How will Larry Hogan (R-MD) and Charlie Baker (R-MA) do as governors?

[sg0508]

Any early thoughts or inclinations? Hogan probably has a tougher go at it given that the GOP ceiling in MD is extremely low (maybe not higher than 52% in any election).  Ehrlich was respected in MD despite his conservative views; of course, some of those views, coupled with the 2006 landslide got him thrown out.  I don't pretend to know much about Charlie Baker, but hopefully he can work well with the Democratic legislature in a state that continues to support Republicans for governor.

Thoughts on these minority governors in very strong blue states?

[Kraxner]

Maryland legislative democrats are less bipartistan than Massachusetts legislative democrats since Massachusetts despite being a blue state had a four time streak of electing republicans as governors in the recent past.  Previously Ehrlich was the first republican to be elected in maryland since 1966.

The type of democrats in Maryland are usually activist liberal-progressive/socialist types for example Heather Mizeur and whatelse.  compared to those in Massachusetts who are more "legacy" democrats who are elected just for being democrats due to state history(but mi grandpops voted democrat so im voting democrat!!!) but are more flexible in giving the republican governor what they want. Governor Weld who was a prominent republican governor for most of the 90's in massachusetts was able to work a deal with democrats to cut taxes many times.

[free my dawg]

Massachusetts who are more "legacy" democrats who are elected just for being democrats due to state history(but mi grandpops voted democrat so im voting democrat!!!)

Do you know anything about Massachusetts politics? Honest question.

[Maxwell]

Very differently - I think Charlie Baker will probably do okay, even if a good deal of his policy initiatives never make it out of legislature. His campaign was based on making government more efficient, and he can probably do that from the Governors mansion.

Larry Hogan is a wildcard, but I think the Maryland legislature will be far harsher than the Massachusetts one will be.

[smoltchanov]

Very differently - I think Charlie Baker will probably do okay, even if a good deal of his policy initiatives never make it out of legislature. His campaign was based on making government more efficient, and he can probably do that from the Governors mansion.

Larry Hogan is a wildcard, but I think the Maryland legislature will be far harsher than the Massachusetts one will be.

+100. Exactly the same thoughts. In addition - almost all relatively conservative (and most moderates too) Maryland Democrats are gone after this year election, so Maryland really has "activist dominated" majority in legislature (against generally strongly conservative Republican minority - not only there are no "Charles Mathias'es", but no Costa's or Kittleman's too). Hogan is in substantially more difficult position then Baker....

[SWE]

Maryland legislative democrats are less bipartistan than Massachusetts legislative democrats since Massachusetts despite being a blue state had a four time streak of electing republicans as governors in the recent past.  Previously Ehrlich was the first republican to be elected in maryland since 1966.

The type of democrats in Maryland are usually activist liberal-progressive/socialist types for example Heather Mizeur and whatelse.  compared to those in Massachusetts who are more "legacy" democrats who are elected just for being democrats due to state history(but mi grandpops voted democrat so im voting democrat!!!) but are more flexible in giving the republican governor what they want. Governor Weld who was a prominent republican governor for most of the 90's in massachusetts was able to work a deal with democrats to cut taxes many times.

no

[Indy Texas]

Baker is going to be a bland, competent administrator in the vein of Paul Cellucci.

Larry Hogan, I fear, will attempt to Brownback Kansas ("If we just decimate the tax base, we'll create millions of jobs! Because Laffer Curve!") and possibly get mixed up in some nasty social issues-related legislation. Massachusetts Republicans are sane. Maryland Republicans at this point are basically a kooky, Southern-tinged bunch.

[Vosem]

Baker is going to be a bland, competent administrator in the vein of Paul Cellucci.

Larry Hogan, I fear, will attempt to Brownback Kansas ("If we just decimate the tax base, we'll create millions of jobs! Because Laffer Curve!") and possibly get mixed up in some nasty social issues-related legislation. Massachusetts Republicans are sane. Maryland Republicans at this point are basically a kooky, Southern-tinged bunch.

Hogan's father was a moderate Republican Congressman (the only Republican on the Judiciary Committee to vote for all articles of impeachment brought up against Richard Nixon), and Hogan came within single-digits of Steny Hoyer when running for the HoR in a deep-blue district. I think Hogan will be rather moderate.

[Kraxner]

Baker is going to be a bland, competent administrator in the vein of Paul Cellucci.

Larry Hogan, I fear, will attempt to Brownback Kansas ("If we just decimate the tax base, we'll create millions of jobs! Because Laffer Curve!") and possibly get mixed up in some nasty social issues-related legislation. Massachusetts Republicans are sane. Maryland Republicans at this point are basically a kooky, Southern-tinged bunch.

Larry Hogan made it out from a long time ago that he would not touch social issues, agreed with gay marriage and after being elected actually said he would not push to repeal the gun control laws that many in the Appalachia and Chesapeake rural sections of the state gave him huge margins in hope he would repeal. Which caused a lot of upset.

 The real coming fight between him and the democrat controlled state legislature is over spending+taxation. One of his main election points was that he would push to repeal the rain tax and promised to veto budgets as long as the legislative democrats did not agree to cut taxes and spending.

[Panda Express]

Honestly, governors in deep red/blue states of the opposite party seem to end up being quite popular. They're constrained by the state legislature from doing anything too radical and more or less are forced to work with them. Brad Henry, Dave Fruedenthal, Kathleen Sebelius, Jodi Rell, Mike Beebe etc were all popular.

[Free Bird]

Honestly, governors in deep red/blue states of the opposite party seem to end up being quite popular. They're constrained by the state legislature from doing anything too radical and more or less are forced to work with them. Brad Henry, Dave Fruedenthal, Kathleen Sebelius, Jodi Rell, Mike Beebe etc were all popular.

Basically this. Dock on Beshear and Schweitzer, too

[Brittain33]

Honestly, governors in deep red/blue states of the opposite party seem to end up being quite popular. They're constrained by the state legislature from doing anything too radical and more or less are forced to work with them. Brad Henry, Dave Fruedenthal, Kathleen Sebelius, Jodi Rell, Mike Beebe etc were all popular.

Yep. Charlie Baker disowned the national GOP before the election and talks like an open-minded technocrat. He'll do fine and probably win reelection easily in 2018.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Honestly, governors in deep red/blue states of the opposite party seem to end up being quite popular. They're constrained by the state legislature from doing anything too radical and more or less are forced to work with them. Brad Henry, Dave Fruedenthal, Kathleen Sebelius, Jodi Rell, Mike Beebe etc were all popular.

This is why I think that Hogan, Baker, and Rauner will all stay relatively popular.

[Sol]

Baker will prolly be the next William Weld.

Hogan will likely be ousted in 2018--MD is not really a state with a high tolerance for Republicans of any sort, and is pretty inelastic. I suspect his anti-transit positions will cost him a lot of votes in Montgomery County, at the very least. Democrats would still be smart to run a candidate from Baltimore County against him though; his victory this year was mostly due to anti-urbanist fervor in suburban Baltimore--a fervor which I expect probably was linked to race.

[they don't love you like i love you]

From what I heard Brown's defeat was due to a horrible campaign that included campaigning on abortion and gun control, two issues that everyone knows Hogan can do nothing about.

[MATTROSE94]

Basically, nothing will really change and they'll probably be re-elected in 2018.

Rauner, on the other hand, is the next Tom Corbett.

Pretty much this^ I also think that Charlie Baker might run for Senate in 2020 against Ed Markey and Larry Hogan might run for Senate in 2022.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Baker can do all right, as long as he doesn't pull Romney, who flipped on everything and left in order to run for President. Massachusetts seems to approve socially liberal, economically conservative Republican Governors (remember Weld and Cellucci).

As of Hogan, I know too little about Maryland politics to make a call. Though sometimes I'm under the impression Maryland is even more partisan Democratic state than Massachusetts actually is. They had Democratic Governors ever since 1969, except of Ehrlich's single term, which was more of a fluke than anything else.

[warandwar]

If Hogan's luck continues, he'll lose for sure in 2018. Some things aren't his fault: I'm sure he would prefer this whole Robin Frazier thing hadn't happened. But he has no reason to go out and say things like that he sees "no jobs" in Baltimore, he sees no money for MoCo schools or PG hospitals. Or go out and complain about the budget gap, which is smaller than it was when both Ehrlich and O'Malley started their 1st terms. And on top of all that, he refuses to talk about policy until he's inaugurated. Things like this make you wonder if he has any political sense at all.

[The Other Castro]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

[warandwar]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

[Skill and Chance]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

Actually I daresay the right "type" of Republican could win in Maryland in a great Republican Presidential year.

That would be a sign of a realignment if it happened.  Maybe if Rand Paul was running and lost MD by only 5%.  Otherwise, I just can't see it.  Maryland is way too urban to do the split ticket Senate thing.

[The Other Castro]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

I did mix up Mikulski and Cardin, so my mistake on that part, and I did mean 2018. Of course being the incumbent governor would help him some if he were to run for reelection, but it might not be enough. I would think that a senate race would become more subject to national waves (say, a republican wave in 2018) than a gubernatorial one, and having experience as a governor in a state would definitely be an advantage in running for a senate race in that state. Maryland in a midterm year could very plausibly elect a Republican senator given the right candidate, and a governor would be a strong one. For example, Delaware in 2010 would've probably gone Republican in the senate race had Mike Castle won in the primary.

[warandwar]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

I did mix up Mikulski and Cardin, so my mistake on that part, and I did mean 2018. Of course being the incumbent governor would help him some if he were to run for reelection, but it might not be enough. I would think that a senate race would become more subject to national waves (say, a republican wave in 2018) than a gubernatorial one, and having experience as a governor in a state would definitely be an advantage in running for a senate race in that state. Maryland in a midterm year could very plausibly elect a Republican senator given the right candidate, and a governor would be a strong one. For example, Delaware in 2010 would've probably gone Republican in the senate race had Mike Castle won in the primary.

Maryland isn't that affected by national waves, for example, O'Malley's margin in 2010 was larger than in 2006. The governor's race this year had very little to do with national themes of 2014. My opinion is that the things Republicans are running on recently (low government, for example) aren't as effective in Maryland (in this case, because of the large amount of gov't employees and contractors).

I'm not sure I see Rand Paul as the best Republican for Maryland. Don't think his policies would play well with Maryland, with our large population of people who do some work with the federal gov't.

[warandwar]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

Actually I daresay the right "type" of Republican could win in Maryland in a great Republican Presidential year.

That would be a sign of a realignment if it happened.  Maybe if Rand Paul was running and lost MD by only 5%.  Otherwise, I just can't see it.  Maryland is way too urban to do the split ticket Senate thing.

I meant as a Senator, not Presidential election. Also I had meant to say the person would most likely be an incumbent Senator.

I didn't mean to say a hypothetically perfect Republican would never win Maryland. I meant in reality, in Earth-616, there are 0 Republicans in Maryland who could a: get elected to the Senate in a midterm and then b: win reelection.

[Bojack Horseman]

They'll probably both do fine. The reason: they both have Democratic Legislatures. For some reason, Democrats always work with Republican executives, whereas a Democratic governor with a Republican legislature will never get anything done because Republicans refuse to do anything so they can call him/her a do-nothing governor.

Baker may be re-elected, but I think Hogan and especially Rauner are completely cooked in terms of their re-election chances.