Deeper Meaning in Akron Primary Results: Ward 8

Ward 8

First off, since posting last night I've been confronted with evidence that my assessment of Sandra Kurt's volunteer corps was off. I was out of town over the weekend and apparently they made themselves known with canvassing and live calling. Hers was the only campaign we got a live call from. She also had plenty of money and hit the mail hard as Redhorse notes in comments to my last post. On the other hand, I could have papered a room with the mailers from Bolden and Padilla as well. In the end, an appealing message plus lots of shoe leather worked.

And the result was an overwhelming victory. In a five-way race (OK, one candidate managed 37 votes, but still) she garnered almost half the total votes.

In a way Sandra's victory is a victory for identity politics. In the post-racial age of Obama, we're supposedly beyond voting based on group identification. But Sandra wasn't afraid to say that she is part of constituency that is very important in Akron politics but long neglected on Council.

I'm talking, of course, about engineers. Sandra's victory is a victory for Engineering-Americans everywhere.

OK seriously. Her identification of her profession with her problem-solving approach was a nice bit of messaging. It also had the happy effect of making her candidacy about her being a good candidate, not about prospectively being the first openly gay member of Council. This could be the way identity plays in politics. Identity motivates a base and members of the community rightly take pride in milestones. But the candidacy itself is judged on merits, not trail-blazing. Identity is more of a sidebar than the story.

Not to say this will be a seamless transition. For example, the picture accompanying the Ohio.com story is captioned "Sandra Kurt (right) laughs with volunteer Tina Jarosch (left) and campaign manager Shelley McConnell as they celebrate Kurt's victory" Well, OK Tina certainly volunteered, but she is also Sandra's spouse -- at least in eyes of the State of Iowa. Did the ABJ just miss that? Hard to imagine the paper not learning the spouse of a straight candidate to avoid a similar mistake. Did they take into account the fact that the State of Ohio doesn't recognize the marriage? And if so, is that a proper stance for the paper to take?

I don't mean to say that ABJ is bad, bad, bad. Just acknowledging that the media will have a learning curve when covering officials who are not only out, but also either married or civilly united.

Meanwhile, there were other candidates in the field. I hope we haven't heard the last of Bruce Bolden and Will Padilla. Both are good guys with solid credentials and a real desire for public service. Unfortunately, there was room for only one at the top.

I also hope that Raymond House will take from his experience some knowledge or real-world governance. His time on Council was pretty much a rumor to those of us living in the ward. If he had reached out to constituents early and maintained contact during the campaign, he likely would have gotten the nomination -- he certainly wouldn't have finished third out of five. It's hard for academics to appreciate the importance of retail politics. Hopefully Cox has learned it, if too late.

Linkage: WKSU story here. ANN, including interview w/Sandra here. Official canvass at BoE here.

Rambling Thoughts on Primary Night

Here in Akron we have primaries going for City Council races. While flocks of candidates crowd the ballot, the election actually made only moderate noise, at least in my ward. Raymond Cox sent out a couple of mailers -- and that's pretty much it. A commenter some time ago went off on what a great asset he is to Council. In terms of knowledge, sure. In terms of any kind of constituent contact whatsoever, not so much. Three other candidates burned plenty of shoe leather canvassing. There have been no Ray Cox sightings, at least not by reliable witnesses.

Incumbency certainly means something, but the race I think comes down to Sandra Kurt vs. Bruce Bolden vs. Will Padilla. All three have great qualifications and any one would be a fine representative for the ward. (For that matter, Cox isn't bad, it's just that he doesn't do much and he certainly won't let us know if he does.) I expected a bigger canvassing push from Sandra. She did plenty of work, but I expected more volunteers. Padilla and Bolden did the same. I have no idea how this will turn out.

Unlike Ward 8, the At Large race results will Mean Something. This race, more than the recall, will measure the continuing viability of the Mayor's brand. The lopsided recall result was certainly in part a vote against recalling a mayor absent malfeasance. With three candidates running on a pro-Mayor slate and two competing slates promising to be less Plusquellic-friendly, this race is much more of a test. The administration took some grief when they announced budget shortfalls just after the recall election. Tonight will tell just how badly the Mayor's stock has slipped as a result.

The real surprise this cycle has been the pretty much stillborn campaign of Kelly Mendenhall -- no signs, no mailers, no voter contact I've heard of). Recall that Joe Finley spoke out against the recall, so his slate isn't necessarily alligned with the recall folks (though Citizens for Akron would have you believe differently.) Kelly Mendenhall therefore is the only candidate running under the Team Mulligan banner. Her lackluster campaign suggests that she attracted as much donor interest as the recall did.

