Unofficial candidates for OH-10

Until the Board of Elections rules on Tuesday, January 3rd, this is the unofficial list of candidate for the OH-10 race.

10th Congressional District
REP John D. Anderson  6904 Joseph Dr. Enon 45323
REP Edward Focke Breen  213 Ernshaw Dr. Kettering 45429
DEM David Esrati  113 Bonner St. Dayton 45410
DEM Olivia Freeman  22 W. Goodman Dr. Apt-24 Fairborn 45324
LIB  David A. Harlow  2243 Keenan Ave. Dayton 45414
DEM Thomas F. McMasters  6934 Sylmar Ct. Huber Heights 45424
DEM Sharen Swartz Neuhardt  4625 U.S. Route 68 North Yellow Springs 45387
DEM Ryan Steele  1421 Meadow Moor Dr. Beavercreek 45434
REP Michael R. Turner ~ 5815 Stone Lake Dr. Kettering 45429 (INCUMBENT)
DEM L. Mack VanAllen  220 Kimbary Dr. Centerville 45458

So we have 3 Republicans, 1 Libertarian and 6 Democrats. The Libertarian, if his signatures are good, doesn’t have to appear in a primary.

McMasters and Neuhardt weren’t in the running last time around:

Which should make you wonder a bit about why they decided they want to run now?

Neuhardt is an attorney and partner at Thompson Hine, and ran previously in the 7th: against Austria and lost. As an attorney she will be the belle of the ball, but if she couldn’t beat Austria, it’s unlikely that she’ll beat Turner. For some reason, we seem to think that attorneys make good politicians when anyone with a brain would see that’s what got us into the mess we’re in. She spent $855K to get 42% of the vote in a race for an open seat.  I don’t believe anyone can win by outspending Turner- or even trying to come close. It’s time for an unconventional candidate and campaign to take a shot.

McMasters is a whole other ball of wax. I don’t have time to analyze his site- so maybe some of you can help: It says it’s done with the approval of his wife. There may be a problem in that he filed as a DEM but says he’s a REP on his site. He’s retired USAF and the father of 5 according to his bio, to which I can’t directly link (fails web 2.0 standards).

Either way, with Austria out, Turner has a much higher probability of winning than he did when we last turned in petitions, making me wonder if the Statehouse-forced re-petition deal was engineered to give Turner more time to work a deal with Austria to clear the path. If this doesn’t reek of election tampering, I don’t know what does.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

17 Responses

  1. anon December 30, 2011 / 8:16 pm
    independent candidates need signatures from 1% of the voters in the previous election. By filing in the primary Harlow avoids that onerous effort.
  2. David Esrati December 30, 2011 / 8:37 pm

    @Anon- Correct on independent candidates- currently the number is 2650. However, as one of the five minor parties that Ohio was forced to finally recognize- all you need is 50. Of course, you have to actually vote as a Libertarian in a previous primary or somehow declare yourself a member.

    @Hall- thanks.

  3. Hall December 30, 2011 / 10:07 pm
    Maybe I could give you some internet lessons ;-)
  4. David Lauri December 31, 2011 / 1:12 pm
    David E wonders, “There may be a problem in that he [McMasters] filed as a DEM but says he’s a REP on his site.”
    Actually, David, McMasters clearly states on his site, in a post dated 12 Dec 2011:

    I may be running as a Democrat this election but I wouldn’t mind if the Republicans put up a serious candidate so that we voters had an alternative to Mr. Obama.

  5. David Lauri December 31, 2011 / 1:27 pm
    Something else interesting about McMasters is that he at one time had a site,, when he was living in New York.  That site is no longer active but is still viewable on the Internet Archive.  From the December 2, 2000 archive of is this fun quote:

    Well, the election is over and the real objective of my site was finally exposed. I’m happy to say we achieved our goal of getting Hilary elected. The staff here at is proud of all the votes we ciphered from the Republicans and are absolutely positive we made the difference in getting our girl into office.

  6. David Lauri December 31, 2011 / 1:46 pm
    One last comment about McMasters — he seems not to understand the fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law. On both his current site and his old site McMasters posts a notice that says:

    This Entire Site is Copyright © 2008 © 2009 and © 2010 by The McMasters Under Title Ten of the U.S Code One and only one specific passage of up to 150 continuous words may be used in news or other articles or commentary provided the author is notified and provided access to any such commentary or article. Otherwise, No Part May be Reproduced Without Express Permission

    McMasters seems to think he’s allowed to decide how much of his site may be quoted and that he’s allowed to require that anyone quoting his site notify him.
    Now I’ve quoted from two different McMasters sites, so perhaps McMasters won’t sue me for copyright infringement, but I decline to provide him notification that I’ve quoted him, so then again perhaps he will.
    I’m no lawyer, so I can’t offer him legal advice as to whether he’d prevail in any suit alleging that I’ve violated his copyright, but Wikipedia (which Dan comments elsewhere on is not “a source you would use on a research paper” but is still “fairly unbiased”) says on its page about fair use that the idea that “You can deny fair use by including a disclaimer” is a “common misunderstanding” and that “Fair use rights take precedence over the author’s interest.”
    Another site that McMasters might want to read to learn about fair use is Stanford University’s Copyright & Fair Use website, specifically Chapter 9 on Fair Use.

  7. Tom McMasters December 31, 2011 / 11:11 pm

    No worries, though the internal pages of your reference should lead you to the realization others have successfully enforced the copyright statement found on my pages, your fear of my being offended or concerned about your posting is misguided.

    I was too cheap to pay’s prices when my 10 year subscription to ran out but it is still available within the website  found here 

    Be forwarned it starts with this statement (excuse me if I fall to make sure the quote is less than 150 words); “Not sure how much longer my van is going to last but it’s running really good still. So it looks like I’m going to have to live with people thinking I’m running for Senate for awhile longer yet. Kind of proves that I’m not all that bright. Back in 1999 I thought I would try and be a little funny with Hillary getting the free ride from the Democratic party of New York. And if you want to see Tom humor you can still click on the Original Button to the left. Mind you it is dated now.”

    Note:  I’m not sure the archive page you reference is still available.  It was probably a frontpage at one time that got written over.  Thanks for finding it – I enjoyed reading the whole page once again brought back good memories.  Sometimes I forget that I was a fat old man even back in 1999.

    I also have another website that I used in my run for Huber Hieghts city council.  I’ve now turned that into “Citizen interested in City Council” website.

    Neither of these sites is my intended campaign website.  Though when I started I composed pages by writing the code.  You may notice I hadn’t progressed past my 2002 version of Frontpage.  Last week I downloaded a free trial version of Dreamweaver – hoping to be able to design to be as professional as Mr. Esrati’s.  I’m not progressing very quickly.  

    Additionally, let me mention that this is the first time I’ve been on this site and I’m impressed with the content as well as the format.


  8. Tom McMasters January 1, 2012 / 12:07 am
    Eventually will lead you to a serious site meant to get me votes for congress.  So I really should do what I am about to do.  But David got me running around my old site and it tickled me so much I just had to post it:  This time I am for sure breaking my 150 word limit.

    The book and website are the property of Marylin D McMasters who’s express permission is required to alter or add any material within it’s content. The contents of these pages are derived from conversations between MDM and her husband (more often referred to as tfm) in which tfm expresses his perception of the world. No premise these perceptions remotely reflect reality for anyone other than tfm is either written or implied. All accounts given by the author accurately reflect the perceptions of tfm during the period of time of composition and only during that time. The author concedes many details deemed important by others are often discarded and may lead to conclusions not shared by the masses. The author reserves the right to change any opinion stated herein without regard to degree or initial philosophy. Occasionally, new factors change the previously held paradigms. Tfm may or may not update any opinion or essay to match his current perception regardless of extent of difference between the varying opinions. Therefore, changes herein may show a 180 degree swing from the original statement. Also, significant concept development may occur without proper reflection recorded in this document. Tfm reserves the right to maintain multiple and conflicting opinions on the same subject and to state those opinions without regard or consistency to statements made either previously or in the future.
    Since the first two sections of this book reflect only perceptions, there is no attempt to assure accuracy of data. All numbers stated within the covers of this document can be presumed to be inaccurate. In fact, the chapter on stocks purports modest losses covered by interest earned on other investments. In reality some evidence surfaced indicating even less talent at choosing stocks. In order to protect a fragile ego there will be no attempt to quantify the total amount. Also, an implication that a fund lost money yet claimed they made 8% appears in the same article. TFM is fully aware that the numbers reported by the mutual fund company were crunched ending in Oct when there may have been an increase. However, the report was sent in January so it seems fair to compare the balances in January – at least from tfm’s perspective.
    The research necessary to produce accurate figures precludes the completion of this document. Quite simply – tfm pursues other interests and obligations. Believe it or not after four months on the web not one single check to help maintain the site arrived. This means tfm must keep his full time job. Not such a bad thing since it is the best job in the world. Add to that he’d rather take his kids to the park and play with them than do just about anything else. Combine that with taking flight lessons. Not to mention his one realistic goal (as opposed to his one unrealistic goal – becoming President of the United States) is to earn a PhD in mathematics. Although he currently does nothing to progress toward that goal some effort must be made in order not to regress. This in order to avoid the unspeakable embarrassment of mistakenly identifying a Laplace Transformation as a Fourier Transformation. Therefore, when it comes to this book, you get what you get. Which probably better reflects the actual world than any well thought out piece tfm could develop. This simple truth can be discerned from the fact that tfm’s instincts are normally good. It is only when he allows himself to follow logic everything gets screwed up. That’s why he can go straight from the car to the first tee and shoot one under par the first four holes. Then he’ll start thinking about swing plane and tempo and ends up shooting 82. When doing home repairs everything turns out pretty good if he just gets the hammer and electric screwdriver out and builds it. Only when he makes a plan, works it out on paper and tries to emulate the sketches a second attempt becomes necessary. So hopefully, you’ll understand the fruitlessness of deep pondering prior to publication of the essays which make up the contents of this book.
    Consequently, you may notice a grammatical error or two. Actually, unless you as illiterate as the author you should find hundreds. The author wholeheartedly welcomes all feedback helping to correct these errors. Contact information can be found within the web site As a warning to those of you with little tolerance for these types of errors. TFM makes no mental distinction between to, two and too. Also, I can’t stand the use of I, I so often see I used while I read others candidates books so I decided I would avoid using I as often as I could therefore I sometimes write in the third person. I realize I’ll confuse some of you this way so I exacerbate the problem by sometimes not using nouns at all. I hope I don’t confuse you because I would feel badly if I failed to enlighten you with all the great ideas I have.
    The contents of the third section of the book were meant to entertain. Even if you see yourself or someone else in these characters they are not tfm’s perception of you or any other person or of himself. Unlike the first two sections where any discrepancies between reality and the depiction result from an inability to process information, the third section consists of stories embellished for readability and the hope some director will want to produce the screen play, so don’t be running around thinking everyone in tfm’s house spends all day screaming and fighting. This certainly wouldn’t work out since there are eleven of us in a 1800 square foot area.
    One of the first things my employer trains it’s employees in is public speaking. I’ll freely admit this talent eludes me and quite often makes me nervous. The “attention step” is used to get the audiences attention. In order to confront a mild case of nervousness and to avoid making a joke, the brilliant ploy of acting too nervous to give the presentation and taking my seat back in the audience was derived as the attention step. Worked great for everyone receiving the presentation except the person deciding on the grade. He insisted this was not a planned maneuver despite the obvious ties to the presentation subject and the annotations on the presentation notes. I only mention this because of the concern many of the readers have about the number of times money is asked for in these pages. True there is an underlying desire that donations will poor in and the family will become filthy rich. When it comes down to it though this could not be a political parody without frequent request for dough. Have you been to Hillary’s site or GW’s Site yet? They both have special windows pop up to let you know how you can “support their campaigns” through donations. Even “candidates” that don’t have a prayer of getting 1% of the vote plead for money. This will be the only explanation of satire found in these pages. Sorry if the rest of it doesn’t work for you. But if you just send money to my address PMB 219, 5999 S. Park Blvd, Hamburg NY 14075 it will allow the purchase of better programs and equipment and should significantly improve the site. Please do not send more than $120,000 in any one year since this would trigger the “gift tax” causing more difficult tax computations.
    To date nobody’s actually admitted to reading all the material available within this book or web site. About 10% of those admitting to being at the site indicate they like it. The others simply avoid giving any feedback – which I take to meaning they think it sucks but don’t want to hurt my feelings. To those people I’d like to say thanks. My fragile ego couldn’t take any comments that may indicate the world may not view my words as deserving the Nobel Prize for economics. By the way I didn’t actually look up when the gift tax kicks in, so please take the time to do this prior to sending any large contributions. 

  9. David Esrati January 1, 2012 / 10:25 am

    @Tom McMasters- welcome. Forget learning dreamweaver. I teach a seminar once a month in Dayton, that will teach you how to maximize the effectiveness of a website utilizing open source content management systems.

    We’ve not scheduled the January class yet- because I may have to travel to FLA to give one, but we should know more this week.

    I still contend that you can’t run in the Democratic primary – but, we will find out on Tuesday.

  10. Tom McMasters January 1, 2012 / 12:32 pm
    David [Lauri],

    On 14 Dec 2011 I was certified to run in the Democratic Party in the 8th District.  Later that day, like you, my petitions were invalidated and I was told to go out and reaccomplish.  In the redistricting HH moved from the 8th district to the 10th (note David Harlow (L) also choose to file in the 10th).  Though as you pointed out in one of your other posts I could have filed again in the 8th (note you mistakenly state that a requirement is that person must be a resident of the state for 7 years when in fact the reference you site tells ” a United States citizen for at least seven years and an inhabitant of the state he or she represents” which is different than being a resident of the state for seven years ( I knew you were mistaken but I had to chech since I’ve only been in the state since 2006).

    Below is an email chain between the Secretary of States office and myself concerning my eligibility to run in the Democratic primary.   Note:  2 years ago when I ran in the Republican Primary and again this year I have been completely open about the fact that I believe I am an independent that believes that if more people participated in the primary process we would get better and more moderate candidates.  Though I don’t know any of the power brokers in either party I do feel that there is enough good ideas in both to make me comfortable saying I can align with either and enough bad implementation by the power brokers to make it so I would not be welcome in either.  I do have a proposal for a “non-affiliated” primary as well.

    Email trail:

    Mr. McMasters,

    As an initial matter, please understand that this office cannot provide you with any legal advice. You may want to seek advice from your own legal counsel to determine how these statutes apply to your individual situation.

    However, I can provide you with a resource that we make available to candidates generally. The Secretary of State’s office publishes a Candidate Requirement Guide each year to assist candidates. On page 17 of the 2012 guide, it states:

    “A candidate may circulate his or her own petition, although he or she may not sign his or her own petition as an elector. For the purpose of circulating his or her own petition, a candidate is exempted from the party affiliation requirements described [in 3513.05]. (R.C. 3513.191(C)(4)).”

    You can find a complete version of the 2012 Candidate Requirement Guide at:

    Thank you,

    Kristen Rine
    Elections Counsel
    Office of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted

    —–Original Message—–
    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:52 AM
    To: Election
    Subject: From the Web site

    Name:: Tom McMasters
    Address:: 6934 Sylmar Ct, Huber Heights OH 45424
    Phone Number:: 937 985 6275
    E-mail:: [email protected]
    Question / Comment:: Please interpret ORC 3513.191 Disqualification of candidate for party primary in terms of my situation.

    I desire to get on the ballot for the Democratic congressional primary and I would like to circulate my own petitions. I voted in the Republican primary in 2010.

    When reading ORC 3513.191 I am having difficulty with the interpretation of the meaning of Notwithstanding. In my layman view I believe I should be able to circulate my own petitions. I read division (B)

    (B) Notwithstanding division (A) of this section, either of the following persons may be candidates for nomination of any political party at a party primary:

    (1) A person who does not hold an elective office;

    as saying because I do not hold elective office division (A) does not affect me.

    Then the next piece of the puzzle is divison (C)(4)

    (4) Notwithstanding the seventh paragraph of section 3513.05 of the Revised Code, a person who complies with this section may circulate that person’s own petition of candidacy for party nomination at the party primary at which the person seeks nomination under this section.

    With the same interpretation of Notwithstanding and with (C)(4) appling to the entire section then I should be able to circulate my own petitions.

    Please let me know if I am reading the law correctly and would be able to circulate my own petitions that would allow me to appear on the ballot for a congressional seat in the democratic primary.


    Tom McMasters

  11. Tom McMasters January 1, 2012 / 12:38 pm
    Someday I will learn to proof read before hitting submit.
  12. Hall January 2, 2012 / 12:09 pm
    Tom, this site uses WordPress. It could be considered a “template” for a website. It’s very popular (especially with political candidates who put up a token website during their campaign … this isn’t directed towards David, who uses this all the time or even you, as you’ve had a site, or sites, already).
  13. Tom McMasters January 5, 2012 / 10:55 pm
    My letter from Montgomery County came today.  Looks like I made the primary ballot.

    Good luck David – good sentiment in your article on Iran.


  14. J Dziwulski January 8, 2012 / 9:24 pm
    I know Sharon Neuhardt…met her on the Canal Society of Ohio tour this past fall.  Her husband is active in the society and organized the tour.  He and I also corresponded online about my posts on Dayton history and such, including feeding me some historic pix he collected of the canal route. 

    Good guy.  I figure his wife is OK too.  Didnt know they are Democrats. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *