Ohio voters unhappy with GOP

I am loathe to post this in Politics Forum, because it will sink behind the POTUS threads, but here goes. http://www.cleveland.com/politics/index.ssf?/base/ispol/1068730261310970.xml

Ohio voters unhappy with GOP

11/13/03

Sandy Theis
Plain Dealer Bureau Chief


Columbus - Auditor Betty Montgomery leads all other Republicans seeking the nomination for governor, and holds double-digit leads over Democrats who have expressed an interest in the 2006 contest, according to a poll paid for by the Montgomery campaign.

...snip...
After 16 consecutive years of Republican governors, more than half of those surveyed think Ohio is headed in the wrong direction.

About 42 percent of respondents said they would vote for an unnamed Democrat over an unnamed Republican if the election were held today; 35 percent said they would vote Republican, and the remaining 23 percent were undecided.

When names are attached, however, Montgomery is favored over two potential Democratic candidates: Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman and State Sen. Eric Fingerhut of Shaker Heights.

The poll, conducted by the Tarrance Group of Alexandria, Va., showed Montgomery led Fingerhut 50 percent to 30 percent, and outpaced Coleman 49 percent to 33 percent.

winning against unnamed republican is a good sign. It shows people are open to change. Now to just nominate a strong candidate.

....he is VERY strong. The Repubs didn't even run abybody against him last year.

But I look for him to run for Governor soon. Strong politician, great speaker, brilliant mind.

Why are statewide Dems there in such disarray?

This poll is very disturbing. Voters obviously don't like the GOP, yet they favor the GOP candidate over the Dem candidate by a huge margin.

What's the deal?

:shrug:

(EDIT: I hope it's only name recognition, but the fact the the GOP candidate is already getting 50%, despite the negative ratings for the GOP, isn't promising.)

--Peter

I bookmarked it but cannot figure out how to get to my old set of bookmarks.

From memory:

1. The Ohio Democratic Party chairman was inept
2. When we lost the Sec'y of State & Governor office in one year (1990?), we lost 2/3 seats on the redistricting board, and this shifted the statehouse to the GOOPs.
3. We had great Senators in Glenn and Metzenbaum and have not had good candidates since.

Personally, I think that the 1993 term limits initiative caused our legislature to be replaced with greenhorn morons.

Part of it has to be the average intelligence of Ohio residents, but the Democrats don't offer any viable alternatives. Since I registered as a democrat they constantly send me fundraising stuff in the mail, but i really don't know what else they are doing.

One bright note: the republican Ponzi scheme to create jobs with a $500,000,000 price tag failed by like 73% of the vote in this last election, so maybe some folks here are waking up.

Democrats (go figure). We tried with Tim Hagan, it just didn't happen. With the current mood in Ohio, I think Gumby could beat Taft next election.

My wor..I dont see how Congressman DK can deal with that &*^% over there. Or possible one of the reasons for him running for president to get OHIO citizens to clean the D.P. of Ohio up!!!!!

Northern Ohio voted yes by 59%. Agricultural Ohio killed #1 by a whopping margin because it was all about the manufacturing economy. The Plain Dealer lamented its loss. I am now wondering if I should not have voted against it. Of course I still feel this way: why should I trust anything coming out of the Taft administration?

1) Taft backed it.

2) It was to be administered by an appointed board. Neither the members of that board nor the selection process had been named or described.

3) The procedure and criteria for disbursing the grants was never explained.

4) Regardless of claims that taxpayers would not pay an additional penny, the state was going to issue $500M in bonds. These had to be paid back. If the expected growth wasn't realized, where was that money coming from?

Ultimately, $3.3M was spent in advertising to actively promote this plan with not one cent spent in organized resistance. It failed. I'd say things looked good for Taft's next opponent...

He'd be our best candidate.

I wonder if Eric Fingerhut is running state wide for Senator as a set up to run state wide in 2006 for Governor or against lightweight DeWine for Senate. DeWine is now in his second term and may be just as happy to be gone.

Jerry Springer recently spoke at the Knox County Dem. dinner and strongly hinted he is going to run for Gov. in 2006. This would give him time to end his show. I'm torn because I don't really like him, but he has virtually unlimited money.

In my opinion money is the real problem in Ohio. The mayors of Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland are all Dems., but we don't have the resources for state-wide ad campaigns. I thought Hagan was a really solid candidate, but he received no financial backing. Not to mention that Taft and co. ran some of the worst attack ads I've ever seen.

...I sat in on a meeting of Ohio Dems. The financial situation and the organizational effort are all changed now. Trust me, Ohio is in play for the Dems again, and it will be a strong state for us again very soon.

The things I was witness to....oh, MAN are they good. No details permited yet, but trust me on it.

And don't you just know it that I'm in on the ground floor....I get to rush in with the wave of Ohio Dems taking over!

You're being quite a tease, but in this case I'll let it slide. :) I'm really pleased to hear that the money situation is being addressed in Ohio. There is absolutely no logical reason why the Dems. can't resume power here. I took the failing of Issue 1 as a strong indication Taft has lost control. The people aren't buying the 'trust me I'm a Republican' nonsense anymore.

And, if it helps get a liberal DUer from Ohio into office, all the better!

So says Representative Marcy Kaptur.

he should consider trying for Governor or Senator in 2006--he might be the best candidate we could put forward. Ohio is not adverse to electing a strong liberal either, Howard Metzenbaum was one of the strongest liberals in the senate was US Senator from Ohio up til a few years ago.

Kucinich should run statewide in Ohio. Ohio Dems need him.

--Peter

he will probably shift to the Senate race.

He has very little to lose politically, but a great deal to gain. It is more of a grassroots campaign like the ones Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson ran, meant to send the party a larger message and to incorporate that into the platform during the national convention.

The real question is..how much influence will can he win before the convention?

I believe that he is running to establish himself as a national figure. He knows he can't win the presidency and he knows he can't win statewide. But after this presidential bid he will have established himself as the unofficial head of the Progressive Caucus in the House. He will be the leader of something like 60 congressmen which would make him very influential, particularly if the Democrats regain control of the House.

There is no talk of Dennis going for the Senate. I see him dropping out and retaining his seat in Congress.

Btw, I thought Dennis was the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

...look for it there, Spike. I've heard a few things.

Thats a good idea.

Kucinich might not be my first choice for President, but I would happily give every second of my free time to see him elected to state office in Ohio. Actually, I think that there are several candidates who would make fine Presidents, but Kucinich is desperately needed back here.

I like Kucinch and he'd make a great senator, but he may be to liberal for the moderate to conservative Ohio folk. I doubt he'd win in the primary too... there's no indication as to what Ohio thinks of Kucinich outside of his home district.

In addition, running for President has been a notorious killer of future political careers.

From Brad Whitlock in 1914, "Forty Years of It"...
<snip>
In the Ohio of those days it was natural to be a Republican, it was more than that, it was inevitable that one should be a Republican; it was not a matter of intellectual choice, it was a process of biological selection. The Republican party was not a faction, not a group, not a wing, it was an institution,...rooted like oak-trees...It was elemental, like gravity, the sun, the stars, the ocean...One became, in Urbana and Ohio for many years, a Republican just as the Eskimo dons fur clothes. It was inconceivable that any self-respecting person should be a Democrat.
<snip>

In 1914, the same could of been said about party loyalties to the Democrats in Georgia. What were once considered sacred in both states..have now become the natural targets of voters' vengeance and frustration with our fundamentally flawed system.

fighting tooth and nail for. Despite diebold's assurances they "will deliver" the state for chimp.