[Observer posted a diary on this USA Today piece, but I didn't think his/her title was inflamatory enough. :)
In all seriousness, I wanted to highlight my concern about Kerry's lack of (much of) an organization in Ohio, which concerns me. So I'll cross-post my entry from the Swing State Project here.]
Ohio, not so surprisingly, has become ground zero in the battle for the Presidency. With 20 EVs, it's the third-largest swing state (behind FL's 27 and just one behind PA), and polls this time around suggest once again that it is up for grabs. Every article on Ohio mentions that no Republican has ever won the White House without taking the Buckeye State. While I obviously don't believe in Hirdt's Law, it's probably true as well that this time out, the GOP can't win without Ohio.
(Democrats, by the way, have taken the White House without Ohio twice in the 20th century: Kennedy in 1960 and FDR in 1944.)
With this in mind, I highly recommend this piece (mentioned to me by a reader) in USA Today by Judy Keen, which does a good job of looking at what's going on in Ohio. There are a few things I'd like to highlight here:
- Kerry apparently has almost no operation to speak of in Ohio. This is highly distressing. Not only did Kerry have the nomination all but sewn up a month ago, but Ohio was a Super Tuesday state. Didn't he put some kind of field or media operation together there? This is one of those painful times when you just know that, whatever you think of the man, Howard Dean would have had hundreds if not thousands of volunteers already working for him across the state - or rather, continuing to work for him. Let's get a move on, and right quick, Sen. Kerry.
- One thing I like a lot about this piece is that it does a bunch of SSP-style employment number comparisons, including numbers for the best-off and worst-off counties in the state, in addition to statewide numbers. Keen doesn't mention, though, that even in the county (Holmes) with the lowest unemployment, it's still gone up considerably since Bush took office: From 2.8% to 3.9%.
- While I'm always hesitant to draw out trends from mere anecdotal evidence - and Keen is quite careful not to - two of the people quoted in the article, who are from seemingly very different backgrounds, both blame 9/11 for their economic woes. (I get the sense that Keen wouldn't have quoted both of them unless it were something she had heard on multiple occasions.) I realize Bush has pushed this line forever, but I'm still a little shocked to see that it's been so successful - and I think my shock is a very bad sign. I think, without realizing it, we let Bush get away with pushing this (dare I use the word?) meme out there, and I can't imagine how we can stuff it back into the bottle.
By the same token, another fellow says that it's his understanding that the economy went south before Bush took office - so, ya know, is it really fair to hold the President responsible? Lots of liberal blogs (at least that I read) ridiculed Bush for lying about when the recession started, but these lies seemingly had an effect. And while ordinarily, I'd agree that there isn't all
that much a President can do to fix a broken economy, I know enough to know that there are short-term stimulus measures that should have been implemented but weren't. But once again, Bush has apparently sold this idea with some success.
I raise these points because I think that I - and others - have too glibly assumed that a poor economy would automatically turn voters against Bush. There's no doubt that this has happened, to some extent. And one big weakness in Keen's piece is that she managed only to interview people who still have jobs, despite harping on the employment issue and mentioning several large local layoffs. Plus, most of the people in the piece who defend Bush seem to be Republicans.
But one of the "blame it on 9/11" store-owners quoted is a registered independent. Even though her business has tanked lately, she still can't bring herself to blame Bush - but she is open to the idea of someone improving the situation. I don't know exactly how to reach out to voters like her - the ones who, we are always told, will be deciding this election - but I'd make it a priority of mine if I were the Kerry campaign. Or MoveOn. Or the Media Fund. Or... you get my point. Present a bold, positive economic plan - or something small, clever and targeted. Whatever works, kids. Just do it.
We can't rely on the idea that a bad economy will just churn out new anti-Bush voters. We have to make people believe that we are going to improve their economic lot. That's how Bill Clinton won, after all. And that's how we'll win this time around, too. (As long as we can avoid looking weak on security... but oy, that one I'm not touching.)