Democrats have lined up a very credible challenger for GOP Rep. Mark Kirk — that is, assuming that Kirk decides to run for another term. In a press release just issued this morning, state Sen. Michael Bond has announced his candidacy for the 10th CD:
“After speaking with people in our communities, listening to their ideas and hearing their concerns, I’ve decided to run for Congress. Our country is facing enormous challenges. Decisions are being made that will affect Americans for generations to come, and it’s important to have people in Washington who will take a fresh approach to today’s problems, who will fight for what’s right and get something done.
Bond represents a historically Republican state Senate district in Chicago’s northern suburbs that, according to his press release, has a typical Democratic performance of only 44%. Bond surely hopes that his ability to win over GOP-leaning voters will carry over to a congressional race (where the partisan landscape, on paper, is even more favorable with a PVI of D+6).
Of course, Bond may not even have the primary field to himself. Kirk previously indicated that he would make a decision on his political future by the end of this month, and if he decides to parachute into either the Senate or gubernatorial race, Bond may face company from state Sen. Susan Garrett of Lake Forest and ’06/’08 candidate Dan Seals, who both have expressed interest in running for the seat should Kirk vacate the scene.
Another great recruiting coup. If this keeps up and enough republicans retire we may not even see a net loss in 2010 in the House.
Google isn’t much help, as his public profile is significantly less notable than that of the creator of Paddington Bear.
What’s he like on the issues and does he win by talking around his constituents or just by being a conservative Democrat? The former is likely to find it harder to beat Kirk but would be a good asset, the latter might have a better chance but I’m not wildly enthusiastic about doubling Illinois’ Melissa Bean quotient.
Do we have someone lined up to hold that state senate seat?
Though I guess it doesn’t matter as much given that we have a 37-22 majority.
Michael Bond’s senate district only overlaps a small part of Kirks district. As someone who worked in the district last time, I can tell you that this is probably a good thing though. The 10th district is divided between uber-rich touwnships on the northshore and middle class townships away from the lake. Michael Bond represents a part of the middle class area of the district. This is probably a good thing, however, as Dan Seals got a lot of flack in the last two cycles for being from the wealthy part of the distict and ignoring the other parts. (It also didnt help that he actually lives about 2 blocks out of the district. Then again, Melissa Bean actually lives in the 10th district, not the 8th which she represents.)
Michael Bond doesnt have much of a personality and wasnt very helpful during the 2008 cycle. (In fact, it was pretty obvious he planned on running for the seat if Seals lost.) However, it might be a big advantage being from that part of the district as opposed to the “rich, liberal north shore” like Susan Garrett and all the other possible candidates. In 2000, Lauren Beth Gash was a state rep from the rich part of the district and lost to Kirk, so there is precedent for these concerns. But as I mentioned, much, if not most, of Bonds senate district does not overlap the 10th.
if we can get incumbents entrenched in districts like these, they’ll probably hold them until they retire, even surviving waves against us. FL-10, DE-AL, and PA-06 also fall in this category, seats that should be ours except for the talented GOP incumbents.
If we’re going to dump a couple million dollars in a race let’s do it here rather than in Kentucky again.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee…