Cong Jackson Most Popular Replacement Senator for Obama

In a telephone poll commissioned by Friends of Sandi Jackson, Illinois voters preferred Congressman Jesse Jackson over nine other people who might be considered possible replacements.  The list included Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis.

Commissioned by Jackson's wife (to whom Jr. moved hundreds of thousands of dollars before her election to the Chicago City Council) means that state political dollars were used, and not those falling under the rules of the FEC. Illinois has no limit on the amount that someone can give a state political committee.  Contributions to federal campaigns are currently limited to $2,300 per cycle.

The survey, conducted Nov. 5-6, 2008, shows that, given a choice of 10 possible candidates, 21% think Gov. Rod Blagojevich should appoint Jackson to the seat when Obama leaves it vacant to ascend to the presidency, far more than the rest of the field. Tammy Duckworth, a former Democratic congresswoman candidate from a suburban Chicago district, is the only other potential candidate to win double-digit support -14% said she should be appointed.

Jackson's base of support is strongest among those who consider themselves "strong Democrats," 32% of which believe he should win the appointment to the Obama seat, while 14% favored Duckworth. Among moderately strong Democrats, 25% said they think Duckworth should be appointed, compared to 20% who favored Jackson. Among weak Democrats, Jackson leads with 18% support, compared to 12% support for Duckworth.

Among independent voters, Jackson is favored over Duckworth by a 14% to 10% margin. Among Republicans, Jackson is also favored over Duckworth. Support levels for other candidates are 6 percent for Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, 4 percent for Congressman Danny Davis and 4 percent for State Senator James Meeks. Several other candidates received less than 1 percent.

The biggest problem with the survey is that none of the names are well known across the state.  While Zogby tried to obfuscate this by combining the "Not Familiar" and "No Response" categories in his public release of the poll.  The client (Jesse Jackson) undoubtedly got a better breakdown here.  The only thing we can really determine is that the Congressman really wants the job -- enough to commission a poll and release the findings.

Those findings were aimed at mitigating the fear among state Democrats that Jackson wouldn't be able to retain the seat in 2010.  Zogby tested Jackson's statewide strength:

In two prospective Senate races, Jackson would defeat Republican Congressman Ray LaHood by a 50% to 31% margin, the survey shows. Among the 15% who were not certain about whom they would support, nearly two said they were leaning toward Jackson for every one that was leaning toward supporting LaHood.

Jackson's district includes part of Chicago and extends to the south suburbs.  Lahood is a congressman from rural Illinois whose district includes Peoria and the northern suburbs of Springfield.

In a prospective match-up against Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, Jackson wins 48% support, compared to 32% for Kirk. Among the 15% who are leaning toward one candidate or the other, Kirk has a 10% to 7% edge, the survey shows. Kirk's district is north of Chicago along the shores of Lake Michigan.

Neither Kirk nor LaHood should be considered likely Senate candidates in 2010.

Tags: Barack Obama, Illinois Replacement Senator, Jesse Jackson (all tags)

Comments

27 Comments

Please no

what about Dan Seals?  Yes, I think Dan Seals would be a most excellent pick.

by linc 2008-11-12 03:41AM | 0 recs
he wasn't named in the poll...

near as i can tell.  it was mostly the usual suspects, the names supposedly on rod's list.  i doubt seals would be given any consideration, since he was unable to win his elections in the last two cycles...

by bored now 2008-11-12 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Please no

Valerie Jarrett doesn't seem to have been polled either.

by mistersite 2008-11-12 04:51AM | 0 recs
appoint Seals and then run him for IL10

in 2010.

Have an open seat contest for the Dem nomination.

If Dems are lucky more than one Illinois Republican House member will run leaving open seats to attack.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-12 08:50AM | 0 recs
I remember his comments about HRC

and how she cried over her own political fortunes but never cried over the victims of Katrina and Bush administration incompetence (as if he could have known).  This was right before the SC primary, when she was being race--baited by Jim Clyburn in truly ridiculous fashion. I thought it one of the low points of the primary campaign.

by Thaddeus 2008-11-12 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Cong

Really JJ jr.  Lets see what did he say about HRC.  

"Jackson said that Clinton's "tears" -- none actually fell from her eyes -- are something that "we're still analyzing within the Barack Obama campaign." "Those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."

So lets be frank he called HRC a racist.

AND

"Asked whether he was suggesting that Clinton's "tears" were "staged," Jackson said he wouldn't go that far -- but then suggested that there are things in the world worth crying over, and that whatever got Clinton going wasn't one of them".

