OH Sen: Hackett vs. Brown

(Just a few thoughts on Paul Hackett's potential advantages over Sherrod Brown in a race against Mike DeWine. Maybe the question is already moot, but you never know. No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, progressives need new ways to think about electability. Consider the following points as hypotheses rather than as assertions.)

Most arguments for Brown have something to do with money. Fair enough. Ohio is an expensive media market and our nominee will be facing down a well-funded Republican incumbent.

However, we can't just assume a neat linear relationship between campaign funds and strategic advantage. We have to remember what all this fundraising is for. Ads, mostly. Brown may have more money and better fundraising connections. But at the end of the day he's going to have to spend it advertising himself.

We can't just look at the size of a campaign's warchest. Much more important is the likely ratio of dollars spent to votes won. No matter how much money Brown has, he's going to be a tough sell for exactly the voters he needs to pick up--suburban and rural Ohioans.

DeWine will caricature Brown as an effete tax-and-spend liberal, and as a big government old school Democrat. That's what Republicans always do. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, voters are predisposed to squeeze all Democrats into that distorted frame. Brown has the disadvantage of being an archetypal progressive Democrat and therefore a soft target for latte libel.

Hackett may not have as much money as Brown, but his brand is more appealing to the kind of voters he needs to attract. He's selling something the voters of Ohio might actually want to buy. He wouldn't be starting on the defensive like Brown. Therefore, he might not need to spend as much to achieve the same (or greater) shifts in public opinion.

Hackett has the advantage of being a macho, gun-loving, concealed-carry-permit-holding veteran. Of course, DeWine and the Republicans will try to swiftboat him, but the charges are less likely to stick.

As far as making inroads in the suburbs, Hackett has a dramatic and very fresh track record of doing exactly that. In the special election, he was able to expand the Democratic share of the vote by an unprecedented margin in one of the most heavily Republican districts in the country.

We can expect DeWine to play up Hackett's inexperience and to do his best to sow doubts about Hackett's mental stability. The stability issue is something that genuinely worries me. Angry Democrats are at risk of being caricatured and marginalized like Howard Dean was. Still, inexperience is a weakness that Hackett can easily turn into a strength. The Hackett brand is about being the outsider, the breath of fresh air, the energetic upstart who's going to clean up the culture of corruption in Ohio and shake things up in Washington.

Brown's experience as an elected official is both an asset and a liability. If you want experience, why go for experience "lite" (longtime congressman) vs. experience (influential incumbent Senator)? Brown isn't a Washington insider in the perjorative sense, but he's certainly a career politician. As such, he's just not going to have the same impact as an anti-corruption crusader.

Hackett and Brown are equally well-placed to appeal to the Democratic base. If Hackett runs, nobody who would otherwise have voted for Brown is going to vote for DeWine. Yet, Hackett is better-positioned to appeal to the Democratic base nationwide. Dave Sirota noted that both Brown and Hackett have strong support from the netroots. No question, Brown has great advisors and significant potential for online fundraising, but he doesn't have nearly the name recognition within the netroots community that Hackett earned through the special election.

Recall that DeWine is losing support from his right. These voters are social conservatives who are furious at him for joining gang of 14 who compromised on the judicial filibuster. As basically sane pro-choice human beings, neither Brown nor Hackett can expect to appeal to this demographic. The best-case scenario is if these evangelicals stay home. Brown might just energize the disaffected evangelicals to vote against him, but a charismatic populist centrist like Hackett might just keep those holy roller asses on the couch.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Stephen Benson]

Great googliemooglie! What's the deal here? So what if more than one candidate is running in a bloody primary? 'Scuze the hell outta me for thinking that was the way this stuff was supposed to work. Instead of talking about stuff like whether or not the fix is in, why not have a civil discussion on the issues? And since the discussion is among friends and like minds, why not keep it civil. There are plenty of evil ones out there to fight in the general election.

[PhoenixRising]

Neither Brown nor Hackett can expect to appeal to these voters. The best-case scenario is if these evangelicals stay home. Brown might just energize the disaffected evangelicals to vote against him.

This is exactly my concern. I used to live in Sherrod's district. I've knocked on doors for him in a few races. And he's not got a damn coattail outside of the suburbs that make up his new district.

He will be beaten upside the head with every vote he's ever taken in the House. That is a much more relevant concern when converting him to a statewide candidacy than it was in running him 'again' in a newly gerrymandered district that went from suburb/rural to all suburb. He will be whipped by DeWine.

Hackett, OTOH, has a good shot at converting his close loss in OH's reddest counties into a victory when folks in urban Ohio get to vote for him. Best case is keeping Brown's district, which no other Dem could expect to carry, and takign DeWine's Senate seat. Worst case is what the money primary is set up to get us--DeWine keeps his seat and that awful little woman in OH-2 keeps hers.

Why lose a seat in the House and stay even in the Senate? To teach little Paul a lesson about whose ass to kiss. Which is why I'm not a Democrat--the party would rather keep control over a losing enterprise than win by letting lose of the organization's power to be the kingmakers. That's stupid, so I'm sure it is what the party will do.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I never thought I'd live to say this, but in this case, it's not really about the issues. Since I'd be happy with either candidate, I'm advocating for the person I think is most electable.

If I thought this were about the issues, I'd go with Brown over Hackett any day.

The important thing is picking up Democratic seats in the Senate and the House. Brown has a safe Democratic house seat (OH-13). If he leaves, he'll be replaced by a Democrat. But Brown will be sacrificing his seniority in the House to become a junior Senator. Hackett could run for Brown's old seat and win. That would be fine, but we wouldn't pick up any new House seats for the Democrats. There are other House races Hackett could run in, but those are all going to be incredibly tough fights where he'd face longer odds that he would running for Senate.

Unless Brown is astronomically more electable than Hackett, it makes more sense for Brown to stay where he is and for Hackett to run for Senate.

[gswift]

I'm with Lindsay on this.

Ohio is on a red streak, and we need to put up the guy who's going to have the best shot, not the guy with the best progressive voting sheet.

I'm not too worried about the stability thing yet. Remember his response to Limbaugh? "That's typical for that fatass drug addict to come up with something like that..."

That kind of thing actually resonates quite well with a lot of voters. It's been a huge problem with Democratic candidates. Dukakis blew it with that rape question. When the Swift boating of Kerry began, he impressed no one with that whole "above the fray" attitude.

If we don't want to be portrayed as spineless, we need to quit acting like we are.

[PhoenixRising]

The important thing is picking up Democratic seats in the Senate and the House. Brown has a safe Democratic house seat (OH-13). If he leaves, he'll be replaced by a Democrat.

That is the important thing. Which is why I think it's worth belaboring this point: I don't think you can assume that this district is a safe Dem district, or that we can count on Brown being replaced by any Dem (do you have a suggested name or two? Because I'm coming up dry on that...)

Even if we were guaranteed a win this begs the question. WHY are we better off with the kind of Dem who can win this particular seat--after 14 years of unanswered partisan slurs against Democrats in Ohio that will hurt anyone trying to take Brown's place deeply--and Brown in the Senate, than with Brown in the seat and Hackett in the Senate?

Assuming that there is some other Democrat who could win OH-2 in place of Hackett is a tooth-fairy style argument. Similarly, assuming that some other progressive give-em-hell Dem is going to be coughed up to replace Brown, by Lorain and Cuyahoga's burbs is just...well, I wish I were such an optimist.

[Iron Lungfish]

Can we please see some numbers on these people before sweeping pronouncements about electability are made? There must exist polls of Hackett/DeWine versus Brown/DeWine; both Hackett and Brown have no doubt been conducting them, but I'm sure local independents have, too. Instead of attempting to conclude a priori who's going to be elected, can I actually see some evidence?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

For what they're worth, the Zogby interactive results put Hackett ahead of DeWine by a 9-point margin.

PR, I don't have names for OH-13. I've just heard from various sources that Brown has a very safe Democratic seat. If his seat isn't safe, I'll stand corrected. I'm willing to credit those accounts because (a priori, again) it seems plausible that a district that would reliably elect such a progressive Democrat is also likely to be a safe Democratic seat.

[nonplussed]

I don't have any particular expertise as a campaign strategist, but Lindsay makes a convincing case for Hackett. I will say, however, that I would certainly prefer to see a Senator Hackett rather than a Senator Brown. Hackett is a rising star on the national level and we need to produce a new generation of leaders so that Barack Obama isn't fighting the good fight all alone. I don't see that potential in Brown.
.

[gswift]

Offhand, I don't see why Brown's seat wouldn't remain a lock for him. Have district lines been redrawn or something? He's been winning by more than comfortable margins.

[ghostcatbce]

I'm with Lindsay on this one. Hackett should run for senate; Brown should stick it out where he is, at least for now.
That way there is no primary, OH sees a united Democratic front, and you get a brand new face in the Senate. Sounds like win-win to me.

[jkd]

I used to live in Brown's district - it's a safe seat, completely. And we'd be hard-pressed to get a better Rep. than Sherrod, should he run for the Senate, even given how safe his district is.

And I can't think of anyone I'd rather have in the Senate representing Ohio than Sherrod Brown. Nobody.

It is true that he doesn't, as of now, have much in the way of name rec outside of Northeast Ohio - but he did lead the nearly-successful fight against CAFTA, a not-inconsequential issue in Ohio.

Sherrod Brown is not the Establishment - he can run an anti-corruption campaign as well as anyone, as he's been fighting the corrupt Ohio GOP his entire career.

Paul Hackett seems to be a good guy, and he ran a helluva race. I'd be happy to see either of them as the nominee. But if there needs to be a primary, there needs to be a primary; and why is that bad? Last cycle, several GOP candidates ran competitive primaries into Senate victories. I think we have two good candidates here. But if we're really concerned that the winner would be "damaged" by a primary, then clearly neither is as strong as we think.

[Robert]

The reason we don't prefer a primary is because of what happened in OH-2, to the Republicans. It gave Hackett his opening. We don't want to give one to them.

Lindsay nailed it in her post. Hackett can win. Were he a complete ass, that wouldn't be enough. But he isn't, so it is.

[jkd]

"The reason we don't prefer a primary is because of what happened in OH-2, to the Republicans. It gave Hackett his opening. We don't want to give one to them."

This isn't a good analogy. OH-2 was a special election, short time period, with a big field. The better analogy is the '04 cycle Senate races.

[Kevin Hayden]

Electability is a bird like a phoenix that can surprise with a rise from old ashes.

Given the amount of scandal both the White House and Ohio GOP will have provided twixt now and November, an argument could be made that even a Kucinich liberal could take a statewide Ohio seat if the electorate is disgusted enough with the Grand Oldcrony Party.

I'd urge withholding too much analysis too soon and hope that the primary remains sufficiently civil that neither candidate emerges bruised.

Past experience suggests that when ideologues gain power they overreach so badly that the electorate can swing well past their usual boundaries. Which means that Brown may yet prove easily electable.

[gordo]

While I have to think that any credible Dem could win a statewide Ohio race in 2006, I still have to root for Hackett.

First, I'd rather have seats for Brown and Hackett than have seats for Brown and Candidate To Be Named Later.

Second, let's remember that Hackett got famous by jumping into a race that better-established Democrats shied away from. He's willing to fight when the going gets tough, instead of just going along with what he's told is inevitable.

Finally, if electablility is an issue, Hackett's got to be the choice. He almost won in a heavily Republican district, and he's a free media generating machine. In a race in which corruption looms large as an issue, it's a big advantage to be running as an outsider.

[Raging Bee]

One more thing: Democrats need to go on the offensive to at least divide the evangelicals, and make them wonder whether the far right's agenda really is as "Christian" as they say it is. Democrats need to stop writing off evangelicals as unreachable Stepford zealots (thus making them all the more unreachable), and start speaking to Christian values. We may never get them on our side, but if they hear other voices speaking to them and their values, they might actually start thinking, and wondering where the GOP is leading them. That will be good for the country, even if they don't defect.

[peter snees]

A gentle correction, ghost: Brown does have name recognition outside Northeast Ohio. He used to be secretary of state.

[Neo Logic]

I have met Dewine personally. He is a scary dude. I was pissing next to him- next urinal over

His 'guys' (handlers, whatever) were steering him around like an eight year old all night

very, very odd

[hksac2000]

香港瑞丰会计师事务所系最大的公司注册登记服务机构：LINKS:注册美国公司,注册香港公司,注册BVI公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,香港注册公司,注册香港公司,注册公司,注册公司,香港公司注册,公司注册,注册香港公司,美国注册公司,美国注册公司,香港公司,进出口贸易,国际贸易,香港公司办理,办理香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,贸易投资,国际贸易,注册香港公司,香港公司注册,香港注册公司,办理香港公司,注册BVI公司,注册BVI公司,注册BVI公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册bvi公司,注册美国公司,注册bvi公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册BVI公司,注册美国公司,注册美国公司,贸易公司,批发市场,香港政府,纺织品贸易,香港银行,注册商标,书刊出版发行,公司上市企业融资,注册香港公司,注册美国公司,注册香港公司,GOOGLE排名,香港会计师.注册会计师,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册美国公司,注册美国公司,海外离岸公司|注册BVI公司,海外离岸公司|注册BVI公司,海外离岸公司,注册海外公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册商标,注册商标,注册商标,注册商标,注册商标,注册商标,注册上海公司,注册上海公司,注册上海公司,注册上海公司,注册上海公司,注册上海公司,注册上海公司,.....
国际贸易,进出口贸易公司,进出口贸易,国际贸易,进出口贸易,贸易公司,TRADE,注册香港公司,进出口贸易,注册香港公司,投资,贸易公司,
cccc

[ArC]

Of course, DeWine and the Republicans will try to swiftboat him, but the charges are less likely to stick.

Isn't that what Dems said about Kerry (obviously, not using that phrase)? I say don't pick based on what storylines you think will cut off Republican attacks -- they will use those attacks anyways. They are shameless enough to smear absolutely anyone for anything.

That said, I do admire Hackett for going after a very tough seat.