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

[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

[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

[Democratic Hawk]

Bayh has no chance.

Of winning the Democratic nomination or winning the presidency?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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.

Well said Ben

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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