Why does Massachusetts vote for Republican Governers?

[Cyrusman]

Can someone explain to me why Massachusetts has a habit of voting republican governers  but never a Republican President or senator?

[Gracile]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

[Free Bird]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

Exactly this. The State Party is still a Rockefeller one; it never got aboard the Religious Right train that derailed the GOP federally in New England by association; people around here still distinguish federal issues from state ones.

Also, back to OP, they DID vote for Reagan in 80 and 84 and elected Ed Brooke and Scott Brown to the Senate, all in many of our lifetimes, so it's inaccurate to say "never."

[smoltchanov]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

Exactly this. The State Party is still a Rockefeller one; it never got aboard the Religious Right train that derailed the GOP federally in New England by association; people around here still distinguish federal issues from state ones.

Also, back to OP, they DID vote for Reagan in 80 and 84 and elected Ed Brooke and Scott Brown to the Senate, all in many of our lifetimes, so it's inaccurate to say "never."

In my lifetime they elected considerable number of people to the House too: from Conte and Heckler to Blute and Torkildsen. Now - no one, everything became predictable and boring... But i would still say that Republican party in New England became more conservative too. Because of sheer pragmatic reasoning on part of politicians himself. There are few initiatives now for moderate (even less - for liberal) to become a Republican there because he/she may make both more easier and more productive career as a Democrat. By the same reasons (mirrored) substantial number of moderates still runs as Republicans in Kansas, Utah and Wyoming. But "real" conservatives in, say, Massachusetts and "real progressives" in Wyoming have no choice: they stay put in their parties, making them more "pure" and ideologised as a result...

[Sestak]

Because their governors don't matter. The legislature can just blow right past them. Because of that, the governors can keep their images of "Moderate Nice Guy FF" as they have few right wing decisions that can be held against them.

[LoneStarDem]

Because they prefer divided government.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

Exactly this. The State Party is still a Rockefeller one; it never got aboard the Religious Right train that derailed the GOP federally in New England by association; people around here still distinguish federal issues from state ones.

Also, back to OP, they DID vote for Reagan in 80 and 84 and elected Ed Brooke and Scott Brown to the Senate, all in many of our lifetimes, so it's inaccurate to say "never."

The MA GOP is becoming more Trumpian though. Hard to say if after Baker leaves, they'll elect another R governor for some time.

[RINO Tom]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

Exactly this. The State Party is still a Rockefeller one; it never got aboard the Religious Right train that derailed the GOP federally in New England by association; people around here still distinguish federal issues from state ones.

Also, back to OP, they DID vote for Reagan in 80 and 84 and elected Ed Brooke and Scott Brown to the Senate, all in many of our lifetimes, so it's inaccurate to say "never."

The MA GOP is becoming more Trumpian though. Hard to say if after Baker leaves, they'll elect another R governor for some time.

And if the GOP had somehow nominated George Pataki, they would have inched in his direction.  The MAGOP is still part of the national GOP in a sense, and they have to conform SOMEWHAT.  I think once there is another Democrat in the White House, the MAGOP will just do what's best for the MAGOP again.

[uti2]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

Exactly this. The State Party is still a Rockefeller one; it never got aboard the Religious Right train that derailed the GOP federally in New England by association; people around here still distinguish federal issues from state ones.

Also, back to OP, they DID vote for Reagan in 80 and 84 and elected Ed Brooke and Scott Brown to the Senate, all in many of our lifetimes, so it's inaccurate to say "never."

The MA GOP is becoming more Trumpian though. Hard to say if after Baker leaves, they'll elect another R governor for some time.

And if the GOP had somehow nominated George Pataki, they would have inched in his direction.  The MAGOP is still part of the national GOP in a sense, and they have to conform SOMEWHAT.  I think once there is another Democrat in the White House, the MAGOP will just do what's best for the MAGOP again.

It's not like the ALGOP would've behaved much differently under a President Pataki for what it's worth. States where parties focus less on national issues and more on local issues will always be less impacted by national trends.

[LoneStarDem]

I should also note in the post-Dukakis Era, that Deval Patrick (D) is the only Dem elected to back-to-back 4-year terms in 2006 & 2010.

Since Dukakis left the MA Statehouse on January 3rd, 1991

1.) Bill Weld (R): 68th Governor from January 3rd, 1991 to July 29th, 1997: I'm still mind-boggled why did he resign the Governorship when it was clear Helms was going to block his nomination to become US Ambassador to Mexico ?

2.) Paul Cellucci (R): 69th Governor from July 29th, 1997 to April 10th, 2001: resigned to become US Ambassador to Canada.

3.) Jane Swift (R): served out the remainder of Cellucci's term as Governor from April 10th, 2001 to January 2nd, 2003.

4.) Mitt Romney (R): 70th Governor from January 2nd, 2003 to January 4th, 2007: now United States Senator form UT.

5.) Deval Patrick (D): 71st Governor from January 4th, 2007 to January 8th, 2015: didn't seek reelection in 2014.

6.) Charles Baker (R): 72nd Governor since January 8th, 2015.

[smoltchanov]

Massachusetts' state legislature is heavily Democratic (they currently hold supermajorities in both chambers), and because of that voters are willing to elect liberal Republicans to put a check on them.

Exactly this. The State Party is still a Rockefeller one; it never got aboard the Religious Right train that derailed the GOP federally in New England by association; people around here still distinguish federal issues from state ones.

Also, back to OP, they DID vote for Reagan in 80 and 84 and elected Ed Brooke and Scott Brown to the Senate, all in many of our lifetimes, so it's inaccurate to say "never."

The MA GOP is becoming more Trumpian though. Hard to say if after Baker leaves, they'll elect another R governor for some time.

And if the GOP had somehow nominated George Pataki, they would have inched in his direction.  The MAGOP is still part of the national GOP in a sense, and they have to conform SOMEWHAT.  I think once there is another Democrat in the White House, the MAGOP will just do what's best for the MAGOP again.

It's not like the ALGOP would've behaved much differently under a President Pataki for what it's worth. States where parties focus less on national issues and more on local issues will always be less impacted by national trends.

Of course. But now state parties generally follow national one to much greater degree, then half century ago. No more " conservative Mississippi Democratic party" (or Alabama's one, as they frequently called himself then, stressing their differences with "liberal national Democratic party").... The differences are almost always pure tactical....

[smoltchanov]

Charlie Baker isn't a typical Republican. He can even be considered progressive in some ways.

Not so long ago he would be "typical". "Typical New England Republican", of which there were many.. Somewhat fiscal conservative, but - social liberal. Now there are exactly two in high positions (Baker and Phil Scott), and right-wing radicalization of Republican party is a main reason of it's downfall in this generally liberal (at least - socially) region. The South in inverse (where similar radicalization doomed Democratic party)....

[here2view]

Because people like me love moderate GOPers

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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.

[Brittain33]

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).

[Young Conservative]

How many threads do we need for this question? I feel like it gets asked every other week.

[Brittain33]

How many threads do we need for this question? I feel like it gets asked every other week.

When I first saw this thread, I admit I considered merging and stickying.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

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

[UWS]

Partly because most of these Republican governors managed to be elected by running as moderates. Romney and Baker ran as pro-choice Republicans and supported stricter gun control (though Romney flip-flopped on these issues when he ran for President in 2008 and 2012) and so they were able to attract progressive and Independent voters in Massachusetts.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Before Trump, independents voting for compassionate conservatives wasnt a bad thing. With Trump ethics, voters are turned off to moderate GOPers. Except for Susan Collins. There arent any John McCain moderates: Arlen Specter, Judd Gregg and George Vonovichs .


Hogan even said that Trump shouldn't be impeached

[smoltchanov]

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

And i - admire them... And hate "loyal party soldiers"..... So what?

[Skunk]

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

Agreed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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

[Lechasseur]

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.

[smoltchanov]

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...