« Looking for Links | Main | Pennsylvania: Unemployment Figures »
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Ohio
Posted by DavidNYCAnd now, ladies and gentlemen, we bring you the Buckeye State.
Electoral Votes: 20 (21 in 2000)
2000 Results:
Bush: 49.97%
Gore: 46.46%
Nader: 2.50%
Buchanan: 0.57%
Like several large states in the north-eastern quadrant of the country - such as Illinois & New York - Ohio's relative decrease in population over the last decade led to the loss of a congressional seat, and with it, an electoral vote. Nonetheless, it remains an important state. It is one of only seven states with 20 or more EVs, and after Pennsylvania and Florida, it's the third-largest swing state. And Ohio is not merely a swing state - many consider it a bellwether state. Ohio has correctly picked the winner of every presidential election from 1964 on: In other words, as goes Ohio, so goes the nation (or vice-versa). Of course, Ohio did fail to pick the winner of the popular vote last time out... but that's a whole `nother kettle of fish.
In a way, I think Ohio could be the Republicans' Pennsylvania in reverse. If they can't win Ohio, it puts them in the hole for 20 EVs, which is a huge amount for a race that everyone expects to be very close. What's more, if Ohio (a state which many say has been trending Republican) tilts to the Dems on election night, it probably signals broader electoral weakness for the GOP. I'm not saying that if the GOP loses Ohio, it'll mean there was a rout, but I will say that if they don't take it, they probably can't win the whole shebang.
So what's going on on the ground in Ohio? First and foremost, there's the employment situation. (Is there any state where this is not a major issue?) When Bush came into office, Ohio's unemployment rate was 3.9%. It's now soared to 5.8%. (Side-note: These numbers are on a seasonally-adjusted basis. This is important because it makes it possible to compare different times of the year - in many places, there are temporary bumps in summer employment, for example. Unfortunately, the county-by-country maps I pulled up for Pennsylvania were not seasonally adjusted, so I won't be using those anymore.) In a state with a population of some 11.4 million, that's a lot of out-of-work - and unhappy - people.
More specifically, we once again find ourselves looking at the steel tariffs. The analysis isn't terribly straightforward, unfortunately. While steel makers favor the tariffs, steel users naturally oppose them. Ohio, as it turns out, is home to both manufacturers and consumers of steel, and the two sides are fighting it out. (The sad fact is, though, that despite the tariffs, Ohio's steel-making industry is still suffering and will never return to its glory days.) Bush seems to be pretty screwed here: If he rescinds the tariffs, he destroys whatever goodwill he might have won among the steel-makers, and if he keeps them in place, then he'll continue to anger the steel-users. If Bush thinks he can maintain a cavalier attitude toward the steel users ("Who else are they gonna vote for? A Democrat?"), then he may indeed be in for a rude shock when these otherwise reliable Republicans defect.
Now, getting back to the political situation: Ohio indeed is pretty heavily Republican. Apparently, it's quite common to register to vote in Ohio without selecting a party affiliation. In 2000, only 32% of all registered voters actually belonged to a particular party. But of those 7.5m registered voters, 1.4m were Republicans, whereas just 1.0m were Dems. What's more, both of Ohio's Senators, 12 of 18 Congressmen and the Governor are all Republicans. And Bill Clinton never cracked 50% here - Ross Perot pulled down sizable chunks of the vote both times, letting Clinton carry the state. The anecdotal evidence also looks bad: Commenters all note that the state Democratic Party is in disarray. Considering that Jerry Springer was even remotely considered a viable Senate candidate, this claim seems bleakly accurate.
But is the situation truly that bad for Democrats? It seems that everywhere you go, Bush's approval ratings have dropped dramatically in the last half year, and Ohio is no exception. According to the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll (PDF), Bush's approve/disapprove numbers were a lofty 76/20 back in April. As of September, those numbers had plummeted to 55/43 - you can almost hear that kerplunk. Indeed, this is the lowest approval rating Bush has gotten from Ohioans during his presidency, and a majority now disapprove of his handling of the economy. Furthermore, Republican Gov. Bob Taft (PDF) has a lousy approval rating of 44%. Of course, Governors everywhere have been taking hits lately, but Taft's approval was regularly in the 60s last year, so this decline seems particularly bad. I can't interpret these trends as representing anything other than anger at incumbents. Out in California, the target of this wrath may have been a Democrat, but if my take is correct, these sentiments are going to hurt the party in power all around - and nationally speaking, that party is the GOP.
(And in case you were curious, Sen. George Voinovich is up for re-election next year. Polls show him with a sizable lead (PDF) so far, but his likely opponent, State Sen. Eric Fingerhut, only has about 50% name recognition.)
The sentiment in the comments is that the get-out-the-vote (GOTV) effort will be critical here for Democrats, as it often is. (Typically, for the GOP, suppressing voter turnout is advantageous.) My hope is that the amazing grassroots work currently going on in Howard Dean's name will continue through the general election season, whether or not he is the nominee. If we can sustain this kind of involvement, then we stand a fighting chance in Ohio. But I still think it remains a major uphill battle. The Democratic infrastructure is weak, and the Republicans remain the majority party by a substantial margin. Fortunately, we don't need Ohio in order to win, but I think we should definitely fight for it because we can't afford to be complacent about a single electoral vote.
Posted at 12:46 AM in Ohio | Technorati
Comments
nice job. i'm surprised by the low unemployment figures.
btw, i remember reading that cincinatti was gw's biggest fundraising hub.
sadly, i think ohio may be bush country.
Posted by: praktike at October 30, 2003 01:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks. The unemployment may be low relative to the rest of the country, but the delta (nearly 2 points, about a 50% increase) is pretty darn big.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 30, 2003 01:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
No republican has ever won the white house without winning Ohio.
There is absolutely no reasonable scenerio Bush wins without Ohio.
That said... its going to be tough no matter who the nominee is. If John Glenn were 10 yrs younger and still in the Senate he'd be a perfect running mate (national security/military experience, etc.)
Posted by: jgkojak at October 30, 2003 11:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It sounds as if we will have to have a landslide brewing anyway to really crack Ohio.
However, if we can force the Republicans to expend resources to keep Ohio, that would be good. Cheap grassroots organizing and non-affliated activism is critical for this.
Posted by: Luke Francl at October 30, 2003 11:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's an interesting tidbit. The progressive percentage (Gore+Nader) in Ohio is the closest to victory of any Red state except NH and FL (where it is greater than the conservative vote -- i.e., Nader "cost" Gore those states).
Posted by: Luke Francl at October 30, 2003 11:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I was looking at the Ohio county by county votes for the last few presidential elections which can be found at http://www.uselectionatlas.org . Some random observations: Democrats' greatest stronghold in Ohio obvious comes from the Cleveland/Akron/Youngstown area and the surrounding counties in the northeastern corner of the state. In recent elections, democratic candidates have also consistently won Franklin (metro Columbus), Montgomery (metro Dayton), Clark (Springfield), Lucas (Metro Toledo), and Athens (the rural home of Ohio U.) Counties. Democrats also consistently take the sparcely populated WV border counties of Jefferson, Belmont, and Monroe. Democrats have never gotten any traction in Republican Cincinnati, even in Hamilton county, home to many minorities and Ohio's second largest university. The cornfield country of rural western and central Ohio is also consistantly Republican. When Clinton won Ohio in 1996 and 1992, he got some help from Ross Perot but managed to win several counties that voted Bush in 2000. These include almost all of eastern Ohio, several northeastern counties (Seneca, Huron, Sandusky, Wood) and a group of South Central Ohio counties (Lawrence, Scioto, Pike, Meigs, and several others). Does anyone have any thoughts about the demographic/economic makeup of these areas and if/how the 2004 dem candidate can get traction there? Interested in your thoughts.
Posted by: Falconer at October 30, 2003 01:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This page is particularly interesting. I think that may be what Falconer was looking at.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/peBOH.html
Posted by: praktike at October 30, 2003 01:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
However, if we can force the Republicans to expend resources to keep Ohio, that would be good. Cheap grassroots organizing and non-affliated activism is critical for this.
This is a very good overall point which I keep forgetting to mention. If the Dems can keep the grassroots mobilized, then we can force the Republicans to match that on-the-cheap mobilization with real hard dollars. Put another way: There are going to be a lot of Deaniacs, Clarkies and other assorted motived people who live in places like Ohio. They are going to work hard regardless of the odds, and regardless of whether they get much money or other direct support from the Dem campaign. The Republicans obviously won't have this same motivated grassroots army, and can only counter it by spending cash.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 30, 2003 02:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The fact that Perot managed to pull down enough of the vote to make a difference to Clinton says to me that there is broad support in Ohio for an "outsider" type. This could bode very well for Dean in that state.
Posted by: BJ Chavez at October 31, 2003 09:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Interesting comments. It is amazing to me just how clueless Eastern/California style Dems can be when discussing my home state. First, yes, Ohio is trending Republican, and has been for a while, but it is idiotic and moronic to think that GW will easily prevail in this state. If you do as DavidNYC says though, you are doomed, and we will win. The Deaniac ground network won't help here, because all grass roots (in general) are weak in Ohio compared to Mass., NY etc. The aggressive Bush-hating strategy will go over like a lead balloon, too. If you don't spend money in Ohio, you won't win, it is a very media driven state, and not nessisarily cable, either. Secondly, BJ's analysis is right on the money ... when you see those Perot votes, think outsider, think anti-trade etc. Dean can win Ohio, but they will have to be competitive in the Cleveland and Columbus suburbs. Think soccer Moms. Eastern Ohio used to have steel, back in Jimmy Carter's day. It's rubber and automotive component parts now. Forget about minorities in Ohio for the most part, although there is a growing hispanic and east african component (non-citizen though) in Columbus. Hocking county south, you can't grow cash crops, like soybean and corn, so it is more dairy. Think Dean can't find a pitch here (being from a dairy state), and you've got a whole in your head. In general, the state is pro-military, so the anti-war angle isn't a huge selling point, though it isn't lethal either.
Posted by: Mark at January 4, 2004 02:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If you do as DavidNYC says though, you are doomed, and we will win.
I didn't offer any strategy suggestions, so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Posted by: DavidNYC at January 4, 2004 08:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DavidNYC,
Yeah, it wasn't clear in my post. This is what I was refering to:
However, if we can force the Republicans to expend resources to keep Ohio, that would be good. Cheap grassroots organizing and non-affliated activism is critical for this.
This is a very good overall point which I keep forgetting to mention. If the Dems can keep the grassroots mobilized, then we can force the Republicans to match that on-the-cheap mobilization with real hard dollars. Put another way: There are going to be a lot of Deaniacs, Clarkies and other assorted motived people who live in places like Ohio. They are going to work hard regardless of the odds, and regardless of whether they get much money or other direct support from the Dem campaign. The Republicans obviously won't have this same motivated grassroots army, and can only counter it by spending cash.
See, this is exactly what the Dems have been doing in Ohio for years. Why doesn't it work? Well, because the state is trending republican. Let's take a look at what that means. What counties are losing population in Ohio? Montgomery, Trumball, Lucas, Mahoning, Hamilton, Franklin, and the biggest loser of all is Cuyahoga county. Of these counties, all but Hamilton are either democratic leaning, or massively democratic. Guess where the union grass-roots organizations, and hence Deanies/Clarkies, are? OK. What counties are gaining in population? Warren, Medina, Fairfield, Delaware, Clermont, and Butler. Basically, your suburban, heavily GOP counties. As you point out, there are 11.4 million in Ohio, and only 1.8 million of those people are minorities. So there is isn't a strong minority platform from which to launch. If the dems are gonna compete here, they have to get competitive in rural and suburban counties. It can be done, but it can't be done on the cheap. Mass media is essential for these types of environments.
Posted by: Mark at January 4, 2004 11:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
SE Ohio has a large marijuana vote, motivated for Clinton in '92, stayed home out of disapointment since. Used to be a major industry in Meigs and Athens, til it became a major focus of the Reagan crackdown.
Posted by: Ben Masel at January 16, 2004 05:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The marijuana vote in Meigs and Athens counties. That would be a good way to slit your throat ... especially considering that overall, voter turnout in Athens county is usually good, and it is heavily democratic anyway. Tell me how you are going to win in Logan county AND Meigs county, and then you have an idea. You won't find much pity for the poor, poor marijuana farmers among those struggling with their soybeans.
Posted by: Mark at January 18, 2004 08:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment