65 Comments - How Ironic - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:11 pm: The only thing they will be saying is “Wow, Dunkin sure is an expensive hobby of Rauner…what did he buy exactly?” - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:13 pm: I am assuming Dunkin will win and I don’t think it’ll change a thing in Springfield. Even before Rauner peeled him away from the Democratic caucus, Dunkin was a known commodity among his peers. He did not enjoy a great deal of respect nor did he have much influence within the larger Democratic caucus. He was a vote for most Democratic initiatives, and not much else. Dunkin has been about Dunkin since jump street. It’d be nice if he lost to Stratton, but winning won’t change a reputation for insignificance that he’s spent his entire career earning. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:15 pm: No, they will just break off Dunkin entirely. - Annonn'' - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:15 pm: Likely Dunkin’ goes down Most of his peers never followed him before and would not risk becoming the next $uper$tar boy toy - wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:16 pm: No. I don’t think what the governor is doing or proposing is very popular, even among GOP legislators. That’s why he didn’t campaign on it, and that’s why he pretends that he’s not doing it. - burbanite - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:16 pm: Will Guzzardi: “Here’s the thing about this article. It operates on the same faulty premise that I think the Governor has: fear of Speaker Madigan is the only thing keeping us from being full-throated advocates of the Turnaround Agenda. That’s just wrong. You could have another Speaker tomorrow and you’d still be miles away from 60 votes on right to work, ending prevailing wage, gutting workers comp, capping remedies in civil court, or any of the rest of Rauner’s “reforms.” I’m opposed to those things, and it’s certainly not because I’m under the thumb of Madigan. Most of my colleagues are opposed to them too. It’s because we actually believe in the merits of those programs. Anyone who wants this thing to end needs to realize that, irrespective of Madigan, there is *no way* that the Turnaround Agenda will pass the House. Insisting on it as a precondition of a budget deal is the same thing as saying “I do not want a budget deal.” That’s why we blame Rauner.” - The Muse - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:17 pm: No. They’re not going to sell-out their core beliefs for the sake of being a billionaire’s favorite pet. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:17 pm: Dunkin carries no sway with his colleagues. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:18 pm: “Assuming, for a moment, that Rep. Dunkin wins, do you think that will cause a significant number of Democrats to break with Speaker Madigan?” No. It might make it tougher for Madigan to recruit quality candidates in the future, but a Dunkin win would peel away exactly ZERO Democrats currently serving in the legislature. And depending on how much money Madigan can raise in his two week, post-cap unlimited fund-raising window, this primary seems far more likely to drive serving Democrats towards the Speaker. – MrJM - Indochine - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:18 pm: It all goes back to this ridiculous notion that there is a cowering group of Democrat legislators who actually are anxious to betray key constituencies of their base if only Boss Madigan would allow it. They are Democrats because they actually believe in those key tenets. When will Team Rauner understand that? - pundent - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:20 pm: Dunkin’s comments suggest that a significant number of democrats embrace Rauner’s ideology. Other than Dunkin’s words (and the “private” discussions that Rauner claims to have had) there seems to be no logical basis for this assumption. - Austin Blvd - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:20 pm: Voted No, but Dunkin’ will be in charge of the plan. “Look at the goodies that I got for hitchin’ my wagon to Rauner. You can get some goodies too.” - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:21 pm: No. Win or lose, Dunkin still can’t get ya yesterday’s newspaper. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:23 pm: Voted “No.” Money talks. As long as Madigan controls the purse strings, candidates and elected officials are going to try to stay on the Speaker’s good side. - Ahoy! - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:25 pm: Voted no because I don’t think it’s going to be significant and I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be because of Dunkin. I do think a break with the speaker is possible, but Rauner has to come a lot more to the middle and propose the kind of solutions he just did with criminal justice reform. I also think Madigan’s camp is starting to lose their sanity a little bit, anybody been reading Steve Brown’s comments during this primary season? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:27 pm: I voted no because I don’t think Dunkin has any influence on his peers. - Norseman - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:27 pm: AA +1 - Stones - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:28 pm: Dunkin lives in a dream world. Does he really believe what he says? - A Parent - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:28 pm: Voted no. If Dunkin was being valiant, courageous and brave maybe he would have some influence. Alas, that is not the case. - Rasselas - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:28 pm: No, they won’t because they don’t believe in the Rauner agenda, nor do their constituents. Remember the famous Winston Churchill joke: “Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?” Socialite: “My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… ” Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?” Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!” Churchill: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price” Right now, Rauner is just establishing Dunkin’s price. - Harvest76 - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:29 pm: I think Dunkin may be assuming too much about his power and influence . Someone called him a pariah and he thought they said piranha and ran with it. - Century Club - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:31 pm: No. It’s a two parter, you’d have to break with Madigan and hop in bed with Rauner. - low level - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:34 pm: No, Ken. You didn’t break with Madigan. You sold out to Rauner. Big difference, as is the notion you “did what’s right for your constituents”. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:34 pm: I voted yes - but with a caveat. After watching this mornings criminal justice reform presser, I think Rauner could do it on certain issues and policy initiatives. I don’t think it would happen for everything or major partisan sticking points (like CBA reform). But for something like a marriage of his and Andy Manar’s education reform ideas, then it’s possible. - Corporate Thug - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:35 pm: Voted no. Think most members stand on a set of ideas that make them who they are. D or R. The principles that guide them. Dunkin can be bought. He’s proved that. - ILPundit - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:38 pm: Current poll results show 93% against Dunkin theory. So, is that a fair over/under for Dunkin actual vote performance in his primary elections? - Earnest - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:38 pm: I voted “no.” Much of Rauner’s agenda and pretty much all of his tactics are unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans. My greatest hope is that some Republican Representatives will break with Rauner and get some of the positive reforms passed that people wanted when they chose divided government. “Hope” might be too strong a word though. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:39 pm: We are talking about a guy who didn’t make a tough vote - he skipped out of town to avoid a tough vote. No one follows a guy who does that. Dunkin did not redeem himself by selling out to the man who helped him escape that tough vote. Dunkin is not redeeming himself by insulting the current speaker of the house with racial hate spin. Dunkin did not redeem himself by standing up during a rare presidential address and demand attention. Nothing Dunkin has done has redeemed himself from the negativity he has inflicted upon himself voluntarily. So - if he actually wins - he wouldn’t win back anything he has thrown away over the past year. No one will follow him and no one will speak to him either. This little exercise in hypothetical questions was brought to us thanks to a very delusional incumbent’s insulting and patronizing take on his role in our state government. - plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:41 pm: “did what’s right for your constituents” Is asking for more of the same working for Mr. Dunkin’s constituents? See today’s topic regarding minority unemployment in Illinois contrasted to other states. I don’t know what the changes need to be, but the status quo is not acceptable. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:43 pm: No, no one is impressed by a sellout. Add to the the fact that he still cannot get a bill to the floor, no matter how sweet his hat is. - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:44 pm: I think it’s a mistake to assume that in a world without Michael Madigan that the democratic legislators would simply abandon their principles. I don’t think Bruce Rauner understands that. - tominchicago - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:47 pm: No - See the earlier comments of Will Guzzardi. Madigan is not forcing dems to not vote to gut unions and that is the only part of the agenda that Rauner really wants. - Archiesmom - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:48 pm: No. None of the members I know are remotely inclined to side with Rauner. They’d get electorally killed in the districts near me. - tominchicago - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:50 pm: If McCann survives, how many republicans break from Rauner? - out of touch - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:50 pm: I voted No. 1. If Dunkin says it, it must be true! 2. Everyone wants to be like Dunkin! 3. As democrats, why would they not abandon everything that they believe in so that they could follow the gospel of Dunkin, emulate Dunkin, be allowed to run the state in the ground with failed trickle down economics, enable a narcissistic nihilist Governor, and be ALLOWED to pass a tax increase? - Mouthy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:53 pm: No. Benedict Arnold never made the statement ” Look at all the infantry that joined the British with me” Nobody’s gonna want a link with Dunkin… - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:53 pm: Voted “No” “Why?” “Because… Will Guzzardi” … that and his first name, but, his quote says it all. - illinoised - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 12:58 pm: No, because Dunkin put a target on himself that a primary win won’t negate. He is in no man’s land. - Tough Guy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:01 pm: Voted no. Just because Dunkin drank the Rauner Kool Aid doesn’t mean other reps aren’t smart enough to see the meat grinder he’s being put through. I can’t imagine anyone looking forward to that. - @MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:01 pm: More than 90% of respondents don’t think that a Dunkin win would cause a significant number of Democrats to break with Speaker Madigan. But isn’t that Rauner’s brilliant TurnAround Agenda game plan? And it’s recognized as nonsense by 9/10 people responding to the QOTD? Can someone who supports Rauner — but who recognizes reality enough to vote ‘NO’ on this QOTD — explain how, barring miraculous new GOP majorities in both houses, the TurnAround Agenda ever gets enacted? I’ll take my answer off the air… – MrJM - WhoKnew - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:05 pm: Voted No! I’d have to agree with - burbanite - - Sense of a Goose - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:10 pm: No. Though Rauner believes everyone has a price, only a small number of people will publicly sell their soul (Dunkin/Christie). Madigan is a known quantity and he is trusted to keep his word even if disliked. Rauner has no trust. He’s just as likely to drop the new toy when a new ’strategy’ begins. I’m giving credit for actually having a strategy which may be generous. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:11 pm: No. What Guzzardi and some commenters said. After watching the floor debates on union-related bills since Rauner has become governor, many Democrats genuinely believe in union rights. They’ve proven with their votes that they won’t follow Dunkin and sell out. In other words, they’re not Raunerites. - A guy - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:11 pm: What’s “significant”? If it’s 4-5, maybe. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:12 pm: No (for reasons stated above). BUT that’s Dunkin in and of himself. It might have a cumulative effect down the road. - forwhatitsworth - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:14 pm: I voted no. I would like to believe that most Democrats truly believe in the things they support that are in sharp contrast to Rauner’s agenda. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:21 pm: I voted No. Dems will break after the nov. Election. CPS won’t yet be open, LGDF will be eliminated and public outcry will be so great they won’t want to run for reelection. Remember the RAUN Mans motto…..crisis creates…… - Pink E Kent - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:21 pm: Voted: No Don’t really understand why “Yes” was part of the survey? The choices more appropriate would be “No” or “Hell to the No” - One to the Dome - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:25 pm: Its the person…Nekritz voted against Rules once, and now she is in leadership and a most respected legislator. Not that others followed Elaine, but it wasn’t because it was a to affront Madigan. If they didn’t follow her, no one will follow Dunkin… because he is Dunkin. - Chicago 20 - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:25 pm: No There is only so much Charles Thomas and Ken Dunkin can spin. Reality will set in. - Hope Dies Last - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:42 pm: No - I honestly hope a “signifcant number” do break with Madigan in order to stop this insane stalemate and accomplish something but: 1) it will have zero to do with Dunkin (especially while he has Rauner’s money in his pocket) and 2) it will not in any way move the Turnaround agenda forward because the Turnaround agenda is WRONG for the state of Illinois. Of course that’s going to require a “significant number” of brave republicans to do the same against Rauner. - Wensicia - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:47 pm: No. Who else would be fool enough to place themselves under Rauner’s thumb? - jeffinginchicago - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:55 pm: Voted yes. Madigan has his own meat grinder and I think progressives are looking for a way out from under him. Not saying they would be viable for Rauner, but they would be independent. - Touré's Latte - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:55 pm: No. Dunkin’s election win or lose has no effect on Cook County Democrats. If he doesn’t go down this time he goes down the next. Madigan seems very focused like that. - m - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 1:58 pm: Some, but not a significant number. - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 2:07 pm: Significant could be defined as 1 since it has shown to eliminate the veto-proof majority. Do I think that 1 or more other members will be more likely to break ranks, if Dunkin survives? Yes, I do. - Bill White - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 2:21 pm: @Anon @2:07 pm This has been discussed before, but I believe Michael Madigan is in a more secure position without a veto-proof majority than with a veto-proof majority. - SAP - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 2:35 pm: No way. Like 47th said, Ken Dunkin is all about Kenn Dunkin. Governor Rauner offered Dunkin a better deal, for Ken Dunkin, than the Democrats were giving Ken Dunkin, for Ken Dunkin. Unlike the McCann deal, Dunkin’s decision to go rogue had nothing to do with the best interests of his district. - Nick Name - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 2:37 pm: NO. For reasons almost everyone else here has said. - Anon - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 4:24 pm: I said no, but only because it depends on what “significant” is. Dunkin and the couple of other Dems that have broken ranks and made Madigan’s veto-proof majority not so veto-proof could change their minds if Dunkin loses. In that case, if he wins, and things stay as they are or one or two more defect, one could argue that by itself is significant. - Rollo Tomasi - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 5:53 pm: Ken Dunkin a gang of one. - NoGifts - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 5:55 pm: Reading Plunkitt of Tammany Hall…”I’ve been studyin’ the political game for forty-five years and I don’t know it all yet. How, then, can you expect what they call “business men” to turn in to politics all at once and make a success of it? …Do you understand now why it is the reformer goes down and out in the first or second round, while a politician answers to the gong every time? It is because the one has gone in without training and the other trains all the time and knows every fine point of the game.” A great book to explain why Rauner is a “morning glory” who will be gone by evening while Mike Madigan will be there as long as he wants. - NoGifts - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 6:13 pm: “The fact is that a reformer can’t last in politics. He can make a show for a while, but he always comes down like a rocket. Politics is as much a regular business as the grocery, or the dry goods, or the drug business. You’ve got to be trained up to it or you’re sure to fail.” William L Riordon - DuPage Dave - Wednesday, Mar 2, 16 @ 8:16 pm: Give Dunkin credit for basic math. Rauner only needed to buy one vote to undo Madigan’s veto-proof majority. And he made sure that one vote was his. Of course, he lacked the courage of his convictions to show up in the House and vote against his fellow Democrats, so he hid out in New York til the dust settled. Hopefully he will be a former state rep soon enough. - Will Caskey - Thursday, Mar 3, 16 @ 6:31 am: God help me I’m agreeing with Will Guzzardi. Of the many possible criticisms of Madigan, being a conventional Democrat isn’t one of them. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.