Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rep. Ford sticks his neck out
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Budget roundup
Posted in:
* Carol Marin’s column today attempts to convince Bill Daley to run for governor...
If Illinois Democrats are determined to march into a bloody primary war with their own incumbent governor, Pat Quinn, better to do it in Braveheart fashion. Because trying to dump your own guy who topped your own ticket, regardless of his current public unpopularity, will require energy, focus, and, most of all, passion.
Um, that Braveheart guy died at the end of the movie. Daley seems to understand this. Check out his quotes…
“The question is, at this stage is it a Don Quixote thing?” Daley asked rhetorically by phone on Friday. […]
But again he asks rhetorically, “How do you, in a practical way, pull it off?”
Especially when more women than men vote in the Democratic primary.
“Two men and a woman, we’ve seen that movie before,” he said.
I think he’s right to be cautious here. The polls aren’t in his favor in a three-way race.
But, Carol is right on one thing. If you want the office, then go for it and stop with the Hamlet act.
On the other hand, if you don’t have the fire in the belly, it’s best not to run. Do those quotes show any real fire? Not seeing it.
* Meanwhile, Crain’s published an op-ed today that purports to show how Illinois Republicans can take the state back. I don’t disagree with the conclusion, but the premise that it’s all about Downstate turnout and little to nothing about ideology is fatally flawed…
Had the downstate turnout just matched the collar county average turnout rate of 51.4 percent, Mr. Brady most likely would have defeated Mr. Quinn instead losing to him by a mere 46 percent-46.8 percent.
The trouble with this analysis is that it focuses solely on the importance of generic Downstate turnout and ignores the fact that three moderate Republicans won statewide in 2010: Mark Kirk for US Senate, Judy Baar Topinka for comptroller and Dan Rutherford for treasurer.
* The piece also ignores something that it trumpets…
As most Illinois residents know, the Democrats’ stronghold is Cook County, while Republicans populate most of the rest of the state. There is a persistent myth among voters in Illinois that Cook County’s vote determines who wins statewide elections because of its population numbers. But the truth is only 40.5 percent of Illinois’ population resides in Cook County. The collar counties — DuPage, Lake, Kane and Will — make up another 21.5 percent of the state’s population, while the rest of its residents (38 percent) live outside the five counties. So, while the rest of the state (predominantly Republican) almost ties Cook County’s population (predominantly Democrat), it’s the collar counties that usually determine who wins and loses elections in the Prairie State.
You don’t do well in many of the collars by running hard to the right. Suburban women may be more conservative, but they’re not generally that conservative. And they also tend to be independents who are willing to take a Democratic ballot if the Republican alienates them.
* Yes, the Republicans absolutely need a much better turnout game. But they also need better candidates and a non-divisive general election message.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rep. Ford sticks his neck out
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Budget roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I reently read that between 2000 and 2010 in
DuPage County the African American Population increased by 3X, the Hispanic population increased 4X and the white population dropped by 55,000. Seems to me that the GOP needs to figure out how to expand their tent a bit or the demographic buzzsaw will put them permanently in minority status.
Comment by train111 Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:14 am
First, a note about the author of the Crain’s piece. He is the political director of Chicago’s Young Republicans.
His article argues that the GOP can stay far right and still win.
I just don’t see that happening. It hasn’t happened in the past in Illinois and I see no reason to believe that it will happen in the future.
The article seems to ignore its own key finding — in 2010, Republicans did not show up to support Brady.
The writer simply assumes that Republicans should vote for Brady. It never occurs to him that people didn’t show up because they chose not to support Brady.
The writer is supposed to be part of the future of the GOP. He’s a leader of the Young Republicans. If that’s the case, the GOP in Illinois is going to remain a footnote.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:15 am
–As most Illinois residents know, the Democrats’ stronghold is Cook County, while Republicans populate most of the rest of the state. –
If I recall the last poll published here, Republican self-identification was just a little bit over 20%.
It would be more accurate to say that Independents populate the rest of the state. A lot of them used to be Republicans.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:19 am
1 social conservative has won statewide since 1990–and that’s an arbitrary point in time, it goes further back than that, but let’s say post Big Jim. 1–Peter Fitzgerald. He probably isn’t pure enough for the current GOP though as he was against ANWR being opened up and a couple other independent stances he took.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:30 am
Speaking of “fire in the belly”, I don’t think Gov. Quinn has it anymore. He seems deflated and knocked back on his heels over the prospects of having to face Lisa Madigan in a primary. But, more telling, is that his personl staff seems to be even less enthusiastic. There must have been turn-over because anyone with a semblance of political saavy seems to have moved on. At least that is my recent experience with them.
Comment by Nosmo King Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:34 am
And the only reason Peter Fitzgerald won was because he was running against scandal-plagued Carol Moseley-Braun. While she fended off questions about Kgose, he hid downstate in an RV and avoided the Chicago media while his millions blanketed Illinois television. Unique circumstances to be sure, but still they don’t get it.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:35 am
Soccermom needs to grow up, because this made her giggle: “Two men and a woman, we’ve seen that movie before.”
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:38 am
The “generic” numbers and how “counties vote” is such a poor indicator of what happens in a RACE,… so then to blanket the entire ILGOP under the guise of what “percentages of counties” in the generic…. is a waste of time of the what the conclusion is right about going forward.
The Bill Brady numbers versus the Mark Kirk numbers, and then throw in a hybrid of Topinka/Rutherford…RAW… votes, then you might get a clearer picture of the failure.
To ignore the “elephant” in the room, thinking the percentages describe the story of where and what needs to be done, without comparing Kirk, AND…without comparing the hybrid of Topinka and Rutherford is fatally flawed analysis.
When “Political Directors”, as the Crain’s author describes himself, refuse, or even ignore, important factors and raw vote analysis, then the conclusion, while very accurate, does not make up for the shoddy premise.
It’s like those in My Party keep telling themselves ,and anyone who will listen, “We are not in denial”, while anyone paying attention to what they say, and what they omit, sees the denial, and the expalining away.
Also note, the “blame” of downstate not handling the “percentages” needed, how do you base that on fact, when raw votes mean so much more when looking at trying to overcome, or chase, votes needed to win.
Example?
In “County Y” - the GOP percentage was 67%
In “County Z” - the GOP percentage was 47%
Sounds awesome. What the heck does that mean?
“County Y” was 670 to 330 votes. Total votes.
“County Z” was 47,000 votes to 53,000 votes. Total votes.
It’s a numbers game.
The numbers need to be run in Cook and Chicago, and enhanced in the Collars with a Ground Game, based on RAW votes, per candidate, in each race, not a blanket percentage of county votes, where each county is weighed differently.
Further, comparing Brady and Kirk, and their raw votes, and where they were, you have to factor “women and moderates”, and how Brady ran, and how Kirk ran to get those voters. If you don’t then why even wonder what Whiteside County’s percentage is versus Lake County’s?
You can’t wish away demographics, candidate perception, and campaign strategy, and base a strong conclusion on percentages of votes in uneven vote totals per county.
Finally,…”Call me, maybe?”
While the video was …”darling”, and I am sure more people ate more pizza, and drank more beer, but between the CYRs (the author is a member) and the ILGOP’s “Worlds Greatest Phone Banks”, how did the GOTV go with ALLLLLLLLL those contacs?
Crickets.
If you are in denial of what really happened, how it can be fixed, and looking at the 2010 and 2012 losses logically, not in percentages of counties, and all the while omitting important factors, then all you are really doing is expalining away the failures of “Call me, Maybe”, blaming it on Downstate percentages, and ignoring that old adage I like to use when I hear about ALL that was done;
“Never mistake activity for achievement.” - John Wooden.
4 votes in Chicago and Cook, per precinct, with a true GOTV backing the 4.5 million calls…. and you don’t have to blame the downstaters.
Unless you want to gloss over THAT, along with Mrk Kirk/Topinka/Rutherford numbers and which demo groups were not with Brady, and where “the winners” got their RAW votes…then all I can add is that the conclusion was well-written
I hope the new Chair of My Party focuses on a Ground Game, with the candidates enticing enough to get the job done and that mirror, not only the state, but Congressional, Illinois House and Illinois Senate districts, to turn My Party around.
Just stop the “denial”, look at the “raw”, and remember “Counties. Don’t. Vote.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:43 am
“1 social conservative has won statewide since 1990…Peter Fitzgerald.”
And, whatever one thinks of *any* D candidate, there aren’t very many in history weaker than CMB (PQ is *far* stronger, even now, imo), and even with that rare advantage, PeteFitz only won by 3 points.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:43 am
Arch, the other striking fact about your statement was Fitzgeralds opponent was Carol Mosely-Braun, who was at least as far left as Pete was right! thats what it ook to elect a conservative. The masterminds at the ILGOP will have to pleas collar county female voters, change the demographics, or face extinction with tickets like Brady-Plummer.
Comment by Madison Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:45 am
It is false to say GOP loses in suburbs because candidates are too conservative. Check out governor’s race #s in 2002 and 2006. Topinka, the moderate, did considerably worse in the suburbs compared to the far more conservative Jim Ryan in 2002.
Comment by CronDale Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:48 am
I think realistically we can blame Bill Brady’s loss on Bill Brady’s campaign and his personal failings, not his conservatism.
Mass killing of puppies and kittens? I don’t recall reading that in any book by Burke or in the National Review.
There are many factors in a race, ideology is certainly part, but not all. For instance, Mark Kirk outpolled Bill Brady even downstate, where Mark Kirk’s stances on social issues would be a clear liability.
Heck, Mark Kirk outpolled Bill Brady in Bloomington, for crying out loud.
That tells me more about Bill Brady than it does about political leanings.
Personal likability could have easily made up the margin for Brady too.
Comment by Let's do the math Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:50 am
And correct me if I am wrong, but Rutherford and Topinka didn’t exactly have well funded opponents either.
Comment by Let's do the math Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:52 am
Let’s do the Math wrote: “For instance, Mark Kirk outpolled Bill Brady even downstate, where Mark Kirk’s stances on social issues would be a clear liability.”
That may be the perception to Republicans, but it may not be true. Republicans seem to clench to the idea that they don’t need to change.
The numbers seem to support the opposite.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:54 am
===Personal likability could have easily made up the margin for Brady too. ===
Possibly, but what really hurt Brady Downstate - compared to Kirk - was his extreme position on “right to work.” Unions organized like crazy on that issue.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:57 am
Yes the Republicans need a better ground game, they need to be better funded and they need leaders in the party who are more than the last elections losers. But 2010 taught us that in the same election a moderate Republican (Kirk) can win while a conservative (Brady) couldn’t beat Pat freaking Quinn. There is an obvious lesson here if the Republicans were actually looking to win and not just make excuses for the abject failure in this state. Candidates matter.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:00 am
Bill Daley.
Bill Daley saw his brother lose a race with two men and one woman, obviously, and if Bill daley is going to put his name on a ballot, and that is the hand Bill Daley is dealt to make that decision, you can’t falut him for not making a run.
Factor in Quinn’s poor numbers, Lisa is no lightweight, having run statewide numerous times and having the statewide network in place, Bill Daley is rightly cautious…
On the other hand, even Hamlet is a limited engagement at theatres. Close the “play”, and make your move, or get to State Fair and make it the “farewell performance” of Bill Daley’s Hamlet, and move on.
- soccermom -, I know you are not the only one who went down “that road” …just saying.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:01 am
Also too, with Michael Madigan owning the center-right on fiscal issues (notwithstanding aggressive astroturf campaigns, aggregate IL state/local taxation simply is below average among urban states) the only place for Republicans to go is to the left of MJM or further right into Ayn Rand crazy-land.
Kinda like when Bill Cartwright would get there first and simply stand at Patrick Ewing’s preferred spot, throwing off Ewing’s game.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:01 am
Turnout in the “downstate” 96 counties outside Cook and the 5 collars is historically weak.
Also the reason that “There is a persistent myth among voters in Illinois that Cook County’s vote determines who wins statewide elections” is because the Cook County suburbs have been an almost perfect bellweather. In 2010 Mark Kirk and Dan Rutherford became the first statewide candidates to win the state without winning the Cook County suburbs since at least 1994, maybe longer. It’s now trending so blue that it may no longer be the best measurement but it still has a stronger correlation to the statewide outcome than the collars do.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:01 am
–Soccermom needs to grow up, because this made her giggle: “Two men and a woman, we’ve seen that movie before.”–
“Philadelphia Story?” “Casablanca?”
What movies are you thinking of Soccermom, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:05 am
===Unions organized like crazy on that issue.===
As I recall, Election Day was full of Union workers, all over the state, working against Brady as much as they were working FOR Quinn.
Bill Brady’s Campaign let Bill Brady down by not factoring in GOTV on Election Day, and the Campaign was overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of boots on the ground to drag Pat Quinn across the finish line.
Shoddy campaign operations in the last 6 weeks, along with very relevent campaign issues that Brady Campaign tried to overcome, and throwing in the GOTV/Unions against Brady on Election Day sealed the Campagin’s fate.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:08 am
Perhaps Bill Daley can get a bit in this 14 minute “Hamlet” mashup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mFZT4gOq8io
“2B or not 2b, dat is da question”.
The only thing he’s running is his mouth. If it were an appointive position he might get to the Governorship, but last time I checked it isn’t.
He barely lasted a year as Chief of Staff to the President and my impression was he left because it just wasn’t an easy/pleasant job and he suspected the President would lose reelection.
Running for Governor would be worse because the likely outcome would be him losing badly in the primary.
He’s about 65 years old. He’s filthy rich. Does he have the heart for the hassles and as his brotha Richie Shakespeare might say the “vissiccisastudes of outrageass fortunas”.
Comment by IrishPirate Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:09 am
–1 social conservative has won statewide since 1990–and that’s an arbitrary point in time, it goes further back than that, but let’s say post Big Jim. 1–Peter Fitzgerald. –
Who was it before Fitz? Dirksen? He was a big supporter of civil rights legislation.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:09 am
I think it’s safe to say Daley would only run if Madigan takes a pass, which is 50-50 at this point. Given that, Daley’s big question is how to peel away support for Quinn among African-American groups. His brother was successful in that regard, but Quinn held that demographis against Hynes and that was the decisive factor in winning the primary in 2010.
How does Daley win support where Hynes couldn’t. If he can answer that question, he should run. If he can’t, why bother.
The GOP has a credible shot at the Mansion if Quinn is the nominee, but the race will be dominated by the question of the income tax expiration, very similar to 1990. In that race, the GOP candidate (Edgar) supported keeping the temporary hike, while the Democrat (Hartigan) favored letting it expire. I can’t imagine a scenario where Quinn would support eliminating the temporary tax and whoever wins the GOP primary will no doubt make the tax roll back the centerpiece of his campaign.
Quinn is in for a bumpy ride regardless and the poltical winds should be at the GOP’s back.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:12 am
===…Cook County’s vote determines who wins statewide elections.===
To bake a winning “cake”, the ingredients need to include Cook at a “window” of raw votes, meausred within a percentage, not based solely on a percentage, that allows the “Collars and Downstate” raw votes to overtake the losses.
Agreed, the formula of requiring a “Suburban Cook” win might be outdated, but the idea that getting into the “window” of the necessary raw votes, within the percentage necessary still rings very true, as Kirk and Rutherford showed.
Winning statewide is like baking that cake, ingredients need to be measured and not “percentaged”. The new “suburban Cook formula” will evolve and 2014 might be a good time to look at Rutherford’s and Kirk’s “cake”
Four more “NEW” votes a precinct in ALL of Cook, that was the Brady vote “difference”. They had to find 4 votes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:17 am
not only did that Braveheart guy die, he died after long and drawn out, horrible Medieval torture.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:19 am
In 2006 Topinka the “moderate” lost to a guy everyone knew was going to be indicted.
The kneejerk “Republicans must be moderates in IL” shtick is not only old it’s wrong.
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:23 am
It was a pretty nice analysis from young Mr. Giokaris. But the model candidate Republicans need to push this coming election cycle across the board is a Mark Kirk model.
That ought to drive a significant portion of my party crazy, but Kirk draws independents and females that significant portion of my party pays lip service to right now.
Follow the Kirk model boys. Swallow your pride and suck it up.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:34 am
===The kneejerk “Republicans must be moderates in IL” shtick is not only old it’s wrong.
What conservatives have won statewide?
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:48 am
===Who was it before Fitz? Dirksen? He was a big supporter of civil rights legislation.
I’ve long argued no one, but perhaps someone can come up with someone I’m missing. The closest are George Ryan in 1990 SecState though he moderated quite a bit from his ERA days by then and went on to moderate more and more and Jim Ryan (AG) who was pro-life, but fairly moderate.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:50 am
—To bake a winning “cake”, the ingredients need to include Cook at a “window” of raw votes
The GOP in Saint Louis has argued the same thing for years–of course the MO GOP has a stronger relative position statewide and does well except at statewides.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:52 am
Word - I was thinking of Jules et Jim, of course.
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 11:54 am
what’s gone undiscussed about daley’s potential bid is his brothers legacy and the parking meter deal more specifically which has undermined a big component of that. It has become to the daley brand what the iraq war was to bush late in his term which is a 600 pound guerilla that’s in the news and on peoples minds in a negative way every day. the daley brand was about competence about not being strogers or blagos or madigans. that deal has undermined it completely and if you don’t see the city papers or news much less live there and pay these things every day its hard to understand.
fwiw I think the focus on him, the kennedy kids, the madigans the jacksons when they were around in all these races will really heart the state democratic party all over the place because its denying their next generation opportunities to grow and developed and get noticed as well as to create separation from what hasn’t worked in this era for them.
Comment by shore Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:02 pm
@Oswego Willy =Bill Daley saw his brother lose a race with two men and one woman=
Yes, that is true. Rich Daley lost in a three-way race with two men and a woman. But, he lost to the other man, not the woman.
Comment by Nosmo King Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:06 pm
Braveheart may be an apt film metaphor, if one considers The Bruce as a Daley counterpart rather than William Wallace.
Comment by Punley Deter Finn Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:07 pm
ArchPundit-
When was the last time a conservative ran statewide that wasn’t (a) insane, (b) inept or (c) prone to make mistakes?
Not all conservatives are just like Alan Keyes, you know.
Comment by Let's do the math Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:13 pm
CronDale
The ‘02 election isn’t a useful comparison today given how much political change there has been in north and northwest Cook in the decade since. Where once there were mainly Republican legislators and congressmen, now there are mainly Democrats. Most of that change came before the latest map.
Comment by reformer Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:21 pm
===When was the last time a conservative ran statewide that wasn’t (a) insane, (b) inept or (c) prone to make mistakes?===
That’s no excuse, man. There’s been at least one insane Democrat (Blagojevich), and two inept Democrats (Blagojevich and Quinn).
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:24 pm
- Nosmo King -,
Your point?
===Bill Daley saw his brother lose a race with two men and one woman===
I think my statement ia accurate, if you wanted to go down the road as to which gender won, that is up to you.
Bill Daley saw the dynamic, Bill Daley saw his brother lose, and doesn’t like the “karma”?
I am glad you agree that Rich Daley lost, I feel better.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:24 pm
- Let’s do the math -,
the only thing you got right is that not all conservatives are Alan Keyes.
===…his personal failings, not his conservatism.===
You should tell that to the Suburban women that went for Kirk, not for Brady.
When you run against someone and say they are “too extreme”, that is not code for “personal failings”
Food for thought.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:30 pm
OW, I am not sure I understand your point. Unless you’re saying Mr. Daley must have a clear shot with no primary, then I’m missing something. The issue of gender in this upcoming primary battle is relevant. In a match-up of Lisa Madigan vs Pat Quinn vs Bill Daley, you should conclude that AG Madigan is the favorite.
Comment by Nosmo King Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:31 pm
===That’s no excuse, man. There’s been at least one insane Democrat (Blagojevich), and two inept Democrats (Blagojevich and Quinn).===
And My Party still couldn’t beat them.
That says more about Field Operations and GOTV, than it says about which party has the “more crazies”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:31 pm
- Nosmo King -
Then your issue is with Bil Daley and NOT with me.
I saw his statement as the dynamic of two men and one woman as one of splitting the vote for the woman, and I also, and took it more this way, as a reminder of Harold Washington winning, like Bill Daley and Lisa Madigan both losing and Pat Quinn making it out of the Primary.
“Karma” - Bill Daley doesn’t like the dynamic.
If ya don’t get that, check with Bill Daley, or stick to your own thoughts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:38 pm
===When was the last time a conservative ran statewide that wasn’t (a) insane, (b) inept or (c) prone to make mistakes?
A is below. For b & c though, if you define the conservatives that defeat moderates in primaries as inept or prone to make mistakes in the general, how did they get there? I’m not being a smart aleck here, but at some point you have to factor that they were good enough to get there, perhaps its not just their personal competence.
So Al Salvi–did he run a bad campaign. Certainly not a great one, but he did beat out a moderate in the primary in 96 and was again a candidate in 98.
Birkett in 2002.
Lauzen? (comptroller if you forgot) Well, maybe you got a point on that one.
Brady? Inept? He ran a pretty good primary campaign and worked hard–not necessarily smart, but Kirk, Barr Topinka, and Rutherford won in the same year.
===Not all conservatives are just like Alan Keyes, you know.
Thank God. Though I do miss the fella.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:38 pm
OW, take a breath, son. If you aren’t interested in participating in a back and forth dialogue on this blog, then don’t post. I was simply seeking clarification. No need to get all worked up.
Comment by Nosmo King Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:48 pm
This is great. Carol blurts out a bunch of nonsense. Lucky her deditors don’t read to paper so she is not at risk
Bill Daley’s last public act was to lobby to save the job of the Wall Street hustler who head Chase. Not real “man of the people” task.
Hey when do the IL GOPies pick DeadBeatJoe as party chair?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:01 pm
I’m John, the guy who wrote the Crain’s piece. Crain’s republished a shorter version of my original op-ed for Reboot Illinois (due to length issues). In my original piece, not only do I address exit poll data of where Illinois falls on the social issues, but I also identify how center-right GOP like Mark Kirk won: “U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk won 65,300 more votes than Brady, enough to make Kirk a winner in his election. With the 48.1% downstate voter turnout average, Kirk made up his deficit by performing better than Brady in the Cook and collar counties. Specifically, Kirk got 3% more of the Cook vote than Brady, 3.2% more of DuPage, 6.5% more of Lake, 2.4% more of Will and 2% more of Kane. It made all the difference.” My original (unedited) version: http://rebootillinois.com/?opinion=3669
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:09 pm
- Nosmo King -
===If you aren’t interested in participating in a back and forth dialogue on this blog, then don’t post. I was simply seeking clarification.===
I will keep that in mind.
With kindest personal regards …
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:09 pm
OW, right back at you.
Comment by Nosmo King Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:21 pm
JohnCYR,
I’m wondering if you read your own article. You wrote:
“A full 64% of Illinoisans (a larger percentage than the five county population) believe abortion should be legal vs. 33% who believe it should be illegal. At least 7 out of 10 Illinoisans believe illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status vs. only 27% who say they should be deported to the country they came from. More than half (57%) of Illinoisans say same sex marriage should be legalized, while 4 out of 10 oppose the idea.”
Yet you also wrote:
“I eventually learned that the 2012 election was not an ideological defeat for Republicans at all – merely a tactical one.”
Those two sections from your article seem to be in pretty sharp conflict.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:23 pm
- JohnnyCYR -
Thank you for the FULL piece, however, in addressing those specifics you cite, there is no mention of the gender issue and your “talking points” still have the “national” flavor, and comparing Illinois to Wisconsin, Indiana, or Iowa is not helping with the clarification at the end of the piece. It’s “Fire Madigan” in reverse, claiming Ilinois needs to be like other states. Illinois has it’s own problems, and the GOP has problems identifying with Illinois’ electorate, let’s not confuse the issue and try to be courting Indiana voters.
I stand by most post above, poiting to this in your article …
===This is the base of the Illinois Republican Party. Downstate voters (38% of the state) must at least match Cook County voters’ (40.5% of the state) turnout rate, if not exceed it. There was no ideological excuse for this.===
The Brady dynamic made matching downstate to Cook, especially among women is a bit lazy.
Four votes a precinct in Cook and Chicago would have done the trick, as “Call Me, Maybe”, and the “greatest phonebank on earth” had no way to find, a much easier, 4 votes a precinct, considering all those “ID’d” contacts had no mechanism to get them voting.
This was a Chicago/Cook loss at the Field Operations level, especially since the Brady Senior Staff did not feel it was necessary to have anything to counter the Union GOTV.
Ordering pizzas, and calling people are fine, but then to turn it and say downstate didn’t carry it’s weight, when Chicago and Cook had no GOTV sounds like excuses.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:28 pm
That says more about Field Operations and GOTV, than it says about which party has the “more crazies”
Willy: To a degree. The unions and lack of GOP grassroots have been given plenty of credit/blame on here today for defeating Brady; however, if you ask me the lion’s share of the credit should go to Terry Cosgrove and Personal PAC. Their voter contact efforts did more to identify Brady and scare the hell out of suburban women than any campaign or Party.
Keep nominating hard-right candidates and see what happens.
And Archpundit, you clearly don’t know Salvi and were not around for that US Senate campaign.
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:28 pm
===…Terry Cosgrove and Personal PAC.===
Agreed.
While all that did happen, and women especially sunk Brady, the only factor that I can see that can be seen as a variable that could have made the difference3 weeks out that was not done is a Field Operation and GOTV that had recognized voters that need to get to the polls and vote …
even at a “4 votes a precinct” clip.
Well said, - LincolnLounger -
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:33 pm
HenryVK,
Not really. It’s a stone cold fact that the downstate voter turnout (predominantly GOP) was lower than the Cook County voter turnout (predominantly Democrat). There are two ways Republicans can change this: either build the infrastructure to generate a better turnout than Cook County (or at least match it) or do what Kirk, Rutherford and Topinka did and perform better in the Cook and collar counties.
But to suggest that ALL Republicans are socially conservative and that ALL Democrats are socially liberal is false. There are Republicans like Mark Kirk, Ron Sandack and Jason Barickman who’ve supported same sex marriage rights. What’s stalling same sex marriage legislation in the House are African-American Democrats from the Chicago area with faith-based constituencies. Given the exit poll data on the issue, how could they have gotten elected? Because the Democratic Machine has a better infrastructure to generate better turnout, pure and simple.
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:40 pm
1) As an aside, I happen to have met Giokaris a few times and FWIW, he doesn’t strike me as a wild-eyed arch conservative type. He is not impervious to reason.
2) The debate point about the raw numbers vs. percentages is well taken, but I do think the analysis is useful in an exercise in looking at the races generally. Certainly worth a read, which is why I assume Rich posted this in the first place.
3) That 20% GOP identification number brings up the age old debate we’ve had on this site for awhile now. We need to drill down to the independents and find out WHY they are independent. Is it simply b/c the ILGOP platform and candidates are too socially conservative? Or do those independents not like the ILGOP b/c they perceive that they are too much the “combine” that Kass keeps talking about? Or are they socially moderate but what the ILGOP to be even MORE aggressive when it comes to the budgetary & pension issues, rather than more “bipartisan” (under the theory that being chummy & bipartisan for decades is what got us in the mess in the first place)? Obviously it’s a bit of a mixed bag, but the issue is what the majority or plurality of the “independents” believe. My personal theory also is that much of the more mainstream would-be ILGOP voters have actually fled the state. The small business owners, suburban middle class professionals, etc. are heading to greener pastures, thus creating a gap between the monied Lake County, Chicago, and DuPage GOP types headed towards the moderate wing of the Dems, and the more die hard conservative grassroot activists. the Democrats are doing a good job competing for that shrinking demographic, but otherwise are largely are driven by social lakefront liberals, unions, and identity politics.
4) We can point to specific races and people, but really it is a case by case situation. Yes JBT was a moderate and Blago was under the cloud of scandal even back in 2006. But Blago FAR outspent JBT and the national GOP was creating a major headwind against any GOPers nation wide w/ Bush fatigue, etc. What if that same race happened in 2010? Alternatively, what would have happened if Jim Ryan’s last name was “Connelley” or “O’Brien” instead right after George Ryan’s scandal broke? Or if Jack Ryan’s name was similarly “O’Brien” or “Connelley” and the sex scandal didn’t happen (even if he didn’t win the 2004 senate race, could he have run for governor in 2006)? And for the record, I do think Brady ran a lazy campaign in 2010 in the last month or so. The poll numbers were looking good and I didn’t see him trying to aggressively win over the moderate establishment in DuPage or Cook. Embarrassing. OW is right—4 people per precinct in Cook would have done it.
5) Fully agree that action & activity does not necessarily translate into results. But the CYRs actually have a broader & more fundamental mandate in the city rather than straight-up winning elections at this point. It’s to simply de-stigmatize being a Republican in Chicago and to be a welcoming committee for new transplants into the city & thus Illinois more broadly. Helping out w/ certain campaigns is nice and expected. But their real work at this point is the day-to-day job of just being visible and present as an option in the city for people who aren’t down with a more liberal, big government, or Democratic Machine agenda. In my experience, there all sorts of CYR members that run the gamut ideologically, many of whom are more moderate or libertarian in their outlook. The idea is that the CYR leadership will end up either moving to other areas of the state as they marry & have kids, or alternatively stay in the city to become a reasonably professional activist, political operative, fundraising, marketing resource for the actual ILGOP in the future.
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:47 pm
Oswego Willy,
What’s wrong with saying that Downstate GOP can do better than a 48% turnout? Especially in a red year like 2010 where you had 2 downstaters (Brady & Plummer) running at the top of the ticket. Frankly, there was now ideological excuse for a lower than 50% turnout rate. I concede that the Brady campaign’s GOTV ops in the Cook and collar counties could’ve (and should’ve) been better. But when he’s banking on the downstate voter turnout to be his bread & butter to win, the fact that it was below 50% astonishes me. I chalk that up to poor GOP state infrastructure, and that responsibility predominantly falls on the Chairman (of which I wasn’t impressed at all - tactically - under Pat Brady’s tenure).
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:49 pm
- JohnnyCYR -,
With ONE senate GOP member voting for SSM, and now it appears only 2 House GOP members in the “yes” column, and then pointing to the Dems as to the fault of SSM not passing in the House, could the GA GOP be seen as intolerant, heck, one vote in the Senate, the Bill is “stalled in the House and only 2 GOP members are for its passage.
So, can a case be made that the GA GOP is intolerant, I mean 63 out of 66 sends a pretty clear message that the GA GOP had more issues with SSM than a Very Diverse Democratic GA Caucuses.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:50 pm
That’s possible John.
Or it is also possible that people will overlook a vote one issue if the person is otherwise socially liberal.
Hmmn, I wonder where we can find data to support my theory. Hey, I know! Let’s look at your own article! Yes, there we have it.
In contrast, there is zero evidence to support your claim that there is some hidden social conservative majority that can emerge and win elections.
John, you need to understand that the GOP should be targeting people like me but are completely failing.
Depending on how much I invest in my company every year (some years I keep the money in to build, others I take the profits) I tend to be in the higher income brackets. I’m married with kids. Generally, I favor more limited government.
But as long as the ILGOP takes strong stands against marriage equality and abortion, you will never get my vote. It is just never going to happen. I may stay home, but when you run people like Brady, I’m not supporting him.
You can knock on my door every day for a month to remind me about the election. Heck, you can call me 10 times on the day of the election to see I’ve made it to the polls. You can offer to drive me there, and have somebody babysit the kids while I go. But all those efforts will amount to nothing until you change your parties basic ideology.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:51 pm
“Frankly, there was now ideological excuse for a lower than 50% turnout rate.”
Yes Johnny, there was. And your own article proves it. People didn’t agree with Brady on the issues. They thought he was too extreme. So they stayed home.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:55 pm
And I don’t want to put words into JohnnyGOP’s mouth, but it seems that he isn’t denying that the Moderate Model works–it obviously does as with the three statewide electeds the GOP has right now. What he’s saying is that the Downstate Model is viable as well, if the ILGOP can get it’s infrastructure together.
He’s arguing that there are still two, not one, viable routes to the mountaintop. He isn’t saying the Downstate is the only model or the only one that should be pursued.
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:57 pm
===I concede that the Brady campaign’s GOTV ops in the Cook and collar counties could’ve (and should’ve) been better. But when he’s banking on the downstate voter turnout to be his bread & butter to win, the fact that it was below 50% astonishes me.===
You hit on the tactical (ground game) aspect of the Senior Staff for Brady failed Bill Brady.
However, I can not think in recent memory of a campaign, especially for Governor of Illinois that all but ignored Chicago and Cook, even when a downstate strategy is implimented.
Further, you can blame downstate, but like I asked days a weeks after Brady lost and after Cross and Radogno were veto-proofed;
At what bottom do we need to reach before the focus on Cook and Chicago, as a “raw number votes” GOTV and stop with the “Chicago is Democratic” and do the heavy lifting.
You are the “Political Director” for CYRs and you see nothiong that was missing in the steps to GOTV and “Call Me, Maybe?” Yikes!
Four voters a precinct. If you are telling me that in the city of Chicago, 4 votes a precinnct were not to be “had”, especially without any Field Operations to even ATTEMPT… then I can’t help you as you turn to downstate and their “failures”.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 1:58 pm
===And Archpundit, you clearly don’t know Salvi and were not around for that US Senate campaign.
I was. Is your complaint that he ran a bad campaign? Then, again, how can it be that conservatives always seem to run bad campaigns after winning primaries?
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:02 pm
===
Yes Johnny, there was. And your own article proves it. People didn’t agree with Brady on the issues. They thought he was too extreme. So they stayed home.
===
Again, not to beat a dead horse, but are there actually non-biased (either right or left think tank) polls that prove this? How do we know that a good chunk of these independents or non-voters are staying home out of frustration of the weak ILGOP over the past 10 years generally?
I know it’s entirely possible that what you’re saying is true. But I just want to see the data that true independents–that would legitimately vote GOP under the right circumstances–are largely staying home because the ILGOP is being too strident and too conservative.
In the Giokaris analysis of the lower downstate turnout, are you saying the reason would-be GOP voters stayed home downstate is because they thought Brady was too conservative? How is it that we can’t attribute that to just GOTV, or the stupid puppy gaffe?
The issue we keep running into is “but for causation.” Some of these races are so close, you can point to any number of factors, any ONE of which would have been the difference maker. So pointing to only one factor that is ideologically consistent with your worldview and saying THAT is the only reason that made the difference in the election isn’t entirely accurate….
Comment by John Galt Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:05 pm
HenryVK,
“People didn’t agree with Brady on the issues. They thought he was too extreme. So they stayed home.” In downstate Illinois? I just can’t believe that. Sorry.
What’s so hard about believing that the IL GOP state infrastructure isn’t as good as the Dems’? Most people who’ve worked on IL GOP campaigns will gladly tell you this. Many candidates have complained to me how they only time they would hear from Pat Brady was when he would come begging for money, which they thought was completely absurd as it should be the other way around.
Now as far as the gubernatorial candidate in 2010, everyone on both sides acknowledge that Kirk Dillard would’ve easily beat Quinn. The only reason why he lost is cuz there were 6 other Northern IL GOP splitting the Northern IL GOP vote 6 different ways, allowing Bill Brady to just BARELY beat out Dillard with his downstate support by less than 200 votes. You claim “there is zero evidence to support your claim that there is some hidden social conservative majority that can emerge and win elections.” That’s exactly what happened in the 2010 primaries.
Either way, the fundamental problem is the state GOP is lacking any infrastructure to generate enough turnout on the statewide level, and that was my original point. This is what the new Chairman needs to change.
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:07 pm
John Galt,
THANK YOU!!! You get it.
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:08 pm
Much of this thread is nonsense and hot air.
When Judy Baar Topinka was state gop chair and declared war on Jack Ryan and carped about the “ick factor” because he may or may not have propositioned his own wife in some risque club, was she being a tolerant “moderate,” or just a nasty person who wanted to destroy a potential political rival?
Point is the IL GOP problems go far beyond where candidates stand on abortion or gay rights or whatever. The IL GOP’s main players are mostly selfish people and the nastiest in the circular firing squad are usually the “moderates.”
Comment by too obvious Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:11 pm
Oswego Willy,
Ask HenryVK why “4 voters a a precinct” in Chicago wasn’t going to happen. “Call Me, Maybe” had nothing to do with GOTV and everything to do with exposure, increasing membership and fundraising - of which it worked superbly (despite my reservations of the idea). Attracting young voters and attracting older voters are apples and oranges.
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:13 pm
JohnnyCYR,
You wrote the article. You reached the conclusion that 2010 and 2012 do not represent a rejection of social conservative ideology.
Since it your argument and your article, do you have any data to show that social conservatives exist in sufficient numbers in Illinois to carry stateside elections?
So far, your Illinois numbers seem to show the opposite. But if you’ve got the data, we’d like to see it.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:13 pm
“`People didn’t agree with Brady on the issues. They thought he was too extreme. So they stayed home.’ In downstate Illinois? I just can’t believe that. Sorry.”
Johnny, you summed it all up perfectly right there.
Data shows one thing.
You “just can’t believe it.”
So you reach the opposite conclusion.
And then in 2014 you are just not going to believe why the GOP lost again.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:17 pm
“It’s to simply de-stigmatize being a Republican in Chicago and to be a welcoming committee for new transplants into the city”
Hey, speaking as a guy from Chicago, I’ve got an idea on how to de-stigmatize being a Republican. Have the GOP embrace marriage equality and basic reproductive rights! Unlike some videos, that would actually make a difference.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:20 pm
===In downstate Illinois? I just can’t believe that===
Have you ever been to Downstate Illinois???
Do you realize how many Democrats are elected Downstate every year?
Yeah, it’s way more conservative than Cook County overall, but to claim it’s monolithic and Republican is delusional.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:23 pm
HenryVK,
“Data shows one thing. You just can’t believe it. So you reach the opposite conclusion.”
33% of Illinois wants abortion illegal and 40% are against same sex marriage. You’re telling me they’re not in downstate Illinois? Then where are they? Chicago? Please.
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:23 pm
===everyone on both sides acknowledge that Kirk Dillard would’ve easily beat Quinn.===
Kirk Dillard LOST!!!!
Yikes, c’mon, this is starting to get comical.
You lose, that’s it. That’s how it goes.
===That’s exactly what happened in the 2010 primaries.===
And …. there went your cridiblility.
Dillard lost by 193 votes, with no Field Organization. It wasn’t Jim Ryan coming in late, it wasn’t upstate, it was the FACT that any campaign with no field operation and loses by 193 votes has no one …NO ONE… to blame but themselves for not getting it done.
===Attracting young voters and attracting older voters are apples and oranges.===
How about attracting ANY voters. lol
Look, if you are all about fundraising and exposure and blaming downstate, and saying Dillard “should have” … and not about trying to win elections, then golly, you are doing quite well.
BTW, if making ALL those calls was about exposure and fundraising …why was the song about ….winnning …
===“Call Me, Maybe” had nothing to do with GOTV===
Werne’t the lyrics about beating Obama, …by getting voters … to vote?
just asking.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:24 pm
Rich, I’m not claiming downstate Illinois is “monolithic and Republican.” I’m simply saying it’s predominantly Republican. But the point of contention here is that I’ve been explaining 100 different ways how the GOP state infrastructure is not as good as Democrats and how they need to do a better job of getting out their own vote while others can’t understand any other reasons for electoral losses outside of the ideological spectrum. I guess someone who’s never worked on campaigns out in the trenches can’t understand how much tactics and strategy matter too.
Comment by JohnnyCYR Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:29 pm
===I guess someone who’s never worked on campaigns out in the trenches can’t understand how much tactics and strategy matter too.===
Who’s never …you?… me?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:33 pm
“You claim “there is zero evidence to support your claim that there is some hidden social conservative majority that can emerge and win elections.” That’s exactly what happened in the 2010 primaries.”
If I recall, Brady got about 20% in a GOP primary.
You think 20% of a GOP primary serves as proof that there is a hidden social conservative base that can propel a candidate to statewide victory?
That seems like pretty flimsy evidence.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:35 pm
2010 was a best case scenario for the ILGOP. Building a strategy around 2010 isn’t likely to mean much in your typical election year.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:36 pm
===Building a strategy around 2010 isn’t likely to mean much in your typical election year.===
Amen.
2014 is a whole different animal,and comparing would be quite silly.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:37 pm
The Kirk Dillard Legend is hilarious.
In the 2010 GOP primary — when any voter in the state could have pulled a GOP ballot to vote for him — he got 155,000 votes.
What a juggernaut.
Quinn got 462,000 votes in the primary.
Lot of stereotypes in play on this thread. There are plenty of Dems downstate, and there are more Republicans in Cook County than anywhere else.
Does anyone really think Mike Madigan is a liberal?
GOP candidates who don’t play the “welfare and gangs” card (read: race) in regards to Cook County generally do pretty well.
–The IL GOP’s main players are mostly selfish people and the nastiest in the circular firing squad are usually the “moderates.”–
In my time, the only successful GOP moderate who didn’t have to endure nasty gay-baiting from the True Believers was Jim Edgar.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:39 pm
“Either way, the fundamental problem is the state GOP is lacking any infrastructure to generate enough turnout on the statewide level, and that was my original point. This is what the new Chairman needs to change.”
What your own numbers show is that you can have the greatest organization is the history of political organizations, but when you start be alienating 57, 64 and 70% of the electorate, you are not going to win statewide.
Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:39 pm
===Does anyone really think Mike Madigan is a liberal? ===
I dunno, man.
Death penalty abolition, medical marijuana, civil unions and now as he calls it “marriage equality.”
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:42 pm
Marin’s column was written last Friday…
Comment by Get 'Er Dunne Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:45 pm
It’s good to be reminded that downstate there was a strong union presence that thwarted Brady’s candidacy. One way for Republicans to gain, in my opinion, is to stop attacking labor. Unions have shown a willingness to compromise, so go with it, and get away from Tea Party ideology and right to work stuff.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:52 pm
===“Call Me, Maybe” had nothing to do with GOTV and everything to do with exposure, increasing membership and fundraising - of which it worked superbly (despite my reservations of the idea).
So, as the “Politcal Director”, with all this success in membership and fundraising, will it be about Field Operations and GOTV… now… or is a “social club / think tank” pointing out what is wrong with downstate not carrying their part of the bargain… or more videos…
I ask because if its just a social club, and stuff, and fundraising, sorry … should you be factored in trying to build a Field Organization in Cook and Chicago, are there too many Democrats to be effective?
As “Political Director”, how would you describe your role, as …”Political Director” and also in the framework of CYRs and GOTV?
No snark, how do you see it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Word:
===Does anyone really think Mike Madigan is a liberal? ===
Rich Miller:
===I dunno, man. Death penalty abolition, medical marijuana, civil unions and now as he calls it “marriage equality.”===
If “social liberal and fiscal conservative” is the moderate GOP target sweet spot, it sure seems like MJM has already cornered that market.
Comment by Bill White Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 3:13 pm
CronDale and too obvious
2006 was the 6th year of a GOP Presidency. Except for Bill Clinton, in the 6th year election the President’s party gets creamed and / or a chamber changes hands. 1950, 1966, 1974, 1986, and 2006. That obviates anything about Topinka or Blagojevich.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:22 pm
= “Call Me, Maybe” had nothing to do with GOTV and everything to do with exposure, increasing membership and fundraising=
Thank you, JohnnyCYR. While I didn’t want to speak on behalf of the CYRs (as an “associate member” (*giggles*)), I’ve tried to explain the objective behind that project to Willy on a couple of occasions, but it falls upon deaf ears.
Willy seems disappointed that a fully-established org like the CYRs didn’t just “materialize” one day, and can’t seem to understand–or appreciate–all of the effort put forth by the group to build one, and their great successes.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:23 pm
And, when analyzing the reasons for disenfranchised Republicans, attitudes like that should also be included in the mix.
I don’t know why it suddenly became popular in the GOP to treat volunteers as if they were opponents in a race with the objective to wipe all of them out for just particpating in the process (or maybe I do), but if people believe that potential members don’t see that, or that it will somehow motivate them to help, join, and vote R, they’re wrong.
Sometimes, the answer is the one most obvious and least complex.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:34 pm
Well then,
Every person you “fooled” by coming to phone bank, and those poor souls were in the middle of a fundraising or membership drive, calling, with no intention of the CYRs using that for GOTV purposes…they should get a huge “sorry”.
What is the “goal” of the CYRs then? I mean, they have a “Political Director” using percentages to explain how it’s Donwstate’s fault Brady lost, and bemoaning the “fact” that Kirk Dillard should have won. Yikes!
As the CYRs were making phone calls, with no intention to use that information to get out votes, but to get dues from people, and increase their numbers (for what, to get a better rate when renting out a bar to go to?) what is the purpose of the CYRs? Just social, and if it is, great, but then as they are doing the keg stands, don’t “analyze” donwstate as the fault of the Brady loss.
I mean Angel Garcia is vying to be the State Chair. Is his qualification that he can throw a “killer party and make a cool video”?
There are more votes in Suburban Cook and Chicago for Republicans to find than in downstate, and further, analyzing “percentages” without factoring in women, social issues and ground game is just a real bad math problem with words to talk around.
The “Kirk Dillard” explanation makes the credibility of talking about ANY field operation, or how they wrok comical coming from the “Political Director” and breezing through Kirk, Topinka, and Rutherford’s wins, and countering the “points” of the article at times makes me questions a great many things.
So, a social club / think tank? Chicago is too Democratic to do the heavy lifting, so…and if the CYRs are just a social club, only interested, in the middle of campaign season mind you, to increasing their numbers and fundraising, but not interested in GOTV, then have at it.
Just expect to be called out on contradictions in your analysis, a lack of understanding where more votes are to be found, and a mocking on the premise,
“…everyone on both sides acknowledge that Kirk Dillard would’ve easily beat Quinn.”
Execpt you have to win a primary first, otherwise what is the point?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:42 pm
And for those who might be interested in “case studies,” to analyze MY claims:
- Big Jim, who “hugged his way across the state” more than once, and
- Jack Ryan’s campaign, whose outreach Willy chooses to continue to ignore EVEN within the context of the Primary (as if there is no outreach in Primaries, or if there is, it doesn’t count if you didn’t make it to the General)
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:45 pm
And as of Mr. Atsaves recommendations re: “models,” I’d dump the shunning, lying, and flip-flopping.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:48 pm
Sorry, that should have been:
And as FOR Mr. Atsaves’ recommendation re: “models,” I’d dump the shunning, lying, and flip-flopping.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:49 pm
I concede that the Brady campaign’s GOTV ops in the Cook and collar counties could’ve (and should’ve) been better. But when he’s banking on the downstate voter turnout to be his bread & butter to win, the fact that it was below 50% astonishes me. I chalk that up to poor GOP state infrastructure, and that responsibility predominantly falls on the Chairman (of which I wasn’t impressed at all - tactically - under Pat Brady’s tenure).
I thought you brought some interesting points to the table, Johnny, until I saw that.
If you think that the election of any one individual as state GOP chair will bring about wholesale change, then prepare for disappointment. It amuses me that people think there is a magic switch or pot of money that just appears to somebody being elected chair. Poof! Too many believe that magically, thousands of vacant precincts have committed, educated, and dedicated precinct workers because ___________ is elected.
How is it that a Party committed to local control can’t get anything done because there is not the “right” kind of state chairman, Johnny?
Comment by LincolnLounger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:49 pm
Well, that’s that. After reading Willy’s 4:42, I think it’s safe to assume that he is not from the “JRT side” of the GOP family.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:55 pm
“Jack!” Ryan got 35% of the vote in the Republican primary in what turned out to be a 4 person race.
65% of the voters did not WANT “Jack!”.
Why do I say this?
Because ALL these Slytherin House Republicans kept saying …
Judy Baar Topinka got 38% in a 4 way race in the Republican Primary and the whining of “no mandate” was just too much.
“Jack!” modeled his campagin aparatus to be effective in winning a General Election, going into places that the GOP had not.
The campaign never got the chance to run the “Ferrari on the Race Track”.
It is, what it is.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:56 pm
I’m not sure that Willy is even an “Edgar Bear.”
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:59 pm
Funny thing …
JRT … would do his “socializing” to get something done, or when ALL the work WAS DONE.
Being social to be social is fine, but …
“Never mistake activity for achievement.” - John Wooden.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 4:59 pm
- Anonymous -
Never answering,…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:01 pm
I can help you with that problem, too, Willy:
I don’t answer to you.
There you go!
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:09 pm
Just keep “poking the Bears”…
You defending, speaks volumes….
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:11 pm
Daley just ought to fish or cut bait, as the old saying goes. SNL should do a spoof about Illinois Politics entitled “The Waiting Game,” starring both Daley and Lisa, and the contestant winner would be the only person who’s actually able to, despite passionately fighting the urge, NOT doze off and fall asleep–waiting for these two to finally decide and publicly announce their ACtual intentions re. the Governorship, instead of all this huffin’/puffin’ and blowing hot air around stuff and dancin’-around stuff, while we’re all supposed to be sweating with anticipation. Got news for ya Bill and Lisa–there ain’t a drop of sweat formed on ME waiting for you two prima donnas to actually make up your minds, announce something ACtual, and do it or don’t already….! Quite honestly, all o’ this waiting game is both NOT impressive and a Joke!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:39 pm
–Willy seems disappointed that a fully-established org like the CYRs didn’t just “materialize” one day, and can’t seem to understand–or appreciate–all of the effort put forth by the group to build one, and their great successes.–
Good Lord, what are the “great successes” of the Chicago Young Republicans? Isn’t the object of the exercise to elect somebody, to something, sometimes?
There are plenty in Chicago and Cook who would like to be Republicans, but the brand has gotten so nasty in recent years that they can’t bring themselves to it.
As has been pointed out by others, and is unchallengeable by history, there is a proven business model for GOP success in Chicago, Cook County, the Collars and the State of Illinois:
1. Stop peeking in the bedroom windows. Mind your own business, “conservatives.”
2. Stay out of the ob/gyn office (see above).
3. Engage and empathize with folks who don’t look like you on their ground; you won’t win a majority of them, but you don’t have to. For crying out loud, Edgar was a regular at Army and Lou’s. Big Jim could hold down a barstool in any tavern in the state (and his booze; the dude has a hollow leg).
4. Try not to stereotype people of color for cheap applause lines from the ignorami “base.” The great majority of people of color get up and go to work, pay taxes, pay the bills, every day, just like you. And smack down any of your colleagues who would judge them not on the content of their character, but of their urine.
5. Get an army of go-getters with good pairs of shoes who think it’s not beneath them to knock on doors.
In other words, be an Illinois Republican, not a Right Wing Entertainment Complex Perpetual Victim Republican who feels an entitlement to elective office for being “right.”
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 6:37 pm
- wordslinger -,
I thought about you when I was watching the clips and then reading about Bob Dole and how he sees things.
Every time a stalwart complains about what needs to be done, the Slythern Talking Points ooze out and we are reminded what all these “work horses” for the GOP keep saying phrases like;
“This is not the GOP that I would be welcome in.”
When those who BUILT the GOP don’t recognize it, what good is “Purity” anyway.
Your “5 Point Plan” is spot-on. I hope the new State Chair realizes expanding the tent is the only way to relevence and understands accomplishing something is more important than looking like you are doing anything.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 8:13 pm
==I’d dump the shunning, lying and flip-flopping.==
Anonymous, if you are talking about the tone deaf right wing shunning good Republicans and trying to run them out of the party, I am with you.
If you are talking about the tone deaf right wing lying about being “good Republicans” then refusing to support good Republican candidate for office because they fail their little litmus tests, I am with you.
If you are talking about “flip-flopping” when confronted with a more intelligent, smarter and factual argument than the litmus testers come up with, then I am with you on the positives of “flip-flopping.” “Flip-flopping” once meant political discourse and reasoning. Now that is derogatory behavior.
I honestly believe that our party needs to be severely defeated a few more times until the hard headed bunch who have paralyzed it wake up and see the light. Problem is, they will never see the light. They always have some excuse, some “but if only . . .” alibi to explain away their failures.
I spend enough time being beaten to death at local GOP meetings in Lake County where the hard right now rules the roost and has presided over the turning of Lake County from red to blue. My proposals get thrown into the garbage and are not even aired out at meetings anymore. Last meeting they were still arguing against reaching out to independents and soft democrats, as that would somehow pollute the party. Another gift to Terry Link, wrapped in a big red bow!
I should add “fed up” to my name when I post about my party.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 5:16 am
Mr. Atsaves, until we begin to admit that everything cannot be, and should not be blamed on the “right ring,” it will continue to be difficult to get Republicans into office. It is also hypocritical for those who are well-known for their behavior of shunning the public to claim that they want to lead us to success by “building a big tent.”
And with regard, to the lying and–I should have said “extreme” flip-flopping where candidates change their position and the tone that indicates the tenacity with which they will pursue certain issues based on the audiences they are addressing during the same week or even on the same day, such practices might help to get them into office based on “popularity,” but over the long haul, it damages not only their credibility, but also that of their supporters and the GOP.
And I say that as a Moderate, Mr. Atsaves, who recognizes that political discourse also goes down the tubes when it becomes nearly impossible to have a debate with, or to vote for someone responsibly when their answers change, for the moment, based on what they believe you want to hear.
Generally, people–especially those most would probably want to vote into office, do not gain respect by “acting the part.” They gain the respect of others by stating and explaining their positions, and then holding true to them. And, with regard to occasionally “changing one’s position,” I clearly understand that need and have even defended it–until with one candidate, I realized that the issue was not one of “change,” but a situation where the confusion stemmed from an intentional strategy to cloak well-known positions (in certain circles) in intentional ambiguity and deceit, simply to win.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 30, 13 @ 12:06 pm