It appears that the recession is hurting Democratic governors very badly accross the nation and are jeopordizing Democrats current majority hold on the governorships nationwide. Bill Ritter of Colorado, Deval Patrick of Massachussetts, David Paterson of New York, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, Ted Strickland of Ohio, and Jim Doyle of Wisconsin are all either only running even with or trailing their Republican opponents. This could mean that after 2010 along with likely losses of open races in Tennessee, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, that Democrats could be down to a pathetic 18 governorships after the 2010 elections, a net loss of 10 seats.
Not only would this likely kill us in the 2011 redistricting cycle, but would likely ensure that we lose the White House in the next open seat race(2016). Which party makes the most progress in governors races is almost always a leading indicator of who will win the next open Presidential race. In 1950, huge Republican gains gave Republicans a huge base of support in the 1952 election and allowed Republicans to regain the White House. Big Democratic gains in 1958 set the stage for Kennedy's 1960 win. Big Republican gains in 1966 gave Nixon key support, adding governorships in close states like California and Ohio that almost surely made the difference for Nixon against Humpherey.
In 1986, Republicans did surprisingly well in governorships, nearly tying Democrats nationally for the first time in decades. Republican gains in key states helped Bush greatly in 1988. Same in 1994 and 1998 when big Republican gains gave Republicans governorships like Ohio and Florida, which almost certainly made the difference in electing Bush over Gore in 2000. Do you think Bush would have been allowed to steal Florida under a Democratic governor?
Democrats are going to need to hold the majority of governorships if they are to remain competitive at the state level. Having more Republican leaders in key states is not good for the long term health of Democrats.