Is it possible the Democrats actually don't lose any Governorships?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I have a feeling it’s gonna be Sisolak that loses. Dems not losing any Governorship is wishful thinking. I also don’t think they will gain any outside of close races in the northeast at best.

You think Maryland and Massachusetts will be close? Even on the worst night for Democrats they'll still probably be double-digit wins. I get being cautious and bearish on every other gubernatorial election, but this is going a bit too far.

[Nyvin]

I have a feeling it’s gonna be Sisolak that loses. Dems not losing any Governorship is wishful thinking. I also don’t think they will gain any outside of close races in the northeast at best.

Dan Cox has as much chance of being Maryland governor as I do.   That race is titanium D no question.

[MT Treasurer]

No

Incredible to see how much Democrats have been emboldened by the NE/MN special elections and the KS referendum. I don’t want to dampen the excitement of the posters in this thread, but (a) it is incredibly obvious (esp. from the comparative primary turnout numbers) that the KS referendum could not have been a partisan D-vs.-R contest and that NO relied on substantial (>20%) crossover voting from registered Republicans/GOP-leaning independents who will not vote for actual Democratic candidates in the fall and that (b) this kind of special election turnout is most likely not remotely representative of the partisan composition of the November electorate, esp. when you compare the 2022 (special) and 2018 (general) turnout figures -

NE-01

special election (June 2022): 115,800
regular election (November 2018): 234,781

MN-01

special election (August 2022): 117,879
regular election (November 2018): 291,658

I wonder which party's base might be more likely to sit out special elections and which party stands to benefit from this considerable drop-off in turnout? Maybe the same party which benefited from it during the 2017-2018 cycle, when special elections featured swings which were not remotely in line with the size of the actual swing in November?

Again, I think the HPV in November will be closer to 2016 than 2010/2014 (R+2-3), but even that’s not going to result in Democrats adding governorships or making gains in the Senate. OP's scenario is only "possible" in a Democratic wave year or some parallel universe where Donald Trump is still President.

[politicallefty]

Looking back, the midterms in both 1986 and 1990 were rather strange. Democrats had a great year in the Senate in 1986, gaining 8 seats and the Majority (almost certainly due to Reagan's 1980 coattails no longer in effect). The House was rather lackluster, with a 5-seat gain. However, for some reason, Democrats actually had a net loss of eight governorships despite not being the party in power. In the 1990 midterms, there was barely no change anywhere. Democrats gained a single seat in the Senate and seven in the House. In terms of governorships, both Democrats and Republicans each had a net loss of a single seat (third parties won in AK and CT).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No

Incredible to see how much Democrats have been emboldened by the NE/MN special elections and the KS referendum. I don’t want to dampen the excitement of the posters in this thread, but (a) it is incredibly obvious (esp. from the comparative primary turnout numbers) that the KS referendum could not have been a partisan D-vs.-R contest and that NO relied on substantial (>20%) crossover voting from registered Republicans/GOP-leaning independents who will not vote for actual Democratic candidates in the fall and that (b) this kind of special election turnout is most likely not remotely representative of the partisan composition of the November electorate, esp. when you compare the 2022 (special) and 2018 (general) turnout figures -

NE-01

special election (June 2022): 115,800
regular election (November 2018): 234,781

MN-01

special election (August 2022): 117,879
regular election (November 2018): 291,658

I wonder which party's base might be more likely to sit out special elections and which party stands to benefit from this considerable drop-off in turnout? Maybe the same party which benefited from it during the 2017-2018 cycle, when special elections featured swings which were not remotely in line with the size of the actual swing in November?

Again, I think the HPV in November will be closer to 2016 than 2010/2014 (R+2-3), but even that’s not going to result in Democrats adding governorships or making gains in the Senate. OP's scenario is only "possible" in a Democratic wave year or some parallel universe where Donald Trump is still President.

We don't know what the HPV will be there is a range of 235/210 RH and a range of 51/60 D Senate yes D's can sweep everyone of the Senate races WI, PA, NC, OH, FL, IA, MO and LA and UT it's more plausible than Rs winning 54 seats that the infamous R nut map because of the 303 blue wall it probably won't happen but we are gonna get to 55 if we win the H, it's not inevitable that Rs win the H it's a range of 235/210 RH that's what Rs like you fail to realize any scenario can happen it's VBM not same day the votes are coming in slowly

[Hope For A New Era]

It's possible, but the odds of winning all of them are lower than the odds of winning any one of them in particular. I have no idea how to account for that in statistics, but it's a thing.

[SnowLabrador]

Possible, yes. Likely, no.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well well...

[GollumAttorney]

If not for Steve Sisolak...

[bagelman]

Steven Sisolak lost, but his race was winnable, so it was very possible. Sisolak just wasn't good enough of a governor.