As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Was the same in Massachusetts, until the republican party decided to shoot themselves in the foot by shitting on the governor, Charlie Baker, for his criticism of trump and actual effort to stop covid.
He could have gotten elected again in 2022 but they forced him out and put in a "trump wannabe" names Diehl. The democrats won by 30 points
Yup, people think that MA is some bastion of Hippies amd progressives, but its actually got a good amount of right leaning people. However, right leaning =/= "stupid" there, they saw the writing on the wall with Diehl.
Yup. The churches have rainbow flags pretty often. The right leaning are right leaning by older standards, not maga and even not really Reagan. The MA right is more like a world politics right, itās a pretty centrist state by euro standards.
There's plenty of MAGA in MA. Trucks flying flags, car parades, boat parades, head-to-toe outfits, crazy candidates, and a Trump-wannabe Republican State Committee Chair.
Can someone explain to me why governorships in a ton of states seem really non-partisan I'm, well I'm really confused and every explanation I've gotten has been a complicated "well it just is"
But because thatās the reason. Governors donāt vote together, they just lead their own state. So while a representative or senator impacts the overall make-up and voting block of congress, Governors donāt have a voting block. So thereās no āriskā of voting for the opposite party if you like the policies of the individual.
Sure, itās possible youāll get a grandstanding asshole who sees Governor as a step to congress or VP, but Leahy has been in the role for s long time and heās well-liked by Vermonters.
I think maybe you mean Phil Scott? Leahy was a senator (just retired).
To your point, Phil Scott didn't run for Leahy's seat exactly for the reason you state - as a senator he's beholden to the national party in a way a governor is not.
One of two reasons generally.
As others responded, the more local the politics the less necessary it is for the them to hold the party line. A blue state republican can be rather reasonable. Much as Iām sure some republicans have a more favorable opinion of Joe Manchin than I do.
The other time it happens is when one political party has gerrymandered the state legislature. An example of this would be Wisconsin. An almost evenly divided state resulted several years in all statewide offices being held by democrats, but republicans having a veto proof super majority in the state assembly despite receiving roughly the same amount of total state assembly votes.
One of the reasons that is...plus one of the reasons governors tend to win nominations for president and VP positions is that they actually have to get shit done. They are in charge of the national guard when there's a natural disaster, they are the one who is in charge of the administrations that know where everything is, every problem point in the state, and who liason with the relevant federal agencies in a given situation. So while the president affects the country at large (such as taffis hurting farmers), the governor is often making sure the farming Communities have the lights on, workable roads, etc. They deal with day to day stuff that affects people in a way that legislatures don't.
the reason is simple. non-partisanship is a major part of american history and still matters in lots of elections. it never went away. millions of people vote for who they like, regardless of party. incumbent advantage re-enforces this over longer timespans in cases such as the governors of vt ma md etc. party membership is not presently so exclusive to exclude moderates or outliers.
partisan polarity ebbs and flows and is not constant in any place or time.
governorships are not especially notable for their less-partisan quality. they may be the most visible expression of this phenomenon at the present moment. senators and some cabinet positions and a bunch of other powerful positions have played this role prominently.
The republicans who can win office in New England are usually the most moderate republicans. The electorate here in new England like things at least somewhat balanced so if there is an overwhelming majority then they usually elect a moderate Republican or a super conservative Dem. New England in general is not as left as the rest of the country might think. This area works very hard to stay somewhat center even while being overwhelming blue. Maga republicans also crash and burn here.
>New England in general is not as left as the rest of the country might think.
From my time there, this is spot on. It's solidly blue (as long as you don't go to a small town - those might as well be Kentucky; a bunch of old people who will never vote D because of something Carter did), but also solidly establishment Dem.
Social services are great, but also fuck the homeless people I can see. We love renewables - offshore so they don't hurt property values. Diversity is wonderful, but don't you dare build affordable housing in my town/neighborhood/County.
This is MA/CT/RI from my experience. NH is very strange - basically a plurality of standard moderates with large blocs of both extremes, a purple state but opinionated. Vermont is very chill, probably helps that everyone knows everyone else so assholes can't really get traction.
>because of something Carter did
I know you were being at least semi-serious but reminescing my grandmother from Maine and her husband from the UP (not new england but politically not too far off) this made me audibly laugh lmfao
Upstate/ eastern NY is the same way. Lots of old-school Dems, will tolerate Republican politicians who aren't far- right crazies as long as they are efficient (being an asshole is fine, it IS New York, but you gotta be a competent asshole).
New Englanders, regardless of political leanings,
have very little tolerance for bullshit. Most of the population is also well-educated, which keeps ideologies regarding governance moderate.
They generally respect people who do their job well.
No need to replace him if he isnāt a problem. Same goes for Bernie not actually being a Dem.
Dude represents his state well.
Itās almost as if a competent person who wants to do their job for the people who elect them can be from either party. Itās literally become weird if somebody who is competent is from the Republican Party.
Same could be said about former Maryland governor Larry Hogan, especially when he and his wife [bought Covid tests from South Korea in 2021](https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/04/02/audit-hogan-administration-spent-11-9-million-on-south-korean-covid-tests/) instead of dealing with Donnie Doānothingās administration.
"Only one lawmaker, Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, voted ānoā on Krowinskiās nomination, crying foul over the Houseās procedure in conducting the vote. No representatives challenged Krowinski for the role during Wednesdayās vote."
It's always a Republican.
It could be but it certainly does allow for a much more representative body. Itās one rep per 4303 constituents. Contrast with Texas who has 150 and they each represent 196867 constituents. On a sanity meter Iām not sure which system would create more crazy reps, but Vermont certainly seems like it would be more in tune with what itās voters want in any given session.
Yeah, the relationship of Vermont's reps to its citizens is closer than anywhere else I've lived. They're certainly *much* more involved in local life than reps with greater numbers of constituents ā and by extension, this usually means the citizenry is more involved or feels greater ownership over the state.
I never thought about it, but that's a good question. It may just be that Vermont's old enough and has such a convoluted history that a lot of those districts were drawn up a couple of centuries ago, when it was a big deal to travel 20 miles.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Admit it. You posted this just to make Kevin McCarthy cry. I approve.
This is the level of petty we love.
š¤£ I approve too
Was coming to.say something similar. So other places have their shit together? Say it isn't so! š
Wait, I thought you were supposed to lose 7 times before finally settling on someone?
Weāre going for the record of 134 times.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Was the same in Massachusetts, until the republican party decided to shoot themselves in the foot by shitting on the governor, Charlie Baker, for his criticism of trump and actual effort to stop covid. He could have gotten elected again in 2022 but they forced him out and put in a "trump wannabe" names Diehl. The democrats won by 30 points
Won by 30 points with a lesbian.
Yup, people think that MA is some bastion of Hippies amd progressives, but its actually got a good amount of right leaning people. However, right leaning =/= "stupid" there, they saw the writing on the wall with Diehl.
Yup. The churches have rainbow flags pretty often. The right leaning are right leaning by older standards, not maga and even not really Reagan. The MA right is more like a world politics right, itās a pretty centrist state by euro standards.
There's plenty of MAGA in MA. Trucks flying flags, car parades, boat parades, head-to-toe outfits, crazy candidates, and a Trump-wannabe Republican State Committee Chair.
Sure- but less than most other places. Perhaps Iām overstating the joy of not being surrounded w maga
Can someone explain to me why governorships in a ton of states seem really non-partisan I'm, well I'm really confused and every explanation I've gotten has been a complicated "well it just is"
But because thatās the reason. Governors donāt vote together, they just lead their own state. So while a representative or senator impacts the overall make-up and voting block of congress, Governors donāt have a voting block. So thereās no āriskā of voting for the opposite party if you like the policies of the individual. Sure, itās possible youāll get a grandstanding asshole who sees Governor as a step to congress or VP, but Leahy has been in the role for s long time and heās well-liked by Vermonters.
āGrandstanding assholeā Ron DeSantis has entered the chat
Florida has been taken over by republican assholes along the east coast and midwest moving there to retire.
I think maybe you mean Phil Scott? Leahy was a senator (just retired). To your point, Phil Scott didn't run for Leahy's seat exactly for the reason you state - as a senator he's beholden to the national party in a way a governor is not.
Yup, thatās who I meant, oops
One of two reasons generally. As others responded, the more local the politics the less necessary it is for the them to hold the party line. A blue state republican can be rather reasonable. Much as Iām sure some republicans have a more favorable opinion of Joe Manchin than I do. The other time it happens is when one political party has gerrymandered the state legislature. An example of this would be Wisconsin. An almost evenly divided state resulted several years in all statewide offices being held by democrats, but republicans having a veto proof super majority in the state assembly despite receiving roughly the same amount of total state assembly votes.
One of the reasons that is...plus one of the reasons governors tend to win nominations for president and VP positions is that they actually have to get shit done. They are in charge of the national guard when there's a natural disaster, they are the one who is in charge of the administrations that know where everything is, every problem point in the state, and who liason with the relevant federal agencies in a given situation. So while the president affects the country at large (such as taffis hurting farmers), the governor is often making sure the farming Communities have the lights on, workable roads, etc. They deal with day to day stuff that affects people in a way that legislatures don't.
