It’s all here. ?The first thing I noticed – in an era when it was assumed you needed at least a 100,000 vote margin in Cuyahoga County to win statewide, Lee only won Cuyahoga by 83,000 votes. ?That required margin has grown larger since.

Lost Franklin County by 12,000 votes. ?Lost Hamilton County by 62,000 votes. ?The big swing county, Stark? ?Lost that by almost 8,000 votes. ?Outraised Bob Taft. ?In an economy humming along at Clinton-era, dot-com era bubble levels. ?Still lost the state by 220,000 votes.

Tagged with:
 
  • ryanfissel

    Interesting analysis….however, Richard Nixon lost the presidency in 1960 and then lost the governorship of California in 1962. He came back to win the presidency in 1968 and to win (by a landslide) in 1972. Previous vote totals matter..but not by much.

    If your argument against Lee Fisher is that he is unelectable, that argument is built on sand. The same argument was made about Barack Obama and he still won.

  • modernesquire

    Lee Fisher=Richard Nixon. Wow, if that's not an inspiring message for the Democratic base, I don't know what is.

    Nixon won in 1968 because the Democratic Party was on the outs due to the Vietnam War and we ran two disasterous tickets in those cycles. It was nationally, a Republican year. 2010 is NOT going to be a Democratic year. Rob Portman isn't McGovern and doesn't have Eagleton on his ticket.

    Seriously, Fisher is as weak as the opponents Nixon beat. Please tell us what other Republicans Lee Fisher is like?

    Barack Obama won his first national election. He only lost one election, his first, for Congress. Barack Obama's electoral successs is the polar opposite of Fisher's.

    Barack Obama also won because he INSPIRED people. Lee Fisher doesn't inspire people, which is why you equated him with Nixon.

  • ryanfissel

    I was pointing out the different electoral scenarios. I'm just saying that an election 12 years ago is not indicative of whats going to happen next year. I was not comparing Lee Fisher to Richard Nixon. Wow, are we not going to agree on anything?

    Maybe sometime we will have a conversation about my feelings concerning Richard Nixon.

  • modernesquire

    It was YOUR analogy, not mine. It's not my fault that you make an analogy that isn't only politically unappealing in favor of your candidate, Lee Fisher, but also historically inapplicable to the same situation.

    I just don't know why you made such a clearly inapplicable analogy. Glad to see you backtrack from it.

    Will Lee do better than he did in 1998? All evidence suggests no. And here's another thing: Nixon lost only one statewide election– Lee has already lost two.

  • Sounds like a reverse inevitability argument to me…

    What if the inevitable candidate was doomed to lose? What then?

  • ryanfissel

    Tell you what…..$250 from me to your favorite charity if Lee Fisher loses the Democratic Primary for US Senate. That's my pledge!!! Let's make this argument interesting!

  • mvirenicus

    i don't know if lee fisher will win the primary, but he'd certainly lose the general. my money's on brunner to beat portman, excepting if fisher shows more skin.

  • bob

    It wasn't an analogy, it was merely showing that past election history doesn't predict future history

  • modernesquire

    A point he tried to prove by making a historical analogy… Thanks for playing.

  • bob

    It wasn't an analogy, it was merely showing that past election history doesn't predict future history

  • modernesquire

    A point he tried to prove by making a historical analogy… Thanks for playing.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!