Should we just stop having primaries? It sounds like you are against primary elections. I understand there are better voting alternatives, but usually primaries are better than not having a primary IMO.

 

I don't think they're an essential ingredient to democracy. I believe the first-past-the-post system itself (one of the few systems in which the concept of the "primary" would even arise) isn't incredibly democratic in nature. I guess I don't really care because my main objective for this and pretty much all elections is to see center-left candidates win seats almost regardless of how it happens. And as has been pointed out, the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot on more than one occasion by not being on the same page and putting forth unelectable candidates in general elections.

I think most people who are for P.G. will just switch over to Strickland when P.G. loses the primary.

 

The main goal for P.G. this round is to get his name out there.

 

That's all well and good, but it's a bit defeatist if Sittenfield plays hardball with Strickland and/or forces him to spend a significant portion of his war chest.

See where Ted Strickland is getting campaign cash

The former Ohio governor raised only 3 percent of his money in the first quarter of the year from donors in the Queen City

 

If Cincinnati is P.G. Sittenfeld's cash cow in the U.S. Senate race, it's more of a dry well for Ted Strickland.

 

The former Ohio governor raised only 3 percent of his money in the first quarter of the year from donors in the Queen City, while Sittenfeld raised more than half his money from local supporters, according to an Enquirer analysis of newly available campaign data.

 

The two Democrats are vying for their party's nomination and the chance to face GOP Sen. Rob Portman in the general election.

 

Cont

Strickland has slim lead in Ohio Senate race

Deirdre Shesgreen, [email protected]

 

WASHINGTON — Ohio's 2016 Senate race has gotten a tiny bit tighter.

 

A new poll released on Monday shows Ted Strickland, Ohio's former Democratic governor, with a 6 percentage point lead over Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

 

In a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, 46 percent of voters said they would support Strickland, while 40 percent said they would back Portman. In an April poll by Quinnipiac, Strickland held a 9 percentage point lead.

 

The new poll also showed little payoff so far for P.G. Sittenfeld's efforts to introduce himself to voters across Ohio. The Cincinnati City Councilman is battling Strickland for the Democratic nomination, but he is still not well known outside of Queen City.

 

Cont

 

 

Speaking of Sittenfeld... Sittenfeld report shows salary, other financial info

Strickland has slim lead in Ohio Senate race

Deirdre Shesgreen, [email protected]

 

WASHINGTON — Ohio's 2016 Senate race has gotten a tiny bit tighter.

 

A new poll released on Monday shows Ted Strickland, Ohio's former Democratic governor, with a 6 percentage point lead over Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

 

In a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, 46 percent of voters said they would support Strickland, while 40 percent said they would back Portman. In an April poll by Quinnipiac, Strickland held a 9 percentage point lead.

 

The new poll also showed little payoff so far for P.G. Sittenfeld's efforts to introduce himself to voters across Ohio. The Cincinnati City Councilman is battling Strickland for the Democratic nomination, but he is still not well known outside of Queen City.

 

Cont

 

 

Speaking of Sittenfeld... Sittenfeld report shows salary, other financial info

 

Keep in mind that Portman hasn't started campaigning yet.

Yesterday's U.S. Senate Primary Results for the Dems and the GOP: https://vote.ohio.gov/

 

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY RESULTS

Kelli Prather (D)      139,106    12.55%

P.G. Sittenfeld (D)  248,810    22.45%

Ted Strickland (D)  720,262    65.00%

 

REPUBLICAN PRIMARY RESULTS

Don Elijah Eckhart ® 284,496  17.80%

Rob Portman ®      1,313,899  82.20%

I thought Sittenfeld would fare much better.  I saw a lot of his ads, none for Strickland, and I thought he came across well, very qualified, experienced, honest...  the anti-gun hits on Strickland I thought were very effective too

Same.  I voted for Sittenfield.  Would like a go getter in there.  Same old with Ted.  One of the few times Ive ever voted for a republican was Kasich over Strickland a few years back for governor.  Strickland probably wins on name recognition...thought he was a do nothing governor

I thought Sittenfeld would fare much better.  I saw a lot of his ads, none for Strickland, and I thought he came across well, very qualified, experienced, honest...  the anti-gun hits on Strickland I thought were very effective too

First statewide runs rarely go well except for current or former Congressmen.

I thought Sittenfeld would do worse. He's got no name recognition outside of Cincinnati city limits, and many of his supporters in Cincinnati aren't Democrats (council elections are nonpartisan and he got a lot of votes because he was against the streetcar while campaigning). I never liked him because he crashed into the scene in a "Manchurian Candidate" style. The bulk of his support comes from a handful of very wealthy family friends, which is one of the aspects of politics I despise the most.

Sittenfeld is your run of the mill lying politician.  At gatherings he'd tell streetcar supporters he was for the project and then the next day told streetcar opponents that he'd make sure the project was cancelled.  Given the choice of two sleazy politicians I gave it to Strickland who would better represent my interests and more likely to win against a Republican (a Party that's a hot mess right now).

I kinda wanted to vote for Sittenfeld just to protest the party's disregard for the primary process.  But I didn't.  And I wasn't even aware of his anti-streetcar views, so now I'm really glad I didn't.

I am not a big fan of Sittenfield.

 

I think people are somewhat right to say he was a flip flopper on the streetcar.  He is all about himself.  He would say, "I did my homework, I calculated the numbers, etc. etc." when all those numbers were already up way before the election. 

 

I am sure he has done a lot of good things with education, etc. but for the most part, I don't think he's done much of anything.  It's just his general attitude I don't like, especially when it came to the streetcar and him saying that he came up with all those numbers himself when they were clear as day to all the politicians.

 

At least David Mann, Vice Mayor, wanted the audit to make certain the numbers were correct.  We can all say that was pretty dumb considering the source was very reputable, but at least he wanted the audit to assure him.  By the way, I am huge streetcar fan, and happy Sittenfield switched over, but the way he went about it rubbed me the wrong way.

The Garland nomination is not good news for Strickland.

 

He angers the party's left if he opposes confirmation.

 

If he supports it he loses the NRA support that makes him one of Ohio's more formidable Democrats.

I am not a big fan of Sittenfield.

 

I think people are somewhat right to say he was a flip flopper on the streetcar.  He is all about himself.  He would say, "I did my homework, I calculated the numbers, etc. etc." when all those numbers were already up way before the election. 

 

I am sure he has done a lot of good things with education, etc. but for the most part, I don't think he's done much of anything.  It's just his general attitude I don't like, especially when it came to the streetcar and him saying that he came up with all those numbers himself when they were clear as day to all the politicians.

 

At least David Mann, Vice Mayor, wanted the audit to make certain the numbers were correct.  We can all say that was pretty dumb considering the source was very reputable, but at least he wanted the audit to assure him.  By the way, I am huge streetcar fan, and happy Sittenfield switched over, but the way he went about it rubbed me the wrong way.

 

If he'd hadnt had came out for the streetcar early like he did there's be no way we could have built the momentum to change the minds of Mann and Flynn IMO.

 

Also I think the notion that he flip flopped is somewhat incorrect. During that 2013 he didn't make any strong statements one way or the other. If you can fault him for anything it's for not being a strong pro streetcar voice throughout because he still would have been elected by a wide margin.

I am not a big fan of Sittenfield.

 

I think people are somewhat right to say he was a flip flopper on the streetcar.  He is all about himself.  He would say, "I did my homework, I calculated the numbers, etc. etc." when all those numbers were already up way before the election. 

 

I am sure he has done a lot of good things with education, etc. but for the most part, I don't think he's done much of anything.  It's just his general attitude I don't like, especially when it came to the streetcar and him saying that he came up with all those numbers himself when they were clear as day to all the politicians.

 

At least David Mann, Vice Mayor, wanted the audit to make certain the numbers were correct.  We can all say that was pretty dumb considering the source was very reputable, but at least he wanted the audit to assure him.  By the way, I am huge streetcar fan, and happy Sittenfield switched over, but the way he went about it rubbed me the wrong way.

 

If he'd hadnt had came out for the streetcar early like he did there's be no way we could have built the momentum to change the minds of Mann and Flynn IMO.

 

Also I think the notion that he flip flopped is somewhat incorrect. During that 2013 he didn't make any strong statements one way or the other. If you can fault him for anything it's for not being a strong pro streetcar voice throughout because he still would have been elected by a wide margin.

 

Sittenfeld's streetcar position was purely political.  He was essentially opposed to it when he first ran because there was a substantial block of voters who hated the streetcar so much and he clearly decided that it was important for them to support him.  But once he got on council he could have cared less about it, except perhaps to bait Mallory a bit.  The only constituency Sittenfeld isn't going to piss off is the wealthy donor class, which he's essentially a part of.

 

Sittenfeld's position on the Streetcar was cynical.  But at least he voted to keep it instead of shutting it down.  Mann's position on the streetcar was idiotic.  He was against it during the campaign, then said he needed to study the issue (but of course that's what he should have done before beginning his campaign, or maybe at least during his campaign), voted for a pause that both cost the City $1 million dollars and removed the tie-breaking vote from Mann's own control.  Every choice he made during that time was flat-out stupid until he finally voted for it.  Kevin Flynn's positions were also dumb, but at least he had the excuse of being a newbie politician.  Mann had been a mayor and a congressman.  How a guy like that manages to remove himself from being a tie-breaking vote on an issue of critical importance while at the same time wasting $1,000,000 to figure out if we should waste millions more is beyond me.  Lost total respect for him during that debacle.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2016/07/rob_portman_pulls_ahead_in_ohi.html#incart_m-rpt-1

 

Portman currently leading by 7 points over Strickland, who has negative net favorability.  I put it in this old thread because I didn't see one for the senate race, and to ask if the party should be second guessing its decision to forgo a serious primary.  Why run a "prevent defense" if you're not ahead?  This, in essence, is why the state dems have been getting stomped.  Remember Fitzgerald?  It's like they're not even trying and there's no reform in sight.

 

---

MODERATOR NOTICE:  Post was moved into this 2016 U. S. Senate race thread.

Portman is a good Senator and represents Ohio well. That is why he is tough to beat.

^Overall I don't have huge problems with Portman. He's been battling the opioid epidemic and supports gay marriage. Unfortunately, he also is set on repealing Obamacare, which seems to be what he is usually talking about. I'm not embarrassed by him in any strong way.

 

I still think he's relatively unknown in Ohio. This is the main reason he could lose. Also, Trump could deflate turnout for the Republicans, but that remains to be seen.

Portman's support of gay marriage is solely due to his gay son. If not for that, he'd still chant the party line about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

^He was against gay marriage until either his son came out to him or he announced that his son was gay (not sure how long he knew).

 

But we should still be okay with people choosing to be on the right side of history, even if it took personal experience to realize it.

Also, he believes in climate change and agrees that humans are contributing to it. He doesn't think we are a significant cause for it, but still thinks we are contributing and thinks Congress should do something to address it.

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/27/portman-climate-change-vote-hinges-one-word/70534216/

 

One of my favorite Republican congressmen.

^Overall I don't have huge problems with Portman. He's been battling the opioid epidemic and supports gay marriage. Unfortunately, he also is set on repealing Obamacare, which seems to be what he is usually talking about.

 

This was a topic of discussion among some of my R friends last night. To them, "Repeal Obamacare" is hollow but necessary talking point; that it has no likelihood of actually happening.

As long as he keeps his distance from Trump, I suspect Portman is unbeatable.  He's seen as an independent voice.  Hillary isn't going to have coattails in Ohio, indeed she may have negative ones.  Americans have consistently supported what partisans call "gridlock" for twenty years and I certainly don't see that changing with these two Presidential candidates.

 

Besides, the Ohio GOP will put the efforts it does not put behind Trump (just about all of them) behind Portman and other Congressional candidates.

^He was against gay marriage until either his son came out to him or he announced that his son was gay (not sure how long he knew).

 

But we should still be okay with people choosing to be on the right side of history, even if it took personal experience to realize it.

 

Clinton, Obama, etc. were all against gay marriage before they were for it. Ohio voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage back in 2005. The majority of people who are for it now were against it before they were for it. I don't think it's something that should be criticized, though I've always been opposed to using the "flip-flop" as a point of criticism, unless it can be used to demonstrate a clear pattern of pandering to populism, or worse, rich donors. This flip-flop on Portman's part was definitely not done for those reasons, but a personal reason, which is as good a reason as any.

I saw a Portman ad today. What was strange is they used a very flattering photograph of Ted Strickland, like it was maybe from 20 years ago.

Can somebody remove the Poll on this thread, since the Democratic Primary is over.

^He was against gay marriage until either his son came out to him or he announced that his son was gay (not sure how long he knew).

 

But we should still be okay with people choosing to be on the right side of history, even if it took personal experience to realize it.

 

Clinton, Obama, etc. were all against gay marriage before they were for it. Ohio voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage back in 2005. The majority of people who are for it now were against it before they were for it. I don't think it's something that should be criticized, though I've always been opposed to using the "flip-flop" as a point of criticism, unless it can be used to demonstrate a clear pattern of pandering to populism, or worse, rich donors. This flip-flop on Portman's part was definitely not done for those reasons, but a personal reason, which is as good a reason as any.

 

A lot of people that were too young to vote in 2005 are in favor of gay marriage.

^Overall I don't have huge problems with Portman. He's been battling the opioid epidemic and supports gay marriage. Unfortunately, he also is set on repealing Obamacare, which seems to be what he is usually talking about.

 

This was a topic of discussion among some of my R friends last night. To them, "Repeal Obamacare" is hollow but necessary talking point; that it has no likelihood of actually happening.

 

Go ahead and repeal it--as long as they replace it with something better.  We are all ears!

^Overall I don't have huge problems with Portman. He's been battling the opioid epidemic and supports gay marriage. Unfortunately, he also is set on repealing Obamacare, which seems to be what he is usually talking about.

 

This was a topic of discussion among some of my R friends last night. To them, "Repeal Obamacare" is hollow but necessary talking point; that it has no likelihood of actually happening.

 

Go ahead and repeal it--as long as they replace it with something better.  We are all ears!

 

Exactly.

Portman's support of gay marriage is solely due to his gay son. If not for that, he'd still chant the party line about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

 

This means he is more sincere in his belief as opposed to someone who just chants the party line or catering to a certain interest group. Would you rather have someone sincere in his belief or someone who just panders to your interests?

^I'll take "panders to my interests" every day. Personal virtues like sincerity are vastly over-rated for legislators. Ultimately I want someone who will vote the way I want them to vote and introduce bills I support.

^I'll take "panders to my interests" every day. Personal virtues like sincerity are vastly over-rated for legislators. Ultimately I want someone who will vote the way I want them to vote and introduce bills I support.

 

^This.

Did Ted hire an adviser from the Trump campaign?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ted-strickland-scalia-comment-226872

I agree. I see him winning this race because Strickland is a horrible candidate. Portman does seem a bit different from most candidates in that he is at least willing to listen and understand an issue to make an informed decision rather than being a knee jerk republican. I'll wait til November to decide who will get my vote.

^That's basically how I feel too.  I can't stand Ted Strickland, and I think Portman is fairly moderate, at least compared to many of the loons who represent the Republican party.  Strickland seems to have zero concern for urban issues, he has an A+ rating with the NRA, and he seems really phony.  At least Portman shows up at various events around Cincinnati every now and again, including recently Pride.

^That's basically how I feel too.  I can't stand Ted Strickland, and I think Portman is fairly moderate, at least compared to many of the loons who represent the Republican party.  Strickland seems to have zero concern for urban issues, he has an A+ rating with the NRA, and he seems really phony.  At least Portman shows up at various events around Cincinnati every now and again, including recently Pride.

 

 

That A+ rating is old news, they're running ads against him now:

 

https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20160701/nra-launches-ad-in-opposition-to-ted-strickland

 

Portman isn't really a moderate, though that's a semantics argument and your qualifier is important. I guess only in today's GOP do people like Portman and Kasich look sane. Bottom line for me though is that he won't be voting for any of Clinton's Supreme Court nominees.

Strickland felt he had to change his philosophy on gun control after the 974th mass shooting of the 2010s.

^That's basically how I feel too.  I can't stand Ted Strickland, and I think Portman is fairly moderate, at least compared to many of the loons who represent the Republican party.  Strickland seems to have zero concern for urban issues, he has an A+ rating with the NRA, and he seems really phony.  At least Portman shows up at various events around Cincinnati every now and again, including recently Pride.

 

 

That A+ rating is old news, they're running ads against him now:

 

https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20160701/nra-launches-ad-in-opposition-to-ted-strickland

 

Portman isn't really a moderate, though that's a semantics argument and your qualifier is important. I guess only in today's GOP do people like Portman and Kasich look sane. Bottom line for me though is that he won't be voting for any of Clinton's Supreme Court nominees.

 

The problem with Portman, and yes he seems somewhat sane compared to a lot of others representing the Republican Party, is that he still votes down the party line. This makes him no less dangerous than a Ted Cruz. So what that he had a change of heart when one of his sons came out as gay. So if his son didn't come out, would he still hold the same position? Of course he would. With that being said, I'm no fan of Ted Strickland but I'll still take him over Rob "toe the party line except when my gay son comes out of the closet" Portman. FYI, I voted for Portman when he was still considered a moderate.

He also agrees that climate change is at least partially caused by humans and thinks Congress should act on it.

Strickland felt he had to change his philosophy on gun control after the 974th mass shooting of the 2010s.

 

Or was it after he was done running for Congress and Governor?

^I'll take "panders to my interests" every day. Personal virtues like sincerity are vastly over-rated for legislators. Ultimately I want someone who will vote the way I want them to vote and introduce bills I support.

 

Yes, but when the winds change and they don't need your vote or don't care about your vote, they are quick to cast you to the street. Typical Liberal mantra, promise me the moon for my vote and when you don't deliver, I will be upset but vote for you again when you promise to give me more free stuff (and still don't deliver)

^I'll take "panders to my interests" every day. Personal virtues like sincerity are vastly over-rated for legislators. Ultimately I want someone who will vote the way I want them to vote and introduce bills I support.

 

^This.

 

The shockingly high level of government corruption is a result of voting in folks that have no principles, no integrity whatsoever.

^I'll take "panders to my interests" every day. Personal virtues like sincerity are vastly over-rated for legislators. Ultimately I want someone who will vote the way I want them to vote and introduce bills I support.

 

Yes, but when the winds change and they don't need your vote or don't care about your vote, they are quick to cast you to the street. Typical Liberal mantra, promise me the moon for my vote and when you don't deliver, I will be upset but vote for you again when you promise to give me more free stuff (and still don't deliver)

 

Kasich did that with farmers.

^^Personal integrity is not quite the same thing as sincerity, and in any case, neither are totally unimportant, even to me. But the fact that Ted Cruz really truly believes that ER doctors should be prosecuted for prescribing the morning after pill to rape victims, and he's not just saying it to pander, doesn't earn him my admiration. Whether or not sincerity is a virtue depends entirely on the substance of the views being expressed. Don't make me godwin this.

^^Personal integrity is not quite the same thing as sincerity, and in any case, neither are totally unimportant, even to me. But the fact that Ted Cruz really truly believes that ER doctors should be prosecuted for prescribing the morning after pill to rape victims, and he's not just saying it to pander, doesn't earn him my admiration. Whether or not sincerity is a virtue depends entirely on the substance of the views being expressed. Don't make me godwin this.

 

Okay, Ted Cruz is sincerely insane. But since you brought him up specifically (and Hitler indirectly lol!) I'll say that he's disingenuous and a major league panderer as well. For one thing, how can he brand himself "anti-establishment" when his wife is an investment manager for Goldman Sachs?

 

But yes, I absolutely agree with your overall point that sincerity does not equal integrity.

The 2016 U.S. Senate race between Portman and Strickland looks like it may not be much of a race.  Portman is up by as much as 9 points over Strickland.  And the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is scrapping TV ad buys for Strickland originally scheduled to run for this month and shifting those funds to more competitive races in the nation:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/06/more-strickland-ads-canceled.html

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/07/ted-strickland-struggles-after-democrats-thought-hed-be-a-prize-candidate.html

^Portman has done a good job of keeping the Trump stink off him and the Portman campaign has done a good job of demonizing Strickland as a job killing governor.  Strickland was always going to be a vulnerable candidate given his history and Portman has taken advantage of that to the fullest.

The one traditional weakness for Portman is that he still has pretty bad name recognition. It doesn't seem to be hurting him, though.

Strickland's main strength was with rural voters, but he changed his position on guns and blew that.  And yet the state party was so insistent on not having debates or even a primary.  Fitzgerald was a catastrophe and now this.  The Ohio Democratic Party is an embarrassment.  Time to clean house.