[CharlesWayneCT]

Interesting take, and suggests that losing this seat could possibly be better than winning it.

But that presumes that Alexi would actually be found guilty of something, that the Illinois legislature wouldn’t take away the power of the governor to appoint a successor, or the democratic majority in the Senate wouldn’t simply refuse to remove Alexi from office — which I can’t see them doing if it meant losing the majority in the senate.

But still, a differing point of view. Thanks for pointing me to it.

[fieldmarshaldj]

There aren’t enough Dem legislators in IL that could remove that power to appoint on a purely partisan basis, since the GOP minority could sustain a veto (now, if the Combine all got together...). I believe, even with Alexi elected, the GOP will win a majority. I don’t expect Alexi to be in office long, anyhow (and if he tries to linger, with a criminal trial persisting, it will be more of a black eye to the Democrats and the WH). Brady won’t appoint Kirk (not with the way Kirk has been behaving towards Brady on the campaign trail... he would toss him under a bus). But, yes, that’s my take.

[BlackElk]

Upon conviction of a felony, Giannoulias would forfeit his Senate seat along with his right to vote and hold any public office.

Illinois Demonrats do not have anything like a veto-proof majority in either house now. They sure as hell won't have such a majority in either house after the 2010 election. Nothing short of a veto-proof majority would be able to take away the power of appointment from the governor.

The majority in the Senate is not as important now as it will be in two years. We can stop treaties, judicial nominations, with two more years of "Just Say No!"

Finally, I have lived in Illinois for ten years and fieldmarshaldj's analysis is on target.