IL-06 Pre-postmortem

This is still a very close election, and it's not over. I do, however, at some point have to go to bed. The current projections look like a very, very narrow edge for Duckworth, but that could change. But if it doesn't, I received this almost piece of analysis via email from a source of mine who will remain anonymous:
This is a complete validation of everyone who claimed Christine had a massive ground game.

Tammy Duckworth had an unbelievable amount of free media ... they are even doing it tonight on the WGN (Chicago) coverage starting off coverage of the race with a 3 minute story about Tammy's heroism. It's been article after article, even Nightline did a national piece the night before the election.

Tammy got all three major newspaper endorsements -- Tribune, Sun-Times and Daily Herald.

John Kerry raised a 1/4 million dollars in an email. Hillary Clinton had a fundraiser for Tammy. Dick Durbin raised money for Tammy, taking her around to Chicago and D.C. donors personally. Obama raised money for Tammy. Rahm raised money for Tammy.

Tammy probably outspent Christine at least 6 or 7 to 1.

We'll find out if the DCCC put in any Independent expenditures.

And Christine had a rag-tag group of DFAs and grassroots organization who fought this tooth-and-nail -- they protested when it started and naysayers said her support was a myth and blown out of proportion. They floated some bullshit 22% polling edge that Duckworth had -- she obviously didn't.

This was truly grassroots on-the-ground vs. powerful influence of state powerbrokers like rahm and durbin vs. people on the ground. And they held it close.

People in the 6th have a real reason to be pissed -- the activists that do the dirty work all loved Christine BEFORE this happened, and they will all love her AFTER. They completely invested of themselves, and came up just short.

Tammy is now going to have to buy the election, because party activists might very well be bitter -- a 800 vote loss is pretty tough to swallow.

Christine literally fought the ENTIRE Democratic machine, in the House and Senate .... it was them vs. people on the ground that actually believed in a candidate .... and they came up just short.
No matter what happens, I think this close result shows the following:
  • Believing in a candidate is a lot more effective than either believing in an "electability profile" or working to defeat another candidate. The Cegalis true believers kicked ass.

  • The Democratic establishment is weak. I haven't seen this much establishment support line up against someone since Dean. Considering the massive amount of fundraising, big name support, advocacy group support, free media, and direct DCCC contributions, Duckworth will finish way, way under 50%. The Democratic and progressive establishment, even the vaunted Chicago machine, is clearly losing the ability to control and influence its own base.

  • Strong ground games in primaries and other low turnout elections work. Ciro's ground game in TX-28 was weak. Hackett's in OH-02 was strong. Lamont's ground game in CT could result in an enormous surprise.
Hold your heads high Cegalis supporters. The Dem establishment that tried to swing this election is going to wish they had you after Labor Day. You were the equal of literally their entire bag of tricks. I wonder if this will make them reconsider whether they should have thrown all of their resources in a different direction. It should be pretty clear that combining their resources with your activism would have made this a very, very winnable district, but they decided they could do this on their own and didn't need you. Now, if I were a Cegalis activist in IL-06, I would think long and hard about whether I would do anything besides vote in November. If they think they can do this without your activism, I'd be very tempted to just say "fine, go ahead and see if you can."

At the very least, I, for one, would hope that this does at least some damage to the "Rahm Emmanuel is hyper-effective" meme for a long time to come. It hard to imagine how anyone could have fucked up a district worse than this. Well done man--you built an utterly ineffective political operation in the area and simultaneously embittered every grassroots activist who could have helped breath some life into that operation. This just gives me loads of confidence for November.

Update: I stand corrected. Charlie Wilson in OH-06 remains the ultimate district fuck-up, and porbably will even until the ending of the world. Maybe this is just second place.



Display:


As the Beatles said (none / 0)

Money can't buy [you] love.  We MUST have a strong ground game in '06.  We've got to continue to register voters and canvas like never before.  If Cegelis can come this close with out major endorsements and money, think about what we we can do with a strong ground game in 2006.

WE WILL TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:01:50 AM EST

Re: As the Beatles said (3.00 / 0)

That is what you took away from this??

Someone with a strong ground game did well, so under the "leadership" of the people who didn't have a ground game WE WILL TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!???

I think more practical assessment would say that there power in supporting the base and that we have potential to do well IF WE CHANGE GEARS.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:01:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As the Beatles said (none / 0)

He is an idiot, Bob.  Will Duckworth have to pay her ground game?  Wait, she already did.

I live near the district, and I will not ruin my shoes for Duckworth.  No fucking way.


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Then have a GOP representative (none / 0)

That's fine with me.  Just don't complain about he/she votes.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 09:22:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 2)

Thank you Chris. This expresses what a lot of Cegelis supporters feel.  Me, I'll throw a tiny bit of money Duckworth's way . . . since that's what she seems to feel she needs to win.  But no passion there.

