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

[King]

- it was actually contested

- only 25% turnout

- Ohio GOP problems

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

Democrats put money into this guy and lost by 4 in the most Republican district in Ohio.  They didn't do that any house candidate in Ohio 04.

Democrats put money into a guy in another Republican district in Ohio and they more than likely win.

[Defarge]

Let us hope that all Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the changing tide.

[AuH2O]

Let us hope that all Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the changing tide.

You seriously believe the country has shifted 20% to Democrats?

If there is some massive tide, I guess the GOP is doomed and so there is no point in worrying about it.

Rational people know otherwise, but then, who said Democrats are rational?

[Defarge]

Let us hope that all Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the changing tide.

You seriously believe the country has shifted 20% to Democrats?

If there is some massive tide, I guess the GOP is doomed and so there is no point in worrying about it.

Rational people know otherwise, but then, who said Democrats are rational?

Strawman.

Ohio Republicans should face the music and realize that when a 70-30 Republican district in Ohio is yielding 52-48 margins, just maybe something is wrong.

But of course, continue to stick your finger in your ears and hum.  All the better for us.

[Storebought]

All I can say is, Schmidt did surprisingly well, considering her "visual plainness" and association by default with sleazeball Gov. Taft. The NRCC did a good job with its half-million covering up those two faults.

And to you Democrats crowing about a 52-48% loss: In LA Suzanne Terrell (I dare you to know who she is) ran for Senate against Landrieu and won the same percentage of the vote as Hackett in the December runoff with much of the same anti-incumbent electoral climate. And where is she now?

Face it: this was "perfect storm" for the Democrats -- an exposed off-year election against a weakly unpopular GOP president, deeply hated GOP governor, and a plain-Jane opponent, in economically depressed Ohio -- and he still lost. Worst was his wrapping himself up with Pres. Bush, even as he attacked him as "coward" and such. Disgusting man, that Hackett.

[AuH2O]

Let us hope that all Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the changing tide.

You seriously believe the country has shifted 20% to Democrats?

If there is some massive tide, I guess the GOP is doomed and so there is no point in worrying about it.

Rational people know otherwise, but then, who said Democrats are rational?

Strawman.

Ohio Republicans should face the music and realize that when a 70-30 Republican district in Ohio is yielding 52-48 margins, just maybe something is wrong.

But of course, continue to stick your finger in your ears and hum.  All the better for us.

If you're right, then presumably Democrats will be elected Governor of OH, defeat DeWine, and remove at least most of the Republican Congressional delegation.

Would you care to bet $2000 on the above things occuring?

[Joe Republic]

Ohio Republicans should face the music and realize that when a 70-30 Republican district in Ohio is yielding 52-48 margins, just maybe something is wrong.

But of course, continue to stick your finger in your ears and hum.  All the better for us.

If you're right, then presumably Democrats will be elected Governor of OH, defeat DeWine, and remove at least most of the Republican Congressional delegation.

Would you care to bet $2000 on the above things occuring?

That's not what Defarge said.  And its true to say that the OH GOP is in peaky shape right now, but only thanks to the current trio of Taft, DeWine and Voinovich and a couple of other scandals.  The OH Democrats will win some victories from now (the governorship being the most likely), but the balance will soon be restored in a couple years time.

[TheresNoMoney]

Dems have a great shot to win the governorship and have a decent shot to beat DeWine.

[Joe Republic]

Dems have a great shot to win the governorship

Yes.

and have a decent shot to beat DeWine.

No.

[TheresNoMoney]

No.

He's one the most vulnerable Senate incumbents in this election cycle, probably only behind Santorum and Chafee.

[AuH2O]

lol

[Moooooo]

31% re-elect number.  I just wish Strickland would have jumped into the Senate race.

[AuH2O]

Strickland is smart. He knows the numbers will change, and in a way negative to Democratic aspirants.

[socaldem]

It was close because:

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

I can't count the number of Republicans who have misrepresented themselves in t.v. ads to win elections, starting with President Bush and including all those congressional Republicans who associate themselves with popular social programs (social security and medicare) that they actually plan to either dismantle or make less efficient and useful...

Hackett's use of Pres Bush was fair...he was noting that he was agreeing with what Bush was saying in that particular clip about service, illustrating, helpfully, that Democrats are about action and often are more likely to do things that are consistent with Republicans' highfalutin rhetoric than their opponents...

Uh, the problem with the Ashe-Drake race, imo, is that Democrats did not devote enough resources and the Democrat didn't try hard enough in a very winnable district (as shown by the 2000 results...discounting for gerrymandering but giving dems an edge for a candidate that better fits the area)...

As for John Kasich, I hope very much that he doesn't run because that could be trouble for Dem gubernatorial hopes in OH...

[socaldem]

Do you guys think Hackett should run against DeWine for Senate in 2006?  How do you think he would fair?

The fools at Dailykos and mydd!  No, Hackett shoud not run for senate.  No, he should not run, as they suggest, against Strickland and Coleman (who both campaigned for him!).... Hackett needs to work his way up to a senate run.  Personally, I think his best bet is to run for one of the Hamilton County Commissioner spots (Democrat Ted Portune, the only Democrat elected in like forever is said to be vacating for an AG run, I think) where he can sit and wait for redistricting to make a winnable Hamilton-only district...

[Storebought]

It was close because:

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

Hackett's use of Pres Bush was fair...he was noting that he was agreeing with what Bush was saying in that particular clip about service, illustrating, helpfully, that Democrats are about action and often are more likely to do things that are consistent with Republicans' highfalutin rhetoric than their opponents...

Not once did Hackett refer to himself as a Democrat in any of his local ads. And, yes, he did misrepresent himself: He is a trial lawyer from Indian Hill, and in Iraq he served administrative duty.

And with the way Hackett called Bush a scumbag on cable TV (so that his would-be constitutents would not see it, but the Dkossers could), to air campaign ads afterwards that implied Bush's tacit support is simply mendacious.

That said, he did a good job fooling the voters in places where cable TV access is limited and voters only saw the fake ads on the mainstream networks. Schmidt won only because people in Cincinatti had access to all the info, not only to cable (where they could see Hackett's purified Deanism) but to talk radio and the Internet. Just as telling, Schmidt won her largest margin of victory there.

[socaldem]

It was close because:

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

Hackett's use of Pres Bush was fair...he was noting that he was agreeing with what Bush was saying in that particular clip about service, illustrating, helpfully, that Democrats are about action and often are more likely to do things that are consistent with Republicans' highfalutin rhetoric than their opponents...

Not once did Hackett refer to himself as a Democrat in any of his local ads. And, yes, he did misrepresent himself: He is a trial lawyer from Indian Hill, and in Iraq he served administrative duty.

And with the way Hackett called Bush a scumbag on cable TV (so that his would-be constitutents would not see it, but the Dkossers could), to air campaign ads afterwards that implied Bush's tacit support is simply mendacious.

That said, he did a good job fooling the voters in places where cable TV access is limited and voters only saw the fake ads on the mainstream networks. Schmidt won only because people in Cincinatti had access to all the info, not only to cable (where they could see Hackett's purified Deanism) but to talk radio and the Internet. Just as telling, Schmidt won her largest margin of victory there.

As far as I know you are grossly misrepresenting Hackett's service in Iraq.  First of all, it seems to me that anyone in the military gets plaudits for that...  moreover, as for being in combat danger, Hackett served in his capacity in Fallujah!  Anyone in that area of Iraq is putting himself in grave danger for his country and it is scanalous that people would seek to minimize that... I think he was a civil affairs officer, which, if I'm correct, is responsible for some coordination of security which is just as important if not more important to restoring peace than whatever glorified combat role you imagine is the ONLY respectable service... 

I think Hackett did go a little far in his virulent criticisms of Bush, but if voters want to make their decision on Hackett's capability, not whether or not he agrees with them on Pres. Bush is up to them...

As for using bush in t.v. ads... that's just good politics, not mendacity.  Its absurd that you can get so worked up about something so silly when apparently you have no problem with swiftboat-like attacks... or any number of more important distortions (i.e. bush's huge distortions on the effects of his tax policy, social security, or medicare plans, not to mention the highly dubious wmd evidence)...

[Storebought]

It was close because:

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

Hackett's use of Pres Bush was fair...he was noting that he was agreeing with what Bush was saying in that particular clip about service, illustrating, helpfully, that Democrats are about action and often are more likely to do things that are consistent with Republicans' highfalutin rhetoric than their opponents...

Not once did Hackett refer to himself as a Democrat in any of his local ads. And, yes, he did misrepresent himself: He is a trial lawyer from Indian Hill, and in Iraq he served administrative duty.

And with the way Hackett called Bush a scumbag on cable TV (so that his would-be constitutents would not see it, but the Dkossers could), to air campaign ads afterwards that implied Bush's tacit support is simply mendacious.

That said, he did a good job fooling the voters in places where cable TV access is limited and voters only saw the fake ads on the mainstream networks. Schmidt won only because people in Cincinatti had access to all the info, not only to cable (where they could see Hackett's purified Deanism) but to talk radio and the Internet. Just as telling, Schmidt won her largest margin of victory there.

As far as I know you are grossly misrepresenting Hackett's service in Iraq.  First of all, it seems to me that anyone in the military gets plaudits for that...  moreover, as for being in combat danger, Hackett served in his capacity in Fallujah!  Anyone in that area of Iraq is putting himself in grave danger for his country and it is scanalous that people would seek to minimize that... I think he was a civil affairs officer, which, if I'm correct, is responsible for some coordination of security which is just as important if not more important to restoring peace than whatever glorified combat role you imagine is the ONLY respectable service... 

I think Hackett did go a little far in his virulent criticisms of Bush, but if voters want to make their decision on Hackett's capability, not whether or not he agrees with them on Pres. Bush is up to them...

As for using bush in t.v. ads... that's just good politics, not mendacity.  Its absurd that you can get so worked up about something so silly when apparently you have no problem with swiftboat-like attacks... or any number of more important distortions (i.e. bush's huge distortions on the effects of his tax policy, social security, or medicare plans, not to mention the highly dubious wmd evidence)...

I first found out Hackett's day job in the Cincinatti Enquirer, only after the election. And, no, unlike you, I made no value judgement vis-a-vis his service in Iraq. He served in administrative duty there; his campaign felt the need to imply combat service.

When a candidate feels the need to dissemble his ideological stances to the point of unrecognizability, then, yes, I will call him out on it. Hackett supports gay marriage, supports higher taxes, wants "timetables" for Iraq, all positions that he had to (in four counties, successfully) conceal in order to have a chance at Congress.

As for Bush's "LIES", I need only watch Howard Dean to be reminded of them, consistently.

[socaldem]

It was close because:

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

Hackett's use of Pres Bush was fair...he was noting that he was agreeing with what Bush was saying in that particular clip about service, illustrating, helpfully, that Democrats are about action and often are more likely to do things that are consistent with Republicans' highfalutin rhetoric than their opponents...

Not once did Hackett refer to himself as a Democrat in any of his local ads. And, yes, he did misrepresent himself: He is a trial lawyer from Indian Hill, and in Iraq he served administrative duty.

And with the way Hackett called Bush a scumbag on cable TV (so that his would-be constitutents would not see it, but the Dkossers could), to air campaign ads afterwards that implied Bush's tacit support is simply mendacious.

That said, he did a good job fooling the voters in places where cable TV access is limited and voters only saw the fake ads on the mainstream networks. Schmidt won only because people in Cincinatti had access to all the info, not only to cable (where they could see Hackett's purified Deanism) but to talk radio and the Internet. Just as telling, Schmidt won her largest margin of victory there.

As far as I know you are grossly misrepresenting Hackett's service in Iraq.  First of all, it seems to me that anyone in the military gets plaudits for that...  moreover, as for being in combat danger, Hackett served in his capacity in Fallujah!  Anyone in that area of Iraq is putting himself in grave danger for his country and it is scanalous that people would seek to minimize that... I think he was a civil affairs officer, which, if I'm correct, is responsible for some coordination of security which is just as important if not more important to restoring peace than whatever glorified combat role you imagine is the ONLY respectable service... 

I think Hackett did go a little far in his virulent criticisms of Bush, but if voters want to make their decision on Hackett's capability, not whether or not he agrees with them on Pres. Bush is up to them...

As for using bush in t.v. ads... that's just good politics, not mendacity.  Its absurd that you can get so worked up about something so silly when apparently you have no problem with swiftboat-like attacks... or any number of more important distortions (i.e. bush's huge distortions on the effects of his tax policy, social security, or medicare plans, not to mention the highly dubious wmd evidence)...

I first found out Hackett's day job in the Cincinatti Enquirer, only after the election. And, no, unlike you, I made no value judgement vis-a-vis his service in Iraq. He served in administrative duty there; his campaign felt the need to imply combat service.

When a candidate feels the need to dissemble his ideological stances to the point of unrecognizability, then, yes, I will call him out on it. Hackett supports gay marriage, supports higher taxes, wants "timetables" for Iraq, all positions that he had to (in four counties, successfully) conceal in order to have a chance at Congress.

As for Bush's "LIES", I need only watch Howard Dean to be reminded of them, consistently.

Certainly, I grant you that Hackett did a very good job of minimizing his more liberal positions without actually abandoning them.  The fact that I realized how far to the left of the district he is makes his near-victory all the more suprising...  Republicans did hit him with some fairly hard attack ads and he did get some bad press for his comments... if Hackett could do so well on mere distortions, imagine the possibilities for a genuinely moderate candidate in a similar situation.  The problem is that most candidates would not have had the gall to even try in such a hardcore republican district.  If hackett's performance can convince better candidates in more favorable districts that their party id will not foreclose their chances, it will be a very good thing for my party's recruitment, which, I might add, is looking pretty good this cycle...

I understand your frustreation at Hackett's distortions, but that, my friend, is politics and that 49% of Hamilton county voters in OH-02 pull the level for him, even when made aware of his liberal positions, makes me even more amazed...

As for Dean, he's a really bad spokesman and chairman for dems, imho...

Still, I see that you aren't challenging the facts that the President has, indeed, distorted on wmds and, even more grossly and obviously, on our nation's miserable fiscal situation....

[TheresNoMoney]

Hackett didn't misrepresent anything.

And don't try to question his military service.

Why do you hate our troops? If they're Democrats, does it make it OK with you to bash our troops?

[socaldem]

I just wanted to also note that Jean Schmidt, classy lady that she is made an interesting comment on the local tv broadcast....

when confronted with the allegations that she has connections to scandal plagued Bob Noe, whom I believe she does actually have connections with... she responded that she has as much to do with Noe as an Ohio legislator as Hackett has to do with Abu Ghraib...

Since Schmidt is obviously a part of the group that supported giving Noe authority over the Ohio pensions, what the hell is she trying to say about Paul Hackett and prisoner abuse?

[TheresNoMoney]

Why does Jean Schmidt hate our troops?

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Bush didn't distort any claims on Iraq's WMDs -- he acted on information gathered by the (incompetent) CIA, which was later seen to be either out-of-date, inaccurate, or just plain wrong. But that's a tiresome argument to me...other posters make that case far stronger than I can.

As for the fiscal situation, I wholeheartedly support the personal and business tax cuts, the only domestic legislation that I like from Bush. And the deficits are shrinking..exceedingly slowly..due to increased tax revenues from business.

But none of this involves the Democratic Party, which has an incoherent view of taxes ("raise Social Security taxes", no, wait, "middle class tax cuts", no?, "repeal tax cuts for the wealthy") and deadly and irresponsible view on terrorism ("treat Guantanamo Bay prisoners as American criminals").

[TheresNoMoney]

Many Democrats support raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes so the program stays solvent. This is the best choice. The tax rate is not changed in this instance.

Why do you want to phase out Social Security? Do you hate senior citizens?

The budget should be balanced somehow and not on the backs of the lower and middle classes. If Bush and the Republican Congress hadn't been so damn irresponsible, we wouldn't be in the fiscal mess we're in.

[socaldem]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

President Bush didn't distort any claims on Iraq's WMDs -- he acted on information gathered by the (incompetent) CIA, which was later seen to be either out-of-date, inaccurate, or just plain wrong. But that's a tiresome argument to me...other posters make that case far stronger than I can.

As for the fiscal situation, I wholeheartedly support the personal and business tax cuts, the only domestic legislation that I like from Bush. And the deficits are shrinking..exceedingly slowly..due to increased tax revenues from business.

But none of this involves the Democratic Party, which has an incoherent view of taxes ("raise Social Security taxes", no, wait, "middle class tax cuts", no?, "repeal tax cuts for the wealthy") and deadly and irresponsible view on terrorism ("treat Guantanamo Bay prisoners as American criminals").

Though we are really meandering off topic here, I would like to note that it was plainly obvious how flawed the old CIA intelligence was in the beginning of 2003.  Why?  Because the best intelligence was coming out of the vigorous UN inspections and revealed that there was very little, if any wmd capability, something that would have been further verified if the inspections hadnt been cut short by Bush!

Its also very clear if you look at the evidence that Bush's defense department tried to make a solid case out of the very flimsy evidence that they had.  Thus, Colin Powell was put into the position of making his embarassing UN speech about Iraq wmd capabilities using evidence that was clearly very flimsy and highly finessed, at best.  Just as one example of distortions, don't you remember hearing about mobile chemical weapons labs and uranium tubes?  Both turned out to have nothing to do with wmd production...but the bush admin in their rush to come up with any evidence for their war was never unsure about its latest wmd find...

As for Bush's economic policy, I sense we'll have to agree to disagree.  Still, Bush's suggestions on the distribution of his tax cuts are plainly false.  His characterization of our budget situation is also mendacious.  If you actually look at the Bush budgets, this is quite obvious.  They try to finesse and distort the numbers as much as possible, something revealed by a comparison of his budget analysis with the non-partisan omb analyses.  Moreover, its also plainly clear that his tax reductions have reduced our country's revenue, something i find scandolous when we have troops to support and a war, that I didnt think was justified, to pay for!  His tax cuts end up being a tax shift, from today's and tomrrow's lower classes to the filthy rich, not a tax cut!

If you don't agree with the above examples, at the very least, you'll concede Bush's administration distorted on the true costs of the medicare bill, a well-documented scandal in which the administration interfered with the analysis in order to make its policy seem less costly than, in fact, it is... this has gotten quite a few conservatives angry...