So says the latest Quinnipiac poll. Headlines like that are a major part of why I really hope Sen. Chris Dodd gets shellacked next year. As his ethical troubles have mounted, it’s gone from a minor, ir-regular irritant to an almost-daily source of annoyance.

Sadly, even with such headlines, he almost assuredly lacks the introspection or good sense to step aside gracefully (or even rather ungraciously like, say, Jim Bunning):

Sen. Dodd suffers from what we call Barbara Kennelly Syndrome, a fatal political affliction named after the former congresswoman and “proven Democratic vote-getter” who got her clocked cleaned when she ventured out of her safe district in 1998 to challenge then-Gov. John Rowland. After all, Sen. Dodd’s presidential bid failed spectacularly in 2008; meanwhile, he’s never had anything resembling the sort of tough re-election fight he faces in 2010. But to suggest Sen. Dodd might “get out gracefully” for the good of his party or accept a face-saving appointment as U.S. ambassador to Venezuela vastly underestimates his ego and fails to account for what drives the man.

[...]

[H]e can’t quit because that would be interpreted as an admission of guilt, and his permanent stain would outlive him. No, voters’ approbation — re-election — is the best spot remover. They denied his father, corrupt Democratic Sen. Thomas Dodd, that vindication in 1970 after his censure by the Senate for stealing campaign donations to pay for personal expenses, and he died a broken man.

The memory of that disgrace drives his son. Sen. Dodd has spent his adult life trying to mend his father’s image while attempting to maintain a spotless record of his own. He has succeeded at neither, and without unambiguous victory in 2010, Sen. Dodd would be remembered most for his corruption and ethical bankruptcy. Like father, like son.

That would almost be a sad story if it weren’t so banal in its typicality. Here’s hoping the voters in Connectiut have finally had enough.

Yesterday, the NYT and other outlets reported that former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided against running for governor of New York.  But the Daily News is reporting that he is instead “very likely” to run in the special election to fill the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate seat.

The Republican heavyweight was considered the GOP’s best shot at reclaiming the governor’s mansion. The only declared candidate on the Republican side is little-known former Long Island Rep. Rick Lazio.

One source said Giuliani is prepared to run for U.S. Senate against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand next year to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton’s term.

Still, a number of sources said no decision has been made and a Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. “Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it,” she said. “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own.”

[...]

Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, a close Giuliani pal, said the former mayor has shared doubts with him for weeks about running for governor. “What he said to me is that he doesn’t think he’s going to do it,” Molinari said about a conversation earlier this month with the former mayor. “It just didn’t make any sense to him.” Molinari said the ongoing circus in the state Senate, combined with Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s iron grip on Assembly matters, had convinced Giuliani that a Republican governor would have little ability to get things done quickly in Albany. “The big drawback for him was – could I really be effective?” Molinari said. “He saw too many hangups there. He’s not running for the title, that’s for sure.”

That, and the very real possibility he’d lose to popular Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

But it’s not entirely clear what a Senate seat would do for Giuliani, either.  He’s used to making decisions, so he’d be an ineffective legislator.  And if his goal is to run for president again in 2012, it’s not clear how five minutes in the Senate would bolster his resume — as he’d have to hit the campaign trail almost immediately.  He’d be better off going the Newt Gingrich route and simply establishing himself as a Republican Wise Man, doing as many public appearances as possible.

Frankly, 2008 was his best chance and he blew it.  He was at the height of his popularity and running against a lackluster field for the nomination. Yet he ran a joke of a campaign — literally — “A noun, a verb, and 9/11.” As he moves further and further away from the 9/11 attacks, his light dims.

He’ll be 68 during the 2012 race — facing,  should he make it to the nomination, an incumbent president with superb campaign skills — and 72 for 2016.  The latter will be 15 years after his finest hour.

Jodi Rell, the “Republican” governor of Connecticut, has announced that she will not seek re-election.

In a surprising announcement, Mrs. Rell, 63, did not immediately give a specific reason for her decision, saying only, “At some point, you know inside that it is time to begin a new chapter in life.”

Her announcement came during a news conference at which she first thanked people who had helped in a food drive over the weekend.  “Second, I would like to share with you the news that — after much soul-searching and discussion with my family — I have decided not to seek re-election next year,” Mrs. Rell said. Her family was standing nearby during the announcement, The Hartford Courant reported.

The news left the Republicans without a candidate possessing big statewide name recognition and the Democrats with an opportunity to push for the governorship in 2010.

Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, a Republican, has said that he might run for governor if Mrs. Rell decided not to seek re-election. Other Republicans, including the House minority leader, Lawrence Cafero of Norwalk, and the Senate minority leader, John McKinney of Fairfield, also have expressed interest.

Among the Democrats, Ned Lamont, a businessman who unsuccessfully ran for the United States Senate three years ago, has expressed an interest in being governor.  “I salute the governor for her service to Connecticut, her civility, and her integrity,” Mr. Lamont said in a statement Monday evening. “Now is the time for a fresh start.”

Mrs. Rell, a former lieutenant governor, has been governor since 2004, when Gov. John G. Rowland resigned. He served 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to corruption charges. Mrs. Rell was elected in her own right in 2006.

Mrs. Rell’s job approval numbers have dipped in recent Quinnipiac University polls, mostly because of the state’s budget problems. A Sept. 16 poll showed that 59 percent approved of how she had handled her job, while 34 percent disapproved — the lowest approval rating during her tenure.

Those numbers are sustainable, however — certainly not enough in and of themselves to signal an uphill fight. So, it may well be that she just decided to move on to something else.  She and her husband have also had health problems of late, although she dismissed that explanation when asked.

The state GOP will not miss Rell, even if her decision makes it harder to retain the seat.  She’s not ideologically conservative, of course, but that’s pretty typical of Nutmeg State Republicans.  But she’s not at all popular with insiders, having developed a reputation for putting her own interests above her party’s.

In the space of less than 24 hours, three major races have been impacted by candidates deciding to quit.

In Afghanistan, challenger Abdullah Abdullah has reportedly decided not to participate in the run-off election with Hamid Karzai for president.  This makes the U.S. attempt to pretend Karzai is a legitimate, democratic leader somewhat more difficult.

In the California governor’s race, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome has withdrawn, making it likely that undeclared candidate — and former Boy Governor — Jerry Brown will get the nomination and be the favorite for the general election.

Now, in New York’’s 23rd Congressional District (vacant since moderate Republican John McHugh resigned in September to become Secretary of the Army) Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava has dropped out (technically, suspended her campaign) to give Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (already endorsed by Newt Gingrich and other several prominent Republicans) a legitimate shot to beat Democrat Bill owens.

Vice President Joe Biden told a partisan crowd that, if the Republicans win the House back in 2010, it would be “the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do.”  Karen Travers for ABC:

Biden said Republicans are pinning their political strategy on flipping these seats. “If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,” the vice president said at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) today in Greenville, Delaware.

Republicans need to pick up 40 seats next November to take back control of the House. There are 49 seats currently held by Democrats in districts that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) won in last year’s presidential election.

Biden said these House seats are Republicans “one shot” at breaking the Obama administration’s agenda. But if Democrats can hold on to those seats, “the dam is going to break,” he said, and a new era of bipartisanship will begin. “All the hidden Republicans that don’t have the courage to vote the way they want to vote because of pressure from the party … it will break the dam and you will see bipartisanship,” Biden said.

Republicans welcomed the vice president’s assessment of the 2010 landscape. “What didn’t seem possible just a few months ago, appears to be the topic of conversation even within the upper echelons of the Obama White House,” said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It is interesting to hear Vice President Biden admit that the administration’s effort to double down on a partisan agenda of government takeovers could possibly mean the ‘end of the road’ for their political viability.”

While Biden’s statement is being portrayed as controversial, it’s axiomatic.  Unlikely as it is to happen, a Republican landslide wouldn’t so much be “the end of the road” as the Dead End sign one sees upon arrival.  While I expect the GOP to win back a substantial number of those seats — they’re low hanging fruit, ideologically disposed to vote Republican, not going to have Obama’s coattails helping the Democratic GOTV effort, and it’s traditional for the president’s party to lose seats in the midterms, anyway — it’s almost inconceivable that they’ll take them all back, much less win 40 seats and reverse their losses in the last two cycles.  But, if they did, it would be an indication of massive existing dissatisfaction with the direction Obama is leading the country.

As to the business about Republicans afraid to vote their mind, I’m rather dubious. While the party leadership holds a lot of power in terms of committee assignments and the ability to get one’s bill up for consideration and offer amendments, most Members are more afraid of their constituents.  If they think voting for Obama’s programs is going to get them defeated, they’ll oppose regardless of their conscience.  But it’s hard to imagine a Republican Member who, upon the GOP picking up only 25 seats in the midterms, will suddenly decide he likes liberal policies after all.

President Obama has reportedly asked New York Governor David Paterson to drop his bid to win election in his own right, fearing that he would hurt Democrats down ballot.

President Obama shook Gov. David A. Paterson's hand in December 2008 at an event with the National Governors Association in Philadelphia. Jim Wilson/The New York Times

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said. “Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.” The administration officials and the Democratic operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential.

NYT reporters Raymond Hernandez and Jeff Zeleny echo my reaction:

The move against a sitting Democratic governor represents an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president, and is a delicate one, given that Mr. Paterson is one of only two African-American governors in the nation. But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election.

Obviously, the race issue is a non-factor coming from a biracial president who self-identifies as black. But it is indeed “extraordinary” for a president to involve himself in the selection of his parties candidates for local elections, much less urge incumbents to withdraw. So, why?

The general election is more than a year away, but Mr. Obama and his political team are moving now in part because of signals from Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, that he may run for governor, according to Democrats who have spoken with White House officials. Many Democratic leaders believe that Mr. Giuliani’s presence at the top of the Republican ticket could spark enthusiasm among his party’s voters, who might otherwise have little desire to go to the polls.

Leading Democrats in the state have expressed deep concern about Mr. Paterson’s ability to hold on to the office. But most have been wary of openly suggesting he step aside. The White House move could give them cover to abandon Mr. Paterson and endorse another candidate, most likely Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who has been debating for months whether to take on Mr. Paterson in a primary.

A sitting president has long been considered the nominal “head” of his party. Obama seems to be taking that to its logical conclusion.  There’s not really any reason he shouldn’t use his influence behind the scenes in this manner, although it’s yet another step down the rather depressing road of presidents thinking they actually “run the country” rather than just heading up one of three branches of the central government in a federal system.

Steven Taylor considers whether 2010 will be a repeat of 1994, where Republicans took control of Congress. He finds it unlikely.

On balance I think that trying to make 2010 into a repeat of 1994 is largely Republicans engaging in wishful thinking. Yes, there are several variable that are similar (Democratic President, Democratic Congress, major health care proposal), but there are also any number of variables that are different. For one: Obama came to office under very different circumstances than did Clinton (one key difference: Clinton only won a plurality of the popular vote, as 1992 was the three-way Clinton-Bush-Perot race, while Obama came in with a solid majority). For another: Clinton struggled through several major legislative fights apart from the health care debate (e.g., gays in the military and over his first budget) while Obama has largely been successful legislatively. That is not to say there haven’t been fights or controversy, but the fights for Obama have been with the opposition, while a number of the fights for Clinton were within his own party–for example, it came down to a handful of votes (and much deal-brokering from the White House) to get the first budget passed in the House and Vice President Gore had to break a tie to pass the budget in the Senate.

I agree with this analysis, and I think that there are other factors in play working against the Republicans here. For one thing, self-identification as “Republican” is trending downward, and there’s a healthy 11 point gap between self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans. Independent affiliation is trending up, but independents tend to turnout less during mid-term elections, so the swing factor becomes less decisive.

Now, let’s get into some more specifics–as it stands right now, the Democrats would have to lose 11 Senate seats in order to lose the Senate. Right now, that ain’t in the cards. The Democrats don’t have 11 vulnerable seats. (They might lose Harry Reid, though, which would actually probably be a boon for Democrats.)

On the House side, in order for the Republicans to take the House, they need to win an additional 40 seats. Surveying the landscape, I don’t see 40 seats that the Republicans can win. I do think that they can make some big gains, but as the AP reports, the polling shows that Democrats only have 38 vulnerable seats. So not only do the Republicans have to win all 38 vulnerable seats, they have to win two more besides. Right now I don’t see it–especially because in some of the battleground states such as Florida and Nevada, the Latino vote has swung away from Democrats, and I don’t think that Republican opposition to Sotomayor and renewed calls for crackdowns on immigrants are going to help the Republicans here.

