Now, Kasich's leadership from the top has been problematic. In the midst of all the scrutiny over the new crop of Republican governors in the Midwest, Kasich still got himself enough camera time to rub people the wrong way. But ultimately, what makes the case in Ohio interesting is that people haven't soured on Kasich because of a scandal (though his effort to make his cabinet as white and male as possible was noble nonetheless); his fortunes have changed because voters appear to fundamentally disagree with the policies he has proposed - policies like Senate Bill 5 that have been given the green light from the Ohio legislature.
So if voters are chomping at the bit for an opportunity to swap out Kasich, what do they think about his team on the floor of the legislature that has brought them the change they've rejected?
The area to keep our eyes on is the Ohio House of Representatives. Forced to face the voters every two years, this current class rode into office on the back of the 2010 Republican wave, and is now going to be forced to defend an activist session where they limited collective bargaining and stood by an increasingly unpopular Republican governor. That Republican swept up 13 Democratic seats and flipped control of the chamber, and so Republicans ought to be concerned about finding themselves back in the minority after 2012.
It doesn't take more than a quick glance at the numbers to see there are a few red lines up a little too high on the page. To give a specific example, Rep. Todd McKenney in District 43 (D+5) probably isn't going to be a legislator for long, unless he is ready for a hard fight - he managed a 55-45 win over Rep. Steve Dyer in 2010, while outspending him by $100,000 - twice of what Rep. Dyer spent. Well-funded challengers should be strong enough to win back almost all of the Democratic seats, which would almost completely erase the Republicans 2010 gains. Additionally, beyond winning back those seats, there is a decent chunk of Republican seats up for grabs that barely lean Republican which Democrats could attempt to pick off.
The Ohio Senate is where the real action is. What will be interesting in seeing how the voters will treat the Ohio Six - the state senators who broke with their party but were one vote short of preventing Senate Bill 5's passage. In 2012, only Senators in even numbered districts will be up for re-election, but that still gives us a chance to evaluate some senators electoral prospects. I've highlighted the six Republicans who broke with their caucus in light gray.
The Republicans standing up against S.B. 5 run the ideological gamut. For Sen. Tom Patton (SD-24, D+15), regardless of whatever his individual leanings on the bill were, this vote was a matter of self-preservation. At D+15, we're talking about a district that is 60-40 Democratic territory, and so any vote that would fan the Democratic flames has to be taken cautiously. If the AFL-CIO's press conference the other day is an indication that they might be willing to put some muscle and money behind Republicans who have voted against some of these damaging bills, this could be the kind of decision that buys him another four year term.
Not every Republican is in the same position however. For Sen. Bill Seitz (SD-8, R+14), one of the senators who was pulled from his committee assignment to break committee deadlocks stalling the bill, the issue was a matter of good public policy - and he laid out the effects in no uncertain terms.
"It's a 'heads I win, tails you lose' proposition,'' Seitz told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "We don't have to get down into the weeds of the finer points of the law. Average Americans and Ohioans understand that 'heads I win, tails you lose' is not a very fair method of dispute resolution."
Votes are not without consequences though, and it will be really interesting to see what happens in the 8th Senate District - the ground is fertile enough for a primary challenge from the right, so the issue will have to be whether or not willing to dismantle unions has moved into being an issue at the core of the conservative movement.
The other senators voting against the bill fall between the two, ranging from 56D - 44R territory to 48.5D - 51.5R; these are seats that would be contentious regardless of the election year or issues, and a "Yes" vote in any of these races could've made them a nice target for outside groups. Despite the electoral implications however, I think there is a strong case to be made for some of these Republicans simply feeling as though the movement was seriously overstepping their boundaries and uprooting a fundamentally important process.
Additionally, I've been receiving lots of feedback and questions about interpreting the numbers. As I've said before, a district's index score is a measurement of how much greater the average R/D margin is compared to the state as a whole. Thus, the numbers aren't on the same measurement scale as the Cook Partisan Voting Index, with which most people are familiar. However, if understanding them in the context of Cook is helpful, I'm happy to help.
When all is said and done, the goal is to have an additional index that legislative seats from ALL states can be a part of, comparing their scores to the national average - but I won't have those numbers until the individual indexes for each state are accomplished. While the LDI includes additional factors on top of the two elections Cook PVI evaluates, you can make a quick approximation of the PVI of a district by adding the average margin to the score of a district, and then dividing by two. As an example, take the most liberal assembly district in Ohio - the LDI says it is District 12 at D+46. If we add the state's average margin (D+4) to that total, and divide by two, we end up with an approximate PVI of D+25. Keep in mind that they won't correspond directly with PVI data - for example, areas where Democratic strength has been boosted by a surge in minority population may be undervalued because the 2008 election is valued lower - the LDI ranks districts that have seen consistently strong Democratic performance at every level higher than areas that went through the roof for Obama in 2008.
There are a few states in the pipeline all ready, thanks to your suggestions, but I'm always open to bumping places up that people are particularly interested. Want to see what is really going on up in Minnesota with the legislature's recent fascination on stifling the rights and dignity of same-sex couples? Or what about the folks intent on turning gay into a four-letter word in Tennessee? Let me know in the comments what you are looking forward to.
No comments:
Post a Comment