Posted on 03/30/2015 9:05:21 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Rep. Tammy Duckworth D-Ill., made it official on Monday and announced her 2016 Senate in a video, largely autobiographical, titled “Tammy Duckworth is running for the Senate.”
As first reported in the Chicago Sun-Times, Duckworth, a wounded Iraq war vet, elected to her second term last November, is looking in 2016 to clinch the Democratic nomination and take on Sen. Mark Kirk R-Ill.
Kirk is a top target for the Senate Democrats as he seeks a second term. Duckworth does not mention his name in her announcement video.
Duckworth describers herself as a wife, a mom and a combat veteran – she is nursing her baby daughter, Abigail in the video. She talks about her Blackhawk helicopter being shot down near Baghdad, taking her legs and damaging an arm.
In the wake of surviving combat, Duckworth said in the video, “I view my time now as a bonus, and that has allowed me to speak up without fear.”
“…I am running for the United States Senate in 2016 because it is time for Washington to be held accountable and to put Illinois families and communities first.
“…If you elect me as Illinois Senator, I will fight my heart out to represent you with honor and integrity,” Duckworth says in the video.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.suntimes.com ...
Also had an exceptionally weak opponent as I recall.
Also elected in 2010-—a GOP year too as I recall.
Even in blue states like IL, GOP can win statewide if Dem vote turnout is low and GOP voters energized in midterm elections.
In 2010, Kirk won mainly because of the Green Party candidate, LeAlan Jones. Kirk beat the Democrat, Alexi Guinulius, by about 81,000 votes, and Jones got about 113,000 votes. If Jones hadn’t run, the majority of his voters would have voted for Alexi, helping him win.
You point to a pattern I’ve noticed in elections in recent years. Dems seem to have the advantage in presidential election years when voter turnout is much larger. In midterm elections, the electorate tends to be smaller, more disciplined, older, whiter, more conservative, and therefore more Republican than is generally the case in presidential election years.
James Carville was famous for coining the phrase, “it’s the economy, stupid.”
Now days I think it “it’s the demographics, stupid”.
And then in IL the GOP has the added difficult of having to deal with Cook County, easily the most corrupt county in the nation where cemeteries have precinct captains and ward heelers.
Actually, John Kerry won just 54.82%. You have used that false figure for Kerry before.
Obama got 61.83% in 2008 and 57.5% in 2012. I expect the rat nominee in 2016 to do better than Kerry but worse than Obama in 2012. Say around 56-56.5% or so. RINO Kirk could overcome that and beat this (w)itch, in fact I say he starts as the slight favorite despite democrat wishes.
That pattern appears to be nationwide, and nobody has capitalized on that pattern more than Scott Walker. He won two elections in non-presidential election years and in both cases the turnout was about 2.3 million. He won his recall with a voter turnout of about 2.5 million. In the 2012 election the voter turnout was over 3 million and Obama took Wisconsin by 8 percentage points with Paul Ryan on the ticket. Nothing seems to bring the Dems out like a presidential race, and if Scott Walker is the nominee there is no guarantee he'll carry his home state.
Of course not. No guarantee. And MR could not even make a dent in MA or MI for that matter. Some states seem to be really solid blue. It always comes down to about a handful of swing states, most notably OH, FL, VA, NV, CO, IA, NM, NH. In order for the GOP to win the presidency they must really run the tables on these states, unless a way can be found to pick off some the states that have been voting reliably blue since in 1992. In recent years the GOP has been able to pick up WV, MO, KY, AR, LA, TN, as fairly reliable presidential states. But that’s more than offset by the loss of CA (which was reliably GOP from 1952 to 1992) and the loss of New England and much of the Midwest which used to be at the heart of the GOP base in the not too distant past.
——but that’s not legal in Illinois.-——
Wait’ I thought all things legal only apply to republicans in Illinois...
she is a dem, so they have an exception...
I’m sure it’s in the democrat rule book somewhere...
Poor excuse for a human being.
I think I'd enjoy watching Wife Beater Foster and Tammy "you hate disabled people if you don't support me" Suckworth beat each other up in a Dem primary. Dems really seem to bask in having scumbags represent their party. Suckworth would be even more popular with Dems if she turned out to be a HIV-positive lesbian or a heroin addict.
In any case, Kirk has behaved exactly as his combiner masters expected him to. The only reason he's not the favorite of the combine this time around is because his effectiveness has been severely limited by his stroke. Kirk is no longer the cute boyish "decorated military vet" who can smoothly argue the leftist talking point within the GOP caucus. His handlers probably keep him out of the limelight whenever possible.
Agreed. She will be a formidable opponent. Female. Military. Wounded in service. Blue State. Kirk will have his work cut out for him.
The day after the 2004 election, the Chicago Tribune said that Kerry got 57%, in IL. After that, Bush must have received a higher percentage of the absentee ballots, mainly from military members.
Refer to this website if you ever need to know the stats (and it has the correct colors: Blue-GOP; Red-Democrat).
Yep, her election to the HR is a result of jerrymandering.
If Kirk is going to lose, I would rather he lose to her than another Durbin. She has served her country and deserves to be Senator if she can win. As an ex-Chicagoan, I’m amazed anyone but D’s win, as they vote in every election FOREVER.
But wait a minute. Isn’t Kirk the type of Republicans we need and that Dems will welcome with open arms?
One more reason I will not vote for Kirk.
Mark Kirk blasts Pence over ‘religious freedom’ law
By Nick Gass
4/2/15 7:20 AM EDT
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) blasted Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s decision to sign the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, calling it a form of bigotry.
“I strongly oppose what Governor Pence did. We should not enshrine bigotry under the cover of religion. It’s not just bad practice — it’s un-American,” Kirk said in a statement Wednesday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.