Friday, January 22, 2010

Hughes for Senate Campaign Stalls Out In Fundraising; Only $135,000 Raised Since October 2009, $22K Cash Left (UPDATED x4, WITH REPORT)

Back in August 2009, when staunch conservative Patrick Hughes appeared out of nowhere to challenge Congressman Mark Kirk for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate, one of the immediate questions he was asked was, how do you expect to compete with Kirk, who is one of the most successful fundraisers in Congress? Hughes brushed off that concern, claiming when he announced his candidacy that he had over $400,000 in commitments. He also implied that, as a successful real estate developer, he had the ability to self-fund.

Fast forward to the end of the Q3 reporting period, when we found out that Hughes had raised only $132,205. He then made a $250,000 loan (not a contribution) to himself. So much for those commitments he talked up to attract supporters and media attention. (For comparison, for the same Q3 period last year, Kirk raised more than $1.6 million)

But, never fear, Hughes said he understood that a candidate needs money to run a legitimate and competitive campaign, and he would be able to raise $1.5 million for the primary. It seems many people who thought about supporting a guy like former Judge Don Lowery were attracted to Hughes at least in part because they believed his claims that he could raise enough money to run a competitive race.

Well, fast forward once more to less than two weeks before the primary. Did Hughes meet that fundraising goal?

Um, no. Based on his pre-primary filing with the FEC, which covers the period from October 1, 2009 to January 13, 2010 (in other words, all of the 4th Quarter plus the first two weeks of January), he raised a grand total of only $135,488.68. He also paid himself back $3,000 out of his campaign fund, according to his FEC filing, so that reduced his outstanding loan balance to himself. Starting to pay himself back from his fund before the campaign is even over, coupled with his overall anemic fundraising, left Hughes with only $22,561.34 cash in the bank.

Well, you're not going to buy a lot of campaign ads with $22K.

Getting back to that $1.5 million he said he'd raise, it turns out he's raised a grand total of only $267,694.01 for the entire campaign cycle, after excluding his $250K loan. That leaves him a little shy of $1.2 million more needed to reach his goal.

Leaving aside the issue of whether we can believe Pat when he makes his grandiose claims of fundraising prowess and how he is the "only" candidate who can beat Mark Kirk, anyone considering a vote for Hughes needs to take serious measure of whether anyone realistically can believe that he has a chance to win in November against the Democratic nominee. (Just for comparison's sake, Dem front-runner Alexi Giannoulias has raised over $3.5 million so far).

As most regular Team America readers know, I went to law school with Pat; we were friends, and spent many an hour studying together. But I told him candidly that I was a Kirk supporter, and that I felt that Mark was far more qualified than Pat to be a U.S. Senator. Pat would have been a great candidate for state rep. or some other office where he could have learned the ropes of campaigning and fundraising. But, he is clearly in over his head and his lackluster fundraising shows it. As Republicans, we can't afford to make a wrong choice when the chance to retake this seat is so good, IF we have the right candidate for this electorate.

Let's make an intelligent choice and vote for Mark Kirk, so we can get a win in November and another R seat in the U.S. Senate.

UPDATED: Hughes Supporters Still Trying to Clear Conservative Field: This is rich. Pat Hughes' supporters continue to try to make the case that their guy Pat is the only conservative with a chance to defeat Mark Kirk, and the rest (Arrington, Lowery, etc.) should bail. Why? Well, because only he can raise the money it takes!

Maybe they should read Team America. Or at least ask Pat what his fundraising success REALLY is.

This nothing new, of course. Hughes and his minions have been trying to make this a two-person race between he and Kirk for months now. Amazingly, however, the other candidates were not convinced by Pat that he was the only man for the job. Hmm, wonder why.

UPDATED x2: Here's a link to the full Hughes report on the website.

UPDATED x3: Here's a link to an interesting post collecting a number of links that seem to suggest that Hughes is letting the "best of the rest" race slip into the hands of Judge Donald Lowery from downstate. Hmm, wonder if the Hughes supporters will take their own advice and coalesce behind Lowery... NOT.

