The encouraging thing is that performance seems to register now with voters. Mr Reddy in Hyderabad has led a government that has focused a great deal on irrigation and water supply, with predictable results.
Mr Patnaik in Bhubaneswar has run into sustained protests over land acquisition for some large industrial projects, but is generally reckoned to have done well for his state in terms of the quality of administration; among other things, it has been free of corruption.
Indeed, performing chief ministers are also an asset for their parties when it comes to Lok Sabha polls the BJP has managed to improve its tally in Gujarat because of Mr Modi, Nitish Kumar has swept Bihar because he has re-established some basic norms of governance in the state over the last three years, Bhupinder Hooda in Haryana has been an improvement as chief minister when compared with his recent predecessors (helping the Congress win nine of the 10 seats in the state), Raman Singh is very well regarded in Chattisgarh where the BJP has done very well, and of course the Congress has swept Delhi where Shelia Dikshit is a popular chief minister.
In other words, delivering good governance at state level makes a difference in parliamentary elections too.
The populist thrust of recent years whereby people see the direct benefit of government programmes could explain some of the advantage that incumbents seem to have. Chief ministers and parties that could point to the benefits that they had provided have got a positive response from voters.
The early proponents of such an approach were MG Ramachandran in Tamil Nadu (free mid-day meals in schools) and NT Rama Rao in Andhra Pradesh (two-rupee rice).
Dayanidhi Maran has talked of the DMKs showering of gifts on the people free TV sets, free electricity, and rice at a rupee per kg.
The DMK has done well in the Lok Sabha, so the thesis would seem vindicated and would explain why, across the board, party manifestoes were focused on highlighting giveaways.