This could be our dream ticket to unify the party and bridge the red/blue state divide to unify the country.
From a poster at political animal:
BAYH-OBAMA 2008
Senator Evan Bayh ( IN )
Senator Barack Obama ( IL )
Why Evan Bayh ?
U.S. Sen. Bayh, former Indiana governor and son of a respected former U.S. senator, has made his reputation as a centrist in Congress.
He also said he wanted to work to heal the divisiveness in America by reaching out to Republicans and independents -- "not red states and blue states, but 50 red, white and blue states." ( note: this is Obama's line from DNC 2004 )
In eight years as Indiana governor and six as senator, Bayh has cultivated a moderate image, often siding with Republicans on budget and tax issues, business matters and national security.
"I hope to always be the kind of leader who helps us reconcile our differences," Bayh said. "That's the kind of leadership Washington needs in such desperate times." He has supported the business tax cuts approved during the Bush administration, an important move toward rebooting the economy, both in Indiana and nationally.
He has brought the national spotlight on Indiana as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, which has moved its party closer to the middle of the road, reflecting the national trend away from hard-line party philosophy. He understands that the extreme views of those few in either party do not reflect the thinking of the majority of voters.
Bayh considered running for president but announced in 2001 that his then-5-year-old sons were too young for him to consider a 2004 presidential campaign. He hasn't ruled out a run in the future.
Why Barack Obama ?
Should be fairly clear and obvious to readers here.
REASONS WHY BAYH/OBAMA IS BEST TICKET TO WIN
- Dems have high probability to get all BLUE states in 2004 ( 252 EV's ) plus a slam dunk on IN (up to 263) and Ohio for an easy +21 EV's or 283 EV's for starters.
- The upper Midwest states of MN, WI, MI could move from battleground to strong leaning Dem. just like the NE plus PA, MD, DEL, Wash DC and the West i.e. CA, WA OR.
- The new battleground states would be IA (7 EV's) MO (11 EV's) CO (9 EV's) NV (5 EV's) NM (5 EV's) VA (11 EV's) FL (27 EV's) ARIZ (10 EV's) or total of 85 EV's. Let's be conservative and say Dems wins 40% of these or 34 EV's.
NET NET: take 283 EV's from above + 34 EV's = 317 EV's for solid.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONRESULTS_GRAPHIC/
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Dems cannot win with a candidate from the NE because Republicans always seem to find a way to place the "liberal label" and smear.
Forget Hillary Clinton in 2008 - would be a disaster must worse than Kerry
2. Forget the South for next 4 yrs because the Dems would waste too many resources with little chance of gain.
I like Edwards but Evan Bayh is a centrist i.e. will be able to better attract independents and more importantly many more swing Republicans.
The Dems need to concentrate efforts on NE, upper Midwest, and Southwest/West. This country is very divided and the BLUE STATES find Bush's "regressive reality as intolerbale.
MAUREEN DOWD NYT Op/Ed November 7, 2004
"W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality".
Speaking of "regressive reality" and Christian values let's use this as REALITY BASED "guide and measure" for where Dems should place efforts.
Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Bush convincingly won a grand total of 5 Non-deadbeat states. Without the BLUE states America would be a fiscal nightmare.
Bush and Republicans talk about values and morals but the FACT of the matter is Bush is President of mostly deadbeat states. What does that tell you about values and education ?
Deadbeat states who went for Bush: ( those getting >110%+ of their tax money back )
BAYH-OBAMA 2008 in the electoral college:
Alabama - we don't need ( and reminds me of Joe Scarborough )
Alaska - we don't need
Arizona - we can compete and win
Arkansas - we don't need
Idaho - too red so let them learn the hard way
Kansas - too red so let them learn the hard way
Kentucky - too red so let them learn the hard way
Louisiana - we don't need
Mississippi - we don't need
Missouri - we will win esp with Bayh/Obama
Montana - we don't need
North Dakota - too red so let them learn the hard way
Oklahoma - too red so let them learn the hard way
South Carolina - we don't need
South Dakota - too red so let them learn the hard way
Tennessee - we don't need
Utah - the morons have a close affinity with the fundi Christians and its too red so let them learn the hard way
Virginia - we can compete and win
West Virginia - we can compete and win
Wyoming - go Cheney yourself and learn the hard way
Non-deadbeat states for Bush:
Colorado - was extremely close in 2004 and we'll likely win in 2008 esp with state legislature Dem and Salazar as Sen.
Florida - we'll compete and if the Dems get out the black vote ( Obama can spend alot of time there ) we could win which would be a real slap to Jeb Bush
Georgia - we don't need
Indiana - with Bayh we win
Nevada - was extremely close in 2004 and we'll likely win in 2008
Nebraska - maybe Sen Chuck Hagel will tern Dem then we can win ;)
North Carolina - we'll compete
Ohio - we'll win for sure in 2008 with Bayh/Obama
Texas - go Cheney yourself and learn the hard way
