Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Poll: Undecideds ahead of Emanuel
Next Post: Question of the day
* Chip is entitled to gloat…
“This was the biggest Republican win for governor or senator since Jim Edgar. We did it because we won all the moderates outright,” Rauner campaign manager Chip Englander said. “We won a higher percentage of Democrats while winning more Republicans and more conservatives than [Mark] Kirk or [Bill] Brady did.
“We had a ground game that nobody saw coming,” Englander said. “This was the biggest race in America. This race literally is one of the all-time greatest … I think we ran the best campaign in the country.”
Englander held up the victory as a model for not just future GOP candidates in Illinois but one for the nation.
Like I said, he’s entitled to gloat. It was an impressive performance all around. It obviously helped, of course, that his candidate was rich and willing to spend…
“They think this is the new model? Are any of them of legal age? Are they old enough to vote? I say that sarcastically, but the only thing new about the model is this guy dumps in $27 million of his own dollars. That’s the only thing new,” said Charles N. Wheeler III, director of the public affairs reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Wheeler said Rauner pulled from the same historical playbook used by previous Republican governors: social moderate, fiscal conservative. “That’s the exact way that Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and Gov. Ryan won. That’s exactly how they’ve won statewide.”
If by “model,” Chip means a socially moderate candidate who pays attention to the ground game and runs as an outsider, he’s right. But Charlie’s right, too. If your model depends on a really rich guy with cash to burn, then that’s not an easily replicated model.
* Also, Rauner didn’t have the advantage of a Republican patronage machine that those other governors had. He had to build his own ground game from the, um, ground up.
Without the governor’s office, the Democrats still have Cook County and the city to fortify them, which is a fallback position the Republicans haven’t had and why the party’s ground game completely collapsed post George. Rauner recognized this early on and was willing to fund a revival. It worked.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Poll: Undecideds ahead of Emanuel
Next Post: Question of the day
more Posts (Archives)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think Charley is closer to being right than Rauner’s guy.
But one factor was absolutely crucial, Quinn was a weak Democrat. Remember that Brady almost won in 2010, and he was not nearly as good a candidate as Rauner.
Comment by jim Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:12 pm
Jim is exactly right. Rauner’s biggest asset was Quinn. Sure, a lot of money helped, but this was a governorship that was ripe for GOP plucking.
Comment by Not OW Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:13 pm
Chip - If your theory was correct, Tom Cross wouldn’t be neck and neck with Mike Frerichs right now. Cross fits all the characteristics of Rauner except one: having $27M to blow through.
The cash made the difference & the margin of victory should have been larger given that you were running against the most unpopular governor in the U.S.
Comment by low level Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:16 pm
A good “ground game” (not to be confused with massive tv and mail spend for your candidate) has coat tails. Just saying.
Comment by Put the Fun in unfunded Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:17 pm
I agree that Quinn was a weak candidate, but lets not underestimate Rauner’s challenge here:
1) ZERO GOP infrastructure, born of 12 years of being nearly completely frozen out of power
2) Legions of Chicag, Cook County and State patronage workers
3) Absolute and total buy-in from organized labor and their ground troops
4) Democrat leadership pulling out all the stops to give Quinn an upper hand, including same day voter registration and multiple ballot referenda designed to drive turnout
5) Quinn shamelessly using the advantage of incumbency to play Santa Claus the entire month of number, flying around the state handing out cash.
Call Quinn a weak incumbent all you want, the Democrats held every institutional advantage in this race, and they played those advantages to the hilt. Overcoming them was no small feat.
Comment by so... Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:18 pm
The ‘model’ didn’t put any more Republicans in the State Assembly, despite Rauner’s funding of that effort. It also doesn’t explain the closeness of the Frerichs/Cross race.
The election seems to have been almost solely a referendum on Quinn….and he lost–that and a few Congressional Seats on a gerrymandered map where the Dems spread themselves too thin.
Comment by train111 Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:18 pm
The Frerichs/Cross race also belies any notion of a GOP revival. This was an anti- Quinn vote.
Comment by low level Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:20 pm
If hillary had been running for prez rauner would had lost by 5%
Comment by foster brooks Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:21 pm
They won. It’s their day. Congratulations.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:21 pm
Back to my repeated question: what was Rauner’s ground game? Anyone know?
How much staff? How many paid canvassers? What kind of data? Was GOTV sloppy or clean?
Comment by state worker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:24 pm
One of the reasons that Rauner won over independents was his pledge to severe ties with the Springfield establishment.
That has not appeared to have happened. So while it sounded good in the multi million dollar ad campaign the reality, at least now appears to be the opposite.
Comment by DuPage Worker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:27 pm
They won because of their message the their coalition, not because of their ground game. That they had a ground game and that it worked well is a credit to them but it did not decide the race.
Their field program did not outproduce the Dems by 160K votes, that is not plausible. Their message, their paid and earned communication and their winning coalition did that. When he says that they put together a winning coalition of conservatives plus supportive moderates and Democrats he’s absolutely right but the ground game was just icing on the cake.
Comment by The Captain Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:27 pm
Now is the time to gloat.. Let’s see where the vaunted ground game is in 4 years with bad PQ gone, and Rauner now having to run on his record..Vagueness be gone..time will tell..
Comment by Not Rich Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:30 pm
sounds like chip is auditioning for a presidential campaign (as manager)…
Comment by bored now Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:37 pm
Yes, Chip can gloat because his guy won. This certainly helps pad his resume. However, he also was lucky to have a super rich candidate with a lot of super rich friends who all put a lot of money on the line. Wheeler’s on point.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:37 pm
“Chip - If your theory was correct, Tom Cross wouldn’t be neck and neck with Mike Frerichs right now. Cross fits all the characteristics of Rauner except one: having $27M to blow through.”
Cross voted for the same-sex marriage bill as a legislator. That cost him a whole lot of votes from Republicans. That’s why the race is so close.
On another note - I posted on this blog 3-4 weeks before the election that Rauner had an excellent ground-game in place. My comment was challenged by another Capfax Quinn supporting poster; I was asked where the proof was that Rauner had a good ground game in place. I replied that I was not going to give a heads-up to the Quinn campaign and reveal his ground-game.
The proof was evident on Election Day.
Bruce ran a superb campaign. And, he won a well deserved victory.
Comment by Jechislo Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:37 pm
Rauner did what everyone here said he had to do:
>20% AA vote? Check.
Crush it in Dupage? Check.
Win decisively downstate? Check.
If Quinn’s campaign had been better organized out of the gate, so as to counter the first threat, he would have won. Chicago Blacks still voted for mostly D’s as 2-Putt is finding out, they just didn’t vote quite as much for Quinn.
Couldawouldashoulda. GOPers, don’t expect the same unforced errors next cycle.
Comment by Toure's Latte Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:38 pm
Let’s not forget an important aspect that Rauner isn’t talking about. He had NO PLAN and the media did not press him for one. Newspapers - including the Sun-Times which has a no-endorsement policy - endorsed Rauner. The fix, as they say, was in.
Comment by admin Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:42 pm
Will other Republicans be able to add the above “strategy” to their ground game?
Comment by admin Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:43 pm
Oh please, Chip. You ran against a guy who unbelievably broke with historical and political convention and said “never mind” to his temporaray income tax commitment and then offered up the income tax extension as the solution to our financial challenges. So you ran against a guy who looked like he was two-faced and then gave you the tax-raiser gift. Quinn barely lost and he was a blend of George H.W. Bush (”Read my lips: No new taxes”) and Dawn Clark Netsch. Enough said. So take your victory lap and then recognize that you beat a wounded (much of it, self-inflicted) man.
Comment by BarbaricYalp Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:47 pm
==JEchislo: On another note - I posted on this blog 3-4 weeks before the election that Rauner had an excellent ground-game in place. My comment was challenged by another Capfax Quinn supporting poster; I was asked where the proof was that Rauner had a good ground game in place. I replied that I was not going to give a heads-up to the Quinn campaign and reveal his ground-game.
The proof was evident on Election Day.==
So, you knew all along it was his ground game, but for the good of the party wouldn’t reveal it. Now that he won, that’s proof it was the ground game?
I’m open to believing it was the Republican ground game, but for the sake of argument, I’d appreciate someone making the case for it.
Rauner had twice as much money to spend on staff and canvassers, and anything else he wanted. Did he?
Comment by state worker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:48 pm
It is funny - $ talk in Springfield (and the State) - Rauner spent all the millions - much of which we paid him for nursing homes etc - although he had mega fines - he had the moneu and ah - now the power - or so he thinks - Rauner does not know what he does not know
Comment by Yatzi Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:05 pm
I agree with Willy and Rich. It’s their day. Congrats.
As far as “biggest win since Jim Edgar”, I think that by the time all of the votes are counted, George Ryan’s margin over Glenn Poshard might actually be larger.
We shall see.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:07 pm
===Back to my repeated question: what was Rauner’s ground game? Anyone know?
How much staff? How many paid canvassers? What kind of data? Was GOTV sloppy or clean?===
I also wonder about Rauners ground game. Probably better than the past few GOP candidates but I don’t think it was too impressive. Now, if they had anything to do with the Chicago ground game staying home and the Dems just worrying about the upcoming city elections, then yes, that would be impressive. And who knows, maybe he had something to do with it
Comment by Been There Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:10 pm
Seems to me like the Rauner “model” is as follows:
- Be socially moderate, fiscally conservative
- Spend a load of money
- Run against an extremely unpopular incumbent
Comment by AlabamaShake Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:10 pm
It wasn’t ground game that won this. Mayor Emanuel didn’t exert himself to help Quinn. Quinn has been deeply unpopular for a long time. I’d bet the other GOP candidates would have actually won by a bigger margin than Rauner. Rauner spent a ton of cash and only won by 5% against a very unpopular governor and a governor that climbed back to be competitive against Rauner in the end. It isn’t stunning that Rauner won but what is stunning is that Quinn was even competitive.
Comment by admin Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:11 pm
Say what you want, but things were done that I have never seen in my past 31 years of experience in politics. Chip was right when he said they never saw it coming.
Comment by ironman Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:15 pm
This election was won because of low turnout. Not because Rauner’s campaign was revolutionary, or inspiring. Obama is unpopular, and so was Quinn. Rich posted a graphic recently that showed the 2014 midterm election as producing the lowest voter turnout since 1942. That was the whole story. If Quinn gets his people to the polls, he wins. He did not, so therefore he lost. 2016 will be a different story.
Comment by John A Logan Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:18 pm
YDD and OW:
This day is November 17, not Election Day. I wonder when it will it be a day to discuss the campaign strategy.
Comment by state worker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:24 pm
Chip sure does think a lo about that guy who ran the Rauner campaign,lol.
I think Charlie’s point is that Rauner, in the general, ran on the traditional GOP winning formula of portraying himself as a fiscal conservative, a social moderate and appealing to suburban Independents.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:27 pm
- state worker -,
They won, it’s their day.
If they want to crow, they earned the right. They don’t need me telling them when the honeymoon is over, they’ll know.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:28 pm
Chip is more correct than Charles in this case. Rauner built a pretty impressive organization on the fly that was desperately needed on the GOP side. And that investment paid off for him and Dold in my region big time.
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:35 pm
So Chip -
All you need for your model is everything Rauner did and everything Quinn did. Just replicate Rauner and Quinn and you got a model.
Quinn lost this election.
Your model didn’t win it.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:50 pm
Ok future Republican candidates, look at the model. Now start earning and saving your money because a few years from now 27 million dollars will seem soooo 2014 ! Yes, Rauner ran a good race - but it was the money that blew out his primary opponents and gave him the tailwind to cross the finish line as the winner general.
Comment by ThatGirl Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:50 pm
I think it is funny how everyone (especially the Democrats/Quinn people) say that Rauner bought this race. It is like they think this is the first time that a wealthy Republican businessman has run for office in Illinois. How did Bert Miller do in the 11th CD primary this year? Or Any McKenna in 2010? Or Ron Gidwitz in 2006? All three of them are incredibly wealthy, all self financed to the tune of millions, and all lost. There is clearly more to Rauner than just money.
And before anyone says it, I know Rauner spent more money. But he did not spend that much more Gidwitz did…
Comment by Happy Gun Owner Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:53 pm
A winning campaign takes the playing field, the “elements”, the pros and cons of their opponent(s) and themselves, and execute it with the result being more votes cast for them than anyone else.
You win, you get to crow.
While Wheeler, and others, list the factors that led to the final outcome, I look at this post as such;
You win, you get to crow, because no matter what you had in your favor, or working against you, it’s a bottom line industry.
The article cited, with the Wheeler assessment, great read, thoughtful insight too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:54 pm
Let me get this right — you win by five over a guy who had an approval rating in the 20s, and that’s one of the greatest wins ever?
Well, with analysis like that, we know how Rauner turned a race against a guy with approval in the 20s into a close race.
Comment by Gooner Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:54 pm
==One of the reasons that Rauner won over independents was his pledge to severe ties with the Springfield establishment.
That has not appeared to have happened.==
So the fact that his initial meeting with leaders of a legislature that he needs to make progress lasted more than two hours and didn’t end with name calling and mud thrown shows this? Please. The campaign is over. You would have preferred they just kept calling each other names?
He hasn’t even been sworn in yet, hasn’t signed a single piece of state stationary and people are already saying stuff like this. Give him a chance to at least dig his hole before you bury him.
Comment by Not OW Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:01 pm
Happy, how much do ÿou think Gidwitz spent? Not even close to Rauner.
Quinn didn’t lose because of money; he had enough to compete. But Rauner was very good in shutting down any money to his primary opponents from traditionally GOP sources.
They were flat-footed, which is strange, because all three of them were running for four years. They got outhustled.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:07 pm
No one is stopping anyone from crowing. Crow away.
This post appears to be an analysis of the campaign, crediting the Republican ground game. Is it really too much to ask what that was?
Comment by state worker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:08 pm
==If by “model,” Chip means a socially moderate candidate who pays attention to the ground game and runs as an outsider, he’s right. But Charlie’s right, too. If your model depends on a really rich guy with cash to burn, then that’s not an easily replicated model.==
I don’t agree with Wheeler’s assessment, which I think is dismissive and uninformed. Rauner correctly assessed that the Republican Party organization was an inadequate instrument to rely upon to wage a successful campaign. Instead, Rauner, without dissing the Republican Party, built a ground-up, grass roots campaign organization that worked very hard at direct voter contact. Not even Thompson nor Edgar had such an organization. And the organization he built was not staffed by goofballs, hacks, and wannabes– the Rauner workers were well trained and disciplined. They did their work. So the strategy and execution of the organization and ground game has to be given a great deal of credit — what good does it do to be a “moderate Republican” if you don’t get your message to voters to whom that message appeals? See, e.g., Tom Cross.
Comment by Conservative Republican Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:11 pm
I find myself agreeing with John A Logan @ 1:18pm. Low turnout typically hurts Dems, and not just in Illinois. Polls heading into the election showed the Rauner/Quinn race to be close, then the low turnout pushed Rauner over the top. I don’t see that as having anything to do with Rauner’s “ground game”.
