WI: Senator Ditka

In 2004, Mike Ditka considered running for the open seat in Illinois for the US Senate. The seat would ultimately go to now President Barrack Obama.

Wikipedia Article on Mike Ditka said:
In July 2004, Ditka, a self-described "extremely mega-super-ultra conservative",[7] was reportedly considering running against Democrat Barack Obama for an open seat in the U.S. Senate for Illinois in the 2004 Senate election. The seat was being vacated by Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, and Republican nominee Jack Ryan withdrew from the race amid controversy at the end of June, leaving the Republicans in a bind. Local and national political leaders, from Illinois Republican Party Chair Judy Baar Topinka to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Sen. George Allen, whose father by the same name was an assistant coach with the Bears in the 1960s when Ditka played, met with Ditka in an effort to persuade him to fill the spot on the ticket.
On July 14, however, Ditka announced he would not seek the nomination, citing personal and business considerations (his wife was against the run and he operates a chain of restaurants)[8]. Barack Obama went on to defeat former ambassador Alan Keyes in the November 2004 election. In October 2008, Ditka introduced vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin at a rally in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.

So what if Ditka had run for that seat? Would he have won, and if so what consequences would follow?
 
It is very unlikely that Ditka would have won. Despite da Coach's popularity in Chicago, it was seen at the time as mostly a stunt by the Republican Party to draw attention away from the unwarranted scandal surrounding Jim Ryan. The scandal, if you don't recall, was around the contents of the sealed divorce papers. That said Ditka probably would have done better then Alan Keyes.

A Ditka win would have some far reaching implications. The most likely outcome would be Hilary Clinton in the White House. The margin of victory would have been a lot lower, but the Democrats were more likely going to win due to the Bush backlash caused by the recession.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Okay boyssssss...Da Ditka vs. Obama. Gotta go with Da Ditka!

...but what if Ditka was shrunk down to the size of a midget and then ran against Obama?

Mini-Ditka vs. Obama? Gotta go with Da Mini-Ditka!
 
Okay boyssssss...Da Ditka vs. Obama. Gotta go with Da Ditka!

...but what if Ditka was shrunk down to the size of a midget and then ran against Obama?

Mini-Ditka vs. Obama? Gotta go with Da Mini-Ditka!
No the real question is who would win in a fight, Ditka or a hurricane? Now before you answer Ditka, I need to let you know the name of the hurricane is hurricane Ditka.
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
No the real question is who would win in a fight, Ditka or a hurricane? No before you answer Ditka, I need to let you know the name of the hurricane is hurricane Ditka.

The sad thing is that half the board probably isn't old enough to know where those jokes come from. :D


DA BERS!!!!
 
I think Ditka could've won narrowly if Blago's shenanigans were discovered to the full extent late in the campaign somehow. And especially if the media was able to dig up any connection between Obama and Blago.
 
I think Ditka could've won narrowly if Blago's shenanigans were discovered to the full extent late in the campaign somehow. And especially if the media was able to dig up any connection between Obama and Blago.
That would be a possibility, but at the time the Republicans were scrambling to field any credible candidate. It would take a major scandal to damage Obama's chances in 2004 given the very weakened state of the Republican candidate in a fairly strong blue state.

And I think Ditka in the Senate would have had little effect early on since the Republicans held a majority. The election though would have a dramatic effect on the 2006-2008 Senate though because the Democrats had a 51-49 majority with Obama. With Ditka, the Senate would've been tied and Cheney would have given the Republicans the tie breaker. Also in 2008-2010, the Democrats would have been at 59 Senators to begin with, and the death of Kennedy and following election would have been somewhat less significant.
 
Although it's not that well known, Hillary actually came 3rd in Iowa: behind Obama and Edwards. There are two possibilities:

1) Hillary wins Iowa. She proceeds to win the nomination and the election.
2) Edwards wins Iowa. He proceeds to win the nomination. The scandal breaks, Democrats replace him (Clinton? Richardson? Feingold? Bayh? Biden? Sebelius?), but the new nominee fails to recover and loses to McCain. An Edwards nomination is one of the ways Republicans could've won '08.
 
2) Edwards wins Iowa. He proceeds to win the nomination. The scandal breaks, Democrats replace him (Clinton? Richardson? Feingold? Bayh? Biden? Sebelius?), but the new nominee fails to recover and loses to McCain. An Edwards nomination is one of the ways Republicans could've won '08.

Scandal first broke IIRC during 2007, so if Edwards is a frontrunner, this is dogging him every step of the way. Nomination is... difficult.

But I think that somebody else steps up to run in Obama's place. Long story short, the Democratic party has tended to be rather hesitant about actually anointing the heir-apparent, and Edwards has alienated enough of the establishment that another challenger is going to be brought forward. Feingold is reasonably popular with the base, but may be to liberal to mount a successful challenge. Bayh would be an interesting candidate if he runs. Biden, somehow, I don't see the campaign getting off the ground. IMO an Obama-like challenge might best come from Richardson, although whether the success would be the same is a good question...
 
The sad thing is that half the board probably isn't old enough to know where those jokes come from. :D


DA BERS!!!!

Maybe more grease in their blood is the cure? Or more meat:D

One of the best shows were they were in the hospital and the doctor said that the diet was wrong, to much vegetables:D
 
Top