Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

(02-15-2010 12:44 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

The only poll I saw with Bayh up big was from The Daily KOS (a extreme leftwing group). Rasmussen had his lead at +3, not a comfortable lead by any measure.

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Bye...Bye... Bayh.

(02-15-2010 12:44 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

Lots of people have never lost an election in their home state and still got beat.

He was not leading by large margins against all comers. He lead by large margins against Coats, who just annouced last week or so, and Stutzman. He was up by 3 on Hostettler, down by 3 to Pence.

Real Clear Politics Polls

Of course with him deciding not to stand for re-election, Bayh can now go "balls deep" and vote for everything in the Obama-Pelosi -Reid Agenda.

After all, he doesn't have to answer to his voters any longer.

(02-15-2010 12:53 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:44 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

The only poll I saw with Bayh up big was from The Daily KOS (a extreme leftwing group). Rasmussen had his lead at +3, not a comfortable lead by any measure.

If Rasmussen(an extreme rightwing poll) shows him up by 3, that means he had a really comfortable lead.

You think he is setting the example for other to retire just to pass this Obama, Reid, Pelosi nightmare? OMG Democracy has to be more than that!!

(02-15-2010 12:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:44 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

Lots of people have never lost an election in their home state and still got beat.

He was not leading by large margins against all comers. He lead by large margins against Coats, who just annouced last week or so, and Stutzman. He was up by 3 on Hostettler, down by 3 to Pence.

Real Clear Politics Polls

Mike Pence would have given him a good run, but he opted out of the race. You can believe Rasmussen and their questionable polling if you want, but Pence wouldn't have passed on the race if his internal polling told him that he was up 3 points without even kicking off a campaign. Instead, he saw Bayh with $13 million in his campaign treasury, net favorables in the state, and leads in the polls. Pence opted not to try a run against Bayh even with the national political climate being in his favor. Potential GOP opponent after potential GOP opponent backed out of the race until the party had to go dig up Dan Coats. If you want to believe Bayh was vulnerable based on Rasmussen polling, go ahead. All the facts point to you being wrong.

Facts and being wrong has never stopped him before.

(02-15-2010 02:45 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  You can believe Rasmussen and their questionable polling if you want,

I know this is a favorite talking point of many on the left but I have yet to see any evidence to back it up. I would invite you to provide it.

Do they poll til they get the number they want? Do they skew their samples, ala NYTimes who polls 45% dems and 35% reps sometimes? Do they ask leading questions? Please provide evidence to support the assertion that their polls are "questionable."

I don't discount that he may, in fact, just be sick of it and ready to move on. But anyone who pays attention knows that there is strong anti-dem sentiment out there that he would have had to contend with. The moment his republican opponent slammed him constantly with voting for the porkulus bill it would take its toll. See Scott Brown to understand why early polls mean little.

Quote:If you want to believe Bayh was vulnerable based on Rasmussen polling, go ahead. All the facts point to you being wrong.

Same as above. I invite you to back up this assertion. What have I been wrong about? You said he had huge leads over everyone. I pointed out that wasn't the case..so you attack the poll. At this point it is incumbant on you to provide evidence that the poll is biased/skewed. I hope you are better at that than some of the other morons on here who claim a poll is biased because you use a politicians name in it.

I'll also point out that Rasmussen final 2008 presidential poll had Obama 52% to McCain 46%. The final results were 52.9% to McCain 45.7%.

(02-15-2010 02:45 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:44 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

Lots of people have never lost an election in their home state and still got beat.

He was not leading by large margins against all comers. He lead by large margins against Coats, who just annouced last week or so, and Stutzman. He was up by 3 on Hostettler, down by 3 to Pence.

Real Clear Politics Polls

Mike Pence would have given him a good run, but he opted out of the race. You can believe Rasmussen and their questionable polling if you want, but Pence wouldn't have passed on the race if his internal polling told him that he was up 3 points without even kicking off a campaign. Instead, he saw Bayh with $13 million in his campaign treasury, net favorables in the state, and leads in the polls. Pence opted not to try a run against Bayh even with the national political climate being in his favor. Potential GOP opponent after potential GOP opponent backed out of the race until the party had to go dig up Dan Coats. If you want to believe Bayh was vulnerable based on Rasmussen polling, go ahead. All the facts point to you being wrong.

If Bayh were so comfortably ahead why would he retire? Almost no chance of a democrat win in Indiana if Bayh isn't their man.

(02-15-2010 02:45 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:58 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:44 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 12:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  Bayh bows out

Yet another dem sees the writing on the wall of the total rejection of Obama and the dems policies by the American people.

I remember a few on here claiming there was NO WAY rebublicans could take congress back. Shame one of them is on my ignore list so I can't enjoy the crow if it comes.

Evan Bayh wasn't going to lose in 2010. He's never lost an election in Indiana, and was leading by large margins against all comers this time around. It appears as though he's just tired of being in Congress and wants to do something else. This is good news for the GOP because IN becomes a potential pick-up, which it wasn't with Bayh running.

Lots of people have never lost an election in their home state and still got beat.

He was not leading by large margins against all comers. He lead by large margins against Coats, who just annouced last week or so, and Stutzman. He was up by 3 on Hostettler, down by 3 to Pence.

Real Clear Politics Polls

Mike Pence would have given him a good run, but he opted out of the race. You can believe Rasmussen and their questionable polling if you want, but Pence wouldn't have passed on the race if his internal polling told him that he was up 3 points without even kicking off a campaign. Instead, he saw Bayh with $13 million in his campaign treasury, net favorables in the state, and leads in the polls. Pence opted not to try a run against Bayh even with the national political climate being in his favor. Potential GOP opponent after potential GOP opponent backed out of the race until the party had to go dig up Dan Coats. If you want to believe Bayh was vulnerable based on Rasmussen polling, go ahead. All the facts point to you being wrong.

Equally logical to argue that if Bayh didn't think he was vulnerable, he would not have withdrawn. That's not what he said, of course, but he's a politician which means he's a liar. With politicians you watch what they do, not what they say. And what he did speaks volumes.

Did I hear correctly that Bayh bowed out the day before the qualifying deadline for Indiana's primary?

If so, it would appear he's decided to screw his party.

(02-15-2010 04:41 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 02:45 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  You can believe Rasmussen and their questionable polling if you want,

I know this is a favorite talking point of many on the left but I have yet to see any evidence to back it up. I would invite you to provide it.

Do they poll til they get the number they want? Do they skew their samples, ala NYTimes who polls 45% dems and 35% reps sometimes? Do they ask leading questions? Please provide evidence to support the assertion that their polls are "questionable."

I don't discount that he may, in fact, just be sick of it and ready to move on. But anyone who pays attention knows that there is strong anti-dem sentiment out there that he would have had to contend with. The moment his republican opponent slammed him constantly with voting for the porkulus bill it would take its toll. See Scott Brown to understand why early polls mean little.

Quote:If you want to believe Bayh was vulnerable based on Rasmussen polling, go ahead. All the facts point to you being wrong.

Same as above. I invite you to back up this assertion. What have I been wrong about? You said he had huge leads over everyone. I pointed out that wasn't the case..so you attack the poll. At this point it is incumbant on you to provide evidence that the poll is biased/skewed. I hope you are better at that than some of the other morons on here who claim a poll is biased because you use a politicians name in it.

I'll also point out that Rasmussen final 2008 presidential poll had Obama 52% to McCain 46%. The final results were 52.9% to McCain 45.7%.

Rasmussen is using a likely voter screen that is vastly different than any other pollster. This means their results are vastly different than other pollsters. Too many people have started embracing polls that tend to favor their party rather than looking for solid analysis. Rasmussen simply isn't giving good poll numbers. I think it's far more likely that Scott Rasmussen is wrong and all the other pollsters are right than it is that Scott Rasmussen is right and all the other pollsters are wrong.

The facts are that neither Pence, Daniels, nor Rokita thought Bayh was weak enough to challenge him. So if Rasmussen was right, those three professional, successful politicians are fools. Again, I think it is much more likely that Rasmussen was wrong.

(02-15-2010 08:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Did I hear correctly that Bayh bowed out the day before the qualifying deadline for Indiana's primary?

If so, it would appear he's decided to screw his party.

He screwed the GOP. The Democratic party will be able to select whomever they want to be on the ballot because there is nobody registered on their side for the primary. The GOP will be stuck with the "also-rans" who were willing to challenge Bayh. He didn't leave enough time for the strong GOP candidates to get qualified for the ballot.

(02-15-2010 08:50 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 08:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Did I hear correctly that Bayh bowed out the day before the qualifying deadline for Indiana's primary?

If so, it would appear he's decided to screw his party.

He screwed the GOP. The Democratic party will be able to select whomever they want to be on the ballot because there is nobody registered on their side for the primary. The GOP will be stuck with the "also-rans" who were willing to challenge Bayh. He didn't leave enough time for the strong GOP candidates to get qualified for the ballot.

You don't see a Democratic free-for-all going all the way to November?

It'll be political cannibalism. They'll have to run against each other AND the Republican.

As if it really matters which gang color the scumbag that replaces him will sport....regardless....government will continue its growth and path to its eventual demise. The sooner..the better.

(02-15-2010 09:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 08:50 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(02-15-2010 08:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Did I hear correctly that Bayh bowed out the day before the qualifying deadline for Indiana's primary?

If so, it would appear he's decided to screw his party.

He screwed the GOP. The Democratic party will be able to select whomever they want to be on the ballot because there is nobody registered on their side for the primary. The GOP will be stuck with the "also-rans" who were willing to challenge Bayh. He didn't leave enough time for the strong GOP candidates to get qualified for the ballot.

You don't see a Democratic free-for-all going all the way to November?

It'll be political cannibalism. They'll have to run against each other AND the Republican.

How do you see a Democratic free-for-all without a primary? The state Democratic party will likely pick Bart Peterson or Jonathan Weinzapfel to run against whomever wins the GOP primary. Baron Hill is another possibility, but rumor is that he will run against Pence or Rokita for the Governor's office in two years.

(02-15-2010 08:48 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Rasmussen is using a likely voter screen that is vastly different than any other pollster. This means their results are vastly different than other pollsters.

Ok, this doesn't qualify as proof his polls are wrong. If your point is that using likely voters as opposed to everyone polled is less accurate you need to explain why, and offer evidence.

Quote:Rasmussen simply isn't giving good poll numbers. I think it's far more likely that Scott Rasmussen is wrong and all the other pollsters are right than it is that Scott Rasmussen is right and all the other pollsters are wrong.

Again, your opinion is not evidence or proof. Look if you can't provide evidence to back up your claim then simply say so. Say "my opinion is Rasmussen polls are wrong, I can't back it up, but that's how I feel." No shame in it.

Quote:The facts are that neither Pence, Daniels, nor Rokita thought Bayh was weak enough to challenge him. So if Rasmussen was right, those three professional, successful politicians are fools. Again, I think it is much more likely that Rasmussen was wrong.

Using the same logic, as Owl pointed out, it's just as likely Bayh didn't believe he could win so he bowed out.

Ultimately this entire discussion is not about who's right or who's wrong. It's about your opinion. The only thing I've said you are wrong about is that Bayh was well ahead of everyone and pointed to polls to back that up. Your response, without evidence, is that the poll used is wrong and that one from the Daily Kos, the only other poll listed, is more accurate. Nowhere in the realm of logic or reason does making that case hold water.

I'm very much in favor of good analysis. You give me facts and evidence to back up your assertion that Rassmussen isn't good polling I'm happy to listen. But your opinion qualifies as neither. And it's not a personal slight at you that I feel that way.

Ultimately he may be the lone truly selfless politician, the one who's principles outweigh his desire for the power, influence and money being a Senator brings. But based on what we know of Washington, that seems unlikely in my opinion.