In 1884, William T. Sherman famously declined to be considered for the Republican presidential nomination by stating, "If nominated, I will not accept, and if elected I will not serve." Ever since then, an unambiguous repudiation of a potential candidacy has been known as a Sherman statement.

The key word here is repudiation. Mere denial of political ambition typically does not dissuade motivated parties from hoping to convince or draft the reluctant candidate. And it's very easy to tell the difference.

Exercises beneath the fold.

In the wake of the Hackett-Brown fiasco, I keep reading comments claiming that contested primaries are a good thing and that the establishment is stupid for trying to prevent them. I first started hearing this theory after the Republicans swept most of the close Senate races in 2004, mainly due to turnout. The idea was that in states like Oklahoma and South Carolina, the winner had been able to raise his profile early due to the attention drawn by a contested primary, which emotionally invested the base in the eventual candidate and energized voters to turn out in droves come November. The evidence for this theory seems pretty weak. Let's review some of the Senate races that year.

After being dubbed "Darth Nancy" in a Star Wars spoof at the House Republican retreat last week, Nancy Pelosi appealed to the ultimate authority, her constituent George Lucas. Said Lucas, "In the empire, Congress is irrelevant -- they talk, they rant, they rave. But it doesn't mean anything because the emperor controls it all." And just whom might that emperor be? "It's not who you think. The emperor works behind Darth Vader."

Darth Bush?

Just for fun, an alternate history that asks what if Ronald Reagan had picked Donald Rumsfeld as his running mate in 1980?