Woo, we get his seat!

Unless Burris wins the primary on some sort of bizarre computer glitch, I can't see Kirk beating any of the major Dem candidates (usual caveats apply); I'm sure there'll be some polls in the next year or so that will show he might and will generate panic and/or gloating from different ends of the spectrum, but at the end of the day, he loses.

---

by: SC @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 17:52:36 PM UTC

Its not a sure thing the Dems will win his seat

If a moderate Republican wins the primary. I mean look, if conservative Dems can win in strongly GOP districts then a moderate Republican can win in a Democratic district that is use to voting for moderate Republicans.  

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:03:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With that said

If the GOP puts up a conservative (even a sane one) in the primary they are through before the race even begins.

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:04:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honestly, though

I'd have been a lot more worried about him running for Governor.  State political parties are generally more acclimated to local conditions, and Illinois has been a lot friendlier to statewide Republicans for state office than those for statewide federal office in the last few decades.

---

by: SC @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 17:54:51 PM UTC

is there a good dem running for his seat yet?

---

by: st paul sage @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:05:09 PM UTC

Yes, there's a State Senator

Can't think of his name of the top of my head, but he sounded like a really strong candidate.  And I thought that there was another State sen. thinking of jumping in too

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:53:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

His name is Bond

http://www.swingstateproject.c...

Sen. Susan Garrett is also apparently considering running.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:55:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where is Rahm when we need him?

---

by: fai calif @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:10:06 PM UTC

To do what?

Shout "fuck" a lot?

---

by: Crisitunity @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:43:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

looks like a suicide run

Kirk was safe in his House seat, despite its strong Dem lean. In 2008 we threw everything we had at him and he still won by a large margin. But he has no chance of winning statewide against any Dem that isn't Burris. Maybe he thinks he's running against Burris.

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:18:06 PM UTC

Cook county

Kirk wont win. He couldn't carry his part of Cook county in 2008 and he has been having trouble holding down his base. Alexi Giannoulias will probably run. What Kirk's issue will be is that he is going to have a huge deficit in Cook county against him of about 500,000 votes at least which will makes it extremely difficult for him to get a majority or plurality of votes in a statewide election. In 1998, Carol Mosley-Braun only won 5 counties in Illinois and still managed to get almost 48% of the vote. In the recent PPP poll, Giannoulias had a 12% lead over Kirk among moderates and 30% of democrats were undecided. I think that Kirk will get crush by Giannoulias and we will also get Kirk's house seat. In addition, I am very sure that Obama will be involved in this election if the polls showed it get close.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:19:28 PM UTC

Giannoulias vs Kirk

What will be the campaign narrative on each side?

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:19:41 PM UTC

Kirk may have problems of his own in primary

Kirk's vote on cap and trade is not flying well with his own party. He is going to get vilified at every tea party and basted on the talkers. Heck, imagine the damage that will be done to him in the north with Mankow screaming bloody murder in the Chicago market. He has good ratings and one has to figure his audience is a good chunk of the GOP primary in the northern tier of the state.

Supposedly Kirk's strategists view the vote as crucial to his appeal in the northern part of the state, enabling him to pull a better margin in the Chicago burbs. The problem from his perspective is he underestimates the blowback among the GOP base down south and in the manufacturing belt around Rockford and the like.

The GOP base is in a mood much like the one anti-war progressive Democrats were in the 2004 and 2006 cycles: super-pissed off and not in the mood for RINOs or half-measures. Breaking with a GOP article of faith when they are in pitchfork mode is not going to consolidate them at all. His right flank is wide open and politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

OK, Andy McKenna is from the wrong wing of the party to cause him much trouble, but another entrant more enticing to Rightworld is likely to emerge. The wildcard, of course, is Jack Ryan, who likely would have dusted Obama if he had been content simply having a super-hot wife and not felt a need to publicly validate the obvious.

He has a big hurdle to overcome but Ryan is very talented. And Kirk is tailor-made to give the wingers an excuse to resurrect Ryan.

If not Ryan, someone is going to exploit this in the GOP primary. There are too many mining jobs in So Ill, too many energy-intensive manufacturing jobs and AEP-related jobs all over the state. Cornyn is running short on leverage. I don't see him as able to muscle out challengers and clear the primary field. Normal rules are not going to apply. The popularity of Palin and the surging ratings for right-wing talk indicate the rank and file is off on their own populist trajectory beyond the limited ability of CCs and business lobbies to control. Cornyn can play whack-a-mole leaning out everyone in their farm system and someone will pop up from nowhere and be good for over 40 percent.

There is a distinct gulf between the GOP rank-and-file and its establishment. Kirk is perfectly designed for the GOP base to take its frustrations with its own establishment leadership. And the mistake the GOP establishment is making is thinking they can control the release of steam. Their base is too POd to vote tactically or take half a loaf. And they are directing more of their anger at Obama towards their own establishment for what they perceive as handling Obama with kid gloves. The base wants to rumble and are mad at their wimpy leadership for not throwing haymakers.

Rubio versus Crist in Florida and a player to be named versus Kirk in Ill... gonna be brutal primaries exposing the fissures in their coalition.

---

by: pinhickwv @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:28:59 PM UTC

Jack Ryan would not have beat Obama

Thing was, Ryan was trailing badly before his divorce records came out. Obama was still riding high after his landslide primary, and Ryan was getting no traction whatsoever.

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:36:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeahhh

I just about spit out my coffee on my keyboard when I read that revisionist gem. Here are are a ton of IL-SEN 2004 polls and I don't see Ryan leading in any of them. There's a lot of data to sift through here so I could be missing one or two lead, but that certainly wasn't the trend even before the scandal. Nothing to suggest that he would have "dusted" Obama in any event.

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:04:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Found none

Granted, most of those polls were done either during the primaries or after Ryan dropped out. The only relevant polls I found had Obama ahead either 52-33 (mirroring the respective primary results) or 44-28.

Obama would have beaten Ryan. Probably not by as much as he beat Keyes (70-27), but definitely by 15-20.

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:12:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

we will never know

Obama was behind until the March primary. And his support was soft as silk, despite Jack Ryan having the same last name as the scandal-plagued GOP incumbent Governor. Obama's identity was unestablished and he still had an unusual name running in a security-focused federal election in a presidential year against a guy with the same name as Tom Clancy's hero, which would have helped distinquish between him and the Governor.

Ryan was telegenic and well-spoken and had a ton of money he could pour into the race.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Obama would have won. Hard to say since all we have is summer polls from around Ryan's bailout as the last read. so this is all a gut read. But it would have been a much tighter race than the gimme putt he ended up with. And, with the race in play, it is doubtful Obama would have got as high profile a slot for the convention speech and even more likely he would have given a different speech under very different circumstances. No big national launch with the autobiographical speech. No astronomical margin against Keyes' pitiful parachute campaign. At best, Obama would have been positioning for veep, not a run of his own.

Jack Ryan earned himself one hell of a footnote in history... all because he wanted to show off Seven of Nine. Right up there with the guy LBJ ripped off to become Landside Lyndon.

---

by: pinhickwv @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:16:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When was Obama ever behind Ryan?

Now, I know Obama was behind in his own primary until Hull imploded and Hynes failed to catch own, but I recall no polls showing behind any of the Republicans.

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:27:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

corran horn is right, Obama always led BIG over Ryan......

It requires some real ignorance to think Ryan EVER was "likely" to beat Obama even without scandal.  ALL the post-primary evidence BEFORE the scandal broke pointed to Obama winning the general election comfortably.

Our commenter here is engaging in quite a bit of revisionist history, to say the least.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:05:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Considering how amazing

Obama's primary campaign was against the ultimate, "inevitable," establishment power of Hillary Clinton, I have a hard time envisioning any normal set of circumstances in which he would have lost to Ryan. That primary win to me is one of the most amazing underdog victories of all time. The guy clearly is a monster campaigner.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:39:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama would have had money too.

Despite any of Jack Ryan's advantages, this was still an open Senate seat in Illinois, in a presidential year which works to the Democrat's favor in that blue state.  The DSCC still would have seen the chance to not only pick up a Senate seat in a very difficult cycle for them, but also the chance to pick up that exceedingly rare gem, a black Senator.  Obama and Salazar were the only Democratic pickups that cycle, and the DSCC would not have sat idle while Ryan waxed Obama with his millions.  It might have been a five or ten point race, but Democratic candidate Barack Obama still would very likely have won.

It is true though that he might not have been able to deliver that speech.  I'd have to go back and look to see how much of it would have been too risky for a competitive race.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:53:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

The GOP base is in a mood much like the one anti-war progressive Democrats were in the 2004 and 2006 cycles: super-pissed off and not in the mood for RINOs or half-measures.

Then how do you account for the fact that we supported guys like Ben Chandler, Stephanie Herseth, Brad Carson, Tony Knowles, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, etc., etc.? I wouldn't call any of these people DINOs, but this is a pretty conservative bunch, and we supported all of them wholeheartedly.

The progressive netroots was the opposite of how you describe the GOP base today - we were smart enough to understand that the Dems are a big tent party and that it takes all types to forge a majority. We wanted Democratic leaders to articulate a distinct vision and not try to sound like "Republican Lite." But we never lost sight of the fact that some Dems in some areas would have to act & sound different, at least some of the time.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:34:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen!

Granted, there were some who virulently opposed those candidates (not here, but definitely on DK). I would also throw in Bob Casey. I remember a few posters here back in '05 who were virulently opposed to him, but the majority (including me) supported him because he was progressive on most issues and because he could beat Santorum.

The majority of the progressive netroots remembers a frequently-overlooked piece of advice from the good Vermont doctor: Progressives should not be cut from one cloth, but should fit their individual state/district.

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:41:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The folks I cited

Were ones that DK specifically raised money for. I don't know if too many netroots folks raised money for Bob Casey. (But we are clearly in agreement about the larger point.)

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 20:04:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would disagree with the "opposite"

I don't think we can attribute one characteristic as that would imply the netroots were not POd and in a mood for DINOs. If I erred, it was in adding DINOs instead of leaving it at POd and half-measures.

But I do not recall a lot of enthusiasm for DINOs or even plain moderates even in states and districts where a progressive did not have a hoot in hell of a chance.

From my causal following of this site, it seems SSP has a more rational and tactical focus. On Kos, it seemed to vary from trumpeting the art of the possible to screaming bloody murder. It's hard to reconcile the fatwa on the DLC with this characterization.

But focusing on SSP and Kos and other big national sites kind of moves the focus off the local blogs... where there were a lot more calls for doctrinal purity and vociferous condemnation of more centrist candidates in primaries in areas where a hardcore progressive was electoral toast if nominated. And we are trying to ascribe a dominant characteristic to an amorphous mass of people with constantly shifting opinions, focus and intensity. And I certainly recall a lot of angry posts during and after these primaries that the nominee might as well be a Republican and threats to sit out the fall election.

As you said, it is a big tent. And the regional variations in the composition of the coalitions are enormous.

I do not think merely acting and sounding different is going to be enough to keep Democrats elected in some areas. They are going to have to actually be different. In an initial election and from time to time thereafter, a pol can sort of blur their identity to better fit a particular electorate. But over time PR isn't going to outpace reality. In governing, legislators are forced to make real choices and hard votes which ultimately define them. The ephemeral posturing is eventually trumped by substance.

There are plenty of states where progressives from a majority or plurality of the Democratic primary electorate. And their preferred candidates are viable for the general election. And there are plenty of states where progressives form a minority of even Democratic primary voters and their preferred candidates are not viable for generals.

Now here is the difference between the Democratic and Republican primary electorates generally on a national basis. On the GOP side, the conservative wing is dominant. They have the numbers just about everywhere.

If progressives actually had the numbers to impose their will in primaries nationwide, they would. The GOP's right can. And right now they are enraged at what we are doing. They are enraged at their own officeholders for what they view as pussyfooting in opposition.

I would not want to be an establishment Republican next year.

As for Hillary, her support was a mile wide and an inch deep. My view, expressed often, was once her aura of inevitability was punctured she would collapse like a bunch of broccoli. Sorry. Watched Young Frankenstein recently.

Almost made a comeback by playing for the right and cneter in OH and PA, but her crucial mistake was running a general election campaign too soon. Let Obama build mo and money through the fall of 07 and stake out a position as the viable anti-war candidate then misread where the undecideds were and tried to get back left, an impossibility given her war votes. Nahh, she should have gone right and center. That's where the big bloc of undecideds were.

Obama ran a fine campaign, but he was stoppable, HRC just made the wrong moves at the wrong times. Spent too much too early trying for an early TKO when the early states were not places where she could do it.

---

by: pinhickwv @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 19:14:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kirk might could have won governor.

I don't think he has a chance in hell at the Senate.

The next year would have to go really badly politically and economically for Illinois to be reaching for republicans for Senate.  Kirk is a fool.  Thanks for the House seat though.

So who runs against Seals in the primary?

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:57:05 PM UTC

We've already got a candidate

Senator Bond. He sounds much stronger than seals, considering Seals already lost twice in really good years.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:04:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It helps a LOT to nominate an elected official......

Seals was portrayed by some people on the lefty blogs as an Obama mini-me, a good-looking and real smart black professional with charisma.  But I think that was exaggerated, he never quite came off that way to most people.  If you've never been elected or even appointed to anything, you need something to offset that to make a case to voters for a seat in Congress.  I think ultimately Seals never had that.

A state legislator has an edge because he's already been tested before voters and gets the benefit of doubt.  I'm much happier with Bond than I ever was with Seals, even though I rooted for Seals with all my heart.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:08:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IL

What a shocker.  As usual, mostly everyone on here downplays the Republicans chance at winning and overplays the Democrats.  

I hope you all are right, but I fear you may not be.

29/D/Male/NY-01

---

by: Tekzilla @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 18:57:44 PM UTC

Again with this

Everytime you comment, it's to channel BillNolan's pessimism. This is IL, not some swing state. Kirk may be a competitive candidate, but he is far from being a serious threat unless Burris wins the primary.

Seriously, do you ever have anything positive to say?

---

by: corran horn @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:29:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll do it

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:34:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Carol Mosley-Braun

Anyone think that Mosley-Braun could beat Kirk.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:17:45 PM UTC

Her?

She lost this same senate seat to a Republican in 1998 because she was basically as corrupt as Roland Burris.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:20:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In her defense,

If Carol Moseley-Braun wasn't corrupt, there probably wouldn't be a President Obama.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:24:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Moseley Braun wasn't so much corrupt

as she did stuff that made people wonder if she wanted to stay a U.S. Senator.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 20:17:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, and Moseley-Braun

shouldn't run.  I don't know if she's considering it, but the primary is already competitive enough, and I doubt she would run.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:23:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Red Alert!

