* Rasmussen’s latest poll shows that Democrat Alexi Giannoulias continues to trend slightly upwards, while Republican Mark Kirk has stopped slipping, at least for now. Previous results from Rasmussen’s polls conducted July 7, June 7, April 28, April 5, March 8 and February 3 are in brackets…
Kirk carries 74% of conservative voters in the state, while 79% of liberals support Giannoulias. Moderates favor the Democrat by a 47% to 35% margin.
Forty-four percent (44%) say Kirk’s views are in the mainstream, but 30% say they are extreme. Forty-two percent (42%) view Giannoulias in the mainstream, while 33% say he’s extreme.
Seven percent (7%) of Illinois voters hold a Very Favorable opinion of Giannoulias, while 25% view him Very Unfavorably.
Kirk is viewed Very Favorably by 10% and Very Unfavorably by 14%.
At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with strong opinions more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Kirk holds a modest lead among male voters, and Giannoulias has a similar lead among women. Voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican by nearly 20 points.
That big lead among independents is crucial and means that Kirk has a very good shot at winning this one, despite the toplines. Illinois has lots more Democrats than Republicans, but they’re not a firm majority. Independents are a must-get. But moderates are also very important, and Giannoulias’ lead is important there.
* Is Mark Kirk more ethical, less ethical, or about as ethical as most politicians?
10% More ethical
21% Less ethical
50% About as ethical
19% Not sure
* Is Alexi Giannoulias more ethical, less ethical or about as ethical as most politicians?
8% More ethical
31% Less ethical
44% About as ethical
17% Not sure
* Is Rod Blagojevich more ethical, less ethical, or about as ethical as most politicians?
2% More ethical
59% Less ethical
32% About as ethical
7% Not sure
Almost half say Giannoulias is less ethical than most politicos or aren’t sure. The Kirk camp will do its best to push that up as high as possible with the “mob banker” stuff. Whether it’ll work this year is another story, however.
And, let’s all hope that none of that crazy 2 percent who think Rod Blagojevich is more ethical than most is sitting on the jury.
* More results…
* Would it be more accurate to describe Mark Kirk’s views as mainstream or extreme?
44% Mainstream
30% Extreme
27% Not sure
* Would it be more accurate to describe Alexi Giannoulias’s views as mainstream or extreme?
The survey of 750 Likely Voters in Illinois was conducted on July 26, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
- the dark horse - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:25 am:
The trend lines are always important but understated. I don’t like Alexi and will likely vote for Kirk, but this “mob banker” thing is such nonesense. Is the Tribune a “mob paper” because mafia members subscribe to it? Unless someone went in to that bank, wrote “Mobster” on a loan application, and Ali G personnaly reviewed it and approved the loan, I say WHO CARES? And, likewise, who cares that the bank went under? Lots of banks are going under- I don’t think it’s a reflection on Ali G.
- the dark horse - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:27 am:
Rich, you reference independents– but I do not see where that is mentioned in the poll. What is the breakdown among indies?
2. Lots of banks are failing across the country.
Alexi’s bank is old news and lost in the sea of
the financial meltdown. Blame Wall Street and Bush, not Alexi.
3. Kirk’s resume-fluffing is more recent news.
4. Obama and the WH are rooting publicly for Alexi-that’s important in Illinois.
5. Alexi is much more personable than Kirk, who comes across as a bit shrill.
6. One of the more successful Democratic mantras
for the upcoming midterms is, ok, there are some problems, but do you want to go back to the bad old days of Bush and the Repubs in control of Congress. I think a lot of folks will say no.
I’m going to vote for Kirk. I don’t believe in one-party states and he can certainly do the job.
But I think it’s a lost cause.
- Roland in my 6-4 - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:36 am:
Should be a close race to the end. I do hope they’ll have a few debates so people can get a better grasp of both candidates.
If I was a member of team Kirk, I would be pleased on one hand and kicking myself on the other. When this campaign got started I said there were 2 big hurdles for the congressman-getting conservatives behind him and then getting passed democrat attacks that he wasn’t THAT conservative and he seems to have done that based on the numbers.
Where things aren’t good for him is that this rock alexi threw out there-the military thing skipped instead of sunk and ended up popping up 3 months of ugly stories which have clearly hurt him. These were self inflicted problems that have otherwise damaged one of the best gop senate campaigns here.
the 2 percent deficit to me is troubling considering how damaged alexi is. the congressman doesn’t seem to be getting people to like him.
Alexi wants to change the filibuster rules in the Senate. I am also sure that he supported elimination of the Electoral College (Rich?).
“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour LEGISLATION into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
The “Committee of Eleven” (Abraham Baldwin (GA), David Brearly (NJ), Pierce Butler (SC), Daniel Carrol (MD), John Dickinson (DE), Nicholas Gilman (NH), Rufus King (MA), James Madison (VA), Gouvernour Morris (PA), Roger Sherman (CT), Hugh Williamson (NC)) in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors because they feared the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
Alexi’s opposition to the Founders in these two areas is more than enough reason to vote for Kirk. Forget the “mob banker” and other crap issues.
this better help alexi’s fund-raising, because his last quarter sucked. he needs to start exploiting his opportunities, and this is one of them.
kirk was always going to employ a rovian, slash and burn campaign anyway. everybody understands that there’s no way for him to win otherwise. which is why his pattern of repeated exaggeration hurts his chances. what alexi has said about kirk is true, while polifact makes it clear that kirk has been, well, exaggerating about alexi. kirk’s chances have always rested on an assumption that illinois’ voters are stupid. incredibly stupid. it’s not that much of a stretch…
I’m not surprised. It seems as though all of Kirk’s “misrememberings” and the negative press appearances & stories have caught up with him. Alexi actually looks smart for laying low and allowing Kirk to partially implode.
I don’t think Kirk needs to hit the big panic button, but perhaps it’s time for him to act out the scene in “Austin Powers” when Dr. Evil presses the trap door buttons and rids himself of certain staffers who are holding him back. There’s nothing wrong with bringing in fresh blood to counteract the months of negative press and bad advising.
Ok, so this poll shows the hit that Kirk took and he should be thrilled it kept him within the margin of error. Time for both candidates to work on getting their positives up and Kirk SHOULD have the advantage in that category based on his experience and resume.
What did my parents say when I was a little kid, liars never prosper? Okay I guess it was actually “cheaters never prosper.” Same thing.
Point is, not surprising that a guy who can’t tell the truth would be falling in the polls, even in Illinois. I expect that to continue as more lies come out, and there are definitely more lies out there. No way Kirk wins.
There isn’t many surprises here, but I thin it looks very good for Kirk, He’s leading among independents and in the bank. He needs to shore up the female vote a little but I think that will come in the fall when he’s able to hammer the “mob banker” act.
My first thoughts were wondering who these 33% are that think Kirk’s views are out of the mainstream. I disagree with him to greater or lesser degree on a host of issues, but out of the mainstream? Kinda wondered the same about Alexi…considering I don’t even really know where he stands on anything. I pretty much sub in the Dem agenda in it’s entirety until he fleshes it out more; I guess that would be considered “mainstream”.
Kirk is a moderate, and to win as one I think he needs to push that number down if possible. The supposed advantage to be a moderate is that nobody considers you that extreme. Having 30% (only 3% off AG) think that sounds pretty high.
I was also amused that Kirk had better ethics numbers then Alexi…despite the “liar” mantra that is being beat into the ground. I think the “mob banker” meme is getting beat into the ground, too (although the actual bank failure is a quite valid target imo). I think if Kirk starts pounding some actual issues it will better deflect character attacks, and Alexi is vulnerable in several critical areas.
The ethics, favs/unfavs and independent numbers all suggest that yet again Rasmussen’s likely voter screen trends towards a right leaning result. Basically an audience that should be inclined to vote for Kirk, seeing as how he has a better favorablility rating, holding his own with his base and is leading unaffiliated voters by a wide margin. The fact he still somehow comes out behind should be of concern to his campaign.
