Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Rich’s syndicated column

Posted in:

Illinois

Posted by Barton Lorimor (@bartonlorimor)

* As subscribers already know, a recent Capitol Fax/We Ask America poll showed Speaker Madigan’s unfavorable rating is even higher than Gov. Quinn’s…

A poll taken for Rasmussen Reports earlier this month found that Gov. Pat Quinn’s unfavorable rating was 55 percent.

That’s pretty darned bad, and perhaps the worst in the nation. But Gov. Quinn ain’t got nothing on Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.

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. Years of negative publicity, the state’s many, many problems, the Republican Party’s decades-long accusations that he’s holding the state back and Madigan’s historically long tenure are all undoubtedly driving these horrible numbers.

According to the poll, 55 percent of respondents would be less likely to vote for a local candidate if that candidate was supported by Madigan. That number alone ought to give the House Republicans reason to hope. All of Madigan’s candidates could be hurt this year just because of the mere fact that Madigan is backing a Democrat.

When asked whether Madigan has been a help or a hindrance to the state’s economic and fiscal recovery, 65 percent said he’s been a hindrance, while just 20 percent said he’s been a help.

Ouch.

Even Democrats don’t like the guy. 50 percent of Democrats say they have an unfavorable view of Madigan, versus 30 percent who view him in a favorable light.

According to the poll, a plurality of 38 percent of Democrats said they’d be less likely to vote for a Madigan-backed candidate, with 33 percent saying they’d be more likely and 29 percent saying it would make no difference.

And a majority of 51 percent of Democrats said Madigan has been a hindrance to the state’s recovery, with just 31 percent saying he’s been a help, and the rest, 18 percent, saying he hadn’t made a difference either way.

Men are more likely to dislike Madigan than women. 70 percent of men (versus 60 percent of women) view him unfavorably. 63 percent of men (versus a plurality of 48 percent of women) would be less likely to support a Madigan-backed candidate. And an overwhelming 72 percent of men (58 percent of women) think Madigan has been a hindrance to the state’s economic and fiscal recovery.

Chicagoans don’t much care for Madigan , either, but their ire pales in comparison to what the rest of the state thinks of him. 57 percent of Chicagoans have an unfavorable opinion of Madigan, while 63 percent of suburban Cook County voters, 66 percent of Downstaters and 72 percent of collar county residents have an unfavorable opinion of the longest serving House Speaker in Illinois history.

A plurality of 36 percent of Chicagoans would be less likely to vote for a Madigan-backed candidate (34 percent would be more likely), while 60 percent of suburban Cook and Downstaters and 62 percent of collar county voters would be less likely to vote for such a candidate.

A strong majority of 56 percent of Chicagoans believe Madigan has been a hindrance to the state’s economic and fiscal recovery, while 65 percent of suburban Cook voters, 66 percent of Downstaters and 70 percent of collar county voters say the same.

70 percent of whites have an unfavorable view of Madigan, 60 percent of whites would be less likely to vote for a Madigan-backed candidate and 69 percent of whites say he has been a hindrance to progress.

Among African-Americans, a plurality of 46 percent have an unfavorable view of him, they’re split 38-38 on whether they’d back a Madigan-supported candidate and 50 percent say he’s been a hindrance to progress, compared to 34 percent who say he’s helped.

Independents really, really don’t like Madigan. 77 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him (topping Republicans’ 73 percent). 64 percent would be less likely to vote for a Madigan candidate (less than Republicans’ 72 percent). And 74 percent say he’s been a hindrance to the state’s progress (about the same as the Republicans’ 75 percent).

The obvious point here is that Madigan has become the perfect bogeyman. After decades of persistent effort, he’s now known by enough people to potentially change the outcomes of campaigns, and not in a positive way. Gone appear the days when not enough people knew who he was to matter when voters headed to the polls.

Also, if Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner decides to incorporate attacks on Madigan into his campaign theme, it’ll probably work.

The poll of 836 likely voters was taken April 14th and had a margin of error of ±3.4 percent.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:34 am

Comments

He’s a different breed of cat, no doubt about it.

Put it this way: what other politician in the country can take credit (or blame) for pushing through conceal-carry and gay marriage?

Neither would have happened without him.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:47 am
I guess after reading this he will pass on a statewide run in 2020

Comment by Not Rich Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:53 am
Barton, Can you post the cross tabs?

Comment by rolling meadows Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:54 am
This is great for Rauner… A very unpopular President with an unpopular Governor, and an unpopular King maker does not bode well… I suppose Fire Madigan was not such a bad strategy? It certainly got folks talking…Now what’s the next level?

Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:59 am
It’s still a big “ask” to try to shift focus on MJM, but the groundwork of the embarrassing “Fire Madigan” campaign, and the lousy, albeit somewhat “earned”, coverage of the political MJM, married to the Speaker Madigan governmentally, yeah, the polling and numbers are probably as ripe as they ever have to make the case, “Madigan”.

Ok, so now how? Does Rauner’s Crew want to fight a “two-front” strategy? They can afford it, financially, without any question, but muddying the message with MJM, and Quinn, seems best to be attacked just by joining them both at the hip, and not going after MJM one day, Quinn the other, and “repeat”.

It’s such an appealing wedge to use, Madigan, but the way you force the wedge. The mural of Democratic failures might be better with corners and images of Madigan and Quinn in that big picture, than doing a single portrait of both, even if the art collector can easily afford both paintings.

Just do some a favor, don’t get the rest of the, “Fire Madigan” shirts out at State Fair time, Rauner Crew. You guys are suppose to be smarter than that. “Right? Exactly right.”

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:00 pm
I’ll bet Madigan is “all shook up” over this poll.

Comment by Esteban Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:01 pm
Crosstabs are only for subscribers. Sorry.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:05 pm
@wordslinger. I think gay marriage was going to pass regardless of who was Speaker. The momentum was there. Conceal carry was mandated by the court. Madigan may have facilitated the legislation, but to think neither bill would have passed in Illinois with another Speaker at the helm would be an overstatement. The one constant in Illinois politics as the state has declined is Madigan.

Comment by Fred L Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:17 pm
==Hijack alert==

AOL…really?

It’s a bit unnerving to ponder what the folks at google know about me….but it’s the price you pay for great service.

Comment by Under Influenced Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:18 pm
–I think gay marriage was going to pass regardless of who was Speaker. The momentum was there.–

Tell that to the folks who brought their kids down with them to Springfield, only to see Harris put off the vote — because he didn’t have the votes.

– Conceal carry was mandated by the court. –

No, it wasn’t. Read the 7th Circuit ruling. Conceal-carry has never been mandated by any court in the nation.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:21 pm
rather be feared then loved.

Comment by Wumpus Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:23 pm
The real question ill the House GOP actually figure out how to actually make that work for them? History says otherwise.

Comment by frustrated GOP Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:25 pm
===The one constant in Illinois politics as the state has declined is Madigan.===

This is so simple-minded.

So any good, any, Speaker Madigan gets no credit?

For polling purposes, it’s easy to have MJM be the boogeyman, the “bad guy”…but SSM proponents, and Conceal Carry proponents know the reality, as do many who were aided by Madigan.

It’s complex, leadership. Otherwise, anyone can be a leader. Thinking the polling will make this easy, gives Madigan all the advantages against “Fire Madigan”.

Madigan is the only constant. Lazy. There were governors, couple senate presidents, few caucus leaders came and went, and none take any blame?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:27 pm
–The real question ill the House GOP actually figure out how to actually make that work for them?–

They’ve tried it. 71 votes says it’s meaningless as an issue.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:27 pm
It’s up to Leader Durkin and his Crew to win in the districts, and win in those districts’ precincts;

Need candidates that mirror the districts.
Need money to educate voters to win those very specific districts.
Need Ground Games.
Need tailored campaign strategies, wrapped in a statewide narrative.

