« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Patrick Hughes v. Mark Kirk: Illinois May be a Test Case for the Effectiveness of Tea Parties

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 11th, 2010 at 12:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

February 2, 2010 is the Illinois Republican Primary. Less than one month away. Patrick Hughes is running an upstart campaign against the would be Republican nominee, Mark Kirk. Patrick Hughes is as far right as Kirk is as far left.

Patrick Hughes aims to harness the conservatives and tea party activists in Illinois who feel marginalized by Kirk and the Democrats further to the left of him. On Friday, Mark Levin endorsed Patrick Hughes and urged conservatives to rally to Patrick Hughes in this last month before the primary.

It makes a compelling case to see just how rapid a response the tea party activists and conservatives can make in a Republican Primary. Should Patrick Hughes win the GOP primary, it would send shock waves across the nation and severely shake the foundations of the GOP establishment.

Mark Kirk has gotten a lot of bad press in Illinois for his cap-and-trade vote. Illinois is a transportation hub with oil and coal reserves. Cap and trade would harm Illinois’s industrial base at a time the state has 11% unemployment.

Patrick Hughes has been making that case across the state — taking a national issue and making it very local. People are registering their impact.

The race right now comes down to name ID. Kirk has it. Patrick Hughes doesn’t. But polling shows when Republican voters know Patrick Hughes and Kirk, they go with Patrick Hughes overwhelmingly. In fact, polling also shows 60% of primary voters are undecided — something that suggests a one month blitz by Patrick Hughes could dramatically improve his numbers.

Patrick Hughes was born on the northwest side of Chicago in a small apartment. His parents told him if he believed in God and worked hard, he could do whatever he wanted. He went to law school, became a lawyer, then became a small businessman.

Now he wants to represent Illinois in the United States Senate. If conservatives and tea party activists rally to him, he has a shot. But the hourglass is almost out of sand.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • sully21

    Here is a link to the Mark Levin interview with Patrick Hughes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuYzTjMlDrA

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX
  • Brian Hibbert

    When Hughes ducked out to talk to Levin. It didn’t impress most of the crowd.

    To be honest. He’s the guy I would prefer out the the people present. A close second was Judge Lowery. But I’m one of the few who had heard him speak before and I knew what his platform was. The others present didn’t hear much of it.

  • proudgop

    he is good fit for the state and while more liberal on social areas has proven to run stellar campaigns

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    He was heavily involved in a fight against an Illinois tax increase last year. He’s one of us.

    Mark Kirk is one of Them.

    See more at The Minority Report, with link to the Illinois Review blog.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    Thanks for highlighting where money can be well spent.

  • dnlchisholm

    Why isn’t http://mittromneycentral.com/2010/01/11/its-moneybomb-day-for-scott-brown/#comment-5673 a top story today? Scott Brown needs all the publicity we can give him!

  • http://www.paulfor62.com Paul Mitchell

    Hughes’ real problem is Lowery, Arrington, and Thomas, the other conservative candidates in the race. We’re going to split the conservative vote here, and Kirk (aka: He-who-must-not-be-nominated) will win.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Please don’t act like he is conservative in any way shape or form. You want to support him, fine. You want to pull a Dede again fine. But don’t act like this guy isn’t a total liberal in Republican clothing.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    This is a primary. If the Republican voters decide that they want Kirk to represent them, then that’s their choice. That’s a far cry from twelve committee members choosing someone in a smoke-filled back room.

    Now, why Illinois voters would select a Democrat with an (R) after his name to represent them is a different discussion altogether.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I didn’t mean the process of selecting Scuzzy, I meant the fact that proudgop pushed Scuzzy as a fine upstanding Republican all the way up until Hoffman was clearly going to smoke her. Only then did proudgop get on board.

    And for the record, Kirk voted yes on Cap and Tax, no on the Surge and he is no friend of gun owners. Those aren’t little social issues that one can argue about. Those are issues of National Defense, Fiscal security and personal rights.

    The guy is a total liberal and shouldn’t have the support of any Republicans. Also, if he runs such great campaigns, as proudgop says, then why are 60% of primary voters undecided?

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    I don’t know much about this race, but I know plenty about Kirk…and he is the definition of a RINO. Would any of us be shocked if Kirk was elected, and turn around and would support Obamacare? I wouldn’t. On what issue could we trust Kirk on?

    I don’t know who is a better choice, and who can win the general…but I know that Kirk is a weak answer to the question.

    http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=9414

  • AceInTX
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I believe proudgop actually prefers progressives, just so long as they have an (R) after their name. I have yet to see her supportive of a true conservative, even if they’re leading in fundraising and polling.

