Posts Tagged ‘ohio’

Voters Reject GOP Bills in OH, ME and MS Personhood Amendment

Posted on: November 8th, 2011 by Kyle. | No Comments

American voters soundly defeated a series of extremist measures that looked to take away collective bargaining rights for public employees (including police officers, firemen and teachers) in Ohio, same-day voter registration in Maine, and legally defining personhood as beginning at conception in Mississippi. The Ohio and Maine laws were passed after Republicans took control of all levels of state government in the 2010 elections. The Mississippi referendum was pushed by Christian groups, but opposed by even more moderate Republicans like Jon Huntsman. Voters in Arizona also recalled the sponsor of last year’s anti-immigration law.

The Ohio collective bargaining law went down to defeat with 61% of voters electing to repeal the law. It signals a clear opportunity for President Obama and Democrats to fight for the state in 2012 on a pro-worker, pro-middle class message. Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who at this point is a favorite for the nomination, signaled his support for the law last week. After initially hedging on the issue, Romney flip-flopped within a day to “110 percent” support. Clearly his enthusiasm is a stark contrast with the reality on the ground in Ohio.

The Mississippi amendment would have defined personhood as beginning at conception into the state constitution. The results would have been devastating for women in the state. It would have effectively banned the morning after pill and other forms of birth control and prohibited abortions in all cases. No exceptions were given for cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother was at risk. Simply put the law would have allowed women to die and forced rape victims to have their rapist’s baby. Even in ultra-conservative Mississippi this was seen as going too far. The measure was rejected by a surprisingly large margin with 55% voting against the amendment. The group that sponsored the bill is hoping to put it on ballots in other states next year, but if they can’t get it passed in Mississippi, I doubt it can pass anywhere.

In one final positive note for the night, voters in Arizona recalled the state senate’s president Russell Pearce – a first in the nation’s history. The far-right Pearce has called himself the “Tea Party President” of the Arizona Senate. He was the sponsor of last year’s SB 1070, which gave the state broad powers on immigration enforcement, including requiring police officers to ask the immigration status of people that they suspect are undocumented immigrants. It also imposed harsh fines on undocumented immigrants and up to six months of jail time. His challenger, Jerry Lewis, won by 8 points in the Republican district on a platform opposing SB 1070.

Election Night Live Blogging

Posted on: November 2nd, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

4:42 p.m. (11/3): Well, it’s the day after the election. The GOP had a huge surge in the House, but the Senate was more or less a wash for them. While they picked up 6 seats, it was far less than the 10 that they needed to win to take control. Great news out of Colorado for Democrats: Michael Bennet is projected to win the Senate seat over Tea Party candidate Ken Buck. That puts Democrats at a 53-47 majority, assuming Patty Murray wins in Washington state (which she currently leads in).

2:17 a.m.: “California is always a little different.” -Carly Fiorina …. Way to bash your state in defeat, Carly.

2:04 a.m.: Going to bed on this note – the Tea Party has likely cost the Republicans the Senate. Harry Reid beating Sharron Angle and Chris Coons beating Christine O’Donnell are two seats that would have gone to the GOP if they had nominated the candidates that the NRSC had backed. Thank you Sarah Palin for helping make sure the Senate stays in Democratic hands!

1:50 a.m.: Now that I’ve had more time, I have looked at where the biggest Republican gains took place. The Midwest and South were the biggest losses. New York state and Ohio were the biggest overall shifts with 5 seats, followed by 4 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Virginia; 2 in Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Indiana. That’s a net loss of 19 seats in Midwestern states – half of what Republicans needed to win the House. Throw in Ike Skelton’s loss in Missouri and the losses of the at-large seats in North and South Dakota and the Democrats lost 22 seats in the greater Midwest (I included Pennsylvania since culturally they are pretty similar).

1:30 a.m.: AP is saying that they accidentally put 30,000 votes into the Ken Buck column in Colorado that should have gone to Michael Bennet. If that is the case, the Democrat would have a 20,000 vote lead. Pretty big screw up there!

1:10 a.m.: Despite losing the governorship and two Senate races overwhelmingly, Republicans picked up five seats in New York: 13, 19, 20, 24, 29. I guess I was wrong in thinking the top of the ballot would help these vulnerable Democrats. As I mentioned with Illinois, these are low hanging fruit for 2012.

1:03 a.m.: I beg Sarah Palin to run for president in 2012. We’ll see a 60 seat shift back towards the Democrats if she does.

12:50 a.m.: 58% of Californians voted AGAINST Proposition 23 that would have removed the carbon restrictions in the state.

12:35 a.m.: Quick House update – Democrats will probably lose anywhere from 55-60 seats when all is said and done. Currently, it stands at 52 seats, which is where things were in 1994. That puts 2010 in the history books as one of the larger wave elections.

12:30 a.m.: Chuck Todd believes that Michael Bennet will benefit from Denver suburban votes that have not yet come in. He currently leads by about 10,000 votes. In Florida, Alex Sink trails by 2 points against Republican Rick Scott. Only half of the vote has been counted out of Miami-Dade County and about a third left in Palm Beach County. Both are heavily Democratic counties with large populations. Sink could still give Democrats a pick-up in a very large state.

12:25 a.m.: Love this site – http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/.

12:23 p.m.: Joe Sestak is conceding the Pennsylvania Senate race. He lost be a razor thin 51-49 margin. I have a feeling that this guy will be back. Incredible candidate and a good man.

12:06 p.m.: Carl Paladino has literally threatened to beat New York’s next governor over the head with a baseball bat if he doesn’t do what he wants him to, even though he only got 35% of the vote. Can you get more crazy?

