Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: Our pension failures have many fathers
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column now appears in the Champaign News-Gazette…
Illinois has elected just two wealthy people to major statewide office in the last 20 years: Former U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald and Gov. Bruce Rauner.
Both candidates won because they ran as firm, anti-establishment outsiders.
Fitzgerald was best known as a state Senator in the 1990s for railing against the elders who ran his Republican Party, including many who had been supplying the GOP with loads of money over the years and who’d used their positions to handsomely profit off of state business.
Rauner also ran against his party’s insiders when he launched his campaign, dismissing them as bought and paid for by Springfield’s special interests.
What establishment party support both men did receive mostly came at the end of their general election campaigns. Their personal finances, which allowed them to self-fund, kept them free of establishment taint, and that independence gave both of them credibility as outsiders.
As Election Day neared, some establishment GOP figures decided they’d better swallow their pride and get on board. The establishment needed the insurgents more than the insurgents needed the establishment.
Billionaire Democrat J.B. Pritzker isn’t following this pattern as he campaigns for governor. Insiders, elected officials and politically connected union leaders have been jumping on his bandwagon from the get-go, usually after being impressed with Pritzker during one-on-one meetings.
The game plan seems pretty obvious. Pritzker doesn’t want those folks and groups endorsing Chris Kennedy, whose last name is still immensely popular and whose own connections over the decades would’ve guaranteed him support from his party’s elders if Pritzker and his infinite bank account hadn’t stepped in.
Kennedy doesn’t have Pritzker’s kind of money, so Kennedy is perceived as needing support from the people and groups who fund and staff the party’s apparatus. At the moment, those folks are streaming toward Pritzker amid a cacophony of whispers (all denied) that House Speaker Michael Madigan is directing the traffic. Starve Kennedy of money and foot soldiers and maybe he’ll drop out.
Kennedy, whose personal wealth is substantial, but nothing like Pritzker’s, has made some half-hearted attempts to claim that endorsements don’t matter whenever he loses them. But he hasn’t yet embraced (or maybe doesn’t even recognize) the role that’s literally being thrust upon him. Kennedy’s originally preferred path of being the widely endorsed “inevitable” candidate is now owned by Pritzker.
By default, Kennedy’s now the most prominent “outsider” in the race.
After almost two and a half years of Rauner’s rule, the government is in shambles. Rauner’s first campaign video back in 2013 complained that the state had “the highest unemployment in the Midwest,” and that’s still true today. He pointed to the state’s “lowest credit rating in America,” and that’s only gotten worse.
“Springfield is broken; $8,000 in pension debt for every man, woman and child,” Rauner bemoaned in the video. That figure is now $10,000.
So, maybe Illinois voters will yearn for someone who can work with Springfield to solve our massive problems and get us back to a semblance of normalcy after three populist governors in a row couldn’t get anything done. That appears to be where both Pritzker and Kennedy are going.
If Rauner doesn’t obtain a budget deal, he will simply run against the establishment again, claiming the evil powers that be (Speaker Madigan) have blocked him at every turn, but that he is “very close” to breaking their self-serving logjam.
And, indeed, if he is re-elected after what could be four years of gridlock, the Democrats will have to start working with him. Democrats claim that Rauner hid his “real” agenda from voters in 2014. But that agenda is now crystal clear to everyone.
Almost half of Illinois Democrats voted for insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders a year ago. A recent poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute showed that Gov. Rauner is slightly more popular than Speaker Madigan in Chicago, of all places.
So, an authentic, independent, populist message from the late Robert Kennedy’s sincere, accomplished and mild-mannered son could very well resonate.
One of the things you can’t help but notice in the press coverage of Kennedy’s downstate appearances is the reports on crowd size. His family name is packing halls all over the place as locals come out to witness a part of history.
The obvious question is whether Kennedy can sustain this. His name and the hints of his family’s famous accent in his speaking voice are working like a charm for him right now. But will it last?
If he embraces a different direction, I think the answer could be yes.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 8, 17 @ 8:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: Our pension failures have many fathers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The problem is, Biss and to a lesser extent Pawar aren’t going to let him have the “outsider” lane to himself.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, May 8, 17 @ 8:59 am
===Biss and to a lesser extent Pawar aren’t going to let him===
They can and will try. But there are no guarantees in this biz.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 8, 17 @ 9:28 am
I would agree with the second half of your statement: Kennedy’s best and perhaps only path.
It’s his only path. It may be his best. But his best might not even get out of the earliest qualifying heats, let alone sustain beyond that.
Comment by A guy Monday, May 8, 17 @ 10:09 am
==But his best might not even get out of the earliest qualifying heats, let alone sustain beyond that.==
Yeah, this.
It’s like Rauner’s “Blame Madigan” excuse making. It’s the best available to him in relative terms, but maybe not very good in absolute terms.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, May 8, 17 @ 10:33 am
while it is generally true that as a candidate gets out there and meets people they gain support, it is specifically true with Chris Kennedy. He’s a down to earth, open person, though he has an edge because of strong beliefs, so he’s not pandering. Interesting to talk to him.
Comment by Amalia Monday, May 8, 17 @ 11:01 am
While JB and Bliss have clearly established a “voice”, Kennedy is still a cipher–a link to a mythic past, but not a current reality. Until he becomes real we have no idea what chance he has against the carhart master.
Comment by d.p.gumby Monday, May 8, 17 @ 12:01 pm
First, this is a great piece, Rich. It clarifies the challenges that this early on will continue to be something Kennedy’s Crew will need to either pounce on the positives to help the lacking, or take, head-on, challenges that can help a candidate and campaign grow.
I find the Kennedy Campaign THE most fascinating, due in very large part that their sweet spot… is right now a moving target.
Can they get loads (and I seriously mean “loads”) better at response messaging and actual Staff and Crew work out in the field and at the Store?
I’ll be watching.
The path and sweet spots are there. Can they pin these sweet spots down, and grow and learn to be a better campaign?
That’s the question.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 8, 17 @ 12:29 pm
Populist messages are more effectively delivered by politicians with strong oratorical skills.
I don’t think Chris Kennedy can deliver.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Monday, May 8, 17 @ 4:16 pm
wow, cipher to the past is not at all what Chris Kennedy sound like. he tells his own compelling story as a rationale for why he works on food issues now. it’s a stump speech and it resonates.
Comment by Amalia Monday, May 8, 17 @ 5:05 pm