« Ailing Congresswoman Won't Seek Re-Election | Home | Obama: Being Wife Of President Does Not Constitute Experience »
Poll: Bayh On The Ticket Could Turn Indiana Blue
Indiana hasn't voted Democratic for president since the 1964 Lyndon Johnson landslide, but a new poll from Selzer & Co. finds that the state could easily go Dem next year — that is, if centrist Senator Evan Bayh is the candidate for vice president.
The poll finds a Generic Dem/Bayh ticket leading a Generic Republican by a 47%-33% margin. Without Bayh, a generic Democrat loses ten points of support — but the Republicans gain practically nothing, for a 37%-32% Dem margin. A key reason for Democratic hopes: President Bush, who won 59% of the vote here in 2004, is at only 28% approval.
Advertisement
I'm sure Evan's a nice enough guy, but he's hardly a high profile senator. It's tough to imagine him bringing much to the ticket. I'd be surprised if the Dems even held his Senate seat. Stay put, Evan.
November 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought that Sen. Bayh would be on Clinton's shortest list for running mate, and have even floated the idea here before. He is the picture of civilized politics, who would appeal to many Republicans. Wes Clark would be great but it would not be a well "balanced" ticket, as I do not think that he would be as attractive to Repubs as Bayh, and he'd bring in AR, which it looks like Clinton might bring in on her own...
I say: Bayh-Bayh!
November 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, what we need is another Democrat from the Republican wing of the Democratic party. ::rolleyes::
If Clinton gets the nod, she'll need somebody efficient, energetic, and capable to help clean up the mess the GOP's left -- any one of her primary opponents would be a fine choice. I think Clinton/Obama would carry the most resonance. It's hard to resist a woman and a black man to show the world just how different the US is going to be.
My greatest fear with that ticket is that it will be totally ineffective. As the Great Orange Satan points out, these leaders have some of the largest microphones available, they have considerable power in the Senate, and they're not using these privileges to actually, you know, lead.
November 26, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton won Indiana both times, did he not? That is how I knew he had won in 1992, when Indiana was called for him early in the evening.
November 26, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, like frogmartin said, just what we need another republican from the republican wing of the democratic party. We don't need another clinton clone in the whitehouse along with clinton II. How about some royal blue democrats? Just to shake things up for a change.
November 26, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
posted on wrong thread at first, sorry, Frank
Franklin R Odo wrote on November 26, 2007 1:07 PM:
Wouldn't a better bet be Gov Ritter from Colorado? The party needs to realize that the south is long gone. We might pick up a state or two in an unusually good Dem year, and we're probably making structural changes in Virginia. But as our politics have become defined by "culture wars"--you know, Christian working class voting for the corporate party because of abortion and marriage--the south is fundamentally unfriendly territory.
The West, on the other hand, offers a lot of promise. Like the south, it has a booming population--more yummy electoral cookies! And it has a much more libertarian streak. Its rural areas are far right but overall the region is very urban and rapidly become more so. And its demographics are changing. More Hispanics and asians, which is obvious, but also look at Nevada with its rapidly growing population of seniors and Jewish Americans.
The only southerner who merits attention for national office is Mark Warner. Otherwise we should stick to places like the West, Florida, Pennsylvania or the non-Christian (eg non Indiana) Midwest.
And of course, a lousy candidate is still a lousy candidate, regardless of which state they're from.
November 26, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh and I forgot, in this current economic climate, Ted Strickland. We really COULD win Ohio with him on the ticket. And it might help with neighboring states a little bit--Pennsylvania--and perhaps with Michigan too.
So my dream ticket: some combination of a western governor (ritter, napolitano) and either Strickland, Warner or a Wildly Popular And Charismatic Florida Democrat (too bad there aren't any).
November 26, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Clinton/Obama ticket would be too risky: Too many "firsts" could compound the unease with either first (first woman or first black or first black and white, or any such combination.) The symbolism of a white woman and a black man together would not go down too well with the southern ante bellum mentality...
Clinton/Edwards is a non-starter: He had his chance in 2004 and failed to swing NC to the Dem column, so what good would he be on the ticket this time around? And, He's been after her too aggressively...
The other Dem candidates won't fly either.
Evan Bayh it will be...Wes Clark, a definite "maybe."
November 26, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Bayh, another politician whose main qualification is nepotism, who hasn't taken any of the many, many opportunities over the last seven years to either:
- defend the Consitutition,
- defend the American working and lower-middle classes,
- or to object in any way to the repub/ big business/ big media trashing of the ideals that used to inspire America.
Why not go all the way to Joe Liarman if the only way the Dems can beat the Repubs is to run Republican clones?
November 26, 2007 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please get used to this idea: The Dems would lose every election from here to eternity if they put forward a ticket consisting of the type of ideologically "pure" candidates that you have been agitating for. Elections are won with candidates who are in the center of the American political divide, where most normal Americans live. It is not by accident that Bill Clinton is the only Dem to have won the presidency (twice) in nearly 30 years. He is a true centrist of the DLC kind. That is why the DLC was created! Pure liberalism is a thing of the past, and after 8 years of Bush/Rove and the far-right, "pure" far-right conservatism will become just as irrelevant...
November 26, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary votes where her mouth is: in this year's voting she is the 29th most progressive Senator. Obama is the 43 according to progressivepunch.com.
Obama's phony claim is the reason I started looking at his record -- it didn't match my impression that Hillary has been voting correctly all along.
Obama is a lot closer to being a Republican than any other candidate on the Democratic side except Biden -- he shares their tactic of taking a small action by his opponents and using to claim that his opponent has bought into a whole despised world view. That is the same logic that McCarthy used with his pinko claims. That is how Obama uses Bush Lite.
November 26, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eli has it right: Stay put, Evan Bayh.
We don't need Indiana to win the White House. But to pass Universal Healthcare (which MUST be accomplished for the next Democratic President to succeed & win a second term) we need more Democrats in the Senate.
Stay put, Bayh. There's nothing Bayh can do as Veep that Wes Clark can't, or Ritter in Colorado, or Governor Richardson.
Frankly, if the Dem nominee picked Bayh, I'd be really worried that we'd have four years of a do-nothing executive.
November 26, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
dc, I don't think bayh would help clinton II one way or the other. She is DOA if she gets the nomination. Did you by chance see the latest Zogby poll? The one showing clinton II trailing every republican, including the huckster, by 3 to 5 percent. The same poll shows obama and edwards leading them all (edwards was tied with mccain). Hmmm, and what were you saying about electability or inevitability? I don't think so.
November 26, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu Defender of the DLC, the true un-answered question is why the CIA/secret govt. machine put forward Perot in '92 ... because without Perot it would have been GHW Bush 52%, Clinton 48%, and we would be living in a whole different universe.
With the big media consistently and relentlessly framing every issue in neo-con terms, and ruthlessly bashing every independent liberal that arises, and limiting & dissing the liberal voices while promoting the right-wing voices, you may be correct in your analysis.
And that's exactly why I reject the DLC and the mainstream do-nothing Dems and will fight for a principled party that will support people who would rather take the risk of losing than embrace poisonous political compromises that are destroying our children's future.
I gotta go to work, so I won't be replying til tonight, otherwise I am ready to fight you tooth and nail as long as you want.
November 26, 2007 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last thing America needs is another "centrist" politician being put in a position of power. Bayh compares quite unfavorably to his father who was a liberal Democrat. Bayh is just another slave to corporate power and wealth. Why have a Democratic Party if we don't nominate real live Democrats as Pres. and VP?
November 26, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening.
November 26, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh has to be on everybody's short list for governor. With the Democratic top tier consisting of two progressive blue-state senators and one very progressive sounding former 1-term Senator, whoever the nominee is will need to balance their ticket with some executive experience and buff up their centrist cred for the GE. As a former two-term red-state governor with reputation as a senate moderate, Bayh is pretty much genetically engineered for the position.
November 26, 2007 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh gives the Democrats a shot at one red state. Richardson makes them competive in western states and would create more problems for the GOP ticket.
November 27, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink