Google Ads


Site Stats

IL-10: Bond Gearing Up to Run

by: James L.

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 2:58 AM EDT


That's Bond, Michael Bond:

State Sen. Michael Bond (D) is gearing up to run for Rep. Mark Kirk's (R) seat, according to sources familiar with the situation. Kirk is pondering a bid for Senate in 2010, and his departure would make his north Chicagoland seat a prime pickup opportunity for Democrats.

Bond has tapped John Lapp to do his media campaign, Bennett, Petts & Normington to his polling and Ed Peavy to do direct mail for the race, according to one source familiar with the arrangement. The source also said a former aide to Rep. Melissa Bean (D), Brian Herman, will manage his campaign.

Kirk himself has set a pretty definite timeline for deciding his 2010 plans ("by the end of the month"), but the fact that Bond is already putting a campaign team together may indicate a willingness to run regardless of Kirk's intentions. In any case, Bond may have company in an open seat race -- fellow state Sen. Susan Garrett says that she's considering a bid, and '06/'08 nominee Dan Seals is known to be interested to run again if Kirk bails on the seat.

More info on Bond is available here.
James L. :: IL-10: Bond Gearing Up to Run
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
IL-10: Bond Gearing Up to Run | 42 comments
We're getting that seat sooner or later
Kirk is going to find himself in the same position of Chris Shays, and soon to be Jim Gerlach, facing one tough race after another until someone finally gets past him.

How bout the other Illinois Republicans?  Of course Obama's numbers are inflated due to home-state appeal, but still, some of those margins are pretty tempting.  He won Roskam's district by 13 points, Biggert's district by 9 points, and Manzullo's by 8 points.

Kirk's of course he won by a stunning 23 points.  

We all thought
that the Texas Republican numbers were inflated in 2000 and 2004 because of Bush's home state advantage, but as it turned out, if they were inflated, it wasn't by that much in most cases.

26, white male, TX-24, liberal-leaning independent
[ Parent ]
On first look
It would seem that that Bush's numbers were very inflated in the Latino districts along the border.  Obama made some massive gains in those places (22 points better in Hinojosa's district, 20 points better in Cuellar's , 19 points better in Reyes' , and 17 points better in Rodriguez's, Ortiz's, and Gonzales'.)  However, Obama's gains were just as impressive with Latinos nationwide, after probably the best year for Republicans among Latinos ever back in 2004.  Districts in Colorado, California, New Mexico, Nevada, and even in Arizona swung towards Obama due to his overperformance amongst Latinos.
[ Parent ]
Do we want to call it overperformance
or the correct amount of performance?

The Latino vote is one that we should naturally be getting a much larger portion of compared to the GOP and if 2004 was their high mark, doesnt that mean we could possibly come to expect this kind of margin for the Dems?  Particularly since immigration reform is on the way and I'm sure we'll put our names all over that.

The huge wins in Nevada and New Mexico should hopefully be ones we solidify and not allow just to be overperformances.  Those are two states I dont want to see go red again in my lifetime (Im 22 so we'll see how that goes  :)  )

[ Parent ]
Not surprising
Bush and latino voters. It was basically the only issue he ever made any sense on. And that goes back to their good relations when he was governor. The GOP are caught in a real bind here because yes, people are pissed about illegal immigration but those who are pissed enough for the issue to exceed all others are never voting for Dems anyway. So how do they stay competitive with the largest and fastest growing demographic in the US while at the same time denigrating them as a people as almost second-class citizens? I don't see how it can be done. Lovely to finally see the other side get a wedgie after all these years!
[ Parent ]
it's moderately complicated
My impression is that Bush/Republicans maxed out their Latino vote in 2004.  They pretty much using their standard techniques, there was demographic serendipity involved, and there was lack of Democratic effort, grassroots, initiative, and motivation in the Southwest that year.

The 2004 GOP targeted older, churchgoing Latino voters, Cuban immigrees, male and middle class Latinos.  Other Latinos just didn't turn out, and the overall population is relatively young with many not of voting age or from families where people didn't bother with it or were alienated from political involvement.  The national mood wasn't there, either, and the Party was problematic, Democrats just couldn't/didn't put up as much of an operation nationwide to get turnout of Latinos leaning their/our way.  So, just about the ideal scenario for Republicans: maximal turnout of their most favorable Latino demographics, Democrats badly hamstrung.

2008 is pretty much the other way around.  The Bush campaign assertion of wanting a 'nice' conservative society in which Latinos only had to work hard and conform to get respect and a decent place proved a mirage.  The Democratic primary polarized the Democratic electorates and led to lots of registration drives and efforts among working class Latinos, in neglected Purple and Red States and Purple/Red districts, for Latina womens' votes.  And young Latino voters in their twenties were motivated to get involved and vote.

That's almost the flip of 2004, but the 2004 Latino Bush voters mostly turned out (around 8% of the electorate in any given Presidential election dies before the next one) and something like 70-80% of those still voted McCain/Republican.  Together with the massively increased turnout, that dropped the Latino R vote from close to 40% in 004 to around 25% this past November.

About "overperformance", my sense is that split will remain, maybe even increase a bit in favor of Democrats.  I.e. Democratic margins of 50% or 55% nationally, maybe 60%.  Republicans are the Party of the white Southern/Midwestern elites, white lower middle class, and white working class.  There's some common ground on religion, but the socioeconomic competition between those groups and Latinos looks to remain the principal fact.  And Latinos seem to be culturally more practical/liberal as demographics than is generally appreciated, looking at Californian pollings on gay marriage where Californian Latino splits are practically identical to those of Californian whites.

[ Parent ]
In my area
In the SE Houston suburbs latinos are very much moving upward economically. I dont know what this will mean politically, though. Also, at least here, it seems that middle class Latinos are more culturally conservative than poor ones. Especially amongst the men. And ive seen it been said that evangelical latinos are more culturally conservative than Catholic ones. Maybe not when you compare older voters (as maybe its the same) but i would venture to guess they are amongst the other age groups. Also latinos seem quite receptive to evangelical 'outreach'. I use to be an evangelical a long time ago (am now an agnostic) and we did an outreach at a poor latino apartment complex and we got no hostility whatsoever. In fact everyone seemed quite friendly.  
[ Parent ]
California
Judging by the Prop 8 by CD numbers, thats on the CA SOS site, it seems like Latino farm workers are very anti-gay marriage, though. Although obviously it doesnt break down stats by occupation or even demographic. But it lets you guess.
[ Parent ]
TX-29
The MOE, from 04-08, in TX-29 (Gene Green), which is a neighboring district of mine, swung hard to the left too. Kerry won it by only 12% (and Gore by only 14% while Obama won it by 24%. The latino growth in that area is huge. My whole family has roots in Baytown (a city of about 70k now), and over 50 years ago Baytown had almost no latinos. Pasadena, which is nearby, is probably another example.
[ Parent ]
Over 30% in Baytown
Are now latino, although Baytown itself is split congressionally.
[ Parent ]
There was some talk of Biggert calling it quits
But her Q1 funds suggest differently.
[ Parent ]
Hope she sticks around
until 2012.  Then we can eliminate her district.
[ Parent ]
Rather win it first
There are other targets to eliminate first.  We need to get Tim Johnson more Bloomington and Decautor and less farmland out down south, Shimkus a Cairo-Centralia-Carbondale district (maybe with a finger into Springfield) without the eastern farmland, and we need to spread Phil Hare's coastal wealth out west.  It looks like the 13th is north enough, these changes might not hurt our chances of changing it too, but without Biggert, the district may be ours anyway.  I'd also be wondering where we'd take blue territory from--AA areas in the 1st or 2nd?

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Either the 6th or the 13th
will need to be eliminated in 2012.  We'll probably win IL-10 in 2010, and eliminating a downstate district will make it near impossible to protect IL-14.

I'm assuming Kirk runs statewide.  If Roskam joins him, then we might win that district too.

[ Parent ]
Why so?
Hare can give push east and take some of the nastier corners of the 14th without endangering any monkeying down south.  If we do lose a district, shouldn't we create two horrible ones from the worst of the 18th, 15th, and 19th, making everything else in the area a much more likely blue?

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
If you don't eliminate a Chicago area
district, then you have to push them all out further.  IL-14, IL-11 has already been pushed significantly out of Chicago metro area.

Downstate, I would draw 3 Democratic districts, Costello's, Hare's (which I would draw into Rockford), and a third district which would take in Bloomington-Normal, Champaign-Urbana, the Dem areas of Springfield, and Peoria, and any areas of Southern Illinois that are Democratic.  It would force Shimkus, Johnson, and Shrock into two strong Repub districts.

[ Parent ]
That makes sense
I figured Chicagoland had more excess to shove around into Biggert territory.  But, I'll take your map.  

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
First elected in 2006
Depending on the district he may or may not have had to go up for re-election in 2008.  It was a Republican held seat until a Republican primaried the incumbent in 2006.  
Bond was not up in 2008
so he will have to give up his State Senate seat to run in 2010.  Garrett was re-elected in 2008, so she will have a free pass in 2010.  
[ Parent ]
Oh well
Even if he loses in 2010 he'll get the seat in 2012 when it becomes more democratic post-gerrymander.
[ Parent ]
The DCCC
is really going at this hard this cycle.  They've seem to realize that they've already picked off all the R+___ seats they could and overreach in quite a few of them.  Their recruits indicate a strong strategy of offense but this time mainly focused on the seats that should be ours but that the GOP are sitting in.

Let's see some great candidates announce in Michigan, WA-8 and PA-6 now.  I hope the DCCC is working Bonoff here in MN too.

I like seeing elected officials here and in MN-03......
I liked Dan Seals, but he had 2 bites at the apple and didn't get it done, so he'll be a weakling if given the nomination a 3rd time even for an open seat.  The fact is if Kirk does gun for the Senate and leaves IL-10 open, Seals as a 2-time loser will be weaker than a local or state-level elected official.

I feel the same way about IL-10 as I do MN-03, where as an Indian-American myself I gave a lot of money to Madia in his losing bid.  Madia has his shot and disappointed, and in what might be our last near-term realistic shot at the seat (assuming redistricting doesn't put more Dem voters there) before Paulsen becomes entrenched I now want to see Bonoff or another popular elected official as our nominee.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

how the heck did Madia end up losing MN-03?
did anyone ever do a diary on that?  he seemed sharp, good fundraiser, decent on issues, decent campaigner, then he lost.

i never got how...

[ Parent ]
Racism
He's Indian-American in a district that is mostly Scandanavian.  Sorry to be so blunt but we all know it's the truth.
[ Parent ]
And that same Scandanavian district
elects a black Democrat with a Muslim middle name over a white war hero?  

I don't buy it.  Minnesota is not the South.

[ Parent ]
You're talking about a liberal district
Ellison's district is very different from the MN-03.
[ Parent ]
I was talking about MN-3
and the fact that Obama won there.  I don't think racism was why Madia lost.

Racism is the reason why Harold Ford lost in Tennessee, and why Bobby Jindal lost in 2003 in Louisiana.

[ Parent ]
Please
The south may be the most racist region of the country, but if you think it has a monopoly on racism you're crazy.
[ Parent ]
I've written about it in open threads and such
and I think it ties into the race thing but necessarily racism.

Paulsen perfectly represents everything suburban and Madia does not.  It's larger than race, it's more which candidate do we trust more to vote for us in Congress and it was the recognizable guy that is a safe candidate.

[ Parent ]
Huh?
I've written about it in open threads and such
and I think it ties into the race thing but necessarily racism.  

So you acknowledge that people vote against Madia solely because of his race?  But that's not racist?  Last I checked that was the very definition of racism.

If I decide to vote against a black candidate that shares my views in favor of a white guy who doesn't share my views because I didn't feel comfortable with the black guy it DOES in fact make me racist.  You can dance round the terminology all you want, but in the end it's obvious that race was the key factor.

[ Parent ]
The question is this
how many people in MN-3 who voted against Obama or Madia because they were not white, but would have voted for a similar white Democrat.

My guess is not very many.  

How many whites in Alabama would have voted for Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, but voted against Obama?  My guess is at least 10% of the white vote.

[ Parent ]
It is not even close
Obama tied McCain among white voters outside the South.  It doesn't have a monopoly, but there is no area which is nearly as racist as the South.  Not even close.
[ Parent ]
Maybe just demographics
That district is overwhelmingly white and fairly wealthy and old so maybe the idea of a young, Indian guy just didn't play well with their sensibilities. I'm not from there but have visited and Minnesota can seem somewhat like France in that they have a more deep rooted and shared cultural context (more Germanic and Nordic than most and also predominated by one religious group, Lutherans) that is not easily integrated into by "outsiders" and I could see how this could lead to skepticism towards someone like Madia.
[ Parent ]
Like I said, racism

[ Parent ]
If that was the case
they would have rejected Obama too.
[ Parent ]
Obama
He didnt run against a guy with the last name Erikson.
[ Parent ]
McCain is good enough for racists
who don't want to vote for colored folks, whether they be Indian-Americans or blacks.
[ Parent ]
Yes
And it happens everywhere.  Not just the south.

2008 Exit polls for white voters in a few states:

Maryland:
McCain - 49
Obama - 47

New Jersey:
McCain - 50
Obama - 49

New York:
Obama - 52
McCain - 46

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that there isn't a significant number of white voters in those three northeastern states that voted for McCain solely because he's white?

[ Parent ]
Fewer than in the South
Obama improved over Kerry among white voters outside the South.  In many Southern states (not counting VA, FL, or NC, all of which have lots of Northern transplants), he lost significant chunks of whites that Kerry got.  


[ Parent ]
paulsen was a better candidate, that's why
ellison won a district that is overwhelmingly white next door easily.  and besides, the stereotype of Asians is that they work harder and are smarter than whites so i'm not sure if that alone had a negative impact.

the district was probably 35% GOP, 33% Dem, 32% Ind and had been electing a moderate Republican easily for maybe the last 40 years.  paulsen was a smart, experienced legislative leader who had worked in Ramstad's office and had the uber-popular Ramstad's blessing as his successor.  he also had the classic wife, kids, dog on the front stoop profile so important to suburban voters.

madia was unknown, young (turned 30 during the campaign), unmarried, had a very thin resume, and didn't even live in the 3rd district when the race began.  also, when the issue became the economy rather than the war, a candidate who was running mainly as an anti-war candidate was suddenly flatfooted.

he is smart and a good speaker and raised good money.  but, in retrospect, someone with a more conventional background might have done better.  i consider this race to be the mirror image of AL-5 or OR-5.  in both cases, a popular, moderate democrat was retiring from a borderline GOP district giving the GOP a great opportunity.  but the democratic bench was much deeper in both districts meaning that we could put up a solid, experienced candidate who matched the district and the republicans were left wishing it had turned out differently.  we have lot of reps and sentaors in the 3rd but almost every one was elected in 04 and 06.  they were neither very experienced or established, leaving an opening for a dynamic outsider like madia.

i tend to think that only steve simon (assistant majority leader with experience beating a popular moderate incumbent republican) has the verbal dexterity, money-raising ability, and hard drive to win that would give us a chance in 2010.

perfect analysis
agreed with all of it.

The campaign switching from the war to the economy was a huge detriment to Madia.

[ Parent ]
and I finally looked up Steve Simon
he came spoke with Garafolo or something like whose a GOP state rep from Dakota county to my Republican National Convention seminar I did.  I liked him, he'd be an excellent candidate.

Still hoping for Bonoff, she'd probably annhilate him with the women vote.

[ Parent ]
IL-10: Bond Gearing Up to Run | 42 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox