Ohio, as a state, matters every four years.
The fact they’re going for this prick makes me concerned for Clinton. I thought Strickland was popular?
Way to go Democrats, keep bad mouthing Clinton and saying you will vote for Jill Stein and watch us lose the election. Why haven’t we heard from Jill Stein in the last four years? The election is the Democrat’s to lose.
This presumably means a lot of likely voters are planning on voting for Hillary and Portman, no? Weird. But not unprecedented, I suppose.
As this election draws closer, big money will be on the message “Elect R Senator to stop Hillary and keep her accountable.” Expect that in CO, IL, WI, OH, and many other states that are close. The big money will, IMHO, be in close Senate races. Trump could still win, but he is doing everything possible to reduce that chance for himself.
Strickland had the bad luck to be Governor during the Bush recession. He ended up having to spend the Rainy Day Fund AND raise some taxes to keep the state operating. Plus with the recession, Ohio, like every other state lost jobs. Kasich came in during the recovery and now Portman beating Strickland over the head with spending the RDF down, raising taxes and losing jobs. Plus, I know someone who works Democratic politics and he admits Strickland isn’t the strongest campaigner. I also think Strickland is way behind in money, so he’s having trouble getting the word out.
I wish the party and put someone forward who didn’t have Strickland’s baggage this year. We had a shot to unseat Portman but Strickland just isn’t pulling it off.
Talk about strange bedfellows - I heard on the radio that Gabby Gifford today endorsed Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk based on their support of gun regulation. I’m not questioning her right to endorse those she thinks have stood with her, but are these Republicans really better than the Dems in these races? Would they buck their parties to stand with her?
My understanding is that voters over time have become more and more reluctant to split tickets, so I wonder if this is one of those instances where voters are telling pollsters one thing in August but will likely align their down ballot choices with the top of the ticket come fall.
It’s not unprecedented at all. Remember McCaskill 2012? Beat Akin by 15 points even though Romney won Missouri.
Dems have left Strickland out to dry. He’s gotten outspent drastically.
What does this have to so with the article? Clinton is beating Trump in Ohio by 4-6 points.
That’s why it’s really going to be good for Strickland come fall when Clinton’s huge ad buy comes into play and she can start spending to lift his prospects as well. Clinton’s big ad buy in swing states will not only help her, but each of those states has a Senate seat we either desperately need to hang on to or one we need to turn blue.
Disappointing. But reflects the huge ad buy from dark money.
I’m worried it’s a matter of voters not wanting to admit they are gonna vote for the buffoon Trump.
I worry about that too sometimes, but then I think it’s more likely we’re seeing that phenomenon in Johnson and Stein’s numbers and even Trump’s. There are, I believe, many more Republicans out there who will never admit to anyone they’re voting for Clinton, but will pull that lever for her in a heartbeat.
Sir -
Strickland’s primary opponent lost. Lost. As in, very few people wanted to vote for him. Sittenfeld was the alternative.
I’m in Columbus and I have yet to see an ad by Ted Strickland. I have, however, seen three different negative ads about him, though. I wish he’d get to running because Portman sucks.
Yes he did. What I said and what I meant was that I wish an Democrat with less baggage and a bigger profile than Sittenfeld had tried for the race. I actually liked Sittenfeld and voted for him, but he didn’t have enough support. I’m not an idiot and I live in Ohio. I do know who was running and I do know who lost and who won. That doesn’t mean that I don’t wish that the party had convinced someone else to make the run for Senate. Tim Ryan for example is well liked and comes from a solidly Democratic district, so we could have continued to hold his seat, while he could have gone for the Senate. At the time, no one had any idea that Trump would be the Republican candidate or that he would be doing so badly, so I understand why Ryan didn’t want to take the risk. There were still other Democrats who had at least some name recognition and who might have had a better shot at unseating Portman.
Yeah I think they’re a lot of secret Hillary voters, and a lot of people saying they’re gonna vote third party but aren’t. Should see a nice drop off in third party votes on election day compared to what polling indicates now.
Time to start hammering Tea Party senators for not being willing to do the work required of senators including holding simple up or down votes on judicial nominees.
Ohio? Has Portman actually been a good Senator? In what way?