OH-2 Special Election Coverage and Prediction thread...

[TheresNoMoney]

And so it shows absolutely no change in their ideology whatsoever, and says absolutely nothing about the ability of Democrats to compete in this district with a normal candidate in the future.

What bullsh*t.  Any Republican should win this district by 20%+ at worst.

You're telling me a 1% loss means nothing? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

[Gabu]

Now that I think of it I am sure there are congressional districts no Republican could win in.

Well, yes, just take a look at pretty well any Massachusetts congressional district race.  The guy with a "D" by his name always gets upwards of 70% of the vote.

If you want a party that honestly can have a chance to win in every single election in the entire country, that party's base would have to be so ill-defined that the party could never stand for very long of a time.

[nini2287]

And so it shows absolutely no change in their ideology whatsoever, and says absolutely nothing about the ability of Democrats to compete in this district with a normal candidate in the future.

What bullsh*t.  Any Republican should win this district by 20%+ at worst.

You're telling me a 1% loss means nothing? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

This one will probably be more than 1% as the only results yet to come in are from Schmidt's second best county (so far).  And yes I'd rather one Congressoinal race and lose all 434 others in blowouts, than have each of the 435 districts be a 51-49 loss.

[True Democrat]

I heard this is inside automatic recount range.

[ag]

If any Democrat could win in OH-2, it was Paul Hackett, August 2005.

Well he lost. This means Democrats simply CANNOT win in this district. Zell Miller is right. Bloomberg can win in New York, Romney can win in Massachusetts, but no Dem can win in OH-2. This is not a national party.

Well, Democrats are governors in places like Wyoming and Montana and what not. The correct comparison would have been if a Republican made a real race for a Harlem cogressional seat.  Both parties are (non-)national in the same way.

[Beet]

Now that I think of it I am sure there are congressional districts no Republican could win in.

Well, yes, just take a look at pretty well any Massachusetts congressional district race.  The guy with a "D" by his name always gets upwards of 70% of the vote.

If you want a party that honestly can have a chance to win in every single election in the entire country, that party's base would have to be so ill-defined that the party could never stand for very long of a time.

Well parties used to have pretty "ill-defined" bases compared to what they have today. I'm sure there was once a time when parties could win in much more diverse locales than they probably can now.

[nini2287]

If any Democrat could win in OH-2, it was Paul Hackett, August 2005.

Well he lost. This means Democrats simply CANNOT win in this district. Zell Miller is right. Bloomberg can win in New York, Romney can win in Massachusetts, but no Dem can win in OH-2. This is not a national party.

Well, Democrats are governors in places like Wyoming and Montana and what not. The correct comparison would have been if a Republican made a real race for a Harlem cogressional seat.  Both parties are (non-)national in the same way.

Good point.  I also feel if Hackett had run against Portman in 2004, Portman would still have won around 60-40

[Jake]

And so it shows absolutely no change in their ideology whatsoever, and says absolutely nothing about the ability of Democrats to compete in this district with a normal candidate in the future.

What bullsh*t.  Any Republican should win this district by 20%+ at worst.

You're telling me a 1% loss means nothing? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

It means nothing other than that an energized, well organized party with the resources can make any by-election competitive. I'm sure Al or another British member can vouch for that from experience over the pond.

[TheresNoMoney]

Good point.  I also feel if Hackett had run against Portman in 2004, Portman would still have won around 60-40

You really are a self-hating Democrat, huh?

[Gabu]

Here's a completely random, but interesting, fact: the counties in which Hackett did the best were the least populous counties in the district.

[RBH]

Maybe this is like Notre Dame beating Navy.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Why does anyone care about the results of this race?

Because it's interesting, purely to see how well a Democrat can do in a race that is so heavily conservative and traditionally Republican.

Um, a Democrat who doesn't even identify himself as a Democrat in his ads, and runs entirely on being an Iraq war "hawk."

He even ran Daschle-esque commercials linking himself to Bush.

And?

He's still a Democrat, and he's still currently down less than a thousand votes in the most conservative congressional district in Ohio.  I don't see how his tactics change that.

[TheresNoMoney]

Well, Democrats are governors in places like Wyoming and Montana and what not. The correct comparison would have been if a Republican made a real race for a Harlem cogressional seat.  Both parties are (non-)national in the same way.

Quit making sense!

Just repeat the right-wing spin. Democrats are not a national party, Democrats are not a national party, Zell Miller is right, Zell Miller is right.....

[A18]

And so it shows absolutely no change in their ideology whatsoever, and says absolutely nothing about the ability of Democrats to compete in this district with a normal candidate in the future.

What bullsh*t.  Any Republican should win this district by 20%+ at worst.

You're telling me a 1% loss means nothing? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

It means they were able to get within 1% with this one pro-gun candidate who pretty much dodged every other issue except Iraq. You know, in a special election without much at stake.

What it doesn't mean is that their ideology has changed in any way, or that their ability to compete in this district with a normal candidate in the future is any better.

[Beet]

Well, Democrats are governors in places like Wyoming and Montana and what not. The correct comparison would have been if a Republican made a real race for a Harlem cogressional seat.  Both parties are (non-)national in the same way.

Quit making sense!

Just repeat the right-wing spin. Democrats are not a national party, Democrats are not a national party, Zell Miller, is right, Zell Miller is right.....

Ha. Ok I'll shut up now

[RBH]

A18 would probably be have something to say if the Democrats changed part of their overall idealogy over 1 race.

[nini2287]

Good point.  I also feel if Hackett had run against Portman in 2004, Portman would still have won around 60-40

You really are a self-hating Democrat, huh?

I'm just honest.  Portman is a much, much stronger candidate than Schmidt.

[A18]

A18 would probably be have something to say if the Democrats changed part of their overall idealogy over 1 race.

I would probably 'be have' something to say if I could figure out what the hell your post means.

[TheresNoMoney]

Hackett definitely didn't dodge any issues at all.  He was the most straight-talking politician I've seen in a while.

He called the President a SOB.
He called the president a chickenhawk.
He said he didn't agree with the Iraq war but was willing to die in it.

All Schmidt did was say she agrees with Bush on every single issue. She'll be just another right-wing stooge who votes with Tom Delay 100% of the time.

[RBH]

A18 would probably have something to say if the Democrats changed part of their overall idealogy over 1 race.

I would probably 'be have' something to say if I could figure out what the hell your post means.

I corrected my post up there.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Linking himself to Bush in a positive way saved Hackett's ass in this campaign.  Had he ran ads that expressed his true feelings about Bush, he would have been hammered by a lackluster candidate that is tied at the hip to the most unpopular Governor in America.  As it is, by running ads that make it appear that he as at the right hand of Bush, he will lose by only a few points.   Exactly what consolation dou you Dems take from that?  Are you admitting that you can only come close to winning by camouflaging your true nature?  WTF?

[RBH]

Linking himself to Bush in a positive way saved Hackett's ass in this campaign.  Had he ran ads that expressed his true feelings about Bush, he would have been hammered by a lackluster candidate that is tied at the hip to the most unpopular Governor in America.  As it is, by running ads that make it appear that he as at the right hand of Bush, he will lose by only a few points.   Exactly what consolation dou you Dems take from that?  Are you admitting that you can only come close to winning by camouflaging your true nature?  WTF?

Yes. Hackett's ad where a Bush clip was planned was so very substantial. It was overwhelming. He did nothing else.

And we all know that no Democrats are ever ever moderate. Everybody to the left of Michael Bloomberg is a socialist.

[RBH]

Linking himself to Bush in a positive way saved Hackett's ass in this campaign.  Had he ran ads that expressed his true feelings about Bush, he would have been hammered by a lackluster candidate that is tied at the hip to the most unpopular Governor in America.  As it is, by running ads that make it appear that he as at the right hand of Bush, he will lose by only a few points.   Exactly what consolation dou you Dems take from that?  Are you admitting that you can only come close to winning by camouflaging your true nature?  WTF?

Yes. Hackett's ad where one Bush clip was shown was so very substantial. It was overwhelming. He did nothing else. It was allllll Bush

And we all know that no Democrats are ever ever moderate. Everybody to the left of Michael Bloomberg is a socialist.

[TheresNoMoney]

Linking himself to Bush in a positive way saved Hackett's ass in this campaign.  Had he ran ads that expressed his true feelings about Bush, he would have been hammered by a lackluster candidate that is tied at the hip to the most unpopular Governor in America.  

WTF? You are spinning like crazy and you know it.

He didn't hide any feelings about the President.

He called Bush an SOB
He called Bush and the rest of his administration chickenhawks.
He said we never should have gone into Iraq.

And he still almost won the most conservative district in Ohio.

[Notre Dame rules!]

Scoonie,

All of what you said about Hackett's commnets are true...before Dem audiences.   However, when it comes to TV advertising, where 90% of the voters get their exposure to a candidate, he said none of what you cite.   On the contrary, he runs as Bush's boy.