While everyone seems to have different takes on this race, I have to say that anyone who thinks they are sure where this all stands is overconfident, and don’t even get me started on Nate Silver’s piece–love Nate’s work, but that oversimplifies this race a bit too much.
The biggest problem with a special election is no one knows who turns up and so polling is problematic because determining likely voters is nearly impossible. In addition, the effect of money is very different as well with typical carpet bombing not being nearly as successful.
I’m not endorsing for now and this is purely analytical. I know people on the first five campaigns and have all sorts of conflicts of interest, but they pretty much balance out with Feigenholtz’s campaign being the one I’m least connected to.
So with that, here is my take, feel free to call me stupid in comments:
1) Feigenholtz. Certainly fits the mold of the person who I have the hardest time remembering the spelling for after Blagojevich. I think I have it down now. While we don’t have the next reports yet, she is leading in money and though I mentioned it looks like Fritchey has almost caught up, she has reported over $50,000 in large contributions since Saturday. It’s hard to tell if that is above her previous estimate in her e-mail or if that was included since most of that money was probably pledged. We’ll see. What I don’t have a good sense of with Sara is her field operation. She’s doing well with messaging (Becky Carrol is working for her on communications) and she has good outside support. And SEIU is backing her which is a big endorsement and tends to come with excellent GOTV support. And Jerry Morrison in CapFax comments.
For now, I’d label her a frontrunner, but given the depth of the field, not a prohibitive one by any means.
2) Quigley. You can probably throw him and Fritchey in a toss up. In an election that wasn’t a special, I’d probably put Quigley in first with very good name recognition because of his battles with Stroger and such. He’s got a very strong environmental record and has been strong on GLBT rights calling for gay marriage in 1999. His early funding was not as strong as anyone would like, but he is building a decent field operation. Quigley gets a small boost from the Trib and Sun-Times with their endorsements, but honestly, his TV time attacking wasteful county spending is more important.
3) Fritchey. Again, a toss up with Quigley really and a very real competitor. His fundraising is very strong since he got in the race on January 5th so the next reports will be fascinating. Knowing his campaign manager, he’ll have a strong field operation and he has Mell backing him which is significant. He’s taking some hits on his role during the Burris investigation, but that’s unfair. When he objected to Durkin’s line of questioning was not about his contacts with Blagojevich’s staff, it was odd issues like who Burris talked to in DC that had nothing to do with impeachment. I mentioned this when I covered the testimony as it happened. Probably not politically smart, but procedurally he was dead on. The Tribune editorial board needs to revisit the transcripts. The problem was Durkin not being organized and missing on several points for follow-up. I put him in 3rd because the limited polling info puts him a bit further back.
4) Pat O’Connor. A complete tool, but:
A) is an alderman in the district
B) name is O’Connor
He screwed up this race when he basically said he needed Rahm and the Mayor to back him so he could give up the seat for Rahm if Rahm comes back.
1) You don’t say that
2) Rahm is busy and the Mayor just needs someone there to do what he asks and the three people above will largely do that and potentially be more effective than O’Connor would be.
5) Tom Geoghagen. A liberal stalwart who hired Daniel Biss’ campaign manager (and friend) Julie Sweet. Should have a good field organization and has pretty much universal support in the netroots nationally. He’ll have some money, but his problem is twofold. One, he’s running as an insurgent campaign without the time to organize like a campaign like that really needs. Two, Quigley has lots of credibility with liberals in the District. That said, he’s doing pretty well to be an insurgent and in fifth. Insurgents seldom pull ahead before election day so if he does pull it off, it’ll be a last minute thing.
6) Charles Wheelan. Working hard and getting some attention, though pretty damn conservative. While not likely, he might be able to pull together some conservative Catholics with support for school vouchers. Seems thoughtful, but awfully to the right on economics for a labor friendly district.
The other 8—does it matter? Only in that they might take small pockets of support that in a close race could be the difference.
Is it too late to get Alan Keyes on the ballot? Maybe if Rosànna Pulído steps down?
My take on this is that it will be John Fritchey celebrating on March 3. Feigenholtz is a much better fit if she were to run in the 9th District (which has more of her State Rep district than IL-05 does). She has been running her campaign as if everyone in the district was like the voters in her portion along the lakefront.
Unfortunately for Sara, the half of the district that’s on the other side of former Gov. Sleazy’s house in Ravenswood Manor is a lot different from the portion Feigenholtz represents in Springfield. They are far more conservative or pragmatic, and look at so-called independents with great skepticism.
Similarly, Quigley has a big hurdle to overcome in the western half of the district, namely a legitimate fear that if he were elected to Congress, his replacement on the Cook County Board (selected by party bosses beholden to Daley and Stroger) would opt for a Toddler toadie. Even if that appointee were dumped by the voters in 2010, the appointee would still have 20 months to tip the control of the County Board firmly into the hands of Stroger and his controllers, the Daleys. The damage that would be caused would take years to undo.