Blogcritics Comments on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Comment by Baronius on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:22:40 EST

Also no disrespect to Al intended. Running for office is a noble thing. The rest of us are just whiners about the political process; he actually put himself on the line. My take on it is that any Dem or Rep has to be willing to step up and debate the other party's candidate, and tactically can never be willing to debate a third party candidate. There's just no benefit in doing it. Also, every governor, secretary, and senator believes he's a contender for the presidency. Even Arnold did, despite the fact that the Constitution specifically excludes him. Maybe Bayh is a (the?) modest politician, but if not, he should have crushed a weak Republican opponent in a series of embarrassingly one-sided debates.

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:19:13 EST

Baronius, That is my point. And I was talking about the particular instance of Bayh's campaign against Al Barger & what's his name. Bayh had so far outdistanced his competition that they amounted to minor candidates. (No disrespect intended. It's simply a fact.) Bayh learned quickly that his current aspirations for the WH were at best pie in the sky. He has a very small national recognition factor. Should he gain the VP and in some manner distinguish himself there, he might have a credible opportunity to take the next up. At this point, though, there are just too many "ifs," and too many steps to be taken. B-tone

Comment by Baronius on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:12:21 EST

Why put yourself out there? Because you're going to run for office again, either this office or something higher. (Bayh has aspirations.) Also, you help your party when you win big. You should sink your opponent as deep as possible. But you shouldn't debate minor candidates. At best, they get noticed for their oddities; at worst, they look credible. Either way they get noticed, and there's rarely any benefit in that.

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:51:15 EST

Somehow, I just don't think Bayh feared either one of you. Again, I don't see how it could have served his campaign. Why put yourself out there when it's not necessary. You say that you would have agreed to a debate if your roles had been reversed. But that's pretty easy to say after the fact. I take your great concern for the voters with a grain of salt. Since you were not in the position of being the front runner, backed by a fairly large party machine, I think it's hard to say what you might have done. You would have had scores of advisors whispering in your ear, most probably telling you to stay away from any debates. You take your shots at Bayh now, but the fact is, he's in the Senate, and may be the VP in a year or so. Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Bayh's. I've got nothing against him, I just think he lacks personality and is a fairly boring speaker. He's pretty much white bread in many respects. But, he's intelligent and was pretty well groomed given his father's influence. His wife is cute. Not "hot" like Kucinich's wife, but cute. B-tone

Comment by Al Barger on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:06:32 EST

Baritone sez: "Had the situation been reversed - you the one with an overwhelming lead in the polls - would you have ascented to such a debate? How would it benefit your candidacy? A political debate at that level is not a pissing contest. Bayh would have had nothing to gain by debating either one of you." Yes, yes I would have ascented. I think that the public should pretty much demand one on one debate between candidates for public office. No, Bayh wouldn't have had anything to gain - but that's not the point. The PUBLIC should get to make that direct comparison. Evan has never, ever in his public career had a serious public debate. He's never particularly developed that kind of skills, best I've seen. That he wouldn't debate the Republican or the Libertarian was a pretty good indicator that he just wasn't viable to run for president, as he started to do for a minute. If me and a Butler professor were too scary a prospect, he sure weren't ever going to go up against, say, Rudy Giuliani.

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:35:11 EST

No, my nerves remain unstruck. Struckless nerves. B-tone

Comment by RJ on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:37:34 EST

I see I struck a nerve. That's always nice.

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:54:26 EST

Actually, I think it was pretty good stuff. Did I offend you with the "F" word? Or was I just being too harsh on you right wing softies? Members of the ACLU are pretty good at what they do. I'm not a member, but if I had a reason to be, I would do so proudly. Oh, and sorry - Pollyanna (not-sic) B-tone

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:37:16 EST

Did you learn these masterful debating techniques from your fellow ACLU members? And you, RJ, apparently missed Week 1 of high school forensics, where that particular debating technique is unveiled as a big no-no.

Comment by RJ on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:24:40 EST

"your magic math glasses" "fucking train wreck" "stuck in the mud apologists" "the idiot bastard" "You rant and rave" "moronic belief" "pristine as the fucking new fallen snow" "Polyanna [sic] in an elephant suit" A complete meltdown by comment #16...nice! Did you learn these masterful debating techniques from your fellow ACLU members?

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:35:49 EST

Al, A little testy aren't we? I meant it is a little jab, being that the truth of it was obvious. YOU provided the link afterall. So you get pissy and bring out the "pinko" guns. Please! Assuming you remain a Hoosier, you should certainly be aware that the Marion County Dems had little to do with the property tax debacle, and as I noted Daniels, our feisty little Rep guber, is taking the same heat. It is true that Peterson rather inadvisedly proposed an increase in the county income tax to cover significant budget shortfalls caused by Daniel's freeze on the payment of property taxes. This just weeks prior to the election. It was the nail in his political coffin. It's almost as though he was set up. But no. No one would be so heinous to do such a dastardly thing. You could argue it, but it's moot, isn't it? Had the situation been reversed - you the one with an overwhelming lead in the polls - would you have ascented to such a debate? How would it benefit your candidacy? A political debate at that level is not a pissing contest. Bayh would have had nothing to gain by debating either one of you. Suffice to say, though, I believe that Bayh was and is polished enough that he would have handled such a confrontation with adequate aplomb. Baronius - It's true, the northern tier "rust belt" states have proved more problematic for Reps than Dems over the years. Although Ohio came down for Bush both times. Indiana is not so beholden to the strong union lobby as our industry base is rather more diversified - away from steel, auto and other heavy manufacturing - than most of the other states you indicated. You are correct, I think, about Illinois. It is pretty much a clone of Indiana demographically excepting for the Chicago area which, owing to its huge population tends to overpower the remainder of the state politically which has few other large population centers. B-tone

Comment by Al Barger on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:49:42 EST

Dr Dreadful - There are always local issues. But Democrats taking it in the shorts cause they've hiked the bejesus out of taxes is pretty much the most solid obvious classic Republican issue ever. RJ- I strongly suspect that Bayh will be Hillary's veep. For one thing, he's had his nose so far up her ass that it'd be broken if she took a sharp turn. The south is just not going to go for Hillary, and a nice quiet good looking Midwesterner like Evan Bayh with no scandals or personality is an obvious choice. Really now, Baritone, that 'whipped your ass' was SO gracious of you - as if a third party candidate would have had a chance of beating the most popular politician in the state. Don't be an asshole. Why don't you try running your own pinko flag up the poll at the ballot box, and see how you do. I got about 29,000ish votes more than you have. I could also argue that Evan was afraid to debate me - or the Republican.

Comment by Baronius on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:33:20 EST

Baritone, I'm far from an optimist on this subject. The fact is, you can drive from New Jersey to Michigan, and Indiana is the only GOP state you'll visit. The others are very purple. If anything, Joisey is becoming a solid Democratic state. Indiana is a cross between the Rust Belt and the Great Plains. (Actually, so is Illinois, but the downstate population isn't big enough to make a difference.)

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:12:33 EST

Doc is correct. Peterson's loss had little to do with traditional partisan politics and about everything to do with property taxes - something which Peterson actually had little control over. Nevertheless, he took the fall. It was almost a given that the city/county council would follow. My brother in-law lost the mayoral election in Beech Grove by 150 votes owing to the Peterson loss and an independent candidate. Al - Bayh whipped your ass, didn't he? I believe that the poll illustrated current trends. As I noted, this could all change. The questions were non-prejudicial, fashioned to be as transparent as possible. Should Indiana, in fact, go blue in '08, which remains very much in doubt, I'm sure that it will go down as an anomaly. The world will right itself and Hoosiers will return to the GOP fold. But I can dream about conservatives getting their anal retentive asses whipped in '08. It may not come to pass, but I can still dream. B-tone

Comment by Dr Dreadful on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:33:27 EST

As I understand it, there were a number of local issues in Indianapolis (mostly involving tax hikes) which contributed to the incumbent being kicked out of office. These trend-bucking results happen at every election. I recall a Senate race in Illinois in 2004 - a year in which Republicans elsewhere swept all before them - when a certain Mr Obama recorded the Democrats' only gain in the upper house that year, not least because his Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, was and is certifiably batshit insane.

Comment by Al Barger on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:11:21 EST

Baritone, this article falls under the category of "wishful thinking." Yeah, George Bush ain't much popular with very many people anywhere - but that doesn't mean us Hoosiers have particularly changed stripes. You can slice and dice polling numbers to try to find something to say what you want, but we had actual elections just a couple of weeks ago. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Indianapolis (even with a large black and minority population) turned out an incumbent Democrat mayor for an unknown and underfunded Republican. On top of which, the Republicans took back control of the city council. Doesn't sound like much of a blue wave in Hoosierland. It is possible though that Evan Bayh (my old nemesis) could theoretically put us in play in specifically the 2008 presidential vote. He's the most popular politician in Indiana, and Hillary's most likely veep pick. Still, I find it pretty unlikely that most Hoosiers would ever vote for Hillary - but stranger things have happened, I suppose. If I was a liberal like Baritone though, I'd be more worried about something like Rudy or Romney turning New York or Massachusetts red.

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:20:05 EST

So, basically what I get from most of you guys is what all those poll numbers show, when analyzed through the prism of your magic math glasses, is that Bush's 28% approval rating is actually a solid majority. that what he and his administration has wrought over the past nearly 7 years is still embraced by that "majority," and as a consequence the Reps are a shoe-in in '08. Does that about cover it? Kind of the lemons/lemonade thingy, right? It amazes me that after the fucking train wreck that has been his administration, there are still so many stuck in the mud apologists for the idiot bastard. You rant and rave at all the supposed lies that any and all Dems tell in the apparent moronic belief that all the GOP is as pristine as the fucking new fallen snow, incapable of any kind of deception. Owing to the time element and the uncertainty of just how things will play themselves out over the next several months, I won't predict the outcome of the election - too many unknowns. But you guys can't see the forest for the trees. Polyanna in an elephant suit. B-tone

Comment by RJ on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:14:07 EST

"Seniors on Medicare will NOT need: Medicare supplement, long term care. dental insurance. Since DRUGS are covered in HR 676, NO Medicare D is needed. All this at no extra cost!" All this at no extra cost! I think we have someone here who got a D- in macroeconomics...

Comment by RJ on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:06:51 EST

jacksmith: Kayne's mom died because she wanted some unnecessary cosmetic surgery, and for whatever reason decided to go to an incompetent doctor with a poor track record. Her case is not relevant to any discussion about socialized medicine...unless you expect taxpayers to foot the bill for plastic surgery on the relatives of millionaires.

Comment by RJ on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:01:08 EST

"Interestingly, 87% of Indianans supported greater vehicle fuel efficiency, an area where Bush and Congressional Republicans and Republican governors have taken a strong lead - sometimes over Democrat opposition." Quite true. But the wonderful mainstream media will be sure to present this issue to the voters as a simplistic "environmentally-friendly Democrats" vs. "evil, oil-mad Republicans" ... so I don't see this issue as a big winner for Republicans.

Comment by RJ on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:58:20 EST

"47% of the respondents claimed that they would vote democratic [sic] if Evan Bayh shared the ticket." A) That's probably not going to happen (the Democratic nominee is almost certainly going to be either Obama or Clinton, and either one would be a fool not to put a Southerner on the ticket for geographic balance). B) Bayh is one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, so this is just evidence that Indianans remain conservative. (Further evidence is that 71% are dissatisfied with Bush's pro-amnesty immigration policy.) C) 47% still ain't a majority. "The only number still in Bush's favor was a 48% to 46% approval rating regarding his fight against terrorism. Given the estimated 4% margin of error, the 2% approval margin is shakey [sic] at best." Bush won't be on the ballot in November 2008.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:45:12 EST

Yeah, why did this thread attract medicare spam? Bizarre and also much quicker than spam usually finds these posts. Anyway, back to the topic, it does seem to me that the anti-Bush margins on these poll questions weren't really that large. In most of them it's fewer than 10 points, and that could easily swing back the other way. I also think that a new Republican candidate distancing himself from Bush won't be all that hard. Giuliani is so different from Bush in almost every way that no one is likely to confuse the two of them. Dave

Comment by Baritone on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:05:31 EST

Matthew, Huh?

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:44:36 EST

Indiana's gonna remain rather white, if you ask me.

Comment by Robert Recht on Is Indiana Turning Blue?

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:24:29 EST

Re: HR676: Seniors on Medicare will NOT need: Medicare supplement, long term care. dental insurance. Since DRUGS are covered in HR 676, NO Medicare D is needed. All this at no extra cost! No deductibles or co -pays.Savings: enormous! NO $96 taken out of Social Security check! The premium, based on income will be a fraction of what most if not all seniors pay now for the Medicare supplement alone. Tell your grandparents on Medicare which is what HR 676 is!!! Just much improved. These benefits go to you too. Free call to congress: 1-866-338-1015. Tell your congressman to co-sponsor HR 676 to get your vote. It's election time; you are the king and queen and they want your vote desperately.