Ohio 2nd Results Thread III

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Aug 02, 2005 at 05:23:04 PM EDT

Turnout is much higher than expected. From listening to those on the ground near the campaign, the thinking was around 50K total would vote. With about half the precincts reporting, it's already surpassed 50K, and we are on our way to over 100K voting in this special election.

Carry on...

Updates (Chris):

Find out whatever you can about Clermont Count voting machines. Do it now.
409 of 753. Hackett 50.45--Schimdt 49.54. Hackett 30322--Schimdt 29776.
580 of 753. Schimdt 52--Hackett 48. Schimdt 45,134--Hackett 42,342. Fuck.
Just got a call from Tim--91 precints left. Hackett down 700 votes. Only Clermont left. This is within the automatic recount margin. Gather everything you can about election irregularities.
662 of 753. 50-50. Hackett down 870 votes. Schimdt 49,681--48,811 Hackett. Turnout massive. Recount NOT assured. MyDD crashing. Tidal is the answer. Had this been any other Ohio CD, Hackett would already have been delcared the winner. No matter what happens, we already have our candidate of OH-02 in 2006.
The reason the 91 precints have not been reported has to do with problems with the voting machines. They are being counted by hand. Stand by....

Tags: House 2006 (all tags)

Comments

113 Comments

Sort by

permalink

I guess

this isn't good news is it? I had heard that lower turnout would help Hackett. Maybe I'm wrong here or I hope I am.

by Ga6thDem 2005-08-02 05:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Latest results says

http://www.hamilton-co.org/boe/inputdata/Electionsresults/Realtime/RealTime.pdf

Total Pct
DEM - REP TO CONGRESS - 2ND DIST
JAMES J. CONDIT, JR. (WRITE-IN) 3 0.00%
JAMES E. CONSTABLE, JR. (WRITE-IN) 0 0.00%
DEM - PAUL HACKETT 30322 50.45%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 29776 49.54%

by manyoso 2005-08-02 05:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Depends

...on who did the turning out. It's really impossible to say at this point. But the results thus far point, at least, to an incredibly close contest, and that alone is a victory.

by jonweasel 2005-08-02 05:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Clermont's a-comin'

Schmidt winning 7869 (56.24%) - 6099 (43.59%) with 100/191 precincts reporting.

by johnny longtorso 2005-08-02 05:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

That may not be enough then

If Clermont is already reporting, and Hackett still holds a lead, then that might ... might ... be enough. I'm assuming that the uncounted votes in Hamilton look a lot like the counted votes in Hamilton.

by niq 2005-08-02 05:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Good and Close but we wont win

We won't win this thing, Clermont will nudge and carry Schmidt to a win ... but nevertheless it is impressive for Dems to do well, but will be quickly forgotten ... this is why it is so important that Dems gain the middle ground again and move to the center, this is a PERFECT example ... of how we can win in 2006 and 2008.

by Monkei 2005-08-02 05:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good and Close but we wont win

Please. Dems don't need to move anywhere in order to win. Hackett ran the way he did because of the district. The same tactic could have lost elsewhere.

by jonweasel 2005-08-02 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good and Close but we wont win

My friend, the Dems need to capture the middle of every district in the nation to win back seats and the WH. We do that by taking back the middle and letting the GOP move further to the right. It's basic politics 101.

by Monkei 2005-08-02 05:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good and Close but we wont win

My pal,
Perhaps you should take a course yourself, instead of pointing others that way. It's evident you're more interested in trolling DLC "move right! move right!" crap than actually proposing solutions.

Dems win by firing up the base AND winning independents. We captured the middle in 2004, and it wasn't enough. We need to do both. And given Democratic positions, we can do both already. No "repositioning" or "triangulation" necessary.

by jonweasel 2005-08-02 05:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

The GOP Has Been Moving Right For 30 Years

and dragging the middle with them.

Why? Because they stand for something, and the Democrats don't. They keep following precisely the same advice you're giving.

Look at Mondale in '84. A lifelong liberal, he didn't run on what government would do for people. He ran on raising taxes and closing Reagan's deficit. TRANSLATION: DLC-style "fiscal responsibility" rather than populism. He lost in a landslide.

Here's Hackett runing like the wind, and you're here saying he's all wet, and Mondale '84 is the way to go.

Brilliant!

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-08-02 05:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

It is not about moving to the middle

It is not about moving anywhere.

It is about crafting and reframing messages to make sense to people who aren't as liberal or as progressive as I am. The idea is to get people to identify-adopt or just accept our ideas and beliefs as reasonable. Its not that hard--and it worked for years in American political history,

Unfortunately, what is hard is dealing with the crap and lies that comes from the other side.

We don't have to move. We have to talk a lot(crafting messaging) about what we believe in in a way that makes sense, isn't scarey and is reasonable, logical, fair and compelling.

This isn't about moving to the middle or giving up on anything it is about reframing the message.

by aiko 2005-08-02 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Basic Bullshit 101

Did Bush win by moving to the middle?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

The first time, yes

Remember "Compassionate Conservatism"? It was bullshit, but that was Bush's schtick the first time around.

The second time he won because our canidate sucked, the economy didn't suck enough, and he was the incumbent.

by Geotpf 2005-08-02 08:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good and Close but we wont win

this is why it is so important that Dems gain the middle ground again and move to the center

What have you been smoking? This election has absolutely nothing to do with moving to the center. Hackett is a fighting Democrat who attacked Schmidt and the GOPES head on. The lesson is the same one it has been for five years.

Democrats need to grow a spine

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/spine.jpg">.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-02 05:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

What have you been smoking?

Whatever it is -- can I get some?

by cscs 2005-08-02 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Wow

So this is the first time I've heard the "centrist" position is to call the President of the United States a chickenhawk.

Most of the centrists (cough...cough...DLC...cough...) are calling for more troops.

Maybe it's Hackett's position on video games. Yeah, must be that.

by cscs 2005-08-02 05:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

i'm gonna die here

i've really been sitting on my hands for the past half hour. i don't want to get too excited, but we're looking good, right?

hubby is on the way home, he's a vet and really wants hackett to win. i told him it's a nailbiter and he's anxious for this to all be over.

he also said tell jerome hi.

by annatopia 2005-08-02 05:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

democratic pessimism

I know very little ab out the demography there but in most rural and semi-rural regions, the late returns tend to go against us as returns from precincts that are the farthest from the counting center (and thus, on average, the more conservative) come in. (By contrast, in urban areas the latest reporting precincts are often the largest and tend to favor us).

So my natural democratic pessimism tells me Hackett's small lead won't hold up ... but I've been thinking that for over an hour now and my theory doesn't seem to be working.

by desmoulins 2005-08-02 05:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

wasn't brown rural and that came out for us big?

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: wasn't brown rural and that came out for us bi

Different kind of rural.

SW Ohio rural vs. Eastern Ky, Western WV rural.

by adamterando 2005-08-02 05:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Clermont to Schmidt

final results....

JEAN SCHMIDT     1158    6711    0    7869    56.24%
PAUL HACKETT     750    5349    0    6099    43.59%
Write In Votes     3    22    0    25    0.18%

by Arkhangel 2005-08-02 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

That's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be

by Geotpf 2005-08-02 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Red State Says

37,645 Schmidt 36,421 Hackett :(

by Geotpf 2005-08-02 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't want to get my hopes up

But it's starting to look good. Now that we're in the midst of counting, a moral victory suddenly looks like a dissapointment.

by up2date 2005-08-02 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

District vote.

what is the distict vote with that in

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

district wide?

37k to 36k distict wide?

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

43 vote lead

Enquirer flash has 50/50 split with hackett ahead by a handful...

by Blogesque 2005-08-02 05:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

409 precincts in

DEM - PAUL HACKETT 30322 50.45%
REP - JEAN SCHMIDT 29776 49.54%

From Hamilton cnty web site

by msn1 2005-08-02 05:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well it was fun

But, I think this is the beginning of the end here. In the end the rural counties went for Hackett, but the suburban counties are going to Schmidt and they have large populations...please prove me wrong

by asearchforreason 2005-08-02 05:32PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Well it was fun

This shows the way to victory. Dems need to win back the weakest link of the Republican majority-- rural America.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-08-02 05:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Gah

WCPO says:

US HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
580 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 45,134 52%
PAUL HACKETT 42,342 48%

by Geotpf 2005-08-02 05:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Latest District Wide Numbers

OH 2nd Congressional District

580 of 735 Precincts Reporting
HACKETT (D) 42,342 - 48%
SCHMIDT (R) 45,134 - 52%

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/08/02/election_results.html

by Latvija 2005-08-02 05:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Latest District Wide Numbers

FUCK.

I knew the early numbers were too good to be true :(

by ben114 2005-08-02 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

i don't think it is over yet...

it's not over untill 100% of the votes are in my view we will just have to see.

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Well it's all down to Hamilton

WCPO has Schmidt with an 2800 vote lead.

Hackett needs to win the rest of the district by about 6.7%; that is, he needs to get about 53.3% of the vote. I'm skeptical that this can happen :(.

Nonetheless, he will probably get 49% of the vote, which represents a 23% swing in a single district.

by niq 2005-08-02 05:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Assuming uniformity of voting in counties

my spreadsheet projects Schmidt by about 2000 votes. Here's hoping it's wrong. Fsck.

by Goobergunch 2005-08-02 05:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Assuming uniformity of voting in counties

A loss this close for Hackett would be phenomenal, given the district. The GOP should be very, very worried.

by jonweasel 2005-08-02 05:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yikes.

Come on Hackett. Please!

by LA Democrat 2005-08-02 05:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

OH Yeah!!!!

HOUSE Ohio 2nd Dist
580 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 45,134 52%
PAUL HACKETT 42,342 48%

by teknofyl 2005-08-02 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: OH Yeah!!!!

Damn... thought that was Hackett at 52%

%#(&%#QW()(&#E()*^

by teknofyl 2005-08-02 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Clermont elections under FBI investigation

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is interviewing members of the Clermont County Board of Elections because of a Democratic Congressman's claim of vote-tampering during the presidential election. The allegations stem from white oval-shaped stickers, about the size of an M&M, placed on fewer than 100 ballots.

http://www.votecobb.org/newsclips/2005/feb/news2005-02-09a.php

Although it's the Green Party Presidential Candidate's site, it's actually from a Cincinnati Enquirer story.

by Goobergunch 2005-08-02 05:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Tightening:

665 of 753, Schimdt 51% (48,256), Hackett 49% (46,265)

by up2date 2005-08-02 05:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Does the Hackett team . . .

have eyes on the ground in every precinct verifying the larger than expected turnout?

by cs 2005-08-02 05:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

The mad wombat

Has update totals by county...

<2000 votes with 60% reporting or some such...

by RedDan 2005-08-02 05:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

This will be followed . . .

By a bunch of folks getting banned from DailyKos for expressing understandable questions about the Diebold machines.

by dbratl 2005-08-02 05:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

The problem is...

...according to OH-02 residents and people in the Hackett campaign, Diebold's touch-screen systems aren't being used there. It's all optical scan and punch cards.

Not sure whether or not Diebold made any of the optical scan machines, but at least with those, you have paper ballots you can recount. So we don't have to pointlessly, endlessly speculate about conspiracies. We can verify.

by jonweasel 2005-08-02 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

good news

Man, how great would it be to have only one district to focus on for a ballot by ballot examination.

by dbratl 2005-08-02 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This will be followed . . .

I was banned from dailykos for overzealous dislike of cybervoting. I am very interested in this, as it relates to my "Best machine is no machine" position.

by blues 2005-08-02 06:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This will be followed . . .

I have never been banned from DKos, but my hat goes off to you. Consider it a badge of honor.

by dbratl 2005-08-02 06:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

If there's a recount...

...then by God, they won't steal this one, if Democrats have to form cordons around each and every recount locale to do it.

by jonweasel 2005-08-02 05:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Damn

We just blew a server... I got brand new ones empty on the rack too!

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-08-02 05:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Who won, who lossed?

Hackett campaigned for a success policy in Iraq and Ohioan,

....but this is something that Schmidts constituents voted for...

Today the number of fatalities in Iraq reached 1804 US soldiers (www.icasualties.org), one of them was Marine Corporal Brian Montgomery from Ohio, who's son turned 1 year old today.

This is to celebrate for those in the Schmidt campaign, although that number is wholely to their credit!

-----------------------------------------------------------

by KnightRider 2005-08-02 05:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

I think there is still hope

to be truthful almost all of the countys in this district are red so i would'nt base data on past elections just have to wait for 100% to come in

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

http://www.hamilton-co.org/boe/inputdata/Elections

Schmidt leads 50-50. Clermont still coming in.

by raginillinoian 2005-08-02 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Is this happening again?

I stumbled across this article from Jan. 2005:

Several volunteer workers in the Ohio recount in Clermont County, Ohio have prepared affidavits alleging serious tampering, violations of state and federal law and possible fraud. They name the Republican chief of Clermont's Board of Elections Daniel Bare and the head of the Clermont Democratic Party Priscilla O'Donnell as complicit in these acts.

These volunteers, observing the recount on behalf of the Greens, Libertarians and Democrats, assert that during the Dec. 14, 2004 hand recount they noticed stickers covering the Kerry/Edwards oval, whereas the Bush/Cheney oval seemed to be "colored in."

Some witnesses state that beneath the stickers, the Kerry/Edwards oval was selected. The opti-scan ballots were then fed into the machines after the hand recount.

Allegations of ballot tampering in Ohio - which decided the outcome of the presidential election by some 100,000 votes - find particular resonance in Clermont, one of three Ohio counties which saw the biggest increases in votes for Bush from 2000 to 2004. The other counties were Butler and Warren; Warren County had a lockdown after an alleged terror threat that the FBI later denied.

by YellowDog2000 2005-08-02 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

is it tightening at all?

last data post i saw on this website had it tightening.

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

let's have a comback!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>am i to positive for my own good lol?

by Liberal 2005-08-02 05:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Hackett is coming back for the win

662 precincts of 753 reporting
JEAN SCHMIDT 49,681 50%
PAUL HACKETT 48,811 50%

wow....

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/08/02/election_results.html

by Alunan 2005-08-02 05:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Are the remaining districts all from Clermont?

Their results show 91 districts still out.

http://www.clermontelections.org/default.php?section=results&topic=current

by Jersey Devil 2005-08-02 06:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

What a good fight.. whatever the outcome!

Go paul hackett.

by LA Democrat 2005-08-02 05:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

I have a bad feeling about this....

I have a very bad feeling indeed...

DAMN YOU DIEBOLD!

This is exactly the situation that the republicans have their whole system set up to address...look for lack of sweat beads on Schimdt's brow - the tell-tale sign that she knows she's got backup...

but I can still pray, can't I?

by QuasiMotive 2005-08-02 05:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I have a bad feeling about this....

no u may not. as you know, democrats have been banned from praying.

by Andy Katz 2005-08-02 06:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

anybody notice that all the special levies passed?

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/08/02/election_results.html

perhaps, at least in parts of Ohio, the era of knee-jerk, vote against any and all taxes, is over?

by mfidelman 2005-08-02 06:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Like I've Been Saying. . .

It's probably the cybervoting machines again. The Dem starts to lead, then the Repub just barely closes the gap. (Because the hackers switch just enough votes...) The best machine is no machine. As long as the machines are there to hack, this will always be the story.

by blues 2005-08-02 06:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

not using those machines

here.

by Teaser 2005-08-02 06:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not using those machines

It's obviously a Terminator type situation.

by blues 2005-08-02 06:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

What my numbers meant!

The numbers I posted in a comment and Chris put on the front page came from a quick pull of the 2004 election results in the counties. I posted what they meant in a comment above it, and then reformatted and posted.

The first two numbers are the Bush vs. Kerry numbers from 2004, with partial counties taking numbers from the Congressional race in 2004. The thrid number is the percentage Hackett would need in the county to get to 50%, and the number in the parenthesis means how many points he's over that threshold.

They represented a quick reference to see how Hackett was doing while only looking at partial numbers. Apologies for confusing people with a set of numbers without an explanation, the explanation didn't make it into comment and was in an above comment in the previous thread.

Here are the numbers, though with almost everything tabulated they don't mean a lot now.

Adams- 64-36 - 50 (7 points over) (34%)
Brown- 64-36 - 50 (6 points over) (100%)
Clermont- 71-29 - 43 (0 points short) (50%)
Hamilton- 70-30 - 52 (3 points short) (70%)
Pike-52-48 - 62 (1 point short) (50%)
Scioto- 52-48 - 62 (4 Points over) (71%)
Warren- 72-28 - 44 (2 points short) (100%)

by Kombiz Lavasany 2005-08-02 06:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Can Hackett win?

by Liberal 2005-08-02 06:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

685 reporting

Now it's 50-50, with Schmidt leading by less than 1,000 votes (49,681 - 48,811).

by up2date 2005-08-02 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

:"We will bury him!"

