Sen. David “Diaperman” Vitter (R-LA) has lost today’s runoff gubernatorial election in Louisiana. Vitter was defeated by Democratic state Rep. John Bel Edwards (LA-72), who has led in all recent polling for the race.
Vitter is infamous for a 2007 sex scandal when his phone number was among those found in the “D.C. Madam’s” phone book. Vitter responded to the scandal by offering an apology with his wife, Wendy, by his side, in what might be the most awkward political moment in history. And he refused to resign.
The moniker “Diaperman” is from reports that the Senator enjoyed diaper play with at least one prostitute.
Despite the scandal, Vitter was reelected to his U.S. Senate seat in 2010. This year he ran for Governor.
Vitter’s opponent, John Bel Edwards, made effective use of Vitter’s prostitution scandal.
This race has a number of implications. First, it means that the Democrats have won back a Governor’s seat. Bobby Jindal (R) has been the Governor since 2008, but must step down on account of term limits. Jindal ran for the G.O.P. presidential nomination for 2016, but dropped out this past week.
The second big implication has to do with Vitter’s Senate seat. Vitter can run for reelection to the U.S. Senate. But tonight Vitter announced he will not run for reelection. Furthermore, he said he will fulfill the last year of his Senate term.
The implications for this are huge. If Vitter resigned now, Jindal would be able to appoint a replacement who would, effectively, be an incumbent for 2016. But Vitter and Jindal hate each other, so Vitter will not give Jindal the opportunity to pick a successor. The result is that the U.S. Senate 3rd class seat for Louisiana will be an open race in 2016.
In my recent analysis of the Senate race, Democrats would most likely win 49 seats if the election was held now. That analysis assumed that (1) Vitter would lose the gubernatorial race, (2) Vitter would run as the incumbent for his seat, and (3) he would win with 100% certainty.
Now we know that will not happen. Instead there will be an open seat in Louisiana for 2016. It is too early to tell who the candidates will be. Both sides have potential strong candidates, but none have declared yet. We do know that the strongest candidates on each side, Bobby Jindal (R) and Mary Landrieu (D), have declined to run. Maybe they will reconsider.
I usually stay away from predictions, but I’ll offer a conditional prediction here. If the Democrats manage to reach at least 50 seats in 2016, it will be because Louisiana elected a Democrat to the Senate.
This is but one reason that it’s way too early to make predictions on the Senate races. Yes if the Republicans win they will most likely keep a majority in the US House and Senate. Anyone betting in Vegas right now should bet on this outcome. There are many possibilities such as the Green Party actually winning a few seats in the House or Senate. Ok not likely but it’s a possibility that probably isn’t part of your analysis. Such an outcome doesn’t hurt the Democrats, but may not help them as it would highlight one of the divisions in the party.
So for the fun of it I’m predicting the Greens will win 5 house seats, and one Senate seat and their Presidential candidate will get 15% the vote.
Senator Charlie Crist,
(R)(D)(I) –FLLAMark Adams @ 1,
“This is but one reason that it’s way too early to make predictions on the Senate races.”
Yes. Which is why I rarely make predictions. All of my poll analyses only provide a “current score”, not an election day prediction. (I am unambiguously clear on that point.)
“There are many possibilities such as the Green Party actually winning a few seats in the House or Senate. Ok not likely but it’s a possibility that probably isn’t part of your analysis.”
This is largely irrelevant. First, I don’t do analyses of House seats. But for the Senate, an Independent or 3rd party candidate, will caucus with either the Democrats or Republicans. In most years, it is clear early on who the 3rd party (or independent) candidate will caucus with. If not, I’d deal with it. For example, the 3-way Senate race in Maine in 2012 that Angus King (I) won, would be an example where one includes the 3rd party in a way that is pretty trivial. So far this cycle we have none of these types of races developing in the Senate or gubernatorial races.
“So for the fun of it I’m predicting the Greens will win 5 house seats, and one Senate seat and their Presidential candidate will get 15% the vote.”
Okay…for the fun of it, I will break my “no predictions” guidelines again just for you. I’m predicting that Greens will have zero house seats and zero Senate seats.
Be sure to bookmark this thread so you can gloat if either of your predictions beat my predictions.
@2 You ARE a dreamer, aren’t you? Gotta give you marks for creativity.
When the sun rises on 2017, neither Jindal nor Vitter will occupy a public office. Let’s hope this is their last hurrah.
@3 ” I’m predicting that Greens will have zero house seats and zero Senate seats.”
Geez, I wish I could find stocks that are such a sure thing. Even one.
Money will easily solve that problem.
[Duplicate post deleted]
Despite all the postmortems I’m hearing, I think the reason Bel Edwards won is because he has a fire in his belly and he’s not afraid to get down in the mud with these Republican m.f.s. Voters like that.
@3 I assure you I will not gloat if a Green actually gets elected. I will look at it as a good thing that has happened. I do think it can happen, and yes generally 3rd party candidates grip the coattails of a major party to have a chance of being a viable candidate. We do have a bunch of Tea Party guys who are ostensible Republican’s giving their leadership a lot of headaches. They are frankly a party in disguise. This tea party wave may be on its last legs, but is likely to make one or more Republican races tough to call.
With the Tea Party success I’m just suggesting that the American voter may be more willing to vote for a 3rd party candidate. If money is the whole story then it’s not at all likely any will be elected, but shoe leather can make a big difference in a house race and in a small state the Senate.
I’m pretty sure your polling shows that the open Senate seat here will be won by whatever Democrat runs. This sort of complacency sets up surprises. The Republicans do have a few good folks in it, one could be right here. A little excitement and the Republican debates are providing some of that, and a charismatic candidate could overturn the assumption. Personally I have no problem voting for a decent third party candidate or even a Republican I perceive as the better choice.
It’s politics and it’s a full contact sport and taking things for granted leads to unpleasant surprises. Polls have good and bad effects. Do polls set up a candidate for victory by saying they are ahead, by creating a sense of momentum? Or is it all because of the candidate and their tactics? If so both Trump and Carson hurray should be done and they both should be back on their book tours burnishing their brands.
Well, here’s an optimistic spin from Xavier Bacerra’s communications director:
Sarah Lovenheim
@lovenheim
The Republican hold on the South is collapsing: Democrat Defeats David Vitter http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11.....siana.html …
Will Bunch’s tweet (Goldy’s Twitter sidebar) is closer to the truth.
@11 The Louisiana governor’s race was a one-off. Even Republican voters, apparently, have their limits. Although until this weekend, that was news to most of us.
Well well, lookee here! The Donald is reneging on his pledge not to run an independent campaign if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination.
“Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump would not rule out making a run for president as an independent despite signing a pledge over the summer saying he would support the eventual GOP nominee instead of running a third-party bid.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics.....d=35335721
This, of course, will completely change the complexion of the 2016 election if he follows through on this threat. He might siphon off enough Republican votes for Hillary to win all 50 states.