John Bell Edwards vs Donald Trump

[OSR stands with Israel]

Who wins with what map


Here's what I think:

John Bell Edwards/Michael Bennett 368
Donald Trump/Mike Pence 170


 

[Kamala]

Flip NH, LA, WV, MO, and AZ, and then you've got a somewhat realistic map

[OSR stands with Israel]

Flip NH, LA, WV, MO, and AZ, and then you've got a somewhat realistic map

John Bell Edwards is the governor of LA and due to that LA goes to Edwards. Also MO , and WV are states tailor made for dems like Edwards thus he wins. On the other hand he loses NH due to his pro life stance , and he does probably lose AZ so I will flip that.


NV, and CO may also flip to Trump but Bennett keeps them in dem column

[PoliticalShelter]

How does Bel Edwards win Louisiana + West Virginia and not win Georgia and Texas (home state factor is not that powerful)?

Especially against Donald Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

How does Bel Edwards win Louisiana + West Virginia and not win Georgia and Texas (home state factor is not that powerful)?

Simple he is the governor of LA , and as long as he is popular there he will win the state. Plus Edwards is basically a Bill Clinton Democrat (the 90s Clinton ) and appeals to those types of voters so with Edwards the map basically reverts back to 1996(with the exception of AK, TN )

[PoliticalShelter]

Yes but if he is able to regain Clintons numbers with southern whites, then he is defintely winning Georgia and probably Texas especially because a.) the demographic changes in those two states since 1996 b.) Bill nearly won Texas and actually won Georgia once, c.) his opponent is Donald Trump.

[MT Treasurer]

JBE would never win the Democratic nomination. And if he somehow did, he wouldn't win states like LA, MO or WV.

[Rookie Yinzer]

WV is gone for the Democrats on the presidential level. The massive bleeding in some counties from Gore to Hillary are impossible to restore.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

It's hard to predict such a scenario, considering that Edwards is much different than either of the prior two Democratic candidates. I envision something like this, if Trump's approval ratings continue to be as poor as they are and/or get worse...

Gov. John Bel Edwards (D-LA) / Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Pres. Donald J. Trump (R-NY) / VP Mike Pence (R-IN)

I think the key to this ticket succeeding is a running mate that could energize minority turnout and be more favorable among progressives (Harris is the obvious choice, so I used her in this example). Edwards has potential to do extremely well among moderate working-class whites, in the South and elsewhere, but he might struggle to rack up the minority votes he needs without the right running mate.

I do think Edwards would be favored to win his home state. I also believe he would make enough progress with Southern whites to put Georgia in his column (assuming Harris could help maximize black turnout), although it would be very competitive. I could see his coalition in the Midwest being somewhat fragile, especially in Wisconsin, where more liberal Democrats are typically more successful in the state's very polarized environment. But if he does win by a relatively large national margin as I would expect, I believe he would still be victorious there.

Arizona and Missouri could easily flip to Edwards in a more landslide-like victory, while Edwards could lose Wisconsin/NC/Georgia/Florida/Ohio/Iowa/Nevada in a narrower victory.

[Greedo punched first]

It's hard to predict such a scenario, considering that Edwards is much different than either of the prior two Democratic candidates. I envision something like this, if Trump's approval ratings consider to be as poor as they are and/or get worse...

Gov. John Bel Edwards (D-LA) / Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
Pres. Donald J. Trump (R-NY) / VP Mike Pence (R-IN)

I think the key to this ticket succeeding is a running mate that could energize minority turnout and be more favorable among progressives (Harris is the obvious choice, so I used her in this example). Edwards has potential to do extremely well among moderate working-class whites, in the South and elsewhere, but he might struggle to rack up the minority votes he needs without the right running mate.

I do think Edwards would be favored to win his home state. I also believe he would make enough progress with Southern whites to put Georgia in his column (assuming Harris could help maximize black turnout), although it would be very competitive. I could see his coalition in the Midwest being somewhat fragile, especially in Wisconsin, where more liberal Democrats are typically more successful in the state's very polarized environment. But if he does win by a relatively large national margin as I would expect, I believe he would still be victorious there.

Arizona and Missouri could easily flip to Edwards in a more landslide-like victory, while Edwards could lose Wisconsin/NC/Georgia/Florida/Ohio/Iowa/Nevada in a narrower victory.

AZ and NE-2 flip before GA.

[Kingpoleon]

338: John Bel Edwards/Stacey Abrams - 49.2%
200: Donald Trump/Kelly Ayotte - 40.8%
John Monds/Robert Sarvis - 8.8%
Others - 1.2%

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

338: John Bel Edwards/Stacey Abrams - 49.2%
200: Donald Trump/Kelly Ayotte - 40.8%
John Monds/Robert Sarvis - 8.8%
Others - 1.2%

Curious as to why WI goes for Edwards while MN doesn't, and why SC goes for Edwards while LA doesn't.

[OSR stands with Israel]

JBE would never win the Democratic nomination. And if he somehow did, he wouldn't win states like LA, MO or WV.

He is the governor from LA

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Simple he is the governor of LA , and as long as he is popular there he will win the state.

This gentleman wants to have a word with you:

[OSR stands with Israel]

Simple he is the governor of LA , and as long as he is popular there he will win the state.

This gentleman wants to have a word with you:

Long was never the Democratic nominee

[OSR stands with Israel]

Simple he is the governor of LA , and as long as he is popular there he will win the state.

This gentleman wants to have a word with you:

Long was never the Democratic nominee

It's Al Smith...

Al smith lost nationally by 18 points, and only lost New York by 2.5 points


That means New York PVI was 15.5 points more democratic than nation

In 1924 Coolidge won Nationally by 25 , and New York by 26 so it's PVI was 1 point more GOP than nation



That's a pretty big swing

[Fuzzy Bear]

Simple he is the governor of LA , and as long as he is popular there he will win the state.

This gentleman wants to have a word with you:

Long was never the Democratic nominee

It's Al Smith...

Al smith lost nationally by 18 points, and only lost New York by 2.5 points


That means New York PVI was 15.5 points more democratic than nation

In 1924 Coolidge won Nationally by 25 , and New York by 26 so it's PVI was 1 point more GOP than nation



That's a pretty big swing

Smith was the Dukakis of his day.  There were signs in 1988 that the whole Northeast was ready to shift into the Democratic column for good, and that happened in 1992.

People forget that the Democrats fell so far to the point where, literally, no single state was considered a sure thing for the Democrats.  That's how bad off they were going into 1988.

[AN63093]

JBE would never win the Democratic nomination. And if he somehow did, he wouldn't win states like LA, MO or WV.

This.

Although I do think he'd have as good a shot as any other candidate to beat Trump, and he's one of only a few candidates that could realistically pull off the "flip back MI/WI/PA/OH/IA" route to the White House.  Most of the Dem candidates won't be able to go that route, and instead will have to use the "increase Detroit and FL minority turnout" option.

Regardless of who won, however, the swing and trend map on the county level would be fascinating.  This is one of the few scenarios where I could actually see VA trending R.  Dems would probably still win it, but it would be a nail-biter.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Simple he is the governor of LA , and as long as he is popular there he will win the state.

This gentleman wants to have a word with you:

Long was never the Democratic nominee

It's Al Smith...

Al smith lost nationally by 18 points, and only lost New York by 2.5 points


That means New York PVI was 15.5 points more democratic than nation

In 1924 Coolidge won Nationally by 25 , and New York by 26 so it's PVI was 1 point more GOP than nation



That's a pretty big swing

Smith was the Dukakis of his day.  There were signs in 1988 that the whole Northeast was ready to shift into the Democratic column for good, and that happened in 1992.

People forget that the Democrats fell so far to the point where, literally, no single state was considered a sure thing for the Democrats.  That's how bad off they were going into 1988.

I believe that MA , MN , HI ,RI , and WV were considered safe dem states in 1988

[Rjjr77]

Bel Edwards would not beat Trump in Louisiana. I'm not sold he wins re-election.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Bel Edwards has a 58-29 approval rating in LA. Trump has a 47-47 approval rating. Bel Edwards wins.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Bel Edwards has a 58-29 approval rating in LA. Trump has a 47-47 approval rating. Bel Edwards wins.

This is plausible. I think Bel Edwards would do about as well as Bill Clinton did in the South, probably winning back parts of Appalachia and historically Democratic parts of states like Tennessee and Alabama.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

A LBJ/JM3 would be brilliant as it would disarray the whole map.

[President Johnson]

JBE is not winning Louisiana. Don't be delusional.

[SNJ1985]

A pro-life, white, Southern male isn't going to win the Democratic presidential nomination in this day and age. The base, Hollywood, Planned Parenthood, etc. wouldn't allow it.

They wouldn't even let a pro-life governor speak at the DNC that nominated Bill Clinton in 1992.