Buckeye State Blog - What's at stake for Ohio pols on March 4? - Comments

RE: What's At Stake...

bluedogblitz — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:49:36 -0800

Well Cuyahoga County has the largest number of Democratic voters for the Primary, but Franklin has the largest contribution during the General. However, to win Ohio in the General Election you have to understand the line of scrimmage is in the suburbs and rural areas now - not the urban areas. Now, that being said, it does not mean the urban vote and turn-out is not important. It means that we have not relied upon the urban vote to win statewide for a long time, and it's partially why it took us so long to win statewide seats back too. I said "partially," because there were other mitigating factors too. Neither Obama nor Clinton will win Ohio in the General on the strength of the urban vote, Congressional 11the District or otherwise! It will be won in suburbs and rural areas by the candidate who best addresses the needs, concerns, and issues of independent voters in these areas.

Or...

bluedogblitz — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:34:35 -0800

the majority are already voting for Hillary so there really is nothing to get excited about, now is there? You ever hear the Congresswoman speak before? She get's excited. She is peppy. But don't mistake the fact that the ceiling wasn't falling down to mean anything other than the ceiling wasn't falling down. You think every event is a scream til you turn red situation?

I Think You Have Some of It Wrong

bluedogblitz — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:27:33 -0800

Seriously, I think you are off the mark on the LBJ comments. I heard what was said, and the point was factually based. LBJ went out on a political limb to push to get the Civil Rights law passed. Many were advising him to wait, to not go there, warning of political backlash, etc. He refused to listen, and did what he did best: Twisted arms and called in favors in Congress to get it done. It changed the course of this country - and if you don't think so, then read your history. Noboby was saying that MLK didn't do anything. I believe the point was that each person in their own right did what they were best suited to do in order to make progress for our country, and African-Americans specifically. Getting this legislation through was very important to LBJ, those in the civil rights movement, and MLK himself. There was NO SPITTING ON ANYONE'S LEGACY. And you need a reality check. As for Jessie Jackson...what part of the guy running for President back in the days did you NOT understand? The part where he was an african-american candidate? Or the part where he won and lost certain states where african-americans represented a higher proportion of the vote? Is it not a natural and exciting thing for african-americans to vote for another african-american candidate that they perceive as being worthy of their vote; i.e., not solely just because the candidate is african-american? And who would not consider Barack Obama a worthy contender? Let's save the martyr act for those who actually deserve it. And that's not you Obama-ites sitting in the stands waving your placards talking about the future but can't leave the past behind.

You Have to Understand

Entrwriter — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:40:18 -0800

You have to understand the overwhelming perception of the Clinton campaign right now by the African-American community and it's not a pretty one.

I am African American, I live in Stephanie Tubbs-Jones' district in, ironically, a suburb that is 95 percent caucasian, and personally I could never understand her endorsing HRC eons ago, but that's beside the point.

You do not get how damaging Bill Clinton's perceived shenanigans were to his wife's campaign along with one of her own gaffes.

First Bill. I was sitting on the fence until the former president, a guy I voted for TWICE, opened his mouth. The fairy tale comment didn't bother me as much as some. I saw it as typical politics where words get twisted. But when I listened to the Jesse Jackson comment in context, it was insulting and revolting to me. Because the emperor's clothes came off and I saw that it was possible that the Clintons would do anything to win this election.

As for HRC, the fact that her campaign twisted Barack Obama's pro-choice record in New Hampshire campaign literature really pissed me off. Because although I am a man, that is one right that I view as inalienable for a woman - even with a selfish reservation I have.

But what really got me with HRC was her saying that it took LBJ signing Civil Rights legislation for the world to change. I am all about looking forward, but one thing that I've always been taught is that those who forge the past are doomed to repeat it. In the views of many African Americans I know, she spit on the legacy of Martin Luther King and every black and white person who fought, marched, endured Bull Connor's hoses and dogs and died for the Civil Rights movement. That to me was the ultimate betrayal.

Are African-Americans voting based on identity, I'm sure there are many who are. However, many blacks, until last month, were firmly planted on the fence when it came to who to vote.

Open mouths, insert feet. That is what the Clintons did and they have no one to blame but themselves.

I sensed a sea change

AmberCat — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:28:43 -0800

last night at the 11th district caucus meeting "candidates' night." It was packed; Stephanie was there; the place was covered with Hillary yard signs and posters. But the crowd seemed to be cool to Hillary, much cooler than they would have been six months ago. It was primarily an older, Afircan-American crowd and there were clearly many people not responding to the congresswoman's pep talk on Hillary. One man rose and asked her if, as a superdelegate, she would change her vote if her district went for Obama. She said, "Certainly not!" which is what I would expect and want her to do, because of her long loyalty to Hillary. But it was interesting to me that the pro-Hillary message wasn't going over. Not that anyone was hostile toward Hillary but i think they've just changed their minds.

Hillarys best geography

Steve C — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:55:35 -0800

Hillarys best areas to win are in rural NW and SE Ohio. Ted did very well in these areas and if he goes out and stumps just a little it will mean a lot. If Hillary can win 65% in these areas and just break even with Obama in the NE and SW, then she can win, but not by much. Right now I dont see the activism on the Clinton campaign. They will be relying on robocalls, live calls by volunteers and of course some media.

What's at stake for Ohio pols on March 4?

Tim Russo — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:46:12 -0800

Gotta admit, been thinking a lot about two Ohio pols in particular lately. NY Times says it's all down to Ohio and Texas. Don't know much about Texas, but I do know about Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Ted Strickland. Both have endorsed Hillary. And both have almost as much at stake on March 4 as Hillary does.

For Stephanie, March 4 could be really, really embarrassing. If you were to create the perfect CD for Barack Obama, the 11th of Ohio comes pretty damn close. Lots of black voters and lots of higher income higher educated voters. Obama could win Stephanie's district 75-25, or better.

What's worse, in a close election statewide, turnout in the 11th CD could be the difference for Obama winning Ohio. Since the Billary race-baiting, blacks are going Obama 80-20, soon to be 90-10. What if black turnout doubles compared to previous presidential primaries? Triples? That would mean that if Ohio's close, Stephanie's own district could put Obama over the top, despite her.

For Ted, well....all those ODP chair race chickens may be coming home to roost. Ted played this thing a lot like he played the ODP chair thing in 2005 - cook it up early, present it as a fait accompli, then sit back and enjoy! Might not turn out that way this time. If Obama wins Ohio, Ted's gonna look real weak.

Where your local elected officials on this?