  • Illinicon

    that the legislator changed to help out Barry’s Presidential campaign. When the bill was first introduced it was suppose to be a one-time deal but during the legislative process it got changed. I thought this primary was its usual third Tuesday in March date until around Thanksgiving, The local news has just started to focus on the races. The high undecideds could just be your typical average voter who thinks they have 10 and not 3 weeks to decide how they are going vote and thus havent thought about it. Though Kirk should be doing better, he has the money, name ID and anti-Kirk vote splitting advantages. I still think he wins the primary with 55- 60% of the vote.

  • AceInTX

    Night hit’s the nail on the head…

    I agree Kirk is in the mold of DeDe…but the situation is different….

    My Touche’ pertains to the following however…

    Now, why Illinois voters would select a Democrat with an (R) after his name to represent them is a different discussion altogether.

  • AceInTX

    isn’t the fact that he has high recognition numbers combined with such astronomical undecided numbers speak to his weakness?

    My interpretation is…the primary voters are familiar with the product being sold and are reluctant if not outright opposed to buying it!

  • bs

    …about how we deal with Kirk. There is a significant chance that he will be the GOP candidate. It would not be good to say things that can be held against us later…not that you’ve done that here; I just make the point generically.

  • Aaron Gardner

    a combination of what you saidand what Illinicon said down thread.

  • AceInTX
  • ChicaGOP

    And as bad as he is, I would gladly pull the lever for him if it helps to stop Alexi Gianoullias (sp?). Alexi is a young, very personable charmer who’s an obvious tool of the Chicago machine. Sound like anyone else we know?

    I’ll vote Hughes over Kirk in February, but don’t give me any crap about voting Kirk over Alexi G. in November.

    As one who lives in IL-5 (Emmanuel’s old district), I’ll gladly take a 50% lib over a 100% lib any day.

  • JSobieski

    If not for the climate change support, I probably wouldn’t mind him so much

  • dhorowitz3

    During average election years the common argument in defense of blue state rinos that is promulgated is that the conservative challenger cannot win statewide in the general. Depending upon the state and the candidates and many other factors, this argument is often true. However, 2010 is different. We have a once in a lifetime perfect storm. Just look at Massachusetts! The 2010 election will be like a candy store in which you have a limited chance to get in any conservative for free.

    I admit that Kirk is probably more electable but we need to look at the risk vs return. In a normal year Hughes would have close to a zero chance of winning so I would say that we need to go with Kirk. However, this year has proven that any conservative who runs a competent, spirited campaign has an excellent chance. In other words, conventional wisdom needs to be thrown out in 2010.

  • joayn

    primary. They have big, big plans for him. And not in a good way.

    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/05/about-the-chicago-2011-mayors-race/

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    that Kirk has yet to really step foot outside the Chicago area to campaign. Time and time again at every candidate forum, Kirk has yet to show up himself. He has gotten a soft treatment from the Illinois press – Chicago Tribune, Sun-Times – and has ducked every opportunity to debate the issues. Kirk is holed up in Chicago and won’t come out to play.

    Erik, I have written about Hughes before on here and have also attested to feeling the pulse of the people as a Tea Party leader and a GOP Precinct Committeeman. If Kirk wins next month, the Democrats walk into the Senate seat. Why? I have been told by voters that they will sit at home in November, won’t vote for that part of the ballot, or more importantly, they would vote for Dr. Eric Wallace should he make his threat a reality as a 3rd Party candidate.

    I wish the national conservatives would focus on Illinois like a laser beam and help defeat Kirk. Maybe it’ll happen after the Mass. vote, and it better happen if Brown wins.

    www.downstateiladvocate.com

  • Brian Hibbert

    but NOT in the primary. As mentioned above, Kirk is one of them.. He’d be the next Arlen Specter or Olympia Snow.

  • Brian Hibbert

    I’m not sure that he’s done much else.

    Frankly, the crowd Friday night would have roasted him for his Cap and Trade vote alone.

  • Joshua Persons

    I don’t blame you — there’s a far more famous Pat Hughes in Chicago. Candidate Patrick Hughes needs all the Google help he can get being in the same town as Broadcaster Pat Hughes. It’s just a bit obvious this time around.

  • Illinicon

    also a chunk of that could be the anti-Kirk vote deciding bewteen Hughes and the other 3 other candidates on the ballot or the catagory I would include myself who dont like Kirk but the replusing thought of Sen. Mob banker Giannoulius is enough to consider holding my nose and voting for Kirk in the primary. What Hughes needs is for atleast one of the other candidates to backout citing a need to rally around Hughes, Demint and other Senate conservatives to comeout and endorse him and promise as much help through the SCF to help him improve his name ID and message and Kirk to lose ground to Giannoulius in general election polls so that Kirk’s only rationale for getting conservatives is eaten away at.

  • Aaron Gardner

    The guy was against the partial birth abortion ban. That is pretty blatant. The guy gets an F from both GOA and the NRA. The guy voted against the surge in Iraq, which since has WON the Iraq front in the GWOT. Sorry, but there isn’t much there to like.

  • joayn

    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/05/we-will-not-stop-working-to-elect-scott-brown-no-matter-who-tells-us-we-have-to-nobody-comes-between-us-and-senator-hottie-mcawesome-nobody/

    The other one is a good read, though.

  • Brian Hibbert

    Illinois Review’s Conservative Candidates Forum could have been renamed the Anybody but Kirk Forum and it would have played the same.

    At the time the only problem I had (and still wonder about) is Hughes’ occupation. There’s just too many scandals involving real estate and politicians. I hope someone gave Hughes a thorough check before he becomes our nominee. In short, if there are no skeletons in the closet, Hughes is a good choice.

  • Brian Hibbert

    http://www.redstate.com/brianh/2009/08/09/illinois-conservative-us-senate-candidates-forum-review/

    Must have used the wrong tag.

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    that the IL GOP needs to be careful about how they deal with their electorate and the Tea Parties in Illinois. We’re tired of getting the same Illinois Combine and same old Democrat-lite candidates – all the while those RINOs run around the state claiming to be conservative. It’s a joke. If the IL GOP doesn’t wake up to what is going on in the state and across the US, then we are in serious trouble.

    BTW, how can I forward this reply on to the IL GOP Chairman Pat Brady? j/k

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    I was at a dinner fundraiser in Shelbyville a few months ago and saw Patrick Hughes and one of Kirk minions speak to the crowd. Hughes seemed to capture their attention but when Kirk’s guy got up, the mood changed. They knew that Kirk voted for Cap and Trade and I had the feeling that Kirk’s guy wasted his time even showing up.

    I have rarely ran into a Kirk supporter in my travels across the state and have not actually talked to one, other than reading their comments on IR.

    I also believe it is a bit shameful that the IL GOP has had a Governor’s debate and a Lt. Governor’s debate but has yet (and probably won’t at this point) to have a US Senate debate. You tell me if they are protecting their Golden Child from the people of Illinois. Kirk hides out in Chicago hoping time runs out on the primary season before too many people find out what he really stands for.

    I can just see Kirk and Specter being each other’s Secret Santa.

  • joayn

    section: “Red Invades Blue …” by Swamp Yankee.

    And, yeah, Erick, why isn’t Swamp’s diary front page? Talk about throwing away momentum.

    And you criticize the beltway GOP …

  • joayn

    But this is Chicago. Just look at who the Dem’s choice is – he has links to the MOB! The Soros crooks have been collecting a nice by file on Kirk and plan to use it. This will be bigger than Sanford.

    I’m sure the GOP knows this about Kirk. They should have “convinced” him to retire.

  • joayn
  • Brian Hibbert

    Kirk is not gay.

    Kirk is not a pedophile.

    Kirk has enough reasons to not vote for him in the primaries without making up stuff or using such attacks.

  • Mayhem

    This was an easy decision for Hughes. Should he spend time speaking to a small crowd of people or spend time speaking to millions of people who are capable of donating to his campaign and getting his conservative message out to Illinois voters? The choice was easy and I would have made the same thing.

  • Third Street

    …but if they’re true, and if the Democrats out him, I don’t see it working unless it can also be tied to charges of illegal conduct, a la Mark Foley or Larry Craig. It may even backfire on them.

    Besides, if I’ve heard about this way down in LA it can’t be that big a secret…

  • patriotparty1

    I read these boys all of the time. They KNOW what they are talking about when it comes to the democrat gossip, and especially politics in Illinois because they are based out of Chicago. I have told Cornyn over and over not to back this guy, but they keep right on doing it.

    Better get behind Hughes because Kirk will be knocked out if he wins the primary and so will our chances in Illinois! They’ve got the goods on Christ in FL too!

    From the Hillbuzz blog:

    As for Republicans, for some reason we?ve become a favorite target in regards to Kirk and Schock, but we haven?t told you anything that even young children in Chicago already know. We do not want to see Democrat Alexi Giannoulias become the next US Senator from Illinois. This is the same position we were in in 2008, in not wanting Dr. Utopia to win the Dems? nomination, before not wanting him to win the General Election and become president. Giannoulias is going to win the Dem primary in a cake walk?so we?ve skipped ahead to try to do everything we can to keep him from winning the General Election. Mark Kirk, the likely Republican nominess, will not beat Giannoulias because Democrats are going to out Kirk in the race, exposing him as a liar. At every single Republican event we?ve ever gone to, people talk openly about Mark Kirk being gay, with more than a few of them telling us we need to look into who Kirk shares a condo with in Washington, because they insist there?s something going on there. We?ve never taken the time to do that, because we have no interest whatsoever in figuring out which Republicans are gay and which ones aren?t. A few cocktails at young Republican gatherings usually works wonders to that end ? as there isn?t anything that comes off faster than Brooks Brothers blazers and Dockers when an open bar is rocking.

    We keep trying to warn Republicans that Kirk should not be their nominee, for the simple fact that we want to see the Republican win that Senate seat. Kirk will not win, for two reasons: (1) his vote for Cap & Tax and (2) he will be outed and exposed as a liar.

    It?s not the fact that he?s gay that will sink him. It is 2010, and we do not believe Republicans, even the most conservative, would vote against someone because he is gay. We do, however, think people will vote, in droves, against A LIAR. Kirk claims to be one thing but is another. If he does that with one part of his life, what else is he doing it with. The man cannot be trusted, and Democrats are planning to make sure voters know that. We know for a fact this will be one of the paths of attack Giannoulias will use against Kirk.

  • http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

    I won’t work against Kirk if he wins, but am I going to do anything more than the minimum for him? Doubtful.

    If Hughes wins, I’m all in.

  • Brian Hibbert

    Those 150 people in the room are passionate. They talk to other people too. And the local radio morning people mentioned the “slight” against the locals. It’ll cost him some votes in this area and they are people who are likely to be primary voters too.

    Hopefully the interview with Mark Levin will make up for it.

    Note: He did apologize as he left and when he came back for a few minutes at the end. Unfortunately he didn’t have the time get his message across to the room.

  • flipngo4

    This guy is an absolute sham. HE JUST REGISTERED TO VOTE IN 2004!!!! He’s never been with the Tea Party movement.

    He also declared on Mark Levin that he was the “only” conservative candidate in the race, which is a 100% lie to anyone who has followed it. Forget about Kirk – John Arrington, Kathleen Thomas, and Don Lowery are all equally conservative or more. Hughes lied there and he’ll lie in Washington.

    He put $250,000 of his OWN MONEY into the campaign! Money he made because of his shady real estate past. Until this month he was not spending that money on slick TV ads, because he knew without national support he would lose. I guarantee you the GOP has already provided insurance on that money. THE GOP HAS AN INSURANCE PLAN. If Kirk loses, they’ve already put Hughes in their back pocket. They won’t let the establishment get upended that easily.

  • joayn

    And who said anything about Kirk being a pedophile?

    I have friends (conservative and straight) in Chicago who know this to be true and told me about it a couple of years ago. They keep telling me it’s just a matter of time before the bomb is dropped, and it looks like the plane is reading for take-off.

    Look, you don’t know me. That’s okay. But believe me, I am sure the beltway GOP know this to be true and they’re still going to back him. That’s what really bothers me.

  • joayn

    And, specifically, what “shady real estate past” are you referring to? Be specific.

  • joayn

    I’d agree with you. Being married brings a big creepiness factor to the whole situation.

  • voteindy

    Kirk’s sexual orientation….whatever it may be….should be irrelevant.

  • bs

    But nice rant nonetheless.

    Support the conservative in the primary. Support the Republican candidate in the general. Virtually ANY GOP candidate will be better than the Democrat alternative, especially in Illinois (and I’m quite familiar with IL politics – I lived there until a couple of years ago)

  • HSMom

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM_Q35tULPE

    John Arrington sat across from Obama and argued personal responsibility verses Government responsibility a looooong time ago. Listen to his story. You’ll see.

  • scubadiver49er

    “Alexi is a young, very personable charmer who?s an obvious tool of the Chicago machine. Sound like anyone else we know”?

    Sounds exactly what is going on for the IL-14 Seat. Ethan Hastert is running for his dad’s old seat in the House. Ethan just moved back into the district within the last year or so, and has no political experience. I’m hoping that conservative Randy Hultgren can pull out a primary win in this District. BTW Denny is a lobbyist for Turkey & Ethan’s brother is also one. No influence here – NOT!!!!

    www.hultgrenforcongress.com/

  • mamacee

    I have seen John Arrington and Judge Don Lowery both mentioned in the comments here. Either man would be a much better choice than Patrick Hughes. I have heard all three gentlemen speak and Arrington and Lowery are much more in tune with conservative principles, IMHO, than Hughes. Also Hughes has come out in support of keeping No Child Left Behind. While I agree with the intent of improving our schools, NCLB is NOT the way to do that. The way to do that is to get the federal government and the liberal run unions out of the way and let the schools do what they need to do to improve themselves. A cookie cutter approach to education will never work. Students are individuals who do not all learn in the same way. As a former special education teacher, I am very experienced in adapting learning goals to each student’s needs. I am not advocating a system that is so individualized as to be ineffective, but I also do not see how using the cookie cutter approach, where schools in inner cities are treating exactly the same as those in rural areas when the schools have their own specific strengths and weaknesses, will ever accomplish anything except to frustrate teachers and administrators whose hands are tied due to ‘regulations’. Please go to www.illinoisfamily.org to access a voter’s guide that provides information about how candidates stand on the issues. Also John Arrington’s website is http://arringtonforsenate.com/ Judge Don Lowery’s is http://www.judgelowery4ussenate.com/wordpress/. Please help to pass the word along. We need someone other than Mark Kirk, someone who will actually represent us without all the political gobbledegook and ‘I was for it before I was against it’ garbage that I have heard and read about Mark Kirk.

  • Brian Hibbert

    He’s been running commercials calling for Mark Kirk to come out of the closet as a homosexual because he has homosexual friends and may have joined a homosexual Republican organization.

    He’s also running commercials calling Kirk a “defacto” pedophile because he knew some other politician who was a pedophile.

    As I said, there are enough reasons to NOT support Kirk without bringing up personal attacks on him. Especially when those attacks are based on untrue, unsubstantiated or irrelevant information.

    And you’re right. I don’t know you. You are making anonymous blog posts attacking a public figure. You have anonymous friends who can give you second hand information about the character of Mark Kirk. That’s wonderful and meaningless.

  • Brian Hibbert

    And frankly, I like all 3. Hughes, Lowery and Arrington would each make good Senators in their own way. All 3 articulated conservative values in different forms, but none are perfect. Arlington still leans towards the idea the federal government can solve “the big problems”. For example, he was the only candidate who answered “Yes” to a man asking about supporting a new comprehensive federal program to combat aids. Lowery seemed to think the federal government should mandate a 20% ethanol mix in fuel instead of the current 10%.. But otherwise was a “get the government out of the way” guy.

    I don’t know about Hughes’ support for NLCB. I’ll check into that.

  • Brian Hibbert

    I sent him email asking for clarification and will post the response here.

  • Brian Hibbert

    The No Child Left Behind Act was good in that it finally put national standards on student performance in schools. The federal government gives away billions in funding for public schools across the country, it is only right that the schools performing well are deserving of federal education dollars. There must be a system in place that ensures our students are learning and federal dollars that are being spent are being spent in the classroom. There are elements of the act that should be changed, but its creation was a step in the right direction for education reform in America.

    From a candidate issues piece in the Chicao Tribune

  • brewster73

    bs…so not true. The Dems love to pass socialist legislation with “bi-partisan” support. Kirk would be their liberal bi-partisan support. I’d rather the Dems take full blame.

    If Kirk wins the primary, it’s over for Republicans. The Tea Party supporters and true conservatives will NOT vote for Kirk. Repbulican principles have been compromised for too long. Given the choice, they’d vote for an independent conservative, thus splitting the vote and ensuring the Democrats a win.

    Make no mistake. A Kirk win in the primary does send a message to the rest of the country, and not a good one.

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    And that’s also what I’ve been hearing talking to conservative GOP and Tea Partiers alike. If Kirk wins, chalk up a Democrat victory.

    Plus, I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: Dr. Eric Wallace has threatened a 3rd Party run if Kirk wins in February.

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    Between Lowery, Arrington, and Thomas, the 3 of them might pull 5-6% combined. That could be all the difference between a Kirk nomination or a Hughes nomination. This is also one of the main reasons Dr. Wallace stated when he left the race early on.

