• comment on a post Ohio Results Thread II over 8 years ago
    This Enquirer article has a good picture.

    http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050802/NEWS01/308020015

    Note that Hackett's gap closing in Hamilton County has been HUGE. He lost absentees 54.6-45.4, but he has closed to 50.8-49.2 with about 11,600 votes counted. I backed out the absentee voters and this means Hackett is winning Hamilton County poll voters 51.0-49.0.

    Does anyone know how Hamilton county turned out in 2000?

  • on a comment on Ohio Results Thread II over 8 years ago
    That's a small move towards Schmidt. Nuts.

    Still no results from Clermont county ...

  • on a comment on OH-02 Results Thread over 8 years ago
    They are all getting rip-roaring drunk after having not slept for a week.

    Or they have exits saying they'll lose, and don't want to have to grin and bear it.

    Or both.

    Nonetheless, 'twas a hell of a good fight either way.

  • comment on a post Ohio Results Thread II over 8 years ago
    US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
    175 precincts of 753 reporting
        PAUL HACKETT     13,512     51%    
        JEAN SCHMIDT     12,802     49%    

    That's 23% of all precincts reporting.

    Still too close to call. Oy.

  • on a comment on Ohio Results Thread II over 8 years ago
    Just a caution that since Hackett lives in the district and has been an elected official before, he's going to win somewhere :). So, it may be brown county. But I don't know much about Southern Ohio geography and I can't remember which town he's from, but keep that in mind.
  • on a comment on Ohio Results Thread II over 8 years ago
    That's the final result for Brown county, FWIW.
  • comment on a post OH-02 Results Thread over 8 years ago
    http://66.241.236.181/elect/ohbrown/results.txt

     PAUL HACKETT (DEM)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,289   56.52
     JEAN SCHMIDT (REP)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,519   43.29

  • comment on a post OH-02 Results Thread over 8 years ago
    DEM - PAUL HACKETT 4083 46.38%
    REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 4720 53.62%

    Hackett got 45.3% in the first batch of ballots, 47.3% or so in the second batch. I suspect precincts in the city will vary more wildly than suburban precincts.

  • comment on a post OH-02 Results Thread over 8 years ago
       PAUL HACKETT                  DEM         2,322     44.90
       JEAN SCHMIDT                  REP         2,850     55.10

    That result will probably hold steady.

  • comment on a post OH-02 Results Thread over 8 years ago
    What is expected turnout? 40,000-50,000 total votes? If that's the case, and poll voters trend towards Democrats because of Hackett's fantastic close in the polls, then this bodes very well for Hackett, right? He would need only 50.8% or so to win the election.

    I am trying not to be too optimistic--those 20% wallopings in some counties will really snap you back in to reality in a hurry!

  • comment on a post The Big Democratic Opportunity of 2006: Governors over 8 years ago
    What about Alabama, where the tax raising governor is deeply unpopular, and Lucy Baxley is apparently gunning for the seat? I think we may have a better shot there than in Georgia, unless Ralph Reed's shenanigans simply explode.
  • comment on a post It Is Starting To Feel Like 1993 over 8 years ago
    Isn't a bunch of the stuff you mentioned still sitting in the Senate? I count only the Bankrupcy bill as something that the President has signed. Maybe CAFA passed and I wasn't paying attention. But I'm pretty sure the Real ID Act, the Energy bill, and the Interstate Parental whatever it is act have not passed the Senate.
  • comment on a post Democratic Ideological Caucus Change, 2003-2005 over 8 years ago
    The New Dem caucus made some changes to membership requirements as soon as they realized everyone wanted to be a New Democrats. So some of the exodus is related to new dues, fundraising, and attendance requirements of the Caucus.
  • comment on a post Approval Rating Bonanza over 8 years ago
    Mike Huckabee in Arkansas. He's raised taxes, but he's an honest guy and has dealt with a Democratically controlled legislature.

    That number for Gregoire looks weird.

  • While there are some blue dogs that are not in particularly competitive districts, a lot of them are in VERY hostile territory for Democrats. In theory, therefore, they need to demonstrate bipartisanship. Some of these districts poll at 70% pro-life or higher. Lots of them have military bases that are important employment centers, way more than the run-of-the-mill Democratic district.

    Personally I think the right thing to do is to have Blue Dog Dems vote 100% pro-life and for all defense spending increases, and be full-throated social justice democrats outside of those issues. But even that might be idealistic.

    I am not sure how many Republicans are currently in districts that are as hostile to the GOP as the Blue Dogs are to the Dems.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads