Demo Win Lousiana - Lousiana Loses?
The following excerpt from New Republic On-Line
Good News, Bad News
by Adam B. Kushner
Democrats in Louisiana seem to have a habit of winning Pyrrhic victories. Most memorable, perhaps, was 1991--a year any Democrat tempted to abandon the party's gubernatorial standard-bearer, longtime extortionist hack Edwin Edwards, need only have glimpsed the Republican alternative, white supremacist David Duke, before rejecting the idea. Edwards won after a pithy down-state bumper sticker campaign endorsed him, imploring drivers to "Vote for the Crook!" (Both candidates now reside in federal prisons.)
But this weekend's last-minute upset by the current lieutenant governor, Democrat Kathleen Blanco, over the state's former Health and Hospitals secretary, Bobby Jindal, might prove a close second. Blanco thoroughly alienated her Democratic base by opposing abortion, taxes, affirmative action, and gay rights (the last two albeit ambiguously). Worse, her win resulted not so much from any particular talent--there was little of that in evidence on the campaign trail--but from missteps by her opponent. Beyond the obvious fact that they'll control the governor's mansion for the next four years, Louisiana Democrats have little to brag about.
Jindal, an Indian-American running for Louisiana's white, frequently racist, Republican "Bubba vote," was clearly the story of the race. Unlike the colorful, back-slapping good-ole-boys who usually win Louisiana elections--conservative Democratic Senator John Breaux, outgoing Governor (and farmer-in-chief) Mike Foster, Representative Billy Tauzin--Jindal is a 32-year-old technocrat and first-generation American. At the age of four, he changed his name from Piyush to Bobby; in high school, he became a devout Catholic. Then, after graduating with honors from Brown University, Jindal declined top medical and law school acceptances to study in Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship.
Jindal's career as a rising Republican star began soon after his return from England. At age 24, after two years as a management consultant, he won an audience with Governor Foster. He promptly fast-talked his way into a job running the state's mammoth health system and, almost as promptly, rescued the system from a pile of crushing debt. Three years later Jindal was running the state's university system. By the time he was 30, he was an assistant secretary in the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services.
Ill-at-ease with policy proposals and easily flustered in debates, Blanco's chief accomplishment through 20 years in public office had been to make few enemies. She ran on her record of promoting tourism during her stint as lieutenant governor, and hoped to prove just inoffensive enough to a majority of voters to squeak across the finish line.
By contrast, Jindal's strategy was two-pronged: On the one hand, he branded himself a religious conservative, outflanking Blanco on social issues (though not by much) in an attempt to win the culturally conservative upstate white vote. On the other hand, he painted himself as a non-ideological fixer with a workmanlike approach to the state's many problems. The hope here was to win over white moderates, perhaps even a respectable share of the state's black vote.
As it happens, the second approach paid real dividends. Jindal reached out to the New Orleans business community and came away with a bundle of endorsements. He also won the endorsement of the city's business-friendly mayor, Democrat Ray Nagin, a black cable executive who won office last year as an iconoclastic outsider. Nagin's move then prompted several high-profile black ministers to endorse Jindal as well, giving blacks across the state cover to vote for him. And to some extent, they did just that. Jindal polled nine percent among blacks statewide--double the usual showing for a Republican.
Problem was, the first half of Jindal's strategy never worked well enough for any of this to matter. For all his outreach to rural whites, latent racism might have limited Jindal's appeal. As one self-identified Bubba told The Washington Post last week, "It's hard for me to believe I'm even going to look at this man--at first he almost looked to me like an Iraqi." Jindal ended up digging himself an unacceptably large hole by winning a mere 60 percent of the state's whites. "Generally speaking," says Ed Renwick, director of Loyola University's Institute of Politics, "a Republican in Louisiana needs to get between 65 and 70 percent of the white vote in order to win." In last year's Senate race, for example, Democrat Mary Landrieu won approximately 35 percent of the white vote--considerably less than Blanco's 40--and even that was enough to put her over the top.
Even so, Jindal might still have had shot had he not relied on a second flawed assumption: that last-minute political attacks don't need to be answered. With less than a week before the election, Blanco's campaign began running ads excoriating Jindal's performance as health chief during the mid-'90s. The commercials alleged that, among other things, Jindal had bumped 60,000 people from the Medicaid rolls (a hugely inflated number, according to the state health department). Jindal--acting either on his own or, according to some, on bad advice from the national party--chose not to respond, a decision that probably sealed his fate. The young upstart proceeded to plummet from a 9-point lead on Wednesday to a small deficit on Friday. "Healthcare has always been very important in Louisiana, ever since Huey Long's time," Renwick says. "Look at those commercials: They targeted basically African Americans, poor whites, and women, and those are all areas that if Jindal didn't do well with, he wouldn't win."
Which is a shame. Because for all his crazy views on cultural issues, the reason Jindal got international press attention, cross-party endorsements, and even a share of the Bubba vote, is that he would have made a pretty decent governor. Louisiana politics, as the career of Edwin Edwards will attest, is an utterly stagnant and backwards business. If anyone could have changed this pattern it was Jindal, who, Blanco's ads notwithstanding, did as much to eliminate corruption from the state's social service system as any official in recent memory. (As health secretary, he even declined wedding gifts from medical professionals to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.)
Politically speaking, a Jindal administration might have been a four- or eight-year setback for Louisiana liberals. But it would also have been a three-decade leap forward in terms of ethics and competence. Too bad this year's lone Democratic gubernatorial victory had to come at such a price.
Good News, Bad News
by Adam B. Kushner
Democrats in Louisiana seem to have a habit of winning Pyrrhic victories. Most memorable, perhaps, was 1991--a year any Democrat tempted to abandon the party's gubernatorial standard-bearer, longtime extortionist hack Edwin Edwards, need only have glimpsed the Republican alternative, white supremacist David Duke, before rejecting the idea. Edwards won after a pithy down-state bumper sticker campaign endorsed him, imploring drivers to "Vote for the Crook!" (Both candidates now reside in federal prisons.)
But this weekend's last-minute upset by the current lieutenant governor, Democrat Kathleen Blanco, over the state's former Health and Hospitals secretary, Bobby Jindal, might prove a close second. Blanco thoroughly alienated her Democratic base by opposing abortion, taxes, affirmative action, and gay rights (the last two albeit ambiguously). Worse, her win resulted not so much from any particular talent--there was little of that in evidence on the campaign trail--but from missteps by her opponent. Beyond the obvious fact that they'll control the governor's mansion for the next four years, Louisiana Democrats have little to brag about.
Jindal, an Indian-American running for Louisiana's white, frequently racist, Republican "Bubba vote," was clearly the story of the race. Unlike the colorful, back-slapping good-ole-boys who usually win Louisiana elections--conservative Democratic Senator John Breaux, outgoing Governor (and farmer-in-chief) Mike Foster, Representative Billy Tauzin--Jindal is a 32-year-old technocrat and first-generation American. At the age of four, he changed his name from Piyush to Bobby; in high school, he became a devout Catholic. Then, after graduating with honors from Brown University, Jindal declined top medical and law school acceptances to study in Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship.
Jindal's career as a rising Republican star began soon after his return from England. At age 24, after two years as a management consultant, he won an audience with Governor Foster. He promptly fast-talked his way into a job running the state's mammoth health system and, almost as promptly, rescued the system from a pile of crushing debt. Three years later Jindal was running the state's university system. By the time he was 30, he was an assistant secretary in the Bush administration's Department of Health and Human Services.
Ill-at-ease with policy proposals and easily flustered in debates, Blanco's chief accomplishment through 20 years in public office had been to make few enemies. She ran on her record of promoting tourism during her stint as lieutenant governor, and hoped to prove just inoffensive enough to a majority of voters to squeak across the finish line.
By contrast, Jindal's strategy was two-pronged: On the one hand, he branded himself a religious conservative, outflanking Blanco on social issues (though not by much) in an attempt to win the culturally conservative upstate white vote. On the other hand, he painted himself as a non-ideological fixer with a workmanlike approach to the state's many problems. The hope here was to win over white moderates, perhaps even a respectable share of the state's black vote.
As it happens, the second approach paid real dividends. Jindal reached out to the New Orleans business community and came away with a bundle of endorsements. He also won the endorsement of the city's business-friendly mayor, Democrat Ray Nagin, a black cable executive who won office last year as an iconoclastic outsider. Nagin's move then prompted several high-profile black ministers to endorse Jindal as well, giving blacks across the state cover to vote for him. And to some extent, they did just that. Jindal polled nine percent among blacks statewide--double the usual showing for a Republican.
Problem was, the first half of Jindal's strategy never worked well enough for any of this to matter. For all his outreach to rural whites, latent racism might have limited Jindal's appeal. As one self-identified Bubba told The Washington Post last week, "It's hard for me to believe I'm even going to look at this man--at first he almost looked to me like an Iraqi." Jindal ended up digging himself an unacceptably large hole by winning a mere 60 percent of the state's whites. "Generally speaking," says Ed Renwick, director of Loyola University's Institute of Politics, "a Republican in Louisiana needs to get between 65 and 70 percent of the white vote in order to win." In last year's Senate race, for example, Democrat Mary Landrieu won approximately 35 percent of the white vote--considerably less than Blanco's 40--and even that was enough to put her over the top.
Even so, Jindal might still have had shot had he not relied on a second flawed assumption: that last-minute political attacks don't need to be answered. With less than a week before the election, Blanco's campaign began running ads excoriating Jindal's performance as health chief during the mid-'90s. The commercials alleged that, among other things, Jindal had bumped 60,000 people from the Medicaid rolls (a hugely inflated number, according to the state health department). Jindal--acting either on his own or, according to some, on bad advice from the national party--chose not to respond, a decision that probably sealed his fate. The young upstart proceeded to plummet from a 9-point lead on Wednesday to a small deficit on Friday. "Healthcare has always been very important in Louisiana, ever since Huey Long's time," Renwick says. "Look at those commercials: They targeted basically African Americans, poor whites, and women, and those are all areas that if Jindal didn't do well with, he wouldn't win."
Which is a shame. Because for all his crazy views on cultural issues, the reason Jindal got international press attention, cross-party endorsements, and even a share of the Bubba vote, is that he would have made a pretty decent governor. Louisiana politics, as the career of Edwin Edwards will attest, is an utterly stagnant and backwards business. If anyone could have changed this pattern it was Jindal, who, Blanco's ads notwithstanding, did as much to eliminate corruption from the state's social service system as any official in recent memory. (As health secretary, he even declined wedding gifts from medical professionals to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.)
Politically speaking, a Jindal administration might have been a four- or eight-year setback for Louisiana liberals. But it would also have been a three-decade leap forward in terms of ethics and competence. Too bad this year's lone Democratic gubernatorial victory had to come at such a price.
Comments
Max is a NewRepper! hehe
Boohoo. And Haley Barbour is a saint right?
A democrat CAN get elected in the south!
it must be a liberal media conspiracy!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ahhh...now it all becomes clear...
Max is a NewRepper! hehe
Boohoo. And Haley Barbour is a saint right?
A democrat CAN get elected in the south!
it must be a liberal media conspiracy!
Do tell...and what does a NewRepper mean to you ?
and yes, this state is about as backwards as they come, outdone only by the likes of its eastern neighbors mississippi and alabama. even in this day and age, it astounds me that racism and homophobia plays so heavily in the decisions of many of the people around me. all social interaction occurs at a church on sunday, which is not bad in and of iteslf, but it really is an exclusive group that wants nothign to do with outsiders. i would hazard a guess that more churches are built than schools in this state. again, not necessarily a bad thing, except that many of them reek of the fly-by-night evangelists. and every pickup or SUV is emblazoned with a confederate flag sticker AND a 9-11/troops support sticker along the lines of "shoot them all and let god sort them out" (no lie, as witnessed by me not too many weeks ago). come into this state by going against the status quo, and you're labeled as the city-slicker outsider who doesn't understand louisiana (the one lone exception to that rule may be new orleans itself, as evidenced by nagin's win as mayor). worst education, worst roads, highest crime-rate... i haven't seen many stats on those issues, but i can't imagine that i'm too far off.
this state needs help, and it's becoming clearer with every passing decision that it is incapable of helping itself.
The latent racist appeal of the new Republican south shoots itself in the foot by passing over the qualified because of skin color.
Sounds like a case for affimative action.
Funny.
Originally posted by addabox
And the moral is...
The latent racist appeal of the new Republican south shoots itself in the foot by passing over the qualified because of skin color.
