* Congressman Ray LaHood has finally accepted reality…
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood is not going to apply for the Bradley University presidential post and will seek an eighth term in Congress instead.
“People like the job I’m doing,” he said Tuesday, explaining his decision. “They like to have me as their congressman . . . People like the job I’m doing. That’s certainly some of the feedback I got.”
LaHood released a short statement outlining his decision just shy of one week after the Journal Star ran a story in which sources familiar with Bradley’s presidential search indicated that finalists were being interviewed, and LaHood was not one of them.
“I have based this decision on the information I have heard from these community leaders and people familiar with the search process,” the statement read. “I have not based this decision on media reports regarding the search nor on reports of potential finalists for the job.”
Yeah. OK.
* Money report from the 10th CD…
[GOP Congressman Mark Kirk] will report raising $616,000 from April through June, likely one of the highest totals in the nation. The four-term lawmaker from Highland Park had $1.1 million on hand to start the month.
On the Democratic side, newcomer Jay Footlik is showing off early fund-raising prowess. His campaign told the Daily Herald on Monday that he’s raised $286,000 in the four weeks he’s been in the race, nearly all of it in June. He had about $270,000 on hand.
Footlik, who recently moved back to the district in Vernon Hills, is taking on Wilmette’s Dan Seals in the Feb. 5 Democratic primary. Seals came within about 5 percentage points of upsetting Kirk last November. His campaign manager said Monday that Seals had $264,808 on hand after raising $250,073 this spring.
* I have a couple of more results from that poll I told you about yesterday in Denny Hastert’s district.
The initial head-to-head results between Hastert and Democrat Bill Foster were 53-26. But after several postive “push” questions about Foster, the poll has him leading Hastert 43-40. Take it for what you will.
- anonymous - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 8:39 am:
informed (sometimes called push) questions are useless unless they present the voters balanced info on both candidates…did they release the actual informed questions?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 8:50 am:
Yes.
- Mac McIntyre - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:11 am:
Maybe if all these talented fund raisers pooled together they could erase that $874 million deficit?
- Jerry - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:19 am:
I think its a good idea to always take partisan polling with a grain of salt. This poll, based upon the initial (I assume) question, showing Hastert at 53% shows that he may be vulnerable, though.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 9:25 am:
You need 51% to get re-elected.
Hastert and Kirk will get to that percentage easily. If they did it in 2006, 2008 will be a piece of cake. Only dreamers hyped up on last November would believe otherwise.
The US Congress is now responsible for our problems. It is run by the Democrats. After 100 days, nothing has been done. Are voters pleased? Nope. Will they be clamouring for more Democrats in 2008 - highly unlikely.
Case closed.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:18 am:
With Congress’ approval rating hovering somewhat around the 20% mark, I don’t think Mark Kirk, who is in the minority and is out in front as a leader of the Tuesday Group, has much to worry about. He’s one of Rove’s top seat defenses, and he can raise money like there is no tomorrow.
As for Ray, I’m glad he is staying put. I like him a lot and he is a good Congressman for the state and for the district. He will certainly keep moving up the ranks within his caucus.
- Jon Shibley Fan - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:28 am:
Oh, well, Vanilla Man says “Case Closed,” so I guess we shouldn’t bother having an election next November.
- Tom Bowen - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 10:31 am:
Just want to say one thing for the record regarding, “But after several positive “push” questions about Foster, the poll has him leading Hastert 43-40.”
Those were split sampled bio reads and the 43-40 is the average. It’s too simulate what happens when the electorate has more information about the candidate because initial ballot tests do not reflect informed decisions.
Don’t use push, that’s not a polling technique and that’s not what was done. It was a bio read which definitively shows Bill’s bio is very attractive to voters.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 11:32 am:
If Hillary is heading the D ticket, her negative coattails affect the 14th and give Hastert an extra 10 points, IMO. If Obama heads the D ticket, all negative coattail bets are off. He was very popular among R’s and I’s for the 14th.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 12:17 pm:
Tom, those weren’t just simple bio narratives. I have them, remember? You pushed.
- Squideshi - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:08 pm:
I can’t accept the validity of any such survey unless it reflects that reality of the three-way race that this could turn out to be. The official certification of candidates for this office is a long way off, and the media does a disservice to conduct polls like this without first knowing who all of the candidates will be.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 1:33 pm:
Squid-
This is the first hint I have heard of a 3rd party entry in the 14th. CW says that every Green Party vote for the 14th seat dilutes the already weak left-wing vote and helps the GOP, especially if the Democratic candidate is a left-leaner like the last few. Maybe you can get Denny’s people to write you a check:-)
- Tom Bowen - Wednesday, Jul 11, 07 @ 2:55 pm:
Yeah, i know you have them. A push poll goes like this:
“are you going to vote for george bush?”
y
“if you knew he clubbed baby seals, would you still vote for him?”
Of course the bio reads are positive, you ever seen a bio campaign that says anything negative about someone?
- Squideshi - Thursday, Jul 12, 07 @ 5:06 am:
Six, I did not say that there would definitely be a Green Party candidate in the 14th; but that is exactly the point–we don’t actually know who the candidates will be until the official certification, which comes MUCH later down the road. There may also be new party candidates, or independents, and the media tends to wait until these candidates are certified before even considering serious coverage of them; but at the same time, the media seems more than happy to automatically assume and cover the Democratic and Republican candidates.
Also, you are making the false assumption that Green votes come solely at the expense of Democratic candidates. That’s a lie perpetuated by people in the Democratic leadership. Time and time again, we have seen that Green candidates energize NEW voters, who would not have otherwise voted, and who would have certainly not voted for the Democratic candidate; and this has been shown by the Democratic Party’s own exit polls (although they’re certainly not very forthcoming with that information.)
Just look at the gubernatorial election in 2006. Rich Whitney’s votes came in nearly equal proportion from Democrats AND Republicans. Those are the actual facts, anything else is conjecture.
People really need to stop seeing elections as a binary, zero-sum, winner-take-all game. It is that type of thinking that has gotten us to where we are today–a highly polarized political system in which even members of the same political party can’t seem to work together to pass a budget.
There aren’t ONLY two sides to every issue, and two parties aren’t enough to represent everyone’s preferences. The voter pool is shrinking because people are turned off and not interested in politics–they don’t see anything they like, and they don’t feel they can make a difference. All one need do is look at the spike in voter turnout when Ross Perot was allowed into the debates (it was in decline both before and after this.)