2008: Hagel v. Bayh

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Republicans:
Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)
Governor Mark Sanford (South Carolina)

Democrats:
Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Anybody?

[Person Man]

[Psychic Octopus]

I say Hagel loses popular vote, wins electoral vote.

271-267

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

How the hell would Hagel win PA against Bayh?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Hagel wins.

[Psychic Octopus]

How the hell would Hagel win PA against Bayh?

no Acorn. just kidding. Hagel pulls it of by .0000000000001 percent

[tmthforu94]

[bhouston79]

Well in order for Hegel to have gotten the GOP nomination, he would have had to tack to the right just as McCain had to do on the Iraq war, and he is already a conservative when it comes to fiscal policy.  I really don't see the dynamics of the race being that much different than it was in RL.  Here's my best guess though:

Electoral Vote
Bayh/Feingold 370
Hagel/Sanford 168

Popular Vote
Bayh/Feingold 52.8%
Hagel/Sanford 45.9%

[anvi]

In the blandest election of modern American political history, where the
VP debate is far more interesting than the three presidential contests,
sheer disatisfaction with the directon of the country carries the day by
a slim margin.

Democrats:
Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana)                        280
Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)

Republicans:
Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)                  258
Governor Mark Sanford (South Carolina)

[bhouston79]

How does Bayh lose his home state this year?  He has approval ratings in the 60s there, and Obama, who is considered by most to be much more liberal than him, won the state.

[Lief 🗽]

Either way, the Republicans win. Unless Bayh dies or something.

[tonyreyes89]

Bayh would carry Wisconsin due to Feingold being on the Ticket.

[tmthforu94]

Bayh would carry Wisconsin due to Feingold being on the Ticket.

You never know.
Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina for Kerry...

[Nixon in '80]

Bayh would carry Wisconsin due to Feingold being on the Ticket.

You never know.
Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina for Kerry...

Yeah, but NC was lean-to-solid (R) in 2004, while Wisconsin was lean-to-solid (D) in 2008... no way they would have voted against Feingold.

[tonyreyes89]

[JSojourner]

Wow -- an anti-war Republican against a pro-war Democrat.  I would agree with Bayh on the social and fiscal issues, but with Hagel on the war.  I'm not sure WHAT I would do.  Tear my hair out, probably.  Well, at least Bayh seems to have finally come 'round to opposing the Iraq war.  So I guess Bayh would get my vote.

And Bayh would win this election.

Hagel is perceived as a media whore.  I don't think he is at all.  He is NOT the GOP equivalent of Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.  But that perception taints him.  I would also wonder how he would fare in the debates.  Frankly, I've never seen or heard him in that capacity.

[pbrower2a]

There is no way that Bayh would win Indiana but lose. At least until 2016, no Democrat wins Indiana in anything but an overpowering landslide against a very weak Republican opponent UNLESS:

1. The Democrat is from Indiana or a neighboring state.

2. The Democratic candidate actively campaigns in Indiana and the Republican candidate  neglects it.

3. The Democratic candidate is an unusually adept campaigner and wins at least 350 electoral votes.

    -- AND --

4. The Republican Party is then associated with economic distress that hits Indiana hard.

Bill Clinton lost Indiana twice despite winning all surrounding states in two years -- and Indiana was not close in either year. FDR won Indiana only twice. Truman came within 1% of winning Indiana in a close election in 1948 -- but Truman would have won that election with about 340 electoral votes had the southern racists not bolted from the Democratic Party. Missouri is a near-neighbor of Indiana, anyway.

Until I see the 2008 election as something other than a freak, and Indiana gets closer to the US norm (it was about R+2 in 1948 and R+3 in 2008 despite Truman barely losing it and Obama barely winning it) I consider Indiana a Republican-leaning state.  Its shift from voting Republican reliably to being a possible win for a Democrat when everything goes right for the Democrat will have to be confirmed later -- in the next non-landslide election or when the Democratic nominee is from the West Coast, the South, New England, or the Great Plains.

Indiana looks like the state that Obama is most likely to lose in 2012 that he won in 2008. Two of the factors that made Obama's victory there possible will not be present in 2012: first, if he is at risk of losing the  2012 election he will do his campaigning in states easier to win (Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Arizona) instead of Indiana; if he is reasonably assured of re-election in the 350-380 EV range, then he's not going to do much campaigning anywhere unless to give aid to struggling Senate, House, and gubernatorial candidates. The economy is a double-edge sword that will probably lose him Indiana one way or the other; if the Indiana economy is still a mess, then Obama will get the blame and be defeated there, and if he Indiana economy is back to normal, then the Republicans' usual appeals to tax cuts will be more successful in Indiana than in most other states.

In essence, Obama can win Indiana in 2012 only in a landslide that nets him 400+ electoral votes.

...Bayh might have won Indiana in 2008. Obama was nearly a favorite son in Indiana in 2008, so Bayh might have won Indiana by a 52-48 margin. I estimate the Favorite Son effect at roughly 10%, but subtract the unusual effectiveness of Obama that resulted from being from a neighboring state, and the Favorite Son effect isn't so well marked against Obama as it might have been against Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John Kerry in 2004.