[UPDATE]: About that "$1 million" Fisher haul...
This comes to me from an anonymous source who's reviewed Fisher's FEC report (saving me days of going blind.)
According to my source, who has been very reliable to me in the past, once you factor out the money that can only be used in the general election. Fisher really only raised about $635,000 for the primary.
$24,000 of that number comes from Fisher's family:
- Susan Fisher (sister) - $2,400
- Steve Miller (brother-in-law) – $2,400
- Beverly Ludwig (step-mother) - $4,800
- Stanley Fisher (father) - $4,800
- Richard Fisher (brother) - $4,800
- Jill Deborah Story (sister-in-law) - $4,800
Another $24,000 of that number also comes from loans to Fisher's campaign by the same family members:
- Richard Fisher- $4,800
- Jill Deborah Story- $4,800
- Steve Miller- $4,800
- Beverly Ludwig- $4,800
- Stanley Fisher- $4,800.
Apparently, Lee couldn't convice his sister to loan his campaign more money.
My source apparently missed the $2,400 donation that Peggy Fisher made... the candidate's wife. That maxes her out for the primary, too.
Fisher's PAC donations are largely from power companies like ($15k) FirstEnergy and ($12k) AEP and banks ($3k in PAC money with another $3k from the President of National City Bank). (totals also include donations from executives from such companies). Brunner's PAC money is entirely from unions, on the other hand. Fisher didn't get a single labor PAC donation.
While Fisher's campaign donations are largely concentrated in the NEO area, Brunner raised money throughout the rest of the State as well.
So, apparently, there was much in Fisher's FEC reports beyond his press release. When you factor that his biggest donors are his family members (and they're tapped out to the point that the campaign at some point should REPAY some of his family), Fisher's $1 million haul doesn't live up to the hype.
Don't get me wrong, a $635k haul is still impressive. But you have to wonder why the Fisher campaign felt so compelled to resort to such smoke and mirrors to overhype their fundraising. The answer is that they were hoping for a quick Brunner knock-out. But what happens if Fisher cannot continue that fundraising pace? Or when will where and who he's raising his money from becomes a campaign liability?
[UPDATE]: Because staunch Fisher defenders like Nick D are trying to spin Fisher's family help as where most candidates START their fundraising efforts. I should note that all of these loans and donations were made during the last week of the reporting period.
Second, despite his haul, Fisher's campaign owes over $60k in bills it hadn't paid. Take out the family loans, and the Fisher campaign has over $36,000 in unpaid bills. Again, I would suggest this was to inflate Fisher's cash-on-hand numbers to make his fundraising sound more impressive than it was. Brunner's campaign paid its bills except that it has not reimbursed the candidate for her $2k in campaign travel yet.
The only entity I've asked to be neutral is the Ohio Democratic Party because historically the State Party's heavy-handed efforts to "control" the primary process has given us flawed candidates like Marc Dann and Barb Sykes in 2006 (let's not forget the failed ODP candidates of the past, either) over better alternatives.
Brunner raised over $200k in a month's time. That's hardly chump change. Yes, Fisher raised, conservatively, three times that amount. But Brunner's fundraising is hardly anything to sneeze at. Especially if Fisher cannot maintain the fundraising pace he started, which is exactly what the data provided in his FEC report strongly indicates.
I'm sorry that pointing out that Fisher's fundraising is impressive, but overhyped offends your sensitivities so much. By the way, Fisher is the candidate who didn't raise 74 dollars across the state. Fisher's money is almost largely found in the NEO area (if you don't count the FirstEnergy exec money.)
Incidentially, Potts wrote a story on Brunner's fundraising. Perhaps you need to read it again before you fly off the handle again.
Actually, Modern, $200K is very much sneeze worthy. It is chump change compared to the $1.7 million that Portman raised. And everyone who doesn't have the hatred for Fisher that you and Russo do knows it.
That's why Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com included Brunner on his "least impressive fund raising totals" list. That's why Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post said that unless Brunner's Q2 numbers show significant improvement, she'll get pressure from DC to drop out and clear the field for Fisher.
You conveiently left those two national blogs out of your story, instead using some leger de main to make Fisher's fundraising totals seem less impressive. Nice.
Glad to hear from Lee Fisher's blogger spokesperson.
Now back to reality. If Brunner just continues that pace, she'll have raised several millions for the primary election. That's enough to continue the pace. Given that several donors have been hesitant to donate to Brunner because of efforts by Fisher supporter and ODP to push her out of the race, she's had a far more daunting challenge.
Let's also remember that of the three (Portman, Fisher, Brunner), Brunner was the last candidate to form either an exploratory committee or a campaign fundraising committee. Fisher actually had a decent head start before Brunner announced.
Also, the sleight of hand is from YOUR candidate, Nick, not me or Tim. It's your candidate that relied on maxed out family members then giving his campaign loans for no other reason to say that he raised a million dollars. Never mind that the loans have to be repaid. And that it is Fisher, not Brunner, who is going to have to expand his fundraising base to continue to raise money.
Nick, quit being a link whore at this site. You left because you handed editorial control over this site to the Fisher campaign over a softball interview that you then APOLOGIZED to the Fisher campaign to for asking one question. You are the last person in the world to lecture me or any other blogger about credibility.
Nate Silver and Chris are only looking at the FEC reports because they are in Ohio. Guess what, Nick, I don't care what Kos or any other big box blogger has to say about the race, either. They've been wrong time after time on issues in Ohio. Also, Nate and Chris didn't examine the report to see how Fisher had to play some clever accounting games to get to that $1 million. Portman has been running quietly for nearly a year, and yet nearly most of his money came from his untapped congressional warchest.
I don't write what every blogger writes on a subject. Never have. I'm glad you have your own blog now. Wish you had posted nearly as much when you wrote here.
I don't hate Lee Fisher. I actually spent countless hours volunteering in 2006, 1998, and 1994 to get him elected. I worked with Fisher's gubernatorial campaign to get their Patient's Bill of Rights proposal introduced in the General Assembly during the campaign. I've met the man countless times. I don't hate him. Except for your fluff interview piece, I'd dare say you couldn't hold a candle to what I've done to help Lee.
So, I don't hate Lee Fisher, but I do know him. And I've seen this story time and time and time again. Lee always raises a ton of money, his supporters cite that as evidence of his overwhelming strength of a candidate. Lee breaks all sorts of fundraising and campaign spending records and he then LOSES.
On his own, Fisher has won only one statewide election. That was in 1990. He won by only 1,234 vote. When your statewide record is 1-2, and your one win is that close and it was nearly twenty years ago, that says something about Fisher's strength.
Nick, all I've said is that you can't get the vapors over Fisher's fundraising numbers because that's his only strength as a candidate over Brunner. And history has shown that his fundraising prowess does not equal success at the ballot box.
With her small donor base, Brunner can continue to expand her fundraising totals without necessarily bringing in new donors. Fisher has to find people to replace a quarter of his fundraising base that is now completely tapped out for both the primary AND the general election. Which also begs the question of which candidate is going to be able to best recover their campaign funds in time for the general election. Brunner's small donor base or Fisher's tapped out base?
You can only watch a candidate like Lee Fisher snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so many times before you feel like you have to do an intervention from keeping the ODP from harming itself under the naive hope that "this time he's really changed."
While you're lecturing me about what I don't write about, I couldn't help but notice that you conveniently failed to write about the latest Quinny poll on the Senate race showing that Fisher only attracts 20% of the Democratic primary vote, is in a statistical dead heat with Brunner, and statistically does no better against Portman that Brunner.
Funny coincidence, no?
Modern, I don't recall you criticizing Tim Russo when, after he left BSB, he actually wrote front page posts "link whoring" his new blog here (see links below). I have not done that, only linked to my posts relevant to the current discussion.
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/ok_im_shamelessly_pimping_my_own_blog_damnit_blogger_interrupted_no_more
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/cmon_over_to_blogger_interrupted_the_waters_fine
without telling me, so you never need to be worried about that anymore nick.
also,i didn't leave because i'd completely destroyed the blog's credibility by allowing a candidate to edit my interview, i left because i started my own blog, which i shamelessly pimped. different when you're pimping something and actually admitting it. one is totally fine, the other is, well....what you did.
Responding to the rest of Modern's comments, I actually wrote far more on BSB then I do on my new blog. I don't know where he came up with that.
I also don't know where he came up with dismissing Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post and Nate Silver so cavalierly. Modern, do you think somehow they write what Lee Fisher tells them to write? I believe they are a good source of what people inside the beltway are thinking. Do you think anyone from the DSCC did the mental gymnastics you did to try tear down Fisher's fundraising? Of course Fisher got a lot of money from his family. If you've ever been to a candidate training, that's who they tell you to ask first when you start fundraising!
I wasn't the one who put your gal Brunner on a list of least impressive fundraising totals. Nate Silver did that. I wasn't the one who said that her Q2 numbers better be competitive with Fisher's or the DSCC will apply pressure for her to drop. Chris Cilliza said that. Please refute that or save your vitrol for them.
And finally, the most relevant number in that Quinny poll was the huge number of don't knows. It proves that the public is not yet engaged in this race. We're arguing over inside baseball stuff here, and all I'm saying is that you failed to mention two reputable news sources (both have appeared on Countdown with Keith Olbermann unless I'm mistaken) who said Brunner's total for Q1 was lackluster and that she has to do better or the squeeze is on.
\I guess we'll never be able to settle this debate. But I sure as heck noticed you've been posting more often at your blog than you did. And I'm not the only one who's noticed.
I "dismissed" those folks because they didn't have all the data. They didn't know about the smoke and mirrors behind Fisher's numbers. You've misconstrued their comments to mean more than what they actually said. Both were only talking about the fundraising aspect of the race. Neither paid any attention to the polling or were making a general statement about the state of the race. Also, again, I don't comment on everything everyone writes. It's not a diss. It's just that it would be impossible for anyone to do.
The fact that you believe that Lee Fisher's twenty years in Democratic politics leads to 20% support and that there are HUGE undecides is fertile ground for Brunner. After all, people alreeady know Fisher well. He's not going to be as able to bring new people in. Brunner isn't as well-known. Which means she's got a good shot of bring these people as they learn more about her.
I'm responding to you, hack, because your doing a sleight of hand by trying to change the subject to what Chris Cilliza and Nate Silver wrote as opposed to your hack criticism of what I wrote.
Nick, get out of the kitchen, you clearly can't take the heat.
As I wrote in this very post, this is more than just inside baseball it suggests a pathology need of Fisher to exaggerate his support. And it indicates that his support is coming from banks and utilities, not progressive PACs and unions.
That is the topic, and you can't change this into something I never said.
If you don't want me to criticize you for being a Fisher hack, then stop being a hack and misrepresenting my position on Fisher. I don't have an animus against the man, I just think he's likely to lose in the general.
Quit pretending you don't know why I feel that way when I've repeated the reasons time and time again.
I don't give a flying flip about what people inside the Beltway think about an Ohio race. They are there, and I'm here. And that's why I write for an OHIO blog... because an OHIO blog is going to know more about the mood and state of a race they are exposed every day than a blogger in D.C. with a passing interest.
Nice play off Fisher's fundraising excuses. That's what you tell a candidate who's NEVER run for office. It's not what a candidate who's been in Democratic politics does. Again, I bet you wouldn't give Brunner such slack if she inflated her number that drastically by using such tactics.
Nick, when you have an original thought that isn't something being pushed by the Fisher campaign or are starry-eyed by the "wisdom" of Washington pundits, then maybe you'd be taken seriously.
Until then, quit being a link parasite off my writing. If you think I should be ignored, then quit using my posts to promote yours. It's pathetic. And when I call you out for it, quit making it sound like it's about people who have never written about me.
All my posts are still up Modern. Check the BSB archives. They're all still there.
And, please explain, if I'm a hack for sticking up for my candidate, why aren't you a hack for sticking up for yours?
Let's see, you come onto my site in the middle of a discussion and post a bunch of unrelated bullshit designed to irritate my readers into the argument that you'd rather have. Instead of telling you to shut up and leave like my first instinct, I gave you a chance to explain yourself. You used that chance to insult me.
I understand that people have different views, but if you want to deliberately be inflammatory, there's no place for you here.
Is that clear enough?
It took money to put the troops there, it'll take money to bring them home. Plane tickets aren't free, FMP, especially when your checked baggage is an M-16.
Actually, it seems most of the troops are instead going to Afganhistan, where Obama is trying to finish up the war that Bush should have finished years ago before even thinking about Iraq.
No Nick, I think anyone with 1/2 a brain doesn't like (hates) Lee Fisher against Brunner.
Money donated by relatives doesn't count. Just like your Mom thinking you are the smartest, most handsome man, in your kindergarten class, it doesn't count.
Lee is toast vs. Brunner. We are all tired of old white guys running shit into the ground (republican or not). If Lee were such a fabtabulous candidate why isn't he Gov? Oh right, cause he rode in on Strickland's coat tails.
Brunner has many fresh new accomplishments and Fisher has to dust off parchment scrolls to remind us of anything he has done since the exodus of Moses.
Did you hear that Lee? Your too old! RETIRE. Brunner is going to hand you your ass so you can put it back in your Depends adult diaper.
I vote Fisher for retired living condo manager!
Go LEE!
Top 10 reasons Lee Fisher won't win bid for US Sentate
10. Political fundraisers, "Party! Lee has gone to bed!"
(someone put up the rails on his bed)
9. He smells like a nursing home, even through his youtube videos
8. Senate healthcare doesn't cover wooden dentures
7. Looks too much like Grampa Simpson's best friend Jasper
6. Lobbyist aren't able to disclose Ensure expenses
5. Campaign funds don't cover Brylcream
4. Old Spice - strippers love it - Constituents DON'T!
3. His last dance was an American Colonial Minuet
2. Ben Franklin registered him to vote
1. United States Senate is not HoverRound accessible
Since their PACs and state executives are a large segment of Fisher's donor base. Wonder why the President of National City donated $3,000 to Fisher? Think they'd do so without some promises in return? Hardly.
Again, Fisher didn't really raise over a million when $24k of that was money loaned to the campaign by his family. It's all smoke and mirrors, and for what? To say he raised a million?
There are two issues here, Judge. One is that Fisher appears to be focusing exclusively on large donors and the cash for access crowd. Two, he's doing so and still engaging in smoke and mirrors to exaggerate the strength of his fundraising unnecessarily. There's no reason a $600k haul would have been seen as disappointing. Yet, Fisher's campaign felt compelled to get donors to max out for the general now, too, and get family members who are completely maxed out to also loan money to the campaign to get them over the magical $1m mark.
And what does it mean? Well, if you believe the polling. It means Fisher needs every penny of that money to help his pathetic poll numbers and to overwhelm primary voters with something other than having people pay attention to exactly who is bankrolling his campaign.
Wonder why the President of National City donated $3,000 to Fisher? Think they'd do so without some promises in return? Hardly.
I'm no fan of Lee Fisher's but that above statement is laughable. The president of National City is expecting favors for a $3,000 donation? And Fisher promised him something in return for it? More like hardy har har.
I'm not saying Fisher won't be cozy with big business (it's always been his MO) but to make such a sweeping generalization based on a single $3K? Please.
I tell ya what, I'll donate $3,000 to the campaign. What can I expect to get for it?
And for that matter, are there ever big campaigns that don't receive such money from family & close friends?
Friends of Tim Hagan-$1,000
Citizens for Priscilla Tyson-$100
Feminist Majority PAC-$1,000
Friends for Ginther-$1,000
Robyn Gallitto for Trustee-$250
WCF Federal PAC-$1,500
Total from non-union PACS: $4,850
Brunner had one contribution from a PAC on her report, $5,000 from UFCW.
A full listing of Brunner's PAC contributions can be seen beginning on page 75 of her report.
(1), four out of the six entities you listed are not PACs (campaign committees don't count). (2), most of this argument rests on the premise that PAC money is bad. That's highly arguable and is an entirely different debate.
To see a progressive blogger favoring the more progressive candidate over the establishment candidate favored by big corporate PACs. Who would have seen THAT coming?
My whole point is that Fisher didn't need to resort to smoke and mirrors to fluff up his fundraising haul, and yet he felt COMPELLED to do so so that he could do nothing more than claim he raised a million dollars. Why? That doesn't seem to be such an unfair question. Nor does pointing out where large chunks of that money came from and suggesting that unless he expands his donor base quickly, Fisher won't be able to continue such momentum.
