In a recent Brain Trust commentary (Legislature, Governor at Impasse on Several Issues), Joe Bodell suggested Governor Tim Palwenty's likely veto on a domestic partnership bill for state employees in same-sex relationships might not be a rational strategy in light of his rumored "national aspirations."
Bodell states Pawlenty should sign the domestic partnership bill because to veto it would further project his image of taking "hard-right stance(s) on social issues." However, such a veto would only be a hard-right political move if you buy into the premise that signing this bill is an act of centrism, and not 'hard-left.'
The truth is Minnesotans are nearly split in their attitudes toward this legislation — with support for such partnerships only just edging out opposition to it. A poll conducted by SurveyUSA last month found a bare majority (52%) supported allowing public agencies to grant health benefits to the "domestic partners of their employees." (Note: the polling question did not use the term "same-sex partners" to describe the bill's beneficiaries; had it done so it is likely the level of support would have dipped below the 50 percent mark).
With at least 40 odd percent of Minnesotans in opposition to the state providing these same-sex benefits, it is difficult to sustain the characterization of a bill veto as a "hard right" tactic or that it panders to the "radical conservative fringe" as Bodell writes.
Secondly, even if — hypothetically — a Pawlenty veto of this bill were tantamount to a rejection of the centrist views held by the average Minnesotan, it is not at all clear such an act would jeopardize Pawlenty's potential national ambitions. Bodell makes the mistake of suggesting a) the Governor's narrow electoral victories are indicative of his having low political currency statewide and b) that the Governor might be added to a John McCain presidential ticket in part to deliver the state in the General Election.
Bodell confuses Pawlenty's two plurality victories in 2002 and 2006 (44 and 47 percent respectively) with the popularity of the Governor among the electorate. The fact is a majority of Minnesotans have consistently approved of Pawlenty's job performance. In 17 of the last 19 monthly public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA dating back to September 2005, Pawlenty's approval rating has been at 50 percent or higher — frequently flirting with 60 percent (these ratings have been replicated in 2006 surveys by the Humphrey Institute and Minnesota Poll). Pawlenty's favorability ratings also outnumbered his unfavorable numbers in two MPR / Pioneer Press polls during Election 2006. The fact that third parties thrive in the Gopher state in gubernatorial elections — making it difficult for a winner to reach 50 percent of the vote — should not lead us to believe that Pawlenty himself is actually unpopular or his views out of touch with his constituency.
Furthermore, Bodell overestimates the likelihood that presidential candidates select running mates based on their ability to pick up the VP nominee's home state. This is rarely the case and VP nominees are notorious for their inability to sway elections. In fact, since 1976:
Three VP nominees failed to 'pick up' home states that the opposing party normally carries in presidential elections:
- John Edwards, Democrat (North Carolina, 2004)
- Jack Kemp, Republican (New York, 1996)
- Lloyd Bensten, Democrat (Texas, 1988)
One additional VP nominee failed to carry her home state that was normally a safe 'hold':
- Geraldine Ferraro, Democrat (New York, 1988)
Another six VP nominees hailed from states that are reliable 'safe states' in little danger of being lost by their running mate (in short, they were not added to the ticket to win their home state):
- Dick Cheney, Republican (Wyoming, 2000 and 2004)
- Joe Lieberman, Democrat (Connecticut, 2000)
- Dan Quayle, Republican (Indiana, 1988 and 1992)
- George H. W. Bush, Republican (Texas, 1980 and 1984)
- Bob Dole, Republican (Kansas, 1976)
- Walter Mondale, Democrat (Minnesota, 1976 and 1980)
Only one VP nominee hailed from a state that could actually be considered a true 'pick-up' for the ticket:
- Al Gore (Tennessee, 1992 and 1996)
However, even these Democratic victories in Tennessee were more likely due to forces other than Gore's home-field advantage (as witnessed in 2000 when Gore lost the state as the Democratic presidential nominee). For one, Clinton hailed from the south as the former governor of Arkansas, and Tennessee was only one of several southern states the Democratic ticket won in 1992 (Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia) and 1996 (Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida). Additionally, Ross Perot's strong performance (picking up a disproportionate amount of independent and republican votes) likely tilted the state to Clinton. In 1992 Perot earned 10.1 percent in a race decided by 4.7 points. In 1996 Perot won 5.6 percent in a state Clinton won by just 2.4 points.
In sum, despite Pawlenty's popularity within Minnesota, it is unlikely he will be selected to be McCain's running mate for the primary purpose of increasing that ticket's advantage in winning the Gopher State's 10 Electoral College votes in 2008. Moreover, it is unlikely the governor will bend his principles on an issue like same-sex benefits, when a near majority of the state's residents actually agree with him on this issue. His political currency is strong enough to survive a veto on this issue.