When Governor Plays Kingmaker, Primary Result Can Be Swayed

Related Content

Election Updates

Print

E-Mail

Reprints

Text Size

Latest News

• Democrats Drop ‘Deem and Pass’ Strategy
• Stupak Blames Pelosi for Cutting Off Abortion Talks
• Pelosi Shuts Down Talk of Abortion Vote
• Down to the Wire, House Leaders Eye Abortion Compromise
• Boehner Urges American People to Help Defeat Health Care

Last week, Out There looked at whether having a governor of the same party was helpful to a presidential candidate in the general election. But finding consensus on that question was elusive — so now we examine whether a governor’s support can aid a candidate in a presidential primary or caucus.

Interviews with political veterans suggest that answer is a qualified “yes.” If you’re the governor in one of the key early-primary or caucus states — and if you are skillful and reasonably popular with voters in your state — you may have what it takes to shape the dynamics of the contest.

Having the governor’s backing can matter “a lot,” said Las Vegas-based political analyst Jon Ralston. “The governor can mobilize an entire state organization if he or she knows what he is doing.”

Added Philadelphia-based Democratic consultant Larry Ceisler, “In terms of primaries, it is the governor’s fundraising that is most important, but the perception of a bandwagon effect is also important.”

The current campaign-finance landscape gives governors a special edge, some politicos say. With presidential candidates barred by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 from raising soft money, governors can be a vital resource on the money front, said one Democratic strategist.

“If you need to broaden your fundraising base quickly, there’s no better way than to bring some governors on board,” the strategist said.

“Even mildly unpopular governors can help, because they have access to the political infrastructure and people,” added another Democratic strategist. “It’s infrastructure ready-to-go. Their people may have to take leaves of absence, but there are all sorts of mechanisms and levers the governor is in a position to help you with.”

Of course, the gubernatorial effect is not always visible every year, nor in every state.

Consider Iowa. On the one hand, the 2004 non-endorsement endorsement of Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) by Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack — in which Vilsack’s wife came out for Kerry while the governor officially remained neutral — was widely considered a major boost for Kerry at the expense of the early frontrunner, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D). Kerry’s victory in Iowa, followed by his win in New Hampshire, all but sealed the nomination for him.

In other years, though, the results of the Iowa caucuses seemed to be beyond the political establishment’s control. In 1996, GOP Sen. Bob Dole of neighboring Kansas finished first, but insurgent candidate Pat Buchanan garnered headlines by finishing a strong second. In 1988, running against Dole, televangelist Pat Robertson accomplished much of the same by finishing second. In neither case could then-Gov. Terry Branstad (R) do much to stem the anti-establishment tide.

Perhaps the most notable failures of a governor to influence a crucial early contest have come in Michigan. In 1988, Michigan Democrats, including Gov. James Blanchard, were embarrassed when civil rights activist Jesse Jackson won the Democratic caucuses over then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, who was already well on his way to winning the nomination, recalled Bill Ballenger, publisher of the newsletter Inside Michigan Politics.

Then, in 2000, Republican Gov. John Engler was blindsided when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) upset the governor’s candidate, George W. Bush, who was fresh off a pivotal victory in South Carolina. Making matters worse was the fact that Engler had recently orchestrated a change in the primary rules that had been expected to give Bush an advantage.

“That really blew up in his face,” Ballenger said. “If the ’96 rules had still been in place when McCain won, he would have had a far smaller advantage over Bush in delegates than he wound up with.”

After the Michigan debacle — and the same-day victory by McCain in his home state of Arizona — Republican governors bounced back. They are widely credited with salvaging Bush’s presidential candidacy.

In late February and early March, Bush won primary victories in such states as Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Utah, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Each of these had a Republican governor, many of whom the future president had gotten to know while serving for six years as Texas governor. And in the case of Florida, that governor was Bush’s brother.

Because the South Carolina governor in 2000 was a Democrat, Jim Hodges, that state’s Bush-McCain contest wasn’t directly influenced by gubernatorial stage-managing. But 12 years earlier, the Palmetto State was the site of another strong gubernatorial-presidential alliance.