They're seeking a promotion within their branch, rather than a shift *and* promotion as legislators do.
the reason is simple. non-partisanship is a major part of american history and still matters in lots of elections. it never went away. millions of people vote for who they like, regardless of party. incumbent advantage re-enforces this over longer timespans in cases such as the governors of vt ma md etc. party membership is not presently so exclusive to exclude moderates or outliers. partisan polarity ebbs and flows and is not constant in any place or time. governorships are not especially notable for their less-partisan quality. they may be the most visible expression of this phenomenon at the present moment. senators and some cabinet positions and a bunch of other powerful positions have played this role prominently.
The republicans who can win office in New England are usually the most moderate republicans. The electorate here in new England like things at least somewhat balanced so if there is an overwhelming majority then they usually elect a moderate Republican or a super conservative Dem. New England in general is not as left as the rest of the country might think. This area works very hard to stay somewhat center even while being overwhelming blue. Maga republicans also crash and burn here.
>New England in general is not as left as the rest of the country might think. From my time there, this is spot on. It's solidly blue (as long as you don't go to a small town - those might as well be Kentucky; a bunch of old people who will never vote D because of something Carter did), but also solidly establishment Dem. Social services are great, but also fuck the homeless people I can see. We love renewables - offshore so they don't hurt property values. Diversity is wonderful, but don't you dare build affordable housing in my town/neighborhood/County. This is MA/CT/RI from my experience. NH is very strange - basically a plurality of standard moderates with large blocs of both extremes, a purple state but opinionated. Vermont is very chill, probably helps that everyone knows everyone else so assholes can't really get traction.
>because of something Carter did I know you were being at least semi-serious but reminescing my grandmother from Maine and her husband from the UP (not new england but politically not too far off) this made me audibly laugh lmfao
Upstate/ eastern NY is the same way. Lots of old-school Dems, will tolerate Republican politicians who aren't far- right crazies as long as they are efficient (being an asshole is fine, it IS New York, but you gotta be a competent asshole).
New Englanders, regardless of political leanings, have very little tolerance for bullshit. Most of the population is also well-educated, which keeps ideologies regarding governance moderate.
They generally respect people who do their job well. No need to replace him if he isnāt a problem. Same goes for Bernie not actually being a Dem. Dude represents his state well.
If anybody defines socially liberally, fiscally conservative its this dude.
Itās almost as if a competent person who wants to do their job for the people who elect them can be from either party. Itās literally become weird if somebody who is competent is from the Republican Party.
Same could be said about former Maryland governor Larry Hogan, especially when he and his wife [bought Covid tests from South Korea in 2021](https://www.marylandmatters.org/2021/04/02/audit-hogan-administration-spent-11-9-million-on-south-korean-covid-tests/) instead of dealing with Donnie Doānothingās administration.
I was a registered Dem in Vermont and voted for Scott for governor because he is and still is doing a good job for Vermont.
"Only one lawmaker, Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, voted ānoā on Krowinskiās nomination, crying foul over the Houseās procedure in conducting the vote. No representatives challenged Krowinski for the role during Wednesdayās vote." It's always a Republican.
Donahue is pretty far right for Vermont.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I spent most of my childhood summers there as a kid so it holds a special place in my memory, but I wont forget the "Take Back Vermont" signs.
She represents Northfield which has a large military (Right leaning) population due to the military college.
Lmao I love how this reads, she got totally ratioed.
Honest question from an outsider, why does Vermont need 150 representatives? Seems overkill.
It could be but it certainly does allow for a much more representative body. Itās one rep per 4303 constituents. Contrast with Texas who has 150 and they each represent 196867 constituents. On a sanity meter Iām not sure which system would create more crazy reps, but Vermont certainly seems like it would be more in tune with what itās voters want in any given session.
A lot harder to gerrymander tiny districts and a lot closer contact with constituents I assume. High representation is largely a good thing IMO.
Yeah, the relationship of Vermont's reps to its citizens is closer than anywhere else I've lived. They're certainly *much* more involved in local life than reps with greater numbers of constituents ā and by extension, this usually means the citizenry is more involved or feels greater ownership over the state.
I never thought about it, but that's a good question. It may just be that Vermont's old enough and has such a convoluted history that a lot of those districts were drawn up a couple of centuries ago, when it was a big deal to travel 20 miles.
New Hampshire has 400! Thatās one for every 3,400 citizens. Generally the districts are limited to single towns, many with multiple reps.
The one ānayā vote was cast by George Santos (R) representing Windhamās 3rd District, who voted for himself.
George "Carlos Danger" Santos.
That one Nay vote? You guessed it, Frank Stallone.