FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Where's the Roland Burris Poll?

1.05.2009

Where's the Roland Burris Poll?

by Nate Silver @ 10:03 PM

Still waiting on Rasmussen, Zogby, et. al. to poll this question, so in the meantime I guess we'll have to create a (nonscientific) poll or two of our own:

79 comments

Marcus said...: First.

Seat him; January 5, 2009 10:09 PM
Spam210wal said...: I'm astounded none of the orgs have polled the "should" question yet.

I would vote no.; January 5, 2009 10:10 PM
Kennyb said...: Third.

Absolutely do NOT seat him.; January 5, 2009 10:11 PM
Simon said...: Hey Nate, I see that the username you used to create those polls is "nrsilver", so that leads me to believe that your middle name starts with R. Am I right? And if so, what's the name? Ronald? Robert?; January 5, 2009 10:11 PM
Einar Who? said...: Lets do it!; January 5, 2009 10:12 PM
Jenny said...: sixth!; January 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Kennyb said...: Obviously, it's Nate ROLAND Silver.; January 5, 2009 10:13 PM
Simon said...: Aha!
Wikipedia says it's Read. But I've never sean that name spelled that way. Reid maybe. Typo!?; January 5, 2009 10:16 PM
Devin said...: Simon-

It's Nate Read Silver. Or so says his page on the ever reliable Wikipedia.

I don't think Burris should be seated, but eventually will be at some point after tomorrow, possibly even by a court order. He'll too old (73) and rightfully or wrongfully too attached to Blago to run in 2010. Madigan the IL AG probably will.; January 5, 2009 10:18 PM
Devin said...: Never mind you already had written that.; January 5, 2009 10:19 PM
Jenny said...: For the good of the country, Norm Coleman should concede.; January 5, 2009 10:26 PM
Matthew said...: The word "should" can mean different things. What I think should happen differs based on what I think the moral or legal requirements are.

Morally, Burris should demure from taking an offer of office from a tainted politician, even if Burris has nothing to do withe taint, and perhaps even if Blago is innocent.

Legally, the Senate should seat Burris because there is no legal provision that says that the Senate can refuse to seat someone appointed by a Governor who has been accused of a crime. If there is such a legal provision, they should enforce it, but they shouldn't make one up, even if it seems to be the trouble saving move.; January 5, 2009 10:31 PM
Kort said...: Here is my choice...

A) Seat him. I'm sorry. I'm a Democrat and I will say this: Roland Burris is clean (hint, not anywhere near indictment at this stage). So what if the Governor is "corrupt"? The thing is, Blagojevich is still in power until impeachment and conviction (either by Senate or a jury) or expiration of term. Punishing Burris for Blagojevich's stupidity is wrong, because your punishing Illinois as a whole.*

B) Be that as it may, the Senate should still exercise some major restraint in the pursuit of handling this situation, as Harry Reid has stated he could very well negotiate. I say that the Senate waits two weeks, and then use the power of the multiple ???? and profit overall by seating him.

* P.S. I'm also going to be an equal opportunity basher here and state that Republicans are no less better here because of Minnesota.; January 5, 2009 10:33 PM
Kort said...: whoops. I spelled a word wrong. Oh well, can't get a post perfect all the time....; January 5, 2009 10:34 PM
TBender said...: Seat him, at the time of his nomination, everything is legal. Blago is still governor and Burris is eligible for the seat.

And get someone else ready to beat Burris in the 2010 primary which will be the de facto general election.; January 5, 2009 10:38 PM
soozzie said...: A person who would accept the appointment is lacking in integrity, so he should not be seated. Moreover, I continue to be troubled by his faith in the Lord that brought him this far. And his refusal to address the real issues and concerns put to him by journalists suggests that he has his own agenda. So -- send him home!; January 5, 2009 10:41 PM
AgathaX said...: If there is any legal basis for not seating Burris, he should not be seated. The problem--as the incredibly smarmy Burris likes to point out--is that the appointment is legal. Why the Illinois legislature couldn't manage to pass a one sentence law stripping Blagojevich of this power and bestowing it on the lieutenant governor, I don't know. Why they haven't been pilloried for failing to act, I don't know.; January 5, 2009 10:42 PM
Matthew said...: @AgathaX:

