February 22, 2004

60-40 VISION:

Wealthy hopefuls lead Senate race (ANDREW HERRMANN AND SCOTT FORNEK, February 22, 2004, Chicago Siun Times)

Multimillionaire candidates Blair Hull and Jack Ryan lead in their U.S. Senate primaries -- but voters don't buy opponents' complaints that they are buying the election, a new poll shows.

The survey of 1,500 Illinois voters finds that three out of four respondents said either that they are more likely to vote for a person who spends millions of his own money to win office or that a candidate's wealth doesn't matter either way. The primary is March 16.

Hull -- a trader who has pumped $24 million of his own money into his Democratic race -- leads with 27 percent, ahead of state Sen. Barack Obama and state Comptroller Dan Hynes, who each had 17 percent.

On the Republican side, Ryan -- a former investment banker who has dipped into his wallet for nearly $2.6 million -- leads dairy and investment magnate Jim Oberweis, 41 percent to 17 percent.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 22, 2004 10:36 AM
Comments

Sorry but pumping $2.6 million (Ryan) to win a primary is par for the course in today's senate races. Pumping $24 million (Hull) to win a primary, is in a league of its own, and if projected through Novemer may make Corzine's purchase in New Jersey seem like a bargain.

No wonder Dems are staring to have second thoughts about the wealthy are all bastards, especially if their wealth is already made, they feel sufficiently guilty about having made it, and are ready to make sure others don't get away with ever accumulating even much smaller amounts.

Posted by: MG at February 22, 2004 11:59 AM

OJ
You can scratch the Senate seat in Arkansas from your list of Republican wins. Blanche Lincoln has decided to play dirty. (she is supporting everything Bush proposes) These Democrats are real sleazeballs, aren't they?

Posted by: h-man at February 22, 2004 1:25 PM

h-man

That is what I am afraid can happen in many Red states, and that it can easily work when their challengers are not the best the GOP could have mustered (AR is one of these). However, I am yet to understand why the GOP can not nationalize the elections, and make voters focus on the simple fact that a vote for Lincoln is a vote for Daschle as majority leader, a vote for Kennedy as Judiciary, etc. It is also a vote to filibuster judges. Finally, is their support of the Administration critical or just cherry picking? How often has Lincoln voted to close debate on a filibuster? When has she been on the GOP side of a vote that was close than 52 to 48? And if all else fails, are there no pictures of her hugging Hillary, Barbara, Patty? And if this fails, there is the old "pay to play": why should good Red states like AR, SD, LA, e.g. have no majority representation in the Senate?

Posted by: MG at February 22, 2004 1:39 PM

h:

Doesn't matter--she's Birch Bayh.

Posted by: oj at February 22, 2004 4:27 PM

Appeal to people's inner greed, just like the Dems do.

Why vote for GOP-lite when you can have it full strength for the same price? The GOP has to point out that having a Dem represent you when you vote for Bush is illogical-- the Dem may have seniority now, but its ability to bring home the bacon, which is the only logical reason to support a Dem incumbent, is severly curtailed, and you only lose out the longer you wait to give YOUR GOP Senator the necessary senority.


Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 22, 2004 4:30 PM

All politics is local.

Posted by: Tip at February 22, 2004 10:24 PM
« WHY CAN'T WE BE MORE LIKE NORWAY? (via Brian Hoffman): | Main | UMM, BUT OF COURSE WE MUSTN’T PRE-JUDGE THE VERDICT: »