Morning Consult has updated their popularity ratings for the nation’s fifty governors. Some of the results aren’t too surprising. The least popular governor in the country is Chris Christie of New Jersey. He’s followed by Connecticut governor, Dan Malloy. Also trailing the pack are Republican governors Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas, and Bruce Rauner of Illinois.
What’s less predictable is the profile of the most popular governors.
The two most best-rated are Larry Hogan of Maryland and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. Not far behind them are Phil Scott and Chris Sununu of Vermont and New Hampshire, respectively.
What they all have in common is that they are Republicans serving their first term in states Hillary Clinton won. In fact, Vermont, Maryland, and Massachusetts were some of her strongest states.
There are other Republican governors near the top of the popularity list, like Asa Hutchison of Arkansas, Kay Ivey of Alabama, and Doug Burgum of North Dakota, but they all serve states that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.
So, we’re living in a time when being a fairly moderate Republican can be extremely popular, but you’d never know it by the way the Republicans in Washington DC are behaving. Our Republican U.S. Senators and Representatives are terrified of crossing Trump and his supporters, and moderates are retiring and looking for the exits.
I guess this says something about how perverse our national politics have become, perhaps through a combination of factors including the gerrymandering of House districts.
But you can still be a moderate Republican, and a wildly popular politician, as long as you do it in a blue state and stay far away from our nation’s capital.
Sometimes I really hate Democrats.
It’s because too many Democrats try to be moderate Republicans, rather than distinguishing themselves as Democrats. They have fealty to their tradtional base anymore and don’t serve.
Hence, why bother to vote for mealy-mouthed Democrat who doesn’t mean what they say, really, when you might as well go ahead and vote for moderate Republican?
Unless or until Democratic pols start running and governing as FDR style Democrats, we’re just going to see more of this. Sadly the Oligarchs won’t pay for FDR style Democrats.
I grew up in PA (Pittsburgh) when Republican governors like Bill Scranton and Ray Shafer were basically liberal to moderate governors that did a lot of good things, actually. That ended a long time ago, of course. The popular GOP governors in blue states would be totally unacceptable to the majority electorate of any typical red state.
Hogan is my governor. Basically, he won mainly because the Democratic candidate was very weak and Hogan wasn’t a professional politician so he wasn’t identified with the hard conservative GOP. However, he has continually resisted assembly measures on public transportation and others because it doesn’t benefit his rural base. But, probably like Baker, he really can’t wander very far from a fiscally moderate position in MD and certainly not on social issues.
Add the New Mexico gov to that list. What most of these govs have in common is an inability to pass a budget. When they do it is immediately challenged in court. None have the necessary leadership skills needed to be governor.
Is the NM Governor popular any more? I thought her popularity took a nosedive recently.
She is incredibly unpopular. Her initial election had more to do with the particular ethnic make-up of the state. Also, she was running against Diane Denish who was Bill Richardson’s Lt. Governor. Richardson was also pretty unpopular at the end of his tenure (and under investigation). So the two things combined allowed Martinez to win. She ran again in 2014 against a lackluster son of a former popular governor.
In 2018 the Republican candidate will be Steve Pearce. The most likely Democratic candidate (though there will be a primary in June) is Michele Lujan Grisham who now represents CD-1 (Albuquerque) in the House of Representatives. It’s a governorship the Dems should win, but the oil and gas money that Pearce will have will be hard to combat.
The two most best-rated are Larry Hogan of Maryland and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts.
Because the Democrats in the legislature in both states try to work with these two clowns. In fact, I’d wager the Democratic elite in both states like it that way so they don’t have to pass anything the DFH’s like.
See NY Legislature for an example
LOL. Always amusing to see someone pontificate about Massachusetts politics who clearly doesn’t know bupkis about the topic.
I know because I follow, and talk to, people who live there. People who are actively involved in Massachusetts politics. So laugh all you want. If you think you know so much, surely you’ll regal us with your wisdom.
It’s quite obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about. But if you want to keep digging, what do you think the Democrats in Mass legislature should be doing?
LOL
Have I not been regal in my responses?
Regal’s not a verb!
This is an interesting point that Martin makes. Where there is no gerrymandering (ie., statewide races) the public is open to moderates of either party. And governing in a moderate way can keep people popular. This should bode well for upcoming Senate races in many places.
Do Republican states ever elect moderate Dems? Or is the ‘public’ that is open to moderates of either party comprised entirely of Democrats?
North Dakota, Missouri, etc. The races have to be statewide.
Neither North Dakota nor Missouri have D governors.
Oh! I didn’t say ‘governor.’ I thought I had. Oops!
Senators.
Wasn’t the previous KY guv a D? The one who shepherded through KyNect, the unknown Obamacare? Also there was that D MT guv Schweitzer. I assume one could hunt for others.
But I think your point stands–D stooges in Blue states are the main consumers of the “moderate Repub” product, haha.
Arkansas’ governor may find his support is softer than he would like. He was something of a Trump critic initially, and I would imagine the neo-Confederate crowd in that state have not forgotten. He also has an apparent primary challenger next spring, and that challenger is truly an extremist. Could be interesting times. No idea if the Democratic Party is even remotely in a position to put up a viable candidate for Governor or the other state-wide offices, especially since the party is only in the very beginning stages of a rebuilding process after collapsing at the start of the decade.
I don’t know anything about any of these people, but… is there a chance personal charisma plays a role in their success?
I also pick up hints that some of these Republican candidate were relative unknowns – there is an anti-establishment vector around.
In Massachusetts, for Baker, it definitely played a role among a number of other factors, not least of which was his opponent:
Martha Coakley.
That applies to his election, of course; low-key charisma also applies to his governorship, along with a host of other reasons.
Rauner’s opponent wasn’t a very good politician even if he was a fairly competent governor. Quinn also wasn’t liked by the Democratic politicians in the state, they felt like he skipped over some rungs to get to governor.
Combined that with Rauner and his buddies pour tons of their own money in the race and we lost a close one
Yet another example of why it’s often fallacious to try to cram state races into some simplified overarching analysis of national politics; there are state-specific factors that have little or nothing to do with what’s going on nationally and they can overwhelm whatever national trends are at work.
right, I think you have to combine the two and have a good feel for which will be the bigger influence in any given election
Yup. And you can still be blindsided by factors you didn’t even know were at work till they surface in the after-analysis.