2010 Miami baseball opener
St. Patty's Day celebrations
Hazmat responds to gas leak
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > November > 05 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Political lightning strikes; how did THAT happen?
What were the odds Dayton would elect as mayor a British-raised, home-schooling, earring-wearing, figurine-painting, political novice, stay-at-home dad as mayor?
That list is not meant to suggest that those characteristics make Gary Leitzell unfit to be mayor. Most of them don’t matter to me. I’m just saying, what were the odds? Let’s deconstruct.
On Oct. 9, this column reported, “Leitzell — though he surely started with a hard-core anybody-but-McLin base — had an uphill battle to gain credibility and generate enthusiasm. It’s not clear, however, that he has even generated curiosity.”
That view doesn’t look so great now.
And commentators who are surprised by events — as I was — have no reason to expect anybody to care about their retrospective analysis. After all, if they were so stupid before the election, what makes them so smart now?
Still, the Oct. 9 analysis might have been basically right. There was very little evidence then of public interest in the race. When the candidates went out to neighborhoods to engage each other before voters, turnout was minimal, even compared with some other years. Other signs of interest were also lacking.
So what happened? We tend to think of campaigns as endless affairs, droning on month after month. Sometimes, they are, even locally.
When Mike Turner came along to defeat a Democratic mayor in 1993, he was in the news for the better part of a year, first going through a primary, then through a high-profile fall campaign.
When Leitzell’s path turned out to be so much lower in profile, that looked like a problem for him.
But maybe a campaign should be timed from when voters first take note. Campaigns differ on that score. This year, it seemed, the election had to be right on top of people before they tuned in. When they finally did, in the last couple of weeks of October, they saw what seemed to be a respectable alternative to the incumbent at a time when they were predisposed toward change.
Many candidates go through a short period when everything is right for them: they have just gained the requisite name recognition to win, but they are too new on the scene to be much tarnished.
Just as that happened to Leitzell, Election Day arrived.
Well, it’s a theory, anyway.
Alternatively, one might look at race. Neighborhoods voted roughly the way they typically do when the mayoral candidates are of different races. And the Democrats got particularly low turnout in black neighborhoods.
(About 29,000 people voted overall, as against 32,400 in the last mayoral election, 36,500 in the one before that, 36,900 before that, and 44,300 in 1993.)
Democratic Party Chairman Mark Owens had recognized turnout as his candidate’s potential weak spot from the beginning. He focused on it. But generating enthusiasm was tough. Maybe he should have focused more on winning votes elsewhere.
But whether you see the crucial factor as turnout or as a widespread predisposition toward change, you’re talking about two sides of the same coin.
Some people who have voted for the incumbent in the past don’t turn out, because they can’t really be convinced that change would be so awful; and others who are up for grabs go for change.
One other point: When Mike Turner came out of no place to be elected mayor, it was a similar year nationally: The Democrats were losing even in their strongholds. New York, Los Angeles and Jersey City also elected Republican mayors.
A lot of people have trouble believing that national moods affect a race like Dayton mayor, but it’s true.
And, just for the record, I really am much smarter now than last week.
Permalink | Comments (22) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Sarah
November 5, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this
“After all, if they were so stupid before the election, what makes them so smart now?” No truer words were ever written - I think that way every day about Obambi voters…
By Independent One
November 5, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this
Voters are just plain scary. If they don’t already know what the job they are voting for involves or requires in the way of skills it would be better if they didn’t vote at all. But they do. Guessing at what name that person they knew told them to vote for or why. Picking the first three out of six. You can theorize all day long about what happened but the bottom line is clear - voters rarely take the time to do any research on the job or the candidate(s). Pitiful.
By amy
November 5, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this
“There was very little evidence then of public interest in the race.” What does that mean, no big ads in the newspaper, not big dollars spent on TV or radio ads ? Fact is, only the newspaper gave the mayoral race much coverage. The local TV stations gave it effectively nothing. WHIO couldn’t even bother to send a reporter to Leitzell’s election party.
By amy
November 5, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this
“When the candidates went out to neighborhoods to engage each other before voters, turnout was minimal” What kind of turnout could there be ? The candidates were going door-to-door. The turnout was the candidate(s) or their helpers speaking to residents one-on-one. Of course, how would you know this ? Neither of them campaigned in your neighborhood… Check Leitzell’s website(s) and see how often and where he was out there doing what he could on the limited budget he had.
By null
November 5, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this
…and the people who voted for W in either election.
By Obambi? What does that mean?
November 5, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this
“By Sarah November 5, 2009 1:35 PM “After all, if they were so stupid before the election, what makes them so smart now?” No truer words were ever written - I think that way every day about Obambi voters…” That’s very clever, Sarah. Are you insinuating that people who voted for Obama are like deer? Or…what? Never mind, I’m sure you can’t really explain your comment as you likely copied it verbatim from Hannity or Rush. That’s just baaaaaaaaaad /sheep
By Martin Gottlieb
November 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Link to this
My reference to candidates going to neighborhoods to “engage each other before voters” was to candidate nights held at schools and whatnot. The public was always invited.
