In Which States Does It Absolutely Suck To Be Governor And Why?

[Free Bird]

Somebody in my approval thread said that being Michigan Governor is an impossible job. That got me thinking. I WOULD imagine that some states would be far worse/more difficult to be the chief executive of than others.

So, which states does it suck to be the Governor of? I know that being a Governor, period, is a hard, stressful job, but which states just make it absolutely unforgiving to the point that even all the perks make it not worth it? And why?

As a bonus, which states do you think it's best to Governor in and why?

I would think:
Illinois
Michigan
Alaska
West Virginia
California

[Roll Roons]

Illinois, Illinois, Illinois. No Illinois governor has served two full terms since the 1990s. It's a combination of the divide between Chicagoland and the rest of the state, along with deindustrialization/population decline and the general reputation for corruption.

Alaska seems to also come to mind. They also haven't had a governor serve out two full terms since Knowles, but I'm not sure what the deal is there.

Rhode Island also has some problems.

Best states to be governor are probably small, relatively rural ones like Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. Utah also seems to have a good political culture.

[Politician]

Illinois
Alaska
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Michigan

[Free Bird]

Illinois, Illinois, Illinois. No Illinois governor has served two full terms since the 1990s. It's a combination of the divide between Chicagoland and the rest of the state, along with deindustrialization/population decline and the general reputation for corruption.

Alaska seems to also come to mind. They also haven't had a governor serve out two full terms since Knowles, but I'm not sure what the deal is there.

Rhode Island also has some problems.

Best states to be governor are probably small, relatively rural ones like Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. Utah also seems to have a good political culture.

I think Alaska has something to do with the constant fluctuation in oil prices and the Governor is somehow always blamed

[Skill and Chance]

I would start with the simple majority veto override states with term limits where the governor also does not get to pick their LG, so AL, AR, TN, and WV.  Then would come KY and IN, which also have simple majority veto override and term limits, but the governor at least gets to pick their LG and KY has some pretty strong executive order powers. 

Next would probably be VA, where the governor does get to veto with a 2/3rds override (including line item veto), but they can't run for reelection, can be stuck with a separately elected opposition party LG, and don't get any formal say in judicial appointments.   

For strongest, FL certainly comes to mind with essentially unilateral judicial appointments, 2/3rds veto override, choosing your own LG, and pretty strong emergency powers invoked almost yearly with the frequency of hurricanes there. 

[Gass3268]

I would start with the simple majority veto override states with term limits where the governor also does not get to pick their LG, so AL, AR, TN, and WV.  Then would come KY and IN, which also have simple majority veto override and term limits, but the governor at least gets to pick their LG and KY has some pretty strong executive order powers. 

Next would probably be VA, where the governor does get to veto with a 2/3rds override (including line item veto), but they can't run for reelection, can be stuck with a separately elected opposition party LG, and don't get any formal say in judicial appointments.   

For strongest, FL certainly comes to mind with essentially unilateral judicial appointments, 2/3rds veto override, choosing your own LG, and pretty strong emergency powers invoked almost yearly with the frequency of hurricanes there. 

Wisconsin's line item veto power is pretty awesome, arguably the most powerful in the nation.

[Pollster]

The Governor of New Hampshire is one of the least powerful executives in the nation. They have to contend with a massive legislature (in which the partisan balance swings wildly between elections) and most of their non-legislative powers are restricted by the state's Executive Council (the only of its kind in the nation iirc). They have to run for reelection every two years as well, rather than four, essentially meaning that in the modern era they never stop running. New Hampshire's governorship essentially functions as a holding place for future Senatorial candidates.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I would start with the simple majority veto override states with term limits where the governor also does not get to pick their LG, so AL, AR, TN, and WV.  Then would come KY and IN, which also have simple majority veto override and term limits, but the governor at least gets to pick their LG and KY has some pretty strong executive order powers. 

Next would probably be VA, where the governor does get to veto with a 2/3rds override (including line item veto), but they can't run for reelection, can be stuck with a separately elected opposition party LG, and don't get any formal say in judicial appointments.   

For strongest, FL certainly comes to mind with essentially unilateral judicial appointments, 2/3rds veto override, choosing your own LG, and pretty strong emergency powers invoked almost yearly with the frequency of hurricanes there. 

Although the Governor of Tennessee always seems to be popular when in office.

[Politician]

I would start with the simple majority veto override states with term limits where the governor also does not get to pick their LG, so AL, AR, TN, and WV.  Then would come KY and IN, which also have simple majority veto override and term limits, but the governor at least gets to pick their LG and KY has some pretty strong executive order powers. 

Next would probably be VA, where the governor does get to veto with a 2/3rds override (including line item veto), but they can't run for reelection, can be stuck with a separately elected opposition party LG, and don't get any formal say in judicial appointments.   

For strongest, FL certainly comes to mind with essentially unilateral judicial appointments, 2/3rds veto override, choosing your own LG, and pretty strong emergency powers invoked almost yearly with the frequency of hurricanes there. 

This article from RRH shows how powerful they think each governor is, with the most powerful being NJ: https://rrhelections.com/index.php/2017/11/12/gubernatorial-power-comparison/

[Mr. Smith]

Texas
California
Illinois
New Jersey
Alaska

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Illinois, Illinois, Illinois. No Illinois governor has served two full terms since the 1990s. It's a combination of the divide between Chicagoland and the rest of the state, along with deindustrialization/population decline and the general reputation for corruption.

Alaska seems to also come to mind. They also haven't had a governor serve out two full terms since Knowles, but I'm not sure what the deal is there.

Rhode Island also has some problems.

Best states to be governor are probably small, relatively rural ones like Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas. Utah also seems to have a good political culture.

I think Alaska has something to do with the constant fluctuation in oil prices and the Governor is somehow always blamed

Yeah, they’ve been having big budget issues because oil has tanked in the last decade. They don’t have a state income tax and there’s a lot of resistance to implementing one. Pretty sure that their state HoR approved one (controlled by a Dem led coalition), but the heavily Republican state senate didn’t agree. Palin suddenly quitting didn’t help Alaska’s current reputation of chewing up and spitting out governors. Idk if Walker could have won if Begich hadn’t entered.

The answer overall though is Illinois. Blago brought it upon himself and I’m still sad about The People’s Pat losing in 2014 and losing the AG Primary last year. Mostly because of the People’s Pat meme. Granted, Governor Madigan has been serving a long time (since like 1983 other than 1995-1997).

California has had its issues, somewhat self-imposed. Pete Wilson nailed the hammer in the coffin of the state GOP with his exuberant support of Prop 187. Gray Davis got focked by the Enron crisis and was kind of seen as a wimp. Hell, he almost lost in 2002, with Camejo (Green) breaking 5%. Arnold was popular for a while until things actually got tough. Fortunately we don’t need 2/3 for a budget anymore, which was a big part of the governing problems in 2009ish. Brown did a pretty good job of keeping the state going, but we still face huge issues such as wildfires and housing (in part exacerbated by wildfires). I’m hopeful that Newsom can take charge on these issues while keeping up CA’s reputation as an innovator.

VA is bizarre with their single term limit.

VT and NH are small enough states that it’s not too big of a deal that their have gubernatorial elections every two years.

Simple majority veto override is perhaps the stupidest feature of a state government.

[Continential]

WI and MI for Democrats

[lfromnj]

WI and MI for Democrats

MI isn't that bad for D's. the legislature limited what they did and they also the Supreme court is now effectively D controlled.

[Nyvin]

Why is everyone listing Wisconsin as bad?   I'd think they're one of the most powerful in the country.   Line item veto, 2/3 veto override by legislature, pretty broad appointment powers, no term limits, Ballot questions only get voted on by the public if the state legislature submits them.

I guess Wisconsin's economy hasn't been great lately, and Evers does have to put up with a Republican legislature, but I wouldn't think that would make the job any more sucky.   Evers kinda gets to be the center of attention now.

[DINGO Joe]

ND, SD  are obvious because not only are they pretty boring states to begin with, their capitals are located about as far from civilization as possible.  WY is a cold empty wasteland of resource extraction with the only nice protected place as far from the state capital as possible.  WV is WV.

[Tintrlvr]

ND, SD  are obvious because not only are they pretty boring states to begin with, their capitals are located about as far from civilization as possible.  WY is a cold empty wasteland of resource extraction with the only nice protected place as far from the state capital as possible.  WV is WV.

At least Cheyenne is a reasonable drive from Denver and other nice sights in Colorado.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Illionis ,


used to be California until they got rid of that idiotic 2/3 budget rule

[DINGO Joe]

ND, SD  are obvious because not only are they pretty boring states to begin with, their capitals are located about as far from civilization as possible.  WY is a cold empty wasteland of resource extraction with the only nice protected place as far from the state capital as possible.  WV is WV.

At least Cheyenne is a reasonable drive from Denver and other nice sights in Colorado.

Agreed, that's why I didn't lump it in with the Dakotas.  How Caspar didn't end up as the state capital I don't know.

[mgop]

well probably vermont. it's smallest to be in population terms, and it's even declining.

[henster]

Michigan doesn't seem to be in all that bad shape economically it seems to be running a surplus with low unemployment. Population growth has stabilized compared to ten years ago and their pension system is no where compared to Illinois. Along with California which seemed ungovernable a decade ago they both have made strong recoveries but are extremely vulnerable during recessions.

[Ye We Can]

Imagine wanting to be governor of Illinois

[Skill and Chance]

Michigan doesn't seem to be in all that bad shape economically it seems to be running a surplus with low unemployment. Population growth has stabilized compared to ten years ago and their pension system is no where compared to Illinois. Along with California which seemed ungovernable a decade ago they both have made strong recoveries but are extremely vulnerable during recessions.

Would not want to be in office in California the next time tech crashes.  It could make managing Illinois from 2009-present look like a piece of cake.

[Storr]

well probably vermont. it's smallest to be in population terms, and it's even declining.

Wyoming is actually the smallest state population wise. It has 577,737 people to Vermont's 626,299 (according the Census Bureau's 2018 estimates). Both don't have that much going on, but Vermont's Governor has to run every two years so that sucks for whoever is in charge. Either way, both states have a smaller population than the District of Columbia.
Speaking of DC, it may even leapfrog Alaska in several years if it keeps up its high growth (16.73%) its had since 2010, with Alaska having grown only 3.83% in the same time period. DC only has ~35,000 fewer people than Alaska according to the CB's estimates for 2018.

[Deleted User #4049]

Illinois due to the corruption and the pension mess.

[Peanut]

Imagine wanting to be governor of Illinois