Mark Wright Elected to Louisiana State Legislature After Fast 30 Point Swing

Maness Snatches Defeat from the Jaws of Victory in Election for LA’s Disctrict 77 State Legislative Seat

Rob Maness looked to be cruising on his way to victory after the primary election for Louisiana’s 77th District seat for the State Legislature. He garnered 12% more votes than the closest of his three competitors, eventual runoff opponent Mark Wright. All he had to do was not self-destruct and the election was his. Unfortunately for Maness, that proved to be too much to ask.

Louisiana State Legislative District 77 Primary Election 2017
Maness had a comfortable 12 point lead over his next closest competitor in the October primary.

It must have been a solemn night at the Maness headquarters on election night as election day voting followed the trend of early voting, as Wright turned a 12-point deficit after the primary election into an 18-point landslide defeat in just one month. Essentially, everyone who didn’t vote for either candidate in the primary voted for Wright in the runoff save for 18 people, at least in terms of net results.

That kind of massive turnaround in such a short period of time is rare in politics and usually requires some kind of unusual event to occur swaying undecided voters and perhaps even some of the primary winner’s voters as well. That happened, as did a few other key events.

For anyone interested in the science of political campaigning, the following can be used as a lesson in what to do and what not to do when campaigning for public office.

Before breaking down how we arrived at the final results, let’s review them. Shall we?

Mark Wright Rob Maness Runoff Louisiana State Legislative District 77
Wright & company turned a 12 point deficit into an 18 point win in just a month’s time, with most of the movement coming in the final weekl

So how exactly did such a momentous shift occur in just a month?

First, Wright focused more on promoting himself as a good candidate, whereas Maness’ primary message was that he was the ‘one true conservative’, and that powerful “political insiders” were holding him back from winning an election. Thus, once the field was whittled following the primary, Wright made quick work to secure the endorsements of the other two candidates who lost in the primary but did not make the runoff.

This was a very prudent and politically intelligent move on Wright’s behalf. Maness had been adversarial with the other candidates during the primary, levying accusations and loads of innuendo. In other words, he didn’t do anything to make any friends or even give himself a chance at winning the endorsements of either of the two candidates who were eliminated following the primary, whereas Wright was poised to court their support the moment the primary results were in.

With early voting showing a trend toward wright (albeit not enough of one to change the outcome without winning big on election day too), Maness began to self destruct.

The author of this blog, a friend and supporter of Wright, and more importantly experienced campaign operative, decided to become involved with about two weeks remaining, starting with a social media campaign that went viral, locally speaking (within the district). The posts got a lot of exposure, were eloquent and completely disarmed Maness’ unfounded claims that “political insiders” were conspiring against him by claiming to be among the people Maness was referencing as “insiders” conspiring and colluding to keep him down.

The problem this posed for Maness was that this author is more popular within the district, and more highly thought of. Therefore when people saw that I’m who he’s referring to, the claim became extremely suspect – perhaps even to the extent it backfired. For the record, there were no insiders conspiring to keep Maness out of office… Except for myself, if you define me as a “political insider.” Also, in order for there to be a conspiracy you need more than one person. I guess I conspired and colluded with myself, because I acted totally independently of anyone including Wright’s campaign, save for dropping by one time to pick up door hangers, flyers and signs (typical campaign literature).

One of the Facebook posts that was extremely effective in getting inside Maness’ head was this one:

If you click “read more” and read the entire post, you an see how that might have bothered Rob just a little.

Maness actually messaged me to ask why I had posted what I had. The reason is because what I posted was accurate.

Just a few days after that post, with polling showing Wright starting to catch up to Maness’ lead, disaster happened for the Maness campaign. To make a long story short, he had a complete meltdown on live radio, in which he make comments that appeared to be insane about nuclear weapons and him being the most qualified person in history to hold the keys to America’s nuclear arsenal (not sure how that’s relevant for a Louisiana state legislator, but it gives us a glimpse into the mindset Maness was in at the time). Then he shouted obscenities at a caller (again, on live radio) five times — FIVE — before the call screener hung up on the caller. However by that time the damage was done. Nothing he said was censored and voters of the district got to see a side of one one of the men running for state legislature that he’d rather not have shown.

The Facebook posts may or may not have played a role in his radio meltdown, but my suspicion is they did. To what extent I won’t even attempt to guess.

Following the radio debacle, Maness continued digging when rather than issue a statement apologizing and saying the pressure of the campaign had gotten the better of him and that the behavior he exhibited was not indicative of who he is. However, that wasn’t what Rob had in mind. He issued this letter to the editor of a local newspaper, which had inklings of remorse, but the overwhelming theme was to attack the columnist who had written what everyone was already thinking. That certainly didn’t do anything to help undo the damage his radio tirade had done to his plummeting numbers.

My Involvement

In the final days of the campaign Wright received some grassroots assistance from yours truly, which is actually probably a bigger deal than it may sound on the surface. I’ve worked (as a paid campaign staff member) congressional campaigns, statewide races for U.S. Senate, and have been sought out by Congressmen seeking advice on whether or not to run for Senate. I served on Newt Gingrich’s Presidential Exploratory Committee. In southeast Louisiana, I’m as formidable a campaign asset as you’ll find, particularly with regard to grassroots.

Peter Egan and Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich poses with fellow Tulane alum Peter Egan, following a meeting of his Presidential Exploratory Committee.

In addition to the campaign’s own canvassing efforts, I distributed what must have been 40-50 pounds worth of door hangers and flyers, put up about 20 yard signs including in key locations along major thoroughfares. I also got a few up in some rather unconventional locations, like the wooden beams surrounding the cement structures holding up the Interstate-12 bride over the Tchefuncte River. Every boat passing under the interstate would have seen the signs. I would estimate that number of boaters at at least 1,000 between the time they were posted and the actual election.

Mark Wright Campaign Sign
A yard sign for Mark Wright displayed to boaters along the Tchefuncte River in Covington.

Between the campaign astutely courting voters who cast ballots for candidates who did not make the runoff, the campaign’s effective advertising (particularly following the radio incident), grassroots efforts by the campaign and social media posts and grassroots canvassing areas that hadn’t been targeted by renegade volunteer Peter Egan, by election day the outcome was a mere formality. Mark Wright had won in an 18 point landslide, a result no one could have foreseen following the October primaries.

Why Did I Get Involved?

The reason I got involved was because I was unsure of the outcome of the election and wanted to erase that uncertainty – at least to the extent I could.

The other reason is well explained in a snippet from this article at The Hayride:

Rob Maness Senate John Fleming

A PAC that had supported Fleming in the 2016 Senate race was behind a series of negative ads against Maness, a little retribution for him mucking up the Senate race a year prior.

I am friends with former Congressman Dr. John Fleming, MD. Rep. Fleming was not only Louisiana’s most conservative member of the delegation, he had a much better chance of beating Kennedy in a runoff (Kennedy was a lifelong democrat until a few years ago). Maness angrily refused, allowing Charles Boustany to sneak into the runoff. Boustany is a “moderate” Republican well to the left of Fleming, as is Kennedy. So Maness in essence cost the only conservative candidate in the race with a shot at winning a chance at the runoff.

My motivation was to ensure Mark Wright won first and foremost. Secondly, I wanted to do all I could to run up the score so that Rob would never be able to impact a major election (like a Senate race) and use his presence to hand the election to a wishy-washy moderate over a conservative. Whether I had any impact and if so how much, we’ll never know. What is known is that my objectives were met regardless of whether I played a substantial role in that or not. 

I do not foresee Maness running for office again in Southeast Louisiana after he handed this race away by failing to maintain his composure when the pressure was on.

To be clear, I’m not taking credit for the outcome of this election. I’m not taking credit for any part of it. I did help out though and Mark and his campaign achieved the result I was hoping to see. Whether I personally played any role in the outcome and if so how much is anybody’s guess. I personally believe Mark would have won comfortably without my support and involvement.

After all, as a HayRide article about Maness’ future eloquently observed:

That seat was winnable (for Maness). But the problem was that Wright, who had been a conservative activist in St. Tammany and had served the movement’s cause for years before taking the plunge and running for the city council in Covington (in other words starting small and moving up, rather than the opposite approach Maness took), had already entered the race. Wright had already learned the retail political skills required to win a state legislative race and he was already building a coalition capable of winning.

Meanwhile, Maness’ approach was to immediately cast himself as the One True Conservative and bash Wright as a Washington lobbyist (which was a stretch; he’s vice president of American Waterway Operators, a trade organization for tugboat and barge companies) when Maness himself is a registered lobbyist, and to trash him as having made crooked deals with the state’s party establishment. That was never going to work, because Wright was a known commodity. People on the Northshore know him better than they know Rob, they know Mark is a conservative with a record of governing like one on that city council, and they like Wright better. And it especially didn’t resonate that Mark was a “career politician;” you don’t get to run for office three times in four years and call anybody else a professional politician. When you start running for office you become a politician, period. Accusing others of that when they run less often than you do simply pisses voters off.

Source: http://thehayride.com/2017/11/happens-rob-maness-now/#ixzz51OchvY19

Robert Mann is a Pathetic Coward (An Open Letter)

Robert Mann: Disgusting Human Being, Liar and Coward

UPDATE: I’m sure no one who reads this post will be surprised to learn this but it has been confirmed that Mann is a Political Science professor at LSU. Intellectual dishonesty the likes of which Mann has displayed in his defamation of two people who’d never even heard of him is unbecoming of anyone paid by the state to teach. This guy must be terminated from the LSU faculty. He is the reason colleges and universities are cesspools of Marxism where race, gender identity and a desire to disarm law-abiding citizens trump learning.

