Do the Math ... Brown: 46% and $2.37 million ... Hackett: 24% and $229,783

[Skinner]

There has been a lot of discussion of Hackett's departure from the Ohio Senate race, and that's a good thing. But it can be a little irksome to see people constantly sharing opinions without bothering to take into account any actual facts. No matter what your opinion of the Brown/Hackett situation, here are two facts that ought to factor into your discussion:


POLLING

Among likely Democratic voters:

  Brown: 46
  Hacket: 24

With the filing deadline for the May Democratic primary rapidly approaching, Hackett was confronted with new numbers from his own pollster, which showed Brown was ahead among likely voters by an almost 2-1 margin -- 46 percent for the congressman to 24 percent for Hackett.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060215/cm_thenation/1559896


CASH ON HAND

December 31 filing deadline:

  Brown: $2.37 million
  Hackett: $229,783

According to Brown's office, he raised $496,882 during the final quarter of 2005 and had $2.37 million on hand, largely from a prior campaign war chest for his House seat.

Hackett of Indian Hill, an attorney and Iraqi war veteran who last year lost a bid for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat, raised $465,779 and had $229,783 in the bank, according to campaign spokesman Karl Frisch.

Source: http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0131finance.html


OH, AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF FACTS...

If you're going to paint this thing as DLC-centrist vs. progressive, you really need to offer some concrete evidence to back that up. Because Brown is no centrist. He is is a solid progressive with a record to prove it; and he's arguably more progressive than Hackett.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Thank you! K&R...

Best not to see boogeymen that aren't really there...

[Jack from Charlotte]

144. Hackett lost some status with me over this deal.....

Whining because party people asked him to drop out when the above posted facts pointed that that would be the best thing for winning this senate seat. Also, whining because..... the big bad opposition called his donors and said not too contribute to him. Waaaaa.

Didn't he know the opposition would try to do this?

Hey. I love this guy and I'm not really a partyist. I'm ONLY for what's good for America. But this guy should grow up.

And you know what.....? It's going to be a great year to be a non politician. I'd love to see Hacket run for that house seat as an independent.

[FreedomAngel82]

148. And I also think

Hackett should've tried to go for the House. If he really wanted to try and change DC and help he should've stayed involved with politics period. Imagine what all would not have happened if John Kerry had given up after his failed Congressional and senatoral run. He might not have ever did BCCI or Iran/Contra for example. So if Hackett gave up too quickly with people within the own party how is he going to handle the big boys in the republican party like Specter? And I'm tired of people blaming Brown too. There is no proof that Brown was involved is there? I haven't heard of him being involved. And didn't Brown help Hackett with his House run? Has anybody interviewed Reid or Schumer about this? Or Brown himself?

[trogdor]

160. Yep. Shoulda gone after Mean Jean again.

After making a fool of herself and her district over Murtha, Hackett might've won in a rematch.

[Leopolds Ghost]

246. Do you understand Hackett promised his Dist.2 colleagues he wouldn't run?

Nobody seems to be understanding that. He wasn't going to do what he criticised Brown (rightly) for doing -- sandbagging them after they filed to run in Dist. 2 with Hackett's endorsement.

[stop the bleeding]

2. Thank you n/t

[MrBenchley]

3. We've had almost daily calls on the forums for a party-wide purge

among Democrats so that "we" can run only pure progressives (like Brown) instead of "centrist/moderate/right wing DINOs" (like Hackett, whose position on issues like immigration and gun control are indistinguishable from Tom Tancredo's).

And now DUers are IMAGINING they got the purge they've been howling for. And for some reason they don't like it. Go figure.

[400Years]

6. yeah, like the way Hackett got purged.

[WilliamPitt]

13. ...in favor of a serious progressive.

That simple oft-skipped fact makes all this yelling seem pretty dumb, imho.

[stickdog]

185. We're just sick of being told which losers market better.

We're sick of being gamed on both sides.

We actually LIKE democracy. How about y'all?

[MrBenchley]

18. That's exactly what our "progressive purists" have been howling for

And now they want to pretend they got what they wanted and they want to froth with rage that they got their wish. But then the beauty part of the far left has always been its scrupulous honesty (snicker).

Hackett quit and blamed everyone else for his failures. Suck it up and move on. Or don't and see if I care.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

79. They only want to purge...

...if they're the ones doing the purging. Nobody else is qualified, you know.

[MrBenchley]

93. You nailed it....

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jsamuel]

115. just wanted to say, I still support purging of the purely political

in favor of those who fight for democratic principles.

This story has nothing to do with that. Brown is NOT "purely political".

[MrBenchley]

122. So in other words, only your purge is allowed

Ho-kay.

[jsamuel]

138. not what I said

your op suggested that I am "the same" as those who are upset over the Hackett/Brown thing.

I am saying that you are grouping everyone together.

Broad brush.

Sherwin-Williams.

[Douglas Carpenter]

234. it is extremely painful for me to agree with you for once Mr. Benchley

but on this specific and limited occaision....well, what can I say.....

[LaurenG]

236. Hacket isn't a DINO

But Lieberman is and Lieberman will never be 1/3 of the man Hackett is. So there... my candidate is better than yours is.:rofl: :sarcasm:

[LincolnMcGrath]

267. Only from you...

[ProudToBeLiberal]

4. I stand by Howard Dean

Dean's word is good enough for me. If he says that it was skulduggery from D.C. that forced Hackett out, then I believe him. Dean also said that Hackett is a great candidate that would have won in the general, I believe him.

Perhaps you don't have faith in Dean, but many of us do.

[Skinner]

8. Please tell me where I said that I had no faith in Howard Dean.

And please tell me where I said there was no "skullduggery."

And please tell me where I said Hackett was not a great candidate.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

17. You implied that Hackett had no chance

I'm saying that Skulduggery, contributed to that "no chance." YOu also said that Brown was more progressive than Hackett, implying that Hackett wasn't that great.

I hope this clarifies things. I also brought up Dean to counter your play on authority. You know that a lot of people follow your everyword. So I needed a counter "authority" to counter what you said.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Woah, woah, woah, time out here. Rewind your logic.

1) Skulduggery didn't contribute to the fact that Sherrod Brown has a large warchest from YEARS of hard work prior to Hackett ever even being known in politics.

2) I don't know what kind of fucked up metric you have, but being more progressive doesn't make someone better or worse. There are a lot of shitty politicians that are extremely progressive and there are a lot of great ones that are moderates.

3) Skinner's just a person like you and me. Yeah, he runs this board, but he's not fucking Buddha or anything :dodges lightning bolt:

[ProudToBeLiberal]

27. uhhh where have you been?

Haven't you been here for the past 3 years to notice about DLC vs Progressives debate?

You forgot to mention the underhanded cut that Sherrod Brown pulled off to get into the race. When Brown decided not to get into the race, Hackett jumped in, THEN BROWN CHANGED HIS MIND and declared that he was going into the Senate race afterall.

So you're saying that people like skinner, Kos, Jerome, have no influence at all? That is such a naive view. You cannot deny that these people have some influence.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. If you look at my profile...

you'll notice I've been here all along, and have thought it was total and complete bullshit all along.

And quite frankly, it's not an "underhanded cut". It's typical in politics. It happens in almost every race in every state and district. I know you're not a novice with this whole politics thing, so you should really know better than that.

I admit they might have very limited influence, but quite frankly, that scares me. It also scares me that people like Begala and Novak have influence. People need to think for themselves. And in this case, unlike with Begala or Novak, people here have the ability to think for themselves and RESPOND for themselves, instead of relying on others to do it for them.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

37. an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind

two wrongs don't make a right. Brushing the underhandedness as "politics" is what really scares me. Because then you'll say the same thing about the influence of money in politics or pork barrels in politics. You response would be, "it's all politics." Before long you'll say that what Duke cunnigham did was , "it was just politics."

I stand by the progressives, and liberals. I stand by Dean. If you want to join the DLC go ahead. I'm sticking with Dean, baby.

I have one word for you when it comes to kos, skinner, and jerome-leaders. People respond to leaders because they have influence.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. No, the line is what's legal and what's not.

Money in politics and pork barrel spending IS politics. It's always been politics. And until someone gets serious about campaign finance reform, it will always BE part of politics. You CAN'T be that naive. What Duke Cunningham did was flat-out accepting a bribe. And in a way, that's been part of politics too, but it's also always been illegal. This is not some idealistic hobby, no matter what you may think. Straight up, this is a non-violent war. There is a very fine line between what is acceptable and what is not, and unless you're willing to walk that line, you will lose. Republicans have been winning because they don't view themselves as being "too good" to do what it takes while we still do. They are ravenous and ambitious from 40 years of being out of power and we obviously have not reached that point quite yet. This is how politics has been since the days of the first tribes of man, before languages were even formed, and it will not change now.

That is not to say one can't or shouldn't try to do things the "right way". It is only to say that this is the reality of the game. You can't be surprised or appalled when someone makes a tactical or pragmatic decision that you would not. If you can't do that, then perhaps you haven't the stomach for this.
--------------
And who the fuck are you talking to? I'm not joining any DLC! But a spade's a spade. And, hey, wake up here - I'm supporting Brown. HACKETT was the DLC wannabe! Jesus Christ, how many times must THAT point be made!
--------------
And finally, if you can't question your leader, then you sir are nothing more than a sheep and you sadden me. It is the duty and obligation of a follower to challenge his or her leader from time to time in a respectful fashion.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

86. wow, I guess you forgot the moral of the story

I'm going to assume you watch the anime. Vash was morally superior than his opponents because he had integrity and dignity. He didn't stoop low to the level of his oponents. I suggest that you change your s/n because you don't believe in vashe's ideals anymore.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

96. You have reading comprehension problems.

I said people should be better than that. But they aren't, and this isn't an animated story, this is real life.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

99. wait so you're saying that animes and movies don't portray real life?

I STRONGLY DISAGREE Look at the movie "Hotel Rwanda." I stick it accurately portrayed what happened in Rwanda.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. Hotel Rwanda HAPPENED.

Trigun did not.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

103. wait what if a real story was portrayed in anime...

it still wouldn't count just because it was anime?

[Skinner]

105. I hope you don't mind if I nip this sub-thread in the bud.

This thread has nothing to do with anime or movies. If you want to talk about that, feel free to go to the Entertainment forum or the Lounge or something.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

109. Please do.

This is absurd.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Adelante]

220. Howard Dean said get behind Sherrod Brown now

Didn't he? Last I heard.

[ShaneGR]

88. LOL, Sherrod Brown DLC? no

Sherrod Brown and DLC politics don't mix. He's a progressive! He's pro-labor, pro-choice, anti-war (Actually led several anti-war marches in his district), pro-universal health care (health committee top Dem), etc. etc.

Meanwhile you have Hacket who was pro-gun and ant-abortion.

Yet, Brown is DLC and Hacket was a progressive. Uh, ok.

[saracat]

151. Hackett was NOT anti abortion. He was PRO-CHOICE!

Research his position before you slander him. Just google him.

[FreedomAngel82]

152. BROWN IS NOT DLC AND THE DLC WAS NOT INVOLVED!

Didn't you read the first message?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. I have faith in Dean.

But no man's word is law, nor is any man infallible. I happen to believe Governor Dean is wrong in this case, and I'm quite disappointed that he would take steps to damage the party he's in charge of to speak out on an issue that, quite frankly, isn't all that important.

[FreedomAngel82]

149. Didn't you see the poll numbers??

And this is within democrats in the primary!

[stickdog]

187. Name recognition. That's it.

The primary hadn't even begun.

[400Years]

5. But that is not the point most people have been arguing

What matters is that our voice (our vote) was taken from us.

Brown is the more progressive of the two and I am happy about that but
wait till they pull these shenanigans in the presidential primary and we
have yet again a non-choice.

[HereSince1628]

19. Yes, DU is an important voice in the Democratic base, the good old boys

have once again chosen to go their own way. Based of course on what they believe is their superior experience and understanding.

And THAT is the problem, that is why people on this board are upset. The political leadership in the senate has again and again proven it's experience and understanding is not superior. They repeated demonstrate little or no success.

It's natural and right that some Du'ers are upset about this, supporters of failed campaigns ALWAYS are disappointed and for some time even embittered.

The real problem demonstrated in this case is that the DSCC has proven that the arrogance of the good old boy system still is more important than the will of the party base.

[femrap]

206. Hackett quit. Be angry at him for not keeping his

promise to stay in the race.

I would love to bottle all of this mighty anger and furor and focus it on the NSA wiretapping mess that is undermining what little we have left of our Democracy.

Thanks Skinner....just the facts, sir.

[Catrina]

207. Yes, you are right, and the issue was never Brown, it was the back-

stabbing by Schumer and the whisper campaign that Hackett had committed war crimes. I don't care what his poll numbers were, the fight hadn't even begun. The point was that he was undermined in a manner in which we have come to expect from the rightwing.

I saw the exact same words used against him by so-called Progressives that, ironically sent Progressives into a fit when they were used by Jean Schmidt against another veteran ~ 'cut and ran', 'quitter', 'cry-baby' etc. I thought I was on a rightwing board it was so bad.

I also was told here that 'this politics and get used to it'. So why wasn't it 'just politics' when Jean Scmidt did it?

It would be helpful also if people actually knew what Hackett's positions on the issues were. He was pro-choice and supported the rights of gays and said so loud and clear on national television. No prevaricating or excuses ~

Oh, and we got to see another great vote today from the'leadership' we are supposed to follow. 97-3 for cloture on the Patriot Act!! Don't let's upset those Republicans. They might not like us! I had hoped to see that kind of vote reversed next year. What a fool I was. The same people will still be there, especially with this 'business as usual' attitude ~


It comes down to this for me. I don't like the tactics of the rightwing when they attack Democrats which is why I am not a Republican.

But I like those tactics even less when Democrats do it to one of their own ~ and that's what they did to Hackett. That's what it's about. Not about Brown, or even Hackett actually ~

I also don't like to be attacked for having a different opinion when I talk to rightwingers, but that's what they do. But it's worse when it comes from Democrats.

Look at the posts in this thread alone. Anyone who isn't 'on board' is 'dumb' eg. Reminds me of someone ~ if it's the position of the Democrats that 'you're either with us or against us' they are going to lose a lot of support. Maybe that's what's meant to happen ~ but I will not be on board anymore with what's shaping up to be another loss ~ 'fool me once', actually it's been more than once, so shame on me if I don't do something different this time.

Some of us still believe that honesty and integrity is possible, and absolutely do not accept that going back on one's word is just fine, if your a politician ~

[chalky]

240. Thank you.

n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

53. This is nothing new.

Look, the national party organizations, the leadership in Washington, the various state Democratic parties - ALL of them do this. EVERY election cycle. They've got as much right as anyone to make their picks. They just happen to have a lot of power in terms of ensuring that their picks get picked. The only reason anybody's bothered about it this time is because it happened to someone they liked. I'm sure if the national party started going after Lieberman in the primaries everybody here would be cheering. It's entirely a matter of people being pissed off because their guy quit.

[stickdog]

189. You're right. It's not NEW. It's a MAJOR reason the Repukes now

control all three branches of government despite a lot more people agreeing with the Dems on the issues.

[Castilleja]

84. That is the point

as far as I see it, as well. The fact that the choice was taken away from those who would vote in Ohio. I really don't see what the problem would have been to just allow the primary to go ahead. Add that to the reports of Reid and Shumer going around to block funds from Paul Hackett, and it sounds bad, at least to my unseasoned ears.

[onenote]

120. who took your voice from you?

In order of blame:
Hackett: for dropping out
Ohio Democrats: for telling pollsters (including Hackett's pollster) that Brown was clobbering Hackett among like Democratic Primary voters.

If you aren't an Ohio Democrat, I'm not sure what "voice" or vote you had taken from you. If you are a Ohio voter, you had that voice/vote taken from you by Hackett's decision to drop out and by the fact that your fellow Ohio Democrats seemed to overwhelmingly prefer Brown.

onenote

[FreedomAngel82]

155. Are you from Ohio?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Thank you Skinner!!

This place has lost its fucking mind.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Thank you very much Skinner for this! K&R! eom

[WilliamPitt]

11. THANK YOU SKINNER

I have started half a dozen threads about this and then deleted them before posting, simply because I did not want to wade through the five thousand yowling replies. People around here sometimes wallow in the visceral without bothering with the facts. I was secretly hoping you would jump into this.

Hint: The next several replies you'll get will say this has nothing to do with Brown, and everything to do with Party leadership/DCCC/DLC/XYZ/PDQ motherfuckers getting to choose candidates before we do. When you try to tell them that's how it works and has always worked, you'll get a bunch more replies about "machine politics" etc. Just warning you.

:toast:

[berni_mccoy]

12. BEST. SMACKDOWN. EVER!

Great job Skinner!

[Ravenseye]

14. This doesn't bother me in this case, but...

When people use the same evidence for money and popular support in Pennsylvania to support Casey over Pennacchio it makes me angry. Unlike Brown, Casey is no solid progressive: he's anti-choice, pro-war, pro-alito, pro-roberts, anti-national health...

Simply because people are more familiar with one candidate over another at this early stage of a race, and he has more money, is no reason to abandon support of a progressive candidate in favor of a conservative one...Now in the case of Brown and Hackett they are both progressive, so it's a different matter, but the fact that Brown has more public support and money at this stage is not in itself a reason, imho.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Regarding Casey

Unlike Brown, Casey is no solid progressive: he's anti-choice, pro-war, pro-alito, pro-roberts, anti-national health...

That may be, but he's also been a very staunch advocate for working people, and that can make or break you in Pennsylvania. Casey does have socially conservative positions, however this does mean that Santorum can't use those as wedge issues against him in order to freak out the central parts of the state. It's difficult to run as a true progressive in PA because the central part of the state is culturally closer to rural Georgia than Philly or Pittsburgh.

[Ravenseye]

49. Alabama in the middle

Believe me I know the center of the state. My wife is from there and luckily I get to spend certain holiday's there holding my nose...

I agree that he's not Santorum. He is more economically liberal, but he really is a staunch social consevative, of the "Hi, I'm Zell Miller and will speak at the RNC" mold. We don't need more of those types of democrats.

As far as the middle of the state and having to play to it becomes a tricky issue though. Most of those people aren't going to vote for a democrat no matter what. Trust me, that juicy red center of my state is just that. Red. They might like Casey better for his social positions, but they'll still vote for Santorum. The key is to getting a high democratic turnout in the cities.

The recent polls show that while Casey enjoys huge support, it erodes when people find out his positions. It'll be hard enough getting people to the polls on a non-presidential election year. Sure people hate Santorum and that is enough to get them out, but when people find out Casey's positions (and believe me...Santorum will let people know) less people will turn out. It's all backed up in polling. When people don't know his positions, they vote for Casey, when they know, they're more likely to not vote at all. Those huge 20 point leads you're seeing shrink practically to the margin of error.

Meanwhile, the center of this state will be activated to get out the vote for Santorum.

I don't want to fully predict a Santorum win over Casey yet, but I fear it's far more possible than people realize. In addition, even if Casey wins I just don't want to be represented by a Democrat of his ilk who doesn't agree with the majority of the positions of his own party.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

56. Yeah, I've considered that...

It does work both ways, though. If Santorum's up against a flaming lib'rul, you can probably expect to see massive turnout in the red areas. Lord knows they've got the capability to organize it. But that sort of thing only works if you've got the right foil.

[tgnyc]

15. So the winner of the nomination should be declared by the filing date,

based on the poll results and funds raised by that point? No need for a primary right? Don't give the trailer the chance to change minds? Good system.

[Skinner]

23. Please point out where I said any of that.

Thanks.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

29. There's a thing called implying, you know.

It's obvious that you support Brown, like kos and Jerome. Actually I'm kind of disappointed.

During the 2004 democratic presidential primary, you didn't declare who you supported and voted for. That was a valiant thing to do, but now in a Senate primary race you declare who you support. shame

[Skinner]

34. BULLSHIT.

Yes, I said it: BULLSHIT. Please do not tell me what I believe.

I did not have a favorite in this race. I thought -- and still think -- that Hackett and Brown were both good candidates.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

41. Ok, thanks for the clarification

I hope you make a thread, decrying the skulduggery in D.C. also. I mean after all like you say Hackett was a good candidate then you also hate how D.C. drove him out because they drove out a good candidate.

I look foward to that thread :).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. No, the two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive.

Who ever said skulduggery is always a bad thing? :shrug:

This is a full contact sport. If Hackett wasn't ready for it, it's a good thing he's not in the election anymore.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

82. are you skinner's lackey?

don't put words in his mouth please. Let the man speak.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

98. No, I've gone head to head with Skinner in the past too.

I don't back down from anyone. Perhaps you shouldn't be lead around by the nose by Dean.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

102. Perhaps you should believe in something

You have no foudation. You don't believe in ideals like integrity, truth and dignity. You floating aimlessly through space. I follow Dean because he holds these values self evident.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

108. No, you follow Dean because you have no opinions of your own.

That has become quite apparent.

[Skinner]

110. And I think I'm going to nip this sub-thread in the bud, too. (nt)

[tgnyc]

42. Come on Skinner. There are a lot of facts that one could cite as being

crucial to the discussion. By highlighting the two that you do above, you are clearly implying that Hackett's chances were so remote that the debate should have come down on the side of his removing himself from the race. There's just no other way to read your point. I'm not saying I think you prefere Brown to Hackett, but you clearly imply that "the hadwriting was on the wall" for Hackett, and that he was right to step aside.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

46. thanks, for putting it better than I could nt

[mattclearing]

50. You act like someone other than Hackett withdrew him from the race.

He had weak support and withdrew. Skinner, the DLC, and DSCC had very little to do with it.

If Hackett had huge support, he would be winning the primary without the donors the DSCC scared away.

Howard Dean didn't back out of the DNC chairmanship race when establishment figures decried his run, because he knew he had the support to do it without them.

Hackett made his choice based on the situation. And no one else is responsible for that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

58. I'd go futher than that.

If he had the local support, the national party would've backed him - simple as that. He was running poorly in the primary and he had no money. This means that in order for him to win in the general, the national party would have to pour resources into the race - thus reducing the amount available to help in other races.

[FreedomAngel82]

157. Exactly

As Skinner pointed out and this was within democrats. When is their primary voting?

[Kukesa]

168. Ohio Primary - May 2, 2006 nt

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Well, since Hackett made the decision to drop out of the race,

I would hope that Skinner supports Brown.

Don't you?

Or are you pulling for DeWine?

Hackett quit the race. He probably made a smart move based on his polling numbers and his fundraising numbers. Why is that so hard to understand?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

43. I'm pulling for integrity, dignity, and truth

What I'm not pulling for is the underhandedness by Brown. All I want for Brown to do is to apologize for his back stabbing against Hackett. If he apologizes for what he did to Hackett then I am 100 percent behind Brown.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. But it's NOT BACKSTABBING!!!

Stop being so f'ing naive!!

[ProudToBeLiberal]

80. talk to the hand nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

92. I dunno about a hand, but apparently, I'm talking to a wall.

And I thought you were far more mature than this. You disappoint me.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

104. brick wall

I've been leading you by the collar all day lol. Look at the sequence of threads. You'll notice that I was flaming you all along. LOL

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

111. Oh yes, you got me!

I bow to your intellectual superiority. :sarcasm:

[Skinner]

112. And... this sub-thread too. (nt)

[ProudToBeLiberal]

113. I still love you :)

[FreedomAngel82]

158. Where is the proof Brown was involved?

Please show it. HE didn't do anything to Hackett! Prove it if you have the proof! And Hackett is the one who has control over HIS OWN LIFE. If he thought he could win and beat Brown in the primaries why didn't he stay involved and say to Reid and Schumer no? HE'S THE ONE WHO ENDED HIS CAREER! Imagine if John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Sharpton, Wes Clark and Howard Dean gave up in their respective races because of other politicians?

[RazzleDazzle]

241. They haven't denied it, even when given the opportunity

See the Mother Jones article:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/02/hackett_drops_out.html

[LynneSin]

171. How about what Hackett did for Ohio voters

Hackett took the choice away from Ohio voters because in a nutshell he can't handle politics. DSCC made a business decision - they are not in the business to finance everybody who wants to run for senate. However, that decision by the DSCC doesn't mean that Hackett needs to drop from the race. DSCC has picked favorites in other states like PA and Montona and yet there are still primaries in play for those states.

If anyone needs to apologies it should be Hackett to the people who he convinced that he was something new a different. If he caved to the DSCC then personally I wouldn't want him to be representing me in DC. I've seen what Brown is capable of doing and he's an amazing liberal in DC. We should all be lucky to have someone as our candidate

[John Q. Citizen]

31. I guess some people don't respect Hackett's decision to bow out

of the race.

I like Hackett and I respect his decision. I would have respected his decision had he decided to stay in the race, also.

To try and blame others for a decision that was Hackett's alone to make seems counter productive and makes Hackett look like he is afraid to stand up for himself. I don't buy that for a second.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. Unless you want the national party organizations...

...to stop participating in the primaries altogether, they're always going to have to make decisions on where to allocate scarce resources, and that means picking sides in primary fights. This is nothing new. I could go into one of my rants about how the importance of primaries has declined massively since WWII, but I'm ill at the moment, so I'll just provide this link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801494265/sr=8-1/qid=1140102448/ref=sr_1_1/104-5919917-4869563?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[Beetwasher]

16. As Much As I Like Hackett, Brown Is Going to be an AWESOME Senator

And we're lucky to have him.

[merci_me]

35. I couldn't agree more!

I've known Sherrod since he was in college (McGovern days) and he has worked from then, on through today, for progressive ideals. That's a longtime, folks!!

I've been in Texas since the mid-eighties, when he was still SOS in Ohio, but I've continued to follow him. We all deserve him in the Senate and since the chances of me, in Texas, every having someone like Sherrod in the Senate, I'm so excited to know he'll be there, representing not just Ohio, but all of our progressive agenda, not only with his brilliant mind, but with his heart and his soul.

Thank you, Skinner!

[Lerkfish]

20. I started a thread discussing the logistics of the primary process

My concern is, apart from this case in particular, of the practice of cutting candidates off at the knee BEFORE a primary, essentially taking one level of choice away from voters.
You can cite the war chest and a poll, but neither of those are ironclad indicators of an election.
If you want to use amount of money, then you have to point out that a lot of that money that came to Brown came THROUGH the dem organization. So if you use that a litmus, its a self-fulfilling prophetic one.
IF the beltway does not wish a candidate to run, they have to only direct national funding as they choose.

Again, its beltway against grassroots, in an unfair fight, since grassroots cannot even come to the table in a primary.

you can bring up that Brown is progressive, and that's fine. You can bring up an internal poll commissioned by Brown, and that's fine. Those are good things to point out the CHALLENGE Hackett would have had. However, I am concerned that those things can be used to justify limiting voter choice.

Sorry, Skinner, but at least in MY thread, my point and concern was about the process itself, and whether it was one that truly benefitted the party as a whole, or the beltway portion of the party.

[mod mom]

44. I agree the issue should be the primaries. Perhaps Hackett raised less $

because:

1. Ohioans have been hit with very steep heating/fuel bill and therefore have less disposable income to donate

2. Party officials discouraged corporate donors/large donators from contributing to him.

As an Ohioan, I think every viable Democratic candidate should have the ability to present their case to the voters to decide. The voters of Ohio who are registered as Dems, then should be able to vote for the candidate who best reflects their values, without leadership interference. Some are happy because Brown is seen as a progressive. What if leadership would have chosen a centrist that those here on this forum were unhappy with? Next time it might not be your choice of candidate.The deletion of the primary system further reduces the voices of the voter, impeding democracy.

I didn't realize the ability to attract big bucks was a progressive value that should determine which candidate should represent us. If a message is strong enough, and people are willing to get behind a candidate as a result, then the big $ can be overcome. We need to take big money out of the equation.

[Stand and Fight]

21. Kicked and recommended.

Because the truth smells great in the morning.

