Most people here know that the last time an incumbent (sitting) United States Senator was elected president of the country, the year was 1960 ... a dozen election cycles ago.
What makes anyone think 2008 will be any different?
(More on the jump) ...
Yes, I'm focused on 2006. How could I not be, living in Connecticut, with three GOP-held House seats in play and a Senate primary. But I still have room in my head.
If your preliminary favorite for the Democratic nomination in '08 happens to be Clinton, Feingold, Warner, et. al. -- is this historical fact in your calculus at all?
Or do we look at it as more of an accident of history, a product of circumstance, each election is unique? I say "we" because I'm just toying with the idea, as I hope you will.
Though I'm not an expert on statistics, I sometimes play one on the Internet. That no sitting U.S. Senator has been elected president since Kennedy does not strike me as statistically significant. But neither can I ignore the anecdotal evidence.
Thoughts?