Lee Fisher has run for statewide office four times to Brunner's once. He's raised "over $1 million" dollars, and has been in Ohio Democratic politics for twenty years. He's tied to the hip to one of the, if not the, most popular Democrat in State. And yet, he's only getting the support of 20% of the Democratic primary voters and in a statistical dead-heat with Brunner.
That's why his poll number are anemic. I'm sorry that you can't handle that. But it's the truth. By all accounts, given his higher name recognition and tie to Strickland, Fisher should be blowing Brunner out of the water.
Again, this site DID criticize Brunner's fundraising as being low. Now I'm writing a post taking a more critical look at Fisher's. What's so unfair about that?
My whole point is that Fisher didn't need to resort to smoke and mirrors to fluff up his fundraising haul, and yet he felt COMPELLED to do so so that he could do nothing more than claim he raised a million dollars. Why? That doesn't seem to be such an unfair question.
I think it's pretty easy to figure out why Fisher wants to make himself seem as formidable a fundraiser as possible --
He hopes it sends a message to Brunner, other donors, voters & Democrat party insiders that he, not Brunner, is the candidate to beat. That he, not Brunner, is the one who can raise large amounts of money.
This is the second or third time that Modern has made false or inaccurate claims, and either failed to correct them, or repeated them after it was pointed out that he was wrong.
Interesting pattern.
I acknowledged the errors you pointed out. But I DO have a job and was in court all of yesterday. Sorry that I wasn't waiting on my laptop for the instant you posted.
I've always been very reasonable in correcting stories when I've been pointed out to get something wrong. When have I hadn't (since you're keeping score)?
Incidentially, since I've generated literally over 100 posts here, that's not a bad batting average.
Also, I don't think missing one PAC donation and one individual donation takes away from the larger point that Fisher seems to be getting most of his money from big business, and Brunner is getting hers from labor. Are there exceptions to the rule, yes, as you've pointed out there are a few notable exceptions. However, that doesn't obliverate the rule.
You're complaining about the quality of BSB because of what a commenter wrote? Schmennis isn't a front page poster at BSB. So now David and I are responsible for what commenters write?
Also, in case you didn't already know, Tim Russo posts at his own blog. He's been doing so for over a year.
Also, Jerid routinely put up funny pictures of himself and also of Senator Ray Miller in clown makeup. No offense, but that's what an ADMIN did that you are now praising.
ABC News noticed Jerid for the New Hampshire Project. I agree, we need to do more of that kind of stuff. But that is "bitchy little insider gossip column" stuff, whatever you meant by that.
I was one of the first front page posted that Russell added when he created BSB. I helped built it, and I'm not doing anything differently today than I was doing in 2006.
I would expect a little more professionalism from a fellow collegue in the law, and an experienced, esteemed judge such as yourself. I'm sorry that your upset that I'm pointing out that your friend, Lee Fisher, is the emporer with no clothes on, but that's no reason to get snide and start using the quality (or lack thereof) of other people's comments and hold them against me and start throwing words around like "bitchy."
Jerid was noticed by ABC News because he caught Romney saying something rather stupid about the patriotism of Democrats after 9/11. But when he was there we had commenters say silly things all the time.
Schmennis isn't someone new either. He's been commented since Jerid was here, too.
I don't know why you felt compelled to lump me in with a comment you found objectionable when I didn't make the comment or endorse it.
And when ABC News called this the most important blog for Ohio politics. I was there, and I'd like to think my posting was just as much as a reason for that distinction. I bet Marc Dann would agree.
have you paid any attention to the Ohio leftysphere at all? this goes with the territory judge o'neill, so suck it up.
first of all, Schmennis is banned from my own blog for much worse directed at me than he directs at Lee, so lumping Schmennis in with me, or modern, is just bizarre. frankly, i don't know why he's not banned here, too.
second, just wait until your wonderful race horse hearted, intellectual good humor encrusted, non-name calling adopter, good ol' harmless Lee sends campaign staff into this environment anonymously to do far worse. bank on it. i'll await your condescension then, but won't hold my breath.
the election is a year away, judge. fasten your seatbelts.
