After seeing the argument multiple times that Republican governors’ low poll numbers in key states could severely damage the prospects of the eventual GOP presidential nominee, I figured it was time to track down how that argument spread and to take a look at it.
On May 25, Democratic pollsters Tom Jensen and Dean Debnam of Public Policy Polling released results of an Ohio survey and asserted that President Barack Obama would be helped next year in the state, and in other states, because of unpopular Republican governors.
That was followed on May 30 by a dubious Politico piece that identified Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) as Obama’s “secret weapon” in his bid to carry the Sunshine State next year.
The next day, on the website TPM, intern-turned-writer Jon Terbush (bachelor’s degree in writing, literature and publishing, Emerson College, 2009) instructed us that not only Scott but “several newly minted Republican governors” may help improve “President Obama’s re-election odds.”
Then came a flurry of pieces ranging from a brief item on the San Francisco Examiner’s website to a posting on the Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog and finally a more serious effort in the Post by political scientist and friend (and Roll Call contributing writer) Norman Ornstein, who at least presented a rationale for the conclusion and made some interesting points about upcoming state spending challenges.
What has been missing from every one of these pieces is evidence of unpopular governors damaging their presidential nominees’ prospects in the past. In fact, not a single one of the people who have asserted that the damage is likely pointed to a previous instance where it occurred.
Now, it’s certainly possible that this could be the first time in our nation’s history that an unpopular governor of a swing state will damage his party’s presidential nominee, but the paucity of evidence surely is a problem for those making the argument.
Essentially, what we have been given by the folks at PPP and others is a scenario, a notion, an idea, a thought. They are a dime a dozen in politics. Every candidate I interview has a scenario of how he is going to win. Every vacuous talking head on TV has a scenario about some outcome.
I looked for instances where an unpopular governor was the decisive factor in how a state voted for president, and I didn’t find much.
In Missouri in 2008, then-Gov. Matt Blunt (R) was so extremely unpopular that he didn’t run for re-election. But Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried Missouri with 49.4 percent of the vote while the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Jay Nixon, was winning with 58.4 percent (and running more than 8 points ahead of his party’s presidential nominee).
Given that McCain drew only 45.7 percent of the vote nationally that year, he ran 3.7 points better in Missouri. In 2000 and 2004, when the state was having very close gubernatorial races and George W. Bush was winning the state more easily, Bush ran a mere 2.6 and 2.5 points stronger in Missouri than he did nationally.
In other words, Missouri voters didn’t have trouble making a distinction between the gubernatorial and presidential races, and they didn’t have trouble distinguishing Nixon from Obama.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, center, along with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, right, and Annette Tilleman-Dick, left, wife for former Rep. Tom Lanots, D-Calif. Clinton was honored with the Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize during a ceremony last week at the Cannon House Office Building. Previous winners include the Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.