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....

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[SnowLabrador]

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.

[Calthrina950]

I answered this question previously, on a different thread with a similar question as the one posed here. My answer is the same. Many of the country's present Democratic Governors-i.e. Newsom, Raimondo, Brown, Pritzker, Lujan-Grisham, Cuomo, etc., are either ineffective, corrupt, or highly ideological. By contrast, many of the current Republican Governors-i.e. Baker, Scott, Hogan, Sununu, Abbott, DeSantis, Hutchinson, etc. are effective administrators and have strong crossover appeal with opposing-party voters. Now there are bad Republican Governors, and there are good Democratic Governors-John Bel Edwards in particular. But overall, these factors hold true.

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.

Sununu, Baker, and Scott serve as checks upon the strongly Democratic legislatures in their states, work across party lines, and are social moderates, well in line with the social viewpoints of their state electorates. Hogan serves a very similar function in Maryland.

[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..

[Elcaspar]

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.

[Indy Texas]

Step 1: Tory Men

Step 2: Whig Measures

Step 3: Win all the elections

Step 4: Profit?

[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.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Sununu, Parsons and Scott will lose. In NH, Sununu will lose due to Sununu vetoing a state minimum wage and minimum wage for 10.00 is making it's way again thru state legislature. Zuckerman is a good Lt Gov and even moderated cant win forever. Good news for N.GALLOWAY, CRT just got rid of voter ID laws in the state, last internal poll had the race 9 not 15

Gov elect Galloway
Gov elect R MT
Gov elect Volinsky
Gov elect Zuckerman
Give elect Huntsman

[Sir Mohamed]

^^ MO Gov isn't flipping in 2020. MT is far more likely to stay Dem.

[Pollster]

Lots of really great answers in this thread.

Probably no one true reason, but my theory is that many Republican governors in deeply blue states are popular because their power is severely hindered by a legislature overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, and as a result they aren't able to get Republican "banner policies" passed that would inflame the state's largely Democratic voters. The impasse similarly allows the Democrats in the legislature to run optimistically on the issues while having an out to avoid passing ambitious legislation of their own. As a result, the system entrenches everyone, and Democrats don't put up serious challengers or approval-lowering campaigns against the Republican governor to preserve the status quo.

[wbrocks67]

It's very simple: Democrats are more willing to accept Republican governors than Republicans are of Democratic governors/senators. It's just that simple. And Democrats tend to be more judgmental of their own, while Republicans typically fall in line with their own no matter what. So once you add that all together, you typically get Rs in D states more popular, and usually, Rs in R states more popular than Ds in D states.

[RINO Tom]

I'll try to come up with something different than the cliched "Democrats are simply more open-minded and reasonable (and even lovably gullible in pursuit of their noble causes!) than their barbaric Republican counterparts."

Many of the least popular Republican governors on that list seem to be either 1) from states that are not ancestrally Republican but only drifted toward the GOP for cultural reasons (which tend to often attain a more national spotlight than a local one) AND/OR 2) from states that are known as having more ... err ... "rabid" GOP electorates that would hold these politicians to more extreme stances and make them feel as if they needed to take bolder actions - the same types of actions that make the national GOP unpopular.

Conversely, the six most popular Republican governors seem to be from states that either 1) have relatively moderate Republican electorates that simply want a little bit of change from the very liberal status quo (e.g., Massachusetts and Maryland) or 2) have residents that are quite happy with the way things are going in their states and don't have a real desire to "shake things up" (e.g., Wyoming and Texas).  Both of these situations are conservatives' bread and butter, and conservative politicians can become quite popular under these circumstances, as they can be responsible and govern in a way they know is best.  I would argue that there is decent evidence of responsibly "conservative" governing working quite well.

Ironically, many of these "RINO" governors can campaign in a much more "conservative" spirit than their national GOP counterparts, who constantly have to take the traditional rhetorical space of traditional "liberals" and make bold promises to millions of voters, put forth bold new ideas that distinguish themselves from the status quo, excite voters with bombastic assertions of how unfair things are, etc.  When Republicans are forced to do this, they back themselves into a corner where they either have to 1) take things way too far and overstep even their own ideological beliefs to appease a rabid base and purity-minded voters (e.g., excessive tax cuts that don't make economic sense) or 2) be forced to backtrack on campaign promises and "betray" their supporters in favor of acting responsibly (e.g., Bush 41 choosing to raise taxes after "Read My Lips!").

I maintain that the "natural habitat" of a successful conservative politician is when liberals are getting their way.  It is very easy for someone like Larry Hogan to come into a high tax/high unemployment/high cost situation, suggest to voters that "enough is enough," implement a small change or two (even if it's "all he can get away with" in that state) and remain incredibly popular as a responsible reformer.  I would argue no national Republican has successfully achieved something in this "conservative" of a manner since perhaps even Eisenhower.  When people can see the effect that a responsible conservative can have - anywhere from Wyoming to Massachusetts - rather than what they have come to expect from the national GOP, it resonates with them.  For all of the talk about who is a "true conservative" and who is a "RINO," someone like Larry Hogan is quite literally a conservative hero, haha.