As posted by Steve Wild in
Daily Speech:
While conservative bloggers are crowing about Jean Schmidt's win as US Representative in Ohio's 2nd CD, let's review what is really happening. Either such bloggers are displaying false bravado while realizing Republicans are in trouble or they will soon not know what hit them. I clearly prefer the latter.
...
These bloggers will say who cares how close an election is as long as "my guy" wins. True. To the winner goes the spoil. Let's first look at Ohio's 2nd CD's voting history:
The Ohio 2nd Congressional District has voted heavily Republican in the recent past:
1994 Rob Portman (R) 77%
1996 Rob Portman (R) 76%
1998 Rob Portman (R) 76%
2000 Rob Portman (R) 74%
2002 Rob Portman (R) 74%
2004 Rob Portman (R) 72%
These results could be primarily due to a personally very popular candidate instead of an ideological preference so let's look at previous results:
1992 Willis Gradison (R) 70%
1990 Willis Gradison (R) 64%
1988 Willis Gradison (R) 72%
1986 Willis Gradison (R) 71%
1984 Willis Gradison (R) 69%
1982 Willis Gradison (R) 63% (4 way race)
I'd say that a 52-48 defeat was a remarkable
Posted by: Steve J. at August 3, 2005 01:27 AM
So since at least 1982 the Republican candidate for Ohio's 2nd CD has won by at least 63%. My sister and her husband live in this district and believe me I know just how conservative it is and yet a Democrat calling President Bush an SOB and a chicken hawk came within 4 points of winning in a summer election that only die heart voters get out for.
Let's also consider what political analyst Charlie Cook said in advance what possible results would mean for the Ohio GOP:
Bottom line: Schmidt, the Republican, is still favored to win the election, but don't rule out the possibility of an upset, given the vagaries of August special election voter turnout and the problems unique to Ohio this year. But even assuming a GOP win tonight, the margin of victory can give us some insight into just how radioactive the governor's troubles and the "time for a change" sentiment in the state will be for other Republicans in the Buckeye State next
year. If Schmidt's victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP. (Emphasis mine)
Hmmm, but I guess Wizbang doesn't care because his gal won. I can understand that. Hopefully he and his ilk will remain in hibernation while the ever rejuvenated Democratic Party continues to come out swinging. Just as the Republicans were in the wilderness for 40 years in the Congress and took back Congress in 1994, eventually Democrats will retake Congress.
As my fellow liberal bloggers have stated, what the Hackett / Schmidt race showed is a number of things:
- President Bush and the Republican Party continue to suffer
- Howard Dean's 50 state strategy (to not concede anything) is a doable strategy based on the results of this election. Through active participation from netizens and the DNC, a candidate whose party has historically lost by 15 to 30 points garnered nearly $500,000 in contributions in less then two weeks and had substantial numbers on the ground for canvassing and GOTV.
- Some will argue Mr. Hackett came close because of his veteran status which he rightly played up and the Republicans tried to smear. That may be true. But Mr. Hackett "used fighting words" when he called the President an SOB and chicken hawk in one of the most loyal districts in the country to the President. Point being, bold truth not backed down from can garner votes.
Ultimately conservative bloggers are right. If Democrats always come close, but don't win, what good is that? What conservatives seem to play down is we live in a highly polarized country with about a 50/50 split. President Bush won re-election with one of the smallest margins in history for an
incumbent.
So who cares, as long as my guys keep winning? What this means is Democrats are within reach of winning and if just enough independents, moderates, and even moderate Republicans get pissed off, Democrats can win.
Of course I have argued Democrats need a two prong attack - attack your opponent, but also offer a better vision. The former without the latter will decrease the odds of winning.
The world has changed since 9/11. Security is a big issue with people. Unions are in decline and working class people have less clout as the investor class increases. These are ordinarily Republican demographics.
But the Republicans Achilles' Heel is what supposedly helped them in 2004 - the religious right. As the religious right gets more and more drunk with power and more and more demanding and intrusive in people's lives and holds the Republican Party hostage, the more the Republican Party will suffer.
The Democratic Party has its special interest groups too who have had extraordinary influence while the voting public has had less and less sympathy for their causes. This would include not only the unions, including the teacher's unions, but also the more militant pro-choice advocates and gay rights advocates (yes, I am one of those gay rights advocates).
These groups should not pack their bags and leave the party, but they may need to be more sophisticated in how they pose their message. Chairman Dean has been reaching out to pro-life Democrats and Democrats of faith. Both groups need to feel welcomed in the party while the party continues to stand up for the disadvantaged in society, the minorities, the oppressed, and the working class.
The Democratic Party needs to make crystal clear we are the party of national security, real national security that includes not only a real homeland defense, but a foreign policy where the world is truly working together to fight terrorism and other enemies, not this immature dangerous "Bring them on" mentality of our President. Our party has a proud history of fighting for freedom and democracy (Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy) and we need to continue that tradition.
The Democratic Party needs to recognize the changing demographics in this country economically (with more investor class people) and promote sensible fiscal policies like President Clinton did by promoting a balanced tax and spending policy. This is what will bring long-term financial well being to all Americans, not the wild irresponsible pork barrel spending of this administration and its Republican Congress who also irresponsibly award their most wealthy friends with outrageous unnecessary tax cuts while our country's financial future continues to be in peril.
The Democratic Party needs to promote real educational reform that does not abandon our historic and important public schools. This may mean bucking some within the entrenched teacher's unions, but we need to provide all Americans with a quality education.
The Democratic Party needs to promote a health care solution that takes economic realities into consideration. We cannot hand out a "free lunch" and provide a Soviet style free health care. But, all Americans need to contribute their fair share toward supporting an excellent health care system that will be influenced by consumer choice. The wealthier pay more into the system and all Americans are guaranteed a minimal health care.
Yes, our pro-choice allies and gay rights allies (me included) can get carried away with our rhetoric and scare away the vast middle of America and help keep the Democratic Party a minority party. I believe such issues can continue to be championed by the Democratic Party but with a more palatable message.
Americans were horrified when they saw the President of the United States fly across the country to sign a personal bill that was primarily rammed through Congress by Republicans and their religious rights allies that imposed the weight of the federal government on what is suppose to be a very personal decision - the Terri Schiavo case.
Democrats need to emphasize they believe in personal freedom and the government not determining their health care or spying on who they sleep with. Democrats need to extend this to people of faith, that Democrats support freedom of religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment and that they do not support the government imposing a particular religious doctrine on Americans of diverse backgrounds.
Republicans have been good at message discipline. When President Bush was criticized or made fun of for something he believed in, he ignored that and continued to pound home his message. Paul Hackett did the same. When he was criticized for calling the President a chicken hawk, he did not back down or try and nuance his message.
Democrats need to find their message based in the realities of today's world and stick to it no matter what the Republicans throw back at us, and stick to it proudly.