In Tuesday's post on Tim Pawlenty, whose approval ratings have declined significantly over the last six months, I mentioned that it has been "a rough time for governors in general". This is true -- but I didn't realize quite how rough the times have been.
SurveyUSA regularly tracks gubernatorial approval in about a dozen states. The chart below provides each governor's approval ratings as of late last month as compared to six months earlier (late October, 2008) and one year earlier (late April, 2008).
From among the 12 data points that are common to all three surveys -- these are Bob Riley of Alabama, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Chet Culver of Iowa, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Steve Beshear of Kentucky, Pawlenty, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, David Paterson of New York, Ted Kulongoski or Oregon, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Christine Gregoire of Washington, and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin -- the average approval rating has dropped from 50 percent a year ago and 54 percent six months ago to just 41 percent currently. All of these governors but Beshear have a lower approval score than they did a year earlier (although Jay Nixon of Missouri, who was elected in November, is doing significantly better than predecessor Matt Blunt).
Certainly, a number of these governors have had extraneous circumstances which may be negatively impacting their their ratings. David Paterson lost New Yorkers with his confused handling of naming a replacement for Hillary Clinton. Sebelius -- not without controversy -- just became a member of Obama's cabinet. Richardson was supposed to have been too, but flunked his vetting process. Kaine -- while not giving up his day job -- has become head of the DNC. Pawlenty has had the Franken affair to deal with (although, certainly, with this extra bit of context, it is much harder to attribute the decline in his approval to his handling of the recount).
Still, the decline appears to be widespread enough that excuses like this just won't cut it -- America is unhappy with their governors. And why shouldn't they be, when nearly every state has a budget deficit, and governors -- unable to raise revenue as the Federal Government does through deficit spending -- are faced with the Hobson's choice of either having to raise taxes or cut essential services during a recession?
With Democrats controlling 28 of 50 statehouses, Republicans would seem to be in a good position to gain back ground in 2010. Many states, besides, even under better times, have a tendency to alternate the party they like seeing elected to the governor's mansion.
On the other hand, of the 22 Republican governors, at least seven (Sarah Palin of Alaska, Charlie Crist of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and John Hunstman Jr. of Utah) are considered serious contenders for a Presidential bid in 2012 or beyond. From that list, Palin, Crist and Palwenty are up for re-election in 2010. Although Palin and Crist began with extremely high approval ratings and probably stand to be re-elected in any event, it is not surprising that both have considered bolting for the Senate. Nor is it surprising that Sanford, who publicly engaged in a war of brinksmanship with his state legislature over his proposed rejection of some $700 million in federal stimulus monies, is not up for re-election, thereby giving him the freedom to posture before a national audience.
Here's one prediction: at least one serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 will be someone newly elected to his or her state's governorship in 2010. Assuming that the economy has begun to turn around by that point, that person stands to get credit for a recovery that they had little to do with -- they will be able to cut taxes or to restore services, and will inevitably be hailed as a genius for having turned a billion-dollar deficit into a surplus. But for gubernatorial incumbents, for whom the opposite dynamics hold, it may be rough sledding ahead.
5.07.2009
It Ain't Easy Being a Governor
by Nate Silver @ 11:40 AM...see also 2010, 2012, governor, south carolina
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

59 comments
top ten
This is the predictable result of not being able to engage in deficit spending, and having Republicans punish you when you try to raise taxes.
binge - very funny
Looks like Tim Kaine is barely clinging to majority approval. Regarding the subject of this post, we've got a nasty Democratic primary going on right now, and it looks like Terry McAuliffe is going to be our nominee. (No, seriously.) And the Republican nominee is the former AG, a big slice of white bread who got his J.D. from Regent University. So I'd say the chances are better than even right now that Virginia gets a Republican governor this year, and it's not because people are profoundly dissatisfied with Tim Kaine (although some are).
I'm amazed that people don't take more notice of Jodi Rell (R-CT), who is still one of, if not the, most popular governors in the country. Her ratings have been consistently high for five years, despite the sad shape the economy is in.
Nate...
Ugh—“Certainly, a number of these governors have had extraneous circumstances which may be negatively impacting their their [sic] ratings.”
Please don’t use “impact” as a verb. This is what linguists call a “vogue word”, which some bureaucrat invented and like-minded writers, trying to be “hip” and “with it”, gleefully adopted. Instead of sparking up their writing such words sludge it up. Don’t just take it from me—surely you know some writers and editors to consult.
It’s widespread use makes it little better than a cliché.
What’s wrong with the good old fashioned term “affecting”?
If Sarah Palin is a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012, then this party is in deeper trouble than even the most hopeful progressive could ever dream.
Look for Charlie Crist to distance himself from the pack here in the next year. He is the only credible challenger as of today to President Obama's re-election.
http://democratictribune.com
Pragmatus seems to have discovered the universal rule that one cannot criticize the writing of another without introducing a silly typo into one's own prose—in this case, an errant apostrophe in a possessive pronoun. The irony gods are smiling.
Based on polls I've seen, I would say Paterson's tanking approval ratings were more a result of his particularly inept handling of the budget than the Gillibrand selection (though some of the mistakes he made there probably didn't help)
Jonas...
Oh Lordy. You got me. I'm usually more observant. "It's" indeed...
*sigh*
Er—Jonah.
Maybe I should go back to bed…
I'm surprised good old Sonny Perdue has that high of an approval rating. I guess since it's been raining more, the good Republicans of Georgia are happy with his prayer for rain.
But in all seriousness, this session of the state legislature accomplished nothing and slashed budgets, under the watch of Perdue and his cronie Lt. Governor Casey Cagle. I can't imagine that his approval rating is that high today.
And a typical misuse of the phrase 'Hobson's choice', which actually refers to a choice with only one option, not a choice with equally bad options.
I had no clue the Governator's approval ratings were so low. I must be part of a *very* small group, as I am a Democrat living in San Francisco who would approve of the governor's performance if I were polled.
I seem to remember not that long ago when the Republicans were all hot to trot about changing the US Constitution so as to get AH-Nold elected President! Boy talk about tanking.
Nate meant Morton's Fork. It's hardly a mortal sin, of course.
I would be very surprised if any state official in California has a decent approval rating. The state budget is screwed, and it projects to stay that way for a pretty long time. There are too many stupidities built into our governance that no single politician could possibly overcome, and as a group they seem uninterested in addressing.
It would be tough right now to be a Governor right now with the economy the way it is unless you of course had Obama's skills and team to keep you elevated. There aren't many states that aren't in the red right now with large populated Metropolises. For instance, while the state was booming, Warner achieved God like status in VA. I'd bet if he were Governor right now, he would be flirting with Kaine's numbers.
It's the economy stupid.
Palin Popularity Plunges in Alaska
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) now has 54% positive rating and 42% negative rating among Alaskan voters.
That's a dramatic change from the 86% positive and just 9% negative a year ago.
By comparison, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) now has an approval of 76.3%.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/07/palin_popularity_plunges_in_alaska.html
@Pragmatus: "Please don’t use “impact” as a verb"
"Impact" is a fine verb, when used properly. For example:
"He spent the afternoon impacting the sand, preparing for the concrete to be poured and finished." Or:
"The molar impacted, which caused damage to adjacent teeth as well as considerable pain."
Well, it's a start. I'm sure a lot of us still want to see governor rankings.
"David Paterson lost New Yorkers with his confused handling of naming a replacement for Hillary Clinton."
I'm not sure that's really true though I haven't looked at polling data. A more likely explanation for his terrible numbers (and obviously there can be more than one factor) is discussed in this story from last December, which details a number of sharp consumption tax increases (such as a notorious tax on iTunes songs) that really pissed off a lot of folks here in New York. Conservatives obviously did not like it, but then again liberals didn't either because they felt Paterson should be proposing tax increases for the wealthy rather than taxing our iPods.
I'm sure the who's-replacing-Hillary issue was part of his declining numbers, but most New Yorkers did not like the way he was responding to our fiscal crisis and I think that was/is a much more important issue. So basically Paterson is largely in the same boat as all the other guvs, he has just arguably done a worse job dealing with it.
Mark Grebner…
Yes, exactly—but when was the last time you saw “impact” as a verb used in the traditional sense you describe? It has become a sort of verb-weed in the language, used to replace “affect” or “strike” or “hit”, for the sole purpose of (supposedly) sounding literate. Nate is talking about neither sand nor teeth here.
Another word that is similarly distasteful (to me at least) is “gift” as a verb, used thus: “So-and-so gifted the museum with a porcelain vase in her will.” That’s just plain silliness.
I take it I'm the only one who caught Nate half an hour ago on Break Room Live with Sam Seder?
http://airamerica.com/breakroomlive
Please GOVERNOR RANKINGS PLEASE!!!I want to know what you think about the Virginia Governor Race. It's going to be a real mess, everyone will be attacking each other in the general election.
Wayward Son wrote: "And a typical misuse of the phrase 'Hobson's choice', which actually refers to a choice with only one option, not a choice with equally bad options."Actually, that is also an incorrect description of a Hobson's choice. If there was only one option, it wouldn't be a "choice." A Hobson's choice refers to either doing something one way or not doing it at all. No options on how to do it.
If you can either take this train by sitting in the coal cabin or else not take the train at all, and you absolutely must catch this train, then you could describe choosing to sit in the coal cabin as a Hobson's choice.
I Make It Hurt So Good:
You forget that the state of Georgia has approximately zero reputable elected officials, where wishy-washy Republicans dominate state politics in a numbingly-unspectacular way. Next year's governor's race is going to be a battle of weak versus weaker.
The grammatical, syntactical and general linguistic nit-picking here is a far more entertaining tangent than the spewing vitriol we've seen on the T-Paw post... but I look forward to the day when I can read comments to a FiveThirtyEight post and see nothing but lively, intelligent discussion of the matter at hand.
While not on the list, I wouldn't trade numbers with Corzine either. No one would. Tough being governor now, red or blue.
I am surprised at the low approval rating of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It makes me wonder what the margin of error might be for that poll. Informally, most of the folks I encounter in this liberal SF Bay Area think he's a decent governor who inherited an intractable problem.
Jonah, of course, used a redundant comma whilst pointing out Pragmatus's errant apostrophe.
SUSA on Deval Patrick:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=16a0d6e0-2bf8-47c3-87da-cc99b4bf99b1
As of March 27, 2009
28% Approval, 67% disapproval. This Obama-Style like governor seems to be going down.
Axlq-
I think much of his low approval ratings come from Republicans. Between not thinking marriage equality is an abomination to god and raising the exact same fee (car registration) that got his predecessor recalled, I am sure the party faithful has been throwing the term "RINO" around quite a bit.
Personally, I think Schwarzenegger's having to raise fees and taxes and having crap approval ratings are poetic justice for the recall of Gray Davis. He is using the same rememdies for the most part that Davis planned. If our state wasn't it such bad shape, I would be laughing my rear end off at the governor's predicament.
That being said, I think Schwarzenegger is doing 100 times better than stinky Petey Wilson back in the nineties. I remember when the pundits thought he would be the next president. Thank goodness that never happened!
Pragmatus -
Please don’t use “impact” as a verb. This is what linguists call a “vogue word”, which some bureaucrat invented and like-minded writers, trying to be “hip” and “with it”, gleefully adopted. Instead of sparking up their writing such words sludge it up. Don’t just take it from me—surely you know some writers and editors to consult.In my personal experience most linguists are a stridently anti-prescriptivist bunch who would be strongly inclined to suggest that you stuff your stylistic musings where the sun doesn't shine. Although I would caution you--and I can only assume you would approve of such a phrasing--that when stuffing you should take the necessary precautions to avoid becoming impacted. ;-)
Using "impact" as a verb introduces no ambiguity. It does not impede communication. The only purpose of objecting to this practice is to define esoteric rules that only members of your in-group will abide by[1], thus making it easier to spot outsiders.
[1] Yes, I did just end an independent clause with a preposition. Yes, I am capable of rephrasing the sentence by introducing "by which" midway through. No, I will not do that. Muwahahaha.
markymark...
I think "superfluous" rather than "redundant" would best describe the comma in Jonah's post. Redundant means "repeated unnecessarily", superfluous means "unnecessary".
We could go on like this forever...
:o)
While Jodi Rell may not be in trouble with voters in Connecticut, she is definitely Persona Non Grata within her own party at a national level. There is simply no way that any Republican on a national scale can survive without paying homage to the religious extremists and Rell was the first governor to sign same-sex civil unions into law. She has absolutely no chance at prominence on a national level until the GOP finally dumps the religious wing of the Party or she bolts to the Dems or runs as an independent.
leonsp…
Who said anything about ambiguity? The reason I find the use of “impact” as a verb objectionable is that the usage of the word was coined, as so many are, in an attempt to make the writer/speaker sound erudite. Browse through any document that comes from a government bureau and you will find such travesties sprinkled throughout.
For further remarks I suggest you read anything on the topic written by George Orwell, or any of a number of other writers who advocate the primary importance of communication in prose.
Nate -
These numbers are not fully meaningful.
Two other factors need to be evaluated - date of next gubernatorial election per state, and comparative popularity of potential opponents.
If everybody hates the other guy even more, and/or you don't have to run again until after the recession, then popularity rating is of less importance.
Hello 'Progressives,"
Pennsylvania needs "us" I am contributing - Yes We Can!
Joe Sestak for Senate Draft Fund
http://www.actblue.com/page/joe_sestak-2010
This fund raises money to encourage Joe Sestak to become a Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010.
Run Joe run!
(Please help by cutting and pasting link and/or donating - Let's get 'er done!)
Please show the chart of the following:
Liberal, big spending governors (including Swartzy) chang of approval rating
versus
conservative governors change of approval rating.
This will be a much better indication of where the public is opposed to Obama approval.
Jack, in case you've missed the last thirty years of national politics, it is the "conservatives" who are now the big spenders while "liberals" have been raising taxes and cutting spending in an attempt to get a balanced budget. The concept of the GOP as the party of limited-government conservatism died when Reagan took office and the long-term effect of the abandonment of their most fundamental principle is one of the reasons they are having the credibility issues that they are now.
Pragmatus-
The reason I find the use of “impact” as a verb objectionable is that the usage of the word was coined, as so many are, in an attempt to make the writer/speaker sound erudite.Are you about that? I don't presently have access to the OED, but I'd guess the use of "impact" as a verb has a much longer and more more storied history than you suspect.
For further remarks I suggest you read anything on the topic written by George Orwell...Are you familiar with Nabokov's opinion of Orwell's writing (cf. introduction to Bend Sinister)? One author is widely regarded as among the greatest prose stylists in the English language and the other is not.
And what the hell is going on with paragraph breaks?
Eric Henderson...
You need to read the whole thread to understand what the complaint with “impact” is.
Carriage returns now require a space at the end of the preceding paragraph, otherwise subsequent text will appear run-on.
Vladimir Nabokov’s prose is not always to everyone’s taste, and he naturally takes issue with those who don’t write the same way. Take this example, from the first paragraph of “Lolita”—
"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Le-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta."
Not everybody’s cup of tea, although other passages from the book can be quite stimulating to someone who finds the above to the left of purple. Below is one of my favorite passages from all literature, also from “Lolita”—
"I believe the poor fierce-eyed child had figured out that with a mere fifty dollars in her purse she might somehow reach Broadway or Hollywood—or the foul kitchen of a diner (Help Wanted) in a dismal ex-prairie state, with the wind blowing, and the stars blinking, and the cars, and the bars, and the barmen, and everything soiled, torn, dead."
For my money that’s as lyrical as it gets.
Ahem, Henriksen not Henderson.
Last thought...
I don’t know who Eric believes to be the greater prose stylist (though I can guess) but while both Nabokov and Orwell have earned admirers everywhere, nothing Nabokov ever published garnered anywhere near the critical acclaim of Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia and Down and Out in Paris and London.
Pragmatus -
I've read the whole thread and I think I understand the nature of your complaint. To be entirely honest, I'm just having a little fun at your expense. No offense intended.
That being said, I do genuinely take issue with prescriptivist rule mongering. Over the course of my life I've only ever advocated burning one book; Strunk and White's Elements of Style. It is a crime against the art and beauty of the English language, which would consign all of us to the insufferable hell of reading nothing but the sort of workmanlike prose favored by journalists and other mediocrities.
Re: Nabokov
Interestingly the more "purple" sample you provide is my standard go to example of Nabokov's brilliance. Different strokes and all...
Thanks for the tip about paragraph breaks.
Re: Nabokov - I don't think many people have been paying much attention to him since the Sharks were knocked out of the playoffs.
Pragmatus -
I must beg to differ. Both Lolita and Pale Fire are widely considered by academic critics to be among the greatest novels of the 20th century. Though, for what it's worth, my personal favorite is Ada or Ardor.
And I, silly me, thought htis was going to be about the poll ratings shifts for various governors. Back on topic. "The governator" has slipped simply because he seems to have decided "a pox on both your houses" when neither side would give a millimeter, much less an inch, in trying to balance California's budget. While many pundits blame the latest impasse on intransigent legislators and "Proposition 13"-a successful anti-tax initiative decades ago-the real blame for much of the fiscal crisis has to be laid at the feet of the voters. Election after election, votoers in California have approved issuing new state bonds. This has had two deleterious effects on the state's fiscal planning. First, the bonds have shifted a large portion of capital spending off the general fund budget, thus masking the true expense of operating a huge state government and allowing many "pet projects" and "earmarks" to be funded in order to pay political debts to interest groups. Second, voters in this state have somehow forgotten that bonds have to be paid back, with interest. Those chickens have been coming home to roost for some time. The other problem is California's ballot initiative process, a 19th century "progressive" relic that allows the legislature to avoid the responsibility for funding infrastructure (such as repairs to school buildings and roads) spending by putting a bond issue on the ballot to fund the needed work. And the voters keep passing the bond measures.
Regarding "impact" as a verb. (That's really what Nate wanted us to be talking about, no?)
It wasn't too long ago that grammarians were complaining about the use of "contact" as a verb. And if you go back farther, you'll find similar complaints about other nouns transformed into verbs, most of which sound perfectly natural to us.
It's interesting Pragmatus decided to jump on the grammar-cop bandwagon, especially over something as banal and pervasive as the verbal use of "impact." I'm not a fan of those types of criticisms. If Nate wants to sound bureaucratic in a small moment, what's the big deal? And the word has been used so much and so often by ordinary people that it has lost much of its bureaucratic tone.
Curiously enough, however, there was one usage in Nate's essay that caught my attention:
"America is unhappy with their governors"
Unlike most grammar cops, I do not mind when people use "their" to refer to a single, unidentified person to avoid the problem of sexist labeling. It's not only the most natural way of handling that problem, but has a long history.
Here, however, Nate is using "their" to refer to "America." This is strange in the extreme. The usual pronoun in this situation would be either "its" or "her." I can understand the aversion to "her," since that's a weird convention. But what could possibly be wrong with "its"?
I find this especially interesting, because the term "United States" was treated as a plural until around the Civil War. I always like to remind today's neo-federalists of that fact. Considering how pervasive the singular use has become, Nate's conceptualizing America as a "they" is odd, to say the least. Maybe it's because he was talking about governors (and, therefore, states), or because he was referring implicitly to "the American people."
I'm less of a grammar cop than someone interested in what different usages say about the underlying assumptions a writer is making.
Adam:
I couldn't forget that if I tried. Handel, Ox, Deal? Not a good choice among them, and the Democratic Party's bench is even weaker.
At least Westmoreland won't be our next Governor. But of course, that means he's still my congressman.
Geoff Johnson said...
"David Paterson lost New Yorkers with his confused handling of naming a replacement for Hillary Clinton."
I'm not sure that's really true though I haven't looked at polling data. A more likely explanation for his terrible numbers (and obviously there can be more than one factor) is discussed in this story from last December, which details a number of sharp consumption tax increases (such as a notorious tax on iTunes songs) that really pissed off a lot of folks here in New York. Conservatives obviously did not like it, but then again liberals didn't either because they felt Paterson should be proposing tax increases for the wealthy rather than taxing our iPods.
I'm sure the who's-replacing-Hillary issue was part of his declining numbers, but most New Yorkers did not like the way he was responding to our fiscal crisis and I think that was/is a much more important issue. So basically Paterson is largely in the same boat as all the other guvs, he has just arguably done a worse job dealing with it.Nate's right. As a New Yorker, the Clinton replacement was exactly where Patterson lost me.
His silly taxes can (and likely will) be undone. But senatorial appointments are so rare, the potential consequences so high, that he had to knock it out of the park. Or at least get a triple. Or at least make contact. How about not missing and sending the bat into the stands?
It wasn't just that Patterson bungled the choice. It's the way in which he and his staff behaved during the bungling, especially the bizarre and false leaks to the press about Caroline Kennedy.
I have a theory about why Culver's numbers have dipped:
http://tinyurl.com/c7uvuh
I also think he's still not in bad shape for re-election.The bottom line is Iowans like to re-elect independents, and you can't beat something with nothing (which is what Iowa Republicans have to offer these days).
Oops--link didn't work. Here is my theory about why Culver's SUSA numbers have dropped during the past few months.
Boy, I can't type too well this afternoon. I meant to say that Iowans like to re-elect incumbents (which is one reason I think Culver is favored to win in 2010). No incumbent governor has lost an election in Iowa in at least 45 years, and very few incumbent senators or House reps have lost either during that period.
Post a Comment