Today, the JB Pritzker campaign released a new TV ad, “Stand Up.” The ad comes as Bruce Rauner refuses to support HB 40, a bill that would protect a woman’s right to choose in Illinois if Roe v. Wade were overturned at the federal level.
“Stand Up” highlights Rauner’s cowardly refusal to stand up for Illinois women and JB’s commitment to making HB 40 the first bill he would sign as governor. Two weeks ago, JB and HB 40 co-sponsors Senator Heather Steans and Representative Sara Feigenholtz delivered 4,000 postcards from women across the state in support of HB 40 to Governor Rauner’s office as a part of his ongoing effort to support Illinois women and fight for reproductive rights.
“Illinois women deserve a governor who will protect their healthcare, not one that will stand by as those fundamental rights are under threat,” said JB Pritzker. “As governor, I will be a steadfast supporter of a woman’s right to choose, and HB 40 will be the first bill I’ll sign in office. Every day, I’ll show up and fight for issues that matter to Illinois women and families, just like I have been doing my whole life. With Donald Trump in the White House and Bruce Rauner failing to lead, we need fierce leadership in Springfield – and that’s exactly what I’ll provide as governor.”
VOICEOVER: 1975. Illinois passes the trigger law, meaning if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a woman’s right choose would be banned in Illinois.
This year, the legislature passed a bill to eliminate the law, but Bruce Rauner has promised to veto it.
JB PRITZKER: As governor, I’ll fight to protect women’s healthcare just like I have my whole life.
HB 40 will be the first bill I sign in office because we have to stand up for a woman’s right to choose.
Team Pritzker isn’t going to let up on HB 40 until Rauner has been forced to make a whole lot of Illinois voters very, very angry.
To the ad: I thought the old photo was a nice touch. It conveys Pritzker’s consistency on the very issue where Rauner is going to have to do a flip-flop one way or the other.
Why doesn’t JB mention that HB 40 has not been sent to the Governor and that it would make Illinois one of only 5 states that voluntarily provide taxpayer funding for abortion on demand?
Slow somber piano in the background, whispering female voice over, candidate’s concerned look. Yes, this checks all the boxes for a political ad. I rate it a “I think I saw it while fast forwarding through commercials”
===…HB 40 has not been sent to the Governor and that it would make Illinois one of only 5 states that voluntarily provide taxpayer funding for abortion on demand?===
If/When Bruce Rauner vetoes HB40, the “no social agenda” by the phony Democrat Diana Rauner will be a complete embarrassment to Diana Rauner, as Rauner’s social agenda is now about HB40 and the complete flip/flop from that questionnaire Mr. Cosgrove has, and will remind suburban women about Bruce and the phony Diana Rauner promise.
If/When Governor Rauner signs…
… seems like Rauner will be just a phony conservative in social agenda items, just has Diana Rauner tried to warn, and those conservatives have no friend in Bruce Rauner.
Until then… More ads… more holding accountable… Bruce and Diana Rauner
I find it ironic that Pritzker forgets to mention that HB40 expands abortion coverage, at taxpayer expense, to state employees and medicaid recipients.
Isn’t that the basis of Rauner’s objections?
This is just another typical big money-man’s manipulation of an issue to pander to achieve power.
What does Pritzker think about the costs associated with signing this? Was that in the democrat’s budget?
Maybe we can just add another levy to our property taxes to cover publicly-funded abortions. /s (My imagination runs wild coming up with names for this new district’s levy.)
==I find it ironic that Pritzker forgets to mention that HB40 expands abortion coverage, at taxpayer expense, to state employees and medicaid recipients.==
“Political ad omits the complicated parts of an issue” isn’t ironic.
As always, I can’t judge the ad qua the ad, but running on choice is a solid idea. Pro-choice women are low-key a huge part of the “Resistance” energy right now, and a good bloc of suburban voters to turn against Rauner.
This would be a more significant if the SCOTUS had actually ruled on the subject. The manner in which the Dems have handled this bill is also instructive. Rauner cannot veto a bill that has not been sent to his desk.
It is one of the few ads that will work as well in a Democratic primary as in the general.
The especially nice thing about the ad is that it frames thing in black and white. If the Supreme Court acts, then abortion will be outlawed in Illinois.
It’s an A-, hitting all the highlights needed for a Dem primary and marrying that with a pro-choice stance.
In a :30 ad, the lone picture was a nice touch, and the fade in and away from it worked, but it felt cramped and a forced necessity to justify the script, it seemed.
It works for what the goal is, and JB talking and walking at the end is the close to close the message.
I’m pro-choice, but why would this bill be the first one he signs? Why not an increase of the minimum wage to $15 or other legislation which might appeal to lower income voters and broaden the base of the Democratic Party’s appeal?
I know. I just don’t see the big benefit from an ad in a primary where basically everyone has the same position.
But I also have greater concerns if Roe is overturned. Like, you know, medical privacy in general. Roe says that ingrained in the constitution is our right to privacy. If Roe is overturned, the government could have access to our personal medical decisions. I know many that seek to have it overturned don’t really seem to care about that. So the fact that so many Dems are out to make it all about abortion and not about our right to not have government make our medical decisions for us is a little troubling to me.
Great ad. Love the pic of a young JB - it’s a way of saying to those accusing him of not being a progressive that he’s been there for the long haul. As to the GOP complaints, consider this is a primary ad. One of his better ads. A
It’s a B+ in my eyes. Not necessarily an ad that will sway me either way, but one that gets the message across to female, Democratic primary voters. Also, helps with voters who remember Rauner saying that he “doesn’t have a social agenda.”
This might actually help Rauner. He’s pro-choice, which is one of the things that turns off his base. But this add makes it seem like he’s fighting against abortion, which helps his Republican turnout.
==I just don’t see the big benefit from an ad in a primary where basically everyone has the same position.==
There’s having the same position and articulating the same position. The two are very different politically, and even have important differences governmentally.
I’m a middle of the road Dem who has never based my vote on a candidate’s position on abortion. But a heck of a lot of Dem primary voters do base their vote on that…which is why this is an effective ad.
===This might actually help Rauner. He’s pro-choice, which is one of the things that turns off his base. But this add makes it seem like he’s fighting against abortion, which helps his Republican turnout.===
The outcome of what Rauner does with HB40, which politically “should be” given to Rauner to force the position, will drive turnout more than any ad on abortion
Whatever you say, but this is a winning issue for him. They made a mistake by adding in tax payer funding. Now Rauner can veto it to fire up his base while still appealing to suburban woman by saying he would have accepted a repeal of the trigger provision on its own.
The ad certainly can’t hurt in Illinois. It actually helps JB differentiate himself with the other Democrat candidates. JB might be raising the stakes all the way up to Oregon’s level.
The first half of the ad is sharp, the second half not so much. Watched without sound, it’s not clear that Rauner is blocking HB40’s enactment or that Pritzker would sign it. Grade B
If only a Democrat had indicated they were holding the bill until they had the give buy in…. such a mystery, well mystery apart from the clear concise explanation.
And lol, yes go ahead and run on suburban women hate women’s rights to choose, go.for it.
==If this issue is such a winner why are Democrats playing politics and running misleading ads and not sending the Governor the bill?==
I don’t think you quite get what’s going on here. First of all, the bill is being held by legislative Dems on a strategy devised by Terry Cosgrove. They’re holding it because the Governor has said he’ll veto it, and they want to build public pressure on him to change his mind.
But this ad is done by JB Pritzker’s campaign, and while they haven’t publicly divulged their thinking, they’d probably be happy with a hold *because* it’s a good issue for them.
The early ads coming out of the Pritzker campaign impressed me and I rated them highly. They were upbeat, hopeful, and made JB look like a nice, smart guy who despite his enormous wealth was involved in the community. The most recent ads however, have been dark, and/or like this one, offering a targeted yet simplistic play to what most people understand is a complex issue and bill. Grade C-
Oh, and whoever is writing the press releases for JB: I’ve yet to hear a single person say what they are looking for for Illinois is a “fierce” governor.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:13 am:
Meh. C or D. Single issue ads about something as controversial as abortion are a non-starter for me. Just run it in the Chicago market or not at all.
- Blue dog dem - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:15 am:
I agree with waterfowl.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:17 am:
Team Pritzker isn’t going to let up on HB 40 until Rauner has been forced to make a whole lot of Illinois voters very, very angry.
To the ad: I thought the old photo was a nice touch. It conveys Pritzker’s consistency on the very issue where Rauner is going to have to do a flip-flop one way or the other.
– MrJM
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:18 am:
Why doesn’t JB mention that HB 40 has not been sent to the Governor and that it would make Illinois one of only 5 states that voluntarily provide taxpayer funding for abortion on demand?
- Roman - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:20 am:
I give it an ‘A’. Good primary ad that appeals to the base and an effective early punch for the General Election, too.
No mention of the public funding portion of the bill, but why cloud things up with the facts?
- DDR - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:28 am:
Slow somber piano in the background, whispering female voice over, candidate’s concerned look. Yes, this checks all the boxes for a political ad. I rate it a “I think I saw it while fast forwarding through commercials”
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:29 am:
===…HB 40 has not been sent to the Governor and that it would make Illinois one of only 5 states that voluntarily provide taxpayer funding for abortion on demand?===
If/When Bruce Rauner vetoes HB40, the “no social agenda” by the phony Democrat Diana Rauner will be a complete embarrassment to Diana Rauner, as Rauner’s social agenda is now about HB40 and the complete flip/flop from that questionnaire Mr. Cosgrove has, and will remind suburban women about Bruce and the phony Diana Rauner promise.
If/When Governor Rauner signs…
… seems like Rauner will be just a phony conservative in social agenda items, just has Diana Rauner tried to warn, and those conservatives have no friend in Bruce Rauner.
Until then… More ads… more holding accountable… Bruce and Diana Rauner
Fun.
- cdog - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:30 am:
I find it ironic that Pritzker forgets to mention that HB40 expands abortion coverage, at taxpayer expense, to state employees and medicaid recipients.
Isn’t that the basis of Rauner’s objections?
This is just another typical big money-man’s manipulation of an issue to pander to achieve power.
What does Pritzker think about the costs associated with signing this? Was that in the democrat’s budget?
Maybe we can just add another levy to our property taxes to cover publicly-funded abortions. /s (My imagination runs wild coming up with names for this new district’s levy.)
- TNR - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:32 am:
@Ducky and @Blue dog
This is a Democratic primary ad aimed at the party’s liberal base. So if you don’t like the message, it’s probably a very effective effort.
- Here we go again... - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:32 am:
B/C+
HB40 is hard to explain in less than 30’seconds, but that’s not really the point of the ad.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:38 am:
Are the other 46 states like California and New York phony blue states that ban voluntarily funding taxpayer funding of abortion on demand?
The issue is much more complicated than this simplistic ad geared at telling only part of what is in the bill.
I missed the reporting about Roe vs. Wade in danger of being repealed because there is zero talk about this in Washington.
This is one more example of ginned up legislation that is designed only for political reasons so politicians can run dishonest ads like this one.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:39 am:
==I find it ironic that Pritzker forgets to mention that HB40 expands abortion coverage, at taxpayer expense, to state employees and medicaid recipients.==
“Political ad omits the complicated parts of an issue” isn’t ironic.
- MissingG - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:39 am:
I give it an A-
“I’m JB Pritzker, and I approve Daniel Biss’s message”
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:40 am:
As always, I can’t judge the ad qua the ad, but running on choice is a solid idea. Pro-choice women are low-key a huge part of the “Resistance” energy right now, and a good bloc of suburban voters to turn against Rauner.
- Sigh - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:48 am:
This would be a more significant if the SCOTUS had actually ruled on the subject. The manner in which the Dems have handled this bill is also instructive. Rauner cannot veto a bill that has not been sent to his desk.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:49 am:
Stomach turning nonsense. Thank Rauner for being such a flaming failure JB and this stuff has a chance next year.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:55 am:
==“I’m JB Pritzker, and I approve Daniel Biss’s message”==
LOL.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 9:58 am:
Rating: The right people seem to be howling about it.
– MrJM
- Gooner - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:01 am:
I give this one an A.
It is one of the few ads that will work as well in a Democratic primary as in the general.
The especially nice thing about the ad is that it frames thing in black and white. If the Supreme Court acts, then abortion will be outlawed in Illinois.
It is a very important issue to many.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:02 am:
To the Ad,
It’s an A-, hitting all the highlights needed for a Dem primary and marrying that with a pro-choice stance.
In a :30 ad, the lone picture was a nice touch, and the fade in and away from it worked, but it felt cramped and a forced necessity to justify the script, it seemed.
It works for what the goal is, and JB talking and walking at the end is the close to close the message.
Just seemed a wee tight, but an A- all the same.
- Truthteller - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:05 am:
I’m pro-choice, but why would this bill be the first one he signs? Why not an increase of the minimum wage to $15 or other legislation which might appeal to lower income voters and broaden the base of the Democratic Party’s appeal?
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:10 am:
@TNR
I know. I just don’t see the big benefit from an ad in a primary where basically everyone has the same position.
But I also have greater concerns if Roe is overturned. Like, you know, medical privacy in general. Roe says that ingrained in the constitution is our right to privacy. If Roe is overturned, the government could have access to our personal medical decisions. I know many that seek to have it overturned don’t really seem to care about that. So the fact that so many Dems are out to make it all about abortion and not about our right to not have government make our medical decisions for us is a little troubling to me.
- Chicago_Downstater - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:10 am:
There’s a big difference between politics and policy.
Campaigning is politics. Ideological Purity Tests are politics. Simplicity is politics.
Vetoing or signing bills is policy. Compromise is policy. Complexity is policy.
It’s a bad idea to mix too much policy into your politics. Ex: 2016 Presidential Election.
- Anon0091 - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:13 am:
Great ad. Love the pic of a young JB - it’s a way of saying to those accusing him of not being a progressive that he’s been there for the long haul. As to the GOP complaints, consider this is a primary ad. One of his better ads. A
- The Muse - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:15 am:
It’s a B+ in my eyes. Not necessarily an ad that will sway me either way, but one that gets the message across to female, Democratic primary voters. Also, helps with voters who remember Rauner saying that he “doesn’t have a social agenda.”
- Blue dog dem - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:24 am:
TNR. I dont know your age, but i bet i have voted in as many Dem primaries as you.
- Phil King - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:45 am:
This might actually help Rauner. He’s pro-choice, which is one of the things that turns off his base. But this add makes it seem like he’s fighting against abortion, which helps his Republican turnout.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:47 am:
==I just don’t see the big benefit from an ad in a primary where basically everyone has the same position.==
There’s having the same position and articulating the same position. The two are very different politically, and even have important differences governmentally.
- TNR - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:48 am:
- Blue dog - the ad isn’t aimed at me either.
I’m a middle of the road Dem who has never based my vote on a candidate’s position on abortion. But a heck of a lot of Dem primary voters do base their vote on that…which is why this is an effective ad.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:50 am:
===This might actually help Rauner. He’s pro-choice, which is one of the things that turns off his base. But this add makes it seem like he’s fighting against abortion, which helps his Republican turnout.===
The outcome of what Rauner does with HB40, which politically “should be” given to Rauner to force the position, will drive turnout more than any ad on abortion
- Phil King - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 10:53 am:
OW,
Whatever you say, but this is a winning issue for him. They made a mistake by adding in tax payer funding. Now Rauner can veto it to fire up his base while still appealing to suburban woman by saying he would have accepted a repeal of the trigger provision on its own.
- Steve - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 11:01 am:
The ad certainly can’t hurt in Illinois. It actually helps JB differentiate himself with the other Democrat candidates. JB might be raising the stakes all the way up to Oregon’s level.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/16/governor-signs-bill-making-oregon-first-offer-free/
- Amalia - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 11:02 am:
B+ the music puts me off.
- Mr B. - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 11:11 am:
Pritzker should take a stand, but this issue is not what is on voter’s minds this year. I rate the ad a “C.”
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 11:33 am:
==Whatever you say, but this is a winning issue for him.==
Maybe, once he makes up his mind on it.
- Saluki - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 11:35 am:
Run it in Chicago. Probably not something that the typical DuQuoin Democrat is going to be in love with.
- Reality Check - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 11:36 am:
The first half of the ad is sharp, the second half not so much. Watched without sound, it’s not clear that Rauner is blocking HB40’s enactment or that Pritzker would sign it. Grade B
- cdog - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 12:20 pm:
Why would Rauner not do an amendatory veto and remove the public-funding portion?
Oh, yeah. He doesn’t have the bill.
- Ghost - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 12:34 pm:
I’d give it an A. Needs more cowbell….
Building off an Arsenal comment, the suburban women tend to be the key to winning Illinois. This ad helps move that ball for JB.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 2:05 pm:
Care to share any polling information that the majority of Illinois suburban women support taxpayer funded abortion on demand.
If this issue is such a winner why are Democrats playing politics and running misleading ads and not sending the Governor the bill?
- Ghost - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 3:07 pm:
If only a Democrat had indicated they were holding the bill until they had the give buy in…. such a mystery, well mystery apart from the clear concise explanation.
And lol, yes go ahead and run on suburban women hate women’s rights to choose, go.for it.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
==If this issue is such a winner why are Democrats playing politics and running misleading ads and not sending the Governor the bill?==
I don’t think you quite get what’s going on here. First of all, the bill is being held by legislative Dems on a strategy devised by Terry Cosgrove. They’re holding it because the Governor has said he’ll veto it, and they want to build public pressure on him to change his mind.
But this ad is done by JB Pritzker’s campaign, and while they haven’t publicly divulged their thinking, they’d probably be happy with a hold *because* it’s a good issue for them.
- Responsa - Thursday, Sep 21, 17 @ 4:50 pm:
The early ads coming out of the Pritzker campaign impressed me and I rated them highly. They were upbeat, hopeful, and made JB look like a nice, smart guy who despite his enormous wealth was involved in the community. The most recent ads however, have been dark, and/or like this one, offering a targeted yet simplistic play to what most people understand is a complex issue and bill. Grade C-
Oh, and whoever is writing the press releases for JB: I’ve yet to hear a single person say what they are looking for for Illinois is a “fierce” governor.