Hawaii contractor nominated to construct GOP comeback after two-decade Democratic hold on governor’s mansion
Republicans have chosen contractor Gary Cordery as their nominee for Hawaii governor, setting up a November contest against Democratic incumbent Josh Green. Cordery secured the GOP nomination after beating fellow business owner Ken Fujiyama in Saturday's primary, but he faces steep odds in a state that has not elected a Republican governor in over two decades.
Cordery, who owns a contracting company, will attempt to end nearly 24 years of unbroken Democratic control of the governor's mansion. Analysts rate his chances slim: the Cook Political Report classifies the race as "Solid Democratic," reflecting Hawaii's strong partisan lean and Green's incumbency advantage heading into the autumn election.
- Gary Cordery wins GOP nomination for Hawaii governor
- He'll face Democratic incumbent Josh Green in November
- Race rated "Solid Democratic" amid decades-long Democratic hold
New here? Start with this
Republicans in Hawaii have picked their candidate to challenge for the state's top political job. Gary Cordery, who runs a contracting business, won the party's primary against another business owner, Ken Fujiyama, and will now face the sitting Democratic governor, Josh Green, in November's general election.
The contest matters because Hawaii has been governed by Democrats continuously for close to 24 years, and no Republican has won the governorship there in more than two decades. A Cordery win would end that long stretch of one-party control, making him a test case for whether the Republican Party can make inroads in a state widely seen as strongly Democratic.
Most political analysts see the odds heavily against Cordery. Independent forecasters such as the Cook Political Report rate the race as solidly favouring the Democrats, citing both Hawaii's usual voting patterns and the advantages that come with Green already holding the office.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates for a change in leadership argue that twenty-four years of unbroken one-party control, however popular, is unhealthy for democratic accountability, allowing complacency, insularity and reduced scrutiny of spending and policy to take root. They contend that a credible opposition candidate, particularly a small business owner with hands-on experience in construction and regulation, brings a practical, cost-conscious perspective on issues like housing affordability and infrastructure that the dominant party may have grown out of touch with. For these voters, competitive elections and the possibility of turnover are valuable in themselves, regardless of the specific policies on offer.
The case against
Supporters of continued Democratic leadership argue that Hawaii's voters have consistently rewarded that party because its governance record and policy priorities, from healthcare access to environmental protection to social welfare programmes, genuinely reflect the state's values and needs, particularly given its unique geographic and cultural circumstances. They see the incumbent's experience and established relationships with the legislature and federal government as an asset during a period requiring continuity, and view a change for its own sake as risky when the sitting governor has not been shown to have failed on the issues voters care about most. For them, sustained public trust across many elections is itself evidence of effective governance rather than mere inertia.