« Michigan: Additional Thoughts | Main | Domain Mapping »
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Louisiana Governor's Race
Posted by DavidNYCNew daddy Kos provides a more in-depth update on the Louisiana governor's race. Shorter Kos: It's a dead heat, and while Blanco has run a lackluster campaign, she has $2m in the bank for the final stretch run, compared to Jindal's $1m. However, I disagree with Kos's conclusion that, if we lose this one, we Dems will have to do a lot of teeth-gnashing. I just don't think that one gubernatorial election is a great indicator of our overall strength, particularly if we win or lose by a very narrow margin.
These off-year elections are odd creatures, and I don't think anyone has conclusively figured out a pattern to them. In 2001, just two months after 9/11 - when Bush's halo was supposed to be at its brightest - the Democrats won both major governor's races, in blue NJ and red VA. Obviously, these results didn't serve as very good augurs for what happened in 2002. Now of course I'm rooting big-time for a Blanco victory, and I think this race may indeed wind up telling us something about the nature of the Louisiana electorate. But on a wider scale, I'm not going to read too much into this race, win or lose.
Posted at 02:41 PM in Louisiana | Technorati
Comments
What are the polls in Louisiana's 2004 Presidential contest looking like?
Posted by: Rock_nj at April 22, 2004 12:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The last poll (scroll down), which was over a month ago, had it 52-38 Bush.
Posted by: DavidNYC at April 22, 2004 08:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hmmm.... Because I was thinking that perhaps Kerry could win Louisiana. Clinton won it easily in 1996 and I imagine if anything Louisiana is more diverse now then ever. The Dems just won governor in LA. Wonder why Bush is so far ahead?
Posted by: Rock_nj at April 22, 2004 09:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yeah - Clinton won over 50% there, exceeding (of course) the Dole + Perot vote. I think Clinton's relatively local flavor (ie, from next-door Arkansas) might have played a role, plus his incumbency at the time. I'm not sure if Kerry has spent any time there yet. Also, Kathleen Blanco is, as I understand it, a rather conservative Dem - quite a breed apart from Kerry.
I think 1992, when Clinton won just a 45% plurality, is probably a more apt comparison. I think had Perot not run in `92, Clinton would have lost LA (and other states as well).
Posted by: DavidNYC at April 23, 2004 01:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment