* The Democratic Governors Association is spending about $500,000 a week on TV ads these days for Gov. Pat Quinn, which is way more than the $200,000 a week being spent by Bill Brady’s campaign. But the Quinn ads may not be working yet, according to Rasmussen’s latest poll, which has Brady increasing his margin to seven points, up from three earlier this month. Numbers in brackets are results from the pollster on July 7, June 7, April 28, April 5 and March 8…
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Illinois voters approve of the job [Quinn] is doing as governor, down seven points from earlier this month, while 61% disapprove.
The Republican holds a 13-point lead among men, but women are evenly divided between the candidates. Brady picks up support from 88% of Republicans, while Quinn is supported by only 61% of those in his party. Brady has a modest lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party.
They’re tied with women again? Not good for Quinn, especially since the DGA is so heavily targeting women in their TV ads.
That pay increase issue really smarted! Brady has put that ad all over the air and it is too dang catchy! Christmas music in July? I hate being grabbed by a commercial, but hearing Jingle Bells suddenly in July gets my attention each time. Stop it!
Now this Vaught quote?
This poll, (yeah, we all know about Rasmussen), and this new 66% tax increase if Quinn is elected quote, and this race is going off the rails for Quinn.
Or, should I say that Pat’s campaign is “going to the dogs”?
This is a real problem for Quinn. He does not have to be defined by Brady — he is a 40 year dem pol. Voters already have an opinion of Quinn and paid media is not going to make them like him more or less.
I’ve got some advice for the Democratic Governor’s Association.
More lens flare.
Brady’s recent ad starring his daughter has more lens flare than a Smashing Pumpkins music video; must be working.
Seriously though, I have no idea how to account for this. The campaign is outspending Brady 2 to 1 with ads specifically targeted at women and yet they seem to moving backwards amongst that demographic, in addition to only being supported by 61% of his own party.
Those numbers are really bad, however, it’s still very early. If this trend holds up until October then it’s time for Quinn to hit the panic button.
The question is if you are the DGA are you starting to wonder if this is worth a 500K a week investment?
I would suspect the school stuff is turning the suburban moms off of Quinn….
- give me liberty - Thursday, Jul 29, 10 @ 10:23 am:
“Seriously though, I have no idea how to account for this.” Really? I do. 20% staff salary increase without passing a balanced budget and a near total failure to rid state government of Blago hacks. It really isn’t all that hard to figure out why the average voter isn’t jumping on the Quinn bandwagon despite all the money the Dems are throwing at this campaign.
Not really a surprise to me. Brady had a very bad June and the numbers reflected that. They seem to now be returning to the norm — a 7-10 point spread for Brady.
If Brady can sustain that for another month, the DGA may have to start looking at where their money will do the most good and it may not be Illinois.
Vaught has framed the race (although in fairness he didn’t say anything that Cullerton and Madigan haven’t already admitted, he was just a little more blunt). Vaught’s comments may actually have a bigger impact on individual House and Senate races, where Democrats are trying to avoid the tax issue. He’s pretty much admitting they have a deal to get past the election and then vote for a massive tax hike.
Quinn’s strategy was to make Brady unelectable before the voters turned their attention to taxes and spending. Time is running out for that strategy to work.
Brady needs to remain viable past Labor Day. At that point the average voters will start to focus and they’ll likely be looking at the basic bottom line issues of competence and taxes.
All in all, I’d rather be in Brady’s shoes than Quinn’s.
I agree with Downstater, the DGA messaging seems off. I know they are trying to address Quinns “woman problem” but right now I think women are more worried about their families finances than they are social issues.
I know it’s Rasmussen, so I’ll wait for everyone to pile on them, but check out Obama’s numbers. Not too good for his own state. The strongly approve and disapprove tabs are pretty much dead even. That cannot bode well for Quinn or Alexi.
I can see some logic in shore’s assertion that people shouldn’t be voting for alexi and brady, since Brady is far to the right of Kirk. But not everyone follows just a simple left-right logic when choosing candidates, and the average voter doesn’t necessarily know where to put people on the left-right spectrum right now. Plus Kirk is being branded a serial liar and has had some scandals, while Brady has been scandal-free relative to Kirk. Plus Quinn is the only incumbent, and there are certainly some anti-incumbency voters.
“Yes it is early, but does the difference now hurt the chances of Quinn getting outside help later?”
Astute comment, OneMan. Success breeds success, from both the viewpoint of party support, and bucks from individual donors.
I think we can see current proof of this theory if we look at the Congressional Republicans “Young Guns” program, which is modeled on the successful 2006 efforts of Rahm Emmanuel. The Young Guns had to show fundraising prowess before qualifying for monetary support from the program. This criterion is also being used to prioritize support by the RNC and DNC.
Money is tight, nobody will toss away dollars on a candidate who cannot garner support himself.
Milk cartons, wordslinger? I’m more inclined to place Brady and Plummer on “NOT WANTED” posters, along with the undistinguished incumbent, who has been kissing up to Mayor Daley’s mistletoe for my taste!
This race is not over by a long shot. My understanding is Rasmussen’s numbers always tilt towards the republican so I take their results with a grain of salt. A second caveat is I doubt if the average voter has given the race much thought and I bet few could even name Bill Brady, let alone tell you his positions.
However, I think Quinn is really going to have to get his act together quick to win this. Part of the game will be motivating the base, and I can say as a good Dem I am not excited about voting for Quinn or Alexi. But I think the republican base is excited about Brady. Second part of the game is convincing the swing voters and again Quinn has an uphill battle. He has been gov for two years and his performance has been mediocre at best. While I think Brady will be worse, the average voter will likely roll the dice and give Brady a shot.
