35. And I will take the "under" on that one. A doctor who is pro tort reform mostly because of the multiple lawsuits against him? That's the best the GOP can do? The GOP is going to long for the "good old Keyes days."
the pug is on the prowl
· 2 years ago
51.3
ahoy!
· 2 years ago
Under 37%
Badussy
· 2 years ago
46%, Taxes, Taxes Taxes. The Dems are going to tax Steve into the picture
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Is time up already?
I have been waiting for bloggers to post reasons Dick Durbin could be beaten and all I have heard so far is crickets.
Sauerberg? Is that it? Sheesh.
publius
· 2 years ago
who
who?
Levois
· 2 years ago
I'll be optimistic at this point and give him only 40% of the vote. I think this man is going to get creamed. Then again I have to seen more of him but since most of us don't already know him it's not looking good already!
Rob_N
· 2 years ago
Ditto Levois -- I'd be surprised if he cracks 40%. Durbin is too high on name rec, has too much $ in the bank, and the best the GOP can throw at him are lies about his statements on Pres. Bush's Gitmo policies. That, and Durbin's been distancing himself from Springfield, basically telling them to grow up.
Southern Ilinois Democrat
· 2 years ago
38%.... and that is with luck on his side.
Cassandra
· 2 years ago
20%. Durbin is unbeatable and, whether it's Hillary or Barack, the Repubs are going to lose even more market share nationally in November, affecting local races as well.
Ghost
· 2 years ago
My prediction, percent of votes: Durbin 60%(ish) Sauerberg 35%(ish) 5%ish other canidates.
Since the rebuplican base usually pulls in about 30-35ish I am basically predicting the he can only draw the republican base in votes.
Seersucker
· 2 years ago
Sauerberg and Michael Jordon have something in common.
the number 23.
ChiCountryGuy
· 2 years ago
GOP turnout will be at an all time high to defeat Hilary. Sauerberg will edge a victory out and Durbin will be forced to find a job where the employer on the paycheck isn't the U.S. Government.
37yrs on the gov't payroll, enough is enough.
Moderate America
· 2 years ago
To understand why many independents will not vote for Durbin this time around...just do a youtube.com search. I am a vet and the other soldiers I've spoken have seen with our own eyes exactly what he has said. No conservative spin necessary. Durbin is not the boogeyman, but he is certainly not pro-soldier. Much to the dismay of Dems...this will go down to the wire.
fedup dem
· 2 years ago
You assume that this guy wins the Republican Primary. I'm waiting until November 6 (the day after the filing deadline) to find out if Suerberg has any primary opposition. If he does, the correct answer to your question could be 0%, since may not make it past February 5.
Ghost
· 2 years ago
Mod Amer if your relying on voters to watch youtube in order for Durbin to lose support, then Durbin has already won.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
===he is certainly not pro-soldier===
That's a pretty bold statement.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Whether it is technically accurate, or a nice thing to say, a lot of so-called moderates feel that Senator Durbin is not a good example of a politician willing to fight on our side during wartime, but instead only fights on HIS side.
This isn't a viewpoint coming from a fringe group, but Durbin is so much a shoo-in he doesn't even need to address this - which is a shame.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
GOP turnout will be at an all time high to defeat Hilary.
It depends on how a Giuliani or McCain fires people up.
If it's Obama instead of HRC, Sauerberg can forget it unless Obama just really tanks as a national candidate.
Oddly I don't think Durbin or Sauerberg matter that much. Durbin has broad but thin suupport and Sauerberg unknown.
Wumpus
· 2 years ago
Who knows, can Durbin keep his trap shut? If so 27% with a Keysenian performance. If he is qualified, I hope he does well and wins, though.
Tom
· 2 years ago
I think the number is above Keyes but below Koehler. Judy will always be the shining light of hapless ILGOP contenders for the US Senate.
LibertyDC
· 2 years ago
51% - In George Allen like fashion Dick Durbin repeatedly sticks his foot in his mouth and Sauerberg hammers him.
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Durbin is unbeatable. He has yet to crank up his fundraising and he still has $5 or $6 million in the bank. He's the Senate Majority Whip and has high name recognition. Sauerberg will barely 30%, and the leftover third party candidates will combine to reach 5%. If Durbin doesn't get over 60% in another bad national year for the GOP, I would be surprised.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
In 2002, Durbin beat Durkin 60-38 with a minor candidate (Libertarian, IIRC) getting 2%.
2002 was a good year for Republicans. 2008 will be a weak year for Republicans, perhaps a disastrous year. As a state Illinois has trended Democrat more than the national average. The Illinois has less infrastructure than it did in 2002.
Sauerberg is a weaker candidate than Durkin. Durkin benefited from having Jim Ryan at the top of the ticket. Sauerberg will have someone who will lose worse than Ryan lost to Blagojevich.
Also, Sauerberg won't get any significant national money. Durkin didn't get much, but he got some since the GOP had the mo' that year.
Sauerberg will get about 34% of the vote. However, if he starts saying goofy stuff he could drop from there.
BTW, what are Illinois values? And how are they different from liberal values? Sauerberg's statements make him sound like a partisan hack who bet on the losing team.
respectful
· 2 years ago
33%. Those predicting a Sauerberg victory are smoking wacky tobacky.
respectful
· 2 years ago
I suggest Rich come back on Nov. 5, 2008 to see whose predictions come closest.
jerry 101
· 2 years ago
25%. Sauerberg is a non-starter. The NRSC is broke, and Sauerberg is at best a third tier candidate.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
In 2002 Durbin wasn’t on the leadership team. He has said a lot of stupid things since then and has taken the Democrat line. If Sauerberg can put together some money and get ad’s on TV he can make a good showing.
Super Mega
· 2 years ago
Durbin is vulnerable, with a serious GOP candidate.
Sauerberg is not a serious candidate, especially when he has to tout the endorsement of Andy McKenna. Was there any real question of that happening?
As Sauerberg continues to lack name ID and figure out what his positions on major issues are, I'll say he ends the day with 26% of the vote.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
===Durbin is vulnerable, with a serious GOP candidate.===
Define "serious." He's the only one running.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
Is there some brewing backlash against Congressional Democrats? Based on what?
Republican partisans who think the voters are trending in their direction are seriously disconnected from reality.
Yes, Congress has low approval ratings. Why? Because it hasn't done enough to oppose Bush and end the Iraq War.
How does a Republican candidate for Congress thread that needle? "I would impeach Bush for not using nuclear weapons against Iraq and Iran."
Show me the talking point that addresses the failures of Bush and the Republican Congress and can be used to attack Democrats.
Here's my insight. A strong Green candidate could get in the race and Sauerberg still wouldn't have a chance.
Durbin 40% Sauerberg 23% strong Green 24% undecided 13%
Is the national GOP going to sink any money into this race based on this kind of polling? Or is the National Republican Senatorial Committee going to send its money to help vulnerable Republican incumbents?
It's almost implausible Sauerberg can get in this race even in the best case scenario.
The state GOP is using Sauerberg. He's yet another guy who can self-finance somewhat. He's got enough money to keep Andy Martin from getting the nomination, but Sauerberg won't ever be enough of a threat that the state GOP will be obligated to ramp up and help him.
In short, he's the perfect chump for Andy McKenna to use. He won't make the party look too bad. And McKenna's weakness won't be exposed b/c Sauerberg will never be in the race.
Here's a question, "How much is a unified Illinois GOP worth?" Answer: "It's worth enough to beat Andy Martin in the GOP primary."
Republicans are lucky it's a presidential primary with Obama on the ballot. If it wasn't, mischievous Democrats would probably be weighing the possibility of sending enough voters over to the GOP primary to make Andy Martin or Jim Rowe the GOP nominee.
meggs
· 2 years ago
there is no way dick durbin, the hate all military monger will loose in this pathetic state. THis state is progressively, a good word defining Illinois, is becoming socialist. First King Blago, (yikes!) and Obama (oh the one that walks on water) There are no true conservative republicans living in this state (and we settle for RINO's to run against that military hater, Durbin. I have my house up for sale now to leave this state and there will be one more less convservative leaving this socialist state
archpundit
· 2 years ago
There haven't been a ton of polls lately, but Durbin has been over 50% pretty consistently in the last two years.
It's a Presidential Election year with all signs pointing towards a Democratic win and picking up seats.
Apparently they ran a poll with him against Edgar and it was 52-32.
It's not clear to me how he is vulnerable. You may not like him, but he's fairly popular in the state and it's pretty clear RNSC wrote off Illinois some time ago.
All of the evidence that he's done something horrible doesn't appear to have affected the public and seems to exist in an echo chamber convinced that he really is hated by the people of Illinois.
No data support the claim that he is reviled.
archpundit
· 2 years ago
Oh, and I'll give Sauerberg 32%.
Truthful James
· 2 years ago
It depends on how much Durbin campaigns Saueburg will get 42% if DD campaigns a lot, 35% if DD keeps his mouth shut.
thirtysomething
· 2 years ago
If IL and Chicago Dems keep sinking our state into the ground, Sauerberg's chances may be better than you think.
Leatherneck
· 2 years ago
Sauerberg is not the only one running. I am voting for Mike Psak.
Carl, the Congressional Dems have done little of anything. I know the Iraq War is a big issue, but they haven't been able to force the President's hand. Luckily for Pelosi and Van Hollen, there are enough Republicans retiring and there is still a decent anti-GOP tinge in the political air. Pelosi should thank her lucky stars because the '08 elections are basically being giftwrapped for her.
Arthur Andersen
· 2 years ago
the big four-oh.
Wow
· 2 years ago
Can you have an over/under when the total outcome has to be 100%? I don't gamble, so I could be wrong about this, but I think Rich should have given a number like 35% and said 'Over or under'? Gamblers, I would love to know how this works.
Anyway, Sauerberg is a terrible GOP candidate. A white dude in his 40s/50s from the western suburbs who wants tax cuts? Yeah, that hasn't gotten anyone elected to office since the 90's. It's possible that Sauerberg will lose more counties than Keyes. Durbin is from downstate and gets a lot of support for it. The last thing the GOP should be doing to appeal to downstate voters is running another candidate born in the Park Ridge/Stickney/Aurora triangle.
vets against durbin
· 2 years ago
Durbin's comments about our troops were not exaggerated. And his 'apology' wasn't anything of the kind. Durbin will certainly have money but he will get a smaller percentage of the vote and Sauerberg will be a better candidate than Durkin. Durkin ran a horrible campaign and never raised any money. Not sure Sauerberg can catch Dick Durbin but Dems will be surprised at how he will be able to close the gap.
And overall, I think the voters have seen what total Democratic control means and they don't like it. It is no mystery to me why the press hasn't really covered the Springfield stupidity more.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
Team Sleep, I understand why people would be unhappy with the Dems, but why would anyone vote Republican for Congress?
Republican scorched-earth tactics pretty much guarantee that Dem leaning activists--and contributors--will stay motivated to do as much as possible to bury the GOP.
And there's blood in the water. Sixty U.S. Senate seats is an attainable goal in the 2008 election.
Republicans using the Senate filibuster liberally makes it possible for Congressional Democrats to duck the blame for not doing more to oppose Bush. The Democrats can plausibly blame the GOP for obstruction.
BTW, are any of the people singing the praises of Sauerberg actually volunteering for his campaign? Or are they merely going through the motions of showing some online bravado? Is volunteering for Sauerberg a good use of time?
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
What did Durbin say that offended you vets? Are you a political hack trying to manufacture outrage? Are you offended by any of Bush's policies?
BTW, when did you serve vets? What service?
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
===It is no mystery to me why the press hasn’t really covered the Springfield stupidity more.===
Try every day for the past 10 months. Really, that was a silly statement.
47th Ward
· 2 years ago
Wow,
Over/under bets typically work as follows: a number is chosen based on informed speculation. Bets are placed "under" or "over" said number, as in I Bet Sauerberg Does Better/Worse than that.
The number often moves in response to the wagering. If too many bettors are choosing "over," the number typically increases to encourage bettors to choose "under" thus preventing the house from losing too much one way or the other.
In my example, I set the number at 38.5. I haven't tallied all of the bets, but my quick read says there is good action on both sides, and the sucker bet is currently "over" today. While that could change, I'd be happy to take those bets.
The Sun-Times used to print the Over/Under for NFL games. The skill of Las Vegas Sports book prognosticators is nothing short of genius. The "hook" has screwed countless bettors and keeps the casino in business.
Jake From Elwood
· 2 years ago
Even if Durbin becomes seriously ill (a.k.a. John Stroger), he will win by 20% or more over this sacrificial lamb.
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Carl, the Dems played the obstructionist role from 2003-2006. I don't want to hear that the GOP is the only party to do so.
I don't really feel like voting for a candidate whose party's Ways and Means chairman has proposed a TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE. I just can't.
And the sad thing is that I disagree with the war and its premise. But I cannot pull myself to vote for a Dem candidate for Congress, for Durbin or for whomever the Dem presidential candidate may be.
Both parties are nasty and need to tone it down a notch. Last year's campaign showed just how nasty the Dems can be. And their culture of corruption catchphrase turned out to be a bunch of hogwash.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
Team Sleep, Bush and the Republicans increased your taxes. They just delayed the tax increase by putting it on the national credit card until Bush is out of office.
Team Sleep, what legislation did the Democrats obstruct while in the minority?
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 2 years ago
Step away from the airplane glue, kids.
I'll never forget this Steve Neal headline:
"Durkin Could Give Durbin a Run for his Money."
Yeah. The result: 60-38.
Carl Nyberg's analysis is dead-on. George Bush is reviled in Illinois, and every GOP Presidential candidate is running on a "More of the Same" platform.
Durbin has a lock on his Democratic base, and has been making alot of in-roads among independent suburban voters. He's fought to protect Lake Michigan, and he's led efforts to clean up the Cook County health care system.
I'll be shocked if Sauerberg can raise $1 million, enough for about 4 days of Chicago t.v.
Sauerberg will be lucky to get 34%.
Tom
· 2 years ago
Also Team Sleep, Rangel's legislation would provide $850 million is tax relief for those middle class taxpayers who would be hit by the AMT. Funny how republicans never include that part when they talk about Rangel's legislation.
Tom
· 2 years ago
err that should be $850 billion in AMT relief.
Super Mega
· 2 years ago
Serious meaning a high-quality candidate, most likely having held elective office previously, has a large political operation, some name ID, and the ability to raise millions of dollars.
Also, someone who can receive endorsements from outside their party chairman.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
Isn't Durbin the only statewide office-holder not from the Chicago Met area? Obama, Blago, L. Madigan, Giannoulias, and Hynes are all from the Chicago Met area, so I would think that those from Central, Southern and Western IL would want to keep Durbin.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
Oh, I forgot, I'd peg him at 35%--he won't go as low as Keyes because I don't think he's a nutbag.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
So, "serious" means "dream." You have nobody like that in your party these days except maybe Schillerstrom. And he's not suicidal.
Sigmund Freud
· 2 years ago
22nd Street: Steve Sauerberg is not a nutbag? Running the suicide squad for the ineffectual Andy McKenna is about as delusional and/or psychotic as you can get. What can he possibly get out of it? The GOP has no judgeships or anything right now. No reward for him to go down hard. Just a loyal plastic robot for a GOP that does not care. Can he self-fund? Even better, considering the Illinois GOP is destitute.
I do not want this guy operating on me, that's for sure.
This is a vanity campaign, pure and simple.
Nalepa, unleashed, would be able to at least attack Durbin on the issues. And attack him personally. I still do not know why he backed down at the last minute and endorsed this guy.
Face it, no one likes Doctors, really. Unless your life was saved by a a particular one, chances are you took off work, and waited three hours after your scheduled appointment reading Highlights for Children and Newsweek from 1987.
Then got misdiagnosed by Dr. Butcher so your life was ruined. And you had to go to another Dr. Butcher to fix that. And you still are not covered if you are on your own.
Face it, the GOP (I hate to use the word "combine" but I see a certain columnist's point, especially here) does not want to beat Sen. Durbin.
For reasons that make me wonder why I should vote for them at all.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
Sigmund, your post is way off the mark...
===Face it, the GOP (I hate to use the word “combine†but I see a certain columnist’s point, especially here) does not want to beat Sen. Durbin.===
It's not that they don't want to beat him, it's that nobody has stepped up to the plate, and they really don't have anybody good enough, well known enough or rich enough to do it. Who are they hiding? That combine stuff is way overused.
===Face it, no one likes Doctors, really. ===
That's ridiculous. The reason why the GA and Congress passed med-mal reform was precisely because of all the doctors lobbying their patients. People love doctors, in general and in particular.
===The GOP has no judgeships or anything right now===
He's not a lawyer, so he couldn't be a judge even if he wanted to be.
Anon
· 2 years ago
Will go down at 35 at best. Self-funding won't even help. The troops haven't been really energized, hopeful, fascinated, and/or willing to get out there to compete since the time leading up to the 04 Primary--and McKenna/Sauerberg certainly won't be able to get them out. Doubt that there's even a good story to tell.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
Carl, How fired up are you going to be with HRC and Gen Clark at the top of the ticket? Talking tough about Iran.. moving back to the center (and probably far right as far as you'd see it).
Dick Durbin will be right with the pair of them.
If Iraq not an issue then, but what to do about Iran is... so, things could look very different in a few months. Dems won't be running against Bush anymore. We may have two sets of candidates trying to look tough with the Dems trying harder.
Durbin may have a very disillusioned base.
Sigmund Freud
· 2 years ago
I guess it was just my "Freudian slipping" frustration that Durbin will not be adequately challenged this time around.
Our Senior senator has said some very bad things and has been a disappointment on so many different operating levels.
Maybe it's not "the combine." That said, why doesn't McKenna run himself if he is the repository of all things GOP? He had no problem running four years ago.
Maybe people do like their doctors; I may be skewed--many times I have participated in trials where doctors testified as treaters, testified as experts, and jurors seemed to have been put off by their arrogance: natural, contrived or otherwise.
No matter what, that "M.D." on Sauerberg's campaign signs will separate him from the pack.
And maybe it will separate him from Durbin's prior two GOP Senatorial opponents.
Carl Nyberg
· 2 years ago
Bill, aren't all the Republican candidates except Congressman Ron Paul running as the heirs to Bush policy?
The Republican Party branded itself the party of GWB. That doesn't go just b/c he's not allowed to run for re-election.
Bill, do you think Bush would bomb Iran to create a rift in the Democratic Party between the Israel hawks and the Dems who see unnecessary wars as a bad thing? Would you support Bush starting a second elective war to give the GOP a domestic political advantage?
Bill, say Durbin's base is disillusioned. Where's Sauerberg's campaign money going to come from? What's Sauerberg's best case finish on election night 2008?
Leatherneck
· 2 years ago
Yeah I am sticking with Mike Psak. The kid in Mike Psak's video sounds less "scripted" than Sauerberg does in his video.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
I have to say that I am really tired of the people who have decided that the only way to beat Sen. Durbin is to lie about his record.
Read what he said about the prisons and the interrogations. Any American with any sense of decency and values should be standing up behind him on that one. He was completely right, and his critics on that issue are cheap hacks.
For those of you who claim that he made some offensive comments: Please spell out what comments you believe were offensive, or just crawl back away. The attacks are really pathetic.
Sen. Durbin is now, and always has been, a class act and a person who deeply cares about America and American values. His opponent is a bad doctor who keeps getting sued for malpractice. This election isn't going to be close. Sen. Durbin will rightfully win this election easily, because he is a far better man for the job of United States Senator. Of course, if he loses, his opponent will likely stop seeing patients, and from the looks of the court docket, that also would probably be a good thing.
Frank
· 2 years ago
Is there a reason why Republican party officials are endorsing a candidate in a primary with more than one candidate? Yes, the others may not be as distinguished, but this only discourages our democratic process.
Sigmund Freud
· 2 years ago
Frank: The Democrats do it all the time: It's called slating.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
Carl,
Bill, aren’t all the Republican candidates except Congressman Ron Paul running as the heirs to Bush policy?
No and especially McCain who was bitterly critical of Rumsfeld for a long time. It many respects he's been the most critical of anyone running. Critics are not all doves.
The Republican Party branded itself the party of GWB. That doesn’t go just b/c he’s not allowed to run for re-election.
This election is all about rebranding. The GOP is figuring that out faster than the Dems.
Bill, do you think Bush would bomb Iran to create a rift in the Democratic Party between the Israel hawks and the Dems who see unnecessary wars as a bad thing?
No, but this kind of talk won't help Dems.
Would you support Bush starting a second elective war to give the GOP a domestic political advantage?
No
Bill, say Durbin’s base is disillusioned. Where’s Sauerberg’s campaign money going to come from? What’s Sauerberg’s best case finish on election night 2008?
It's not disillusioned yet but it will be when HRC starts triagulating right, and trying sound like the toughest bunch in town i.e. picking a General Clark for VP.
Getting cash will the Saurbergs hurdle, but I think the question Durbin needs to worry about is if the Democrats haven't peaked in 2007 instead of 2008.
T.J.
· 2 years ago
36%. No way does he do worse than Keyes.
The Conservative
· 2 years ago
"Republicans will turn out in record numbers to defeat Hillary" I would say that statement is correct except if Rudy or McCain are the winners of the primary. The base will turn it's back on those two.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
The base will turn it’s back on those two.
I'd say those two are Sauerberg's only chance.
Sigmund Freud
· 2 years ago
Mr. Baar: Are there really coattails anymore? Look at the districts that went Reagan/Simon in '84 and G-Ryan/Braun in '98. I admit the Sauerberg/McKenna thing confused me. But I still wonder what is in it for The Doctor if and when he gets eviscerated? Yes, he's not a lawyer, but I said "judgeships or anything." And if no one thinks Durbin will not drum up the anti-doctor sentiment, (even if it is a minority viewpoint) they are wrong. I know that Doctors get sued for malpractice all the time. It comes with the territory, especially in Illinois. But who is to stop Durbin and his ilk from manipulating those statistics?
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Sig, This idea that doctors get sued for malpractice all the time is ridiculous. Go to the Cook County court website and do a search for your own doctor. I am pretty confident you are not going to find seven suits since 1995. Moreover, this guy does internal medicine (family practice). It is not like he is a cardiologist or like he's delivering babies, where there are more suits than in other areas. It not a matter of "doctors are bad." This is a simple matter of "THIS doctor is bad." I can't wait until the press starts asking questions about what, as United States Senator, he would do to crack down on physicians.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
Are there really coattails anymore?
I don't know but as far as I can tell that's all the Dr. has going for him.
Google around on the net and look for an interview with Dukakis about this election. He explains all of the potential wild cards out there.
It's fun to forecast these numbers but this is a very unusual election in unusual and volatile times.
I think Democrats have badly over reached and missed a great opportunity to join with Bush (and split the GOP) on immigration reform.
Durbin's gone one way with the senate and HRC is going to tack farther right next year leaving Durbin a guy with one foot on two logs drifting further apart.
Durbin an elastic fellow with bucks in the bank but with all the unknowns out there, who knows...he could sink.
Sigmund Freud
· 2 years ago
I hope so.
PhilCollins
· 2 years ago
The question is unimportant because Mike Psak will win the primary. He told me about his campaign 14 months ago, and he officially announced his campaign on March 10. He supports President Bush's Iraq policies. Psak is pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, pro-life, anti-illegal alien, and pro-gun rights. According to the latest poll by the NRSC, he's the most popular Republican in the race, with about twice as many supporters as the second-place candidate. Psak campaigned at the Du Quoin Fair for three days, and Sauerberg was there for a few hours. Please read Psak's site, www.psak4ussenate.com.
All Comments
And I will take the "under" on that one.
A doctor who is pro tort reform mostly because of the multiple lawsuits against him? That's the best the GOP can do?
The GOP is going to long for the "good old Keyes days."
I have been waiting for bloggers to post reasons Dick Durbin could be beaten and all I have heard so far is crickets.
Sauerberg? Is that it? Sheesh.
who?
Durbin 60%(ish)
Sauerberg 35%(ish)
5%ish other canidates.
Since the rebuplican base usually pulls in about 30-35ish I am basically predicting the he can only draw the republican base in votes.
the number 23.
37yrs on the gov't payroll, enough is enough.
That's a pretty bold statement.
This isn't a viewpoint coming from a fringe group, but Durbin is so much a shoo-in he doesn't even need to address this - which is a shame.
It depends on how a Giuliani or McCain fires people up.
If it's Obama instead of HRC, Sauerberg can forget it unless Obama just really tanks as a national candidate.
Oddly I don't think Durbin or Sauerberg matter that much. Durbin has broad but thin suupport and Sauerberg unknown.
27% with a Keysenian performance. If he is qualified, I hope he does well and wins, though.
2002 was a good year for Republicans. 2008 will be a weak year for Republicans, perhaps a disastrous year. As a state Illinois has trended Democrat more than the national average. The Illinois has less infrastructure than it did in 2002.
Sauerberg is a weaker candidate than Durkin. Durkin benefited from having Jim Ryan at the top of the ticket. Sauerberg will have someone who will lose worse than Ryan lost to Blagojevich.
Also, Sauerberg won't get any significant national money. Durkin didn't get much, but he got some since the GOP had the mo' that year.
Sauerberg will get about 34% of the vote. However, if he starts saying goofy stuff he could drop from there.
BTW, what are Illinois values? And how are they different from liberal values? Sauerberg's statements make him sound like a partisan hack who bet on the losing team.
Sauerberg is not a serious candidate, especially when he has to tout the endorsement of Andy McKenna. Was there any real question of that happening?
As Sauerberg continues to lack name ID and figure out what his positions on major issues are, I'll say he ends the day with 26% of the vote.
Define "serious." He's the only one running.
Republican partisans who think the voters are trending in their direction are seriously disconnected from reality.
Yes, Congress has low approval ratings. Why? Because it hasn't done enough to oppose Bush and end the Iraq War.
How does a Republican candidate for Congress thread that needle? "I would impeach Bush for not using nuclear weapons against Iraq and Iran."
Show me the talking point that addresses the failures of Bush and the Republican Congress and can be used to attack Democrats.
Here's my insight. A strong Green candidate could get in the race and Sauerberg still wouldn't have a chance.
Poll
Durbin-45%
Sauerberg--25%
strong Green--15%
undecided--15%
Say the Green surges
Durbin 40%
Sauerberg 23%
strong Green 24%
undecided 13%
Is the national GOP going to sink any money into this race based on this kind of polling? Or is the National Republican Senatorial Committee going to send its money to help vulnerable Republican incumbents?
It's almost implausible Sauerberg can get in this race even in the best case scenario.
The state GOP is using Sauerberg. He's yet another guy who can self-finance somewhat. He's got enough money to keep Andy Martin from getting the nomination, but Sauerberg won't ever be enough of a threat that the state GOP will be obligated to ramp up and help him.
In short, he's the perfect chump for Andy McKenna to use. He won't make the party look too bad. And McKenna's weakness won't be exposed b/c Sauerberg will never be in the race.
Here's a question, "How much is a unified Illinois GOP worth?" Answer: "It's worth enough to beat Andy Martin in the GOP primary."
Republicans are lucky it's a presidential primary with Obama on the ballot. If it wasn't, mischievous Democrats would probably be weighing the possibility of sending enough voters over to the GOP primary to make Andy Martin or Jim Rowe the GOP nominee.
It's a Presidential Election year with all signs pointing towards a Democratic win and picking up seats.
Glenngariff had him at 60% approval--above 50% everywhere, but the Collars where he was at 50%
http://glengariffgroup.googlepages.com/DurbinJo...
Apparently they ran a poll with him against Edgar and it was 52-32.
It's not clear to me how he is vulnerable. You may not like him, but he's fairly popular in the state and it's pretty clear RNSC wrote off Illinois some time ago.
All of the evidence that he's done something horrible doesn't appear to have affected the public and seems to exist in an echo chamber convinced that he really is hated by the people of Illinois.
No data support the claim that he is reviled.
Carl, the Congressional Dems have done little of anything. I know the Iraq War is a big issue, but they haven't been able to force the President's hand. Luckily for Pelosi and Van Hollen, there are enough Republicans retiring and there is still a decent anti-GOP tinge in the political air. Pelosi should thank her lucky stars because the '08 elections are basically being giftwrapped for her.
Anyway, Sauerberg is a terrible GOP candidate. A white dude in his 40s/50s from the western suburbs who wants tax cuts? Yeah, that hasn't gotten anyone elected to office since the 90's. It's possible that Sauerberg will lose more counties than Keyes. Durbin is from downstate and gets a lot of support for it. The last thing the GOP should be doing to appeal to downstate voters is running another candidate born in the Park Ridge/Stickney/Aurora triangle.
And overall, I think the voters have seen what total Democratic control means and they don't like it. It is no mystery to me why the press hasn't really covered the Springfield stupidity more.
Republican scorched-earth tactics pretty much guarantee that Dem leaning activists--and contributors--will stay motivated to do as much as possible to bury the GOP.
And there's blood in the water. Sixty U.S. Senate seats is an attainable goal in the 2008 election.
Republicans using the Senate filibuster liberally makes it possible for Congressional Democrats to duck the blame for not doing more to oppose Bush. The Democrats can plausibly blame the GOP for obstruction.
BTW, are any of the people singing the praises of Sauerberg actually volunteering for his campaign? Or are they merely going through the motions of showing some online bravado? Is volunteering for Sauerberg a good use of time?
BTW, when did you serve vets? What service?
Try every day for the past 10 months. Really, that was a silly statement.
Over/under bets typically work as follows: a number is chosen based on informed speculation. Bets are placed "under" or "over" said number, as in I Bet Sauerberg Does Better/Worse than that.
The number often moves in response to the wagering. If too many bettors are choosing "over," the number typically increases to encourage bettors to choose "under" thus preventing the house from losing too much one way or the other.
In my example, I set the number at 38.5. I haven't tallied all of the bets, but my quick read says there is good action on both sides, and the sucker bet is currently "over" today. While that could change, I'd be happy to take those bets.
The Sun-Times used to print the Over/Under for NFL games. The skill of Las Vegas Sports book prognosticators is nothing short of genius. The "hook" has screwed countless bettors and keeps the casino in business.
I don't really feel like voting for a candidate whose party's Ways and Means chairman has proposed a TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE. I just can't.
And the sad thing is that I disagree with the war and its premise. But I cannot pull myself to vote for a Dem candidate for Congress, for Durbin or for whomever the Dem presidential candidate may be.
Both parties are nasty and need to tone it down a notch. Last year's campaign showed just how nasty the Dems can be. And their culture of corruption catchphrase turned out to be a bunch of hogwash.
Team Sleep, what legislation did the Democrats obstruct while in the minority?
I'll never forget this Steve Neal headline:
"Durkin Could Give Durbin a Run for his Money."
Yeah. The result: 60-38.
Carl Nyberg's analysis is dead-on. George Bush is reviled in Illinois, and every GOP Presidential candidate is running on a "More of the Same" platform.
Durbin has a lock on his Democratic base, and has been making alot of in-roads among independent suburban voters. He's fought to protect Lake Michigan, and he's led efforts to clean up the Cook County health care system.
I'll be shocked if Sauerberg can raise $1 million, enough for about 4 days of Chicago t.v.
Sauerberg will be lucky to get 34%.
Also, someone who can receive endorsements from outside their party chairman.
Running the suicide squad for the ineffectual Andy McKenna is about as delusional and/or psychotic as you can get. What can he possibly get out of it? The GOP has no judgeships or anything right now. No reward for him to go down hard. Just a loyal plastic robot for a GOP that does not care. Can he self-fund? Even better, considering the Illinois GOP is destitute.
I do not want this guy operating on me, that's for sure.
This is a vanity campaign, pure and simple.
Nalepa, unleashed, would be able to at least attack Durbin on the issues. And attack him personally. I still do not know why he backed down at the last minute and endorsed this guy.
Face it, no one likes Doctors, really. Unless your life was saved by a a particular one, chances are you took off work, and waited three hours after your scheduled appointment reading Highlights for Children and Newsweek from 1987.
Then got misdiagnosed by Dr. Butcher so your life was ruined. And you had to go to another Dr. Butcher to fix that. And you still are not covered if you are on your own.
Face it, the GOP (I hate to use the word "combine" but I see a certain columnist's point, especially here) does not want to beat Sen. Durbin.
For reasons that make me wonder why I should vote for them at all.
===Face it, the GOP (I hate to use the word “combine†but I see a certain columnist’s point, especially here) does not want to beat Sen. Durbin.===
It's not that they don't want to beat him, it's that nobody has stepped up to the plate, and they really don't have anybody good enough, well known enough or rich enough to do it. Who are they hiding? That combine stuff is way overused.
===Face it, no one likes Doctors, really. ===
That's ridiculous. The reason why the GA and Congress passed med-mal reform was precisely because of all the doctors lobbying their patients. People love doctors, in general and in particular.
