Is Bayh too conservative for the dems in '08?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

What say you?

[A18]

Nah. A lot of Democrats like him, and he could carry Indiana.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Carry Indiana?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! really? I don't think so they are wayyyy conservative and his name wouldnt get him enough votes

[A18]

How do you think he got elected to the Senate?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

His purdy face and bein middle of the road around election time (ala John Edwards no?)

[they don't love you like i love you]

Edwards barely won election, and he mainly ran because he had little chance to win reelection, Bayh was just reelected with 60%+ of the vote.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Because hes middle of the road, i'm saying that he may be too conservative to run w/ someone like a hillary or a kerry

[A18]

I'd be really surprised to see Hillary or Kerry get the nomination.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I don't think Kerry will either but who else other than Hillary? Some say richardson but i mean you have to have SOME charisma to be elected (unlike he or hillary)

[Cashcow]

That's why Bayh should run with Richardson as VP. Bayh is highly experienced (80% approval rating at one point as governor of Indiana) and generally admired/tolerated by both parties while Richardson is a popular governor from the West.

[Alcon]

Bayh gets a third of the Republican vote in Indiana and 77% of independents. Richardson may not be charismatic, but we need someone who can appeal to the midwest. We don't need a charismatic meterosexual.

Bayh and Richardson would both make excellent candidates, but I gave the nod to Richardson because, let's face it, "Bayh" is a weird name.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Yeah it is really weird and when you say it you sound like a red neck (baiiiiuh)

[Alcon]

Yeah it is really weird and when you say it you sound like a red neck (baiiiiuh)

It does sort of.

Then again, I'm sure that our grandchildren will be laughing about the irony of Bush vs. Gore in 80 years.

In any case, since I thought it was pronounced "bay" at first, it would be a hurdle, I think. Other than that he's a good candidate.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Yeah i agree he'd be a good candidate but like in this election with the coice of Edwards as VP they said that  a few southern states would be in play when the reality is bush did alot better in the south in '04 then in 2000, I think the same thing would carry over in 2008

[Alcon]

Yeah i agree he'd be a good candidate but like in this election with the coice of Edwards as VP they said that  a few southern states would be in play when the reality is bush did alot better in the south in '04 then in 2000, I think the same thing would carry over in 2008

Uh...

Firstly, I doubt Edwards as a VP.

Second of all, I think Bush did especially well in the south this year because he played to conservatives. His base was excited. That's where his base is.

However, I also think the south got a bit more solid. Not hugely, but a bit.

[Sam Spade]

Bayh's problem is the feminist lobby hates his guts and will not stand for his nomination.  Gore wanted him as his VP in 2000 and the feminists basically told him, "No."  He listened.

He certainly isn't too conservative; that's not the issue here.  The problem is what I stated above.

[Cashcow]

That is strange considering the accomplishments of his father.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about Mark Warner?

[Sam Spade]

Strangely enough, I don't really know that much about him.

But as a nominee, I would always prefer a governor rather than a senator because of the historical tendencies of Americans.

[Ben.]

     

Bayh’s name recognition in Indiana is phenomenal, he’s got to the stage where he isn’t seen as “Evan Bayh (D)” but simply “Evan Bayh” where he to run he’s defiantly get some significant endorsements from Indian Republicans. Indiana wouldn’t be blow-out with Bayh at the top of the ticket but he’d win, he really is that popular… the comparison with Edwards is laughable a one term senator who got elected with 51% of the vote? Against a former two term governor who got elected by landslides and then by two more landslides when he ran for the Senate in 1998 and 2004?

As for a running mate I’m not sure, where Rendell to be re-elected he’d be a very good “running mate” in the campaigning sense (where someone like Blanche Lincoln to be the nominee he’d be ideal!) so he might be the best choice he has more presence than Richardson, then again a lot of people underestimate Richardson, but I think someone in the mould of Richardson or Rendell would be his running mate if he got nominated. 

TJN2024, Hillary won’t get nominated, Kerry won’t get nominated, Edward’s wont get nominated… if the Dems swing to the left then Feingold or maybe at a stretch Dean will get nominated, if, as is probable, the Democrats are desperate for a winner the they’ll plum for someone like Bayh, Rendell or Warner (but I don’t think Warner will run).

Bayh’s only problem would be the abortionist lobby and I’ll gladly help him take them on! That said his position on abortion is not out and out opposition he has argued to uphold Roe v Wade but to legislate to band late term abortions and abortions of reasons of convenience, despite he being personally opposed to abortion… it’s a delicate position, one with which I agree, but it’s a fairly robust argument unlike some of those Kerry put forward and his other positions can be “spun” to appeal to the democratic primary voters without compromising his appeal to moderate voters (if he run for the nomination he will win very convincingly in NH where he’ll have the support of independent voters as well as democrats).           

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why don't you think Warner will run, Ben?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Why won't warner run? And why don't you think there arre enough liberals in your party to nominate Hillary? do you think maybe they MUST have learned there lesson about new england liberals by now?

[Ben.]

Why don't you think Warner will run, Ben?

Not knowing him personally (lol) I can only guess, but I think he thinks he’s not ready, he’s proud (rightly IMHO) of what he achieved as Governor but I think he thinks he’d be uncompetitive after winning only one election and serving as governor for barely four years, as a result I think he’ll look to make a run for the senate, be that in 2006 or 2008.

 

Why won't warner run? And why don't you think there arre enough liberals in your party to nominate Hillary? do you think maybe they MUST have learned there lesson about new england liberals by now?

     

On Warner check what I said to jfern.

Are there enough Liberals to nominate Hillary? In a word yes, but it depends what the attitudes of liberals are…

“Howard Dean Liberals” see Hillary are a “Washington Insider” and as a result dislike her intently and will not back her, in the same way many of Deans supporters (about the 20% Dean was scoring in the last primaries he was contesting seriously) disliked Kerry and backed Edwards instead (although their dislike of Bush trumped their dislike of Kerry). Clinton is not regarded highly by this group and a liberal candidate (Dean or Feingold I think) will probably win these voters over very easily.
 
“Mainstream Liberals”, are the block of primary voters who began to desert Dean in the last days of Iowa for Kerry and Edwards, these voters want a candidate who can win but also “uphold their values” and as they see it “doesn’t give-in to the GOP”. This same group of Liberals gave the nomination to Clinton in 1992 largely thanks to their desperation to find a winner, and people forget how conservative Clinton seemed to a lot of Democrats at the time. Worries over Clinton’s Electability would mean she would not get far with this group, that said she’d not do badly but I would argue a majority of these voters are desperate for a winner and wouldn’t want to take a chance on four more years in the wilderness.   

“Pragmatic Liberals”, this section of the Democratic primary base was never really won over by Dean in the run up to Iowa it was this group that first began to crack and attacks on Dean’s electability by other candidates where designed to gain the support of these voters. Hillary Clinton will not pass the starting line with a majority of these voters. A Bayh or a Warner candidate will appeal to these voters in the same way Clinton did in 1992 and Kerry in 2004, namely as the “moderate, electable candidate”, thing was in 2004 Kerry was being judged in comparison to Howard Dean. 


Of these groups the Pragmatics are the biggest group, in any party the pragmatics are the largest group, and by their very nature their support is volatile but it will go to the candidate they think can win and that won’t be Clinton and it won’t be a Dean redux candidate either but a moderate like Warner or Bayh, who ironically reminds them of Bill Clinton. The despondency within the pragmatic mainstream of the Democratic Party is palpable and will grant a big advantage to the candidate who is perceived as the most moderate over the candidates who are seen as too polarising or ideological.

Just my two cents.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why don't you think Warner will run, Ben?

Not knowing him personally (lol) I can only guess, but I think he thinks he’s not ready, he’s proud (rightly IMHO) of what he achieved as Governor but I think he thinks he’d be uncompetitive after winning only one election and serving as governor for barely four years, as a result I think he’ll look to make a run for the senate, be that in 2006 or 2008.

 

Why won't warner run? And why don't you think there arre enough liberals in your party to nominate Hillary? do you think maybe they MUST have learned there lesson about new england liberals by now?

     

On Warner check what I said to jfern.

Are there enough Liberals to nominate Hillary? In a word yes, but it depends what the attitudes of liberals are…

“Howard Dean Liberals” see Hillary are a “Washington Insider” and as a result dislike her intently and will not back her, in the same way many of Deans supporters (about the 20% Dean was scoring in the last primaries he was contesting seriously) disliked Kerry and backed Edwards instead (although their dislike of Bush trumped their dislike of Kerry). Clinton is not regarded highly by this group and a liberal candidate (Dean or Feingold I think) will probably win these voters over very easily.
 
“Mainstream Liberals”, are the block of primary voters who began to desert Dean in the last days of Iowa for Kerry and Edwards, these voters want a candidate who can win but also “uphold their values” and as they see it “doesn’t give-in to the GOP”. This same group of Liberals gave the nomination to Clinton in 1992 largely thanks to their desperation to find a winner, and people forget how conservative Clinton seemed to a lot of Democrats at the time. Worries over Clinton’s Electability would mean she would not get far with this group, that said she’d not do badly but I would argue a majority of these voters are desperate for a winner and wouldn’t want to take a chance on four more years in the wilderness.   

“Pragmatic Liberals”, this section of the Democratic primary base was never really won over by Dean in the run up to Iowa it was this group that first began to crack and attacks on Dean’s electability by other candidates where designed to gain the support of these voters. Hillary Clinton will not pass the starting line with a majority of these voters. A Bayh or a Warner candidate will appeal to these voters in the same way Clinton did in 1992 and Kerry in 2004, namely as the “moderate, electable candidate”, thing was in 2004 Kerry was being judged in comparison to Howard Dean. 


Of these groups the Pragmatics are the biggest group, in any party the pragmatics are the largest group, and by their very nature their support is volatile but it will go to the candidate they think can win and that won’t be Clinton and it won’t be a Dean redux candidate either but a moderate like Warner or Bayh, who ironically reminds them of Bill Clinton. The despondency within the pragmatic mainstream of the Democratic Party is palpable and will grant a big advantage to the candidate who is perceived as the most moderate over the candidates who are seen as too polarising or ideological.

Just my two cents.

Bush was only governor for 6 years.
Reagan wasn't governor any more when he won in 1980.
Others like Nixon and Lincoln even had a losing streak thrown in when they won the Presidency.

Also a lot of people who supported Dean would support Warner. Dean was seen as more liberal by the media than he actually is.

[Ben.]

Bush was only governor for 6 years.
Reagan wasn't governor any more when he won in 1980.
Others like Nixon and Lincoln even had a losing streak thrown in when they won the Presidency.

Also a lot of people who supported Dean would support Warner. Dean was seen as more liberal by the media than he actually is.

Dean was seen as more liberal than he was (though on social issues the guy was scarily militant) but his solid supporters where most defiantly on the Liberal wing of the party and would only support Warner for being an “outsider”… I have no doubt he would have an easier job getting the Dem nomination that Bayh, who I think can get it all the same, but that does not mean he will have an easier job without more than four years as a Senator, having seen Edwards (admittedly a far less substantive figure) fail, Warner is probably more likely to look to a Senate run than any presidential run. Where he to head the Democratic ticket and face a GOP ticket lead by Owens, Allen or Frist it would be a very competive race but Warner would find it hard winning many more states than Kerry, Arkansas and perhaps Virginia might fall to him but even that’s a stretch… where he a two term senator with a term as governor under his belt and a moderate record in the senate he’d be far more competive across the board and I think he knows that and is unwilling to take the risk of being another John Edwards.