“But I think the republican base is excited about Brady.”
Ahhh…. no. Trust me when I say that there are many misgivings among the base about Brady.
Right now, the Republicans are (air quotes) excited (end air quotes) by anyone not a Democrat. Independents are in an anti-incumbancy mood. Democrats are not showing much level of excitement at all.
The first of these guys that offer the independents some compelling reason to vote for them will win this race. The same is true of the Senate race. However, given these candidates, nobody will do so. In Illinois, unlike many other states, I feel this is a “meh” election.
Being a female Illinois voter that I would image both camps are trying to win over, I feel like it’s the lesser of two evils. Really unimpressed with Pat Quinn but his commercials about what Illinois daughters can expect from Brady frighten me enough to not vote for Brady.
My fear is too many voters will just take a pass on voting all together. Between the Blago mess and the lack of stand out candidates, I think voter turn out will be really low in November.
“Hynes in this thing wouldn’t have been a race. 52% Hynes 38% Brady. Oh well.”
I totally agree. Conversely, if it was Dillard-Quinn the numbers would be similar. And– just imagine!– if it was Dillard-Hynes the voters might actually have a real choice, instead of holding their collective nose and selecting the least-offensive candidate…
The problem for Quinn (and all the Dems) is that turnout is going to work against them in a big way on top of the polls. If Quinn is trailing by 5%, he’ll lose by 10% when its all said and done.
Lots of comparisons have been made to 1994, and I think it’s a good one to make in some ways. Of course there are notable differences. However, the trend and the overall negative feeling about direction of the country / state will work against the dems on turnout.
Again, I think Quinn is only a winner if he is polling 5-10 points ahead by election day. Anything closer will probably turn into a loss for him.
I somewhat disagree with Raising Kane and Downstater on the “woman” messaging. I know some single-issue women voters who don’t like Quinn but now are solidly voting for him based on those ads. I bet the polling reflects that too. It has shored up a part of his base. Now he needs to focus on some other parts of his demographic.
It’s not going to be the single message that wins for him, but its part of a strategy. He certainly can’t win without that demo.
=Which of the two candidates (Brady or Quinn) is closer to being Illinois’ Chris Christie?=
Well since Brady and Christie both like to support policies that don’t support women, I’m going to say Brady is more like Christie. And don’t be so sure about Christie, he is getting hammered in the editorial pages there about vetoing a family planning bill and his numbers with women are not all that great.
Brady can easily pickup another 5-6 points with the women by simply running a couple campaign ads dispelling the recent women’s fear mongering attempts by Pat Quinn and his commercials.
One comment made to me by a woman (who is normally an Independent) summed it up best: “The possibility of our not being able to make our house payments or my husband possibly losing his job makes everything else pale in comparison.” And, the other dramatic change that I have noticed is the guys that I personally know who are union guys and normally “always vote Democrat” like their union leadership tells them to are now starting to think for themselves. These “rank & file” union guys are telling me that once they go into the privacy of the voting booth in November, they are voting Republican this time because they have seen how voting for Democrat candidates in Illinois has worked out for them.The union leadership has lost credibility with their own rank & file.
Stating the facts about Brady’s voting history on women’s issues isn’t fear mongering. He is solidly anti-choice (even in the cases of rape or incest), he voted against family leave, and he is on record as opposing insurance coverage for pap smears and mammograms. I’m sorry, how is that fear mongering?
Calling someone “anti-woman” based on your political interpretation misrepresents your political opposition. Doing so is fear mongering because it is an extreme position no one in their right mind would accept - including Brady.
If it is acceptable to name call that Brady is anti-woman, when are we going to hear new claims that he is also racist? I’m certain someone could create an argument similarly based.
Quinn is playing the only cards he has to play. When you can’t credibly talk about job creation or fiscal responsibility. You have to focus on social issues. He may get lucky and drag his campaign to victory, but it will certainly be without a mandate.
Republicans are hoping that Brady can be disciplined enough to stay on the message of “jobs, jobs and jobs”. Quinn is clearly trying to draw him into the “social issues” trap. Brady can run out the clock on this one, if he doesn’t take the bait.
=Tell me how a governor in a Roe V Wade world with a Democratic legislature in this state can do anything about abortion?=
It is very easy actually. Roe has been chipped away at for years. While yes, Roe is in effect, it no longer allows for complete access to abortion. States have been trying to limit access to services for a long time. South Dakota is a great example. They passed a low that severly limited access to abortions. It was challenged and eventually overturned by the courts, however passing laws like this are designed by anti-choice groups in the hope that they will be challenged and upheld in an attempt to overturn Roe. State can also pass laws regarding what is referred to as “partial birth abortions” and other procedures that are usually done when the mother’s life is at risk. States can also pass laws on parental notification (which IL has actually been fighting over the last few years now). Also, states can provide or not provide funding for family planning services. While this isn’t usally inclusive of abortion services (it is usually contraception, pap smears, pregnancy screening, HIV testing), anti-choice groups are still pretty fond of stopping women from accessing this type of health care. Roe isn’t absolute, and states can definitely pass laws to limit women’s access to services. Which is why Brady is bad for women.
I am beginning to think that Quinn fired off his attacks on Brady on women and social issues a bit too early. Makes me wonder what other arrows Quinn has in his quiver (they must be powerful if he is using this now). While it is a good idea to shape your opponent early in the campaign, I think the overall impact of this recent line of attack will be slight, especially if it gets drowned out by Quinn’s own mis-steps (c.f. Mark Kirk’s campaign).
Just an institutional memory point. Edgar was openly pro-choice and pro-ERA when ERA was still an issue, ran for Governor on a platform of making a temporary income tax permanent, while the D opposed it, and he did OK among Rs.