Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ohio

No Vested Interest

(5,196 posts) Tue Dec 2, 2014, 01:58 AM Dec 2014

Rob Portman takes himself out of the running for President 2016.

Senator Portman says he will run for a second term, according to a news story in the Cincinnati Enquirer.
12/2/2014

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rob Portman takes himself out of the running for President 2016. (Original Post) No Vested Interest Dec 2014 OP

Portman is a fucking asshole gopiscrap Dec 2014 #1

He is such a weak candidate, can the state party come up with a good candidate to run this time? greatlaurel Dec 2014 #2

That is the heart of the problem. The Dems have had a hard time No Vested Interest Dec 2014 #3

gopiscrap

(24,170 posts)

1. Portman is a fucking asshole

Reply to No Vested Interest (Original post)

Tue Dec 2, 2014, 02:13 AM

Dec 2014

and should be in jail.

greatlaurel

(2,010 posts)

2. He is such a weak candidate, can the state party come up with a good candidate to run this time?

Reply to No Vested Interest (Original post)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 12:19 PM

Dec 2014

I was going to call Portman a weasel, but that is an insult to weasels.

No Vested Interest

(5,196 posts)

3. That is the heart of the problem. The Dems have had a hard time

Reply to greatlaurel (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 3, 2014, 12:27 PM

Dec 2014

coming up with good statewide candidates the last few cycles.
Rep. Tim Ryan is especially attractive, but he hasn't been ready to make a move as yet - perhaps with good reason.
Other than that, I can't think of too many others who could run against Portman, who has much money on his side.

Reply to this discussion