A recent poll of Indiana voters reveals serious trouble for Republicans in a state normally considered sacrosanct conservative territory.
An interesting article appeared in the Indianapolis Star this morning. A poll taken by Selzer & Company, a public opinion research firm based in Des Moines, IA, breaks down the current level of approval for Bush and his administration within the Hoosier state. It has been reported in the media ad nauseam that Bush's numbers on a national level have and continue to be abysmal. But in Indiana? Despite a few anomalies over the years, Indiana has been about as dependably Red as any of the historically conservative/Republican strongholds in the country. The last presidential Democrat to carry the state was Lyndon Johnson in his landslide win over Barry Goldwater in 1964.…
Article comments
26 - RJ
I see I struck a nerve. That's always nice.
27 - Baritone
No, my nerves remain unstruck. Struckless nerves.
B-tone
28 - Al Barger
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.
29 - Baritone
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
30 - Baronius
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.
31 - Baritone
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
32 - Baronius
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.