Frankly, from a pure political perspective, I think Obama is at his weakest point than he is going to be for the remainder of the mid-term. Now consider this–his favorables are spiking back up, and after a solid month of conservative protest against health care reform, even Rasmussen puts support for reform at 51% and trending up. And while right now the Republicans are winning the generic House ballot, it’s by a pretty slim margin. I think this is the telling point for the 2010 elections–August was bad, really bad, for the President. But Republicans haven’t moved their agenda forward, and there hasn’t been a signficant shift in opinion against the Democrats. At least, not significant enough to cause a sea change like 1994 or 2006.

Now, there are a number of factors that might change things between now and November 2010–the economy, the wars, a natural disaster, etc. But as things stand right now, and as the trends appear to be moving today, a Republican re-taking of the House doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

US News blogger Peter Roff speculates that Mitt Romney will run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Such an announcement would likely be embraced immediately by the Republicans, who would like almost nothing more than to deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada his new, hard-won, 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority. As a self-funding candidate who has already been elected once statewide, Romney has nearly 100 percent name ID. And, in an environment where President Obama seems to be dragging the Democrats down, he would be a serious threat to the Democratic hegemony in Massachusetts’s congressional delegation. Meaning Romney likely would win.

If he did, Romney would then have a platform to actually introduce legislation modeled on the proposals he put forward as a presidential candidate
in 2008 and planned to put forward in 2012. No guesswork. No empty rhetoric. Real ideas, on the Senate floor, that could be evaluated, debated, and perhaps even voted on.

From the Senate floor, Romney could show his fellow Republicans, and the country, just what kind of president he would be. How he would approach national problems. As an added political benefit, it would give him the opportunity to establish true conservative bona fides allowing him to finally overcome the suspicions many conservatives in the GOP’s primary electorate still harbor about him. Rather than tie him down, Romney could actually use the Senate seat to lock up the GOP nomination in 2012.

Two minor problems with this: Romney would have to get elected. And he’d have to instantly be an effective senator.

Romney was governor of Massachusetts, a very advantageous platform from which to run for president. Not only did it allow him to demonstrate decisive, executive leadership — as opposed to those pesky compromise votes that tend to embarrass senators running for president — but it allowed him to claim that he was a uniter, able to get things done as a Republican in a highly Democratic state. So, why did he give it up? Because he was unlikely to win re-election. Why would he suddenly be more popular in a state even less receptive to a Republican while wallowing in a sea of Kennedy emotion?

Were Romney to get elected despite this obstacle, he’d have about five minutes to start passing legislation for it to do him any good in a presidential campaign that will start in earnest next February. If it hasn’t started already. He’d have to do this as the Senate’s most junior member in a body where seniority is everything. And as a Republican in a body where the Democrats have 59 percent of the votes.

UPDATE: Alex Massie, Steve Benen, and Nate Silver all agree this is a really bad idea.  So does Steve M., who notes that Romney doesn’t even qualify for Massachusetts residency at the moment.

Implicit in all their arguments is a fundamental point I failed to make in the original post: The positions one has to take to get elected to statewide office in Massachusetts are diametrically opposed to those one has to take to win the Republican presidential nomination.

President Obama’s approval ratings are continuing to fall, especially among young Democrats and working class whites.

Ron Brownstein highlights a new Pew poll showing the trends since the election:

Pew found Obama’s numbers are weakest among groups that were skeptical of him last year, but appeared to be kicking the tires on him during the honeymoon stage of his presidency. Now those groups–particularly white men without a college education–are retreating rapidly amid the ideologically polarizing debates over health care, the stimulus and his administration’s overall trajectory.

But Pew’s new survey also records perceptible, if still generally modest, erosion among groups that were central to Obama’s coalition last year–including young people, college-educated white women and even partisan Democrats. That is more worrisome for Obama, especially amid signs that the bruising combat over his health care plan is inflaming the conservative base. If conservatives are energized at the same time that Obama’s core supporters are wavering, Democrats could face a withering differential in turnout during next year’s election, many party strategists fear.

