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

[Defarge]

662 precincts of 753 reporting 
JEAN SCHMIDT  49,681  50%   
PAUL HACKETT  48,811  50% 

That can't be right.  Claremont's the conservative one of the counties.  Where are the Hackett votes coming from?

[TheresNoMoney]

That can't be right.  Claremont's the conservative one of the counties.  Where are the Hackett votes coming from?

The small eastern counties.

Don't get your panties in a bunch, Schmidt is going to win (by a very small total).

And by the way, all the counties in this district are conservative.

[jimrtex]

662/753 precincts.

Still Out

91 of 191 in Clremont

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 48811 49.56%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 49681 50.44%

Note: all votes since last update were from Scioto County.

[True Democrat]

Do you think Hackett would ask for a recount?  It is pretty close.

[TheresNoMoney]

There could possibly be a recount.

There is an automatic recount at any margin within .25%.

[Gabu]

Do you think Hackett would ask for a recount?  It is pretty close.

Possibly.  I think a justification for it certainly could be made, if Schmidt fails to break 51%.

[A18]

Why does anyone care about the results of this race?

[Gabu]

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.

[Jake]

Schmidt has won at this point.  Kudos to her.  But if this is any sign of what is to come next year, the party is on its way to taking its place in the sun.

That's just the thing. It's not an indication of anything to come. Next year, Schmidt will win this by the normal totals in a non-by election.

[Gabu]

Schmidt has won at this point.  Kudos to her.  But if this is any sign of what is to come next year, the party is on its way to taking its place in the sun.

That's just the thing. It's not an indication of anything to come. Next year, Schmidt will win this by the normal totals in a non-by election.

Sorta... if the Democratic Party could find a lot more candidates like Hackett, they could potentially make some serious headway.

That's a very large "if", however.

[A18]

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.

[TheresNoMoney]

I love how Philip and Jake make an appearance in this thread only after they're assured Schmidt is going to pull it out.

Then they say no big deal about a 1% win in a district that usually goes for Republicans by around 30%-40%.

[RBH]

There is absolutely nothing wrong at all.



Pay no attention to that small leak in the boat. It's nothing.

[TheresNoMoney]

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.

What a laugh. You spin almost as well as Hannity and O'Reilly.

[nini2287]

I love how Philip and Jake make an appearance in this thread only after they're assured Schmidt is going to pull it out.

Then they say no big deal about a 1% win in a district that usually goes for Republicans by around 30%-40%.

Hackett was an excellent candidate, but a win for Schmidt is a win regardless of whether it's 52-53% it looks Schmidt will get or the 72% Portman received in 2004.

[Gabu]

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.

[Jake]

Schmidt has won at this point.  Kudos to her.  But if this is any sign of what is to come next year, the party is on its way to taking its place in the sun.

That's just the thing. It's not an indication of anything to come. Next year, Schmidt will win this by the normal totals in a non-by election.

Sorta... if the Democratic Party could find a lot more candidates like Hackett, they could potentially make some serious headway.

That's a very large "if", however.

It wasn't the candidate, though that helped, but the simple fact that this was the only race going on. Meaning that the Democrats and their internet/527 block made this race priority number one. This only shows that when taken by themselves, most races are winnable. Combine them with the hype of midterms or presidential elections and they revert back to normal.

Scoonie - I've been following this thread, but just don't get into analyzing results until it's over. And you must be a massive moron if you think that had this race been run next year, Schmidt wouldn't have won by 20-30 points. Nice try at trying to spin a victory out of this one though.

[A18]

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.

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.

[Moooooo]

Welp, I predicted Hackett 50.3 - Schmidt 49.7... At least I was close!

[Beet]

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.

[TheresNoMoney]

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.

Talk about being self-defeatist. Hackett would've killed Schmidt in a statewide race.

A 1% loss in this district is a huge victory.

[patrick1]

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.

Wasn't Hackett very crtical on the Iraq War and President Bush?  At least that is what I remember seeing on the Nightly News piece they did on him.

[nini2287]

Well, to answer the big question of the night:

HARLAN TWP FIRE LEVY
4 precincts of 4 reporting
   FOR    674    77%    (W)
   AGAINST    198    23%    

[A18]

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.

Bloomberg is a RINO. Romney won in Massachusetts because Democrats have supermajorities in both chambers of the legislature, and he pretty much just stands by and makes sure they don't do anything too radical.

Regions have political preferences. This is the way it's always been. There has never been a true "national party" in the sense of being immune to that.

[Beet]

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.

Talk about being self-defeatist. Hackett would've killed Schmidt in a statewide race.

A 1% loss in this district is a huge victory.

Maybe. Now that I think of it I am sure there are congressional districts no Republican could win in. But I KNOW Hackett would have won if he wasn't D. It just troubles me to think that some people can't look past the party ID and look at the candidate for once.