Have we ever had a year where both parties picked up >5 governorships?

[Mr. Morden]

Just curious.  The early aggregate 2010 gubernatorial predictions on the Atlas:

https://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/GOVERNOR/2010/pred.php

have the Dems picking up 6 statehouses from the GOP and the GOP picking up 6 from the Dems, for a net change of zero (oh, except for an Indy pickup in RI).  All of the individual predictions look reasonable, and I could certainly see something like this happening next November.  Has anything like that ever happened before though?  With that many goverships swapping from one party to the other, and not all in the same direction?

I can't think of any recent examples, but I'm not that knowledgeable about gubernatorial elections from more than a few cycles ago.

[RI]

It occured in 2002 and 1990.  In 2002, the Democrats picked up 11 governorships and the Republicans picked up 9. In 1990, the Democrats picked up 7 governorships, the Republicans picked up 6, and Independents picked up an additional 2 governorships in Alaska and Connecticut.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, never mind then, I guess it's not that uncommon after all. 

1990 is before I was paying attention to politics.  2002....I was paying attention, but I guess not really following governor's races at that time.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Three factors that contribute to large numbers of pickups for both sides:

- Crappy economy
- Lots of open seats
- Partisan identification matters less than in federal races

Also, there's not going to be a strong trend towards one party as there was in 1994 (where the Democrats only picked up one governor's mansion -- Alaska, of all places) or 2006.

[nhmagic]

Three factors that contribute to large numbers of pickups for both sides:

- Crappy economy
- Lots of open seats
- Partisan identification matters less than in federal races

Also, there's not going to be a strong trend towards one party as there was in 1994 (where the Democrats only picked up one governor's mansion -- Alaska, of all places) or 2006.

I wouldn't count your chickens on the last point.  At least, the governor's races are very favorable to republicans, and as shown in places like New Jersey, the blacks came out to vote for Obama, but feel like they did their duty and will not show.  Its going to hurt your party in areas where there are heavy black populations that put your candidates over the edge.  Republicans pick up 6 governorships overall.   Other than New Hampshire, there is the possibility that the entire northeast could have governors other than democrats - not good for you guys.

[Holmes]

Other than New Hampshire, there is the possibility that the entire northeast could have governors other than democrats - not good for you guys.

2010 is a perfect opportunity to have no Republican governors in New York + New England. But if you believe that health care reform will bring down Democrats in the Northeast, then by all means.

[nhmagic]

Other than New Hampshire, there is the possibility that the entire northeast could have governors other than democrats - not good for you guys.

2010 is a perfect opportunity to have no Republican governors in New York + New England. But if you believe that health care reform will bring down Democrats in the Northeast, then by all means.

Unemployment, economy and scandal bring down governors for the most part.  I do believe that deathcare will bring down senators and congressmen (not necessarily in the northeast, except maybe Carol Shea Porter in NH).  Patrick, Paterson, and is it Baldacci? in Maine all have terrible approval numbers.  If you look at my prediction you'll see that I didn't predict most of New England would go to Republicans (I have Cuomo winning NY, a random dem picking up Connecticut, Maine staying dem, and RI going independent).  Massachusetts however will certainly elect a republican because Patrick is a dunderhead.  I'm just saying that its very possible for Republicans to have the majority of Gov seats in the northeast.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Massachusetts however will certainly elect a republican because Patrick is a dunderhead.  I'm just saying that its very possible for Republicans to have the majority of Gov seats in the northeast.

LOL!
Do you know that in a three-way race the Republican candidates are a distant third?

[nkpatel1279]

In 2002- Republican Governors who were elected during the 1994 GOP wave were term limited.
Democrats picked up AZ(Napolitano),IL(Blagojevich),KS(Sebelius),ME(from IND-Baldacci-D),MI(Granholm),NM(Richardson),OK(Henry),PA(Rendell),TN(Bredesen),WI(Doyle),and WY(Fredenthal).
Republicans picked up AL(Riley unseated Seigelman),AK(Frank Murkowski),GA(Perdue unseated Barnes),HI(Linda Lingle),MD(Bobby Ehrlich)MN(From IND-Pawlenty-R),NH(Craig Benson),SC(Sanford unseated Jim Hodges),and VT(Jim Douglas).
In 1998. Democrats picked up the Governorship in AL(Seigelman unseated James-R).CA(Gray Davis),IA(Tom Vilsack),and SC(Hodges unseated Beasley-R). Republicans picked up CO(Bill Owens),FL(Jeb Bush),NE(Mike Johanns),and NV(Kenny Guinn).
2010- Democrats will pick up Governorships in Blue States- CA(Jerry Brown),CT(Susan Bysewicz),HI(Neil Ambercrombie),MN(RT Ryback),and VT(Doug Racine or Deb Markowitz) and hold onto AR(Beebe),IL(Quinn or Hynes),MD(O'malley),MA(Patrick),NH(Lynch),NM(Denish),NY(if Cuomo is the nominee),OR(Kitzhaber),and WI(Barrett).

Republicans will pick up KS(Brownback),MI(Cox),OK(Fallin),PA,TN,and WY. and will hold onto AL,FL,GA,ID,NE,NV,SC,SD,TX,and UT. Chafee(I) will pickup RI. AZ and ME are too close to call.

[Holmes]

Your predictions are optimistic, not realistic. Not to mention it's contradictory when you say unemployment and economy will help the opposing party, and then say California will stay Republican. It'd take a pretty convincing margin in the central valley and inland empire for Whitman to run away with it.

[Mr.Phips]

Three factors that contribute to large numbers of pickups for both sides:

- Crappy economy
- Lots of open seats
- Partisan identification matters less than in federal races

Also, there's not going to be a strong trend towards one party as there was in 1994 (where the Democrats only picked up one governor's mansion -- Alaska, of all places) or 2006.

I wouldn't count your chickens on the last point.  At least, the governor's races are very favorable to republicans, and as shown in places like New Jersey, the blacks came out to vote for Obama, but feel like they did their duty and will not show.  Its going to hurt your party in areas where there are heavy black populations that put your candidates over the edge.  Republicans pick up 6 governorships overall.   Other than New Hampshire, there is the possibility that the entire northeast could have governors other than democrats - not good for you guys.

How about Republicans in states like Vermont, Connecticut, California, Minnesota, Hawaii, Florida, and Arizona where they are the incumbents and the economy is terrible? 

What helped Republicans pick up so many governorships in 1994 was the fact that they had many incumbents who were able to take credit for the economic recovery and get reelected(John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Terry Brandstad, ect)

[nhmagic]

Three factors that contribute to large numbers of pickups for both sides:

- Crappy economy
- Lots of open seats
- Partisan identification matters less than in federal races

Also, there's not going to be a strong trend towards one party as there was in 1994 (where the Democrats only picked up one governor's mansion -- Alaska, of all places) or 2006.

I wouldn't count your chickens on the last point.  At least, the governor's races are very favorable to republicans, and as shown in places like New Jersey, the blacks came out to vote for Obama, but feel like they did their duty and will not show.  Its going to hurt your party in areas where there are heavy black populations that put your candidates over the edge.  Republicans pick up 6 governorships overall.   Other than New Hampshire, there is the possibility that the entire northeast could have governors other than democrats - not good for you guys.

How about Republicans in states like Vermont, Connecticut, California, Minnesota, Hawaii, Florida, and Arizona where they are the incumbents and the economy is terrible? 

What helped Republicans pick up so many governorships in 1994 was the fact that they had many incumbents who were able to take credit for the economic recovery and get reelected(John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Terry Brandstad, ect)

Did you see my prediction though?  I have CT, HI, FL, & AZ all going dem.  VT and CA have strong republican candidates, and the democrats (unless feinstein jumps in in CA) have weak ones or a fractured primary.  By the way, my CA analysis comes mainly from former SF mayor Willie Brown, who writes articles about CA politics.  My thought however still stands, it is possible that other than in NH, the northeast will not have a single democratic governor (unless you include Delaware too, but I think its still part of the mid-atlantic region).  And how odd, considering NH is the most conservative of those states.  Now how likely is this, probably a 40% chance, because of the democratic nature of the states. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Fractured primary? Weak candidates? Jerry Brown is the only Democratic candidate, and he's certainly not weak. The Republicans, on the other hand, have three candidates.

[Mr.Phips]

Three factors that contribute to large numbers of pickups for both sides:

- Crappy economy
- Lots of open seats
- Partisan identification matters less than in federal races

Also, there's not going to be a strong trend towards one party as there was in 1994 (where the Democrats only picked up one governor's mansion -- Alaska, of all places) or 2006.

I wouldn't count your chickens on the last point.  At least, the governor's races are very favorable to republicans, and as shown in places like New Jersey, the blacks came out to vote for Obama, but feel like they did their duty and will not show.  Its going to hurt your party in areas where there are heavy black populations that put your candidates over the edge.  Republicans pick up 6 governorships overall.   Other than New Hampshire, there is the possibility that the entire northeast could have governors other than democrats - not good for you guys.

How about Republicans in states like Vermont, Connecticut, California, Minnesota, Hawaii, Florida, and Arizona where they are the incumbents and the economy is terrible? 

What helped Republicans pick up so many governorships in 1994 was the fact that they had many incumbents who were able to take credit for the economic recovery and get reelected(John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Terry Brandstad, ect)

Did you see my prediction though?  I have CT, HI, FL, & AZ all going dem.  VT and CA have strong republican candidates, and the democrats (unless feinstein jumps in in CA) have weak ones or a fractured primary.  By the way, my CA analysis comes mainly from former SF mayor Willie Brown, who writes articles about CA politics.  My thought however still stands, it is possible that other than in NH, the northeast will not have a single democratic governor (unless you include Delaware too, but I think its still part of the mid-atlantic region).  And how odd, considering NH is the most conservative of those states.  Now how likely is this, probably a 40% chance, because of the democratic nature of the states. 

You have got to give Democrats California, Minnesota, and Vermont.  Republicans have nobodies running in Minnesota and Jerry Brown is very strong in California.