* Parts of the Democratic gubernatorial forum over the weekend were tough to watch. We’re going to discuss other aspects, but let’s start with this one…
The question that seemed to draw the most heated response launched a back and forth between Biss and Pritzker. Ahern asked about candidates’ relationships with Michael Madigan, speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives. […]
Biss said Madigan is too powerful.
Pritzker said Madigan has just become a GOP “talking point.”
When asked if Madigan supports him, Pritzker added that he is an independent who won’t be influenced, and called Biss out for voting for the speaker. Biss then responded that Pritzker should be more honest about the speaker’s support.
* ILGOP…
Democrat Audience Laughs At Pritzker’s Claim of ‘Independence’ from Madigan
As Pritzker tries to distance himself from Madigan, the Democrat audience responds with laughter and groans
“On Sunday, the Democrats running for governor were abundantly clear: Mike Madigan is for J.B. Pritzker. It makes sense, since Pritzker and Madigan both share a history of corrupt deal-making and gaming the system for their own personal gain. Pritzker’s attempts to distance himself from Madigan were literally laughable - so laughable that an audience of Democrats and progressives wren’t buying the malarkey he was peddling.” - Illinois Republican Party Spokesman Aaron DeGroot
On Sunday, the Democratic candidates for governor held a forum at the Chicago Teacher’s Union headquarters, and though they may disagree on exactly how high they will raise taxes, they all came together on one topic: Mike Madigan’s support for J.B. Pritzker.
When asked about his relationship with Mike Madigan, Pritzker repeatedly dodged the question, fumbling over his inability to change the subject. His discomfort was so plain that after being challenged on the issue by moderator Mary Ann Ahern, Pritzker’s non-answers were met with laughter from the crowd of Democrat activists. […]
The Democrats may not always agree on how big government should be, but they all came together on one topic: J.B. Pritzker is Mike Madigan’s candidate for governor.
Biss definitely took it to the guy. But here’s Pritzker’s retort…
I do need to respond to that. Senator Biss, you ran Mike Madigan’s PAC last year. You ran his Super PAC, millions of dollars. C’mon, there is no halo here, we all are Democrats, we don’t get to choose who the Speaker is. He is the Speaker of the House, There’s nothing that any of us can do about it except to support leadership term limits which I do.
* Chris Kennedy’s response…
Mary Ann Ahern: Mr. Kennedy, what’s your relationship like with Speaker Madigan?
Kennedy: I think we should give [Madigan] a choice. I think he should have the choice between being a property tax appeals lawyer or a state Representative. I don’t think we have to accept the current situation. I don’t think it has to be like this in Illinois. He’s a property tax appeals lawyer, he’s appealing the property taxes to Joe Berrios. One is head of the state Democratic Party, one is head of the Cook County Democratic Party. The scale of this thing is incredible. The Sears Tower sells for a billion, two hundred million dollars. It gets a billion dollar mortgage on it. They’re recorded at Cook County. They’re reported in the Tribune and Crain’s. The assessor says “oh no,” he has alternative facts, it’s only worth $579 million. We need to prevent our elected officials from having outside jobs that are adverse to the interests of the body they were elected to serve.
===Um, shouldn’t Democrats run against Rauner and Trump?===
Yeah, but he’s become such an issue that they all need an answer to this question. Pivoting to Rauner won’t save them. Mike’s popularity is just as low or lower.
He didn’t so much fumble it as he just has no good defense. It’s true that he’s Madigan’s pick, so he can’t deny it, and he can’t say anything bad about Madigan.
I really don’t get the attack on Biss about the SuperPac. It was a joint Democratic effort to discredit Trump, not a personal campaign for Biss, so why wouldn’t he take the money? It certainly doesn’t mean he’s beholden to Madigan because of it. And Pritzker donated to that SuperPac too, which I wish Biss had mentioned.
Pritzker’s performance in the forum was kind of painful. It just showed that he’s not really gubernatorial material and is only there because of his money.
I can’t believe Pritzker can’t park this. Seriously.
“Speaker Madigan, like President Cullerton, and Leaders Durkin and Brady encompass the legislative branch leadership. Bruce Rauner fails because he either can’t work with Speaker Madigan or President Cullerton, and can’t be trusted by his OWN leaders, like the resigned former Leader Radogno, who was chased off because Bruce Rauner can’t work with any side not labeled “Rauner’s” side.
It’s imperative that the next governor of Illinois work with President Cullerton, Leaders Durkin and Brady, and even Speaker Madigan. That’s how governing works. I won’t be the failing governor that can’t work for a better Illinois. That’s Bruce Rauner, and he needs to go.
Oswego Willy, but that wasn’t actually the question, was it? If I remember correctly, it was “Do you have the support of Speaker Madigan?” Pritzker can’t deny that he does.
I guess I am naive, but how does the metaphor of a “fumble” apply here?
In my mind, a fumble applies to someone who either a) does not have a concerted answer b) was in the process of giving a good answer but does so in an indigestible manner.
His answer seems pretty clear to me, Madigan is a whipping boy that his opponents are using against the Democratic Party. Instead of giving in, he’s going to focus on issues he can impact. Pritzker has already said he will work with whoever he can (to contrast himself with Rauner who has worked with no one) to get what’s best for Illinois.
The problem with Kennedy’s idea to bar property tax lawyers from holding office is that it’s almost certainly unconstitutional. That he continues to make it the centerpiece of his campaign when it’s completely undoable is yet another reason Kennedy needs to go.
===”Do you have the support of Speaker Madigan?”===
Yep. That’s the question. The sidestep here is to the governing and working together, showing that working together gets things done, with the support of the legislative leaders.
I guess the other candidates on the Democratic side don’t want to get anything done? Hmm. That’s an odd way to run.
==I guess the other candidates on the Democratic side don’t want to get anything done? Hmm. That’s an odd way to run.==
I didn’t hear that. They all said they would work with Madigan. They just pressed home the point that Pritzker is Madigan’s choice, so he represents much of what voters despise about Illinois politics.
Ultimately, the gubernatorial nominee from the Dem side is going to need to attract at least some Independent and Republican voters who cast ballots for Gov Rauner last election if he is to be unseated for a second term. It is obvious that some of the Dem candidates get this –and others do not– by the public stances they are taking and certain defenses they are or are not raising.
===They just pressed home the point that Pritzker is Madigan’s choice, so he represents much of what voters despise about Illinois politics.===
… and making it about getting things done is better than going after Biss for voting for MJM or Kennedy who still thinks he’s running for Cook County Assessor.
“Answering the question” and keeping it about the governing is the best chance.
Pritzker is swamping the others in TV and Ads, not unlike Rauner did to the GOP field in 2014. Why look petty?
==The sidestep here is to the governing and working together==
I much prefer the metaphor Oswego uses, although a sidestep still seems too negative. Sidesteps aren’t always purposely misleading, it’s sometimes a meaningful and nice way of saying “your question isn’t important.”
