You’ll never see what happened last Tuesday looking through a two-party microscope! Nope. You need an independent historyscope to get this one!

I had the pleasure of hearing independent strategist Jackie Salit give her analysis of the November elections on Sunday night on her regular national conference call which is attended by around 150 activists around the country every six weeks.

Jackie is a long-time independent activist based in New York City, the president of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (aka IndependentVoting.org), the executive editor of the Neo-Independent Magazine, and the campaign manager of Mike Bloomberg’s Independence Party campaign. She’s someone I follow very closely — and so should you if you care about independent politics.

A statement released by the campaign via email on Wednesday after the election said: This year, the IP delivered 13% of the total votes cast – the largest percentage ever by a minor party for a cross-endorsed mayoral candidate.

The Hankster (my blog) and Donklephant (where I am a guest blogger), in addition to The Independent View (NYC IP activist Michael Drucker’s blog) and the NY Daily News’ Brawl for the Hall blog seemed to be the only media outlets that even referenced this astounding result from the election. And then today, I caught Maine’s independent mayoral candidate Alex Hammers’ post on The Moderate Voice “Independents are a Sleeping Giant“, and a note by Robert Steele on his Public Intelligence Blog.

In the CUIP conference call, Jackie emphasized that, far from being the “margin of victory” for Bloomberg’s win as an independent in NYC, the vote on the IP line was the foundation of the campaign. At a time when the votes of both major parties Dems and Repubs went down, the 15 year old grassroots Independence Party doubled its vote.

It is indeed wonderous that no other media picked this up.

But if your framework is a bipartisan — indeed partisan — system, you don’t pay a lot of attention to the margins, no pun intended! You don’t see what’s happening on the horizon. You’re not looking to the future — you’re looking to the past and how pollsters have been able to parse the vote based on prior elections. Polls are supposed to be predictive. They’re interesting, and we all follow them. But predictive?

You’d have to have a 6-billion-person polling operation to figure that one out. And still, you’d get it wrong because what the NYC mayoral race points to is the power that independents have as an organized force. It’s something like what the unions used to call “strength in numbers” when we still sang Solidarity Forever and meant solidarity forever for everyone.

Old-fashioned as it may be, independents in NYC have banded together, we have talked with each other, we have made endless phone calls night after night year after year, we have fought back against a stupid and vicious state party chair, we have constituted 5 county committees under state law that are directed by a collective 94-person executive committee, and have inched our way forward into NYC politics as players.

We just led New Yorkers to elect our first independent mayor.

In my book this is something that ordinary people can be proud of. And that ordinary people — nonpartisans — all over the country can learn from and emulate.

And indeed they are. Take Joelle Riddle in Durango CO, a former chairwoman of the La Plata County Democratic Party who won her post in 2006 with party support and decided to go independent in August, would have to run as a write-in candidate after inadvertently missing a deadline to change her registration.

“I seek to remedy this burden that falls unequally on small political parties and independent or unaffiliated candidates, unfairly discriminating against them and not affording them the same privileges as the major political parties,” she wrote in a statement announcing her decision Tuesday.

Partisan politics isn’t the future of our country, but the search for an independent alternative might be.

You/we independents can do it. If we’re organized.

-NH

First, the numbers…

The bigger news here? Independents are swinging wildly in favor of the generic Republicans.

There’s about a year to go before the 2010 elections, but this shift does not bode well for Dems. I still don’t think that Repubs can regain any majorities, but if we start seeing more Independents breaking right, it could be a very bad night for the donkeys.

More as it develops…

And yet today the media is grabbing it hook, line and sinker.

But why?

Let’s look at the facts…

Republicans won the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey. And hey, good for them. They ran good races. But Governors have little effect on the national agenda when it comes to policy. So while it may be a nice night for the GOP at the state level, it doesn’t really do much for their counterparts in Washington. Well, except give them a false meme to spread.

But let’s dig in more…

Virginians voted for Obama in 2008, but before that you have to go back to 1964 to find the last time the voted for a Dem for prez. And while they’ve had Dem governors in the past 8 years, that hasn’t been a hard and fast rule. Also, anybody watching that race knows that Creigh Deeds didn’t run a very impressive race, while Bob McDonnell ran an incredible campaign and could be poised for bigger things in 8 years if Dems are still in power on the national level (Although he could do with a little charisma injection).

In New Jersey, while many think it’s a Democratic stronghold, Christine Todd Whitman was Governor for 7 years (until she foolishly left to join the Bush administration in 2001). Plus, Corzine has been an ineffectual Governor (he bought his way in with his Goldman Sachs war chest), his approval rating has been low for quite some time now and there has been some pretty bad corruption scandals in NJ. So the fact that this swung back red isn’t a huge shock.

However, in the two Congressional races, Dems won BOTH and actually added to the number of Dems that are in the House.

Let me repeat that…Dems added to their majority in the House last night.

In California the seat was already Democratic, but in New York the Dems gained one.

Didn’t hear that particular nugget in today’s news? Only hearing about how Dems are nervous? How conservatives are rejoicing? How curious! It couldn’t be because the media wants something to talk about, could it? Nawww…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…the only people that voters like less than Congressional Dems are Congressional Repubs. The gubernatorial pick ups were fine, but they mean very little when put in proper context.

So I ask again…what Republican resurgence?

I suppose it’s possible, but more and more evidence is pointing to the contrary.

Here’s some telling info from a Washington Post/ABC News poll out yesterday…

Poll respondents are evenly divided when asked whether they have confidence in Obama to make the right decisions for the country’s future, but just 19 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to do so. Even among Republicans, only 40 percent express confidence in the GOP congressional leadership to make good choices.

Only 20 percent of adults identify themselves as Republicans, little changed in recent months, but still the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983. Political independents continue to make up the largest group, at 42 percent of respondents; 33 percent call themselves Democrats.

The wide gap in partisan leanings and the lack of confidence in the GOP carries into early assessments of the November 2010 midterm elections: Fifty-one percent say they would back the Democratic candidate in their congressional district if the elections were held now, while 39 percent would vote for the Republican. Independents split 45 percent for the Democrat, 41 percent for the Republican.

There’s some pretty startling numbers in there and the GOP should definitely be concerned.

• When less than 20% of the voting population has confidence in your leadership abilities and only 40% of your own diehards trust your opinion, you know something’s wrong. I’ve been saying this time and time again over the past 9 months, but the Republicans can’t just be the opposition party. They need a new Contract With America…and fast.
• Only 20% of voters ID as Repubs. 13% more ID as Dems. That’s a huge gap. And if Dems pass health care reform with some key Repub votes, expect the gap to get bigger since Indys will view the legislation as bipartisan as was possible.
• On a generic ballot, voters go for Dems by 12%. That’s landslide territory. And Indys would have to break for Repubs almost two to one to make up the gap. We all know that won’t happen.

Now, do I think the GOP may gain a few seats next Fall? Quite possibly. But the balance of power should remain roughly where it is right now.

More as it develops…

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, trying to knock off a veteran Democratic incumbent senator in the primary, will get an endorsement Monday from somebody who succeeded in doing just that: Connecticut’s Ned Lamont.

Lamont defeated Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary, largely by running against the Iraq war and Lieberman’s support of the Bush administration’s war policy. But Lamont did not win the general election. After losing the nomination, Lieberman ran as an independent in the fall, defeating Lamont and the Republican nominee.

Sources close to the Sestak campaign confirmed that Lamont is the “mystery endorser” it announced would be coming to Independence Hall Monday.

The strange thing here is that there are some eerie parallels to the Ned Lamont versus Joe Lieberman versus Republican Dude** campaign that was waged in 2006.

B-Diddy [a conservative contributor at my site] and I have talked about this before (because we are both from Pennsylvania). Take a walk down Hypothetical Lane with me here, won’t you?

What happens if (when?) Arlen Specter gets beaten by Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senatorial primary election? The answer is simple, or at least obvious: Specter switches his party affiliation (again) to Independent — a la Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial election in 2006.

After Senator Specter puts an ‘I’ after his name for the general election, we’ll have a three-way-race between Sestak (the Democrat), Pat Toomey (the Republican) and good ole Arlen, fresh off of the Independent Express.

The question then becomes more complex; will Specter be able to defeat a Democrat who vanquished him in the primary as well as a Republican challenger? Things will indeed get interesting if it comes to this.

If all of the above indeed comes to fruition, Specter will have a rough time defending his multiple party-switcharoos. He started as a Democrat, switched to a Republican in 1965 when he ran for District Attorney in Philadelphia. In April of this year Specter returned to the Democratic party saying that he found himself “increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy”. If he were to change (yet again) to Independent, he will be all-but-writing the attack ads for his political opponents.

Or, as I have suggested before, if Senator Specter loses the primary next spring, perhaps it is simply time for him to hang up his proverbial spurs. Personally, I don’t mind Specter (except for all of the party-swapping). He is a moderate Republican Democrat, and I usually find myself gravitating toward politicians that sit somewhere in the middle of the road. However, Specter has indeed had a looooong career in Pennsylvania politics. Maybe we need some fresh blood in there to replace him…

** does anyone remember the Republican candidate’s name from that election? Yeah, I had to Google it — the guy’s name is Alan Schlesinger.

It’s pretty easy…the only people that voters like less than Congressional Democrats and Congressional Republicans.

Add in the facts that Republicans have no coherent plan, no definitive leadership and are allowing right wing pundits to organize and promote this Tea Party movement and you have a reality where Dems might actually pick up seats next year.

Personally I think it’ll be a wash, but let’s take a look at what the Independents in a recent Research 2000 poll had to say about Dems and Repubs.

• Nancy Pelosi
  22 Favorable, 71 Unfavorable
• Harry Reid
  27 Fav, 65 Un
• Mitch McConnell
  10 Fav, 73 Un
• John Boehner
  3 Fav, 70 Un
• Congressional Dems
  32 Fav, 65 Un
• Congressional Repubs
  9 Fav, 76 Un

And before you say this is just one poll…here’s another one from Gallup…

Last, and I think this fact sometimes gets lost in the shuffle, Americans remember who was at the helm when the train derailed. Also, it’s not like Dems are running Congress in some woefully inept manner. Are they bipartisan? For the most part, no. But, again, the only people voters think are less bipartisan than Congressional Dems are…you guessed it.

So to all of my fellow politicos who claim that Dems are in for historic defeats next year…you might want to pay less attention to the Tea Partiers and more attention to the swing voters.

But last week the undead meme was walking again:

The GOP’s Best Weapon In 2010
History Makes The Case For Divided Government
By Gary Andres

Morris Fiorina is a political scientist that wrote the definitive text on Divided Government, titled appropriately enough – “Divided Government“. His comment in this piece goes directly to the raison d’être for my blog. To seek an answer to this never-ending question – “Rather than trusting the partisan balancing choice to a subconscious impulse, would we not be much better off if a few percentage of the electorate simply voted consciously for divided government?” And to promote that divided government voting heuristic.

On that topic, two more recent articles on the same general theme:

Swing time is coming for Dems, GOP
By: Noemie Emery Examiner Columnist

THE REAL REASON AMERICANS ARE ANGRY
It’s the big government, stupid.
by Matt Welch

A side benefit of watching the undead specter of divided government haunt the media again – We are no longer hearing about how the United States is really a “center-left” country.

It may be a bit early for these proclamations and conclusions. We are still more than a year away from the midterms. I still think it will take until 2012 to get there, but when Chris Dodd, Arlen Specter, and Harry Reid are all in trouble, we can safely say that divided government is rising from the grave.

Cross posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

“…the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Today, The Cook Political Report’s Congressional election model, based on individual races, is pointing toward a net Democratic loss of between six and 12 seats, but our sense, factoring in macro-political dynamics is that this is far too low.

Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats. A new Gallup poll that shows Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents should provide little solace to Democrats. In the same poll, Congressional approval among independents is at 22 percent, with 31 percent approving overall, and 62 percent disapproving.”

This is consistent with my expectations for 2010. There is no realistic likelihood of the GOP regaining a majority in either the House or Senate, but they are certain to cut into the Democratic majorities. This is also consistent with history, as the party out of power will usually pick up seats in the midterm election of a first term President (GWB being a notable exception).

If I was a betting man, I’d put the over/under at a net 12 seat gain for the GOP in the House of Representatives. Looks like Charlie Cook is setting the early line at 20 seats. This is surprising, as it is comparable to the Democratic Party gains in 2008 when they had everything going in their favor.

Charlie also notes that this sentiment in the electorate may effect our congresscritters behavior when they return from recess.

We’ll see how it develops… Cheers.

While I agree that polls are meaningless from this distance, insight into the election can be gleaned from structural issues. Shortly after the November election, I posted an analysis on the prospect of restoring divided government in 2010 or 2012. This summary/conclusion paraphrased from that post:

After the 2008 election the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats and will have a crushing 82+ seat majority in the House. Given the difficulty of changing majorities in the House, there is almost no likelihood of a Republican majority in the house before 2014 and probably longer (even with a hurricane force political tailwind, the Democrats only picked up 21 seats in ‘08 – do the math). That leaves the Senate as the only determinant of whether divided government can be restored in 2010. In 2012, either re-taking the Senate or the presidency are possibilities for restoring divided government, as the house will likely remain out of reach…

Conclusion / Predictions

We will have One Party Rule under the Democrats for at least four years.

The next opportunity to restore divided government will be in 2012.

The Republicans will have two ways to get there, so I will go out on a limb and make the prediction that divided government will be restored in 2012, either through the Republicans winning the presidency or (more likely) a majority in the Senate. If the latter, we will be in the interesting situation that we have a divided congress, and regardless of which party wins the presidency – a divided government. That’s a good thing.

No telling what shape the country will be in by then.

I stand by the overall thesis, but all the results were not in and a few things have changed. Time for an update.

First, based on the completely insane deficit spending in the first six months of Single Party Democratic Rule, we now have an answer to the last bullet. We will be in very sorry economic shape by the 2012 election, with a debased currency, high inflation, and possibly eclipsed by the more capital friendly China as the pre-eminent economic engine on the planet.

Second, there have been some changes in the structural elements of the 2010 Senate races. Republican Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation, and the Missouri race was finally decided. With Al Franken now in the Senate, there are 60 Senators who caucus Democrat and 40 Senators who caucus Republican. With special elections in New York to replace Hillary Clinton and in Delaware to replace Joe Biden, we now have 36 Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, with 18 held by Republicans and 18 held by Democrats.

Perversely, the Republican hand in 2010 was strengthened by their unrelenting poor performance in 2008. Instead of defending 19 of 34 seats as outlined in my previous post, they are defending 18 of 36 seats, exactly like the Democrats, and on a structurally even playing field in 2010. They are in far too deep a hole to have any chance of retaking the Senate majority in 2010, but (despite Justin’s snark) if they can take 2 or 3 seats, it will be a big win and they will be in an excellent position to retake the Senate in 2012 when they have significant structural factors in their favor.

The Senate remains the best chance to divide this government in 2012. While Barack Obama’s poll numbers have predictably eroded from the stratospheric level he enjoyed earlier in the year, he still has a deep reservoir of goodwill and personal popularity with voters. He is personable, likable, smart, and as Joe Biden noted – “clean and articulate”. Predictions three years out are indeed foolish, but barring some as of yet unrevealed scandal close to the President, I expect he will be reelected.

Net net – The best chance to restore fiscal rationality in 2012 is for Republicans to take the Senate, and that will take two election cycles. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and the first step is for Republicans to pick up a couple of seats in 2010.

Two Senate races have peaked my early interest.

Pat Toomey is a solid fiscal conservative. His primary challenge to Arlen Specter is widely attributed to be the reason Specter changed his party affiliation. Ironically, if Specter survives a Democratic Party primary challenge, he could still easily lose to Toomey in the general election. I like Toomey’s chances. I like what he says about divided government. And I really like the way he acquitted himself in a laughably hostile Hardball appearance on Tuesday August 4:

Another campaign of interest – Democratic Senator Chris Dodd’s Connecticut seat. I had some positive things to say about Chris Dodd during his brief presidential run. That was then. This is now. A lot of questions emerged about his close relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial and cozy relationships with banking lobbyists. This is a race that should be a slam dunk and a safe seat for Democrats, but is now up for grabs. Recent polls show that Dodd is trailing former Republican congressman Rob Simmons. Simmons would be a fine choice. But there is another interesting challenger in Connecticut. Money manager and economic soothsayer Peter Schiff is also considering a run for this seat.

