A Republican has never won the presidency without also winning Ohio, and the same is almost true for Democrats as well. Since 1896, the candidate who won Ohio also won the presidency 93 percent of the time — in 28 out of 30 elections. The reason is that Ohio tends to mimic the national vote. Solidly red states will always vote Republican, and solidly blue states will always vote Democrat, so it’s always independents swaying the national vote to one side. Ohio has been the swing state bellwether for who will win the election.
But is that about to change? Now that Donald Trump is ahead in the polls in Ohio, The New York Times is scrambling to explain away how this doesn’t mean what we think it means — even doing a complete about-face from just a few weeks ago. As Breitbart reports: The New York Times, the so-called “paper of record,” has declared that the all-important swing state of Ohio is no longer an important battleground in the presidential election — now that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is winning it.
Trump pulled ahead of Clinton in the Buckeye State in the RealClearPolitics poll average on Sep. 13, and has never looked back. The latest average, as of Sep. 24 — prior to the first presidential debate on Sep. 26 — has Trump ahead of Clinton by 2%.
Earlier in September, the Times was declaring Ohio “an essential swing state,” where Governor John Kasich threatened to destroy Trump’s presidential hopes by withholding his endorsement and denying Trump his turnout operation. The Times added: “No candidate since 1960 has made it to the White House without winning Ohio. And while Mrs. Clinton could afford to lose there given her advantage in other battlegrounds like Virginia and Colorado, Ohio is a must-win for Mr. Trump.”
Now that Trump is winning the “must-win,” the Times has revised its view of Ohio’s importance: “After decades as one of America’s most reliable political bellwethers, an inevitable presidential battleground that closely mirrored the mood and makeup of the country, Ohio is suddenly fading in importance this year,” writes Jonathan Martin, who notes that Clinton has basically conceded the state.“Mr. Trump’s unyielding anti-trade campaign and Mrs. Clinton’s difficulty energizing Ohio’s young voters have made it a lesser focus for Democrats this year, even as it remains critical to Mr. Trump’s path to the White House,” he explains (emphasis added). Yet another illustration of just how hard the left-wing media is working to further narratives that will help carry a limping Hillary Clinton over the line to the White House.
If history repeats itself, it’ll expose Martin’s attempt at historical revisionism in just over a month from now.
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]