Day 35: Ohio

[memphis]

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.

[memphis]

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.

[memphis]

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.