Louisiana: Trump +6

[psychprofessor]

Trump 46
Clinton 40
Johnson 3
Stein 0
Undecided 6
Neither 4




https://lapolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ALG-Topline-Report.pdf

[Devout Centrist]

No way the race is at Clinton +3-4 if Louisiana is only Trump +6.

[heatcharger]

JBE at +31 approval is solid.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Regardless of the nature of this poll, it isn't a good poll.  Trump is not in serious danger of losing Louisiana, but I have a sinking feeling that JBE winning in 2015 wasn't a fluke in the state.  I don't know why, but I worry that Louisiana will become a swingy state in the future, as long as the Democrat is pro-life.  If Clinton and Kaine were pro-life I would actually be worried about LA (but much less worried about what their administration would look like).

[jamestroll]

I do not think Lousiana will be more then +10 for Trump in November. The "socilist muslin born in kinya!" will not be on the ballot. Plus with Trump on the ballot, blacks will still vote 19 to 1 Democratic and still have a large turnout.

People use to think Trump had a chance to do relatively well with blacks. No. Black people can not stand incompetent white people. Also, Trump reminds them of the businessman who laid them off or discriminated against them.

I think the country will become a little bit less polarized with Obama out of the presidency. Unfortunately, his race played a role in the polarization. However, let's not ignore the fact that the GOP did a great job in painting him as a "socialist", and just his name alone can scare or turn off some voters. Yea, I know that sounds ridiculous but it is true.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

To elaborate, for all that people talk about Mississippi, I'm far more concerned about Louisiana.  Mississippi is simply racially polarized, and it doesn't really seem like that is moderating at all, and black and white votes are growing at similar rates.  I see it being 10-15 point GOP wins for years to come.  Louisiana, on the other hand, is far more elastic, and it seems to me like socially conservative Catholics are more willing to flip for the right kind of Democrat than socially conservative Protestants (insofar as denomination of Christianity is  still a meaningful distinction in the 2020s).  I have no doubt that Vitter would have beaten Bel Edwards in Mississippi.

[Xing]

Yeah, this is junk. But the Hillary +3 in RI poll can't be thrown out since it's a "data point."

[Seriously?]

To elaborate, for all that people talk about Mississippi, I'm far more concerned about Louisiana.  Mississippi is simply racially polarized, and it doesn't really seem like that is moderating at all, and black and white votes are growing at similar rates.  I see it being 10-15 point GOP wins for years to come.  Louisiana, on the other hand, is far more elastic, and it seems to me like socially conservative Catholics are more willing to flip for the right kind of Democrat than socially conservative Protestants (insofar as denomination of Christianity is  still a meaningful distinction in the 2020s).  I have no doubt that Vitter would have beaten Bel Edwards in Mississippi.

Jon Bel Edwards ran against a morally bankrupt Republican. That's the ONLY way he won. He loses to a candidate that doesn't have a proclivity for hookers.

Trump wins Louisiana by double-digits.

[Seriously?]

Yeah, this is junk. But the Hillary +3 in RI poll can't be thrown out since it's a "data point."

They both are data points and to be taken with the requisite amount of skepticism.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Given that Clinton has been leading Trump by 10 or so points among Catholics, this doesn't surprise me that much. If anything, it makes me glad that I voted Likely R on the LA thread...

[windjammer]

I think LA will swing to Hillary because of demographics ans white catholics, but the margin will be closer.

[NOVA Green]

Given that Clinton has been leading Trump by 10 or so points among Catholics, this doesn't surprise me that much. If anything, it makes me glad that I voted Likely R on the LA thread...

The poll sample is 56% Female, and considering the size of the gender gap we are seeing this year, could well explain these topline numbers. (Hillary overperforming with white women in LA from '08/12 Dem numbers.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Louisiana is an outlier vs Mississippi given the percentage of Catholics. Most southern Catholics gravitate to TX, LA and FL - there are very few throughout the rest of the south. LA is one place where the Catholic percentage that Trump is not getting is coming into play.

This is an interesting poll. I personally have LA swinging Hillary, but it looks to me that 46 isn't going to be overcome by her. Had Trump been at 36, I would have said he was in serious trouble, but it looks like he's gotten LA.

[Person Man]

This election strikes me as odd because of battlegrounds in the Deep South and New England.

[pbrower2a]

To elaborate, for all that people talk about Mississippi, I'm far more concerned about Louisiana.  Mississippi is simply racially polarized, and it doesn't really seem like that is moderating at all, and black and white votes are growing at similar rates.  I see it being 10-15 point GOP wins for years to come.  Louisiana, on the other hand, is far more elastic, and it seems to me like socially conservative Catholics are more willing to flip for the right kind of Democrat than socially conservative Protestants (insofar as denomination of Christianity is  still a meaningful distinction in the 2020s).  I have no doubt that Vitter would have beaten Bel Edwards in Mississippi.

Jon Bel Edwards ran against a morally bankrupt Republican. That's the ONLY way he won. He loses to a candidate that doesn't have a proclivity for hookers.

Trump wins Louisiana by double-digits.

...But Donald Trump is also a morally-bankrupt Republican.  I am not saying that Trump loses Louisiana or even comes close except in a 40-state blowout, and Texas goes for Hillary Clinton before Louisiana goes for her.

Hillary Clinton cannot really win  Louisiana, but in view of Trump's goofs on foreign policy, Donald Trump can lose the state.   

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

This election strikes me as odd because of battlegrounds in the Deep South and New England.

Especially since NH isn't.

[NOVA Green]

What's often forgotten is that Louisiana was actually a fairly competitive state until very recently....

Dukakis is pretty well in '88 compared to his national numbers, based on his strength in Cajun Country....

Bill Clinton won the state in both '92 and '96, the latter by an overwhelming margin.

Gore actually did somewhat well there in 2000.

Even John Kerry managed to get reasonable numbers, even in Cajun country.

Only in 2008 and 2012 did LA swing hard towards the Republicans, including a complete collapse in Cajun Country (SW LA) although one might also note that LA was one of a few states that swung towards Obama in '12.

Regardless of the quality of this polling firm, and heavily Female sample size, it is not unreasonable to see the state shift back towards pre-Obama margins, considering the relative popularity of Bill Clinton in many parts of the state, and Cajuns and other Catholic voters shifting back a bit closer to their historical voting patterns (Combined with upset White Suburban Women that aren't big fans of the Trumpster).

[heatcharger]

What's often forgotten is that Louisiana was actually a fairly competitive state until very recently....

The problem is the base of the Louisiana Democratic Party, African-Americans, has significantly shrunk after Katrina.

What's interesting is that the Katrina climate refugees who left, in combination with the Second Great Migration, are making states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas potentially more competitive than they used to be.

You can see a lot of movement to Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and of course Mississippi:

[NOVA Green]

What's often forgotten is that Louisiana was actually a fairly competitive state until very recently....

The problem is the base of the Louisiana Democratic Party, African-Americans, has significantly shrunk after Katrina.

What's interesting is that the Katrina climate refugees who left, in combination with the Second Great Migration, are making states like Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas potentially more competitive than they used to be.

You can see a lot of movement to Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, and of course Mississippi:

Really good point of fact (Although AAs weren't the only Katrina internal American refugees ).

I should have remembered that having lived in Houston Metro for three years from '12 onwards....

However Blacks are still 32% of the state population, and if you start adding Cajuns and White Catholics in SW and Central LA to the mix, throw in some suburban educated White voters in New Orelans to the mix, it's still not an impossible scenario....

What percentage of the "White Vote" does a Dem need to win in LA in a three person race (Clinton-Trump-Johnson)?

[ElectionsGuy]

lol

[Adam Griffin]

Regardless of the quality of this polling firm, and heavily Female sample size

The female sample size is likely not off by much, if any at all. Why?

The Deep South has the highest incarceration rates - with a disproportionate share of that being African-Americans. Notice anything about a particular state?



Louisiana is the second blackest state in the country. The incarceration rates among black males in the Deep South substantially skew the voter rolls; based on that map alone, I'd say it's even worse in LA than the region as a whole. The information isn't recorded in as much detail by Secretaries of State in all Deep South states (it might be for LA), but females are regularly 60% or more of the black electorate in GA because of this disenfranchisement.

If you assume 60% of black voters in Louisiana are female and that blacks are 30% of the electorate,  and that 52% or so of the remaining 70% of voters are female, then that's a 55% female electorate overall for the state.

[President Johnson]

LOL. I think this is not accurate. Trump will win the state by double digits. Except Georgia, the south is not turning blue again so soon.

[pbrower2a]

LOL. I think this is not accurate. Trump will win the state by double digits. Except Georgia, the south is not turning blue again so soon.

Texas is marginally Southern, and it seems to be getting much closer to even. Texas has a huge number of college-educated white people who bucked the trend in 2008 and 2012 of drifting Democratic... but may be going that way in 2016. That looks to be the pattern in Arizona and Georgia. The Mountain South and the Deep South have no such trend.

McCain and Romney did nothing to offend well-educated white people. Donald Trump offends anyone well-educated who isn't intensely partisan. 

Of course, Texas, like Georgia and Arizona, has a multitude of transplanted Yankees who have brought their political culture with them. 

(Texas is huge, but it does not form a region in itself; it straddles regions. El Paso has more in common with Phoenix or Albuquerque than with Dallas or Houston.

[YaBoyNY]

It's up there with the NJ and RI polls in terms of usefulness.

So not at all.

[pbrower2a]

I'm not using it anyway because the pollster is largely a client of unions, special interest groups. It is still interesting.