Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Governors of Large States are Less Popular

5.18.2009

Governors of Large States are Less Popular

Nate recently noted that, as the economic crunch as continued, the approval ratings of governors have been dropping in many states. This reminded me of some graphs I made last year showing governors' approval as a function of state population:

governors.png

The data came from Survey USA and Rasmussen. (Note added in response to one of the commenters: The numbers currently on the Rasmussen site are updated from those of last year, which I used in making the above graph. That's why the current numbers differ from those shown in my plot.)

At the time of making those graphs, my point was to show that Sarah Palin's much-trumpeted popularity as governor of Alaska was not as exceptional as people might have thought, given the small population of the state. Alaska is on the left side of both graphs above. That’s Frank Murkowski with the sub-25% approval in 2006 (edged out only by Ohio’s Bob Taft), and Sarah Palin with the high rating in 2008.

It seems to be easier to maintain high approval in a small state. What’s going on? Some theories: in a large state, there will be more ambitious politicians on the other side, eager to knock off the incumbent governor; small states often have part-time legislatures and thus the governor is involved in less political conflict; small states (notably Alaska) tend to get more funds per capita from the federal government, and it’s easier to be popular when you can disburse more funds; large states tend to be more heterogeneous and so it’s harder to keep all the voters happy. As the graphs show, the pattern isn’t perfect, but it looks real to me. Next step is to get data from other years.

A similar point applies to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on the Democratic side. His popularity is impressive but nothing super-special considering he’s in a small state.

Richard Niemi, Thad Beyle, and Lee Sigelman have prepared a more comprehensive dataset of job approval ratings. Shigeo Hirano and I used these to create a few more graphs showing popularity and state sizes in previous years:

gov2.png


These are kind of hard to read, but the point is that governors are typically less popular on average in larger states, but not in every year.

Shigeo was also wondering if people in small states were just more approving of politicians in general, and so we made these maps showing approval ratings of various national political figures by state. In these maps, dark and light colors represent higher and lower popularities:

popularitybystate.png


I don't see much of a pattern with state size here, which suggests that people in small states really are more likely to favor their local representation. (Not always--see the many counterexamples in the graphs at the top of this post--but on average, at least compared to governors of large states.)

Perhaps something to think about as 2012 and 2016 roll around. . . .

24 comments

Juris said...

Andrew: Interesting data.

May I suggest that you also put into your explanatory model explicitly whether the state has divided party control, the margin of victory of governor in latest election, and whether governor is in first or second term? You could also consider explicitly the governor's party ID relative to the partisan support in the last presidential election.

It could also be that all of this inreracts with the economic climate nationally (misery index, or consumer sentiment), and that large state governors are more subject to these effects -- independent of the partisan factors in my previous paragraph.

Riff-Raff said...

You should plot Governor Popularity v. State Budget Shortfall... probably relevant that the only states without a deficit projected in 2009 or 2010 are ND, WY, and MT.

Tanystropheus said...

High-population states also tend to contain big-city newspapers, which have a habit of digging up dirt on politicians. Perhaps Governors in less populated areas just find it easier to keep their skeletons in the closet!

Glenn Doty said...

It very well could be just a positive association with someone who has an unusual shared trait - in this case the fact that they are indeed from the same state.

People from small states are often quite proud of their seeming uniqueness... they aren't from the "big city" or anything, they're "salt of the Earth people"... etc.
If that is a point of pride for them, and they believe that is the case, then they're local politicians will certainly play that up in the elections and give a sense of familiarity and kinship. Even if you don't agree with a family member or neighbor... you aren't likely to talk trash about them.

It seems illogical that merely being from a similar background, or worse a similar state, might make you feel kinship towards your LOCAL politician... but to put this into perspective North Dakota has ~640,000 people. That's the same population of the small town I went to college in, and only ten times larger than the current NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION that I live in now.

If you were traveling, and met someone from your own neighborhood, how would you react towards that person?

Karl C said...

How exactly was the information in the Rasmussen poll compressed into a single approval rating value? At first glance it appears that the Excellent and Good ratings are just added together (46+15=61 for AK). This raises the question as to why "Fair" votes don't count as approval for their Governor. If I approve but don't feel strongly for my Governor, I might say they're doing a "Fair" job.

But this isn't the only way the numbers are added up, evidently, because Blagojevich (IL) should be at 0+4=4%, but it would seem that you graphed IL at around 15-17% based on the scale of your Y-axis. Furthermore, Delaware should be at 5+17=22%, but they don't even appear ANYWHERE on the Rasmussen graph! Of course, if they had approximately the same state population as in 2006, then DE would appear well in the SW quadrant, helping to ruin any point you were trying to make about linear trending in this data.

I also wonder if high population, which also means high population density, i.e. big cities, has more to do with the fact that big cities tend to include more crime, public transit, and tax issues which are harder for the governors to handle in a way that doesn't blow up in their faces. The bigger the state population, the more of those people are going to be found in a dense urban setting and the more problems that a Governor can't solve, but will be blamed for (along with the Mayors) are going to arise.

Ed Stevens on Google said...

Might I suggest a graph of popularity against the state sales tax rates. Sarah Palin would be working with a sales tax rate of zero. There are a few such states.

Then track a graph of popularity against the state income tax rate where Sarah Palin would be working with an income tax rate of zero. There are a few such states.

Then combine them to see if there is any Gov. besides Ms. Palin in the US who has zero sales plus zero income tax rates. There are almost no states other than Alaska with a double zero.

It's easier to be polular when you are not seen as taxing the residents at all and you preside over a government living off oil royalties and federal government pork. No one has the la-la land state financing that Gov. Palin enjoys - and it may be changing. That's why she's drill-baby-drill Sarah.

Ted4291 said...

Those correlations in nonrecent years look pretty weak to me.....

keithr said...

Your graphs are cut off on the right-hand side by the fixed-width layout. I don't have IE to test with, but it fails on both firefox and safari.

K. said...

Large states are harder to govern. The economies are more complex, there are more and larger interest groups, and there are big cities with all of their challenges and problems. In terms of popularity, the margin for error is much narrower than a state's with a small, homogeneous population with common interests. The surprise would be if large-state governors were more popular.

GROG said...
This post has been removed by the author.
technicolor-motorhome said...

Had no idea that Howard Stern was so popular in Wyoming...

M.O. said...

Small-Staters are more fiercely loyal to their local politicians. Reminds me of this post from way-back-when: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/can-vp-nominee-win-state.html

Tanystropheus said...

I wonder what Idaho has against Giuliani?

Nick Benjamin said...

Keep in mind that a small population means you only have a few constituents. When Gov. Freudenthal does something unpopular he's pissed off 500,000 Wyomingites. Granholm does something controversial she has 10,000,000 unhappy Michiganders to explain things to.

Which means that Granholm has to do 20 times the work as Freduenthal to get her message out. She's got more staff, but there's still only one of her. Personal attention from the Governer is a lot more effective than anything a staff person can do; so it's when the shit hits the fan Freudenthal's gonna do a lot better than Granholm.

It ain't too surprising their approval ratings reflect that fact.

Tanystropheus said...

Since Alaska's oil wealth has entered into this discussion, I did some rough calculations, and determined that for the whole United States to enjoy the same amount of oil production per capita as Alaskans do, we would have to produce about ten times as much petroleum as the entire world does currently.

With that kind of wealth available, there's no excuse for any Alaskan governor to be unpopular.

Thad Beier said...

Like the joke for which the punchline is "The corporate consultant says 'You have twice as much glass as you need'" I think this points to the problem -- these states are just too big.

California should be four states, Texas should be at least three. California would be a medium-to-large country by most metrics, it is ungovernable at this point.

I do think that with tomorrow's election here in CA, we are going to find out what happens when a state collapses financially. California is ahead of a few states in this respect, and the reason it is getting there first is that it can't be governed under the current constitution, at its current size.

tom said...

To echo what Riff-Raff said, agriculture, oil, and land values boomed in the mid-2000's and propelled the economies of states like ND, WY, and MT. Anybody can be a popular governor when the unemployment rate is 2% (like it was last year in ND.)
Looking back through the charts:
1980: oil prices still high from the oil crisis, so small state governors (WY is the only one shown) are popular.
1986: 80's farm crisis in full swing, oil prices have fallen, curve is pretty flat.
1992: ag prices are rising, oil prices are up due to Gulf War 1. Approval ratings are high in SD, ID, CO, TX, WI.
1998: oil prices are low, crop prices are low, the curve favors non-oil, urban states slightly.
2004: oil prices are a bit higher, crop prices are decent, curve is pretty flat.

markymark said...

My sense on this issue is that Governors of small states are often personally known to there constituents. Maybe not in a meet on the street and say hello kind of a way, but at least in a saw give a speech once or aunt Doreen knows his nieces best friend, there in the same grade at school, kind of way. That begins a level of loyalty that big state governors can only dream of.

Just think of Sarah Palin, I wonder how many people think or say stuff like 'Wow I remember her when she was presenting the sports news!' and that kind of long term memory brings a level of loyalty that its hard to shift in the end.

Ken "The Falconer" Mortimer said...

Dear Mr. Gelman: Have you read Federalist #10? Care to demonstrate why, enlightened by "expanding the sphere" to break faction, it is that your post is all that revelatory?

Xaviermw said...

Damn, looks like North Dakota hates just about everbody

Ben said...

Might be interesting to plot rating vs. population DENSITY instead of just population.

Jill said...

Two factors to remember:

1. Homogeneity or lack thereof

2. Number of states that border the large state.

I say consider those two factors because I'm in Ohio now, for 21 years, but I grew up in CT and lived in DC and Maine for months at a time for several years.

I believe that as both of these factors increase, the approval rating will decrease, as a function of competing interests and viewpoints.

I could be wrong, but it's a hunch.

uwanna said...

gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes

Böcek ilaçlama said...

hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği
hamam böceği

kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği
kalorifer böceği

kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama
kene ilaçlama

ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama
ilaçlama

fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama
fare ilaçlama

haşere ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama
haşere ilaçlama

pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama
pire ilaçlama