BLACKWELL WINS REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/community/14497288.htm?template=contentModules...5/4/2006
Following the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries it seems it will be Ken Blackwell who will run against the democrat candidate, Ted Strickland, in the November elections for Ohio’s next governor. The argument that it was Blackwell’s stance on economic issues more than moral ones that won the day for him is, I think, a reasonable theory. At the end of the day many people, who may be attracted to a candidate because of their moral stances and the value they have for their faith, will nevertheless cast their vote for a less “religious” or even “anti-religion” candidate who proposes more agreeable economic solutions. In Ken Blackwell’s case, many voters felt that he was a successful combination of a candidate who will be conservative on moral/social issues as well as govern in a way that is more in line with traditional republican ideals and policies. In the words of Carlo LoParo, Blackwell’s spokesman, “Voters like elected officials with a deep conviction to their faith. But what carries the day is their economic positions.”
Coupled with this is Petro’s own theory, touched on in his concession speech, which claimed that Blackwell’s exposure as secretary of state during the last presidential elections gave him a big head-start in campaigning “by at least two years.” Ohio and Florida were the two most “hotly contested” states, and as far as Ohio was concerned, Blackwell was one of the key figures in the spotlight during the whole ordeal. Of course, all the media attention surrounding a situation that surely angered a lot of Ohio’s voters (and the rest of the country for that matter) could just as easily have worked against him. The public has to have someone to blame mishaps on, someone to demand answers from, someone to hold accountable.
Yet another theory claims that Petro just simply “did not run a good campaign.” According to Mark Weaver, a Republican strategist, “who was not aligned with either Petro’s or Blackwell’s campaigns,” Petro, “looks like the status quo…walks like the status quo, talks like the status quo, and Ken Blackwell doesn’t.” And inasmuch as that would have appeal to voters, it would have contributed to Blackwell’s victory.
In the end, whether it was a matter of the attraction to personal faith-conviction and traditional “conservative” Republican policies, or a two-year head-start in campaigning via a botched balloting process, or being an anti-status quo “outsider” candidate that Ohio with its “anti-status quo feeling” was sold on, or a combination of all three theories - it was enough to get Ken Blackwell on the November ballot with Ted Strickland in the race for Ohio’s next governor. Whether or not these theories are true and whether or not they will contribute in Blackwell’s favor in the upcoming months against Strickland, well . . . that’s another story.
Following the outcome of Tuesday’s primaries it seems it will be Ken Blackwell who will run against the democrat candidate, Ted Strickland, in the November elections for Ohio’s next governor. The argument that it was Blackwell’s stance on economic issues more than moral ones that won the day for him is, I think, a reasonable theory. At the end of the day many people, who may be attracted to a candidate because of their moral stances and the value they have for their faith, will nevertheless cast their vote for a less “religious” or even “anti-religion” candidate who proposes more agreeable economic solutions. In Ken Blackwell’s case, many voters felt that he was a successful combination of a candidate who will be conservative on moral/social issues as well as govern in a way that is more in line with traditional republican ideals and policies. In the words of Carlo LoParo, Blackwell’s spokesman, “Voters like elected officials with a deep conviction to their faith. But what carries the day is their economic positions.”
Coupled with this is Petro’s own theory, touched on in his concession speech, which claimed that Blackwell’s exposure as secretary of state during the last presidential elections gave him a big head-start in campaigning “by at least two years.” Ohio and Florida were the two most “hotly contested” states, and as far as Ohio was concerned, Blackwell was one of the key figures in the spotlight during the whole ordeal. Of course, all the media attention surrounding a situation that surely angered a lot of Ohio’s voters (and the rest of the country for that matter) could just as easily have worked against him. The public has to have someone to blame mishaps on, someone to demand answers from, someone to hold accountable.
Yet another theory claims that Petro just simply “did not run a good campaign.” According to Mark Weaver, a Republican strategist, “who was not aligned with either Petro’s or Blackwell’s campaigns,” Petro, “looks like the status quo…walks like the status quo, talks like the status quo, and Ken Blackwell doesn’t.” And inasmuch as that would have appeal to voters, it would have contributed to Blackwell’s victory.
In the end, whether it was a matter of the attraction to personal faith-conviction and traditional “conservative” Republican policies, or a two-year head-start in campaigning via a botched balloting process, or being an anti-status quo “outsider” candidate that Ohio with its “anti-status quo feeling” was sold on, or a combination of all three theories - it was enough to get Ken Blackwell on the November ballot with Ted Strickland in the race for Ohio’s next governor. Whether or not these theories are true and whether or not they will contribute in Blackwell’s favor in the upcoming months against Strickland, well . . . that’s another story.
