Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

At an open-air event space beside a craft brewery in east Fort Worth, a hip indie-rock guitarist introduces the leading Democratic candidate for Texas governor. Whos excited to see Beto? he asks from the stage, pronouncing the Spanish moniker Bay-toe. In the spread-out crowd of a few hundred, a handful proclaim their excitement. The guitarist then asks if the crowd has heard of Foss, a defunct lo-fi punk group. That was Betos band back in El Paso, he clarifies, before admiringly describing an old photo of said band in which ORourke wore a dress. But, yeah, this next ones for you, Beto.

Im tempted to check the date on my phone. Might I, somewhere on my drive up from Austin, have passed through a portal to 2018?

More attendees trickle in. Many are being shuttled from a downtown parking area, safely past a couple square blocks of homeless camps, to arrive at the brewery. As the December sun sets, a campaign staffer announces ORourke will speak later than planned. The first band retires and is replaced by a DJ, who leads with top 40 standbys and hip-hop airhorns. The response is polite; then, he strikes gold. Just a small town girl, the song begins, and the crowd tightens. Millennial and middle-aged alike, in black Beto t-shirts, begin to sing. Fifteen minutes later, the DJ throws caution to the wind and plays the song a second time. If theres one thing this crowd doesnt want to stop, its believing.

ORourke, who rose to fame with a near-successful bid to topple Senator Ted Cruz four years ago, looks headed for another defeat. Polls show him trailing by as much as 15 points against Texas Republican incumbent Governor Greg Abbott, who thrashed his two prior Democratic opponents and sits on a $55 million warchest. Unlike in 2018, when ORourke rode a backlash to President Trump, he now stares down a projected red wave. After a quixotic 2020 run for president, hes alienated swing voters. His Democratic base may still adore him, but in Texas, thats not enough.

In Fort Worth, ORourkes arrival can be felt as a ripple through the throng. Weaving his way through the crowd, he bounds up to a raised platform. As ever, hes lithe and lanky, his smile all teeth; as always, hes wearing a light-blue button-up shirt. Following a few paeans to local attractions, he launches into whats become his stump speecha careful litany of issues he hopes can become wedges.

He first addresses the February freeze and electric grid failure that killed hundreds of Texans, blaming Abbott for failing to prepare and being beholden to energy CEOs. Hereas he summons memories of the ordinary Texans who provided one another shelter, food, and water during the crisishe makes his unity pitch.

We put our differences behind us, we said no me importa, I do not care, if youre a Republican or a Democrat, who you love, who you pray to never mind the divisions, the differences by which they seek to divide us, ORourke says. Folks, imagine if we had a governor who felt the same way.

He then cycles through some of the reactionary laws that Governor Abbott signed this year, particularly those that poll poorly. He touches on Senate Bill 1, the voting crackdown that House Democrats staged a walkout over last last summer, and Senate Bill 8, the measure thats placed a $10,000 bounty on nearly any Texan who provides or helps someone secure an abortion. He condemns the firearms legislation that now lets most Texans carry handguns without training or permitsa measure Abbott signed over objections from many police chiefs. ORourke, who once spoke favorably of defunding the police, now says simply: You and I, we trust law enforcement, and were listening to them.

An El Paso resident who formerly represented the border city in Congress, ORourke in prior campaigns spoke with power and eloquence in favor of immigrants and against policies like building a border wall. In Fort Worth, and other recent stops, he leaves those topics essentially untouched. The polling here is daunting for Dems.

He closes with a pun: Unlike Abbott, ORourke will keep the power on, and he knows the true power of Texas is in the people around us.

The crowd transforms into a snaking selfie line. Faces light up; this, it seems, is the main event. With each supporter, he shakes hands or hugs, he leans in, he brims with attentiveness. You cant miss it: They love him. Watching dozens get their moment with ORourke, its almost enough to stir something in a heart laden with political polls and past disappointments. One can almost catch a sudden scent on the wind. Wine, perhaps, or cheap perfume.

