One day later, Fisher website raises single $300 donation online, but he's rocking Facebook w/ secret Mayor Mallory endorsement
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 03/03/2009 - 9:42pm.
I. Online fundraising for Fisher is slllllloooooooooowwwww
Exactly 24 hours after Fisher's campaign website launched and after I encouraged you all to donate to either Brunner or Fisher, he's online haul is off to a slow crawl. Fisher has attracted a single $300 donor. Granted, that's three times the average donation size of folks giving money to Brunner who's now over $8k in online donations.
II. On Facebook, Brunner's ability to make new "friends" is sllllllloooooowwwwww
Meanwhile, over at the equally unimportant metric of Facebook friends, we've got the opposite result: Fisher is crushing Brunner on Facebook by over 1,000 to over 300.
Fisher's Facebook site was started by a high school senior in SWO. As a Strickland alum, I can tell you that it's a virtual who's who of F.o.T.'s (Friends of Ted) , especially as the most recent joiners. Lots of people from particularly Columbus, Cleveland, and D.C., too. Still it's an impressive milestone, especially given the time in which Fisher has gotten friends.
What does this mean in the bigger picture? Not a damn thing but bragging rights for the other side until the race starts to take root with further polling, paid media, and FEC reports.
III. Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory and Russo endorse Fisher via Facebook...
I will say I find the taking of Lee Fisher and presenting him in an Obama-like fashion is a tough sell for me, as a former Clinton primary supporter. I don't see an apt analogy between the two. If anything, Fisher is the Hillary of this primary. I'd love to hear from someone who supported Obama in the primary and is supporting Lee explain the comparison. Anywho...
Buried among the"friends" on Facebook is Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory. So, you have to wonder if this means that Mallory is, essentially, on the record as endorsing Fisher at this point. (There, there's some news. I bet Tyrone Yates would, particularly, like to know if this means Mayor Mallory is supporting Fisher over him.) There are some other public officials on there as well, but Mallory has to be the most, significant "friend" for Fisher on Facebook that hasn't publicly endorsed yet that stood out to me.
Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge/Ohio Supreme Court candidate '08 Joseph Russo is also another Fisher for U.S. Senate "friend," too.
What does this all mean? I dunno... I don't understand you young kids with your twitterring and your blogging. Get off my damn lawn.
Thank you, bluefred
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 2:26pm.
I've been wanting someone to explain to me the rationale why Fisher would be the strongest Democratic candidate against Rob Portman. So far, you've been my only taker. I think for primary voters this is the debate we should be having.
I respect your difference of opinion, but I do need to correct a few points in your comments. First, Lee has not won as often statewide as he's lost. I don't count 2006 as I think that had more to do with Strickland than Blackwell than Lee as an individual candidate. Regardless, I think it's hard to quantify that as a vote FOR Lee versus a vote for Strickland or against Blackwell, etc.
That being said. Fisher lost in 1994 and again in 1998. The only statewide election he won was in 1990, and that was by a little over 1,200 votes.
The fact that Fisher ran for re-election in 1994 is hardly "principled." He ran in 1998 because the party needed to avoid another Rob Burch disaster and he was best candidate we had in our farm team at the time. Even though the Republicans swept in 1998, that had more to do with the strength/experience of the overall Republican ticket in compared to the realtive weakness of the rest of the Democratic ticket (Fisher notwithstanding.) Nationally 1998 not a Republican bellweather year. If anything it was a partisan draw.
For these reasons, my gut is leading me to the opposite conclusion as yours (that's why I'm watching whatever metrics available). I'm not convinced that Fisher will beat Portman. Mostly because I'm expecting that the political environment in 2010 is going to be more like 1998 than 2006. No political party has had three straight "wave" elections in a row. Eventually the tide will ebb.
For the most part, this is matter of a difference of opinion. Our guts are telling us different things. I don't know if anyone can say one of us is definatively right and the other is wrong.
Interesting Stuff...
I am a former Obama primary supporter who is 100% behind Lee. However, I'm probably not the best person to give you a response to your point under item III. My personal perspective on this primary (and most all primaries) is that Lee or Jennifer are light years ahead of Rob Portman on the issues I care about. So, I'm focused on electability (a lot of the reason I supported Obama -- felt Hillary was polarizing).
Lee is an incredibly fundraiser, and Jennifer clearly has no clue what she's doing on that front. At the least, she's inexperienced at it. I know she "raised $8,000 online!", but that's a drop in the bucket in a Senate campaign; it's more of an indicator of "momentum".
Lee is a great campaigner. Yes, he has lost statewide before, but he's won just as much -- his only losses occurred during the "Republican zeitgeist" period, and the fact that he was even running then shows me that he's principled.
Bottom line, I know Lee will beat Portman in the general. I don't have such a warm and fuzzy about Brunner.