Why does Massachusetts vote for Republican Governers?

[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...

[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)....

[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?

[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...

[smoltchanov]

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"? Interesting....

[smoltchanov]

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"? 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...