As if John Ensign hadn't already made sure that David Vitter was having a bad week:
While he is not ready to make a public announcement, John Maginnis reports Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) has decided to run for the U.S. Senate. Sources say he "he has told national Democratic campaign officials" he will challenge Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in 2010.
Melancon would be, without question, the best candidate that Democrats and the DSCC could draw for this race.
- He has a lot of ties to state political and power players through his years as an executive in the insurance and sugar industries.
- He has formidable fundraising chops. He averaged over $2 million in his two serious House races in 2004 and 2006. Furthermore, because the GOP did not even bother to field an opponent for him in 2008, he is already sitting on a decent pile of cash: his cash-on-hand, according to his most recent FEC Report, is just under a million dollars.
- He has the demonstrated ability to draw votes from outside of his base (Bush carried the district by seventeen points in the year that Melancon was elected to the House).
So, what would cause Melancon to make the leap over to the other side of the Capitol?
The prime reason might be pragmatic politics. After all, there is a pretty good chance that his House career was going to be over soon, in any event.
Melancon's district (the 3rd Congressional District is based in Southeastern Louisiana) is very likely to be the one district that gets the axe when Louisiana, according to all projections, loses a House seat after the 2010 census. His district, along with the neighboring 2nd district in New Orleans, took the biggest post-Katrina dip in population. In all likelihood, they will be combined into one district.
The second reason is that a race against Vitter in 2010 is probably his best opportunity for advancement. Governor Bobby Jindal will almost certainly run for re-election in 2011 (possibly as a stepping stone to a 2012 Presidential bid), and he would seem to be a tougher out than David Vitter. Mary Landrieu is just 53 years of age, and thus is not a retirement prospect any time in the near future.
Vitter has some vulnerabilities, to be sure. This is not only about his sex scandal, though that certainly is the most fun. It also includes his rather awkward decision to place a hold on President Obama's FEMA nominee in May. While his reasons for doing so had some basis (he was less than pleased with FEMA's speed in answering some questions relating to hurricane recovery issues in Louisiana), he was criticized for holding up such an important leadership position right on the cusp of hurricane season. He lifted the hold after a couple of weeks, but did some political damage that had even some fellow GOPers looking to lure Suzanne Haik Terrell into the race (she declined after flirting with it for a day).
This might be an excellent time to note, as well, that David Vitter still clings with all his might to his leadership post, while fellow Senatorial sinners John Ensign and Larry Craig either elected to step down from their leadership positions, or step down from the Senate entirely.
Daily Kos and Research 2000 actually polled Louisiana back in March. We found that Vitter's approval numbers had indeed softened: 49/42, compared to the lesser-known Melancon sitting at 43/18. In the trial heat, Vitter had a slight lead over Melancon, but was underneath that all-important 50% threshold:
General Election Match-Ups: Louisiana Senator (3/4/09 release)
David Vitter (R) 48
Charlie Melancon (D) 41
Undecided 11
Assuming that Maginnis is right and Melancon follows through and jumps in against Vitter, this race, it is safe to say, will move into the top-tier of Senate contests in 2010.
UPDATE: Some local commentary in the comments by Daily Kingfish indicates, with some pretty sound logic, that the 3rd district may not be on the chopping block. To that end, another source points out the redistricting concern might have not been the ELIMINATION of the district, but rather a major redrawing of the district to the Democrats' detriment.