The Indianapolis Star is following up on a classic, election year non-story story: Who will be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate? Unsuprisingly, the Star is touting Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as a top choice. Here’s the Star’s case (Take note that the Star’s case is based almost entirely on the musings of Larry Sabato, “a political analyst and professor at the University of Virginia”):
There are, Sabato said, lots of potential candidates for vice president, “but there aren’t many who can actually help.”
Bayh, Sabato said, could be dispatched to campaign in only three states — Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia, all carried by Bush in 2000.
“If (Bayh) turns those states,” Sabato said, “no way Bush can win. It’s literally over.”
. . . .
“Having Evan on the national ticket would very likely make a difference in whether Indiana voted for the Democratic nominee for president or not,” said Gov. Joe Kernan [D], who’s running in November for his first full term as governor. But Kernan added: “It’s not a gimme.”
As mentioned in these (virtual) pages, Indiana has been trending Democratic of late. Once a solid “red” state, with Bayh on the ticket it could conceivably end up Blue. But, contrary to Sabato, Bayh’s effects in Ohio and West Virginia really can’t be known. It may amaze you, but Ohio is not Indiana is not Iowa is not Kansas. And Indiana is especially not West Virginia.
There is a common demoninator, though (aside from the flat accents): Voters in each of these states tend to be moderates.* And nothing turns off a moderate voter like the perception of extremism.
A reason for Bush to soften his image, I think, and not to make a divisive “Marriage Amendment” plank #1 of his national campaign. And a pretty damn good reason for Northeasterner Kerry to choose Bayh as his VP, in my humble opinion.
*E.g., they elected Voinovich, Lugar, Bayh — a moderate Republican, Republican, and Democrat, respectively. (Aside from his opposition to the Iraq war, Byrd (D-W.Va.) can also be viewed as a moderate). Illinois is frequently an exception, because liberal Chicago will occasionally overwhelm the more-conservative “downstate” and “collar county” areas.
Sabato’s website can be found here. As to what good it’d do Kerry (or, vanishingly, whoever else might be the candidate) to pick Bayh… well, it’ll certainly be nice to see the Democrats nominate somebody that PNAC approves of, but I can’t see his selection making the antiwar faction happy.
I’m a big Bayh fan. But Sabato is wrong in his analysis. If Bayh turned Indiana, Ohio and WV, that’s 36 Electoral Votes. Bush is leading in states Gore carried including Michigan and Pa. Those alone have 38 electoral votes. Bush could lose all three and still gather more electoral votes than he had in 2000.
Von wrote:
What is the evidence for this “trend”?
How is a “moderate” defined and what qualifies the voters of Indiana as such?
Since the overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to redefining marriage as any thing other than a man and a woman, would it not make more sense then to advise Kerry to soften his image and come out in support of the FMA since it represents the consensus of the American electorate?
BTW: I am not arguing that the FMA should be Plank #1, nor have I heard anyone other than Von suggest that it would or should be. However, since most of his post reads like “Helpful Advice to the Republicans from Your Friends the Democrats” – I did think it worth pointing out that strategically it would make more sense* for Kerry to come out in support of it than for Bush not to.
TW
* Keep in mind that I have no more intention of voting for Kerry than Von does for Bush. Still I stand by my advice as it certainly makes more strategic sense for a candidate in need of triangulating to adopt the mainstream position which is that marriage is a man and a woman.
As an Ohio independent I would agree with your point about moderation and would add that we often see moderation as a sign of stability. The marriage amendment may not seem extreme to some but to many of my right and left friends it’s coming across as extreme because the constitution is not considered a partisan playground. Leave that type of thing to the states.
Bush has had a few tough months and he doesn’t strengthen his case by flying from Mars to amending the constitution to appeal to his fundamentalist base. He also hasn’t done very well in his appearances to explain his views and vision. In other words, he’s looking unstable.
would it not make more sense then to advise Kerry to soften his image and come out in support of the FMA since it represents the consensus of the American electorate?
Perhaps if the premise were true, it would, but in fact support of the FMA is not the consensus at all.
What kenB said. Also, I don’t see how supporting the FMA would “soften” his image.
What is the evidence for this “trend”?
Sorry, Thorley, I couldn’t find my original post on the subject. Here’s the evidence (all anecdotal, of course):
Indianapolis, once a solid-Republican town, just re-elected its Democratic Mayor in a landslide. (He’s a pro-business social moderate, it should be noted — the kind of guy who’d be a Republican in the Northeast.)
Indianapolis, for the first time in living memory (almost), just elected a majority of Democrats to its city council.
The Governor is a Democrat (Joe Kernan). Kernan is currently favored to win, despite a relatively high-profile (likely) Republican nominee, Mitch Danials.
Democrats took a majority of the Indiana House for the first time in, like, ever, in 1998. They now have a 1 or 2 seat majority (I’m not certain), and are projected to pick up at least a seat in the coming election.
Democrats are also more likely than not to pick up a seat in the delgation to the US House. (They may merely trade seats, however, and stay at par — Baron Hill, a Democrat, is perceived as vulnerable. ‘Course, he’s been perceived as vulnerable ever since he won as a Democrat.)
How is a “moderate” defined and what qualifies the voters of Indiana as such?
I’ll freely admit that moderate is a squishy term, Thorley, and one subject to abuse. I’ll define a moderate, however, as one who will happily vote for both Bayh (D-Ind.) and Lugar (R-Ind.) for Senate. I.e., me. (Take a look @ their voting records for more detailed information.)
I am not arguing that the FMA should be Plank #1, nor have I heard anyone other than Von suggest that it would or should be.
The FMA will be social plank #1 if Bush comes out definitively in favor of it.
This may surprise you, but I haven’t completely ruled out voting for Bush. (Yes, I’ll concede that my general bias against him is obvious.) If Bush makes support for the FMA a part of his campaign, however, I will be forced to hold my nose and vote against him.
Ken B wrote:
It is according the article you linked:
54-55 percent in favor (with the remainder being opposed or undecided) is pretty much a consensus. Whether or not it is sufficient for a Constitutional amendment depends on what the break down is on a State-by-State basis to get the necessary number of States to ratify such an Amendment. If you have any numbers to the contrary, please provide them.
If you have any numbers to the contrary, please provide them.
Um, perhaps you skimmed over it, but the same article showed (led with, in fact) an ABC/WaPo poll showing 38% for the amendment, 58% for “leaving it up to the states”. The article suggested that polls that offered a straight up-or-down question (like the ones you eagerly quoted) showed a majority in favor of the amendment, but ones offering alternatives showed a larger majority against it. I think this is enough to cast doubt on an assertion that you offered as established fact.
Thorley>>
The numbers you refer to were obtained in August. The latest Gallup poll has a 47-47 split on the question of the constitutional amendment. And as we know, the number of people opposing such an amendment will only decrease with time.
KenB wrote:
Actually the numbers I quoted from the ABC article are the only relevant numbers because they are the only poll numbers concerning the actual language or similar language of the FMA. Since the other poll numbers concern a different amendment with different wording and as such are irrelevant to the debate unless somebody proposes such an amendment.
“The Gallup poll also finds that the issue of same-sex mariage ranks dead last–14th of out of 14–in a long list of issues respondents were asked to evaluate for their importance in affecting their presidential vote.
The latest Newsweek poll also finds the public about split on a consitutional amendment–47 percent for and 45 percent against. But political independents, consistent with a long-standing pattern of relative liberalism on gay rights issues, are substantially more liberal than the public as a whole: they oppose a constitutional amendment by 53 percent to 40 percent.
Other polling data show that independents are also more liberal the the public as a whole on same-sex civil unions (which they tend to support) and on legalizing gay marriage (where they are split about evenly).
But if independents are a problem with this particular line of GOP attack, young voters are even more so. Their views are gay rights issues are conspicuously and unambiguously liberal. For example, even on the contentious issue of gay marriage, young Americans (18-29) favor allowing such marriages by 13-20 points in recent polls.”
spc—
Do you have a link on that? This Bush-leaning site is projecting that Kerry would narrowly win MI and PA if the election were held today. I imagine that Sabato assumes that Kerry would not even be in striking distance in OH/IN/WV unless MI and PA were safe.
von, a friend of mine who is a linguist was doing a research project on a particular bit of accent in Pittsburgh. She informed me that the other place it’s found is in the “Hoosier triangle” of southern Indiana, because of migration patterns from Appalachia–especially West Virginia, I assume. Somehow I doubt that Bayh has the right accent, though.
BTW, Sabato’s front page still has Dean’s VP choices up, but here he has a week-old update, which I like much better. (As for Kerry’s choice, I like Edwards.)
She informed me that the other place it’s found is in the “Hoosier triangle” of southern Indiana, because of migration patterns from Appalachia–especially West Virginia, I assume.
There is a very peculiar accent down there — I’d call it a Kentucky drawwwl, punctuated with Minnosota vowels.
One other thing to know about Indiana: There is a very particular Indiana “look”. It’s indescribable. (Which is not to say it’s particularly good.) Visit the Indianapolis airport once, and you’ll never mistake the place for Ohio, Kansas, or other equally non-descript flatlands.
My only Indiana experience was getting stuck in traffic in I-80 while moving from Pittsburgh to Salt Lake City. So I’m not claiming to be any sort of authority.
The specific accent thingy at issue was apparently that in Pittsburghese and S. Indianan, the words “pull,” “pool,” and “pole” are pronounced the same–I have real trouble making the sound. D’you know what the plural of “you” is in S. Indiana?