The Big Question: This one's for Viking Pundit. Robert Keough, writing in the Globe Ideas section Sunday, wonders why the Bay State can't elect a Democrat as governor:

The Democratic Party dominates all levels of state politics -- from state representative to US senator -- but cannot capture the State House corner office. A year after losing their fourth consecutive gubernatorial election, Democrats are still asking themselves: Why?

Demographics show the GOP gaining huge ground in the middle class, and taking a bigger portion of top earners than before. But that doesn't explain ticket-splitting factor:

Perhaps the most straightforward explanation of the Democrats' gubernatorial woes came from Shawni Littlehale, of the free-market Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research. In Littlehale's estimation, Massachusetts voters are "purely selfish": "The majority of the electorate wants a fiscally conservative governor to push for lower taxes and cuts in our bloated state government, while they want their [state] rep/state senator to bring home perks for their cities and towns."

Perhaps. But Democrats examining the issue might want to take a look at some of the characters they've put forth for the office lately, too -- Shannon O'Brien, Joe Malone, John Silber: The party has not come very far since a fellow named Mike Dukakis left the governor's chair in 1990. Meanwhile, the GOP has discovered that the Massachusetts variety of genetic Democrat is likely to be more socially conservative, increasingly suburban, and (as trends the country) more a part of the "new investor" class. Couldn't it simply be that, on a statewide level, the liberal boilerplate platform just doesn't bait the hook anymore? Don't hold your breath waiting for the Globe to say so.