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?