The fact Giannoulis can’t make Kirk be seen as any worse than himself or any other politician after a month of coverage about lies and embellishments should worry his campaign.
So it basically seems to say this campaign is a toss up, with neither side having much momentum. Given historic voter ID in this state and the advantages Dems have had in the ground game over the last 2 cycles, you’d think that shapes up as a narrow Dem win, barring some major new development in the next 90 days.
Biggest winner, in my opinion - Quinn, since strong enthusiasm for Kirk and/or Democratic disillusionment with Giannoulis was probably Brady’s best hope to get enough people to the polls to bet Quinn.
“Originally, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had a rule called the Previous Question Motion, where a simple majority ended debate — a rule the House has kept. But the Senate dropped this provision in 1806, leaving open the potential for a filibuster.”
@Cincinnatus - that link doesn’t dispute anything that was said in the Time article.
Show me evidence that the Time article is wrong.
Come on, even “Conservapedia” says that I am right and you are wrong (http://www.conservapedia.com/Filibuster):
“The right of unlimited debate in the Senate was rejected by the Founding Fathers. The Continental Congress adopted Rule 10. It followed the practice of the British Parliament and precedent allowed a simple majority to cut off debate by a motion for “the previous question.” This rule was included in sections 8 and 9 of the rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789, was included in Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice, and was part of the Senate’s rules until it was removed in 1806. The change in 1806 allowed unlimited debate.”
Cincinnatus: could you provide a cite for the constitutional aspect? obviously, we *all* understand that each house is allowed to make up their own rules, but i’m completely unaware where a ~140 yo rule is in the constitution…
Kirk is down 10% from the very start of this campaign from the number of regestered Dems v. Repubs in this state.
Then, factor in the trend of IL and its Blue State status.
If you are a Repub, the rallying cry was “Moderate, with a conservatve fiscal background”… well, you can be ANY type of Repub, but if you are seen as untrustworthy, who cares what you THINK you believe.
Alexi should feel a bit better… only because he drew Kirk in his race. All Alexi needs to do is let Kirk keep talking. The Repubs really drop the ball on this, and factor in the DGA and its spending against Brady and this “Fantastic!” Repub ticket will be sunk.
Kirk better find a way to talk, without having the facts be “mis-remembered”, “mis-spoken”, or “mis-understood”.
A note from Mommy ain’t gonna cut it, Commander. It hasn’t cut it yet….
Kirk is a moderate in press release form only. Look more closely at his actual voting record; he makes sure Boehner has the votes when it counts. And his foreign policy stance, particularly on Iran-related matters, is pure neocon doctrine — meaning more war, more foreign policy bloopers, more enemies. The “moderate” act with Kirk is purely an act; and besides, even Republicans more “moderate” than Kirk are amassing remarkable conservative scores over the past several years. Kirk is no Porter or Michel, that’s for sure.
interesting results on the ethical question - I would quickly have answered “less ethical” to both kirk and alexi, and of course to blago. but if I’m calling all 3 “less ethical,” maybe I should be calling at least two of them “about as ethical”?
Washington was referring to the fact it took a majority of states supporting a bill to pass it in the Senate, not a super majority. The Federalist Papers specifically discuss the dangers of supermajorities and why the drafters determined after considering it to limit it to select issues like veto overrides and Constitutional Amendments. The filibuster is a product of Senate rules, not the Constitution, and has been changed repeatedly. The current rules permit a block without even holding the floor of the Senate as in a classic filibuster, which is why there’s a push to change the rules to something that at least requires the minority to do more than note the absence of a qourum to keep debate going until 60 votes can be rounded up.
While you may be “sure” Giannoulis wants to amend or do away with the EC, that isn’t evidence. The same persons supporting the EC also strongly supported the appointment of Senators by state legislators, for much the same reason - but only a fringe group thinks the 17th Amendment has been a change for the worse, seeing as how it broke one of the major powers of organizations like Tammany Hall.
That same body also compromised on the issue of slavery to assure slave states a higher representation in the House than their free population would dictate without complete domination - remember, all free persons and 3/5 of all other persons. They also set voting at 21, saw no reason to limit the number of terms a President could serve, didn’t require the VP to be from the same party, etc. Just because they believed in something doesn’t mean it has to be that way forever, or that disagreeing makes you unfit to serve in the Senate.
Lots of people already there from both parties have views the Founders didn’t endorse. Kirk’s got quite a few - his determination to have large standing armed forces; his commitment to costly foreign entanglements such as our ties to Israel; the idea a minority can dictate when and whether legislation is passed by abusing rules found nowhere in the Constitution.
Dave is right–I’m not sure what Cincinnatus is thinking about, but he is misusing the Washington quote as well. In terms of the Senate being used to cool public sentiment, it’s important to remember the context.
First, the Senate was not elected, but selected by State Legislatures at the time which removed it from direct election and thus made the Senators less accountable directly to citizens. Second, their terms were and are 6 years instead of two years. Third, the Senate is based on equal representation of states thus reducing the ability of majorities of people to make quick law.
Washington wasn’t around for the filibuster. The first filibuster wasn’t until 1837. That the rules allowed such a maneuver wasn’t thought important because the point was to simply allow everyone to have a say.
All of this worked fairly well until recent years when greater party coherence has led to more use of the filibuster. The filibuster is nothing, but a rule of the Senate that is subject to the Senate as a body deciding whether it should continue or not. It has no Constitutional foundation other than the Senate is allowed to establish its own rules. It has no historical connection to the “Founders.”
Regardless of all that, because the Founders thought something was good or it worked in 1787 doesn’t mean it’s a good idea now. It’s an appeal to authority that ignores the varied opinions of the Founders and is a red herring to actual discussion.
“shore–if we are to believe rasmussen there are billbrady/alexigiannoulias voters out there as both have leads. who are these people?”
Well, I’m one of them. I may not be too thrilled with AG, but Kirk’s “disremembering” comes off as nearly pathological, and I don’t care to send another vote to DC for GOP obstructionists. Here in IL, however, Quinn has for more than 30 years demonstrated that he is a phony self-promoter, incapable of admitting a mistake, who is completely incompetent and has surrounded himself with others who approach his same level of incompetency. Brady scares me–his social positions are unnacceptable, but I have to believe that Madigan and Cullerton will retain their positions and prevent him from implementing anything draconian. I’m disgusted that these are the choices we’ve been given by the parties. But especially for governor, one of these 2 will be elected, and God help us all if we’re stuck with 4 more years of Quinn. Harold Washington was right; I hoped against hope that he would rise to the occasion and surprise me, but he seems to have retained all the worst characteristics–and individuals–of the Blago bunch. State agencies are holding on by a thread, unable to replace frontline workers, while any hires he makes are generally SPSAs that don’t have to go through the normal hiring process. I’ve voted for every Dem presidential candidate starting with McGovern, but I’ll hold my nose and vote for Brady. They say stick with the devil you know, but I’m not sure there will be anything left if we have to endure PQ for 4 more years.
Not sure why you lump together “less ethical” and “not sure.”
Only 1 in 10 voters think the that either candidate is more ethical than the average politician.
That like saying that only 1 in 10 people think they smell better than a skunk.
My analysis: Neither candidate has any hope of winning this race on the ethics issue. Folks started this race not trusting Alexi, and Kirk has convinced them that he’s just as untrustworthy.
Kirk has surrendered the moral high ground, and in a campaign thats decided by issues rather than character, Alexi has the upper hand.
- the dark horse - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:25 am:
The trend lines are always important but understated. I don’t like Alexi and will likely vote for Kirk, but this “mob banker” thing is such nonesense. Is the Tribune a “mob paper” because mafia members subscribe to it? Unless someone went in to that bank, wrote “Mobster” on a loan application, and Ali G personnaly reviewed it and approved the loan, I say WHO CARES? And, likewise, who cares that the bank went under? Lots of banks are going under- I don’t think it’s a reflection on Ali G.
- the dark horse - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:27 am:
Rich, you reference independents– but I do not see where that is mentioned in the poll. What is the breakdown among indies?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:30 am:
It’s in the crosstabs.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:35 am:
This sounds right.
- cassandra - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:35 am:
1. This is still a very blue state.
2. Lots of banks are failing across the country.
Alexi’s bank is old news and lost in the sea of
the financial meltdown. Blame Wall Street and Bush, not Alexi.
3. Kirk’s resume-fluffing is more recent news.
4. Obama and the WH are rooting publicly for Alexi-that’s important in Illinois.
5. Alexi is much more personable than Kirk, who comes across as a bit shrill.
6. One of the more successful Democratic mantras
for the upcoming midterms is, ok, there are some problems, but do you want to go back to the bad old days of Bush and the Repubs in control of Congress. I think a lot of folks will say no.
I’m going to vote for Kirk. I don’t believe in one-party states and he can certainly do the job.
But I think it’s a lost cause.
- Roland in my 6-4 - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:36 am:
Should be a close race to the end. I do hope they’ll have a few debates so people can get a better grasp of both candidates.
- shore - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:39 am:
If I was a member of team Kirk, I would be pleased on one hand and kicking myself on the other. When this campaign got started I said there were 2 big hurdles for the congressman-getting conservatives behind him and then getting passed democrat attacks that he wasn’t THAT conservative and he seems to have done that based on the numbers.
Where things aren’t good for him is that this rock alexi threw out there-the military thing skipped instead of sunk and ended up popping up 3 months of ugly stories which have clearly hurt him. These were self inflicted problems that have otherwise damaged one of the best gop senate campaigns here.
the 2 percent deficit to me is troubling considering how damaged alexi is. the congressman doesn’t seem to be getting people to like him.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:41 am:
Kirk’s an awful candidate. Dem control, bad economy, failed bank — if he weren’t such a misremembering embellisher, this would be a slam dunk.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:43 am:
Alexi wants to change the filibuster rules in the Senate. I am also sure that he supported elimination of the Electoral College (Rich?).
“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour LEGISLATION into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
The “Committee of Eleven” (Abraham Baldwin (GA), David Brearly (NJ), Pierce Butler (SC), Daniel Carrol (MD), John Dickinson (DE), Nicholas Gilman (NH), Rufus King (MA), James Madison (VA), Gouvernour Morris (PA), Roger Sherman (CT), Hugh Williamson (NC)) in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors because they feared the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.
Alexi’s opposition to the Founders in these two areas is more than enough reason to vote for Kirk. Forget the “mob banker” and other crap issues.
- bored now - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:54 am:
this better help alexi’s fund-raising, because his last quarter sucked. he needs to start exploiting his opportunities, and this is one of them.
kirk was always going to employ a rovian, slash and burn campaign anyway. everybody understands that there’s no way for him to win otherwise. which is why his pattern of repeated exaggeration hurts his chances. what alexi has said about kirk is true, while polifact makes it clear that kirk has been, well, exaggerating about alexi. kirk’s chances have always rested on an assumption that illinois’ voters are stupid. incredibly stupid. it’s not that much of a stretch…
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 10:57 am:
I’m not surprised. It seems as though all of Kirk’s “misrememberings” and the negative press appearances & stories have caught up with him. Alexi actually looks smart for laying low and allowing Kirk to partially implode.
I don’t think Kirk needs to hit the big panic button, but perhaps it’s time for him to act out the scene in “Austin Powers” when Dr. Evil presses the trap door buttons and rids himself of certain staffers who are holding him back. There’s nothing wrong with bringing in fresh blood to counteract the months of negative press and bad advising.
- dave - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:00 am:
Alexi’s opposition to the Founders in these two areas
Ummm… the Founders allowed for a filibuster?
When Congress was first established in the US, a simple majority ended debate in the Senate.