What was it that made Beto magic?

In early 2017, just a couple months after Trump took office and a year and a half before the next election, ORourke announced his run against Ted Cruz on a shaky handheld livestream. The Texas Democrats had seen their last statewide star, Wendy Davis, crushed in the 2014 governors race. The going wisdom was that Davis, or one of San Antonios Castro twins, would eventually snap the partys nearly three-decade statewide losing streakif not this year, then soon. Instead, those rising stars rose until they winked out of sight. And there was ORourke, campaigning like a man on fire.

There he was, racing in his pickup to rural towns no rational Democrat would visit and delivering supplies amid Hurricane Harvey. There he was jogging, losing his phone, getting a haircut. Everything was live-streamed. No one recruited the little-known congressman from the Mountain Time Zone to do this; he recruited himself. Yet somehow he didnt come off as arrogant. The Trump-era had filled the air with an urgency matched by his energy. As Christopher Hooks wrote for this magazine at the time: Nothing this year feels good, but this does, and that can have a power of its own.

Ideologically, ORourke was fuzzy in a smart way. Like Bernie Sanders, he swore off PAC money, and his volunteer apparatus was modeled on Sanders 2016 presidential run. He even flirted with Medicare for All. But ORourke never fully anchored himself to the policy positions that were rending the party between progressives and moderates. Ultimately, he was more of a good vibes guy. Soon, the money flowed in by the millions.

Election night was a drama in two parts: promising early returns for ORourke driven by suburban support followed by a red tsunami from rural Texas where, it seems, ORourke had wasted his breath. Cruz won by 2.6 points. Even sky-high voter turnout, Donald Trump in the White House, and record-shattering fundraising hadnt been enough. But, unlike in 2014, there was a bright side: ORourke had fuelled down-ballot liberal wins. The Dems flipped two U.S. House seats, 12 state House seats, 2 state Senate seats, and locked in control of Harris County.

From there, as has been well-documented, ORourke went off the rails. Rather than stay home to prep another Senate run in 2020, he launched a doomed bid for the White House. In a bid for relevance, he staked out hard-left positionsnot on popular issues like education and healthcare, but on mandatory gun buybacks and revoking churches tax status. En route to an early flameout, he burned credibility with fence-sitters and ticket-splitters.

On the eve of the Texas primary, he veered back to the center, joining a political blitz to stop Sanders and prop up Joe Biden, a move that earned the ire of former 2018 campaign staffers. Ideological fuzziness, at last, looked more like a lack of principles. Meanwhile, in his absence, a scrum of little-known Democrats duked it out for the chance to lose to Senator John Cornyn.

For the last year and a half, ORourkes been on something of an atonement tour, one heavy on good intentions and light on success. ORourke threw his weight behind the Democratic effort to flip the state House in 2020, and he publicly pressed the Biden campaign to invest more in Texas. These efforts bore no fruit: The Dems flipped zero state House seats, the Senate candidate was drubbed, and Biden lost ground in crucial South Texas. Finally, while postponing his announcement for governor this year, ORourke focused on supporting the state lawmakers who fled to D.C. to stymie the GOPs voting crackdown and push Congress to pass election protections. The anti-voting bill passed in August; Congress did not intervene.

ORourke could delay his gubernatorial announcement, which he made in November, because no other serious candidate was going to run. The once-unheralded El Pasoan who muscled aside the state partys supposed stars had become the supposed star.

Dutifully, ORourkes accepted his part, trotting his charisma around a state that already seems to know him too well: Hes almost universally recognized and more disliked than liked. He does so under the weight of a Democratic president sinking in the polls. And, thanks to Texas Dems 2020 failure, down-ballot races are set to be run on maps freshly gerrymandered by the Republican Legislature: If ORourke still has coattails, there may be nobody in competitive races to ride them.

Texas Democrats are expert conjurers of silver linings. If nothing else, theres always the comfort of playing the noble loser. But who gets healthcare or gets to vote, who survives childhood without legal discrimination or the trauma of school shootings, hinges not on the virtue of the loser.

Somewhere along the way in 2018, ORourkes run broke the mold: Even cynical observers couldnt predict the plot, foresee the final act, anticipate the lines. Now, its hard to shake the feeling that were all back on-script.

In a November interview with Texas Monthly, ORourke answered a question about his troubling poll numbers. I dont think this will be much of a campaign if its about me, he said. I think it really has to be about Texas. It has to be about all of us.

The day after his Fort Worth rally, hes at a historic park ringed with sprawling Live Oaks in downtown Austin. The crowds bigger here, about 1,000 people. The supporters section band for the citys soccer team, a brass and drum outfit, hypes the crowd with upbeat tunes and lyrics that go roughly: Beto, Beto, Betooooo, Beto, Beto.

Around the block, someone drives a truck with a bright-red Abbott ad on the side. It shows Bidens face morphing into ORourkes with alternating messages: Wrong for America, Wrong for Texas.

State Representative Gina Hinojosa introduces him this time. She details ORourkes fundraising for House Dems failed voting rights walkout. Then ORourke takes the stage. He gives essentially the same speech as the night before, with the same high notes and jokes and sprinkles of Spanish. He reaches his closing pun in about 15 minutes. Were going to ensure that we elect a governor who will always keep the lights on and who understands the real power in Texas is the people of this state, he says. Be good to one another. Adis. Buenas noches. Adis.

Cue the selfie line.

See more here:

Is Beto Just Another Doomed Texas Democrat? - The Texas Observer

When it comes to elections, the Republican Party operates within a carapace of lies. So we rely on the Democrats to preserve our system of government.

The problem is that Democrats live within their own insular echo chamber. Within that bubble convenient falsehoods spread, go unchallenged and make it harder to focus on the real crisis. So lets clear away some of these myths that are distorting Democratic behavior:

The whole electoral system is in crisis. Elections have three phases: registering and casting votes, counting votes and certifying results. When it comes to the first two phases, the American system has its flaws but is not in crisis. As Yuval Levin noted in The Times a few days ago, its become much easier in most places to register and vote than it was years ago. We just had a 2020 election with remarkably high turnout. The votes were counted with essentially zero fraud.

The emergency is in the third phase Republican efforts to overturn votes that have been counted. But Democratic voting bills the For the People Act and its update, the Freedom to Vote Act were not overhauled to address the threats that have been blindingly obvious since Jan. 6 last year. They are sprawling measures covering everything from mail-in ballots to campaign finance. They basically include every idea thats been on activist agendas for years.

These bills are hard to explain and hard to pass. By catering to D.C. interest groups, Democrats have spent a year distracting themselves from the emergency right in front of us.

Voter suppression efforts are a major threat to democracy. Given the racial history of this country, efforts to limit voting, as some states have been implementing, are heinous. I get why Democrats want to repel them. But this, too, is not the major crisis facing us. Thats because tighter voting laws often dont actually restrict voting all that much. Academics have studied this extensively. A recent well-researched study suggested that voter ID laws do not reduce turnout. States tighten or loosen their voting laws, often seemingly without a big effect on turnout. The general rule is that people who want to vote end up voting.

Just as many efforts to limit the electorate dont have much of an effect, the Democratic bills to make it easier to vote might not have much impact on turnout or on which party wins. As my Times colleague Nate Cohn wrote last April, Expanding voting options to make it more convenient hasnt seemed to have a huge effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. Thats the finding of decades of political science research on advance, early and absentee voting.

Higher turnout helps Democrats. This popular assumption is also false. Political scientists Daron R. Shaw and John R. Petrocik, authors of The Turnout Myth, looked at 70 years of election data and found no evidence that turnout is correlated with partisan vote choice.

The best way to address the crisis is top down. Democrats have focused their energies in Washington, trying to pass these big bills. The bills would override state laws and dictate a lot of election procedures from the national level.

Given how local Republicans are behaving, I understand why Democrats want to centralize things. But its a little weird to be arguing that in order to save democracy we have to take power away from local elected officials. Plus, if you tell local people theyre not fit to govern themselves, youre going to further inflame the populist backlash.

But the real problem is that Democrats are not focusing on crucial state and local arenas. The Timess Charles Homans had a fascinating report from Pennsylvania, where Trump backers were running for local office, including judge of elections, while Democrats struggled to even find candidates. Im not sure what the Democratic Party was worried about, but it didnt feel like they were worried about school board and judge of elections races all of these little positions, a failed Democratic candidate said.

Democrats do not seem to be fighting hard in key local races. They do not seem to be rallying the masses so that state legislators pay a price if they support democracy-weakening legislation.

Maybe some of the energy that has been spent over the past year analyzing and berating Joe Manchin could have been better spent grooming and supporting good state and local candidates. Maybe the best way to repulse a populist uprising is not by firing up all your allies in the Northwest quadrant of Washington, D.C.

The crisis of democracy is right in front of us. We have a massive populist mob that thinks the country is now controlled by a coastal progressive oligarchy that looks down on them. Were caught in cycles of polarization that threaten to turn America into Northern Ireland during the Troubles. We have Republican hacks taking power away from the brave state officials who stood up to Trumpian bullying after the 2020 election.

Democrats have spent too much time on measures that they mistakenly think would give them an advantage. The right response would be: Do the unsexy work at the local level, where things are in flux. Pass the parts of the Freedom to Vote Act that are germane, like the protections for elections officials against partisan removal, and measures to limit purging voter rolls. Reform the Electoral Count Act to prevent Congress from derailing election certifications.

When your house is on fire, drop what you were doing, and put it out. Maybe finally Democrats will do that.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion | Democrats Are Failing to Defend Democracy - The New York Times

Charlie Bailey's decision gives state Sen. Jen Jordan a clear path to the Democratic nomination for attorney general. Bob Andres / bandres@ajc.com

Charlie Bailey's decision gives state Sen. Jen Jordan a clear path to the Democratic nomination for attorney general. Bob Andres / bandres@ajc.com

The Democratic contenders include state Rep. Erick Allen of Smyrna; state Rep. Derrick Jackson of Tyrone; Bryan Miller, grandson of former Gov. Zell Miller; and state Rep. Renitta Shannon of Decatur.

Bailey enters the contest with powerful backers. Former Gov. Roy Barnes and U.S. Reps. Lucy McBath and Hank Johnson both endorsed Bailey in tandem with his announcement. So did DuBose Porter, the former Democratic Party of Georgia chairman.

Porter was among the Democrats who appealed to Bailey to switch races. He said Baileys background as a protg of former Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor and a veteran prosecutor would round out a ticket led by Stacey Abrams and U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock.

He was a great candidate in 2018 and he brought so much to the ticket. He has a unique background that would be a perfect fit policy-wise in contrast with those running on the Republican side, Porter said. This is someone who has prosecuted cases but also defended civil rights.

Bailey captured about 48.7% of the vote in 2018 when he was defeated by Carr the highest vote share of any statewide Democrat that cycle other than Abrams. Carr, a former economic development commissioner, won by roughly 100,000 votes.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr (left) and Democratic opponent Charlie Bailey (AJC FILE PHOTOS)

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr (left) and Democratic opponent Charlie Bailey (AJC FILE PHOTOS)

But he was considered the underdog in this years Democratic primary against Jordan, who had earned national attention for her opposition to the Republican-backed anti-abortion law that narrowly passed in 2019. A range of well-known Georgia Democrats and powerful national organizations backed her bid.

Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncans decision not to stand for a second term triggered an open contest on the GOP side, too. State Sens. Burt Jones and Butch Miller have raced to curry favor with conservative voters. Party activist Jeanne Seaver is in the race, too.

Instead of using their power to work on issues that might improve Georgians lives, the Republicans running for lieutenant governor are in a competition to see who can become more authoritarian, said Bailey. And when you do that, you no longer have credibility.

I respect all the Democrats in the race but my decision has nothing to do with them. Im running against Butch Miller and Burt Jones, Bailey said. And Im running for the issues that will decide this election: health care, public safety and education.

Its attacking the same problems, he said, just from a different perspective.

He will push legislation to create a civil rights division that would investigate discrimination complaints and rogue law enforcement officers. And he echoes other Democrats with calls to expand Medicaid, increase school funding and finance higher teacher pay.

His background as a former Fulton County prosecutor who targeted gang offenders could also complicate GOP efforts to brand Democrats as defund the police backers who are weak on crime.

I respect all the Democrats in the race but my decision has nothing to do with them. Im running against Butch Miller and Burt Jones, Bailey said. And Im running for the issues that will decide this election: healthcare, public safety and education.

10/29/2018 -- Madison, Georgia -- Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is joined by Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor Sarah Riggs Amico (right) and Democratic Attorney General candidate Charlie Bailey (left) as she speaks during an early voters rally in Madison, Monday, October 29, 2018. (ALYSSA POINTER/ALYSSA.POINTER@AJC.COM)

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

10/29/2018 -- Madison, Georgia -- Gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is joined by Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor Sarah Riggs Amico (right) and Democratic Attorney General candidate Charlie Bailey (left) as she speaks during an early voters rally in Madison, Monday, October 29, 2018. (ALYSSA POINTER/ALYSSA.POINTER@AJC.COM)

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

Credit: Alyssa Pointer

Abrams, the state Democratic partys most prominent figure, isnt taking sides in the jumbled race. Her campaign manager Lauren Groh-Wargo said the partys slate will be formidable.

We feel like well have an unbelievable ticket that represents the diversity of our state, she said.

Other prominent Democrats, however, quickly tried to clear the way for Bailey. McBath said he would be an outstanding nominee and advocate for Democratic causes in the Georgia statehouse.

I am endorsing him because I know we can count on him to fight for civil rights, voting rights and common-sense gun safety reforms that will save lives.

Former Gov. Roy Barnes:

I got to know Charlie when I hired him as a young lawyer and saw how hard he worked on behalf of regular people who needed someone to fight for them. He worked hard to get justice for teachers whose pensions had been shortchanged and help those fighting for justice against insurance companies. I was proud to support him when he did so well as a first-time statewide candidate in 2018. I know hell be an asset to Stacey Abrams and the entire Democratic ticket as our nominee for Lieutenant Governor.

U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson:

Charlie is a proven, strong candidate for statewide office, so we can be sure he will be a strong nominee for Lieutenant Governor who will defeat whichever far-right candidate the other party nominates. We can count on Charlie as Lieutenant Governor to fight for everyday Georgians, including protecting our right to vote, fighting for affordable healthcare by expanding Medicaid and better public schools.

Former Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor:

I know Charlie well from when he worked for me when I was Lieutenant Governor. I know hell be a very strong candidate and great running mate for Stacey Abrams and that hell be a great Lieutenant Governor. I know firsthand how much good can be done by a Lieutenant Governor dedicated to fighting for working Georgians, including improving schools, making college and technical school more accessible, and protecting people from crime. We can count on Charlie to win and use the office to improve the lives of the people of Georgia.

State Rep. Al Williams:

I know Charlie will be a great running mate for future Governor Stacey Abrams and an asset to every Democrat on the ballot this year. As someone who represents a South Georgia district, I know we need geographic diversity at the top of our ticket, as well as Charlies experience in law enforcement and commitment to civil rights and protecting everyones right to vote. I look forward to campaigning with him and working with him next year to bring Georgia together and make this state a better place for everyone.

Link:

Democrat Bailey jumps from AG race to LG contest in Georgia - The Atlanta Journal Constitution

OPINION Our founders recognized that it wasnt just kings who could be tyrants. They knew majorities could be tyrants too, and that the majority party if unchecked could trample the rights of the minority party. And so the founders combined majority rule with both representation and constitutional protections for the minority. They established safeguards checks and balances throughout our government to keep the government in check and ensure that the rights of the minority party were protected. One of those safeguards was the Senate.

The founders made the Senate smaller than the House of Representatives and senators terms of office longer, with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation and attempts to curtail minority party rights. And as time has gone on, the Senates legislative filibuster has become perhaps the key way the Senate protects those rights.

The filibuster ensures that the minority party and the Americans it represents has a voice in the Senate. It forces compromise. It forces bipartisanship. It encourages a greater level of stability and predictability. Even in the rare case when a majority party has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the filibuster still forces the majority party to take into account the views of its more moderate or middle-of-the-road members, thus ensuring that more Americans are represented in legislation. Removing the filibuster would erase this protection and allow the majority including an incredibly narrow or merely technical majority, as Democrats have now to trample minority party rights.

In the words of one former senator, We should make no mistake. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights, and they also have a consequence, and would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess. That former senator of course was Joe Biden one of the many Democrats who has opposed abolishing the filibuster.

Because, of course, Democrats were singing a different tune on the filibuster just a couple of years ago. When President Trump urged Republican senators to abolish the legislative filibuster dozens of times Democrats were strongly opposed. In 2017, 32 Democrat senators including now-Vice President Harris and a majority of the current Democrat caucus signed a letter urging that the legislative filibuster be preserved. Republicans agreed and refused to abolish the legislative filibuster despite the former presidents repeated urging.

Now, however, many Democrats who not only supported but actively and repeatedly used the filibuster during the previous administration to block major coronavirus relief legislation and police reform legislation have apparently decided that rules protecting the minority should only apply when Democrats are in the minority. Apparently Democrat minorities deserve representation, but Republican minorities do not.

I urge my Democrat colleagues to think about what abolishing the filibuster would mean for ordinary Americans. Of course it would mean decreased representation for any American whose party was in the minority. But it would also mean highly unstable government policy (and a resulting lack of confidence in government) as well as a sharp increase in partisanship which I venture to say is not what we need right now.

Abolish the filibuster, and policy will shift sharply with it. Social policy on abortion, religious freedom, and other issues. Regulatory policy. Tax policy. Foreign policy. The list goes on. And such incessant changes of national policy would unquestionably heighten partisanship in this country. As the laws became more extreme, the tension between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, would only heighten. Here in Congress, yes, but most importantly throughout the country.

When Republicans were repeatedly faced with the prospect of abolishing the legislative filibuster during the previous administration, we said no. Not because there wasnt important legislation we wanted to pass, but because we knew that the best thing for our country and for our future representation in the Senate was to preserve this essential protection for the minority party. I urge my Democrat colleagues to think of their future and our country and make the same decision.

To read all of today's stories, Click here or call 642-2761 to subscribe to our e-edition or home delivery.

Continued here:

Razor-thin Democrat majority wants to change the rules in the middle of the game - Black Hills Pioneer

Thomas Suddes| Contributed Commentary

If Ohios Democrats are to recover even a smidgen of the influence they once had at the Statehouse, they have two tough challenges.

Challenge One is to unseat Republican Gov. Mike DeWine or, more realistically, come as close as an Ohio Democrat can to doing that.

Editorial: Gov. Mike DeWine must use political skills to institute school mask mandates

Challenge Two is to elect a statewide executive officer or two as the core of farm team for 2026 and beyond. (Democrats will also strive to elect a Democrat to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, a Terrace Park Republican, but thats more about Washington than Columbus.)

