In the general election I would vote for Pat Quinn if he was running against Brady or another unlikable out of touch hardliner. If a likable, moderate like Dillard is the nominee - I would likely vote GOP.
He will need show me that he has learned how to govern. That means working with the G.A., coming up with realistic legislation and budgets, learning to compromise, sticking to a message, etc. I don’t have much confidence that this will be the case any time soon.
I will be voting for Quinn. He’s the best of the bunch on the D side. MJM as Speaker while Lisa is Governor concentrate too much power in one family and eliminates important checks and balances between the two branches.
I don’t see anyone on the GOP side any more fit to be Governor.
===In the general election I would vote for Pat Quinn if he was running against Brady or another unlikable out of touch hardliner. If a likable, moderate like Dillard is the nominee - I would likely vote GOP.===
I was going to write the exact same thing siriusly did.
In a primary if Daley or Madigan run, one of those two gets my vote. But if its just Quinn against others there still could be hope he gets my vote.
Since my party lost the last chance at protecting the Map, the Map which is the easiest crutch ever to take no responsiblity for anything political, I could vote for Pat Quinn depending on who gets out of the Primary on our side.
I have no choice, no “horse”, no nothing in the GOP Primary as of yet, since the race hasn’t even got to petitions…
But to be clear, I could vote for Quinn, depending on who the GOP nominates. If he/she is not Reagan Rule Republican AND ALSO brutally awful, I would have to, by default, give Quinn a look.
Obviously, Quinn does NOT have my vote now, that is the only thing I do know.
Under no circumstances would I vote for him. He has proven he can’t govern. I don’t care who is running against him - they can’t do any worse, and if the GA remains in democrat control, a republican governor can’t do much at all.
In the primary: if Bill Daley runs, Lisa Madigan does not, and Daley shows he isn’t up to the challenge of governing. Daley seems very soft - in a tough primary race I could see his fkaws being exposed.
In the general: I would vote for Quinn over Schock or Rutherford. Not over Dillard.
Wouldn’t vote for him in the primary- under any circumstance. I think the only way I’d vote for him the in the General would be if Count Chocula ran against him. Even that one would make me hesitate a bit.
fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice, shame on me. primary vote - maybe to set up an easier general for Dillard. general election - no way, unless GOP blows it by running someone ultra socially conservative (like Brady) who wants to make his personal views on aboution an election issue.
I don’t see myself voting for him in the primary this time around (and I did in 2010). In the general, I could cross over for the right moderate Republican but definitely not if they run another right-wing ideologue. Nothing against Quinn - I just think we might do better on fiscal issues with Democratic majorities in the legislative branch and a Republican governor to get GOP votes on a roll call.
How odd is it that I’m more inclined to vote for him now than in 2010? Working to close state institutions for people with developmental disabilities despite all the opposition showed some principled leadership (which he has seemed to lack in many other areas). I’m a little disappointed in myself to be swayed so much by a single issue, but I would vote for him over anyone who would not continue the process.
None. Period. If he ran unopposed in the General I wouldnt vote. I told AFSCME in 2010 I would go fairshare if they endorsed him. They did and I did. My feelings about him have not gotten any better since then.
None. He has been mediocre at best and I don’t expect improvement. He’s also rather dishonest–not corrupt probably, but dishonest. But I wouldn’t necessarily vote for the Repub candidate either. If I don’t like the latter, or the Dem candidate, I won’t cast a vote for guv.
I couldn’t vote for him in any circumstance. If the Republicans serve up another extremist, however, I would probably choose not to vote in that race.
I’m very serious — why do people keep referring to Dillard as a moderate. I like him personally, but I’m not sure what is “moderate” about his positions. I know that he voted with the Democrats on some tax issues, but his stance on social issues doesn’t strike me as moderate. I’m genuinely curious.
“In the general election I would vote for Pat Quinn if he was running against Brady or another unlikable out of touch hardliner. If a likable, moderate like Dillard is the nominee - I would likely vote GOP.”
That says it all. As long as Republicans say they are for small government, yet want government to shove their wackadoodle religious beliefs down all of our throats, I will vote D.
–But to be clear, I could vote for Quinn, depending on who the GOP nominates. If he/she is not Reagan Rule Republican AND ALSO brutally awful, I would have to, by default, give Quinn a look.–
Self-described Republicans, listen to Willie.
Since Reagan has been a topic today, I’d recommend that some who chronically claim his mantle do some reading on his actions as president: on immigration; on the Earned Income Tax credit; on politics and compromise.
Apologies for the last post, I didn’t see the no-snark request. I no longer live in Illinois, but I wouldn’t vote for Quinn in a primary or a general. I could see some value in divided government, even if the R isn’t to my liking.
As a young person growing up in New York City, I thought of the place as ungovernable. Not that the city felt chaotic. It was just something less than the sum of its parts, a collection of factions pulling in separate directions, with nobody truly in charge. And I remember the palpable change when Ed Koch became mayor. He found the reins I had no idea even existed and gave me the sense that New York City was, in fact, governable.
I like Pat Quinn. But to vote for him again he needs finally to give me that sense Illinois is governable and that he is somebody who can, in fact, govern.
It’s always smarter to pay attention to what people do, rather than what they say.
Reagan said a lot of things — to the evangelicals, to the Wallace Democrats — to get elected. Some of the things he said were pretty raw, as they could be from a man of his time, and were not his finest moments.
But his only real two goals as president were accelerating the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Empire (I would argue that he did, without a shot being fired), and eliminating nuclear weapons.
He really believed in that last one, too. When he sat down in my Farmors hometown with Gorby and offered to give him SDI in exchange for eliminating nuclear weapons, Gorby, Western Europe, Japan and the Pentagon all plotzed.
I give Reagan an enormous amount of credit for matching his rhetoric and actions regarding illegal immigration from Mexico.
As a longtime wealthy resident of LA and governor of California, he had no use for the incredible cynicism and hypocrisy of setting ludicrously low quotas for legal Mexican workers while relying on the labor of illegal Mexican workers to drive the economy.
I covered, up close and personal, the whole Simpson-Mazzolli debate and enactment, from the barrio to Washington, and it was one of Reagan’s, and the country’s, finest hours.
Today’s GOP could learn a profound lesson from that.
Check out what happened to the California GOP when Pete Wilson pushed Prop. 187, demonizing Mexicans. Contrast that with the Texas GOP, which understands the value of Mexican workers to the state’s economy and seeks to bring them into the big tent.
If he runs, he has my vote. I happen to like having a Governor who is honest and sincere, even if a little quirky.
Yes, the state’s finances are a horrendous mess but that’s not Quinn’s doing, but rather the mismanagement, kick the can down the road philosophy that’s permeated throughout the state house for the last 30 years.
He’s slashed government spending, making tough choices and taking on his own natural constituencies along the way. He pushed for and signed into law pension reform for new employees, and continues to push for reform of the entire system.
Unlike his predecessors, he’s facing up to reality of the state’s challenges and while it’s been a bumpy ride, I appreciate that he’s taking it on.
Thanks. I always hope that the ILGOP can learn, instead of being taught lessons at the ballot box.
Your personal history, along with the history of Reagan gives me SOME hope, that if just some do a little investigation of Reagan, and not living with the falsehoods of Reagan with Rigid beliefs and blinders on the eyes, the ILGOP might have a chance.
At some point, we have to realize what is going on no, it ain’t workin’
So, to the Post, again, I stand on my first post, I just hope my Party doesn’t send me there.
In the primary I would vote for Quinn if he was running one on one against Daley. If he was in a three was race with Lisa Madigan, and Daley, he would not get my vote.
If Quinn was running against Bruce Rauner in the general election he would get my vote without question. If by some amazing development out of nowhere the Republicans ran a moderate who was not promoting to turn Illinios in a right to work state I could consider even voting for a Republican. Simply put anyone but Bill Daley.
No snark? Oh, Rich. You made this comment section and Friday afternoon so much less enjoyable when you added that. But i know it was necessary, as this is a difficult, but imporant, question ripe for humor.
In a primary, I think I’ll support whichever dem gets the least support from AFSCME. I have a feeling that will be Quinn, which means I’ll be supporting him if that happens.
In the general, the GOP candidate would have to be so extremely conservative (Bradyesque) or have even less experience that Quinn and his cronies, which should be difficult (except Schock).
If he makes it out of the primary, I will support him. Which is more than I could say for Rod.
Didn’t support him in the last primary, unlikely to support him in the next one absent Bill Daley being a) his strongest opposition and b) as ineffective as I’d expect first-time candidate Bill Daley to be.
- Just The Way It Is One - Friday, Feb 1, 13 @ 3:50 pm:
If a voter concludes that someone is the BEST Candidate overall for the position, that would seem the wisest basis upon which to vote for someone. If one is completely honest as an informed Voter, Pat Quinn COULD be that person come those Election Days, but there’ll likely be plenty of hefty competition to analyze as well…
There is no circumstance under which Quinn would receive my vote. In discussions here on the state’s intractible financial/pension crisis I regularly read lines like “you are responsible–you people voted for these idiots”. Well, no I didn’t and I won’t next time either.
–If he’s running against Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart.
Now that’s the Wayback Machine.
Are any of those LaRouchies still around? Peter Bowen (or Hart?), one of the true believers, used to march in front the Wrigley Building, every day, for years, with some sandwich board with accusations against QEII, Kissinger, Reagan, all the usual suspects.
They were creepy. When Fairchild beat Sangemeister and Hart beat Pucinski in the primary, I ended up the next day at their press conference on the Northwest Side.
They had effigies of Kissinger hanging all over the place.
MJM had driven out Hartigan for Adlai in that primary. He wasn’t a three-dimensional chess master in those results.