Do you know if the power to appoint a senator is statutory or constitutional? Perhaps the legislature can't amend the constitution without referendum.; January 5, 2009 10:51 PM
nkpolitics1279 said...: Whoever is seated in the VACANT Illinios US Senate Seat if up for re-election in November 2010.
Since Burris is a caretaker appointment- The 2010 IL US Senate Race is going to be an open seat election. Democrats will have a divisive primary
1)Dan Hynes- White Irish Male.
2)Janice Schackowsky- White Jewish Female.
3)Dan Seals- Black Male.
4)Luis Guitterez- Hispanic Male
5)Tammy Duckworth- Asian Female.
Republicans will also have a divisive primary between
1)Mark Kirk- a moderate
2)Peter Roskam- a Conservative
3)John Shimkus- a Downstater.; January 5, 2009 10:52 PM
Clay said...: I think he needs to be seated. Illinois deserves two senators to represent them. Blagojevich will get his time in court, but that process will take some time leaving them without a senator. He was legally appointed by the only way a senator can be legally appointed. If that is not good enough IL could be without a senator until the next elections.

If it is found that Burris is involved (and no one has suggested that), then he can be removed from office and face ethics violations. If he is not involved, then he is a respectable pick.

Either way the people of Illinois will get to have their say very soon (2010, I think).

but than again.. I am not an Illinois citizen. It is their representative and up for them to battle over.; January 5, 2009 10:58 PM
matt said...: Legally, he needs to be seated. If the Senate Majority Leader could arbitrarily refuse to seat somebody who was legally appointed, then he could artificially keep his majority indefinitely. I say seat him, and then immediately kick him out with the constitutional 2/3 vote.

To be honest I would be also comfortable refusing to seat him if there were a 2/3 vote on the matter (a preemptive expulsion, I guess).; January 5, 2009 10:59 PM
Don from VA said...: The gov is still the gov. The dems in the IL legislature refused to change the law to mandate a special election, SO it's the gov's apptmt to make and he did it. What's the question? Innocent (even if repulsive) until proven guilty. Gov (ditto) until removed. Case closed, Harry.; January 5, 2009 11:01 PM
STepper said...: Crap - I meant to vote never and I voted after a court order, which I don't think will EVER happen. (Which court order, by the way? The one requiring the SoS to endorse the appointment, or one from a US court requiring the Senate to seat Burris?)

I have learned 3 things from this:

1. Your poll questions are ambiguous.

2. Your poll is poorly designed, allowing people to miscast their votes.

3. I should have been a voter in Minnesota where my intent would have been divined.; January 5, 2009 11:13 PM
Another Mike said...: I say seat him. I'm uncomfortable with establishing the precedent that the Senate can exclude someone because there is some allegation of corruption or impropriety against the appointing governor. Just about every governor and every election is subject to some allegation of impropriety.; January 5, 2009 11:18 PM
Joe The Fake Virginian said...: Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

I am sure, by now, that the constitional lawyers have spoken to you. They have undoubtedly given you good advice.

Then, afterwards, your political advisors reminded you of your tough stance earlier. They drew up a nice Kabuki Dance for you to perfrom, until you actually seat the new Senator from Illinois.

Regards; January 5, 2009 11:19 PM
Another Mike said...: To be honest I would be also comfortable refusing to seat him if there were a 2/3 vote on the matter (a preemptive expulsion, I guess).

This still sets a bad precedent for when the Senate can exclude a member. Future exclusion votes won't be limited to 2/3 majority requirements. They would certainly point to the exclusion of Burris as justification for their authority to exclude on a bare majority since that will be the standard in the Burris vote.; January 5, 2009 11:25 PM
SarahLawrenceScott said...: Seat him, and hold a special election on Feb. 24, 2009, since Illinois has elections scheduled for that day anyway.; January 5, 2009 11:37 PM
Devin said...: Well if the readers of fivethirtyeight.com decided the Senate appointment, it appears Ronald Burris would be sent packing. With 1,059 votes tallied and an unknown number of precincts reporting, 58% if readers believe Roland Burris should not be seated.; January 5, 2009 11:43 PM
Juris said...: Seat him? No way, José!; January 5, 2009 11:46 PM
nkpolitics1279 said...: Regarding the Coleman-Franken race in Minnesota.
Before the Recount- Franken was behind Coleman by 215 votes which automatically triggered a statewide recount. After the Recount Franken is now ahead of Coleman by 225 votes.

Lets suppose the roles were reversed. Franken was 215 votes ahead after the November Election results were certified- However after the Statewide Recount takes place- Franken is 225 votes behind. Wouldn't the Republicans in the US Senate such as Mitch McConnell,John Cornyn,and Norm Coleman go on Fox News Channel and demand that Al Franken concede defeat.; January 6, 2009 12:06 AM
Davy said...: I'm going to weigh in on the race issue again because I'm troubled that it is an issue in the Burris designation.

Burris, as I understand it, is a fine person with a clean record other than that attempted execution of the innocent guy. But Burris has lost more elections than he has won. So can anyone honestly say he would win if he were to run for Illinois Senate? I doubt it. Now he has been appointed by a man who places his own self interests above his state's citizens (I know, I know; allegedly. Anyone buying that?).

Now, Illinois has shown that they are not afraid of electing a black man for Senate. And if Illinois thought that Burris was qualified, they would elect him. I think that this appointment by Blagojevich is the only way that Burris would ever make it to the Senate. What that says to me is that; like Blagojevich, Burris' interest in becoming Senator has more to do with his own interests rather than the interests of Illinois or for that matter, those of the nation. It is an opportunity of misfortune for Illinois. Because the only arguments for validity of Burris' appointment are that it is legal by definition and that he will be the only black Senator. I haven't heard any of his reasons that he is qualified other than he hasn't been bought by anyone in Chicago.

On to the US Senate: Any municipality, county, state, or court, district or otherwise, in this nation has the right to reject a petition if the criteria for it is insufficient. The burden of proof is on the petitioner. If Burris shows up with an incomplete petition then the court has the right to reject it.

Problem is that the language of Illinois statute is unclear as to whether the Secretary of State (who has refused to certify the paperwork) is COMPELLED to sign the certification; which makes him essentially a Notary Public, or whether he has the OPTION to refuse the certification, which makes him a check and balance under just such circumstances. The devil in the details, indeed.

In principle, I get the advocacy of affirmative action in the workplace, but; much to the chagrin of affirmative action advocates, I think it is dangerous to apply those principles to democratically elected officials. That would be tyranny. And I wish those that keep playing the race card for Burris would stop.

Did it ever occur to anyone that there aren't that many African Americans running for Senate? I have my reasons as to why which I'll be happy to extoll upon in another post. But to think that a vacant seat belongs to a mediocre designee based upon race, gender, or any other designation is not only insulting but just continues to fan the flames of divisiveness.

Mr. Burris; I'm sure you're a nice guy. But I do not believe you belong in the place where the policy for my country takes place.; January 6, 2009 12:09 AM
Joe The Fake Virginian said...: @ NK

Fortunately, the bloviation is one-way. Senator-elect Al Franken gave a good political speech after the State Canvassing Board certified the election. He showed much more class and dignity that one would expect from the out-going Senator.

Can we nominate, as someone suggested in another thread, the Jon Stewart be named as interim Senator from New York?; January 6, 2009 12:09 AM
Davy said...: That having been said, I'd like to see these two problems (MN and IL) resolved quickly since I think the 'honeymoon' of Obama's term will be most effective if there is a majority in the Senate.; January 6, 2009 12:14 AM
Davy said...: Burris will be a seatholder. (sigh)

wv: kabosh - make it into what you will; January 6, 2009 12:20 AM
Opus 132 said...: This post has been removed by the author.; January 6, 2009 12:21 AM
Opus 132 said...: Burris' interest in becoming Senator has more to do with his own interests rather than the interests of Illinois or for that matter, those of the nation.

Isn't this true of almost all of our U.S. Senator's?; January 6, 2009 12:26 AM
Opus 132 said...: This post has been removed by the author.; January 6, 2009 12:26 AM
VegnaBlitz said...: Heh. The two polls are so far apart. What's going on here?

I don't really care one way or the other, as long as Burris votes and supports cloture on the important matters. I voted yes for seating him, with a court order...That's my theoretical preference...Though the way things are going, I might change my mind immediately after an important vote. >.<

Better if Blago resigned, and we could all just move on, but that would just be too much to ask of that ass.; January 6, 2009 12:29 AM
JMNorris said...: Wow:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/innocent-til-proven-guilty-get-your.html; January 6, 2009 12:36 AM
Ian said...: Nate,

You have a very nice mechanism for your unscientific polling. However, one should not be able to see the results until after voting. Peoples opinions can be greatly effected by knowledge of majority opinion.; January 6, 2009 12:41 AM
Ian said...: On another note, does Zogby count as a scientific poll?; January 6, 2009 12:43 AM
onezero said...: Oh, fer fun - could we just stop playing these games - for just a little while? Buck Flago is still the governor, he's exercised his right under the current state constitution, Burris hasn't paid to play anymore than anyone else in this utterly corrupt state ... the rules as written have been followed. Stop wasting time and money just because everyone (including me) hates the governor.

Disgusted in Lake Villa -; January 6, 2009 12:44 AM
nkpolitics1279 said...: Better Solution for the Burris situation.

Obama's IL US Senate Seat Term does not expire until November 2010. Had Obama lost the 2008 Presidential Election. He would have ran for re-election in November 2010.

Whoever is appointed to the IL US Senate Seat has to face re-election in November 2010.

Rolland Burris is a caretaker- He is not going to seek re-election in 2010 making the 2010 IL US Senate race an open seat election.

The best solution is to Seat Burris. Have a Special Primary Election on Feb 2009 and a Special General Election on November 2009. Whoever wins in the Special General Election gets seated after the November 2009 Special Election results are certified. This person will run again in November 2010 as an incumbent.
The Democratic candidates for the 2009 Special election will be
Jan Schakowsky 35%
Dan Hynes 25%
Dan Seals 20%
Tammy Duckworth 15%
Luis Guiterrez.5%

Schakowsky becomes the Democratic Nominee in the 2009 Special Election. She wins the General Election in November 2009 defeating Mark Kirk. Gets seated on November 2009. Schakowsky gets re-elected for a first full term in November 2010.; January 6, 2009 1:09 AM
Statler N Waldorf said...: Kennyb,

Personally, I think Nate and Roland Burris are the same man, cleverly disguised. Nate has been leading a double life as a middle-aged Illinois politician during the day, and an adorably cute statistician by night. Sort of like Hannah Montana, only not.

Think about it... you never see the two men in public together at the same time. Coincidence? Or CONSPIRACY!; January 6, 2009 1:10 AM
Davy said...: Man, is that all you guys got? I dump the race card out on the table for all to see and none of you (except Opus) will touch it?!

C'mon!; January 6, 2009 1:22 AM
nkpolitics1279 said...: When Roland Burris lost the Democratic Primary for Governor in 1998- against Glenn Poshard,John Schmidt and Jim Burns. He should have disappeared from the limelight.; January 6, 2009 1:23 AM
nkpolitics1279 said...: What about drafting Michael Jordan for the 2010 IL US Senate Race.

He is black. He is a wealthy. He is a superstar.; January 6, 2009 1:27 AM
Statler N Waldorf said...: The problem with Burris (or anyone that Blago seats) is they are guaranteed to lose in 2010 if they run. Any GOP opponents just ahs to ask how much they paid for the seat, and no matter what their reply is, the public will assume they paid something for it.

Reid knows this and loathes the idea of seating Burris. However, the entire world can see what his motivation is, and that in itself is ammunition: they can say, "Oh look, Reid is playing politics while the people of Illinois lack Senate representation". McConnell knows this and realizes that tiem is on his side; the longer this drama goes on, the more he can incite the Illinois electorate to resent Democrats in general, bringing the odds of GOP win for thsi seat to that of metaphysical certitude.

Sadly, Reid's balls are in a vise, and he isn't exactly known for his fortitude. It would take a very shrewd and extremely tough politician to turn this around. Lacking that, we can pray some sort of a distraction will put the heat on the GOP long enough to allow Dems to sort things out.

When you have to rely on a disaster striking the other team, you're in a very bad position.; January 6, 2009 1:43 AM
tray said...: It would create a dangerous precedent if they didn't seat him. So of course they should.; January 6, 2009 2:00 AM
eton said...: Any decent person would have declined the Governor's offer. Any sane person would like Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), who did turn it down... http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1356051,CST-NWS-sweet31.article knows that it is the right thing to do. By accepting the appointment Burris is enabling Blago.

Which leaves one wondering, why on earth would he accept the appointment? Something has to be fishy here. Is he really that power hungry or just as crazy as blagojevich? I agree with some others here, he probably couldn't get elected so this is the best shot he has. Have you seen this guy on television? He disgusts me. His playing both the God and race cards? It has completely nothing to do with either of those things. He is like a little brat that knows he might get away with something. He is a slippery politician that doesn't answer questions. "It is a legal appointment, I've got nothing to do with Blago, rinse wash repeat" As for the arguement that Illinois needs representation. I think they made out pretty well considering that the President recently represented them. I think they are going to be alright. Burris is enabling Blago and trying to benefit from it. It might work out well for him but it will cause so much pain and credibility for the democrats.

Now about Blago... I'm torn because yes he should get his day in court... but on the other hand the guy is sooooo guilty. Even if he can't be convicted on the basis that he didn't actually commit a crime he should still be booted from office. It is a corrupt as a person can be without actually being guilty of some felony. I agree it is not a good precedent for the Senate to refuse appointments. And governors should be able to keep the right to give appointments. What I think should happen is the state of Ill. should have a no confidence vote on Blago in the upcoming weeks. If it succeeds by a 2/3s margin, then Blago should be forced from office or at least lose the power of appointments.; January 6, 2009 2:19 AM
Brad said...: Burris could not win the 2010 dem primary even without Blago. Seat him, lets move on.; January 6, 2009 2:32 AM
Brad said...: No confidence vote? Hmmm, did we move to a parlimentary system in IL? How is that legal?; January 6, 2009 2:33 AM
Kurt said...: There is nothing "unscientific" about this poll.; January 6, 2009 3:31 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: As much as I hate to say it, I think there is no way to keep Burris out of the Senate seat, except for one thing:

Is the signature of the SoS on the cert of appointment just a formality (ala Davy's Notary Public scenario), or

Is the SoS signature NOT a formality, but a check and balance to help ensure the appointment is proper?

Until that question is settled, or a definitive answer is provided, Burris should wait.

If the former, then he should be seated quickly after that determination.

If the latter, then the SoS needs to provide a defensible justification for not signing the cert. If the SoS doesn't provide justification, then Burris should be seated.

If the latter, and the SoS has a defensible justification for not signing the cert, the question of seating Burris is settled, as no valid cert exists, and until a valid cert exists, no one CAN be seated.; January 6, 2009 4:55 AM
PorridgeGun said...: No way they should seat Burrris, he's a fucking embarassment to himself nevermind his state. And apparently Obama doesn't need his vote anyway. In the spirit of "bipartisanship" Obama is gonna plunge the country deeper into the Bush recession, and soon to be depression, by making concessions to the scum on the stimulus package. What does it matter if he falls a vote short of 80?; January 6, 2009 5:02 AM
PorridgeGun said...: Schakowsky becomes the Democratic Nominee in the 2009 Special Election. She wins the General Election in November 2009 defeating Mark Kirk. Gets seated on November 2009. Schakowsky gets re-elected for a first full term in November 2010.

Sen. Schakowsky retires in 2016, the First Lady runs for the seat and wins by an even bigger margin than the President in 2004. Perfect!

Ideally, whichever Dem wins in 2010, he or she will be close to Obama. Burris, like Blagojevich, is already a huge pain in the arse. Seating him only increases the chances of a competitive race in 2010.

Saying that, the chances of the scum winning Obama's seat is unthinkable, especially with Illinois' favourite son campaigning for the Democratic candidate.; January 6, 2009 5:23 AM
fred said...: PorridgeGun, I generally like your posts but maybe you were drunk when you said:

"In the spirit of "bipartisanship" Obama is gonna plunge the country deeper into the Bush recession, and soon to be depression, by making concessions to the scum on the stimulus package. What does it matter if he falls a vote short of 80?"

The country may well go deeper into depression as the retail house of cards implodes in the first quartr, that said - cutting payroll taxes for folks who will actually spend is THE PERFECT answer to this problem. The infrastructure spending helps with "hard" businesses and jobs and the tax cut to sonsumers helps with "soft" business and jobs. The pl;an is damn near perfect.

