2008 hypothetical: Bayh/Warner vs. Allen/Sanford

[Frodo]

Let's say that Democrats nominate Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh as their presidential candidate, and he in turn selects Virginia Gov. Mark Warner as his running-mate.

Republicans meanwhile nominate Virginia Sen. George Allen as their standard bearer and successor to President Bush, with South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford as his running-mate.

What would the map look like?  By how much would either ticket win -or lose, in terms of the popular vote, and in the electoral college?

[Moooooo]

Bayh wins Ohio and thus wins the election.

[skybridge]

This isn't the first time someone proposed this hypothetical.

(It probably wont be the last time either)

[tarheel-leftist85]

The states in gray consistently poll within 5pt. margins.

Bayh--190EV
Allen--181EV

Bayh will visit the Northeast 5 times or less during the election, mostly to Pennsylvania.  For this reason, he may well lose New Hampshire (especially with the comparatively libertarian Allen and Sanford, and a strong third-party showing).  Indiana consistently polls with 5 or 6 pt. margins.  However, Bayh will realize a significant swing on election day, winning the state by almost 10 pts.  The election will play out in other states in the way that I described them in the Bayh/Easley v. Allen/Sanford matchup.


Bayh--313EV (50.0%)
Allen--225EV (49.0%)

[Lincoln Republican]

Allen/Sanford        270 EV   49%
Bayh/Warner        268 EV   48%
Others                      0 EV     3%

[The Duke]

Nobody should pretend that Evan Bayh is a great candidate.

[The Duke]

Oh, and if Allen picks Sanford he's brain dead.

[AuH2O]

Allen would win. That Democratic ticket would open the door to a left-wing 3rd party ala John Anderson.

[Moooooo]

Nobody should pretend that Evan Bayh is a great candidate.

Nobody should pretend he doesnt have the potential to be.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Polls show that Bayh's populism helps greatly in the midwest, making Minnesota, Michigan, and even Bayh's home state of Indiana easy wins for the Democrats.  The nomination of another southern conservative put the Northeast and West Coast in the Democratic column immediately.  Other populist Red states like Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana poll very close.  West Virginia goes back to its democratic roots considering the canidate. 



Bayh wins 322-216

[Moooooo]

You have to worry about Bayh securing the base though.  I could see die hard liberals staying home.  In a close election it could cost him.  Still, I think he carries all of the Kerry states. IN is a def possibility.  I think he would do very well in Ohio by pulling some votes out of wester Ohio.

[The Duke]

Nobody should pretend that Evan Bayh is a great candidate.

Nobody should pretend he doesnt have the potential to be.

Hey Evan Bayh, John Edwards just called, he wants his schtick back.

[Ronald Reagan]

Bayh/Warner - 259
Allen/Sanford - 279

[PADem]

I doubt very much Bayh would carry Indiana in a Presidential Election though.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Well I recall seeing a poll conducted by the Indy Star where 49% of Indiana voters would definitely vote for him for President, 30-something% said they definitely wouldn't, and the rest we're undecided.  So basically, Bayh starts with 49%.  Hillary starts with less than 30% definite in places like Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan.  So if he wins IN, all he has to do is pick-up IA.  If he loses IN, he could win Ohio.  But Bayh would also hopefully test the waters in Arkansas.  Voters there don't seem to be told how to vote and are apparetly persuadable.  Though I don't live there, I have a suspicion that "Democrat" isn't a bad word.

[© tweed]

I doubt very much Bayh would carry Indiana in a Presidential Election though.

His is the most popular politician in the state.  He'd certainly have a very good shot, say, 60%.

[Ben.]

Nobody should pretend that Evan Bayh is a great candidate.

Nobody should pretend he doesnt have the potential to be.

Hey Evan Bayh, John Edwards just called, he wants his schtick back.

Don’t tell me your likening Bayh to Edwards?!

Bayh is a former two term governor and two term senator, with a moderate, hawkish record in the senate and after Dick Lugar is the most popular politician in Indiana a state which is normally solidly republican.

Edwards was a one term senator, with a weak liberal voting record who faced an uphill battle for re-election and was the vp on a losing presidential ticket.

If you think the two are alike in any way John, your very much in error.       

.........................

 As for Indiana, Bayh would certainly make the state competitive he’s approval rating are around the 60% range and have remained in a similar range for most of his career, he would however be leading a Democratic ticket against a credible conservative in the form of George Allen who in normal circumstances would have no trouble in walking the election in Indiana. In short Bayh would not make Indiana a lock or anything like it, but he would bring it into play and if he won the election would probably win his native state.

