Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Speaker Madigan and Chuy Garcia were two of election day’s biggest winners
Next Post: Having his cake and eating it without ever baking it
Posted in:
* My Crain’s Chicago Business column…
Most reporters and pundits believed that state Rep. Jeanne Ives trounced Gov. Bruce Rauner in the Jan. 29 debate hosted by the Chicago Tribune editorial board. One columnist wrote that Ives “crushed” Rauner. And I wrote about Ives’ “almost complete thumping” of Rauner. We were all correct about the moment, but that debate probably saved Rauner’s behind.
At the time of the debate, Rauner’s own polling showed he was ahead of Ives by 50 percentage points. The governor then made the almost fatal mistake of ignoring his GOP primary opponent. But when she eventually started gaining on him, he let loose with a barrage of ads using video clips from that very debate everybody said he’d badly lost. Rauner’s campaign pulled selective bits from the debate to make the case with voters that Ives was in cahoots with Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan. So, for example, when Ives said during the debate that she’d work “with” Madigan, one of Rauner’s ads claimed that Ives would work “for” Madigan.
It was all horribly dishonest on Rauner’s part. Ives is a staunch Madigan foe. But that’s politics. Rauner didn’t beat Ives by much, but he won, and as people used to say when I was a kid, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Democratic gubernatorial candidate J.B. Pritzker was absolutely pummeled by his primary opponents and the pundits for not agreeing to a televised downstate debate. They all said he was insulting downstate voters by not agreeing to it. But come election day, Pritzker took 53 percent of the downstate vote. That win was bigger than in other regions in the state, even 8 points higher than his Chicago victory. He essentially ran up the score on his opponents outside the Chicago area.
Click here to read the rest before commenting, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 9:41 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Speaker Madigan and Chuy Garcia were two of election day’s biggest winners
Next Post: Having his cake and eating it without ever baking it
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Your conclusion that ads are more important than the debates would seem to endorse the position taken by Pritzker advocates that Dems needed Pritzker’s money to go up against Rauner.
Comment by Histprof Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 9:54 am
No one watches state level debates, especially for primaries.
And Edit board meetings like the Trib’s, they’re usually just streamed, not even televised.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 9:56 am
To take it a step further, you can lose even by winning debates.
Take a look at Rauner and Ives. There was near universal agreement that Ives beat Rauner like a rented mule in that tronc appearance.
But look how he twisted her innocuous comments on Madigan. By willfully dishonest editing, Rauner created a highly effective Big Lie TV spot to support the preposterous claim that Ives is a Madigan stooge.
Rauner’s track record to date on willingness to lie on matters big and small has been breathtaking.
I suspect we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:15 am
I agree debates are of less value than ads, but on the Dem. side, union support and cash seem more important than ads. Not sure that applies to all areas of Illinois equally.
Comment by Opener Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:16 am
Not wrong. While many will hammer away at substance of debates, voters care and want to see debates, blah blah blah the fact Jeanne couldn’t get a message on the airways in Southern Illinois sunk her. She won most GOP rich collars and only lost Lake by minimal amount. Her message couldn’t get to the markets outside Chicago. Maybe she should have shaved a couple points off the crazy ad in the beginning and had saved a couple bucks for the downstate home stretch. One ad saying Bruce Rauner hates your President and won’t even say his name downstate could have flipped 11k of that 20k short.
Comment by DuPage Bard Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:17 am
This is old school analysis. It’s so easy now to completely tune out tv ads.
And the Tribune editorial board debate isn’t a good example. Few knew about it or how to watch it. Rauner obviously thought debates were important, that’s why he wouldn’t do a real one.
Comment by Chris P. Bacon Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:27 am
Couldn’t read the rest due to paywall so please be patient.
The key importance to debates is the possibility of free content creation for attack ads.
The press narrative and ads produced from sound bites are more influential than anything actually said during the debate. Partly because no one was watching, but more so because these days no one remembers through all the other news and noise.
