Disenfranchisement of Dems in the primaries?

According to Barack Obama's campaign blog, some Democrats reported on election day that they were unable to vote in the Louisiana primary because their party affiliation had been switched, even though they hadn't changed it themselves. This in spite of strong primary turnouts. Interestingly, neither local media nor Hillary Clinton's blog mentioned this, that I can find--this doesn't mean I'm discounting it, though.

I'm already dreading disenfranchisement and voting machine problems in the general election.

Read More...

Rival cities: BR and NOLA

The BR Business Report has published an interesting article about the rivalry between BR and New Orleans, especially since Katrina:

In the two-and-a-half years since Hurricane Katrina forever altered the geographic, demographic and economic landscape of southeast Louisiana, New Orleans and Baton Rouge have become paradoxically closer yet farther apart than ever as squabbles over population, recovery dollars and where the state’s locus of power lies strain what was already a competitive relationship.

[...]

It’s silly, in a way, this petty squabble, but it has serious implications for the future of the state because it will color the very heated battles that will ensue when legislative and congressional districts are redrawn at the end of the decade. It will also affect how federal aid dollars are spent. Above all, it will hamper economic development efforts in a region that needs to be working together now more than ever.

“This is arguably one of the most important discussions to be having right now in this state,” Shreveport demographer and political analyst Elliott Stonecipher says. “This kind of regional rivalry is not a luxury Louisiana can afford.”

What bothers me most about the article--or rather, the content of the article, not the article itself per se--is BR's supposed readiness to take advantage of Katrina:

When Katrina hit, many saw the opportunity for which they had long been waiting. New Orleans was perceived as dead, or, maybe, presumed dead before anyone bothered to check for a pulse. Finally, Baton Rouge could make a legitimate claim as the true power center in Louisiana.

“People in Baton Rouge have been waiting on baited [sic] breath for any opportunity to shift the locus of power away from New Orleans,” Stonecipher says. “The moment the storm hit they saw their chance.”

Unfortunately, I'm not qualified (i.e. informed) enough to refute it, but considering that this is a Baton Rouge publication, I doubt that it's far from the mark. Perhaps "the moment the storm hit" is an exaggeration, but people (and fellow Louisianans at that) should be ashamed of such behavior. While I hesitate to strongly identify myself as Baton Rougean (Louisianan, yes, but I'm less proud, if proud at all, of this city in particular), I do feel somewhat ashamed that some here reportedly leaped at this opportunity to gain an upper hand in business, while many in NOLA (and those fleeing it) were suffering so greatly.

It seems to me that BR is desperate to take any development opportunity that comes along. Not that I can blame us, but perhaps we should be more picky. Last weekend, the Pinnacle referendum managed to pass with 56% of the vote, despite the recent finding that casinos are tied with landfills in terms of desirability as a local development, with 76% of Americans saying they would oppose one in their community. As a city we seem to be struggling to get ahead economically (with a D- in workaholism) and become (at least in some ways) more progressive--Rouzan, the first attempt at a TND, is a sign of this, I think. (More on Rouzan later.) But I think we have to temper our eagerness to develop with prudence and thought to existing infrastructure, sustainability, suburban sprawl, and other such issues. Time will tell.

What is either quite foreboding or just nasty rhetoric is the suggestion that New Orleans is currently running on an "artificial economy":

Proponents of the 10-12 Corridor initiative believe New Orleans is currently subsisting on an artificial economy that is sustained almost entirely by federal recovery dollars. When that well runs dry, as it eventually will, the state will need something to make up for what will be lost. Jump-starting the 10-12 Corridor is what that is all about.

In any case, I agree wholeheartedly that we've got to work together:

“At some point, we need to make this a New Orleans-Baton Rouge-Northshore triangle,” Richardson says. “We have to be less competitive and more complementary.”

These intrastate struggles don't help anyone but the fat cats. Working together is ultimately best for the whole state. We've got enough going against us as it is.

Read More...

