Bill O’Neill was the last Democrat to be elected governor of Connecticut. He managed it in 1982 and 1986. Since then, Democrats, while finding success at running for every other office in the state, have never been able to recapture the governorship. I’ve written about why before, and the reasons still seem to boil down to a couple of factors:
Weak Candidates
Bill O’Neill was a conservative Democrat with broad appeal. None of the challengers put forth by the Democratic Party since then have been able to appeal to wide segments of society. In 1990, 1994, 2002 and 2006, the candidates had a strong liberal base, but could never really find much of an appeal beyond it. In 1998, the candidate was simply a dud.
1. Bruce Morrison. The 1990 election (which I also wrote about previously) saw the liberal Morrison break from the mold of the past two governors, both of whom had been a lot more conservative in office than liberal supporters would have liked. He was hard-pressed to expand beyond his liberal base, which saw itself splintered by the independent candidacy of Lowell Weicker. He won a pathetic 20% of the vote in heavily Democratic Connecticut that election day, outpolled by both John Rowland (38%) and Weicker (40%).
2. Bill Curry. I’ve written about the 1994 election as well, and Curry was actually the strongest of the four post-O’Neill candidates put up by the Democratic Party. Curry was also a more liberal Democrat who, despite losing the convention to State Senate Majority Leader John Larson, managed to rally liberal support to defeat him in a primary. He narrowly lost to John Rowland, largely because of both the presence of Eunice Groark in the race and the general GOP-leaning tendencies of the year. Curry lost to Rowland again in 2002, during a strong Republican year. Curry, ironically, turned out to be right about the corruption in the Rowland administration, but no one was listening in 2002.
3. Barbara Kennelly. Bah–the worst of the lot. Kennelly, the daughter of legendary Democratic state chair John Bailey, had represented the 1st Congressional District for a very long time. But, alas, she had no idea of how to run an actual campaign, and dithered her way to a monumental loss. A good example of her weakness was her long and embarrassing search for a running mate. She finally found someone who would accept in former State Rep. Joe Courtney, who went on to bigger and better things after Rowland/Rell crushed them.
4. John DeStefano. Democrats faced off in a bitter primary in 2006 between DeStefano and Dan Malloy, but despite a narrow win in August DeStefano found himself out of money and nowhere near popular incumbent Jodi Rell in polls. A natural policy wonk, he was unfortunately not very telegenic or charismatic, and could never find much of an appeal beyond his liberal base. The contrast with the grandmotherly Jodi Rell, who was then still riding a popularity surge dating from the transfer of power from the disgraced John Rowland (a note: she’s riding it even now), was remarkable.
In 1994, 1998, 2002 and 2006, a supposedly much more powerful candidate, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, flirted with the idea of running before ruling it out. 2010 may see the same pattern.
Incumbent Power
All things being equal, voters prefer incumbents. Both John Rowland and Jodi Rell built up significant incumbent power with which to overwhelm opponents, whereas their opponents struggled to get name recognition. Barbara Kennelly was known in Greater Hartford, but nowhere else in the state. John DeStefano was unknown beyond New Haven and the towns immediately surrounding it. Both Rowland and Rell capitalized strongly on their incumbencies in 1998, 2002 and 2006.
No governor has actually lost a re-election bid since John Davis Lodge narrowly lost to Abe Ribicoff in 1954. Since 1954, the incumbent governor has left due to resignation (1961, Ribicoff left for the Kennedy Administration; 1980, Ella Grasso resigned for health reasons; 2004, John Rowland resigned due to a corruption scandal) or simply choosing not to run again (1970, John Dempsey retired after nearly a decade in office as the economy soured; 1974, Gov. Meskill decided to forego re-election and became a judge; in 1990 Bill O’Neill read the tea leaves and retired; in 1994 Lowell Weicker made a strategically wise decision not to run for a second term).
Which means that elections since 1954 have either been fierce competitions for an open seat, or something of a coronation for the incumbent.
It’s also worth noting that winners of open seats since 1954 have all been more recently members of Congress instead of state or local government. Meskill and Grasso were both U.S. Representatives when elected, Ribicoff and Rowland had previously been U.S. Representatives, and Lowell Weicker had been a U.S. Senator. The combination of the prestige of national office and higher name recognition seems to make a difference. Nothing is guaranteed, however, since Rep. Emilio Q. Daddario (D), Rep. Robert Steele (R) and Rep. Bruce Morrison (D) all lost open seat races in 1970, 1974 and 1990 respectively.
No Crises
There was never a sense of overwhelming crisis during the 1998, 2002 or 2006 elections–which is often what it takes to get rid of an incumbent. There was a sense of fiscal and social crisis in 1990 and 1994 (which was really two ends of the same crisis), which is probably why the incumbents at that point decided to gracefully step out of the arena.
Conclusions
When I last wrote about the Democrats’ long gubernatorial drought, I was watching the events of 2006 start to unfold. There was little chance in that year that Democrats would retake the top office in the state, largely due to the incredible (and, some would say, baffling) popularity of Gov. Jodi Rell–and, lo and behold, John DeStefano was crushed.
So what’s the lesson for 2010? Chances are that it’ll be an open seat, although absolutely nothing is certain. If Jodi Rell does run for another term, she’ll probably still have a significant advantage in name recognition and popularity. She could face more problems and scandals in her administration, of course, and those may become damaging. She may also start to feel some of the effects of a decade and a half of Republican governors, and the public might be starting to look for change. It would still take a very strong Democratic candidate with a wide appeal among moderates and independents as well as liberals to defeat her. That’s a lesson of Bill O’Neill’s success.
If it is an open seat, a lot will depend on who the Republicans put up–but the same dynamic for Democrats applies. They’ll need to field someone who can appeal to independents and moderates, or a perceived outsider who has a powerful message of positive change (a la Deval Patrick).
But who will that be?
20 responses so far ↓
Good analysis. I won’t mention the “B” word.
I know the political left loves Bill Curry and I understand that intellectually he’s fairly bright. However he ran his campaign on a platform of raising property taxes and insurance rates for the ‘burbs and, as to be logically expected, got creamed.
Kennelly never seemed to know why she was running for governor, and therefore couldn’t explain it to us.
The ideal for most folks in CT is to have Democratic reps getting the most pork for the district and a Republican gov to try to limit how open the candy store is.
O’Neill is an anomaly in that he backed into his first time as gov, and therefore never ran as a challenger.
[quote post="1218"]O’Neill is an anomaly in that he backed into his first time as gov, and therefore never ran as a challenger.[/quote]
Dempsey and Rell never did, either.
[quote post="1218"]The ideal for most folks in CT is to have Democratic reps getting the most pork for the district and a Republican gov to try to limit how open the candy store is.[/quote]
Also, I’ve heard that theory before, but I wonder just how many people think it through that far. 1994 was about the income tax, true, but ever since then we’ve just re-elected whoever the incumbent happened to be.
[quote comment="23018"][quote post="1218"]1994 was about the income tax, true, but ever since then we’ve just re-elected whoever the incumbent happened to be.[/quote]
Actually, that’s more coincidental than anything else — we’ve simply refused to elect weak Democratic candidates who would have ballooned the income tax and hammered the final nail in the state’s economic coffin.
[quote comment="23018"]1994 was about the income tax, true, but ever since then we’ve just re-elected whoever the incumbent happened to be.[/quote]
…Ever since then we’ve just elected whoever the Republican candidate happened to be.
Red is gray and yellow, white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion
The strength of incumbency explains why Blumenthal stayed out of the last gubernatorial race. If Rell decides not to run in 2010, I bet Blumenthal is in. But why wouldn’t she run?
From your analysis (which I find impressive and helpful for a relative CT neophyte), it seems that if Blumenthal doesn’t run, the Democrats would need someone with state-wide recognition and the desire to win. As I look at our Congressional delegation, I think DeLauro is too satisfied with her current leadership position in the Democratic House and Murphy is too new. Larson and Courtney have greater state-wide recognition having run for state-wide office before. Perhaps they are a possibility.
What about Dodd? His current run for the presidential nomination indicates a desire for an executive position. If he fails to win the nomination (as it appears likely), he might either view the governor’s mansion as an alternative or even a stepping stone to another try later.
Your analysis about O’Neill also indicated that O’Neill was a conservative Democrat, a moniker often applied to Lieberman who served many years as our state’s attorney-general. My sense, however, is that Mr. Lieberman, having been a justice’s vote away from the Vice-Presidency, would not deign to take the governor’s office. Besides, he is enjoying his status as a “bridge” in the U.S. Senate too much, I think, to want to give that up.
If Rell bows out of the race in 2010, I have no idea who the Republicans would put up. Is Tim White interested?
[quote post="1218"]If Rell bows out of the race in 2010, I have no idea who the Republicans would put up. Is Tim White interested?[/quote]
Right now? I’m guessing Michael Fedele and Rob Simmons could be involved.
[quote post="1218"]Is Tim White interested?[/quote]
no.
But since you know Cheshire… here’s my take on a 2010 Dem candidate…
I’m guessing that Elizabeth Esty will run for the 103rd (currently held by Republican Al Adinolfi) in 2008.
If she runs and wins, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see her immediately begin running for Governor. And while probably no one here at CTLP has heard of her… believe me on this… Elizabeth Esty could very well be governor of CT in 2010 or 2014… and I’ll add that if she ran in a primary against a much better known Cheshire resident – Chris Murphy (btw, I know both of them and like both of them)… I’d put my money on Elizabeth Esty.
Having said all that, I tend to agree with GC that incumbents win and, in turn, I believe Al Adinolfi would win, if he chooses to run.
A very brief bio on Elizabeth Esty, Cheshire Town Council (D-1):
elected to an open seat in 2005 w/ 70% of the vote and
reelected in 2007 with 69% of the vote
She represents a marginally GOP district, at least by voter registration.
And beyond that, she can raise money… lots of money. Though I suppose with public financing, the key number is $250,000… for the general, at least… I have no doubt that she could raise a quarter million and make it look easy.
Hey perhaps the Dems could put up Hillary Clinton she might move out of New York after her failed attempt at the White House and she’ll be needing a job. Chris Dodd won’t be interested because he lives in Iowa now.
The Republicans could put up Headless Horseman. Now there would be a great Governor, riding through the streets at night on horseback and beheading all the liberals he could come across. We’d enjoy lower taxes, better business climate and a great sense of humor to boot.
You know what’s funny?
Jokes about murdering an entire class of people who differ from you politically. I’d say “shame,” but obviously you have none.
That’s why assholes complaining about “the far left” are full of shit — eliminationist fantasy like this is the bread and butter of the modern conservative movement, and those who falsely equate those who call for withdrawal from Iraq and healthcare for everyone with those calling for the murder of ideological opponents have debased our political dialogue to the mere pretense of decency.
WOW-
Matt W. u really don’t have a sense of humor or a knowledge of figures of speech.
U know that is the main complaint about liberals, they are too sensitive. Lighten up.
Use facts to back your opinions not name calling.
The R argument is where is the line on the government providing for people. The Dems don’t actually want a line. But isn’t it about affordablity.
This report shows businesses can’t afford it anymore in CT:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0627.htm
Matt W – Switch to decaf – no one wants to actually murder an entire class of people.
Is it really true that liberals sit around just waiting to be offended? I hope not, there is so much other important stuff that has to be done.
As for “eliminationist fantasy” – admit there has also been a fair share put out by Liberals:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_12_12.PHP#003239
Let’s not forget the Kill Republicans gear that was on Cafe Press in 2005
Let’s also not forget in 2004 Bill Maher’s site where Democrats debated the ethical question: Is it proper to shoot Republicans?
