Ohio Going Blue (1 Viewer)

[Mikkel]

If it's any indication of the democratic swing of my home state, yesterday the voters of D-2 in ohio narrowly elected a republican over Democrat, Paul Hackett, an Iraq War Veteran with a 52% to 48% margin. For those of you who don't know, that is a highly Republican district (it's essentially cincinnati and the surrounding area) and a race this close is incredible to see. With Governor Bob Taft's approval rating the lowest of any Governor in the country, I'm beginning to see a trend after the dissapointing 2004 election.

*********************
CINCINNATI - A Republican former state lawmaker claimed a seat in Congress on Tuesday by narrowly defeating an Iraq war veteran who drew national attention to the race with his military service and a series of harsh attacks on President Bush.

With all precincts reporting, Jean Schmidt had 52 percent, or 57,974 votes, compared with Democrat Paul Hackett’s 48 percent, or 54,401 votes. Schmidt’s margin of victory amounted to about 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast.....

Read the rest of the story here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8802959/

 

[Navy Pride]

If it's any indication of the democratic swing of my home state, yesterday the voters of D-2 in ohio narrowly elected a republican over Democrat, Paul Hackett, an Iraq War Veteran with a 52% to 48% margin. For those of you who don't know, that is a highly Republican district (it's essentially cincinnati and the surrounding area) and a race this close is incredible to see. With Governor Bob Taft's approval rating the lowest of any Governor in the country, I'm beginning to see a trend after the dissapointing 2004 election.

*********************
CINCINNATI - A Republican former state lawmaker claimed a seat in Congress on Tuesday by narrowly defeating an Iraq war veteran who drew national attention to the race with his military service and a series of harsh attacks on President Bush.

With all precincts reporting, Jean Schmidt had 52 percent, or 57,974 votes, compared with Democrat Paul Hackett’s 48 percent, or 54,401 votes. Schmidt’s margin of victory amounted to about 3,500 votes out of more than 112,000 cast.....

Read the rest of the story here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8802959/

Wow the Liberals are happy they only lost by 4 percent.......That is like losing a baseball game by 1 run.........You still lose my friend

Its been 30 years since Ohio when democrat and it will be another 30 before they do it again.......Maybe longer.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Any reason you believe that, or any reason we should believe you?

Right off the top, you liberals favor gay marriage...The people in Ohio don't as proven by the huge majority passing of their amendment banning it.......

 

[Deegan]

Maybe it's because he appealed to so many military moms, I think that's more the case for the close race.

 

[Navy Pride]

yeah, and republicans like outsourcing, something that the people in Ohio don't like either!

Really, then why did President Bush carry Ohio in 2004...........

Oh and if the democrats don't like outsourcing why did Clinton approve both NAFTA and Gatt?

 

[Deegan]

there's also quite a few indicators that the public is turning against the republican party, the low approval ratings for Bush, the war, and especially the republican controlled congress.
Whether with equates with votes for democrats is yet to be seen.

Oh there's no doubt that Republican support has been slipping, but as you mentioned, this does not mean it's shifted to the Dems, in fact, the country is tired of the whole lot of them. Congress has the lowest approval numbers of recent history, I believe about 34% approval, that's very telling. Bush has gotten a whole lot done, even with the obstructionist Dems trying to make that impossible. Tax reform, a energy bill, first in ten years, lawsuit reform, bankcruptcy reform, now CAFTA, and they call him a lame duck.:roll:

 

[Mikkel]

Maybe it's because he appealed to so many military moms, I think that's more the case for the close race.

His entire campaign was pretty much bashing bush on the economy and education. He never made a speech that focused on the war in Iraq. Maybe that gives you some of an idea as to what is important to Ohio citizens.

"Wow the Liberals are happy they only lost by 4 percent.......That is like losing a baseball game by 1 run.........You still lose my friend

Its been 30 years since Ohio when democrat and it will be another 30 before they do it again.......Maybe longer........."

Considering bush won that district with 64%, I think it's pretty impressive that he narrowed it down to 52%. No one really believes that this congressional district is the huge turning point in ohio/american politics. We don't care if we lost this one. It is a good way to test the waters here in ohio, and that's the point of my posting this forum.

That's a pretty bold statement about Ohio's stance on presidential elections, considering kerry only lost it by 150,000 votes, which is less than the population of the suberb of cleveland in which I live. As for your statement about 30 years since ohio went democrat, that's just wrong. Clinton won it in both 1992 and 1996. I have no idea where you are getting your facts... if you can call them that.

"Right off the top, you liberals favor gay marriage...The people in Ohio don't as proven by the huge majority passing of their amendment banning it......."

And that was the main reason bush won ohio, because of that specific amendment. People got out to vote for it, and on the way, they voted for Bush. It will be hard to do that again, since they've already passed the amendment illegalizing gay marriage. I don't expect to see quite as many conservative ohio voters going to the polls as we did last november.

 

[gordontravels]

What Paul Hackett actually said about President Bush was that he was a "chicken hawk", "the biggest threat to America" and "President Bush is a greater threat to U.S. security than Osama bin Laden".

All of these quotes were reported on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC and probably elsewhere. The war veteran lost by 3,500 votes out of approximately 99,000. The 4% margin is called "miniscule" by Democrats and CNN this morning. I can remember JFK beating Richard Nixon by less than 1%. I think both elections produced the same results. A victory and a defeat.

I believe Paul Hackett could have had a better chance if not for his rehtoric. I may be wrong but comparing our President to Osama bin Laden crosses the line way back there as far as I am concerned. A war veteran should know better whether he agrees with the war or not.

So what was this thing about Ohio going blue? :duel

 

[gordontravels]

the fact that this was in a typically staunchly republican area.

Well, in view of the outcome of the election with the media "staunchly" behind the Democrat, I think the other fact is that it still is. :duel

 

[Mikkel]

What Paul Hackett actually said about President Bush was that he was a "chicken hawk", "the biggest threat to America" and "President Bush is a greater threat to U.S. security than Osama bin Laden".

All of these quotes were reported on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC and probably elsewhere. The war veteran lost by 3,500 votes out of approximately 99,000. The 4% margin is called "miniscule" by Democrats and CNN this morning. I can remember JFK beating Richard Nixon by less than 1%. I think both elections produced the same results. A victory and a defeat.

I believe Paul Hackett could have had a better chance if not for his rehtoric. I may be wrong but comparing our President to Osama bin Laden crosses the line way back there as far as I am concerned. A war veteran should know better whether he agrees with the war or not.

So what was this thing about Ohio going blue? :duel

He also called the president, a son of a bitch, by the way.

I know you like to see this as a 'win-lose' type of deal, but in reality, this one seat in congress isn't going to make a bit of difference. This is one of the few elections where how much you win by is just as important as who wins.

When it comes to the next presidential election, if people in this district vote the same way they voted yesterday the victory margin WILL be a big deal. Same goes for the DeWine re-election campaign next year.

 

[faminedynasty]

Like comrade stalin says, it doesn't matter who votes, just who counts them. ha ha ha!

 

[Navy Pride]

Do you recall how close Ohio was? Oh no, that's irrelevant to you, since you won in a state that was SO CLOSE that they couldn't call the result on the night of the election, and the democrats had such a shitty candidate, I mean, OBVIOUSLY there's no chance that they're taking a democratic shift!

I've got no problem with outsourcing personally, because I know economics. But Bush offers tax breaks for those who outsource, which is just proposterous.
And Bush just passed CAFTA. That can't help outside the economist crowd, who already hates him mostly.

OK its time for a little politics 101 lesson for you..........President Bush did not pass CAFTA.........The two houses of Congresses passed it with considerable support from democrats.......

I agree with you on Kerry but that is who your far left wing endorsed for president.........Your argument is with them..........Personally I might have voted for Leiberman but because he is a moderate and your party is so left wing he had no chance to win the nomination.......

As far as the election goes close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades...........Ohio was not the reason the election was not called........President Bush won there early.....It was seveeral states in the west like New Mexico that held up the results..........

 

[26 X World Champs]

Its been 30 years since Ohio when democrat and it will be another 30 before they do it again.......Maybe longer.........

More facts from you I see? Ooops...I meant more FICTION from you.

Clinton WON Ohio in 1992 & 1996. Did you mean dog years or fantasea years or what, exactly?

The last Deomcratic governor in Ohio was Richard F. Celeste who left office in January 1991.

John Glenn, what party was he?

Creditability is defined as:

Worthy of belief: a creditable story.

I find your posts have no creditability at all, sorry, IMHO.

 

[gordontravels]

exactly what media do you speak of?

Specifically: Katie Couric on the Today Show. Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America. Bob Schiefer, anchor of CBS Evening News. Arron Brown, Prime Time on CNN. Chris Mathews on Hardball, MSNBC. Keith Olberman (big time) on Countdown, MSNBC. And favorable articles, much more favorable to the veteran of Iraq than to his opponent in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

For a good example go to the New York Times online and in their archives type in Paul Hackett. Katie Couric made him sound like he was going to win. That was very interesting. On MSNBC he was slightly tripped up when he told the female anchor of the morning news on Friday that he had a concealed carry permit and she jumped on it with stuff like, "You can't carry a weapon on the House floor!!!!!" His answer indicated he knew that but he still squirmed. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

More facts from you I see? Ooops...I meant more FICTION from you.

Clinton WON Ohio in 1992 & 1996. Did you mean dog years or fantasea years or what, exactly?

The last Deomcratic governor in Ohio was Richard F. Celeste who left office in January 1991.

John Glenn, what party was he?

Creditability is defined as:

Worthy of belief: a creditable story.

I find your posts have no creditability at all, sorry, IMHO.

He's right NAVY PRIDE and he got you good. One thing about 26 is that if he knows it he will use it on you. Usually he wants me to provide a link for every 5th word I post but since I know he won't read it or isn't ignorant of it in the first place, I don't.

There is another way to approach him. Maybe he is ignorant and if you don't provide the links going back 6 years for all your statements he will remain ignorant. NO. I don't think he is ignorant. Do I have proof? Well, he got you here. Blows me away that he used facts too. :duel

 

[cnredd]

Maybe he is ignorant and if you don't provide the links going back 6 years for all your statements he will remain ignorant. NO. I don't think he is ignorant. Do I have proof? Well, he got you here. Blows me away that he used facts too.

Do you need proof he's ignorant?

This is from 7-26-05....in "Today's News - Karl Rove Leaks CIA Agent"...Post #335

Why is it that everyone here knows the outcome of the investigation?

Some of you have written that you know for sure that Rove is innocent, some have said you know he's guilty.

The TRUTH is that none of us know! We don't know what the CIA has said about her status. We don't know what Novak testified. We don't know squat which is why there's a special prosecutor.
Thinking something is logical, either way, depending on what one believes. But to write that you know something is fact is pure BS.

I will wait to see what happens before I will claim that "I know."

Sounds very objective on his part....He wrote this a couple of weeks earlier on the same thread...Post #57

LOL! If this had happened during Clinton's presidency there would have been either a call for his impeachment or there would have been accusations of murder!

That transcript showed everything that is wrong with Bush and his fellow hypocrites. When it was politically safe for them to comment they do, when they are backed against the wall in the face of positive proof that Rove lied and the White House lied about outing our CIA agents they hide behind the bullshit.

It's so revealing to see some of you hide with the Bushies. Usually you're all so smug, so confident, and now that the shi* has hit the fan you refuse to admit the truth.
Rove is an evil GENIUS. Too bad for him that he was outed when he outed Valerie Plame. Recall that Bush said that The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration.

Rove is INVOLVED up to his serpent like tongue. You guys love to call Dems traitors. What do you call a man who reveals the identity of one of our spies, and does so to punish her husband? I call him a monster.

Real objective, huh?....

 

[26 X World Champs]

Do you need proof he's ignorant?

I believe there are rules about calling each other names? Is there a reason that you find it necessary to be so damn nasty? Can't control yourself? Unable to stop acting like an asshole long enough to debate? This thread was about Ohio and it's voting record, not about me. I posted a clearly factual post.

You, on the other hand, wrote a cleary attacking post that was meant to be nasty. Congratulations you've achieved your objective of writing a post that has zero to do with the thread, zero to do with debating, and everything to do with who you are.

Ever since I posted all the bullshit claims that you've made in various posts, simply using your words, you've been unable to read anything that I write and then reply to it without personally attacking me. You're unable to debate facts so you resort to name call and character bashing.

You're purposely trying to flame me, trying to get me.

Here's a novel idea. Why not try to DEBATE me on the facts, square off with me? Isn't that what we're here for? Are you afraid to simply debate the facts, provide links to prove your points, and to also express your personal opinion about the thread or the post, not the poster? Is that way beyond your intellectual scope?

Why not prove all of us who think you're incapable of debating politics by actually doing it rather than writing attacking posts meant to belittle others?

In other words, can you stop acting like an asshole and start debating?

 

[cnredd]

Here is the reason why you are undebatable....

I believe there are rules about calling each other names? Is there a reason that you find it necessary to be so damn nasty? Can't control yourself? Unable to stop acting like an asshole long enough to debate? This thread was about Ohio and it's voting record, not about me. I posted a clearly factual post.

Explaining the rules to me and then breaking the same rule two sentence later?

Sounds like someone who tells everybody to provide sources for their claims, then doesn't do it themselves? I've already proven that, too.

So that's why I don't debate you...you & Billo Really...two people that act so righteous in their deabting skills, puts other people down when they don't debate to your standards, and then get caught doing the same things they accuse other people of.

You have been caught lying...you have been caught not providing sources when you have told NO LESS than four people in the last five days to do so.
So excuse me for pointing out your inconsistancies to the forum so they better understand that they are dealing with a proven hypocrite....

Yes, life would be so much easier for you to play the "Emperor of Debate"
without me around to notice you have no clothes.

 

[debate_junkie]

Here is the reason why you are undebatable....



Explaining the rules to me and then breaking the same rule two sentence later?

Sounds like someone who tells everybody to provide sources for their claims, then doesn't do it themselves? I've already proven that, too.

So that's why I don't debate you...you & Billo Really...two people that act so righteous in their deabting skills, puts other people down when they don't debate to your standards, and then get caught doing the same things they accuse other people of.

You have been caught lying...you have been caught not providing sources when you have told NO LESS than four people in the last five days to do so.
So excuse me for pointing out your inconsistancies to the forum so they better understand that they are dealing with a proven hypocrite....

Yes, life would be so much easier for you to play the "Emperor of Debate"
without me around to notice you have no clothes.

How about it Champs? The preaching falls on deaf ears, when the preacher fails to practice the very things he preaches.

 

[cnredd]

How about it Champs? The preaching falls on deaf ears, when the preacher fails to practice the very things he preaches.

Yo DJ(and others)...

Gotta read "Bias in the Media - AirAmerica"...Post #84...07-30-2005

I asked HIM for sources on a claim HE made....He's been to this site multiple times since, but hasn't posted on that thread...He doesn't do what he yells at other
people to do....

In the thread "Today's News - "Political Correctness" killed the Columbia astronauts"...Post #99...

When someone is making a factual claim rather than expressing an opinion it is common courtesy on this site to post a link to substantiate one's claim.

In the same thread 30 minutes earlier...Post 93...

Have you ever considered posting a link to prove of what you claim?

In the thread..."Todays News - Who is an American"...Post #25...

You're right Simon, his comment was bullshit. The mere fact that he cannot produce any evidence whatsoever is proof enough.

And This was at 11:30PM....less than an hour ago..."Political Correctness" killed the Columbia astronauts"

Is there some reason that you're unable to provide any facts when you make claims in your posts? Too lazy? Unable to prove your claims so you simply make them anyway?

And yet he yells at me when I ask him to do the same.......what a loser....

 

[26 X World Champs]

Here is the reason why you are undebatable....
Explaining the rules to me and then breaking the same rule two sentence later?

You called me ignorant. I said you were ACTING like an asshole, not that you are an asshole. That is not violating any rules, unlike your posts.

You have been caught lying...

Lying? Really? Don't you mean making a mistake and/or forgetting? When I make a mistake I apologize. Show me, please, again, my lies, and show me also how what you call a lie is not a lapse in memory or a mistake, and then show me how I didn't apologize if I made a mistake?

you have been caught not providing sources when you have told NO LESS than four people in the last five days to do so.

You're one to talk! You hadly ever (I can't remember ever actually, but I don't want to "lie" again) provide any sources. I, on the other hand almost always do, and if there are a slim minority of posts where I have not, c'est la vie. My "modus operandi" unlike yours is TO PROVIDE links and sources to my claims. It is the RARE EXCEPTION when I do not. You're so damn committed to being nasty to me that if I do omit what you consider to be a needed source you write post after post demanding them. You even carry your demands to other threads trying to discredit me.

Want to compare how many of my posts have sources compared to yours? I'm more than happy to face you in a direct challenge....who has more sources and facts in their posts, me or you? Dare to compare?

C'mon, put up or shut up for your nastiness is getting old, and it is awfully transparent. You know the saying, "people in glass houses"

My final point is that I've made mistakes in my posts, DUH! I've not provided every single source for every single claim I've made. Duh! But I've never purposely "lied" as you keep accusing me and I've most certainly provided way more verifiable sources and links to prove my points than you have.....shall we compare??? Afraid???

 

[26 X World Champs]

Yo DJ(and others)...

Gotta read "Bias in the Media - AirAmerica"...Post #84...07-30-2005

I asked HIM for sources on a claim HE made....He's been to this site multiple times since, but hasn't posted on that thread...He doesn't do what he yells at other people to do....

Perfect example of your rabble rousing and attacking me in multiple threads.

You're acting like an asshole again. Is it possible for you to stop acting like an asshole? I'm not saying you're an asshole, just that IMHO you're acting like one.

This post of yours is the perfect example of your modus operandi. Thank you, thank you, thank you for providing me with a source for my last post...this post of yours is my source for my last post.....Thanks again!

 

[teacher]

Perfect example of your rabble rousing and attacking me in multiple threads.

You're acting like an asshole again. Is it possible for you to stop acting like an asshole? I'm not saying you're an asshole, just that IMHO you're acting like one.

This post of yours is the perfect example of your modus operandi. Thank you, thank you, thank you for providing me with a source for my last post...this post of yours is my source for my last post.....Thanks again!

I'm not saying you are a lying little bit*ch who has been caught lying multiple times. There for all to read. Can you say, "Monkey Fiasco"? How about I just make it my lifes pupose to repost where I expose you lying? Thoughts? Didn't think so. Stone cold busted. If I were you and I got caught in a lie red handed I would log out forever. Guess you have no humility. Or shame.

 

[Pacridge]

Do you need proof he's ignorant?

This is from 7-26-05....in "Today's News - Karl Rove Leaks CIA Agent"...Post #335


Sounds very objective on his part....He wrote this a couple of weeks earlier on the same thread...Post #57



Real objective, huh?....

So he makes a statement. A very clear concise statement saying the transcript shows Rove and the White House lied. Then 278 posts later after go back and forth with other forum members, after reading and examining their side of it. And most likely reading and seeing more reports on the situation in the media. After 278 posts and a couples weeks times he posts that no one knows for sure what the Truth is about Rove.

You look at that and decide he's lying. I look at that and see someone willing to possibly change their position based on other's input and new evidence or information.

 

[teacher]

You look at that and decide he's lying.

I've already proven him a lying, not that I'm calling him an assh*ole, person. Once you are caught lying and it's proven, your words kinda lose merit. Monkey Fiasco. Read it. He's done.