Lock photon torpedoes and phasers on the Enterprise and fire! (Stroking my star trek nerd tendencies) Anyway let's not get complacent here. Mark Kirk could score an upset especially if Burris (aka our Bill Sali but without the temper) gets through a very crowded primary. The DSCC and the Illinois Democratic Party should do some primary field clearing asap. We cannot afford to give the Republicans a senate seat and a major psychological victory here.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:19:39 PM UTC

our Bill Sali

ouch

26, male, Dem, NJ-12

---

by: duffman @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 20:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We shouldn't get cocky

This race is still lean D, but Kirk is the best candidate they could have got for the GOP.  He can raise a lot of money and can garner the moderate suburban votes.  He's also proven himself to be very resilient in the face of stiff opposition.  If he picks up enough support from outer Chicago and consildates downstate support he could pull this off in an upset.  Remember, our best candidate right now is Giannoulias, a one-term State Treasurer whose family has alleged ties to organized crime.  It wouldn't take much to paint him as a corrupt Chicago Democratic insider and channel voters' anger at the state's fiscal mismanagement at him.  Even though Kirk is the underdog, he still forces us to spend money to defend a seat that, with any other GOP challenger, we wouldn't have had to divert precious DSCC resources to.  We can't let this one slip away from us.

---

by: DFLer @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 20:51:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Burris won't survive

Cheryle Jackson will likely draw votes that would have gone to Burris. There's also the question of whether or not Burris will have the money.

What are people's thoughts on Kennedy? What are his chances, and was he polled against Kirk.

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:44:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ehstronghold, there is NO "crowded primary"......

There's one heavyweight, Alexi Giannoulias, and a bunch of also-rans.  No one has ever heard of Chris Kennedy, he's an also-ran.  I'm an obsessive campaign junkie and even I didn't know there was such a person as "Chris Kennedy."  Schakowsky backed out, she was a longshot but at least was a Congresswoman and so had to be taken seriously if she ran.  Madigan backed out.  So that leaves Alexi who long ago announced and already raised over a million bucks just in the first quarter, and a couple no-names who haven't even decided for sure to run and haven't filed any required papers.

And Burris has raised NO money and hasn't decided to run for the seat.  That's perhaps because he trails badly in ALL polling against just about any Democrat.

Barring an unexpected turn, Alexi Giannoulias is our candidate, and he'll cruise to the nomination with or without Burris running.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:15:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Indeed

You're right; if Kennedy gets money and some visits from Uncle Ted (and implicit backing from the Cook County boys), he could become something, but right now, he's not. The Urban Legal President has Blago connections- and don't be surprised if we find out later she's just a stalking horse to break Burris' hold on the black vote.

Someone else might get in now that Madigan's definitely out, but Alexi's the only big name right now.

But honestly, he could USE a good challenge. He's never been really tested, and I think Kirk will give him a run- it'd be good for him to know how that could happen.

---

by: colbycakes @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:42:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Alexi already won a tough primary for treasurer......

He doesn't need a tough Senate primary, he already overcame a tough primary to win the Treasurer's office 3 years ago.  So he's been tested in a primary.  I don't know if he had a tough or easy general election, but that's not essential for a Democrat to win in Illinois.  He's the frontrunner for next November, period.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:46:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

NY State Senate

Patterson to appoint a Lt. Gov

---

by: admnok @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:37:15 PM UTC

Maybe

Source.

It would fix this hot mess but is it legal or tenable?

22, Democrat, AZ-01
Peace. Love. Gabby.

---

by: Nico @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:43:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Hodes raised $750k in NH

Isn't Kirk's $500k for a state as big as Illinois a little disappointing?

---

by: conspiracy @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 19:44:09 PM UTC

Exactly

One of the weird things no mentioned.  Kirk's fundraising was thoroughly pitiful in comparison to Hodes.

---

by: tommypaine @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:55:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kirk is going to blow it off the roof next quarter.

You raise more as a senate candidate than you do as a house candidate.  Period.  Kirk outraised Hodes when they were both house candidates, Kirk will outraise Hodes when they are both senate candidates.  (Granted, Kirk needs more money for his opponent and the size of his state.  Not like Hodes and Kirk are going head to head or anything)

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:08:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

House, not Senate

Thats when he was running for re-election, todays his first day as a Senate candidate  

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:43:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Next to no one thought he was running for the House again

The comparison to Hodes is right on the money.  These are terrible numbers for Kirk... not even that good for a House seat, let alone a Senate or Gov campaign.

And he needs at least five times the money Hodes will need in NH.

---

by: tommypaine @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:28:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why did the NRSC meet with this other candidate JUST the other day?

In this case, perception doesn't matter.  You raise more money as a candidate than you do as a potential candidate.  Simple as that.  

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:34:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right

I was thinking about it yesterday. I was almost certain Kirk was running for re-election and that Obama had convinced Madigan to run for Senate. I was in a state of shock when I saw that Madigan was running for re-election. I'd expect an eye-popping quarter from Kirk in October.  

---

by: GOPVOTER @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:38:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

C'mon

It's just silly to pretend that Kirk was not waiting for Madigan to decide.  He made his announcement the same day for pete's sake!  He wanted to run for Senate, but would have switched to Gov if Madigan ran for Senate.

And, just like Hodes raised more Q2 than Q1, Kirk should raise more money in Q3, but his numbers are relatively worse than Hodes' were for Q1.

---

by: tommypaine @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:22:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

He WAS a candidate, we just didn't know for what

It's not like there was doubt Kirk was gonna run statewide- it's just WHICH office he was gonna go for.

And hell, even if he was just gonna run for re-election, he still had to play in the Chicago media market, so it's not like he really wouldn't have needed much money there.

---

by: colbycakes @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:45:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$ and "genius"

Kirk could have moved his federal money to a state account. Illinois is quite permissive this way.

Kirk has cared very little about state government. He didn't like the idea of pretending to care.

Running for Senate Kirk will benefit from the image he and the media have created that he's some sort of foreign policy genius. If by "genius" you mean consistently wrong, Mark Kirk is brilliant.

---

by: Carl Nyberg @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 20:11:11 PM UTC

Kirk's District

I think Giannoulias may have carried Kirk's district in 2006. If Giannoulias runs he will definatly win the primary since Shakowski and Madigan are gone. If Giannoulias runs he is definatly favored since he won a statewide election before and Kirk has no statewide experience. I also just cant see how Kirk could win with heavily democratic Cook county which represents around 40% of the vote where Republicans struggle to get even 30% of the vote there.

---

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 21:45:13 PM UTC

I've been blogging Kirk for over 4 years

Check out my archives

http://www.ellenofthetenth.blo...

---

by: ebgill @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:05:49 PM UTC

Forget it

Kirk loses. Cook County will never allow a Republican to win Illinois. Plus the Democratic pols such as Pat Quinn, Jesse White, Dick Durbin, Rahm Emanuel, Mike Madigan and Lisa Madigan will come front and center in support of whoever is nominated for the Democrats(which my gut says will be Giannoulias). No need to worry here.

50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)

---

by: Merlin @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 22:31:20 PM UTC

Thanks for the house seat!

The amazing thing is we're probably going to net house seats for a third election in a row.

---

by: skaje @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:08:06 PM UTC

I'm not seeing that

Under the Democrats watch, the Stimulus failed, Cap & Trade appears likely to fall, and Obama'a Healthcare plan might not even make it through. All this, combined with a collapsing economy, makes me believe that the Republicans might make some gains nationally.

50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)

---

by: Merlin @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:15:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I smell a troll

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:28:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not

I'm just a realistic Southern Democrat who knows Politics and America like the back of his hand. I've lived for probably longer than most people, and I've seen things tried, some successful, and some not. I've seen stimuluses and universal healthcare plans tried, and most have failed. I'm sorry to say, but these ideas don't seem like they're working tome. However, the voters will decide that.

50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)

---

by: Merlin @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:18:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm a Southern Democrat too

And I remember vividly in 1994 on how the Democrats took a major whipping from the Republicans.  I don't take anything for granted.  Most of us (SSP) know that the recession was created under Bush's watch, but most of the electorate don't care about the past, but they care about the present and the future.

Luckily, I think Obama is a much better communicator than Clinton, and Obama also doesn't have as much controversy surrounding the Oval Office as Clinton did in his first two years.  I don't see the Dems losing a lot of seats, but we might (net) lose a handful.

I think the Dems should keep the Illinois seat, but Kirk is not someone I'm taking to lightly.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:28:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent points

I'm under no illusions regarding potential House losses in 2010. Fact is, we won in districts we have no business winning. Plus, I imagine there are many here who would not mourn the losses of Bright, Griffith, and Marshall. A lot of our losses in '94 were Southerners making the final transition to the GOP, combined with antagonism created by the assault weapons ban and Clinton's personal mischief. Some talk about the 1993 budget being a big factor in our losses, but any harm created by that, IMO, was overshadowed by the assault weapons ban. That, I think, is part of the reason we became so weak in the West.

BTW, what's the word on Kirk's divorce? If I were him, I'd be nervous. After all, look what happened to Hull (who blew at least $40M in the primary) and Ryan.

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:46:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think part of the reason

for the Dems getting spanked in 1994 was because in the previous election, Clinton came into office with just 43% of the vote and no coattails. Republicans actually gained seats in the House in 1992 and held the Dems to a wash in the Senate.

It also didn't help that Clinton managed to piss off working class voters with issues such as DOMA/DADT, the assault weapons ban, and NAFTA. The party also had much greater proportion of conservative Democrats from the south that had since retired or been wiped out, especially in 1994, so Clinton had a much harder time getting his agenda through Congress with Republicans and conservative Democrats opposed to some of his agenda.

And finally, Americans had a greater conservative mindset overall in the 90s than they do now, now that they have seen how Republicans govern when they control the presidency and both houses of Congress. Before 2002, the last time Republicans controlled all three branches was in 1952, and then that lasted for only 2 years, and Ike was far more moderate. Before 1952, Republicans last had the trifecta in 1930. And we all know what was going on then...

So in summary, thinking 2010 will be another 1994 is comparing apples and oranges. I am not saying we will continue to gain in 2010 (and in fact I too think we will lose a few House seats and am not letting my guard down on the Senate), I am just saying that a liberal agenda this time around won't necessarily make Americans revolt on their Democratic Senators/Representatives now like they did 15 years ago.

And while I'm on this track, I will also make a rebuttal to another apples-oranges comparison I hear from Republicans all the time in that they had far worse numbers in the aftermath of Watergate 35 years ago than they do now. What they (unsurprisingly) conveniently leave out is that the country had a far more conservative mentality overall in 1974; the 1970s were the dawning years of the conservative era in America that is now coming to an end. I have no idea what percentage of registered voters were Republicans in 1974, but that number in 1974 is actually not as bad as 21% (and falling) Republican voter registration now, on the cusp of a liberal era in American politics (which will probably last for the next 40 years; hopefully longer than that).

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:26:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges?

We should always learn from what happened in the past so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

I agree with you about the reasons why we lost 50+ seats in 1994, and yes, Clinton presided like he had a mandate when only 43% of the nation voted for him in 1992.  Obama had 52% of the vote, which is a considerably larger amount.  However, a bulk of Obama's support came from groups that are not traditionally reliable voters (i.e. Youth vote).  This group that voted for Obama in 2008 are not necessarily going to come to the polls in 2010.

In addition, the Dems have gained a net 54 seats from the 2006 and 2008 elections (along with 3 gains in special elections).  This a large amount of change, and if people don't see improvement in the economy, they might draw the wrong conclusions and think that the Dems are solely responsible for this economic background.

As far as you assumption that 1974 was the origins of the conservative movement, I disagree.  It really started in 1966, when the GOP gained 47 seats in the house and 3 seats in the Senate.  Watergate caused a setback that lasted about 4 years (1974-1978), but the conservatives regained steam and won by a massive amount in 1980, regaining the Senate and picking 30+ seats in the house.

As I said before, I think the Dems will lose (net) a handful of seats in 2010 in the house.  Mathematically, we should gain two or three seats in the Senate at this time.  

I hope you are right that we are on the cusp of a new liberal era.  To keep our agenda going, we can't take any seat, such as the Illinois senate seat, for granted.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:24:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know the conservative era started in 1966.

In 1974, it was still early on in that era.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 22:21:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And I am not saying we shouldn't learn from the past.

I'm just thinking that we don't have to be as afraid of getting liberal agenda items through Congress now as in the 70s.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 22:31:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen!

We just have to use our brains when it comes to passing legislation.  Right now, many Americans are suffering and they want some instant relief to what's plaguing them.  We should promote progressive legislation that will show people that (a) government is not evil, but instead, cares for the average citizen, (b) a chance to get people back on their feet, and (c) job creation.  The American public also needs to realize that change doesn't happen overnight, and we must be patient with change if its going to mean a thing.  Right now the GOP has started a disinformation campaign about Obama's agenda, throwing out the Socialist word.  We have to re-inform the Fox News listeners that our goals is not to expand government in a socialist manner but instead in a Democratic manner.  

I've got a lot of FDR in me (not the age, just his principles), and I saw a brilliant post that the Democrats should promote some FDR-like programs to get people back on their feet.

Anyway, Kirk shouldn't be taken too lightly.  He's not a weak candidate, and in fact if the winds change in the right direction, he can make the race interesting.  Right now I think our candidate (whomever it might be), will defeat Kirk by a reasonable margin.  If our candidate falters, Kirk has the ability to exploit it in a fast manner.  And Illinois Democrats have been known to falter...just look at ole Blago!

Take care californian...good discussing this race and other things with you.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 01:59:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I enjoyed having this discussion too.

I agree that the Dems should definitely promote a new New Deal and I am not letting my guard down on Kirk either. Lots of state Dem parties have been able to put up bad candidates, whom the Republican was able to successfully exploit, like in California with the governor and Insurance Commissioner races (Bustamante, ugh!).

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 02:13:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I apologize

I read your comment, and I over-reacted. BTW, where in the South do you hail from?

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:28:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Birmingham, Alabama

50, straight white male, Democrat(Dan Boren/Gene Taylor 2012!), AL-7(born in AL-5)

---

by: Merlin @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:49:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With all due respect, you live in a different world...

...from the rest of the country.  Politically from what I observe, much of the Deep South and a few other pockets of America haven't changed at all in my adult life.

But most of the country has changed dramatically.

So much of what you've seen in politics in your life is no longer operative in much of the country.  Suburban white locales like my home of Fairfax County, Virginia or Montgomery County, Pennsylvania that were Republican-leaning less than a generation ago are solidly Democratic and liberal now.  People of color are a much bigger percentage of the electorate, and blacks, Hispanics, and Asians as groups all are more liberal than white voters as a group.

The electorate that the GOP enjoyed in 1994 doesn't exist anymore.

That doesn't mean we can't lose a few House seats next year, because we can, especially in places like Alabama and Mississippi where frankly we have some House seats we shouldn't have.

But I'll never forget how Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky lose her Montgomery County, Pennsylvania seat in 1994 for having voted for Clinton's very modest tax hike a year earlier.  Today that can't happen there, that same seat is unwinnable for Republicans.  And there are many more like that today than there were even just a decade ago.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:25:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That explains it

As DCCyclone pointed out, your region of the country has not changed much at all these past 30 years. Other parts of the country, especially Virginia and the western states have changed dramatically. Fairfax VA and Montgomery PA are just two examples. Others that spring to my mind include Jefferson and Arapahoe Counties in CO, Clark County in NV (went from being R-leaning in the 80s to solidly blue), the Seattle and Portland suburbs, etc.

Plus, it's highly premature to say that the health care and climate change bills will fail. People forget that we still have budget reconciliation available for health care, and Obama has empowered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as public health dangers should Congress fail to act. And, as Colbycakes noted, macroeconomics is far more complex

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:34:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm from North Carolina

which is not part of the "Deep South", but was a part of the Confederacy.  I can, however, tell a big change in the suburban areas of NC, where the GOP had an advantage 20 years ago but where the Democrats are now much stronger.  At the same time, these same areas are concerned about the economy, and patience is wearing thin.

If you take the 11 states of the Confederacy (Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia), and compare the house representation from 1970 to 2008, the numbers are alarming.  After the 1970 election (3 months before I was born), the Dems had a 79-27 advantage, compared to 2008, where the GOP have a 72-59 advantage.  That's a huge swing.  If you take Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida, the Dems in 1970 had a 55-12 advantage, and in 2008 the GOP had a 56-34 advantage.

By looking at Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennyslvania during the same period, the GOP had a 53-41 advantage, while in 2008 the Dems have a 42-29 advantage.  Another big shift (also a large reduction of house seats).

From looking at these trends, I do feel pretty good that we will keep the Illinois Senate seat, but I still have a regarded confidence about it, mainly because Kirk is the strongest GOP candidate in Illinois.  

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 18:54:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In the Fictional World...

...where all that happened, Republicans probably will make gains.

But here, in the real world, macroeconomic legislation is certainly more nuanced than "succeeded" or "failed".

---

by: colbycakes @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:08:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure

Sure we're looking at open seats in IL-10, probably DE-AL, PA-6, maybe FL-10.  We've got a definite win in LA-2.  There are some long shots in NE-2, WA-8, MI-11, and maybe a few in Cali.  So say thats a pickup of 4-6.  We have to worry about Teague, Bright, Minnick, Griffith, Kratovil, Grayson, Perriello, Nye, Shea-Porter, Childres, Melancon's open seat, Driehaus, Markey, Kilroy, and any other open seat in Republican areas.  I doubt we net seats, although I don't think we'll net lose more than 5 or so.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 23:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not unexpected

Frankly, I expected us to lose seats in the House. Fact is, we won places we had little business winning. You're right to be concerned about Teague, Bright, Griffith, Perriello, Kilroy, Markey, and Melancon's seat, but I'm not too concerned about the others yet. Plus, I'm betting many here would not mourn the loss of Bright or Griffith.

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:36:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And:

Speaking of Perriello, that is one tough district he has (VA-05). Not only does he have the liberal city of Charlottesville, he has much of Southside Virginia and the parts of the Shenandoah Valley that make up "Walton country." (referencing my favorite tv show, The Waltons)

---

by: jsrosa @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:43:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For a moment

I was thinking of NW Arkansas, home of Wal-Mart, founded by Sam Walton!

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 00:46:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree, and Perriello is much worse off than Kratovil......

I see some of the professional analysts like Cook and Rothenberg peg Kratovil as either equally endangered or more endangered than Perriello, but I think that's wrong.  Kratovil is better off than many realize.

Perriello got and needed uncommon Democratic turnout from black voters and maybe young voters last year, and those groups won't have the numbers this time.  Perriello has to find a way to make up for it among more regular voters who normally are less friendly to Democratic candidates.  That's doable for him as an incumbent, but it's tough.

Kratovil, in contrast, won on his own accord, thanks mostly to a lousy GOP opponent in Andy Reid.  Obama performed unsurprisingly poorly in the district, and Kratovil's geographic (Eastern Shore) advantage over Reid combined with Reid's general unpopularity did the trick with what was a mostly normal electorate in the district.  Now the GOP again wants to put up Reid, which is the dumbest thing they could do since he is THE reason they lost the seat to Kratovil in the first place.  I expect Frank to win more easily than many people expect, assuming the GOP doesn't wise up and nominate a better challenger than Reid next year.  Kratovil still will be endangered afterward, but a couple terms under his belt will help later.

As for Perriello, if he can survive next year, he'll have redistricting followed by Obama 2012 coattails save him in the future.  He just needs to get through 2010 intact.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:31:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Andy Reid?

Are you sure that's the name? I could have sworn it was Harris.

BTW, what was Kratovil before he became a Congressman?

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:52:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it was Andy Harris

Kratovil was the state's attorney (the MD equivalent of DA) in Queen Anne's County, which is, relatively speaking, one of the population centers on the Eastern Shore. Harris is from Baltimore County. The majority of the district's population is on the Eastern Shore, though, and they have a real distrust of anything on the other side of the bay, so that was key to Kratovil's victory too (in addition to Harris's wingnutiness).

---

by: Crisitunity @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 16:14:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whoops, yeah it's Harris...don't know what I was thinking! nm

nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:47:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IL-10 GOP Bench and Dem fundraising #s

What's the GOP bench in IL-10 like. I know we have Bond and Garrett, but who do the goopers have?

As someone pointed out, Kirk has raised less money than Paul Hodes did in NH. What were the last $ tallies on our side? I know Alexi raised a lot, and Roland only raised $845, but I don't remember much else.

