What History Says About Mitt Romney’s Chances

By James Seaman

           Most of the handicapping surrounding Mitt Romney’s presidential bid remains pure speculation.  Some facts, however, can shed light on the murky presidential picture.  Romney hails from the northeast and formerly served as a governor.  “Big deal,” you say, “we already know that.”  But these two factors present compelling historical evidence of Romney’s challenge and opportunity. 

              John Kennedy remains the last northeasterner and the last sitting senator to win a presidential election.  How will a northeastern governor fare against a field of senators named McCain, Hegel, Clinton and Obama?  Let’s take a closer look and try to understand what these factors might tell us about Mitt Romney’s chances.

            For the last half century, the northeastern label has spelled doom for most presidential candidates.  The demographic shift of Americans from the Northeast to the sunbelt of the South and West has fundamentally altered the nation’s political landscape.  States like California and Texas have gained electoral votes at the expense of Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York.  Accompanying the migration is a tendency among non-northeasterners to view themselves as outside of the establishment.  Never mind the massive federal subsidies that have helped the West grow.  Westerners perceive themselves as rugged individualists with an anti-government bent.  Even the Bush family, with the Yankee blood of Andover and Yale coursing thickly through its veins, has adopted the Southwest and its mentality as home.  Self-perceived as independent doers, many westerners disdain what they see as the talkers and intellectual elites of the Northeast.  Whether these views of self and other hold any truth is irrelevant, for perception creates reality.   

            The West has teamed with old Dixie to make the Sunbelt a formidable political region.  Of the last seven men elected president, three came from Texas, two from California, one from Arkansas and one from Georgia.  Gerald Ford, the former linebacker and Speaker of the House from Michigan, assumed the Commander in Chief’s post after Richard Nixon resigned.  In his only national election, Ford lost to southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976.

            Nominating northeasterners has proven particularly hazardous for Democrats.  John Kerry lost narrowly to George W. Bush in 2004, while the current President’s father crushed Michael Dukakis in the 1988 contest.  Both of these Democratic runner-ups represented Massachusetts, an unsettling fact that Romney must face when he courts primary voters in South Carolina. 

            While northeastern Democrats have lost several general elections, Republicans from the region have failed to win their party’s nomination.  New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller lost three bids in the 1960s.  George Romney, Governor of Michigan and father of Mitt, fell to Californian Richard Nixon in 1968.  New York’s Jack Kemp also tried unsuccessfully to carry the GOP mantle in 1988. 

            Brandishing his northeastern credentials won’t win Romney any points as he hits the road for Sunbelt primaries.  Having served as a governor, however, may do wonders.  Most of the current presidential candidates on both sides come from the U.S. Senate.  These hopefuls carry the hefty baggage of voting records.  Recall John Kerry’s infamous “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” explanation of his decision on supplemental funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Senators often vote multiple times on various versions of the same bill.  Sometimes they trade votes in log rolling, other times they cast protest votes when the ultimate fate of a bill is inevitable.  When taken out of context, these votes provide fodder for candidates on the attack.  Virtually every Senator has made some vote to raise taxes, cut important funding, or support a position that appears questionable to the public. 

            Governors, on the other hand, paint with broad brush strokes.  The gubernatorial position mimics the presidency.  Governors set forth ambitious agendas, speak in sweeping tenors, and lead with personality.  Governors often make grand spectacle of signing bills into law—bills that a majority of the publicly-elected legislature supported.  Governors can take credit for the growth, improvement, and positive outcomes in any sector of the state’s economy, while easily blaming problems on partisanship in the legislature or ineffectual leadership at the city level.  Governors are executives, consensus builders and popular figures.  Rarely if ever must a governor serve as an agitator or combatant that comes with the territory in the legislative realm. 

            Again, history serves as a guide.  In the decades following John Kennedy’s 1960 election, three sitting Senators have seen their names on the final presidential ballot and all have lost—John Kerry, Bob Dole in 1996, and George McGovern in 1972.  Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale both represented Minnesota in the U.S. Senate before serving as Vice President and then losing their respective presidential campaigns.

            Acting as governor has proven more fruitful.  Both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton went straight from their respective governor’s mansions to the White House.  Ronald Reagan governed California from 1967 to 1975 before winning the presidency in 1980.  Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, whose term as Governor of Georgia ended two years before the one-time peanut farmer ascended to the presidency.  Only Richard Nixon stands out as an anomaly.  A former Senator, Nixon actually lost his campaign for Governor of California in 1962 before eventually winning the White House in 1968. 

            How Mitt Romney makes use of his gubernatorial credentials and overcomes his northeastern baggage remains to be seen.  Looking at past presidential hopefuls, we know this about Romney:  history is both with him and against him.