43
In Ohio, resume and race do matter
In Ohio, resume and race do matter
Exit polls that showed Hillary Clinton enjoying strong support among whites and working class voters in Ohio’s Democratic presidential primary confirmed what had been argued in this space in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s contest.
Blue collar workers and Ohioans worried about their families’ incomes provided Clinton with the margin she needed to not only defeat Barack Obama in the all-important Buckeye State, but to win by an impressive 10 percent of the vote.
These voters were concerned about the economy in general and the loss of more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs over the past eight years. In evaluating Clinton and Obama, the question they asked themselves was this: Who would best address the issue of Ohio’s faltering economy?
Clinton won on the basis of her résumé. Her eight years in the Senate and eight years as First Lady was seen as an advantage over Obama, who has been in the Senate only three years. Before that, he was a state legislator in Illinois.
In the Feb. 24 column headlined “Why Clinton over Obama,” the point was made that the Illinois senator’s primary and caucus successes leading up to Ohio, and his advantage in the pledged delegate count revealed a stark reality about politics in many parts of the United States: R√©sum√©s don’t matter.
“Obama’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president is the political version of ‘American Idol,’” it was argued.
Qualifications
The column concluded with the contention that in a matchup of qualifications, Clinton wins hands down — and Ohio’s Democratic voters were urged to keep that fact in mind when they went to the polls Tuesday.
Exit interviews showed that they did.
Indeed, the New York senator’s stump speech about the nation needing someone with a clear understanding of what should be done to reverse eight years of economic turmoil under Republican President Bush struck a nerve in Ohio, in general, and Mahoning and Trumbull counties, in particular.
In Mahoning, Clinton received 49,798 votes, to 26,703 for Obama. In Trumbull, she received 42,594, while Obama garnered 19,544.
In a graphic showing how Clinton and Obama fared in Ohio’s counties, the New York Times offered this significant finding: “Largest margin for Clinton: +23,095 Mahoning County.”
The Times also addressed the issue of race in the Democratic primary, which parallels what was published in this space on March 2 under the headline, “Has Ohio changed in the past two years?”
The column raised the issue of race-based voting in Ohio, using as a backdrop the 2006 election in which there were three blacks running for statewide office, including Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell, who was challenging Democrat Ted Strickland for governor. All three blacks lost, including the two Democrats — in an election in which Democrats swept all statewide offices but one.
The column suggested that Democrats casting ballots in Tuesday’s presidential primary ask themselves the following question: “Will Ohio vote for a black man in the general election?”
White voters
In its analysis of the Democratic vote in the Buckeye State, the New York Times stated, “Hillary Rodham Clinton rode the votes of worried whites to victory, handily swamping Barack Obama’s margins in cities like Columbus. In Mahoning County in the northeast, home to many closed factories, she took two-thirds of the vote. In largely white counties along the Ohio River, like Scioto, where unemployment is high, it was 80 percent.”
As it was pointed out in last Sunday’s column, the intent of raising the issue of race was not designed to feed the flames of racism because Obama is biracial, but simply to discuss the attitude of voters, as revealed in 2006.
Nonetheless, this writer was accused of being a racist by Obama supporters and for drawing conclusions about Ohioans that were without merit.
So much for the critics.
As for Clinton’s win in Ohio, this writer predicted a 5-10 percent margin of victory. Again, that prediction was challenged by Obama supporters.