Talk Elections

does kerry have a shot at carrying louisiana in november?

about the same shot as Bush has of carrying Illinois.  In other words, when pigs fly.

louisiana is very different from other southern states in that it has a high catholic population.

 
If Breaux where is running mate maybe...but it would be unlikely Breaux's big asset would be appeal to moderate and rightward leaning independents (who Edwards would also appeal to but probably more so to the moderates than the rightward leaners) and Breaux on the ticket would pretty much assure the Dems of holding his old Senate seat while his presence might help across the south... and it might well help balance Kerry out... but I don’t no if he's the best choice... but back to the question only if Breaux is Kerry's running mate and then its still more likely that Bush would win it...  

Kerry does not but Edwards will. 3 time the dems took La since 1960 - Carter, Clinton (twice). and its the only democrats to win nationally in that time. A southern democrat, that what the dems need.
ie = Edwards

Wouldn't Landrieu be a better running mate for carrying LA than Breaux?  Breaux is just another Washington insider who has been in the Senate forever.  

I think Kerry has a better chance in LA than any other Southern state...it is Catholic and had been trending Dem.  But I'm pretty much alone in that belief.

Actually, I'll correct myself.  Breaux would be better than Landrieu for the sole purpose of carrying Louisiana.  Landrieu would be better nationwide.

Again, Kerry has very little chance of carrying Louisiana, but Edwards sprobably would win it.

just as I said

I wish we would nominate Edwards :(

THERE IS STILL TIME!!!  PLEASE!!!!

No Miami.  There is no more time.  (wink).  Nominate Kerry.

hey buddy...I got a MArch 2nd Democratic Primary comin' up and I'm votin for yer worst nightmare!!!!

Lousiana might be a toss-up state if Bush was less Conservitive and wasn't from Texas. But thats not the case. Or if Edwards ran on the ticket. Even then I think at the end of the day Louisiana will go to the Republicans.

landrieu is much too conservative to be placed on the ticket with kerry.

the liberal base of the democratic party would throw a fit if she were chosen

Well, Breaux is more conservative than Landrieu by just about every measure. (National Journal ratings, ADA/ACU scores, etc.)

And the liberal base wants to beat Bush badly enough that they wouldn't "throw a fit" unless the VP nominee was fundamentally pro-life.

Louisiana is certainly winnable for any Democrat (well... maybe not Dean...)

Something to note from the 2000 result is this: Gore did a LOT worse in the Cajun part of the state than is normal for a Democrat.

I've once seen it put that La. actually has a three party system: There are Republicans, there are Democrats, and there are Cajuns. You need to carry two of these groups to win.
The Democrats have a chance of winning La, even with Kerry, but while larger than in the average Southern state it is still a very small chance. I have it as lean rep in my predictions.

I was saying Edwards coduld win it if he was at the top of the ticket.

I have it as a lean-D (I think. I've not updated my map for a while).
Louisiana is a strange state... socially one of the most right wing states in America and economically one of the most left wing...

BTW the Cajun area actually voted for Dukakis in 1988.  Could someone explain why Gore did so badly there?

the last census:
whites:67.3%
Blacks:30.8%
Asian: 1.0%
Native Americans: 0.4%
others:0.5%

in this 100% 2.2% are hispanic

The key number is 62.5% non-hispanic whites - basically your prime Republican voter.  This is a fairly low percentage - a little higher than Mississippi, a little lower than South Carolina.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html

The only reliably GOP voters in Louisiana live in the 1st district.

There's a lot of "disguised unemployment" in Louisiana...

But there's a helluva lot more in Western PA, Ohio, and WV.

It's bad in Louisiana... but it's horrific all over Appalachia :(

Which is where you...'live' :D

It's similer to where I really live though

John Kerry needs about 95% of the black vote + another 35% of the white vote just to win Louisana.

Just truly horrible umemployment numbers for those states.

That doesn't even include underemployment.

How does one determine the number of people underemployed? The Labor Department has no clear cut way to determine the number of underemployed.

Any ideas.

A few examples:

1964 Presidential
()

1988 Presidential
()

1996 Presidential
()

2000 Presidential
()

2003 Gubernatorial
()

But Blanco is far more conservative than Edwards or Kerry.

Kerry can piss LA goodbye.

As I said earlier Louisiana is right wing on social issues and left wing on economic issues.
In 2003 what probably sunk Jindal was Blanco's ad attacks over health cutbacks.

No, those numbers are not very bad at all.  Horrible would be around 10% like we had around 1980-82.  Certainly 5% unemployment is actually the sustainable level - can't easily remain much lower than that.

What about Disguised Unemployment and Underemployment?
They are serious problems that affect real people.

I agree that the overall numbers are not as bad now as they were in the early 80's. The 5% unemployment benchmark is widely used, and many economists noted the problem in the late '90's when the unemployment stayed at sub 4%. This created an unsustainably favorable market for labor, such that the local McDonalds was advertising hourly rates of $9-10/hour.

One unemployment cycle in the past that might compare to the present is the period after the first oil crisis in 1973-4. Like that period, recent years have seen significant unemployment in technical jobs.  At that time the job losses in science and engineering came after the boom in that sector from '59 to '73.

I was being a little sarcastic:)

No, he does not.  Only Clinton and Carter have won LA in the last 40 years.   But, I think Kerry has a good shot at winning Florida, which goes against most people's thinking on this board, I know, but I feel he will do much better with the Hispanic vote, and specifically the Cuban vote, compared to Al Gore's 48% in 2000.  It's just my opinion.  I'm also not throwing in the towel regarding West Virginia and Nevada.