Other than my extreme distaste for Mark Naymik’s use of the word “delicious” in this Plain Dealer column about Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Democratic options for filling retiring U.S. Senator and Republican George Voinovich’s seat, it does a decent job outlining the reality that, when you say yes to one thing, you are pretty much saying no to something else – implicitly. That’s a tactic Strickland often uses: to say “yes” and “no” in such a way that you don’t really think about how that’s actually happened – his position on casinos and gambling is probably the best example of this.
In this instance, Strickland gives a “yes” to Fisher’s candidacy, as noted in the Dayton Daily News last night:
Gov. Ted Strickland said Tuesday afternoon that Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher is the “best qualified” Democrat among those considering a run for U.S. Senate in 2010.
Although Strickland says he’s been upfront about this with Brunner, this statement is still a “no” to Brunner, no matter how you slice it. It should be noted, however, that it’s also a “no” from Strickland to everyone else in the Dem field, until and unless Fisher chooses not to run.
The strength of Naymik’s column is in its fleshing out of at least two deeper battles: first, the one that has to do with whose word is stronger, whose name, whose endorsement? Strickland for Fisher, or, if Brunner were to procure an endorsement from current junior Ohio U.S. Senator and fellow Democrat Sherrod Brown, would it hold more sway statewide?
This is where Naymik uses “delicious” regarding how he feels when contemplating this duel for the voters’ confidence vis a vis the power of an endorsement:
Brunner won’t publicly discuss her thinking just yet and didn’t respond to a call Monday. She is seeking the support of her close friend and political mentor, Sen. Sherrod Brown. Their relationship makes the whole scenario more delicious because Brown is also a close friend of Strickland’s. Strickland said he had talked only briefly to Brown about the upcoming Senate opening.
I do not have an answer as to whose endorsement would do more, for either candidate. I think it’s a real toss up. Much depends on who, if either, are able to do better for their constituents: Brown in Congress or Strickland in running the state. Neither individual has complete control over the reality or perception of their acomplishments anyway, given their dependence on numerous other leaders and bodies of government.
Interestingly, it seems to me, based on my recollections, that Strickland almost always seems to go for the endorsing thing, but Brown – not so much. According to this 1/25/09 post by Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle, here’s Brown’s thoughts on what it would take to win the race:
Conklin then asked about Voinivich announcing retirement, hearing Kaptur might be considering it? Brown stated he doesn’t know what will happen, it’s a wide open race and it will be interesting, he thinks who ever talks about jobs, talks about middle class, what Bush did didn’t work, we don’t want privatization of Medicare, we want a better economy, better regulation for Wall street, that’s the person who will win is who talks about that and he thinks if Marcy runs she has a good shot.
Given his closeness to Strickland and Brunner, and I’m sure Lee Fisher, Marcy Kaptur, Betty Sutton and Tim Ryan as well, I can absolutely understand why Brown might be reluctant to or just, wisely, decide that he does not want to endorse anyone in the primary. But of course it’s a double-edged sword – it’s also his connection to so many possible candidates that gives his support so much weight.
So, what are the reasons why anyone might equivocate on which Democrat to endorse, pre-primary? If Strickland can say “Fisher,” why can’t anyone else say anyone else definitively?
The win, the women and the apportionment board.
The Win
See this post at Swing State Project (which links to this Politico piece that calls the race “a fairly serious scrap” – both are from yesterday) and comments in this one. Right or wrong – and I like Lee Fisher very much and would support him if he became the Dem nominee – that’s typical of what is often said when Lee Fisher’s name enters a discussion about running for almost anything statewide in this current era: concerns about his record of winning (or not winning in some cases) statewide support. Northeast Ohio – sold. Columbus – most likely, sold. With his connection to Strickland, very possibly sold in other areas. But then the matter of who is his opponent starts to matter more because of the red nature of the southern half of Ohio, even with the wins of Strickland and Obama.
Furthermore, I will lodge a request to add question marks to the SSP post’s title, “Democrats coalescing around Lt. Gov. Fisher for OH-Sen?” because, from the blogosphere level of picking, pulling, publishing and fisking information about the race, I don’t see any “coalescing.” And this brand new Quinnipiac Poll* indicates that too:
In a possible Democratic primary, Fisher, Brunner and U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan each get from 14 to 18 percent of the vote and more than half of the Democratic electorate is undecided, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
Specifically, Fisher is at 18, Brunner at 16, Ryan at 14 and “don’t know” is at…53%.
And in the question about winning, Fisher and Brunner do well:
In trial heats between the leading Democratic and Republican Senate candidates, Fisher defeats Portman 42 – 27 percent, with 29 percent undecided. Fisher tops Taylor by almost an identical 41 – 27 percent margin. Brunner prevails by smaller margins, 38 – 28 percent over Portman and 38 – 26 percent over Taylor.
So – coalescing? I’d say, not so much. And the win factor? It’s not looking yet as though anyone has a definitive upperhand, or losing hand, between Fisher and Brunner at least.
But the bigger more mainstream blogs – a non-frontpaging diary writer and a commenter on SSP, and posts on Politico – sure do seem to be trying to push something. Here’s Politico again, this morning, with Naymik’s column the centerpiece. An excerpt:
“My commitment is to him first,” Strickland told the Plain Dealer. “I believe Lee would be the strongest candidate if he were to choose to run. I don’t say that to disparage Jennifer. She would be a very strong and credible candidate.”
Even though Fisher isn’t a marquee name, [sic] Strickland endorsement would make it difficult for other primary challengers to get serious traction. Brunner, who is also eyeing the race, could get national fundraising help from the women’s group EMILY’s List – but going up against Strickland would be a tall task.
Strickland’s support for Fisher also strongly suggests that his old Congressional colleague, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), isn’t seriously looking at running.
The one thing no one is mentioning? Strickland used identical language to support Hillary Clinton, and she won the primary battle in Ohio. Just swap out “him” for “her” and “Lee” for “Hillary” and “Jennifer” for “Barack” and “she” for “he.” It’s almost like a script.
But Hillary didn’t win the primary war – Obama did and Strickland went on to support him vigorously. Would Strickland’s endorsement of Fisher lead to similar results: win the primary battle, but lose the war? Except in this case, the war is the seat itself. That’s a little different.
Me thinks some voices are talking to some other voices and seeking to influence the way people who get their news from the MSM see this Democratic field scrimmage. The purpose? To narrow down the field and maybe eliminate contenders completely via polls and perception. Oh, I know, I know – the MSM has filters and just offers The Truth. They would not have an agenda, bias or opinion to voice as a preference between Fisher, Brunner or Tim Ryan for that matter. Even though there’s still the matter of the PD, the prom dress and the premonition?
Okay – let’s move on.
The Women
See The New Agenda for starters. The group pushes full force at identity politics in the name of gender equity in political positions. I’ve written a gazillion times that I do not vote for a woman because she is woman. I won’t do it. But getting qualified women into the political office pipeline is a focus of mine – having qualified women to choose from in all races, at all times, so that we’re not even thinking, “where are the women” – that’s what I hope for.
And it’s the main reason I continue to push the Ohio Republican Party on Mary Taylor, although I viewed her response to the governor’s state of the state and was, er, um, well, not so impressed. But that aside, given how unbelievably white male-dominated the ORP is, I still believe Taylor should run in a primary, and based on her work as auditor, believe that she deserves credit for at least some of the work she’s done to date. She remains the only statewide elected Republican in Ohio since 2006. So let’s not question her viability, certainly no more than we should question that of a number of names coming from the ORP for other positions (Mandel for treasurer would be one that comes to mind).
The idea that we could break the barrier of never having had a woman U.S. Senator from Ohio is very appealing to me. Not overriding. Just very appealing. Especially given that there are only 17 women U.S. senators (13 D, 4 R) out of 100. Last time I checked, women still made up more than 50% of the U.S. population. All four of the Republican women senators, by the way, crossed party lines and voted for the Ledbetter act, making it a filibuster-proof 61-36, despite arguments by at least some conservative women that Ledbetter would be an unfair burden on businesses, and it became the first law signed by President Obama. So having women legislators can and does make a difference.
There is absolutely no question that Jennifer Brunner is qualified to be Ohio’s U.S. Senator and I would support her as the candidate without hesitation. Her going to the senate would also open up the chance for another woman to become a statewide officer in the SOS position, if there were qualified candidates to run – and I’m certain that there must be.
But this then brings us to…
The apportionment board
And requires that we revisit Naymik’s column:
Some party leaders want Brunner to stay put and win re-election in 2010.
Why?
As secretary of state, she has a seat on Ohio’s Apportionment Board, which both parties want to control because it redraws the boundaries for legislative districts after each full U.S. census.
But that’s not enough to keep Brunner in place.
She and others correctly argue that the power of the Apportionment Board may be overstated – as evidenced by Democrats’ success last year in House districts last drawn by Republicans. (Democrats, though, performed badly in Ohio Senate districts.)
I should note that Republican rumblings say the same thing about Mary Taylor – she should stay put because she too is on the apportionment board and the conventional wisdom is that Strickland, Brunner and Taylor will all win re-election without too much trouble, although for sure they will get some trouble (Husted may challenge Brunner, and John Kasich and Kevin Coughlin are likely to be facing off for the GOP against Strickland).
So of course part of me keeps thinking, why are women going for, succeeding in and getting supported for these apportionment seat-related offices? Is it specifically to keep them out of others – so they have a Solomon’s choice? I have no idea – but I have been wondering – that pipeline mentality.
Let’s take a minute to demystify the apportionment board. From Wikipedia:
The Ohio Apportionment Board, which convenes every ten years, following the census, draws the single-member legislative districts for the Ohio General Assembly. Each of the 33 senate districts is composed of three contiguous of the 99 house of representatives district.
The board has five members:
- the Governor of Ohio, [Strickland, a Dem, in through 2010]
- the Ohio Secretary of State, [Brunner, a Dem, in through 2010]
- the Ohio State Auditor, [Taylor, GOP, through 2010]
- a member selected by the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and the senate leader of the same party [Dems in majority through 2010]
- a member selected by the house and senate leaders of other party.
This format ensures that no party can hold all five seats. At least one seat will belong to the minority party.
[I didn’t want to use Wikipedia as the resource for this info on the board, but the board’s rules are not available electronically; you have to contact the Ohio Legislative Service Commission and they’ll send them to you – they were extremely nice about it, but as someone who really likes being able to google and find, it was a surprise to me that they’re classified as “internal management rules” and therefore not online.]
So, to be fair, all three – Strickland, Brunner and the Ohio House – must stay blue for the balance to be at least 3-2, Democrats. The senate is very unlikely to go blue in 2010 and its the House Speaker’s party that controls one of the five, and Taylor, if she stays put, is very likely to be re-elected.
But, Naymik raises the question: just how important is the apportionment board. He’s got me there – I’ve always been “told” it’s important – critical even, because of redistricting for the purpose of the state senate and house. And indeed, the GOP had control in 1991 and 2001 and we had a red state up until 2006 and we went even bluer in 2008. So – is Naymik just making that case for the sake of argument, or is the apportionment board really not so relevant?
I actually think the bigger question is: do Democrats really want to test this theory at all? I’m not sure if Brunner has to resign her SOS position to run for the senate seat (I’m assuming she wouldn’t give it up to run in the primary but I don’t actually know), but she did resign her judgeship to run for SOS. She’s not even officially in the race yet anyway – nor is Fisher for that matter.
But even as we think about all that manuevering to save the seats on the board, and we’re not sure if it matters, again, do we want to take this risk only to learn down the road that the apportionment board does matter in terms of party control and forwarding and implementing certain ideas and plans?
The completely boiled down and distilled final equation to consider while deciding who the Dem senate candidate should be:
How much does having two Dem senators impact the direction and success of Ohio, versus how much does having a Democratic majority in at least one if not two of the general assembly’s chambers impact the direction and success of Ohio (since that is, theoretically, what is most affected by the re-apportioning process)?
Think of this as being like an SAT exam logic question with known and unknown variables. But the result remains the same: you need to get the answer right to pass.
*Poll methodology from its release:
From January 29 – February 2, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,127 Ohio voters, with a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points. The survey includes 492 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points, and 374 Republicans, with a margin of error of +/- 5.1 percentage points.
**Several Ohio and national blogs have covered the poll today, including CQ Politics.
Cross-posted from Writes Like She Talks.