Challenging the narrative: ODB joins in saying Senate primary still a dead heat.
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 11:58am.
Thanks, Anthony. I totally agree:
From now until the primary, Brunner can raise a billion dollars, or collect pocket lint. I'm not convinced that it matters to her. It certainly doesn't look like she's going anywhere.
And why should she?
I have yet to see a poll that shows Brunner getting rocked by Rob Portman. Same goes for Lee Fisher. Certainly if Jennifer Brunner had a poll showing her suffering a humiliating loss in a primary, she'd possibly reconsider this race and pack the dogs in the truck for the weekend. But no such poll exists (at least I've not seen it) and no one is pulling away. Plus, with more than six months to go, it's anyone's guess what twists and turns this primary race could still take. Unfortunately, in our desperate attempt to be first to the keyboard, political journalists, bloggers, pundits, and psychics are carelessly leaving out the obvious fact : this race is still pretty even. That could no doubt change as Fisher starts spending the money he has.
Does Jennifer Brunner need to raise a lot more money? Probably. Does she need to raise as much as Fisher? Probably not.
And this new narrative is leaking over from the blogsphere over to Old Media. Check out today's Dispatch article.
First, it takes the focus away from just Brunner and points out the Fisher, too, is being substantially outraised by Portman:
Despite the difference in campaign cash, Brunner, encouraged by polls showing her competitive with Fisher and most voters undecided, says she's in the race to win.
The bulk of her donations in the quarter came from individuals, with no support from party groups and minimal backing from political-action committees, her report shows.
Brunner previously has complained about the difficulty in raising money because Gov. Ted Strickland is backing Fisher.
That's right. We cannot just look at the financials. We have to also look at the polls, and they show that Brunner is positioned to win this thing because, again, it's a statistical dead heat. Fisher has 20-years of history which make his numbers hard to move.
And I think people are slowing realizing that all this talk about Brunner MUST get out is premature and silly.
Surprised?
Submitted by mvirenicus on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 1:51pm.
What matters incredibly to Lee Fisher? Anyone?
winning.
outstanding analysis, btw.
I don't know where to start
Submitted by redhorse on Wed, 10/21/2009 - 9:30pm.
I'm not going to touch the Russell email. That's not what's got me tonight:
Who cares that Portman will outraise Brunner or Fisher? The next election is Brunner v. Fisher, not Brunner AND/OR Fisher v. Portman. Let's start worrying about the Dem candidate being financially competitive in June when it matters.
Why does money not matter all of a sudden? Money matters, period. It's delusional to think otherwise. Money shows up on TV, on radio, in mailboxes, and even knocks on your door. Legitimate statewide field operation = campaign treasury debit.
And the reports matter. If people were waiting to pull the trigger, they'll keep waiting or give up altogether. Brunner's had three quarters to improve her take, and there's no way anyone can say -54K is an improvement or even acceptable. Hell, set aside the net and take a minute to notice the gross wasn't an improvement either.
She's gone past the "well, she needs to show improvement next quarter" phase and into to "she needs to blow this quarter up" phase. Anything less and she won't be able to compete on TV, in the mailbox, or just about anywhere. And lest we forget, most voters haven't paid a lick of attention to this race yet and won't until next April. A money advantage at that point will be critical and enough to get even Fisher past the 50+1 line first.
If this pace keeps up, her best option is to let her staff go, except the scheduler, keep touring the state, and pray every night for a low turnout primary where a small, cultivated base could propel her to victory.
If she's still around, I'll vote for Brunner in May. I like her and her issues, and I think Lee stands for Lee. But I won't wonder about the outcome.
Who cares that Portman will outraise Brunner or Fisher? The next election is Brunner v. Fisher, not Brunner AND/OR Fisher v. Portman. Let's start worrying about the Dem candidate being financially competitive in June when it matters.
Why does money not matter all of a sudden? Money matters, period. It's delusional to think otherwise. Money shows up on TV, on radio, in mailboxes, and even knocks on your door. Legitimate statewide field operation = campaign treasury debit.
And the reports matter. If people were waiting to pull the trigger, they'll keep waiting or give up altogether. Brunner's had three quarters to improve her take, and there's no way anyone can say -54K is an improvement or even acceptable. Hell, set aside the net and take a minute to notice the gross wasn't an improvement either.
She's gone past the "well, she needs to show improvement next quarter" phase and into to "she needs to blow this quarter up" phase. Anything less and she won't be able to compete on TV, in the mailbox, or just about anywhere. And lest we forget, most voters haven't paid a lick of attention to this race yet and won't until next April. A money advantage at that point will be critical and enough to get even Fisher past the 50+1 line first.
If this pace keeps up, her best option is to let her staff go, except the scheduler, keep touring the state, and pray every night for a low turnout primary where a small, cultivated base could propel her to victory.
If she's still around, I'll vote for Brunner in May. I like her and her issues, and I think Lee stands for Lee. But I won't wonder about the outcome.
Reality Check
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 7:13am.
Today, I'd say that at least 50% of those who will vote in the upcoming Democratic Party couldn't accurately answer the question:
"Who is Jennifer Brunner?"
Of course roughly the same percent probably couldn't accurately answer the question:
"Who is Lee Fisher?"
And that's my estimate of those who WILL vote in the primary. The issue is that the money collected to date and in the next few months will be critical to informing who the candidates are.
And Lee Fisher has much much more of it.
And he has the backing, for good or for ill, of the Ohio Democratic Party and the Governor.
Anyone in 2006 who actually saw a speech, and I saw several, from Subodh Chandra knew he was the clear choice in that race. Didn't matter a hill of beans, however, against the money and the party backing.
Reality, folks. Welcome to it.
Of course, 99.82% of Ohio Democratic primary voters have never heard of BSB, ODB or BI. Quit taking yourselves so damned seriously. I'm just glad Russell has come to accept reality at long last.
I got your reality check....
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 10:07am.
I love a guy who's been a member here for three years writes a comment about how nobody reads us, but then praises the efforts of some tied to ODP to get me to write that Brunner should drop out. If nobody reads me, then why would anyone care what I write, let alone lobby me to push a new storyline?
Lee Fisher has over a million dollars, but nothing to say. He's 1-2 in statewide elections, and he one win was as close as they get. Fisher is unelectable. He's going to wear the economy like a lodestone around his neck, and all the money in the world isn't going to help that or gloss over that the man has nothing substantive to say.
Both the Old Media and the progressive blogsphere lacks an African-American voice. But I firmly believe that the African-American voters who remember what it was like to vote in 2004 and then again in 2008 are going to be for Brunner. If there's any constituency that is grateful to Brunner for the job she did cleaning up Ohio's electoral mess, it's them.
There's still the ground game, "free" media, and simple word of mouth.
Chandra NEVER had poll numbers as good as Brunner does. That's something you and Russell both ignore (Russell even tried deflecting saying that this isn't about polls. Of course it isn't, because you have to ignore the polls to say that Brunner has "no chance" of winning.)
Does Brunner have a very steep uphill climb? Absolutely. Nobody is deluding themselves there. But there is a tipping point, I believe, when people finally, FINALLY, realize that Brunner is really running and this primary is going to happen.
John Glenn beat Howard Metzenbaum despite the fact that Howard had the money advantage and the entire Ohio Democratic Party behind him. It's been done, and that was back before there was alternative media like the blogs that gave a candidate a chance (heck, Glenn was even physically barred from speaking at county party functions.)
Wow
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 10:56am.
Facinating:
John Glenn beat Howard Metzenbaum despite the fact that Howard had the money advantage and the entire Ohio Democratic Party behind him.
Because John Glenn and Jennifer Brunner have the same name recognition.
I'd prefer Brunner over Fisher any day. I wanted Marilyn Brown and not Jennifer Garrison but wishing and hoping didn't make it happen and I even donated to Brown.
What color is the sky in your world, Brian, because here on planet Earth it's blue.
Blue
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 11:28am.
Um, there's more to a race (and polling) than name recognition. I don't know even if there was any polling available at this point in the race back during that time. However, Brunner's name recognition in polling is just fine, especially when compared to Fisher's which is pretty remarkable given that Fisher has been in statewide politics for twenty years to Brunner's three.
The fact that all you could come back with is "name recognition" just shows how unable you are to defend your position. Fact is that Glenn's "name recognition" wasn't enough to convince ODP to back him over Metzenbaum who definately had lower name recognition.
The fact that you have to jump to suggesting I'm crazy, an ad hominem attack, shows how completely ineffective you are in arguing your side and how pointless it is to engage you.
If you want to engage in insults, go to an elementary school playground during recess. If you want to engage in an intelligent debate, grow the fuck up.
Touchy, Touchy Brian ...
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 12:37pm.
I don't really see where I used the word crazy above, but I guess I was instinctively right on the mark, bub.
I stand by my hypothesis about how much the average primary voters knows about either candidate and if you don't think that name recognition plays a significant role in elections, especially in primary elections, then you really need to get out into the field with the rest of us and learn a bit, sonny.
(hope that didn't hurt your lil feelings - sniff)
Mike... you're so full of it...
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 12:51pm.
Your little comment about what color is the sky in my world... you knew exactly what you were suggesting. You're too clever by half.
But, Mike, you're apparently the one who's delusional as you're arguing against something nobody said. I never said name recognition wasn't important.
What I DID say is your point about Glenn's name recognition is an irrelevant, non sequitur. In fact, ODP didn't think it was relevant enough that it didn't stop them from endorsing Metzenbaum and trying to close Glenn out of the process.. Clearly, the leadership at ODP thought Metzenbaum could have overcome Glenn's name recognition. But what that has to do with the present situation escapes me and just about anyone else. Regardless, the fact is if that's all you can say in response, then you do a very poor job defending your position.
I've been in the field, sonny.... do tell me about your experience. Enlight me more about Mike who thinks playground talk passes for political discourse.
Rose
Submitted by Mike on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 1:00pm.
I've decided the color of the sky in your world (is that an insult? Dear me - take me to the fainting couch) is rose based on the glasses your wearing.
Can Jennifer win this race? Yes.
Will she? Probably not.
Did Jennifer Brunner orbit the earth? Not that I'm aware of (but that's irrelevant, of course)
Should she take one for the Democratic team in Ohio and retreat back to the SOS race, and thereby pushing the odious Garrison back into her 93rd district box for another term? Without question.
It's not all about her.
But clearly here, it's all about you. But then you knew that already.
Heading out now - cheers! Enjoyed poking my stick through the bars.
Poor, Mike....
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 1:35pm.
Still can't respond to the main point that Lee Fisher cannot win the Senate seat. Why should Brunner move out the way for a guy who isn't going to win the general election? Makes no sense. Then again, nothing you said does when you cannot speak logically, so you have to talk like a six-year-old.
It's not about Brunner, it's about the U.S. Senate. It's about protecting our ability to advance a progressive agenda nationally.
Sigh ...
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 6:05am.
I don't give two beans what *your* main point is (you've had several so far), I'm talking about who can win the primary.
Redhorse is absolutely right, and I notice that you're a hell of a lot more polite to him, but that's OK. I've had fun watching your face turn purple in abject rage.
It's not about the US Senate - it's about the State Senate. You have your priorities (and what has having 60 votes gotten us there, really?) and I have mine.
To be honest, in the climate we're going to have about 12 months from now, I suspect neither Democrat could win the seat in this state.
Redhorse deserves respect
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 9:48am.
Because he can address people he disagrees without sounding like a child.
About those polls..
Submitted by redhorse on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 9:14pm.
Fisher has led in every poll listed at Pollster.com. More pertinent to this discussion, undecided has polled at an average of 53% in the Quinny polls this year.
Now, when most voters start to pay attention next spring, which candidate is going to break through to them? The one with money or the one that doesn't have the resources to get her message out?
Whistle Dixie all you want, but there's no clear evidence right now that Brunner's in position to win. Oh, and that trendline in the Quinny polls? Getting wider in Fisher's favor.
Seems thin ice as the basis of an argument, no?
Now, when most voters start to pay attention next spring, which candidate is going to break through to them? The one with money or the one that doesn't have the resources to get her message out?
Whistle Dixie all you want, but there's no clear evidence right now that Brunner's in position to win. Oh, and that trendline in the Quinny polls? Getting wider in Fisher's favor.
Seems thin ice as the basis of an argument, no?
You seriously think
Submitted by AmberCat on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 9:55pm.
ONLY 53% of the average voters who are not political junkies are undecided? In fact, there is no lead to "get wider' at this point. There are almost no average voters even thinking about this race. Polls are worthless at this point and without an actual campaign in full swing, you can't convince me any of the candidates have a postion at all.
However, if you so strongly believe that a bland, messageless, undefined (so far) candidate like Lee Fisher only need buckets of money to rocket past Jennifer Brunner, it's hard to see how he can win the general because Rob Portman's much more massive buckets of money AND his stronger self-definition (much as we might dislike what he stands for) will rocket him past Fisher easily. For the record, I believe neither of these things. I think by next May Jennifer will be well positioned to win. And I believe if Lee is the candidate, he CAN eke out a win — IF he crafts an effective answer to Portman's attacks on him for bailing on the director of devleopment job at such a crucial time and IF he locates an issue he is passionate about and really owns it. I don't share Modern's belief that Lee CAN'T win. But he is going to have to make a whiplash turn from campaigning mainly by boasting about his money to campaigning as an underdog and campaigning in a way that excites the Democratic base — because he won't be able to brag about money anymore
In addition, I think he will be hampered if Jennifer Garrison is the secretary of state nominee. I think that is going to play out badly on so many levels but I think it could be a real hindrance to Lee. Let's hope other candidates step up soon. (And no, I don't agree with the poster who keeps saying Brunner should quit the senate race and go back to the SoS race — I think that would be difficult and negatively received and I don't think she'd do that. I think if she loses the Senate primary, she'll take some time out to regroup and consder her next step.)
