Is Ted Strickland the Right Choice in Ohio?

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH)

It's the spring of an off-year election cycle, which means only one thing around Washington: Senate candidates.  While the media watches Mitt Romney drop out of the presidential race and the likes of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton ramp up their presidential campaigns, there's a bevy of drama happening below the bench in a number of states.  Illinois has a rare opportunity for ambitious Democrats to get a promotion in a race against Sen. Mark Kirk (and a whopping four House members are testing the waters).  In Nevada, everyone is at the edge of their seats wondering if Gov. Brian Sandoval will make a play for Harry Reid's seat, setting up the marquee race of the cycle.  But the big news this week was a genuinely surprising potential recruit: former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) is considering a run in Ohio against first-term Sen. Rob Portman.

For the DSCC, this was probably met with a hallelujah chorus.  The former governor has been a top target for recruitment in the state, particularly considering the dearth of the bench in Ohio and that the Democrats need 4-5 seats to win back the majority (a task that DSCC Chair Jon Tester is probably feeling the heat on from his caucus considering there are already fights going on between back-bench Democrats and Mitch McConnell), as Ohio is one of those states that could actually turn if a Democrat is running strong enough nationwide.  The former governor, while he lost in a close race in 2010, remains quite popular amongst rank-and-file Democrats in the state, and would be a major fundraiser considering his strong ties to the DNC and Ohio's position as an important battleground.

There are debits, however, in Strickland's candidacy and that's why I wanted to write this article.  For starters, Strickland's most recent statewide race is a loss, which is always a bad place to start a campaign from.  Now, this doesn't spell disaster, as a number of candidates have transformed a loss into a win statewide (people ranging from John Thune to Jeanne Shaheen to yes, even Bill Clinton have lost statewide and then gone back to win again), but it's much more common for someone to lose twice than to rebound.  The bigger issue, though, may be Strickland's age.  At 75, he'd be the oldest freshman senator elected since Frank Lautenberg in 2002 (and Lautenberg was a former three-term senator at the time) and would be 14 years older than the man he's running to replace.

This wouldn't be a huge concern if it was obvious that Strickland could beat Portman.  At the end of the day, the goal here is to win the seat for six years for the Democrats-they don't need to have the foresight of trying to worry about what happens next (I always mock when people say "they're a one-termer" right after a Senate election, because even if the likes of Mark Begich and Heidi Heitkamp are, indeed, one-termers, they still get to vote on important legislation and who is in charge of the Senate for six years, which is an eternity in politics).  If polls weigh out that Strickland is the only person with a decent shot against Portman, nominate him with my blessing.

City Councilman PG Sittenfeld (D-OH)

However, the Democrats have a larger bench problem in this country that is spelled out in a variety of ways that we should address here.  For starters, our White House race is looking precariously like Hillary or bust, which is a horrible situation to be in for a party (though a great place to be in if you're Mrs. Clinton).  You shouldn't rely so heavily on one person, and yes we have people who are ready-and-willing to run if Hillary gets out of the race (like Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Martin O'Malley) and yes we have emerging candidates (like Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker) who could be superstars down the road, but by-and-large this is a party that is far older than its electorate would appear.  While the Republicans have introduced national superstars such as Marco Rubio and Joni Ernst onto the national stage in the past few years, the Democrats have really held back in this regard save for Elizabeth Warren.  Most of our bench in swing states such as Ohio and Florida is made up of aging leaders or people considered too liberal to win statewide office.  And even some of our strongest investments in swing states have turned out to be disasters (see Kathleen Kane in Pennsylvania, who seems more likely to end up in prison than statewide office come next year).  Is this the time to explore a different option for the party?

It's worth noting that there are two relatively young politicians also exploring this race: 41-year-old Rep. Tim Ryan and 30-year-old Cincinnati City Councilman PG Sittenfeld.  I don't want to advocate something akin to ageism here, but it's worth noting that Ohio is sort of the poster child for a strong Republican bench (two potential presidential candidates in Rob Portman and John Kasich, as well as a host of future higher office candidates in Reps. Jim Jordan, Steve Stivers, and Jim Renacci, in addition to holding every constitutional office in the state).  The Democratic bench in this state is bordering on pathetic, and we just got romped in the 2014 gubernatorial election with one of our up-and-comers.  This is a party in need of sustainable and continual leadership, and relying on a failed candidate of the past like Ted Strickland may not be the best way to go.  Ryan or Sittenfeld won't start out with the same advantages as Strickland, but in a race that will be heavily influenced by the presidential election resulting in less ballot-splitting, is it better to go with the safe choice of giving Ted Strickland a single term in the Senate or is it worth betting on a potential future president or vice president like Ryan or Sittenfeld instead?  Looking at the state of a party in desperate ned of a bench and future leaders, I lean toward the latter.