Advertisement

Over Before It Starts in Massachusetts

By Steve Benen, Maddow Blog - May 17, 2012

Associated Press

Mitt Romney in Massachusetts in 2002, during happier Bay State times.

Major-party presidential candidates tend to win their home state, even if they're losing the election, but in 2012, the race for Mitt Romney's home state is apparently over before it starts.

Don't bet on Mitt Romney winning his home state. Or even trying.

"That's not been a topic of discussion," Romney campaign adviser Kevin Madden said when asked if the Republican former Massachusetts governor would compete in the heavily Democratic state.

Romney was never a hero in the liberal bastion, and aides say there are other ways he can win the White House and deny President Barack Obama a second term without the 11 electoral votes Massachusetts offers.

According to the Boston Globe's analysis, if Romney wins, he'll be the "first presidential candidate elected without carrying his home state since before the Civil War. James K. Polk lost Tennessee en route to the White House -- 168 years ago."

In case you're thinking it's unfair to characterize Massachusetts as Romney's home state -- he also owns mansions in New Hampshire and California -- the Republican is expected to lose all three of his home states.

And while Romney will probably be the first major-party candidate in generations who won't even try to win his home state, I continue to marvel at the fact that Romney's unpopularity in his home state -- the folks who got to see his governing up close for four years -- is a total non-issue in the presidential race.

I've heard Romney's stump speech many times, and it includes exactly zero references to his term as governor -- his only experience in public office at any level. I watched his speech on his economic plan, his speech on debt reduction, and even his commencement address at Liberty University, and not one included so much as a passing reference to Massachusetts or his background as the chief executive of a major state.

Am I the only one who finds this odd?

Following up on a report from a month ago, when I was doing research for this recent piece on presidential candidates and their pre-campaign experience in public service -- Romney's the least experienced nominee in 72 years -- I found plenty of governors and former governors who tried (and succeeded) to parlay their background as the chief executive of a state into becoming the chief executive of the nation.

But I could find no example of a major-party nominee whose only experience in government was serving as a governor, but who then made no effort to talk about this experience as part of his appeal to voters for national office. Nor could I find any examples of a governor quitting after one term, knowing he'd lose if he sought re-election, and then running for president.

And why is it, exactly, that Romney is avoiding the subject of his only background in public service? Perhaps because, during his 2003-to-2007 tenure, Romney failed to impress much of anyone.

"His favorability was basically a straight line down from his honeymoon," said David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University's Political Research Center and a longtime Massachusetts pollster. "Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt." [...]

Romney entered the Massachusetts State House in January 2003 with a flashy favorability rating of 61 percent.... By November 2004, voters were souring, and a Suffolk poll found his favorable rating had dropped to 47 percent... By November 2006, as he closed out his increasingly absentee term, his overall job approval rating had cratered to 36 percent.

Thomas Whalen, a Boston University political science professor, put it this way: "To know Mitt Romney is to dislike him. That is the moral of the story."

Maybe he looks better in hindsight? No, Romney's former constituents still don't like him and still don't want him to be president.

Maybe it's because he was a GOP governor in a reliably "blue" state? No, Massachusetts has had plenty of modern Republican governors -- Weld, Cellucci, Swift -- and all were more popular with their Bay State constituents than Romney.

This is all generally overlooked, which is a shame because it seems like it ought to be more relevant in a presidential campaign.

Here's the sample question reporters can ask Romney: why were you so woefully unpopular with your own constituents when voters gave you a chance to lead?

Back To Top | Front Page

The truly ıncredıble thıng ıs that a man who has spent most of the past - what? - sıx or seven years runnıng for presıdent ıs so dıslıked by so many people. It's really the "beer questıon" ın that no one really wants to spend a few hours wıth thıs guy havıng a beer. And ıt's not just because he looks lıke the man who fıred you; ıt ıs because he ıs truly an unlıkeable human beıng.

There's the Seamus stuff, the terrorızıng a kıd ın the dorm, the forced laugh, the ınabılıty to connect, the ten grand bet offered at a debate, how he made hıs mıllıons, how he keeps changıng hıs basıc posıtıons. Add ıt all together and there are very few redeemıng features to Mıtt Romney. Maybe none.

Mr. James you have earned my respect as a direct writer of significant fact about a man yet to be fully understood by me beyond the points you have made and you have made them well. When I think of the points you make and attribute to one person, I think you write about a sociopath.

Thank you.

One thing for sure...if romney is elected he'll be this nations first invertebrate president.

Slogan: Invertebrates of the World Unite!

If Sarah Palin can talk up her incomplete term as Governor of the Wild (no offense, Alaskans), there's no reason why Romney can't talk up his term as Governor of the Home of the Original Tea Party... True, Romney had nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party, but I'm sure all he has to do is invoke the Tea Party in spirit... Rile up the base or somesuch...

It's true, voting "present" or "abstain" from the back bench to avoid controversy is perfect experience for being President. Apparently, actually meeting a payroll, saving the Olympics, or being Gov, not so much.

As Steve Benan has noted, he dıd't even really save the Olympıcs; he merely hıred a raft of lobbyısts to get money from Washıngton. And at Baın, he dıd't so much "meet a payroll" as destroy payrolls ın dozens and dozens of functıonıng companıes, pushıng the ensuıng pensıon lıabılıty on to Washıngton.

Read Full Article »

Latest On Twitter

Follow Real Clear Politics

Real Clear Politics Video

More RCP Video Highlights »