Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Today's Q's For O's White House
- Afghanistan Offensive and Iraq Withdrawal: Obama's National Security Advisor Discusses Both with ABC News
- Who Makes the Big Bucks at the White House?
- Obama Quizzed at Health Care Town Hall: On Taxing Benefits, Single Payer System, and Costs
- Today's Q's for O's White House
- Spotlight on Non-Profit Work, Obama Calls on “Deep Pockets”
- Obama says Iraqi People Right to Celebrate
- Today's Q's for O's White House
- POTUS to LGBT: "Welcome to Your White House"
- Obama Gives Biden Iraq Assignment
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
"Obama" Candidate Wins that Louisiana Special Election
May 04, 2008 7:32 AM
Last night Democrat Don Cazayoux won the Louisiana special election for the 6th Congressional District, which has been held by Republicans for more than 30 years.
As you may recall, Republicans had tried to defeat Cazayoux by attempting to tie him to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in what can't be seen as a welcome trend for the lanky Illinoisan. (It's also happening in Mississippi.)
The GOP tried to "nationalize" the election. It didn't work.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., heralding that the Democratic numbers in the House have expanded to 235-198, said, "for the second time this cycle, Republicans were reminded that 'all politics is local.' House Republicans tried to nationalize this election, illegally coordinated with Freedom's Watch, used false and deceptive special interest smears, and funneled nearly a million dollars into a district that Republicans held for more than three decades."
But in its concession note last night, the National Republican Congressional Committee wrote:
"There is something to be learned from tonight's results. When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were introduced into this campaign, Don Cazayoux was leading by a large margin in the polls. Since then, Republicans saturated the Baton Rouge airwaves in an effort to nationalize this contest and make the election about the real life consequences of a Barack Obama presidency and a continued Pelosi-run Democratic Congress. In that time, Republicans made substantial ground.
"This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall. We have already seen this impact another congressional race as a Democratic candidate for Congress in Mississippi is denying that he was ever endorsed by Barack Obama. In fact, he has referenced any mention of it by Republicans as an 'attack.' And, across the country, Democrats in swing districts still refuse to publicly endorse the candidacy of Barack Obama.
"By nature, special elections tend to be competitive and their results are not always a harbinger for the November elections, but what we do know is that a Democrat was clearly favored to easily win this election before Republicans invoked the names of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. This should come as a warning shot to Democrats. The elitist behavior of the Democratic frontrunner and the liberal and extremist positions that he and his fellow Democrats in Congress have staked their claim to, do not appear to be as salient as they once hoped."
Cazayoux once sworn in will become a superdelegate.
An uncommitted one, naturally.
Hmmmm....
- jpt
May 4, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (49)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
More telling is the fact that when the Repubs linked the Dem candidates in Ohio's special election to Hillary, they lost.
When they do to Obama, they don't.
Regarding his loss of standing in the polls, that's going to happen in an election as the negative campaigning ramps up. Point in case, the presidential elections. The numbers for Hillary and Obama have both dropped. Hillary's substantially more.
I think this election would be a sign to the Republicans that they want to run against Hillary, which they seem to already know.
Posted by: Kiku | May 5, 2008 10:12:14 AM
Because of Obama, Democrats are winning in a Red State.
Posted by: Iykeman | May 5, 2008 4:25:32 AM
Maybe, this is a harbinger of things to come for the GOP?
Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | May 4, 2008 9:55:48 PM
Woody Jenkins has been a "values" Republican ever sense he quit being a "values" Democrat. He has been a very polarizing individual in Louisiana politics, and I'm glad he went down in flames regardless of the reason.
Posted by: Javalation | May 4, 2008 4:12:57 PM
Was it the RNC running the ads or the Clinton campaign? You can't tell the two apart anymore.
Wake up American, the republicans want to run against Hillary because they know she'll bring out all of republicans and that's the only way they can win. Obama is the won they're afraid of.
Indiana and North Carolina, you have your chance on Tuesday to end this. Vote for Obama.
Posted by: Carolyn Grace | May 4, 2008 3:04:02 PM
This OBAMA support group is as dishonest as Mr Obama.. False and ballant promise without any plan.. Only big word without any knowledge.. not thinking abot american.. read the message carefully.. He could have won with very big margin.. and WON inspite of republican attack to link him with OBAMA.. vote for Clinton.. vote for republican.. save America.. God bless OBAMA, Rich and his backer
Posted by: Clinton08 | May 4, 2008 3:00:37 PM
The Republicans deserve to lose every seat in '08 for the mess they made and for their shear incompetence at governing. They're great at smearing opponents and calling other ungodly or unpatriotic or immoral but they're thieves and rogues and most of the hypocritical bums should be in jail. Especially their hallowed leaders Bush/Cheney and Rove.
Posted by: thebob.bob | May 4, 2008 2:07:46 PM
It shows how out of touch the RNC is. Bush won this district by over 20 points. This is a red-red district. The fact that it was even close was a shocker. THe fact that he won by 3 % points shows the public - despite the GOPS's false attacks, and racist attempts at connecting Obama w/ the candidates- hates what the GOP gave them for the last 7 years.
Posted by: David | May 4, 2008 1:17:35 PM
LOVELY AND EXCITING. DEMOCRAT IS NOW CLIMBING IN THE REPUBLICAN EIGHTEEN YARD AND SHOOTING STRONGLY. IT IS A CLEAR SIGN THAT DEMOCRAT WILL WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.
GO OBAMA '08 .
Posted by: I.A.SMITH | May 4, 2008 12:58:56 PM
It seems weird to me that I have not heard of the whole Peter Paul / Hillary Clinton scandal until today. I follow politics very closely and have for the past 8 years.
I would love to see the media investigate this more fully. I'd rather see it done now that later...
Posted by: eric | May 4, 2008 12:29:58 PM
"The GOP tried to "nationalize" the election. It didn't work."
I think it would be more accurate to say that the GOP's effort to nationalize the election did work, but not in the way they had hoped.
After reading a few of the comments about Peter Paul / Hillary Clinton, I decided to do a little research on the internet and found very little. But I did find this site:
This story is new to me and it seems like it should get out - the media should at least investigate it to see if there is any merit.
It seems to me like the Right is hoping Clinton wins the nomination so they can hammer her with this in the general election.
Posted by: eric | May 4, 2008 12:14:18 PM
Lessons learned: Obama has so far supported 2 congressional candidates in strong republican districts and both won. Go OBAMA!
Posted by: Sue | May 4, 2008 12:03:56 PM
This makes Obama 2 for 2 with candidates he supported in special elections for Congress win and both of them were in heavy republican districts. NOW WHO IS THE STRONGER CANDIDATE?
Posted by: The Unshrub | May 4, 2008 11:54:55 AM
The republicans say they have values, but turn around and try and smear people. They cannot talk about nobody, the way they conduct themselves. GOD WILL NOT BLESS, MESS. they said they don't believe in abortion, but try and kill a persons character with their mouth.
Posted by: elizabeth7 | May 4, 2008 11:47:23 AM
Richard, the "Bush as Hitler" image will only wear off if Obama wins. No one else is saying they will restore the Constitution.
The economy is in a stranglehold of the WTO.
That will be harder to end than the Draconian anti-terrorism laws. The corporations in the US now have the rights of persons. They can now make referenda to be part of state laws. They also put up competing referenda on identical topics, when any private person attempts to rein in their power. You need 2/3 majority for a referendum to pass, so if a company puts up a competing referendum, no referendum passes. Nothing changes.
WTO will be harder to end and its control over the US than the right wing anti-terror spin.
Posted by: bruce becker | May 4, 2008 11:43:10 AM
What the NRCC doesn't point out is that there was a split in the Dem party as the losing Dem in the primary, an African American, promises to run as a n independent in November. Presumably that would have kept some of his voters from turning out for Cazayoux. Its a big win for the Dems and a big loss for the NRCC and their guilt by association, smear, win at all cost, pathetic campaigning. Not this time!!!
Posted by: Sean | May 4, 2008 11:35:16 AM
When the republican candidate is tied to George Bush the effect on voting is more powerful than the Obama effect. This Bush as Hoover image should wear off in about 12 to 15 years.
Posted by: Richard | May 4, 2008 11:29:00 AM
Well we contribute the win to any number of factors that I am not privy to.
The bet was that Obama would damage the candidate, but the fact remains what do I knowe of LA.? This man ran in a strong GOP district and won. Well I think that shook the threat of those kinds of ads.
It's the issues stupid
Posted by: Thinking | May 4, 2008 11:12:00 AM
Can anyone please explain this story about Peter Paul Vs Hillary Clinton? It's on the blogs now. It's about stuff on fraud and campaign finance against Hillary. Who is Peter Paul? Why is no one talking about this? Isn’t this a serious issue in a general election? This has been described as the campaign finance scandal of the new millennium and no one wants to discuss it. Does America not deserve better? I leave it to you guys to decide.
Posted by: Owen | May 4, 2008 11:04:56 AM
This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall. We have already seen this impact another congressional race as a Democratic candidate for Congress in Mississippi is denying that he was ever endorsed by Barack Obama. In fact, he has referenced any mention of it by Republicans as an 'attack.' And, across the country, Democrats in swing districts still refuse to publicly endorse the candidacy of Barack Obama.
----------------------
What part of this do you people not get?? Obama is TOXIC!!! He will cost the Dem's LOCAL seats AS well as HOUSE AND SENATE ones. Please read the above and digest the implications!
OBAMA WHO!!!
Posted by: HP Boston | May 4, 2008 10:59:14 AM
Post a comment

