Why is Massachusetts much more likely to support GOP governors compared to CA and NY?

[Cyrusman]

For being a solid blue state, MA has shown it is willing to elect a moderate republican governor pretty much as a way to put a check on the solidly controlled democrat state Legislature.  

Even if the NY and CA GOP nominee is very moderate and runs a PERFECT campaign im very skeptical they would even come close let alone win.

What’s the biggest different in MA?

[Del Tachi]

White voters are more elastic, and NY and CA are much more non-White than MA

[Calthrina950]

White voters are more elastic, and NY and CA are much more non-White than MA

Maryland is also much more nonwhite than Massachusetts, and yet it has a Republican Governor (Larry Hogan). But what's interesting about New York and California is that both had Republican Governors as late as the 2000s. New York had George Pataki, who upset Mario Cuomo (Andrew Cuomo's father) in 1994 and was subsequently reelected twice by landslide margins in 1998 and 2002. And California had Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won the replacement ballot in 2003 when Gray Davis was recalled, and was reelected in a landslide in 2006. Both were moderate Republicans. But now, those two states seem to be out of reach for even those kinds of Republicans.

[Skill and Chance]

The MA GOP (or at least most of the statewide candidates, anyway) succeeded in divorcing itself from the national party.  Like the old Southern Democrats, they just go along with the local majority on basically all social issues.  The fact that the Dem vote is so evenly distributed throughout the state also helps with this.  There is essentially no base for a national Republican larger than a state house district.   

The CA GOP is very rural/exurban and dominated by conservative activists.  The median CA GOP primary voter basically agrees with the national party, so there is little motivation to moderate, and there's a base of safe R seats in the legislature and US House. 

NY is more complicated and it does have some history of MA GOP style candidates, but at least in recent times, NYC and all the media attention it draws keeps things nationalized.  This has been especially true post-2010.       

Vermont is a more extreme version of Massachusetts on these points.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We haven't seen one poll from MA Gov since Ben Downing was down by 7 pts it's not over

[CityofSinners]

Size of the state also plays a role. It is much more expensive to run a campaign in CA and NY compared to MA and MD.
Much easier for a county executive to run for Governor in a small state and be viable.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Massachusetts has an old-school Republican tradition which dates back to The Whigs. Massachusetts never left the Republicans, the Republicans left the state and when a moderate enough candidate comes along, it generally supports them over a generic Dem. While the state is very Democratic, it is only liberal on social issues and free trade. There's a lot of economic moderates and even some conservatives who vote Democrat because of these issues, which has increased under Trump who was a uniquely bad fit for this state, but easily return to their party when a soc. lib/eco con is nominated. As other posters have posted, the state party largely divorced itself from the national party, although some people are trying to make it Trumpier. Historically, Trump could've done well in Bristol/Worcester counties as well as near the largely working-class areas of Lowell, Haverhill, and Peabody, but the area is also home to a lot of academic/science types who largely switched to the Dem. party during the later half of the 20th century and even more so now. While Governor Baker's Covid lockdown was unpopular in certain quarters, I think it was enough for him to win over some of this normally-Dem voters in 2022.

[Non Swing Voter]

New England states (with the exception of maybe northern Maine) have effectively no social conservatives other than some fringe people.  This means all social issues are settled.  No reasonable middle of the road voter there thinks a fetus is a human, that religion should be a big part of politics, or that there shouldn't be gun control. 

Therefore there is clarity on what the issues are.  So for local issues the GOP candidates tend to only distinguish themselves on taxes and fiscal policies and don't need to run to the right during primaries.  California and New York are larger and more diverse states that do have pockets of social conservatism and therefore GOP statewide candidates tend to run to the right to win.  This is the same issue in Virginia where GOP candidates need to say stupid **** in primaries (or conventions) to appeal THG-level religious people then become totally out of touch for the general electorate and lose.

[Cyrusman]

Massachusetts has an old-school Republican tradition which dates back to The Whigs. Massachusetts never left the Republicans, the Republicans left the state and when a moderate enough candidate comes along, it generally supports them over a generic Dem. While the state is very Democratic, it is only liberal on social issues and free trade. There's a lot of economic moderates and even some conservatives who vote Democrat because of these issues, which has increased under Trump who was a uniquely bad fit for this state, but easily return to their party when a soc. lib/eco con is nominated. As other posters have posted, the state party largely divorced itself from the national party, although some people are trying to make it Trumpier. Historically, Trump could've done well in Bristol/Worcester counties as well as near the largely working-class areas of Lowell, Haverhill, and Peabody, but the area is also home to a lot of academic/science types who largely switched to the Dem. party during the later half of the 20th century and even more so now. While Governor Baker's Covid lockdown was unpopular in certain quarters, I think it was enough for him to win over some of this normally-Dem voters in 2022.

When you mention that these MA voters are only liberal on social issues is it mainly abortion, LGBT rights, marijuana mainly? Or other things as well?

[Vice President Christian Man]

Massachusetts has an old-school Republican tradition which dates back to The Whigs. Massachusetts never left the Republicans, the Republicans left the state and when a moderate enough candidate comes along, it generally supports them over a generic Dem. While the state is very Democratic, it is only liberal on social issues and free trade. There's a lot of economic moderates and even some conservatives who vote Democrat because of these issues, which has increased under Trump who was a uniquely bad fit for this state, but easily return to their party when a soc. lib/eco con is nominated. As other posters have posted, the state party largely divorced itself from the national party, although some people are trying to make it Trumpier. Historically, Trump could've done well in Bristol/Worcester counties as well as near the largely working-class areas of Lowell, Haverhill, and Peabody, but the area is also home to a lot of academic/science types who largely switched to the Dem. party during the later half of the 20th century and even more so now. While Governor Baker's Covid lockdown was unpopular in certain quarters, I think it was enough for him to win over some of this normally-Dem voters in 2022.

When you mention that these MA voters are only liberal on social issues is it mainly abortion, LGBT rights, marijuana mainly? Or other things as well?

Definitely abortion and LGBT rights, but I'd add gun control and immigration as well. Most are internationalists and I'd say more are opposed than supportive of marijuana legislation, especially looking at the 2016 referendum results, but I think a lot of millennials/zoomers in this group support it, similar to national trends.

[tosk]

easier to do voter contact in a small state

[Pollster]

Much easier to divorce yourself from the national party and define partisanship on your own terms in a state where the national party has virtually no relevant presence.

[progressive85]

1. Our state legislature is so Democratic that having a nice moderate Republican in there to balance it out is very desirable to a wide swath of the Massachusetts electorate.

2. MA is not nearly as hard-left as people think it is.  There are suburbs here with high income earning people and they aren't all fond of heavy tax burdens... lots of small blue-collar towns, and Republicans do very well in those areas...

3. There is a real willingness in Boston's big suburbs (which are enormous in swinging the whole state to flip one way or the other) to really support Charlie Baker types.  Charlie Baker is not unpopular at all here, and you will find many very progressive Democrats in Brookline or Cambridge talk about how benign this guy is.  He's not threatening really.  He has never done anything to antagonize people or ridicule groups he doesn't like.

I like the man too.  He's not at all like the national brand.

[ChiefFireWaterMike]

Massachusetts has less people than LA county. Orange and San Diego county add up to Massachusetts's population on their own. The level of voter outreach needed is on an unimaginable scale.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I imagine a Republican in CA or NY still needs to pander to the MAGA base in those states to get through the primary....not so much the case in Massachusetts or Vermont.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Again, the last poll we had was Ben Downing down by 7, this isn't 2018 anymore, where Baker won by 60/40 this is 2022

[Real Texan Politics]

Ancestral republicans probably?

[Indy Texas]

1. Small state with fewer media markets

2. A larger portion of the Democratic base in MA is educated, politically-engaged white people.

3. New England has a distinctive type of participatory civic "town meeting" culture. People regard voting as part of being a good citizen and being informed about the candidates is part of that. In CA and NY, you have more of an idea of politics as a transaction ("I vote for the longtime corrupt machine incumbent because he funnels money into my community and he hooked my cousin up with a job with the transit authority").

4. The Massachusetts GOP, maybe because they haven't been totally shut out of power like in NY and CA, did not go off the deep end. Those states don't have a Republican comparable to Charlie Baker or Bill Weld.

[Pres Mike]

The MA GOP (or at least most of the statewide candidates, anyway) succeeded in divorcing itself from the national party.  Like the old Southern Democrats, they just go along with the local majority on basically all social issues.  The fact that the Dem vote is so evenly distributed throughout the state also helps with this.  There is essentially no base for a national Republican larger than a state house district.   

The CA GOP is very rural/exurban and dominated by conservative activists.  The median CA GOP primary voter basically agrees with the national party, so there is little motivation to moderate, and there's a base of safe R seats in the legislature and US House. 

NY is more complicated and it does have some history of MA GOP style candidates, but at least in recent times, NYC and all the media attention it draws keeps things nationalized.  This has been especially true post-2010.       

Vermont is a more extreme version of Massachusetts on these points.

This is a big one. CA and NY are so large that they still have vast areas of republican voters.

[OSR stands with Israel]

California literally gave Trump more votes than any state in the country and arguably the California GOP is the national GOP so they can’t distance themselves from the national party like the MA GOP can

[Young Conservative]

MA has way more unaffiliated voters. CA is almost 50% registered Dem.

[Mr. Illini]

California, Illinois, and Maryland, have all had Republican governors over the last 10-15 years as well, though admittedly not as frequently.

I think it simply boils down to: Democratic voters are more willing to support Republicans on the local level if they like them than Republican voters are willing to support local Democrats.

And when I say "Democratic voters," I mean those in Lake, DuPage, Montgomery, Marin, Newton, Brookline, suburban LA, etc. White, educated Democratic voters.

[RRusso1982]

California, Illinois, and Maryland, have all had Republican governors over the last 10-15 years as well, though admittedly not as frequently.

I think it simply boils down to: Democratic voters are more willing to support Republicans on the local level if they like them than Republican voters are willing to support local Democrats.

And when I say "Democratic voters," I mean those in Lake, DuPage, Montgomery, Marin, Newton, Brookline, suburban LA, etc. White, educated Democratic voters.

And New Jersey

[RRusso1982]

This is one of the strange quirks of Massachusetts. Looking back over the last generation, Republicans have won 6 of the last 8 Gubernatorial elections in Massachusetts.  And only in one election did the Democrat get more than 50% of the vote.  Deval Patrick in 2006.  Baker actually give Patrick a real race in 2010 and it would have likely been even closer had it not been for the independant candidate, Tim Cahill.

[DPKdebator]

Massachusetts has a lot of voters (mainly white, college educated, and upper middle class) who are liberal on most issues and vote Democratic, but want a governor to act as a check on the worst impulses of the state legislature and not jack their taxes and cost of living up. The semi-open primary system allows independents (who are about 55% of registered voters in MA) to vote in any primary, so moderate Rs like Mitt Romney (at the time) and Charlie Baker are able to get a foothold in an otherwise deep blue state.