Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Ohio Senate Race Looking Better For Dems?

For much of the last year, Democrats have been touting Ohio as a key state in their hopes of winning back majorities in the House and Senate. The Buckeye State is seen as a strong playing field for Democrats in part because of ethics problems surrounding the GOP governor, Robert Taft. With Taft's problems hurting his party overall, Democrats are heavily targeting several prominent GOP incumbents, including Sen. Mike DeWine and Reps. Steve Chabot, Deborah Pryce and Bob Ney.

The Democratic effort to oust DeWine had been plagued for most of this year by the bitter fallout stemming from Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett's short-lived primary challenge to nominee Sherrod Brown. When he pulled out of the race early this year, Hackett accused Democratic Party leaders in Washington of sabotaging his campaign. So embittered was Hackett that he refused pleas from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) to run for the 2nd District House seat against Rep. Jean Schmidt, whom Hackett had nearly beaten in an August 2005 special election.

Time appears to have healed Hackett's wounds, as evidenced by the joint appearance scheduled for 3 p.m. today in Cincinnati where Hackett will formally endorse Brown. The move is the result of a long meeting between the two principals in the last few days. Although it has taken Hackett six months to get over his perceived snubbing by Democratic bigwigs, his willingness to do so should give Brown a nice bump.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), head of the Senate Democrats' campaign arm, offered kinds words for Hackett today, praising his "statesman-like action," adding: "This is the kind of unity that the DSCC has encouraged in Democratic campaigns and that will help pave the way for victory in 2006."

Of course, the endorsement also allows Republicans to dredge up a number of unsavory quotes that Hackett made when he left the race. Our personal favorite among those provided to The Fix today by the National Republican Senatorial Committee: "You're not gonna throw out a sitting senator in a Republican state with a very liberal Democratic longstanding U.S. Congressman," Hackett told Mother Jones magazine. "How come this doesn't happen in the Republican Party? ... It's because they sit down guys like Sherrod and put him in a corner and make him wear the dunce cap."

Although no recent polling has been released in the race, several independent surveys from earlier this spring showed DeWine with a double-digit lead. The Ohio Poll, which was in the field in May, showed DeWine with a 52 percent to 42 percent lead. A Mason-Dixon poll for the Cleveland Plain Dealer in April put DeWine's lead at 11 points -- 47 percent to 36 percent. The Brown campaign released a survey almost simultaneously that had Brown ahead 45 percent to 44 percent. (The Ohio race is currently ranked as the fifth most likely to change parties on The Fix's Senate race rankings; see also's key race write-up.)

In the 18th...

Speaking of polling, a new survey sponsored by attorney Zack Space's (D) campaign shows the challenger with a double-digit lead over Rep. Ney (R) in the 18th District.

The survey, which was conducted by pollster Alan Secrest, showed Space with a 46 percent to 35 percent edge over Ney. Nineteen percent of the sample was undecided. Secrest links Ney's poor ballot showing to his "dismal" personal favorability and job approval ratings. In the Secrest poll, 33 percent said they had a favorable view of Ney while 49 percent held a negative view; just 29 percent felt positively about the job Ney is doing while 61 percent had the opposite view. The poll was in the field June 28-29, testing 503 likely voters and carrying a 4.4 percent margin of error.

Note that the poll was in the field at the same time that news -- first reported in Roll Call newspaper [subscription only] -- that three top aides to Ney, including his chief of staff and communications director, were leaving the office while another staffer had been subpoenaed by the federal grand jury to testify in connection with the probe into the congressman's alleged illegal dealings of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Those developments have further stoked speculation that Ney will be the first member of Congress indicted in the Abramoff investigation. Although Ney has pledged to seek reelection even if he is indicted, he would likely come under heavy pressure from national Republicans to step aside should that come to pass.

On its face, Ney's 18th District should be an easy hold for Republican (President Bush won it with 57 percent in 2004), but the incumbent's problems have made this one of Democrats top pickup chances this November.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 10, 2006; 2:28 PM ET
Categories:  House , Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Insider Interview: John McCain
Next: Dems (And a Few GOPers) Descend on Iowa


What nobody seems to be looking at when it comes to cash is Hillary Clinton.

