In order to run a successful campaign, a challenger must convince the public that either an encumbent caused a problem - or failed to fix a problem. In the case of Sandusky, creating those circumstances is not difficult: The incumbents are, on a daily basis giving the public reasons to vote for challengers:
Take today's newspaper for example:
So Sandusky is now approving the idea of sending Sandusky tax dollars elsewhere? Does the public need to be reminded who started this ball rolling? The appointed incumbent Bob "The Bull" Warner primed the Haag contract termination talk with his ridiculous claim that the Haag's were "running the city into ground."
We had a podcast ready to launch on this site about the incumbents vs. the challengers in Sandusky, but at this point, highlighting disapproval of the incumbents feels like beating up on an unarmed men.
A different dynamic exists in Perkins township - where nothing tabloid newsworthy is happening these days. But in the newspaper business, if there's no turmoil happening - all a reporter must do is create some:
In this case, incumbent trustee Tim Coleman says that Printy's claim is pure political posturing:
Indeed, since Perkins township hired a new chief not a single instance of turmoil has occurred - which is why the township hasn't grabbed any headlines lately. The trustees had a job to do, and they did it. That's not much of a story for a newspaper, but it's good for the citizens who live here.