Is Obama/Bayh a fait accompli?

[Cubby]

Um, Bayh has been a governor and a senator of Indiana for ages and wins by CRAZY margins.    He's young, Midwestern, attractive, and experienced both in international affairs from the senate and in governance from his governorship.  Sure, Kent Conrad is a popular Democrat from a state, but he's under fire for Countrywide loans.  Schweitzer is popular but he has no huge base of support - he only won one election and by 2%.  Sebelius is ok, but she is far less experienced than Bayh and isn't as much of a state fixture.

Who are these qualified, experienced VP choices from red states, particularly the ones Obama is actually making a serious effort to win?

You make a good case for Bayh. But we need someone with military or foreign policy experience to balance Obama's lack thereof. A shiny face from a red state is good, but its not the answer to all our problems.

And to answer your second question, I named a bunch of them above.

What makes him special?

Experience.

Yes he has experience. But he's incredibly boring. We need someone who helps in the other 49 States besides Indiana. Same goes for Republicans with Pawlenty, yes he helps in Minnesota, what about anywhere else?

[Cubby]

Also, I say that it will make Indiana interesting and guarantee the GOP a senate seat.  So there.

Why is everyone saying it guarantees the GOP a Senate seat? That means Obama-Bayh would definitely win, which is far from certain.

Phil, so this place doesn't need to be Caveat Central, can we just add:  (if Obama/McCain, whichever the case maybe, wins) when people make statements about the effect of picking someone as a VP contender?

I'm sorry...what?

He means that we are talking about election hypotheticals, that we aren't saying for sure that one side or the other will win, we're just saying what might happen.

[YRABNNRM]

What makes him special?

Experience.

Yes he has experience. But he's incredibly boring. We need someone who helps in the other 49 States besides Indiana. Same goes for Republicans with Pawlenty, yes he helps in Minnesota, what about anywhere else?

What does geography have to do with experience?

[Keystone Phil]

Also, I say that it will make Indiana interesting and guarantee the GOP a senate seat.  So there.

Why is everyone saying it guarantees the GOP a Senate seat? That means Obama-Bayh would definitely win, which is far from certain.

Phil, so this place doesn't need to be Caveat Central, can we just add:  (if Obama/McCain, whichever the case maybe, wins) when people make statements about the effect of picking someone as a VP contender?

I'm sorry...what?

He means that we are talking about election hypotheticals, that we aren't saying for sure that one side or the other will win, we're just saying what might happen.

Well, sure, but that's even more of a stretch than normal. Discussing the hypothetical of him being picked is fine. Discussing that he's picked and it automatically makes the seat a GOP pickup is too much. I noticed that no one here is saying "it may mean a GOP pickup." They're already willing to concede the seat without even saying who would win the election.

[JSojourner]

It may be time to say Bayh-Bayh to that IN U.S Senate seat.

Not necessarily.  If Bayh gets picked, he drives up Democratic turnout in Indiana, which doesn't help Obama, but causes Mitch Daniels to lose; Bayh than holds the Senate seat until January 19, which is enough time for the new Governor to be sworn in, and then appoint a Democrat to replace Bayh.

Please read HardRCafe's posts about Jill Long-Thompson, the  Democratic gubernatorial nominee. She's a three-time loser with enough political baggage to occupy six UPS trucks. She also lacks a compelling narrative for her candidacy. The toll-road issue, the DST debate, and the budget kerfuffle have also subsided and are no thing campaign issues. Barring a massive cash infusion from the DGA, I don't see how JLT wins.

I am not sure what Hard R thinks he knows about Jill.  I know her well.  She has almost zero political baggage.  And anything that might come up against her is easily offset by Mitch Daniel's role as budget director for Bush.  Daniels, of the "borrow and spend and spend some more" Daniels. 

As to Jill losing a lot of elections, that is true.  She lost as a sacrificial lamb to Richard Lugar over 20 years ago.  Anyone would lose to Lugar and basically, she let her name be used so the party would not go without a nominee.  Then, she won a special house election and two re-elections in 90 and 92 before losing in the 94 sweep.  Her attempt to return to Congress four years ago was defeated -- but only very narrowly -- by Chris Chocola.  The mistake there was not choosing a conservative, anti-choice Democrat to run.  But Tim Roemer was "retiring".

So there you have it.  Jill was an exceptionally good Congresswoman and did a fine job as undersecretary of Agriculture in the Clinton administration. 

Will she win?  I sure hope so.  But I do agree that Daniels has shored himself up significantly.  My favorite saying is "The masses are asses" and Daniels knows that.  So over the last two years, even though Indiana has lost THOUSANDS of high paying, quality jobs...he has swindled idiot Hoosiers into thinking he is a job-creating Governor.  How has he done this?

Every time a Wal Mart store opens for business, Daniels is there.  Everytime a Burger King is built along a street the state repaved, he puts up a sign saying "More jobs created by Governor Daniels' Major Moves Project".  Most of the new jobs are exactly that sort.  And call centers.  Mitch loves those call center 1-800 jobs that pay seven bucks an hour.  He has helped to create precious few good jobs in Indiana.  And in the last three and a half years, this state's job market has gone straight into the crapper.  But the masses are asses -- and they may not go for it.  So yeah -- Daniels could still win.

And that's one (of several) reason(s) I think choosing Bayh is a bad move for Obama.

[Cubby]

I'm sorry...what?

He means that we are talking about election hypotheticals, that we aren't saying for sure that one side or the other will win, we're just saying what might happen.

Well, sure, but that's even more of a stretch than normal. Discussing the hypothetical of him being picked is fine. Discussing that he's picked and it automatically makes the seat a GOP pickup is too much. I noticed that no one here is saying "it may mean a GOP pickup." They're already willing to concede the seat without even saying who would win the election.

Because aside from 2006 and Bayh, Indiana is still a (very) Republican state. Roemer or Ellsworth could win, but given the nature of the state, its less likely than a GOP win.

If McCain won, I assume that Bayh could keep his seat till the next election.

What does geography have to do with experience?

Because no one outside of Minnesota has heard of Pawlenty. And no one outside of Indiana has heard of Evan Bayh. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Picking an unknown VP gives the other side the chance to define him/her.

[Mr. Morden]

Because no one outside of Minnesota has heard of Pawlenty. And no one outside of Indiana has heard of Evan Bayh. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Picking an unknown VP gives the other side the chance to define him/her.

There are only a handful of political figures in each party with anything approaching "high national name recognition", and I think they'd probably all be horrible running mates for McCain or Obama (unless you're going to convince, say, Colin Powell to do it).

[Keystone Phil]

Because aside from 2006 and Bayh, Indiana is still a (very) Republican state. Roemer or Ellsworth could win, but given the nature of the state, its less likely than a GOP win.

You're not getting my point. I know the seat would likely go to the Republicans. I'm saying that in order for this seat to be vacant in the first place, Obama and Bayh would have to be elected. Far too many people are saying "Seletecting Bayh means giving the GOP a Senate seat."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously

[Eraserhead]

God, I hope not.

^^^^

As much as I want the VP announcements over with, I really don't want this guy on the ticket.

[Cubby]

Because aside from 2006 and Bayh, Indiana is still a (very) Republican state. Roemer or Ellsworth could win, but given the nature of the state, its less likely than a GOP win.

You're not getting my point. I know the seat would likely go to the Republicans. I'm saying that in order for this seat to be vacant in the first place, Obama and Bayh would have to be elected. Far too many people are saying "Selecting Bayh means giving the GOP a Senate seat."

Oh okay. Maybe thats just wishful thinking on our part.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

The resistance against Bayh as VP is largely amongst the netroots and the "911-Was-An-Inside-Job" Wing of the Democratic Party.   I have quite a few liberal Democrat friends and co-workers, and from the conversations I've had with them regarding the 08 race, several are very pro-Bayh and the rest have absolutely no problem with him as Obama's running mate (the only candidate they have trouble stomaching as veep is Hillary, even amongst the ones that supported her in the primaries).

