Should Barack Obama have picked Evan Bayh as running mate?

[Suburbia]

Obama was 47, young and inexperienced.

From Illinois.

But Evan Bayh was a governor of a red state from 1989 to 1997, the son of a political family (Bayh), a U.S. Senator, from the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, a favorite of the Clintons.

Bayh was not too old and not too young. Bayh would have been a better heir for Obama than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, don't you think for 2016 and beyond?

[President Johnson]

No, Uncle Joe was the best match he could have made. Both electorally and in terms of experience/competence.

[KaiserDave]

No?
He won in a massive landslide.

[Redban]

Hindsight 20/20, maybe. Obama would've won with either of them in that big 2008 year, when everyone hated the Republicans.

But it was impossible for him to think about a heir in 2008 -- "I should pick someone who would get elected after me 8-12 years later." No politician can look that far ahead, nor should they attempt to do so.

[brucejoel99]

No.

Bayh would cost the Democrats a Senate seat right then & there, which means that the Senate Democrats never have 60 votes (not even for the very brief stretch that they did have them for), which means no ACA.

[538Electoral]

Wouldn't have given much benefit electorally. Maybe he could've helped Obama hold IN in 2012 but that's pretty much it.

[Sir Mohamed]

Wouldn't have given much benefit electorally. Maybe he could've helped Obama hold IN in 2012 but that's pretty much it.

I really doubt Obama could have kept the state. It may have been closer, but IN was gone by 2012 since 2008 was just a fluke. Furthermore, It's just natural a sitting VP loses "bound" to his or her homestate to some extent, since said officeholder becomes more of a national figure after 4 years, while a non-incumbent VP candidate is often more of a local figure.

[TDAS04]

No.

[One Term Floridian]

Wouldn't have given much benefit electorally. Maybe he could've helped Obama hold IN in 2012 but that's pretty much it.

I really doubt Obama could have kept the state. It may have been closer, but IN was gone by 2012 since 2008 was just a fluke. Furthermore, It's just natural a sitting VP loses "bound" to his or her homestate to some extent, since said officeholder becomes more of a national figure after 4 years, while a non-incumbent VP candidate is often more of a local figure.

A la Al Gore in 2000

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No.

Bayh would cost the Democrats a Senate seat right then & there, which means that the Senate Democrats never have 60 votes (not even for the very brief stretch that they did have them for), which means no ACA.

Yes. Plus Bayh was too much of a obnoxious moderate hero. My usual criticism for Biden aside, Joe was far better in terms of policies.

[Left Wing]

Mitch Daniels picks Bayh's successor so the ACA would have been absolutely gutted to get the 60th vote

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Part of the reason Obama picked Biden was because of the high chance that he wouldn't run for the presidency after two terms as VP. Bayh would have had no such appeal from Obama's perspective.

[Turbo Flame]

Yes. I think should have either gone with Bayh or Tim Kaine. Those were more logical then Joe Biden. It wasn't like Obama was doomed with either or.