61 Comments - Whatever - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:51 am: What’s the latest with Jack Roeser? Has he come to grips with Rauner’s position? - J - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:52 am: Rich, I’m not sure how to answer this. I think a social liberal can win the GOP primary; however I don’t think Rauner stands a chance, whether as a social liberal or conservative. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:54 am: J, the question is about Rauner. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:56 am: I voted yes, only because it is *possible* if not necessarily likely. It’s possible if the IL GOP primary voters lack good alternatives or if the field collapses and Rauner becomes inevitable, like Kirk was. Given the profile of recent ILGOP primary voters however, a pro-choice candidate is going to be a tough sell. The magic for Rauner will happen if he can persuade moderate voters to pull a GOP ballot. Given the likelihood of Quinn v. Madigan on the Dem side, it’s doubtful we’ll see to many Dems switch to GOP ballots. So somehow Rauner needs to expand the pool of GOP primary voters. If he can do that he can win. If he can’t do that, then he better hope that no other viable pro-life candidates enter the race or that all of his opponents are equally viable pro-lifers. Then maybe he can eke out a mid-twenty percent share and win the nomination by a nose. - wizard - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 11:58 am: I voted no because of who he “appeals” to. My hope is that he cannot win the primary no matter what he does. He has no chance of winning in the general IMHO. - haverford - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:01 pm: Given that it’s the only way a Republican can apparently win the general election (see: Brady v. Quinn), I voted yes. Maybe the party can convince its primary voters to think long-term this time (but here’s hoping not! Sorry Republicans…) - Wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:04 pm: Yes. I don’t see ant powerhouses in the field - CircularFiringSquad - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:07 pm: we said ‘yes’ just to keep CousinBrucey and the wing nuts chewing on each other, Most clear thinkers know the social wing nut cannot win — even against PQ! We know WhackeyJack has a hard time electing GOPs in GOPie districts. So let’s keep the good times rolling. IT give Capt Fax something to do. Helps Chip pay his rent Think of it as a jobs plan - reformer - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:13 pm: I’ll never forget that Jack Roeser backed Jesse White in 1998 over conservative Republican Al Salvi because Salvi was willing to make a minor compromise on guns. Now Roeser is ready to back another social liberal who donates big time to Democrats. Rauner could win under two conditions: 1) Social conservative candidates split up the right-wing vote enough ways that Rauner can win. 2) The Religious Right decides to discard their principles in order to win the governor’s office for their party. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:15 pm: I vote no. The pushback by pro-life supporters will be intense, no matter who he’s running against. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:21 pm: Yes. Assuming the media does not become overly obsessed with social issues amid our fiscal crisis. If the media focuses inordinately on abortion, guns, gay marriage, etc. probably not. If the media prioritizes the economy, unemployment, high taxes, foreclosures, our crippling debt, etc. then yes. - Rudy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:21 pm: I voted no. D’s won’t crossover in droves under any circumstances, because of the rest of his package. And to downstate R’s, he’s got two strikes: social liberal and Chicagoan. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:24 pm: Voted “Yes” because of the Cash that Rauner has, and the others, woefully, do not (See: Yesterday’s Post by Rich). Add to the fact that if Lisa runs against Quinn, women and moderate Indies are more likely to pull a “D” ballot to help Lisa, and leave Rauner alone, with his Cash, in a weak field of candidates on the “R” ballot. Now, if one of the others (Rutherford, Brady, Schock) can get a strong field organization, identify their “pluses” and run a very strong “grass roots” campaign, that Rauner will NOT (can’t see Rauner putting together a field op in either the Primary or the General, Rauner is not sophisicated enough in his runnings, thus far, to make me think any different) that might be the way, ala Blair Hull to defeat Rauner in the Priamry, identifying and running “pluses” at the greass roots, local, cheaper, level. CAN Rauner win, yes. Does Rauner have the money to more than compete? Yes. Will someone in the Primary beat Rauner on the streets, ala Blair Hull? Jury is out. - Anon. - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:27 pm: “Like former Gov. Jim Edgar and Sen. Mark Kirk, he (Rauner) is pro-choice.” Unlike Gov. Edgar and Sen. Mark Kirk, Rauner has no base. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:27 pm: FKA, coverage follows conflict. Outside of cable “news,” media doesn’t consciously dictate coverage. It mainly just follows the controversy. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:32 pm: Even if Rauner can make it though the primary, he is unelectable in this state. He appears to have participated in “pay-to-play” using convicted felon Rod Blagojevich’s convicted felon fixer Stu Levine (who was on Rauner’s payroll before he was tossed in prison). Rauner’s company appears to have made millions of dollars off public pensions using insider dealings. Rauner is a Rahm Emanuel Democrat, and sits on Rahm’s kitchen cabinet. Rauner is UNELECTABLE no matter whom he hires, and no matter how much money he spends distorting the political process. - anon - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:36 pm: why didnt rauner just run as a fiscally conservative democrat? then he could be true to his social liberalism, and even draw some crossover republican and independent voters. why would anybody who doesnt completely tow the party line run in a republican primary? the things one must stay tostay in the hunt are downright hateful and intolerant. that party needs a dose of humanity. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 12:49 pm: ===why didnt rauner just run as a fiscally conservative democrat?=== In a Dem Primary, why not? Two words. Lisa. Madigan. Can’t beat Lisa in a Primary, but, with Rauner’s money, the anti-Madigan vote in place, but a rabid ILGOP wanting to a) Beat a Madigan, & b) Get the Mansion back, running as a Republican is Rauner’s best shot. - LisleMike - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:05 pm: I voted no Although my exposure was limited to DuPage County and Lisle Township, I walked 5 precincts (including my own) for Judy Biggert (pro choice R) last fall. I had an overwhelming number of responses in my face to face discussions which wer versions of “I can’t and won’t vote for either candidate (both were pro choice) based upon their stance. I beleive that a loss of these votes hurt R more than D in the state (and certainly did Judy Biggert in DuPage…) and would do so state wide. But, as I said , this was a microcosim of the state and very limited in scope. - Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:09 pm: I voted no. I think of Rutherford as socially liberal relative to most republican voters, and Rauner and Rutherford may split the socially moderate vote. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:12 pm: I voted yes, I believe you can state-wide. I believe it is even more likely in a crowded field of conservative old white men. However, you have to be able to demonstrate that you’re up for the job in the policy and fiscal sense without coming off like an out of touch billionaire. If Rauner doesn’t win, it might not be because of his social views. Another question is, can you win the general election and be a social conservative? - Raising Kane - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:12 pm: Kind of a trick question….I just don’t believe he can win so I voted no. A moderate can win, JBT won the primary in ‘06 but Rauner is developing a trust issue. - Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:21 pm: I can see the arguments that Rauner’s money can get him through, however, I think the wingnuts still require the IL GOP nominee to adhere to the social agenda. Unfortunately, they still have a lot of power in the primaries. - Jim - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:22 pm: My perception is that Rauner has libertarian instincts when it comes to social issues, but that he’s focused on them. He wants to fix a fiscally bankrupt and corrupt state. Besides, what does it really matter on abortion where he or any other gubernatorial candidate stands. Abortion is a federally guaranteed constitutional right and will be unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses Roe vs Wade and returns the issue to the state legislature. Until then, all anyone can do is nibble around the edges — parental notification, alternatives to abortion, things like that. all this huffing and puffing about abortion is just a big con on voters who think it matters. gay marriage is, of course, a totally different thing because it is strictly a state issue. - Jim - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:24 pm: should be not focused on them. sometimes I write too fast. - Endangered Moderate Species - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:36 pm: I voted yes. I believe there are a majority of GOP voters in this State whom lean to the middle on social issues. The Thompson, Edgar, Ryan voting base can still be found by the proper candidate. - HaroldVK - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:38 pm: So far, he hasn’t shown an ability to win at all. All he has shown so far is that he has very little understanding for the basics of Illinois government. Assuming he somehow gets his act together though, he would still need to convince some historic Dems to cross over and vote in the GOP primary. The problem is that it looks like the Dems will have Madigan v. Somebody. To get people to cross over, you need to show both that you are better than those two (or three) and that you can win. I personally would support a moderate Republican, but it is more important to me that we defeat Quinn. I will vote for somebody that I’m not sold on but who can defeat an incompetent over voting switching parties and potentially seeing Quinn win. - liberty4all - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:44 pm: It’s Illinois! Don’t you have to be a social liberal to win? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:46 pm: ===Until then, all anyone can do is nibble around the edges=== Um, no. You can regulate them out of existence, as other states have done. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:53 pm: - HaroldVK - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:38 pm: “All he has shown so far is that he has very little understanding for the basics of Illinois government.” Au contraire mon frère. He’s hired Rod’s bud Stu Levine (both felons), and there’s some apparent pay-to-play with the CTU pensions and PA Gov. Rendell. Rahm’s buddy too! Sounds like he’s got Illinois figured out just fine… - RMW Stanford - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:57 pm: I voted, yes depends on who is in the face. How much the vote is broken up. - ??? - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 1:57 pm: I voted yes - I think it’s possible, although maybe not probable, just because the voters aren’t that familiar with Rauner. But I don’t think it’s impossible for a pro-choice candidate to win the Republican primary. I know a whole lot of socially moderate/liberal Republicans who would love to see a pro-choice candidate in the mix. Many stopped voting in the primary, or reluctantly started voting in Democratic primaries, simply because they didn’t have a moderate candidate in the GOP primary. It seems the only choice in the GOP primaries in recent years has been “rabidly pro-life” vs. just “pro-life.” Not much of a choice for those to whom this issue is important. - shore - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:08 pm: No. Kirk was able to get around the pro choice question with his foreign policy (I’m not using the word military since we know by now that part has “issues”) background that showed conservatives he was “tough”. But Rauner is operating now in a Republican party that every day and every cycle has lost pro choice and moderate voters/donors while conservatives have expanded their reach and hardened their opposition to moderation. His money is nice, but he can’t debate, he’s also tied to chicago, and it’s awfully awfully hard for rich guys to jump out of the private jet, into politics and land well without crumpling. - Hacks - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:14 pm: He needs a variety of Social Conservatives to split that vote AND no Andrezjewski/Proft type spoilers to capture the Libertarian/Ron Paul group. He can get up to 20% of the vote, the question is how many and what the other candidates can get. Rauner better hope for Dillard, Rutherford, Brady, Schock, Schillerstrom, etc to be on the ballot. This could be a good year for a woman. - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:17 pm: Hey, Willy, normally I consider you the voice of reason for the GOP. So a friendly reminder–there are lots of women, myself included, who do not vote for women just because of gender. If I end up voting for Ms Madigan it will be because I agree with her on the issues*and* can trust she’ll stand up to the Speaker. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:17 pm: I wouls like to see this question again, after Rauner picks his Running Mate, and ask if the Rauner/? ticket can win the Primary. Maybe some people’s votes might change, either way for that matter. - Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:23 pm: Voted no only because it’s not very likely. See Ron Gidwitz. The only chance I would give him would be if he ran an absolutely perfect campaign, and spent the 10+ million to win. So far, he’s woefully short on that first part. Second, without a major split of conservatives, the pro-life and pro-gun bases make it nearly impossible, especially with the concealed carry issue front and center this year. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:26 pm: ===So a friendly reminder–there are lots of women, myself included, who do not vote for women just because of gender.=== Noted. I hope you understand that when I included the words “more likely”, that was not an indictment that women will blindly pull that “D” ballot for the sake of voting for a woman either. Lisa Madigan is not your typical candidate, gender notwithstanding. Apologies. My intent was to point out possible reasons a “D” ballot MAY be pulled instead of an “R”, not THE ONLY reason. I offended you, I apologize. - Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:43 pm: Hmm…let’s see. Moderate Dillard lost to Conservative Brady…Moderate Kustra lost to Conservative Topinka…Nope, Rauner can’t win as long as moderate voters choose to take a D ballot. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:45 pm: ===lost to Conservative Topinka=== She’s only a “conservative” to those who bought into RRB’s advertising. - Commonsense in Illinois - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:53 pm: Good point, Rich. - Sarge - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 2:57 pm: Rauner can’t win a Republican primary. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He tries to come across as an “every day Joe” in one sentence and then talks like he thinks a “successful businessman outsider” talks in the next. Genuine and passionate sells to out-of-power voters - and Rauner ain’t got either. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:01 pm: ===Hey, Willy, normally I consider you the voice of reason for the GOP.=== Thank you for the kind words, BTW. - votecounter - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:28 pm: Kustra lost to Salvi, JBT beat Oberweis by 3 in 06 only because Brady stayed in with 15% and there were 5 candidates. Dillard was pro life anti gay marriage, the only “Moderate” out of 7 in 2010 was Schillerstrom, then President of DuPage co. board, and he lost to Proft. Moderates don’t do well - dupage dan - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 3:37 pm: Yes, Rauner can win a GOP primary……when pigs fly. - Pandora - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:18 pm: I’m not sure that Rauner can win, but I know lots of independents who have felt forced to vote for Democrats because the Republican candidates have been soooo conservative. Give me an socially liberal (or even moderate) acceptable Republican and I’m on board! - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:28 pm: ===Rauner’s campaign announced today that it had hired an official campaign spokesperson.=== Interesting. Chip NOT going to speak for Rauner anymore? - Just The Way It Is One - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:39 pm: That’s right dd, ‘n funny how every single time I look for ‘em, ain’t seen any of those hogs flyin’ around outside there yet!The answer is not only “no,” but no WAY! The Illinois Republican Party is just too conservative in its’ current make-up, and even if the bulk of GOPers LIKED Rauner enough to vote for him for some other reason–which I have virtually NO doubt that they won’t anyway– a social agenda which is too heavily flavored with more liberal stances on some of the key issues of our day, just won’t wash…! He really oughta just save his Bankroll now, pack up, ‘n go home before he throws a TON of money out the window for nothing…! - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:51 pm: ===Chip NOT going to speak for Rauner anymore?=== http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rga-aide-mike-schrimpf-heads-to-illinois-90140.html?hp=r9 Now if only our esteemed Cap Fax Op-Ed writer and all-around state budget expert joins Rauner’s team, he’ll have Schrimpf and Schnorf on his side. Then we’ll all have our own daily keyboard battle of the “f” key v. spell check. - Muffin Man - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 4:54 pm: I talked with Rauner last week as he worked the crowd at a GOP event. He seemed like a nice guy but he was definitely more of “a self-promoter” than a Republican. He didn’t even want to state his social views. When asked he immediately attempted to divert from the social question by saying “The financial condition of the state is the topic we should be focusing on.” It was as if he immediately began to hear sirens begin to go off and a loud speaker came on with the message “Red alert! Red alert!” He is correct that the state’s economic malady is the number one issue but I didn’t like how he tried to use the old “sleight of hand trick” to distract me and others from the original question each time it was posed to him. I also watched how he went up to the older people at the event (in this farming community) and he immediately tried to talk about the fact that he cames from a Wisconsin farm background. He was as conversant about farming as his audience was about venture capitalism. It was actually comical to watch him try the— “I am one of you”— political routines. Oswego Willy “nailed it down” to a tee when he explained why Rauner was going to run as a Republican in the Primary even though he actually identifies way more closly to the Democrat Party platform. He is allergic to “Lisa Madigan” as a competitor. I wonder if Lisa Madigan will also suddenly have “milked cows” on her family’s farm up in Wisconsin the day before the Primary? Ha-ha. My opinion after seeing and listening to him is that he hasn’t got a snow ball’s chance in Hades of gathering very many (if any) of the conservative Illinois Republican votes. Probably a nice guy but “he won’t play well in Peoria” (or anywhere else south of I-80). - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:04 pm: - 47th Ward - Thanks for dropping the knowledge! Can you imagine the staff meeting … Schnorf, I mean Schrimph … Yikes! RGA eh? Well, I hope Schrimpf understands Illinois isn’t Wisconsin or Indiana … - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:09 pm: He’s about to find out. At least he’ll be well-compensated. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:19 pm: - 47th Ward - ===He’s about to find out. At least he’ll be well-compensated.=== Well, Rauner will make him earn his money, I think. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 5:44 pm: - Muffin Man -, Thanks for the h/t! - Just the Facts - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 6:09 pm: If its a four-way with Schock, Brady and Rutherford: Yes. But if you’re going to run us a “moderate”, stop being dodgy about it. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 7:06 pm: === coverage follows conflict === Sometimes I think I’m a dope. Other times I know I’m a dope. The old truism, “If it bleeds, it leads”, etc. Good news and happy stories about ponies don’t sell nearly as many papers as Jack the Ripper and chaos in (fill in the blank). Current events, candidates and controversy drive coverage, among other things. That is not changing any time soon, especially during the Internet era. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 7:38 pm: Willy, after a few weeks of Schrimpf getting the stuffing smacked out of him by IL media, etc, THEN we’ll go see Bruce about Con$ulting. To the post, I voted Yes. Bucking the apparent trend, I think in a field of opponents trending Right, if he can execute a campaign, a center-to kinda l-word message might draw enough votes. The ability to execute is a huge if as we’ve all said before. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 10:21 pm: - AA - Whew! I am glad you have a plan, I already paid 1st and last month’s rent on the “Rauner Office”… er … Headquarters. - Sacajawea - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 10:53 pm: No. Rauner should have a nice chat with Ron Gidwitz, Jim Oberweis, and Andy McKenna about how spending millions on a statewide race with no previous experience WILL NOT get you a GOP nomination for Governor. A few reasons/questions as to why it would be difficult for Rauner to win: 1. Who’s his base? 2. What’s his record? 3. Where does he stand on anything? 4. When you’re telling people that you’re going to spend $50 million on a statewide race, why does your political operation look like amateur hour? 5. From Jack Roeser’s comments, it’s clear that Rauner is reaching out to everyone, but taking both sides on an issue will kill your support - regardless of the issue. I don’t have a dog in this fight and Rauner looks good on paper, but his early moves cause me some concern. Maybe he’ll get it under control. Maybe not. - FauxBruceRauner - Wednesday, Apr 17, 13 @ 8:38 am: I am listening to all of your concerns. #ListeningTour - Frank Underwood - Wednesday, Apr 17, 13 @ 1:29 pm: This is a split issue. I voted no, even though I think socially liberal is the only way Republicans can go and expect to win general elections. Rauner’s too weak of a candidate to get past the primary. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.