Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “A bit of an insult”
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
I had heard that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner’s longtime personal and business connections to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were “killer” issues among GOP primary voters, so I decided to commission a poll.
The question I settled on is pretty mild in comparison to what could be used in a TV ad, so the response may turn out to be even worse than the Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll shows, if that’s possible.
“Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate for governor if you found out he was a friend and political ally to Chicago Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel?” 1,102 likely Republican primary voters were asked on August 13th.
A truly astounding 83 percent of Republicans said they’d be less likely to support that candidate. Any time you see a “less likely” response above 80 percent, you can pretty much figure that the target is toast. But maybe not in this case.
The Rauner people have long known that this was a real problem for their guy, which is just one reason why they’ve been spending so much money this summer - almost $2 million on TV and radio ads through the first week of August, according to one calculation.
And the ties go deeper than the question reveals. Rauner helped Emanuel get his start in business, advising him to become an investment banker after leaving Bill Clinton’s White House and then retaining his firm. Their relationship made Emanuel a wealthy man, so the advertising possibilities are juicy, to say the least.
The problem is that nobody has yet laid a glove on the man. The other candidates either don’t have the money to go up on TV (Kirk Dillard and Bill Brady), or they’re husbanding their resources for the home stretch (Dan Rutherford).
There’s also a timing question that’s been debated by at least some campaigns. Attack Rauner too soon and he could have time to recover. He has the resources and infrastructure to weather a storm over a long haul. Attack him too late and it might not have enough of an impact, or the other candidates themselves might already be too damaged to do him any harm or may even be out of the race. Opposition research is starting to circulate behind the scenes, and let’s just say that some of it ain’t good at all.
And nobody needs an opposition research firm to figure out where state Sen. Kirk Dillard’s main weakness is in the governor’s race.
Rauner has attempted to make this a “change” election in order to avoid the usual Republican primary habit of picking the guy who appears to be owed the next turn at the wheel. Dillard has been in Illinois politics forever, which will work against him if Rauner succeeds in changing the tone. But the state Senator and former Jim Edgar chief of staff also has another well-known problem that looks to be just as much of a killer issue as Rauner’s Rahm situation.
Dillard often worked with Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate and he cut a now infamous TV ad for his former colleague during the 2008 presidential primary season.
“Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate if he had appeared in a TV commercial for Barack Obama before he was elected president?” the likely Republican primary voters were asked in the poll.
The “less likely” response was an astounding 82 percent.
“Dillard faced thousands of gross rating points driving the Obama TV ad message against him in 2010 and lost by only 193 votes,” pollster Gregg Durham said last week. “Nothing is impossible in Illinois politics.”
That’s true, but the Obama ad tanked Dillard’s 2010 primary campaign, which he barely lost to state Sen. Bill Brady. This year, he has lagged badly in fundraising and in the polls.
Dillard has two things in his favor.
The first is traditional Republican thinking. Dillard narrowly lost the 2010 primary and would’ve likely done better than Bill Brady in the fall campaign against Pat Quinn, so it could be “his turn.”
The second is Jim Edgar, a former governor who is still quite popular among Republicans. Dillard can barely open his mouth without mentioning Edgar and the former governor will likely appear in ads.
Whether any of that is enough to overcome the Obama ad problem is now the biggest question for Dillard.
Bill Brady’s vote for drivers licenses for illegal aliens and Dan Rutherford’s vote for civil unions will also be tested soon.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:25 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** “A bit of an insult”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The republicans better get their act together and stop the disagreements. If not we’ll be stuck with Quinn for another 4 years. A conservative can’t win with Chicago.
Comment by WOW Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:30 am
=”A conservative can’t win with Chicago…”=
And a moderate cannot win downstate in a primary.
Comment by Knome Sane Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:33 am
===and Dan Rutherford’s vote for civil unions will also be tested soon===
I seriously doubt that would be much of an issue. It happened three years ago. Even the most extreme conservatives that I have talked to basically said they are were fine with the rights that gays have already received (including civil unions), they just don’t want gays getting any more rights (including marriage).
Now if Rutherford starts to signal that he might support gay marriage, then that would cause him trouble in the primary.
Comment by Kruse Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:34 am
–And a moderate cannot win downstate in a primary.–
What are you talking about? It happens all the time.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:45 am
Nice read, thanks for the knowledge.
I am a huge believer in the premise for Brady, Dillard, and Rutherford, that they need to use the fulcrum of Bruce Rauner, and his connections very specifically to Rich Daley, Rahm Emanuel, and any and all connections to Rich Daley and Rahm Emanuel as people, “touch” on the Democrat angle in funding, donations, etc., but hit the “button” of Rahm and Rich Daley very specifically, far more.
Use that to define yourselves, without pummeling each other, because the contrast with Rauner to themselves shines the best possible light to GOP primary voters, as opposed to trying to split hairs amongst the three of you.
Payton Prep Clouting, through a Rich Daley appointee, and through Rahm Emanuel’s friend Arne Duncan is HUGE. Rauner’s denied Winnetka living Daughter, denied a child a chance to overcome their position, through a Rich Daley ally, and Rahm Emanuel friend, gaining acess, without apology, calling it “advocating” while donations, thousands and thousands of dollars flowed… to Rich Daley, and Rahm Enanuel, as Payton Prep Clouter Bruce Rauner believes he can run as a Republican, and…. as an “outsider” … and as an instrument of “change”, “shaking up Springfield” … with “business as usual”… with Rahm Emanuel and Rich Daley.
Brady, Dillard, and Rutherford, can’t get a better “defining” instrument to build upon then Payton Prep Clouter Bruce Rauner, and as defining themselves, can still not looks as though they are breaking the “11th Commandment” and attack a fellow GOP candidate.
Get on this tact, you three. It’s a gift. Define yourselves through the prism of Rauner, it’s a path that needs to be traveled in the Primary.
Great read, Rich
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:47 am
===Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for…===
I am by no means a polling expert so this is just my layman’s opinion, but those kind of questions don’t seem to give much information. of course most Republican voters are “less likely” to want a nominee with connections to the Chicago mayor. But how much “less likely”? Just a teeny tiny bit less likely? Or a lot less likely? The poll doesn’t seem to say.
Comment by Kruse Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:48 am
This is starting to look like Brady/Quinn II (with the same end result).
Rutherford looks like he will be the only one who has the muscle to be able to run attack ads against Rauner. And the result may well be that voters will reject both of them.
It is starting to remind me of Al Dixon’s last race. You don’t want to be the person making the attacks. You want to be the person smiling on the sidelines.
I expect Rauner and Rutherford to get dirty with attacks on each other, and Dillard to be attacked (by both of those two? — not quite sure how that will play out) for his Obama support. Meanwhile Brady once again smiles on the sidelines.
Brady still can’t beat Quinn so the end result will be four more years of the same.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:48 am
Saw on the net this weekend that some big contributors are abandoning others and beginning to support Rauner-business issue, apparently. Don’t know whether this is significant or not.
Shocked at your poll results, but at this point, think that Rutherford is best candidate anyway. Dillard missed his chance, Brady too far right, too many questions about Rauner.
Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:49 am
If they dont like Rahmbo, I can’t understand why…he’s way more Republican like than Daley…
I guess you can act like a GOPer only if there is an “R” behind your name…get it together fellas…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:55 am
I suppose his opponents will at least attempt to ask “Who is this anti-immigrant, anti-marriage, anti-union, AND pro-Rahm Emanuel, billionaire?” Right?
Will his advertising hit his opponents for not being Republican enough while he refuses to say where he stands on these issues? How can those combined forces, along with the fact that he isn’t really that well known yet, work as a successful campaign strategy?
Comment by So. ILL Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:58 am
=What are you talking about? It happens all the time.=
I am talking about Brady vs. Dillard, 2010.
Comment by Knome Sane Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 9:59 am
Knome, plenty of GOP moderates have won downstate. Give it a think.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:01 am
That earning $16 million in 18 months never hurt Rahm always surprised me. The fact that he only reported the 1/2 that amount when he ran for Congress and then reported after election that he was due the other 1/2 as deferred income. Shows it surprised him too.
Rauner’s ties to Rahm, Daley and Arne Duncan might make it hard for him to make a case that he is a Republican. He and Heather Steans seem to have a lot in common.
Comment by jeffing in Chicago Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:02 am
link rauner to rahm and other dems, and his response is, hey, i am an education guy. the dems are in charge, so you have to work with (and fund) them in order to get their attention and get anything done. how many charter schools have you built? think about that. it is a damning admission of business as usual. you have to buy access. it is not the strength of your ideas, it is cash, pure and simple, that gets things done. this from the self described “outsider”.
excellent polling, rich. these polls are painful pebbles in the shoes of politicians.
Comment by langhorne Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:07 am
**I am talking about Brady vs. Dillard, 2010.**
That wasn’t Brady vs. Dillard. It was Brady vs Dillard vs McKenna vs Ryan vs Andrzejewski.
Comment by dave Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:10 am
Jeffing: The reason it hasn’t hurt him thus far is that he & Rauner believe in the same Golden Rule: “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” The ONLY reason anyone cites for Rauner having a chance is that he has the most money. It can’t be his experience - he has none. It can’t be his positions - he won’t disclose them. It can’t be his promise to clean up Illinois politics - few people if any have profited more from using Illinois taxpayer’s money. Anyone who think’s getting access to Illinois funds doesn’t involve politics or quid pro quo - try it sometime.
Comment by Voice of Reason Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:11 am
Wordslinger, of course moderates have done well in the past (i.e. Mark Kirk, Jim Edgar). But Illinois is turning into a state where the Republican Party is becoming more polarized. And in my opinion, Illinois is becoming a state where the conservatives are more motivated to likely vote in a primary than the moderates. As such, I would give the edge to the conservative over a moderate.
But, to concede the point, I should not have written “cannot”. I should have said “a moderate will have an increasingly more difficult time in a Republican primary over a conservative.”
Knome Sane regrets the error.
Comment by Knome Sane Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:12 am
Knome, I think you’re giving the far-right in the Illinois GOP too much credit. They always talk a big game, but they rarely can deliver statewide.
Maybe Jack Roeser will take credit for Rauner if he wins.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:16 am
The Dillard / Rauner comparison isn’t completely valid. Dillard worked for a popular Republican Governor. He has been elected as a Republican state senator many times.
Rauner is unknown. The negatives on him will stick much faster and cause GOP primary voters to greatly distrust him. I don’t see him winning no matter how much he spends.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:16 am
I tend to not vote Republican, which is why I didn’t vote for Emanuel for mayor.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:18 am
**He and Heather Steans seem to have a lot in common.**
Really? Other than education and being independently wealthy, name some things that they have in common? They probably disagree with each other on almost every issue outside of education.
Comment by dave Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:34 am
Exactly how Rauner, and with his help Rahm, made their millions, might become significant.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:34 am
Langhorne: The problem with Rauner’s claim of support for DemS. (cap for emphasis on plural)due to mutual concern for education is an unconvenient one of sequence: Rauner donated to the Dems. in power, made hundreds of millions of dollars investing taxpayer’s funds and then spent a few millions of that on charter schools. A cynic might think the investment of a small fraction of his fortune into charter schools was a PR ploy to deflect the spotlight from how he made his fortune in the first place - particularly since his daughter didn’t attend Rauner High - so that he could be another gazillionaire who thought he could buy political office. The amazing thing is that Gidwitz et al would bankroll another gazillionaire. Isn’t that Einstein’s definition of insanity?? It has never worked in Illinois.
Comment by Voice of Reason Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 10:37 am
Dillard’s like a comfortable shoe to a lot of GOP voters. While they don’t always commit to him early, he does get a high percentage of undecideds when the beans get counted. To me, that’s an X factor. His reputation as a reliable and predictable good policy guy (for the GOP)gives him an advantage with 2 kinds of voters…1) the undecideds and 2) the kind that jump ship if their guy looks to be out of position to win. In that poll, Rauner’s numbers look to me to be the shakiest. When folks are frustrated, the outsider gets a bump. By election day, they might still be angry, but the curb appeal of the new guy could easily wear off. Especially Rauner; no personality.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 11:18 am
- A guy… -,
That was part of Dillard’s strategy last time, with NO field operation to get those “X Factor” voters to the polls.
I will take a field operation, that works to get Pluses to the polls, and knows how to work Election Day, versus counting on an “X Factor” and losing by 193 votes with NO plan but hoping you are a “comfortable shoe” to some, instead of hard shoe work to ensure your Pluses … Vote.
I get ya, - A guy… -, but relying on hope, versus working on Pluses, makes you say, “By sundown tomorrow…” And tomorrow never comes, even for 193 votes.
With Respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 11:28 am
The Republicans in IL have terribly mis-managed their party and elections for well over a decade. The Republicans in IL have no real articulated vision, no strategy nor strategic minds at the helm and poor tactics. There a couple of exceptions not many.
Jim Edgar was the last moderate Republican governor that was very popular. George Ryan was very unpopular and went to jail.
Pate Phillips was the last conservative and while honest and straight forward–his 1950s perspective and ways would seem neanderthal today.
I think it is important to have competition in elections and a strong 2 party or even multi party system to keep people honest and have accountability. One party rule, of either party (or any party) is not good especially when the main goal is to keep the party in power with no over arching vision or major public policy considerations.
The GOP has not had good leaders, mediocre elected officials (again, with some exceptions) and very few good operatives. There is no farm team nor minor league for campaign managers, consultants, operatives and the like–but there is huge talent among the Democrats.
I myself, am an Independent, and try to vote for the best person and not just the party. There are flaws in both parties and parties are not entities, just mechanisms–even if powerful mechanisms that at times seem like they have a life of their own.
Comment by DM Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 11:50 am
In Rauner’s TV ad, he either says or implies that he’s an outsider. It reminds me of the Emanuel ad, in which Rahm said/implied he would clean up corruption in Chicago.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 11:50 am
DM: All good points. I guess what disappoints me about Rauner - and to suspect his ego - is that the Republicans have at least 2 candidates this time who can win, Rutherford & Dillard. All the party needs is the resources ($$$) to get their respective messages out. They each have a message that will resonate with certain Republicans and their primary battle would tell us a lot about what the new Republican Party is about. Either will handily beat Quinn - forget about Daley. The next Gov. will confront a Dem. majority in both chambers and will have to be someone who is liked and respected on both sides of the aisle - thus able to lead where Quinn failed, even with super-majorities. I believe the voters of Illinois are sick of attack adds and negativism. They yearn for some adult supervision in Springfield - not more “shaking up”. If Rauner wanted to be part of the process and to have a voice - a huge voice - he could have devoted his resources to assisting the Republican Party have a true and respectful debate. He could have become the de facto leader of a party that lacks one. In doing so, he could have earned his spurs and perhaps put himself in position for a Senate run. We didn’t need another candidate who could beat Quinn. We have 2 already.The saddest cut of all is that Rauner’s attack-style campaign will render more bloodshed to a party he professes to belong to and one which is already short of blood. You will be hard pressed to find anyone on either side of the aisle in Springfield who won’t tell you with conviction that Dillard could have won in 2010. Ruhterford outpolled Quinn by 65,000 votes in 2014. The nesuing 4 years of Squeezy the Python have been a disaster. He couldn’t even deliver for his constituents. Unless Lisa changes her mind - 2014 is “low-hanging fruit” for the Republicans if we can unite. Gidwitz wasn’t wrong to back Dillard in 2010 - he was right to do so and he would be even more right in 2014. What kind of logic is it to desert the right candidate because he lost in a circumstance that won’t be duplicated this year - the split vote in DuPage and instead support another gazillionaire - NONE who have ever won for Gov. in Illinois, Gidwitz included - and he had more experience than Rauner.At best that is terrible handicapping.
Comment by Voice of Reason Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:22 pm
–Exactly how Rauner, and with his help Rahm, made their millions, might become significant.–
The fact that it was a sweet SBC deal while Bill Daley was running the show makes it even more interesting.
Geez, how many “reformers” and “outsiders” can this state handle?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04emanuel.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:30 pm
Should read: Rutherford outpolled Quinn by 65,000 votes in 2010. Mea culpa.
Comment by Voice of Reason Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:32 pm
–Dillard’s like a comfortable shoe to a lot of GOP voters. While they don’t always commit to him early, he does get a high percentage of undecideds when the beans get counted.–
You base that on….. fairy dust? He’s never won statewide, he’s losing his money guys and he’s trailing the field at 10%.
Got ‘em right where he wants ‘em.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 12:34 pm
“That wasn’t Brady vs. Dillard. It was Brady vs Dillard vs McKenna vs Ryan vs Andrzejewski.”
I believe that Schillerstrom pulled a scattering of about 4,500 - 8,000 votes (memory is sketchy) despite withdrawing from the race late in the primary season. These wasted votes could have determined the winner without a recount.
Comment by Esquire Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:05 pm
O Willie, I couldn’t agree with you more. His lackluster to nonexistent field operation absolutely cost him the election last time. My reference was to where he sits in the polls right now. A combination of a strong organizational effort (which he seems to understand he needs) and the fact he’s proven to be a reliable and safe vote for people work to his advantage. I never meant to imply that he could coast- he can’t. He should have learned that lesson, we’ll see.
W Slinger- Look at the dynamics of the last election and look at where Dillard ended up despite having a ton of DuPage guys in the race. The undecideds and people who were with guys without a chance of winning absolutely fell his way or he wouldn’t have been within 193 votes. I think it’s safe to say he deprived McKenna of a chance to win- that ought to be worth something. I don’t see a late entry ala Jim Ryan this time around (but who knows). My reading says Dillard is probably somewhere closer to 17-18%, but the softies are committing. Brady and Rutherford have a bigger hard core. Rauner has paid for what he’s got and we’ll see if they continue to be for sale or if he’s crested. Rauner may not win, but may influence who does. That’s when Gidwitz’s underwear will tighten up a bit. JMO
Comment by A guy... Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:13 pm
Can we please … STOP… with the “Everyone knows… Dillard would have… Dillard was…. ”
Just. Stop.
Dillard lost. That’s it. Geez, this rehashing of 2010 dynamics which are not in-play in 2014, and this DOPEY idea of Dillard losing because of Schillerstrom, and Jim Ryan, and all that Dopiness;
Here’s a News Flash - Have a field organization that ID’s your Pluses and Votes your Pluses is better than “wishing” “hoping”, playing “what if”, and pretending a half-baked campaign by Dillard in 2010 was good!
It wasn’t.
Enough!
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:28 pm
OW, I agree with your premise that he lost and all of the “if only” crap should be canned. Point is, he ran a smug, lazy race. That being said, I don’t agree with the Schillerstrom factor of votes, but I know for a fact Jim Ryan filled a vacuum in that race because Dillard didn’t excite anyone enough. And it surely cost him. The rest of your thesis is correct. I believe everyone learned from Dillard’s lethargic primary and Brady’s bumbling general. There’s more snipery this time around. Maybe the best thing is that nobody appears to be intimidated by a huge money guy in this race. That’s a good thing. The clouter is boring on top of the rest of it. I totally agree there are too many Dillard apologists. Just fix it this time and run like you mean it….with an organization that does pound on doors, acquires pluses and then gets them to the polls, early, election day or absentee. Give no ground anywhere.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:47 pm
Engaging post, Rich. I’m wondering why Rauner, who purports to be the “outsider” agrees to take large contributions by the old guard GOP insiders he says are part of the problem? Certainly, he is allowed to take the money but I think it negates his message. Those folks giving big chunks of money are eventually going to want something from Springfield. You don’t give $300,000 away to potential Governors because you’re just civic-minded. Not sure about Dillard or Brady’s fundraising, but Rutherford raises a lot of money in small amounts from a lot of donors. It seems like Rauner is employing a delayed sniper approach. He appears to have taken out Schock early. Then waited –now seems to be looking at Dillard. I just wonder if targets Rutherford next or tries to get Brady first, saving last batch of money to swing at Rutherford, then presumptively the last of two standing.
Comment by woodchuck Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 1:55 pm
@woodchuck: Interesting analogy and thoughts.
I just don’t think he will gain enough momentum at this rate, to be one of the final two. We’ll see.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Aug 19, 13 @ 4:26 pm
@ Walkinfool — I hope you’re right. My other dilmemna is I’m friends with both Bill and Dan but I truly think Dan can win the whole thing. Maybe a tag team approach against Rauner will relegate him to “also ran” status in the annals of election history in Illinos.
Comment by woodchuck Tuesday, Aug 20, 13 @ 12:43 am