With a third of the precincts reporting healthy margains for both the recall of Gray Davis and his replacement by Aronld Swarzenegger, it seems safe to call this one for Arnold.

Now that the entertainment is over, it's time for California's government to quit procrastinating and face the massive budget deficit. Here's hoping that Arnold can put his movie-star charisma to good use persuading the famously contentious California legislature to come to agreement on a budget fix.

UPDATE: The NY Times is dubious that this can be done. Unfortunately, their analysis of the challenges facing Arnold seems pretty accurate.

This William Saletan piece in Slate is the first thing I've read that ever got me excited about the possibility of President Wesley Clark:

Watching Clark answer questions, you almost can't believe he's running for president. Does he support equal rights for gays? Yes. Has ultrasound affected his view of abortion? I'm pro-choice. It's hard to convey the artlessness of his responses. You don't see his eyes, jaws, or hands working over the question, probing for threats and opportunities, the way John Kerry or John Edwards does. One hand grips the mike; the other hangs in his pocket. He stares at the questioner, unblinking. His eyebrows never rise. Neither does his voice.

Clark is a more genuine and—if this is possible—less exciting version of Kerry.

Irish Lass has a rather frightening report of her treatment at the recall polls today:

Today I entered my polling place and the poll worker told me I had to take off my shirt. It was perfectly obvious that I didn't have anything on under my shirt but a bra. I said are you serious. He said yes, you can't wear that, it's electioneering.

Just when you thought that Crescat Sententia was no longer deserving of a parody, "Adrian" has resurfaced over at Assprat Pretentia. The latest post takes the usual stabs at me, my irrelevancies, my penchant for quotations, and so on, but also takes new thrusts at my co-blogger Amy, my former teacher Professor Leitzel, my former boss Judge Posner, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, Maureen Dowd, and Stephen Glass. The whole thing is even more vulgar than usual, and a lot less funny, but it's still pretty flattering.

UPDATE: Should make clear, I suppose, that the thing is flattering not because it says anything positive about me (it doesn't, though I guess it does refer to me as "noble") but just that I take it as a great compliment that somebody is granting us the sincerest form of flattery.

The Amercian Prospect wonders whether Libertarians will soon be bolting for the Democratic party:

Alina Stefanescu is in the middle of a crisis. The Romanian-born, Alabama-raised 25-year-old has been a libertarian since the 10th grade. A hardcore one. An activist. An academic. A brainiac foot soldier in the broad conservative movement so committed to the cause, she used to wear an Ollie North T-shirt to class in her Tuscaloosa high school. So when there's been a choice between a Democrat and a Republican, Stefanescu has gone with the GOP just about every time.

Will asks about Bobby Jindal's chances against Kathleen Blanco for governor of Louisiana. She's certainly got the lead on him in experience: she's running as a two-term lieutenant governor, former state legislator, and Public Service Commissioner (incl. Chairman). Her approval ratings as Lt. Gov. are high (do voters pay attention to the Lt. Gov, though?). Like Jindal, she's emphasizing education as a crucial plank in her campaign. They both want to increase training for the workforce, but she also proposes mandatory pre-K education (I'm with her on that) and has a plan to give laptops to all 7th graders [in a peevish Dan voice: I want a laptop]. Her economic plan includes phasing out the corporate franchise tax on debt and the sales tax on manufacturing machinery and equipment (to draw more businesses) and plugging the Port of New Orleans for trade with Latin America, Canada, and the Midwest; also film production, tourism, and oil/natural gas. She's been attacked the most, I think, for her stance on health care [turf on which I think no candidate could beat Jindal's national and LA experience], particuarly for

Every citizen in the state deserves the same level of care. The Charity Hospital System is clearly broken. We can no longer afford to financially support a two-tiered healthcare system in this State. Proposals have been submitted seeking fundamental changes in the system, but consideration must be given to regional solutions, coordinated with local healthcare providers.

Oh yes, and both are Roman Catholic (she's Cajun, represented Lafayette, maiden name Babineaux). No taints of sleaziness, corruption, slurs against teachers, grand jury indictments, positions as ex-grand wizards of the Klan, haunt either of them. Jindal has the support of the fairly popular incumbent Republican governor, Mike Foster. Neither is particuarly moderate, although Blanco is more so than Jindal. [I like this facoid from the WaPo: the challenger Buddy Leach "had already been ousted from Congress amid vote-buying charges by the time Jindal was in 4th grade"]

So who will win?

In the primary, Jindal took 33% of the vote and Blanco 18%, although she split the Democratic vote with a field of qualified challengers: Buddy Leach (US Rep.), Richard Ieyoub (Attorney General), and Randy Ewing (former state Senate Pres.).

Jindal's support was concentrated among white voters in the 8 largest parishes, including East Baton Rouge (where the capital is) and Orleans (although there aren't many white voters there -- it's got the nation's highest % of blacks.=). He also had significant support from the northern (Protestant) half of the state, which historically splits from the southern (Cajun, Catholic) half.

Neither of these two did particuarly well among the black vote (and nearly 33% of the state is black). Their support went primarily to Leach and Ieyoub. This wasn't as much of an issue when Foster ran (the only recent Republican to win), because the top Democratic challenger was former US Rep Cleo Fields, who is himself black. Now it's also a question of turnout: former gov. Edwin Edwards (D) was known for getting the black vote out to the polls to vote for him. This year, black turnout for the primary was particuarly low (a lack of exciting candidates?) which could easily carry over into the general election. If it were to, the weak support predicted to be shown for Blanco would work in Jindal's advantage. But if the black vote shows up, Blanco will likely take the election; her immoderacy could work to her advantage now. [information on who polled best where and such is avaliable from this Advocate article] [I disagree here with the Another Rice Grad commentator, and Ieyoub is pronounce "Eye"-"y(of yellow)+oob(of boob)]

Jindal's experience, gained through administrative rather than elected offices, will be his primary strength that could allow him to expand his voting constituency. It gives him an air of being nonpartisan, of not being tied to any particular political party. Certianly, he doesn't seem to have any obligations or favors to be repaid. For people seeking a reform, an experiment in going in the right direction, this could be appealing. From time to time, Louisiana tends to elect people whose party ties appear ambivalent: see our senators Mary Landrieu and John Breaux, both centrist Democrats. The state also appears fairly split in party support: we've got the nation's longest streak of representation by both Democratic senators (since 1877, I think), but the incumbent governor's Republican and the state went for Bush last time, Clinton the election before that.

To win, Jindal needs to court the median voter some, but also to make sure his right-ist constituents show up at the polls. I think his positions alone, if he keeps repeating them often enough and loud enough, should attract the undecideds (note: should, not will). As for the race card mentioned in the Washington Post-- if anything, I wonder if it might help him: electing the Indian-American could be seen as proof that we've rejected the racist past that led to our voting scheme in the first place [this could very well be wishful thinking on my part, though].

Summary prediction/hope: Jindal will win.

[thanks to Josh Chafetzfor pointing out a typo, now corrected]

Does this week mark the first time that The Onion has withdrawn a current article from its website for fear of insensitivity?

Was the management worried that, what with Roy being mauled by one of his white tigers, an editorial mocking him (now available only as a cached by Google; the Onion link turns up an empty template), published only days earlier, might be seen in bad taste?

A brief, now-poignant excerpt:

Did you enjoy the white tigers? Most people love the white lions and the white tigers. Siegfried and I often fight over which of us should get the spotlight, but in the end, the star of the show is always the cats. Everyone assumes that they work for us, but it's more the other way around! Luckily, I've always had a great rapport with those beautiful creatures. My home is filled with jungle cats of all kinds. It's truly a wonderful way to live. So, if you loved the cats, then that's thanks enough for me.

Here's hoping Mr. Horn recovers from his ordeal. And if anyone knows of other times when the famously insensitive Onion has pulled an article, I'd like to hear it.

The Curmudgeonly Clerk has found his curmudgeonly roots, and I must say I'm happy about it. His is the best blog I've seen at mastering the mix of an even-handed tone with pretty scathing insult.

Firstly there's the substance of his post, which is generally right on- he clearly rebutts the claim that the allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger "not appear to constitute any crime, such as rape or sodomy or even assault or battery."

But even better than that are some of the shots and flourishes that the Clerk takes at Estrich and his readers. For example:

To err is human, and I demonstrate my humanity with some frequency. Therefore, as one who relies on the good will and understanding of others, I try to write well-reasoned critiques rather than visceral rants. Having said that, Estrich is unquestionably wrong, and I mean "unquestionably" in the most literal sense that the term may be employed. Indeed, she is so wrong that only disingenuousness or profound ignorance of the law can account for her remarkable claims.

I don't wish to be overly rude, but it is difficult to square your response with the law. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that you read my post before hitting the comment button....

It is amazing to me that, in 2003, I have to painstakingly explain to people who own computers that intentionally grabbing womens' breasts and buttocks and groping them in a sexual nature without their consent is almost certain to give offense and constitute battery. But no matter, there is a simple, single word for those who fail to grasp this elementary legal precept: defendant.

(Via Virginia Postrel): Okay, so I knew the folks at Google had a sense of humor (given their pigeonrank prank from a couple of Aprils ago), but it turns out that the folks at Amazon do too. Here's a new and improved way to navigate their site.

Well all right. Bobby Jindal wins the runoff which probably isn't a shock. The AP and some random commenter on Another Rice Grad don't think he stands much of a chance in the general election, and I admit it doesn't look great-- Jindal got 33% of the vote and he was (near as I can tell) the only major Republican in the race. The top three other candidates on the other hand (who I think are Democrats) got a combined total of 50% or so.

But here's the question: to what degree will supporters of the failed candidates substitute to Jindal? I mean, I know normally we expect party loyalties to run rather deep, so if you don't get your Democrat of Choice in the primary you'll just take the runner up. But the support that Jindal enjoys indicates that something else might be going on there. Exciting and different candidates sometimes win people who are feeling a little unhappy with their party. Anyway, I'll leave a serious analysis of this to Amanda, our Louisiana politics expert, and quietly await the recall results to clear the Atlantic time difference.

UPDATE: Reader Ed Cohn (who knows much more than I do) writes in:

Some random comments on the Louisiana governor's race, in response to your blog:

At-large primary results aren't always a perfect predictor of run-off results. Consider the 1995 Louisiana governor's race:

Mike Foster, 26% (R)
Cleo Fields, 19% (D)
Mary Landrieu, 18% (D)
Buddy Roemer, 18% (R)
Phil Preis, 9% (D)
M. Schwegmann, 5% (D)
other 5%

Leaving aside votes for "other," Democrats outdid Republicans 51-44. In November, Mike Foster won 64-36. This was in part because the Democrat less likely to win a majority advanced to the run-off (and because Fields and Landrieu get along horribly). At the same time, different voters turn out in primaries and in general elections or run-offs, and the campaign that takes place before the run-off can make a big difference.

Consider some results from Washington's non-partisan Senate primary:

In 1998, Patty Murray (D) led in the primary with 46%, compared to 32% for
Linda Smith (R) and 15% for Chris Bayley (R). This was a weak showing for an incumbent, but she won 58-42 over Smith in November. (This was partly because Smith was probably too conservative to win and partly because more Democrats turned out in November, if I'm not mistaken. Though the two top Republicans received more votes than Murray, I'm not sure if more Republicans or Democrats received votes.)

I can't find good results for non-partisan primaries in Washington house races, but here's one result: in 1998, incumbent Rick White (R) led Democrat Jay Inslee 49-44 in the primary, but lost 51-49. (I'm not sure if Democrats or Republicans got more votes in the primary, but the initial result was seen as a likely indicator that White would be reelected.)

(Washington non-partisan primaries are, however, different from Louisiana non-partisan primaries: in Louisiana, the top two vote-getters advance to a run-off regardless of party. In Washington, the idea was to hold two primaries with one ballot--I believe in order to save money.)

I don't know Louisiana politics well enough to predict a winner, but I wouldn't count Jindal out. (For what it's worth, among major party candidates, Democrats led Republicans 48-40. I'm not sure who has the advantage when you add together all the candidates who received less than 1% of the vote.

The latest edition of Bookslut features a comparative review of The Joy of Cooking and How To Cook Everything. The former is by Irma and Marion Rombauer, the latter by Mark Bittman. Not only is the review entertainingly written, but it comes out with the right answer-- namely, that Bittman's book is basically superior, and is the clear first-choice staple for any cook.

Plus, you've got this:

Enter How to Cook Everything. Mark Bittman’s 1998 big yellow book is to The Joy of Cooking what The Godfather: Part II is to The Godfather*....


*The writer freely admits that this may stand as the most tortured, Bulwer-Lytton contest-worthy analogy ever, but suggests that if you hate this, just imagine what he must have rejected.

...in the category of "Qutting long after it's time:"

Senator Bob Graham of Florida ended his bid for the White House on last night after months of struggling to attract enough money and support to mount a competitive campaign. He is the first of the 10 Democrats in the race to drop out.

"I have made the judgment that I cannot be elected president of the United States," Mr. Graham said on "Larry King Live" on CNN.