Heck, we’ve even seen our share of Liberal College Professors espousing eliminationist fantasy:
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/12/13ky/B2-uofl12130-3684.html
It’s all BS anyway.
“If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.”
–Ronald Reagan
Neither side should be having fantasies of killing off the other, even in jest. It just isn’t funny.
“All things being equal, voters prefer incumbents.” Just a small quibble here: all things else are rarely equal. Incumbents dispose of enormous advantages in both money and status. Occasionally some son of the sod, like Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York, will arise and buy an election. But, for the most part, victory goes to the incumbents. And as soon as some clever head devises a way to deprive incumbents of their money advantage (this is still a work in progress), some other cleverer head devises a way to keep him or her there. One of the unmentioned advantages of incumbents is a disposition on the part of major media to go very soft on politicians who have been supplying them with their bread and butter; you don’t get news stories from losers. Of course, John Rowland is the glaring exception. His political sins were too black to ignore, and he was tainted early in his career with the black mark of conservativism; he grew out of it once in office though. The Courant, for example, all most routinely “votes” for incumbents in its editorial endorsements on the grounds that the challenger lacks “experience,” which seems to mean that he has not yet occupied the office he is running for. In the last national elections, that paper, reversed its usual proceedure and endorsed all the Democrat challengers in the US Congressional caucus; which is not to say that the Republicans did not have a hand in losing their campaigns. They did. But the endorsements didn’t hurt. In some other context, Ghengis suggested that term limits would cut through all this nonsense and provide voters with a real choice. He’s right. Term limits, had they been enacted several years ago, would have freed Chris Dodd or Richard Blumenthal to run as governor. It also would have opened the offices they were departing to others. The present sysytem is a closed system, and closed systems tend to rot from the inside out.
Good grief Genghis – if it’s so offensive then delete it. (eye roll)
GC: Fantastic post. You should consider submitting this post in some form for publication in print media. IMHO, the most amazing stat is that no incumbent governor has lost since 1954!!!!
I’m guessing that Elizabeth Esty will run for the 103rd (currently held by Republican Al Adinolfi) in 2008.
If she runs and wins, then I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see her immediately begin running for Governor. And while probably no one here at CTLP has heard of her… believe me on this… Elizabeth Esty could very well be governor of CT in 2010 or 2014… and I’ll add that if she ran in a primary against a much better known Cheshire resident – Chris Murphy (btw, I know both of them and like both of them)… I’d put my money on Elizabeth Esty.
Having said all that, I tend to agree with GC that incumbents win and, in turn, I believe Al Adinolfi would win, if he chooses to run.
A very brief bio on Elizabeth Esty, Cheshire Town Council (D-1):
elected to an open seat in 2005 w/ 70% of the vote and
reelected in 2007 with 69% of the vote
She represents a marginally GOP district, at least by voter registration.
And beyond that, she can raise money… lots of money. Though I suppose with public financing, the key number is $250,000… for the general, at least… I have no doubt that she could raise a quarter million and make it look easy.[/quote]
She won her district by quite a margin. Is there any chance she could become the titular “mayor” of Cheshire, or does that necessarily go to an at-large delegate? Does the majority party’s delegation choose the “mayor?” or is it the top vote getter?
Her husband was on the Cheshire zoning board not long ago, a Yale University professor in the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. (I wonder what he thinks of the current zoning/development plan in Cheshire). I always thought it was cool to have an academic who studies land use issues trying to work out the issues in the real world, a la “the Wisconsin Idea” of the Progressive era.
Sorry. Somehow I messed up the “quote” section. Tim White should be credited with the first part of my post. I need to remember to “preview” next time.
Likely to be defeated, he retired. He left his successor an astounding deficit, amounting to a quarter of the state budget — a catastrophe quickly compounded by that successor with heavy new taxes. This secured the O’Neill administration’s initiatives but Connecticut still hasn’t recovered.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19058093&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565860&rfi=6
You must log in to post a comment.