Bayh Forming Exploratory Committee, Visiting Iowa and NH. Why?

[JABBS]

Click here for the latest 2008 presidential campaign news on Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN).

Does anyone think he really has a chance?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Yes, I think he does. He's a pretty good guy. nt

[SaveElmer]

2. 1975...Did Jimmy Carter have a chance...?

Of course Bayh has a chance...if he connects with folks he definitely has a chance...

He has alot to offer, and if he is able to get his message across in a way that is appealing to folks, he will do well!

[Warpy]

3. Party conservatives love him

and he's a whisker better than either Nelson. That's like saying a brain tumor is better than a leaking aneurysm because it kills you slower.

He's too conservative to energize much of anyone and we already know no "moderate" GOPpie is going to cross party lines to vote for a Conservative Democrat no matter what horror their own party produces. Look at their votes for Stupid, the worst president in history.

[skipos]

10. Maybe you are right, but I don't think so

Moderate GOPs voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. They didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 because Kerry was so easy to define as a New England millionaire Ted Kennedy liberal. Bayh isn't my pick in 08, and the GOP will certainly try to slime him, but they aren't going to be successful making him out to be some "scary librul."

[Warpy]

15. GOPs did NOT vote for Clinton

After Poppy's disastrous 4 years, they voted Reform. That split the GOP vote and Clinton got in.

If you've learned nothing else over the last 37 years, learn this one thing: GOPs do NOT cross party lines no matter how horrific their candidate is. They may vote for a right wing alternative in a splinter party, but they will NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT.

That is all.

[Kelly Rupert]

17. It's swing and independent voters we need to capture.

Neither party's base will cross party lines (though they might stay home) and neither party can win with just the base.

[skipos]

20. 1996 exit polls do not back your claim up

From exit polls:
80% of Repubs voted for Dole, 13% for Clinton, 6% for Perot
33% of moderates voted for Dole, 57% for Clinton, 9% for Perot
That is much better than Gore's performance and Kerry's performance in those groups.

From wikipedia:
However, exit polling indicated that Perot voters would have split their votes fairly evenly among Clinton and Bush had Perot not been in the race, and an analysis by FairVote - Center for Voting and Democracy suggested that, while Bush would have won more electoral votes with Perot out of the race, he would not have gained enough to reverse Clinton's victory.<1>

[Warpy]

29. Try looking by overall ideology and percent of the total vote

Clinton Bush Perot Clinton Dole Perot
Liberal Republicans 17 54 30 44 48 9

Moderate Republicans 15 63 21 20 72 7

Conservative Republicans 5 82 13 6 88 5

Now, while this would seem to prove your point in 1996, consider that the only group to cross party lines are the liberal Repugs. The problem with that is that liberal Repugs accounted for only TWO PERCENT of the total vote.

Sorry, but 0.88% is really not enough to foul up a liberal party over and it's certainly not enough to carry an election. Moderates did account for another 2.6%, but that still isn't enough to sell out the working class party base over.

That's the problem with weasel words like "Repugs voted for Clinton in record numbers in 1996." Yeah, they may have been record numbers for the Repugs, but the overall numbers were minute.

The main thing is that we've tried moving the party to the right. We've taken working class economics off the table for a few decades. How have we done? Until there was somebody bad enough to hate, we were shut out of all three branches of government.

Wooing Repugs by being as conservative as they are is a losing strategy. It's past time to try something else, like maybe being DEMOCRATS for a change.

Full vote analysis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

[skipos]

35. Who said "Repugs voted for Clinton in record numbers in 1996?"

Not me. But Republicans voted for Clinton more than they voted for Gore or Kerry. Not a lot more, but a little bit more.

Regardles, as we saw in 2006, it is all about the independents. Repubs still voted for Repubs, Dems still voted for Dems, it was the independents who voted more for the Dems and hence we won.

Personally, I think Democratic politicians can win over enough independents without pandering or sacrificing principles. It is all about having nominees who are engaging, likeable, and not easy to paint as New England limosuine libruls. And having a candidate who is 1. not a senator, and/or 2. from a flippable red state certainly helps the cause.

[wyldwolf]

26. wrong

debunked so many times on DU.

Yes, Virginia, Republicans did vote for Clinton in '92 and no, Perot did not split the Republican vote. That is all.

[Clark2008]

36. Don't be surprised.

Corker called Ford a 'scary librul' in the Tennessee Senate race and I think that worked far more against Ford than those silly bimbo ads.

[Hoosier Dem]

4. From Indiana...

Let me tell you that I WILL NOT be supporting a Bayh presidential candidacy. This guy has made a carerr out of riding the fence and playing the middle. He can do this here in right-wing Indiana, but I don't think it will play well in New Hampshire.

Bayh has been very pro-union, but has avoided taking any strong stance on reproductive rights and gay rights. He supported the Patriot Act as well as the Iraq War.

Maybe he couldname LIEberman as his running mate and we could just sell out the WHOLE PARTY!

[JABBS]

6. nuff said

thanks for the thumbnail sketch.

I follow this stuff pretty closely, but knew next to nothing about him, other than that he comes from a political family.

[quiet.american]

5. I'm still not Bayh-ing.

2004 Interview on Abu Ghraib and Iraq:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/14/ip.00.html

CROWLEY: Is George Bush responsible for anything that went on in the prison?

BAYH: Well, General Taguba found responsibility up to the brigade level. We're now investigating the intelligence side to see how far up that goes.

I would say in the policy side, Candy, this, not excusing in any way the behavior that took place there, but people farther up the command structure allowed that prison to get terribly overcrowded, create conditions that put a great deal of pressure on these guards and, at least in part, led to this aberrant behavior.

So I think somebody further up the chain needs to answer for that. I doubt if that goes to the Oval Office.

CROWLEY: Do you think Don Rumsfeld should resign?

BAYH: You know, I don't because he works for the president, he's implementing the president's policies.

I think the overall question here that has been obscured somewhat by this prison controversy is are the president's policies working? Are we on the road to a stable, freer Iraq or are we not? That very clearly lies at the president's doorstep. And throwing a subordinate over the side really doesn't get to that question.

CROWLEY: And what's the answer to the question you're asking? Is Iraq closer now than it was pre-Saddam Hussein to a democracy?

BAYH: We're closer now. But the question is whether we're on a path to being successful. And I think -- you know, I'm one of those who thinks it's a good thing Saddam is gone. I think it's a noble thing we're trying to provide democracy to the Iraqi people.

But there have been a series of mistakes that have led to us losing some momentum, to bogging down. I think we need to reseize the initiative with some bold policy initiatives. And clearly that is a debate in this presidential election. And I think the president needs to be held to account for mistakes made by the administration.

CROWLEY: You have one of the premier members of your party talking about how the prison has now been, you know, just as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. And that, of course, is Senator Kennedy. Do you agree with that?

BAYH: I don't agree with that assessment. I think this aberrant behavior on the part of a few individuals doesn't compare to the hundreds of thousands of murders, rapes, those kinds of things. Saddam was a monster on a scale of historic proportions.

So while this is wrong, we need to get to the bottom of it. i don't think the two are moral little equivalent.

CROWLEY: Let me turn a quick corner here for you and ask you if you were on the ticket with John Kerry, could you deliver Indiana?

BAYH: You're going to ask me all these tough political questions.

You know, Candy, I don't know. We have a history in our state, of course, of voting more Republican than Democrat. But if you run a good middle of the road, centrist the way John Kerry is running his campaign, you can come close in Indiana. So I think it remains very much to be seen.

[skipos]

7. Which is exactly what they said about Clinton in 1991. nt

[NYCGirl]

9. I know Bill Clinton. Bayh is no Bill Clinton. NT

[Kelly Rupert]

8. The exact same zero chance that

Carter and Clinton had. Everybody here seems to be of the opinion that a centrist red-state Democrat has no chance of winning, when in actuality (considering Gore, Clinton, and Carter) they're the only ones we've won with since Kennedy.

[Hoosier Dem]

12. Don't forget that we won with LBJ in 1964

[wyldwolf]

14. a red state Democrat

[Kelly Rupert]

16. Who was a centrist Southern Democrat.

Though I didn't include him because I considered his re-election rather an exceptional case, given the conditions under which he first assumed office.

[JABBS]

24. the world is completely different than in 1964

it's almost irrelevant. george wallace could be a national candidate in 1964.

[JABBS]

18. hey, I'm hoping for an edwards/cleland or edwards/warner ticket

because I think it has the best chance of winning independents and moderate republicans, and the liberal end of the party will be fired up to win back the white house even if the candidate is more of a centrist.

but evan bayh? what has he done? when has he led?

[Kelly Rupert]

19. I really wish that Warner hadn't dropped out.

I think he was a surefire winner. I agree that Bayh isn't nearly ideal.

[Catchawave]

30. I'm not giving up on Warner :)

Or Feingold. Both incredible Democrats, who may not want to spend the time and fortune on running for President, but I'm sure if they were offered the #2 slot, they would make fine Vice Presidents.

Bayh is that rare bird of a blue Gov in a red state, and no baggage. I would give him some time.

[Catchawave]

21. Well stated !

Bayh has a very impressive resume and a high popularity rating in his state. He's going to be a very serious contender.

[JABBS]

22. no one has ever heard of him

which will hurt him in fund-raising.

his best hope is that he can beat out edwards as the anti-hillary, and that obama stays out of the race. otherwise, he'll get crushed in Iowa, stagger into New Hampshire, and hope for a 4th place finish there. if he doesn't get it, he's toast.

don't forget, primary voters tend to be very liberal. bayh isn't. 'nuff said.

[Catchawave]

31. 2008

Wide open baby :)

Clinton and Carter were unheard of at this point in their successful runs. Edwards, Gore and Clinton are favorites at this point because of their history and name recognition. Kerry and Clark certainly have time to overcome botched jokes, waffles and fine tune their campaigns. I like Biden and Vilsack and Richardson too! Who knows, Dean might be back.............we.have.so.much.time :patriot:

I think it was Craig Crawford who said "Politics is the only sport where spectators can participate" !

:hi:

Edit spelling

[cali]

11. Of course he has a chance.

I doubt I'd support him in the primaries but I'd support him if he's the nominee. He's also not nearly as bad as some on this thread contend: He has a 95 rating from the ADA, and he voted against both Roberts and Alito.

[wyldwolf]

13. of course he has a chance

1975 - Jimmy who?
1992 - Bill who?

Considering the current political climate, and if he runs a smart campaign, he definitely has a shot.

[JNelson6563]

23. Because hope springs eternal my friend.

:toast:

[Thrill]

25. Yes he has a chance

Pretty good chance

[JABBS]

28. pretty good chance?

not if he doesn't have money. and if hillary, obama and edwards are running, he'll have problems raising money. and if vilsack wins Iowa, then bayh will have to finish in the top 3 in NH to stay in the race until super tuesday.

so how is it he has a pretty good chance?

[Thrill]

37. He'll get the money

Never discount the conservative democrats and independents donations. If he is running neck and neck. He will get the money

[Ninja Jordan]

34. If it's between him and Hillary, I'm on the Bayh Bandwagon.

[Infinite Hope]

27. No chance. n/t

[PATRICK]

32. The centrist "rabbits"

My considered opinion that centrist candidates will be crowding into their local early primaries to PREVENT a Dean or liberal candidate from breaking away or dominating the early season. The purpose, whether to gain time for another centrist candidate like Hillary, or keep pull and clout on the agenda seems much more likely than any real hopes for the presidency. Of course they would LIKE to have a chance and even believe it as much as Gephardt or Lieberman did but with Vilsack and Bayh both trying to get a start it seems they might be more concerned about getting brushed aside again in Iowa and not even getting a Veep candidate or serious consideration on agenda planks. In the short run this might be to help them be taken seriously as a caucus as well.

Lots of reasons, most better than having realistic expectations of personal presidential candidate success.

[wyldwolf]

38. damn! You discovered our top secret plan!

[snowbear]

33. Too soon to tell I suspect.....

BTW.. Does anyone know when the then Governor of Arkansas jumped into the race? He was an unknown outside of his state initially, so hey.. :shrug:

2008 is going to be a PACKED field!!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

We could wind up with a General...



A governor from the southwest...




A governor from the heartland...



A governor with no name recognition...



A senator with tons of name recognition...



A newcomer...



A not-so-new-comer...



And at least 20 other possibilities besides the above..

[wisteria]

39. Maybe.

Contrary to the current media overplay, the race is still open to anyone wanting to run and try to convince voters to vote for him or her. Believe it or not, there are people out in the world who may not like to two current Democrat media darlings. Obviously, some people are telling him to give it a shot, just like Vilsack,Kerry,Edwards,Gore,Kucinich and Clark.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Perhaps he is running for the VP nomination

It worked for Edwards.