Is Bayh the VP Pick? : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

The Week In ScienceBlogs: Sign up for our newsletter.

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Ed the Star Trek Geek? | Main | Gay Scientists Identify Christian Gene »

Is Bayh the VP Pick?

Posted on: August 5, 2008 9:30 AM, by Ed Brayton

Bilerico makes a strong case that Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana is going to be Obama's VP pick and that it will be announced in the next couple days. I think it would be a good pick. He's more conservative than Obama, which is a necessity on the ticket. He's from a key swing state where Obama is doing pretty well and has a chance to flip and that pick would help him do it. If he flips Indiana, it's game over folks.

Find more posts in: Politics

Comments

I would disagree that someone more conservative is what Obama needs on the ticket. The dynamic of this election going to be a race between whether the Democrats can excite their base enough to turn out in big numbers to vote vs. whether the Republicans can demonize Obama enough to make their base get so outraged THEY turn out to vote. Hate vs. enthusiasm, the basic trend of the last four elections, will play out here again.

The Republicans have turned demonizing your opponent into an art form, and McCain has signed on to that agenda completely. Where the Democrats have failed recently is on the other end, exciting their members enough to come out and vote consistently. Kerry was the "safe" conservative Democrat pick, Gore chose Edwards to appear more mainstream, and that doesn't work. You can't get enough Republicans to change their vote no matter who your VP pick is, because no matter what they're going to paint you as weak, effeminate, "elite", and whatever negative attribute they can hang on you (flip flopper, he invented the Internet, whatever, it doesn't have to be true or non-hypocritical, it just has to stick). You can already see this beginning with the "He's arrogant/uppity N*****" stuff that the Rove machine is cranking out and the traditional media is picking up on.

I would urge Obama to pick someone who would keep his message of "I'm different" alive, someone who would make his activist, engaged base excited and turning out the vote. Evan Bayh is not that person.

Having said all that, who a candidate picks as his VP has almost no significance at all in the general election. Expecting that person to "deliver a state" is, in my opinion, not only foolish but completely unsupported by history. Pick someone who complements your strengths, with whom you have good rapport, who would help you govern well. Maybe Bayh is that guy, but don't count on him to deliver Indiana, that's not a good reason to pick him.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 5, 2008 10:07 AM

I'm not a Bayh fan. He is not particularly bright, he doesn't motivate anybody (one of the dullest speakers I have ever heard) and in Indiana gets elected on name more than substantive policy considerations. I'm not at all convinced that Bayh can swing Indiana to Obama, he's never demonstrated any kind of coattail effect in the state in terms of other elective offices.

I think the one thing that Bayh does is draw in some Hillary folks. He was a huge HIllary supporter and would be a peace token for that group, so it might loosen up more money and more energy from the Hillary side. However, it would also cost the Democrats a Senate seat. Mitch Daniels will be re-elected governor and he gets the appointment (one which I think he would probably like for himself).

Indiana, in every presidential election, is the first state called, and since 1964 has gone to the republic party. (Granted, first status is not only ideological, we also have really weak polling hours, so the polls just close earlier here).

I'll vote for Obama, but if Bayh is the running mate, I'll do so with a little more pressure on my nose.

dave

Posted by: David Worthington | August 5, 2008 10:19 AM

Jeff,

I agree with you about delivering a state, but I really doubt keeping his change message alive or his base energized is any real concern for Obama. Addressing the "inexperienced/too different/can he govern" concerns of swing voters is probably his biggest worry. IMO, he can't go far wrong with Bayh, Biden, or Sebelius.

Posted by: SeanH | August 5, 2008 10:32 AM

I consider the VP pick one of the best indicators regarding a nominee's judgment. I believe there should only be one consideration for each nominee when picking a VP running mate; who do they believe is best qualified to serve as President besides themselves? Neither McCain or Obama use my factor as a consideration which annoys me greatly.

While I don't have a lot of experience with Bayh, what I have seen regarding his intelligence is the same as what Worthington above notes, not good. I saw him speak on the Senate Floor in support of filibusters for judicial nominees; where he supported our original founding ideals, but appeared to me to have almost zero understanding of that which he was advocating, his inability to eloquently argue his case is also consistent with Worthington's observation as well.

I always believed Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, and Gore made excellent choices on whom to run with (though I was obviously proved wrong on Bush 43 post-inauguration). To this day I wonder what Bush 41 was thinking when he selected Quayle, maybe the worst pick in the 20th centure which was an indication that Bush 43 treated the country's interests over his own with complete contempt (an observation where I believe Bush 41 proved me wrong and served well).

If Bayh was an excellent executive and administrator during his time as Gov., that would swing me around to him as the pick given that is one of the hole's in Obama's resume. It would be great to hear an Indianan's non-partisan perspective on his performance as Gov.

Posted by: Michael Heath | August 5, 2008 10:56 AM

If Obama is looking for a blandly attractive "suit" that won't make waves Evan Bayh is his man. He is dull with a small "d". I met him at a small democratic fund raiser when he was running for re-election as governor. A more plastic and calculating politician I have never met.

He is a career politician that doesn't take chances and follows the polls with no real vision or leadership potential of his own.

As David Worthington pointed out he gets by on the name recognition and legacy of his much more charismatic and intelligent father Birch.

As a Hoosier I would also agree with David Worthington that Bayh isn't likely to swing Indiana Obama's way.

Of course the Obama camp may be looking for a go along guy that looks good in photos. Bayh fills that bill exactly. If on the other hand they are looking for a dynamic insider that can fight in the trenches and also rally the democratic base Bayh is a dud.

Posted by: Lance | August 5, 2008 11:13 AM

I dunno Ed, I think Josh may have hit the mark on this one.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2008/07/veepstakes.php

Cheers.

Posted by: FastLane | August 5, 2008 11:15 AM

Mostly What Lance Said.

My Beloved and Darling wife was with the Indiana Dept. of Mental Health during the Orr administration, working about two levels under Dennis Jones, the commissioner. When Bayh was elected governor, he replaced an experienced Ph.D. with a political hack, Joseph Reum, for the simple reason that Bayh wanted to appoint one Kathy Proesser to the Dept. of Environmental Management.

Reum had the outstanding qualification of being Proesser's POSSLQ.

In just under a year, Reum had managed to get most of Indiana's mental health program decertified by the Feds, including Medicare and Veteran's Affairs.

It took about six years, under Frank O'Bannon, to regain certification.

fusilier
James 2:24

Posted by: fusilier | August 5, 2008 11:55 AM

Evan Bayh was a successful governor who Hoosiers remember as being an effective executive. Indiana is closer this year than it ever has been already, with Obama being very strong in the Chicagoland part of Indiana and in Indianapolis and the college towns. If Bayh is selected as veep, it could turn a solidly red state into the blue column. Look at the swing states. A Democratic winning strategy will always be about winning the center rather than about getting the base excited, because the base is located in California, Massachusetts, and New York - these states will not be won by John McCain because the base is disappointed that Obama is willing to compromise on energy policy in a time when gas prices are greater than $4.00. I would sort of prefer someone with more foreign policy experience than Bayh, like Madeline Albright or some other cabinet-level official from the Clinton administration, but I think Bayh is at least as strong as the other top contenders.

I mean, who exactly would get the Democratic base excited? Dennis Kucinich? That won't happen.

Posted by: Chuck | August 5, 2008 11:58 AM

Wasn't Bayh vocally pro-war? Seems like a poor match.

Posted by: Jon H | August 5, 2008 12:07 PM

I wish it were Bayh senior, not this pale imitation. However, it should be remembered that Bayh senior lost his Senate seat in 1980 to...Dan Quayle! Won't it be sweet if the next veep from IN takes a sort of revenge? I also am worried about Daniels being reelected and choosing, I don't know, himself or even Mike Pence or some other knuckledragging paleocon (this state's full of 'em)to sit in the senate. But maybe, just maybe, if Bayh's on the ticket and the Dems make a concerted enough effort in the state, we can get rid of somebody else's man mitch.

Posted by: hoosier | August 5, 2008 12:21 PM

To round out the ticket I think Obama should select a Hispanic Lesbian amputee.

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 5, 2008 12:25 PM

I was really hoping Obama would choose someone who can play the attack dog role. I was thinking Joe Biden, Ed Rendell or even Jim Webb (even though he says he's not interested). Biden would be my first choice. Bayh is a milquetoast poll watcher from a state that will probably stay red anyway.

I also think Obama should wait as long as possible to choose. He may end up having to pick Hillary if things aren't going well? I was never a Hillary fan, but I grudgingly admit that the two of them together would be the strongest possible ticket.

Posted by: Dirk Diggler | August 5, 2008 12:44 PM

Chuck said:

If Bayh is selected as veep, it could turn a solidly red state into the blue column.

Name a case in modern history where the VP choice flipped a state that would have gone the other way and thus swung the election. People don't vote for or against a VP, they vote for or against the Presidential candidate.

A Democratic winning strategy will always be about winning the center rather than about getting the base excited...

Ah, the old "The only way Democrats can win is to become more like Republicans" meme. Why is it the case that Republicans win by being even more Republican, but Democrats can't win by being even more Democratic? This fear of standing for what your party believes in is, I believe, the biggest reason Democrats haven't done well in the last twenty years. You don't win by become more like your opponent, you win by standing up for your issues and fighting for them. Capitulation after capitulation after capitulation just makes you weak and the other guy strong, particularly when that other guy stabs you in the back after each "compromise."

Try winning Independents not by trying to convince them that you're more like the other guy, but rather by convincing them that your ideas and positions are better than the other guy's.

I understand the "pragmatist" viewpoint, I really do. But it doesn't work with the modern Republican party being in opposition. You can't have a bipartisan, "good government" agenda when the other side is determined to undermine you at every opportunity for further electoral gain. You can't compromise with someone who is not negotiating in good faith.

That's what's been frustrating about the Obama campaign since the nomination was clinched. He won by being the anti-DLC, anti-business-as-usual candidate. But all he's done since then is turn around and embrace exactly that kind of timid, afraid-to-be-a-Democrat I'm-a-pragmatist-not-a-liberal mindset.

Posted by: Jeff Hebert | August 5, 2008 1:08 PM

If Bayh is selected as veep, it could turn a solidly red state into the blue column.

Not likely. If Sebelious (incidentally, a far superior pick to Bayh, IMO) were chosen as veep, it would not in any sense transform Kansas into anything resembling a blue state.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 5, 2008 1:44 PM

Name a case in modern history where the VP choice flipped a state that would have gone the other way and thus swung the election.

Lyndon Johnson, Texas, 1960.

But notably, not since then (as far as I can recall).

Posted by: James Hanley | August 5, 2008 2:02 PM

Jeff,

I respect that position a lot, and I wish that Democrats could win by moving to the left. In the past they could, but only when Republican policies (arguably) have caused a major economic collapse. While the economy is definitely in trouble right now, it is not on par with the Great Depression or the huge economic problems at the turn of the last century that brought the reforming progressives into power in both parties. The fact of the matter is, although Bush is widely hated at long last, resentment towards liberalism, educated professionals, blacks, and others in the Democratic coalition remains strong among key swing demographic groups in key swing states. The left is energized like never before - and a loss of that steam could hurt Obama, but choosing Bayh is probably, on balance, not going to anger the left enough to lose as many votes as the choice of a moderate DLC-type could win among the swing demographics. I could be wrong, especially this election cycle, but if we can keep the left energized and win the center, it's no contest.

Posted by: Chuck | August 5, 2008 4:01 PM

Optimally, Obama should go with Jack Reed (D-RI); his military background would make a good counter to McCain's. Yet as Reed has stated he's not interested in a VP slot, I'd go with Biden before Bayh.

The latter just doesn't seem to get people very excited, which may be the Obama's design behind possibly tapping him: dull running mates draw very little controversy.

Posted by: CHV | August 5, 2008 4:43 PM

I would support Biden on substantive grounds. On practical grounds, however, he is somewhat of a loose cannon with his mouth, and there was the 1988 Neil Kinnock alleged plagiarism debacle. Don't pretend that won't be used as ammunition against the ticket, justified or not. The modern Republican party is the house that Rove built, and we would be foolish to forget that.

Posted by: Chuck | August 5, 2008 5:10 PM

a) I don't think Bayh can meaningfully deliver Indiana. By which I mean that I cannot envision a scenario where Bayh on the ticket would flip Indiana, but Obama would otherwise not win.

b) Obama isn't that "liberal" to start with.

c) Bayh is about the least desirable candidate out there from a liberal's standpoint.

I betcha McCain doesn't choose a liberal to provide "balance" for his ticket. Why is it always considered conventional wisdom that a liberal Democrat _must_ balance his ticket ideologically, but it's not required for Republicans? Indeed, the only winning ticket in the past 30 years for the Democrats was _not_ balanced, but instead consisted of two Southern DLC-types. (Gore may be more liberal now but he certainly wasn't in 1992.)

If Obama wants to pick somebody to flip a state, I would suggest going after Va (Kaine) or NM (Richardson). But I would really encourage him to toss aside the usual nonsense about geographical and/or ideological balance and just pick who he thinks makes the best sense. The only really _bad_ choice he could make would be Clinton.

Posted by: RickD | August 5, 2008 7:08 PM

Obama and his policy positions would fit in well with any right-of-center European political party. (David Cameron in the UK is certainly a fan.) It's only in comparison with America's highly skewed political spectrum that he could possibly be seen as too liberal and needing help from a more right-wing VP.

Posted by: tacitus | August 5, 2008 8:46 PM

The only really _bad_ choice he could make would be Clinton.

Are you kidding, she would be perfect!

Just think of all the aneurisms in Wingnuttistan. Then again, I'm Canadian, so I won't have to clean up the gooey mess.

Posted by: Graculus | August 5, 2008 9:05 PM

I agree with Tacitus. Only someone with a very limited understanding of the political spectrum would consider Obama to be left-wing (and think of how many idiots there are who actually make the ridiculous claim that he is too "left-wing"). I also agree with RickD that there is a double standard afoot when Democratic contestants must "balance" their candidacies when Republicans need to do no such thing. Unfortunately, this reality reflects the virulent fear and hatred of "liberal" politicians in this country.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 5, 2008 9:05 PM

IMO it's insanely narrow and shortsighted to base a veep choice on the hopes of swinging any particular state. As someone pointed out above, the favorite-son strategy doesn't exactly have a stellar track record. (Oh, and there's also the minor consideration of the candidate's being able to deliver not only the vote but also the ability to do the job. =grin=)

Just think of all the aneurisms in Wingnuttistan.

Which would be nothing compared to the aneurysms among us Dems when she turned out to be a liability, as I'm almost certain she would. Far too many people have either a negative impression or are simply suspicious of her (which is a big reason why Obama kicked her ass in spite of having come late to the game).

Whether it's residual suspicion of Bill, the common perception of her as "not a team player," or (sad to say) the morass of bigotry that still makes so much of our country a flaming trash pit (WTF? vote for a n***** and a b*tch? NFW!), the combination would send Ceiling Cat only knows how many undecideds fleeing back to the devil they know.

Even if we could discount such suspicions, I think Clinton would be a weak choice in terms of electability due to her perceived lack of direct experience on the national level. Since Obama's own inexperience is already a concern for many voters, it would seem to me that the "balance" he needs from an electability standpoint is not primarily a conservative foil for his perceived liberalism, but a running mate with solid experience in the federal government, such as Edwards.

I'd be really surprised if Edwards turned out to be Obama's choice, though, considering how many times he's already been a veep candidate. While that would be my dream ticket, I suspect a lot of people would consider him something of a worn-out horse as a candidate. But IMO, that's the type of balance Obama and the Dems should strive for.

Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | August 6, 2008 1:32 AM

More discussion:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/05/evan-bayh-is-not-a-stealth-conservative.aspx

Posted by: Chuck | August 6, 2008 11:37 AM