Maryann Tobin

Political pundits use historical election statics to predict the outcome of elections. In 2012, the data from past elections say Mitt Romney will lose to Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race.

It seems that historically, a candidate cannot win the White House without winning their home state. Part of the reason for this involves the more detailed knowledge of how a candidate will really govern, from the people who know them best.

Mitt Romney is not likely to win his home state of Massachusetts, and that may say more about what will happen in November than anything else.

“A new poll in Massachusetts has confirmed what everyone knows — that Mitt Romney will very likely lose Massachusetts in November to President Obama,” according to the New York Times.

So far, only three presidential candidates have gone on to win the White House without winning their home state. The last time it happened was in 1968, with Richard Nixon. The other two non-home state presidential winners were James Polk in 1844, and Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

There is logic behind the historical data. If the people who know you best won’t vote for you, why would anyone else?

Related reports:

New voter ID laws could cost Romney the election

Republican austerity plan: Just as bad for US as Europe

Corporate profits soar as U.S. workers still struggle