What if: Control of the Senate depends upon Louisiana run-off?

[IceSpear]

Unlike the pundit wet dreams of a 269-269 electoral vote tie which always has a <1% chance of actually happening, this scenario actually seems very plausible. Consider:

- At this point, the GOP will almost certainly take South Dakota (+1)
- They have modest but not insurmountable edges in West Virginia and Montana (+3)
- Have about a 50/50 shot of winning Arkansas (+4)
- Although Dems are the favorites in Alaska at the moment, it wouldn't be at all extraordinary for the Republicans to eventually pull ahead (+5)
- If they're doing well enough to pick up 5 seats, it's doubtful that they'll lose either of their vulnerable seats in Kentucky and Georgia (+5)
- In North Carolina, their weak field is starting to take its toll as Hagan extends her lead. The rest of their potential pickups are all long shots (+5)

That leaves Louisiana as the tie breaker in an otherwise 50-50 Senate. However, Mary Landrieu's challenger, Bill Cassidy, will almost certainly not be able to get to 50% even if he finishes ahead because LA has a jungle primary and there are a few gadflys running to his right.

That would leave control of the Senate to a runoff election. The entire country and both political establishments would be focused on this race. Although most people would write Landrieu off due to the state being Republican and Democrats not turning out as much in run-offs/off years, everyone did the same thing in 2002, when Landrieu unexpectedly won a run-off 52-48 buoyed by strong African American turnout. This despite the fact that Bush, with his at the time 70-80% approval rating, campaigned for and made ads for Landrieu's Republican opponent.

Although this would suck politically for me as a Democrat, it would be extremely exciting as a political junkie.

[NewYorkExpress]

Landrieu Loses. The reality is Louisiana despite Landrieu's success is ruby-red.

[IceSpear]

Landrieu Loses. The reality is Louisiana despite Landrieu's success is ruby-red.

Yes, but everyone said the same exact thing in 2002.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except this time, Landrieu would not be outspent 3-1 nor have a president with a 70% approval rating campaigning against her. I think that would neutralize the fact that Louisiana has moved to the right since 2002.

[Miles]

This is my worst-case scenario.

If Landrieu doesn't win outright on election night, she'll need at least one of Pryor or Begich to win, IMO, to avoid this situation.

[Miles]

Landrieu Loses. The reality is Louisiana despite Landrieu's success is ruby-red.

Yes, but everyone said the same exact thing in 2002.

Obama wasn't around in 2002

[IceSpear]

Landrieu Loses. The reality is Louisiana despite Landrieu's success is ruby-red.

Yes, but everyone said the same exact thing in 2002.

Obama wasn't around in 2002

True, but which is more of a liability? Having an incumbent president with a 35-40% approval rating (in LA) staying out of your race, or having an incumbent president with a 70-80% approval rating campaigning against you?

[Miles]

Landrieu Loses. The reality is Louisiana despite Landrieu's success is ruby-red.

Yes, but everyone said the same exact thing in 2002.

Obama wasn't around in 2002

True, but which is more of a liability? Having an incumbent president with a 35-40% approval rating (in LA) staying out of your race, or having an incumbent president with a 70-80% approval rating campaigning against you?

There are lots of Republicans and Independents here who are neutral on Landrieu but hate Obama.

[Vosem]

If Senate control will depend entirely upon Louisiana, then the race will be completely nationalized and Landrieu will lose. Period -- not only has Louisiana has moved right since 2002, but party allegiances have also solidified significantly since then. Obama's disapproval in Louisiana is built on much more solid ground than Bush's approval. If Senate control doesn't depend on the runoff (like it didn't depend in 2002), then Landrieu is certainly a canny politician and may be able to get a victory. But the scenario you described above is not one where she can keep office.

[RogueBeaver]

If Senate control will depend entirely upon Louisiana, then the race will be completely nationalized and Landrieu will lose. Period -- not only has Louisiana has moved right since 2002, but party allegiances have also solidified significantly since then. Obama's disapproval in Louisiana is built on much more solid ground than Bush's approval. If Senate control doesn't depend on the runoff (like it didn't depend in 2002), then Landrieu is certainly a canny politician and may be able to get a victory. But the scenario you described above is not one where she can keep office.

What you said.

[free my dawg]

If Senate control will depend entirely upon Louisiana, then the race will be completely nationalized and Landrieu will lose. Period -- not only has Louisiana has moved right since 2002, but party allegiances have also solidified significantly since then. Obama's disapproval in Louisiana is built on much more solid ground than Bush's approval. If Senate control doesn't depend on the runoff (like it didn't depend in 2002), then Landrieu is certainly a canny politician and may be able to get a victory. But the scenario you described above is not one where she can keep office.

[tmthforu94]

Considering how close her voting record has been to the Democratic leadership, Landrieu's only shot at winning this election to begin with is by localizing it, which so far, she has done well. If you go to a run-off with so much on the line, that will be completely thrown out the window - both sides will be sending their stars there to campaign, and you can betcha that millions will be spent.

This is a state that swung pretty heavy against Obama in 2008, and while his numbers there aren't as bad as I would have expected, they're not good. Cassidy would win.

If Republicans were feeling evil in Louisiana, they'd be smart to encourage a couple of Democrats to run in this race, particularly an African-American who may be able to peel some votes from Landrieu. Anything possible to keep her under 50%.

[Miles]

If Republicans were feeling evil in Louisiana, they'd be smart to encourage a couple of Democrats to run in this race, particularly an African-American who may be able to peel some votes from Landrieu. Anything possible to keep her under 50%.

Landrieu's dad helped to desegregate New Orleans. Blacks are extremely loyal to her.

[badgate]

Wait, so what would be the situation in the Senate? I mean, the runoff would take place before the 114th Congress begins, but if it didn't, who would control the Senate, Republicans?

[RogueBeaver]

Wait, so what would be the situation in the Senate? I mean, the runoff would take place before the 114th Congress begins, but if it didn't, who would control the Senate, Republicans?

Dems through Biden. The runoff is in early December, so a moot point if Cassidy wins, as he probably would in that scenario.

[windjammer]

She would probably lose.

[Vosem]

Wait, so what would be the situation in the Senate? I mean, the runoff would take place before the 114th Congress begins, but if it didn't, who would control the Senate, Republicans?

Dems through Biden. The runoff is in early December, so a moot point if Cassidy wins, as he probably would in that scenario.

No. If Democrats need Landrieu to maintain control of the Senate, then the Senate is split 50-49 to the Republicans without her (she is the 50th vote, and then Biden is the 51st). If this turns into a Minnesota 2008 type scenario, then as I understand it is the Republicans who will control the Senate in the interim -- assuming a majority of non-vacant Senate seats (50/99) is necessary. If it is a majority of all seats (51/100) necessary and the Senate is split 50-49 R in 2015...then I guess it goes to SCOTUS? No idea.

[minionofmidas]

Landrieu Loses. The reality is Louisiana despite Landrieu's success is ruby-red.

Yes, but everyone said the same exact thing in 2002.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except this time, Landrieu would not be outspent 3-1 nor have a president with a 70% approval rating campaigning against her. I think that would neutralize the fact that Louisiana has moved to the right since 2002.

She probably would have lost in 2002 if Senate control had still hung in the balance.

[Mr.Phips]

Runoffs in Louisiana should go back to being on Election Day with a preview jungle primary in October, the way it had been since the beginning of time until 2002.  There is no reason to have general elections after the national general Election Day. 

[Indy Texas]

If Republicans were feeling evil in Louisiana, they'd be smart to encourage a couple of Democrats to run in this race, particularly an African-American who may be able to peel some votes from Landrieu. Anything possible to keep her under 50%.

They used to do that back in the Lee Atwater days. The problem is that today the Democrats are the far more disciplined, orderly party that keeps their members and candidates in line and it's the Republicans who are vulnerable to meddling by activists and extremists. Will Rogers' quip that he "doesn't belong to an organized political group - I belong to the Democratic Party" is better suited to the Republicans these days.

I still think this is Mary's race to lose. The fact is that money talks, even more so in this day and age, and the oil companies and the lumber companies and everybody else have already invested a lot of money in her over the years. She has experience and seniority. She's been good to them. They'd be foolish to throw her over for an insubstantial Republican like Bill Cassidy.

[ElectionsGuy]

Bump for relevance.

If Clinton wins and the Democrats pick up NH, IL and WI, but the GOP holds all the other competitive seats, control of the Senate won't be called on election night because LA is basically guaranteed to go to a runoff. So let's just assume that Foster Campbell (D) chooses to replicate JBE's stategy and runs a very populist campaign. Polls taken before the jungle primary show that Campbell would get around 30% of the White vote in a two-way race race vs. John Kennedy (R). Does Kennedy win the runoff by nationalizing the race? Could Campbell win if Trump is elected president?

If Trump is elected president than Louisiana wouldn't matter under your scenario, since they would need 5 instead of 4. Even if it does depend on the runoff, the Republican should win the runoff easily. The state will likely vote for Trump by around 20 points, how does a Democrat win with that at the federal level. The bel Edwards strategy cannot be replicated at the national level with all the spotlight if it does come down to Louisiana.

[Kingpoleon]

I think the most likely scenario here is Democrats picking up Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Missouri, and Florida but losing Nevada.

From there, Campbell v. Kennedy would probably not receive as much funds as if Fayard or Cao makes it to the run off. The latter two are more mediagenic.

[Mr.Phips]

Then Senate control would depend on who wins the Louisiana runoff.

[/]

Yes, I suppose it is quite possible that Clinton wins the election with three Democratic pickups in the Senate and nobody reaches a majority in Louisiana. Interesting.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Don't underestimate the Louisiana Republicans' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.