44 Comments - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 6:34 pm: This entire election season I’ve been saying watch for Bill Brady to make a move. He hasn’t had the $$$ so it hasn’t really happened yet, but those PPP #’s are awfully interesting. - midwest democracy fan - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 6:38 pm: Instant Runoff Voting is calling! - Quinn T. Sential - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 6:48 pm: PPP-Republican Survey Results The Republican candidates for Senate are John Arrington, Patrick Hughes, Mark Kirk, Don Lowery, Andy Martin, and Kathleen Thomas. If the election was today, who would you vote for? If John Arrington, press 1. If Patrick Hughes, press 2. If Mark Kirk, press 3. If Don Lowery, press 4. If Andy Martin, press 5. If Kathleen Thomas, press 6. If you’re undecided, press 7. Arrington ……………………………..2% Hughes ………………………………..9% Kirk ……………………………….. 42% Lowery ………………………………. 4% Martin……………………………….. 3% Thomas……………………………….. 2% Undecided……………………………. 39% PPP surveyed 573 likely Republican primary voters from January 22nd to 25th. The margin of error for the Republicans it’s +/-4.1%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify. 573 “likely Republican Voters” and 39% are “undecided” a week before the election? “TILT” -”TILT”-”TILT” - Boone Logan Square - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 7:05 pm: +/- 5? That’s a large MoE. - A matter of trust - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 7:05 pm: We have experienced more polls in the final week of this race than I can ever remember. Thanks for moving the Primary up President Obama. I think what we have learned today is that it is really a race between McKenna, Dillard and Ryan. The only steady number is the undecided. It has been holding at 17% across all the polls. I believe that these are voters that are not very political, but do their civic duty. They don’t get caught up on the ads nor base their decisions on them. They will enter the booth to do their civic duty and realize that they don’t know or have not heard of most of the GOP candidates. They will however recognize the name of Jim Ryan for obvious name ID reasons and cast their vote for Jim Ryan cause they at least have heard the name. - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 7:18 pm: The following looks weird… “….voters from January 22nd to 25th…….” why would it take three days to do a robopoll with less than 600 calls? Who else wants to smack OneLinerDan and AdamAnt for taking the race away from a possible November winner? In a tight race with shifting numbers I am guessing this research is worthlesss - scoot - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:10 pm: What I take from the recent polls is the large number of “undecided.” The undecided should break for Ryan, because McKenna will be absent from the final 3 debates due to his ethics mishapes and Ryan has the name ID. This week voters will see Dillard with Obama and that will sink his chances. - just sayin' - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:17 pm: If anyone watched tonight’s debate, Dillard falls. He got his clocked cleaned and seemed more weaselly than usual. Brady incredibly immature, I think he’s done. I thought it was down to McKenna and Dillard, but I think now it’s between McKenna and Ryan. Ryan wins by default on maturity and statesmanship - imagewise at least. - Reformer - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:19 pm: Today Dillard reported $50,000 from Ron Gidwitz and $20,000 from Tim Rand. - Gregor - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:25 pm: I can’t decide where my primary vote matters more: to help pick anybody but McKenna on the R side, or to pick between the two shmucks on the D side. I think Dillard and Ryan are the best two candidates the R’s have. That said, they’re all liars if they think we can get away without a tax increase. - True Observer - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:36 pm: Ryan - Been there, done that. Dillard - Enough with the pinstripe patronage. Brady - Not enough home schoolers. Proft - Good but still Cicero. Mckenna - Known horse. The safe bet wins. Andrzejewski - Can’t just come on the scene and steal the show. - Mary MC - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:51 pm: I’m calling BS on the Rasmussen poll. - Jim - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 8:56 pm: Does McKenna’s no-show tonight cause any hit in the polls? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 9:00 pm: The field is incredibly splintered. Twenty percent could win it. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 9:04 pm: Mary MC, only morons call BS without explaining. Don’t be a moron. Jim, his ads will probably mean more than any missed debate. - OneMan - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 9:15 pm: So who has the $$$ to do a ‘Andy if you are afraid of Dan Proft how can you expect to stand up to Mike Madigan’ ad… - shore - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 9:22 pm: you have to look at the audience. Who watches public television? North Shore liberals. No one downstate saw this or will see this unless they take the time to go online and sit through an hour of stuff. I also dont think hard core republicans even know what channel pbs is. - Downstate GOP Faithless - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 9:22 pm: I will never get why people randomly call BS on polls. The technology is solid and all the polls are not terribly far apart…the Rasmussen poll is pretty accurate - m - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 10:09 pm: I’m not statistician, but assuming there is some truth in these somewhat similar polls, one could average them out and find Dillard at 16% McKenna at 18.5% and Brady at 13.5% The race is tied at least 4 ways. - Bookworm - Tuesday, Jan 26, 10 @ 11:46 pm: “Who should I vote for to keep this clown McKenna off the ticket?” I’d say either Dillard or Ryan has the best chance of knocking him off. “Are the voters of my party really that ignorant” It isn’t the people who have been paying attention to GOP politics in the last few years that are the problem…. it’s the large number of independent or GOP-leaning voters who know nothing about McKenna, other than that he makes snappy campaign commercials and he promises not to raise their taxes. - Public cant't be bought - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 7:12 am: Jim Ryan has the respect of the independant voters. In the last Rasmussen poll Ryan was leading the independant vote against Quinn by 2-1 and leading against women by 9 points. - No Poll Disser - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 7:54 am: –Downstate– People who diss on polls typically are people who a) don’t want to pay for them b) don’t want to pay for them if they don’t tell them what they want to hear c) a and c - No Poll Disser - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 7:56 am: c) should read c) both a) and b) - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:01 am: I’m totally shocked by this poll. Do you mean to tell me that another rich white guy that has been fed by the proverbial silver spoon is the leading Republican candidate? I can’t believe it! - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:16 am: === I also dont think hard core republicans even know what channel pbs is. === Of course we do, shore. We all watched the show about that guy who use to round around town ranting crazy nonsense. It’s a requirement for being a hard-core Republican who is not from the “North Shore”, didn’t you know? - Donovan - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:23 am: It won’t happen but it sure would be interesting if Adam (who is idealogically the twin of Proft) were to drop out and throw his endorsement to Proft. That would certainly shake up the Illinois GOP political landscape like nothing else. The majority of Adam’s supporters would likely gravitate to the Proft camp and all of a sudden the whole thing is a cliff-hanger. Egos are involved so the chances are “slim to none” of that ever happening. Darn! - Moving to Oklahoma - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:35 am: The most interesting thing about this poll is that conservatives win again. Bill, Dan and Adam pull down 30%. The conservative perspective is the dominate one, not the weak kneed wannabe republican message that McKenna, Dillard and others are pushing. Those three need to draw straws and put all their support behind one candidate. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:43 am: What impact do you think Early Voting would have on that? - Jechislo - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:56 am: I’ve been watching Bill Brady’s campaign very closely. He’s got a lot of downstate support and seems to be coming on strong. Don’t know if it will be enough but I’d say he’s got a real shot at winning. He’s very conservative and conservative is selling right now. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:56 am: I think that this GOP Primary really is anyone’s for the taking. I am very surprised that none of these candidates have put together a decent social media campaign. They should take a page from Rep. Fritchey’s book. He (note: HE, not some staffer) does an excellent job at maintaining his social media outlets, and does so on a very personal level. He relates with his constituents at minimal cost and minimal effort. There are a lot of young independent voters in Illinois who could easily be swept away through an effective social media campaign. I call a missed opportunity for all of the GOP candidates on this one. - train111 - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 8:57 am: The Dem numbers are now out from Rasmussen Hynes 43% Quinn 37% Some other candidate 4% Undecided 16% Oof!! train111 - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:09 am: Anon 8:56, I think Proft did OK in that area. And, outside the context of the Gov’s race, so does Dan Rutherford, who has both a “political” and “personal” page on facebook, for example, to which he often posts. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:15 am: This is hilarious! The GOP has the shot of a decade to win the governor’s office - and they can lose it all if the guy who couldn’t win an election as their party chairman, wins the nomination spending his father’s money! - PalosParkBob - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:17 am: Once again the GOP conservatives appears to be shooting themselves in the foot. If Proft, Adam, and Brady worked together and pooled support to one candidate, a conservative candidate could have won. Instead, we’ll either have failed “RINO Ryan” who seems to have few answers to the state’s current problems, McKenna who even refuses to empower the GOP rank and file to elect their own central committeemen like the Dems, or Dillard who lost any GOP bonafides for pension and spending reform from his IEA contributions and endorsement. In any event, it appears that the GOP candidate will only be the preferred choice of only one out every four GOP primary voters. McKenna could probably raise the most money and develop a “no tax” message that would resonate among the GOP and independents. Ryan has so much baggage with Stuart Levine and the Nicarico case that the Dems could probably sink him in the general. Dillard, the ultimate con man who weaseled money out of both the IEA and Jack Roeser, has shown no core values and will have a difficult time getting the trust of the center and right. I’ve heard him speak a number of times, and I’ve never seen a politician take more time and use more words to say nothing and make no commitment. If the Dems had even one “competent” candidate for Guv, they could probably win this one going away. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:21 am: That should inspire at least a song or two, V-Man. - Peggy SO-IL - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:31 am: Rasmussen has a very good record with election polling. I am glad to see them poll more than just Ryan, the only candidate whom they were polling in December. I am glad to see Adam A-ski and Brady with traction. I think they attract the same voters and do split the conservative vote. The field is too crowded. Saw Brady ads for first time yesterday. I don’t “get” Proft. His radio ads are provocative, but he’s just a commentator, I understand. We don’t know him here in “downstate” (how I hate that word–never heard it till I moved north to SPFLD) or STL Metro. As one commenter noted, we in SO-IL did not see the debates and have had very few reports of any of the debates in any of the statewide elections. The BND’s coverage has been dismal. Thank God for the Net. I have to go to the Trib’s rather good “Elections” section to be informed. ** Some one mentioned the US Senate race and the continued high number of undecideds in the GOP poll. I think Patrick H can pull this out. I think these people want to vote against Kirk but are confused. [I think by the large # of candidates for governor.] Outside of Chicago, we are hearing very little–few reports and brief reports. - Anon - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:33 am: @ Anonymous 9:09 am, “I think Proft did OK in that area.” ==== I agree with that statement, he did “OK”. Dillard did “OK”. Occasionally I will read updates from each of them, but all these seem to be are regurgitation of news articles - In Dillard’s case, those articles endorsing him; in Proft’s case, those articles displaying the dismal situation of our State. There is nothing personal about either candidate’s effort. People like to vote for people who they connect with, I believe much more so than any single ideology or accomplishment. I think that a B+/A- social media campaign effort would leave this race no where near close, no matter which candidate would have undertaken that effort. Posting campaign pictures, personal impressions of campaign events, stories, and occasionally non-campaign stuff would have meant the difference. Hopefully whoever wins on Tuesday will jump on this opportunity. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:36 am: If Proft, Adam, and Brady worked together and pooled support to one candidate, a conservative candidate could have won. Dillard, the ultimate con man … has shown no core values and will have a difficult time getting the trust of the center and right. I don’t disagree with you, but would like to point out something to you. You condemn Senator Dillard for doing what you wish Brady, Proft, and Adam would do - compromise and work together toward a common political goal. If the three conservative candidates did what you suggested above, they would discover that many of their supporters would question their “core values”, just as you had questioned the Senator’s. This is the challenge facing ideological candidates, whether they are liberal or conservative. These folks feel that when they compromise and agree, they become sell outs. These candidate’s supporters are similar to rock groupies who fall in love with a band, then become angry when they sign a major label. You are disappointed with the Senator for presenting himself as willing to compromise outside your comfort zone. You are claiming he sold out his core values because he reached out beyond his original little circle. Your comments are totally natural, but if you wish to elect a candidate that will steer Illinois in a direction you wish to see it take - then you need to break away from your little circle and reach out too. This is why there are three or more conservative candidates - they think like you do. But this is also why ideological candidates lose - their little clique can’t win over those outside that little clique, which is the rest of the world. We have a president and a Congress right now filled with ideologues. They are jamming bills, doing backroom deals, and attacking the majority of American citizens beyond their little ideological circle. And this isn’t democratic. Ideologues don’t make good leaders. Read your Reagan books again to discover how a conservative reaches out to win over a majority and you will discover the kind of “selling out” every mature candidate is required to do to win elections. Mr. Dillard can win if you want the GOP to win the governor’s race. The other fellows you mention cannot. - budget boy - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 9:58 am: Vanilla, There is a big difference betwewen working with someone across the aisle and cutting a commercial endorsing a liberal presidential candidate. Dillard crossed the line and is rightly being held accountable. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 10:07 am: If people are worried that Jim Ryan cannot raise money in the general, keep two points in mind. One, business interests are smelling blood and want a pro-business governor in the governor’s mansion. Two, Jim Ryan raised a large amount of money in 2002 when his loss was almost a foregone conclusion. What will happen in a toss-up year? And does the GOP candidate really matter if big money players will be in the GOP’s corner? I bring up this point because GOP voters can’t just assume a Jim Ryan win will lead to an uninspired general election campaign. Heck, even Andy McKenna will run a spirited race if enough business types are 100% behind him. And Rich, I kept that lead-in clean. - PalosParkBob - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 10:18 am: VM- There’s a big difference between conservatives who want the same things for the state, and have the same core values and policy solutions, working together for the common political good and someone like Dillard or Ryan going AGAINST the middle and their party base to get campaign cash. From looking at their campaign sites regarding “issues”, Dillard is the pretty vague about what he’d do to solve the budget mess other than “work together” with Madigan to increase taxes and further kill the Illinois economy, and form “blue ribbon commissions” whose suggestions can be ignored. If he doesn’t have a plan for what he wants to do by now, he has no business being in this race. Anyne who’s studied the financial picture in Illinois knows what needs to be done to be fiscally responsible and promote long term state income growth. We need to get our Workmans Comp costs down to comparable business costs in Indiana. No way Madigan will let that happen if he has the clout to stop it. We need to tighten the Medicaid eligibility to serve those truly in need, those beneath the poverty level. We currently have extended eligibility to up to 400% of the poverty level in Illinois, an unnecessary and unaffordable burden to the state budget. I’m not aware of a single candidate who’s willing to make that necessary eligibility change, even while the state is broke. We need to reduce public pensions to minimize the states’ obligations, and establish the amount of the budget that is politcally acceptable to fund every year. Since pensions can’t constitutionally be “diminished”, this means ending early retirements when current legislation expires, charging more for retiree health care, and increasing the future retirees share of the costs. Employees should be given the option of reducing benefits to reduce contributions. We also need to minimize those “end of career” sweeteners like 4 years of 6% raises currently allowed. Ironically, this is what Hynes proposes as solutions on his Web Site. No way he would get the IEA cash and endorsement if he was serious about that. I expect that some tax increases will eventually be passed. If they are, I think the only fair thing to do would be limiting the income tax increase to paying off indebtedness and paying current bills as of January 1 of this year, then starting with a clean slate with reform and spending reductions. A permanent income tax increase would be a killing disincentive to ANY necessary spending reforms. It would just enable the state to avoid doing what needs to be done. I can’t see Dillard or Ryan doing any of these things. If they were willing to take up this task, they’d be using it in the center-right primary rather than the center-left general. Strangely enough, McKenna might give us the best hope for change in Illinois if elected. He’s rich enough that campaign finance and personal wealth building are not an issue. The biggest concern is how much he’s in Daley’s pocket because of his Dad’s Dem connections. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 11:16 am: You are not alone in thinking that McKenna should be considered as the Republican nominee for governor. You want to believe what a conservative candidates claims to be the solution to our budget crisis, so you are not taking into consideration a more moderate candidate’s position. As a consequence, you are willing to believe that neither Ryan nor Dillard would tow the line on taxes and spending. You accurately point out how vague both candidate’s positions are on these fiscal issues, and then suggest that they are vague because they have something to hide. Well, how would you expect either moderate to win conservative voters while being honest to all voters? Republicans don’t raise taxes, except in emergencies, and then only temporarily. Both Ryan and Dillard are Republicans. What makes you now believe that they do not agree with you on this? Because their bloody signatures are not on a conservative’s anti-tax pledge? Moderates have to win over more than just their ideological base. They cannot merely appeal to traditional Republicans in Illinois, because if they did - they’d lose! This isn’t Indiana. Illinois is a deep blue Democrat state, just like Massachusetts. That is why McKenna will lose - again. Can you name one single statewide race he won as the GOP chairman? How many more races do you want him to throw away? McKenna is rich. Always has been. He didn’t earn his fortune. So, while you can point out that logic dictates that he is too rich to steal, I wish to point out to you that he is too rich to understand how to win an election. How much more proof can you handle than this guy’s record-breaking losing streak? McKenna doesn’t “get it” - he “buys it”. He now thinks he will just spend more of his father’s millions and hold up until Primary Day, so that no one else can discover how disconnected he is from everyone else’s reality. McKenna is no Scott Brown. Brown won every race he had. McKenna has lost every race. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 1:58 pm: “We currently have extended eligibility to up to 400% of the poverty level in Illinois, an unnecessary and unaffordable burden to the state budget.” Not true. The limit is now 185% of FPL. The 400% FPL limit was rolled back by SB 367, which allowed those who had signed up under Blago’s expansion (there weren’t that many — it’s only in the four figures, certainly not the 150,000 Blago predicted) to keep their coverage, but didn’t allow any new clients to sign up as of June 30, 2009. This was part of the settlement agreed to in the Caro vs. Blago case. - Secret Square - Wednesday, Jan 27, 10 @ 2:07 pm: “We need to tighten the Medicaid eligibility to serve those truly in need, those beneath the poverty level.” Unfortunately, if we do that we also lose out on the federal matching dollars and jeopardize our ability to capture any further stimulus funds. Because anything the state spends on Medicaid is matched at least 50 percent by the feds, any cut in Medicaid spending translates into only HALF that amount in actual savings to the state. I’m not saying there should or shouldn’t be any cuts to the program, just reminding everyone that Medicaid cuts won’t save as much money as some people think they will. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.