Statehouses and governors: Even worse news for Democrats AT A rally in Massachusetts for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate for governor, a supporter confided to The Economist that perhaps Charlie Baker, her Republican opponent, would be better for the economy. That may explain why Mr Baker (pictured), a moderate Republican, managed to win even in one of America's most Democratic states, following in the footsteps of Mitt Romney, who was a reformist Republican governor there before running for president. It also suggests that, for the Republican Party, the results of the governors" races may be even more cheering than retaking the Senate. Before the election, polls suggested that voters would toss out several Republican governors. Yet they sacked only one, in Pennsylvania, where a uniquely bungling incumbent, Tom Corbett, lost to Tom Wolf, a serenely smiling local businessman. Another Republican incumbent, Sean Parnell in Alaska, seems likely to lose to an independent, Bill Walker, when the count is finished. Instead, the Democrats faced a rout - losing in several reliably blue states, including Illinois and Maryland as well as Massachusetts. States that the Democrats had hoped they might take - Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Maine - all stayed solidly Republican. Painting the map redder The result is that, although America remains gridlocked at the federal level, at state level Republicans are in charge, says Tim Storey, a political scientist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Republicans now control 29 state legislatures, holding both chambers - two more than they did, and the most they have since the 1920s (see table). Several Democratic governors who were re-elected now find themselves with Republican legislative chambers. In Colorado John Hickenlooper, who has passed strong gun-control measures, held on narrowly, but his party appears to have lost the state senate. In New York too, Republicans took the state senate despite the efforts and money of New York City's mayor Bill de Blasio. Losing so many states could well hurt the Democrats more than losing the Senate. After seizing a series of governorships and statehouses in 2010, many Republican governors pushed through fiercely conservative policies. In Wisconsin Scott Walker barred public-sector workers from collective bargaining about matters other than wages. He also made them contribute more to their pensions and health insurance, as private-sector workers do. Police officers, who tend to vote Republican, were partly excluded from the reforms. In Kansas Sam Brownback slashed taxes and failed to get the accompanying spending cuts through the legislature, creating a large deficit. Democrats hoped that voters would reject such conservative policies. The election results suggest that plenty of voters rather like them. One of the biggest casualties of the election may be the implementation of Barack Obama's health-care programme. In Florida, for example, Charlie Crist, the Democratic candidate, had suggested he would push through an expansion of Medicaid which would have given 850,000 poorer people health insurance. He lost, and the re-elected Republican, Rick Scott, is less keen. In Arkansas, where a Democratic governor has retired, his Republican successor is not a fan of the state's version of expanded Medicaid, and may yet repeal it with the help of the Republican legislature. Only Alaska's independent offers any hope for expanding health coverage. As he campaigned for other Republicans in October, Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, told reporters that he was "convinced that the next president of the United States is going to be a governor." That now seems a little more plausible. Mr Walker's re-election in Wisconsin - his third victory in four years - will cheer those who believe that his brand of union-bashing conservatism could put a Republican in the White House. Mr Christie's own presidential ambitions will be bolstered by the fact that his frenetic campaigning paid off (though a final stop in Pennsylvania did not save Mr Corbett). For Democrats, the lesson is much less optimistic. Their loss in the Senate, painful though it is, comes in a year when the election map was dominated by the South and when many senators elected in the Democratic wave of 2008 were up: losses were to be expected. Most governors, however, are elected on four-year terms; the last time these states were fought was in 2010, when Democrats lost in huge numbers. That they lost yet more states this time, even true-blue ones, suggests that Republicans may genuinely have improved their image, even in places which soundly re-elected Mr Obama in 2012. For progressives who hope the Republican tide will turn in 2016, that is a frightening thought.