The hand Bush was dealt before the mid-term elections was particularly bad. His gambit (risking political capital and running by proxy) was more likely to pay-off when he/Rove were able to (as it then later pejoratively deemed) handpick a strong, unity candidate, preempting divisive battles, etc. When these candidates won, this was criticized as undemocratic, machiavellic, etc. In LA, they could not (why not?) do this, and had to "settle" with bringing an unknown from way back. The real lesson of LA is: Continue domesticating unrully local Republicans.

So do you think McCain will jump?

They probably backed the wrong horse in this one. It seems like Congressman Cooksey (sp?) would have had an easier row to hoe.

Whack:



I think he's too unstable to be sure what he'll do.

This election was a win-win for the Republicans- either pick up a senate seat, or let the Democrats have a Phyrric victory. Attitudes like one expressed in the quote will, coupled with by-election victories, only encourage the Democrats to self-destruct. "See, we're doing nothing wrong that a little tilt to the left won't fix."

Landrieu should write a letter to Lott, thanking him for her reelection. This political genius managed to get the Louisiana African-Americans behind Landrieu, even though they had no warm feelings for her.

Hmmm, so will an uncompromising pro-integrationist

plank be submitted at the next Republican

convention?

Agree with oj - this writeup is typical (i.e. Bush rebuffed, GOP in retreat) when all it really means is GOP has less of a cushion in the Senate. People forget that before 11/5 most predictions were for the GOP to lose Senate seats, not pick up 2, almost 4 (adding SD to LA here).

The only way this is bad is if it encourages McCain and Chafee to pull a double switch and give the Senate back to the Dems.

The conclusion that Terrell came close to knocking off a "popular" senator is not quite correct. Other than some die-hard liberals (yes we have them in the south) I don't know that Little Mary is all that popular among my fellow Louisianaians. While it may be too early to analyze what went wrong with the Terrell campaign, let me suggest that Louisiana is a state that is neither democrat nor republican -- it is Populist (thanks Huey Long) and the people like a feisty underdog. Terrell ended up with the entire White House/RNC apparatus behind her campaign. Landrieu knew that national democrats are not generally popular, at least with Whites down here, and decided to make it look like she was going it alone. I think that helped her, as did the fact that she does have better name recognition than Terrell. Neither has much personality and Landrieu kept insisting (at least during the primary) that she was a 70% Bush supporter (which alienated a lot of Blacks). It wasn't easy for most people to see that there were real and important reasons for electing Terrell over someone who claimed to be a moderate (but only if you include Hillary Clinton in that definition).

Peter:



If I heard correctly on NPR, she only got 60% of white votes. That's not enough for a Republican to win in the South. That's why I said Cooksey might have fared better.



Harry:



The political lesson is actually the opposite. Race works for the GOP, but people thought Terrell wasn't conservative enough (especially on cultural issues).

OJ - If I recall correctly Cooksey was the guy in the beginning (at least he got the coverage and push looking at nrsc.org) but did so poorly and made some dumb mistakes that the GOP went for the multicandidate route. Before the other two GOPers got in I think polls showing Landreau beating Cooksey like 55-20.

Again some are calling this a "bad black eye" for the GOP (see NRO corner) but I'm thinking this is like when an underdog team does better than expected and forces an overtime but then loses in overtime.

I don't think Lott's comments were enough to provide the margin of victory; I'd estimate they only drummed up 1000 extra Black votes. Turnout was going to be high there anyway, given the anti-Left tone of Terrell's campaign. (That would, however, account for the contemporary House race result in that state.)



I agree with WaPo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27966-2002Dec8.html
) - and you, actually, OJ - that the White vote was unenthusiastic about Terrell.



But *that* wasn't because Terrell wasn't conservative enough... it was because Terrell promised to support Bush (more), and then Bush promised to reduce tariffs, and then Landrieu brought up the local sugar growers.



So in the last week of the campaign, Terrell faced this: White farmers fearing the loss of ill-gotten corporate welfare; high negatives in the Black community; not enough time to convince New Orleans that public support for free trade principles was, uh, a good idea for, um, a port city.



So lots of Blacks voted for Landrieu and a lot of Whites didn't bother voting for Terrell.



Oh, well, better luck in six years time. At least it's a good opportunity for Bush to toss out those subsidies and get in good with sugar-consumers and our Mexican and Caribbean neighbours.

AWW:



If you look at the other candidates that Rove hand-picked, they too were more moderate than their opponents. They bet on Terrell being a better candidate in a general election, but a special election comes down to your party base. It was a significant mistake, but Rove did well enough elsewhere.

Well, I have to eat some crow on this issue. I thought Terrel was going to take it. Guess not.