LAT: Democrats likely to gain majority of Governors' Mansions

Control of the Governors' Mansions in Play
Democrats need to gain four seats to achieve a national majority. Fewer than a dozen appear truly up for grabs in November, experts say.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Times Staff Writer
October 8, 2006

For the first time since the 1994 Republican landslide, Democrats are poised to attain a majority of the nation's governorships, an important political toehold regardless of who wins the battle to control Congress.

Election handicappers forecast Democratic gains of four to eight seats out of the 36 on the Nov. 7 ballot, with the Republican-held governor's chairs in New York and Ohio considered most likely to switch parties. The Democrats need to gain four governorships for a national majority.

Massachusetts, Arkansas, Colorado and Maryland also look promising for Democratic candidates, according to campaign analysts. In Massachusetts — the land of Kennedys — a win would put a Democratic governor under the gold Capitol dome for the first time in more than a dozen years.

Four seats appear to be tossups: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan, all states that could prove vital in the 2008 presidential campaign. All but Minnesota have Democratic governors now.

Overall, "I think the Democrats have to be more optimistic about their chances," said elections analyst Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "The way polls show it, Democrats are definitely going to make gains."...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-govs8oct08,0,3530146,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

In terms of real political power, what does a majority of governorships provide?

Very important.

With Washington twisted in partisan knots, governors have taken the lead on welfare, healthcare, immigration and the environment, among other issues. Statehouse initiatives have offered blueprints for national legislation, such as federal welfare changes during the Clinton administration....

Statehouses have also been an important presidential proving ground; four of the last five White House occupants had been governors. Bill Clinton was in his fifth term as Arkansas governor when he was elected president in 1992, and George W. Bush won the White House in 2000 during his second term as Texas governor....

And governors who aren't themselves aspirants can boost presidential campaigns — using their clout to help raise money and muster volunteers, serving as state surrogates for the party nominee and amplifying a campaign's message with the gubernatorial megaphone. (Many Democrats are convinced that Bush would never have won the decisive states of Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 if Republican governors hadn't been overseeing those states' elections.)...

As Democratic advisor Mark Mellman puts it: Although "there's far from a perfect correlation between holding the governorship and winning a state" in a presidential campaign, nonetheless, "as my grandmother would have said, it certainly can't hurt and in a lot of ways it can help." Mellman is advising the governors of Michigan and Wisconsin in their reelection bids and was a strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).

Governors elected this November also will have a leg up on reelection in 2010, putting them at the center of the political line-drawing that will take place after the next census. That, in turn, could go a long way toward shaping the partisan makeup of Congress for years to come.

more good candidates for President or Vice President

A senator hasn't been elected President in 40 years. Senators are easier to slime. If a Governor has really good approval ratings, it is even harder to slime them. If Kerry or Edwards was the Governor of Ohio or Florida, they'd be sitting in the Whitehouse now.

If a Presidential candidate is a Governor from a flippable red state, they will have a serious electoral advantage. I really hope that our 08 field contains some good candidate who are non-senators from flippable red states.