Be sure to visit the official website of The Law Office of Michael Dylan Brennan, LLC

  • Take me there NOW
  • LEGAL: All Original Material (c)2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 Michael Dylan Brennan and The Audient Files, with no claim to any original works borrowed pursuant to and consistent with the Fair Use Doctrine, 17 U.S.C. 107.

    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Wednesday, March 05, 2008

    Inside the Mind of the Ohio Voter

    So, why didn't Obama fare better in Ohio?

    I think it is worthy to note a long standing trend in Ohio politics.

    With little exception, Ohio voters do not favor candidates in statewide races that they have not run statewide before. Ohio voters seem to need the comfort of familiarity.

    Voinovich, DeWine, Brown, Metzenbaum, Glenn, Celeste -- all had to lose statewide races before they won statewide.

    Strickland was an exception, but his running mate, Lee Fisher, and both lost and won statewide previous races. Plus there was a lot of ill will toward Taft, Blackwell, and the state GOP itself when Strickland ran for governor.

    Hillary Clinton had never run statewide in Ohio before, but she was a far more familiar quantity. Ohioans have known her for years, warts and all.

    So here is the upside to the Obama loss yesterday: if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he already has his Ohio statewide loss under his belt.

    And while Hillary can crow about how she was won the "big" states, many of which tend to vote Democratic for president -- the fact that Obama has done well in so many other swing states that makes him attractive on the basis of electoral math. Polls show that Obama (unlike Clinton) would contend in Kansas. Kansas! Sure, it isn't a major electoral vote stronghold -- but what would it say about McCain's chances if he has to dump resources and effort just to secure Kansas?

    Still, the electoral math is interesting and worthy of analysis and consideration. But the overriding consideration remains: who would be the best president? McCain, Clinton, or Obama? You know my answer.

    Comments on "Inside the Mind of the Ohio Voter"

     

    Blogger James said ... (11:47 AM, March 05, 2008) : 

    McCain?

    Bush for 4 more years?

     

    Anonymous Carole Cohen said ... (12:22 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    None of that makes me feel any better but I can't argue with it

     

    Blogger Christine said ... (12:29 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    What if we got 43,000 people to move to Cleveland from states where people aren't as backwards - would that help, do you think?

     

    Anonymous Carole Cohen said ... (12:32 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    I say yes to Christine and let's not stop at 43k.
    Btw, my answer is Obama for what it's worth, and apparently in Ohio, not much

     

    Anonymous Anonymous said ... (2:03 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    An evil Republican POV.

    Another reason that Obama might not have faired so well was the clarion call of many conservative Republicans to cross party lines and vote for Hilary. Why? Because many believe her to be the more beatable opponent in the national election.

    While I did not use this tactic, I saw several at my polling place who jumped to the other side.

     

    Blogger Kristen said ... (2:36 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    I voted for Hilary. Shocker - some Democrats actually want her in office instead of Obama. This doesn't make us idiots, ill informed or simple as some of your commenters suggest, it means we believe in her more.

     

    Blogger Kate Anne said ... (4:56 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    Hillary lied and said she never supported NAFTA -- She won a bunch of out-of-work Ohioans because of that. (Read David Sirota's column on this.)

    She ran an ad saying she'd be more prepared to answer the red phone at night in a crisis moment. She's never had an international crisis moment but she's (maybe) sleeping with one who did, but puh-lease!

    She voted on the Kyl-Liebermann bill which could allow Bush an entry into bombing Iran!!! (Then it was learned that Iran was NOT as bad as Bush was painting it.)

    The Repugs want Hillary as the candidate and they are thrilled she is beating up Obama and giving McCain sound-bites to use if Obama should win the nomination. I'm sure they hope Obama will stoop to her level, and he will likely have to do some Hillary beating. (ARGH!!)

    AIR AMERICA's Thom Hartmann suggested that they both start beating up on McCain instead of each other. Show us who could do THAT better.

     

    Anonymous Anonymous said ... (11:34 PM, March 05, 2008) : 

    Hillary didn't lie about Nafta. Obama did. And it cost him. The thing about Hillary supporters is that we need more than pretty words to believe and we don't believe in Obama. We don't trust him.

    Whatever happens in the nomination, I wish the Obama supporters would stop calling Hillary supporters stupid, so the party can heal for the presidential election. Calling us stupid doesn't endear us to Obama or his supporters. It's supposed to be about the candidates, not the supporters or voters. Can you understand that???? Thank you.

     

    Anonymous Bytor said ... (8:02 AM, March 06, 2008) : 

    Just because supporting Hillary is stupid, that doesn't mean her supporters are stupid. We all do stupid things. So lighten up.

     

    post a comment