In Ohio’s statewide primaries yesterday, Democratic attorney general candidate Subodh Chandra of Cleveland, lost to Ohio state Sen. Marc Dann. He didn’t just lose by a little, but by a lot (3-1 margin). It is enough to make me wonder why it ended up being such a lopsided contest. First, let’s go to a pre-election article to explain my surprise at the ultimate results:

Dann has been endorsed by the Ohio Democratic Party and labor unions, while Chandra has received the majority of major Ohio newspaper endorsements and is supported by a long list of elected Democrats and former officeholders.

Their match-up has not been exactly friendly. Chandra has attacked Dann’s legal skills, pointing out a reprimand Dann received from the Ohio Supreme Court for mishandling a divorce case, plus a criminal case in Warren in which one of Dann’s clients pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor no longer on the books, spent four months in jail and later sued Dann. [Link]

On election day the Cleveland Enquirer told its readers:

Subodh Chandra, a former Cleveland law director, is our recommendation for the Democratic nomination for attorney general. Chandra ran Cleveland’s legal office efficiently and aggressively, going after fraud and waste, using a management style that fostered communication and motivation. Also on his resume are stints as a federal prosecutor and as a legal ethics professor at Case Western Reserve University. [Link]

At a debate two weeks ago Chandra scored some points with the following:

The debate turned contentious after Chandra claimed that Dann would have failed the FBI background check that Chandra passed.

“I say this with regret because as a Democrat, I don’t like to say anything ill of a fellow Democrat, but we’d better have an honest conversation right now,” Chandra said. “My primary opponent could not become an entry federal-level attorney with a Supreme Court reprimand [and] with a case in which somebody went to jail for four months for a nonexistent crime…” [Link]

Here is one take on why Chandra got thumped so badly:

A political newcomer, Chandra, 38, impressed audiences with his legal acumen, rhetorical skills and the humorous and disarming manner with which he addressed questions about his Indian-American heritage.

He repeatedly criticized Dann’s legal work but ultimately suffered from a lack of name recognition outside of Cuyahoga County, where he spent most of his time campaigning. [Link]

So was it due to a lack of name recognition or due to a hard to pronounce name? I guess only Ohio voters know for sure.

See previous post: Ohio’s newest puppetmaster