OH-SEN: Renacci Wins Weak Plurality

[UncleSam]

I read the article, and don't really see anything wrong with it. Did he do it to improve his profile? Sure. But it's entirely in line former as buys in Ohio starting Kasich, Strickland, etc. and it was money spent reasonably to get the word out on an important program. The fact that the proponents of the program itself support the ads and don't feel that Mandel is stealing their spotlight etc. is a good indication that this was perfectly justified.

Of course I haven't seen the ads myself and am just basing my opinion off of the presented evidence within that article, but it sure looks to me like no one cares except the Ohio Democratic Party. Seriously, they don't even have a quote from Sherrod Brown in there denouncing it so it just looks like a typical partisan attempt to malign a legitimately good program from Mandel for political gain.

Of course Republicans would also malign Democrats if a Democrat ran this ad so it's important to keep that in mind, but I think this is a win for Mandel in the long run. I don't know any Republicans who not like Mandel so not sure what you're talking about there, but Mandel is a lot more polished than he was six years ago and Republicans have a massive voter registration advantage in the state to boot. Brown is taking the race very seriously though and is a strong candidate, so I do think he is the favorite still to pull out a close win.

[UncleSam]

Remind me how much Ossoff raised again

Seriously money is not going to buy elections, Brown needs a strong campaign message (which he has time to formulate) that is distinct from the national Democratic brand, which is not popular in Ohio or pretty much anyplace that voted for Trump

As for the notion that Trump winning Ohio big makes it more likely to 'regress to the mean'...that's obviously laughable. Democrats face an uphill battle in Ohio and Iowa at any level these days, and an increasingly difficult battle in Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania. You'd think for how well versed Democrats are in demographics they would be able to see the obvious trends in these states away from them.

[UncleSam]

Clinton did seven points better in GA-6 than she did in Ohio.

While she obviously had better net appeal in comparison to Trump in the former vs the latter, it is not believable to argue that GA-6 was 'unwinnable' while Ohio is (presumably) winnable.

Additionally, both of you seem to be missing the overarching point: money, past a certain point, does not help secure votes (and in some cases it can be actively detrimental). All that raising money shows is that a candidate is popular with the mainstream donor class of his or her respective party, which obviously is a good sign but is not nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

Of course, the reason people in this thread are making it out to be a big deal is that they like Sherrod Brown a lot, despise Josh Mandel, and cannot in their worst nightmare imagine how the latter could defeat the former.

The reality is that Republican-aligned voters now outnumber Democrat-aligned voters by almost 800,000 in the state, and that Democrats will need a massive turnout of low-propensity voters in 2018 COMBINED with a strong appeal to Obama-Trump voters in order to win. This is a difficult task.

If anyone is up to it, Sherrod Brown is. He has strong appeal in the Obama-Trump areas of the state (North coast and Mahoning valley areas in particular), and is popular with mainstream Democrats as well. He definitely has a chance, but it's hard for me to buy the argument he is anything better than a coin flip, at absolute best. Maybe the dynamics of the race will change (god knows there is a lot of time before the election) but if the vote were held today I'd happily offer 3-1 odds against Brown as a handicapper.

[UncleSam]

Can someone explain the 'Brown is a good fit for his state' meme to me?

Like seriously Brown is one of the more liberal senators in the caucus while coming from one of the more conservative states represented there. You can say he's a great campaigner, has unique appeal, etc etc but good fit for his state I have a hard time buying.

Mandel's campaign has stagnated in recent months and goes to show why declaring super early in a cycle can be a double edged sword. While I think Mandel will be a lot tougher than most Dems here probably think in their hearts (given the overwhelming lead for Brown in the poll), I do think Brown may be the slightest of favorites right now.

I think Mandel's floor is higher than Brown's, however. I doubt Mandel could possibly do worse than he did in 2012 given how hard Ohio has swung right and how much infrastructure he has already put in place there. Mandel seems a lot to Ohio like Hillary was to the country last year: massive, well-organized campaign with a vaguely dislikable figure leading it.

That being said Hillary won the popular vote in spite of her likability issues so it's an open question whether this analogy bodes ill for Mandel or for Brown (or neither?) as of yet. Of course it is not a perfect analogy by any means either haha

I think the range of outcomes goes from Brown + 5 to Mandel + 8, with more probability weight towards the Brown end of that range. I could easily see Mandel turning out Trump voters in Ohio though, Dems have become anathema to small town Midwesterners in recent years and Trump's tweets don't change that.

[UncleSam]

Ya I'm with Rj on this one, the accusations clearly were literally neither baseless nor fabricated nor made up. All the people saying that are just straight wrong. While they are certainly misleading and invasive of personal privacy and probably immoral to bring up given that they have been disproven / denounced by the original accuser, the various red avatars who are triggered by this and lashing out are 100% in the wrong imo. It's not like Rj was saying they were real he was commenting on them as a point of fact and to attack him because of something that is true is pretty pathetic.

Anyway this sort of thing has been dredged up numerous times before (see: Clinton, Trump, Obama's original senate opponent in 2004, etc) and they have had varying degrees of impact on the respective races. The way the media attempts to label people as 'possible wifebeater' or 'alleged sexual assaulted' is disgusting when it happens with no proof, because it goes contrary to the very foundation of our legal system. It's slimy and this has happened repeatedly on both sides of the aisle, particularly with regards to digging up old divorce cases and lobbying judges to unseal them for political gain.

None of the wrongness makes this an invalid point to make within the context of the Atlas forum, however. It is a real issue that could have real political consequences, even if it is based on accusations that have been proven false. It is very possible Sherrod doesn't want to run for president lest these get dragged into the race get again.

In any case, it seems that the voters did not care in 2012 and therefore are unlikely to care in 2018, so his whole thing is kind of moot when discussing this senate race.