Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > June > 17 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Why are Ohio Democrats still hanging in there?
Imagine a law that said you couldn’t divorce your second spouse unless you were willing to go back to your first, whom you already divorced.
That’s the situation of voters today. They divorced the Republicans only two years ago — or, let’s say, separated — citing insufficient economic support. But now they are dissatisfied with the Democrats.
But they don’t have the option of rejecting both.
The two-party system has its merits. But this business of holding elections every two years plays to its weaknesses. The system makes the ex the only alternative to the incumbents at a time when the wounds of an ugly parting may not have healed.
Maybe that’s why Democratic candidates in Ohio’s biggest pending elections are holding their own in polls so far. In a swing state, in a year when all the advantages appear to accrue to the party that’s not in power in Washington and Columbus, the races for governor and senator are rough ties. Sometimes they show little Democratic leads.
Voters in some other, similar states seem readier to kiss and make up with the Republicans. Here’s one measure of the national situation:
The nonpartisan website RealClearPolitics says 20 governorships are open; the Rs look clearly stronger in 10, and the Ds in only 3.
In Michigan, where the governorship is open, all the Republican candidates lead all the Democrats. In Florida, also with an open governorship, a Republican is ahead. In Illinois, a Democratic governor is running behind.
Or look at Senate races where the seat is open, as in Ohio. A Democrat is leaving in Indiana, and a Republican has the lead to replace him, though that Republican, former Senator Dan Coats, has some decided political flaws. In Democratic Delaware, a Republican is leading to replace Joe Biden.
So why are the Ohio Democrats holding up so well?
Some analysts have been saying that one Republican problem is that their candidates, Rob Portman for the open Senate seat, and John Kasich for governor, are unknown to a lot of voters.
In fact, though, they’re as well known as a lot of candidates who are leading. Often, largely unknown challengers get embraced in polls until something negative about them surfaces.
Of course, the Democrats have been more than willing to surface Republican negatives: Portman is a Bushie and Kasich is a Wall Streeter.
But how many voters are paying attention is unclear. And, after all, it’s a bit awkward to argue that votes don’t know who Portman and Kasich are but that voters know the case against those candidates.
Most likely, the Republicans’ fundamental problem is, after all, the 2008 break-up and its ugliness.
If that hasn’t hurt them as much as elsewhere in Ohio, the explanation is probably local factors. In Michigan, the Democrats have run the state government longer. In Illinois, the Democrats have been plagued by scandal.
Perhaps the way to put it is this: In 2010, the Democrats are the party with no margin for error.
But if they put up candidates with the right qualifications and no great personal blemishes, they can be competitive by keeping some attention focused on the fact that the Republicans were not born in 2009, that they are not governmental virgins.
In the long run, Democratic Senate candidate Lee Fisher seems to have a tougher job than Gov. Ted Strickland, notwithstanding all the problems that incumbents have had in primaries this year.
Historically, voters have tended to offset a new president’s power the first chance they get, electing legislators of the other party. (Whereas, of course, they tend to re-elect governors.)
The fact that Fisher is hanging in there so far — having an average lead of 1.3 percent in three polls tracked by RealClearPolitics — suggests that all is not yet forgotten between voters and Republicans.
Fisher, having been the chief jobs guy in Ohio in years that will go down in history for the numbers of jobs lost, should be glad that the voters’ ex is still in the picture, for purposes of comparison.
He should, in other words, be having warm thoughts about the two-party system. Three could be a problem.
Permalink | Comments (31) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio politics
Comments
By Max
June 17, 2010 11:08 PM | Link to this
Martin, I agree with your assessment and with the two-party system being what it is I think you are making a critical error of omission; the Independents. They are the equalizers when Democrats outnumber Republicans. The Independents are more open to the unknowns. As I read the DDN blogs as I am sure you have there is a vocal two-party voice which is easy to quantify regardless of argumentive quality. No one, today, can win an election without carrying the Independent vote. Strickland is at a disadvantage and Kasich hasn’t exploited it yet with Indies. By September, Kasich will have a 10 point lead in the polls. September is, politically, a critical month when most voters have made up their minds and just endure the TV ads like a Jamie Simpson weather alert. With all due respect, Martin, this race is not going to be as complicated or interesting as you make it. I wish that wasn’t so but Strickland cannot seduce the Indies who hold the incumbent to a higher standard of performance.
By Say What?
June 18, 2010 8:04 AM | Link to this
But the Independents have never carried any election in Ohio. While they are important swing voters, they don’t drive any political decisions. Like that annoying ugly cousin who tags along but never gets any dates…
By J
June 18, 2010 8:38 AM | Link to this
Treating the independent voters like it’s another block, Max, is a serious mistake. They constitute a wide range from the too-extreme for the main parties in either direction to just plain indecisive. What you’re really starting to see is the re-localization of the process. The national party powers that used to dominate the entire arena are losing control. It’s a starting point to break the hold of the special interests, but only a tiny start. I will never be a fan of the two party system, however. It’s a parasitic, symbiotic, self-sustaining cesspool of corrupting processes. At every level, good politicians must compete financially to compete at all, making them vulnerable. Public financing is no cure, since it puts everyone in the position of supporting someone they disagree with. I’m hoping the Tea Party can make an actual break from the GOP and start us on a path of clearer viewpoints. Maybe they can get the lobby system and campaign finance fiasco fixed. Then again… Does politics corrupt, or does it attract and recruit those of low ethical and moral standards? It’s a chicken-egg question.
By Jim
June 18, 2010 8:56 AM | Link to this
The Republicans continue to embrace the Tea Party and their extreme right wing views, which is enough to keep me an entrenched Democrat. Any Party who would run a moron like Sarah Palin for VP lacks credibility in my book. I’m tired of Republican cynicism.
By Yahoo
June 18, 2010 8:56 AM | Link to this
Or of course Martin, It could be that the liberal RAGS, like DDN, keep publishing twisted and unfounded allegations against Republican Candidates, while deflecting all shots at the DEMS, Case in point, the ridiculas article yesterday against Boehner, alleging impropriety for his ownership of stock in BP. Like there are no DEM candidates that own stock in oil. You see Martin, as long as the NEWSPAPERS continue to cater and cow tow to the DEMS, they will always have an advantage. I went back over the last 3 moths of political articles published by this newspaper, unsurprisingly, 68% were anti republican/republican platforms, while25% were Anti Democrat/Democrat platforms. The remaining 7% were down the line. Take a look from inside Martin, you will find your reasons
By Jim
June 18, 2010 9:06 AM | Link to this
@Yahoo, Are talking about the fact that Rand Paul thinks private companies have the right to segregate lunch counters, or that Sharon Angle wants to abolish the Dept. of Education, shut down the IRS, and abolish SS? The Republican party is being hijacked by a bunch of club for growth wingnuts and it’s going to drive the rational independents right to the Dems.
By Raoul
June 18, 2010 9:11 AM | Link to this
Maybe we are seeing a re-shuffling of the party decks. It seems Moderates are the real new voter block, attracting both Dems and Republicans. Part of that group is the Tea Party. People want jobs and a future that they can believe in. The Dems want to coddle and cajole their voting base with extension of entitlments and unemployment compensation. The GOP is willing to inflict pain in order to establish a strong foothold to spring from. I think that is the wiser choice right now, and the Moderates will eventually line up with them. Remember Carter vs. Reagan?
By Jim
June 18, 2010 9:23 AM | Link to this
@Raoul, “People want jobs and a future that they can believe in” Lets not forget about Carly Fiorina out California. She was paid $100 million as CEO of HP, while sending almost 30,000 American jobs to China. You’re right. The GOP knows how to inflict pain on Americas working class.
By Yahoo
June 18, 2010 10:16 AM | Link to this
Since STATES determine school agendas, I have no problem abolishing the DOE, which has done NOTHING sustantial for the Education of american youths outside of lowering standards. Jim forgets NAFTA, that Clinton clinton signed, has caused a heck of a lot more exodus of American jobs than a CEO who is beholden to the STOCKHOLDERS of the corporation. And of course Jim also skews Pauls comments, like a typical liberal nut job does. I guess Jim forgets Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and the MAJORITY of DEM Senators/congressmen voted AGAIST the Civil rights bill… Another case of a liberal left wing zombie using DEM talking points that have been proven time and again to be false. But, that is what alinsky said…Lie lie lie until they believe the lie…
By bobby
June 18, 2010 10:55 AM | Link to this
What are Lee Fisher’s credentials to represent the people of Ohio? Do we reallly need TWO senators that have no private sector experience and are beholden to unions and public service workers?
By Max
June 18, 2010 12:04 PM | Link to this
No, I’m not suggesting Independents are a ‘block’ to be targeted, they are, however, the wild card in closely contested races. In Ohio - this year may be an exception for obvious reasons - the Independents generally follow incumbents. Raoul makes a good point in that Independents may be better defined as combined ‘moderates’ which means crossing party lines for some. I am not seeing Strickland address the moderates/Independents which, I think will be the swing vote in this race. Yes, it’s early but for things to be this close with Democrats comprising a majority of the electorate, I think Kasich holds an advantage. Again, how he exploits that will be interesting. I’m interested in how far to the middle he can go without sounding like Strickland.
By Max
June 18, 2010 12:12 PM | Link to this
Kasich CANNOT run against Strickland with a promise to fix Ohio’s economy; voters know this is a national problem. Kasich CAN run on state issues such as school funding and tax revenue (this one has yet to be defined by Kasich). Schools and taxes are Strickland’s weakness with a record to support it. How much of that is his fault doesn’t matter; he’s at the helm. Also, Ohio is currently in a deficit projected to be $8-billion. How does Kasich address this without Fed. help? That’s the nut he has to crack.
By Max
June 18, 2010 12:23 PM | Link to this
J: Again, I didn’t mean to treat Independents as a block but as moderates and Indies generally share the same parking lot it’s a mistake for either candidate to go to party line extremes. Your view of national party influence in local elections is spot on! I don’t see the Tea Party tipping the scales either way because kasich stands more to lose than gain. The same could be said about Obama helping Strickland at this point; it’s ill-timed help Strickland may be wise to postpone until the Gulf settles. There are some very unhappy Democrats, but that’s not news.LOL
By dale1
June 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Link to this
Jim how ironic you calling SP stupid. Look who you voted into office. Obama is so unqualified to be president and he could have never of done the job SP did in Alaska. The CEO of HP saved the commpany by sending jobs overseas. I’m sorry but I’m not for paying twice the amount for a product so the union workers can have an over paid job and so the liberals can continue to buy their votes. If it were not for sending jobs overseas you would be paying $200 for a pair of levie jeans. Today clothes cost the same they did 30 years ago because we sent the jobs over seas. I know what I’m talking about because my family worked in the apparel industry.
By Leslie
June 18, 2010 3:05 PM | Link to this
First of this is not politics like usual. There has been an awakening. The democrat party is not the democrat party of your parents. And neither are the republicans. It is not longer about the party. It is now about the person. We have been lied to by people in both parties. The American people are not stupid and they are fed up with being lied to. Nothing matters until the fall. The media can spin and twist all summer. Come this full we will be out in force to inform the populace and shoot down the lies.
By Jim
June 18, 2010 4:08 PM | Link to this
I see Yahoo and Dale1 are both terribly misguided again. What a surprise. Dale,Carley Fiorina didn’t save HP. When she took over as CEO, HP’s stock was $52 a share. When they fired her, it was $21 a share. She was a terrible CEO by all standards. Secondly, any rational person can see that Sarah Palin is an uniformed, rambling bimbo. If you can’t recognize her idiocy, then you’re a moron too. She’s one Clueless person, and no business on the national stage. And yahoo needs a history lesson on civil rights if he thinks Ted Kennedy was in opposition to the civil rights act. It was Jack Kennedy and his AG, Bobby Kennedy who laid the ground work for the civil rights movement. Ted didn’t vote in opposition to his brothers. Look it up. And while NAFTA was signed by Clinton, the framework for the bill was all laid out under GHW Bush. They were both wrong. And I’m hardly skewing Rand Pauls comments. He made it clear in several interviews that the federal government has no business telling a private eatery who they can or can’t serve. Yahoo, you need to lose the idealism of your parents, and learn to THINK for yourself.
By Jim
June 18, 2010 4:12 PM | Link to this
I see Yahoo and Dale1 are both terribly misguided again. What a surprise. Dale,Carley Fiorina didn’t save HP. When she took over as CEO, HP’s stock was $52 a share. When they fired her, it was $21 a share. She was a terrible CEO by all standards. Secondly, any rational person can see that Sarah Palin is an uniformed, rambling bimbo. If you can’t recognize her idiocy, then you’re a moron too. She’s one Clueless person, and no business on the national stage. And yahoo needs a history lesson on civil rights if he thinks Ted Kennedy was in opposition to the civil rights act. It was Jack Kennedy and his AG, Bobby Kennedy who laid the ground work for the civil rights movement. Ted didn’t vote in opposition to his brothers. Look it up. And while NAFTA was signed by Clinton, the framework for the bill was all laid out under GHW Bush. They were both wrong. And I’m hardly skewing Rand Pauls comments. He made it clear in several interviews that the federal government has no business telling a private eatery who they can or can’t serve. Yahoo, you need to lose the idealism of your parents, and learn to THINK for yourself.
By Jim Forgets?
June 18, 2010 4:26 PM | Link to this
@Yahoo, “I guess Jim forgets Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, and the MAJORITY of DEM Senators/congressmen voted AGAINST the Civil rights bill… “ I have to call you out on this one. Al Gore was elected to the US House in 1977, a mere 13 years after the civil rights bill was passed. And Ted Kennedy was a champion in support of the bill along with his brothers. You sir, have no idea of what you’re talking about.
By Jim
June 18, 2010 4:55 PM | Link to this
@Dale1,”Obama is so unqualified to be president and he could have never of done the job SP did in Alaska.” Really? What job? Like quitting after 18 months? A state smaller then Metro Dayton that’s flooded with federal money? Ethics investigations, bridge to nowhere, banning books, praying away gay, Ebay lie, etc…. Thanks, but no thanks to SP. BTW, there are plenty of very smart Republican women out there who I could easily support, but not SP. And I don’t see how you came to the conclusion Obama is unqualified. He has a BA from Columbia, JD from Harvard Law, (Magna c*m Laude) taught constitutional law at the University Of Chicago for 17 years, was a Illinois stare Rep for years, and a US Senator. That’s unqualified? Obama has forgotten more than Sarah Palin or McCain will ever know.
By J
June 18, 2010 5:53 PM | Link to this
Max: I don’t see this, so far, as a failure of Kasich to exploit Strickland’s weaknesses. If there is a voting trend, it’s not anti-incumbent, but anti-establishment. Kasich, like it or not, can be tagged as being establishment, given that Wall St. is seens to be as big a problem as D.C. and just as much entrenched establishment. I saw him this morning and he said that voters don’t have a problem with people getting wealthy, and he’s right. Problem is, we like it if that wealth is earned ethically and morally, and very few think those are Wall St. traits. Hence, his book. Interesting how it was released recently, just in time and written exactly to counter those concerns. Basically, it seems we are stuck with the choice of the lesser of two evils. A direct result of the system WE kept voting in again and again. This is what an uninformed and apathetic electorate gets.
By Jesse
June 18, 2010 10:10 PM | Link to this
Right is right and wrong is wrong. Our elected officials are working for the MONEY and not us. How we change this I am unsure, but we all know the problem, and it has to change!!
By Jim Forgets Forgets again
June 19, 2010 9:58 AM | Link to this
Sorry Jim Forgets. The Senator before the Al Gore we know, was Al Gore Sr. who did vote against the civil rights bill.
By Max
June 19, 2010 10:18 AM | Link to this
J: I am watching Kasich’s strategy not necessarily what he says or writes. It was Boehner, not Kasich, who got the GOP response ink to the Obama visit. I think this is great strategy; when the news is bad, keep it attached at the hip of the incumbent opponent. That is a great strategy. But, to what degree Kasich worked the Wall St. circuit remains questionable. Essentially, he used connections in Ohio to introduce unions/retirement managers to investment firms. I don’t think he actually was involved in the banking/derivatives/hedge fund decisions. But, as resumes go, when things are going well one claims more responsibility for the successes and, conversely, distances oneself when the heat is applied. That is just an industry standard of ethics. His stint with Fox, on the other hand, showed he just wasn’t as far to the right as Fox, and others, perceived. As an Independent moderate I do think we have to apply some pragmatism to clear the red ink in Ohio. If, as you say, it’s a matter of the lesser of two evils, I think Kasich (for now) may not be all that likeable, but he has demonstrated he is a ‘bean counter’ and I think that is what’s needed. Most people ‘liked’ Jimmy Carter but he was a train wreck as President. But, J, that the polls are this close now does show a momentum favoring Kasich and there won’t be any bounce there no matter how many times Obama visits Ohio. Remember, Obama carried Ohio with 51% of the vote; ‘not exactly a mandate.
By Max
June 19, 2010 10:48 AM | Link to this
J: The ethics issue has to be looked at from a ‘holistic’ position. Lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, politicians, teachers, parents, soldiers, and virtually anyone in a position of influence have ethical issues confronting them daily. What we see in the ethics of Wall St. and D.C. is merely a reflectiuon of our own ethics and those we tolerate. Again, when times are good there is less scrutiny than when times are bad. The media has extreme ethical conflicts such as the DDN reporting Boehner’s required financial disclosure of his BP stock purchase in December 2009. The report was dry but the innuendo was slick. I agree liberties were taken on Wall St. the SEC should have noticed. But, what Lehman and Goldman-Sachs did, by rules of the time, was not illegal in the sense of Madoff. If we think about it, all the ‘czars’ Obama has appointed essentially are there to instill confidence through an ‘ethical’ mandate in their respective fields. We pass laws, presumably, that are a reflection of the nation’s - and Ohio’s - ethical and moral values which do change through time. However, our judicial system is tasked with applying and interpreting the laws which considers the laws’ ‘letter’ and ‘intent.’ Is it then ‘ethical’ for attorneys to have a client who is guilty of both the letter and intent of the law, and, due to a procedural technicality get a mistrial or acquittal? I don’t know the answer but this is an example of the depth of the ethical conflicts we see and read about daily. Was it ethical for the air traffic controllers to strike in the early 80’? Science’s stem cell research also has ethical pot holes. So, J, I think to place an indictment of all of the financial sector based upon ethical grounds is an outlet for frustration but is it just a reaction to the symptom or the disease? I’m just opening the question.
By Max
June 19, 2010 11:01 AM | Link to this
JIM: “Secondly, any rational person can see that Sarah Palin is an uniformed, rambling bimbo.”——Jim, sir, you give Mrs. Palin far more credit, by mentioning her, than she deserves. You just have to check out her website and her appearance fees, transportation, and accomodations requirements. With all this she can’t sing, cook, dance, or play an instrument. All this is the reward our collective ethics tolerate from one who walks off her elected job to avoid indictment. McCain is paying dearly in Arizona and rightly so…..
By Max
June 19, 2010 11:12 AM | Link to this
M.Gottlieb: “But how many voters are paying attention is unclear.”——-Martin, with Democrats it’s ALWAYS clear; they have family food fights at the Thanksgiving table and still have the same feast the following year as if nothing happened. Strickland stands to lose the moderate Demmies this time around based upon, if nothing else, the school funding cuts. He cannot win by losing 5% of the Demmie vote which includes many Ohioans affected by school levies. He cannot win if the Demmies just stay at home rather than vote for Kasich. I don’t view this as an anti-incumbent movement that many have predicted in the primaries and did not come to be. The Demmies know Ohio is bleeding and their choice is basically kind words and a band-aid, or, the inevitable surgery with true, monitored recovery.
By Max
June 19, 2010 11:55 AM | Link to this
M. Gottleib: “Most likely, the Republicans’ fundamental problem is, after all, the 2008 break-up and its ugliness.”—-Martin, the Republicans are elephants suffering short term memory loss. The GOP strategy in 2007-08 was the wrong presumption the Dem. candidate would be Hillary. Frankly, so did most Democrats. But, the GOP debates and convention were both entrenched in strategies ill-suited to take on Obama. Even McCain’s VP pick was an 11th hour attempt to pick up disgruntled Hillary supporters. it sure wasn’t on Palin’s merits and credentials. With all this ancient history in political years (McCain hasn’t had an easy time since), the GOP’s main task is the perception of being the party of ‘no,’ and more importantly the party of ‘I told you so.’ When that is overcome and substance replaces rhetoric, Obama - and, Kasich, if he wins - will be forced to bring both parties to the table to start the true recovery.
By Greg
June 20, 2010 12:46 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess Democrats still hang in there because people, largely, are idiots (probably not the ones that take the time to read the paper, though) and do what the talking box (TV) tells them. The media couldn’t possibly back the Dems more than they do, and people mindlessly listen to that drivel without intervening with ounce of self-inspired critical thinking. Watch the movie Idiocracy if you want to know where we’re headed. Or perhaps we’re there. We’re on a runaway train heading right for the cliff and I don’t see any of our politicians doing a damn thing about it.
By Greg
June 20, 2010 12:47 PM | Link to this
Well, I guess Democrats still hang in there because people, largely, are idiots (probably not the ones that take the time to read the paper, though) and do what the talking box (TV) tells them. The media couldn’t possibly back the Dems more than they do, and people mindlessly listen to that drivel without intervening with ounce of self-inspired critical thinking. Watch the movie Idiocracy if you want to know where we’re headed. Or perhaps we’re there. We’re on a runaway train heading right for the cliff and I don’t see any of our politicians doing a damn thing about it.
By Yahoo
June 21, 2010 2:33 PM | Link to this
Ok Jim, you blithering idiot, look up who voted against the civil rights bill. AL GORE is prominently displayed. You are thinking Al Gore Jr….Kennedy voted agains tteh initail civil rights bil as did the majority of DEMS. It was the majority of REPUBS along with 38% of the DEMS that pushed it through…freaking idiot you are
By Jim
June 27, 2010 11:28 PM | Link to this
@Yahoo, “Ok Jim, you blithering idiot” Not only are you wrong about Kennedy and the civil rights act, you have no manners. Your attitude that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, shows your narrow mindedness, immaturity, and lack of scope. Maybe one day you’ll grow up and respect differing points of view, but I highly doubt it.