And who knows what the final numbers will say. And I'm listening to Dick Kay say "There's something wrong somewhere" with the numbers in Cook County -- we'll see.


by Maven on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:05:16 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I was voting in Aurora yesterday and was shocked to see Diebold machines instead of the punch cards. They had an optical scanner (which I used because there is at least a paper trail) and a touch screen.
The top Dems have been curiously silent over the issue of voter fraud and stolen elections. I had thought that this was their usual wimpiness, but maybe they welcome the ability to "tweak" elections?
Anyway, our Democracy takes another hit.. by outspending Cegelis 6 or 7 to 1, the DCCC essentially has a bought and paid for candidate. The voters will become less and less relevant as the candidates have to chase more and more money.
And what, in the end, will we gain? It was the Democrats that handed Bush permission to launch an illegal war. It was the D.C. Democrats who supported the assault on the middle and working classes, from bankrupcy reform to tax cuts, it was the D.C. Democrats who are enabling the erosion of our constitution.
Cegelis' loss goes far outside her district.
by shebear on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:12:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Chris,

I think you summed it up quite nicely.  Thank you.


by lisadawn82 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:06:07 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, let's encourage IL-6 Dems to stay home on election day so that we can continue to enjoy a GOP majority in the House. For God's sakes, just accept the fact that your candidate didn't win and move on. Let's beat the real assholes, the ones with the R after their name. Instead of these constant intolerable pissing contests between the internet activists and the party leaders, why don't we all just concentrate on beating the hell out of the Republicans. Ego isn't everything.


"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:07:53 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Chris didn't say don't go vote. He said I was consider doing nothing other than voting.


Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:12:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

not all assholes have an (r) next to their name. if they think we're unnecessary, let 'em buy the damn general.


by wu ming on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 1)

I didn't say stay home. Retract that.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

You're right. I'm sorry. I misread your comments.


"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:28:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

It's only two years. We can wait, and what's the difference between a corporately owned democrat and a corporately owned republican? Bring on the class warfare!


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Vote yes, work no. (none / 0)

 
  Vote for Duckworth sure.  But work for her, can't do it.  I don't believe in her backers.  

  But don't worry about November, The DP can pay workers.  They raised $630,000 in three months.  Think how much they'll raise in 7 months.  


by Billb08 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Losing objectivity (2.00 / 3)

Everybody was quite happy to rant and rave and project Cegelis to win by 10%.

Now that the votes are in, this place is going to go into hackneyed old campaign-strategist spin mode?

I'm in New York and don't give two craps who gets the nomination, but this place has been so painful to read for weeks and weeks leading up to this primary. The voters themselves have spoken. Fences should be mended and fighting against that ass Roskam should be the priority now. Let's bring some civility back to this great blog, shall we?


by OfficeOfLife on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:09:09 AM EST

Re: Losing objectivity (3.00 / 3)

What are you talking about? I never porjected Cegalis to win. In fact, I never proejcted anything. I actualyl thought it wasn't ging to be close, and that Duckwroth woudl crush her, because that is what everyone in DC told me.

If you think that it isn't a story that the entire Dem establishment almost lost to a rag-tag group of grassroots actvists, then you are really missing something.

And activists should never be expected to bleed for just anyone. If we reward every type of behavior the DCCC and others put forward if equal amounts of actvism, then we have no means of holding them accountable. Every Dem in the district should vote for Duckworth, but they shouldn't be expected to do anything else, especially after their leaders made it patently obvious that they don't care what Dem grassroots activists do.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (3.00 / 0)

I'm with you, Chris.  This is a shocker.  DC is full of bullshit artists who don't know their localities anymore, and it looks like TV and broad media campaigns don't work in primaries.  

Cegelis supporters did themselves proud.  I'm sorry this happened the way it did.  They deserve a LOT more than this, and they better get more than a simple 'fall in line' demand.


by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:22:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (1.00 / 1)

One sad thing is that Cegelis has a Republican state representative who is unopposed in the general. I kind of wish (at least in retrospect) that she'd bowed out of the Congressional race and ran against one of the state legislators in exchange for financial and other campaign support from Rahm and the Illinois Democratic party.

I found out about her  (that idiot Chuck Pennacchio is doing the same thing, he has unchallenged Republican state legislators in his district as well) by using switchboard.com to find their addresses, and then plugging in their nine-digit zipcode in the "Find my Legislator" tools at the IL and PA state legislature's website.


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:26:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Duckworth could have done the same thing and she was the last into the race and didn't run last time.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Duckworth could've dropped out (or not run [she wasn't going to drop out once Rahm got her into it]), but both of her Republican state legislators are being challenged, whereas Cegelis's state representative is not being challenged. That's the point I was trying to make. I wish that if Rahm was going to get involved, that he had done what he did in MN-2 when he was upset with the initial candidate's poor-fundraising (which is why he got into the race [note that he didn't get into Francine Busby's race (or maybe he tried and couldn't find a candidate more to his liking, but I think it's because she's been a good fundraiser)] (and in Rowley's case, poor campaigning), and found a Democratic elected official from the district to back (although I don't think any IL Democratic state legislators live in the district (Cegelis's are both Republicans, but there might be a Democrat representing the Cook County part of the district), there must be some Democratic elected official in the district).

So, anyway, the point I was trying to make was that the result of this primary was not only a divided base, but also a Republican state assmeblywoman going unchallenged.


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

No the point of your post is to make it look like Christine is some how hurting the party by not bowing down to the slating process that the Chicago and national dems want to force onto the Chicago suburbs.

Slating is bad even when democrats do it.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:10:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (1.00 / 1)

illinois062006, I believe I deserve an explanation for that 1 rating. Since Cegelis did end up lose, how can you disagree to such an extent that you give me a 1 that in retrospect it would've been better to challenge someone who was unchallenged in the state legislature, than to lose a primary. Should I have made it more clear that I was being entirely hypothetical because there was no way she could know that she would lose ahead of time?
If it was for calling Chuck Pennacchio an idiot, I stand by that statement. He's been getting like 5% in primary polls since well before the primary filing deadline in Pennsylvania, so he has to be more out of it than the Republican party to think he has a chance of winning the primary. He's fricking said that Rick Santorum, terrible on every single progressive issue and strongly ethically troubled, is more honorable than Bob Casey (who is quite progressive on everything except abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, and guns) and has no ethics problems whatsoever. If he wasn't a frickin' idiot, he'd have decided to run for the state legislature instead of staying in a primary he can't win and giving Republican state legislators in a state like Pennsylvania which is a state where we need to win back the state legislature in order to be able to redistrict favorably (i.e. at least make sure that all the seats Pennsylvania loses due to reapportionment are Republican seats) after the 2010 Census. I hope to read your explanation here.  Thanks.
by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:51:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (3.00 / 0)

I think you have to understand that Cegelis running for this seat for 2.5 years.  To even suggest that she step aside for a carpetbagger is beneath contempt.  You obviously do not understand what occurred this evening, and I feel your statements are provocations, not productive suggestions.


