Staff Reports
Long-time Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio seems to be having a tough time facing reality after enduring a swift kick out of office, courtesy of Senator-elect Bernie Moreno. Fresh from his defeat, the Democrat took to the airwaves to announce, with an air of indignation, that Moreno’s victory was anything but legitimate. According to Brown, this seismic shift in Ohio politics was primarily fueled by a barrage of “lies” in negative ads—because, of course, when elections don’t go your way, it’s always the ads’ fault.
When pressed about the root cause of his loss—over 200,000 votes separating him from Moreno in a state he had previously held since 2007—Brown’s narrative turned into quite the melodrama. He expressed shock and disbelief, claiming he was “expecting to win” based on the “enthusiasm” he observed during his rallies. But as it turns out, the real hitch in his grand plan was none other than Vice President Kamala Harris, whose campaign performance was likened to a lead balloon in the crucial swing states.
Dethroned Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown refuses to call victorious GOP rival Bernie Moreno https://t.co/PTieo70ZYY pic.twitter.com/EHdUxGaNpz
— New York Post (@nypost) November 13, 2024
Brown stammered through his reflections on how he failed to anticipate the impact of former President Donald Trump’s presence on the ticket. It’s a classic tale: he believed that engaging with the people — talking to workers and staying in touch with constituents — would be enough to hold his ground. Instead, he was blindsided by a campaign ad that linked his candidacy directly with Trump, insinuating voting for Brown was akin to siding against the former president. Brown’s analysis? An indicator that he was swimming against a strong tide.
The Senator didn’t neglect to highlight the financial aspects of the campaign, claiming it was not only Trump but also the heavy coffers backing Moreno that altered the game’s rules. According to Brown, the sheer volume of ads, which he insisted were proven false by so-called neutral fact-checkers, was an unfair advantage. In his mind, the Republican route to victory went through a slippery slope of deception and deep pockets.
He tossed some more shade towards Moreno, suggesting that he ran a campaign that was anything but clean—whatever that means in today’s political playground. In Brown’s eyes, if you have to rely on ads that receive a thumbs-down from those impartial fact-checkers, you’re clearly doing something wrong. One should, of course, admire the irony as Brown has often been part of that same ad game, albeit failing this time around.
With Brown down for the count, Republicans have successfully flipped his seat and regained control of the Senate for the first time in four years, and it seems Brown is convinced his demise is anything but a reflection of his policies or popularity. That’s politics for you; it’s never about what the electorate thinks but rather the forces conspiring against the unexpected victor. Some might say it’s time for Brown to spend less time reading the tea leaves and more time listening to the people who actually cast their votes.
