The 2nd district is starting to look as bad as the Illinois 10th legislative district after the brain dead people re-elected Derrick Smith.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/derrick-smith-election-results_n_2079236.

Stuart respectfully I ask you:
How is it fantasy?
What am I missing?

It was his funded ads that lead people away from Halvorson.

When Toi Hutchinson dropped out, she clearly had far more endorsements than Kelly.

There was only a small amount of belief before and after Toi dropped out that Kelly could beat Halvorson, It was not until the onslaught of anti NRA/halvorson ads did she gain momentum.

As far as:
Doug's comment
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Voting for the same political machine and thinking they will represent our needs.

There's no data to support the belief Kelly won based on her gun control stance. Or because Bloomberg wasted cash on her campaign.

As for what she believes here is my response:

*Gun control, she's for it (wrong focus on the violence issue)
*Fox News (who cares, promise to show up for work unlike MIA Jackson and don't go bi-polar on us)
*Voting rights (gee, who would be against this?)
*Drones (keep them out of D2. OK, get rid of them altogether and reduce military spending)
*Minimum wage (mistake to raise them, big mistake, they eliminate jobs)
*Student loans (wrong focus, get out of the business. $19B in unpaid loans now.)
*Health care (it's about reducing costs, not insurance, get it?)
*Education (get out of the business. And figure out why almost 50% of blacks drop out of HS)
*Jobs (key issue, hmm, that's deep. Get out of the jobs business, you're no good at it unless you count state or federal employment)
*Climate change (please, no more legislative action. We don't need more issues AFTER the government passes another unnecessary law.)

You are right about this one SK. Considerable insight into her positions and, in the end, nothing worth reading. But, then again, I didn't expect much from a part line Demo.

Arthur, The Bloomberg ads made the sole point that Kelly favored gun regulation and Halvorson opposed it. This is an actual difference between the two candidates, and part of the core messaging of each. I doubt very much your analysis that the Bloomberg ads drove people away from Halvorson, if anything, they motivated pro-gun voters to come out and/or cross over and vote for her, and likely increased her vote count. It's hard for me to see Halvorson getting much more than the 24% she actually got, given her relatively rural politics and the predominately urban/suburban composition of the 2nd district. The electoral consequences of the Bloomberg ads didn't come from their portrayal of Halvorson as pro-gun, they came from their portrayal of Kelly as *the* anti-gun candidate, instead of one of many.

Dinkum, You ask, "*Voting rights (gee, who would be against this?" Answer: the Republican party, which is engaged in active efforts to suppress the vote from various communities (people of color, college students) who are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. These efforts at voter suppression include various voter-id laws, efforts to add barriers to voter registration, and the ever popular underprovisioning of voting machines in urban precincts, resulting in much longer lines there than in Republican leaning areas. See also the attempts by various Republican legislatures to combine gerrymandering with splitting the electoral vote, as is currently under consideration in Pennsylvania and Florida, which is essentially the same mechanism whereby the Republican candidates for the House of Representatives got 1.4 million fewer votes than Democratic candidates, but possess a 234-201 advantage in seats.

Gerrymandering Stuart? Isn't that what the "Machine" did recently in northeastern Illinois to make it easier for themselves to get elected?

Doug, Gerrymandering is something that both parties do, and it is certainly something that strikes at the one-man, one-vote principle. I think it is a given that politicians of both stripes will cheat to win if necessary, but my point is a pragmatic one: in terms of national politics, it is Republican gerrymandering that is having the biggest distorting effect at the national level at present, a consequence of the 2010 elections. This will likely flip in 2020, which co-occurs with a Presidential election.

Well, that is certainly the liberal, Democratic spin on the voting rights issue SK. The Voting Rights Act itself is NOT being challenged but Section 5 is under review by the Supreme Court. And given it is now in their hands, Kelly has no influence here one way or the other.

And all of her "positions" so far reflect big headline, Democratic commentary. Yawn.

Well done Stuart. I see you've done your homework. Halverson supporters need to move on. It's obvious, the voters didn't like her policies even after she attempted to change her stance on gun control. Just like everyone else, I saw it as a last ditch effort to get elected.

If you have to ask that question you will never understand.

My recollection is that the ads said 1) Halvorson got an A rating from the NRA (as many Dem legislators, including apparently Toi, did) and 2) The NRA opposed things like an assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines. I don't think the ads said what Halvorson's actual, post-Sandy Hook position on those issues would be. Those were typical guilt by association ads. And if someone had spent $2 million on ads attacking Kelly (let's say for Bright Start and working in the Blago administration) and promoting Halvorson, she would have probably won. So there ya go....

Juvenal, Halvorson's website is still up. She can speak for herself:

http://www.debbiehalvorson.com/issues/gun-control/

What is notable on this list is that she does not consider either an assault gun ban or a limit on magazine size. Given the public framing of the debate, her silence on these matters speaks volumes. If she supported these measures, she could have said so, and de-fanged Bloomberg (at the cost of alienating her natural rural constituency).

What I find paradoxical in her list is her desire to create stiff penalties for straw buyers. Absent a national gun database (a big NRA no-no), it's hard to see how straw buyer laws can be effectively enforced.

By "same thing" I mean re-electing career polititians, whether that be DH, RK, JJJ.....etc over and over only to have them "believe" something else once the election is over after being courted by campaign donors and lobbyist. "Support from the machine"?, thats never good on my checklist regardless of race or political affiliation. I just request they do what they say they will do. Time will tell and at this point Iam willing to give Robin Kelly the benefit of doubt. Certainly we will be better represented that we have been over the past year.

Doug, if you want effective politicians, you're going to have to elect career politicians, especially in the House, where seniority counts for so much.

As for the distinction between what politicians say to get elected, and what they do while in office, our practical recourse is through the electoral process. If they don't do what we want, we should vote them out, irrespective of what they say.

The electoral proceess is what keeps them coming back for more. Putting the hands in the pockets of chance..

Check your meds "Pam". Your "candidated" ran no race unless you think placing 2nd to last was "great" (74 votes total)

And YOU said he would finish ahead of Kelly. Or was it Halvorson.

YOU have no credibility. And any "more to come" is not worth reading or deserves a response.

Gun control in the city doesn't seem to be working too good. What they need is some gang-banger control.

Would that convicted felon have a name James?

macsosub, it's not hard to find out.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2013/02/convicted_felon_the_gop_nominee_for_jesse_jackson_jr_seat.html

The winner of the Republican primary is almost certainly Paul McKinley, who was convicted of and served time for felony robbery. He refers to himself as an "ex-offender." The thing that appeals to me about the "ex-offender" schtick is that it contains an implicit admission of guilt, which I consider to be an essential first stage on the road to rehabilitation.

It will be entertaining to hear from the R's on these boards as to why we should ignore a felony conviction for their candidate, when they viewed a misdemeanor conviction against Hutchinson as being dispositive.

We all know a D2 Repub candidate is irrelevant. Didn't even get 1000 votes.

The recent D2 history shows Democrats, who win the seat, wait until they get into office before becoming criminals.

Dinkum, "We all know a D2 Repub candidate is irrelevant. Didn't even get 1000 votes." Indeed. The more interesting question in my mind, given the issues and her appearance on Fox News (of all places), is how many of Halvorson's votes came from Republicans. I expect more than a thousand, although it is impossible to be certain. For my part, I'm not too impressed by cross-over games, whoever is playing them. A closed primary system won't cure all of our electoral ills, but it's an easy step in the right direction. If we can't take the easy steps, how can we take the hard ones?

In the overall scheme of things (and I do mean scheme), who voted for who means nothing in this primary.

The problem here SK, like so many adult life lessons, is to take the road less traveled which often results in taking the "hard steps". Once done and mastered, the easy steps are fully appreciated.

Voting for another party line Demo was easy. Buying in to the lightweight "positions" of Kelly is easy. Voting for Jesse "I'm guilty your honor" Jackson was easy.

The question for you SK, and others like you, is when will you stop taking the easy way out?

Dinkum, Do you know me? I doubt it. So let me assure you, I'm here with my real name, and I am making principled choices based on beliefs that I'm willing to be publicly associated with. You're just another anonymous poster, taking the easy way, unwilling to expose your beliefs in a way that attaches to you personally.

Nick, that is perhaps the silliest computation of the cycle, but you're welcome to your delusions. As a practical matter, the general election is a formality. The question is whether or not she'll get a serious primary challenge in 2014. I'm thinking not: getting a clean majority win in a 16 person field is extremely impressive, whatever the turnout.

Stuart,
You must not have paid attention in math class.

Nick, I have a Ph.D. in Mathematics.

Finally we can agree on something Stuart. By my calculation that would be 6.8% although Nick did say "approximately". Not sure what the margin of error is in a calculation of this sort.

Doug, I'm glad to find a point of agreement. But I think the right answer as to how much precision is required in making the wrong calculation is "none." Jeff's analysis a few comments down hits the nail on the head–"52% of VOTERS chose Kelly. Those who did not vote are, by definition, not "voters" and their opinion matters not at all."

My my Stuart we have an agreement as well..... people who do not show up do not matter.

Nick said 13% of "registered" voters (or potential voters ) and 8% of "eligible" voters. I'll assume that word problems were not the subject of your doctoral thesis.

Doug, I don't believe that word problems are the topic of anyone's thesis. That said, I don't believe I was confused, nor did I claim that Nick's calculation was incorrect (although it is, as you yourself pointed out). My point was that this was the wrong calculation. Elections are determined by votes cast, not by voters who don't vote.

Stuart, I fear I'm agreeing again. Unfortunately voter (and by voter I mean registered or eligible voters) apathy sometimes leads to a candidate being elected who may not necessarily be the best candidate. I'm not saying that is the case this time but however Nick does his calculation the answer is something less that a mandate.

Doug, it is my sense that elected officials use self-declared "mandates" as an excuse for doing whatever it is they want to do, and ignoring the electorate that supposedly bestowed this honor. So, while mandates are often claimed, I doubt that they're ever truly earned. In the case of the present election, Kelly will be representing a congressional district that is overwhelmingly Democratic—it went 81% for Obama in both 2008 and 2012. I wouldn't call even this a mandate, but it is indicative of a strong basis of potential support. We'll see how she does in office, and whether she's able to turn potential supporters into voting supporters. As I said, her next real test is likely to be the 2014 Democratic primary. Will she draw serious opposition? I think it's a given that Halvorson will run again, but I think Halvorson's best chance is to wait for redistricting, and the hope that it puts her in a district where her views are representative .