DefendLA, which is a “statewide campaign dedicated to giving Louisianians a voice in the defense of their right to protect their families” recently hired JMC Analytics and Polling to conduct a poll gauging voter opinions on President Obama, Senator Landrieu (in light of her recent vote on gun legislation), and a proposed bill from Representative Jeff Thompson (R-Bossier City) to penalize those who would publish information on conceal carry handgun permit holders.

The context of the conducting of this poll needs to be put in perspective: Public Policy Polling, on behalf of Americans United for Change, released polling on May 2 that showed that Senator Landrieu was helped by her recent vote by a 44-26% margin. In that poll, 536 Louisianians were surveyed, with a demographic breakdown that was 71/24% white/black and 42/40% Democrat/Republican.

JMC’s poll was conducted using 582 respondents, with a demographic breakdown that was 69/28% white/black and 54/31% Democrat/Republican. This is a breakdown that more closely approximates a midterm electorate in Louisiana. JMC’s poll showed her gun vote hurting her chances for re-election by a 48-30% margin.
 
The poll results are here.

There were two votes on removing the tolls from the bridge. An initial vote in November 2012 vote kept the tolls on the bridge by a narrow 36 vote margin. However, since this vote was on the same ballot as the Presidential election, there were 1151 provisional ballots cast for the Presidential race in the parishes voting on the tolls, and it was successfully argued that a sufficient number of voters who were prevented from voting on the tolls could have changed the result. Thus, the November results were overturned and a new election was scheduled this past Saturday; in that “re-run”, retention of the tolls failed by an unambiguous 77-23% margin.

What makes this election interesting is that the political fault lines were not (like many contested elections in Louisiana) racial, but instead were geographic. John Maginnis once noted that “the parish lines in the Greater New Orleans area are fiction, geographical niceties” and that “they (the Eastbank and the Westbank) are two separate worlds, separate, distinct, and apart” – to those not living in Louisiana, the line of demarcation of the “Eastbank” and “Westbank” is the Mississippi River, and both Orleans and Jefferson Parishes have their “Eastbank” and “Westbank” portions.

So in political terms, what happened with the toll vote was that in the November 2012 election, 51% of both white and black voters supported keeping the tolls on the bridge. In the “Eastbank”, however, 54% of the voters wanted the tolls to stay, while “Westbank” voters were 59% against the tolls. At one extreme of the political spectrum was House District 98 (represented by New Orleans Democrat Neil Abramson), whose affluent constituents voted 61% for the tolls, while House District 84 (represented by Marrero Republican Pat Connick) voted 67% against the tolls.

In the “rerun” election this past Saturday, Eastbank support did plunge from 54 to 29%, and turnout on that side of the Mississippi River plunged 73%. The Westbank was a different story: turnout only dropped 47% relative to November, but the toll support plummeted from 41 to 14%. And even though the toll renewals failed in every state House district in the area, there was still some polarization: Connick’s district this time gave 8% support for keeping the tolls on the bridge, while Abramson’s district still had 40% support for the tolls.

What this toll vote means, in political terms, is that there are many fault lines with regards to Louisiana elections. Some are obvious (race, income, and religion), while others (geography within and without the state’s varied regions) are more subtle except for referendum type votes like this. Nevertheless, anyone running for office in Louisiana would be wise to take these varied fault lines into account when running.

“Yes 1″ = November 2012 toll vote; “yes 2″ = May 2013 toll vote

November 2012 toll vote

May 2013 toll vote

The election results of the 2012 Presidential election have been subject to many different interpretations, with each interpretation’s being dependent on the observer’s partisan bent. The current (dominant) narrative is that President Obama was re-elected on the basis of minority voters, and that the Republican Party is no longer competitive nationally, because it has become the home of angry, white, Southern males. Does this narrative have any truth to it?

Let’s address this narrative by examining the 2012 vote through the context of the 2008 and 2004 Presidential elections. Overall, President Obama was re-elected 51-47% over his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. While Obama’s victory was clinched by his campaign team’s knowing exactly where the votes were (or weren’t), this was not a “game changing” election with record turnout like 2008 was; in fact, numerical voter turnout was 2% less than it was in 2008. If you were to dig a little further, you’d notice that President Obama’s 2012 popular vote total was 4 million less than what he received in 2008, while Romney received about a million more votes than John McCain.

2012 Presidential results by state (Red = Romney, Blue = Obama)

Depressed GOP voter turnout

While Romney’s exceeding the McCain vote totals is rarely mentioned, what is never mentioned is that a strong argument can be made that 2012 GOP voter turnout was not what it could have been: in 29 states, Mitt Romney actually received less votes than former President George W. Bush in his 2004 re-election campaign. This drop off in Republican turnout resulted in approximately 3 million votes that theoretically could have been Romney’s but weren’t. To put this drop-off in its proper perspective, President Obama was re-elected last year by 5 million votes.

2012 vs 2008 overall results by state (Red = increased turnout, Blue = decreased turnout)

While this drop-off would not, by itself, have changed the outcome of the 2012 Presidential contest, it can be argued that it cost Romney the crucial state of Ohio – he received 198K less votes than George W Bush did in 2004, and President Obama carried the state by 166K votes. The national impact of this GOP vote drop-off meant that a 51-47% popular vote victory for Obama would have been 50-48% instead.

Romney/W Bush “gap” (Pink = Romney underperforming W Bush 2004 vote total)

Loss of Hispanic support

An unmotivated GOP base is only part of the problem, however. What also hurt Mitt Romney was a drop-off in GOP support from Hispanics. While Hispanics have never been a Republican voting group, Republicans historically have been competitive within this demographic (the late Ronald Reagan once said that “Hispanics are already Republican…they just don’t know it”), especially in Florida and Texas. To illustrate how costly this loss in support was to the Romney-Ryan ticket, in two Florida counties with large Hispanic populations (Osceola and Miami-Dade), Obama’s margin between 2008 and 2012 increased from 159 to 235K – that 76K increase in the Obama vote margin there was the margin by which Florida voted for him last year.

The GOP’s “early vote” problem

Of course, even if Romney had carried Ohio and Florida, and had engaged the GOP base vote present in the 2004 Presidential election, he would still have had only 253 electoral votes -17 electoral votes short of winning. The third factor which hurt Mitt Romney was the Democrats’ continued supremacy at motivating their supporters to vote early.  To illustrate, this is how Obama carried Iowa: the early vote went 59-39% for him, while those voting on Election Day voted 51-46% for Mitt Romney.

It’s the suburbs, stupid

The fourth problem facing the Republicans is the (since 1992) swing of suburban voters in major metropolitan areas towards the Democrats. Not having this vote has made Republicans in general and Mitt Romney specifically uncompetitive across New England, the Northeast, the Midwest, and parts of the West. However, not having this vote clearly made the difference in two states in the 2012 contest. If the GOP base had been motivated to vote at the same levels they did in 2004, President Obama would have only received 51% of the vote in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Given those narrow margins of victory, he was able to carry those states on the basis of an above normal vote for him in the affluent suburbs in Northern Virginia and Philadelphia.

Conclusion

While there are many explanations for the causes (and possible solutions) for the GOP to be able to win future Presidential elections, the plain reality is that some of the problems are related to demographics, while others are related to politics at its simplest: knowing who your voters are, and making sure that they are motivated to support you.

Understanding voter data

Every election cycle, political scientists bemoan the fact that voter turnout is as low as it is. However, examining voter data shows that the reality of voter turnout is somewhat different.

To illustrate, we will analyze Louisiana voter turnout in the 2012 Presidential race, where over 2 million participated. This was a numerical voter turnout record, although the official statistics produced by the Secretary of State show “only” a 68% voter turnout (turnout was 67% in 2008). Does this mean that approximately a million voters stayed home?

The voter data shows that approximately 388K voters (13% of the electorate) have NEVER voted in any election – there is actually a nonvoter on the voter rolls who registered to vote in 1920. Furthermore, another 518K voters (18% of the electorate) last voted before the 2012 Presidential election. There is actually someone on the voter rolls who last voted in August 1966.

Adding up these two groups of “voters” gets you 31% of the electorate - almost exactly equal to the 32% of the “voters” who stayed home. In other words, voter turnout statistics are artificially depressed by these one million “voters.”

Breakdown of Louisiana voters (by number and %)

Implications for campaigns

Since there are a nearly a million voters in Louisiana who are essentially nonvoters, what is the implication for a political campaign? For starters, these voters should NOT be included in any poll, mailout, or phone call, with one exception: 26K voters did register to vote after the October 9 “cutoff” for the 2012 Presidential election. Until the 2016 election rolls around, these voters could presumably show up in a future election, since there is a sizable group (currently about 240K) of people who only participate in presidential elections.

Furthermore, not all elections are the same. Presidential contests typically bring out more voters than statewide elections, and statewide elections typically generate more voter interest than special elections/tax elections. So how should campaigns address this reality?

A way to target voters

JMC Enterprises of Louisiana believes that voter behavior is fairly predictable, and that predictability drives voter targeting. Towards that end, a “voter score” between 0 and 100 is assigned to each voter by measuring his/her election participation against other voters, and depending on the election, you only select voters within a certain “scoring range” (i.e., between 50 and 100).

To illustrate, we chose three elections: the 2012 Presidential election, the 2012 Democratic presidential primary (President Obama was essentially unopposed), and the 2011 governor’s race. Below are the voter scores of an average participant:

2012 GOP Presidential primary: 84

2011 Governor’s race: 76

2012 Presidential election: 61

Since voter score is a measure of a person’s likelihood to vote, it makes sense that a low turnout race like the 2012 primary (12% turnout) would draw a higher scoring voter than the (68% turnout) Presidential election, and that the 2011 governor’s race (with 37% voter turnout) would be in the middle.

Conclusion

In practical terms, this means that political campaigns can use voter score to focus only on likely voters, which will save them time and money from not having to pursue voters uninterested in participating in that election.

Historically, Louisiana was a solidly Democratic state, and Republicans weren’t really a factor in elections until recently. What initiated this change in political preference? It was a series of external events: (1) the turmoil of the 1960s and President Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which gave Republicans in Louisiana some initial legitimacy, (2) the development in the late 1970s of the “open primary” which, in the words of John Maginnis, “brought the Republicans into the main arena of state politics”, since at that time, the Louisiana Democratic Party “was like the air – you weren’t really aware of it, but you sure weren’t going to try breathing anything else”, (3) the presidency of Ronald Reagan, which pretty much ended the “Democratic Solid South” in Presidential contests, (4) the first term of Bill Clinton, which brought about political realignment in terms of Republicans’ winning  Congressional and legislative contests outside of East Baton Rouge, Orleans, Caddo, and Jefferson Parishes, (5) the disruptive effects of Hurricane Katrina throughout the state, (6) term limits’ opening up competitive legislative seats starting with the 2007 state elections, and (7) the BP oil spill/drilling moratorium in 2010, which soured many ancestral Democrats on their party.

Given this historical context, let’s look at the breakdown of Louisiana’s voters by age brackets:

65 and older: These are essentially the “pre Baby Boomers”, and their political views were shaped both by the existence of the “Democratic Solid South” and of the Longs’ populism.  This voter bloc makes up 19% of the statewide voter registration, and has the following characteristics (note that this age range is the whitest and the most Democratic by party registration):

46 to 64 years old: This group came of age at a time Louisiana’s economy was booming, although these were also the first voters to begin experimenting with voting for and registering as Republicans – something clearly apparent when you notice the small plurality Republicans have among white voters in this age range.  This voter bloc makes up 34% of the statewide voter registration, is currently the largest voter bloc, and has the following characteristics: 

30 to 45 years old: This group is essentially the “Reagan generation”, although you also have voters who came of political age in the Clinton years, when it became acceptable to vote Republican in down ballot races. Republicans have their biggest voter registration advantage with this group among white voters. This voter bloc makes up 27% of the statewide voter registration, and has the following characteristics:

18 to 29 years old: This group came of age during the George W Bush and Obama presidencies. Nationally, this is a liberal voting bloc; in Louisiana, there is a decided Republican preference by voter registration, but this preference isn’t as one sided as the “Reagan/Clinton” generation was. In fact, “Independent” (No Party, Libertarian, Green, etc) voter registration is now a substantial minority of voters in this age range, so in a sense, voter registration among this group reflects current political preferences. And while there are very few white Democrats by voter registration, this is ethnically a more diverse voter bloc than previous generations. Not only are close to 40% of voters in this age range black, but the Asian/Hispanic percentage is above 5% (in Jefferson, Sabine, and Terrebonne Parishes, the Asian/Hispanic percentage is above 10%). This voter bloc makes up 20% of the statewide voter registration, and has the following characteristics (it’s also worth noting that Republicans have made no gains in black voter registration in this age group):

Conclusion:

• Examining voter registration by age group shows that white Democrats are steadily losing members, and they essentially have no “replacements” among younger voters;
• While Republican registration is more popular among those under 65 years old, that does not equate to eternal Republican dominance for the following reasons: (1) More and more voters are choosing to register with one of the minor parties, or not affiliate with either of the “Big Two” parties, (2) blacks are becoming more substantial of a voter bloc when looking at younger voters, and (3) Asians/Hispanics are establishing a foothold as well. Reasons (2) and (3), if looking at current political preferences, suggests that Democratic “replacements” will be found among black (and maybe Hispanic and Asian) voters.

• Increased GOP voter registration
• A continuous decline in the number of white Democrats
• A black majority among registered Democrats
• A GOP plurality among white voters

 Since that August 2012 analysis, the Presidential election was held last fall. Have the trends noted above continued since last summer? Here’s what we found:

Increased GOP voter registration

Republican voter registration continues to increase. Since the last analysis, GOP voter registration has increased by 16,160, which means that percentage of voters who are registered Republican has increased from 27.4 to 27.7%. The number of those not in the Democratic or Republican Party (for simplicity’s sake, we’ll refer to them as “Independents”) increased by 10,919, which in percentage terms means that their influence has increased from 24.1 to 24.3%. These gains have come at the expense of Democratic voter registration, which in absolute numbers declined by 261 and in percentage terms declined from 48.5 to 48%.

Decline in white Democrats

We have noted above that since August 2012, the number of registered Democrats has (in absolute terms) actually declined by 261 voters, while at the same time, 26,818 additional voters added to Louisiana’s voter rolls. If you dig deeper, you will realize that the continuous decline in the number of white Democrats has continued. To put this decline in perspective, in January 2001, there were 951,230 white Democrats, and this demographic at the time made up 35% of the Louisiana electorate. A decade later (in January 2011), the number of white Democrats declined 27% (or 255,346), and their proportionate influence plummeted from 35% to 25% of the electorate.

We had noted in our previous analysis that only 23% (or 659,132) of the Louisiana electorate consisted of white Democrats as of August 2012. Seven months later, since the last analysis, there has been a loss of 20,224 (or 3%) in the number of white Democrats. This decline means that white Democrats, who last summer made up 23% of the Louisiana electorate, are now only 22% of Louisiana’s voters. And as the number of white Democrats continues to decline, they are not being reinforced with “replacements”: the average age of a white Democrat is 57 years old (a Republican is, on average, 47 years old, while an Independent is 40 years old).

A black majority Democratic Party

There is another story to tell with regards to the demographic mix of Louisiana’s voters: the number of white Democrats continues to decline as the number of Republicans and blacks increase. This means that black voters are wielding an increasing influence within the Democratic Party specifically and with the statewide electorate in general. Since last August, black voters have accounted for 72% of new voter registrations, and their electoral influence has increased from 30.6% to 31%. Furthermore, 97% of black voters who have registered since the last analysis have registered Democratic.

Given the near unanimous preference that blacks typically have for the Democratic Party (combined with the exodus of white Democrats), the racial breakdown of those who have registered Democratic has changed. In January 2001, the racial breakdown of registered Democrats was 58-40% white. Last summer, blacks had a 50-47% majority of registered Democrats. The March 2013 voter registration figures show that blacks now have a 52-46% majority of those registered as Democrats.

One subject that has not been studied (but should) is the party preference of blacks on the voter rolls in Louisiana. While the Republican Party has made advances in recent years, this is one demographic where Republicans have lost strength:  in 2001, black voters were 83-3.5% Democratic/Republican (another 14% were Independent). Today, the party breakdown is 80-2.5% Democratic/Republican (17% Independent). In absolute numbers, this means that the number of black registered voters has increased 14% over the past 12 years, while the number of black Republicans has decreased 17%.

A Republican plurality among white voters

While Republicans in Louisiana have made substantial gains in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, they are also being helped by a larger voter base, and a plurality of white voters are now registered Republican. To illustrate how rapid their rise has been, when President Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, Democrats had a 40-37% registration plurality among white voters. Today, Republicans have a 40-34% voter registration plurality among white registered voters.

Growth in Hispanic/Asian voters

Historically, Louisiana (like the Deep South) was a “binary” state with regards to its racial mix: nearly everyone was either white or black. In recent years, the faster growing Southern states have seen an explosion in their Hispanic/Asian populations. While Louisiana has not seen much of this growth, the number of voters who are not black or white has nevertheless increased noticeably (50%) over the last decade, to the point that 5% of Louisiana voters are either Hispanic or Asian. Furthermore, this growth in Hispanic/Asian voters has not been evenly distributed across the state: only eight parishes have an Asian/Hispanic voter base over 5%, and in Orleans/Jefferson Parish, Asian/Hispanic voter registration is approaching 10%. Since this demographic tends to be concentrated in several areas (Kenner/Gretna in Jefferson Parish, and parts of New Orleans East), it’s conceivable that they could influence some local races (or even elect one of their own to office).

So how are Hispanics/Asians registering to vote from a partisan perspective? Thus far, those demographic groups are showing no strong partisan leanings: 30% are registered Democratic, 23% are registered Republican, and 47% Independent – numbers that have not changed much in the past few years, although there has been a slight uptick in the percent who are registered Republican.

