Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: RAGA ridicules potential Quinn candidacy
Next Post: The Daily Herald’s unsolicited advice
Posted in:
* Chuck Sweeny isn’t a fan of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s new TV ad that features Republican governors claiming Speaker Madigan’s policies have been a boon for their states…
The ad assumes Jack and Jill Voter know all there is to know about Mike Madigan, who has never been on a statewide ballot and doesn’t travel around the state making speeches. The ad also assumes that if voters know of Madigan, most don’t like him and blame him for every one of Illinois’ fiscal irregularities since the state nearly went bankrupt in the 1840s because it spent too much money building the Illinois & Michigan Canal.
It’s quite a reach to expect people to know all that.
Here’s one more reason the ad could backfire: It invites the neighbors to intrude into our family argument and lord their alleged superiority over us.
People hate that. This is our fight, so let us fight it. Butt out, Scott, Eric and Eric.
The ad also fails because it smacks in the mouth Illinois business owners who are loyal to the state, saying in effect, “Boy, are you a dummy for staying in that state.”
People know who Madigan is and they don’t like him - and they don’t like what they believe he has done to their state. The “this is our fight” argument is a good one, but a year ago a poll found that almost half of Illinoisans want to leave their state.
* Finke…
The legislature is taking a week off before returning to finish the veto session.
Rauner plans to put that time to good use by leading a delegation to Israel to “explore opportunities for expanded business and research ties” that are linked to technological innovation. A number of top officials from the University of Illinois are also part of the delegation.
Obviously, everyone hopes the trip will be a success. But just to be safe, maybe Rauner can bring along copies of his new campaign ad to show all of the wondrous opportunities right next to Illinois, in case this state isn’t good enough.
Heh.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 9:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: RAGA ridicules potential Quinn candidacy
Next Post: The Daily Herald’s unsolicited advice
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Actually, the success of Rauner’s ad lies in people not knowing all there is to know about Madigan. He needs people to rely on surface assumptions - Madigan is evil and the cause of everything wrong. The last thing that Rauner needs is folks to have a nuanced understanding of how state government works and his role in its dysfunction the last two years.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:11 am
Rauner has spent 6 years demonizing Madigan which until this summer was lead by a very professional and consistent communications team in the press. He’s also spent millions criticizing him through paid ads on every platform you can imagine.
They’re not assuming voters know who he is and don’t like him. They have hard data to back it up.
That said, after his completely failed budget strategy and lack of any major legislative wins, voters dislike Rauner almost as much. They want someone to beat Madigan, but Rauner has showed he’s not the guy to do it.
Comment by Phil King Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:11 am
==It’s quite a reach to expect people to know all that.==
Not really. I mean, OK, they don’t know “all there is to know” about Mike Madigan, but I believe his name recognition is pretty high, and his favorables pretty low. They know Mike Madigan, and they’re open to trashing him.
But Rauner’s been running the anti-Madigan playbook his entire term, and it has yet to translate into pro-Rauner voters. I don’t think this one’s going to break through, either, especially given the conceptual problems I’ve noted before.
Good for trolling, not good for moving votes.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:15 am
You don’t win votes by making voters feel like fools. Having a governor from another state mock me isn’t funny. I can’t vote for Madigan. I have no control over him. But I can vote Rauner out to end this silly game between Madigan and Rauner.
Rauner told us that he could work with Madigan. Rauner never predicated his goals saying he needed to first gut Madigan. Rauner claimed he knew how to do the job.
The results are in. Excuses aren’t going to work. Rauner failed. He didn’t deliver. He must go.
This insulting ad is trying to pin blame on a guy I don’t vote for as an excuse by a guy afraid of my vote against him.
I live here. I vote for a governor, not a speaker. I wanted results. Rauner failed. I will not vote for this failed governor under any circumstances.
Case closed.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:15 am
Their polling must tell them that attacking Madigan is their best shot at winning. This is also part of sowing anti-Madigan seeds so that if Pritzker is the nominee, Rauner can launch an ad tying him to Madigan the day after the primary - an attack that will continue nonstop for 7+ months until the November election.
Comment by Fax Machine Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:16 am
Here’s my problem with the ad. I don’t like Mike Madigan. But disliking Mike Madigan doesn’t mean that I like Bruce Rauner or believe that he’s an effective Governor. When I go to the ballot box and vote for Governor I will have two choices and Mike Madigan won’t be one of them.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:16 am
===Good for trolling, not good for moving votes.===
I’m not so sure about that. The Rauner enthusiasm is growing to a point that there are many people who would never get involved in a political campaign now are… for the democrats. This is a Hillary-like bungle. He is galvanizing his detractors. They are going to show up on election day, and they will bring a friend.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:18 am
==When I go to the ballot box and vote for Governor I will have two choices and Mike Madigan won’t be one of them.==
This has always been the fundamental problem of the Blame Madigan strategy.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:19 am
==disliking Mike Madigan doesn’t mean that I like Bruce Rauner==
And this is why Rauner will lose.
He’s developed a strong and effective negative message. He has no positive message.
He will try to tie JB to Madigan, but JB only needs to introduce a small amount of doubt.
Voters will say, “I don’t like Madian, but I also don’t like Rauner. We haven’t tried this JB guy yet, so maybe we’ll give him a shot.”
Comment by Phil King Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:20 am
It is my belief that “most” people in the state (except Springfield and parts of Chicago), would not know the answer to the question “Who is the Speaker of the House in the State of Illinois?”
Comment by Rufus Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:23 am
Governors aren’t passive failures to Speakers of their Lower Chamber legislatures.
The thing that’s most hilarious is that these governors and Gov. Scott all but admit Bruce Rauner is a failure and “lost” to someone who lacks all the constitutional power Bruce Rauner has.
These governors are mocking the “failed Illinois” and Bruce Rauner who lacks so much it still continues.
Rauner will learn “Pat Quinn fails” and “Bruce Rauner fails” are the same as governors own their records.
The ad allows examination to Rauner’s failures, it doesn’t exonerate Rauner.
With 63% disapproval, Rauner is an incumbent governor under water and an excuse for everything and successes for almost nothing…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:24 am
===But disliking Mike Madigan doesn’t mean that I like Bruce Rauner or believe that he’s an effective Governor===
Yep. “Vote Rauner, who by his own admission has been completely stymied by one state legislator” isn’t a super compelling message. Inflating notions of Madigan’s total control is just telling people that he’s more powerful than you. Why would I vote for someone telling me they can’t get anything done?
Comment by PJ Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:27 am
When you can’t win on your own merits you must blame someone else for your failures.
Unfotunately people don’t understand and are blaming madigan for Rauner being a failure even though he failed on his own lack of merit.
Comment by Publius Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:29 am
These have been playing in Central Illinois all weekend, and all they left me with was a “Where’s Rauner?” impression. Rauner must like throwing over 1 million dollars into this media effort (I’m including the 100Ks to the two other guvs) just to satisfy his obsession with Madigan, because the overall outcome when you’re eating dinner or doing the dishes is that Rauner is a victim and needs rescuing by other governors. Not that, “See… see… I told you Madigan was bad,” outcome Team Rauner was probably aiming to get.
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:31 am
Telling us why Rauner is a complete and utter failure as Governor (because Madigan) doesn’t change the fact that Governor Rauner has been a complete and utter failure.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:34 am
Seems like paying three guys $100K each to remind voters of GovJUnk failures is not the brainstorm some observers see/
It is also a reminder that average family incomes remain $5K to #10K LOWER than IL.
Guessin’ this is the ONLY issue GovJunk has goin’ for him. So we are stuck with the MadMax cycle stuff and reminders of his bid to make us West Indiana —weak stuff for many.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:37 am
The Madigan blame can also backfire and can be used effectively in ads, in an indirect way. Rauner refuses to act like a governor and blames others. When or if the sinister motive is added, that Rauner purposely sabotaged the state and hurt so many people to bust apart the political system, that could make it even worse.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:39 am
Those outside Governors have no sway with my neighbors. They’re not clearly identified in the commercial. But for those who are paying attention, in the end Sweeney’s right: the ad insults people in Illinois who stay.
It’s like your overbearing aunt visiting your home and telling your dad to clean his garage. Even if she’s right - go away lady. This ain’t your house.
Comment by Sugar Corn Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:41 am
===Telling us why Rauner is a complete and utter failure as Governor (because Madigan) doesn’t change the fact that Governor Rauner has been a complete and utter failure.===
This.
You can’t say, or even sell… “I’m a failure, but being a failure on my own isn’t true. Vote fot me”
Why?
===BAIER: So what would be different in a second term?===
That’s why this ad and this take…
===Telling us why Rauner is a complete and utter failure as Governor (because Madigan) doesn’t change the fact that Governor Rauner has been a complete and utter failure.===
Isn’t going to help that 63% disapproval.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:41 am
“I can’t vote for Madigan”
nonsense if you vote for a rep who supports him which is every democrat except for Drury, you are enabling the Madigan agenda of no reforms. no compromise and continued tax increases on middle
class families
it is the representatives that are failing their constituents by ignoring reforms that are popular with bipartisan majorities.
What is the Democrats positive message? We don’t like Madigan but let’s give this guy JB who agrees with every single failed policy a shot.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:54 am
I don’t care for the ad. I think, though, that the supporters of opposing candidates to Rauner who believe that the forces, economic stressors and overall discontent with Illinois politics which allowed him to be elected last go ’round have somehow been magically mitigated and resolved are not reading the electoral tea leaves correctly.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:54 am
The ad is effective. I am surprised those governors took part in this. Rauner’s message is the state needs reform (voters believe this) and he is a reformer. But he was blocked by Madigan.
The problem is that Rauner doesn’t have much else to say. How would anything be different this time? He tried, he didn’t accomplish.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:55 am
All your thoughtful and bias observations notwithstanding….
This is still a very effective ad.
The people in this state who don’t know or have and impression of Speaker Madigan (good or bad) would constitute a decisive minority.
People know him. And they have an opinion. This ad reinforces that opinion.
It does what it was designed to do.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:58 am
- Lucky Pierre -
Let’s remember, the statewide referendum of “Rauner vs. Madigan” had the Wingman lose by 4 points, and Mendoza ran an awful campaign herself but was flat out saved by Labor and the Dem turnout.
Munger’s statewide loss, as Rauner’s proxy didn’t go well, as tying Mendoza to Madigan still had Mendoza winning.
Now, statewide, Rauner is on the ballot… himself… with other governors saying how awful Illinois is with Rauner as governor.
Madigan can lose seats this time, I can totally see it being more than possible, as I see Rauner also losing statewide.
They aren’t mutually exclusive
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:59 am
===People know him. And they have an opinion. This ad reinforces that opinion.
It does what it was designed to do===
Hmm. Interesting.
Then you’ve changed your own mind and will be supporting Rauner after seeing this ad?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:02 am
My antipathy toward Rauner began with his constant bad-mouthing of the state.
His inviting outsiders to bad-mouth the state does not improve my opinion of him.
I’d like to expand on the point metaphorically with many adjectives, nouns and gerunds describing seemingly impossible depraved acts, but the rules of the house don’t allow.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:03 am
Let’s remember, the statewide referendum of “Rauner vs. Madigan” had the Wingman lose by 4 points, and Mendoza ran an awful campaign herself but was flat out saved by Labor and the Dem turnout.
Except the statewide referendum of Madigan vs Rauner was in a Presidential year with much higher voter turnout. Cook county democratic voters are in a surly mood these days. What policies will be proposed to stem the tax increases which are only just beginning?
What gimmick does the Speaker have up his sleeve to boost turnout this time? Non binding referendum on the minimum wage that will be promptly ignored?
Much different circumstances than last time OW.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:11 am
===We don’t like Madigan but let’s give this guy JB who agrees with every single failed policy a shot.===
It’s pretty unbelievable that option seems better than the status quo, isn’t it?
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:12 am
In a heavily democratic state, Rauner has to bring people to the polls, get his base out, flip independents and moderates and create a clear choice for voters. His base is fragmented, the GOP might not even have a full slate of credible candidates and his only articulable message is Madigan is bad and the successes I claim were the result of the evil legislators overriding my vetos.
Comment by Trapped in the 'burbs Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:13 am
If Madigan has been so good for their States, why do these Governors want that to change?
Comment by Jimmy H Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:16 am
==Then you’ve changed your own mind and will be supporting Rauner after seeing this ad?===
You’re reading too much into an observation.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:19 am
==All your thoughtful and bias observations notwithstanding…==
Right back atcha, pal.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:21 am
===You’re reading too much into an observation.===
No I’m not. Not at all.
===People know him. And they have an opinion. This ad reinforces that opinion.
It does what it was designed to do===
It’s designed to get people to choose Rauner.
You’re telling me it’s effective.
Effective, but just not with you?
Like I said. Hmm. Interesting.
Your personal thoughts versus it working on “others”?
===Much different circumstances than last time…===
Yep.
Now Labor and Dems get to vote directly against Bruce Rauner. lol
The lower turnout, I’d be more worried about 63% disapproval and other governors saying Rauber failed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:24 am
==What is the Democrats positive message?==
Hashtag Think Big. Invest in infrastructure and small business incubators, legalize marijuana, expand access to health care though either a PO or single payer.
Now, go ahead and shift the goal posts, but we all know you asked for the Dems’ positive message, and unlike Bruce “But Madigan is mean to me” Rauner, it’s there.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:28 am
===Except the statewide referendum of Madigan vs Rauner was in a Presidential year with much higher voter turnout. Cook county democratic voters are in a surly mood these days. What policies will be proposed to stem the tax increases which are only just beginning?===
Rauner failing in his own isn’t a binary thing to anything dealing with Cook County.
People split tickets all the time.
Just 3 years ago, you had both Rauner and Jesse White win.
People at a 63% clip disapprove of Rauner.
===What gimmick does the Speaker have up his sleeve to boost turnout this time? Non binding referendum on the minimum wage that will be promptly ignored?===
“Bruce Rauner failed”
Ain’t a gimmick, it won against a sitting governor and Rauner has other governors saying how Rauner failed too…
No need for a gimmick. “Skyhook, in reverse” will do.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:29 am
==It’s designed to get people to choose Rauner.==
Actually Willy, it’s “designed” to define Speaker Madigan as an impediment to economic growth. It does that. To what extent? We’ll see.
The ad’s main burden is to castigate the Speaker, not to promote the Governor.
We’ll see where we are on Election Day insofar as what I do. Here’s one hint: If it’s Rauner and Pritzker…I just pass on that choice and move on to the next. At least that’s how I feel today. Things could change…if some things change.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:34 am
==Actually Willy, it’s “designed” to define Speaker Madigan as an impediment to economic growth.==
If that’s the case, it’s a waste of an election ad.
Candidates and especially consultants get too high-falutin’ with their precious “messaging”. Just ask for my vote, guys. Don’t try to Incept me.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:36 am
No need for a Democrats to pursue a gimmick to distract Illinois voters and then be ignored?
Single payer? I can’t wait to see the proposal and the tax increases required to fund it. I guess it is not free health care for all is it?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:40 am
===… it’s “designed” to define Speaker Madigan as an impediment to economic growth===
… and Rauner can’t stop Madigan?
That’s my point here, with this. So Madigan is the problem, so you should support Rauner?
Whah?
Your idea of what it supposedly means is a failed premise to help Rauner.
Rauner is failed and ineffective governor.
“Thanks Mike Madigan”… You beat Rauner.
===We’ll see where we are on Election Day insofar as what I do===
LOL
Yep. Here it is. I knew you were a phony conservative.
If lying to a Chicago Cardinal and taxpayer funded abortions had anything in your own core, you wouldn’t hedge.