===The GOP has no judgeships or anything right now===
He's not a lawyer, so he couldn't be a judge even if he wanted to be.
Dick Durbin will be right with the pair of them.
If Iraq not an issue then, but what to do about Iran is... so, things could look very different in a few months. Dems won't be running against Bush anymore. We may have two sets of candidates trying to look tough with the Dems trying harder.
Durbin may have a very disillusioned base.
Our Senior senator has said some very bad things and has been a disappointment on so many different operating levels.
Maybe it's not "the combine." That said, why doesn't McKenna run himself if he is the repository of all things GOP? He had no problem running four years ago.
Maybe people do like their doctors; I may be skewed--many times I have participated in trials where doctors testified as treaters, testified as experts, and jurors seemed to have been put off by their arrogance: natural, contrived or otherwise.
No matter what, that "M.D." on Sauerberg's campaign signs will separate him from the pack.
And maybe it will separate him from Durbin's prior two GOP Senatorial opponents.
The Republican Party branded itself the party of GWB. That doesn't go just b/c he's not allowed to run for re-election.
Bill, do you think Bush would bomb Iran to create a rift in the Democratic Party between the Israel hawks and the Dems who see unnecessary wars as a bad thing? Would you support Bush starting a second elective war to give the GOP a domestic political advantage?
Bill, say Durbin's base is disillusioned. Where's Sauerberg's campaign money going to come from? What's Sauerberg's best case finish on election night 2008?
Read what he said about the prisons and the interrogations. Any American with any sense of decency and values should be standing up behind him on that one. He was completely right, and his critics on that issue are cheap hacks.
For those of you who claim that he made some offensive comments: Please spell out what comments you believe were offensive, or just crawl back away. The attacks are really pathetic.
Sen. Durbin is now, and always has been, a class act and a person who deeply cares about America and American values. His opponent is a bad doctor who keeps getting sued for malpractice. This election isn't going to be close. Sen. Durbin will rightfully win this election easily, because he is a far better man for the job of United States Senator.
Of course, if he loses, his opponent will likely stop seeing patients, and from the looks of the court docket, that also would probably be a good thing.
Bill, aren’t all the Republican candidates except Congressman Ron Paul running as the heirs to Bush policy?
No and especially McCain who was bitterly critical of Rumsfeld for a long time. It many respects he's been the most critical of anyone running. Critics are not all doves.
The Republican Party branded itself the party of GWB. That doesn’t go just b/c he’s not allowed to run for re-election.
This election is all about rebranding. The GOP is figuring that out faster than the Dems.
Bill, do you think Bush would bomb Iran to create a rift in the Democratic Party between the Israel hawks and the Dems who see unnecessary wars as a bad thing?
No, but this kind of talk won't help Dems.
Would you support Bush starting a second elective war to give the GOP a domestic political advantage?
No
Bill, say Durbin’s base is disillusioned. Where’s Sauerberg’s campaign money going to come from? What’s Sauerberg’s best case finish on election night 2008?
It's not disillusioned yet but it will be when HRC starts triagulating right, and trying sound like the toughest bunch in town i.e. picking a General Clark for VP.
Getting cash will the Saurbergs hurdle, but I think the question Durbin needs to worry about is if the Democrats haven't peaked in 2007 instead of 2008.
I'd say those two are Sauerberg's only chance.
I admit the Sauerberg/McKenna thing confused me.
But I still wonder what is in it for The Doctor if and when he gets eviscerated?
Yes, he's not a lawyer, but I said "judgeships or anything."
And if no one thinks Durbin will not drum up the anti-doctor sentiment, (even if it is a minority viewpoint) they are wrong.
I know that Doctors get sued for malpractice all the time. It comes with the territory, especially in Illinois.
But who is to stop Durbin and his ilk from manipulating those statistics?
This idea that doctors get sued for malpractice all the time is ridiculous.
Go to the Cook County court website and do a search for your own doctor. I am pretty confident you are not going to find seven suits since 1995.
Moreover, this guy does internal medicine (family practice). It is not like he is a cardiologist or like he's delivering babies, where there are more suits than in other areas.
It not a matter of "doctors are bad." This is a simple matter of "THIS doctor is bad."
I can't wait until the press starts asking questions about what, as United States Senator, he would do to crack down on physicians.
I don't know but as far as I can tell that's all the Dr. has going for him.
Google around on the net and look for an interview with Dukakis about this election. He explains all of the potential wild cards out there.
It's fun to forecast these numbers but this is a very unusual election in unusual and volatile times.
I think Democrats have badly over reached and missed a great opportunity to join with Bush (and split the GOP) on immigration reform.
Durbin's gone one way with the senate and HRC is going to tack farther right next year leaving Durbin a guy with one foot on two logs drifting further apart.
Durbin an elastic fellow with bucks in the bank but with all the unknowns out there, who knows...he could sink.
I'd like to see those numbers.