Yesterday, Governor Pat Quinn decided to go ahead with plans for a special election to fill the remainder of the U.S. Senate term of now-President Barack Obama, in the face of decision by a federal district judge that was already beginning to shape that process.
We're been paying particular attention to this story, given the potential political drama that may unfold if current U.S. Senator Roland Burris does not meekly bow to the unfolding plan to simply place the winners of the primary election on the ballot for the special election, and corresponding damage to the Democrats, who don't need any reminders to the voters that the current U.S. Senator was placed there by disgraced former Guv Rod Blagojevich.
As we predicted, Burris is continuing to rattle his saber that he will exercise whatever options he has to give him, rather than Alexi Giannoulias, a chance to be on the special election ballot. How real this threat is, well, who knows, since he's still in debt from his previous battle to be seated in the U.S. Senate, has a less-than-stellar recent record as a fundraiser, and is generally looked at with mixed degrees of derision and pity by many Illinoisans, it seems.
Aside from the Burris-Giannoulias drama, the fact that we will now have two elections appears to open the floodgates for 'maxed-out' donors for both Alexi Giannoulias and Mark Kirk to double down and re-declare their faithful support, and contribute thousands more to their campaigns. I'm just guessing, but given Kirk's fundraising prowess, and his record of beating the pants off Giannoulias in the head-to-head fundraising battle in this race, I'd say the advantage goes to Kirk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
I am still wondering, is there precedent that will allow them to raise funds for two races? One piece I read indicated that both elections will be on the same ballot. Does that influence whether they can raise funds for both races? I do agree this helps Kirk as he will double up on his fund raising efforts.
Seals leads Dold 46-38.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/IL-10%20Memo.pdf
It looks like Dold has essentially consolidated the Republican base (30%-35%(, with smattering of independents and Democrats.
Dan Seals has retained his coalition from '06/'08 despite the bad environment. I don't know how Dold can win especially since Seals is reeling in lots of those Democrats and Independents who kept voting for Kirk.
The memo says Seals is pulling 16% of Kirk voters from '08. Just to give you perspective if you were to rerun the '08 election and give Seals 16% of Kirk's supporters Seals would have won with 55% of the vote.
Memo to 10th District Republicans: It's time to cut your losses and focus on the Senate Race and the Gubernatorial Race.
John Doe
I forgot to mention:
The poll was conducted in May, before many negatives about Dold came out.
Seals' paid media is going to keep this guy down.
Dold doesn't even have any new attacks on Seals, he keeps going for the same plays which let Seals win 47% of the vote twice.
Dold has vulnerabilities Kirk never had.
John Doe
I am not a dold fan at all but
1) that poll is 2 months old.
2) the analysis in it is about as credible and real as its client. translation, not.
3)seals is down 2 points from his showing in 06 in that sucker so to say he's retained his coalition is like calling stroger an honorable guy.
4)seals is not going to end up with 21 percent of marks voters this fall. he'll be lucky to crack 5 percent, at best. that poll was done in may when dold hadn't even begun to start wooing kirk independents and democrats because those voters don't vote in republican primaries in february.
5) seals is running 15 points BEHIND obama in 08 in the district in that thing, want to explain that?
6) seals has been seeking this seat for more than 6 years, he is for all intents and purposes the INCUMBENT in this race and yet is still below 50 percent, and not even barely on the line. Incumbents below 50 percent lose 98 percent of elections.
7)there are still polls out there that show alexi beating mark. that's the independent and moderate vote not showing up yet and the democrat vote that's not going to turn out this year for a variety of reasons showing up. Also republican voter intensity I am told from friends at the RNC is scoring the highest in internal polling since 9-11. that won't be factored in to these polls which are heavily weighted d.
8) if this was as good as seals thinks it is, he would have released it in may when it came out. he didn't.
9)if dan was winning 9/10 democrats as he says he is, and was up 10 points with independents he'd be blowing dold out and well over 50 percent and in the low 60's.
10. The polling company is notorious for push polls and dirty politics and like the candidate has come under investigation.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/gop-asks-for-poll-investigation
FOKLAEAPS
FOKLAES you do lay out some of the basics, which are true, but then your overwhelming urge to bullshit takes over.
1. Yes, the poll is 2 months old
2. I never mentioned the analysis, because the analysis typically is garbage. I did however mention the partisan breakdowns.
3. FOKLAES, here you just show your ignorance of polling and statistics in general. Polling isn't an exact science and a difference of 2 points is pretty negligible. It's small enough that running the same exact poll twice and come up with numbers that are more than 2 points apart. The point here is that Seals is within the ballpark of what he got last time, which shows that his coalition was more or less intact despite a bruising primary with Hamos and a bad environment.
4. You and I are going to have to disagree on this one. I think Seals is at least going to pull in the vast majority of the Democrats who voted for Kirk, and he's going to do better with independents. He's already pretty close to 50%+1 so it's not like he needs to pull in so many. And for the record if pulls in 5% (the figure you picked) of Kirk's voters from '08 that makes it too close to call at about 50-50.
5. I think this is a false comparison. You're trying to compare one of the best years on record for Democrats with a good year for Republicans. Your also comparing a wildly popular presidential candidate in his home state to a Republican who's too conservative to win in Illinois for any office in the 10th district. I will however concede that Dan Seals is not Barack Obama, and accordingly isn't as strong. That being said I think it's a stupid comparison. If you want to cite data go back to '06/'08, or even go back to the last open seat race in 2000.
Continued Below
John Doe
6. First off that nugget of conventional wisdom is garbage: Check out this story from 538 http://tiny.cc/3f24f
Secondly there's a hell of a lot more to the incumbency than longevity and name ID. The big thing for Seals is that there are lots of people and organizations who never even thought of supporting him when he was running against Kirk. He has full 10%-20% more of the electorate to play around with now. Kirk always had access to these people, Seals never did.
7. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Most congressional campaigns don't have the funds to generate 2 sets of polling, one for internal use and one for public consumption. Seals never used that tactic in the past, so their pollster likely took that into account.
8. I have no idea why this was released now. My best guess is that they're trying to put the screws to the Dold campaign.
9. FOKLAES you need to check your math on this one. 16% of people are undecided, and the vast majority of undecideds are Independents.
According to the poll Seals leads with Independents 41%-32%. Seals' boost in his performance with Democrats is responsible for his better than usual numbers. The independents are just as, if not more, undecided as they've ever been.
10. FOKLAES your utter lack of knowledge of polling is showing yet again. Push Polls have been so thoroughly hyped by the media that every time a campaign does message testing it's called a push poll by the campaign's opponents. What's going on in NH is exactly this, and there's the added advantage of having a law on the books, which can make this story even sexier for reporters.
This poll puts Dan Seals right back where he was in '08, except he's got a weaker opponent who's running a poor campaign. What's more, Seals can now court those Kirk Dems, and it looks like he's done a solid jov of already locking them up. There was always a segment of the population which like both Kirk and Seals, which broke for Kirk both cycles. Now they're going to gravitate to Seals.
Also Seals has the added bonus of having hired actual campaign professionals this cycle as opposed to his old team, who I think we can all agree was pretty inept.
John Doe
1. the analysis is what they are paying the pollster for. In case you've never been in the senior leadership of a campaign, the pollsters are front and center in the discussion as to strategy on messaging, ads ect. They are setting their client up to fail with this bs, which is fine by me.
2. The poll is 2 months old, and they release it now is not a good sign.
3. There's no way he's getting KIRK voters AND retaining his base if his support has SHRUNK. 1+1 does not equal -1. Your union thug dominated chicago public school education is showing.
4. Dold had not yet begun to fight for moderates soft democrats and independents when this was taken. He can lose some kirk democrats and still win because the voter intensity on the gop side is going to be sky high this year and democrat voter intensity is going to be off. Seals is not going to get glencoe kids at michigan voting absentee for obama and checking his name because it has a d after it this year either. Does dold need to do better with democrats than the ass hats running his campaign have done thus far?
yes. As good as mark in 06 and 08 or even 00? No.
5. People that give to sierra club and personal pac aren't voting republican anyway. Endorsements don't matter anymore. Ask coulson how well those porter and edgar endorsements went for her.
any organization stupid enough to support dan seals probably isn't smart enough to matter enough in the fall.
FOKLAEAPS
sorry about the accidental triple post team.
fokleapas
TA, it seems like something is wrong with Blogger with all of the triple posting that's been going on
FOKLAES, you're showing your ignorance
1. Yes campaigns pay pollsters for their analysis; however their analysis is totally separate from the memos they write when internal polls a released.
Internal analysis is aimed at figuring out targeting and messaging. Polling memos released to the public are there to spin donors, activists, and reporters. These are 2 very different goals, and accordingly the analysis winds up being different. In one case the analysis is rooted in reality (varies with the pollster you hire), and in the other it's all about explaining why you'll win. You and I can't possibly say that what's in that memo is what is actually getting told to Seals and his campaign staff.
2. Yes the poll is 2 months old, and the timing is curious. There is more going on than we know in this case. We'll have to see if Dold recently polled and the Seals campaign is baiting them, or if something else is going on.
3. FOKLAES, again this is your ignorance. You're comparing polling data to actual election results. In polling data there can be undecideds, on election day it's Dold or Seals, and nothing in-between.
Also find me a poll, it doesn't matter where, which has Seals performing this well during the Summer from a past cycle.
4. You're right the environment is worse than 2008 was.
5. I wasn't only talking about endorsements, though if you want to talk about endorsements let's talk about Illinois Right to Life's endorsement of Dold. Something tells me that Republican women won't particularly enjoy that. Then let's talk about the Paul Ryan Budget. In 2000 Kirk beat Lauren Beth Gash 50.5-49.5. Kirk had none of the disadvantages Dold had, and Lauren Beth Gash was a much worse candidate than Seals.
6. Yes, Seals did almost lose the primary to Hamos. Try to look at the primary from the perspective of a Democrat though, and then Julie Hamos becomes a more appealing than you paint her as. I'm not a huge Hamos fan, but take a look at her from the perspective of an aging, Jewish, female Democrat's point of view.
6a. Yes, Dold does have more room to grow. Though Seals only needs 4%+1 more. 16% of voters are currently undecided. Even the least favorable break of undecideds for Seals will give him at least 25%.
7. You're restating my point. If this is such horrible poll for Seals why is it even seeing the light of day? Again there's more going on than we know.
8. Then why did it come out with memo written explicitly for public consumption? Unless you're suggesting that a Seals campaign consultant/DCCC suddenly decided to go rogue it was leaked by the campaign.
9. That's a really persuasive argument. Thanks for convincing me the error of my ways.
10. 47% against your golden boy is nothing to sneeze at. Now there's a new candidate, who by your own account is nothing compared to Kirk. Like it or not Dan Seals will be your next congressman.
Folks, I don't know Blogger seems to be repeating posts, but I've deleted the extras. Thanks for your patience.
As to the Seals poll, it's a mystery as to why this is coming out now, assuming the campaign leaked it. They've done stupider things in the past, so I would not put it past them.
I guess you can say not much has changed since May, except:
Obama has continued to tank in the polls;
Blago has gone on trial and is about to be convicted, and then sentenced in a few months;
the state budget is in full meltdown mode and not only is the blame fully ascribed to Seals' party, all the Dems want to do is raise taxes;
Dold went on a bus tour, did parades, and has been raising his name ID this whole summer. Seals went to Vegas.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that those poll numbers aren't even relevant any more.
The poll does not take into account "likely voters." Dan Seals does not have Obama on the ticket this time, which I am sure would push the results to Dold in the tune of at lest 5 to 6 percentage points.
I think what we can take from this poll is the following: At the very best, In May, Dan Seals was 8 points ahead of Dold, but more liklely Seals was ahead by something less than 8 points, and probably about tied when it comes to "likely voters."
A 12:38, read the bottom of the memo...it is based on likely voters.
TA--
Although I don't read too far into this poll, it only reaffirms what we already knew: Obama-Kirk moderates are voting for Dold. They aren't voting for him for the same reason you endorsed Beth Coulson, he's too far to the right. This district isn't sending a pro-lifer to Congress any time soon and all it will take a few Dold-Tea Party lovefest quotes on some mail pieces to remind independents that.
This cycle has been great in that the GOP fringe and main stream media have seemed to forget about the silent majority--Independent, Moderate Swing Voters. Obama won in 08 because he won the race to the middle, not because more Dems turned out than Republicans. In today's polarized politics, parties cannot pull a Reagan and run to an extreme and hope to win. Reliable polls have shown as much as 40% of the electorate now considers themselves moderates or independents.
To this end, Seals will win not only because of his significantly higher name recognition, but also because Dold's conservative streak will bite him hard. You and FOK-whatever readily admit he is not Kirk, but its more than just a polish issue, its a policy issue.
I'm in no way stumping for Dan as I nearly voted for his opponent in the primary, but there is little chance that Dold--with his anti-choice and pro-gun beliefs--can play in this district and this poll attempts to confirm this.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
CC, agreed, the 10th isn't sending a pro-lifer to Congress, they are sending Robert Dold to Congress.
I suppose you think that if you keep repeating the same lies over and over again, they will somehow become true. But, ask yourself, if you must delude yourself or lie to support your contention, how strong can be your contention?
cc in your delusional world mark kirk was a right wing conservative- the kind that got a+ ratings from gay groups and f- ratings from the nra.
for your sake I hope in real life you are sober and rational and not this full of it.
Have debates been set yet between dirty dan and dold? I would like to see some fresh tape of the pup lying about his job, residence, position on israel, position on taxes, and pretty much evertyhing else.
thanks
foklaeaps
FOKLAES--
I never called Kirk a right-wing conservative, however, I have contended--as I do now--that Kirk was much more conservative then he portrayed himself to be. His votes on the War in Iraq, specifically on the issues of a timetable and funding in 2006/2007 show this to be true. Combine those with the fact that he voted with Republicans 89 percent (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/party-voters/)
of the time in this congress and even higher during the Bush Admin proves this to be true.
Furthermore, to anon 3:39pm, if Dold released a statement clarifying his position on abortion, I would be more than glad to stop calling him Bingo Bob 'Double Talk' Dolt.
Please, I beg you, PROVE TO ME that I lied.
Until he's willing to actually answer the tough questions, then we all have to stand by his endorsements (Eagle Forum, Illinois Right to Life) that would tell me that he is anti-choice. If you can prove otherwise, through a statement of his, then I will gladly stop bashing Dolt for being a tea-party Conservative. Until then, his lines about embracing tea party values, being 'more conservative then I let on' and those endorsements speak volumes about who he is and those values are NOT the values of this district.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
Two big points in this entire post:
1. Mark Kirk is not conservative. He is a Hawk on international relations and military issues. He is also more fiscally conservative than some. However on social issues and the environment he moderate to mainstream liberal. You aren't defined as a moderate by being moderate to liberal on all issues, if you were, then you'd be a Democrat.
2. This poll should be ignored. If this poll were at all legitimate Seals would have released it immediately in an effort to dry up Dold's fund raising and increase his own. This is politics 101, if the poll is kept internal, then it is not legitimate OR bad for the sponsoring candidate.
Concerned Colonel wants Dold to fall into the following trap of derailing his campaign by demanding "answers" to "questions" such as those below:
1. Prove to us you are pro-choice. Issue a statement.
2. Prove to us that you no longer beat your wife. Issue a statement.
3. Prove to us that you are truly pro-Israel. Issue a statement.
4. Prove to us that you love little children and mommies and not evil corporate America. Issue a statement.
5. Prove to us that you are not a fiendish conservative. Issue a statement.
Gets tiresome after a while, doesn't it?
Instead of getting bogged down with such nonsense from the "prove to us" brigade who already know the REAL answers to their questions, but merely want to stop the Dold momentum, Dold should keep on a steady course and win the race against perennial loser Seals.
Or of course we can all play the same game:
1. Dan Seals, prove to us you live in the 10th District. Issue a statement.
2. Dan Seals, prove to us that you are pro-Israel and renounce your "pro-peace" video of 4 years ago. Issue a statement.
3. Dan Seals, prove to us that you will not be a Obama sure vote lackey like Roland Burris and a true independent, moderate thinker. Issue a statement.
4. Dan Seals, prove to us that you have a real plan to grow jobs in your District and that you will not back phony "stimulus" packages that grow nothing but debt. Issue a statement.
5. Dan Seals, prove to us that your May poll has real meaning and explain why you never released it. Issue a statement.
Hey! I'm starting to like this!
Louis G. Atsaves
Post a Comment