At the same time Bayh would probably play way in the peripheral south, but as I said on the Bayh/Easley thread, outside of Arkansas and West Virginia (at a stretch maybe Louisiana) the Democrats would not be able to entertain any realistic hope of winning. Also as in the Bayh/Easely vs Allen/Sanford race thread, the election would be decided in the Midwest, a liberal third party candidate would hurt Bayh just as it hurt Gore but I doubt that after eight years of republican rule the majority of the liberal left would simply hand the election to the GOP by backing a third party or not voting, states such as Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and Pennsylvania would all be hotly contested and some would be very close… but despite a third party taking votes away from the Democrats, Bayh would have an excellent chance at a win IMHO.                 

[True Democrat]

[The Duke]

Ben and others,

There is a cadre of Democrats on this board, and a cadre of Democrats nationally, who have an undeniable love affair with pretty white southerners and "moderates".  Democrats are always looking for someone who fits a particular profile.

They want a youngish, prefereable good looking, southern candidate.  John Edwards was the last souther pretty boy mdoerate.  Sure, all the Democrats stand back today and admit he was a liberal a dunce and not sufficiently experienced to be President, but that's not what they were saying before he flamed out.  They were saying the same things about Edwards they say today about Evan Bayh and Mark Warner.

They pretended Edwards was moderate.  He was not.  Today they pretend that Mark Warner, a tax hiker, and Evan bayh, who is so eager to pander to the base he actually voted against confirming Condie Rice.  Ben, you say Evan Bayh is a dedicated hawk?  Please.  He is no more a "hawk" than Kerry and Edwards were.

Bayh may be more experienced than Edwards, but the Democrats other allegedly moderate poster boy, Mark Warner, sure as hell isn't.  And regardless of their time in government, I have a hard time associating either one of these bland nothings with an issue.  What are they passionate about?  What noble stands has either taken?  McCain and Giulani are not conservatives by any meaningful definition, but neither could be said to lack political courage.  Where is the principle?  Where is the conviction?  Where is the passion?  What are these men  aside from people who enjoy the title of "moderate Democrat"?  Why would anyone, either in the Democrat primary or the general election, vote for either of these people unless they, like so many on this board, had an inusfferable penchant for declaring themselves moderate Democrats?

I'm sorry, but there's no there there.  As a famed liberal Democrat once said of the first boyish "moderate" Democrat, "Where's the beef?"

I fully expect you to flame away defending Bayh and Warner's moderate records, moderate moderate, moderate this blah blah blah.  Moderate.  Did I mention he's a moderate?  And I expect you to continue this until Bayh and Warner flame out just like John Edwards before them, and Gary Hart before him.  Once they flame out, you Democrats will no doubt find your next pretty boy empty suit who you will pretend is a moderate, but in fact he won't be moderate at all, he'll just be spineless, which is a far more apt definition for Warner and Bayh than anything else offered thus far.

So who's ready for Bill Nelson in 2012?

[Pollwatch99]

Ben and others,

There is a cadre of Democrats on this board, and a cadre of Democrats nationally, who have an undeniable love affair with pretty white southerners and "moderates".  Democrats are always looking for someone who fits a particular profile.  They want a youngish, prefereable good looking, southern candidate.  John Edwards was the last souther pretty boy mdoerate. 

Agree with much of what you say bit I thinking you're selling Bayh short ( he was Gov for 8 years) and I believe Vilsack ( Gov of IA ) is also a major threat.   Hillary, Biden, and the other Washington insiders are fine by me.  Bayh and Vilsack( neither from the South ) can win.

As a republican, we've done the same thing.  Pick pretty boy candidates who are not qualified.  Sorry, conservative republicans, that was Dan Quayle.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

You have to worry about Bayh securing the base though.  I could see die hard liberals staying home.  In a close election it could cost him.  Still, I think he carries all of the Kerry states. IN is a def possibility.  I think he would do very well in Ohio by pulling some votes out of wester Ohio.

There aren't many people who are so liberal they couldn't bear to vote for Bayh.  But, as we saw with Nader, maybe enough to put Wisconsin, New Hampshire and other very close democratic states in the Republican column.  But I feel Bayh would win over some conservative Democrats that voted Bush, so I really think it's a wash. 

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Ben and others,

There is a cadre of Democrats on this board, and a cadre of Democrats nationally, who have an undeniable love affair with pretty white southerners and "moderates".  Democrats are always looking for someone who fits a particular profile.

