|
always enjoy it when two people temporarily switch roles. Aren't I usually the one reminding you that Indiana is not quite as typically "red" as it seems when just looking at presidential elections? It made me smile to see your post - a rather encouraging reminder.
To the point - I really am not sure. Without question I would say Vi, if Daniels had not entered the race. The Indy business community was slowly coming around her (not Mr. Andrews) - rather than any of the republicans. She is seen as a tough, no nonsense, progressive but moderate on fiscal issues legislator with some budget experiences (very important to the Big Money guys). With their backing - she would have been the choice. But without their backing and money - I am not so sure. Not sure how a female candidate will do with the swing voters - if it isn't backed with a whole lot of positive media coverage (what the business backing here buys). Also don't think she has much name recognition out of her district or beyond the capitol. Finally while her home base is a small town called Ellettesville, she also represents Bloomington, which is often a liability when it is focused on. (While we are not nearly as liberal as the GOP would portend - around the state we are sometimes refered to as the Peoples' Republic of Bloomington. Having lived in more liberal areas, including the Bay Area, I find this laughable. But the perception is there - and if a campaign got ugly I am sure it would be used.)
But to my understanding - Andrews doesn't have much name recognition either. I don't think that he was seriously on the business powers that be radar as a serious contender. But now that they are out of the power brokering on the dem side (since they are sidling over to Mitch Daniels) - the state wide party position that Andrews held, and his connections to Bayh might help him win the nomination. I have not yet, however, seen any indication that this would bleed over as an asset to the general election.
I am pretty pessimistic in the short run.
However - keep your eye on the current Mayor of Indianapolis, Bart Peterson. He is really an up and comer. Centrist in some ways - but more progressive than, say, Bayh. This is surprising because while Urban Mayors tend to be more progressive than those in outlying areas - and certainly the center city congressional seat fits that mode - the Mayorship has been in republican hands for as long as I can remember - at least going back to the early seventies when Richard Lugar was Mayor. Mayor Peterson, even in the middle of financial crises - is seen as a strong and effective Mayor from both dems and repubs in Indy - and since the Indy business community is a major factor in statewide elections (especially gubenatorial) - Peterson gets and extra boost. These folks live in his city and are very familiar with him.
Personally I am much more impressed with Peterson than I have ever been with Bayh. A great deal of intelligence, understanding of policy, along with his pragmatism (centrism) and he even has a bit more of a dose of social conscience (and thus touch of liberalism) in him than does Bayh.
But that little side note does nothing for us in the upcoming elections.
|