Why GOP could win four gubernatorial races in 'liberal' New England

Four of the six states in New England have very tight gubernatorial races, with Republicans leading narrowly in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine and trailing only slightly in Rhode Island.

Steven Senne/AP
Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates Democrat Martha Coakley (l.) and Republican Charlie Baker, are seated next to one another moments before a televised debate, Oct. 28, in Needham, Mass.

Some of the states where Republicans have the best hope of capturing new governorships this election are in New England, a region long known for its liberal politics.

Four of the six states in the region have very tight gubernatorial races, with Republicans leading narrowly in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine and trailing only slightly in Rhode Island.

This is a region where you have to go back four presidential election cycles – to the year 2000 – to find a single state that supported a Republican candidate for president.

It’s not that the momentum of a candidate like Charlie Baker in Massachusetts is outright shocking. Bay State voters have a track record of openness to conservative governors as a counterweight to a more liberal legislature. It wasn’t that long ago that a certain Mitt Romney was governor there.

But New England’s political terrain is tough for Republicans. Currently, only 1 in 6 governors and 2 in 12 US senators from the region can claim an elephant as their party mascot. And not a single US House member representing the region is from the GOP (although that, too, could change this Election Day).

What’s tilting things toward having competitive gubernatorial races this year?

It’s a mix of factors. President Obama’s low approval ratings are a stage-setter that puts Republicans on better footing than usual nationwide.

Then, Republicans have fielded candidates who impress voters as centrist and likable. In some cases, being to the left of the national Republican Party on social issues (Mr. Baker supports gay marriage) helps the candidates’ appeal with left-leaning suburban voters.

Finally, difficult economic and fiscal conditions have opened the door to “time for a change” campaign themes.

In Massachusetts, Baker is a former health insurance executive with a 58 percent “favorable” rating from state residents. His Democratic opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, notched a 41 percent favorable score. In 2010, she lost a US Senate race to another moderate Republican, Scott Brown, who won the seat vacated by the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

In Connecticut, GOP challenger Tom Foley also ranks better on favorability than Democratic incumbent Dannel Malloy. His campaign has been hammering Governor Malloy for tax hikes and weak job creation.

Rhode Island, even more than Connecticut, is struggling with above-average unemployment. Republican candidate Allan Fung, as mayor of Cranston, has wrestled with the challenges of public-pension underfunding – a wider challenge for the state. Gina Raimondo, the Democratic candidate, is a former venture capitalist who is currently Rhode Island’s treasurer.

Maine, where voters exhibit a strong independent streak, is home to a three-way gubernatorial race. And here it’s the Republican who’s an embattled incumbent. But Gov. Paul LePage is narrowly out front, according to averages of recent polls tracked by the website RealClearPolitics.

Like Massachusetts, Maine has an unemployment rate about on par with the national average of 5.9 percent, but it also has many residents who are still struggling.

As voters weigh whether US Rep. Michael Michaud (D) is too liberal or Governor LePage too conservative, independent Eliot Cutler is also snagging double-digit support in polls. (In 2012, Down East voters elected independent former Gov. Angus King to the US Senate.)

The backdrop for all these close races in New England is a US gubernatorial map where Republicans hold power in 29 of the 50 states. If they make gains in 2014, New England, oddly enough, is one of the likeliest places for it to happen.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.