55 Comments - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:16 pm: ===That’s been used by Republicans for about 10 years. It was used by some Democrats in the Democratic primary. The ones in the Democratic primary who used that lost their elections. And Rauner’s gonna lose his election.=== “I’ll settle all family business… in November.” - 47th Ward - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:19 pm: ===He employed an unusual pointing gesture=== Unusual for him maybe, but it has a fairly universal meaning. Lol. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:19 pm: A year from now Bruce will be put to pasture and the Speaker will still be here. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:20 pm: –Let me make this point. All that money was spent on negative advertising on me without response.– And why did you not respond, alleged 3-D Chessmaster? No Latin back in the day? Qui tacet consentire videtur. - Thomas Paine - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:21 pm: The picture…is an instant classic. - VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:22 pm: Those who can lead - lead. Those who can’t lead - spend millions running ads against those that can lead. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:23 pm: ===Yeah, let’s talk business, Mike. First of all, you’re all done. Mike, you don’t even have that kind of muscle anymore. The attacks against you are slick, right? You’re getting chased out of Illinois politics by Rauner and the other wealthy, right wing families. What do you think is going on here? You think you can run a campaign that Bruce Rauner has no record and win? We talked to Griffin, We made a deal with him, and still get his money for House races.” - Fake ILRaunerite Party Ask Mo Green how this turned out. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:23 pm: Is the Speaker trying to rewrite history and claim he was popular during the Quinn, Blagoevich and prior administrations? Who does he blame for the budget mess in Illinois that has happened under his watch as Chairman of the Democratic party in a state controlled by Democrats? - downstate commissioner - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:26 pm: Darn it, Wordslinger, it’s been over 50 years since I took Latin… “being quiet means agreement”??? Or something like that? - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:28 pm: I would put “the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back” right up there with Rauner blaming the failure of the turnaround agenda on not getting his message out there. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:28 pm: ===Is the Speaker trying to rewrite history and claim he was popular during the Quinn, Blagoevich and prior administrations?=== No. Reading is fundamental. ===The Republicans have been using anti-Madigan rhetoric for close to ten years. So, there’s nothing new with Rauner, he just happens to have some money he could put behind it.=== Madigan addresses the attacks, the history, including the Rauner history. At no time did Madigan indicate his own popularity. You did. ===Who does he blame for the budget mess in Illinois that has happened under his watch as Chairman of the Democratic party in a state controlled by Democrats?=== “Pat Quinn failed”… Pat Quinn was subsequently defeated in his re-election for governor. “Bruce Rauner failed”… worst Republican governor in America, by nearly every measure, Illinois is worse off since Rauner became governor. Again, please keep up. - VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:31 pm: Madigan quietly takes one step foward a goal each day. Rauner runs in circles and forgets goals.. This is how the turtle won the race over the hare. - Cubs in '16 - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:32 pm: I remember Rauner smugly saying he understood what makes Madigan tick knew how to “handle” him where others before him didn’t. Looks like he was wrong about that too. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:33 pm: ===I would put “the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back” right up there with Rauner blaming the failure of the turnaround agenda on not getting his message out there.=== (Sigh) “I would put ‘the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back’… “ This is ignorant, otherwise adversting, flacks, the “Madigan Plan” of mail during re-elect wouldn’t matter. You get enough people to say something, without pushing back, it matters. This is priceless… “…right up there with Rauner blaming the failure of the turnaround agenda on not getting his message out there.” So Madigan would be popular if Madigan could get 60… For Cripes sake, Madigan gets 60+ and is then elected Speaker. Words and phrases and examples matter… LOL - BlueDogDem - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:38 pm: Madigan and Rauner. Just like mama BlueDog used to say. Two peas in a pod. I kinda think Pritzker is going to squeeze in there as well. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 3:55 pm: == in a state controlled by Democrats?== To whomever programs the Luckybot 6000: It seems the problem was caused by the initial programmer forgetting to enter inputs “Gov. Jim Thompson - R”, “Gov. Jim Edgar - R”, “Gov. George Ryan - R”, “Sen. Pate Phillip - R”, and “Rep. Lee Daniels - R”. Also as an additional reminder from your last service ticket, your WPML language redirect from “Rauner” immediately to “Madigan” still seems to be set to Always instead of If/When. The above recommended changes, followed by a hard reboot (performed by holding the power button down for 15 seconds), should help minimize the error frequency of your program. Please contact IT again if this does not solve the reoccurring issue. Sincerely, Support Team - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:07 pm: Dear support team, what party had total control of state government in 2003? “Chicago’s predicament actually has its roots in a 2003 decision by Illinois to kick the pension can down the road — by borrowing money to fund pensions rather than trying to get the benefits reduced or to stepping up payments to make them financially sound. In the ultimate can kick, the state borrowed a whopping $10 billion — the biggest bond issue in its history — on the premise that investing the proceeds would earn more than the interest on the bonds. Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers, the pension funds’ investments, hurt badly by the financial market meltdown of 2008–2009, have earned less than expected. Even worse, the state gets to deduct interest and principal on the bonds — currently some $500 million to $600 million a year — from the contributions it makes to the pension funds. The net effect: The funds are worse rather than better off as a result of the pension bonds. Unfunded liabilities swelled from $43 billion when the bonds were sold to $86 billion by 2010, state data show.” https://www.propublica.org/article/how-illinois-pension-debt-blew-up-chicagos-credit - Evanstonian - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:13 pm: It’s a shame literally no Dem with real clout has pushed him to move further to the left. That’s part of why he’s so disliked. GOP hates him because, obviously. And Dems are lukewarm because the guy is pretty center left in a deep blue state. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:15 pm: ===in a deep blue state=== That elected a Republican governor a few years ago. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:17 pm: ===Unfortunately for Illinois taxpayers, the pension funds’ investments, hurt badly by the financial market meltdown of 2008–2009, have earned less than expected.=== I hope your Rauberbot programming figured in if those were GTCR years… that would be… fun. - Stuntman Bob's Brother - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:24 pm: I used to vote a split ticket, I’m pretty sure I voted for Toni, Lisa, and Tammy in the same election I voted for Rauner (please forgive me if my memory is wrong). But never again. Since I’m in the political minority, it will never matter. Until enough people get enough of this guy and those that support him unquestioningly, and start doing the same. As IL sinks, it’s bound to happen eventually. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:24 pm: =This is ignorant, otherwise adversting, flacks, the “Madigan Plan” of mail during re-elect wouldn’t matter.= I’ve met lots of people who have immense respect for Madigan. I’ve heard people blaming Madigan for years for all sorts of things, including lots of Democrats. All this, for years before Rauner. This isn’t the first Governor he’s feuded with. There is rarely a line of people waiting to defend him. Not discounting 150 and their signs today, most Democrats I know or have known aren’t big fans of the man, and believe tha party would be better without him. You had Democrat gov candidates running away from him just this year. I’m not absolving Rauner of anything or defending him, but as I suspect you and would agree, when he blamed “not getting his message out” for the basis of his failures, it was ludicrous. The idea that Madigan is disliked because he hasn’t been fighting back is equally ludicrous. Maybe Rauner’s funded attacks pushed the meter downward a bit, but the general dislike was already there. There’s a reason the GOP used it, and it was because it was something people already felt. Nobody just decided to one day up and blame the universally-beloved Madigan for no reason. Come on, you are better than this argument. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:37 pm: ===The idea that Madigan is disliked because he hasn’t been fighting back is equally ludicrous.=== You position is if Madigan spent the millions Rauner spent against him, or if Madigan had done any PR… Madigan’s public polling numbers wouldn’t be better? Measurably, Rauner’s spending has sent Madigan’s numbers down… or was that just bound to happen and Rauner wasted his money? ===Nobody just decided to one day up and blame the universally-beloved Madigan for no reason.=== Not fighting back made it far easier and far more damaging. That’s the point. ===Come on, you are better than this argument.=== I’ve clearly showed my premise, the rationale why Rauber spent more money, it’s result, and that Madigan never engaged back to rehabilitate his own image, like a Rauner or other politicians do. I’m arguing in the merits of the historic facts. You may not like that, but… - BEAR 3 - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:48 pm: Why argue back. Walk softly and carry the only club that can accomplish what is essential to be done. No one else is doing that in the Governors side. - VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:48 pm: Madigan won’t mulch. - GetOverIt - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:49 pm: Well one thing, maybe a positive, about Madigan is that he will stand up to any Governor and party affiliation be damned. Wish we could say that about our Congress. Just sayin… - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 4:50 pm: It’s not personal Mike, I am sure you are are a fine family man who has many good qualities. Being fiscally responsible isn’t one of them. Being cooperative and professional isn’t on of them Knowing when to hang it up for the good of the party isn’t one of them. Playing Illinois voters for fools who don’t appreciate your brilliance isn’t one either. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:01 pm: Lester Holt, that was awesome. Their operating system also seems to be unable to access data files on the mainframe in the sub-directory /MadiganBattleBlagojevich , /EmilvMadigan and /CantStandPatQuinn in order to calculate the length of the Democratic “reign.” The Democratic Party is not a monolith, unlike the Rauner Party. - Hamlets Ghost - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:07 pm: OW, what message would you have Madigan respond with, if he spent millions to counter Rauner’s “Fire Madigan” messaging? And as long as the Dems consistently win 65 to 69 IL House seats, MJM approve/disapprove poll numbers are meaningless. And, to the rage and despair of those to Madigan’s left, he doesn’t seem to have much of an agenda other than keeping 65 to 69 seats. So what’s the point of responding to Rauner? - Scoot - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:09 pm: Long live Long Shanks… - James - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:10 pm: It’s admirable that Madigan has been able to take all those arrows for 3 years without response. Takes self-discipline most of us don’t have. Rauner would love response but Madigan is going to leave Rauner alone to snipe at people from the gutter. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:15 pm: ===Playing Illinois voters for fools who don’t appreciate your brilliance isn’t one either.=== Rauner is polling 26/60 approval/disapproval…. hmm. ===Being fiscally responsible isn’t one of them.=== Rauner has yet to sign a budget… ===Being cooperative and professional isn’t on of them=== … or get 60 and 30 to get that budget signed. Under your own criteria, “Lucky Pierre”, how you can support Rauner is puzzling, lol ===So what’s the point of responding to Rauner?=== Your points are very well made, the proof is in the pudding with results… … but spending money because of a forced liability, (be it a sitting POTUS in any of their midterms, “Pelosi”, any perceived negative), I would’ve at least had run “Party” ads, touting Democratic ideals in :30, :45, :60 second ads… with him narrating, talking, almost a reverse “thanks Mike Madigan”… from teachers, laborers, farmers, students… but that all costs money, so the price now is MJM’s numbers. You can pay in numerous ways… but you always pay for letting things slide. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:18 pm: LP, that article you lovingly cited is three years old and hence outdated. We just discussed last week the current status of the POB performance, that being outperforming the bond rate and the current discount rate. You must have been offline at the time. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:29 pm: =I’m arguing in the merits of the historic facts.= Madigan was underwater before Rauner. I don’t read “the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back” to mean he’s “20 points underwater vs 10″ because of Rauner. He was “so unpopular” before Rauner. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 5:31 pm: ===I don’t read “the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back” to mean he’s “20 points underwater vs 10″ because of Rauner. He was “so unpopular” before Rauner.=== Asked and answered… ===Measurably, Rauner’s spending has sent Madigan’s numbers down… or was that just bound to happen and Rauner wasted his money? … Not fighting back made it far easier and far more damaging. That’s the point.=== - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:08 pm: ==Dear support team, what party had total control of state government in 2003?== That’s a good question. Not as good as “what party had total control of state government 1994-1996, when the root cause of our pension troubles was put into effect?”, of course, but a good question nonetheless. Cyberdyne still has some kinks to work out, but I for one welcome our future robotic overlords. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:12 pm: So here you go. I know, two different polls, first two I found via the google. https://capitolfax.com/2014/04/21/richs-syndicated-column/#comments “A new Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll found Madigan’s unfavorable rating to be an almost mind-boggling 65 percent.Just 20 percent of likely voters had a favorable impression of the longtime House Speaker.” That’s from 4-21-14, before Rauner was elected. https://news.siu.edu/2018/03/030218-psppi-job-approval-poll.php ‘Speaker Madigan had a 21 percent approval rate with 18 percent who somewhat approve and 3 percent who strongly approve. Madigan is 68 percent total disapprove with 49 percent who strongly disapprove and 19 percent who somewhat disapprove.” THat’s from 3-2-18. So, during Rauner’s millions, Madigan went from 20/65 to 21/68. Please see your “I’m arguing in the merits of the historic facts.” Maybe the same poll and methods over the same spread would show different results, but this clearly demonstrates what I said, that he was “so unpopular” before Rauner. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:18 pm: In case it’s not obvious, my previous post was for OW. I forgot to quote him. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:20 pm: ===So, during Rauner’s millions, Madigan went from 20/65 to 21/68.=== … and without fighting back, Rauner had to spend all those millions to keep Madigan down. Think on that… your point is that nil movement, keeping Madigan pinned down… because Madigan refused to fight back… nothing changed? Then, according to your ignorance, Rauner got ripped off.., that might be worse, LOL - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:26 pm: I fed you, I answered, your point is spending the money, is either to continue to pin Madigan down, or a colossal waste of money, and if never mattered… even though Madigan fighting back, which never happened, may have been a mitigating factor, it just never happened, so we’ll never know… … which is funny… actually… all those millions to keep Madigan where he was… while Rauner sinks to Madigan’s m levels. It’s like dumping water in a pool to make your opponent drown while your own pool is drowning you… and not noticing what’s happening to yourself. So… Rauner’s money kept Madigan pinned, stopping Madigan to recover… as Madigan never tried to recover in the first place… Madigan will be in the GA, health and circumstances remaining equal, Rauner with a 26/60 approval/disapproval… hmm. Good luck. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:42 pm: =I fed you= Ah, there it is. I know that makes you feel better when you swim against reality and someone points it out. =… which is funny… actually… all those millions to keep Madigan where he was… while Rauner sinks to Madigan’s m levels.= Again, no disagreement there. =Good luck.= Hopefully that’s not for me. Because, as I have said before Rauner’s not my guy. I know you go blind with rage when his name is in print, but anyone disagreeing with you on any single point isn’t necessarily a Rauner ally. Turn down the emotions. - Huh? - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:47 pm: There are 3 poll numbers that count with Madigan: 1. The electoral vote in his District; 2. The vote for the State-wide Democratic Chairman; and 3. The vote for Speaker of the House. How Mr. Madigan polls to the rest of the State doesn’t matter. Madigan does not run in a state-wide campaign. He has three small constituencies to which he he must pay attention. His District. The State Democratic Committeemen. The House of Representatives. As a resident of a downstate county, not represented by Madigan, why should he care whether or not I like him? I am not a member of any of the above constituencies. So what I think of Madigan doesn’t matter to him. I get why Madigan doesn’t respond to the attacks from 1.4%. Responding lends credibility to the attacks from someone who hasn’t the ability to do the job to which he was elected. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 6:49 pm: - m - My mistake is continually thinking to engage you. Lesson learned. ===The Republicans have been using anti-Madigan rhetoric for close to ten years. So, there’s nothing new with Rauner, he just happens to have some money he could put behind it.=== Rauner wasted millions to stand still… or keep Madigan pinned down… as, again, Madigan hasn’t fought back. … === ===I would put “the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back” right up there with Rauner blaming the failure of the turnaround agenda on not getting his message out there.=== (Sigh) “I would put ‘the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back’… “ This is ignorant, otherwise adversting, flacks, the “Madigan Plan” of mail during re-elect wouldn’t matter. You get enough people to say something, without pushing back, it matters.=== Flacks, adversting, messaging, even the “Madigan Plan” are something or nothing. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:08 pm: =My mistake is continually thinking to engage you. Lesson learned.= I should take your advice. I apologize for my use of facts and figures. You’re clearly right, Madigan is and was “so unpopular” solely because of Rauner’s millions. Or did you add in =The Republicans have been using anti-Madigan rhetoric for close to ten years.=? First it was, =Measurably, Rauner’s spending has sent Madigan’s numbers down=, except that the polls clearly say they didn’t happen. Then it was just =Rauner had to spend all those millions to keep Madigan down=. I’m dizzy as you change your case. I shouldn’t engage you, I have better things to do. Sorry I did, and with facts. Now I just need to figure out for sure which one of your changing arguments I’m going to give up and agree with. Maybe we should just circle back in a year, after Rauner is gone, so we can see how much more popular Madigan is then, despite the historical poll data. Maybe Madigan will have engaged in your fantastical campaign of fighting back. (that hasn’t happened, yet we should according to you assume we can gauge the results of what should have happened, in that imaginary world) Have a good evening. I’ll stop wasting your time so you can get back to your bridge. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:10 pm: =I’ll stop wasting your time so you can get back to your bridge.= That just felt mean after I typed it, so strike that. I’ll leave that kind of stuff for you to say. I apologize. Not really my thing. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:19 pm: ===I’m dizzy as you change your case. I shouldn’t engage you, I have better things to do. Sorry I did, and with facts. Now I just need to figure out for sure which one of your changing arguments I’m going to give up and agree with.=== Again… Madigan’s point, 10 years… you seem to forget… 10 years ago… what was Madigan’s name ID, statewide? You forgetting that more people knowing who Madigan is… and keeping his numbers where they are/were… that IS keeping Madigan down… which was my point. I haven’t changed. Your idea… ===I would put “the reason he’s so unpopular is because he hasn’t fought back” right up there with Rauner blaming the failure of the turnaround agenda on not getting his message out there.=== In the last 10 years, as better name ID has been tamped down with Rauner’s millions, Madigan hasn’t fought back. I mock you, easily, as this belief that Madigan’s polling is just that approval/disapproval… its the name ID growing and the numbers staying… “…Rauner blaming the failure of the turnaround agenda on not getting his message out there.” That’s a 60 and a 30 thing. Rauner can be grossly unpopular and still get things signed, like K-12 funding… ===Maybe Madigan will have engaged in your fantastical campaign of fighting back. (that hasn’t happened, yet we should according to you assume we can gauge the results of what should have happened, in that imaginary world)=== He won’t. He hasn’t, and he won’t. If you want to play in fantasyland ridiculousness, then your premises are up there with Eric Zorn and that “what if Madigan was governor” ===I’ll stop wasting your time=== No, it’s my bad. Not yours. Like I said, I fed you. - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:25 pm: ===That just felt mean after I typed it, so strike that. I’ll leave that kind of stuff for you to say. I apologize. Not really my thing.=== A measure of character is how one apologizes, or left-handedly decides to double down. Like I said, it was on me, I fed you. To the Post, to bring this all back… Republicans and Raunerites… in the flip side… Will Z be able to save GA members by linking them to McCann (if McCann gets in the ballot) and if that blue wave comes deep into usual and former GOP territory? Madigan or not, unpopular or not, Trump and Rauner are a drag for reasons conservatives and traditional GOP members might walk… like me. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:37 pm: Here’s an historic accomplishment for Rauner to run on: –APNewsBreak: #IL late-payment interest since 2015 $1 .14B, more than previous 18 years combined.– So, how many times is it kosher to bank the sale of the JRTC before it happens? I think we’re at three, another six times or so should cover this nut. - m - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 7:41 pm: =Like I said, I fed you.= Is it about the post or the poster? Apparently disagreeing with you is trolling? =how one apologizes, or left-handedly decides to double down= I was apologizing for my behavior, not yours. Or that’s what I meant to do. But you’re still right about the apology. And for that, I apologize. =To the Post, to bring this all back= THat’s a tight line for Z, because Rauner will paint McCann again as Madigan’s favorite Senator, and this time it will be easier. Follow the money, “if you’re not voting for Pritzger, vote for me”, etc. Plus Rauner is still footing the bill for Z, unless Dick comes back out to play like he did with Ives. That complicates things. - Just Me - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 8:59 pm: What record will Mike Madigan be running on? - Oswego Willy - Monday, Apr 23, 18 @ 10:58 pm: ===What record will Mike Madigan be running on?=== Madigan is upopposed in his district. - BlueDogDem - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:54 am: Madigan is unopposed in his district. In a nutshell. That’s the reason. Throw all the bums out. You know, term limits….except….except my guy. He keeps bringing home the bacon. - Stand Tall - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 8:10 am: “Not as good as “what party had total control of state government 1994-1996, when the root cause of our pension troubles was put into effect?” - The bipartisan agreement that was so bad that for 24 years hasn’t been fixed by Magic Mike? But added to the problem by not making pension payments for years. No balanced budgets for two decades. Sounds like the pension problem already existed if they had to try and fix it in 1994. I blame politicians as a whole for Illinois problems but one party refuses to budge and make any changes to right the ship and their leader has been a very poor one for the people of Illinois. Fiscal mismanagement and corruption are Illinois trademark for all the world to see, Madigan’s machine currently is at the forefront. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 8:20 am: ===Fiscal mismanagement and corruption are Illinois trademark for all the world to see, Madigan’s machine currently is at the forefront.== … and yet, it was Rauner’s refusal to sign a budget for an entire seated General Assembly that ran up purposeful debt and multiple bond downgrades, the very same thing Rauner criticized Pat Quinn about, calling Pat Quinn a failure who needed to be replaced. By nearly every measure, Illinois is worse off since Rauner became governor, by Rauner’s own actions. Your blinding partisanship is noted, however. - Pundent - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 8:37 am: = I blame politicians as a whole for Illinois problems but one party refuses to budge and make any changes to right the ship and their leader has been a very poor one for the people of Illinois.= And when given the chance to address this problem Rauner made it deliberately and willfully worse by pursuing a personal agenda that had no chance of succeeding. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.