“Fire Madigan” helps very little in the reality of the winning of districts as the pivotal strategy for all districts. Winning locally, usually wins seats.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:32 pm
This may be one of those interesting situations where the polls are totally meaningless. Madigan has more teflon (or kevlar) than Reagan ever did.

Comment by D.P.Gumby Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:33 pm
Hmm Madigan controls the money the State the party
his district the House and most of the Senate.

Not much left. Anyone have an idea what will change?

We all generally agree we all would like him gone
but no one knows how.

Comment by Mokenavince Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:36 pm
Does anyone really think that Madigan is treated fairly by the news media?

The media has no sense of objectivity. Their mission is to destroy anyone who stands up to them.

A wise man once told me “just keep throwing S… against the wall and eventually something will stick.” That has been the medias plan of action for eternity not only for Madigan but many others.

Madigan is no saint but I rather have him as Speaker as oppose to anyone else.

Comment by MOON Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:42 pm
Walter Mitty - Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:59 am:

This is great for Rauner… A very unpopular President with an unpopular Governor, and an unpopular King maker does not bode well… I suppose Fire Madigan was not such a bad strategy? It certainly got folks talking…Now what’s the next level?

I didn’t know the President was considered “very unpopular.”

Comment by Original Rambler Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:47 pm
Original… Look at his poll numbers… I think the fact that 11 Dems sent a letter about Keystone does not help… I think this Fall will be telling how bad, let me ask you this, if you were a D in a close race, would you have him next to you? I think the answer is no…

Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:53 pm
—
I didn’t know the President was considered “very unpopular.”
—

He is in the RaunerBot bubble and among the country-club-golf-playing-Lexus-driving old folks.

And among the downstate Rush LImbaugh’s-on-and-don’t-bother-me set.

Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:53 pm
==The one constant in Illinois politics as the state has declined is Madigan.==

Hey, I’ve been voting in this state for almost 40 years. Don’t I get some credit?

Comment by Anon. Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:54 pm
Frenchie… Do you mean me?

Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:55 pm
===if you were a D in a close race, would you have him next to you?===

Walter Mitty, take off the national political blinders and ask yourself this: does Governor Quinn invite President Obama to keynote a rally in Chicago?

I think the answer is yes.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:56 pm
Polls only matter in Madigan’s district where he continually gets voted back in. He may be a bad guy but he is their bad guy. And, as long as the house has a Dem majority and he contols the party purse strings he will remain speaker. No need for state popularity when your not in a statewide office. No need for statewide office when you are already the king.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:59 pm
47th… Touche’ although I don’t think it is a given… Let’s see how the library plays out… No blinders, how popular is the reminder of $100 mil for a library for the regular voter? I think there are no givens yet… If it were today… I think a coin toss…

Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:59 pm
=== I think the fact that 11 Dems sent a letter about Keystone does not help…===

National issue, none of the 11 are from Illinois, and MJM is at his political finest, understanding districts, down to the “block to block” levels.

Keystone? You find a GOP state Representative here in Illinois using Keystone as a talking point, I’ll show you a losing candidate.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 12:59 pm
I was making the case that as a positive, I think Obama would be toxic in this state. Again, a long time to go… But when the President is from your home state, you should expect some help. I think last week did him no favors…

Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:02 pm
Will be interesting to see how much money the Rauner campaign gives to Republicans in districts, with an opportunity to win. Money, the life line of politics, could help to get the message out to disgruntled voters and help elect some additional Republicans.

Comment by Downstater Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:09 pm
Walter, you have to turn off Fox every once in a while.

Washington Post had Obama approval rating in Illinois at 54%. Hardly toxic, and certainly a positive among the base Quinn needs to energize.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/27/president-obamas-job-approval-is-above-50-percent-in-just-11-states/

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:10 pm
- Downstater -

===Will be interesting to see how much money the Rauner campaign gives to Republicans in districts,…===

Rauner’s PAC, geared towards Dems too…

https://capitolfax.com/2013/08/21/rauner-forms-new-pac-but-can-he-succeed/

Bruce Rauner is a Raunerite. If a Dem needs a “boost”, and Rauner can get him/her cheap, and be impactful in the Dem winning, Rauner is going to help the Dem, ala Tom Hagen.

Bruce Rauner is not a partisan. Bruce Rauner is a partisan Raunerite.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:16 pm
Someone’s gotta say it…”All politics is local.” Trying to get someone to vote for a candidate because of a candidate somewhere else is(IMHO) a lost cause.

Comment by Skeptic Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:18 pm
My bad, wrong link;

https://capitolfax.com/2013/12/06/rauner-will-form-new-pac-to-protect-legislators-who-stand-with-him/

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:18 pm
Word… I actually do not watch much news… I try and look at both sides… Perhaps he would gin up the base… But as always, it’s the undecided voters… I suppose we will find out…

Comment by Walter Mitty Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:19 pm
I remember appreciating his power when Illinois needed someone to stand up to Blago.

Comment by Barney Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:21 pm
MM’s guys outwork everybody. The last time most of the the so called big time pols and inside experts knocked on a citizen’s door it was their neighbor who wondered who the hell they were.

Comment by roscoe tom Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:25 pm
It’s taken 40 years to demonize the speaker enough for someone besides your local rep to become somewhat of a household name to the average voter. Some voters will recognize MJM’s name before recognizing their own Rep. You’ve got to be pretty well known to be that “disliked” or “diapproved” of. GOPers will need races within 4-5% for this to make a difference.

Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 1:49 pm
Someone should send those poll results to the 4 Supreme Court justices who are allegedly in Madigan’s pocket for the pension case.

Comment by anon Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:00 pm
=== GOPers will need races within 4-5% for this to make a difference. ===

Of the 71 IL House races won by Democrats in 2012, only 4 were won with less than 55% of the vote.

Comment by Bill White Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:05 pm
=My bad, wrong link;

https://capitolfax.com/2013/12/06/rauner-will-form-new-pac-to-protect-legislators-who-stand-with-him/ =
Oswego, now you are against Rauner, because he may support members of both parties. Smart politics. Wow! Stop with the negative waves.

Comment by Downstater Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:19 pm
Oops, I saw that I put conception of a man and not a perception of a man. Man, my mind must be in the gutter.

Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:29 pm
- Downstater -,

===Oswego, now you are against Rauner, because he may support members of both parties….===

And…

===Will be interesting to see how much money the Rauner campaign gives to Republicans in districts, with an opportunity to win. Money, the life line of politics, could help to get the message out to disgruntled voters and help elect some additional Republicans.===

Pick a lane, lol.

You want to see how Rauner will help Republicans, I point out he is a Raunerite, then you make it about me… that its good politics to support both parties, as you asked the impact of the GOP Nominee and helping Republicans. Classic.

Rauner cares less about My Party. You don’t announce a PAC supporting both parties…unless you are Blago,… and think that Nominee is about the Party.

- Downstater -, wake up, both Rauners need to decide about the impact of these MJM numbers, who to help with the PAC, and if being the GOP Nominee gets both Rauners to the finals, GOP Candidates can’t be fooled its about taking on MJM for Party sake. If Rauner’s Crew can pick up Dems against MJM, that is their goal, maybe even more than defeating those Dems.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:29 pm
Considering how wildly off We Ask American was in the primary, I suppose it is possible that Madigan has a positive approval rating.

Comment by Michael Westen Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:42 pm
=Rauner cares less about My Party=
Oswego, you have no Party, but the party of against who ever is running and doesn’t take your advice, which is worth absolutely, ZERO!

Comment by Downstater Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:48 pm
- Downstater -,

Well, I am glad you made a strong case, lol

Let me know when you pick a lane.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 2:52 pm
So, if he is that much out of favor, how does he continue to be elected as the Speaker?

Comment by OVERSIGHT Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 3:18 pm
Q: = So, if he is that much out of favor, how does he continue to be elected as the Speaker? =

A: Of the 71 IL House races won by Democrats in 2012, only 4 were won with less than 55% of the vote.

Comment by Bill White Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 3:28 pm
The longer a leader is a leader, the more decisions he/she will make that disgruntle the masses. Whether it’s the president of the United States, a school administrator, or the chair of the local P.T.A., support is lost each year. Personally, I was ambivalent about Mike Madigan until he decided the “pension crisis” should be solved solely on the backs of public employees and retirees.

Comment by Jeanne Dough Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 3:32 pm
Anyone who campaigns for state office by attacking MJM had better be hoping they don’t win.

Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:03 pm
Oversight

“So, if he is that much out of favor, how does he continue to be elected as the Speaker?”

Because he controls the money.

Comment by AFSCME Steward Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:20 pm
Unless of course MJM is financing your campaign and attacking himself for your benefit i.e. Reps. Conroy and Willis. He’s a big boy. He gets it. Just don’t get personal or Mr. Schnorf’s comment holds very true.

Comment by A guy... Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:30 pm
“Conceal-carry has never been mandated by any court in the nation”

If that’s true, then the 7th Circuit sure had a lot of people fooled. Wasn’t the whole point of that decision that IL could no longer completely ban concealed carry and that we had 180 days to get SOME kind of concealed carry law in place?

Comment by Secret Square Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:35 pm
it`s not who votes, but who counts the votes that rule

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:41 pm
I believe the court upheld the right to bear arms, not concealed carry specifically.

Rauner should stick to attacks on Quinn; that’s his opponent, not Madigan. I think it would be unwise to claim he could rein in the Speaker if elected. Ain’t gonna happen and he’ll look like a fool the first time he tries.

Comment by Wensicia Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:43 pm
Poll numbers don’t vote.

Election day still belongs to those who bring out the voters.

Comment by Mr. T. Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 5:08 pm
- Wensicia -,

Spot on, on all fronts.

This idea of reining in MJM, given that the Speaker being replaced is a 1 in 8 proposition, at the best of best circumstances, so running against, or running to rein in MJM as a weight-baring pillar is farce. Believing it, is being a lemming.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 5:19 pm
- Secret Square - Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 4:35 pm:

What the court said, to paraphrase some, was Illinois could not completely ban BOTH open carry and concealed carry. In effect, the court said: “There is a right to bear arms outside the house. Pick one or the other.” For their own reasons, the GA choose to pass concealed carry.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 5:33 pm
–If that’s true, then the 7th Circuit sure had a lot of people fooled.–

All you have to do is read the decision. It’s not that long. The 7th circuit ruled Illinois’ blanket ban on any carry in public unconstitutional.

No particular remedy was required. There are much stricter laws than Illinois in other states. The Supremes refused to hear a challenge to New York’s much more restrictive law, a “may issue” statute that effectively bans conceal-carry in NYC.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 6:10 pm
@wordslinger

You can get as technical with the language as you want. The 7th circuit was not going to allow the status quo in Illinois, so the legislature had to act. Madigan and company were forced to do something, so something would be done. The decision doesn’t say keep everything the same. Without the 7th circuit decision there would have been no change to the law.

-tell that to the people who brought their children down-

Games are played by the politicians. I remember when the state cancelled all private contracts for DCFS. They wanted everyone to call in and beg the legislature to restore funding. A federal judge made the state resume funding of contracts. Everyone knew the contracts would never be cut; it was a game.

I know you regulars here love Madigan. He does represent power. However, you talk about him like he is irreplaceable. A cemetery is full of indispensable irreplaceable people.

Comment by Fred L Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 7:02 pm
These poll numbers have nothing to do with marriage equality or conceal carry.

I think any subscriber who looks at the cross tabs would likely agree.

The real question is:

1) Does it change Madigan’s role as Speaker?

2) Does it change Madigan’s role as Party Chair.

I don’t think anyone thinks it impacts #1.

Politically, when you look at the actual cross tabs, it seems to me that there is some measurable affect on Independents.

There’s not enough animosity toward Madigan from Republicans to move your GOTV effort, nor is there enough among Democrats to keep them home.

You might be able to shave some votes among Independents to change the outcome of some legislative races, but I doubt it.

There is so much advertising done in a targeted house race, that I doubt that MJM is gonna be the defining issue.

You might be really annoyed with MJM, you might even think it is time for a change, but who is gonna vote against a candidate they agree with on there top three issues just because that person is supported by the chair of the Democratic Party?

Not many.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 7:12 pm
Fred, what’s the point you’re trying to make? Madigan is an ineffective legislator?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 7:19 pm
===I know you regulars here love Madigan….===

Geez, read.

We respect the political realities of where MJM is in the political arena. If you do not respect who you are trying to beat, you won’t beat them with ignorant hyperbole that make you feel warm inside saying it.

No one here says he’s irreplaceable. However, he is not being replaced now, and it looks doubtful this election will lead to him being replaced then too.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 7:29 pm
Bad form.

===We respect…===

How about I speak for myself. Apologies.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 7:32 pm
@wordslinger. You cited two pieces if legislation and said neither would have happened without him. My point is you are wrong. Both would have happened with or without him, particularly conceal carry. I am sure there are better examples of legislation he courageously championed, your examples were not the best. Hope that makes it clear.

Comment by Fred L Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 8:53 pm
- Fred L -,

SSM would have happened without MJM?

You need to pay attention to the GA a tad bit more. The Speaker, working in concert with Rep. Harris shepherd that Bill, voting it only when it was ripe. If it was going to happen, it would have, right? No.

I will leave Conceal Carry to others, but don’t be ignorant to facts when they don’t make your premises true.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 9:18 pm
Willy, you’ve been speaking for yourself just fine for a long, long time here. Please keep it up.

The point you make is well taken. I’m a Democrat who doesn’t always love Madigan. There are plenty like me too. And Madigan knows it.

We do respect the fact that the state reps we’ve supported continue to vote for him and his rules, and as a lobbyist, I am married to the status quo, which reveals most of my hand.

But love is one thing, respect is another. I respect Mike Madigan. I love my political party. There is a big difference between the two.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 10:18 pm
Fred, you’re choosing to ignore some very recent history. C-C never got more than 64 votes in the House until Madigan got involved. Gay marriage didn’t have the votes until he got involved.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 10:29 pm
- 47th Ward -, many thanks for the very kind words. I am glad my point of respect and love and the differences rings true in the Madigan instance. Thank you for your support in both.

- wordslinger - cut it to the quick;

Neither of - Fred L -’s examples, found the votes before MJM got behind them. Simple. The rest is policy discussion, but the votes…that is the real mover, and you have to respect it, love it or not.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 10:45 pm
You guys are great, create a reality and stick with it. No SSM or conceal carry without Madigan. No votes before Madigan (and the 7th circuit) got behind CCW. Because all votes for CCW before Madigan was behind it were clearly after the 7th weighed in. Yes, nothing happened to influence the vote after the 7th found that Illinois law was not in line with Heller or the 2nd Amendment, nope. No votes on SSM until public pressure shamed people into it, er, Madigan got behind it. If it wasn’t for Madigan we would not have two constitutional rights, not now or ever. I guess I am just an ignorant disrespectful rube. Thanks for teaching me boys.

Comment by Fred L Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:22 pm
I’ll leave the C-C for others, but to the SSM;

When the GOP GA votes, collectively 4-62 against SSM, there wasn’t too much pushing those folks to vote for SB10.

Voting a Bill “ripe” and counting noses is not done because people show up with cardboard signs. You do realize that SB10 was held, and not voted on because of the votes not being there, right? Anyone following easily sees that and heard Rep. Harris acknowledge that too.

I wouldn’t call you a Rube, you doing it yourself is just find with me, thanks.

If you have any questions to the real reality that is/was, hit the search key. Have fun. Call Rep. Harris’ office if you need a cite too.

Your “creative” reality seems fun to visit, but I’ll stay back.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 21, 14 @ 11:37 pm