What does the LA election tell us about the remaining 2023 races?

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

It’s a good sign for Reeves in Mississippi, but I can’t really extrapolate anything out of Kentucky, as that state has a very tiny black population.

In Virginia I’d say it’s a bad sign for Dems in racially polarized rural seats like SD-17 and HD-82 but less meaningful in suburban seats with sizable black minorities like SD-24 and HD-97.

I feel like people are simply ignoring what's happening here. Why are we extrapolating out of this when Democrats *are* putting money and effort into VA and MS?

Democrats did not put anything into making black voters turnout in LA. That is clearly not the case in VA and MS. So why are we comparing these two?

Agreed.  It is pretty clear that certain folks are tying themselves in knots desperately trying to justify their pre-existing doomer and Republican wishcasting narratives and simply ignoring any facts or analysis that doesn’t fit neatly into the narratives they’re pushing.

Polling (showing Trump gaining massively with black voters) and every single 2022/2023 result in the South points to the black belt collapsing for Biden in 2024.

Most of the polling showed Republicans gaining with black voters in 2022 too, and it did not happen.

It did happen in the rural black belt judging from county level results. Places like inner city Detroit are another story.

[Duke of York]

It tells us nothing. The simple fact is Democrats didn't even try and turnout suffered. Louisiana is a different state from Kentucky and Virginia and its absurd to try and make such extrapolations based on a low turnout election where one side didn't even make an effort.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

It’s a good sign for Reeves in Mississippi, but I can’t really extrapolate anything out of Kentucky, as that state has a very tiny black population.

In Virginia I’d say it’s a bad sign for Dems in racially polarized rural seats like SD-17 and HD-82 but less meaningful in suburban seats with sizable black minorities like SD-24 and HD-97.

I feel like people are simply ignoring what's happening here. Why are we extrapolating out of this when Democrats *are* putting money and effort into VA and MS?

Democrats did not put anything into making black voters turnout in LA. That is clearly not the case in VA and MS. So why are we comparing these two?

Agreed.  It is pretty clear that certain folks are tying themselves in knots desperately trying to justify their pre-existing doomer and Republican wishcasting narratives and simply ignoring any facts or analysis that doesn’t fit neatly into the narratives they’re pushing.

Polling (showing Trump gaining massively with black voters) and every single 2022/2023 result in the South points to the black belt collapsing for Biden in 2024.

Most of the polling showed Republicans gaining with black voters in 2022 too, and it did not happen.

It's not 2022, It's 2023 and we just had an election where the black belt in LA collapsed. Election Results are much more indicitive than polling.

[wbrocks67]

It’s a good sign for Reeves in Mississippi, but I can’t really extrapolate anything out of Kentucky, as that state has a very tiny black population.

In Virginia I’d say it’s a bad sign for Dems in racially polarized rural seats like SD-17 and HD-82 but less meaningful in suburban seats with sizable black minorities like SD-24 and HD-97.

I feel like people are simply ignoring what's happening here. Why are we extrapolating out of this when Democrats *are* putting money and effort into VA and MS?

Democrats did not put anything into making black voters turnout in LA. That is clearly not the case in VA and MS. So why are we comparing these two?

Agreed.  It is pretty clear that certain folks are tying themselves in knots desperately trying to justify their pre-existing doomer and Republican wishcasting narratives and simply ignoring any facts or analysis that doesn’t fit neatly into the narratives they’re pushing.

Polling (showing Trump gaining massively with black voters) and every single 2022/2023 result in the South points to the black belt collapsing for Biden in 2024.

Most of the polling showed Republicans gaining with black voters in 2022 too, and it did not happen.

It's not 2022, It's 2023 and we just had an election where the black belt in LA collapsed. Election Results are much more indicitive than polling.

Yes, because Democrats did not try. How many times does this needs to be said?!

[Duke of York]

It’s a good sign for Reeves in Mississippi, but I can’t really extrapolate anything out of Kentucky, as that state has a very tiny black population.

In Virginia I’d say it’s a bad sign for Dems in racially polarized rural seats like SD-17 and HD-82 but less meaningful in suburban seats with sizable black minorities like SD-24 and HD-97.

I feel like people are simply ignoring what's happening here. Why are we extrapolating out of this when Democrats *are* putting money and effort into VA and MS?

Democrats did not put anything into making black voters turnout in LA. That is clearly not the case in VA and MS. So why are we comparing these two?

Agreed.  It is pretty clear that certain folks are tying themselves in knots desperately trying to justify their pre-existing doomer and Republican wishcasting narratives and simply ignoring any facts or analysis that doesn’t fit neatly into the narratives they’re pushing.

Polling (showing Trump gaining massively with black voters) and every single 2022/2023 result in the South points to the black belt collapsing for Biden in 2024.

Most of the polling showed Republicans gaining with black voters in 2022 too, and it did not happen.

It's not 2022, It's 2023 and we just had an election where the black belt in LA collapsed. Election Results are much more indicitive than polling.

Because little to no investment was made and little GOTV occurred. That isn't happening in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey or Kentucky. Why is this so hard for others to get?

[DrScholl]

It’s a good sign for Reeves in Mississippi, but I can’t really extrapolate anything out of Kentucky, as that state has a very tiny black population.

In Virginia I’d say it’s a bad sign for Dems in racially polarized rural seats like SD-17 and HD-82 but less meaningful in suburban seats with sizable black minorities like SD-24 and HD-97.

I feel like people are simply ignoring what's happening here. Why are we extrapolating out of this when Democrats *are* putting money and effort into VA and MS?

Democrats did not put anything into making black voters turnout in LA. That is clearly not the case in VA and MS. So why are we comparing these two?

Agreed.  It is pretty clear that certain folks are tying themselves in knots desperately trying to justify their pre-existing doomer and Republican wishcasting narratives and simply ignoring any facts or analysis that doesn’t fit neatly into the narratives they’re pushing.

Polling (showing Trump gaining massively with black voters) and every single 2022/2023 result in the South points to the black belt collapsing for Biden in 2024.

Most of the polling showed Republicans gaining with black voters in 2022 too, and it did not happen.

He keeps making these weird predictions that rural Black areas are going to swing like the Rio Grande Valley despite the fact it was explained to him that these are two completely different areas.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's not really all that comparable to any other races, maybe other than Mississippi which was already safe R anyway.

Beshear still looks favored, and the Virginia elections still are probably Democratic holds/pickups.

[Spectator]

Literally no one here aside from maybe wbrocks was arguing Louisiana was anything other than Safe R. It’s not like Shawn Wilson was a sitting statewide row officer or congressman that could have put up a legitimate fight. Hell he wasn’t even in the legislature! Of course it was going to have a low turnout. It was a foregone conclusion on a Saturday in October where most people probably weren’t aware it was even Election Day due to the odd timing and poor spending totals. This analysis and overextrapolating is almost as ridiculous as the NH House special election.

[GALeftist]

Not much. All this really shows is that black Democrats don't show up when the party doesn't try to turn them out (shocker). You saw a similar dynamic in 2022, where black turnout was pretty bad across the South but was decent in Georgia despite being a midterm.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Not much. All this really shows is that black Democrats don't show up when the party doesn't try to turn them out (shocker). You saw a similar dynamic in 2022, where black turnout was pretty bad across the South but was decent in Georgia despite being a midterm.

Even in Georgia, Walker outperformed Trump in the black belt despite being a very weak candidate and Warnock being a perfect fit with them, and Kemp/Raffensperger put up numbers way better, with the latter even flipping GA-02.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nothing changes. This was never the year Democrats were going to win in Mississippi, but the key difference between Louisiana and the other two states is that Democrats are investing in the latter.

If anything, I'm more bullish on Democrats winning one or both houses in Virginia than I was yesterday, just because this morning I saw an ad from Republicans about abortion. Republicans can't win on abortion here.

[Duke of York]

Nothing changes. This was never the year Democrats were going to win in Mississippi, but the key difference between Louisiana and the other two states is that Democrats are investing in the latter.

If anything, I'm more bullish on Democrats winning one or both houses in Virginia than I was yesterday, just because this morning I saw an ad from Republicans about abortion. Republicans can't win on abortion here.

Yes.Boosting black turnout in Mississippi will at the very least reduce the margins so its not a blowout like in LA.

[GALeftist]

Not much. All this really shows is that black Democrats don't show up when the party doesn't try to turn them out (shocker). You saw a similar dynamic in 2022, where black turnout was pretty bad across the South but was decent in Georgia despite being a midterm.

Even in Georgia, Walker outperformed Trump in the black belt despite being a very weak candidate and Warnock being a perfect fit with them, and Kemp/Raffensperger put up numbers way better, with the latter even flipping GA-02.

Which is all to be expected in an area with such high racial polarization in a midterm. Although black turnout was better in Georgia, the nature of midterms is that these areas will swing right.

[Xing]

About as much as the Maryland gubernatorial race in 2022 told us about Vermont or New Hampshire.

[Spectator]

Not much. All this really shows is that black Democrats don't show up when the party doesn't try to turn them out (shocker). You saw a similar dynamic in 2022, where black turnout was pretty bad across the South but was decent in Georgia despite being a midterm.

Even in Georgia, Walker outperformed Trump in the black belt despite being a very weak candidate and Warnock being a perfect fit with them, and Kemp/Raffensperger put up numbers way better, with the latter even flipping GA-02.

Not true. Warnock did better than Biden in GA-02.

[wbrocks67]

Not much. All this really shows is that black Democrats don't show up when the party doesn't try to turn them out (shocker). You saw a similar dynamic in 2022, where black turnout was pretty bad across the South but was decent in Georgia despite being a midterm.

Even in Georgia, Walker outperformed Trump in the black belt despite being a very weak candidate and Warnock being a perfect fit with them, and Kemp/Raffensperger put up numbers way better, with the latter even flipping GA-02.

Not true. Warnock did better than Biden in GA-02.

Not to mention, Warnock did 90-8 among black voters in GA, compared to 88-11 for Biden in 2020, so this whole "Walker outperformed Trump" thing is not true.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

Not much. All this really shows is that black Democrats don't show up when the party doesn't try to turn them out (shocker). You saw a similar dynamic in 2022, where black turnout was pretty bad across the South but was decent in Georgia despite being a midterm.

Even in Georgia, Walker outperformed Trump in the black belt despite being a very weak candidate and Warnock being a perfect fit with them, and Kemp/Raffensperger put up numbers way better, with the latter even flipping GA-02.

Not true. Warnock did better than Biden in GA-02.

First round or runoff? There are no runoffs in the Presidential election.

[Alben Barkley]

About as much as the Maryland gubernatorial race in 2022 told us about Vermont or New Hampshire.

Excellent comparison actually.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I honestly am kind of embarrassed I didn't even realize the first round was two days ago and just learned it's already been settled, although I'm not surprised by the round.

[David Hume]

Nothing changes. This was never the year Democrats were going to win in Mississippi, but the key difference between Louisiana and the other two states is that Democrats are investing in the latter.

If anything, I'm more bullish on Democrats winning one or both houses in Virginia than I was yesterday, just because this morning I saw an ad from Republicans about abortion. Republicans can't win on abortion here.

many people said this, but do you have any data that proves this?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nothing changes. This was never the year Democrats were going to win in Mississippi, but the key difference between Louisiana and the other two states is that Democrats are investing in the latter.

If anything, I'm more bullish on Democrats winning one or both houses in Virginia than I was yesterday, just because this morning I saw an ad from Republicans about abortion. Republicans can't win on abortion here.

many people said this, but do you have any data that proves this?

I don't have monetary figures (other than the appalling 35.8% turnout - down 10 points from the 2019 primary, and a larger drop from the 51% in the general), but what I'm reading suggests that Democrats weren't very interested in contesting this race from the start. They didn't educate the voters about Shawn Wilson or build the infrastructure and outreach needed to do well in Louisiana statewide like they did four and eight years ago. In fact, it sounds like JBE was more interested in (unsuccessfully) defeating a progressive state rep. than getting Wilson past 26%(!). Also, of the 71 unopposed candidates for Legislature, 44 were Republicans. Only 27 were Democrats.

That's a huge contrast to Andy Beshear's, Brandon Presley's, or the Virginia Democrats' situation, where Democrats are at least attempting to have a better showing in these states.

[Skill and Chance]

Nothing changes. This was never the year Democrats were going to win in Mississippi, but the key difference between Louisiana and the other two states is that Democrats are investing in the latter.

If anything, I'm more bullish on Democrats winning one or both houses in Virginia than I was yesterday, just because this morning I saw an ad from Republicans about abortion. Republicans can't win on abortion here.

many people said this, but do you have any data that proves this?

I don't have monetary figures (other than the appalling 35.8% turnout - down 10 points from the 2019 primary, and a larger drop from the 51% in the general), but what I'm reading suggests that Democrats weren't very interested in contesting this race from the start. They didn't educate the voters about Shawn Wilson or build the infrastructure and outreach needed to do well in Louisiana statewide like they did four and eight years ago. In fact, it sounds like JBE was more interested in (unsuccessfully) defeating a progressive state rep. than getting Wilson past 26%(!). Also, of the 71 unopposed candidates for Legislature, 44 were Republicans. Only 27 were Democrats.

That's a huge contrast to Andy Beshear's, Brandon Presley's, or the Virginia Democrats' situation, where Democrats are at least attempting to have a better showing in these states.

JBE only ever got through in Louisiana because he was seen as a quasi-independent, so that's unsurprising. 

I do think any reasonable observer has to conclude that Dems not trying was part of the issue here.  Yes, it's a datapoint in favor of the Deep South trending R, but it's also reminiscent of Nevada 2014 or Virginia 2009 in how extreme the turnout drop was. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nothing changes. This was never the year Democrats were going to win in Mississippi, but the key difference between Louisiana and the other two states is that Democrats are investing in the latter.

If anything, I'm more bullish on Democrats winning one or both houses in Virginia than I was yesterday, just because this morning I saw an ad from Republicans about abortion. Republicans can't win on abortion here.

many people said this, but do you have any data that proves this?

I don't have monetary figures (other than the appalling 35.8% turnout - down 10 points from the 2019 primary, and a larger drop from the 51% in the general), but what I'm reading suggests that Democrats weren't very interested in contesting this race from the start. They didn't educate the voters about Shawn Wilson or build the infrastructure and outreach needed to do well in Louisiana statewide like they did four and eight years ago. In fact, it sounds like JBE was more interested in (unsuccessfully) defeating a progressive state rep. than getting Wilson past 26%(!). Also, of the 71 unopposed candidates for Legislature, 44 were Republicans. Only 27 were Democrats.

That's a huge contrast to Andy Beshear's, Brandon Presley's, or the Virginia Democrats' situation, where Democrats are at least attempting to have a better showing in these states.

JBE only ever got through in Louisiana because he was seen as a quasi-independent, so that's unsurprising. 

Yeah, that and the fact that his opponent was David Vitter. "Prostitutes over patriots" was a brilliant attack line.