  • ian

    I’ve compared them on http://elections.chicagotribune.com and I choose Kathleen.

  • pilotguy40

    I will vote in the Illinois primary. Hope we can get the right thing done. The input here is great, thanks to all

    Steve Caron

  • bs

    So if you think a Republican is worse than having a Democrat in office, I suggest you are at the wrong site.

  • bs

    3rd party promotion here is very, VERY much frowned upon. I wouldn’t think about pimping a 3rd party candidate over Kirk. Your longevity here will probably be brief.

  • jfindl2

    Do you actually think Hughes can win the general election?
    Are Hughes chances of winning anywhere close to Kirks chances?

    Hughes has never won any previous elected office b4. Kirk has won a Democratic House district 5 times. Kirk is also a proven fundraiser, he raised 5 million for his House race in 2008 and for the 3rd quarter in 09 he raised close to 3 million. I read that Hughes’ goal for the primary was 1.5mil and he raised around 300,000 in 3Q09. Now the third quarter was a while ago so I know Hughes has raised more than that, but probably nowhere near Kirk or the Dem’s top nominee.

    Is Kirk too liberal a nominee in a state like Illinois?

    Illinois, home of Barry, is really liberal, In 2000, 7 states had higher percentages for Gore. In 2004, only 5 states had a higher percentage for Kerry. And in 2008, only 3 states supported Obama at a greater rate. This isn’t Florida people, hell this isn’t even Maine. If Republicans are to win in IL we should not expect a Demint or a Corburn. Yep, the R’s would get another Olympia Snowe, so why is this so horrible in a really liberal state? If we didn’t have Olympia Snowe HCR would have been passed last year easily. Getting a squishy R from a liberal state is much better when the alternative is a solid D.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Tell me how, with tat knowledge, voting for him would be any different than voting for the democrat?

    Tell me how electing Kirk will advance freedom.

    Tell me why I should vote for him rather than Hughes. So far all you have done is put out the same old tired line that Hughes can’t win because he is not left enough.

    Instead of changing our guiding principles we should focus on nudging the electorate to our side of the argument. How does electing Kirk help in that goal?

  • mbecker908

    Oh yeah, that’s what some people said about McCain.

  • Third Street

    Unless Illinois has careened way over to the left since then I don’t see why another conservative couldn’t win there this year.

  • acat

    Chicago is quite liberal in some ways – but the hispanic population trends more socially conservative… and they’re growing.

    The collar counties are a mixed bag – fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, some greenies and libs. Thing is, most of the collar county types work for a living, so the lack of jobs will be a huge issue.

    Once you get out into the corn fields, Illinois is not very different from Iowa – socially pretty darn red, but farm subsidies moderate the tendency toward fiscal redness.

    Illinois can elect conservatives, but it is a bit of a balancing act. Hughes would likely be a better candidate to pull this off than Kirk, actually, because Kirk has more history.

    The other thing to keep in mind is this is a very unusual year. In a normal year, I’d take Kirk and count myself lucky to get back to a “one from each party” situation. – and if Kirk wins the nomination, I’ll color in his oval in November. Kirk is flawed, but would be better than, say, Jesse Jackson Jr.

    The real question, though, is whether the state republican party is prepared to back anyone other than Kirk.

    Mew

  • jfindl2

    -Tell me how, with tat knowledge, voting for him would be any different than voting for the democrat?

    Would vote for a filibuster of HCR and vote with the Republicans over 60% of the time compared to less than 10% of the time if the Democrats win the seat.

    -Tell me why I should vote for him rather than Hughes. So far all you have done is put out the same old tired line that Hughes can?t win because he is not left enough.

    Did you bother to read the post? Hughes has never won any election, there is no proof he can win an election, and the money he is bringing to the table is small potatoes compared to the Democrats in the race. This guy isn’t a Devore or Rubio who have a history of winning elections AND raising large sums of cash.

  • jfindl2

    Romney couldn’t raise the cash and the American electorate was too liberal to vote for him??? Nope my argument is that Hughes: (A) has no history of winning elections (B) cannot raise enough money to be competitive (C) IL is really really really liberal and therefore we should expect a squishy R at best unless the candidate can satisfy A and B

  • jfindl2

    Fitzgerald was up against a scandal tared incumbent and he still barely won with 50% of the vote. Also since 1998 the Governorship, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Comptroller, and Treasurer have all gone from R to D. I’m pretty sure the state senate swapped control as well but can’t find anything to be sure.

  • Aaron Gardner

    being for partial birth abortion, being for more draconian regulation on our unalienable right to bear arms, being for the prohibition of development of our natural resources such as Oil, I suppose I could go on but I think I made my point.

    As far as Hughes ability to win an election, he has never run before, so of course he has never won. But that isn’t proof that he can’t win. You act like he has run before and lost, and both of us know that isn’t true.

    According to your standards no one should ever run for office unless they have already run for office and won. That is just stupid, sorry but there is no other way to explain that sort of “logic”.

    Does that answer your questions?

  • jfindl2

    Can you prove your assertion that he is gay through photos or a source of some sort?

  • jfindl2

    He voted with his party 87.7% of the time. I can’t say this enough but its fricking Illinois, not a swing state, one of the most democratic states in the country. He will be a reliable Republican vote against most of the Obama agenda in Senate, which is pretty much the most you can hope for in a state like Illinois.

    My logic on Hughes is that this is a Senate election, which is no time for amateur hour, especially when he will be going up against other proven statewide vote getters. Also where did I say he had run before and lost? You know what they say about assuming..

    Just reminding you my questions were:
    Is Kirk too liberal a nominee in a state like Illinois?
    Do you actually think Hughes can win the general election?
    Are Hughes chances of winning anywhere close to Kirks chances?

    You answered the one about Kirk being too liberal and apparently you think Hughes with your reason seeming to be, he is more conservative and therefore stands a better shot in the general. I don’t think that logic is really that sound in a state like Illinois but I’m really doubting my ability to convince you at this point.

    By proof, I mean proof he can raise lots of money from donors or proof that he has Herb Kohl like wealth to keep up with the spending of his opponents in the Fall. If you don’t have the money for a statewide race in a large media market you are generally going to get demolished.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I said that you act like he has run before and lost. So I didn’t assume anything, other that your ability to comprehend the written form of the English language.

    As far Hughes ability to win, I would kindly ask that you don’t attribute reasoning to me that I didn’t put forth. I believe that the environment in 2010 will be more accepting of conservatism than statism. I also believe that there will be an anti-incumbent theme throughout the 2010 elections. These two things alone improve Hughes’ chances at the polls.

    On to you standard of proof. That’s why we have primaries, so competing candidates can show off there ability to fundraise and move the electorate. Apparently you would rather just assume Hughes can’t do that and skip the whole primary. That is not smart politics, that doesn’t take into account that the environment in 2010 will be different then it has been in a generation.

    The funny thing is that you won’t even offer up support for your candidates ideas, you only offer your support based on the assumption of “electablility”. That philosophy has lost us seats in both chambers for the last 3 election cycles.

    Maybe it’s time to revise the strategy. Or do you enjoy permanent minority status?

  • jfindl2

    You said, “You act like he has run before and lost, and both of us know that isn?t true.” Where exactly was I acting like it? Your assertion was that I was purposefully making it out to be that Hughes ran and lost. Which I did not do.

    My guess at your reasoning for wanting Hughes was pretty spot on except for the anti-incumbent part.

    I never said we shouldn’t have primaries nor did I imply it. As for proof I was looking at Kirk’s current and past fund raising numbers compared to Hughes’ 3Q numbers and his goal of 1.5 million for the primary, which is ridiculously low for a serious contender statewide in Illiniois.

    Also about my “assumption of electablility.? I’m assuming that b/c Kirk has won in a Democrat leaning house district the past 5 cycles. Yeah so I’m really going out on a wing there I guess.

    Kirk has a proven record of winning, is he Mr. Conservatie? Hell no, I live in a district John McCain won with about 58% of the vote, if a Kirk-like candidate were on the ballot for my district I would vote against him in a heart beat. I also live in a state that voted for Obama with 60% of the vote, so for state wide candidates I would probably choose someone like Mark Kirk assuming that person had raised a lot of money and/or had shown their ability to win elections previously.

    Hughes hasn’t raised lots of money and is an amateur which is why I think Kirk is a better choice.

    I don’t want to skip any primaries, I just happen to think there is a more competitive choice than Hughes on the ballot. I guess I am against primaries if I’m not supporting the candidate you like beforehand.

  • Aaron Gardner

    If you can’t tell the difference between blindly supporting conservative ideas and supporting a conservative candidate in a climate that is made for conservative candidates, then there is no point in trying to talk with you.

  • Third Street

    But that doesn’t mean that the willingness on the part of the electorate there to elect a good conservative candidate has diminished. Especially after all that’s gone down in IL over the last year.

  • jfindl2

    There is a difference in supporting serious conservative candidates who stand a chance at winning and those who don’t. In Florida, Rubio is a former state rep spearker who has raised tons of money in a state that actually leans slightly republican. In california, DeVore has won mulitple elections to the State Assembly and has raised a ton of mulla. Hughes, has never won anything and hasn’t raised a large chunk of money compared to his challengers. I think thats a major difference.

  • Aaron Gardner

    If Hughes beats the snot out of Kirk in the primary, will he then be established enough for you to support?

    Seriously, you are putting up obstacles to running which shouldn’t be there.

  • jfindl2

    I don’t think Hughes is it. I don’t believe he has raised enough money and he does not have a proven track record of winning which all the other recent, successful R statewide candidates have had. So yes I think the right conservative could win state wide in Illinois, I just don’t think Hughes is that candidate right now.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Since according to your logic, only those with a proven track record of winning state wide can win state wide. This logic, of course, is a catch 22.

  • jfindl2

    If Hughes were to run for a seat in the House or a seat int he state legislature that wouldn’t bother me. Heck with his willingess to take money out of his own checkbook, I would be thrilled. However, this is a senate seat where he will likely be going up against a treasurer who has won statewide b4.

    If he does beat the snot out of Kirk, that actually does prove that he can campaign hard and beat a well funded opponent w/ a history of winning. So yeah if he can beat Kirk by even one vote I will have been proven totally wrong about him given my own criteria about the race.

  • jfindl2

    Sorry if I haven’t been clear on this, I meant win b4, as in win a local seat, a state rep seat, a mayor’s position, or a city/county council seat. Thats what I meant by proven winner. The bigger the seat the better obviously.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    Just warning those from Illinois that might read this that there are consequences that might arise from a Kirk nomination.

    Never voted 3rd party, never will.

  • flipngo4

    This guy is an absolute sham. HE JUST REGISTERED TO VOTE IN 2004!!!! He?s never been with the Tea Party movement.

    He also declared on Mark Levin that he was the ?only? conservative candidate in the race, which is a 100% lie to anyone who has followed it. Forget about Kirk – John Arrington, Kathleen Thomas, and Don Lowery are all equally conservative or more. Hughes lied there and he?ll lie in Washington.

    He put $250,000 of his OWN MONEY into the campaign! Money he made because of his shady real estate past. Until this month he was not spending that money on slick TV ads, because he knew without national support he would lose. I guarantee you the GOP has already provided insurance on that money. THE GOP HAS AN INSURANCE PLAN. If Kirk loses, they?ve already put Hughes in their back pocket. They won?t let the establishment get upended that easily.

  • celderkin

    I live in the Chicago northwest suburbs and am more aware of what’s-what than my articulate soulmates from other parts of the country.

    Eleven of the 19 IL delegation have CU ratings less than 36% (one-third!). FYI, Durbin and Obama have 16% between them.

    The objective is to break the Demo’s stranglehold on the Senate. Kirk can do this. He can be elected and will vote the right way enough of the time. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.

    Mr. Hughes, alas, is far from “the perfect.” He cannot string three paragraphs together in his various (losing!) campaigns. He cannot be elected in IL. And I am not talking about a close result, like NY. I mean a crushing defeat: 28% vs. 72% in the fall.

    You have been spot-on in NY and FL. But I am afraid you are incorrect about IL.

  • Stan(ley) Pruss

    Kirk will win if the anti-Kirk vote is split among several conservatives. Hughes appears to be the leader of the not-Kirk possibles. I will not vote early. I will not vote for Kirk in the primary. I will vote for the R in the general.

  • JSobieski

    who is an articulate spokesperson for capitalism

  • schlick01

    Hughs has just lost the Ill. Conservative Action Network endorsment, which went over to Judge Don Lowery. Today, the Illinois State NRA has endorsed Don Lowery.
    His lay low approach has worked as he wanted it too. Let folks focus on the money raising guys, then come up towards the election date with true momentum. From Tea Party, hunting, ABATE, Farm groups going to him, ya know, the little stupid people that are always taken for granted, he is going to pull this off.
    When the little people finally get a true conservative to vote for, they’re excited enough to come out and vote amist this smell from all of the “smart people” in Chicago making their choices for them. Money in the bank and the leaders who look at only that, are the reason conservatives have been losing. We give, they take. Pretty soon, they’ve taken the country and it’s values, and put in the Socialism we are seeing now.
    Don Lowery is no slouch. Watch and learn, but vote!!