This is why Republicans need to be afraid.

[Cali Coug]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...rts_seat_.html

If they can't hold that seat, what can they hold?

This should also send a message to the Democrats. Obama was instrumental in helping to take that seat from the Republicans. If the Democrats really want to change the election map, their nominee needs to be Obama.

[malapert]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If the Democrats really want to change the election map, their nominee needs to be Obama.

Is there really any doubt or debate about Obama being the nominee?

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...rts_seat_.html

If they can't hold that seat, what can they hold?

This should also send a message to the Democrats. Obama was instrumental in helping to take that seat from the Republicans. If the Democrats really want to change the election map, their nominee needs to be Obama.

That is a huge blow.

Obama's ability to mobilize first-time and young voters should be the trend that most scares GOPers

[YOhio]

A couple of things stick out to me in that article.

First, the RNCC has employed members of Fred Thompson's former campaign staff. Now there's a campaign well-run! Things were so much easier when we had Karl Rove running every thing.

Second, I'll be interested to see if Dems can pull off a hat-trick this fall; take the presidency, expand their House and Senate majority. Despite the frustration people have with the President, Congressional Dems are faring even worse. OTOH, Reps are losing a ton of seats through retirement and it will be difficult to retain them.

Finally, I think Obama's influence in this particular race is disproportionality high. Illinois is HQ of the Obamoonies and his stalwarts are likely growing frustrated at the developments of the presidential race. This dairy farmer just took the brunt of their frustration in a poorly attended March replacement election.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...rts_seat_.html

If they can't hold that seat, what can they hold?

This should also send a message to the Democrats. Obama was instrumental in helping to take that seat from the Republicans. If the Democrats really want to change the election map, their nominee needs to be Obama.

Would that candidate defeat Hastert if Hastert was running?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Would that candidate had defeated Hastert if Hastert was running?

Who knows. What we do know is that Hastert wasn't running, and the guy who won the seat wouldn't have won that seat at any point in the past 25 years.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by YOhio

A couple of things stick out to me in that article.

First, the RNCC has employed members of Fred Thompson's former campaign staff. Now there's a campaign well-run! Things were so much easier when we had Karl Rove running every thing.

Second, I'll be interested to see if Dems can pull off a hat-trick this fall; take the presidency, expand their House and Senate majority. Despite the frustration people have with the President, Congressional Dems are faring even worse. OTOH, Reps are losing a ton of seats through retirement and it will be difficult to retain them.

Finally, I think Obama's influence in this particular race is disproportionality high. Illinois is HQ of the Obamoonies and his stalwarts are likely growing frustrated at the developments of the presidential race. This dairy farmer just took the brunt of their frustration in a poorly attended March replacement election.

I think the "hat trick" depends entirely on who the nominee is. If it is Hillary, Republicans will be more energized to turn out, which should translate into a more competitive race in the House and Senate. If Obama is the nominee, I think Republicans are toast.

Obama's influence is very high in Illinois, but this is an overwhelmingly Republican district. I would be really concerned if I were a Republican (and I think Republicans are concerned, thus the effort to vote for Clinton). And you are right- the fact that the RNCC has Thompson campaign workers at its head is alarming. They couldn't have run a worse campaign for the one time presumptive nominee.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who knows. What we do know is that Hastert wasn't running, and the guy who won the seat wouldn't have won that seat at any point in the past 25 years.

You seem so sure that it was a coup for the Dems that a Democrat won that seat. That's why I asked.

I'm pretty sure that if Hastert had run, he would have won. It's tough to beat an incumbent, so the victory just isn't as worrisome for Repubs as you believe it is.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by YOhio

A couple of things stick out to me in that article.

First, the RNCC has employed members of Fred Thompson's former campaign staff. Now there's a campaign well-run! Things were so much easier when we had Karl Rove running every thing.

Second, I'll be interested to see if Dems can pull off a hat-trick this fall; take the presidency, expand their House and Senate majority. Despite the frustration people have with the President, Congressional Dems are faring even worse. OTOH, Reps are losing a ton of seats through retirement and it will be difficult to retain them.

Finally, I think Obama's influence in this particular race is disproportionality high. Illinois is HQ of the Obamoonies and his stalwarts are likely growing frustrated at the developments of the presidential race. This dairy farmer just took the brunt of their frustration in a poorly attended March replacement election.

Obamoonies. I like that.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by malapert

Is there really any doubt or debate about Obama being the nominee?

Hillary would have to win all the remaining primaries by 25 points, and she isn't even going to win them all. It's definitely over. The media are prolonging the suspense for ratings.