Why isn't the media jumping all over the fact that Mitt Romney, former Gov. of Massachusetts, is behind Obama in Massachusetts polls by a 39-57 margin? MA voters know Romney -- and most aren't voting for their 'hometown boy'.
The media jumped all over Al Gore for losing Tennessee in 2000 by 48-51, lashing out that he "couldn't even bring his home state."
Here's just one example, from the 'liberal' New York Times, Nov 9, 2000:
THE 2000 ELECTIONS: TENNESSEE; Loss In Home State Leaves Gore Depending on Florida
By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA
Published: November 09, 2000
The cliffhanger in Florida could have been irrelevant had it not been for the disappointment in Tennessee.
If Vice President Al Gore had carried his home state, with its 11 electoral votes [...].
Major presidential candidates rarely fail to carry their states; rarer still is the candidate who loses his home state but wins the election. [ahem - is the NYT saying this about Romney, now? Why not?] [...]
The last person elected president without carrying his home state was Mr. Nixon in 1968, but only on a technicality. Mr. Nixon, a longtime Californian, had moved to New York a few years earlier, and ran as a New York resident. He carried California but lost New York.
The other [two] candidates to win the presidency while losing their home states were Woodrow Wilson, who failed to carry New Jersey in 1916, and James K. Polk, who also lost Tennessee, in 1844.
Let's hear that again: "Major presidential candidates rarely fail to carry their states; rarer still is the candidate who loses his home state but wins the election." Well, what about Mitt Romney?
Yes, MA is a blue state. And TN is a red state. What's your point, pundits?
"You can't expect Romney to win MA"? Why not?! You expected Gore to win TN and blamed him for it when he didn't.
Yes, Gore was a southerner. So what, Romney is a northerner, he claims from Massachusetts (or Michigan). What's your point, pundits?
Yes, Gore's dad was a politician. So was Romney's -- a candidate for President, even. What's your point, pundits?
The voters in MA know Mitt Romney better than voters in any other state. He was their Governor for four years, from 2003-2007. Romney won the MA governorship largely because he was unopposed in the GOP primary, whereas Democrats battled in a brutal primary election that was not held until September 17 -- less than 7 weeks before the general election. The four Democrats split their vote 33-25-24-18, leaving winner O'Brien crippled for the general election.
Mass voters paid the price by learning about Romney for four years. They know him. And they aren't voting for him, again. Even 16% of self-described MA Republicans are voting for Obama. Despite its liberal reputation, Massachusetts has a large share of racist white voters. (Black friends of mine didn't dare set foot in Irish-Catholic 'Southie', for fear of violence against them.) Obama is winning hands down in MA.
Why is the expectations bar lower for a Republican than for a Democrat?
Romney is getting creamed by almost 20% (h/t Minerva); Gore lost by only 3%.
Maybe it's time the media feature some stories on why most MA voters are rejecting Mitt Romney as President. Is that too much to ask?
Update: while it's true that Clinton won Tennesee, it's also true per the NYT that: "Major presidential candidates rarely fail to carry their [own] states; rarer still is the candidate who loses his home state but wins the election." With the exception of Nixon (who switched his legal residence to New York shortly before the '68 election, but is always identified as a Californian, viz. San Clemente, etc.), it has only happened twice in all of US history. The last time was 1916, and the time before that was 1844. This is worthy of a story, by every paper and news show in the US.
What was Romney's record like as Governor, according to voters in MA, such that most are not voting for him?