Didn't some GOP wingnut say that this morning? Looks like he's not staying down, asshole.

by Willifol 2005-08-02 06:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Dang

I finally got in to turn off the blogads, this is amazing-- what's going on in Ohio tonight.

by Jerome Armstrong 2005-08-02 06:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dang

Absolutely amazing!!!

by cscs 2005-08-02 06:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Absolutely, the poll books must be gone over . . .

Sig by sig and every voter contacted to confirm that a vote was cast.

by cs 2005-08-02 06:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

NO M$M COVERAGE AT ALL!!!

WTF?

by teknofyl 2005-08-02 06:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: NO M$M COVERAGE AT ALL!!!

Didn't you hear?

There was a place crash 7 hours ago, and no one got hurt.

Big news!!!!

(...sigh...)

by cscs 2005-08-02 06:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: NO M$M COVERAGE AT ALL!!!

I think we should all just realize the MSM has become practically worthless. If it's not about a celebrity trial, you may as well forget them.

by schwompa 2005-08-02 06:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: NO M$M COVERAGE AT ALL!!!

Electios are of little consequence to the Micheal Jackson obsessed media matrix. Who gives a damn about the "will of the non-celebrity trash?" (I ain't calling it a "matrix" for nothing here...)

by blues 2005-08-02 06:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Oh the humanity

What is taking the good people of Clermont County so long?

This is looking like those late night Chicago ballots. Oy.

by niq 2005-08-02 06:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

any new data on it still 50-50

my comp. is slow

by Liberal 2005-08-02 06:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

TIDAL BABY!

what did i tell ya?

oh man, let's hope we pull this one out. hackett better be mobilising folks for the recount. NOW!

by annatopia 2005-08-02 06:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Claremont...

is apparently where Schmidt is from, and will favor her heavily. So apparently it is over, but with a recount?

by torrentprime 2005-08-02 06:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

i wonder...

is there any reason Claremont is not voting and what about a recount? and where did the Hackett short comback come from?

by Liberal 2005-08-02 06:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Could that be the reason for the holdup?

The comeback had to have come from Clermont because she went ahead in Hamilton after being behind all night and all other precincts had reported.

Is there an urban enclave in Clermont where Hackett might pick up the difference?

by Jersey Devil 2005-08-02 06:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

or voting slow

by Liberal 2005-08-02 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: or voting slow

Not voting slow, counting slow. This sandbagging the count to see how many votes Schmidt needs to make up must be watched.

by cs 2005-08-02 06:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Recount?

Why did the main post change from "Recount assured" to "Recount NOT assured"? What did I miss?

by Lis Riba 2005-08-02 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Recount?

That things are in utter chaos.

by Chris Bowers 2005-08-02 06:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Recount?

Perhaps, but Mydd still the best election site/blog thingy on the entire internet.

You guys at Mydd.com deserve credit for all the hard work you do to forward the progressive cause. (not to mention the important coverage of elections for us political junkies!)

Thanks for everything.

by agpc 2005-08-02 06:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Recount?

I second !!!

by dbratl 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Recount?

Amen!

by Lis Riba 2005-08-02 06:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

I don't understand what's taking so long.

The first 100,000 votes came in so fast. Why the slow down?

by LA Democrat 2005-08-02 06:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

This race could be very important

I can't reconcile these Ohio numbers. Just nine months ago Republican Portman won the Ohio second district with 72% of the vote in the mostly rural Kentucky border district of Ohio. Now Democrat Hacket is in a dead heat with a Republican. any Republican.

What is so different between November 2004 and August 2005 that the district has so turned against the party of their choice in such a short time? Nothing in politics has changed that much.

I can't help but wonder if these results are the smoking gun that proves that the national GOP did rig the system in Nov. 2004. It was easier on a statewide basis in the confusion of a national election year to screw the system. But in a discrete race like this special election the games could not be played that were played for Bush. and since bush was not on the ticket the national organization could not risk exposing themselves and their systemic subversion operations.

An immediate analysis of this race vs. the Nov. race need to be done by people who can discern the meaning of the discontinuities.

by aahpat 2005-08-02 06:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

I Think It's A Fair Point, But...

At this point people have dug in their heels so hard on both sides that it's unlikely to change many minds.

What is undeniable is that calling GWB out of his name works a hell of a lot better than kissing his ass.

by Paul Rosenberg 2005-08-02 06:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This race could be very important

"What is so different between November 2004 and August 2005 that the district has so turned against the party of their choice in such a short time?"

Who voted.

Also, who is on the ballot.

Also, the favorability of the state GOP has gone in the tank.

by niq 2005-08-02 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: This race could be very important

It is because Hackett is a veteran, plain and simple. It is becuase he sticks to his his guns, and his oppenent was horrible, and the net roots came through big. You need not look any further than that.

by Christopher Hitchens 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Recount not assured...

since the difference is less than the legislated margin. 1/2 of 1% is what I was reading. So unless it is within 500 votes (with the current totals) it's not automatic.

by torrentprime 2005-08-02 06:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

hackett on headline news!

they just reported that hackett opened up a small lead. what's going on here?

by annatopia 2005-08-02 06:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

Huh? Where where where

by PsiFighter37 2005-08-02 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

it was just a blip

they reported that a "bush bashing veteran" had "opened up a small lead" on his republican opponent.

lasted all of 15 seconds, but it's the first story i've seen related to this race on cable news all night.

by annatopia 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it was just a blip

lol I love the way they describe our candidates.

Oh CNN, how far you have fallen. And fast!

Not surprising after AOL bought off Time Warner and sidelined ole Ted Turner, but sad nonetheless.

Of course, their ratings have been in the shitter ever since they moved to the "he said, she said" format instead of just reporting the godamned truth.

by agpc 2005-08-02 06:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

They said that during the Headline News newsbreak on Aaron Brown's show.

by Goobergunch 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

CNN

on cnn at 10:19 EST. How far behind are they. He had that lead what over 30 minutes ago? Unless they see something we don't and something tell me they don't.

by jrflorida 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

Maybe that's why they are slow to report?

by dbratl 2005-08-02 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

given its the M$M i expect they are using numbers from a while ago when he was leading

by ben114 2005-08-02 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

oh c'mon . . . I mean they can't investigate worth a lick, but don't you think they at least have someone assigned to watching the results come in?

by dbratl 2005-08-02 06:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

Must be a lull in the "no one died in a plane crash" story. Maybe the found another person that didn't die.

by cscs 2005-08-02 06:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: hackett on headline news!

Oops -- ignore above 2nd sentence. Obviously wasn't supposed to be there.

by cscs 2005-08-02 06:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

I am clueless.

by LA Democrat 2005-08-02 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Ohio Revised Code, Automatic Recount Law

[§ 3515.01.1] § 3515.011. Recount in certain close elections.

If the number of votes cast in any county or municipal election for the declared winning nominee, candidate, question, or issue does not exceed the number of votes cast for the declared defeated nominee, candidate, question, or issue by a margin of one-half of one per cent or more of the total vote, the appropriate board of elections shall order a recount which shall be conducted as provided in sections 3515.04 and 3515.05 of the Revised Code.

If the number of votes cast in any district election for the declared winning nominee, candidate, question, or issue does not exceed the number of votes cast for the declared defeated nominee, candidate, question, or issue by a margin of one-half of one per cent or more of the total vote, the secretary of state shall order a recount which shall be conducted as provided in sections 3515.04 and 3515.05 of the Revised Code.

If the number of votes cast in any statewide election for the declared winning nominee, candidate, question, or issue does not exceed the number of votes cast for the declared defeated nominee, candidate, question, or issue by a margin of one-fourth of one percent or more of the total vote, the secretary of state shall order a recount which shall be conducted as provided in sections 3515.04 and 3515.05 of the Revised Code.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Based on WCPO's current 50/50 numbers (662 precincts of 753 reporting), there are 98,492 votes. Based on that number, half of one percent is 492 votes. The current split is, again according to WCPO, 870 votes.

This is a real nailbiter...

by Blogesque 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Maybe

could it be Headline News is behind the times by like a half hour

by duncin32 2005-08-02 06:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

discrepancy?

Why does the wcpo page say 662 precincts reporting, but the hamilton pdf page say 885 reporting. both have the same vote totals. Which is correct?

by DonBinTN 2005-08-02 06:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: discrepancy?

sorry hamilton page has 685 not 885. Still a discrepancy. Would mean there are only 68 precincts left if it's right.

by DonBinTN 2005-08-02 06:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

I dont know at this point i do know one thing

The Democrats have a star who either won or came so close to winning in one of the most conservative districts in the state next stop the senate assumeing the loss is confirmed and recount impossible.

by Liberal 2005-08-02 06:24PM | 0 recs