Parallels? Vitter 2015 and Trump 2016

[Dr. Arch]

Vitter had quite a history behind him that was dissonant with the perceived character of the GOP, which played a huge part in his defeat in the 2015 LA Governor race.

Although Trump has a somewhat different history and much more abrasive political character, could he similarly reproduce a Vitter effect with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents at a national level?

[RI]

lol Edwards is twice the politician Clinton is.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

John Bel Edwards and Donald Trump are my two favorite current politicians. I can totally buy them both running to unseat the scandal-plagued career vet!

[Matty]

LOL at you comparing Hillary to JBE.

[Dr. Arch]

LOL at you comparing Hillary to JBE.

The comparison was more about Vitter and Trump, but okay. Modified the title to reflect it.

[Virginiá]

Arch has a point here. Like JBE or not, Vitter's scandal(s) and subsequent desperate screwups cost him the race, not JBE's overwhelmingly favorability and charm.

There is an interest parallel here, but I would argue that Trump was never going to win even if he hadn't made a few gaffes. His entire life is one giant gaffe. There is no way for him to not offend people / screw up a political campaign. Those unique abilities are as much a part of him as his tiny genitals. Contrast to Vitter, who would have won Jindal not screwed up so badly, and had the Madame scandal never come up/existed, nor the P.I. incident, either. Hell, I may be missing even more, but the principals I believe are those two.

[Vosem]

There's a fantastic parallel here, with Vitter like Trump getting a sufficient plurality of Republicans to win but being such a poor fit for the supporters of his opponents that large numbers of them switched to Edwards/Clinton. It's a very good parallel.

Some have pointed out here that Hillary Clinton is no John Bel Edwards. This is of course true, but Donald Trump is also no David Vitter.

[libertpaulian]

Arch has a point here. Like JBE or not, Vitter's scandal(s) and subsequent desperate screwups cost him the race, not JBE's overwhelmingly favorability and charm.

There is an interest parallel here, but I would argue that Trump was never going to win even if he hadn't made a few gaffes. His entire life is one giant gaffe. There is no way for him to not offend people / screw up a political campaign. Those unique abilities are as much a part of him as his tiny genitals. Contrast to Vitter, who would have won Jindal not screwed up so badly, and had the Madame scandal never come up/existed, nor the P.I. incident, either. Hell, I may be missing even more, but the principals I believe are those two.

No, JBE won because the 2015 election was a referendum on Jindal.  Vitter's personal flaws certainly didn't help matters, but they weren't the primary cause in JBE's victory.

[Virginiá]

Arch has a point here. Like JBE or not, Vitter's scandal(s) and subsequent desperate screwups cost him the race, not JBE's overwhelmingly favorability and charm.

There is an interest parallel here, but I would argue that Trump was never going to win even if he hadn't made a few gaffes. His entire life is one giant gaffe. There is no way for him to not offend people / screw up a political campaign. Those unique abilities are as much a part of him as his tiny genitals. Contrast to Vitter, who would have won Jindal not screwed up so badly, and had the Madame scandal never come up/existed, nor the P.I. incident, either. Hell, I may be missing even more, but the principals I believe are those two.

No, JBE won because the 2015 election was a referendum on Jindal.  Vitter's personal flaws certainly didn't help matters, but they weren't the primary cause in JBE's victory.

I mentioned that. It's in the quote (though stupid me forgot to include the word 'had' before 'Jindal', but meaning should be clear). Jindal's tenure essentially kneecapped Vitter, and Vitter's constant screw ups and scandals made it impossible to make up lost ground.

My point was, it could have easily been another sensible Democrat. JBE did not win this on his own strengths.

[Xing]

Another point that I'd make is that even if Trump isn't as damaged as Vitter, and even if JBE is a better politician than Hillary, this election isn't only taking place in a deeply Republican state...

[Dr. Arch]

Another point that I'd make is that even if Trump isn't as damaged as Vitter, and even if JBE is a better politician than Hillary, this election isn't only taking place in a deeply Republican state...

True. My original intent was to set the parallel in contrast with Republican voters nationwide, which, if the effect would take place, it would exponentially lead to Trump's downfall. Made a small edit to the OP to clarify this. This is a good discussion.

[White Trash]

Arch has a point here. Like JBE or not, Vitter's scandal(s) and subsequent desperate screwups cost him the race, not JBE's overwhelmingly favorability and charm.

There is an interest parallel here, but I would argue that Trump was never going to win even if he hadn't made a few gaffes. His entire life is one giant gaffe. There is no way for him to not offend people / screw up a political campaign. Those unique abilities are as much a part of him as his tiny genitals. Contrast to Vitter, who would have won Jindal not screwed up so badly, and had the Madame scandal never come up/existed, nor the P.I. incident, either. Hell, I may be missing even more, but the principals I believe are those two.

No, JBE won because the 2015 election was a referendum on Jindal.  Vitter's personal flaws certainly didn't help matters, but they weren't the primary cause in JBE's victory.

I mentioned that. It's in the quote (though stupid me forgot to include the word 'had' before 'Jindal', but meaning should be clear). Jindal's tenure essentially kneecapped Vitter, and Vitter's constant screw ups and scandals made it impossible to make up lost ground.

My point was, it could have easily been another sensible Democrat. JBE did not win this on his own strengths.

You see, I think that's where you are wrong. I can tell you that many Louisianans were very hesitant about voting for a Democratic. You look at polls from before JBE was nominated, the Republicans still had a modest lead despite Piyush being a near-complete failure. It was common knowledge at that time that the Democrats had a very weak filled. Hell, they considered running Mary Landrieu for god's sake!

JBE won 56-43. Now that may sound like a pretty standard win, but if you look at the places that JBE was able to take, these were heavily Republican and heavily conservative areas. Had Landrieu or Deaton been nominated, they would've stayed that way. You're right that Vitter's and Piyush's issue were what cost the election for the Republicans. But when you look at how the actual election went down, JBE far outperformed the polls and projections and did better than any other Democrat possibly could.

The point is that it really couldn't have been any other Democrat. The Democratic bench in Louisiana has been weak for years. Especially in gubernatorial elections. Jindal won every county in 2011 and all but 4 in 2007! The failures of Jindal, and the personal vices of Vitter did not set this election in stone for the Democrats, the nomination of an actually decent politician by the Democrats did.

[libertpaulian]

Another point that I'd make is that even if Trump isn't as damaged as Vitter, and even if JBE is a better politician than Hillary, this election isn't only taking place in a deeply Republican state...

But Louisiana certainly has the demographics ripe for a Democrat to be easily elected: poor people, large black population, blue-collar workers, etc.

[Xing]

Another point that I'd make is that even if Trump isn't as damaged as Vitter, and even if JBE is a better politician than Hillary, this election isn't only taking place in a deeply Republican state...

But Louisiana certainly has the demographics ripe for a Democrat to be easily elected: poor people, large black population, blue-collar workers, etc.

The same could be said for a lot of Southern states. The problem for Democrats is that the high number of black voters still isn't enough to offset the enormous margins Republicans get among Southern white voters.

[Virginiá]

The point is that it really couldn't have been any other Democrat. The Democratic bench in Louisiana has been weak for years. Especially in gubernatorial elections. Jindal won every county in 2011 and all but 4 in 2007! The failures of Jindal, and the personal vices of Vitter did not set this election in stone for the Democrats, the nomination of an actually decent politician by the Democrats did.

Fair enough - I may be underwriting JBE too much. Given that you're a resident politico of LA, I'll take you're word for it . However, I still stand by my assertion that had 2015 been a more neutral year, JBE would not have won.

[Mister Mets]

One parallel is the New York gubernatorial race in 2010.

Republicans nominated an angry businessman over an establishment favorite in a race against a Democrat from a famous political family with an impressive resume.

[White Trash]

The point is that it really couldn't have been any other Democrat. The Democratic bench in Louisiana has been weak for years. Especially in gubernatorial elections. Jindal won every county in 2011 and all but 4 in 2007! The failures of Jindal, and the personal vices of Vitter did not set this election in stone for the Democrats, the nomination of an actually decent politician by the Democrats did.

Fair enough - I may be underwriting JBE too much. Given that you're a resident politico of LA, I'll take you're word for it . However, I still stand by my assertion that had 2015 been a more neutral year, JBE would not have won.

I think you're right about that. 2015 was the make or break year for the Democrats.

[Young Conservative]

Is this a joke? Trump is a much better person than Vitter and John Bel Edwards a much better person than Hillary!

[Dr. Arch]

Is this a joke? Trump is a much better person than Vitter and John Bel Edwards a much better person than Hillary!

No, it's not a joke. It's a valid observation as many above have pointed out. Trump is a horrible character. Come back to me when you find evidence of Vitter openly inciting violence.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Is this a joke? Trump is a much better person than Vitter

What? Vitter's chief flaw was his diaper fetish, while Trump chief flaw is... well, it's hard to decide, there are so many choices.

[ElectionsGuy]

Haha no. If Trump was David Vitter, he'd be losing in national polls by 20+ points.

[libertpaulian]

Is this a joke? Trump is a much better person than Vitter and John Bel Edwards a much better person than Hillary!

No, it's not a joke. It's a valid observation as many above have pointed out. Trump is a horrible character. Come back to me when you find evidence of Vitter openly inciting violence.

Trump wasn't out calling to limit the rights of gay people because the Bible says they're icky, like Vitter was doing, while engaging in sexual sins himself.  Trump owns his sins while not trying to act like he's less of a sinner than others.

[Kingpoleon]

See, Edwards didn't have a 55%+ unfavorability rating.