Paul Hackett is a great candidate, but he should not have run for this Senate seat in the first place. I have a problem with certain Senators recommending that he run and then turning around on him, but I would much rather prefer Brown over Hackett as a senator from Ohio. We need a strong voice for progressives across the country and in Ohio, and I do not feel -- based upon what I have deciphered from Hackett's public statements -- that Hackett will end up being a thorn in the side of Republicanism. After careful review of the congressional record of Sherrod Brown I strongly feel that he will be a true bane to Republicans and will strive for the good of all of the country. That's not to say that I feel Hackett would not have, but I don't feel he could win against that scum Dewine. Brown, on the other hand, can hand Dewiners asst to him and I look forward to that.

[Rowdyboy]

24. We should be celebrating a top notch candidate in Ohio....instead

we're ripping each other up. Hackett made a choice that saved face and now allows Sherrod Brown a clean shot at taking out a particularly obnoxious Republican. If this helps on the road to a Democratic senate majority, then I'm all for it.

[Mark E. Smith]

25. The Virulence Of The Dem Bashing Going On Here...

... has made me wonder if we're not dealing with people who have a very different agenda from the one they are claiming to represent.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

65. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

I have long held that too many people here aren't Democrats in the first place, and this issue certainly holds that assertion. They may not be freepers - they are likely to be greens or socialsts, but they do not want to see actual DEMOCRATS succeed.

[femrap]

211. I wonder about that, too.

I don't know if these folks are Greens or Socialists though. Hackett was a 'special situation.' He got lots of national coverage due to the Special Election when Portman was appointed to Trade....and people from all over sent him money. He got recognized...I think this went to his head...and his ego was a mighty good size to begin with...(ie being Congressman isn't enough...I'll be a Senator instead).

I believe a number of political newbies got involved with Hackett....he may have been the first candidate that they sent money to. He called the w a 'chickenhawk.' He taped into people's anger (just like w taped into the 'white male anger in '04)...anger that many newbies have trouble either voicing or focusing. Hackett became a 'hero' figure of sorts. People gave him their power instead of assuming it for themselves....and he took their power and squashed it by withdrawing from the race.

But he's their 'hero.' He can't be blamed....it would show that the people were deceived. And people like having heroes so they blame the 'party leadership' instead.

Hopefully, everyone will soon calm down and realize Brown is a great Dem....not a dino....and he will be in the Senate soon.

I'm in Ohio and I am working to see that this happens.

[VolcanoJen]

131. You would have really, really hated the '04 Democratic Primaries...

... around here, then.

:-)

Same story, different year.

[stickdog]

191. The same thing could be more convincingly said of our esteemed Democratic

establishment. Now couldn't it?

[RandomKoolzip]

26. Brown's a better candidate, but I think a lot of people were

anticipating Hackett to say more interesting things. Which, to many in the Dem party, is more substantive than actually working for change.

[Stand and Fight]

30. To hell with saying... I want the candidate that's going to DO.

What's it that Yoda said in The Empire Strikes Back?

"Try, try not. Do or do not. There is no try."



EDIT TO ADD: I know you were being humorous...

[WildEyedLiberal]

132. You nailed it.

Exactly right. Style over substance. Time and again, that's all it ever is for some people.

[stickdog]

192. Sometimes TELLING THE FUCKING TRUTH is most important thing anybody can do

For some reason it appears that establishment-approved types need not apply.

[EFerrari]

36. I believe, Skinner, that the (or, one) concern wasn't Mr. Brown's

progressive credentials but rather the backhanded and cavalier manner in which the candidate was chosen by the leadership, whatever their acronym.

In addition to being a stupid way to handle someone with Hackett's potential, it's a stupid way to interact with the alleged electorate. Here's hoping Brown can bring in sourthern OH.

Free Ohio.

[autorank]

262. Right..."a stupid way to handle someone with Hackett's potential"

You sit down with the guy and have a talk. "Sorry Brown didn't commit earlier but now look, he's got the bucks. Let's all look good on this and it would be a good idea to have a unity conference. We value your service to your country here and there and we want you in the party." Then Wes Clark calls and smooths things over some more. It's all good...but nooooo, badly mishandled.

Not having been with Hackett every second of this affair, I can't deny that this discussion happened, in anticipation of that question. As proof that it didn't, look how damn honest Hackett was about his pledge to not jump back on OH 2nd's primary race after giving his WORD. He'd have fessed up about such a conversation. And neither Reid nor Shumer claims there was such a conversation.

It was very poorly handled. I want Brown to win. I like him. I'd also like to have some really smart, smooth national leaders rather than what I've seen in this escapade.

[bigtree]

38. Aside from the inside politics there is a noticable Dem voter trend toward

more progressive candidates and more support for progressive issues. That's going to elevate our agenda no matter who the vehicle is.

Without wanting to start an argument, I thought Paul Hackett, a fine man, demonstrated a less progressive philosophy than Brown has proven over the years. The stance on immigration was just one example. Not so much of a disqualifier for our support, rather, it amplified the solid liberal record of Brown. That, coupled with the support of Ohio Democrats for Brown made the Hackett bid less compelling, despite his brave transformation from soldier to public service aspirant. I'd support Hackett in a heartbeat if he somehow won a nomination for some seat, but, I'm not from Ohio.

I would also like to say that I think candidates have to come to grips with the fact that there are folks who have spent lifetimes aspiring to hold public office, not to mention the interests outside of the party that propel these candidates and compel them to run. Politics can be dirty and ugly. It shouldn't be easy for someone to just appear and assume office without having their commitment tested by adversity, competition, and their ability to garner a majority of public support, and yes, money. Money will not always be a determining factor, but against an entrenched incumbent with a massive war chest, money will be the candidate's life blood, their tool to get their character and their issues to the voters over top of the noise and efforts of the opposition.

I think a candidate has to be prepared to stick it out through hard points and try to push on through, but, they should also be prepared to lose. When that happens I hope they would remember just who the real opposition is. Many losing candidates come right back and continue to help boost the party overall with service outside of office. I'll be looking to see how Paul Hackett is prepared and able to pitch in and help the eventual nominee defeat DeWine. That's the real goal here. For all of us.

[LynneSin]

39. There are two sides to every story and then there is the truth

Paul paints a picture of being painted into a corner and being pressured out of the race.

I don't know what happened, but what this airchair political QB is assuming is that the DSCC saw the numbers that Skinner posted (and btw, according to an article in The Nation even Hackett's own pollster was getting) and realized that Hackett was not capable of winning statewide. In comes DCCC chair Emmanuel and he's chomping at the bit to have Hackett run again against Schmidt because they know this time Hackett could probably defeat her and we'd pick up that seat in a very conservative district of the state. Reid/Schumer/Emmanel were trying to find a win-win situation with trying to pick-up both a senate and a house seat when it was shown that Hacketts numbers were lagging far behind.

None of here at DU were privvy to the conversations held between Reid/Schumer/Emmanel and Hackett. I think what's going on here is a stubborness between both groups involved and an assumption that it was all Reid/Schumer/Emmanel and not Hackett.

But all this arguing that we're doing and I still don't think we'll win any of those seats not because of this screw-up but beacuse of Diebold :cry:

[EFerrari]

47. Yep. It all sort of doesn't matter if the winner isn't seated.

:(

[femrap]

217. Diebold, Diebold, Diebold

That's our biggest enemy by far. Sure wish we could bottle all of this anger over Hackett and focus it on Diebold and Ken Blackwell.

I am glad to see that Dems in Ohio now believe that we haven't had clean elections in the past and are going to focus money and energy in this direction. For awhile there, they had their head in the sand about this...and thought us 'clean election' folks were conspiracy nuts. Whew!

[SPKrazy]

45. Be That As It May

If he chose to drop out because he didn't have the money that is one thing...

but if he was pressured to drop out because the party machine didn't want a primary, well, that's back to the back room full of cigar smoke deals that the primaries were intended to stop.

I don't really know much about either candidate. I'm not an Ohioan. I don't think Reid or Schumer are even DLC'ers.

I understand that Brown is a progressive, and if that is what is best for Ohio, then that's great.

I am glad that Hackett stood up and spoke out about how he was pressured out. He probably didn't have a chance without much money, but I don't think the DSCC should dictate whether there should or shouldn't be primaries.

Just my opinion

And I can easily see how the money issue may be the real issue that caused Hackett to bow out. But it seems that he said he was pressured out. (of course, money is pressure too)

[LynneSin]

52. Then why did he cave to pressure

Why are Reid/Schumer/Emmanel being blamed for Paul not having the ability to stand up to them and say "NO".

No matter what went on between these two groups ultimately it was Paul who made the decision, Reid & Schumer opted to support the viable candidate which oddly enough is what the DSCC does. But Reid & Schumer also knew that Paul was still a viable candidate and the DCCC really wanted him to run.

Throughout my lifetime I've been pressured to do many things that I knew were wrong and most of the time I stood my ground. But the few times I caved and especially when there were consequences to my caving, at least I took the blame for it.

[SPKrazy]

57. The Thing Is, These Kind Of Decisions Happen All The Time

Usually the party who backs down does so to keep in the good graces of the party machine that are pressuring him/her.

Hackett spoke out.

I've seen the party machine in Oklahoma run off someone who lost a primary to another state because they created an atmosphere where that person could no longer do the work in the state they were doing before. (Economic development)

I know this because this because it was a family member of mine who this happened to. Ran for congress, lost in the primary, then suddenly his business contacts stopped working with him.

Back to Hackett. He is smart enough to realize he doesn't have the money and he wasn't going to have the support anymore from the party or the DSCC. He spoke out and said basically "fuck it", I'm out of here!

It will be real interesting to see if he changes his mind, or if he has stiffed the party by speaking out so much that they wouldn't back him there either.

[LynneSin]

61. That last sentence says alot

I don't think anyone in the DSCC/DCCC is 'anti-hackett' but the might be if he burns too many bridges

[SPKrazy]

67. Political Bridges Can Burn Very Brightly and For A Looooong Time n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

163. Thank you!

I've been saying that as well. Hackett could've still said "no" and stud up and not backed down. I thought he was a fighting democrat but he can't even stand up to Reid and Schumer?

[cboy4]

48. I was just so excited to see a Soldier for crissakes on our side,

from a ***red state, in the running.

Maybe the way it's going is for the best, but I have to admit if I lived in Ohio, I might feel a little bit bitch slapped if he were my guy.

***red state cuz we all know they cheated.

[Kukesa]

74. I live in Ohio and I DO feel bitch slapped. nt

[FreedomAngel82]

164. There are lots of soldiers from red states running

Band of Brothers anyone? My own congressional canidate is a Vietnam vet running. http://www.terry2006.com

[Catrina]

208. Let's hope Chuck Schumer and the 'party leaders' approve of him and

that he has a huge 'war-chest' and is willing to go after his colleagues and allow his supporters to call fellow veteran challengers, 'cry-babies' and accuse them of being cowards etc. If he's 'on board' with all that, he'll be fine. But if he doesn't toe the line, he may as well quit now.

There will be NO primaries, according to the 'leadership'. They will choose your candidate for you ~ no matter what state you are in.

[insane_cratic_gal]

51. Oct. 2005

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash05a.html?project=elections06-ft&h=495&w=778&hasAd=1&mod=blogs


He lead Dewine by 6.9 points. At the end of the day it's all about getting a liberal elected to the seat isn't it?

I don't care how he stacks against Brown. Brown isn't the enemy neither are the democrats who they polled.


What I think really happened .. Liberals got spooked by him. I've heard it said he was a former republican without anything to back it up. I've read that he was too loud and not refined. (nm that OH is far from being Refined). Perhaps it one of our own talking points. The enemy is my very own party, that is such a hard pill to swallow for all of.

I just realized the ugly side of politics committed by my own party and I'm disillusioned and I'm angry. People are telling me to get over it and buck up and support the new guy. Even if I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning the state.

I'm sure many felt this way when Dean was tossed out too. (I wasn't a member then but I bet it was a nightmare in here).. Hackett is Dean Jr.

You see, many people here believe because Hackett brought in republican votes he must some how be evil! I'm not talking about DLC tactics. I'm basing my feelings for Hackett on his character and like factor. He has IT! He crosses barriers because for once we were getting through to the right, that we are all just people! He promoted tolerance of Gay marriage by using an idea that they could relate to. "Hey you don't want people in your gun cabinets you have to extend the same respect to people's bedrooms and woman's bodies. Gov shouldn't be in the personal lives of people." Simple plain speak, not dumbed down but just honest old fashion "here is how I see it."

I keep hearing, "he must not be liberal enough, if republicans in OH are going to vote for him" Republicans in OH are often like NH republicans, The average joes who respond to strength of character? Who relate someone who takes the time to woo them. We've long since abandoned Southern Ohio. The Unions backed Hackett (which they did over Brown) blue collared America probably would of backed him too.

But we are never gonna know now. At the end of the day one of us is going to be saying "I told you so" and other other munching on humble pie.
For all of our sakes I really hope it's ME eating the slice of humble. In the mean time I hope your all out there targeting southern OH in the same manner Hackett did. Otherwise I'll offer you some milk with that slice of pie.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. I certainly haven't seen it said that Hackett was viewed as "evil"

or a "threat". He just flat out was not going to win against Brown. Period. And there is no sense whatsoever to bloody ourselves in a pointless primary when the winner would not be in question.

[FreedomAngel82]

166. That was 2005 and this is 2006

He also said in October 2005 "I'm in the race now and I'm not going anywhere." Gee whatever happened to that?

[insane_cratic_gal]

172. How many times have you used that line?

I keep seeing it.. posted by you. And on edit.. I was mistaken that poll was from Jan. 2006 not 2005.. click on Ohio and read the whole thing. Hackett beats DeWine by .6 lead

Whatever happened to Brown stating he wasn't going to run when Hackett first consulted him before deciding to run

then 1 week later low and behold who decides to jump in? *cough* I think you can figure that one out.

So check mate, both of our candidates retracted on their word.

Btw I'm still waiting for that link he's a Republican or was.. I've looked and I haven't' found it but it seems to be a partially popular talking point today.

[FreedomAngel82]

184. "Both of our canidates"?

Uh excuse me but I'm not an Ohio resident and was neither cheering for Hackett or Brown since I'm not an Ohio resident. :eyes:

[rexcat]

54. And if you think Brown will win in Ohio...

you might be unpleasantly surprised. DeWine is no shoe-in for the primary election. If DeWine loses the primary the individual who wins has a much better chance of beating Brown. This might surprise you but Ohio is a red state and the repukes will do anything (legal and illegal) to win this election. The repukes have already started to frame Brown's image and it does not look good from here in SW Ohio. Brown has not countered the repukes framing of him. This looks like what happened to Kerry with the swiftboat assholes.

Also there was another poll where they initially asked the voters who they would support and Brown came out the clear winner but then they discussed each candidate in positive terms then asked who they would support and Hackett had a slight lead. Unfortunately I don't have the URL but it was on a Blog site. Sorry!

The repukes here in Ohio gave a collective sigh of relief when Hackett dropped out of the race. They see Brown in Ohio (that would be the entire state, not just Cleveland and the surrounding area) as extremely vulnerable. Living here in SW Ohio I can say with certainty that Hackett appealed to the moderate repukes, the independent voters and the Democrats in the area. Brown is just not the well known down here despite what the Brown supporters think. Ohioans who are "independent" have voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. What makes anyone think that they will support Brown unless your off your medication (the medication thing is not directed toward Skinner).

[LynneSin]

63. Satan could be the republican nominee and he'll win Ohio

DIEBOLD - nuff Said

[rexcat]

66. That pretty much sums it up.

[LynneSin]

73. What's funny is I keep fighting this issue in support of Brown

who is this amazing politician that every single person who proudly say they are liberal would be proud to have. But even before this stink my count for the senate outcome had Ohio as the "Probably Safe Republican" because I can't see anyone overcoming Diebold.

We can only hope that Brown gets really high poll marks going into the election so at least we can have some 'proof' that the election is fixed

[rexcat]

85. I would love to see a liberal win in Ohio...

but there are too many fucking conservatives in this state and the number of college graduates in this state is well below the national average. We are not talking about a collective group of people who can think critically. Hackett was a breath of fresh air. He is a straight shooter who would not stand down on any of his comments or issues. You knew instantly where he stood on the issues. He kept things simple and still got his message out. You might not agree with him 100% and if questioned could go into detail as to what he stood for.

My gut feeling with Brown is he is too nuanced and the average Ohioan is too stupid to get it. Here in Ohio the attention span of average Ohioan is extremely limited. You need two or three succinct points or they just don't get it.

[LynneSin]

141. That's why they have Diebold to make the decisions for them

:cry:

[stickdog]

193. So why then Brown instead of Hackett, who would at least make a lot of

national noise going down speaking truth to power loudly and convincingly?

[Buck Rabbit]

177. So do I have this right.

Hackett can't beat Brown among Democrats.
Brown can't beat Dewine statewide.
Hackett could beat Dewine.

Therefore the party should have forced out Brown in favor of Hackett?

If the primary just went on with no outside lobbying wouldn't we be at the same point of Brown winning but both he and Hackett being politically broke.

I still firmly believe Hackett made a pragmatic decision, if he thought he was going to win, he would have told Schumer no thanks, fuck off.

[SaveElmer]

183. Nope you don't

Hackett can't beat Brown
Brown can beat DeWine
Hackett can beat DeWine

Support Brown.

[AlecBGreen]

60. Skinner, you're right

its just the whole situation stinks to high heaven. Both are great guys and I think we would all love to see either one of them in the Senate. Brown is a true-blue progressive, and Hackett is a hey-Bush-eat-my-asshole kind of Democrat ... both are sorely needed these days. I think everyone is still steamed about the Hackett loss to Schmidt and we all figured he was finally gonna get his due.

Now, with Hackett out, the question is who will call Bush a son of a bitch on the Senate floor? :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

64. Uhm... Brown's probably more likely to...

Because Brown doesn't ONLY care about Iraq. He hates Bush on pretty much EVERY issue, unlike Mr. Hackett.

[rexcat]

71. Currently there are no Democrats in office

who would call Bush* a son of a bitch. That is one of the problems with the Democrats. We have the image of being spineless. Please look as my earlier post #54 for more insight from someone who lives in SW Ohio.

[Kukesa]

77. And I'll back you up, rexcat; I live in Dayton. nt

[rexcat]

116. I have lived in Mason for 18 years...

and the only redeeming thing in this town is the school system and my wife is only 3 minutes from work (the evil P&G). The only good thing about P&G is when they bought Gillette most of the people from Gillette (Boston) don't want to relocate to the Cincinnati metro area and that will preserve jobs for those at P&G in Cincinnati.

[WildEyedLiberal]

134. Because calling Bush names is the most important thing we can do

:sarcasm:

[AlecBGreen]

239. take 30 seconds and re-read my post

think about it. deeply. then come back to me with a well thought-out reply. I think its pretty obvious where Im going...

Calling Bush names (while a helluva lot of fun) is not the point. Hackett is a man who says things like he sees it. He doesnt kiss ass and dance around the truth. This is good for 2 reasons - 1) It impresses us progressives who are tired of holding our noses and voting for timid, mealymouthed Dems 2) It garners respect from a lot of conservative, red state voters. Is this a bad thing? Would you rather have every politician be an Ari Fliescher or Scott McClellan? :eyes:

[WI_DEM]

69. Thank you for stating the obvious

Still I'm of the belief that they should have just let Hackett go on and had a primary. This controversy may hurt Brown among Hackett's supporters who may decide not to work or vote for the ticket in November. But the facts as you state are hard to argue with--it would have been uphill for Hackett. I wish he had decided to try for the house again. I think it was a too big leap to make in the first place.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

78. Which is all the more reason I hold little respect for Hackett now.

If he was REALLY so concerned about something other than himself, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to taint Brown.

[cboy4]

97. You're way too angry toward Hackett right now

and it makes no sense, because your guy's in, yes? :shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

100. I don't have a "guy".

I have a party. And my party has a better chance to win the Ohio Senate seat now that Hackett is out of the race. I hold anger for Hackett because of his immaturity, and I admit, in part because of the irrational and ridiculous comments made here on DU in his name.

[cboy4]

114. You cannot blame those who support Hackett

to be upset. You just can't put yourself in their position. They feel back-stabbed.

It is a fair debate and it can be done nicely here at DU.

But implying that those who do disagree with you are not democrats as you did in one of your earlier posts, is not nice, because I am a democrat.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

117. I did not say all.

I said some. And that is most certainly true - you may ask them if you wish. They admit it freely.

[Leopolds Ghost]

249. "My party has a better chance to win the seat now that Hackett is out"

Wrong.

[jobycom]

70. Which Reid and Schumer knew, meaning they weren't trying to kill Hackett

they were trying to get him to run in a race he could win.

Hackett supporters, think about it. He had no money and no votes. Why would Reid and Schumer try to force him out? He was going to lose anyway, and didn't have the funds to be much of a challenge, why not just let him fail on his own, if their only agenda was to get Brown the nomination?

The way you stab someone in the back is you stand behind them where they can't see you. You don't go to their face and ask them to drop out and enter a different race they have a good chance of winning. That's not betrayal. Betrayal would have been letting him run and lose while smiling to his face. And that's the normal way it's done in politics. If Hackett could handle what Reid and Schumer did, he could have never handled the general election, much less the actual job of Senator. He'd have quit in his first year and then we'd lose the seat.

I like him, I feel sorry for him, and I even understand why he feels betrayed. But he was going to lose, and politics isn't a sport where the loser wins a moral victory. I back Reid and Schumer on this one.

[rexcat]

75. Obviously your not from Ohio...

and really don't know the issues we are facing here in Ohio. Try going through the treads on this issue in the Ohio forum. It has been contentious in the forum. Both sides are well represented. Also see post #54 in this thread for the perspective of someone from SW Ohio.

[jobycom]

81. No, but I can read a poll

Hackett wasn't going to win the primary. So Reid and Schumer tried to get him into a race he could win. Where's the flaw in that? And some poll about how Hackett would fair if people didn't see the names and only got a positive picture of him doesn't mean anything. Hussein could win in Texas if you did that.

[rexcat]

107. That is speculation on your part...

and we will never get to know. Brown will be in the general election but he probably won't be our next Senator, as much as that pains me. Polls don't say everything. Since you are not from Ohio I am sure you don't know the political realities here. There is also a good chance that DeWine will lose the primary and if he does lose I would say the repukian who wins will get 55%+ of the vote in the Ohio general election and I am being kind to Brown with the percentage.

As I stated in the previous post "DeWine is no shoe-in for the primary election. If DeWine loses the primary the individual who wins has a much better chance of beating Brown. This might surprise you but Ohio is a red state and the repukes will do anything (legal and illegal) to win this election. The repukes have already started to frame Brown's image and it does not look good from here in SW Ohio. Brown has not countered the repukes framing of him. This looks like what happened to Kerry with the swiftboat assholes."

[tgnyc]

72. 46%+24%= a lot of undecideds.

[Pryderi]

95. Good point!

[1932]

264. ...and he would need about 80% of them. With less than 33% of decideds...

...he'd need a miracle to win the primary.

[Strawman]

76. then why the ham handed response if Hackett was just gonna lose?

I think people need to put themselves in the shoes of these people who supported Hackett who feel like they're being told to just STFU and deal. In my view, this is an insider/outsider issue and Hackett's constituency feels dissed. Even if one thinks that is fostered by Paul Hackett acting like a baby about the situation, it's really irrelevant. It wouldn't matter how he was acting if it didn't resonate with his outsider constituency and the very real feelings that they have about the manner in which Democratic party politics are practiced. You can tell these people they're wrong all day long and correct their misperceptions about Brown, and all you're doing is feeding the central problem. I see the typical Hackett supporter as a newbie to politics and making them feel powerless or that they have zero influence within the party is just going to make them cynical and turn them off to participating. They heavy hitters like Shumer should have stayed neutral in this one. Maybe Hackett would have dropped out anyway based upon money and polls and tried to play this sympathy card anyway. I don't know, but everytime someome addresses these people with a "get your facts straight" tone under these circumstances, I don't think much is accomplished. Why not just let them blow off steam and ignore those threads? Their feelings of political efficacy have already taken enough of a hit without being told they are stupid to boot.

[Kukesa]

89. Yes, Strawman, we do feel like we've taken a hit.

And as for being political newbies, I go back to Metzenbaum and Glenn and more recently was a chair for the Montgomery Co. chapter of Ohio Women for Kerry. I am a Yellow Dog Democrat and always will be.

Taking into consideration that Brown has had years to amass his campaign war chest and Hackett has had only months, Hackett didn't do so badly, did he?

Hackett gave us hope, he spoke to US, we downtrodden Ohio voters, and we supported him, we cheered him on, this plain-speaking war veteran.

Please give us a few more days to cry in our beer, to pull ourselves together. We haven't won an Ohio election since the mid-1980's and we're so tired of being on the losing team.

We'll work for Brown, we'll support him -- but will he win? Not a chance.

[MadHound]

83. A couple of things Skinner

That poll was conducted by the Feldman Group, official polling company of the DLC. Dianne Feldman and her company got into some serious trouble with the Kerry campaign for some really shitty polling in '04, both in her methodology and analysis. Secondly, this Brown-Hackett poll was conducted using only 400 people statewide:wtf:, forty percent of whom were in Browns district just outside of Cleveland(more bad polling methodology)

Secondly, comparing Brown's warchest to Hackett's warchest is a bit unfair, since Brown was bringing over the money he received from his last election run, and in addition, the Democratic leadership, at least some of them were going behind Hackett's back and urging Hackett's donors not to give him anymore money.

In an independent poll however, pitting both Brown and Hackett against DeWine, it showed that Hackett beat the hell out of DeWine, Brown failing by two percentage points.

And one more thing to consider is what kind of message this sends to other up and coming politicians? Not a very good one when you have the Democratic leadership apparently hand picking the candidates rather than allowing the people of the state decide the matter for themselves.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

87. Hmm...

Secondly, this Brown-Hackett poll was conducted using only 400 people statewide

Do you have a cite for that figure?


Secondly, comparing Brown's warchest to Hackett's warchest is a bit unfair, since Brown was bringing over the money he received from his last election run, and in addition, the Democratic leadership, at least some of them were going behind Hackett's back and urging Hackett's donors not to give him anymore money.

Sure, but that ignores the actual reality of the relative sizes of their war chests. Hackett may have been doing some damn brisk fundraising, but he was still an order of magnitude behind Brown in sheer dollar amount, and that counts for a lot, regardless of the current fundraising situation.


In an independent poll however, pitting both Brown and Hackett against DeWine, it showed that Hackett beat the hell out of DeWine, Brown failing by two percentage points.

Since it's fairly clear that Hackett would have been defeated by Brown in the primary, the potential stats of a Hackett vs. DeWine race are irrelevant.

And one more thing to consider is what kind of message this sends to other up and coming politicians?

Any up-and-coming politician with Hackett's lack of experience who believes that the national party organizations will blindly support him is fooling himself and shouldn't be in politics. These things happen, all the bloody time. The only reason we're hearing about it now is because Hackett's decided to leave politics and wanted to say a big F-U to the national party.

Not a very good one when you have the Democratic leadership apparently hand picking the candidates rather than allowing the people of the state decide the matter for themselves.

Again, did you think that the national party doesn't involve itself in primaries? It always has. It always will. There's never been any such thing as the sanctity of primaries.

[SPKrazy]

91. Got Links?

Interesting post

especially the 40% polled being from Brown's district. How many districts are there in Ohio?

What independent poll showed Hackett beating DeWine?

[Skinner]

136. "Official polling company of the DLC"?

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure that Mark Penn is the DLC pollster.

The poll I am referencing is from Hackett's own campaign. Check out the quote I put in the OP:

"Hackett was confronted with new numbers from his own pollster, which showed Brown was ahead among likely voters by an almost 2-1 margin"

I kinda doubt that a pollster would fake a poll that leads their own candidate to leave a race. After all, Hackett is helping pay their bills.

[MadHound]

143. My bad, I thought you were referring to last December's poll

Which is what was being bandied around here yesterday. That was a Feldman Group poll. And while the Feldman Group may not be the "official" pollster for the DLC, they do an awful lot of work for them, and were indeed the official pollster for the Kerry campaign.

I still think that this whole mess stinks. This is what primaries are for, to let the voters decide. Instead, what we have here is the appearance of another top down leadership decision by the Democrats.

[peacebaby3]

90. What do the polls say for Brown v. Hackett among Ind. & Moderate Reps.?

Those are more than likely the voters that can decide this race for a Democratic candidate. We know Brown can do well among Dems/Progressives but that will not win him a seat in the Senate. Yes, Hackett would have to make it through the primary, but if he polled better among all voters, it would have been a really smart move for the Dems to have thrown their support behind him and have a slightly less progressive candidate than a losing candidate.

It also bothers me that the choice was taken away from the people. Aren't we suppose to be "The People's Party?"

I know very well what goes on behind the scenes in politics (at least on the state level). I worked with my state party as a volunteer when I was in college. I was there everyday and saw and heard most everything because it was a small office. I left the day they took money from the NRA and never went back. To their credit, nobody at the office wanted to take the money because they knew how the NRA operates, but they were literally broke. I loved all of them, but I just couldn't do it anymore.

Politics will kill your soul if you don't sell it first.

[VolcanoJen]

126. Exactly exactly exactly!

Thank you for this succinct and intelligent post. It's the point everyone's missing.

As an Ohioan, I can't tell you how disappointed that I won't be permitted to choose my preferred candidate in a primary. The primary was still 10 weeks away... it's as if they just yanked out the rug.

And, there are two Ohios... the Ohio that will vote for Sherrod Brown, and the Ohio that will vote for Mike Dewine, but might have chosen Paul Hackett the way they did in the OH-2 special election.

Mike Dewine in a rout come November. It's really too bad.

[AngryOldDem]

202. I second that

Let people have a choice. Having the party machine look at numbers and money and decide that a candidate is just not viable...well, then what's the point of anyone running who isn't already "anointed" by the bosses? This is one of the reasons why the political process in this country is so damned moribund.

As I said in another post on Wednesday...I hope the Dems are happy because Mike DeWine's job is secure for another term. And he won't even have to break much of a sweat campaigning to keep it, either. What a deal!

[understandinglife]

210. Ditto. And, what really knocks me out ...

... is the fact that we will not have Brown in the 110th US HoR, either. When the outcome could have been Brown in the 110th HoR (a sure deal), and Hackett in the Senate.

Now, we know we won't have Brown in the HoR and DeWine is, as you note, on cruise control, instead of having to face the fire and intelligence of Hackett.

Sad. Stupid.


Peace.

[peacebaby3]

255. Thanks. I agree with all 3 of you and think this was an incredibly

stupid mistake. Even if Brown had a chance in Ohio, he probably doesn't now. I guess we will see.

I just read the Mother Jones article as well and it made me physically ill and at a loss for words. If you haven't read it, you should because everyone should know the truth. If the information in this article isn't the truth, someone had better be speking up really quick because I'm disgusted.

Here's a link to the thread:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x445924>

[AngryOldDem]

285. I'm not the least bit surprised

Of course, there had to be more to the story than Hackett reconsidering at the behest of party leaders. Neither party likes boat-rockers. Period. And that's why we are in such a mess politically. It's enough to make me not want to vote. If Diebold doesn't get you, the party bosses will. But that's not the answer, either; I will most definitely vote, but I'll wish like hell that I had a choice between candidates while doing so.

And the saddest part is, Hackett is probably finished for good in politics. I hope not, but that is most likely the case. And how disgusting is that?

[Pryderi]

94. So Hackett is the Rudy Giuliani of the Democratic Party?

[DancingBear]

118. With regards to polling numbers and cash on hand

Does anyone have info concerning the numbers of OH-02 when Hackett got in?

Just curious as to how much of a lead Mean Jean had, and what her cash advantage was.

Remember, Hackett ran as the Democratic sacrificial lamb.

Or so conventional wisdom thought.

[SOS]

119. The financials in the OP are incorrect

Open Secrets for the 2006 cycle:

Total Raised and Spent
2006 RACE: OHIO SENATE
Mike DeWine (R)*
Raised: $6,107,495
Spent: $2,505,310
Cash on hand: $4,290,763
Last Report: 12/31/2005

Paul Hackett (D)
Raised: $1,334,881
Spent: $1,079,946
Cash on hand: $254,933
Last Report: 12/31/2005

Sherrod Brown (D)
Raised: $817,932
Spent: $551,785
Cash on hand: $2,368,982
Last Report: 12/31/2005

The OP is misleading in that it only counts "cash on hand" rather than total funds raised.

[onenote]

121. well, this certainly doesn't seem to help the case for Hackett

Since it indicates he's spent nearly twice as much as Brown, yet his polling apparently indicates he's attracted only half as many voters' support as Brown.

[SOS]

124. January Rasmussen poll shows Hackett/Brown even -

both narrowly losing to DeWine.

Mike DeWine (R) 45%
Sherrod Brown (D) 40%

Mike DeWine (R) 43%
Paul Hackett (D) 39%

In a contest with Dewine, Brown outpolls Hackett by a whopping 1%. (but Dewines # goes down with Hackett as opponent).

[onenote]

127. Obviously I'm talking about the primary

That's the race that money is being spent on and that's the election that matters first.

onenote

[Skinner]

129. My post is not incorrect.

It matches precisely with what you have posted here. I very clearly referred to "cash on hand", and I included a quote which shows Brown and Hackett raising nearly identical sums of money in the last quarter of the year.

It is true that my post does not tell the whole story. So in that sense my post is arguably misleading -- although my intent was not to mislead, and I believe I showed my good faith by the fact that I included the full excerpt with the nearly equal fourth quarter fundraising numbers. Fair enough. But it is simply wrong to call my post incorrect. It was not, as your numbers show.

[SOS]

145. Poor phrasing on my part.

But it should be noted that the Dayton paper only covers Hackett's fundraising for Q4 2005.
The total is about one million dollars higher than the Q4 figure and $500,000 more than Brown.

Just to be clear, I hope Brown cleans Dewines clock in November.
But I also feel that Hackett had a good chance to unseat Dewine if he didn't have a primary challenger.
The Rasmussen poll in January shows the spread at one point closer with Hackett running against Dewine (vs. Brown) and some slippage for Dewine
with Hackett as opponent. That Brown was ahead of Hackett in a poll of 800 Ohio Democrats is not surprising really. But our goal should be unity in getting Dewine's seat rather than internecine warfare in a primary. Brown said he would not challenge Hackett and he should have kept his word. The Party has alienated Hackett supporters and that won't help us in November.

The OP invited us to do the math in regard polling and fundraising.
That math showed that in polls and in fundraising Hackett was doing very well.

[Adelante]

222. Combining two races - 2005 and 2006

It combines what he raised for two different races, including $850,000 approximately for OH-02; then roughly $500,000 for the Senate race. Fundraising for the 2006 race is what concerned him. It looks like he was running maybe $300,000 short of what he was able to raise during the 2005 race. A Senate race would prove much more expensive than a House race, so it looks to me like the writing was on the wall.

[cmd]

123. This Ohioan says thank you

As a resident of the middle of the state, too far north to be Hackett country and too far south to be Brown country; I believe the polls to reflect the state. Although neither Hackett nor Brown have visited our county, Brown's name is the one the people here recognize.

The Magistrate said it best in another post, "The only thing that matters is depriving the Republicans of their majorities in the Senate and House. Fomenting ill feelings over this incident will only hamper that urgent work."

[MrPrax]

125. Says it all...

Can't Win...Don't Bother Competing.

In the future, maybe political parties can just ask prospective candidates to open their bank statements--save a lot of hassle.

Mind you with this type of reasoning where one doesn't use any political issue as a reference other than some vague 'label' of party affliation, then if RePuke raises MORE money, then he should get the seat, no?

[LeftHander]

128. flicking the smackdown

What about the votes from NON-Dem voters...

What is that percentage...Brown versus Hackett? Who would draw more republican votes...Brown or Hackett?

Who is the capable of winning in a now Red state?

Brown and Hackett are both progressives, Hackett was from a different perspective....he was an outsider and resonates with a lot of people on both sides of the isle. Progressive is not simply voting AYE on liberal issues and NO on conservative ones. Progressive also means change. Hackett represented that change. Hackett in the race would mean the Iraq would be one of the issues in the campaign and he would of brought people back to the polls.

Regardless of your reasoning to support the decision to force Hackett out of the race the fact remains the damage done to democratic party integrity will be long lasting and the Ohio voters will remember it. Everyone but Democratic party stalwarts feel this was a bad move.

The real issue was Hackett was a newcomer with drive and momentuem. His campaign would of been in the press nationwide. Even if he lost the messages he would of presented would of set the tone for the entire election cycle.

The democratic establishment could not lose control like that. So in reality Hackett was tossed out by the Democrats in favor of allowing Brown to go into the election against a republican with $2 million in bank.

Brown is more experienced, has the backing, has the voting record, but is that an asset in an election against Republicans who know how to tear down any voting record and distract from issues by playing the gay-marriage, terrorism and national security cards. Does Brown hve the courage underfire that we know Hackett would of?

I personally feel it was a mistake for Brown to run for the Senate. One more term or two in Congress then make a Presidential run. Hackett would of warmed up the state even if he lost...but it might be of been a surprise victory by Hackett...but it looks as if the Dems played it safe by tapping Brown to run for Senate. 2010 is a long time to wait for another shot at the senate.

Even if Hackett would of lost it would of been better for him to run...in the long run.

So yes it is a centrist versus progressive issue. The centrists felt safer with Brown. Progressives felt empowered with Hackett.

sounds like a centrist/progressive issue to me.

[stickdog]

195. Exactly. It's establishment vs. democracy.

Guess who wins again!

[femrap]

223. Have you seen Hackett under fire?

Wasn't very pretty at a Dem Forum in Columbus a couple of weeks ago. And the 'fire' he got from DCCC, he couldn't handle. Paul picked up his toys and went home after making some nasty comments. First, he said it was the Dem Leadership that made him go home. Then yesterday, it was because he didn't have enough money to play anymore.

And I don't know what political spectrum you're using, but Hackett (not too long ago a pug) couldn't be classified as a Progressive...he was very much of the Libertarian cloth at best.

I didn't trust him. No track record. He changed his stance on the war. He didn't offer thought-out ideas on basic issues. He came off as a very entitled, self-important person who bullies to get his way. I feared he was a DINO....another Salazar who would side with the pugs if elected. That is my opinion of him. And there was no way I was going to risk his vote on an abortion issue when Sherrod Brown is rated 100% by NARAL...I know some males out there wouldn't consider that important, but I rather like having a uterus that's free of government control....

[autorank]

263. You're right!!! Look at Hackett's numbers in Rural Ohio 2nd District

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm
The following chart shows the seemingly odd disparity between
Hackett and Schmidt based on population density.
 	
 	      Hackett        Schmidt 	                             
County	Votes	%	Votes	%     Sq Mile	White	Black	Other Median
Family Income
Adams	2101	52	1911	48	47	97.3	0.2	2.50	$29,315.00
Pike	2659	63*	1559	37	63	96.3	0.9	2.80	$31,649.00
Brown	3950	56*	3100	44	86	97.8	0.9	1.30	$38,303.00
Scioto	4925	63*	2338	35	129	94.5	2.7	2.80	$28,008.00
Clermont12,439	42	17,320	58	394	96.6	0.9	2.50	$49,386.00
Warren	5420	42	7556	58	400	94.1	2.7	3.20	$57,952.00
Hamilton23,597	49	25,011	51	407	72.4	24.5	3.10	$40,964.00

Liik at Pike, Brown, and Scioto Counties.  That makes the
argument entirely.  Rural, low income, largely white, and
carried by Republicans fo rthree decades between 60=70%.  This
shows that Hackett has the appeal and it also shows that
something was very wrong with Clermont and Warren (known for
massive irregularities in 2004) and Hamilton.

Hackett should have been treated better.  He's a vote getting
super star.

[VolcanoJen]

130. If Sherrod Brown becomes the Junior Senator from Ohio...

... I will eat my freaking hat, and I'm not kidding. I'll do it. Mark this thread. I would prefer to eat my Bengals cap; it's kind of small and made of hemp.

I mean, I'm seriously laughing. The last time Brown ran for statewide office was 1990. He was the incumbent Secretary of State. He lost.

To Bob Taft.

I wish Rep. Brown well in the election; he's been a real progressive and he's served the voters in his district well. But, see, a progressive congress critter is just a pipedream down here in the Cincinnati area, aka FreeperLand.

The dedicated, hard-working progressive Democrats I know, hang out with, work side-by-side with and love are incredibly upset that Paul Hackett is out of the race, and even more upset at the way it was handled.

Sherrod Brown needs to get himself down here, quickly, and mend fences with the few Dems left around here. I'll vote for the guy, but I'm most certainly not in the mood to give him my blood, sweat and tears. Not this week.

Ohio is ripe for change, and we didn't understand that in 2000, and we didn't understand that in 2004.

Anyone who thinks a progressive liberal is going to be the next Ohio Senator needs to take a hard look at our state, especially the southwestern part where all elections have been won and lost in the last two generals, and tell me how exactly what we're going to do differently this time.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

Cynical and tired of getting beaten around,
Jennifer

[Kukesa]

133. Perfect! You summed up the situation for this Buckeye. nt

[DancingBear]

170. Welcome kindred spirit

Even though I don't live in Ohio anymore, my in-laws live in southern Ohio, I'm an OSU grad, and I still spend a good bit of time there, especially when the Bucks play. :)

You are dead on - there is not a "Republican who voted for Hackett" alive who will vote for Brown. I have been preaching this to anyone who'll listen -and many who won't - but they seem to think that Ohio is a place where all the people have to do is just listen to Sherrod Brown and look at his record, then magically cast aside their ideology and flock like gulls to the voting booth, there to whisk Sherrod off to Washington.

I made the argument in another thread that Brown running is like Dennis Kucinich trying to win a statewide office.

Why so few here can understand the lay of the Ohio political landscape - ESPECIALLY southern Ohio - is beyond me.

First Clark, now Hackett - who's next?

Really.

[VolcanoJen]

175. And, you know, the message it sends is so distasteful.

Ohio just isn't creative. We run the same old guys every single election, and we lose. Fingerhut is a perfect example.

But, the message is clear: No Mavericks Allowed. You have to pay your dues. In Ohio, we go right down the line and check off boxes. It's not a time for mavericks, it's a time for proven progressive candidates from northeastern Ohio only.

Get it? Well, yeh. I do now.

If we can cast aside a straight-talking anti-Iraq war veteran (hunky, too, doesn't the media love that?) with a proven ability to win crossover votes, what kind of message does that send to any of us who hope to run for office one day?

What kind of message does it especially send to Iraq war veterans seeking office? With the Iraq War being the #1 issue facing voters today, you'd think we need all the credibility on the issue that we can get.

Kindred spirits, indeed. It's been a shitty week to be a Cincinnati Dem.

[DancingBear]

203. THAT"S what is so amazing

I mean, the fucking guy almost won a district where a Dem hadn't polled 40%+ since dinosaurs walked.

He was the poster boy for all the Iraq vets who KNEW it was a cluster fuck but didn't have a voice, he got (GASP!!) media coverage, and he wasn't afraid to put his foot in either his mouth or up somebody's butt. Both have their place. :)

Jeebus, if Political God was to come down from Political Heaven and grant the Ohio Democratic Party one wish, they should have collectively screamed "give us someone with authority to call Bush and DeWine out. The war will be THE issue, and we need someone who can look a chickenhawk in the eye and say 'Guess What I Did last Summer'."

But, no. Ohio gets to play "who's turn is it to run for office."

Oh, and for these "just look at his record" arguments? Yea, like THAT really matters in the Senate. Yea, like moderates REALLY vote based on a summary of CAFTA votes.

See "Sessions, Jeff" and "Brownback, Sam" if you don't believe.

I really don't want to say "I told you so" come November, but you know what's going to happen. Unless Bush shoots children on the White House lawn , and any Democrat with a pulse can get elected, it looks like you'll be knee deep in the big Reddy again.

Oh well, at least you'll have a hat to wear. :hug:

[Kukesa]

190. I think I love you, DancingBear. You really understand. nt

[DancingBear]

205. Ssssshhhh - not so loud

Mrs. DB hates it when it's so upfront.

Use the "same old place." :) :)


Dayton???? Hell, you deserve a hug just for that - my in-laws used to live in Kettering, and who can forget the lovely Moraine. (sp?)


:hug:

[TacticalPeek]

226. Amen!

What you said!

:patriot:

[incapsulated]

250. Oh, Jen

I feel for you, hon. Whatever any of us think this was for you guys to decide.

:hug:

[VolcanoJen]

274. Thanks for that

I really had expected a little more reaching out... thank you. :hug:

[we can do it]

135. K&R - Thanks for Saying It

[tsuki]

137. It is not about money or support. It is about a serious

blunder that will haunt Brown with the general electorate. The GOP has shown that they know how to exploit any weakness and make it THE issue in the race.

[VolcanoJen]

139. The Cincinnati radio talk guys have already started.

Yesterday morning I heard them harping about this exact issue.

Their meme is something like, "Look at the Democrats! They won't even let their own voters choose their candidate! They're sticking Cincinnati Democrats with a Cleveland liberal! It's an outrage!"

It makes me angry that it's already started... especially considering these guys don't like Hackett either, but they've been faxed their talking points and they're going for it.

DeWine will win or lose the election in the southwestern Ohio counties, and they'll use this Hackett backlash hoping for a protest vote from the few Dems left down here.

[tsuki]

169. In the end, Brown will be running against Hackett. He will

always be on the defensive. He will be as seen weak. The GOP have their single issue to run on.

It could have been resolved without outside 'help.' They took a real chance to seat a Democrat and eff'd it up.

[Vinca]

140. Sorry - I think Hackett has a right to be on the primary ballot.

No one should strong arm him out of the race. As for poll numbers - probably correct, but recall a certain November 2004 election with poll numbers? The tactics used were too Republican for my taste.

[MrBenchley]

142. Then he shouldn't have QUIT

[stickdog]

196. Just like Whittington shouldn't have stopped hunting. Right?

[MrBenchley]

200. Yeah, being a failure as a Senate candidate is JUST LIKE

getting shot in the face by a drunk....

Puh-leeeeze.

[stickdog]

209. Blaming the victim is the common thread here.

Thank you.

[MrBenchley]

214. Hackett QUIT and blamed everybody else for his failure

He's no more a victim than he is mint-flavored.

[Stand and Fight]

146. Nonsense... Let's talk about personal responsibility.

It was Hackett's choice -- and his alone -- to drop out of the race. It doesn't matter what Senators Reid or Schummer said to him -- he was left with a choice. He decided to not only drop out of the Senate race, but declined to run in a House race that he was likely to have won against nemesis "Mean Jean." No amount of word twisting will change that fact. Smearing other Democrats because of a choice that Paul Hackett made should be beneath us. Paul Hackett is a good man and a good candidate, but now was NOT his time and he knows it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

251. "Not only that, he declined to run in a House race he was likely to win"

Never mind that he'd given his word to the Democrats running there that he would not be jumping in... because that means nothing in politics... as we see with that eminent political realist, Sherrod Brown.

[FreedomAngel82]

147. Thank you Skinner

I'm tried of people blaming the DLC too. If they were behind this they probably would've gone for Hackett because he is the more moderate voice and once was a republican himself. Do we know if they even did all the dirty stuff they did? I'm sure they probably talked to their donors which was bad enough. When do Ohio democrats vote in the primary?

[VolcanoJen]

154. Ohio Primary - May 2, 2006 (n/t)

:-)

[Yollam]

150. My only beef is the leadership taking it out of the hands of the voters.

Just let the voters decide. Schumer, et al playing games with Hackett was pretty bad no matter how you slice it. If the voters wanted Brown, they could vote for Brown, or Hackett. The attitude among both the DNC and the DLC that they know better than the voters is what's appalling to me.

I personally don't even have a preference between these two men. But I hate to see one of them screwed over just because the bigwigs decided that they found what they thought to be a better prospect.

Point taken about it not being a left-right issue, but that doesn't mean that there is no issue.

[redqueen]

153. Thanks, Skinner!

I love this place!

[UrbScotty]

156. Wish Hackett had stayed in, but Brown is also great

Thank you Skinner.

[saracat]

159. Well Skinner, it seems to me that more progressive in Ohio is not

necessarily the winning ticket, and if Hackett was going to lose the primary anyway, why not let it play out? What bothers me is the quid pro quo attitude that somehow Brown "deserves ' this for past contributions to the Party and his congressional career. And I truly can't see using the money as an issue when donors were "requested' to withold contributions. This was manipulating the primary. Dean indicates it was manipulated and so does Gary Hart. Hackett is telling the truth. What I don't get, is WHY . And your quoting one internal poll doesn't cut it, nor does the money issue, for the reasons given. We need the repuke vote in Ohio to win. What about the polls showing Hackett would have gotten it. Is there any access to those polls? Liberal Dems aren't going to win in Ohio.

[LynneSin]

167. So if Hackett turns out to be a Lieberman then that's good

because ultimately it's all about the win.

Just because a candidate slaps 'grassroots' on his campaign doesn't mean that's the absolute truth. DSCC can spend there money how they wish - they are not required to finance every candidate who wants to run for office. The numbers and polls showed that the better option was Brown.

Paul made the decision to quit because of that decision. He is the one that took the choice away from Ohio.

[saracat]

179. There is NO indication Hackett would be like Lieberman.

and as the Party were the ones to ASK Hackett to run initially, I think they DID have an obligation to support him. We don't KNOW why Paul quit. Even Dean says it was "skulduggery" and Hackett implies there was dirty business. It isn't as though Hackett suddenly thought he couldn't win. And BTW, what polls? There are polls and there are polls. One of the last polls had only a six point lead for Brown but no one is quoting that one.And if it was all about the "win" It should have been Hackett. Something is wrong here. Any when the Party pulls its support, you really can't win, not as a Dem. Schumer made the choice, not Hackett. They were calling donors and telling them NOT to donate to Hackett. They pulled the plug. You can't blame Hackett.

[LynneSin]

180. How about polls from Hackett's own pollsters (from The Nation)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060215/cm_thenation/1559896;_ylt=A86.I1sYifNDHz8ARgb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

But it appears that an even bigger factor was a poll that showed Hackett trailing far behind his progressive primary opponent, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown (news, bio, voting record). With the filing deadline for the May Democratic primary rapidly approaching, Hackett was confronted with new numbers from his own pollster, which showed Brown was ahead among likely voters by an almost 2-1 margin -- 46 percent for the congressman to 24 percent for Hackett.

[insane_cratic_gal]

182. Post number 161 I can present those # to as 43/42

*grumble grumble*

Everyone is ignoring that one too.

I Can present if you didn't count the dems and counted independent and "others" Hackett beats Brown 50 to 31 percent.

AND independents are allowed to vote in the primaries.


Truth is we will never know, due in part to Paul's resignation and the pressure for the resignation.

[insane_cratic_gal]

161. Hackett held a 43 percent to 41 percent edge

http://www.buckeyesenateblog.com/hackett/index.html


While the initial head to head in that memo showed Brown with a 46 percent to 24 percent edge over Hackett, Blumenthal wrote that when a paragraph of only positive information about both men was read to voters, Hackett held a 43 percent to 41 percent edge. Among those who identified themselves as Democrats, Brown led 44 percent to 42 percent after voters heard positive information about both candidates. Among those who identified as themselves independent or other (Ohio has an open primary where independents can vote), Hackett held a 50 percent to 31 percent margin. The full text of each positive description is included in the memo and I'm posting that text at the end of this post

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/14/193851/113


I can believe that given all the negative information out there..

I've seen so much negative things said about Hackett with NOTHING to back it up.


*Like he was a republican.. I've asked for proof of this 3 times today alone.. not a single link has been provided

*He's a moderate..
2 issues he crossed over on. The 2nd amendment(still for banning assault weapons) and illegal immigration (which i think really means we need to whole up the walls and underground tunnels.. I tend to agree to some extent on that) After all we are talking about Ohio here, not NY. The issues of OH are going to be different. He had the unions too.. not Brown (that was a slap in the face I am sure.)

*He was behind in the polls..
that isn't what this poll shows.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash05a.html?project=elections06-ft&h=495&w=778&hasAd=1&mod=blogs

in that poll he beats DeWine with a bigger lead then Brown does.

*He couldn't be trusted because he has no record.
Umm excuse me but at one point they had no record, truth is we were to allow him the chance to get a record when he was running for congress but the Senate bid.

*He should keep his word.
So should Brown! Brown told him he wasn't going to run. Hackett asked him man to man. Brown assured him he wasn't running.

I feel like I'm getting talking points from my own party.. that scares me!

[incapsulated]

173. And I haven't said one word against Brown except that Hackett...

In my opinion, had a better chance to win and Brown would be perceived as too liberal.

Now it's good riddance to Hackett the whiner, Hackett the centrist, Hackett the loser.

I guess we should just hand Hillary the fucking nomination now, after all, she has the polls and the money. What do we need primaries for?

Fuck this shit.

And by the way, it is damned difficult to raise money when the DSCC is drying up your sources of funds.

Is it any wonder we can't get new people into the party with a reception like this?

[insane_cratic_gal]

174. My sentiments as well

I think it was underhanded and just wrong.. anyway you want to slice it.. it was wrong.

Call me an idealist but it was a shitty thing to do to Paul

[incapsulated]

176. People forget

Paul was new to politics and the party. They forget that an ordinary citizen has to give up their job, their income, their family life to run. He isn't living off the public dime while running like the politicos. And that he was courted by the party to run for the Senate, only to be told to get out now, we've changed our minds and lie to the people he gave his word to about the House race. Welcome to the party.

[FreedomAngel82]

188. People who start out

in politics do that all the time. There's a local democrat who used to run against our republican guy all the time. He never gave up because of other party members or money situations. And same with the new guy running. He's doing all of his campaigning and has a staff and networks. Hackett is the one who dropped out.

[incapsulated]

198. Did he have US Senators

Calling him and telling him to get out? Did he have them calling his sources of money and telling them to stop donating?

That is quite a different story when you are a citizen and don't have any connections and backup, to have that sort of shit come down on you from the party that asked you to run in the first place.

[FreedomAngel82]

257. This is just like

other Christians I know who say "oh Satan made me do it!" Hackett is THE ONE who dropped out. HE could've told whoever was calling to fuck off but did he? NO. HE DROPPED OUT! Nobody made him BUT HIMSELF. He could've called up his donors and found out who was calling them and called those people up and told them to fuck off. He is the only who in the end who has control over this. NOBODY else. If Hackett can't handle members within the party how is he going to handle big boy politics? If anyone did that to the canidate I'm backing I'm sure he would tell them to fuck off. He isn't a cry baby.

[incapsulated]

275. You know what, you're right

Hackett is a crybaby loser who is a disgrace. The party is lucky to be rid of such an asshole. I know I feel better about the Ohio race knowing that such a person is no longer involved. I can't imagine why Reid and Schumer asked him to run or why 48 percent of the red district he ran in voted for him. Maybe it was Satan. Or the way he was so afraid to say anything controversial or straightforward. I have no idea why such a pussy ever entered the armed forces, either, thank god he's out of there. Now he can go back to his stupid private life and stay out of the righteous and strong-hearted world of fair politics and good riddance.

[saracat]

204. Amen. Well said!

[benEzra]

281. IIRC, Hackett opposed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...

2 issues he crossed over on. The 2nd amendment(still for banning assault weapons) and illegal immigration (which i think really means we need to whole up the walls and underground tunnels.. I tend to agree to some extent on that) After all we are talking about Ohio here, not NY. The issues of OH are going to be different. He had the unions too.. not Brown (that was a slap in the face I am sure.)

IIRC, Hackett opposed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...he publicly spoke out against the concept a few weeks ago. Not sure why that makes him a "moderate," any more than it makes Russ Feingold a moderate.

[messiah]

162. That's alot of loot,

politics is still all about the money:thumbsdown: .
I look forward to another corporate Democratic candidate to get the Dem prez nomination.

[Kolesar]

165. In this exclusive interview, Paul Hackett sounded relieved to be done

http://blog.oh02.com/2006/02/14/paul-hackett-interview-in-full

[Buck Rabbit]

221. Wow! A good guy, not yet cut out for big league politics.

(my impressions not a transcript)

He didn't understand how much tougher and more demanding a Senate race is than a house race.

I wonder if his military background made him take Schumer and others more seriously than those of us who would have told them to go pound sand?

Spent half the night reading KOS, doesn't believe either his supporters or detractors are getting it right. He should read here instead as at least someone here must have it correctly.

I don't think he would have held up well to being swift-boated by the Republicans as I think he would let them get under his skin, not that I could stand the lies and slanders of todays negative attack ads. It must take a special breed.

Great guy, but I agree with his assessment that he is not a politician and he seems very relieved to be out of politics.

[FreedomAngel82]

258. So why doesn't he just say that?

Why is he going around calling people liars and smearing them? Why doesn't he just say he's glad to be out? I think he would've been good in politics but it's clear he can't handle it which is disappointing.

[Kolesar]

278. I wish he would send a message to his followers to pipe down

and quit with the insane bullshit whispering campaign attacking the apparent nominee.

[OzarkDem]

178. Thanks, Skinner! The R's are upset with the news

The Plain Dealer editorial staff is already ginning up the "Swiftboat Sherrod" campaign while studiously ignoring the corruption surrounding DeWine and the GOP. Its going to take a lot of hard work and unity to overcome the corporate media blitz to destroy Brown (and Strickland who is running for Ohio governor).

The corporate news media framing frenzy has begun already with jabs at Brown's "personality" and several news stories planted to emphasize DeWine's "centrism".

[stickdog]

181. Brown=Bought & Sold Buttondown DC Insider -- Hackett=Independent Integrity

DU=Democratic Establishment Mouthpiece

We've all done the math.

[Generator]

197. That was succinct! LOL

So we have: Hackett had little dough, polled bad. Brown a good liberal. Hackett, bad immigration policy. Outsider, couldn't handle it! quit!

Versus: Polls questionable, money witheld by party leaders, possible rumour mongering(war crimes) skullduggery, Dean's word, Hackett's word he wouldn't intercede in the House races, Brown decided to run later rather than sooner, and the coup de grace for me: reading all the posts by people that actually live and know Ohio and say that the only chance to win the seat is exactly someone like Hackett.

Very interesting. But I'm told that winning isn't the point. Is believing you are going to win no matter how many times you keep losing doing the same old thing the point?

[Javaman]

186. No, no, you da man, Skinner, you da man! Thank you for posting this! nt

[Ohio Joe]

194. While I do not dispute the facts

I still feel as though I would have preferred to have my vioce taken into consideration and been allowed to vote for the candidate of my choice.

[izzybeans]

199. I'll pile on this one with a simple thank you.

So thank you. You know for saying what you did...and stuff.

[Klukie]

201. WTF?

Whats with all the infighting? Everyone is bitching that the cheney shooting is a distraction, but I beg to differ, I think we are quite capable of distracting ourselves. This is all semantics in the overall scheme of things. We are losing sight of the big picture. Yes it is disappointing that someone with Hacketts passion is not in the running, however it is a disservice to wallow in that disappointment. At this point we need to do whatever it takes to get back some control of this government and if some feelings are hurt in the process so be it. Lets get on the same page here. United we stand, divided we all fall.

[rexcat]

212. If you think Brown can win in Ohio

you might want to think again. The Brown supporters think Brown can win and the Hackett supporters are doubtful if Brown can win. That is the argument. Hackett had cross-appeal with repukes and independents (who by the way voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 in Ohio). Brown does not appeal to any repukes in Ohio I know. In fact they are relieved that they don't have to face Hackett in the general election. THIS IS WHAT THE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT. Wake up!

On edit: I am sick and tired of the Democrats losing in Ohio. The ODP leadership has no clue how to win in Ohio. We have been under repukian control for the past 12 years. We have a great opportunity in 2006 and all I see is more incompetence in the party leadership.

[Klukie]

213. While you were sleeping the repukes took the seat.

If Brown truly doesn't appeal to the repukes in Ohio, then it is about time to make him appeal.

[rexcat]

247. That is Brown's job...

I hope he can pull it off!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. Thanks Skinner. You Can Always Be Counted On For Rationality And Logic.

Being objective even when emotions run high is wonderful trait to have.

I think Paul was great too, but support Brown 100% and think he has a stronger chance at taking the seat then Paul did. I think he is more progressive as well and also more prepared to handle the battle. I liked Paul a lot, but still cannot convince myself he was 100% ready for all this anyway.

[mzmolly]

216. Exactly right.

:hi: I wonder sometimes if people here actually have a BASIC understanding of politics?

[WildEyedLiberal]

224. LOL

My sources say no.

[mzmolly]

231. LOL

I do believe your sources are reliable. :hi:

[rg302200]

218. What many people are mad about here in Ohio

Is the fact we didn't get a chance to vote for our candidate, we got swindled. Skinner is right by saying this is not a DLC operation, because it's not! But what I, and many other Hackett supporters are mad about, is the way this all went down. I will support Brown, but not with the same enthusiasm as I would have for Hackett!

[0rganism]

219. So how are we going to help Brown beat DeWine AND keep his house seat D?

I think the focus needs to shift now. Whether or not Hackett's dropping from the race is a "good thing", we have a clear problem: DeWine leads Brown by 5 points, and has double the money on-hand. Plus, it's Ohio, where 30-point anti-democratic ballot swings are a present-day phenom. Time to uncircle the firing squad and get back to work, IMHO.

Right now I foresee DeWine taking it in a walk; he might not even need the Diebold boost. Meanwhile, someone has to take Brown's place in the house.

[PATRICK]

227. From those of us who don't know

what we are talking about specifically in Ohio.

Mainly this was not handled well, on its face. Hackett could also be judged for having assumed himself the beneficiary of a similar anointing(deal?) a little prematurely. After giving some rope time to see if he could quickly overcome name recognition(obviously despite his fame here Ohioans in general have a different perspective) and make the inevitable move by a seasoned name unlikely. But, as Skinner notes the numbers wore away the patience or increased the temptation(doesn't matter which) for another entry. the manner of endorsements and deals to make this happen fast similarly quashed the inexperienced guy like Kerry did Dean, with the same rationale and justifications. Those calling for a primary still are right, but the situation has already wiped out they possibility. People will get over thiese new poltical bruises.

But this has to be done a lot better if that wonderful rationale of lining up all the ducks, avoiding expensive(seems to be the main reason unfortunately) primaries and vetting the best candidates while reinvigorating new activists and new candidates without war chests from incumbency, and not burying the dialog within the party or base. There is not enough confidence in the party establishment, DLC or otherwise, to think this has been wisely and smoothly done or that this increases the chances of winning.

The dampening effect on campaign presentation falls somewhere in between the mortal fear of populist demagoguery and playing it GOP Lite safe. When all is said and done among the party voters and potential crossovers there has to be some resolution at the top between those going for it, damn the wise money, and those trying to cross all the i's and dot all the t's during this supposedly golden opportunity of a year. It is not Brown or Hackett at fault, but those trying to assist them with all the great intentions of losing generals not on the same wavelength.

The DLC concern is always too broad and too unjustified in many specific attacks, but overall there is the simple concern that the big money and incumbency that has been so geared for GOP success is a thumb on the scales of progressivism, reality and all things democratic(big "D" or small "d"). We have ample experience that getting all confident about putting up with the bitter pills in the situation can cause several unfavorable outcomes in this most favorable year.

Keeping radical pressure off the GOP ironically since winning elections would actually dampen getting in your face with huge populist actions on important issues like the INEVITABLE war with Iran.

Losing thusly in rigged elections because of this oblique caution.

Not gaining a majority.

Losing seats in the mess trying to maintain non-progressive candidates. Blame will be dissipated because for the sake of necessary unity all the leadership problems and philosophies have been unresolved. In essence we are still paying for this since 2000, 2002, 2004 when it seemed fearsome and impossible, as far removed from accountability and imagination as some of establishment remain to be.

Gaining a majority that will never vote like a majority or at least not often enough to be more than something the WH will actually have to maneuver around for a change. Two years can go by fast and a lot of blame for ineffectual opposition could make the Dems look worse than ever, something that happened in a different way to the Gingrich GOP majority. The lack of facing issues like impeachment will make such a issue a natural hot potato never to be spoken of by an awful lot of candidates who won in the safe zone. The courts and the DOJ is still an impossible obstacle for any weakness in numbers, spine or unity. Some worry about progressives vs. DLC when it is more general than conspiratorial, much like the net effect of major media on real news. Modest success means less change, more addiction to political poisons and a long slow grind to help the nation that may not work and even backfire.

The election of a lot of hothead amateur newbies that is somehow as bad as or worse(inconceivable) than the GOP contract on America generation. That is the mainstream establishment buying into the myth there is a rabid left in America that is as ruthless and dumb and against national interests as their supposed counterparts- who ARE all too real. This is already an impossibility considering the incredibly cautious approach of the leadership to date. Such idealists mostly cannot get elected in the current media, money, ballot, institution rigged system. It might be refreshing opportunity. It might have been necessary and even saved lives and rationality in America, but it already is foredoomed because no one wants to go for the voter directly, just play the rigged rules. It seems such thinking is ruled by self-fulfilling fears and fears that will in fact make the party more like the enemy of all government.

This is generalist thinking, not fair when applied to a lot of able and beloved Democrats, and an opinion that is perhaps only important because if too many Democrats sense these things, feel these fears(even is set aside for the sake of party and nation), it can and will translate into fewer votes in a year when most Americans WANT to vote for the real thing.

We are right to fear fear. The people on top who do not win, do not go broke and die directly as we do,
need to set it aside- completely. We have to. They must, as leaders, act with unstinting courage as well. And trust the people.

[bvar22]

232. Well Sad.

:patriot:

You should post this as a thread topic.
It is too well written to die down here unread by most!

[PATRICK]

233. Ironic mispelling

I actually appreciated that a lot.

[bvar22]

238. LOL

I could go back and edit it, but I think I'll let it stand.

[Neil Lisst]

225. It happens every election cycle ...

Some charming, appealing, hard-charger comes on the scene, and gets passed over for a sitting, elected Dem for a big office.

Polls dictate a lot of things, including probability of getting money. Polls that show a winnable race draw money. Candidates who don't bust 30% in a one to one faceoff with the incumbent can't draw money. No money, no race.

[Tiggeroshii]

228. Wow, I didn't know that.

It makes sense, really. Brown was a congressman for a little more than a decade, yeah? He pretty much has all the benefits an incumbent would have. As much as I would like to deny it, Hackett was really fighting an uphill battle.

[LaurenG]

229. Oh I would have loved to see a good robust race between them

Since I am a supporter of Hackett's I was sad. I think now is a great time to move on and get behind Brown. I feel sad that Hackett was denied but at this point it's water under the bridge. Who did what to whom? I've no clue or evidence to share but I am sorry that we can't have normal political discourse anymore as the last few years have made us all a bit paranoid.

[sendero]

230. Yeah, right....

... that's about like one guy mugging the other then claiming he's the better man because he has more money.

[Douglas Carpenter]

235. thank you Skinner for putting out the facts clearly

[RazzleDazzle]

242. Selective facts, if you ask me

Here is a wider perspective and more context on those "facts" --

Hackett wanted to fight to the finish. He raised nearly a half-million dollars in the last quarter of 2005, matching Brown’s fundraising. But Brown entered the Senate race with $2 million in the bank, a strategic cushion. Early polls show both Brown and Hackett running in a dead heat against DeWine. An internal poll done in February for the Hackett campaign that was obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer showed Brown leading Hackett by 20 points, but Hackett took the lead if voters simply heard both candidate’s bios. The analysis concluded, “If Paul Hackett can raise the funds necessary to communicate his message to the voters of Ohio, he will present Sherrod Brown with a formidable challenge in May.”

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/02/hackett_drops_out.html


I would also point out that any poll right now, ANY poll right now (absent a race accompanying it within the next 2 weeks or so) is going to be measuring name recognition as much as anything else. Just the facts of life. The reality of that is reflected in the internal polling data cited above, where the bios of the two men favored Hackett.

[LittleClarkie]

252. If he wanted to fight to the finish

why didn't he?

[FreedomAngel82]

259. So why did Hackett give up?

If Hackett knew for a fact he was the popular one and would win the primary easily why did HE drop out?

[autorank]

265. Gret post...so Brown didn't rais 2.0 mil,, he had it in the bank.

Gee...what a mess. The treatment of the olling data is really excellent. After they heard the bios, it was even.

[Guaranteed]

237. Usually, we frame these issues in terms of electability. nt

[ulysses]

243. whatever the fundraising numbers are, and although I have some qualms

with party higher-ups preempting a primary, I agree with your last part, Skinner. This is not a DLC issue.

[Susan43]

244. I'm pissed!

At Hackett!!! If he didn't think that what the leadership was doing he could have gone ahead and run. But once he decided not to run the fact that he aired dirty laundry directly to the press is just flat out disgusting! If the repubs have picked this up and use it to help DeWine, Hackett is directly to blame.

In the scheme of things what is the important thing? Isn't it to pick up seats for the dems? Did you hear him say he would work with the party and help win seats? I sure didn't. Did you hear him wish Brown good luck? I sure didn't. What a poor sport. I'm glad he dropped out. Very few people walk right in and get a senate seat. And after the way he took the news he wasn't being supported, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him in the other party.

IMO He didn't act like much of a man when he got the bad news. And I don't want to hear any BS about his service record, blah, blah, blah. I'm old enough to be his mother and if he were my son, I slap him upside the head for the disgracful way he reacted.

I hope to God you Ohio dems can get together and work to get Brown elected. So, get off your butts and make sure people know that DeWine is trying to pass a bastard of a bill to cover the president's ass. And consistently votes against veterans. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNIP0711

[David Zephyr]

245. Hackett Turned "The Math" & Conventional Wisdom Upside Down Last Year.

On July 26, 2005 just a short time before the "special election" for the Congressional Seat, Paul Hackett was what Salon Magazine called "an underdog". That was the understatement of the year.

The "math" at that time posed perhaps far greater odds against Hackett, an unknown pitted against a well-financed Republican candidate in one of the most "secure" GOP districts in the country.

Any poll taken even just months before the election showed Hackett trailing Jean Schmidt.

Of course, we all know what happened on election night. One of the tightest congressional elections in history. Paul Hackett made Democrats all around the nation feel proud.

I don't know why you felt obligated to post this Skinner. I join with you in now supporting Brown and I certainly hope that Brown will win the Senate seat, but it's now his to lose, not win.

I agree with what Gary Hart wrote about how Hackett was treated. It was shabby. It was disgraceful. It was not one of the more sterling moments of our Party.

[incapsulated]

248. THANK YOU.

If "cash on hand", especially from those who have money left over from previous campaigns, and talk about "internal polls" are reason enough to throw out the primary process and anoint a candidate, I want Skinner and everyone else telling me to "face the facts" to start sporting Hillary avatars right now and have the terms "grassroots" and "netroots" abolished from DU.

I was supporting Hackett because I believed he could WIN. But at the end of the day the choice was for the voters of Ohio, who should know best which candidate to represent them. Too bad they no longer have that choice.

[FreedomAngel82]

260. So why didn't he stay in

Why did HE give up? You should be talking to him about your anger.

[incapsulated]

272. I am tired of answering this "question"

At this point I consider it disingenuous at best.

[Nothing Without Hope]

253. COMPILATION of some of the Hackett withdrawal threads:

(not comprehensive, but shows pretty much the whole range of response)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x410238
thread title (2-13-06 GD): NYT-reporting Hackett is dropping out of Ohio Sen race & perhaps politics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x410500
thread title (2-13-06 GD): Democratic Party? Fuck you bastards. You went too far. (Paul Hackett)
Comment/excerpt: Based on same NYT article. “’This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me,’ said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x410306
thread title (2-13-06 GD): A message for Paul Hackett
Comment/excerpt: “Fuck the Democratic Party if they won't stand by him. We need a no-nonsense guy like him out there telling it like it is, not playing at conciliation with those who would destroy everything our country stands for. My advice to Paul...Go Bull Moose on their ass. And, no, I don't mean he needs to emulate that mealy-mouthed blogger who can't figure out which side of the fence he's on, but instead emulate the attitude and actions of another veteran who wasn't known for rolling over when asked.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x410579
thread title (2-13-06 GD): Before everyone loses their mind about Paul Hackett's withdrawal...
Comment/excerpt: Will Pitt post. “Now, I like Paul Hackett. But before DU goes spiralling off into a bender about DCCC/DLC centrist bastard fuckasses, take a look at Sherrod Brown. If the DCCC is backing good progressives like Brown, then all the yelling doesn't seem to jibe.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x411188
thread title (2-14-06 GD): I'm from Ohio.... And I am glad that Hackett withdrew....
Comment/excerpt: “I am working a statewide campaign for Supreme Court...They guy I am backing was promised support since last year... Has been all over the state while still serving as a judge...Well, that all evaporated last week when the party started to back another guy...We didn't cut and run... We resolved to keep fighting and we know we are going to win because we are backing the right candidate....So, my point is this...Politics is a Marathon... Not a sprint... Not everyone is going to like or support you... As soon as you open your mouth you will make enemies... People will hate you just because... It's a profession based on people and carries all the foibles, mishaps and broken hearts and promises that dealing with people always has and always will carry with it...”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x411952
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Wow. Has Markos sold his soul, or what?
Comment/excerpt: “Uh, Markos? It's the other way around: Brown announced his candidacy after (not before} Hackett did.“

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x411034
thread title (2-14-06 GD): TOTAL Bull Shit. What is their major malfunction. Thank you Paul Hackett
Comment/excerpt: Autorank cites same NYT article but also gives past article on Hackett as a strong candidate: “Hackett had three major advantages that many Democratic candidates lack. He had just finished an active duty tour in the military, he aggressively engages in intense political combat without flinching, and he has a concealed weapons carry permit. In addition to that, he opposes the war in Iraq with firsthand knowledge, is strong on national security, and has harsh comments for his Republican opponents.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x411657
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Brown, Hackett and a primary brawl (my last post on this tonight)
Comment/excerpt: Will Pitt. Excerpt: “No one disputes the idea that Hackett is a good man. But Sherrod Brown is also a good man, and frankly, he was there first. He did it the hard way. He ran for a House seat, and won, and served, and stood solidly for progressive principles. Now he is running for Senate. Neither Hackett nor Brown, nor the Democrats, nor our need to take seven Senate seats and fifteen House seats in order to get those gavels out of Frist's and Hastert's hands, would have been served by a bruising primary smash between Brown and Hackett. Two issues I have seen a lot here: One, that the people should choose who gets to serve. Two, party leaders shouldn't do that choosing. These dovetail, but deserve to be spliced….”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x419578
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Gary Hart:Pressuring Hackett To Quit Campaign is Old Politics at its Worst
Comment/excerpt: “Telling Paul Hackett that he cannot run for the Senate, and purportedly calling contributers to dry up his funds, is the worse kind of old politics. It will drive voters away from the supposedly "open" party, the Democrats, and further add to public cynicism about how politics in America is played in the early 21st century.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x412688
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Paul Hackett STATEMENT on pullout from Ohio Senate campaign
Comment/excerpt: “…Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign. But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x415760
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Howard Dean has something to say about Paul Hackett
Comment/excerpt: “…As you know, Iraq veteran Paul Hackett left the race for U.S. Senate in Ohio today. In his campaigns, Paul had the courage to stand up and speak out for what he believes in. That is how Democrats will win elections and take this country back for the people who built it. Our country and our party are better off when people like Paul step up and run for office, up and down the ballot, in every election. I also want you to know that it is the policy of the Democratic National Committee not to intervene in contested primaries….”Excerpt:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x439636
thread title (2-16-06 GD): Do the Math ... Brown: 46% and $2.37 million ... Hackett: 24% and $229,783

[Nothing Without Hope]

276. ...and the thread on the Mother Jones article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x445924
thread title (2-16-06 GD): How The Democrats Took Paul Hackett Out - Mother Jones
Comment/excerpt: “Hackett was running against seven-term Akron Democrat Rep. Sherrod Brown in a May primary, with the winner going on to face two-term Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in November (assuming DeWine wins his own primary against a longshot Republican challenger). DeWine is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbent Republicans, and the national Democratic Party is pulling out the stops to defeat him. But first, the Democrats had to get Hackett out of the way. The weapons used in the rubout included economic sabotage, whisper campaigns, and threats.”

[stevietheman]

254. A snapshot months ahead of the primary...

and if the party leadership preferred Brown, then they should have just been patient enough for him to win the primary, instead of actively trying to ruin Hackett's candidacy. Now it will be much easier for Repubs to treat Brown as the ill-gotten nominee who is unproven across the state and of course "too liberal". It would have been much harder to paint Brown in those terms if he had actually won against Hackett.

[Rex]

256. Hackett should slug it out as the favorite in another House run.

This whole Republic thingy sets up a hierarchy of money, power and timing. The Democratic Party owes Hackett big...they better get off their asses and pull him back into the fold before they lose him forever. Make him a primary priority and get him on some choice, powerful committee. Don't let Hackett quit Dem leaders.

[leesa]

261. BFD. What happened to people electing their own representatives in

primaries??? If we wanted to be fucked up money people like Republicans, we would be Republicans.

[autorank]

266. Alito gets a bye; Hackett gets stabbed in the back. n/t

[GoneOffShore]

268. Thank you Skinner.

I too have gotten tired of the needless energy that's been wasted over this.

And my thought has also been that Hackett might well be a Rovian plant, set up to sow seeds of dissension among us.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that this may be the case, just a gut feeling.

[madfloridian]

270. This is what most of us think it is really about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2464031

Not money or polling, but discouraging new people to run.

[VolcanoJen]

273. That's definitely a point that so many are missing.

At a time when the #1 issue on the minds of Americans remains the Iraq War, you'd think we'd seek more credibility on the issue, you'd think we'd finally start challenging them on it and seeking a new debate.

I worry about the message it sends to the other Iraq War veterans currently running or contemplating, when we kick an Iraq War Marine veteran to the curb without so much as a "thanks for playing."

[Kolesar]

277. You credit Paul Hackett with having a thin skin

Was there no one in Paul's campaign who could sidle up to him and tell Paul that things like this happen all the time in primary politics? Paul may have been charismatic, but that does not mean that he had on some "red shirt" that meant you were not allowed to "touch him" and that he was to be given special treatment. (that's a football metaphor)

When Sherrod Brown entered the race, I am sure he knew he would have to displace a phenom. The way I looked at it was that the Ohio Democratic Party had finally put up a power candidate with a fantastic record and that there was no way I could not back Sherrod.

[OzarkDem]

279. You make a good point

Sherrod tried to do the right thing all the way through this situation and he knew he was in a "no win" situation regardless of what he did. He supported Hackett heavily in his first race, agreed to let him run for the senate seat when he lost(probably against his better judgement) then had to step in when it became obvious Hackett was too inexperienced to take on such a huge, expensive race.

Sherrod has been asked many, many times to run for Senate and Governor of Ohio and always turned it down because he had a strong commitment to staying in the House and using his seniority on Energy and Commerce to advance health issues. This probably wasn't a decision he made lightly.

[DancingBear]

283. "then had to step in"

Now THAT'S funny.

[FrenchieCat]

271. Sorry Skinner......but it ain't about the MATH,

why some of us are pissed as hell,

it's about the ENGLISH! :eyes:

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

280. They'll both lose -its not about the money or polling... ITS THE COUNTING

Its about the counting of the votes.

All of us know it. Some of us want to disbelieve it. All of us are going to hate it when it happens AGAIN!

Candidates like Hackett have a chance of creating real groundswell and election results that can't be rigged by 51-49 results (Again!).

Ohio is ripe for change. I have relatives there chomping on the bit of armed insurrection, let alone putting taking back their state through democracy!

Fool me once, Shame on Hackett, Fool me twice, Shame on WHO?

[autorank]

284. The COUNTING is the ultimate math. We lost the big ones! Wake up.

Thank you Full_Metal_Hat!!!

Here's how Hackett got screwed the first time on the special election in Ohio's 2nd. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2465326
I should know, I'm the only person I know who actually wrote an extended investigative piece about it. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm

Screwed in Florida -- Supreme Court Counting

Screwed in Georgia 2002 -- Diebolds special patch just before the election reverses 6=10% leads by our Governor and Senate candidates.

Screwed in 2004 -- BIG TIME

Screwed on Ohio's 2005 2nd District Special Election -- by a humidity crisis.

Screwed in Ohio's Special Election 2005 -- new Diebolds installed by Blackwell just prior to the election and, voila, 30-40% leads for two key election integrity initiatives are reversed and turn into 30% losses (against polling data from the Dispatch, one of the very best predictor polls in the biz).

Wake the fuck up! It's all over BECAUSE of the COUNTING.

All of this energy goes for nothing if we continue along WITHOUT ONE MAJOR NATIONAL DEMOCRAT CRYING FRAUD...ALL OF IT.

[Kolesar]

288. You are absolutely correct, but this is not a voting thread

Had no trouble reading the big type, FMJ

[Beelzebud]

282. Yep, the more I've read about this the more I question Hackett's eagerness

to "leave politics".

How committed was he? Not very much, apparently.

[elaineb]

286. Everybody who keeps saying Brown absolutely can't beat DeWine...

...better be willing to eat your words in Nov.

And for God's sake, stop saying Ohio's a Red State!! I think it's very interesting that in these Hackett/Brown threads, it's not the outside-Ohio "elitists" calling Ohio a Red State, but our beloved friends in the SW of the state. The 2004 election results should have put paid to the idea that Ohio's overwhelmingly conservative. I'm sure living in southwestern OH it must LOOK that way, but those of you who live there do realize you're in the MOST conservative part of the state, right? Don't you think that might be coloring your view somewhat?

And for those who keep going on about how Brown doesn't play in SW Ohio, could one of you please explain to me how Hackett would do any better than Brown in that area with his uncompromising stance on gay marriage? For the record, I'm very impressed by his stance on this issue, but how can you say that he would have won votes from Republicans with it? I'd love to hear an answer to this question...

I admit that I'm a Brown supporter and a pretty far-left Democrat. But I think many of those who supported Hackett are disingenously hiding the fact that his center-right stands on quite a few issues fit very comfortably with their own beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, but I wish some of you were more willing to admit it, instead of pretending your support of Hackett was based solely on a hard-eyed assessment of the Ohio political landscape.

All that being said, I understand the frustration and angry feelings if Hackett was your preferred candidate. When I first heard Hackett had left the race and his reasons for it, it didn't sit right with me either. But I'm not sure we've heard the full story yet, and as others more knowledgeable about politics have said, this kind of political maneuvering and pressure is far more common than many of us seem to realize. I personally don't like it, even though I support Brown. But I hope you Hackett supporters would have gotten just as upset if Brown had been the one who was pressured to quit.

[MrBenchley]

287. Remember, many of those saying Brown can't win

because he's too liberal have been howling for months that we should jettison every one to the right of Kucinich (which would certainly include Hackett) in some sort of party-wide purge.

I don't see any reason Brown couldn't win under the best of circumstances...and this is far from the best of circumstances for the Ohio GOP. There's Coingate, and when Chimpy came to Ohio the other day, DeWine had to make a point of keeping far away from the visit.

[EFerrari]

289. Reflecting on this thread, I'm sort of awestruck.

Because at bottom, you argue for the means justifying the ends.

And how easy it would be to mark that.

[upi402]

290. I was staying out of the Brown/Hackett thing cuz I had no info

I heard Hackett on AAR but had not heard from Brown's side. And it's easy to imagine a canard being floated.

So far I've come to the following, for myself;

I know Brown is a proven progressive and has winning $$$. But Hackett has the force field of Iraqi War veteran glowing around him.
This would do 2 things that would propel the liberal cause is 2 ways (IMHO);

1) Extend our movement past a confined area, and into the national eye. That has media and also appeals to MOR 'support the troops' moderate Republicans.

2) Enliven the liberal base, which Dean has shown to be a very successful means of grassroots fund raising.

So he could stand on the stage with the other Iraq War vets in 2008 at the Democratic National Convention and dare the Rethuglicans to Shitboat-Vet the Iraq War soldiers while their brethren are in the field. He could campaign for liberals and take the oxygen from the neocon toads' fire-setting tactics.

Then I think, 'sure would be nice to have a win and get a person like Brown in there.'
Then I think, 'If he would allow this to happen to Hackett, what might he do to us?'
Then I think, 'That's politics.'
Then I think, 'That's why we don't donate and organize for these shitbags that screw us cuz we just keep taking it.'