Right. In a walk. Baloney. You obviously know nothing about Ohio politics. This seat was tightly contested last time and she was supposed to lose last time. The fact that she's up three (per YOUR bogus polls) suggests to me that it is close to a "walk."
Yes, right. In the regular elections of 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 the Republican won an average of 74 percent of the vote. 74 percent! Not in the 40s. The Democrat never got over 30 percent until the special election. OH-2 is one of the most conservative districts in the country. In 2000 and 2004 the district voted 13 percent more Republican than the country as a whole (in the Presidential vote).
"she was supposed to lose last time."
Name one non-partisan analyst that predicted a Schmidt loss. I know for a fact that Charlie Cook for one predicted a Schmidt win. But he did say that if she won by less than 5 (which happened) then that would "be a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something is very, very wrong". Now we are seeing that played out -- why Strickland is winning by 15 or 20 and why DeWine is losing to a Marxist in a conservative state.
Ohioans are fed up with Ney, Taft, and the like. It's unfortunate that those not involved like Jean Schmidt and Ken Blackwell are suffering, but we can't deny that they are. There comes a point when we have to look at reality and take off the tinfoil and recognize that pollsters aren't in some cabal to destroy the Republican party. If they don't predict elections within the margin of error they lose their jobs. So why would a nonpartisan company falsify results? Drop the conspiracy theories already. It's getting tiresome.
The more research I do on this district the more discouraging these results are to me.