How did Phil Scott win in Vermont?

[smoltchanov]

Who said that?  GOP Governors have always been competitive there.

Yeah, VT has a soft spot for moderate Republicans.

Basically the whole Northeast does, unfortunately. A majority of Northeastern governors are Republican.

And that's - excellent. When these Republican governors are like Baker or Scott and not LePage. They represent reasonable check on "tax and spend" (and very frequently - very corrupt) Democratic legislatures. I hate one-party rule, and was both for Scott nd Baker. But in the South i am almost always for Democrats..

[smoltchanov]

^Probably yes. And he is too experienced politician (Lt. Governor, and state Senator in the past) to do it...

[smoltchanov]

Who said that?  GOP Governors have always been competitive there.

Yeah, VT has a soft spot for moderate Republicans.

Basically the whole Northeast does, unfortunately. A majority of Northeastern governors are Republican.

And that's - excellent. When these Republican governors are like Baker or Scott and not LePage. They represent reasonable check on "tax and spend" (and very frequently - very corrupt) Democratic legislatures. I hate one-party rule, and was both for Scott nd Baker. But in the South i am almost always for Democrats..

Arkansan Democrats are pretty corrupt and usually pretty left wing for the state.

And that's may be the reason they are in dire minority in the state. Even in early 2000th legislature in Arkansas was mostly Democratic and, generally,  moderate conservative, what more or less  corresponds to state tradition (which was manifested in US Congress by such people as McClellan and Gathings in 60th and 70th). But when national party began to insist that state parties would be generally alike and similar to national one - party problems in many states (especially - Southern) aggravated immnesely. When i began to study American elections Mississippi Democratic party was VERY different from New York's (what's only natural), now they are almost the same. But what sells good in New York is a tough sell in Mississippi....

[smoltchanov]

Scott actually has power in Vermont unlike Baker in MA because the state house is close enough that the Republicans there can uphold his vetos if decides to veto anything. I don't think Scott seems to be much of a guy that wants to veto anything though.

I imagine he will literally be quiet as a mouse through 2018 and probably skate to a quiet but larger victory in 2018. 2020 will be where the Democrats have a chance to knock him off.

I don't expect him to be "quiet as a mouse". He isn't a bombastic type, sure, but he has his own convictions and may be very stubborn if neccessary. In addition - almost all Republicans in state legislature are more conservative then he is (many - substantially), so if he REALLY decides to veto something, their support is almost guaranteed... So, no, he will not be "a king, who rules but doesn't governs.."