LOL: Blago to Appoint Fmr. AG to Senate Seat

[Nym90]

Well, a midterm election held under the cloud of Blagojevich's scandal (I mean, Fitzgerald just requested another six months to collect evidence before he charges Blago) is going to be different from an ordinary midterm.

Kirk is basically a perfect fit for Illinois and the perfect person to win this election (fundraising, anti-corruption biography, ideology, rising-star power, proven ability to win in a D+11 district, bleh blah etc).   I think he might actually be the odds-favorite against most Democratic potentials, so I disagree with you a bit.  He'd obviously be a giant fish in the pond, able to attract national attention in addition to his already prodigious fundraising skills.  It's also not going to be difficult to link the most of the Democratic potential candidates unfavorably with the corrupt establishment while Kirk is 100% clean.

Maybe a couple people (Schako?  Alexi?) could reduce it to 50/50 or possibly 60/40.

And you're right, I remember two other, far more conservative Republicans declaring their entry into the GOP primary.  While the CFG might try and primary Kirk, I feel like conservative Republicans could very well have their vote split.  I have no idea how good the Republicans are at clearing the field for the electable candidate, but I suspect there's a good chance the field will either be cleared or crowded, both of these extremes strongly favor Kirk. In addition, I think many IL GOPers have had a reality check and value electability.

Well as I said before, if the Dem candidate can be tied to Blago, then absolutely the GOP can and probably would win. The 2008 results in Illinois don't seem to show that the voters of the state consider all or most Dems to be corrupt, however....yes, big things have come out since then of course, but it's not like Blago was popular or thought to be ethically pure as of election day. Is there polling evidence that voters blame Dems as a whole for Blago's latest shenanigans?

Obviously it would come down to whether the race is nationalized effectively by the Dems or localized effectively by the GOP. Now that I think about it, a better comparison, at least in terms of environment and Presidential home state factor, might be Texas 2002 as opposed to Mississippi 2008. I'm sure Sam Spade will skewer me for even bringing that up as remotely comparable (and perhaps deservedly so), but until some election results or at the very least reliable polls show me that Illinois voters don't like Democrats or view the GOP remotely favorably, I'll believe it when I see it.

It's clearly a race that Democrats would be foolish to take for granted; however a decent turnout operation and some Obama campaign stops and ads should produce the same result that every major race in Illinois has had for the last 10 years.

[Lunar]

Well as I said before, if the Dem candidate can be tied to Blago, then absolutely the GOP can and probably would win.

Well, what viable Democratic candidates can't be tied to Chicago machine politics?  I can only think of Alexi, but he's really looking towards running towards Gov if anything.  That'd be a hell of a long shot.

The 2008 results in Illinois don't seem to show that the voters of the state consider all or most Dems to be corrupt, however....yes, big things have come out since then of course, but it's not like Blago was popular or thought to be ethically pure as of election day. Is there polling evidence that voters blame Dems as a whole for Blago's latest shenanigans?

No, but this is a pretty darn big scandal, probably about as a big of corruption scandal as possible in modern history.  There're no real parallels.  And, I imagine that *a lot* of traditionally Democratic suburban and downstate voters are sympathetic to the idea that Chicago politicians are too corrupt to work with.  Kirk is pro-choice, no?  I mean, what could the majority of swing voters in IL have against him?

A *primary* in an *off-year* is not going to be parallel to any sort of existing framework since it will be even lower turnout

Obviously it would come down to whether the race is nationalized effectively by the Dems or localized effectively by the GOP. Now that I think about it, a better comparison, at least in terms of environment and Presidential home state factor, might be Texas 2002 as opposed to Mississippi 2008. I'm sure Sam Spade will skewer me for even bringing that up as remotely comparable (and perhaps deservedly so), but until some election results or at the very least reliable polls show me that Illinois voters don't like Democrats or view the GOP remotely favorably, I'll believe it when I see it.

It's clearly a race that Democrats would be foolish to take for granted; however a decent turnout operation and some Obama campaign stops and ads should produce the same result that every major race in Illinois has had for the last 10 years.

mmm, well, the prerequisite question is if Kirk's campaign successfully ties the Democrat to the existing Chicago corrupt establishment, would President Obama's administration want to defend the Chicago establishment and reenter local politics?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

In addition, I think many IL GOPers have had a reality check and value electability.

Tee hee

[Lunar]

In addition, I think many IL GOPers have had a reality check and value electability.

Tee hee

You don't think the party is in a little bit of a recession and has at least a decent chance of latching onto the issue of electability as a process of resurgence?  From everything I've read about current party politics, everyone in the party is buzzing and excited about Kirk, should special elections occur. 

While a couple other candidates have declared interest, I don't think it's fair to assume that the process in  an 09 primary will be the same one that supported the likes of Keyes.

I'd give Kirk a >55% of winning the GOP nomination, should such an election occur. 



