-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2009/01/30/poll-repubs-trailing-dems-in-us-senate-poll/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I think Obama will stay out of a primary. I sure hope so. Illinois is nothing but trouble for him, and it would anger other incumbent Dems in the Senate. And if his hand-picked guy would lose, it makes him look weak. No upside.
I can't imagine that Schakowsky gets much traction outside of the Chicago area if she runs. She's a lakefront, north shore, progressive liberal. A general with her in it would be interesting, but I don't see how she gets through a primary.
Giannoulias is interesting. He can appeal to independent voters. Has lots of cash. Numbers aren't terrible for him being in office only two years.
Just please, not Burris.
Might he let Giannoulias use images of the two men together in ads? Possibly, but I can't see a straight endorsement like the one Sheila Simon gave Obama when he ran for the Senate.
The Illinois GOP has even less credibility than Blago. It's heading straight for yet another disaster in 2010 under current management, and I don't see either Roskam or Kirk doing anything about it. They've got their's.
If it's now a "safe" district, that's because of Kirk, not the way the district is drawn.
What is the explanation for Schakowsky's dismal showing against Burris then?
2. Roskam just made ways and means and Kirk will have his pick of ranking memberships next term with more gop retirements. That's not as bad as being 14th on the education committee anda reason to stay.
3.I don't see an Illinois Democrat White House letting itself get embarassed on the national stage by losing Obama's seat in the first midterms.
4. The national GOP has a lot more endangered members and competitive open seats in 2010 than do the Democrats which will make resources to help win this seat a lot more scarce.
Democrats 264 (44%)
Republicans 174 (29%)
Independents 162 (27%)
Also, Burris is drawing half the black vote with nearly 45% of that cohort undecided. His support is not widespread. Given this info, I'm actually optimistic. As for Kirk, his district will probably be redrawn and he'll be looking for a new gig. If these numbers are his baseline, I'd say he's got a good shot.
Recall for example when Kirk's political Godfather Denny Hastert got together with Democrat Congressman Lipinski (the old man) for the last remap. The 2 divided up the spoils and they did their best to allow ALL the incumbents to choose their voters. I specifically remember that some stronger R areas (from Cook I believe) were carved into Kirk's district to give him some extra cushion.
Granted, the Republicans are losing ground in that district just like in much of the state, but the powers-that-be certainly tried to give Kirk as much help as they could on the map front.
The January statewide Glengariff Group poll, for instance, had self-identified Dems at 44.7 percent, Repubs at 18.8 percent and Independents at 30.7 percent. December's poll was close to those numbers.
So, it's possible that R2K oversampled Republicans, if anything.
Don't be. African-American voters traditionally break very late.
Thanks for the history...beg to differ on the Burris support. If he can't draw better than 50% from the AA cohort out of the gate, he's toast.
The 10th is voting more democratic these days because the republican party is appealing to lower class values voters rather than the educated professionals that dominate our area and aren't really interested in god, guns and gays.
A good staring point might be the realization that this is Illinois, not South Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Texas, or Alaska.
But the local GOP cannot halt the steady drift of the national GOP into a minority regional party. It is hurting them in this state, big-time.
Err- all of Durbin's elections, all of White's, all of Hynes'. Madigan's re-elect in 2006. Hell, even Blago's re-elect.
Really, wins by more than 10% are pretty common.
Since 2000, there's only been two or three races decided by LESS than 10%.
I am not sure how anyone, Dem, Republican, or Indy believes anything these people print. They are strictly propaganda
They had polls that showed Kirk winning, too, and other polling outfits (SUSA, for one) showed Seals taking it, too.
Also, DKos didn't "do" this poll or any other- R2k did, and they're fairly well-respected, and predictive often enough.
Just to clarify (I think my above post was a little obtuse) this isn't true, the R2K September poll showed Kirk ahead.
I think that's possible. Kirk was ubiquitous in the Chicago media market during the campaign (and has done a decent job staying visible since then, too), while Burris hadn't been heard from in a decade and may have competing impulses (Blago appointment vs. no personal corruption) pushing respondents away from both a positive and negative opinion.
"Plus, didn’t Kos do a whole bunch of polls about Kirk that were way off?"
No, Kos didn't do any polls. R2K did a poll that had Seals in the lead (as did SUSA), but they also did a poll that had Kirk in the lead.
GOP = Grand ol Party, and that is what people see.
Simply put, numbers at this point are useless except for political junkies.
Here are a couple of facts:
Burris is a weak candidate. That's not to say he can't win a primary or the general.
Kirk is a strong candidate. It's an uphill climb for any "R" but he is battle-tested, can raise tons of $$$ and can appeal to moderate suburbanites.
The right wing nuts hate Kirk and the Dems are scared of him. Two things that indicate how strong he looks.
The name recognition advantage for Kirk over Burris is tough to buy because Burris has run statewide at least 4 times AND was just the lead story for a week in the NATIONAL news.
Kirk has demonstrated that he can win decisively in tough years and raise lots of money. He will play well in the suburbs- the place where any successful Republican must perform well. Finally, the media likes him and he is not at all tainted, unlike Alexi or Burris.
Another reason not to jump on these numbers is the plain and undeniable fact that this poll was sponsored by the Daily Kos (and yes, the Daily Kos was the sponsor of the Kirk poll that had him losing by 6 to Dan Seals, which then led to some arm-chair-quarterbacks on this blog to pronounce Kirk all but dead).
C'mon people, the Daily Kos folks only get out of bed each morning b/c they love bashing the GOP. They cannot be seen as a independent actor and thus any numbers will be viewed as partisan.
My take, If I were Kirk, I'd look at the this poll and take stock in the fact that the Daily Kos and the Dems are already worried. They are trying to set the stage for early campaign funding calls that have already started with an eye on this race.
If Kirk enters the race and is pitted against any Dems mentioned in the poll and only had to make up a 4-6 points, I'd put my money on him to beat any of the them.
Irrelevant, as these numbers are from R2K, but okay, you're forgiven.
"The name recognition advantage for Kirk over Burris is tough to buy because Burris has run statewide at least 4 times AND was just the lead story for a week in the NATIONAL news."
Burris hasn't held office for over a decade. Kirk had been all over Chicago media since August. And Burris' cross currents- no personal corruption, but Blago ties- could push a lot of people into "no opinion" territory.
"Not sure the Dems should be excited to have Kirk only 6-8% behind all the dem hopefuls at this point. "
Neither am I, but given how many people are trying to spin these numbers and sing the praises of Mark Kirk, it's clear the Republicans aren't seeing much hope here, either (Especially if their number one issue is completely hypothetical tax hikes).
Well, they just impeached him, for one thing.
Look, we run quite a few candidate-sponsored polls here. They're all identified. But R2K is a decent outfit, and Kirk's own people were worried sick the week before the election. It wasn't just R2K that showed serious movement by the Democrat there. That election was won in the last weekend.
So, if you're suggesting that the poll is pure propaganda, I would suggest you reconsider.
To this point, every objection to other numbers on this poll, trends, etc. have been rebutted, even refuted. Simple partisan spins are also easily rebutted by calling them out for what they are.
Actually, no. The GA just did what the voters were unwilling to do in 2006.
Fair enough- I was kinda just being snide.
You really think an IL Dem is gonna get outspent in the age of Obama?
Look, Kirk is still the front runner in my mind, but the more people talk him up in reaction to this poll, the more desperate it seems.
Two reasons:
1) To quote the West Wing, "It helps when you cook with the right ingredients". Rahm had a national anti-Republican wave and dozens of compelling candidates, Ax had Barack Obama. Ain't none of the possible Democratic nominees another Obama, and I doubt there's going to be another wave.
2) Distraction. Rahm and Ax are both going to be focused on keeping the Obama White House strong, and if they take their eyes off of that, it's only going to be to preserve the Democratic Congressional majorities, not to focus on a single Senate Seat (unless, of course, that seat becomes integral to holding on to the majorities, but with a 9-seat advantage and four-plus Republican retirements, that's not really likely).