Evan Bayh to retire. Another Senate seat to the Republicans. Time to push health care through--there probably won't be another good chance for the rest of Obama's presidency.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100215/ap_on_el_se/us_senate_bayh_retires_4
An awful lot of Congressmen seem to be "retiring" early these days :tinfoil:
What a gutless worm. :lol:
Tomorrow is the deadline to file, which means Bayh pretty much guaranteed a GOP pickup. This increases the number of safe GOP pickups in the Senate to 5, with another half dozen seats in the toss-up category.
WTF is Bayh thinking?
Quote from: Scipio on February 15, 2010, 02:48:52 PM
WTF is Bayh thinking?
One of:
1. "Better quit before the really nasty scandal hits." This requires a scandal to be avoided.
2. "Fuck you, I'm out and napalming by bridges. This is what you get." This requires some internal Democratic divisions and power plays.
Just a guess.
Senator Dan Coats. :lol:
Wow, this really surprised me. Bayh was up by double digits and had $13 million in his warchest. I guess the failure of the jobs bill (Reid's fault) and the deficit commission (GOP's fault) were the last straw. The Senate flipping to the Republicans actually looks like a possibility now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/16/possibility_of_a_republican_senate_grows_104413.html
QuotePossibility of a Republican Senate Grows
By Sean Trende
Evan Bayh's surprise announcement that he would not seek a third term has sent shockwaves through the pundit class on an otherwise quiet President's Day. It also upset a year's worth of comfortable predictions that Republicans would never take back the Senate in 2010. This, combined with other recent political developments, places a 50-50 Senate within reach for the Republican caucus.
The immediate impact of Bayh's announcement is that it leaves Democrats scrambling for a candidate. Bayh's bombshell comes right before the filing deadline, with a murky process unfolding for the Democrats. Right now, the only declared Democratic candidate is restaurant owner and activist Tamyra D'Ippolito, though it seems unlikely that she will gather the additional 1,000 signatures that she needs to qualify for the ballot (Conservative websites are already mounting an effort to "help" her). The state Democratic committee will likely fill the empty slot on the ballot this spring.
Right now speculation is focusing on two conservative Democrats from Downstate: Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. Ellsworth has represented the Eighth district since 2006 and has compiled a conservative voting record, while Hill represented the Ninth from 1998-2004 and again from 2006 through the present. Ellsworth in particular has a pro-life, pro-gun record that would seem to fit the profile of the state well.
But no Democrat running will have the stature of Evan Bayh. Having served statewide since 1986 and having developed a moderate reputation over the course of that twenty-five year career, he is virtually irreplaceable in a reddish state like Indiana. Indeed, Hill was showing weakness in polling in his own district, much less statewide. Regardless of whom Democrats nominate, they'll certainly lack the reputation and recognition that would accompany a Bayh candidacy, in the worst possible year for this to happen to the Democrats. This race almost certainly starts out at least leaning to the Republicans.
Bayh's announcement obviously has a signifcant impact on the larger Senate landscape as well. Republicans already have an edge in all of their vulnerable Senate seats this November. Six Democratic Senate seats already lean toward the Republicans - and Blanche Lincoln's and Harry Reid's positions have probably deteriorated further since we looked at them in late January. Picking up these six seats plus Bayh's would put the Republicans at 48 seats, needing only two more seats to split power with the Democrats starting in 2011.
At the same time, Democratic prospects for holding President Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois have deteriorated somewhat. Democratic candidate Alexi Giannoulias limped out of the Democratic primary with 36% of the vote. He begins the general election trailing Republican Mark Kirk by six points in a Rasmussen Reports survey taken after the February 2nd primary, and unable to get above 42% of the vote in any recent trial heat (not a good sign for a statewide officeholder). While I wouldn't put this in the "Leans Republican" category by any stretch, right now the edge has moved slightly to Kirk.
That leaves Republicans needing to pick up one more seat. The most likely targets are New York (Gillibrand), California (Boxer), Wisconsin (Feingold) and Washington State (Murray). In California, Boxer continues to struggle against her opponents. The most recent polling shows her with leads of between four and eight points against her various opponents. Boxer still has an edge, especially given the demographics of the state, but any three term Senator with an upside-down approval rating and a 48% cap in head-to-head polling is in trouble.
Recent polling has also shown Russ Feingold trailing former Governor Tommy Thompson, 47%-43%. Thompson hasn't made his mind up on a run yet, and doesn't seem likely to run. But the filing deadline isn't until July, and Feingold's poor showing against Thompson indicates potential weakness against other candidates, if one should emerge (or if Republicans persuade one of their two gubernatorial candidates to switch races).
Similarly, former Governor Pataki in New York has polled well against appointee Kirsten Gillibrand, but it remains to be seen if he'll run.
Washington state Republicans remain in search of a candidate against Senator Murray, but if they can entice former gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi into the race, Republican polling has shown him capable of pulling out the victory; nonpartisan polling is nonexistent on this race.
Republican have a relatively clear path to 48 seats, and probably a somewhat better than 50-50 shot of defeating Giannoulias in Illinois. The California, New York, Washington and Wisconsin seats remain longshots, and most of that shot is entirely dependent upon the GOP's ability to get their preferred candidate in place.
If the GOP does manage to get to 50 seats, then another variable enters the picture: Joe Lieberman. Would Lieberman caucus with the Republicans in order to deny the Democrats a Senate majority? He's made noises about running as a Republican in 2012, so it is certainly possible.
Bottom line, control of the U.S. Senate looks likely to be in play come election day in November.
Sean Trende can be reached at [email protected].
In the long term, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The Republicans aren't ready to return to national power yet; give them some actual power, and they'll just look like the douchebags they still are, and the Democrats are as likely now as ever to change.
Except, perhaps, for Security. The idea that we could have idiots like Hans in the Senate arguing on all channels on Sunday about how the Inquisition got a lot of things right will not be pretty.
Quote from: Jacob on February 15, 2010, 02:52:23 PM
Quote from: Scipio on February 15, 2010, 02:48:52 PM
WTF is Bayh thinking?
One of:
1. "Better quit before the really nasty scandal hits." This requires a scandal to be avoided.
2. "Fuck you, I'm out and napalming by bridges. This is what you get." This requires some internal Democratic divisions and power plays.
Just a guess.
I'm thinking number 2.
Quote from: Scipio on February 15, 2010, 07:32:58 PMI'm thinking number 2.
New theory: he quit with this timing to allow the party to pick the candidate, rather than having someone they don't like win the primary.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32990.html
God, Democrats are cowardly. <_<
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 15, 2010, 07:04:06 PM
I guess the failure of the jobs bill (Reid's fault) and the deficit commission (GOP's fault) were the last straw. The Senate flipping to the Republicans actually looks like a possibility now.
The jobs bill deserved to fail. The deficit commission was mostly for show so no great loss there either. I can't stand Bayh.
When and how did the jobs bill die?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2010, 09:15:06 PM
When and how did the jobs bill die?
I don't think it did, I think it's still going. A bipartisan committee led by Baucus and Grassley got the jobs bill which included a number of not-terribly related extensions of tax cuts and welfare grants. It was pricetagged at $85 billion; Reid said he wasn't happy with it re-wrote it while keeping the central things (such as a temporary payroll exemption for new workers) and it's priced at $15 billion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2010, 09:15:06 PM
When and how did the jobs bill die?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fwikiality%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F3%2F3b%2FDeadBill.jpg%2F148px-DeadBill.jpg&hash=59293f5f4301f8b9a210d8e046db33e3a571b85c)
Too bad about Bayh leaving. He seemed to be one of the good Congress members, more centrist, reasonable. He has good poll ratings too, so it would seem that he was a good bet to win the next election to remain in office. He seems to have gotten fed up with how things are going in Congress, and with his own party's direction.
Always bittersweet when one of the good Dems retire. Yeah, there's an opportunity for the GOP to pick up a seat, but it's like having one of your best friends move away when you're a kid. Bayh was always right up there with Sam Nunn on the list of Dems I really liked.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 15, 2010, 07:18:12 PM
In the long term, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The Republicans aren't ready to return to national power yet; give them some actual power, and they'll just look like the douchebags they still are, and the Democrats are as likely now as ever to change.
Except, perhaps, for Security. The idea that we could have idiots like Hans in the Senate arguing on all channels on Sunday about how the Inquisition got a lot of things right will not be pretty.
Should we at some point try to get things done, rather than putting the other party in power so they could fuck up the country more and discredit themselves?
Quote from: KRonn on February 16, 2010, 09:32:10 AM
Too bad about Bayh leaving. He seemed to be one of the good Congress members, more centrist, reasonable. He has good poll ratings too, so it would seem that he was a good bet to win the next election to remain in office. He seems to have gotten fed up with how things are going in Congress, and with his own party's direction.
I disagree, I remember reading how he suddenly became a terribly liberal Senator in 2006/07 when he was thinking about running for President or being a VP nominee. He was the ultimate weather-vane politician. I agree with Ross Douthat's assessment:
QuoteThe Emptiness of Evan Bayh
Before he decided not to run for re-election, Evan Bayh was an unpopular figure in the liberal blogosphere. Now he's straightforwardly reviled. Normally, this would incline me to find something positive to say about him, but after meditating on the Bayh record, such as it was, I find myself basically agreeing with Michael Tomasky:
Quote
It doesn't bother me that he was a moderate. The party needs moderates.
But even on his own terms as a moderate, he didn't lead on anything that I'm aware of. He talked a lot about the deficit, but I'm unaware of any genuine policy impact he might have had.
Last year he formed a moderate coalition of some sort in the Senate that he led. It seems to have done nothing. I'm sure it did some things. But it strikes me that if it had done anything important, anything that actually shaped the debate, I'd know about it, and I don't.
And yet: the Washington media always hyped the guy. Moderate, midwestern, handsome in an anodyne way, well-spoken if you consider the ability to articulate obvious conventional wisdom a virtue.
But there was less there than met the eye. And now perhaps we see, in the way he handled this decision, one reason why.
This is harsh but ultimately fair. America needs politicians who stake out interesting, politically-courageous positions on important policy questions. What it doesn't need is politicians who occupy the safest possible ground on the great issues of the day, shift slightly left or slightly right depending on the state of public opinion, and then get congratulated by the press for being so independent-minded.
Bayh wasn't as bad, in this regard, as someone like Arlen Specter, but he wasn't much good, either. His big issue was supposed to be deficit reduction, but you wouldn't catch him dead proposing anything remotely like Paul Ryan's fiscal roadmap, with its detailed list of programs to be reshaped and reduced. (Bayh preferred the "bravery" of punting the issue to a commission.) On foreign policy, he was a liberal hawk on every vote except the hard ones: He backed the Iraq invasion in 2003 and takes a hard line on Iran today, but in the debate over the surge, when being hawkish was suddenly costly, he sided with the doves. Wherever the Beltway conventional wisdom settled, there was Evan Bayh — and he was rewarded for it with endless presidential and vice-presidential chatter, which has followed him, absurdly, even now that he's announced his retirement.
In his farewell statement, Bayh complained that in today's Washington, there's "too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." He's right, up to a point, but his own record suggests that centrists as well as ideologues can be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 15, 2010, 07:18:12 PM
In the long term, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The Republicans aren't ready to return to national power yet; give them some actual power, and they'll just look like the douchebags they still are, and the Democrats are as likely now as ever to change.
Except, perhaps, for Security. The idea that we could have idiots like Hans in the Senate arguing on all channels on Sunday about how the Inquisition got a lot of things right will not be pretty.
Should we at some point try to get things done, rather than putting the other party in power so they could fuck up the country more and discredit themselves?
Amen to that brother.
Quote from: DGuller on February 16, 2010, 01:23:39 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 15, 2010, 07:18:12 PM
In the long term, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The Republicans aren't ready to return to national power yet; give them some actual power, and they'll just look like the douchebags they still are, and the Democrats are as likely now as ever to change.
Except, perhaps, for Security. The idea that we could have idiots like Hans in the Senate arguing on all channels on Sunday about how the Inquisition got a lot of things right will not be pretty.
Should we at some point try to get things done, rather than putting the other party in power so they could fuck up the country more and discredit themselves?
Things have not been progressing so well with the Dems in full power. And the voters are so "pleased" that the Dem party is running scared of consequences.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2010, 08:07:09 PM
Quote from: KRonn on February 16, 2010, 09:32:10 AM
Too bad about Bayh leaving. He seemed to be one of the good Congress members, more centrist, reasonable. He has good poll ratings too, so it would seem that he was a good bet to win the next election to remain in office. He seems to have gotten fed up with how things are going in Congress, and with his own party's direction.
I disagree, I remember reading how he suddenly became a terribly liberal Senator in 2006/07 when he was thinking about running for President or being a VP nominee. He was the ultimate weather-vane politician. I agree with Ross Douthat's assessment:
QuoteThe Emptiness of Evan Bayh
Before he decided not to run for re-election, Evan Bayh was an unpopular figure in the liberal blogosphere. Now he's straightforwardly reviled. Normally, this would incline me to find something positive to say about him, but after meditating on the Bayh record, such as it was, I find myself basically agreeing with Michael Tomasky:
Quote
It doesn't bother me that he was a moderate. The party needs moderates.
But even on his own terms as a moderate, he didn't lead on anything that I'm aware of. He talked a lot about the deficit, but I'm unaware of any genuine policy impact he might have had.
Last year he formed a moderate coalition of some sort in the Senate that he led. It seems to have done nothing. I'm sure it did some things. But it strikes me that if it had done anything important, anything that actually shaped the debate, I'd know about it, and I don't.
And yet: the Washington media always hyped the guy. Moderate, midwestern, handsome in an anodyne way, well-spoken if you consider the ability to articulate obvious conventional wisdom a virtue.
But there was less there than met the eye. And now perhaps we see, in the way he handled this decision, one reason why.
This is harsh but ultimately fair. America needs politicians who stake out interesting, politically-courageous positions on important policy questions. What it doesn't need is politicians who occupy the safest possible ground on the great issues of the day, shift slightly left or slightly right depending on the state of public opinion, and then get congratulated by the press for being so independent-minded.
Bayh wasn't as bad, in this regard, as someone like Arlen Specter, but he wasn't much good, either. His big issue was supposed to be deficit reduction, but you wouldn't catch him dead proposing anything remotely like Paul Ryan's fiscal roadmap, with its detailed list of programs to be reshaped and reduced. (Bayh preferred the "bravery" of punting the issue to a commission.) On foreign policy, he was a liberal hawk on every vote except the hard ones: He backed the Iraq invasion in 2003 and takes a hard line on Iran today, but in the debate over the surge, when being hawkish was suddenly costly, he sided with the doves. Wherever the Beltway conventional wisdom settled, there was Evan Bayh — and he was rewarded for it with endless presidential and vice-presidential chatter, which has followed him, absurdly, even now that he's announced his retirement.
In his farewell statement, Bayh complained that in today's Washington, there's "too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." He's right, up to a point, but his own record suggests that centrists as well as ideologues can be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
This may be Bayh's way, don't know. The writer could be someone with an adverse point of view, but I'm inclined to give the writer some credit on this. I don't know Bayh well; it just seemed that he seemed to speak to a sensible middle ground on some of the issues of late, and that's what I tended to pick up on. He appeared to be a centrist in a Congress that seems to be hardening left/right wing more. If however, he's about as the article states then he's likely part of the problem in Congressional politics.
:punk:
Will his campaign platform be: LITTLE PINK HOUSES FOR YOU AND ME.
