Presuming that Obama is less likely to win here in Ohio because Clinton has a lead in the primary ... well, the technical term for that is "ignorant".

In the last head to head match up polling in Ohio which there were three Democrats (PPP, just in the aftermath of Iowa), Edwards beat McCain, McCain edged out Obama but it was within the MOE, and McCain beat Clinton.

And this is at the exact same time that the order of primary preference was Clinton, Obama, Edwards.

In the middle of a recession, a Democrat should never lose Ohio to a Republican. However, Clinton could, if she doesn't get her act together. And Obama could, if in his inexperience with national campaigning he makes a major stumble.

Posted at February 8, 2008 11:13 AM in response to Just Do The Math

Also, note that if Obama were to pick the southern white guy, he could send Edwards on his bus starting at home in North Carolina, driving up through VA, WV, the Ohio River Valley, KY, MO and IA, and turn around and go back ... and just keep on doing that lap, except for the jetting around to log the pro-forma 50 state strategery.

The critical question on that front would not be whether Edwards could help seal the election by forcing the Republicans to play defense around the borders of their base, but what Obama would have to promise to get Edwards to agree to do it.

Posted at February 6, 2008 12:10 PM in response to Obama's Biggest Weakness

Well, I live in Ohio, so I filter all this through who is most likely to carry Ohio in the Fall.

OTOH, since the Republicans have never once won the White House without, maybe that's an OK filter.

And if either of them run on addressing the interests of the 60% from the bottom up, while repeatedly calling the recession "a Republican recession in a decade of Republican stagnation", they'll carry Ohio. Bush's recession definitely came too late in his term to do McCain "I don't really know about the economy" any favors.

Now that Edwards is out of the race, I want to vote for Obama's foreign policy and Hillary's health care plan, but lacking that I may be left with Edwards in any event, as a protest vote against Hillary's foreign policy and Obama's lying about Hillary's health care plan.

Posted at February 6, 2008 12:02 PM in response to Obama's Biggest Weakness

Note that while U3 is around 5%, U6 is substantially higher than that.

And from my experience, I think U6 is more accurate. For example, for the six weeks starting Christmas week, I got 2 days on Christmas Week and three days, starting Friday of the third week after Christmas week and ending the following Tuesday.

Under U3, I was employed for 3 weeks and unemployed for 3 weeks, for a weekly average unemployment rate of 50%.

Under U6, I was employed part time for economic reasons for 3 weeks ... 0.5 employed and 0.5 unemployed ... and unemployed for 3 weeks, for a weekly average unemployment rate of 75%.

In reality, excluding Christmas Day I had 29 days of labor on offer and 5 days of labor accepted, for an hours based unemployment rate of 82%.

Clearly, U6 is a better approximation for my situation, working at a warehouse in Northeast Ohio during a slide into recession.

Also, clearly I am hoping that economic instruction at community colleges is a counter-cyclical demand, because trying to get manual labor in NE Ohio during a recession is teh suck.

Posted at February 3, 2008 2:59 PM in response to Recessions and Unemployment