Louisiana

[GMantis]

I have two questions about the presidential election results in Loisiana:
Firstly, why did the Democrats win (and with  70%) in 1868. At the time Louisiana had a black majority and was occupied by federal troops and all other southern states voted for Grant. Was it because  the blacks were terrorized away from the polls as happened in the 1870s? This is especially strange considering the Republicans won with a good majority in 1872 and in 1876 the results were disputed.
Secondly, why did Eisenhower win in 1956. I know he was very popular at the time, but this was on of the most reliable Democratic states. Was he endorsed by local politicians?

[minionofmidas]

On the latter question: Yeah. Louisiana Republicans were pretty convinced they could have won the state in 1960 as well if it wasn't for that goddamn civil rights plank.

[ill ind]

  The difficulty in reconciling Louisiana's election results for 1868,1872, and 1876 all come down to one word--fraud.
  After the 1868 result, the Republicans took over La and established a statewide vote counting board to canvas the votes for the entire state.  As a result they were able to control the results of the 1872 and 1876 presidential votes.  Outright fraud was used to get rid of Democratic votes.
  1868 was no banner year either with violence being used to keep blacks from the polls--La had black codes in place that had recently been nullified by the 1868 state constitution, but most blacks didn't bother to vote.  After the GOP took over the state in late 1868, the blacks were able to vote and the Republicans used their control of the Stae Elections Board to disenfranchise white Democratic voters.

ill ind

[auburntiger]

While on the topic of Louisiana, I'm curious as to why Bill Clinton was able to carry it by 10%+ in 1996, when no Democrat had done so since FDR. And then look where it is 10 years later...not even considered a swing state now, but that was even before Katrina hit. Anybody have a clue?

[Adlai Stevenson]

While on the topic of Louisiana, I'm curious as to why Bill Clinton was able to carry it by 10%+ in 1996, when no Democrat had done so since FDR. And then look where it is 10 years later...not even considered a swing state now, but that was even before Katrina hit. Anybody have a clue?

Actually Jimmy Carter carried it (albeit with 51% of the vote) in 1976.  Louisiana was closer than Arkansas in 1988 and Duakis lost by just 10% there. 

[auburntiger]

While on the topic of Louisiana, I'm curious as to why Bill Clinton was able to carry it by 10%+ in 1996, when no Democrat had done so since FDR. And then look where it is 10 years later...not even considered a swing state now, but that was even before Katrina hit. Anybody have a clue?

Actually Jimmy Carter carried it (albeit with 51% of the vote) in 1976.  Louisiana was closer than Arkansas in 1988 and Duakis lost by just 10% there. 

Sorry, I meant margin of victory in the state.

[Adlai Stevenson]

While on the topic of Louisiana, I'm curious as to why Bill Clinton was able to carry it by 10%+ in 1996, when no Democrat had done so since FDR. And then look where it is 10 years later...not even considered a swing state now, but that was even before Katrina hit. Anybody have a clue?

Actually Jimmy Carter carried it (albeit with 51% of the vote) in 1976.  Louisiana was closer than Arkansas in 1988 and Duakis lost by just 10% there. 

Sorry, I meant margin of victory in the state.

To the latter part of your question I would say that a combination of factors allowed Clinton to carry Louisiana twice, but particularly by the impressive 52%-39% margin he won it by in 1996.  Firstly there was the regional factor, he was a good ol' boy Southern Governor from a neighbouring it state and would have been as successful in Louisiana as he was in Arkansas.   Then there was Perot's candidacy which undoubtedly helped in drawing votes from Dole and crucially, allow Clinton's margin of victory to be much larger (13%) than his margin in raw figures (4%) was.  The economy was prosperous in 1996, Clinton was attempting to run as a consenus, moderate politician and he came from the South - that all helped.  Bob Dole had no obvious connections to Louisianan or Southern voters, or perhaps more importantly, gave Southerners no reason to vote for him, which made him unique for any GOP Presidential candidate from 1980 until probably next year.

The reason Louisiana moved back to the Republicans in 2000 - Perot's voters clearly went for Bush over Dole (still only giving him 45% but a marked improvement).  Bush was also a popular Governor from a neighbouring state and what is interesting is that he and Clinton's margins of support were pretty similar in 1996 and 2000.  Clinton won 52.01% of the vote in Lousiana in 1996; Bush got 52.55% in 2000.  Gore was from the South originally - but by 2000 he was the Washington incumbent candidate - Southern voters typically favour outsider candidates from their own region when they run in Presidential elections.  Bush was a stronger candidate than Dole, Gore was a weaker candidate than Clinton.  The movement of voters in either direction is only about 6%-10% showing that in both 1996 and 2000 it was this small minority who decided the elections.  Gore got a relatively respectable 44% of the vote in 2000 and lost the state by less than 10%. 

In 2004, Bush expanded his margin of victory to run the best performance of any Republican Presidential candidate in the state since Ronald Reagan 20 years earlier.  John Kerry was defined as a liberal, Northeasterner out-of-touch with Louisiana.  The state is relatively unique in having a solidly antiabortion Catholic majority, the demographic that has been moving away from the Democrats - they crossed over to vote for Reagan-Bush in 1980, 1984, 1988 - were splintered by Perot in 1992 and 1996, allowing Clinton to pickup the state while playing on other factors of support.  John Kerry lost hard amongst them in 2004, some interesting data (from the Almanac of American Politics) -

In 2004, Louisiana Catholics (mostly but not all white) voted 68% for Bush - a big increase on 2000.  So Kerry had already lost by two-thirds in the majority religious identification of the state.

Protestants voted 59% for Bush, the same margin as 2000.

Governor Kathleen Blanco said that Kerry lost because "His positions were too far to the left, especially on abortion."


The right kind of Democrat could win Louisiana once, but I wonder if Katrina has made the state even more Republican.  If Landrieu goes down in 2008, it clearly means the GOP Presidential nominee has done at least as well or better than George W. Bush four years earlier.  It isn't hard to conceive of Lousiana going something like 60%-38% for the GOP next year.  The loss of the black population is such that in New Orleans, the city council is majority white for the first time in decades.  It is certainly going to one of the less easy nominally-
Republican states for the Democrat to win in 2008.  Their chances look better in Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and even Kansas before Louisiana - I would say anyway. 

[auburntiger]

While on the topic of Louisiana, I'm curious as to why Bill Clinton was able to carry it by 10%+ in 1996, when no Democrat had done so since FDR. And then look where it is 10 years later...not even considered a swing state now, but that was even before Katrina hit. Anybody have a clue?

Actually Jimmy Carter carried it (albeit with 51% of the vote) in 1976.  Louisiana was closer than Arkansas in 1988 and Duakis lost by just 10% there. 

Sorry, I meant margin of victory in the state.

To the latter part of your question I would say that a combination of factors allowed Clinton to carry Louisiana twice, but particularly by the impressive 52%-39% margin he won it by in 1996.  Firstly there was the regional factor, he was a good ol' boy Southern Governor from a neighbouring it state and would have been as successful in Louisiana as he was in Arkansas.   Then there was Perot's candidacy which undoubtedly helped in drawing votes from Dole and crucially, allow Clinton's margin of victory to be much larger (13%) than his margin in raw figures (4%) was.  The economy was prosperous in 1996, Clinton was attempting to run as a consenus, moderate politician and he came from the South - that all helped.  Bob Dole had no obvious connections to Louisianan or Southern voters, or perhaps more importantly, gave Southerners no reason to vote for him, which made him unique for any GOP Presidential candidate from 1980 until probably next year.

The reason Louisiana moved back to the Republicans in 2000 - Perot's voters clearly went for Bush over Dole (still only giving him 45% but a marked improvement).  Bush was also a popular Governor from a neighbouring state and what is interesting is that he and Clinton's margins of support were pretty similar in 1996 and 2000.  Clinton won 52.01% of the vote in Lousiana in 1996; Bush got 52.55% in 2000.  Gore was from the South originally - but by 2000 he was the Washington incumbent candidate - Southern voters typically favour outsider candidates from their own region when they run in Presidential elections.  Bush was a stronger candidate than Dole, Gore was a weaker candidate than Clinton.  The movement of voters in either direction is only about 6%-10% showing that in both 1996 and 2000 it was this small minority who decided the elections.  Gore got a relatively respectable 44% of the vote in 2000 and lost the state by less than 10%. 

In 2004, Bush expanded his margin of victory to run the best performance of any Republican Presidential candidate in the state since Ronald Reagan 20 years earlier.  John Kerry was defined as a liberal, Northeasterner out-of-touch with Louisiana.  The state is relatively unique in having a solidly antiabortion Catholic majority, the demographic that has been moving away from the Democrats - they crossed over to vote for Reagan-Bush in 1980, 1984, 1988 - were splintered by Perot in 1992 and 1996, allowing Clinton to pickup the state while playing on other factors of support.  John Kerry lost hard amongst them in 2004, some interesting data (from the Almanac of American Politics) -

In 2004, Louisiana Catholics (mostly but not all white) voted 68% for Bush - a big increase on 2000.  So Kerry had already lost by two-thirds in the majority religious identification of the state.

Protestants voted 59% for Bush, the same margin as 2000.

Governor Kathleen Blanco said that Kerry lost because "His positions were too far to the left, especially on abortion."


The right kind of Democrat could win Louisiana once, but I wonder if Katrina has made the state even more Republican.  If Landrieu goes down in 2008, it clearly means the GOP Presidential nominee has done at least as well or better than George W. Bush four years earlier.  It isn't hard to conceive of Lousiana going something like 60%-38% for the GOP next year.  The loss of the black population is such that in New Orleans, the city council is majority white for the first time in decades.  It is certainly going to one of the less easy nominally-
Republican states for the Democrat to win in 2008.  Their chances look better in Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and even Kansas before Louisiana - I would say anyway. 

Yes, Katrina has made the state more Republican than it's ever been, which is one reason why I believe Mary Landrieu will lose next year, and that the Republican candidate will perform at minimum what Bush was able to do in 2004. If it's Huck vs. Hill, I wouldn't be shocked to see LA go 60-40 R.