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

I can understand your anger, but I'm still pissed off that there's no Democrat running against incumbent Republican Carolyn Krause for the 66th State Assembly district.


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

That is not Cegelis's fault.  Given that Cegelis built the Democratic Party's infrastructure in District Six, I recommend you direct your anxieties elsewhere.  Perhaps Duckworth could have run for that seat.  After all, Duckworth will run for any office, even if she is not a resident of the district she desires to represent.


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Chris:_Who is the BS artist here (3.00 / 1)

Chris:

Instead of looking at this as another "close" one for Cegelis, you could also see the weakness in the Cegelis campaign after two years of campaigning.  The candidate who had the base, all the ground troops, all the ideological supporters, could not muster more than 40% of the vote in this primary.  This after two years of "non-stop" campaigning.

May be those BS artists in DC think beyond the first hurdle and saw the inherit weaknesses in the Cegelis operation. Cegelis lost by over 17,000 votes in the general in 2004 and I currently don't count more than 30,000 total votes in the primary in 2006.  Who is the BS artist here?  


by riverred on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Say Amen! N/T (none / 0)


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (3.00 / 2)

What you want in New York and what I want from here is pretty much irrelevant to those people who don't post on this blog but put their blood, sweat, and tears behind Christine.  And they did so fighting the entire Democratic establishment.  

They are the very people who put the party on their backs election cycle after election cycle.  They made their voices heard from before the moment Rahm got Tammy on Stephanopolous to announce her candidacy, and they made it heard even louder tonight.

I, for one, would understand if they were bitter and only cast a ballot for Tammy and did nothting more.  The party made it more than clear they didn't think they were needed anyway.

You might be quick to say its time to come together and defeat Roskam, but how quickly do you think the DCCC, Durbin, Clinton, Kerry, and Emmanuel would have been to come together with Christine to defeat Roskam?  They had that chance to come together once with the people on the ground back in 2005, and they basically "F You."


by John Hull on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (3.00 / 1)

You might be quick to say its time to come together and defeat Roskam, but how quickly do you think the DCCC, Durbin, Clinton, Kerry, and Emmanuel would have been to come together with Christine to defeat Roskam?  

I get the feeling that had Cegelis won suddenly it would have become a 'oh you're not a targeted district, the media market is too expensive and your opponent has too much money' race.


by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:26:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Damn skippy.

Cegelis is a grassroots, build-from-the-ground-up candidate, and Emanuel has that "the only thing that matters is fundraising" smell about him, and can't abide anyone who thinks they can win with a ground game.

I do not hold Duckworth responsible for this, so I could vote for her if I lived there, but emanuel can kiss my ass.  I'll never give the DCCC a dime as long as he's in charge.


by sjs1959 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Duckworth's a big girl, she can read just like the rest of us. Her decision is questionable on a couple different levels. The first is saying yes to Dumbkin and Rahmbo, finding out about the grassroots and Cegelis and deciding to stick with the race anyway. Shows what her values are.


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Well, the reason Rahm decided to look for another candidate in the district was the fact that he was unsatisfied with her fundraising. However, I find it hard to believe there aren't any Democratic elected officials at at least some level in the district who had name recognition and connections so that they could raise money from the district as well as the fact that they would hardly be considered an outsider if they were already elected in the district (although there would still be some idiots who would be pissed because they believe that the first candidate to file in the primary has the god-given right to run [see some of DownWithTyranny and TucsonHack's posts over at DailyKos for some examples of this mentality]). If he'd done that, Cegelis probably still wouldn't have been willing to drop out, but there wouldn't have been such a partisan split (the hypothetical candidate would've won easily).


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:35:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

"Well, the reason Rahm decided to look for another candidate in the district was the fact that he was unsatisfied with her fundraising."

That's Rahm's spin.

The fact are that Cegelis raised about $250,000.  Duckworth did not raise a dime, on her own.  The national Dems raise every dime for her.  

Ask yourself this.  What would the outcome have been if Rahm had raised $630,000 for Cegelis?


by Billb08 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Agreed. Because the National Democratic Party really is Republican Lite.  They accommodate the right but punish the left.


by Billb08 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Isn't it a little ridiculous to construct a hypothetical situation with which to bash the party establishment? The fact is, I don't know what they would have done had Cegelis won the primary, and neither do you. They backed the candidate they thought had a better chance of winning the general. You might disagree, but they're just doing their job.


"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

Isn't it a little ridiculous to construct a hypothetical situation with which to bash the party establishment?

Yes, Duckworth's candidacy was entirely theoretical.


by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (none / 0)

look at what they did last time around when grassroots candidates were in those races. nothing, until they showed a decent election return, and then they ran DC backed challengers in the primaries next time around.


by wu ming on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity (3.00 / 1)

There was actually a good discussion tonight on Chicago Public Radio about how odd they found Emanuel's answer to whether he would support Cegelis. The analysts were surprised that he refused to come out and say he would back whoever won.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:51:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What? (none / 0)

Doing their job?

Rahm Emanuel - "Representatives should not choose their voters; they should be chosen by voters."

He then endorses and supports a carpetbagger that requires $800,000 of OUR MONEY to give a local candidate with grassroots support the race of her political life, a race, I might add, that is not over.  

How is that doing his job?  His job is to expand the playing field, not transform one into an image of himself that he must possess at all costs.  

Get real.  Open your eyes.


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He is doing his job... (none / 0)

he's just, apparently, not doing it well.


by Teaser on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:02:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gaining objectivity (none / 0)

The effort on Duckworth's behalf was motivated primarily by fear that a progressive Democrat would win.  The national Dems are more frightened of progressive on the left than they are of right wing Republicans.  

Because Duckworth has no base of her own, she will be entirely controlable by the National Dems.  Where as had Cegelis won, she would be independent of the national party, beholding only to the people in her district.  That means should could have voted against the war, against the Patriot Act, and against the Global economy.  All things Rahm and the other national dems support.

Is that to harsh?


by Billb08 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Losing objectivity, (none / 0)

Talk about losing objectivity?

I worked the campaign for Cegelis and never saw one poll or one estimate. Certainly never saw anything about 10%.  Where did you see that figure?


by Billb08 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 09:12:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 2)

At the very least, I, for one, would hope that this does at least some damage to the "Rahm Emmanuel is hyper-effective" meme for a long time to come. It hard to imagine how anyone could have fucked up a district worse than this.

Hard to imagine, but what about Wilson in OH-06 not even making the ballot -- that is a pretty big fuckup while Emanuel was busy trying put the squeeze on Hackett. But I see your point, Emanuel barely being able to buy a plurality in his own back yard makes him either look ineffective for the results or incompetent for deciding to fight the grassroots.

This election is yet another sign that progress requires the circumvention of DC Democrats. Those same Democrats who will probably spend tomorrow celebrating yet another Phyrric victory.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:11:55 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Rahm had shit to do with Hackett. Senate races are not Rahm's job.


Visit my blog at geoffespo.blogspot.com
by Geoff Espo on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Rahm absolutely had shit to do with Hackett.

What do you think Hackett's thinking when Emanuel called him up asking him to run for Congress when he's already running for Senate at the National leadership's prodding? Yeah, that's right, Emanuel did call him.

And we all know how diplomatic a self-satisfied DC Dem with an ego and a massive case of entitlement-itis can be...


by redstar66 on Fri Mar 24, 2006 at 08:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 2)

A 150 vote margin is awful, and this whole fight makes me sick.  The meddling, and let's not forget Obama here, was fucking ridiculous.

I had no idea that it would go down like this.  Not that it matters, but I'm really angry.  


by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:12:55 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Yeah it sucks when outsiders meddle in a primary, doesn't it?

(MyDD and DailyKos remind you to give money to Ned Lamont)


"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"- Bill Clinton
by bluenc on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 1)

Whatever dude... it's not about outsiders and insiders w/r/t a district as much as it is that fundraising-trumps-all crowd always wants to put someone who sucks in there (say lieberman).

If Dickhead Emmanuel was unsatisfied w/ her fundraising, why didn't he walk Cegalis all around and introduce her to his money-fuckbuddies?  Oh wait... maybe it's because he was concerned that an actual progressive wouldn't sell the fuck out for the next race!

Or why is it that the DC consultant class always seems to want the least progressive option?

BTW - Fuck Lieberman... he can go hunting with Big Dick for all anyone cares


McCain sucks!
by teknofyl on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 09:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 3)

I agree 110% Matt.

I've got a radical idea:

How about our campaign committees not wasting time, resources, and money endorsing people in competitive primaries (no matter who you supported, Cegelis and Hackett, were fine candidates that were viable in a general unlike the 2 other candidates in PA) and instead spend time, resources, and money into general elections and party building. I guess that's just a crazy lefty blogger idea.......

I hope Cegelis supporters vote for Duckworth, but I have to ask. Do we continue letting the DC Democrats pull this crap with no consequences?


Tennesseans for Feingold
by ben114 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:21:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 1)

This wasn't just a campaign committee deal, this was Obama, Durbin, Kerry, the whole machine...


by Matt Stoller on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:24:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Thank you Matt! Now do you get the strategic voting idea? It's only two years, let's send the MSD corporacrats a message. THIS IS THE RACE TO DO IT IN.


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I think that message was already sent in 2000.  Voting for Nader sure made that Democratic Party change its stripes, didn't it?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

First of all, let me say that I was neutral in this race. Unlike the PA Senate race, where I have been extremely hostile to Pennachio and Sandals, Cegelis did establish a track record. She deserved more support than she got from the key powermakers.

I think the DCCC was wrong to advance Duckworth at Cegelis's expense. That being said I am sure that the DCCC had legitimate reasons in their mindset (not saying that they were right) to endorse Duckworth. I don't know what their reasoning was, and I'm not here to defend it; but they had to have some reasons why they chose NOT to support Cegelis. While it would not change what has happened, perhaps it could heal the wounds or at least give closure to Cegelis's supporters.

Now with the primary over and Duckworth winning apparently, given that I can understand how Cegelis's supporters feel, I think it is time for those activists to take some time to heal and to recover. That is, I understand that there are hurt feelings; and you all should have the appropriate time to grieve.

However, rightly or wrongly, Duckworth (pending any late precincts) is the nominee. You may not like how she got the nomination or that she is the candidate, but the choice now is yours. Do you sit on your asses, become self-righteous because your candidate didn't win, (and again, I can understand why you feel that way. It's a human reaction), and let the GOP candidate win? Or do you make the best out of this situation, which is to help Duckworth win?

To me the choice comes down to the fact. Do you want someone who represents 0-20% of your views elected? Or do you want someone who represents 60-80% of your views elected? If I were in your position I'd want the latter rather than the former. That means supporting Duckworth once you have taken perhaps a few weeks to get over the loss.

For Cegelis's supporters, and I know this is of little consolation, there will be other races. There will be other opportunities to make a difference. There are tons of other offices in DuPage County that she could run for that are held by Republicans. She has name recognition and is well-known. I know it is probably hard for her to realize this, but she could still be a competetive candidate for other offices. I know it is not the same as being in Congress, but I would hope that Cegelis would not give up on her political career based on this loss. She also needs time to grieve and heal. But when she finally does heal, she has to realize that there are other offices. And, perhaps in due time, there will be a chance to run for Congress again.

What I am saying is that you should all take the time to grieve, then realize what is stake, and help out Duckworth. She is the Democratic nominee. I know it is tempting to sit on your asses and be bitter, but that's not going to change the political environment. Every seat does count. And if Duckworth wins that is one step closer to having Democratic control.

So this is what I think. I know what it must feel like to watch a dream or something you aspired for die or be set back, but you have to look toward the future. With the election returns in the choice is yours. I hope that you don't let the bitterness cloud the race ahead. For even though, in the eyes of many of you, while you may not think Duckworth deserves your support, you have to realize that there are greater issues at stake.


by jiacinto on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:15:30 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

the real important difference between Christine and Tammy is when Christine went to a campaign event she asked down ticket candidates to come with her to help build the party.  She had her volunteers deliver their lit with hers etc.

The extent to with I give my support to Duckworth is the same extent she has shown and will show to the down ticket part of the party.

With that as my yardstick I anticipate I will be able to tell Tammy to fuck off with a clear conscience because so far her campaign is all about Tammy, not building the party in the district.  Just like Bean in 08, who would not let precinct people deliver her lit with Kerry's or any other candidates.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:47:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Good points, especially the Bean '04 analogy. Don't mind Jiacinto, he is just here to remind everyone how fucked up the DLC's thinking is.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:49:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I am not part of the DLC. And what role did the DLC have in this race? It's funny that people throw out that name to attack anyone who doesn't agree with the worldview of this and other blogs. To my knowledge it was the DCCC who was involved in this race, not the DLC. But then again, if I take your viewpoints, the DLC has some octoupus-like influence all over the Democratic Party to oppress people like you; and everything that doesn't go the way of "progressives"--I use that term loosely--is due to the evil DLC.

Again I was neutral in this primary. I thought it was wrong for the DCCC to get involved and to support Duckworth. Cegelis had name recognition and a base of support. Frankly, though, I am sure that they had their reasons; and in their mind, they were legimiate. Again I'm not defending them or why they made their decision.

But the fact is that the voters spoke. Duckworth has apparently won. She is the nominee. I guess that you all have a choice: to do nothing and thus indirectly help the GOP candidate. Or to grieve, make the best out of this situation, and elect Duckworth. From where I am, I would rather have Duckworth than Roskam. Then again, though, I actually want to see more Democrats elected. I'm not convinced that the rest of you feel the same way in all honesty.

I understand the hurt feelings and the anger. There are many other offices in DuPage County that Cegelis could run for next time. There will be other opportunities for her. I know it is hard for her to realize that now. And frankly I would hope that she wouldn't be embittered by this loss and that she could find the strength to remain involved.

But that is what I think. I know it is hard and raw for many of you right now. I would understand it, but I would take the time to grieve. Then, once that has past, I would make the best out of this situation.


by jiacinto on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Your bringing Bean's '04 campaign into it actually hurts your point. The reason Bean managed to win in IL-08 (which is much more conservative than IL-06) [at least according to the Almanac of American Politics (both the conservativeness and the reason for winning), and they should know] was partly because of Phil Crane's missteps, but also because she took special care not to be associated with John Kerry and refrained from criticizing the Republican party and George W. Bush, which (at least at the time) were very popular in the district.


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:41:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

you may be correct about my argument but it did foreshadow how Bean is really a DINO which will loose in November.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:50:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

The only Democrat who didn't later switch parties who can actually be considered a Democrat In Name Only (let's define it as having less than a 50% rating by progressivepunch.org's standards, I hope we can agree on that) is Zell Miller, and he did in fact switch parties in all but name (which I guess is kind of obvious from the fact that I'm calling him a DINO). (Maybe Gene Taylor as well, since he voted for Murtha for speaker instead of Pelosi).
Nobody who votes better by our standards than Melissa Bean (not that I'm saying she's good [in most other IL districts I'd be very unhappy with her voting record on economic issues], I'm just talking about relatively good) [if anybody besides her could've beaten Crane], and nobody better by our standards than her could hold the district. There's a reason why there aren't any progressives in district which Bush won by more than a point or two (I have to include that disclaimer because I consider Loretta Sanchez, Darlene Hooley, Brian Baird, and Tim Bishop to be progressives, and Kerry narrowly lost their districts).
Here are the Democratic U.S. Representatives in districts Bush won in 2004 other than those two (I'm not sure about the Georgians due to redistricting)
Bud Cramer,Dennis Cardoza,John Salazar,Allen Boyd,Sanford Bishop,Jim Marshall,John Barrow,Melissa Bean,Leonard Boswell,Dennis Moore,Ben Chandler,Charlie Melancon,Bart Stupak,Collin Peterson,Gene Taylor,Ike Skelton,Mike McIntyre,Bob Etheridge,Earl Pomeroy,Ted Strickland,Tim Holden,Dan Boren,John Spratt,Stephanie Herseth,Lincoln Davis,Bart Gordon,John Tanner,Chet Edwards,Henry Cuellar,Jim Matheson,Rick Boucher,Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall.
The reason they win is because they aren't progressive (at least not on BOTH economic issues and social issues), but every single one of them except for Gene Taylor voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker, and they all vote progressively far more often than any Republican who would be elected in a district like that would.
by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:16:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (2.00 / 0)

