Is Bayh too conservative for the dems in '08?

[Democratic Hawk]

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

Bayh was elected Indiana Secretary of State in 1986 and governor in 1988 in close contests - but his re-election as governor and both Senate contests have seen him averaging around 63% of the vote

Bayh enjoys the support of around 35% of Indiana's Republicans and 45% of her evangelical Christians; percentages most Democrats could only dream of!

I think Bayh would be a formidable candidate - a uniter, even - and would carry his home state

I don't think he's too conservative at all. Democrats come 2008 MUST focus on "electability" and NOT "litmus tests"

Dave

[Alcon]

45% of evangelical Christians? How in the world does he manage that?

[Nym90]

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

Bayh was elected Indiana Secretary of State in 1986 and governor in 1988 in close contests - but his re-election as governor and both Senate contests have seen him averaging around 63% of the vote

Bayh enjoys the support of around 35% of Indiana's Republicans and 45% of her evangelical Christians; percentages most Democrats could only dream of!

I think Bayh would be a formidable candidate - a uniter, even - and would carry his home state

I don't think he's too conservative at all. Democrats come 2008 MUST focus on "electability" and NOT "litmus tests"

Dave

Bayh's biggest problem would be his lack of charisma.

His abortion stance would engender some oppositon from the left in the primary, but Democrats will be thristy for a winner in 2008. Bayh is liberal enough on abortion to satisfy them, just like Bush, despite supporting civil unions, was conservative enough for the religious right in 2004. Special interest groups are not so unreasonable as to risk losing an election over a minor difference like that. The Dems probably wouldn't be willing to put up a pro-life nominee (unless they strongly downplayed the abortion issue), but a pro-choice candidate who supports the partial birth ban won't have a tremendous amount of difficulty.

[Democratic Hawk]

45% of evangelical Christians? How in the world does he manage that?

According to the Bayh-Scott Indiana Senate exit poll:

35% of Hoosiers are white evangelical born-again Christians and 45% voted Bayh; however, among white conservative Protestants (28%) 33% voted Bayh

Evidently, not all evangelicals are conservatives; much like myself (a Labour-voting Low Church Anglican)

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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

The Beltway Boys (Barnes and Kondracke) touted Warner as a possible Chairman of the DNC

Dave

[MaC]

Democrats need someone moderate (and possibly southern) to win.  It's why they lost with Al Gore and John Kerry, the liberals, and won with Bill Clinton the moderate.  Depends on who Republicans run, but Bayh does have a good chance if he's nominated

[True Democrat]

I support him, and I am not a conservative democrat.  However, I think he is too conservative for the demcratic party.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'd rather see Dean run and win.  The guy actually has passion for what he does.  And he's a Northeasterner.....and we are awesome

[Alcon]

I'd rather see Dean run and win.  The guy actually has passion for what he does.  And he's a Northeasterner.....and we are awesome

The problem words there are unfortunately "win" and "Northeasterner."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd rather see Dean run and win.  The guy actually has passion for what he does.  And he's a Northeasterner.....and we are awesome

The problem words there are unfortunately "win" and "Northeasterner."

Running Tip O'Neill ghost might do it :-)

[opebo]

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.

Why don't they like him?  Is he anti-abortion?

If so - no thanks.

[Alcon]

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.

Why don't they like him?  Is he anti-abortion?

If so - no thanks.

He's a centrist on abortion.

[opebo]

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.

Why don't they like him?  Is he anti-abortion?

If so - no thanks.

He's a centrist on abortion.

What does that mean?   There are pretty much only the two positions.

[Colin]

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.

Why don't they like him?  Is he anti-abortion?

If so - no thanks.

He's a centrist on abortion.

What does that mean?   There are pretty much only the two positions.

He doesn't want it completely banned but he wants to ban partial-birth abortion and, I think, anything past the first trimester.

[Hitchabrut]

Yes, thankfully.

[skybridge]

About Bayh: Contrary to popular belief, I've never of him outside of this forum! So much for electability...

[Rob]

About Bayh: Contrary to popular belief, I've never of him outside of this forum! So much for electability...

Yeah, but who had heard of John Kerry in 2001? If Bayh runs, everyone will know who he is, you can be sure of that.

[Moooooo]

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

He won Indiana by 300,000 more votes than George W. Bush in this past election.  He is a 2 term Governor and Senator from Indiana.  Not only would he win Indiana. He would win by a fairly large margin.

[M]

First off, Gore and Edwards are poor analogies since given the way this country has moved politically, especially in the South, these two are clear liberals- not extreme ones (as they ran for president, that is; Gore has become extreme snce), but to the left of Clinton and well to the left of the national center of gravity. Now Bayh IS an actual moderate, very similar to Lieberman and McCain; that is, moderate left on economy (which is qute capitalist by older standards), moderate right on social issues, and quite hawkish on defense.

Bayh would certainly carry Indiana because in America, we still do elect people and not parties. So Hoosiers won't see it as "the Democrats (whose poster buy, btw, happens to be Evan Bayh) vs. the GOP for the White House" but rather as "Bayh vs. ?". Now Bayh has not only the very significant advantage of being from the home state and acting and feeling like it, but also has a long and admired history of public service in the state and is clearly the dominant state political figure. Add the fact that the Bayhs are an established and respected family especially locally (like the Kennedys, Bushes, Cuomos, Romneys, and so forth) and most vitally, that Bayh's positions are basically in sync with the state. The result is that Indiana would go for Bayh, and likely Ohio and even Missouri and Kentucky may be in play.

Now, these projections all assume a fairly standard GOP opponent (Frist, Owens, Allen, etc.). Throw in someone really unconventional and fairly liberal (Giuliani, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, McCain, Romney) and you have yourself a classic realigning election, which might feature a GOP-leaning Northeast and Dem gains in the South.

But the question here is not how well would Bayh do in the general election, but in the primaries. This question demands a reanalysis of the modern Democratic party. As the country has moved right, so has the party at large; but not so much the activists and ideologues who make up the base and vote in primaries. However, there is a clear new class of moderate ideologues both in govt (Blue Dogs, DLC, and many (perhaps most) governors) and with professional activists on the net and so forth; and they seem to be gaining increasing control within the party (Harry Reid, moderates like Roemer and Frist for DNC chair; several moderates considering run for president i.e. Bayh, Richardson, Warner, Rendell), also Bill Clinton has clearly become actually more moderate in statements since his presidency, and Hillary, perhaps cynically, has been a much more moderate senator than expected. Elements on the left have reacted by producing Dean and his ilk, Al Gore is one who has moved in this political direction. This election the Democratic party resoundingly rejected both new philosophies, represented by Dean and Lieberman, and stuck with the standard left (Kerry, Edwards). This failed spectacularly, were it not for the economy, war, and overly right-wing social stances pulling Bush down, it would have been a fiasco; as it was they lost pretty badly (by 2 and 5 percent in Ohio and Florida, 4 million + votes nationwide, Catholic who lost Catholic vote and Bush's extremely hgh Hispanic percentage).

It seems clear that one of these philosophies will come to dominate the Democratic party. The DNC chair race will be a good testing ground, as will Pelosi's succession (sooner rather than later?). If, as I suspect, the moderates begin a rapid rise, Bayh is a strong candidate for '08. If Dean and his ilk, or perhaps even worse, status quo types, keep control of the party, look for Hillary or the less likely but still viable Edwards to win the nomination and continue the post-1994 rise of the GOP in every public arena, unless the economy absolutely tanks or a new major war is proving difficult (i.e., Iran). If the current Democratic slide keeps up, the moderate forces I have described with perhaps a few GOP defections (like McCain), will naturally create a new party that will come to replace the Democrats, as has happened before when the existing two parties did not adequately represent the country's needs.

If, however, the moderate forces continue their rise, and the radicals throw their support behind them because of pragmatic considerations of winning, look for Bayh or someone like him to run and likely win in 2008. Unless, of course, the GOP also redefines itself post-Bush and the political order of the new millenium begins its establishment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't think it's really fair to say that Kerry lost badly... if you'd told senior Democrats this time last year that they would lose by 3 pts or so with a Patrician Liberal from Massachusetts... methinks they'd take it.

[opebo]

Bayh would certainly carry Indiana because in America, we still do elect people and not parties.

Actually this is only partially true - it is the case in some states but not all.  Indiana is a good example of a state that could vote for a personality - for example a DINO - in spite of being a very strong GOP state. 

However the South will no longer vote for a Democrat for president due to religion and racism - the Democrats are perceived as favoring the blacks and and not obeying christian rule.  Conversely, the Northeast will not vote GOP, regardless of the individual running for fear of further empowering the religious fanatics.

In order to break this tendency - the party based power-grab on the part of the South and countervailing voting-for-personal-freedoms tendency of the Coasts - would require an extremely conservative Democrat running against an extremely liberal Republican - say Zell Miller running against Lincoln Chaffee - and nothing like that would ever get through the primaries.

No, the only states that still vote on 'personality' are a few in the Midwest. 

[minionofmidas]

Bayh would certainly carry Indiana because in America, we still do elect people and not parties.

Actually this is only partially true - it is the case in some states but not all.  Indiana is a good example of a state that could vote for a personality - for example a DINO - in spite of being a very strong GOP state. 

I agree here.

However the South will no longer vote for a Democrat for president due to religion and racism - the Democrats are perceived as favoring the blacks and and not obeying christian rule.  Conversely, the Northeast will not vote GOP, regardless of the individual running for fear of further empowering the religious fanatics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I very much disagree here. Clinton carried quite a few states in the South, and probably still would today. Dems continue to win a lot of races at the state level in most parts of the South, and the same goes for Reps in the NE.
Really the only regions lost to "voting for personalities" are the exurbs and maybe the inner cities. And that's more to do with the psychological impact of not living in a neighborhood than with the parties...people will cling to their party as a neighborhood replacement.
That's why that racist who upstaged the Reps in the TN-08 primary, was nominated on their ticket, got totally bombed in the rural parts of the district but did decently in the suburbs.

[Democratic Hawk]

First off, Gore and Edwards are poor analogies since given the way this country has moved politically, especially in the South, these two are clear liberals- not extreme ones (as they ran for president, that is; Gore has become extreme snce), but to the left of Clinton and well to the left of the national center of gravity. Now Bayh IS an actual moderate, very similar to Lieberman and McCain; that is, moderate left on economy (which is qute capitalist by older standards), moderate right on social issues, and quite hawkish on defense.

Bayh would certainly carry Indiana because in America, we still do elect people and not parties. So Hoosiers won't see it as "the Democrats (whose poster buy, btw, happens to be Evan Bayh) vs. the GOP for the White House" but rather as "Bayh vs. ?". Now Bayh has not only the very significant advantage of being from the home state and acting and feeling like it, but also has a long and admired history of public service in the state and is clearly the dominant state political figure. Add the fact that the Bayhs are an established and respected family especially locally (like the Kennedys, Bushes, Cuomos, Romneys, and so forth) and most vitally, that Bayh's positions are basically in sync with the state. The result is that Indiana would go for Bayh, and likely Ohio and even Missouri and Kentucky may be in play.

Now, these projections all assume a fairly standard GOP opponent (Frist, Owens, Allen, etc.). Throw in someone really unconventional and fairly liberal (Giuliani, Pataki, Schwarzenegger, McCain, Romney) and you have yourself a classic realigning election, which might feature a GOP-leaning Northeast and Dem gains in the South.

But the question here is not how well would Bayh do in the general election, but in the primaries. This question demands a reanalysis of the modern Democratic party. As the country has moved right, so has the party at large; but not so much the activists and ideologues who make up the base and vote in primaries. However, there is a clear new class of moderate ideologues both in govt (Blue Dogs, DLC, and many (perhaps most) governors) and with professional activists on the net and so forth; and they seem to be gaining increasing control within the party (Harry Reid, moderates like Roemer and Frist for DNC chair; several moderates considering run for president i.e. Bayh, Richardson, Warner, Rendell), also Bill Clinton has clearly become actually more moderate in statements since his presidency, and Hillary, perhaps cynically, has been a much more moderate senator than expected. Elements on the left have reacted by producing Dean and his ilk, Al Gore is one who has moved in this political direction. This election the Democratic party resoundingly rejected both new philosophies, represented by Dean and Lieberman, and stuck with the standard left (Kerry, Edwards). This failed spectacularly, were it not for the economy, war, and overly right-wing social stances pulling Bush down, it would have been a fiasco; as it was they lost pretty badly (by 2 and 5 percent in Ohio and Florida, 4 million + votes nationwide, Catholic who lost Catholic vote and Bush's extremely hgh Hispanic percentage).

It seems clear that one of these philosophies will come to dominate the Democratic party. The DNC chair race will be a good testing ground, as will Pelosi's succession (sooner rather than later?). If, as I suspect, the moderates begin a rapid rise, Bayh is a strong candidate for '08. If Dean and his ilk, or perhaps even worse, status quo types, keep control of the party, look for Hillary or the less likely but still viable Edwards to win the nomination and continue the post-1994 rise of the GOP in every public arena, unless the economy absolutely tanks or a new major war is proving difficult (i.e., Iran). If the current Democratic slide keeps up, the moderate forces I have described with perhaps a few GOP defections (like McCain), will naturally create a new party that will come to replace the Democrats, as has happened before when the existing two parties did not adequately represent the country's needs.

If, however, the moderate forces continue their rise, and the radicals throw their support behind them because of pragmatic considerations of winning, look for Bayh or someone like him to run and likely win in 2008. Unless, of course, the GOP also redefines itself post-Bush and the political order of the new millenium begins its establishment.

I enjoyed reading that. I'm hopeful that moderate forces within the Democratic Party will emerge triumphant because only a moderate, centrist Democrat has any realisitic chance of regaining the Presidency, as long as the country continues to drift to the right. Liberals are increasingly diminishing plurality among the electorate

Of course, a liberal Democrat is always going roughly half the moderate vote; however, this alone is not sufficient to offset Republican strength among conservatives

Personally, I feel that many of the electorate feels somewhat alienated from the Democratic and Republican parties. I'm not advocating a new party - but what I am advocating is Democratic Party regaining its majority status by moving, pragmatically, towards the ideological centre and posing a formidable challenge to the right-wing ideologues and reactionary 'Talibangelicals'

A Bayh candidacy would be formidable and it seems that even many Republicans are wary of this - Democrats take note!

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I very much disagree here. Clinton carried quite a few states in the South, and probably still would today. Dems continue to win a lot of races at the state level in most parts of the South, and the same goes for Reps in the NE.

Time to wheel out that example again... imagine Cramer v Weld in a Presidential election

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly

[AuH2O]

Bayh has no chance. Kerry was far left, and a terrible candidate, and only lost by 3%. There is no REASON for the Democrats to go all gaga for a moderate.