Triage Ohio.
The rest are still winnable by Democrats.
That would be a BIG mistake, at least this early out.
Ohio is way too costly. It's a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis; for the amount that'll be spent in OH on an unwinnable race, DSCC et al could more effectively target several other swing state races or even roll the dice on expanding the map. Strickland isn't going to help Clinton win OH (she'll help him, though) and he is under-performing by far too much to justify spending $100 million or whatever ungodly amount will be spent there...only for him to lose.
If it was a more leaning-GOP state and the Democratic candidate was down by a few points, I could actually understand trying to upset things, but this is a state where Democratic money will be met dollar-for-dollar and will end up being a wash; the party with the better infrastructure will overperform and for somebody like Strickland, having a Senate infrastructure above and beyond what Clinton's campaign will bring is redundant.
It'll take nothing short of a big wave to oust Portman and if said wave were to occur, I don't buy the notion that it'll be achieved/missed by throwing tons of money at a Senate race...especially when Democrats aren't going to have a money advantage in the state. Let Strickland raise what he can, let Clinton's campaign handle turnout and support strategies, and put that money to good use elsewhere. If it weren't Portman specifically, I'd expect Strickland to outperform Clinton, but alas...maybe Portman will have a "'macaca' moment" or something.
Seconded
I think Adam does know what he is talking about.
