Mel Martinez will not seek reelection in 2010

[copperfiend]

(CNN) â€" Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, announced Tuesday will not seek reelection in 2010.

In a Florida press conference, Martinez said his decision was not based on the likelihood he would face a tough reelection fight.

"I've faced much tougher obstacles in my life," he said. "My decision is not based on re-election prospects, but on what on what I want to do with the next eight years of my life."

The first term senator and onetime National Republican Committee chairman narrowly won his first Senate race in 2004.

One congressional source cited Martinez's age, 62, and said "he is ready for the next chapter in his life."

It currently appears 19 GOP seats will be up for grabs in 2010.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[vicupstate]

The first retirement of the 2010 cycle.  He would have almost certainly lost anyway.  This does open up the way for other GOP candidates.

Will Crist run? Jeb? Alex Sink announced she would not, but that was before this news.

Any favorites in the forum? Katherine Harris

[BridgeTroll]

Good

[City Slicker]

Good

Alex Sink, being the good Democrat that she is, will hopefully change her mind.  This is an excellent opportunity and I hope that someone truly effective and willing to move past partisan politics in order to move Florida and the country forward will declare their candidacy.

PS - great joke to throw out the name of Katherine Harris   

[CMG22]

PS - great joke to throw out the name of Katherine Harris   

Well, with her expertise with electoral fraud, I wouldn't be surprised if she won even if she wasn't on the ballot!

[BridgeTroll]

Pretty sure I read that Jeb Bush may run for that seat.

[RiversideGator]

The first retirement of the 2010 cycle.  He would have almost certainly lost anyway.  This does open up the way for other GOP candidates.

Will Crist run? Jeb? Alex Sink announced she would not, but that was before this news.

Any favorites in the forum? Katherine Harris

1.  What makes you assume Martinez would not have won reelection?  Considering the Georgia results yesterday, Democrats do not do nearly as well when there is not an Obama on the ticket with them.
2.  Jeb is the current front runner.  If he wants it, he can have it.

[RiversideGator]

PS - great joke to throw out the name of Katherine Harris   

Well, with her expertise with electoral fraud, I wouldn't be surprised if she won even if she wasn't on the ballot!

What fraud?

[copperfiend]

The first retirement of the 2010 cycle.  He would have almost certainly lost anyway.  This does open up the way for other GOP candidates.

Will Crist run? Jeb? Alex Sink announced she would not, but that was before this news.

Any favorites in the forum? Katherine Harris

1.  What makes you assume Martinez would not have won reelection?  Considering the Georgia results yesterday, Democrats do not do nearly as well when there is not an Obama on the ticket with them.
2.  Jeb is the current front runner.  If he wants it, he can have it.

Would the Georgia results have been any different in November if the third party candidate had not been on the ballot?

[RiversideGator]

Had there been no third party option in November, Chambliss would still have won albeit by smaller margins.

The point is absent the unique Obama turnout wave the Democrats underperformed considerably in GA at least.  And there will be no Obama on the ballot in 2010 and the party in the White House usually loses seat in their first mid-term Congressional election.

[vicupstate]

The first retirement of the 2010 cycle.  He would have almost certainly lost anyway.  This does open up the way for other GOP candidates.

Will Crist run? Jeb? Alex Sink announced she would not, but that was before this news.

Any favorites in the forum? Katherine Harris

1.  What makes you assume Martinez would not have won reelection?  Considering the Georgia results yesterday, Democrats do not do nearly as well when there is not an Obama on the ticket with them.
2.  Jeb is the current front runner.  If he wants it, he can have it.

1. Several reasons.

A) Terrible approval numbers:

a Quinnipiac poll last month pegged his numbers at 42% approve and 33% disapprove, and a Strategic Vision poll was broadly similar -- 47% approve, 41% disapprove. Public Policy Polling, whose approval ratings can be idiosyncratic, had more pessimistic numbers: 23% approve, 37% disapprove. On average, that works out to 37% approve, 37% disapprove, or almost exactly breakeven.

VERY weak for an incumbent. Virtually guarantees a tough race. 

B) Barely won the first time

... 49.5% - 48.4% , meanwhile Bush carried FL 52-47.
... in a GOP year, in a GOP state (at least in 2004).
   
C) A significant primary challenge was a distinct possibility. ALWAYS a bad omen for an incumbent.

D) He was a lousy/controversial senator.

... Controversial position (within the GOP) on Immigration
... campaign reporting violations from '04
... Terry Schivo
... Vehemently anti-gay, yet had ties to Mark Foley
... His illustrious tenure as RNC chair, which lasted less than a year.

He was easily the most vulnerable senator running in 2010. His extremely early exit is proof of that.   He did his party a huge favor by stepping aside. he stood a very good chance of getting beat.   

Obama LOST Georgia. Obama WON Florida.  I wouldn't read too much into the GA result. BTW, there was no Obama on the ticket in 2006. Even when one party has a net loss of seats, it doesn't mean they don't pick up ANY new ones.  They almost always do. 

2.
As for Jeb, he is the favorite, but I wouldn't count that chicken yet.  He isn't unbeatable. 

[vicupstate]

Had there been no third party option in November, Chambliss would still have won albeit by smaller margins.

The point is absent the unique Obama turnout wave the Democrats underperformed considerably in GA at least.  And there will be no Obama on the ballot in 2010 and the party in the White House usually loses seat in their first mid-term Congressional election.

Most likely Chambliss would have won in a two man race, but not by much.  Martin was a less than ideal candidate, a stronger D candidate  (Max Cleland, for instance) would have beaten Chambliss.

While the party in the White House does usually lose seats in the first mid-term, that average is two seats.  Plus, there will be more  GOP seats than Dem ones up.  All but one of the D incumbents won easily in 2004 (a GOP presidential victory election). That one exception is in Colorado, a state which has turned a deep shade of blue since then. Conversely, several GOP incumbents rode presidential coatails to victory.   

If Obama is reasonably popular, the D loss of seats could beat the average. Breaking even or gaining a seat or two, would not be out of the question by any means.   

As always, retirements on both sides will weigh heavily in the final outcome. Usually, a retirement is bad news for the incumbent party of that seat.  Not so, with Martinez.   

[RiversideGator]

Good luck with those predictions.   

On a related note, the Dems are already complaining about Obama:

Democrats want a more assertive Obama    

Dec 4 09:47 PM US/Eastern

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer    
                     
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats are growing impatient with President-elect Barack Obama's refusal to inject himself in the major economic crises confronting the country.

Obama has sidestepped some policy questions by saying there is only one president at a time. But the dodge is wearing thin.

"He's going to have to be more assertive than he's been," House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told consumer advocates Thursday.

Frank, who has been dealing with both the bailout of the financial industry and a proposed rescue of Detroit automakers, said Obama needs to play a more significant role on economic issues.

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time," Frank said. "I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94S8I600&show_article=1

[tufsu1]

Good luck with those predictions.   
/quote]

How did you do with your predictions in 2008?

[vicupstate]

Good luck with those predictions.   

On a related note, the Dems are already complaining about Obama:

Democrats want a more assertive Obama    

Dec 4 09:47 PM US/Eastern

By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer    
                     
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats are growing impatient with President-elect Barack Obama's refusal to inject himself in the major economic crises confronting the country.

Obama has sidestepped some policy questions by saying there is only one president at a time. But the dodge is wearing thin.

"He's going to have to be more assertive than he's been," House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., told consumer advocates Thursday.

Frank, who has been dealing with both the bailout of the financial industry and a proposed rescue of Detroit automakers, said Obama needs to play a more significant role on economic issues.

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time," Frank said. "I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94S8I600&show_article=1

I can't argue with Frank's assertion that Bush is too disengaged given our imploding economy. 

I have no doubt you, and Rush and Sean would find unforgiveable fault, if Obama were doing any more than he is. You would insist he would be usurping power.   

I wish the Buchannan Bush administartion could be over sooner, but it just isn't possible.  The President-elect actually RESPECTS what the constitution says.