'08 Hopefuls With No Place To Call Home

Candidates With No Regional Identity May Have Broad Appeal

(The Politico) 
McCain faced his own carpetbagging criticism when he first ran for a House seat in 1982, entering a crowded GOP primary field. He swatted the critics away with one good line: "When I think about it, I guess the place I've lived the longest was Hanoi."

It didn't hurt that the state McCain happened to move to was and still is experiencing explosive growth thanks to snowbirds fleeing the chilly climes of the Midwest and Californians seeking their fortune in the less-crowded, less-expensive desert to the east.

Romney arguably has a more solid claim on his Massachusetts ties. Despite his Michigan roots and undergraduate work at Stanford and Brigham Young University, Romney came to Cambridge for a joint MBA/JD in the 1970s and stayed. Still, there was no lack of buzz about his seeking office in Utah after he took over the Salt Lake City Olympic Games. In an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune in 2001, Romney acknowledged his desire to run but appeared conflicted about where to launch his political career. Somewhere between the "geographical poles" of Utah and Massachusetts, he said vaguely when asked in which state it would be. He'll underscore the point next week when he makes his official announcement — at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich.

To Charles Mahtesian, editor of the indispensable Almanac of American Politics, the four politicians represent "the next iteration" in the broad sweep of the American story.

"John F. Kennedy was an expression of the Northeastern Catholic experience. Ronald Reagan was one of the many Midwesterners who sought their fortune in California. Place figured very prominently in their experiences and aspirations, as it did for many voters," said Mahtesian. "But place is no longer as relevant to the American narrative and that's reflected in the backgrounds of the current presidential front-runners ... The candidates reflect the mobility of the voters."

To these rootless voters, a candidate's race, region and ethnicity matter less than their ideas and ideology, says Joel Kotkin, an author and close observer of American demography.

"Where a person is from is much less important than what they believe and what their tastes are," he said. "Do they care about gay rights, environmental issues, or are they Christian conservatives?"

Those, Kotkin says, are the new litmus tests. It's how most Americans, politically at least, are now identified. It doesn't exactly matter if you live in an exurb in California or Colorado or Georgia or if your college town is Berkeley, Boulder or Athens. It's precisely that you live in a McMansion surrounded by chain retail or a cozy cottage within walking distance of the local dives around campus that is what defines you.

Such homogenizing is most evident among wealthy Americans, says Kotkin, and the candidates, all elites in their own way, reflect their donor base.

"Much of the American elite is no longer place-based," Kotkin notes. "They might live in New York, Los Angeles or even Chicago, but they are of no place themselves."

They travel around the globe, have homes all over the country and care more about the issues of the world and nation than those in their own backyard. Kotkin, himself a New York transplant in California, mentions two examples close to home to underscore his point: philanthropy and reading habits.

The moneyed set in Southern California will "still give money to Cedars-Sinai (hospital), but are just as likely to give to something in New York or to Harvard" or overseas, he says. And, with home delivery of national papers and the presence of the internet, Angeleno elites have little need for the Los Angeles Times when The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and New York Times are available either on the driveway or on their computer screens.

As with their economic lessers, the rich also fall into camps categorized by their worldview and ideology. So feminist and baby-boomer elites will likely identify with Clinton, and the younger rich (black and white) will probably help Obama. MBAs can relate to Romney, and those with military experience will feel a kinship to McCain. There will, of course, be exceptions to all and cross-pollination in the different camps, but the leanings will be categorized by these new identifiers.

To be sure, parts of the country remain tied to the old standbys. As Frey, the Brookings demographer, points out, there are swing states in both the "old" and "new" America. Thanks to its status as a retirement mecca, Florida is, as ranked by percent of population over 65, the "oldest" state in America. But the next three oldest are very different. In Pennsylvania, Iowa and West Virginia, politically competitive all, the old labels -- and geographic identity -- still matter.

Voters, Frey says, in fast-growing swing states like Florida or Nevada or Arizona "are more understanding of carpetbagging politicians" with amorphous identities. "They'll be much more accepting of these non-rooted candidates."

They will also, he adds, be more interested in entrepreneurial issues and matters related to education while the more stagnant-growth battleground states like West Virginia will focus more on the "bread-and-butter" of the safety net, things like Social Security and Medicare important to seniors and the economically disadvantaged.

So what is a candidate from nowhere to do in this hybrid country, where there are many with a foot in the future but others still with a foot in the past? You pick a vice president to balance the ticket, says Frey. After all, who is more rooted than that Carolina "son of a mill worker" John Edwards and the second-generation American and consummate New Yorker Rudy Giuliani?

[gunownerdan]

It is obvious to me that the democrats and the republicans are trying as hard as they can to destroy our Bill Of Rights.
While democrats and republicans will take the same oath to protect and defend our constitution from any and all enemies, both will consistently ignore that oath while picking and choosing which parts of our constitution to ignore.
Often I feel like I'm the only person who even cares.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."
- Alexander Hamilton

[rray52]

It takes a peculiar personality to run for prez. In the first place

[frankly6]

Dan

It's going to come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. Every election will look like this until we have some real campaign finance reform and public financing of campaigns. All we have now is a handfull of candidates that represent different conglomerations of special interests.

[gunownerdan]

The list of candidates from BOTH of the major parties is proof that our Bill Of Rights and the very freedoms that it protects are in SERIOUS danger.

[antoniof123]

That settles it I am running too.