louisiana, 1996

[WalterMitty]

am i the only one that finds this result interesting?

im not so surprised that clinton won, but his margin was impressively large.

any thoughts?

[nini2287]

I am too.  I have no idea why but intersting note-Kerry received a higher percentage of the vote in Orleans Parish than Clinton did in 1996.

[phk]

I am too.  I have no idea why but intersting note-Kerry received a higher percentage of the vote in Orleans Parish than Clinton did in 1996.

Perot?

[bgwah]

This is something that I have wondered as well...

[WalterMitty]

to put this into perspective, clinton did nearly as well in louisiana as he did in vermont in 96.

[nini2287]

I am too.  I have no idea why but intersting note-Kerry received a higher percentage of the vote in Orleans Parish than Clinton did in 1996.

Perot?

That might have been it, though Perot only got 2% in Orleans Parish.

[jacob_101]

Maybe because Louisiana borders Arkansas?

[memphis]

to put this into perspective, clinton did nearly as well in louisiana as he did in vermont in 96.

I don't think that they are comparable because '96 was a three-way race and '04 was between only two.  I think your example illustrates how much both Louisiana and Vermont have shifted in recent years, and to a lesser degree, the entire South and Northeast.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think there's anything especially suprising about a moderate Arkansas Democrat winning Louisiana by a big margin... most voters down there are Democrats after all.

Don't see anything that odd about this:

[Galactic Overlord]

I think it should be emphasized that Clinton won Louisiana with 52%, so Perot wouldn't have made a difference.  Louisiana's culture made it easier for Clinton to win here, especially with African American voters, but also in the Cajun parishes. Clinton had that "good old boy" persona that is reminsicent of local politicans like Governor Edwin Edwards.  Louisiana is much like Arkansas anyway, at least back then, so Clinton's appeal was easily transferable.

For some reason, and I was too young then to notice why, Bob Dole just didn't wear well with Louisiana voters.  It may just be that midwesterners don't do well in the south (Ask Gerald Ford). Dole couldn't break 100,000 in Jefferson Parish (a typically strong Republican parish) and only got a piddling 50% there, but Clinton won an overpowering 76.2% in Orleans Parish, which includes the whole city of New Orleans. 

Again, I'm not privy to the specifics of the campaign in Louisiana, but Southern Democrats can do very well here.  Kathleen Blanco, our current governor, won with a similar spread across the parishes, though it was much closer that time.

[WalterMitty]

i think we know the reasons why blanco did well in rural louisiana.

[memphis]

i think we know the reasons why blanco did well in rural louisiana.

More correctly, the reason Bobby Jindal did poorly in rural Louisiana...

[Storebought]

i think we know the reasons why blanco did well in rural louisiana.

"The Cajun versus The Asian"

[RBH]

i think we know the reasons why blanco did well in rural louisiana.

Via NRO ( http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher200311170844.asp):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[minionofmidas]

This may also explain why Jindal did so poorly among north Louisiana white voters, who are the state's most reliably conservative. While Jindal did remarkably well for a Republican in cutting Blanco's support among black voters (who still gave her 91 percent of their votes), the Democrat did decidedly better in stealing significant portions of Jindal's base. And that made all the difference in a state as poor as Louisiana.

...on a markedly low Black turnout IIRC.

[Brandon H]

I have attributed Clinton being from the South as the main reason he did well in Louisiana in 96.

(Obviously my vote for Dole made little difference.)

And I do rememer in 2003 Jindal was said to have not responded to the attack ad and resulted in Blanco's victory. It's still early, but things don't look good for Blanco (or Blank-O) for 2007.

[Galactic Overlord]

Senator Vitter may challenge Blanco in 2007.  I'd almost be surprised if he didn't.  He was thinking about it in 2003, but he decided not to.  Rumor has it he may use the governor's mansion as a stepping stone for a presidential bid, since senators have less luck at winning.  He wouldn't have many of the problems Jindal experienced in his run, and I think he'd have a real chance of winning.

[RBH]

If Vitter actually won, he would need to find a way to resign his Senate seat close enough to him taking office so Blanco wouldn't appoint a replacement. Yeah, it's shady and all, but nothing stops a Governor from doing that, and it's Louisiana too.

[WalterMitty]

i doubt vitter will run for governor so soon after being elected senator. 

although didnt someone from idaho run for governor during their first term as a us senator?

[Brandon H]

I don't think Vitter will run for governor. But Senator Corzine from New Jersey just became Governor and they said he will get to appoint his own successor. So if Vitter ran and won, he would be able to do the same thing.

[True Democrat]

I don't think Vitter will run for governor. But Senator Corzine from New Jersey just became Governor and they said he will get to appoint his own successor. So if Vitter ran and won, he would be able to do the same thing.

But it's different in New Jersey.  Codey is a Democrat, so he's going to let Corzine pick his own replacement.

Blanco might instead appoint a replacement as soon as Vitter resigns, and then Vitter would take office.

[RBH]

Dirk Kempthrone ran for Governor in 1998 but he was a Senator from 1993 to 1999, so he didn't have to resign to switch jobs.

[jimrtex]

I don't think Vitter will run for governor. But Senator Corzine from New Jersey just became Governor and they said he will get to appoint his own successor. So if Vitter ran and won, he would be able to do the same thing.

Louisiana is not corrupt like New Jersey.  Louisiana law requires a special election unless there is less than a year left on the senate term.  A temporary appointment is only until the election.

[Brandon H]

No, Louisiana is not corrupt like New Jersey. We are corrupt in a completely different way. I think you guys actually took the title from us for most corrupt state.

I'm actually not sure what the laws are as far as replacing a Senator go so I will take you word for it.

[jimrtex]

I'm actually not sure what the laws are as far as replacing a Senator go so I will take you word for it.

I couldn't make sense of it, actually.

There is a section that says that an appointment is temporary until a special election, unless less than one year remains on the term.

That section refers to another section for the dates; the section on dates for special elections specifies that it doesn't apply to congressional elections; I gave up when trying to figure out why there were 3 different dates in October.  I could be wrong on the special election as well.  Some states say that there is a special election for senators, but designate the date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of an even year.

The last special election was when Allen Ellender died in July, 1972; this was in the last year of his term.  Elaine Edwards was appointed as the temporary senator by her husband, Edwin Edwards.  John Bennett Johnston was elected to the full term, and was then appointed to fill the remaining 2 months of Ellender's term when Edwards resigned.