Can Landrieu be satisfied with her result?

[solarstorm]

Since she kind of "overperformed" tonight.
I wonder what her margin would have been, if the DNC had payed for her 1 million dollar ad.

[publicunofficial]

After tonight, Landrieu falls into the Begich/Hagan category of "Did the best they could have possibly done"

[Miles]

I never really bought into the Blanching that many pundits were making of this race, but it was a respectable showing for her.

[moderatevoter]

Miles said she'd get 44% of the vote.


$$$$$$$

[Vosem]

No, because she could've kept single digits, and the status angryGreatness mentioned, had the Keystone pipeline passed. Also she thought, throughout the campaign, she would win on Election Night, so no.

[PPT Spiral]

Considering Landrieu believed she would win outright the first round, I doubt she's happy either way.

[Adam Griffin]

Also she thought, throughout the campaign, she would win on Election Night, so no.

Every candidate says that, and has to say that. You never see a candidate get up there and say, "Yep, we're going to lose" or "I'm in it to lose it!". It doesn't mean that she believed what she was saying; she's an incumbent U.S. Senator with a plethora of campaign infrastructure and as such, I'm sure he understood very much how the overall result was going to look for weeks - if not months.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Also she thought, throughout the campaign, she would win on Election Night, so no.

Every candidate says that, and has to say that. You never see a candidate get up there and say, "Yep, we're going to lose" or "I'm in it to lose it!". It doesn't mean that she believed what she was saying; she's an incumbent U.S. Senator with a plethora of campaign infrastructure and as such, I'm sure he understood very much how the overall result was going to look for weeks - if not months.

But she not only said that, she spent as if it were true. She truly believed it herself, even though her chances of avoiding a runoff were <1% even during last spring when 2014 still looked like a neutral year. Landrieu failed to save substantial sums of her personal campaign money for the runoff, she and the democrats instead milked it on Nov. 4th. They should have spent only minimal amounts on GOTV/ground game for Nov. 4 and reserved that funding for the runoff, instead Landrieu and national democrats refused to believe polls and spent fortunes on worthless Nov.4 GOTV.

[Nichlemn]

I don't think you're ever really satisfied with anything but a win as an incumbent. If she had kept it really close, she'd more likely leave Washington bitter that she could have won "if only" she had been given more support.

[Adam Griffin]

Also she thought, throughout the campaign, she would win on Election Night, so no.

Every candidate says that, and has to say that. You never see a candidate get up there and say, "Yep, we're going to lose" or "I'm in it to lose it!". It doesn't mean that she believed what she was saying; she's an incumbent U.S. Senator with a plethora of campaign infrastructure and as such, I'm sure he understood very much how the overall result was going to look for weeks - if not months.

But she not only said that, she spent as if it were true. She truly believed it herself, even though her chances of avoiding a runoff were <1% even during last spring when 2014 still looked like a neutral year. Landrieu failed to save substantial sums of her personal campaign money for the runoff, she and the democrats instead milked it on Nov. 4th. They should have spent only minimal amounts on GOTV/ground game for Nov. 4 and reserved that funding for the runoff, instead Landrieu and national democrats refused to believe polls and spent fortunes on worthless Nov.4 GOTV.

They probably believed they had a small chance to win a majority on November 4th given her past examples of overperforming (certainly a better shot than winning the run-off), but that was all dashed as soon as they saw the national trend on Election Night. Your example doesn't necessarily disprove anything; if you think you are going to lose ultimately in a run-off, then you might as well spend the money upfront to activate more voters in both the hopes that you can turn out enough people for the general and in preparation for a run-off while they are paying attention to all of the other elections occurring. How many average folk really care about elections or are listening post-November? Not many.

For campaigns like these, mobilizing voters in the regular midterm means that each of those voters will have a much better chance of turning back out in the run-off than they would if they did not vote in the jungle at all; it's along the same lines as campaigns wanting as many people as possible to contribute $1-5 (not because it adds up to anything, but because they become "invested" and are practically guaranteed to turn out to vote). Their burn rate was ridiculous, yes, but so were a lot of Senate campaigns' actions - combined with the DSCC/DCCC - this cycle.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

After tonight, Landrieu falls into the Begich/Hagan category of "Did the best they could have possibly done"

(Hi,  longtime lurker, but new poster here)

She only lost by single digits? Yes, she did do better than expected given the polls, but still not as well as she could've.

[Vega]

When you don't have the money on your side, you're bound to loose (generally). I think she came to that realization.

[Keystone Phil]

Can we all remember for a minute that the GOP pulled out of the race, too? And Cassidy literally stopped campaigning.

I was never of the belief that Landrieu would get under 40%. I guess in comparison to what some polls were showing, this is "impressive" but let's put another silly Atlas Forum Bubble Mentality myth to bed: this wasn't some great result for Landrieu.

[Person Man]

This was probably the most probable result. There's still minorities, smart people and a rebuilding biggish city in Louisiana, but Texas also has all those things and more and STILL the democrats don't have enough votes there to put a neo-liberal, big-oil, pro-life, pro-DOMA Democrat over the line in a D+6 year! I would be surprised if a Democrat couldn't keep a Republican here under 60% but 43-45% is an impressive showing for any Democrat (whether thoroughly progressive or neo-liberal, big-oil, pro-life or AOTA) and that will be the ceiling there for years, if not decades to come. This is because Southern and "Southernized" whites are the black people for Republicans...though I would say "Southernized" whites are more of Hispanics for Republicans because there are still some moderate Pope Francis-esque Evangelicals out there...and even a couple of liberal ones here and there.

Democrats have a base of ethnic voters and voters with alternative lifestyles and Republicans do too! (I'm using explanation points because I have read the postings of too many creepy socons) I think that's what this 2014 election reminded us of even though there weren't enough of them in 2012, 2008 or even in 2010 to finish the job.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Again, Louisiana is about 30% black; this gives Democratic candidates a very high floor. Land-roo also has a substantial personal vote in and around Nawlins. Results in Cajun country where absolutely devastating. There aren't many silver lings to be found.

Having said that, and despite my longstanding dislike of the Land-roo clan, it isn't as though this awful result is really her fault (even if elements of her campaign were beyond embarrassment). Electorally at least, Louisiana has turned into a fairly normal part of the Deep South.

[KCDem]

Can we all remember for a minute that the GOP pulled out of the race, too? And Cassidy literally stopped campaigning.

I was never of the belief that Landrieu would get under 40%. I guess in comparison to what some polls were showing, this is "impressive" but let's put another silly Atlas Forum Bubble Mentality myth to bed: this wasn't some great result for Landrieu.

Not the outside groups.

[Maxwell]

Come on guys, be serious. Nobody is satisfied with "Oh wow I thought I was going to lose by 20, but I only lost by 12, pop a bottle!". Louisiana seems to have a high floor for Dems, considering Obama got 41% or so in 2012.

[Free Bird]

No, because she could've kept single digits, and the status angryGreatness mentioned, had the Keystone pipeline passed. Also she thought, throughout the campaign, she would win on Election Night, so no.

[Boston Bread]

I wonder if Edwards was satisfied with a 20+ loss in LA-06. Did he even expect to lose upon announcing his run?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wonder if Edwards was satisfied with a 20+ loss in LA-06. Did he even expect to lose upon announcing his run?

He's a very old man, so who knows. But the district is drawn to be safely Republican.

[Miles]

I wonder if Edwards was satisfied with a 20+ loss in LA-06. Did he even expect to lose upon announcing his run?

He didn't expect to win. He just likes campaigning.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's actually quite sweet.

[Lief 🗽]

Have you folks seen his reality TV show? He really does seem like a wonderful man. Shame about the idiots in his congressional district.

[KCDem]

Have you folks seen his reality TV show? He really does seem like a wonderful man. Shame about the idiots in his congressional district.

Louisiana seems to be full of idiots. It's the South, so not that surprising.

[Miles]

Louisiana seems to be full of idiots. It's the South, so not that surprising.