Puzzling Governors, Part 1

posted by Josh Goodman

I wrote a feature investigating two related puzzles for the October issue of Governing: Why have so many gubernatorial candidates won elections in unfriendly places (Republicans in Democratic states and Democrats in Republican states) and why have they thrived? But even with 3,000 words with which to work, I couldn't fit in all the possible explanations. So here are all the ones I can think of, with arguments for and against:

Explanation #1: The country isn't really all that divided; there aren't red states and blue states.

Pro: Stanford Professor Morris Fiorina has argued that even on the most divisive issues -- abortion and gay rights -- most Americans favor moderate positions regardless of what state they call home. Even in Mississippi, 2 of 5 voters supported Kerry, while in New York 2 of 5 supported Bush.

Con: States seem to have consistent partisan preferences, except in gubernatorial politics. Only three states flipped parties between the 2000 and the 2004 presidential election. The party that lost the 2004 state presidential vote has the majority of seats in only 35% of state legislatures and 14% of congressional delegations. But 42% of governors are "mismatched."

More possible explanations after the jump.

Explanation #2: They win because they're moderate and distance themselves from their party.

Pro: Wyoming Democrat Dave Freudenthal has been quoted saying, "I don't care about Howard Dean." Connecticut Republican Jodi Rell signed the only law in U.S. history to offer same-sex civil unions that wasn't prompted by a court order.

Con: Being moderate doesn't seem sufficient for mismatched candidates running for other offices to win. In 2004, Democrats ran prominent moderates for U.S. Senate in Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Louisiana. They all lost.

Explanation #3: Voters like to balance the power of the legislature by electing governors of the opposite party, often meaning the minority party controls the governorship.

Pro: Many observers think this argument explains the success of Republicans in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, where voters support overwhelmingly Democratic legislatures, but, the theory goes, like to keep government spending in check with G.O.P. governors. The opposite party from the governor controls the legislature in lots of other states too, including Wyoming, Kansas, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Arizona and Connecticut, just to name some of them.

Con: When Montanans elected Democrat Brian Schweitzer, they gave him a Democratic legislature. New Yorkers elected George Pataki three times, even though the state already had a Republican state senate. In general, most voters aren't sophisticated enough to consider the interplay of different branches of government when deciding how to cast their ballots.

I'll have more tomorrow.

Comments

[Bob]

I'll take exception to explanation no. 3. I'm a lifelong resident of a state with a predominant party which historically controls the Legislature, but with a propensity for electing a Governor of the other party. Not once have I ever heard anyone say they were voting for a gubernatorial candidate in order to achieve some political balance. Most voters are just voting for the person who appeals to them the most. My guess is that the gubernatorial candidate from the out-party has to tone down their partisan rhetoric and attempt to tailor their appeal to a more moderate audience. However, the in-party candidate has to appease the party regulars and ends up taking much more partisan stances. And I think most voters are just very uncomfortable with partisan attacks. Also, there is typically more of a dog-fight in the in-party primary, and the victor typically gets chewed up some by their own party members through that process.

[Josh]

Bob, I came up with eight different explanations, but that's one I hadn't considered. It does seem, especially in Kansas but also elsewhere, that supporters of the majority party feel as though they can demand ideological purity from their candidates and are inclined to intra-party feuding. If you're a Kansas Democrat, you probably just want to get behind one person who has a chance to win.

[Elizabeth]

Explanation #2 is interesting because I just got done reading an article in the October issue of The Atlantic about how hard it is to be a moderate in today's U.S. Congress. The article talks about how easily ideological candidates get reelected while moderate candidates have to fight tooth and nail. So in that case, distancing yourself from your party might actually hurt you with voters. Now, I don't know if this applies to states but it is something to think about.