Public Assessments of Gubernatorial Performance

Abstract

Scholarly attention to public evaluations of governors has focused almost exclusively on individual voting decisions. Such an approach has allowed scholars to identify the factors that lead voters to support and oppose incumbent governors. However, such analyses deal with assessments of governors solely at election time, potentially overlooking some factors that influence assessments of governors and overstating others. The authors develop a model of public approval of gubernatorial performance and test it on a cross-section of governors. Their results suggest that only in an election year does the public hold the governor responsible for having presided over tax increases. Similarly, only in an election period does a strong institutional power base result in higher approval ratings for governors. Outside of the campaign context, neither tax increases nor institutional power makes a dent in governors' job ratings.