If she wants to run for President, shes gonna have to give away some of that cash that she has to gain support from many within the party.

There are other candidates (Spitzer, Feinstein, Kennedy)who will have an excess of money as well. On top of that, there are several candidates which currently lack money that will get money from places like Emily's List, moveon, and the pacs for the up and coming Presidential candidates. Meanwhile, the Republicans are spending money hand over fist in Primaries because of an organization known as the Club for Growth. Their money spending on several primaries going against who the republicans actually wanted and the money that both the CFG and the RNC, RSCC are spending on the Laffey/Chaffee primary is making my day. I'm not saying that the Dems don't have hard fought primaries (Perlmutter/Lamb, Leiberman/Lamont)but they aren't spending tens to hundreads of thousands of dollars in DNC money.

Posted by: Rob Millette | July 11, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"Ohio voters are alot smarter than that. They consistently take the measure of both candidates, and when they do, a decent majority will recognize that Mike DeWine has been one of the most effective US Senators Ohio has ever had" Hey Bob, how about enumerating what DeWhine has accomplished for Ohio besides being a total syncopate for the Bushies??? It's gonna be an awfully short list...

"When DNC backroom bosses control who can run for office, Democarts have lost all right to criticize Bush and company for rigging elections - they are the same thing." -Bob
Not the way I see it. While a politically inexperienced Paul Hackett did give Jean Schmnidt a run for her life as a candidate, I believe this was more a commentary on how bad things are looking for repubs than anything else. His lack of politcal acumen came to the fore in his intemperate remarks over Brown's decision to enter the Senate race. The bottom line for me is this: WHO CAN WIN?? Sherrod Brown has a 30 year history of standing up for working people, was an opponent of this ugly war way before it started and, most importantly, has the political skills to to be an effective Senator.

I am very glad to have Paul Hackett endorse Sherrod Brown. Hopefully he will do more than endorse and will work diligently to get him elected. While some of his supporters may see the endorsement as a sell out, I don't. It looks to me like a pragmatic decision about the importance of electing Democrats in 2006 and not letting personal "hurts" get in the way of doing so. It's just too bad he didn't take up the chance to run for the House again in the fall, I think he could have won. Welcome aboard Paul!

Posted by: GARY STAIGER | July 11, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Peter -

You forgot about John Cranley's strong challenge to Steven Chabot in OH-01. This is an extremely competitive race. Also, Thomas Shaw is giving Ralph Regula a much tougher time than expected in the 16th district. Given that the Democrats have at least three very realistic pick-up opportunities, I think it is foolish to say that there is no real chance that the makeup of Ohio's House delegation will change this year.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 11, 2006 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Sandwich Repairman -

to answer your question, Kerry in '04

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 11, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Actually, you should expect to see fewer voting machine fraud this year, as most Western states (or a majority of their counties) have already moved to mail-in voting, or are at 80 percent absentee mail-in levels already.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | July 11, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Dont you mean WHEN Sutton wins? In the era of Rep corruption and incompetence in Ohio there is more than enough money for the Dems to make almost a clean sweep in Ohio. Ralph Regula in the 16th is also in big trouble but we have a weak candidate

Posted by: Larry | July 11, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Sutton is going to be forced to spend mucho $$ given that the GOP has targetted this race with Lorain Mayor Craig Foltin who has 2 things going for him: 1. He knows how to beat Dems and has never lost a race. 2. Foltin knows how to raise $$$.

The question is, will Sutton have more $$ than Foltin?

If Sutton does win this Dem-district, she will have siphoned off money badly needed by other Dem candidates elsewhere.

Posted by: VIVABUSH04OH | July 11, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

It is sad the truth frightens and offends you. You may yet become a true american and join the majority of us if you stop listening to druggie Rush and phone pervert OReilly. Why you think that stealing 2 pres elections is OK shows how you hate america and the constitution. There are many facist dictatorships in the world you would be more happy living in.

Posted by: Larry | July 11, 2006 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Sutton will need little covering in the 13th because it's heavily Democratic. You'll note it's never been anywhere near the Line.

Democrats are perpetually outfunded, and when they are successful it's because they've done more with less. Strickland, though, currently has a fundraising advantage on Blackwell, to answer your question, but we'll see how that pans out as out-of-state conservatives pour more into Blackwell's war chest:

Posted by: peter | July 11, 2006 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Larry, that sounds like a thoughtful, winning strategy. You should be a paid campaign consultant. that would make sure the Dems continue their slide into oblivion due to lack of anything intelligent to offer. Unless you count "Bush did it" and "Must be Global warming at fault". but these thoughts are running out of steam.

the money is very interesting because the FEC filing deadlines establish the potential of candidates. If they can't raise money on their own, the national party abandons them. On the other hand, if a candidate can show strong financial support, corporations and PACs will continue to max out for the likely winner. Most corporations do not give to challengers and even have trouble supporting anyone in open seats.
Campaign staff, mailings, polling, tv ads and everything else costs lots of money. this is what drives a candidate to victory. Remember when Kerry had to borrow from his wife to stay in the primary. He would have been toast if he hadn't had that resource. That was a very strong indicator of things to come for him.

If you think Burns is going to lose with $6 M in the bank you better wake up. For better or worse, this is how the sausage is made. Bismarck suggests you not look too closely.

Posted by: king of zouk | July 11, 2006 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Duh zouk Dems have won last 4 pres elections Bush cheating is not winning.

Posted by: Larry | July 11, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad you mentioned money, the mother's milk of politics.

A candidate is not likely to be competetive without as much of, or more than, his or her opponent, especially if going after an incumbent like Senator DeWine or Deborah Pryce. I will begin to worry when I see this.

The Dems feel they are competetive in so many races poll-wise but what about money-wise? They run the risk of spreading themselves too thin given all the races they want to go after, like CA-50. Sure Bilbray spent a ton but so too did Busby
("you don need no papers to vote for me"). THat money is forever lost. There is a limit to Dem dollars. Will they be allocated wisely? IS there sufficient money to cover Space as well as Sutton in the 13th? How much will there be for Cordray, Bruner, Dann, Sykes?

Tell me, which Ohio Dem will outspend his/her GOP opponent?

Posted by: VivaCalderon06 | July 11, 2006 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I have been watching from a distance because of the one-minded echo chamber in here. there is almost never anything new or interesting on this blog. the same old rabid Dems saying the same old tired talking points. Try to come up with something solid if you ever want to win another election.
But I wanted to defend a particular point of view since I was mentioned by name in here.

The Ney re-election campaign has also done its own internal poll and found (surprise, surprise) that it is leading by a substantial margin.

But any of these polls must be suspect because they do not state likely vs registered vs citizen or even party affiliation.

If I survey 80% Dems guess what the outcome will be? And if I survey non-voters, how is that pertinant?

On the facts here, last I checked Ney had about a million in the bank and "lost in Space" had about $100K. how many TV ads do you think that will buy? how many mailers pointing out who brought home the bacon? Ney has the support of the unions and the R base. Unless there is some indictment right before the election, this is still an easy win for Ney.

for a good laugh:

Speaking of lost in space, have you seen Pryce's opponent? She is running against George Bush, who doesn't seem to be on the ballot. this is a failed strategy. General Deborah Pryce reported almost 2 million last quarter. She is not going to lose at that rate.

but keep up your wishful thinking. It realy paid off in CA last month -- for Republicans.

Posted by: king of zouk | July 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Measuring a state's party loyalty by examining the makeup of its legislature is a folly of the highest order for that very reason. Ney is vulnerable by his own doing, and Pryce may have a more conservative indepedent running against her, but other than that I don't see any realistic chance of the party makeup of the U.S. House delegation changing.

State offices? Admittedly a Republican strain there, but almost always of the moderate business wing. Blackwell is a rarity; two of the current Republican officeholders are pro-choice. It's in these posts that Dems have a legitimate case for addressing scandals to pick up seats.

Posted by: peter | July 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Yes Kerry won Ohio in 2004 except that the Reps cheated. All Ohioans who are not living in neocon fantasy land know this. Exit polls have never been wrong in 50 years and they said Kerry beat Bush 52% to 48%.

Posted by: Larry | July 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I appreciate the explanation. I will save my discourse on the subject for your next Parsing the Polls.


Survey USA is a member of CASRO and AAPOR and adheres to the standards of CMOR, MRA, NCPP.

Not an endorsement for their company or methodology, just information.

Posted by: RMill | July 11, 2006 10:15 AM | Report abuse

In the 1980s, Ohio had 11 Democratic and 10 Republican US House members. The 18th district was Democratic until 1994, and the 3rd until Tony Hall's retirement. Remember that Rep. Jim Traficant's (D) seat was eliminated in the last redistricting, and Reps. Tim Ryan (D) and Tom Sawyer (D) were put in the same district; thus the 2002 primary. Ohio also had 2 Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, a Democratic state House of Representatives, and a full complement of Democratic statewide officeholders. Dividing the state's largest city, Columbus, into 2 and now 3 congressional districts has insured until now that this growing and increasingly Democratic city--which alone has more than enough people for a House seat--has been unable to elect a Democrat. There's a decent chance that Mary Jo Kilroy will change that this fall. Unfortunately the DCCC ended up without a strong recruit in the 12th district.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 11, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

BW, your description of why Paul Hackett is boring... was boring.

Cilliza, your explanation as to why you consistently leave out 3 major polls was rediculous... and boring.

My guess is that your "research community" is the same group of idiots that you also refer to as your "inside line", you know, the ones who are always wrong.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | July 11, 2006 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Ohio voted for Clinton twice, Bush twice, and Bush Sr. in 1988. That's 2 of 5 for Democrats by my count. Are you claiming that Ohio voted for Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004?

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 11, 2006 12:17 AM | Report abuse

forgot to add that since 48% of Ohio voted for Kerry, that that also indicates that Ohio is Purple.

Posted by: Rob Millette | July 10, 2006 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Ohio is neither Blue nor Red. Its as purple as purple gets. Pointing to the fact that there are a heck of a lot more Republicans in its state house doesn't disprove it. It simply shows that most districts have a small majority of Republicans in them and that the few districts that are Dem districts, the dems heavily out number the Repubs.

Out of 18 congressional districts for the house, Republicans hold 12 of them. 5 of those 12 are expected the be competetive. The Dems are obviously left with 6 seats with 2 competetive seats. Both of the seats are open seats, so the Dems have 6 solid seats to the Republicans 7 with 5 competetive districts currently in Republican hands. That, along with the fact that Dems are favored in almost every state house race shows that Ohio is definetly not Red, but it definetly isn't Blue either.

Posted by: Rob Millette | July 10, 2006 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Ohio is about to elect a Democrat as Governor and as Lt. Gov. by at least a 10% margin.

Ohio is about to elect Sherrod Brown to replace the do-nothing spineless nerd Mike Dewine.

Ohio is about to kick out three republican congressman and elect Democrats in their place.

Ohio is about to elect Democrats as State Treasurer, Sec of State and State Auditor, and is going to increse the number of Democrats in the State House and Senate.

Ohio has voted for the Democrat in 3 of the last 5 Presidential elections.

Ohio is a BLUE state.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 10, 2006 8:08 PM | Report abuse

vivabush04, you are of course correct (and I bet you know why)

Wake up people - polls are meaningless, even exit ones, all that matters is who counts the votes (Stalin). The infrastructure of election fraud is firmly in place in OH and elsewhere. Dems will not be allowed to make significant gains, the danger to this admin is far too great, it cannot be allowed - you can take that to the bank.

VivaBlackwell 06!

Posted by: brock samson | July 10, 2006 7:48 PM | Report abuse

What about the voting machines? Why no ink/pixels on them this year? Will Dems be blindsided again by crooked election results?

Posted by: Chas | July 10, 2006 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Mike DeWine's accomplishments are crowned by paying his 23 year old staff assistant for sex and pimping her out to other men on Capitol Hill. He's helped make sure that rich white men can find attractive young women to sell sex for money.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 10, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

The neocons are falling apart in OH and viva is going crazy. Ohio is a blue state due to the fact that Kerry won here in 2004(cheating is not winning facists). Clinton won 2 times. Ohio is an anti war state like all others.Brown is not pro tax just anti tax cuts for rich and is not pro abortion he is pro choice. Brown is pro worker pro union and pro middle class as are most Ohioans.

Posted by: Larry | July 10, 2006 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Just an aside here. Why is it that the Post (and much of the MSM) quotes Mother Jones only when it helps make fun of Democrats, but never on any of their many scoops about corporate corruption encroaching on our government? MJ had some great stories about all the money Exxon was pouring into websites and thinktanks to misinform the public on global warming. I tried for months to get them to notice these articles. The best I ever got was a snicker from one of them: "Heh heh, Mother Jones???". But it's good enough journalism when they need to document disarray in the Democratic party. Ah good old Liberal Media (tm)...

Posted by: B2O | July 10, 2006 7:18 PM | Report abuse

So, VivaBush, if Ohio's solid red, then why does its Republican governor have the lowest approval rating in the country? Why did a Democrat carry 48% of the vote in the last Presidential election, when challenging a wartime incumbent?

I guess by your criteria, West Virginia, with its Democratic governor and Democratic Senators and mostly Democratic congressional delegation, must be a deep hue of blue.

Posted by: Jeff | July 10, 2006 7:09 PM | Report abuse

The last statement was mine.

HAckett's endorsement means nothing. Hell unless you count that some leftwingers hold it against him for helping that rat Sherrod.

Brown may play to voters of the 13th Dist, heavily Dem and union but the rest of Ohio is far from that.
They will learn that he is anti-war, anti-military, anti-traditiononal marriage, pro-tax, pro-abortion.

Good luck selling that to mainstream Ohio voters.


Posted by: VivaBush04OH | July 10, 2006 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Peter, you ask about "Red State?"

Try this: All State offices are GOP since 1994 and most will stay that way after this November.
Both senators are GOP, same after November. 12 out of 18 congressmen are GOP, same after this November. 6 of 7 Supreme Court justices are GOP. Add one more this November. Both house and senate are overwhelmingly GOP, same after this November. This is Red, not even close to purple.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2006 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"They consistently take the measure of both candidates, and when they do, a decent majority will recognize that Mike DeWine has been one of the most effective US Senators Ohio has ever had." - Bob on Ohio voters

Bob - what has Mike Dewine done to be called one of the most effective Senators Ohio has ever had??? Was it his flip-flopping on gay marriage to appease the evangelical wingnuts in an election year or his recent flip-flop on minimum wage in a year where a measure to raise the minimum wage will be on the November ballot in Ohio and is liekly to pass with 70% of the vote.?

Just facts please on why you think he is one of the most effective Senators we have ever had. No rhetoric or attacks on Brown. Thanks.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 10, 2006 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Viva is noticably absent today, especailly given how this thread pertains to the Ohio Senate race.

Maybe b/c he saw this today:

>>In Ohio, Ney Behind by Double Digits

A Cooper and Secrest (D) poll shows Zack Space (D) leading Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), 46% to 35% with 19% undecided.<<

Read it and weep Ohio rethuglicans.

Posted by: Ohio guy | July 10, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

BW, you are even more cynical than I am. At least I want to believe that someone out there actually is interested in public service rather than being another swine, feeding at the public trough. If you are correct, and every one of "them" is simply self serving trash or one sort or another, then it's time to start taking Jefferson seriously and honestly think and work towards a second revolution.

P.S. Three mothers sons were killed in Iraq where my son is stationed.

P.P.S. Do you know what these 21, 21, 23 year old children do when they are shot or blown open by a a bomb, as their life is leaking out onto the dirt? They don't talk about God and Country, nor about their fellow soldiers, nor Geoge Bush or Hillary Clinton, nor honor and service. They, either in agony or peacefully but with regret, they always ask for their mothers or fathers and fad away with memories of home. That, at least those of you with a shred of humanity left, ought to haunt every one you to your graves and cost you sleep for the rest of your life.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | July 10, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

so in other words, 3 of the most well respected poll takers aren't recognized by this blog. I guess that explains why the polls always seem to be against the Democrats. I suppose Strategic Visision is recongnized here though right?

Posted by: Rob Millette | July 10, 2006 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to take a moment to respond to RMill's comment that I am not citing the most up to date polls in this post.

The reason is that none of the three polling organizations cited -- Survey USA, Rasmussen and Zogby/WSJ -- are recognized as credible by the survey research community.

Both Rasmussen and Survey USA use automated dial technology, meaning that real people do not make the phone calls.

The Zogby/WSJ poll is conducted via the Internet and is supplemented by some phone calls.

Much more on this in a future "Parsing the Polls," but I just wanted to explain why I regularly leave polls conducted by these organizations out.

Posted by: Chris Cillizza | July 10, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Let's focus on the issue at hand, FairAndBalanced?... comparing Paul's honorable service in Iraq to my life's work abroad for the USG isn't relevant. We're talking about Hackett and his decision to support a man (Brown) that marshaled every resource he could in WDC and Ohio to squeeze Hackett out of the race, to include calling up Hackett's financial supporters and instructing them to cancel their fundraising events for Paul. It was politics at its worst (or best, depending on your perspective). Paul knew it, he said it, and he was ticked off about it. So were those of us who supported him.

Forgiveness is divine. And good for Paul if he decides to forgive Brown and Company for their unpatriotic means of squashing good Democratic candidates for "but it's MY turn to run for the Senate!" guys like Brown. But if Hackett wanted to retain his allure to moderate Dems and Repubs, he wouldn't go back to the trough after making such a fuss. It just looks bad and begs one to ask the question: What Was In It For Paul?

And let's be honest... Paul supposedly came to this conclusion of supporting Brown while cutting his grass? Come on. A yard epiphany? It's too tired and "joe next door" to be real. I'd put $100 on Hackett announcing a job with DNC or a new venture of an "independent" blog/talk show with all the major Dem players stopping by to chat.

And that is why guys like Hackett, and all the old tactics, are boring.

Posted by: BW | July 10, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse


Please retrain yourself to spell "principal" when you're referring to people. Today, you wrote:

"The move is the result of a long meeting between the two principles [sic]in the last few days."

I've commented on this before.

Posted by: peters43 | July 10, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse

As someone who lives in western West Virginia (and about 12 miles from the Ohio state line) I tend to see quite a bit of stuff from Ohio politics, and I've got to say that I am glad that Paul Hackett did not run for Senate. He was only out for Paul Hackett, as is obvious from his sour grapes after dropping out of the Senate primary and refusing to run for the House instead, burning bridges all along the way.

I could take some of that as sour grapes, but let's face it, Sherrod Brown has been elected twice to statewide office and seven times to Congress. That is a network that is very difficult for a novice whose only previous runs for office were a run for city council and a failed bid for Congress to beat. Hackett knew he was in trouble early, as evidenced by switching from "we can't cut and run" in his bid for the House after trying to say "I was always for immediate pullout" in his nascent Senate bid, his schizophrenic campaigning as "the real progressive" while at the same time criticizing Brown as being too liberal to get elected.

Sherrod Brown has been the friend of labor, the environment, women and the anti-war movement (he voted against the war in 2002 and has joined fellow Ohioan Dennis Kucinich in calling for a reasonable withdraw) for decades. Hackett was just the flavor of the week who wants back in the limelight. I lost all respect for him (admittedly, his remarks after bowing out to Brown diminished that greatly) after he started making personal attacks against John Murtha for his remarks on Haditha and saying that "I'm glad he took MY position on redeployment three months after I said it" when no such speech from Aug. 2005 exists. He only dug his hole deeper by praising the xenophobic appeal of Bilbray in San Diego. Your 15 minutes are up, Paul.

Posted by: Steve | July 10, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Well, Sherrod Brown didn't send anyone off to die, for one thing. He voted against the war.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | July 10, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

FairAndBalanced?: Posting that about Hackett backing Brown was one of the vital points of the post. Boy, I wish life was like that we could skip over relevant details to get the big picture. You know your boy Hackett was bought out, but just refuse to see reality. DeWine wins with 52%.......

Posted by: Magnolia | July 10, 2006 5:03 PM | Report abuse

nice to see more poll numbers being put out there for this race.

however, as hard as the Dems will try to make this race about Taft, this will not win them enough conservative votes to oust DeWine.
the Republicans know that Taft is a HUGE rino. even if he could have run for re-election, he would never have won. However, DeWine cannot be painted with the same taint. And the informed know that. So Taft's problems will not reflect on DeWine.

Posted by: ohio watcher | July 10, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Hackett? Boring, BW? Wow, you must live an exciting life. Paul Hackett served the US Military in Iraq. Then he came home and as a political novice tried a run (and made an impresive show of it) for US Senate.

My $.02:

GOOD for Hackett! Its the right thing to do, and it sounds like he genuinely came to the decision on his own, which makes it even better. And good for Brown to take charge and hopefully kick Dewine out. I really hope Hackett sticks around. Dems need his energy.

And Crispy Cilliza over here playing devil's advocate and dragging up all the things that Hackett said about Brown... Cmon Chris. So cheap. You could have just skipped that whole graph and the post would have been fair and respectable........... But NOOOOO! Shameless man, shameless.


GO Zack! Not enuff name recognition? Well, it doesnt get much more name-friendly than Zack Space. Just rolls off the tongue. Lets see, fresh Dem candidate with new ideas and a great name vs. corrupt career politician with huge Abramoff connections in a state with more than its share of ethics problems. Imho, Zack has a real good shot at Ney's seat, indictment or not.

Posted by: FairAndBalanced? | July 10, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Hackett backing Brown?? How incredibly disappointing. Perhaps it's politically expected from most former candidates but not from Hackett. He was a soldier, a regular joe, a neighbor who was p*ssed at the system and shared what he thought was right (and wrong) about Ohio and his country. This fierce, blatant, in-your-face sense of independence is what Republicans and Democrats in Ohio (and nationally) found exciting. Finally, we believed, here seems to be a man with a set of b*lls to speak his truth and let us judge whether or not to elect him, polls be damned. His cow-tow to Brown, Shumer, and The Gang to "play corporate" seriously erodes, if not destroys, all those things we loved about Hackett. A real pitty.

The question now becomes... what's in it for Hackett? A promise for national Dem support if he runs for another office? Support from Brown and the national Dems if Brown loses this Senate bid? Or maybe a cute job on Air America or DNC to toughen up the "we're not a bunch of pansies!" rhetoric?

Boring. Hackett's boring.

Posted by: BW | July 10, 2006 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Okay, Peter. I just checked. The most recent CNN poll has 57% of Amercian's supporting a pullout within one year and not immediately. However, and I say ths in all sincerity, the majority of American's don't have son there right now on the front lines (he's nurse the miserably failures in the Pentagon made into a comba medic). They don't have another son back from that hellhole. So, if I could, I would take ason or a daughter of every single Amercian and stick them in harms way and *pray* that they would come home in boxes or stretchers in such numbers that they would be overwhelmed. I am sick to death of sunshine patriots waving their silly made in China U.S. flags and politician's who created a mess that ius costing so much senseless blood. All they do, all they are even attempting to do, is to find a way to get out that doesn't show them all up to be the murderous swine they are. All politician's, all Amercian's, have blood on their hands for this one unless they do everything in their power to end it right now and I pray every night, I honestly do - get down on my knees and *pray for retribution*, that they will pay in kind for the nightmare they have put families like mine through.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | July 10, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Ohio 18

Highly dubious that Space has enough name recognition district wide to hold a double digit lead at this point. Internal polls are always suspect.

I do not doubt, however, that Ney may be experiencing a net negative approval.

Posted by: RMill | July 10, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse


A state that casts 49% of its presidential vote for a mediocre Democratic candidate is not a "solid red state."

Posted by: peter | July 10, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse


Again, the use of out of date polling is puzzling.

If you are going to mention these old polls, then you cannot ignore newer versions.

US Senate
Survey USA
June Approval
DeWine (R)* 41% (down from 46% in May and down from 43% in Feb)
Survey USA
June 13
Brown (D) 48%
DeWine (R)* 37%

June Battleground Poll
Brown (D) 46.7%
DeWine (R)* 34%

June 10
Brown (D) 39%
DeWine (R)* 46%

Posted by: RMill | July 10, 2006 3:41 PM | Report abuse

To the extent that Sherrod Brown can make his campaign about President Bush and Governor Taft, then he can make the race competitive....there's just one small problem with that strategy: Ohio voters are alot smarter than that. They consistently take the measure of both candidates, and when they do, a decent majority will recognize that Mike DeWine has been one of the most effective US Senators Ohio has ever had. He also is a tenacious John Glenn found out in '92, when he had to fight for every vote, even with Bill Clinton on the ballot. Read the polls carefully, and look at how the independent votes are breaking, and at the moment, they are breaking for DeWine.

Posted by: Bob | July 10, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The majority of Americans want us out of Iraq "*right now*?" According to a USA Today poll conducted in late June, only 17% of Americans support an immediate pullout:

In the same survey, 57% said that Congress should outline a plan for withdrawal. Most Democrats in the Senate voted for the Levin-Reed amendment.

I am an Ohio Democrat. I was not pleased when the national party muscled Hackett out of the primary and considered casting my vote for DeWine in protest. But eventually I decided that Brown, though probably too liberal for the general electorate, is a good man who would make a fine Senator. Just an opinion. Don't forget that Brown was once Ohio's Secretary of State, so he has won statewide office before... Of course, he did lose reelection to Taft, of all people. That wouldn't happen again.

Posted by: peter | July 10, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I concur with Magnolia, if Brown needs Hackect that bad it is because he knows he is in trouble. The recent income tax cut to Ohio's working people will also help keep Ohio a solid red state.

Posted by: bhoomes | July 10, 2006 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Herb Rubenstein is turning the CD7 Democratic Primary into a three way race with Lamm and Perlmutter. Rubenstein the darkest of dark horses two months ago was the first to send out direct mail and the first to go up on TV. The spot is being called riveting and can be viewed at Rubenstein just completed 40,000 automated calls and his fundraising is picking up. Antiwar sentiment amongst Democrats in CD7 is huge and Rubenstein is the only Democrat making that an issue

Posted by: JoJoDancer | July 10, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Paul Hackett was treated horribly by the Democratic Party. He is one of the reasons, perhaps THE main reason, I ceased supporting the DNC with my time and money. I honestly hope the hand picked Dremocratic candidatic is trounced and all of those DNC leaders loose their jobs right along with him. Paul Hackett was an authentic Amercian hero, and a centrist. I believe that is why the DNC couldn't/wouldn't support him - the crazies on the left were afraid of him. It was quite an education to me that they best reporting and commentary on the machinations of the DNC in all of this wasn't in the Post or on MSNBC. Instead, it was an interview with Mr. Hackett and follow-up comments on the Daily Show. I sympathize with all of those voters who have been turned off by the two parties . The *only* commentary in the Post on this was some twit editorialist decrying voter's paying more attention to the Daily Show and "fake news" than "mainstream media" and, subsequently, less likely to even vote. Why should we vote? When DNC backroom bosses control who can run for office, Democarts have lost all right to criticize Bush and company for rigging elections - they are the same thing. When the DNC bosses close down any sort of rational debate on immigration or outsourcing or guest worker programs, they have flunked the openness and honesty test. When the majority of the Democrats in government wont vote to get out of Iraq *right now*, they are running contrary to the wishes, not just of a majprity of Democrats, but of the Amercian people. So, Chris, why on earth should we care about any of this? Pray tell us, what is the difference between a Democartic machine and a Republican machine? A Democatic crook and a Republican crook? A democratic "representative" who sends our children off to die vs. a Republican? They're all lying trash, filthy crooks, and blood soaked SOB's.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | July 10, 2006 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Hackett just shows how tricky primaries can be. If only he hadn't been so negative on Brown...Good news about Washington, by the way.

"King of Zouk," what do you have to say about Ney now?

Posted by: Liam | July 10, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I thank and respect Hackett for his service to our country, but do not respect him for his politics. What did Schumer and Co. have to do to get his endorsement? If Hackett was as a true to his beliefs as he says he is he would have run as an independent. DeWine is going to win this race, because the people of Ohio are too smart.

Posted by: Magnolia | July 10, 2006 2:39 PM | Report abuse

In similar news, one of Cantwell's Democratic opponents drops his primary bid & endorses her.

Posted by: mark | July 10, 2006 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company