How will Larry Hogan (R-MD) and Charlie Baker (R-MA) do as governors?

[warandwar]

If Hogan's luck continues, he'll lose for sure in 2018. Some things aren't his fault: I'm sure he would prefer this whole Robin Frazier thing hadn't happened. But he has no reason to go out and say things like that he sees "no jobs" in Baltimore, he sees no money for MoCo schools or PG hospitals. Or go out and complain about the budget gap, which is smaller than it was when both Ehrlich and O'Malley started their 1st terms. And on top of all that, he refuses to talk about policy until he's inaugurated. Things like this make you wonder if he has any political sense at all.

[warandwar]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

[warandwar]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

I did mix up Mikulski and Cardin, so my mistake on that part, and I did mean 2018. Of course being the incumbent governor would help him some if he were to run for reelection, but it might not be enough. I would think that a senate race would become more subject to national waves (say, a republican wave in 2018) than a gubernatorial one, and having experience as a governor in a state would definitely be an advantage in running for a senate race in that state. Maryland in a midterm year could very plausibly elect a Republican senator given the right candidate, and a governor would be a strong one. For example, Delaware in 2010 would've probably gone Republican in the senate race had Mike Castle won in the primary.

Maryland isn't that affected by national waves, for example, O'Malley's margin in 2010 was larger than in 2006. The governor's race this year had very little to do with national themes of 2014. My opinion is that the things Republicans are running on recently (low government, for example) aren't as effective in Maryland (in this case, because of the large amount of gov't employees and contractors).

I'm not sure I see Rand Paul as the best Republican for Maryland. Don't think his policies would play well with Maryland, with our large population of people who do some work with the federal gov't.

[warandwar]

Baker will probably have an easy reelection, though Hogan will have a much tougher fight on his hands. It may even be in his best interest to not even run for reelection and instead run for the open senate seat if Mikulski retires.

That's ridiculous. 1st of all, Mikulski's seat is up in 2016, so I think you meant to say Cardin's. Do you really think Hogan will have an easier race for Senate than for Governor? Most of Hogan's campaigning was around state-based issues, and the reasons why he was elected Governor have nothing to do with national politics. There's value in incumbancy, remember. Hogan will lose that value if he runs for Senate.
And I hope you didn't mean 2016, because presidential-year turnout will never elect a Republican in Maryland.

Actually I daresay the right "type" of Republican could win in Maryland in a great Republican Presidential year.

That would be a sign of a realignment if it happened.  Maybe if Rand Paul was running and lost MD by only 5%.  Otherwise, I just can't see it.  Maryland is way too urban to do the split ticket Senate thing.

I meant as a Senator, not Presidential election. Also I had meant to say the person would most likely be an incumbent Senator.

I didn't mean to say a hypothetically perfect Republican would never win Maryland. I meant in reality, in Earth-616, there are 0 Republicans in Maryland who could a: get elected to the Senate in a midterm and then b: win reelection.

[warandwar]

Hogan will be re-elected, barring a national blue wave in 2018 (I don't expect that, even if we win the White House in 2016).

He's a pretty social media adept governor, and I don't see his opposition on social media that well. I also think he's co-opted well elements of the Democratic establishment (Peter Franchot, for example). The Democratic establishment in Maryland is pretty much like the Democratic establishment in DC right after Reagan's victory. (Hogan is no RR). The point is, they are sclerotic, so used to power, and so used to the status quo that a smart Republican can run circles around them. Miller and Busch have never really been challenged from the right. Ehrlich was a confrontational governor who was derided as a one-off, Hogan's the confirmation that Maryland is capable of electing Republican governors if they're angry with the status quo.

I think he's learned from Ehrlich and will be the first Maryland Republican to be re-elected governor since Theodore McKeldin in the 1950s. I also think that his re-election - if smartly done - can pull Republicans to over 40% of the State House. Which means his vetoes get sustained in 2019. Don't forget, the number of county executives who are Republican in this state is among the highest levels in decades. There is a palpable frustration with the entrenched Democratic establishment; while I don't expect this state to flip Republican or anything, I can see Hogan's brand succeeding here.

Remember, nobody here was happy about the "rain tax" and what it symbolized about the O'Malley Administration. The DMV is a joke and there's widespread frustration about state government. If there wasn't, Hogan wouldn't have even breached 45% of the vote. It's as simple as that. Voters aren't ready to become Republicans or even vote for a Republican President or Senator (though if Mikulski steps down, due to old age, and Hogan appoints a smart moderate/liberal replacement, I hold out hope). But I don't think Maryland voters are happy with the status quo and are willing to tolerate Hogan's brand of conservatism.

In short, my prediction: he'll be remembered as a far more successful governor than what people here think.

To quote the Rock, do you really think that:
a: being more "social media adept" has any impact on elections? Like John Q. Public is going to the voter booth and thinking "well I am a follower of Hogan's vine and his thigh gap is bae"
b: Franchot represents the "Democratic establishment" ( look at any of his votes on the public works committee, there's a bunch of 2-1 votes where O'malley and Kopp vote for something and Franchot votes against because of some finnicky complaint. He was also very much against slot machines)
c: that Mikulski would resign early in her term, you know, because she would gladly give up a seat to a Republican
d: that the number of Republican county executives means anything at all (remember Romney won 19/24 counties in 2012). 1st of all, only 8 counties of Maryland have county executives. In 2014 Republicans picked up Wicomico and Howard, while Democrats won Frederick, which just switched to an executive system. Wicomico isn't exactly an urban metropolis and Kittleman's win in Howard IMO was entirely personal.
e: that Miller and Busch are such unskilled politicians that Hogan can be Carcetti to their Royce. You don't become the longest serving State Senate President in American history without having political skills.

To say that Hogan won't be antagonistic is absurd if you suggest that the anti-impervious surface fee (or pro-asphalt) lobby is so large. This campaign is entirely based on bashing environmentalists for wanting to do something about our bay. I'd say taking a reasonable way of financing stormwater runoff protections and turning it into a "ZOMG RAIN TAX" is fairly antagonistic!

[warandwar]

a. As I said, Hogan's a master of the new medium of communication - which is social media. The internet, Facebook, twitter, and so on is the new "television." Hogan has mastered that and I think it helped him in 2014. I think it will definitely boost his re-election margin by a few points. So yes.

b.  I would regard Peter Franchot as more from the conservative Democratic wing, but I'm saying Hogan has done serious outreach to Democrats since being elected governor. I'm not just citing Franchot, although Franchot is one example. You're overlooking the fact that Hogan has been assiduous about reaching out to Democrats and coopting people he can work with. That's an upgrade from Bob Ehrlich.

c. She's 78. She'll be 80 in 2016 and 86 by the time her 2022 term ends. I'm not saying anything will happen and I hope nothing happens, but if something were to happen, it is possible she would need to resign so that Maryland has a full time Senator. In any case, it's a hypothetical, not why Hogan would be re-elected.

d.  The point is, Republicans had a very good 2014 and frustration with the state Democratic establishment is at a considerable high point. I'm making the example that Republicans have become stronger, because of resentment over the state Democratic Party's policies in Maryland. This is not an unreasonable statement and there are other data points (+8 R in the state house, +2 in the State Senate).

e. Sometimes being there too long is not a benefit to understanding changing attitudes. If you've never been challenged in the course of your long career, you're unprepared for a real challenge. That's how I view the entire state Democratic Party.

Also, the rain tax was a dumb political move by Democrats. Of course, Hogan had the right to attack the dumb tax. It became a great symbol to defeat Brown. That wasn't antagonistic, it was a smart electoral move.

Never mind, I just saw Larry Hogan's tweet of a picture of him having lunch with Sen. Mikulsi. He even added "#bipartisan"! Wow, what a wonderful man. His social media skills are truly greater than any Democrat in Maryland. I can see how this sway his reelection by "a few points"!

Yes, Hogan has in fact talked to Democrats. It's by far too early to say he's "coopted" any of them, whatever that would entail. I really don't think it's possible to already compare Hogan and Ehrlich's governing style when Hogan hasn't even been sworn in yet.

The Republicans' gains in the House and Senate came from defeating conservative Democrats, leaving a more polarized legislature, to use a trendy term. This is not going to make it easier for Hogan to point out his super bipartisaness. Please don't insult Miller's intelligence. If he was really "sclerotic", he wouldn't have let marriage equality, the minimum wage raise or the death penalty through the Senate. From experience, I can tell you that the state Democratic party is certainly not hidebound. The Maryland Republican party, on the other hand, isn't exactly vibrant.

Despite what the "algae-rights" lobby might say, the stormwater management fee was not a "dumb political move." Brown not explaining what it did was a bad move. O'Malley himself gave some side-eye to Brown for this. (He saw his victory in 2010 as based on his ability to explain why he needed to raise taxes.)

[warandwar]

The Republicans' gains in the House and Senate came from defeating conservative Democrats, leaving a more polarized legislature, to use a trendy term.

If Republicans were to gain every rural and exurban seat in the General Assembly currently held by Democrats, how many do you think there would be in either the House or Senate?

Here are the current numbers:

House

Democrats: 90
Republicans: 51

Senate

Democrats: 33
Republicans: 14

Assuming Republicans remain in the minority regardless, would there be enough to uphold vetoes by a fellow Republican governor? Or perhaps to filibuster bills championed by a Democratic governor?     

So in the House, I believe the only Democrats who represent rural/exurban areas are Sheree Sample-Hughes (37A) and Mary Ann Lisanti (34A). Possibly Krimm and Young from Frederick's 3A and the three from district 28 (Charles). 37A is majority-minority and Sample-Hughes was unopposed in the general. Charles is trending Democratic and 28's Delegates faced minimal opposition. That leaves Lisanti and the two Democrats from Frederick. If they all lose, that'd bring the Democrats down to 87, which is still a supermajority. Add in maybe Bromwell's seat (D8) that's 86, still a supermajority.

In the Senate, we have Jim Mathias in D38, Ronald Young in D3, maybe Astle in D30, Middleton in Charles's 28th. If Young, Mathias and Astle lose, that's 30/47, which is still a supermajority. The only other Senator in a swingy district is Brochin, I think, so if he loses too, that's 29, which still works.

The Democrats really aren't in a position to lose their supermajority.

[warandwar]

Hogan's already walked these back. He reissued the ex. order with a gender identity provision and he let the medicaid regs be printed after a bs explanation that he wanted more time to review them because they had been pushed too quickly by O'malley or something like that.
He's yet to let the environmental regulations be printed yet, though.

[warandwar]

That confirms my belief that he (Hogan) will govern as "slightly right of center" or, at most "pragmatic moderate conservative". Not so bad by present "standards" of Republican party. Whether that will be enough to get reelected in 2018 - too early to tell, but i read a lot of info, that, in addition to low turnout and bleak campaign on Brown's part, a lot of (usually Democratic-leaning) middle class Maryland voters (many of whom voted for Obama and O'Malley recently) soured on Democratic majority on taxes and other economical issues, and went rather heavily for Hogan in November..

Not sure what the difference between "slightly right of center" and "pragmatically moderate conservative" is or why you need so many air quotes, but I think to actually be those, Hogan would need to not have done this to begin with. Calling "backsies" doesn't make you "pragmatic," at least by my "standards."

[warandwar]

Baker will prolly be the next William Weld.

Hogan will likely be ousted in 2018--MD is not really a state with a high tolerance for Republicans of any sort, and is pretty inelastic. I suspect his anti-transit positions will cost him a lot of votes in Montgomery County, at the very least. Democrats would still be smart to run a candidate from Baltimore County against him though; his victory this year was mostly due to anti-urbanist fervor in suburban Baltimore--a fervor which I expect probably was linked to race.

In case anyone doesn't know what an ignorant airhead is, see above.

If you think that counties that voted 17 and 20 percent for Obama voted against Brown because of race, you're an idiot.

There's a definite history of racism in the Maryland suburbs (a lot of white flight from b-more). It's hard to not see racial undertones in things like Carroll county wanting to ban all public transit from outside the county from entering.
Also recall that Mikulski and O'malley both over-performed Brown. Not saying they're overtly racist, but there's definitely a perception in Maryland that these places are.

So if you think Brown did so badly because of race you probably live in Maryland.

[warandwar]

Just realised Hogan doesn't even believe in anthropogenic climate change. Moderate my arse. Hopefully the legislature will frustrate his more stupid promises like his inane scaremongering around the 'rain tax'.

The rain is tax is stupid and not well thought out.

I'm interested to know why you think that. I don't think the stormwater management fee is a bad idea on itself, I just think that Brown could have done a better job explaining what it actually did. (Hint: it did not tax rain)

[warandwar]

Just to be clear, liberals who claim their preferred candidates did worse strictly because of racism ARE acknowledging that, in such a scenario, these racists would be Democrats who would normally vote for the party, yes?  It's not like Republicans are more likely to vote for a White Democrat over a Black one; they're not voting for the Democrat, period.

There's a third option when you register to vote (Independent).

[warandwar]

Someone will have to actually convince me that (A) it will help reduce pollution, (B) it's not unfair to landowners. If someone could do that I would gladly do a Romney flip flop on this issue.

It seems like you think this is just a tax on impervious surfaces. It's not.
Remember there's a federal mandate that these 10 counties need to improve their stormwater management systems. That requires money. The legislation provides these 10 counties with a funding mechanism: a fee that is indexed to the amount of impervious surface in a property. What that fee is is left to the counties. This money is then used for various improvements (like these). It's that simple and it does reduce pollution.
It's not unfair to landowners. Yucky stormwater flows down my driveway, into the street and then into the sewer. From there, it goes to the bay. This yucky stormwater makes the bay yucky. Marylanders want a non-yucky bay, and anyway we're federally obligated to do these improvements.
Hogan declared in his recent state of the state that he wanted to get rid of the fee and let counties come up with their own way of financing these improvements. This is fairly ridonk-q-lous to do when he's already cutting funding for schools for these populous counties affected by the federal mandate. All removing the fee will do is make it harder for counties to fully fund their schools, roads, etc. I'd say having underfunded public schools is unfair to most landowners!

I feel like this should be under the Maryland 2016 thread I made, though.

EDIT here's a FAQ