Jennifer Brunner says that she won’t help Lee Fisher if she loses:
It’s customary in a primary election for the losing candidate to campaign for their party’s nominee in the fall.
But if she loses Tuesday’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner won’t be telling Democrats to vote for the party nominee in November.
Asked by a Dayton Daily News reporter last week how much she would work for Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher if he wins and she loses, Brunner held up her hand and formed a zero.
No word yet if Fisher feels the same way.
(Hat-tip: AC1)
put the final nail in the coffin where the chances of me supporting Brunner is in. Go Fisher!
n/t
Yeah, it’s going to piss some people off, but ask Governor McDonnell whether that made a difference for Creigh Deeds.
Not just on the left, same thing on the right in places the NRSC chumps are making fools of themselves in primaries.
This is the Pottery Barn view of primaries, DC broke it and DC can own it.
Good for Jennifer, more proof why she’d actually represent reform.
at the Fisher campaign locking down donors, but there are more than a few examples of the underdog winning Democratic primaries with little establishment support. It can be done, and the reality is that Brunner doesn’t appear to have run a strong campaign. We’ll see how the primary turns out.
I can’t believe I ever supported her. I hope she talks a different tone Tuesday, or she can kiss any political comeback goodbye!
What a horrible candidate.
She’s more in line with me on issues, but from day one I haven’t liked her campaign. This is the final nail in the coffin. She has done nothing but make Fischer spend money early and probably help us lose the SOS.
While I can’t reconsider that, I will DEFINTELY vote for Fisher in Nov.
Why didn’t Tim Ryan just run? That would have saved us so many headdaches.
thanks.
This kind of ridiculous purism is the reason why I don’t support her campaign.
when Portman wins and then proceeds to vote with the Republican leadership 97% of the time.
disgusting.
The vindictiveness of Brunner and Crist’s mushy “I’ll support whatever the polls say” attitude* really bothers people and causes them to tune out when elections roll around. While this is a pathetic reason to disregard your civic duty as a voter it is something that people use as an excuse when they don’t turn out to vote.
* I do think polls are important and that the government should to a large extent act in the way voters intend it too BUT voters can be too impatient and finicky at times to be taken literally (they even contradict themselves!) and therefore you shouldn’t just move your position to remain “popular” or fail to articulate your position to avoid confrontation. These “tactics” when it comes to issue positions are a sure fire way to lose and it is what failed Democrats from 1994-2008 and I want to see it extinguished forever.
Brunner’s attitude remains me so much of Cathy Cox post primary in GA in 2006 which was one of the worst statewide defeats for a top of the ticket Democrat in GA’s history (Taylor underperformed John Kerry who had zero presence in GA).
I always feel like we have to work twice as hard as Democrats because of managing divergent views in our big tent and because of the difficulty surrounding Democratic turnout and this will obviously make things tougher for us in November.
Steve Novick said this about Jeff Merkley about a month before their primary. He said he’d vote for independent John Frohmayer rather than Merkley if Merkley won the primary. It didn’t seem to hurt Novick, since he still pulled in 44% of the vote (no reason to think he would have done any better without these comments).
However, I think the situation was different in several respects. First, Dems in Oregon have proved that they can try to out-progressive each other in the primary and still win in the general — Kitzhaber and Bradbury are doing the same thing right now. That’s not true in Ohio. Second, Novick said that after Merkley had unleashed a barrage of attack ads against him, because Merkley was legitimately afraid of him, which isn’t the case here. And finally, everything Novick got in that race, he earned. He was a short guy with a hook for a hand who’d never held public office, yet managed to raise enormous amounts of money and pull even with the State House Majority Leader. Brunner, on the other hand, is a statewide officeholder who can’t manage to raise enough money to compete.
So will the comment hurt Brunner? I don’t think we’re ever going to find out, because I think the candidate’s own woes are sinking her like a lead balloon.
Any MoJo would be appreciated!
OH-Sen: Brunner goes PUMA
Seems to suggest that she has a lot of bad blood pent up inside against the Ohio Democratic Party and governor Strickland. I’m guessing that she is in a way blaming them for throwing the clamps down on would-be donors. I see this as frustration over a campaign that, unfortunately for her, is going to be largely decided by her financial disadvantage.
Of course, these reasons don’t make it right. But it’s clear that she never liked Lt. Gov Fisher, and that she’s very angry about things.
Schmuck!
can bitch that the donors aren’t behind her, as we’ve seen with Bill Halter, the netroots can raise a significant sum of change for her if she worked for it. Granted she didn’t piss off the netroots like Blanche “The Liberals are out to get me!” Lincoln, but Brunner could of sold herself to Daily KOS/MoveOn/DFA, etc on her work from preventing voter intimidation by the McCain campaign/Ohio GOP in 2008. Instead she’s running a PUMA like campaign instead. Also for a statewide official, you would think she has a few donor friends here and there, I don’t believe for an instant that the entire Ohio Democratic Party is owned and operated by Ted Strickland.
a month ago the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme court died. I believe the Governor is given the job to find replacement. I don’t believe he has announced an appointment yet. Any chance at all that he appoints Brunner? It would unite the base. I assume she would be qualified enough as well.
Much like her Senate campaign. Staying in this primary this long and not dropping back to run for re-election is not only mind boggling, but incredibly selfish on her part. She’s been in the race for a year and never managed to be competitive in fundraising or organization. It’s not like we didn’t know Rob Portman would come into this thing with buckets of money to spend on negative ads. Now she’s put us in danger of losing the secretary of state’s office as well as a crucial Senate seat.
If she’s so great at inspiring the grassroots, as so many of her supporters love to suggest, why hasn’t that translated into a serious campaign? Hell, Bill Halter is running against a two-term US senator of his own party and he’s managed to translate grassroots enthusiasm into a serious campaign.
Because she is secretary of State, and as the elections person, maybe it would be best for her to be neutral. Does anyone know if the State SOS has to stay neutral because he is the elections leader (Of that particular state?)
It’s the end of a heated tough campaign. Emotions are running high. And she’s just had the DSCC run a barage of ads to her chagrin that if current polling is correct might be the final nail in her coffin.
Let the people vote. Give her a little time to get her emotions in check (after all it is only May) and then let her give her endorsement.
Only thing this shows is she still has fight in her in a hihgly fought over campaign. Let’s not make a mountain out of nothing. It’s not like she’s threatening to pull a Charlie Crist or something.
Brunner should reconsider her position. Does she want a Rob Portman to be the next US Senator from Ohio? I doubt that she does. Portman, at least to me, is a symbol of what is wrong with the US economy. As SOS, Brunner should know this better than most. Brunner should put aside petty differences and focus on the big picture.