how come presidents can't amass the popularity of governors

[freepcrusher]

it seems that for gubernatorial offices, a governor, even if of another party that the state normally votes, can achieve immense popularity and wins by margins upward of 65-70 percent. Same thing goes for senator (although to less of an extent).

Could there ever be a presidential equivalent of Phil Bredeson or Chris Christie - someone who can win with solid support, even from those who normally vote the other way?

[pbrower2a]

it seems that for gubernatorial offices, a governor, even if of another party that the state normally votes, can achieve immense popularity and wins by margins upward of 65-70 percent. Same thing goes for senator (although to less of an extent).

Could there ever be a presidential equivalent of Bill Haslam or Chris Christie - someone who can win with solid support, even from those who normally vote the other way?

States can be more monolithic in their population, and a Governor who could be extremely popular in his state might not be so popular nationwide. Jon Huntsman was extremely popular in Utah, but that could not make him a successful candidate nationwide. James DeMint is very popular among white people in South Carolina (which is enough to win big) but he would not be so popular in any part of the US except the South.

America has huge cultural divides, and political techniques that work in West Virginia do not work in very-different Virginia.

[nclib]

Huntsman and DeMint aren't really good examples due to their states' partisan makeup, but as far as people like Freudenthal, Douglas, Henry, etc., perhaps the Governor's role is less ideological and in states like dominated by the opposite party, the governor wouldn't be able to impose his/her ideology with vetoes overridden, etc.

[Gunnar Larsson]

Also remember that you have 50x as many elections and therefore more opportunity to have odd results.

[DC Al Fine]

America has huge cultural divides, and political techniques that work in West Virginia do not work in very-different Virginia.

This. America is not monolith, while many states are.

[Sol]

Also, being President, by its very nature, is a pretty partisan job, so it's hard to get a lot of crossover appeal.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

MSNBC and FNC don't bash governors of the opposite party nearly as much as they do the President.  The media outlets have a significant influence on peoples' politics.

[Smid]

America has huge cultural divides, and political techniques that work in West Virginia do not work in very-different Virginia.

This. America is not monolith, while many states are.

Exactly - the cultural diversity across the country is far greater than the cultural diversity within any single state.

[Nichlemn]

America has huge cultural divides, and political techniques that work in West Virginia do not work in very-different Virginia.

This. America is not monolith, while many states are.

Exactly - the cultural diversity across the country is far greater than the cultural diversity within any single state.

Is this really true, or are we just biased to think that bigger = more diverse? New York, for instance, is probably more diverse than the US if you're looking at divisions of proportionate size.

[Mister Mets]

it seems that for gubernatorial offices, a governor, even if of another party that the state normally votes, can achieve immense popularity and wins by margins upward of 65-70 percent. Same thing goes for senator (although to less of an extent).

Could there ever be a presidential equivalent of Bill Haslam or Chris Christie - someone who can win with solid support, even from those who normally vote the other way?

States can be more monolithic in their population, and a Governor who could be extremely popular in his state might not be so popular nationwide. Jon Huntsman was extremely popular in Utah, but that could not make him a successful candidate nationwide. James DeMint is very popular among white people in South Carolina (which is enough to win big) but he would not be so popular in any part of the US except the South.

America has huge cultural divides, and political techniques that work in West Virginia do not work in very-different Virginia.

You do have Governors who are very popular in states in which their party isn't very strong.

Governors Mike Beebe of Arkansas and Chris Christie of New Jersey come to mind.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Most state legislatures have given the governor line item veto. So, on some level there must be a certain level of trust between the two parties. Partisanship stop at door when it comes to discreationary spending.

[pbrower2a]

America has huge cultural divides, and political techniques that work in West Virginia do not work in very-different Virginia.

This. America is not monolith, while many states are.

Exactly - the cultural diversity across the country is far greater than the cultural diversity within any single state.

Is this really true, or are we just biased to think that bigger = more diverse? New York, for instance, is probably more diverse than the US if you're looking at divisions of proportionate size.

Cities are generally more diverse than rural areas. Thus a city like Providence RI or Concord NH can have considerable diversity.

Do you remember Sarah Palin's "Real America" speech in Chillicothe, Ohio? Delivered with apparent impunity about 50 miles from the "Sodom and Gomorrah" that rustics think Columbus is, it praised the traditional values of rural America while castigating urban differences from a 'wholesome' America. Urban and suburban Americans don't want to be reminded that they are a bunch of perverts and freaks, especially if they aren't perverts and freaks.

Chillicothe is (1) within the Columbus, Ohio TV market; considering what she was running for, (2) it is also within the zone of coverage of the TV and radio news coverage of Columbus, Ohio.  Her spiel went nationwide. Maybe if she had seen the stylized numbers "4", "6", and "10" on the microphones and asked what city those microphones lead to she would have never made such a speech, or at least toned it down. It didn't play well in Columbus or in any other large American city.   

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Don't you mean, "how come President Obama can't amass the unpopularity of governors"?

[pbrower2a]

Don't you mean, "how come President Obama can't amass the unpopularity of governors"?

Getting elected Governor of some states is fairly easy if one is the pick of some powerful machine. One says the right things to urban crowds or to special interests, and one gets elected. Governors so elected may well fit the political culture of a State, get along well, not stir up problems, and get their political careers set in stone. They might be hacks, but they are the right hacks.

Governors who enter office with a desire to make sweeping reforms (not all reforms are good -- just ask about Rick Scott and Rick Snyder) step on well-entrenched special interests and those special interests bite back. Those with a missionary desire to reshape the political climate of their states discover to their surprise that the people don't want their values changed.  

Some are just simply incompetent (Brownback, R-KS). Some get caught in an economic downturn that makes governing a difficult process of imposing budgetary cutbacks even upon supporters. Some who stick around long enough (Perry, R-TX) find that voters increasingly notice their deficiencies. Some (Corzine, D-NJ) fall far short of their promises. Some (Blagojevich, Crook-IL; Sanford, AWOL-SC) do something so egregious that they become laughing stocks or jailbirds.  

Were I to give advice to a Governor, I would say

1.  Act in accordance with the Cook PVI of the State.  
2.  Don't sell out to out-of-state interests.
3.  Ignore ideological think tanks.
4.  Act with integrity.
5.  Don't use inflammatory rhetoric about opposing interests.
6.  Quit while you are ahead.
7.  Don't try to change the political climate of the state.

No particular order here.

 

[Del Tachi]

I would have to say that the media plays the largest role here.

Very few statewide media outlets exist, so governors are likely to escape a lot of criticism because the opposing party often has no megaphone for it. 

Your cable and network news stations tend to only focus on national stories while local media focuses on local issues, statewide perspectives are often left out.   

[old timey villain]

I would have to say that the media plays the largest role here.

Very few statewide media outlets exist, so governors are likely to escape a lot of criticism because the opposing party often has no megaphone for it. 

Your cable and network news stations tend to only focus on national stories while local media focuses on local issues, statewide perspectives are often left out.   

So does this prove how ignorant most people are about politics? Do people really need to be primed by media outlets to like or dislike their elected officials?

[Indy Texas]

1.  Act in accordance with the Cook PVI of the State.  
2.  Don't sell out to out-of-state interests.
3.  Ignore ideological think tanks.
4.  Act with integrity.
5.  Don't use inflammatory rhetoric about opposing interests.
6.  Quit while you are ahead.
7.  Don't try to change the political climate of the state.

