Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan can’t keep these campaign promises to his members
Next Post: Today’s must-read
Posted in:
* Laura Washington in the Sun-Times…
The Black Caucus has the power, right now, to broker its own deal, to install one of their own as speaker.
It’s time we advance our own agenda, on our own terms. We don’t need to do a backroom deal greased by the old white guys.
[Rep. Maurice West, D-Rockford] knows that. Yet he is standing alone, probably under great pressure, and at tremendous political risk.
He knows that we don’t need Mike Madigan to save us.
It’s time to step up and step out of Madigan’s shadow. It’s time to save ourselves.
* Politico…
The Illinois House Democratic Women’s Caucus is looking within its ranks to determine the next speaker of the House.
“I very strongly believe a woman needs to be our speaker,” Rep. Deb Conroy, who heads the group, told Playbook. “We have many strong women who are very capable of being the next leader and I want to make sure women are willing to step up depending on the situation we face.”
Members of the women’s caucus have been meeting informally every Friday for weeks to give “moral support” in wake of the pandemic. Lately, their talks have turned to the speakership. Friday’s discussion focused on the Black Caucus getting a promise of seeing another member in leadership for backing Madigan.
Female lawmakers would welcome the same, but they’re also looking beyond that and trying to identify who could pick up the gavel Madigan has held for close to 38 years.
* Meanwhile…
Members of the Illinois House Special Investigating Committee looking into House Speaker Michael Madigan’s conduct in the ComEd bribery scheme will push to subpoena the speaker on Monday, the first hearing since a trove of emails were released. […]
State Rep. Tom Demmer said Friday, in advance of Monday’s hearing, that members are tasked with investigating and they have to hear from more witnesses.
“And I think it’s critical that in order to conduct an investigation we hear from more than just one witness, so that’s why we’ve been focused on calling the speaker to come testify himself,” Demmer said.
*** UPDATE *** This would appear to indicate that Rep. Kelly Burke may be taking herself out of the running for the top House job…
Wishing to “derail social media rumors,” James Sexton, the mayor of Evergreen Park for 20 years announced his retirement in a letter to constituents. Sexton also endorsed State Rep. Kelly Burke, also a village trustee, for mayor in the April 6, 2021 election.
The mayor’s job pays north of $100K per year.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan can’t keep these campaign promises to his members
Next Post: Today’s must-read
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
How about Will Davis?
Comment by OneMan Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:41 am
“greased by the old white guys”
Not a lot of gray area in that comment.
Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:48 am
It will definitely be a woman. Or a man. Most likely an African American, unless it’s someone else.
Guessing the next Speaker is going to be a tiring parlour game over the next few weeks.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:48 am
Madigan will remain Speaker until a successor is “elected and qualified”.
“(25 ILCS 10/2) (from Ch. 63, par. 23.2)
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, and the Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Committees shall be considered as holding continuing offices until their respective successors are elected and qualified.”
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:49 am
Will Davis is a smart man. He knows WHOEVER gets elected next year is a ONE TERM Speaker
Comment by Wow Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:52 am
Nominate a black woman for Speaker
Problem solved
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 9:57 am
Too bad Scott Drury isn’t around any more. If he was, we would have had at least three articles written by now about GA sources reporting that the next speaker should definitely have experience as a former federal prosecutor.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:00 am
@Powdered Whig:
Don’t forget Section 3:
“For the purpose of the organization and operation of the House of Representatives, the rules adopted by and applicable to the regular session of the House of Representatives of the preceding General Assembly, insofar as such rules may be applicable, shall prevail and be the rules governing the House of Representatives of the General Assembly then convened, until such rules are changed or new rules adopted.”
Comment by Ferris Wheeler Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:13 am
== Friday’s discussion focused on the Black Caucus getting a promise of seeing another member in leadership for backing Madigan. Female lawmakers would welcome the same…==
Fair enough, but a majority of the current speaker’s leadership team are female.
Comment by TNR Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:14 am
==“We have many strong women who are very capable of being the next leader and I want to make sure women are willing to step up depending on the situation we face.”==
You’re doing a terrible job of it now. And If I were you Rep. Conroy, I would also ask, maybe confidentially and one-on-one, what my Black and Latina colleagues really think of the HDWC.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:14 am
=== You’re doing a terrible job of it now. And If I were you Rep. Conroy, I would also ask, maybe confidentially and one-on-one, what my Black and Latina colleagues really think of the HDWC.===
How does this make sense to the discussion if the Black Caucus members are aligned to supporting an old, white, male, as a question to Conroy?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:26 am
House Democratic Women’s Caucus=white women’s caucus
The HDWC solely exists to pat each other on the back. They do nothing to support other women in state gov such as young staffers and especially women of color. This is pretty well known by any POC involved in the Springfield scene. I don’t think any of them can get the votes of black or latinx members.
Comment by Reality Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:26 am
A state rep AND a village trustee? How does that work?
Comment by Chuck Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:27 am
@ Powdered Whig & @ Ferris Wheeler
You are missing the importance of the IL Constitution and the House Rules. Namely, the constitution in Article IV, Sec 6(b) states:
“On the first day of the January session of the
General Assembly in odd-numbered years, the Secretary of
State shall convene the House of Representatives to elect
from its membership a Speaker of the House of Representatives
as presiding officer”
And House Rule 1, Part 1(c) reads: ” No legislative measure may be considered and no committees may be appointed or meet before the election of the Speaker.”
In other words, nothing is happening in the Illinois House of Representatives until the question of the Speaker is resolved. Full stop.
Comment by SpiDem Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:27 am
@Oswego Willy, what it comes down to is that many of them aren’t good at fundraising themselves and rely on MJM heavily for protection. They see him as the only one that can protect them and they unfortunately accept the small policy concessions he grants them. It’s a don’t bite the hand that feeds you mentality. I hope some of the new blood in both of those caucuses push back against that old way of thinking.
Comment by Reality Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:32 am
=== what it comes down to is that many of them aren’t good at fundraising themselves and rely on MJM heavily for protection.===
And?
The 19 have made clear. It’s not Madigan.
The only, lone, single thing the 19 can agree on… no Madigan.
You think Labor will leave HDems and start funding Griffin-type Raunerites for the House?
=== They see him as the only one that can protect them and they unfortunately accept the small policy concessions he grants them. It’s a don’t bite the hand that feeds you mentality.===
It’s a protection racket. That’s the game. But if Madigan can’t get 60, what are we really talking about.
There are not permanent enemies, only permanent interests, and a Dem speaker that can also be allied with labor, protection is there… but that map… 65-67 seats is about as far as it will make sense to “solid Dem” House members.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:36 am
More than a hundred grand a year for a mayor of Evergreen Park? What other perks?
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:38 am
=== And House Rule 1, Part 1(c) reads: ” No legislative measure may be considered and no committees may be appointed or meet before the election of the Speaker.” ===
I thought about that, and how it may be possible to suspend that rule. Haven’t really come up with an answer yet, but its something that has crossed my mind.
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:39 am
=== The mayor’s job pays north of $100K per year. ===
Is Kelly Burke looking to leave the GA? Or like Brad Stephens, would she do both?
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:40 am
I’m not sure people understand one can be Black AND a woman. The conversations seem to ignore that, fact which kind of ignores Ammons, Collins, Flowers, Gordon-Booth (already in leadership), Greenwood, Harper, and Mayfield; they are members of BOTH caucuses.
Comment by AngylFyre Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:42 am
=== There are not permanent enemies, only permanent interests, and a Dem speaker that can also be allied with labor, protection is there… but that map… 65-67 seats is about as far as it will make sense to “solid Dem” House members. ===
Don’t forget that in addition to being able to raise money, a candidate will have to know how to use it. I really do not have confidence that another person in that caucus has the ability to run a political apparatus in a way that will achieve the desired results.
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:44 am
=== I really do not have confidence that another person in that caucus has the ability to run a political apparatus in a way that will achieve the desired results.===
The 72 will decide that. It’s their own fate at play.
Saying “no one”… that’s weird.
Even Mafia dons had successors… and they eventually found better ones too… ones that evolved…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:46 am
“The mayor’s job pays north of $100K per year.”
The mess of our local politics in a nutshell. This is a village of less than 20,000 people.
Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:49 am
Labor won’t give to Repub anti labor people. BUT.. They aren’t giving in big amounts to the next Speaker. That took decades of trust to build up. Again, person elected in 2021, one term.
Comment by Wow Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:49 am
I still think State Rep and Village Mayor or Trustee should be incompatible offices. Poor policy decision by the legislature to carve that out for themselves.
