Issue LVIII : Ohio – Not the Swing State?

25 Nov

In this current era of “big data” and election statistics hype pioneered by, I figured I’d write about some of the interesting numbers I have seen.   Living in Ohio, I also wanted to expatiate on the idea that Ohio’s bellwether status may be on the verge of expiration.  For the popular vote, I am using the Cook Political Report’s Popular Vote Tally.  For Ohio, I suggest two books: Buckeye Battleground from University of Akron and The Bellwether from Ohio University.  I mostly extend my ideas from these two books.

What’s a Swing State?

A swing state must do two things: 1) consistently choose the presidential winner and 2) consistently be close the national popular vote.  Ohio for 200 years has been both in presidential elections.  As a relatively large state, winning it often determines the electoral college winner.  For a century, this meant choosing a presidential candidate from Ohio (birthplace of 8 presidents) but since the death of President Harding in 1923, this has just meant winning the state electorally.

The simplest way I explain why Ohio is a swing state is because Ohio represents different parts of American in one state.  The north is Northern and the south is Southern to put it roughly.  Buckeye Battleground divides the state into 4 quadrants with Columbus in the middle.

Northeast Ohio (Cleveland/Akron/Canton/Youngstown) was settled by people from New England.  Specifically it was part of Connecticut’s “Western Reserve.”  It was industrialized early on and has many similar characteristics to the American Northeast (industry, unions, immigrant Catholics, and African-Americans who moved from the South).  The original Western Reserve counties in fact still match the presidential vote results in Connecticut within a point or two since the 1890s.

Southeast Ohio is Appalachian and similar to West Virginia.  It has the smallest population and is poor, rural. and Scotch-Irish in ancestry.  Northwestern Ohio is heavily German and is similar to Indiana but also has a large automobile industry in Toledo which is very close to Detroit.  In fact the bellwether county for the state, Ottawa County, is in this area.

Southwest Ohio borders Kentucky and has Cincinnati which has been very Republican for over a century.  It is home to the Taft family, Macy’s, and Procter and Gamble.  This area is the most conservative part of the state and balances the liberal orientation of the Cleveland metropolitan area.  Columbus, the only major city in central Ohio, has gone from Republican to Democratic over the last twenty years and is home to Ohio State University but has Republican suburbs.

Nothing Special Here

Ohio is uniquely characterless due to the lack of a single city or industry dominating the state.  Cincinnati lead the state in population in the 1800s then Cleveland led in the 1900s and now Columbus has the most people.  None of the cities dominate the state the way Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Detroit dominate their respective states.  In the economy, the Buckeye State does a little bit of everything.

Ohio makes cars (but not as many as Michigan), Ohio has insurance (but not as much as Connecticut), Ohio has banks (but not as much as New York), Ohio has coal (but not as much as West Virginia), Ohio makes steel (but not as much as Pittsburgh did), and Ohio has farming (but not as much as Indiana or Iowa).  Nothing stands out.

As you can guess, winning the state means a balancing act between the different regions.  Democrats need blowouts in the Northeast and need to squeeze votes out in the Southeast and Northwest (and these days Columbus) to win while Republicans aim to unite the Southwest and Southeast (and as much of the Northwest) against Greater Cleveland.  It really is Cleveland against the world.

No Longer Swinging

But alas, Ohio has not been doing so hot for the last few decades.  Deindustrialization and the death of coal and the car industry has hurt the state while new industries do not seem to pop up anywhere outside of Columbus.  Ohio has been losing electoral votes and congressional representation to southern and western states for years now.  Ohio used to have 23 electoral votes in 1900 while Florida had 4; now Ohio has 18 and Florida has 29.

