Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will a Mark Kirk Victory Keep the Senate in GOP Hands?
Piggybacking off yesterday’s post from Canadian Cincinnatus on hotly-contested US Senate races, Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois faces a formidable challenger in Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth. Kirk squeaked by in 2010, helped by a contentious race for governor at the top of the ballot. Even though the gubernatorial election was lost, Kirk received enough help from it to carry him to his first victory, though in a squeaker: he won 1,779,000 votes to his opponent’s 1,719,000 (the gubernatorial election was similarly close). And let’s recall that 2010 was a good year for Republicans.
Let’s jump ahead to 2014. In the governor’s race that year, we had a much stronger Republican, Bruce Rauner, who won a slightly-more-comfortable victory with 1,823,627 votes to the Democratic incumbent’s 1,681,343. But while Rauner has been fighting for deep structural reforms to the state government, Kirk has been working against conservatives and Republicans in Washington. Kirk thinks his victory in 2010 and Rauner’s in 2014 means he can do well this year, but Rauner’s attention and resources have been spent elsewhere, and the governor has generally been quiet about the US Senate race. It’s not without reason.
Turing to this year’s Senate primary results, Rep. Duckworth received 1,220,128 votes in a three-way race where 1,859,257 were cast. Kirk, meanwhile, faced a single challenger (whose name I had never seen until I voted) and won only 931,619 votes (70 percent) out of 1,320,190 cast. Kirk’s votes look even less impressive when you compare it to those in the presidential primaries held on the same day. Short version: Of the Republicans who showed up to vote on primary day, only 65 percent voted to re-nominate for their incumbent senator to retain his seat.
At the Illinois Republican State Convention, which I attended as a delegate, Governor Rauner and several other candidates spoke at the general session and the energy and enthusiasm for them was high. Senator Kirk, however, did not speak and merely played a campaign ad. Rauner is well-liked by the party and the state GOP assemblymen are united behind him. Whenever Kirk’s name was mentioned at the convention, however, the room fell deathly silent. No applause, no cheers; instead there were boos.
I predict Kirk will lose in November. He’ll be lucky if he can break a million votes, and it’s possible that Duckworth will sail to victory with 2 million votes. Don’t count on Kirk to be the stonewall that keeps the Democrats from taking back the Senate.
Published in General
Stick a fork in him, he’s toast.
In addition to all his other flaws he just un-endorsed Trump.
This will anger Trump supporters, in addition to the earlier angered Trump-haters.
How did this guy win a Senate seat in the first place- oh, 2010.
Never mind.
Also, the last Republican senator from IL that was reelected was Charles Percy. He was first elected in 1966, reelected in ’72 and ’78. But he lost his reelection race in ’84. Only 3 Republican senators from IL have been reelected to a second term since the establishment of the direct election of senators.
Among other problems, a major one with Kirk is he never passes up a chance to stick his finger straight in the eye of conservatives. His demeanor suggests he doesn’t give a “flip” whether we vote for him or not.
I’ll be voting for him because Duckworth has the makings of a worse demagogue than Dick Durbin. Voting is the limit though. Time and money are going to go to a candidate for the state House to try to break Michael Madigan’s grip on the Illinois legislature.
That is indeed the fight worth having.
Another problem is Kirk’s stroke. I don’t think he’s fully recovered and doubt that he has the stamina to run a vigorous campaign. My wife and I made calls for him when he running for reelection in the 10th congressional district. We’re sitting this one out.
A pipe dream would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. Illinois is much more liberal than it was in the ’70s. Kirk has an uphill battle on his hands…and he’s no Chuck Percy.
Duckworth is a menace, but I don’t know that I can cast a vote for Kirk. I am definitely sitting out the house vote…no votes for Jan the Communist Schakowsky nor the sacrificial (c)atholic pro-choice suburban hausfrau the New Trier Republicans scraped up to run as a sacrificial lamb. Same old, same old.
Kirk also had the advantage in the last election of running against Alexi Giannoulias, who had been an officer with his dad’s bank. The bank had made loans to real-estate developer, political fixer, and convicted felon Tony Rezko as well as a gentleman known as Michael “Jaws” Giorango. There aren’t a lot of Cub Scout troop leaders nicknamed “Jaws,” not even in Chicago.
Why am I reminded of Lyndon Johnson’s quote about whizzing inside or outside a tent?
I’m a downstater. I live in IL-18. I’ll be voting for LaHood for Rep.
I will not be voting for Kirk. He has burned conservatives far too many times: voting against the defund of planned parenthood, saying that he would support Garland for SCOTUS and that he deserves a floor vote, voting for the assault weapons ban, and of course voting for the magazine limit. I’m not voting for Duckworth either.
Re: his stroke. People are admirable with the way he worked hard so that he could walk again. Any sympathy votes that he might receive would be cancelled out by Duckworth who is a double amputee Iraq War vet.