[Cubby]

The resistance against Bayh as VP is largely amongst the netroots and the "911-Was-An-Inside-Job" Wing of the Democratic Party.   I have quite a few liberal Democrat friends and co-workers, and from the conversations I've had with them regarding the 08 race, several are very pro-Bayh and the rest have absolutely no problem with him as Obama's running mate (the only candidate they have trouble stomaching as veep is Hillary, even amongst the ones that supported her in the primaries).

What does 9/11 have to do with anything? You may have him confused with Tim Roemer, who was on the 9/11 commission. I don't like Bayh because he's boring and I'm sick of everyone saying he's the perfect VP choice. But I honestly don't know that much about him.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

The resistance against Bayh as VP is largely amongst the netroots and the "911-Was-An-Inside-Job" Wing of the Democratic Party.   I have quite a few liberal Democrat friends and co-workers, and from the conversations I've had with them regarding the 08 race, several are very pro-Bayh and the rest have absolutely no problem with him as Obama's running mate (the only candidate they have trouble stomaching as veep is Hillary, even amongst the ones that supported her in the primaries).

What does 9/11 have to do with anything? You may have him confused with Tim Roemer, who was on the 9/11 commission. I don't like Bayh because he's boring and I'm sick of everyone saying he's the perfect VP choice. But I honestly don't know that much about him.

They said Al Gore was boring, too, and Bill Clinton recieved his fair share of criticism from the left in 1992 for choosing such a "conservative" reactionary Democrat in Al Gore (kinda ironic, huh?).

And Bayh really isn't "boring"...it just appears that way when compared side-by-side with Obama.   And besides, Bayh's Midwestern white-bread blandness gives the ticket just the right temperment.

And in regards to Bayh's "conservatism", you can tell Republicans are scared to death of him when they start running stories like these:

 http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32998

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I love how Mikey is so in love with someone who has such a great love for Hillary Clinton with his extreme hatred of Hillary (which by the way is 100% justified because despite Mikey's delusions I hate Hillary to the extent that I want every single Democrat who supported her in only meaningless roles and just pawns of the real Democrats. Hillary lost, now everyone who supported her pays the price. Including that piece of human trash Bayh.)

Loving Bayh = loving Hillary.

[Meeker]

This looks like the real deal to me. And I was reading this thread, I came to terms with Bayh being the nominee. It's a weird feeling.

Anyways, there may be some griping by the Netroots and hardcore political junkies (like the ones that inhabit this site), but the public as a whole will view this as a good pick.

[Lunar]

BRTD: Why is Bayh human trash for supporting the more popular candidate in his state (although 99% of political insider's were surprised by the closeness of the race) and hitching his political career on a politician who was more likely to win and extremely likely to take him as her VP?  That's just a logical political decision.

I mean, it's on the centrist side of Democrats.

Will his pro-war vote hurt him?  It doesn't  really look like Iraq is a winning issue for Obama in the general since when people think of Iraq they trust McCain better to handle the situation and care  less about who got them there.

I think you should actually look at him and how he can help Obama win before you get all uppity.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just ordered an Obama '08 bumper sticker just in case. Bayh's name will NEVER disgrace my car.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD: Why is Bayh human trash for supporting the more popular candidate in his state (although 99% of political insider's were surprised by the closeness of the race) and hitching his political career on a politician who was more likely to win and extremely likely to take him as her VP?  That's just a logical political decision.

Because he did more than just give her a nominal endorsement. He said some rather venemous things about Obama.

I think you should actually look at him and how he can help Obama win before you get all uppity.

That's the point, he won't do sh!t for the ticket. No one in Ohio gives a f**k about him. He won't help Obama win, he's just throwing away a Senate seat and adding a dumbass to the ticket for no reason.

[Bacon King]

Bayh is kind of boring, but that's not really a bad thing. I think he'd be a great vice president.

[TomC]

He sure is pretty.

[Padfoot]

I can't say I would be thrilled to have Bayh on the ticket but I don't have anything against the guy.  There are several other candidates I'd rather see on there (Kaine, Sebelius, Biden, or Dodd) but I won't gripe about Bayh too much especially if he boosts Obama's chances in Indiana and/or this choice affects the downballot races there.

[Tender Branson]

Yes, but will Americans bayh this ticket ?

[Nym90]

Not a bad choice at all. He's both experienced (8 years as Governor, 10 in the Senate) and yet still young (52) and attractive....he potentially puts Indiana in play, and while he's not at all well known in places like Ohio or Michigan, his positions play well there.

He's boring, but Obama has enough charisma for both of them. He's from the centrist wing of the party, so the base will be upset, but not upset enough to not vote for Obama, so it doesn't matter. He helps with swing voters and Clinton supporters....he's clearly demonstrated a lot of appeal to moderates and independents and even Republicans in Indiana. He's unlikely to do or say anything stupid. He's been a leading advocate on the threat from China.

I'm sold on the pick. Kinda reminiscent of Clinton choosing Gore....picking a senator from a neighboring state who is both young yet still experienced, uncharismatic but with a charismatic presidential nominee making that largely irrelevant, and like Gore he's a wonkish balance to the "big ideas" guy on the top of the ticket.

[Lunar]

BRTD: Why is Bayh human trash for supporting the more popular candidate in his state (although 99% of political insider's were surprised by the closeness of the race) and hitching his political career on a politician who was more likely to win and extremely likely to take him as her VP?  That's just a logical political decision.

Because he did more than just give her a nominal endorsement. He said some rather venemous things about Obama.

I think you should actually look at him and how he can help Obama win before you get all uppity.

That's the point, he won't do sh!t for the ticket. No one in Ohio gives a f**k about him. He won't help Obama win, he's just throwing away a Senate seat and adding a dumbass to the ticket for no reason.

Um, no one in Ohio gives a f**k about ANY of the VP tickets except Clinton or Strickland.  Strickland is already trash for endorsing Hilldawg and I can't imagine Hillary looking too hot in your book either.

So rejecting a candidate for not doing crap in Ohio is pretty much retarded.  In fact, I think Bayh's moderate views will play better in Ohio than any VP you support. 

Mind you, Bayh isn't my favorite VP choice.  As a hardcore social libetarian and a moderate economic one, I don't really like Bayh's positions.  But you're just irrationally launching against the guy.

I don't like him, but considering who Obama is and looks like, Bayh fulfills more than any other VP choice and better satisfies the "do no harm" qualifier than any.  I still think Schweitzer is the best pick, but I think Bayh is solid for an Obama campaign that has proven to favor practical decisions over ideological ones.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD: Why is Bayh human trash for supporting the more popular candidate in his state (although 99% of political insider's were surprised by the closeness of the race) and hitching his political career on a politician who was more likely to win and extremely likely to take him as her VP?  That's just a logical political decision.

Because he did more than just give her a nominal endorsement. He said some rather venemous things about Obama.

I think you should actually look at him and how he can help Obama win before you get all uppity.

That's the point, he won't do sh!t for the ticket. No one in Ohio gives a f**k about him. He won't help Obama win, he's just throwing away a Senate seat and adding a dumbass to the ticket for no reason.

Um, no one in Ohio gives a f**k about ANY of the VP tickets except Clinton or Strickland.  Strickland is already trash for endorsing Hilldawg and I can't imagine Hillary looking too hot in your book either.

Strickland wasn't as awful as Rendell or Bayh were in the primaries, though his quoting of Sherman already eliminates him so it's moot. My point more is that Bayh's supposed appeal in Ohio is one of the reason he's supposedly such a great pick. Obviously not true to anyone who thinks about it and isn't an idiot news network pundit.

So rejecting a candidate for not doing crap in Ohio is pretty much retarded.  In fact, I think Bayh's moderate views will play better in Ohio than any VP you support.

No, it has more to do with the fact that that's supposedly the #1 reason Bayh would be such an awesome pick according to everyone backing him and everyone idiot (read idiot as "anyone who believes in the neighboring state advantage")

Mind you, Bayh isn't my favorite VP choice.  As a hardcore social libetarian and a moderate economic one, I don't really like Bayh's positions.  But you're just irrationally launching against the guy.

What's the point of throwing away a Senate seat so we can have a guy as interesting as a lump of clay on the ticket and give him a free pass for all his whoring for Queen Hillary? (Note: Simply supporting Hillary doesn't equal whoring for her, Bayh went a bit further.)