It’s a little misleading since some of the governors on the list are no longer in office, but the Morning Consult ratings are out and there are some interesting findings. I am going to highlight two of them. First, the Republicans are far more polarizing than the Democrats. The ten most popular governors in America are all Republicans, but it’s also true that nine of the ten most unpopular governors are Republicans. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts is the best-liked governor we have, and now that Chris Christie has been replaced the least-liked governor is Democrat Dan Malloy of Connecticut. But Malloy is all alone among his party members in that distinction.
The second thing I want to emphasize is the regional strength of the GOP in New England and their comparative weakness in the upper Midwest. First, it’s notable that there are only two Democratic governors in New England and that they’re both disliked. Malloy is basically loathed, and Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island is the second most disliked Democratic governor in the country. She taking a 40%-47% approval rating into her reelection bid.
Meanwhile, the New England Republicans look like this:
Charlie Baker of Massachusetts- 69%-16%
Phil Scott of Vermont- 63%-21%
Chris Sununu of New Hampshire- 58%-22%
Paul LePage of Maine- 42%-53%
Obviously, the GOP is doing something right in this region and the Democrats, for all their strength in Congress, are doing something wrong.
But in the upper Midwest the story is different. Illinois’ Bruce Rauner is a dead man walking with a 31%-55% rating, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin isn’t looking too hot with his 43%-50% numbers. In Michigan, the people are done with Rick Snyder (37%-47%). You have to go to Indiana and Ohio to find a popular Republican governors in the region. Eric Holcomb who is brand new is getting a healthy 50%-24% and John Kasich, who’s on his way out, is rocking 52%-30% approvals. Meanwhile, the Democrats are fairly popular. Mark Dayton of Minnesota who isn’t seeking reelection gets 52%-33% approvals, and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania who is seeking reelection has a modestly positive 44%-38% rating. It’s likely that Wolf is only net positive because of the Mid-Atlantic portion of his state, though.
In any case, these numbers are curious. They really don’t correlate with the presidential election results very well at all. Trump did best in Maine among all New England states, for example, and yet that’s where the Republican governor is least popular. Trump won the upper Midwest states, but the Democrats are playing offense in the region right now, at least in the governors races.
At least things stay interesting, right?
Massachusetts has a long history of electing non-wingnut Republican governors with veto-proof Democratic legislatures. Baker is in this tradition. He would be a Democrat in most of the country.
Basically, the Democratic party is controlled by the legislative leaders and they don’t want a competing power center in the Governor’s office. Baker largely goes along with them, as did Romney, BTW, who became far more conservative after he left the office. Remember that he signed the model for the ACA.
Actually, the Mass. legislature goes along with Baker. They can override any veto they want. Their numbers are that large. They didn’t override any of his budget vetos, IIRC.
Basically, the Democratic party is controlled by the legislative leaders and they don’t want a competing power center in the Governor’s office.
This is certainly part of it, but also like NY they don’t want the pressure of having to pass progressive legislation.
What a crock of shit. Mass is the most liberal state in the country and it’s reflected in their policies.
Is that why Baker supports this:
That is from someone who lives in Massachusetts and follows things closely.
This is hyperbole to the point of parody.
I note you can’t refute anything I wrote.
There’s nothing to refute. Twitter dude is blowing up minor changes in funding levels as if they were some sort of serious crisis. MA post Baker budget is still the most progressive state in the union. A Republican governor shaving a little funding off here and there to make up a budget shortfall isn’t ideal but it’s hardly a serious attack on progressive priorities.
MA post Baker budget is still the most progressive state in the union. A Republican governor shaving a little funding off here and there to make up a budget shortfall isn’t ideal but it’s hardly a serious attack on progressive priorities.
Good thing you’re not using the MTA!! Shaving a little funding? You mean like austerity? Last I checked, the population of Massachusetts wasn’t declining. So a cut in funding is definitely a cut in services.
It’s the MBTA. Also called the T.
Once again displaying his broad and deep knowledge of Massachusetts, so much greater than that of us fools who’ve merely lived here all our lives.
He probably thinks Charlie just needs one more nickel.
The history of the T is so fascinating. I could write a library of books on the re-opening of the Greenbush line alone.
Needless to say the funding and operation of the MBTA is of keen interest to MA voters and politicians who fuck things up don’t tend to have a long tenure. For those who don’t know, “Charlie on the MTA” was originally written as a campaign song for mayoral progressive party candidate Walter O’Brien to protest the introduction of exit fares, back in 1949.
Ha! The year I was born!
Are you from MA? If so, speak up with details.
The little I read ( and it was not much) suggests the cuts were small and in response to tax revenues not being as high as expected. The governor said he would increase funding levels if the revenues improved. States, unlike the federal gov, need to balance spending and revenue to avoid excessive debt. I have no idea what the MA debt load is, which could make a difference.
There is another issue here that bears watching. Increased taxes could help alleviate any problem but with the new tax reform there is a cap on local taxes. That will work to inhibit state spending especially if inflation affects the costs of services. Trumper and the Kochs in action.
That’s funny because they pass a lot of progressive legislation.
The governor’s line item veto is actually handy. The legislature struggles to balance the budget, this way the Gov can get the blame for stuff constituents like but basically they can’t afford.
I’m the one person in Connecticut who isn’t related to Malloy who likes him. He’s been cleaning up all the messes that decades of shite governance have created. Pension funds, infrastructure projects, sketchy book-keeping.
But much of the popularity of Republican governors in New England is that they work closely with Democratic legislatures rather than engaging in sustained tantrums about “those people.” (This offer not valid in Maine.)
This is about America’s weird averse reaction to one-party rule as much as anything.
Yes, being governor of CT right now is a thankless job, basically. It really doesn’t have anything to do with Malloy.
I’ve only ever heard that sentiment expressed once. By a corporate attorney and that was the extent of his disclosure as to his political affiliation and public policy positions. Sounds so reasonable — but there’s no evidence that voters are that strategic. Plus, one party rule has long existed in many states and has increased over the past few elections. Those that aren’t strictly partisan default mostly to personality of the two major party candidates but generally rationalize it based on one or more simplistic differences that they can cite (guns, god, tough on crime, and tax cuts being perennial favorites).
MA voters were fine with Patrick and a Dem legislature. Brown and Baker were simply better candidates than Coakley. Brown later lost to Warren. Would Patrick have lost to Baker? Not likely.
Finally someone clear across the country posts a personal anecdote that refutes someone who lives in the state! No arguing that, it must be true! Why? Because someone said it!
.
An anecdote along with additional evidence/information that refutes the claim. Why don’t you present equally decent evidence to support the claim? Nah — why bother when mocking anything said by those you dislike is so much easier.
VT, NH, ME all have small aging populations that need the millenials to go home and have a talk with grandma/grandpa this Easter. Betcha, without medicare and medicaid everyone would be forced to go to Mass. for healthcare.
Eric Holcomb in IN replaced Mike Pence who was despised by people in Indiana. Being so close I know a lot of Republicans in IN and they thought Pence was a nutcase that was killing their state
There’s something of a news desert here in the Upper Peninsula but even with that I can’t remember the last time I heard anything about Rick Snyder. I’m almost surprised his approval is that high: he mostly seems to have vanished.
The dirty secret is the social and racial homogeneity of their respective state’s allow such governors like Mead, Hebert, and Sandoval to govern like New Deal-era centrist Democrats than modern Republicans.
None would even win the primary in larger, more heterogeneous, state.
Comparing Trump’s 2016 election results to current GOP governor’s popularity in the mid-Atlantic and Midwest doesn’t work very well just based on Booman’s own election analysis. First, MN didn’t go for Trump so that’s not relevant. Second, the swing to Trump in MI, WI and PA was quite small and only in certain rural counties (and, in the case of WI was enabled also by massive voter suppression in Milwaukee). IOW, analyzing the causes for state-level partisan politics is fine but comparing those trends to Trump’s “black swan” election doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Nobody seems to be mentioning the one common factor that contributes to the lack of consistency in this area.
It’s fucking cold. So cold that if you stand pants up in the front yard, they will freeze and be there until the April mud season. So god damn cold that the residents forget what it’s like to be warm outside and convince themselves that over 25 degree weather means it’s time to fire up the snowmobile and take a nice run up to the top of the mountain, where it’s ten below, and have a beer.
You cannot expect consistency in a place when you have to lift your car wipers up each night to prevent them from……..shit, I don’t even know what it prevents, but it must prevent something.
I gotta go, they say it’s going to drop all the way down to 50 tonight, and I have to bring my tortoise in.
.
prevents them freezing to the windshield and turning into big popsicles
Hogan in MD self-identifies as (R) but governs moderate (D). Ask about Trump and he responds, “Who?”
All politics is local. But some are more local than others.
I’m here to tell you guys that MA is NOT a particularly liberal state if you talk to the people who are here. What they are is empathetic, not braindead, and not cowards. As a result, you get “well shit, let the sumbitch try it. Who knows maybe it will work!” … said sumbitch being Kennedy, Warren, McGovern and so on. They also realize that NH is a failed state, Vermont a state of mind and Maine a state of being cold.
Massholes are proud of being willing to take care of those less fortunate. They identify with the radical progressives who stand up to the police (its called “moxie”) … even the police like them (at one time “Steal this Book” was required reading for the Worcester PD). And they DON’T FUCKING CARE what the rest of the country thinks.
MA Republicans are radical Alabama Democrats.
God, I love it here.
Spot. On.
* waves hello from Ipswich *
What this suggests to me is that Dems running against Repub incumbents in New England run against Trump and try to force their opponents to either defend or attack him. The first hurts them with centrist voters, and the second could bring a primary challenge from the right or an attack from Trump himself. For those running in 2018, need to start soon, so primary challengers can get off the ground. Motto;”A Republican is a Republican”.
Step one: I assume few of them have actually attacked Trump since the election. Why not?