Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Dems looking to challenge Roskam
Next Post: Did Rauner just take property taxes and term limits off the table?
Posted in:
* Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist, thinks JB Pritzker’s candidacy is a “a preview of 2020.” He also thinks Pritzker is a sure loser. Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion, and Pritzker may not win if he’s nominated. But they don’t get to make up their own facts, like this one…
In Illinois, especially in vote-rich Chicago, Pritzker enjoys almost Trump-like name recognition.
He does? News to me.
A recent straw poll of Illinois Democrats put Pritzker in fifth place among a list of 9 possible candidates. Depending on how much he spends in the coming months could change that, but he has a big hill to climb. And to make matters worse, he won’t be the only Democrat trying to use his money and name-recognition to garner more Democratic support. One of Pritzker’s opponents is none other than millionaire Kennedy family scion Chris Kennedy.
Meanwhile, the guy leading the pack is State Senator Daniel Biss, whose campaign literature begins and ends with reminders that he is not a millionaire. Biss is way ahead in the early Democratic Party polls.
Democratic Party polls? Does he mean that one straw poll? Is he serious?
At least he didn’t reference that totally made up DGA poll from the other day. So, there’s that.
* More…
Beyond money and class issues, Pritzker is also a weaker candidate because he’s truly a product and member of the political class. Pritzker and his family have been major Democratic Party donors for decades. His sister Penny rode her financial support for then-candidate Barack Obama to the Commerce Secretary spot in his cabinet. At some point, big donors like to get off the sidelines and get on the political stage themselves. And when they do, it can be hard to stop them.
President Trump’s unique appeal was predicated on the fact that despite his wealth, he was seen as the consummate political outsider. Pritzker is far from that with his years of political fundraising and schmoozing with elected officials.
Trump played in the political game for years, so I don’t think that’s accurate, either.
* Conclusion…
If he does manage to succeed, other more nationally viable billionaire liberals like Bloomberg or former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz will then become more likely to challenge Trump on the national stage. If he loses, the progressive wing of the party gains a significant victory.
That may be more accurate. Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:00 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Dems looking to challenge Roskam
Next Post: Did Rauner just take property taxes and term limits off the table?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Illinois is considering legalizing marijuana, not LSD. I think Jake is hallucinating.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:04 pm
Jake Novak must be friends with the Gov and GOP party bosses.
Comment by Rocky Rosi Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:08 pm
“If he loses, the progressive wing of the party gains a significant victory.”
That’s a bit of a stretch. There are million reasons why JB might not win, only a handful of them could be accurately described as victory for progressives.
Comment by Montrose Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:10 pm
This column, as they say on the score, is a lot of “Out of Town Stupid”.
The one kernal of truth here is that many people do/will hold Pritzker’s wealth against him. I don’t think that’s fair, and it’s certainly something he can get around, but it’s there. it’s his biggest problem in the primary.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:12 pm
Pritzker is the Jeb! of this race
Comment by John Rawlss Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:12 pm
jake was the brains behind Larry Kudlow and Stuart Varney shows. so that explains a lot.
clueless cable yakker, filling the endless hours with nothing.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:12 pm
Most major media news analyses of political campaigns are completely off the mark and misinformed, just like this one. The fact that Capfax is on the mark over 50% of the time is a credit to Rich as a very skilled reporter/journalist/editor/publisher, absolutely no snark intended.
Comment by 'Goose Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:14 pm
Pawar could be the sleeper who surprises everybody. I believe the rich and well-known “frontrunners” ignore him at their peril.
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:17 pm
If he (and Kennedy) loses and then the “Progressive” (Biss, Pawar) pulls a Dawn Clark Netsch in the general election, is that a “big win” for the progressive wing?
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:18 pm
I read and ignore Novak’s opinions on a regular basis. He is pretty far to the right, but I guess CNBC needs to balance its often pretty far left leanings, especially for a financial news site.
Comment by A Jack Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:20 pm
I don’t understand why Pawar and Biss are labeled as the progressives of the race. From what I’ve seen of Kennedy, he’s pretty left wing on many issues. Does having wealth disqualify one from the progressive label?
Comment by Red fish blue fish Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:33 pm
===Does having wealth disqualify one from the progressive label? ===
In some minds, yes.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:35 pm
“Trump played in the political game for years, so I don’t think that’s accurate, either.”
While it’s true that, having played the game for years, he in fact wasn’t an outsider, he nevertheless portrayed himself that way, and his base bought it. So in that sense, saying he was “seen as” an outsider is accurate.
I’m not sure that most Chicagoans connect any of the Pritzkers to a specific political party, though they’re certainly viewed as connected with power. And as “that family that gives away a lot of money to have their name put on things”.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:43 pm
As an academic, sure I know the name Pritzker. It’s on several buildings/departments where I work. I know very little about any individual member of the family though.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:53 pm
Clearly CNBC folks are just talking to business and finance people if they think Pritzker has serious name recognition.
I consider myself pretty liberal, but I have been thoroughly irritated with progressives who try to demonize and dismiss Kennedy and Pritzker just because they have money. When I have pressed them on what policy areas they have a problem with for either candidate it is like a deer in the headlights for most of them. The Hyatt and the union issues is the best I have heard anyone come up with yet and that falls apart as he has no hand in running the hotels.
Comment by Anonish Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 12:55 pm
Kennedy can come out in favor of marijuana legalization if he’d like to prove his progressive cred. Otherwise, no thanks.
Comment by Collinsville Kevin Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 1:07 pm
===it is like a deer in the headlights for most of them===
I think they may not feel like they need a reason.
These days, even “woke” people can say harsh things about rich white people with impunity. Same for overweight white men. Trump may have something to do with both.
Therefore, Pritzker automatically has two problems, Kennedy has one.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 1:11 pm
Arguably the most progressive governor in the country, Mark Dayton is a man of wealth. Similarly Ted Kennedy was among the most liberal senators.
Pritzger’s progressivism shouldn’t be measured by his wealth, but by his political history and the positions he advances.
Comment by Truthteller Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 1:15 pm
=If he loses, the progressive wing of the party gains a significant victory.=
Only if the winner of the Dem primary wins the general. Otherwise, no, the progressive wing does not gain a “significant victory”.
Really makes me second guess anything I read about races I don’t have first hand knowledge of… the writer is likely to be completely clueless, so take it with a grain of salt.
Comment by chi Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 1:28 pm
Yes Rich I agree, the Pritzker name does not mean much in most Chicago communities. Maybe in the gold coast, and maybe amongst those involved in philanthropic related activities, over all that is not a huge number of people.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 1:36 pm
The radio sports talkers at the Score have a great term for national media-types who get aspects of Chicago sports laughably wrong: “Out-of-town-stupid.” That applies here.
Comment by Roman Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:00 pm
**From what I’ve seen of Kennedy, he’s pretty left wing on many issues. **
Refuses to fully support progressive income tax, refuses to fully support $15, refuses to support legalization of marijuana, etc.
Kennedy is doing everything he can to do exactly what Bruce Rauner did — not take a hard position on anything.
Comment by JoeMaddon Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:06 pm
The Pritzker name is big in the tech and philanthropic communities, but certainly not statewide. This guy is a total bonehead.
One other thing, true believer progressives need to rethink their position if they think rich folks can’t be progressive. Mark Dayton was mentioned earlier but how about Bobby Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, etc?
Seriously people. Purity tests only get you one thing - defeated.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:08 pm
#===Does having wealth disqualify one from the progressive label? ===
In some minds, yes#
I’d really be interested in seeing polling data on wealth as a disqualifying trait among “progressives”. In the face of an uphill climb against Rauner’s millions I wonder if the Bernie wing would be willing to hold their collective noses.
Comment by LiberalQuadCitian Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:12 pm
Rich: if the national media ever got Illinois politics right, you would be out of business. I suspect you have nothing to fear which makes me happy!
Comment by Tom Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 2:35 pm
I get an impression that Chris Kennedy is the most politically conservative of the Democratic gubernatorial primary candidates. Besides the points made by JoeMaddon at 2:06 PM, he supported big tuition increases at University of Illinois while chairman of its Board of Trustees, as well as restricting the numbers of in-state students. Also he does not seem fully on board public schools (he made negative comments about academic achievements of students at Springfield high schools which the Springfield School Superintendent disputed).
No such impression of conservatism about Pritzker.
Comment by Quiet Sage Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 3:13 pm
wow Bern on Jake Novak! this is a dry, old, ridiculous opinion. he was a Hillary person, he’s rich, therefore not of the people. you know what? bernie did not have a job until he was past 30, his wife ruined a college, much of his agenda was not thought out fiscally. so I don’t think that is of the people. I’m not a fan of JB, but this line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 4:39 pm
No one knows anything yet, when it comes to the race(s) for Governor.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 4:58 pm
I think there’s more to the backlash than just “$$$ BAD”. That’s part of it for sure. But also, it’s that that JB and Chris also have virtually no campaigning/governing experience, and are therefore sometimes seen as buying their way into the race.
Plenty of other wealthy people with no governing experience have been very successful, it’s true. So both JB and Chris could succeed as well. But for a fight as hard as this campaign will be, and a job as hard as the next governor will have, it does seem a lot more challenging to back somebody who hasn’t shown yet that they can survive even a few weeks of high-profile campaigning.
Comment by purity Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 5:53 pm
Bad reporting
Comment by DuPage Bard Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 8:33 pm
===Trump played in the political game for years, so I don’t think that’s accurate, either.===
Trump used politics to serve his business interests and never ran for office until last year. Pritzker on the other hand never needed pols for business and absolutely has been gagging for an office to seek for years since he lost his bid for Congress in the 90s. Much like Trump and Rauber (and Kennedy) Pritzker is running to be something rather than to do something.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 8:36 pm
BTW for all who claim Pritzker isn’t Progressive, would the fact that he’s probably understood the needs of the LGBTQ community better than anyone else running on the Dem side?
Comment by DuPage Bard Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 9:39 pm
I know that as a progressive Democrat, I always turn to CNBC for advice on whom to support when I am done reading the Chicago Tribune or not listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Apr 12, 17 @ 10:27 pm
**BTW for all who claim Pritzker isn’t Progressive, would the fact that he’s probably understood the needs of the LGBTQ community better than anyone else running on the Dem side?**
That’s not exactly a complete sentence, but why, exactly, would he understand the LGBTQ community better than any other Dem candidate?
Comment by JoeMaddon Thursday, Apr 13, 17 @ 9:32 am