Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

GOP Moderate Kirk Wins Ill. Senate Primary

Blows away tea-party-backed candidates, will try for Obama's seat

By Will McCahill,  Newser Staff

Posted Feb 2, 2010 9:19 PM CST | Updated Feb 2, 2010 10:22 PM CST

(Newser) – Moderate Mark Kirk has won Illinois’ Republican Senate primary, blowing away two conservative opponents backed by tea-party contingents. The congressman has 56% of the vote with more than 82% of precincts reporting—giving him a 37% edge over Patrick Hughes. Analysts predicted that a clear Kirk victory would take much of the steam out of the tea-party movement.

State treasurer Alexi Giannoulias scored the Democratic nomination, the Chicago Tribune reports, grabbing nearly 40% of the vote in a more even field. He'll face Kirk for the Senate seat vacated by President Obama, and given to Roland Burris by since-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Burris decided not to run for a full term of his own.

US Rep. Mark Kirk will win the Illinois Republican Senate primary, the AP projects
US Rep. Mark Kirk will win the Illinois Republican Senate primary, the AP projects   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
7%
49%
9%
24%
7%
4%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 73 comments
yummines
Feb 4, 2010 7:58 AM CST
i dunno about that DLY. i think most intelligent people just go with whoever seems like the better candidate, rather than taking sides permanently. i dont consider myself liberal, but you can call me that if you really want to. anyways again i dont root for liberals, conservatives, democrats, whatever. i just hope that when someone wins a position of power, he's someone who deserves that position. theres only so much you can do crossing your fingers though...
Galileo
Feb 3, 2010 9:57 AM CST
Oh jesus. "I hope Obama wades into this, the repubs will be sure to win" - is not an argument. Do you know what an argument is? That isn't an argument, buddy. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're a pseudo-intellectual. There's lots of fancy words here that you think make you sound smart, but they have no real, relevant meaning. My "attempt to devalue your argument is poorly constructed...hence my lack of a sound rebuttal." Haha. You're asserting the reality that I read your 3 meager sentences about Obama, was unable to withstand the force of your impressive argument, and therefore had to stoop to insults to WIN the DEBATE. That is indeed laughable. I am amused that you're still in the process of fleshing out your "argument," even though it was apparently so brilliant in its infancy that I was unable to cope with it's greatness. Unfortunately, I repeat again, you started off with broken-record anti-Obama droning, and I responded by ridiculing you. Why did I do this? Not because your handful of words were immovable, but because I don't take you seriously. It's that simple. I don't take you seriously. This is similar to when a troll exclaims that Obama is a secret muslim terrorist or that the world is 6,000 years old. If I sarcastically mock that person, is it because I am unable to muster a worthy rebuttal? Of course not. How silly. It's because I'm not taking him/her seriously. This is obvious, and it's the case with you. What you are doing here is like that troll coming back and telling me I had to stoop to sarcasm because I was unable to successfully counter his contention that Obama is a secret terrorist. Doesn't that seem stupid? Are you starting to understand the difference? It was never a "debate," you're just trying to retroactively turn it into one. If you're as good at this as you think you are, why are you unable to understand such an elementary point? The only debate going on, regrettably, is that I'm trying to demonstrate that I never entered into a debate with you. But I am well aware that you will keep insisting that I did and that you have won because my "rebuttals" are inferior. You have entered me, unwillingly, into a debate of your own rules which you have already won. To add insult to injury, you force me to endure your colorful yet utterly useless rhetoric in a classic, "listen to how smart I can sound" masturbation. My greatest pet peeve, to be sure. Alas, I cannot hope to prevail against your fantasy, so I give up. I only hope you will go educate yourself on what an argument and debate are. Evidence here suggests you've got a long way to go. But rejoice! Obama's coattails are INDEED not long ENOUGH! As you successfully argued! Pseudo-intellectualism wins again! <--- (Condescending mockery)
Kant
Feb 3, 2010 9:22 AM CST
@Silence, no point in debating the self proclaimed intellectual/professional debater, Galileo. Like most progressives, Galileo cannot bring himself to concede any point. Doing so would destroy his ego and self image. You actually made good points, but in his arrogance, Galileo could not admit that. He won't "take serious" anyone he does not agree with. Kind of like a liberal version of DontLikeYou.

More Newser Stories

Divided GOP Split on State of Union

Failed Politician Calls for Assassination of Obamas

Tea Party's Newt Backers Are Racist: Glenn Beck

Tea Party Caucuses Get Quiet

Senate Rejects $35B Jobs Bill


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne