OH-SEN: Renacci Wins Weak Plurality

[Gustaf]

Josh Mandel's primary opponent, an independently wealthy businessman by the name of Mike Gibbons, is on the air with a six-figure ad buy attacking ... Senate Republicans?

It's a decent ad, but it looks strange, calling out Senators for, not "repeal[ing] Obamacare and cut[ting] taxes." Mandel isn't in the Senate, and most people don't want the ACA repealed at this point, especially the people who voted for Brown in 2012. Not sure what demo he's going for.

"This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing."

[Gustaf]

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.

Not that I'm particularly invested, but I think throwing out the sentence "The wife beating allegations would probably sink a presidential nod. Which is why i think he'd never actual run" without any additional explanation or context is kind of slanderous given the situation. I can understand why people would react to that.

[Gustaf]

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.

Not that I'm particularly invested, but I think throwing out the sentence "The wife beating allegations would probably sink a presidential nod. Which is why i think he'd never actual run" without any additional explanation or context is kind of slanderous given the situation. I can understand why people would react to that.

It's not in anyway slanderous, nor is it outrageous for me to mention in such a casual way. It has been used routinely in campaigns against Brown with varying levels of success, it is a pretty open and public topic, and it is a legitimate allegation made against him by his ex-wife. For me to think that it could sink the presidential aspirations of a  64 year old white male senator from the midwest, in what I expect to be a crowded (but top heavy) field is not in anyway unreasonable.

Right, but I think the point is rather that you could just as well have said something like "even though the allegations have been withdrawn and are denied by the supposed victim, they could still hurt him" in order to make that point.