2 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

 

What other statewide progressive candidates were there? Serious question. No one had heard of any of the statewide candidates. I, someone very engaged in politics, had barely heard of a couple of the Democrats running for various statewide offices. I wouldn't be surprised if they combined for $0 in TV ads. This is all mainly because DeWine was a shoe-in and the rest of the offices were going to fall in line with the Governor's race. The only statewide race that was even close to possibly being a contest was US Senate.

Nan Whaley ran a more progressive campaign and lost by a lot more than Ryan. I agree the other statewide candidates weren’t in the same league, but I don’t know how one can discount the governor race. I don’t think running a Progressive vs a “moderate” solves this challenge. The most likely path to success is increasing turnout in Cuyahoga and Franklin. 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

 

None of this is supported by the evidence, sorry. Let's look at population for starters. I looked at population change for all 88 counties 2010-2020. I then broke them down into multiple different categories (Republican vs. Democrat, Urban vs Suburban vs. Rural, Metro vs. Non-Metro, etc.) Urban counties are those containing the 7 largest cities in the state. Suburban are metro counties adjacent to urban counties with at least 100K population. Rural are all counties with less than 100K in population, regardless of metro or non-metro status. I then looked at the historic voting patterns of the counties and whether they skewed Republican or Democratic. Here are the results of the possible combinations for average county growth. 

1. Metro Urban Democrat: +19084.8 (8 counties)

2. Any Metro Urban: +19084.8 (8 counties)

3. Any Metro Democrat: +14211.2 (11 counties)

4. Any Democrat: +12,833.1 (12 counties)

5. Metro Suburban Republican: +12,277.5 (13 counties)

6. Any Metro Suburban: +10,203.3 (16 counties)

7. Any Metro County: +9,872.3 (33 counties)

8. Any Metro Republican: +6,926.7 (21 counties)

9. Any Republican: +1,433.0 (76 counties)

10. Metro Suburban Democrat: +1,215.0 (3 counties)

11. Metro Urban Republican +0.0 (0 counties)

12. Any Rural Republican: -804.8 (63 counties)

13. Any Rural: -810.7 (64 counties)

14. Any Non-Metro: -1,116.8 (55 counties)

15. Non-Metro Republican: -1,121.4 (54 counties)

16. Non-Metro Democrat: -2,326 (1 county)

17. Any Rural Democrat: -2,326 (1 county)

It's interesting that the only Republican counties to see any kind of strong growth were those located within large metro areas. So they're basically feeding off urban Democratic areas.  

 

Total Republican counties of any kind that lost population: 49 of 76 (64.5%)

Total Republican counties of any kind that gained population: 27 of 76 (35.5%)

Total Democratic counties of any kind that lost population: 7 of 12 (58.3%)

Total Democratic counties of any kind that gained population: 5 of 12 (41.7)

Republican share of state counties that lost population: 49 of 56 (87.5%)

Democratic share of state county loss: 7 of 56 (12.5%)

 

Seems Republicans attract far fewer people overall, especially the further away they get from urban areas. And they account for the vast majority of Ohio's county population losses. So when you talk about "failed" progressive policies, I have no idea what you're talking about. In this metric, it's conservative policy that has failed, and spectacularly. I'm willing to bet that the story is very much the same in most other states.  

 

Now, you want me to do economics next? 

Edited November 9, 20222 yr by jonoh81

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

The people you are talking about don't want change then, because real change takes actual effort and even sacrifice.  And logically, if the status quo is not giving people the change they want, then the status quo is not working.  The conservative belief that all things can be fine if we do nothing and change nothing is delusional, and would only work if such people already had nothing to complain about to begin with- i.e. privilege.

 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

That is why when push comes to shove, people will pick stasis over change.

 

 

Sure. It helps when you have one of the biggest political parties scaring the crap out of everyone with lies about what change might bring. Fear sells far easier than hope, but I sure wouldn't be proud to be selling it. 

 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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.

 

And yet more Ohioans picked far-right candidates, not moderates, and certainly not people who will actually do anything about any existing issues. So we're back to what I said- the people are choosing stagnation and irrelevance because the Right has made them too scared to believe they can have something better. How brave.

 

Edited November 9, 20222 yr by jonoh81

2 hours ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

That anyone would vote for JD Vance just blows my mind...

 

Aside from his general sleaziness, he's a fake Ohioan. I have relatives that talk about times they ran into John Boehner at Skyline. Do you think JD Vance is a local at any business in the city where he "lives"?

36 minutes ago, westerninterloper said:

An anecdote about Toledo - early in the campaigns, I was heading to our local gay bar in Toledo for happy hour, and did a double take when I saw Nan Whaley leaving the bar with a local city councilman. I saw him later that evening at the same bar, and asked "What that Nan Whaley??!" He affirmed, and said he had brought her to the bar to seek signatures to get on the ballot, but among the older crowd there at that hour, no one would sign the petition, because they're all Republicans. Even the bar owner is famously Republican, they all claim because of economic issues and taxes. 

And this is why it sucks to be an older gay guy in Ohio-too many of these types with no souls.

 

J.D. Vance winning is just another disgrace for our state. 

The McDonald's off his exit knows he likes 20 piece McNuggets

I'd bet that Vance doesn't run again -- if he even completes his term -- he'll learn that there's more money in lobbying or working in a think tank than insider-trading as a Senator.  I just don't get the feeling that playing the political game is what is driving him.

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Now, you want me to do economics next? 

No, because your economics is probably as flawed as the rest of the conclusions you are drawing from your data analysis.

 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

None of this is supported by the evidence, sorry. Let's look at population for starters. I looked at population change for all 88 counties 2010-2020. I then broke them down into multiple different categories (Republican vs. Democrat, Urban vs Suburban vs. Rural, Metro vs. Non-Metro, etc.) Urban counties are those containing the 7 largest cities in the state. Suburban are metro counties adjacent to urban counties with at least 100K population. Rural are all counties with less than 100K in population, regardless of metro or non-metro status. I then looked at the historic voting patterns of the counties and whether they skewed Republican or Democratic. Here are the results of the possible combinations for average county growth. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Nan Whaley ran a more progressive campaign and lost by a lot more than Ryan. I agree the other statewide candidates weren’t in the same league, but I don’t know how one can discount the governor race. I don’t think running a Progressive vs a “moderate” solves this challenge. The most likely path to success is increasing turnout in Cuyahoga and Franklin. 

 

You get higher turnout in cities by running better, more engaging candidates. A progressive, labor Democrat would get higher turnout. Was Nan Whaley really running as a progressive?! The only thing I heard from her campaign that could be considered progressive was supporting abortion access. Everything else was boilerplate Democratic ideas. She might be considered somewhat progressive, but she certainly didn't throw herself out there as a big departure. She essentially labeled herself as a steady hand that would support abortion access and stop corruption. 

 

Time after time we run people who pretend they aren't Democrats. It didn't work the first six times, why would it work this time? We can't look at a single race in 2006, politically a completely different world in Ohio, and say that the same moderate Democrat schtick is going to work.

Yeah the Strickland thing doesn't have as much teeth now that there's been 16 more years of Appalachian Ohio emptying out.

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

No, because your economics is probably as flawed as the rest of the conclusions you are drawing from your data analysis.

 

I had a funny feeling you would make this excuse. "The reality doesn't match my beliefs! Fake!"

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

I actually never claimed politics alone were responsible. But it certainly begs the question why Republican counties have so much trouble attracting people, especially when they don't have a core metro to leech off of. Conservatives love to talk about how "progressive policies" have failed, but yet blue counties- and indeed blue states- generally offer a higher quality of life, more jobs, healthier people, more economic stability and better population and economic growth across the board. Even when looking at red states like Texas, it's not conservative places that are generally responsible for much of the population or economic growth. It's the cities.  It's all those deep blue places conservative love to hate. 

Now, you can just claim that the conclusions are off base, and that no conclusions can be drawn. I would be too if I was in your position. So why don't you attempt to explain it. Give me some logical reasons why blue areas outperform red ones so consistently in so many different areas at the local, state and national level. I'm not going to argue that there aren't exceptions, or that politics alone is responsible, but it clearly plays a role, and arguably a stronger one than you want to admit.

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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.

 

And who was offshoring manufacturing jobs then? You think that was progressives?  And who has been steadily weakening unions and other organizations that were once the backbone of American labor and the middle class? 

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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?

 

Huh? Cities were always the places where jobs and people concentrated. Even during the worst times, cities were the economic powerhouses in the state, not rural Shelby County.  Nothing has changed in this regard. If it weren't for Columbus and Cincinnati more recently, Ohio would've been hemorrhaging people and jobs. Isn't it curious that Hamilton county's turnaround coincided with it also turning blue? 

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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.

 

Yes, finally you're getting it. Companies that need a bunch of educated people don't move to the boonies. They go where the talent is, where education is valued and encouraged and promoted enough to support the required labor. They go where the people are. Red areas have never been education leaders. Even conservatives get their higher education in blue areas. Progressive and liberal philosophy wants an educated, productive society for the betterment of all. When's the last time Republicans valued higher education? When's the last time they weren't just attacking it as "woke"? 

