2nd OH Congressional Race Wrap: 20 Reasons Why Jean Schmidt Should Have Lost (But STILL Didn’t)
Her party and so-called friends:
1. Schmidt’s primary opponents, with rare exception, gave her lukewarm backing. Bob McEwen high-tailed it back to Virginia, Pat DeWine disappeared (okay, maybe that’s just as well), and Tom Brinkman was invisible. I’m guessing a bit here–That disinterest by the primary losers extended to their folks on the ground, and is one reason why the national GOP had to shore things up in the final days.
2. The evangelicals (Dobson, Perkins, Wildmon, et al) who unethically supported Bob McEwen’s parachute candidacy, even though there was little difference on their key “values” issues among the various primary candidates, disappeared on June 15th, even though Paul Hackett is about as opposed to them on these issues as any Democrat can be.
3. A semi-influential anti-tax group spent a fair chunk of change telling voters to stay home. (Question: How would you justify yourselves to people in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq who have risked their very lives for the precious right to vote in the past year or so?)
4. The national GOP was late, and almost too late, in responding to the national Democratic challenge, and the nationally influential center-right blogs were almost entirely AWOL.
The sorry state of Ohio:
5. Ohio’s governor has a 17% popularity rating.
6. Most of the Republican Party leadership in Columbus is scandal-plagued, corrupt, and a disgrace.
7. Ohio’s Republican Party is fiscally governing the state like the Democratic party would.
8. Ohio’s economy therefore significantly lags that of the rest of the nation, with higher taxes, higher unemployment, and slower growth.
The candidate’s conduct:
9. She mistakenly thought that she could apply the “lesson” from her primary victory over opponents from her own party (”don’t go negative”) to the special election when the opponent is from the other party (where stating the truth about your opponent, whether or not perceived as “negative,” is necessary).
10. Schmidt chose to spend too much time in Washington after her primary win, and began to look like she was taking victory for granted.
11. She got caught in a real dumb and sort-of ethical violation involving (of all things) Bengals tickets that were supposedly gifts from an ex-player, but really weren’t.
12. In one of the debates Jean Schmidt, the President of Right to Life Cincinnati, choked (no other way to describe it) and told the audience she isn’t 100% prolife.
13. She concentrated way too much “energy” and attention on a minor and mostly boring issue (ethanol) and nowhere near enough on the biggies (war on terror, the improving national econony, prolife issues).
The opposition:
14. Her opponent pulled a daring (but deceptive and breathtakingly dishonest) radio and TV advertising ploy that placed sole emphasis on his military resume, totally faked support for George Bush, and failed to mention his party affiliation. Despite the belated howls from the (mostly local) right-wing blogs and talk radio, it essentially worked. It didn’t offend Hackett’s base, and it clearly anesthetized and/or fooled a portion of the GOP base.
15. Hackett aroused his (still) victory-starved base, both locally in his personal appearances, and nationally in the left-wing blogosphere, with his “SOB,” “chicken hawk,” and “greatest threat” comments, and made it clear to them that they could ignore those Bush-supporting and patriotic TV ads. I believe the detailed results will show a much higher percentage turnout among registered Democrats than Republicans.
16. Her opposition brought in star power (Carville, Cleland, Glenn, and others) never before seen in this district.
17. Her opposition was successful in picking fights with people associated with her, or who they imagined were associated with her.
18. With no other race to cover, the national press, particularly the television networks, got to a lot of swing voters in the district by focusing entirely on Hackett’s “would be the first congressman who served in Iraq” angle and conveniently ignoring his stands on the issues.
The closing days:
19. The final-day attack on Paul Hackett’s accurate claim to be the first congressman to have served in Iraq if he won was incorrect on a factual basis, and would have been ill-advised even if it wasn’t incorrect.
20. The disgraceful characterization by Rush Limbaugh of Paul Hackett as a “staff puke,” apparently several times, in his Tuesday broadcast, in my opinion did more to get angry Dems to the polls than his mentioning of the race to a supposedly Republican radio audience (bad assumption–it’s at least 30% liberal, and liberals who listen are VERY motivated liberals) did.
