Senator Durbin would bring a legitimacy to that office not seen in a while. He would garner respect from both urban, suburban and rural voters as his past voting record and election victories have shown. He’s also someone with whom a moderate Republican could work with, and perhaps even save the ILGOP and bring them back to legitimacy as well.
I don’t know if it would be good for Durbin personally to run but I believe he’d have a good chance of defeating Rauner and that would be good for me. So I selfishly voted “Yes”.
I am torn but voted yes. Durbin is valuable to his country and Illinois in the Senate, but coming back to Illinois to fix the state would be a career crowning achievement. He is a respected leader.
I’d rather see someone with a little more recent state government experience. We have a huge mess, it’s only going to get worse over the next two years, and we need someone who can hit the ground running.
Durbin plays into Rauner’s “career politician” meme, there’s the “Washington Insider” schtick Rauner will have too. Durbin, to his credit, to to Rauner, his “discredit”, has a long, long, long record. Lots to make ads when money is no worry.
Can Durbin get $60-70 million? Rauner spent that, will probably go $90 million. Why not?
Do I think Durbin will go? His age might be a factor, only to, “I could be retired but for 9 months I’m going to be torn down, and my career torn down, mercilessly.”
It grates on any candidate, the negative, and Rauner will go negative to almost 9-figures.
Durbin, easily, could unite Democrats and Labor and the infastructure of a ground game, given a whole year to ramp up, could be very formidable…
… but it’s necessarily “fire in the belly”… it’s how much is Sen. Durbin willing to take, then times that by 3, that’s what Rauner will throw at him.
Oh, sure. As much as I’ll miss his passionate voice nationally, and assuming the seat stays squarely in the D column, count me in. I don’t blame him for having his fill of playing second fiddle to Reid/Schumer.
No. Durbin has become an out of touch progressive. He has been in Washington so long that he has lost touch with moderate Democrats and Republicans. Look at his performance in Sangamon County against token opposition. No amount of Sunday home press conferences can fix that perspective.
The Dems ran an out of touch Progressive last time and it gave us the current train wreck of an administration. They need someone newer with more moderate values, maybe a strong business background while being friendly to labor.
Voted no. Dick Durbin is extremely valuable to Illinois where he is. I think the State would be better served by another candidate.
Whoever runs will have to make the case for unpopular tax increases and cuts/streamlining of services. If they win, they have a mandate to act. Running as the anti-Rauner creates no mandate. (Running as the anti-Quinn won the office for Rauner, but no mandate.)
I say no. He could probably win, but he has good will and legacy where he is. Unless he has a mind-bendingly good plan to fix Illinois, with Madigan’s support, I’m not sure it is a win for him to run for Governor.
Yes. Polling shows that Durbin stands the best chance with voters and this wouldn’t be the ideal time to either experiment with an untested entity or to resurrect Quinn.
He could go into cruise control and stay in Washington where he knows the players while being nicely positioned in a power spot. On the other side Illinois could be his legacy. After Obama’s speech about voting democratic at federal, state, and local levels, I would think the Dems would throw some heavy weight assistance (money, systems/field operations, and consults) to a Durbin run to beat another rich guy who feels he is the only answer. Durbin has worked the mic for years in many situations so debates should go well. At this stage he has the experience to pace himself and use his support team.
He’d have name recognition, which is valuable. And he at least seems like he’d be interested in actually *doing* the job, which would certainly be an improvement over the incumbent.
But he’d also be 74 come inauguration day 2019, and the accompanying headaches of a campaign against Governor Rauner and his deep-pockets (and those of his friends) wouldn’t be worth it to me at more than 25 years his junior; I can’t imagine they’d be worth it to him at that age.
Durbin would be way in over his head, as a Governor. His been the 2cd in command for the Democrats in the Senate and has accomplished little. He couldn’t even beat out Schumer, when Reid retired. 20 plus years in congress is not a resume to be an effective Governor. Voted, yes.
I really couldn’t decide which way to vote. I would love to see him defeat Rauner, although God only knows what kind of horrid mess he would be stepping into here. On the other hand, given what is happening at the national level, we desperately need him in the Senate too. I’ve known Durbin for 30 years. I can remember when he would work to get federal funds for Illinois projects and then go out and cut the ribbon with Jim Thompson. Imagine that happening today? Wish Illinois had 10 more like him.
I have known of and have known Sen. Durbin for over 30 years. He is an exceptional individual who can do much for my party and my state, but this is not the campaign he needs to be taking on at this time in his life.
We desperately need someone of his character and ability to get our great state back on the right track.
Willy was point on with his comments and I can only, belatedly, concur with his assessment of this scenario.
For decades, Illinois has been a net giver at the federal level, ranking near the bottom how much each state receives back as a return on its federal income-tax investment. Considering Illinois’ dire financial straits, what has Durbin done to reverse this? Has he even asked the question?
Terrible idea for him. He would be a very formidable candidate, but why would you want to be that age, a millionaire with a Belmont condo in Chicago, lucrative consulting/lobbying fees available, a nice family, and 70+ in age. You would get the “opportunity” to wage an expensive, vicious campaign that will only smear your and your wife’s reputation with the hope that you win and can try to govern this financial debacle? Crazy.
I voted no because of the age factor, the spent the last few decades in Washington factor, and the I’m not sure he really, really wants the job factor.
My first thought was no, because I would hate to see his storied Senate career tarnished by either a failed run for Governor or a failed attempt at Governing this unruly state. However, true leaders should not shy away from challenges, no matter how difficult they may be to overcome. Durbin is a leader in every sense. I guess the decision is between gridlock on the national or state level. Neither sounds appealing.
I voted yes, because I think in terms of candidates, he is the only one that has a legitimate chance at beating Rauner. As of now, I can’t say that about any other potential candidate.
Feel conflicted but I voted yes.
I hope that he would beat Rauner and then, slowly get the State stabilized. Currently, there is much ill will and bad attitudes. He would come in with plenty of respect and new attitude.
Durbin is on a glide path to retirement, following a long career in the most exclusive club in the world. Why would he want any part of the chaos which is Illinois State Government?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:36 pm:
Unless he REALLY wants the job and shows it to us, I have my doubts. To those who think he is the only hope, look at what we’ve elected the past 10 years…whoever runs against Rauner will need funding, OK, but Durbin running wouldn’t alleviate that to any appreciable extent. Leadership and charisma can spring from a number of places, very few gave Obama much of a chance against Hillary in the early days of their primary fight.
I voted yes for selfish reasons. I know him and like him and think he’d be a great Governor. I’m not sure the deal is as good for him, given the nasty campaign ahead followed by the difficult and thankless job if he wins.
Here are the main variables as I see them, and the reason this is moot until November: Will Rauner and the ILGA Dems raise sufficient new revenue by 2018? Can the Democrats retake the Senate, giving Durbin the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee? If Hillary wins, can Durbin overcome the expected tough election cycle that will come during her mid-term? Finally, if Trump wins, why on earth would any sane person want to be anywhere near DC?
I voted yes. Maybe, just maybe Dick Durbin has the stones to clean up the mess in Springfield. But history tells me that he won’t run unless its already cleaned up and he has a clean slate with which to work. He might be smart enough to do what needs to be done, but I’m unsure he has the backbone to do it.
- First born of many - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
Yes so when he loses to Rauner he will be vulnerable next time around for Senate..
I voted yes. Perhaps he can tame Madigan. I liked Durbin in DC he seems more honest that most illinois politicians and less corrupt. If folks see Madigan giving Durbin a hard time maybe the bricks will finally fall on MM and the state get some real change. Rauner is trying his hardest but he is probably out of his depth and slowly Madigan is going to back him into another massive tax hike in return for more of the status quo.
I did not vote in the poll because I don’t care one way or the other whether he runs for Gov. or not. I will say that transitioning from a national party leadership profile to a more local one is generally difficult. Governors just require such a very different set of executive skills and contacts. I’d guess that his being in Washington and a Washington fixture lo these many years would make such a transition exceptionally hard for Durbin both personally and in the minds of many voters. These are factors he will be weighing carefully.
Is it bad that I like Durbin too much to want him as Governor? What a terrible reward for his decades of solid leadership. Not that I’ve always agreed with him, mind you, but remember when we could still respect people even when we didn’t agree? Durbin remembers.
I voted “no” because Durbin will be a better advocate for Illinois with decades of seniority on the Hill and relationships in DC than if he comes back to Illinois. I don’t think there’s any reason for him to tamp down speculation any time soon, though.
As a U.S. Senator in Washington, D.C., regardless of ideology, he’s too removed from Illinois. He’s never been an executive, and he’s moved so far left as a party leader, coupled with his decades of serving in government, he’s ripe for the kind of attacks Rauner ran on the first time and will likely run on again - the outsider against the status quo. Finally, personally, at his age he’d be nuts to take on Rauner and his money in what would be a 50/50 shot at winning a really crappy four year job. I don’t see it.
I agonized but voted no. I love Durbin and think he’s an excellent Senator, but the IL Dem party needs some new statewide faces. I reserve the right to change my mind.
I voted yes, but with hesitation. When Durbin last came to Macomb, he didn’t seem aware that the Performing Arts Center at WIU had not not yet been built. I agree with those who say he’s not as familiar as he could be with location-based issues in the state. And he brings so much expertise to the US Senate. But I think he would be both proactive and reasonable as a governor–a problem solver who is not anti-union and so Libertarian-tending as Rauner.
Voted yes, if only to force Rauner to divert money/resources to his own campaign rather than helping out in other races.
- Way South of I-80 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:15 pm:
For those who wish to “protect” Senator Durbin from such a horrible job - I think he can make those decisions for himself. He’s been around the block enough to know it won’t be an easy job. Voted YES - he can win and if anybody can rescue our state - he can.
What are Senator Durbin’s accomplishments? For a big government liberal who as been in leadership, he is no Senator Byrd in terms of bringing home the bacon to Illinois.
I voted No. I’ve always been kinda conflicted about the Senator. On one hand, I find less agreement with him politically, but on the other, I respect him as a genuinely decent guy who you see in church and doing his own grocery shopping. (It’s somehow nice to know that even US Senators can get the cart with the squeaky wheel.)
I think we would all be better served by keeping him in the Senate.
Lucky Pierre, Senator’s Durbin’s accomplishments are a list much longer than anything you have or will put together. You don’t have to deal with smoking on domestic airline flights with your family because of Dick Durbin. The stimulus package which helped stave off the loss of millions of jobs during the recession got through because he was the one that whipped the votes that were needed in the Senate. If you actually bothered to do research before commenting, you’d know Durbin chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense spending when Dems are in power. You’re a lunatic if you think he doesn’t exert leverage in that position for the benefit of Illinois businesses, particularly scientific labs and the aerospace industry. Give me a break.
One of his biggest failings was not advocating for Simpson Bowles of which he was a member. The committee agreed on a bipartisan proposal, submitted it to the President and it was promptly ignored. We are now 20 Trillion in debt and some heat from the Democratoc side would have been nice.
- anon - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:38 pm:
I’d rather have a quinn rematch
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:39 pm:
Senator Durbin would bring a legitimacy to that office not seen in a while. He would garner respect from both urban, suburban and rural voters as his past voting record and election victories have shown. He’s also someone with whom a moderate Republican could work with, and perhaps even save the ILGOP and bring them back to legitimacy as well.
- Cubs in '16 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:40 pm:
I don’t know if it would be good for Durbin personally to run but I believe he’d have a good chance of defeating Rauner and that would be good for me. So I selfishly voted “Yes”.
- CharlieKratos - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:42 pm:
Yes. No Rauner for us, double pension for him.
- illinoised - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:44 pm:
I am torn but voted yes. Durbin is valuable to his country and Illinois in the Senate, but coming back to Illinois to fix the state would be a career crowning achievement. He is a respected leader.
- CCP Hostage - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:45 pm:
I’d rather see someone with a little more recent state government experience. We have a huge mess, it’s only going to get worse over the next two years, and we need someone who can hit the ground running.
- IllinoisBoi - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:45 pm:
Yes. Limit Rauner to one term, since he likes the concept so much.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:46 pm:
Voted “No”
“Why?”
Durbin plays into Rauner’s “career politician” meme, there’s the “Washington Insider” schtick Rauner will have too. Durbin, to his credit, to to Rauner, his “discredit”, has a long, long, long record. Lots to make ads when money is no worry.
Can Durbin get $60-70 million? Rauner spent that, will probably go $90 million. Why not?
Do I think Durbin will go? His age might be a factor, only to, “I could be retired but for 9 months I’m going to be torn down, and my career torn down, mercilessly.”
It grates on any candidate, the negative, and Rauner will go negative to almost 9-figures.
Durbin, easily, could unite Democrats and Labor and the infastructure of a ground game, given a whole year to ramp up, could be very formidable…
… but it’s necessarily “fire in the belly”… it’s how much is Sen. Durbin willing to take, then times that by 3, that’s what Rauner will throw at him.
I’ll be “more surprised” if Durbin runs…
Voted “No”
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:48 pm:
Yes!
His modesty and selflessness, not to mention competence and integrity, are sorely needed to lead our state.
- BK Bro - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:48 pm:
The choice will be this in 2018.
A. Continue trying (and likely failing) to put in structural reforms to IL govt. amidst chaos.
B. Stop trying to reform things, raise taxes, probably still have a deficit, and kick the can down the road.
Partisans politcos will be offended by both statements, but know that it’s kind of true.
- wolf - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:48 pm:
Oh, sure. As much as I’ll miss his passionate voice nationally, and assuming the seat stays squarely in the D column, count me in. I don’t blame him for having his fill of playing second fiddle to Reid/Schumer.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:48 pm:
On this question I’d love to see the crosstabs by party ID.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:52 pm:
I think we need him in the Senate. So that’s a no.
- Earnest - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:53 pm:
I voted “yes.” We need a credible alternative to Rauner. Pat Quinn and Chris Kennedy are not credible alternatives.
- Blue Dog - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:54 pm:
No. Durbin has become an out of touch progressive. He has been in Washington so long that he has lost touch with moderate Democrats and Republicans. Look at his performance in Sangamon County against token opposition. No amount of Sunday home press conferences can fix that perspective.
The Dems ran an out of touch Progressive last time and it gave us the current train wreck of an administration. They need someone newer with more moderate values, maybe a strong business background while being friendly to labor.
- 4 percent - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:54 pm:
Yes - 40 years of ammunition to use… would be fun to see
- Wensicia - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:56 pm:
Yes, he has more integrity and popularity than previous governors (including our current leader) and he can win despite Rauner’s millions.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:56 pm:
Voted no. Dick Durbin is extremely valuable to Illinois where he is. I think the State would be better served by another candidate.
Whoever runs will have to make the case for unpopular tax increases and cuts/streamlining of services. If they win, they have a mandate to act. Running as the anti-Rauner creates no mandate. (Running as the anti-Quinn won the office for Rauner, but no mandate.)
- Dissuade - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:57 pm:
I think Durbin is strongest as Senator.
- fisher - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:57 pm:
I say no. He could probably win, but he has good will and legacy where he is. Unless he has a mind-bendingly good plan to fix Illinois, with Madigan’s support, I’m not sure it is a win for him to run for Governor.
- chi - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:58 pm:
“Durbin plays into Rauner’s “career politician” meme…”
POTUS did a great job turning this argument on its head last night, saying Hillary’s been “in the arena”, fighting for years.
Rauner already had his “outsider” election, he’s a politician now whether he wants to be.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:58 pm:
I’d love it and voted yes…but I wouldn’t wish that on any sane human being.
- Dome Gnome - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 1:58 pm:
Yes. Polling shows that Durbin stands the best chance with voters and this wouldn’t be the ideal time to either experiment with an untested entity or to resurrect Quinn.
- zatoichi - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:00 pm:
He could go into cruise control and stay in Washington where he knows the players while being nicely positioned in a power spot. On the other side Illinois could be his legacy. After Obama’s speech about voting democratic at federal, state, and local levels, I would think the Dems would throw some heavy weight assistance (money, systems/field operations, and consults) to a Durbin run to beat another rich guy who feels he is the only answer. Durbin has worked the mic for years in many situations so debates should go well. At this stage he has the experience to pace himself and use his support team.
- thunderspirit - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:01 pm:
Probably not.
He’d have name recognition, which is valuable. And he at least seems like he’d be interested in actually *doing* the job, which would certainly be an improvement over the incumbent.
But he’d also be 74 come inauguration day 2019, and the accompanying headaches of a campaign against Governor Rauner and his deep-pockets (and those of his friends) wouldn’t be worth it to me at more than 25 years his junior; I can’t imagine they’d be worth it to him at that age.
- burbanite - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:05 pm:
I think we need him where he is.
- burbanite - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:05 pm:
Maybe Jesse White? :0)
- Apocalypse - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:06 pm:
Durbin would be way in over his head, as a Governor. His been the 2cd in command for the Democrats in the Senate and has accomplished little. He couldn’t even beat out Schumer, when Reid retired. 20 plus years in congress is not a resume to be an effective Governor. Voted, yes.
- kimocat - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:07 pm:
I really couldn’t decide which way to vote. I would love to see him defeat Rauner, although God only knows what kind of horrid mess he would be stepping into here. On the other hand, given what is happening at the national level, we desperately need him in the Senate too. I’ve known Durbin for 30 years. I can remember when he would work to get federal funds for Illinois projects and then go out and cut the ribbon with Jim Thompson. Imagine that happening today? Wish Illinois had 10 more like him.
- Huh? - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:08 pm:
Yes. Perfect bridge to Lisa.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:08 pm:
I’d push an old lady in the street to get him to run. Please please please Loving God let him run.
- illini - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:11 pm:
Second attempt -
Reluctantly, voted NO.
I have known of and have known Sen. Durbin for over 30 years. He is an exceptional individual who can do much for my party and my state, but this is not the campaign he needs to be taking on at this time in his life.
We desperately need someone of his character and ability to get our great state back on the right track.
Willy was point on with his comments and I can only, belatedly, concur with his assessment of this scenario.
- City Zen - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:15 pm:
No.
For decades, Illinois has been a net giver at the federal level, ranking near the bottom how much each state receives back as a return on its federal income-tax investment. Considering Illinois’ dire financial straits, what has Durbin done to reverse this? Has he even asked the question?
- Indochine - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
Terrible idea for him. He would be a very formidable candidate, but why would you want to be that age, a millionaire with a Belmont condo in Chicago, lucrative consulting/lobbying fees available, a nice family, and 70+ in age. You would get the “opportunity” to wage an expensive, vicious campaign that will only smear your and your wife’s reputation with the hope that you win and can try to govern this financial debacle? Crazy.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:21 pm:
I voted no because of the age factor, the spent the last few decades in Washington factor, and the I’m not sure he really, really wants the job factor.
- Checkers - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:24 pm:
My first thought was no, because I would hate to see his storied Senate career tarnished by either a failed run for Governor or a failed attempt at Governing this unruly state. However, true leaders should not shy away from challenges, no matter how difficult they may be to overcome. Durbin is a leader in every sense. I guess the decision is between gridlock on the national or state level. Neither sounds appealing.
- maddog - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:24 pm:
Rauner MUST be stopped. It will take our best to defeat this man and his money. Rauner may have the bucks but we have the votes.
Durbin is a fine man, honest, well known, and a winner!
- illini - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:25 pm:
Honeybear - “I’d push an old lady in the street to get him to run.” I’m glad I know that you did not mean that literally !!!!!
- Xavier Woods - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:27 pm:
I voted yes, because I think in terms of candidates, he is the only one that has a legitimate chance at beating Rauner. As of now, I can’t say that about any other potential candidate.
- Belle - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:28 pm:
Feel conflicted but I voted yes.
I hope that he would beat Rauner and then, slowly get the State stabilized. Currently, there is much ill will and bad attitudes. He would come in with plenty of respect and new attitude.
- Flippy - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:30 pm:
YES.
If by some miracle the Dems take control of the Senate in November with enough of a margin that losing Durbin wouldn’t hurt too much, then he’s in.
- chi - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:31 pm:
=Durbin would be way in over his head, as a Governor. His been the 2cd in command for the Democrats in the Senate and has accomplished little.=
Goodness gracious.
- One of the 35 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:32 pm:
Durbin is on a glide path to retirement, following a long career in the most exclusive club in the world. Why would he want any part of the chaos which is Illinois State Government?
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:36 pm:
Unless he REALLY wants the job and shows it to us, I have my doubts. To those who think he is the only hope, look at what we’ve elected the past 10 years…whoever runs against Rauner will need funding, OK, but Durbin running wouldn’t alleviate that to any appreciable extent. Leadership and charisma can spring from a number of places, very few gave Obama much of a chance against Hillary in the early days of their primary fight.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
I voted yes for selfish reasons. I know him and like him and think he’d be a great Governor. I’m not sure the deal is as good for him, given the nasty campaign ahead followed by the difficult and thankless job if he wins.
Here are the main variables as I see them, and the reason this is moot until November: Will Rauner and the ILGA Dems raise sufficient new revenue by 2018? Can the Democrats retake the Senate, giving Durbin the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee? If Hillary wins, can Durbin overcome the expected tough election cycle that will come during her mid-term? Finally, if Trump wins, why on earth would any sane person want to be anywhere near DC?
Ask me again in mid-November.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:37 pm:
“Should US Sen. Richard Durbin run for governor in 2018?”
Sure.
Somebody is better than nobody.
– MrJM
- nadia - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
Given the demographics of the voters and with him being the best candidate who is known to be considering a run at this time, I voted yes.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:42 pm:
I voted yes. Maybe, just maybe Dick Durbin has the stones to clean up the mess in Springfield. But history tells me that he won’t run unless its already cleaned up and he has a clean slate with which to work. He might be smart enough to do what needs to be done, but I’m unsure he has the backbone to do it.
- First born of many - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
Yes so when he loses to Rauner he will be vulnerable next time around for Senate..
- atsuishin - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
I voted yes. Perhaps he can tame Madigan. I liked Durbin in DC he seems more honest that most illinois politicians and less corrupt. If folks see Madigan giving Durbin a hard time maybe the bricks will finally fall on MM and the state get some real change. Rauner is trying his hardest but he is probably out of his depth and slowly Madigan is going to back him into another massive tax hike in return for more of the status quo.
- illlinifan - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
Yes. I think he would be able to pull this state together and get something done.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
No. Need 8 strong years and new generation. Dan Biss?
- Responsa - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
I did not vote in the poll because I don’t care one way or the other whether he runs for Gov. or not. I will say that transitioning from a national party leadership profile to a more local one is generally difficult. Governors just require such a very different set of executive skills and contacts. I’d guess that his being in Washington and a Washington fixture lo these many years would make such a transition exceptionally hard for Durbin both personally and in the minds of many voters. These are factors he will be weighing carefully.
- Just Chilling - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:54 pm:
No. When it’s time for change — and it is — it’s time for *change*. Durbin isn’t it.
- Harvest76 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 2:59 pm:
Yes, because he will win. Handily.
- Oneman - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
Sure, it would be entertaining….
- anon123 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:21 pm:
Is it bad that I like Durbin too much to want him as Governor? What a terrible reward for his decades of solid leadership. Not that I’ve always agreed with him, mind you, but remember when we could still respect people even when we didn’t agree? Durbin remembers.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:22 pm:
No, a career politician. Illinois needs a new face!
- Realist - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:26 pm:
No. He has an easier, less stressful and more secure job now.
- Lunchbox - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:28 pm:
I voted “no” because Durbin will be a better advocate for Illinois with decades of seniority on the Hill and relationships in DC than if he comes back to Illinois. I don’t think there’s any reason for him to tamp down speculation any time soon, though.
- LessAnon? - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:40 pm:
As a U.S. Senator in Washington, D.C., regardless of ideology, he’s too removed from Illinois. He’s never been an executive, and he’s moved so far left as a party leader, coupled with his decades of serving in government, he’s ripe for the kind of attacks Rauner ran on the first time and will likely run on again - the outsider against the status quo. Finally, personally, at his age he’d be nuts to take on Rauner and his money in what would be a 50/50 shot at winning a really crappy four year job. I don’t see it.
- ChicagoVinny - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 3:44 pm:
I agonized but voted no. I love Durbin and think he’s an excellent Senator, but the IL Dem party needs some new statewide faces. I reserve the right to change my mind.
- Yooper in Diaspora - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:03 pm:
I voted yes, but with hesitation. When Durbin last came to Macomb, he didn’t seem aware that the Performing Arts Center at WIU had not not yet been built. I agree with those who say he’s not as familiar as he could be with location-based issues in the state. And he brings so much expertise to the US Senate. But I think he would be both proactive and reasonable as a governor–a problem solver who is not anti-union and so Libertarian-tending as Rauner.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:04 pm:
==Illinois needs a new face!==
We got a new face and we all see how that’s worked out.
I voted yes if only because he would at least be able to figure out the job of governing.
- JT11505 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:12 pm:
Voted yes, if only to force Rauner to divert money/resources to his own campaign rather than helping out in other races.
- Way South of I-80 - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:15 pm:
For those who wish to “protect” Senator Durbin from such a horrible job - I think he can make those decisions for himself. He’s been around the block enough to know it won’t be an easy job. Voted YES - he can win and if anybody can rescue our state - he can.
- Southside Markie - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:23 pm:
No. He’ll be too old by ‘18.
- Harry - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:26 pm:
Give up all that US Senate seniority and influence? I don’t think so.
Hard to see why he would want it, at his age, but that’s his business, not mine.
- Rabid - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:28 pm:
Nope anybody could beat this fake
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:43 pm:
What are Senator Durbin’s accomplishments? For a big government liberal who as been in leadership, he is no Senator Byrd in terms of bringing home the bacon to Illinois.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 4:51 pm:
I voted No. I’ve always been kinda conflicted about the Senator. On one hand, I find less agreement with him politically, but on the other, I respect him as a genuinely decent guy who you see in church and doing his own grocery shopping. (It’s somehow nice to know that even US Senators can get the cart with the squeaky wheel.)
I think we would all be better served by keeping him in the Senate.
- Stark - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 5:03 pm:
Lucky Pierre, Senator’s Durbin’s accomplishments are a list much longer than anything you have or will put together. You don’t have to deal with smoking on domestic airline flights with your family because of Dick Durbin. The stimulus package which helped stave off the loss of millions of jobs during the recession got through because he was the one that whipped the votes that were needed in the Senate. If you actually bothered to do research before commenting, you’d know Durbin chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense spending when Dems are in power. You’re a lunatic if you think he doesn’t exert leverage in that position for the benefit of Illinois businesses, particularly scientific labs and the aerospace industry. Give me a break.
- I voted no - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 5:19 pm:
Durban is needed in the senate. Also why open a can of Rauner’s worms..
- Mama - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 5:39 pm:
I voted No. Why? The Dems need some new blood in the ring. The voters do not want anyone with experience anymore.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 6:01 pm:
One of his biggest failings was not advocating for Simpson Bowles of which he was a member. The committee agreed on a bipartisan proposal, submitted it to the President and it was promptly ignored. We are now 20 Trillion in debt and some heat from the Democratoc side would have been nice.
- peon - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 6:18 pm:
Voted Yes. Highly skilled, excellent reputation, well-known in state.
- Mcleaniac - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 7:53 pm:
I would vote for Durbin. I got fooled into believing in Rauner. Durbin can get things done and his constituent service is outstanding.
- justacitizen - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 8:04 pm:
Voted no. Durbin has had a good political career. His stellar career could be ruined by trying to govern our sorry State.
- Enviro - Thursday, Jul 28, 16 @ 8:32 pm:
Durbin should stay in the US Senate. His experience in national government is too valuable to leave.