Why is it so difficult to beat an incumbent governor?

[Cyrusman]

I don't have anything to back this up, but I just feel like beating an incumbent senator, house of rep member, or even president (especially in this era) is "easier" and more doable than beating an incumbent governor. We rarely see incumbent governors lose and when they do its barely like Steve Sisolak and even that was cause of Covid.
It seems that while its not easy, incumbent senators lose more often.

Why is it so hard to beat an incumbent governor, no matter how liberal or conservative?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Probably a majority of states aren't competitive at all, so unless a governor becomes very controversial ala Matt Bevin they aren't beatable. Obviously Republican governors of states like Wyoming and Idaho are always going to get re-elected.

One note is that "wrong party" governors tend more often than not to be reelected, like Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Laura Kelly, Andy Beshear, etc. I think the reason for this is that these governors often end up being basically equivalent to a ceremonial office like the presidency in parliamentary countries so they also don't end up controversial and often just serve as a check against the excesses of the legislature. Bruce Rauner is an example of one who lost, but he was controversial, took positions and actions that were more unpopular than the legislature's, and was in a state that tends to always hate its governors anyway.

Now for swing state governors, they too tend to be reelected. I think one factor is to get elected in the first place, they have to be non-lousy candidates, this clearly shown through with people like Gretchen Whitmer shining through despite some initial rough spots. Scott Walker is the most notable example of one who lost, but he was extremely polarizing and controversial and doubled down on that instead of moderating. I think another factor for this is that for whatever reason voters tend to not blame their governors for a weak economy, the President always ends up the scapegoat for that.

And finally, another factor is term limits, so in many states (possibly even a majority), the governor can only run for reelection once anyway. Rick Snyder would've no doubt lost if he ran again in 2018, but he couldn't, so even though the seat was a flip it wasn't an incumbent defeat. That decreases the percentage of incumbents who lose.

[Del Tachi]

A lot of states have relatively weak governors, which allows most of them to fly under the radar and dissuades controversy.

[Mr. Smith]

Probably a majority of states aren't competitive at all, so unless a governor becomes very controversial ala Matt Bevin they aren't beatable. Obviously Republican governors of states like Wyoming and Idaho are always going to get re-elected.

One note is that "wrong party" governors tend more often than not to be reelected, like Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, Laura Kelly, Andy Beshear, etc. I think the reason for this is that these governors often end up being basically equivalent to a ceremonial office like the presidency in parliamentary countries so they also don't end up controversial and often just serve as a check against the excesses of the legislature. Bruce Rauner is an example of one who lost, but he was controversial, took positions and actions that were more unpopular than the legislature's, and was in a state that tends to always hate its governors anyway.

Now for swing state governors, they too tend to be reelected. I think one factor is to get elected in the first place, they have to be non-lousy candidates, this clearly shown through with people like Gretchen Whitmer shining through despite some initial rough spots. Scott Walker is the most notable example of one who lost, but he was extremely polarizing and controversial and doubled down on that instead of moderating. I think another factor for this is that for whatever reason voters tend to not blame their governors for a weak economy, the President always ends up the scapegoat for that.

And finally, another factor is term limits, so in many states (possibly even a majority), the governor can only run for reelection once anyway. Rick Snyder would've no doubt lost if he ran again in 2018, but he couldn't, so even though the seat was a flip it wasn't an incumbent defeat. That decreases the percentage of incumbents who lose.

But Scott Walker was re-elected AND beat a recall. He lost because he tried to run for term three instead of bowing out.

[Virginiá]

But Scott Walker was re-elected AND beat a recall. He lost because he tried to run for term three instead of bowing out.

[Spectator]

A lot of states have relatively weak governors, which allows most of them to fly under the radar and dissuades controversy.

This. Bruce Rainer rocked the boat whereas Charlie Baker never really cared to do so. The latter will be much more well-liked as a result.

[MT Treasurer]

Incumbent governors have far more leeway and resources (including free media coverage) to carve out a brand that puts space between themselves and the national party — harder for the Senator to run as "his own man" when his vote for the national party is never in actual doubt and he’s inevitably going to be tied to national party leaders and other polarizing figures.

Connecting cultural with local issues which hit home is also more effective than merely parroting the national party line on hot-button cultural issues.

Glenn Youngkin & Scott Walker did a very good job with both of the above — Walker lost but came way closer than he *should* have given the triple headwinds of environment, turnout dynamics, and Vukmir landslide loss.

[Electric Circus]

No one of any importance wants to get on an incumbent governor's bad side unless a challenger is strong enough to persuade them that they can win. Pissing off a state executive is high risk, and (in most states) it's a more difficult bad relationship to work around compared to any other elected office in the United States.

[Storr]

A lot of states have relatively weak governors, which allows most of them to fly under the radar and dissuades controversy.

North Carolina is a classic example of this. Until the late 70s Governors could only run for one term, and since then only one Governor has lost reelection (Pat McCrory in 2016). He lost in large part for being a supporter of HB2, the "transgender bathroom bill" which was very controversial and ultimately repealed in 2017 after McCrory's defeat.

[TML]

A lot of states have relatively weak governors, which allows most of them to fly under the radar and dissuades controversy.

North Carolina is a classic example of this. Until the late 70s Governors could only run for one term, and since then only one Governor has lost reelection (Pat McCrory in 2016). He lost in large part for being a supporter of HB2, the "transgender bathroom bill" which was very controversial and ultimately repealed in 2017 after McCrory's defeat.

In the case of McCrory, I'd argue that the I-77 toll lanes issue in Charlotte was a bigger contributing factor in his 2016 defeat.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

A lot of states have relatively weak governors, which allows most of them to fly under the radar and dissuades controversy.

North Carolina is a classic example of this. Until the late 70s Governors could only run for one term, and since then only one Governor has lost reelection (Pat McCrory in 2016). He lost in large part for being a supporter of HB2, the "transgender bathroom bill" which was very controversial and ultimately repealed in 2017 after McCrory's defeat.

In the case of McCrory, I'd argue that the I-77 toll lanes issue in Charlotte was a bigger contributing factor in his 2016 defeat.

Probably also true, but it was close enough that anything wrong McCrory did probably could've changed the outcome if he'd behaved otherwise.