But…With those twenty things going against her, Jean Schmidt still won.
Very few of the 20 things noted above will be working against her fifteen short months from now. I especially cannot imagine that Jean Schmidt will allow herself to make the same campaigning mistakes twice. Of course, there is something in the way before November 2006 comes along. I’ll cover that and a few other matters in another post.
Award for most likely to suppress voters goes to?
While neither party’s hands are clean, this report puts a serious dent in Democratic claims of Republicans being the champions …
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — August 3, 2005 @ 2:23 am
…deceptive and breathtakingly dishonest…radio and TV advertising ploy
There was nothing dishonest about it. If you think there was, go ahead and file a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission. You won’t, because you and I both know such a complaint would be quickly dismissed.
…that placed sole emphasis on his military resume…
All candidates emphasize the most appealing parts of their resumes and platforms and downplay the least appealing parts. Would you expect Rep. Schmidt to play up her vote for the largest tax increase in Ohio history and close friendships with “King Larry” Householder and Bob “Golf Outing” Taft?
…totally faked support for George Bush…
Major Hackett never claimed to support President Bush. He just said he agreed with the president’s statement about military service.
failed to mention his party affiliation.
General election ads rarely mention party affiliation. In partisan elections in Ohio, each candidate’s party affiliation is right there on the ballot next to his or her name for all to see, so there’s no need to mention it in campaign advertisements.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein — August 4, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
#2. very frivolous argument about complaining to OEC. “Candidate would lose an argument with himself.” You can be very dishonest yet not prosecutably dishonest.
The Ad was dishonest because the “they get it” line is designed to cleverly communicate apparent support for the war (it) while not specifically saying so.
See
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=342
Comment by TBlumer — August 4, 2005 @ 11:13 pm
What else could “it†be?
“It” could be that “there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces.” The “they get it” line communicates support for military service, not support for this war in particular.
at some point after the election, I really want to hear from a lifetime Democrat about how proud they are of Hackett’s avoidance of the D-word
Well, aside from those couple of months in high school when I thought I might be a Libertarian, I’m a lifetime Democrat. My take on this is in Comment #2, above.
Bush leads, millions freed
Alas, Thomas L. Knapp debunks the Iraqi Freedom myth here.
By the way, though I often disgree with you, I really like your blog, no matter what the Mockingbird says.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein — August 5, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
So I don’t get it… if there was no way she could lose, as you repeatedly said, than how is it that you’re saying that she should have lost now? Either it’s a shoe in or it isn’t.
All of this sounds like you aren’t being intellectually honest.
Comment by Editor — August 8, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
#5 (OH02), that is a very fair question.
Late on Sunday July 24, when I posted the Hackett vid, I really didn’t think she was in any kind of trouble, but was upset enough about the Hackett video to post it.
No more than 48 hours later, and maybe less, it started becoming more and more obvious that something was going on, as I learned of the left blog moneyswarm, the Minamyer combat thing, the national press interest, etc. So I basically arranged for more guest artists than I originally anticipated. :->
I hope that explains the underlying part of your question, since I had said after the primary that I was staying out unless it did get close. Though I had no polling data access, it appeared to be getting, close, certainly by Friday. I didn’t send you an e-mail disclosing my change of perception, though none was necessarily owed.
So as of Friday morning, the reasons she could lose were piling up and by Tuesday, there were 20 of them (3, 15, 19, and 20 didn’t kick in until the final days). The accumulated mass of all 20 reasons is why she “should” have lost, but she didn’t. Even the load of all 20 didn’t take her down.
Maybe I need a new headline writer: “20 Reasons, When Taken Cumulatively, Why Jean Schmidt Could (or Should) Have Lost.” Volunteers are welcome. :->
Comment by TBlumer — August 8, 2005 @ 2:37 pm