Will it work? Who knows, Bush has put us in a place we have never been. Bernanke seems to get it though, go Ben!; January 6, 2009 7:06 AM
fred said...: Kurt-

Yes, the poll is "unscientific" as that short-hand is often used to describe experiments (or polls) that can come to no statistically significant conclusion.; January 6, 2009 7:09 AM
Mrs B said...: I have no idea whether he SHOULD be seated or not. Both options have downsides politically and ethically. But I suspect he WILL be seated because otherwise a precedent will be set for keeping people out of the senate whom the majority in the senate don't like. It is fine to keep people out who are eg felons, but you can't keep someone out just because you wish the situation was different.

On Coleman/Franken - the reason Coleman wants to keep this going is to keep Republicans for ever believing the election was stolen. Democrats believe the 2000 presidential election was stolen and no argument will convince them otherwise. (Of course, the two cases are different, because the 2000 election really was stolen, while this one looks kosher to me). But people will judge MN on their overall world view, not on the actual FACTS of the matter).

Oh, and Statler - any more Benedict jokes out there? And how did the fasting go?; January 6, 2009 7:24 AM
Charlottemom said...: seat him. No more drama; January 6, 2009 8:55 AM
mhz said...: Burris comes off pretty well when he speaks on the RMS (msNBC)- She has given him a lot of air time and yes he is enjoying his 15 minutes but HE IS NOT a serious liability.
1) He wont make policy.
2) He will be available for every vote.
3)He will support BHO on every vote.
4)He doesn't want to be a seat warmer, but too bad for him. If BHO's plans are working in 2010 a stronger Progressive candidate will get the seat.

Just seat him so the Blaga Saga moves to backstage.

BTW-I do not even want to think about 2010 if BHO's plans are not working by then:((((
If they are- DC to NYC in 1.5 hours by train in 2012:)))) "GOT HOPE?"; January 6, 2009 9:03 AM
Statler N Waldorf said...: This poll is scientific in the same sense that I am an astronaut because I like looking at the stars on a clear night.

I've so far managed to vote twice, and will probably vote a few more times before the remaining 17 hours are up. AS long as I delete the cookie it places o my comp after I cast a vote, I can vote as many times as I want. Mwa ha ha.; January 6, 2009 9:09 AM
mhz said...: This post has been removed by the author.; January 6, 2009 8:45 AM
TRV said...: In answer to a long ago question the replacement of a senator is first covered by the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It provides for an election or, in the alternative, appointment by the "executive" (i.e. the Governor) if the state legislature so provides. The Illinois legislature has so provided. Neither the amendment nor Statute provide for when the appointment becomes valid suggesting other law covers this point. Both require the counter signature of the Secretary of State. Senate Standing Rule II requires that the document of appointment contain the Secretary's signature. Because of the wording of the Illinois Statute describing the duties of the Secretary, some (little) wiggle room remains as to whether he acts as a "notary" (ministerial act) or has some discretion in counter signing and affixing the state seal.

Passing a statute removing the power from the Governor would have been a futile act because of his veto power and power to "pocket" the legislation for a considerable period of time before he had to veto it.; January 6, 2009 10:10 AM
nkpolitics1279 said...: Regarding who gets seated in the Obama VACANT IL US Senate Seat.

If the replacement US Senator for Obama's US Senate Seat has to be Black and a strong general election candidate- It will be Dan Seals- the 2006/2008 Democratic US House Nominee in IL-10CD- The Northern Suburban Chicago District- which Moderate Republicans such as John Porter and Mark Kirk held for almost 30 years combined. Seals recieved 47% in both of his losing races against Kirk. Seals has the similar persona of Obama- Being mixed race,highly educated,family man,working in the Academic and Business community.

If the replacement candidate has to be a strong progessive who can win in the general election- It will be Jan Schakowsky. A White Jewish female who has support from Emily's List and AIPAC.; January 6, 2009 11:29 AM
ecarlson said...: There is no logical reason not to seat Burris.

Clearly, the SoS signature represents a notary type function. The governor is doing the appointing, not the SoS. Are we going to allow ANY SoS to block an appointment he doesn't agree with?

