Edgar vs. Obama

Perhaps this should go in the future history subforum rather than here, since the point of divergence is relatively recent. But I'll leave that for others to decide. Apparently, former Governor Jim Edgar was approached to run for Fitzgerald's Senate seat in 2004, and while he considered it, he rejected the possibility for a combination of personal reasons. Let's say Edgar decides to run. Edgar's popularity and establishment backing probably ensure he wins the Republican nomination. I'm sure it's vaguely possible that Obama might not be the Democratic nominee under such circumstances, but I'm letting him win the nomination for the sake of argument.

Jim Edgar is rather popular as far as former Governors go. He's the last one not to end up in prison. He's no Jack Ryan so he presumably stays in the race.

So, any thoughts on how the race turns out? My guess is that Obama has a much tougher time beating Edgar than he did either Jack Ryan or Keyes. But maybe I'm totally off the mark here.

Does this prevent the Obama keynote address? AFAIK, he was only granted that role after the long period in which he literally had no opponent in the race for the Senate. Obviously that doesn't happen here.

Who's the POTUS under such circumstances?
 
Obama beat Keyes 70% to 29%. I am pretty sure Obama would have a tougher time against Edgar then Keyes for the simple fact that few could do worse than Keyes did. That said Jim Edgar is still quite popular throughout the state. His tenure as governor was unmarked by scandal and is far enough back to escape blame, deservedly or undeservedly, for the financial crisis the state is in. Also Edgar is the type of Republican that had done well in Illinois for a long time, a moderate one. However, by this point Illinois had become a pretty strong blue state. The race would have been much closer, but Obama still has a pretty good shot at winning.

There were some attempts to draft Ditka to replace Jack Ryan, but there was no word to how much either side, Ditka or Illinois Republican, wanted that. Some speculated that floating Ditka's name was an attempt to draw attention away from the Jack Ryan "scandal" while they tried to find a more serious candidate, but they ended up picking Alan Keyes so we see how successful they were in that in OTL.
 
We can't know what the result of this race would be, though I reckon Obama wins by a slim margin, assuming he is the nominee.

But that's not really the issue. As Glass Onion points out the issue is that there's no way the Kerry campaign is going to give the keynote address at the 2004 DNC to a state senator in a tight federal race who may look doomed by election day. Obama was chosen IOTL precisely because he couldn't lose.

To make an anology that shows what I'm getting at--if the Rubio/Crist senate race had occurred in 2008 would McCain have invited Marco Rubio to be his keynote speaker? Actually, I guess McCain was pretty desperate enough to try that, but you know what I mean.

Not being the star in Boston in 2004 could make it impossible for Obama to even think of running in the next presidential election, even if he does win his senate seat by a healthy margin.

mbanghar said:
Edgar is the type of Republican that had done well in Illinois for a long time, a moderate one.

A pro-choice moderate.

The biggest problem with Edgar getting the nomination may be Karl Rove's desire to build a permanent conservative Republican majority.

I don't think Rove in 2003 (when the race was shaping up) wanted social liberal GOPers running for US Senate in states he thought Bush should be competitive in. If Illinois wasn't on his wish-list for becoming a Red State I'd be surprised.
 
We can't know what the result of this race would be, though I reckon Obama wins by a slim margin, assuming he is the nominee.

But that's not really the issue. As Glass Onion points out the issue is that there's no way the Kerry campaign is going to give the keynote address at the 2004 DNC to a state senator in a tight federal race who may look doomed by election day. Obama was chosen IOTL precisely because he couldn't lose.

To make an anology that shows what I'm getting at--if the Rubio/Crist senate race had occurred in 2008 would McCain have invited Marco Rubio to be his keynote speaker? Actually, I guess McCain was pretty desperate enough to try that, but you know what I mean.

Not being the star in Boston in 2004 could make it impossible for Obama to even think of running in the next presidential election, even if he does win his senate seat by a healthy margin.



A pro-choice moderate.

The biggest problem with Edgar getting the nomination may be Karl Rove's desire to build a permanent conservative Republican majority.

I don't think Rove in 2003 (when the race was shaping up) wanted social liberal GOPers running for US Senate in states he thought Bush should be competitive in. If Illinois wasn't on his wish-list for becoming a Red State I'd be surprised.

What I've read suggests that the Bush Administration was trying to get Edgar to run, which suggests that on some level elements of the administration would find A Senator Edgar acceptable. Of course, Rove may have had some reservations, but given the fact that the Administration was asking Edgar to run, I can't see them pulling a complete 180 and attempting to block his election, or his nomination. Things didn't look good for Republicans in Illinois back in 2004. It was only two years after Ryan had to leave because of what he had done while Secretary of State. (George Ryan to the best of my knowledge is not in prison for anything that occurred between 1999 and 2003, or in other words while he was actually Governor.) The administration had a good reason for backing Edgar, he arguably had the best chance of overcoming the post George Ryan issues that faced the GOP at the time.

In terms of Cook County to be rather cliche, Obama would have an advantage within the city itself, and Edgar would have the advantage in the suburbs.

Edgar might have a slight advantage in that he's a much more known quality than Obama was back in 2004. Obama was known relatively well in his state senate district obviously. But as state senator, he really hadn't done much of anything to distinguish himself despite latter campaign claims to the contrary.(For the record, I largely support him as President.) Edgar has statewide name recognition, Obama really doesn't. Obama would have to make an effort just to make himself known throughout the state. Because of the name recognition factor, an Obama victory would be considered an upset, regardless of Obama's advantages.

Given that Obama carries Chicago, and Edgar carries the suburbs, the election hedges on the more conservative rest of Illinois. From a Dupage County perspective, both Edgar and Obama are bad choices. Edgar's a moderate and Obama's a liberal. Simply because he's a Republican Edgar might do better than Obama there.

Edgar's real problem is the Ryan issue, but his popularity might allow him to overcome that. That's what the whole election hinges on here. Obama doesn't have most of his other advantages. Edgar isn't going to start sending campaign staffers to follow Obama around with a camera. Edgar doesn't have a nasty divorce record which would push him out of the race. And Edgar certainly isn't as far right as Alan Keyes. Edgar's surname is not Ryan. If Edgar loses, it's because Obama successfully linked Edgar to Ryan's crimes. Even then, he won't win by a "healthy margin" It'd be a very very close race IMO.

Obama's victory would probably come as an upset even from the perspective of the democratic establishment. People like Madigan would probably expect Edgar to win, and plan accordingly. After all, it was a Republican seat back in 2004. While Edgar's victory might be a set back for the Democratic party, it isn't something they'd be too concerned with.
 

Okay, if the White House wanted him then I guess Rove was cool with him for tactical reasons (though who knows?), but I have to wonder if Edgar would've faced the same distinct lack of enthusiasm that the current Illinois GOP senate candidate has when it comes to the conservative grassroots. Would that cost him votes from his fellow Illinoisans? Maybe, maybe not. Would it see him at a fundraising disadvantage against the rockstar Obama? I say yes.

I didn't think Obama would win by a healthy margin, but when it comes to the influence of money on hand I can see him doing better than the other victorious Dem senate pickup of that year (Salazar of Bush-supporting Colorado, running against the heir to a beer dynasty, in a waifer thin result).
 
Okay, if the White House wanted him then I guess Rove was cool with him for tactical reasons (though who knows?), but I have to wonder if Edgar would've faced the same distinct lack of enthusiasm that the current Illinois GOP senate candidate has when it comes to the conservative grassroots. Would that cost him votes from his fellow Illinoisans? Maybe, maybe not. Would it see him at a fundraising disadvantage against the rockstar Obama? I say yes.

I didn't think Obama would win by a healthy margin, but when it comes to the influence of money on hand I can see him doing better than the other victorious Dem senate pickup of that year (Salazar of Bush-supporting Colorado, running against the heir to a beer dynasty, in a waifer thin result).

Obama didn't really become a rockstar until after the convention, at least in the way he was seen afterword. I'm not entirely sure how you're defining the term While he was, as might be expected decently well known within his own district, and he was a published author, I remember him being a slightly unknown figure as far as the larger electorate was concerned. When he won in the primary I remember a considerable amount of the reaction was essentially-who? Obama's natural charisma might help to overcome that problem, but it isn't a given. Edgar would, at least initially have a fund raising advantage in certain quarters for the simple reason that he's probably expected to win. The race, from Obama's perspective, would be a little his race against Clinton in the 2008 primaries. You have a candidate that's largely, thanks to his popularity, expected to win the election. That breeds a sort of exploitable arrogance. I'm not sure if Edgar would fall into that trap.

I stand by my analysis of the election. Obama would do best in Chicago itself. Edgar would probably do best within the upscale suburbs. So the election depends on the rest of the state. That's why conservative's matter in the race. The race hinges on whether they hold their nose and vote for Edgar, or if they stay home. They certainly are not going to vote for Obama, he's far too liberal for their tastes. They wouldn't be enthusiastic, that's for sure.

Considering he didn't actually run, Edgar himself may not run a very enthusiastic campaign, and that might be his undoing.

Nevertheless, Obama is going to work very very hard for a victory here.


Perhaps I'm biased. Edgar's wing of the Republican party is the political party my family was largely associated with for the majority of my childhood, so I have a certain amount of sympathy for it, even though on a national level I'm a confirmed Obama supporting liberal. If that's tainting my argument beyond recovery I apologize. It's difficult for me to see Illinois politics between Thompson and Blago outside of a myopic family lens.
 
Obama didn't really become a rockstar until after the convention, at least in the way he was seen afterword. I'm not entirely sure how you're defining the term

I first heard an NPR radio report about Obama, played on Australian radio, when he was still campaigning for the Democratic senate nomination in early 2004.

I think he gets the edge in fundraising over Edgar if, as you say, conservatives aren't very enthusiastic about the moderate ex-governor.

When I heard that 'All Things Considered' piece I could tell Obama was drawing the same support as the Dean movement and Netroots (same group, really) so I think it's fair to say he was considered a rising star by the people who were about to invent the 'moneybomb'.
 
Rising star isn't the same thing as rock star though. If he has an edge, it won't be in the early stages of the campaign. IMO he has to prove he can actually beat Edgar before the cash really starts rolling in. I'm not sure how he does that. I suppose he could do really well in a series of debates, but then again that might be too late.

For the record, was that NPR broadcast before or after the whole Jack Ryan fiasco?
 
Rising star isn't the same thing as rock star though. If he has an edge, it won't be in the early stages of the campaign. IMO he has to prove he can actually beat Edgar before the cash really starts rolling in. I'm not sure how he does that. I suppose he could do really well in a series of debates, but then again that might be too late.

C'mon, you live in a country where GOP partisans this year are latching onto Marco Rubio as a rockstar, and he's in a very tight race. I don't want to go through the archives of Daily Kos to find the first reference to Obama as a 'rockstar'.

It doen't matter what either you or I think, what matters is the new financing and media model of US campaigns, which I think Obama was mastering even before his opposing party imploded.

For the record, was that NPR broadcast before or after the whole Jack Ryan fiasco?

I don't know. I think it was near primary day, as it was made obvious Obama was beating his Dem opponents. Maybe the day after the primary?

A quick google tells me that's when Jack Ryan was still standing.
 
Top