Mitt Romney In Massachusetts

[JSojourner]

Does Willard do appreciably better in Massachusetts than any other Republican at the top of the ticket?

I would say, no.  Maybe a point or two.  But really no noticeable difference.

I realize whoever the GOP nominates will lose in Massachusetts, but my question involves how well Romney would fare there as opposed to any other nominee.

Your thoughts?

[Lahbas]

His governorship was really not that noteworthy, but he would do the best among all the other high-profile canidates in Mass. However, unless Democratic leadership becomes really unpopular, chances are he is not going to take the state. I would still see him with the 40's range, though.

[Devilman88]

42% is his max.

[pragmatic liberal]

40s, although keep in mind that Romney may not even have won reelection had he run. Polls in late 2005 showed him losing to either Tom Reilly or Deval Patrick. Of course, nobody knows what would have happened, but I suspect that's the major reason he opted not to run for reelection - can't run for president if you lose your reelection bid.

(Similar in some ways to Edwards in '04, although he still polled ahead - just weaker.)

[Alexander Hamilton]

42% is his max.

Sounds about right to me.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He does better, but he doesn't win.

[You kip if you want to...]

He keeps Obama below 60%.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

First of all: Massachusetts would not go Republican, just like Idaho would not go Democratic

Second of all: Romney approvals as Governor in second half of his term were really poor

Third of all: After his conversion for 2008 race he's finished in the Bay State

[Dan the Roman]

Worse than McCain would have minus Sarah Palin. Romney's real problem is that there are two paths a Republican has to doing well in Massachusetts. One is to win the suburbs massively, the other to win working-class Democrats. Traditionally the suburban voters are willing to vote GOP in state races but not in national ones, while white ethnics will vote GOP in Presidential races on occasion(Reagan and Bush I) but with the exception of Cellucci have not been willing to locally. Romney's base in 2002 was in the suburbs, but he badly alienated them during his Governorship with abortion and gay marriage positions that were too far to the right and the belligerent way he approached them. The best evidence for this is to look at the way they have voted in other races. A town like Concord where Romney almost won in 2002 has been 70% Democratic up and down the ticket since 2004. As for the working class voters, McCain was a much better pick for them than Romney, as would a Pawlenty type.

Basically, I think Romney would actually do worse than anyone else with the same positions and personality without the background of having been governor. No one will actually vote for him because he was governor, but there are a lot of potential GOP voters who will vote against him because he was governor. Its worth noting that he was not just losing reelection in hypothetical polls, he was losing it by nearly 20-points and was in Jon Corzine territory. This after, what was after all a fairly successful period to be governor. The economy was healthy and there had been real successes.

Here is the surveyusa poll from November of 2006.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=3dc36de1-e000-4680-a10b-01338221a996

Approve 34%
Disapprove 65%

[Psychic Octopus]

In the low 40s. That's amazing for the GOP though.

[Lunar]

No, Massachussetts would never elect a Mormon to lead them, no way Romney wins WASP central.

[King]

Romney burnt all his bridges in Massachusetts with his 2008 campaign.