I agree that in the Durbin/Durkin race, the similarity didn't help Durkin. But in a Giannoulas/Durkin race, the similarity will help Durkin. There are a lot of brain-dead Dims from the South Side and West Side of the city, who might vote for Durkin because they think they're voting for Durbin.
The Democratic Party leadership is aware of this, and they'll expend money and other resources trying to educate their voters: "Hey, this isn't Dick Durbin." They may even get a TV commercial from Dick Durbin himself, saying, "That isn't me." This could create a backlash among other voting blocs, who will be insulted by the notion that they can't figure it out for themselves.
As you can see, nominating Durkin in this particular race causes problems for the Democrats. They'll have to handle it very carefully. And any time we cause problems for them, it makes it easier for us to win.
The argument you've made against Durkin in the primary (that he can't beat Mark Kirk, even if it's a one-on-one contest) is far more powerful when used against a guy like Eric Wallace, who has never held an elected office before. Durkin has a long history of service in the state senate, and he has won the nomination before. I believe the only reason Roskam and Shimkus are running robocalls for Kirk is that Jim Durkin hasn't announced that he's running.
If Durkin announces that he's running, I think Roskam and Shimkus (and the rest of the Illinois conservatives) will support him. And Mark Kirk will look like the Combine RINO that he is.
Not sure what you mean by Durkin needs a "come to Damascus" moment on abortion, since Durkin votes pro-life about 90% of the time (wrong on stem cells, but overall pretty strongly pro-life), and that was one of the key reasons myself and others voted for him over Oberweis in 2002, and why he won that primary.
In any case, Jim Durkin had made some grumblings about Kirk voting for cap n' trade (said Kirk was going to regret that vote and it would make him unelectable against a RAT because of fallout from the GOP) and threatened to run against him weeks ago. He THEN announced he had decided AGAINST it and quietly slinked back to his state house seat. All of this happened over a month ago. My guess is The Powers That Be in the state party told him that they'll give his house seat to some combine hack and never allow him back in the General Assembly if he dares challenge their anointed one Mark Kirk in the primary.
A few days ago I was talking on the phone with a conservative who says alot of the GOP base is "holding out" for Peter Roskam to run against Kirk, even though Roskam had personally endorsed Kirk (this is before we even knew he was running robo calls on Kirk's behalf). This is as silly as the freepers who keep hoping J.D. Hayworth will be "McCain's primary opponent" when J.D. has been on TV repeatedly endorsing McCain and heaping praise on him. These big name "more conservative" politicians are in bed with the establishment and they ain't running.
Yes, Eric Wallace is a second tier candidate but he IS running, and we have to deal with the cards we are dealt. Wallace is the best of the anti-Kirk alternatives we have right now. It's important to get out the word about Kirk alternatives NOW rather than beg "bigger name" candidates to run and wait around hoping for a hail Mary pass. (besides, even though Durkin has run statewide before, I would argue he's also a "second tier" candidate compared to Kirk since he is still largely unknown and is generally ignored by the media)
Now the odds are pretty strong that Kirk will be the nominee (if I had to guess I'd say it's about a 90% chance), but it is NOT impossible than a "second tier" candidate can beat him. It's happened several times before in other U.S. Senate primaries around the country and it can happen again. I would argue Ned Lamont had a thinner resume than Wallace when he challenged 3-term incumbant Joe LIEberman in CT RAT primary (Lamont had served as selectman in the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, for eight years, chaired the state investment advisory council, and unsuccessfully ran for a state Senate seat in 1990, finishing in distant third place.), yet Lamont beat the much better known Lieberman in that primary. The RAT base decided LIEberman was unacceptable as their nominee so they got behind Lamont early on, not sat around and begged big name Democrat officials to run against him.
It's rare that you see a person elected Governor without any past elected experience (most of them tend to be either celebrities or zillionaires), but more often that you see U.S. Senators elected without past elected experience, i.e. Paul Wellstone, Jim Webb, Bill Frist, Al Franken (okay he stole that election), etc. etc. In any case, Wallace is a seasoned political veteran and is certainly more qualified for the job than the clueless "family physician" that the state party said was the only "credible U.S. Senate candidate" last time we had a GOP primary in this state.
But the only chance we have of beating Kirk is if we start chipping away at him early on and expose what a backstabbing little socialist he is -- while giving GOP voters a likable alternative choice. I do agree that the only chance we have of pulling off an upset in the primary is if we united around ONE conservative alternative to Kirk, not the six we have now. Hopefully there can be a statewide conservative conclave to do this (though we tried that four years ago to get ONE conservative alternative to Topinka, and the Oberweis people didn't like that their guy lost the straw poll so they declared that the process had been "rigged" by "selectively inviting all of vocal pro-Brady conservative activists around the state" --- funny I was a very outspoken Brady supporter and I wasn't invited by the "rigged" summit -- but in any case they took their ball and went home)
The good news is that the Kirk supporters talk out of both sides of their mouth -- on the one hand claim Kirk "has to" vote for socialist garbage because that's what the voters want, and on the other hand they try to hide Kirk's voting record like hell from the general public because they know nobody in their mind would support alot of Kirk's so-called "moderate" positions. It speaks volumes that even Topinka and Dillard have the guts to show up at these local GOP gatherings but since Kirk announced on July 20th and "hit the ground running" he's been AWOL from every grassroots event in the suburbs like Lauzen's Porky Picnic, the annual southwest suburban GOP picnic, and the Bremen township rally. Kirk's strategy is clearly to avoid having to discuss his "values" with GOP voters as much as possible and rely on the mainstream media and state party to puff him up with vague feel-good generalities ("Kirk is a decorated Iraq War vet who has earned the respect of leaders in both parties... blah blah blah")
Bottom line is the Stop Kirk express has already left the station, and Jim Durkin hasn't gotten aboard.