If 2018 was a Clinton midterm, does Charlie Baker sweep every town in MA-GOV?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The Massachusetts Democratic Party is so incompetent, that I would be inclined to say that he does manage to sweep every town in the state in such a scenario.

[voice_of_resistance]

No, the residual Democratic brand is too strong in western MA. He'd do better everywhere, but he would still lose a few towns. My guess is he comes close to but falls short of actually flipping Boston.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

The Massachusetts Democratic Party is incredibly competent, they literally control everything except the Governorship.

[Duke of York]

The Massachusetts Democratic Party is so incompetent, that I would be inclined to say that he does manage to sweep every town in the state in such a scenario.

They are far from incompetent. They hold every other statewide office and have a supermajority in the legislature

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No, the residual Democratic brand is too strong in western MA. He'd do better everywhere, but he would still lose a few towns. My guess is he comes close to but falls short of actually flipping Boston.

He literally came very close to winning Boston with Trump as president (getting 49% of the vote there). He is winning the city if Clinton was president.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I could still see him losing something like Cambridge.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

He would probably win Boston but lose a few small ultra Dem and or Liberal towns such as Cambridge.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

I think he loses Cambridge and a few towns in the western part of the state. He flips Boston and might sweep the congressional districts.

[Figueira]

No, I doubt he would even do that much better. Gonzalez did as well as he did not because of Trump.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

No, I doubt he would even do that much better. Gonzalez did as well as he did not because of Trump.

I think Baker would have hit 70% if this was a Clinton midterm. I'm sure there were some Democrats who approved of Baker but couldn't vote for someone from the same party as Trump.

[brucejoel99]

No, the residual Democratic brand is too strong in western MA. He'd do better everywhere, but he would still lose a few towns. My guess is he comes close to but falls short of actually flipping Boston.

He literally came very close to winning Boston with Trump as president (getting 49% of the vote there). He is winning the city if Clinton was president.

So you know the answer, yet you still asked the question.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No, the residual Democratic brand is too strong in western MA. He'd do better everywhere, but he would still lose a few towns. My guess is he comes close to but falls short of actually flipping Boston.

He literally came very close to winning Boston with Trump as president (getting 49% of the vote there). He is winning the city if Clinton was president.

So you know the answer, yet you still asked the question.

There were other Towns that were far more Democratic than Boston.

[Mike Thick]

Gonzalez won a couple of towns by 30-40. Doubt this happens unless Baker somehow winds up running unopposed

[Figueira]

No, the residual Democratic brand is too strong in western MA. He'd do better everywhere, but he would still lose a few towns. My guess is he comes close to but falls short of actually flipping Boston.

He literally came very close to winning Boston with Trump as president (getting 49% of the vote there). He is winning the city if Clinton was president.

So you know the answer, yet you still asked the question.

Boston is far from the most Democratic municipality in MA. There are multiple places in the Boston area and elsewhere that are more Democratic.

[Figueira]

No, I doubt he would even do that much better. Gonzalez did as well as he did not because of Trump.

I think Baker would have hit 70% if this was a Clinton midterm. I'm sure there were some Democrats who approved of Baker but couldn't vote for someone from the same party as Trump.

In reality he got 66.6%, so hitting 70% would not be that much better in the grand scheme of things.

Any Democrat who approves of Baker but didn't vote for him probably isn't voting for any Republican anyway. The only improvement Baker would have made if it was a Clinton midterm would be due to the enthusiasm gap being reversed. And that wouldn't have been nearly enough to win Cambridge, Somerville, Amherst, Northampton, Leverett, Wendell, Great Barrington, etc.

[MarkD]

No, I doubt he would even do that much better. Gonzalez did as well as he did not because of Trump.

This. I think the fact of who was in the White House had absolutely no effect on Baker's popularity or Gonzalez's weaknesses.

[Pandaguineapig]

He would have done better, but I still don't see any scenario where Baker wins Amherst or Cambridge