Romney: Demographics Over Narrative

Mark Halperin says two sources "who know" say McCain is picking Romney. This is a pick that has long made sense demographically. If two of the four the toughest battlegrounds include Colorado and Michigan, Romney's Michigan roots and his strength in Western states with high LDS concentrations make him a demographically smart pick.

However, Al Giordano hits upon a great point given today's narrative - Romney owns a lot of homes too. You can hear the counter-line already rolling off Democratic tongues: "Those guys are tough to beat. They own homes in almost every state."

Thus, while Romney makes sense from a demographics sense, he probably hurts from a narrative one. While we're down on the idea that VPs should be chosen to swing a certain state (unless the candidate is from a small state typically ignored by national campaigns), the total package can further a narrative about the top candidate. "McCain warmed to Romney once he saw how many estates he had."

The narrative consequences aren't all bad. While many observers have noted that McCain's camp overreacted by throwing the kitchen sink in response to today's seven-houses attack, it seemed more that McCain's team has been waiting for this excuse to go as hard as possible with as much as possible.

So, Romney does present the Democrats' best opportunity to continue the narrative they've discovered today, but it also shows that it's not as much a narrative election as it is a demographic one. Once McCain started talking about how his polling data showed the base had been solidified, he didn't have to worry as much that Romney would frighten those Republicans to whom Romney's Mormonism is a big turn-off.

There's More...

ADVERTISEMENT

Contract Post

VP Contenders by the Numbers

As you've probably recognized, it is very difficult to do objective analysis of the Vice Presidential derby contenders. But let's try one little thing out.

Essentially all of the principal players in the Democratic Veepstakes -- and many of the Republicans -- are sitting Senators or Governors. While national approval ratings for these candidates are utterly useless at this stage of the cycle -- few voters have any opinion of them outside their home states -- local approval ratings might give us some hint about how these candidates are likely to wear over time.

So what I did was as follows. Firstly, I took the average of all approve/disapprove and favorable/unfavorable polls I could find on these candidates in 2008. Only the most recent survey from any given polling firm was used. Where no polls were available in 2008, I used the most recent one I could find.

Then, I compared this approval average to the partisan ID advantage (or disadvantage) of that candidate's party in 2004 exit polling. Subtracting the approval average from the partisan ID index gives us what I call the candidate's power rating. Essentially, this is the extent to which the candidate is able to defy gravity and run ahead of the political demographics of their state.

Firstly, let's look at the Democrats. We'll take all candidates on the media-reported short list -- excluding Sam Nunn, who has been out of office too long -- and throw in Bill Richardson and Brian Schweitzer. And no, we haven't seen those guys on anybody else's short lists, but we have heard rumors that Obama met with Schweitzer earlier this month.



Three of the Democrats have exceptionally impressive numbers: Kathleen Sebelius, Evan Bayh, and Brian Schweitzer. All of these candidates are not just surviving in red states, but thriving, with substantially positive approval scores. Sebelius' number is especially impressive as she has the most progressive governance record of the three, but in any event, these candidates have proven track records of appealing to voters across the aisle.

Jack Reed and Joe Biden are holding up just fine. Tim Kaine's and Chris Dodd's performances are a little more marginal. Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton aren't really doing any better than you'd expect from a Democrat in their states, but sometimes running for President can harm a candidate's local numbers in the near term.

Now, let's look at a selection of Republicans -- including Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who are no longer in office, but who retired recently enough that we can still track down their SurveyUSA results.



By this metric, Sarah Palin should be the runaway favorite -- the +70 approval ratings she managed in a couple of polls in May is almost literally unheard of. But her standing has tarnished a bit after her recent mini-scandal; she now polls at "only" a +36. Do I think that Palin would be a good choice for John McCain? I happen not to, because I think the age and experience gap would be exceptionally awkward. But she certainly is a very bright prospect.

The rest of the Republicans are pretty closely bunched together, with the exception of Mitt Romney -- who left office with a -20 approval rating -- and Joe Lieberman, who would be an awfully risky selection by McCain.

There's More...

ADVERTISEMENT

Contract Post

Romney's Effect On the Map

If Bob Novak is circulating internal polls showing Mitt Romney helping John McCain in Michigan, you can be pretty sure that the Republican establishment is behind the idea of making Romney McCain's VP. It's easy enough to understand why. Romney has been a good team player: an excellent fundraiser and a tireless campaigner. He is unlikely to embarrass either himself or the ticket. And he could potentially be an asset in several states, among them Michigan, New Hampshire and Nevada.

But Romney also comes with several liabilities which, when combined with his strengths, would tend to produce a very interesting electoral map.

One of the more reliable indicators we have identified for electoral strength is a candidate's fundraising numbers. Mitt Romney raised quite a bit of money -- about $60 million from individual contributors, of which $48 million came in large enough chunks to require disclosure to the FEC. Thus, we can look at Romney's fundraising totals in each state.

As a basis for comparison, we will use George W. Bush's fundraising haul in 2004, which included about $190 million in individual contributions that were large enough to be tallied by the FEC. Overall, Romney raised about 25 percent as much as Bush (again, counting only those contributions that the FEC itemized). But the ratio varied significantly from state to state. Romney raised just 2 percent as much as Bush in Arkansas, but 972 percent as much in Utah. A complete accounting of the Romney v. Bush numbers is below; states where we presently project the McCain-Obama matchup to finish within 6 percentage points are highlighted in yellow.



Let's look at this as a map as well. States where Romney underperformed his weighted average of 25 percent of Bush's fundraising total are tinted red; states where he overperformed the total are tinted green.



From these figures, we can make some pretty good inferences about where Romney's strengths might lie:

-- The Mormon Belt. Romney, unsurprisingly, does exceptionally well in states with with large concentrations of Mormons. Unfortunately for him, some of these states -- like Utah and Idaho -- are utterly irrelevant electorally. But he might also be of some assistance in Nevada, Colorado, and possibly Oregon, though the latter may not be close enough for it to matter. He is not of much help in New Mexico, which has distinctly different demographics from the rest of the region and where Romney's lack of popularity among Hispanic voters might be a liability.

-- Michigan. Romney's fundraising numbers in Michigan were strong, and he would probably be an asset there. Although, his impact seems to stop at the Michigan border; Romney did not do especially well in any of the states surrounding the Wolverine State.

-- New England. Romney's fundraising was also relatively strong in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Of these, probably only New Hampshire is competitive, but those are four fairly important electoral votes. I am not sure, by the way, how much of this really has to do with Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts, where his approval ratings had been marginal. Instead, there are a fair number of fiscal conservatives in New England, among whom Romney's business background might have some appeal.

In contrast, Romney might be a liability in some other regions:

-- The South. Romney's fundraising numbers were quite bad in the South, where he generally matched no more than 10 percent of George W. Bush's fundraising total. He would probably be a modest liability in Virginia, and might put states like North Carolina, West Virginia, and possibly Georgia and even Arkansas further into play. The problem, simply put, is that Romney's Mormonism is anything but an asset to Evangelical Protestants. In 14 states that SurveyUSA polled in January and February, before Romney dropped out of the race, John McCain beat Barack Obama by an average of 33 points among evangelical voters. Romney, by contrast, led Obama by just 18 points. Although it is unclear just how many of these evangelicals would defect to Obama in the end, the Republicans would have significant concerns over those voters not turning out, or voting for Bob Barr.

- The Upper Midwest, Sans Michigan. Romney's fundraising totals were very marginal in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Indiana -- though Iowa, where Romney spent the better part of a year campaigning, was a modest exception. These states tend to place a heavy value on authenticity, and Romney's polish is a poor match for the Midwestern aesthetic. Wisconsin and Minnesota, already difficult states for McCain, might be placed further out of reach if Romney were on the ticket, and Indiana and North Dakota might present more substantial opportunities for Barack Obama.

- New Mexico and other Hispanic-heavy states. Romney performed quite poorly among Latino voters in the Republican primaries. He won just 23 percent of their votes in Arizona (versus 35 percent of the white vote), 14 percent in Florida (versus 34 percent of whites) and 27 percent in California (versus 38 percent of whites). Although Romney's tough stance on illegal immigration is part of the reason he might be helpful to McCain in states Colorado, he might do more harm than good in states where the Hispanic population is a little larger, such as New Mexico and possibly Florida.

*-*

Overall, placing Mitt Romney on the ticket would tend to produce a very broad map. Several "Lean Democratic" states -- Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire -- would tend to be pushed closer toward toss-up status. But likewise, there are areas where Romney might be harmful, and some "Lean Republican" states -- North Carolina, Indiana, North Dakota -- could also become toss-ups. We might also have to give more consideration to scenarios in which Barack Obama loses both Michigan and Ohio (although, there is no reason to think Romney will be especially helpful in Ohio) but comes up with a winning electoral combination, most likely through gains in the South. For example, Obama could lose both Michigan and Ohio (and still reach 270 electoral votes) if he won both Virginia and Florida. He could also lose both Michigan and Ohio if he won Virginia, North Carolina and Iowa.

Obama could also try and counterprogram Romney by means of his own Vice Presidential selection. However, it is not clear whether such a strategy would involve playing offense or defense. Obama could conceivably pick a Westerner like Brian Schweitzer in an effort to offset Romney's gains in the West; this would be a defensive strategy. Or, he could pick a Southerner to try and exploit his opportunity in that region; this would be the more aggressive maneuver. There might be some utility in his avoiding a Catholic candidate in an effort to expand his reach to evangelicals, however, a disproportionate number of the Democratic VP contenders are Catholic (including Biden, Kaine, Sebelius, Clark, Schweitzer and Reed). There might also be some utility in picking a candidate who performs strongly among working class voters, as Romney's background and personality make him more appealing to the country club set. Hillary Clinton, frankly, would be a pretty interesting choice on paper (John Edwards would be even better if his alleged scandal does not prove to be a problem) as might a darkhorse choice like Sherrod Brown. Evan Bayh, who has a +29 approval rating among evangelicals in Indiana, might also be a fairly good fit.

As for the McCain team, they have ample reason to select Romney, but they need to understand that his strengths don't necessarily match the conventional wisdom. Romney's base tends neither to be evangelicals nor Reagan Democrats, but instead, middle- and upper-class fiscal conservatives who value lower taxes and stricter immigration policies and who are probably relatively satisfied with the status quo. This describes a significant number of independent voters in states like Colorado. However, if the Republicans throw Romney out there and try to turn him into a populist, they'll be in for a long campaign.

There's More...

ADVERTISEMENT

Contract Post