Mixing
Why are there so many Republican governors?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the House and the Senate the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the two dominant political parties in the United States, is fairly close, but among state governors it is not even close. Republicans have a 2 to 1 advantage over the Democrats. For example, in Massachusetts where I live we have a Republican governor, but nearly every other politician both at the local and federal level is a Democrat.
Why is this? Why is there a unusually high proportion of Republican governors?
united-states
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the House and the Senate the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the two dominant political parties in the United States, is fairly close, but among state governors it is not even close. Republicans have a 2 to 1 advantage over the Democrats. For example, in Massachusetts where I live we have a Republican governor, but nearly every other politician both at the local and federal level is a Democrat.
Why is this? Why is there a unusually high proportion of Republican governors?
united-states
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
Considering that state senators are selected one at a time, not both at once with some kind of proportional system that might lead to balance between the parties, it is kind of surprising that 12/50 states have both a Rep and Dem senator. Maybe it's just a result of changing swings in the swing states?
– curiousdannii
3 hours ago
2
@curiousdannii If we assume that all states are typically "red" or "blue", with an 85% chance of electing a senator from the predominant party, we'd expect almost exactly 12 states with both a Rep and Dem senator by chance alone. The expected number is even higher if you assume swing states that have a lower likelihood of electing the predominant party.
– Nuclear Wang
1 hour ago
This tends to be more due to local politics. As someone who lives in MD, which has a similar situation to yours (in fact, we are in a fight for most popular Governor in the U.S. with yours). A lot of the reason our guy is in office has little if anything to do with Obama and more to due with the previous Governor introducing all sorts of unpopular taxes on the state and then his Lt. Governor ran for the "Third Term". It's better to pick a state and look at the issues going into the election.
– hszmv
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
In the House and the Senate the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the two dominant political parties in the United States, is fairly close, but among state governors it is not even close. Republicans have a 2 to 1 advantage over the Democrats. For example, in Massachusetts where I live we have a Republican governor, but nearly every other politician both at the local and federal level is a Democrat.
Why is this? Why is there a unusually high proportion of Republican governors?
united-states
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
In the House and the Senate the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the two dominant political parties in the United States, is fairly close, but among state governors it is not even close. Republicans have a 2 to 1 advantage over the Democrats. For example, in Massachusetts where I live we have a Republican governor, but nearly every other politician both at the local and federal level is a Democrat.
Why is this? Why is there a unusually high proportion of Republican governors?
united-states
united-states
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
asked 3 hours ago
Tyler Durden
1,469826
1,469826
Considering that state senators are selected one at a time, not both at once with some kind of proportional system that might lead to balance between the parties, it is kind of surprising that 12/50 states have both a Rep and Dem senator. Maybe it's just a result of changing swings in the swing states?
– curiousdannii
3 hours ago
2
@curiousdannii If we assume that all states are typically "red" or "blue", with an 85% chance of electing a senator from the predominant party, we'd expect almost exactly 12 states with both a Rep and Dem senator by chance alone. The expected number is even higher if you assume swing states that have a lower likelihood of electing the predominant party.
– Nuclear Wang
1 hour ago
This tends to be more due to local politics. As someone who lives in MD, which has a similar situation to yours (in fact, we are in a fight for most popular Governor in the U.S. with yours). A lot of the reason our guy is in office has little if anything to do with Obama and more to due with the previous Governor introducing all sorts of unpopular taxes on the state and then his Lt. Governor ran for the "Third Term". It's better to pick a state and look at the issues going into the election.
– hszmv
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Considering that state senators are selected one at a time, not both at once with some kind of proportional system that might lead to balance between the parties, it is kind of surprising that 12/50 states have both a Rep and Dem senator. Maybe it's just a result of changing swings in the swing states?
– curiousdannii
3 hours ago
2
@curiousdannii If we assume that all states are typically "red" or "blue", with an 85% chance of electing a senator from the predominant party, we'd expect almost exactly 12 states with both a Rep and Dem senator by chance alone. The expected number is even higher if you assume swing states that have a lower likelihood of electing the predominant party.
– Nuclear Wang
1 hour ago
This tends to be more due to local politics. As someone who lives in MD, which has a similar situation to yours (in fact, we are in a fight for most popular Governor in the U.S. with yours). A lot of the reason our guy is in office has little if anything to do with Obama and more to due with the previous Governor introducing all sorts of unpopular taxes on the state and then his Lt. Governor ran for the "Third Term". It's better to pick a state and look at the issues going into the election.
– hszmv
35 mins ago
Considering that state senators are selected one at a time, not both at once with some kind of proportional system that might lead to balance between the parties, it is kind of surprising that 12/50 states have both a Rep and Dem senator. Maybe it's just a result of changing swings in the swing states?
– curiousdannii
3 hours ago
Considering that state senators are selected one at a time, not both at once with some kind of proportional system that might lead to balance between the parties, it is kind of surprising that 12/50 states have both a Rep and Dem senator. Maybe it's just a result of changing swings in the swing states?
– curiousdannii
3 hours ago
2
2
@curiousdannii If we assume that all states are typically "red" or "blue", with an 85% chance of electing a senator from the predominant party, we'd expect almost exactly 12 states with both a Rep and Dem senator by chance alone. The expected number is even higher if you assume swing states that have a lower likelihood of electing the predominant party.
– Nuclear Wang
1 hour ago
@curiousdannii If we assume that all states are typically "red" or "blue", with an 85% chance of electing a senator from the predominant party, we'd expect almost exactly 12 states with both a Rep and Dem senator by chance alone. The expected number is even higher if you assume swing states that have a lower likelihood of electing the predominant party.
– Nuclear Wang
1 hour ago
This tends to be more due to local politics. As someone who lives in MD, which has a similar situation to yours (in fact, we are in a fight for most popular Governor in the U.S. with yours). A lot of the reason our guy is in office has little if anything to do with Obama and more to due with the previous Governor introducing all sorts of unpopular taxes on the state and then his Lt. Governor ran for the "Third Term". It's better to pick a state and look at the issues going into the election.
– hszmv
35 mins ago
This tends to be more due to local politics. As someone who lives in MD, which has a similar situation to yours (in fact, we are in a fight for most popular Governor in the U.S. with yours). A lot of the reason our guy is in office has little if anything to do with Obama and more to due with the previous Governor introducing all sorts of unpopular taxes on the state and then his Lt. Governor ran for the "Third Term". It's better to pick a state and look at the issues going into the election.
– hszmv
35 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
In the wake of Obama's passage of the ACA in 2009, the GOP had two competing strategies for increasing their power:
One was Mitt Romney's (and several other middle-of-the-road Republicans) idea of compromising on a few key issues (immigration being a key one) and emphasizing others (their religious values) in order to make Hispanics a solid Republican voting bloc. This idea took a back seat after the Tea Party gained prominence.
The other was Chris Jankowski and Thomas Hofeller's REDMAP plan, which targeted specific positions in government that could control gerrymandering, and would have an opportunity to do so following the 2010 Census. They had access to high-tech software that could allow them to divide up districts in such a way as to maximize the number of Republican districts and minimize the number of Democrat ones. Focusing on the biggest swing states at the time (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), they sought to turn evenly-split states into Republican-controlled states by controlling their governorships in 2010.
REDMAP was devastatingly effective, and in 2012, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, but the Republicans were still able to retain a 234-201 majority. Democrats continue to win popular majorities in races since 2010, but win very few seats because of this gerrymandering.
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
2
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
1
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There tends to be a natural swing across all positions over time for governors we are still in a Republican favored period. This period started with the 2010 midterm elections that saw a massive Republican wave across the nation at almost every level. The Washington Post has some interesting graphs about the historical breakdown. Governors also have an incumbent advantage, so they tend to stay in office until they retire or are term limited depending on the state. The coming elections will likely see the beginning of a swing back to a more even or Democrat majority for governors, presidential mid-terms are historically beneficial for the opposing party.
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
In the wake of Obama's passage of the ACA in 2009, the GOP had two competing strategies for increasing their power:
One was Mitt Romney's (and several other middle-of-the-road Republicans) idea of compromising on a few key issues (immigration being a key one) and emphasizing others (their religious values) in order to make Hispanics a solid Republican voting bloc. This idea took a back seat after the Tea Party gained prominence.
The other was Chris Jankowski and Thomas Hofeller's REDMAP plan, which targeted specific positions in government that could control gerrymandering, and would have an opportunity to do so following the 2010 Census. They had access to high-tech software that could allow them to divide up districts in such a way as to maximize the number of Republican districts and minimize the number of Democrat ones. Focusing on the biggest swing states at the time (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), they sought to turn evenly-split states into Republican-controlled states by controlling their governorships in 2010.
REDMAP was devastatingly effective, and in 2012, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, but the Republicans were still able to retain a 234-201 majority. Democrats continue to win popular majorities in races since 2010, but win very few seats because of this gerrymandering.
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
2
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
1
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In the wake of Obama's passage of the ACA in 2009, the GOP had two competing strategies for increasing their power:
One was Mitt Romney's (and several other middle-of-the-road Republicans) idea of compromising on a few key issues (immigration being a key one) and emphasizing others (their religious values) in order to make Hispanics a solid Republican voting bloc. This idea took a back seat after the Tea Party gained prominence.
The other was Chris Jankowski and Thomas Hofeller's REDMAP plan, which targeted specific positions in government that could control gerrymandering, and would have an opportunity to do so following the 2010 Census. They had access to high-tech software that could allow them to divide up districts in such a way as to maximize the number of Republican districts and minimize the number of Democrat ones. Focusing on the biggest swing states at the time (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), they sought to turn evenly-split states into Republican-controlled states by controlling their governorships in 2010.
REDMAP was devastatingly effective, and in 2012, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, but the Republicans were still able to retain a 234-201 majority. Democrats continue to win popular majorities in races since 2010, but win very few seats because of this gerrymandering.
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
2
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
1
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
In the wake of Obama's passage of the ACA in 2009, the GOP had two competing strategies for increasing their power:
One was Mitt Romney's (and several other middle-of-the-road Republicans) idea of compromising on a few key issues (immigration being a key one) and emphasizing others (their religious values) in order to make Hispanics a solid Republican voting bloc. This idea took a back seat after the Tea Party gained prominence.
The other was Chris Jankowski and Thomas Hofeller's REDMAP plan, which targeted specific positions in government that could control gerrymandering, and would have an opportunity to do so following the 2010 Census. They had access to high-tech software that could allow them to divide up districts in such a way as to maximize the number of Republican districts and minimize the number of Democrat ones. Focusing on the biggest swing states at the time (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), they sought to turn evenly-split states into Republican-controlled states by controlling their governorships in 2010.
REDMAP was devastatingly effective, and in 2012, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, but the Republicans were still able to retain a 234-201 majority. Democrats continue to win popular majorities in races since 2010, but win very few seats because of this gerrymandering.
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
In the wake of Obama's passage of the ACA in 2009, the GOP had two competing strategies for increasing their power:
One was Mitt Romney's (and several other middle-of-the-road Republicans) idea of compromising on a few key issues (immigration being a key one) and emphasizing others (their religious values) in order to make Hispanics a solid Republican voting bloc. This idea took a back seat after the Tea Party gained prominence.
The other was Chris Jankowski and Thomas Hofeller's REDMAP plan, which targeted specific positions in government that could control gerrymandering, and would have an opportunity to do so following the 2010 Census. They had access to high-tech software that could allow them to divide up districts in such a way as to maximize the number of Republican districts and minimize the number of Democrat ones. Focusing on the biggest swing states at the time (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), they sought to turn evenly-split states into Republican-controlled states by controlling their governorships in 2010.
REDMAP was devastatingly effective, and in 2012, Democratic House candidates received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, but the Republicans were still able to retain a 234-201 majority. Democrats continue to win popular majorities in races since 2010, but win very few seats because of this gerrymandering.
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
answered 1 hour ago
Carduus
4,221923
4,221923
2
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
1
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
1
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
2
2
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
Governor elections in US states aren't my area of expertise, but does gerrymandering actually help here? I thought most states elect their governors directly and not through district-elected electors.
– Philipp♦
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
They do. But Republicans chose to use their resources to focus on governors' races in order to be able to gerrymander. While Massachusetts isn't a product of that, it is the main reason the USA has so many Republican governors.
– Carduus
1 hour ago
1
1
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
In that case you might write more about how they focused their resources on governors races and how much of a difference this made. Currently your answer seems to focus on the effects and motives, but not on the causes and methods which achieved this situation.
– Philipp♦
58 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
This is a completely incoherent answer. I am asking about governorships, not elections to the House of Representatives.
– Tyler Durden
2 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There tends to be a natural swing across all positions over time for governors we are still in a Republican favored period. This period started with the 2010 midterm elections that saw a massive Republican wave across the nation at almost every level. The Washington Post has some interesting graphs about the historical breakdown. Governors also have an incumbent advantage, so they tend to stay in office until they retire or are term limited depending on the state. The coming elections will likely see the beginning of a swing back to a more even or Democrat majority for governors, presidential mid-terms are historically beneficial for the opposing party.
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
There tends to be a natural swing across all positions over time for governors we are still in a Republican favored period. This period started with the 2010 midterm elections that saw a massive Republican wave across the nation at almost every level. The Washington Post has some interesting graphs about the historical breakdown. Governors also have an incumbent advantage, so they tend to stay in office until they retire or are term limited depending on the state. The coming elections will likely see the beginning of a swing back to a more even or Democrat majority for governors, presidential mid-terms are historically beneficial for the opposing party.
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There tends to be a natural swing across all positions over time for governors we are still in a Republican favored period. This period started with the 2010 midterm elections that saw a massive Republican wave across the nation at almost every level. The Washington Post has some interesting graphs about the historical breakdown. Governors also have an incumbent advantage, so they tend to stay in office until they retire or are term limited depending on the state. The coming elections will likely see the beginning of a swing back to a more even or Democrat majority for governors, presidential mid-terms are historically beneficial for the opposing party.
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
There tends to be a natural swing across all positions over time for governors we are still in a Republican favored period. This period started with the 2010 midterm elections that saw a massive Republican wave across the nation at almost every level. The Washington Post has some interesting graphs about the historical breakdown. Governors also have an incumbent advantage, so they tend to stay in office until they retire or are term limited depending on the state. The coming elections will likely see the beginning of a swing back to a more even or Democrat majority for governors, presidential mid-terms are historically beneficial for the opposing party.
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
answered 2 hours ago
Ryathal
6,9491333
6,9491333
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34958%2fwhy-are-there-so-many-republican-governors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Considering that state senators are selected one at a time, not both at once with some kind of proportional system that might lead to balance between the parties, it is kind of surprising that 12/50 states have both a Rep and Dem senator. Maybe it's just a result of changing swings in the swing states?
– curiousdannii
3 hours ago
2
@curiousdannii If we assume that all states are typically "red" or "blue", with an 85% chance of electing a senator from the predominant party, we'd expect almost exactly 12 states with both a Rep and Dem senator by chance alone. The expected number is even higher if you assume swing states that have a lower likelihood of electing the predominant party.
– Nuclear Wang
1 hour ago
This tends to be more due to local politics. As someone who lives in MD, which has a similar situation to yours (in fact, we are in a fight for most popular Governor in the U.S. with yours). A lot of the reason our guy is in office has little if anything to do with Obama and more to due with the previous Governor introducing all sorts of unpopular taxes on the state and then his Lt. Governor ran for the "Third Term". It's better to pick a state and look at the issues going into the election.
– hszmv
35 mins ago