Here's what Paul Hackett is up against today in Ohio

[EarlG]

I took a look at the previous election results in Ohio's 2nd District today. Based on past history, Hackett has an uphill climb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Results,_U.S._Representative_from_Ohio,_2nd_District

No Democrat has won this seat since 1980. You have to go back to 1984 to find a Democrat polling more than 30% of the vote.

(Winners in red)

(R) (D)
72% 28% 2004
74% 26% 2002
76% 24% 2000
76% 24% 1998
76% 24% 1996
77% 23% 1994
70% 30% 1992
no data 1990
72% 28% 1988
71% 29% 1986
69% 31% 1984
65% 35% 1982
41% 59% 1980

However: even if Paul Hackett loses today, the margin of victory will be worth paying attention to. Hackett has run on a very anti-Bush, anti-war platform (he publicly called Our Great Leader a chickenhawk), as well as on issues such as Social Security (don't mess with it), the economy (no tax breaks for big corporations, assistance for small businesses, anti-outsourcing), and universal healthcare, against a Republican running on all the classic 21st century culture-war red meat (anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war, etc.).

If Hackett loses but takes a significant number of votes away from Schmidt it will still be a big deal IMO. There are some mitigating factors: Hackett is an Iraq war veteran, and Schmidt has been implicated in an ethics scandal. But it will be intriguing to see how well a Democratic candidate can poll running on core blue values in this deep red district.

[leyton]

1. It was probably changed after 1980.

The reason a Democrat won and then a Republican won was probably a redistricting that shifted the designation of "2nd district" into a Republican area.

[tk2kewl]

sounds about right...

look at how much the Dem won by during Reagan's first election.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. Yet another reason errymandering needs to be done away with in favor of

proportion representation.

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[xxqqqzme]

2. it will tell more

about how the machines R rigged.

[Cassandra]

14. According to Steve Gilliard...

that district doesn't have Diebold machines. It was considered so solidly repuke that they thought they didn't need them.
"Oddly enough, the district doesn't have Diebold. Solid red ones don't need them, I guess.
steve_gilliard "

[FreedomAngel82]

55. Probably

Of course. It makes sense. If you knew for sure you would in an area why would you waste money there instead of going to a place where you knew you wouldn't win? That is why these machine's are mostly in democratic areas. My area still does paper ballots but they are counted by some machine. I haven't ever heard of any problems though personally. Our last mayoral race went along side polls that was being done. The person who was ahead in all the polls but one leading up to the election won the mayoral race and we have a democratic governor.

[kentuck]

3. EarlG...we're on the same track this morning..

I was thinking the same thing... :)

[EarlG]

18. Hey kentuck

I just saw your other thread along similar lines :)

[marmar]

4. But his opponent...

seems incapable of any kind of thought. In interviews she comes across as completely vacant, and he comes across as very sharp. I don't know how anyone, even in such a red district, could vote for her.

:shrug:

[Guckert]

7. Bush ..... Good ...... Libs ....... Bad...... Must.... .eat ......Brains

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGG....

they are mindless ZOMBIES. :puke:

[SammyWinstonJack]

10. LOL

:spray:

[marmar]

11. Sad but true...

Party first, reality last.

:hide:

[jean]

27. with them it's party first, country last

[Lexingtonian]

15. let me translate 'angry' or 'motivated' Republican

to American English for you: adamant, resentment-driven, idiot.

These are people who don't care much about the arguments or the candidate, it's all about their sense of entitlement to a certain kind of society and certain way it is made to work.

Jean Schmidt is in no way an aberration- she's the epitome of a major subspecies of Republican these days.

[Pacifist Patriot]

25. Three G voters like my relatives in rural Georgia.

God, guns and gays. Nothing else matters in their tiny little isolated corner of the universe.

[Pacifist Patriot]

21. Someone with a lobotomy could probably figure out how to vote.

Oh wait. They already do.

LBP = Lobotomy By Propaganda

[dhinojosa]

5. and if he wins...this can be the template for future victories.

You beat me to it. :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

23. This is precisely why I am sitting here with my heart pounding.

If he wins maybe it will inspire more Democrats to get out there and boldly speak the truth rather than pander to what the Republicans have trained them the electorate wants to hear.

[dhinojosa]

26. :salivating: :)

[still_one]

6. If Hackett loses, after all the corruption charges on Schmidt

it paints a very dismal picture of our country

what it says is that people are more for their political party then for the good of the state or the country

That is blindness, and it will take years, and much pain before it is turned around

Look at 2004, and CAFTA. People were more concerned about gays then their jobs, that says everything

If Hackett wins, it will be huge. It will mean that the country is actually understanding what has been DONE TO THEM.

