Why are Republican Governors so much more popular than Democratic Senators?

[smoltchanov]

Because Republican policies just work better.

I don't want to get partisan, but yes, this is a better answer than "muh fox news is making people conservative". Tell me folks, when was the last time they talked Ned Lamont on Fox News? What about Brad Little? If you're an Idahoan, it doesn't take a genius to realize your state is doing well and staying prosperous thanks to Republican policies, and if you're a Conneticutan, it doesn't take a genius to realize your state is doing sh**t because the taxes are too damn high. People appreciate success.

The economy of Mississippi is not success.  

The real reason is that Republican voters are tribalistic and give their Republican governor unconditional support.   They also have been trained to think of all Democrats as Satanic and give them unconditional hatred.    If this isn't the case - Name one single Republican governor in the country who is unpopular with Republican voters...?

Meanwhile - Progressives tend to be critical of most Dem governors due to most of them being very corporate friendly.  

So you have a system where Democratic governors get honest criticism while Republican governors could shoot someone on main street and remain popular with their base.

Missisippi has only had a Republican Governor since 2004, and the State House only flipped R in 2012. Other than that, you'll be glad to know that Missisippi's economic growth in 2018 was greater than that of New York, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, DC, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (since you have such a great concern for the welfare of the people of the state ).

Most of those "Democrats" were CONSERVATIVES. Southern Dixiecrats don't count as real Democrats.

Also, Mississippi's economy is still poor and they rank low in every major statistical category. It's not just Mississippi either. Most of the poorest states and states with the worst economies are run by Republicans/conservatives.

Well, in fact - they were conservatives, but mostly - pragmatic conservatives (less so, then present day Republicans in almost all cases). I know very few, who would classify as "real conservatives", at least - since 1990th. Before that - yes, there were some, but only some.

P.S. If you proclaim to be a "big tent party" - you must allow conservative (as well as liberal) wings to exist in your party. In this sense - neither Democratic nor Republican parties are "big tent parties" anymore. They more and more remind me of our CPSU (Communist party of Soviet Union) of the past: the same intolerance to almost any position, but - prevailing. Pro-life Democrats (Lipinski, for example) are no more welcome in Democratic party. The same - with pro-choice Republicans. And these are only 2 of many many examples....

[smoltchanov]

New England in particular still has a weird fetish for election, approving and re-electing "muh moderate Republican" Governors.

As a Massachusetts resident myself, this baffles me to no end.

Not everyone is so ideologically "pure" as you are. There are still lot of people, who values "good governors", their party notwithstanding..

[smoltchanov]

New England in particular still has a weird fetish for election, approving and re-electing "muh moderate Republican" Governors.

As a Massachusetts resident myself, this baffles me to no end.

Not everyone is so ideologically "pure" as you are. There are still lot of people, who values "good governors", their party notwithstanding..

And apparently those things are mutually exclusive? It's apparently impossible to be a good governor if you are too ideological. So therefore apparently moderate "FF" heroes are the only ones good at governing.

Generally - yes. Rigid ideological preferences are, usually, incompatible with good governing.