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

Columbus and Dayton don't have to compete with New York to still have far more finance business opportunities than your average rural town.  That's the point. And you know where those people in Youngstown went? To other cities in other states. Or Columbus. They didn't move to rural red areas that offered them nothing more than what they left. Why do you think Red counties are the main source of depopulation? It's all those young people moving away because there is nothing for them. No opportunities, no social life and likely a very regressive, repressive culture deeply stuck in the past, all things that will keep those places dying. 

 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

Your point is wrong, though. It's cities, even in the South. It's always been cities. And it is the philosophies and views behind cities that are important. 

25 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

You get higher turnout in cities by running better, more engaging candidates. A progressive, labor Democrat would get higher turnout. Was Nan Whaley really running as a progressive?! The only thing I heard from her campaign that could be considered progressive was supporting abortion access. Everything else was boilerplate Democratic ideas. She might be considered somewhat progressive, but she certainly didn't throw herself out there as a big departure. She essentially labeled herself as a steady hand that would support abortion access and stop corruption. 

 

Time after time we run people who pretend they aren't Democrats. It didn't work the first six times, why would it work this time? We can't look at a single race in 2006, politically a completely different world in Ohio, and say that the same moderate Democrat schtick is going to work.

Exactly.  Democratic candidates need to stop downplaying Democratic Party ideals thinking that that is going to somehow attract crossover voters.  All it does is depress Democrat turnout.

1 minute ago, Foraker said:

Exactly.  Democratic candidates need to stop downplaying Democratic Party ideals thinking that that is going to somehow attract crossover voters.  All it does is depress Democrat turnout.

 

Ironically, it is Republican propaganda that is pushing Democrats to run boring, milquetoast moderates in so many places. They're so afraid of being seen as "far left", they're running people no one is inspired by, including the people they need the most. Republicans will lie regardless. Democrats can't keep catering to this kind of BS. Ohio is not lost forever. That's also propaganda. The red places in the state are dying. Blue areas are growing. Turnout is what will make the difference- that and an actually fair district map.  Democrats keep ceding when they don't need to and shouldn't.  

 

1 hour ago, ryanlammi said:

 

You get higher turnout in cities by running better, more engaging candidates. A progressive, labor Democrat would get higher turnout. Was Nan Whaley really running as a progressive?! The only thing I heard from her campaign that could be considered progressive was supporting abortion access. Everything else was boilerplate Democratic ideas. She might be considered somewhat progressive, but she certainly didn't throw herself out there as a big departure. She essentially labeled herself as a steady hand that would support abortion access and stop corruption. 

 

Time after time we run people who pretend they aren't Democrats. It didn't work the first six times, why would it work this time? We can't look at a single race in 2006, politically a completely different world in Ohio, and say that the same moderate Democrat schtick is going to work.

Didn't Whaley lose (barely) Montgomery County? That's a bad sign. 

29 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I had a funny feeling you would make this excuse. "The reality doesn't match my beliefs! Fake!"

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).

 

32 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Conservatives love to talk about how "progressive policies" have failed, but yet blue counties- and indeed blue states- generally offer a higher quality of life, more jobs, healthier people, more economic stability and better population and economic growth across the board. Even when looking at red states like Texas, it's not conservative places that are generally responsible for much of the population or economic growth. It's the cities.  It's all those deep blue places conservative love to hate

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)). 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

Huh? Cities were always the places where jobs and people concentrated. Even during the worst times, cities were the economic powerhouses in the state, not rural Shelby County.  Nothing has changed in this regard. If it weren't for Columbus and Cincinnati more recently, Ohio would've been hemorrhaging people and jobs. Isn't it curious that Hamilton county's turnaround coincided with it also turning blue? 

 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. 

 

1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

Yes, finally you're getting it. Companies that need a bunch of educated people don't move to the boonies. They go where the talent is, where education is valued and encouraged and promoted enough to support the required labor. They go where the people are. Red areas have never been education leaders. Even conservatives get their higher education in blue areas. Progressive and liberal philosophy wants an educated, productive society for the betterment of all. When's the last time Republicans valued higher education? When's the last time they weren't just attacking it as "woke"?

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. 

5 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

Lol - projection is wild. Until Cleveland gets above a 30% participation rate, let's pass on these memes. 

 

Ryan flipped exurbs and rural votes and outpaces both Biden and Whaley significantly in key areas. All the cities had to do was show up. But they never do. 

 

I follow a stats geek on twitter that said a 50 - 55% participation rate in the 3 Cs would've been more than enough for Ryan to win. I'm bad at math so I fully admit I'm unable to verify that stat on my own. 

Ryan didn't flip anything other than Lorain County. Look at the 2020 map (Trump +8) to the 2022 map (Vance +7), there was zero changes outside of Lorain going from +3 Trump to +2 Ryan. Even most of of the other 87 counties that stayed the same had margins that were like +/- 2/3 percent of what they were in 2020.

 

What was similar in 2020 and 2022? It was the lack of votes from the two most populated and Democratic counties that moved the state from being competitive to +7/8 GOP at the top of the ticket. Once again Cuyahoga and Franklin lagged way behind ... though I don't think the Twitter guy's numbers are correct. Maybe if all three of Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton reached 55 percent, Ryan would have won. I'm guessing that would add up. It wasn't just Cleveland that had abysmal turnout. Almost predominately black precinct in Cuyahoga came in at 35 percent or less. Black voters go Democratic by a 90-10 margin and Ryan ignored them.

 

And lets be real, for all the talk about how good of a campaign Tim Ryan was running, he dropped the ball a couple months ago when he went full "running as a Republican." He raised $50 million and spent nearly every last penny on constant ads for two straight months talking about how he "voted on trade with Trump"; testimonials from 60-year old white "Trump supporters" who don't trust Vance; and tossing around footballs with Bernie Kosar. 

 

He did virtually nothing to reach out to key Democratic demographics (those under 30, women, blacks) despite that record fundraising. I guess the ad with his wife about agreeing 7 out of 10 was his ad toward women ... As a Democrat, Vance turned that one around on him with the "he only agrees with his wife 7 out of 10 times, but with Joe Biden 100 percent of the time." That one landed hard, imo.

 

I'll admit I was among those who thought Tim Ryan was best candidate for that race (assumed he could follow the Sherrod Brown map). He failed at that miserably. Not only did he not flip SE Ohio or rural NW Ohio to any significant degree (at least Brown was able to do that), he also alienated the key Democratic blocs (Brown gets them to the polls). ... Granted, Brown is a different situation but he's run a lot more progressive than what Biden and Ryan did the past two major elections.

 

I think what 2020 and now 2022 show is that Republicans have a +7 or +8 advantage in Ohio as long as the Democrat at the top of the ticket is a Joe Biden or Tim Ryan type.

6 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Come on, Tim Ryan wildly outperformed all the more progressive statewide candidates. He definitely helped on D’s winning the three Congressional seats that were long shots. 
 

For me, the big lesson is that we need to improve voter turnout in Cuyahoga and Franklin counties. (Along with gerrymandering reform.) That is the best path for improving D results. 

Completely disagree that Ryan did anything to help Kaptur, Sykes or Landsman. I know Kaptur absolutely outperformed him in her district and I'm going to take an educated guess that Landsman and Sykes also outperformed Ryan. Plus, none of those three districts really were longshots.

 

OH-9 was redrawn to where it went something like +2/+3 for Trump in 2020. But Marcy Kaptur has a ton of support in Lucas and the counties along the lake (Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie). It was going to take a very good GOP candidate to oust her even if the "numbers" showed it to lean GOP. The GOP candidate was anything but a good candidate.

 

OH-1 was one that had gone from +2/3 Trump to +2/3 Biden between 2016 and 2020. So, it had already been trending away from Chabot. While I didn't see that one coming, the only reason I thought Chabot could win was due to his incumbency.

 

OH-13 was one that I never understood why all the pundits had it as a GOP lean. Even if using Trump's numbers in 2020, it still went +5/6 to Biden. Sykes was a very qualified candidate who has a well-known name, especially within the city of Akron.

 

So, no, I don't think Tim Ryan had anything to do with those House races going blue.

3 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Nan Whaley ran a more progressive campaign and lost by a lot more than Ryan. I agree the other statewide candidates weren’t in the same league, but I don’t know how one can discount the governor race. I don’t think running a Progressive vs a “moderate” solves this challenge. The most likely path to success is increasing turnout in Cuyahoga and Franklin. 

Whaley easily is the weakest Dem governor candidate since Ed FitzGerald (FitzGerald before his implosion was still going to get routed) and she was running against a much tougher opponent. Whaley has very little name recognition in NE Ohio. On top of that, it seemed like DeWine was beating her in advertising up here by a 10-1 margin (even as of a couple days ago) even though the governor's race was never in doubt.

20 minutes ago, Rando Sinclair said:

I'll admit I was among those who thought Tim Ryan was best candidate for that race (assumed he could follow the Sherrod Brown map). He failed at that miserably. Not only did he not flip SE Ohio or rural NW Ohio to any significant degree (at least Brown was able to do that), he also alienated the key Democratic blocs (Brown gets them to the polls). ... Granted, Brown is a different situation but he's run a lot more progressive than what Biden and Ryan did the past two major elections.

