YouTube Preview Image

4 Responses
  1. The more the merrier!

    Posted by wilson46201 on December 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm |

  2. For once I may agree with Wilson. I think it is a positive if there are multiple candidates. So long as the run a respectful campaign it will bring attention to the race. That is a good thing.

    Now if they just bicker at each other, that is another thing.

    Posted by Joel Harris on December 3rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm |

  3. Tough to agree with Wilson on anything, but I’m sure that similar to the US 5th primary, someone is the beneficiary of more candidates … I would have to guess it’s Stutzman, but I’m biased since I support him. Who do you think is most benefited by adding more candidates? Oh, and I heard yesterday that log cabin, big business, and the old Uni-Gov types are ticked that they don’t have a niche candidate in the race … watch for more?

    Posted by daltonsbriefs on December 4th, 2009 at 7:21 am |

    • I would argue that whoever wins the Republican Primary will benefit by a larger field–once again, so long as it doesn’t become a bare knuckle primary. The reason is that ANY of them start with a name recognition problem as compared to Bayh. A primary helps with the name recognition. It needs to be early enough to make a difference. Without a contested primary that publicity happens in the last two weeks before the election, which I think is far too late.

      I would like to see all of the candidates run to see who can most effectively show Sen Bayh to be the liberal that he is. That will be a good primary.

      (The 5th is a no brainer as to who benefits from a large field, but the dynamic in the two races is far different)

      Posted by Joel Harris on December 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pm |

   
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to comment.
Your Reply:

Secured for spam by MLW and Associates, LLP's Super CAPTCHASecured by Super-CAPTCHA © 2009-2010 MLW & Associates, LLP. All rights reserved.