Is Bayh too conservative for the dems in '08?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How about Mark Warner?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

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.