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. 

5 hours ago, vulcana said:

Ohio, I just can't understand my once beloved state. I moved to Chicago in 2002 and Ohio was a somewhat competitive state politically at that time. 

 

Coingate, baby!  

3 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

The McDonald's off his exit knows he likes 20 piece McNuggets

 

Vance'll make the McFlurry machines run on time!  

19 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

I agree 2024 will be a huge barometer. On top of Sherrod Brown being on the ballot in the Senate race, it could also be with Trump on the presidential ticket (though I suspect it will be DeSantis). The results between the state's most popular GOP candidate (Trump) vs. the state's most popular Democratic candidate (Brown) would be the truest indication of how far red Ohio has turned ... if that comes to fruition.

5 minutes ago, Rando Sinclair said:

I agree 2024 will be a huge barometer. On top of Sherrod Brown being on the ballot in the Senate race, it could also be with Trump on the presidential ticket (though I suspect it will be DeSantis). The results between the state's most popular GOP candidate (Trump) vs. the state's most popular Democratic candidate (Brown) would be the truest indication of how far red Ohio has turned ... if that comes to fruition.

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. 

31 minutes ago, Rando Sinclair said:

I agree 2024 will be a huge barometer. On top of Sherrod Brown being on the ballot in the Senate race, it could also be with Trump on the presidential ticket (though I suspect it will be DeSantis). The results between the state's most popular GOP candidate (Trump) vs. the state's most popular Democratic candidate (Brown) would be the truest indication of how far red Ohio has turned ... if that comes to fruition.

I think it's too early to guess what 2024 will mean for Ohio. We may be in the middle of a global economic collapse and energy crisis then, which would sort of overshadow everything else...

10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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. 

Trump as a third party is music to my ears, lol. He would still get 20-25 percent of the vote with DeSantis around 25-30. That would all but guarantee that whoever is running on the Dem side wins in a landslide (in Ohio and nationally). Will the GOP controlled state governor certify the results in that scenario is a huge question? But that's a conversation that can be had in a couple years if that comes to be.

 

Anyway, my take on 2024 is that either Trump or DeSantis are going to be hard to very hard beat in Ohio, regardless of the Dem presidential candidate. I'll counter that with that Sherrod Brown will also be hard to beat regardless of his GOP Senate opponent.

 

I've been looking at the potential 2024 race for a while now and I think that regardless of whether it's only one of Trump/DeSantis on the presidential side and Brown on the Senate side that Trump/DeSantis may win the presidential race by a point or two and Brown wins the Senate race by a point or two. I still believe that if both sides are on their "A games", Ohio is still a very competitive state.

 

Republicans have been on their "A game" and other than Brown, Dems have ran nothing but B and C teamers out there in statewide races (though part of that is Brown is their only "A" candidate). Though I think Emilia Sykes has a chance to be a rising star with her credentials. She checks off a lot of boxes when it comes to the type of Dem that can get the base to turn out. It'll be interesting to see what her plans for the future are.

9 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

I think it's too early to guess what 2024 will mean for Ohio. We may be in the middle of a global economic collapse and energy crisis then, which would sort of overshadow everything else...

True, there.

15 minutes ago, Rando Sinclair said:

Trump as a third party is music to my ears, lol. He would still get 20-25 percent of the vote with DeSantis around 25-30. That would all but guarantee that whoever is running on the Dem side wins in a landslide (in Ohio and nationally). Will the GOP controlled state governor certify the results in that scenario is a huge question? But that's a conversation that can be had in a couple years if that comes to be.

 

Anyway, my take on 2024 is that either Trump or DeSantis are going to be hard to very hard beat in Ohio, regardless of the Dem presidential candidate. I'll counter that with that Sherrod Brown will also be hard to beat regardless of his GOP Senate opponent.

 

I've been looking at the potential 2024 race for a while now and I think that regardless of whether it's only one of Trump/DeSantis on the presidential side and Brown on the Senate side that Trump/DeSantis may win the presidential race by a point or two and Brown wins the Senate race by a point or two. I still believe that if both sides are on their "A games", Ohio is still a very competitive state.

 

Republicans have been on their "A game" and other than Brown, Dems have ran nothing but B and C teamers out there in statewide races (though part of that is Brown is their only "A" candidate). Though I think Emilia Sykes has a chance to be a rising star with her credentials. She checks off a lot of boxes when it comes to the type of Dem that can get the base to turn out. It'll be interesting to see what her plans for the future are.

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

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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.

 

I think that the big mistake was not that Ryan didn't run as a "strong progressive" but that he didn't run as a "strong Democrat."  Instead he tried to convince Republican voters that he wasn't THAT much of a Democrat.  That failed to inspire Ryan-voter turnout.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The bigger question is does Trump run as a 3rd party at that point at which case all bets are off. 

 

Wow I have never thought of that, but heck, it's easy to see him being vengeful and wanting to destroy the Republican party. 

Again - a Dem just won the governor's race in Kansas - f'ing Kansas. 

 

Want to know why? Dems showed up. Until that's addressed in the 3 C's, nothing will change. Dems have the numbers in Ohio, but most just stay home - and that's been true for the last 14 years regardless of candidate. 

3 hours ago, Rando Sinclair said:

Ryan didn't flip anything other than Lorain County. Look at the 2020 map (Trump +8) to the 2022 map (Vance +7), there was zero changes outside of Lorain going from +3 Trump to +2 Ryan. Even most of of the other 87 counties that stayed the same had margins that were like +/- 2/3 percent of what they were in 2020.

 

What was similar in 2020 and 2022? It was the lack of votes from the two most populated and Democratic counties that moved the state from being competitive to +7/8 GOP at the top of the ticket. Once again Cuyahoga and Franklin lagged way behind ... though I don't think the Twitter guy's numbers are correct. Maybe if all three of Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton reached 55 percent, Ryan would have won. I'm guessing that would add up. It wasn't just Cleveland that had abysmal turnout. Almost predominately black precinct in Cuyahoga came in at 35 percent or less. Black voters go Democratic by a 90-10 margin and Ryan ignored them.

 

And lets be real, for all the talk about how good of a campaign Tim Ryan was running, he dropped the ball a couple months ago when he went full "running as a Republican." He raised $50 million and spent nearly every last penny on constant ads for two straight months talking about how he "voted on trade with Trump"; testimonials from 60-year old white "Trump supporters" who don't trust Vance; and tossing around footballs with Bernie Kosar. 

 

He did virtually nothing to reach out to key Democratic demographics (those under 30, women, blacks) despite that record fundraising. I guess the ad with his wife about agreeing 7 out of 10 was his ad toward women ... As a Democrat, Vance turned that one around on him with the "he only agrees with his wife 7 out of 10 times, but with Joe Biden 100 percent of the time." That one landed hard, imo.

 

I'll admit I was among those who thought Tim Ryan was best candidate for that race (assumed he could follow the Sherrod Brown map). He failed at that miserably. Not only did he not flip SE Ohio or rural NW Ohio to any significant degree (at least Brown was able to do that), he also alienated the key Democratic blocs (Brown gets them to the polls). ... Granted, Brown is a different situation but he's run a lot more progressive than what Biden and Ryan did the past two major elections.

 

I think what 2020 and now 2022 show is that Republicans have a +7 or +8 advantage in Ohio as long as the Democrat at the top of the ticket is a Joe Biden or Tim Ryan type.

A big thing that has been overlooked with Ryan is that he didn't even win counties that were the main part of his congressional districts for 20 years.  It is bad when a candidate cannot win in their own home territory.  

Ryan made a big mistake of running away from Joe Biden and the Democratic party. First you need to unify your base, then you pursue voters from the opposition party. Ryan did just the opposite.

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

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).

 

But my argument is not that people move to a place just because it's progressive politically. My argument is that Democratic/progressive policies are more likely to create the necessary environment to attract people and economic growth. And, I might add, that such policies are far more effective at helping a lot more demographics than Republican/conservative policy is. Minorities don't get helped by Republicans. Nor do women, or immigrants or poor people, etc.  Hell, even the typical Republican voter doesn't truly benefit from Republican policy. 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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.

 

But again, they're not moving to rural red areas in those red states just like they're not in blue states. They're moving to cities like Austin or Charlotte or Atlanta, which are far, far more blue than their states as a whole.  People like red state weather in the South, but not necessarily the red state politics. Otherwise, states like Idaho or Alaska would be growing just as much, and they're not.

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

What a weird statement. You suggest that the suburbs are in fact the leaders like the tail wagging the dog. You act as if the suburbs just magically grow out of cornfields for no reason. The cities came first, and they drive everything. 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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)). 

 

Columbus added more people the past 10 years than every single suburb and all the rest of the metro area combined. Its economic output blows away everything else as well. Let's not pretend like a few suburban office parks are somehow the economic drivers of a metro. It's nonsensical. Intel's requirements in terms of land use and availability would not have allowed it to go into the city regardless of politics, so it's a stupid point to even bring up.  They are using city resources, though, both in terms of educated graduates and experienced workforce, as well as the ability to provide things like water. 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 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. 

 

Aren't you just admitting here that Democrats attract people to places and supporting my point about Republican suburbs leeching off cities rather than creating much of anything on their own? 

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

You seem to recognize the benefits of cities, but are also desperate to pin their success on anything but the type of leadership they have or the general philosophies they promote. I haven't failed to notice you have avoided trying to explain why conserative policies haven't benefitted rural areas. Surely, if they were beneficial, there would be some positive things to talk about rather than the steady economic and population stagnation that is now nearly universal.  Congrats on it being nearly impossible for a woman to get proper medical care out in the sticks, but I'd hardly call that a win.

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

A truly educated person wouldn't hyperventilate over "indoctrination" based on lies and propaganda, especially when claiming to have received the benefits of such a higher education themselves. They would have the aforementioned critical thinking skills to know better. Which means either it didn't take, or you know what you're saying is a lie to purposefully devalue education itself- though again, just not for yourself. Which is itself classic conservatism.  Good for me, not for thee.

 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

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. 

 

And yet I'm still waiting on an alternative explanation on why Republican areas perform worse. I suspect I'll continue to wait.

17 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

 

Having a bazillion Hillsboros, Fostorias and Salems really adds up. These other states have them too but we have more. 

 

Strongsville, Chardon,  Sagamore Hills, Avon, Chesterland, Brunswick......

Edited November 10, 20222 yr by E Rocc

9 hours ago, vulcana said:

Ryan made a big mistake of running away from Joe Biden and the Democratic party. First you need to unify your base, then you pursue voters from the opposition party. Ryan did just the opposite.

 

100%

Just to provide context. Ryan did outperform Ohio's partisan lean, but how much of that was the fact that he was running against a West Coast elitist, and how much was that he's a born and bred red-blooded Ohioan trying to stop the bleeding in rural areas?

 

Edited November 10, 20222 yr by 10albersa

 

9 hours ago, vulcana said:

Ryan made a big mistake of running away from Joe Biden and the Democratic party. First you need to unify your base, then you pursue voters from the opposition party. Ryan did just the opposite.

 

Mandela Barnes ran this type of campaign and it didn't work for him either. He even had Obama campaign for him. The only difference is he was running against an incumbent.

The big difference is Mandela Barnes came a lot closer to winning than Tim Ryan did.

9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

But my argument is not that people move to a place just because it's progressive politically. My argument is that Democratic/progressive policies are more likely to create the necessary environment to attract people and economic growth. And, I might add, that such policies are far more effective at helping a lot more demographics than Republican/conservative policy is. Minorities don't get helped by Republicans. Nor do women, or immigrants or poor people, etc.  Hell, even the typical Republican voter doesn't truly benefit from Republican policy. 

While I disagree with your opinion on that matter, we certainly have differing opinions on the issue, and that is fine. What I take exception to is the fact that you are trying to argue that this opinion is based on the conclusions you have drawn from the data you present above and you really can't realistically draw those conclusions based on your data (Note, I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right, which I do doubt but it is possible, but what I am saying is that the data does not support your conclusions). It is important to recognize some of the flaws in your assumptions. 

 

9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

But again, they're not moving to rural red areas in those red states just like they're not in blue states. They're moving to cities like Austin or Charlotte or Atlanta, which are far, far more blue than their states as a whole.  People like red state weather in the South, but not necessarily the red state politics. Otherwise, states like Idaho or Alaska would be growing just as much, and they're not.

Again that point is debatable and you are drawing conclusions based on assumptions based on data that does not provide such answers. These assumptions are based on certain inherent bias. Let's unpack that a bit. Over the last 2 years, the city that was the biggest boom town in the Covid era was Boise Idaho. So people are moving to Idaho. In 2010-2015 North Dakota was a boomtown because of oil jobs.  People are moving to areas because of economic growth (even if it is short lived) politics is secondary in most cases. 

 

9 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

You seem to recognize the benefits of cities, but are also desperate to pin their success on anything but the type of leadership they have or the general philosophies they promote. I haven't failed to notice you have avoided trying to explain why conserative policies haven't benefitted rural areas. Surely, if they were beneficial, there would be some positive things to talk about rather than the steady economic and population stagnation that is now nearly universal.  Congrats on it being nearly impossible for a woman to get proper medical care out in the sticks, but I'd hardly call that a win.

You are solely trying to equate the growth of cities and the desire of people and companies to locate there to politics and that rural areas struggle because conservative politics hurts them. You are trying to blend differing issues together to draw your conclusion and it does not work. You are essentially trying to say that people would rather live in Columbus and companies would rather be in Columbus over Lima, Ohio because of the progressive poltiics in Columbus vs Lima while ignoring the inherent advantages Columbus had in geography and infrastructure as well as size to put itself in the position to grow at the expense of the smaller cities and rural towns. 

 

While I certainly disagree with your opinion on the matter, my main point is that trying to hide behind the data you cite as evidence that the data supports your opinion is also flawed as the data would not allow someone to logically draw the opinion that you cite.

 

14 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

Wow I have never thought of that, but heck, it's easy to see him being vengeful and wanting to destroy the Republican party. 

This is what we need. Trump 2024!-as an independent running spitefully against Desantis!  He would get the conspiracy/crazy vote for sure. 

14 hours ago, YABO713 said:

Again - a Dem just won the governor's race in Kansas - f'ing Kansas. 

 

Want to know why? Dems showed up. Until that's addressed in the 3 C's, nothing will change. Dems have the numbers in Ohio, but most just stay home - and that's been true for the last 14 years regardless of candidate. 

Which is crazy because it's SO easy to vote in Ohio.   Absentee, early voting and in person is all very simple and streamlined.  

10 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

My argument is that Democratic/progressive policies are more likely to create the necessary environment to attract people and economic growth. And, I might add, that such policies are far more effective at helping a lot more demographics than Republican/conservative policy is. Minorities don't get helped by Republicans. Nor do women, or immigrants or poor people, etc.  Hell, even the typical Republican voter doesn't truly benefit from Republican policy. 

 

Your statement hinges on the belief that the sort of "help" that government can provide actually "helps" the helpee.  For example, the automatic adjustment of welfare and social security benefits in response to inflation actually helps fuel more inflation.  

 

 

 

 

 

In Florida the Democrats ran a former police chief (Val Demings) and a former Republican (Charlie Crist) in the two biggest statewide races. Obviously we could go into a whole other discussion about Florida politics (which we won't here), but they got crushed by Republicans.

 

In 2020 a bunch of moderate Dems running to the right of the party just barely won election or even lost, and most blamed the progressive wing for their struggles instead of looking inward at their campaign.

 

And again, I'll bring up John Fetterman. He was unapologetically a Democrat. He reached across the aisle authentically, not by pretending he was a Republican. Dr. Oz was an almost identical candidate to JD Vance. Both were inauthentically Trump Republicans. They were rich elites who moved to their state to run for office. We see how Fetterman dominated in PA, and Tim Ryan performed almost exactly as well as Biden in 2020.

52 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

This is what we need. Trump 2024!-as an independent running spitefully against Desantis!  He would get the conspiracy/crazy vote for sure. 

 

Right. And it also looks like he would go nuclear at Desantis. 

59 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

Your statement hinges on the belief that the sort of "help" that government can provide actually "helps" the helpee.  For example, the automatic adjustment of welfare and social security benefits in response to inflation actually helps fuel more inflation.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Oil agrees.

 

PS. inflation has been directly linked as being 52% caused by corporate profits.  Normally corporate profits are around 10-15% of inflation costs.

 

Source: https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

Edited November 10, 20222 yr by Clefan98

43 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Big Oil agrees.

 

There were many bankruptcies in the oil business in 2020-21 when demand collapsed.  A lot of production went off-line, which is why the price took off as lockdowns eased:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262860/uk-brent-crude-oil-price-changes-since-1976/

 

Nobody cared when the various fracking companies went poof in 2020 and the FRAK ETF was delisted.  

 

 

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Big Oil agrees.

 

PS. inflation has been directly linked as being 52% caused by corporate profits.  Normally corporate profits are around 10-15% of inflation costs.

 

Source: https://www.epi.org/blog/corporate-profits-have-contributed-disproportionately-to-inflation-how-should-policymakers-respond/

 

If corporate profits are really up so much, why is the S&P 500 down 16% YOY?

 

I'd take EPI's carping about corporate greed with a grain of salt.  The fact that EPI is carping about corporate greed doesn't mean anything other than that it's a day that ends in "y."

12 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

If corporate profits are really up so much, why is the S&P 500 down 16% YOY?

 

 

 

The market is irrational though, and will react to seeming contrary data to it's benefit or detriment.

Edited November 10, 20222 yr by Clefan98

14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

I'd take EPI's carping about corporate greed with a grain of salt.  The fact that EPI is carping about corporate greed doesn't mean anything other than that it's a day that ends in "y."

 

Source: dude trust me bro

3 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Source: dude trust me bro

 

Source: Been reading their material since undergrad (early 2000s).