How To Pick Presidents
In her victory speech after winning the Ohio primary Hillary Clinton said:
The problem with Clinton’s statement is that Ohio chose poorly in the last two presidential elections. In tragic lapses of judgment Ohio chose George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. We never would have had to think about hanging chads or thrown the election to the Supreme Court in 2000 if merely 89,000 Ohio voters had chosen differently that year. It is pointless to speculate about how a President Gore would’ve performed as the 43rd President. But given the stunningly poor performance of the current President it is unlikely that Gore would’ve been comparably disastrous. Regardless of how she feels about Gore, it is shocking that Clinton believes Ohio knows how to pick a President.
I think it is proper to view the Clinton primary victory as consistent with Ohio’s recent presidential judgment. If Bush was strike one and two, I think the Hillary vote was a foul ball straight back over home plate. Let us hope that Ohio doesn’t swing and miss with McCain in November.
"You know, they call Ohio a bellwether state. It’s a battleground state. It’s a state that knows how to pick a president."She is correct that Ohio plays a significant role in picking presidents. Ohio picked Bush in 2000 and in 2004 by narrow margins—in both instances Ohio’s Electoral College votes determined the election. Ohio remains a large and diverse state that can go either direction in presidential elections. Our Congressional delegation is a mix of republicans and democrats. Ohio is not as representative of the country as it once was (most significantly because the economic downturn has hit Ohio worse than any other state save Michigan). Nevertheless, any presidential candidate for either party will find it difficult to win the White House without winning Ohio.
The problem with Clinton’s statement is that Ohio chose poorly in the last two presidential elections. In tragic lapses of judgment Ohio chose George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. We never would have had to think about hanging chads or thrown the election to the Supreme Court in 2000 if merely 89,000 Ohio voters had chosen differently that year. It is pointless to speculate about how a President Gore would’ve performed as the 43rd President. But given the stunningly poor performance of the current President it is unlikely that Gore would’ve been comparably disastrous. Regardless of how she feels about Gore, it is shocking that Clinton believes Ohio knows how to pick a President.
I think it is proper to view the Clinton primary victory as consistent with Ohio’s recent presidential judgment. If Bush was strike one and two, I think the Hillary vote was a foul ball straight back over home plate. Let us hope that Ohio doesn’t swing and miss with McCain in November.
Labels: 2000, 2004, Bush, clinton, election, Gore, Ohio, primary
posted by Richard Stanislaw at
2:35 PM
9 Comments:
As a former Buckeye citizen, a graduate of a conservative Christian liberal arts institution, and someone who actually knew Richard Jay "back in the day" - I am amazed by the leftist tone of this post. Go McCain-Palin! Any idea who this might be Richard Jay? Hope you are well.
Ha! :D
Ha??? Not even a guess who this anonymous post might come from? Do you need more hints? What fomer Ohio citizen that you knew "back in the day" from a conservative Christian liberal arts institution would want to pray you through your leftist leanings?? Come one. It is NOT that hard!
m* anonymous, the list is not too long, but since praying for an exorcism of my leftist tendencies is tilting at windmills, I'll wait for your for a critique of my observations before naming you. :)
OK - I will bite. As to your quote that "It is pointless to speculate about how a President Gore would’ve performed as the 43rd President. But given the stunningly poor performance of the current President it is unlikely that Gore would’ve been comparably disastrous," I think that is untrue on several fronts.
First - it is not pointless to speculate as much of your liberal posts have no problem speculating on all kinds of stuff.
Second - I am relatively sure that Gore would have underperformed Bush. I am confident that on 9/11 he would not have had the same strength of resolve. I am also confident that his handlers would never have let him throw out the first pitch at Yankee stadium as it would have bounced four times. You clearly devalue the importance of throwing off the mound for the leader of the free world.
Finally (for now) - our economy would be in the same (or worse) position as the budget deficit would have continued to grow due to bigger government and a desire to prioritize our environment over economic growth, national defense, and "Main Street" people in general.
OK. How was that! Now guess!
