Skip to content

Self-delusion Reigns: Bobby Jindal and His 2016 Presidential Unreality

June 9, 2015

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015, Louisiana’s lame-duck governor, Bobby Jindal, plans to announce his run for 2016 President of These United States at 4 p.m. at the Ponchartrain Center in Kenner, Louisiana.

I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Jindal for President is as likely as Obama’s being legally elected for a third consecutive term.

Not going to happen.

In a June 07, 2015, article, Politicus USA writer Jason Easley notes:

Gov. Bobby Jindal is going to be running for President, but his approval rating has sunk so low that President Obama is more popular than the Republican in deep red Louisiana.

While discussing Jindal’s failures in Louisiana, The Washington Post dropped this little nugget of information, “Jindal is now so unpopular in deep-red Louisiana that his approval rating plunged to 32 percent in a recent poll — compared with 42 percent for President Obama, who lost the state by 17 percentage points in 2012.”

In our current era of national geographic political polarization, President Obama is not popular in any of the red states. Being more popular than Obama in Louisiana should be a low hurdle for any Republican, but Bobby Jindal is ten points behind the President in a state that Obama was not competitive in during either of his presidential campaigns.

Bobby Jindal is running for president, but he has struggled for years to be more popular than President Obama. In 2013, Obama was 5 points more popular than Jindal. The margin has doubled in the last two years. Jindal’s popularity has plummeted in direct relation to his attempts to impose the Republican/Koch agenda on his state.

And what is that “Koch” agenda? Easley summarizes as he also captures Jindal’s well-known personal agenda in the process:

In 2013, Gov. Jindal tried to replace the state tax with a higher sales tax, but the opposition was so strong (63% opposed in polling) that he was forced to abandon his plan. Jindal has slashed spending for education and health care while cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations. The result has been a historic budget crisis that the governor has shown no interest in solving. ….

Bobby Jindal has completely wrecked the state of Louisiana by using it as a platform for his presidential campaign. He has shown no interest in the consequences of actions. For Bobby Jindal, everything is a presidential resume building exercise. [Emphasis added.]

As for Jindal and Louisiana’s budget crisis: Much of it hinges on Jindal’s 2003 decision to follow Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) “anti-tax” platform. Sadly, in a twisted triangulation that they might label “negotiation,” Louisiana Republican lawmakers are begging Norquist to give his blessing on their previous efforts at tax cuts, all so that Norquist puppet, Jindal, will approve of Louisiana legislative efforts toward a workable budget.

This. Is. Soo. Dysfunctional.

And Jindal– who cannot lead a state without the approval of a powerful figure outside of the state– thinks he’s the man to lead a country.

In his Politicus article, Easley doesn’t stop with Jindal. He notes that a whole slew of would-be Republican presidential candidates are very-public disappointments in their own rights:

Jindal is the latest example of how overrated the Republican presidential candidates are. The supposedly deep Republican bench consists of current governors who aren’t popular in their own states, a bunch of senators who at best have regional appeal, a former governor who is under indictment, a failed business executive, a reality television star most famous for repeated bankruptcies, a Fox News created conservative media star who many believe is insane, and a clueless Bush brother who is doomed by his family’s unpopular legacy….

I’ll leave it to readers to sort out the sorry Who’s-Who in Gillman’s GOP-hopeful listing above.  Why, one might even create from it a political coffee-table game.

All of this Republican eyeballing of the potential White-House-career-ladder rungs will surely make for an interesting first Republican primary, scheduled for August 6, 2015, in Cleveland. But since there are so many *amazing* Republicans vying for the Oval Office, there will also be a second primary debate (that’s just funny to write) at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, CA, on September 16, 2015.

Reporter Todd Gillman of Dallas News’ Trail Blazers Blog describes the divided primary debate this way:

Think Thanksgiving dinner, with a grownups’ table and a kids’ table.

The main debate will include the 10 with the top poll numbers. A secondary debate will include others who drew at least 1 percentage point but couldn’t crack the top 10. And — a wrinkle — if no more than 14 people fall into either category, CNN reserves the right to hold the main debate to 8 people. Debate criteria here.

Here are more details on the Grown-ups Table portion of that debate, as reported by Gillman:

…Fox News and Facebook will play host.

The debate will take place at Quicken Loans Arena, the site of the 2016 GOP convention, from 8 to 10 pm CT. Three Fox anchors will serve as moderators: Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace.

Fox announced that it will invite contenders who placed in the top 10 in an average of five national polls in the days leading up to the debate. …

RealClearPolitics is one of the outfits that tracks rolling averages. At the moment, the top 10 would be: Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. …

The debate will use Facebook data to show how issues are resonating with users of the social network. Fox viewers and Facebook users will be able to suggest questions ahead of time. The Ohio GOP will also be a co-host.

According to RealClearPolitics, based on polling results conducted from May 19 to June 02, 2015, by FOX News, CNN, ABC-Washington Post, and Quinnepac, Bobby Jindal averages out to dead last out of 15 listed Republican presidential hopefuls.

For three polls (all except FOX News), Jindal ties with one or two others for last place.

Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Ben Carson place first through fourth, respectively.

Given his ego and warped perspective on his own leadership ability, Jindal probably thinks he is at the front of the line.

last in line


Schneider is a southern Louisiana native, career teacher, trained researcher, and author of the ed reform whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who In the Implosion of American Public Education.

She also has her second book available on pre-order, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?, due for publication June 12, 2015.

 both books

  1. mccormicktribune permalink

    Fascinating writing.How does this document increase our understanding?   How does it create knowledge for people who are literate and capable of reading?For all th claims made in this blog – I have to wonder if you are simply anti anything that you don’t agree with?   Are you capable of looking at two positions and examining them for the merit of the matter – or are all things your way or the high way ….. Something I think are interesting when disconnected from reality as you deem it — this one just appears to be trash talk ….   not of great value at all …. sadly.  I have to again say — “really?” – why the trash talk are you a political commentator or what are you attempting to do?Very sadly.Terri McCormick Dawson, Ph.D.

    • Let me explain. This is a blog about public education. Bobby Jindal has been a very vocal opponent of credible public education reform in Louisiana, according to the blogger. Yes, she does take the blog space to pile on a bit. But she is also a citizen of Louisiana, and Jindal is a big boy. So, yes, this blog is an opinion piece that takes a very strong stance against Bobby Jindal’s viability as a candidate, and his record as a governor. And, to use your words, she is “anti anything” she doesn’t agree with. That’s what “anti’ means.

    • Dr. Dawson – One only has to conduct a cursory review of your writing to understand how your bias conflicts with the alleged bias of Dr. Mercedes. What is really interesting is the cynicism – ney snarkiness – in your comment being the self-proclaimed expert in journalistic ethics you claim to be. Would you humour us with the other position you propose should be examined for the merit of this matter?

    • Terry, why would someone with a PhD and ready access to Google need to come to me for “neutrality”?

      Critical thought does not require neutrality, and given Jindal’s (and many other politicians’) established anti-teacher agenda, it’s amazes me that you would expect to find neutrality on my blog.

      • Hi Deutsch: I am seldom on this site – I actually used your book / or one you site from / or have sited in the past as a reference in my policy communications dissertation regarding the fecklessness of the common core.

        The book noted the common core as being federally derived and motivated with interest group monies – I enjoyed the data presented and commend you for the work.

        As per any statement on Jindal – it simply through me as it wasn’t of the same voice as the well researched document – thus it thew me a bit to read it associated with your posts. No harm no fowl : – )

        Common core has been dispelled by the federal education policy community – I am not quite sure how it is still playing out across the country in classrooms. As funds toward many of these education “reforms” may still be appropriated.

        Thank you for the data on the common core – that was very impressive – and as per weighing in beyond that on politicians of any stripe – I try to keep my comments on any political leadership topic – based solely on data and journalistic sourcing with at least 3 references.

        Take care and keep up the good work – if you are not the author of the book that was well researched and exposed the common core funders as politically motivated – I apologize.


  2. Anonymous permalink

    Hi Dr. Dawson,

    I’m a teacher in this very Republican state who also notices a distinct disconnect from reality.

    The people – voters – teachers – tend to live very conservatively, think conservatively, and vote conservatively. But instead of getting conservative politicians, we get well-groomed snakes who give our hard-earned money to out-of-state billionaires for nothing in return. What is conservative about that?

    Is this not a topic worthy of discussion? Do we (who are getting a $2000 a year salary cut, after years of frozen salary) really need your (political drama = paid social media commentary = profitable business model) permission to discuss who we might vote for? Do you have any suggestions out of that field who will put our people and our democracy before profits and ideology?

    I would love some honest answers, not drive-by sniping. Thank you.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Self-delusion Reigns: Bobby Jindal and His 2016 Presidential Unreality | Sumo Sacerdote

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s