Day 35: Ohio
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:59:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Day 35: Ohio
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Day 35: Ohio  (Read 5353 times)
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 28, 2005, 12:45:43 PM »



T3h Republicns stole it!!!!!111

Okay, now that we've got the jfernish immaturity out of the way, let's discuss it like adults.

It's a swing state, albiet a Republican one, however I don't think it would be out of reach for the Democrats provided they put up a good candidate in 2008.

Your thoughts?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2005, 12:49:56 PM »

Interesting state with some very distinct political regions.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2005, 01:58:43 PM »

Franklin county is trending Democrat. A good example of how urbanization can "liberalize" an area.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2005, 03:56:09 PM »

Bush won the state because he was able to romp in rural areas based upon cultural issues.  The Dems forfeited their best chances to win the state when they turned aside Gephardt and Edwards in favor of a Mass. liberal.

With Hillary on the horizon in 2008, expect a similar Ohio result as we saw in 2004 as Bayh and Warner sit on the sidelines, turned away by the liberals who control the nominating process, and meaning another Bush victory.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2005, 04:31:58 PM »

Bush won the state because he was able to romp in rural areas based upon cultural issues.  The Dems forfeited their best chances to win the state when they turned aside Gephardt and Edwards in favor of a Mass. liberal.

With Hillary on the horizon in 2008, expect a similar Ohio result as we saw in 2004 as Bayh and Warner sit on the sidelines, turned away by the liberals who control the nominating process, and meaning another Bush victory.

So Jeb will be running in '08?
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2005, 04:39:08 PM »

As mentioned, there is a lot going on in Ohio. This state is traditionally Republican, contributing the Taft family to American politics. No Democrat has won greater than 50% here since LBJ's landslide 1964 election. Ross Perot did well in Ohio in the 1990s election, suggesting that many in Ohio are unsatisfied with both parties. Presidential elections are usually close. and that fact along with a large electoral vote make for a very important state every four years.
The most surprising results come in the Cincinnatti area. Kerry lost by huge margins in the suburbs that suround Cincy (no shock here), but he also lost Hamilton County, the county that contains the city of Cincinnatti. This is amazing considering that the he almost always won counties that contain large urban areas, especially if significant suburbs in other counties exist. This is true even in the most conservative parts of the country. Contrast with Kerry wins Marion County, Indiana; DeKalb/Fulton Counties, Georgia; Wyandotte County, Kansas.  Anybody know why Hamilton is so Republican?
Rural Ohio is Republican, of course, just like rural areas everywhere. However, western rural Ohio looks more like Wyoming than the Midwest, with overwhelming Republican victories, another key to Bush's 2004 win.
Dems have their base in large cities in Northern Ohio, a region that is aptly nicknamed the "Rust Belt."  Cities like Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown provided John Kerry with good vote total, although not enough to win, obviously.  This part of the state has long been Democratic, but it has become more so in recent years with the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Perhaps if Clinton had not pushed for NAFTA, the Dems could do even better here.
To win, the Dems must work on Cincinnatti. Losing Hamilton County is simply not acceptable. The nearby Dayton area also ought to give the Dems better results than it does.
The Republicans are currently tied up in coin-gate (I'll defer to a local to describe the scandal) which may give the Dems some leverage, along with Bush's bad poll numbers. Nonetheless, they will probably be helped by gay-marriage type wedge issue in Southeast Ohio, which is adjacent to West Virginia. I'll predict another nail-biter here in 2008.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2005, 06:00:44 PM »

Bush won the state because he was able to romp in rural areas based upon cultural issues.  The Dems forfeited their best chances to win the state when they turned aside Gephardt and Edwards in favor of a Mass. liberal.

With Hillary on the horizon in 2008, expect a similar Ohio result as we saw in 2004 as Bayh and Warner sit on the sidelines, turned away by the liberals who control the nominating process, and meaning another Bush victory.

So Jeb will be running in '08?

