I missed this morning’s debate which is too bad because I guess there were some fireworks. I ended up seeing the first ten minutes or so on YouTube and Santorum and especially Gingrich went after Romney’s supposed electability on the grounds that he wasn’t willing to run for reelection as governor of Massachusetts. Gingrich just shredded Romney’s preposterous assertion that he chose not to run for reelection in 2006 because he had accomplished his goals and wanted to return to his beloved private sector starting in 2007. Romney left office as governor in January 2007. Romney announced he was running for President in February 2007. One of Romney’s less attractive qualities is his seeming belief that he can sell any absurdity to the public. Romney deserved every hit he got on this issue.
But I’m interested in what people mean when they argue that Romney is more electable than this or that candidate (and I do think he is a stronger general election candidate than Gingrich.) I think that, when talking about his electability, we are thinking more about his demeanor, issue positioning, professional background, and general intelligence a lot more than his electoral history in Massachusetts.
Romney is 1 and 1 in Massachusetts statewide elections, but, his electoral record is even more ambiguous than that. Being elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican ain’t nothing. But Romney’s was the last of four straight Republican gubernatorial wins in Massachusetts. But Romney’s win was a little more impressive than that sounds. Republican gubernatorial wins in Massachusetts from 1990-2002 were largely driven by the public reaction to the last several years of Mike Dukakis’ governorship and the recession of the early 1990s (which hit Massachusetts both earlier and harder than the US in general.) Lots of people decided that they did not want united Democratic governance of the state again, so a lot of people voted for Democratic state legislators and Republican governors.
The public’s memories of Dukakis and recession were an eroding asset. They helped the Republicans a little less every year. Romney winning as a Republican in 2002 really was more impressive than Bill Weld (who had a much more impressive record as governor) winning reelection in 1994. Gingrich and Santorum are right that Romney’s explanation for why he chose not to run for reelection is nonsense. Romney knew that if he were to run for reelection in 2006, he would very likely lose (and not only because there was likely to be a spoiler candidacy from a disaffected Republican.) But that doesn’t necessarily tell us much about Romney’s electability either. There was never a Republican who could have won an election for governor in Massachusetts in 2006. Not Lincoln or Reagan, or Calvin Coolidge. Nobody. The Democratic tide was just than strong.
PS: I get the sense that Gingrich is getting hot again. Since he has faded, the scrutiny is off, he is a more talented (and cynical) performer than Santorum, and he is getting the space to sell himself without the public being constantly reminded of his flaws. He could get another run as the hot non-Romney. His weaknesses haven’t changed.