I see Ohio as the perfect twentieth century swing state but Florida as the perfect twenty-first century swing state.  Ohio’s Hispanic population is negligible, and Ohio has very few immigrants nowadays unlike in 1900.  No part of Ohio resembles the American Southwest.  I had a feeling that in the era of Trump’s calls for building a border wall with Mexico that this would cause a large divergence from the Southwest.  Mexicans/Mexican-Americans in the United States live in the four border states and not really in the Midwest outside of Chicago (I find the blanket term “Hispanics” not to be useful politically or practically).  The small Hispanic population in Ohio tends to be Puerto Rican which would not face threats of familial deportations.  Without an appreciable Mexican population, Ohio was bound to diverge significantly from Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and even Texas.

Trump Comes to Youngstown

Donald Trump blew Ohio out of the water.  He won Rust Belt towns like Warren, Ashtabula, Canton, Lorain, and even Dayton.  Hillary Clinton lost counties that even John Kerry won in his 2004 defeat.  He almost won Youngstown and apparently won the majority of union members.

His margin of victory of 8.5% diverged bigly from the national popular vote which Hillary actually won by 1.6% (not yet finalized).  Hillary was closer to winning in all the other swing states she lost except for Iowa (9.4%).  Arizona (3.6%) and Georgia (5.2%) were much closer than Ohio, and the Texas margin was only 9.1%.

Which state actually came close the national popular vote?  Minnesota (1.5%) almost got it exactly right while New Hampshire (0.4%) and Nevada (2.4%) bordered a little above and below the national margin.  Florida (1.2% for Trump) was much closer than Ohio.

With the archaic Electoral College system now breaking twice in 16 years (and a near-miss in 2004),  there is now a divergence between Ohio’s record picking the electoral “winner” and the popular vote winner.  From 1900 to 1996, Ohio chose the popular vote winner correctly every time except in 1944 and 1960.  Since 1997, it has a 3-2 record.

For now, Ohio still chooses the president but not the winner.  At this rate, it soon won’t choose either.




Notes on Election 2016

14 Nov

It all went the way it was supposed to right?

While Princeton professors have to eat insects on TV because they predicted the predictable wrongly, luckily the Bhatany Report did not make any official forecasts for the presidential election.  Donald J. Trump, America’s Mogul, in alliance with Rudy Giuliani, America’s Mayor, romped the Electoral College in a Rust Belt blowout that really lived up to his claim of a “Brexit times 50.”  Watching CNN in a historic downtown Los Angeles theater, I knew the end was nigh when Hillary’s U.S.S. Pennsylvania triangulated into a red iceberg in the Allegheny Mountains.  I almost laughed at the room’s maladroit hipster anger until I thought about, you know, the consequences.

Like  Caesar galloping into Gaul, Mr. Trump astounded the inbred and sheltered pundits and pollsters and number-crunchers in the capital.  They shed tears for their career paths in the once and future queen’s court.

This sack of Rome by a ragtag band of alt-right deplorables led by a Penn graduate received its votes from a population so sick and tired of politics as usual that they held their noses and voted for a birther and groper just to send Washington a message and get jobs back in exchange.  They were under no illusions that Trump was a well-bred taxpayer.  This was not 2004.  The naïve voters were the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Andrew Jackson Trump

Earlier this year, I warned people that a Trump-Clinton race would smack of the nasty 1828 presidential election when the last American presidential dynasty crumbled before the rage of Greater Appalachia.  The “most qualified man” to ever run for president, John Quincy Adams, a former secretary of state and son of a president, had won the 1824 presidential election by a vote in Congress due to an Electoral College deadlock despite getting many fewer popular votes than Andrew Jackson. J.Q. Adams still, by far, has the record for the highest IQ of any president. A well-educated Harvard gentleman, he refused to stoop to “campaigning.”

Andrew Jackson, a wild man with wild hair, hailed from Tennessee. He claimed to speak for the common man but was a fairly wealthy slaveowner and land speculator by the time he ran for president. And he did not just imagine shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, he actually did! He executed soldiers as a general and shot a man in a duel long before running for president. He did not have many ideas and not much experience compared to the series of secretaries of state turned presidents preceding John Quincy Adams. But he instead inveighed against the “corrupt bargain” in Congress that gave Adams the White House and the speaker of the house, a Cabinet job.

Running against a corrupt, elitist system, Jackson made inroads in the North with some sharp alliances (Chris Christie anyone?) and overblown rhetoric about Washington D.C. The Adams camp accused him of being a violent bigamist living in sin and adultery with his wife. Jackson supporters called Adams a pimp who supplied women to the Russian czar as ambassador.

You can guess the outcome; Jackson wins bigly, but his wife dies from depression after the election from all the negative campaigning. He throws a wild party of an inauguration by inviting the masses to the White House who promptly trash it and break all the china looking for spiked punch. Old Hickory goes on to deport the Cherokee and cause a financial crash by destroying the Second Bank of the United States and unleashing a wave of shifty loans in the West.

We have a lot to look forward to America.

Debate Questions You Won’t See

9 Oct

Since today’s absolutely disgraceful debate taught no one anything, I figure I will throw my hand in writing questions for the last debate since Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz clearly could not ask a substantive question.

Foreign Policy

  1. The Founding Fathers, including George Washington, warned against foreign alliances. Is it wise to keep NATO now that the Soviet Union is long deceased? Is it provocative to add members bordering Russia?
  2. Why should the United States value partnership with Saudi Arabia over Iran?  Is Iranian or Saudi society more compatible with American and/or Western values?  Which government is more compatible or potentially more compatible with the United States
  3. Why is Apple not paying taxes here or in Ireland? Why is the IRS defending Apple from NOT paying its taxes in the EU?
  4. The euro crisis has slowed down world economic growth due to indecisive leadership.  Should Greece either exit the euro, declare bankruptcy, or both?  What would you do as an American president on the euro crisis?
  5. The European Union as currently constructed functioning in a democratic fashion?  Is its consensus politics working or failing the majority of workers in the European Union?

Domestic Policy

  1.  Given public antipathy to the two major parties and your candidacies, why is it defensible that the United States have the most restrictive laws on forming third parties of any democratic nation?  Is it not unusual that not a single state legislature has a single third party member for a nation of over 300 million people?
  2. Competition has not reduced health care costs both inside or outside of the United States.  Why is it routinely mentioned as a solution for reducing health care costs?
  3. Labor force participation rates for men have been slowly falling for decades while more and more men are on disability.  What are the causes and what should be done about it?
  4. How would we make Congress once again after years of falling productivity and increasing partisan rancor?
  5. Do hospital chains improve health care?  Is it desirable for the United States to have a national policy of “rating” hospitals and doctors?  Do these ratings in any way improve the real health care needs of America or encourage a “patient knows best mentality” that has contributed to the narcotic epidemic?

The Case Against Everyone: The America you don’t see

7 Jun

As the primary season winds down today with the last gasp from the Left Coast, we can look forward to a general election featuring the two most-detested major party nominees in polling history.  The media worked strenuously to avoid doing its job filtering, interviewing, and probing the views and histories of the two soon-to-be nominees.  This year’s series The Case Against Everyone will indeed include a case against the presidential candidates (Mr. Trump was covered last year) and will also include highlighting the issues and forgotten corners of the American and international landscape that are rarely asked or intelligibly discussed.  Answers may or may not exist, but dear readers, you will soon know the questions to hold your elected officials to account.

Mr. Donald Trump and Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) have drawn large crowds throughout the nation.  TV news finds this puzzling; rarely are audiences asked why they came to see these candidates.  If the answers are not coherent, perhaps the longing for a different nation could be translated by the media into recent statistics, surveys, and polls.  These surveys should shame the media who unabashedly proclaim the American political and economic system open, democratic, and fair.

The Associated Press-NORC poll revealed shocking numbers about the trust of Americans in the two major parties and the three branches of government.  The only major paper to cover it was the Denver Post.

  • 8% of Americans think the Republican Party is extremely or very responsive to ordinary people.  62% do not.
  • 12% of Americans think the Democratic Party is extremely or very responsive to ordinary people.  46% do not.
  • 12% of Republicans think their party is responsive and only 25% of Democrats think their party is responsive to ordinary people.
  • Confidence in Congress is 4%, confidence in the executive branch is 15%, and 24% in the Supreme Court
  • 55% of people feel helpless about the election and 2/3 of young people do too.

Not exactly views promoted every day by the talking heads on TV.  Their flag waving about the American political system is not reflected by actual Americans.  In the mean time, Puerto Rico voted in the presidential primary and while everyone was complaining about the decrease in polling locations, there was no substantial discussion about the economic crisis of Puerto Rico.

  • 2% of Puerto Ricans have left the island in a year.  Florida may soon have as many Puerto Ricans as New York.  More Puerto Ricans lives on the mainland than on the island for the first time in history.
  • Tax breaks that propelled the island’s pharmaceutical industry have ended, killing the manufacturing base and jobs.  The U.S. territory is effectively bankrupt.

The fact that the only substantial discussion of Puerto Rico has been by a comedian on HBO puts to shame the election “coverage.”  Meanwhile health indicators point to a sickness in body politic.

  • Nobel Prize winning researchers have shown that death rates for non-college educated whites have risen dramatically since 1990, likely linked to decline in the manufacturing economy.  Suicides, overdoses, and alcohol abuse are all likely culprits.  No other nation or ethnic group has shown such a reversal.  Half a million people are dead who should not be dead.
  • Suicide rates are rising to recent highs.
  • Opiate (and its related cousin, heroin) abuse deaths are at record highs which are at least partially related to commercialization of health care and “patient satisfaction scores” imposed by hospitals and Medicare.  This McDonald’s “customer service” approach is killing medicine and the morale of health care providers.

These are glimpses of the desperate situation of real America not discussed in “election coverage” and vapid celebrations of the American “political process.”  What little is mentioned is insubstantially probed or run past “political” experts not content experts.  These are some of the many issues to be discussed with friends, colleagues, co-workers, and elected officials to play our collective roles as good citizens.


Book Review : A Brief History of Seven Killings

21 Dec

This was posted last week on the website of the Cleveland Book Award from the Anisfield-Wolf Foundation.  The author, Marlon James, won their award this year and the Man Booker Prize.  Here I review and compare the book to Sacred Games.


In 2007, when I asked my driver in Caracas if evangelical Christianity had been making its way into the oil-rich jungles of Venezuela, he nodded, smiled, and said, “Yes, they say officially they are here for the Church of Pentecost, but I think they are here for the Church of the CIA.”  In every developing nation, that nod and that smile and that second story represent the beginning of almost every great storytelling session I have had about recent history and current events.

Listen to me now.  Me warn him… Long time I drop warnings that other people close, friend and enemy, was going get him in a whole heap o’trouble.  Every one of we know at least one, don’t it?  Always have a notion but never come up with a single idea.  Always working plenty of scheme but never have a plan… Me not going name who but I warn the Singer…. Me love that man to the max.  Me would take a bullet for the Singer.  But gentlemens, me can only take one.

Writer Marlon James has won this year’s Anisfield-Wolf and Man Booker prizes by driving us past recent Jamaican history.  In a cacophony of voices, versions, and views, James writes a fictional exploration into the 1976 assassination attempt on reggae superstar Bob Marley.  In A Brief History of Seven Killings, quoted above, readers embark on a violent and entertaining ride through Kingston slum fights (sponsored by warring political parties) that become a Cold War flashpoint in Michael Manley’s Jamaica.  Marley, perceived to be supporting the socialist People’s National Party, falls victim to that fateful winter election and the CIA. The book then shifts to the United States where Jamaican political gangs morph into nonpartisan drug smugglers, tolerated by intelligence communities willing to overlook drug money if it goes towards fighting socialism and communism.  Until it gets out of hand.