You’re no different than phonies like Grant Wehrli who still hasn’t tweeted on HB40 or Mr. Barickman and his feeling on his choices, or the biggest phony, Sen. Oberweis who demanded Pat Brady step down as Chair of the ILGOP, orchestrated a coup to remove Brady… all for SSM… but is “fine” with Rauner signing HB40… then supporting Rauner after.
===Things could change…if some things change.===
Yeah. Ok. You and Barickman.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:41 am
===Single payer? I can’t wait to see the proposal and the tax increases required to fund it. I guess it is not free health care for all is it?===
Rauner has taxpayer-funded abortions as the law in Illinois with his signature.
You seem fine with that - Lucky Pierre -, and still support Rauner.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:44 am
As others have said, this ad was too cute by half.
What it points out is that Rauner can’t beat that mean old Madigan and Rauner can’t protect Illinois from having businesses poached by his Republican compatriots.
Neither of those compels anyone to give Rauner another four years to fail.
Comment by illini97 Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:50 am
==Single payer? I can’t wait to see the proposal and the tax increases required to fund it.==
Yup, shifting the goal posts, just like I predicted.
I shoulda done it like the old Johnny Carson bit with the hat and the envelopes!
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 11:55 am
==Yep. Here it is. I knew you were a phony conservative.
If lying to a Chicago Cardinal and taxpayer funded abortions had anything in your own core, you wouldn’t hedge.==
Ye who judges…. I never said anything about voting for Rauner; that’s pretty much out. And it’s not just about an Abortion on Demand signing that forces me and others who object, to pay for it.
I won’t defend whether I’m a Conservative to your standards or not. Wouldn’t matter. I’m so sick of this “phony” business and people who deign to think they get to decide who’s real and who’s not, blah, blah, blah. We aren’t simpaticos, I get that, but you’re a Heck of a lot better than this stupid phony business.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:06 pm
===Ye who judges…===
You go with that, LOL
You said you couldn’t support Rauner. Now?
Look, just have righteous indignation and move on.
===… you’re a Heck of a lot better than this stupid phony business===
So, we just won’t call out people like Rauner or Barickman, or Wehrli, or Oberweis…
Attention. Attention please. When elected officials decide that they don’t stand for what they tell us what they think others want to hear, just let it slide.
We can’t call out those willing to trade off their alleged credentials to justify both that indignation and the ensuing flip-flop.
Me? I’m tired of legislators crippling social services like Catholic Charities, cite a Chicago Cardinal as a reason they are so upset, but still will back Rauner and ignore the damage they all did, being such conservatives and leaders of what is suppose to be conservative ideals.
I’m not worried. When Barickman and Oberweis stand with Rauner, I know what time it is and who they are.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:17 pm
If all of these governors really thought Mike Madigan was doing them favors by sending jobs their way, they’d be supporting him, not Bruce.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:17 pm
It was you not me that shifted the goal post to single payer Arsenal.
Sorry to burst your bubble but a proposal like that would contain enormous tax increases on middle class families. If you think that is moving the goal post so that the costs of a proposal are pointed out so be it.
It has been proposed before in Vermont and California and then reality set in Carnac
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:22 pm
===It has been proposed before in Vermont and California and then reality set in…===
Meh.
Even you told us Rauner signing HB40 was a bill and signature that even “California” couldn’t do.
Rauner is as much of a liberal as anyone I suppose.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:24 pm
That ad has created an extraordinary amount of buzz. It’s the first time since July that the non-political types are positively talking Rauner again. I get all the inside baseball analysis, but catchy ads that reaffirm what voters already know win votes for the guy telling it.
Comment by The Elephant In The Room Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:25 pm
===but catchy ads that reaffirm what voters already know win votes for the guy telling it===
We’ll see, but cotton candy tastes great at first, then you realize there was nothing of substance in it and you forget all about it. I think this ad is cotton candy.
We’ll see if Rauner’s numbers improve. Until then, I’m not convinced.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 12:29 pm
==You go with that, LOL
You said you couldn’t support Rauner. Now?==
No change on that front. Suggested I would leave the spot empty if it’s Rauner and Pritzker. What if there are other choices than those?
Self righteous? Easy dude, that’s you to the tee. Examine yourself for two seconds before your next post. Then, double down or not.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:30 pm
“catchy ads that reaffirm what voters already know win votes for the guy telling it.”
Votes for Scott Walker, Eric Holcomb and Eric Greitens?
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:36 pm
- A guy -
Righteous indignation - retribution, retributive justice; anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one’s right to feel that way; anger without guilt
Self righteous - having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior.
Since the discussion was your righteous indignation, and not anyone’s self righteous-ness…
Words matter.
Thanks
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:42 pm
I’m surprised by the amount of people here who are eager to brush off the Madigan problem as a non-issue. As Rich said, people really don’t like him. And yes, they certainly know who he is. The governor is gonna try and turn this into a contest of Rauner vs Madigan, and if he succeeds in doing such, it’s difficult to imagine people choosing the Speaker.
Comment by People Over Parties Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:43 pm
===The governor is gonna try and turn this into a contest of Rauner vs Madigan, and if he succeeds in doing such, it’s difficult to imagine people choosing the Speaker.===
Mendoza over Munger.
“Questions?”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:44 pm
OW, I guess 2 seconds was too much to ask.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:45 pm
@LP
Then you better hope the current administration doesn’t destroy ACA. I don’t support single payer. But if you steal my affordable health insurance from me, you better believe I will. And so will a lot of self-employed people as well as small businesses.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:47 pm
==It was you not me that shifted the goal post to single payer Arsenal.==
Is there another Arsenal posting today?
You asked what the Dems’ “positive message” was. I articulated it, mentioning single payer as one possible way of expanding health care (though it’s not the front-runner for the nomination’s policy preference). You then switched to criticizing single payer.
One of us can’t read very well, and spoiler alert, it’s you.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:49 pm
===I guess 2 seconds was too much to ask.===
When was this epiphany with Rauner?
What now makes you think that epiphany might need re-thinking?
I know where I stand. I also am tired of those like Oberweis who feel Pat Brady was wrong, but Rauner sighing HB40 is just “politics”.
So, 2 seconds, yeah, I’m done with lots of phoniness…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:51 pm
===Mendoza over Munger===
True, but Munger out-perfomed the top of the ticket by 6-7 points, with Mendoza’s margin of victory at 5. This, versus Clinton beating Trump by 17 points. Muger’s messaging was certainly effective, notably in the collar counties, which she won and Trump lost. But, even for Munger to beat presidential headwinds would be incredibly difficult. We’ll see what happens with midterm turnout.
Comment by People Over Parties Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:57 pm
==catchy ads==
That’s the thing; it’s actually kind of boring. It’s just some anonymous Guys with Ties talking about a guy everyone already hates. I know why it nonetheless trolls Democrats, but they’ll make a mistake if the focus on it too much.
==I’m surprised by the amount of people here who are eager to brush off the Madigan problem as a non-issue.==
I’m not really sure who does that? I think he’s the biggest liability to Democratic chances next year. I just don’t think this ad takes much advantage of that. But it’ll be easier to do so once Dems have a nominee.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 1:58 pm
===True, but..===
No.
No, just true.
===Muger’s messaging was certainly effective, notably in the collar counties, which she won and Trump lost. But, even for Munger to beat presidential headwinds would be incredibly difficult.===
No. Munger lost. When you don’t win, you lose.
Plus, Rauner is underwater and running on his own name, statewide.
What else ya got?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:00 pm
==True, but Munger out-perfomed the top of the ticket by 6-7 points, with Mendoza’s margin of victory at 5.==
And Munger had a lot more money than Mendoza, which…probably won’t be true of the Gubernatorial candidates?
I still think “Because Madigan!” can get Rauner some votes, but it’s not the silver bullet.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:00 pm
==When was this epiphany with Rauner?==
Hardly an epiphany. Like more usual, a series of events that culminate in an assessment. That assessment is that an opportunity has been blown. Over time. Would Pat Q have been better? No. We’d have much the same results, likely a tax increase sooner (wouldn’t have let the earlier one expire).
The point being, there’s little difference in the results between them. Pritzker might be exactly the same.
I think Oberweis and Brady were both wrong. Our party needs to land in the middle between them. I don’t assume anyone who disagrees with me is “phony”. I just assume they disagree.
Some days you teeter on the edge of “not worth it to debate with”. That would be a shame.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:01 pm
And…Mendoza/Munger isn’t a proxy battle that would compare to Rauner really being on the ticket. You can say that all day long. It’s not close to the same.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:03 pm
And before we get warned to get back on point…the ad achieved it’s objective.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:04 pm
===Hardly an epiphany. Like more usual, a series of events that culminate in an assessment. That assessment is that an opportunity has been blown. Over time. Would Pat Q have been better? No. We’d have much the same results, likely a tax increase sooner (wouldn’t have let the earlier one expire).===
… And yet, you made HB40 be a catalyst.
I could show you where if you’d like.
===The point being, there’s little difference in the results between them. Pritzker might be exactly the same===
So you and Barickman, LOL… righteous indignation, “but Pritzker”
Yeah, ok, go with that.
===I think Oberweis and Brady were both wrong. Our party needs to land in the middle between them. I don’t assume anyone who disagrees with me is “phony”===
Ugh.
Tell that to those being called out that held such thoughts that now are as phony as get out, when SSM was unacceptable but signing HB40 is just politics.
“Because phony” - that’s Barickman, Oberweis, even commenters rationalizing “but Pritzker”
Your eyes seem fixed on those catching the self righteous, and not those being so self righteous, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:08 pm
If you think you can mention single payer as a popular solution to fixing Illinois health care problems and then gloss over the enormous challenges funding it as just goal post shifting so be it Arsenal.
The debate in Illinois as well as Chicago and Cook county has been about our already high tax burden and all Democrats can do is proposes programs to increase taxes on middle class families
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:08 pm
===And…Mendoza/Munger isn’t a proxy battle that would compare to Rauner really being on the ticket. You can say that all day long. It’s not close to the same.===
… And yet, ad after ad as “Mendoza/Madigan”
If anything, Rauner himself in the ballot and Madigan not on the ballot is worse for Rauner, given he’s underwater and at 63% disapproval.
It was effective. Effective at reminding that Rauner failed at “stopping” Madigan.
What would be different in a second term?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:16 pm
==Mendoza/Munger isn’t a proxy battle that would compare to Rauner really being on the ticket.==
I dunno, I think it’s just about as close an approximation as a proxy battle can get; someone who affectionately called herself “Rauner’s wingman” versus someone who was fairly tagged as unusually close to Madigan. Maybe the gender politics will throw the results off a bit, but otherwise, just about as pure a test case as you could hope for.
==And before we get warned to get back on point…the ad achieved it’s objective.==
Time will tell, and I don’t discount it as a possibility, but I certainly note that all you’re doing is asserting and re-asserting that the ad will “work”, while those of us who aren’t so sure are actually explaining our position, be it through OW’s higher-order of thinking (”It highlight’s Rauner’s own problems…” or my lizard-brain reactions (”AD BORING.”)
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:27 pm
Where did I ever say I was “ok with taxpayer funded abortion” OW?
Your credibility just went down another few notches and seeing as you are already standing on the ground that is saying something.
You are a little light on the Bret Baier references today from you high horse of self righteousness
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:30 pm
- Lucky Pierre -
Reading is fundamental…
=== ===Single payer? I can’t wait to see the proposal and the tax increases required to fund it. I guess it is not free health care for all is it?===
Rauner has taxpayer-funded abortions as the law in Illinois with his signature.
You seem fine with that - Lucky Pierre -, and still support Rauner.===
Hmm…
“You seem fine with that - Lucky Pierre -, and still support Rauner.”
Are you supporting Rauner, even with signing HB40?
It’s not stopping you from supporting Rauner.
That’s the reality.
My credibility is fine, thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:49 pm
Your credibility is fine but you state I support HB 40 despite all evidence to the contrary- use the google and prove your case before you smear me.
Reading is fundamental and as been said countless times both leading candidates for Governor support HB 40.
So my vote like so many others, will not hinge on that issue because they agree. Are you a single issue voter or do you just blindly support whatever the Speaker says?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 2:59 pm
===Your credibility is fine but you state I support HB 40 despite all evidence to the contrary- use the google and prove your case before you smear me.===
LOL, smear you, that’s rich.
I showed exactly what I said, exactly how I said it.
===Rauner has taxpayer-funded abortions as the law in Illinois with his signature.
You seem fine with that - Lucky Pierre -, and still support Rauner.===
All candidates, one candidate, no candidates…
See, you kinda sorta walked into this one.
If Ives gets on the ballot, and she opposed HB40, are you going up support Ives over Rauner.
Did you really… think… I hadn’t thought this thru? lol
If you support Rauner over Ives, what are you actually saying is that line.
Think on that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 3:05 pm
Where do I seem fine with Rauner’s signing of HB 40? Totally made up by you.
Did I ever say I was a single issue voter? Totally made up by you
Do you think Ives will get enough signatures to get on the ballot and will she be able to raise any money? I have my doubts
I live in Chicago and there is absolutely no need to pull a Republican primary ballot in Chicago. I have never done so.
Count me down for the Buckley rule. I will support the rightward most viable candidate for Governor in the general election. As a good “Republican” I am sure you agree.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 3:24 pm
===Where do I seem fine with Rauner’s signing of HB 40? Totally made up by you.===
You’re still supporting him. If it bothered you, you wouldn’t support him.
===Did I ever say I was a single issue voter? Totally made up by you===
Nope. I did t say you were, your words, which I can show you again as to why Rauner would never sign, and your acceptance that Rauner did sign HB40, what do you even stand for, lol
===I live in Chicago and there is absolutely no need to pull a Republican primary ballot in Chicago. I have never done so===
LOL…
You’ve never voted in a GOP Primary since living in Chicago?
How dare you tell us actual GOP Primary voters that Rauner is a Republican?
===As a good “Republican” I am sure you agree===
… Says the person who has never voted in the GOP Primary since living in Chicago.
For the live of Pete… STOP.
lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 3:30 pm
As Tip O’Neill famously stated all politics are local. Sorry, but in Chicago there are virtually no local Republicans on the ballot who have a chance at winning.
Much more important to vote for the most conservative candidate and stay away from the Chuy Garcia’s.
Can you articulate what votes I have missed? The Republican candidate for Mayor, alderman, State rep or State Senator who no one knows who they are?
I never told you or anyone else who to vote for OW, you need another hobby this one isn’t working out so well for you
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 3:50 pm
Maybe - Lucky Pierre - is indeed Bruce Rauner?
You missed Rauner’s Primary 3 years ago?
How long have you “lived” in Chicago?
===I never told you or anyone else who to vote for… you need another hobby this one isn’t working out so well for you===
So you don’t vote for Republicans, have you skipped all those Dems that are aiding Speaker Madigan?
You’ve been pulling Dem ballots.
You must’ve voted for Madigan folks…
LOL
You’re a Madigan enabler.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 3:54 pm
===As Tip O’Neill famously stated all politics are local. Sorry, but in Chicago there are virtually no local Republicans on the ballot who have a chance at winning.===
Why won’t you work to build the Chicago GOP?
You can complain about Madigan but you pull Dem ballots in the Primary?
===Much more important to vote for the most conservative candidate and stay away from the Chuy Garcia’s.===
You voted for Rahm?
- Lucky Pierre - voted for Rahm?
This is priceless.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 3:56 pm
Believe it or not, there are many uneducated voters who fall for this kind of propaganda.
Comment by Generic Drone Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 4:28 pm
== be it through OW’s higher-order of thinking ===
Hard for me to concentrate after this line. He pounds a theme over and over until he picks the wrong horse in an election…and then the higher order is that he knew better than the rest of us.
There’s a bias here. Rauner has lost the ability to have me offer the benefit of the doubt on things. When it comes to ads, a good precinct committeeman can tell you if they work or not. They hear people talking about them or they don’t. What I heard lately in the field about this ad is that people most often saw it on their local news channels as a story in the news. I’m talking to more GOP folks than others, but plenty of soft ones and indies. Many are still unaware of Rauner’s shortcomings. The one’s that aren’t are really ticked. Since I’m pushing for local reps at these doors, I’m not encouraging the conversation beyond those locals. The Gov or Trump don’t really come up that often; but when they do, it’s an earful.
Speaker Madigan comes up more than any of them. That’s how I really know people are well aware of him.
Comment by A guy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:18 pm
OW is practicing pseudo sabermetrics with his single issue HB 40 nonsense when the general election voter is ordering another beer at the ball game and doesn’t even know who is pitching.
They do know they despise Madigan and the status quo. Somehow this translates to JB being invincible in November 2018 despite not a single shred of evidence.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:27 pm
===Hard for me to concentrate after this line. He pounds a theme over and over until he picks the wrong horse in an election…and then the higher order is that he knew better than the rest of us.===
Example?
I had a whole comment on being wrong on Rauner.
You should have a whole list where I’m wrong. I could probably remember better than you. This is you and your righteous indignation, making it about me, and ignoring what - Arsenal - is pointing out, (which was thoughtful and I appreciate the kind words).
Your phony…
“I’m not with Rauner this time… but we’ll see who is running” … whatever. I’m surprised you lasted this long.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:28 pm
===…practicing pseudo sabermetrics with his single issue HB 40 nonsense when the general election voter is ordering another beer at the ball game and doesn’t even know who is pitching===
LOL, you’re a Chicago resident and voter that pulls D ballots in primaries and is fine supporting the governor who signed HB40.
That’s who you told us you are.
You don’t even vote in R primaries, lol
===They do know they despise Madigan and the status quo===
… Rauner at 63% disapproval says Rauner must be that failed status quo…
- Lucky Pierre -… a Chicagoan that pulls D Primary ballots but has issues with alleged Republican legislators that don’t support Rauner.
What a joke.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:33 pm
What a joke? Who was the Republican candidate for Mayor of Chicago in 2015?
I will hang up and listen for my answer from the “Republican” poster from Oswego who never disagrees with Speaker Madigan or has a positive word about any Republicans in Illinois.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:38 pm
===or has a positive word about any Republicans in Illinois===
The Brave 15, some pointedly and individually
The Perfect 10
Leader Radogno
Leader Durkin
Leader Brady
The list goes on and on.
I praise on when it’s warranted and feel honestly about it,
So who did you vote for for Mayor of Chicago?
I say… Rahm… lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:45 pm
Today we learned that - A Guy - might support Rauner but might not, but might (think Mr. Barickman)
… and - Lucky Pierre - who resides in Chicago and is concerned about my Republican credentials admits pulling D ballots and sees no good Republicans to vote for in Chicago, so voted for a Dem.
In 2014, - Lucky Pierre -… Quinn or Tio?
LOL
Happy Monday.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:53 pm
That sums up your view of Republicans I guess.
Those that vote for permanent tax increases with no reforms are “perfect”, yet their voters disagree and most are retiring because they can’t win reelection.
I voted for the most conservative candidate for Mayor of Chicago as I told you. It wasn’t Chuy Garcia, Bob Fioretti, Dock Walls or Willie Wilson.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 5:57 pm
===I voted for the most conservative candidate for Mayor of Chicago as I told you. It wasn’t Chuy Garcia, Bob Fioretti, Dock Walls or Willie Wilson.===
You voted for the status quo. You voted for Rahm.
That’s hysterical.
===Those that vote for permanent tax increases with no reforms are “perfect”, yet their voters disagree and most are retiring because they can’t win reelection===
… and yet in a bipartisan way, they saved Illinois from Rauner.
They are heroes…
===That sums up your view of Republicans I guess.===
… heroes refusing to destroy higher education, social services, paying bills… yep, Republican ideals… supporting higher education, paying bills… lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 6:03 pm
How many Republicans, independents or centrists Democrats in Chicago voted for the four far left candidates?
If they are “Perfect 10 are heroes” they would win in a landslide but almost all are not running for reelection. Why don’t the majority of Republican voters share your keen insight?
I noticed you did not dispute you never disagree with Speaker Madigan because you are happy with the status quo. At least he has one Republican fan.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 6:10 pm
===If they are “Perfect 10 are heroes” they would win in a landslide but almost all are not running for reelection. Why don’t the majority of Republican voters share your keen insight===
Right now, it’s either Raunerites or Proft Puppets.
Rep. Anderson wrote all about it. Keep up.
Raunerism and Proft propoganda is destroying the GOP, but what do you care, you vote in Dem primaries.
Raunerism and Proft, neither are about building the GOP, they are about control of the facade
===I noticed you did not dispute you never disagree with Speaker Madigan===
… because between fair maps, workers’ comp, as openers, my comments speak for themselves. You are trying to make it about me. My own comments, like praising Republicans, is already on the record.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 6:16 pm
You are trying to make it about me?
By responding to your personal attacks and pointing out your hypocrisy?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 6:19 pm
===By responding to your personal attacks and pointing out your hypocrisy?===
I refuted it all.
You’re now a Chicago troll, won’t vote in Republican primaries, enabling Madigan and even admits voting for Rahm.
Yikes, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 6:25 pm
There are a lot of us “Chicago trolls”.
Governor Rauner won the 42nd Ward which is downtown and the near north side and tied Quinn in the 43 Ward in Lincoln Park.
He even got 30 percent in Rahm’s 47 th Ward up 22 percent for Brady
Pat Quinn received 92 percent of the vote in the 19 African American wards even though his policies have led to huge population loss and closed schools in these wards.
Let’s see how those candidates who just want to raise taxes perform all across the state. It doesn’t look to promising so far for Cook County Democrats
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:06 pm
===Governor Rauner won the 42nd Ward which is downtown and the near north side and tied Quinn in the 43 Ward in Lincoln Park.
He even got 30 percent in Rahm’s 47 th Ward up 22 percent for Brady===
That was yesterday.
Rauner has 63% disapproval.
I was mocking the idea of a Chicago troll..
… given you live in the City, vote Dem, voting to enable both Rahm and Madigan… and you lecture about being a Republican?
You’re as much of a Republican as Diana Rauner, lol
Welp, Raunerism is about phony.
You voted for Rahm, you vote in Dem primaries that help Madigan, and ads that make Rauner look weak and ineffective work for you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:12 pm
You have to appreciate the irony of a “republican” from Oswego who supports JB ,who has a Republican opponent for Governor calling out a fellow Republican for supporting a democratic candidate for Mayor who does not. Priceless
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:25 pm
Wow. I guess this thread shows how much we need our moderator. The comments, while entertaining, miss the larger issue here which is how does dislike for Madigan present any tangible benefit for Rauner? Madigans “unfavorables” don’t create “favorables” for Rauner. If they did Rauner’s approval would be through the roof.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:26 pm
===…who supports JB…===
Who said that?
Cite please.
===…lling out a fellow Republican…===
You are a Raunerite who votes in Dem primaries.
… and you voted for Rahm.
You find where I’m supporting JB.
I’ll wait.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:30 pm
===The comments, while entertaining, miss the larger issue here which is how does dislike for Madigan present any tangible benefit for Rauner? Madigans “unfavorables” don’t create “favorables” for Rauner.===
That’s really the issue.
Making it “Madigan”… Rauner still sits at 63% disapproval.
The last proxy battle, Rauner lost, and now Rauner himself is running.
How will Rauner lower those negatives?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:33 pm
The wrap up from 2014
Other Numbers:
Earlier this week, Nate Silver, statistician and famed ‘election predictor’ gave Quinn a 66% chance of winning the race. However, this isn’t the first time that Silver’s gotten the Illinois governor’s race wrong; in 2010, he gave Quinn an 18.3% chance of beating Bill Brady. Following Quinn’s victory, he called it “probably the biggest general election polling blunder of the past six years.”
The most respected pollster in America got it wrong in Illinois the past two elections for Governor in a major way so forgive me if I discount you partisan DGA 63% disapproval against an unnamed candidate with close ties to Speaker Madigan.
https://www.americaninno.com/chicago/illinois-governor-race-final-numbers-and-data-for-rauner/
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 7:45 pm
===partisan DGA 63% disapproval against an unnamed candidate with close ties to Speaker Madigan.===
No.
That’s 63% disapproval.
Not against anyone. People disapprove of Rauner all by himself… at a 63% clip… But you already know that.
Good try thou.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 8:29 pm
== What gimmick does the Speaker have up his sleeve to boost turnout this time? ==
I’m going to guess a real Constitutional Amendment, either flat out repeal of the flat income tax in favor of a graduated income tax, or a simple millionaires surcharge on top of the flat income tax.
And he might hold an(going forward for new hires) pension clause revocation in his back pocket as an alternative if he can’t get either of the other two on the ballot.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 8:30 pm
The DGA polls Rauner at 63% disapproval and Nate Silver gave Quinn 66% chance of winning and Brady a 71% chance of winning right before the election. Which of these 3 polls do you want to take to the bank?
If I take your DGA poll and throw in $2.25 I can take a ride on the subway here in beautiful Chicago.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 8:37 pm
Welcome to punch counter punch
Comment by Generic Drone Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 9:11 pm
==“I can’t vote for Madigan”
nonsense if you vote for a rep who supports him which is every democrat except for Drury, you are enabling the Madigan agenda of no refor==
My rep is a Republican.So, you are still wrong.I can’t vote for Madigan.
I won’t vote for a governor who can only blame Madigan for being a failed governor, though.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 9:39 pm
===The DGA polls Rauner at 63% disapproval…===
Rauner is underwater.
If you believe he’s not, you may be alone.
If Rauner had polling he was polling well, especially after all the negative polling out there? They’d release it,
They haven’t.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Oct 30, 17 @ 10:30 pm
==Today we learned that - A Guy - might support Rauner but might not, but might (think Mr. Barickman)==
Not true. You’re the phony.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:10 am
===Not true===
So what does this mean?
===No change on that front. Suggested I would leave the spot empty if it’s Rauner and Pritzker. What if there are other choices than those?===
So you could support Rauner if it’s someone other than Pritzker?
What are you saying… exactly?
It’s so confusing…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:17 am
We also learned that Oswego Willy is a Republican primary voter who supports Jeannie Ives
Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:22 am
Nope.
I won’t support Jeanne Ives.
Good try thou, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 31, 17 @ 9:23 am