Talk Elections

New York and Massachusetts, states which voted over 60% for Gore, have Republican governors. Mississippi elected a Democratic governor in '99, then went on to vote 58% for Gore. (All according to the main site, of course.) What's going on here?

Local politics.

I wouldn't call it "wrong" at all!!! - its one of the more refreshing aspects of politics today.  There isn't a single state in the union that is completely within the domain of one party.  Even Idaho has a statewide Dem elected official.

That means we have more competition and competition produces better government and more choices for voters.

Also all of the "wrong" Governors tend to be more moderate than their national party counterparts.  If Mitt Romney were the face of the national GOP and Brad Henry were the face of the national Dems... you'd probably see more competition for federal offices in those respective states.

wrong party governor, BOB HOlden Dem of Missouri, even his own party thinks he stinks and will challenge him in the primary.  If he is around for the general electiona  strong anti-holden vote could help Pres Bush as well.

htmldon - isn't Utah completely in the domain of the Republicans?

More interesting than "wrong party" governors would be wrong party senators, since the party ID of senators are actually important in the national balance of power. Obviously local politics is going on here as well-- but given a gap in ideology between the parties, do you see this breed as especially vulnerable in the long run?

Republican - 13

Plains - 6
Conrad, Kent (D) - North Dakota
Dorgan, Byron L. (D) - North Dakota
Johnson, Tim (D) - South Dakota
Daschle, Tom (D) - South Dakota
Baucus, Max (D) - Montana
Nelson, Ben (D) - Nebraska

South - 6
Edwards, John (D) - North Carolina
Hollings, Fritz (D) - South Carolina
Breaux, John (D) - Louisiana
Landrieu, Mary L. (D) - Louisiana
Lincoln, Blanche (D) - Arkansas
Miller, Zell (D) - Georgia

Midwest - 1
Bayh, Evan (D) - Indiana

Democrat - 10

Northeast - 6
Collins, Susan (R) - Maine
Snowe, Olympia J. (R) - Maine
Jeffords, Jim (I) - Vermont
Chafee, Lincoln D. (R) - Rhode Island
Santorum, Rick (R) - Pennsylvania
Specter, Arlen (R) - Pennsylvania

Midwest - 2
Coleman, Norm (R) - Minnesota
Fitzgerald, Peter (R) - Illinois

West - 2
Domenici, Pete V. (R) - New Mexico
Smith, Gordon H. (R) - Oregon

Beet- well some of those senators will change and others the states could be changing.

One could argue Nelson of NE is essentially a GOP; many in your south list will become GOP next year; even though Gore won PA, until Rendell won there it was all GOP so having 2 senators that are GOP is not unusual-battleground state in 2004; West states you mention are not dominant Dem states just slightly so.

Dakotas laugh and say we send the money grubbers to DC to get us much as we can and then let the GOP conservatives manage it on the state level.

Utah has all-Republican statewide EO's but a Democrat congressman and will probably have a competitive Gubenatorial election.

Dems in Utah have done decent with Gov races, I believe it was 64-84 they held Gov mansion.

Pretty amazing, when you think about it, that the Dems held onto the Utah governorship in 1980 even though they lost the presidential race in Utah 73-21 percent that year!

   The Democrats were quite competitive in local Utah elections up till the 80s. The populist William Jennings Bryan style Democrats held sawy among many rural and small town voters in Utah for quite a long time.

  As for PA, I would not consider it a Northeastren State, despite its location. Even the area that Gore did best in, Philadelphia, does not share the zeal for social liberalism that the rest of the area has, also the Philadelphia metro area is the biggest metro area to have the least amount of demographic changes in the last 20 years. Excellent Democratic GOTV efforts in the Philadelphia area combined with Bush DUI stink in the weekend before election drove up Gore performance there.

You mean Bruce Perry?  I campaigned for him a bit.  I'm gald someone else doesn't like the "Prince of Darkness" Jim Risch.

I was so disappointed that Brady lost (02 D-ID gubernatorial nominee).  Everyone I talk to doesn't think much of Kempthorne.  Must just be that R next to his name.

Right, I new who you were talking about.  Don't you think it's interesting that Tom Luna, the only statewide Republican to lose in 2002 was sgiven an appointed position this year by Kempthorne?

Happens all the time on both sides on the federal level.  

Thus AMBASSADOR Braun after she lost in 1998 Senate race on Dem Side and Energy Sec Spencer Abraham after his 2000 Senate loss in MI on GOP side to just name a couple examples.

And John Ashcroft in Missouri, after losing his Senate race in 2000.
Yeah, it is kind of ironic in a way that losing an election can actually make you more powerful. Bush probably wouldn't have chosen Ashcroft or Abraham for his cabinet if they had won reelection, especially Ashcroft since Missouri has a Dem governor so he would've been handing the seat to the Dems. Likewise Clinton probably wouldn't have appointed Moseley-Braun since with a GOP governor he'd be giving away a Senate seat as well.

LOL good point. I dont know which position Ashcroft prefers but he certainly has more power now.
About Braun I think its safe to say she would consider Ambassador to NEW ZEALAND a second choice to United States senator ;D

PS. No offence to NZ- wouldnt be smart on my part, I'll be reaching there in a few weeks. :D

Vote (Helen) Clark! :)

Heck, they are a friendly country but not so much so that they let tourists vote :D

What do you mean by vulnerable?  If politicians adapt, they can last a while.  Zell Miller is a great at it.  You make the race about you. You get the voters to ignore the party label. You have to have a great political ear.

I object to putting Coleman on this list. I am of the belief that MN is really heading toward a realignment.

I'm not disagreeing with you in asking this question, but how did socialist MN go over to the Republicans?

A GOP governor just came to power in 2002, elected a new US SEnator (GOP) ousted a DEm Congressman that was very liberal, Bill Luther in 2002 for GOP, then GOP moved to within 34-31 in state senate, closest in years, and enhanced their hold on the House to a good size margin.  The Twin City suburbs voted overwhelmingly for GOP and contained a lot of votes.

just a few examples.

Plus in 2000, untilt he last week it was stilla tossup.  This is remarkable as Bush wrote it off and hardly campaigned at all or spent any money there.

You have to remember, though, that Nader did pretty good there, Bush only got 45% if I'm not mistaken.

Also, I think the question was more about why voters changed their minds, than the technical aspects of which offices the GOP took over... ;)

But I could be wrong, it feels kind of arrogant to explain other people's intentions, but I suppose I'm a busy body... ;)

45% ina  state where Bush didn'thardly campaign is not bad at all.  Not that much to get over the top if he campaigns there and he will.

That's exactly what I was referring to.  How did MN go from a Massachusetts to a swing state, since they voted Dem in every election from 1960 to now, except for Nixon's landslide in 1972?

Hah! Once again, I read someone's mind, lol :) ;)

Well one the parties shifted their policies.  Dems seem to care a lot more about the elite ideas than as they were seen for years as a party of the labor unions.  Unions are still there, but they don't seem to be the focus of the party.

Plus some migration has been happening here.  A number of factors really.

Also Minnesota never really gave the Dems the huge wins they get in Massachusetts.
In 1980 and 1984 it only went Dem because of Mondale.
The state has always had an independent streak anyways.

Ashcroft wanted to be the only Missouri politician to serve two terms as state AG, two terms as governor and two terms as senator.  I guess it's possible he could still do it, but he's said that he's done with elected office now.

My guess is that Bush would have chosen Racicot even though the right wasn't crazy about him. Hatch or Hyde would have been another two options, I guess.

Abraham wouldn't have been in the Cabinet either. The state needed a GOP figure like him to act as a foundation should they lose the governorship, which they did.

In addition to what's been said, The MNGOP also picked up the state auditor's office in addition to the 15 legislature seats. And, MN had the highest voter turnout of the states last year-- 60.65%-- so these results are likely more similar to how the state will vote in a high-turnout presidential race. Last year, 78% of independent Twin City suburban voters voted GOP. Dem strength in the state senate has fallen 7 seats since 1998.  Also, these Republicans are much more conservative as a group than the ones from the 90s (more pro-life, more anti-tax).

Well, Clinton did do it with Lloyd Bentsen, giving away a Senate seat to the Republicans.

I'll make a list:

Arizona- Janet Napoliotano (D)
California- Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
Connecticut- Whoever Replaced Rowland (R)
Hawaii- Linda Lingle (R)
Indiana- Whoever Replace O'Bannon (is it Kernan)?  (D)
Kansas- Kathleen Sebelius (D)
Louisiana- Kathleen Banineaux Blanco (D)
Maryland- Robert Elrich (R)
Massachuetts- Mitt Romney (R)
Minnesota- Tim Pawlenty (R)
Missouri- Bob Holden (D)
New York- george pataki (r)
North Carolina- Mike Easley (D)

More later

It's a combination of local politics, and the fact that a Republican in New York is not the same as a Republican in Texas.  A Democrat in Georgia is not the same as a Democrat in Massachusetts.  There are regional variations within the parties.  The two major parties are basically national alliances of several factions.

Democrats run the wide gamut from the near democratic-socialist left (Dennis Kucinich) and traditional liberals (Hillary Clinton) to the center-right (Joe Lieberman).

Republicans also consist of several factions: Traditional Conservatives (George W. Bush), the Religious Right (Trent Lott), the old Nixon/Rockefeller "centrist" or "moderate" wing (George Pataki), and Libertarians (Ron Paul).

You got almost everyline from that post from politics1.

But still, you gotta downright explain to me how Joe Lieberman is center-right!

Yes, I most certainly did.  They put it quite well enough.  And Lieberman is rather conservative, pushing for censorship laws and such.

Yes but look at his views on aborition, affirmative action, taxes...he's not the conservative Dem that people make him out to be.

Those are what make him a Dem in the first place.

Lieberman is just an example of typical interventionist politics.  The government should do something here, and there, and over there, and more here, and another law here, throw more spending here, etc.  The difference between him and the common title "populist" is that Lieberman appeals to middle class interventionists and the conventional "populists" prefer a more working class interventionism - which is usually a much more involved brand (both socially and economically).  I'd say center-right isn't a horrible definition, but on social views, yeah, he's not moderate at all - he's pro partial-birth abortion, not just pro-choice.


You've got two huge big tents, that's how they hold power across such a diverse country.  We have more than 100 million voters, they're gonna want different things.  But ultimately if a Utah Democrat (hah) or Massachusetts Republican ran for office, they'd be too weird a fit for their own parties.

I quite like the idea of vote splitting. Monopolies are invariable bad news, they just lead to corruption and stagnation.
I always split my vote, Labour in general elections, anyone but Labour in local elections.

I believe you mean Mississippi went 58% for Bush ;)

As for Mississippi having a Democrat governor: a Mississippi Democrat politician is not your average national Democrat politician. Mississippi Democrats are a lot more conservative.

Lieberman is a foreign issue moderate but is a liberal on social and economic liberal.

No, because Texas had a Democratic Governor at the time who appointed a Democrat to the seat. The GOP did go on to win the Special Election for the seat, but Clinton had no way of knowing at the time that they would.

Yeah. Bensen became secretary of the treasury in what 1993?

W didn't win the governorship until Nov 1994...

Ann Richards (D) appointed his replacement.

Contrary to what you just said Philadelphia is socially liberal.  Maybe not as much as NYC or Boston, but still FAR greater than the rest of PA where abortion is very unpopular and guns are popular.

I agree. We are the most liberal part of the state (unfortunatley) but we are no San Fransisco.

In conservative areas Democrats run to the right of the presidential nominee (and Republicans in liberal areas run to the left of the nominee), so "wrong-party governors" and congresspeople can easily happen.

But many "wrong-party" politicians are not moderates. They include...

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA)
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT)

Does anybody know of any others like these....

Nclib,

I would disagree and say Fitzgerald and Matheson are indeed moderates.

Add Coleman to the list and keep Fitzgerald on it.

Cant believe this was less than 20 years ago given where we are now.

A lot of the senators mentioned in this thread have either retired or been defeated.

Isn’t the blue SD avatar here the allegedly homicidal incumbent Attorney General of South Dakota?