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

[IndyDave1776]

Wait - who held out for pure candidates? Most of us here probably voted for GWB, McCain, and/or Romney with varying amounts of nose-holding. (Some probably even held our noses for Dole.)

No one is holding out this election on the hope of a pure candidate. That ship sailed long ago.


Trump supporters in Indiana don't need numbers. They need to move to Ohio in time to register (properly) to vote.

Besides, voting is the one time that we each have the personal power to choose our leaders. It is absolutely personal.

It was my second Presidential election in which I was old enough to vote. Dole was not my candidate, for the (hopefully) obvious reasons. I was hoping that America would be sufficiently sick of Billy Jeff by then, but the reality is that in running Bob (It's MY turn) Dole, the GOP might as well have saved some money and conceded the election immediately after the convention.

 

[bwframe]

First on CNN: Bayh's Indiana voting status: Inactive - CNNPolitics.com

Washington (CNN)Election officials in Indiana have concluded that former Sen. Evan Bayh is an "inactive" voter in their state after they failed to confirm he lives in Indianapolis, creating a new problem for the Democrat as he mounts a late effort to win back his old Senate seat.

According to records obtained by CNN, Bayh has been listed as an inactive voter twice since leaving office -- once in July 2014 and the second time last week...


...The new revelations come just days aftear a CNN report showed Bayh consistently listing his two multi-million-dollar homes in Washington as his main places of residence, not his $53,000 condo in Indianapolis, contradicting his public claims that he "never left" the state after giving up his seat in 2011.

 

[MCgrease08]

C'mon. He doesn't need to live in Indiana to know what's best for us. His commercial told me he looks out for us peasants here in the heart land.

 

[IndyDave1776]

C'mon. He doesn't need to live in Indiana to know what's best for us. His commercial told me he looks out for us peasants here in the heart land.

 

[Leadeye]

His last name is bayh and there's big money behind his campaign. Election laws don't apply.

 

[IndyDave1776]

His last name is bayh and there's big money behind his campaign. Election laws don't apply.

I do like the name, as in "Bayh, and good riddance!"

 

[ATM]

...Besides, voting is the one time that we each have the personal power to choose our leaders. It is absolutely personal.

Who told you this? Was it your "leaders" by any chance?

 

[ATM]

After 8 years of Obama and company, one would think that this sort of mentality should be swirling the drain?

Indeed, the mentality that perpetually voting lesser of two evils will produce anything but perpetually greater evils to select from is, in fact, swirling the drain.

How much more evidence of this truth can we endure?

 

[two70]

So being true to one's own principles is, in your mind, "an abdication of responsibility" and/or a "self-indulgent tantrum?"

One could argue that this line of thinking, this steadfast belief that one must choose the lesser of two evils, has done much more to "enable the continued destruction of our country" than being principled ever will.

By definition, not choosing the lesser of two evils, is choosing the greater of two evils. And let's be clear here... you and nearly everyone else I have seen making this argument have clearly identified Trump as the lesser of those two evils. Despite that clear and nearly unanimous determination, many still insist on avoiding the choice by attacking the notion that the lesser of two evils is actually less harmful. We don't always get the choices that we want. Tough. That's life. Attempting to avoid choosing only ends with one of those choices being made anyway.... and that choice is often the worse of the two. Either Hillary or Trump will be the next president. You can deny that reality all you want but you can't avoid the consequences of doing so.


It depends on what your principles actually are. If your core principles are to prevent the destruction of our country, then enabling the candidate that has a history of actively trying to destroy it because you don't like or fully agree with her opponent is not upholding your principles by any stretch of the imagination. If those are your core principles, then you have the responsibility to choose the lesser of those two evils..... no matter how much you dislike that choice.

One could make that argument.... just not successfully. Sabotaging the things you care about to send a message to someone else is not a sound, rational strategy. It may feel good at the time but is ultimately harmful and ineffective. We've seen ample evidence of the consequences of this idea with the elections of Bill Clinton and Obama. Do we really need Hillary to be elected and further destroy this country before we learn? Primaries are for personal preference, generals are about survival. If you are a dedicated 1911 guy and the only weapon available with which to defend yourself in a sudden, deadly situation is a Glock are you going to refuse to pick it up to save yourself because it's a Glock (or vice versa)? I'm almost convinced that would be the case with a lot of people.

 

[two70]

Indeed, the mentality that perpetually voting lesser of two evils will produce anything but perpetually greater evils to select from is, in fact, swirling the drain.

How much more evidence of this truth can we endure?

This makes absolutely no sense, unless your contention is that Obama was the lesser of two evils between McCain and later Romney.

 

[joe138]

By definition, not choosing the lesser of two evils, is choosing the greater of two evils. And let's be clear here... you and nearly everyone else I have seen making this argument have clearly identified Trump as the lesser of those two evils. Despite that clear and nearly unanimous determination, many still insist on avoiding the choice by attacking the notion that the lesser of two evils is actually less harmful. We don't always get the choices that we want. Tough. That's life. Attempting to avoid choosing only ends with one of those choices being made anyway.... and that choice is often the worse of the two. Either Hillary or Trump will be the next president. You can deny that reality all you want but you can't avoid the consequences of doing so.


It depends on what your principles actually are. If your core principles are to prevent the destruction of our country, then enabling the candidate that has a history of actively trying to destroy it because you don't like or fully agree with her opponent is not upholding your principles by any stretch of the imagination. If those are your core principles, then you have the responsibility to choose the lesser of those two evils..... no matter how much you dislike that choice.

One could make that argument.... just not successfully. Sabotaging the things you care about to send a message to someone else is not a sound, rational strategy. It may feel good at the time but is ultimately harmful and ineffective. We've seen ample evidence of the consequences of this idea with the elections of Bill Clinton and Obama. Do we really need Hillary to be elected and further destroy this country before we learn? Primaries are for personal preference, generals are about survival. If you are a dedicated 1911 guy and the only weapon available with which to defend yourself in a sudden, deadly situation is a Glock are you going to refuse to pick it up to save yourself because it's a Glock (or vice versa)? I'm almost convinced that would be the case with a lot of people.

Well said, isn't the essence of politics, always compromise and choosing the ideals that most closely represent your principals? This even occurred with our Founding Fathers. And I suspect they agreed on much more, than what we agree with HC on. It is often said that a people get the government they deserve.

 

[JettaKnight]

By definition, not choosing the lesser of two evils, is choosing the greater of two evils.

What dictionary do you own? Or better, what calculator do you own?

It depends on what your principles actually are. If your core principles are to prevent the destruction of our country, then enabling the candidate that has a history of actively trying to destroy it because you don't like or fully agree with her opponent is not upholding your principles by any stretch of the imagination. If those are your core principles, then you have the responsibility to choose the lesser of those two evils..... no matter how much you dislike that choice.

I wasn't sure who you were talking about till I reread it and saw "her".

One could make that argument.... just not successfully. Sabotaging the things you care about to send a message to someone else is not a sound, rational strategy. It may feel good at the time but is ultimately harmful and ineffective. We've seen ample evidence of the consequences of this idea with the elections of Bill Clinton and Obama. Do we really need Hillary to be elected and further destroy this country before we learn?

This is directed at the Trumpers tearing up the RNC and foisting a candidate generally despised by a fair percentage of the country, right?

Primaries are for personal preference, generals are about survival.

That's what got us Slick Willy. Buchanan did as much damage to H.W. as Clinton did.

 

[ATM]

Indeed, the mentality that perpetually voting lesser of two evils will produce anything but perpetually greater evils to select from is, in fact, swirling the drain.

How much more evidence of this truth can we endure?

This makes absolutely no sense, unless your contention is that Obama was the lesser of two evils between McCain and later Romney.

What doesn't make sense to you?

I'll assume that you voted lesser of two evils each time and still got greater evil.
I'll also assume that the choices you now get to select from are greater evils than the lesser evils you once voted for.
Therefore, perpetually voting lesser of two evils does seem to be producing perpetually greater evils to select from.

If these assumptions or my conclusion are incorrect, I'll need for you to explain how you came up with that particular contention from what I wrote.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What dictionary do you own? Or better, what calculator do you own?



I wasn't sure who you were talking about till I reread it and saw "her".


This is directed at the Trumpers tearing up the RNC and foisting a candidate generally despised by a fair percentage of the country, right?

That's what got us Slick Willy. Buchanan did as much damage to H.W. as Clinton did.

We might want to stop here for a minute. First, Perot did the real damage, siphoning off enough of what most likely would have been R votes to throw the election. Second, Bush earned every bit of criticism he drew from Buchanan. As that goes, he probably would have won the election had he possessed a conservative fiber in his being. It helps tremendously when you are actually different from the more charismatic opponent. In practice, there wasn't a hell of a lot of difference between those two once you take out sexual proclivities.

 

[dusty88]

Well said, isn't the essence of politics, always compromise and choosing the ideals that most closely represent your principals?

I think it is true to the extent that you will never have a candidate you are 100% happy with.

But if you are voting for someone who doesn't even fit within your principals, you are a pawn.

I can't speak to anyone else's principals, but no R or D in this or the last 2 elections fit within the range of my principals.



Things have gotten much worse in the partisan system since a 3rd party candidate was taken seriously (Perot). At that time, the League of Women Voters ran the debates. Perot was NOT at 15% polling before the debates but rose greatly during the debates. That is why the "presidential debate commission" was formed, to keep a 3rd party from gaining a foothold again. The LWV refused to have any association with this new commission.

Of course, the media greatly contributes to the problem. Major media that had any integrity (yeah what's that) would host their own debates and refuse to participate in a debate that excludes those with ballot access. Starting the debates with 3-4 people is hardly an overcrowded stage.

 

[ATM]

I thought politics was defined as deciding who gets what, when, how.

 

[bwframe]

https://young.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100137627.200140.413&gen=1

August 28, 2016

Despite its best intentions, Obamacare has failed to deliver on its promises to American families. Premiums remain unaffordable. Deductibles continue to skyrocket, crippling middle-class Hoosiers. Coverage that families used to rely on now requires them to pay so much out-of-pocket they are scared to actually access their care...

 

[bwframe]

Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball

Ever since the general election began, the political world has been debating whether Republican Senate candidates should repudiate Trump. At the very least, most have kept their distance. Yet Trump’s improvement in the polls could allow them to survive, even if Trump doesn’t win their states.

Indiana is a different story. There, it’s ex-Sen. Evan Bayh (D) who needs to run ahead of Hillary Clinton, because she almost certainly will lose the state by a wide margin. A recent WTHR/Howey Politics poll showed Bayh up just four points, 44%-40%, a troublesome sign for Bayh: Because the former senator already has strong name ID, his opponent, Rep. Todd Young (R, IN-9), may ultimately have the clearer path to a plurality because he’s the Republican running in a Republican state, although Bayh does mainly have a positive statewide profile. Ultimately, Trump’s margin matters here, too. Mitt Romney won the state by 10 points in 2012. If Trump does as well or better than that, Bayh’s path becomes a lot rockier. So too would the path of Democrat John Gregg, who is seeking the open governorship against Republican Eric Holcomb. Gregg, like Bayh, has a lead and more name ID in the Howey poll but probably has less room to grow. Trump’s vice presidential nominee, incumbent Gov. Mike Pence, has united the GOP factions behind the ticket in a normally Republican state, and it benefits the whole Hoosier GOP ticket.

 

[T.Lex]

I was talking to someone yesterday about this. Todd (and Holcomb) needs to get Pence to get Trump to endorse him. Doesn't need to be a big deal, but just something to send out to voters.

The reality for people in these close elections is that Trump voters will be in the polls. Practicality has to set in and they need those voters voting down the ticket.

 

[Twangbanger]

Does anybody else besides me think Todd Young is totally getting his azz handed to him in the Air War?