Talk Elections

Hi!  The above governors are all elected along the rust belt (maybe except Iowa) during 2010's historic GOP wave.  I'm gathering you guys' opinion on who among them will be most likely get re-elected.  IMHO, I would say Gov. Snyder is the best bet, as the measures he has proposed to bridge his state's budget gaps has been less confrontational so far, and he has projected a image as a results-oriented moderate who can act bipartisan at times (He even appointed the outgoing Democratic State House Speaker, albeit a business-friendly one, as his State Treasurer).   

Gov. Corbett is a close second bet for me, as he has been rather low-key and non confrontational so far.  The same could be said for Gov. Branstad, although he faces a major difficulty in a divided legislature; where the GOP-controlled state House is aggressively pursuing a host of red-meat measures which would almost stand no chance from the Democrat-held state Senate.

From the developments so-far, Gov. Kasich and Walker are becoming fairly unpopular after ramming through measures curbing the influences of public sector unions.  Although it's a real long way to predict their re-election prospects, I would say both are underdogs unless improvements in their states' economies give them some redemption.

What's you choice from the above list?  Opinions and discussions are always welcome!

It would be wise to remember that Christie went from being disapproved of by 2-1 (although the poll is questioned there is no doubt that he was very unpopular at one point) to being approved of by a range of about 10 to 15 points in just one year. Daniels was DOA in 2008 as late as 2007 with Approvals in the range of Ernie Fletcher and Matt Blunt (both of whom are now gone).

I'd say that Snyder, Corbet and Branstad are strongly favored at this point.  Based on his past electoral history, even after contentious and unpopular decisions, I'd say Walker can probably recover. The one I am least sure of is Kasich.

In his favor, Kasich is a good communicator.  And, if Obama wins reelection in 2012, 2014 would traditionally be a good year for the GOP.

Tom Corbett.

You're not wrong, but it's kind of strange, since his proposals are arguably the farthest reaching of them all.

Yes, as crazy as the others are, it's not at all a stretch to call Synder's policies fascist.

If the job killer Jennifer Granholm can get re-elected, so can a so-called fascist.

Branstad.  Proven winner in Iowa. 

You realize that during Granholm's first term, Republicans held the state legislature, right? And during her second term, they still held the State Senate. It's amazing how she got her job-killing policies through a Republican-controlled legislature.

President's dont have two bad midterms usually.  2014 could well be a lot like 1998.

Baker in Mass. is also worth a mention in regards to big approval changes.

Well, Obama can aspire to screw over the Democratic party with two bad midterms.

Reagan and Ike both had two bad midterms. I thought Obama was Reagan? :P

     Definitely bad second midterms are much more common than bad first ones. I think I read that 1998 was the best second midterm since 1822.

Ike's first midterm wasnt too bad.  Reagan's second one wasnt too bad either, with Republicans picking up eight governorships. 

Governorships are pretty removed from the Presidency. Republicans got slaughtered in the Senate and House in 1986; Democrats lost a lot of Governorships simply because there were so many open seats available for Republicans to pick up. Only 2 of the GOP's pickups (Wisconsin; Texas) came from defeating incumbents.

Well, it was first midterm that the President's party gained House seats in since 1934.

Republicans lost just five seats in the House.  In 2014, I dont see Republicans being able to gain much more in the House unless Democrats are picking up 25-30 seats in 2012. 

Ike lost both houses of congress in 1954. In 1958 the Dems crushed the GOP so bad it gave the Dems a 40 year majority in the house.


In 1986, the GOP lost like 8 Senate seats (and the Senate Majority) and a lot of House seats.

Part of which was due to Republicans winning a bunch of seats narrowly with weak incumbents in 1980, particularly in the South. Because 2008 was such a good year for the Democrats in the Senate, they have potential for big losses in 2014... it helps that they don't have any joke senators among their incumbents, Al Franken excepted, but even if Mark Begich is a stellar politico it won't necessarily save him.

I didn't know Gov Snyder of Michigan had been promoting fascist policies.  What are they?

Corbett.....he's doing all the dirty deeds some will hate fast and furious, which is politically necessary in my view.

There is a pattern with Michigan and Pennsylvania in electing governors from the party opposite to the White House. No more than one break in pattern with Mich. going back to 1978 and Pa. even further to 1938. So, who is smarter: Rick Snyder (R-Mich.) or Tom Corbett (R-Pa.)?

Corbett......

We have a long ways to go, so I wouldn't say any of them are out of it. At this point, I'd say Branstead, Corbett, and Snyder would all be favored to win reelection, but my pick for now is Snyder.

Snyder?? His popularity is dropping like a rock. Polls show he'd lose an election today to the guy he trounced less than 6 months ago by nearly 20 points. He had better pull off a political bungee jumping performance of epic performance--and initial indications are his utterly confrontational "screw everyone" style contrasts "just slightly" with his "I'm just a nerd" campaign image, and doesn't portend a soft landing.

# 1 is Snyder or Branstead

Corbett is also pretty safe I'd say.

The rest luckily have 3-4 years to becomed loved, hey just look at Mitch Daniels, his approval once went from the 30s to past the 70s

Kasich, Walker, and Snyder are probably screwed.  As someone who actually lives in Ohio, in Kasich's former district no less, let me assure you that the anger at Kasich and Ohio Republicans is not the temporary variety.  People are really, really, really pissed off, but in a "no matter what you do, you will never get my vote" sort of way (sort of like how angry Ohio voters were in 2006).  It's not just Democrats who are pissed either.  Independents have revolted against the Ohio Republican party.  I've even talked to several McCain voters who voted straight-ticket Republican in 2010 who are saying that they will vote straight ticket Democratic no matter what when Kasich is up for reelection (one of these them said that the only way he'd vote for Kasich was if the Democrats nominated Kucinich).  Before someone says that Bob Taft was unpopular, 2002 was a Republican year, Taft was not even remotely near the height of his unpopularity, and the whole Ohio Democratic ticket that year was pretty weak.  The fact that Drew Carrey does better in polling against Sherrod Brown than people such as Husted, Mandel, and Taylor speaks volumes about how Ohio voters view the Ohio Republican party.  The Democrats still have a surprisingly solid statewide bench left.  The early success of the recall efforts in Wisconsin suggest that this is probably also the case there.  In Michigan, Snyder's unpopularity, the fact that Democrats are rumored to be planning a recall effort against Republicans in the State House and State Senate, and the way that Snyder has completely destroyed his brand mean that he is as done as he can be this early into his term.  There is really no reason to say Corbett is safe, that race is probably the least clear of the five.  Although I don't think Branstead is safe by any means (haven't seen approval rating, he's pursuing a pretty right-wing agenda), I suspect that he would still be favored at this point.  However, I could see him losing should Iowa voters react to his agenda the way voters in the rest of the Midwest have to similar agendas.  Another governor trying to pass an anti-union/anti-public employee bill is Paul LePage.  I haven't seen polling and I don't know as much about Maine politics as the Midwest and Pennsylvania, but I suspect that LePage is a political dead man walking (then again his governing style and far-right views made me think this a while ago).  I know you shouldn't write off people like that, but it's Maine and LePage is...well...LePage.  With regard to Mitch Daniels, it is important to remember several things.  First he was never part of the tea-party crowd the way Kasich, Walker, LePage, and (though not until he was elected) Snyder have been/are.  Additionally, Indiana is a far more Republican state with a significantly weaker Democratic bench (especially in 2008) than Maine, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, or Wisconsin.  Obviously nothing can be said with too much certainty because of how far off the midterms are, but if I was forced to make a prediction, this would be it.