Gov. Quinn(D-IL) Target of Criminal Probe

[DrScholl]

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

[DrScholl]

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.

[DrScholl]

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.

Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.

[DrScholl]

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.

Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.

It does matter because you're posing false equivalencies.

You're saying that Kirk won't have trouble in a presidential year? He barely won in a Republican year against an opponent with ethics issues, so what makes you think he won't have big problems in a presidential year?

[DrScholl]

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.

Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.

It does matter because you're posing false equivalencies.

You're saying that Kirk won't have trouble in a presidential year? He barely won in a Republican year against an opponent with ethics issues, so what makes you think he won't have big problems in a presidential year?

Because that's over-simplifying how elections work? There are more variables than "Presidential election year = Democrats sweep the map". What if 2016 is a Republican year? What will happen when Obama is no longer on the ballot? Who will be his challenger, and will they have flaws? Don't be so confident with 2.5 years to go.

2010 was a close win for an open seat, in a blue state. It's not like Illinois has never elected a Republican before. He's a pragmatic Republican who did well enough in the collar counties + a good showing in Cook to win initially, and can improve his performance if he remains popular.   

Illinois' PVI didn't change much from 2004, it was D+7 then, so Obama's home state effect didn't mess with the PVI that much. People were claiming that Scott Brown would crush Elizabeth Warren, because he was pragmatic and could do well with Democrats, and look what happened. Unless 2016 is a massive Republican wave, Kirk is the most endangered Republican Senator and the most likely to lose.