I always supported Brown over Hackett

[ShaneGR]

That's right, I did. Why? Because he's a real progressive candidate with a long history of sticking it to the man. He's got experience and he's got the credentials for the job. He has consistently been pro-labor, anti-gun, pro-healthcare, pro-education, pro-choice, pro-immigration, anti-war, etc. over the course of his long career. Many people also forget he's already been elected to statewide office before in Ohio (Secretary of State). Many people, who probably aren't from Northeast Ohio don't realize all the work in organizing this guy has done. Even over the last three years, he's organized and led two anti-war marches in NE ohio (One during a Bush visit where his group walked 2 miles in the poring rain to Bush's speech in violation of their free speech zone permitting) and also pretty much singlehandedly organized opposition to the recent CAFTA legislation.

His wife Connie Shultz is a columnist for the Plain Dealer, they're like exactly the same, read her columns at cleveland.com, or better yet, check out Brown's bio on his own website.

Did anyone stop to think that they saw something in Hackett that made them worry about his chances for a general election victory? Maybe he didn't have enough experience for a Senate seat. Maybe he was too prone to fly off the handle (Slash & Burn tactics as we're seeing now). Maybe they didn't like his positions on gun control or immigration (Which were right in line with the DLC by the way).

Finally, the polling numbers. Hackett's own internal polls showed him 20 points back. 20 points! Well, I was with the majority, and reread this thread to see why it was a majority.

I have nothing against Hackett, in fact I REALLY wish he would of gone after that bitch he almost got the last time around and gotten us another House seat. He should have. But what really bothers me is that we've been having a DLC vs Progressive argument on this board for years and many of the same progressives backed a guy with little experience who held many DLC positions over a solid progressive. Go figure.

[Botany]

1. and he will lose the general election

liberal n.e. ohio dem will pull nothing in repug areas of the state.

Hackett has proven ability in that area.



Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[wakeme2008]

4. LOL love the picture

and what you say is so true.

Who will pull more votes in the Southern part of the state.

IMHO not Brown.

[MrBenchley]

8. "proven ability?" He LOST the only race he ever ran

and to a crazy woman, no less.

[Botany]

19. does it get dark in your world @ might?

Hackett pulled huge #s in the most conservative district in the state.

And the voting data seemed to indicate some manipulation in favor
of Schmidt.

I live in Ohio and I might have more then a little knowledge of politics here.

[ShaneGR]

65. Born and raised in Ohio, Akron, also lived in Colombus 3 years

Been in and out of Cincinnati all my life. Hackett was so close, because his opponent is and was a complete idiot. And she's completely vulnerable to even a halfway decent candidate now. I only hope that Hackett removes his head from his nether regions and runs against her again, then his political career won't be completely over.

[rexcat]

21. Not really...

He was on city council here locally and I do believe that was an elected position.

The race in the 2nd Congressional District that I think you are referencing was just a little more complicated than you present in your thread. The 2nd Congressional District (in Ohio), which I live in, is 2:1 hardcore right-wing nut religious repukian. For Paul Hackett to garner 48% of the vote, where every other repukian in the past 30 years usually won by 70-30 split is remarkable.

As a liberal Democrat I am out of step politically in this part of Ohio. These people look at you as if you had two heads if you don't think like them. They are not used to having someone counter their political opinions. I have been harassed and have had my car keyed for having pro-Democratic bumper sticker on my car. What I find typical of progressive/liberal Democrats from NE Ohio or elsewhere in the country is a total lack of understanding and empathy for us who live here in SW Ohio.

[VolcanoJen]

35. MrBenchley...

... I'd really love to invite you down here to the Ohio Second District.

I want to drive you by the "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" signs that to this day line the rural roads and outskirts of Cincinnati. Just the other day, I was on Fields-Ertel road outside of Sharonville, in the OH-2, and right there on a suburban corner was a sign I hadn't seen before. It had a photo of a woman, a photo of a mangled fetus, and the writing "I regret my abortion."

I want to drive you just a few miles north of the district, so you can see for yourself The Giant Buttery Jesus of I-75.

I want you to tune into the most popular radio station in the region, WLW. I want to see if you can sit through even a few minutes of Mike McConnell or Bill Cunningham's shows.

For Paul Hackett to come thisclose to beating a Republican in the OH-2 is nothing short of a goddamned miracle. His stunning result shocked Republicans in the district and nationwide. There wasn't a pundit on national cable TV that didn't want to declare Danger for Republicans in Ohio when he burst onto the scene.

Come to the OH-2. You can stay at my house if you wanna.

[MrBenchley]

49. You can see the same crap everywhere

Even here in liberal New Jersey.....

"I want to see if you can sit through even a few minutes of Mike McConnell or Bill Cunningham's shows."
They can't be much worse than the racist shitheads that rant on NJ101.5....

"For Paul Hackett to come thisclose to beating a Republican in the OH-2 is nothing short of a goddamned miracle."
And yet it wasn't a win, was it?

I'm proud of how Anne Wolfe, the Democratic challenger in 04, did against Scott Garrett, the imbecile in my Republican enclave of NJ. But I'm not deluding myself into thinking she won when she lost.

[VolcanoJen]

51. Eh.

You guys just don't get it.

I'm so sick and tired of everyone outside of Ohio telling us what we're about.

Here's what we're about: A Permanent Republican Majority Statewide.

All the help and judgment and kind words from the northeast won't do one bit of good here. You should have seen the clowns from the Kerry campaign when they came down here and told us how to win. That worked out well. Going back and reading through the post-election threads in the Ohio Forum breaks my heart to this day. Their advice was laughable.

MrBenchley, it's not a black and white thing with Hackett's showing in the OH-2. You can't just write it off like that. Do you honestly believe Sherrod Brown will do better in the OH-2 than Paul Hackett? See, the OH-2, OH-3, OH-1, OH-7, OH-8... that's where we'll lose to Mike DeWine.

John Boehner, the new Republican Majority Leader, was the Congressman from OH-8. OH-8 is about two miles from the core of OH-2... I wonder how Sherrod Brown will do in that district?

That's why it should have been time for a Democratic candidate for Senate who could appeal to the districts we always lose in. Maybe in 2010 we'll finally figure that out.

Don't you guys in New Jersey have TWO Democratic Senators and a newly-elected Democratic Governor? Who's your congressman?

Yeh, Ohio and New Jersey have a lot in common.

[MrBenchley]

You know, if you write off most of the state BEFORE you start

you're guaranteeing you won't win.

[VolcanoJen]

53. Oh, I absolutely agree with you.

Unfortunately, that's the way the state party bosses have run every statewide election here since 1990.

MrBenchley, you're my friend, you have been for years, and I do want to give you a :hug: I know you mean well.

But it's just incredibly frustrating to be a Cincinnnati Dem this week.

I guess I'd be better off to just go lick my wounds for awhile. :-(

[Jane Austin]

9. Didn't the OP say that Brown had won a state-wide race before?

He must have pulled something from Southern Ohio.

I just love DU. I can't believe I know ANYTHING about Ohio politics! :)

[VolcanoJen]

46. He last won a statewide election in... wait for it....

1986!!

I'm not really that good at math, but I'm pretty sure that was TWENTY YEARS AGO.

God, Ohio is a much different place now...

He lost his reelection bid for Secretary of State in 1990. He lost that election to our current governor and major-league unpopular asshole, Bob Taft.

So, maybe in 1986 Brown has support in southwestern Ohio, but by 1990 I guess it had all but evaporated.

[rexcat]

15. Well stated...

see my post down stream.

[Deep13]

20. "Hackett has proven ability in that area. "

By losing to Jeanne Schmidt.

When did high 40's start counting as doing "well". To do well, one must win. 51% is doing 'well' and 60% is doing very well.

We will not win the R areas of the state regardless, so why pick someone who is weak everywhere when we can have someone who is strong in many places. Brown will do well in Cleveland, Akron, Youngstown, Columbus, Toledo and will probably do OK in at least the urban parts of Cincy. That is most of the state by population. Getting people on your side is only half of the battle. The other half is getting them to show up and getting them to fork-out cash.

[VolcanoJen]

52. Hmmm.

We Cincinnati Democrats really don't appreciate the "Forget Cincinnati" attitude that statewide Democrats have toward us.

I imagine the Democratic voters in OH-1, OH-2, OH-3, OH-7 and OH-8 feel similarly abandoned.

How well has the "Forget Cincinnati" strategy worked out for us in every statewide election since 1990?

[VolcanoJen]

31. A-to-the-Men

Does Brown seriously have any hard support, any at all, outside of northern and northeastern Ohio?

[KittyWampus]

39. Did Hackett seriously have any hard support outside DU?

[VolcanoJen]

43. Well, seeing as how I actually live in Cincinnati...

... uh, yes, I can assure you he did.

As a matter of fact, the Cincinnati folks I know who couldn't wait to vote and work for Paul Hackett have never even heard of Democratic Underground.

[KittyWampus]

38. So you are happy with REPUG-LITE! lololololololol

:rofl:

So many DU'ers (not saying YOU) lambast "DLCers" that live in very conservative areas for taking rightwing positions.

But in the ONE instance of Paul Hackett, it's suddenly okay?

Within one month of getting elected, DU'ers would have been labelling and deriding Hackett as a DINO.

[goodhue]

45. Brown was elected Ohio secretary of state in 1982 and 1986

So he has proven ability at winning statewide race.

[FreedomAngel82]

60. Do you have any polls on that?

[ShaneGR]

64. Proven Ability? You mean losing the only election he ever ran in?

Or am i missing something? Seriously, I like facts. And the facts are the guy ALMOST beat a complete douchebag of a Republican candidate. And if he was smart, he'd have run against her again. Instead he overreached for the Senate, despite the FACT that he is 0-1 in campaigns. Actually, 0-2 if you count this one.

[johncoby2]

2. well said!

I agree, Hackett has a great opportunity to defeat the beotch and should run with it. Leave the Senate seat to someone with a bit more experience, especially of both could win!

It is a win and a win.

Sometimes Democrats have to look to win the war, and not just the battle. Look a bit further ahead. If Brown has the creditials to win in the Senate, and Hackett has the ability to win in the house, it is a win for everyone.

[acmejack]

3. You actually live in Ohio. You use facts.

And you make sense. None of which will save you. I'll call the fire investigators to examine your charred remains.

[sui generis]

6. oh yeah, Ohians are unique in this

never forget if you don't live there you couldn't possibly know anything about it (or even know how to use "facts"), especially in the age of the internets.

:eyes:

[rexcat]

27. Ohio's political climate is complicated...

there are 5 political regions in Ohio with different needs and wants. That would be Cleveland metro area, Toledo metro area, Columbus metro area, Cincinnati metro area, Dayton metro area and the rural part of the state which is very large. Some would say there is an additional area comprising of Youngstown/Canton/Akron. The politics is different in each region. Take the Cincinnati metro area. Cincinnati is a mix of conservative repukes and Democrats and a small pocket of liberalism. For the most part the area is right-wing religious conservative. Three of the major anti-choice groups in the country originated here! Cleveland is more mixed and much more liberal and the Democrats control the city but as you go out of Cleveland it gets more conservative. Lots of blue collar types in the area. The rural part of the state in very conservative. The southeast part of the state is more like Kentucky and West Virginia in nature. I could go on but I hope you get the point.

If you don't live in Ohio there is no possible way you can understand the state in any political sense. Hell, we have a hard time with it ourselves and we live here.

I think the Brown vs. Hackett debate is typical of what is going on in the state but I don't have the time or patiences to explain it to you.

[sui generis]

30. well thank you for your patiences so far

It was a good explanation however impatiences and out of times you were. ;)

You see, people like me gave money to Hackett, and wouldn't give money to Brown. So we have a story too - maybe not as important as locally.

The real problem, to explain with great patiences, is not Hackett vs. Brown anymore. It is the willingness of our political "leadership" to call shots and expect us to vote for their handpicked candidate because they take our vote for granted. If it can happen in your by gosh complicated state, it can happen in any other complex political environment.

News, by the way, is that most urban areas tend to be more liberal leaning, and most rural areas not. It's not complicated - just a political fact that we had damn well better learn to deal with or else expect to continue losing or compromising ourselves right out of our principles.

[rexcat]

42. I also gave to Hackett...

I also live in the 2nd Congressional District of Ohio and supported him last August. I am very disappointed in what has happened. As one poster in another thread stated "That is not his personality. Something happened here and they are not telling us." Something to ponder.

What I meant was Ohio is complicated politically. Each region has its own issues and they are different with each "region." It is not just about conservative burps/rural areas vs urban setting. The industrial base for each region is different and the economic situations are different in each region. It's a wacky state! Sorry for not stating it better!

[VolcanoJen]

55. I actually think this is a good post...

... and I actually think that you might be one of the out-of-staters who get Ohio.

You're definitely hitting the biggest part of this argument, though... that our political "leadership" is calling the shots and that they take our votes for granted. I think once the Hackett supporters (self included) have a little time to catch their breath after being gut-punched, we'll be able to take another hard look at this "race."

But I do want to say that I think it's bad form to pick on someone's grammatical errors in a post. It's not persuasive, it's not nice, and it's damned condescending.

[sui generis]

56. okay miss condescending

it was done in good fun - a gentle poke in the ribs.

Now where did I put that ladder, ma'am. I'm sure you'll be needing some help descending from that high and mighty horse you're on!

DISCLAIMER: more gentle rib poking

:hi:

[VolcanoJen]

57. pfffffffttttt

:P

Seriously, you made excellent points, and I'm pretty sure you and I are on exactly the same page on this issue.

[sui generis]

5. Sure - here's my take

Brown doesn't have any quotes supporting gay issues that are directly attributable to him. He voted against the marriage amendment, which is not the same thing as supporting gay issues. He has no mention of equality issues on his website issues list.

Hackett on the other hand was quite outspoken on this issue. Gay issues killed Hackett's chances.

Yeah, Brown is a real progressive candidate as long as you're hetero. Not being anti-gay does not by default make you for equal rights.

Having said that, I agree that a candidate has to have some meat and a chance at winning. If we had left Hackett in the race for at least a little longer, perhaps it would have forced Brown to address the issues that Hackett was stronger on. But that was EXACTLY why he got leaned on.

If the democrats want to win by a landslide, they need to go all out anti-gay, not just erase us and any potential lawmaker who supports us from the discussion.

[Deep13]

14. That's true.

The Rs are already gearing up for Smear the Queer, Part Deux. This time, to get out the Fundy vote, the ballot issue will be for a state const. amendment to ban gay adoption, because, you know, that is a real problem. :eyes: O, who will protect us from this challenge to our parochial and ignorant values?! Of course, two years ago, it was gay marriage that had to be stopped despite the fact that it was illegal anyway, had no prospect of becoming legal and has nothing to do with the 50% failure rate of heterosexual marriages. Still, it got the Fundies out and made it close enough for Blackwell to steal the election for Dubya. Almost 3/4 of voters supported the marriage ban in 2004. That includes about half of the Kerry voters. Consequently, no politician who supports gay rights has any chance in an Ohio statewide race. I agree that it sucks, but if it is a choice between pushing 90% of our agenda versus none of it and in fact loosing ground, well there really is no choice.

[Deep13]

7. Brown is the most unassuming, approachable politician I know.

If it is possible to overcome DeWine's eventual smear campaign, Brown can do it. (Remember the shit DeWine was saying about John Glenn in 1992.) Brown survived the 1994 purge and has excellent organizational skills. On human rights, the environment, tax equity, health care reform, and open government he has always been vocally on the right side of the issue. He consistently gets an "A" from the League of Conservation Voters. There is nothing in Brown's record to cause progressive-thinking person to be retiscent. If he pulls this off, he will be a loud and consistent advocate for regular people and for the truth.

[sui generis]

10. human rights? why isn't it on his "issues list"?

I'm going to beat this horse until way past dead.

And "regular" people? I'm a progressive thinking gay person with a family and property living in a state and country that thinks I shouldn't manage my own assets or marry whomever I choose. In the 21st fucking century!

What is Brown's stance on that? Why can't we find direct quotes?

[Deep13]

16. regular people vs. rich elites

Human rights, I mean things like promoting unions, health care, minimum wage, consumer protection etc. etc. I don't know why his website says what it says.

You won't find any quotes on gay rights because he does not want to commit political suicide here in the Mississippi of the North where fundy churches outnumber taverns.

[sui generis]

23. well then the battle lines are drawn.

This is not unique to Ohio. If my party has chosen to ignore or distance itself from our issues because they don't think they can win by supporting us -- then we have no obligation to support the democrats. I'm not surprised, I saw this coming well over a year ago.

And the democratic party in general has no room to whine when we withdraw our support of the democratic party and work hard within the gay community to withhold our vote everywhere.

After all, we are only reacting to the decision of the democrats who wouldn't vote to support a democrat that supported gay issues -- a decision we did not make and obviously don't have enough power to influence. Why should we vote for 90 percent of a great ticket for 80% of all Americans? I wouldn't vote for a white candidate who was a great progressive but only for white people. There's something broken here.

Yeah, we'll take our vote and go elsewhere. If democratic candidates can't agree all across this nation, and can't find an effective way to frame the issue instead of avoiding it, then I'm done being a democrat.

Also, if Brown can't deal with this issue in "blue" Ohio because it'll throw his chances of election, then he'll never deal with it if he wins the election for exactly the same reasons.

On edit: and if the gay vote is enough to throw the election by voting third party, then you will have lost anyway, the election and your principles.

[Deep13]

28. I assume you still want decent health care, a clean environment, ...

...world peace, tax equity, justice for government criminals etc. etc. You won't get it from the Rs.

[sui generis]

32. of course. But those are secondary to my survival.

Why should I vote for your primary issues if you won't vote for mine.

Why should I support a white candidate who only wants world peace, tax equity, justice for criminals, etc. only for white people.

[Deep13]

50. "only for white people", these issues are for everyone.

I have to assume you are a human who is gay and not a gay who is also human. As far as survival goes, I think I understand your point. Sherrod will never support a Federal amendment to ban gay marriage for all time or to make gays a criminal class like the fundies want. Sherrod will never support fascist judges who would oppose personal privacy. Based on what I know of him, I believe he would support laws prohibiting job discrimination or health care discrimination because of sexual orientation. I also believe he supports hate crime legislation making hatred of any minority group an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. I also think a majority of Ohioans agree with these matters. For some reason, it is the marriage issue that makes most voters uncomfortable, not civil rights generally. If liberals had a majority in Columbus, we could push it through anyway and let people learn that society will not collapse because of it, like we did with civil rights based on race. Unfortunately, unlike some other states, we cannot do that here.

[sui generis]

54. sorry for the "drama"

;) but here's a little more: My family is an illegal family, before it's gay or even recognized as human and fully American. My adopted kids can be taken away from me at a traffic stop in Oklahoma, forever, merely because I'm gay. My second cousin twice removed can challenge my last will and testament to my illegal family and partner of nine years, and possibly win a settlement against my estate even though I've never spoken a word in my life to the guy, even though I may have dotted every I and crossed every T on my will, because it attempts to confer the benefits of marriage. My life insurance company can sue my estate for insurance fraud for leaving my partner on there as beneficiary, because it attempts to confer the benefits of marriage. Mortgage companies can legally charge me a higher interest rate (or deny me a mortgage altogether) merely because I'm gay. This is reality. Feeding the family, being sure there is a home to feed the family in next week or next year. I can't gamble with my family.

The democratic party wants us to believe that even though it's not really giving great indicators of support that if we let them stand on our shoulders to climb out of this pit, they'll remember to throw a rope back down and haul us out after. They want me to gamble my family on them.

The political facts are if you had to avoid our issues to get in power you have to avoid them to stay in power.

The other political facts are, as much as I hate to say it, if gays as a political group walk away from democrats, it is because we've survived this long, we can survive until there is a stronger party than what's shaping up right now. The message has to be brutally clear - do not take our vote for granted. Do not say, "we can't mention you, but please vote for us" and expect us to go along. Do not gamble with our vote.

Our families and our lives will not be any better under a democratic administration that got in power by dumping us than a republican administration that's beginning to see clear fracture lines between its right wing and its moderates and centrists on exactly the same issues.

We can survive another term, and another term after that, until the democratic party has figured out how to talk about this in a way that is meaningful, inspiring, and conclusive.

[Deep13]

59. That Issue 1 really screwed things up.

Ohio has never been especially hospitable to gay people, but that was especially draconian. Who knows what constitutes "approximates marriage". So far the domestic violence statute no longer applies to "living together" couples, but only married couples. Time will tell what else will be affected. For what it's worth, I voted 'no' and just about bit the head off the guy that asked me to sign the petition.

I appreciate your candor and have to respect your views on this matter. I wish the public could be a little more rational and a little less superstitious. With people being told by their churches that being gay is somehow sinful, I frankly cannot think of what might turn them around. I suppose Rummy would say we have elections with the voters we have, not the voters we want. This culture is what we have to work with and on this issue it is not very good material.

All I can do is to assure you that Sherrod is not part of this whole "Smear the Queer" (as Stephanie Miller puts it) campaign. Marriage is not a Federal issue anyway (though civil rights genrally have been since the 1860s). I'm sure he did not support issue 1. I cannot blame him for not advertising an issue that is a political weakness for him. Same with his support of gun control and abortion. He won't put that in his ads either. Also, Hackett's withdrawal had a lot more to do with name recognition, fund-raising and connections than it did with gay rights.

[ShaneGR]

61. Call his office and ask them what his position on gay rights is.

Seriously, just because the guy has focused his attention on other progressive issues, that doesn't mean he's anti-gay.

[ShaneGR]

62. After reading through every single response

Not a single one of them, which were negative, addressed the realities of what I posted about. Particularly Hackett's far right stances on gun control and immigration. A few seem to accuse Brown of being anti-gay, which is completely ridiculous and without merit or fact. But facts seem to have been lost on so many at DU.

[sui generis]

66. let me stop you right there

I didn't say he was anti-gay, nor imply it. That is something you read into the posts.

I'm saying that we're being downplayed to stay off the opposition radar as a liability in this race, but IF that's the strategy, we haven't been told about it. So it's only natural to think that we're being cut loose to better his chances.

That's not the same thing at all as "anti-gay".

I respect that he's a great progressive on most issues - I just don't like or trust the strategy, if that's what it is.

The fact that Schumer is anti-equal marriage and Hackett was outspokenly FOR it leads me to think that there may be more to this "strategy" of lowering our profile than I would like to believe.

[WI_DEM]

11. In my opinion both Brown and Hackett were good candidates

but this DLC thing is too much--Brown is actually the more liberal candidate. Hackett has just gotten more press due to his opposition to the war--a war which Brown also opposes. I think they both could win. I think it wouldn't have hurt to have had a primary.

[Yollam]

18. Regardless of who anybody supports...

...shouldn't the voters get to choose, instead of the so-called party "leadership"?

I don't have a horse in that race, but it does seem that Hackett was treated pretty poorly and deserves an apology.

[reality based]

12. I held off on giving to Hackett because I'd read comments

on this site that he was relatively conservative. I was trying to do some research in depth on the relative positions of the two candidates on the issues. I did like his outspoken maverick persona but was concerned that it could just as easily be turned against us if he weren't a true progressive. I'm still conflicted but his subsequent performance is not helping him. Of course he may mean it when he says he's out of politics. I'm sure he feels betrayed by the Democratic big boys who can be pretty ruthless and treacherous, as well as pusillanimous, in their personal political dealings. There's more at stake than ego, however. I refuse to be drawn into a Demobash.

[rexcat]

13. So he has done a lot for NE Ohio

that implies he has ignored 75% of Ohio. About the only thing I would oppose Brown on is his anti-gun stance but here in Ohio we have a very strong pro-gun constitution (stronger than the US Constitution by the way). I am pro-immigration but I agree with Hackett, if you are an illegal immigrant in this country you have broken the law. We (the US) needs to do is re-write the law so we can eliminate the "illegal immigrant situation, which if I am not mistaken is Paul Hackett's stance on this issue. I have a very strong anti-Iraq war stance. I served in the military during a time of war and we should only go that course if all of the alternatives have been exhausted. That was not the case in Iraq. On the other hand agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan. That is were OBL had his operations and the government let him do so freely, even after 9/11/2001. I am extremely pissed that OBL has not been captured!

I think you overstated the point that he "singlehandedly organized opposition to the recent CAFTA legislation." That was bi-partisan in nature and there was a lot of opposition to the bill. It was not done singlehandedly by Brown! I don't buy that premise.

You must also know that DeWine is at great risk of losing the primary election. If that is the case Brown's chances of winning the general election, considering the tenor of the state, diminishes drastically. Very few people are looking at this situation and that is worrisome to me. The repukians in Ohio gave a collective sigh of releif when Hackett dropped out. They are going to frame Brown as a liberal who is out of touch with the majority of Ohioans, and have already started to do it. They have the jump on the framing of Brown and so far I have not seen Brown counter this. NOT GOOD!

[brentspeak]

37. I disagree on the matter of DeWine

If DeWine does win the Republican primary, it's going to be tough for Brown to beat him. This is a Republican who's been moving to the center recently - he's not likely to scare away people who would otherwise have voted for Hackett.

The Brown staffers on these DU boards are trumpeting the latest polls that show Brown with a whopping 3 point margin-of-error advantage over DeWine. A poll taken in Febuary, and one that doesn't factor in the likely lost voters who are pi$$ed off at how Hackett was manipulated.

[rexcat]

48. I think at the end of the day...

as long as Brown tries to honestly tries to reconcile with us Hackett supporters he will get our votes. A major stumbling block is his supporters. They hurting his chances because they have been rubbing this in our noses all week. It has left a bad taste in a lot of our mouths.

On edit: DeWine has pissed off a lot of repukes down here. They are looking for change but not Brown. I still think his chances of winning the primary are tenuous at best.

[Clark2008]

17. Um... I still think the beef is how the Party bosses

usurped the Ohio voters' abilities to pick their favorite in a primary.

It should be up to the votes, not backroom shenanigans.

I can't vote in this race, so who's more liberal than whom doesn't matter to me. What matters is that the PEOPLE get a chance to decide, not the Party elites. A poll means nothing until election day.

[Castilleja]

22. Exactly!

I don't quite know why so many people seem determined not to see that. Let people have their choice.

[Buck Rabbit]

24. Are you assuming Hackett was prevented from running?

Many of the posts like yours seem to infer that somehow a couple of Dems were able to pull him off the ballot.

What actually happened was Hackett quit. He was the one who denied the voters the choice. Now I am not saying he was wrong to quit because as he said, he believed he had no chance and he would be spending the time, energy and money of his supporters for nothing.

The crap about calling donors is just that. What true supporter would withhold their support for their candidate because a supporter of their candidates opponent asked them too?

Why can't members of the party endorse and work for a candidate that they think has the best chance? There must have been 700,000 posts on DU demanding that the democratic leadership support candidates with progressive core values over those with Republican light positions.

If Hackett were to announce he was going to run against Mean Jean tomorrow, and the DCCC threw their support to him over the other Dems as they desperately want to do, would there be 100 threads bemoaning Hackett's unfair advantage?

[sui generis]

25. talking point alert

many posts like yours infer that no outside influence to his decision existed and he just wimped out and ran off, spontaneously.

[Buck Rabbit]

26. Wow, whose talking point did I come up with?

If you read it, I stated exactly what he did, gave the reasons he himself gave for doing it, and didnt say he was a quitter. If HIS assesment of his chances were right, he made a pragmatic decision.

Why did he care what Chuckie Schumer thinks, no one else does? If HE felt he had a chance to win why not stay in the race. The majority of primary candidates are running against someone with support within the party. Sometimes they win. sometimes they don't.

[sui generis]

29. there is reality disconnect though

He DID care what Schumer and Reid thought, and they played upon his sense of duty and honor to not interfere with a candidate who might have a better chance of winning without a dogfight in the primaries.

What the establishment democrats forget is that primaries give pollsters and politicians a chance to see which issues resonate with the voters by comparing and contrasting candidates.

At the end of that dogfight, a good politician will incorporate those additional views and stances to round up more of their own base.

In this case, once again our "intelligensia" ain't so intelligent. They cut the process short and probably lost base voters as a result of shortcutting the primary process.

[Buck Rabbit]

34. So you feel he was being a team player, Good on him.

I see his with drawl as one of 3 possibilities

1) He was being pragmatic. He spoke about this most often that he didn't come into the race with enough money or organization.

2) He was being a team player, as you suggest. He did speak about this, but his with drawl letter and subsequent exit interviews were really a poor attempt at team unity.

3) He is a quitter. This one I don't think is correct, it seems against his nature. And I really did and still do like the guy so I am dismissing this one.

I think and feel his statements back me up that it was mostly #1, being pragmatic about spending anymore of his supporters money on a lost 'cause. With a dose of #2 being a team player, but he really didn't handle being a team player very effectively or there wouldn't be so much anger here on DU.

[sui generis]

44. not the only conclusion I could draw

I would say that Brown supporters are forgetting that DU'ers are more apt to get angry over process than individual performances.

The very fact that there is controversy over this means that is wasn't as cut and dry as half of DU wants the other half to believe, whichever way you look at it.

Ascribing perceived pettiness in his character to our unwillingness to just shut up and accept it is most definitely off target.

Anyway, it's not anger so much as unhappiness. We expect a good potential candidate to have an equal chance - speaking of the broader race, and don't like to see interference in that process, and most notably don't like to see interference in that process when it comes from our party leadership.

His withdrawal letter can be characterized differently too, take note Will Pitt.

I think it may have been an indicator of both a little political naivete and his rapport with his supporters that let him be honest like that about how he felt. I'd rather he say what he felt than lie or give us an uninformative polished glossy "see ya" letter.

So what if it caused a little discussion. I personally wouldn't have done it that way, but I accept that he did and can move on without making prissy judgements of his character.

[VolcanoJen]

58. Seriously...

... can I be your wingman?

[brentspeak]

33. This is the only thing that I agree with the party bosses about:

It would not have been a good thing for a primary to have taken place. A really hard-fought would have weakened the eventual Dem nominee enough so that DeWine would be given an unnatural advantage.

That's as far as my agreement with the Powers That Be extends, though. The way they crudely manipulated and betrayed Paul Hackett may very well have damaged the Democratic Party for years to come.

Schumer and Reid encouraged Hackett to drop the Schmidt race and instead pursue the Senate -- they should have stuck by Hackett instead of switching back to Brown after the latter ingloriously changed his mind.

[sui generis]

36. weakened HOW?

because the dem candidates would dig up mud on each other in the primaries?

I believe that ONE premise is easily offset by the fact that it would have strengthened their base if the winning candidate adopted a strategy of adopting his opponents strengths.

That's the real point of a primary. Otherwise, if your initial statement was true, we shouldn't even have primaries.

[brentspeak]

41. I wouldn't have wanted a primary in this particular case

because both Hackett and Brown have fallen short in their fundraising recently. I don't believe that DeWine will need to spend much money to defeat any Republican challengers, but the Dem nominee in this case would be fighting DeWine with a severly depleted war-chest.

[sui generis]

47. fair enough

and I'm sure that was the logic that Hackett was able to get behind, however much it pained him to do so.

I'm just cringing at the thought though that this rationale could be used anywhere, with a little tweaking, whether appropriate or not.

[goodhue]

40. me too

[derby378]

63. "Anti-gun?" Then Sherrod Brown is "anti-me"

Responsible gun ownership is a progressive virtue. Even if the gun in question makes Sarah Brady flinch.

Other than that, Brown might just have what it takes.