Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Shaw to challenge Rep. Miller
Next Post: Another cigarette tax hike
Posted in:
As promised, here are some excerpts from yesterday’s Capitol Fax about the 6th Congressional District primary race.
Democrat Christine Cegelis lost to longtime Republican Congressman Henry Hyde last year 56-44. Since then, she has used her performance to argue that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ought to back her this time around in an open-seat contest against state Sen. Peter Roskam (R-Wheaton). […]
George W. Bush defeated John Kerry 53-47 in the Hyde district last year. So Cegelis underperformed Kerry’s result by 3 percentage points. Over in the 8th Congressional District, Democrat Melissa Bean defeated incumbent Republican Phil Crane 52-48, beating Kerry’s totals by 8 percentage points (Kerry lost that district 56-44). Bean lost in ‘02, but she outperformed Al Gore’s ‘00 performance in the district by a point.
It’s difficult, to say the least, to buttress an argument that Cegelis is entitled to another shot when she underperformed the top of the ticket.
And now the poll.
The poll of likely Democratic primary voters was taken August 8-10 and the results here are a subset of a general election poll, so the margin of error is pretty high, +/-6.5 percent. The data was also “weighted by age” by pollsters Bennet, Petts & Blumenthal “to better reflect the composition of the electorate.” Still, they’re the only numbers we have.
* Just 28 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in her district knew who Christine Cegelis was. Remember, this is after her high-profile race against Hyde and a strong effort to keep her campaign going in the months since then. Cegelis has burned through a bunch of money in the past year to keep her name out there, but just over a quarter of Democratic primary voters recognized her name in August.
* 48 percent of those same likely Dem primary voters knew who Peter O’Malley was, even though he had never run for office before. O’Malley dropped out of the Democratic primary race a couple of months after the poll was taken (the poll was not conducted by or for O’Malley’s campaign).
* Before he dropped out, the poll showed that O’Malley was leading Cegelis 26-19 (or 22-16 excluding “leaners”) in the primary. Even with that high margin of error, a seven-point lead is still pretty solid - about an 86 percent probability that O’Malley was ahead and the result wasn’t due to sampling error.
* Just 15 percent had a favorable view of Cegelis, while 5 percent had an unfavorable view. That’s bad news for someone who thinks that her last race will propel her to victory in the next contest.
The poll is flawed because of its small sample size and weighting, but until someone shows me better numbers and explains to me why underperforming the top of the ticket last year was no big deal, I can see why the DCCC decided that Christine Cegelis wasn’t the best Democratic candidate for that district.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 12:35 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Shaw to challenge Rep. Miller
Next Post: Another cigarette tax hike
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
My guess is that the high O’Malley recognition numbers have more to do with the last name than with Peter O’Malley.
Nevertheless, the point about Cegelis not being the “brand name” she claims is well taken. And it is hard to make the claim that she has made significant Democratic gains in the district when she underperformed Kerry.
Poor Peter O’Malley, though. He was the front runner when he dropped out — and didn’t even know it! On the plus side, Duckworth has made an outstanding debut as a candidate. It may be that all’s well that ends well.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 7:53 am
O’Malley actually had run for office before, for DuPage County Board, but the Other Anon is right, his name recognition probably had more to do with the name than O’Malley.
Still, there is no doubt that Cegelis is overplaying her “incumbency”.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 8:16 am
aw, rich — numbers and logic don’t matter when you’re dealing with the lefty blogosphere! Commenters on DailyKos *surely* know better than Rahm Emmanuel! Don’t bother trying to prove them wrong.
Comment by donkeyrealist Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 8:17 am
If O’Malley had such high name recognition and was ahead in the polls, why did Cegelis out fundraise him by 5 to 1 in Q3?
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 8:59 am
Ms Cegelis is a nice lady. If she is smart she takes a pass on 06. Follow the old hackology addage, “never lead with your chin”.
Comment by Stone Hack Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 9:04 am
1843 - Lincoln is unsuccessful in try for the Whig nomination for U.S. Congress.
1855 - Does not get chosen by the Illinois legislature to be U.S. Senator.
1859 - Illinois legislature chooses Douglas for the U.S. Senate over Lincoln by a vote of 54 to 46.
November 6, 1860 - Abraham Lincoln is elected as 16th U.S. president and the first Republican.
Comment by Never give up Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 9:57 am
If Denny Hastert had the time or inclination to read this, I believe he would have a more restful sleep this evening.
