Did Rob Portman Make the Right Decision?

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)

Probably the biggest electoral news of this week out of Washington came when Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) became the first major Republican to announce that he is not going to run for president in 2016.  Sen. Portman had been floating the idea of perhaps making a go at the White House, but instead decided to pursue reelection (though unlike Sens. Marco Rubio or Rand Paul, he can run for two offices at once if he so chose).  The question here is-was this a good decision for his promising career?

Like most arguments, there are two sides to every coin, and it's worth looking at both of them.  Portman, at 58, isn't so old that 2020 or even 2024 are off-the-table.  He seems to be in relatively good health, and provided he stays in the Senate and doesn't lose his seat there's no reason that this has to be the end of his political road.  However, that's what many people have said through the years, and we look back and realize that that was almost certainly their only shot at the prize.  Look at all of the promising Democrats who passed in 1992 on challenging George H.W. Bush, only to find that a young governor from Arkansas could in fact beat a president that was thought unbeatable, and their chances in the sun were postponed for years or taken completely off the table.  The only presidential election you can game plan is the one that is ahead of you, and for Rob Portman, that's the one he just passed up.

There's a lot of credence as to why Portman didn't run.  For starters, the Republican field in 2016 is jam-packed.  I can list off the top of my head a dozen major candidates that will surely be giving the field a try, and Portman may not have wanted to go through that.  With a field that large, and with an incumbent president that is loathed by the base, there's going to be a pretty strong run to the right in the Republican primary similar to 2012, and Portman's stances on social issues (principally gay marriage and to a lesser extent immigration) would have been red meat for Republicans who wanted to show who can run further to his right.  The reality is that Portman, unless we get a new answer from someone like Rand Paul or Jeb Bush in the coming months (doubtful) would have been the only serious Republican candidate for president who supports gay marriage, which I suspect will be an issue the Democratic candidate will bring up with regularity considering its general popularity across the country.

However, Portman's stances on the economy, energy, and gun control are very much in line with the Republican base, and he's probably the best debater in the GOP right now.  There's something very likable about the guy-not only does he do a mean chicken impersonation, but he has a personality that would play well in swing states.  He's affable, comes across thoughtful but principled in his interviews, and would be a tough candidate to take on Hillary in the debates.  In fact, he's helped to coach George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney in their debates, so there's probably no Republican more practiced in knowing how a Democrat thinks than Rob Portman.

At the end of the day, though, I think Portman made the right decision here, because I just don't see the GOP as being ready for a pro-gay marriage presidential candidate.  That being said, I think he may still be on the table as a second spot.  I have felt for some time now that the ticket that the Democrats should be most scared of for 2016 is Bush/Portman, and there's a couple of reasons why.  For starters, you can't get much better than Florida/Ohio for your presidential ticket.  While neither man would guarantee a win for his state's electoral votes (see Paul Ryan in Wisconsin in 2012, another swing state that couldn't be guaranteed with a favorite son), they've both won statewide before, and know the ground game, and have done something Hillary hasn't in a general: delivered the two key swing states.  Considering there's no serious Veep candidates in Pennsylvania, Hillary's only real counter would be one of the Virginia senators at that point.

Secondly, this is a team that projects a different image for the Republican Party.  While it may seem silly to use "different" and "Bush" in the same sentence, the reality is that Jeb Bush, with his views on Common Core and immigration, coupled with Portman's views on gay marriage, is a team that breaks from Republican orthodoxy in a way that John McCain and Mitt Romney didn't seem able to do in their runs.  This will be a major challenge in the primary, which is going to be the toughest battle for the Republicans in 2016 (they'll have the easier go in the general with an unpopular outgoing president), but if Jeb Bush can make it through the primaries, he has a very strong chance against Hillary.  After all, Jeb Bush may not be the "change" candidate, but one can hardly argue that Hillary Clinton is the "change" candidate either, and though the families seem relatively friendly now, there has to be a part of the Bush clan that still remembers that bitter loss in 1992 and wants a bit of closure.  Portman has long been an ally of the Bush family (he served in George W. Bush's administration), and his passing on the race could in fact indicate that Jeb is making a play for the nomination, which has been one of the great parlor games in politics over the past few months.

The last reason that Rob Portman not running makes sense for himself, and in particular the GOP: this makes the Ohio Senate race in 2016 exponentially harder.  Portman starts his reelection battle with a major head start, and the Democratic bench here was wiped out in the 2014 Midterms (I cannot stress this enough-the Democratic losses in 2010 and 2014 hurt the party more than their White House wins in 2008 and 2012 due largely to their clobbered bench).  Their best candidates are either recent losers (Gov. Ted Strickland, Rep. Betty Sutton and State Rep. Connie Pillich) or seem a bit bland for such a race (Rep. Tim Ryan, CFPB Director Richard Cordray).  This is a pivotal seat for the 2016 Senate math (particularly with Mary Landrieu near certain to lose this weekend), as the Democrats will need at least four seats, and likely five if they lose the White House, and Ohio is one of the best chances they have at the 4th or 5th seat.  Portman running is a huge blow to Harry Reid, who will either need to beat an extraordinarily good candidate or put more pressure on seats like North Carolina or Florida to be competitive.

Those are my thoughts on Sen. Portman's announcement-how about yours?  Were you hoping he would run?  Who picks up his supporters in the primary?  And what candidate emerges against him in the 2016 Senate race?  Share your thoughts in the comments!