Rich, please indulge me for a moment to look at another state. The GOP won the Governor’s race in Maryland, a result so unexpected that it wasn’t being exit polled. Also, Kansas voted to keep an unpopular GOP Gov. Brownback in office. Pat Quinn’s approval rating had nothing to do with those races.
Given the low turnout, I’m surprised that Madigan lost no seats from his supermajority. IMHO, any real GOP ground game should have flipped 1-3 seats.
Comment by cover Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:16 pm
===Is it really too much to ask what that was?===
Looking and understanding the early voting numbers from Chicago and Cook, and then understanding turnout from those absentee and early voting ballots, they were in a position to out-perform Brady everywhere, while also knowing the avalanche of votes out of Cook, and Chicago very specifically, wouldn’t be able to overtake the over-performing statewide pluralities that existed.
I have no clue what you’re looking for that Wheeler or that reality don’t answer.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:17 pm
==Looking and understanding the early voting numbers from Chicago and Cook, and then understanding turnout from those absentee and early voting ballots, they were in a position to out-perform Brady everywhere, while also knowing the avalanche of votes out of Cook, and Chicago very specifically, wouldn’t be able to overtake the over-performing statewide pluralities that existed.==
I say this with years of respect for OW, and with an open mind to all Democrats and Republicans and their election theories:
Comment by state worker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:24 pm
=They won. It’s their day. Congratulations. Oswego Willy’s “party” let him down again.
Comment by Apocalypse Now Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:28 pm
He’s entitled to crow, but shouldn’t think the sun is rising because of it!
Comment by D.P.Gumby Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:28 pm
“Huh?” Isn’t a question, unless your questioning your own reading skills…
The outperforming Brady numbers statewide along with pluralities far below the needed margins in Cook and Chicago propelled a victory going away.
They won. I don’t know what you’re looking for…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:29 pm
CR, Thompson and Edgar didn’t have ground games? You can’t be serious. That’s just a bizarre statement.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:29 pm
- AN -,
I have no idea what that means, and your drive-bys usually have something that tries to be relevant.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:33 pm
OK everyone, all at the same , THEY WON ! But what ground game ? You want to see ground game go to the old 33rd Ward in action.
Comment by John Birch Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:42 pm
==But Charlie’s right, too. If your model depends on a really rich guy with cash to burn, then that’s not an easily replicated model.==
Sure worked for Ann Callis.
Comment by Regnad Kcin Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:47 pm
If we won, must’ve been something new I did. Only natural to feel that way.
They used a fairly well established strategy. They did it well and congrats are in order.
Comment by walker Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:11 pm
I am just glad he won and I hope his first stop is IDOT.
Comment by Old Timer Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:40 pm
I would recommend we wait to do some analysis until all of the ballots are counted.
Roughly 50,000 or so have been sorted through since Election Day, I think probably tens of thousands remain to be tallied today and tomorrow.
This is the way it works on campaigns:
In the weeks following, winning campaign managers credit
Their strategy and leadership, media consultants say it was their ads, your fundraising consultant will point to how much you raised….
And on the other side of the ledger you sometimes find losing campaigns either making excuses or pointing fingers.
None of it is actual analysis. It is framing of the debate.
What they ought to be saying is that Bruce Rauner won because his ideas and passion for Illinois inspired hope in Illinoisans who are hungry for change.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:47 pm
= CR, Thompson and Edgar didn’t have ground games? You can’t be serious. That’s just a bizarre statement. =
wordslinger, like the blindered liberal that you are, you apparently cannot read plain English. I wrote the following: “Not even Thompson nor Edgar had such an organization.” Read and compare.
That said, if you can make a showing that either Thompson or Edgar had a grassroots organization that matched or bettered Rauner’s, I will back off my opinion. But I imagine that you can’t.
Comment by Conservative Republican Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:48 pm
it does take some brass one to call Charlie uninformed
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 3:49 pm
- YDD -,
I actually tried that, and thanks for the tip on waiting.
They won, for today, that’s good enough.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:00 pm
Chip is going to be so proud of how well you Raunerbots are touting his ground game. We know that this ground game will be replicated at least once in our future. That will be when Rauner runs for re-election. Lets see Chip replicate it when his candidate doesn’t have deep pockets.
Chip, you did a good job with a rich candidate who stayed on script and ran against an incompetent incumbent whose approval rating was in the tank. Put this win on your resume embellish as we all do in our resume and enjoy your time in the limelight. Congratulations and good luck on future endeavors.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:14 pm
Gee, CR, I had no idea I was “blindered. ” Sounded scary until I looked it up.
I’d say your analysis on how Rauner’s “organization” was superior to the one that held the mansion for 26 years comes from the other end of the horse.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:21 pm
I look at Rauner’s victory this way: he was an unknown (businessman, not a politician) who beat 3 known politicians in the primary. He then went on to beat an incumbent, while not popular, still had the backing of unions. Granted Mr. Rauner has been successful, has made money & has it to spend as he pleases. I definitely would rather have a successful governor than one who is not.
Comment by Southern Illinois Voter Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:26 pm
I’m not sure there’s ever a good time to gloat. Karma is too much of a witch for that. But, the guy put together a strong effort that everyone doubted could be done. It worked very effectively. Any vestige of establishment help has been gone for over a decade.
It was a coalition of the willing precinct captains and many young, very modestly compensated soldiers. I wasn’t sure how effective this would be myself beforehand. Young folks have a lot of energy, but they aren’t always completely reliable. They delivered the goods all summer and fall this time and got the job done. It was an excellent GOTV effort. I’d rather keep the glad handing out of the public eye, but they did what everyone assured them they couldn’t do.
Now, if the fanny pats and high fiving are over, it’s time to turn the attention to governing. Many think the Rauner team can’t do that either. They need to prove them wrong again. Back to work, guys.
Comment by A guy... Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:29 pm
I guess it depends on how you define “grassroots.”
I would not call the old patronage army “volunteers.”
But then again, it send like all of Rauner’s “volunteers” were getting paid.
Again, if Chip wants to credit his ESP or the Diana Rauner ads, I am fine with it.
If you claim you ran the greatest campaign ever, you are bound to annoy some folks. I am not one of them.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:29 pm
===IMHO, any real GOP ground game should have flipped 1-3 seats.===
Um, no. Not when you’re up against MJM’s field. I mean, he had 50 13th Ward captains in Kankakee. Not gonna beat that, even in a 40 percent Dem district.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:44 pm
===Um, no. Not when you’re up against MJM’s field. I mean, he had 50 13th Ward captains in Kankakee. Not gonna beat that, even in a 40 percent Dem district.===
Rauner wins in the macro, but MJM owned the day in the micro.
Those House districts were all about margins for Rauner’s Crew, but wins for MJM.
Yes. There is/was the difference.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:47 pm
Dead on Willy. Great comparison –the Macro and the Micro.
Comment by John Birch Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 5:02 pm
Great ground game… without coattails.
OK, whatever. Englander is a genius. Let me add, however, that the McKinney thing left a bitter taste in many people’s mouths. People with loooooong memories who actually are from Illinois.
Just make sure all those i’s are dotted and those t’s crossed, Chip. Transperancy, remember? And welcome to Illinois. See you in 2016.
Comment by low level Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 6:01 pm
Now that puppet is in place what’s next for the state.
Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 7:03 pm
I actually think Rauner ran a really good campaign. Just don’t think the ground game was at the top of the accomplishments.
Comment by Been There Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 7:08 pm
if the tide keeps going as it is now I doubt Kirk will make it through his next election. A Democrat can run as a Democrat and win. A Republican can’t run and win with a Democrat agenda.
Comment by Dave Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 1:58 am