2008 hypothetical: Bayh/Warner vs. Allen/Sanford (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 09:29:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 hypothetical: Bayh/Warner vs. Allen/Sanford (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who would win?
#1
Democrat -Evan Bayh/Mark Warner
 
#2
Democrat -George Allen/Mark Sanford
 
#3
Republican -Evan Bayh/Mark Warner
 
#4
Republican -George Allen/Sanford
 
#5
independent/third party -Evan Bayh/Mark Warner
 
#6
independent/third party -George Allen/Mark Sanford
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 36

Author Topic: 2008 hypothetical: Bayh/Warner vs. Allen/Sanford  (Read 3223 times)
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


« on: July 17, 2005, 10:45:00 AM »
« edited: July 17, 2005, 10:53:53 AM by 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.                 
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2005, 11:27:20 AM »



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 voting against Condi Rice was not so much pandering to the base but more of a point of principle - he felt Condi Rice and others were responsible for a number of errors in the run-up to and aftermath of Iraq and, therefore, she didn't warrant promotion to Secretary of State. No-one can accuse Bayh as being soft on national security or defence

Conservative commentators were delighted by what Bayh did and saw it as an opportunity to write him off politically in Indiana. In fact, recent polling suggests very much the contrary to their desires and deservedly so

In fact, Bayh had voted against Condi because he felt there other suitable nominees for Secretary of State and, in responce to his critics, he cited Indiana's own Dick Lugar

As for pandering to the base, I somehow doubt that. Bayh's success in Indiana is very much down to the fact that he reaches beyond the base - if he appealed to the base and that alone, I somehow think he'd never have one an election in Indiana let alone five (three by landslide margins - and it's that fact, which has Republicans pretty fearful of a Bayh candidacy. He'd have to work at it, victory would not be handed on to him on a plate

You also point out that Bayh doesn't look presidential. Well, Bush looks anything but except that he is President - for reasons that continue to elude me

Dave


As usual I find my self agreeing with you Hawk.

I don’t know which Evan Bayh, Ford thinks he is talking about but Bayh is a moderate he has voted for restrictions on abortion, voted in favour of hawkish measures on national defence and never sought to apologise to his base for either, as you say his vote on Condi’s nomination was because he believed that Dick Lugar was a better candidate… to say that Bayh’s voting record is indistinguishable from either Edwards or Kerry is simply delusional…

The fact that Ford focuses most of his fire on Warner suggests to me that Ford simply doesn’t know that much about Evan Bayh and rather than admit to it would like to stick to a flawed preconception… indeed likening either Bayh or Warner to Edwards or Kerry is just plain out-loud funny.

Ford’s little rants against both Warner and Bayh just gets worse when he somehow argues that all moderate democrats are some how cowards and yet moderate republicans are at the same time worthy of respect while their democratic counterparts are to quote Ford “Spineless”… a fine double standard if I ever saw one. Ford’s argument he would claim rests on the notion that neither Warner nor Bayh have political courage, firstly you do not need to be a political partisan or moderate to demonstrate political courage, indeed Rick Santorum and Russ Feingold are just as much brave politicians as Chuck Hagel and John Breaux, but saying that neither Warner nor Bayh have exhibited political courage is to ignore the facts…

Warner demonstrated great political courage in one of his first ventures as Virginia Governor, he introduced a tax rise to help increase funding for education in his state, which Ford castigates him for, not only did he get his tax rise passed by the GOP controlled legislature, in a deep red state but he remains very popular despite the best efforts of the national and state GOP. How many first term governors could have not only got such a contentious measure passed but emerged as both a more popular and stronger politician?

As for Evan Bayh. His politician career is a litany of occasions where he has challenged the liberal leadership of the party and argued for the socially moderate, hawkish brand polices that characterised the Democratic Party of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. He has repeatedly fought against the pro-choice lobby and advocated a foreign policy approach which he believes is in the country’s best interests not because it wins him friends at the DNC, or brings in the cheques from the Liberal pressure groups.     
       
… I really am surprised by you Ford, normally you’re a reasonable sorta guy but all of a sudden your acting like a jerk, laying into politicians for being cowards or empty suits when neither is ture, I’m not supporting Warner for the nomination I agree he’s inexperienced, but liberal? A political coward? He is neither I’m afraid and nor is Evan Bayh.     

I’m sorry you find the fact that I describe myself as a moderate democrat “insufferable”, but it is nothing new, the fact that I oppose Roe V Wade, support the right of schools to choose to hold prayers before lessons,  believe in an assertive foreign policy, recognise the need for social security to be reformed, support the rights of states to make their own minds up on many issues and believe that by and large low taxation can stimulate economic growth places me on the right or conservative wing of the party, at the same time I’m quite happy to admit to some populist or should I say liberal that I believe that universal health coverage for all Americans is a goal that we have a moral obligation in seeking to achieve, what is more I believe the state does have a role in bring jobs to deprived areas and fighting to promote American exporters and protect American jobs.

Am I wrong to describe my self as moderate? Are my beliefs without credibility because they are not radical? I really have to say I expected more than name calling from you Ford.


                                       
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 16 queries.