Every argument I've seen AGAINST seating him either argues that the appointment is tainted (because the governor has been accused, but not indicted, of wrongdoing), or because it is bad for democrats. The former assumes guilt without trial. Neither has any legal basis that I can understand.; January 6, 2009 11:39 AM
tmess2 said...: 1) As a matter of settled law and the language of the Seventeenth Amendment, the Secretary of State serves as a notary in this case confirming that the Governor did in fact appoint the person named in the certificate. The writ of mandamus will be issued. The only question is whether the Illinois Supreme Court acts quickly or delays to give the political actors time to resolve this.

2) The complaint and probable cause statement in U.S. vs. Blagojevich gives reasonable grounds for an investigation by the Senate Rules Committee into the validity of this appointment.

3) The complaint and probable cause statement in U.S. vs. Blagojevich do not prove that the appointment is actually invalid. Thus, if the investigation does not reveal evidence (and we do not know everything that Fitzgerald has, only what he has publicly disclosed) that Burris participated in Blago's illegal scheme, he must be seated.

Basically, the Senate can table this for five or six weeks at which time Reid can graciously step back from the brink.; January 6, 2009 12:08 PM
markymark said...: My own view is that he should be seated, but ideally after B-Rod has left office and his replacement has re-appointed Burris. I don't know if Pat Quinn would appoint Burris, but genuinely I think that would be the best way out of this whole mess.; January 6, 2009 1:41 PM
holy crapo said...: It's clear Americans don't want Burris to be seated becase he's actually black unlike Obama. So much for you guys 'moving on from slavery'!; January 6, 2009 1:45 PM
mcc said...: Looks like USA Today did a poll:

Interest in the [Burris] dispute is high — six in 10 are following it closely — and support for Burris is scant. By nearly 2-1, 51% to 27%, those surveyed say the Senate should block him from taking his seat. A similar majority, 52%, say Illinois should hold a special election as soon as possible to fill the office.; January 6, 2009 2:48 PM
Timy said...: Seat Burris. 1. He would make a fine senator. 2. There is absolutely no evidence of the seat being sold to him. 3. Blago has not been convicted of anything and is still governor, so he is LEGALLY PERMITTED AND REQUIRED to pick a replacement for Obama.

Burris will be seated, whether the Senate likes it or not. They cannot legally refuse to seat him.; January 6, 2009 4:14 PM
Eric said...: I believe Democratic strategy is to make a show of not seating Burris with a lame legal argument that they know will be overturned by the courts. Then, when the courts say he has to be seated, they will can say, "we tried, but had no choice." Meanwhile they get to add to their caucus in the Senate.
It also gives them political cover to provisionally seat Franken until Coleman's court challenge is resolved. When the Republicans inevitably claim the Dems are illegitimately stacking the Senate in their favor, they can say, "if that was the case, we would have accepted Burris' appointment." Legally speaking, they could accept it if they want to. Their refusal is on principal, not on legality.; January 6, 2009 4:52 PM
nirad said...: here's what the democratic senate leadership needs to do- they should have some dog & pony show ("hearings") re: Burris himself, not Blago. If he doesn't have any skeletons in his closet that would cause him to drop out, they should agree to seat him but then deny him party funds for the 2010 primary- in other words that contest will be treated like an open seat, though he's welcome to run for reelection.; January 6, 2009 6:04 PM
Sargents Pigeon said...: No way should Burris be seated.

1. Seating him is not "legal" because the US Constitution gives the Senate sole authority over its own rules. The Senate can and should pass a resolution recognizing the special circumstances and barring any Blago appointment, also following Bush v. Gore in saying the decision has no precedent status.

2. Seating him is not politically helpful because any Burris vote would drive away other votes. Moderate Republicans and Dems from red districts will not want to be tarnished with a high "Burris rating."; January 6, 2009 7:16 PM
moondancer said...: Burris is a cruel joke, a parting "screw you" from Blago. Whatever happens, they must crush this insect so that he is invisible in the special election.; January 6, 2009 9:33 PM
Tom said...: @Nate - Turn this poll thing off. It is making my browser go crazy.; January 6, 2009 10:20 PM
egapre said...: 情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,; January 16, 2009 4:36 AM
YoYo said...: 豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風成人論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區; March 28, 2009 5:06 AM
freefun0616 said...: 酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
 梵,; October 9, 2009 8:17 AM

Pollsters and Poll Compilations

Other Resources

Wonks

Blog Archive

Labels

1.05.2009

Where's the Roland Burris Poll?

79 comments