Rick Perry has violated most of these and still managed to run Texas for longer than Khrushchev ran the Kremlin. He tried to railroad a major infrastructure project through the Legislature in the early 2000s that would have awarded contracts to a Spanish construction firm; that and his insistence on everyone's daughters getting vaccinated for HPV after Merck persuaded him suggest Perry will sell out to anyone's interest, in or out of state. Ignore ideological think tanks? There is Michael Quinn Sullivan, Texas's version of Grover Norquist; and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, sometimes derisively called the Texas Perry Policy Foundation.
Integrity? Toned down rhetoric? Quitting while ahead? Nothing Perry has done since 2011 or so is indicative of any of this.
As for the last rule, I think the jury's out on whether Perry has tried to change the political climate of Texas or if his behavior is more a reaction to it. Ultimately, Perry's main goal has always been to remain in office and accrue favors for as long as possible. I don't think he has any particular ideology or philosophy driving anything he does, and he's certainly not cerebral enough to be a conservative policy wonk like Bobby Jindal or Paul Ryan. If the Tea Party had never come into existence, he would have probably muddled along for one more term, offering up a combination of watered-down Bush Republicanism and crony capitalism with none of the posturing or national attention-whoring. He would have retired in 2011 and been succeeded by Kay Bailey Hutchison, never to be heard from again.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Presidents are more prominent than Governors, and are thus subject to greater opportunities for criticism.

[Del Tachi]

I would have to say that the media plays the largest role here.

Very few statewide media outlets exist, so governors are likely to escape a lot of criticism because the opposing party often has no megaphone for it. 

Your cable and network news stations tend to only focus on national stories while local media focuses on local issues, statewide perspectives are often left out.   

So does this prove how ignorant most people are about politics? Do people really need to be primed by media outlets to like or dislike their elected officials?

If it wasn't for media outlets most people would not have the information available to form informed opinions of elected officials.  That being said, very few statewide media outlets exist so the electorate is exposed to considerably less information about state politics than they are national or local politics.

So, when asked about the performance of state officials, I think many people (even if they know very little about the governor's opinions or politics) are inclined to say that they "approve" only because they feel comfortable at the moment.

[pbrower2a]

1.  Act in accordance with the Cook PVI of the State.  
2.  Don't sell out to out-of-state interests.
3.  Ignore ideological think tanks.
4.  Act with integrity.
5.  Don't use inflammatory rhetoric about opposing interests.
6.  Quit while you are ahead.
7.  Don't try to change the political climate of the state.

Rick Perry has violated most of these and still managed to run Texas for longer than Khrushchev ran the Kremlin. He tried to railroad a major infrastructure project through the Legislature in the early 2000s that would have awarded contracts to a Spanish construction firm; that and his insistence on everyone's daughters getting vaccinated for HPV after Merck persuaded him suggest Perry will sell out to anyone's interest, in or out of state. Ignore ideological think tanks? There is Michael Quinn Sullivan, Texas's version of Grover Norquist; and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, sometimes derisively called the Texas Perry Policy Foundation.

Khrushchev was not freely elected, and he did not lose power as the result of any free election.

Perry has gotten away with such stuff because the Democratic Party is a wreck in Texas. Texas is a plutocracy, and Perry obeys what counts.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perry has a machine behind him, and machine hacks don't have to be astute pols. They just have to be puppets. Of course if Democrats can put up a strong challenge, Perry is done.

[DS0816]

it seems that for gubernatorial offices, a governor, even if of another party that the state normally votes, can achieve immense popularity and wins by margins upward of 65-70 percent. Same thing goes for senator (although to less of an extent).

Could there ever be a presidential equivalent of Phil Bredeson or Chris Christie - someone who can win with solid support, even from those who normally vote the other way?

Interesting.

Have you thought about more?

[Mister Mets]

It's still an interesting question.

Maybe a President just has to crack the code.

But it could also be that factors that make it possible to be popular in a state don't apply to the nation. Presidents deal with more problems, and with greater diversity of constituents. The presidency is also significant enough that there will always be prominent opposition leaders, including potential rivals and the other prominent figures in the other party. Voters might also be persuaded that state legislatures can keep Governors in line, whereas there isn't that perception with Presidents and Congress (especially with Congressional control flipping recently) something that allows for Republican wins in Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts.

It is interesting to compare presidential elections to large states. And recently, parties have usually done about as well in both. Romney wins Texas by nealry 16 points. Abbott overperforms a bit against weaker opposition with a midterm electorate. Romney lost Florida narrowly, and Scott won Florida narrowly. Republican candidates in California and New York broke 40 percent in states Obama won by more than twenty points.