Actually ?
Moderate Republicans have a history in the Blue state….
He’s not gonna have any problem’s getting another4 year term …
2018 seems like a bad time to be a Republican just about anywhere. So you would think it would be even worse to be a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts, where Hillary Clinton won by 27 percentage points in 2016.
But the state’s GOP governor, Charlie Baker, is doing just fine, thank you. Actually, way better that fine: Baker, who is running for re-election in November, may be the most popular statewide elected official in the U.S. Of either party.
A MassINC poll released late last week for Boston’s WBUR radio stationfound that 66 percent of Massachusetts registered voters have a favorable view of Baker while 14 percent have an unfavorable view. That +52 net favorability rating is, of course, much better than President Trump’s in Massachusetts (-39). But it’s also ahead of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (+17), and she is not only a Democrat but also considered a leading figure in the party and a possible 2020 presidential contender.
We don’t have recent favorability ratings for all governors and U.S. senators. But recent Morning Consult reports detailing the approval ratings of every governor and every senator in their states found Baker at the top of both groups: 69 percent of registered voters in the Bay State said they approved of his performance (16 percent said they disapproved). Coming in second was Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont with a 68 percent approval rating (26 percent disapproval). (Baker ranks No. 1 in net approval, too.)
In these partisan times, Baker’s popularity might seem a bit out of place. So what’s going on?
Baker is a moderate, or perhaps even a liberal, Republican….
More…
image…wbur.org
Besides simply calling himself a Republican,Baker seems to have little relationship to the National Party.
You mean like Romney…Jack?
No not at all.
Romney ,after his term as Governor ,remade himself as a “conservative” of sorts(once self describing himself as “terribly”conservative) .Will Baker do the same?I don’t know.
At least for the present though,Baker has little ,if any ,relationship with the national Republican Party.He openly opposes the Republican President.Didnt even attend the national convention in 2016.
As far as I can determine he seems to operate as a sort 0f lone wolf.
I agree….
BOTH fancy themselves as MODERATE REPUBLICANS….
GOPer’s in Blue state’s….HAVE TO….
I wouldn’t be surprised if Baker declared himself an Independent.
New England is the one region that seems open to electing those without official party affiliation to statewide office
I would be….
GOPer’s and Baker need to have each other….
Baker doesn’t seem to need the GOP. As Jack noted he has pretty much operated as an Independent anyway. It wouldn’t take much for him to get on the ballot as an Indy and I doubt the Mass GOP could put up a decent candidate to oppose him.
You guys are not looking st the reality
Almost all of the blue state GOPer’s stay WITH THEIR PARTY which tolerates them with good reason….
ACCESS TO POWER….
Who are “you guys?”
I simply said that Baker has little,if any, relationship to the national Republican Party.
He doesn’t.
What’s surprising that the Massachusetts Republicans would support him?What are they going to do?Support the Democrat?
Baker reminds me of many of the southern Democrats of the 60s,70s, and 80s.They had little in common with the national party.Often didn’t support national nominees and sometimes even actively supported the Republican candidate.
Many later drifted into the Republican Party or ,for strictly political purposes, still called themselves Democrats, while basically ignoring the national party.
Good point Jack
Given the choice
What would National GOPers do?
This same thing is going on with Democrats
Like Lipinski…
I don’t understand the question.
What would National GOPers be doing voting in a Massachusetts Governors race?If they did I presume they would support Baker Over a much more liberal Democrat.
Or are you suggesting that Charlie Baker could be a viable candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination today?
If you are,the, well ,uh let me try to be polite…Oh what the Hell,
That’s dumb.
They want a one size fits all policy for members ?
I don’t know about “members.”
That’s far different than as a nominee for President.
No, I don’t think someone like Baker could today win the Republican nomination without reworking much of his present political persona.
To be fair,nor do I think someone like say North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper considered a”moderate” Democrat, could win the Democratic nomination.
Rightly, or wrongly, the electorate of the two major parties is way too polarized for that in my view .
Agreed…..
The big tent policy is essential for both parties to have chances of majorities in local, state and national elections
Yes, I agree.
Others who visit here seem to have a hard time with the idea that Democrats here may vote for Democrats who don’t share all their views.
Frankly, I don’t understand why there are so many conversations about that.
I’ve voted for numerous Democrats whom I disagreed with on many things.
The Long game…..
People ain’t just one thing,…
Well you lose me with that.
I don’t see what that phrase has to do with political beliefs.
I know what I consider myself politically.I think most people do.
I don’t see what that has to do with voting for someone whom one finds is closer to his views than the other candidate.
You seem to like to throw that out a lot.
I don’t “get” it.
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by it.
Simple….
As you just pointed out….
A politican , who is a human being, often has views and beliefes that at odds with each other, and certainly with different factions of a political party…
Example….
A Dem for the 2nd Amdemd, but against abortion….
A GOPer for immigration reform and abortion , yet for the 2nd Admend…
It ABSOLUTELY HAS TO do with political beliefs…
The Vermont and Florida GOP Governor’s that sign firearms legislation…..
Human’s are capable of complex often differing views and political leans….
While the media tends to put people in for/against simple boxes?
THAT is incorrect most of the time….
You pick the views you like, and like gun people, you and them often block out other views a pol may have…
It’s normal….
And probably universal….
Ok
But I don’t see where the term “more than one thing” comes into play.
Sure there are Democrats and Republicans that don’t share all the views generally associated with their party.I mean I think everyone understands that.I would submit that when one finds themself differing from the general views of the vast majority of their party or finds that their overall political philosophy changes, then they should consider changing parties.
Of course, this happens occasionally.We have seen it nationally in the Senate in the past.(See Richard Shelby, James Jeffords,Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter)
I don’t agree that the “media” by reporting a persons views is putting someone in a”box.”
Differing views “normal?”Sure,Who said differently?
I still don’t understand the nomenclature,”more than one thing,”nor do I understand why you feel the need to use such as some explanation for something that is self evident and, as far as I can see, is something that everyone here would readily acknowledge.
However, you seem somewhat enamored of repeating it over and ove,so more power to you.
The media tends to want make things simple….
You are a Democrat…
You are a Republican….
But as we both know….
Those two labels have many shades to them…
Hence ‘more than one thing’….
You’re being stubborn but you know and agree with this….You just said so in your own words…
I probably do repeat it too much…
But from time to time people DO forget the greys of politics….
I don’t live in Massachusetts, or watch much of the Boston local TV news (which I can now receive), so most of what I know comes from reading The Boston Globe from time to time, but insofar as I know, Charlie (not Charley) Baker still enjoys the support of most of the Massachusetts Republican Party. This is despite the fact that Donald Trump carried the 2016 Mass GOP primary on Super Tuesday (March 1) fairly handily [49% to 18% each for Rubio & Kasich and 10% for Cruz].
I wish Manila Calling! would call back and fill in some some of the details from his perspective.
I kinda figured that DSD
Sometimes we here go st things as purists
That’s not the real world politics ….
I don’t know enough about Baker to know if he like so many previous Massachusetts Governors harbors national aspirations (Mike Dukakis, Bill Weld, Mitt Romney possibly Deval Patrick) but if he does it’s unlikely the Trump Republican Party would be an avenue for that.
Maybe he pulls a Mike Bloomberg, gets elected again as basically an independent Republican and then quits the party with an eye toward a third party bid in 2020.
Third party?
Possibly, if he has an interest. While he has less name recognition than John Kasich I think he could likely be a bigger draw for independent votes as a 3rd party candidate. Kasich is basically a Reaganite Republican–and despite a handful of prominent think tank types most rank and file conservative Republicans are sticking with Trump.
The votes will be wasted Scott….
America Presidential contest’s are two parties currently….
That isn’t changing anytime soon…
Yeah,I really don’t see the basis of this “independent” Republican dream.
Whose the constituency? Presumably, I guess, the ten to twenty percent of Republicans who claim to “ disapprove” of Trump ,plus various people who allegedly voted for Hillary,although they disapproved of her but just couldn’t stomach Trump.
Looking at that realistically, it’s hard to see how such could come anywhere near winning a national election ,even assuming a Kasich or Baker could collect almost all of this vote.A proposition I find highly questionable to begin with.
Maybe one of them or someone else will take the plunge but this looks a whole lot like the John Anderson movement in 1980.He ended up with no States electoral vote and 7-8 percent of the popular vote.An independent Republican candidate in 2020 would appear to be very lucky to approach even that.
Yeah I think the Anderson analogy as pertains to a potential Kasich candidacy is apt.
CG disagreed saying that Kasich, unlike Anderson, was elected Gov of a state. Well so was Gary Johnson and he received 1% and 3.5 % in his 2022 and 2016 candidacies respectively. And garnered 0 electoral votes.
In September 2014, Charlie Baker won 74% of the votes in the Republican gubernatorial primary, while his principal opponent, Mark Fisher of the Tea Party, won 26%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_gubernatorial_election,_2014#Results_3
Possibly lost comment (due perhaps to simultaneous posting or a Wikipedia link I included): Charlie Baker won 74% of the Sept. 2014 Mass. GOP gov. primary to 26% for Mark Fisher of the Tea Party.
He will stay as a GOPer…..
Just as Romney and Pataki
Again
Forget the purity thing
What is “the purity thing?”
Follow the national party line
Well, yeah.thats what I said in my original post on this thread four hours ago.
Ok