[...]

This erosion among non-college whites could threaten Democrats in 2010, particularly across the Rustbelt states of the Midwest, if turnout among these voters remains strong. But over the long run, those voters are not central to Obama’s coalition, in part because they have been reliably Republican in presidential elections since the 1980s, and partly because they are steadily declining as a share of the electorate.

More important to Obama are college-educated white voters, the key to his dramatic and decisive gains last year in suburban counties from Fairfax, Virginia to Arapahoe, Colorado. On this front, the picture is somewhat brighter for him: he maintains majority support among college-educated white women (who gave him 52 percent of their vote last year, matching the Democratic high in recent decades) and his approval rating among college-educated white men still exceeds his (admittedly lackluster) vote with them last year. But with both groups, he is moving in the wrong direction: Obama’s approval rating among the upscale men dropped two points in the Pew survey from July to August, and his standing with the college-plus white women dropped a more ominous five percentage points.

Greg Sargent notes similar trends in the Washington Post/ABC News poll and says this is what Obama gets for reaching out to conservatives:

Much talk today has focused on Obama’s difficulties with independents. But the drop among Dems and liberals is also a key driving factor in the President’s skid, according to WaPo polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta, who graciously provided the additional data.

This suggests Obama’s conciliatory approach to the GOP, and his lack of clarity around the public option — both of which are presumably alienating Dems and liberals — could be key factors driving his dip.

But none of this should be surprising. Obama came to office with outsized expectations, owing to a combination of his enormous charisma, the sustained national malaise during most of Bush’s second term, and an adoring media. It would have been impossible for him to live up to the hype. Especially when he was inheriting two wars, a global financial crisis, and a health care system headed for fiscal meltdown.

Nor is the demographic breakdown at all surprising. Young Democrats naturally had the most unrealistic expectations of the Change! that was coming to Washington, in that they simply don’t have the experience with the American political system to know any better. And of course working class whites and hipster ObamaCons who voted for Obama because they were so tired of the Republicans were going to be disappointed with a president with an agenda fundamentally at odds with their political preferences.  Not to mention that we’ve been a 50-50 country for a while now; a bare majority approval rating is going to be the ceiling outside from brief periods of euphoria.

Brownstein is right that, if this trend sustains itself, it means a bad midterm cycle for Obama’s party.  But that was likely to be the case, anyway.  Not only is a letdown in the off-year election the historical norm but regression to the mean should be expected after two cycles where Republicans lost big in areas naturally friendly to their platform.

It’s way too early to project this trend to 2012.  Still, I don’t see much cause for Republican celebration or Democratic panic.  Barring miracles — or a truly horrendous GOP nominee — Obama wasn’t going to keep the ObamaCons for another cycle.  And, barring a Lyndon Johnson-style meltdown, the disillusioned young Democrats are going to vote for Obama again, although perhaps not as enthusiastically or in quite such high numbers.  Which means, barring something unusual happening, we’re likely to return to our recent pattern of close elections.

Arlen Specter switched parties to avoid being beaten by Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.  A new Rasmussen poll finds Toomey would crush Specter 48 to 36 if the general election were held today.  (Which, I always add, it won’t be.)

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.

These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by eleven.

Just 43% now have a favorable opinion of Specter while 54% offer an unfavorable assessment of the longtime GOP senator who became a Democrat rather than face Toomey in a party primary. Those numbers have reversed since June when 53% had a favorable opinion of him.

The current figures include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of Specter and 36% with a Very Unfavorable view.

Now, it’s very, very early. The election is more than a year away and it’s almost absurd to even be talking about a Senate race at this point in the game. But 36 percent unfavorable is simply remarkable for a long-time incumbent. And to be trailing a relative nobody by 12 points before the campaigning even starts in earnest is truly unexpected; Specter quite reasonably expected that he’d win the Democratic nomination unopposed and walk to re-election. Neither of those are going to happen.

via Taegan Goddard

Sarah Palin has announced that, not only will she not seek re-election as governor of Alaska in 2010 but that she is resigning her office later this month.   Andrew Hinkelman and Lori Tipton for KTUU:

Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning. Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor’s Picnic at Pioneer Park in Fairbanks on Saturday, July 25, Palin said.

There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

I’m not sure who her political brain trust is but the idea that resigning as governor — the only significant political office she’s had — after only two years will improve her chances of getting elected president is, to say the least, unconventional.

WaPo’s Paul Volpe reports, “Palin’s decision comes amid polling that showed her losing altitude from the stratospheric heights to which she ascended following her election in 2006 but remained a strong favorite to win reelection.”

He points to a Chris Cillizza piece from a month back arguing Palin would be wise not to seek reelection because Alaska is a long way from the key primary states and it’s not a great time to be governor right now, anyway, because of the economic climate. Fair enough.  For most serious presidential contenders, it may well be better to spend more time raising money, building an organization, and eating pancakes in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But Palin’s not an ordinary presidential aspirant in that she’s got essentially no experience.  True, that didn’t seem to stop Barack Obama.  But he’s sui generis and came out of the gates giving the impression he had at least thought deeply about the major national and international issues presidents would deal with.  Fairly or not, Palin lost that presumption almost immediately upon her debut on the national stage.  Without a governorship as a platform for demonstrating competence, I’m not sure how she rebrands herself.

UPDATE: Well, the combination of breaking news, Palin’s pop culture icon status, and a slow news day have made this one of the biggest political stories in some time.  As of 6 am, this post already has 50 comments and Memeorandum is going nuts.  See a screencap here; it’s too big to embed in a post.

Nor, half a day later, are we any closer to unraveling this mystery.

The near-universal consensus is that her resignation speech was simply godawful. Watch it if you haven’t already:

Ed Morrissey believes, as do I, that “it simply can’t be rationalized on the basis of what Palin said today.  It’s easily the most bizarre resignation I’ve seen, and just about senseless.”

A few lefty blogs are peddling thinly sourced rumors of an “iceberg scandal” involving pending federal indictment over alleged embezzlement involving a  sports complex in Wasilla.

Mark Halperin offers “10 Possible reasons for Palin’s decision,” all of which are necessarily speculative.

1. Her political standing has slipped enough that she could have lost a re-election bid if she tried to retain her current office.

2. Her political standing has slipped enough that even if she had run and won, she would have likely been bloodied in the race, maybe even in a primary.

Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 after having lost a bid as California governor in 1962 and for president in 1960.  Mitt Romney was a serious contender for the 2008 GOP nomination despite deciding not to run for re-election because he would have lost.  Neither, however, resigned after only two years in their only significant office.

3. Even more ethics complaints (many frivolous) would have been filed against her.

So?

4. She’s got a book to write.

And, I guess, having people think you’re weird sells books.

5. She’s got a special needs baby to raise.

But she had a special needs baby to raise when she was seeking the vice presidency. And, for that matter, if that’s her rationale, why not say so?  People would be sympathetic.

6. It is logistically impossible to run for president as the sitting governor of Alaska — because of flight times. (Not hard: *impossible*)

Already noted by Cillizza and reasonable enough.  But Alaska hasn’t moved all that much in the last two years.

7. She couldn’t truly explore her money-making potential as an incumbent governor.

8. She couldn’t truly explore her media potential as an incumbent governor.

Both true.  Maybe she’s realized she’s a pretty good pop culture celebrity and she should just be the best pop culture celebrity she can be?  Sort of a middle-aged Britney Spears.

9. The legislature has turned so much against her that the job wasn’t much fun any more.

Wah.

10. If she wants to be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2012, she needs to spend more time raising money, establishing her international and national expertise, and traveling the Lower 48. And she needs to start now.

I’d say she needed to start about twenty years ago.  But sure.

In fairness, though, Bill Kristol thinks it’s a good idea.  And he’s seldom wrong.  Oh, wait.

If Palin wants to run in 2012, why not do exactly what she announced today? It’s an enormous gamble – but it could be a shrewd one.

After all, she’s freeing herself from the duties of the governorship. Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues – and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska. I suppose she’ll take a hit for leaving the governorship early – but how much of one? She’s probably accomplished most of what she was going to get done as governor, and is leaving a sympatico lieutenant governor in charge.

And haven’t conservatives been lamenting the lack of a national leader? Well, now she’ll try to be that. She may not succeed. Everything rests on her talents, and on her performance. She’ll be under intense and hostile scrutiny, and she’ll have to perform well.

That’s essentially a long form version of Halperin’s 10th reason.

Talking Points Memo is reporting that Rep. Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania will be challenging Arlen Specter in the Democratic Primary.

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) is privately telling supporters that he intends to run for Senate, TPMDC has confirmed.

“He intends to get in the race,” says Meg Infantino, the Congressman’s sister, who works at Sestak for Congress. “In the not too distant future, he will sit down with his wife and daughter to make the final decision.”

The move would constitute a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), who intends to run for re-election in 2010, after having switched parties earlier this year.

Earlier today, a Sestak volunteer and contributor received a handwritten note from Sestak himself, announcing his intent to run and asking for a contribution.

You can see a scan of the note at the link. The most recent polling I could find on this matter basically indicates to me that Sestak is pretty much an unknown. That said, Specter is winning handily right now.

At this point, though, it’s too early to tell–polls are somewhat meaningless. My gut tells me that it’ll be close. A mid-term Primary is most likely going to be full of partisans who follow things closely. I don’t think that bodes well for Specter, but then again, I don’t know how Democratic partisans in Pennsylvania feel about Sestak, so it’s hard to call.

UPDATE (James Joyner):  David Kurtz is complaining, “CNN picks up TPM’s Sestak scoop — makes no mention of TPM. ” Alas, Big Media steal from one another all the time; why would they have any compunction about stealing from a blog?   For that matter, many an “exclusive” really isn’t.

Taegan Goddard passes on word that Tom Ridge, once Pennsylvania’s governor and putatively contemplating running for Arlen Specter’s seat representing that state in the Senate, is a resident of Maryland for the purposes of federal tax and lobbying filings.

Do these sort of things matter in statewide elections?   Is anyone otherwise disposed to vote for Ridge going to be dissuaded by the notion that he’s a carpetbagger?

Rather obviously, Ridge has strong ties to Pennsylvania.  But he moved to Washington for the Homeland Security post a few years back and stayed in its suburbs to cash in as a lobbyist.  Obviously, he’s not going to commute from Pennsylvania to K Street every day.

Rick Santorum represented Pennsylvania in the Senate while living in Leesburg, Virginia; at least Maryland and Pennsylvania are contiguous. Indeed, most Senators and Representatives reside in DC or its suburbs, maintaining their legal residence in their home states only as legal fictions.

George H.W. Bush spent years in Texas before moving to DC but maintained his “Texas” residency by virtue of a Houston hotel room.  Dick Cheney ran for Vice President from Wyoming, where he grew up and which he represented in the House of Representatives, even though he was living in Texas running Haliburton.  Hillary Clinton was twice elected to the Senate from New York even though she came from DC via Arkansas via Chicago.

Former Pennsylvania governor and Department of Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge is considering running for Arlen Specter’s seat in the Senate, Roll Call reports (via Taegan Goddard).

Very interesting.  With Specter in the race for the Republican nomination, it was expected to be a two-way rematch with Pat Toomey.  Now, there’s speculation that former senator Rick Santorum may run and there appears to be a Draft Ridge movement.

Toomey would have almost certainly defeated Specter for the nomination, which is why Specter decided to switch his party label to Democrat.  Specter would almost certainly beat Toomey in a general election matchup.  Santorum would have a better shot but my sense is that, like Toomey, he’s too socially conservative for today’s Pennsylvania.   Ridge, on the other hand, would be formidable indeed.

At least two statewide Pennsylvania polls have shown that “Hardball” host Chris Matthews would be a serious contender if he chose to challenge Arlen Specter for the Senate in 2010 and Matthews has indicated that he has at least some interest in running, WaPo’s Chris Cillizza reports.

Matthews would be an interesting candidate.  His “Hardball” personality is annoying and frenetic for my tastes but he’s a much more likable fellow in his eponymous Sunday morning show.   Clearly, the media is a viable route to higher office, with comedian and minor talk show host Al Franken still in a recount battle with incumbent Norm Coleman for that seat representing Minnesota in the Senate.

There’s a real question, too, as to whether Specter will be up for yet another term.  In addition to having some serious health problems, being in the minority for the foreseeable future — after having held important committee chairmanships — can’t be all that much fun.