Political reporters have long been obsessed with conflict
between presidential candidates and their running mates, at least
since the days of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
That’s probably one reason why McCain’s joke in Detroit last
week that Mitt Romney was “doing a better job for me than he did
for himself” sparked a wave of news stories speculating that McCain
was seriously considering, for the vice-presidential slot, his
bitter rival turned loyal surrogate.
But while choosing Romney to be his running mate would make
Washington journalists happy, it would be nothing short of
political suicide for McCain.
Romney exited the Republican race after spending over $110
million (including $45 million of his own money) having failed to
consolidate support among conservatives, while earning the
reputation as an inauthentic flip-flopper among the public at
large. A Gallup poll taken within days of his dropping out of the
race in February showed that 46 percent of Americans had an
unfavorable opinion of Romney, compared with just 34 percent who
had a favorable opinion.
PROPONENTS OF ROMNEY becoming vice president argue that he would
help with fundraising, energize conservatives who are cool on
McCain, and add economic credentials to the ticket. These
advantages are exaggerated.
Given that McCain is accepting public financing and his
expenditures will be capped at $85 million in the fall, Romney’s
benefits as a fundraiser would be somewhat mitigated, especially
because McCain himself is not too keen on having outside groups
influence the election.
Romney’s fans on the right like to believe that Romney lost
because Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson helped carve up the
conservative vote, but it was only because of Romney’s weakness
among conservatives that either of them had an opening.
Although he presented himself as a full-spectrum conservative,
Romney faced his share of detractors within each branch of the
conservative movement. There were economic conservatives who
opposed his universal health-care plan in Massachusetts, social
conservatives who didn’t think his conversion on abortion was
sincere, and national security conservatives who had doubts about
his lack of experience in foreign affairs.
McCain’s critics talk about his problems among evangelicals, but
Romney actually fared even worse than McCain among this key
Republican constituency. An analysis of CNN exit polls in 20
nominating contests in which they competed shows that McCain beat
Romney among evangelicals in 12 of those states. Romney’s distant
fourth place showing in South Carolina was a particularly weak
result, because he poured a tremendous amount of money and
resources into the state for almost a year.
To the extent that conservatives did rally around Romney toward
the tail end of his campaign, it was mainly as a last ditch effort
to prevent McCain from becoming the nominee. This is obviously now
moot.
ROMNEY’S BOOSTERS OFTEN make the mistake of assuming that just
because he has a strong business background, that he will be able
to appeal to voters who are concerned about the economy. But the
data doesn’t support this view.
Romney was able to turn economic jitters to his advantage in the
Michigan primary (after pledging $20 billion in subsidies for the
auto industry), but he wasn’t able to gain much traction on the
issue elsewhere. In Florida, for instance, despite targeted
messaging emphasizing his business credentials, Romney lost to
McCain among voters who considered the economy the most important
issue, 40 percent to 32 percent.
A deeper look at his performance in the primaries shows that
Romney’s appeal was stronger among higher-income voters than it was
among the type of working class voters who will determine the
election. Also, Romney consistently did substantially worse among
those who thought the economy was “not good or poor” than he did
among people who thought it was “excellent or good.” In an
electoral environment in which Americans are increasingly
pessimistic about the state of the economy, this would be
trouble.
While Romney’s strong business background was an asset during
the Republican primaries, it could backfire in the general
election. Democrats will point to Romney’s vast fortune to make
their case that Republicans are the party of the rich, and out of
touch with the economic concerns of ordinary Americans. In his 1994
U.S. Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney was torpedoed by
television ads featuring workers who said they lost their jobs when
he took over their companies.
All but the most ardent Romney backers would have to admit that
it’s hard to see Romney — who signed an assault weapons ban as
governor of Massachusetts — going into those gun-clinging small
towns of Ohio and Pennsylvania and connecting with locals any
better than Barack Obama.
MASSACHUSETTS WON’T BE MADE competitive by choosing Romney, and
McCain doesn’t need him to win Utah. The only state Romney has the
potential to help in is Michigan, but there is no hard evidence to
back up this speculation, certainly nothing strong enough to
justify adding all of Romney’s baggage to the ticket.
Romney’s reputation as a flip-flopper would undermine McCain’s
“Straight Talk” brand, which is his greatest asset in a year when
the public is sour on Republicans. It would also make it more
difficult for the McCain campaign to continue to portray Obama as a
politician who changes his positions with the wind.
And then, of course, there’s the fact that those conflict-loving
journalists will replay every disagreement Romney and McCain had
during their often heated contest. Video clips of Romney attacking
McCain for not understanding economics would provide particularly
great fodder for Democratic TV ads.
Romney may be the dream vice-presidential candidate for
reporters looking for political intrigue, but not for Republicans
hoping to maintain control of the White House.