Despite all the jaw-boning by Democrats about “helping working families”, “progressivism”, “social justice”, and the like, this tawdry and vicious street-fight between Emmanual and Cegelis reveals the party for what it really is: an institution based on the craven quest for more power. Despite her loyal leg work for her party, Cegelis’s party can’t relegate her to the back of the bus quickly enough. And it is no secret. When a successful Democrat in the district in question needs every single vote necessary, how many of those “mere” 15% Cegelis favorables are going to stay home or vote Roskam out of spite? And can Duckworth afford that?
I also find Miller’s highlighting of the poll “analysis” amusing: comparing Cegelis-Hyde against Crane-Bean is so plainly comparing apples to oranges that Miller should be brought down a notch as a political analyst of note. Bean’s success was a function of the DCCC adroitly exploiting the known weaknesses of a has-been incumbent. Cegelis did not have that kind of aid in her race against a revered Republican leader of national fame. Finally, when are you folks going to get a clue that for some reason, the Bushes are not that popular here in Illinois, even among Republicans? A lack of enthusiasm for Bush is not necessarily going to translate into turning a solid Republican district into a D. Smart money will not be on Defeatist Duckworth.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 10:02 am
I think the point you’re leaving out is that Cegelis did what she did with no support AT ALL from the DCCC, the DNC or anyone else, and from what I’ve heard, her fundraising numbers in 2004 were actually less overall than just what she’s raised in 2005.
I don’t understand the rush to pillory Cegelis and push her out stage right, when all she seems to be asking for is a little support (or, at least, not active undermining) from the DCCC and the chance to make good on the 44% she showed last year.
Can anyone actually point to any daylight between the Duckworth and Cegelis platforms right now? If so, please tell me what. Otherwise, why not let Cegelis run. Just because she “underperformed” against a 30-year incumbent doesn’t mean she’s unelectable - far from it…
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 10:04 am
Two reasons. First, this was probably a poll on soft name ID and those questioned confused Peter O’Malley with Pat O’Malley, boosting his name ID. Second, Bean outperformed Kerry solely because her election to office was a protest vote against Phil Crane (see Michael Patrick Flanagan [R-5th], 1994).
These numbers do not suggest that Cegelis is a poor candidate. They simply suggest that she’s a Democratic candidate in an area where Republicans dominate the local government and news.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 10:25 am
Please oh please spare us the rhetoric about Democrats being power hungry, Anon 10:02. Tom DeLay…name ring a bell? Mid-term redistricting? Using homeland security resources to track down Dems fighting against his bloodless coup attempt? How about Grover Norquist? K-Street project? California recall? How about right here in IL — when the GOP fell over themselves to recruit every local celebrity (including John Mahoney -a confirmed bachelor actor from Oak Park-sure he’s a Republican; and Dave Duerson, an Obama donor; Ditka - who played them like a fiddle; Gary Fencik; Jim “you like me, you really like me” Edgar; Orien Samuelson; to name a few) rather than, oh, I don’t know, leave in the guy who won the primary or pick the second or third place guy? You guys are pretty good at seeing the speck in another’s eye, while missing the plank in your own.
Comment by Mohammad Wong Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 11:16 am
Are you done Mohammad? Or are there any other injustices you’d like to cite? Btw, way to read off the DNC fact sheet, how long did it take you to find their website?
Comment by Boo hoo Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 11:42 am
Re Anon 10:02 AM -Sounds like the Ceglis noblesse oblige are talking our way or the highway. Perhaps time for all sides to CEASE FIRE!! Let’s have the primary and the winner receives total and complete support from all sides.
Comment by Stone Hack Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 11:43 am
Nice try. I’m sure if I looked up the DNC fact sheet I could find more offenses. You might try more news souces than Rush, Sean and Fox some time.
Comment by Mohammad Wong Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 12:29 pm
Talk about flawed STATS. I guess none of the 3,817 people that signed the Cegelis petitions were part of this poll.
Cease fire? That’s a good one. Many people only know what the MSM propaganda machine tells them, & they actually believe it. It’s free advertising when the other candidates get nothing. So it’s all their fault:
1. Emanuel doesn’t support a candidate because millionaire donors don’t contribute literally thousands.
2. Emanuel doesn’t sponsor DC fundraisers with PACs (like the RNCC) so candidate exposure is minimized.
3. Candidates are poor fundraisers as a result of #1 & #2.
4. Candidates don’t deserve the votes as a result of #1, #2, & #3.
The DCCC argument for not supporting more than “targeted” races is based on “limited” financial resources. This is nothing new. It happens every year to control who the Party incumbents want on the ballot – who they can control.
So far Emanuel has provided Duckworth with a campaign in a can, free advertising, & a Chicago Hilton fundraiser.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that keeps the GOP in the Majority. Good instincts would say to support Cegelis.
Cease fire? NOT!! Ratchet it up louder & faster & visit the Cegelis website (http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/contribute) often!
Comment by Philosophe Forum Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 12:37 pm
when the GOP fell over themselves to recruit every local celebrity
Mr. M. Wong has it right, here. And, of COURSE, GOP leader at the time JudyBT has nothing to do with ANY of that!
Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 1:38 pm
PF, don’t fall into the trap of believing that every petition signer is a supporter. I’ve signed dozens of petitions for folks I wouldn’t have voted for in a million years. Why?
1) Sometimes, it is because that person will prove a spoiler (did I want Pat Buchanan as President when I signed his petition? Not likely.)
2) Sympathy. Since I’ve had to brave the elements in pursuit of signatures — I’ve often signed for others doing the same.
3) Many people will sign anything.
4) Democracy. Cynics abound - but it’s part of the process, and if you’re qualified, go ahead and run.
Comment by Mohammad Wong Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 2:09 pm
Got CNN on right now actually, but I expected the Rush/Sean/Fox news comeback…how are things on Air America/Daily Kos/and the Huffington blog today?
Comment by Boo hoo Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 2:23 pm
Wouldn’t know. Don’t listen to Air America. Never visit the referenced Web Sites except in passing (I find them a terrible bore, for the most part). But you should have expected it. This argument is a two-way street. When your guy does it it’s a power grab, but when my guy does it it’s democracy? And when you point out that hypocrisy, you’re reading the party’s talking points?
A cheap, pointless, “gotcha” debate that could go on for hours. That’s not really why I come here (not that it doesn’t draw me in). I come for the comedy - stay for the dime-store political analysis.
Comment by Mohammad Wong Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 2:40 pm
OK, back to the topic, please. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 2:44 pm
Yes, why can’t we debate these topics Rich posts without reverting to calling those we disagree with as political campaign staff and people reading off talking points.
The 6th District is going to be rough, and Roskam needs to ensure he’s not caught flat footed. He’s like the Colts right now, everyone expects him to win…yet if a team gets hot heading into the post season, anything is possible.
Comment by Law Dog Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 3:06 pm
Rich, I found the two candidates websites enlightening.
Duckworth leads with a heartfelt letter and the lead button is “Tammy’s Story”. Say, it’s not hard to see where this one is going! “Community Issues” button is well down the list, and her postions are a bit thin, to say the least.
Cegalis at least is putting out issue papers and has a detailed set of positions on her site. I do respect that. Still, Emmanuel and his money will push Duckworth in.
But “Tammy’s Story” will never be enough to beat Peter Roksam, particularly if the news from Iraq improves in any way.
Comment by Bubs Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 3:39 pm
Unfortunately, the Capitol Fax poll does not reflect the visual reality of District 6. There are many Cegelis signs in many windows, and I meet Cegelis supporters every time I run my errands. Because Capitol Fax does not have the credibility of other polling companies, I believe we should shelve this poll and await one that has a bit more veracity. And to think that one can make any judgments about a candidate when 80% of the voters have no opinion of her is utterly premature. This poll is worthless.
Regarding the other debate in this thread, I believe we should view the policy positions, bracket their “stories,” and understand Rahm Emanuel’s intervention in the district for what it is. Instead of allowing District 6 to become a battleground for DeLay, Emanuel, Dean, the DLC and the DCCC, I prefer to have candidates from the district place the issues on the table and have at it. This would have occured if the general battle was one between Cegelis and Roskam. But now we have a media spectacle in my district that reduces my politics and my children’s future to televisual images and vapid, prepackaged sound bytes. I am honestly disappointed, and I think Rahm Emanuel is largely responsible for this gross mishandling of my district’s future.
Roskam has reacted adversely to Duckworth’s entry, and Duckworth supporters have denigrated Cegelis time and time again. The adult to emerge from this controversy is Cegelis, which is why I will visit her website at www.cegelisforcongress.com and donate more money. Those who are serious about politics and the future of District 6 will do the same.
Comment by formalist Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 7:24 pm
Roskam’s barely reacted….and to label Cegelis as the “adult” in this debate is comical. If anything, she’s the spoiled child demanding to have things her way.
Comment by Law Dog Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 8:20 pm
Formalist,
The Capitol Fax did not administer this poll, according to Rich Miller in yesterday’s Capitol Fax, this poll was conducted by Bennet, Petts & Blumenthal and has a margin of error of +/- 6.5%.
This is a reputable polling organization, the same folks who put together the 10th District poll a litte while back showing Kirk to be suprisingly vulnerable.
Formalist: And to think that one can make any judgments about a candidate when 80% of the voters have no opinion of her is utterly premature. This poll is worthless.
This is a poll of likely Primary voters, that 80% of people have no opinion about Christine, it doesn’t really show that the poll is worthless, it suggests something else entirely.
This isn’t about the DLC vs. Dean, this about winning elections, and you do that by supporting the best candidate. Maybe Cegelis has a done a poll that shows she how she can win in the district, I don’t know, the Cegelis campaign hasn’t released one, suggesting they have not accomplished a very basic task for large race, doing a survery to determine the political landscape, and where your opponent might be vulnerable. Or, if they have done a poll, maybe the results aren’t so important. And before you go calling polling a plot of the DLC, realize that most winning campaigns conduct polls.
Really, all we’ve heard from Cegelis supporters is that Cegelis should be supported because she was there first, we haven’t heard what type of Congressperson she would be, we haven’t heard why she could beat Roskam, we haven’t heard anything much besides a lot of whining.
Comment by nobodysent Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 8:37 pm
I have to wonder, how many people supported Bush in 2000 because they thought he was the best man for the job, or because they simply wanted to win? You know it was all about winning, which is what every election is about.
Comment by Austin Tuesday, Dec 20, 05 @ 8:59 pm
What Nobody Sent said.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 21, 05 @ 12:48 am
I see no point in the polling fixation. Just like the fundraising fixation it’s a waste of time.
I disagree with the premise that a “winning” campaign conducts polls. That’s a waste of money.
I don’t care if a poll says a majority of a sampling has John Doe in the lead. That doesn’t sway my vote either way. I cast my ballot my way. Sometimes that means I vote for no one. That’s an undervote or a vote of “no confidence” & not “taking my ball & going home”.
Comment by Philosophe Forum Wednesday, Dec 21, 05 @ 11:22 am
The margin of error is simply too high, and it frankly does not reflect local knowledge. And no, the Cegelis campaign has not engaged in mere whining. Such national baloney really needs to be brackted when discussing this localized campaign.
Comment by formalist Wednesday, Dec 21, 05 @ 12:32 pm
The polling and fundraising “fixations” are limited in their use. That is to say, they’re only useful if you plan to win.
Inside baseball? Sure - but isn’t that kind of why we’re all posting here?
Comment by Mohammad Wong Wednesday, Dec 21, 05 @ 4:12 pm
I disagree with the notion that the “polling fixation” and “fundraising fixation” are a waste of time. What’s next? A “knocking on doors fixation,” a “lack of message fixation?”
Comment by nobodysent Wednesday, Dec 21, 05 @ 9:10 pm
Perhaps we should address one campaign’s willingness to knock on doors and the other campaigns unwillingness to consider the opinions of those who reside in the district. Cegelis and her supporters knocked on doors, thereby gaining the votes that placed Hyde’s seat in the column of vulnerability. And she has a message, which I must say Duckworth lacks, unless that message is a debased onanism that repeats, somewhat compulsively, a marketable narrative of one’s wounds and “experience.” A grassroots organization and a large group of loyal voters is not to be dismissed. Duckworth can try all she wants to convince the public that during some epiphonal moment when she was largely unconscious she had the revelation that she would invade a district and hold an entire party organization prisoner because she decided she was entitled to run for office. Some may find this compelling; I think it is standard political bilge, and I am surprised so many are easily duped. But Cegelis has been consciously campaigning in the district for two years. Two years. Sustained contact with future constituents for an extended amount of time guarantees a certain amount of loyalty dirty money and trashy campaign strategies can never buy, no matter how much makeup you may apply to the candidate. So ridicule grassroots strategies and physical contact with voters all you want. But to valorize a condescending media strategy refracted through television and computer screens that will ultimately alienate instead of mobilize is a mark of pure stupidity. Perhaps this blind allegiance to Duckworth is symptomatic. For in an age of fascism, politics are aestheticized, forcing those who know no better to consume the putrid commodity character of celebrity politicians and cosmeticized wagers of war. It is just so vulgar.
Comment by formalist Thursday, Dec 22, 05 @ 1:03 am
Formalist, didn’t you write this earlier?
“And no, the Cegelis campaign has not engaged in mere whining.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 22, 05 @ 1:08 am
Formalist-If Cegelis has been campaigning so hard for two years, why aren’t her numbers better? It is a reasonable question. Has it ever occured to anyone that Henry Hyde garnered less support due to his public actions in Congress and that with a longtime incumbent, many votes were anti-Hyde as well as pro-Cegelis? What is vulgur is your attacks on Major Duckworth. Standard ‘bilge’? You have to be kidding. This woman’s whole life was public service, if you want to really get down in the mud, you can paint Cegelis as a corporate drone who worked in IT before becoming a consultant, and Major Tammy as a woman whose whole life was devoted to serving her country and working to help others. Using a personal story to demonstrate why you’d be a good public servant isn’t bilge and it isn’t facism and it isn’t vulgar. Was Rep. Carolyn McCarthy any of those things when she ran after her husband was shot? Was Sen. Patty Murray any of those things when she ran as a ‘mom in tennis shoes’?
I hate to nitpicky, but how many D Primes can there be in IL-06? I can’t imagine that if Cegelis was doing a smart, targeted door knocking strategy [and her legions of 100 volunteers with her] she was not able to contact each D Prime at least once.
Comment by IL Lover Thursday, Dec 22, 05 @ 9:10 am
The statement that Duckworth has been serving her country her whole life is somewhat of an overstatement. And that Cegelis has been successful in the corporate sphere, especially during the 1980s when women regularly hit a glass ceiling very early in their careers, is not to be dismissed. She created jobs in the sixth district; she understands the difficulty of establishing a small business; she understands the options available to entrepreneurs when formulating benefits packages to their employees; she understands tax laws; she understands the potential of information technology; she understands the abuses of information technology; and she understands the challenges of those who desire to succeed in the corporate world in the twenty-first century. This cannot be dismissed, especially as her district is comprised of those who desire to establish themselves in the corporate matrix. These are skills the Congress needs, and I should note that a beloved Senator from Washington State named Maria Cantwell has a similar narrative. Cantwell also knocked on doors, every door, in her district, thereby gaining entry into Washington State’s House. And she later went on to become a Senator, even though she lost her House seat in 1994. Especially in an age when privacy rights are compromised by the expanding grip of information technologies, we need more Congresspeople who are aware of these apparati. Cegelis is this person.
A diary at MyDD reveals how Cegelis has raised more and spent less than many incumbents, Democratic incumbents, in the state of Illinois. The argument that she did not or cannot raise funds therefore fails to hold. Indeed, it is a specious argument, and I believe it has been refuted time and time again here and elsewhere. Why one insists on repeating this empty argument is beyond my comprehension. She has raised adaquet funds, she has been campaigning for two years straight, and she continues to raise funds independently of the DCCC. In fact, Marcy Kaptur (OH-01), the senior woman of the House, is hosting a fundraiser for Cegelis in Elmhurst next month. Notice Cegelis’s fundraiser is in Elmhurst and not in the Downtown Hilton. Now we see where Cegelis’s money really originates.
I think one needs to repeat that one can serve their country in multiple manners. I teach art history at a top university. This, I believe, is just as laudable, if not more, as military service. And Cegelis created jobs in her district as well as blazed a path for women in a male dominated field. To denigrate that is unfair, and I ask those who claim Duckworth is more worthy of a political job because of her military service to reconsider their positions. Besides, if Cegelis is anti-war, why would she serve? Why must one serve in order to be anti-war? Perhaps some candidates desire to make the US more like a European country, where defense spending is decreased in order to improve and expand social programmes that benefit the masses. I am a Democrat of the later persuasion, and I believe the best Democrats in Congress are one’s who understand the importance of decreasing defense spending as we confront the problems of a global economy and global understanding. We also need to divert these funds into universal health care. If you read Cegelis’s positions, you will see how she positions herself in relation to these broader debates. And this is important, for these are the problems the sixth district has been facing, which is why Cegelis is the ideal Democratic Party nominee.
Comment by formalist Thursday, Dec 22, 05 @ 12:37 pm