Unsurprisingly, Phil Klein's broadside against Mitt Romney is
vastly overstated. "The only state Romney has the potential to help
in is Michigan, but there is no hard evidence to back up this
speculation," he writes. But you don't have to go far to find
evidence of Romney's Michigan appeal -- just scroll up: "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."
And why do you suppose that Romney gained traction in Michigan
that he didn't gain elsewhere? Could it be that older Michiganders
have warm feelings about George Romney, and his son has a built in
advantage? Of course it is. Michigan Democrats are spooked enough
by Romney's strength that they've already cut an attack ad,
and he's not even on the ticket yet.
And it isn't true that Michigan is the only state where Romney
might arguably help. There's also New Hampshire, where Romney is
well known (thanks to the local-media overlap with Massachusetts)
and has some very committed fans (I know because I encountered them
on the campaign trail). McCain won 37% of the vote in the New
Hampshire Republican primary to Romney's 32%; McCain-Romney would
be a unity ticket that could at least conceivably help quell the
lingering bitterness from that campaign.
Then there's Nevada, where Obama currently leads by an average
of 1.7%. Nevada is 7.41% Mormon; presumably Romney
would help goose LDS turnout, which could be decisive.
Does all this outweigh Romney's weaknesses? Perhaps, perhaps
not. But to call a Romney pick "nothing short of political suicide"
is nothing short of preposterous.