John Bel Edwards and Syrian Refugees

[ericson00]

The Democratic Party ended the drought in red state America. John Bel Edwards defeated Republican David Vitter decisively, even after the reintroduction of terrorism, historically a GOP strength, occurred in the wake of the Paris Islamic terrorist attacks. How did Bel Edwards manage to stave off a late come back from Vitter over Syrian refugees?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edwards managed to successfully avoid being “othered” over this. During the Cold War, while liberal, moderate, and conservative Dems agreed on a lot of economic policy, the moderate and conservative Dems (and many liberal ones) were markedly tougher relating to Soviet Communism. This seems to be the case with Radical Islam, today’s equivalent in many ways. Also, some blue-state Dems also took a less progressive stance on refugees (Kathleen Rice, Steve Israel, and many others) Had Edwards not done so, Vitter may have come back. Remember, Louisiana is a state that has voted Republican 4 out of the last 6 elections: Bill Clinton won twice there (Perot actually hurt Clinton there in 1992, in 1996 Clinton won 52-39) but Gore and Kerry lost bad there, tho Obama lost worse.

Even for Vitter's whore problems, he did win 2010 in a landslide.

National Democrats and other purple/red state Dems could take a lesson from this.

[ericson00]

1. what's ya'll's take?

n/t

[UTUSN]

2. Yip, "a less progressive stance" on refugees and other issues rules in Southern Red states.

I don't know anything about him except that he had the guts to be a Dem running against the diaper boy and with a tough campaign ad pointing out the moral decadence, hooray!1

However, here on DU the "less progressive stance" (a phrase in the O.P. link naming *other* Dems) he will likely be less than popular, the way LANDRIEU and Blue Dogs were. Repeating, I don't know anything about him, but in another thread there was a cited article labeling him as "a social Conservative."

I think the point is that in the Red South, Dems have to be "Conservative Democrats" or Blue Dogs or whatever they're called. There's a tiny point that elected officials, in theory, are supposed to represent their general constituents. (Tell that to me who has been without Dem representation since 1996.)

If this turns out to be the case (that he is a Blue Dog or whatever), a point in his favor for DU purposes is that he won't face the frequent voting issues and media exposure the way he would have to do if he were in a congressional slot.