I don’t think Pritzker cares if Madigan supports him or not, but his brand is working together not tearing things apart. He wants to be seen as the guy who gets things done. Hard to be that when you’re joining the choir that sings the leader of 1/2 of a coequal branch of government must go or is (insert slander here).
“I am seeking and welcome the support of any and all Democrats, as are all candidates in this forum.
“And I’ll be reaching out to Independents and Republicans to defeat Raunerism and Trumpism, which should be the primary goal of all the candidates in this forum.”
==He wants to be seen as the guy who gets things done.==
I believe Madigan’s popularity is below Rauner’s. I don’t think Illinois voters want “things to get done” if it means more of the same Madigan/machine politics.
===I believe Madigan’s popularity is below Rauner’s. I don’t think Illinois voters want “things to get done” if it means more of the same Madigan/machine politics.===
Oh - Teddy -, lol
“I believe Madigan’s popularity is below Rauner’s.”
… in the margin of error is probably splitting the middle.
===I don’t think Illinois voters want “things to get done” if it means more of the same Madigan/machine politics===
If you don’t want to beat Rauner, who has so much more power than Rauner, then maybe you’re not looking at this about beating Rauner, or trying to seem thoughtful in your comment here, but with a splash of Kass staining your point of purity.
The reason the Speaker is supporting Pritzker is because of money, not because of any special policy positions JB holds. If Kennedy or Biss were billionaires willing and capable of not only self-funding but also donating money for down ticket races, they would be Madigan’s pick for governor.
Frankly, if Biss and Kennedy want to get rid of Madigan so badly, shouldn’t they drop out and support JB? Seriously. Why do Dems follow Madigan’s lead? It isn’t his sparkling personality. It’s because as state party chairman, he controls the money (and in turn, many Dem endorsements). If anyone could break the speakers grip on Illinois D politics, wouldn’t it be an incredibly wealthy democratic governor who could replace Madigan as the financial gatekeeper of party campaign funds? Not that I think Pritzker wants to do so, but out of this bunch he would be the only one with a chance.
I love how when Pritzker mentioned someone up here voted for Madigan to be Speaker, Kennedy immediately grabbed Biss by the shoulder as if to say “go get him buddy”.
As Pritzker himself stated, the Republicans are going to say they’re all Madigan stooges. He needs a much sharper answer because dancing around it so much throws up a red flag for people. Just keep it simple and say that the Speaker looked at all the candidates and thought I was the most qualified, but his support won’t influence my decisions as Governor. Or something. Just don’t dance around for multiple minutes reciting a laundry list of irrelevant stuff.
OW, it’s not my politics of purity. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. It’s acknowledging the reality of the politics today, which is that Madigan is deeply unpopular and that fact will be used, mercilessly, by Rauner. If they successfully tie Pritzker to Madigan, it’s going to be a serious disadvantage.
OW, this isn’t about me or my vote, which is what I was trying to make clear. I’m saying that in figuring out which nominee is most likely to beat Rauner (which I think is the point of most discussions of the primary), we should acknowledge that Pritzker is most tightly tied to Madigan, who will be an albatross in the general.
The lack of readiness for this question at this point in the campaign is astounding. It really is. He didn’t just fumble it, he booted it too. As these things become more televised and easier to see, JB is going to highlight more and more how inept he is at this.
Kennedy actually had an answer. Was it great? It was good enough after hearing JB. Crazy.
*8If Kennedy or Biss were billionaires willing and capable of not only self-funding but also donating money for down ticket races, they would be Madigan’s pick for governor.**
Well, to be fair, Kennedy was MJM’s first pick, until MJM determined that Kennedy wasn’t sufficiently wealthy enough.
===I’m saying that in figuring out which nominee is most likely to beat Rauner (which I think is the point of most discussions of the primary), we should acknowledge that Pritzker is most tightly tied to Madigan, who will be an albatross in the general===
… all the while you have no problem, if it’s JB who wins?
So you’re the only “enlightened one”?
So Dems won’t rally, as you seem to think, as you will do, to defeat Rauner?
Rauner is running with a 63% disapproval, and “Pat Quinn fails” as a template and Bret Baier framing Rauner’s incompetency, what exactly are you saying?
“I’m a Dem. Rauner has been awful. I’ll vote for Bruce anyway”?
The goal is it get more Dems and Labor voters to vote against Rauner. Deciding a civil war in the Dem party is best is counter-intuitive.
I’m just glad you’re evolved, not unlike the voters you think are as evolved(?)
The teacher’s union was clearly not on Pritzker’s side.
Kennedy hit the nail on the head about our ridiculous property tax system in Cook County. Pritzker can’t make that case because he of his own property tax fiasco
- Beers of Champaign - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:07 am:
Pritzker is flailing in his own Blago-Madigan wasteland. Kennedy really does have him cornered. Imagine a debate where Rauner and ILGOP couldn’t score any points by using cheap corruption buzz words. Using the primary to reform the party may be uncomfortable for some establishment types, but it’s invigorating, inspiring to us voters.
OW, $1.5 million people voted for Jill Stein in 2016 out of bitterness towards the Dem establishment. Saying that I will not be one of those people doesn’t mean those people don’t exist. We’ve learned the price of disillusionment with the establishment, and it’s not pretty.
===Saying that I will not be one of those people doesn’t mean those people don’t exist. We’ve learned the price of disillusionment with the establishment, and it’s not pretty.===
If you can’t convince a Dem that Rauner is destroying the state and a Dem will be better than Rauner… you will never get them to vote against Rauner.
Even you, who will vote for the Dem nominee see Rauner as unacceptable. Dems that won’t see that aren’t going to see beating Rauner as important, no matter the nominee.
Inflaming a civil war to impede the end goal is helping Rauner.
==OW, $1.5 million people voted for Jill Stein in 2016 out of bitterness towards the Dem establishment==
Dollar sign aside, your takeaway from the presidential election is misguided. HRC, who is the epitome of establishment, won IL by a 17 point margin. The only thing the Dem nominee wants to do in the general election is replicate that feat.
Tying Rauner to Trump is worse for him than it is to his favor by tying the Dem nominee to Madigan.
Also, Jill Stein isn’t running for Governor.
- WizzardOfOzzie - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:20 am:
If his own party laughs at Pritzker’s claims of independence from Madigan, what are actual independents going to think?
This is a major issue, and Dem electeds who endorse JB are ignoring it at their own peril.
What did we learn here. Maybe that JB isn’t as slick as all those ads he is running. Like the one about his poor family history.
Maybe that democrats aren’t goung to fall all over themselves for JB. The laughter was painful and should send a message.
We learned that JB bears a certain resemblance to an east coast governor and should probably eat healthier given his family’s heart history.
We learned that being a billionaire doesn’t always mean you can think on your feet. Rauner is ten times worse, but as we get to see more reporters grill JB about topics like Blago phone conversations and toilets, we may see more fumbling.
The connection to Madigan is real, and it isn’t popular with the voters. This thing isn’t over yet.
Rauner is running with a 63% disapproval, and “Pat Quinn fails” as a template and Bret Baier framing Rauner’s incompetency, what exactly are you saying?
OW you are citing one poll of 600 people by the Democratic Governor’s association.
Consider the source, what did you expect them to find? How does permanently rising income taxes by 32% and not reforming Illinois government or our business environment poll?
There was significant blowback as most of those “perfect 10″ you admire so much are not running for reelection.
Why do you think the Democrats are immune to that same blowback and why would the majority of Democrats vote for the Speaker’s hand picked candidate who won’t challenge him?
This says volumes more about you as a person than your comment tries to say about JB Pritzker the candidate and the person. How terribly pathetic it must be, not to have sympathy or empathy to a story that includes losing a parent, and the other battling the disease of dependency.
Oh, and before you put a price on losing a parent to death or dependency, talk to others what they’d pay to have parents back that faced similar challenges.
===Not a hint of irony that you are the one calling out commenters for staying out side the boundaries of good manners===
Slip and Sue has had years now to explain all that money she got from her lawsuit and how much was paid to the law firm and why other monies weren’t returned to “make her point”
Or the RaunerS explaining the clouting of their child, or Diana’s real role in decisions, with emails…
… but let’s talk about being “sanctimonious”…
Like giving McCarter a wide berth on votes that have a family connection, or letting Kennedy and Joy be the ones to tell their family stories as theirs and not me deciding what it should be…
No, I know what I write, exactly as I write it.
To deny JB hunanity others also deservedly get is the issue, and it’s unfair as emotions and pain have no dollar signs.
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:51 am:
@wordslinger
You wish, but no. Because legions of regular Democrats are damaged immensely by Speaker Madigan and his ilky allies like Joe Barrios. Given some of the things Madigan has done to Democrats in primaries, I don’t think he has any right to be invoking some sort of Democrat counterpart to Reagan’s first commandment.
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:56 am:
If Pritzker can get away with “the governor needs to be able to work with the legislative leadership” then Republicans shouldn’t have to answer questions about Donald Trump. After all, they have to work with the President too, so why get into all this nasty business of asking if they endorsed Trump for President, think he should resign, if his ties to foreign business make his presidency unconstitutional, etc.?
Transparent dodge not worthy of the highest office of the state.
During the presidential election, I did not like either candidate. Next year’s Gov election will be the same if Pritzker is nominated. Being endorsed by Madigan is clearly a point that voters in Illinois, even outside of the Republican Party, find unattractive.
===…you are citing one poll of 600 people by the Democratic Governor’s association===
If you think Rauner is doing better than the poll having him at 63% disapproval, please cite it.
===Consider the source, what did you expect them to find?===
Are you questioning the poll? The pollster? The results? Hmm. That’s not really questioning that Rauner IS polling awful, is it? No. No it’s not.
===what did you expect them to find? How does permanently rising income taxes by 32% and not reforming Illinois government or our business environment poll?===
I guess Bret Baier is right to question Rauner. Not much will change if Rauner wins a second term? Exactly right? lol
===Why do you think the Democrats are immune to that same blowback and why would the majority of Democrats vote for the Speaker’s hand picked candidate who won’t challenge him?===
Because… They won’t be Bruce Rauner, LOL
“I’m a Dem. Rauner is worst than Quinn. I’m voting for Rauner”
That’s not the best campaign strategy.
===There was significant blowback as most of those “perfect 10″ you admire so much are not running for reelection.===
I guess then HB40 and Rauner’s signature will also mean blowback by actual Republican voters turning their back on Bruce Rauner?
Wasn’t it you that said to the effect even Dem Governors wouldn’t sign HB40… lemme see if I can find this those… lol
The “perfect 10″, you can’t be angry with them and support the governor for signing HB40, and then say it’s a fiscal issue. Can’t be done.
Yes I am questioning this poll as well as every other poll. Pollster’s track records are not very good these days.
The bigger point is that it is an irrelevant poll, from a partisan source because there is no nominee from the Democratic side yet.
Voters have spoken and they are upset with Springfield. You think it is a foregone conclusion that voters want more insiders.
You have your blinders on if you think the majority of voters in Illinois want Speaker Madigan to have more power.
The nomination of a handpicked, billionaire candidate for Governor who has no political experience other than questionable ties to an imprisoned former Governor is insider politics at it’s worst.
===Yes I am questioning this poll as well as every other poll. Pollster’s track records are not very good these days.===
Then Mike Madigan can’t be all that bad, since you question “every other” poll out there. Thanks.
===The bigger point===
… that Rauner’s disapproval is at 63%? That’s really high.
===Voters have spoken and they are upset with Springfield. You think it is a foregone conclusion that voters want more insiders.===
You’re right, as a failed incumbent governor, Bruce Rauner needs to be sent home. As a failed governor, Illinois deserves better than Bruce Rauner.
===You have your blinders on if you think the majority of voters in Illinois want Speaker Madigan to have more power.===
I looked this up. The Speaker of the Illinois House is weaker than the Office of the Governor by every measure, including that a governor him/herself is one-third of the governing of Illinois, and the Speaker presides over 1/2 of one-third of that governing.
I guess you and the Governor Ka k a constitutional understanding of Illinois gonernment. Still, as Pat Quinn failed, so has Bruce Rauner.
===… billionaire candidate for Governor who has no political experience other than questionable ties to an imprisoned former Governor is insider politics at it’s worst===
The nominee will be minted with the nomination by voters, casting ballots, unless you, like Trump, don’t believe in the integrity of Illinois’ elections, but let’s look at what you have here…
“billionaire candidate”
Rauner has put in, since 2013 nearly $130+ million to own a party and take over the governor’s office and two caucuses. I’m sure you find that appalling too.
“Governor who has no political experience other than”
Thus was Rauner, in 2013, he then became this governor you “worry” about, so the only way this works is you admitting Rauner has proven the “governor” type IS a failure. Thanks.
“..,questionable ties to an imprisoned former Governor is insider politics at it’s worst”
“Because Blago”?
I thought it was “Because Madigan”?
Pick a lane, Madigan moved to impeached Blago, did you forget that too?
===Why exactly would Illinois voters want self described Madigan stooge JB Pritzker to be their Governor===
“Bruce Rauner failed.”
“What would be different in a Rauner second term?”
Lots of reasons to vote against Bruce Rauner. Ask conservatives, lol
===When he can’t address the substance of the question about having the support of Speaker Madigan, he just sloughs it off as a Republican talking point.===
It is a Raunerite talking point, yes.
Never substance from the Raunerite state party but 19 “Madigan” references.
Whomever wins the nomination, they will be tainted as “Madigan’s stooge”. It’s all Raunerites got.
