42 Comments - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:34 am: Illinois Review is an embarrassment. Political amateurs who make conservative look like political amateurs. It would be better for us to see them replaced by the young ladies who produced the “Say YES to the DRESS!” parody yesterday. There is real hope for a brighter future with them, than there is with the Illinois Review. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:38 am: Conservatives will counter that a Rauner victory has national implications for the conservative wing of the GOP, including the 2016 presidential primaries. But I think Rauner’s problems now are as much with fiscal conservatives as social conservatives. Again, yesterday, he was promising to spend even more money on yet another program. Most pundits roll their eyes at these kinds of budget promises, but the true fiscal hawks start to get sick to their stomachs. - Demoralized - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:39 am: Are conservatives really that big of babies that they are taking their ball and leaving because they don’t like it that they don’t control things in Illinois? That’s painting with a pretty broad brush and it’s a load of crap I suspect. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:43 am: Conservatives will counter that a Rauner victory has national implications for the conservative wing of the GOP, including the 2016 presidential primaries. Not this one. Rauner is about as conservative as Jim Thompson was. - Amalia - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:44 am: yeah, well choice issues are in play in this election. a vote for Rauner gets us Evelyn Sanguinetti, who wants to criminalize abortion which is about as anti choice as it gets. Should Rauner not be able to continue as governor, Evelyn would lead the state. and that is in play in this election. - Mason born - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:45 am: To em this issue is moot. Rauner is pro-choice so is Quinn. The only distinction is when you get into shades of gray between the two. However unless you are going to stay home and not vote at all, or not in gov race, you really have no choice. One of those two men will be Gov. Might as well look at what else is at stake. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:53 am: The “miss” here is also the confusion between “single issue voters” and the “Reagan Rule” You can’t be both. You can’t decide abortion is your single issue, than rationalize the “80%”. What is the point of making that Litmus Test rationale if you then fall on the “80%”? That second grab from Rich is the correct rationale for a single issue voter going against the dinged issue. Yikes. - dupage dan - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:53 am: I think Illinois Review is kinda like a dog chasing after a car. If you actually catch it, will you know what to do next? - I B Strapped - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:54 am: “Quinn is not good for us and to my pro-life friends, please understand that with Quinn, you have nothing, with Rauner, you’ll have something.” Quinn is XXPOISONXX, Rauner is XXPOISON-LITEXX, who rubs shoulders by the Montana campfire with Rahm Emanuel. Downstate loses with either one of these guys, Chicago wins. And so it goes………. - Bill White - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 10:57 am: If Bruce Rauner wins, then abortion and related moral issues will be taken off the table, possibly forever. Yikes! I just found a reason to vote for Bruce. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:17 am: Ahhh, this is probably the reason I still see Bill Brady signs in yards…. - Chi - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:18 am: -Rauner is about as conservative as Jim Thompson- Come on now. The afl-cio would endorse Thompson if he were running. Rauner is the Illinois version of Rick Scott/Rick Snyder/Scott Walker. All of his policy proposals are taken straight from one of them, who took them straight from ALEC. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:21 am: We already had our pro-choice, big spending republican governor, his name was George Ryan. In fact, when I met Bruce, I came away with same impression as when I met George Ryan, “What a pompous jerk!”(edited for profanity). - Louis Howe - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:23 am: The underlying fallacy in the pro-life argument “Look, if you truly, totally believe that abortion is murder” —is that government has very limited powers to stop abortions. What drives abortions isn’t government legality, but rather, that people continue to have sex without any intention of creating babies. Having causal sex isn’t going to change because government passes a law about having abortions. Pro-lifers wouldn’t get much political support if they campaigned on stopping causal sex, or even unprotected sex, so they make the case that government should make abortion murder, which is a false choice. In the final analysis, abortion is an issue both parties use to persuade voters to ignore the economic issues government can actually do something about. - Todd - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:31 am: OW — I dissagree So PQ is 95% against you on your issue. Rauner is maybe 80% with you. You can be a single issue voter. The libertarian is NOT going to get anywhere close to winning. So if you want to be irrelvant cause he might be “pure” on the issue then vote for them. If on the other hand issue X is the biggest issue to you, and you can get 80% of X vs 0-5% of X then on your issue, you can look to the best prospects and say I’m voting for this candidate. Now if both of them are say below 50% then my guess is you toss your hands up and skip the race. - Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:34 am: @Todd Very rational argument. Now, would you say that people who are single-issue voters are rational? - walker - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:39 am: The “80% rule” makes representative government possible. - Del Clinkton - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:39 am: The fundamental decision of Roe V Wade is that Woman have Constitutional Right to Privacy a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. A very Conservative decision. Not sure why Republicans are up in arms over it. It gets the Government OUT of peoples lives. Remember, Reagan said: “government is the problem” (Reagan, State of the Union Address, 1981). - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:44 am: ===If on the other hand issue X is the biggest issue to you, and you can get 80% of X vs 0-5% of X then on your issue, you can look to the best prospects and say I’m voting for this candidate.=== - Todd -, isn’t that rationale above based on the single issue? The single issue is still dictating the action. The shades of the issue are indeed in play, my thought is the hard line, up or down voters, and this “miss” being a hard line litmus voter understanding when you have no choices, and you move on to the next set of criteria, you can’t be single issue at that juncture. “I only vote pro-life. Only. Since neither is pro-life, I am choosing…” Any issue can be that one issue. Hope to see you around Kendall sometime. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:47 am: - Louis Howe - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:23 am: I totally disagree. Abortion is a real issue. We have many killings in Chicago should we make Murder after birth legal. It is always the people who are not pro-life trying to diminish the issue and act like Murder is no issue at all. Just because people do something should not mean that it should be legal and paid for by the State. Pro-lifers are not trying to make casual sex illegal. This was one of the worst arguments that I have heard on the issue in a long time. I am Pro-life but voted for Quinn last time and will this time but it is because of other issues. His press secretary is very offensive and her hostility has tempted me to stay at home or vote for Rauner but I will hold my nose and vote for Quinn. - ZC - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 12:11 pm: This is the one issue where I really try not to judge, on any side of the fence. If you want to be a “single issue voter” because you are dead-set against abortion, then depending on your underlying beliefs, I can’t fault that. I disagree, but as Rich alludes, I see the argument. And unlike same-sex marriage, it’s not like this debate is over, or on an inexorable trend. The battle against same-sex marriage will take a while to play out still but it’s essentially done. You don’t see similar overwhelming generational trends as to the morality of abortion, however. - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 12:11 pm: Todd “OW — I dissagree So PQ is 95% against you on your issue. Rauner is maybe 80% with you. You can be a single issue voter. The libertarian is NOT going to get anywhere close to winning. So if you want to be irrelvant cause he might be “pure” on the issue then vote for them. If on the other hand issue X is the biggest issue to you, and you can get 80% of X vs 0-5% of X then on your issue, you can look to the best prospects and say I’m voting for this candidate. Now if both of them are say below 50% then my guess is you toss your hands up and skip the race.” I’m a single issue voter. I am a moderate conservative. I voted for many GOP Governors and some who didn’t win. I will not under any circumstances vote for Bruce Rauner. Why, because when he ran in the primary he told me I was his enemy. I am a state employee & union member. He stated he would shut down state government rather than negotiate fairly. I will not look at any other issue. My viewpoint is the same as other single issue voters. I am going to bet that a lot of Pro-life GOP voters are going to sit this one out. Now to the 80% issue, would Rauner actually meet the Reagan 80% standard ? He says he is pro choice, won’t take action on SSM, wants to increase sales taxes, wants to spend more money, possibly keep the income tax increase for up to 4 years. Where is the 80% ? If one were to hear his positions (when he’s given any) without identifying who he is, would you guess GOP as his party ? - Amalia - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 12:18 pm: @Louis Howe and @Anonymous. Baloney. If you listen to the anti choicers talk long enough you will hear the slut shaming and anti birth control talk that includes the idea that sex is just for procreation, specifically for women. I refer you back to discussions over Sandra Fluke. - wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 12:50 pm: –You can be a single issue voter.– Really, Todd? And what issue would that be with you, lol? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 12:51 pm: ===And what issue would that be with you, lol?=== Todd’s triple issue: Helmets, guns and unions. - Anon - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 12:55 pm: == with Rauner you (prolifers) will have something == Rauner is unabashedly prochoice. What exactly will he do for prolifers? Are those crickets chirping? - the Patriot - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 1:00 pm: I agree with Rich. I am very pro life but don’t see it as an issue. Furthermore, the reality is Rauner is almost certainly going to pay for some of his stuff on things thats that are easy pickens for republicans. Publicly funded abortions is high on that list. If you are a one issue pro choice person you don’t vote republican, that is just how it is. It is like the gay conservative wing of the republican party. Not enough votes to really discuss. Steward, I am trying to figure out why you would vote for someone who has committed to taking your pension one way or another, cut your salaries and benefits, and has a running mate that has proven he is anti union. Right to work in this election is as relevant as abortion. Unless Mike Madigan has a widow maker in the next 2 years and republicans get control of the legislature, there is not going to be any change to your rights. Of course Quinn has taken seniority rights, pension benefits, and funding away from you and your IEA bretheren. At least answer how long you will let Quinn screw you before you say enough is enough. Besides, with Madigan at the helm you can fight the right work push now, in 4 years, who knows. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 1:04 pm: The afl-cio would endorse Thompson if he were running. He only got their endorsement once in the 14 years he was governor and the four times he ran. So, perhaps. Quinn is no friend. - Mokenavince - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 1:07 pm: Rauner is a progressive Republican as he should be running in a Union state. That right wing stuff works well in the former Confederate states. - Demoralized - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 1:22 pm: ==It is always the people who are not pro-life trying to diminish the issue and act like Murder is no issue at all. == Ugh. I hate talking about abortion because it usually devolves into an argument between competing versions of nutty (on both sides). Isn’t it funny how it’s always the other guy’s fault? - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 2:04 pm: Patriot “Steward, I am trying to figure out why you would vote for someone who has committed to taking your pension one way or another, cut your salaries and benefits, and has a running mate that has proven he is anti union.” As I vote I will be holding my nose. - AFSCME Steward - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 2:07 pm: Patriot “Right to work in this election is as relevant as abortion. Unless Mike Madigan has a widow maker in the next 2 years and republicans get control of the legislature, there is not going to be any change to your rights.” If Rauner is elected Governor he, not the legislature, negotiates the next contract. He has already said he would shut the state down. Additionally, he ran extremely anti-union ads during the primary campaign. I will not vote for Rauner under any circumstances because of his anti-union record. - ZC - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 2:15 pm: >> Todd’s triple issue: Helmets, guns and unions. I like pro-life and anti-helmets together, going back to my days volunteering for the Glenn Poshard campaign, where we used to joke our constituency’s motto was, “Right to Life, Live to Ride.” - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 2:31 pm: Vanillaman: Exactly my point. Conservatives believe that a Rauner victory makes it that much more plausible that you will see a liberal Republican nominated in 2016. I personally think Rauner has his sights already set on the White House — springfield seems a little small for his ego — but I could be wrong. He certainly has the national ties and fundraising ability. Heck, he already has said he is a better candidate than Mitt. - Louis Howe - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 3:54 pm: @Anonymous—“ Pro-lifers are not trying to make casual sex illegal” —-only the consequences of casual sex—unwanted pregnancies. Forcing women to deliver to term unwanted pregnancies is the reality of the “pro-lifer” agenda. Where do most unplanned and unwanted pregnancies come from—sex without the purpose of procreating. How do you stop unwanted pregnancies and therefore most abortions? As the Catholic Church demands, do not have sex unless you are prepared to procreate and only have sex within marriage. Charging “Murder” is a histrionic appeal to a secular reproductive rights issue that no amount of pro-life legislation is going to change. Most politicians know that fact and use abortion as an issue to obtain bullet voters for nothing. - A guy... - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 4:56 pm: A lot of ardent pro lifers are voting for Rauner. Their disdain for Quinn is huge. They’re not happy with Rauner’s position, but the last pro-lifer was George Ryan, they’re not happy with him either. Most wished they voted for Poshard. It’s going to be a very difficult vote for them, but Pat Quinn has made it a little easier. - wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 5:01 pm: A Guy, you never cease to amaze, knowing what “a lot” are going to do, who they disdain, who they’re not happy with, what they wished they had done, what’s difficult and easy for them. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 5:42 pm: y, Oct 2, 14 @ 11:39 am: Because a baby is involved. Also, don’t force me to pay for your abortion. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 5:50 pm: - Demoralized - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 1:22 pm: ==It is always the people who are not pro-life trying to diminish the issue and act like Murder is no issue at all. == Ugh. I hate talking about abortion because it usually devolves into an argument between competing versions of nutty (on both sides). Isn’t it funny how it’s always the other guy’s fault? First, I was making a point. I am usually very civil but the people who are not civil are the ones attacking us pro-lifers. Second, it is not nutty to believe that stopping a life is wrong. This is why I left the Democratic Party but will hold my nose and vote for Quinn because Rainer is anti-union. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 5:57 pm: Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 3:54 pm: This is not true. We just don’t want abortions. Many pro-lifers are all for birth control like myself. Pro-lifers can define us better then you non-pro-lifers. If you really want to know us then ask the issue is that you really don’t want to know. Maybe we should define you and say all pro-abortion people want no pregnancies, see how does that feel to be defund instead of what is the real truth. You do not really know pro-lifers and what we believe. - Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 6:00 pm: - A guy… - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 4:56 pm: A lot of ardent pro lifers are voting for Rauner. Their disdain for Quinn is huge. They’re not happy with Rauner’s position, but the last pro-lifer was George Ryan, they’re not happy with him either. Most wished they voted for Poshard. It’s going to be a very difficult vote for them, but Pat Quinn has made it a little easier. I voted for Poshard. I also voted for Quinn in 2010 and will vote for him this year. I am Pro-life. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Oct 2, 14 @ 6:24 pm: The other reason to vote for Grimm of course if you are conservative is to get them the 5% they need to qualify for the ballot next time. Rich Whitney didn’t get record votes in 2006 because he spent a lot of money. It was because Democrats like me were sick of hacks like Rod and wanted to send a wake-up call to The Party. It wasn’t one single issue with Rod, btw. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.