Conclusion

Assuming that current trends continue, the Louisiana electorate will increasingly be divided into two camps: black Democrats and white Republicans, with a growing bloc of Asian/Hispanic voters. As long as the vote is polarized along racial lines (which generally is the case in all but Orleans and East Baton Rouge Parishes), that will produce a Republican dominance, although politics is rarely a static event: new coalitions are always being formed and/or dissolved as time goes on.

Since 2000, the state has steadily moved towards the Republicans, to the point that Mitt Romney carried the state with over 60% of the vote – President Obama did not carry a single county. To further illustrate the unpopularity of the Obama administration here, a convicted felon got more than 40% of the vote in the Democratic Presidential primary last year.

This political movement has only recently begun to show up in Congressional races. And with the retirement of 30 year Democratic incumbent senator “Jay” Rockefeller, there promises to be a competitive race here, both in the primary and in the general election.

On the Republican side, Congresswoman Shelley Capito (daughter of a popular former governor) is running. There have been some grumblings from conservatives about her voting record, however. JMC Analytics and Polling recently polled this race, and found that while Rep. Capito starts off with a substantial amount of goodwill from primary voters, when aspects of her voting record are brought up to poll respondents, primary voters are interested in someone else being the GOP nominee (Results of that poll are here). This promises to be one of several competitive Congressional contests in 2014 that will determine the balance of power in the Senate.

Shreveport was an area of the state that for years voted Republican both in “top of the ballot” contests and in legislative races. In recent years, a combination of slow population growth, an increase in black voter registration in Caddo Parish, and white out migration to neighboring Bossier Parish has moderated the politics of the area somewhat. Furthermore, this has been one region of the state that, since her initial election in 1996, has consistently given Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu an above average (for a Democrat) vote.

So while the area as a whole votes Republican, the combination of the black vote and some remaining populist Democratic sentiment among the rural white voters in this part of the state makes this a politically competitive area. To use an example, this area (which is in the 4th Congressional district) has had close races that were settled by less than 600 votes the last two times (in 1988 and in 2008) that the Congressional seat was open.

(Note: the color coding for all maps is the percent of the vote the Republican Presidential nominee received in each election. Also, the “black lines” are the current state House districts)

2004 Presidential Race – Shreveport

2008 Presidential Race – Shreveport

2012 Presidential Race – Shreveport

With the predominance of the oil industry, Lafayette would seem to be one of those cities that would automatically support Republicans. While this is true at the Presidential level, Democrats were able to win here locally for years. Recently, however, the Democrats’ positions on issues related to the oil industry and social issues (this is a predominately Catholic, pro-life constituency) has cost them valuable support in the area, and Republicans have become more successful locally – in fact, it was GOP special election victories in the area that contributed to the GOP takeover of both houses of the Louisiana legislature. This change in basic voter attitudes accelerated after the BP oil spill: in elections since then, Democrats have lost support in Lafayette and other coastal parishes that are dependent on the oil and gas industry.

(Note: the color coding for all maps is the percent of the vote the Republican Presidential nominee received in each election. Also, the “black lines” are the current state House districts)

2004 Presidential Race – Lafayette

2008 Presidential Race – Lafayette

2012 Presidential Race – Lafayette

The New Orleans area was one of the first parts of the state (other than Baton Rouge) to vote Republican in statewide and legislative races. Lately, the area has become politically marginal. Despite the popular belief that Hurricane Katrina initiated an exodus of faithful Democratic voters, the reality is somewhat different. Republican/Republican leaning areas like the Lakeview subdivision and Saint Bernard Parish suffered massive population losses. Furthermore, a portion of the black voting demographic that resided in Orleans Parish resettled in Jefferson Parish – generally in the Westbank, but there have been some demographic changes in Metairie and Kenner as well. Finally, you have the emergence of two voting blocs that were not as pervalent before Hurricane Katrina: (1) liberal minded professionals who moved to New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina, and in the process refurbished houses that were damaged by the storm, and (2) an influx of Hispanics who were attracted by the economic opportuities apparent in the rebuilding effort – there are now Hispanic enclaves in Jefferson Parish, especially in Gretna and Kenner.

To illustrate the changing politics of the “core region”, President Obama increased his performance in Orleans Parish from 79 to 80%, while in Jefferson Parish, the Romney percentage slipped from 63 to 58%, and it plunged 10 points (from 71 to 61%) in Saint Bernard Parish.

(Note: the color coding for all maps is the percent of the vote the Republican Presidential nominee received in each election. Also, the “black lines” are the current state House districts)

2004 Presidential Race – New Orleans

2008 Presidential Race – New Orleans

2012 Presidential Race – New Orleans