Ohio Election Craze!
Who knew I would get so excited about an election in Ohio? I'm not even sure WHY I'm so excited. Just the mood I'm in, and I suppose I would prefer to see a Democrat vet get elected over a psycho woman.
Oooh, looks to be a close race - I'll update later!
UPDATE: Well, Paul Hackett lost by about 3,600 votes, which is a shame, but on the upside, this is a clear message to the GOP that there is a big shift. Swing State Project showed the last 4 election results as thus:
That Paul brought the race to 52% to 48% is really astounding. Yes, the trend was easing toward blue, but a 20 point swing is SWEET. I hope this is not the last we see of Hackett.
Oooh, looks to be a close race - I'll update later!
UPDATE: Well, Paul Hackett lost by about 3,600 votes, which is a shame, but on the upside, this is a clear message to the GOP that there is a big shift. Swing State Project showed the last 4 election results as thus:
OH-2 Past Election Results:
2004: 72% to 28%
2002: 74% to 26%
2000: 74% to 23%
1998: 76% to 24%
That Paul brought the race to 52% to 48% is really astounding. Yes, the trend was easing toward blue, but a 20 point swing is SWEET. I hope this is not the last we see of Hackett.
by MG at 10:15 PM
15 Comments:
It was a good fight put up by Hackett for a very red district.
Still, I can't help but thinking
how convenient that they were neck and neck until schmidt's home county had a problem counting the ballots.
I hate that I have no faith in elections anymore.
They must have been using Diebold voting machines again.
I'm not sure what kind of machines they used, but that last county (Clermont?) they were waiting for had to be hand counted because of PROBLEMS with the MACHINES.
You're right abuot the shift - it's a dramatic change for a very red state to suddenly go purple. It shows what kind of candidates can beat the repubs in other areas.
Unless they cheat with those damn machines...
It shows what kind of candidates can beat the repubs in other areas.
Yeah. Ones that show George W Bush in their ads.
Now stop all this semi-intelligent critique and start theorizing on a good conspiracy. Rove stole this thing somehow--probably by outing black voters. Where's my fucking Paxil?
While Paul ran a good campaign, a strong Democrat versus a VERY weak Republican does not necessarily "put the Republicans on notice" as so many have claimed.
When the voting history of that area shifts TWENTY POINTS, I'd say something was going on.
I think you can explain the shift several ways:
a)It was an off-year election, and fewer people voted.
b)Democrats, as evidenced here and elsewhere, were far more excited about this election
c)Hackett got loads of media coverage locally and nationally
I don't blame you for trying to spin this the best possible way. These are lean times for the Left.
"how convenient that they were neck and neck until schmidt's home county had a problem counting the ballots. "
You can't tell me that Repubs and Dems alike counted?
When you can't beat someone fairly, accuse them of cheating.
Schoolhouse logic.
This excuse is Old!
Hey dog -
2002: 74% to 26%
1998: 76% to 24%
Those are off years too - averaging 75% to 25% leaning red.
Yes, Democrats were excited about this election, because it's an eye opener to see a 20 point shift. Excuse them for being interested in that.
Yes, Hackett got lots of media attention - he is the first Iraq War vet to run for office, and as a Democrat. So it forced Hackett and Schmidt into the national spotlight to talk about their platforms. They both had airtime, not like Hackett was the only one who got in the news.
Sorry. I meant special election instead of off-year. I blame insomnia and multi-tasking.
I don't buy your argument about Hackett and Shmidt getting equal airtime. The focus was clearly on Hackett, and specifically on the fact of his service in Iraq.
That being said, I stand by my argument with the above exception.
"When you can't beat someone fairly, accuse them of cheating.
Schoolhouse logic."
I understand what you are trying to say but understand what you are saying, it implies that something was unfair. I don't know the truth nor do I pretend to but it does seem like there is a vote validation, "problem," which is a problem in its self considering we are not a latin american country and should not have to ask these sorts of questions. You can not prove a negative.
The real question that Americans should be asking themselves in all elections is which candidate is the best suited to lead and advance my family/community/economic interests, not which party do I most identify with on wedge issues that have nothing to do with my actual life.
And lastly since some one asked for a progressive to pick on Rove, here you go: You can argue that Rove in his redefinition of of the english langauge has so wisely and nationally framed the debate in such a way as to make drones who of the masses that respond practically in chant to the buzz linguistics of a party that is not actually for the interests of all the people but rather for a limited few, in short you have no Rove to blame except for the one in you head and yes he is in their controlling how you think and speak about these wedge issues, but me telling you this is like talking to a wall any way, so there you have it. FREE YOUR MIND NEO
Anonymous--
Not a bad attempt at a Rove/Ohio conspiracy theory. You've provided all of the essentials: incoherence, terrible writing, and the standard condemnation of everyone else because they don't get it. I especially enjoyed how you cast the GOP's attempt to persuade people to vote for them as a conspiracy. It reminds me of when Bill Clinton ominously warned us that the Republicans want "their people" in power. Jee, ya think?
"Terrible writing," its not my fault if you've got the lexicon of a redneck. Typograhical errors , well shit why don't you get out a red pen and correct all the typos that always seem to pop up after I upload the post, I see two that are easily read around. " Bill Clinton ominously warned us that the Republicans want "their people" in power," You don't have to look to far to see look at what a shitty mess they have made of our country in such a short time, he was right to warn us. Rove is one of several neffarious linguistical geniuses that have twisted the truth of words in such a way that even the most common bint can now learn Republispeak and effectively use it to bash progressive candidates from one election to another. How is this so? The average person is destined to intellectual mediocraty, so you pick the least common denominator and appeal to it through words. It worked in 1933. What makes you think it wouldn't work again?
Post a Comment
<< Home