And the Founders would have NEVER approved of the the way that the filibuster is now used.
- A.B. - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:02 am:
Ok, so this poll shows the hit that Kirk took and he should be thrilled it kept him within the margin of error. Time for both candidates to work on getting their positives up and Kirk SHOULD have the advantage in that category based on his experience and resume.
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:02 am:
What did my parents say when I was a little kid, liars never prosper? Okay I guess it was actually “cheaters never prosper.” Same thing.
Point is, not surprising that a guy who can’t tell the truth would be falling in the polls, even in Illinois. I expect that to continue as more lies come out, and there are definitely more lies out there. No way Kirk wins.
Good going IL GOP.
- Ahoy - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:06 am:
There isn’t many surprises here, but I thin it looks very good for Kirk, He’s leading among independents and in the bank. He needs to shore up the female vote a little but I think that will come in the fall when he’s able to hammer the “mob banker” act.
- Liandro - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:06 am:
My first thoughts were wondering who these 33% are that think Kirk’s views are out of the mainstream. I disagree with him to greater or lesser degree on a host of issues, but out of the mainstream? Kinda wondered the same about Alexi…considering I don’t even really know where he stands on anything. I pretty much sub in the Dem agenda in it’s entirety until he fleshes it out more; I guess that would be considered “mainstream”.
Kirk is a moderate, and to win as one I think he needs to push that number down if possible. The supposed advantage to be a moderate is that nobody considers you that extreme. Having 30% (only 3% off AG) think that sounds pretty high.
I was also amused that Kirk had better ethics numbers then Alexi…despite the “liar” mantra that is being beat into the ground. I think the “mob banker” meme is getting beat into the ground, too (although the actual bank failure is a quite valid target imo). I think if Kirk starts pounding some actual issues it will better deflect character attacks, and Alexi is vulnerable in several critical areas.
- Lefty - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:07 am:
NONE OF THE ABOVE is best choice for this race. It seems like Everett Dirksen was our last good Senator.
- Berkeley Bear - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:08 am:
The ethics, favs/unfavs and independent numbers all suggest that yet again Rasmussen’s likely voter screen trends towards a right leaning result. Basically an audience that should be inclined to vote for Kirk, seeing as how he has a better favorablility rating, holding his own with his base and is leading unaffiliated voters by a wide margin. The fact he still somehow comes out behind should be of concern to his campaign.
The fact Giannoulis can’t make Kirk be seen as any worse than himself or any other politician after a month of coverage about lies and embellishments should worry his campaign.
So it basically seems to say this campaign is a toss up, with neither side having much momentum. Given historic voter ID in this state and the advantages Dems have had in the ground game over the last 2 cycles, you’d think that shapes up as a narrow Dem win, barring some major new development in the next 90 days.
Biggest winner, in my opinion - Quinn, since strong enthusiasm for Kirk and/or Democratic disillusionment with Giannoulis was probably Brady’s best hope to get enough people to the polls to bet Quinn.
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:09 am:
From the inception of the Constitution, both Houses of Congress were allowed unlimited debate. The House changed that about a hundred years ago.
- dave - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:12 am:
From the inception of the Constitution, both Houses of Congress were allowed unlimited debate. The House changed that about a hundred years ago.
Not true (source: http://tinyurl.com/yb3m4vk)
“Originally, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had a rule called the Previous Question Motion, where a simple majority ended debate — a rule the House has kept. But the Senate dropped this provision in 1806, leaving open the potential for a filibuster.”
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:14 am:
Unfortunately, people will not be familiar with this before election day:
http://media.townhall.com/townhall/thmagcmf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:16 am:
dave,
Don’t use Time magazine, go to the source:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm
- CircularFiringSquad - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:16 am:
sso 70+% of wing nuts favor Command MakeIt Up?
Guess honesty not on the agenda anymore
Doug Doug
- shore - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:17 am:
if we are to believe rasmussen there are billbrady/alexigiannoulias voters out there as both have leads. who are these people?
makes no sense.