By Sarah
November 5, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this
OBAMBI - Obama+Biden. I (obviously!) know where you get your news from…did I explain it slow enough for you? If you want to rely on the MSM or the DDN for your news - well then you might think that McHat & other Dems won Tues night.
By Sally Struthersby
November 5, 2009 5:51 PM | Link to this
You are forgetting the online army that Leitzell had going for him on facebook. His online strategy was YEARS ahead of the Dems, which marched out a pathetic smear blog. Also, the youtube commercials that were done against McLin were the most viewed videos far and away of any other media piece in this election (at least online). And they were ruthless, and funny too. If there’s credit to be had, especially seeing how close the vote was, I would award it to the series of three youtube pieces. They were inspiring, infuriating, and motivating, and they were spread like a virus by Leitzell supporters.
By Raoul
November 5, 2009 6:58 PM | Link to this
Martin, I enjoyed your take on the election. Why? Because it seems like you are grasping at straws trying to figure it out, while still trying to maintain an arrogant belief that the city voters should know better than to defy the super smart elitist editorial staff of the DDN.
By middsteve
November 6, 2009 5:12 AM | Link to this
Maybe you would prefer my nickname for him better…BAHAMA-YO-MAMA?
By THOMAS J.
November 6, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this
Mclin lost because she forgot all that political pre schooling taught to her by her Daddy and Grandfather.She who forgets the past is doomed to the future.
By Greg Hunter
November 6, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this
Sally wins the analysis prize….
By Dan G
November 6, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this
All it takes one small tremor to start an avalanche, one small bump in buying volume to start a bull market and one political victory to begin a resurgence. I hope Gary is that catalyst for Dayton. As a former priority board member who served alongside Gary, I can say that we did not always agree on the core issues. But I have never served with anyone who can exceed Gary’s passion and will to find solutions to Dayton’s problems. Sacred cows of the past must be slaughtered for the sake of the future and the electorate must send reinforcements to assist Gary with his vision. Perhaps Gary’s greatest accomplishment has already been made—showing others who desire to serve—that the positions of leadership can be theirs as well.
By Ryan
November 6, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this
Not that hard to figure out…Democrats bring nothing to the table. This election is just a sign of things to come. Americans are tired of hire taxes and wasteful spending and tired of lying, cheating, bedwetting liberals.
By amy
November 6, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this
“My reference to candidates going to neighborhoods…was to candidate nights held at schools…” Again, those were a tiny piece of the campaigning that Gary did. How many of those were there, half a dozen? Poor Gary was out canvassing neighborhoods 2+ nights a week and those were the organized ones. One late afternoon it was just him, his daughter and I presume his wife (and one other person) pulling a red wagon, passing out info.
By Beverly
November 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Link to this
He won for the sames reason Obama won. He was preceded with an incumbent that many people felt had failed in the basic mission of the office. The task now is to take the opportunity and prove themselves worthy of the voters who voted. Which is also the same challenge in Washington and Dayton. It is not about party, pottery, or hats don’t over think it.
By davidss2
November 6, 2009 4:24 PM | Link to this
Now if he will just take down the red light ATM machines and start having policemen watch for red light runners and speeders… maybe Dayton can once again become safe for people to visit.
By Sandy Manger
November 6, 2009 9:28 PM | Link to this
The Sparks Maneuver did ‘em in!
By Concerned
November 7, 2009 2:53 AM | Link to this
Martin wrote “(About 29,000 people voted overall, as against 32,400 in the last mayoral election, 36,500 in the one before that, 36,900 before that, and 44,300 in 1993.) I believe that is what we call a corellation to population. Several factors caused the voter swing. Backlash from concern over federal government out of control. Late news revealed regarding hidden retroactive pay increases for city managers. (Lost significant union vote as well as taxpayer vote). Loss of NCR, Delphi, and GM. Administration seen as confused and ineffective. There may be other reasons as well but these are probably at the top of the list. Until Dayton citizens lose the “I’m entitled” mentality and the politicians stop trying to buy votes by feeding into that, nothing can improve. Only hard work and perserverence can save us now. Martin, glad the voter was able to contribute to your education.
By John
November 7, 2009 9:28 AM | Link to this
Or it could have simply been we read who the morons at DDN supported and tried to take an opposite stance. The DDN a supporter of residency and all things Dayton, who moved their plant out of the city and the county has no right to tell voters squat.
By dclay
November 9, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
Martin writes “What were the odds Dayton would elect as mayor a British-raised, home-schooling, earring-wearing, figurine-painting, political novice, stay-at-home dad as mayor?” What an amateurish introduction for an editorial. If McLin’s opponent had referred to her as an “unmarried, hat-wearing, occasionally drunk, long-time politician,” the DDN would have run Mr. Leitzell out of town. It’s amazing how the DDN preaches tolerance, but when an election doesn’t turn out as hoped, the paper stoops to the very kind of name-calling it condemns. If the above description of Leitzell doesn’t matter, Martin, why include it in your column? Instead of pouting over the election result, why don’t you try cooperating with the new mayor, to see if you can help prevent Dayton from becoming another wasteland like Detroit, Michigan?