Brutus_buckeye

2018 was a blue wave year with high dem turnout in the city. I don’t think you can get a pure apples to apples in the sense you are looking for. plus Chabot won big in Warren county in 2018 and Aftab won big in the city that year, so 2020 followed a similar trend when you look at city of Cincinnati only. I don’t think you draw conclusions from the lack of the city vote, it is more about Anderson becoming more blue and more interestingly, is Warren county becoming more purple ?

Sorry meant to say city of Cincinnati where he underperformed not necessarily the county. He did better in Anderson and some other Republican areas of the county than democrats have in the past and did better in Warren county. But he did 16000 fewer votes in the city than the 2020 candidate.

A 3rd party trump does not generate the election deniers or the election is rigged against me defenders that he had in 2020 because 1) third party Trump is solely about seeking retribution against the Republican Party for not showing loyalty to him. He knows he can’t win on his own without the party behind him so he is just going to burn the house down 2) the defenders of Trump who perpetuated his election narrative who counted were elected officials and party people who held the levers of power in their state. They openly proclaimed loyalty to trump to advance their political careers. If Trump is 3rd party and not in the GOP, those elected officials have no reason to be beholden to Trump and by the fact he is 3rd party, they naturally are adversaries. So if he is 3rd party, there is no ability to get traction on the stolen election narrative

I think that after last nights results many more people in the GOP will start to stand up to Trump and realize he is toxic and unelectable. I do not think he wins the nomination and flames out spectacularly early on. The bigger question is does Trump run as a 3rd party at that point at which case all bets are off.

I think the big answer to whether Ryan ran the right campaign or if Ohio should have run a strong progressive will be answered in 2 years when Brown is up for re-election. He has already said he is running again so he should have advantage with strong name recognition. The question is who do Republicans put up against him? Does a decent Republican with some name recognition in the state beat him? I think that will be probably the best barometer on how far Red Ohio has become.

It was interesting in the 1st because Landsman underperformed in Hamilton County compared to 2018 an 20 which was supposed to be his strength and overperformed in Warren. for a D+3 district it will be interesting to see if in 2024 that holds true too. Given the results in Warren county, was it a shift because people were tired of Chabot after nearly 30 years? Was it about Jan 6 or has Warren County taken a Blue swing? This will be interesting to see in future elections. If Mason starts electing Democrats in the next 3-4 years we will have that answer I think.

No, the problem is that you draw the conclusions that people are moving to cities because of progressive politics and that the more progressive the city is the better its growth. I think the conclusions you are drawing from your data are misplaced and you are trying to see something in the data that does not actually exist. It has nothing to do with my beliefs, it is more to do with the changing American economy over the last 50 years than it is progressive politics creating a utopian place to live (far from it). You are cherrypicking your data though. If you want to talk about states that people are moving to and growing, you have a lot more Red states than Blue States (TX, FL, NC, TN, SC, UT, AZ, GA) are some of the fastest growing states and would not be considered Blue States. The fact people are moving there is generally for economic opportunity. States like NY, MI, WV, MI, WI are losing people or not growing as fast. Using Texas as an example. It has no state income tax and low regulation (now this does not mean it is a cheap state as it has higher employment taxes) but people are flocking to Texas because it offers an easy environment to do business. People move to the metro areas because that is where the jobs for the modern economy have developed. As you point to TX where many "blue" cities are growing, it is also important to point out that that many of the job centers that cause those cities to attract talent and in migration are often located in the "red" suburbs and suburban office centers. Look at Columbus as an example. Yes, the city of Columbus may be a "blue" oasis, but there are many employment drivers in the area that bring in high talent in more "red" suburbs. Now of course the burbs would not be there without the city, but in the same vein, the vibrancy of the city would not be there without some of these suburban office parks (Intel is not going to be in a blue area of Columbus and if Intel was attracted to the area because of the progressive politics of Columbus, they would have located their plant in Columbus, not a cornfield (yes, I know it is not that easy to find the land in the city, but that is not the point)). Hamilton County's turnaround is not to do with progressive politics. Government has a role to play for sure, but up until 2016 Hamilton County was run by Republicans. In general, the younger population tends to prefer democrats and they are moving into Hamilton couhty whereas the older republicans have moved to Warren, Butler, Boone, Kenton and Dearborn counties. It is less that Democratic policies are better, it is more that the preference of the person in the urban areas tends to favor the democrats. Cities were always better positioned to compete in the 21st century economy. It was not the policies that cities promoted it was just how the economy in this country evolved and moved toward concentrated employment centers. Silicon Valley became a huge tech draw and hub. NYC further consolidiated its financial business, Columbus was a retail hub and Cincinnati was a consumer products and marketing hub. These synergies are what caused these cities to survive. CLeveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Toledo were built and thrived during the time where you needed to be near a large seaport to move goods efficiently abroad. You needed to have flat land to build big factories. They were able to attract workers given the proliferation of these industries. They withered away in the current century because the economy changed and the businesses that were concentrated there were no longer in as high of demand. Columbus thrived at Cleveland's expense. Labor was no longer needed en-masse to work in the shipyards or steel plants in Cleveland, they were needed to work in the retail outlets or design teams for women's fashion in Columbus. Also, your stereotype of Republicans and education is also misplaced. Republicans do value education. My wife and I are classic examples as we both have advanced degrees. The majority of families that our kids plan with tend to be more conservative and they are all college educated and often have advanced degrees too. What Republicans draw the distinction between is education vs indoctrination. Teaching kids critical thinking skills has always been valued. Teaching kids that they need to think a specific way or else they are wrong is where you see the pushback. But as far as valuing education, Republicans certainly value it. My criticism of your analysis and where I think it is flawed is that you are essentially trying to use the chicken vs the egg approach and drawing a conclusion that is not there based on the data you are using. The picture you are trying to paint with your data misses a lot of points and can easily be explained by many other factors than progressive politics.

No, because your economics is probably as flawed as the rest of the conclusions you are drawing from your data analysis. You are drawing the conclusions that based on the data, urban areas in Ohio have grown simply because of politics and the progressive policies by elected officials. From what I understand, your position is that the economic growth in Ohio as well as all other areas is solely a result of progressive governmental policies that attract people to live in an area and grow jobs. I think this conclusion is waaaay off base and is not a logical conclusion that you can draw simply by the data you are presenting. You are effectively trying to draw conclusions from a data set that is simply not there. If you want to get a picture of Ohio's decline, go back to the 70s and 80s. Look at the growth in the sunbelt as well as the investment in manufacturing plants in the South. Further look to the inability of Ohio plants to compete in the global manufacturing space that led to people going elsewhere for jobs. The look at the cities from the 80s-2010 when the biggest declines occurred. Youngstown, Toledo, Akron, Canton, Dayton, and Cleveland did far worse than Cincinnati and Columbus (metros), both of which grew or stayed steady. There was not a strong push to bring people back and grow the urban areas until the late 90s early 00's. At that time, there began to be a more concentration of people going to cities because many of the service level jobs were consolidating in more urban areas. Why? there was an educated workforce who could support the jobs in those areas. It is not easy to start a biotech company in Findlay Ohio or Portsmouth. It is not easy to start a finance business in Dayton (or even Columbus for that matter too which is why they are typically in New York). The jobs were clustering where there was already an established economy. Cities like Dayton and Toledo were heavy manufacturing cities, they did not have a high level of education in the workforce and many of the educated ones left town because they did not have enough of a concentration of the jobs in their fields in Dayton. Youngstown is another perfect example of this. How many college educated voters remained in Youngstown? Most got a degree and left over the last 50 years for better opportunities. My point, progressive politics have little to do with the growth of cities. Look at the conservative South and the growth there and you can see that they have grown without progressive policies. There is certainly a role for government to play in growth but the conclusions you draw from it do not paint an accurate picture of what is going on.

There are plenty of people on both sides that want change, but they do not want to be inconvenienced by it to make it happen. That is why when push comes to shove, people will pick stasis over change. Plus, when you have 1/2 the electorate in the Blue column and the other 1/2 in the red (give or take) radical change is not healthy because it will just cause the pendulum to swing back harder the other way. I think it is what you have seen between 2010-2020 and after last night as much as people may not be happy about the situation, they want moderation not far right or far left candidates.

Columbus and Cincinnati both grew yes, but there is much more to that than Columbus or even Cincinnati's policies. Geography played a big role in it too. you cite state policies, but if you look at the areas of Ohio that have done the worst, you go to Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron/canton. Traditionally, these were liberal/democratic strongholds. Columbus and Cincinnati were much more moderate and even conservative for many years. So, many of these "progressive" policies in Ohio were being promoted for decades in the cities that were failing and doing the worst. Now, while it would be easy to pick on progressives for their failed policies over the last 50 years, you cant stem Ohio's population loss solely on those and the true picture is actually a lot more complicated than that. Youngstown, Cleveland, Detroit, etc would have had a population exodus regardless of who was in charge (it may have been less with better policies in place, but still would have happened). There were many other factors at play that caused NE Ohio to lose out on population and Columbus and even Cincinnati to fare better than politics. Politics have exacerbated this trend but was not the driving factor.

You are right. But Dolan would have beat Ryan if he were the nominee (yes I was a Dolan supporter). What this is saying, and I think you saw this play out nationally last night is that voters do not want candidates on the extremes. Ryan was competitive in a conservative leaning state because he did not run as an extremist. The candidates who lost ran as extremists, or allowed themselves to fly too close to Donald Trump's sun that they morphed into a junior version of him. This may have played well in 2016 but not anymore nationally. People are turned off by the rhetoric and you see it on both sides. It is why the Dems lost VA gov last year and why the GOP could not pick up seats in AZ, PA, or likely GA. As much as people complain about gridlock, people actually like it because the status quo is often better than wild swings in one direction or another.

A progressive will never win in Ohio. To piggyback on @Boomerang_Brian, Ryan ran about as well as a Democrat can in Ohio at this point. Ohio is not a purple state and Sherrod Brown is a relic of Ohio's past status as a bellwether state. If Dems want to win in Ohio they need to run the campaign Ryan ran. Most races they will still lose, but there will be years where the Dems have headwinds and will pull off a victory when they have the right candidate like Ryan and a weak GOP candidate in a favorable Dem year. This was not that year. History has shown how progressives underperform in Ohio. Of course you could point to the Gov race and contract Whaley vs Ryan, but I know the power of the Dewine name clouds that some. But look at other items. Take Issue 1 & 2. Both passed overwhelmingly which means a large portion of voters for Ryan and Whaley voted Yes. While Whaley may have supported those issues, many of the true progressives would not have been in favor of them. If Ohio had a progressive tilt to it, or a strong progressive presence, those issues would have been closer (they still would have failed though). Also, look to NE Ohio and Cleveland. Long the progressive bastion in Ohio, they have had numerous chances to nominate a progressive for Congress in Nina Turner and she has lost both times to Shantel, a more pragmatic democrat. If Ohio had a chance to elect a progressive on a statewide ballot, you would have pockets like that district electing such candidates. They are not.

We will have to see how Vance governs in the legislature. Its all speculation at this point, but if he acts like the Senate version of MGT or Matt Gaetz, then I will gladly let you tell me "I told you so." As you well know, I am not afraid to admit I am wrong and also pay up on my bets when I am wrong :)

He is, as are almost all politicians who advance to the highest levels of National politics. You could say the same thing about Tim Ryan too to a certain extent. My take on Vance, when you read his bio and background and his prior statements, was that he was a right leaning individual politically but that he read the tea leaves in Ohio and realized that he needed to act like Trump and even get his endorsement if he were going to compete on the Republican side in Ohio in 2022. It is hard to believe that he believes all of his own rhetoric, while some of the other individuals such as Mandel or Reneacci truly do believe their rhetoric. Would I have certainly preferred someone like Matt Dolan? Of course, but I am optimistic that JD will not be Trump Jr. in office and governor more closer to Portman than a Cruz

It was interesting and perhaps a positive sign in JD's victory sense in what was not said. Namely, he thanked numerous people from his family to his wife, to governor Dewine and other key GOP members in Ohio for helping him with the election. Noticeably absent was the name of Donald Trump. Obviously, Trump thinly endorsed Vance and campaigned with him up until the night before, but I think JD may have tired of his act and found him to be less help then his endorsement was worth. It will be interesting after the overall election if JD can throw Trump overboard for good.

Just curious, what are the traffic counts on Central between 4th and 5th? or even 3rd and 4th? I would imagine they are quite low once you get past 4th as you into the highway underpasses and there is not any street action there. I would think 4th to 5th may have about the same traffic as 6th to 5th street probably a bit more even.

Just anecdotally, I rarely see much traffic on Central and it is lightly used. Where I do see traffic is typically from 6th street going down to 5th or the river where Tina's used to be (Essentially, people looking to do a loop around the convention center). Other than that it is a very lightly travelled street. There is almost no activity near Centennial Plaza and the Cathedral on the Central side. If you do go West with a Convention Center expansion, I would put in place a plan to develop the area from 6th-10th along Plum and Central into a vibrant residential district because the traffic pattern would have cut that corner of downtown off for much other type of businesses and it would not be easy to access. Regardless of which way they choose to expand, they run the risk of the NW Corner of downtown becoming isolated and they need a plan to deal with that.

I wish it were more than seasonal.

But that ship sailed a long time ago so this would never happen. Although would make a good arena site.

It makes much more sense to close Central than Elm. Central is on the fringe and not really connected to town as much and is only really used for cut through traffic. Maybe the city employees at Centennial Towers may be upset but otherwise it is not a heavily used corridor. Elm is going to be more heavily used and better connected with the main downtown core. Plus, you get a much larger convention center footprint going west over Central than East over Elm. You cant really close 6th and go North, and you could not close 5th and go South (I know these are not really options anyway) so the only path is East or West and it makes the most sense to go West IMO

But that still allows for a significant Westward expansion of the Convention Center if they want it appears.

I think for large conventions, they sell the Hyatt, Hilton and Westin meeting rooms as part of the package too. I do not think the other hotels have adequate meeting space for large events.

So you have new Convention Hotel, Hyatt, Westin, Hilton, what others count? Do you count the Renaissance? I would not consider the Hampton, Residence Inn, 21C, Holiday Inn, Aloft, Moxy, Lytle Hotel, and whatever other smaller hotels are down there in that mix as they do not cater to convention and meetings

I wish they had a few other angles of the renderings to see how the buildings would look from a Southeasterly view

Greyhound is barely hanging on financially from what I have heard. No longer the strongest brand. Cheap discount airlines have really hurt their business. Going to the burbs where the rent is cheaper is not really a bad option. Plus, Arlington heights is probably closer to their target demographic now.