I know there are calls for Hackett to run for the OH 2nd again. He got 48% in a CD where Bush got 64% against Kerry. I would rather he run for statewide office in Ohio. Hackett built a movement in the 2nd CD. He can build a movement in Ohio. Neither of the current Democratic candidates for Governor that are running, Coleman or Strickland, are all that exciting for Ohioans.I know Hackett has said that he would go back to Iraq, but the battle for Ohio has been engaged. He needs to stay at home and finish the job. Hackett should run for Governor of Ohio. Or, if Sherrod Brown decides not to run, Hackett should run for the US Senate seat against DeWine. Either way, Hackett's calling in 2006 is to run statewide in Ohio.
A 4% win for Republicans in the reddest of red districts spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E. I'll say Hackett for Senate 2006.
Comments (3)
No way. That's just what we need ... we have this awesome chance to take back every statewide office from the GOP, and we'd decide to run this guy whose prior political experience consisted of city council. Don't get me wrong, he seemed like a neat candidate, but he was also running on a purplish agenda in that district. I think the calls for him to run for statewide office are a joke. He raised $400k online not because of what he stood for, but simply because this race was symbolic. He fought a good fight, but for God's sake, he should just run again in 14 months. He'd certainly win.
Posted by Ryan | August 3, 2005 3:44 PM
Posted on August 3, 2005 15:44
I'll concede your point. He may be better off running again in the 2nd. However, what are the real chances of a blue Dem winning one of the statewides? I know, I know, the GOP is in serious trouble, as I've been saying. But we're going to have to figure out the best strategy ASAP to take advantage of Coingate and Tafts 19% approval rating.
Posted by sean | August 3, 2005 4:13 PM
Posted on August 3, 2005 16:13
It seems to me -- an outsider when it comes to Ohio politics -- that the Democrats have a huge chance to pin Taft and Noe (and maybe even Bush) onto every Republican in the state, possibly for years to come.
If they're able to convince people that, no matter what, the Republicans will deliver more of the same corrupt bullshit, then I'd say run Hackett statewide. But if they're not willing to take that tack, or if they somehow discover that that approach isn't working, then Hackett may or may not be the right choice for statewide office.
You would hope that people would begin to understand that Taft and Coingate are SOP for the GOP.
Posted by justin | August 4, 2005 12:35 PM
Posted on August 4, 2005 12:35