Turnout is reported to be light, which isn't a surprise. Things were very quiet at my polling place which houses four precincts.

AkronNewsNow will be the best place for up-to-date results, though I'm disappointed they aren't streaming video tonight.

A Slight Repurposing

As the Slog to the White House has dragged on, this blog has been distracted, especially by the escalation of disingenuous transmissions from Planet Hillary. It's time to turn focus back to what got me interested in blogging in the first place. I can argue repeatedly that including Michigan in The Biggest Vote Total Ever^®, but Planet Hillary remains a place largely devoid of a reality-based community. (h/t Pandagon) Is it too much to ask that Hillary supporters be at least a little inspired by the fact that we nominated a Black man for President less than 50 years after the Civil Rights Act? Apparently.

I've given Hillary my suggestion. It went like this:

And now it is time to stand down. It is time to rally your supporters behind the party's nominee. To do that, you need to concede.

Of course as soon as I hit SUBMIT the site took me to a donation page.

Up until now the next best thing for Dems has been for the race to end. Everywhere but Planet Hillary it has. Now comes time to concentrate on defeating McCain in the general. Plus I want to blog more of what inspires me: education policy, Constitutional law, local government. Yes, I'm weird that way.

I won't say this is the last time the blog mentions the primary, but for the most part, I wish to move on, even if Hillary doesn't.

One last gift before we do, h/t Donklephant:

Team Obamas Take, a Couple Thoughts, and Some Programming Notes

Got an email from Obama Campaign Director David Plouffe entitled "The Math" (which sounds unsettlingly familiar.):

Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.

They failed.

Which is true as far as it goes. The problem for Obama is that he can't win simply by playing out the string. As we all know by now, neither side can amass enough committed delegates to win. To make up the deficit in superdelegates, Obama has to prove something more.

I agree with the take that Clinton does not suddenly have Momentum. True, but neither does Obama. And while Texas was not a comeback win for Hillary, Ohio most certainly was. The first poll of what could be called the Ohio race -- post-Wisconsin when Ohio the next big race on the horizon -- had Hillary up by 56%. Then she dropped in successive polls as Obama gained. Then the trends reversed again and we ended with Hillary at 54%.

Though perhaps that's not a Hillary comeback so much as an Obama stumble. He closed the gap in both Ohio and Texas, but couldn't close the sale.

I'm still digging out from my blizzard of work, but daylight is seeping through. I'll try to post some more comprehensive thoughts later tonight.

Ohio 16: Schuring's Near Miss; ABJ's Bad Call

Ohio dot com still (at 8:56) has Matt Miller beating Kirk Schuring in the GOP primary for the 16th Congressional District. The SOS site shows that Schuring pulled well ahead, apparently sometime in the night, 47%-42% (if you would rather add than scroll down, the county breakdown is here.) Canton Rep. also has the correct results.

A Miller win would have been a major blow to Republican prospects for holding onto the seat. Schuring is a nice guy moderate with cross-aisle appeal throughout Stark County. Miller is a hard right conservative who vowed to run on immigration as "the biggest threat America is facing" in a heavily agricultural district, no less. Also, Schuring is a Stark County native. While Boccieri represents part of Stark County as State Senator, he is from Mahoning.

So it looks now, notwithstanding the ABJ's miscall, that it will be Boccieri versus Schuring as we all expected.

Meanwhile, a funny thing happened after Mary Cirelli announced for the Democratic nomination -- absolutely nothing. She raised negligible money, campaigned hardly at all and mustered an anemic 36%. One would be tempted to speculate that she entered as a stalking horse candidate to allow Boccieri to get his name out, especially outside Stark where he campaigned pretty hard. One be tempted to, but Mary Cirelli is not that kind of team player. I've worked with her before and she is an irascible contrarian, often at odds with her party.

It's doubtful Cirelli was trying to help Boccieri, but help him she did; he netted more votes than the top two Republicans combined. Given the asymmetric campaigns on the top of the ballot, that's not much of a portent, but it does demonstrate how valuable having a primary contest can be.

UPDATE: No sooner did I hit "post," but Ohio dot com ripped down their erroneous story. Here's the screen shot of the original:

Watching New Hampshire

It's 9:50, the results are half in and Hillary is bouncing between a 2 and 4 percent lead. With that, CNN is not calling the race. I'm guessing the network's exit poll shows Obama winning. Given the sea change, though, it's hard to put much hope in polls.

Changing the media's favored narrative, but here's a try. Hillary as the Comeback Kid is ridiculous. She was SUPPOSED to win New Hampshire. Bill Clinton is wildly popular among New Hampshire Dems and has been camped there for months. Two weeks ago, and almost without exception before that, her lead was double digits. That lead evaporated. She wasn't down, then prevailed, she blew a lead and (to some extent) recovered.

Jeffrey Toobin on CNN raised a good point -- Dem turnout was huge, Repub turnout was down. Dems are in good shape for the general, though I still question whether Hillary is electable in the general.

10:45 CNN is reporting that AP is calling it for Clinton, but that they are "unprepared" to do so. I can't wait to see their exit poll results.

I never considered Arkansas part of the "deep south," but Huckabee referred to it as such.

10:34. NBC just declared for Clinton. And Chris Matthews calls it a "stunning upset." If UNC falls behind North Carolina A&T, then ekes out a win, it's not a "stunning upset." It's a close call for a heavy favorite.

All that said and notwithstanding the asinine media narrative, tonight certainly let Hillary off the matt. It would be nice if someone could dig into how it happened. Did the Clinton campaign turn out the vote better? Did the "likely voter" panels wash out people who ended up showing up? Unfortunately, it's now an accepted fact that Hillary won by tearing up at a diner yesterday. Move on to South Carolina where the winner will be the candidate who says the nicest things about low country shrimp or some such.

Will Richardson bow out now? Edwards says he's in it to the end -- translation: he's in it until he gets blown out in So. Carolina.

10:46. CNN finally calls it.

Caucus Night Musings

As I write this (10:10 p.m.), CNN is projecting Obama winning for the Dems and Huckabee winning handily on the red side. I've only had half an ear out this week, but with that caveat, a few thoughts on What Comes Next.

Is Richardson now on Obama's Veep Shortlist? YDS reported that Bill "The Resume" Richardson urged his supporters over to Obama. One has to wonder if Richardson contacted Obama ahead of time and if an unspoken understanding exists there. With Richardson polling at 5% his support meant a lot tonight. This is premature, but Richardson on the ticket would vest an Obama administration with his experience and talent and blunt the likely impact of his oft-rumored baggage.

Needless to say, no such understanding exists between Kucinich and Obama. The only deal one makes with Kucinich along these lines is, "Well, OK Dennis but you supply the ten-foot pole"

Edwards is in deep fertilizer. He's been campaigning in Iowa since around Nov. 10, 2004. If this had been his night, the money would finally have started coming in. Instead, this looks to me like he's topped out at around 30%. The big money is likely to think so as well. In any event, if he doesn't pull out a win in South Carolina, it's a two-person race.

Who will be the next Dem out? Fourth place was a weak 2% from Richardson. The entire second tier is on death watch from here on out. Taegan Goddard notes a Politico report that Dodd promised to quit if he lost, and Jerid notes evidence that Dodd isn't participating in Ohio.

The most interesting bit of exit poll data will be where the second tier votes go. Koosh aside, there's close to 15% up for grabs there. My impression is that those votes are looking for Hillary alternatives.

Mostly that's my impression because it's the case with me. I was pulling for Biden up 'til now. Yeah, I know. Richardson lost me when he started promising to bring the troops home next week. I've always liked Biden and think he has the best foreign policy mind in the field. I didn't hope for much -- just a strong fourth. Now that he's done, I'm all about Obama.

Is Fred Thompson really quitting? MCDAC notes a report that he is. OK, he finished a distant third, but he did finish third, and above the surging McCain. New Hampshire is between McCain and Romney, but Thompson could conceivably sneak into a win in So. Carolina. Novak reported some time ago (can't find it just now) that conservative Baptists say Huckabee is on the wrong side of that chuch's civil war. I suspect, based on little more than gut, that more of the SC evangelical vote is Baptist and more of the Iowa evangelical vote is non-denominational. If the Baptist vote is split, who to they run to?

Add to that sort of indication that Huckabee's hold on evangelicals is less than complete the fact that the Club for Growthers will now pull out the long knives. Oh, and the fact that the Republicans never nominate mavericks. Huckabee race is nearly run.

The only thing we know tonight about Giuliani's strategy of giving up on the early states is that the giving up part had the expected effect. Leading the national polls and getting less than 5%? Brutal.

Ohio Fifth: Preview for '08?

So it looks for all the world like the Republicans will hold onto the Fifth. AP is projecting a win for Bob Latta with Robin Weirach currently pulling about the same (as of this writing) as last year.

Swing state had explained why earlier this week:

In reality, despite a bruising primary followed by a weak campaign by Latta, the deck is still stacked against Robin Weirauch here. For one thing, there are only six districts in the nation that are more Republican leaning than OH-05 and are held by Democrats: MO-04 (Ike Skelton), ND-AL (Earl Pomeroy), TX-22 (Nick Lampson), MS-04 (Gene Taylor), UT-02 (Jim Matheson), and TX-17 (Chet Edwards). These are all seats held by very exceptional and very experienced campaigners.

