Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Topinka aide says Andrzejewski attempting to “soak the taxpayers”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x4 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Tonight’s events
Posted in:
* Sen. Bill Brady talked about his lackluster fundraising with WJBC…
Brady raised about $66,000 during the three-month period that ended Sept. 30 and had about $273,000 on hand based on filings with the Illinois State Board of Elections.
Brady says he has grassroots support, which he says is more important than money.
“We really haven’t been as aggressive as we would like to have been in terms of raising money, I need a little more distance. When you’ve asked people and you’ve raised $20 million just two or three years ago, you need a little distance,” Brady said.
Brady says after a costly campaign for governor three years ago, some donors are a bit fatigued and need time before they’ll give again.
“I raised $20 million in the last election for governor. I think there are a lot of people whose pocketbook was fatigued when giving to Bill Brady, but they are coming along. We will raise enough money, we’ve always been outspent though,” Brady said.
* The Question: Is donor fatigue a plausible explanation for Bill Brady’s lack of campaign funds? Take the poll and then make sure to explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 12:50 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Topinka aide says Andrzejewski attempting to “soak the taxpayers”
Next Post: *** UPDATED x4 *** SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Tonight’s events
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Voted “yes, but …”
Donors are tired of donating … then asking, “whay the heck happend, you lost?” in the ILGOP.
You can donate to GOP races here in Illinois, given the recent history, or take $100 Bills and burn them in your fireplace…
That is the fatigue I hear.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 12:55 pm
the fatigue factor is Quinn beat him once, he will beat him again..
Comment by Mmmmmmm Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:08 pm
Yes, but…
There’s plenty of GOP candidates out there. Why should they donate to you NOW as opposed to when/if you win the nomination, Bill Brady? You need to get on the phone to the people who donated to you before and tell them the answer to that question.
Comment by Timmeh Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:09 pm
I voted no. I believe the reason he is not raising the funds he’d like is that he lost in 10 and GOP donors are looking elsewhere. He has yet to make a convincing case that he can win in 14.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:20 pm
Yes, but it’s the fatigue that comes from backing a candidate that has already lost before.
Bill’s train was the 2010 Election. It came into the station and left without him on it. The 2014 is not coming for him.
Comment by Nearly Normal Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:23 pm
Struggled with the Yes, but … versus No choices I ended up with No. Fatigue means mental or physical exhaustion. I think this goes beyond exhaustion. This is an active decision not to put their money on a loser.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Yes, but not in the way Brady…
Why put money on the horse that seems to lose?
Comment by Belle Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:47 pm
They don’t want to back a loser again.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 1:49 pm
No.
Brady’s problems are:
1. irrelevant incumbency. If Senate Republicans were in the majority, or even relevant, he would be raising money hand over fist.
2. Too many mouths to feed. Dillard is eating into the conservative base and insider donations.
3. Winners and Losers. Dan Rutherford is a Winner, Brady is, by definition, a Loser.
4. There are no Friends in Politics. Many donors are defecting to Rauner, I am guessing, and many more are trying to remain neutral as long as possible.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 2:06 pm
I said yes, but…
Isn’t the implication in the statement that people aren’t giving to him because they don’t think he can win? Bill Brady can’t raise money because donor don’t want to give money to a guy who blew it in a historic Republican year. Thanks for clearing things up, Bill.
Comment by Johnny Q. Suburban Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 2:12 pm
Bill Brady has a “donor fatigue” problem in much the same way that Blackberry has an “investor fatigue” problem.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 2:22 pm
Everyone know NoTaxBill has been outsmarted at all turns and is really not a factor in this race poor baby
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 2:23 pm
@Circular:
Despite my earlier comments, it would be foolish to count Brady out. He has strong conservative credentials.
I do think they probably finish:
Rutherford
Brady
Rauner
Dillard
but crazy stuff happens in multi-candidate races. It also depends on how much of his own cash Rauner is willing to spend just to get the nomination.
Comment by Juvenal Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 2:33 pm
Yes, but…
They’re fatigued, very fatigued, even sick and tired of giving money to Bill. If you set it on fire, at least you can stay warm for a few minutes.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 2:54 pm
I would be utterly shocked if Bill Brady didn’t come in 4th in the primary. As others have said, his train was 2010 and he blew it. It was an historic year and the ILGOP managed to make strong pick-ups in the congressional delegation (prior to redistricting), and win back two constitutional offices. He had his chance and did’t maximize it. No strategic donor would back Brady this time around.
Rauner has a ton of cash.
Rutherford is by far the best retail campaigner in the pack and has good name ID from being State Treasurer, and is from downstate which should eat into any of Brady’s geographic advantage.
Dillard knows the ins & outs of Springfield more and should be able to lock down a large chunk of the DuPage County/western suburban vote where Brady floundered.
Not only will he not win the nomination, but what’s the chance that he’d drop out ala Schillerstrom 2010 (or before) to endorse one of the remaining 3 candidates?
Comment by John Galt Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:09 pm
Oh, and I voted “Yes, but…..” for the aforementioned reasons. They aren’t tapped out financially or emotionally overall. They’re just tapped out on BRADY.
Comment by John Galt Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:10 pm
No, last time out, he raised the big money after the primary. Metro Chicago GO{ money wasn’t on him then,and it’s not on him now.
Doesn’t mean he can’t win the primary, again. I don’t think you can underestimate the antipathy of Downstate GOP primary voters for another candidate from Metro Chicago. Heck, Rutherford is a Chicago guy to a lot of folks Downstate.
And in a GOP primary, being the “Downstate Guy” could be enough for Brady, again.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:24 pm
he lost. to pat quinn. quinn, mess that he is, has the advantage of incumbency. brady has the disadvantage of irrelevancy. he may have “grassroots” support, but i suspect it is among the same, static, group. his support is not growing. what has he done the last four years to run on, and convince people he can win this time?
and then there is the no money issue. losing is fatiguing. especially to ones pocketbook. prior donors who supported him last time, may be reluctant to outright tell him he is a loser, just in case he wins a split primary somehow. he is delusional.
Comment by langhorne Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:25 pm
Brady was overconfident and blew the race in a historic GOP sweep year to a wounded incumbent who campaigned in favor of a tax hike. If Brady couldn’t win under those circumstances, why give him another chance?
Comment by reformer Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:30 pm
yes, but—don’t have anything new to say that others haven’t already said–donors don’t want to back a loser and Brady had his chance in 2010 and blew it.
Comment by Susiejones Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:38 pm
This is the no-campaign campaign. There is a distant statistical chance his approach threads the needle if the others precisely negate each other. However, it looks like Dillard’s move to the right will render this approach ineffective.
Comment by Chad Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:41 pm
Here is something to ponder;
Everyone is in a “window” of at least 15% to 33% support, let’s say …
This is a 4 way race, sprint to March after January 4th or so …
If you want to start handicapping, that is really the first time to do that. It is way too early, and all 4 can get out of the Primary, which is the race right in front of them.
I would say everyone is “behind”, and leave it at that. The rest is either “hopeful” for your choice, or “hopeful” your non-choice is losing.
It is.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 3:46 pm
OW: I would say the window is narrower and smaller overall — something like 10% to 20%. Dillard has to do an aggressive take-down of Brady at the risk of his moderate support in order to have any realistic chance of moving the needle. As much as it runs counter to his past, Dillard’s current rightward effort is rational, and also assists Rutherford.
Comment by chad Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 4:30 pm
He is well known to the unions, being a non-union builder. His solutions to the states financial problems include ending prevailing wage provisions on public construction projects, the third rail for unions. A lot of union members voted for Quinn as the lesser of two evils.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 4:49 pm
The problem Brady is facing is that most of the people who supported him in 2010 have lost all regard for him due to his lack of loyalty and what can only be described as the “idiot factor.”
Comment by William j Kelly Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 4:54 pm
- chad -,
I think no one is below 15% and no one is at the ceiling of 33%. I am, granted, giving a very large “window”, but I am doing so because the race is so young and fluid and monetarily speaking, only Rauner and Rutherford look “healthy”, but none of the 4 look, to me from the outside, like the aparatus is there to deliver. With the Rutherford petiton fiasco, Rutherford my be “everywhere”, but the head of that aparatus has to be the biggest Dope ever, given the fact … fact … Rutherford had run statewide before and the Rutherford Crew messed up petitons once before for Romney!
the huge “window” points to the fluidity, not the the actuality of support.
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 5:06 pm
–Dillard has to do an aggressive take-down of Brady at the risk of his moderate support in order to have any realistic chance of moving the needle.
Chad, that seems to be Dillard’s thinking, but I find it shockingly delusional.
Dillard’s not going to beat Brady Downstate, except in Sangamon County (like counties matter), thanks to his Big Jim/Little Jim patronage days.
Brady will win the GOP primary vote outside Cook and the Collars. Book it.
Dillard’s battle is with Rauner, and vice versa.
Dillard is an establishment LaSalle Street lawyer hustler, Rauner is an establishment LaSalle Street private equity hustler.
Big difference.
They both hang at the Loop private clubs. They both manga at Gene and Georgetti’s, Chicago Chop House and other places where it’s not unusual to have a steak for lunch (good work if you can get it).
They’re the same guy, the same base. Dillard is West Suburban Hinsdale/Oak Brook money, Rauner is North Shore, Wilmette/Highland Park money.
But Rauner is killing Dillard in the Gold Coast/Loop/Country Club money. And he has a lot more personal fortune than Dillard.
Rauner is a billionaire. The first billionaire, ever, to try to buy an office in Illinois, I think.
Both are cynically trying to re-invent themselves as right-wing populists. It’s hysterically funny, and also pathetic.
This old Illinois farm boy knows a little something about right-wing populism, and those boys don’t have a chance selling it outside of Cook and the collars in a GOP primary.
Don’t count out Brady.
Whatever you think about his politics, he is sincere in his beliefs, and that will resonate among GOP primary voters who have had enough of those of us north of I-80 and east of I-355.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 5:12 pm
Brady so far doesn’t seem to have the required passion this time. He fights (politically) like a little girl. To me, Bill seems only to have made a half-hearted effort to distinguish himself from his Republican opponents. I would guess that his mind-set for failing to establish a “brand” for himself is because he feels that voters will appreciate his quiet demeanor and his acting like a gentleman with his fellow Republican opponents? I believe he will find out the day after the GOP primary that his “Mortimer– The Meek” personna is going to cost him the GOP nomination. Republican voters are mad as hell and they want somebody whose passion is as strong as their own.
Once the GOP Primary is over with and the GOP winning candidate is selected, then the money will start flowing to them from the Republican voters. But, until then–None of the four GOP candidates has set any hearts aflutter with any of the Republican voters. Most of us view these guys as career politicians who frankly seem to lack the fire & brimstone passion that most of us want to see in one of them. Put the 4 of them in a sack and shake it up, all four will come out falling out of the sack looking like clones of each other to most of us. The GOP winner’s only salvation will be that Pat Quinn has gone from a “loveable duffas” to a “repulsive duffas” that Illinois taxpayers can no longer afford to tolerate.
Comment by Henry Clay Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 5:20 pm
No. People are giving, just not to Brady.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Nov 4, 13 @ 6:26 pm
This will be third gubernatorial race in a row for Brady — correct? If memory serves me, he was in the race for a time in ‘06, and then of course he was the nominee in 2010. He’s on the verge of becoming a “perennial candidate,” and that’s just about the point where you end up with a few die-hard followers and not much else. (Yeah, Reagan stuck his toe in the ‘68 presidential race, and was in the ‘76 race in a big way before winning in ‘80. But does anyone really think of Bill Brady in Reaganesque terms?)
Comment by Steve Downstate Tuesday, Nov 5, 13 @ 8:37 am