[Lancey Howard]

Gotta love Michael Reagan, but he's off base here. (Also, I didn't see Fred mentioned in this piece at all.) If Michael wants to look at the odds, what are the odds that America would elect a Republican from freakin Massachusetts, the same place that routinely re-elects Marxist scum like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barney Frank, Edward Markey, Bill Delahunt....?

That's not happening.

And the Huckster? A tax-and-spend, open-borders goofball? No. As American Republicans become more and more aware of that guy's record, they'll drop him like an apple with a worm in it. They're not gonna drink THAT Jesus juice.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Judas juice.

[LowCountryJoe]

Gotta love Michael Reagan, but he's off base here. (Also, I didn't see Fred mentioned in this piece at all.) If Michael wants to look at the odds..

I know. And speaking of just plain old odd, what's odd is that Thompson is perhaps the candidate most like Michael's dad.

[LadyNavyVet]

I agree. Surface analysis like “Americans vote for governors” sounds to me like the sports statistics the color commentator is always spouting ad nauseam during the game: “When so and so gets 100 yards rushing, his team wins 97.65% of the time!” And then so and so gets 110 yards rushing, and his team loses.

In 2000 we heard constantly that the taller candidate wins. The shorter candidate won. Then we heard the same thing in 2004, until the shorter candidate won again.

It’s the same thing with the governors beat senators line. It’s true, until it isn’t, and then they’ll come up with a new irrelevant statistic. As always it depends on the particular circumstances of the race, which Reagan is forgetting.

“Governors usually win,” except in the postwar era, of the 9 presidents elected to office (Eisenhower to Bush 43, not counting Ford) only 4 (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43) were governors.