I live in Akron and I barely know who FitzGerald is.

 

As for the likely extremism flowing from Kasich's presidential ambitions, maybe if he thinks the the only thing that matters is the primary, but if he really is thinking about a White House run (and his name hasn't shown up in the conversation as much in the last few months), he's also got to think about accomplishments he could present to a general election audience.  And in fact, on water rights and gas extraction taxes, he's stood up to the Republicans in his own General Assembly.

 

I do wish that he were better on transportation issues (both local and regional).  But that's not likely to be anything close to a fatal flaw in the general election.

 

The massive win forthcoming in November will make him a big part of the Presidential conversation.  People nationwide won't realize that both his opponents have been guilty of political malpractice.

 

Yeah, but people in the know even in his own party will.  I could certainly be proven wrong, of course, but I don't think he has the media skills or national fundraising clout to be a serious presidential contender.  VP at best.

How have democrats in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin managed to screw up this election cycle so badly? They've managed to find John Kerry level candidates to run terrible campaigns, guaranteeing very vulnerable Republicans reelection.

I don't see the problem with the fact he did not have a license. He lives in the city, he can use public transportation.

 

Well he was driving publicly owned cars, does that count?

Which raises another question - why didn't the people at the county check his license?

diaspora (OT): the Wisconsin race is actually pretty tight.

 

Actually, back on-topic since I can steer that back around to this: One of the ways in which Kasich actually could rise in the GOP nomination conversation is if Walker loses in Wisconsin.  They're occupying similar idea spaces within the GOP coalition right now, and Walker's star has been burning brighter because he was successful at fending off a lot of challenges (direct and proxy), whereas Kasich's biggest test (SB 5) was a big loss.  A big win for Kasich and a loss for Walker could move that needle, but even if Kasich gets a big win and Walker gets a smaller win, the GOP faithful are going to reward Walker (who pushed through collective bargaining reform and successfully defended both it and himself) over Kasich (who might quite successfully defend himself but could not defend one of his biggest legislative victories).

I was on the fence in this race and will probably vote for Kasich now.  I've had some dealings of my own with Fitzgerald and, while I won't deny that he is an ambitious leader, my dealings with him did not reflect the guy he tries to portray himself in front of the camera.  He's certainly not as liberal as he would like many to believe.

 

Kasich certainly does stuff that irritates me and I disagree with him on policy a lot.  But I appreciate that he is not some batsh!t crazy cowboy.  He can articulate his side of the argument very well and has shown a willingness to stand up to the batsh!t crazy politicians on his side of the aisle.  He almost has a calming effect on them, in a way.  Fitz would probably have the opposite effect and what has happened at the US Capital would likely show up here in Ohio before long.  I don't think that Kasich will go wild his second term.  If he does have national aspirations, he is going to want to paint himself as a moderate.... which plays well to his strengths.  To do so, he will have to continue to stay closer to the aisle.

 

Also, has it been proven that team Kasich's is behind this?

 

It was the Republican Governors' Association which issued the public records request, most likely at the secret urging of Westlake's mayor.

Fitz would probably have the opposite effect and what has happened at the US Capital would likely show up here in Ohio before long.  I don't think that Kasich will go wild his second term.  If he does have national aspirations, he is going to want to paint himself as a moderate.... which plays well to his strengths.  To do so, he will have to continue to stay closer to the aisle.

 

During the last two Presidential election cycles, the Republican primary race has been a extremist d***-measuring contest. Kasich will be competing against folks with credentials such as not believing in Evolution, still opposing gay rights, and that the United States should still be in Iraq...and Republicans voters that eat this stuff up. His first step is to win their approval and it's not going to come from being a moderate. In fact, that may even be held against him by some of his opponents. He has no incentive to showcase his supposed moderate bona fides in the months leading up to the Presidential race.

 

In regards to FitzGerald, I'd take a trained monkey with a "D" next to his name in the Governor's mansion if it meant he/she/it would provide a counterweight to the crap coming out of the statehouse. I'd love to see Washington-style gridlock in Ohio compared to the legislation we've been getting lately.

I don't see the problem with the fact he did not have a license. He lives in the city, he can use public transportation.

 

Well he was driving publicly owned cars, does that count?

Which raises another question - why didn't the people at the county check his license?

 

Because they work for him and there was still a culture of entitlement left from the Dimora/Russo years?

In regards to FitzGerald, I'd take a trained monkey with a "D" next to his name in the Governor's mansion if it meant he/she/it would provide a counterweight to the crap coming out of the statehouse. I'd love to see Washington-style gridlock in Ohio compared to the legislation we've been getting lately.

 

what sort of crap, specifically, are you talking about?  Just curious

Anyone think mark Mallory could have challenged kasich ?

Sure, probably. As could Columbus' Mike Coleman, Don Plusquellic of Akron, or even Cleveland's Frank Jackson. It's actually really unfortunate for this state, as urbanized as it is, that it doesn't have a pool of current and former mayors with higher political ambitions. There really should be a coalition among the state's cities to take control of state govt. to allow for and promote better urban/metro policy.

 

There's virtually no chance of seeing the real reforms we need in Ohio as long as we've got a bunch of bible-thumping and fetus-obsessed farmers occupying the Statehouse.

Fitz would probably have the opposite effect and what has happened at the US Capital would likely show up here in Ohio before long.  I don't think that Kasich will go wild his second term.  If he does have national aspirations, he is going to want to paint himself as a moderate.... which plays well to his strengths.  To do so, he will have to continue to stay closer to the aisle.

 

During the last two Presidential election cycles, the Republican primary race has been a extremist d***-measuring contest. Kasich will be competing against folks with credentials such as not believing in Evolution, still opposing gay rights, and that the United States should still be in Iraq...and Republicans voters that eat this stuff up. His first step is to win their approval and it's not going to come from being a moderate. In fact, that may even be held against him by some of his opponents. He has no incentive to showcase his supposed moderate bona fides in the months leading up to the Presidential race.

Kasich has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016, even with Ohio playing host to the RNC. Maybe he could have done so two or three cycles ago ago, but he's far too moderate, and the ascendant Tea Partiers steering the GOP want someone as foaming-at-the-mouth bats*** Reactionary crazy and conspiracy-driven as they are. They want someone much more like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney tried to emulate them, but he couldn't pass it off. I can't see Kasich faring any better because he doesn't even try to be the chameleon the way Romney does.

 

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's trademark phrase comes to mind when trying to describe him. That must be the reason why they seem to get along so well.

Fitz would probably have the opposite effect and what has happened at the US Capital would likely show up here in Ohio before long.  I don't think that Kasich will go wild his second term.  If he does have national aspirations, he is going to want to paint himself as a moderate.... which plays well to his strengths.  To do so, he will have to continue to stay closer to the aisle.

 

During the last two Presidential election cycles, the Republican primary race has been a extremist d***-measuring contest. Kasich will be competing against folks with credentials such as not believing in Evolution, still opposing gay rights, and that the United States should still be in Iraq...and Republicans voters that eat this stuff up. His first step is to win their approval and it's not going to come from being a moderate. In fact, that may even be held against him by some of his opponents. He has no incentive to showcase his supposed moderate bona fides in the months leading up to the Presidential race.

Kasich has zero chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016, even with Ohio playing host to the RNC. Maybe he could have done so two or three cycles ago ago, but he's far too moderate, and the ascendant Tea Partiers steering the GOP want someone as foaming-at-the-mouth bats*** Reactionary crazy and conspiracy-driven as they are. They want someone much more like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin. Mitt Romney tried to emulate them, but he couldn't pass it off. I can't see Kasich faring any better because he doesn't even try to be the chameleon the way Romney does.

 

I don't know...if the field is bachmann, santorum, paul, carson, perry...he won't win in the deep south but neither did Romney in 2012.

 

I would have never thought a mormon would be nominated last election

 

I never thought Obama would beat Hillary...

 

You never know.

 

 

Anyone think mark Mallory could have challenged kasich ?

Sure, probably. As could Columbus' Mike Coleman, Don Plusquellic of Akron, or even Cleveland's Frank Jackson. It's actually really unfortunate for this state, as urbanized as it is, that it doesn't have a pool of current and former mayors with higher political ambitions. There really should be a coalition among the state's cities to take control of state govt. to allow for and promote better urban/metro policy.

 

There's virtually no chance of seeing the real reforms we need in Ohio as long as we've got a bunch of bible-thumping and fetus-obsessed farmers occupying the Statehouse.

 

Ohio has three separate large urban areas that don’t particularly care for each other.  I think only California, New York, and Texas have that many.  This is a disadvantage for any city politician.

Anyone think mark Mallory could have challenged kasich ?

Sure, probably. As could Columbus' Mike Coleman, Don Plusquellic of Akron, or even Cleveland's Frank Jackson. It's actually really unfortunate for this state, as urbanized as it is, that it doesn't have a pool of current and former mayors with higher political ambitions. There really should be a coalition among the state's cities to take control of state govt. to allow for and promote better urban/metro policy.

 

There's virtually no chance of seeing the real reforms we need in Ohio as long as we've got a bunch of bible-thumping and fetus-obsessed farmers occupying the Statehouse.

 

Ohio has three separate large urban areas that don’t particularly care for each other.  I think only California, New York, and Texas have that many.  This is a disadvantage for any city politician.

I find this interesting, because there was actually a coalition that formed and existed around 2005-2006 consisting of six of the "Big Eight" Ohio city mayors. Don Plusquellic (Akron), Mike Coleman (Columbus), Jane Campbell (Cleveland), Jack Ford (Toledo), Rhine McLin (Dayton), and Charlie Luken (Cincinnati). I think they were then trying to raise awareness about some of the challenges that big cities within the state were facing while trying to influence policy on the state level. There was even a point during which Coleman and Plusquellic were debating over who should run for governor. At one point, Coleman made his intent known, but he withdrew them when his then-wife's DUI came to light and cast a shadow of doubt over his aspirations to higher office. Plusquellic ultimately decided to remain mayor of Akron, and Congressman Ted Strickland eventually emerged as the Dems' nominee.

 

It seems the mayors felt that they had someone in Strickland who was sympathetic to their interests, and decided after his election that their coalition was no longer needed. That, and there were also some election turnovers that took a few of the members out of the picture. Frank Jackson defeated Jane Campbell in Cleveland, while Carty Finkbeiner beat out Ford in Toledo. Charlie Luken in Cincinnati decided not to run for re-election and was succeeded by Mark Mallory. Personality conflicts may have also played a role as far as the disbanding of the coalition. Plusquellic and Campbell seemed to get along famously well as mayors of the two largest cities in NE Ohio, but Plusquellic and Frank Jackson don't talk at all (which seems stupid and ironic in light of the cities' relationship). The coalition also was Democrat only, excluding Janet Creighton, a Republican who was mayor of Canton at the time. Also, the mayor of Youngstown, Democrat George McKelvey, was mysteriously excluded.

 

In any case, I think there is just as much need now for a coalition of big city mayors as there was 10 years ago, and in some ways more so. Where as Gov. Bob Taft and the Republican state-level officials of his time simply seemed indifferent to our cities, Kasich and Republican state-level officials today are openly hostile towards them. None of this changes the fact that our cities need advocacy, backing and support at the state level to continue to prosper, grow, and thrive. A nonpartisan coalition would be ideal. We don't need people running our state government who are single-mindedly obsessed with imposing patriarchal Christianity over women and gays, or people like Kasich whose view of public infrastructure and development is rock-solid frozen in reverence toward 1950s suburban sprawl-land sitcoms like Leave it to Beaver.

Luken was term limited but that's just a quibble, sounds like a good idea.

In regards to FitzGerald, I'd take a trained monkey with a "D" next to his name in the Governor's mansion if it meant he/she/it would provide a counterweight to the crap coming out of the statehouse. I'd love to see Washington-style gridlock in Ohio compared to the legislation we've been getting lately.

 

what sort of crap, specifically, are you talking about?  Just curious

 

Recent tax reforms, education budgeting, reproductive rights, etc. I'm sure I've missed some things, but that's what pops to my mind.

Anyone think mark Mallory could have challenged kasich ?

Sure, probably. As could Columbus' Mike Coleman, Don Plusquellic of Akron, or even Cleveland's Frank Jackson. It's actually really unfortunate for this state, as urbanized as it is, that it doesn't have a pool of current and former mayors with higher political ambitions. There really should be a coalition among the state's cities to take control of state govt. to allow for and promote better urban/metro policy.

 

There's virtually no chance of seeing the real reforms we need in Ohio as long as we've got a bunch of bible-thumping and fetus-obsessed farmers occupying the Statehouse.

 

Ohio has three separate large urban areas that don’t particularly care for each other.  I think only California, New York, and Texas have that many.  This is a disadvantage for any city politician.

I find this interesting, because there was actually a coalition that formed and existed around 2005-2006 consisting of six of the "Big Eight" Ohio city mayors. Don Plusquellic (Akron), Mike Coleman (Columbus), Jane Campbell (Cleveland), Jack Ford (Toledo), Rhine McLin (Dayton), and Charlie Luken (Cincinnati). I think they were then trying to raise awareness about some of the challenges that big cities within the state were facing while trying to influence policy on the state level. There was even a point during which Coleman and Plusquellic were debating over who should run for governor. At one point, Coleman made his intent known, but he withdrew them when his then-wife's DUI came to light and cast a shadow of doubt over his aspirations to higher office. Plusquellic ultimately decided to remain mayor of Akron, and Congressman Ted Strickland eventually emerged as the Dems' nominee.

 

It seems the mayors felt that they had someone in Strickland who was sympathetic to their interests, and decided after his election that their coalition was no longer needed. That, and there were also some election turnovers that took a few of the members out of the picture. Frank Jackson defeated Jane Campbell in Cleveland, while Carty Finkbeiner beat out Ford in Toledo. Charlie Luken in Cincinnati decided not to run for re-election and was succeeded by Mark Mallory. Personality conflicts may have also played a role as far as the disbanding of the coalition. Plusquellic and Campbell seemed to get along famously well as mayors of the two largest cities in NE Ohio, but Plusquellic and Frank Jackson don't talk at all (which seems stupid and ironic in light of the cities' relationship). The coalition also was Democrat only, excluding Janet Creighton, a Republican who was mayor of Canton at the time. Also, the mayor of Youngstown, Democrat George McKelvey, was mysteriously excluded.

 

In any case, I think there is just as much need now for a coalition of big city mayors as there was 10 years ago, and in some ways more so. Where as Gov. Bob Taft and the Republican state-level officials of his time simply seemed indifferent to our cities, Kasich and Republican state-level officials today are openly hostile towards them. None of this changes the fact that our cities need advocacy, backing and support at the state level to continue to prosper, grow, and thrive. A nonpartisan coalition would be ideal. We don't need people running our state government who are single-mindedly obsessed with imposing patriarchal Christianity over women and gays, or people like Kasich whose view of public infrastructure and development is rock-solid frozen in reverence toward 1950s suburban sprawl-land sitcoms like Leave it to Beaver.

 

I was referring more to voters than politicians.  A metro Cleveland or Cincinnati voter is just as likely to vote for a candidate from Bucyrus than from the other metro.

Starting to see more commercials now. I have seen this one a couple of times now.

 

I've seen it too.  Ironic that the Kasich camp seems to be encouraging people to do an internet search on "Ed Fitzgerald Cuyahoga Exec" and see what comes up.  I dont know if that was the plan all along but it sure seems timely given the recent coverage of Fitz's 4am adventures.

 

It does come off lame though, that Kasich has to go negative already rather than trumpet his achievements as governor, whatever they decide they are.  I think Fitzgerald will be using economic data to paint the Kasich era as pretty lame in terms of job creation, increasing personal income, fixing the housing market, etc.

 

I'm wondering how soon we see the SB5 issue brought up by the Fitzgerald team to rally the public union support who might not be paying attention.  Going this route could backfire though, given public polling was pretty split on the issue

LOL

well, I'm not finding what's in that ad

got

How Ed FitzGerald Restored People’s Trust in Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Wonder how active the campaigns are in manipulating the search engines...

Kasich should be careful highlighting "refusal to release public records." (Can you say "JobsOhio audit"?)