Well ...
Submitted by Mike on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 6:11am.
You're probably right about moving back to SOS race at this late stage. She couldn't transfer the money and she'd have to start from essentially scratch raising money for that race again.
She's spent all of her state level money down (who buys all those cell phones as you are leaving a race?)
That's kinda my point
Submitted by redhorse on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 8:47pm.
No average voters are paying attention right now - and when they do next spring, which candidate will break through? The one who has money or the one who doesn't?
I also admitted Fisher isn't an ideal candidate - even that I'd vote for Brunner. But I'm not going to ignore the facts b/c I want her to win. Plainly, she's in bad shape.
As for how he'll do against Portman or what Garrison's effect might be on the ticket, I can worry about that in June. All I see now is my preferred candidate in a world of hurt.
What polls are you reading...
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 12:53am.
Because there's been no such trend. Has the last Quinny poll shown some movement (four points) in Fisher's favor since the last one? Yeah, but that's hardly a trendline.
Fisher's numbers are anemic for someone with his experience. And they spell disaster.
As for Pollster, are you insane? Fisher's best primary number in any poll is barely 25% with a 9 point-lead. Fisher has to first have something to say to break thru to the voters.
So far, not so much...
I haven't seen any such "trend" either
Submitted by AmberCat on Fri, 10/23/2009 - 3:03pm.
In fact, at this point, neither candidate has broken through with average voters. When one of them hits 40% in a poll that encourages respondents to pick "undecided" if they are and doesn't push them to make a selection, then I'll start to take notice.
It's small, yes
Submitted by redhorse on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 8:52pm.
I wouldn't stake much on it now other than curiosity - shouldn't have brought it up - but it's wider now than it was a few months ago.
I also agree that he should have stronger numbers and that he's in trouble past the primary. That's why this race has frustrated me so much. Our superior general candidate is being suffocating in the primary by a machine that prefers milquetoast Lee. But hey, who's driving that bus?
Lest you think I was ignoring you, ME, I have only been busy. Been awhile, glad for the exchange.
I also agree that he should have stronger numbers and that he's in trouble past the primary. That's why this race has frustrated me so much. Our superior general candidate is being suffocating in the primary by a machine that prefers milquetoast Lee. But hey, who's driving that bus?
Lest you think I was ignoring you, ME, I have only been busy. Been awhile, glad for the exchange.
I'm surprised that the Fisher folks
who keep saying that money is what REALLY counts are overlooking the fact that no matter HOW much either Brunner or Fisher raises, Portman WILL out-raise them. And money is less important in the primary. I've had this conversation repeatedly with Fisher folks who don't think his failure to seize any issues to get out in front of to define himself and his candidacy matters compared to his giant pile of money. Which will look like a molehill of money compared to Portman's. And I think his campaign's coercive tactics, as well as its failure to make Fisher seem like an exciting, forward-looking candidate, will cost his fund-raising come the general, if he is the candidate. At that point, there were be many other races competing for the money. In fact, I'm scratching my head about why his campaign's focus is on money and trumpeting its money, to the exclusion of his strong embrace of issues that could excite voters. Couldn't he do both? As is, he's in danger of turning off a populace increasingly disgusted by the spectacle of politicians in congress dragging their feet on crucial issues like health reform because, many suspect, they don't want to anger the insurance-company masters who have bought and paid for them. Many people have become cynical by how money controls the system. Of course, until the system changes, you have to raise it. But I wonder if constantly telling people about your money isn't a turnoff.
Ultimately though, with either having much less money than Portman and polling now, in my opinion, not meaning squat, you have to think about who is likely to be the strongest match against Portman. With Fisher not having defined himself and being vulnerable on the issue of bailing on his director of development job, I've got to think that's Brunner. I'm thinking back to why Sherrod won in 2006. He had several advantages our candidate won't have next year: a thoroughly inept opponent who ran a bumbling campaign, Ted Strickland's coattails which won't be as strong next year (but I still think he will win comfortably) and the coordinated campaign which won't happen on any level if Jennifer Garrison is on the ticket. That leaves one final reason Sherrod won: He was deeply passionate and deeply knowledgable about an issue that was critical to voters — trade and job outsourcing. Sure, he usually sounded like a wonky college professor, but you sensed that this MATTERED to him incredibly. What matters incredibly to Lee Fisher? Anyone?