I came upon a post by a pathetic individual by the name of Robert Mann while conducting research. The post consisted of intellectually dishonest, misrepresentations of both myself and my father. These misrepresentations were deliberate, and in my own personal case even the most cognitively-challenged individual could have figured out that the Facebook post Mann cited in an effort to attack my character was a lighthearted joke.

It’s pretty creepy to know that some weirdo that I’ve never heard of is Facebook stalking me. I’m not going to link to his site, because I don’t want to give him any publicity, but I will post my response to it below in the form of an open letter.

Coward Robert Bob Mann
Example: See “Robert Mann”

The following is an open letter to Robert Mann:

Robert Mann,

You are quite possibly the least intellectually honest person whose work I’ve ever read.

Your misrepresentation of what my father said coupled with you dragging me into it by trying to misrepresent what was obviously a lighthearted joke as a “racist comment” is as intellectually dishonest an act as I’ve ever witnessed.

For one thing, my father was absolutely right in his description of political prostitute Jay Dardenne. You totally and deliberately misrepresented what he said, and you did it with malicious intent.

You dragging me into it with yet another deliberate misrepresentation of a JOKE crossed the line.

If you can’t construct logical arguments as a means to persuade others of your political views you have no business writing or even speaking about politics.

Robert MannYou’re an angry old man and your willingness to lie and deceive is disgusting. What’s more disgusting is that low-character individuals such as yourself actually influence others. It is a sad reflection on society when someone like you is taken seriously by others.

You’re not man enough to make those same comments about myself and my father to either of our faces. If you care to prove me wrong, I would be delighted. We both know that won’t happen however… Because you’re a coward, and cowards don’t confront people with malicious, unprovoked attacks in person.

You are a lying, intellectually dishonest coward. I’d be miserable too if I had no conscience, and used lies and misrepresentations to impugn the character of people who have never even heard of you, much less wronged you in any way.

Robert Mann Sushi
This is Sushi, my now-deceased dog and best friend of 17 years. Scumbag Robert Mann used my dead dog to attack me.

I am flattered to know that you’re Facebook stalking me however. It is creepy, no doubt. But I’m more than capable of defending myself from sinister creeps such as yourself, and would welcome the opportunity to do so in person.

But seriously though, using my dead dog and best friend of 17 years as a means of attacking my character is one of the lowest, most pathetic acts I’ve ever witnessed. You really are a despicable human being.

In conclusion, you’re a loser. In the future, if you wish to attack my character with lies and misrepresentations, I kindly ask that you do so directly to me face. I have a feeling your cowardice will never allow that to happen.

Sincerely,

Peter Egan Jr.

* Update *

Unlike Mann, who wrote his libelous attacks in hopes that the subjects of his defamation would never learn of his deed, this letter was sent directly to Robert Mann via Twitter. He was notified of its existence within ten minutes of it being published.

Rather than attempt to defend his deliberate mischaracterizations and character assassination, he did what I expected him to do. He blocked me on Twitter and issued no response or defense of his sinister blog. I guess the old cliche is true that you can’t defend the indefensible.

Provided with an opportunity to explain why he felt it necessary to launch vicious personal attacks on two different people he doesn’t even know and whom he has never met, Mann took the coward’s way out. His response is fitting, and consistent with the rest of his cowardly behavior.

Robert Mann is a coward whose cowardice is his defining characteristic.

Why is Wikipedia Begging for Money?

WikiPedia Chooses Blind Communism Over Common Sense

I’d like to offer a very generous proposal to make Wikipedia financially solvent without the world’s largest online encyclopedia having to beg on street corners for spare change while unshaven and at least a week since their last shower.

Wikipedia Begging
Wikipedia has a page on Advertising. They know what it is. Like good liberals, they believe all money is for government and profits are earned in order to be given to the government.

Okay, so I took some license here with regard to the panhandling, disheveled appearance and putrid body odor, but the analogy is really not that far off the mark. At least to me, that is precisely the image that pops into my head when I see one of the world’s largest and most successful websites threatening to close down permanently due to financial shortfalls.

Of course, this should come as little surprise considering Wikipedia has relied on donations and volunteer for the duration of its existence. At some point the amount of work is inevitably going to reach the point of excess relative toward the good will and charitable nature of others.

Wikipedia could integrate advertising and within a month pay off any/all liabilities. Every monthly surplus thereafter could either be designated as profit (and Wikipedia changed from a non-profit to for-profit entity). That said, they could allow advertising and remain a non-profit entity.

Wikipedia is so liberal, they think advertising is inherently evil. So they want individual readers and editors to donate to them instead of just allowing advertisers to advertise.

They don’t even need to engage in such liberal blasphemy as advertising. Sure the proceeds could be used to start a foundation to raise money for feeding Africa’s poorest countries or installing a water cleansing or desalinization plant in a place like Haiti… Maybe even some plumbing to go with it.

But no, they evidently aren’t capable of allowing sponsors to sponsor pages/topics, so they won’t help solve world hunger, or provide Haitians with clean water. No, those people will have to continue to suffer an impoverished life the likes of which anyone who has ever heard of Wikipedia can so much as envision (no plumbing, electricity or clean water on an island near the equator).

Communism Killed Wikipedia
Wikipedia is so liberal, they think advertising is inherently evil.

So here’s my proposal:

Sign over Wikipedia to me, Peter Egan, effective immediately. In so doing, I will be assuming full control of both the organization’s assets and liabilities. Wikipedia will incur no additional financial losses from the moment the paper is signed.

And yet, I haven’t a doubt in my mind that I can not only turn around Wikipedia’s financial fortunes, but do so in a hurry too. If in four months, I don’t have the company solvent at the very minimum, I will incur my losses and spend as long as necessary paying them back. I’ll even agree to keep it non-profit provided I receive a salary consistent with that of an executive or an organization that size complete with healthcare, benefits, retirement, etc.

The below image is more recent than that above. They’re actually soliciting every visitor to the site with a pop-up that covers the entire screen, forcing you to close it or make a donation to view your content. Click the image to view the full-size version.

Wikipedia Begging / Panhandling
Wikipedia Doing Its Best “Homeless Vet” Impression… (Click image to view full-size.)

I don’t foresee that scenario occurring though (me going bankrupt after assuming control of Wikipedia’s assets and liabilities). You see, I am aware of a few concepts called supply-and-demand, and I have no doubt whatsoever that advertisers would be getting in line the moment the announcement was made that Wikipedia would began selling a small advertising spots in a manner that did not in any way corrupt the integrity of the information (which was always overblown anyway).

So Wikipedia, you can either fold like quitters and losers and allow one of the greatest developments in the history of the internet die needlessly because you were too stubborn to put your liberal egos aside long enoughCommunism is bad, mmkay to come to your senses and make a rational decision.

Reneging on the vow to never accept money from advertisers is far less of a breach of principle than is throwing away one of the treasurers of the internet — and all because you wanted to prove how much you hate capitalism. In other words, you’re threatening to close Wikipedia if people don’t give money in exchange for nothing, closing one of the most oft-used sites in the web’s history all because you want to show the world how devoted you are to your political views.

What will happen if Wikipedia does become insolvent financially, they’ll (I speculate) charge viewers and move to a paid membership model whereby those who pay for memberships can have access to varying amounts of content, depending on how much is paid. That would have far more influence on the site’s contents than would advertising all run through a third-party broker.

My final question is this: Since your “free,” communist utopia of Wikipedia is failing financially and on the brink of collapse, are any of the site’s founders or major contributors intelligent enough to recognize that this is merely one major example proving the point that communism is a failed economic system everywhere it is and had every been tried? Can they see that it always will fail until the end of time so long as people continue to delude themselves into thinking that it only needs one more chance to work, and that the hundreds of failures from over the past hundreds of years are all aberrations?

Granted, it hasn’t gone full communist yet (paywall model) whereby you MUST pay or you can’t have access, almost certainly with exceptions made for certain groups and individuals who are leftist nobility and/or members of high-priority interest groups. They of course would benefit from those who pay for access by being granted free access. These exceptions, while not explicitly stating as much would only be available to the left’s preferred classes and groupings of people.

Is the sun setting on Wikipedia?
Is the sun setting on Wikipedia?

This my readers and friends, is why communists being allowed to vote in a free society is a recipe for civil war and economic collapse. I’m as much for freedom of expression as the next guy, but not when said expression takes the form of mass murder, misinformation and financial calamity; which is what has happened every time communism has been tried anywhere, ever.

If Wikipedia does in fact implement a model whereby certain people have to pay while others will still be able to use the site free (socialism), I fear one of the web’s greatest creations and one of the most valuable properties on the web will be left to deteriorate in ruins, much like the abandoned housing complexes (the ones that look like college dormitories) in the old Soviet Union.

If that happens, it will be a shame and a pity. I’d be willing to risk my own financial wellbeing to prove that advertising does not have to influence content.

That said, if I have to pay for access to Wikipedia, or if I make a voluntary donation, I’d like my own page, and I’d like it to be the first one returned when one searches the name “Peter Egan.”

Communist Devil
Communist Devil