Is Bayh too conservative for the dems in '08?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:50:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Is Bayh too conservative for the dems in '08?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Poll
Question: Is Bayh too conservative to run on the democratic ticket in 2008?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Not sure
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 70

Author Topic: Is Bayh too conservative for the dems in '08?  (Read 8941 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2005, 02:34:51 PM »

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.

Kerry is far left? I disagreed with him on like half ot the issues. Sorry, Kerry was completely middle of the road, having voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and numerous other things that I strongly disagree with.

The Democratic party probably wouldn't normally even consider someone like Bayh, but frankly a charging rhino would make a better President then the crooks in charge now.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2005, 08:28:22 AM »


Of winning the Democratic nomination or winning the presidency?

Dave
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2005, 11:38:15 AM »


Of winning the Democratic nomination or winning the presidency?


He has the lesser chance in the primaries.  In the General Election I cant really think of one candidate that the GOP could put up against him and have the advantage.  I think the Democrats as a whole would suck it up and vote for him because they need a win so bad they cant afford not to and I think alot of moderate Republicans woud vote for him especially if the Republicans nominate another neo-con like First or Santorum.

Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2005, 01:22:26 PM »

Sadly it seems as though the party and especially liberal/Democrat leaning folks in the media are starting to kid themselves that what was a pretty poor showing in the election into a “really close race”… Bush won by 3 million votes! And the GOP stormed the Senate and the House and despite a lacklusta economy, most people seeing the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and Bush’s far from impressive record from his first term and a candidate who to be fair was probably the best of what was on offer Sad

If the Party can get over trying to kid its self that there is no need to change and can reconcile its self with “middle America” then Bayh will be the natural choice to lead the ticket and he would probably win comfortably.

As a result the some perhaps many of the far left of the party may never forgive the Democrats and could for sometime find a home with the Greens or some other more assertively liberal third party, at the same time while Bayh will have a great deal of support no doubt from the Union and Moderate wings of the Party the Liberal wing of the Party though weakened will really despise him while the mainstream may well at best simply see him as a “necessary evil” to prevent a GOP hegemony in all branches of government. So it could be that Bayh will find himself in a position not unlike Nixon’s was in relation to the GOP in the 1970’s.   

A Bayh Presidency however might well afford the democrats the opportunity to fashion a new presidential coalition winning back many moderate “Joe and Joanna Six Packs”, weather this would transfer to the Senatorial level let alone the Congressional level is doubtful.

While the Success of Bayh might well mean the Democrats could rely on a stronger and enlarged base from which to fight and win presidential elections with moderate candidates and real shift of ideology would be needed to challenge the Republicans in both houses of congress, the Senate will not see “filibuster proof” majorities IMHO for either Party and I think it highly likely that the GOP (baring a catastrophe) will go into 2008 holding probably the Senate and almost certainly the House. Unlike the Presidency where voters take into account the personally and the politics of the candidate in Senate and House races for many voters the Party “brand” is what is important and for the Democrats to alter the some what unflattering perception of them by voters they would need to execute a big philosophical shift and by so doing alienate many social liberals and multilateralists and I think that will not happen for a long time if ever.                 
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2005, 02:50:27 PM »

Sadly it seems as though the party and especially liberal/Democrat leaning folks in the media are starting to kid themselves that what was a pretty poor showing in the election into a “really close race”… Bush won by 3 million votes! And the GOP stormed the Senate and the House and despite a lacklusta economy, most people seeing the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and Bush’s far from impressive record from his first term and a candidate who to be fair was probably the best of what was on offer Sad

If the Party can get over trying to kid its self that there is no need to change and can reconcile its self with “middle America” then Bayh will be the natural choice to lead the ticket and he would probably win comfortably.

As a result the some perhaps many of the far left of the party may never forgive the Democrats and could for sometime find a home with the Greens or some other more assertively liberal third party, at the same time while Bayh will have a great deal of support no doubt from the Union and Moderate wings of the Party the Liberal wing of the Party though weakened will really despise him while the mainstream may well at best simply see him as a “necessary evil” to prevent a GOP hegemony in all branches of government. So it could be that Bayh will find himself in a position not unlike Nixon’s was in relation to the GOP in the 1970’s.   

A Bayh Presidency however might well afford the democrats the opportunity to fashion a new presidential coalition winning back many moderate “Joe and Joanna Six Packs”, weather this would transfer to the Senatorial level let alone the Congressional level is doubtful.

While the Success of Bayh might well mean the Democrats could rely on a stronger and enlarged base from which to fight and win presidential elections with moderate candidates and real shift of ideology would be needed to challenge the Republicans in both houses of congress, the Senate will not see “filibuster proof” majorities IMHO for either Party and I think it highly likely that the GOP (baring a catastrophe) will go into 2008 holding probably the Senate and almost certainly the House. Unlike the Presidency where voters take into account the personally and the politics of the candidate in Senate and House races for many voters the Party “brand” is what is important and for the Democrats to alter the some what unflattering perception of them by voters they would need to execute a big philosophical shift and by so doing alienate many social liberals and multilateralists and I think that will not happen for a long time if ever.                 


Ohio was close. All of the Senate seats we lost were in Bush states. I think we had an actual net gain in the House, if you ignore the partisan mid-decade Texas gerrymander.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2005, 04:11:53 PM »

Sadly it seems as though the party and especially liberal/Democrat leaning folks in the media are starting to kid themselves that what was a pretty poor showing in the election into a “really close race”… Bush won by 3 million votes! And the GOP stormed the Senate and the House and despite a lacklusta economy, most people seeing the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and Bush’s far from impressive record from his first term and a candidate who to be fair was probably the best of what was on offer Sad

If the Party can get over trying to kid its self that there is no need to change and can reconcile its self with “middle America” then Bayh will be the natural choice to lead the ticket and he would probably win comfortably.

As a result the some perhaps many of the far left of the party may never forgive the Democrats and could for sometime find a home with the Greens or some other more assertively liberal third party, at the same time while Bayh will have a great deal of support no doubt from the Union and Moderate wings of the Party the Liberal wing of the Party though weakened will really despise him while the mainstream may well at best simply see him as a “necessary evil” to prevent a GOP hegemony in all branches of government. So it could be that Bayh will find himself in a position not unlike Nixon’s was in relation to the GOP in the 1970’s.   

A Bayh Presidency however might well afford the democrats the opportunity to fashion a new presidential coalition winning back many moderate “Joe and Joanna Six Packs”, weather this would transfer to the Senatorial level let alone the Congressional level is doubtful.

While the Success of Bayh might well mean the Democrats could rely on a stronger and enlarged base from which to fight and win presidential elections with moderate candidates and real shift of ideology would be needed to challenge the Republicans in both houses of congress, the Senate will not see “filibuster proof” majorities IMHO for either Party and I think it highly likely that the GOP (baring a catastrophe) will go into 2008 holding probably the Senate and almost certainly the House. Unlike the Presidency where voters take into account the personally and the politics of the candidate in Senate and House races for many voters the Party “brand” is what is important and for the Democrats to alter the some what unflattering perception of them by voters they would need to execute a big philosophical shift and by so doing alienate many social liberals and multilateralists and I think that will not happen for a long time if ever.                 


Ohio was close. All of the Senate seats we lost were in Bush states. I think we had an actual net gain in the House, if you ignore the partisan mid-decade Texas gerrymander.

Indeed Ohio was close, but by the same token so was Montana in 2000 I mean we only lost that by 100,000 votes! Admittedly that dealing with votes rather than shares of the vote as a whole so the result in Florida was also “close” then and PA, MI and WI where all much close than OH… the fact is in the presidential race while we didn’t get crushed we got convincingly beat.

And the Senate races might have been in Bush states but for heavens sake! You had dream candidates for the Democrats in Alaska and Oklahoma taking on either unpopular incumbents or discredited opponents… but the Democrat brand killed them in those states as hard as they tried.

2004 was certainly no wipe-out, I’d never argue that. But the Republicans where able to reflect the mood of “middle America” far better than we Democrats and at the same time they were able to portray us, partly though our own fault as out of step with that mood. The reasons for the defeat where not simply down the vagaries of campaigning on both sides we had everything going for us in this race and the GOP had a lot going against them but they beat us convincingly, the reasons for that defeat are more deep-rooted than a “poor candidate” or a good republican campaign vs a bad democrat campaign and as a party we need to think about it and it may be that some will find that hard and will have to part ways with the party… if those people happen to be the “Michael Moore Wing” of the party then it is frankly no great loss.                           
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2005, 06:11:55 PM »

Sadly it seems as though the party and especially liberal/Democrat leaning folks in the media are starting to kid themselves that what was a pretty poor showing in the election into a “really close race”… Bush won by 3 million votes! And the GOP stormed the Senate and the House and despite a lacklusta economy, most people seeing the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and Bush’s far from impressive record from his first term and a candidate who to be fair was probably the best of what was on offer Sad

If the Party can get over trying to kid its self that there is no need to change and can reconcile its self with “middle America” then Bayh will be the natural choice to lead the ticket and he would probably win comfortably.

As a result the some perhaps many of the far left of the party may never forgive the Democrats and could for sometime find a home with the Greens or some other more assertively liberal third party, at the same time while Bayh will have a great deal of support no doubt from the Union and Moderate wings of the Party the Liberal wing of the Party though weakened will really despise him while the mainstream may well at best simply see him as a “necessary evil” to prevent a GOP hegemony in all branches of government. So it could be that Bayh will find himself in a position not unlike Nixon’s was in relation to the GOP in the 1970’s.   

A Bayh Presidency however might well afford the democrats the opportunity to fashion a new presidential coalition winning back many moderate “Joe and Joanna Six Packs”, weather this would transfer to the Senatorial level let alone the Congressional level is doubtful.

While the Success of Bayh might well mean the Democrats could rely on a stronger and enlarged base from which to fight and win presidential elections with moderate candidates and real shift of ideology would be needed to challenge the Republicans in both houses of congress, the Senate will not see “filibuster proof” majorities IMHO for either Party and I think it highly likely that the GOP (baring a catastrophe) will go into 2008 holding probably the Senate and almost certainly the House. Unlike the Presidency where voters take into account the personally and the politics of the candidate in Senate and House races for many voters the Party “brand” is what is important and for the Democrats to alter the some what unflattering perception of them by voters they would need to execute a big philosophical shift and by so doing alienate many social liberals and multilateralists and I think that will not happen for a long time if ever.                 


Ohio was close. All of the Senate seats we lost were in Bush states. I think we had an actual net gain in the House, if you ignore the partisan mid-decade Texas gerrymander.

Indeed Ohio was close, but by the same token so was Montana in 2000 I mean we only lost that by 100,000 votes! Admittedly that dealing with votes rather than shares of the vote as a whole so the result in Florida was also “close” then and PA, MI and WI where all much close than OH… the fact is in the presidential race while we didn’t get crushed we got convincingly beat.

And the Senate races might have been in Bush states but for heavens sake! You had dream candidates for the Democrats in Alaska and Oklahoma taking on either unpopular incumbents or discredited opponents… but the Democrat brand killed them in those states as hard as they tried.

2004 was certainly no wipe-out, I’d never argue that. But the Republicans where able to reflect the mood of “middle America” far better than we Democrats and at the same time they were able to portray us, partly though our own fault as out of step with that mood. The reasons for the defeat where not simply down the vagaries of campaigning on both sides we had everything going for us in this race and the GOP had a lot going against them but they beat us convincingly, the reasons for that defeat are more deep-rooted than a “poor candidate” or a good republican campaign vs a bad democrat campaign and as a party we need to think about it and it may be that some will find that hard and will have to part ways with the party… if those people happen to be the “Michael Moore Wing” of the party then it is frankly no great loss.                           


Percentage, it was a close percentage.
The Democratic party needs to show some spine. If they are too spineless to articulate how insane the Republicans are, of course they won't fair too well. I hope you aren't saying we should only have Democrats who try to be Bush's bitch.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2005, 05:52:54 AM »


I hope you aren't saying we should only have Democrats who try to be Bush's bitch.


I’m not, but nor should we have Democrats who’s self-righteous zeal leads them to dismiss the concerns of ordinary Americans and demean their values, it is for this reason that so many Americans who’s economic interests may lie with the Democratic Party vote Republican because at leas the republicans seem to respect their values and offer a broad tent (a party that goes from Rick Santorum to Arnold Schwarzenegger and from big spending George Bush to frugal John McCain) the Democrats on the other hand can often seem dogmatic and intolerant… yes this Administration has introduced polices which I completely oppose but at the same time for many Americans the GOP is far more accepting and tolerant of diversity and able to relate to the concerns, aspirations and values of ordinary Americans than a Democratic Party which many see as removed and dogmatic.

Until the Democratic Party can reconcile its self with the values of mainstream Americans and prove that it has done so to the American people it WILL NOT REGAIN THE MAJORITY in this country, and until the moderate wing of the party regains its position of prominence and reengage with those voters who have left us we’re in a terrible fix.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2005, 07:55:12 AM »

Sadly it seems as though the party and especially liberal/Democrat leaning folks in the media are starting to kid themselves that what was a pretty poor showing in the election into a “really close race”… Bush won by 3 million votes! And the GOP stormed the Senate and the House and despite a lacklusta economy, most people seeing the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and Bush’s far from impressive record from his first term and a candidate who to be fair was probably the best of what was on offer Sad

If the Party can get over trying to kid its self that there is no need to change and can reconcile its self with “middle America” then Bayh will be the natural choice to lead the ticket and he would probably win comfortably.

As a result the some perhaps many of the far left of the party may never forgive the Democrats and could for sometime find a home with the Greens or some other more assertively liberal third party, at the same time while Bayh will have a great deal of support no doubt from the Union and Moderate wings of the Party the Liberal wing of the Party though weakened will really despise him while the mainstream may well at best simply see him as a “necessary evil” to prevent a GOP hegemony in all branches of government. So it could be that Bayh will find himself in a position not unlike Nixon’s was in relation to the GOP in the 1970’s.

A Bayh Presidency however might well afford the democrats the opportunity to fashion a new presidential coalition winning back many moderate “Joe and Joanna Six Packs”, weather this would transfer to the Senatorial level let alone the Congressional level is doubtful.

While the Success of Bayh might well mean the Democrats could rely on a stronger and enlarged base from which to fight and win presidential elections with moderate candidates and real shift of ideology would be needed to challenge the Republicans in both houses of congress, the Senate will not see “filibuster proof” majorities IMHO for either Party and I think it highly likely that the GOP (baring a catastrophe) will go into 2008 holding probably the Senate and almost certainly the House. Unlike the Presidency where voters take into account the personally and the politics of the candidate in Senate and House races for many voters the Party “brand” is what is important and for the Democrats to alter the some what unflattering perception of them by voters they would need to execute a big philosophical shift and by so doing alienate many social liberals and multilateralists and I think that will not happen for a long time if ever.


Well said Ben

Dave
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2005, 02:03:25 PM »

Sadly it seems as though the party and especially liberal/Democrat leaning folks in the media are starting to kid themselves that what was a pretty poor showing in the election into a “really close race”… Bush won by 3 million votes! And the GOP stormed the Senate and the House and despite a lacklusta economy, most people seeing the invasion of Iraq as a mistake and Bush’s far from impressive record from his first term and a candidate who to be fair was probably the best of what was on offer Sad

If the Party can get over trying to kid its self that there is no need to change and can reconcile its self with “middle America” then Bayh will be the natural choice to lead the ticket and he would probably win comfortably.

As a result the some perhaps many of the far left of the party may never forgive the Democrats and could for sometime find a home with the Greens or some other more assertively liberal third party, at the same time while Bayh will have a great deal of support no doubt from the Union and Moderate wings of the Party the Liberal wing of the Party though weakened will really despise him while the mainstream may well at best simply see him as a “necessary evil” to prevent a GOP hegemony in all branches of government. So it could be that Bayh will find himself in a position not unlike Nixon’s was in relation to the GOP in the 1970’s.

A Bayh Presidency however might well afford the democrats the opportunity to fashion a new presidential coalition winning back many moderate “Joe and Joanna Six Packs”, weather this would transfer to the Senatorial level let alone the Congressional level is doubtful.

While the Success of Bayh might well mean the Democrats could rely on a stronger and enlarged base from which to fight and win presidential elections with moderate candidates and real shift of ideology would be needed to challenge the Republicans in both houses of congress, the Senate will not see “filibuster proof” majorities IMHO for either Party and I think it highly likely that the GOP (baring a catastrophe) will go into 2008 holding probably the Senate and almost certainly the House. Unlike the Presidency where voters take into account the personally and the politics of the candidate in Senate and House races for many voters the Party “brand” is what is important and for the Democrats to alter the some what unflattering perception of them by voters they would need to execute a big philosophical shift and by so doing alienate many social liberals and multilateralists and I think that will not happen for a long time if ever.


Well said Ben

Dave

Thanks, I think its a pretty fair assesment of where we stand.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: January 14, 2005, 07:26:03 PM »

Let me interject here for a moment. Is the debate we are currently having not similiar to the type of debate that would have gone on in the GOP in the 1930s-70s? What kind of debate is this?

The dichotomy being presented on his board is a one-dimensional affair between liberal-left and moderate-left: the Dean forces of reaction (note: irony) vs an embrace of a sort of populist center. The problem with this dichotomy is that no matter whether you're a moderate or liberal Democrat, there's a trade-off here, and the trade-off is that between breadth and passion.

The problem with Clintonian Democrats is that while Clinton was able to form a broad coalition, he wasn't able to form a very deep one. Anyone who was following politics closely at the height of the Clinton centrism knows that while Democrats partisanly supported Clinton, all the thunder of that era was coming from the right. School reform... social security privatization... new media... religious revivalism... where the conservatives failed, it was their failure to push their agenda fast enough. Where Clinton prevailed, it was a victory at preventing conservative dominance, not a victory at moving in the Democratic direction. In short, Republicans were more passionate than the Democrats... more Republicans identified (and identify) as conservative than Democrats as liberal. Why should Democrats identify as liberal? Their own Democratic president repudiated liberalism, and the only ones who kept the 'banner' of that vocabulary were increasingly not liberals but simply leftists. Some Democrats of that era must have unconsciously felt that they were able to accept the status quo, and were satisfied as long as American politics remained a stalemate.

But to the astute observer, it was apparent that when you have one side that is committed, argumentative, studious, and constant attack against a perceived establishment, and the other that is tied to a passionless holding position, that at some point the barbarians will be at the gate, and when they barbarians are at the gate you know they will break through it. The rise of GOP in electoral politics in the decade of the 2000s should not have been a complete surprise to those who saw the passion of the conservative movement in the late 1990s and the comparative collapse of passionate liberalism. In truth people are malleable to what their leaders, and what evidence reveals, no matter which party of ideology they claim to be from. A party that does not believe in itself cannot win anything. And the msot basic fact is that passion breeds work, and work is what creates platforms, movements, and victories....
Logged
BobOMac2k2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 280


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2005, 04:42:28 PM »

I really have no idea who this guy is...but if he lives up to the hype here, then he probably will be a great candidate.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2005, 08:23:02 AM »

I really have no idea who this guy is...but if he lives up to the hype here, then he probably will be a great candidate.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of Bayh coming from Illinois

Bayh's a Democrat, who was Indiana's former Secretary of State , former two-term governor and he's just been re-elected to a second term in the Senate polling more votes in Indiana than GWB

Dave
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2005, 09:24:17 AM »

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.

Yay! Someone other than me noticed!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
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 0.054 seconds with 14 queries.