To me, this entire process is hella insane though.  Why can't the law simply hold a primary of the outgoing senator and declare the winner of the primary the senator?  Why do you need both parties?  Am I the only person to think of this?   I've NEVER heard of anything of the sort from anyone in Illinois, let alone any special-election state throughout history.  Remember in 2004 how MA created a special election law in order to pre-empty Romney choosing Kerry's successor?  Why not just hold a single-party election!?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm obviously rooting for a special and a GOP pickup. While I'll root for Kirk, I'm glad I'm not in the position to have to vote for him. He seems like someone I couldn't bring myself to vote for (not just Pro Choice but actually endorsed by Planned Parenthood and probably not great on guns considering his Brady Campaign endorsement). I wouldn't work against him getting the nomination because I want the seat that badly.

[Jeff from NC]

It's traditional to cite Marbury v. Madison in the SCOTUS, because you are basically telling the Justices how important they are.  Powell v. McCormick will probably be the one.

I wasn't saying Powell is irrelevant - it clearly states that the Senate cannot reject Burris on the circumstances of his appointment.  I was just pointing out - for the constitutional law junkies - that the facts of MvM, which are usually forgotten because they have so little bearing on why the case is usually cited, mirror another aspect of this situation, which is the SOS's refusal to certify.  Whether it is binding, I don't know, because it deals with executive-level appointments.  There might be a more recent, state-level case that would allow Burris to seek a court order.  In any case, Powell and MvM deal with two different issues.

[muon2]

It's traditional to cite Marbury v. Madison in the SCOTUS, because you are basically telling the Justices how important they are.  Powell v. McCormick will probably be the one.

I wasn't saying Powell is irrelevant - it clearly states that the Senate cannot reject Burris on the circumstances of his appointment.  I was just pointing out - for the constitutional law junkies - that the facts of MvM, which are usually forgotten because they have so little bearing on why the case is usually cited, mirror another aspect of this situation, which is the SOS's refusal to certify.  Whether it is binding, I don't know, because it deals with executive-level appointments.  There might be a more recent, state-level case that would allow Burris to seek a court order.  In any case, Powell and MvM deal with two different issues.

Burris filed late yesterday with the IL Supreme Court to force White to sign. However, the US Sen may have the power to at least delay any seating for 90 days by referring the appointment to Rules.

[Lunar]

90 days more than enough for Blago to be impeached, and if not, special election legislation to be passed

[Lunar]

Pretty crazy, the guy who failed to unseat Mark Kirk may in fact be Senator (from Mike Allen at Politico):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Meeker]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

[Lunar]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss.

Although it's important to remember that the swing vote in Illinois looks a lot like Kirk's district

[Meeker]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss

Either in 2010 or in a special. Kirk could get into the upper 40's but I don't think he could get over 50 without a completely unpalatable Democrat on the ballot.

Speaking of that, there's another huge danger in a special election (or even 2010) - Burris making an Independent run to "claim his rightful Senate seat" or some nonsense like that. That could be Kirk's easy ticket in.

[Lunar]

I doubt Burris would do that or get more than a couple percent doing that unless the Democratic nominee were white.  Dan Seals doesn't have that problem

And again, remember that Kirk beat Dan Seals convincingly in an Obama+11 district. 

[Meeker]

Dan Seals isn't really "black" in terms of the Illinois political scene. He's a politician who happens to be of African-American heritage. He isn't apart of the world of Bobby Rush, Danny Davis, JJJ, etc.

Kirk's also had many years to get his O +11 district to love him. He's not going to have that opportunity with the rest of the state.

[Lunar]

Dan Seals isn't really "black" in terms of the Illinois political scene. He's a politician who happens to be of African-American heritage. He isn't apart of the world of Bobby Rush, Danny Davis, JJJ, etc.

Kirk's also had many years to get his O +11 district to love him. He's not going to have that opportunity with the rest of the state.

Well, the reason why I'd give Seals the edge is that he's basically Barack Obama

[Meeker]

They are very similar. Unfortunately Mark Kirk is no Alan Keyes

[Sam Spade]

Nym:

I believe I made the point when referring to talk about a Texas senate special election, that anything can happen in these types of elections outside of general election time.

Now granted, since it looks like Franken will win in MN, the spectre of "60" likely makes it impossible for any Democrat to win in Texas.  But we have none of those same constraints in Illinois.

That is merely the point I am making and one which should not be forgotten.

[RBH]

Like Burris could get the signatures to make it on a statewide ballot anyways. He would be easy bait for challenges.

[muon2]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss.

Although it's important to remember that the swing vote in Illinois looks a lot like Kirk's district

Another factor for Kirk to consider is the fate of his district in 2012. It is likely the IL will lose a district and that Dems will control the map. His seat could well end up on the chopping block or with a higher D fraction.

[Lunar]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss.

Although it's important to remember that the swing vote in Illinois looks a lot like Kirk's district

Another factor for Kirk to consider is the fate of his district in 2012. It is likely the IL will lose a district and that Dems will control the map. His seat could well end up on the chopping block or with a higher D fraction.

Maybe..., but he still won by >10% the last two election cycles in an Obama domination district

[muon2]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss.

Although it's important to remember that the swing vote in Illinois looks a lot like Kirk's district

Another factor for Kirk to consider is the fate of his district in 2012. It is likely the IL will lose a district and that Dems will control the map. His seat could well end up on the chopping block or with a higher D fraction.

Maybe..., but he still won by >10% the last two election cycles in an Obama domination district

But he could end up split between Bean and Schakowsky. There's no Senate seat in IL in 2012 for any one to jump to after the map eliminates one House seat. A jump in 2010 could be a calculated risk.

[Lunar]

Well, if they really specifically targeted him, they could make it a challenge.  But his proven ability to soundly win in a liberal district + fundraising skillz means that he's a big elephant to take down -- and I want you to name a Democratic Representative that wants to take on Kirk in the process of eliminating him.  It'd be a pretty epic fight that Bean and Schako wouldn't really want to do.

Since Kirk votes pretty liberal, it results in less of a net gain as well...


And it could require the entire focus of the redistricting scheme to be targeting Kirk, and obviously so at that

[muon2]

Well, if they really specifically targeted him, they could make it a challenge.  But his proven ability to soundly win in a liberal district + fundraising skillz means that he's a big elephant to take down -- and I want you to name a Democratic Representative that wants to take on Kirk in the process of eliminating him.  It'd be a pretty epic fight that Bean and Schako wouldn't really want to do.

Since Kirk votes pretty liberal, it results in less of a net gain as well...


And it could require the entire focus of the redistricting scheme to be targeting Kirk, and obviously so at that

I generally agree. I was just suggesting that all the GOP Reps are going to be looking over their shoulders towards what the Dems will do with a map, and they may have to decide before knowing the outcome of that map. If there are no retirements in 2012, then one of the suburban districts is the most likely target for elimination, since a downstate district was cut last time. That points to Kirk, Roskam, or Biggert for elimination.

[Nym90]

Well as I said before, if the Dem candidate can be tied to Blago, then absolutely the GOP can and probably would win.

Well, what viable Democratic candidates can't be tied to Chicago machine politics?  I can only think of Alexi, but he's really looking towards running towards Gov if anything.  That'd be a hell of a long shot.

The 2008 results in Illinois don't seem to show that the voters of the state consider all or most Dems to be corrupt, however....yes, big things have come out since then of course, but it's not like Blago was popular or thought to be ethically pure as of election day. Is there polling evidence that voters blame Dems as a whole for Blago's latest shenanigans?

No, but this is a pretty darn big scandal, probably about as a big of corruption scandal as possible in modern history.  There're no real parallels.  And, I imagine that *a lot* of traditionally Democratic suburban and downstate voters are sympathetic to the idea that Chicago politicians are too corrupt to work with.  Kirk is pro-choice, no?  I mean, what could the majority of swing voters in IL have against him?

A *primary* in an *off-year* is not going to be parallel to any sort of existing framework since it will be even lower turnout

Obviously it would come down to whether the race is nationalized effectively by the Dems or localized effectively by the GOP. Now that I think about it, a better comparison, at least in terms of environment and Presidential home state factor, might be Texas 2002 as opposed to Mississippi 2008. I'm sure Sam Spade will skewer me for even bringing that up as remotely comparable (and perhaps deservedly so), but until some election results or at the very least reliable polls show me that Illinois voters don't like Democrats or view the GOP remotely favorably, I'll believe it when I see it.

It's clearly a race that Democrats would be foolish to take for granted; however a decent turnout operation and some Obama campaign stops and ads should produce the same result that every major race in Illinois has had for the last 10 years.

mmm, well, the prerequisite question is if Kirk's campaign successfully ties the Democrat to the existing Chicago corrupt establishment, would President Obama's administration want to defend the Chicago establishment and reenter local politics?

You're assuming that this race will be all about Blago and local Chicago politics. Maybe it will be, and I agree that if it is, your analysis is correct. I'm just not willing to dismiss the possibility that it will be nationalized and turned into a generic D vs. generic R race, which barring a collapse in Obama's popularity is not winnable for a Republican in Illinois (sort of like how such a race is not winnable for a Democrat in Texas, especially when Bush was popular, hence my comparison).

So I think we just disagree on what the race will be about, not on where it will go once that unknown factor is known.

[Nym90]

Nym:

I believe I made the point when referring to talk about a Texas senate special election, that anything can happen in these types of elections outside of general election time.

Now granted, since it looks like Franken will win in MN, the spectre of "60" likely makes it impossible for any Democrat to win in Texas.  But we have none of those same constraints in Illinois.

That is merely the point I am making and one which should not be forgotten.

Oh, agreed (and I didn't even recall that comment when I made mine, I was just referring to how generically Illinois and Texas may well be completely different animals and not necessarily comparable).

If anything, I would think Illinois is one place where the 60 seat argument helps Democrats. Of course, if that sentiment changes between now and 2010, all bets are off.