Here is the actual electoral map, one Lamar generated on my behalf, not the disingenuous paint by misleading numbers project that mistakes a plurality for a majority posted on Jay Dardenne’s dysfunctional website. Notice how Jindal failed to win 29 parishes outright, and notice how large swaths of the state rejected him and his candidacy. Parishes colored red are parishes he won outright, while parishes colored blue are parishes whose voters rebuffed Jindal and cast their votes for someone else. Those dissenting votes are significant, as Jindal’s name recognition was near universal. Ceci n’est pas un mandat; ceci est un portrait d’un État divisé.
Consult the returns for each parish at the Secrectary of State’s website if you desire to view the data on which this map is based.
CenLamar 
I have read this somewhere before: do you know why it is that so counties (parishes) that border significant waterways vote Democratic?
Can you speak to this phenomenon in Louisiana?
The media are already claiming a “landslide” and mandate.
“Jindal carries 60 parishes in landslide win”
http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/10709521.html
They fail to tell you that by “carry” they mean has the most votes, not over 50% of the votes. Being the only Republican, and the fact he has by far the most money and has been running for Governor for eight years, it is little surprise! He should have gotten 75%!
Is he going to return his “measly” $165,000 Congressman’s salary? He has been AWOL on that job for quite a while.
Actually, I think the map is better characterized by an suburban vs. rural and urban divide.
Jindal nails the vote in the heavily suburban parishes (Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Tammany, Ascension, and Livingston), and seems to struggle outside of that area.
His strength in the Baton Rouge Metro owes to him being a native there. Peculiar that Lafayette (which had no dog in the fight this year) rejected him. Perhaps his saccharine faux-catholicism doesn’t.
Also, I cannot stop speculation that Mr. Mitch Landrieu would have made this into a genuine race. He barely campaigned in/around Baton Rouge, yet managed to score 2k more votes than Jindal on Saturday.
Are you all on crack? The map is terribly incorrect, go check each parish on the LA Sec. State web site. He may have not won every parish by 50%, but in most of the “blue” parishes he doubled his closest rival. The fact that there were so many candidate in the gov. election and he still won the overall election at 54% is impressive.
Bolivar,
You are exactly right. Suburban precincts generated the voters that helped Jindal win this election, while Orleans Parish and the rural parishes were seeking something else. I am sure you noticed how many of the parishes that rejected Jindal are also parishes that are traditional Democratic strongholds. If the base was activated this election, Jindal would have been forced into the runoff. But at least we know that the Democratic base was unwilling to succumb to Jindal.
PDiddie,
Yes, the most of the parishes that rejected Jindal do hug major waterways, particularly the Red, Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers. While I cannot explain this phenomenon, I can only say that in Louisiana we are Dem-EAUX-crats. Eaux, of course, is the plural of water in French.
Are you kidding,
Jindal had three opponents were all ran oppositional campaigns. To ignore the simple fact that the opposition was split between all the other candidates is disingenuous to say the least. Pluralities, to repeat, are not majorities, which is why this notion that he won sixty parishes is just false. One needs a majority to win, and jindal failed to win 29 parishes. I recommend you revisit the Secretary of State’s website.
Jindal won the election by over a 50 % margin. Quit winning you democrat cry babies. He won, you lost. You can paint any map you wish however it does not change the outcome.
If you guys had won by 50.1% I’m sure we would not see these maps. Get a life.
Larry,
No one is whining; I am simply directing everyone’s attention to the obvious.
“Landslide”, “mandate” or not, he won, and those of us who supported others may as well get on board and work to improve the state. The guy is certainly more well educated than any governor we’ve had in the past, and he isn’t a ULL guy, so maybe the flagship’ll get better treatment.
Mung,
I will certainly participate in the political process, and I will participate in the manner I view best for the state. I also believe other candidates’ personal and practical experiences rival the degree(s) Jindal and his supporters tout.
Because Jindal barely won this election, he will have to compromise and cooperate with those who do not support his agenda.
Mung, the state budgets are a matter of public record. Blanco’s administration is the one which decided LSU would *be* the flagship … and to *act* on it … !
De-funding public health and education, and promoting Intelligent Design “Theory” – Jindal priorities – are *not* ways to improve the state. Sorry.
Check this link to the NOLA web site showing that Jindal won 35 parishes by more than 50%.
Are you kidding,
My map illustrates that very fact. This is why this map is so apposite to the debate about Jindal’s putative mandate.
He failed to win 29 parishes, by the way.
The point needs to be made: Louisiana has a jungle primary. In 2003, Bobby Jindal also carried the jungle primary by a wide margin, but Kathleen Blanco edged out a victory in the run-off. While, in 2003, the State may have looked like a sea of red during the jungle (using the same analytical framework posited by Secretary Dardenne), it suddenly became blue only a month later. Despite the backward logic espoused by the Lousiana Republican Party — the logic that tells us it was the racism of North Louisiana Democrats that prevented Jindal a victory in 2003 — his defeat was more likely due to his inexperience and his age; he was only 32 years old and had built his career on appointments. At the time, Jindal did not have any experience running for office, yet he attempted to run for the most important public office in the State of Louisiana.
Blaming his defeat in 2003 on his ethnicity is reductionistic and dishonest. He lost because he lacked both the experience and the name recognition that comes with experience.
The map simply illustrates the results of the jungle primary, and it does not attempt to confuse voters by painting the entire state red. In the jungle, as PCD stated earlier, a plurality does not mean a majority, and when it breaks down into a run-off, Louisiana is usually (accurately) divided in shades of blue and red.
After the 2003 election, Jindal used his new-found election experience and parlayed it into two successful bids for US Congress, and with that, he achieved almost universal name recognition. Against a field of candidates who started with less than 11% name recognition (and considering Jindal seemed to be running for this election since his defeat in 2003), it is not surprising that Jindal captured a majority of the parishes in the jungle.
The truth, as reflected in voter registration numbers, is that Louisiana is a Democratic state with a dysfunctional Democratic Party apparatus. The Republican Party ran only one candidate in the governor’s race; the Democrats ran two, and when it was speculated that Georges could make it into the run-off, the party indicated that if he was successful, they would probably ask him to join as well. (And this was well after Boasso switched parties and ran as a Democrat, even though there was already a Democrat in the race). The strategy was flawed, particularly against a candidate as strong as Jindal. But let’s be honest: Jindal’s victory does not mean Louisiana is suddenly a Republican stronghold. Both the Senate and (likely) the House will remain under Democratic control, and no one from Dardenne’s office is printing maps illustrating that.
Indeed, no one from his office has published a map of Landrieu’s 48 parish victory, a victory in which he actually received more votes than Jindal. If they had published such a map, the State would be completely covered in blue.
The truth is that we are red and blue, and Jindal’s victory does not represent a mandate; it reflects how split our State truly is.
And remember this: Jindal may have received 54%, yet he still only received 25% of the registered vote.
““Landslide”, “mandate” or not, he won, and those of us who supported others may as well get on board and work to improve the state. The guy is certainly more well educated than any governor we’ve had in the past, and he isn’t a ULL guy, so maybe the flagship’ll get better treatment.”
Mung, Jindal was President of the University of Louisiana system. If you think our flagship school will get “better treatment,” I fear you may be mistaken.
Although I definitely agree that we should all work to improve the State, I don’t think it would be productive to climb aboard a platform that divests from health care and education. I’ll hold out for a policy change. I am optimistically (and ironically) crossing my fingers for the oil lobbyist now in charge of policy– Stephen Waguespack.
Jindal d’agent a gagné, le mandat ou pas. Le remettre de.
I usually don’t comment on left wing sites, but Mung’s comment does need to be addressed.
Are you saying that someone shouldn’t be elected Governor just because they went to UL-Lafayette?
And yes, Kathleen Blanco did graduate from ULL, but one of the first things she did in office was cut the University of Louisiana system budget.
Yes, the “flagship” should receive the most attention, but not everyone can attend LSU, or even wants to, which was my case, so working at also improve the University of Louisiana system isn’t as bad an idea as many LSU people think.
The real question wil be whether he can be effective. Our state has a history of one term “reform” governors, Roemer, Treen, Kennon and Jones, who had little success implementing their programs while battling the entrenched legislature. Perhaps term limits has changed that. We will see.
Sorry to have raised such a stink with my ULL comment. It seems pretty wasteful to have duplicative 4 year degree programs in every corner of the state, creating annual funding problems for the whole system. These schools need to specialize, and LSU would have to give up some programs too. But all the localities are working to expand their schools, making the problem even worse, when a funding crunch hits. Right now thanks to the Stelly plan the State is rolling in the dollars, but we will see lean times in the future.
As to intelligent design theory, that’ll get taught at La College, but no other school. You guys are going chicken little on me here.
Ceci est un mandat. Jindal libérera finalement les bons citoyens de Louisiane de la règle corrompue et oppressive démocratique.
Larry,
Since when has democracy been oppressive? Allow me to edit your French.
Ceci [n’]est [pas] un mandat. Jindal libérera finalement les bons citoyens le Louisiane du régime [règle refers to a principle or a law, not the rule of a leader – learn how to use a dictionary, please] corrumpu [nice to see you have absorbed Jindal’s talking points. Perhaps you should spend more time on your French] et oppressif [and how, exactly, have you been oppressed?] démocrate [Democratic is translated as démocrate in French if one is referring to the political party. Notice it is always in the feminine, as it is not a native French term. for you to use démocratique in this sentence reveals that you despise democracy, which may not be very surprising.]
and larry,
“de la Louisiane.”
merci!
Perdone a mi francés. Pointcoupee demócrat. I guess you get what you pay for on freetranslation.com.
All those years of French in Louisiana public schools down the drain. I have never seen or read any of Jindal’s talking points by the way. As for oppression how about paying high income taxes to a state ranking 11th in overall tax burden and 5th in proposed state budget increase from 2007 to 2008 in a state ranked near the bottom in every conceivable category across the board. Which party has been in control of the Louisiana state government for the past 100 years?
Larry,
From the ostensibly non-partisan Tax Foundation
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/457.html
Louisiana ranks 17th for state/local-tax burden, and 49th for federal-tax burden, and 44th overall for local/state/federal average.
And, yes, our state/local taxes have definitely stepped up immensely in the late nineties, and early 2000s. The Mike Foster years, as it were. And, they seem to have leveled off in the Blanco era. I’m not getting into a Dem vs. GOP debate right now. But I am curious as to where you’re getting your numbers.
With the money spent by the Republicans in Jindal’s two runs, they could have elected Imelda Marcos Governor of Louisiana! As poor as the old pachyderm is these days, the expenditures of this bloated race make it a pyrric victory. Was it the insatiable appetite of the Louisiana campaign that drove Martinez to resign or the resignation of so many Republican fixtures?
PCD,
You are an articulate and intellegent spokesman for Democratic interests. But you undermine your credibility here. Five out of six voters chose a gubernatorial candidate who was a Republican at least as recently as six months ago. The only real Democrat in the race came in fourth. At least five, and maybe six, of the statewide elected officials will be Republicans. The house will either be very narrowly Republican or very narrowly Democratic. The Senate will stay Democratic due to the arrival of several career politicians termed out of the House. All this in a year when the Republicans are imploding nationally. What you should do is do what you do when you lose–reflect on why you lost, re-group, re-state your principles and be a watchdog over the opposition that defeated you. But to try to pretend that you did not lose, and lose dramatically–that is beneath your ample intelligence!
anon,
because there is still an election, i will not engage in criticism of the Party I support. There will be plenty of time for that, but now is not the moment. Regarding the numbers you cite, 87% did not vote for Republican officials. And regarding the race I discuss in this essay, only 54% actually did. I also believe the Lt. Gov., a Democrat, earned more than Jindal, even though the Lt. Gov. barely campaigned. Candidates for other offices were weak. But Buddy Caldwell certainly performed quite well for a Democrat from the rural northeast.
Everything else you cite essentially proves my point: the state is evenly split. But regarding Reps. who are now in the Senate, most of those career politicians are Republicans, not Democrats. I think of Mike Walsworth, Danny Martiny, Steven Scalise, all of whom served in the House for many, many years.
Principles will be articulated, but for now I am focused on the runoffs. And there will be more on those this month.
when i refer to weak candidates, i refer to the last minute entries of in the sec. of state’s office and in the insurance commissioner race. caldwell is a strong candidate, and this explains why he was able to garner the most votes during the jungle primary.