12:00 p.m.: If the current numbers hold up, Republicans will control 11 of Illinois’ 19 House seats. That’s a pick-up of 4 seats in Obama’s backyard. The good news for Democrats is that they will be low-hanging fruit in 2012.

11:37 p.m.: More disappointing news out of Indiana – Democrats have lost control of the House. Republicans now control the Indiana House, Senate and Governor’s Mansion. This means that they can push through any bills that they want without opposition. It also means that they will control the redistricting process. In all likelihood it means that they will try to squeeze Joe Donnelly out of his seat by excluding a city like Kokomo or perhaps some of LaPorte County out of Indiana 2. They already won Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth’s seat in Southern Indiana, but may try to shore up those districts with more Republican voters as well.

11:21 p.m.: Shifting gears to the gubernatorial races across the country, independents are faring quite well. Rhode Island’s next governor will be Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator that lost his race in 2006. He endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and had the favor returned when President Obama refused to endorse the Democratic candidate in this year’s race. Independent Eliot Cutler won by 5 points in Maine. Independents also waged serious campaigns in Colorado and Minnesota, winning over 10 percent of the vote. Independents are no longer just spoilers, they are serious contenders in races where the two major party candidates are unpopular.

11:15 p.m.: Carl Paladino, the Tea Party psychopath that threatened to “take out” a reporter, has lost the New York governor’s race by 25 points to Democrat Andrew Cuomo. He will probably cost the Republicans a few House seats in the state. Tea Party candidates definitely do not hold sway in Democratic states.

10:59 p.m.: Not looking good for Alexi Giannoulias in Illinois. Almost all of the vote is in from Chicago (Cook County) and he is trailing by about 13,000 votes. Also not good news: he lost the Chicago suburbs by a wide margin. Mark Kirk won Lake County 57-39, McHenry County 59-34, Kane County 56-37, Dupage County 59-36, and Will County 52-41. Why does this matter? Anyone that knows Chicago knows that the suburbs have overtaken the central city in political importance. They have a 2-to-1 population advantage, making up a majority of the Chicago metro’s over 9 million citizens. Kirk is raking in the votes in this all-important part of the region.

10:40 p.m.: Senator Russ Feingold, a quirky liberal that voted against the Wall Street bailout, has lost his race to Republican businessman Ron Johnson. This just goes to show that voters sometimes don’t care about specific votes in Congress. This appears to be a vote against the Democratic Party in Wisconsin, not against Russ Feingold. On the downside, Ron Johnson is a Tea Partier that has said he would support drilling for oil in Lake Michigan. Not the type of Senator any Democrat would want to see take office in a state that voted nearly 60% for Barack Obama.

10:35 p.m.: Democrats were worried that they might lose at least one of their two members of Congress in Maine. Polling seemed to confirm that they were in trouble. It didn’t happen. So far the Democrats in those races have double-digit leads. The only Democrat to lose in New England was Carol-Shea Porter in New Hampshire. The other New Hampshire seat, left open by Paul Hodes who was running for the Senate (and lost), has switched parties as well. New England remains solidly Democratic.

10:30 p.m.: Ben Chandler is winning Kentucky 6, which includes the city of Lexington, by only 600 votes. Expect a recount here.

10:14 p.m.: Brad Ellsworth lost his home county, where Evansville is located, to Dan Coats by an amazing 8 points. Very poor campaign run by the Democrats in Indiana.

9:57 p.m.: Illinois Senate race is looking good for Democrats. Alexi Giannoulias was polling in the low 40s, but currently holds 50.5% of the vote to Republican Mark Kirk’s 44.3%. Interestingly, most polls had Kirk about where he is right now. If these numbers hold up, it will show that the undecided voters broke for the Democrats.

9:42 p.m.: Big news for Democrats in Pennsylvania. A state that looked pretty good for Republicans currently has Democrat Joe Sestak up 54.3% to 45.7%. Sestak is holding strong in the Philadelphia suburbs, winning Philly by 150,000 votes, and Pittsburgh by 45,000 votes. The race will tighten up, but right now, it is looking like Sestak upsets Toomey in a state the Republicans had counted on winning. Only a few weeks ago Toomey was leading by double digits in the polls.

9:37 p.m.: Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate that cost the Republicans a Senate seat in Delaware has declared that she “won”. “We have won. We were victorious because the Delaware political system will never be the same,” O’Donnell said in her concession speech. She lost 57-40% to Democrat Chris Coons.

9:24 p.m.: “You lie!” Republican Representative Joe Wilson is losing his seat in South Carolina. Hopefully these numbers hold up.

9:21 p.m.: NBC is projecting that the Democrats have lost the House of Representatives. So far Republicans have only officially picked up 8 seats out of the 39 that they need. Depending on how the West Coast comes in, it will either be a bloodbath or a fairly close divide in the House. If you haven’t voted yet and live out in California or other West Coast states, go vote.

8:58 p.m.: Republicans are coming on strong in Indiana. After winning the Senate race early on, two Southern Indiana districts – 8 and 9 – have been called for Republicans. One of them was held by incumbent Baron Hill. As I posted in the election guide, Democrats needed to win this district if they were going to hold onto the House. They are losing it badly – by 15 points. Democrat Joe Donnelly is winning by a slim two thousand vote lead.

8:51 p.m.: Alan Grayson has lost his Orlando-area district. Right now it’s about a 25 point wipe-out.

8:34 p.m.: NBC News is calling the West Virginia Senate race for Democrat Joe Manchin. Out the window goes Republican hopes of winning the Senate.

8:30 p.m.: Republicans picked up their second Senate seat. Democrat Blanche Lincoln loses her seat after badly trailing throughout the campaign. No surprise here. Democrats have won Connecticut’s Senate race. Richard Blumenthal will defeat Linda McMahon, the former WWE CEO.

8:23 p.m.: Democrat John Yarmuth has held on to his seat in Kentucky 3.

8:10 p.m.: John Carney won Delaware’s open seat, giving the Democrats a pick-up, the first pick-up of the night for either party. Republicans now need to win 40 seats from Democrats in order to gain the majority.

8:07 p.m.: MSNBC keeps bringing up Evan Bayh retiring from the Senate and taking a $10 million war chest with him. There’s no doubt that Bayh would have won and kept the state in the Democratic column. My guess: Bayh is running for governor again in 2012. Mitch Daniels will leave office term-limited and leaves an opening for Democrats.

8:02 p.m.: Some good news for Democrats: Ted Strickland is leading in Ohio’s governor race. Too close to call in Pennsylvania’s Senate race, which Republicans were slightly favored to win. They still might, but it should be close. We had it rated as a Toss-Up. West Virginia is looking good for the Dems as well.

7:35 p.m.: Ohio has been called, as expected, for Rob Portman. The Republicans hold onto the seat of retiring Senator George Voinovich.

7:06 p.m.: We are just getting started with poll closings tonight. No surprises here. Indiana is projected to be the Republican’s first pick-up of the night. Kentucky has also been called for Rand Paul. In good news for Democrats, Joe Donnelly leads in St. Joseph County with 63% to Jackie Walorski’s 33%. If that number holds up, it will be a blow-out in Indiana 2.

GOP Divided in Indiana Primary as Tea Party Loses

Posted on: May 4th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

Today was primary day in the state of Indiana where an open Senate seat sent Republicans into a frenzy. Three major candidates vied for the party’s nomination: former Senator Dan Coats, former Rep. John Hostettler and State Senator Marlin Stutzman. The seat is currently held by Senator Evan Bayh, retiring after serving two terms. His retirement announcement came too late for Democrats to file for the May 4 primary. The state Democratic Party is expected to nominate Southwest Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth.

Primary Results

Dan Coats – 39%
Marlin A. Stutzman – 29%
John N. Hostettler – 23%
Don Bates, Jr. – 5%
Richard Behney – 4%

99% of precincts reporting

The vote was a test of the Tea Party appeal in Indiana. Marlin Stutzman started the race as a no-name candidate, but surged with support from the likes of far-right Republicans like Jim DeMint and Mike Huckabee. The fact that someone like Marlin Stutzman managed nearly 30% of the vote, with no name recognition across the state, has to be startling to establishment Republicans looking to pick up Bayh’s seat.

The establishment candidate in this race – Dan Coats – only managed 40 percent support. Will Tea Partiers rally around a Senator-turned-lobbyist? Will they support a candidate who was deemed a “carpetbagger” by his primary opponents for moving to Indiana from Virginia only to run for this seat? Most of them likely will, but uniting the Republican Party in Indiana will certainly be much more difficult than it will for the Democrats, who did not have a bruising primary. That said, Coats currently leads in statewide polling. Brad Ellsworth, meanwhile, has yet to run a statewide ad. I fully expect this to be a close race come November.

Meanwhile, across the border in Ohio, Democrats nominated Lt. Governor Lee Fisher to take on former Bush budget director Rob Portman. He defeated Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Ohio is a mirror image of Indiana, where retiring Republican Senator George Voinovich is leaving an open seat for a possible Democratic pickup opportunity. The most recent polling shows Lee Fisher slightly ahead of Rob Portman, although this will likely be a close one to watch as well.

Democrats Take Lead in Ohio Senate Race

Posted on: April 2nd, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

While this election cycle is almost certain to return fewer Democratic members to the House and Senate, Ohio is shaping up to be a state where Democrats have a good chance of picking up a seat currently held by a Republican. George Voinovich, a former governor, is retiring from the Senate this year. Open seats are traditionally much more competitive than seats with an incumbent.

Much of this cycle the Democrats have trailed Republican Rob Portman, a former Bush administration official, by a few points. That appears to have ended with a slight lead for both Democratic candidates for Senate. The reversal of fortune comes just weeks after the health care reform bill became law. President Obama’s approval rating has also edged up in the state, as has Governor Strickland’s, a Democrat.

“In the Senate race, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher leads Republican Rob Portman 41 – 37 percent, reversing a 40 – 37 percent Portman lead February 24. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner edges Portman 38 – 37 percent, reversing a 40 – 35 percent Republican lead,” Quinnipiac University found. While a 4 point lead and 1 point lead for the Democratic candidates is not comfortable, it is a pretty big swing in the matter of a short period of time (7 points towards Lee Fisher and 6 points towards Jennifer Brunner).

Election Projection 2010: Midwest Senate Seats

Posted on: March 31st, 2010 by Kyle. | 2 Comments

The 2010 midterm elections are only seven months away. Like I did in 2008, Kylebell.com is going to track the projected outcomes of the election between now and election day. I’m going to be breaking up the projections into different regions. First up is the Midwest:

Indiana
Incumbent: Evan Bayh (D) – Retiring
Challenger(s): Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Democrat), Former Rep. John Hostettler, Former Senator Dan Coats and State Senator Marlin Stutzman (Republicans)
Prediction: Toss-up

Evan Bayh was elected in 1998 after serving two terms as Indiana’s governor. Dan Coats, who is considering a challenge to Bayh, retired in 1998 to avoid facing the popular Democrat in the general election. Bayh went on to win over 63% of the vote against the mayor of Fort Wayne. In 2004, despite President Bush beating John Kerry by over 20% in the state, Bayh was re-elected with 61%.

Since becoming Indiana’s junior senator, Bayh has taken a centrist stance (some would say even conservative). From 2001 to 2005 he was the head of the Democratic Leadership Council, which tries to push for moderate policies and candidates. Senator Bayh was one of three final picks to be President Obama’s Vice President (the other two being Tim Kaine and Joe Biden).

When I first wrote a draft of my prediction, I had this seat as “Leans Democratic”. That all changed when Senator Bayh announced in February that he would be retiring. The fact that a former senator is in the mix to win the Republican nomination and that Indiana has a conservative tilt make this a challenge for Democrats in the fall.

That said, they have recruited a top candidate in Brad Ellsworth, a former Sheriff of Vanderburgh County and a current Congressman from Southern Indiana. He won his seat handily in 2006, defeating incumbent John Hostettler, who lost his House seat in a rural part of Southern Indiana due to his far-right conservative views. As a candidate for the Senate, Hostettler would probably not fare much better statewide than he did in his former district.

Coats has already shown that he can win statewide, but that was over ten years ago. He has since been a lobbyist in Washington, a point that Democrats will drive home throughout the campaign. Another potential major downside to a Coats nomination for the Republicans is that he does not even live in Indiana anymore. He has been a resident of Virginia since he left the Senate. Ellsworth will certainly use that in television ads to paint Coats as a carpetbagger that only lives in Indiana when it is convenient.

Illinois
Incumbent: Roland Burris (D) – Retiring
Challenger(s): State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Democrat), Rep. Mark Kirk (Republican)
Prediction: Leans Democratic

This is a seat that should never have been even considered competitive. That is until the former Governor Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Barack Obama’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. Before being impeached, Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris. At first, Democrats in the Senate refused to seat him and the Secretary of State in Illinois would not sign his certification. Ultimately he was allowed to be seated, but decided against running for a full-term due to poor fundraising and poll numbers.

Enter Republican Mark Kirk, a suburban Congressman from Chicago. Known as a moderate, he voted for President Obama’s cap-and-trade proposal only to say it was a mistake when voters within his own party chastised him for the vote. However, now that he has won the Republican primary, expect him to tack back to the center. Alexi Giannoulias is a young, telegenic politician, somewhat similar to Barack Obama. He currently leads in the polls by a healthy 8 points. Yet for a state as Democratic as Illinois, that isn’t all that comforting. The Blagojevich scandal and uncertainy surrounding the economy may mean that this race would be competitive. For now, it leans towards the Democrats.

Wisconsin
Incumbent: Russ Feingold (D)
Challenger(s): Real Estate Developer Terrence Wall, Businessman Dave Westlake
Prediction: Leans Democratic

Russ Feingold campaigned in 1992 on a promise to rely on citizens from Wisconsin for his campaign contributions, that he would raise his children in Wisconsin and hire most of his staff with people from the state. When he ran for re-election in 1998, he imposed a spending limit of $3.8 million, which is one dollar for each citizen in the state. In 2001, he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He joined John McCain in 2002 to pass McCain-Feingold, a landmark campaign finance law that capped the amount political parties could raise from individuals.

All of these have made Feingold a target of the Republican Party. His liberal positions in a state that has been trending more towards the center (with the exception of 2008) make him vulnerable to attacks from the right. Yet he has survived, winning by 12 percent in 2004 as George Bush nearly carried the state. He even won counties that George Bush also won. Despite his liberalism, his connectedness to the state seems to have paid dividends. For that reason, Wisconsin leans Democratic in 2010.

Ohio
Incumbent: George Voinovich (R) – Retiring
Challenger(s): Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher (Democrats), Former Rep. Rob Portman (Republican)
Prediction: Toss-Up

Ohio is the ultimate swing-state. It is a true microcosm of the United States. The Buckeye State has big cities, medium sized cities, small cities, small towns and rural farmland. While most of the state would consider themselves to be Midwesterners, Southern Ohioans have a drawl more common in the South. It has college towns, beaches, farmland and declining manufacturing centers.

It also has volatile politics. Ohio went slightly for George Bush in 2000 and 2004, but swung towards the Democrats in 2006′s midterm elections as they captured House seats and a Senate seat, along with the governor’s mansion. Barack Obama defeated John McCain in Ohio, ensuring a sweep of the entire Midwest. If there is a Republican comeback of any sort, it will have to start in Ohio defending this seat.

This is an expensive state to compete in. With major markets like Cleveland, Cincinatti and Columbus, along with medium-sized cities like Toledo and Dayton, the two parties could easily spend a good $15-$20 million here. Democrats spending money on a seat currently held by Republicans can help draw funds away from their vulnerable incumbents such as Harry Reid, Blanche Lincoln and others. It doesn’t hurt that Republicans will use spending as a major campaign theme. Their leading candidate, Rob Portman, presided over record deficits as the budget director for George Bush.

Iowa
Incumbent: Chuck Grassley (R)
Challenger(s): Lawyer Roxanne Conlin, Former State Legislator Bob Krause
Prediction: Likely Republican

While President Obama sailed to victory in both the Iowa Caucus and general election in 2008, this year’s Senate race is going to be a tough one for Democrats to pull off. “As a good farmer, Senator Grassley must recognize that 51 years, or 58 years at the end of his term, is a long time to go without rotating crops,” Krause told supporters in Des Moines. Chuck Grassley has been around for five terms and shows no signs of retiring.

Grassley famously participated in healthcare “negotiations” during the summer with Democratic Senator Max Baucus, only to spread malicious falsehoods about the legislation when he met with voters during townhall meetings. This doesn’t seem to have hurt his support any. His Democratic challengers will undoubtedly be vastly outspent in campaign ads and the state party will be focused on retaining the governor’s mansion in the state.

Missouri
Incumbent: Kit Bond (R) – Retiring
Challenger(s): Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (Democrat), Rep. Roy Blunt (Republican)
Prediction: Toss-up

The Carnahan family is to Missouri what the Bayh family is to Indiana. Governor Mel Carnahan served from 1993 to 2000 and decided to run for the Senate. Unfortunately, shortly before the election, he died in a plane crash. Yet his name remained on the ballot and amazingly he managed to win against incumbent Senator John Ashcroft (yes, the guy that George W. Bush would name Attorney General). Mel Carnahan was the first person to be elected posthumously to the United States Senate.

They still needed to fill the sit, though, so the new governor appointed his wife, Jean Carnahan. Ultimately she decided to run in a special election in 2002 to fill out the remainder of Mel’s term. She lost to Jim Talent by approximately 20,000 votes and provided Republicans with their Senate majority after the 2002 midterm election. Four years later, in 2006, Senator Talent lost to Claire McCaskill as the Democrats reclaimed their majority status.

Robin Carnahan is attempting to keep the family name alive in her run for Senate this year against Republican Representative Roy Blunt. Like Ohio, Missouri is a bellweather state. What happens at a national level is often felt in these two states. Missouri has been trending slightly more Republican at the national level than other states in recent years, giving their electoral votes to President Bush in 2000 and 2004, as well as John McCain in 2008 by fewer than 4,000 votes.

However, Democrats have managed to win statewide office frequently. In 2006, aside from picking up a Senate seat, they also won the governor’s mansion back from Roy Blunt’s son, Matt Blunt, who decided to not run for re-election. The fact that Robin Carnahan comes from a political dynasty in Missouri should help her chances of winning this seat from the Republicans. Her campaign is distancing itself from the Democratic Party, highlighting her independence and ability to work across the aisle. This will be one of the closest elections of 2010. You can bet on that.

South Bend Tops Nation in Home Value

Posted on: January 11th, 2010 by Kyle. | No Comments

The Today Show recently aired a piece in which they named the top 10 U.S. cities based on home value. Factoring into their list were things such as cost of living, rising home prices and job growth. My hometown of South Bend, Indiana came in at #1 on the list. Not too shabby, I would say.

Real-estate contributor Barbara Corcoran ranked South Bend first among the “Top 10 Cities for Bargain Homes.” She noted that the median “price is just $89,000, and prices have been rising steadily for almost a full year now.”

There’s certainly a lot of potential growth in the South Bend area. Taking advantage of the University of Notre Dame, the city has opened a high-tech research park known as Innovation Park. Right now the city is focused on being a leader in nanotechnology. Last year Notre Dame was awarded the Midwest Academy of Nanoelectronics and Architectures, which will partner with other research universities to advance the technology. Other developments in South Bend include the newly opened Eddy Street Commons, which combines retail, shopping and dining into one multi-use district.

Here is the full Today Show list:

1. South Bend, Ind.
2. Akron, Ohio
3. Topeka, Kan.
4. New Haven, Conn.
5. Tucson, Ariz.
6. Minneapolis
7. Portland, Maine
8. Miami
9. Kingston, N.Y.
10. Trenton, N.J.

GOP Turn to Dirty Tactics in Michigan and Ohio

Posted on: September 16th, 2008 by Kyle. | No Comments

The Republican Party is engaging in voter suppression in the swing states of Michigan and Ohio, as reported by two prominent newspapers. The first incident occurred in Ohio and was reported last week by the Cincinnati Inquirer:

About one-third of the absentee ballot applications received at the Hamilton County Board of Elections have been ruled invalid because Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign printed a version of the form with an extra, unneeded box on it.

In a narrow interpretation of Ohio law, Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner says many of the McCain forms have not been completed properly. If the box stating the person is an eligible elector — or qualified voter – is not checked, Brunner said, the application is no good.

Even though the box is unneeded, by not checking it voters are essentially admitting they’re not eligible, Brunner said.

The result: nearly 1,000 ballot requests have been invalidated in Hamilton County, Ohio alone. The county election board will now have to contact tens of thousands of voters to correct the problem started by the McCain campaign when they sent out 1 million of the faulty forms. Voters will have to fill out a new form and hope that they receive and send their absentee ballots in time for Election Day on November 4.

Meanwhile in Michigan the Republican Party is planning on challenging voters going to the polls, according to the New York Times:

Last week the chairman of the G.O.P. in Macomb County, James Carabelli, was quoted in the online publican, the Michigan Messenger, as saying that the party planned to use foreclosure lists to stop voters who no longer have valid addresses from casting their ballots.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” Mr. Carabelli was quoted as saying, according to a Sept. 10 article in the Michigan Messenger.

The Democratic Party and the Obama campaign are now suing to prevent this illegal practice from occuring. Two months until Election Day and we are already seeing the Republican voter suppression machine in full force.

Hillary: Delaying the Inevitable

Posted on: March 6th, 2008 by Kyle. | 1 Comment

March 4 was not the decisive electoral day that Barack Obama was hoping for. It did not put Hillary Clinton away. But contrary to popular belief in the media, it was not a decisive electoral decision for Hillary Clinton, either. In fact, her primary mission was to close the huge delegate gap that divides her and Barack Obama. She failed to do this in remarkable fashion. NBC projects that when all is said and done, all of the hoopla about a Clinton comeback will net her no more than 9 delegates. She currently trails by approximately 150 delegates.

The race that the Clinton campaign once described as a race for the most delegates is now a race for… well, whatever Hillary says from one day to the next. The flip-flopping and double talk on the part of the Clinton campaign has been astounding to me. Not to mention the fact that none of Obama’s wins (or accomplishments in life, for that matter) mean anything. Below are all excuses from Hillaryland for why she does not win:

Why did Obama win South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia? Black people. Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, Maine, Alaska and Washington State? Caucuses. Illinois and Hawaii? Obama’s home states. Washington D.C., Virginia and Maryland? Damn, more black people! Delaware, Vermont and Connecticut? Affluent liberals. Iowa? Corn-loving hippies. Utah? Ah shucks, I don’t have a reason for that. Let’s just blame it on the Mormons. The fact, which they do not want to realize, is that Obama is the more appealing candidate to the majority of voters.

Compare that to Hillary, who is only appealing to traditionally liberal big state voters. Case in point: California, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey. These are states that Obama or Clinton would win quite easily in a general election. The irony there? I just named nearly a third of the states Hillary has won. The states that Obama has won (namely Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri, Virginia and Georgia) Hillary does not have as good of a chance, according to all the polling done to date. In fact, while John McCain will put Minnesota, Wisconsin and even Michigan in play this fall against Hillary, Obama would put Colorado, Virginia, Missouri and Georgia in play. Hillary could not do that.

Moving past the argument for why Obama is the better candidate, I am now going to present to you why Obama will be the nominee. In fact, he should be referred to as the “all-but-nominee” at this point. If you are a Hillary supporter, it is best for you to now realize that Hillary is not going to win (and I will show you why). Furthermore, unlike other Obama supporters, I am not opposed to her continuing her campaign. I have a selfish reason. I want to work hard to deliver Indiana for Obama on May 4. But of more benefit to us Democrats is the fact that the campaign coverage will be focused directly on Hillary and Obama for the next several months.

Not only will we get free media coverage, allowing us to voice our message against John McCain and the Republicans, we also are going to be swarming Pennsylvania for the next 7 weeks, and doing the same in Indiana and North Carolina after that. Obama and Hillary will be going from town to town campaigning across the country, much like they have already done. Almost every state will have a voice in the process for the first time in many, many years.’

One of the last significant Indiana primaries was back in 1968. Robert Kennedy was dashing across the state and we will likely see the same thing in the weeks and months to come. What does this mean for the party? Well, for one, up-close exposure. This is a state that is all-but-ignored in both the primary and general election campaign. To have high profile Democratic candidates criss-crossing the state will help the party further towards winning in the fall. You can also bet that one of the two Democrats running for governor (Former Representative Jill Long Thompson and businessman Jim Schellinger) will endorse and campaign alongside one of these presidential candidates. I look forward to it.

Now let’s get to the reality of the race. I posted about this several weeks ago. It was highly unlikely then that Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. It is more unlikely, almost impossible, for her to win today. Why? March 4 was her last best hope. If she can only net fewer than 10 delegates out of winning Ohio and Texas, how does she expect to close the 150 delegate gulf between her and Obama? Answer: she doesn’t. She can’t. “Kyle, what about Pennsylvania?” I don’t care if he wins or loses it, she can’t win the nomination. Here’s why:

1. Given past results, demographics and polling, Obama is going to win Mississippi, Wyoming, Oregon, North Carolina, Montana and South Dakota.

2. For the same reasons, she is going to win West Virginia and Kentucky.

3. The competitive states are Indiana and Pennsylvania. Hillary would be favored in Pennsylvania, Obama in Indiana.

According to CNN, including super delegates and with not all of the delegates counted from Texas, Washington state or a few other places that favor Obama, Obama has 1520 and Hillary has 1424 delegates. Using the most liberal estimates in Hillary Clinton’s favor, Hillary Clinton will still trail Barack Obama. In my model I will give her the competitive states of Indiana and Pennsylvania, as well as all of Puerto Rico. You can see this for yourself at http://cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html by plugging in the numbers.

Now for the sake of argument, since the Clinton’s love argument, let’s give her Pennsylvania by about 10 delegates, which is approximately what she got out of Ohio. In Pennsylvania’s case, it would be 85-73. We will also give her Indiana 40-32, West Virginia 16-12, Kentucky 28-23, and then all of Puerto Rico’s 55 delegates. Again, these are the most liberal estimates by giving her the benefit of the doubt in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Puerto Rico and so on.

Now we’ll give him Wyoming 8-4, Montana 10-6, North Carolina 62-53, Mississippi 21-12 (it should be a blowout like the rest of the Deep South), Oregon 29-23, and South Dakota 9-6. We’ll split Guam 2-2, since neither will likely get high enough percent to win 3-1. What’s the result of this? She is still behind by more than 50 delegates – and this model includes super delegates who have pledged to date.

There are many reasons why this above scenario is not likely to play out. For one, there is no reason to think that she will get 8 delegates from Indiana when that’s almost as well as she did in Ohio and Ohio has twice the number of delegates up for grabs. Her percentage in Indiana would not be greater than what she did in Ohio, and the certainty that she wins the state is, at best, murky. We also assumed that the voting patterns from Ohio translated in Pennsylvania (i.e. she wins by about 10%). Furthermore, we gave Obama fairly low delegates out of states where he is likely to win big (namely North Carolina, Oregon and South Dakota). Each of these could prove false, and yet she fell short in the best case scenario for her.

Now let’s factor in the remaining super delegates. If you split the remaining uncommitted super delegates, you will get 1980 delegates for Obama to 1933 for Hillary. Again, this does not factor in the remaining uncounted delegates from the Texas caucuses (which Obama won) and Washington state (where Obama also won). Under the scenario we just played out, she would need 273 super delegates out of the 358 remaining in order to become the nominee. That is a roughly 75% of the super delegates remaining. Does anyone really believe that the super delegates will go flooding to the rescue of someone who will have lost a majority of the states (Obama will not just have won a majority, he will have won more than double hers), elected delegates and popular vote? If you think so, be my guest. You are just as delusional as Hillary thinks Obama voters are for supporting him.

ImageShack

Since I know the Hillary people are dying to say it, let me just point out that, as much as it pains me to tell you this, even if you factor in a new primary or caucus in Michigan and Florida, Hillary still will not be the nominee. Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up before February 5, breaking party rules and were punished by receiving 0 delegates to the national convention. To rectify this and seat these delegates, the party is talking about having new primaries or caucuses in June.

Remember that 1980 and 1933? Okay, now we’re going to do a little more math. Hillary got 55% in Michigan in January with no one on the ballot but “Uncommitted”. She won’t do better than that with Obama on it if a new primary takes place. On the other hand, Hillary only got 50% of the vote in Florida. There’s no reason to think she will do much better than that a second time around. Given that she won Ohio by roughly 10 delegates, we’ll give her Michigan by 10. Again, we are giving her the benefit of the doubt once again. Now let’s give her Florida by not 10, but 20. Why? It’s a bigger state.

Under this scenario, where we included Michigan and Florida in the results, as well as super delegates, Obama would still be ahead by 17 delegates. In other words, Obama could afford to lose Florida by anything from 1-36 delegates and still have a delegate advantage over Hillary. She would need 37 delegates from Florida in order to overtake him. An important thing to keep in mind is that Hillary won New York with 59% and only netted 48 delegates there. Her net out of California was 44 delegates. She won both states by larger margins than she could win Florida and both states have notably more delegates. There is absolutely no reason to think that she could get the 37 delegates she would need.

My conclusion is this: given the rosiest scenarios, Hillary Clinton fails to catch Barack Obama in delegates. She can not, will not, win the Democratic nomination. Hoping for her to do so would be like hoping the New York Mets, being behind the Atlanta Braves 14 games with 20 games to go, would win their division. Sure, it could happen, it is mathematically possible, but the chances are beyond what I will accept as credible.

The ONLY thing that concerns me is she keeps using negative campaigning. Too much negativity from her will make Obama unelectable against McCain. She is already trying to make him look like a Muslim. Her campaign needs to restrain itself. She’s not going to get nominated, so the alternative is hurting the nominee. For… what? So she can win a few more states? So she can run in 2012? That’s beyond selfish.

Would I prefer her be out? Yeah, just to have peace of mind and to bring the party together. The fact that they will be campaigning from one city to the next in battleground states should help nonetheless, and despite whatever result, she will not catch up. There’s already plenty of sound bytes McCain can use in tv ads of Hillary attacking Obama. The best thing that happened all week though? Bush endorsed John McCain. Bush and McCain will bring the Democratic Party together after a divisive primary. Electing John McCain is “four more years” of a Bush presidency. No one wants that.

Hillary: Negative Campaign to the Very End

Posted on: February 29th, 2008 by Kyle. | No Comments

Hillary Clinton’s brief bout with psychosis is officially over. After debating Barack Obama last week on CNN in which she said she was “honored” to have campaigned with Obama for the nomination, she quickly turned her tune into a scolding (“shame on you Barack Obama”) last Saturday, before mocking him on Sunday and blaming the media for her woes on the MSNBC debate this week. Her negativity has been consistent this week, as highlighted at the end of the week by a new ad that they are running.

The Obama campaign immediately countered with an ad of their own:

Do scare tactics work? We’ll find out Tuesday.

Hillary’s Wall is on Fire

Posted on: February 12th, 2008 by Kyle. | No Comments

There were 209 national polls taken up to February 3, 2008. Hillary Clinton was ahead in all of them, except for three ties, and three that Obama had a slight lead in. In other words, according to the polling firms and the national media, Hillary was 203-3-3 vs. Obama. Pretty good record, eh? Any sports team would die for that kind of record, if only they played that many games in a season. No wonder she was the “inevitable nominee”. With numbers like those, how could she possibly lose?

Only one problem, one that the media failed to ever mention much of. National polls have historically always been wrong when taken before a single state casts its ballots. They are meaningless tests of name recognition, not popularity or strength. Put anyone with name recognition against someone without and the one who people recognize will always come out on top in national polls. Does that mean they would win a presidential contest? No, absolutely not.

So the national media, the political analysts and the candidates themselves (*ahem* Hillary) got it all very wrong. They created an artificial aura of strength and invincibility which quickly vanished after a stunning defeat. Afterall, those that are “inevitable” should not have such an early upset, right? The people of Iowa rebuked what was being reported. They stood up for change and gave the Clintons a clear message with their third place finish: your time has passed.

Now that more than 30 states have weighed in, the picture is getting clearer. Iowa, not New Hampshire, is reflecting the mood of the voters. Obama has a continent-spanning winning streak going since Super Tuesday. From Washington to Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and beyond – big, small and medium states – black, white and everything in between – America is standing with Barack Obama when months ago no one said they would.

With 20 wins under his belt, double Hillary’s, Obama is quickly nearing a majority of states won long before the voting will end. At his current rate, he should have 22 by March 4, with 2-4 more coming into his column on that day. Add Wyoming and Mississippi a few days later and he will have won a majority of states with 8 states left to go. He currently enjoys a 200,000 popular vote lead which is likely to expand and a delegate lead, including or excluding super delegates.

Now that Obama leads in states won, popular vote, pledged and overall delegates, Hillary’s campaign has reverted to their old strategy of so-called “firewall states”. Iowa was the original firewall, then New Hampshire and finally, Super Tuesday. Except for New Hampshire, all of her firewalls have failed – and to a great extent, it did fail in New Hampshire to deliver that final blow that was first expected from their campaign.

ImageShack

The new firewall states are Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. After losing Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign downplayed their chances in the rest of the February states, which account for 586 delegates. As I predicted on February 7, Obama won in Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine and Washington state (also 91% of the Virgin Islands, which I did not mention). He is poised to win in Maryland, Washington D.C., Wisconsin, Hawaii and Virginia. Post Super Tuesday, it appears that Hillary may not have a single win – nine straight state losses.

Assuming the above plays out, I find it mathematically unlikely that Hillary can win the nomination. Let me first postulate that Super Delegates will play no significant role in picking the party’s nominee. It would be against the interest of elected officials in a party that (rightfully) decried the Supreme Court’s ruling against Al Gore in 2000 as stealing the election if they overrule the will of the voters. The Super Delegates will, in all likelihood, look out for what is best for them and the party by supporting whoever has the most pledged delegates.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s take a look at delegate totals as they stand today (according to RealClearPolitics.com):

Obama – 1,004

Hillary – 925

So right now, before Washington D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin and Hawaii, Obama holds a 79 delegate lead. It should be assumed that his lead will increase from anywhere to 25-50 by the end of tonight when Virginia, D.C. and Maryland decide. This would put him in a delegate lead range of 104 to 129. A substantial amount with what will be fewer than 17 states (and Puerto Rico) remaining. Again, as the Clinton campaign keeps emphasizing, their “firewall states” are Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Since it is impossible to make an educated guess of what delegate counts will be, let’s assume that the winner statewide wins a majority of the delegates. The second assumption is that Obama wins proportionally more delegates for each state he wins than Hillary does for the states she wins, based on the results from the states that have voted so far. While he has performed above 60% in 10 states (including an unheard of 80% in Idaho and 74% in both Kansas and Alaska), she has only reached over 60% in one state (Arkansas).

The math is simply against her in the rosiest scenario that we could give her. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. Let’s say she wins her “firewall states” of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. They account for a combined 577 delegates. Obama will win a substantial amount of these, but let’s just assume Hillary wins a majority. Furthermore, we will give her wins in Rhode Island, West Virginia and Kentucky. Add that to 577 and you get 708 delegates of which she would win a majority in this scenario.

We’ll further give her a benefit of the doubt and give him a low-end delegate lead coming out of February 12 with a 104 delegate lead. Add his delegate lead to wins in Wisconsin, Hawaii, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico. You get 725, giving him the edge in pledged delegates.

If you are wondering how I decided who wins what state, each are based on demographics, the type of contest (caucus or primary), whether independents can vote and regional results from contests thus far. Again, I gave Hillary’s campaign the benefit of the doubt. They say they are going to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Including those in my total, as well as other states that seem favorable to her, she would still lose.

I am not claiming this is the way each state will break. However, giving her a best possible outcome based on conditions as they are today, Obama appears to be the clear favorite. This is imprecise, due to the nature of the proportional delegate allocation, but with past trends, Obama should win a higher proportion of delegates from the states he lost in my example than she does. In other words, a majority of the 725 delegates would go to him (104 would be from his delegate lead going into next week), a majority of the 708 would go to her, but he would get a larger majority because his support will likely be higher in the states that he wins.

Unlike the pundits and campaign people, I don’t think Hillary has as much of an edge in Texas and Ohio as she thinks. Ohio has similar demographics to Missouri (which Obama narrowly won) and Texas has fewer Latinos than California (Obama only lost by 10 points there). I think a far more likely scenario to occur than the one I just laid out above is Obama sweeping the post-Super Tuesday February states, cruising into March 4 with a burst of momentum, pulling an upset in Ohio, narrowly losing Texas, winning Vermont and losing Rhode Island.

Her campaign will lose almost the entire center of the country, from the Rocky Mountains, to the Great Plains to the Midwest and Great Lakes. With Alaska, Hawaii and Washington in Obama’s hands (and Oregon likely in May), her only Pacific Coast state will be California. The Atlantic Coast is hardly anymore hospitable to her. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Maine, all Atlantic Coast states, are either already in Obama’s column or will be. What’s left for her? California, New York, parts of New England, and a small swath of predominately white Southern states (while Obama wins the Deep South with its large black populations).

If Hillary loses just one of her three firewall states, it is over for her. Even if she wins all three it is an uphill climb. It just goes to show that a big state strategy, which failed on Super Tuesday, will fail again. You cannot win the nomination or the presidency by concentrating on small pockets of support in reliably Democratic regions of the country (New England and California, namely). Her fourth firewall may not be on fire (yet), but Obama has found a way around it: winning every other state.