Louisiana Nov 16, 2019 Run-Off Election Results thread

[Skye]

That 90-10 margin in Orleans Parish... d*mn son.

[rosin]

That 90-10 margin in Orleans Parish... d*mn son.

Yeah, funny to see that Edwards' net winning margin there was more that 100,000 votes -  more than the double of his statewide winning margin !!

[Tintrlvr]

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.

I think it's a sign that there are some rural white voters who normally vote Republican but still consider the Democrats, but not many, so narrowing the margins in rural areas substantially is tough even for a candidate with on paper a lot of appeal to those voters, but there are a lot more normally-Republican suburban voters who are starting to consider the Democrats as an option.

[ElectionsGuy]

The overall results were surprisingly close for how the county margins went. It seems just based on the margins Edwards was getting in the urban and semi-urban counties that he was going to easily win. I still expected Rispone to do better even in some of the rural Republican areas. It just shows me that Rispone didn't need to do that well in order to win, but he fell pretty hard compared to the combined Republican vote in the primary.

Black and Democratic turnout was far stronger in the runoff vs the primary, early and election day voting. JBE's campaign knocked it out of the park. They knew their voters and knew how to turn them out after their scare in the primary. It's pretty obvious the way they ran their campaign made a difference.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Another defeat for Trump, how does he spin, another loss in red America,  heading into 2020?

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1196102881004441600?s=20

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

"Relatively" being the key word.  No county gave JBE a worse result than Clinton had.  In LaSalle, JBE nearly doubled support compared to Clinton's very poor showing but the county is still red in that map.  I don't know how much in the rural areas black turnout declined compared to whites; that would make a difference in some places in the north.  In the south, Lafayette suburbs didn't swing to the Democrats nearly as much as suburbs in the eastern part of the state, or around Lake Charles (judging by the swing in Calcasieu).  Very rural Cameron Parish though went from 8.75% Clinton to 24.7% JBE.

[DINGO Joe]

There's been emphasis on Edwards getting his vote out, but the highest turnout I found for any parish was mega racist hick LaSalle at a whopping 66.4%.  The only parish above 60% that I've seen so far.

[heatcharger]

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."

How exactly do you think JBE got ordinary Republican voters to think he's on their side? If you think his pro-life and pro-gun positions didn't benefit him enormously you aren't paying enough attention to what motivates conservative voters.

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.

Where is your proof on any of this? Everything you're saying is conjecture -- meanwhile, Wildman's points are based in hundreds of opinion polls as well as a huge set of election results, including last night. That half of voters thought Hillary was more liberal than they were, and only 35% said Trump was more conservative is not irrelevant at all. Biden has led Trump by larger margins than Sanders/Warren in 99% of polls taken. Those recent NYT/Siena polls hint that the difference could put one of them over the top and sink the others.

There's something to be said about how authenticity is earned by politicians from voters, but to act like you can take any positions you want as a Democrat and expect to get the same results... well, it's not based in anything we've ever seen.

[Badger]

This dem is pro gun and pro life.  Means nothing and if he wins it will be by a few votes

He's also Pro Medicaid expansion, has been friendly about gays working in government, and opposes right Wing attempts 2 reconstruct brownback's failed Kansas experiment in Louisiana. Plus it's Louisiana. Big effing win for Democrats, and yet another well-deserved embarrassment for the mango Mussolini.

[Badger]

Yeah. Dems doing badly in the suburbs is really bad for us if it keeps up, and there's no denying that. That's why we need Nikki Haley on the ballot in 2024.

Just because the GOP nominee is a female who so happens to not be White American doesn't mean suburban voters are suddenly going to flock back.

Citation needed to show any examples where the rule rather than the exception.

Sure, but she also has the kind of tempermant, demeanor, and common sense conservative policies that have won us the suburbs before. Plus, one of the big reasons for the suburban trend left is that the GOP is perceived as intolerant of non-white voters (a problem as the suburbs become more diverse). She can help fix that perception.

It's more than that.  The suburbs have moved left because the issues that face suburban voters are different than those of years past.  It's not Boomers and Silents mad about tax increases anymore.  Now, it's about Millennials and Xers being mad about student loan debt, healthcare costs, and climate change.

Explain why so many suburbs split tickets for state level Republicans in 2018 then.