I think Kasich is vulnerable if Ohio reporters decide to cover government instead of politics.

The gift that keeps on giving....

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/ed_fitzgeralds_rough_night_on.html

Back to back I saw two political ads this weekend.  One was for Kasich, touting what a 'great turnaround' and 'strong recovery' we've seen in Ohio and how we are "on the right track."  The next one was for a congressional candidate saying how the "Obama/Pelosi agenda" has led to 'economic despair' and has led our country away from the path of recovery.  Wait...... since when did Ohio's recovery (relatively speaking) look stronger than the nation's as a whole?  Do people actually buy into these false narratives?

That's probably in an effort to sway people in like, Delaware County. People in southern DelCo probably would say things are going well.

It's playing state-wide.  I don't vociferously disagree with the Kasich ad.  It really depends on what lens you are looking at the situation from.  I don't look so much at raw numbers and try to ignore the dumbed down talking points.  You could argue that Ohio and the country as a whole is struggling.  You could also argue that Ohio and the country as a whole are improving.  What you can't do, IMO, is claim that Ohio is doing great and the country is struggling.  If the metrics you are using says that Ohio is "on the right path" then certainly the same must be said about the nation.  After all, Ohio is still lagging behind most states in job-growth, GDP growth, population growth, income, and nearly every other arguably meaningful metric.  Am I wrong?

 

Ohio is doing great... Ohio is doing great...

Back to back I saw two political ads this weekend.  One was for Kasich, touting what a 'great turnaround' and 'strong recovery' we've seen in Ohio and how we are "on the right track."  The next one was for a congressional candidate saying how the "Obama/Pelosi agenda" has led to 'economic despair' and has led our country away from the path of recovery.  Wait...... since when did Ohio's recovery (relatively speaking) look stronger than the nation's as a whole?  Do people actually buy into these false narratives?

 

I believe that's Jim Renacci running those ads and I also was thinking the same thing. I would generally agree that things in Ohio have gotten better since 2010, but I also believe that that would have happened regardless of who was in office because the nation as a whole has been working its way out of a recession since that time.

i like how Kasich's ad starts out about teamwork & "bringing people together"....    this was the same guy who said "get on the bus or get run over by it", right?

^He's turned out to be a very pragmatic governor after his first year or two in office....... or as the GOP would label him if he was not one of their own, a radical, jihadist, anti-Christianity dire threat to our once great Nation.

This is tragic.....

 

Henry J. Gomez ‏@HenryJGomez  4m4 minutes ago

Call & Post, Cleveland's black newspaper, backs @JohnKasich over @FitzGeraldForOH. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/call_post_clevelands_black_new.html … #ohgov

This is tragic.....

 

Henry J. Gomez ‏@HenryJGomez  4m4 minutes ago

Call & Post, Cleveland's black newspaper, backs @JohnKasich over @FitzGeraldForOH. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/call_post_clevelands_black_new.html … #ohgov

 

Did you actually expect them to endorse Ed Fitzgerald? 

I think it speaks more about the candidate than the publication.

It's perfectly legitimate for a newspaper to refuse to endorse anyone, and in fact I'd like to see it happen more often. Pretty sure that the PD did it few Presidential election cycles ago.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/libertarian_charlie_earls_remo.html

 

I'm strongly considering voting for Earl at this point, write in if necessary.

 

What's the point of all this?  Kasich has it locked up.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/libertarian_charlie_earls_remo.html

 

I'm strongly considering voting for Earl at this point, write in if necessary.

 

What's the point of all this?  Kasich has it locked up.

 

My first instinct while reading that headline and skimming the story was to find out who nominated that judge. I then began to feel really sad that we live in such a partisan world that that tends to always be my first instinct when reading political stories that involve the judiciary.

It's playing state-wide.  I don't vociferously disagree with the Kasich ad.  It really depends on what lens you are looking at the situation from.  I don't look so much at raw numbers and try to ignore the dumbed down talking points.  You could argue that Ohio and the country as a whole is struggling.  You could also argue that Ohio and the country as a whole are improving.  What you can't do, IMO, is claim that Ohio is doing great and the country is struggling.  If the metrics you are using says that Ohio is "on the right path" then certainly the same must be said about the nation.  After all, Ohio is still lagging behind most states in job-growth, GDP growth, population growth, income, and nearly every other arguably meaningful metric.  Am I wrong?

 

All correct. Ohio is not doing better than the nation as a whole. No important numbers back that up- labor participation, median incomes, etc.

 

And if people are still tore up about home sale values, those don't back it up either. Cleveland, Toledo, Akron are still under 100k. And Cincinnati and Columbus are right around 100k. If people were bum rushing Ohio for that "explosive" Kasich-led growth, those values would be higher.

 

*Though of course from my perspective, those low home values are great since it's a cheap investment opportunity not found in saltwater cities.

This is tragic.....

 

Henry J. Gomez ‏@HenryJGomez  4m4 minutes ago

Call & Post, Cleveland's black newspaper, backs @JohnKasich over @FitzGeraldForOH. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/call_post_clevelands_black_new.html … #ohgov

 

Did you actually expect them to endorse Ed Fitzgerald? 

 

Yeah, I would expect them to do anything but endorse Kasich.  Remember the mess that was made with his initial cabinet selections, not a single minority?

This is tragic.....

 

Henry J. Gomez ‏@HenryJGomez  4m4 minutes ago

Call & Post, Cleveland's black newspaper, backs @JohnKasich over @FitzGeraldForOH. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/call_post_clevelands_black_new.html … #ohgov

 

Did you actually expect them to endorse Ed Fitzgerald? 

 

Yeah, I would expect them to do anything but endorse Kasich.  Remember the mess that was made with his initial cabinet selections, not a single minority?

 

The election before, they nominated a black candidate for governor.  So it's hard to accuse them of institutionalized racism.

It's playing state-wide.  I don't vociferously disagree with the Kasich ad.  It really depends on what lens you are looking at the situation from.  I don't look so much at raw numbers and try to ignore the dumbed down talking points.  You could argue that Ohio and the country as a whole is struggling.  You could also argue that Ohio and the country as a whole are improving.  What you can't do, IMO, is claim that Ohio is doing great and the country is struggling.  If the metrics you are using says that Ohio is "on the right path" then certainly the same must be said about the nation.  After all, Ohio is still lagging behind most states in job-growth, GDP growth, population growth, income, and nearly every other arguably meaningful metric.  Am I wrong?

 

All correct. Ohio is not doing better than the nation as a whole. No important numbers back that up- labor participation, median incomes, etc.

 

And if people are still tore up about home sale values, those don't back it up either. Cleveland, Toledo, Akron are still under 100k. And Cincinnati and Columbus are right around 100k. If people were bum rushing Ohio for that "explosive" Kasich-led growth, those values would be higher.

 

*Though of course from my perspective, those low home values are great since it's a cheap investment opportunity not found in saltwater cities.

If Ohio is not doing better than the nation now it is most certainly less behind when Kasich took office.  There is plenty of data to support that.

^Such as?

 

Certainly, as with most States under GOP leadership, the top earners may be doing better, but the "Real Ohioans" are not.....

 

Overall state income has risen, but real median household income — or the money coming into households at the midpoint of income distribution — fell at a steeper rate than the nation’s. Real median incomes dropped from more than $54,000 in 2007 to less than $45,000 in 2012, the latest federal estimates. That indicates that income gains tended to be in the top half, while some in the lower half had less income than before the recession. The number of people living at or below federal poverty levels continued to increase in Ohio, topping 16 percent in the last census estimates from 13 percent in 2007. In a measure of a middle class-defining goal, home ownership rates were at 68 percent last year, down from 71 percent before the recession’s onset.

 

http://www.limaohio.com/news/news/50180126/Race-for-governor:-How-are-Ohio-households-doing#.U_tcxLywIbh

 

There, of course, is a lot of context to those stats.  It is nearly impossible to compare Strickland's term with Kasich's because Strickland's was marred by the worst part of the recession.  Even still, the unemployment rate was dropping when Strickland left at roughly the same rate that it continued to drop under Kasich.  The bottom line is still that no one with more than a pea brain could claim that Ohio is doing fantastic while, at the same time, allege that this Nation is struggling.

Toledo Blade had a good take on things, as well, I thought. FitzG is a problem, for sure, but no way can I back Kasich or apathetically sit back while he wins in a landslide.

 

http://m.toledoblade.com/Featured-Editorial-Home/2014/10/19/None-of-the-above.html

^Such as?

 

Certainly, as with most States under GOP leadership, the top earners may be doing better, but the "Real Ohioans" are not.....

 

Overall state income has risen, but real median household income — or the money coming into households at the midpoint of income distribution — fell at a steeper rate than the nation’s. Real median incomes dropped from more than $54,000 in 2007 to less than $45,000 in 2012, the latest federal estimates. That indicates that income gains tended to be in the top half, while some in the lower half had less income than before the recession. The number of people living at or below federal poverty levels continued to increase in Ohio, topping 16 percent in the last census estimates from 13 percent in 2007. In a measure of a middle class-defining goal, home ownership rates were at 68 percent last year, down from 71 percent before the recession’s onset.

 

http://www.limaohio.com/news/news/50180126/Race-for-governor:-How-are-Ohio-households-doing#.U_tcxLywIbh

 

There, of course, is a lot of context to those stats.  It is nearly impossible to compare Strickland's term with Kasich's because Strickland's was marred by the worst part of the recession.  Even still, the unemployment rate was dropping when Strickland left at roughly the same rate that it continued to drop under Kasich.  The bottom line is still that no one with more than a pea brain could claim that Ohio is doing fantastic while, at the same time, allege that this Nation is struggling.

In the three complete years Kasich's been in office, Ohio GDP increased by 14%, the U.S. GDP increased by 4.8%.  In December 2010, Ohio's unemployment rate was 1.5% higher than the national rate, it is now below the national rate.  Ohio had a budget DEFICIT of ~$7B in 2010, we now have a budget surplus.  Not going to cherry pick anything below these comparable figures.

Why is it everything good that happened in Ohio is somehow Kasich's magic wand and not national economic recovery, in part led by the White House, and everything bad that's happened in Ohio is somehow Obama's fault? This is the part of the message that I have the biggest problem with. Kasich did not single-handedly wave a wand and effect positive change in Ohio. The nation has been recovering jobs and income in the wake of the recession, and shrinking the deficit.

Why is it everything good that happened in Ohio is somehow Kasich's magic wand and not national economic recovery, in part led by the White House, and everything bad that's happened in Ohio is somehow Obama's fault? This is the part of the message that I have the biggest problem with. Kasich did not single-handedly wave a wand and effect positive change in Ohio. The nation has been recovering jobs and income in the wake of the recession, and shrinking the deficit.

 

You're already thinking 100x more than most voters.

 

It's far easier for candidates to throw out a simplified, catchy slogan than it is to talk to voters on something as complex as state/national economic factors.

In the three complete years Kasich's been in office, Ohio GDP increased by 14%, the U.S. GDP increased by 4.8%.  In December 2010, Ohio's unemployment rate was 1.5% higher than the national rate, it is now below the national rate.  Ohio had a budget DEFICIT of ~$7B in 2010, we now have a budget surplus.  Not going to cherry pick anything below these comparable figures.

 

Can you cite a source for those figures?  Something other than what Team Kasich has put out?

 

I don't see the same numbers.  In 2010, Ohio's GDP grew by 2.5%..... on par with the country's 2.5% growth for that year.  Kasich took over in January 2011.  In 2013, the last year measured, Ohio's GDP grew 1.8%  http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.html... compared to 1.9% nationally..... which followed a 1.1% growth for Ohio in 2011 (compared to 1.5% nationally) http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/local/ohio-failing-to-keep-pace-in-gdp-growth/nPR7g/.... and 2.2% in 2012 (compared to 2.5% nationally) http://watchdog.org/91226/feds-gdp-report-exposes-ohios-mediocre-recovery/.  I fail to see where you come up with that 14%

 

Regarding the deficit, it wasn't as large as Kasich claimed - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/14/10-states-with-the-largest-budget-shortfalls - and all he did was essentially transfer the deficit to the local communities..... some of which could not handle such a drastic change in policy.  In other areas, he privatized certain services, allowing the 'books' to appear a little more balanced.

In the three complete years Kasich's been in office, Ohio GDP increased by 14%, the U.S. GDP increased by 4.8%.  In December 2010, Ohio's unemployment rate was 1.5% higher than the national rate, it is now below the national rate.  Ohio had a budget DEFICIT of ~$7B in 2010, we now have a budget surplus.  Not going to cherry pick anything below these comparable figures.

 

Can you cite a source for those figures?  Something other than what Team Kasich has put out?

 

I don't see the same numbers.  In 2010, Ohio's GDP grew by 2.5%..... on par with the country's 2.5% growth for that year.  Kasich took over in January 2011.  In 2013, the last year measured, Ohio's GDP grew 1.8%  http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.html... compared to 1.9% nationally..... which followed a 1.1% growth for Ohio in 2011 (compared to 1.5% nationally) http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/local/ohio-failing-to-keep-pace-in-gdp-growth/nPR7g/.... and 2.2% in 2012 (compared to 2.5% nationally) http://watchdog.org/91226/feds-gdp-report-exposes-ohios-mediocre-recovery/.  I fail to see where you come up with that 14%

 

Regarding the deficit, it wasn't as large as Kasich claimed - http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/14/10-states-with-the-largest-budget-shortfalls - and all he did was essentially transfer the deficit to the local communities..... some of which could not handle such a drastic change in policy.  In other areas, he privatized certain services, allowing the 'books' to appear a little more balanced.

Ohio's GDP by year from an independent source, http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/OHNGSP.txt

 

Depending on the measure, the U.S. GDP in 2010 may need changed but it will still be below Ohio's growth.  I presume you're not arguing the unemployment figures where Ohio has improved at a faster rate than the U.S., while doing it on a balanced budget.

^What date are you starting with?  Kasich took office in 2011.  And it is even questionable to attribute 2011 to him as his policies would not have made a state-wide impact on the GDP until 2012 at the earliest. 

 

What's somewhat comically ironic is that a lot of the 'recovery' during Kasich's early term, which he touts in his ads yet which has slowed over the past year, should be credited to stimulus funds which helped out in the manufacturing sector and, perhaps even more importantly, saved a ton of local government jobs which would have otherwise been lost due to his cuts of state funding to local governments.

 

Putting aside all of this, this graph from your source indicates that the trajectory Ohio was on when Kasich took office has merely continued....... that is, the trajectory which Kasich painted during the 2010 election as being catastrophic - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OHNGSP

^What date are you starting with?  Kasich took office in 2011.  And it is even questionable to attribute 2011 to him as his policies would not have made a state-wide impact on the GDP until 2012 at the earliest. 

 

What's somewhat comically ironic is that a lot of the 'recovery' during Kasich's early term, which he touts in his ads yet which has slowed over the past year, should be credited to stimulus funds which helped out in the manufacturing sector and, perhaps even more importantly, saved a ton of local government jobs which would have otherwise been lost due to his cuts of state funding to local governments.

 

Putting aside all of this, this graph from your source indicates that the trajectory Ohio was on when Kasich took office has merely continued....... that is, the trajectory which Kasich painted during the 2010 election as being catastrophic - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OHNGSP

Why don't you do the same U.S. vs Ohio GDP comparison when Carter, I mean Strickland was in office.  What I'm seeing is Ohio vastly underperformed against the U.S. In GDP all four years.  Without looking, I would also bet Ohio had a higher unemployment rate than the U.S. from 2007-2010.  And we already know the budget was a disaster when Kasich took office.

Why don't you do it?  I've never claimed that the State's economy was roaring along with Strickland in office.  I didn't even like Strickland.  All I was saying, and you still have yet to find anything to refute it, is that if you are going to claim that Ohio's economy is improving, then you must also agree that the nation's economy is improving.  That's as simple as saying the sky is blue and water is wet.  Agreed?  No amount of cheerleading and cherry-picking stats can lead you to any other conclusion.

^That. And that's my biggest problem with the Kasich campaign. Not with Kasich, but specifically with his campaign.

 

This election is just a disaster.