Schiff took a page from the Ron Paul campaign and his “moneybomb” effort today is showing pretty impressive results thus far for a Senatorial campaign:

Maybe we will get that libertarian voice in the Senate.

x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

According to First Read, the results will be a lot different…

The 1992 election actually provided hints of the 1994 tsunami (redistricting, strength of anti-establishment Perot etc.; Republicans actually did well in 1992 House races and picked up senate seats). So 1992’s results scared a number of Dems and led to a lot of retirements — making 1994 even more difficult for their party.

Remember, MSNBC’s Morning Joe won his Dem-held House seat in an open seat contest; the conservative southern Dem decided to retire. We’re not seeing this same pattern for 2010 just yet. Democrats seem to have the ability to have insulated themselves from a 1994- or 1946-like result.

Personally, I think it’ll be a wash and Repubs will claim victory if they pick up even one seat. But that will ring as hollow as Bush’s “mandate” claim in 2004 and will set the stage for a very tough, uphill battle in 2012 when the general election rolls around.

Thoughts?

This is BIG news as it’ll ensure that a lot more people participate.

From Des Moines Register:

Sources from both the Iowa Democratic Party and Republican Party of Iowa say they are getting ready to jointly announce a date for the 2010 Iowa caucuses. For the first time, they’ll be held on a Saturday afternoon in January. (editor’s note: Jan. 23 at 1 p.m.) [...]

Both parties have a good track record of working together to make decisions regarding the caucuses. This one is a good example that should help secure Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status for 2012.

Still, some are worried that this will disenfranchise Jewish voters…

Paulee Lipsman, former House Democratic caucus director, who is Jewish, says she and some others called the state party to complain two years ago when she heard Saturday caucuses were being considered. “We have enough trouble with schools scheduling tests and homecoming on Jewish holidays,” she said. She notes, though, that some Jews will attend Saturday events, just like some Christians go to football games on Sunday instead of to church. “No matter when you do it, you’re disenfranchising people,” she said.

Agreed. Any day will disenfranchise folks, but Iowa isn’t exactly a state with a massive Jewish population, and I predict the amount of Jewish voters lost by having it on Saturday will be offset by the number they gain.

Now if we can only get the national election day declared a holiday…. (ahem!)

I suppose it’s never too early to start talking about races in 2010, and this race presents many Dems with a problem. Support the moderate (yet aging) Specter because he switched parties, or back a young up and comer?

Regardless, it’s becoming obvious that Sestak will run in the Democratic primary…

Sestak has interviewed a number of people who would work for his statewide communications operation and online outreach effort, and has talked to candidates for his field operation, the Democrat says.

Meanwhile, three chief media consultants on Sestak’s 2006 and 2008 House races — J.J. Balaban, Doc Sweitzer, and Neil Oxman of the Philadelphia-based firm The Campaign Group — have signaled to Sestak that they’ll work for him if and when he enters the Senate primary.

“My colleagues and I were very pleased to help Joe defeat a longtime Republican in 2006, and we’d be happy to do so again in 2010,” Balaban told me, in a puckish reference to Specter.

Now, here’s the thing…Sestak could actually take this one because he’s not just a random politico. He’s actually a former Navy Vice Admiral and so his national security cred is literally second to none.

Regardless, he still has a significant hurdle to overcome because of Specter’s reputation and tenure. But if he can begin to peel away just a few endorsements, the mood could shift.

More as it develops…

Popular Republican governor Charlie Crist is set to announce whether or not he’ll try to join the federal government, but sources are already saying it’s a done deal.

From Politico:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will be announcing Tuesday that he will be running for the Senate, according to a source close to the governor, giving Republicans their most high-profile recruit of the 2010 election cycle.

Crist’s decision puts Republicans in strong position to hold onto the seat held by retiring Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) Crist holds high approval ratings among both Republicans and Democrats, according to statewide polling, and has forged a moderate governing style that has won him widespread support. [...]

Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer confirmed to the Pensacola News-Journal that Crist will be making his formal announcement in Tallahassee on Tuesday at “a low-key event” and said he will draw immediate endorsements by a statewide and national Republican leaders.

For those of you who followed the 2008 campaign, you already know that Crist was on McCain’s VP short list…and I think it’s clear by now that he should have gone with the governor from Florida instead of the one from Alaska.

But that begs the question: what are Crist’s presidential aspirations?

Something tells me that, like Jindal, he understands that 2012 is not a good time to run and the field will be WAY too crowded. But 2016 will present an opportunity because there’s no way that Biden would run for POTUS. Obviously that means Obama would win in 2012, but there’s a better than even chance that’ll happen right now.

So a move to Washington for the next 6 years wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world. It would put him on the national stage, would allow him to build bridges on moderate issues and oppose the ones he feels aren’t in the best interests of Republicans.

And hey, perhaps there is no angle, but I can’t help but think Crist feels he’s well positioned as the next Reagan since there’s no way Republicans can with the White House without Florida.

That’s one of the questions a recent NBC/WSJ asked voters and the results show that they know Obama inherited a massive mess and they’re more than willing to be patient with the new guy.

Nate Silver pulls some data…

What we find is that roughly 50% of voters think Obama will own the economy in about 18 months. So, if you believe these numbers will hold steady and Americans will remain patient, public sentiment will most likely shift against Obama by September 2010.

But that’s where the economists’ projections come in, because they have a much rosier view on when the recession will end…

Of course a number of different things could happen between now and then so the regular caveats apply, but if these projections hold up it’s good news for the White House and Dems because they’ll be well positioned to make the case that they helped pull us back from the brink before the 2010 midterms.

The question I have for those opposed to Obama’s current plans…if the US does pull out of this recession by then and have GDP growth, what will your response be? Because while I understand you have your principles and you may not agree with the mechanisms that brought about the recovery, will you give credit where credit’s due?

Now, with that behind him, he starts to prepare for his 2010 Senate re-election run. Cue the comically ironic porn-star:

This year, an ad appeared on Craigslist seeking “a female in some aspect of the adult-entertainment industry” to run against Vitter. Soon after, a website “drafting” porn actress Stormy Daniels to oppose Vitter sprouted up. Part publicity stunt, part political psy-ops tactic, the Draft Stormy initiative has already forced Vitter’s scandalous past back into the limelight. The Louisiana Democratic Party denied any involvement in creating the website, but it is not complaining about Daniels’ involvement in the race.

While traveling through Arizona last week, I learned that Daniels would be performing at a Phoenix strip club. I tracked the adult-video starlet down at her hotel and filmed the first interview with her since the Draft Stormy initiative began. During our exclusive interview, Daniels homed in on what she called Vitter’s hypocrisy, declaring her intention to make his contradictory behavior the centerpiece of her campaign.

Hit the link for the video interview.

As I said, I almost feel bad for Vitter.  How is he going to put that scandal behind him if he’s running against someone who continuously brings it up — and is in the adult film industry?

If the ‘Draft Stormy‘ movement (is it a movement?) catches on, Vitter’s re-election race could be will be extremely entertaining to watch.

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

Val Kilmer is pondering running for governor of New Mexico in 2010, when Democrat Bill Richardson’s second term ends. ‘I’m just looking for ways to be contributive,’ Kilmer told The Associated Press on Thursday. ‘And if that ends up being where I can make a substantial contribution, then I’ll run.’” The decision, though, is ‘really day to day,’ he said over tea at a local restaurant.

How friggin’ cool would that be at a gubernatorial debate? I can see it now: Even though his opponent has him on the rhetorical ropes, Kilmer breaks out the Iceman’s swagger, leans into his podium and offers some snarky quip. Then looks straight into the lens of the television camera and does that jaw-snappy thing and clicks his teeth together. Twice.

Then suddenly, over the loudspeaker the audiences begins to hear the chorus of Kenny Loggins’ Danger Zone…

[cross-posted at ThePajamaPundit.com]

Proving once again that he’s the wiser son, Jeb puts to rest rumors that he’ll run for the Senate.

From AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Former Gov. Jeb Bush says he won’t run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 to replace the retiring Mel Martinez.

Bush made the announcement Tuesday, saying “now is not the right time to return to elected office.” [...]

Bush won bipartisan praise for leading the state through eight hurricanes over a two-year period. He used standardized testing to overhaul the education system, was credited with making government more efficient and lowered taxes.

Personally, I think the Bush brand is completely trashed at this point, but if Jeb has any chance of making a serious run for the White House it’ll be as an outsider, not a Washington Senator.

