Bayh or Warner?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm already behind Warner for 08, not really a tough choice.  I like Hilary, but this sudden reinvention of herself doesn't give me a good vibe and I don't think she's electable (you think Kerry did bad in the South?).  Bayh is too conservative, I want a Democrat, not GOP-Lite. I haven't seen or heard much from Warner, but I do know he was  a great governor and originally from the Northeast : )

[Democratic Hawk]

Anyone who defends the Iraq war is completely dead in the primary.

And some feckless Democratic 'dove' will be dead in the general

Dave

[Moooooo]

Anyone who defends the Iraq war is completely dead in the primary.

And some feckless Democratic 'dove' will be dead in the general

Dave

A year ago that would have been true, but now a majority of Americans believe the war was not worth it.  They also believe a time table for withdrawl should be set.  Actually a poll conducted in Wisconsin (a swing state) just yesterday indicated that a majority of Wisconsin residents want our troops home now.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bayh is too conservative, I want a Democrat, not GOP-Lite. I haven't seen or heard much from Warner, but I do know he was  a great governor and originally from the Northeast : )

You couldn't be more mistaken. Granted Bayh is not your mainstream liberal but I wouldn't say he's GOP-Lite (do you think I'd be singing his praises, if he was?) or particularly conservative

In case you didn't know, Bayh had a stellar record as a two-term governor of Indiana, which was characterised  by moderate and pragmatic progressive policies. He left office with approval ratings pushing 80%, nuimbers which I'm not mistaken best Warners - and has gone on to win two landslide victories as Indiana's junior senator

Both Bayh and Warner certainly have cross-over appeal, which is why they have a better chance than most Democrats when it comes to winning a presidential race - providing the GOP nominee isn't John McCain, who looks to be unbeatble - but Bayh has never lost an election. Of course, you could retort with "Neither did John Kerry". There's a big difference between a Democrat winning all his races in Indiana and a Democrat winning all his races in Massachusetts

I've always thought that both Bayh and Warner would only carry their states at the top of the ticket - but now I'm not so sure since Warner was born in Indiana and Bayh attended the University of Virginia. It's possible, they could win both

I'm certainly warm to the prospect of a Bayh/Warner candidacy or failing that Warner/Bayh

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Anyone who defends the Iraq war is completely dead in the primary.

And some feckless Democratic 'dove' will be dead in the general

Dave

A year ago that would have been true, but now a majority of Americans believe the war was not worth it.  They also believe a time table for withdrawl should be set.  Actually a poll conducted in Wisconsin (a swing state) just yesterday indicated that a majority of Wisconsin residents want our troops home now.

I still don't fancy the chances of someone who will almost certainly be beaten about the head with a big stick by the GOP on defence and national security issues. Of course, this ardent hawk may be wrong

Dave

[afleitch]

I'm certainly warm to the prospect of a Bayh/Warner candidacy or failing that Warner/Bayh

Dave

Same here, hence the tag under my posts. I think they would make an outstanding dynamic team regardless of who tops the ticket. I do not believe they are 'GOP-lite' but I think they can attract independent and moderate Republican voters which is what the Dems need if they are to win in 2008. I don't believe Hillary could do that, depite the respect I have for her.

[Speed of Sound]

Mark Warner. Warner has been lucky lately in getting alot of spotlight time, and he also comes across as slightly less conservative than Bayh, not to mention the fact that Dems would have a better chance at VA than IN.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Bayh is too conservative, I want a Democrat, not GOP-Lite. I haven't seen or heard much from Warner, but I do know he was  a great governor and originally from the Northeast : )

You couldn't be more mistaken. Granted Bayh is not your mainstream liberal but I wouldn't say he's GOP-Lite (do you think I'd be singing his praises, if he was?) or particularly conservative

In case you didn't know, Bayh had a stellar record as a two-term governor of Indiana, which was characterised  by moderate and pragmatic progressive policies. He left office with approval ratings pushing 80%, nuimbers which I'm not mistaken best Warners - and has gone on to win two landslide victories as Indiana's junior senator

Both Bayh and Warner certainly have cross-over appeal, which is why they have a better chance than most Democrats when it comes to winning a presidential race - providing the GOP nominee isn't John McCain, who looks to be unbeatble - but Bayh has never lost an election. Of course, you could retort with "Neither did John Kerry". There's a big difference between a Democrat winning all his races in Indiana and a Democrat winning all his races in Massachusetts

I've always thought that both Bayh and Warner would only carry their states at the top of the ticket - but now I'm not so sure since Warner was born in Indiana and Bayh attended the University of Virginia. It's possible, they could win both

I'm certainly warm to the prospect of a Bayh/Warner candidacy or failing that Warner/Bayh

Dave

I'd love a Warner/Bayh ticket.  I believe the Democrats would keep all of Kerry's states, regain Iowa and New Mexico, and pick up Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warner will be rammed in the primaries and the general election for his lack of foreign policy experience (and therefore whether he really is up to the task of defending this country, and dealing with the situation in Iraq), not to mention his lack of overall electoral experience with his single term in the Virginia Governor's Mansion.

The general election will be centered on the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, and I'm not sure Warner is up to it. 

Fair enough, but you didnt answer the questions at hand.  How does Bayh explain his position on all of those issues and make it out of the Democratic primary?  Warner can convince the people he is strong on defense and terrorism by presenting himself as a strong leader.  How does Bayh justify those votes to liberal primary voters without flip-flopping?

I don't know how he will justify his votes on domestic issues, but with regard to the Iraq War, Bayh can justify his vote in favor of the war in Iraq by saying that given the information that was given him and other senators by the administration in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, they judged the situation serious enough as to warrant military action on a massive scale to topple the regime.

He should remind them that President Clinton also had come to much the same conclusion as President Bush regarding Saddam Hussein's intentions and actions in reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It really shouldn't be that difficult if he sticks to an explanation as simple and easily understood as this. 

Anyone who defends the Iraq war is completely dead in the primary.

It isn't about defending the Iraq War -it is about explaining his vote, assuming he has had second thoughts regarding the wisdom of backing the administration in the run-up to the invasion. 

Has he criticized the war yet? Because, he'd better do some of that if he wants to win the primary. He has to atone for his vote, and so does Hillary.

[WI_Dem]

Warner is probably the most powerful potential Democratic candidate in the country. He will be just what the country is looking for in 2008 to follow 8 years of utter incompetence and ideological bickering.

[TomC]

I want to say Bayh, but Warner's more likely to master the outsider role, as others have mentioned, so I guess Warner, but I voted Bayh, 'cause it's who I want.

[Ben.]

Warner is probably the most powerful potential Democratic candidate in the country. He will be just what the country is looking for in 2008 to follow 8 years of utter incompetence and ideological bickering.

I’d agree that Warner could well fit the national mood very well in 2008, especially where he complemented with an experienced, moderate (Bayh, Lincoln etc…) as his running mate.

Sadly I think that John McCain, should he win the GOP nomination, would fit the national mood even better and consequently should be the GOP nominee, I think he’d beat just about any conceivable Democratic ticket.   

[skybridge]

I don't think there are any logical arguments why Warner has better chances than Bayh. Then again, logic never stopped people from swarming to the GOP either, so anything is possible.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Warner.  No candidate who cast a vote for the war in Iraq will have any chance to win in 2008.  Though I think Warner should be a VP candidate more than a candidate himself.  We need someone with foreign experience if we are to have any hope of recovering from the spreading world wide anti-Americanism.  Clark/Warner would be okay... though I'd rather Warner ran for Senate (unless Webb declares first) and see a Clark/Feingold ticket... But thats just me. =)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Warner.  No candidate who cast a vote for the war in Iraq will have any chance to win in 2008.  Though I think Warner should be a VP candidate more than a candidate himself.  We need someone with foreign experience if we are to have any hope of recovering from the spreading world wide anti-Americanism.  Clark/Warner would be okay... though I'd rather Warner ran for Senate (unless Webb declares first) and see a Clark/Feingold ticket... But thats just me. =)

Hi, Progress. It'd be interesting if someone did general election matchups with them, but sadly almost all of the general election matchups I've seen are Hillary or Kerry vs. Guilani or McCain.