A "firefight into a footnote." Why Mary Landrieu's Racially Tinged Runoff Strategy Won't Save Her

Sen. Landrieu appears with Hillary Clinton at a recent rally in Louisiana. Photo courtesy of Gerald Herbert/A.P. The quoted portion of the title of this article is courtesy of a recent Sean Sullivan and Karen Tumulty piece for the Washington Post.

Sen. Mary Landrieu's campaign is flailing. Her ominous performance in the 2014 midterm, and her panicked (some would even call desperate) attempts at turning out black voters for the runoff this Saturday provide clear evidence of the perilous position she's in.

Just one month ago, Landrieu racked up her worst performance in her state's jungle primary since initially running for the seat in 1996. She captured just 42% of the vote, compared to her two main Republican primary opponent's combined 55%. Then, recently, came even more daunting news of her predicament - she was down in early voting in the runoff, as was African American turnout. As added insult, the DSCC has apparently chosen to stay out of the race all together.

To boot, of the five runoff surveys released since the November 4th jungle primary, Landrieu has trailed by no less than eleven points, and by as much as twenty-one points. That's near-irreversibly awful, especially for a three-term incumbent.

So it's no surprise Landrieu's latest campaign tactics have turned from merely aggressive, to potentially inciteful. Look no further than comments she made at a campaign rally just Tuesday, as reported by the Washington Post's Sean Sullivan, in which she claimed her Republican runoff opponent had been "disrespectful" to the Democratic President.

The inference she is making is clear. She was addressing a largely black audience, and was echoing comments originally directed at African-Americans in an ad by Democratic Congressman, Cedrick Richmond, who is also African-American.

When pressed further for an explanation of her comments, Landrieu explained:

"[Cassidy] refers to [Obama] by his last name. Constantly."

She added: "If you are going to refer to the president of the United States, he's at least earned the title that the people gave him when they elected him."

For what it's worth, Landrieu has had her own brushes with Presidential disrespect, according to the always objective Daily Kos.

But I digress. While Landrieu's campaign tactics as of late may seem off-putting, there's a definite purpose behind the attacks. The Democrat, if she has any chance of pulling off a miracle in Louisiana, is in dire need of historical black turnout, well beyond what was seen in the 2014 primary - or any recent statewide Louisiana race, for that matter. Why? Because in the 2014 primary, blacks comprised 65% of Sen. Landrieu's vote total, vs. just 2% of Bill Cassidy's.

In the 2014 primary, 29% of the primary electorate consisted of African American voters, according to the Louisiana Secretary of State's office. Yet Landrieu still finished well below the 50% threshold she would need to avoid the runoff. Such a feat would have required black turnout to approach the 40% level. Unfortunately for Landrieu, polls just aren't finding that - in fact, they're finding nothing near what she will need in terms of black turnout to survive.

New Democratic Louisiana Senate Poll Finds A Tied Race, But With Strong Likelihood of Republican Gains

A recent television ad paid for by by 'Friends of Mary Landrieu' shows citizens of a rural Louisiana town watching Landrieu TV appearances in which she takes it to the Obama Administration on a number of issues. Separating herself from an unpopular president is a must if she hopes to hang on to her seat.

Of the premier 2014 midterm contests, the Louisiana Senate race is *the* most likely to flip into Republican hands, at least according to current Huffington Post Pollster averages. That's why the  new Public Policy Polling survey allowed the Landrieu campaign to breathe at least a slight sigh of relief, especially considering the recent spate of run-off polling. An incumbent who is tied with their opponent at 47% wouldn't typically be received as welcome news for most political campaigns, unless six of the eight polls taken this year found that opponent ahead.

But as far as Democrats are concerned, the good news stops there. Because a closer inspection of the PPP memo and crosstabs suggests little room for improvement for the incumbent:

The likely Landrieu/Cassidy match up for the December runoff is tied at 47. Among those who support Maness or Hollis or are undecided for the November election, 68% move to Cassidy for December compared to only 11% who move toward Landrieu. Even though only 6% of voters are undecided in that match up, they don't set up great for Landrieu- 61% voted for Romney to 20% who voted for Obama, and she has a 14/65 approval rating.

It's July, and if you buy the PPP numbers, a mere 6% of likely voters are undecided. So no matter where they end up, the Louisiana Senate race is bound to be at least remotely close.

As Nate Silver has argued before, at least at the presidential level, there comes a point in the election cycle where job approval ratings become a leading indicator of final result. So let's divvy up that tiny 6% slice of the electorate to the Louisiana Senate candidates, with 14% going to Mary Landrieu (her approval rating among undecided voters), and 65% going to Republican Bill Cassidy (her disapproval rating among undecideds).

Suddenly, the GOP challenger jumps out to a 51-48% lead, which goes to show that despite undecided voters being few and far between, Landrieu is unpopular enough with them to make a difference. The same thing happens when you reallocate undecideds according to how they voted in the 2012 election (61% for Romney, 20% for Obama). What was a 47-47 tie again becomes a 51-48% Cassidy lead.

Despite Some Screwy Crosstabs, NYT Polling Finds Unpopular Obama Hasn't Sunk Senate Democrats Yet

Photos courtesy of Corbis Images.

A spate of brand new surveys put out by the New York Times and conducted by the Kaiser Foundation finds once incredibly vulnerable Democratic incumbent Senators hanging on, and in some cases, leading their Republican opponents in four states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012:

• Arkansas, which Obama lost in 2012 61-37%
• Kentucky, which Obama lost in 2012 61-38%
• North Carolina, which Obama lost in 2012 50-48%, and
• Louisiana, which Obama lost in 2012 58-41%.

The Democratic resilience found by the Kaiser Foundation seems all the more miraculous considering how deeply unpopular the president is in all four states. His most positive rating is 41/51%, found in North Carolina, with his most negative rating coming from Kentucky, where just 32% of registered voters approve of the job Obama is doing, and 60% disapprove. Yet still, in those states, both incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, and Democratic challenger Allison Lundergen Grimes, are exceeding expectations considering the unpopularity of their party boss. Hagan's net job approval rating is 10 points higher than the President's, and she actually leads both of her likely primary opponents by 2. Grimes, who is saddled by a President with a 60% disapproval rating, only trails McConnell 44-43%.

The same applies in Arksansas and Louisiana. In the former, Obama is stained by a 33/60% job approval rating, a full THIRTY-SIX net points LOWER than Democratic incumbent Senator Mark Pryor's 47/38% job rating. Not only that, but Pryor leads Cotton (R) 46-36%. In Louisiana, the President's net job rating is SIXTEEN points lower than Democratic incumbent Mary Landrieu's.

All in all - this is some much-needed decent news for Democrats. But a word of caution regarding the results...

Buoyed By 2008-like Racial & Partisan I.D. Survey Findings, Sen. Mary Landrieu's Still Locked In A Tight Battle

Cassidy and Landrieu are locked in a tight battle, though it's Phil Robertson who appears to be the strongest candidate to take on the Democratic incumbent, at least according to PPP. His lead grows to nearly double digits if PPP had found racial and partisan identification along the same lines as 2010, and not 2008.

Three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D) is no stranger to tough races. In 1995, before being elected to the Senate, she finished third in her state's jungle primary for the governorship, shutting her out of the eventual run-off election. The next year, her attempt to leap into federal office nearly failed, when she defeated former Democrat-turned-Republican Woody Jenkins for the U.S. Senate seat by an exceedingly narrow 50.2 - 49.8% margin (under controversial circumstances), making it the most competitive of thirty-three Senate races held nation-wide that day.

For reelection in 2002, she narrowly escaped defeat by a 51.7 - 48.3% margin, even as Republicans, bolstered by intense focus on foreign policy in the wake of the September 11th attacks, racked up wins across the country. Only three Senate races were more competitive that cycle.

Barack Obama's election in 2008 brought with it a Democratic wave that saw their numbers swell in the Senate by eight, and by 21 in the House. Needless to say, it was Landrieu's best performance for her seat to date. She won by a reasonably decisive, though far from overwhelming 52.1 - 45.7%, making it the sixth most competitive Senate battle of the cycle.

Unfortunately for Senator Landrieu, it doesn't appear as if this cycle will be any different from the last three. And most of the polling to date has indicated it could be her toughest yet. Furthermore, the chart below, compiled from Huffington Post Pollster and RCP, indicates things may be trending Cassidy's way:

But what's more? Three of the five pollsters to dive into the field in Louisiana have found an interesting trend. At least in terms of racial/ethnic and partisan identification, PPP, Rasmussen, and Harper are finding an electorate more akin to the 2008 presidential election, when Landrieu won by her most impressive margin to date, than in 2010, when David Vitter (R) easily dispensed of his Democratic opponent by 20 points.

Unfortunately, there were no exit polls in Louisiana in 2012. But in 2008, as the historical candidacy of Barack Obama brought out a particularly racially diverse electorate nationwide, nearly 1/3 (29%) of Louisiana's electorate identified as African American, virtually identical to recent PPP (28%), Rasmussen (29%), and Harper Polling (29%) findings. White voters made up 65% of the 2008 electorate, again, nearly the same as found by PPP (66%), Rasmussen (66%), and Harper Polling (64%).

A Peculiar Disconnect Between PPP's Early State & National 2016 Polling

Hillary Clinton could join her husband and Jimmy Carter as the only Democrats to carry Georgia since 1960, if early PPP polling is any indiciation. About the photo: Bill Clinton dines with Jimmy Carter in a bar in Atlanta in August 1992. Courtesy of AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

In what had to be considered excellent news for Democrats across the country last week, another PPP 2016 survey in loyally Republican Georgia shows Hillary Clinton amazingly competitive in what has typically been unfriendly territory for Democrats, and Hillary Clinton personally.

Democrats haven't won in Georgia at a presidential level since Bill Clinton's narrow half-point victory in 1992. Before that, it was native son Jimmy Carter in 1980. As for Hillary, though she's never faced the Georgia general electorate, her own party wasn't very kind to her on the only occasion she's ever had to run on their statewide ballot (losing to Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary by 35 points).

But that could all change in 2016 if Public Policy Polling's state surveys are on the mark. For the second time this year, Hillary Clinton essentially TIES or LEADS all of her likely Republican competitors in the largest state of the Deep South:

Those would be very impressive numbers for any Democrat, especially considering Barack Obama lost the state by 8 and 5 points in 2012 and 2008, while John Kerry and Al Gore lost the state by 17 and 12 points in 2004 and 2000.

But the Georgia numbers caught the eye of at least one pollster for another reason - how exactly could Hillary Clinton be performing so well in Georgia, while finding herself in a tie with most of her GOP opponents in a NATIONAL survey from the same polling company just two weeks prior?

Consider this: in each of the last four presidential elections (2000-2012), the state of Georgia has voted about a net 12 points more for the Republican over the Democrat than the nation as a whole. For example, while Barack Obama carried the national popular vote by a margin of 4 points in 2012, Mitt Romney won Georgia by 8 points.

Obama dispensed of McCain nationwide by 7 points in 2008, while McCain still managed to carry Georgia by 5.

Moderate voters skew HEAVILY Democratic in PPP's 2016 polling

Map of 2012/2008 election results among MODERATE voters only. Exit polling was only conducted in 32 states in 2012. In the 18 states where there was no survey, 2008 exit poll results were used. Red = Republican, Blue = Democrat, Green = TIE

I consider myself to be pretty moderate on a number of policy issues, mostly social: abortion, immigration, gay marriage, the death penalty, separation of church and state. But if I were asked by an exit pollster my "ideology" on a scale of very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal, I'd probably put myself in the somewhat conservative side of things. My views on taxation and the role of government in the economy shove me to the right. But there's a significant portion of the country that identifies their political ideology as "moderate" (41% to be exact). Who are these so-called "moderate voters" that typically make up the plurality of the presidential electorate, and how do they vote? Even more importantly, how will they vote in 2016?

If early Public Policy Polling surveys on 2016 are any indicator, Republicans will be STOMPED by Democrats among "moderates." In fact, the GOP is poised to win the LEAST amount of so-called "moderate voters" ever (or at least since exit polling began in 1976), especially if Hillary Clinton is their nominee. The chart below documents the moderate vote for Hillary Clinton vs. any GOP opponent in every national or state 2016 poll conducted by PPP over the last month. Unfortunately, the very few polling firms besides PPP that have already started surveying the 2016 race did not provide crosstabs for ideological breakdown. So the focus will be on PPP's results:

If you operate under the assumption that Conservatives vote Republican, Liberals vote Democrat, and Moderates split their vote, you'd be wrong, according to PPP...dead wrong. Hillary Clinton leads Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, and Scott Walker among moderates in every state & nat'l poll over the last month, by MASSIVE margins. In fact, the best that any Republican is able to do against Hillary among moderates is Paul Ryan's 57-32% deficit in the state of Pennsylvania. But even then, Hillary leads by 25 points. The WORST any Republican does with moderates is Marco Rubio in Michigan AND his home-state of Florida. Hillary leads him with moderate voters in both states, 65-16% and 71-23% respectively. That's border-line embarrassing for Rubio. To make it worse, Hillary has averaged a 63-25% lead over Republicans with moderates in PPP polling over the last month.

HILLARYLAND: Early In 2016 Race, PPP Finds A Nearly Invincible Hillary Clinton

In 2008, Barack Obama carried 365 electoral college votes against John McCain, roughly on par with the 379 electoral college votes Bill Clinton carried against Bob Dole in 1996, and 1 of the largest electoral college victories since George H. W. Bush trounced Michael Dukakis in 1988, 426-111.

But according to Public Policy Polling (D), when voters are given Hillary Clinton as a hypothetical presidential choice for 2016, she would win in a landslide at least larger than Obama's in 2008 and her husband's in 1996, and at most, would rival FDR, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan for 1 of the largest landslides in history.

A string of recent 2016 polling from the prolific Democratic pollster indicates that Hillary Clinton would be, by far, the Democrat's strongest candidate in a generation. In states as traditionally conservative as Alaska, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Georgia, Hillary would tie OR defeat every single one of her potential Republican rivals. This fact is far more astounding when you consider that Barack Obama lost all five of these deep-red states in both 2008 and 2012, by no less than 8 points (in Georgia), and no more than 23 points (in Kentucky). Furthermore, Kentucky & Louisiana have not voted Democratic since 1996, Georgia since 1992, Texas since 1976, and Alaska since 1964.  

But just for fun, let's assume Hillary Clinton wins every state Obama won in 2012 (for a total of 332 electoral college votes), as well as the five additional deep-red states PPP finds Hillary performing well in:

That puts Hillary's ECV total at 389, to 149 for her hypothetical Republican opponent (the lowest ECV total for a Republican since Barry Goldwater in 1964!). But really, if PPP is correct regarding their red-state, 2016 polling, what are the odds that Hillary Clinton would win AK, TX, KY, LA, & GA, but lose other less Republican states, such as North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, or Arizona? Quite slim. The below map takes a look at how many states Hillary Clinton could win in the event she wins every state Obama lost in 2012 by 14 points or less (the margin by which Obama lost Alaska, one of the five red states where PPP finds Hillary Clinton defeating her likely Republican opponents):