85 Comments - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:27 am: ==“I think people made commitments early because they were told to, not because they chose to.”== Come from the guy who got the Southern 20- or 9, maybe?- endorsement like, the week he announced his campaign, this complaint is so rich it supports the GOP tax bill. - George - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:34 am: I’m pretty sure Biss got his Ph D in math so that he’d be able to calculate the size of his ego. I don’t see him changing. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:34 am: I posted something similar in probably the wrong thread. Rauner had to win a primary and then still spend a lot in the general to lock down the R’s. Pritzker remains way ahead of schedule. I guess out of touch billionaires are only bad when it’s “their” out of touch billionaire, not “ours.” - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:35 am: =Durbin isn’t gonna be bought and bring his fellow US Senator along for the ride over a measly $25K.= Of course not, that was just the down payment. - CatAttack - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:36 am: How is calling Pritzker out on hiding his taxes giving ammunition to the Republicans? Like, they won’t notice that JB has gone back on his word unless Daniel Biss points it out? And, how electable is JB if he can’t even withstand someone pointing out that he hasn’t released his taxes? I have to think the GOP can find these very obvious things out with basic research, given the amount Rauner is spending on his race. And yes, it’s completely hypocritical for Rauner to be attacking Pritzker for hiding taxes too - but that seems like even more reason that Biss is correct. Of all the candidates, he’s the only one not hiding his taxes. If Houlihan is really worried about that line of attack, maybe he should ask JB to come clean and negate it? - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:38 am: ===how electable is JB if he can’t even withstand someone pointing out === How electable is Biss if he can’t even withstand some gentle criticism? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:40 am: ===Of course not, that was just the down payment.=== Please cite why you believe this to be so. I need a good laugh. As with Paul Simon, I may not agree with Sen. Durbin on any majority of topics, but I never feel his integrity is for sale for political campaign purposes in the form of endorsements. - So_Ill - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:41 am: Has Biss responded to any of this yet? - PJ - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:43 am: Pritzker has real questions to answer. This “Biss has to play real gentle with him because offshore trust talk makes him sad” stuff is so dumb. Primaries shouldn’t be coronations. His money makes him attractive - I get it. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the field has to play nice. Rauner certainly won’t. I thought Democrats had learned their lesson about clearing the field for their chosen candidate in high-profile races. But no - the party elders are still trying to play kingmaker. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:49 am: ==And, how electable is JB if he can’t even withstand someone pointing out that he hasn’t released his taxes?== Houlihan’s comments are part of “withstanding” it. ==I thought Democrats had learned their lesson about clearing the field for their chosen candidate in high-profile races.== Six candidates besides JB in the field, including a Kennedy and high-profile State Senator. No one cleared the field. - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:58 am: I think a lot of Dems expected to endorse Kennedy, but he has shown himself to be a poor campaigner. So, they started looking elsewhere. I see the criticism of Biss as part of the game. I don’t think anyone really expects him to stop, and they probably shouldn’t want him to. As is pointed out above, these are all topics likely to come up next Fall; airing them out now serves to inoculate JB. Old news is not news. - amelia - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:00 am: Biss is quite used to making miscalculations and this is just another one. He is now a kamikaze pilot. He knows he can’t win, but he is going to try to do as much damage as possible. If Rauner is re-elected, Biss will be the reason. - PJ - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:01 am: ===Six candidates besides JB in the field, including a Kennedy and high-profile State Senator. No one cleared the field=== Come on. Not literally, because that’s impossible in a race at this level. But it’s not exactly a secret that Illinois Democrats are lining everything up behind Pritzker because his personal wealth means they won’t need to tap donors to help him win. If members of the state central committee trying to get Biss to stop pointing out JB’s obvious and glaring flaws isn’t “clearing the field”… - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:04 am: === ===Six candidates besides JB in the field, including a Kennedy and high-profile State Senator. No one cleared the field=== Come on. Not literally=== If 6 names are on the ballot, they’re literally running and are on the ballot. I don’t think you may know what words mean, lol - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:05 am: I really think Houlihan is trying to remind people of the lessons of 2016. Long after he had been mathematically eliminated, Bernie Sanders was peddling conspiracy theories and nonsense. The normal give and take of primaries was replaced by a metastasizing cancer. It wasn’t that Bernie was better - it became that Hillary stole it in a rigged election and that she was evil and corrupt. That stuck with a lot of his supporters and they never forgave her and didn’t unify in the way Hillary’s supporters unified behind Obama in 2008. And yea, she lost by 10,000 votes each in WI and MI - votes that went to Jill Stein. So fast forward and we have Biss becoming more nasty by the day, with the same kind of overheated rhetoric. And I’m starting to hear echoes of that same anger from some of his supporters. And unlike Bernie, who had key signature issues, all we hear from Biss these days are the attacks. Bottom line: the most important thing we can do is defeat Rauner. Everything else is secondary. - Blue dog dem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:08 am: I sure am glad noone is telling Ives to stop giving the Dems fodder.they could never come up with any dirt on Rauner on their own. GEEZ. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:09 am: ===the party elders are still trying to play kingmaker=== Serious question: Do you think Biss and Kennedy will sharply criticize Durbin and Duckworth by name for endorsing Pritzker? I tend to doubt it. But, hey, we’ll see. - ILDemVoter - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:10 am: This is all foolery. Primaries in general should be open and free of any endorsements because voters should choose. Obviously, people are free to endorse, but I don’t think anyone can say (with a straight face) these endorsements have happened because JB Pritzer is the most qualified person in this race. He is no douby running a strong campaign, enabled by money, similar to what Gov. Rauhner did. As far as the taxes go– the Democratic Party can never make that argument again in this state without sounding extremely hypocritical, if JBs aren’t fully released. Governor Elect Phil Murphhy (New Jersey) released 300 pages of his 5 year returns without being challenged…and this is Goldman Sachs guy. Just sayin, that’s an argument you come prepared for if you are in the upper echelon income tax bracket and running as a Dem. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:10 am: ==If members of the state central committee trying to get Biss to stop pointing out JB’s obvious and glaring flaws isn’t “clearing the field”…== …then what? ‘Cause it’s not “clearing the field” in any shape or form. “Clearing the field” is preventing other candidates from running. What Houlihan’s done is criticized Biss’ attacks on Pritzker. Now, I understand why Pritzker’s opponents would prefer to operate in a campaign where their attacks on Pritzker are never answered, but that just gives away the game. They don’t think the primary is rigged, they just think it’s not rigged *for them*, and it drives them crazy. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:12 am: ==Houlihan is trying to remind people of the lessons of 2016. == Houlihan is just doing a typical “Democrats Kumbaya” routine. Bernie’s gonna write it up ’cause why not, but it only means something if Biss lets it. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:12 am: ===Primaries in general should be open and free of any endorsements because voters should choose=== Um, how about getting out of the dorm room and joining the real world… - Shytown - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:13 am: It’s frankly sad to see Biss go into the gutter like this. He needs better advisors who aren’t simply using tips from the far left playbook. This only weakens the party as it heads into a political battle like we’ve never seen before. Kennedy continues to remind us that he’s a C team member of that clan. And his continued references to insider politics could not be more ironic given it’s coming from a Kennedy. I know it’s asking a lot but perhaps we can try to rise above gutter politics and these candidates could instead focus on how each is best qualified to be Gov and save the bombs for Rauner. - @misterjayem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:16 am: “The two Senators are pretty darned popular in the Democratic Party, so attacking them for backing Pritzker will be nearly impossible for Kennedy and Biss. The endorsements also give everybody else who has already endorsed Pritzker some political cover.” In addition, I would suggest that this December endorsement will let Pritzker finally be the inevitable nominee that his opponents have always claimed he was. Democrats who were on the fence about knocking on doors for Biss or Kennedy can now tell themselves that because the senators have weighed in, it’s a done deal, and that Pritzker is a lock. They can stay home and not even feel guilty about it. And Biss and Kennedy did themselves no favors by claiming for months that some kind of fix made Pritzker politically inevitable. Now their supporters are primed to believe that the campaign is over precisely because their fatalistic candidates have bemoaned that it was over ever since it began. Ironically, it’s not actually over — not by a long shot. There’s plenty of primary calendar left, a rookie candidate and a lot could still happen. (Barack Obama was still very much a dark horse candidate at this stage of his 2004 state-wide primary.) But when the volunteers believe a campaign is over, it’s over. – MrJM - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:17 am: ==because JB Pritzer is the most qualified person in this race== “Most qualified” isn’t the only reason for endorsing someone. - Roman - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:19 am: More whining…this time from the JB camp. It’s good politics for Kennedy and Biss to portray JB as a golden-spoon-in-his-mouth recipient of an insider-arranged coronation that dare not be questioned. Durbin won’t be doing JB any favors if he draws more attention to this strategy by complaining about it. - CatAttack - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:20 am: ===Long after he had been mathematically eliminated, Bernie Sanders was peddling=== Yes, but the difference is that in this primary there’s no “mathematically eliminated” until March 20. Sanders didn’t have the delegates to win. But there aren’t delegates in the IL GOV primary. Pointing out JB’s flaws isn’t a conspiracy theory. The argument that “the party isn’t lining up behind JB - but no Dem is allowed to criticize JB!” doesn’t really make sense to me. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:21 am: ==This only weakens the party== That I disagree with (and I disagree with Houlihan’s comments, too). Primaries are good in general, and right now, the Democratic Party has some real issues, so they need to air them out. Plus, JB is, for all intents and purposes, a first time candidate, so he needs to get used to live fire. If Biss remains publicly bitter in an attention-getting way after the primary (Assuming he loses), then it might be a problem. But I have trouble seeing him doing that considering how well he’s worked with party leadership in the past, and he’s not commanding a Bernie-esque army right now, anyway. - ILDemVoter - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:28 am: @ Arsenal Of course qualifications aren’t the ONLY reason- Democratic Party is a big tent party,so endorsers have various reason- personal wealth shouldn’t be one of them. Record on the issues, elect-ability, ability to motivate and raise funds from all sources/ages/wings of the party and policy plans should all be considered. The state of Illinois is in a fragile place that qualifications SHOULD be the outstanding factor in my opinion- but what do I know- I should get out of my “dorm room” as Rich stated. - PJ - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:29 am: ===…then what? ‘Cause it’s not “clearing the field” in any shape or form. “Clearing the field” is preventing other candidates from running. What Houlihan’s done is criticized Biss’ attacks on Pritzker. Now, I understand why Pritzker’s opponents would prefer to operate in a campaign where their attacks on Pritzker are never answered, but that just gives away the game. They don’t think the primary is rigged, they just think it’s not rigged *for them*, and it drives them crazy.=== You’re being intentionally pedantic. No, Illinois Democrats aren’t threatening to break Chris Kennedy’s kneecaps if he doesn’t drop out. Actual, literal clearing of the gubenatorial field isn’t legal or possible. But doing everything to tilt the scales towards Pritzker from the off is what I mean, and you know that. Actually, no. Houlihan isn’t responding to the critiques at all. He’s doing the opposite - trying to silence them entirely. It would be entirely fair to call the accusations false, or demonstrate why they are. What he’s doing is saying that they simply shouldn’t be uttered because it hurts “the team”. That’s the sort of “rah rah thou shall never criticize a fellow Republican” bullcrap that’s led America down such a bitter, partisan path. Being Democrats shouldn’t mean we have to pretend other Democrats aren’t flawed. That’s what Republicans are currently doing with Roy Moore. And no, this isn’t the same thing. But this is the path “unity before all” leads down. - Anonymous - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:31 am: I didn’t think JB would lock this up so quickly. Kennedy is really getting left behind. He does have that tax assessment issue… - @misterjayem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:34 am: “It’s good politics for Kennedy and Biss to portray JB as a golden-spoon-in-his-mouth recipient of an insider-arranged coronation that dare not be questioned” Then I guess ‘good politics’ explains their leads over Pritzker. – MrJM - Anon0091 - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:40 am: “It’s good politics for Kennedy and Biss to portray JB as a golden-spoon-in-his-mouth” Yes, please. Chris Kennedy explain to us about how JB is the one with the golden spoon. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:40 am: ===Being Democrats shouldn’t mean we have to pretend other Democrats aren’t flawed. That’s what Republicans are currently doing with Roy Moore. And no, this isn’t the same thing.=== You may want to leave the dorm and head off to lunch. It’s Pizza Piff Day. “That’s what Republicans are currently doing with Roy Moore. And no, this isn’t the same thing.” Think on “this IS my rationale, but it’s NOT the same” You’re not helping your cause. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:41 am: ==But doing everything to tilt the scales towards Pritzker from the off is what I mean, and you know that.== All I know is what you said. You said “clearing the field”. You didn’t have to. Clearly you know other words for the activity that you think is objectionable. You didn’t use them. I can’t read your mind. ==Actually, no. Houlihan isn’t responding to the critiques at all. == Of course he is. The criticism has already been made. He can’t unring the bell. But he talks about it publicly (which only amplifies it, btw) and says that it’s an unfair criticism ’cause he’s actually in favor of the criticized behavior. That’s a textbook response. And I mean…”clearing the field”, “trying to silence”…the fact that you keep having to call this something besides what it is is really odd. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:44 am: ==raise funds from all sources/ages/wings of the party== I don’t see why this is a more “legitimate” reason to endorse someone than personal wealth. It’s all just money in politics, only the source is different. And frankly, the ability to fund an effective campaign without spending 3-4 hours on the phone every day selling access to god-knows-who may be superior. - wordslinger - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:45 am: It’s very difficult for Kennedy to credibly portray himself as an outsider; preposterous, really. Same for Biss to portray himself as some kind of working-stiff populist. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:48 am: ==It’s good politics for Kennedy and Biss to portray JB as a golden-spoon-in-his-mouth recipient of an insider-arranged coronation that dare not be questioned== Roman, you really couldn’t be more wrong here as far as Biss is concerned. It’s not good politics in any sense of the term. First, Rauner can’t credibly make these kinds of attacks against Pritzker because be bought the GOP nomination outright in 2014, is almost as wealthy and has a lot of shady business stories attached to him. Biss can, and Ives can if she pulls off a miracle, but Rauner cannot. Second, Biss almost assuredly isnt going to be the nominee and is only setting up a scenario where his supporters stay home next November (or worse, vote for Rauner like some of the Bernie-bros voted for trump) because they’ve been led to believe Biss was the perfect candidate but the process was rigged against him all along. Third, don’t you think Illinois dem voters are going to remember his actions during this primary if JB or Kennedy loses to Rauner? I assume that Daniel will want to run for some other office in the future, and his actions during this primary will affect how he is viewed in future races. “Good politics” would be for him to come up with an idea or proposal or anything else that can draw attention and energy to his campaign. “I was robbed” isn’t going to cut it, and it might hurt him more than it helps in the long run. - @misterjayem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:48 am: “That’s what Republicans are currently doing with Roy Moore. And no, this isn’t the same thing. But this is the path ‘unity before all’ leads down.” And false equivalence is a path that slippery slope arguments lead down. – MrJM - Stark - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:54 am: Of course anonymous at 11:05 didn’t want their real name attached to that “opinion” that dabbles as a great conspiracy theory. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:55 am: =How electable is Biss if he can’t even withstand some gentle criticism? = Biss’s people aren’t the ones telling someone to stop criticizing their candidate, what I thought this whole story you posted is about. =Please cite why you believe this to be so. I need a good laugh.= Durbin has always been a loyal party guy. If Pritzker follows Rauner’s lead (as his supporters seem to hope), the past donations are nothing compared to the checks he will write in office. If you think anyone is backing Pritzker this hard and this early for any reason other than the money, then you are in a tiny minority. Rauner elevated R spending, Durbin wants Pritzker to do the same for the other side. Whether you are looking for a check to YOUR campaign, or to make sure there is more money for the whole party, makes little difference. - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:56 am: ==Then I guess ‘good politics’ explains their leads over Pritzker.== I suspect they’d be even further behind if they weren’t making these criticisms. But still, this is basic campaigning. You can’t expect to criticize a candidate without getting any criticism yourself. - ILDemVoter - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:57 am: ==And frankly, the ability to fund an effective campaign without spending 3-4 hours on the phone every day selling access to god-knows-who may be superior.== We’re going to agree to disagree on this one (though I often agree with you comments). Not everyone who candidates phone with during call time are bad people begging for contract procurement or access. When a candidate calls me (in my dorm room nonetheless) for a donation, I have 3 distinct issues I ask about and its important to know where they stand. In turn, that helps me make a sound decision and whether or not to advocate for them in my community, write op-eds, etc. Absent that, a candidate actually has no accountability– its a double edged sword argument for/against self funding in my (strong) opinion. - West Wing - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 11:59 am: Chris Kennedy is being, well, a Kennedy Democrat. JFK was told not to run in 1960 - “You’re too young.” RFK, Chris’s dad, challenging a sitting President of his own party to change our policies in Vietnam and in the cities. Ted Kennedy, Chris’s uncle, challenged Democrat Jim Carter for the White House. Having the courage to speak truth to power - whether it’s to change the property tax system or to challenge a Democratic Party coronation, he’s being true to his family’s political DNA. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:02 pm: (Sigh) ===Whether you are looking for a check to YOUR campaign, or to make sure there is more money for the whole party, makes little difference.=== Let’s revist what you actually wrote, shall we? ===Of course not, that was just the down payment.=== This was a response to… ===Durbin isn’t gonna be bought and bring his fellow US Senator along for the ride over a measly $25K=== You made clear, the $25K was a down payment to Durbin… that’s what you typed… Here’s your embarrassingly feeble try to pivot off that.. ===Whether you are looking for a check to YOUR campaign, or to make sure there is more money for the whole party, makes little difference.=== So, what about all that questioning integrity, you know, that $25K was just a down payment. You gave me a good laugh. It’s like you back-peddled and fell into a pool, lol - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:04 pm: =And frankly, the ability to fund an effective campaign without spending 3-4 hours on the phone every day selling access to god-knows-who may be superior.= Where have I heard that before? Are you talking about Pritzker? Or Rauner? Or Trump? Those who fail to learn from history… - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:08 pm: ===Are you talking about Pritzker? Or Rauner? Or Trump?=== Rauner fundraised. The D-2s show. People, lots of people donated to Rauner, from all over the country. Once the caps we’re broke, by large amounts too. Trump, while claiming to self-fund, also took donations, still taking donations now. So, when Pritzker takes that first dime, you get back to me. Good try thou. - @misterjayem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:08 pm: “If you think anyone is backing Pritzker this hard and this early for any reason other than the money, then you are in a tiny minority.” Let’s do a brief thought experiment. First, we will adopt your presumptions: 1) Wealth is the only reason anyone is backing Pritzker, and 2) a candidate’s wealth is not a legitimate reason for backing a candidate. Next, let’s apply those presumptions to the facts at hand: The support for both Biss and Kennedy trails a candidate who’s sole basis of support is illegitimate. Now, let’s ponder which are the candidates upon whom your presumptions reflect the most poorly… – MrJM - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:14 pm: =You gave me a good laugh. It’s like you back-peddled and fell into a pool, lol = Sorry my words didn’s maybe didn’t man what you wanted them to. I guess it was you typing them. Are we the same person? I say “maybe” though, because you seem to rehash exactly where two statements agree. Maybe I should type in broken sentence fragments so you can read it in your own language. Or I could just clarify. To =Durbin isn’t gonna be bought and bring his fellow US Senator along for the ride over a measly $25K.= I will make it clearer for you. Durbin, Duckworth, Madigan, etc, they are all bringing everyone along for the ride. They want all the money up and down the ticket, their race, other races, all of them. That certainly seems to agree with “that was just the down payment.” They all got a taste, now they want the really big checks. You follow that ok this time? - @misterjayem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:17 pm: “Durbin, Duckworth, Madigan, etc, they are all bringing everyone along for the ride. They want all the money up and down the ticket, their race, other races, all of them.” How sinister. – MrJM - Arsenal - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:18 pm: ==Where have I heard that before? Are you talking about Pritzker? Or Rauner? Or Trump?== All 3? “I’m too rich to be bought” has an undeniable appeal, that’s why it’s been used so much. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:19 pm: ===Sorry my words didn’s maybe didn’t man what you wanted them to. I guess it was you typing them. Are we the same person?=== Again, you purposely questioned the integrity of a US Senator, claiming a “down payment” on that integrity being sold out. Now with lots more words then your ridiculous drive-by, you now want to claim… ===Durbin, Duckworth, Madigan, etc, they are all bringing everyone along for the ride. They want all the money up and down the ticket, their race, other races, all of them. That certainly seems to agree with “that was just the down payment.” They all got a taste, now they want the really big checks.=== So, you think this clarifies, but it clarifies the integrity of Durbin, and others are bought? How is that better? It’s the same as your drive-by… It’s embarrasing, reading your continued question of integrity, but … … “it’s not, but it is, just don’t read it that way” Maybe you should just stop, lol - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:19 pm: =So, when Pritzker takes that first dime, you get back to me.= You’re right, no one used the =And frankly, the ability to fund an effective campaign without spending 3-4 hours on the phone every day selling access to god-knows-who may be superior.= logic to support those other two. Yep, never happened. No one ever talked about how those two would not have to be financial beholden to anyone. Oh wait… Good try though. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:21 pm: ===They all got a taste, now they want the really big checks.=== Do you think Biss and Kennedy should say that on the record about Durbin and Duckworth? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:23 pm: === =And frankly, the ability to fund an effective campaign without spending 3-4 hours on the phone every day selling access to god-knows-who may be superior.= logic to support those other two…=== … and yet, it’s Pritzker yet to take a dime and be true to that statement, which you ignore, because it’s incomvenient. I get it, this stuff is confusing, facts and the perceived, abc trying to have the both be real. It’s cute, actually. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:26 pm: =Maybe you should just stop, lol= Maybe you should try reading. Or a course in logic. Guess you didn’t follow that time either. So here goes, maybe in clearer terms. You are among those who believe the Republican party sold itself out to become the “Raunerite” (your word) party. It took a while, a lot of big checks, and mending lots of fences after a nasty primary for Rauner to get where he was with what you used to call “my party.” Durbin and company have sold their side much faster. So does that answer =So, you think this clarifies, but it clarifies the integrity of Durbin, and others are bought?= But maybe you just keep believing that everyone else jumped on board with JB for money, but not Durbin. If that’s your opinion, then good for you. Not mine though. Maybe you can teach me how JB’s policies align so much better with Durbin that he needed to make this endorsement this early (along with everyone else). - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:29 pm: =which you ignore= Like you ignore the fact that we’ve seen this exact same logic used before to justify supporting a candidate? Which is exactly what I was saying (since I apparently have to repeat things for you). - Roman - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:30 pm: - MrJM - So what do you think Kennedy and Biss should do other than quit the race? Seriously, not trying to be argumentative here. They don’t disagree with him on any significant issue…where else should they direct their fire? - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:32 pm: =Do you think Biss and Kennedy should say that on the record about Durbin and Duckworth?= I’m not working for them. But who knows. If Kennedy thinks this is his “one shot” then maybe. It might resonate. Especially, as others have mentioned, considering the view people have of what happened with Bernie. Biss probably wants to get elected to something again in the future, so probably not best to point out what people are doing when he will eventually need those same people to support him. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:33 pm: ===Durbin and company have sold their side much faster. So does that answer =So, you think this clarifies, but it clarifies the integrity of Durbin, and others are bought?==== So you think… ===But maybe you just keep believing that everyone else jumped on board with JB for money, but not Durbin. If that’s your opinion, then good for you. Not mine though.=== 1) Its only the money. 2) You personally question, like I said, “Durbin and others” that their personal integrity was for sale? ===Maybe you can teach me how JB’s policies align so much better with Durbin that he needed to make this endorsement this early (along with everyone else).=== I don’t have to, they issued a whole press release on it. Go read it. Wow, you are tripling down that Durbin, and others like Duckworth, are for sale. Mighty large indictment. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:35 pm: ===Like you ignore the fact that we’ve seen this exact same logic used before to justify supporting a candidate=== No. Logic and actual fact are two different things. lol… ===Which is exactly what I was saying (since I apparently have to repeat things for you).=== When did Pritzker take that hypocritical donation? Cite please… - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:39 pm: I wanted this to be last… lol ===You are among those who believe the Republican party sold itself out to become the “Raunerite” (your word) party. It took a while, a lot of big checks, and mending lots of fences after a nasty primary for Rauner to get where he was with what you used to call “my party.”=== You don’t? If you don’t think that about Rauner, then what’s your beef with Pritzker? - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:42 pm: =Mighty large indictment.= So you finally got it. Good for you. Maybe now you can wrap your head around the idea of why, THIS TIME, it’s ok to support a candidate because their wealth means they can’t be bought. And maybe we can discuss this like adults? Can you really show me how Rauner’s fundraising is different because it made him beholden? Because I think HB40 makes it clear it did not. Or really Trump’s fundraising for that matter. So whether Pritzker takes a dime or not, I would hope some people seriously question the idea of how great and untouchable a wealthy candidate would be. Because this place seems to seethe over the last two guys that used that logic to help get them elected. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:49 pm: And this =As with Paul Simon, I may not agree with Sen. Durbin on any majority of topics, but I never feel his integrity is for sale for political campaign purposes in the form of endorsements.= An assessment many would agree with (and I would have at one time) is exactly why people should have pause here. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:49 pm: ===Can you really show me how Rauner’s fundraising is different because it made him beholden? Because I think HB40 makes it clear it did not. Or really Trump’s fundraising for that matter.=== HB40 was more about Diana Rauner saving face to her friends at Winnetka cocktail parties than anything. That’s it. Diana Rauner vouched for Bruce, they filled out the questionnaire, and in the end crossing a Catholic Cardinal was “easier” for Bruce then to cross Diana. ===So whether Pritzker takes a dime or not=== “It’s ‘the same’, but not ‘the same’, but I want it to BE ‘the same’…”… LOL You go with that. ===I would hope some people seriously question the idea of how great and untouchable a wealthy candidate would be.=== Then I’m sure you’ll be working hard against Rauner and supporting Ives… ===Because this place seems to=== Yep. It’s on “this place”. You indict Durbin and others for being bought, but it’s also “this place” You sound like Rauner… “I’m not in charge” ===seethe over the last two guys that used that logic to help get them elected.=== “Bruce Rauner fails” That’s the ballgame now. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 12:54 pm: ===Maybe now you can wrap your head around the idea of why, THIS TIME, it’s ok to support a candidate because their wealth means they can’t be bought.=== Pritzker isn’t being bought. Rauner took money from at all over the country, large sums, and some donated to keep the caucuses held hostage. I don’t rendver you beefing about that, lol “But now…”… No, but now, Rauner is destroying Illinois. “Anyone but Rauner”…. ===And maybe we can discuss this like adults?=== You think Durbin and others are for sale. It’s only money driving it. That’s not how adults talk. I fed you. My mistakeS - Anon0091 - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 1:39 pm: M, It’s astonishing that you actually believe giving $25k to Dick Durbin over the course of 20 years bought him. And it’s even more astonishing to believe it was a “down payment.” First off, most people expect that he’s in his last term. Second, even if he weren’t, you really think the second ranking Democrat is so hard up for money that he needs to seek himself? Seriously, do you not recognize that there’s zero logic to your assertion? It simply makes no sense. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 1:48 pm: =zero logic= Zero logic seems pretty bold. Everybody seems ok with the assertion that people are latching on to the wealth, but not Durbin. Lot of people assumed the previous term was the last one. And I would assume from your logic then that Durbin won’t hold a single fundraiser during this term? Because he’s done? Doesn’t need the money? Want to check his calendar? I never said $20k bought him. But he, and they, know how much it could be next time (again, assuming Rauner’s down-ballot spending is any kind of predictive model for this). In fact right now everyone seems to be selling before he starts writing the big checks. Rauner was still on the outside once he started writing the checks. It took a while. Go talk to Durbin about fundraising some time, and what it’s like. And he’s expected to raise a lot for a lot of others. Those JB billions could change a lot for Illinois D’s. If you think the massive pile of endorsements aren’t based on the money, then you aren’t paying attention. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 1:56 pm: I think a lot of people here would be well-served by listening to a good NPR series from a few years back on fundraising. Here’s the episode featuring Durbin https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/03/30/149648666/senator-by-day-telemarketer-by-night There is another great episode featuring both Durbin and former-congressman Schock but I can’t seem to locate it. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 1:56 pm: ===I never said $20k bought him.=== (Sigh) ===- m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:35 am =Durbin isn’t gonna be bought and bring his fellow US Senator along for the ride over a measly $25K.= Of course not, that was just the down payment.=== No, you called it the down payment of him being bought. Yeah. Insinuating an ongoing “buying” of Durbin’s credibility. You go with that. You typed what you typed. ===If you think the massive pile of endorsements aren’t based on the money, then you aren’t paying attention.=== Sen. Durbin and Sen. Duckworth in a press release stated why they supported Pritzker. You saying they aren’t truthful? So Sen. Durbin can be bought, downpayments not withstanding, and are misleading a state on this buying. Wow. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 2:12 pm: =No, you called it the down payment of him being bought.= Not sure why you struggle with this. I think I accused an entire state party of selling. The $20k makes it real. That was in effect now the down payment so they can dream of what will come. The $20k didn’t buy. They weren’t selling until JB announced this run. JB didn’t have to put in a bid once it was time to buy, suddenly everything was up for sale. The $20k and the Rauner model was all the “offer” they needed. They sold for what is to come. Yes, I’m aware what I typed. Maybe you should read it again? =Sen. Durbin and Sen. Duckworth in a press release stated why they supported Pritzker.= You want a stack of Rauner and ILGOP press releases to go with that? I guess if it’s in a press release it must be true. Maybe I could dig up a Sandack release for you while I’m at it. From the above link (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/03/30/149648666/senator-by-day-telemarketer-by-night) “I think most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, but shocked — if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money,” says Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. “And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money.” His words. But I guess he’s the one guy above the influence of money in politics? I’m on both of our current Senators’ email lists for fundraising. So maybe I’m jaded. Because they constantly ask me for money. - Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 2:16 pm: ===The $20k makes it real=== lol Durbin has raised a total of $37,568,224 in his career. https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary/dick-durbin?cid=N00004981&cycle=CAREER&type=I - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 2:26 pm: ===Not sure why you struggle with this.=== (Sigh) ===- m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 10:35 am =Durbin isn’t gonna be bought and bring his fellow US Senator along for the ride over a measly $25K.= Of course not, that was just the down payment.=== Nothing to struggle with, you wrote what you wrote. ===Yes, I’m aware what I typed. Maybe you should read it again?=== Nope. You should realize, as you agreed. it’s an indictment that Durbin and others are bought. That’s what you’re saying. Read. ===You want a stack of Rauner and ILGOP press releases to go with that? I guess if it’s in a press release it must be true.=== “Whatabout”… LOL You said two sitting US Senators were bought, a down payment, for $25K… ===But I guess he’s the one guy above the influence of money in politics?=== Your saying for $25K, Durbin’s integrity was bought. Wow. I don’t remember you going after Rauner. Your “righteous indignation is noted now… cause it ain’t Rauner. But you go with a buying of Sen. Durbin. - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 2:32 pm: =Durbin has raised a total of $37,568,224 in his career.= So a guy has raised $37 million and somehow that proves he doesn’t care about money? I think you’re proving my point. He clearly seems focused on cash. Probably a lot of big checks from guys like JB. JB proved he is a giver with the $25k. A good fundraiser, as you show Durbin to be, who saw what happened with Rauner, and who knows, because of the $25k that JB is a giver, can’t or won’t connect the dots to what that could mean if JB gets “serious” as he appears to be doing? Again, “how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money.” So which is it? The guy doesn’t care about money? -or- A billionaire like JB isn’t worth thinking about? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 2:37 pm: ===So a guy has raised $37 million and somehow that proves he doesn’t care about money? I think you’re proving my point. He clearly seems focused on cash.=== So you’re saying… “that” $25K isn’t it, Durbin has been bought and paid for and this is another time Durbin is “bought”? Huh? So, according to you… Durbin is for sale, been fir sale, still for sale… you’re just upset “because JB”… or… I’ve yet to see how you think you’re making sense here, questioning Sen. Durbin’s integrity. As asked before, you think Biss and/or Kennedy will say so as well? Why not? - m - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 2:44 pm: =Nothing to struggle with, you wrote what you wrote.= =So you’re saying… “that” $25K isn’t it, Durbin has been bought and paid for and this is another time Durbin is “bought”?= Is it the metaphor of “down payment” that confuses you? Should I just quote myself so you can read it again? =The $20k didn’t buy. They weren’t selling until JB announced this run. JB didn’t have to put in a bid once it was time to buy, suddenly everything was up for sale. The $20k and the Rauner model was all the “offer” they needed. They sold for what is to come.= Maybe this time you can follow? =Your saying for $25K, Durbin’s integrity was bought.= No, the real price is what they believe will come. Again, maybe down payment isn’t the best metaphor. I apologize if that is where you are confused. I can stop using that term if it helps. Do we need to cover this point again? Just to make clear, I clearly called the integrity into question. If you can’t pick that part up, I don’t know what to offer you. =“Whatabout”… LOL= So a Durbin press release is gospel? But not anyone else? I’m not dodging the question of their motives. I think I clearly questioned their motives, so there is no whatabout here, just also commenting on the naivety of “if it’s in the release it must be true.” =Your “righteous indignation is noted now… cause it ain’t Rauner.= Your lack of righteous indignation now, is duly noted, “cause it ain’t Rauner.” Their out of touch billionaire is bad, “ours” is great. Stick with that logic. =As asked before, you think Biss and/or Kennedy will say so as well?= Also answered at 12:32. I said maybe Kennedy should, Biss shouldn’t. Although if you are asking if I think they will, I think maybe, probably more likely from Biss as a last gasp, if Kennedy thinks he is still in the running he probably won’t. - SmartiePants - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 3:12 pm: Durbin is known for noticing the changing winds if the Democratic party better than most. The man marched for pro-life groups earlier in his career and is now an ardent pro-choice advocate. He’s a chameleon, always has been. He wouldn’t endorse Prtizker this early if he didn’t think the winds were blowing his direction. It’s the same reason nearly every major organization backed Pritzker over the summer. Doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on here. Lining up behind the big guns. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 3:13 pm: You question Durbin’s integrity, and yet when Rauner actually bought the caucuses for $20 million, your lack of concern was glaring. This continued feeling Pritzker bought Durbin, and others… Would you call Biss a friend of Labor? Would you say Kennedy’s own actions and lack of fundraising and the burn rate of 90% without being on TV makes that candidacy viable? It’s like the vacuum you’re in… the others are just so much better at their campaigns, it has to be the money, since they all can be bought, like Durbin. Rauner had donors help in holding hostage a while party to vote against themselves, their districts, their beliefs. Pritzker is taking no money. Pritzker has done ads for OnamaCare sign up, income tax, the successful building of 1871 and his part in it… his family history with substance abuse. What policies aren’t considered Dem? Taking down a governor that is taking down Illinois is the common goal. Tough to think Durbin needed $25K tonsed Rau we needs to go, and Pritzker can do it. - SmartiePants - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 3:19 pm: Oswego, You gave 5/2 odds Pritzker was the next Governor. Where can I make that bet at? Thanks - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 3:23 pm: ===You gave 5/2 odds Pritzker was the next Governor. Where can I make that bet at?=== … ===- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Dec 5, 17 @ 11:05 am ===Reporter: So, are you saying that you envision a scenario where you get elected to a second term… and the Speaker is not the Speaker any more? Gov. Rauner: I think there’s a very, very high probability of that and it would be a wonderful step for the state.=== Rauner wins, Madigan Retires - 75/1 Rauner wins, Madigan wins, Speaker too 12/1 Rauner wins, Madigan wins, not Speaker 20/1 Rauner loses - 5/2=== - SmartiePants - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 3:27 pm: My mistake. 5/2 Rauner loses. Where can I take that bet? Are you working with a clearinghouse? Thanks - Oswego Willy - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 3:30 pm: ===Where can I take that bet? Are you working with a clearinghouse? Thanks=== Laying odds and taking wagers… different animals. “These odds are for exhibition purposes only, please… no wagering” - Anon0091 - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 4:01 pm: M, Just so I’m clear. If someone endorses JB, it’s either because 1) They want or got Pritzker’s money; or 2) They were told to by Mike Madigan. But it Biss is endorsed, it’s only for a noble purpose. Do I have that right? - Honeybear - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 4:20 pm: M’s Bernie wound has gone septic. The fever dreams seem horrible. - @misterjayem - Monday, Dec 11, 17 @ 7:25 pm: “So what do you think Kennedy and Biss should do other than quit the race? Seriously, not trying to be argumentative here. They don’t disagree with him on any significant issue… where else should they direct their fire?” Like many other Democrats, I had hoped that this primary would be a contest in which each of the candidates offered his strongest arguments against the Republican incumbent, and that voters would be able to choose from them the candidate who went after Rauner best. Unfortunately, only one of the candidates has been making his case against Rauner — the other two have been too busy attacking the front-runner. So if Kennedy and Miss want my vote — and it’s still up for grabs — they need to turn their attention to showing me they’re better at bashing Rauner than they are at bashing Pritzker. – MrJM - @misterjayem - Tuesday, Dec 12, 17 @ 10:55 am: “So what do you think Kennedy and Biss should do other than quit the race? Seriously, not trying to be argumentative here. They don’t disagree with him on any significant issue… where else should they direct their fire?” When this contest started, I’d hoped that the primary would be an opportunity to compare each of the Democratic gubernatorial campaigns’ best arguments against the incumbent Republican. After each campaign had taken it’s best shot(s) at Bruce Rauner, the campaign that scored the most blows would be get my vote. That seemed like a reasonable expectation and that is still my plan. All of the top three Democratic candidates would be vast improvements over Bruce Rauner. For me that’s a wash. My only question is who would do the best job combating Bruce Rauner in a general election. Unfortunately, rather than show me what they can do against Bruce Rauner, two of the candidates have directed their fire on the Democratic front-runner. Only one Democratic candidate has taken the fight to Bruce Rauner. And that’s very disappointing. So what could the other two do? 1. Focus on attacking Bruce Rauner, not J.B. Pritzker. Show me what you could do in the General Election. 2. If they think they already are focused on Rauner — I don’t see it, but if — then they need to figure out what they can do within their campaigns to get their anti-Rauner message out. 3. There isn’t a third thing. This isn’t that mysterious or complicated. It’s still early days. (Barack Obama was still very much a dark horse candidate at this stage in his 2004 state-wide contest.) And like most Democratic primary votes, mine is still up for grabs. So what should Biss and Kennedy do? They should show Democratic primary voters that they know how to attack Bruce Rauner and have the capacity to do so. – MrJM (I thought I’d replied to this yesterday, but it was via my phone so who knows) Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.