I am banned from your blog, my life is so empty.*sob*
I still read your tripe nearly every day so at least you have that.
If I get banned from here there would only be 13 people commenting as opposed to 14. Like on yours, there are only five and I was your 6th. LOL
No one has ever threatened to ban me from ODB or Plunderbund or any other place I comment so just cool your jets.
Ban me, my life will continue.
You have proven that when you are ban from anywhere you throw a fit and threaten to sue everyone until you get your way back on your forum. I was an advocate for you to get your radio program back and even called in for you so whaaaaa.
Since you banned me I have not posted as anyone, nor changed my IP respecting your blog. You have been banned from far more places than I have and I saw you were back on facebook after being banned from there.
If we used your criteria for banning me, YOU would not be allowed in public. (cause you have been ban so many places) "You are infringing on my freedom of speech" as you would say.
Didn't you get kicked out of a Tea Bag party when you had every right to be there?
You had full rights to be there. But you aren't stupid so your being kicked out doesn't count. Me, I'm stoopid so I shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE. Right?
The only freedom of speech you are interested in is yours. (or people that agree with you. If they disagree with you, they should be ban, "cause their stupid.")
I'm stoopid, guess it is genetic. YOU however, have two sets of standards, one for yourself and one for everyone else, and THAT is a choice of your character.
I can't help myself, so my ignorance is just poor genes or maybe I chewed paint chips at my democrat provided public housing and my brain didn't develop right. Either way I have the same freedom of speech as you do maybe more, since I am a minority with paint chip development disability issues. (Yes, I did chew paint chips, it made my tongue tingle)
Let's see, in the last three days, I've written a piece analyzing what Fisher's campaign finance report means about him as a candidate, whether the race is shaping up to be a progressive Democratic candidate versus a big business supported Democratic candidate, Strickland's trial ballon on Lt. Governor and his subsequent promise to the LGBT community that he will pick a Lt. Governor friendly to their interests, an analysis of a Gallup poll showing a shift in identification to a "Pro-Life" majority, debunked a right-wing's blog's failed economic analysis of their gubernatorial candidate's tax proposal.
And yet, Jean thinks it's trivial. We've had a spirited discussion about torture the prior week in which trivial jean though was trivial. I'm shocked Jean, really, that you would be so critical. /snark
As printed in the footer of every page:
YOU didn't state ONE reason why Lee's age shouldn't be a concern. It was plenty OK when people were calling McCain old or when people (our own democrats) called George Bush a "ignorant monkey." Since when is "old white guy" a bad name compared to being called a "retard" a "dog" "the Devil."
If YOU take offense to being 58 years old and being called "old" that is YOUR problem. (In case you are 58) you are only 4 years from retirement certainly old enough to be considered "old." Let your friend Lee know that, he should retire, leave the job and the $174,000 salary for someone productive and be a greeter at Wal-Mart like the rest of the proletariat have too when they get 62.
It isn't BSB's problem that I posted IT IS YOURS for taking offense.
Are Lee's accomplishments so great that he cannot take scrutiny over his age?
Is Lee old?
Is Lee white?
Is Lee a dude?
So what is YOUR problem?
MY point is Lee can't hold up against Jennifer Brunner. (and won't) and I listed my reasons clearly.
Here is MY question....What has Lee done for US LATELY. Not 5-10 years ago. Big deal, I don't care, Helps people, doesn't matter; WINNING an election is what matters. You are only as good as your last performance and Lee isn't entitled to the office just because he has experience. As a matter of FACT THAT is why Hillary (among other reasons) lost the nomination, entitlement. Lee isn't going to waltz into this. There WILL be a battle over it and a freakin’ hard core battle over it and Lee isn’t up for it, SORRY.
Jennifer will have grassroots support, she is a woman and will be following a plays from the Obama victory. Lee? Not so much. No grassroots, lots of lobbying PAC money and his family. *loser buzzer* old school politics, old school candidate, old school LOSS. Old school monkying with numbers to put up a faux show of financial support. You DO realize that family money will ALL be audited to see it came from, where is says it came from. You DO know that right? Republican’s aren’t going to just let that seat go without a fight. Lee better have his poop in a group, financially, family and politically, and leave no stone unturned for “dirt” that republicans can oppo research on him. Tell Lee to prepare for a political colonoscopy because THAT is where this is headed and Brunner will fare better than Lee. PERIOD.
SOMEONE has to win the endorsement from the Ohio Democratic Party.
Two people are seeking that endorsement.
One of them has to be WRONG.
One of them will NOT get that endorsement.
I say it's Lee. You can say whoever you'd like. Lee doesn't need YOU to get offended for him.
What I am talking about is MEDIA coverage and perception based on one SIMPLE thing. Guess what that is?
His photo. Jennifer looks like a candidate, Lee looks like a geriatric cancer patient. Voters use child-like judgments when judging political candidates. Studies have shown that people can predict which of two politicians will win an election with reasonable accuracy based on a second-long looks at their faces. People make strong judgments about a candidate's competence that can sway their final choices JUST BY LOOKING AT THE CANDIDATES PICTURE.
Olaf Dalgas from the University of Lausanne found that when judging the faces of potential leaders, the decision-making technique of adults is no more sophisticated than that used by children.
You ask who is Schmennis, because you don't know Schmennis, I don't come on here tooting my own horn, with who and what firm I work, my qualifications, my connections and break my arm patting myself on the back or that I have years of newspaper, advertising, political polling, GOTV, grassroots, oppo research, candidate representation, personal representation, lit drops, walk and talks, local issues, statewide issues and other experiences that all point to blogs being better read and better visited WHEN SOME JACKASS (me if you like) starts a controversy. I think it's funny and I KNOW it helps readership to be dirty, funny, stupid, crazy hahahaha!
I am a democrat, when I point out a weakness in a candidate I am identifying legitimate concerns. You didn't know that, so you must not know much, to expect everyone play "nice" and kiss YOUR friends ass instead of stating a valid opinion or concern. (Lee's age)
Based on the a fore mentioned criteria, Lee's appearance, compared to Rob Portman, appears to be less than confident, friendly and competent. Rob is a Republican running for a seat that has been republican for many years.
We are “polite” democrats? (Yeah right)
We don’t talk about gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or religious affiliation. Guess what, everyone else DOES!
Why replace one old white REPUBLICAN Sen. George Voinovich with ANOTHER OLD WHITE DUDE, Lee Fisher?
Answer? PEOPLE WON'T.
Solution? Jennifer Brunner. Younger, fresher, RECENTLY accomplished.
Lee vs. Portman....Lee loses.
Portman vs. Brunner....tough call.
(based completely on candidate impression)
Lee is an ESTABLISHED loser against Republicans.
Don't like that Bill?
If my opinion stinks, it stinks just as bad as yours. :)
I feel this is a good argument for why large "maxed-out" contributions from family members should be avoided. It just doesn't avoid the appearance of impropriety well enough to suit me.
Throw the book at him, ex-candidates urge
A securities trader who admitted to funneling $121,000 to political candidates and parties through relatives should have to pay more than a $47,500 penalty, two candidates for Ohio attorney general in last November's election said today. Montford S. Will admitted that he disguised the source of $121,000 in contributions since 2006 by repaying his wife and two 20-something stepchildren for donations to candidates and political parties.
Come on Bill, you are internalizing.
This age discussion has nothing to do with your situation because, when it comes to you, you have accomplishments, qualifications and you appear, confident, competent and friendly when your photo is placed next to nearly any candidate, and you don't look elderly.
Lee looks old, sorry if that offends you. This isn't about you, so don't make it about you. This isn't entirely about being "old" it is about LOOKING old (and competent) Lee looks like an old used car salesman.
And please, don't condescend to me as if you are superior morally to me. Maybe you are, but this discussion doesn't prove that out, so making me the issue isn't how to answer this.
Nice try, won't fly.
I am out here on the ground floor.
Where are you?
Never-never-land?
Fruitopia?
I am NOT in a democratic enclave. I have to deal with conservatives every day.
Everything in the "real world" is not politically correct and socially sterile. I would expect someone like you to know this. As a matter of fact it is pretty darned messy out here. You are not going to pin what I claim is voter rationale onto me.
Don't condescend to me as if you "know" what I am. You are not so much better than I. You have a long list of distinguished accomplishments, but that does not make you morally superior to me. There are 100 reasons why you are superior to me, but morally isn't one of them. So peddle your condescension to someone that can't perceive, that you think, you are superior to them.
All I am telling you what isn't going to win this election, FOR LEE. Status quo. "The old white dudes" are OUT. What is "IN", ANYTHING that is not an old white dude. (pretty much everything else)
We democrats will vote for whoever the party forwards but this discussion isn't entirely about democrat voters as you assert, that are perfectly blind to gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. If ONLY democrat votes counted my point wouldn't matter.
But consideration about other voters that must be counted too. WHO WILL "WIN" WITH THEM? We KNOW who will win if we ONLY discuss qualifications. The most qualified candidate. Easy. (Yeah right)
Are you telling me there is no discussion over the electability of a male vs. a female? You have maybe been inside marble halls to long. Really?
Is this how it should be? NO of course not, but all the things I outlined must be considered because voting isn't logical or rational and voters (as I showed) count anything except logic when voting.
If what you are saying is true then Obama would have LOST because he was waaaay less qualified than McCain. (But people wanted a change) However, my argument holds up. Compared to McCain Obama LOOKS, confident, competent and friendly. The SAME voters that dismissed McCain because he was an old white dude are the same voters the Democratic Party must be concerned with.
If the Democratic Party DOESN'T measure the old versus young, boy versus girl the Republican Party WILL and you CAN memorize the term: Senator Portman regardless of how repugnant and morally offensive you find it. He appears confident, competent and friendly compared to Lee Fisher.
Brunner and Fisher are in a death embrace, and EVERYTHING LEE HAS DONE UP TO THIS POINT DEMONSTRATES being out of touch.
1. He's going to announce, but not today (maybe next week, or the week after)
2. the BSB debacle, trying to control a blogs content
3. playing hoo-haa with campaign finance and fund raising.
He is your friend?
Ask him if he thinks people are stupid.
On and On. ALL POINTS TO EITHER OLD SCHOOL POLITICS OR BEING OUT OF TOUCH WITH VOTERS from dementia. AND THAT IS WHAT pisses me off about LEE FISHER. The geriatrics, "Now you see me, now you don't, I love to dance a little two step, dance a little sidestep and lead the people ON" BULLSHIT that Fisher has pulled since DAY ONE. EAT POOP! OLD SCHOOL POLITICS.
He can’t be trusted (so far) but he’s your friend?
That’s what is interesting, not Schmennis.
You get all offended by my TOP 10 reasons but I bet when you watch Saturday Night Live you laugh your ass off. If I would have put "reason's Senator McCain (an all grown up Senator) can't be elected President", you'd have been laughing your ass off too.
I am not talking about how things should be; I am talking about how they are. I am not inside the classroom; I am telling you what is said at Frat parties. I assure you, "they" are discussing it gender and age. Maybe not everyday, but SOMETIMES and if you think it doesn't come up, you are deluded or lying because it comes up in MY circles and I AM a DEMOCRAT. Guess what, both issues are coming up. You think I'd risk being banned or vilified if it wasn't? Just to get a belly laugh?
I want to live where you live with the Eloi and there is no need to vote because there are no laws, because everyone does the right thing.
Why don't you get up on a high horse when people in greater elected positions are made the butt of jokes? Have you called NBC to protest SNL?
Yeah, that is what I thought, you haven't. Thanks for playing. Go feign "offense" over at ODB where people will believe it.
I am telling you to look at a picture of Lee, Jennifer and Rob and just ask yourself, who looks more electable. That is my only point. If people cared about their ballot, Voinovich wouldn't have been in as many years as he was. MOST people didn't even know who he was until he announced he was retiring.
Now, as far as your "friends" go, your moral superiority ends here, because I would NEVER be friends with an elected official and publicly defend them, when they have so obviously played with the voters like we are stupid and can be manipulated by announcements, false starts, bloated financial reports to "win." Like a used car salesman desperate to make a sale at the end of the month.
What is important isn't knowing who you or I are, but knowing who LEE FISHER IS. Lee is DONE and he has this “dying”, “on life support” blog that nobody reads, to thank.
Poor BSB, just got relevant.
