18 Comments - Snidely Whiplash - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:16 am: This is why the money and machine people keep getting themselves reelected by the same people who do nothing but gripe about incompetent/unresponsive government, corruption, high taxes, etc. Most voter are either naive or just don’t really care. If voters weren’t pliable, campaign commericals wouldn’t be so effective. Most don’t care to read the newspaper, learn the structure and workings of their government and officials, etc. They watch campaign commercials, look at a few mailers and make their decision. In Chicago, the machine is alive and well despite the absolute public knowledge of rampant corruption because this same public will overwhelmingly vote for the machine Dem hoisted upon them because they irrationally refuse to vote for a Republican, even if the Democrat is widely thought to be corrupt or incompentent. Rich hit it right on the head: this poll is if nothing else confirmation of the naivete of the electorate. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:21 am: “The public is either hopeful or they’re suckers. Let’s be charitable and assume they’re hopeful…” The public is hopeful. They know that not all Illinois pols are bad. The state constitutional officers are well thought of except for the Governor. Quinn, Madigan, Gianulious, Hynes should have bright futures. The two US Senators certainly have done well and are highly regarded. Even the GOP has some bright stars like Rep Watson and others. The problem is the big 3. Blagojevich, Stroger and Daley. In that order by the way. The Governor is doing more to hurt the state than gas and flooding combined. Stroger seems to find out what is the right thing to do and do the opposite and Daley is Daley. There is hope, but there is also reality. - PhilCollins - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:24 am: All public financing of campaigns should be eliminated. I’m conservative and hope that no liberals receive tax money that I earned. Many liberals hope that no conservatives received any of the tax money that they paid. Each candidate should be responsible for funding his or her campaign, without help from the government. - George Soros Wannabe - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:30 am: Isn’t that the poll that the Joyce Foundation paid for? I wonder how the public would feel if they knew that all the “good government” groups were paid for by foundations like the George Soros Open Society Institute and Joyce Foundation. That it came from the “Midwest Democracy Network” sounds so much better than the “Joyce Foundation”. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:33 am: Can you read? Look at the bottom of the post. ===The survey was funded by the Joyce Foundation=== Plus, what’s the big deal who paid for it? Evaluate the questions if you want, but this “George Soros will destroy us” attitude is just bizarre. Try to avoid that sort of tinfoil hat-based bashing here, please. Thanks. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:45 am: Judicial campaigns should be publicly financed. The Karmeier-Maag and Stewart-McGlynn races should have taught us that. And I agree that gerrymandering should be outlawed. - reasonable 1 - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:53 am: Put a limit on how much one party can receive, like the Illinois Democratic Party. Maybe even a limit on as to how often from one person, corporation, etc… Tougher limits on contributions, basically. - Thanks for taking my call - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 11:54 am: The way they wrote the questions are what we call 90-10ers. I would not have wasted my money doing the poll. The questions are so one sided, everyone is going to be for good government. Also, they have multiple answers in each question. Never a good idea if you are truly trying to find out what people are thinking. I agree with what they are trying to accomplish, but not the way they ask the questions. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 12:05 pm: Being hopeful, or optimistic, about the future is one of the virtues that drives all progress. Along with optimism, the other is courage, of which Churchill said, “is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all of the others.” If you have neither, what’s the point of getting out of bed? - Bman - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 1:25 pm: Last few comments begin to address why the survey was done. It is easy to do a survey, but difficult to do a good survey. American Association of Public Opinion Research has minimum standards to be met when reporting survey results. Public would be better served if more paid attention to the AAPOR standards. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 1:28 pm: Every time a poll is posted, somebody tries to undermine it somehow. Blah, blah. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 1:36 pm: Also, the complete questions are linked, and most of the AAPOR’s standards are followed. A couple aren’t, but I don’t see anyone else doing that, either. For instance… ===Sample… eligibility criteria, screening procedures=== Ever seen this? - 4% - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 3:04 pm: I don’t question the results. The problem is that electors don’t place a high priority when compares against taxes, education, crime, etc. Transportation and ethics always poll low when compared to other issues. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 4:04 pm: Voters are not stupid. They are not naive. What they are - are consumers. We have been raised to relate to one another as consumers. We even greet strangers just as if we worked behind a counter at McDonalds or WalMart. We have been doing this for at least a century. Why? Because we are a nation of immigrants who had to learn to live with one another. We had neighborhoods where ethnic groups lived, but we left them to create a new world. So what language did we use? Money talks. So we all speak marketing. As a result, we think like consumers. Our relationships to one another is becoming less familiar and more consumer-ish. We date and mate using Match.com, churches and other organizations that present dating and mating like consumers. So what does this say about government? It says that if you expect voters to respond to Illinois state government as citizens, you will be greatly disappointed. We ain’t German! Instead voters are observing state government just as consumers do. This explains how we consistenly understand that government is viewed negatively. Government, especially our current state government - stinks. Voters know this, because they are not stupid. But instead of feeling that as citizens we are empowered or responsible for actually doing something to force a change, we expect someone else to do it - a consumer mentality. Those of us who understand that we need citizens, not consumers to make out government better, should also see a serious problem in that having a consumer mentality also leads voters to believe that they can “opt-out” of state government, just as a consumer could. And that is what Illinois voters are doing - opting out. This explains why no one is willing to vote for the GOP. This explains why voters will vote for more government authorities and regulations and Democrats over less government and Republicans. Why? Because as consumers, voters want more value from state government, so naturally they are interested in forcing state government to do more to create that value. This is why although voters don’t like government, don’t trust government, they are willing to allow government to take over health care, regulate mortgages, fund more education and so one. They want value. This is another reason why Democrats keep winning in Illinois. There is a feeling among voters that sooner or later the Democrats will give them value and good efficient government. They do not have this feeling with the GOP. The GOP stands for personal accountability and personal responsibilities and voters in Illinois believe that a Democrat will help them keep their piece of the pie they have, instead of cutting them loose in a uncertain global economy a-la-GOP. Voters are not stupid. They want their cake and eat it too. They want government programs and nanny statism without it costing them another cent. No - this cannot be done. But as long as the Democrats are offering this fantasy, and voters are consuming this fantasy, the Illinois Democratic Party will remain in power. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 4:12 pm: ===They want government programs and nanny statism without it costing them another cent.=== Sounds like the last seven years in DC. Just sayin. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 5:40 pm: I’m not necessarily disagreeing with their findings, but I do have a big problem with their methodology, and some of the inferences drawn. Here’s question 5, the foundation of their story: Q5. How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in [STATE] to do what is right: almost always, most of the time, only some of the time, or almost never? Nowhere does it say Illinois state government. Given how voters feel about Cook County government and Chicago government, that’s a big problem. And that’s the problem about drawing any inferences about this poll in general. People don’t trust ANY level of government really, and trust in government has been eroding steadily since Watergate. George Bush and Weapons of Mass Distraction didn’t help either. - Gator - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 7:15 pm: One can agree that the polls are accurate, but disagree that it is a bad thing. I would argue that distrust of government is a good thing, and should be encouraged. The last thing we need in this state is voter complacency in the face of rampant, in your face corruption. Governments tend to grow, expand, increase their income and restrict the liberties of its citizens. It grows by advancing various excuses, such as “security” for the federal government, and “the children” for the state government. Government is, in a word, dangerous. Good government is about as realistic a hope as a “good” wild animal of your choice. The only solution I see is consistently voting anti-incumbent. Essentially a voter enforced one consecutive term limit. Return the honorable S*B (public official) to the real world to live under the rules of his making. This is not punishment, merely welcoming the former lawmaker to the real world you and I live in every day. I say bravo to these polls. To the citizens and electorate I say, distrust away, and vote anti-incumbent. - anon - Thursday, Jun 19, 08 @ 8:53 pm: Re: why we might be distrustful of our politicians and their access to money “WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama said on Thursday he would reject public financing of his campaign against Republican John McCain, reversing an earlier stance and positioning himself to outspend McCain in the White House race. Obama said in a video message to supporters he would refuse $84 million in public funds available for the November general election. He is the first U.S. presidential candidate to bypass the system since it was created after the Watergate scandal in the mid-1970s. If Obama had taken public financing, he would have been barred from taking additional donations and limited to spending $84 million in the two months between the Democratic convention and the November 4 election. . . . The move was widely expected given Obama’s record-smashing fundraising in a presidential campaign that will be the most expensive in U.S. history. The Illinois senator, said last year he would take general election public funds if his Republican opponent did the same.” I guess as an Illinois, and especially a Chicago, political candidate, our young freshman senator sees the Blagojevichian wisdom in spending every dime he can lay his hands on. And since that money will apparently all come from private sources, he will be beholden only to his donors and not the public for his success. The implications are scary but not at all surprising. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.