BTW, I noticed that this Senate seat has not seen an incumbent re-elected since 1986. Interesting cast of officeholders, though. ;-)

---

by: corran horn @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:38:49 AM UTC

I'm not too worried about IL-SEN

Alexi Giannoulias is going to have no issues raising money, he's already a statewide elected official, he isn't connected with the Blagojevich goings, and ultimately, this is the President's old seat - if Kirk catches some traction, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama campaigning for Giannoulias.

---

by: mkpowers @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:56:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Presidents campaigning in off-years

Do you remember when Reagan campaigned for all the Republican Senate incumbents in 1986, telling voters "If you voted for me, vote for [name of Republican senator]"? It didn't work. The Democrats defeated 7 Republican incumbents and netted a gain of 6 Senate seats, for a 55-45 majority. (See here for more details.) Granted, the Republicans did better in 1982 - which is more analogous to 2010 - with the Democrats gaining only one seat and arguably, effectively, none (they traded the loss of a Democratic-leaning independent's seat for the gain of one Democratic seat), but I think we should be careful not to overestimate the effect of Presidential campaigning in off-years, even in home states (Illinois, Hawaii - forget about Kansas).

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:43:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

!982 analogous

I agree. Particularly when you look at the playing field in the Senate. I doubt they get anywhere near 27 gains in the House though.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:33:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably not

I'm no expert political prognosticator, but unless the economy continues to hemorrhage jobs at an alarming rate, 27 net losses in the House would be on the high side. I could easily see a net loss of 15 or so, though, maybe 20, and for obvious reasons: There are a lot of Democrats representing districts with Republican pluralities.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:39:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think there are 3 variables to this equation

First, the Democrats have won 54 seats in the house sinc 2006.  Historically there has been some sort of "correction" for the opposing party after they have lost so many seats in a short span of years.

Second, the economic uncertainty will be a strong factor on how people will vote.  The economy showed some signs a couple of months ago that the recession was moderating, but unemployment still is rising.  

Third, the minority party has to come up with some sort of message and cohesion.  The GOP's message is either "No" or "Things will be okay if the government doesn't interfere", which is just not the right message.  Currently, the GOP has weak leadership in the House and Senate, and their national message is really more of a reactionary message.

Based on these criteria, I would say the Dems would lose around 10-12 seats in 2010.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:51:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Kirk, Castle, Gerlach and Cao seats

Will be key to offsetting certain loses elsewhere. Yet I struggle to find ten truly vulnerable Dem seats. People are really fickle. The June jobs report seems to have spooked most. People are alreading writing the stimulus off. Well, people wrote the surge off early. When Repubs start improving their image with the public I'll start to worry.

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 13:51:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pan, the math is actually pretty good for us......

There are 49 Dem-held seats where McCain won, but there are 34 GOP-held seats where Obama won, so by that measure we have only a 15-seat "inflation."

And we're aggressively challenging quite a few of those 34 with good candidates.

Ultimately at this stage we look to be playing offense at least as much as the GOP, and I feel pretty good that we might end up with a wash next November.  It all comes down to the economy and just as importantly as public perceptions of the economy, and if people feel good that we're in a turnaround, I won't be surprised if we enjoy a net pickup of a seat or two.

The timing on the recession couldn't have been better for us.  It started to look bad in early 2008, it helped us win last year, and it's hitting bottom in 2009.  Things will have to be much worse than I think they are for the economy not be rebounding by next summer.  The only potential problem I see is that jobs really are a trailing indicator, and yet that's what average voters need the most.  So if the recovery is too slow, we could see job growth stymied enough to hurt us in the mid-terms.  But if public confidence is back up, we'll be OK.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 14:37:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

But I think it's very unclear we've hit bottom yet. It's really, really important for the Democrats to pass a strong guaranteed national health insurance bill and for it to be functioning well before the midterms. People need to see that the government is clearly improving their lives. If they do, the elections are likely to go well for the Democrats in Congress.

Meanwhile, I really do think more of a stimulus is needed. One really smart idea would be to pass a universal youth draft, that would encompass various kinds of neo-FDR public works projects as well as military service. If President Obama can define such projects as patriotic alternative service, he can preach that with his bully pulpit and may be able to get such excellent stimulus/reconstruction programs through Congress. I think I'll post about this on DailyKos, where these kinds of discussions are more relevant.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 15:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There won't be another stimulus, not an option......

It's just not politically doable.  The entire problem with a stimulus in the first place is that there's a lag in effectiveness.  Which doesn't mean it didn't need to be done, because it did.  But politically people aren't patient.  So we pay a price for the slow effect.

That being the case, no 2nd stimulus can be done politically.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

---

by: DCCyclone @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:49:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It looks like they've got

Senator Matt Murphy and Dan Duffy.  Murphy's already running for governor, although he may decide to run for congress.  That would be great, as he's a teabagger.  I don't know much about Duffy except that it looks like he lives just outside the district.

16, Male, MI-01

---

by: Menhen @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:15:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

btw

Dan Seals is running again in IL-10.

2010 Race Tracker Wiki

---

by: benawu @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 15:01:14 PM UTC

Excellent (now that Burris isn't seeking re-election)

We should have some advantage picking up this House seat.  And a Democrat here would be more useful here than one from rural Alabama or rural Idaho.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

---

by: TheUnknown285 @ Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 23:17:07 PM UTC