LA-06: Jackson and Cassidy Sit Down … to Discuss What?

Cazayoux's defeat (0.00 / 0)

Cazayoux's defeat only happened because of the ridiculous Louisiana state law that allows a candidate to run as an independent after having lost in a primary election.  Connecticut has the same law, and that is why Lieberman is senator there instead of Lamont.  I doubt if many states have such a law.  I know California does not.  Once the primaries are over, that's it--no more candidates are allowed.  Otherwise, what's the point of even having primaries if you can get right back on the ballot after having lost.

---

by: jward1 @ Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:23:15 PM CST

JWard ... (0.00 / 0)

You're correct that CT has that crazy law.  I worked for Ned Lamont, and am intimately familiar with that stupid law.

However, down here in Louisiana, we don't have that law.  Mr. Jackson lost the special election primary back in April.  He was well within his rights to seek the office again the regularly scheduled even year elections, held 7 months later.

Every single state in the union, to my knowledge, allows what Mr. Jackson did.  

"I was against NAFTA and CAFTA, and I'll be against SHAFTA."

---

by: ryan @ Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not entirely convinced of that. (0.00 / 0)

Cazayoux's defeat only happened because of the ridiculous Louisiana state law that allows a candidate to run as an independent after having lost in a primary election.

Really? Imagine going to a restaurant and there are two items on the menu:

1. Cheeseburger
2. Almost Cheeseburger

Which one are you going to order?

I'd rather have a candidate that offers a clear choice versus the opposition.  

---

by: arubyan @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:50:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So where do we go from here? (0.00 / 0)

CenLamar:

a full explanation of the significance of this post election meeting.  

It almost doesn't matter what they said. Fact is, you're left with two "Democratic" politicians whose future is suspect -- Cazayoux for running a lackluster campaign and Jackson for not being a party stalwart. And, yes, I'm understating both problems.

In my mind, this removes both of them from serious consideration in 2010.

Who's on the bench?

---

by: arubyan @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:48:10 AM CST

This is comical . . . but it shouldn't surprise anyone. (0.00 / 0)

I want to know how come no one has mentioned the role of Sen. Fields in this charade.  My understanding is that Fields office was Jackson's election day headquarters. . . .

The sad part is Baton Rouge is really going to pay a price for a R rep. and a R governor  already challenging the new president in 2012.  My guess is that we won't get $*** for the next four years.

---

by: wojeaux @ Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 14:16:44 PM CST