UPDATED x4: HUGHES BLASTS KIRK EXTREMISM: Doug Finke of the Gatehouse News Service had this to say about Pat Hughes:

In the Republican race for U.S. Senate, Patrick Hughes recently blasted U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Highland Park for being "extraordinarily moderate to liberal." Ouch, that's gotta hurt. In today's political climate the last thing you want is to be known as an extreme moderate.

Ha Ha Ha Ha!


Anonymous said...

Oh well, promises made, promises hardly kept in his case. Now, if only the staunch hard liners in our party can see that without their support of Mark Kirk, all they do is help guarantee that Alexi will help the president and that pathetic administration continue to drag our great nation down some pretty dangerous paths.
IF, as they claim, they stand for all the values we cherish, then NOW is the time to show it, to prove it by voting for Mark Kirk who will join Senator Scott Brown in helping restore some kind of order to the US Senate. Nobody agrees with everything anyone does, not even our mates in life. Get over it. We're now in the major league fight of a lifetime and it's mandatory that we all get the message that you've been saying, TA. Keep posting on that subject, TA and you just might sway them to see reality.

Anonymous said...


Great post - guess the "anybody but Kirk" crowd is bigger than I thought - maybe 2% of the vote....

Anonymous said...


Where do voters go to review Hughes FEC report?

Team America said...

I have a hardcopy but it's 86 pages long. I assume it should be up on the website soon for download.

Crazy4glf said...

"That pathetic Administration"

Given what we were told about those who disagreed with the spend-thrift ways of the previous Administration (including give him a chance, he means well, he's doing the best he can), these are not the most prudent, respectful terms.

(Say what you want about me, I won't stoop to calling people who disagree with someone unAmerican.)

If an intelligent President with more than a full plate (did this happen between 1/19/09 and 1/20/09?) is pathetic, I wonder what one would call an Administration that didn't include the cost of 2 wars in their own annual budget. An Administration that put forth tax cuts without the revenue stream to pay for it. An Administration that advocated for the only legislation I know of known for the gaping hole in it.

I know, how is this relevant?

It is relevant because the 'Thoughful Independent' person running to represent our great, progressive (like it or not) state not only voted for all of the aforementioned, but also failed to call into question the borrowing from foreign countries, the questionable (pathetic?) political appointments (where Dem's were 'warned' not to use the nuclear option), and the inability to manage.
(Israel did more to help Haiti within 24 hours of arriving there than the Bush Administration did in New Orleans for the first week after Katrina.)

Somehow, a person with a mediocre command of the English language, foreign affairs, and the cost of gas is a great President who's decisions should not be challenged.

Somehow, someone who claims to be an expert in military intelligence, a thoughtful independent, and someone we should vote for regardless of regard for party affiliation despite his failure to do the same in Congress is a statesment.

And the current Administration is pathetic? I wonder what would be said of McCain-Palin; of course, Palin would have called for her own replacement by now.

Oh well, if Kirk loses, there's a spot at Fox News for him.

Maybe Mr. Hughes was expecting the Supreme Court decision to have come a lot sooner, allowing 'corporate citizens' to have their disproportionate say about politics. (A group of justices requesting a case's attorney's to expand the scope of a case is the definition of activist justices, conservatives...)

Say what you want about me, complaining about a filibuster then threatening to use it, failing to adequately account for 2 wars on an annual budget, an unfunded tax cut, and demanding to be part of the process regarding legislation you don't believe in does not good policy make.

Team America said...

Um, yeah, so Crazy, I can count on your vote for Kirk in the GOP primary, right? Good.

Anonymous said...

Hughes has $22k?


Anonymous said...

pup got out raised 3-1 and raised a pitiful 181k between october and mid january. (mark raised 10x that).

one can only say 11 days until pups 3 magic words are

monster dot com.


Anonymous said...

How can anyone think Hughes has got a chance in the general election? ALL he's proven is that he fails consistently to reach his fundraising targets, and has not shown that he's capable of raising the MILLIONS necessary to win in Novem. VOting for this doofus would be handing the race to Giann. or Hoff. Oh screw it, he;s a conservative so vote for him and brag you;re a tough guy who won't be pushed into doing what makes sense.

Anonymous said...

No, Crazy4Golf, you are wrong again. It's really sad that you want to continue to drink your own brand of Kool Aid, but hey, this is a great country where one can do that if it helps them feel great about beating up on Mr. Kirk. I'll be you were drinking a hell of a lot than Kool Aid last Tuesday night when the Bluest State in the nation spoke out about your terrific leaders in DC. Mr. Kirk won't lose, sorry for you and your buddies. The VAST majority of rational folks in IL can see just what the MA voters are seeing in the crooked, Chicago style crappy politics now transported to the Potomac. Talk about a guy who has let everyone down and that is YOUR HERO. Keep on sniping at Mark Kirk. It seems to be helping our side, so keep it up. What Kirk does is out in the open. What your team does is behind closed doors, secret deals for unions, sweetheart deals to buy the votes of reluctant Senators. And you have the gaul to pick on Kirk? Geez. Get a grip

Anonymous said...

Hey TA - I read that link to Champion News (the Jack Roeser project) where John Biven has the gall to demand that all other conservative candidates abandon the race because they don't have ENOUGH MONEY!

I heard Hughes had a conniption that Pat Brady said nice things about Mark Kirk on a recent ILGOP conference call and screamed about how wrong it is for the "establishment" to take sides. I guess it's only the Roeser/Caprio/SB600 "establishment" that gets to anoint candidates and tell people who to vote for. Disgusting.

Anonymous said...

TA - Anon 7:50 here again. I forgot to mention that Senator Jim DeMint's "Senate Conservatives Fund" has abandoned Hughes and is scraping all of its money together to support Marco Rubio down in Florida. So much for Patrick Hughes's trips down to SC to beg for money from DeMint. Looks like DeMint knew a loser when he saw one.

Anon 7:50

Anonymous said...


nacilbupera said...

Being a lifelong Republican, I could not dare support Kirk even if he were to win in the primary. Consider:
(1) Kirk was one of only 8 GOP House members who voted for Cap N Tax and thus ensured its passage
(2) Kirk voted for TARP bailout in both House votes
(3) Kirk was one of only 9 GOP House members voting AGAINST Mike Pence's amendment to prohibit Federal Title X funding of abortions through Planned Parenthood
(4) Kirk disrespects our 2nd Amendment rights and scored a D, F, and F- while in Congress by the NRA and Gun Owners of America.
And the list goes on (see Free Republic. In our perspective Kirk is a Progressive with no respect for the Constitution nor important GOP Platform issues.
Nacilbupera believes citizens should vote for a principled candidate and the ability of Kirk to raise money from corporations like every other incumbent matters little to us. Perhaps now in lieu of the Supreme Court's ruling this week, it matters nothing.
Sometimes you have to put away preconceived notions, fundraising targets, and polls and vote for the candidate who would support their oath to uphold the Constitution. With no disrespect for Hughes who talks the talk, for us that person is Judge Don Lowery.

Team America said...

Nacilbupera - I'm sure, then, as a "lifelong Republican," once Kirk wins the primary, you will chose to support him rather than Alexi Giannoulias.

Anonymous said...

Hey TA, any chance you can do some of the legwork on the fundraising story out of the 10th race? Or, how do you look that stuff up?

Team America said...

Anon 1:11, I know I've been lax in not getting to that; been a bit tied up. But for now, here's a nice wrap up by the Pioneer Press and another helpful article by CQ Politics.

Anonymous said...

10th dems are debating right now on this.

dolt and blago beth should have interns taperecording lots of talking out the ellen thus far.

pup said he saw a house with a kirk and seals law signs. oof.

hamos has already called for a 50 percent tax increase.


Anonymous said...

we are 30 minutes into the 10th or should I say 9th democrats debate. job creation has come up 0 times, spending other peoples money has been the topic of debate the ENTIRE time. This is what happens when you get an unemployed guy seeking a government job and a government beuracrat seeking a better paying government job, wanting to be your congressmen.

tehran julie talking about people hurting. the people that are hurting are the people whose businesses have been killed to pay for her wasteful spending.

elliot richardson sounds ok by the way, we should recruit him to our team. he clearly hates his team.

fan of king louis astaves the ellen pup and alexi slayer.

Anonymous said...

debate on foreign policy.

time to hear them hate on America and israel.

tehran julie not a fan of invasion of Iraq. Sadaam Hussein was funding suicide bombers at 25k a dead israeli. Maybe she should make hamas green the colors of her campaign.

Pup is lying and wrong on 100,000 things i am too tired.

Richardson is letting tehran julie have it over springfield. Ant needs to call him and get him to run for state senate.


Anonymous said...

pup barking about his job.

he lectures, he wrote a report about jobs, he doesn't have a job, he holds forums on womens health care. HAH! This guy is warren buffet.

richardson on sputnik. are we on a space tour of nasa?

Julie-you've written that I am an evanston liberal! I am not an evanston liberal-but I want to raise your taxes. In springfield we are about responsibility. (blago?). I will be between comrade jan and wallstreet melissa bean. Translation I will be both a communist and a wall street funded hack.


Anonymous said...

TA, I think your link to Hughes' report is broken. Here it is:

Team America said...

Thanks, fixed that link now.

Hey, FOKLAEAPS, GREAT report! I was LOL!

Anonymous said...

I realize we still have a hughes to blow out, but we can't lose our seat. Senator Kirk needs allies. I have no love in my heart for dolt, blagocoulson or gang (dick)green, but what I heard today was barf from that debate.

It takes a village idiot to be a democrat it takes a village to raise a child it takes a whole party to take down a country being run by people elected by village idiots. Also if mark doesn't win the general, remember this is chicago anything can happen. we are screwed.


Anonymous said...

Did Arie Friedman raise more than $100,000?

Anonymous said...

No, Dr. Friedman raised, in total, about $35,000. Can't go far on 35K. Had he started early enough, or had some kind of background, anything at all, he might have been able to raise some real money. Lots of small contributors. Hope he stays involved and tries again.

Anonymous said...

This is a partial list from a DC publication. Hope it answers some questions.

10th district: In the race to succeed Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), state Rep. Julie Hamos (D) had another impressive fundraising quarter. She raised $526,000 from October through Jan. 13 for a total of more than $1 million raised for the cycle. Hamos reported having $385,000 in the bank at the end of the period, plus about $29,000 in debt.

Marketing consultant Dan Seals (D), the party’s nominee in 2006 and 2008, raised about $180,00 from October through Jan. 13, and reported $146,000 cash on hand at the end of that period. Seals has raised $497,000 in the cycle so far.

On the Republican side, businessman Bob Dold had another strong quarter and outraised all of his opponents for a second time. Dold raised $201,000 from October through mid-January for a total of $459,000 raised this cycle. Dold reported $198,000 cash on hand plus $51,000 in debt.

State Rep. Elizabeth Coulson (R) raised about $150,000 in the latest period, bringing her cycle-to-date total to $370,000 (including $90,000 from her own pocket). She had about $132,000 cash on hand according to her pre-primary report.

Businessman Dick Green raised $17,000 during the pre-primary period. He has raised $323,000 this cycle, including $226,000 in personal funds. Green reported having $67,000 in the bank.

Anonymous said...

Friedman's $35,000 is less than Cadigan raised....hard to make an argument that he can beat the democrats if he can't even raise at least $100,000 in the primary, as it costs a lot of money to run a competitive campaign in the 10th...I was worried about this. Looks like I'm gonna have to go with Dolt to beat Coulson.

nacilbupera said...

TA: To be clear, neither Giannoulias nor Kirk has demonstrated principles worthy of us keeping our mouth shut against them let alone an endorsement.

We have voted Republican 95%+ of the time, but sometimes you get a candidate like Scozzafava in NY-23or Kirk that has gone out of their way to really give our Party cause to groan.

You will find there are a surprising number of GOP voices that will not rally behind Kirk because of his lack of principles. The era of Republican Partisanship is waning, the era of Republican Principles and reading our Constitution is rising.

Let me ask you: what good did it do the Partisan Republicans of PA to see their unprincipled Senator Spector switch parties causing the 60th vote for the Democrats...and almost getting the healthcare scheme into law? Partisanship has failed us.

We furthermore join voices with Red State in calling for Kirk's withdrawal.

Team America said...

Kirk's withdrawal? What planet do you people live on?

He should withdraw because he is the only proven fundraiser that can take on Sexi Lexi?

He should withdraw because of his stellar military service record?

He should withdraw because every single major newspaper in Illinois had endorsed him?

He should withdraw because Eric Wallace, who couldn't even win an election for state rep. is threatening to run as an independent (which I'm not even sure he can still do, given the timing, I'll have to look into it)

He should withdraw because his >$3 million in the bank pales in comparison to Hughes' $22K?

He should withdraw because none of his opponents broke over 5% in the last poll and none of them have released a poll showing that any of them are gaining on Kirk?

He should withdraw because none of his opponents can even afford to do a poll?

Please let me know when you come back to reality, and then maybe we can have a rational conversation about IL politics, and how we intend to win this state back in November by backing Kirk.

Anonymous said...


As your name suggests you truly are a "backward" republican...

Anonymous said...


Right On post!! Some of your posters don't really live on this planet. Kirk can actually win this seat if people accept the fact he is the only candidate in the Republican Primary tracking over 5%. We need to come together and make Mark Kirk our next Senator from Illinois!!!

nacilbupera said...

TA: Wow. "What planet [we] live on"?

Look, unlike Andy Martin we have attacked neither you nor Kirk on anything but issues. Frankly, TA, having lived many years in CA we admire your partisan courage in a deep blue state and you seemed to us to write fairly. As Nacilbupera we fundamentally and passionately disagree with Kirk and his liberal voting record (we gave 4 specific examples) and will speak up for what we feel is right.

As far as fundraising, you are simply pointing out the fact that EVERY incumbent outraises his or her opponent because Big Business regularly donate to BOTH Democratic and GOP candidates in their lobbying efforts. It hardly bespeaks to a grassroots movement where citizens sacrifice of a "widow's mite" of $5 or $10 to help a Scott Brown or Doug Hoffman.

ANONYMOUS: Call us backwards if you will...but honestly (presuming you are GOP) you mock a GOP ally not a foe.

Team America said...

Nacilbupera - Come on. Your suggestion, echoing the hyperpartisans at Redstate, that Kirk should withdraw, is simply ludicrous.

Not only do we reject your implied premise that even if Kirk would withdraw and hand the nomination to Hughes, or Lowery, or whomever, the nominee to win in Illinois will have to be able to compete in a modern election (which requires a TON of money, none of which the GOP also-rans have shown any ability to generate), but he will also have to win over the moderates and independents. While good moderate GOPers will vote for a conservative, assuming that they are not completely over-the-top like Alan Keyes (who got something like 26% of the vote and even TA is proud to have under-voted), you can't win an Illinois state-wide election on self-identifying Republicans alone. A dogmatic fire-breathing GOP right-winger like Hughes is not going to be able to attract independents and he personally would get eaten alive by Sexi Lexi and The Machine because he simply doesn't have the stuff. Believe me, I know. But you can just look at his record of how he's run his campaign so far (botched Ditka endorsement, no press endorsements, no money raised, almost broke 2 weeks before the election, squandering his money on consultants and staff with nothing left to even do a poll).

So, I'm glad you're a fan of the blog, but I think the CA sun must have addled your brain. Maybe it's time to come back to the Midwest for a sensibility injection.

Please stop the senseless suggestions that Kirk should withdraw, or in fact, that anyone but Kirk has a chance to win this seat in November. The stakes are just too important.

Anonymous said...

Nacilbupera, I'm have a hard time trying to understand who or what you represent other than far, far right ideas. Like TA, I am firmly, strongly behind the election of Mark Kirk for Senate. You are hopefulessly out of your mind if you think that in this State, anyone with your ideas and ideals can or should win. They can't. They won't. Is Mark perfect. Of course not. Mark Kirk IS the best hope we have of a principled, decent, honest, dedicated voice of the people in a Blue State at this critical time in our history. Pat Hughes offers nothing to the average voter. Get that through your head. Kirk is a proven leader and vote getter. As hard as the Democrats have tried in 2006 and 2008, Kirk prevailed. Nobody agrees with anyone on every issue. On balance, Kirk offers the best choice our State has had to restore Integrity, Leadership and Balance to the Senate.
Babble on all you want. Your way is a guarantee that Alexi will waltz right into the Senate next January. You call yourself a Republican. I challenge you to re-state that statement to say that you are a 100% CONSERVATIVE voter, period, end of discussion. Going down your path gets us nowhere.

Anonymous said...

I apologize in advance if this ends up double-posting but it didn't seem to go through the first time.......

A republican win of Obama's former US Senate seat here in Illinois would be huge and deal a psychological blow to the Obama administration. Mark Kirk and Scott Brown are similar candidates and Mark Kirk has a real shot at winning that Senate seat. Outsiders seem to think that Scott Brown is a hard right conservative and that his win was somehow a win for hard right politics. My friends who live out there (who are hard right republicans btw) say that's not the case, there AREN'T ANY hard right republicans in politics in MA. Brown won because the people in the middle wanted someone to represent them and Coakley was not that person.

Those of us who actually live here in IL-10 and know the politics of our neighbors know that Mark Kirk is that rare republican who can win statewide. He has avoided the taint of the corrupt democrat/republican/organized crime 'Combine' that runs the politics of this state.

Outsiders should stop applying litmus tests to viable candidates here in the Peoples Republic of Illinois. Hughes is a weak candidate who has run a lackluster campaign. Alexi Giannoulis (D-IL) would be a disaster as the next senator from Illinois, but he will be a formidable opponent in the general election.

Hughes would never know what hit him. If Hughes wants a future in politics, he needs to actually start voting once in awhile, and supporting his fellow republicans. Trying to sabotage a fellow republican, one of the few decent republicans in the whole state, is not my idea of a team player or a good senator

nacilbupera said...

TA: Nacilbupera's brain works just fine, thank you, and hasn't been addled (great verb though, btw!) We are proud of our midwestern heritage being born and raised in MO and familiar with the incessant IL corruption--acutely so in Chicago which is about as bad as it gets (although MA has certainly been trying to oust Chicago for that claim-to-fame.)

We don't think so, but concede you might be correct in claiming that Kirk has the best chance of beating Giannoulias. For when we look at NY-23 at how the GOP candidate Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat and despite this Hoffman almost pulled off a victory (looks like he'll win this year) we have to wonder two things: (1) By supporting Kirk, are we willing to risk a Specter- or Scozzafava-style defection from Kirk to the Democratic Party & (2) are we really securing GOP votes in Congress or will Kirk continue to side with the Democrats on important issues as he has?

Thus we feel you misread our intentions for calling for Kirk's withdrawal: not because of his lack of electoral viability, but because the combined draw of other candidates in the primary seem to us to be forming at minimum a majority (like Brown, with late momentum building we could see a Lowery or a Hughes plurality primary upset) and have been collectively written off by the old-school media as you aptly highlight. With a rejection of Kirk's liberal voting record by having him withdraw, we could elect a candidate whom independent voters would see as a stark contrast to the corrupt, pervasive liberalism they are used to seeing in Democrat-dominated IL. We feel that deep rejection of incumbency and sticking to principles is what would really appeal to independent-minded voters whom we both agree are key in the general election.

ANONYMOUS: Nacilbupera is an unabashed Conservative within the GOP party. Yet having voted for non-conservative GOP candidates, we are not needlessly blind to the need to rally and always weigh in balance positions. For example, Nacilbupera voted for and financially supported McCain whom we feel is "Progressive-lite" after our preferred candidate in the GOP primary lost. But let me ask you: are you 100% partisan or do you have your lines in the sand where you say "enough is enough"? With that said, Kirk is more than we can trust, tolerate, or support.

nacilbupera said...


"A republican win of Obama's former US Senate seat here in Illinois would be huge and deal a psychological blow to the Obama administration."

We have to give you our honest, non-sarcastic praise here: this is the best appeal we have heard yet from anyone on how to reach out non-Kirk GOPers like Nacilbupera and really tore at our GOP heartstrings. With this argument you just made it difficult for us to bask in a Brown victory and put Kirk on the other side. We cannot support Kirk in a primary, but maybe we won't be quite so disappointed if he beats Giannoulias either. We'll remember this; thank-you all. Keep up the hard work in the 10th and keep Kirk in line with the party should he win!

Anonymous said...


you may need protection with the way you are hammering hughes at your law school reunion. he might threaten to get jim demint to say mean things about you.


Team America said...

FOLKLAEAPS- your concern is touching, but don't worry. I spoke with Pat at the Lake County Republican Federation Fall dinner and I think we understand each other. He'll do what he needs to do, and so will I. How he conducts himself after he loses the primary will be a good measure of what kind of Republican he is.

Actually, we just had our law school reunion and Pat was a no-show. Maybe he was afriad to debate me. ;-)

Don't worry about DeMint- he won't even give Pat any money- I doubt he cares much about this race- he's focusing on Rubio where he thinks he's got a chance.

And we have more in store for Pat...

Anonymous said...

Enquiring Minds Want To Know how the polls look for the Republican Primary race for US Senate/Illinois on Feb 2nd. Here is what the Chicago Tribune poll looks like, as of Dec 14, 2009:

Kirk 41%
Thomas 3%
Hughes 3%
Arrington 2%
Martin 2%
Zadek 1% (has dropped out)
Lowrey 1%

Other 1%
Undecided 46%

Mark Kirk is in the lead because he is running an effective, intelligent campaign. He's personable and a good retail politician. He has apologized for his cap & trade vote, which was made to please the many liberals in his IL-10 district.

Kirk can take on Giannoulis and beat him, none of the other candidates are a match for the Chicago dem machine.

(I couldn't find a more recent poll, if there is one maybe TA can post it)

Anonymous said...


team, you should get him to use his money on finding your blue devils a decent hoops coach. talk about an awful basketball team.

If you did a dumpster dive behind one of the 8,600,000 statewide republican campaign hqs youd find some form of shredded poll. the poll would have kirk up huge but the support would be weak.

10 days and it will be something like 65-20 but a lot of conservatives will leave it blank. Mark has his work cut out for him, hughes didn't make the sale for hughes, but every republican I talk to including some of marks top endorsements really hate him over cap and trade, so he has done some damage and also forced mark to move right which set up a bad narrative for the fall and tainted him with the media. This is a hold your nose and support vote for conservatives not a we want to have your babies vote. I am sure you'll see some tea party or 3rd party independent.


nacilbupera said...


"[Kirk] has apologized for his cap & trade vote, which was made to please the many liberals in his IL-10 district."

We find no record of Kirk using any words of regret or apology (IE "I'm sorry" "I regret" "I wish I had voted differently") for his Cap n Tax vote. Yes, he offered an explanation but this is quite a bit different that an apology.

To Nacilbupera, this explanation rather than apology shows he still stands behind his vote and would vote to raise taxes and buck the party if he were again representing the district.

Anonymous said...

New Chicago Tribune Poll: Kirk 47, Hughes 8.

Good night, Mr Hughes, thanks for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you.