And while Nate explains the political thought process in detail, I think one thing’s for certain…Obama better be ready for a fight.

From FiveThirtyEight:

But let’s say that the economy still sucks in 2010 — which, frankly, is a pretty good bet. That’s going to work much, much better for you if you’ve voted against the stimulus. Not only can you pin the blame on the donkeys, but you can campaign on tax cutting and fiscal responsibility — the stimulus will “prove”, once and for all, the wisdom of conservative economic principles. And then think about this: the Democrats are going to be trying to spend $800 billion in taxpayer dollars as quickly as they can possibly get away with it. Somewhere along the way, they’re going to wind up funding a Woodstock Museum or a Bridge to Nowhere. Somewhere along the way, an enterprising contractor is going to embezzle a bunch of stimulus money, or cook up some kind of pay-to-play scheme. Maybe if you’re really lucky, this will happen in your Distrct. Better to keep the whole thing at arm’s-length and make sure that Democrats get the blame for that.

So it seems to me that your risks and rewards are pretty asymmetrical. The public loves Obama, whereas that (R) beside your name is still causing you problems, especially when every Newt and Bobby and Sarah out there is perfectly happy to throw you under the bus. Fact is, you’re not going to get the benefit of the doubt. If the stimulus package is seen as a success, you aren’t going to get an ounce of credit for it. But if it’s seen as a failure, you’d better make damned sure that you’ve distanced yourself from it.

I can almost guarantee you that this is what will came to fruition since this is pretty much what happened with the TARP bill. It’s much easier to be the party of “no” right now then the party of compromise.

However, Republicans are playing a very dangerous game because Obama is well positioned to be the pragmatic leader he claimed he was. So being the opposition to that new tone will become increasingly difficult and the surest way to make Obama a two termer is to simply fight him without viable economic alternatives.

Thoughts?

Paterson will appoint a Senator in January of 2009 who will hold that position until Jan. 3 of 2011. At that point, the winner of a special election in the fall of 2010 will take the seat. But that person will only be elected to fill out the unexpired term of Senator Clinton. Having last been elected in 2006, Hillary would have been up for reelection in 2012. This means that in order to win a full term, the Governor’s appointee will need to stand for election in both 2010 and 2012.

Given how much time and money are taken up by a Senate campaign, Hillary’s successor will have, at most, 10 months or so to find where the rest rooms are on the Hill before they begin running for the 2010 race. Assuming they win that one, they have at best another year before doing it all over again. This will be expensive and time consuming. There are also questions as to how they will fare in such contests.

Which means that the seat would be best suited for someone with a lot of name recognition and the ability to raise a ton of money, which is why my money is on either Andrew Cuomo or, unfortunately, Caroline Kennedy.

Two sources close to Jeb Bush, including one who has spoken to the former Florida governor within the past few hours, say he is seriously considering a run for Senate now that incumbent Republican Mel Martinez has retired.

“He is receiving a lot of encouragement from both in and out of the state,” an longtime Bush adviser said tonight. “He is going to take his time and approach this very methodically.” Bush will weigh, according to this adviser, how a run would impact his family, his business, and whether the Senate would be the best platform for the causes he’d advocate — education, immigration, GOP solutions to health care and energy.

Bush did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

If he decides to run, Republicans expect the field to clear for him.

That’s from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, and the rumor has apparently been confirmed by The Miami Herald.

When you hear news like this, you can’t help but wonder if Jeb doesn’t just have the idea of running for President at some point in the future, and while Justin does have a point when he says that the current President Bush has done some damage to the family name, Joe Gandelman reminds us that people have said that about the Bush’s before:

Bush 41’s defeat was supposed to have set back the Bush brand. Bush 43’s virtual defeat (seeing his party defeated in November, his polls approach the South Pole, and historians rank him as one of the worst Presidents in American history) was said to have set back the Bush brand.

But it seems like the Bush brand is rising from the political grave.

If Bush does run for Florida’s open Senate seat in 2010 and wins, which seems to be at least a distinct possibility, then he will have gone a long way toward rehabilitating the Bush brand and making a political reputation of his own independent of his brother’s. After that, could a White House run — more likely in 2016 than 2012 I would think — be entirely beyond the realm of possibility ? I don’t think so.

Originally posted at Below The Beltway