Politico Notes Romney, Pawlenty & Bachmann not blazingly popular in blue states - seriously - image NY Daily news
A slew of GOP Candidates have come under the scrutiny of Politico in the latest article to downplay the field as “lackluster” - The article title: “The GOP's unfavorite son primary”. The Premise: GOP Candidates such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann are not popular in their home states and may potentially lose those states in a primary and or general election. The aforementioned were elected officials from the states of Massachusetts and Minnesota, two states that would be best categorized as “blue states” having a majority of Democrats in the legislature, with the recent exception of Minnesota, where the house flipped to the GOP column.
Romney, is not extremely popular in Massachusetts for several reasons, one of which is the fact that he appeared to run for the Presidency in 2008 rather than stay and govern. It is not without some pride in the State itself that those “on the ground” would prefer to keep their one check and balance on the political scale, than lose it to the national stage. Secondly, Romney downsized his living space in Massachusetts and purchased property over the border in the more conservative State of New Hampshire – effectively doing what so many other conservatives in Massachusetts have done over the years, bailing out of a high tax, high entitlement environment.
Pawlenty, who served two terms as governor may not have been reelected by landslides (a la a Republican in Texas), however, two terms in Minnesota is, in any universe, amazing. They also cite Michelle Bachmann’s inability to garner more than 53% of the vote in her home district, which is also in Minnesota. Politico cites the fact that Bachman’s district is leans GOP, while one with a grasp on reality understands that a district leaning GOP in states such as Minnesota and or Massachusetts (yes they exist – so far as redistricting is not complete), means the GOP candidate must rely on a lot of cross over votes from both Independents and Democrats!
Given the aforementioned, instead of labeling these three candidates as “unfavorite” (is that actually a word?) sons (no reference there to daughters) perhaps a more fair analysis would have been, that these GOP Stars were able to get elected in states where their political party was basically a third party.
On being able to carry a state in the general, the article cites Dukakis and Mondale, as examples that state “sons” can and do win in their own states. However, comparing Dukakis and Mondale (MA and MN) to Romney, Pawlenty or Bachmann is an oxymoron. The two were carried in states, not because they were widely popular, but because those two states had a well grounded Democrat machine that was able to get out the vote. However, when the residents of the Bay State are so disgusted by the economic climate (see Carter), even Massachusetts will go red (see Reagan), therefore, all bets are off regarding the three candidates.
Incidentally, if the nominee were Romney, or Pawlenty or Bachmann, losing their home state (and again with the changes in Wisconsin, that might not even be a factor), it would fall into the blue state versus “red” candidate category, rather than a nationwide assessment. One left out of the article, was the former Vice President, turned Global Warming hustler, Al Gore, who lost the state of Tennessee in the 2000 Presidential general election, and this could be for much the same reason, Gore was not from a terribly “blue” state.
Therefore, if the GOP nominee loses a state to the incumbent, Obama, it would most likely be one of ten that are on the plus side for the President as of now, and that includes Massachusetts. Although the prevailing theory is that without a strong GOP candidate (and no candidate appears strong enough for the press), that Obama will easily win reelection – which is somewhat interesting when one looks at approval ratings on a state by state basis, and finds that he is not competitive in 40 states based on Gallup’s 2010 survey (see treatment here comparing to electoral college by this author.) If one does the math, at present, and there is zero change in job approval, either up or, with the economy at the present time, down, the name that is on the GOP ticket will hardly matter – the GOP nominee, if not particularly “American Idol” material, will be given the nod, not for the love of the GOP or the nominee, but rather as a vote against the incumbent – again, refer to Jimmy Carter, who, not for nothing, lost both Massachusetts and Georgia.
Although things may turn around in the short time, it appeasers that the President is somewhat resigned to the fact that one term may be his limit, or is beginning to make a case for losing the election: A recent AP Article: Obama: My family would be fine with just 1 term speaks to the family aspect, suggesting that the family would be fine if he decided against seeking a second term. It is doubtful that he will decide not to run a second campaign, as there is not one Democrat who would want to step in and throw millions into the win in an environment where Bush would be able to be reelected - However, recent Google searches from this blog suggest that the general Democrats might not mind if Obama didn’t run either - as there is an increasing number of individuals inquiring if Bill Clinton might not run again in 2012 (obvious it is imperative the civics be reintroduced as part of the curriculum in every school in the nation.)
To recap: winning or losing the home state has little to do with winning or losing a primary and or general election, historically it means little.
Last note: Politico used the usual “expert” professor from a local university to channel the thought processes of both Bachmann and Pawlenty, which allegedly lends credence to the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment