IHow good an SoS in Brunner?

No need for comparison with her predecessors. Just by herself, how good is she?

---

by: fai calif @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 18:57:30 PM UTC

Better SoS than fundraiser I hope. eom

---

by: zac @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:01:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brunner was/is an excellent SoS

She enacted several voter safeguards to protect the sanctity of the vote, safeguards which had been destroyed by the Blackwell, the crapulescent previous SoS and Dubya sycophant (for example putting only 1 voter machine in student and black neighborhoods while flooding affluent white neighborhoods with tons of machines, etc.)

---

by: Ajax the Greater @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:27:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From what Ive heard from libs from OH

She has been spectacular and they all love her as SoS.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 22:00:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brunner Burnout

What a disappointment. Many progressives thought she was a young, fresh face in Ohio politics, but if she can't raise the cash she's not going anywhere. That's a fact.

Looks like Lee Fischer's going to be the nominee.

---

by: Don't Tase Me, Bro! @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:15:12 PM UTC

Who exactly were the staff

Burris' people?

Look, I know she is popular with the netroots and she may well make a better senator but she is hurting the chances of taking this seat the longer she stays in. Fisher will have to spend to beat her and the result will be a large cash deficit vis a vis Portman. Perish the thought she actually somehow pulls out the primary because she would get absolutely crushed in the general. Remember the DSCC won't be able to bail her out when it has vulnerable incumbents to defend in CT, PA, NV, CO, AR, DE, IL etc. And not to mention the importance of holding her current job.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:18:07 PM UTC

The best defense is a good offense?

Right now the DSCC has the benefit of making the first move, because (if you subtract debt from CoH) the DSCC has a Cash on Hand advantage of 7.8 million to 5.2 million in the NRSC's bank.  Not to mention, an Obama fundraiser coming up.  DSCC might put the NRSC on its heels and get them stuck on defense

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:25:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well yes

But they aren't going to get into a contested primary like that. I was talking more after the nomineen is set. Even then funds aren't infinite. They will no doubt be playing in MO, NH, KY, NC and maybe LA and IA. There wouldn't be enough to go around for defense, offense and to fund Brunner almost entirely.

---

by: conspiracy @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:30:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I doubt next year half those seats will be "vulnerable" n/t

.

---

by: Hamtree @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 09:32:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

OH-brother

---

by: andgarden @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 19:18:33 PM UTC

It's over

She needs to endorse Fisher, run for reelection, and focus on the 2014 Governor's race.

---

by: davybaby @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 20:42:34 PM UTC

Agreed

She's done.  While I defended her plenty in the past, this is just PATHETIC.  I dont want to chalk it all up to her sucking at fundraising but moreso the nature of running against the establishment candidate, they all want to donate to that guy and not her.  And then there are plenty of people who wont donate to either simply because they dont want to donate in a contested race and would rather wait til it figures itself out.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 22:11:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Classic case of overestimating

a candidate before looking over their full profile.  I think a lot of people here assumed that she would use the netroots to gain money and have EMILY's List to pull her through.  It just doesn't work that way.  National organizations work best when they coordinate with a good fundraiser and dump enough funds in their coffers to "put them over the top" - that is, give them enough of a CoH advantage down the stretch that the opposing campaign can't possibly keep up to pay for advertisements, direct mailing and experienced staff.  It was the Democrats that did this to great effect in 2006 and 2008.  Meanwhile, the NRCC was essentially using their funds to "bail out" candidates that were financially floundering so they can keep pace.  We all know how that worked out.  That's probably why EMILY's List didn't endorse Brunner - their rule is that a candidate has to be able to raise enough on their own, and it was clear from the beginning Brunner couldn't do it and it probably saved the organization from wasting millions.

An aside - as someone whose worked on finance staffs before, I also get irritated when folks are so quick to blame the fundraising team for a poor showing.  While they are partial to blame, it's unfair to put so much on them.  A good staff cannot compensate for a crappy candidate that can't or won't fundraise.  As a candidate, Brunner has proven herself to be a bad fundraiser.  Some candidates are great at doing calltime and putting in the work, others not so much.  They are the ones ultimately responsible for their fundraising fate.  