Citation needed that any such instances were the rule rather than the exception.

[Badger]

JBE only won CD-02.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1195933720462725120?s=20

These results also say much about gerrymandering , of course.

[n1240]

There's been emphasis on Edwards getting his vote out, but the highest turnout I found for any parish was mega racist hick LaSalle at a whopping 66.4%.  The only parish above 60% that I've seen so far.

Turnout in the first round in LaSalle has 65.0%, only a slight increase. Orleans however, went from 38.7% to 49.2%, quite a notable difference, considering statewide turnout went from 45.9% to 50.7%. Parishes like East Baton Rogue, Jefferson, and Caddo also had considerable turnout increases, while increases in turnout in the parishes that Rispone won handedly tended to be smaller, with a few exceptions

I decided to run the numbers since I was interested in observing how the margin would've changed if the turnout remained constant with the first round, and found that the margin of victory would've decreased from 2.67% to 1.33%, a fairly small decrease, but still large enough that it could've been a decisive factor in a closer election.

[DINGO Joe]

There's been emphasis on Edwards getting his vote out, but the highest turnout I found for any parish was mega racist hick LaSalle at a whopping 66.4%.  The only parish above 60% that I've seen so far.

Turnout in the first round in LaSalle has 65.0%, only a slight increase. Orleans however, went from 38.7% to 49.2%, quite a notable difference, considering statewide turnout went from 45.9% to 50.7%. Parishes like East Baton Rogue, Jefferson, and Caddo also had considerable turnout increases, while increases in turnout in the parishes that Rispone won handedly tended to be smaller, with a few exceptions

I decided to run the numbers since I was interested in observing how the margin would've changed if the turnout remained constant with the first round, and found that the margin of victory would've decreased from 2.67% to 1.33%, a fairly small decrease, but still large enough that it could've been a decisive factor in a closer election.

Good work, now pick a better display name.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Another great set of maps by Miles.

[Xing]

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."

How exactly do you think JBE got ordinary Republican voters to think he's on their side? If you think his pro-life and pro-gun positions didn't benefit him enormously you aren't paying enough attention to what motivates conservative voters.

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.

Where is your proof on any of this? Everything you're saying is conjecture -- meanwhile, Wildman's points are based in hundreds of opinion polls as well as a huge set of election results, including last night. That half of voters thought Hillary was more liberal than they were, and only 35% said Trump was more conservative is not irrelevant at all. Biden has led Trump by larger margins than Sanders/Warren in 99% of polls taken. Those recent NYT/Siena polls hint that the difference could put one of them over the top and sink the others.

There's something to be said about how authenticity is earned by politicians from voters, but to act like you can take any positions you want as a Democrat and expect to get the same results... well, it's not based in anything we've ever seen.

More recent polls show Sanders and Warren getting very close to what Biden gets, and doing better than Buttigieg, who is considered more "moderate" than they are. And why are some polls showing Warren with a higher favorability rating than Biden? Either way, early polls can't really tell us much, and the poll you showed is misleading, since it basically suggests that voters didn't think of Trump as "conservative" in the same way as previous Republican candidates. There's also a difference between a candidate being more extreme and being seen as more extreme.

Edwards is pro-life and less left-wing on guns, that's true. It probably did help him a bit specifically in Louisiana, but that doesn't mean it's the only reason he won or the biggest reason he won, or that it will give a boost to literally any Democrat in literally any race. By the way, he also expanded Medicaid, put in protections for the LGBTQ, and ran on reducing the prison population and raising teacher pay, so there are just as many, if not more ways in which he isn't particularly "moderate." Sure, Democrats can't run on literally any position, but I never said that. I believe the proper Atlas terminology for that would be "strawman." It depends just as much on how Democrats sell their ideas.

People keep claiming that election results back up the notion that Democrats have to move to the center, but all I've ever seen is cherry-picking, like pointing out how the brave moderate blue dog Nelson outperformed the heathen socialist Gillum by an enormous 0.3%. How about how Sherrod Brown won by 7% two years after Ted Strickland lost by 22%? How did a lesbian progressive win by 11% in Wisconsin? While some more centrist Democrats won in 2018, there were also solidly progressive House and Senate candidates who overperformed Clinton by a similar margin, so I think the House results simply show that fewer progressive Democrats won primaries, rather than that "moderate" Democrats are inherently more "electable."

I've beaten this subject to death, and I think I want to move on, but I'll just say that election results and polls are kind of like tea leaves, and different people will read them in different ways to promote a narrative. Whether Biden or Warren is the nominee and whether they win or lose, people who want Democrats to be centrist will find a way to argue that the results support their argument, and those who want the Democrats to be further left will also find a way to make the results support their argument.

[Badger]

Would Scalise or Kennedy have won?

Probably Kennedy as he is rather popular Statewide, iirc. Scalise, Maybe

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

There's been emphasis on Edwards getting his vote out, but the highest turnout I found for any parish was mega racist hick LaSalle at a whopping 66.4%.  The only parish above 60% that I've seen so far.

Turnout in the first round in LaSalle has 65.0%, only a slight increase. Orleans however, went from 38.7% to 49.2%, quite a notable difference, considering statewide turnout went from 45.9% to 50.7%. Parishes like East Baton Rogue, Jefferson, and Caddo also had considerable turnout increases, while increases in turnout in the parishes that Rispone won handedly tended to be smaller, with a few exceptions

I decided to run the numbers since I was interested in observing how the margin would've changed if the turnout remained constant with the first round, and found that the margin of victory would've decreased from 2.67% to 1.33%, a fairly small decrease, but still large enough that it could've been a decisive factor in a closer election.

We're going to hear a lot about (and on this board have already heard some variations of) how off-year Trump-era elections aren't predictive of 2020 because WWC voters only turn out for Trump on the ballot.

There's plenty of evidence, this race included, that it's much more complicated. In 2018 we saw pretty high (for an off-year race) turnout in blood red rural areas and there are some high turnout areas in this race too. The more obvious trend is that people overestimated the power of urban areas because they saw high turnout when Obama was on the ballot but those votes aren't reliable. Now Dems are taking turnout in these areas more seriously and are seeing larger marginal increases in turnout there than Rs are getting in rural areas.

[n1240]

There's been emphasis on Edwards getting his vote out, but the highest turnout I found for any parish was mega racist hick LaSalle at a whopping 66.4%.  The only parish above 60% that I've seen so far.

Turnout in the first round in LaSalle has 65.0%, only a slight increase. Orleans however, went from 38.7% to 49.2%, quite a notable difference, considering statewide turnout went from 45.9% to 50.7%. Parishes like East Baton Rogue, Jefferson, and Caddo also had considerable turnout increases, while increases in turnout in the parishes that Rispone won handedly tended to be smaller, with a few exceptions

I decided to run the numbers since I was interested in observing how the margin would've changed if the turnout remained constant with the first round, and found that the margin of victory would've decreased from 2.67% to 1.33%, a fairly small decrease, but still large enough that it could've been a decisive factor in a closer election.

Good work, now pick a better display name.

Thanks, I'll try and think of one haha

[Badger]

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

Stop

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1196102881004441600?s=20

And the parish will probably flip to JBE once provisionals and any outstanding absentees are counted.

[windjammer]

I'm truly wondering what an independent LA congressional map would look like.

[Badger]

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.

"Relatively" being the key word.  No county gave JBE a worse result than Clinton had.  In LaSalle, JBE nearly doubled support compared to Clinton's very poor showing but the county is still red in that map.  I don't know how much in the rural areas black turnout declined compared to whites; that would make a difference in some places in the north.  In the south, Lafayette suburbs didn't swing to the Democrats nearly as much as suburbs in the eastern part of the state, or around Lake Charles (judging by the swing in Calcasieu).  Very rural Cameron Parish though went from 8.75% Clinton to 24.7% JBE.

Thank you for clarifying that. I had thought from the above post you are responding to that JBE actually performed worst overall than Clinton in rural parishes. And I was all like.....wut

[DINGO Joe]

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1196102881004441600?s=20

And the parish will probably flip to JBE once provisionals and any outstanding absentees are counted.

It's actually a subunit of Jefferson Parish (East Bank and West Bank).  The early vote is never merged into the precinct vote and since the early vote is more D than election day in Jefferson, it did flip.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm truly wondering what an independent LA congressional map would look like.

Assuming partisan & racial parity are the primary goals, maybe something like this (2 strong black-plurality CVAP districts, a Northern LA district that's like R+7, & 3 safe GOP districts):