I have seen a number of Kossacks suggesting this evening that Paul Hackett should run for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Republican Mike DeWine in 2006, based on the strength of his showing in his loss to Jean Schmidt in U.S. House District OH-02 today.
I think that this is not a good idea. For two reasons.
- Why lose ground already gained? and
- It really just comes down to simple math.
Explanations on the flip.
1: Hackett's a military man. He, as well as anyone, should understand the concept of not giving up ground that has already been gained.
Today we saw a Vibrantly Red House District turn a distinct shade of Purple, as 48.5+% of a record turnout in a special election voted for a Democratic challenger.
Hackett lost, I believe, because he wasn't known well enough by people in the district, and many hardcore republicans -- of which there are a vast majority in OH-02 -- still find it to hard to go against the party line.
In '06, once we see how Schmidt continues to cravenly carry water for her administration overlords while unemployment rises in Ohio and the Coingate scandal grows larger and larger, eating every Republican in its' path, I think it would be far easier for Hackett to defeat Schmidt in the next general election.
<hr>
2. As I said recently in one of the post-election open threads, I think Sherrod Brown would beat him fair and square in a primary. Frankly speaking, I would choose Brown in a heartbeat over Hackett, because Brown is a true progressive and while the "Iraqi War Vet" is an appealing person on a few levels, I want true progressives in the senate in as many seats as we can fill. Plus, Brown has very good name recognition and has real congressional experience.
Hackett needs to take it to Schmidt again in OH-02. This way, we gain a seat in the House, Brown gains us a seat in the Senate, and the Dem in Brown's OH-13 would have a very good chance, especially if they run with Brown's endorsement. Net Gain, 1 Senate, 1 House. The math is much better in this equation.