Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Modern & Russo's Leger De Main Re: Brunner

Leger De Main is a French phrase that means sleight of hand, an attempt at diversion. Jennifer Brunner supporters Modern Esquire and Tim Russo are hard at work practicing Leger De Main right now in an attempt to distract attention from Brunner's poor 1st Quarter fund raising totals, and the pressure she is feeling from national Democrats to improve her fundraising or leave the race.

Two national bloggers, Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post blog The Fix , and Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com have written recently that Brunner's lackluster fundraising total in Q1 means that unless her Q2 results show marked improvement, she'll feel the heat from national Democrats to leave the race. Especially since GOP front runner Rob Portman has over $3 million in the bank and a cleared primary field.

I don't know about you, but I really can't see Jennifer Brunner saying no to Rahm Emanuel if he calls her and asks her to step aside. Thus all the heat is on Brunner to at least match Fisher's Q2 fundraising totals or leave the race. The DSCC knows that Ohio is a key pickup opportunity that can serve either as a firewall against GOP gains elsewhere, or as a key piece in the puzzle of 60 senate votes. A bloody Democratic primary where the GOP candidate has a cleared field and can raise funds and define himself at will is their worst nightmare. 

From outside the vitrol that Modern and Russo have for Fisher for whatever reason, it would appear that the candidate who raised $1 million and has 20 years experience is more viable than one who raised $200,000 and has no legislative experience whatsover. So the heat is on Brunner to improve her fundraising totals or clear the field for Fisher. 

So, pay no attention to Modern & Russo's Leger De Main.

7 comments:

Modern Esquire said...

It's be easier for your two readers to ignore me if you quit link whoring in my posts. I've already smacked down this "analysis" piece of crap over at BSB where your pimping your posts while commenting on mine.

BTW, it's a bad business plan, Nick, because of people stop reading my posts, then they'll stop reading your comments to my post pimping for traffic, and then, nobody will come here anymore. I've given my reasons (again) why I think Fisher is flawed candidate. The only reason you supported him was it was part of your hissy fit when you were forced from BSB after being caught red-handed blogwhoring for the Fisher campaign.

In 1996, Ohio went for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole. Two years later, Lee Fisher loses to Bob Taft for an open gubernatorial seat. So, tell me in your analytical mind, David, what strengths did Bob Taft have a candidate that Rob Portman lacks that suggests a candidate can lose to Taft but defeat Portman?

Maybe if you could actually answer that question instead of criticizing those who point out that Fisher's fundraising machine is built on a foundation of sand, then you could be taken seriously.

BTW, as the ONLY Blogger for Fisher, can you explain why Tim Russo keeps scooping you on the personnel changes in your candidate's campaign?

All the best.

Nick D said...

The only reason you supported him was it was part of your hissy fit when you were forced from BSB after being caught red-handed blogwhoring for the Fisher campaign.That's not true. I've supported Fisher from the beginning of this primary. I strongly felt (and still do feel) that Jennifer Brunner should have stayed and ran for re-election as Secretary of State, and that by casting aside her incumbency advantage for SOS leaves the seat, and the apportionment board, very vulnerable in an election cycle that could potentially not be as friendly to Democrats as the last two. I believe Brunner has been given a virtual free pass on that by the blogosphere, and I don't understand why.

In 1996, Ohio went for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole. Two years later, Lee Fisher loses to Bob Taft for an open gubernatorial seat. So, tell me in your analytical mind, David, what strengths did Bob Taft have a candidate that Rob Portman lacks that suggests a candidate can lose to Taft but defeat Portman? Duh. Um, let's see, in 1998 we had a completely ineffective Ohio Democratic Party led by someone who didn't get a single Democrat elected statewide during his tenure (David Leland). Sharing the top of the ticket with Fisher was Mary Boyle (who?) who was running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by John Glenn. She got trounced. The rest of the ticket was made up of weak candidates (Bryan Flannery, anyone?) who got trounced. Our party has a much better brand, is much better organized, and our bench is much stronger today than it was in 1998. And, BTW, Taft was a very powerful name in Ohio politics until Bob Taft destroyed it. Even Russo admits that much.

BTW, as the ONLY Blogger for Fisher, can you explain why Tim Russo keeps scooping you on the personnel changes in your candidate's campaign? Two reasons. 1)Because like you Modern, I have a full-time job and must limit how much time I devote to the blog during the business day. Notice it wasn't me criticizing your slow response to the questions raised, because I udnerstand you have a job. Just like I do. 2) I don't think it's that relevant. The public is not engaged in this race yet, making all the staff changes nothing more than inside baseball.

BTW Please show me where you have in the past criticized Russo for "link whoring" because he is far more guilty of it than I am.

Modern Esquire said...

Thanks for proving that you yet again lied to both me and David before you resigned BSB. In case you forgot, Nick, you wrote on your very first post back here that you weren't in the tank for Fisher UNTIL you resigned from BSB.

Now you admit that you've been in the tank the entire time! After denying it adamently to me and David during the entire Fisher interview fiasco.

I swear, every time you try to spin this thing, the more you reveal your own dishonesty!

In 1998, Lee Fisher was leading the party as the top of the ticket. He can't blame the rest of the ticket for dragging him down. It doesn't work that way. It's the other way around. Mary Boyle lost by thirteen points running again a popular, two-term Republican Governor. Not bad for your first general election run. The rest of the ticket was running against incumbents or candidates who had won statewide elections.

And the difference between Tim and you is that Tim doesn't need me for traffic. You do.

You criticize Brunner for running in an election that's not going to be friendly to Democrats, and then justify Fisher's candidacy despite his 1998 loss to hopeless Bob Taft because the environment wasn't friendly to Democrats then?

Forget if you remember what you have written in the past, do you even remember what you wrote at the top by the time you're finishing a post?

Brunner has hardly been given a pass as the Apportionment Board issue was thoroughly discussed and debated BEFORE she even announced. Hell, I even wrote a post saying she had to come up with a viable candidate in order to run for the Senate.

It's been discussed on all the other progressive Ohio blogs, too. So that explanation makes absolutely no sense other than you're vainly trying to justify your position.

Nick D said...

Sigh. Modern, believe it or not its possible to support someone's candidacy without being "in the tank" for them, which I define as using the blog to make one-sided arguments in favor of that person. You think every professional journalist doesn't also support a given candidate? Please. You haven't uncovered dishonesty, just your own prejudice.

IMO, a Senate candidate and a gubernatorial candidate are about on the same level on the ticket. So yes I think it is justifiable to say that Mary Boyle was a drag on Fisher in 1998.

And Bob Taft was far from hopeless back then, even Russo admits that the Taft brand was a powerful one until Bob Taft destroyed it.

And, I'm criticizing Brunner for casting away the incumbency advantage for Democrats in the fight for control of the apportionment board and control of the state's chief electoral officer.

To equate that to Fisher's 1998 race is, well, rather insane, since in 1998 we had an Ohio Democratic Party in shambles led by an incompetent in David Leland. Hardly the case now. You haven't acknowledged that yet either.

Modern Esquire said...

That would be the same David Leland who's maxed out to Fisher? So what does that say?

We've all talked about the Apportionment Board seat. My point is that it's been widely talked about in the blogs while you complain it hasn't at all.

Fisher will not win the general election just like he lost in 1994 and 1998 and almost in 1990. Fisher is also more vulnerable on the issue of the economy as the former Ohio Dept. of Development Director.

Fisher's maxed out donors issue also suggests that he will have difficulty replenishing his funds after the primary (since a large segment of his base is already maxed out in the first month). And his reliance on bank and utility banks suggests his going to be less progressive and friendly to big business interests.

That's fair criticism and far more important than whining about me not echoing the conventional wisdom of the Beltway gang.

And by the way, if you honestly think ODP is that subsantially better organized than it was in 1998, you're nuts. Redfern isn't a genius except that he's been in the right place at the right time.

Nick D said...

That's a fair point, Modern. I hadn't realized that Leland was maxed out for Fisher.

The issue of the apportinment board may have been discussed, but in my opinion Brunner deserves additional heat. She has made a very high stakes gamble and forced all Ohio Democrats into backing her play by insisting she will not run for SOS again under any circumstances. Personally, I don't like to go "all in" unless I have pocket jacks or better. She's also gambling with her own political future. If she wins the primary but loses the general, she had better pray that the Democratic nominee can hang onto SOS or else her political career is finished, in my estimation.

Honestly, I'm not old enough to make the comparison to 1998. That was the first election I was old enough to vote in. The comparison I can draw, however, is between '04 and '08. In '04 ODP was in such shambles that the Kerry folks built their own organization from the ground up, completely seperate from ODP. In '08, ODP and the Obama camp were much more tightly integrated, suggesting to me that 'Fern, for all my criticism of him, has been effective at improving the parties organization.

Modern Esquire said...

So you're upset that after Brunner made it perfectly clear she wasn't running for Secretary of State, we moved on and focused on the strengths of her as a candidate? Kind of like how Fisher got a "free pass" resigning from the Ohio Dept. of Development during the worst economic crisis in Ohio history to run for Senate after a rather unimpressive record at the helm? Guess which is going to matter to most voters, Nick?

What criticism of Redfern? Seriously, I don't recall any.

If either candidate loses the general election, they're probably finished politically for elective office. That's a truism, the Apportionment Board has nothing to do with it.