Would Vitter have won a run off in 2004, and how would him losing change things?

Looking at the 2008 Senate election in Georgia recently made me think about this race in Louisiana back in 2004. Louisiana is also one of those rare states that require a Senator win a majority of the vote to take office. In Georgia 2008, Chambliss got 49.8% in the general, forcing a run off about a month later. Since Obama was no longer on the ballot, the lower turnout of the special election favored the Republicans. There is also the fact that the Democrats won the Presidency and big numbers in Congress after the general, so may have been more complacent for the run off, while Republicans might be more motivated to get out and vote for the Senator out of anger at losing so much less than a month earlier to the opposition, and wanting to prove that they still matter.

David Vitter won 51.03% of the vote in the general in 2004, and avoided a run off. But a small shift of about 20,000 votes would drop Vitter below 50% and force a run off. So how would that election play out? My thinking is it would be a lot closer, and perhaps the Democrats would be the ones energized to get out the vote as a sort of big "F-you" to the Republicans who just won the Presidency and control of Congress again, while the Republicans might be more complacent.

If Chris John wins the run off, then what might seem like a minor symbolic victory for the Democrats at the time could have big ramifications later when they hold a thin super-majority between 2009-2010.

So how well do you think Vitter would do if he had to go to a run off in 2004, and how would him losing change things?
 
Unless Vitter gets caught with the prostitutes over, he's got it in the bag.

But he only won 51% of the vote in the jungle primary without any other Republicans in the race against a crowded field of Democrats and two Independents whose combined numbers were less than 1.5% of the vote. He wouldn't have Bush on the ticket for the run off to drive turnout, and the Democrats would be more energized to win that seat, compared to Republicans who would be more complacent. This race would be much closer than you seem to think.
 
But he only won 51% of the vote in the jungle primary without any other Republicans in the race against a crowded field of Democrats and two Independents whose combined numbers were less than 1.5% of the vote. He wouldn't have Bush on the ticket for the run off to drive turnout, and the Democrats would be more energized to win that seat, compared to Republicans who would be more complacent. This race would be much closer than you seem to think.
You yourself noted that lower turnout of the special election favored the Republicans. Democrats aren't going to turn up enough. Republicans tend to get more outraged when they lose, Democrats just get dispirited (look at the Democratic reaction to Obama's first debate, and the Republican reaction to the third debate).
 
You yourself noted that lower turnout of the special election favored the Republicans. Democrats aren't going to turn up enough. Republicans tend to get more outraged when they lose, Democrats just get dispirited (look at the Democratic reaction to Obama's first debate, and the Republican reaction to the third debate).

The case of 2008 has to do with Obama's coattails. The only reason it was so close in the general was because he increased turnout, without Obama on the ticket in the run off turnout favored the Republican. In 2004 it's the opposite. Vitter benefited from Bush's coattails, and even though he was the only Republican in the race he still only got 51% of the vote. Him winning a run off is not a sure thing. Plus Democrats have won special elections in places they shouldn't have when they are energized and Republicans are complacent. If turnout for special elections and midterms always favors Republicans then 2006 would never have happened.
 
The case of 2008 has to do with Obama's coattails. The only reason it was so close in the general was because he increased turnout, without Obama on the ticket in the run off turnout favored the Republican. In 2004 it's the opposite. Vitter benefited from Bush's coattails, and even though he was the only Republican in the race he still only got 51% of the vote. Him winning a run off is not a sure thing. Plus Democrats have won special elections in places they shouldn't have when they are energized and Republicans are complacent. If turnout for special elections and midterms always favors Republicans then 2006 would never have happened.
You're right about the coattails in both elections. However, why would Republicans get complacent? If 2006 was in a presidential year, it would've been bigger, is my point. Vitter was helped by Bush's coattails, but I'm estimating the drop-off in Democratic turnout would have equal or greater to the coattails.
 
You're right about the coattails in both elections. However, why would Republicans get complacent? If 2006 was in a presidential year, it would've been bigger, is my point. Vitter was helped by Bush's coattails, but I'm estimating the drop-off in Democratic turnout would have equal or greater to the coattails.

You're putting too much faith into the theory that Republicans always have the advantage in special and midterm elections. Look at the Ohio 2 special election of 2005. Sure the Republican won the race, but the margin went from a 72-28% victory in November 2004, to a 52-48% win in early August 2005. Katrina hadn't happened yet, so what caused such a huge drop off in support for the Republican in 9 months?

My theory is that the party out of power has more motivation for special elections and midterms than the party in power. 2002 was an aberration due to 9/11, and 1998 shows that even when it should favor them, Republicans don't necessarily do better at midterms.

I think a run off with Vitter would be a very close race and should not be so easily brushed off as a cakewalk as you assume.
 
You're putting too much faith into the theory that Republicans always have the advantage in special and midterm elections. Look at the Ohio 2 special election of 2005. Sure the Republican won the race, but the margin went from a 72-28% victory in November 2004, to a 52-48% win in early August 2005. Katrina hadn't happened yet, so what caused such a huge drop off in support for the Republican in 9 months?

My theory is that the party out of power has more motivation for special elections and midterms than the party in power. 2002 was an aberration due to 9/11, and 1998 shows that even when it should favor them, Republicans don't necessarily do better at midterms.

I think a run off with Vitter would be a very close race and should not be so easily brushed off as a cakewalk as you assume.

I agree, but run-off elections are shortly after the general election. Rove is still on guard. Bush is going to campaign for Vitter. By August 2005, Bush's approval was already tanking (Katrina helped nail that coffin together, but it wasn't essential).

Looking back, I haven't made myself entirely clear about the margin. I do think it would be a close race, but I still see Vitter winning.
 
Top