===He is the only one on the stage not criticizing Speaker Madigan at a Democratic event. And you mock “because Madigan”.===
Campaigns choose many different strategies. Maybe we might see Proft’s phony newspapers telling candidates to run against Rauner. So?
Pritzker’s poor answer then is just that, because he and every Dem that wins will magically be “Madigan’s Stooge”. The fact that the others seemingly are obsessed and short-sided, that’s campaigns in a nutshell
The best sidestep here, by any candidate, is “You aren’t asking if I have the support of a person, you’re asking if I am a machine Democrat. I’m not. I believe Democrats will vote for me because of my values and beliefs, and I believe we’ll get a lot of Republicans to cross-over in the general because they’re tired of seeing someone they can’t trust in the Governor’s mansion. What has been lacking in Illinois politics, maybe even on both sides, is integrity. I have integrity and I won’t back down from hard truths.”
You’ll get hammered by people saying “maybe on both sides” but in a primary I don’t think you should be going full Drury and tearing up your own party. Call me old fashioned. Don’t use the Speaker’s name - address the reason they’re asking the question, and that’ll be the winner.
“Well, to be fair, Kennedy was MJM’s first pick, until MJM determined that Kennedy wasn’t sufficiently wealthy enough.”
No, Madigan supported Kennedy until he realized Kennedy was a disastrously bad candidate. Can’t raise money. Can’t articulate a message. Can’t run a campaign. Can’t show up properly dressed. And he has the gravitas of one of my kids.
Seriously, I saw Kennedy twice on Sunday and all I could do is shake my head at how awful he was. Biss was solid, but Kennedy was a train wreck. That’s one key reason why the Speaker, labor, county chairs and a whole lot of other folks turned away from Kennedy despite his universal name recognition. If Kennedy had Pritzker’s money, there would be no consolidation around Kennedy. He’s that bad.
===No, Madigan supported Kennedy until he realized Kennedy was a disastrously bad candidate. Can’t raise money. Can’t articulate a message. Can’t run a campaign. Can’t show up properly dressed. And he has the gravitas of one of my kids===
Was Bruce Rauner present when you and the Speaker talked so frankly, pointedly, and directly?
“No, Madigan supported Kennedy until he realized Kennedy was a disastrously bad candidate.”
Did the Speaker say “This is it, now I’m out” and when was this realization?
“Can’t raise money. Can’t articulate a message. Can’t run a campaign.”
It’s really the burn rate that’s so awful. The raising is embarrassing, but the burn rate is where the damage is.
“Can’t show up properly dressed.”
See Rauner, Bruce, governor.
So Madigan has a dress code? Who knew?
“And he has the gravitas of one of my kids”
I’m sure your child will be pleased to hear 1) they are an example, 2) it’s not the good example.
That is all the ”Raunerites” have is opposition to The Speaker?
Have you been paying attention to the backlash against, tax and spend progressive Democrats in Cook County who just raised income taxes permantly by 32% on top of record sales, property, soda and water taxes?
Your commentary about voters tolerance for tax increases without reform is way off base
===Have you been paying attention to the backlash against, tax and spend progressive Democrats in Cook County who just raised income taxes permantly by 32% on top of record sales, property, soda and water taxes?===
What Denocrat raised income tax AND also voted for the soda tax?
I’d like to meet that Democrat that voted for both.
Oh, and Rauner personally failed to stop both, LOL
“Vote for me, I fail at stopping things, and my second term won’t be much different.”
That Rauner. No successes, no budgets, higher debt, raised income tax, destroyed social services, lied to a Catholic Cardinal, signed a bill for taxpayer paid abortions…
1. Anyone who bucks Madigan in the Democratic Party does so at his own peril because he has labor buffaloed into thinking he cares about them (remember the pension bill anyone? He’ll sell you out again if given a chance).
2. “The problem with Kennedy’s idea to bar property tax lawyers from holding office is that it’s almost certainly unconstitutional. That he continues to make it the centerpiece of his campaign when it’s completely undoable is yet another reason Kennedy needs to go.”
my response - just because it’s undoable doesn’t mean it won’t resonate with voters. (Exhibit A: Rauner and Trump). FACTS DON’T MATTER ANYMORE.
3. Kennedy was the only one with a clear succinct answer. I’m by no means a Kennedy supporter, but if he does a little more of that as we move along, he remains a top tier contender.
Maybe you missed it OW but all the candidates on the stage at that Democratic forum except JB Pritzker agree with the “Because Madigan” line. These are Democrats not “Raunerites”.
I guess you and JB are alike in that regard except he is a liberal billionaire from Chicago and you are a “Republican” from Oswego.
Voters are angry and voting for the hand picked candidate of the establishment that advocates for the failed status quo and no reform of our government or business environment in Illinois is not likely to happen.
Why do you think Rauner won in the first place? Now you think voters will go back to one party rule in Springfield because they loved it so much for the previous 12 years?
===Maybe you missed it… but all the candidates on the stage at that Democratic forum except JB Pritzker agree with the “Because Madigan” line. These are Democrats not “Raunerites”.===
They may feel that Madigan isn’t supporting them, so go after who Madigan is allegedly supporting.
Instead of focusing on Rauner who has personally destroyed social services and higher education Dems are choosing to go after each other, when petitions are still on the street. Campaigns choose their own ways.
Rauner will have HB40, a bill you said even Democratic governors wouldn’t sign, and we’ll see how Proft will tear into the most socially liberal governor in the county masquerading as a Republican, but governing as Diana Rauner requires.
===I guess you and JB are alike in that regard except he is a liberal billionaire from Chicago and you are a “Republican” from Oswego===
Not really. As a Republican seeing how Raunerism turned its back on Raunerites and Republicans in the GA, if anything, my Republican credentials have been vindicated by Rauner and fit example signing HB40, something you said Denicratic Governors wouldn’t do because it’s too liberal.
Bruce Rauner is more liberal then Democrats. Whew.
I’ll let Pritzker speak for himself, LOL
===Why do you think Rauner won in the first place?===
… same reason he might lose in the second place, “Bruce Rauner failed Illinois”
===Now you think voters will go back to one party rule in Springfield because they loved it so much for the previous 12 years?===
First Rauner cripples Catholic Charities, then Rauner lied to Cardinal Cupich about HB40.
That type of Governor isn’t good for Illinois.
Do you want me to start pulling your comments on HB40?
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:18 am:
Pritzker = Madigan + Blagojevich + Berrios will be the Republican message if Pritker wins the primary.
Rauner has no record to run on & Pritzker lets him run an attack campaign
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:21 am:
One is the Executive Branch. One is the legislative branch, and half of it. Separation of powers.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:23 am:
Um, shouldn’t Democrats run against Rauner and Trump?
I think the other guys cornered the “Because Madigan” market long ago. Not a lot of growth potential there for Democrats.
- Ghost - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:24 am:
Kennedy is running on his name as a connected Democrat, and he is upset about connected democrats?
- PJ - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:25 am:
===Um, shouldn’t Democrats run against Rauner and Trump?===
Yeah, but he’s become such an issue that they all need an answer to this question. Pivoting to Rauner won’t save them. Mike’s popularity is just as low or lower.
- Sharon - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:25 am:
Biss’ holier than thou BS was stale a long time ago, now it’s starting to become laughable.
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:26 am:
He didn’t so much fumble it as he just has no good defense. It’s true that he’s Madigan’s pick, so he can’t deny it, and he can’t say anything bad about Madigan.
I really don’t get the attack on Biss about the SuperPac. It was a joint Democratic effort to discredit Trump, not a personal campaign for Biss, so why wouldn’t he take the money? It certainly doesn’t mean he’s beholden to Madigan because of it. And Pritzker donated to that SuperPac too, which I wish Biss had mentioned.
Pritzker’s performance in the forum was kind of painful. It just showed that he’s not really gubernatorial material and is only there because of his money.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:27 am:
I can’t believe Pritzker can’t park this. Seriously.
“Speaker Madigan, like President Cullerton, and Leaders Durkin and Brady encompass the legislative branch leadership. Bruce Rauner fails because he either can’t work with Speaker Madigan or President Cullerton, and can’t be trusted by his OWN leaders, like the resigned former Leader Radogno, who was chased off because Bruce Rauner can’t work with any side not labeled “Rauner’s” side.
It’s imperative that the next governor of Illinois work with President Cullerton, Leaders Durkin and Brady, and even Speaker Madigan. That’s how governing works. I won’t be the failing governor that can’t work for a better Illinois. That’s Bruce Rauner, and he needs to go.
- Stan - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:28 am:
Kennedy answered it best.
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:29 am:
Oswego Willy, but that wasn’t actually the question, was it? If I remember correctly, it was “Do you have the support of Speaker Madigan?” Pritzker can’t deny that he does.
- Grand Avenue - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:30 am:
I remember a story about Pritzker losing weight - it looks like the campaign diet has put a stop to that.
- MG85 - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:31 am:
I guess I am naive, but how does the metaphor of a “fumble” apply here?
In my mind, a fumble applies to someone who either a) does not have a concerted answer b) was in the process of giving a good answer but does so in an indigestible manner.
His answer seems pretty clear to me, Madigan is a whipping boy that his opponents are using against the Democratic Party. Instead of giving in, he’s going to focus on issues he can impact. Pritzker has already said he will work with whoever he can (to contrast himself with Rauner who has worked with no one) to get what’s best for Illinois.
So, where’s the fumble?
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:31 am:
==Kennedy answered it best.==
The problem with Kennedy’s idea to bar property tax lawyers from holding office is that it’s almost certainly unconstitutional. That he continues to make it the centerpiece of his campaign when it’s completely undoable is yet another reason Kennedy needs to go.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:31 am:
“That is a question that would be better asked of the speaker”
See that wasn’t so hard.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:32 am:
===”Do you have the support of Speaker Madigan?”===
Yep. That’s the question. The sidestep here is to the governing and working together, showing that working together gets things done, with the support of the legislative leaders.
I guess the other candidates on the Democratic side don’t want to get anything done? Hmm. That’s an odd way to run.
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:34 am:
==I guess the other candidates on the Democratic side don’t want to get anything done? Hmm. That’s an odd way to run.==
I didn’t hear that. They all said they would work with Madigan. They just pressed home the point that Pritzker is Madigan’s choice, so he represents much of what voters despise about Illinois politics.
- Ahoy! - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:34 am:
He is the Speaker of the House, There’s nothing that any of us can do about it.
So Pritzker thinks Madigan is omnipotent?
- Responsa - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:37 am:
Ultimately, the gubernatorial nominee from the Dem side is going to need to attract at least some Independent and Republican voters who cast ballots for Gov Rauner last election if he is to be unseated for a second term. It is obvious that some of the Dem candidates get this –and others do not– by the public stances they are taking and certain defenses they are or are not raising.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:39 am:
===They just pressed home the point that Pritzker is Madigan’s choice, so he represents much of what voters despise about Illinois politics.===
… and making it about getting things done is better than going after Biss for voting for MJM or Kennedy who still thinks he’s running for Cook County Assessor.
“Answering the question” and keeping it about the governing is the best chance.
Pritzker is swamping the others in TV and Ads, not unlike Rauner did to the GOP field in 2014. Why look petty?
- MG85 - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:39 am:
==The sidestep here is to the governing and working together==
I much prefer the metaphor Oswego uses, although a sidestep still seems too negative. Sidesteps aren’t always purposely misleading, it’s sometimes a meaningful and nice way of saying “your question isn’t important.”
I don’t think Pritzker cares if Madigan supports him or not, but his brand is working together not tearing things apart. He wants to be seen as the guy who gets things done. Hard to be that when you’re joining the choir that sings the leader of 1/2 of a coequal branch of government must go or is (insert slander here).
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:41 am:
“I am seeking and welcome the support of any and all Democrats, as are all candidates in this forum.
“And I’ll be reaching out to Independents and Republicans to defeat Raunerism and Trumpism, which should be the primary goal of all the candidates in this forum.”
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:42 am:
==He wants to be seen as the guy who gets things done.==
I believe Madigan’s popularity is below Rauner’s. I don’t think Illinois voters want “things to get done” if it means more of the same Madigan/machine politics.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:44 am:
I’ve seen him give much much better answers to this question. This was not one of them.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:46 am:
===I believe Madigan’s popularity is below Rauner’s. I don’t think Illinois voters want “things to get done” if it means more of the same Madigan/machine politics.===
Oh - Teddy -, lol
“I believe Madigan’s popularity is below Rauner’s.”
… in the margin of error is probably splitting the middle.
===I don’t think Illinois voters want “things to get done” if it means more of the same Madigan/machine politics===
If you don’t want to beat Rauner, who has so much more power than Rauner, then maybe you’re not looking at this about beating Rauner, or trying to seem thoughtful in your comment here, but with a splash of Kass staining your point of purity.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:47 am:
The reason the Speaker is supporting Pritzker is because of money, not because of any special policy positions JB holds. If Kennedy or Biss were billionaires willing and capable of not only self-funding but also donating money for down ticket races, they would be Madigan’s pick for governor.
Frankly, if Biss and Kennedy want to get rid of Madigan so badly, shouldn’t they drop out and support JB? Seriously. Why do Dems follow Madigan’s lead? It isn’t his sparkling personality. It’s because as state party chairman, he controls the money (and in turn, many Dem endorsements). If anyone could break the speakers grip on Illinois D politics, wouldn’t it be an incredibly wealthy democratic governor who could replace Madigan as the financial gatekeeper of party campaign funds? Not that I think Pritzker wants to do so, but out of this bunch he would be the only one with a chance.
- TopHatMonocle - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:49 am:
I love how when Pritzker mentioned someone up here voted for Madigan to be Speaker, Kennedy immediately grabbed Biss by the shoulder as if to say “go get him buddy”.
As Pritzker himself stated, the Republicans are going to say they’re all Madigan stooges. He needs a much sharper answer because dancing around it so much throws up a red flag for people. Just keep it simple and say that the Speaker looked at all the candidates and thought I was the most qualified, but his support won’t influence my decisions as Governor. Or something. Just don’t dance around for multiple minutes reciting a laundry list of irrelevant stuff.
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:50 am:
OW, it’s not my politics of purity. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. It’s acknowledging the reality of the politics today, which is that Madigan is deeply unpopular and that fact will be used, mercilessly, by Rauner. If they successfully tie Pritzker to Madigan, it’s going to be a serious disadvantage.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:54 am:
===I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.===
… then you may support someone who is being supported by Madigan, like JB Pritzker?
Then you’re arguing to argue.
“Pritzker is with Madigan and Madugan is with Pritzker, but if JB wins, I’ll vote for him”
The target IS Rauner.
You staying in the end you’ll support the nominee… what the point?
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:57 am:
OW, this isn’t about me or my vote, which is what I was trying to make clear. I’m saying that in figuring out which nominee is most likely to beat Rauner (which I think is the point of most discussions of the primary), we should acknowledge that Pritzker is most tightly tied to Madigan, who will be an albatross in the general.
- A guy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:58 am:
The lack of readiness for this question at this point in the campaign is astounding. It really is. He didn’t just fumble it, he booted it too. As these things become more televised and easier to see, JB is going to highlight more and more how inept he is at this.
Kennedy actually had an answer. Was it great? It was good enough after hearing JB. Crazy.
- JoeMaddon - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 10:58 am:
*8If Kennedy or Biss were billionaires willing and capable of not only self-funding but also donating money for down ticket races, they would be Madigan’s pick for governor.**
Well, to be fair, Kennedy was MJM’s first pick, until MJM determined that Kennedy wasn’t sufficiently wealthy enough.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:02 am:
===I’m saying that in figuring out which nominee is most likely to beat Rauner (which I think is the point of most discussions of the primary), we should acknowledge that Pritzker is most tightly tied to Madigan, who will be an albatross in the general===
… all the while you have no problem, if it’s JB who wins?
So you’re the only “enlightened one”?
So Dems won’t rally, as you seem to think, as you will do, to defeat Rauner?
Rauner is running with a 63% disapproval, and “Pat Quinn fails” as a template and Bret Baier framing Rauner’s incompetency, what exactly are you saying?
“I’m a Dem. Rauner has been awful. I’ll vote for Bruce anyway”?
The goal is it get more Dems and Labor voters to vote against Rauner. Deciding a civil war in the Dem party is best is counter-intuitive.
I’m just glad you’re evolved, not unlike the voters you think are as evolved(?)
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:05 am:
The teacher’s union was clearly not on Pritzker’s side.
Kennedy hit the nail on the head about our ridiculous property tax system in Cook County. Pritzker can’t make that case because he of his own property tax fiasco
- Beers of Champaign - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:07 am:
Pritzker is flailing in his own Blago-Madigan wasteland. Kennedy really does have him cornered. Imagine a debate where Rauner and ILGOP couldn’t score any points by using cheap corruption buzz words. Using the primary to reform the party may be uncomfortable for some establishment types, but it’s invigorating, inspiring to us voters.
- Teddy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:10 am:
OW, $1.5 million people voted for Jill Stein in 2016 out of bitterness towards the Dem establishment. Saying that I will not be one of those people doesn’t mean those people don’t exist. We’ve learned the price of disillusionment with the establishment, and it’s not pretty.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:14 am:
===Saying that I will not be one of those people doesn’t mean those people don’t exist. We’ve learned the price of disillusionment with the establishment, and it’s not pretty.===
If you can’t convince a Dem that Rauner is destroying the state and a Dem will be better than Rauner… you will never get them to vote against Rauner.
Even you, who will vote for the Dem nominee see Rauner as unacceptable. Dems that won’t see that aren’t going to see beating Rauner as important, no matter the nominee.
Inflaming a civil war to impede the end goal is helping Rauner.
- MG85 - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:19 am:
==OW, $1.5 million people voted for Jill Stein in 2016 out of bitterness towards the Dem establishment==
Dollar sign aside, your takeaway from the presidential election is misguided. HRC, who is the epitome of establishment, won IL by a 17 point margin. The only thing the Dem nominee wants to do in the general election is replicate that feat.
Tying Rauner to Trump is worse for him than it is to his favor by tying the Dem nominee to Madigan.
Also, Jill Stein isn’t running for Governor.
- WizzardOfOzzie - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:20 am:
If his own party laughs at Pritzker’s claims of independence from Madigan, what are actual independents going to think?
This is a major issue, and Dem electeds who endorse JB are ignoring it at their own peril.
Also, JB does not look comfortable on the stump.
- Uncle Buck - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:23 am:
What did we learn here. Maybe that JB isn’t as slick as all those ads he is running. Like the one about his poor family history.
Maybe that democrats aren’t goung to fall all over themselves for JB. The laughter was painful and should send a message.
We learned that JB bears a certain resemblance to an east coast governor and should probably eat healthier given his family’s heart history.
We learned that being a billionaire doesn’t always mean you can think on your feet. Rauner is ten times worse, but as we get to see more reporters grill JB about topics like Blago phone conversations and toilets, we may see more fumbling.
The connection to Madigan is real, and it isn’t popular with the voters. This thing isn’t over yet.
- Whatever - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:24 am:
“Darting questions”???? Who wrote this nonsense?
- Responsa - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:24 am:
==He didn’t just fumble it, he booted it ==
Kind of like Schwarber in the game yesterday.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:25 am:
Rauner is running with a 63% disapproval, and “Pat Quinn fails” as a template and Bret Baier framing Rauner’s incompetency, what exactly are you saying?
OW you are citing one poll of 600 people by the Democratic Governor’s association.
Consider the source, what did you expect them to find? How does permanently rising income taxes by 32% and not reforming Illinois government or our business environment poll?
There was significant blowback as most of those “perfect 10″ you admire so much are not running for reelection.
Why do you think the Democrats are immune to that same blowback and why would the majority of Democrats vote for the Speaker’s hand picked candidate who won’t challenge him?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:28 am:
===Like the one about his poor family history.===
This says volumes more about you as a person than your comment tries to say about JB Pritzker the candidate and the person. How terribly pathetic it must be, not to have sympathy or empathy to a story that includes losing a parent, and the other battling the disease of dependency.
Oh, and before you put a price on losing a parent to death or dependency, talk to others what they’d pay to have parents back that faced similar challenges.
Be better.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:36 am:
At your sanctimonious best OW.
Not a hint of irony that you are the one calling out commenters for staying out side the boundaries of good manners
- A guy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:38 am:
==Kind of like Schwarber in the game yesterday.==
Actually, by comparison, Schwarber showed the finesse of a ballerina.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:43 am:
===Not a hint of irony that you are the one calling out commenters for staying out side the boundaries of good manners===
Slip and Sue has had years now to explain all that money she got from her lawsuit and how much was paid to the law firm and why other monies weren’t returned to “make her point”
Or the RaunerS explaining the clouting of their child, or Diana’s real role in decisions, with emails…
… but let’s talk about being “sanctimonious”…
Like giving McCarter a wide berth on votes that have a family connection, or letting Kennedy and Joy be the ones to tell their family stories as theirs and not me deciding what it should be…
No, I know what I write, exactly as I write it.
To deny JB hunanity others also deservedly get is the issue, and it’s unfair as emotions and pain have no dollar signs.
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:51 am:
@wordslinger
You wish, but no. Because legions of regular Democrats are damaged immensely by Speaker Madigan and his ilky allies like Joe Barrios. Given some of the things Madigan has done to Democrats in primaries, I don’t think he has any right to be invoking some sort of Democrat counterpart to Reagan’s first commandment.
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 11:56 am:
If Pritzker can get away with “the governor needs to be able to work with the legislative leadership” then Republicans shouldn’t have to answer questions about Donald Trump. After all, they have to work with the President too, so why get into all this nasty business of asking if they endorsed Trump for President, think he should resign, if his ties to foreign business make his presidency unconstitutional, etc.?
Transparent dodge not worthy of the highest office of the state.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 12:04 pm:
During the presidential election, I did not like either candidate. Next year’s Gov election will be the same if Pritzker is nominated. Being endorsed by Madigan is clearly a point that voters in Illinois, even outside of the Republican Party, find unattractive.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 12:07 pm:
===…you are citing one poll of 600 people by the Democratic Governor’s association===
If you think Rauner is doing better than the poll having him at 63% disapproval, please cite it.
===Consider the source, what did you expect them to find?===
Are you questioning the poll? The pollster? The results? Hmm. That’s not really questioning that Rauner IS polling awful, is it? No. No it’s not.
===what did you expect them to find? How does permanently rising income taxes by 32% and not reforming Illinois government or our business environment poll?===
I guess Bret Baier is right to question Rauner. Not much will change if Rauner wins a second term? Exactly right? lol
===Why do you think the Democrats are immune to that same blowback and why would the majority of Democrats vote for the Speaker’s hand picked candidate who won’t challenge him?===
Because… They won’t be Bruce Rauner, LOL
“I’m a Dem. Rauner is worst than Quinn. I’m voting for Rauner”
That’s not the best campaign strategy.
===There was significant blowback as most of those “perfect 10″ you admire so much are not running for reelection.===
I guess then HB40 and Rauner’s signature will also mean blowback by actual Republican voters turning their back on Bruce Rauner?
Wasn’t it you that said to the effect even Dem Governors wouldn’t sign HB40… lemme see if I can find this those… lol
The “perfect 10″, you can’t be angry with them and support the governor for signing HB40, and then say it’s a fiscal issue. Can’t be done.
- JB13 - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 12:21 pm:
Mike Madigan is only a “GOP talking point?” So, prove it: Buck him.
I’ll bring the popcorn.
- Quiet Sage - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 12:28 pm:
The huge advantage Kennedy would have over Pritzker in the general is that an anti-Madigan attack would not work on him. He’s a Kennedy.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 12:29 pm:
Yes I am questioning this poll as well as every other poll. Pollster’s track records are not very good these days.
The bigger point is that it is an irrelevant poll, from a partisan source because there is no nominee from the Democratic side yet.
Voters have spoken and they are upset with Springfield. You think it is a foregone conclusion that voters want more insiders.
You have your blinders on if you think the majority of voters in Illinois want Speaker Madigan to have more power.
The nomination of a handpicked, billionaire candidate for Governor who has no political experience other than questionable ties to an imprisoned former Governor is insider politics at it’s worst.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 12:49 pm:
JB’s Bubble thought re: Wordslinger comment @10:31.
“Thanks a lot dude. Where were you last Sunday??”
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 1:25 pm:
===Yes I am questioning this poll as well as every other poll. Pollster’s track records are not very good these days.===
Then Mike Madigan can’t be all that bad, since you question “every other” poll out there. Thanks.
===The bigger point===
… that Rauner’s disapproval is at 63%? That’s really high.
===Voters have spoken and they are upset with Springfield. You think it is a foregone conclusion that voters want more insiders.===
You’re right, as a failed incumbent governor, Bruce Rauner needs to be sent home. As a failed governor, Illinois deserves better than Bruce Rauner.
===You have your blinders on if you think the majority of voters in Illinois want Speaker Madigan to have more power.===
I looked this up. The Speaker of the Illinois House is weaker than the Office of the Governor by every measure, including that a governor him/herself is one-third of the governing of Illinois, and the Speaker presides over 1/2 of one-third of that governing.
I guess you and the Governor Ka k a constitutional understanding of Illinois gonernment. Still, as Pat Quinn failed, so has Bruce Rauner.
===… billionaire candidate for Governor who has no political experience other than questionable ties to an imprisoned former Governor is insider politics at it’s worst===
The nominee will be minted with the nomination by voters, casting ballots, unless you, like Trump, don’t believe in the integrity of Illinois’ elections, but let’s look at what you have here…
“billionaire candidate”
Rauner has put in, since 2013 nearly $130+ million to own a party and take over the governor’s office and two caucuses. I’m sure you find that appalling too.
“Governor who has no political experience other than”
Thus was Rauner, in 2013, he then became this governor you “worry” about, so the only way this works is you admitting Rauner has proven the “governor” type IS a failure. Thanks.
“..,questionable ties to an imprisoned former Governor is insider politics at it’s worst”
“Because Blago”?
I thought it was “Because Madigan”?
Pick a lane, Madigan moved to impeached Blago, did you forget that too?
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 2:07 pm:
Pick a lane?
Why exactly would Illinois voters want self described Madigan stooge JB Pritzker to be their Governor?
When he can’t address the substance of the question about having the support of Speaker Madigan, he just sloughs it off as a Republican talking point.
He is the only one on the stage not criticizing Speaker Madigan at a Democratic event. And you mock “because Madigan”.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
===Why exactly would Illinois voters want self described Madigan stooge JB Pritzker to be their Governor===
“Bruce Rauner failed.”
“What would be different in a Rauner second term?”
Lots of reasons to vote against Bruce Rauner. Ask conservatives, lol
===When he can’t address the substance of the question about having the support of Speaker Madigan, he just sloughs it off as a Republican talking point.===
It is a Raunerite talking point, yes.
Never substance from the Raunerite state party but 19 “Madigan” references.
Whomever wins the nomination, they will be tainted as “Madigan’s stooge”. It’s all Raunerites got.
===He is the only one on the stage not criticizing Speaker Madigan at a Democratic event. And you mock “because Madigan”.===
Campaigns choose many different strategies. Maybe we might see Proft’s phony newspapers telling candidates to run against Rauner. So?
Pritzker’s poor answer then is just that, because he and every Dem that wins will magically be “Madigan’s Stooge”. The fact that the others seemingly are obsessed and short-sided, that’s campaigns in a nutshell
- EVanstonian - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
The best sidestep here, by any candidate, is “You aren’t asking if I have the support of a person, you’re asking if I am a machine Democrat. I’m not. I believe Democrats will vote for me because of my values and beliefs, and I believe we’ll get a lot of Republicans to cross-over in the general because they’re tired of seeing someone they can’t trust in the Governor’s mansion. What has been lacking in Illinois politics, maybe even on both sides, is integrity. I have integrity and I won’t back down from hard truths.”
You’ll get hammered by people saying “maybe on both sides” but in a primary I don’t think you should be going full Drury and tearing up your own party. Call me old fashioned. Don’t use the Speaker’s name - address the reason they’re asking the question, and that’ll be the winner.
- Anon0091 - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
“Well, to be fair, Kennedy was MJM’s first pick, until MJM determined that Kennedy wasn’t sufficiently wealthy enough.”
No, Madigan supported Kennedy until he realized Kennedy was a disastrously bad candidate. Can’t raise money. Can’t articulate a message. Can’t run a campaign. Can’t show up properly dressed. And he has the gravitas of one of my kids.
Seriously, I saw Kennedy twice on Sunday and all I could do is shake my head at how awful he was. Biss was solid, but Kennedy was a train wreck. That’s one key reason why the Speaker, labor, county chairs and a whole lot of other folks turned away from Kennedy despite his universal name recognition. If Kennedy had Pritzker’s money, there would be no consolidation around Kennedy. He’s that bad.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
===No, Madigan supported Kennedy until he realized Kennedy was a disastrously bad candidate. Can’t raise money. Can’t articulate a message. Can’t run a campaign. Can’t show up properly dressed. And he has the gravitas of one of my kids===
Was Bruce Rauner present when you and the Speaker talked so frankly, pointedly, and directly?
“No, Madigan supported Kennedy until he realized Kennedy was a disastrously bad candidate.”
Did the Speaker say “This is it, now I’m out” and when was this realization?
“Can’t raise money. Can’t articulate a message. Can’t run a campaign.”
It’s really the burn rate that’s so awful. The raising is embarrassing, but the burn rate is where the damage is.
“Can’t show up properly dressed.”
See Rauner, Bruce, governor.
So Madigan has a dress code? Who knew?
“And he has the gravitas of one of my kids”
I’m sure your child will be pleased to hear 1) they are an example, 2) it’s not the good example.
Take a breath, you like Pritzker.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 3:32 pm:
That is all the ”Raunerites” have is opposition to The Speaker?
Have you been paying attention to the backlash against, tax and spend progressive Democrats in Cook County who just raised income taxes permantly by 32% on top of record sales, property, soda and water taxes?
Your commentary about voters tolerance for tax increases without reform is way off base
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
===Have you been paying attention to the backlash against, tax and spend progressive Democrats in Cook County who just raised income taxes permantly by 32% on top of record sales, property, soda and water taxes?===
What Denocrat raised income tax AND also voted for the soda tax?
I’d like to meet that Democrat that voted for both.
Oh, and Rauner personally failed to stop both, LOL
“Vote for me, I fail at stopping things, and my second term won’t be much different.”
That Rauner. No successes, no budgets, higher debt, raised income tax, destroyed social services, lied to a Catholic Cardinal, signed a bill for taxpayer paid abortions…
… all that’s left is “Because Madigan”
The state party tells me so.
- I'mDone - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 5:18 pm:
1. Anyone who bucks Madigan in the Democratic Party does so at his own peril because he has labor buffaloed into thinking he cares about them (remember the pension bill anyone? He’ll sell you out again if given a chance).
2. “The problem with Kennedy’s idea to bar property tax lawyers from holding office is that it’s almost certainly unconstitutional. That he continues to make it the centerpiece of his campaign when it’s completely undoable is yet another reason Kennedy needs to go.”
my response - just because it’s undoable doesn’t mean it won’t resonate with voters. (Exhibit A: Rauner and Trump). FACTS DON’T MATTER ANYMORE.
3. Kennedy was the only one with a clear succinct answer. I’m by no means a Kennedy supporter, but if he does a little more of that as we move along, he remains a top tier contender.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 7:06 pm:
Maybe you missed it OW but all the candidates on the stage at that Democratic forum except JB Pritzker agree with the “Because Madigan” line. These are Democrats not “Raunerites”.
I guess you and JB are alike in that regard except he is a liberal billionaire from Chicago and you are a “Republican” from Oswego.
Voters are angry and voting for the hand picked candidate of the establishment that advocates for the failed status quo and no reform of our government or business environment in Illinois is not likely to happen.
Why do you think Rauner won in the first place? Now you think voters will go back to one party rule in Springfield because they loved it so much for the previous 12 years?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 10, 17 @ 7:26 pm:
===Maybe you missed it… but all the candidates on the stage at that Democratic forum except JB Pritzker agree with the “Because Madigan” line. These are Democrats not “Raunerites”.===
They may feel that Madigan isn’t supporting them, so go after who Madigan is allegedly supporting.
Instead of focusing on Rauner who has personally destroyed social services and higher education Dems are choosing to go after each other, when petitions are still on the street. Campaigns choose their own ways.
Rauner will have HB40, a bill you said even Democratic governors wouldn’t sign, and we’ll see how Proft will tear into the most socially liberal governor in the county masquerading as a Republican, but governing as Diana Rauner requires.
===I guess you and JB are alike in that regard except he is a liberal billionaire from Chicago and you are a “Republican” from Oswego===
Not really. As a Republican seeing how Raunerism turned its back on Raunerites and Republicans in the GA, if anything, my Republican credentials have been vindicated by Rauner and fit example signing HB40, something you said Denicratic Governors wouldn’t do because it’s too liberal.
Bruce Rauner is more liberal then Democrats. Whew.
I’ll let Pritzker speak for himself, LOL
===Why do you think Rauner won in the first place?===
… same reason he might lose in the second place, “Bruce Rauner failed Illinois”
===Now you think voters will go back to one party rule in Springfield because they loved it so much for the previous 12 years?===
First Rauner cripples Catholic Charities, then Rauner lied to Cardinal Cupich about HB40.
That type of Governor isn’t good for Illinois.
Do you want me to start pulling your comments on HB40?
That will be fun.