John Bel Edwards vs Trump

[Jesus save us]

Leaving aside the question of "how?".

How would JBE fare against Trump in a general election? Would reduced turnout and increased third party voting among leftists be outweighed by his appeal to moderates and moderate republicans?

[ProgressiveModerate]

He might help the Dems in southern states like AZ, GA, NC, and make LA likely. He would do bad in the rust belt, and would lose everything except IL and maybe MN. In the NE, he would prolly lose ME and NH, but that's not too many EVs. In the current polarization, I would expect a map like:

[Lechasseur]

He might help the Dems in southern states like AZ, GA, NC, and make LA likely. He would do bad in the rust belt, and would lose everything except IL and maybe MN. In the NE, he would prolly lose ME and NH, but that's not too many EVs. In the current polarization, I would expect a map like:

Why do you think he does that badly outside the South?

It seems to me he'd be a very good GE candidate, his issue would be the primary.

[Alben Barkley]

Sorry but the map above me is WAY off. A relatively socially conservative Dem like Edwards (pro-life, pro-gun) would easily win, as those wedge issues would be off the table. That would mean it largely comes down to a personality contest between Trump and Edwards. And I think it's pretty clear who would win that. Trump's endorsement couldn't stop Edwards in LA already.

This could conceivably be his ceiling:

[Lechasseur]

Sorry but the map above me is WAY off. A relatively socially conservative Dem like Edwards (pro-life, pro-gun) would easily win, as those wedge issues would be off the table. That would mean it largely comes down to a personality contest between Trump and Edwards. And I think it's pretty clear who would win that. Trump's endorsement couldn't stop Edwards in LA already.

Exactly

That's what I was thinking too

JBE would win easily imo

[Frenchrepublican]

Edwards wins the PV 53/44

[Frenchrepublican]

Sorry but the map above me is WAY off. A relatively socially conservative Dem like Edwards (pro-life, pro-gun) would easily win, as those wedge issues would be off the table. That would mean it largely comes down to a personality contest between Trump and Edwards. And I think it's pretty clear who would win that. Trump's endorsement couldn't stop Edwards in LA already.

This could conceivably be his ceiling:

LOL, no

MS ? MO ? KS ? SC ? TX ? LA ? AK ? Explain

[andjey]

[Lief 🗽]

Trump would win, Democrats would not turn out for a pro-life presidential nominee.

[Jumped off the American Sinking Ship]

no

[Forward]

Trump would win, Democrats would not turn out for a pro-life presidential nominee.

I assume he would flip-flop on the issue if he ran for president. But it would probably be reluctant in nature:

“I am personally opposed to abortion. Abortions are wrong and immoral. But making it illegal will not end abortions. Women will just seek dangerous back-alley abortions instead. Therefore, as president, I promise to defend a women’s right to choose.”

[Alben Barkley]

Sorry but the map above me is WAY off. A relatively socially conservative Dem like Edwards (pro-life, pro-gun) would easily win, as those wedge issues would be off the table. That would mean it largely comes down to a personality contest between Trump and Edwards. And I think it's pretty clear who would win that. Trump's endorsement couldn't stop Edwards in LA already.

This could conceivably be his ceiling:

LOL, no

MS ? MO ? KS ? SC ? TX ? LA ? AK ? Explain

I said ceiling, not that it’s his most likely outcome. And clearly I’m not the only one who thinks he could win all that and more. But here’s my explanations for how he could win them:

— The deep South states have a large black population that already votes D which, combined with a major shift in the white vote towards Edwards, could deliver him the state. That applies to MS, SC, and of course LA itself.

— Texas is already trending fast towards swing state status; many think it’ll be in play this year, and if not that it certainly will be in the next couple elections. Edwards is the kind of Democrat who could accelerate its shift blue.

— Trump consistently polls rather poorly in Kansas, which has shown some signs of a mild D trend already. A candidate like Edwards could conceivably flip it in a landslide, along with reversing the R trend of neighboring Missouri. Which also has a large black population in the urban areas along with whites that may be more open to voting for Edwards than other Democrats.

— Like Montana, Alaska is a very weird state politically that has shown an independent streak and a willingness to vote for certain Democrats under certain conditions. Trump barely got a majority there last time. With a pro-gun candidate like Edwards, not hard to see it flipping under the right circumstances.

[Alben Barkley]

Trump would win, Democrats would not turn out for a pro-life presidential nominee.

Against Trump? Yeah, they would. Because Edwards would still be better in every other way. And those who did stay home would be more than made up for by conservatives in states that Trump has mediocre approval ratings in because he is not the kind of candidate who appeals to their values (looking at you, Utah) who reluctantly voted for him but would likely ditch him for a pro-life Dem like Edwards. You underestimate how many single issue voters there are on that issue as well as guns to a lesser extent. Edwards makes them both non-issues.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

JBE will likely have a lobbyist or a cabinet position after his term is up in 2023

[Adjective-Statement]

President Donald Trump (R-FL) / Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN)
Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA) / Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) ✓

[538Electoral]

JBE could win but not by more than maybe 300 or so.

[chibul]

JBE would be a very weak candidate and I have a hard time believing he could beat Trump. His anti-abortion views would severely depress turnout with a lot of the people in the party and would lead to Trump being competitive in a lot of states that he shouldn't be competitive in.

I imagine he would do better in the South where he might could convince them to vote for a pro-life democrat but, there aren't nearly enough of those people to flip any state in the south as negative polarization is a lot more a thing than it was in 1996 when Bill Clinton won states like Tennessee and Arkansas.

You'd get depressed turnout from liberal parts of purple states and maybe states like Arkansas and West Virginia and Tennessee would be 20 points instead of 25-30 points.

[ElectionsGuy]

People are acting like there's an ideological slider that means the more moderate/conservative you are as a Democrat the more electable you are. Edwards would not win Louisiana or any other deep red southern state in a national presidential election. He would perform very similarly to Joe Biden.

[Frenchrepublican]

Sorry but the map above me is WAY off. A relatively socially conservative Dem like Edwards (pro-life, pro-gun) would easily win, as those wedge issues would be off the table. That would mean it largely comes down to a personality contest between Trump and Edwards. And I think it's pretty clear who would win that. Trump's endorsement couldn't stop Edwards in LA already.

This could conceivably be his ceiling:

LOL, no

MS ? MO ? KS ? SC ? TX ? LA ? AK ? Explain

I said ceiling, not that it’s his most likely outcome. And clearly I’m not the only one who thinks he could win all that and more. But here’s my explanations for how he could win them:

— The deep South states have a large black population that already votes D which, combined with a major shift in the white vote towards Edwards, could deliver him the state. That applies to MS, SC, and of course LA itself.

— Texas is already trending fast towards swing state status; many think it’ll be in play this year, and if not that it certainly will be in the next couple elections. Edwards is the kind of Democrat who could accelerate its shift blue.

— Trump consistently polls rather poorly in Kansas, which has shown some signs of a mild D trend already. A candidate like Edwards could conceivably flip it in a landslide, along with reversing the R trend of neighboring Missouri. Which also has a large black population in the urban areas along with whites that may be more open to voting for Edwards than other Democrats.

— Like Montana, Alaska is a very weird state politically that has shown an independent streak and a willingness to vote for certain Democrats under certain conditions. Trump barely got a majority there last time. With a pro-gun candidate like Edwards, not hard to see it flipping under the right circumstances.

-MS whites are even more inflexible than LA whites, Hood which has a very similar profile to Edwards lost by 5 in a gubernatorial race (less polarized than presidential one), thus there is no reason to believe than Edawards would even make MS in the single digit

-LA wouldn't be competitive either, pretending the contrary is silly. Edwards was reelected by less than 1 point, without the incumbency advantage and with a more polarized presidential electorate he wouldn't stand a chance in this state
Did Romney won Massachussetts against Obama in 2012 because he was a former, popular governor ?

-SC is even less open to vote democrat than LA and MS.

-Concerning Texas, sure Edwards could make things a bit closer in East Texas but you have to take into account the fact that turnout among white liberals would be lower than usual, not sure gains in rural TX would balance losses in urban TX

-KS is a Midwestern state, southern populism has no appeal here (see how Clinton did in 1996)

-AK is a mostly libertarian state, so being more socially conservative wouldn't help Edwards here

[Lechasseur]

-SC is even less open to vote democrat than LA and MS.

For SC, I think Edwards was basically a lot hurrah for the Democratic Party in LA; and then in MS only one Democrat has been elected to the Governor's mansion or the Senate in my lifetime (Ronnie Musgrove in 1999). And Jim Hood, who was easily the strongest candidate the Dems could have ran in MS, lost.

I very much suspect from now on, SC will be more favorable to Democrats, both at federal and state level.

I'd say from most to least favorable to the Dems in the coming years: SC>LA>MS

[Orser67]

Edwards being nominated would be a fascinating experiment in the importance of ideology, and I think he'd have both a higher ceiling and lower floor than your average Democratic candidate. I think that if Democrats were to nominate Edwards, 2020 would probably be the best election to do so, since a lot of Democrats would probably vote for anybody-but-Trump. I'd also expect that Edwards would be smart enough to recognize the importance of turning out the Democratic base, and (like Carter in 1976)
would choose someone like Warren as his running mate. But I imagine that, even with Trump on the ballot, this probably wouldn't be enough for some liberal voters, who would either stay home or vote third party.

Ultimately, I think Edwards would do a little stronger than your average Democratic candidate, as he'd be able to cut into Trump's margins with non-college and rural voters enough to offset the loss of some liberal support. But I don't think the PV or the map would be all that different from Biden vs. Trump.

[Adjective-Statement]

People are acting like there's an ideological slider that means the more moderate/conservative you are as a Democrat the more electable you are. Edwards would not win Louisiana or any other deep red southern state in a national presidential election. He would perform very similarly to Joe Biden.

Seconded. I know people want an interesting map with states suddenly flipping every which way- I do too- but the reality is that polarization makes for some boring maps.

Still, you might see some interesting swings in places like New England French communities and Upper South states like North Carolina.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Sorry but the map above me is WAY off. A relatively socially conservative Dem like Edwards (pro-life, pro-gun) would easily win, as those wedge issues would be off the table. That would mean it largely comes down to a personality contest between Trump and Edwards. And I think it's pretty clear who would win that. Trump's endorsement couldn't stop Edwards in LA already.

This could conceivably be his ceiling:

LOL, no

MS ? MO ? KS ? SC ? TX ? LA ? AK ? Explain

I said ceiling, not that it’s his most likely outcome. And clearly I’m not the only one who thinks he could win all that and more. But here’s my explanations for how he could win them:

— The deep South states have a large black population that already votes D which, combined with a major shift in the white vote towards Edwards, could deliver him the state. That applies to MS, SC, and of course LA itself.

— Texas is already trending fast towards swing state status; many think it’ll be in play this year, and if not that it certainly will be in the next couple elections. Edwards is the kind of Democrat who could accelerate its shift blue.

— Trump consistently polls rather poorly in Kansas, which has shown some signs of a mild D trend already. A candidate like Edwards could conceivably flip it in a landslide, along with reversing the R trend of neighboring Missouri. Which also has a large black population in the urban areas along with whites that may be more open to voting for Edwards than other Democrats.

— Like Montana, Alaska is a very weird state politically that has shown an independent streak and a willingness to vote for certain Democrats under certain conditions. Trump barely got a majority there last time. With a pro-gun candidate like Edwards, not hard to see it flipping under the right circumstances.

-MS whites are even more inflexible than LA whites, Hood which has a very similar profile to Edwards lost by 5 in a gubernatorial race (less polarized than presidential one), thus there is no reason to believe than Edawards would even make MS in the single digit

-LA wouldn't be competitive either, pretending the contrary is silly. Edwards was reelected by less than 1 point, without the incumbency advantage and with a more polarized presidential electorate he wouldn't stand a chance in this state
Did Romney won Massachussetts against Obama in 2012 because he was a former, popular governor ?

-SC is even less open to vote democrat than LA and MS.

-Concerning Texas, sure Edwards could make things a bit closer in East Texas but you have to take into account the fact that turnout among white liberals would be lower than usual, not sure gains in rural TX would balance losses in urban TX

-KS is a Midwestern state, southern populism has no appeal here (see how Clinton did in 1996)

-AK is a mostly libertarian state, so being more socially conservative wouldn't help Edwards here

While I agree with your general idea that Edwards wouldn't suddenly make the south (outside of Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina) more competitive, your post is riddled with a ton of inaccuracies and caveats:

1. Kansas had a favorite son on the ballot in 1996
2. South Carolina is very clearly more likely to go for a Democrat at the state level in the future than Mississippi or Louisiana, all else equal. McMaster only won by 8% in 2018 and he wasn't unpopular.
3. Edwards won by about 3 points. Not "less than 1" lol. Not that it matters, since I agree he wouldn't come very close to winning a federal race there anyway
4. Romney left office as Governor extremely unpopular with over 60% disapproval rating when he made it abundantly clear that he was going to run for President in 2008 and flip flopped all of his positions overnight

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Edwards were actually on the Democratic ticket, I'd support him. 
 
If Edwards were elected President, there would be Democrats planning a primary the next time out.  Just like with Jimmy Carter, only worse.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

lmao at the 450 plus EV landslides.


I can envision scenarios where he wins comfortably (about the same as 2012) due to independents and moderate whites breaking his way, but I could also see him losing if the dem base refuses to turn out for someone who's pro-life and moderately pro 2A.