Capitol Fax has the proposed Congressional Map up. It’s a good map for Dems. I think there are 12 likely Dem seats. Bobby Schilling is gone with this map and Adam Kinzinger has to primary either Manzullo, Schock or Shimkus. If he had to primary anyone he wanted Tim Johnson, but he has no real ties to the Johnson areas. More later, but take a look over at Rich’s site.
“Bobby Schilling will never beat Phil Hare in IL-17.”
–Archpundit, SSP, EVERY PUNDIT EVER from 2009-2010
LOL–keep thinking that way in a new district that is likely more Democratic and not in a Republican wave.
Keep thinking that no one should listen to an anonymous blogger who thinks that he is a political expert from watching CNN and MSNBC all day? Okay.
the fact of the matter is that pundits have nothing to do with the outcomes of elections. They sit in ivory towers casting judgment. It’s easy to share an opinion, but it’s tough as hell to flip a heavy dem CD – even in a wave year.
I’m not anonymous, but you aren’t very perceptive anyway.
17 wasn’t a heavy D district–it’s Dem performance usually ran 50-52% at best.
Again, wrong again. In 2004, Lane Evans received 57% of the vote, in 2006, Hare received almost 62% and in 2008, they ran unopposed.
It’s been held by a democrat since 1983. Again, I think you should stick to commenting on districts and political areas that you are familiar with, rather than just spewing your opinion of how things look.
You’ll come across as more credible and people won’t just read your blog and think that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Just some friendly advice.
Cook Partisan Voting Index
D+ 3
You really should know your shit before talking it.
Cheers!
Having worked for both Lane Evans and Phil Hare I can assure you that the DPI of the 17th District was never very good. Despite being a Democratic district since 1983 it was always a dogfight to hold onto the seat. For three elections in a row Lane was a top target of the RCCC. Many of those years the DPI of the district was in the low or mid 40’s. Lane was able to hold the seay because he is a Marine veteran in a district with one of the largest number of vets in the country. Phile Hare should be able to win back the seat easily.
The 2000 redistricting gave Lane a fighting chance–as I recall he had a close call in 94 in the old District–my years may be off, but the original district would have been impossible to hold. This strengthens it and really creates a good district with three labor centers (maybe four if you include Galesburg). It’s a much more natural District and should have decent Dem performance.
Evans beat Zinga by 60,000 votes in 2004. Won with 65% of the vote in 2002. 2000 was the old map dude…
Maybe you should know your facts first? You aren’t even from this district or know what anything about the quad cities.
Good try though.
Also, you are forgetting that in 2000 and 2004, Bush got 43% of the labor vote. It’s not as slanted as you think. Again, it’s always good for supposed ‘pols’ to know their enemy and the true landscape.
Shitty candidates don’t make it a safe district. Evans did well because he got crossover votes. Zinga was a joke.
But, of course, you know more than people who have followed the District for years and people who actually take the time to look up general Democratic performance.
Being a tea dumbass means never having to deal with reality.
Great point! I never truly philosophized about the effect of tea and reality. That’s a great observation.
I guess the only way you get educated is by joining MoveOn.org’s email list, driving a prius and writing a blog spouting my wishful liberal thinking.
What candidate will they run in IL-17? What candidate will the GOP nominate? Obama won 60% of this new district….when his national approval rating was at 75%….before he passed obama care….before the creation of a conservative grassroots group (be it astroturf or home grown, they’ve shown that they can help nominate candidates. Ignoring them might put you into that “tea dumbass” category)
It’s highly foolish to post things such as, “Schilling is done.” especially in a district that is only slightly more democrat than the previous district that he won in, before the gop has a candidate and even before the dems nominate a candidate for congress. What if hare runs and wins the nomination again? Is Schilling “done” then?
You can calm down and admit that proclaiming 18 months out, without an opponent for Obama and without a candidate for the dems that Schilling is done, is a little foolhardy at best. Or you can just continue to keep the partisan glasses on.
So you know more than Charile Cook, the Rothenberg report, the RNCC, the DCCC, and the actual Democratic performance during Presidential years without someone named Obama where Gore won the District (configured to the 2002 boundaries with 53 percent of the vote and Kerry won with 52 percent.
You are conflating Democratic performance with incumbent performance which, as anyone who understands electoral politics knows, they are very different things.
Being an idiot and one who is incapable of learning must be a sad way to go through life.
Arch- by your own logic schilling never would have won in 2010 either. The district went 57 for Obama in 2008. The new one went 60. Obama has not gotten more popular. I’m managing a campaign against schilling for one of the deems. Are you really suggesting that we shouldn’t take him seriously?
Also it’s not cool to just throw names at people. You’re making progressives look silly.
We’re taking schilling seriously and I hope the other primary opponents do as well.
I am surprised at you, Arch. Regardless of political affiliation, it’s never appropriate or intelligent to curse and talk down to your readers. That’s what the comment section is for; for anonyomous internet trolls, not the author.
===Arch- by your own logic schilling never would have won in 2010 either. The district went 57 for Obama in 2008. The new one went 60. Obama has not gotten more popular. I’m managing a campaign against schilling for one of the deems. Are you really suggesting that we shouldn’t take him seriously?
Let me say this real slow for everyone who hasn’t realized it. 2008 wasn’t a normal year for Democrats because Obama was on the ballot. Going 57 percent for Obama doesn’t mean it will again or certainly when there is a non-Illinois Democrat on the ballot. To look at the Democratic performance you want to look at other elections and I cited two above. So we should expect the old district to be around 52-3 percent Democratic on average. Knock 4 or 5 points off the 2008 numbers in the new District to get a realistic view of the District.
The point of all of this was to point out to the Tea Dumbass that it wasn’t a heavily Democratic District under Hare or Lane Evans. They did better in general because built up a lot of good will, but Lane especially had some very tough races over the years. Andrea Zinga is not a tough race. She had no money, no real campaign, and no chance.
If you can’t beat Bobby Schilling in a Likely Dem District (probably +5 Dem Cook Index) who has voted to end Medicare and to kill high speed rail and turned around and contradicted himself, then you shouldn’t be a candidate. It’s not rocket science and you will get a slight bounce from Obama, though not as big as last time.
People swear in politics. Really, if you spend time in DC and Springfield all those fine upstanding politicians talk like the rest of us. and I don’t feel the need to be polite to trolls. If you don’t like that, you are welcome to your own blog. I’ve had the same policy for 8 years now.