Swing State Project

« MD-Sen: "Say Anything" Steele | Main | FL-Sen: Harris Makes Up Ground »

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

OH-Sen: Hackett Out

Posted by DavidNYC

So Paul Hackett's out of the Ohio Senate race, and he's not running for OH-02, either. I agree with Adam B at DailyKos: Sherrod Brown better win this.

I also hope Hackett's supporters can get behind Sherrod, too. I was a big Dean supporter during the primaries, and when he lost, I was seriously bummed. But I took a week, got over it, and then got right behind John Kerry. Like I said in a post just below, we're all on the same team here, and we've all got to work together to beat Mike DeWine.

Posted at 12:25 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Ohio | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2155

Comments

"I also hope Hackett's supporters can get behind Sherrod, too."

Hopefully Sherrod can give them a reason to do so.

Posted by: RBH at February 14, 2006 01:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Hopefully Sherrod can give them a reason to do so.

Well, like I said, I'll give it a week before making any kind of major pitch. I realize it's too soon, and feelings are raw. But just remember that Sherrod's a Democrat and he can beat DeWine, thus getting us closer to a majority in the Senate.

Posted by: DavidNYC at February 14, 2006 01:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is a huge disappointment, and it's very unexpected to see him get out of politics altogether. Can't say I blame him though. He's been treated like dirt every step of the way. He made a huge mistake in delaying his announcement for the Senate run for so long, but he still deserved better than this. I hope Rahm Emanuel is taking some nasty phone calls tonight.

Sadder yet is that Hackett would have probably won this seat. It's much harder for me to envision the "northeastern Ohio liberal" Sherrod Brown breaking the 49% barrier, particularly with DeWine moving to the center. Independents are gonna be hard-pressed to pull the lever for the left-wing caricature that Brown will be painted as if the alternative is a guy like "2006 DeWine" who seems to be voting against his party more often that with them this year. I'm still pulling for Brown obviously, but am far less confident about this race than I was last night.

Posted by: Mark at February 14, 2006 01:05 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"Ohio Democrats, after years of being out in the political wilderness, have a choice between two outstanding candidates. Ohio and Democrats win regardless who wins. DeWine is screwed either way." (10/25/05)

"To be clear -- Hackett didn't stand a chance." (2/14/06)

"Hackett was taking his time making an official decision, but all indications were that it was a "go"." (10/04/05)

"Reid and Schumer were urging Hackett to run, but he wouldn't commit to running." (2/14/06)

"And with all apologies to Brown, who is one of the greats in the House, but this isn't cool. He bows out, waits for Hackett to gear up, and then floats a trial balloon about getting back in? Brown must've known about Hackett's decision to run, hence this trial balloon is sabotage." (10/04/05)

"It was only after news of Brown's impending announcement were leaked that Hackett decided to commit to the race." (2/14/06)

The sad thing is that Kos said all of those things.

So yeah, it's sad that Hackett got ran off of the road.

Posted by: RBH at February 14, 2006 01:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Although, I could have also quoted "To be further clear, Brown announced his candidacy before Hackett did" for the last quote in that post

Posted by: RBH at February 14, 2006 01:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

RBH, I'm not sure I understand what you've posted has to do with anything I've written here. I understand if you're unhappy, but it goes without saying that I don't speak for Kos, nor he me.

Posted by: DavidNYC at February 14, 2006 01:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well, anyways, this was one of the uglier ways possible to end the Hackett campaign.

So I should probably restrain any random dKos comments for dKos.

Posted by: RBH at February 14, 2006 01:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I hate to be negative but I think the only shot we had was Hackett. This is why the Democrats lose so much. Brown is too liberal for Ohio and polls already showed DeWine gaining ground, especially against Brown. Not to mention Brown had said that he wouldnt run and then like a snake he stabbed Hackett in the back when he realized DeWine was more vulnerable then he thought. Who is the Democratic establishments next target? James Webb?

Posted by: UVA08 at February 14, 2006 09:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

i mean it's pretty much bullshit. Fall behind the candidate who is left. If I lived in Ohio I might vote for him, but I will not donate money or time to Brown. It's not supporting anything special.

I'm sick of "establishment" democrats pushing out good candidates. Why listen to them, anyway? What is the republican majority up to now, all three branches of government???

"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."

What the fuck? What ever happened to Democracy and may the best candidate win (and don't call me naive - this is the way it's supposed to work).

David I'm sorry but i have to disagree completely with the "fall in line" mentality. How are the candidates we truly and wholeheartedly support ever going to reach prominent positions if we keep taking it in the ass from party leadership.

Yes, a Democrat is better than a Republican in Ohio... but we can't let this year's circumstances allow people (esp. DCCC chair) to push around the core of the democratic party (activists and progressives: the people who not only turn out to vote but turn out with their time and wallets).

Posted by: Ferris at February 14, 2006 09:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The way this went down to get Hackett out of the race was definitely a scumbag move by the party. However, his self-imposed ban from politics is not the way to resolve this. Hackett has become a martyr against the establishment and his legions of grassroots supporters would rally around him if he would run for the congressional seat. Run for that seat! Win it! Make the Dem. establishment look antiquated and foolish! Show the power of Grass/Net Roots!

Posted by: Buckscountydem at February 14, 2006 12:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

We'll never know, now, which candidate would have won the primary.
All we know is a bit more about the ruthlessness of the power-brokers who run the national committees.

Hackett was a breath of fresh air, and somebody suddenly shut the window on it,
under circumstances that make everyone involved look tarnished.

I'm a person of limited resources and energy.
I can't pay attention to all the house and senate races in any one cycle.
The Ohio Senate race was on my radar because Hackett was a charismatic candidate
and seemed a better fit for a battleground state's electorate than the liberal
whose views might be closer to my own, personally.

I wish Brown well - vaguely - but I'm not going to raise money for him.
I'll redouble my efforts to help Casey in PA and McCaskill in MO,
but my interest in the Ohio race has been snuffed like a candle.

The other race in which I feel even more interest today than yesterday is IL-6,
where Rahm Emmanuel seems to be trying to strong-arm another candidate out to make way for a plant
who doesn't even live in the district.
Anyone feeling a bit grumpy today about the Ohio Senate race
is invited to make constructive use of that energy by contributing to
Christine Cegelis's campaign at my ActBlue page:

We’ll each react in our own way.
I hope no one withdraws completely from engagement in other races that speak to their hopes and goals.

http://www.actblue.com/list/2006+Just+Say+%27No%27+to+Spoilers

Posted by: Christopher Walker at February 14, 2006 02:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree with what you say David i am just very very angry right now at the Democratic Establishment. I guess i just need time but still i am going to have a hard time supporting Brown.

Posted by: D in FL. at February 14, 2006 05:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I respect Hackett even more now, because he isn't running in OH-02. He made the promise to Thor Jacobs that he wouldn't run and that he would support him and if he were to go back on that word and stab Jacobs in the back it would make Hackett the ultimate hypocrite because of what the DSCC had done to him.

I also want to add that for those who are saying: Brown got in before Hackett, Hackett waited too long to announce. For those who are saying that, I have this to say: Bullshit. You know and I know that, that is bullshit. It was known for about a month or two before he announced that he was going to run, and that's standard procedure with a US Senate run. He spent time getting his fundraisers in order for a run. He also went personally to Brown and asked him if he was going to run and Brown said no and said good luck.

Posted by: safi at February 14, 2006 06:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

My comments are excerpts from my full post on blueohio.org.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed of itself. The Democratic Party has no business winning – nor, do I believe, will it win – the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Senator Mike DeWine. In yet another move that demonstrates that the Democratic Party has sold out its constituents, the Party has pressured Paul Hackett to drop out of the race, paving the way for a November loss by Sherrod Brown.

A Democrat has not won a state-wide election in Ohio since the mid-1980’s. The last time Sherrod Brown ran for a state-wide office was in 1990, when as the two-term incumbent he lost the Ohio Secretary of State race to … wait for it … Bob Taft. Since 1992 he has represented Ohio’s 13th Congressional District, a district that hasn’t been represented by a Republican since 1976. In contrast, Hackett managed to pull 48% of the vote in a special election in Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District. This is the same district where in 2004 President Bush got 64% of the vote. This is the same district where in 2004 Rob Portman, a Republican, was elected to the U.S. Congress with 78% of the vote. This is the same district that has had exactly one Democratic congressman since 1951.

In defending the ouster of Hackett, Party insiders claim that Brown stands a better chance at beating DeWine than Hackett. They point at the disparity between Brown’s war chest and Hackett’s war chest, emphasizing that with over $2 million, Brown has ten times as much money as Hackett. However, what they do not mention is that Brown, unlike Hackett, is a career politician who has been continually raising money since at least 1992. What they do not mention is that Hackett had to expend a good deal of his funding running in the special election in August 2005. What they do not mention is that during the last quarter of 2005 Hackett raised pretty much the same amount of money as Brown did. The truth of the matter is – Hackett never got the chance to show that he could beat DeWine; and to put all of your eggs in the basket of the guy who couldn’t beat the worst governor in the history of Ohio is, well, insane.

Posted by: BlueOhio.org at February 15, 2006 12:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I can't believe what you people have done (I'm writing from the UK as an observer of American politics for many years).

I've rarely been wrong on any political judgement over the past few years and I have to say Paul Hackett was the guy for this election and long into the future. I've been watching him for a few months and he was, and remains, the only person who could win this election in this district.

Most of Hackett's supporters will not get behind Sherrod (most of them will be pissed off, the rest will not be energised by Sherrod, but mostly they will be pissed off and the money has already been promised and spent).

I rarely comment openly on US politics but I had to say that in my view you guys had made a monumental error. Unfortunately most of you know that my assesment is right, and I truly wish it wasn't.

Posted by: realitycheck at February 15, 2006 12:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I noticed today that the AP has a story about this and cites SwingStateProject. My comment was quoted directly, but attributed to David. Maybe I can retire early from my lawsuit against AP. :)

Posted by: Mark at February 15, 2006 09:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

HA! Apparently the AP thinks that the "Posted by:" tag precedes the post it refers to.

Posted by: BlueOhio.org at February 15, 2006 09:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mad that a more conservative Dem was screwed in favor of a liberal Dem? Does that mean we are all finally excited about Bob Casey Jr? It should.

Posted by: BCarr at February 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I was disappointed to hear this news yesterday. Paul Hackett was the candidate that could beat Mike DeWine. Paul Hackett is more moderate and could attract moderate voters all over the state. Sherrod Brown is a liberal and that does not play well outside of the reliable Democratic strongholds.

To understand this, we would have to look at a map of Ohio. The northern 1/4th of the state is mostly Democratic. Thirty years ago, if a candidate carried that part of the state, they won. But, since then, many have moved to find better jobs or have retired and moved to a state with a better climate. As a result, the Cleveland-Toledo region of the state has lost it's clout in elections. A Republican can win without out it.

It is a given that Sherrod Brown will carry the Cleveland-Toledo area. That is not the area he needs to target though. Brown will have to target Franklin County (Columbus), Montgomery County (Dayton), and Hamilton County (Cincinnati). While Brown will do well in those cities, the suburbs have enough influence in those counties to make it close. Brown's liberal record will not play well in the suburbs.

Brown would also have to reach out to the rural voters. Ohio has a large number of hunters and gun control is a big issue in the rural areas (hunters see more restictive gun laws as eventually infringing on their rights). Brown's message and record on control is not going to play well in the rural areas. Hackett's stand on gun control would be a plus with rural voters.

Bottom line: When Hackett dropped out, the Democrats handed Mike DeWine a third term.

Posted by: Tim at February 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm not sure Brown's loss to Taft means that much because it was 16 years ago. On the other hand, Brown supporters like to push his allegedly high name recognition over Hackett because he's won statewide office. But that was in 1988, a couple of political generations ago. So I guess if they use that, you can use the defeat to Taft.

The Hackett-Brown thing really isn't about who is more liberal or more moderate, because their positions are fairly close. It's more about how they are perceived. Hackett would have been difficult for the Republicans to portray as the biggest liberal of all time. Not so Brown; I hear it's already started and that they are painting him as more liberal than DENNIS KUCINICH (!) (as one wag noted, Kucinich will be pissed being downgraded to the second most liberal representative in Ohio!)

I don't give Brown much chance against DeWine in the end, sadly, which indeed will lead to some major ugliness in the state party. I just hope he doesn't drag Strickland down in the governor's race. A little humility and reaching out to people on the part of Brown's campaign instead of the generally high-handed treatment they've dished out would be helpful. Not releasing any statement at all about Hackett's withdrawal bothers me a bit.

Meanwhile, this Ohioan is getting interested in Lamont over in Connecticut.....

Posted by: Ansatasia P at February 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I, too, think Brown will lose. I don't even think this seat is up for grabs anymore. The nasty treatment of Hackett put a curse over our chances, in my opinion.

I'm not even holding my breath over this one.

Posted by: HellofaSandwich at February 15, 2006 01:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Tim is absolutely right. The reason Hackett did well in the OH-02 is because he went and talked to people who weren't already Democrats. Rather than preaching to the choir he went out to convert non-believers, and his positions on issues like gun control are the reason he was able to bring those voters to his side.

Posted by: BlueOhio.org at February 15, 2006 01:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

How the hell did the AP manage to screw that up?

Posted by: DavidNYC at February 15, 2006 03:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I thought Hackett had a better chance of winning the Senate seat than Brown. Based on personal characteristics, I still think that.

But that's not the whole game of politics. The other part is lining up supporters and contributors. Neither Brown nor Hackett made a very impressive first quarter, either in money raised nor in news stories received. (Hackett did impress in the amount of money he managed to SPEND in one quarter, which was way too much, and probably a big part of his inability to continue.)

I don't believe that the Democrat establishment single-handedly torpedoed Hackett, as Hackett's campaign claims. I think the establishment is clearly biased against him, but I don't think it was able to do much about it except not give him its money.

But obviously, if Hackett had been able to excite voters and donors, he wouldn't need the DSCC to do it for him. For some reason, as much as we in the blogosphere like Hackett, he was not able to get his message out in Ohio. Sometimes this happens to good candidates; it happened to Howard Dean as well.

But while I understand why the campaign would, politically, want to scapegoat the DSCC, I think a campaign needs to take responsibility for its own shortcomings as well as successes.

Sometimes you just don't win...if you won every time you wouldn't need elections. That is how this game works. If the DSCC is a problem, then handling the DSCC is part of winning. But I don't beleive that was their problem. Their problem was the same as every candidate's problem: getting voters in your constituency to believe.

Posted by: nobodyforpresident at February 15, 2006 04:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

David, I think it was a "path of least resistance" laziness by AP. Rather than citing a "commenter on SwingStateProject said....", their article flows better attributing the line to the site owner. They have not been counting on anyone from SSP actually reading the article. :)

Posted by: Mark at February 15, 2006 05:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, Mark, the explanation is a lot more benign, fortunately.

Posted by: DavidNYC at February 15, 2006 05:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"But obviously, if Hackett had been able to excite voters and donors, he wouldn't need the DSCC to do it for him."

Actually, I believe that when he ran in the OH-02 Hackett got almost no support from the DCCC until the week before the election, yet he still pulled 48%.

Posted by: BlueOhio.org at February 15, 2006 06:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In fact, that's my point. It's not about what the DSCC/DCCC does at all.

Posted by: nobodyforpresident at February 15, 2006 06:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm just a first time commenter on this site but I really have to disagree with the "fall in line" reasoning. I'm not going to fall in line behind the Dems' leadership anymore. The Dems have been rolled time and again by the GOP; Dem activists have been rolled time and again by the party's leadership. Nothing will change until the party leadership either is changed or is forced to change and the only way to do that is, sadly, by beating it with a very big stick.

Thus I sent the following letter to Sen. Schumer and the rest of the Democratic leadership and members of the DSCC. You may very well disagree with me but I'd rather see the 2006 elections scuttled if it means the party recovers something of a spine. Here's the letter (apologies, it's somewhat long):

Senator Schumer:

Words cannot convey my anger and disgust with the efforts of members of the DSCC, and you in particular as the DSCC's chair, to force Paul Hackett out of the Ohio Senate race.

What are you thinking? You've managed to chase off a legitimate candidate for the Senate, one with fresh ideas and a bold honest approach to the critical problems that confront our Republic, leaving an old guard apparatchik like Sherrod Brown as Ohio Democrats’ only choice. I lived in Ohio for three years; I worked on Lee Fisher's campaign for Attorney General and Anthony Celebrezze's campaign for Governor and I know something of what I speak. What are you thinking?

I've voted Democrat all my life. I've contributed at least $1,000 to Democratic candidates and spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours, working for Democrats' campaigns, and I am so angry now that I could spit. What are thinking?

You and the DSCC have managed to dishearten and demoralize me and thousands, if not millions, of Democratic activists around the country with your hackneyed machinations. We are angry with the Bush Administration. We are angry with the GOP. We are angry with Congress. We are angry with the direction this Nation is taking under the Republican regime. And the best the national Democratic Party can come up with is "We Can Do Better" – a mediocre message instantly undermined by the Party's elimination of one of the few bright spots in the Party, a man who embodies the values and aspirations of mainstream America. What are you thinking?

I read in the New York Times that the Democrats' leadership is concerned it hasn't taken advantage of the many missteps by the Bush Administration and the GOP. And then I read about this latest fiasco. Congratulations; you won't win control of either House in 2006. Nor will you win the White House in 2008. Not with this kind of stupidity. I don't want politics as usual. I don't want a Democratic party that's more concerned about doling out jobs to apparatchiks than standing up to the GOP and reversing the Country’s disastrous course. None of us out here beyond the Beltway do. Yet that is precisely what you and the other members of the DSCC have signaled to us.

I don't know what you were thinking and I don't care. I want your resignation from the DSCC. I want anyone associated with the effort to drive Mr. Hackett from the race to step forward, apologize, and urge Mr. Hackett to reconsider. It would be appropriate if Sherrod Brown bowed out of the Senate race instead, but unlike you and the other members of the DSCC, I think Ohio Democrats should decide who should challenge Mike DeWine.

Unless action is taken immediately to reverse this truly stupid course of action by the DSCC and the Democratic leadership, I make this pledge to you: I will not support any Democratic candidate for national office, I will not contribute money to any Democratic candidate for national office, and I will not vote for any Democratic candidate for national office. I will instead climb atop the pyre you and the other leaders of the Democratic Party have built and watch the Nation burn.

I am sending a copy of this letter via email and regular mail to you and the other Senators on the DSCC, as well as to friends, blogsites, and others in the hopes you will act appropriately.

Sincerely,

cc: Senator Harry Reid
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Mark L. Pryor
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Ron Wyden

Posted by: redstateirate at February 16, 2006 09:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"I don't believe that the Democrat establishment single-handedly torpedoed Hackett, as Hackett's campaign claims. I think the establishment is clearly biased against him, but I don't think it was able to do much about it except not give him its money."

What do you mean by that? Sherrod Brown announced that he would not run. The Democrats openly courted Hackett to run. If he ran, Reid and Schumer promised their support. Hackett enters the race and Sherrod Brown suddenly changes his mind. What happens? Reid and Schumer pull a flip-flop and urge him to drop out. What is up with that? Then the typical "circular" firing-squad begins.

This is the reason that the Democrats do not do well in Ohio races anymore. They nominate the wrong people. Contrary to popular belief, Ohio is not a liberal state. We prefer moderates. Just look at the races over the past 16 to 20 years.

Brown's senate candidacy is creating more harm than good. Now the DCCC has to deal with a competitive race in Brown's district. DeWine is breathing easier because he knows that Brown has no appeal to the moderate voters. Schmidt is basically re-elected. All of this spells trouble for Strickland.

Posted by: Tim at February 16, 2006 02:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

So you're suggesting that Ohio voters decided not to support Hackett because Chuck Schumer asked them not to?

Posted by: nobodyforpresident at February 17, 2006 01:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment