Louisiana Nov 16, 2019 Run-Off Election Results thread

[lfromnj]

IIRC one indy voted against the abortion ban so he's pretty liberal.

[Pericles]

Good thing that JBE pulled through, but those rural 2015 -> 2019 trends do not bode well for a far-left candidate like Warren or Sanders next year.

Obama was not wrong yesterday:

It needs more of a centrist, or Trump wins again powered by these rural voters.

Ya see, John Bel is a very nice centrist and it's not exactly working for him either.  Racist hicks are racist.

Let's be honest, a Bernie/Warren type-candidate would have done MUCH worse in the rural areas. Edwards may not have won them, but lowering the margins of defeat was crucial to his victory (and Beshear's).

Well yeah, but it's not so much that Bernie and Warren are unusually bad in rural areas (neither of them were the 2016 nominee who got crushed rurally, that was Hillary). I think both Warren and Biden (even though he's supposed to win back the WWC lol) will get crushed by similar margins in rural areas, the difference will be more on the margins, maybe Biden does better in the suburbs, or maybe Warren has better base turnout, or one could do better than the other with Obama-Trump voters.

[smoltchanov]

IIRC one indy voted against the abortion ban so he's pretty liberal.

Marino - yes. Adams is an econonmic populist, but social conservative.

[MT Treasurer]

Pretty much any Democrat is going to get clobbered in the rural areas, and is going to rely on the cities/suburbs to win. This idea that "swing voters" care about ideology, or that a large number of Republicans and "moderates" will vote for Biden with a spring in their step but flock to Trump if Warren is the nominee (while Democratic/progressive turnout isn't stronger for Warren) is ludicrous. Democrats win by being authentic and standing by their principles, not simply being "moderate."

During the runoff campaign for LA-SEN in 2002, when Mary Landrieu was on the verge of a reelection loss, her campaign decided to change course and put more distance between herself and the supposedly universally beloved President Bush. A lot of people thought this would hurt her, but she ended up outperforming expectations and went from 46% in the junge primary to 51.7% in the December runoff.

[Tender Branson]

Good thing that JBE pulled through, but those rural 2015 -> 2019 trends do not bode well for a far-left candidate like Warren or Sanders next year.

Obama was not wrong yesterday:

It needs more of a centrist, or Trump wins again powered by these rural voters.

Pretty much any Democrat is going to get clobbered in the rural areas, and is going to rely on the cities/suburbs to win. This idea that "swing voters" care about ideology, or that a large number of Republicans and "moderates" will vote for Biden with a spring in their step but flock to Trump if Warren is the nominee (while Democratic/progressive turnout isn't stronger for Warren) is ludicrous. Democrats win by being authentic and standing by their principles, not simply being "moderate."

Show me at least one "real progressive" Democrat winning statewide in Louisiana. Or Mississippi. Or Alabama. Idiocy.

Smoltchanov is correct here ...

While the 2019 elections don’t mean a lot for 2020, there’s still some trends that are worrying about the continued urban-rural divide, which seems to deepen.

It’s concerning to me that while for us Austrians/Europeans it is pretty common sense to have a well-functioning single-payer health care system, such a radical change like Warren/Sanders are proposing would overburden much of the US electorate next year.

Americans do not want these big changes in their system and would react allergically at the polls.

That’s why a presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg is needed with his Medicare for all who want it plan.

[smoltchanov]

Pretty much any Democrat is going to get clobbered in the rural areas, and is going to rely on the cities/suburbs to win. This idea that "swing voters" care about ideology, or that a large number of Republicans and "moderates" will vote for Biden with a spring in their step but flock to Trump if Warren is the nominee (while Democratic/progressive turnout isn't stronger for Warren) is ludicrous. Democrats win by being authentic and standing by their principles, not simply being "moderate."

During the runoff campaign for LA-SEN in 2002, when Mary Landrieu was on the verge of a reelection loss, her campaign decided to change course and put more distance between herself and the supposedly universally beloved President Bush. A lot of people thought this would hurt her, but she ended up outperforming expectations and went from 46% in the junge primary to 51.7% in the December runoff.

Still she wasn't a "flaming liberal"...

[smoltchanov]

Good thing that JBE pulled through, but those rural 2015 -> 2019 trends do not bode well for a far-left candidate like Warren or Sanders next year.

Obama was not wrong yesterday:

It needs more of a centrist, or Trump wins again powered by these rural voters.

Pretty much any Democrat is going to get clobbered in the rural areas, and is going to rely on the cities/suburbs to win. This idea that "swing voters" care about ideology, or that a large number of Republicans and "moderates" will vote for Biden with a spring in their step but flock to Trump if Warren is the nominee (while Democratic/progressive turnout isn't stronger for Warren) is ludicrous. Democrats win by being authentic and standing by their principles, not simply being "moderate."

Show me at least one "real progressive" Democrat winning statewide in Louisiana. Or Mississippi. Or Alabama. Idiocy.

Smoltchanov is correct here ...

While the 2019 elections don’t mean a lot for 2020, there’s still some trends that are worrying about the continued urban-rural divide, which seems to deepen.

It’s concerning to me that while for us Austrians/Europeans it is pretty common sense to have a well-functioning single-payer health care system, such a radical change like Warren/Sanders are proposing would overburden much of the US electorate next year.

Americans do not want these big changes in their system and would react allergically at the polls.

That’s why a presidential candidate like Pete Buttigieg is needed with his Medicare for all who want it plan.

Fully agree. And - thanks!

[One Term Floridian]

https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1195926921269456896

lmao

Lol anyone remember when the former stander bearer of the LA GOP actually said that

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Has anybody observed yet that there's a difference between getting blown out 65-35 in rural areas and getting blown out 85-15, and JBE (and Beshear) clearly did still benefit from that difference even if they didn't actually carry the counties #populist Democrats "should" have been carrying ten or twenty or fifty years ago?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Still she wasn't a "flaming liberal"...

Oh sure, I’m not saying Democrats should run "flaming liberals" in these states (being pro-life always helps), but the fact that JBE only did 1-2% better than Andy Beshear (despite being pro-life, a popular incumbent, running in a state less Republican than KY) and Jim Hood barely outperformed Mike Espy is a sign that times are changing.

So elasticity isn't a thing anymore?

[BP🌹]

I compared JBE's overperformance from 2016 in each parish compared to that of the state as a whole (which was 22.24%). That is, it's a comparison of what he actually got vs. what he "should" have gotten had there been a uniform swing. The results were wild.

https://i.imgur.com/0ovnq9P.png

[MT Treasurer]

What an ugly map, though.

[We Live in Black and White]

JBE's Victory Speech, for those who wanted it:

I always forget how fantastic a speaker Edwards actually is.

[Xing]

Good thing that JBE pulled through, but those rural 2015 -> 2019 trends do not bode well for a far-left candidate like Warren or Sanders next year.

Obama was not wrong yesterday:

It needs more of a centrist, or Trump wins again powered by these rural voters.

Pretty much any Democrat is going to get clobbered in the rural areas, and is going to rely on the cities/suburbs to win. This idea that "swing voters" care about ideology, or that a large number of Republicans and "moderates" will vote for Biden with a spring in their step but flock to Trump if Warren is the nominee (while Democratic/progressive turnout isn't stronger for Warren) is ludicrous. Democrats win by being authentic and standing by their principles, not simply being "moderate."

Show me at least one "real progressive" Democrat winning statewide in Louisiana. Or Mississippi. Or Alabama. Idiocy.When needed (to prevent victory of worse candidate) "principles" may be temporerily thrown into basket. Politics is "an art of compromise", not a competition who is more "principled"...

In a national election? No Democrat is winning those states. And yes, thank you for Moderate Herosplaining politics to an "idiot" like me (funny, I thought partisans were the unreasonable ones who threw insults around), but "compromise" without having a larger goal or principle in mind is a meaningless buzzword and accomplishes nothing. Again, I'm not saying being liberal is an electoral golden ticket either, since that's just as silly as claiming that being "moderate" magically makes one more electable, I'm saying authenticity is the key. Whether a Democrat is moderate or more left-leaning, they need to come across as truly believing in what they're selling.

[We Live in Black and White]

Still she wasn't a "flaming liberal"...

Oh sure, I’m not saying Democrats should run "flaming liberals" in these states (being pro-life always helps), but the fact that JBE only did 1-2% better than Andy Beshear (despite being pro-life, a popular incumbent, running in a state less Republican than KY) and Jim Hood barely outperformed Mike Espy is a sign that times are changing.

So elasticity isn't a thing anymore?

Not in most places, no.

[Alben Barkley]

Good thing that JBE pulled through, but those rural 2015 -> 2019 trends do not bode well for a far-left candidate like Warren or Sanders next year.

Obama was not wrong yesterday:

It needs more of a centrist, or Trump wins again powered by these rural voters.

Pretty much any Democrat is going to get clobbered in the rural areas, and is going to rely on the cities/suburbs to win. This idea that "swing voters" care about ideology, or that a large number of Republicans and "moderates" will vote for Biden with a spring in their step but flock to Trump if Warren is the nominee (while Democratic/progressive turnout isn't stronger for Warren) is ludicrous. Democrats win by being authentic and standing by their principles, not simply being "moderate."

Show me at least one "real progressive" Democrat winning statewide in Louisiana. Or Mississippi. Or Alabama. Idiocy.When needed (to prevent victory of worse candidate) "principles" may be temporerily thrown into basket. Politics is "an art of compromise", not a competition who is more "principled"...

In a national election? No Democrat is winning those states. And yes, thank you for Moderate Herosplaining politics to an "idiot" like me (funny, I thought partisans were the unreasonable ones who threw insults around), but "compromise" without having a larger goal or principle in mind is a meaningless buzzword and accomplishes nothing. Again, I'm not saying being liberal is an electoral golden ticket either, since that's just as silly as claiming that being "moderate" magically makes one more electable, I'm saying authenticity is the key. Whether a Democrat is moderate or more left-leaning, they need to come across as truly believing in what they're selling.

A “progressive” could not win even a state election like this is his point, and he’s right.

You are massively downplaying the significance of ideology and massively overplaying the importance of “authenticity.” Yes Democrats are gonna lose most rural areas these days, but as has been pointed out in this thread, margins matter a LOT. There is an ENORMOUS difference between losing them 60-40 and 80-20, and that can make or break an election. So you can’t just handwave away the potential Democratic voters there, or more moderate voters in the suburbs for that matter.

And you can’t pretend they would vote for AOC or something, in any election, because she’s “authentic,” whatever the hell that means exactly. Yes it certainly helps to be perceived as likable and relatable, or for your opponent to be the opposite — that’s in part how Beshear won despite running on a fairly liberal platform, including pro-choice. But it’s just naive to say that a candidate perceived as far left like AOC would have fared just as well as JBE in Louisiana, or Beshear in Kentucky. There are certain issues swing voters in these states won’t budge on, no matter how “authentic” or not the candidates are. And a lot of times it’s more than even just issues; a perception as an extreme ideologue can hurt a candidate even if it’s not really accurate.

It needs to keep being said: Despite the fact that left-wing internet sees Hillary as all but a Republican, reality is most Americans saw her as more extreme than Trump. For Democrats to win we have to break that perception, not double down on it. Yes, she wasn’t seen as “authentic” either. But the thing is, Joe Biden comes off as both more authentic AND more moderate than Hillary to middle America. So maybe it’s time to start taking those polls showing him crushing Trump seriously and stop straining the math to explain how ackshually Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg/whoever would do better. And it’s definitely time for deluded egomaniacs like Bloomberg and Patrick to stop entering the race thinking they’re gonna save the party when it’s just fine without them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I compared JBE's overperformance from 2016 in each parish compared to that of the state as a whole (which was 22.24%). That is, it's a comparison of what he actually got vs. what he "should" have gotten had there been a uniform swing. The results were wild.

https://i.imgur.com/0ovnq9P.png

So Edwards did worse, relatively speaking, than Clinton in much of rural LA. That is... not what I was expecting. At all.

[Adam Griffin]

This is why we don't want random idiots joining the forum en masse

https://twitter.com/ChazNuttycombe/status/1195966165610356736

[lfromnj]

I compared JBE's overperformance from 2016 in each parish compared to that of the state as a whole (which was 22.24%). That is, it's a comparison of what he actually got vs. what he "should" have gotten had there been a uniform swing. The results were wild.

https://i.imgur.com/0ovnq9P.png

So Edwards did worse, relatively speaking, than Clinton in much of rural LA. That is... not what I was expecting. At all.

Like before or after the primary?
After the primary it was pretty clear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well I didn't get into the weeds of the primary map. My bad I guess, but this is still pretty surprising.

[Xing]

A “progressive” could not win even a state election like this is his point, and he’s right.

You are massively downplaying the significance of ideology and massively overplaying the importance of “authenticity.” Yes Democrats are gonna lose most rural areas these days, but as has been pointed out in this thread, margins matter a LOT. There is an ENORMOUS difference between losing them 60-40 and 80-20, and that can make or break an election. So you can’t just handwave away the potential Democratic voters there, or more moderate voters in the suburbs for that matter.

And you can’t pretend they would vote for AOC or something, in any election, because she’s “authentic,” whatever the hell that means exactly. Yes it certainly helps to be perceived as likable and relatable, or for your opponent to be the opposite — that’s in part how Beshear won despite running on a fairly liberal platform, including pro-choice. But it’s just naive to say that a candidate perceived as far left like AOC would have fared just as well as JBE in Louisiana, or Beshear in Kentucky. There are certain issues swing voters in these states won’t budge on, no matter how “authentic” or not the candidates are. And a lot of times it’s more than even just issues; a perception as an extreme ideologue can hurt a candidate even if it’s not really accurate.

It needs to keep being said: Despite the fact that left-wing internet sees Hillary as all but a Republican, reality is most Americans saw her as more extreme than Trump. For Democrats to win we have to break that perception, not double down on it. Yes, she wasn’t seen as “authentic” either. But the thing is, Joe Biden comes off as both more authentic AND more moderate than Hillary to middle America. So maybe it’s time to start taking those polls showing him crushing Trump seriously and stop straining the math to explain how ackshually Bernie/Warren/Buttigieg/whoever would do better. And it’s definitely time for deluded egomaniacs like Bloomberg and Patrick to stop entering the race thinking they’re gonna save the party when it’s just fine without them.

Funny, I don't recall mentioning AOC or calling Hillary a Republican in my post at all. I do wish people would stop interpreting my saying that authenticity/likeability is a more important factor when it comes to winning elections than ideology as "so you think AOC would've done just as well if not better than Edwards!!!!!" Whether Democrats lose rural counties 65-35 or 80-20 (thanks, as it turns out I actually do understand math, believe it or not) is not going to come down primarily to ideology. It's going to come down to who voters feel is on "their side" or who "gets them."

Maybe Biden does have what it takes. I'm not totally sold on that idea, but I could see him winning. I think that while there could be some difference in exactly how Warren or Sanders would win, but I think that their path to victory would be connecting to voters and selling their ideas as helping people in general. They could win as well. Yes, there are very conservative voters who will vote for Trump over them. If you truly believe that swaths of these voters will consider voting for Biden over Trump instead, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Voters can be surprisingly flexible and forgiving to candidates that they like or connect with on a personal level. Just look at how conservatives voted for Trump without reluctance. While I don't doubt that Sanders and Warren would lose badly in Kentucky and Louisiana (and so would Biden), that doesn't mean that they can't win over voters that Clinton couldn't in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, even if those voters are somewhat to their right. Clinton didn't lose because she was "too far left", that's just revisionist history, since she was nominated because many saw her as the "electable" candidate. (It is just as silly to say that she was "too centrist" or "too much like a Republican", for the record.) She lost because voters saw her as robotic, a career politician through and through, and someone who would change their opinion based on polling numbers, and who would throw people under the bus as soon as she got elected. Was that characterization completely fair? No, but her difficulty expressing authenticity was a very real problem for her.

Now it's my turn to say it again: If Democrats run a purely anti-Trump campaign, or do not run on a clear message of their own and appear wishy-washy and inconsistent, Trump wins. I could say more, but we're clearly going to have to agree to disagree. You may know local Kentucky politics better than I do, but nationally Democrats have gone down this path before and have bought into the usual narratives before as well. It doesn't tend to end well.

[President Johnson]

Cool, I wake up in the morning and JBE is reelected! Democrats will be holding 24 governorships after December.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

Well I didn't get into the weeds of the primary map. My bad I guess, but this is still pretty surprising.

A Democrat doing poorly in rural areas is the least surprising development of the past three years

[windjammer]

Well,
It was really weird all these messages saying "likely rep !!!" at the first round while the polls weren't wrong and it was always going to be close.

[Pericles]

Well,
It was really weird all these messages saying "likely rep !!!" at the first round while the polls weren't wrong and it was always going to be close.

Classic Atlas overreaction. JBE was always slightly ahead.