One of the most annoying phrases in politics (granted, there are a lot to choose from) was on full display this past Tuesday night, which was so-called Super Tuesday, with primary elections across the country. The offender? “Home state,” as in, “(Fill-in-the-blank) won their home state.” According to the mainstream press, all five remaining viable presidential candidates managed to win their “home state” in the primaries. The only problem is that only one of them actually did.
Take Sen. Hillary Clinton, for example. Shortly after the polls closed at 9 p.m., political announcers eagerly declared that based on exit polling, she had won her “home state” of New York. Now, New York might be where she hangs her hat (or pantsuit), but it certainly isn’t her home state. That would be Illinois, which Sen. Barack Obama won handily (no surprise, since he’s been a senator there since 2005). But I’ve got news for those pundits declaring that Obama won his “home state” as well – Hawaii hasn’t even held its primary yet. Obama was born in Honolulu, and Hawaiians will vote on Feb. 19. With the exception of Mike Huckabee, the Republicans are in the same boat. Huckabee carried Arkansas, where he was born and served as governor from 1996-2007. As for the other Republicans, although they managed to win their announced home state – Arizona for John McCain and Massachusetts for Mitt Romney – neither candidate is a native of the state identified as his home.
The candidates clearly live in and are politically prominent in the states being referred to as their home ground, but that shouldn’t mean truth takes a backseat to ignorance. New York is no more Hillary’s home state than Arkansas (where she lived for nearly 20 years) or Washington, D.C., where she lived for the same amount of time (8 years) as she’s spent in New York. Just because a bunch of misguided Chappaqua residents have “adopted” her over the last eight years, or because she saw Democrat-leaning New York as an ideal place to cool Bill’s heels while she launched a Presidential campaign, doesn’t make New York her home state any more than Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger can call California, where he’s governor, his home state.
And fine, the standard for coverage is to refer to the state in which the candidate is politically affiliated as their home state. I can understand the convenience – but the truth of the matter is that networks and news outlets should refer to these “home states” as what they really are: the place where the candidate seized a political opportunity and built a power base. How about “Place of Political Affiliation” instead? That rings a little truer to me. Save the “home state” stuff for candidates actually representing their home. Just semantics, you say? Truth in politics is a valuable commodity. Let’s try to preserve it.