Sounds like a case for affimative action.
That's not how I read it.
For all his outreach to rural whites, latent racism might have limited Jindal's appeal. As one self-identified Bubba told The Washington Post last week, "It's hard for me to believe I'm even going to look at this man--at first he almost looked to me like an Iraqi." Jindal ended up digging himself an unacceptably large hole by winning a mere 60 percent of the state's whites. "Generally speaking," says Ed Renwick, director of Loyola University's Institute of Politics, "a Republican in Louisiana needs to get between 65 and 70 percent of the white vote in order to win." In last year's Senate race, for example, Democrat Mary Landrieu won approximately 35 percent of the white vote--considerably less than Blanco's 40--and even that was enough to put her over the top.
He won a "mere" 60% of the white vote, falling 5%-10% short of percentage of white vote needed. And of course, as a Republican, he failed to win those hard core democratic votes (the bubba party) that for so long has been a lock for democrats. In the State of Huey Long, it would seem the monolithic voting of blacks (91%) democratic combined with those rock ribbed democrats did him in (combined with last minute campaign commercials).
Unless, of course, your maintaining vast minority of Republicans didn't vote for him - which is extremely unlikely.
Originally posted by rok
seriously, i consider myself left-of-center, but blanco was even pissing ME off by the end.
and yes, this state is about as backwards as they come, outdone only by the likes of its eastern neighbors mississippi and alabama. even in this day and age, it astounds me that racism and homophobia plays so heavily in the decisions of many of the people around me. all social interaction occurs at a church on sunday, which is not bad in and of iteslf, but it really is an exclusive group that wants nothign to do with outsiders. i would hazard a guess that more churches are built than schools in this state. again, not necessarily a bad thing, except that many of them reek of the fly-by-night evangelists. and every pickup or SUV is emblazoned with a confederate flag sticker AND a 9-11/troops support sticker along the lines of "shoot them all and let god sort them out" (no lie, as witnessed by me not too many weeks ago). come into this state by going against the status quo, and you're labeled as the city-slicker outsider who doesn't understand louisiana (the one lone exception to that rule may be new orleans itself, as evidenced by nagin's win as mayor). worst education, worst roads, highest crime-rate... i haven't seen many stats on those issues, but i can't imagine that i'm too far off.
this state needs help, and it's becoming clearer with every passing decision that it is incapable of helping itself.
Reminds of what I heard Arkansas-ians say to make themselves feel better: "Thank God there's Mississippi"
Originally posted by MaxParrish
That's not how I read it.
For all his outreach to rural whites, latent racism might have limited Jindal's appeal. As one self-identified Bubba told The Washington Post last week, "It's hard for me to believe I'm even going to look at this man--at first he almost looked to me like an Iraqi." Jindal ended up digging himself an unacceptably large hole by winning a mere 60 percent of the state's whites. "Generally speaking," says Ed Renwick, director of Loyola University's Institute of Politics, "a Republican in Louisiana needs to get between 65 and 70 percent of the white vote in order to win." In last year's Senate race, for example, Democrat Mary Landrieu won approximately 35 percent of the white vote--considerably less than Blanco's 40--and even that was enough to put her over the top.
He won a "mere" 60% of the white vote, falling 5%-10% short of percentage of white vote needed. And of course, as a Republican, he failed to win those hard core democratic votes (the bubba party) that for so long has been a lock for democrats. In the State of Huey Long, it would seem the monolithic voting of blacks (91%) democratic combined with those rock ribbed democrats did him in (combined with last minute campaign commercials).
Unless, of course, your maintaining vast minority of Republicans didn't vote for him - which is extremely unlikely.
What I'm saying is that it sounds like the margain of defeat can be accounted for by Republican whites sufficiently leary of the faint whiff of "coloredness" to not cast their vote for Jindal.
This is going to be a real problem for Republicans in the south in the years to come, as changing demographics all but gaurantee the coming home to roost of the two edged sword (to wildly mix my metaphors) of the Republican "cultural" appeal to white southerners.
Originally posted by addabox
What I'm saying is that it sounds like the margain of defeat can be accounted for by Republican whites sufficiently leary of the faint whiff of "coloredness" to not cast their vote for Jindal.
This is going to be a real problem for Republicans in the south in the years to come, as changing demographics all but gaurantee the coming home to roost of the two edged sword (to wildly mix my metaphors) of the Republican "cultural" appeal to white southerners.
I think your dealing with a liberal stereotype. The swing votes of the South are not white Republicans (they are a distinct minority that usually votes for their party). White democrats, on the other hand, have shown themselves capable of switching sides - so much so that there are many Southern states where local politics is dominated by the Democrats, but national votes (Senate, President) go to Republicans.
In this case, it is likely that because Jindals race and/or an ad campaign that attacked him on democratic "comman man" concerns, the 5-10% of democrats did'nt switch.
Actually this will not be a problem for the Republicans. In Oklahoma, Thomas Lott won easily in all his congressional races, and I think a minority republican usually has a better chance (well, at least an African American).
Originally posted by MaxParrish
I think your dealing with a liberal stereotype. The swing votes of the South are not white Republicans (they are a distinct minority that usually votes for their party). White democrats, on the other hand, have shown themselves capable of switching sides - so much so that there are many Southern states where local politics is dominated by the Democrats, but national votes (Senate, President) go to Republicans.
In this case, it is likely that because Jindals race and/or an ad campaign that attacked him on democratic "comman man" concerns, the 5-10% of democrats did'nt switch.
Actually this will not be a problem for the Republicans. In Oklahoma, Thomas Lott won easily in all his congressional races, and I think a minority republican usually has a better chance (well, at least an African American).
But the whole phenomena of a "Republican South" is predicated on getting those southern Democrats to switch. If they choose not to because the very cultural positioning that might have served as an incentive prevents them from voting for non-white candidates (and this is something that I do not attribute to southerners in general but explicitly to that population of southern Dems that might be considering jumping ship) then increasing numbers of non-white candidates (black, asian, hispanic, indian-- all growing populations in the south) will pose a problem for a Republican party that expects to harvest disenchanted whites based on cultural wedge issues.
Oklahoma is not the south.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
The swing votes of the South are not white Republicans (they are a distinct minority that usually votes for their party).
White Republicans are a minority in the South? Whites vote about 75% Republican in the South. addabox is exactly right, and this has been happening to black Democrats for eons. Dinkins, Ron Kirk, Gannt, on and on. They always do better on surveys than they do on election day.
Originally posted by addabox
But the whole phenomena of a "Republican South" is predicated on getting those southern Democrats to switch. If they choose not to because the very cultural positioning that might have served as an incentive prevents them from voting for non-white candidates (and this is something that I do not attribute to southerners in general but explicitly to that population of southern Dems that might be considering jumping ship) then increasing numbers of non-white candidates (black, asian, hispanic, indian-- all growing populations in the south) will pose a problem for a Republican party that expects to harvest disenchanted whites based on cultural wedge issues.
Oklahoma is not the south.
I brought up Oklahoma because, having lived there for several years, it is/was "south" in its politics. Being on the border of the South (and mid-west and south-west) you find it a blend of cultures - but like Texas and the South very baptist with more than its share of confederate flagged pickup trucks. They've also thought of themselves as democrats (remember the dust-bowel)and demographically are much like Arkansas. However, race relations are far better there, and many other new south areas, that yankees like to believe - in fact, they're better there than here, on the west coast.
Lous. is about has backward democratic, and racialist, as you can get...it will probably be the last to fall to the Republicans. But I predict many of Republicans future canidates will be minorities from the South - its a trend in the party...but we will see.
republicans, on the other hand, have faith in the overall guiding principles of the party as a whole, and feel that a vote for the republican party, regardless of candidate, is a vote to strengthen those principles. if the republican candidate doesn't represent that party well enough, the republican would rather note vote at all...
heck, one might say that the current democratic presidential field is evidence of that, with an 8-way split, whereas the republicans have put their money behind george for the long haul.
again, i admit i may be oversimplifying here, and no, i don't have poll numbers or stats to back up my viewpoint. it's just based off what i see day to day around me and trying to make sense of it all.
Originally posted by BRussell
White Republicans are a minority in the South? Whites vote about 75% Republican in the South. addabox is exactly right, and this has been happening to black Democrats for eons. Dinkins, Ron Kirk, Gannt, on and on. They always do better on surveys than they do on election day.
BR, if you check party registration, I will bet that almost all (if not all) Southern states have significantly more democrats than Republicans. Moreover, I'm not sure where that 75% number comes from, but Democrats dominate most local politics in the South (including my border example of Oklahoma) - the fact is, in National elections, white democrats vote republican in greater numbers - recognizing, no doubt, that the Democratic Party, on a national level, is far too liberal for their taste.
Where are you pulling those stats from? Wait... I don't wanna know... it couldn't be pleasant.
Keep up your "political hate speech" Max. It won't help your cause.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031113.html
Originally posted by chu_bakka
There's no such thing as too liberal.
Where are you pulling those stats from? Wait... I don't wanna know... it couldn't be pleasant.
Keep up your "political hate speech" Max. It won't help your cause.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031113.html
No such thing as "too liberal" for a "fair and balanced liberal" - you do have a sense of irony.
On occasion you make sense, this is not one of them. First, I'm still curious, what does a New Republic reader mean to you ?
Second, what "hate speech" in this thread are you blathering about ? I suggest you open a new thread on the topic - it was mightly tenious to try and tie it in here.
Originally posted by MaxParrish
BR, if you check party registration, I will bet that almost all (if not all) Southern states have significantly more democrats than Republicans. Moreover, I'm not sure where that 75% number comes from, but Democrats dominate most local politics in the South (including my border example of Oklahoma) - the fact is, in National elections, white democrats vote republican in greater numbers - recognizing, no doubt, that the Democratic Party, on a national level, is far too liberal for their taste.
The 75% number comes from the 2000 presidential election. I couldn't find the place I saw that, but here are the exit polls from Alabama, which show that 66% of Whites went for Bush over Gore. If anything it's higher than that overall in the South, I believe, but I couldn't find any other exit polls.
As far as looking at politicians who are themselves from the South, just look at the Senate. Senate Republicans outnumber Democrats 2 to 1 in the South, about 12 to 6, depending on what you count as the South. Go ahead, count 'em.
For party identification, I don't think you're right that there are significantly more Democrats than Republicans anymore. There might be a slight edge still for Dems but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Whites say they are Republicans and Blacks make up the difference.
And let's just remember what you stated, that White Republicans are a "distinct minority," to which I again say:
Originally posted by BRussell
The 75% number comes from the 2000 presidential election. I couldn't find the place I saw that, but here are the exit polls from Alabama, which show that 66% of Whites went for Bush over Gore. If anything it's higher than that overall in the South, I believe, but I couldn't find any other exit polls.
As far as looking at politicians who are themselves from the South, just look at the Senate. Senate Republicans outnumber Democrats 2 to 1 in the South, about 12 to 6, depending on what you count as the South. Go ahead, count 'em.
For party identification, I don't think you're right that there are significantly more Democrats than Republicans anymore. There might be a slight edge still for Dems but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of Whites say they are Republicans and Blacks make up the difference.
And let's just remember what you stated, that White Republicans are a "distinct minority," to which I again say:
As I said, the more national the election, the greater the cross-over vote...and your data, combined with mine, bears this out:
These are the number of state legislators, in their respective lower and upper houses. As you can see, most are heavily weighted democratic. Two exceptions 1) Florida, not a member of the old south and 2) South Carolina - which is almost even.
Upper Lower
R/D R/D
11/24...37/68 Alabama
8/27...\t28/72 Arkansas
18/34...33/86 Mississippi
24/32...74/104 Georgia
25/15...77/43 Florida
15/35...58/62 N.C.
24/22...69/54 S.C.
13/26...31/71 Louisana
Of course without voter registration by race, its difficult to be definative. But some margins range from 1.5:1 to 3:1 democratic.
PS NOTE Louisana, very very democratic.
check the link.
It's what republicans are calling criticizm from the left. Didn't you get the memo?
Originally posted by addabox
And the moral is...
The latent racist appeal of the new Republican south shoots itself in the foot by passing over the qualified because of skin color.
Sounds like a case for affimative action.
Sounds like a case for less race-initiated government programs that just piss people off and make them more racist.
And to chubakka, I really don't appreciate the elitist tone, which is something I see a lot on the moderate-left. Maybe they think their sagacious or something -- I don't know. All I can say for sure is that you have no reason to feel sagacious.