46 Comments - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 8:55 pm: This saves Diana Rauner’s reputation, if true…. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:25 pm: Toast. Burnt toast. Lameduck. - Roman - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:27 pm: == I’m told this did not come up during the staff conference call. == There goes Prairie State Wire’s Pulitzer Prize for breaking news coverage. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:34 pm: Could be Proft trolling Rauner, like the “Ghost of the Future” giving a glimpse of what Rauner would face if he signs. We’ll soon see. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:40 pm: Bush league not to put a byline on a story with only anonymous sources. Totally lacking in testicular virility. - Anon221 - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:41 pm: Well, if it’s true, then it looks like Proft got a scoop. If it’s not, then remember… “I don’t care about partisanship, and nobody tells me what my policies are,” Rauner said. “Nobody.” http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/rauner-on-staff-shakeup-change-happens-but-nobody-is-changing-me/ - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:42 pm: It’s the best move for him politically. He’ll crush a primary challenge like a bug. A third party challenge though could be fatal for Team Rauner. More popcorn please. - Roman - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:46 pm: == A third party challenge == Yep, that’s the bigger threat to BVR. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:47 pm: ===It’s the best move for him politically. He’ll crush a primary challenge like a bug.=== Agreed. The question now is… is this trolling it is this truth, the signing of this bill? - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:47 pm: Old Blue is taking all bets in the general. All. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 9:52 pm: Heck.its gonna be so bad poor Rich isnt gonna have anything to write about. Maybe some fishing/hunting stories til 2019? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:16 pm: A third-party run from the right by someone who’s not totally wack-a-doo would be big trouble for Rauner. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:20 pm: Word. Rauner loses by close to same margin as HRC beat Trump. Despite off year. Guarantee. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:25 pm: The third party conservative must have a clear streak of credibility. If it’s just another name, or a head case from the start, it won’t dent too badly. The Dem field, this field, won’t tempt comservatives for a protest vote. If anything, like last time, the Dem and Rauner, if Rauner signs, mind you, would have the “same position” possibly on the issue. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:28 pm: Lets face it. Not a fiscal conservative. Not a social conservative. One issue left. Guns. And he already lost me. A one issue, lifetime member of the NRA. Tell me he has a chance. - Blue dog dem - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:29 pm: FyI. Mrs. Blue also a.one issue voter. Abortion. - cdog - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 10:31 pm: If no announcement made during the staff call, the rest is probably just Onion too. Profit probably needs to back the truck up. - pundemonium - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 12:49 am: – Word. Rauner loses by close to same margin as HRC beat Trump. Despite off year. Guarantee. — It will be single digits - just like last time. Probably within 5 pts - just like last time. - Ron - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 1:37 am: Hope it’s true. We don’t need unwanted people. We have way too many as it is. - Rabid - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 2:04 am: insensible social warrior with no social agenda - Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 5:22 am: Anybody talking about a state wide third party run needs to look at the signature requirements and time window. I’m not saying it’s impossible but man…it’s tough. - blue dog dem - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 6:49 am: Pundemonium. Sorry to disagree. Pro-life folks like my wife and the pack of she-wolves she hangs with, will never,ever forget. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 7:18 am: – Word. Rauner loses by close to same margin as HRC beat Trump. Despite off year. Guarantee. — Not sure if you are trying to be facetious or serious. If Rauner loses by the same margin as Trump, he loses. No electoral college in Illinois. (If you are just talking about the Illinois vote, Rauner gets smoked.) - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 7:24 am: To the post, all the money in the world won’t buy a safe path on this one. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 7:30 am: I’ve seen some fury on the right in social media, calling Rauner a RINO. I don’t think it’s a good idea to push key voters away like this, because they show up to vote in low-turnout elections. But will it matter if Rauner does better because of this in northeast Illinois? - Dave W - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 7:43 am: If he signs this, he’s done. He’s already lost a lot of conservatives in central and southern IL when we signed the sanctuary state bill. Many of us would still hold our nose and vote for him, but we wouldn’t be out there enthusiastically supporting him and we would no longer defend him from criticism, and no had signs. But if he signs this bill, many conservatives will stay at home or undervote. My family and friends would be under voting, just like we did with Mark Kirk. This would be the last straw. You can only turn your backs on conservatives for so long before you lose us for good. We’re too principled and stubborn. And signing this bill only pascifies a bunch of people who would never vote for him anyway, so I don’t get the strategy. - Blue dog dem - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 7:49 am: Dave w. Spot on. I think after he sign SB40 he announces hes not running. - Real - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:10 am: Conservatives need to realize that Rauner is no conservative and he only represents the interest of the 1 percent and big business. This is why he is hellbent on busting Unions and could care less about tax dollars used on anything else. This is also why he wants to make it harder for injured workers to collect workmans comphensation. Why you people back him when you are not the 1 percent is just backwards. - Perrid - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:13 am: Obviously if he signs it he loses a lot of the far (or at least further) right, but he won (IMO) because a lot of moderates, particularly women, believed the whole “no social agenda” and Pro-Choice thing, so I don’t think it’s quite the kiss of death others are saying it is. - Macbeth - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:17 am: — It will be single digits - just like last time. Probably within 5 pts - just like last time. — Unless there’s a viable — and not kooky — third party candidate. A third party contender would, most likely, devastate the final numbers. All bets’d be off. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:21 am: “We’re too principled and stubborn.” Rauner threw people under the bus when he fired his staff for his own failings and because he backed himself into a corner on the budget and revenue. This also includes those who resigned. They did a great job for him, as we saw so frequently here on this blog. I think that when it comes to principle and Rauner, he has shown which one he picks. - Pundent - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:28 am: =I think after he sign SB40 he announces hes not running.= Nonsense. He said that he would sign it in 2014 and it didn’t keep him from winning. He and Diana said there was no difference between Rauner and Quinn on social issues. I’m not saying that he will or won’t sign it. It’s anybody’s guess at this point. He’s going to have to deal with the blowback from either side no matter what he does but that’s the position he put himself in. - Mr B. - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:35 am: I am pro choice, but this issue is just too hot. If you believe abortion is murder, it is loathsome to know your taxes are paying for this. Respect for the other side. - Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:37 am: –Word. Rauner loses by close to same margin as HRC beat Trump. Despite off year. Guarantee.– It will be closer than expected. One unpopular governor against a rich guy who proves not to be too popular either. - Real - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:47 am: I’m not a democrat or republican but I closely align with more democrat policies. However, I feel abortion is murder and should be illegal. I could care less what Rauner does as I plan to vote against him anyway. - Dave W - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:48 am: == Perrid - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:13 am: Obviously if he signs it he loses a lot of the far (or at least further) right, but he won (IMO) because a lot of moderates, particularly women, believed the whole “no social agenda” and Pro-Choice thing, so I don’t think it’s quite the kiss of death others are saying it is. == There’s a difference between being a pro choice moderate and wanting to mandate using tax dollars to pay for elective abortions. - Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:51 am: Anybody talking about a state wide third party run needs to look at the signature requirements and time window. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but man… it’s tough. Yep. Right now, I can’t see how anyone other than a zillionaire candidate (or a zillionaire’s candidate) can pull this off. – MrJM - Dave W - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:52 am: == This is also why he wants to make it harder for injured workers to collect workmans comphensation. Why you people back him when you are not the 1 percent is just backwards.== Because we’ve seen astronomical workers insurance rates become a barrier to job creation, especially here in the metro east, where we have 2,000 steelworkers still out of work (while the same company continues to operate its Gary, Indiana plant at near full capacity; we’ve seen Winchester and Olin ship thousands of jobs down to Mississippi. Something’s gotta give. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 8:57 am: Good points. To even run, 3rd party or not, you need to get on the ballot. We’d have to see if any 3rd party can put together a sophisticated enough operation to even get on the ballot. Yes. It is a tough ask. Point taken. - Pundent - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:05 am: =You can only turn your backs on conservatives for so long before you lose us for good.= What led you to believe that he was a conservative in the first place? He’s certainly not a fiscal conservative. He ran the debt up to $15B in a little over two years. And he (and Diana) made clear in 2014 that he wasn’t a social conservative. If you’re just coming around to the idea that Rauner has a very narrow ideology and it’s not “conservatism” you’re really late to he party. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:09 am: ==You can only turn your backs on conservatives for so long before you lose us for good.=== Raunerism isn’t about being a conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. Labels are a “means to an end”, and the ending of Unions, Social Services, and Higher Education. Both RaunerS care only what they care about, not the greater good, ideology, or typical political leanings. When you’re wealthy like they are, they just simply want their way, no matter the hypocrisy. Been that way since mid 2013. - cdog - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:12 am: But what about Proft’s play? Looks like a ruse? - Blue dog dem - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:23 am: Fantasy football. Fantasy politics. I will take the Dem nominee and give 7.5% pts. - anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 9:30 am: ===Because we’ve seen astronomical workers insurance rates become a barrier to job creation,……….Something’s gotta give.=== Hmmmm - interesting conclusion - but it lacks credibility. While Ohio, Kentucky and Louisiana have much lower than average Workers’ comp premiums than the national average, their unemployment rates are all in the top 6 nationwide. It’s not all about workers’ comp rates - and you know that. - Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:03 am: ==I’m told this did not come up during the staff conference call.== Well there goes Proft’s shot at a Pulitzer. So close, too. - Chris - Thursday, Sep 28, 17 @ 10:39 am: Ron - You said: ===Hope it’s true. We don’t need unwanted people. We have way too many as it is.=== Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) believed in eugenics. She couldn’t have said it any better herself. Shouldn’t we all reject a system based on the idea that some humans are “inferior” and therefore should be killed systematically? You’d think that would be a bipartisan value, but the left is still for abortion being legal. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.