Meanwhile Jerid had the Best Take Ever earlier today. Honestly, I don't know where that boy comes up with such great ideas.

Thanks again to Jeff Coryell for providing us (even those of us feverishly working under multiple deadlines) with lively field reports.

Finally a thought. Much of the Republican anger at Bob Latta has recently been expressed as anger for running a lackluster campaign (see the Swing State link above.) But the anger began with the bare knuckle, wingnuttier-than-thou, social-issue-focused campaign coupled with Latta's less-than-perfect record on taxes and spending. One popular narrative in the Presidential election is that Evangelicals may bolt if Republicans nominate either Romney or Giuliani. Does Ohio-5 suggest a dynamic running the other way? If the Republicans nominate Mike Huckabee, who is seen as insufficiently Republican on economic issues, might the Growth Clubbers either run a third party candidate or at least refuse to support the nominee and let their constituents sit out election day?

I don't know, but apparently Tony Perkins thinks so. If you have thoughts, drop them in comments. And if you don't have time now, just wait a couple days and drop them on the BSB thread.

UPDATE: Just received from ODP this statement from Party Chair Chris Redfern:

Tonight's election results show Republicans are more vulnerable than ever in Ohio. In a district that George W. Bush carried with 61% of the vote and where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by 50 percent, the GOP had to scramble to win a special election that should have been a cake walk. Desperate to hold on to a district they had controlled for nearly 70 years, national Republicans had to spend more than $428,000 - or nearly 20% of their entire campaign account. Now the GOP - with even fewer resources on hand - will be even less equipped to play effectively in the 4-5 competitive House races in Ohio in 2008. Make no make mistake, this election shows that in November 2008, voters in Ohio and across the country will choose strong Democrats who will undo the damage of the Bush-Cheney years.

And this moral victory is very much Redfern's moral victory. He came into office vowing to campaign aggressively in all 88 counties. He's a party chair with a chess player's sensibility -- what happens in this corner of the board affects everything else. We may well see dividends next November. Well done, Mr. Chairman.

Coughlin's Election Night Response, With Response

As expected, State Sen. Kevin Coughlin has come out firing in light of the election results.

"I congratulate all the candidates who put themselves before the voters this fall and look forward to working with them to better our region and our communities.

As chairman of the Summit County Republican Party, Alex Arshinkoff has a record of 6 wins and 42 losses over the last four years. Tonight's results did little to change that trend. While many consider him a clever campaigner, I have always questioned Chairman Arshinkoff's tactical skills and knowledge of how elections are won. He is a strong fundraiser, but a poor field general.

I have been even more troubled that Chairman Arshinkoff's poor standing in the community is an anchor weighing down capable candidates for office. Nothing illustrates the need for a new party chairman better than the defeat of John Widowfield for Clerk of Courts. Despite superior name identification, well over $100,000 spent, and an unknown opponent, Representative Widowfield suffered a loss that may have a lasting impact on his political future.

After this unfortunate outcome, I hope that Alex Arshinkoff finally realizes just how harmful he has become to Republican candidates and offieholders. When a party chairman becomes such a liability to the candidates of his own party, it's time to move on."

Some thoughts. First, Coughlin sells Lisa Zeno Carano short. She was hardly "unknown." She was a popular Councilwoman in Tallmadge, a significant part of the muni court district. She's been in place since late spring and has done a good job of getting her name out. And she ran a smart campaign on a relative shoestring.

Also, Coughlin has set himself up in a no-lose situation by alleging that this race was part of a multi-player deal between the parties. If Widowfield had won, Coughlin could crow "See, I told you." Now that he's lost, Coughlin is jumping on him for losing a gimmie. Much as I personally dislike the man, I sit in awe of his political acumen this morning. He has played events with the skill of a Romulan.

All that said, the loss certainly pokes A² in the eye. He secured insane money for the race from major donors and ran hard. While the late-breaking news that Widowfield is Ohio's laziest legislator certainly didn't help, Coughlin is probably also right that many people voted against Alex. Not only are people tired of the act -- this cycle played out in the psuedo-independent candidate drama -- but they are increasingly reluctant to give him access to a passel of patronage job slots.

And this wasn't a loss, it was a beat-down. A liberal Dem winning by ten points in northern Summit? If anyone saw that coming, they had access to internals.

Add to that Bob Keith winning handily in Akron 8th, and it seems clear that Arshinkoff has indeed become a liability. He needed wins badly in this election to counter Coughlin's criticisms and did not get them.

The contest from here out turns on a tipping point. If the matter were put to a secret ballot in the Republican rank and file, whoever Coughlin's candidate might be (hey, I hear John Widowfield might be available) would win in a landslide. But it's not a secret ballot. It's about turning precinct and central committee chairs and counting the heads. Right now nobody wants to cross Alex unless they have a reasonable expectation of success. It will be interesting to see if any high-profile electeds or patrons jump ship as a result. Because at some point, enough people will line up behind Coughlin that the rest of the party will see his side is heading toward victory. Then the rats don't so much desert the sinking ship as rush to the other side.

Digesting the Mayoral Primary

The sorta close call re-nomination of Mayor Don Plusquellec offers a bit of a window into the black box that is local politics. So let's probe a little and see what we can see.

The ABJ ran a good piece analyzing the results by ward and the week's News Night Akron delved deeply into it. The Leader story is notable only for Finley crying foul because some of his Republican voters may have been disenfranchised, which is just too easy to bother going there. Results are here.

Ineptitude

Before we get started, let's revisit Finley's campaign. I described Finley as inept to which a commenter said, essentially, "Scoreboard." Fair enough, but let's dig deeper than that. The sentinel question is whether Finley's 47% was a vote for him or against Plusquellec. And therein lies the charge of ineptitude.

To be sure, Finley's organization on a shoestring was impressive. As the anonymouse noted, he had a solid volunteer base, got signs distributed well throughout the city and apparently got his vote out.

Which is all the more impressive considering how thoroughly the substance of his campaign failed to inspire. His platform boiled down to being nicer than the current Mayor and opposing everything the mayor supports. This last to a comical degree. Mayor wants to take down the Innerbelt? I like the innerbelt. Mayor rejected a job training program? I'm for it. Mayor wants to redevelop Goodyear Heights? Against it.

On the one hand it was the damnedest primary campaign, on the other, it looked hauntingly familiar. Then I figured out where we had seen this before:



It got to the point that I wondered what Mayor Finley would do without Plusquellec as a foil. The first time a new issue came up, how would Finley know his position without learning Don's first?

All of which made his showing Tuesday that much more remarkable

The Role of the Republicans

One point discussed by the NewsNight Akron gang was the number of Republicans who rolled out to the polls in response to appeals from Without some information about which precincts the Rs came out in, it's hard to even guess how they affected the race.

In any event, Finley was a fool to think Republicans were his friends. If he had pulled off the upset, Alex would have backrolled the strongest candidate he could find to run as an independent. And by strongest I mean not David Drew.

(I wondered if the A² machine might attempt a sub rosa campaign to turn out Republican votes for Finley for that purpose, although given everthing happening between the R's these days, its doubtful such a campaign could remain quiet. Witness, e.g., Coughlin and Co. campaigning for Andy Padrutt in Green, a move no doubt driven by either punishing an enemy or setting up the Dem they think is weakest.)

It is notable that Finley performed well in the more Republican-leaning southside wards. In particular, the fact that Plusquellec underperformed in Kenmore, the neighborhood with which he is closely identified, suggests an explanation like Republicans and independents turning out for Finley.

Voting for NotDon.

The overwhelming explanation for the result is Plusquellec fatigue. Yes, part of that is the Mayor's occasionally harsh personality. Part is the ill-considered income tax ballot issue last spring. But much, I fear, arises from a general discontent about the economic direction of Akron. Lots of people thought deeply about the state of things to give Plusquellec credit for keeping Akron in better shape than most NEO cities.

But this can't last forever. People around here are getting more and more news like this and they are getting tired of it. While they may for a while say things are a little better here than there or that this is all about forces beyond the control of the guy, eventually they get sufficiently angry that they just vote against everybody. That's poignant news for Plusquellec, but a serious concern for Strickland. He's on an extended honeymoon now, but at some point people are going to start asking where the jobs are.

Finley's Future.

The NNA gang argued about whether Finley has a future in Akron politics. To an extent that depends on Akron's fortunes. If Akron gets some economic good news, Finley will be known as the pol who cried wolf to the extent he is remembered at all. If the city struggles he could find a place as standard bearer for a voter rebellion. He'll have that Kucinich "Guy Who Was Right All Along" thing going for him.

He certainly is done with the mainstream Democratic Party. He made no friends among the progressives with his pro-life stand. But he could conceivably lead a broad, blue collar insurrection against the establishment.

Could do, but probably won't. He would be hard pressed to do such a thing if he didn't have Plusquellec to run against. And in any event, he hasn't shown the political chops to really build a movement. In this election he was sufficiently bland that discontented people could project their particular hopes and grievances on him and nothing clashed. To really lead an upset charge, he'll have to project something of his own.

TNR Editor 's Odd Appraisal of Ohio '04

Lately I’ve been reading The Spine, a newish blog by New Republic co-owner Marty Peretz. TNR has drifted noticeably to the left in recent years, but Peretz has done his level best to rein it back. Peretz is the embodiment of the cold-war era, crabby liberal TNR I grew up with; as Mickey Kaus puts it, right on warfare, left on welfare. Also fiercely Zionist and allergic to the cultural left. This Peretz description of Joe Lieberman could as easily be about himself:

[M]uscular on defense, assertive in foreign policy, genuinely liberal on social and economic matters, but not doctrinaire on regulatory issues . . . He has qualms about affirmative action. But who, in his hearts of hearts, does not? He is appalled by the abysmal standards of our popular culture and our public discourse. Who really loves our popular culture--or, at least, which parent? He is thoroughly a Democrat.

Peretz through and through. While he has his opinions and enforces them with, at times, Stalinist efficiency, he’s a smart guy with mostly thought-provoking things to say.

Mostly.

Today he presumes to explain why Ohio voted for Bush in 2004. It was Michael Moore. And George Soros. Seriously, in a post about Democrats lining up Hollywood supporters he makes both claims.

The Michael Moore claim is the sort of simple-minded shibboleth we expect coasters to say about flyover country. Granted, since Kerry’s lost by a fine-edge margin any number of factors could have made the difference. But there were so many big ones, singling out the little ones just seems silly. Saying Kerry lost Ohio because of Michael Moore is like saying he lost because of his “Lambert Field” fumble.

The Soros claim, on the other hand, is just bizarre. All Soros did was poor millions into a canvass and GOTV effort that helped turn out record numbers of voters. He was vilified as a result, but it’s hard to imagine that people who watched the dire reports on Fox Noise were going to vote for Kerry in any event. He didn’t personally appear in Ohio, he didn’t make a documentary featuring debunked conspiracy theories, and he certainly didn’t waddle around after Wesley Clark like a homesick gosling.

What makes me sick about this is that the right loves to play the game called "You Are Who Supports You." This despite right wing candidates being supported by plenty of unsavory candidates themselves. It's enough of a challenge staying out of that game when baited by the right. We really don't need people on the left signing up to play.

Ironically, if there was one factor outside of John Kerry being a stiff that tipped the balance in Ohio, it was arrogant East Coasters presuming to know what does or doesn’t play here. Peretz’s post indicates we still have plenty of that.

It Was All Because of . . . Redistricting?

Sunday's PD ran the story of a curious phenomenon – GOP leaders arguing about who is to blame . . . for NEO redistricting. The argument apparently goes like this: The 2000 redistricting allowed Sherrod Brown to keep his seat, leaving him around as an effective candidate who was able to take out Mike DeWine.

Got that?

Right Angle Blog ran hosted a thread on the issue that devolved into a finger-pointing kvetch-a-thon.

This argument quickly starts to sound like an episode of Quantum Leap where changing history has unexpected consequences. First off, I question whether any map could have narrowed the Democratic delegation any more than it did. After all, the total vote in Congressional elections has remained steady at around 50-50, but the delegation going into last Tuesday was 2/3 to 1/3. And that's with Steve LaTourette in a district that Kerry won.

Second, if Sherrod hadn’t run for Senate, DeWine would have been stuck with running against Paul Hackett. If anyone on the Right wants to argue that Hackett was a weaker opponent, he has the floor. I’m not going there. Again. Ever.

Third, the whole story ignores the actual effect of redistricting – tossing Tom Sawyer out of Congress. At the point the lines were re-drawn, the writing was already on the wall that Traficant’s days were numbered. Anyone who had the right connections – as it happens, I did – knew that the US Attorneys felt they really had him, and they did. Going into 2000, the Republicans had much more to fear from a genial moderate like Sawyer than a liberal firebrand like Sherrod.

Finally, it’s damned interesting to hear Republicans speak so frankly about the democracy-stultifying activity that is redistricting. By arguing about whether they could have redistricted more effectively, they are saying in essence, “We should have rendered meaningless the votes of even more Ohioans.”

If they really want to know why they lost, perhaps the Republicans should pay more attention to what their constituents want and less to political gamesmanship.

Still More Thoughts on Turnout

Bill Callahan has tracked down information showing conclusively that Cuyahoga County turnout was overstated.
recalculated the turnout percentage in light of the revelation just to make sure they didn’t change so radically as to undermine the basic point. In fact they drop the Dem turnout of the Kerry vote to 80.7 and Republican turnout of the Bush vote to 66%. Pretty much the same.

The primary lesson from Callahan’s discovery is that the Cuyahoga Co. Board of Elections remains a train wreck. After his comment about the difficulty judging turnout in urban counties, I’m not sure what to think about actually turning out that vote.

Similarly, I wonder about judging turnout in counties with large college populations. Athens Co. is a horrible 41.2%, but that’s mostly because the college-based party clubs register lots of students. Once the students move on an register elsewhere, the Athens board hears about the new registration rarely if it is in-state and pretty much never if it’s out of state.

Nonetheless, the Dems need to look at whether they can improve their turnout in urban centers. Bumping up the turnout in Columbus and Cincinnati may have made the difference in some of the legislative races there, and adding a bumped-up turnout in Cuyahoga may have put Barbara Sykes over the top despite her invisible campaign.

For that matter, if the Dems in the future recruit a diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity candidate again, it would be nice if that candidate would take the lead in the turnout effort. Reading about Sykes’ campaign manager complaining that Dems didn’t turn out the vote for her made my blood boil. I talked to very politically active people in Toledo, Cleveland and Columbus who confirmed my impression that Sykes was pretty much nowhere to be seen.

Exit Poll Numbers and Thoughts on Turnout

First off, Pho’s Akron Pages is declaring Lori the winner of the Voter Turnout Office Pool. She will be offered a post shortly. Be forewarned; she may write something nice about the Steelers just to annoy me.

Second, if you didn’t click through the link before, YellowDogSammy was the first to point out that the SoS site revised the turnout numbers for Cuyahoga County upward. Cuy. Co. turned out in the mid-50’s – about average for the state.

Also, Bill Callahan commented to a previous post with these trenchant insights on urban turnout.

But mostly this post is about playing with – playing with, not analyzing – exit poll numbers. The poll links come courtesy of battleforohio.com, a site set up by MacWilliams Robinson & Partners, Ted Strickland's media production consultants. They plan on maintaining the Battle for Ohio site will at least until 2008.

The exit polls themselves are from CNN, and 2004 is still up, giving us the numbers to play with. In terms of percentage of the vote, Dems and Republicans nearly reversed themselves. In 2004, Dems represented 35% of the vote for President; Republicans 40%. In 2006, Dems were 40% of the vote for Governor; Republicans 37%.

From there we get into deeper, but increasingly shaky analysis. I used the percentages from the exit polls and the vote totals from SoS to calculate the approximate number of Republicans vs. Democrats voting in 2004 Presidential and 2006 Gubernatorial races. Then I took the presidential vote as a baseline for motivated voters in each party, and figured out the percentage turnout for each party. That is, what percentage of the Kerry vote does the Dem vote in 2006 represent and what percentage of the Bush vote does the Repub vote in '06 represent. Here's what we find:

2004

Total votes: 5,722,443

Dem Votes: (35%) 2,002,855

Repub Votes: (40%) 2,266,977

2006

Total votes: 4,177,498

Dem votes : (40%) 1,670,999

% of Kerry vote turned out: 83.4

Repub Votes: (37%) 1,545,674

% of Bush Vote turned out: 68.3

Don't bother telling me what's wrong with the methodology. Of course not everyone who voted Dem in '06 bothered voting in '04 or was even in the state or was a Dem or whatever. Not to mention problems with exit polls generally, particularly in 2004. I know.

These are very rough calculations. But they crudely indicate a wide disparity, suggesting that Democrats turned out a much higher percentage of their motivated voters than Republicans did. And this jibes with anecdotal evidence we all heard before and after the elections.

Finally I would note that the 2006 exit poll results pretty much jibe with the final result. It's hard to tell for sure since the CNN page is all breakdown with an aggregate for each candidate. But looking for instance at the results for men and women, it certainly looks like the average is something close to the 37/60 split in the final result. I'm sure Stolen Election Guy will come up with some explanation, but it may take a while.

Weak Turnout Numbers and Pool Update

I had two predictions in my Guess the Turnout office pool. The first was that turnout would set a new record for a Gubernatorial election -- over 61%. That prediction was flat out, dead busted, butt-lickin' wrong.

The second prediction was that if turnout was in the mid-50's Dems would win big. Well, turnout looks to be in the mid-50's and Dems nearly ran the table in the statewides. Of the six Dems in partisan races, five won. Plus eight or so state house pickups and nearly perfect defense of all seats held. My guess is that part of the Dem wave was unmotivated Republicans staying home. We'll have to wait for some more detailed results and exit poll cross-tabs to be sure.

In the meantime, it looks unlikely that the vote count will grow enough to pass Lori who had the lowest guess. As of right now the count stands at 3,868,486, with three counties yet to report. Stark is the biggest of those by far with 270-odd thousand voters. I expect the count to grow by another hundred fifty thousand or so when those counties report, plus another point or two when the provisionals are in.

Meanwhile consider these sad turnout numbers:

Cuyahoga County: 39.44%
Franklin County: 44.74%

All the other major urban counties posted respectable numbers, mostly in the mid-50's with Hamilton County just shy of 50%. Assuming that the sad numbers in Franklin (and Hamilton for that matter) reflect center city residents not voting, the Dems have some serious work to do here. If those voters had turned out in numbers comparable to say Dayton or Toledo, Barbara Sykes would probably be our new Auditor.

Finally, it can't be a coincidence that the two counties with the worst reported voting glitches also had the worst turnout. Jennifer Brunner says that she will administer elections with an eye toward fairness to all and advantage to none, and I believe her. I also believe that if we have that in Cuyahoga and Franklin, it will be a boon to Dems.

[Reverie] Capri Comes Full Circle

posted Nov. 5, 2014

It was a hard-fought campaign, but Capri Cafaro is your Representative in the 13th District. Ironically, she succeeds Betty Sutton who beat her out for the nomination eight years ago in a bitter contest. Unlike that contest, this year when Betty stepped down to become Pres. Bayh’s Dep. Sec. of Labor, the open seat didn’t prompt a mad scramble among Democrats. Everyone knew Capri would be the nominee.

As the founding member of the Hate Capri blog brigade back then, it falls to me to recount how we got here. Back then I had no use for Capri at all, but some friends thought she at least had potential – most notably Jill (BTW, congrats on the Bestseller List).

I would have bet the farm that when she lost the primary in ’06, she would be on the next plane back to NYC, only to resurface two years later in a tempting Congressional district. The first step in her road back to political credibility was staying in Lorain Co. and setting up shop there as a nonprofit consultant. By all accounts she did real good there and helped me with the School Funding Reform Amendment in ’07.

Let’s stop and think about that. Kid Z is now in her Senior year at Firestone in the Visual Arts program. Kid T is tearing it up at the Math/Sci middle school at Inventure Place. As I was reading my ancient Cafaro posts to prepare this one, I was reminded that the same election Cafaro lost, Akron lost a levy by less than a point. Back then, we didn’t even know if APS would survive. I barely remember life before growing mills and enforceable state funding levels.

Anyway, Capri’s stay in Lorain seemed to soften her in a good way. Whether it was living with regular old Midwesterners or being truly independent from her Dad, she became far more likeable. I was actually one of the last holdouts. Mostly it was Scott Bakalar who brought me around. And check it out, Scott and Michelle’s latest disc is #27 on Amazon.

Two years making contacts in Lorain Co. made Capri a credible candidate to take on a freshman Republican in Ohio’s House 58. That was a hell of a fight in a Stone Republican district. She benefited from Gov. Strickland’s gaudy poll numbers and brilliantly showed how her opponent was helping obstruct his most popular policies – rural broadband and universally available pre-K. The NRA endorsement didn’t hurt any in that district.

She had some luck getting in, but her success as a legislator was all her. She cemented her rehabbed rep as a strong independent leader by taking the point on redistricting reform. When her erstwhile union allies objected, she gently reminded them that she had the resources to get by without them, thank you very much, and oh by the way did they really want her to fight for coal gas plants in Lorain? They fell in line and the rest was a done deal.

Now some of you are still pissed that the D’s didn’t get the chance to fully stick it to the R’s in the 2010 redistricting. I still maintain that if the D’s were able to gerrymander a 60/40 advantage in Columbus, they soon would become as indolent and corrupt as the Republicans were when Ted took over. Trust me, it’s better this way.

From there, Capri was able to work on what lit her fire – Senior care, health care, help for displaced workers. In short, she became a shoe-in for the 13th. Of course, if she hadn’t worked so hard on redistricting reform, she’d have had a much easier time of it, but she used that to her advantage in the General.

I was able to sit down with her last week. We laughed about that ’06 race, about the barbs we hurled at each other. Hard to say which of us hated the other more. I told her I was proud to know her. I told her she wasn’t just a better legislator, she was a better person. And I told her I always knew she’d look better as a brunette.

Best of luck in Washington, Capri. Don’t forget where you came from and where you have been.

Meanwhile, Prof. W. is looking forward to retirement and we are still unpacking from our summer in Chincoteague. Hard to put myself back in that 2006 election, before George started syndicating MTB all over the place, before he sold during Internet Bubble 2, making all of us shareholders obscenely grateful. Who’d have thought back then it would end up like this?