Welcome to Louisiana Lefty, a podcast about politics and community in Louisiana, where we make the case that the health of the state requires a strong progressive movement fueled by the critical work of organizing on the ground. Our goal is to democratize information, demystify party politics and empower you to join the mission, because victory for Louisiana requires you.
I'm your host, Lynda Woolard. On this episode, I speak with my dear friend, Andrew Tuozzolo, who is currently the chief of staff for New Orleans city council vice president, Helena Moreno, as well as a lawyer and a politico. While I've wanted to host Andrew on the podcast for years, we had quite a different conversation than we originally intended. In the aftermath of the Democrats dismal showing in our 2023 statewide elections, what we've ended up with here is an insider's walk through the recent past, the present, and the future of state Democratic Party politics in Louisiana. Andrew Tuozzolo, thank you so much for joining me on Louisiana Lefty.
Thank you for having me, Lynda. Longtime listener, first time caller.
You always listen to the podcast. You know, I tell you, I'm so impressed, when you get up to do jog or workout every morning and you're always one of the first people to tell me when you've listened to the podcast. So I appreciate that. You're a very loyal listener.
You know, having two young children, I have the habit of getting up very, very early at an embarrassingly early time. I'm also a morning person. So I'll get up, I'll listen to podcasts, which is a lovely way to... it's a companion for me while I'm running. But I also start texting people or communicating with people early about, you know, work or my thoughts and stuff. And so I'm a very frequent 4-6 AM texter, which people really appreciate.
I always start with how we met. And we met during the Obama campaign. I'm sure I remember the exact moment, do you?
Yeah, I do, actually, because you were helping organize, I guess the phone banks, out of state phone banks for Obama '08, in, what's now a psychiatrists office, on Maple Street. You probably know this. It was a very strange sort of garden-level office, you know, and you were there. And you had a lot of accoutrement and, like, lots of, you know, sort of regalia, right? And I didn't know who you were, but you were sort of in charge with another friend of mine who was helping. And yeah, I made calls and helped to the extent in which I could with some of my friends there. I think we were calling Florida, if I'm not mistaken.
Yeah, we were calling Florida, Florida voters for Obama. Obama was probably the first, like, big, you know, sort of exciting presidential race that I really leaned into. And so yeah, you were just sort of the person to talk to you about it at the time.
I want to say, before we go any further, that the Obama campaign, Obama '08, was my introduction to politics. But anything that I've really been involved in politics since then you have been a great advisor to me for many years. And when I have had any success, there has always been some drop of Andrew Tuozzolo in it. So I appreciate it.
Well, it's very kind of you, Lynda. And I think it's been a collaborative situation. I've always have enjoyed it. What you've had was not just your passion, but your dedication to organizing and bringing people together and relentlessness and your ability to continue to do so despite long odds and when you're just one-woman show sometimes at the beginning of things. But we've been able to build, again and again, you know, your track record is impeccable in that regard. And something I certainly don't think I could do. So I've learned a lot more from you probably than you know.
Well, you've got quite the string of successes yourself, sir. But tell me what first got you interested in politics? What was that first spark for you?
George W. Bush. Like all people who are maybe around my age, when I went to college, in 2000, I went to Boston College, I was a fairly apolitical person. Son of a small business Republican, hippie liberal mother, those are my parents. And so I was sort of ambiguous or ambivalent, really, towards politics. And going to... I wouldn't say 'conservative' college, it was pretty moderate and has become much more liberal. But at the time, you know, there were a lot of folks that were Bush supporters, young people that were Bush supporters, and I was sort of ambivalent towards it. But frankly, like many people that were 18, 19 years old around 911, and the subsequent things that have happened during the Bush administration - and I don't really want to need to rehash it - but it became much more urgent to me, that politics, you know, affected my life and affected our future. And it was important to be involved, you know, you need to put time and work in. And it just so happened it was something that I really cared and liked. And so, you know, I think of myself as having kind of a service mentality, and I wanted to serve people, it kind of just makes me happy to help people. And then I felt like you can help the most people by being involved in, you know, elected politics and public service. Because, you know, while I love volunteering, and I like doing things like that, there's just so much more work to be done on the systematic level, right? To do systemic change is like kind of something that I believe in deeply. So you got to do that through the electoral process in this country, at least. So I said, I do this, I'll do it. My sort of short bio is I ended up working on Capitol Hill for a congressman as an intern, staff assistant kind of person. I did that for a couple years. And then I got annoyed that everybody who was ordering me around, had a JD or some sort of, like, higher degree, and being the restless person that I am, I decided, well, I'm gonna go get a JD. So I ended up going to law school here at Tulane, graduated from Tulane. And I've worked, frankly, in public service, and around politics and campaigns. I've never, as I tell people, had a straight job, meaning I've never worked in the private sector, but mostly in the public sector. So I'm lucky enough to do something I love to do. And as my family and will tell you, it's like both something I love and my hobby so that it's inseparable between, like, what I love to do what I do for a living. I'm very lucky in that regard. But also probably it's a curse to others who are, like, "Can you please have another interest so can we talk about something else?"
Were you a Democrat before George W. Bush?
I think I probably wouldn't have been able to tell you what that was. You know, I grew up in a rural, a very a rural part of New Jersey, I didn't have a stoplight near my house within 10 minutes of my house until I was, like, 11 years old. And it was a rural area. The big sort of industry was ETS, which makes the SAT, and then also Exxon Mobil had a massive tech center, like, where all the scientists worked, they used to anyway. And so everyone that I grew up... it was a town full of like, children of hippie scientists, etc, who worked at ETS or Mobil, but in a rural area. Anyway, so I got to, like I said, DC, and I went on to law school, but I wouldn't have been able to describe my politics, probably until college.
You know, I've been trying to get you on the podcast for a while. And, you know, my intention, and what we focused on in early seasons really often, you know, how to get more Democrats elected, and how to run campaigns, and how to be more involved, you know, politically in different ways, with maybe community organizations. And I had intended really, in this season, to focus a little more on the community groups and organizations who really are helping individuals and doing non political work, but that I still perceive as part of the progressive movement. I've diverted from that a couple times, for various reasons. One, because, like I've said, we're in an election year, and I felt like we should talk to some of the candidates. And, you know, we've had these results that did not turn out great for Democrats. So the other thing that we've ended up doing because how this election year went is sort of inextricably linked to the state of the state party. We've also focused on that a little bit. So we probably aren't having the conversation I initially intended to have with you. I did want to talk to you a little bit first about the elections this year. And let's debrief. What what went wrong, Andrew?
You know, we've come off eight years of a Democratic governor. But really, the rest of statewide offices were all held on Republicans. The legislature has been near or over a supermajority of Republicans for at least the last four to six years. So it kind of looks like a complete Republican takeover, but it almost had been there except for Jon Bel, right? And so it looks a little bit more dramatic than what's been, which is a long term erosion. Louisiana is typically kind of like behind the times in a sense that, like, you know, David Vitter was the first Republican senator elected in 2004 in Louisiana since Reconstruction, even though Republicans had replaced sort of conservative Dixiecrats, across the South, in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina. You saw that happen, really, in the 90s. And it took Louisiana another 10 years to get there. And, you know, back when David Greene, I think, was running for governor, this is, like, before I was born. You know, they said they could fit the Republican Party in a phone booth because this was a one party state. So there's been... and that's for a lot of reasons, right? But the challenge here is that, like, Louisiana has been on a long trajectory of conversion to the more nationalized politics, right, where there's a very clear sort between conservative or right wing voters, who all, would say, 99% align with the Republican Party now, and with non right wing voters and non-conservatives. And so the Democratic Party in Louisiana used to have like a lot of facets to it, right? There was like conservative elements to it, there were moderate elements to it, there were liberal elements to it, progressive elements to it. And truthfully, Louisiana is now sorting much more like our sort of neighbor states, right, all of whom have very significant Republican and conservative and right wing majorities. So I guess I would say that, you know, the results are shocking only in the way in which the lack of interest in the elections, which I think was, you know, multifaceted, again. It's like... I think Shawn Wilson is a lovely man and a good man, and in other circumstances might have been a pretty good candidate, but coming off of eight years of a Democratic governor? You're coming with limited funding, and without a driving narrative, frankly, for his election. Though, I think he would have been a good governor, I think you have to look at John Bel's election in 2015, when he really ran with some very clear pointed critiques of the previous administration, and some very clear contrast with his opponents, one of which is that he was definitively the candidate who would expand Medicaid in Louisiana. He ran on that, he contrasted himself with nearly every other candidate, so much so that many of them realize from the polling that they have the kind of edge towards Medicaid expansion, even though none of them had a full-throated endorsement of it, like he did. And so everyone sort of was chasing John Bel on that in 2015. And I always know that people, like, don't recognize that. Like, if you look at the polling against Vitter, even a year before the election, John Bel was always leading or first or second in the polls, because of the vast Republican field then. Three well financed candidates. And, too, Vitter was highly disliked by voters already. And John Bel was, you know, people don't think of it this way, but he was a very good candidate, and he was cruising because Democrats were coordinated around him. And he really hustled that race. He did a great job. He was a dynamic house caucus leader, which is, to his credit, was a hard position to run from, but he did so. And he had significant base electorate, pieces of the electorate, that were his base. One of which was teachers unions, and unions, generally. John Bel stuck closely with unions, and they rewarded him with their their full-throated support. And John Bel made significant inroads in mitigating the cultural politics, which dominate some of these elections, by being, you know, having his position on abortion, and having his position on gun safety. And one can argue whether or not all of those things turned out well for people and whether or not that was the right thing to do from a governing perspective, but they were the right things to do, and they were genuine, by the way, politically. So many elections, just like 2015, this one, while they are supposed to be about the future, they also reflect people's feelings on the past. John Bel was running not just against a historically unpopular top Republican and David Vitter, but against the least popular governor in the history of Louisiana, which was Bobby Jindal, and Bobby Jindal's legacy, which has not recovered and should never recover, based on his activities as governor, was what John Bel put the stake in, which was that... Sort of the governing philosophy, especially as Jindal lost interest in governing and was more interested in becoming part of the conservative political machine and becoming a presidential candidate to whatever effect that had. And his approval rating, if I'm not mistaken, was like, near 20% when he was leaving office, making him the least popular governor to ever, ever serve in the state. And that probably goes back to polling, the beginning of polling. And so I would just say that, um, John Bel had... the atmospherics were ripe for John Bel to rise, he had a deeply popular crusade to expand Medicaid, which was popular across Democrats, Republicans, independents. He had a strong profile as both a service member, a West Point grad, very good cultural politics, and he's a sharp messenger as well, which is probably less appreciated about John Bel. He's a really sharp messenger. He's on message. He is very quick witted. I think his presentation might not be high volume, but it is very effective. And it's very welcoming. I think he comes across as an even keeled, common sensical guy to many voters. And he seemed, you know, clear eyed, and not some liberal-whatever caricature they wanted to make him for the voters he had to turn. And we can rehash all the sort of the tropes.
Yeah, people knew him well enough that some of the things they tried to say about him couldn't stick to him.
They couldn't stick. And John Bel was a clearly defined product
And your point about Bobby Jindal, John Bel, as the House Democratic Caucus leader, attacked Bobby Jindal pretty aggressively and consistently, persistently, but so was the state party at the time, the state party was defining Bobby Jindal quite a bit as well.
Yeah, I mean, there was a real coordinated effort. And again, that was driven by the atmosphere or somewhat, because you had this really unpopular governor, who I think the middle of the road, I hate to say, the persuadable kind of folks, who were not necessarily Democratic leaning voters, but were really deeply unhappy with Jindal. There's a searing message about the failures of the Jindal governing philosophy, whether it's closing hospitals, whether it was on the education front, whether it's on the budgeting and the deep hole that they left from a budget perspective, and John Bel took advantage of that, rightfully. And Jindal was refusing not just the Medicaid expansion, he led the charge against Obamacare and fought Obamacare, which was Medicaid expansion because Bobby Jindal was himself a health care expert, supposedly. But he also refused rural broadband money, right?
And the light rail...
Bobby Jindal made it his purpose to reject things that I think Louisiana voters couldn't quite associate with the fact that they were bad, because they were associated with Obama, it made sense for him to reject them from a Republican presidential candidates perspective. But as a governor, it hurt people. And people saw that and the philosophy that John Bel was saying is like, "Look, like, I'm going to do things that are good for Louisiana, leading with these things that Bobby Jindal has absolutely opposed." And Medicaid expansion, I remember the LSU polling at the time... and so there was broad support across, you know, partisanship because rural hospitals needed it, the ending medical bankruptcy, getting people access to medications, ending the plight of working people who simply couldn't afford health care and were showing up in emergency rooms, even though they had, you know, paid jobs, right? We're not talking about people who were unemployed here, we're talking about employed people who simply had no health care. Everyone could understand that. And I think John Bel took advantage of that, of Bobby Jindal's failings.
I guess the thing I was saying before about it was John Bel pushing back on Jindal, as well as the state party it wasn't just in the election year, that started three years out. He started running three years out, he had been going up toe-to-toe against Jindal, even though Jindal was unpopular already for the things he was doing or not doing. There were sharp contrasts being drawn for years leading up to that, and he effectively ran against Jindal, even though he had different opponents. His run was effectively against Jindal.
Agreed, I think that was the one thing - and I have friends that worked for Shawn Wilson, again, I like Shawn Wilson, I voted for him, I thought he would have been a good governor. I think the challenge for Shawn is that for reasons, whether he didn't have the funding, whether the atmospherics were different, he couldn't draw a sharp enough contrast with either his opponents or the vision that his opponents, especially Jeff Landry, was presenting. And so I don't think there was enough. When you give people a contrast you give people will have purpose. And when people didn't have a purpose to vote because they didn't know what would have been different. And while I think Jeff is getting credit, because his campaign, I thought, was decently done in the sense that like Jeff ran, just like David Vetter tried, but Jeff did it effectively - I should say Governor-elect Landry - did effectively by really running to the middle, right? Being very benign in his presentation, you know, he was going to make public safety a priority and fix schools and, you know, whatever. He didn't run as a radical. And Jeff is smart, right, because this the balance of Louisiana politics that's hard, right? There's this populist center-right piece, right? It's not interesting, because I think the tradition has been that we've got, except for Jindal, very populist governors forever, right? And what I mean by that is, like, there isn't this, you know, low tax, low spend perspective actually. I think a lot of voters are kind of interested in spending stuff right, because we have a lot of parochial oregon's in Louisiana, what I mean by that is the rural hospitals or the Parish Sheriff's are all these pieces where everybody kind of doesn't... no one wants to eliminate sheriff's deputies. Nobody wants to close rural hospitals, right, even the hard right conservatives, because even though the many public universities we have, right, another many of these centers are parochial job centers and certainly articles of pride throughout Louisiana in ways that I think other right. Tilting states are much less respective. And that's our populist sort of parochial populist origins that continue, you know, it's still the Huey Long-ism of, like, chicken in every pot, three books for kids like, this was always a state wasn't as ideologically Reagan. The governor, Landry, did what he needed to do, I think effectively in adhering to that tradition, and talking about those things.
You were talking about contrast and not drawing contrast. But the other piece, and I mentioned this on Twitter, about Dustin Ranger and his race, I think he did a good job. He ran, what I said, and I'll say it here, he ran nine months, he was teaching people about the economics of the state, he was preaching inclusion and success for all.
Yep, great climate message, climate and coast message.
But what I said to him is, it's really hard... you may have the best message in the world, but if you cannot get it in front of voters, your message is essentially non existent, right? And you and I dealt with this in multiple campaigns. We've talked about, campaign after campaign, if you can't afford the mailers, if you can't afford the phone calls and the texts, if you can't afford the digital ads, or TV ads, for some races, if you can't afford those things people just don't know you exist.
Yeah, I think Dustin did a great job. He had a great message, he worked really hard. It is deeply hard to get people interested in the treasurer's race, it's, like, of all the offices, I think, it has the least attractive set of reasons that a regular voter would care about it. The attorney general's race has a little bit more interest. Obviously, the governor's race.
I'm saying this for Wilson and Granger both, it was sort of the issue of they could have had the best message in the world, but if they couldn't get in front of people, right? Right? So you've got two things, right, you've either got to have a message that gets to enough people that they like, or you've got to be able to mobilize enough voters that are partisan are gonna vote for the Democrat because they're the Democrat. That's sort of your two options.
Agreed. And I think that, you know, the top of the ticket has to do that. I mean, Shawn just didn't have enough money to do that in any real way at all, whatsoever. I mean, Shawn's campaign was not well funded. You know, you and I have been around the Democratic party here, I've lived in Louisiana now, I'm not a native obviously, nor nor you, but I've been here - I counted the other day - I think almost 17 years. Okay? And so I've lived almost the balance of my life here. And, you know, the Democratic Party has rarely been the... you know, people have this imagination that it's a foreign team, it's just like Major League Baseball, you know, and they've got people playing in the minors, and that's not true, right? And now, it would be great if the party did these things, but historically even that's not been true, right? Even going back years and years and years, the party as an Oregon, unlike the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which famously has, like, money and talented and knocks doors and does all the work and is wonderful. In Louisiana, and I think this is true of many states, the Democratic Party is a layover for campaigns where they want to maximize their spending. It's best role, and I think, under the previous chair, under chair Peterson, whom obviously I am very familiar with consider a political mentor of mine, was the best coordinator of resources, especially as outside groups have begun to proliferate. The party can be an amazing coordinator, amongst many groups, supporting democratic candidates, which I think could be the best role it could play, and not as a permanent organ. It can communicate democratic message, which I think it should do, but it should deeply coordinate resources, even if it itself does not have those resources, but many outside groups or even large regional groups might want to figure out what's going, the party can be a hub, right? And all those spokes can plug into that hub, even if the hub itself doesn't get $10 million in it. It can - and this is true, by the way, of the Louisiana Republican Party, which is not also a permanent organ, you know, you don't see candidates being drawn through the Republican Party of Louisiana, I don't think any of the current ones were recruitees of the Republican Party of Louisiana. That's just not how candidate recruitment works. Not in Louisiana, and not in many states, although there are states where it does work this way. Because the organ... the party organs are not structured like permanent things, they are sort of like, they ramp up and down the way that they work here. And I'm not saying that's the right way to do it, but that is the way it works here. But I think, from the perspective of what can be done, the party can be a tremendous organizer, and coordinator of resources. And we could do much better, obviously, than we have done in both this cycle and, you know, in the last couple of cycles we've had here in Louisiana. I'm hopeful that the party, for a lot of reasons, whether it's a new leader, or they've just got some better strategy around how to coordinate, because it's important, whether or not people are Democrats or not, it's important that it holds leaders accountable and coordinates opposition, because there are some things Governor elect Landry we'll end up doing that he's already projected sort of prospectively that he's going to do that I think aren't the right idea for a lot of people. And someone has to stand up for these people. And there's certainly groups across Louisiana that will do so, local groups, grassroots groups, but there has to be some coordinator of it, and the party is uniquely suited to that role as a communicator. It can be a supreme convener and a communicator as a resource allocator. It's done neither of those things, frankly, recently. And I think.. you know, I read a lot of comments on the internet, Reddit, Twitter, etc, and people say, "Oh the party failed, a terrible failure, you know, this cycle." And no doubt, but not for some of the reasons that people think. Not because it didn't recruit candidates necessarily, because I don't think it's best role is doing so. I think candidates are, in my view, have to be self motivated. It's hard to convince someone to run for something where there's so much work involved, like Dustin is a good example of a guy. No one's necessarily recruiting Dustin, but because of his commitment to the work, he's a great candidate, whether or not he could succeed or not, we could add to that, right. People who want to see him succeed, we could have added to that, the party could have coordinated better, but the party wasn't gonna create Dustin Granger, he is a person. Similarly, John Bel.
I'll push back on that a little bit. Party building inherently will surface people who should be running for office. So if you're doing that long term work of building the party, making the party something people want to be a part of, being in their communities and finding the leaders in the communities who can rise up and run. I don't... you're absolutely right, you can't convince someone to run and nor should you because, you know, firstly, there's no money. Secondly, there's a lot of scrutiny in it that a lot of people just don't want and third, some of these positions are just thankless. You do have to have a heart to serve in some ways. Right? Like you were saying, you have to have a heart to serve to want to do this. But if people are getting that interaction from the party so that they know opportunities exist and some training on how do you participate in this way in the first place. There's no circumstance under which we should have majority Republican legislature because there aren't enough people on the ballot to run.
Totally agree, it should never be because the Democrats didn't try. I agree. That's not the reason that should happen, which is why it did right now.
The party has to be responsible for making sure that doesn't happen.
I think we're saying the same. So Lynda, people believe the party is, like, some smoke-filled room, and people are like, "Oh, we'll get so and so to run in Winn parish, and so and so to run..." That's not how it works. I think the party could though if it were optimally used to be a resource for the people who have the knowledge, the groups, whether it's swing left, sister district and all these things that have sprung up that have candidate, recruitment candidate, tutorial... all the things that, you know, have done in the past and other groups, you know, that have kind of trained candidates. The party could, if it were optimally used, be the resource saying, "Hey, I'm a person, I live in such and such place, I'm interested in this, but I don't know how to connect." I'll contact the party, and the party will not, like, write me a check, which is what some people believe, like, "Oh, the party has billions of dollars, and they'll finance your campaign." Which will never happen and doesn't happen, but rather they could get you on the list of people who could take such and such training, on the list of people that can be given - and the Republicans do this really well - given credibility through, like, the recognition of your work, right? So if you're a wonderful so and so person that does X or Y, what if these groups who can identify talent and say like, "We're gonna lift you up and send you to, you know, Detroit to Cleveland, where there's a conference, where people are talking about this, and we can highlight the work you've done and help bring people attention and give you credibility." The party could be not a recruiter in the way that people imagine, but a recruiter in the sense that, like, they are a resource for people who want to run and can connect you with the right people to help you. Even local people. I mean, one of the annoying things about the party, I still believe, is like, I know, the party has to make some sort of operational funds, but you have to pay money to get access to VoteBuilder, to be able to get, you know, lists of voters that people are always talking about. But this tool is kind of like... we passed the point at which this is expensive or complicated technology, this is just access that we should give to people who want to start organizing, we should just give that to people. I appreciate there's some data security pieces, you don't want to just let nefarious people have access to everything, but I don't see why there's a financial barrier, which usually means you have to create a candidate committee and get some donations to be able to... not everyone has $2,500 or $5,000, most people don't have it sitting around to buy access to lists of Democratic voters in my little precinct, right? So I think there's just resources the party ultimately has access to because there's so many various groups who want to work, but they don't really know who to talk to, especially if they're out of town or out of state or even in state, they don't know who to talk to in another parish. And the party could connect people. They really could connect people if they wanted to.
Well, and the other thing the party does have access to are national experts. And so if you are running for office, you could have national experts come speak to people, like, "Let me be your consultant, I can be the consultant." Not permanently, not for the length of the campaign, but you know, they could have some Zooms or trainings or whatever with folks who know how to run campaigns so that candidates have a better understanding of it. Andrew, I spoke to a couple of candidates who had been talked into running, and I was, they'd already qualified so there weren't that many weeks left, there weren't that many weeks between qualifying and the primary election, I was astonished at how little they had been prepared, and how little they understood what they needed to do, what was expected of them. There was just no prep done at all. And I felt horrible. I felt horrible being, like, the voice of reality to them, like "Sorry, you're not gonna win, like, you don't have any money, you don't have any campaign staff, you don't have a website, you don't have any way for someone to donate to you." Like, you've got six weeks until voting. I don't know how many weeks I'm not, you know, remembering the exact math, but there's gotta be something that the party can do to make sure that people understand when they run what they're getting into and to help them get that stuff up and running. That would be such a service that they could offer.
Yeah, I mean, virtually everyone has rightfully dunked on the party's performance. And again, I'll just say that, like, they're not wrong, it was terrible. There's no way to spin it that it was good. But there's so much that doesn't relate to campaign finance payments that you're making to such and such groups or whatever, consultants being hired, but all to preparing people on how to be successful on their own, and how to be successful in small, racist police juror races, right? Races that matter. Everyone says this, and this is true. Republicans, typically right wing groups, they have more money, not to say they have all the money, but they have more money. But there's a concerted project on the right to recruit people as far down as school board. And I guarantee, if you talk to democratic elected school board members, even Orleans Parish, I bet most of them, if not all of them, have never been contacted by any outside Democratic groups to help foster their careers if they intend to proceed forward. And school boards just an example. But it could be your police jury, it could be a constable, it could be anything in any parish in Louisiana. But to what extent has anyone ever contacted you and highlighted like, "Hey, you have some talent and interest, would you like to proceed in your journey on public service, how you can serve more people and make more change?" And I guarantee that right wing groups have contacted most of these school board folks or police jurors, to some extent, and sent them to conferences or talked to them. Have, you know, Zooms and private meetings. This has been a decade's long process. Part of the reason why the rights been so ascendant, although not the only reason, but the electoral success is not just by accident. It's not because voters have suddenly turned right wing now. There are certainly changes in voter behavior, nut a lot of it has to do with the fact that there are more and better prepared, especially in states like Louisiana, right wing candidates than there are on the left. There just aren't candidates. I think people will be very, very receptive to economic populist campaigns and policies around issues like the minimum wage, around issues like access to medical care, about pay leave, climate issues. I think there are a lot of voters of different persuasions that might want to see progress on infrastructure spending, and access to public transit, all these things. But there's virtually nobody running in a conserted way to do so. And I think it's a failure, certainly, of the party, but it's a failure beyond just the party. I mean, the party apparatus is controlled by elected DSCC members, as you know very well as a former candidate for party chair. And we're tired to help you to try to become party chair for the exact reason because people like you, who are organizers and coordinators at heart, needs to be in charge of the party. It's not like a boss's thing. You know, the idea that you're some sort of important person as party Executive Director or chair is, is false. Like, you're not the candidate and you shouldn't be. And I think, again, I'll tout the efforts of our previous party chair, again, who got a lot of guff for being an elected official. But, and I will say this, knowing the full breadth of all that's happened, I would say was deeply devoted to not making the party about oneself, but about coordinating efforts to elect Democrats where possible. And it's not been easy, but I will just highlight that that is the nature of what the party chair should be. The party chair needs to be a spokesperson - and chair Executive Director, it doesn't matter, one or another - needs to be a spokesperson leading the charge for accountability for elected officials that aren't helping people. And it needs to be a resource allocator and coordinator, and if they're not doing it, they need to have staff doing it. And that's what I think has been missing. I hope we can change that. I think it's incumbent, and I've heard you say this, and I've heard Commissioner Davante Lewis say this as well, and others, representative Landry, and I think they're wonderful people as well. You know, we have some really good elected Democrats in Louisiana. Representative Jason Hughes and Senator Harris have been really great champions and despite facing odds, supermajority odds of Republicans. I think, like I said, there's a tremendous amount of people I think that, you know, if coordinated and organized can make a big difference. I don't mean to leave out anyone there. I think we do have some great folks, both elected and organizers, too, but there's very little coordination.
The party chair job - just as a reminder to folks - this started to be... I started to hear this talked about against, someone mentioned it on Roland Martin the other night, that... they didn't mention me, they mentioned that there had been a candidate running against Katie Bernhardt that was Ted James. Ted James was the actual candidate who ran. I ended up running because he was, he wouldn't phrase it this way, but I will, he was essentially forced out of the race. I appreciate that your boss, Helena Moreno, actually was one of the folks who kind of nudged me into, you know, "You know, you've got to step up and run now." So I appreciate that. I appreciate the folks who did talk to me about that. And I've talked before about really the the final push coming from Peyton Rose Michelle. I talked about that frequently on the podcast. I knew it was a long shot. I also knew, because I talked to folks about it at the beginning of the year and done some research on it, and I've seen what the job was up close and personal when I worked at the party, it is a thankless job. It is a hard job. And it is a lot of work. And the right automatically hates you because you have to, the right has to attack the Democratic Party chair. You get way more attacks from the left, way more, more arrows on the left. So if you're not willing to agree to go in and work hard, try to raise a lot of money that's really hard to find places to work to come from. And you're the spokesperson you're talking about, all the while wearing a suit of armor because people will be attacking you. It is not a job for you. It's just not the job for you. And you shouldn't be running for it.
Yeah, no, I mean, you know how much we wanted... And certainly, we love Ted James, and he's really great state rep and I hope he comes back to serve in Louisiana. I know he's a federal appointee now. I think Ted would have done a really good job because he's a tremendous communicator. And he's just a great coordinator of people, I think he inspires people. And I think he's been on the forefront of that. And like I said, I do hope he comes back and serves when he's done with his federal service. But you're right. I mean, you know, it's a thankless job, it's a tough job, it's a job where you're going to make... they're always going to be people telling you that you're not doing a good enough job, especially because there's a lot of things outside of your control as party chair, but you inevitably, for various reasons, take the responsibility of those things on. Even when there's many things that are, like, way above your paygrade that happen. And so yeah, it's a funny job that I don't know, how or who could be successful necessarily completely, but I think people could do a better job than what we have today. And you do have to be that person who's not in it for themselves. And that's important. Not because, you know, everyone's self righteous, and everybody wants a perfect person, there's no perfect person, but it is a job that is uniquely not one that will help you in your career, likely. It is not going to be something that necessarily could but probably won't be something that you are burnishing your resume for a next thing, it's something you have to dedicate yourself to and do the work. And that's been true, like, for, frankly, Republican chairs have had the same issue as well. But specifically on the Democratic side, during the circumstances.
So we have, you know, folks across the state looking at this now and saying how, you know, "Is this something that we can change?" Every few years, this occurs where people want to change the party and they look at, you know... can they get the votes together to do it. Of course, we've been trying to, through the podcasts, educate people where we can. There's a whole lot of people across the state that are educating, lot of conversations educating people on it. One of the issues that happened with the sort of movement to get the leadership we have today really came from the wall that was put up, that was sort of insurmountable, a coalition of the New Orleans delegation. Not all, but a lot of the New Orleans delegation, the Legislative Black Caucus, and the AFLCIO backed the chair that we have. And my worry is that could very easily happen again.
Yes. I mean, here's the thing....
I'm hopeful that that there are enough seats that are independent that or that enough of those organizations will want change. But you know that's a large voting block of the DSCC.
And look, we were absolutely pushing against a lot when Ted was the candidate, when you were the candidate, we pushed very hard. And I know you made tons of calls, I know Helena made calls, we all made calls to try to sway people. But, you know, in the same way that John Bel's election was a reflection on Bobby Jindal, the race for chair, at the time, for reasons that I think were really unfair, was sort of predicated on there are certain people who weren't in control of the party when the previous chair was in charge. And so we're locked out of whatever they believe they were locked out of. And so, you know, politics happen like that sometimes where, you know... there was also I think, to be frank, there was, and not by the people I think you're talking about, but there were some elements out there in especially older elements of the Democratic Party and some DSCC members that basically didn't want a black woman to be chair of the party. And I think that's absolutely the motivation, they didn't like that chair Peterson was outspoken and aggressive, and that she was from New Orleans, and that she was fearless and took people on, especially Bobby Jindal. I mean, with even personal risk, political risk, took on the sitting governor with a full throated critique of his governing style, and made really, I think, bold and needed contrasts, even when it wasn't popular to do it, because she was the leader of the opposition. And I think a lot of people who didn't want to see, especially a black woman, have these critiques, and have this outspokenness represent the Democratic Party because it didn't align with their transactional view of politics. They didn't like that.
...spreads along before the mentioning kind of came in...
Yes, absolutely. And I don't think any of the people you're describing are those people. I'm talking about the initial...
The initial push to... before chair Peterson had declared whether she was going to run for chair or not, there was already that group you're talking about that were organizing to try to find someone else. And we've talked about that on podcast before too. But that was the initial push to get a coalition together that was going to elect this mostly unknown, unskilled, inexperienced person. They picked this person and chose them and decided they were going to push that person.
But see, I think there's a contrast there just about styles of politics, right? So like, you know, Senator Peterson has always, in my view, and I've known her for a little bit, he represents a very specific type of politics, what I would describe as like conviction-based politics, right? politics that are born and driven by one's values and determination to uphold and defend and proliferate values about helping people in all sorts of ways and standing up for people who were vulnerable and for people who were not winning the spoils of a system that didn't help poor people, help people of color, help non connected, you know, lobbyist-funded interest, but regular people in Louisiana who needed increased minimum wage and needed parental leave and Medicaid expansion who needed real help where we have a poor state and alleviation from poverty and opportunity. Right? So that's the style politics I think that Karen always brought and certainly brought as chair. And there's another style, right, which is like sort of more transactional, right? Which is deal making and coalition sort of building, coalitions through deals not through likeness or through motivation. And I would continue to argue, as an opposition party, which the Democratic Party is definitively an opposition party, it is not in power, you need to have be driven by conviction and show authenticity and the expression of your values. And the expression of the alternative and the expression of contrast. Trying to equivocate or trying to do soft Republicans stuff will never win you electoral support. And I know people say well, "John Bel, well, he's a moderate." But John Bel is not a moderate on economic issues. He has driven clear contrast with Republicans on the issues I've spoken about. These economic issues, the alleviation of poverty, the circumstances around the wage and and leave and union rights. John Bel is not equivocated on those things. He's drawn strong contrast and had conviction, whether people are upset with him having not achieved these things... look at the legislature, right. And people say, "Well, the governor should have done better with recruiting candidates" Well, maybe it's true, maybe it would've helped, maybe it wouldn't. We can argue all those points, but I would say John Bel has not retreated on those issues. He also has expressed those convictions and those contrasts and that authenticity on those issues, which drive people to support you. Equivocation does not drive the passion you need to organize, to call your neighbors, to put up a sign, to give your time and effort, to sacrifice. Because you will only sacrifice if someone motivates you. There's no amount of money you can pay someone to sacrifice for things like this. And so I think that's what you need in party leadership when you're an opposition. Specifically, you need someone who will drive someone to do something extra, because they believe that this person is fighting for me, right? We talk about that all the time. That means expressing authentic values and contrast and being on your side. And I think that's what we need now more than ever.
We've been talking about chair Peterson a little bit. And I haven't talked about her much on the on the podcast, mostly because there's always been other issues to talk about. Someone kind of bemoaned to me the other day that they were upset because they were trying to defend her against some folks who were disparaging her online. And I said, "Well, you know, the way she left office, the way she left her job, does make it a little bit difficult sometimes to defend her." But the issue people bring up time and time again, which really irks me is that she tried to talk John Bel out of running for governor. And first off, some of that was intentionally placed in the media the way that it was placed. Right? And it was repeated ad nauseam.
As evidence that she was a bad party chair, which I think is... the story isn't accurate. I think the the intentions were not genuine, it was an intended slur.
What is rarely mentioned, is that there were two other high-ranking elected Democrats in the meeting. It was a bad day for John Bel. But there were 365, if not 600 other days, where those folks were fighting for him, right?
I'm just some guy commenting at this point on this, although I was around at the time, it just wasn't a meeting I was at. I'll just speak about Karen, all those other people can discuss what their motivations were and what they wanted to do or didn't do. My view is that all the people you've mentioned, I think, do and did want to do what's best for the state of Louisiana and do have their genuine motivations for trying to make electoral politics work to help people. I can't measure all that for those people and I won't try to. I can't think of someone who worked harder or was more dedicated to electing Democrats in Louisiana for longer than Karen Carter Peterson. And again, I'm not... John Bel is not my best friend. I think he's done many very good things as governor, I worked around his team for a long time when I was working. And I have a lot of respect for him. I think he's done great things for the state. And so he doesn't need my commentary. And I don't know what he really thinks, but my understanding is that was... he said, I think that was one of the worst days of his campaign. And I can absolutely imagine, if that happened the way it did, having a bunch of political heavyweights talk to you about not doing the thing you believe in and not giving you full support, or at least, at the time, feeling like they were not full-throated supporting you was very hard to take. And frankly, every candidate will always, in every case, will deal with a meeting, maybe not of that caliber or that circumstance but where you don't get what you want out of people you need something from, and you want people to believe in you the way you believe in you because you have to believe in yourself more than anything else. But what I would say was that Kevin Carter Peterson as chair, in my experience there was nobody who was more dedicated and more convicted of trying to elect Democrats and John Bel, by the way, specifically John Bel in 2015 and 2019. There are all sorts of conversations that people have, for various reasons, and if you take them at their word that they are trying to do what's best for they think for the electoral politics. Sometimes you think someone can't win or you think they would be better placed in another race. I don't know. But I know that Karen, at least my view is that worked... Like, basically fingers to the bone to elect Democrats. That was all she did and cared about as chair and before that, because for various reasons, I think the contrast that didn't clearly drawn that there are many good Republicans out there, but none of them seem to be doing anything for... elected Republicans certainly weren't doing much for the people that Senator Peterson represented and for New Orleanians, and, frankly, for a lot of Louisianians. And so there wasn't a lot of hope that electing a Republican would help. And I know that there were so many ways in which we know that she worked very hard to elect Democrats, up and down the ballot, the best she can. And, again, the party chair, as I've said in the past, and I say this, alone cannot elect people. They are not the decider about who gets elected, at all. And I think what's interesting about John Bel and I met John Bel when he was a state rep when he began running for governor, but I knew him as a state rep when I was working in the Senate. He was self assured that he was going to run despite, by the way, not just those three people you mentioned in that meeting, a host of people, including some later allies, telling him he could win. I mean, literally, everyone's saying like good luck. state rep from a meet, running statewide, never having run a statewide race, never having raised much money, never having had a profile outside of your own district. And I think John Bel overcame not just that meeting, but probably 1000 meetings like that to become governor. And well, that one has some heavyweights in it, there were probably some other times when he had some heavyweights tell him, "Look, you couldn't do it."At the time, it just didn't seem... there was a machine coming. David Vitter is coming. He's got millions of dollars. He's, you know, the Republicans were ascendant in Louisiana. How could a Democratic Rep, not a senator even, who represents you know, 40,000 people?..
And we've mentioned this multiple times on the podcast to, Mayor Landrieu had just lost the year before, Democrats were deflated over...
I mean, against a really not a strong candidate, Bill Cassidy, who's Senator now, I mean, was not considered a very strong candidate, but that the tide had turned, and that Democrats couldn't win statewide. Right, exactly.
Credit John Bel for not listening to those conversation, believing in his own self and his own worth to go win. I credit him.
And look, I mean, the fact is that John Bel will always be a political story. And having accomplished so much because of how few people were with him at the beginning, and how much he had that just like you were describing other candidates, John Bel worked harder than any candidate in that race by far, and was everywhere. And I remember distinctly, in my role, just being around, he was at events early, and we were there. By the way I was there. I remember an event over here in New Orleans, at a law firm here, a small law firm in New Orleans, they had a rooftop thing. And there was like 10 people in the room, literally, for John Bel, campaigning for governor. And there were like 10 people there. And in not including the elected officials that were just like kind of milling about, there was nobody there. And John Bel probably faced dozens, if not hundreds of those rooms to get where he needed to go. And never let him let it deter him. And that just shows the character and the consistency with which he ran and his... I mean, that's a very hard thing to do. I don't care who you are, getting to a room when you're excited about your candidacy and having nobody show up. Yeah, it's a really soul crushing thing. And to be able to push through that again, and again.
It was said of him at the time that he'd drive, literally drive across the state for a $500 Check.
And you know what? Like, there's nothing you can teach about that. You know, that was that was his ambition and personal interest in helping people and becoming governor to do all the things he promised to do. And his commitment to that was what got it done, because no one can sit in your ear and tell you, "No, don't worry about all these people telling you no." You have to believe it, and John Bel believed it. And he proved all these people, you know, who maybe didn't believe in him wrong, but also he converted a lot of those people from deniers to believers.
if he could get him in a room with people, they believe him. They bought it.
Again, that'll be a story for the ages for because nobody anointed John Bel. The Democrats weren't sitting around the smoke filled room saying, "Who should we get to run for governor?" But there were a lot of other names at the time. I don't recall all of them.
People were perennially talking about Mitch...
I remember when Bobby Jindal was running in '07, there was this... but John Bel heard all those names and said, "No, I'm going to do it." And he was the least well known guy.
From a state party perspective, because I did work at the party 2013, 2014, 2016, immediately after Mary Landrieu's race, we were tasked with pivoting to John Bel at the end of 2014. By December 2014, we were pivoting to work on John Bel. And I know the DSCC endorsed him early so that we could get a coordinated campaign started early. And I never had the faintest hint that we were not full steam ahead for him. It was always, "Go, get this man elected." So whatever one day meeting there was, I just wanted to put this in there, we were focused 100% for a year on that election, and never told anything, but, "Get him elected" That's was out sole goal that year.
I think the party was dedicated to his election and dedicated to his re-election. And it was very hard. And I just want to point out that John Bel won a pretty decent victory in 2015. But, in fact, in 2019, that election was very close, very close, and without the coordination. I just point out in New Orleans, I mean, the turnout was pushed from I think about 95,000 raw votes to like 120,000 raw votes from primary to runoff, which is not necessarily the case where you get a higher turnout on the runoff, sometimes you do but it you need to put some effort. Because the nature of how much coordination there was between all the people that were trying to get John Bel reelected, because of all the things we needed him to do.
I haven't mentioned the Bayou Brief piece I wrote called 'Ground Game' this season. Because I do like to mention that there were all those community group efforts that really kicked in and P.S. we were ready to kick in for a run off this year had there been one. In 2019, when John Bel got to the runoff, they knew the importance of getting him reelected. And they put the work in. So that is what is possible when we can get a Democrat to a runoff. And people don't understand. By the way, I'll just mention this. And then I want to pivot to the final three questions. People often don't understand, like, Why can't those groups just be the mobilization groups for all of the election year? And they can't, because they don't have that kind of money. So they try to find like, where can they invest. And so they can, well, we can run an a one month campaign, we can run a one month mobilization effort, but they can't be a campaign, they can't support a campaign for nine months. Right? So the campaigns do, and the party does have to do some of the early, upfront legwork, then those other mobilization groups can kind of come in and do the support for the end.
Totally, totally true. And I think that the party is just uniquely suited to that task. And when no one's paying attention to the race a year before, whatever they can be working on that specifically, if they're if they're so motivated to do so if they have the right leadership involved.
And that's, by the way, so I also like to remind folks that those mobilization groups need to be funded as well. So if you're looking for places to invest your time, or your money, those are also really good spaces to go. Andrew, I appreciate your taking so much time to talk to me. And I'm sure we only talk for three more hours. But I do want to ask the last three questions. And normally, I would ask you, what do you think the biggest obstacle for progressives are in the state but because we're in this space with the Democratic Party, I'd really rather ask you right now, what's the biggest obstacle for the Democrats? What's the biggest obstacle for the Democratic Party in the state?
Well, I do think that the party has a really... it's got a lot of soul searching to do about what it wants to spend time doing right now. I think that there are, unfortunately, it's been winnowed down to there very few Democrats who face electoral threat from the right right now, because the districting. So we aren't looking at a lot of races anymore, as it pertains to the legislature as it pertains to Congress. Hopefully with this redraw the congressional districts will have another democratic seat, that would be great. But I think it's time, I think, from the party's perspective is that the party building aspect of it is now should be the predominant thing, not elections, because there just aren't going to be tons of elections that Democrats are competing against Republicans or non Democrats in. The time is now to spend all of our time finding ways to coordinate resources. And I don't mean money, I mean, resources, whether it's tutorial, whether it's opportunities, whether it's helping to burnish their credentials, or learn how to be a candidate and all those things, to find ways to be a hub for that activity. I don't think you're going to find a ton of local or parish executive committees that are super effective at this, although it'd be great if they were we had this conversation about that, I think the party has to just be there for any of these affiliated groups, right. So not just the deep x, but also any of these affiliated groups, whether it's the climate voter project, or the, you know, the swing left, all the ones that, you know, we can name and go through and that are looking for candidates that the party be a hub, to access resources and to lower the barriers for people to learn how to be a candidate and be effective as candidates, because I don't think they're just the electorial pieces. You know, we can spend all the time we want doing fantasy politics about who's gonna run for what, but there is no who right now, and there is no election where Democrats and very few election now there were there can be, I think, an effective democratic candidate, because we haven't even spent the time to find these new candidates and find people I think, who are who are going to be motivated to sacrifice beyond the promise of, you know, elected office, that that, you know, you're going to, that's going to take a lot of work, there's just got to be a party chair can't be about, you know, any of the sort of the accoutrement of being chair of, you know, visits to the White House, or all this other stuff you get as being a party chair of one of the 50 parties, and, you know, for people as parties with all the territory states, I mean, across the state. So, you know, that's got to be a specific type of person. And it doesn't, it's not just about that person, but it's about that person's ability to bring people together around that concept.
There are many executive committee positions as well, that can do a lot of that work, also. And I would hope that we'd get more people interested in actually serving rather than just carrying a title in those executive committee positions, because they could have some power, and they could do some work that really could transform the party. What's the biggest opportunity? What's Democrats biggest opportunity?
Well, I've been very excited to see the emergence of people, the candidates, elected officials who are focused on, I think, really carrying forward the work of so many grassroots groups, the emergence of groups, whether it's the vote, folks here in New Orleans, whether it's the folks trying to elect more women there, there are some really motivated grassroots groups that are really kind of ready, they're now ready to be real players in the electoral space, and can, if connected could really help foster this new generation of candidates who are committed to contrast and values and authenticity. And so I'm actually, you know, some of these are, sometimes losses can be clarifying. And losses, like the party Democrats, and people honestly have faced are facing here in Louisiana, can be clarifying and recognizing what we really truly need to have as candidates as leaders, as organizers. So, you know, I hate to have to lose to learn this. But if it takes a loss to learn that and to clarify how important it is to have people who are committed to real contrast and authenticity, and to service and not to politics as celebrity or politics as opportunity or politics are solely for ambition, although every politician is ambitious and shouldn't be if you want to serve you want someone who is ambitious enough to sacrifice but I Do you think that maybe losses can be clarifying and that way? You don't want to have to reach bottom to rebuild. That's never great. But the party just doesn't hold any elected statewide elected office right now. You know, our high, frankly, our highest elected official right now is Congressman Troy Carter is doing a great job and Public Service Commissioner Davante Lewis. And beyond that, there aren't any elected Democrats in power right now. And I think Mr. Campbell is actually I believe, I don't want to misspeak, but I believe Commissioner Campbell is actually a turned out from the PSC. And so and so, you know, he won't be running again, although I love Commissioner Campbell. So I think there needs the folks that have electoral features and who are going to be future leaders, you know, are, are yet to be written. Right. We've got some great folks, like I said, I think Congressman Carter is doing a really good job he has been delivered, frankly, probably been the foremost deliver of resources to Congress, congressional district to and, and to city in New Orleans. You know, certainly going back in history, he has been a tremendous at that. And he's a tremendous leader in on Capitol Hill. And similarly, Commissioner Lewis has been extraordinary in building, I think, a cohort of people who are concerned about the climate and concerned about, you know, whether it's free prison phones, whether it's, you know, making sure that your utility companies aren't exploiting and extracting but rather serving. I mean, he's, he's a tremendous leader, and we've got great leaders in cities too. And I won't mention all my friends here in New Orleans, because they're numerous. Obviously, my boss, Helena Moreno, I think a great leader here in the city. But you know, the Democratic Party lost the mayor of Shreveport race. Yeah, recently, you know, I just just to highlight, you know, where some of our great leaders have come from in the past. You know, under chair Peterson, the Democrats held all five of the largest cities, the mayors or mayor president, see of all five of the largest cities in Louisiana, we don't right now. And so I think it's time that clarifying moment where even you've lost the things that you think Democrats would win, you know, mayors races and majority democratic cities,
Well, then I'll give you another opportunity, because there are a lot of young people who are seeing these things and deeply care about our climate and making the state livable and sustainable. So a lot of those folks are, I've heard from several of those folks who are looking at the party leadership elections. And so I think there are some exciting opportunities there that people may not be aware of yet. So I would ask people to stay tuned, because we may have fingers crossed, but we may have. And like, I don't like tell people stories for them. So I'm not mentioning names. But to me, there have been some exciting people step up and say, I'm looking at this now. And they probably are October 14, I'll just say it that way. It's probably clarifying. Like you said, that's a clarifying moment.
Yeah, absolutely. I don't want to I think that, you know, we're looking towards March now. And, you know, I don't know who's running for party chair, I don't know if the current chairs running for re election, or there's gonna be some new folks, my assumption is, you know, there'll be a race for a party chair. I think that's one of the pieces that needs to be put in place. And not the only one, but it's one of the piece, I want to continue to lift up a lot of these grassroots groups who work so diligently sometimes in anonymity and some of that, especially in the non urban parishes outside of Orleans outside of Baton Rouge, it's much harder to organize and to work in rural or non urban Louisiana for progressive values. As much as people want to say there's all these hidden voters and all these hidden Democrats and we just create these values, you run into a ton of resistance, no one gives this up, you have to really take it. And so I want to highlight all the grassroots work that's being done and, and hope that in the future, the work around coordinating with the party and Democratic leaders represents and lifts up that work and doesn't replace it, but rather highlights it and, and utilizes it and coordinates it and supports it, right? Because I think it's there's no reason to remake. And this is not true of all places, but there's no reason to remake the work of so many organizers and folks around the state. Right. And I do think there's there's opportunity there
Coach poach people from those spaces. Right?
Those spaces are truly important, because, you know, it can't always be about electoral politics is really important. You know, as I've often told people, especially some of my friends who organize you know, across the some of the left groups who you know, I support and I like to see rise and and help bring those contracts. But the the fact of the matter is you can do all you want, but electoral politics is important because you can't implement any of these ideas without holding power. Right. And you know, like, and it's never been more true that you really do have to win elections, you have to do what it takes to win elections. That doesn't mean you know, sacrificing your values. But it does mean doing the hard work of winning elections, which takes a whole lot of work. And it's not as easy as some people think. And it's not as it's just, it's not just posting on the internet, right. So to, to not that that's not important sometimes, but, or to get your frustration out. So I just, I just love to, you know, it's not to cooperate to make sure that we're working in concert within supporting groups who are making changes, but also making sure that there's room for electoral politics too, because you got have the power
Andrew, who's your favorite superhero?
You know, my friend is a very big superhero guy, and he has lots of stuff in his office about superheroes. Okay, just two that I think are great are... I think Captain Marvel is one that is great. I guess I like the... the Black Panther movies are really great. So I think I like Black Panther. I like Thor. I don't know much about Thor, I saw one of the movies and it is very funny. Those are probably terrible answers, not political ones. I'm not a big superhero person. Sorry.
There are no wrong answers to who's your favorite superhero. Andrew, thanks so much for speaking with me. It's been a joy to speak politics with you as as it always is.
Well, I really appreciate all the work you do. It's in valuable and you're irreplaceable and the work you... like, I can't thank you enough for your commitment to this because honestly, I don't see anyone else doing it like you do and you make you give a lot of people hope with the work you do. So it's tremendously important. So thank you.
Thank you for listening to Louisiana Lefty. Please follow us on your favorite podcast platform. Thank you to Ben Collinsworth for producing Louisiana Lefty, Jen Pack of Black Cat Studios for our Super Lefty artwork, and Thousand $ Car for allowing us to use their swamp pop classic "Security Guard" as our Louisiana Lefty theme song.