Whereas it is well and good that President Bush showed resolve in the face of the terrorist attacks, symbolized by throwing out a pitch in yankee stadium after 9/11, it is the implications and uses of the real political power derived from the successful PR that is important. Maybe a President Gore would've have had the PR savvy--again I say it is pointless to wonder. Rather than lament fantasy of a parallel universe, I think it is important to analyze the substance of the policies and performance of the current administration in the hopes we can make wise decisions in the future. That may be wishful thinking, but vocationally I feel an obligation to move the country toward fuller political discourse that is honest and serious.
To that end, let me see I understand your argument. You are saying that the war in Iraq (and the resulting escalation of the national debt and deficit) has been good for the economy? That we would be in worse shape now if we had invested in alternative energy a decade ago? That the economy of Ohio and the Unites States is better because of outsourcing and dependence on foreign oil? That more regulation of the financial industries would've been a bad thing? I would submit that it is simply spurious to argue as you seem to be, that spending trillions of dollars in Iraq was good for the economy. I also disagree with your suggestion that regulating Wall Street would have hurt the country. Yes, there might've been some slight drag on Wall Street investments if we had more robust regulatory oversight, but to suggest that we benefitted from throwing money and lives at an unnecessary and poorly managed war was good for the economy is dubious at best. There may be other reasons to spend life and treasure in the Middle East, but clearly keeping oil prices down or bolstering the economy are not successes of the Bush Doctrine. And almost as absurd is the proposition that increasing fuel efficiency standards or developing alternative energy sources eight years ago would've been bad for the economy or America's standing in the world. We have seen what lax environmental attention brought--our auto industry is losing to Toyota etc. and we have missed an enormous (economic) opportunity to lead the world in energy technologies. Even the likes of T Boone Pickens understand this.
Finally, if your standard of performance is throwing a baseball, then maybe Bush wins. But whether or not other presidents would have risen to the occasion to symbolically bring the country together (I will insist we cannot know how others would've responded), George Bush has clearly squandered the opportunity he helped create or momentarily seized upon. There was a moment there where he could've led the country to better things, but by any measure other throwing baseballs he has failed the country. We are demonstrably in significantly worse condition than we were eight years ago. (The economy is worse, politically more divisive, socially more regressive, internationally weakened, the infrastructure is in worse shape, national security is diminished, real housing prices are down, the cost of living is up, unemployment is higher, the debt is growing, etc.). It is moot whether or not Mr Gore would've done a better job; there is no point in crying over that spilled milk. We can thank Mr. Bush for bolding throwing a baseball as well as recognize that he grew the size of government (prescription drug plan, nclb, wars, deficits, corruption, incompetence), nearly wrecked the economy, wasted international goodwill, diminished the status of the United States internationally, and passed a fortune on to cronies at the expense of main street. He has shown an utter contempt for Main Street and basic American values of truthfulness, community, goodwill, cooperation, fiscal responsibility, ethical behavior, competent management, and so on. Trying to distract attention away from the current dire circumstances by saying Gore would've been just as bad is simply a way to avoid looking directly at the mess Bush created. So those are my thought Mr. Mike. :)
Touche Richard Jay. I am no good at this blog stuff - but wanted to bait you. Well done. And yes - you have correctly identified "Anonymous!" Impressive. I ran into your fellow hurdler JR at TU and found out what you were doing so I thought it worth connecting. You have an "interesting" and "eclectic" blog here - but I wanted to make sure you knew that while your students like your teaching they think that the cons of having you as a professor are "Doesn't like to wear shoes and spontaneously does Yoga." Hope you ara all well. Mike
Thanks for tracking me down! Shoot me an email sometime soon and we can catch up. :)
In light of the recent release of Obama's budget to congress, do you really think that Obama is going to do any better? The economic stimulus package, the most blatant waste of money stuffed into a "porkulous package" ( around 4,000 earmarks included) IS going to fail and along with it goes the liberal economic plan as a valid option for "fixing" the economy. Not that it will keep libs from trying the socialist/free market economic approach. And nationalizing health care? If there is one thing that is clear, it is that socialist medicine is one of the worst ideas ever conceived judging by the failure of that system in Europe (i.e. the UK's NHS established in 1948) and our neighbor, Canada. Is a $1.75 trillion really the answer to fix the economy? Is Obama the "hope" of America or the fall of the New Rome? I guess we will see.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home