Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Mitt Romney's Gold Star for Electability

Bookmark and Share

It has been 115 years since a presidential candidate was nominated from a state without a single U.S. Representative from his own party

mittromney11.jpgAlthough Mitt Romney has tallied up the largest number of congressional endorsements among the 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls to date and recently recruited Missouri Senator Roy Blunt to shore up even more support on Capitol Hill, there is one segment from which he is unlikely to receive any support if he becomes the Republican nominee - his home state U.S. House delegation.

Massachusetts' 10 congressional districts have been represented exclusively by Democrats since the 105th Congress in 1997.

And just how unusual would it be for a major party to nominate a presidential candidate from a state in which not a single U.S. Representative is a member of their own party?

It hasn't happened in 115 years across the nearly 60 presidential nominees during this span.

A Smart Politics study of presidential electoral history finds that Mitt Romney, if nominated, would be the first major party nominee from a state whose U.S. House delegation is comprised solely of representatives from a party other than his own since Democrats nominated Nebraskan William Jennings Bryan in 1896.

In fact, only one other nominee during this period came from a state with less than 25 percent of his party represented in that state's U.S. House delegation (William Taft of Ohio in 1912 in which the GOP held just 5 of 21 seats, or 23.8 percent).

In 1896, Nebraska was represented by five Republicans and one Populist in the U.S. House when Bryan made the first of his three appearances on the general election ballot for the White House.

And now the former Governor of Massachusetts has a decent chance to match Bryan's feat, although undoubtedly hoping for a different outcome at the ballot box.

And what is the significance of this slice of electoral trivia?

Many Republicans across the nation are weighing the importance of 'electability' in deciding whether to nominate a candidate who may better reflect their core principles (or express those principles using the right rhetoric) versus a candidate who may have a better chance at defeating Barack Obama in purple or light blue battleground states.

In fact, fellow 2012 contender Rick Santorum has reiterated this very electability argument during the debates as a reason why the public should back his candidacy based on his electoral success in the light blue state of Pennsylvania.

During the CNN/Tea Party debate in Florida, Santorum highlighted his electability background in his opening remarks, perhaps with a veiled dig at Romney:

"I'm a former two-term senator from a state that has over a million more registered Democrats than Republicans, and I won two elections there without having to change my policies or my party to win."

Even though it was nearly nine years ago when Romney was elected governor of the Bay State, it should be noted he did so while Democrats not only swept the 10 House races that cycle, but did so by an average of 73.1 points, including six races in which the GOP did not even field a candidate.

(It also help Romney's electability argument that he is consistently polling stronger against Obama nationally than any of his GOP colleagues).

Of course, one might suspect the reason the electoral phenomenon outlined above has not occurred in more than a century is due to the fact that a large number of presidential nominees have hailed from the most heavily populated states in the country which are bound to have at least a few districts represented by members of their own party. (In fact, 34 nominees have come from New York, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, or Pennsylvania since 1896).

However, there have been several elections during this 100+ year span in which the presidential nominee shared the same party affiliation as the entire House delegation of his home state.

· In 1928, Republicans held all 11 U.S. House seats in Herbert Hoover's home state of Iowa.

· In 1972, Democrats held both House seats in George McGovern's home state of South Dakota.

· In 1976, Democrats held all 10 seats in Jimmy Carter's home state of Georgia.

· In 1996, Republicans held all four seats in Bob Dole's home state of Kansas.

· In 2004, Democrats held all 10 seats in John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts.

Overall, 56.2 percent of a presidential nominee's home state U.S. Representatives have been from his own party during this 115-year span.

And then there is this footnote: the presidential candidate whose home state has a larger percentage of U.S. House from his own party has won 19 of 29 contests since 1896, although just two of the last six (Clinton in 1992; Obama in 2008).

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Will the GOP Give Linda McMahon a Second Chance in 2012?
Next post: Failed McCotter Presidential Bid Unlikely to Jeopardize US House Seat

1 Comment


  • America faces exceptional challenges and Mitt Romney is an exceptional man with unique qualifications to lead our country through perilous times, restoring our strength at home and abroad.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting