Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Mark Kirk Q3 Fundraising Tops Giannoulias; Looking Ahead to the General (UPDATED x3: Hughes, Green, Hughes)

It's clearly way too early to look ahead to the November 2010 general election for U.S. Senate here in Illinois, but given the Q3 fundraising results claimed by the two front-runner candidates, GOP contender Congressman Mark Kirk ($1.6 million), and Democrat State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias ($1.1 million), it's sure tempting... and many would agree that it seems for now, at least, that these two gentlemen are the men to beat on their respective sides of the aisle.

Rich Miller over at Cap Fax played a little defense for Alexi recently and noted that the difference between Kirk's Q3 numbers and Alexi's could be attributed solely to a $500,000 fundraiser headlined by former presidential candidate John McCain this past quarter... but, so what? Alexi would have no doubt taken advantage of such an opportunity if he could... and whether Obama eventually comes out in support of Alexi remains to be seen. While Obama has gotten his hands messy in other primaries in other states, now that Lisa Madigan is off the table as a Senate candidate, the White House seems to be staying out of this, for now.

What will be interesting is if Alexi gets beaten up by former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman (who raised $400,000 and said he'd loan himself another $500,000) in the primary on ethical issues, but manages to still pull off a primary win, will Alexi be damaged enough that Barack Obama stays away?

As to other contenders, no numbers from Cheryl ROBINSON Jackson on the Dem side, but some other guy named Jacob Meister says he put $1 million into his campaign. Rich reports on this here.

On the GOP side, none of Kirk's other opponents have reported any Q3 numbers, which can't bode well for them. As much as I hate to admit reading Andy Martin's stuff, he points out that GOP hopeful Pat Hughes stated early on that he had "commitments" for $400,000, and Martin suggests that if Hughes' Q3 report shows anything less, then Hughes... well, you can read for yourself.

Given the vast sums of money that this race will consume, and given the millions in cash that the front runners that Kirk ($2.3 million) and Giannoulias ($2.4 million) have at the ready, any candidate on either side that isn't approaching at least half a mil of cash on hand simply doesn't have a prayer.

UPDATED: The Hill reported this afternoon that GOP contender Patrick Hughes raised only $380,000 for Q3 (and has only $340K cash on hand). And, apparently a majority of that $380K was self-financed. So much for the $400,000 in commitments that Hughes claimed when he entered the race.

Fork time for Hughes?

UPDATED x2 10/8/09 12:00 p.m.: Someone told me that Roll Call is reporting that 10th District GOP hopeful and wealthy businessman Dick Green raised $295,000 this quarter (with 266K cash on hand) but that $220,000 of the Q3 total was self-funded.

So far, no word on Q3 results from Beth Coulson or Bill Cadigan.

UPDATED x3 1:30 p.m.: The Tribune's Rick Pearson is reporting that Pat Hughes gave himself $250,000 out of the $380,000 he reported raising in Q3, which means that he raised only $130,000 from supporters. Pearson notes in the article that Hughes announced earlier that he had $400,000 in pledged support, but no indication in the article as to why that support did not materialize (at least not yet).


Anonymous said...

pat hughes had his 5 minutes, he got his picture with mike ditka, he can go run for PTA board president and stock up on Kirk literature and put his precinct walking shoes on.

the knife fight between hoffman, alexi, jackson is worthy buying tickets to, maybe some of the caramel popcorn. Nothing like a bunch of baby rats fighting for the last table scraps of their political careers.

the biggest FOKLAES

Anonymous said...

The fact that none of Kirk's primary opponents have announced any of their third quarter fundraising totals is a collectively bad sign for them and a good sign for Kirk.

Anonymous said...

Mark's conservative opponents are ego trips from a wing of the party that is increasingly irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Someone last night I was talking to called the arch-conservative wing of the Republican Party the "Milton Bradley" wing? When I pressed for an explanation, I received "self-centered, care only about themselves and their little causes, won't admit to their shortcomings and won't play with the rest of the team and sits out when things don't go his way."

I didn't think much of that when I first heard of it, but then later on while driving home I thought about the sports analogy and how united happy teams generally win and divisive elements in teams lead to losses. A diverse team with a strong line up (some who hit homeruns, some who hit singles, some who steal bases, some who strike batters out, some who get them to pop up, etc.) wins, but if a divisive Milton Bradley type is inserted?

So I'll toss it out to everyone here today for their views.

Are certain arch-conservatives in the Illinois GOP our Milton Bradleys and do they hurt the cause rather than help it? Are there certain members of the GOP who are not arch-conservatives who are also Milton Bradleys and do they hurt the cause rather than help it?

I'm curious as to your views.

Louis G. Atsaves

Anonymous said...

Hughes has no money

Anonymous said...

King Louis, The conservative wing was given carte blanche from moderates like mark from 2001-2007 nationally and were a total failure. The moderate wing was given carte blanche here in george ryan's era and was a failure. the future is somewhere in between and our leaders need to focus on finding that future.

Mitch Daniels to me is that future, he's a guy that could win up here, is a principled conservative and doesn't talk out of his ellen like huck, t-paw, sarahcudda, and romney (both holes depending on the day, pardon the language). He'll be on charlie rose friday night, and I think he and John Kasich-the next governor of Ohio are the real sleepers for 2012. FOKLAES gut tells him the next leaders of our party will be midwestern since there isn't a gop on the tree hugger coasts, the west is dumb, and America won't elect a southern gop for dog catcher for a generation.

Also Hamilton Chang is in for 17th state rep race. I don't know him, but I like that our party is running a jew for jan's seat and now an asian for coulson's seat. Diversity is what we need, though not coulson's acorn/blago/machine loving junk.


Anonymous said...

Not that it matters, but yesterday, "he who may not be mentioned on IR's site" said that "Hughes dumped Caprio", and today IR published a letter from Caprio, asking Wallace and others to get out of the race.


Anonymous said...


he wont even get on the ballott.

this is snow white and the 7 dwarfs.

Anonymous said...


I think the 'Milton Bradley' example applies to more than just the Illinois GOP. Nationally, the Republican Party has become nothing more than the party of 'gotcha', 'no', and roadblocks. I can only hope that the Democrats in Congress push back against these idiots and fall in line so that healthcare reform can finally become a reality.

Let's be honest for 1 minute, other than 1-2 members, NO Republicans have attempted to legitimately debate this issue. They accept ad-homenym attacks and use lies spewed by morons like Palin and Limbaugh as political rallying points--instead of enganging in a thoughtful debate (as they were elected to do).

The entire GOP reminds me of Bradley and the Cubs, lots of false promises that results in a lot of pouting and NO production.

Until Next Time,

A Concerned Colonial

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Concerned Colonial,

You Democrats may have your own set of Milton Bradleys both locally and nationally as well. The White House Chief of Staff comes to mind, he who wanted a "placeholder" for his House Seat. Blagojevich and others also qualify. Richard Daley has been extremely selfish over the years, rarely endorsing or pushing other Democrats to elected offices.

Your comment of: "Let's be honest for 1 minute, other than 1-2 members, NO Republicans have attempted to legitimately debate this issue."

Your statement quoted above is nonsense. Republicans have been legitimately debating and proposing health care reforms for quite some time now. Sadly, the Democrats choose to ignore much of what Republicans are saying on this topic and pretend that Republicans aren't interested, other than to say "no." Keeping Republican proposals for health care reform bottled up in committee while pushing plans the public is revolting against is not good politics.

That type of political "debate" and behavior in this country is poisonous and leads to no good for this nation. And its time it is stopped.

It is the type of behavior which lead to Springfield Democrats proclaiming their "Ethics Reform" package as being "Landmark Legislation" when passed, then a month later, begging for it to be vetoed so they could try again.

Calling it "reform" when it isn't doesn't make it "reform." All you are doing is putting "lipstick on a pig," an expression which sent Democrats and the media into a tizzy last year when Palin said it.

Perhaps its time to get out of tizzy mode and try governing mode?

Anonymous said...

Oops! Forgot to put my name on my posting. Anon 11:00 a.m. is me!

Sorry about that!

Louis G. Atsaves

Anonymous said...

Okay let’s be honest:
Congressman Kirk has legitimately debated these issues at numerous town-halls throughout the state; this is in contrast to Senators Durbin and Burris who haven’t found it necessary to confer with their employers (the people) before falling in line to support whatever Reid, Pelosi and Obama tell them to.

The “party of road-blocks” is the democrats, how much of a majority do Reid/ Pelosi/ Obama need to pass legislation? Because apparently a super-majority isn’t enough; even using reconciliation.

But why would you consider inconveniences like facts or the Constitution when they interfere with your chance at shouting ad homonyms, like “moron” and “idiots” yourself? I’m sure childish hypocrisy is the best way for the informed debate you claim to desire.
-A concerned veteran

Anonymous said...

So now we learn that Hughes only raised $130,000 from real donors? Go back to the minor leagues man...

Anonymous said...

Hughes may not even have any intention of actually spending that money he put in either- he may have just taken out a 401K loan and put it in to try to gain momentum. Let's see if he actually spends more than the $130 he raised from others.

Anonymous said...


it was never about ron santo or pat hughes it was about the conservatives bringing mark to heel and mark getting the conservatives behind him. Now that he's said all the right things (promised to support conservative judges, god, guns, gays, abortion)this guy is toast.

As for rest of q3 fundraising predictions

cadigan 450k-porter $
coulson 650k-ACORN/Machine/blago $
Pup 780k-not including pro-tehran $/unemployment checks. It would be higher but he appears to have lost the bitter old nasty hate israel socialist woman vote.