Talk Elections

More likely now than ever.  Looks like we're going to have an election for Obama's replacement.

Kirk would be well funded, would clear the field, and have a simple platform.  The Democrats would have had a heated primary and a cloud over their heads.

That is unless the legislation treats the replacement election like a primary.

This is why soon-to-be Gov. Pat Quinn should have appoint Obama's successor. Otherwise, Kirk, who is one of the House's most prodigious fundraisers, can run risk-free for a Senate seat. Give Jan Schakowsky two years in office and she'll be the favorite in 2010.

He'd also get an epic amount of money from Republicans nationally, smelling blood

No, no, no. I have my eye on Mike Ditka running.  ;)

Hey, he owes us from four years ago. We could have at least tried to prevent all of this.

Ya, he would have about as much chance as Toomey in PA to grab a seat. :P

But suppose Blago refuses to resign.  How long will it take for the legislature to go through with the impeachment proceedings?  A month?  Two months?  There's nothing to stop Blago from appointing someone to the seat in the interim (as a final f you to all other concerned parties).

OTOH, I guess passing a law for a special election would also take some time, as you'd have to submit it to the governor to sign or veto.  Even if you're prepared to override the veto, the governor doesn't have to act on it immediately.

Ridiculous on an infinite number of levels.

Uh, no. Not exactly.  :P

Remember too that Kirk would not have to retire to run for this.

The problem with Ditka is that he is too old, too conservative and too angry to win espeically in Illinois.

Mark Kirk at least would have a better shot. 

Added bonus: Mark Kirk is not a ridiculous, unqualified candidate.

Would the US Senate be willing to seat anyone appointed by Blago? If not, the process doesn't need to be so immediate to be effective.

Does Phil still believe Ditka would've beaten Obama in 2004? LOL.

Good point.  I assume that there are no legal complications with the Senate refusing to seat a new member?  They can just say "We won't accept anyone appointed by Blago", and that's that?

If he gives up his seat for this, his seat could become a probable democrat pickup... maybe.

He looks so young for a 49 year old.

I said he would have at least been competitive. Time to take your head our of your ass if you seriously think otherwise.

Are you defining competitive as "losing only by high single digits instead of >40 points"?

I'd consider that a huge victory in Illinois in that year so, yes, that's competitive to me. Obama wouldn't have been criss crossing the country for every Democratic candidate under the sun if Ditka was his opponent. The Obama glow would have worn off quite a bit.

Obama's DNC speech would be enough to put him into the limelight and get the recognition he needed.

Sure but not to the extent he received after we decided to bring in the worst sacrificial lamb in party history. He wouldn't have been instantly beloved.

ok, ignoring all this silliness of Obama losing in '04...


Kirk says he's down to run:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/30735-1.html

the senate can, at least in theory, refuse to seat anyone, and they would almost definately refuse to seat somebody appointed by Blagojevich, especially since there would be the strong suspicion that this person would have gotten their seat through underhanded means.

It wouldn't have been competitive because Ditka's best day would have been the day he announced. He wasn't prepared to appear senatorial, and given how bad the Republican base vote in Illinois is (even in 2004), he would have gone down in flames only marginally cooler than those that consumed Keyes.

::)

I never said that but I'll just ignore, for here on out, your typical dishonest commentary.


Bush received 45% of the vote in IL in 2004. I hope to God that you don't think Ditka would have done much worse than that (especially since he could have received support from Kerry voters).

did I say it was you?  "typical dishonesty?"  you're crazy

You stretch what I say and you've done it several times. I don't know who else here made any statement that can be twisted into saying that Obama would have lost besides mine.

The problem here is that you have to look at both sides of it and that you're estimating Bush vs. Ditka differently. Obama is a much stronger candidate than Kerry was, as we now have empirical proof. Also, Bush was reasonably popular in 2004, while Ditka would have looked like a doofus after a brief honeymoon and wouldn't have inspired the same fervent support from people who admire his religious faith and thank him for "keeping us safe" that Bush could count on.

Bush, whatever his problems, was a serious candidate for the office he was running for. Ditka was not.

You can't say that Ditka was not that serious since we have no idea how he would have acted. Al Franken didn't have any serious gaffes. At worst, Ditka loses in the low double digits and that for a Republican in Illinois isn't too bad.

Al Franken is well-informed on politics and had been in the political media for years. Ditka was a football coach whose knowledge of issues is unproven.

Anyway, we've both stated our piece, so there's nothing more to be said.

Also Al Franken doesn't fit Minnesota ideologically as bad as Ditka does Illinois (Franken is a standard liberal in a center-left state, Ditka is a far right conservative in a liberal state.)