Comment by Just Another Anon Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:52 am
@Powdered Whig
The only way to change the rule is via an introduction and passage of a resolution to change the rule. There is precedent for such a move. Rep. John Matejevich successfully did so immediately prior to the 1975 vote for Speaker by raising the vote threshold to a constitutional majority of the entire House. However, such a resolution would still require a constitutional majority of 60 votes — and its hard to see any of the 19 agreeing to such a rules change that would undermine their goal.
Comment by SpiDem Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:52 am
=== They aren’t giving in big amounts to the next Speaker. That took decades of trust to build up.===
The goal for labor… to ensure their interests, bills, are in play, and ensure damaging bills, interests are not in play.
To do that, the Dems need majorities, as how Illinois plays
this out… “today”… the money is a tool to keep majorities.
===Again, person elected in 2021, one term.===
Meh, 2023 is like a million years away right now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:54 am
The trajectory is not in Madigan’s favor. At this point he’s not gaining votes but only losing them, along with any semblance of his ability to lead. For both the good of the caucus and for members individually, it’s time to 1) recognize and accept the reality of the situation, and 2) start working to elect a new Speaker. Failing to recognize that is not just embarrassing, but will be politically damaging to the caucus as a whole and members individually. That ain’t leadership, folks.
Comment by Prairie Pundit Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:58 am
Labor= white man’s club. The focus on labor as some saving grace of the Democratic Party is at its root white supremacist. This does not mean I do not understand their financial and organizing power. But other than SEIU and CTU (which do not have the same backing of MJM as the other unions), labor’s bills do little for black and brown communities. I can only hope that with the ending of the MJM regime, black and Latinx members will be able to break free from giving their votes away to labor for free.
Comment by Reality Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:03 am
No offense but you can tell who the old white male Dems are when they constantly bring up ohh labor this and labor that. What has labor done for people of color? Because last I knew, all labor does is butter up Black and Latino members about how they’re going to decrease barriers, improve diversity yet their membership is predominantly male and white year after year. The next Dem leader needs to be one that understands that systemic racism can and does exist in Democratic supported systems and be ready/willing to hold labor accountable and demand that they deliver on making sure all communities have access to economic opportunity — this isn’t news to current members of color. Time’s up on the lip service because it only perpetuates systemic racism.
Comment by The Failing New York Times Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:03 am
===A state rep AND a village trustee? How does that work?===
===More than a hundred grand a year for a mayor of Evergreen Park? What other perks?===
It’s not prohibited to hold local office concurrently. Many members have been mayors while also being state reps, including current Reps. Brad Stephens (Rosemont) and Thaddeus Jones (Calumet City, now retired from that slot).
So, the “other” perk is that she gets to keep her state rep job
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:07 am
==The mess of our local politics in a nutshell. This is a village of less than 20,000 people.==
As a former resident of Evergreen, I think the consensus has always been that Mayor Sexton is worth every penny. Walmart, Lowes, Sams Club, Marianos. Rebuilding the evergreen plaza and old golf course sites. I may be wrong, but I don’t think any of those sit in a TIF district either. All without even a hint of the scandals or fighting that plague neighboring Oak Lawn
Comment by Sox Fan Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:07 am
- AngylFyre - Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:42 am:
Some of the very people you list call HDWC the “white woman’s caucus.”
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:07 am
House Democratic Women’s Caucus=white women’s caucus
The HDWC solely exists to pat each other on the back. They do nothing to support other women in state gov such as young staffers and especially women of color. This is pretty well known by any POC involved in the Springfield scene. I don’t think any of them can get the votes of black or latinx members.
You clearly haven’t followed what they do. HDWC has done forums and the like with women that are running for office and want to run for office, regardless of skin color. That’s what’s great, for years other women tried to bring Democratic women together in Springfield and were unsuccessful. This is the first time it’s been done, and successfully. As is the case in the other caucuses, just because you have similarities doesn’t mean you will agree 100% of the time. That’s why it’s important to find what you can agree on and concentrate on that and endorse those principles. The women’s caucus should be the strongest and most formidable caucus under the dome, and anyone that doesn’t agree with that wants to divide, not unite, and we will continue to end up having our male counterparts dictate what is right and wring to a majority of women elected officials.
Comment by Fantasma Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:07 am
- Powdered Whig - Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 10:40 am:
As stated in the linked article, she would continue as a state representative.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:07 am:
Jones is a former alderman in Cal City and is running for mayor.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:09 am
=== The focus on labor as some saving grace of the Democratic Party is at its root white supremacist. ===
Ok Speaker wanabees… how do you address issues like this where the overwhelmingly largest funding source for your campaigns is being called out as “white supremacist. Good luck to you.
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:09 am
The Speaker is an expert at the long game. He is Speaker until he is taken out by the HDEM Caucus. You have the 19 that have drawn a line in the sand. So have the Black Caucus it would seem. Either caucus can block the next Speaker. If this fight goes to January 13th We should anticipate a whole bunch of present votes for Speaker if the nominees are Madigan, Kifowit, and Durkin. The long game in play.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:10 am
Lets make this simple:
The House meets to vote for a Speaker. They meet until one is chosen. No business is conducted until a Speaker is chosen. (See 1975 house and 1977 senate. Multiple votes)
Comment by low level Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:10 am
=== The focus on labor as some saving grace of the Democratic Party is at its root white supremacist. This does not mean I do not understand their financial and organizing power. But other than SEIU and CTU (which do not have the same backing of MJM as the other unions), labor’s bills do little for black and brown communities.===
Labor… labor is a special interests that has its interests intertwined with Dems in Illinois keeping Dems in the majority to vote for kinds of other things persons of color would support and are glad those things can pass with Democratic majorities.
The myopic view of what Democratic majorities mean to an overall is quite something.
Labor is helping by keeping Dems in the majority.
Raunerites and Trumpkins going forward aren’t helpful for agendas pushed by persons of color.
=== The next Dem leader needs to be one that understands that systemic racism can and does exist in Democratic supported systems and be ready/willing to hold labor accountable and demand that they deliver on making sure all communities have access to economic opportunity — this isn’t news to current members of color.===
This can only be correct if you also realize the importance of…
… keeping…
.. labor to move all the other things an agenda passed by a majority of Dems can only do.
With respect.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:10 am
@Reality
If you don’t think MJM and CTU are joined at the hip, you need to change your handle to Alternative Reality.
Comment by Roman Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:13 am
=== anyone that doesn’t agree with that wants to divide, not unite, and we will continue to end up having our male counterparts dictate what is right and wring to a majority of women elected officials.===
@Fantasma: I’m going to do you a favor and let you know that perhaps you should’t call it “divisive when someone brings up race as a legitimate part of constructive critique. That’s called gas lighting and it’s continuously done to women of color when they try to advocate for intersectionality
Comment by The Failing New York Times Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:15 am
@Fantasma
Yes, I know what they do as someone who works in the Springfield scene. As I said, it is well known among POC and especially WOC that the HDWC is for white women and white women only. Are you saying they are all mistaken in their analyses and their experiences are invalid?
Your comment isn’t surprising as white feminists have always silenced and dismissed the concerns of WOC by calling for “unity” and swinging to defensiveness rather than truly listening and examining themselves when racial issues are brought up. The intersectionality is lacking. You’re reinforcing why it’s called the white women’s caucus.
Comment by Reality Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:16 am
There will be no speaker after the initial vote. MJM won’t win re-election as speaker. Secretary White, just prior to his retirement, will run the House. Happy January…
Comment by Pizza Man Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:17 am
A caucus should be a body, not a glitter bomb.
@PWhig: Yep. Being an effective Speaker in this state, is one of the most challenging management roles I have witnessed anywhere.
Comment by walker Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:26 am
The information about Rep. Kelly Burke, no matter what happens, shows that township “elimination” and school district “consolidation” is just a good start … .
Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:26 am
===I really do not have confidence that another person in that caucus has the ability to run a political apparatus in a way that will achieve the desired results. ===
There is literally an industry built around helping candidates win elections. It’s not widely present in Illinois in the same fashion that it is in other states, but that’s because the State of Illinois has a history of expecting people to work for political campaigns for free in exchange for keeping their jobs. A quick examination of the payroll for the DPI would raise a lot of questions about where the paid organizers are.
Political consulting, like most industries, require paying talent what they’re worth to retain them. This notion that the only person that can put together a legislative campaign plan that wins is a geriatric white man who is famously a Luddite and dependent on free or cheap labor is ridiculous.
What’s the argument? Without Mike Madigan politicians won’t know how to knock doors? Sure — there’s some room for growth, like some of these folks might have to learn how to throw a fund raiser and some of the local party folks might have to learn how to host fund raisers for legislative candidates to raise money from just regular folks, but come on.
No one can win elections in Illinois except for Mike Madigan?
What kind of argument is that.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:28 am
Reality.
I also work in the Springfield scene and am a WOC and have personally witnessed candidate outreach with other women of color. Maybe you haven’t shown up when they’ve done this or aren’t paying that much attention to what they’ve done or are doing.
Comment by Fantasma Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:28 am
== “The mayor’s job pays north of $100K per year.”
The mess of our local politics in a nutshell. This is a village of less than 20,000 people. ==
Some towns employ a village manager (usually for big bucks) to handle day-to-day operations and have a part-time mayor who makes around 20 or 30k. Some towns, like Evergreen Park, don’t use a village manager, leaving day-to-day operations in the mayor’s hands, which usually results in a mayoral salary “north of $100k.” (Or in Brad Stephens’ case, way north.) I have roots in Evergreen Park…the mayor there works his rear off. Earns every penny of his salary.
Comment by Telly Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:41 am
Fantasma,
If that’s the case- I don’t understand why you would call a critique concerning race divisive.
This is beyond “candidate outreach.” HDWC allowing some POC to participate in their forums doesn’t negate that many of them vote against bills to dismantle the carceral system that disproportionately harms black folks and sign off on DPI mailers that contain dog whistles.
I’m not saying that all of its members directly engage in this behavior but they benefit from and participate in an institution that does. The point is they have a lot of inward work to do. House leadership needs to recognize that POC are the backbone of the party and must stop taking them for granted. They need to demonstrate they’ll change the ways the current system in the House and DPI harms POC (this also applies at the national level). Let’s stop accepting crumbs.
Comment by Reality Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 11:50 am
==what it comes down to is that many of them aren’t good at fundraising themselves and rely on MJM heavily for protection.===
Item for consideration and discussion: As we enter the second decade of the 21st century perhaps the issue of political “fundraising” is a different sort of animal than it has been in the past.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 12:33 pm
Agree with @Candy DoGood. you can always tell who the Madigan loyalists are on here because they play the “Only Madigan can…(insert whatever here)” And for years that has been conventional wisdom in Illinois. Therein lies the problem. “for years” Now you have a younger and more progressive caucus that don’t necessarily buy into the Madigan mystique. They think maybe someone else can run a campaign, raise money, draw a map and they are ready to find out.
Comment by Nova Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 12:40 pm
Telly - My bad, I guess I just assumed that they had a council-manager system as is the norm around the suburbs. For a full-time mayor, that salary makes sense.
Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 1:19 pm
=== What’s the argument? Without Mike Madigan politicians won’t know how to knock doors? Sure — there’s some room for growth, like some of these folks might have to learn how to throw a fund raiser and some of the local party folks might have to learn how to host fund raisers for legislative candidates to raise money from just regular folks, but come on. ===
Its not just about candidates knocking on doors - which I agree they have to do - but finding other people willing to do the same on behalf of the candidate. Good campaign walkers are extremely hard to find nowadays.
Also, campaigns will have to do better than simply having a fundraiser where they get contributions from regular folks. You can’t compete in a Tier 1 targeted race unless you can raise some serious funds. Even if you do raise those funds there are no guarantees. Then there is the staff, where over the years Speaker’s Staff has been second to none in terms of quality campaign management & execution.
So circling back to my comment, I have not seen anyone with the ability to run a campaign apparatus like Mike Madigan with the track record of success that he has had. If you disagree, I would like for you to tell me who you think can do it.
BTW, most political consultants are overpriced and not nearly as effective. If they were, there would be a market for them here in Illinois.
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 1:22 pm
=== Its not just about candidates knocking on doors - which I agree they have to do - but finding other people willing to do the same on behalf of the candidate. Good campaign walkers are extremely hard to find nowadays.===
So.. you’re saying we need Madigoons to save the HDems?
Dunno if that’s a winning talking point, given the past 2 or so years…
=== Then there is the staff, where over the years Speaker’s Staff has been second to none in terms of quality campaign management & execution.===
Dunno… seems like some of the alumni you deem irreplaceable are the same ones that are under one form of scrutiny or anther.
It’s time to let the old ways die… it’s time to let the old ways die.
=== I have not seen anyone with the ability to run a campaign apparatus like Mike Madigan with the track record of success that he has had. If you disagree, I would like for you to tell me who you think can do it.===
LOL…. (deep breath)… LOL
No… keep up… that’s not the criteria.
The goal is to deny Madigan. That’s it. And the 19 can do it.
Under one letter, they’ve sealed the “No Madigan” votes so sorry tight now that if the 6-8 jump… my gosh… the backlash alone in the caucus….
The vote is up or down, Madigan… there’s no need to discuss “then who” until it’s realized … yeah, it’s not Madigan… and it’s not according to the 19
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 1:29 pm
=== Good campaign walkers are extremely hard to find nowadays.===
This is the free/underpaid labor to which I was referring. Other states have no problem finding volunteers for state legislative races to help them knock doors. And if you’re looking for someone to put in 20 or 30 hours a week, maybe that’s someone that should be paid for their time.
I don’t think anyone here is unaware as to how Democratic and Republican caucus/legislative staff get treated in terms of how they’re expected to “volunteer.”
If you party apparatus is dependent on illegal patronage jobs, you don’t deserve to be successful. We need to stop pretending that what was happening in the 1980s was okay.
It wasn’t okay. It was illegal then. It’s illegal now.
Campaign staff deserve to be paid for their time. Legislative and caucus staff deserve to be paid for their time.
No one should be forced to “volunteer” on a political campaign a specified or unspecified condition of keeping a job where the salary isn’t paid by a campaign fund.
Some people might even be surprised at the quality of the campaign staff available if one is willing to pay a salary instead of relying on graft and illegal patronage.
Especially considering that graft and illegal patronage are things people with better options usually refuse to participate in.
Pay your G. D. campaign staff. If 8 mailers didn’t do it, 20 isn’t going to be what makes the difference.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 1:39 pm
=== I have not seen anyone with the ability to run a campaign apparatus like Mike Madigan with the track record of success that he has had. If you disagree, I would like for you to tell me who you think can do it.===
Yes, when you’ve had almost 40 years and a huge patronage system to build something, it will probably be pretty darn successful. But the 19 aren’t looking to replace a patronage system with more patronage. They want something different. Even if it is not as successful. What the Madigan loyalist don’t get is that regardless of the money, walkers, etc. these members do not want “the program”. They don’t have the ends justify the means worldview. And maybe they are a little naive, but they know what they don’t want. Madigan.
Comment by Nova Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 1:50 pm
=== What the Madigan loyalist don’t get is that regardless of the money, walkers, etc. these members do not want “the program”. ===
Well, that is part of the problem. The program is more than just patronage workers. The program is a playbook for what works. If people don’t want that, then they try and re-invent the wheel and come up with something different. What I will say is that elections are about voter contact and messaging. You need both to run a successful election. I do think it is a little tone deaf for those 19 to say we don’t care about results as much as the process when they are mostly candidates that are not in swing districts. Reps showing up at another campaign for a day and holding up yard signs while taking pictures is not going to get the job done.
Comment by Powdered Whig Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 2:22 pm
=== The program is a playbook for what works.===
Playbooks are easily seen and learned. No need for the coaching staff originating it.
=== I do think it is a little tone deaf for those 19 to say we don’t care about results as much as the process when they are mostly candidates that are not in swing districts.===
You may not think it, but I’ve been extremely patient, even holding back mocking… but.., have you even *read* the letter the 19 wrote?
It’s an honest question.
Have you?
It’s about a unifying that “we don’t want Madigan”
Your projection of what you think these 19 all agree to as a next or whatever… either read that letter or please stop projecting what you think as what they are NOT saying.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 2:30 pm
@ PW, it was me saying that the 19 are not of the “ends justify means” worldview. It is an inference, one made because the Madigan loyalists obviously have that worldview.
Comment by Nova Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 2:48 pm
=== I have not seen anyone with the ability to run a campaign apparatus like Mike Madigan with the track record of success that he has had. If you disagree, I would like for you to tell me who you think can do it..====
Well in the past there were these people called the Daleys. They did a pretty good job of winning. But I would a agree Madigan has perfected it and it will be many many years before any organization could maybe replicate, which I doubt. On the other hand just putting together an organization that is even half as good would be 5 times better than what the repubs have going for them.
Comment by Been There Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 3:00 pm
lol
Comment by frank p Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 3:46 pm
Propagating the “Madigan ways” of staffing, process, apparatus… it’ll be up to the 73 to look at “the playbook”, thise staying and going, and looking to the big money sources that aren’t going to flip to Raunerites… and find a new speaker… as math shows the 19 ain’t gonna allow Madigan 60
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 3:52 pm
=== I have not seen anyone with the ability to run a campaign apparatus like Mike Madigan with the track record of success that he has had.===
===Well in the past there were these people called the Daleys===
It’s easy to win in an autocracy. Why do you think Kim Jong Il won year after year with 99% of the vote?
Comment by SumGai1986 Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 3:54 pm
=== It’s easy to win in an autocracy. Why do you think Kim Jong Il won year after year with 99% of the vote?===
(Sigh)
When have we had 99% of the vote?
The Raunerites ran no one in 51 seats… that’s Madigan’s fault… recruiting?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 3:56 pm
^ Keep in mind, nobody is talking about removing Madigan from the party chairmanship. It’s obvious that he does a great job winning elections, but actually governing has turned out to be quite a soft spot for him. Let him do what he’s best at.
Comment by SumGai1986 Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 3:57 pm
== Keep in mind, nobody is talking about removing Madigan from the party chairmanship. It’s obvious that he does a great job winning elections, but actually governing has turned out to be quite a soft spot for him. Let him do what he’s best at.==
I had to read that one twice. The power (and the scheme) comes from both job titles together. I will be totally surprised if when he is no longer speaker he retains the chairmanship-or would want to.
==
Comment by Responsa Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:12 pm
==When have we had 99% of the vote?==
I’ve noticed you tend to take my posts literally when I am using hyperbole to make a point. Guess I’ll try to be more literal in the future.
When you have an autocratic system (not to be taken literally, but in our case, there is one man who jointly oversees the legislative apparatus, campaign apparatus and redistricting apparatus), that individual can use the power of those intersecting offices to benefit one objective at the expense of the others.
In Madigan’s case, he has done a great job using his redistricting and legislative powers to form a world-class campaigning operation. However, this has arguably been at the expense of good governance, as evidenced by our state’s multitude of “worst of” conferrals.
In my metaphor, Madigan is Kim Jung Il - he uses his “autocratic” power to ensure great election returns for his friends, meanwhile the peasants starve. Again, not to be taken literally, just my take on a metaphor for our “system”.
To my second post,
I cannot understand why so many people on this board are bemoaning him losing the Speakership while he will still remain the Party Chairman. Are these people nervous that, without the levers of government at his control, the campaigning will suddenly not be so effective? Because that says a lot about their priorities – and his.
Comment by SumGai1986 Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:31 pm
=== I’ve noticed you tend to take my posts literally ===
Your drive by ridiculousness deserves to be taken “seriously, lol…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:33 pm
==The Raunerites ran no one in 51 seats… that’s Madigan’s fault… recruiting?==
Why waste precious campaign funds running someone in a seat that’s been gerrymandered to ensure a perpetual Raunerite loss? See my last post
Comment by SumGai1986 Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:35 pm
=== When you have an autocratic system (not to be taken literally, but in our case, there is one man who jointly oversees the legislative apparatus, campaign apparatus and redistricting apparatus), that individual can use the power of those intersecting offices to benefit one objective at the expense of the others.===
Now explain how 5- seats had no opposition… didn’t even recruit or appoint anyone… “because Madigan” controls Raunerites?
=== In my metaphor, Madigan is Kim Jung Il - he uses his “autocratic” power to ensure great election returns for his friends, meanwhile the peasants starve. Again, not to be taken literally, just my take on a metaphor for our “system”.===
Is Madigan locking up dissidents, ordering executions, putting up phony cities for propaganda?
Are ya sure comparing a free and fair elected speaker of a General Assembly is “comparable to a man who poisons family members abroad?
That’s an odd take… but… you seem to be all about hyperbole… except when comparing to ruthless go label leaders.
Facebook, down the dial, you can even ha d pictures.
My gosh “stop already”, it sounds worse.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:38 pm
=== Why waste precious campaign funds running someone in a seat that’s been gerrymandered to ensure a perpetual Raunerite loss? ===
And yet… with a GOP map, Madigan won 4 of 5 times.
Keep up.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:39 pm
Can house Dems win without Madigan? Sure… But up to this point, hasn’t it been a whole lot easier to do it with him. I think that is where most are at..
Comment by 618er Monday, Dec 14, 20 @ 4:59 pm