LA 2019 Gov Race: Gov John Bel Edwards wins a 2nd term

[Figueira]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

[Tender Branson]

Early voting numbers are in and they are far better for Edwards than those of the jungle primary
https://electionstatistics.sos.la.gov/Data/Early_Voting_Statistics/Statewide/2019_1116_StatewideStats.pdf

89.6 k early votes casted
Democrats : 45.3% (44% for the first day of the primary)
Republicans : 39.1% (42% for the first day of the primary)

Whites : 66%
Blacks : 30.8%

Generally speaking weekend days are more favourable to democrats than week days.

Thinking about this, what majorities would it take in the House/Senate to change voting from Tuesday to the weekend ?

Or is this regulated state by state ?

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/WinWithJMC/status/1190952047220101120

Of course partisan ID is likely to be a misleading indicator since there are a  bunch of registered R's in CD's 1 and 6 that voted for him in round 1, and a bunch of dixiecrats that voted GOP.

[SnowLabrador]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

[Donerail]

-Historically, Black turnout usually increases for the runoff, an effect that is likely to be pronounced in this race b/c the main contest in the primary was between two GOP candidates.

I tried to warn y'all, I really did!

The interesting part of the early voting numbers is the black/white split, which is more dramatic than the partisan shift — first day of early voting in the 2019 primary was 72-25% white/black, first day of early voting in the runoff was 66-31% white/black.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK3vZdI9N60&feature=youtu.be


After this video, I'm making a rating change from Likely R --> Lean D. This is a huge blow to Ris-pony.

[Calthrina950]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

Massachusetts' traditional fondness for Republican governors has not been eliminated by polarization.

[Bidenworth2020]

Worth mentioning that with these numbers, JBE would lose 1 when the  %s are inputed into the JMC poll crosstabs.

[MT Treasurer]

All the early vote confirms is that people are way too quick to write JBE off or underestimate the Louisiana Democratic Party. This isn’t better than a Tossup (at best) for Republicans, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a similar trajectory (and result) to LA-SEN 2002 here.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

Massachusetts' traditional fondness for Republican governors has not been eliminated by polarization.

Dems already having a veto proof majority  in the MA Legislature so voting for Republicans won’t have much affect other than putting a minor check on that legislature .

[Calthrina950]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

Massachusetts' traditional fondness for Republican governors has not been eliminated by polarization.

Dems already having a veto proof majority  in the MA Legislature so voting for Republicans won’t have much affect other than putting a minor check on that legislature .

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

[MT Treasurer]

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

Or maybe it’s not because Democrats are "far more wiling" to vote for a Republican but simply because Republican governors in MA, MD, and VT virtually have zero power? You also conveniently tend to leave out the fact that there are more red state Democratic Senators than blue state Republican Senators whenever you complain about "polarization" among Republican voters (which is in pretty much every single one of your posts).

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

Massachusetts' traditional fondness for Republican governors has not been eliminated by polarization.

Dems already having a veto proof majority  in the MA Legislature so voting for Republicans won’t have much affect other than putting a minor check on that legislature .

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

They are willing to vote Republican because of the fact they will have very little power except when it comes to slowing down tax increases etc.


In Oregon they don’t need to elect Republican Governors to do that because voters use ballot measures essentially to stop tax increases or super liberal legislation.

[Frenchrepublican]

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

Or maybe it’s not because Democrats are "far more wiling" to vote for a Republican but simply because Republican governors in MA, MD, and VT virtually have zero power? You also conveniently tend to leave out the fact that there are more red state Democratic Senators than blue state Republican Senators whenever you complain about "polarization" among Republican voters (which is in pretty much every single one of your posts).

I totally agree with you on this. I don’t understand why so many people on this forum consider that liberal voters are thoughtful and smart people who don’t hesitate to go beyond the political affiliation of a candidate, while conservative voters are brainwashed, polarised people who refuse to vote for a good person and care only about the party of the candidate in question.
I mean, facts prove the contrary, the voters who put ’’the party over the country’’ are liberals (not conservatives), there are 4 ’’Red State’’ democratic senators while there is only 1 ’’Blue State’’ Republican senator who will almost certainly lose next year, you have 31 democrats who are elected in Trump districts while there is only 3 Republican congressmen in Clinton districts (and at least 1 of them will be replaced by a democrat next year). It’s clear that most democrats are very inflexible from a political perspective and they split their ballots far less frequently than republicans

[Calthrina950]

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

Or maybe it’s not because Democrats are "far more wiling" to vote for a Republican but simply because Republican governors in MA, MD, and VT virtually have zero power? You also conveniently tend to leave out the fact that there are more red state Democratic Senators than blue state Republican Senators whenever you complain about "polarization" among Republican voters (which is in pretty much every single one of your posts).

This is true, as we have Jones, Manchin, Tester, and Sinema. However, all four of these Senators won by very narrow margins. Jones is DOA in 2020 (and will get blown out by double digits by any Republican who is not Roy Moore), and Manchin and Tester would have lost last year if they had faced better opponents (I'm thinking of Evan Jenkins and Ryan Zinke, in particular). Also, weren't you the one who last year was claiming that Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, and others were going to win? They all got blown out by double digits, in spite of the fact that Bredesen was a popular former Governor facing a mediocre opponent, and that Edmondson was running in a state whose incumbent Republican Governor at the time had nearly destroyed it.

I don't complain of polarization in every single post: that is a lie. And I'm not the only one on here who shares these particular views. My views are colored by the harsh realities of the past few years.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

If JBE wins I predict it to be by a small <1% margin.

As it stands, I'm still going with Rispone 51.5% to JBE 48.5%, but if the last JMC Analytics or other reliable poll shortly before November 16 comes out with JBE still at 50%, I'd rate it JBE 50.1% Rispone 49.9% though it could be the other way around.

Reason I'm skeptical of JBE's current JMC Analytics measurement of 50% is that it's only when they push the undecideds, and there's still time for those undecideds to be swayed to Rispone. I'm not sure how many people in Louisiana viewed the debate though, in which Rispone was out of his element.

[MT Treasurer]

This is true, as we have Jones, Manchin, Tester, and Sinema. However, all four of these Senators won by very narrow margins.

We also have Brown, who’s arguably more of a red state Senator than Sinema. Of course they won by relatively narrow margins, but a win is a win, and even the Senators who lost (especially Heitkamp) still outperformed Clinton by a lot even though they ran pretty bad campaigns, especially in the case of Heitkamp. Do you seriously believe that a Republican candidate could win a Senate race in a Clinton +20 or Clinton +42 state these days?

Jones is DOA in 2020 (and will get blown out by double digits by any Republican who is not Roy Moore),

Maybe, but I don’t think making overly confident (i.e. Safe R) predictions for any remotely competitive or contested race, be it MS-GOV or AL-SEN, is particularly fruitful, and Republicans certainly can’t take any of these races for granted. I’d wait until we know the actual results before I lament the polarization or "tribalism" of MS/KY/LA voters. I certainly agree that Jones is the underdog, but I’m expecting more of a 54/46 or maybe 55/45 loss.

and Manchin and Tester would have lost last year if they had faced better opponents (I'm thinking of Evan Jenkins and Ryan Zinke, in particular).

Definitely agree that Jenkins would have won (Republicans essentially threw that seat away, and it was painful to watch), but I think Zinke would have lost. Even with a more competent NRSC/Republican candidate, MT was never going to be anything better than a Tossup race for Republicans, although Tester certainly was (and remains) beatable.

Also, weren't you the one who last year was claiming that Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, and others were going to win? They all got blown out by double digits, in spite of the fact that Bredesen was a popular former Governor facing a mediocre opponent, and that Edmondson was running in a state whose incumbent Republican Governor at the time had nearly destroyed it.

No, I had Republicans winning all three races (check out my predictions ), but it’s true that I wasn’t willing to move them to Lean or Likely R mostly because I like to be cautious.

[Figueira]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

Massachusetts' traditional fondness for Republican governors has not been eliminated by polarization.

Dems already having a veto proof majority  in the MA Legislature so voting for Republicans won’t have much affect other than putting a minor check on that legislature .

A lot of those Democrats are DINOs, though.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

Or maybe it’s not because Democrats are "far more wiling" to vote for a Republican but simply because Republican governors in MA, MD, and VT virtually have zero power? You also conveniently tend to leave out the fact that there are more red state Democratic Senators than blue state Republican Senators whenever you complain about "polarization" among Republican voters (which is in pretty much every single one of your posts).

This is true, as we have Jones, Manchin, Tester, and Sinema. However, all four of these Senators won by very narrow margins. Jones is DOA in 2020 (and will get blown out by double digits by any Republican who is not Roy Moore), and Manchin and Tester would have lost last year if they had faced better opponents (I'm thinking of Evan Jenkins and Ryan Zinke, in particular). Also, weren't you the one who last year was claiming that Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, and others were going to win? They all got blown out by double digits, in spite of the fact that Bredesen was a popular former Governor facing a mediocre opponent, and that Edmondson was running in a state whose incumbent Republican Governor at the time had nearly destroyed it.

I don't complain of polarization in every single post: that is a lie. And I'm not the only one on here who shares these particular views. My views are colored by the harsh realities of the past few years.

MT though is a Lean R state outside Presidential Elections.

[MT Treasurer]

I totally agree with you on this. I don’t understand why so many people on this forum consider that liberal voters are thoughtful and smart people who don’t hesitate to go beyond the political affiliation of a candidate, while conservative voters are brainwashed, polarised people who refuse to vote for a good person and care only about the party of the candidate in question.
I mean, facts prove the contrary, the voters who put ’’the party over the country’’ are liberals (not conservatives), there are 4 ’’Red State’’ democratic senators while there is only 1 ’’Blue State’’ Republican senator who will almost certainly lose next year, you have 31 democrats who are elected in Trump districts while there is only 3 Republican congressmen in Clinton districts (and at least 1 of them will be replaced by a democrat next year). It’s clear that most democrats are very inflexible from a political perspective and they split their ballots far less frequently than republicans

Yeah, and it’s not just the number of red state/district Democrats vs. blue state/district Republicans, it’s also the fact that Republicans have to go through hell and high water to elect people like Todd Young, Roy Blunt, Pat Roberts, Marsha Blackburn, Rick Berg, et al. This pretty much never happens in blue states, which is the reason why even the most odious Democrats like Menendez can cruise to reelection.

I know this is a thread about LA-GOV 2019 and don’t want to derail this, but it’s seriously frustrating when people make these ridiculous generalizations about "inflexible" red states and "intolerant" Republican voters.

[Pericles]

I'm aware of this. But I've also argued earlier (and this may have been more relevant), that Massachusetts voters are far more willing to vote for a Republican governor than the contrary in a state such as Kentucky or Mississippi. Polarization hasn't had an even effect.

Or maybe it’s not because Democrats are "far more wiling" to vote for a Republican but simply because Republican governors in MA, MD, and VT virtually have zero power? You also conveniently tend to leave out the fact that there are more red state Democratic Senators than blue state Republican Senators whenever you complain about "polarization" among Republican voters (which is in pretty much every single one of your posts).

This is true, as we have Jones, Manchin, Tester, and Sinema. However, all four of these Senators won by very narrow margins. Jones is DOA in 2020 (and will get blown out by double digits by any Republican who is not Roy Moore), and Manchin and Tester would have lost last year if they had faced better opponents (I'm thinking of Evan Jenkins and Ryan Zinke, in particular). Also, weren't you the one who last year was claiming that Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, and others were going to win? They all got blown out by double digits, in spite of the fact that Bredesen was a popular former Governor facing a mediocre opponent, and that Edmondson was running in a state whose incumbent Republican Governor at the time had nearly destroyed it.

I don't complain of polarization in every single post: that is a lie. And I'm not the only one on here who shares these particular views. My views are colored by the harsh realities of the past few years.

Still, all 4 massively outran Hillary's margin. Tbf Collins did massively outrun Romney in 2014 (by basically the same amount Manchin outran Hillary, but Maine is a far more competitive state presidentially). Gardner only outran Romney by 7 points to barely win in a red wave. While of course polarization has increased, all the Democrats except Sinema that you listed outran Hillary Clinton's margin by double digits.

[Skill and Chance]

If (big if) the runoff EV still looks like this after the last day, I think Edwards could cross 52%.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/WinWithJMC/status/1190785476581572608
https://twitter.com/WinWithJMC/status/1190800755596222465

The example he points to for high turnout, Vermillion, only gave JBE 22% in the primary. If thats the trend he chooses to point out, JBE should be concerned.

I still find it to be a shame how Edwards is in the fight of his political life, when in a less polarized environment, he would be sailing to reelection. He has none of the privileges afforded to Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, and Phil Scott. Republican voters in Louisiana, it is clear at this point, make no distinction between him and the national Democratic Party. His support for the fetal heartbeat bill earlier this year may not save him from defeat, which makes it all a fruitless effort.

If none of the voters made a distinction, this race wouldn't be close.

[IceSpear]

It's so annoying that this race is tight but nobody up here even considered voting out God-Emperor Charlie Baker.

885,770 people did.

[Epaminondas]

Yeah, and it’s not just the number of red state/district Democrats vs. blue state/district Republicans, it’s also the fact that Republicans have to go through hell and high water to elect people like Todd Young, Roy Blunt, Pat Roberts, Marsha Blackburn, Rick Berg, et al. This pretty much never happens in blue states, which is the reason why even the most odious Democrats like Menendez can cruise to reelection.

This is a strange screed.
Menendez survived because of the anti-Trump environment, otherwise he'd have been out in a flash. Democratic candidates are held to a darn higher standard than the GOP. Surely you're not denying that?

How many convicted Dem candidates have run for reelection in Congress in the past two decades, vs GOP candidates?