with a darker color representing a more Catholic electorate); the other is a recent close election (the Kasich election in Ohio and the Toomey election in Pennsylvania). Ok.
Notice something? These are the Democrat or swing areas in both states. In Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia, these are pretty much the only places Democrats win in competitive elections. But they’re not irretrievably Democrat. Just like Louisiana, they’re chock full of urban Catholic Democrats and Independents (the light red color represents counties with 45-55% Catholic, per city-data, and the darker color represents counties above 55%); but also just like in Louisiana, these voters occasionally swing the other way. Bobby Jindal has flipped these sorts of voters before, even when other strong Republican candidates struggled. A VP Jindal is well-positioned to expand the Republican map into these urban, heavily Catholic counties which dot the mid-west and the rust-belt.
-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com