Comment by Anonish Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:29 am
===It’s so easy now to completely tune out tv ads. ===
Except they don’t. Unless you think JB Pritzker won solely because of the issues he posted on his website.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:35 am
Rauner won by swamping Rutherford, Dillard, and Brady.
They had NO shot at trying to outflank Rauner on TV.
Dillard got close by getting labor involved at the end and Rutherford staying in helped Rauner close the deal.
Rauner then took Quinn to task, just as he took Quinn to task in the primary, a continued barrage of “Pat Quinn failed”
The lesson(s) if this primary were… “truth or not, we’re saying it to win” for Rauner…
Pritzker was “we’ll say what needs to be said, against who we need to for the moment”, toggling between Kennedy, Biss, and the “occasional” Rauner.
Debates dictated “nothing” to either campaign.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 10:46 am
The established Dems and Repubs that I talk to voted for Pritzker and Rauner for the money. Not for love, but money. Sickening.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 11:01 am
–The established Dems and Repubs that I talk to voted for Pritzker and Rauner for the money. Not for love, but money. Sickening.–
I wonder what that means?
Do you vote for candidates because you “love” them? What a hopeless romantic you are, looking for love in all the wrong places.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 11:06 am
The “Ives-is-Madigan” lie saved Rauner.
I thought an Ives upset was a real possibility until I went to a Farm Bureau reception in Springfield the week before the primary. Got to talk politics with at least a dozen farmers, almost all loyal Republicans and seemingly unenthusiastic Rauner backers. It was clear most believed that Ives was “Madigan’s gal” — as one of them put it. The power of money and advertising can’t be understated.
Comment by BC Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 11:07 am
Word. I kinda have a crush on you.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 11:10 am
To Wordslinger’s first point, that goes for editorials too: wasn’t Quinn’s taxes-are-going-up-this-November line a passing remark in an interview before an editorial board?
People vote for love, for hate, for fear or for greed. Rauner’s only hope is fear: to make future tax hikes “real.” That’ll take creativity and his ads since being elected governor are old and boring and easily tuned-out.
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 11:26 am
Only political junkies watched the Rauner/ Ives debate online.
Very few people outside of the Democratic base watched the Democratic debates
Only 25% of registers voters bothered to cast a vote in the primary
Mike Flannery put it best:
Don’t wine to me about Illinois politics and the higher taxes coming down the pike on everyone in Illinois if you don’t vote
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 11:55 am
Back in the spring of 2017, Kennedy was being greeted by packed halls and record crowds downstate. Then the campaign apparently decided that downstate didn’t matter - no field, no tv - and they seemed to give up on what should have been their sweet spot (downstate voters). Bizarre strategy.
Comment by This Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 12:02 pm
In other words, money wins elections. We lament it and yet we let it happen.
Comment by Shemp Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 12:06 pm
Adds are more important than debates simply because it is more likely a misinformed misdirected public will vote for you. Sounds to me like a reason to change the whole election process. Silk purses don’t come from sows ears.
Comment by Matt Vernau Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 12:06 pm
===Only political junkies watched the Rauner/ Ives debate online.===
Good thing for Rauner.
Losing to Ives because people pay attention to Rauner being such a phony woulda been Right-Wing delicious.
Then again, Rauner misled everyone on Ives.
If you’re a conservative, backing Rauner now is as phony as Mr. Breen saying he stands for something and means it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 12:30 pm
‘”’Backing Rauner now is as phony as Mr. Breen saying he stands for something and means it.”'’
OW: Not sure what you mean. Are you criticizing Breen or Rauner?
Comment by walker Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 3:02 pm
===Not sure what you mean. Are you criticizing Breen or Rauner?===
It’s a two-fer.
I get to ding Rauner, then tweak Breen for his phoniness excusing Rauner.
I was actually proud of the double play.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 3:11 pm
It’s not just “tv ads” anymore, anyways. If you youtubed anything in the final months of the campaign, odds weren’t bad JB would be there before you got to your video. His ads were everywhere.
Comment by ZC Monday, Apr 2, 18 @ 9:11 pm