- dave - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:18 am:
shore… no, that isn’t necessarily true. actually, it likely isn’t true at all.
there are a significant number of undecideds in both poll sets, as well as those who will vote for other candidates.
- Montrose - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:21 am:
*Alexi’s opposition to the Founders in these two areas is more than enough reason to vote for Kirk.*
I would love Kirk to do a commercial calling Alexi out for supporting these two issues. It would be a huge help to Alexi.
- dave - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:21 am:
@Cincinnatus - that link doesn’t dispute anything that was said in the Time article.
Show me evidence that the Time article is wrong.
Come on, even “Conservapedia” says that I am right and you are wrong (http://www.conservapedia.com/Filibuster):
“The right of unlimited debate in the Senate was rejected by the Founding Fathers. The Continental Congress adopted Rule 10. It followed the practice of the British Parliament and precedent allowed a simple majority to cut off debate by a motion for “the previous question.” This rule was included in sections 8 and 9 of the rules adopted by the first Senate in 1789, was included in Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice, and was part of the Senate’s rules until it was removed in 1806. The change in 1806 allowed unlimited debate.”
- bored now - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:23 am:
Cincinnatus: could you provide a cite for the constitutional aspect? obviously, we *all* understand that each house is allowed to make up their own rules, but i’m completely unaware where a ~140 yo rule is in the constitution…
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:23 am:
This is disheartening for Commander McBragg.
Kirk is down 10% from the very start of this campaign from the number of regestered Dems v. Repubs in this state.
Then, factor in the trend of IL and its Blue State status.
If you are a Repub, the rallying cry was “Moderate, with a conservatve fiscal background”… well, you can be ANY type of Repub, but if you are seen as untrustworthy, who cares what you THINK you believe.
Alexi should feel a bit better… only because he drew Kirk in his race. All Alexi needs to do is let Kirk keep talking. The Repubs really drop the ball on this, and factor in the DGA and its spending against Brady and this “Fantastic!” Repub ticket will be sunk.
Kirk better find a way to talk, without having the facts be “mis-remembered”, “mis-spoken”, or “mis-understood”.
A note from Mommy ain’t gonna cut it, Commander. It hasn’t cut it yet….
- jaded voter - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:23 am:
Kirk is a poor candidate, although not many said that a year ago.
But, But….Alexi G is a clown. We are getting rid of one presently. Why install another one?
- Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:26 am:
Kirk is a moderate in press release form only. Look more closely at his actual voting record; he makes sure Boehner has the votes when it counts. And his foreign policy stance, particularly on Iran-related matters, is pure neocon doctrine — meaning more war, more foreign policy bloopers, more enemies. The “moderate” act with Kirk is purely an act; and besides, even Republicans more “moderate” than Kirk are amassing remarkable conservative scores over the past several years. Kirk is no Porter or Michel, that’s for sure.
- Robert - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:26 am:
interesting results on the ethical question - I would quickly have answered “less ethical” to both kirk and alexi, and of course to blago. but if I’m calling all 3 “less ethical,” maybe I should be calling at least two of them “about as ethical”?
- Berkeley Bear - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:34 am:
Cincy,
Washington was referring to the fact it took a majority of states supporting a bill to pass it in the Senate, not a super majority. The Federalist Papers specifically discuss the dangers of supermajorities and why the drafters determined after considering it to limit it to select issues like veto overrides and Constitutional Amendments. The filibuster is a product of Senate rules, not the Constitution, and has been changed repeatedly. The current rules permit a block without even holding the floor of the Senate as in a classic filibuster, which is why there’s a push to change the rules to something that at least requires the minority to do more than note the absence of a qourum to keep debate going until 60 votes can be rounded up.
While you may be “sure” Giannoulis wants to amend or do away with the EC, that isn’t evidence. The same persons supporting the EC also strongly supported the appointment of Senators by state legislators, for much the same reason - but only a fringe group thinks the 17th Amendment has been a change for the worse, seeing as how it broke one of the major powers of organizations like Tammany Hall.
That same body also compromised on the issue of slavery to assure slave states a higher representation in the House than their free population would dictate without complete domination - remember, all free persons and 3/5 of all other persons. They also set voting at 21, saw no reason to limit the number of terms a President could serve, didn’t require the VP to be from the same party, etc. Just because they believed in something doesn’t mean it has to be that way forever, or that disagreeing makes you unfit to serve in the Senate.
Lots of people already there from both parties have views the Founders didn’t endorse. Kirk’s got quite a few - his determination to have large standing armed forces; his commitment to costly foreign entanglements such as our ties to Israel; the idea a minority can dictate when and whether legislation is passed by abusing rules found nowhere in the Constitution.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:42 am:
OK, enough of this silliness. Get back to the subject at hand, please.
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 11:44 am:
Dave is right–I’m not sure what Cincinnatus is thinking about, but he is misusing the Washington quote as well. In terms of the Senate being used to cool public sentiment, it’s important to remember the context.
First, the Senate was not elected, but selected by State Legislatures at the time which removed it from direct election and thus made the Senators less accountable directly to citizens. Second, their terms were and are 6 years instead of two years. Third, the Senate is based on equal representation of states thus reducing the ability of majorities of people to make quick law.
Washington wasn’t around for the filibuster. The first filibuster wasn’t until 1837. That the rules allowed such a maneuver wasn’t thought important because the point was to simply allow everyone to have a say.
All of this worked fairly well until recent years when greater party coherence has led to more use of the filibuster. The filibuster is nothing, but a rule of the Senate that is subject to the Senate as a body deciding whether it should continue or not. It has no Constitutional foundation other than the Senate is allowed to establish its own rules. It has no historical connection to the “Founders.”
Regardless of all that, because the Founders thought something was good or it worked in 1787 doesn’t mean it’s a good idea now. It’s an appeal to authority that ignores the varied opinions of the Founders and is a red herring to actual discussion.
- Herky - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 2:00 pm:
“shore–if we are to believe rasmussen there are billbrady/alexigiannoulias voters out there as both have leads. who are these people?”
Well, I’m one of them. I may not be too thrilled with AG, but Kirk’s “disremembering” comes off as nearly pathological, and I don’t care to send another vote to DC for GOP obstructionists. Here in IL, however, Quinn has for more than 30 years demonstrated that he is a phony self-promoter, incapable of admitting a mistake, who is completely incompetent and has surrounded himself with others who approach his same level of incompetency. Brady scares me–his social positions are unnacceptable, but I have to believe that Madigan and Cullerton will retain their positions and prevent him from implementing anything draconian. I’m disgusted that these are the choices we’ve been given by the parties. But especially for governor, one of these 2 will be elected, and God help us all if we’re stuck with 4 more years of Quinn. Harold Washington was right; I hoped against hope that he would rise to the occasion and surprise me, but he seems to have retained all the worst characteristics–and individuals–of the Blago bunch. State agencies are holding on by a thread, unable to replace frontline workers, while any hires he makes are generally SPSAs that don’t have to go through the normal hiring process. I’ve voted for every Dem presidential candidate starting with McGovern, but I’ll hold my nose and vote for Brady. They say stick with the devil you know, but I’m not sure there will be anything left if we have to endure PQ for 4 more years.
- (618) Democrat - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 2:23 pm:
This is more good news for Alexi. The trend lines are clearly in favor of Alexi, that will help with fundraising.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 3:22 pm:
There is no good news for either candidate here. This poll shows that both men are complete boobs.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jul 29, 10 @ 12:26 am:
Not sure why you lump together “less ethical” and “not sure.”
Only 1 in 10 voters think the that either candidate is more ethical than the average politician.
That like saying that only 1 in 10 people think they smell better than a skunk.
My analysis: Neither candidate has any hope of winning this race on the ethics issue. Folks started this race not trusting Alexi, and Kirk has convinced them that he’s just as untrustworthy.
Kirk has surrendered the moral high ground, and in a campaign thats decided by issues rather than character, Alexi has the upper hand.