Guvs' Polls: What's Red is Blue and Blue is Red

posted by Josh Goodman

Survey USA has new approval ratings for all 50 governors. The polls bear out an odd trend that has become increasingly clear over the past few months. In general, Democratic governors are popular in Republican states, while Republican governors are more popular in Democratic states:

* Republican governors in states carried by Bush in '04 have an average approval rating of 51 percent. Republicans in Kerry states have an average approval of 54 percent.

* Democratic governors in states carried by Bush have an average approval rating of 59 percent. Democrats in states carried by Kerry only average 46 percent.

I can't explain this counterintuitive situation with any certainty. Perhaps when governors see their constituents supporting the opposite party, they respond by moderating their policies.

Another possibility is that voters like divided government. Most state legislatures are controlled by a majority party. Maybe voters like their governors to check the power of the legislature.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see this dynamic play out in next fall's elections. If Democratic governors such as Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming and Brad Henry of Oklahoma, as well as Republican governors such as Jim Douglas of Vermont and Jodi Rell of Connecticut, can win reelection, pundits will have to rethink the whole red state-blue state phenomenon. All four of them have approval ratings over 60% at this point.

Real Clear Politics has more analysis on the Survey USA poll.

Comments

[Laurence p. Harkness]

It is hard to believe that you averaged Taft of Ohio's approval rating of 6.5% and still came up with 51percent for GOP in Bush carried states. LPH

[edaigneau]

But if you look at the question asked, how many people were polled and how the poll breaks down--it isn't really very representative to begin with. I doubt Taft's popularity--while low--is really that low. Nor would I say it is that high either.

[John]

Its been a reality now for a while that Democrats and Republicans can win governorships in states where they have no chance to win in national elections, because it is an entirely separate type of election. Actually, Democrats should me more succesful in gubentorial elections in 2006 than in national elections, b/c they do not get as trapped up by social issues and a lack of clear and legitimate national security strategy. Karl Rove started the Iraq War, b/c he knew it would fracture the Democratic party. It did. Nancy Pelosi saying one things and Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer saying another is doom for the Democrats.

[Colin Newman]

Brad Henry is incredibly popular here in Oklahoma because he's done what the national democratic party should do: present clear ideas on issues the voters care about. He campaigned on a clear agenda focused primarily on education, health care, and the economy, and has managed to get most of his proposals through the legislature. I think that the key is that the majority of people regardless of state are somewhere in the political middle, a fact that is obscured by the winner take all nature of the electoral college. Also, Idealogues don't make good administrators; if a politician is so committed to his pet issues that he can't make an occasional compromise, he isn't likely to get much done, and most people just want the trains to run on time and the trash to get picked up.

[Devin Lavelle]

Perhaps it's just a selectivity bias. To get elected in an off-color state, candidates have to be much better than they would in a state more friendly to their party.