Once again a female democrat is not interested in winning Ohio. Just unbelievable!
Clinton v. Trump years ago the article stated:
"It is a jarring change for political veterans here, who relish being at the center of the country’s presidential races: Because of newer battleground states,
Mrs. Clinton can amass the 270 electoral votes required to win even if she loses Ohio."
It was fine to point out that Ohio, which is generally
somewhat Republican-leaning relative to the country as a whole,1 wasn’t a must-win state for Clinton. But the article didn’t contemplate the possibility that Clinton’s poor position in Ohio could also portend problems in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which probably
were must-wins for her and which, like Ohio,
had plenty of white voters without college degrees. In that sense, Ohio could still be a
bellwether — a leading indicator of trends elsewhere in the country and the region — even if it wasn’t likely to be the decisive state.
Instead, the Times went out of its way to assert that Ohio had lost its bellwether status, describing it as a bygone curiosity “decreasingly representative of contemporary America” whose days at the forefront of presidential politics were behind it.
This is the fourth article in a series that reviews news coverage of the 2016 general election, explores how Donald Trump won and why his chances were underrate…
fivethirtyeight.com
Amazing how this exact scenario is playing out today despite the democrats having historical proof of it. They have ignored Ohio once again.
When Ohio guides what Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will do.
