POLITICO, July 25, 2012 – HINT: HE WAS THEIR GOVERNOR FOR FOUR YEARS AND THEY DON’T LIKE HIM.
The Obama campaign has had some success in attacking one of Mitt Romney’s two key claims for being able to fix the economy and help middle-class Americans: his tenure as head of Bain Capital.
You might then expect the presumptive Republican nominee to focus on his other major asset: his term as Massachusetts governor. But he’s not.
One reason, of course, is that talking about this reminds voters of Romney’s health care program, which President Barack Obama cites as one model for what Republicans denounce as “Obamacare.”
But there is a larger reason: the way Bay State voters now view him as their “un-favorite son.”
Massachusetts is vying with New York in polls as the state where Romney trails Obama the most. In Massachusetts, the state’s former governor is now estimated to be 21 percentage points behind the president.
Though Massachusetts is a “blue” state, that doesn’t fully explain Romney’s low ratings. Republicans do win in Massachusetts. Romney demonstrated that in 2002 — as did William Weld, who won two gubernatorial elections in the 1990s.
Consider that Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in 2010. Brown is now running an essentially even reelection campaign against popular progressive Elizabeth Warren. That puts Brown more than 20 points ahead of Romney in the state.
It is worth noting that Romney does claim several “home” states. He cites Michigan, where he was born, and New Hampshire and California, where he owns vacation homes. He is now trailing Obama in all these states — though not by as much as where he served as chief executive.
To appreciate how significant this low support is, compare the home-state support of the losers in the three biggest presidential election landslides of the past half-century: 1964, 1972 and 1984.
While Lyndon B. Johnson trounced Sen. Barry Goldwater in 1964, winning 61.1 percent of the nationwide popular vote — the highest ever in a contested United States presidential election — Goldwater still carried his home state of Arizona. Goldwater won Arizona with 50.4 percent of the votes — almost 12 percentage points higher than nationally.
In Richard Nixon’s 1972 landslide, Sen. George McGovern carried just one state, winning only 37.5 percent of the popular vote nationwide. Though he didn’t win his home state, South Dakota, McGovern still did far better there than nationally. His home state gave him the fourth-highest percentage of the vote he received in any state — a full 8 percentage points above his nationwide average.
In 1984, Ronald Reagan carried every state except Minnesota — the home of his Democratic opponent, Walter Mondale. Reagan took 58.8 percent of the popular vote nationwide, but Mondale narrowly carried his home state. In Minnesota, Mondale ran more than 9 percentage points better than he did nationwide.
Even these figures, however, do not adequately reflect just how unusual Romney’s lack of support in his home state is.
Only twice in the past half-century has a major party presidential nominee failed to carry his home state: McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972 by 8.7 percentage points, and Vice President Al Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 by 3.8 percentage points. Romney’s current 21-point deficit in home-state support is nearly three times greater than the worst home-state loss by a losing candidate in the past 50 years.
In these 12 presidential elections, the losing candidate nationally received an average of 51.5 percent in his home state. Romney is now polling at 36 percent in Massachusetts — 15.5 percentage points lower than the average for past losers.
In those past dozen presidential races, the losing candidate nationally has run an average of 8.6 points better in his home state than the nation. Romney is now running 9.2 points worse in his home state than nationally. His home-state-to-national support is almost 18 points lower than the average for losing presidential candidates in the past 12 elections.
There’s also this: The last Massachusetts governor who won a major party presidential nomination ran on his allegedly successful economic policy as chief executive of the Bay State. In 1988, Michael Dukakis regularly talked about the “Massachusetts Miracle.” He was widely ridiculed, however, and lost the national election to George H.W. Bush by nearly 8 points. Yet in Massachusetts, Dukakis won by almost 8 percent — a stunning 29 points better than Romney is now registering.
If Republicans hope to win the presidency in November, they should be even more alarmed at how their nominee’s home-state backing compares with that of the winners of the past 12 presidential elections.
Romney’s current 36 percent Massachusetts support is 21 percent less than the average home-state totals for the past 12 presidential winners.
In fact, the victor in every presidential election for the past 50 years won his home state — with an average margin of victory at 18.8 percent. Romney, however, now trails Obama in Massachusetts by 21 points. So in his home state, the presumptive 2012 GOP nominee is running an astonishing 40 points behind the 50-year average for the winners of presidential elections.
“I will remember Massachusetts,” the Bee Gees sang. But one of Romney’s greatest problems may be that Massachusetts remembers him all too well.
Those who know Romney and his policies best are more opposed to him than voters in virtually any other state — and far more than voters in the home state of any major party nominee in the past 50 years were to them.
If Obama, his campaign team and Democrats in general can’t make political hay of this, they are in the wrong line of work.
Robert McElvaine, a historian, is the Chisholm distinguished professor of arts and letters at Millsaps College. His most recent book is a 25th anniversary edition of “The Great Depression.” He is now completing two nonfiction books.
Posted By: Richard Kigel
Thursday, July 26th 2012 at 11:25AM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
