Here are my comments from the other thread:
I can think of three reasons why it would help, in order of ascending importance:
1) Shared media markets
2) Outmigration from the candidate's home state to the state in which the election is taking place
3) Shared regional culture (especially New England, the South, and the Upper Midwest)
#1 and #2 really just help with prior exposure, so they might not improve a candidates standing depending on campaign dynamics.
In this case, you're right. Texas and Nevada are divided by two large states and hundreds of miles of mountain and desert. They're not in the same region and have few important cultural ties. And most of the Texan population is concentrated in the state's less arid eastern half, which is even farther from Nevada.
3) Shared regional culture (especially New England, the South, and the Upper Midwest)
Right. I think a good ol' boy from TN would do better in Georgia than would someone like Charlie Christ from Florida. GA and FL are neighbors, but Charlie Christ sure as hell ain't no Georgia Bo...
To be clear, the candidate him/herself matters. (For that matter, other than the panhandle, Florida's not so Southern.)
Right. The ''neighboring state'' thing is meaningless because of the differences you can get within neighboring states. If the candidate matches the state's style, that's one thing, but simply being from a neighboring state isn't important on its own.
McCain won NH in '08 over Romney, who was a neighbor. NH likes their Mavericks.
Other factors often overwhelm regional advantages. But I wouldn't write them off as totally
uninfluential and irrelevant. (And NH's John McCain fetish is just weird.)
