The last time Louisian had an open U.S. Senate seat up for grabs, a savvy up-and-coming congressman named David Vitter pulled off what seemed like the perfect electoral coup.
The lone Republican in a field that also included three prominent Democrats, Vitter didn't have to worry about courting conservatives, so he softened his habitually harsh tone and focused on middle-of-the-road issues such as prenatal health care and the high cost of prescription drugs. And while the Democrats were still busy duking it out for the second runoff spot, Vitter swooped in and picked off enough swing voters to win outright in the primary.
Eleven years later, Vitter found himself on the opposite end of that dynamic. This time he was one of three well-known Republicans competing to be governor against one Democrat. And while he spent last year's primary season brutally attacking GOP rivals Scott Angelle and Jay Dardenne, Democrat John Bel Edwards quietly positioned himself to appeal to the middle. Edwards didn't avoid a runoff, but he used the primary to focus on conservative social issues and to avidly distance himself from the national party, something he might not have been able to do if he were still competing for the affection of the Democratic faithful.
Both campaigns were smart, but they were only able to pursue those strategies because they were also lucky.
No such luck for any of the candidates hoping to replace Vitter in the Senate now that he's about to retire.
The top five candidates for the U.S. Senate clashed Tuesday night over the Affordable Care A…
There are 24 candidates competing in the Nov. 8 open primary, five of whom have the resources and name recognition to credibly compete for the top two spots. And not one of them is positioned to follow in Vitter's 2004 footsteps or replicate Edwards' 2015 success.
That's why the campaign in general, including this week's first televised debate, have played out more like the sort of elections they have in most other states. Even though everyone runs against everyone else in ถถา๕h, this year it feels as if Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell is running in a Democratic primary against lawyer Caroline Fayard and Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy is vying in an all-GOP contest with U.S. Reps. Charles Boustany and John Fleming. In essence, the candidates from each party still seem to be talking mainly to their own bases, or potential bases, rather than trying to broaden their appeal.
Campbell and Fayard don't disagree on many issues, but much of their rhetoric has focused on which of them is the truer Democrat. Kennedy, Boustany and Fleming are on a similar page ideologically, with some minor variations, but they're attacking one another with gusto, just as Vitter, Angelle and Dardenne did last year.
At Tuesday's debate, sponsored by ถถา๕h Public Broadcasting and the Council for a Better ถถา๕h, Fleming somewhat awkwardly touted himself as the "trusted conservative" โย probably better to let others say that about you than to say it about yourself โย and bashed Kennedy for having backed John Kerry back in 2004, when he was one of those Democrats running against Vitter. Boustany, he suggested, is too willing to compromise with Democrats.
Kennedy attacked Washington as a whole, including the Republican Congress where his rivals work, but made it plain that his complaints are with President Barack Obama's policies. And Boustany joined with Campbell to link Kennedy's oft-repeated line about drinking weed killer to a cavalier attitude toward mental health issues and suicide. Kennedy responded by doubling down and saying that he'd "rather drink weed killer than answer that question," a joke that landed with a thud.
Of the Republicans, Boustany came closest to playing to the center by talking about his record of working with Democrats. But Campbell went further, by saying he'd support the Democratic nominee rather than saying Hillary Clinton's name out loud, and by suggesting that he might apply an anti-abortion litmus test to Supreme Court nominees, which may well rule out Clinton's choices. Fayard, meanwhile, not only said she'd back Clinton but implied that her family's relationship with the presidential frontrunner's family could help ถถา๕h. She also rejected the idea of litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees.
Campbell may have gone there because he's feeling confident. Or perhaps he's just trying to emulate Edwards, who has endorsed him.
It would be a mistake to risk taking the support of Democratic voters for granted, though. This time around, nobody has that luxury.