Unfortunately the type of Democrat you want to represent IL-8 can't win in that district. For IL-8 Bean is probably the best you are going to get in a Democrat. Yet, of course, it never does cease to amaze how so many people on this and other "progressive" would rather have horrible Republicans than imperfect Democrats in office. Again this is why progressives and liberals will always be a minority.


by jiacinto on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Well that's your choice and you have every right to maintain that attitude. Unfortunately it's not going to help elect more Democrats. Again take the time to grieve and to deal with your anger. If you don't want to volunteer or help any further, that's your choice. If you want to be self-righteous about it, that's your choice too. I can fully understand your anger.

But the one who is laughing and is celebrating right now is probably Roskam. And think about that when you decide what you're going to do. You're not hurting the party or the upper appartus. You're hurting the causes you care about. And the one who is celebrating is the GOP nominee now.

Think about it in those terms. Do whatever you want. I'm not here to judge you. You can refuse to do anything, but realize who is the real winner if Duckworth falls shorts. It's not you or the others who will "self-righteously claim that you sent a message". It will be Roskam and Hastert.


by jiacinto on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:07:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Oh please this is the lesser of evils argument that just gets us more evil, just kinder, gentler evil.

And if Roskam is laughing it is over how totally clueless the Chicago Democrats are in the suburbs and how the Duckworth candidacy/win just decimated a fledgling democratic party that Christine was helping.

Do you realize that at most Cegelis events she brought along the down ticket dems with her.  Tammy did not even go out for herself let alone others.  It was a remote control campaign that was all about Tammy Tammy Tammy.

If Tammy changes her ways then maybe she will be good for the district but I kind of doubt she, or her Chicago handlers, will try even extend this courtesy to the Local Dems.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 0)

I guess that nothing I say will change your mind. But frankly, if you want to walk away and let people like Roskam and Hastert win, that's your choice. Frankly I'd rather have Duckworth than Roskam. I'd rather have someone who represents SOME of my beliefs than none of my beliefs.

Again there are plenty of other offices available in the 6th district that Cegelis could run for in the next cycle. It may not be Congress, but it is a start.

I sincerely hope you would all not let this defeat make you all bitter. For you're not hurting anyone but yourselves.


by jiacinto on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 12:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's at stake? (none / 0)

A corporate bought and paid for republican or a corporate bought and paid for democrat?


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:33:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I totally agree. (none / 0)

It's good to see some sense around here.


Visit my blog at geoffespo.blogspot.com
by Geoff Espo on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 10:55:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Key thing you're missing here Jiacinto, is that the national Democratic Party is the problem. They continually work to block progessives.  This campaign showed us how they work. To support their candidate will only perpetuate the problem.

The Right took over the Republican party by sticking to its guns and not supporting moderates.  If progressives want to take over the Democratic party, or even play a role in it, we will have to stop supporting candidates put up by the DP's moderate leadership.


by Billb08 on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 10:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Now, if I were a Cegalis activist in IL-06, I would think long and hard about whether I would do anything besides vote in November.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who actually feels this way, but I don't think it reflects well on you, Chris, to give the appearance of spreading this meme.  It's not like people won't react however they choose to react regardless.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:15:31 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

That is a real chickenshit comment. It is an issue, people are talking about it in the district, but a bloggers shouldn't risk "the appearance of spreading the meme"? WTF?

It is the bosses that fucked up -- big time -- and people talking about it is the solution not the problem.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

What exactly is "chickenshit" about it?  Did you just feel the need to throw a nasty word in there to sound serious?

I have no problem with people talking about it, lest there be any doubt.  I just think it comes off poorly for an opinion leader, the flagship poster on one of our most popular blogs, to give the impression he is encouraging people not to work for the Democratic candidate.  As I said, if people decide that's what they want to do, they don't need a nudge one way or the other.

Chris is welcome to ignore my comment or to take it for whatever it's worth.  It's just one man's impression of how he came across.  I'm quite certain he doesn't need you to jump down my throat over it.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:33:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I guess you do not understand the level of committment and excited that exists in District 6.  We all tried to tell you that this was wrong, but no one would listen.  We tried to explain how we had it under control, but no one would listen.  We tried to explain that this was machine politics at its worse, but no one would listen.  And now that the facts have been laid bare at your feet, you refuse to acknowledge how egregious this actually was.  Messes are difficult to clean, my friend, and I do not anticipate a resolved situation for months, let alone years.


by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:55:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I understand you completely, friend.  You seem to mistake me for one of those people who lectures you that now that the primary is over, you must move on and fight for the Democratic candidate like a loyal soldier.  I am not nearly that presumptuous.

I feel very badly for Christine, who clearly got the rawest of deals in exchange for all her hard work.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:28:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I'm proud to see a discussion about what beyond voting should occur in situations like this. Worrying about what "meme" is advanced is the same chickenshit fear of how actions are perceived that has prevented the Establishment Democrats in DC from doing the right thing, time after time.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:57:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

This is a particuarly exceptional case.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

No argument there.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (2.00 / 2)

Considering that there will probably be a recount ( as well there should) Duckworth could show that she cares about the district, party and country by conceding to Cegelis.

The last I looked at the results it looks like a 150 vote margin ( or 500 on a different site) neither of these margins looks convinceing espiacially with reports of some "confusion" in Cook County.

A duckworth concession would win her some points for putting the country ahead of herself that she might be able to use in her next campaign in another district she isn't from, doesn't live in and is foisted on by here sugar daddies in the DCCC


by Rational on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:25:15 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense.
She still got more votes.  That would be a betrayal of those who did vote for her, which does represent a plurality of the voters (thin plurality that it is).
by Teaser on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:33:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

She was supposed to have this massive 20% point lead over Cegelis and basically totally crush her in this primary. Duckworth doesn't look to be heading for anything better than a real squeaker and that's with the full weight of the DCCC, HRC, Obama, Durbin, Kerry, tons of free media and having out spent Cegelis by what's said to be 6 or 7 to 1.

That's massive, massive establishment, institutional, and funding thrown behind Duckworth and she can't do any better than a squeaker?

While I don't expect her to concede to Cegelis if she manages to eke out a win, one can certainly see who the better candidate really is and it could be reasonably argued that the selfless thing to do for the party would be for Duckworth to concede to Cegelis on that basis and throw the support she's bought behind Cegelis for the general to better our chances of actually winning the seat.


by Quinton on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

William Rivers Pitt (with the Cegelis campaign) is suggesting a recount. It will not be automatically triggered in Illinois and will cost $75,000 to ask for. Cegelis would need a lot of money to do it.

At the same time, there are massive voting problems in Chicago. At 1:00 CST, six hours after polls closed, only something like 50% of Cook county precincts have reported. The Stroger-Claypool race for Cook County Board President is already getting bitter over it.

Remember that in 2000 the only county with more problematic votes than south Florida was Cook county... This year we got touch screens.


PrairieStateBlue - Open Source Politics (formerly SoapBlox/Chicago)
by ltsply2 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

who should pay for a recount? (none / 0)

The bosses should pay for a recount, I think paying for a recount is the cost of doing business the way the bosses did in IL-06. The last thing the bosses need is for their ineffective candidate to look illegitimate.

Maybe some sort of effort should be made to let Emanuel and Durbin and Obama and Kerry and Hillary and the DCCC know that they should pay for what they broke.


by blogswarm on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you (none / 0)

think "getting the results in" took so long in the first place, Rahmbo and Dumbkin can not afford to lose this battle, even if they win by only one vote. They don't understand they are winning A battle and losing the WHOLE war.


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 3)

So, let me get this straight... a candidate that's loved by the grassroots... who have been working their butts off... gets taken down by the DC establishment's media and money, who place their bets on a veteran who is purported to be more 'electable'.

I have a sense of deja vu. And a bad feeling about this.


by Malacandra on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:32:21 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Why should someone who is winning, concede? I'll admit I don't know a lot about this race, but obviously it was tight and nasty. However, if Duckworth didn't drop out last week, I don't think she will with a winning victory.

Doesn't she live in another district (but is close to IL06)? I'm guessing that district is represented by another Democrat? Otherwise, why couldn't we have both running in different districts?


Philly Liberal
by Airb330 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:36:33 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

She does not live in the district.
Is she winning? All that support, money and endorsements and all she gets is 150 votes ( less then 1% ) out of 28,000 with some questions about the returns in Cook County. As Gregoire showed this margin does not necessarilly hold up on inspection.
In fact I would be curious if the district she lives in has a D or an R representing it?
At one point I thought I heard it was held by a R but that representative was considered to strong to challenge.
If that is true she is a real chicken to run and hide from a real challenege to be a carpetbagger in a district who had strong local support.
Duckworth should give it up before she costs the D's a possible seat.

by Rational on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:02:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

Duckworth lives in Il-08 which is held currently by the DINO Bean.  Bean is the one a union was going to honor with it's woman of the year award and then rescinded the award and told her not to come to the event after she Voted for CAFTA.  I personally think Bean will go down to Mcsweeny who is similar to Roscum.  So I predict that unless Christine somehow wins IL-06 both IL-06 and IL-08 will be Republican maintaining the status quo that both Dems and Repubs in Illinois slave to maintain.

You can find the home addresses of the candidates in the FEC database


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:00:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

If Bean loses to McSweeney, it'll be despite her CAFTA vote, not because of it. IL-08 is extremely wealthy, and frankly people in it have more to gain from the cheap goods and things which will be coming here from Central America than they do from protecting America's workers and preventing an even worse trade deficit. (assuming they don't care about America's trade imbalance and America's workers, which I think it is probably safe to say that they don't, since unlike my district in New Jersey which is even wealthier but is full of people concerned about social justice (my zip code gave the third most of any zip code to the Dean campaign), they did vote for Bush)

I don't like it at all, but that's unfortunately the way things are.


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:23:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

just for reference I was born in the IL-08 and until about 3 years ago still lived there.

So I do know a think about the district.

My dad made money as a caddy on the Inverness golf course when he was a kid.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

just for reference I was born in the IL-08 and until about 3 years ago still lived there.

So I do know a think about the district.

My dad made money as a caddy on the Inverness golf course when he was a kid.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:28:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Crystal Ball? (none / 0)

If this is the best Duckworth can do when she out spends her opponent 7-1, I'm scared to see how she'll do against a Republican that'll match or OUT SPEND her in November.

No matter what happens in this race (I'm still holding out hope for Cegalis), this is a good sign for Andy Warren where I live in PA's 8th District, who is running against another Emmanuel hand-picked Iraq Vet: Patrick Murphy. Murphy has a lot of outside money and support but is not from the district and will have a lot of the same problems as Duckworth (voting record and carpet bagging issues, 1 issue candidate, etc.) After seeing these results I have to think Warren will win the race--he's been in public office for 30 years and has even better name rec that Cegalis who had never held elected office.

Go Christine!


by DemGuy04 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:47:31 AM EST

Re: Crystal Ball? (none / 0)

yea Duckworth win would be real bad nationally.

Roscum already has a 1 mil + lead on either candidate.  If Tammy wins the national party will pour tons of money at the district and loose anyway because she will have no real ground game.  This race would have been hard enough for Christine with full funding, no primary, and her ground troops, for Duckworth it will be a total waste of money just like bean in IL-08.

In the end the republicans in IL will win the Governorship and both IL-06 and IL-08 unless national level politics really melt down.  (Blago may win gov. due to his money lead)

It would be different if 06 was a presidential year but it is not and most people will just not vote because they really can't tell the parties apart anymore.


by Delver Rootnose on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 03:08:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crystal Ball? (none / 0)

Another good thing about Warren is that he and James Webb can be our poster candidates to represent people who are fed up with the Republican party's incompetence, extreme-right-wingness, and such things. (But I think the DCCC doesn't have a favorite in this district now (although Murphy was recruited by Rahm, Rahm has no problems with finding another candidate if he doesn't like the initial candidate (Christine Cegelis and Colleen Rowley), since unlike in IL-06, they have both Murphy and Warren's biographies up, something I think implies a willingness to back a candidate financially at least if they win the primary given the other candidates they have biographies up for.


by bobdoleisevil on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 04:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Crystal Ball? (none / 0)

Webb is the poster child of how the D'S HAVE JUST GIVEN UP.
An addled ron supporter who still believes that his traitorous boss did something besides bank rupt the country getting the nod from the D's
hell if thats the best we can do why bother?
Supporting a quisling who has worked in the past to destroy this country just because he said he would? how desparate the virginia demthuglicans must be? they don't even try to hide their fifth column anymore they parade them right out in the open.
by Rational on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You sure? (none / 0)

Update: I stand corrected. Charlie Wilson in OH-06 remains the ultimate district fuck-up, and probably will even until the ending of the world. Maybe this is just second place.

Joe Driscoll. PA-15. 2004


by RBH on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:48:03 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (3.00 / 1)

There will be a recount, and there are still at least 65 precincts in District 6 whose votes are yet to be tabulated.  Although I am not as involved as others, I have invested money, time and other forms of labor in Cegelis's campaign, and I must say I am consternated.  Bowers is right, and Brigham is right: Illinois activists should cast their vote and volunteer for a campaign in which they believe.  Nothing is worse than a group of activists who are either paid or serving in a perfunctory manner.  I will not send money to Duckworth, and I will not write letters on her behalf to my major newspapers.  Cegelis and her group are still holding the barricade, and it will take months, if not years, for a two and a half year campaign to come to terms with an unprecedented onslaught from DC.  As a Democrat, I am disgusted.  As a reform Democrat, I want change.  And for all those people who fail to see the ethical and moral issues raised by Emanuel's megalomania should really ask themselves if they are able to think critically.  What occured in my state is unacceptable, and I will not be told that I am emotional and irrational.  It was wrong in December; it is wrong now; and it will be wrong in the future.  Many of us, including myself, are not drones for the party: I vote for those in whom I believe; and I detest those who I feel manipulate and lie in order to enjoy a salary and a seat at Signatures restaurant.  And I especially loathe those who allow themselves to be exploited.  
I cannot be excited by Duckworth; I will not support her financially; and I will not brook any criticism of Cegelis's campaign.  Democrats need progressives, and I believe it is high time they acknowledge the importance of our votes in elections.  After all, we are the ones who walk to the polls in this uncivilized weather.  
We will have a recount; we will have a machine recount; we will have a hand recount; and we will have other recounts.  And after we ensure that the tabulation of votes has been honest and transparent, we will dedicate our time and our labor to candidates who are chosen by their constituents, not candidates who choose their voters as did Tammy Duckworth.
I hope Duckworth supporters are satisfied.  You had the chance to expand the Democratic base in Chicago's conservative Western suburbs, and you blew it.  And yes, I am from the area, so I believe I know a little more than some of you of the dynamics of the area.
Good job, Rahm.  I bet he is sitting their right now in his little suit screaming, "I won.  I won.  I won."  Perhaps if he increased the size of his dick, he would not need to manipulate elections.
by illinois062006 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 01:51:19 AM EST

Re: IL-06 Pre-postmortem (none / 0)

If Duckworth ends up with the nomination I fully expect her to loose in the general and the only good thing in that--and this is shitty to say in what is looking like a change election and for a seat I believe we could have won with Cegelis--perhaps in two years time Rahm won't attempt to thrust some other unwanted canidate on IL-06 and instead put the same sort level of support behind Cegelis that he gave to Duckworth this year and watch her put the seat in our column.

Wish Rahm hadn't made it more difficult for us by letting the Republicans likely gain the advantage of incumbancy this year, but eh.


by Quinton on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 02:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now we're talking (none / 0)

it's only two years. If not Christine, then someone with her progressive values and heart. Write in Cegelis in Nov.


by Kankakee Voice on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]