blogger interrupted

Lots of reaction from my earlier post, including this from Modern, which got me thinking.

Right now, the kind of Senator Fisher’s campaign is presenting him as is like Harry Reid.  A well-meaning guy who every election fundraises like crazy about fighting the Republicans, but then gets in there and in a panic over the unwavering faith the Republicans have in their ideology decides to either go with the flow or give up because they have no confidence in their ability to go to the American people, look them in the eye, and say “We’re right, they’re wrong, and I’d rather do the right thing and be voted out, than continue to do the wrong thing and stay in.”

Harry Reid…hmmm.  So on to Part 2 of Why Lee Will Lose This Primary. Last time, because I’m a vote counting kind of guy, I focused on how I think the electorate is going to cut.  This time, because I’m also a message guy, I’ll focus on that.

1.  Lee is defined as a loser

This is the first, second, and last thing, Ohio Democratic primary voters think of when they think of Lee Fisher.   Moreover, the average Democratic primary voter could not tell you a single thing Lee has accomplished in his near 30 years in public life.  So Lee isn’t working from what this commenter termed “a blank slate”.  Far from it.  His slate may be empty, but it sure isn’t blank.  It’s covered with a thin sticky film of LOSER which cannot be erased.

2. Jennifer Brunner defined herself as a fighter throughout 2008

Brunner spent every week of 2008 in the newspapers visibly doing her job, which was to ensure that Ohio was not a laughingstock on election day.  That has stuck, especially in Ohio, so well that the GOP despises her for it.  More importantly, she did her heaviest lifting in Cuyahoga County, Lee’s base, where her fight with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections was loud and followed with big headlines in real time, every step of the way.  And the substantive result has been pretty damn good.  Cuyahoga County Democrats will remember this.

3.  See Joel Hyatt’s campaign in 1994 – again

Because Lee has no message, Lee Fisher’s campaign looks precisely like Joel Hyatt’s did in 1994.  Big endorsements, big money, big “inevitability” factor.  Joel Hyatt’s problem versus Mary Boyle was at the grassroots, because Mary Boyle hadn’t run statewide before, couldn’t raise the money to compete on TV, and thus she lost by 17,000 votes in a primary with 1 million votes cast.  Boyle couldn’t get above the hump.

Brunner will have none of those problems.  She has the name recognition Boyle didn’t have, the track record statewide that Boyle didn’t have, and the resulting goodwill among Democrats statewide.  Against the Joel Hyatt-Lee Fisher “inevitability” message, Brunner’s message will be far more attractive, stickier, and easier to sell.

4. Money doesn’t vote

Message beats money, every single time.  I don’t know how many times I have to point to winning campaigns that got outspent by vast sums before people in this state realize that money doesn’t vote.  The list is endless.  Tim Ryan was outspent around 10-1 by Tom Sawyer in the 2002 primary – Ryan crushed Sawyer.  Democrats in Ohio are ALWAYS outraised by Republicans, and Democrats still manage to win.  Hell, even Mary Boyle came within less than 2% of Joel Hyatt in 1994, and Joel swamped her with money.  Which brings me to the following.

5.  Brunner’s fundraising will catch fire online because of message

At some point, the dollar signs which Lee incessantly throws in everyone’s face will start to dwindle.  Lee came out with a bang, and in the next quarter, his numbers dropped.  Next quarter, they’ll drop some more.  And then the next.  By the end of 2009, Lee will be on a precipitous glide path.  The proverbial wad has been shot.

Brunner, however, because of her performance in 2008, has a message that has already taken hold in the national blogosphere.  She is a hero for national progressives.  They’ve already got her back.  My guess is that by December, national progressives online will take a long hard look at what a Fisher loss to Portman in 2010 will mean for Barack Obama in 2012, and Brunner’s online haul will ignite.  There is no worse story line for Barack out of Ohio in 2010 than that a BUSH ADMINISTRATION TRADE OFFICIAL won the Ohio Senate seat.  Once national progressives take their look, they will start pushing Brunner.  Hard.

6.  Lee Fisher has no idea how to campaign in the 21st century

This is essentially a message problem, and Modern writes about this all the time – the Fisher campaign is like taking a time machine back to 1997, before a single blog existed, or a single dime was raised online, or a single Youtube was even imagined.  Your message can be reinforced online over time, as Brunner has done since her battles in 2008.  Or your message can be exposed as total bullshit and destroyed online in a heartbeat, as Lee Fisher is about to learn.

The tax snooping story is a perfect example.  In another time, where Lee’s time machine takes him every morning, peddling stupid meaningless tax records about your opponent’s family would go by unnoticed, slip into the media narrative, and no one would pay a price.  Those days are long gone.  Lee’s going to pay that price, mainly because there are 9 months left for him to be made to pay it, in a new media environment that has in its DNA the instinct to latch onto this crap, debunk it, and then make you pay for it.   I doubt the tax snooping will be the only such instance.

Bottom line – Lee cannot win, and should drop out

Losing to Jennifer Brunner in May, 2010, will end Lee Fisher’s political career for good.  The one thing about Lee Fisher that is defined, aside from his losing, is that he is a self preservation obsessive.  Lee’s always looking at the next race.  There won’t be a next race when you lose to Brunner in 2010, Lee.  So if you can’t bring yourself to drop out for the party, then do it for yourself.  Won’t be the first time.