QuoteRumors: John Mellencamp May Run for Bayh's Senate Seat
Updated: Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 7:37 AM CST
Published : Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 7:36 AM CST
By Jennifer Fermino
(New York Post) - Now that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is officially ceding his seat, some Democrats hoped to boost another prominent Hoosier to the Senate, singer John Cougar Mellencamp, the New York Post reported Thursday.
Speculation swirled around Mellencamp, an outspoken liberal rocker who once backed John Edwards for president, as a natural choice to replace Bayh after he decided not to run for re-election.
Although Mellencamp's representatives had yet to comment on a possible run, almost 1,000 people joined "Draft John Mellencamp for Senate" on Facebook, and many liberal bloggers also called on him to jump in.
Mellencamp, an Indiana native whose hits include Jack and Diane, never before held public office but remains extremely popular in the state because of his role as a co-founder of Farm Aid, a 25-year-old festival that raises money for struggling farmers.
The 58-year-old musician was also an outspoken critic of the Iraq War.
He performed at the White House last week in the "Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights Movement."
So Sheilbh hates on mostly inoffensive Bayh and then supports Pelosi? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 12:08:30 PM
:punk:
Will his campaign platform be: LITTLE PINK HOUSES FOR YOU AND ME.
QuoteRumors: John Mellencamp May Run for Bayh's Senate Seat
Updated: Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 7:37 AM CST
Published : Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 7:36 AM CST
By Jennifer Fermino
(New York Post) - Now that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) is officially ceding his seat, some Democrats hoped to boost another prominent Hoosier to the Senate, singer John Cougar Mellencamp, the New York Post reported Thursday.
Speculation swirled around Mellencamp, an outspoken liberal rocker who once backed John Edwards for president, as a natural choice to replace Bayh after he decided not to run for re-election.
Although Mellencamp's representatives had yet to comment on a possible run, almost 1,000 people joined "Draft John Mellencamp for Senate" on Facebook, and many liberal bloggers also called on him to jump in.
Mellencamp, an Indiana native whose hits include Jack and Diane, never before held public office but remains extremely popular in the state because of his role as a co-founder of Farm Aid, a 25-year-old festival that raises money for struggling farmers.
The 58-year-old musician was also an outspoken critic of the Iraq War.
He performed at the White House last week in the "Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights Movement."
:yuk:
Quote from: Caliga on February 18, 2010, 12:08:30 PM
:punk:
Will his campaign platform be: LITTLE PINK HOUSES FOR YOU AND ME.
First Franken and now Mellencamp. You probably want Arnie to run for President too. :rolleyes:
Arnie is above petty things like Presidents. Arnie for Emperor.
I'm thinking Sydney Pollack should run for it. Or David Letterman. What other celebrities are from Indiana... Let's see, Brendan Fraser, I think.
I actually wouldn't support Mellencamp at all since he is a known liberal loony who IIRC campaigned hard for John "the Douche" Edwards... I just think it'd be a fun campaign to watch. -_-
Quote from: KRonn on February 18, 2010, 09:15:53 AMThe writer could be someone with an adverse point of view, but I'm inclined to give the writer some credit on this. I don't know Bayh well; it just seemed that he seemed to speak to a sensible middle ground on some of the issues of late, and that's what I tended to pick up on.
The writer's a conservative agreeing with the left. It's easy to get a good, popular career saying sensible things on the middle ground by saying very, very little that's at all controversial. But it's often insidious bullshit.
QuoteHe appeared to be a centrist in a Congress that seems to be hardening left/right wing more. If however, he's about as the article states then he's likely part of the problem in Congressional politics.
I like centrists. I like Snowe and Nelson for example, both of whom I think are genuine centrists. Bayh on the other hand I've got no time for, for example he developed a remarkably liberal voting record in 2006-07. It could have been because it was during a Democrat ascendancy, or because he was thinking of running for President (or getting VP talk)?
QuoteSo Sheilbh hates on mostly inoffensive Bayh and then supports Pelosi? :huh:
I don't support Pelosi, I just haven't seen why people dislike her - it could be how she comes across (I've rarely seen her speak) and Shame's point on waterboarding seems legit.