Wow

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.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:10:57 PM UTC

Anybody from Illinois able to fill us in?

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.

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:21:33 PM UTC

Michael Bond's seat?

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.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:43:45 PM UTC

He barely won it

The seat had been in GOP hands forever before the long-term incumbent retired and Bond won it with under 52% of the vote.  Sounds like a seat that would Lean R under normal circumstances.  But who knows.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:47:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh. Hmm, super-majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

It says that his seat is part of the reason we have a super-majority in the IL state senate.  How much is a supermajority there?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:58:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Usually it implies 2/3rds

But we only gold 65% of the seats, so they much consider 60% of the seats to be a supermajority.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:43:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually the incumbent Republican was primaried out and endorsed Bond.

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:01:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I just read that.

Seems like a Gilchrest Situation.

Which means that he already has a "good choice for moderately conservative sane people" image.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01

---

by: Glenn Magus Harvey @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:04:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

background

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.  

---

by: illinoisan @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 19:35:32 PM UTC

At least they're going hard after these seats

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.

---

by: skaje @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 02:27:01 AM UTC

I still think redistricting/retirements are playing a role

Redistricting in 2012 and the age of some of these republicans in Congress obviously are playing a role.

This is especially obvious in states like California and Illinois where it's near certain we'll draw the maps in 2012.  Bond knows IL-10 will be drawn more democratic and our California Dems know that many republican California districts are likely to be redrawn for Dems in 2012.  So even a loss in 2010 can be redeemed by running again in 2012 in a more favorable district.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 02:43:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not California

I seriously doubt we'll pick up more than one seat due to redistricting.  (None is the most likely scenario.) California Democrats bleat like burning sheep if you take one D voter away from them.  An incumbent protection plan is what we'll get, again, which makes taking Calvert's seat a priority in 2010.

If California were to lose or gain a seat, things would be different.

---

by: tommypaine @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 03:07:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then Pelosi needs to crack the whip

she wasn't Speaker back in 2002.  Now she is, and needs to put the Dem incumbents in their place, and draw a map that gets rid of 6-8 Repubs.

---

by: IHateBush @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 03:19:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Open seat

http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee...

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 17:39:28 PM UTC

Wow

That's surprising.   But unless Roland Burris and his massive warchest wins our primary he's not going to win.

---

by: ChadInFL @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 17:45:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]