Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Ouch! That one’s gonna leave a mark
Next Post: Tribune, Crain’s endorse Rauner
Posted in:
* Subscribers already know part of my take on last night’s debate and I’m putting a post together about another highly interesting moment, but you can chew on this stuff for a while until the other post is ready…
* Quinn, Rauner try to create fear about the other guy during debate: Quinn stuck largely to a class warfare script against Rauner, a wealthy equity investor from Winnetka, in delivering a more polished and aggressive performance reflective of his political experience. Quinn repeatedly suggested Rauner’s plan to cut taxes would hurt education funding… “Unfortunately, under Gov. Quinn, Illinois has been one of the worst-run states in America. We have rampant misspending of taxpayer money, massive waste in the system,” Rauner said. The Republican challenger attacked the state’s system of purchasing goods and services as “part of the cesspool of cronyism and patronage that’s so endemic inside our state government. (Quinn) relies on that for his election. He relies on that for campaign cash. And that’s rampant throughout the departments.”
* Governor Candidates Debate: Rauner said Quinn has been a failure as governor. “Pat Quinn has been a failure on jobs. Under his administration, we’ve become the lowest state of job growth of any state in the Midwest,” he said. Quinn said Rauner has had is troubles as a financier. “My opponent talks about successful results – he’s been involved with 12 different bankruptcies involving other companies, and there’ve been six of his executives indicted and convicted and sent to jail. Two are under indictment now. They’ve got 150 lawsuits against a nursing home chain,” he said.
* Quinn-Rauner debate: Each casts other as state’s worst nightmare: “My opponent, all across Illinois, went across this state, saying eliminate the minimum wage. A person taking in $53 million a year running around Illinois saying eliminate the minimum wage. He’s adamantly against the minimum wage. Well, I’m adamantly for raising the minimum wage” [said Quinn]… “Pat Quinn has been governor for six years, and he’s had a super majority of his party in the General Assembly,” Rauner said. “And he has not increased the minimum wage in that time. If he was serious about this, he could have gotten it done. He’s playing political football with people’s lives and with our economy.”
* Illinois Governor Candidates Square Off In Debate: “Politicians in Illinois said every time they want to raise taxes it’s for schools,” Rauner said. “We put the lottery in Illinois to fund our schools. The money doesn’t really fund our schools. Our current Governor raised income tax by 67 percent, said it would be for education then he cut half a billion from school funding.” “When it comes to education funding, my opponent makes up things,” Quinn said. “We’ve increased education funding in the classroom by $500 million, independent fact checkers have indicated that. We’ve also paid the teacher pension every single year.”
* Little focus on downstate issues in first gubernatorial debate: Little else directly related to downstate came up, save for a single question on a proposal by state Sen. Andy Manar, D-Bunker Hill, to change the funding structure for primary and secondary education. But while that’s a measure that “is having a regional fault line,” Mooney said, it’s as much related to wealthy districts versus poorer districts as specific regions of the state.
* Quinn, Rauner clash over Illinois economic climate: Democratic Sen. Andy Manar’s proposal would direct more state money to poorer rural districts at the expense of wealthier suburban districts… Quinn said the state needs to increase education investment. But he says Manar’s proposal needs “a lot of oversight and review” as well as more debate. Rauner said he “probably wouldn’t support that particular bill.” He said he favors an overhaul of the current formula.
* Quinn, Rauner detail regrets in governor’s debate: Quinn says he’s “definitely not perfect,” and doesn’t think any human being is. He says he regrets not cutting lawmakers pay — and his own — to spur an overhaul of the state’s underfunded pension systems sooner. Rauner says not every company his private equity firm has created or acquired has been successful. He also noted he’s “rarely” seen business executives engage in unethical behavior. He says he’s tried to take action to quickly correct that.
Your own take-away?
*** UPDATE *** From the Quinn campaign…
After a panelist hoped against hope during Thursday night’s debate for Bruce Rauner to make his fantastical tax plan “add up,” Governor Pat Quinn set the record straight on the Rauner Tax Plan that not only doesn’t add up, but would devastate Illinois education in order to give billionaires like Rauner a $1 million tax cut.
“I don’t go for that,” Governor Quinn is shown as saying to the new Rauner Tax on services and consumption, and a budget hole that would result in the layoff of 1 in 6 schoolteachers in Illinois.
In a new Quinn for Illinois web video, here’s the question asked by a WUIS reporter that Bruce Rauner just couldn’t answer:
“Outside of your own campaign, nobody seems to make the numbers in your blueprint add up. You said you want to give more money to state parks, to education, higher education, while at the same time cutting revenues and rolling back the income tax to 3% in four years. Let’s try again: Make that add up, please.”
(He couldn’t.)
* The video is pretty cleverly done…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Ouch! That one’s gonna leave a mark
Next Post: Tribune, Crain’s endorse Rauner
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Quinn is a failure as Gov, just not sure rauner is the answer.
Comment by fed up Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:30 am
My take away is that debates matter less and less every year. People are disengaged, and debates are almost worthless for the candidates. This creates a “do no harm” mentality in the candidates mind. All the persuasion is done with TV ads, and debates are essentially only done because no ones wants to be the person that refuses to debate.
Comment by John A Logan Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:34 am
Hawks win 3-2 in shoot-out
Comment by the koala Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:37 am
In a stilted format, both candidates were forced to actually debate issues and not simply club each other to death. Attempts under this format to spin and divot from the questions into personal attacks looked out of place and at times uncomfortable. Cutesy questions (tell us which inexperienced person you hired - were they supposed to answer “Barack Obama?”) were few and far between.
Quinn sweating and looking red in the face was interesting. Rauner looking nervous and showing some rookie jitters at the start, then seemingly to warm up and engage was equally interesting.
Quinn was the guy who should have won hands down. He was the debater, the policy wonk, the guy who could easily slip away from anti-Quinn facts and throw a few rabbit punches, and somehow struggled, while sweating and look kilter.
Pretty amazing one hour. I don’t get it and still can’t resolve what I saw against my expectations.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:38 am
I guess Quinn ‘won’? He wasn’t very dynamic (which isn’t surprising). He did run on his record a little, first time he’s brought that up (it feels like) this campaign. I doubt he picked up any votes, but probably didn’t lose any either.
Rauner had a rough start fumbling his words and repeating himself too much. He settled down and did fine after that. Got a few good jabs in, but no major blows. If you were leaning Rauner but weren’t totally sure yet, there was nothing that would have scared you away. I know a lot of people felt that he came off smug, but I didn’t think so. But all-in-all don’t think he did as good of a job as Quinn… didn’t feel like Rauner had anything to say other than the same three or four talking points, which imo, is a problem.
Most of the questions were wonderful, thought out and asked specific, important policy questions, and it’s too bad no one even tried to answer them.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:39 am
I had to record this and watch it early this morning. I don’t know how anyone could conclude anyone coming out on top. This format just doesn’t work at all. Each got their zingers in a bit, but nothing was substantive in the way this thing was conducted. Any one can claim their guy came out on top and be right. Lousy format. Little in the way of instructive information. Had to make myself watch the whole thing. It wasn’t worth the time. I skipped a shower. Regretting that.
Comment by A guy... Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:41 am
@John A Logan, good point, especially with how solid the questions where last night. Both guys basically refused to answer them and if you were watching, it was sort of like ‘what’s the point, they’re just rehashing talking points’.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:41 am
Predictably, Rauner was at a loss to intelligently discuss the details of anything substantive, but he was also seemed to be lower energy than usual.
I attribute his relatively subdued manner to him restraining himself from the excessive bombast which is usually his bread and butter.
I think the reason he restrained himself was so he wouldn’t seem so scary, capable of doing anything.
Comment by Mighty M. Mouse Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:45 am
I said this late last night but I was glad to hear the out sourcing question. Quinn basically said he is and has been outsourcing some government functions. Rauner said something like blah, blah, blah. It was the opposite response I expected from both. I especially liked Quinn’s mentioning that he is supported by Corrections officers. The timing was perfect.
Comment by Casual observer Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:46 am
The debate was far less interesting than it could have been. I didn’t realize until late last night that the schedule called for two long days of potentially explosive NRI hearings followed by a live debate that night. The potential for a landscape shift in the race was even bigger than I had originally anticipated. In the end I’m not sure the hearings by the Audit Committee changed the race that much but boy, they sure could have.
However that doesn’t mean the landscape can’t still change, it just means that it likely won’t be changed by free/earned media. Rauner still has enough money to do whatever he wants on paid media and given that he started airing ads essentially calling Quinn a child killer before these hearings even started it’s pretty clear there is no topic that is not on the table for his ad makers. I would assume the general public is going to pay more attention to ads that scream “child killer” than ones on “audit findings” anyway so while the Quinn campaign managed to make it through one particularly perilious minefield it’s only one of many potential obstacles standing in the way of re-election.
In the meantime the press is likely to circle back to Rauner. After going all-in on the NRI hearings without a ton to show for it, or probably at least not as much as they were hoping for it stands to reason that the press will come back to some of Rauner’s problems if for no reason other than balance.
Even though there is still a little over 3 weeks before election day there really isn’t that much time left to impact the race. Early voting starts in 10 days and there are 2 Sundays between now and then. Most of the major papers will endorse by then on one of those Sundays (Crains and the Tribune already went live) and they’ll want to have the big candidate profile pieces run by then too. The ads you see on TV next week will be the last ads that many voters see before they cast their ballot. It’s final decision making time for this race.
Comment by The Captain Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:46 am
It really is a well-done video. I love watching Rauner’s mouth twitch while Ms. Dunn asks her question.
Comment by Commander Norton Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:55 am
Rauner survived the fact that he appeared to know very little about anything, and that was what he needed to do. If he can do it twice more the debates will have hurt him as little as the NRI hearings will have hurt Quinn.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:56 am
Not specific only to last night’s debate, yet relevant:
Candidates often feel compelled to express their pride in their state, district, and/or nation — the best anywhere — during debates and appearances. Rauner did it last night, and Quinn has done it in other formats.
The candidates are usually religious, too, or at least believe in an omnipresent being.
Are declarations that their geographic place is better than any other valid? What purpose do they serve in the contemporary world?
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:56 am
It is safe to assume that Rauner’s budget hole is filled by very big cuts, and that debate exchange really nails it.
Comment by James Knell Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 11:59 am
The budget video by the Quinn camp is cute and to the point. What is missing is the unbalanced budget with revenue holes the size of Texas that Quinn happily signed into law this summer. That too didn’t add up.
Glass houses suck in politics!
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:06 pm
As I said earlier I thought quinn was a lot better. Rauner looked stiff and had too many I don’t knows and didn’t counterattack on quinn. I also don’t think he needed all those pins on his lapel. If I was team quinn I would have been pretty happy and Rauner missed a chance to solidify himself.
Comment by Shore Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:08 pm
That question and clip doesn’t say it all, but it says a lot.
Comment by Bobbysox Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:13 pm
Just read the CSPAN transcript.
A few things that stuck out:
- Rauner offered no specific data points or statistics. He offered a lot of “I’ll study that” and “Quinn failed” — but his own speech points were remarkably — remarkably — devoid of actual details. The idea that he’s a leader a that “sets goals” and then expects everybody — or someone — to meet them is absurd. If he can’t provide the specifics, he’s not going to reach the goals.
- Rauner’s answer about Kansas is strange. Very strange. It blurs his entire campaign so far. I’m not sure what to make of it. He can’t believe what he said. Or, given the fact that Rauner has flip-flopped on nearly everything, he can’t possibly say what he believes.
Bottom-line: Rauner is very, very weak, IMHO. For a guy that’s supposed to be a “details guy” — he lacked details. This, more than anything else, concerns me. Either he’s specifically avoiding the details — or, worse, he can’t process the details and is waiting for some magical come to jesus moment when he actually has to produce.
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:14 pm
Rauner kept burnishing his business creds as a “venture capitalist” while he made most of his wealth in private equity. I realize there is often not a sharp distinction between the two but this is very reminiscent of Romney’s shading of his past business practices by highlighting his business startups (venture capitalism) such as Staples and downplaying the blow back from his leveraged buyout deals (private equity).
I also could not help but to wonder during the debate when Rauner was touting bringing returns of up to 25% to Illinois pension funds if these highly unsustainable returns did not play a big role in Illinois politicians underfunding and borrowing from the state pension funds. Just how good were these private equity capitalists for the economy and for the state in the long run? It made a few people fabulously wealthy but was it really good for the country?
And then Rauner’s faith in economic growth to bring in more revenue for state government …
and tapping into even more fossil fuels in Illinois to promote more jobs and economic growth when the world needs to desperately decrease its reliance on fossil fuels.
I was halfway impressed with Rauner’s performance in the debate, but philosophically, his worldview and mine are just worlds apart.
I will vote for Quinn just to keep Rauner out of the mansion. But Rauner is already king of the hill.
Comment by vole Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:14 pm
BTW — and final observation: Rauner’s condescending smirk. It’s concerning because it’s so telling — and so out of place in a serious debate. If it’s debating a bar, sure — smirk away. But the fact that he can’t compose himself to take seriously his opponent — who is, very much so, a serious opponent — tells me that (a) Rauner is in a bubble and (b) Rauner truly underestimates Quinn. Both are bad. (A) is something I expect, but (b) surprises me.
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:16 pm
I meant to say “debating *in* a bar” — not debating a bar.
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:17 pm
When all this noise is over we can only hope our state will prosper. With Rauner there is some hope because he’s not Pat Quinn and 4 more years of the same old thing.
Comment by Mokenavince Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:20 pm
===Just read the CSPAN transcript.===
I can’t seem to find that. Do you have a link?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:21 pm
http://www.c-span.org/video/?321897-1/illinois-governors-debate
Comment by Macbeth Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:24 pm
Found it. Duh
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:24 pm
The Hall & Oates kicker is laugh-out-loud funny.
Comment by Reality Check Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:26 pm
–Rauner survived the fact that he appeared to know very little about anything, and that was what he needed to do–
He did seem uninterested in the duties of the job.
We know he wants the gig, but to what end. His budget plans got called out for the silliness they are.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:41 pm
What no Carhartt or fleece vest?
Comment by Highland, IL Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:48 pm
Got interrupted while watching the video, was momentarily confused when I came back and heard “I can’t go for that” playing while “Vote Quinn” flashed across the screen.
“the koala” got it right for me — the game was more interesting than the debate, probably equally informative as far as my vote goes, and I think this election is going to be just as close.
Comment by Stuff Happens Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:56 pm
**Rauner survived the fact that he appeared to know very little about anything**
Hmm… I’m don’t remember this being on Schnorf’s negatives list for Rauner. But it sure should be.
Negative: Rauner knows very little about anything.
Comment by AlabamaShake Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 12:59 pm
== I also don’t think he needed all those pins on his lapel. == Those “pins” are called flair. And 15 pieces of flair is just the bare minimum.
Comment by SAP Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:11 pm
Rich, in the Fax this am you mentioned sales tax on services. According to CTBA this could yield $2-2.4 B annually. The income tax loss from Rauner’s stated position is about $7.8 B annually. So even if substantially expanded from what he has talked about so far, it still leaves us around $5 1/2 B short.
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 2:31 pm
Vole, your worldview is whatever it will be, but I can’t let your comment linking “unsustainable private equity returns” to State underfunding of pensions go by without a comment.
The facts simply don’t support the claim, feeling or whatever.
First of all, private equity makes up only about 10% on average of the pensions’ investments over the past 20-25 years. That amount isn’t enough to move the total return more than about one percentage point in any given year.
Secondly, the State made its funding decisions completely without regard to market performance, with one notable exception, with you should know if you are commenting on this topic.
Finally, I can think of half a dozen (without the Google) PE firms that have 20+ year returns north of 20 percent. That sounds sustainable.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Friday, Oct 10, 14 @ 3:49 pm