Talk Elections

Exciting polling action: (http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/3/4/LA/262)

Primary:

David Vitter - 43
Jay Dardenne - 32
Stormy Daniels - 1

General:

David Vitter (R) - 48
Charlie Melancon (D) - 41

David Vitter (R) - 48
Don Cazayoux (D) - 39

Jay Dardenne (R) - 49
Charlie Melancon (D) - 40

Jay Dardenne (R) - 50
Don Cazayoux (D) - 38

Vitter's at 49/42 favorability, Dardenne at 48/22, Stormy Daniels at 7/6, Melancon at 43/18, and Cazayoux at 41/21.

Obama also has a net favorable of +3 (47-44).

Another epic fail for DailyKos not even being able to identify the Democratic Challenger most likely to get the nomination.  I mean, it takes, what, five seconds of Google searching?

Bernhardt, a CEO of a Fortune 500, is itching to drop millions against Vitter.  Considering Melancon isn't looking to run (unfortunately, we'd have a far better chance at this seat with a Cajun), this is what we get.

I mean, obviously he'd have low name ID, but you could substitute in some information (businessman, etc) to get a general idea.

I'd say Vitter is in a pretty good position.

49/42 favorabilities isn't really that good...

But it matters where them's coming from, and that's where the news improves.

Also, this poll missed that Focus on the Family guy thinking about challenging Vitter.

Well, Vitter is at almost a majority with plenty of room of improvement for the GOP and undecideds.

What about Cazayoux? It'd be the logical thing for him to do. Unless he's running for the House seat again, I suppose.

he's been utterly silent.

Maybe the stronger Democratic candidates will emerge if Vitter looks weak and doesn't look like he's going to be beaten in the primary.  But I'm skeptical.

One good thing for Democrats is that Vitter has become the most conservative Senator in the Senate (in an attempt to fight off primary challengers), making it possibly a little easier to capture the idealogical center of Louisiana.

While they were at it, they could have polled Obama vs. Jindal as well (probably Jindal+10) ...

Diapers wants to defund Planned Parenthood.

He is trying to be the #1 conservative Senator, especially socially conservative, to prevent himself from being primaried from the right.  He's really going above and beyond the call of duty IMO but I doubt anyone in Louisiana has noticed yet that he was one of the, what, two people, to reject Hillary's candidacy? 

He's tacked to the right a little bit, but he wasn't that far from "#1 Most Conservative Senator" to begin with.

Yeah but he didn't try and like out-conservative McConnell previously.  It's actually pretty silly.

I'd say it's significantly more silly than Gillibrand's tack to the left since Vitter's constituency hasn't changed.

Louisiana is the worst state in the Union if they re-elect diaper-Dave.

That's already the most likely scenario given the current track of things.

And Louisiana likes its politicians with a little gruff around the edges.

Louisiana hadn't a Republican senator since 1872 until it elected Diaper Dave in 2004, which heralded from yours truly an anguished cry. Is there nothing sacred for Democrats down in Dixie any more?

Diaper Dave has got to go - for sanctimonious hypocritical scumbagacy if nothing else

Dave

I just find it disturbing that so many Louisianians approve of a guy like Vitter.

Landrieu got hit by endless commercials calling her openly corrupt (and Obama tanked in that state) but no one cared.

Hell, if Dollar Bill Jefferson,  who had $90k in his freezer when the government knocked their way into his house, had his election on November instead of a special election when no one turned out, he would have easily been reelected.  As it was, he still almost won.

I wonder the same. But if 2008 is any indication, the Democratic wave is slowly but surely seeping its way into the South with the Senate wins of Mark Warner in Virginia and Kay Hagan in North Carolina. Democrats may well oust Richard Burr and completely control North Carolina in 2010. Throw in Jim Bunning in Kentucky and it's just a matter of time before we go into the Deep South. I think Democrats stand a better chance of winning a Senate seat in Georgia than South Carolina, though, if we're speaking of geography in terms of the direction that that wave is flowing :)

As for David Vitter, if he wins in 2010, I will officially certify the state of Louisiana as STUPID. Hell, they're already nuts down there for electing that scary neoconservative Bobby Jindal as their Governor. And what about this whole prostitution thing? Doesn't that go against "morality and family values" that the Republican Party allegedly stands for? :P I'd personally like to see Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu challenge Vitter. I think he'd be a strong candidate with name recognition and a colleague in the Senate whom I'm sure would campaign for him in a heartbeat :) I'd do that for my brother...

What we see more in 2008 is the bifurcartion of the South between those states that have seen huge in-migration from the northeast and midwest, and which have diverse economies, from the rest of the south.

I exclude Florida and Texas from any considerations here because they are so big and diverse to begin with. Given the rest of the South, you have Virginia and North Carolina on one hand, and to a lesser extent South Carolina and Georgia, vs. AL/MS/LA/AR/TN/KY. In the former states, we saw swings to Obama and Congressional Dems on Election Day based on the Obama coalition. In the other states, the white vote stayed put or shifted even more Republican, and Congressional wins came in spite of Obama's winning coalition or were denied.

This is a long way of saying that Kay Hagen offers no hope or model to Louisiana that I can see.

Besides, the "South" that is becoming part of the "Democratic wave" is the Atlantic seaboard, including South Carolina, not all of the South.  Clearly Landrieu was the only vulnerable incumbent Democrat and merely did ok while Obama did far worse than expected in every Southern state without a sizable black population.  Look at Missouri or even Arkansas.


I'm also not sure how well Landrireu would have done if her last name was something like Landon.  She probably still would have won, but there's a rule of Cajun voting that all else being equal you back the Cajun

Seems to be an ever-weakening rule, though...

true dat

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=22&year=2007&f=1&off=6

:\

Sammy Kershaw is from Vermillion parish (which, amusingly, he lost despite running well in Cajun country overall).

Kershaw is cajun.

I wouldn't really include Missouri as a Southern state; we are very Midwestern. And remember, Obama did better in Missouri than John Kerry did. Obama only lost the state by less than 4,000 votes due to a large turnout in the Republican strongholds of Greene County (Springfield - Roy Blunt's district) and St. Charles County (St. Louis exurbs) that offset his margins in the Democratic strongholds of St. Louis and Kansas City. He won Boone County (home of the University of Missouri-Columbia) and Jefferson County (St. Louis southern suburbs) that Kerry lost, and Obama even won two rural counties (Washington and Iron) in Southeast Missouri that Kerry was unable to do so I'd say Obama did pretty well in Missouri across all demographics.

As for Arkansas, it was the black sheep of the election. It was the state that swung the most Republican and I believe Arkansas has a larger African American population than Missouri. Obama did underperform in Arkansas, a very Democratic state, whether it was racism or disgruntled Hillary Clinton voters who crossed over and voted for McCain, I don't know. Arkansas is the most Democratic of any of the Southern states--both U.S. Senators, three out of its four House representatives, the governor and all statewide elected officials are Democrats, and Democrats control a supermajority status in both chambers of the Arkansas state legislature. Undoubtedly Hillary would have carried Arkansas so I'm sure the reason why Arkansas swung so Republican is because she wasn't the nominee. Call it a true, undying love for the Clintons in their home state or hidden, deep-seeded racism ..it's up to you.

Well, Missouri probably shouldn't be in the list because I feel it's trending Democratic at the state level but away from the Democrats at the national level.  The fact that Obama almost won is actually indicative of trend in the opposite direction because over Obama's dominating win nationally. 

I suspect that the 2007 election (which is what I think you're referring to) had more to do with guilt over electing a complete incompetent like Blanco because she was Cajun more than any voting shifts.

An incumbent polling under 50 is never good.