Yesterday, Don Cazayoux defeated Woody Jenkins in a special election in Louisiana's 6th CD,  49.2% to 46.3%. The race had assumed national significance in the past few weeks, not only as a bellwether of congressional races this fall, but also for its links to the contentious race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Both the NRCC and the 527-group Freedom's Watch ran particularly nasty ads, tying Cazayoux to Obama. A "vote for Cazayoux is a vote for Obama," the NRCC claimed, while Freedom's Watch said "Cazayoux and Obama would create a huge bureaucracy" for healthcare, raising taxes and empowering bureaucrats over doctors and patients. Nevermind that Cazayoux hasn't even endorsed Obama, much less his healthcare scheme.

Naturally, it didn't take long for both parties to spin the results. The DCCC put out a statement, crowing that "House Republicans tried to nationalize this election," but that "Don won by focusing on the concerns of LA-06 voters." Speaker Pelosi concurred, but added an extra edge, arguing that Americans "demand a New Direction," and citing Cazayoux's "positive message" and his "ability to work across party lines and build consensus" as evidence that Americans "want real solutions and reject Republicans’ negative attacks." Now where have I heard that before?

The NRCC was quick to fire back:

When Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were introduced into this campaign, Don Cazayoux was leading by a large margin in the polls. Since then, Republicans saturated the Baton Rouge airwaves in an effort to nationalize this contest and make the election about the real life consequences of a Barack Obama presidency and a continued Pelosi-run Democratic Congress. In that time, Republicans made substantial ground. This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall.... By nature, special elections tend to be competitive and their results are not always a harbinger for the November elections, but what we do know is that a Democrat was clearly favored to easily win this election before Republicans invoked the names of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. This should come as a warning shot to Democrats. The elitist behavior of the Democratic frontrunner and the liberal and extremist positions that he and his fellow Democrats in Congress have staked their claim to, do not appear to be as salient as they once hoped.

Well, who's right? Is the DCCC correct that the election provides that all politics is local - and that Cazayoux was just a better candidate than Jenkins? Is Pelosi right to argue that Cazayoux's triumph in a heavily Republican district reflects the appeal of Obama's basic message? Is the NRCC correct that Cazayoux would have won in a blow-out, but for their efforts to nationalize the race? Or is some combination of these three perspectives most accurate?

Let's go to the numbers. First, the crucial statistic. Cazayoux prevailed by 2.9%, or 2,961 votes. He won in very a red district, held by Republicans since white southerners switched over to the GOP. But he beat Jenkins, who won his party's nod over the wishes of the RNCC, and who was a deeply flawed candidate. Moreover, there's ample evidence that voters in the district remain generally more conservative than the results of this race suggest. A recent SurveyUSA poll found that they approve of Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, 64-20%, and disapprove of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, 40-44%. Moreover, Jenkins' own favorability was at a shockingly low 36-49%, with independents slightly more sour on the guy than Democrats, and fully a quarter of registered Republicans disapproving. Cazayoux, by contrast, scored a respectable 43-28%. But all of that speaks to consequence, not cause. We know that Cazayoux prevailed yesterday partly because he was an attractive candidate, with high crossover approval and low negatives, but also because the electorate deeply disliked the Republican contender. But we don't know why that was so.

The NRCC is saying, in essence, that Jenkins dug his own grave. Then, with their candidate deep in the hole, they battled back by tying Cazayoux to Obama, dragging him down. Their evidence for this is the same SurveyUSA poll cited above, which showed Cazayoux with a nine-point lead. But there's a problem with this spin. The poll showed Cazayoux up 50-41, with a +/-4.5% margin of error. But, as the pollsters themselves noted:

Turnout in a special election is difficult to forecast. The outcome of this special election, in particular, is turnout dependent. If voters are older and/or whiter than SurveyUSA here foresees, the Republican will outperform these numbers.

And the Republican did indeed outperform these numbers. But what's really fascinating is that despite the barrage of last-minute attack ads, Cazayoux didn't lose any support. SurveyUSA put him at 50%, and he polled 49.2%. In other words, if you take the poll at face value, Jenkins' gains came at the expense of third-party candidates. And there's more evidence to back that claim. Cazayoux' internal polling, taken March 16-20, showed him leading 49-44%. Anzalone Research, his firm, polled the race twice more in April, finding Cazayouc on top 49-44% on April 8, and 49-42% on April 15. So that's four polls, taken over the span of a month and a half. And all three showed Cazayoux receiving between 49 and 50% of the vote - which is precisely what he garnered yesterday.

But wait - there was an outlier! According to a news report on April 24, Jenkins' internal polling showed him leading 45-40%, with Cazayoux's negatives soaring. So take your pick - either we witnessed a backlash against GOP attack ads, or the danger of self-delusion that comes with paying your own pollster to tell you what you want to hear.

So where does that leave us? We can safely say, based on an abundance of polling, that the barrage of attack ads against Cazayoux didn't dent his support among voters in his district. He held remarkably steady for a month and a half. It's possible that the ads helped to rally some number of the GOP faithful, and brought back some voters who, in their disgust for Jenkins, would either have stayed home or chosen third-party candidates. So we'll split the difference. Attacking Obama may fire up the conservative base, which is good news for the GOP, but it clearly has little effect on Democrats and Independents - and that presages a devastating November for a party with dwindling registration and diminishing support in generic polls. As for Pelosi's contention that Cazayoux's hopeful message of bipartisanship and rejection of politics-as-usual played a key role, there seems to be good reason to believe she's right. Cazaoyux kept his negatives remarkably low in an extremely unfavorable district, and managed to win substantial crossover support, as well as the overwhelming majority of independent voters. So selling hope and change would appear to be a great recipe for prevailing in red and purple districts.

But at the end of the day, the D-Trip's Chris Van Hollen was probably closest to the mark. This race was local. The GOP ran a terrible candidate; the Dems ran a very strong contender. The GOP tried to make the race about Obama, but that didn't work. And that's encouraging news for all those Red State Democrats worried about November. 

If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.