The long, slow decline of Ohio Democrats was unimaginable 39 years ago this month, in January 1983.Thats when the only Republican holding a statewide elected office was the late Supreme Court Justice Robert E. Holmes, of suburban Columbus.

On that 1983 day, a Democrat, Richard F. Celeste, was being sworn in as governor.

Also sworn in that day: Ohios attorney general, auditor, secretary of state and treasurer all Democrats.

Democrats also ran the state Senate and Ohios House. (Democratic House Speaker Vern Riffe was beginning the ninth year of what would be a 20-year speakership.) And six of the Supreme Courts seven justices were Democrats, including Chief Justice Frank D. Celebrezze.

Thomas Suddes: 'Incumbents should fear' 2022 as year of the 'ticked-off voter'

Today, among Ohios statewide elected officers are just three Democrats: Supreme Court Justices Jennifer Brunner, Michael P. Donnelly and Melody J. Stewart. The state Senate has been GOP-run since January 1985, the Ohio House for all but two years since January 1995.

What happened? First off, Democrats failed to develop a farm team. Second, in 1994,Democrats fielded union-backed Rob Burch, a Democratic state senator from Tuscarawas County, to challenge the re-election of Republican Gov. George V. Voinovich.

Trouble was, Burchs disastrous campaign barely drew 25% of the statewide vote. (So beleaguered was the Burch campaign that in 1994, Athens County, Appalachian Ohios Democratic enclave, voted for a Republican for governor the last time Athens County has done so.) You almost have to wonder if certain Democrats were privately rooting for Voinovich.

Thomas Suddes: What does 'Like A Virgin' and Ohio Democrats have in common?

One of Democrats major 1994 problems was that Riffe was retiring from the speakership; he was tired of doing the heavy lifting for Democrats tickets. Moreover, he was in fact dying:Ohios longest serving House speaker only lived for two-and-a-half years after he left the legislature.

Moreover, Democrats made a long-term bet that in the end, organized labor would always save Democrats bacon, thanks to Senate Bill 133, Ohios 1983 collective bargaining law for public employees,which Democrats rammed to passage in a party-line vote.

The paradox was that union membership has steadily declined in Ohio.

In 1990, according to federal Bureau of Labor Statistics data, 20.9% of employed Ohioans were then union members; by 2020, the percentage had fallen to 13.2%. Democrats, nationally, and to some extent in Ohio, compounded their problems by transforming themselves from a shot-and-a-beer crowd to a wine-and-cheese outfit, and with that came a streak of political hairsplitting.

Republicans captured the Senate in November 1984; the Supreme Court in November 1986; Ohios governorship in 1990; Ohios House, and every statewide elected executive office, in November 1994. Meanwhile, rural and Appalachian Democrats have all but disappeared from the General Assembly and GOP gerrymandering isnt the only reason.

Ohio politics: 100 public schools are suing Ohio, saying EdChoice voucher programs are unconstitutional

Another was failure to cultivate new talent and fashion new policy approaches. Until that happens, Democratic wins in Ohio will remain tough and rare.

VOUCHERS: A group of school districts, including the Columbus schools, filed a lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court last week to overturn Ohios EdChoice school voucher law.

Vouchers help parents pay for nonpublic schooling if they choose that for their child. (In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Cleveland-specific school voucher program.)

The lawsuit illustrates a seeming paradox: Choosing whether to give birth to a child is often asserted to be a fundamental right. But, absent vouchers, a parents right to choose how to educate a child depends on family income. Lawyers can peck and poke lawbooks and previous cases all they want, but isnt fairness the real issue?

Thomas Suddes is a former legislative reporter with The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and writes from Ohio University. tsuddes@gmail.com

Read more:

Suddes: Democrats lost their mojo in Ohio decades ago. Can they win elections here now? - The Columbus Dispatch