|
Spending wasn’t as lopsided as you may have thought
Thursday, Nov 10, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller * Yes, the Republicans spent more than ever before on legislative races, but the Democrats kept up and even outspent the GOP in some battles. In the Senate, the Democrats outspent the Republicans in every hotly contested race. The House Dems were outspent in some, but a couple of those races were recognized internally as losers for a while now (Smiddy, for one). From ICPR, click the pics for larger images… 
The Democrats have always relied on outspending and outworking the Republicans. The playing field was much more level this year than ever before, and the Republicans had a unified statewide “Because… Madigan!” message. The Democrats, particularly in the House, need a rethink. * Related…
|
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:15 am:
I think it’s important to note that the vast majority of GOP dollars came from three individuals. Four if you include Mrs. Rauner.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:17 am:
===I think it’s important to note that the vast majority of GOP dollars came from three individuals===
OK, fine. I think it’s important to note that the vast majority of GOP dollars spent in the upcoming 2018 cycle will come from the same three individuals (four if you include Mrs. Rauner).
- Postbot 6000 - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:19 am:
The playing field was leveled when it comes to money. Imagine if the map presented a level playing field as well?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:20 am:
Simple Definition of plutocracy:
: government by the richest people
: a country that is ruled by the richest people
: a group of very rich people who have a lot of power
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:26 am:
I am anxious to see how the money was spent, if some kinds of ads worked better than others. Tom Cullerton’s ad featured him speaking from the heart to the camera. Most other ads were cookie cutter that ran together. there must be other good ads on radio or tv that were standouts, although only that one comes to mind for leg races.
also, spending and results in judicial elections will be interesting. Republicans made some inroads into what had been Dem consistent control in the NW burbs, reading on Leyhane.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:28 am:
Diana Rauner’s part in the $46 million for Raunerism should be noted that how many Democrats will allow their name to be attached to 8-figure donations to defeat the alleged party they find they identify with politically.
The ILGOP being funded by 3 families at a 90%+ clip is only important in realizing at what lengths Raunerism is willing to use the shell corporation they control to push an agenda.
While the Democrats have their continued funding avenues, and the disclosed donors Sen. Biss had with his own PAC, the number of “individual” actors, be they Labor organizationS, individual wealthy donors, and PACs and Groups representing 100s, if not thousands, is a stark contrast to 3 families.
Not much will change in 2018 either, except Diana Rauner, who can’t try to explain away funding Raunerism that is aimed at defeating Democrats and also goaled at hurting the most needy until an Agenda is passed.
That’s gone.
- so... - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:28 am:
==I think it’s important to note that the vast majority of GOP dollars came from three individuals. Four if you include Mrs. Rauner.==
Yes, it’s much better to be funded by a handful of union bosses and trial lawyers. So much more pure.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:30 am:
Rich - gasp! Do you mean that the narrative we had beaten into our heads may not have been completely correct?! I, for one, am shocked.
Also - something I noted during the primary needs to be addressed. I understood and still understand AFSCME backing McCann to the hilt but was the money well spent considering that AFSCME-backed candidates (Smiddy, Mathis, Tony D) really could have used that cash more? Whatever money AFSCME eventually wound up shelling out to shield McCann might have been better spent on trying to protect someone who had a tough general election campaign. You think John Bradley or Mike Mathis or Kate Cloonen or Gary Forby might have liked to utilize some of that cash? AFSCME’s hatred of Governor Rauner caused them to divert needed cash for a momentary victory that is likely to be nothing more than a battle in the war. Just a thought.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:32 am:
===by a handful of union bosses===
Fair point, but at least they represent union members, which is their job.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:37 am:
Metro East trial lawyers dropped a cool mil on just two appellate court races. LIFT was a cobbling together of uber wealthy Dem benefactors - and they easily could have spent into the $20-$30 million range if they had started earlier. I think the playing field is more level than people want to admit. Will the upcoming gubernatorial election skew that? Yes. But this is not as lopsided as people would have believed.
- Lil Squeezy - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:40 am:
This is a disgusting amount of money.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:50 am:
===You think John Bradley or Mike Mathis or Kate Cloonen or Gary Forby might have liked to utilize some of that cash?===
More money wouldn’t have helped any of those four Dems.
- Earnest - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:54 am:
>The Democrats, particularly in the House, need a rethink.
Agreed. I need to do more thinking, but I’m wondering if one of the things that helped Trump was that his messages was one of change while Hillary’s was one of tweak. I think that, even after time in office, Rauner can still successfully sell the message of changing the way we do things in Illinois. Madigan doesn’t really offer any vision of positive change to motivate voters. I do appreciate that, until the Tax-Hike Mike thing, he was advocating for more responsible budgeting with a balance of cuts and revenues
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 11:58 am:
If money is a problem it’s a bipartisan problem. Arguing “Hey! Your special interests can’t spend millions of dollars on elections, because that makes the millions from my party’s special interests less effective!” sounds really, really silly.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 12:04 pm:
–”The Democrats, particularly in the House, need a rethink.”–
That’s exactly right.
- Annonin' - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 12:24 pm:
Even until one adds in the price tag on fake radio, newspapers, movies and absentee ballots …sums we might ever know
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 12:34 pm:
OT: Schock to be indicted, according to Politico.
- Belle - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
I saw the A Schock thing too….interesting.
It ’seemed’ like the most commercials being run were for GOP candidates. At least 2 or 3 to 1, so pretty substantial. I saw so many Munger commercials that I became convinced she would win.
I watch a lot of CBS News so perhaps that was their focus?
Agree with the other posters on the money-spent on elections. We could solve a ton of other issues if there was the potential to re-route that money? But, those other things might not give rich people power like winning elections?
- Amalia - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 12:54 pm:
@ Earnest, unfortunately, any analysis of Trump’s message cannot go without the overt and dog whistle sexism, racism, anti semitism and more which was a part of his act from the start. that is a disturbing play to voters that cannot be dismissed and must be talked about and analyzed consistently.
- A Deplorable - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 12:55 pm:
Change you can believe in.
- Lil Squeezy - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 1:02 pm:
I don’t disagree with the premise of the post but there are quite a few races missing. I recognize that some were identified as losers early on but we all look to see who has caucus staff on election day. Mathis and Griffin are two of them. They got pummeled but they had some good staff assigned that could have been assigned elsewhere.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 1:36 pm:
Wasted money down in the 58the senate by Dems. This vote alone should tell people what higher ed means to most. This vote empowers Rauner.
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 2:02 pm:
Rich - maybe. Maybe not. But it certainly could have been better utilized in the context of supporting people who would go all in on AFSCME’s overall agenda (and not just a bill). Just my take.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
==I think it’s important to note that the vast majority of GOP dollars came from three individuals.==
The voters know that these wealthy political campaign contributors are acting in their own best interests, not to help the middle class worker or retiree. The people are not fooled by this.
- Big Muddy - Thursday, Nov 10, 16 @ 3:13 pm:
Ron Burgundy for the win.
Don’t argue that one party’s source of money is more pure or acceptable than the others. It’s the total Dollars spent that we should all be concerned abut.