The swing states: Ohio

The big, bellwether battlefield

Over the coming weeks we will look at the states that could decide this year’s election. We start with Ohio, decisive in 2004

See article

Readers' comments



I confuses me why conservative "family values" voters would vote for a candidate who divorced his wife after a terrible car crash (she used to be a model, alas no more) only to marry a beautiful heiress *one month later*. That seems pretty sketchy to me, from a moral/ethical perspective. Versus a family man with 2 young kids?And it confuses me why working class voters would prefer a candidate who has made it clear that he will lower taxes for the top 1% of citizens while leaving the working folks lifting the same load. Versus a candidate who has said he will raise taxes on the top 1% in order to help working class citizens.Is gay marriage such a "core worry" compared to economic policies or personal moral behavior that people will vote against their best interests in order to avoid it (not that Obama even advocates such a policy)? Are gay people really so scary? It is wholly astonishing to me...


I am a Democrat and I was down on Fountain Square when Obama speech to the NAACP was broadcast. You have greatly inflated the number of people on the square. There was nowhere near 5000 people, it was more like 1,500-2000.


I will be voting for Obama for alot of reasons here in Ohio.I just can't see myself voting for a 72 year old. He's older than my grandad or around the same age.


I wonder why McCain isn't way ahead at this point, considering the advantage of having begun the general election several weeks before Obama.


It is always interesting to read outsiders, especially British, commenting about facets of American politics. We are often diligently and accurately informed of "in-depth" historical voting trends boding well for one candidate or another. To wit: the observation that Ohio voters tend to support Southern Democrats; Carter & Clinton.
It takes little imagination to recognize the author's unfamiliarity with the term copperhead. As Ohio represents a microcasm of America' it also mirrors deep set sectarianism
formulated in the settlement of the West beginning two hundred years ago. Sympathy for the South remains ingrained in southern Ohio and Indiana.


Having been a regular reader of the Economist for well over 40 years now,I found the first paragraph of the article so amateurish and partisan that I first thought that I had stumbled on to a fake site! I think the reporter should write a follow up to elaborate on why he thinks Obama is treating this election as a done deal. Pending that, I will read the reports on other swing states with a bit of scepticism,to say the least.

Slawa R

I absolutley agree with JDNash - that first sentence sounds like something right off of one of McCain's dirty television ads.

I just don't get it - first people say that Obama hasn't been to Iraq in the recent past and that he doesn't have the international experience to be president. When he does go and shows that he is competent (making exactly zero of the gaffes that everyone suspected he would make) and that he has international support, people accuse him of being arrogant and pretending to be president already. Now the Economist joins in with these absurd comments. I hope this is not an indication of how future articles regarding American politics will be written.

Pete Kent

As a postscript to my comment above, I become more and more convinced that McCain will pick the talented and intelligent family man, Rob Portman of Cincinnati, as his running mate. He has a long history of national service for a man who I don’t believe is quite yet 50. He was a Congressman and Director of OMB and US Trade Representative. He can speak cogently and convincingly on the economic issues that will dominant the campaign and will provide a powerful rationale for McCain’s pro-trade bias. A bias that, by the way, is in line with the interests of one in five American workers. That he was associated with the Bush Administration is a minor distraction. His own humble Midwestern charisma and his popularity within Ohio will quell much of that.

Portman will also be aided by the coming re-assessment of Bush’s Presidency. As things have improved on Iraq (Bush spoke very well from the WH this AM on the topic), as gas prices fall due to the growing impetus to drill, and the economy continues to show signs of picking up, Bush may get a second look.

Vectors favoring republicans – fair winds ahead!

Chicagoan not for Obama

If Obama wins Ohio - there are some of us that will question how much assistance was given from Obamas ties to the old grassroots activist organization, ACORN. Federal indictments from the 2006 election do not bode well for a fair election in 2008. They have openly endorsed Obama and the NP touted many ACORN members in their organization.

The MSM won't write about this, but some of us bloggers will make it a point.

Pete Kent

Ohio does not have a very large AA population, but it remains very conservative in its SW corner (Cincinnati) and much like rural PA through the Appalachian belt. Outside of Cleveland, the state is rather Midwestern and will behave a lot like IN, except in those aforesaid regions. The swing counties are around Dayton and Columbus as far as population centers go.

Do not forget how HRC surprised and scored a big win much of rural OH, enough to counter Obama's support in the traditional Democratic strongholds.

I have never for a minute believed the narrative that Hillary suddenly became the doyenne of the working class and her success in OH was largely predicated on anti-Obama sentiment. This vote is easily translatable to McCain, through these people will have to be wooed.

Patrick McGervey

The recent scandals in Cuyahoga County government implicating important Democratic Party leaders could have an impact on the party machinery's effort to get out the vote. Cuyahoga County is still one of the largest counties in the state. In a close election this could turn the tables.Pat McGerveyAvon Lake, Oh


I currently live in nyc but grew up in Hamilton County (bottom left on the map) and I am still amazed at how conservative the city of Cincinnati is. Despite having a large african-american population in the city and a well educated suburban population the county remains very pro-republican. A lack of racial segregation and a strong religous overtones may be the two large factors. In order to win the county Obama needs to ausage the fears that he will sharply raise taxes and provide a detailed plan to improve the economy (I reckon this is true for the entire voting population). If he can win hamilton county he will likely win the state.


"BARACK OBAMA is doing everything he can to make it look as if the election is a mere formality, and adoring media types are keen to play along."

Hunh? Usually I can count on the Economist not to parrot one party's talking points, especially not when those talking points are inaccurate. Yet this article does so right in the first sentence.

First, and most obviously, "the adoring press" is doing anything but treating the election as a foregone conclusion. It is hard to find any reference to the election that does not select the closest, or most McCain-friendly recent poll, to say that the election could go down to the wire. [Note that this article does so too, choosing to cite the only one of three Gallop polls that came out on the same date a couple of days ago that showed McCain ahead].

I have little doubt that the press would do this even if McCain were ahead, as this is the best way to keep an audience. Similar to how Monday Night Football commentators will spend halftime telling you how the team that is down 14 points has a realistic chance to come back.

Second, the first clause, that "Obama is doing is best to pretend that the election as a foregone conclusion," is just weird. I am not sure where this observation comes from, except from the current Republican talking point that Obama is "presumptuous," which I took to mean arrogant, rather than that he thinks he has already won. I have never heard any kind statement from Obama that he has anything sewn up. And he certainly is not campaigning that way, or laying off on raising money. Of course, Obama has tried to look "presidential," as the media continually tells him he must do if he wants to win over voters such as Ohioans.

I am not saying that Obama will definitely win Ohio. Far from it. But where is the analysis of McCain's weaknesses that explains the current polling deficit? Is it all because of the Republican scandals, which the article minimizes in importance? The article suggests that get-out-the vote efforts and enthusiasm could propel Obama on election day, but that does not explain the current polling.

As a "country" Ohioan, too, I wanted to respond to Younker.Your country/urban dichotomy is overly simplistic. If you can't speak on the behalf of all Ohioans, neither can you speak on behalf of all "country" Ohioans. So please don't use "we." And frankly, I care what Europe, and the rest of the world, thinks of our next president. The current administration has caused enough damage to US/international relations. I am interested in how both candidates plan on addressing the situation. I care for a candidate who can craft and implement effective policy, foreign as well as domestic.And you are wrong if you think all of Western Europe is fawning over Obama. I doubt you care to note the nuances, though, since you don't care what those dirty socialists think at all.


"THAT John McCain is supposed to be a good ol' boy?"

Yes. Here in Ohio, as is the case in much of the country, good ol' boy can refer to a 'yokel' or to a more subtle network of waspish nepotism. The latter is likely Simon's intended meaning.
Now having moved to the heartland from Seattle, I'm not exactly the most typical ohioan, but I do believe that I have a finger on the pulse around here. After watching the last presidential elections in HORROR as the fate of the nation fell into the hand of Ohio, I think this article is overly optimistic regarding Obamas chances in Ohio. The obvious issue of race aside (and it is OBVIOUSLY an issue here), the very idea of change is one which makes people nervous around here.

Matthew H

"Maybe some British newspaper editors can launch a campaign to get their subscribers to send letters to the backwoods Ohio Republicans explaining why it is best that they vote for the cosmopolitan Obama rather than the good ol' boy McCain. I'm sure Kerry appreciated their efforts 4 years ago."

Mr. Son-and-grandson-of 4 star admirals, married a mutlimillionaire heiress, never got a private paycheck in his life, THAT John McCain is supposed to be a good ol' boy?

John McCain is Mr. Legacy. He got into the Naval Academy because of his grandad, he graduated because of his grandad. He got to fly fighter planes (in spite of his abysmal record) because of his dad. He became a Representative and then a Senator because of his (new and improved) wife.

And to you this spells Good ol' boy. Riiight. Keep trying.


While it is obvious that I cannot speak on the behalf of all Ohioans, I can give you my input on the situation: I for one am from the "country" part of the state, not one of the urban areas where Obama is so popular throughout the entire continental US. The thing that we fear here from a hot-shot city politician such as Obama is that we're not sure what we are getting with him. He is only able to talk about what he's going to do, and not about anything that he HAS PREVIOUSLY DONE, besides voting against the war that is currently going in a completely different direction than what he would have wanted.The whole "Hope" campaign doesn't go over well with people who want to know what they will be getting with their vote. We want someone that does not require hope but someone who can tell us something about his past that shows potential for the future, being the most liberal senator in Congress is not going to help either. As far as Obama counting his chickens before his eggs hatch, we want to see the candidates campaigning in the country that they're going to be potentially be representing, not Berlin. Why is the question even being raised who Europeans would vote for? People from Ohio could care less about how good the popstar looks to the socialists in Western Europe. (A journalist from Berlin referred to SENATOR Obama as a popstar on BBC World News, unfortunately for him he thought it was a positive thing to say about Obama)


The first sentence in your article says it all. Obama never assumed anything about the coming elections. You are trying to define and put him in his place. I realise the Economist is not thrilled about Obama, but why put up the lie that you are being fair and balanced in reporting about the Presidential elections.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

