Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 22, 2019, 05:10:22 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, Silurian)
  Why does Massachusetts vote for Republican Governers?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Why does Massachusetts vote for Republican Governers?  (Read 1619 times)
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 14, 2019, 09:56:45 am »

I don’t know if people actively think the legislature is bad and they want to put a check on it.

It’s more like the conservative Republican base is so tiny here that it is possible for a moderate technocrat like Charlie Baker to run and win over most of the Indies and enough Dems to get a majority against Coakley in a terrible year for Dems, and then win re-election because he’s doing a good job and all the top tier Dems take a pass on challenging him.

Before Deval, the Dem Party was divided between conservatives and liberals, and it was easy for one group to ally with a Republican governor and tacitly support his election over the enemies they hated in the party.

Mostly it involves open-seat governor elections happening in terrible years for Dems (1994, 2002, 2014—2006 being the big exception) and then successful Republicans winning re-election as incumbents in the other midterms which are good for Dems (1998, 2018).



1994 was an election with an incumbent too: Bill Weld, who won reelection in a landslide (even with 1994 being a GOP year and thus it being logical he was reelected, I'm not sure how he won 70% of the vote, there must be some explanation for that).

The open-seat election that Weld won was 1990, when a conservative won the Democratic nomination and thus a lot of liberal Democrats bolted and supported Weld instead of Silber.

But yeah for the most part I think the GOP did as well as it did in Massachussetts due to divisions among the Democrats (1990) or the Dems putting up a bad candidate (2014), rather than out of love for moderate Republicans.

Yes and no, IMHO... They may initially elect Republican governors because of the reasons you state, but after (and IF) these Republicans turn to be good governors - they reelect them on their own merits...
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 14, 2019, 08:16:17 pm »

1994 was an election with an incumbent too: Bill Weld, who won reelection in a landslide (even with 1994 being a GOP year and thus it being logical he was reelected, I'm not sure how he won 70% of the vote, there must be some explanation for that).

The open-seat election that Weld won was 1990, when a conservative won the Democratic nomination and thus a lot of liberal Democrats bolted and supported Weld instead of Silber.

Oh, of course you're right, and the 1990 election is so notorious. Thank you.

Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,589


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2019, 11:35:49 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing. (I barely remember Swift.)

But in 1990, Bill Weld actually won as the more liberal candidate. John Silber was an ultra-right-winger who just happened to run as a Democrat. It's a shame Dukakis didn't run again, because he would have won again. He'd have a tougher time than usual against Bill Weld, but he still would have won.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2019, 02:58:02 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing.

What? No. Romney ran and at least tried to govern as a moderate his first two years. Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, but he was not “extremely right wing.”
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,589


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2019, 03:00:22 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing.

What? No. Romney ran and at least tried to govern as a moderate his first two years. Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, but he was not “extremely right wing.”

Cellucci not only tried to reinstate the death penalty in a state where it had been banned, but his followers also made harassing phone calls to legislators who refused to support him on this.
Logged
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2019, 08:12:10 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing.

What? No. Romney ran and at least tried to govern as a moderate his first two years. Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, but he was not “extremely right wing.”

Cellucci not only tried to reinstate the death penalty in a state where it had been banned, but his followers also made harassing phone calls to legislators who refused to support him on this.

Death penalty position automatically makes someone "extremely right-wing"Huh? Interesting....
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,589


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 18, 2019, 08:22:12 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing.

What? No. Romney ran and at least tried to govern as a moderate his first two years. Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, but he was not “extremely right wing.”

Cellucci not only tried to reinstate the death penalty in a state where it had been banned, but his followers also made harassing phone calls to legislators who refused to support him on this.

Death penalty position automatically makes someone "extremely right-wing"Huh? Interesting....

Massachusetts didn't have a death penalty at the time, so he was very right-wing by Massachusetts standards.
Logged
Lechasseur
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,630
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 19, 2019, 04:04:10 am »

I don’t know if people actively think the legislature is bad and they want to put a check on it.

It’s more like the conservative Republican base is so tiny here that it is possible for a moderate technocrat like Charlie Baker to run and win over most of the Indies and enough Dems to get a majority against Coakley in a terrible year for Dems, and then win re-election because he’s doing a good job and all the top tier Dems take a pass on challenging him.

Before Deval, the Dem Party was divided between conservatives and liberals, and it was easy for one group to ally with a Republican governor and tacitly support his election over the enemies they hated in the party.

Mostly it involves open-seat governor elections happening in terrible years for Dems (1994, 2002, 2014—2006 being the big exception) and then successful Republicans winning re-election as incumbents in the other midterms which are good for Dems (1998, 2018).



1994 was an election with an incumbent too: Bill Weld, who won reelection in a landslide (even with 1994 being a GOP year and thus it being logical he was reelected, I'm not sure how he won 70% of the vote, there must be some explanation for that).

The open-seat election that Weld won was 1990, when a conservative won the Democratic nomination and thus a lot of liberal Democrats bolted and supported Weld instead of Silber.

But yeah for the most part I think the GOP did as well as it did in Massachussetts due to divisions among the Democrats (1990) or the Dems putting up a bad candidate (2014), rather than out of love for moderate Republicans.

Yes and no, IMHO... They may initially elect Republican governors because of the reasons you state, but after (and IF) these Republicans turn to be good governors - they reelect them on their own merits...

Oh I agree, Charlie Baker is definitely popular and Weld and Cellucci were too I believe, but I was stating the reasons why moderate Republicans manage to get elected in MA in the first place. You can't become a popular incumbent if you didn't manage to get elected to begin with.
Logged
Lechasseur
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,630
France


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 19, 2019, 04:08:19 am »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing. (I barely remember Swift.)

But in 1990, Bill Weld actually won as the more liberal candidate. John Silber was an ultra-right-winger who just happened to run as a Democrat. It's a shame Dukakis didn't run again, because he would have won again. He'd have a tougher time than usual against Bill Weld, but he still would have won.

Yeah exactly, Weld was the more liberal candidate and that's why he won.

The question is how Silber became the nominee in a state as liberal as MA. My guess is you had a lot of white ethnics who were Democrats for ancestral reasons but were otherwise pretty conservative who voted for him in the primary, not sure how true that would still be;

Then for Dukakis, he may well have won, but I'm not convinced of that. I think by the end of his term he was pretty unpopular and that's why he chose not to run again.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2019, 09:43:10 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing.

What? No. Romney ran and at least tried to govern as a moderate his first two years. Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, but he was not “extremely right wing.”

Cellucci not only tried to reinstate the death penalty in a state where it had been banned, but his followers also made harassing phone calls to legislators who refused to support him on this.

Death penalty position automatically makes someone "extremely right-wing"Huh? Interesting....

Massachusetts didn't have a death penalty at the time, so he was very right-wing by Massachusetts standards.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of Mass voters supported the death penalty 20 years ago, as a large majority of Americans did. It was the state Dems who were slightly out of step by opposing it. It was a conservative position but far from extremely right wing. It’s a good example of why Cellucci can be described as more conservative than Weld, but “extremely right wing” conjures up someone advocating for positions which are opposed by a large majority of voters in Massachusetts. Cellucci was too good a politician to be a conservative ideologue.
Logged
smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,291
Russian Federation
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2019, 12:02:46 pm »

Romney and Cellucci were both extremely right-wing.

What? No. Romney ran and at least tried to govern as a moderate his first two years. Cellucci was more conservative than Weld, but he was not “extremely right wing.”

Cellucci not only tried to reinstate the death penalty in a state where it had been banned, but his followers also made harassing phone calls to legislators who refused to support him on this.

Death penalty position automatically makes someone "extremely right-wing"Huh? Interesting....

Massachusetts didn't have a death penalty at the time, so he was very right-wing by Massachusetts standards.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of Mass voters supported the death penalty 20 years ago, as a large majority of Americans did. It was the state Dems who were slightly out of step by opposing it. It was a conservative position but far from extremely right wing. It’s a good example of why Cellucci can be described as more conservative than Weld, but “extremely right wing” conjures up someone advocating for positions which are opposed by a large majority of voters in Massachusetts. Cellucci was too good a politician to be a conservative ideologue.

I am even not sure, that Cedllucci was more conservative, then Weld, on economic issues. Social - may be,  as (again - AFAIK) he came from more conservative  and traditionalist Italian family, but he surely wasn't "extremely right wing". Typical moderate Massachusetts Republican of his period...
Logged
sg0508
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,632
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2019, 09:04:50 pm »

While you can't really point to any effect of it this many afters, but it's amazing how devastating Dukakis's final two years in office where for Democrats concerning the mansion. 
Logged
Pittsburgh For Kamala
PittsburghSteel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,059
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2019, 09:50:28 pm »

I think one of the reasons why is that liberals tend to be more educated and so they're more in-tune with politics. This is probably why they're more open than conservatives to electing governors from the opposing party.
Logged
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2019, 11:09:17 pm »

Statewide officials outside of Shannon O'Brien, and Deval Patrick have lower profiles than most other states. This has been happening since the death of Teddy Kennedy. Joe Kennedy III was supposed to have a higher profile to run for statewide office in the future and he cratered, early, and is confined to the house. As a result Charlie Baker is Governor.

This makes no sense.
Logged
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2019, 11:10:25 pm »

I don’t know if people actively think the legislature is bad and they want to put a check on it.

It’s more like the conservative Republican base is so tiny here that it is possible for a moderate technocrat like Charlie Baker to run and win over most of the Indies and enough Dems to get a majority against Coakley in a terrible year for Dems, and then win re-election because he’s doing a good job and all the top tier Dems take a pass on challenging him.

Before Deval, the Dem Party was divided between conservatives and liberals, and it was easy for one group to ally with a Republican governor and tacitly support his election over the enemies they hated in the party.

Mostly it involves open-seat governor elections happening in terrible years for Dems (1994, 2002, 2014—2006 being the big exception) and then successful Republicans winning re-election as incumbents in the other midterms which are good for Dems (1998, 2018).



This.
Logged
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2019, 11:11:07 pm »

I got to admit, I really have a disgust for democrats who vote for pigs like Baker, Hogan, Phil Scott, etc.

This surprises me.  You're so right wing that I would have thought you'd have welcomed that.
Logged
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2019, 11:12:28 pm »

Ted Kennedy died and Coakley lost MA Sen and Gov race and gave Baker the Gov mansion. Joe Kennedy, who did want to continue Kennedy legacy was eclipsed by up start Beto, and he campaigned in 2018 Beto.

Dems will continue to win congressional races

What does Beto have to do with Joe Kennedy?  I think you're losing brain cells there, buddy.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC