Trending
Paraphrasing a few of the "greatest" hits as the 2026 general election (mercifully) approached its conclusion:
"Sherrod Brown has been in office my entire life. He voted to raise taxes and supports transitioning kids and men in women's sports."
"Jon Husted took money from Les Wexner, who was one of Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators, built all these data centers in Ohio and was FirstEnergy's 'Golden Boy.'"
"Amy Acton is a liar and couldn't handle the pressure of running the Ohio Department of Health. She even cried at work once."
"Vivek Ramaswamy sold an Alzheimer's drug that didn't work and will ruin Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."
"Republicans are authoritarians and have done everything wrong."
"Democrats are embracing socialism and the next step is communism."
If you're like a lot of Americans -- particularly in Ohio -- you've been bombarded with ads like these for months. They seemed to get worse by the day as November approached. It was nearly impossible to escape them on TV and radio. Some of them showed up daily in your mailboxes and in newspapers.
Some of us couldn’t even get away from the negativity on our cellphones. The calls and texts just kept coming.
"Don't vote for my opponent. He hates dogs, kids and old people. And, by the way, about committing some of your hard-earned disposable income to my campaign?"
Disposable income? Yeah, right.
The only folks who seem to have disposable income these days are those running for office. We will find out in the days to come just how much all these negative ads cost to put out there and, in some cases, if the expense was worth it or not.
One thing, however, is already certain. Many of us are tired of election ads -- specifically attack ads. A poll question in this newspaper Tuesday asked: Has the 2026 general election season been the worst you've seen for negative advertising?
It was just a hunch, but we were pretty sure the results would be a collective groan of "YES!" But even we were surprised by the extent of our readers' apparent dissatisfaction with what they saw, heard and read leading up to Tuesday. The Vindicator’s readers confirmed the question overwhelmingly, with 93% voting yes and just 7% saying no.
Running for office has never been for the faint of heart and thin skinned. "Opposition research" has been a thing probably since the first ballots were cast. You can bet Grok's opponent in the election for leader of the cavemen -- let's call him Vorlakk -- tried to dig up as much dirt on Grok as he could. Of course, it wasn't as easy back in the stone age as it is today.
But if you're old enough, you might remember a time when some candidates didn't just insist on telling us how awful their opponents are. Some politicians used to give us -- wait for it -- actual reasons to vote for them, instead of against the others.
A novel concept, right?
Antiquated might be a better word for it. We may have passed the point of no return when it comes to candidates running on what they bring to the table.
Think about it. If a candidate focuses almost entirely on why his or her opponent is an idiot, an ogre, a communist or a fascist, he might be able to avoid making promises he can't keep -- or as is often the case -- has no intention of keeping.
The dark money in politics today also leads us to believe we are unlikely to ever return to the days when prospective candidates ran on their accomplishments or what they intended to do for their constituents.
But it certainly would be a welcome surprise for a candidate -- any candidate -- to operate that way for a change.
Let's call it our post-election wishful thinking for next time. We don't, however, advise holding your breath.
SCRIPTURE
Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Acts 13:38-39 ESV