There is no state like Ohio, the epitome of midwestern "moderate", "centrist", and "swing" in this country. Bush won it by a sliver in 2004, giving him his narrow victory margin that year. Indeed, bucking CW that said a "liberal Democrat" couldn't win such a state, then-Rep. Sherrod Brown set out to prove them all wrong.
And he would do so by running as an unabashed progressive populist. Check this out from early January 2006:
Most of the Democratic candidates in the handful of red and purple-state races that figure to dictate control of the U.S. Senate this fall have embraced the "centrist" label and platform; some, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey, boast conservative stances on abortion or other social issues.
Mr. Brown carries a more populist - Republicans derisively say "liberal" - banner in his Ohio battle with GOP incumbent Mike DeWine. He wants troops out of Iraq this year. He denounces America's free trade pacts. He criticizes Mr. DeWine's votes to repeal the estate tax and make some of President Bush's tax cuts permanent.
When Republicans rip his votes against certain military or intelligence spending, or his opposition to a federal constitutional same-sex marriage ban, Mr. Brown dismisses them with a "yeah, so?" shrug.
People chuckled at the strategy.
Mr. DeWine has largely ignored his opponent so far, but other Republicans pummel Mr. Brown almost daily with allegations of running left of the state's voters. "I'll give him credit for staying true to who he is," said John McClelland, a state GOP spokesman, "but it's not going to win him an election in Ohio."
Heck, many of our own fell for that trap, arguing that only Paul Hackett could win the general since Brown was "too liberal for Ohio". Yet ten months later, Brown beat the "moderate" incumbent Mike DeWine -- a Republican not scandal tainted -- by a whopping 12-point margin, 56-44.
Is this a template for the whole country? Every region and every state is different. There isn't a one-size fits all solution for every race. But if nothing else, we can hope our national party leaders realize that being a "liberal" isn't an electoral kiss of death, to be avoided at all costs. In fact, it may provide exactly the sort of contrasts voters crave in an era of extreme disillusionment with Republican governance and Democratic ineffectiveness.
Given the rise of Brown-style populism, does Brown's election provide a 2008 template?
"I hadn't thought about that," says Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader. "But I do believe what we have been doing in the past, and I mean we Democrats, hasn't worked. So I would think that people should watch very closely how Sherrod really took this race and did it his way."
And how did Brown do it? By shrugging off the CW claiming he was out-of-the-mainstream and that only a certain "kind" of Democrat could win in a state like Ohio.
Sherrod Brown doesn't say "I told you so," although he might have a right to, given the things that have changed since his election.
The war in Iraq and its overwhelming unpopularity is one. And the recalls of toys and tainted pet food from China are another, suggesting that maybe Brown wasn't so far out when he warned against trading with low-wage countries with questionable safety standards.
"It should hardly have come as a surprise" when we import so much "from a country that has no real food safety, worker safety, consumer protection or wage laws," he says [...]
He does not gloat. But it is hardly lost on those with a vested interest in winning the White House in 2008 that Sherrod Brown's issues, derided by Republicans as on the fringe, may be playing better than ever in the American political mainstream [...]
"I think that you can stand up for the middle class and stand up for workers and low-income people and win," he says.
