May 4 primary election results thread (Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio)

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Heath Shuler is sputtering to a 61-39 victory. His primary challenger won Buncombe County (the precinct map looks about how I expected it would).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Heath Shuler is sputtering to a 61-39 victory. His primary challenger won Buncombe County (the precinct map looks about how I expected it would).

Ooh... now that's interesting.

[Badger]

AP calls it for Fisher.

With less than half the vote in and him leading only 56-44, I'm guessing the uncounted votes are disproportionately from NE Ohio.

[Badger]

In OH-6 Charlie Wilson's tea party primary challenger is racking up close to 30%.

[Sam Spade]

Interesting set of results, actually. Would seem to point to significant discontent at politics-as-usual (even more than is usual, I mean. Even for the U.S, even for Indiana), but not in an organised way. The Tea Party Folk as part of a phenomenon and not a whole one, perhaps.

Agreed.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Maps of some of these results would be interesting. The Hankins guy in IN-09 cleaned up in some counties but got single-digits in other ones.

[Badger]

NC experts: To whom does Ken Lewis's share of the black vote mostly go to in the runoff?

[Marokai Backbeat]

In OH-6 Charlie Wilson's tea party primary challenger is racking up close to 30%.

Meh. He's less vulnerable than some, I think, but I still can't help but worry about him in the general.

[Lunar]

NC experts: To whom does Ken Lewis's share of the black vote mostly go to in the runoff?

I'm not an NC expert, but I would imagine the DSCC would have a lot to say here financially considering their previous waffling between Elaine and Cal.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

My guess would be Marshall. Most of the places where Cunningham came in first are overwhelmingly white.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AP calls it for Fisher.

With less than half the vote in and him leading only 56-44, I'm guessing the uncounted votes are disproportionately from NE Ohio.

The 75 year old looking Protectionist versus the 50 year old looking economic wizard. I will take that fight, even in Ohio, any day, especially in this environment.

Lets see if Renacci can come through, otherwise I am doing extremely well tonight having voted for Burr and Ellmers, and supported Buschon, Young, Stivers, Fisher (primary only), and losing only one, Stutzman.

NC experts: To whom does Ken Lewis's share of the black vote mostly go to in the runoff?

He took it from Marshall. However Cunningham has been gaining the big mo if you will and this runoff may give him the time to get ahead. Runoffs in NC are much more complicated usually then "To whom does Lewis' votes go".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Renacci back in the lead by 62 votes in OH-16 with 28% in.

With 56% in, Renacci now has a 5% lead.

Come on Jim!

[Sam Spade]

Runoffs are highly unpredictable, folks - you can't just predict them that easy.

Lee Fisher is a sucky candidate IMHO - always thought that, expect to be proven right in the fall.

[Lunar]

Runoffs are highly unpredictable, folks - you can't just predict them that easy.

Lee Fisher is a sucky candidate IMHO - always thought that, expect to be proven right in the fall.

Suckiness is always relative.  Portman seems to be a fairly talented insider pol with a future ahead of him.

Fisher has done quite well at never letting Brunner seriously compete with him financially.

[Sam Spade]

Runoffs are highly unpredictable, folks - you can't just predict them that easy.

Lee Fisher is a sucky candidate IMHO - always thought that, expect to be proven right in the fall.

Suckiness is always relative.  Portman seems to be a fairly talented insider pol with a future ahead of him.

We'll see on that front.  My point was more on Lee Fisher, who I've actually seen in action before.

[Lunar]

Runoffs are highly unpredictable, folks - you can't just predict them that easy.

Lee Fisher is a sucky candidate IMHO - always thought that, expect to be proven right in the fall.

Suckiness is always relative.  Portman seems to be a fairly talented insider pol with a future ahead of him.

We'll see on that front.  My point was more on Lee Fisher, who I've actually seen in action before.

Well, Fisher's chances were always intrinsically linked in multiple ways to Strickland's.  If you would have told me a couple years ago that Strickland's base of support would have collapsed I would have told you that Fisher would be in deep trouble, but nobody quite saw that then.  Kasich seemed like the sacrificial lamb shoved out of the way into a long shot bid against Ted.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Todd Young eked out a win in IN-09. Four precincts are left but he's up by over 1,000 votes.

Looks like Jeff Miller barely avoided a runoff in NC-11. He won with 40.19% of the vote; 65 votes above the 40% threshold.

Fred Dailey has a 162-vote lead in OH-18. 86% in.

[Sam Spade]

Runoffs are highly unpredictable, folks - you can't just predict them that easy.

Lee Fisher is a sucky candidate IMHO - always thought that, expect to be proven right in the fall.

Suckiness is always relative.  Portman seems to be a fairly talented insider pol with a future ahead of him.

We'll see on that front.  My point was more on Lee Fisher, who I've actually seen in action before.

Well, Fisher's chances were always intrinsically linked in multiple ways to Strickland's.  If you would have told me a couple years ago that Strickland's base of support would have collapsed I would have told you that Fisher would be in deep trouble, but nobody quite saw that then.  Kasich seemed like the sacrificial lamb shoved out of the way into a long shot bid against Ted.

Fair enough.  I don't think there were any genius posts of me saying that was a possibility back then, though I should have been thinking it.

His showing tonight has sucked.  Badly.  IMHO

[Sam Spade]

Renacci has been declared the winner in OH-16.

Krikorian is on his way to losing to the Indian guy in OH-02.

Dailey should be winning the OH-18 primary with a measly amount, but I'm not going to stay around to find out.

DAnnunzio and Johnson go to runoff in NC-08.  Miller got barely enough to avoid runoff in NC-11

That's all for now.  Going to bed.

[Shilly]

Hey guys, here's some maps.



Let me know if there are any errors. Ohio and NC will come soon.

[Badger]

AP calls it for Fisher.

With less than half the vote in and him leading only 56-44, I'm guessing the uncounted votes are disproportionately from NE Ohio.

The 75 year old looking Protectionist versus the 50 year old looking economic wizard. I will take that fight, even in Ohio, any day, especially in this environment.

Bush's budget director and trade rep = economic wizard?

Again, I invite you to correct me by noting any substantial difference in economic policy between Portman and his former boss (and fellow economic wizard).

Portman doing so to Ohio voters would, incidentally, mean the difference between a close race and a relatively easy R hold. Fortunately I don't think he can. His key is to convince most voters the state's current economic problems were primarily caused in the last 15 months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He took it from Marshall. However Cunningham has been gaining the big mo if you will and this runoff may give him the time to get ahead. Runoffs in NC are much more complicated usually then "To whom does Lewis' votes go".

[/quote]

I agree, but that's certainly still a factor.

[Badger]

Renacci has been declared the winner in OH-16.

Krikorian is on his way to losing to the Indian guy in OH-02.

Dailey should be winning the OH-18 primary with a measly amount, but I'm not going to stay around to find out.

DAnnunzio and Johnson go to runoff in NC-08.  Miller got barely enough to avoid runoff in NC-11

That's all for now.  Going to bed.

AP lists Gibbs over Dailey in OH-18 by less than 160 votes with 100% reporting.

[Sam Spade]

Renacci has been declared the winner in OH-16.

Krikorian is on his way to losing to the Indian guy in OH-02.

Dailey should be winning the OH-18 primary with a measly amount, but I'm not going to stay around to find out.

DAnnunzio and Johnson go to runoff in NC-08.  Miller got barely enough to avoid runoff in NC-11

That's all for now.  Going to bed.

Heh, Gibbs came back to lead Dailey in the last few precincts by 160 votes.  We'll probably have some type of recount there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AP calls it for Fisher.

With less than half the vote in and him leading only 56-44, I'm guessing the uncounted votes are disproportionately from NE Ohio.

The 75 year old looking Protectionist versus the 50 year old looking economic wizard. I will take that fight, even in Ohio, any day, especially in this environment.

Bush's budget director and trade rep = economic wizard?

Again, I invite you to correct me by noting any substantial difference in economic policy between Portman and his former boss (and fellow economic wizard).

Portman doing so to Ohio voters would, incidentally, mean the difference between a close race and a relatively easy R hold. Fortunately I don't think he can. His key is to convince most voters the state's current economic problems were primarily caused in the last 15 months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He took it from Marshall. However Cunningham has been gaining the big mo if you will and this runoff may give him the time to get ahead. Runoffs in NC are much more complicated usually then "To whom does Lewis' votes go".

I agree, but that's certainly still a factor.
[/quote]

No, I would rather harass you about it then argue the merits.
 

You still cling to the irrational hysteria over Bush economics. A simple look at what Portman and Bush were seeking on trade at the DOHA round and other organizations was the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers on us which would increase our exports and thus boast manufacturing.  All he has to do is point out this fact. And he could point to both his really short terms as Trade rep and OMB, less then a year each I beleive, as leaving do the frustration with entrenched power and the inability to get anything substantial either with foriegn countries due to inherit protectionism or Congress and the out of control spending/entitlements. 

Its called spin and I prefer mine to yours and I think mine will work. All he has to do his turn the anger and gov'ts inability to get things in his favor, promote his record of accomplishment and redefine his efforts as Trade Rep.

Maybe the specter of Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) is clouding your judgement. If Portman is smart and he is, he will not let Fisher define him as the guy that help Bush ship half of Ohio to China but as the guy that tried to even the playing field and give OH a fighting chance. Heck he could even paint Fisher as dissingenious in the process and label him as a partisan hack.

Anything could happen and this is all theoretical. But as I have time an again, Bob Latta beat a strong Protectionist candidate in OH-05 2007 special election with the economy slumping and Bush's approvals way down. That district is only R+5 I think. Ohio is what? R+1, R+2.

[Badger]

AP calls it for Fisher.

With less than half the vote in and him leading only 56-44, I'm guessing the uncounted votes are disproportionately from NE Ohio.

The 75 year old looking Protectionist versus the 50 year old looking economic wizard. I will take that fight, even in Ohio, any day, especially in this environment.

Bush's budget director and trade rep = economic wizard?

Again, I invite you to correct me by noting any substantial difference in economic policy between Portman and his former boss (and fellow economic wizard).

Portman doing so to Ohio voters would, incidentally, mean the difference between a close race and a relatively easy R hold. Fortunately I don't think he can. His key is to convince most voters the state's current economic problems were primarily caused in the last 15 months.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He took it from Marshall. However Cunningham has been gaining the big mo if you will and this runoff may give him the time to get ahead. Runoffs in NC are much more complicated usually then "To whom does Lewis' votes go".

I agree, but that's certainly still a factor.

No, I would rather harass you about it then argue the merits.
 

You still cling to the irrational hysteria over Bush economics. A simple look at what Portman and Bush were seeking on trade at the DOHA round and other organizations was the reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers on us which would increase our exports and thus boast manufacturing.  All he has to do is point out this fact. And he could point to both his really short terms as Trade rep and OMB, less then a year each I beleive, as leaving do the frustration with entrenched power and the inability to get anything substantial either with foriegn countries due to inherit protectionism or Congress and the out of control spending/entitlements. 

Its called spin and I prefer mine to yours and I think mine will work. All he has to do his turn the anger and gov'ts inability to get things in his favor, promote his record of accomplishment and redefine his efforts as Trade Rep.

Maybe the specter of Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) is clouding your judgement. If Portman is smart and he is, he will not let Fisher define him as the guy that help Bush ship half of Ohio to China but as the guy that tried to even the playing field and give OH a fighting chance. Heck he could even paint Fisher as dissingenious in the process and label him as a partisan hack.

Anything could happen and this is all theoretical. But as I have time an again, Bob Latta beat a strong Protectionist candidate in OH-05 2007 special election with the economy slumping and Bush's approvals way down. That district is only R+5 I think. Ohio is what? R+1, R+2.
[/quote]

I don't think viewing Bush's economic and fiscal policies as a total clusterf#$k is either "hysterical" or "irrational". A large majority of Ohio voters would surely agree.

Regardless, your reasons for defending Portman are somewhat different than my reasons for scorning him. Your emphasis seems to be on differing views on trade policy relating to Portman's time as Trade Rep. FWIW my views on trade are probably somewhere between Portman's and Fisher's, and it's not that important an issue to me overall (though I agree Fisher will try bludgeoning Portman on the trade issue).

My distaste for Portman is based more on the god-awful fiscal and budget policies of Bush's he played a major role in implementing, and will undoubtedly continue to champion as senator if he wins