Sorry but cant we do better than this guy.

david

by giusd 2008-11-12 05:10AM | 0 recs
y'all are simply going to have to come to terms...

with the fact that many, many black democrats fervently believe that the clintons are racist.  it's not exactly something that they have done anything but deny.  that jackson verbalized that should come as no surprise.  it's not like it was not something people were thinking...

by bored now 2008-11-12 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: y'all

And in fact many, many white democrats think that the clinton's were called racist for nothing more than political gain.  

david

by giusd 2008-11-12 05:40AM | 0 recs
i don't doubt that...

i've experience with those white democrats who pooh pooh the existence of racism because they think that will help them win white votes.  let's call it their sista souljah theory.

i don't expect people who couldn't possibly imagine all the racism around them to be objective on this.  they benefit from the suppression of the conflicts that racism have brought to our society.  and it's natural for people to want to maximize the benefits they gain from the system and minimize the threats to those benefits.

the real question is, why would you imagine that calling bill clinton a racist disqualifies jackson from this appointment?

by bored now 2008-11-12 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: i don't doubt that...

Because I think there should be some penalty in American for falsely accusing some one of being a racist just like I think there should be some penalty for being a racist.  

IMHO falsely accusing someone of being a racist is just as bad as being a racist or racist behavior.  I guess we can just agree to disagree.  For example if an employee can lose the job for racist behavior I think that someone who falsely accusing someone of being a racist should also lose their job.  Again we can agree to disagree.

dg

by giusd 2008-11-12 06:40AM | 0 recs
iow, you want to impose your subjective values...

gotcha.  the opinions of black democrats are worthless simply because you think so.  i understand.

personally, if i were going to defend your position, i think i would chose a less flawed character to defend.  as for the rest of it, since i know nothing about you, there is no way that i can understand why you would think that someone who repeatedly used racist frames, never apologized to those he offended, and continued to use them afterward cannot be considered racist.

i happen to agree with the argument that bill clinton is an idiot and that he didn't really know what he was saying.  but then, that's why he's such a flawed character.  you have to explain what the meaning of "is" is to him.  but that doesn't make him not a racist or excuse his deliberate insensitivity that offended a key part of the democratic coalition from his use of such phrases and words.

rather, i suspect -- but cannot know -- that you are so sensitive to this subject because you are unwilling to deal with the scar that racism has put on this society.  someone pointing out an ex-president's racism disturbs that terrible balance of ignorance that you may have created around yourself, or so i suspect.

personally, i believe that all people are prejudiced to some degree, and have no trouble understanding why loyal democrats were deeply offended by bill clinton's repeated use of racist frames.  i don't need to excuse or rationalize his personal flaws in order to go on.  easier to accept them, i suspect, than to defend them...

by bored now 2008-11-12 07:38AM | 0 recs
I won't say that the Clintons aren't racist

but I will say that they have tried to not be racist. This is a good thing.

Please forgive our former President, he is at present mentally deficient due to open heart surgery in the past few years. This is not something that he will recover from, and it isn't right to pick on someone who is obviously not at the peak of his game.

by RisingTide 2008-11-12 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: iow, you

My guess is you really beleive this "personally, i believe that all people are prejudiced to some degree" but i dont.  

And i dont remember saying this "the opinions of black democrats are worthless simply because you think so.  i understand.".  What i said was there should be a punishment for bad acts.

Whatever,

david

by giusd 2008-11-12 08:23AM | 0 recs
sure...

you think that there should be punishment for bad acts.  i happen to agree.  but you are quick to overlook the bad acts of the white man (bill clinton) while eager to criticize what you consider to be bad acts by a black man.

i think that says it all.  i know that black democrats were deeply offended at bill clinton's (repeated) comments.  i'm unclear why jr. should be criticized for pointing that out.  i'm assuming that you think they should just get over it.  just because...

by bored now 2008-11-12 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: sure...

So to address you comment.  I have yet to see any proof of bad acts or racist comments by bill clinton.  But i do remember a memo from David Axelrod telling BO supporters to play up comments made by Bill Clinton as racist.  And then JJ jr did just that.  Interesting dont you think.  Then wow JJ jr plays the race card on Hillary Clinton.  I assume she is a racist too.

But then i dont think everyone is racist.  But to extend your logical everyone (and i assume every white person) are racist to some degree.

I am sorry you think this!

david

by giusd 2008-11-12 08:54AM | 0 recs
dude, give it a a rest

seriously.

Hurting the feelings of you or even multiple HRC supporters is a complete non-issue in this discussion.

Nobody who matters cares. And even taking into account Illinois voters, I doubt any of them care.

My mom is a refused-to-vote-for-Obama progressive who lives in Jackson's CD and she doesn't care that JJJ snubbed HRC.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-12 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: sure...

And one last thing.  Jr said these things about HRC before the NH primary.  So i am just wondering what comments you think Bill Clinton said to justify Jr's comments about HRC???????

What exactly was jr commenting on what bill clinton said.  Seriously, Jr was not commentng on Bill Clinton he commenting on HRC.

I guess you missed that.

david

by giusd 2008-11-12 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: sure...

i first started hearing from black churches about clinton's offensive comments before yearlykos in 2007.  the first sermon i know about condemning bill clinton as racist occurred on the first sunday in august.  2007.

most reasonable people can admit that this was before the new hampshire primary.

in the end, it doesn't matter.  this is a perfect example of how the clintons represent the past, the past that most democrats -- and most americans -- have rejected in the nomination and election of barack obama.  i embrace that humanity.  bill clinton is allowed to be flawed in my world.  maybe someday, you will be able to accept that...

by bored now 2008-11-12 10:40AM | 0 recs
Racism is systemic

50% of home mortgages in massachusetts discriminated against the black person getting them. that means giving them poorer loan terms (subprime) than they were really qualified for.

don't lose sight of the dream.

I think we all are more racist than we think. Then again, I've diaried on that.

by RisingTide 2008-11-12 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: i don't doubt that...

Because if the situation were reversed & a prominent white democrat called a Jesse Jackson a racist publicly- that white democrat would NEVER be considered for appointment.

The white democratic Governor deciding the appointment would be so scared of a backlash from black voters.

Always put yourself on the either side. Remember that.

by labanman 2008-11-12 06:48AM | 0 recs
I don't think either SkepticalBrotha

nor Field Negro was out for political gain.

Please don't ignore the feelings and thoughts of your fellow bloggers. They tend to give you a better window into your fellow Democrats than politicians do.

by RisingTide 2008-11-12 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Cong

HRC supporters may be offended by JJJ's remarks.

But these remarks aren't even part of the discussion in Illinois.

At some point HRC supporters should probably let go of the feeling of being wronged. The "I was wronged/I got my feelings hurt" thing isn't winning you guys any new friends.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-12 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: VALERIE JARRET is my pick

I would go with Obama's closest advisor in prominent African-American Atty. Valerie Jarret.

News reports last week mentioned that she is Obama's preference to replace his seat.

She is a progressive,sharp, outstanding background in both the public & private sector, connects with people, outstanding personality & enjoys the full trust & confidence of President Elect Obama.

She would have no problem winning Illinois & would easily attract mainstream white voters.

Jesse Jackson Jr .would have problems in a statewide race particularly with white voters.

He releases his own poll showing us his numbers. Com'on, We just came off Massive Democratic Landslide & a HUGE Obama win ( a son of Illinois), combined with a very unpopular Republican Bush. Plus, his numbers were not anything spectacular. Its name recognition.

When the dem numbes start going down to normal levels, this seat could very easily be a battleground.

It would also be awesome to have an African-American woman in the Senate.

And yes, Jesse Jackson Jr. is No Barack Obama.

by labanman 2008-11-12 06:57AM | 0 recs
"Cong Jackson"

Is that his porn name?  Seriously, folks...

by username 2008-11-12 07:01AM | 0 recs
It's Jesse

Blagoyevich wants to court the African-American vote for 2010, when Lisa Madigan runs against him, and Daley will want Jesse Jr. in the Senate so that he won't run for Mayor.

I can't believe that Valerie Jarrett will want this.  I think both she and Obama will want her in the White House.

Just my two cents...

by rayspace 2008-11-12 08:20AM | 0 recs
Illinois argument for keeping Jackson in House

Jackson is on the Appropriations Committee and has considerable seniority.

The Appropriations Committee is the most powerful committee in the House of Reps. They are the final gatekeepers of spending.

All but two of the appropriators more senior to Jackson are more than 15 years older. Chet Edwards was born in 1951; Patrick Kennedy was born in 1967.

Without discussing his personal problems in detail, Kennedy might get passed over for chair of the committee for reasons similar to Phil Crane getting passed over. Or Kennedy might lose an election, run for higher office or just not be in the House.

If Jackson stays in the House of Reps there's a good chance he'll be chair (or ranking member) of the House Appropriations Committee for a decade or more.

Frankly it is not in Illinois' interests to jeopardize Jackson's future as a Dan Rostenkowski rainmaker for Chicago and Illinois.

Jackson may not like that he's too valuable in the House to get promoted to the Senate. Too bad. He got on the Appropriations Committee at a young age. The die was cast.

He can give up his House seat and run for something else, but this is not a good outcome for Chicago or Illinois. People should discourage him from doing this.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-11-12 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Cong Jackson Most Popular

Whoever Blago picks will easily retain the seat.  This is Illinois we're talking about.  Unless the pick is Blago himself, but thankfully that seems to be outside the realm of possibility.

Kirk would get destroyed statewide.  He wouldn't make a dent in the typical Chicago margins that elect Democrats in Illinois.

by Skaje 2008-11-12 12:53PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads