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

[Pericles]

Democrats like JBE have an edge as they can offer social conservatism to some Trump voters while not also having the regressive Republican economic agenda. It's much more tempting for economically moderate voters to vote on economic issues and re-elect the Democrat who expanded Medicaid when that Democrat is pro-life too. Of course in Senate elections a vote for a pro-life Democrat is more risky for those voters as a vote for any candidate of the opposing party is a vote to give the opposing party a majority, so a vote for Manchin is a vote for Majority Leader Schumer and a vote for Susan Collins is a vote for Majority Leader McConnell.

[Mr. Smith]

Around three weeks before election day I decided on 51.5% Rispone, 48.5% JBE because I figured that Rispone would be able to consolidate the Abraham supporters, and persuade enough JBE-leaning Trump voters to balance out any increase in black turnout.

The day before the election I was more pessimistic due to reading reports of solid black turnout from "Souls to the Polls," as well as the fact that even Atlas Trump supporting friends like Lechasseur said they back JBE, and seeing Trump supporters being interviewed at rallies who unapologetically admit to voting JBE despite unapologetically supporting Trump.

Candidates like John Bel Edwards, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, etc are beatable if the opposition campaigns are able to persuade enough Trump-voting "I'll go with the blue dog" voters into voting for the Republican candidate. I do think Trump could've done a better job in that regard rather than just blanketly calling them "Nancy Pelosi style liberals" - he hasn't put that much thought into these kinds of Democrats because they aren't high on his priority list of opponents to take down.  I also think that Republican opponents of these blue dogs (Rispone, Rosendale, Morrissey; even the ones who won like Braun, Hawley, Cramer) could all have done better if they came up with creative ways to deal with the "persuade blue dog Trump voters to abandon the Democrats etnirely" problem.

Show ads explaining the backstories of people who used to back "conservative Democrats" but have now seen the light of how awful the party has gotten. Instead of mindlessly calling them "liberals," use words like "swindler" or "trickster" or "fake moderate." Explain that those candidates don't deserve your vote for doing the bare minimum and that you'll do all the things that those Democrats have done that you approve of, and more.

This is also  veryapplicable in the Northeast w/ Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans where those like Phil Scott, Charlie Baker, and Chris Sununu keep getting elected and re-elected despite the rest of the ticket.

[Frenchrepublican]

Around three weeks before election day I decided on 51.5% Rispone, 48.5% JBE because I figured that Rispone would be able to consolidate the Abraham supporters, and persuade enough JBE-leaning Trump voters to balance out any increase in black turnout.

The day before the election I was more pessimistic due to reading reports of solid black turnout from "Souls to the Polls," as well as the fact that even Atlas Trump supporting friends like Lechasseur said they back JBE, and seeing Trump supporters being interviewed at rallies who unapologetically admit to voting JBE despite unapologetically supporting Trump.

Candidates like John Bel Edwards, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, etc are beatable if the opposition campaigns are able to persuade enough Trump-voting "I'll go with the blue dog" voters into voting for the Republican candidate. I do think Trump could've done a better job in that regard rather than just blanketly calling them "Nancy Pelosi style liberals" - he hasn't put that much thought into these kinds of Democrats because they aren't high on his priority list of opponents to take down.  I also think that Republican opponents of these blue dogs (Rispone, Rosendale, Morrissey; even the ones who won like Braun, Hawley, Cramer) could all have done better if they came up with creative ways to deal with the "persuade blue dog Trump voters to abandon the Democrats etnirely" problem.
 
Show ads explaining the backstories of people who used to back "conservative Democrats" but have now seen the light of how awful the party has gotten. Instead of mindlessly calling them "liberals," use words like "swindler" or "trickster" or "fake moderate." Explain that those candidates don't deserve your vote for doing the bare minimum and that you'll do all the things that those Democrats have done that you approve of, and more.

It's really a smart analysis. I totally agree with it ; especially on the idea that the republican strategy of calling blue dogs democrats like Edwards or Manchin ''Pelosi liberals'' is a big failure. Manchin and Edwards aren't conservative (or even true moderates), but they are not Pelosi/Ocasio-Cortez style liberals either, and even most right wing conservatives like me consider a such analogy as silly, we need to explain to these former conserative democrats who are now supporting Trump that Edwards and Manchin are big frauds, nothing else, if democrats take the Senate next year there are very few doubts that Manchin and Tester will throw gun owners and small businessman under the bus.

[Frenchrepublican]

Around three weeks before election day I decided on 51.5% Rispone, 48.5% JBE because I figured that Rispone would be able to consolidate the Abraham supporters, and persuade enough JBE-leaning Trump voters to balance out any increase in black turnout.

The day before the election I was more pessimistic due to reading reports of solid black turnout from "Souls to the Polls," as well as the fact that even Atlas Trump supporting friends like Lechasseur said they back JBE, and seeing Trump supporters being interviewed at rallies who unapologetically admit to voting JBE despite unapologetically supporting Trump.

Candidates like John Bel Edwards, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, etc are beatable if the opposition campaigns are able to persuade enough Trump-voting "I'll go with the blue dog" voters into voting for the Republican candidate. I do think Trump could've done a better job in that regard rather than just blanketly calling them "Nancy Pelosi style liberals" - he hasn't put that much thought into these kinds of Democrats because they aren't high on his priority list of opponents to take down.  I also think that Republican opponents of these blue dogs (Rispone, Rosendale, Morrissey; even the ones who won like Braun, Hawley, Cramer) could all have done better if they came up with creative ways to deal with the "persuade blue dog Trump voters to abandon the Democrats etnirely" problem.

Show ads explaining the backstories of people who used to back "conservative Democrats" but have now seen the light of how awful the party has gotten. Instead of mindlessly calling them "liberals," use words like "swindler" or "trickster" or "fake moderate." Explain that those candidates don't deserve your vote for doing the bare minimum and that you'll do all the things that those Democrats have done that you approve of, and more.

This is also  veryapplicable in the Northeast w/ Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans where those like Phil Scott, Charlie Baker, and Chris Sununu keep getting elected and re-elected despite the rest of the ticket.

Edwards/Bullock are a bit different of Baker/Scott ; Baker and Scott are basically democrats with a R behind their names, both of them are not only liberal on social issues (abortions/guns) but also on economic issues (Baker signed the paid sick leave package sent to him by the Legislature) ; Edwards and Bullock on the other hand are more moderate on social issues (Edwards pretends to be pro life and pro-guns and Bullock was pro gun until 2017) but both of them are fairly progressive on economic issues like minimum wage, taxes, teachers pensions, unions, Medicaid expansion, a better comparison for Edwards would be probably Bruce Rauner who bucked conservatives on social issues but remained far more conservative on fiscal ones.

           

[Frenchrepublican]

Demographic data for the runoff have posted

Turnout:
White 52.7
Black 50.2
Other 35.2

The gap between W/B turnout was 9.6 in the primary and 3.0 in the 2015 general

From the primary, the black vote increased by about 94,000, the white vote 56,000 and other by 9,000. 

The voting electorate was 65.5 white 30.8 black and 3.6 other

The early vote was 65.9 white 31.1 black and 3.0 other

Black voters saved Edwards from defeat, just as they were the decisive factor in pushing Doug Jones over the finish line in neighboring Alabama back in 2017. They (and I say this in a collective sense) are truly the backbone of the Democratic Party.

They played a big role (of course), but the main reason why he was reelected is that close to 1/5 of the republican electorate crossed the line to support him, in the SOS race black voters also backed at +90% the D candidate, the main difference is that center right whites supported the republican candidate.

[DINGO Joe]

Demographic data for the runoff have posted

Turnout:
White 52.7
Black 50.2
Other 35.2

The gap between W/B turnout was 9.6 in the primary and 3.0 in the 2015 general

From the primary, the black vote increased by about 94,000, the white vote 56,000 and other by 9,000. 

The voting electorate was 65.5 white 30.8 black and 3.6 other

The early vote was 65.9 white 31.1 black and 3.0 other

Some other odds and ends.  The voting electorate wasn't terrible different in 2015--66.7 white 30.3 black 3.0 other.  Edwards would have still won with that electorate, just by even less.

The biggest white "surge" in voting between the primary and runoff, both numerically and by % was in Orleans Parish of all places where 9700 more whites voted in the runoff than the primary an increase of about 24% (statewide the increase in white voting was about 6%) and given that Orleans voted 90-10 for Edwards that was certainly beneficial for him.

In fact the electorate in Orleans was actually whiter in 2019 (38.8-54.6-6.6) than 2015 (37.6-57.0-5.4) and Edwards still got a 6 point swing, so ya know--trends.

The highest white participation rates were in some random rural North Louisiana parishes with Claiborne narrowly edging out LaSalle (69.2 to 68.7)  so I guess Trump's rallies in North Louisiana did their job.  LaSalle actually had a whiter electorate in 2019 (93.0)  to 2015 (92.4).  The worst white participation rate was in St. Bernard (39.6) actually behind the black participation rate (44.7) the electorate become much less white in 2019 (72.4)  than 2015 (82.4).  This is most likely a function of rapid demographic change as St. Bernard isn't very "fashionable" and is adjacent to the blackest parts of Orleans.

The  white electorate actually dropped numerically in one place from the primary to the runoff--Calcasieu, by a couple of hundred votes.  Trump held a rally here before the primary but not during the runoff so I guess that, much like meth,  the effects of a Trump rally wear off over time.

Black participation rates were highest and actually frequently surpassed white turnout in many of the river or industrial parishes in between and around Baton Rouge and New Orleans.  There is a large BWC here working at chemical plants and refineries.  Again, part of this is probably part of demographic shifts and voter registration figures frequently lagging those shifts. 

Contrary to popular opinion, the state didn't become whiter after Hurricane Katrina, the population just shifted further inland.  Blacks have shifted upriver while whites shifted to the Northshore.  Orleans has gotten whiter and more gentrified while the suburbs, mainly Jefferson and St. Bernard have gotten more multi-ethnic.  I suspect that after the next census it will be easier to draw a Baton Rouge based black congressional district than an Orleans one,  though still quite easy to draw a compact minority majority district on the Southshore of metro New Orleans that would actually be  more Democratic than the black majority district.

[Calthrina950]

Demographic data for the runoff have posted

Turnout:
White 52.7
Black 50.2
Other 35.2

The gap between W/B turnout was 9.6 in the primary and 3.0 in the 2015 general

From the primary, the black vote increased by about 94,000, the white vote 56,000 and other by 9,000. 

The voting electorate was 65.5 white 30.8 black and 3.6 other

The early vote was 65.9 white 31.1 black and 3.0 other

Black voters saved Edwards from defeat, just as they were the decisive factor in pushing Doug Jones over the finish line in neighboring Alabama back in 2017. They (and I say this in a collective sense) are truly the backbone of the Democratic Party.

They played a big role (of course), but the main reason why he was reelected is that close to 1/5 of the republican electorate crossed the line to support him, in the SOS race black voters also backed at +90% the D candidate, the main difference is that center right whites supported the republican candidate.

This is true. Edwards ran 11% ahead of Collins-Greenup, and that difference was clearly attributable to ticket-splitting Republican voters, particularly "moderate", educated suburbanites in the New Orleans and Baton Rouge metropolitan areas. But black voters were still the driving engine to his victory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Having an ideology and governing style that is something other than Generic Team Red or Generic Team Blue is not "fraudulent".

Also, Charlie Baker is not "basically a Democrat", wtf. Signing stuff the >75% Democratic legislature sends him is basically just triangulation. He's well within the Trump-era Republican mainstream on immigration, he's slashed vocational rehab and nutritional assistance (among other things) and hidden the details of the cuts from the public, he's eliminated Massachusetts's unique-in-the-nation mandatory time and a half pay for Sundays (which I wasn't getting paid when I worked Sundays a couple years ago anyway) as part of a crooked bargain for a minimum wage increase, and his Supreme Judicial Court appointees are all overt right-wingers. He's a cold-blooded plutocrat who happens not to care about abortion or hate gay people, and since this state has a storied history of loving affluent FCBSL Republican Governors beyond all reason, that's enough for almost two-thirds of Massachusetts voters.