The book, whose rights have been sold to HBO for a TV series, should do well as a long form television drama.  A populous that once stood at the docks to snatch up the latest installment from Charles Dickens now awaits the latest weekly HBO serial, one of contemporary America’s strongest art forms. James novel fits the format with its motley mix of characters and politics (“Game of Thrones”) and urban and police violence (“The Wire”).  As East becomes West, the West too has become East by picking up a taste for epic legends with endless sub-stories, ambiguous facts and no definitive, singular truth.  All thrive on a range of viewpoints, versions and classes.

From the deceased MP to the barely intelligible ramblings of a crack-fueled shooter, readers absorb from top to bottom a long overdue cultural multiplicity in A Brief History of Seven Killings. No one knows who served Mr. Darcy tea, but we all know who serves Lord Grantham tea.  All of this points to progress.  It points to the widening of the literary establishment’s mind but not perhaps as wide as it celebrates.

sacred gamesJames’s novel most reminds me of Vikram Chandra’s magnum opus, Sacred Games, about a Mumbai police investigation into an Indian mafia don.  Thick with pages and characters, Sacred Games exposes the connections between the underworld, police, politicians, and the film industry.  Chandra also leaps into the future and the past with intercalary chapters that covered Naxalite rebels, Indian secret intelligence and the Partition of British India.  Few novels set in the developing world can parallel A Brief History in quite the same way.

Published to positive reviews, Chandra’s novel did not have the sales or impact other South Asian books did.  Even compared to other literary and popular books about South Asia (Bookseller of Kabul, All the Beautiful Forevers, Three Cups of Tea, Shantaram), it never received critical or popular mass appeal.  It is rare to find on bookshelves today.

Why A Brief History of Seven Killings and other South Asian novels would have similar trajectories while Sacred Games did not is clear to me.  The former have appeals to Western sensibilities that the third does not.  Three Cups of Tea (for example) has a strong element of Orientalism with the classic story of a Westerner coming to Asia and educating rural women.  A Brief History of Seven Killings tells a story about music and a musician famous throughout the West that cannot help but arouse interest in the United States.  American characters from Rolling Stone and the CIA help ease the transition into the unfamiliar worlds of Jamaican politics and Kingston slums.  If the book was about an assassination attempt on Prime Minister Manley and not Marley, we may not be having this award or book review.

Meanwhile film and music references in Sacred Games were unabashedly Bollywood; secretive government agencies were the CBI not the CIA, and the bogeyman feared is Pakistan not Russia or Cuba.  No one smuggles drugs to the United States or London.  No white people, no Christianity, no Clint Eastwood references, and no colonialism at all!

A Brief History of Seven Killings is a fantastic book, and it will make a fantastic HBO series given the novel’s natural similarity to the channel’s specialty—epic dramas.  But Sacred Games moved me more deeply as it was a book deeply rooted in its culture and unapologetically Indian.  Perhaps when we award books we should examine why some get attention and some do not and question the cultural biases we have against looking deeply into a truly “foreign” book.  A truly open mind can wade into another world mentally without needing the props of the world it just left behind.

The Case Against Everyone: America’s Mogul

30 Aug

If Sarah Palin in 2008 brought Republican politics into the era of reality TV and the constant up and down in the polls in 2012 made the Republican primary look like a reality show then perhaps 2016 will be the year that Republicans perhaps settle on the real deal: Donald Trump, host of his own reality TV show: The Apprentice.

The media loves Trump; left, right or center, they cannot stop taking a hit from that Trump pipe that is increased eyeballs and increased ratings no matter how minor his news announcements may be.

Donald Trump scares establishment Republicans.  Why he does so is not so clear to me dear reader.  After years of trumpeting the wisdom of the mega-rich, a distaste for career politicians, hate for immigrants and the emerging minority-majority America, and habitually living in a separate universe of facts (Jon Stewart nicknamed it Bullshit Mountain), why wouldn’t Republican voters develop a taste for “the Donald.”  Why have a career politician meekly spew these inanities while collecting unlimited corporate money from their billionaire corporate overlords like Sheldon Adelson when you can just vote for the billionaire directly?  And no one can say what Republicans want to say (and hear) more directly and crudely than the Donald.

In a once-proud nation of entrepreneurs, independent lawyers and doctors, unionized factory workers, and self-made men, years of corporate consolidation and online shopping have reduced the few of left still working into a cowardly, sniveling, sniffling, salaried underclass.  The nation of Clint Eastwoods and John Waynes is now the nation of The Office.

Donald Trump, in the psychogeography of the new America, makes America great!  Not because he is one of us but because he is one of the few people left who is allowed to say what he wants when he wants no matter how illiterate, stupid, contradictory, or racist it may be.  He reminds America of what Americans used to be: free.  Free from the Man (government or corporate).  Now this nation of Dwight Schrutes loves and admires a man who will say what a free people would want to say.  We’ve had millionaires and billionaires ranting before in the last Gilded Age, but at least the masses still had Mark Twain, William Jennings Bryan, Eugene V Debs, and a Roosevelt or two to kick them around.

Can he win a general election?  Given that Mitt Romney won 27% of the Hispanic vote in 2012 which was down from John McCain’s 31%  which was much lower than George W. Bush’s 44% in 2004, I find it hard to imagine the Republicans getting anywhere close to 25% with Trump or whoever emerges from the GOP primary bleeding to death.  Ejecting Jorge Ramos (the “Walter Cronkite” of Univision) from his press conference only made him and the party look that much more bigoted.  When Gov. Pete Wilson (R-CA), went on an anti-immigration spree in the 1990s, he activated the latent power of the Mexican vote in California which has transformed California into a Democratic bastion.  Donald Trump may do that nationally.

What is he worth anyways?  No one really knows what he is worth (anywhere from less than a billion to $10 billion) because much of it is secret or related to the PR value of his brand (aka his name).  And no one mentions that Donald Drumpf inherited his construction business and millions of dollars from his father.  So much for 100% self-made.

But like many things in America, it is the myth and the legend that win over the truth.  Rudy Giuliani, another New Yorker, was falsely called America’s mayor after September 11, 2001 despite the fact that he didn’t do anything for firemen, bought defective radios that killed many of them, and based the emergency control center in the World Trade Center despite warnings not to by EMS.  And that is why I anoint Donald J. Trump the title of America’ Mogul.

Michael Ventura, an appreciation

10 Jan

Last year, Michael Ventura retired his column from the weekly newspaper, the Austin Chronicle.  I consider Michael Ventura the finest columnist in the English language alive today.

Michael Ventura is a Sicilian-American New Yorker who moved to California and wrote for LA Weekly for years before moving to Lubbock, Texas and writing a bimonthly column for the Austin Chronicle.  He has lived and driven across this nation several times over, and he can write from a unique perspective.  His range and deep understanding of humanity, the United States, and art allowed him to publish some of the greatest columns about what it means to be American and live in the United States at the dawn of the 21st century.

In one series of columns, “Dispatches from the Former United States“, he took the perspective of the year 2107 reflecting on the successes and failures of the United States of America.  In “Red State Blues,” “Broke Down in Bossier City,” and “Lubbockian Identity” he examined the people and places ignored by the American intelligentsia.  He also writes about the breakdown in culture and common understanding that leads to the mental unrest grappling this country.

Who else can write a column accurately describing the globalization and diversification of middle of nowhere Lubbock, Texas and reflect, “Lubbock, Texas, 1973 would never have agreed to become Lubbock, Texas, 2008.”

He challenges us to take that step and mentally engage with those different than us.  And to see the changes we did not even notice happening under our very own eyes.  In his next to last column, he writes about the “World that Calls itself the World” and how our media ignores and disempowers us from the world that is our world.  You know, the one we live and see every day in our lives.

The greatest writers can write about topics so distant from their readers’ experiences yet still reach out and touch and move the reader by reaching for their shared humanity.  Michael Ventura was able to do that every week in the Austin Chronicle to me.


Austin Chronicle – “Letters at 3AM”

Michael Ventura – “If I was a Highway” – book  collection of his columns