(Unwisely and unproductively obsessing about Nov. 2, cont.) Senate race–Louisiana

I’m making my weekly check of Senate race wagers over at tradesports, and I make an odd discovery–David Vitter (R)’s chances of taking Breaux’s seat have gone from 35 to 70% in the last week. I’m searching around for any news that might justify this huge leap in the GOP’s chances, but I’m not finding it.

Vitter has three Democratic opponents: a Breaux clone (John), a moderate democrat (Kennedy), and a third candidate with a primarily urban, minority base (Morell). Kennedy and John are polling around 20% each, Morell 5%, and Vitter 35%. LA has no primary–all these candidates will appear on the ballot. If no one gets an absolute majority, we’ll have a runoff election of the top two. Kennedy and John are both polling statistical ties with Vitter in a two man race. And Republican disunity was a factor in the 2002 election. Landrieu’s eventual opponent, Terrell, was heavily supported by Rove and Bush, which offended Louisiana’s popular GOP governor, who supported another candidate. The governor then withheld his endorsement for a few weeks, seeking some education policy concessions from the white house. I have no idea if this mattered or not, but it doesn’t look good.

So what’s going on here with the huge jump? Is this just more random fluctuation? Or does the tradesports community know something I don’t? I’m inclined to suspect the former, but won’t rule out the latter. The weird no primary system can’t be good for the party that fields multiple candidates–it gives them no chance to unite and focus state-wide strategy on the strengths of one of the Democrats. Plus, it seems like a tremendous fundraising disadvantage. Still, it might limit Vitter’s strategy options as well. GOP strategy against Landrieu was straight demonization, which might be harder to do on 2-3 fronts at once.

It’s also worth noting that the Louisiana hasn’t sent a Republican to the senate since that fateful year of 1877, which has to be considered a point in our favor. I don’t really know what to think here, but I’ve got to think 70% is awfully high for a candidate who is not currently leading in the relevant polls, and whose party never sends anyone to the senate. I’m not taking any bets on any senate races, but if I were, the anti-Vitter bet would be tempting at this time.

We all may be paying a lot more attention to this race in November–if it goes to a runoff, there is a non-trivial chance this race will determine control of the Senate.