Burris in ‘10 in our best bet for a GOP Senator.
My mother told me a friend of hers, big Bush donor obviously he was invited to some good bye dinner, knows Aaron Schock and vouches for him. Don’t want him to peak too soon though.
In fact hell he’s not old enough till after new term starts. He’d be another Rush Holt Sr. :p
But Peter Roskam is over 30 . . . .
What I would be preferable?
(1) For the IL legislature to change the law so that the election to fill the Senate seat takes place this summer, and have Roskam run without having to give up his House seat; Roskam would beat Burris (assuming that the two would win their primary), and then he’d be the incumbent going into the November 2010 regular election for a full 6-year term.
OR
(2) For the IL legislature to do nothing, and have Burris as the incumbent in the higher-turnout for 2010 general against Roskam (who would have to give up his seat), and then have Roskam win the 6-year term?
Given that Roskam would have a better chance against Burris in a November 2010 regular election than against the Democrat that would get the 2010 nomination if Burris was defeated in a Summer 2009 special election (whether it be Shakowsky, Madison or whomever), we may be better off with Burris as the Senator through 2010 so that he has a better chance of winning the Dem nomination and Roskam wins a 6-year term, not an 18-month term.