Senator Portman

The networks are calling the Ohio U.S. Senate race for Republican Rob Portman over Democrat Lee Fisher.

No surprise there.  Portman has been leading in the polls by wide margins for weeks, and Fisher’s campaign has been pretty much invisible.  Fisher got attention only when he did a curious “24-hours-of-Lee-Fisher” event recently, and that was seen as more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

Portman will replace another Republican, George Voinovich, so the result is not a pick up for the Republicans.  Portman is likely more conservative than Voinovich, but he is not a Tea Party favorite, either.

On the Democrat side, I expect many Ohio Democrats are regretting that they didn’t nominate Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner rather than Fisher.  Brunner is more of a fresh face, whereas Fisher has been in Ohio politics for 30 years — and he didn’t run much of a campaign.

An Election (And A Map) In The Balance

We’re now less than a week from Election Day, and the furious last-minute push of radio and TV ads, mailings, and get out the vote calling and canvassing is underway.

In Ohio, the marquee races are a gubernatorial contest between incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland and Republican challenger that appears to be close and a U.S. Senate race between Republican Rob Portman and Democrat Lee Fisher that polls are indicating will be a Portman blowout.  Along with those two headline races, Ohioans will vote for a full slate of statewide offices, Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court, the U.S. House of Representatives, and members of the Ohio Senate and Ohio House.  It will take a while to complete our ballots come Tuesday.

Although they haven’t commanded as much attention, two statewide races, for Secretary of State and Auditor, will have great long-term significance.  The occupants of those two offices, along with the Governor and one representative each of the Republican and Democratic parties, will form the Apportionment Board that will redraw the map of Ohio’s legislative districts after the 2010 census results are released.  The results of the Auditor’s race and the Secretary of State’s race therefore will determine whether the Ohio legislative districts are gerrymandered to benefit Democrats, or gerrymandered to benefit Republicans — or maybe, just maybe, drawn to reflect logical geographical and social factors in a way that results in more fairly competitive races for the Ohio House and Ohio Senate.  (But who am I kidding?)

Edited to correct my mistake in the original post, which stated that the Apportionment Board redraws Ohio’s congressional districts.  Instead, it redraws Ohio’s state legislative districts.  The redrawing of congressional districts is reserved for the Ohio General Assembly.  Thanks to the Philosopher King of the Fifth Floor for steering me in the right direction on an embarrassing error.

Four Weeks And Counting

In precisely four weeks, we will be sitting in front of our TV sets, watching election returns roll in.  We’ll learn who will be Ohio’s new governor, and whether the Republicans will get control of one or both Houses of Congress, and whether our local library levy passed.

It will be nice to know how it all turns out, but mostly I’ll be feeling a sense of relief — because Election Day means that the blizzard of campaign literature that has been burying us on a daily basis will finally, blessedly, end.  We’ll stop hearing from one side about how our state representative is a tax and spend liberal while the other side says she voted to cut her own pay.  We’ll stop hearing about this candidate is a carpetbagger who won’t even condescend to live in our district and that candidate is an unprincipled hack who was cited for ethics violations in the past.  And we’ll be able to to listen to the radio without hearing announcers talking about the sorry state of the Ohio economy while dramatic music swells in the background, and without hearing candidates who’ve never run a business or met a payroll talk about how they have a plan to “create jobs.”

Election season probably is tremendously exciting for politicians and party operatives, but it is really a bit of a burden for the rest of us.

Will The Focus Turn To Ohio Next?

A pattern seems to be emerging with respect to the recent revelations about the White House contacts with challengers in Democratic Senatorial primaries in Pennsylvania and now Colorado.  The apparent pattern is that the White House wanted to avoid contested Democratic Senatorial primaries at all costs and was willing to at least suggest potential alternative employment options if the challenger would just drop out of the race.

Another high-profile Democratic Senatorial primary, of course, occurred in Ohio, where Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner continued her challenge to Lieutenant Lee Fisher even after the party brass evidently encouraged her to stop.  I therefore wonder whether the reporters and bloggers focused on this ongoing story will soon turn their attention to Ohio to see whether the apparent pattern held true in the Buckeye State, too?

Let’s Keep Our Shirts On, Shall We?

There will be an interesting Senate race in Ohio this year, and already it is starting to get . . . well . . . weird.

The Democratic candidate for the Senate seat is Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher, an old-line Cleveland politician who beat Jennifer Brunner, Ohio’s current Secretary of State, in a heated primary.  The Republican candidate is Rob Portman, a long-time Congressman from the Cincinnati area who also served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget during part of the second term of the Bush Administration.

The weirdness began when Fisher’s son took video footage of Fisher sitting shirtless at a desk late one evening.  Apparently the footage was used in some Ohio Republican Party ad that featured “suggestive music,” although I haven’t seen the ad and haven’t been able to find it on the web.  The Ohio Democratic Party reacted with outrage, then produced a website and commercial featuring a bunch of bare-chested workers who say Rob Portman’s work during the Bush Administration took the shirts off their backs.

All of this seems very strange to me.  I agree with a friend who questions why the Democrats would do anything to increase the name recognition of Portman, who is not well known outside the Cincinnati area.  I also think, however, that the Democratic commercial really leads with its chin.  Most people don’t look good in shirtless mode, and the overweight workers featured on the commercial are no exception.  Frankly, they look pretty well fed for people who are supposed to be out of a job.  And are they advocating protectionism?  That message strikes a jarring note in the era of the Obama Administration, where the federal government has bailed out so many American industries and pumped borrowed “stimulus” money into the economy — without doing much of anything to stimulate real job growth.  Are they complaining that we need to do even more to allow union workers to keep their jobs and high-value benefits?

The other point of the commercial is to criticize the budget deficits during the Bush Administration, which is odd because the Obama Administration is presiding over much larger budget deficits that stretch far into the foreseeable without and promise of reduction.  Do the Democrats really want to call attention to deficit spending under the circumstances?  Are they saying Lee Fisher is going to be a more hard-bitten budget-cutter than Portman?

The election is still months away, and I imagine the parties and their candidates will be experimenting with “messaging” as the election draws nearer.  The “shirtless” commercial seems like a failed experiment to me.  I’d appreciate it if the parties and candidates would keep their shirts on until we get closer to the election.