I believe he will, pure hunch
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,951


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2005, 06:47:14 PM »

Cincinnati has been one of the most conservative large metropolitan areas in America through most of the past 25 years. I think for a while, a lot of its fiscal conservatism was because of the types of industries it had, compared to other cities. Kind of like how Rochester, MN was more conservative than other cities of its size.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2005, 08:27:39 PM »

Use to lean Republican now pretty much a toss up.  Main reasons for the shift economic troubles in Ohio, combined with the massive problems Taft has, and that both Senateors in the state aren't exactly all that popular.  Cultural issues is what kept the state from going Dem in 04, but as the state GOP continues to have problems of its own those cultural issues may not matter all that ,uch
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2005, 10:47:13 PM »

Bush won the state because he was able to romp in rural areas based upon cultural issues.  The Dems forfeited their best chances to win the state when they turned aside Gephardt and Edwards in favor of a Mass. liberal.

With Hillary on the horizon in 2008, expect a similar Ohio result as we saw in 2004 as Bayh and Warner sit on the sidelines, turned away by the liberals who control the nominating process, and meaning another Bush victory.

Except most liberals don't like Hillary. Look what DU says on her. And don't say something like "DU hates anyone to the right of Kucinich" because I have plenty of posts that prove otherwise. Warner is actually far more popular than Hillary there.

Also Dean was the liberal candidate. Kerry was the establishment guy. Dean would've won in a romp like he did in the polls if it was just ultra-liberals controlling the nomination.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2005, 11:54:02 PM »

The most surprising results come in the Cincinnatti area. Kerry lost by huge margins in the suburbs that suround Cincy (no shock here), but he also lost Hamilton County, the county that contains the city of Cincinnatti.
I think you may have the factor of in-state rivalry with Cleveland (and the rest of the industrial northeast).  Early on, Cincinnati was the most important city in the state based on it being a river port.  In 1870, Hamilton County had double the population of Cuyahoga County.  By 1900, Cuyahoga had passed Hamilton, and by 1920 it almost had twice the population.  Cleveland early in the 20th century was the 4th largest city in the country.  The heavy industrialization made Cleveland naturally more Democratic, and Cincinnati may have tended to be more Republican in reaction.   The Tafts are also from Cincinnati.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2005, 06:52:23 AM »

Cincinnati has been one of the most conservative large metropolitan areas in America through most of the past 25 years. I think for a while, a lot of its fiscal conservatism was because of the types of industries it had, compared to other cities.
Which industries are those?
Indianapolis also long used to be a Conservative city... changed a lot now. (Actually, Hamilton Co trended Dem this time around too) Grand Rapids is another Conservative city. I know that that's got furniture industries.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2005, 07:08:01 AM »

As mentioned, there is a lot going on in Ohio. This state is traditionally Republican, contributing the Taft family to American politics. No Democrat has won greater than 50% here since LBJ's landslide 1964 election. Ross Perot did well in Ohio in the 1990s election, suggesting that many in Ohio are unsatisfied with both parties. Presidential elections are usually close. and that fact along with a large electoral vote make for a very important state every four years.
The most surprising results come in the Cincinnatti area. Kerry lost by huge margins in the suburbs that suround Cincy (no shock here), but he also lost Hamilton County, the county that contains the city of Cincinnatti. This is amazing considering that the he almost always won counties that contain large urban areas, especially if significant suburbs in other counties exist. This is true even in the most conservative parts of the country. Contrast with Kerry wins Marion County, Indiana; DeKalb/Fulton Counties, Georgia; Wyandotte County, Kansas.  Anybody know why Hamilton is so Republican?
Rural Ohio is Republican, of course, just like rural areas everywhere. However, western rural Ohio looks more like Wyoming than the Midwest, with overwhelming Republican victories, another key to Bush's 2004 win.
Dems have their base in large cities in Northern Ohio, a region that is aptly nicknamed the "Rust Belt."  Cities like Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown provided John Kerry with good vote total, although not enough to win, obviously.  This part of the state has long been Democratic, but it has become more so in recent years with the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Perhaps if Clinton had not pushed for NAFTA, the Dems could do even better here.
To win, the Dems must work on Cincinnatti. Losing Hamilton County is simply not acceptable. The nearby Dayton area also ought to give the Dems better results than it does.
The Republicans are currently tied up in coin-gate (I'll defer to a local to describe the scandal) which may give the Dems some leverage, along with Bush's bad poll numbers. Nonetheless, they will probably be helped by gay-marriage type wedge issue in Southeast Ohio, which is adjacent to West Virginia. I'll predict another nail-biter here in 2008.

Cincy is conservative because of the industrial heritage favors conservative policies, not liberal ones. Ohio's rural areas aren't typical of rural areas either, just look at some of the eastern rural counties that voted for Kerry. And you left out the Columbus area, which is the only part of Ohio really seeing strong growth.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2005, 08:06:39 AM »

Another state where cultural issues trumped the economy and lo-and-behold they voted against their own economic interests

I dare say Democratic candidates like Bayh and Warner could carry the state. Apparently, Bayh's successful tenure as Indiana governor and its strong economy had a positive impact on neighbouring counties in Ohio and Kentucky

At this point in time, I don't know whether Bayh's decision to vote against Roberts will have much of an impact.  Hoosiers will be angry for a while, I guess, but at the end of the day, moderates are more likely to forget a vote against than the Democratic Party base will forget a vote for

Bayh's record on gun control may work against him in Ohio and he certainly has a solid track record in connecting with rural voters; while, Warner's support for gun rights would certainly help him

It's a state moderate Democrats can win and should win bearing in mind Kerry run Bush pretty close

Dave
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2005, 09:08:03 AM »

As mentioned, there is a lot going on in Ohio. This state is traditionally Republican, contributing the Taft family to American politics. No Democrat has won greater than 50% here since LBJ's landslide 1964 election. Ross Perot did well in Ohio in the 1990s election, suggesting that many in Ohio are unsatisfied with both parties. Presidential elections are usually close. and that fact along with a large electoral vote make for a very important state every four years.
The most surprising results come in the Cincinnatti area. Kerry lost by huge margins in the suburbs that suround Cincy (no shock here), but he also lost Hamilton County, the county that contains the city of Cincinnatti. This is amazing considering that the he almost always won counties that contain large urban areas, especially if significant suburbs in other counties exist. This is true even in the most conservative parts of the country. Contrast with Kerry wins Marion County, Indiana; DeKalb/Fulton Counties, Georgia; Wyandotte County, Kansas.  Anybody know why Hamilton is so Republican?
Rural Ohio is Republican, of course, just like rural areas everywhere. However, western rural Ohio looks more like Wyoming than the Midwest, with overwhelming Republican victories, another key to Bush's 2004 win.
Dems have their base in large cities in Northern Ohio, a region that is aptly nicknamed the "Rust Belt."  Cities like Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown provided John Kerry with good vote total, although not enough to win, obviously.  This part of the state has long been Democratic, but it has become more so in recent years with the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Perhaps if Clinton had not pushed for NAFTA, the Dems could do even better here.
To win, the Dems must work on Cincinnatti. Losing Hamilton County is simply not acceptable. The nearby Dayton area also ought to give the Dems better results than it does.
The Republicans are currently tied up in coin-gate (I'll defer to a local to describe the scandal) which may give the Dems some leverage, along with Bush's bad poll numbers. Nonetheless, they will probably be helped by gay-marriage type wedge issue in Southeast Ohio, which is adjacent to West Virginia. I'll predict another nail-biter here in 2008.

Cincy is conservative because of the industrial heritage favors conservative policies, not liberal ones. Ohio's rural areas aren't typical of rural areas either, just look at some of the eastern rural counties that voted for Kerry. And you left out the Columbus area, which is the only part of Ohio really seeing strong growth.

I must be misunderstanding you when you say that "industrial heritage favors conservative policies." The industrial parts of the state are the Dem strongholds.
Columbus seems to be pretty much what I would expect from a medium-sized city. The city is Democratic and the subrubs are Republican, with the whole metro area being about even. Kerry did much better in Franklin County than Gore or even Clinton did. The real George Bush won the county in 1992.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2005, 09:11:50 AM »

Indeed, Columbus is a traditionally Rep city trending Dem, but still represented by Reps in Congress (partly due to gerrymandering, but only partly.) It's the state capital, I suppose it's got a lot of state employees. It's also growing healthily, unlike certain other areas of the state, I suppose it's got some modern industries.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2005, 10:49:53 AM »

As mentioned, there is a lot going on in Ohio. This state is traditionally Republican, contributing the Taft family to American politics. No Democrat has won greater than 50% here since LBJ's landslide 1964 election. Ross Perot did well in Ohio in the 1990s election, suggesting that many in Ohio are unsatisfied with both parties. Presidential elections are usually close. and that fact along with a large electoral vote make for a very important state every four years.
The most surprising results come in the Cincinnatti area. Kerry lost by huge margins in the suburbs that suround Cincy (no shock here), but he also lost Hamilton County, the county that contains the city of Cincinnatti. This is amazing considering that the he almost always won counties that contain large urban areas, especially if significant suburbs in other counties exist. This is true even in the most conservative parts of the country. Contrast with Kerry wins Marion County, Indiana; DeKalb/Fulton Counties, Georgia; Wyandotte County, Kansas.  Anybody know why Hamilton is so Republican?
Rural Ohio is Republican, of course, just like rural areas everywhere. However, western rural Ohio looks more like Wyoming than the Midwest, with overwhelming Republican victories, another key to Bush's 2004 win.
Dems have their base in large cities in Northern Ohio, a region that is aptly nicknamed the "Rust Belt."  Cities like Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, and Youngstown provided John Kerry with good vote total, although not enough to win, obviously.  This part of the state has long been Democratic, but it has become more so in recent years with the loss of many manufacturing jobs. Perhaps if Clinton had not pushed for NAFTA, the Dems could do even better here.
To win, the Dems must work on Cincinnatti. Losing Hamilton County is simply not acceptable. The nearby Dayton area also ought to give the Dems better results than it does.
The Republicans are currently tied up in coin-gate (I'll defer to a local to describe the scandal) which may give the Dems some leverage, along with Bush's bad poll numbers. Nonetheless, they will probably be helped by gay-marriage type wedge issue in Southeast Ohio, which is adjacent to West Virginia. I'll predict another nail-biter here in 2008.

Cincy is conservative because of the industrial heritage favors conservative policies, not liberal ones. Ohio's rural areas aren't typical of rural areas either, just look at some of the eastern rural counties that voted for Kerry. And you left out the Columbus area, which is the only part of Ohio really seeing strong growth.

I must be misunderstanding you when you say that "industrial heritage favors conservative policies." The industrial parts of the state are the Dem strongholds.

I meant that wrt the Cincinnatti metro.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2005, 10:53:51 AM »
« Edited: September 29, 2005, 10:55:26 AM by danwxman »

Indeed, Columbus is a traditionally Rep city trending Dem, but still represented by Reps in Congress (partly due to gerrymandering, but only partly.) It's the state capital, I suppose it's got a lot of state employees. It's also growing healthily, unlike certain other areas of the state, I suppose it's got some modern industries.

Overall it's a pretty white collar metro. Not too much traditional industry, actually. The suburbs are Republican, I would assume....but one also has to assume that the suburbs are trending Democrat or at least attracting a lot of Democrats from out of the area. The outer rim of Franklin county is still seeing a lot of suburban growth, and even some areas within the city of Columbus are seeing some suburban residential growth...yet the area is trending Democrat.

One thing is for sure, the city and inner suburbs are seeing a lot of immigration which could certainly be contributing to the Dem trend.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2005, 11:04:37 AM »

I suppose much of the immigration to Columbus is actually from NE Ohio...and perhaps the Ohio River Valley as well.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2005, 11:25:58 AM »

Kerry polled 62.35% in Columbus itself. Gore got 56.42% there. Of the 85 thousand or so more votes Kerry polled in Franklin county about 52 thousand were in Columbus.
Franklin is now growing at 0.5% a year; Bush stayed at roughly the same level as 2000 in Delaware county (6.7%).
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,951


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2005, 01:18:47 PM »


Through the '80s and '90s, Cincinnati tended to be less blue-collar than other cities of its size and region. The city was centered more on banking and stuff. Labor unions didn't have much influence. Furthermore, the local media took sort of an economic booster's view of things.

Cincinnati did have some elements of social conservatism as well, probably because a lot of socially conservative ideas actually serve the interests of economic conservatives.

Big Business was the boss in Cincinnati, even before the national conservative trend of the past 5 years.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2005, 04:39:04 PM »

Bush won the state because he was able to romp in rural areas based upon cultural issues.  The Dems forfeited their best chances to win the state when they turned aside Gephardt and Edwards in favor of a Mass. liberal.

With Hillary on the horizon in 2008, expect a similar Ohio result as we saw in 2004 as Bayh and Warner sit on the sidelines, turned away by the liberals who control the nominating process, and meaning another Bush victory.

Except most liberals don't like Hillary. Look what DU says on her. And don't say something like "DU hates anyone to the right of Kucinich" because I have plenty of posts that prove otherwise. Warner is actually far more popular than Hillary there.

Also Dean was the liberal candidate. Kerry was the establishment guy. Dean would've won in a romp like he did in the polls if it was just ultra-liberals controlling the nomination.

Dean wasn't made for the spotlight.  He folded; his gaffes and lack of debating skills turned people away.  He's a better voice than he would be a president.

Kerry won because he was more palatable to the base than were the alternative(s).  I expect a similar race in 2008--Hillary is supported by the liberal base of the party over Bayh or Warner (or both) and rides this to the nomination.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,951


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2005, 04:45:36 PM »

If Hillary's a liberal, then I'm the King of Mexico.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2005, 06:59:41 PM »

Bush won the state because he was able to romp in rural areas based upon cultural issues.  The Dems forfeited their best chances to win the state when they turned aside Gephardt and Edwards in favor of a Mass. liberal.

With Hillary on the horizon in 2008, expect a similar Ohio result as we saw in 2004 as Bayh and Warner sit on the sidelines, turned away by the liberals who control the nominating process, and meaning another Bush victory.

Except most liberals don't like Hillary. Look what DU says on her. And don't say something like "DU hates anyone to the right of Kucinich" because I have plenty of posts that prove otherwise. Warner is actually far more popular than Hillary there.

Also Dean was the liberal candidate. Kerry was the establishment guy. Dean would've won in a romp like he did in the polls if it was just ultra-liberals controlling the nomination.

Dean wasn't made for the spotlight.  He folded; his gaffes and lack of debating skills turned people away.  He's a better voice than he would be a president.

Kerry won because he was more palatable to the base than were the alternative(s).  I expect a similar race in 2008--Hillary is supported by the liberal base of the party over Bayh or Warner (or both) and rides this to the nomination.

I disagree. Kerry won because he was more palatable to the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean would have been the Presidential candidate if Oregon and Wisconsin were the first states. The time for a national primary has come. One day, one man, one vote.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2005, 07:39:01 PM »


I disagree. Kerry won because he was more palatable to the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. Dean would have been the Presidential candidate if Oregon and Wisconsin were the first states. The time for a national primary has come. One day, one man, one vote.

While a national primary certainly should be the method of nominating candidates, and very well may be at some point in our lives, the system won't change by 2008.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.