OH: More Money Stuff (August)

[BuckeyeNut]

Politico feature on Cordray & the race

I think he should go for it. At the end of the day, Trump is going to get to name his successor at the CFPB regardless. If he misses the governor race, he'll have to wait until 2022 to have another shot at that or a Senate seat, and circumstances by then might even preclude that.

Agreed. It's time for Cordray to accept his destiny and become the governor of Ohio and make his way to the White House in 2024.

Is Mr. Cordray charismatic enough to win the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination? Is he too white? Maybe. A Cordray-Ossoff ticket in 2024 would be good or a Warren-Cordray ticket, but it would be too "intellectual" for the same white working class voters Cordray is trying to court as Ohio governor in 2018.

Charisma comes in different forms and can be learned to a certisn extent.

Too white? Most Democratic leaders are white and white people make up a majority of Democrats and people who lean Democrat. (Source.)

No one with half a brain is worried about an Ohio Democrat being white.

ION: State Rep. Wes Retherford, who was found passed out drunk with a gun in a McDonald's parking lot, will not be facing felony charges. If he had, he would have been automatically evicted from office, and the OH GOP would have gotten to choose his successor.

Between Retherford and Keller, Butler County GOP needs to get it's sh**t together.

[BuckeyeNut]

Schiavoni has resigned as Senate Minority Leader to more actively pursue campaigning.

[BuckeyeNut]

Hearing a rumor former Congressman Zack Space is considering running for Auditor.

[Rjjr77]

Politico feature on Cordray & the race

Another benefit to Cordrey running would be that at least some folks like Schiavoni, Sutton, Pillich, etc would probably drop down to row offices (although the Treasurer nomination is probably Leland's *if* he wants it). 

On a different note, the ODP needs to find a new a AG candidate.  Much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong about Diettelbach.  He got off to a very promising start extremely early, but he seems to have already fizzled out.  However, Dave Yost is a decidedly "meh" Republican recruit and as a result, OH AG remains a great pickup opportunity if we can recruit a solid candidate.

Do I get to say I told you so?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Politico feature on Cordray & the race

Another benefit to Cordrey running would be that at least some folks like Schiavoni, Sutton, Pillich, etc would probably drop down to row offices (although the Treasurer nomination is probably Leland's *if* he wants it). 

On a different note, the ODP needs to find a new a AG candidate.  Much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong about Diettelbach.  He got off to a very promising start extremely early, but he seems to have already fizzled out.  However, Dave Yost is a decidedly "meh" Republican recruit and as a result, OH AG remains a great pickup opportunity if we can recruit a solid candidate.

Do I get to say I told you so?

I'd give it two more months, but if the situation remains unchanged then yeah, I suppose you do.  Fair is fair, after all  

I still think AG is a prime Democratic pickup opportunity if we can recruit a solid candidate.  Yost is a paper tiger at best.

[Badger]

I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

[Rjjr77]

I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

[Badger]

I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

The 89th I'll give you as being competitive, but no way on the 5th. It's a single county (Columbiana) district that Obama lost twice by almost 8 points and even Sherrod Brown lost against Mandel. In the short term it's worth noting Trump carried it by over 40 points. At the local state house level it's R lean at least.

I think you are similarly overstating the competitiveness of some of the districts such as the 19th. More to the point, while there are no reasons Democrats can't be competitive in single county swing districts like the 3rd (Wood County), the "unique" mapping of districts such as the 19th or 55th make it at least tilt R in areas where, but for surgical drawing of boundary lines, Republicans generally would make little to know headway.

Plus, once one ensures control of the state legislature with such a map, don't ever underestimate the statewide fundraising advantage that gives the party in charge, which translates to wins in semi-competitive district. 

Sorry, but when the Republican Party writes a map that is baldly unfair and undemocratic statewide, I'm not going to give kudos and excuse it just for winning a few seats Democrats are still compitative in.

[Rjjr77]

I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

The 89th I'll give you as being competitive, but no way on the 5th. It's a single county (Columbiana) district that Obama lost twice by almost 8 points and even Sherrod Brown lost against Mandel. In the short term it's worth noting Trump carried it by over 40 points. At the local state house level it's R lean at least.

I think you are similarly overstating the competitiveness of some of the districts such as the 19th. More to the point, while there are no reasons Democrats can't be competitive in single county swing districts like the 3rd (Wood County), the "unique" mapping of districts such as the 19th or 55th make it at least tilt R in areas where, but for surgical drawing of boundary lines, Republicans generally would make little to know headway.

Plus, once one ensures control of the state legislature with such a map, don't ever underestimate the statewide fundraising advantage that gives the party in charge, which translates to wins in semi-competitive district. 

Sorry, but when the Republican Party writes a map that is baldly unfair and undemocratic statewide, I'm not going to give kudos and excuse it just for winning a few seats Democrats are still compitative in.

Ah how short is your memory. Columbiana county may have gone against Obama, but it elected D state rep in 2006, 2008, and 2012. This time? A joke candidate for the democrats.

And sure the 19th and the 55th tilt R with this map, so why then were the democrats literally unable to recruit a candidate in 55.

And that tilt R district 55? It went 67% for the democrat in 2012.


The 19th also featured an absolute joke of a candidate for the democrats. You can't always blame gerrymandering when a party can't find a candidate in a competitive district like 55 and 19.

Gerrymandering exists, absolutely, but the sheer ineptitude in candidate recruitment is the reason the republicans have super majorities, they are winning in democrat districts at this point.

[Badger]

I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

The 89th I'll give you as being competitive, but no way on the 5th. It's a single county (Columbiana) district that Obama lost twice by almost 8 points and even Sherrod Brown lost against Mandel. In the short term it's worth noting Trump carried it by over 40 points. At the local state house level it's R lean at least.

I think you are similarly overstating the competitiveness of some of the districts such as the 19th. More to the point, while there are no reasons Democrats can't be competitive in single county swing districts like the 3rd (Wood County), the "unique" mapping of districts such as the 19th or 55th make it at least tilt R in areas where, but for surgical drawing of boundary lines, Republicans generally would make little to know headway.

Plus, once one ensures control of the state legislature with such a map, don't ever underestimate the statewide fundraising advantage that gives the party in charge, which translates to wins in semi-competitive district. 

Sorry, but when the Republican Party writes a map that is baldly unfair and undemocratic statewide, I'm not going to give kudos and excuse it just for winning a few seats Democrats are still compitative in.

Ah how short is your memory. Columbiana county may have gone against Obama, but it elected D state rep in 2006, 2008, and 2012. This time? A joke candidate for the democrats.

And sure the 19th and the 55th tilt R with this map, so why then were the democrats literally unable to recruit a candidate in 55.

And that tilt R district 55? It went 67% for the democrat in 2012.


The 19th also featured an absolute joke of a candidate for the democrats. You can't always blame gerrymandering when a party can't find a candidate in a competitive district like 55 and 19.

Gerrymandering exists, absolutely, but the sheer ineptitude in candidate recruitment is the reason the republicans have super majorities, they are winning in democrat districts at this point.

Incumbancy has advantages for both parties. Taking the 5th in Columbiana County as an example, should we assume that Jim Hood being repeatedly re-elected as Attorney General shows MS is a lean-D state?

Again, enforced majorities create huge fund-raising advantages which affect every legislative race, which severely affects candidate recruitment. Those with expertise in gerrymandering are the first to crow about it (privately). Have the state Dems screwed up some recruitment opportunities? Sure. Could they break the super-majority (forget the majority) if they got their act together? Probably not without without all the cards going right and drawing an inside straight on election day. And THE reason for that is the district map.

[Rjjr77]

I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

The 89th I'll give you as being competitive, but no way on the 5th. It's a single county (Columbiana) district that Obama lost twice by almost 8 points and even Sherrod Brown lost against Mandel. In the short term it's worth noting Trump carried it by over 40 points. At the local state house level it's R lean at least.

I think you are similarly overstating the competitiveness of some of the districts such as the 19th. More to the point, while there are no reasons Democrats can't be competitive in single county swing districts like the 3rd (Wood County), the "unique" mapping of districts such as the 19th or 55th make it at least tilt R in areas where, but for surgical drawing of boundary lines, Republicans generally would make little to know headway.

Plus, once one ensures control of the state legislature with such a map, don't ever underestimate the statewide fundraising advantage that gives the party in charge, which translates to wins in semi-competitive district. 

Sorry, but when the Republican Party writes a map that is baldly unfair and undemocratic statewide, I'm not going to give kudos and excuse it just for winning a few seats Democrats are still compitative in.

Ah how short is your memory. Columbiana county may have gone against Obama, but it elected D state rep in 2006, 2008, and 2012. This time? A joke candidate for the democrats.

And sure the 19th and the 55th tilt R with this map, so why then were the democrats literally unable to recruit a candidate in 55.

And that tilt R district 55? It went 67% for the democrat in 2012.


The 19th also featured an absolute joke of a candidate for the democrats. You can't always blame gerrymandering when a party can't find a candidate in a competitive district like 55 and 19.

Gerrymandering exists, absolutely, but the sheer ineptitude in candidate recruitment is the reason the republicans have super majorities, they are winning in democrat districts at this point.

Incumbancy has advantages for both parties. Taking the 5th in Columbiana County as an example, should we assume that Jim Hood being repeatedly re-elected as Attorney General shows MS is a lean-D state?

Again, enforced majorities create huge fund-raising advantages which affect every legislative race, which severely affects candidate recruitment. Those with expertise in gerrymandering are the first to crow about it (privately). Have the state Dems screwed up some recruitment opportunities? Sure. Could they break the super-majority (forget the majority) if they got their act together? Probably not without without all the cards going right and drawing an inside straight on election day. And THE reason for that is the district map.

Incumbency has its advantage? Not in the 5th where incumbents lost in 10, 12, and 14.

The democrats lost bad this past election in a +2 R district, +1 R district, a +4R district, and a +6 D district. All in open seats. Throw in the 5 districts republicans held with D partisan advantages those are 9 seats the dems should have been able to be competitive in, in all of them they recruited bad candidates and lost.

There will be 6 seats the democrats have advantages this cycle that are republican, those 3 first time incumbents, as well as around 5 other open Seats with PVIs at R +4 or lower. That's 14 competitive races the democrats could easily win any given year, that often, they don't even compete in.

[BuckeyeNut]

Politico feature on Cordray & the race

Another benefit to Cordrey running would be that at least some folks like Schiavoni, Sutton, Pillich, etc would probably drop down to row offices (although the Treasurer nomination is probably Leland's *if* he wants it). 

On a different note, the ODP needs to find a new a AG candidate.  Much as I hate to admit it, I was wrong about Diettelbach.  He got off to a very promising start extremely early, but he seems to have already fizzled out.  However, Dave Yost is a decidedly "meh" Republican recruit and as a result, OH AG remains a great pickup opportunity if we can recruit a solid candidate.

Do I get to say I told you so?

I'd give it two more months, but if the situation remains unchanged then yeah, I suppose you do.  Fair is fair, after all  

I still think AG is a prime Democratic pickup opportunity if we can recruit a solid candidate.  Yost is a paper tiger at best.

Dettelbach still isn't officially in yet. And his Q1 numbers were pretty great for 2 months of fundraising and not actually being in. I wouldn't count him out until he's officially in.

ION: Husted really ramping up staff.

[BuckeyeNut]

State Rep. Heather Bischoff is resigning as she and her husband plan a move to California. A bit surprising, as she was viewed as something of an up-and-comer who could run for the State Senate in '18. The House Democratic Caucus will be picking a replacement soon.

Also, to loop back to gerrymandering, Bischoff won the closest State House race of 2016 with a six-point win.

[BuckeyeNut]

Renacci is reporting over $2 mil. raised since he launched his campaign.

In Local News: Cincinnati and Columbus are both having municipal primaries today. Two WFP candidates running for Council are expected to get crushed in Columbus, while there's a very ugly Mayoral election building up in Cincinnati.

[Rjjr77]

Renacci is reporting over $2 mil. raised since he launched his campaign.

In Local News: Cincinnati and Columbus are both having municipal primaries today. Two WFP candidates running for Council are expected to get crushed in Columbus, while there's a very ugly Mayoral election building up in Cincinnati.

2 million in Pledges, not actual money

[BuckeyeNut]

Renacci is reporting over $2 mil. raised since he launched his campaign.

In Local News: Cincinnati and Columbus are both having municipal primaries today. Two WFP candidates running for Council are expected to get crushed in Columbus, while there's a very ugly Mayoral election building up in Cincinnati.

2 million in Pledges, not actual money

I'd take him at his word. As it mentions in the article, he doesn't have to release any fundraising reports until January of '18.

[Rjjr77]

Renacci is reporting over $2 mil. raised since he launched his campaign.

In Local News: Cincinnati and Columbus are both having municipal primaries today. Two WFP candidates running for Council are expected to get crushed in Columbus, while there's a very ugly Mayoral election building up in Cincinnati.

2 million in Pledges, not actual money

I'd take him at his word. As it mentions in the article, he doesn't have to release any fundraising reports until January of '18.

I won't because pledges and fundraising are different, he could have pledges for general election funds included into that as well, or pledges for donations that are above the limit and he'd never be able to collect

[BuckeyeNut]

Mmmm. Perhaps. I think the Cincinnati Mayoral primary is the most interesting thing happening this month by a long shot. Unless Whaley/Cordray/Kucinich do pull the trigger. But I'm doubtful.

[Rjjr77]

Hearing Whaley on Monday

[BuckeyeNut]

I was hoping she'd decide against it. Oh well. This is why all elections need run-offs. It'd be a real shame for whoever wins the primary to squeak by with 35% of the vote.

ION: Things looking bad for Cranley. Richardson and Simpson should have split the black vote putting Cranley on top but with 96% of the vote in, Simpson's beating Clark 45% to 34%. Richarson's at 20%.

[BuckeyeNut]

In addition to Cincinnati Mayor Cranley coming 2nd in a three-way jungle primary, Youngstown Mayor John McNally lost the Democratic Primary last night to former CCP Jamael Brown.

[BuckeyeNut]

Thing went way more sideways in the Youngstown local elections that I realized. Every candidate endorsed by the Mahoning County Democratic Party lost their primary.

[Rjjr77]

Thing went way more sideways in the Youngstown local elections that I realized. Every candidate endorsed by the Mahoning County Democratic Party lost their primary.

The mahoning valley is changing quickly

[Rjjr77]

It's Gravis, so grain of salt, but Dewine at 31% in the GOP primary is bad news for him.

[VPH]

Thing went way more sideways in the Youngstown local elections that I realized. Every candidate endorsed by the Mahoning County Democratic Party lost their primary.

The mahoning valley is changing quickly

You think it's really an extension of the Trump phenomenon? Or is it more corruption associated with specific high ranking Dems in Youngstown?