Baron Hill out. Evan Bayh now in as Dem. Senate candidate

[longbow]

Brown Hill couldn't take the heat I had on him, his contact still remembered me and would not tell me when he would be in the area, Now Bi is back and the reasons he would not run for President will return.

 

[jamil]

You think Bayh has anything to do with SCOTUS?

Don't lay your inability to bring forth a viable nominee for president on me, bubba. That be your doin'.

What has Bayh to do with the convention? Dude, you brought that up. And, having Trump as the nominee isn't any more my doing that picking a known criminal is your doing for your party.

To be fair to Jamil, he is seemingly as disappointed in the republicans poor decision as others are. Unfortunately, it looks like he'll still vote for their turd of a candidate, regardless of his qualms. I am reminded of when the LP ran Barr. I, along with many others refused to cast a vote in that election for POTUS. No-one was acceptable.

I'm very disappointed in the choice. Trump will lose this election and the Trumpers will own that. Not the people who won't vote for him, but the people who unwisely chose someone who the majority of Americans don't like. But yes. I'm going to vote for the one of the losers.

[video=youtube;Pji_IX-UacM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pji_IX-UacM[/video]

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The candidates have until noon Friday to get on the ballot in November. That's why there is a rush to name the Republican VP nominee - whether it's Pence or not. If it IS Pence, then the Republicans will have to scramble to see who will run in his place in November and that's likely to lead to other changes on the ballot. The Dems appear to have figured that if the Republicans are going to be shifting candidates around as a result of a likely Pence nomination for VP, that Bayh taking Hill's place won't be seen as too big a deal.

The question is: if the outcome of the November election is determined by the folks who are most pissed off at The Establishment in Washington, who is going to look more like a Washington Insider, Former-Senator-turned-Lobbyist Evan Bayh or Second-Term-Representative-Turned-Prospective-Senator Todd Young? Or will there be a viable third choice?

 

[jamil]

The candidates have until noon Friday to get on the ballot in November. That's why there is a rush to name the Republican VP nominee - whether it's Pence or not. If it IS Pence, then the Republicans will have to scramble to see who will run in his place in November and that's likely to lead to other changes on the ballot. The Dems appear to have figured that if the Republicans are going to be shifting candidates around as a result of a likely Pence nomination for VP, that Bayh taking Hill's place won't be seen as too big a deal.

The question is: if the outcome of the November election is determined by the folks who are most pissed off at The Establishment in Washington, who is going to look more like a Washington Insider, Former-Senator-turned-Lobbyist Evan Bayh or Second-Term-Representative-Turned-Prospective-Senator Todd Young? Or will there be a viable third choice?

Thing is, a governor ditching his reelection bid to run for VP is actually a legitimate reason to ditch the governor's race. Why is Baron Hill dropping out? Um, to spend more time with his family? Oh, wait. Must be because he doesn't like the direction of the Democratic Party and is taking the high road. /sarcasm.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Thing is, a governor ditching his reelection bid to run for VP is actually a legitimate reason to ditch the governor's race. Why is Baron Hill dropping out? Um, to spend more time with his family? Oh, wait. Must be because he doesn't like the direction of the Democratic Party and is taking the high road. /sarcasm.

Of course we're not debating the actual merits of the action, but the politics of it - the public perception, if you will. The Dems think they can get away with the switcheroo because Bayh is popular and Dems like to win at any cost.

 

[Alpo]

All this from the party of NO.

 

[jamil]

All this from the party of NO.

Your candidate must depend on Republican ineptness to win. Trump must depend on Democrat criminality to win. The best change for either to win rests on how crappy the other side is.

What a ****ed up election.

 

[Alpo]

It's pretty much been all out war since Ken Starr was brought in as special prosecutor. Newt didn't help either. The acrimony has grown to where it's impossible to get normal business done in congress.

Looks like my presidential choice will be a write-in, if possible.

 

[oldpink]

The Baron of Southern Indiana gets a Bayh this time, I see.
Total desperation in action.

 

[oldpink]

All this from the party of NO.

Our system of government was designed with integral brakes against breakneck speed in legislating by a bunch of dead, discredited men.
Clearly, we are far wiser than they.

 

[cobber]

The greater of two mediocrities?

 

[two70]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pji_IX-UacM[/video]

No, the Trumpers are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, supporting their candidate, mistaken though many of us believed them to be on the choice of candidate. If Trump loses, it will not be the fault of the Trump supporters, that will lie squarely at the feet of those that pissed away their responsibility on a tantrum vote or not voting at all. One would think that the 8 years we were stuck with Obama would be enough to convince people of the folly of the "take our ball and go home" mentality when their preferred candidate is not the nominee, but apparently that lesson still hasn't been learned yet.

 

[two70]

All this from the party of NO.

Yep, things are a lot simpler for the Democrats, Democrat voters don't really care which candidate the bribe is coming from....just that it keeps on coming.

 

[T.Lex]

They also haven't been paying attention about how Pence will be replaced by the Repubs if he steps aside to run with Trump.

Actually, I think they are all very much aware of it. Bayh on the ballot will go a long way to helping other Dems, or at least countering the negativity around HRC.

Ask a democrat if they're upset by this. You'll likely get a resounding "NO".

Ok. You know any around here?

Yes, it's a maneuver. And yes, it's a good one.

Indeed. I'm still not sure why Bayh would even do this (other than tag teaming with Coats has become a habit). But, I think it nets out better for Dems if he's in a race.

And, it even helps Gregg, as long as Mitch doesn't run.

Can't wait to see what you guys have to say about your convention. LOL

The INGO censor will be busy.

It's pretty much been all out war since Ken Starr was brought in as special prosecutor. Newt didn't help either. The acrimony has grown to where it's impossible to get normal business done in congress.

My perspective is that the Ken Starr investigation was the product of the all out war, not the cause. The Dems had gotten serious after Reagan and were pushing a VERY progressive agenda in very partisan terms. I agree that the time period created a no-man's land in the middle ground that still remains, but it wasn't caused by Starr. In fact, there was no single cause.

The AWB marks the start of it IMHO.

 

[spec4]

Being relatively new to IN, I have questions on Bayh. Is there really bad stuff he has done that can be brought up now to hurt his chances? What made him so popular in the first place? Why did he quit in the past?

 

[oldpink]

It's pretty much been all out war since Ken Starr was brought in as special prosecutor. Newt didn't help either. The acrimony has grown to where it's impossible to get normal business done in congress.

Looks like my presidential choice will be a write-in, if possible.

No, it was declared all out war in 1994, the moment that the Republicans had the temerity to retake the House after forty years of uninterrupted Dem domination.
THAT was deemed unforgivable.

 

[Alpo]

Actually, I think they are all very much aware of it. Bayh on the ballot will go a long way to helping other Dems, or at least countering the negativity around HRC.


Ok. You know any around here?


Indeed. I'm still not sure why Bayh would even do this (other than tag teaming with Coats has become a habit). But, I think it nets out better for Dems if he's in a race.

And, it even helps Gregg, as long as Mitch doesn't run.



The INGO censor will be busy.


My perspective is that the Ken Starr investigation was the product of the all out war, not the cause. The Dems had gotten serious after Reagan and were pushing a VERY progressive agenda in very partisan terms. I agree that the time period created a no-man's land in the middle ground that still remains, but it wasn't caused by Starr. In fact, there was no single cause.

The AWB marks the start of it IMHO.

It's too bad Mitch didn't run for the Republican nomination. A lot of democrats respect him and clearly he would be a strong candidate against the Hildebeast. My only bone to pick with him is his privatization programs. I don't believe general use assets should be sold for short term cash flow improvements.

I use Starr as more of a timestamp than the specifics of his investigations. And whether democrat or republican, I don't think that sex with an intern and claim about whether it occurred or not rises to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" criteria of impeachment. But, I also don't think Nixon should have been impeached either..... Bullpucky on the "under oath". Should a prosecutor be allowed to ask those questions in the first place in a democracy?

 

[historian]

Being relatively new to IN, I have questions on Bayh. Is there really bad stuff he has done that can be brought up now to hurt his chances? What made him so popular in the first place? Why did he quit in the past?

Evan Bayh is your typical Indiana Democrat. "I'm pro-guns, I'm somewhat pro-life, I don't like too much government" while in the state, then voting the opposite way in Washington. He is popular due to his last name. His daddy was Birch Bayh, a long time senator (and only non-founding father to author two Constitutional Amendments). After he lost he moved to MD. Evan ran on his dad's name, then ran for Senate. Evan is just plain political. He has done nothing, but vote against things he claimed he stood for. After he voted for the ACA, he decided to retire rather than lose in the election.

 

[T.Lex]

It's too bad Mitch didn't run for the Republican nomination. A lot of democrats respect him and clearly he would be a strong candidate against the Hildebeast.

I wonder if they've replaced his wife with a robot yet, so he could run.

Part of me thinks that the stars are aligning for him to make a really good run in 2020. Whether Trump or HRC wins, the country is going to need someone like Mitch to clean things up, focus on what's important.

 

[BugI02]

I was talking this over at lunch with the wife. Bayh has 9.7 million. Todd has 1 million. However, this is going to be a resource suck on the RSCC. No, this isn't that competitive of a race, that is why Evan dropped out six years ago, he knew he would get his clock cleaned. The national Dems begged him to run (because he wasn't going to run for the Indiana Dems) in order to pull money away from competitive seats (Illinois for instance). So, Mark Kirk doesn't get money he needs to keep his seat and Duckworth wins. Sure, Evan probably losses, but one loss in Indiana (for a seat that the Dems know they probably won't win) in exchange for a seat in Illinois, Wisconsin, or Colorado (or even all three), is a pretty good exchange.

And something else I don't see mentioned nearly as often as it should be. If Hitlery is elected it takes four wins for the Dems to take the senate. If Trump is elected it takes five seats changing party for the Dems to accomplish this

Every little bit helps