The Democrats

1. Paul Hackett won with 56.19% of the vote.
   
2. Dr. Victoria Wulsin, 27.71%
   
3. Charles Sanders, 9.04%
   
4. James Parker, 4.85%
   
5. Jeff Sinnard, 2.05%

1. Jean Schmidt, 28.37%
   
2. Bob McKewen, 26.63%
   
3. Tom Brinkman, 21.3%
   
4. Pat DeWine, 12.45%
   
5. Eric Minamyer, 4.79%
   
6. Peter Fosset, 2.41%
   
7. Tom Bemmes, 1.66%
   
8. Jeff Morgan, .95%
   
9. David Smith, .84%
   
10. Steve Austin, .53%
    
11. Douglas Mink, .24%

(Hackett)
Paul Hackett's victory was almost certainly the result of two important factors: a) the endorsements by the various county democrats, labor groups, and the Cincinnati Enquirer; and b) visibility.  Early on, Democrats decided Hackett was the most electable candidate.  Furthermore, they decided that Charles Sanders might win based on name recognition, and that this could not happen if the Democrats had a viable chance in August.  Hence the endorsements by the various county democrats, and then the labor endorsements- all of which were impressive in quantity and quality. In terms of visibility, Hackett certainly benefitted from loads of free press due to these endorsements.  But credit must be given where credit is due.  Hackett was the only candidate to run a decent-looking website and produce yard signs.  These efforts furthered the impression of legitimacy and frontrunner status.

(Wulsin)
Dr. Wulsin's defeat is disappointing. Why? Because over the past two weeks, she gave me hope in a positive future for the Democratic party.  Some think that the reason why conservatism has ascended to indefinite power is because the Democratic party is too liberal.  But I believe that the problem exists not in the liberalism itself, but in how the Democrats convey that liberalism.  To me, being sheepish and/or grudgingly conciliatory and/or ambiguous about issues that a good deal of Americans deem important (whether or not they truly are important) is not the way to win votes.  

Dr. Wulsin seemed to understand that.  She was the only congressional candidate to show up at the gay pride parade.  She was the only candidate to have a clear and firm anti-war agenda.  She was the only candidate to candidly discuss her opposition to criminalizing abortion (though Hackett is pro-choice).  Whether or not you voted for Wulsin or endorse my philosophy about the future of the Democratic party, I think we can all agree that the way she contributed progressive ideas to the dialogue in this primary was ultimately beneficial for the party and the underrepresented causes she championed.

Unfortunately, her defeat moves us in a direction that I see being less effective for the party now as well as in the long term.  That obviously disappoints me.  Nevertheless, I think Dr. Wulsin should and probably will help Hackett's campaign.  Her support and organization will be enormously helpful if not downright critical to the success of the Hackett campaign.  

Republicans: Reactions

(DeWine)
As much as I found DeWine to be, by and large, one of the least offensive Republicans, I still obtain a twisted pleasure at his embarrassing fourth place finish.  Considering his name recognition and the ludicrous amount of money he raised and spent, that is just inexcusably bad.  The goal for Democrats now must be to mobilize the antagonism that caused his downfall and use it to unseat his dad from the Senate- who's also unpopular with the base because of the filibuster compromise.

(Minamyer):
Eric Minamyer clearly tapped into the hearts and minds of some Republicans with his fifth-place finish. With the most diverse and accomplished experience (a veteran of three wars, a sheriff, and a county prosecutor) and the most principled, honest approach to campaigning, Minamyer was my favorite Republican contender. It is heartening that Minamyer garnered as many votes as he did.

(Schmidt):
What isn't heartening is the nomination of Jean Schmidt- in terms of both her political formidablility and the extremeness of her stances.  Let's start with the first. Her record of toughness on sex offenders, appeal to rural counties, and right-wing credo as President of Right to Life make her as hard and tough a candidate as a Democrat would have to face.  She doesn't have the scandals of Bob McKewen or Pat DeWine bogging her down.  And her history of dirty tricks and attack machines (Tom Niehaus, anyone?) during campaigns all foreshadow a brutal campaign in the next two months.  Paul Hackett has a lot of work ahead of him.  

Having seen Jean Schmidt speak and getting a taste of her radicalism and her determination to enact that radicalism, I can say with the utmost urgency that we need to help Paul Hackett in doing this hard and difficult work.  I encourage every Democrat to take the opportunity to see Jean Schmidt speak in order to better understand just what is at stake in this election.  Her ruthless determination to eschew common sense in favor of dogma and her boundless contempt for Democrats make her a genuine threat to the people of Southwest Ohio and our nation at large.  Therefore, we need to mend the divisions that the Democratic primary may have imposed, and join with Paul Hackett to defeat Jean Schmidt.  

Let the race begin!