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 21:08:44 PM UTC

I should add

SSP readers are usually very knowledgeable and don't make the kind of assumptions that I'm referencing above.  It's the dKos/TPM/Firedoglake crowd that tend to be less forgiving.

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 21:13:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BRUNNER'S BURN RATE??!!

WTF. I mean, just WTF.
Now those firings are explained big time.

---

by: homerun @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 23:14:36 PM UTC

Yikes.

I never had a dog in this fight, but Brunner really needs to get out now - she's only devaluing her future cred by staying in past this point.  She should focus on succeeding Strickland in 2014.

---

by: SC @ Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 23:31:26 PM UTC

Ouch

okay, add me to the list of people hoping she downgrades to run for re-election as SoS.  

---

by: skaje @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 00:10:16 AM UTC

Has Strickland chosed a new LG yet?

That could be a soft landing spot for her.

---

by: zac @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 00:30:18 AM UTC

I speculated about that a few months ago.

Might save some face, but I expect he'd still want her to go back to running for SoS.

---

by: SC @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 00:43:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what a shame

I've been backing Brunner ever since the beginning of this race, as I think of her as a sound individual who's done a phenomenal job as a statewide elected official.  It's unfortunate that it's come to this.  Now I'm wondering if diving out of the way of Fisher and keeping her current job is the right move.  I just have a LOT of concerns about whether Fisher is electable in the general election.  

If Ganley were to somehow beat out Portman in the Republican primary, honestly, I'm probably voting for Ganley over Fisher.  Fisher just doesn't impress me, at all.

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 04:19:21 AM UTC

Lol, am I the only rat not jumping off the ship?

I've supported Brunner from the beginning, and I will continue to do so.  She's a strong progressive, a dynamic person, and would make a great senator.  While I have never said and will never say that Fisher is a bad guy or a complete jackass like Lieberman, I'm just not a fan to make a long story short.  Even if this does head south for her, I'll be on her team until the last dog dies.

That said, I'm still not convinced this is over.  Fisher's fundraising has gone from the one million mark (most of which he managed to max out his donors on and thus was limited on what he could spend in the primary) and a lot of people, including myself and the folks over at buckeyestate predicted his fundraising would slack as time went on.  Well, that happened-look at his current fundraising.  The Fisher strategy has, to this point, been about reacting to whatever Brunner was doing and trying to push her out early with big machine backing and fundraising.  That's a risky strategy.  The Brunner campaign is at it's lowest point.  She might not be able to recover.  But there is something to be said for tenacity.  If she sticks it out and gets a better fundraising team, she can pull off a come back.

Either way, I believe in this woman and will do so even if she loses.  I still think she's going to pull off an upset though.  So I either end up looking like a wise man or a crazy person in the end, and I think I'll be quite happy as either one.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 05:09:04 AM UTC

man I hope you're right

I like Brunner for a lot of the same reasons that you do.  Strong progressivism, dynamic personality and the willingness to stick her neck out there to get things done.  While I don't think she's as reckless as say, Alan Grayson, I do think she'll be a strong supporter of the democratic cause.  Fisher might be that guy, but he'd be more quiet about it, and at worst I fear he could be a blue dog on many important issues, like health care, the environment, and public education.

It's just me, but if Brunner wins the primary, I think she's a shoo-in to win the general.  Fisher's not.    

23, Male, Democrat, OH-13

---

by: StephenCLE @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 13:42:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope I'm right too.

I just have this gut feeling on this one and I admittedly go back and forth as to whether I'm being blinded by my support for a candidate or if I'm actually on to something.  That said, I still think there is a viable path for her if she can rebuild her team.

And I wouldn't call Grayson reckless.  He's got plenty of money, he'll be fine if he loses his seat.  Think about it.  If these guys lose, does anything bad really happen?  They don't die, they aren't in any physical pain, they always end up with good paying jobs and leave office richer than when they went in, and from what I understood Grayson had plenty of money to begin with.  What this country needs right now, more than anything, his courage and leadership, Grayson is one of the few people providing it, and it looks like it's paying off in his fundraising and the fact that the big bad Republicans don't seem to want to run against him.  That's one reason I'm so determined to see people like Brunner added to the ranks, because we as a country can't afford any more hand ringing or spinelessness or lack of principle.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 18:21:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A shoe-in in the general?

She has $100k CoH to Fishers' $1.5m and Portman's $5m so I'm sorry but this is pie in the sky talk. You can be the best candidate in the world but you can't run a successful statewide campaign with that kind of disparity. Indeed it says to me she isn't such a good candidate at all.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 18:57:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's great that you're loyal

But she hasn't been able to get any sort of traction fundraising-wise in this race.  She could make a comeback, but time is running out for her campaign to truly get going.  And I am concerned about her viability in a general.  Everyone keeps assuming that some group - be it the netroots, EMILY's List, or the DSCC - will bail her out if she were to win the nomination, but that won't make a difference if she can't start immediately raising money.

Could she win?  Sure, on paper she could.  And I also think folks around here do genuinely like her.  Any time you can get a strong, articulate, progressive female elected to a high statewide office in a major swing state you should get excited.  But, like in baseball, you should never rush a prospect too early as it could ruin their future chances.  Brunner is running that risk

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 16:52:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have a different take.

It seems to be that in politics, when you're hot you're hot and you've got to run with it.  To me it seems you only get one chance, and history is littered with the careers of people who waited too long.  If Brunner doesn't go for this now, then when?  There's no opening in the forseeable future.

That said, I'm not interested in any group bailing her out.  I'm interested in seeing her get a better fundraising team together.  If she can do that, then I think she will make that come back.  Notice that Fisher's fundraising has dropped significantly as well.  His strategy has been to squeeze Brunner out of the race, but that's a risky move.  If he fails, and if Brunner can recover...what's he got left?

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 18:11:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If she is such a "hot" ticket

She would be doing better no matter how bad her fundraising team.  

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 19:00:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Conspiracy, answer me a question

If the race is so tilted against Brunner, why are the primary polls consistently dead even and why is she constantly ahead of Portman in the general polls?

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 21:03:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Leads with huge numbers of undecideds

How does she compete when she can't raise any money? In regard to the primary sure it is close but how does she close the deal with no money? What will happen is Fisher will have to spend to knock her out leaving him in a financial hole against Portman. Anyway, the last Q poll he had opened up a bit of a lead.

Reminds me a lot of Hackett and Brown. One is meant to be hasbeen loser who can't win while the other is a darling of the netroots and supposedly the Dems can't win the seat without them. I was on the right side then. Maybe I'm not now but only time will tell.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 21:47:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's my thinking

Money is important, but it's not the most important thing.  There's a reason why most wealthy self-funders don't end up winning: if the candidate is bad, all the money in the world won't save them.  Fisher has no message discipline and the fact that after years and years of public service he can't break even with Brunner, much less get ahead of undecided in the polls, says something.  Additionally, you can't ignore the fact that Fisher's fundraising has gotten worse each quarter, which suggests that the theory that he'd max out his donors early and his fundraising would slump is proving true.

The big assumption here though is that Brunner's financial situation WON'T change.  I think she can turn it around with a new team, and in the general election the money will be there since the statewide machine will no longer be behind Fisher and more unions, interest groups, etc. will be getting involved.  There's something to be said for tenacity in politics, and Brunner's clearly got it.  The more I think about it, the more I think she can punch her way off the ropes.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 22:33:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Remember

Much of the belief Portman is a bad candidate is because of his links to Bush. But lots of people don't know that. It relies on getting the message out. He can afford to blanket the air with positive stuff and Brunner wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Yeah, Fisher isn't exactly a money machine but $1.5m goes a hell of a lot further than $100k.

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 21:50:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Outfunded candidates win all the time.

Yes, Brunner needs to do better, no one is arguing with that.  But she doesn't have to outraise either Fisher or Portman to beat them.  There's a lot more power in a good aggressive ground game then there is in a top down campaign.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 22:34:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh

And thanks for the loyalty remark; it's a refreshing complement.  I'm well aware that some of the things I say and think are giving me a reputation around some parts for being a little nuts.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 18:12:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]