This is what I call the post-election hangover. Everybody is running on adrenaline all the way up to Election Day. Some people are reporting. Some people are reading everything they can. Some people are campaigning. Some people are supporting candidates. Some people are candidates themselves. Then, when it is all over, everybody has to decompress.

I guess that is what I was doing. But I am back!

I have been trying to get back into the habit of writing, but what I did not realize was how much of my time after the election would be spent on the phone. Candidates, constituents, donors, activists, people all around Northeast Ohio. I have had dozens of conversations since Election Day with people asking what I thought happened, what went right, what went wrong, and what all of this means moving forward.

And there is one theme that kept coming up.

The Democratic Party has lost its way.

Now before anyone gets sassy with me, let me be clear. I am a Democrat. I am writing this because I want a better Democratic Party. I am writing this because I still believe the party can be better than this. But over and over again, from people across different races and different sides of these fights, I am hearing the same thing.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the party. There is something wrong with what it says it stands for, how it operates, and how it treats the people who are actually trying to participate in the process.

This Is Not Just Sore Losers Talking

The first thing I had to do was take the source of the dissatisfaction seriously, but also honestly.

A lot of the people calling me were people who supported candidates that lost, or candidates who lost themselves. And yes, that matters. There are hurt feelings after a campaign.

There is frustration. There might be a little narcissism too. Someone will say, well, it could not have been MY fault!

It had to be the party.

It had to be the endorsement.

It had to be the machine.

It could not have been my campaign, my policies, my strategy, or the possibility that I am just not good at this.

I would be blind not to acknowledge that is a possibility.

But I also got calls from people who won. I got calls from people who were on different sides of these races. I talked to people who had very different perspectives on what happened. And that is why I cannot just dismiss this as people being bitter because they lost.

Because the same criticism kept coming up.

The Democratic Party is not acting in a democratic manner.

That is the through line. Whether people won or lost, whether they were endorsed or not endorsed, whether they were inside the process or pushed outside of it, there is a growing belief that the party is saying one thing and doing another.

It says it supports democracy, then stacks the deck in primaries.

It says it wants participation, then punishes people for running.

It says it wants strong candidates, then refuses to even pick up the damn phone when candidates reach out.

It says it wants the voters to decide, then uses endorsements, sample ballots, union power, corporate PAC money, and insider relationships to shape the field before most voters even know who is running.

That is a problem.

The Thumb on the Scale

Over and over again, people talked about the same things. Thumbs on the scale in certain races. Too much outside influence from corporate PACs. Unions picking candidates. Weak Democratic leadership. Party leadership that will not communicate, will not organize properly, and in some cases will not even return a damn phone call (looking at you ODP).

That is absurd. It is disrespectful. And more than that, it reveals the disconnect between what the party says it wants and what it actually does.

If you really believe in democracy, then you should want more people to run. You should want more people involved. You should want more voices in the process.

But what I keep hearing is that if someone runs outside the preferred structure, they are treated like a problem. If they challenge an endorsed/incumbent candidate, they are treated like they are betraying the party. If they question the process, they are told they are creating division.

The county parties and the state party need to understand that this is becoming a serious problem.

Do Not Pat Yourself on the Back for 22 Percent Turnout

You cannot pat yourself on the back for a 22 percent turnout and act like everything is fine. I know people want to compare turnout to other primaries. I know people want to point to vote-by-mail programs. I know people want to say the operation worked. And sure, in some ways, it did.

But 22 percent is still abysmal.

That means most people did not participate.

One of the most dangerous things happening right now is that more and more people involved in this process are looking at the Democratic Party and saying, maybe I am just independent now.

These are not people who were never involved. These are not people who never cared. These are people who supported the party, donated to the party, ran for office, volunteered, knocked doors, made calls, showed up, and believed they were part of something.

People are not saying they suddenly love Republicans. They are saying they are sick of a party structure that tells them to shut up, accept the process, support the chosen candidate, and “vote blue no matter who.”

That is not sustainable.

The Solution

People always ask for “solutions”, so here they are.

First, listen. Actually listen. Not performative listening. Not “we hear your concerns” bullshit. Real listening. Pick up the phone. Talk to candidates. Talk to activists. Talk to people who lost. Talk to people who won. Talk to people who feel pushed out. Understand leadership is not just about protecting the institution. It is about earning trust from the people inside and outside of it. And making people feel part of the team even if they lose.

Second, stop endorsing in primaries and obviously putting thumbs on the scale. I do not care if unions endorse. I do not care if outside groups endorse. I do not care if individual elected officials endorse. That is their choice. But the party itself should be fighting for fairness in the Democratic process, not narrowing the field before voters get to decide.

Third, understand the urgency. This is not some minor complaint that will disappear because the endorsed candidates won their races.

Winning does not mean the process is healthy. Winning does not mean people trust you. Winning does not mean resentment is gone.

If anything, the calls I have gotten over the past week tell me the opposite.

There is a real problem here. It is growing. And if the Democratic Party keeps ignoring it, mocking it, dismissing it as sore losers or bitter, or pretending it is just a distraction, then the party is going to keep pushing people away.

Stay Angry

First things first, I want to congratulate everyone who ran in Ohio yesterday. Win or lose, running for office is not an easy thing to do. It should be commended. More people should be encouraged to weather the storm, jump into races, put their names out there, and make their case to voters. So if you ran, thank you.

I also want to thank everyone who joined the live stream last night. Around 80 people jumped on to watch, and I really appreciate it.

The biggest takeaway was simple.

The sample ballot reigned supreme.

David Brock, the Chair of the CCDP, said in his post-election statement, “All the endorsed candidates won last night in part because of the ongoing professionalization of party operations.”

That is exactly what happened. The party operation worked. Brock also thanked Representative Chris Glassburn for his “continued stewardship of our Sample Ballot program,” and said the success was so overwhelming that it is “now being imitated all over this county.”

Let’s look at some races I was watching.

Ohio’s 7th District Was the Poindexter Show

Obviously, the first race I was watching was Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, where Brian Poindexter won the Democratic primary. The race was officially called at 11:09 p.m., but honestly, you could see where it was heading much earlier in the night.

At the beginning, Ed FitzGerald was up, and then it looked like Poindexter and FitzGerald were running neck and neck. But as more votes came in, Poindexter started building a wider and wider margin. By around 9:00 or 9:30, the trend was pretty clear. I thought they were going to call it earlier, but I guess they wanted to make sure.

In the end, Poindexter won by almost 10,000 votes. That is not some barely-there victory. That is a clear win. It was the Poindexter Show, and now he moves on to November.

Brock framed that win as part of a bigger opportunity for Democrats in Cuyahoga County, writing, “With Brian Poindexter’s victory, along with Congresswoman Shontel Brown’s, we have a genuine chance this cycle to make our entire county’s Congressional delegation Blue.”

Now we get to work in Cuyahoga.

State House Races I was Watching

In State House District 18, Davida Russell dominated. She won with 72.8% of the vote and beat the second-place candidate by more than 10,000 votes. Davida was the endorsed candidate in that race, and she won it easily. Davida will go on to face Maureen Lynn.

In State House District 19, things were much more interesting. Nicole Sigurdson was the endorsed candidate, and early in the night she was sitting around 51% of the vote. But as more votes came in, that margin started shrinking. Cheryl Perez started out in second place and eventually ended in third. Dionna Gore crept up through the night and overtook Perez for second place.

But there is no prize for second place.

Nicole won the race and now moves on to November to face Ed Hargate.

In State House District 20, Eugene Miller, also the endorsed candidate, won with more than 50% of the vote. Again, the sample ballot power showed up. Again, the endorsed candidate won. Eugene will face Donna Walker-Brown.

Kent Smith Moves On in State Senate District 21

Kent Smith won his primary against Dolores Gray Ford, 68.2% to 31.8%. I was watching their League of Women Voters forum, and Kent Smith just has what it takes.

He is a strong communicator, a staunch Democrat, and he has a lot of legislative experience. No disrespect to Dolores Gray Ford, but this race felt pretty obvious to me once you watched them side by side. Kent Smith is somewhat of an institution in my view, and now he moves on to November against Mikhail Alterman.

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 21st State Senate District: League of Women Voters Forum

Does a Good Communicator Make a Good Legislator…

Read more

a month ago · 2 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Judge Vodrey and the Common Pleas Race

In the Court of Common Pleas race, Judge Vodrey was the endorsed candidate, and regardless of endorsements, He is one of the nicest people I have ever met. He beat Gallagher handily with 65.7% of the vote.

There was some concern that the name ‘Gallagher’ might carry weight, and I do think it probably did to some degree. But in the end, this was not much of a competition.

As much as I complain about the world being unfair sometimes, I do not think the world is so bad that voters would fail to reelect Judge Vodrey. Honestly, if that had happened, it might have made me doubt humanity a little bit.

Vodrey moves to the general against Timothy W. Clary.

Congrats to Judge Vodrey.

County Council Races Went the Way of the Endorsement Too

In County Council District 3, Martin J. Sweeney won with more than 50% of the vote. He was the endorsed candidate, and I do not think many people doubted that the Sweeney name and the Sweeney political machine would be able to power through.

And while we are talking about the Sweeney name, I have to say this. His daughter, Bride Rose Sweeney, who is running for State Senate, is in my personal opinion one of the best legislators in the game. She is brilliant, hard-working, smart, politically savvy, and an excellent legislator. I cannot wait to see what she does in the Senate and where she goes from there.

County Council District 11 also went to the endorsed candidate, Christine McIntosh, who won with 42.3% of the vote. This was a much closer and much more watched race. Honestly, this must have been a nail-biter until all the precincts reported.

Shirley Smith finished with 32.2%, and Ebony Spano finished with 25.5%. Only a few hundred votes separated them. That is a real, competitive race. And credit to all three candidates, because from where I sat, this looked like a hard-fought and well-run race across the board.

A Little Bay Village Voyeurism From Afar

And finally, because why not, a little Bay Village voyeurism from afar.

Malaak Rashid is now going to be your central committee member for Bay Village, Ward 1, Precinct B.

Congrats to Rashid.

Sometimes these smaller races tell you just as much about local politics as the big ones. Central committee seats matter. Party structure matters. These are the positions that shape endorsements, local organizing, and the internal direction of the party. People ignore them until they realize that a lot of power starts there.

Brock also made a point to thank “the 800+ people who ran for our Central Committee,” writing that serving the party “requires a level of devotion and sacrifice that makes all future successes possible.”

And that is true. Central committee races are not glamorous. Most voters barely know what they are.

The Bigger Lesson From Cuyahoga County

The total turnout for Cuyahoga County was 22%, with around 190,000 ballots cast out of roughly 863,000 voters.

Brock said turnout “exceeded expectations” and surpassed turnout in the 2022 and 2024 primaries. He also noted that Cuyahoga County surpassed turnout in both Franklin and Hamilton Counties, driven in part by what he called an “intentional, and enormous, increase in Vote-By-Mail ballots.” According to Brock, Cuyahoga County had “nearly 4 times as many people vote-by-mail” as Franklin County.

It means the operation was not just Election Day sample ballots. It was vote-by-mail. It was turnout. It was party infrastructure. It was a coordinated effort that clearly worked.

Brock ended his statement by saying, “On to November and let’s win there.” (see his full statement below)

And I say LFG! The primaries are over. The winners are moving on. It is time for the party to back the Democratic candidates, because there is still a hell of an uphill battle in this gerrymandered state.

But that does not mean we stop analyzing what happened. It does not mean we stop calling balls and strikes.

That is the point of The Angry Democrat and The Angry Ohioan. The point is to keep the conversation flowing, even when it is uncomfortable, and even when it is about our own party. Only then can we self reflect and make sure upsets like 2024 never happen again.

Congrats again to everyone who ran, and congrats to everyone moving on to November.

But in the meantime...

Stay Angry.

Tonight, I’ll be going live around 7:45 after the polls close.

You can watch at theangrydem.com, theangryohioan.com, or on Facebook, YouTube, and X.

I’m just going to be hanging out, watching the results come in, giving my comments, and maybe having a few guests swing by as the night unfolds.

Subscribe now

Below, I’ll include some resources that may help you before you head to the polls.

Google your county name and “Board of Elections.” Your local board of elections usually has everything you need, including polling locations, sample ballots, candidate lists, and basic voting information.

https://www.waynecountyoh.gov/

https://www.boe.ohio.gov/ashland/

https://www.boe.ohio.gov/medina/

https://boe.cuyahogacounty.gov/

And please, take a few minutes to look at your sample ballot before you go.

Know who is actually running in these races. Do not just walk in and let the first name you recognize make the decision for you.

There are candidate lists available, and Vote411 from the League of Women Voters is another great resource. It can show you polling locations, sample ballots, candidate information, and what you need to bring with you to vote.

It may be raining, so take an umbrella.

The best times to go are usually outside the rush hours.

Avoid before work, lunch, and right after work if you can.

If you go during one of the random slower parts of the day, you will probably be in and out.

And honestly, this is a midterm primary, so it should not be anything like waiting in line during a presidential year.

Also, remember, if you are one of the people that hasn’t mailed in their ballot yet, you need to drive it to the ballot box. You cannot mail it or it will not be counted. It needs to arrive on or before election day

The Statewide Races I’m Watching

The first race I’m watching is the Republican primary for governor.

Vivek Ramaswamy is the endorsed GOP candidate, but Casey Putsch, also known online as Casey the Car Guy, has been getting a lot of support on social media. He has not raised a ton of money, so the question is whether that online energy actually translates into votes.

I do not think the real question is whether Vivek wins. I think the real question is how much he wins by. That margin will tell us something about how real the online grassroots energy around Casey actually was, and the actual popularity of Vivek.

The attorney general race between Elliot Forhan and John Kulewicz. John is the endorsed Democratic candidate, and Elliot has some baggage. I do not know if everybody knows the actual stories behind Elliot Forhan’s baggage, but to be perfectly honest, it seems like some of it was overblown and turned into a smear campaign. He definitely has people who strongly support him, but I do not know if that will be enough to overcome the Democratic endorsement.

See some Elliot news below

The Angry Ohioan

Leave Mom out of this...

I met Matt a few months ago. He reached out after his social media feed had been serving up some of my POWW! Protect Ohio Women at Work videos. I knew Matt’s name because I had heard good things about him as a candidate. We did a fun interview talking about my 13 years as legal counsel to the House Democrats and how it ended with Allison unceremoniously…

Read more

12 days ago · 5 likes · Sarah Cherry

Then there is the Secretary of State race, which is probably the one everyone is paying attention to statewide. Bryan Hambley is running against Allison Russo. Russo is the establishment Democrat, the House Minority Leader, and basically the party’s candidate. Hambley is the grassroots candidate. He has built a strong campaign, raised a hell of a lot of money, and created real energy around his race.

If Brian Hambley wins, it will be considered an upset, but also somehow expected. I know that sounds contradictory, but that is exactly how this race feels. If Allison Russo pulls it off, that will also feel natural because she is the party-backed candidate. But it would also feel a little unnatural because Hambley has clearly built something real.

See my interview with the candidates below

The Angry Ohioan

Russo and Hambley: Two Democrats. One Office. Same Questions.

I recently sat down with former State House Minority Leader Allison Russo and Bryan Hambley. Both are Democrats running for Secretary of State here in Ohio…

Listen now

3 months ago · 7 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Northern Ohio Congressional Races

Obviously, I’m watching Ohio’s 7th District. There are eight candidates in this race, and they are going to be splitting up votes like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Ed FitzGerald

Brian Poindexter

Michael Eisner

Scott Schulz

Laura Rodriguez-Carbone,

Ann-Marie Donegan

Keith Mundy

John Butchko

I can see this race going a lot of different ways. There are definitely candidates people consider favorites, but I do not know how far that goes when you have this many people dividing the field. This could be a blowout, or it could be a total toss-up where almost anyone can win.

See my interviews and write ups below

I’m also watching Ohio’s 9th Congressional District Republican primary, which is fascinating.

The incumbent is the Iron Babushka (tm ) herself, Marcy Kaptur. But Republicans are throwing a lot at this seat because they think she may be vulnerable.

Josh Williams, Derek Merrin, Alea Nadeem, Madison Sheahan, and Charles Kinsel are all in the mix.

And they are raising serious money. Williams has raised around $800,000. Merrin has raised around $760,000. Nadeem has raised around $700,000. They are fighting like hell over there because they think this is their shot.

To be perfectly honest, I would not bet against Marcy Kaptur no matter what the political landscape looks like or how much money Republicans raise.

Derek Merrin may be the favorite to win the primary, but Josh Williams has raised more money, and Nadeem could possibly slide in if the others split votes.

Who knows, maybe one of the other candidates catches just enough support to squeak through. It is almost like Ohio’s 7th District, but for Republicans.

Ohio’s 14th District is another one I’m paying attention to. On the Republican side, Nicole Frenchko is to primary David Joyce. It ain’t gonna happen, but she is out there.

On the Democratic side, Maria Jukic, Carl Setzer, and Bill O’Neill are competing for the nomination. What surprised me most is how little money has been raised in that race. Maria is the top fundraiser with only about $21,000. Carl has around $13,000. Bill O’Neill did not raise anything. I do not know if the plan was just to win the primary without fundraising, but considering the year Democrats may have, I expected a lot more money to go into that race.

See my interviews below

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 14th District: Three Democrats, Three Very Different Visions

Hey everyone, Matt Diemer here, The Angry Democrat…

Listen now

2 months ago · 3 likes · The Angry Democrat

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Local Races That I am Looking Forward To

Moving into the local races, there are a few statehouse races I’m watching closely.

House District 18 is one of them. Gabe Crenshaw, Samuel Gruber, Peter Hoffman, and Davida Russell are all competing for the Democratic nomination. That is a race worth watching because these local primaries are where the future of the party actually gets shaped, whether people want to admit it or not.

House District 19 is another big one. Dionna Gore, Cheryl Perez, and Nicole Sigurdson are all competing for the Democratic nomination. Nicole is the endorsed candidate in that race, but I would not count out Dionna or Cheryl. Nicole has been carrying some baggage that I do not think she has fully shaken, and that has rallied a lot of people against her.

There is also a Democratic write-in candidate in House District 19, Azaadjeet Singh. To be perfectly honest, I did not know about him until he texted me a couple days ago, but I wish him well.

State Senate District 21 is also interesting to me. Kent Smith, the incumbent, is facing Dolores Gray Ford. I watched their League of Women Voters forum, and you can read my write-up in the link below. It should go without saying that Kent Smith, being the incumbent, is also the endorsed candidate.

Read my LWV roundup below

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 21st State Senate District: League of Women Voters Forum

Does a Good Communicator Make a Good Legislator…

Read more

a month ago · 2 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

County Council Races to Watch

Cuyahoga County Council Districts 3 and 11.

In County Council District 3, incumbent Martin J. Sweeney is facing Anise Mayo. I do not think this is going to be much of a competition. I expect Sweeney to run away with it. But trust me, I love surprises.

County Council District 11 is much more interesting. Shirley Smith, Ebony Spano, and Christine McIntosh are all running for the seat, and there was no endorsement in that race. I have met each of them on multiple occasions, and I think this is going to be a very interesting race to watch once the results start coming in.

Tonight, We Watch the Results

Again, I’ll be going live around 7:45 after the polls close to watch the results come in. You can watch at theangrydem.com, theangryohioan.com, or on Facebook, X, and YouTube.

Make a plan.

Look up your polling location.

Check your sample ballot. Know who is running.

Bring an umbrella if it is raining.

Vote.

And, Stay Angry.

Share The Angry Ohioan

Party endorsements in a primary are not some harmless little process. They are a power move. They consolidate control inside the party. They create candidates who are loyal to the party structure. And then the party uses its own resources, along with the collective power of every other endorsed candidate, to give one person an unfair advantage before voters even get a real chance to look at the field.

That is what happens when the party sends out sample ballots to households and hands them out at the polls with only one name listed in a race where multiple people are running. That is not voter education. That is not neutral guidance. That is the party putting its thumb on the scale for a candidate picked behind closed doors by a few hundred people, then trying to decide the fate of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of Ohio voters.

This is exactly why I wanted to highlight Dionna Gore’s campaign and the criticism being thrown at her. Because what she did was not disgraceful. It was not deceitful. It was not some dirty trick. She understood the game being played, and she decided to fucking compete.

The Power of the Sample Ballot

The sample ballot matters. Everybody in politics knows it matters. People stick it on their fridge. They carry it with them to the polls. They use it as a guide when they vote. That is why the party uses it. That is why endorsed candidates want to be on it. That is why everyone is suddenly clutching their pearls when Dionna Gore made her own.

She put the candidates she supports on her sample ballot, and she put herself on it in the race where she is not the endorsed candidate. That is absolutely acceptable. Honestly, it is smart. It is one of the only ways a non-endorsed candidate can fight back against a party machine that already decided who it wants voters to choose.

But instead of admitting that, people tried to turn it into some scandal. They called it disgraceful. They called it a dirty trick. They acted like voters are too stupid to tell the difference between the official Democratic Party sample ballot and Dionna Gore’s campaign literature.

That is what pisses me off.

If you look at both ballots side by side, you can clearly tell the difference. One is branded with the Democratic Party. The other is Dionna Gore’s ballot. Different colors. Different logos. Yes, it has a similar structure because it is a sample ballot. It lists candidates who are going to be on the ballot. That is literally the fucking point.

People are not that stupid. They know what they are holding. If they are holding a ballot that says Dionna Gore, then they know they are looking at Dionna Gore’s campaign material. Acting like voters are helpless idiots who cannot read a logo or understand a campaign piece is not protecting democracy. It is insulting the constituents.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

They Are Mad Because It Diminishes Their Power

The real problem is not confusion. The real problem is power.

People are not mad because voters might be tricked. They are mad because Dionna Gore’s sample ballot might actually work. It might diminish the effectiveness of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party’s sample ballot. And yes, that is the phrase people are throwing around like it is some moral indictment.

But let’s translate that for what it really means…

“We pick the candidates, not the voters. Do not interfere with our power.”

The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party wants to maintain control of the primary process. They want to squeeze out people who are actually running. They want to use endorsements, sample ballots, and insider relationships to narrow the field before voters get to make their own decision. Then when a candidate pushes back using the same basic tactic in a transparent way, suddenly that candidate is the problem.

Give me a break.

The hubris is unbelievable. The lack of self-reflection is almost impressive. To say you support democracy while being angry that a candidate made her own sample ballot is laughable. To act like the party’s preferred candidates deserve every institutional advantage, but a non-endorsed candidate is somehow dirty for trying to compete, is exactly the kind of insider bullshit people are sick of.

Trying to associate Dionna Gore’s tactic with MAGA, deceit, or something beneath a Democratic candidate is absurd.

What is deceitful is pretending the endorsement process is some pure democratic exercise when it is often a small room of insiders trying to shape the outcome before regular voters show up.

What is deceitful is pretending the party’s sample ballot is just a helpful tool, while everyone knows it is a weapon.

What is deceitful is acting like voters are being protected when what is really being protected is the power of the party machine.

And the fear tactic is obvious. They want to guilt people into believing that questioning the endorsed candidate is somehow disloyal. They want to make it seem like looking at non-endorsed candidates is reckless. They want people to believe there is one acceptable choice, and that choice just happens to be the one party insiders already picked for them.

That is not democracy. That is control.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Look at Every Candidate

I am writing this because people need to look closely at all the candidates, not just the endorsed ones. An endorsement does not mean someone is the best candidate. It means they won the endorsement. That is it. Those are not the same thing.

Vote based on your ideals. Vote based on the candidate. Vote based on who you think will actually represent you. Do not let party insiders tell you who the acceptable choice is, then guilt you, shame you, or scare you into falling in line.

And in Ohio 19, there are three candidates. Dionna Gore is one of them. Cheryl Perez is another non-endorsed candidate, and Perez really deserves a look too.

That should not be controversial. That should be the bare minimum.

Stay Angry

Matt and I stayed in touch and chatted from time to time.

Recently, Matt heard from one of his readers about Allison Russo’s campaign consultant Rachel Rossi going after MY MOM on Facebook and telling my mom that I was in a “mental health crisis.“

And that is what brings me to The Angry Democrat/Ohioan today as a guest blogger! And I’m angry!

Let’s get into it…

This is Rachel Rossi. Allison Russo pays her $6,000/month as her campaign consultant. A candidate running to be my state representative pays Rachel $2,700/month. A few other Statehouse folks have her on the payroll, too.

Several days ago, Rachel Rossi found a five day old comment by my mom on a public Facebook page, Summit County Progressive Democrats. They held a forum and then endorsed Dr. Bryan Hambley for Secretary of State. Mom commented about Dr. Hambley’s experience in healthcare and about Russo’s vote with Republicans for the gerrymandered state maps. Pretty tame comment.

Rachel, who I’ve known for 15 years since she was a kid fresh out of college, comes along five days later and she knows this is my mom. And she says this (I’m choosing not to further Rachel‘s agenda by showing her entire comment):

(Can you believe this 36 year old woman telling a 72 year old woman what to do with her 49 year old daughter?)

Around midnight, my mom calls me from my stepdad’s phone. You get a late night call from them like that and you worry. I immediately answered.

She says, “Who’s Rachel Lynn?” Rachel Rossi was going by Rachel Lynn on Facebook. I tell her that’s Allison‘s campaign manager and we discuss what just happened.

We hang up. She calls me back a minute later. “Sarah, isn’t this just what Allison did to Elliot Forhan?”

Me: 🤯 [WHOA]

Also me: 🥱 [yawn] I’ve been dealing with terrible things from these people for almost 3 years now. Initially, this seemed like just one more.

But I woke up the next day pretty pissed about it, so I made a video about what Rachel did. And people immediately responded with outrage. I typically get a lot of views and good engagement on my posts but… GOING AFTER A PERSON’S MOM! This struck a nerve with people.

Later, I talk to my friend on the phone and she says… well, she says a lot of choice words. But she points out not only did Allison’s campaign manager call you mentally ill like Allison did with Elliot Forhan, but they told your MOM that… just like they did with Elliot Forhan.

PEOPLE, when I tell you that my mind was blown… 🤯 A full day had passed almost and I had not seen the obvious. Allison Russo‘s campaign ran the same play on me that she ran on Elliot Forhan!

So who the hell is Elliot Forhan?

Let’s do a quick overview for people who don’t know. He was a Democratic member of the House. He and another member had words, loud words as I understand it. They had a disagreement about Elliot putting up an Israel flag in his office space, Allison‘s chief of staff asking him to take it down, and Elliot commenting on it on social media.

The other member said in public statements that she did cry but that she cries when she’s angry. Then, it seems like Allison took the opportunity, using this brief argument he had with the other member, to just drop a bomb on him. Allison found Elliot annoying and she wanted him out of her hair. But what she did was absolute political malpractice and resulted in hours and hours of unnecessary pain and wasted time over the next several years— causing me to frequently wonder, “Is anyone raising money and trying to win elections?!” But we’ll get to that...

Back on this day in November 2023, the bomb Allison dropped was a 20-page memo she wrote about Forhan calling him violent and suicidal. That was the gist of it. The rest of the pages were padding for the headline: violent and suicidal. (Because apparently he had made comments such as, “Just shoot me.”)

The timeline is super condensed. I think Forhan and the other member had the argument and the next day Alison has this memo written about him, and she releases it to the press! (Because that’s what you do when you think someone is suicidal, right!?) But before she releases it to the press, she has a member of her leadership team call Elliot’s moms and tell them that their son is in mental health crisis! And that he’s suicidal!

Elliot has two moms. He’s very close with them. He performed their marriage ceremony in fact—not that long ago! And they are bewildered and upset by this news. Over the coming days, they speak to their son, confirm that he is not in fact suicidal, and they begin what turns out to be a very long legal battle that is still going on.

Representative Juanita Brent gets involved a few days later. That is an unfortunate part of the story. She appears to think that Forhan was driving by her house. That seems to be false or a mistake on her part. They end up in court over a civil stalking protection order and after many months—and after he loses his primary reelection—a court says the case has “no merit” and Forhan is “exonerated.” (Full disclosure: I like Rep. Brent and think she has done a lot of good work and some downright heroic opposition to the hideous racism in that Statehouse. Had Allison not instigated a witch hunt against Forhan, I think this all could’ve been avoided—avoiding drama like this is the job of a leader.)

This was a full on court case culminating in a one day trial. They had depositions. Allison Russo walked out of her first deposition without answering questions. She was ordered by the court to sit for another deposition. She refused to answer questions again, and had to attend a contempt hearing where she was ordered by the court to answer the question. It was high drama, unnecessary drama.

April 10, 2024 court decision:

I wasn’t at the House anymore when any of this happened, but I knew Elliot a little bit at this time. I had worked at the House and staffed the Ballot Board. Allison had appointed Elliot to the Ballot Board actually against my recommendation. I didn’t think he was ready and thought we could have a more experienced appointee. She appointed him and he did fine. But, we all knew Rep. Forhan was a little different.

Words like “neurodivergent” and “on the spectrum” were thrown around. But people liked him and no one thought he was violent or suicidal. What Allison did to him I believe was a result of her impatience with and rage at his difference. He can be great and he can also be highly annoying and rigid and self-righteous. But there’s no excuse for falsely calling a person violent and suicidal.

So all of that was two years ago in 2023 and 2024. Forhan is now on the ballot on Tuesday, attempting to become our Democratic nominee for Attorney General. (Full disclosure: I am voting for the other Democrat, John Kulewicz, for AG. Elliot and I have become friends, but for many reasons, I think John is the better candidate.)

So journalists are writing stories about the current race and all of these old headlines about Forhan and stalking and violence and suicide are being resurrected, because they’re still out there and journalists repeat them and link to them. They don’t link to the end of the story where Elliot was “exonerated,” they link to the beginning of the story repeating the false allegations by Allison Russo.

Since the end of 2024, Elliot Forhan has been suing the House of Representatives, Allison Russo, and other elected officials and some staff members in their official and personal capacities. He is suing them for defamation and a few other claims in two courts at the same time, the Ohio Court of Claims and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, because of immunity issues that have to be resolved. If the Court of Claims determines these people are not personally immune from suit, then the Cuyahoga County case against them as individuals will proceed. (I am a lawyer, but not in this case, and I don’t claim to be an expert on these things.)

Some depositions have taken place in the current lawsuit. Forhan deposed Allison Russo again and you can listen to the whole thing here. She has some pretty wild ideas about what is and isn’t “work” and she says “I don’t know” well over 100 times, mostly about things I’m sure she knows.

Trial is set for… ELECTION DAY! That’s right, November 3, 2026. Whoever said judges aren’t political is a comedian.

And that, my friends, is the short version of the Forhan story.

Let’s go back to the main point here.

What is up with Allison Russo and MOMS?!?

There is another parallel between Elliot’s and my experience with Allison. Right after Matt and I recorded our interview in mid-February, he and I were texting about Allison’s response to it (that needs its own entire response post), only I couldn’t get back to Matt immediately because I was in a hospital in Toledo with my mom who had just had a heart attack. (She’s doing great now! She grumbles about going to cardiac rehab because there are too many “old people,” but she goes and she’s doing great.)

Earlier that week, I had decided not to invite her to a secretary of state campaign event, because I thought maybe the stress of Allison’s conduct toward me was getting to her. Then on Friday the 13th, she had a heart attack.

The parallel: sometime in the first few months of Elliot’s conflict with Allison, one of his moms ended up in the emergency room for heart issues. I don’t have children myself, and I can only imagine what it’s like to see your kid suffer. But I know we can’t protect our loved ones, our parents, from the stress we go thru. And that sucks.

Donna and I will both tell you we’re tough as nails and we are. But she was upset that night and couldn’t sleep. And I was upset that night that this woman Rachel—who I have known for 15 years, who had been my friend—lied to my mom to hurt her and hurt me and stop us from speaking out about her political campaign client, Allison Russo. It’s low.

Here’s what Elliot told me about how he felt when Allison Russo told his moms he was mentally ill:

“It hurt me that they did that to my moms. Especially because there’s no way they believed what they were saying about me— you simply would not send a memo like that to the PRESS if you truly thought a person was suicidal. But beyond that, it’s such a perversion of our, not just our Democratic values… I remember after I was sworn in in 2023, I was sitting on the floor of the House Chamber and Mike DeWine was making his very long State of the State speech and he kept returning to this point: ‘I want to make the state of Ohio number one in mental health!’ So, it’s not just our Democratic values, it’s our values as Ohioans, as decent people! And here is Allison Russo, as a Democratic leader, abusing that value, perverting it for her personal political gain. It’s offensive.”

Bonus: When I called Elliot to ask him to give me a quote, his wife Nicole offered the following:

“I remember that his moms were frantic for a short time. They called Elliot and couldn’t reach him right away so they called me and texted me something about suicide which I just found strange! And by the time I saw that a few minutes later, they had already reached him, learned that he was fine, and texted me that he was fine. Then they came up to visit that weekend, and I remember that we watched the movie Singin’ in the Rain. And Elliot laughed during the movie. And his mom was like “I’m so glad he’s laughing.” Not because it was surprising that he was laughing—that was normal. But they had just been given this huge scare. And they were sitting here seeing how wrong it was.”

I’ve met Elliot’s moms. They are wonderful loving people and Democratic activists, and they dwell in the greatest place on earth—Athens, Ohio. As their friend, I am offended that Allison put them thru that.

I am running against Allison for Ohio Democratic Party State Central Committeewoman, Senate District 25. After what Rachel did, I challenged Allison to a debate. Allison has refused to respond, refused to face me, and refused to address this dirty tactic by her highly paid henchwoman. (And it is not the first one. It’s been a long nine months.) But I haven’t given up and I’ve reserved space for a debate in the Columbus Main Library Auditorium on Monday at 11:30 AM.

Clever use of the POWW! logo if I do say so myself…

Allison has been asked one question as far as I can tell about her treatment of me and former Rep. Forhan— at an Indivisible forum where I was sitting silently in the audience in the sanctuary of a local church. I posted that question, her response, and my after-the-fact response here. TLDR: Why didn’t she have half the smoke for real violence in the workplace as she had for a member who annoyed her?

Matt posed the question: Is this politics as usual? I have to say… on the one hand, yes. The effect on one’s family is often cited by potential candidates or people newly in office as a reason not to run. But that usually involves the things said to and about the candidate. What makes this different is Rachel Rossi sought out my mom and commented TO her ABOUT me. That’s another level in my experience. Very unprofessional. Very low. And Rachel has now deactivated her Facebook account. Did she do that out of shame, acknowledgement of a mistake? Or did she do it because the dirty work was done, had its effect, and now it was time to zap the evidence? I don’t know which.

Let’s close with a word from Mom:

You can hear more from Donna here and here.

Thanks for reading! Thanks, Matt, for the always interesting discussion.

I’ve tinkered with Substack, but my POWW! headquarters is really on Facebook and you can find me at all the usual spots (my linktree). Happy voting! Leave my mom alone!

And STAY ANGRY!

When we started pulling public records two weeks ago we found $158,100 in corporate television advertising running on four Cleveland stations for Brian Poindexter. We reported it. We documented it. We published it.

Today we pulled the FEC independent expenditure database. The number is significantly larger.

What The FEC Records Show

As of May 1st, 2026, four days before the primary — here is the complete documented picture of outside spending supporting Brian Poindexter in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District Democratic primary:

Jobs and Democracy PAC — TV Buy — $424,280.63 Paid to Bryson Gillette LLC on April 22, 2026. Jobs and Democracy PAC is funded primarily by Public First and Public First Action — an advocacy network that has received at least $20 million from Anthropic, the $60 billion AI corporation behind the AI assistant Claude.

Jobs and Democracy PAC — Ad Production — $18,000.00 Paid to Bryson Gillette LLC on April 22, 2026.

BDA PAC — Direct Mail — $161,611.35 Paid to Bottled Lightning Collective on April 17, 2026. BDA PAC is funded by an oil company fined $5.5 million for pollution violations, a billionaire who backed a right-to-work governor, and the man who served as national finance co-chair for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns.

Working Families Party PAC — Texting — $2,400.00 Paid to Community Labor Administrative Services on April 23, 2026.

Total Confirmed Outside Spending: $606,291.98

On The Question Of What Brian Poindexter Can Do About It

We have heard the argument — and it is a fair one. Brian Poindexter cannot legally stop outside PACs from spending money on his behalf. The independent expenditure system was specifically designed to give candidates deniability. He did not ask for this money. He cannot return it. He cannot legally coordinate with these PACs to tell them to stop.

That is true. And it is also exactly how the system was designed to work.

But PACs do not operate blindly. They choose candidates for a reason. Whether that reason involves a nod or a wink from a campaign, from a consultant, from the DCCC, or from the broader political infrastructure around a candidate — we may never know. The independent expenditure system was specifically architected so that we cannot know. The deniability is a feature, not a flaw.

What we do know is history. Candidates who have been supported by corporate super PACs and gone on to win elections have voting records. Those records tell us what the corporations that spent money to elect them got in return. Pharmaceutical PACs funded members who voted against drug price negotiation. Oil and gas PACs funded members who voted against environmental protection. The pattern holds across decades and across parties.

Everything in politics is nuanced — and it is designed to be. The complexity is not accidental. It is the product of a system built over 50 years to make accountability as difficult as possible for ordinary voters to trace.

Ohio Democracy Watch exists to trace it anyway.

We are not here to tell you who to vote for. We are here because as voters in this democracy we want the best possible candidate in the fight that matters most — taking back this seat in November and sending a representative to Washington who answers to the people of Parma, Brook Park, Medina, Ashland, and Wayne County. Not to a $60 billion AI corporation in San Francisco. Not to an oil company fined for polluting. Not to a Romney fundraiser.

The system that produced this $606,291 in outside spending is broken. Most importantly — it needs to end. Citizens United needs to be overturned. The independent expenditure loophole needs to be closed. And the voters of Ohio’s 7th District deserve a representative who will fight to make that happen — not one who benefited from the system and then stayed silent about it.

What Has Not Changed

Brian Poindexter has said nothing about any of this spending. He posted on April 25th that corporate PAC money is “a stain on our politics” and that he would “never take a dime of it.” He is endorsed by End Citizens United — an organization whose entire purpose is getting corporate money out of politics.

Over $600,000 in outside corporate PAC money has been spent to elect him in this primary. He cannot legally stop it. But he can speak. He can acknowledge it. He can tell voters what he thinks about a $60 billion AI corporation spending nearly half a million dollars on Cleveland television to elect him.

He has not said a word.

The Primary Is May 5th

Ohio’s 7th Congressional District Democratic primary is four days away. Polls open at 6:30am on Tuesday May 5th.

The FCC public files are available at publicfiles.fcc.gov. The FEC independent expenditure records are available at fec.gov. Every dollar documented in this post comes from government public records.

The records are public. The money is documented. The choice is yours.

Good morning, Angry Patriots

I want to set explain my position in this

Just because I’m posting this does not mean I’m for or against any candidate in the Ohio 7th. That’s not what this is. This is about transparency. It’s about putting information in front of people so they can actually understand what’s happening in this race.

We can’t sit here and claim we care about transparency, rail against corporate money, and say we oppose Citizens United, and then turn around and get uncomfortable the second that money, messaging, and strategy get exposed for the candidate you support or the one running against the person you’re voting for.

That position doesn’t hold up.

You either want sunlight or you don’t.

The reality is, most people in this area aren’t used to a primary like this. It’s been a long time since the 7th/16th district has seen this level of competition. There’s outside spending, corporate influence, recognizable names, and multiple serious candidates. That changes how people engage, and frankly, a lot of voters are still adjusting to it.

I’m not here trying to push you toward one candidate or another. That’s not the objective. What I’m doing is creating another channel for transparency. If the information moves you one way or the other, that’s your decision. If you want to know where I personally stand, you can ask me directly.

Democracy Watch has been digging into this race in a way that deserves attention.

Their reporting is already shaping broader coverage and inspiring even local news outlets to cover this, even if they won’t acknowledge where it started.

Matt

We have heard the argument. In the days since our reporting on outside spending in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District Democratic primary, some voters have pushed back with a simple point: candidates need PAC money to win. Without it they cannot compete. Without it the other side — the side with more corporate money — wins every time.

It is a real argument. And it deserves a real answer.

That answer requires understanding where PACs came from, what they were designed to do, and what they have become.

How We Got Here

The political action committee was not invented by corporations. It was invented by labor unions. The first PAC was created by the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1943 to support Franklin Roosevelt’s reelection — because federal law prohibited unions from contributing directly to federal campaigns. Workers pooled their own money voluntarily to support candidates who supported them. That was the original PAC — transparent, voluntary, and aligned with the people funding it.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 formalized PACs and required full disclosure. Then Watergate happened — and Congress responded with the most comprehensive campaign finance reform in American history, including strict contribution limits and the creation of the Federal Election Commission.

Then the Supreme Court dismantled it. In Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 the Court struck down expenditure limits — ruling that spending money on behalf of a candidate is a form of protected speech. You can limit how much someone gives directly to a candidate. You cannot limit how much someone spends independently to elect one.

That distinction created the gap. Citizens United in 2010 blew it wide open — allowing corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money through super PACs as long as they don’t give directly to candidates. Outside spending jumped from 6% of total election spending in 2008 to nearly 20% by 2018. In 2016 super PACs spent more than $1 billion. By 2026 the AI industry alone has spent over $185 million on congressional races.

The Original PAC vs. The Super PAC

PAC: The union members who pool their dues to support a candidate who will fight for their wages — that is the original PAC. Voluntary. Transparent. Workers supporting candidates who support workers. The money and the mission aligned.

Super PAC: The $60 billion AI corporation that routes $20 million through an advocacy network into a super PAC that spends at least $158,100 on Cleveland television as issue ads to avoid FEC disclosure — that is what the PAC has become. The money and the mission are hidden from the voters the ads are designed to influence.

Why This Matters More Than Ever Right Now

The stakes of that corporate takeover have never been higher than they are today. Artificial intelligence is not a future policy debate. It is happening now — in your workplace, your hospital, your child’s school, your credit score, your healthcare coverage. The next two to five years of congressional sessions will be dominated by decisions about who is liable when AI causes harm, whether corporations can be held accountable when their systems cost people jobs or deny them care, and whether states can pass stronger protections or whether a single federal framework written by the industry itself will override them.

The AI industry knows this. That is why it has already spent $185 million on the 2026 elections — and why a $60 billion AI corporation’s political network is spending at least $158,100 on Cleveland television right now to elect a candidate in a Democratic primary who has never once mentioned artificial intelligence. The money arrived before the debate did. That is not a coincidence. That is a strategy.

Why Primaries Are Different — And More Dangerous

Here is the argument that PAC money is necessary to win — and here is why it is more complicated in a primary than in a general election.

In a general election the argument has some merit. When one side has unlimited corporate money and the other side refuses all outside spending, the side with unlimited money wins more often than not. The playing field is genuinely uneven. A candidate who unilaterally disarms in a general election against a well-funded opponent is often making a noble but losing gesture.

In a primary the dynamic is completely different — and far more dangerous for democracy.

In a primary all candidates are from the same party. The voters are the same voters. The issues are often similar. What outside corporate spending in a primary does is not level an uneven playing field. It tips a level one. It takes a race between candidates who are competing on ideas, records, and community support — and floods it with outside money that has nothing to do with any of those things. In a crowded primary field that outside money can be decisive — not because it reflects the will of the voters, but because it overwhelms them.

When a primary is flooded with outside corporate money the voters being targeted by those ads often have no idea who paid for them or why. The candidate who benefits may not fully understand what will be expected in return. The connection between the money and the outcome is invisible by design.

That is not a theoretical concern. It is the documented reality of how super PACs operate in primary elections today.

Three Examples From The Recent Record

Example 1 — Pharmaceutical Industry PACs and Drug Pricing

When Congress debated allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices directly — a policy supported by over 80% of Americans across party lines — pharmaceutical industry PACs had spent decades funding the members of the committees that oversee drug pricing legislation. The result was documented and consistent: members who received significant pharmaceutical PAC money voted against Medicare drug price negotiation at dramatically higher rates than those who did not. The constituents in virtually every congressional district in America pay for prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry PACs that funded those votes do not. Their interests pointed in opposite directions. The votes followed the money — not the constituents.

Example 2 — Oil and Gas PACs and Environmental Enforcement

A peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences — analyzing 28 years of campaign contribution data — found consistent evidence that the more a given member of Congress votes against environmental policies, the more contributions they receive from oil and gas companies supporting their reelection. Instead of attempting to sway undecided legislators’ votes, oil and gas companies provide financial rewards to members of Congress after they have voted against legislation to protect the environment. This is not a partisan finding. It is a peer-reviewed academic study covering 28 years of data. The oil and gas industry does not live in the congressional districts it funds. The families who breathe the air and drink the water near drilling operations do. The money and the constituent interest pointed in opposite directions. The pattern held across nearly three decades.

Example 3 — Crypto PACs and the 2026 Illinois Democratic Primaries

The clearest and most recent documented case of corporate super PAC money flooding Democratic primaries comes from Illinois in March 2026. Fairshake — a crypto industry super PAC primarily funded by Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz, and Ripple — spent nearly $20 million across multiple Illinois Democratic primaries. Its ads never mentioned cryptocurrency. Three pro-crypto candidates it supported won their primaries. All three are labeled strongly supportive of crypto on the Coinbase-backed NGO Stand With Crypto’s politician scoreboard. The crypto industry had no connection to the constituents of those Chicago-area districts. It had a direct financial interest in shaping who would vote on cryptocurrency regulation in Congress. In 2024 Fairshake supported 53 candidates who ended up in Congress — losing in just five races. Fairshake purposefully didn’t craft its political ads to reference its own aim to foster crypto — instead making ads based on whatever was the biggest political vulnerability it saw in opponents. Sound familiar?

The Math

Here is what the corporations spending money in Democratic primaries do not want you to do.

Ohio tracks party affiliation through primary voting history. Approximately 200,000 registered Democrats live in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District — voters who have pulled a Democratic primary ballot within the past two years. A competitive general election House race in a toss-up district costs between $3 million and $8 million. The median amount raised by a House incumbent in a toss-up race in 2024 was $7.9 million.

If every registered Democrat in OH-7 donated $25 — the cost of a streaming subscription — they would generate $5 million. Enough to fully fund a competitive campaign without a single dollar from a corporate PAC, a super PAC, a billionaire, or an AI corporation.

And that math only counts people in the district. Small dollar fundraising through platforms like ActBlue is national. A candidate who builds a profile by refusing corporate money can raise money from all 50 states. Congressional Democrats who rejected corporate money entirely and won their races in 2018 averaged $5.5 million in contributions — almost entirely from small dollar online donors.

The argument that Democratic candidates cannot win without corporate PAC money is not supported by the math. It is supported by a system that has convinced candidates — and voters — that the money is necessary before they even try to raise it without it.

What History Tells Us

The argument that candidates need PAC money to win is true in a system that has been deliberately designed to make it true. The more corporate money floods into elections the more every candidate feels they need corporate money to compete. The more they need it the more dependent they become on the people providing it. The more dependent they become the more the system serves those people — and the less it serves the voters who elected them.

This is not an accident. It is the predictable and documented consequence of 50 years of Supreme Court decisions that treated spending money as speech and corporations as people.

Eight sitting Democratic senators have called for their party to ban super PACs in Democratic primaries. That effort depends on candidates, journalists, and concerned voters drawing sustained attention to the role of outside spending in elections.

We pull the records. We trace the money. We report what we find. For all of Ohio.

The original PAC gave workers a voice. The super PAC took it away. That is the history. That is what is happening in OH-7 right now. And that is why it matters — not just on May 5th, but in every election that follows.

Sources

• Brennan Center for Justice, January 2025: “Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election”

• Brennan Center for Justice, January 2020: “Since Citizens United, A Decade of Super PACs”

• Brennan Center for Justice: “Citizens United, Explained”

• OpenSecrets: “More Money, Less Transparency: A Decade Under Citizens United”

• OpenSecrets: “Money-in-Politics Timeline”

• Roosevelt Institute, February 2026: “Citizens United and the Decline of US Democracy”

• Center for American Progress, September 2025: “Undoing Citizens United and Reining In Super PACs”

• Campaign Legal Center, January 2023: “Super PAC Deals Are A Bad Deal For Democracy”

• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, February 2020: “Oil and gas companies invest in legislators that vote against the environment”

• CoinDesk, March 18, 2026: “Fairshake’s $10 Million Illinois Misfire”

• The Intercept, February 13, 2026: “Jasmine Crockett Swears Off Corporate Cash”

• Issue One, February 2025: “The 118th Congress’ Fundraising Treadmill”

• Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

• Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

• Ohio Democracy Watch previous reports: ohiodemocracywatch.substack.com

What really got me wasn’t even the mailers. It was the narrative around them. People kept saying, “Oh, Max is sending these to trick Democrats into voting for Fitzgerald.”

I put on Facebook, that’s the dumbest thing. Why would anyone fall for that? Why would Max think voters are that stupid? And more importantly, Max isn’t that dumb… Right?

So I started trying to over think it. Maybe there’s more to it? Maybe he’s trying to push Fitzgerald down so he can get to someone else. Maybe it’s about shaping the field, not just influencing voters. It had to be something more complex than this clumsy, obviously failure of a play… Right?

And to my chagrin, I was fucking wrong.

I reached out to a friend of mine, Aaron Fisher, Partner at Statecraft Media who does this for a living. He runs media strategy at Statecraft and does this exact thing for campaigns across the country. So, I asked him directly, what the hell is this?

He set me straight. I even tried to tell him my alternate theory… and he cut me off. Here is what he said.

According to Aaron, what we’re seeing here is a relatively standard political tactic. The goal is to influence the outcome of the opposing party’s primary by helping elevate what is perceived to be the weaker general election opponent.

In this case, the thinking from those backing Max Miller is that Ed Fitzgerald represents the more beatable candidate in a general election. That assessment likely stems from Fitzgerald’s past performance, particularly his unsuccessful 2014 gubernatorial run, which provides a record that can be used against him. And well all the scandal around that race. Still even over decade later we are asking, why didn’t he have a valid drivers license. Weird eh?

So instead of attacking him in a traditional way, the strategy flips the message. The mailers frame Fitzgerald as “too liberal,” with the expectation that Democratic primary voters will interpret that as a positive signal and rally behind him. It’s a form of “reverse psychology” designed to manipulate how voters perceive the candidate.

Aaron pointed out that this approach has worked before. He referenced the 2012 Missouri Senate race involving Claire McCaskill and Todd Akin. In that race, McCaskill’s campaign actively worked to boost Akin in the Republican primary by portraying him as “too conservative,” knowing that Republican voters might respond positively to that framing.

The strategy succeeded. Akin won the primary, and McCaskill went on to defeat him in the general election, in part because his controversial statements made him an easier target.

That said, Aaron doesn’t think this current execution is particularly strong. Actually it is just dumb.

He made two key points.

First, Democratic primary voters are generally more engaged and way smarter than the voter base that was targeted in the Missouri example (looking at you Republicans) :-). Democratic primary voters are more likely to recognize this kind of tactic for what it is, which reduces its effectiveness.

Second, the messaging itself is very out of touch with democratic primary voters. The word “liberal” does not necessarily resonate the way Republican consultants think it does.

Within parts of the Democratic electorate, especially on the left, “liberal” can carry associations with establishment or corporate-aligned politics. Aaron says that if the goal was to influence Democratic voters, framing Fitzgerald as “too progressive” would likely have been more effective.

So while the tactic is legitimate and has historical precedent, Aaron’s view is that this particular version is just poorly executed to the audience it’s trying to influence.

All in all just dumb.

Stay Angry

Multiple accounts, controlled by a single funding source, can dominate an entire market. That market, in turn, can shape what voters see when they search for information. And that perception can influence behavior in a real election.

This was brought to my attention by an Angry Patriot and compiled into an article for The Angry Ohioan. I think it is very telling about how the thumbs can push on the scales of democracy to inorganically attempt to display outcomes.

Twelve days before voters go to the polls in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District there are still no public polls in this race. But when you search for “OH-07 Democratic primary winner,” one candidate is sitting at roughly an 87% probability on a major prediction market. That number is not just buried on some obscure website. It is surfaced directly in Google search results, alongside established sources like Ballotpedia and major media outlets.

This creates a powerful feedback loop. A voter searches for information. They see a dominant probability. The impression is immediate and clear: this race is already decided. Except it isn’t. That 87% number was not discovered through organic market behavior. It was constructed, deliberately, with a relatively small amount of capital deployed in a highly coordinated way. And every step of that construction is visible on a public blockchain.

What is Polymarket?

Polymarket operates as a blockchain-based prediction market where users trade on real-world outcomes. The price of a “Yes” share reflects the implied probability of an outcome. In theory, this creates a market-driven consensus. In practice, especially in low-liquidity environments, it creates an opportunity. The entire OH-07 Democratic primary market has a total traded volume over $4,000. That is not a deep market. That is a fragile system where relatively small, coordinated activity can meaningfully shift perceived probabilities.

In a market this thin, you do not need millions of dollars to move perception. You just need coordination across accounts that appear independent but are not. When those conditions are met, the output is not a reflection of reality.

The Pattern

The behavior does not appear to be random and it is not consistent with independent traders reacting to new information. It shows a repeatable structure.

First, the scale is immediately noticeable. A small number of accounts dominate the majority of transactions, leaving very little room for organic participation.

Second, the direction of trades is not dispersed across candidates based on changing probabilities. It is concentrated and systematic. Multiple accounts are buying “No” positions across nearly every candidate in the race, suppressing their implied probabilities. At the same time, other accounts are buying “Yes” on a single candidate, pushing that candidate’s number upward.

This is a two-sided operation. One side removes weight from the entire field. The other side adds weight to a single outcome. The result is mathematically inevitable. If every alternative is pushed down and one candidate is pushed up, that candidate’s probability inflates dramatically, even if no real-world conditions justify it.

This is not how profit-seeking traders behave. Profit-driven actors typically concentrate capital where they expect returns and adjust positions based on changing information. They do not systematically suppress seven candidates in coordinated waves while simultaneously inflating one. The behavior observed here is not optimized for profit. It is optimized for perception.

Ten Accounts. One Master Wallet.

To determine whether this activity was truly coordinated, each account involved in the activity log was traced through Polygonscan, the public blockchain explorer for the Polygon network where Polymarket operates. The result is unambiguous. Ten of the accounts that dominate activity in this market trace back, two levels up the blockchain, to the same funding source:
0x871D7c0f9E19001fC01E04e6cdFa7fA20f929082

Seven accounts were consistently buying “No,” suppressing every candidate except one:
OmaJane — 0x5AeC01932a51836BC151B5aA515cCEA15a7d904b
pd.unique — 0x27abdfc9393c72a6330a3be987da4b46c726e521
anciente — 0xb6fa57039ea79185895500dbd0067c288594abcf
daniel122134 — 0x09fe78c8b9f10fb9c7c0a584bfab4205c76876ee
Scornful — 0x1e82e3eb816aaf755ac9b44bc9d98f01b08aaf92
Rocamado — 0x7be5602c32426ad785094317ede035221de3a53b
miguelrdp — 0xeb742d8155e5031bc8b0a4046633d679f27428b0

Three additional accounts were buying “Yes,” directly inflating a single candidate’s odds:
ivndev — 0x54034dac401d43dcb8113b16b3e7486f5e82edd5
rivaldooo — 0x8b5511c5451476dffd58529c77c3ebe7b0497f2c
denysd — 0x0dddda528f1c0459f3ef67fc02bc925dea5c6c0b

Ten accounts, operating in coordination, funded from the same origin. On a public blockchain, shared funding ancestry is not speculative. This is the equivalent of finding multiple bank accounts all tied back to the same source, executing complementary actions at the same time. One entity controls both the suppression and the inflation.

The structure of the activity removes any plausible argument that this is random or coincidental behavior. The accounts were executing a coordinated strategy across both sides of the market. Some of these accounts were created shortly before the market itself launched, indicating premeditation rather than organic participation.

The master wallet behind this activity held substantial capital across chains, far exceeding what was needed to bet on this single market.

It’s Not Just Ohio. The Same Pattern Across the Country

This is where it gets interesting. When you expand beyond Ohio’s 7th, the structure scales. The same wallets at the center of this operation, 0x871D7c0f9E19001fC01E04e6cdFa7fA20f929082, has deployed capital across ten races in six different states. As of April 18, 2026, that wallet held approximately $334,717, more than enough to systematically influence multiple low-liquidity markets at once.

The pattern remains consistent regardless of geography. In competitive or Republican-leaning districts, the operation is used to manufacture frontrunners early like in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District.

That same structure appears in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District and in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District, where the bet creates the appearance of early dominance. The pattern also extends to California’s 22nd Congressional District and even into statewide races like the Maine Senate.

In Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, the operation appears behind a challenger running against a sitting Democratic incumbent. In New York’s 10th Congressional District, a safe Democratic seat covering Brooklyn and lower Manhattan, the same pattern emerges. And in New York’s 7th Congressional District, again, the same structure is deployed. In these races, the objective is not to reflect uncertainty, but to create the illusion of momentum behind a specific challenger in environments where primaries determine the outcome.

Across all ten races, the execution is identical. One master wallet. Multiple coordinated accounts. “No” positions suppressing the field. “Yes” positions inflating a target candidate. Thin markets converted into controlled environments. The geography changes. The candidates change. The mechanics do not.

Why This Works

Prediction markets carry an implicit authority because they are perceived as aggregating information. When that activity is coordinated and market is thin, the output becomes a distortion rather than a signal. When that distorted signal is then amplified through search engines and paired with paid advertising, it becomes something else entirely. It becomes a narrative.

Voters encountering that narrative are not making decisions in a vacuum. They are responding to perceived momentum. They are reacting to what looks like consensus. In a crowded primary with no reliable polling, that perception can influence turnout, fundraising, and strategic voting. The betting does not need to change every mind. It only needs to shift enough perception to matter.

A Note on What This Does Not Claim

This analysis does not identify the individual or entity behind the master wallet. That information is not available through blockchain data alone. It does not make allegations against any specific candidate or campaign. It does not speculate on intent. It documents what can be verified: a coordinated set of accounts, funded from a single source, systematically trading on both sides of a prediction market in a way that produces a specific and misleading outcome.

Conclusion

What begins as a small number in a thin market becomes something much more significant when examined closely. So far a total of over $4000 in trading volume is enough to manufacture an 87% frontrunner. Ten accounts, controlled by a single funding source, can dominate an entire market. That market, in turn, can shape what voters see when they search for information. And that perception can influence behavior in a real election.

This is not theoretical. It is observable. The blockchain record does not disappear. It does not change. It shows exactly what happened, step by step. What you do with that information is up to you.

Stay Angry

Link to Questions

The discussion starts with the PAC-backed mailer that became an early flashpoint in the race, then moves into Perez’s argument that Democrats have lost ground by ceding economic and small-business issues.

From there, the interview expands into school funding, EdChoice, SB1, property taxes, tax abatements, lobbying, HB 6, anti-Semitism in the primary, lived experience, trade and investment policy, the state budget, data centers, and broader questions about whether government is still capable of serving ordinary people. It ends with marijuana policy, campaign values, and a closing appeal to voters in House District 19.

Ohio’s 19th State House District Stretches across eastern, southeastern, and central Cuyahoga County, the towns and villages of Bentleyville, Brecksville, Brooklyn Heights, Chagrin Falls, Chagrin Falls Township, Cleveland (Ward 12 Precincts M, N, P and Ward 13 Precincts M, N, O), Cuyahoga Heights, Glenwillow, Highland Heights, Hunting Valley, Independence, Mayfield Heights, Moreland Hills, Newburgh Heights, Oakwood, Pepper Pike, Seven Hills, Solon, Valley View, and Walton Hills make up Ohio’s uniquely shaped 19th House District (HD19).

Share The Angry Ohioan

Timestamps

00:00:00 – Introduction and interview setup
Matt opens the interview, introduces Cheryl Perez as a candidate in the three-way Democratic primary for Ohio House District 19, and explains that the questions being asked were submitted by constituents in advance. Cheryl then gives her personal introduction, describing herself as a small business owner, a mother of six, a caregiver, and an operations consultant who says she entered the race because Ohio families are being squeezed by property taxes, healthcare, childcare, and a state government she believes has stopped listening.

00:02:52 – PAC mailer controversy and Democratic economic messaging
Matt goes directly to the controversy over a mailer tied to the Ohio’s Highlands for Healthy Economy Action Fund and asks Perez about the group’s reported ties to a Republican-leaning donor. Perez says she does not control independent PACs, but argues that the support reflects the strength of her economic and small-business message. That leads into a broader exchange about how Democrats, in both her view and Matt’s, have too often abandoned “kitchen table” issues like inflation, debt, spending, small business, and the economy, leaving Republicans to dominate those conversations.

00:06:34 – Big-picture governing: schools, workforce, and the economy
Perez explains that she sees most major state issues as interconnected. She argues that public school funding is not only an education issue, but also a workforce development and long-term economic development issue. She makes the same case for broader state policy, saying that if Ohio weakens schools, higher education, or long-term affordability, it is also weakening its future workforce and harming its economic prospects.

00:08:53 – EdChoice, fair school funding, and SB1
The interview then moves into EdChoice, voucher programs, and SB1. Perez argues that starving public schools while expanding private school vouchers makes no sense and says the state has backed away from its fair share of school funding. On SB1, she gives one of the most personal stretches of the interview, drawing on her role on Ohio University boards and her daughter’s experience. She says students are angry, some are leaving the state, jobs have already been affected on campus, and professors may choose not to work in Ohio, all of which she frames as part of a larger brain drain and long-term workforce problem.

00:14:25 – Property taxes, small business taxation, and affordability
Matt pivots into taxes, asking how Perez would square fair school funding with the reality that many families and small business owners already feel overtaxed. Perez argues that the state has repeatedly pushed its responsibilities down onto local governments, which in turn pushes the burden onto homeowners and small businesses through property taxes and other local taxes. She emphasizes that small businesses are the largest employers, yet are often treated as an afterthought while major companies receive favorable treatment. She also ties rising property taxes directly to the state’s affordability crisis and says this is part of why younger people are leaving Ohio.

00:19:22 – Lobbying, FirstEnergy/HB 6, and ethics in Columbus
From there, Matt raises lobbying and the FirstEnergy scandal. Perez says she is not a career politician and argues that servant leadership, moral clarity, and accountability are missing in Columbus. She describes HB 6 and FirstEnergy not as a one-off scandal, but as a broader collapse of trust and transparency. She says she would push for more transparency around utility lobbying and dark money, stronger ethics and utility oversight laws, and a review of Ohio’s energy laws to strip out the remnants and culture that allowed the scandal to happen.

00:23:55 – Nicole Sigurdsson controversy, anti-Semitism, and representation
Matt then asks Perez about one of her opponents, Nicole Sigurdsson, and the criticism over a “From the river to the sea” post. Perez says “I didn’t know” is not a sufficient excuse when someone is seeking to represent a district with a significant Jewish population. She says candidates have an obligation to understand the communities they represent and to think through the impact of what they post or endorse. This part of the interview transitions into a broader discussion of identity, empathy, and lived experience, including Perez’s reflections on being a Black woman, her marriage into a Cuban family, and how different lived experiences shape the way she thinks about representation, immigration, and public service.

00:31:11 – Israel-related business policy, HB 96, and public spending priorities
Matt shifts back to policy by asking Perez how she views legislation connected to economic investment and trade with Israel. Perez says she is open to those partnerships if they are transparent, accountable, and genuinely beneficial to Ohio’s economy and small businesses. The conversation then moves into HB 96, where she identifies three major problems: failure to fully fund the fair school funding plan, the proposed public money for the Haslams’ stadium project, and tax choices she says favor higher earners while leaving local communities and homeowners stuck with the costs. Matt amplifies that critique by describing the stadium funding idea as using people’s money like a slush fund.

00:35:39 – Data centers, tax abatements, and whether development actually helps communities
Matt raises data centers and broader tax abatement policy, asking whether these deals really help local economies when they consume land, water, and power while often employing relatively few people. Perez says she understands the theory behind abatements, but argues that local communities are too often not meaningfully consulted and may not receive enough real benefit in return. Her position is that any such deal should require transparency, accountability, and direct community input, rather than being driven from the top down. Matt adds that government often keeps ineffective policies alive because of political incentives and entrenched stakeholders, even after the original rationale has broken down.

00:55:30 – Marijuana regulation and closing campaign message
Near the end, the conversation touches on marijuana policy, with Matt arguing that the original public intent was marijuana regulation more like alcohol, not the broad proliferation of gummies, THC derivatives, drinks, and other products being folded into the debate. Perez praises the thoroughness of his argument and jokes that if she gets to Columbus she will call him down to testify.

The interview then closes with her final appeal: she says endorsements are just opinions, urges voters to study the facts and make up their own minds, points people to her website and social media, and says she is running because Ohio families deserve a government that works for them again.

Disclaimer: This content was generated using ChatGPT based on an AI-transcribed recording. While efforts were made to ensure accuracy, some phrasing or timestamps may not perfectly reflect the original conversation.

lowest possible net worth = minimum assets minus maximum liabilities
highest possible net worth = maximum assets minus minimum liabilities

Note: this is pretty standard for congressional net worth

I also separated out retirement and pension-style holdings where the filing clearly identified them as pensions, annuities, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, IRAs, Roth IRAs, or other tax-deferred retirement accounts. If an asset was just a mutual fund or insurance product without being clearly labeled as retirement, I did not force it into the retirement bucket.

You can search the disclosures yourself at the link below
https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/FinancialDisclosure

Brian Poindexter

Yxtyhg 10073334

89.1KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Based on his filing, Brian Poindexter disclosed three retirement-oriented assets: an Iron Workers Local 17 annuity plan valued at $100,001 to $250,000, an Iron Workers Local 17 pension plan valued at $15,001 to $50,000, and OPERS valued at $1,001 to $15,000. He also disclosed one liability, a student loan through American Education Services for $10,000 to $15,000.

Disclosed total assets: $116,003 to $315,000
Disclosed liabilities: $10,000 to $15,000
Estimated net worth range: $101,003 to $305,000

Retirement and pension total: $116,003 to $315,000

Individual stocks: none disclosed

Salary (2026 YTD): $21,000 (Iron Workers Local 17 JATC) + $3,831 (City of Brook Park) = $24,831
Salary (2025): $95,000 + $15,350 = $110,350

Bottom line: Poindexter’s filing is straightforward. Almost all of his disclosed wealth is tied up in union-related retirement and pension assets, and the only reported debt is a relatively modest student loan.

Laura D. Rodriguez-Carbone

Lnbp92 10074550

62.5KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Laura D. Rodriguez-Carbone’s filing discloses no assets, no liabilities, no positions, and no transactions. The filing does list earned income for her and her spouse, but there are no asset entries at all in Schedule A and no liabilities in Schedule D.

Disclosed total assets: $0
Disclosed liabilities: $0
Estimated net worth range based on disclosed assets and liabilities: $0

Retirement and pension total: none disclosed

Individual stocks: none disclosed

Salary (2026 YTD): $10,000 (spouse, Globe Life)
Salary (2025): $118,000
IQ Solutions (2025) $49,690.71

Bottom line: based on the disclosure form itself, there are no reportable assets on the page. That does not prove she has no wealth in real life. It means no reportable assets were disclosed on this filing. That distinction matters.

Michael Eisner

W4gfpb 10071778

93.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Michael Eisner’s filing shows a much more asset-heavy profile. He disclosed bank accounts, a 529 account, money market holdings, multiple New York Life products, and one especially large retirement asset: a New York Life Premier II individual retirement account invested in a Franklin Templeton portfolio, valued at $500,001 to $1,000,000. He also disclosed liabilities including American Express credit card debt of $15,001 to $50,000, a vacation club balance of $15,001 to $50,000, and a mortgage balance of $250,001 to $500,000.

Disclosed total assets: $850,012 to $1,826,000
Disclosed liabilities: $280,003 to $600,000
Estimated net worth range: $250,012 to $1,545,997

Retirement and pension total: $500,001 to $1,000,000 clearly identified as an IRA

Individual stocks: none disclosed

Salary (2026 YTD): $145,654.22 (Attorney fees)
Salary (2025): $140,038.76

Bottom line: Eisner has substantial disclosed assets, but also meaningful debt. His filing suggests a candidate with significant financial resources, though a large chunk of the lower-end net worth range gets eaten away by mortgage and consumer obligations. Also notable: no individual stock holdings appear on the filing.

Edward O’Donnell Fitzgerald

Ix9hkc 10072270

79.7KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Fitzgerald’s filing is by far the most stock-heavy of the group. He disclosed a long list of individual equities, including Amazon, Apple, Broadcom, Eli Lilly, Microsoft, Reddit, Walmart, BlackRock, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, McDonald’s, UnitedHealth, Visa, and many others. He also disclosed Bitcoin and Solana, plus a rental property in Union Pier, Michigan valued at $500,001 to $1,000,000. Unlike some of the others, Fitzgerald reported no liabilities at all.

Disclosed total assets: $886,051 to $2,491,000
Disclosed liabilities: none disclosed
Estimated net worth range: $886,051 to $2,491,000

Retirement and pension total: $45,003 to $150,000 from two Ohio Public 401k accounts and one State of Mississippi 401k, all described as public pension-related holdings

Individual stocks: yes, extensively

Salary (2026 YTD): $50,000 (Angelo Benedetti, Inc.) + $52,000 (spouse ICN) + $1,700 (spouse UH) = $103,700
Salary (2025): $100,000 + $78,000 + $2,500 + $39,600 = $220,100

Bottom line: Fitzgerald’s filing shows the broadest direct exposure to individual stocks of any candidate in this batch. He has no disclosed liabilities, a sizable real estate asset, and a portfolio that is much more market-exposed than the others.

Scott Schulz

3ootky 10072654

76.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Scott Schulz’s filing is retirement-heavy to an even greater degree than Poindexter’s. He disclosed multiple tax-deferred and Roth retirement accounts, including TIAA retirement plans, Fidelity accounts, Vanguard retirement accounts, Victory Capital Roth IRAs, and large university-related plans. The largest single reported asset is a TIAA Baldwin Wallace University DC and Tax Deferred Savings Plan valued at $500,001 to $1,000,000. He also disclosed no liabilities.

Disclosed total assets: $899,020 to $2,135,000
Disclosed liabilities: none disclosed
Estimated net worth range: $899,020 to $2,135,000

Retirement and pension total: $829,013 to $1,910,000

Individual stocks: none disclosed

Salary (2026 YTD): $200,309.83 (Baldwin Wallace University) + $1,386 (school board) + $85,123.11 (spouse) = $286,818.94
Salary (2025): $170,595.61 + $3,375 + $11,763 + $17,004 + $500 = $203,237.61

Bottom line: Schulz’s wealth appears overwhelmingly concentrated in retirement-oriented accounts rather than direct stock picking. He disclosed no liabilities, no individual stock holdings, and a very large retirement base.

Note: Butchko, Mundy, & Donegan did not complete disclosure reports. They also did not file with the FEC for campaign fundraising.

The disclosure reports were analyzed with Chat GPT

From my perspective as a Euclid resident, that comes with a heavy dose of reality. The apathy here is real, and so is the frustration. What you hear from residents and what you see out of City Hall often feel like two completely different things. Local politics has started to resemble an exclusive club, one that protects itself at all costs. The priority too often looks like maintaining control, not serving the people.

The Euclid Democratic Club and the Euclid Democratic Party put real resources behind the candidates they want. I have seen it firsthand. I have run for City Council and for Council President, and even as a registered Democrat, I could not align myself with how this city operates politically. That is not a casual statement. That is lived experience.

That said, this is not about Euclid’s city races. This is about the County Council race, where the stakes go well beyond one city.

There are real differences between the candidates, and those differences matter.

Shirley Smith brings decades of legislative experience and a long record of public service. Ebony Spano, a veteran, activist, and nonprofit leader from Highland Heights, represents a younger generation that is motivated, engaged, and deserves serious consideration.

Then there is Christine McIntosh, often promoted as “Euclid’s own.”

McIntosh was appointed to Euclid’s Ward 5 Council seat, chosen over candidates with significantly more legal and community experience. She served nearly a full term before moving into a position at City Hall that, to many observers, appeared to be created along the way. Despite not having formal qualifications at the time, the city funded her education so she could grow into the role she was already holding. She stepped away from her council seat shortly after that opportunity opened up.

Her record also includes a vote in the controversial 2019 decision involving Euclid’s tax collection. Residents made their position clear. They voted to keep the city’s tax department and reject RITA. That decision was overturned by the mayor and council anyway. McIntosh voted to override the will of the voters.

For a lot of people, that moment was not just policy. It was a line. Council members are supposed to represent their constituents, not work around them when it is inconvenient.

McIntosh, along with congressional candidate Maria Jukic, who is running in a district where she does not live, reflects what many see as a broader pattern. A system that rewards proximity to power more than it rewards accountability to residents.

Endorsements are another piece of this.

After going through that process myself, I do not look at endorsements the same way anymore. During my campaign, I sat down with groups like the North Shore AFL CIO. With my family’s union background, I expected consistency. At candidate meetings, leadership made it very clear that using non union labor would cost support.

But those standards did not hold. We saw public protests at Sims Park over the use of non union labor on the pier project, and then saw the same leadership turn around and re endorse the officials involved. That disconnect matters.

In this race, Shirley Smith has secured support from federal level figures and PACs. Ebony Spano has earned endorsements from groups like the Ohio Young Democrats, NEO Democratic Veterans, and the Cuyahoga Democratic Women’s Caucus.

McIntosh’s endorsements come largely from individual political figures, including Mayor Kirsten Holzheimer Gail, Mayor Georgine Welo, State Senator Kent Smith, State Representative Eric Synenberg, County Council President Dale Miller, Euclid Council President Kristian Jarosz, and a range of current and former local officials.

Some will look at that and see strength. Others will look at it and see a tightly connected political network reinforcing itself.

Campaign funding adds another layer. Support from established figures like Kent Smith and County Executive Chris Ronayne raises a fair question. Is this about shared policy direction, or is it about maintaining influence over the seat? Voters can draw their own conclusions, but it is hard to ignore the perception that this support is more about control than about the residents of District 11.

There is also a practical concern that should not be brushed aside. McIntosh has said she does not plan to step down from her role at Euclid City Hall if elected. That creates an obvious conflict. It would likely require her to recuse herself from issues involving Euclid.

If that happens, Euclid effectively loses a voice at the county level on matters that directly impact the city. That is not a small detail. That is a structural limitation voters should take seriously.

At the end of the day, everything described here is legal. The system allows it. That is part of the problem.

If anything is going to change, it is not going to come from inside that system.

It is going to come from the voters deciding they have had enough.

Stay Angry

This op-ed by breaks down the County Council District 11 race from a local perspective. If you want to contribute to The Angry Ohioan, send over your ideas or drafts.

Dani Pajak is a Euclid resident and community advocate who has run for local office, including Euclid City Council and Council President, building a reputation as an outspoken critic of the city’s political establishment. While not currently holding elected office, Pajak has remained active in local politics and public debate, focusing on accountability, neighborhood investment, and resident representation. Public election records show Pajak has previously run in municipal races but has not secured a win to date.

I want to quickly follow up on the earlier piece covering fundraising in the OH-7 race and make sure the record is clean.

https://www.fec.gov/data/elections/house/OH/07/2026/

After reviewing updated filings on the Federal Election Commission website, the numbers for Ed FitzGerald have changed from what was previously reported.

The correct figures are:

• Total raised: $231,802

• Total spent: $188,177

• Cash on hand: $43,624

In the original version, I reported that he had zero cash on hand, which led to a very different interpretation of where the campaign stood. That was accurate based on what was available at the time, but the filings have since been updated.

With the corrected numbers, the picture shifts. FitzGerald raised strong money, spent aggressively to get his message out, and still maintains a meaningful cash position. That suggests a campaign that is still very much active, not one running on fumes.

It would not be surprising to see another ~$50,000 come in during April, but we will know more once the next round of filings is released.

The main article has already been updated to reflect this, but I wanted to send this note directly to make sure everyone has the correct information.

More soon as the next filings come in.

Stay Angry

Subscribe now

They tell you how each campaign is thinking.

They tell you who is playing for the primary, who is thinking ahead to the general, and who realistically does not have a path. And when you line all of that up, you start to see where this race actually stands, not just in terms of messaging, but in terms of viability.

Max Miller: Sitting in Control

Subscribe now

Starting with Max, this is about as straightforward as it gets.

He no longer has a Republican primary. Jonah Schulz dropped out mid last year, and now Max is effectively coasting into the general election without having to spend resources defending his position. That alone is a massive advantage.

Financially, he brought in just under $1.7 million, spent around $657,000, and is sitting on roughly $1.2 million cash on hand before the primary even happens. That’s a strong position.

If you assume he raises even a modest amount between now and the general election, he’s easily sitting north of $2 million. And if for any reason the race tightens or becomes competitive, he has the network and backing to push that number closer to $3 million.

This is what incumbency looks like when it’s combined with no primary pressure. He’s not reacting to anything right now. He’s preparing.

Ed FitzGerald: $231k!

Subscribe now

FitzGerald is the top Democratic fundraiser in this race, bringing in just over $231,000.

On the surface, that’s strong. In a district like this, that’s a serious number for a primary. But then you look at the rest of the report.

He spent just under $188,000 and has $43,624 cash on hand.

That changes the interpretation.

He’s still spent aggressively, but he didn’t completely drain the account, like we mentioned before. What it shows instead is a campaign that leaned heavily into early spending, likely to establish position, build name recognition, and try to shape the primary field early.

The remaining cash on hand is not insignificant.

Brian Poindexter: Holding Back for a Reason?

Subscribe now

Poindexter’s report is one of the more interesting ones in the field.

He raised about $137,000, which is a strong number given the timing, especially since he didn’t raise in Q4 and only had a limited window to build momentum. But what stands out is how he used it.

He spent just over $64,000 and is holding onto roughly $73,000 cash on hand.

That’s a decision and purposeful.

In a seven-way primary, most candidates would be burning through cash to gain visibility and push for votes. He’s not doing that. He’s holding a meaningful portion back.

That suggests one of two things.

Either he believes he can win the primary without heavy spending, or he is intentionally positioning himself to enter the general election with a financial base already in place.

If he can raise another $25,000 to $50,000 before the primary, that puts him in a position where, if he wins, he’s not starting from zero against Max Miller.

When you factor in union support and potential ground operations, he may be betting more on turnout infrastructure than paid media.

That’s a different strategy than FitzGerald, and it’s worth watching.

Michael Eisner

Subscribe now

Eisner raised just under $61,000, spent around $48,000, and is sitting on roughly $12,000 cash on hand. That puts him in a tight position.

Now, I’ve seen campaigns make money stretch, like mine, so it’s not impossible to compete at that level, but everything has to be efficient. Every dollar has to go toward something that directly impacts turnout or voter awareness.

If money is being wasted on anything that doesn’t move votes, then the campaign is in trouble.

That said, if he were to win the primary, the situation changes. Outside money would come in. Party attention would shift. There would be an opportunity to build toward a $500,000 general election effort, maybe more.

At this stage, he needs to maximize what he has.

Scott Schulz and Laura Rodriguez Carbone

Share The Angry Ohioan

Schulz raised around $30,000, spent most of it, and has very little left.

Carbone raised about $7,000 and spent nearly all of it.

There’s no way around it.

While Scott and Laura both have strong messages, but that is not enough to be financially competitive in a primary like this, and it certainly doesn’t translate confidence into viable general election campaign fundraising.

Yes, money isn’t everything, and there are many ways to get your message to voters. But money does help get your message out in front of voters. Without it, you’re relying entirely on organic reach and word of mouth, which is extremely difficult and uncontrollable.

Keith Mundy, Ann-Marie Donegan, and John Butchko: Not Running Real Campaigns

Then you have candidates who didn’t file with the FEC or show any real fundraising activity.

At this point, it’s hard to take the campaign seriously.

There may be ideas there. There may be perspectives worth hearing. But if you’re not even filing or attempting to raise money in a federal race, you’re not operating on the same level as the rest of the field.

At best, you’re siphoning off a small number of votes from candidates that are trying to compete.

The Breakdown

When you put all of this together, the field narrows quickly.

FitzGerald, Poindexter, and Eisner are the Democrats who have raised enough to be taken seriously in the primary, but they are doing it in very different ways.

FitzGerald and Poindexter are operating at a higher fundraising level, which naturally puts them in a stronger position on paper. Eisner is still in the conversation, not because of the raw dollar amount, but because of how that money could be used and what could happen after the primary.

If FitzGerald or Poindexter wins, you’re likely looking at a general election campaign that could easily approach $1 million, and maybe more depending on outside support and how aggressively they fundraise. But even then, they’re still going to be behind Max Miller, who is already sitting on a significant financial advantage and can scale up quickly if needed.

Eisner’s path is different. He doesn’t have the same financial base right now, and there is clearly a discrepancy compared to the top two fundraisers. But it’s not impossible. If he’s using his money efficiently, focusing on turnout and targeted messaging, and if he were to win the primary, there is a scenario where outside Democratic money, including attention from groups like the DCCC, starts to flow into his campaign. That could realistically push him toward a $500,000 range or more. The question isn’t whether he can raise money later, it’s whether he can bridge the gap now with his limited resources.

The rest of the field is not in a position, financially, to compete at the same level, and that creates a clear divide in terms of viability.

And that’s the reality of modern campaigns. And, I don’t like it. I don’t like how much money dictates visibility, viability, and perception. But it does.

And when you’re going up against an incumbent who already has the resources, the margin for fundraising discrepancy gets exacerbated.

Stay Angry

MetroHealth doctors—specifically primary care providers (including family doctors, internal medicine doctors, med/peds doctors, pediatricians, and APRNs and PAs practicing as primary care providers in those fields)—are in the process of trying to unionize, and this is not some abstract labor issue.

This is directly tied to the care that you and your family receive, and whether the people responsible for that care are actually in a position to do their jobs the way they were trained to do them.

Doctors don’t enter this field to rush patients, cut corners, or miss things. They do it because they want to help people, care for the sick, and improve your lives. That becomes extremely difficult when the system they’re working in starts prioritizing profit over quality care.

I was listening to the Today in Ohio podcast, starting at the 17 minute and 30 second mark, where they outlined the upcoming rally and were shocked to find that double bookings were happening at Metro.

I wanted to understand what this actually looks like from the inside. So I reached out to a former MetroHealth primary care physician who left within the last two years, specifically because of these conditions. They asked to remain anonymous, but what they described was not general frustration. It was going to get people, doctors and patients. hurt.

The Rally

Union organizers are holding a rally and press conference at 6 p.m. on April 28 at 2401 South Point Drive in Cleveland. This is not just about labor negotiations or internal disputes. It is a response to a system that, according to the people inside it, is no longer functioning in a way that supports their patients.

If you live in this area, this affects you. If your family receives care through this system, this affects you. If primary care access becomes more strained, delayed, or inconsistent, that doesn’t stay contained. It spreads across the entire healthcare ecosystem.

Also please sign their petition and join their Facebook page.

What Is Actually Happening Inside MetroHealth

What I was told paints a very clear picture of how things have changed over roughly the last year and a half.

MetroHealth brought in consultants to “optimize” scheduling and improve efficiency. In practice, that meant restructuring how doctors use their time. Time that was previously allocated to teaching, reviewing lab results, returning calls, and following up with patients was reduced or eliminated. Doctors were expected to find ways to increase patient volume regardless of whether their schedules were already full.

At the same time, patient panels were opened beyond what was considered manageable. Even when a doctor had reached what used to be a full capacity, they were still expected to continue taking on new patients. That increases pressure, but it was compounded by changes to how many patients doctors were expected to see in a given time block.

And then the system moved into double booking.

Doctors who were already overwhelmed began having multiple patients scheduled into the same time slots. These weren’t simple, routine visits stacked together. They could be complex cases with completely different needs happening at the same time, with no realistic way to provide proper care to both.

The downstream effects are exactly what you would expect. Doctors fall behind. Patients would wait hours and/or leave. Messages, labs, and follow-ups start to pile up. Documentation gets delayed. And the margin for error shrinks.

At a certain point, the issue stops being efficiency. It becomes risk.

Burnout In Doctors

What stood out most in that conversation was not just the workload, it was the impact.

Burnout wasn’t isolated. It was widespread. According to what I was told, internal surveys reflected that people across departments were overwhelmed, and in some cases, dealing with serious mental health strain as a result of the workload.

And people responded the only way they could.

They left.

Primary care physicians, internal medicine doctors, pediatric providers, nurse practitioners, physician assistants. The people who make up the foundation of a functioning healthcare system started walking away because the job itself had become unsustainable.

At the same time, additional pressures were layered on. Expanded clinic hours, including nights and weekends, were introduced in ways that disrupted people’s lives. Schedules were changed with limited notice, creating issues like childcare conflicts and forcing people to adjust their entire routines just to keep up.

None of this happened in isolation.

And over time, it turned a system that was already stretched thin into one that was operating under constant strain.

Why This Extends Beyond One Hospital System

This is not just about MetroHealth.

Primary care is the backbone of any healthcare system. The countries that perform better in outcomes, whether that’s lower mortality rates, better chronic disease management, or overall life expectancy, all have strong primary care infrastructure.

At MetroHealth, doctors are often treating some of the sickest and most underserved patients. That makes the pressure on the system even more significant, because when those providers are overwhelmed, there isn’t an easy fallback.

When doctors don’t have time to follow up on labs, when messages pile up, when appointments are rushed, and when people are consistently operating under stress, the quality of care changes. Even the best doctors cannot maintain the same standard under those conditions indefinitely.

And when enough people leave, or enough people burn out, the system doesn’t just slow down. It degrades.

The Reality of What Happens Next

What you are seeing right now is not a single issue.

Doctors are being asked to increase volume, reduce time per patient, and operate with fewer buffers in a system that already carries significant demand.

Over time, that leads to fewer providers, more strain on those who remain, and a gradual decline in the system’s ability to function the way it is supposed to.

That is why this moment matters.

Not because of the headlines, not because of the rally itself, but because of what it represents underneath. A group of providers saying that the current trajectory is not sustainable, and that if nothing changes, the consequences will extend far beyond their own workload.

This is no longer just a workplace issue. It is a public one.

Stay Angry

All three candidates came prepared. They brought their own perspectives, their own ideas, and they were all capable on stage.

Whoever wins this race is going to Congress. There is no real Republican challenge in this district. And I’ll say it bluntly, you could run Jesus, the Buddha, or Gandhi on the Republican side and it wouldn’t change the outcome.

Shontel Brown: Experience Without Presence

Starting with Brown, she showed exactly what you would expect from an incumbent.

Her opening statement was polished and straight to the point. It was filled with Democratic sound bites, the kind of lines that feel like they’re built to be clipped and shared.

Throughout the forum, she leaned on experience. She has a track record, legislation, and time in Congress to pull from, and it showed. She sounded like someone who knows what she’s talking about and someone who understands the system she operates in.

But, she looked bored and annoyed to be there at times. Especially compared to the other two candidates who were clearly more engaged.

The PAC question, specifically around AIPAC, was the weakest moment. She completely dodged it. Everyone knew what the question was getting at, and instead of addressing it directly, she deflected and gave a generic explanation about PACs being groups of individuals pooling money together. That might be true in a sense, but it ignores how super PACs actually function, and she knew that. It came off as evasive, and honestly, it was embarrassing.

Her closing message was about showing up, even when it’s hard.

But if you look at her district, turnout is abysmal. And I would argue she is not present in the way that message suggests.

Sean Freeman: Thoughtful but Less Polished

Sean Freeman came across as less polished, but more grounded in thought.

I’ve met him before, and I think he’s a good person. He’s run before, and it shows in how he approaches policy. His ideas didn’t feel like talking points. They felt like they came from actually thinking through problems and trying to figure out how to advocate for policies that help people.

He also called Brown out a couple of times, which goes against the League of Women Voters format, and they reminded him of that. That’s appropriate from a rules standpoint.

But it highlights a real issue. If candidates aren’t allowed to challenge each other directly, then some of the most important truths don’t get said. The format keeps things civil, but it limits accountability. If the candidates don’t point out flaws, then who is?

Freeman wasn’t as smooth, but he was willing to push.

Ardelia Holmes: Engaged, Balanced, and Present

Ardelia Holmes stood out in a different way.

She was the only person on stage who looked like she was actually enjoying herself. She smiled, engaged with the moderator, and seemed like she genuinely wanted to be there. That energy was felt, especially in a setting like this.

At the same time, she was composed, thoughtful, and had strong answers. She clearly understands the issues facing her district.

What stood out most was her approach to the minimum wage question. She supports raising it, but she also brought in the perspective of small businesses and the challenges they face. She was the only one who added that level of nuance to the conversation.

She wasn’t just giving answers. She was thinking through the impact.

The Reality

Throughout the forum, both challengers took shots at Brown in different ways. Whether it was campaign finance, lack of presence, or disconnect from the district, the critiques were there. And they weren’t wrong.

But here’s the reality. This is not a competitive race.

Not because Freeman or Holmes aren’t capable, but because the party structure makes it that way. Brown has incumbency, funding, and the advantage of a system already aligned in her favor.

So while all three candidates were knowledgeable, and while the challengers showed they are capable and, in my opinion, more engaged, it’s hard to see this changing the outcome.

And that’s frustrating.

Because watching this, it’s clear there are candidates who are just as capable and who seem to care more about being present and engaged with the district.

And that should matter, and I hope it does, but it probably won’t.

Stay Angry

It’s not.

And we also have to be clear about whose responsibility it is.

Now, that does not mean there are not external factors at play. There have been clear and sustained efforts, particularly from Republicans, to make voting harder in certain areas. We have seen stricter ID laws, reductions in early voting windows, limits on drop boxes, aggressive voter roll purges, and fewer polling locations in high-density or lower-income areas. Those things disproportionately impact the same communities we are talking about. They create friction, confusion, and in some cases, real barriers to participation.

But that is not what I am here to focus on.

I am here to talk about Democrats and whether we are doing everything we can to overcome that and actually engage people in a way that makes them want to show up.

This is on the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party. This is on the lack of creativity, the lack of vision, and the lack of willingness to actually engage people where they are. Because what keeps happening is we analyze turnout like it’s some abstract data problem, when in reality it’s a lived experience problem.

People who don’t turn out don’t feel heard. They don’t feel like their vote matters. And even when they know it’s time to vote, they don’t feel like they have enough information or confidence to make a decision. So they don’t. And over time, that becomes a habit. Then it becomes a culture.

And the data backs that up.

In Cleveland, turnout has collapsed in certain areas, especially on the East Side. In the 2024 election, one precinct in Hough had turnout as low as 8.4%, and Cleveland accounted for 28 of the 100 lowest-turnout precincts in the entire state, despite being only about 3% of Ohio’s population. At the same time, suburban precincts are hitting turnout numbers above 85%.

That is a complete disconnect between the people and the system that is supposed to represent them.

If you actually listen to people in those neighborhoods, the reason is not complicated. They do not participate because they do not believe the system is working for them. That belief is not abstract, it comes from lived experience over time.

So this is not really a question of why turnout is low.

The real question is what is being done to make people care enough to show up.

And right now, the honest answer is nothing.

The Party Structure Is Built Backwards

Let’s start with the obvious.

The Democratic fundraising dinner every year is boring. It’s the same thing over and over again, and worse than that, it taxes the people who already do the most work. The volunteers, the donors, the people knocking doors, the people showing up to meetings, they’re basically being told, “Hey, thanks for everything you’ve done, now pay us!”

That’s not engagement. That’s extraction. It is insulting. A slap in the face. Trust me, I have heard that exact statement from many Dems.

At the same time, the party has a massive physical presence in the middle of Cleveland, and it sits mostly empty. Offices get handed out to campaigns for a few months, interns cycle through, and then it goes quiet again. There is no consistent presence, no sense that this is a place for the community.

So you end up with a system where the party is asking for support, asking for turnout, asking for votes, but not actually showing up in people’s lives in any meaningful way.

And it is not just the party infrastructure. You also have elected officials who are incredibly popular and have a built-in platform to actually move people, and they are largely absent from this conversation. Where is Shontel Brown on this?

There are people with reach, credibility, and a microphone, and yet you are not seeing a coordinated effort to address the very turnout problem that is being written about over and over again. And that raises another question. If the party chair is not getting meaningful help from these incumbents, why is that not being called out directly? Why is there not more pressure internally? Is it because no one wants to challenge their own side? Because if the problem is this obvious, then the lack of urgency from people in positions to do something about it becomes part of the problem itself.

What Should Actually Be Happening

If the problem is disengagement, then the solution has to be engagement. Not in theory, not in messaging, but in actual, visible, consistent action.

1. The fundraising model needs to change. The annual dinner should not just be a closed-door event for insiders. It should be turned into a community event, something like a democracy fair. Go into low-turnout neighborhoods. Set up booths. Have candidates there answering questions. Bring in food trucks, games, activities. Make it something people actually want to attend. Still raise money, but do it in a way that builds relationships instead of reinforcing the same small circle.

2. Use the space you already have. If you have a large office sitting in Cleveland, then use it. Open it up. Make it a place where kids can come study. Organize tutoring. Offer some level of childcare. Create a physical presence that says, “We are here, and we are part of this community.” Because right now, the party shows up during election season and disappears the rest of the time. That does not build trust. Make this a space where people can actually walk into and engage.

3. Restructure how the party operates internally. Right now, you have money going into multiple salaries, administrative roles, and overhead, while the actual on-the-ground organizing is thin. Consolidate roles where you can. Combine administrative and operational leadership, and put more resources into organizers who are actually in the community. People who are building relationships, running events, and engaging voters consistently. That is where the return is.

4. Invest in the next generation directly. Offer scholarships. Connect with high schools, colleges, churches, and community organizations. Create pathways for young people to get involved, earn some money, and feel like they are part of something. A few $500 or $1,000 scholarships in low-income areas can go a long way, not just financially, but psychologically. It shows that someone is paying attention. It creates a connection. Get the Chair to talk to students, high schools, Tri-C.

5. Actually show up for people in real ways. This is the part that gets talked about the most and done the least. Organize help for seniors. Lawn care, snow removal, small repairs, rides to work, help carrying groceries. These are not massive policy initiatives. These are basic acts of community. And right now, people are missing that. They are missing connection, and they are missing any sense that the people asking for their vote are also willing to help them in their daily lives. Look at Mamdani. They got people shoveling.

Because here is the reality.

You are asking people to show up for you, when you are not showing up for them.

This Is Not About Turnout. It’s About Trust.

None of these ideas are going to magically fix turnout overnight.

But what they will do is create visibility. They will create consistency. They will create a sense of presence. And over time, they will build something that is completely missing right now.

Trust.

Because when people see the same organization showing up over and over again, helping, engaging, answering questions, being part of the community, that changes how they think about participation. It changes how they think about voting.

Right now, the perception is that the party shows up, asks for votes, holds closed-door fundraisers, spends money on printing and salaries, and then disappears.

And in neighborhoods where turnout is 8% or 10%, that perception is not wrong.

If you want people to show up, you have to give them a reason.

I was watching the League of Women Voters forum for Ohio’s 21st State Senate District between incumbent Kent Smith and challenger Dolores Gray Ford, and one thing became immediately obvious.

There was a clear gap.

Share The Angry Ohioan

Smith is a polished communicator. In delivery and in substance. Every answer he gave pulled from actual experience in Columbus. He referenced legislation, bills, and things he has either worked on or co-sponsored. There was no hesitation, no “I would like to” or “I hope to.” It was direct and backed by real work.

And that creates a problem.

Because when you are sitting next to someone who does this full time, who lives and breathes legislation, who is actively working on these issues every day, you are either going to match that level or you are going to look like you cannot compete.

There is not much middle ground.

Once you layer on top of that the pressure of a public forum, the need to communicate clearly, and the reality that voters are making judgments in real time, that gap becomes even more obvious.

Now, that does not mean Dolores Gray Ford is not qualified in her own way. She is a member of the community. She advocates, she shows up, she has experience on the Board of Education, and she had personal insights on issues like AI, property taxes, and education. But this goes back to the original question… Does a good communicator make a good legislator?

Because the reality is, communication is how we judge qualification. If you can clearly explain your ideas, reference experience, and answer questions in a way that makes people nod along, we assume you know what you are doing. That does not necessarily mean you are the better legislator, but it absolutely makes you the stronger candidate.

Experience Shows, Whether You Like It or Not

Share The Angry Ohioan

There was one moment in the forum that really highlighted this gap. And, in my opinion, a bad audible by the moderator.

During a discussion on property taxes, Kent Smith mentioned that it would take at least five minutes to explain the issue. The moderator then offered both candidates an additional minute to respond. On the surface, that seems fair. But in reality, it was not.

Smith is actively working on that issue right now in Columbus. He is in the room where those conversations are happening. He could talk about it for far longer than the time allotted, and not just in general terms, but with specifics, nuance, and real-time understanding of what is actually being debated. He has the language, the context, and the details ready to go because this is his job.

Ford does not have that same toolbox to pull from. Not because she is incapable, but because she is not currently inside that legislative process. So when you extend time equally, you are not actually creating fairness. You are amplifying the advantage of the person who already has deeper, more immediate experience. And you could feel it.

At one point, Ford seemed to murmur (25:48 on the recording) under her breath when that extra time was given, clearly feeling that it was tilted in Smith’s favor. She was not wrong. That moment exposed something that these forums tend to reveal whether people want to admit it or not. Experience is not just about knowledge. It is about being able to access that knowledge instantly, under pressure, and communicate it in a way that sounds authoritative.

At the same time, this is not a clean win for Smith across the board. While he was effective, he was also exactly what you would expect. A full, through-and-through Democratic company man. Every answer he gave was clean, polished, and filled with the standard party talking points. Epstein class, Trump, Republicans being bought and paid for. All the usual hits. You could almost check them off a Bingo list as he went.

That is where the skepticism comes in. Because while that kind of communication is effective, it is also predictable. It is rehearsed. It is packaged. It raises the question of whether you are hearing the person or the party. But even with that, you cannot ignore the effectiveness.

The Closing Remarks

Share The Angry Ohioan

Smith took what I would call a veiled cheap shot at Ford. It was subtle, but it landed. He called her lazy and uniformed without saying it directly (49:15 in the video). Now, I am not against cheap shots in politics. I actually think more candidates should be willing to take them. Politics is competitive. It is not supposed to be polite all the time. But this one had an effect. It rattled Ford.

That matters more than people think. Because at the end of the day, these forums are not really about deep policy exploration. They are too short and too surface-level for that. They show you something else.

They show you how candidates present themselves. Their posture. Their tone. Their ability to think on their feet. How they respond under pressure. How prepared they are. And sometimes that tells you more than the actual answers themselves.

You can forgive someone for being nervous. You can forgive a stutter. You can forgive someone searching for the right words. What you cannot forgive is not thinking deeply about the issues or not being prepared to answer them in a clear and definitive way. That is what stands out, and that is what sticks with voters whether they realize it or not.

So we go back to the original question.

Does a good communicator make a good representative? Not always.

But it absolutely makes a good candidate. And when you combine strong communication with real experience, preparation, and the ability to pull from actual legislative work in real time, you are not just presenting ideas anymore. You are presenting authority.

And in a setting like this, authority wins.

Yet our voice has been silenced. It has been eroded and, frankly, given away by Congress over many years.

When I ran for U.S. Congress in 2022 under the slogan “policy over politics,” my 2024 campaign evolved into something that reflected what I see as the core problem: Make Congress Work Again.

The idea is simple. Congress has abdicated its power for political expediency and safety. People no longer speak up to fight for the will of the people because it might be politically unsafe.

Republicans are very good at enforcing this. When a Republican speaks up against party doctrine, they are removed one way or another. We saw this with Anthony Gonzalez in Ohio’s 7th District. Donald Trump backed Max Miller to primary him, rallied the base, and effectively forced Gonzalez out. Others have faced similar pressure.

The message is clear: shut up and don’t rock the boat.

So is the Ohio delegation any different?

Republicans will fall in line. That’s expected. But what about Democrats?

Over the weekend, President Trump made some of the most outlandish statements I’ve seen on social media. Statements that, in my opinion, are not how the president of the United States—the leader of the world’s largest economy and military—should be communicating.

This is not good for global stability, geopolitics, diplomacy, our allies, our economy, or even our mental state at home.

The idea that the military could be used as a blunt instrument at the president’s discretion should concern everyone.

So where is Congress?

If Congress won’t speak up now, when will it?

A small group of mostly progressive Democrats, along with one Republican—Marjorie Taylor Greene—called for invoking the 25th Amendment and discussed impeachment.

Now, I believe impeachment is largely political theater without Senate buy-in and broad national support. But it is at least something. It signals that behavior like this is not acceptable.

Yet only a handful of Democratic members signed on.

So where is the Ohio delegation?

The most substantive response came from Shontel Brown, who said Trump brought the world to the brink “for no clear purpose” and raised the possibility of the 25th Amendment, along with calling for a war powers resolution.

Beyond that, most responses felt like standard consultant language. The same word kept popping up: “unhinged.”

Greg Landsman called the rhetoric “insane.” Joyce Beatty and Marcy Kaptur used similar messaging. But besides social media outreach, nothing really coordinated to reflect the situation.

The Republican delegation largely stayed silent.

This is exactly why I created The Angry Democrat and The Angry Ohioan. You’re supposed to be able to call out your own party. Have the open conversation. That’s the whole point of accountability.

But Republicans refuse to do it.

Max Miller, who we all know is a little bitch, Jim Jordan, who has his lips firmly on the president’s taint, and the rest of the Republican delegation won’t say a damn thing. Not a word. Not even a hint of independence.

This is the moment where your own party is supposed to step up and hold the line. This is where you prove you represent your constituents.

And instead, they stay silent.

That’s my opinion. You may have yours.

But if the situation is as dire as people say, talking about World War III, nuclear escalation, global instability, then the response should match the urgency.

Right now, it doesn’t.

We’ve seen this before. Congress has power. Congress has always had the power of the purse and clear authority over tariffs. Yet when tariffs were initiated, they stayed silent, allowing it to run through the courts before even speaking up. Defaulting to statements and political positioning instead of exercising their authority.

Executive orders are being used like law until courts, months or years later, step in.

Meanwhile, Congress campaigns. Raises money. Shakes hands. Posts statements written by consultants.

We need to do better. The Ohio delegation needs to do better.

Even looking at candidates running for Ohio’s 7th District, only one made a substantive statement: Laura Rodriguez Carbone. She spoke about giving power back to the people and addressing how our military and tax dollars are used.

I commend this.

I understand why people stay quiet. Opinions are polarizing. It’s easier to say nothing. Even if we are on the brink of something serious. It’s easier to stand aside. To run on vibes instead of ideology. To cosplay instead of take positions.

So what do you think?

Is the Ohio delegation doing enough?

There are things they could do.

1. They could attempt a discharge petition to force a vote.

2. They could apply real public pressure.

3. They could pursue legal challenges if executive actions exceed authority.

4. They could work across the aisle to rein in executive overreach.

None of these are silver bullets. But they are something.

All I’m saying is this: if you truly believe the situation is as dire as you say it is, then your actions should reflect that.

Right now, they don’t.

What You Can Do

If Congress is not going to act on its own, then pressure has to come from somewhere else. That means you.

Call your representatives. Not once, not casually. Call them consistently.

Go on social media and tag them directly. Not vague posting. Name them. Ask them specific questions. Demand specific actions. Public accountability is one of the few things that still moves politicians.

Email their offices.

If you’re part of a local Democratic club or central committee, raise it there too. These conversations shouldn’t just happen online. They should happen in the rooms where endorsements, support, and political capital are decided.

Because if elected officials believe there is no political cost, they will continue to stay silent or not force the issue.

Stay Angry

1st District (D) — Greg Landsman
Phone: (202) 225-2216
Email: Via contact form — https://landsman.house.gov/contact

2nd District (R) — David Taylor
Phone: (202) 225-3164
Email: Via contact form — https://taylor.house.gov/contact

3rd District (D) — Joyce Beatty
Phone: (202) 225-4324
Email: Via contact form — https://beatty.house.gov/contact

4th District (R) — Jim Jordan
Phone: (202) 225-2676
Email: Via contact form — https://jordan.house.gov/contact

5th District (R) — Robert (Bob) Latta
Phone: (202) 225-6405
Email: Via contact form — https://latta.house.gov/contact

6th District (R) — Michael A. Rulli
Phone: (202) 225-5705
Email: Via contact form — https://rulli.house.gov/contact

7th District (R) — Max Miller
Phone: (202) 225-3876
Email: Via contact form — https://miller.house.gov/contact

8th District (R) — Warren Davidson
Phone: (202) 225-6205
Email: Via contact form — https://davidson.house.gov/contact

9th District (D) — Marcy Kaptur
Phone: (202) 225-4146
Email: Via contact form — https://kaptur.house.gov/contact

10th District (R) — Michael Turner
Phone: (202) 225-6465
Email: Via contact form — https://turner.house.gov/contact

11th District (D) — Shontel Brown
Phone: (202) 225-7032
Email: Via contact form — https://shontelbrown.house.gov/contact

12th District (R) — Troy Balderson
Phone: (202) 225-5355
Email: Via contact form — https://balderson.house.gov/contact

13th District (D) — Emilia Sykes
Phone: (202) 225-6265
Email: Via contact form — https://sykes.house.gov/contact

14th District (R) — David Joyce
Phone: (202) 225-5731
Email: Via contact form — https://joyce.house.gov/contact

15th District (R) — Mike Carey
Phone: (202) 225-2015
Email: Via contact form — https://carey.house.gov/contact

At 11:49 PM on a Sunday night (a school night for the law student), their phone buzzed. It was a message on Facebook Messenger from Bill O’Neill.

A retired Justice from the Ohio Supreme Court, now a candidate for Congress in OH-14, felt the need to message and publicly comment on the organization president’s Facebook post to tell them “shame.” Here is what he said, word for word:

He signed it with his campaign website and his phone number. At midnight. To a student.

What Actually Happened

The Dems of CSU ran an open endorsement process. I, myself, went through the process and did not receive the endorsement for my race. They posted about it. They made it public. Any candidate who wanted the endorsement had to do one thing: reach out and apply.

Carl Setzer’s campaign did exactly that. They engaged with the organization, completed the application, and ultimately earned the endorsement through engagement and conversation. The Setzer campaign knew about the organization and the work that they do.

Bill O’Neill did nothing, to our knowledge. He didn’t apply, didn’t reach out, and didn’t ask a single question about the endorsement process until after the announcement was made. Then came the midnight message. Then came the public comment on Facebook on one of the student leader’s personal accounts. He said the following for an audience:

Same title drop. Same 1979 graduation year. This time claiming that the student organization brought “dishonor” to CSU. One commenter responded, “Dishonor? Simmer down. Your comment is embarrassing.” The student responded:

“Bill, your approach gives me pause. It is unbecoming of a candidate to engage with fellow Democrats and possible constituents this way (since many CSU students commute from Lake and Geauga counties).

Our process was publicly announced, and if you didn’t think about us for an endorsement and reach out, that is on you as the candidate. There are constructive ways to reach out and discuss without attacking and intimidating your own voters or mischaracterizing our intent.

This reaction from you reflects poorly on the candidate rather than the organization…”

This Isn’t New in Politics

This is a pattern of entitlement.

In January 2024, the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party held its endorsement vote for county prosecutor and incumbent Michael O’Malley. He walked in expecting a formality vote as the incumbent. His opponent, Matthew Ahn, had spent months doing the work to earn support for an endorsement vote. He worked to earn his votes. O’Malley received 58.5% of the vote. The threshold was 60%. No endorsement.

O’Malley’s response was to suggest that the party had moved too far to the left. He also implied that suburban members didn’t understand crime because they hadn’t been carjacked. He treated the outcome as something that happened to him, rather than something he hadn’t worked hard enough to prevent.

Fortunately for O’Malley, he put in the work to win at the ballot box and is the sitting prosecutor today. Nonetheless, this shows a pattern of incumbents, former elected officials, and other candidates who feel entitled to an endorsement or expect hand-holding throughout the process. That is what campaign staff is for, not what organizations are supposed to do for you.

Sound familiar? When you believe the endorsement is already yours, you don’t campaign for it. You show up expecting it to be handed to you or to have your hand held, like Bill was requesting. When it isn’t handed to you, you look for someone to blame.

A Title Doesn’t Buy You Anything, Especially with Young Organizers in NEO

Bill O’Neill has an impressive resume. No one is disputing that. That resume does not entitle him to the endorsement of a student organization he never engaged with. Signing a Facebook comment as “Justice Bill O’Neill, Retired, Supreme Court of Ohio” isn’t a credential in this context. It could be viewed as a threat dressed up as a signature.

It’s the political and social media version of “Do you know who I am?”

The College Dems at CSU did know who Bill O’Neill is. From my experience with the organization, they are a very knowledgeable group, especially for their age. However, because they know who he is, this interaction matters even more.

When someone with institutional power uses that power to pressure a Democratic organization, especially a student-led organization, at midnight, in their DMs, and then publicly on Facebook, that is not a grievance. It can be seen as intimidation. The Democratic Party should not tolerate behavior that could even be interpreted as intimidation from its own candidates.

A Note to Every Young Organizer and Angry Ohioan

You don’t owe anyone an endorsement. You don’t owe anyone a personal notification. You don’t owe anyone deference because of what year they graduated from your university or what title they once held. Run your own process. Keep it open and fair, but make candidates earn it.

The County and State Party should avoid weighing in on contested primaries and instead leave it to affinity groups and organizations. When endorsements come from the County or State, it signals institutional backing. That is not what people want. People want to know if a candidate aligns with them on specific issues:

• Let the students show who they support through the College Dem endorsement process.

• Let the LGBTQ+ community show who they support through the Stonewall Dems endorsement process.

• Let the Bay Village area Democrats show who their community supports through the Bay Village endorsement process.

By taking a step back and allowing more freedom of choice, the Democratic Party could have more representative candidates capable of flipping red districts blue. Stand with me in supporting the College Democrats of Cleveland State University and anyone who is harassed, intimidated, or pressured by a candidate for not giving them the support they believe they are entitled to.

This article was submitted anonymously to The Angry Democrat; the author is listed in the byline as Buck I. State, whose identity has been verified, and they were invited to contribute based on their experience in the democratic process.