Ultra Vulnerable Mark Kirk 2016: Is he Toast?

[ElectionsGuy]

In 2010, republican Mark Kirk from Illinois, a popular moderate, ran against a horrible opponent in a year republicans clearly had edge. He won all but 4 counties in his state (Cook, St. Clair, Jackson and Alexander) and won the race by 1.6%. Will he seek re-election in 2016, a presidential year where Hillary Clinton has a chance of being on the ballot? If so what are his chances of him being re-elected in a strong D state? Predictions on general election?

[free my dawg]

He's already announced that he's seeking reelection, and his opponents are likely to be Sheila Simon or Lisa Madigan (more likely the former).

The odds are at 45% that he'll get re-elected (or in simpler terms Tilts D). Although this may be Illinois, he has incumbency, and if he faces Pat Quinn's right-hand woman, he could very well win reelection by tying her to the man in Springfield. Madigan would have an easier time, but I've heard from a few people that she's not overly interested in DC politics. If it's Rahm then it's a completely different story since he's in the toilet even in Chicago. I'll even go as far to say that it Leans Republican with him.

He isn't as vulnerable as you think.

[free my dawg]

Madigan is not going to run. Keep dreaming.

omg no way

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Ahh, beaten to the punch by Sawx.

But yeah pretty much that. At the moment there are no major candidates that could jump in and wreak havoc, like Russ Feingold very well may do with Johnson in WI. Since it's such a Democratic state, I'll put this as a Lean D state, but Kirk is a moderate and hasn't done much to anger the electorate.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ahh, beaten to the punch by Sawx.

But yeah pretty much that. At the moment there are no major candidates that could jump in and wreak havoc, like Russ Feingold very well may do with Johnson in WI. Since it's such a Democratic state, I'll put this as a Lean D state, but Kirk is a moderate and hasn't done much to anger the electorate.

Yeah, he really has done things for his state and been moderate, after all he was on of the few R's to vote for background checks.

[free my dawg]

Ahh, beaten to the punch by Sawx.

But yeah pretty much that. At the moment there are no major candidates that could jump in and wreak havoc, like Russ Feingold very well may do with Johnson in WI. Since it's such a Democratic state, I'll put this as a Lean D state, but Kirk is a moderate and hasn't done much to anger the electorate.

Yeah, he really has done things for his state and been moderate, after all he was on of the few R's to vote for background checks.

He's also pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. It's a shame he's in Illinois because he's one of the few Republicans I'm sad to see become vulnerable.

[ElectionsGuy]

Ahh, beaten to the punch by Sawx.

But yeah pretty much that. At the moment there are no major candidates that could jump in and wreak havoc, like Russ Feingold very well may do with Johnson in WI. Since it's such a Democratic state, I'll put this as a Lean D state, but Kirk is a moderate and hasn't done much to anger the electorate.

Yeah, he really has done things for his state and been moderate, after all he was on of the few R's to vote for background checks.

He's also pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration reform. It's a shame he's in Illinois because he's one of the few Republicans I'm sad to see become vulnerable.

Good for him, unfortunately when it comes 2016 it'll be Chicago vs. Rest of State just like 2010.

[Ogre Mage]

I'd rate his chances of reelection considerably lower, around 35%.  Because 2016 is a Presidential year he is going to have to significantly overperform his party's presidential nominee.  And he is going to get many questions about areas of agreement and/or disagreement with the GOP presidential nominee's platform.  This is not an easy tightrope to walk as Scott Brown can tell you.  Perhaps Kirk will have a more appropriate answer if asked who his model Supreme Court Justice is.

I don't write off his chances entirely because of the tendency of Illinois Democrats to f**k up. Maybe they will put up another craptastic candidate.  I have to wonder, however, if Giannoulias would have won if the election had been in 2012 instead of 2010.

I can see why Krazen is so desperately insistent that Lisa Madigan will not run for Senate.  Because if she does and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think Kirk is a Dead Man Walking.

[free my dawg]

I can see why Krazen is so desperately insistent that Lisa Madigan will not run for Senate.  Because if she does and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think Kirk is a Dead Man Walking.

Don't bother. I'm guessing by the response to my post he isn't literate. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Madigan isn't a huge fan of national politics.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'd rate his chances of reelection considerably lower, around 35%.  Because 2016 is a Presidential year he is going to have to significantly overperform his party's presidential nominee.  And he going to get many questions about areas of agreement and/or disagreement with the GOP presidential nominee's platform.  This is not an easy tightrope to walk as Scott Brown can tell you.  Perhaps Kirk will have a more appropriate answer if asked who his model Supreme Court Justice is.

I don't write off his chances entirely because of the tendency of Illinois Democrats to f**k up. Maybe they will put up another craptastic candidate.  I have to wonder, however, if Giannoulias would have won if the election had been in 2012 instead of 2010.

I can see why Krazen is so desperately insistent that Lisa Madigan will not run for Senate.  Because if she does and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think Kirk is a Dead Man Walking.

Giannoulias (hopefully I spelled that right) would have definitely won if it was 2012, remember that Obama brought out Black turnout to outstanding levels and 2010 was a year when white turnout was outstanding and Young/Liberal turnout was dismal.

According to this exit poll, black turnout was better in 2010 than in 2012... hmm

2010:

White (69%) 64% Kirk, 31% Giannoulias
Black (20%) 94% Giannoulias, 3% Kirk
Hispanic (8%) 63% Giannoulias, 27% Kirk

2012:

White (70%) 52% Romney, 46% Obama
Black (14%) 96% Obama, 4% Romney
Hispanic (12%) 81% Obama, 18% Romney

It wasn't even so much minority turnout, it was that white vote went overwhelmingly for Kirk, that's what needs to happen again. Not to mention better Hispanic % which also needs to be the case. Black turnout in these exit polls is fishy however.

[Ogre Mage]

I'd rate his chances of reelection considerably lower, around 35%.  Because 2016 is a Presidential year he is going to have to significantly overperform his party's presidential nominee.  And he going to get many questions about areas of agreement and/or disagreement with the GOP presidential nominee's platform.  This is not an easy tightrope to walk as Scott Brown can tell you.  Perhaps Kirk will have a more appropriate answer if asked who his model Supreme Court Justice is.

I don't write off his chances entirely because of the tendency of Illinois Democrats to f**k up. Maybe they will put up another craptastic candidate.  I have to wonder, however, if Giannoulias would have won if the election had been in 2012 instead of 2010.

I can see why Krazen is so desperately insistent that Lisa Madigan will not run for Senate.  Because if she does and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think Kirk is a Dead Man Walking.

Giannoulias (hopefully I spelled that right) would have definitely won if it was 2012, remember that Obama brought out Black turnout to outstanding levels and 2010 was a year when white turnout was outstanding and Young/Liberal turnout was dismal.

According to this exit poll, black turnout was better in 2010 than in 2012... hmm

2010:

White (69%) 64% Kirk, 31% Giannoulias
Black (20%) 94% Giannoulias, 3% Kirk
Hispanic (8%) 63% Giannoulias, 27% Kirk

2012:

White (70%) 52% Romney, 46% Obama
Black (14%) 96% Obama, 4% Romney
Hispanic (12%) 81% Obama, 18% Romney

It wasn't even so much minority turnout, it was that white vote went overwhelmingly for Kirk, that's what needs to happen again. Not to mention better Hispanic % which also needs to be the case. Black turnout in these exit polls is fishy however.

Interesting, thanks.  In fairness Illinois is Obama's home state so one could argue that the Democratic coattails may be less daunting in 2016. 

[freepcrusher]

Kirk is one of the few republicans I might vote for. Considering the PVI of the state is D+6 and will likely be lower in 2016 (without Obama on the ballot); Kirk is moderate enough to hold on. Especially if its a hack politician like Ducky or Bustos.

He'll have a tough time against someone like Madigan. Foster I think would be a good challenger but he'll be 61 in 2016 and probably wants to settle in to his new district and gain some seniority. Lipinski I think would have a very good shot at beating him because he could hold down Kirk's margins among various catholic and dixiecrat constituencies. Quigley might be good too since he has a more reformer image among the Chicago congressman.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'd rate his chances of reelection considerably lower, around 35%.  Because 2016 is a Presidential year he is going to have to significantly overperform his party's presidential nominee.  And he going to get many questions about areas of agreement and/or disagreement with the GOP presidential nominee's platform.  This is not an easy tightrope to walk as Scott Brown can tell you.  Perhaps Kirk will have a more appropriate answer if asked who his model Supreme Court Justice is.

I don't write off his chances entirely because of the tendency of Illinois Democrats to f**k up. Maybe they will put up another craptastic candidate.  I have to wonder, however, if Giannoulias would have won if the election had been in 2012 instead of 2010.

I can see why Krazen is so desperately insistent that Lisa Madigan will not run for Senate.  Because if she does and Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think Kirk is a Dead Man Walking.

Giannoulias (hopefully I spelled that right) would have definitely won if it was 2012, remember that Obama brought out Black turnout to outstanding levels and 2010 was a year when white turnout was outstanding and Young/Liberal turnout was dismal.

According to this exit poll, black turnout was better in 2010 than in 2012... hmm

2010:

White (69%) 64% Kirk, 31% Giannoulias
Black (20%) 94% Giannoulias, 3% Kirk
Hispanic (8%) 63% Giannoulias, 27% Kirk

2012:

White (70%) 52% Romney, 46% Obama
Black (14%) 96% Obama, 4% Romney
Hispanic (12%) 81% Obama, 18% Romney

It wasn't even so much minority turnout, it was that white vote went overwhelmingly for Kirk, that's what needs to happen again. Not to mention better Hispanic % which also needs to be the case. Black turnout in these exit polls is fishy however.

Interesting, thanks.  In fairness Illinois is Obama's home state so one could argue that the Democratic coattails may be less daunting in 2016. 

Illinois was one of the states where Romney massively improved from McCain. Do you think it could improve even more? 2008 was an obvious anomaly in Illinois, but if it improves even more, the white vote has to do better for the republican candidate, and there's definitely room for improvement since white vote in the Midwest isn't exactly solidly republican. Hispanic vote can also be improved but the state still won't be winnable in a normal election. According to the 2012 election, a republican will need 394 electoral votes to win Illinois with current trends.

[free my dawg]

He'll have a tough time against someone like Madigan. Foster I think would be a good challenger but he'll be 61 in 2016 and probably wants to settle in to his new district and gain some seniority. Lipinski I think would have a very good shot at beating him because he could hold down Kirk's margins among various catholic and dixiecrat constituencies. Quigley might be good too since he has a more reformer image among the Chicago congressman.

Duckworth at least has a good story behind her. Foster won't run. Bustos and Schneider could but are Generic D so I could see Kirk beating them. Enyart will tighten his seat up after Bost teabags his way out of it, so he will stay, and Lipinski AFAIC is an afterthought. He's too socially conservative to win the primary.

I completely forgot about Quigley though. He could definitely win and seems like a much better candidate than Simon.

[badgate]

Hopefully EMILY'S List lobbies Robin Kelly or Kimberly Lightford. I'd support both

[morgieb]

He's probably in trouble, but it isn't a gimme right now.

But 4 years is an eternity in politics. So who knows. Maybe he'd be safe and someone like Hoeven will be dead man walking.

[Ogre Mage]

Illinois was one of the states where Romney massively improved from McCain. Do you think it could improve even more? 2008 was an obvious anomaly in Illinois, but if it improves even more, the white vote has to do better for the republican candidate, and there's definitely room for improvement since white vote in the Midwest isn't exactly solidly republican. Hispanic vote can also be improved but the state still won't be winnable in a normal election. According to the 2012 election, a republican will need 394 electoral votes to win Illinois with current trends.

Republicans won't win Illinois in 2016.  But with Obama off the ballot I could see them doing a point or two better than 2012, particularly if the Democratic nominee is someone other than Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps losing the state 57-42 or 56-43.

Can Kirk run far enough ahead of the GOP nominee to win?  Possible but doubtful in my view.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Can't Obama come back and run? Does he want to?

[ElectionsGuy]

Can't Obama come back and run? Does he want to?

Most Former Presidents are usually done with politics after their presidency, I'm not even sure if he could, but if he did it would be unprecedented.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Can't Obama come back and run? Does he want to?

Most Former Presidents are usually done with politics after their presidency, I'm not even sure if he could, but if he did it would be unprecedented.

I'm sure it's legal. I thought Andrew Johnson did it.

[ElectionsGuy]

Can't Obama come back and run? Does he want to?

Most Former Presidents are usually done with politics after their presidency, I'm not even sure if he could, but if he did it would be unprecedented.

I'm sure it's legal. I thought Andrew Johnson did it.

Maybe he could, he's still young for a politician. I doubt it though.

[free my dawg]

Can't Obama come back and run? Does he want to?

He could. Andrew Johnson did it, and John Quincy Adams served in the House. However, it's not going to happen. I also think Michelle running is a liberal dream too. It'd be nice, and someone of her statue could probably win, but also extremely wishful thinking.

[badgate]

Illinois would probably elect him, but it would seriously diminish his ability to play elder statesmen/party elder role for a few years

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Obama versus Kirk.

Now there's an election I'd love to see the results of.

[publicunofficial]

Can't Obama come back and run? Does he want to?

He could, but he would have to campaign for Senate while still serving as the President. That would be bad.