[EarlG]

17. Yes, but...

Even if he loses, the margin will be important. If Hackett, running on traditional "blue issues" can take, say, 40% in a very Republican district (where no Dem has scored more than 30% since 1984), against a Republican running on culture-war "red issues", it must bode well for races in 2006. Think about all those districts out there in which the Republicans don't have such a large margin.

And if he wins, well........ :)

[still_one]

19. I hope you are right, but I am quite skeptical

[Darkhawk32]

29. Honestly, it sounds like what the Libertarian Party told my brother....

before he ditched them....

We don't care if we win or lose as long as we get 2%.

We cannot be satisfied by "moral victories". We need wins! Red state or not, blue state or not.

[EarlG]

31. You misunderstand

I'm not saying that if Hackett loses it's a moral victory. I'm saying that the "swing" from red to blue may be an indicator of the 2006 congressional races.

For the last couple of decades, Republicans have held this district with a very comfortable margin. They usually get around 70% of the vote. If they only get 60%, or 55% this time, they will have lost 10-15% of their vote to a Democrat running on traditional "blue" issues.

After the 2002 and 2004 elections common wisdom stated that the way to win was to be anti-gay, anti-choice, and pro-Bush. That's what Schmidt is running on. But if there is a big swing to the Democrats this time - even if Hackett doesn't get enough votes to win - it may indicate that people are growing tired of the red-herring culture-war issues and are ready to look again at Democratic candidates running on sensible issues which actually make a difference to people's lives.

If Hackett can take 40% of the vote in a district where Democrats have only managed 30% for the last twenty years, think of all those districts where Republicans hold much slimmer majorities. We should pay close attention to the way Hackett has run this campaign and see if we can emulate his success across the board.

Of course, if the results come in and Hackett hasn't done any better than his Democratic predecessors, we're back to square one. But as far as I know, the polls indicate that the race may be quite close.

[Darkhawk32]

32. I understand and I'm glad you further explained....

We need to use Hackett's method as the measuring stick for all 2006 elections.

[Darkhawk32]

33. Let me add.... that we must be careful though not to.....

get into that "moral victory" mode. You agree?

edited for speeeeeeling

[EarlG]

36. I do agree

A win is a win and a loss is a loss. I guess I'm interested in what can we learn from this. If Hackett loses by a narrow margin, it certainly won't be a "moral victory" - but if he bucks a long-standing trend (even while losing) we should pay very close attention to what happened and see what it means for next year's elections.

[Darkhawk32]

38. Aye. n/t

[rasputin1952]

44. Here in NE...I have seen open support for bush dry up amazingly

fast. I would never say NE would go Blue, but Fortenberry, my Rep (R),
is in some pretty deep stuff, and there is no scandal at all; he's just seen as a rubber stamper, and that ticks a lot of people off.

As I've said before, the '06 Mid-Term will set the stage for '08. It is the '06 election we should all be working on, retaking the Senate is doable, the House will take more work, but it too is doable; one can feel the disgust in the air, and it is coming from the RW. bush is losing support, and RW'ers will be beaten for this....:)

[wakeme2008]

53. Also,,, if the race is close

that will say something for statewide races like Senators. If they lose 10-15% of the Repugs in the Red District, then they will lose statewide, IMHO in 2006.

[annabanana]

63. (CAFTA actually went down)

The Repugs kept the vote open long enough to twist arms & threaten until the necessary couple of votes were choked out to pass it...
(This is the same as their tactic on those stupid prescription cards boondoggle)

[Guaranteed]

8. This is really great. This is a great test for us.

He's got "the message" DOWN. Let's see how it does.

If he wins- things are gonna CHANGE in our party.

[Greeby]

9. Hmm

Look down at 1970, Jerry Springer was the Dem candidate that year, and had a decent share of the vote

[question everything]

12. Please enlighten me. Why are there elections taking place on

a hot August day in Ohio?

[Greeby]

13. Tis open

Because the incumbent, Repub Rob Portman has left to be Bush's trade representative.

[question everything]

16. Thanks n/t

[wicket]

20. Give 'em hell Hackett!!!!!

[ibegurpard]

22. I have heard the theory

That the Republicans might be willing to let this one go in order to deflect the spotlight off the continuing election corruption problems in Ohio: "See, things are just fine if a Democrat can win in a district like this."
So that's a possibility to consider as well.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Hmmmm....something to consider.

A chilling thought.

[iconoclastNYC]

35. Why bother? We're all part of the "X-files wing of the democratic party"

They don't need to sacrafice a house seat until the press unhooks the GOP/Mockingbird coolaid drip IV and reports on all of the election fraud red flags.

[MoonRiver]

58. That thought entered my mind today.

But then I read on this thread that Hackett's district is Diebold free. They thought it was a "safe" Repuke stronghold. No need to steal the vote there! :D

[Reciprocity]

28. What the hell happened in-between 1980-82?

It's all down hill from there.

[Darkhawk32]

30. Looks like a redistricting. n/t

[sandnsea]

34. Hackett is not for withdrawal

Hackett would be a great Democrat and very helpful in getting a better Iraq policy. But he does not support withdrawal. I just really get tired of misinterpretations of various politicians position on the war around here. Tell the damned truth, the whole truth. That's all.

If the left can support Hackett and his position on Iraq, they ought to be able to support most of the Democrats in DC too.

"But now we need to face the reality of the situation there. Our country has gone to war and every American must share in that responsibility... if we pull out now the entire region will spiral into chaos and present our nation and military with a far more difficult challenge than we currently face."

http://hackettforcongress.com/index.php?page=display&id=69

[EarlG]

39. True: he's not for immediate withdrawal

From his appearance on Hardball:

Well, first of all, let me highlight.

This is a point that I happen to agree and have for some time with the president. We should not leave Iraq at this point. And I also agree, we should not set a date by which we intend to leave. What we need to do is focus all of our attention on training the Iraqi security forces.

Having said that, he then gives the clearest explanation I've heard yet about training Iraqi security forces:

Now, I have a disagreement with the way the military is being mandated by the civilian administration on how to train the Iraqi security forces. Right now, the way Iraqi secure forces, as you and your listener know, are being trained, is, they send out three or four advisers, a couple of interpreters. And they are challenged with training a battalion-sized Iraqi security force unit, say, 200, 300, 400 sometimes Iraqi security forces.

Guess what? That's not working. It didn't work in Vietnam. It's not working in Iraq. My simple, straightforward solution, which I happen to have, in effect, thrust on me when I was in Fallujah, was, a unit-to-unit match, as much as that can happen. In other words, if you are a Marine battalion, guess what? Today, you've got an Iraqi security force battalion. You sleep together. You eat together. You shower in the same showers, the whole nine yards. You train together. And you fight together, 24/7.

That will allow us to impart our great skills on the Iraqi security forces, so that, in a year-and-a-half to two-years time, they will be capable of defending their judicial system, their government, on their own. And then we can begin to reduce our military forces in substantial numbers.

In the same interview he also had this to say:

MATTHEWS: If you had been in Congress back in 2002, right before that election that year, would you have voted to authorize the war in Iraq or voted against it?

HACKETT: I would have voted against it.

MATTHEWS: Why?

HACKETT: Well, I thought it was a misuse of the military. And I think time has demonstrated that. I mean, what we're doing in Iraq right now is nation-building. And, if you remember, back in 2000, President Bush ran his campaign in part on the premise that he would not use the military to nation-build. And that's exactly what the military is doing in Iraq. We're asking the military to paint schools. I frankly think that's an inappropriate use or misuse of our great fighting forces in Iraq. We shouldn't be painting schools over there and just simply shouldn't be nation-building. That's what we're doing over there.

[sandnsea]

42. This is the Dem position

This is the exact position that the left hammers Democrats for and calls "stay the course", "same as Bush", "warmonger", etc. The inconsistency, disconnect from reality, whatever you want to call it, is stunning. If Hackett manages to win, and I hope he does, but doesn't support the immediate withdrawal resolutions; how long before the blogosphere calls him a DLC whore? He is from a right wing district after all.

[EarlG]

45. I see your point

and I'm sure it will happen to a certain degree. But Hackett has not been shy about expressing his personal feelings about Bush. He's called him a dangerous chickenhawk among other things - and didn't even apologize. None of this "standing shoulder to shoulder with the president" stuff while lamely trying to create some distance from Bush's policies.

I think that makes a big difference to voters - they're looking for candidates who will come out fighting and say what's on their minds. Then, even if they don't agree 100% with every one of his positions, they at least feel like he will fight hard for them on the positions they do agree with.

[sandnsea]

48. At least he doesn't bash Dems

I don't have a problem with him bashing Bush while recognizing there's a danger in allowing a failure in Iraq. If he starts bashing other Dems, when his policy is no different than theirs, that's when I have a problem. Too many on the left give the impression they have an anti-war, immediate withdrawal agenda; when if you read the guts of their proposals it isn't true at all. The fog of war applies to more than just the Bushies.

Also, I guess I'm more interested in what a candidate is really going to do then whether he throws in the requisite Bush bashing or not.

[ibegurpard]

52. Many, many people who were against this war

Can live with people who think cutting and running may not be the wisest course of action.

[Larkspur]

57. Hackett agrees with the two thirds of Dems who opposed IWR

so he doesn't agree with the DLC wing of the Dem Party. He agrees with the Dem Wing of the Dem Party.

The DLC wing -- Hillary, Lieberman, Gephardt, Edwards, Kerry, Dodd, etc. -- voted in favor of IWR because they either wanted war, like Lieberman did, or they thought it would make them look presidential. Fools they are!!

[sandnsea]

59. He supports Bush's occupation

That's how you label those who don't call for immediate withdrawal, right? Not that there are any politicians really calling for immediate withdrawal anyway.

[Larkspur]

61. Not me! I strongly opposed the war from the beginning but understand

why some oppose quick withdrawal and others support it. We are in a Catch-22 and as long as we, and I mean both Dems and Repukes, want to turn Iraq into an American satellite for Neo-gunboat policy in the Middle East, we will fail with rebuilding Iraq.

If Bush & Cheney had actually implemented a Marshall-type plan right after the invasion, we would not be facing the number of insurgent attacks that our troops are. But Bush & Cheney treated Iraq like corporate robber barons treat the hostile takeover of a rival corporation -- gut it, fire the workforce, and take the rival's assets for their own. Well, in America we have unemployment insurance and welfare. Iraqis didn't, but Bush & Cheney let them take their guns and ammo home. Seems that blind support of the US 2nd Amendment by this Admin is blowing back on our troops in Iraq.

Unless we have regime change in Washington, we will be eventually forced out by the Iranian backed Iraqi Shiites. It will only be a matter of time.

[malmapus]

56. I happen to agree with his plan

I would go as far as a withdrawal. Maybe leaving behind a Division sized element in a base out of the way of major urban areas. All they will be concerned with is training Iraqi security forces and rapid deployments to "hot spots".

But of course, this administration doesn't care about putting Iraq back on its feet so it's not gonna happen. All they want is the oil and to keep Americans terraized.

[SeanQuinn]

37. Well said. Well said, Earl.

I've been thinking those thoughts this morning but never really compiled them, like you did so well. Good job.

[mtnester]

40. Yes EarlG that is depressing, but how far do you have to go back

to find a governor polling at 17%, Coingate, and the general stink of corruption that has seeped into the daily consciousness of the Ohio Electorate? Not to mention the stories of buyers remorse in Ohio.

Paul Hackett has the best chance a Dem has ever had...if he gets in with the help of the GOTV folks from all over, the Repubs should shake with fear....

I hear talk from that area (my 24 year old son lives there)...it is positive as hell. I just hope there is some serious exit polling being done, with live video cameras documenting the polling.

I agree with you about his climb, but I think the money he raised BEFORE it was posted on DU in response to what the Repubs dumped in at the last minute, shows Ohio is paying attention to this one, and it is SERIOUS as a heart attack.

[kentuck]

41. That means for every two Democrats that vote, one has to take another

voter with them to balance the numbers and give the Democrat a chance...

[ulysses]

43. I'll be watching this with a lot of interest.

Thanks for the thread, Earl.

[David Zephyr]

46. Thanks for the numbes, EarlG.

Sobering.

[Reciprocity]

47. Hackett coverage coming up MSNBC. n/t

[springhill]

50. However,

If it even looks like he might win, well, I'm sure the Republicans have ways of dealing with that, if you know what I mean.

[EarlG]

51. Interesting

Apparently Rush Limbaugh is going to great lengths today to tell his listeners that this election isn't a referendum on Bush. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4243673

He's also saying that Hackett is "hiding behind the military." :eyes:

[senseandsensibility]

60. Protect chimp

at all costs. Pigboy can always be counted on for that. I'm glad he's feeling threatened by Hackett, and I hope it's with good reason.:D

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Good luck to Hackett

If he does win that will be a huge victory. If he comes close that's still a huge victory.

[Catchawave]

62. Of course, he's been swift-boated too:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2005/07/oh-2_swift_boat.php

My fingers are crossed he's reached the "inner blue" in this very red district. Yes, the numbers will be interesting.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Oh good lord!

There's no way he could win.

[mzmolly]

65. Thanks for the information Earl.

Chewing my proverbial nails watching this race.

[Coexist]

66. Wow - scary numbers.

What a brave man.