Since you're serving, I suppose. In the meantime, I'll happily point out the statistics of that election:
Louisiana Senate Runoff totals with New Orleans included:
Terrell - 596,642
Landrieu - 638,654
Orleans Parish results:
Terrell - 26,880
Landrieu - 105,780
Louisiana Senate Runoff totals minus New Orleans:
Terrell - 569,762
Landrieu - 532,874
So there you have it - exactly as I stated earlier. Without New Orleans and its heavy Democrat turnout, Terrell would have won.
Your whining about blacks not voting Republican in New Orleans proves you don't know jack bout Louisiana politics.
Much to the contrary, as the stats I just posted demonstrate. New Orleans voted Democrat in near unanimaty. Contrary to your assertions, the rest of the state voted Republican by a majority that was not large enough to offset the 80,000 vote automatic deficit that came out of New Orleans.
Not that I expect you to recognize any of those facts though...you've already decided that the south, despite being one of the most consistently Republican regions in the nation, voted for Landrieu when in fact her victory would not have happened at all except for the black Democrat parish of New Orleans.
Sugar in you coffee Mr. Free-Trader?
If you care to examine the statistics, you will see that it was not Landrieu's Orleans Parish vote that won it for her. Her plurality in 2002 was 80,000 votes in Orleans Parish. In 1996, her plurality in Orleans Parish was 100,000 votes. And in 1996, she won by only 5700. In 2002, she won by nearly 40,000. The fact is Jenkins did far better in the rest of the state than did Terrell. Landrieu did better this time in Acadiana among white democrats because of the sugar issue. And she did better in North Louisiana in the very conservative 5th District. New Orleans was overall a disappointment for Landrieu compared to 1996.
Blaming the loss on New Orleans is like a Democrat blaming the 2000 presidential election on the fact that Bush carried Indiana and Texas.