They want a youngish, prefereable good looking, southern candidate.  John Edwards was the last souther pretty boy mdoerate.  Sure, all the Democrats stand back today and admit he was a liberal a dunce and not sufficiently experienced to be President, but that's not what they were saying before he flamed out.  They were saying the same things about Edwards they say today about Evan Bayh and Mark Warner.

They pretended Edwards was moderate.  He was not.  Today they pretend that Mark Warner, a tax hiker, and Evan bayh, who is so eager to pander to the base he actually voted against confirming Condie Rice.  Ben, you say Evan Bayh is a dedicated hawk?  Please.  He is no more a "hawk" than Kerry and Edwards were.

Bayh may be more experienced than Edwards, but the Democrats other allegedly moderate poster boy, Mark Warner, sure as hell isn't.  And regardless of their time in government, I have a hard time associating either one of these bland nothings with an issue.  What are they passionate about?  What noble stands has either taken?  McCain and Giulani are not conservatives by any meaningful definition, but neither could be said to lack political courage.  Where is the principle?  Where is the conviction?  Where is the passion?  What are these men  aside from people who enjoy the title of "moderate Democrat"?  Why would anyone, either in the Democrat primary or the general election, vote for either of these people unless they, like so many on this board, had an inusfferable penchant for declaring themselves moderate Democrats?

I'm sorry, but there's no there there.  As a famed liberal Democrat once said of the first boyish "moderate" Democrat, "Where's the beef?"

I fully expect you to flame away defending Bayh and Warner's moderate records, moderate moderate, moderate this blah blah blah.  Moderate.  Did I mention he's a moderate?  And I expect you to continue this until Bayh and Warner flame out just like John Edwards before them, and Gary Hart before him.  Once they flame out, you Democrats will no doubt find your next pretty boy empty suit who you will pretend is a moderate, but in fact he won't be moderate at all, he'll just be spineless, which is a far more apt definition for Warner and Bayh than anything else offered thus far.

So who's ready for Bill Nelson in 2012?

Is there just ONE good democrat in the Republican's eyes.  I mean, we gave you McCain, can't you give us props on just one guy?  Is voting against Condi Rice all you have against Bayh?

[Alcon]

Not to be contrary, Ford, but that whole profile we're trying to fit...didn't it pretty much fit Bush to a tee, except with more Republican ideals and less moderateness?

[The Duke]

Not to be contrary, Ford, but that whole profile we're trying to fit...didn't it pretty much fit Bush to a tee, except with more Republican ideals and less moderateness?

I don't consider Bush to have been the youngish good looking type.  In the Republicans case, you'd want a yougish good looking northerner, preferably New Englander because that's where the GOP is weak, the Dems want a southerner because that's where they're weak.

Is there just ONE good democrat in the Republican's eyes. I mean, we gave you McCain, can't you give us props on just one guy? Is voting against Condi Rice all you have against Bayh?

I'm not even saying Bayh (or Warner or Nelson) is necessarily bad, he's just not Presidential as some here say, he's not the saviour of your party as some here say.  I like Lieberman a great deal, I find Dianne Feinstein tolerable, Ben nelson is good.  I just don't like empty suits whether they're Republican or Democrat.  If you want some balance, Bill Owens is a good example of an empty suit.  Colorado basically went on auto pilot for almost a decade, and Owens was lucky that it worked out.

[AuH2O]

His point is valid. Does the GOP look for "moderates" in the nomination process, or 3 years BEFORE that process? No.

I think that alone reveals a structural weakness in the Democratic Party that is tough to overcome no matter which way they go, moderate or liberal. There are problems either way, but the primary process gives the liberals a massive edge in getting the nomination. You either spawn a 3rd party candidate or lose because you're too far left.

The ideal Democratic candidate would be fairly liberal but yet popular because of his or her charisma and communication ability. They accidently stumbled upon such a candidate- Bill Clinton- that had the fortune of running against a "centrist" Republican that had already lost his base by 1992.

Ultimately, I don't see any Democrat as especially formidable if they don't meet that basic description (though they don't have to be a Bill Clinton in terms of political savvy or, obviously, intellect).

Bayh, Warner, etc. all flunk-- actually on both counts, because they are more moderate than the Democratic base while not engaging personally. If the incentive structure favored moderates, they would always win the nominations from their respective parties.

In other words, this isn't random speculation, this is empirical proof. Bayh will not be the Democratic nominee for President, neither will Warner, neither will Schweitzer. Their best shot is probably someone like Vilsack, though a number of Republicans would trounce him.