LSU's "primary" yields interesting results

Obama wins SG mock primary election
The voters constituted "over 7 percent" of the student body, unrestricted by party (unlike the actual primaries).
With that in mind:
Democratic side:
Obama: 76.7%
Clinton: 21.8%
Gravel: <2%

Republican side:
McCain: 37%
Huckabee: 22.4%
Paul: 21.6%
Romney: 19%

While Obama won the election with 33.5 percent of the total student vote, party affiliation results turned up a surprising twist. Of the participating student body, there were 45.7 percent declared Republicans, 26.7 percent designated Democrats, and 15.1 percent Independents. Less than 2 percent claimed they were "Other" and 11 percent had no party affiliation.

It seems that I've seen more support for Clinton and Paul on campus, in the form of bumper stickers (Clinton) and signs, banners, chalk writings, etc. (Paul) than for any other candidates.
Yet these two trailed behind--Clinton by a very surprising amount (to me, anyway) and Paul by a surprising amount considering that there were two, not one, candidates ahead of him and considering also the ubiquity of expressions of support for him. "Silent majority" indeed.

Read More...

Feb 9 elections -- Pinnacle

Well Fat/Super Tuesday has come and gone, with Clinton pulling a slight lead (under very troubling circumstances), and McCain confirmed as the definitive front-runner on the Republican side. Of course, Louisiana didn't participate, being that Mardi Gras was falling on the same day, so we go to vote on Feb. 9th instead. On the ballot in East Baton Rouge Parish are the primaries (and some state party officials), but also the controversial proposal for a relocation of the Pinnacle Casino in Lake Charles. (A .doc file of the proposal as it will appear on the ballot is here.)

There is noise being made on both sides of the issue, but it's hard, from my perspective, to judge how much of this is backed by either Pinnacle or its competitors, and how much of it is actually citizens. I'm inclined to believe that citizens do make a large part of the opposition, though. Unsurprisingly, the companies are in an ugly fight. I look at the arguments and choose a side myself after the jump.

The arguments of Pinnacle and supporters the casino are that the casino will bring jobs, tax revenues, entertainers, and tourists, while (according to Pinnacle's promises, at least) putting its own money into the city infrastructure to offset potential traffic problems. (And of course, the people who frequent the casinos would like someplace nice and new.)

On the other hand, opponents of the casino argue that, from a moral standpoint, we don't need more gambling in this city, that the new casino will worsen traffic, that Pinnacle would be developing in the wrong place--on River Road south of downtown and LSU, presently a quiet and rural area, rather than in-filling in the downtown area somehow. (Besides extending the urban sprawl, this would destroy bird habitat, cycling area--of which there is certainly not much in BR--and a historic and scenic area.)

Personally, I'm only barely conflicted on this, primarily because of Pinnacle's economic arguments (jobs and tax revenue). But I do think that it's in the wrong area, and I am inclined to discourage gambling addiction, even being the social liberal/libertarian that I am. We need development but I believe it should be in-fill in areas that have essentially been abandoned, rather than more sprawl. Perhaps, as I've seen suggested elsewhere, Pinnacle should try to buy out one of the two boats--that's something I could get behind. But they refuse to develop downtown, an attitude that should, in my opinion, inspire mistrust--clearly they have little concern for community consensus or what else is going on here in terms of development and downtown revitalization.

There are several additional features (a golf course, a horse trail, etc.) that Pinnacle points to as beneficial for economic development. But they haven't made any commitments, and if they decide that the market isn't right, they'll just have a casino boat and leave it at that.

Finally, the coup de grace to Pinnacle's strongest arguments is that if they put one of the other two boats under through competition, the benefits of jobs and revenue will be basically a wash: we'll be back to two boats, except that one will have marred River Road in south BR (actually, outside the city limits), and there will be yet another husk of a development downtown.

On a more basic level, is gambling "growth"? The Advocate doesn't think so, and come to think of it, it hasn't done good by our state so far:

Gambling is not economic development. We have opposed the new proposal, not to disparage the applicant or to restrict competition in gambling, but because Louisiana has looked to gambling as a false idol, as a way to promote economic growth.

Other than in the regions of Lake Charles and Shreveport, where Texas gamblers do bring in new money, gambling is another way to cut up the local entertainment dollar.

Even the Baton Rouge Business Report (who I would expect to support Pinnacle wholeheartedly), despite JR Ball's editorial (same as linked above), seems ambivalent, which should really send up a red flag.

Read More...