Mike Pence?

[Maxwell]

What about him? If Evan Bayh is thinking about the Governorship, maybe he won't run for re-election and instead run for President. Thoughts?

[Maxwell]

It's possible.

From what I've heard he has a strong appeal to Huckabee voters, as well as fiscal conservatives.

He was also interested in the job in 2012, before deciding he'd rather take a safe shot at Governor.

He has a few weaknesses though. He'd have to choose between a second term and a presidential primary where he'll start out as a second-tier candidate. I'm not sure he's all that talented politically, especially when you consider that he barely won the gubernatorial election in a state where Romney won by ten.

I guess that's true, but what's ignored is that John Gregg was actually a pretty good candidate from the Democrats. He was the Speaker of the Indiana House, and the polls were fairly close throughout. As well, I think Mourdock drew him down and Gregg was kind of a Donelly moderate. Plus polls were all close, if that matters much. Also Boneham was clearly cutting down Pence's margin.

[Maxwell]

We're already seeing problems with Obamacare such as the glitch in software. Evan Bayh will have to defend his vote for it. I can see our party getting all over him for being part of the problem and being the deciding vote in the senate to end the filibuster as every single one of the 60 Democrats could be labeled as. This is why he didn't run for re-election. I'm sure he didn't just happen to want to spend time with his family like every other politician who retires or steps down.

There are no deciding votes in the Senate. Plus, it's gonna be pretty hard to nationalize a gubernatorial race against one of the states most popular politicians, especially one as well liked and connected as Evan Bayh.

He's a good politician with connections but it doesn't mean they'll be happy with Obamacare. There are deciding votes in the senate and that's each and every one of the 60 Democrats who voted in favor of Obamacare because had it been 59-41, there would have been a further filibuster. All 60 Democrats have this label.

No. Everyone can't be the deciding vote on something. That's just not how crap works.

In 1994, the Republican party wisely portrayed every single Democrat in the House who voted for Hillarycare. It got 218 votes and every single one of the 218 Democrats were labeled as such. For the first time in 40 years, the Republicans won the House. This is part of why.

Republicans already did this in 2010. Now they are facing the consequences of those actions in 2014, much like Republicans faced some consequences in 1998.