I understand your point, but the next question is why is the race considered unwinnable? It would be winnnable by a highly qualifed candidate such as Peter Fizgerald. So why are there no highly qualified Pubbie candidates in this race? It all starts there. If you have a strong enough candidate then the GOP will provide the cash to fund your campaign. I'm going all the way back to the most fundamental reasons why we don't have a strong candidate in this race and never did. You're thinking more tactically about the current situation of trying to find someone to run right now against Obama.
I will be happy to vote for him. Will be a fun one to watch. Even the Fitzgerald/Braun race was close, which is hard to believe considering her performance.
This is the old Paul Simon seat that no one has settled into yet. Maybe Keyes will split the Chicago vote a little and slip in. Maybe not.
It will be a barnburner.
=8-O
First of all, cash from the national parties is never about qualifications, and always about polls. It sometimes appears the other way around because states and districts that don't get funded don't attract good candidates.
Secondly, this race would not have been a cakewalk for Fitzgerald. Had he been running against anyone other than Carol Mostly Fraud in 1998 he probably would have lost. (And, just to note, he self-financed in 1998 because the party wasn't willing to spend money then either.)
Finally, we never had a great candidate, but there were several qualified, highly qualified candidates who walked away from the race because they knew that financially speaking, the well was dry. Even a small (by Senate standards) commitment of a million would have made a huge difference.