OH-02

by hilzoy

Is anyone besides me interested in the special election in Ohio? It's in Ohio's 2nd CD, and pits Paul Hackett, a Democrat, against Jean Schmidt, a Republican. From the Cook Political Report, cited on dKos:

"On its face, this heavily Republican district sure doesn't look like it should be any sort of bellwether. President Bush's 64 percent last year suggests that any Democrat has an enormous amount of ground to cover just to break even. (...) Only four Democrats currently represent districts equally or more Republican as this one: Chet Edwards (Texas-17/PVI:R+18), Jim Matheson (Utah-02/PVI:R+17), Gene Taylor (Miss.-04/PVI:R+16) and Earl Pomeroy (N.D.-At Large/PVI:R+13). Democrats win districts as Republican as this one only under the strangest of circumstances (...)

If Schmidt's victory margin is in double digits, this tells us that there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio right now. If the margin is say six to nine points for Schmidt, then there is a wind, but certainly no hurricane. A Schmidt win of less than five points should be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong, while a Hackett victory would be a devastating blow to the Ohio GOP."

Results of past Congressional races in this district (also from dKos):

2004: 72% to 28%
2002: 74% to 26%
2000: 74% to 23%
1998: 76% to 24%

According to the Swing State Project, which is posting results, as of 9:53, with 88.27% of the precincts counted, the vote was:

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 48811 49.55%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 49681 50.44%

The remaining precincts supposedly go Republican.

Comments

[SomeCallMeTim]

Fuck.

[hilzoy]

SCMT: posting rules aside, yeah. But think of it this way: if A Republican held a Democrat to this margin in, say, Cambridge MA, that would be a big, big deal.

I mean: as of now, the Republicans have lost 13 points over their 2004 presidential total in this district, and the margin since any of the last 4 congressional races has shrunk to, what, 2% of its former self.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Now all the Dems need are a bunch more pro-gun veterans willing to run TV ads that practically show them kissing GWB's posterior just before the election, and run them against GOP congressmen as inept as Schmidt, and they can lose a bunch more tight elections rather than getting blown out in them.

Good luck with that.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Sorry about the infraction, Hilzoy.

[hilzoy]

Not to worry ;) I understand the sentiment completely.

[hilzoy]

M. Scott: you mean like this?

"Hackett, a lawyer and Marine reservist who recently completed a seven-month tour in Iraq, has drawn national attention to the race with his flame-throwing assaults on Bush.

He was especially harsh of the president for his July 2003 “bring ’em on” comment about Iraqi insurgents, saying such talk merely “cheered on the enemy.”

“That’s the most incredibly stupid comment I’ve ever heard a president of the United States make,” Hackett told USA Today. Hackett has also referred to the president as “a chicken hawk ... a person who advocates war in a cavalier way.”

Also: the final results are in:

JEAN SCHMIDT 17320 58.09%
PAUL HACKETT 12439 41.72%

[hilzoy]

OOPS!!

Those were the results from the last, holdout county. The district-wide final results are:

Schmidt: 59,095 votes (52%)
Hackett: 55,091 votes (48%)

[lily]

This is a lesson for the Democratic Beltway insiders whose bad advice reduced Kerry's margin to the point that Republican cheating could steal the election. By the way, I didn't believe that Ohio's 04 Presidential election was fradulent until today (it has nothing to do with this race.) Harper's has an article that lays out in detail of the fraud and dirty tricks used by the Ohio Republican party before, during, and after voting day to manipulate the results; it's worth reading and would be worth a post here.

[Jackmormon]

Well, it always was a long shot in such a traditionally GOP district.

I would hope that this close an election would be a shot over the bow--but Schmidt really was a terrible candidate.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Hackett could now be recalled for duty in Iraq?

[Brian]

Hate to get all tinfoil hat on you but I think if there's any way they can get him sent back to Iraq it will happen.

I'm just up the road from OH-02. That a democrat could get this close is a near miracle, although the utterly charmless hack he was running against gave him a little help, I'm sure. Hope he runs in 2006.

Ohio is a corrupt one-party banana republic. I wouldn't trust the republicans that run this state to wash my car.

[M. Scott Eiland]

M. Scott: you mean like this?

No, actually--I mean like this:

President Bush (pictured): There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces.

Hackett: I agreed with that, and that’s what led me to serve and fight with my Marines in Iraq. Those words are a part of me. These young men and women, they get it! We’re going to help these people. We’re all over there because we think America is worth fighting for, and take responsibility for your actions. I think Washington, DC needs more of that type of leadership. I’m Paul Hackett, I approve this message, and I respectfully ask for your vote on August 2.

The site has the file for the TV ad, if you're inclined to watch it.

Pandering to the moonbats--then sneaking in some footage of GWB in a last-minute TV ad that somehow fails to mention that he's a Democrat. Yeah--there's a winning electoral strategy for Doctor Howie and his Merry Moonbat Minions in '06.

[hilzoy]

What an excellent name: I want to be one of the Merry Moonbat Minions!

[hilzoy]

As long as I get to keep on supporting Clark, that is.

[Jackmormon]

Do we know what the turnout was?

I've heard that special elections tend to have lowish turnout, that only the politically committed make it out; if that's true, then most likely voters would know that Hackett was a Democrat.

M. Scott, I agree that the ad is too clever by half for those of us who follow politics closely, but I think it's damned clever as ironic triangulation in this instance. Bush is a two-term President who has led us into two wars; for good or ill, most voters have a lot invested in him.

People who agree with him on most things will see this ad as unfair coopting, but they wouldn't ever cross party lines, so Dems can write them off. People who agree with Bush's grand moral pronouncements but have doubts about what has come of them might respond to such an invocation of the reigning idealism of our time. And yes, those who disagree with Bush and who see his idealistic pronouncement as hypocritical will respond to such an ad with bitter laughter and will vote Democratic with Bush-loathing in their blackened hearts.

A smart ad, I think.

[felixrayman]

Where have I seen this before, the veteran who despite being against a war volunteers to fight it, and those who claim the war is necessary but spend too much effort trying to smear the people fighting it to be able to find time to actually fight it themselves?

[M. Scott Eiland]

A smart ad, I think.

Perhaps, but IIRC the last prominent Democratic politician who tried to pull off a similar balancing act didn't come out too well in the end. Can't remember his name offhand--Dassel or Dashowle or something like that.

[John Thullen]

I see the Republican Party sends its brave good winners far and wide, even here, to put some bullets in the wounded. Too bad we didn't get the bwa-ha-ha. No doubt the big swinging dicks will stop in and help Eiland with his limp offerings.

Hey, what I like is that Ohio Republicans want to cut their taxes even more and not pay for Hackett's tour of duty in Iraq.

Zero taxes, lots of guns. I hope Doctor Howie has only those two planks in the Democratic platform for 2006 and 2008.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Zero taxes, lots of guns. I hope Doctor Howie has only those two planks in the Democratic platform for 2006 and 2008.

Doubtful--he's probably too busy practicing cramming his foot in his mouth and conferring with Harry Reid on the strategy of "making up stuff about the Supreme Court" to be concerned with little niceties such as coming up with a party platform.

[felixrayman]

Perhaps, but IIRC the last prominent Democratic politician who tried to pull off a similar balancing act didn't come out too well in the end

Yes, but that was before the sneaky Democrats discovered that a large number of Republicans are unable to tell from looking at a ballot which of the candidates is a Republican. Years of underfunding education will do that, you know.

[John Thullen]

Yes, but I sense "no taxes and lots of guns" might make Eiland into a swing voter. Those testosterone surges you experience can cause problems down the road.

[John Thullen]

Yes, but I sense "no taxes and lots of guns" might make Eiland into a swing voter. Those testosterone surges you experience can cause problems down the road. I'd take it easy on the victory lap.

[John Thullen]

This is fun.

[glenn]

Hilzoy,

"posting rules aside"

Instead of calling them rules they should be renamed to strong suggestions.

Lily,

Your analysis is almost right. There was fraud.

Report: Dem. operatives 'far more involved' in voter intimidation, suppression in 2004

U.S. Newswire
Aug. 2, 2005 08:46 AM

The report finds that paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election. Examples include paid Democrat operatives charged with slashing tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee and an Ohio court order stopping Democrat operatives from calling voters telling them the wrong date for the election and faulty polling place information.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0802votefraud02.html>http://www.azcenrtal.com

[M. Scott Eiland]

Well, it's certainly more healthy than drinking yourself blind and groping the household help: you might want to clue Captain Teddy in on your new source of entertainment--you'll want to keep him healthy long enough for him to write his sequel to the "Robert Bork's America" floor speech in time for the Roberts hearings.

[rilkefan]

Apropos of nothing, the archived 2004/11 posts are broken in Firefox.

[John Thullen]

What Rilkefan said.

[felixrayman]

Well, it's certainly more healthy than drinking yourself blind and groping the household help

Do you know this firsthand or from a Bush biography?

[hilzoy]

By 'broken', do you mean that they appear all blue and you have to go halfway down the page to find the text, which is black on blue but still, in a vague way, readable, or something else? If the former, it's yet another annoying consequence of the TypePad so-gennant "upgrade"

(pause for the hysterical laughter to die down)

Actually, it did bring comment links, so it wasn't all bad.

[Katherine]

Glenn, the group who did that report is run by the general">http://www.lathropgage.com/people/bio.aspx?bioid=8185">general counsel for the Bush/Cheney reelection campaign. They are not exactly independent.

As for Hackett--damn, but good for him. I didn't expect it to be anywhere near this close. Maybe in 2006.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Out of not-quite-random curiosity, am I right in assuming that the DLC did exactly nothing with regard to Hackett?

[Nell]

SCMTim, the DLC isn't really a campaign-resource organization, except in a very big-picture, think-tank way (and for access to corporate fundraising). You may be thinking about the Dem. Congressional Campaign Committee, whose job it is to support House races?

They stayed out until this week because the district is so Republican. The kind of thinking that makes a bit of sense in general elections, when some triage has to be done, but none at all in a special election, when there's everything to gain and the whole blue country's resources are available.

The effectiveness of Hackett's own campaign plus the boost from the net activists got the DCCC off their rears. Just as well the DC cavalry came so late, IMO; their help in some areas is not so helpful, and would have drawn national GOP countermeasures sooner. That they did ultimately pitch in helps keep finger-pointing to a minimum, and yet (a good thing in my book) DCCC can't claim much credit for the success.

The timing of this is excellent, encouraging high-quality potential House candidates to take the plunge just at the moment when any serious candidate has to start planning.

[Nell]

As a Dem activist in a rural red county that got redder last fall, I'm especially cheered by the fact that Hackett made the sharpest gains in the rural parts of the district.

I can't help but think it has something to do with the divide between the voters whose neighbors and nephews and sisters-in-law have come back from Iraq missing parts of their bodies and minds -- and the suburban voters whose ribbon magnets have begun to fade to a pale lemon sherbet color.

[Phil]

Uh, just for the record, Glenn, U.S. Newswire is not a news reporting service. They're a press release distribution service dealing primarily with the government and nonprofit sectors, and they'll distribute paid news releases from their clients without regards to content -- and they certainly don't fact-check them. None of the press release wires do.

[bob mcmanus]

Too Close for Comfort

Billmon crunches numbers and munbles darkly.
We gotta be nice and assume the best of our honourable opposition, huh? And lose close races over and over and over.

[John Thullen]

I think what Glenn has done is distinquish truth from the New York Times. One winky face to Glenn.

Truth, I tell you.

[glenn]

Denial of the source is quite an impressive defense. Maybe we can apply that same logic to Joe Wilson.

No, I guess that wouldn't fit into our little paradigm here.

[glenn]

Denial of the source is quite an impressive defense. Maybe we can apply that same logic to Joe Wilson.

No, I guess that wouldn't fit into our little paradigm here.

[Charles Bird]

Kos Kid KO'd again. Add one more loss to his 0-and-12 record. A close vote, but Schmidt got 52%. That said, Redstaters aren't too happy with the increasingly less conservative Republicans in Ohio.

[hilzoy]

Republican percentage of votes, OH-02 Congressional elections, 1998-2005: 76, 74, 74, 72, 52.

I like the trend.

More to the point, I like the strategy of making the Republicans compete in every district.

[cleek]

That said, Redstaters aren't too happy with the increasingly less conservative Republicans in Ohio

time to purge the party of the unbelievers

[Nell]

Charles's little icky shuffle in the end zone overlooks the way in which Kos-supported candidates have been selected: long shots who need the help that stuck-in-the-mud Beltway Dems won't give them.

Every such race builds organization, develops activists, inspires other good candidates. But keep sneering, CB.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Republican percentage of votes, OH-02 Congressional elections, 1998-2005: 76, 74, 74, 72, 52.

I like the trend.

More to the point, I like the strategy of making the Republicans compete in every district.

I'm not sure you can put too much faith in the last data point. Off season elections are almost always dominated by voters other than the typical voter. (That is why the teachers union in California loves to have off season school board elections--they can completely dominate an election with dramatically reduced turnout). In this particular instance, the Democratic Party put about as much money and influence as is practically available into a single off-season election. I expect it to revert to the norm in a normal election.

[Gromit]

OT, but Katherine, am I to take it you got banned from Redstate? If so, let me be the first to offer my congratulations.

[Blue Neponset]

It is difficult to spin this as a meaningless, interim election from which we should not draw any conclusions, but that isn't stopping the Republics from trying.

Sebastian Writes:

"I'm not sure you can put too much faith in the last data point. Off season elections are almost always dominated by voters other than the typical voter."

What does a non-'typical' voter in a 74% Republic district look like?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"What does a non-'typical' voter in a 74% Republic district look like?"

In this election he looks like a Democrat who has been targetted with an enormous number of mailings and personal telephone contacts.

Be heartened by the result if you want, I'm not totally dismissing it. But the idea that off season elections do not typcially have the same cross-section of voters as regular elections is rather uncontroversial. The school board example in California is typical. Somewhere in the San Diego Union Tribune at the time of the last off-season school board election the CTA reported a turnout from their members that represented 65% of the total. Teachers don't represent 65% of the total in a normal election. If this had been a targetted district during a normal election I would be worried. As it is, it is worth noting to revisit later.

[felixrayman]

As it is, it is worth noting to revisit later.

Ah, the power of wishful thinking. Suppose a Republican came within 4 points of winning in Berkeley in an off season election, after the Democrats had said they were going to "bury" that candidate. Does any here think Sebastian would have the same nonchalant response?

There's a reason a Democrat can compete in one of the most heavily Republican districts in the country. Look at Bush's poll ratings. People are finally realizing what an incompetent, corrupt, evil and petty administration is in power. And it's about damn time they did.

[bob mcmanus]

"OT, but Katherine, am I to take it you got banned from Redstate? If so, let me be the first to offer my congratulations."

Reading the post, I would have banned her myself. It was a pleasure to read, but Marcotte over at Pandagon could out-outrage that in her sleep. Marcotte still scares me some, but she is a great addition to the blogosphere, and I am moving ever closer to her positions.

To heck with embryonic ensoulment calculations. It is all about that foot on the neck.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Does any here think Sebastian would have the same nonchalant response?"

Think what you want. I'm fairly certain if I wanted to I could find an off season election that looks weird for Democrats, but it seems like a waste of time to me. I note that some on the left are now talking about this election as being stolen from Democrats (See comments, and lots of them). (eyes rolling)

[votermom]

Well, I, for one, and I am unanimous in this, want a recount!

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The total votes in this election were 112,375. The total votes in 2004 were 308,941. So this was only about 36% of the normal turnout. As such if Democratic voters had a higher turnout than normal (or I suppose more likely a lesser reduction from normal turnout), when compared with the average voter, it would explain most of the difference.

[felixrayman]

Or maybe Republicans had higher turnout than normal:

Republicans viewed Mr. Hackett's attacks as a call to arms, and they poured money and resources into the district to ensure his defeat. Mr. Bush taped a telephone message to voters, and the National Republican Congressional Committee bought $325,000 in air time for a television spot this past weekend.

Perhaps most important, the Republican organization in Clermont County, Ms. Schmidt's base, turned out voters in greater numbers than expected, pushing her over the top.
-NYT

Although I appreciate your statistics comparing a midterm off-season special election's turnout with a Presidential election's turnout. Very amusing. Now can you compare this midterm off-season special election's turnout with another midterm off-season special election's turnout?

I can see why you are trying to convince yourself that the results don't mean anything though. With a President hitting new lows of support every week, a war that the public is turning against, a political leadership that is corrupt, an administration that puts character assassination over national security and is pro-torture, that panders to gay-bashers and religious extremists and has the worst record on jobs in almost a century, and is running up deficits as far as the eye can see, I understand why you're nervous. What exactly do you see in that record that makes you proud to be a Republican?

Voters in Ohio are nervous, too, evidently.

[Blue Neponset]

if Democratic voters had a higher turnout than normal ... it would explain most of the difference

So it is normal, in an interim election, for one party to get almost twice the number of votes they normally would? I am a relative newcomer to politics, but that just doesn't seem intuitively correct to me.

I might be able to buy that if the Repubs had essentially ignored this election but they didn't.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

My experience with local elections is such that yes, the more radicalized voters turn out for special elections. That is the experience pretty much everywhere. I'm not saying that these results should be discounted. I'm saying that they probably aren't a bellweather.

[st]

Margin of victory in 2002: 48%
Margin of victory in 2004: 44%
Margin of victory in 2005: 4%

Spin it any way you want.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Combine lack of incumbent advantage (with an especially popular and allegedly charismatic incumbent in the previous races) with the off term election phenomenon (extremist voters) with the fact that the any President's party tends to do slightly worse in the off term elections (well except for the last Bush midterm where Republicans gained) with the fact that the Democratic machine tried (and failed) to make an example here, and you don't have an overwhelming story. No spin necessary.

Once again, I'm not saying that it isn't mildly interesting. It is. But the Democrats can't focus all their effort on one district when the whole country is in play.

[Nell]

It's pretty much impossible that there weren't a large number of previously Republican voters who made a protest vote in this election -- and such a vote was safe to make because of the unlikelihood that the Democrat would actually win.

To that limited extent, I'll agree with SH that you can't just take OH-2 to mean that we will sweep all before us in the midterms. But it sure as hell means that voters feel there's something to protest about...

[felixrayman]

Combine lack of incumbent advantage

The last time a non-incumbemt Republican ran in the district, he won by 40+ points. This one won by 4 points. See the difference?

with the off term election phenomenon (extremist voters)

From the above unanswered NYT article: "Perhaps most important, the Republican organization in Clermont County, Ms. Schmidt's base, turned out voters in greater numbers than expected". So yes, extremist Republican voters. Yet the Democrat still gained 40 points on the previous showing.

with the fact that the any President's party tends to do slightly worse in the off term elections (well except for the last Bush midterm where Republicans gained)

So they do a little bit worse except when they don't. Mmhm. Got anything that says "the President's party tends to do 40 points or so worse in off term elections in districts where his support is usually strongest"? No?

with the fact that the Democratic machine tried (and failed) to make an example here

The Republicans said they were going to "bury" Hackett. From the NYT cite: "Republicans viewed Mr. Hackett's attacks as a call to arms, and they poured money and resources into the district to ensure his defeat. Mr. Bush taped a telephone message to voters, and the National Republican Congressional Committee bought $325,000 in air time for a television spot this past weekend". Who was trying to make an example here?

Anyway, it's good that the Republicans are going to stay complacent and ignore the wake-up call that just got sent here...

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Perhaps most important, the Republican organization in Clermont County, Ms. Schmidt's base, turned out voters in greater numbers than expected"

Anyone want to define 'expected'?

[wmr]

I think we should all leave Sebastian alone. The more people he convinces, the better for all of us in 2006.

[felixrayman]

Agreed, wmr.

Sebastian: These aren't the wake-up calls you are looking for. Move along.

[Blue Neponset]

Sebastian,

Here is a link to an article from the WaPo that includes Newt Gingrich's reaction to the OH-02 election.

WaPo Article

Newty says:

"It should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans, and I certainly take it very seriously in analyzing how the public mood evidences itself," Gingrich said. "Who is willing to show up and vote is different than who answers a public opinion poll. Clearly, there's a pretty strong signal for Republicans thinking about 2006 that they need to do some very serious planning and not just assume that everything is going to be automatically okay."

And Newt goes on to say:

"There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas-price, anti-changing-Social Security and I think anti-Washington [side]," he said. "I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats. . . . I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think. If we don't think now, then next September [2006], people will panic when it's too late."

Do Newt's opinions have any sway on yours?