A RED State Rollover - Ohio goes HRC ?

[Jannus]

It's too bad the Democrats offering themselves for election don't affirm all our civil rights; if they did, they wouldn't have any worries about actually gaining control of the Senate and House both.

I agree. The Democratic Party is a bunch of spineless weasels. They won't stand up against Bush and they won't stand up in favor of anything. They're pretty worthless. People no longer vote for Democrats. They only (occasionally) vote against Republicans.

Of course it would help Hillary if she'd come out against the "USA PATRIOT" Act, too. As it is, she looks like one more proponent of a police state.

It's highly unlikely, but if HRC should fail to get the Democratic nomination, it will be because of her support for the war in Iraq and her support for Bush's anti-democratic policies. Her opposition to gay marriage annoys me, too.

I don't think I could vote for Hillary. She's a Republican in Democratic clothes. I probably won't vote in the next election.

 

[RICBOUND2004]

I won't call Strickland a fluke, but lets just say the stars aligned perfectly for his candidacy and the rest of the Democrats who won in 2006. He had a nut-job opponent, an opposite Party scandal marred incumbent, a fairly conservative/acceptable record, no primary challenge, and the cherry on top -- a feverishly anti-Republican enviorement. Had he ran against a stronger opponent (say, Rob Portman or Mike Turner), we may not be talking today about the "shift" to blue in Ohio.

Fact is, I believe Ohio is just mirroring our nation at the moment. Americans are flirting with the Democrat Party; they're out on their first date in a while, but I wouldn't call it a shoo-in for them to get remarried.

I've heard in a few GOP circles that Strickland is actively campaigning for the VP slot. Which is to say some of these folks are torn about the prospects of this situation. On one hand, if Strickland gets the VP slot, that could very well give Ohio away to the Democrats come Nov. 2008. One the other hand, having Strickland out of the Governor's mansion means Lee Fischer would be Governor and with this weaker Democrat candidate, the Ohio GOP would be well positioned to take back the mansion in 2010.

I for one don't think Hillary is picking Strickland. For starters he's too old...and bland. I'm not sure he'd complement her ticket. He's too old to be considered the "future of the Party", because if Hillary serves 8 years, Strickland would be well into his 70s, which means he probably wouldnt run for President (much like Cheney). He's too bland and lacks foreign policy experience which I don't think would complement Hillary at all. I also don't think Ted is coming out of the mansion; it's a plush job, fairly secure and NEW TO HIM! Lest we forget he's only been in office less than a year!

 

[ColorSlaughter]

I, still, wouldn't count Ohio as a win for the Dems. There is a very powerful conservative base, especially in the southwest corner. Not to take anything away from Gov. Strickland, a large factor in his victory was the scandal that Taft and his cronies got into. And, while no one will admit it, I think race was another factor. A lot of the hicks in southern Ohio and rednecks in rural Ohio, couldn't bring them selves to vote for a black candidate.

Blackwell was a complete total sleaze. In all honesty, I think it was just my fellow statesmen being smart and not picking another person that will dick them over, rather than a matter of race.

As for Ohio going blue for HRC, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Not to say it wouldn't be a welcome change, but as someone else said, its a reaction rather than a position.

Everything else has already been said!

 

[Kulindahr]

As for Ohio going blue for HRC, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Not to say it wouldn't be a welcome change, but as someone else said, its a reaction rather than a position.

And that's too bad. If Americans had courage, they'd turn out in droves and vote for alternate parties, whether American, Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Reform, or whatever -- just send the message to the Dems and Pubs that it's time for some real change, not just more of the same games.

 

[Jannus]

I won't call Strickland a fluke, but lets just say the stars aligned perfectly for his candidacy and the rest of the Democrats who won in 2006. He had a nut-job opponent, an opposite Party scandal marred incumbent, a fairly conservative/acceptable record, no primary challenge, and the cherry on top -- a feverishly anti-Republican enviorement. Had he ran against a stronger opponent (say, Rob Portman or Mike Turner), we may not be talking today about the "shift" to blue in Ohio.

Fact is, I believe Ohio is just mirroring our nation at the moment. Americans are flirting with the Democrat Party; they're out on their first date in a while, but I wouldn't call it a shoo-in for them to get remarried.

Exactly right! Ohio is a RED state and will return to its RED roots with the next governor, once it discovers that the Democratic Party isn't serious about governing.

As I said earlier, people no longer vote for Democrats, they only occasionally vote against Republicans.

I for one don't think Hillary is picking Strickland. ....I don't think [he] would complement Hillary at all.

Right again! Ohio will go Democratic in the next presidential election, simply as a reaction against Bush. Strickland has nothing to offer a Hillary candidacy.

 

[jsd62]

From today's Dayton Daily News.


Tuesday's election gives Democrats control of Ohio's major cities


By Andrew Welsh-Huggins
Associated Press

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Following last week's elections, the two parties agreed on only one thing: Democratic mayors now control all major cities in Ohio.
Democrats say it's a huge positive, further solidifying their base as the 2008 presidential election approaches.


Republicans see a benefit too, targeting their opponents for all the problems in those cities, from poverty to crime to struggling schools.
GOP Chairman Bob Bennett provided a taste of the campaign to come the day after the election.
"Republicans continue to run strong in suburban, exurban and rural areas where our voters have moved out of the inner cities to avoid the festering school and safety problems being largely ignored by Democratic mayors," he said.
That's a message that could resonate with a large chunk of Ohio voters. According to exit polls, suburban residents accounted for about six in 10 votes cast in the 2006 Ohio election.
Republicans would love to hear Democratic mayors talking about what their cities need, said political analyst Tom Sutton.
"The suburbs will hear that and say, 'Yeah, and that's why we don't live there anymore,'" said Sutton, a professor at Baldwin-Wallace College.
That cities are largely Democratic strongholds is no secret, and the shift of Republican votes to the suburbs and beyond isn't news either.
Yet it wasn't that long ago in Ohio that either party could take political control of the large urban areas for granted.
In Columbus, Mayor Michael Coleman handily defeated his Republican opponent last week to begin his third term. Yet eight years ago, Coleman was the first Democrat to reach city hall in decades.
Cleveland and Cuyahoga County are considered overwhelmingly Democratic areas, yet Republican George Voinovich was mayor through the 1980s.
Dayton has had a Democratic mayor since 2002, when Rhine McLin took office. Republican Mike Turner was mayor from 1994-2002. Before Turner, Dayton's last Republican mayor was Dave Hall who left office in 1970.
In Canton, Republican Janet Weir Creighton had been mayor since 2003, when the GOP took the seat with a massive get-out-the-vote effort.
That was the last major Ohio city without a Democrat in charge, a claim to fame state lawmaker William Healy ended Tuesday with a 53 percent to 47 percent victory.
Democrats also put a mayor in Lorain on Tuesday and held on to mayors' offices in Columbus, Chillicothe and Mansfield. But they lost a long Democratic seat to the GOP in Newark in Republican-leaning Licking County.
Democrats were quick to focus on the wins in Canton and Lorain and the implication for next year.
"Democratic mayors now lead the ten largest cities in Ohio," said Chris Redfern, chairman of the state Democratic party. "The results show that the Ohio Democratic Party has the momentum going into 2008."
On paper, the election showed continued Democratic success after two successive presidential elections in which Ohio voted for George W. Bush.
Last year, fatigue with Republican leadership nationally and a government corruption scandal at home helped Ohio Democrats win a U.S. Senate seat, four of five statewide offices and close the gap in the Ohio House.
Based on those results, Democrats are making too much of their success in cities, says Jim Trakas, a former state lawmaker from suburban Cleveland.
The 2006 victory of Gov. Ted Strickland, the first Democrat elected governor in 20 years, is much more significant because of his ability to raise money statewide from a variety of sources, said Trakas, an Independence Republican who left office because of term limits.
Like Bennett, Trakas believes Democrats will be vulnerable because of the problems in the cities they control.
Democratic strategist Dale Butland disagrees, saying each city's political machine can add up to big results across Ohio. Butland also says Republicans should be careful who they blame for problems in the state, since they held all elected offices for more than a decade.
"We certainly can't do any worse than what they've done," Butland said.
Mayors of Ohio's largest cities

Columbus
Population: 711,470
Mayor: Michael Coleman
In office: 2000-present
Party: Democrat

Cleveland
Population: 478,403
Mayor: Frank G. Jackson
In office: 2006-present
Party: Democrat

Cincinnati
Population: 331,285
Mayor: Mark Mallory
In office: 2005-present
Party: Democrat

Toledo
Population: 313,619
Mayor: Carleton S. Finkbeiner
In office: 2006-present; 1994-2002
Party: Democrat

Akron
Population: 217,074
Mayor: Donald L. Plusquellic
In office: 1987-present
Party: Democrat

Dayton
Population: 166,179
Mayor: Rhine McLin
In office: 2002-present
Party: Democrat

Youngstown
Population: 82,026
Mayor: Jay Williams
In office: 2006-present
Party: Ran as independent, registered Democrat

Parma
Population: 85,655
Mayor: Dean DePiero
In office: 2004-present
Party: Democrat

Canton
Population: 80,806
Mayor: William Healy
In office: Starts in Jan. 2008; is Canton's first Democratic mayor in 16 years.
Party: Democrat

Lorain
Population: 68,652
Mayor: Tony Krasienko
In office: Starts in Jan. 2008.
Party: Democrat
Note: Population figures from 2000 census

 

[Jannus]

Last year, fatigue with Republican leadership nationally and a government corruption scandal at home helped Ohio Democrats win a U.S. Senate seat, four of five statewide offices and close the gap in the Ohio House.
Based on those results, Democrats are making too much of their success in cities.

The Dayton Daily News is, IMHO, one of the finest newspapers in the nation (and I'm honestly not joking about that!).

 

[RandomAccess]

Exactly right! Ohio is a RED state and will return to its RED roots with the next governor, once it discovers that the Democratic Party isn't serious about governing.

Isn't serious? How so? Facts and cites?

 

[Jannus]

^ The Democrats not only aren't serious about governing, they aren't even a legitimate political force in America.

The US House and Senate have been Democratic since 2006. Can you name anything that they've done? Anything?

The Democrats were elected in the hope of ending the war in Iraq. Have they done that? Have they made any war changes at all? Have they even tried?

The Democrats were elected in the hope of repairing Bush's disastrous economic policies. Have they done that? Have they made any economic changes at all? Have they even tried?

The Democrats were elected in the hope of repairing Bush's disastrous social policies. Have they done that? Have they made any social changes at all? Have they even tried? GWB began the attack on gays when he sensed he was running out of political steam, and needed someone defenseless to beat up on. Now, even Hillary Clinton opposes gay marriage!

Have the Democrats blocked any of Bush's nominations for any office whatsoever? Have they not rubber stamped everything sent to them by the president? Everything?


In order to govern, you need to believe in something. In order to govern, you need to lead. In order to lead, you need to propose change. The Democrats aren't even talking. They are the party of "The Republicans have destroyed America, and we're not Republicans!"

Name something the Democratic Party has done in the last two years. In the last four. In the last six.

America is a state with only one political party. That's not a democracy.

 

[SantaCBear]

^ one thing I'll agree with you on 100%

The Dem Leadership (not just Nancy & Harry) is abominable! Been 'preaching' that here since I've been here.

 

[RandomAccess]

^ The Democrats not only aren't serious about governing, they aren't even a legitimate political force in America.

The US House and Senate have been Democratic since 2006. Can you name anything that they've done? Anything?

Thanks to obstructionist Repuplicans and Presidential vetos, many of the agenda items have been unfulfilled. They may well get ENDA done. . . I sincerely think there was a trade off with GWB over ENDA and the new AG.

The Democrats were elected in the hope of ending the war in Iraq. Have they done that? Have they made any war changes at all? Have they even tried?

Absolutely they've tried. But they've had to give-in to the obstructionist Republicans and deal with Presidential threats.

The Democrats were elected in the hope of repairing Bush's disastrous economic policies. Have they done that? Have they made any economic changes at all? Have they even tried?

They've certainly put a halt to the rubber stamp Congress Bush had previously.

The Democrats were elected in the hope of repairing Bush's disastrous social policies. Have they done that? Have they made any social changes at all? Have they even tried? Even Hillary Clinton opposes gay marriage!

Weren't you paying attention to ENDA? And Hillary Clinton is for equal rights for all. . . we've got to train her, though, that "seperate but equal" isn't equal at all.

Have the Democrats blocked any of Bush's nominations for any office whatsoever? Have they not rubber stamped everything sent to them by the president? Everything?

Look at the voting record. It's far from a "rubber stamp" and I think the recent AG was a trade-off in favor of ENDA. Politics. . . it's how things happen.

In order to govern, you need to believe in something. In order to govern, you need to lead. In order to lead, you need to propose change. The Democrats aren't even talking. They are the party of "The Republicans have destroyed America, and we're not Republicans!"

In order to achieve change, you need more than a simple majority in Congress. You either need 3/5ths, or you need a President of the same party. Stop blaming Democrats for the gridlock in Congress, and look at the real culprits. . . REPUBLICANS!

. . .

Blah-blah-blah, yadda-yadda-yadda.
You've got nothing.

 

[Jannus]

What you seem to be saying is that the Democrats can't govern without a 3/5 majority.

Funny, the Republicans have been bragging for years that all they need is a one vote majority!

If fact, they keep bragging that they can control even from a minority position - all they need are the Christian fundamentalists.

And ENDA is not a law. It's a proposal to pass a resolution in the House only. The Democrats can't even get a resolution for equality passed ln the House only without cutting out transsexuals!

They acknowledge that they can't get an ENDA law passed in either the House or the Senate. But they have a majority position in both, and they can't even get it passed as a resolution! And even then, they need to cut out the transsexuals to get a resolution passed? How would you feel if it was gays they were cutting out?.

And you don't think that is a sign of a lack of leadership? The majority party can't pass a resolution that says only that we shouldn't be discriminated against? That's very, very sad. And that's what they've done for us in six years?

And if the Republicans are so effective as an obstructionist minority, Where were the obstructionist Democrats who could have saved us from Iraq? And recession? And hatred?

Blah-blah-blah, yadda-yadda-yadda.
You've got nothing.

Neither do the Democrats.

 

[RandomAccess]

What you seem to be saying is that the Democrats can't govern without a 3/5 majority.

Funny, the Republicans have been bragging for years that all they need is a one vote majority!

If fact, they keep bragging that they can control even from a minority position - all they need are the Christian fundamentalists.

And ENDA is not a law. It's a proposal to pass a resolution. The Democrats can't even get a resolution for equality passed ln the House only without cutting out transsexuals!

They acknowledge that they can't get an ENDA law passed in either the House or the Senate. But they have a majority position in both, and they can't even get it passed as a resolution! And even then, they need to cut out the transsexuals (how would you feel if it was the gays they were cutting out?).

And you don't think that is a sign of a lack of leadership?

How does the Senate get anything done without either a same-party President or a 3/5 majority? How? Maybe by having a President who isn't obstructionist. A President like WJ Clinton (Democrat), perhaps? Either that, or by only looking at mamby-pamby legislation where there's no controversy.

And, sure the Republicans can "control" with a minority. . . that's precisely what they're doing! It's called OBSTRUCTIONISM!

And you're PROUD of your Republican legislators for that? What does it take to get gay men to stop being self-loathing?

 

[Jannus]

How does the Senate get anything done without either a same-party President or a 3/5 majority? How? Maybe by having a President who isn't obstructionist. A President like WJ Clinton (Democrat), perhaps? Either that, or by only looking at mamby-pamby legislation where there's no controversy.

Maybe by having a majority party that isn't afraid to say what they believe in, and isn't afraid to appeal to the public not to vote for obstructionist bigots. Maybe by having a majority (or even a minority) party that isn't afraid to say what it believes in, and why. Maybe by having a majority party that isn't afraid to say gay people have rights, too. Maybe by having a majority party that isn't afraid to use its majority to pass a resolution in favor of gay rights in the workplace.

And, sure the Republicans can "control" with a minority. . . that's precisely what they're doing! It's called OBSTRUCTIONISM!

Too bad the Democrats can't rule from a mere majority representation. You'd think that having the majority of the nation behind you would count for something.

And you're PROUD of your Republican legislators for that? What does it take to get gay men to stop being self-loathing?

Who says I'm proud? I'm disgusted that the majority of Americans no longer have any representation in government. I'm disgusted that the majority of Americans are allowing the minority to implement policies of hatred and bigotry. I'm disgusted that the people who we have elected to stop this mess (i.e., Democrats) don't seem interested in doing their jobs. I'm disgusted that a minority of bigots are being allowed to make their bigotry national policy, and no one seems bothered enough about it to lift a finger to try to stop it. I'm disgusted that America is no longer a democracy. I'm disgusted that self-loathing Democrats have decided to crawl into a hole and do nothing when the nation and the world so desperately need their services.

If disgust that government is not working and that a minority of bigots are making their bigotry national policy is being self-loathing, then America needs a lot more self-loathing of this kind. Quite a lot more.

We need something more than a one-party state. We need someone who will represent us in government. We need opposition parties who will actually oppose. We need something other than our current Democratic Party. (Wouldn't hurt to have something other than our current Republican Party, either!)

 

[lancelva]

^Because this is a democracy and because we have minority rights, a nominal majority is a fool-proof strategy of implementing what you want when you want it. We have checks and balances in our government that prevent that from happening. Don't blame the majority for it. And this is the first time in Bush's presidency that Congress has actually passed legislation to end the war in Iraq--and every member of the majority party supported it.

If you want to blame somebody, blame the obstructionist minority.