A Rauner-like re-do come 2020?

Those of us paying attention will remember the Republican primary for governor in 2018 – the one where incumbent Bruce Rauner narrowly defeated his challenger, state Sen. Jeanne Ives of Wheaton, but was left so weakened that Democrat J.B. Pritzker easily cleaned his clock come the general election.

RAUNER: Will we relive 2018 GOP primary?

Well, guess what! It seems we’re going to get a replay, of sorts, come 2020. Or at least those people who live in the Illinois 6^th Congressional district will.

THOSE ARE THE people of suburban DuPage County who for many years were represented in Congress by Henry Hyde, and whose district was considered the very base of the Republican Party in Illinois.

But as one of the ultimate bits of evidence that the Illinois GOP is not really the “Party of Lincoln” of tradition any longer, the district picked Sean Casten, a Democrat, to be their Congressman in last year’s election.

Which means Republicans are viewing dumping Casten from office as one of their political priorities, and the list of people willing to use the Republican banner to campaign on is developing.

Rauner’s lieutenant governor running mate, Evelyn Sanguinetti, already has expressed interest in the post. She’s a Wheaton native who once served on the City Council, prior to Rauner tapping her as his potential backup – had something happened to him while in office.

IVES: Rehashing Rauner trashing?

WHICH COULD TURN out to be the campaign where Sanguinetti goes out of her way to claim that Rauner was never fully appreciated by Illinoisans – and how her political victory could be a sign of redemption.

So perhaps it is all too appropriate that Sanguinetti has a primary election challenger she will have to beat before she can get to campaigning against Casten.

It’s none other than Jeanne Ives herself – the woman who repeatedly bashed about Rauner and claimed he was way too liberal for Illinois. Even though the bulk of Illinois voters ultimately voted for governor in ways indicating hey thought she was too conservative for our state.

Does this mean the congressional primary next year will wind up as a replay of the Republican gubernatorial primary? Even though now Ives’ operatives are circulating a poll trying to figure out how she’d stand up against Casten in a general election.

SANGUINETTI: Defending her former superior?

ARE WE GOING to hear a defense of The Rauner Years from Sanguinetti, countered with constant repeats of the Rauner bashing that Ives engaged in last year – with constant reminders that Sanguinetti is little more than a Rauner lackey?

Will Ives think that using the 2020 primary to try to beat Rauner’s running mate is a way of rewriting history – creating the perception that SHE was the real winner in the long run?

I’m sure Sanguinetti backers (are their any?) will try to claim she’s an independent persona in her own right. But her lieutenant governorship was very low key – as are most lieutenant governors. She’s not going to have a lot of independent government achievements to tout.

Making it far too easy for her to be dubbed as Rauner-lite by Ives. Who herself will easily be tagged with a label of just another ideological loon who can’t accept the fact that the majority of Illinois thinks she’s wrong!

THERE IS ONE positive to the idea of a Sanguinetti/Ives matchup in the Illinois 6^th Republican primary – this will be limited to the land of DuPage, rather than the entirety of Illinois as was last year’s gubernatorial primary.

CASTEN: An easier-than-expected re-election in 2020?

We won’t all be subjected to the rounds of nonsense rhetoric a second time. Then again, I suspect the overwhelming majority of Cook County (which accounts for nearly half of Illinois’ population) voters focused on the Democratic primary and didn’t pay much attention to Rauner/Ives to begin with.

Which could make Sean Casten, a resident of suburban Downers Grove, the ultimate winner.

The Sanguinetti/Ives primary could get so vicious rhetorically that they beat each other silly. Leaving each other all bloodied politically to the point that Casten doesn’t get anywhere near as intense a challenge for his re-election as Republican political operatives dream of giving him next year.

  -30-

Who’s the boss (and I don’t mean that old television program) of Illinois?

Will new governor have to take marching orders … 

J.B. Pritzker has been governor-elect for a week now and has already created a team of advisers (including Republicans such as former Gov. Jim Edgar and former Illinois Senate leader Christine Radogno amongst them) to advise him on how to go about actually running Illinois government.

Yet there are those who are persisting with such political rhetoric as to say the only person who’s really going to influence him is the guy who will actually run the state.

… from Mr. Speaker himself?

NONE OTHER THAN Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. As though they can’t let go of all the trash talk that they tried to use to tie everybody in sight to Madigan so it would cost them re-election.

It didn’t work. Yet we’re still hearing the trash talk.

I got my kick out of the Daily Herald newspaper account where Jeanne Ives, the ideologue who tried (but failed) to beat Bruce Rauner herself, said she thinks Illinois is safe from any sort of progressive tax hike.

Although state government certainly could use the money to make real progress toward paying off all the bills it accumulated during Rauner’s partisan efforts to undermine organized labor’s influence, Ives said she believes Madigan won’t let the Democrat-dominated General Assembly approve any such thing.

Radogno and Edgar (below) … 

SHE SAYS MADIGAN is political astute enough to realize a large segment of the population would disapprove, possibly even revolt, and would start electing Republicans again if Democrats get to brazen.

“I think Mike Madigan will still run the state,” Ives told the suburban-based newspaper. “He is savvy and knows the state can’t withstand another tax increase.”

So is J.B. really nothing more than Madigan’s puppet; expected to sign off on whatever bills Madigan (with state Senate President John Cullerton’s cooperation) allows to get as far as the gubernatorial desk?

… are among those advising J.B. these days

Or is Ives, the state senator from Wheaton (no longer a bastion of the Republican Party) merely trying to maintain a semblance of relevance in today’s Illinois political age?

THIS IS A debate I have heard often – trying to figure out who’s really in charge these days! Because it is likely (if not downright predictable) that there will be a falling-out between Pritzker and Madigan. A rivalry will develop within the party over who ought to be listening to whom. Which is why people used to think Illinois would never have Democrats as governor -- Madigan wouldn't permit anyone who could undermine his influence!

Pritzker may well adopt the attitude that the people picked HIM to be governor, while Madigan may well feel J.B. is a political amateur who’s never run NOTHING and who ought to leave the governing to the big boys who have been doing this for awhile.

I’ve even heard it said that Pritzker is in a unique position to challenge such incumbent thought because he’s so wealthy. Similar to how Rauner tried to buy the Republican Party political structure to support his own desires, Pritzker has the kind of money to where he could be the guy that Democrats turn to for political support, instead of having to rely on Madigan’s labor connections to raise their political funds.

Particularly since within the Democratic Party structures across the nation, there are splits between establishment types supporting the current structure, and those who want a more politically progressive structure.

AFTER ALL, WHAT’S the point of having a not-so-liberal Democratic Party? You might as well be a Republican, is their attitude. Madigan himself is most definitely of the party’s establishment – a guy who backs the Democrats because of his support for organized labor and its interests.

IVES: Trying to retain relevance

There are times when he seems to dread having to deal with more liberal elements and social causes. Only backing them when he can figure a way to turn them to his own interests. But that may be the relevant point – Madigan is a political mastermind who can figure ways to use issues for a greater good, so to speak.

We all saw how Rauner’s efforts to use his money to buy a political party for himself failed to the point where some now wonder if the Illinois Republican Party has anything left worth use! Could Pritzker be just as inept without Madigan’s mindset on his side.

Could it be in everybody’s interest that the two men figure out a way to cooperate? Which could mean the true threat to the people of Illinois is that Democrats are not really the united force for liberal causes in the way that elements of the modern-day Republicans have become the party wishing to force conservatism down all our throats.

  -30-

Rauner to run to the ‘right?’

It’s one of the so-called rules of running an election for government office that in a primary, one takes on all the ideological issues they’re comfortable with so as to get the hard line voters possible.

RAUNER: Wants the 'right-wing' vote

But come the general election cycle, candidates of both major political parties veer to the “center,” so to speak – so as to try to get as many people as possible to cast ballots for them.

COULD THE RE-ELECTION campaign of Bruce Rauner for governor become an exception to that “rule?” Could his campaign for the Nov. 6 election become a test of just how conservative can Rauner make himself appear to be?

Rauner is the guy who narrowly won the Republican primary held last week, with his opponent going out of her way to tag him as some sort of liberal freak who stands against everything “real” Republicans are about.

She brought up his actions during his first term as governor related to abortion, immigration and civil rights for gay people, and her message stuck. There are people who insist they’re Republicans, but won’t consider a vote for Bruce come the general election.

It doesn’t matter that the very essence of Rauner’s term as governor were actions meant to push for policies that would undermine the influence of organized labor within government. Rauner is anti-union enough to be a hard-core Republican, but that’s not good enough.

PEREZ: Rauner's sacrificial lamb?

SO IS RAUNER going to start looking for every means possible by which he can make himself appear to be some sort of right-wing ideologue – being worthy of those people whose own image of what our society ought to be about is such that they’re totally comfortable with this Age of Trump in which we’re now in?

There was that veto the governor handed down right before the primary election – the one in which he rejected a bill the Democrat-controlled General Assembly handed down related to firearms and state regulation of gun shops.

It was the Illinois Legislature’s reaction to the violence at a school in Parkland, Fla. – which means Rauner made his own statement with regards to gun control measures.

IVES: Inflicted serious damage to Bruce

And now, there’s the deportation of Miguel Perez, Jr., who served in the Army in Afghanistan and was under the assumption that he became a U.S. citizen at that point in time. But after military service, he became involved with illegal narcotics, wound up being arrested and serving time in prison.

PEREZ CAME TO the United States from Mexico when he was 8 and had a “green card.” But that was revoked upon his conviction, and because of his lack of citizenship, upon his release from prison Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials began the process of deportation.

Which in his case took 16 months because he tried fighting it. But in the end, Perez was among a group of deportees being held in Kenosha, Wis., who recently were put on a bus and driven to the Gary/Chicago International Airport, where they were put an an airplane and flown to Brownsville, Texas, Then, they were driven over the border into Matamoros in Mexico, where they were formally turned over to Mexican authorities.

It turns out that among the moves Perez tried making to stay in this country was a request for a pardon from Rauner. If he had been granted some form of clemency for his drug conviction, it might not have been able to be used against him as far as deportation proceedings were concerned.

But Rauner went out of his way to reject such a request. While refusing to be specific on his reasons, Rauner wanted it known he said “no” to a U.S. military veteran whose problems post-military were due to post traumatic stress disorder.

“WE MADE THE decision not to grant (clemency) in that case,” Rauner told WLS-TV.

PRITZKER: Will J.B. be ultimate victor?

Rauner already was getting grief from the ideologues because he didn’t veto a measure that restricted Illinois law enforcement authorities from cooperating fully with federal immigration officials, similar to the “sanctuary city” initiatives that exist in Chicago and Cook County or the “welcoming city” measures of places like Evanston and Oak Forest – or Gary, Ind. (whose airport is used as part of the deportation process, which angers some local officials).

So is forcing Perez, who hadn’t actually been in Mexico in 31 years and whose life is oriented towards being in this country, to leave just Rauner’s gesture of support to the ideologues? If it is, it’s a cold gesture.

It makes me wonder how many more “gestures” Rauner is going to feel compelled to give to the “right” to bolster his standings, and if he’s going to wind up becoming more “Trump-like” in his political behavior. Because, after all, he needs the votes to avoid getting his clock cleaned Nov. 6 by Democratic challenger J.B. Pritzker.

  -30-

After spending all that money, we got the predictable electoral outcome

The people of Illinois have voted and their votes are being tallied.

J.B. couldn't win a majority of Dems

And what’s the outcome of the 2018 primary election cycle, one in which some $120 million was spent on campaign tactics meant to besmirch the opposition?

WE’RE GOING TO get some seven more months of pricey, hostile tactics!

For it seems that the Illinois gubernatorial campaign that will come to a head on Nov. 6 will wind up being a battle of the rich guys.

Bruce Rauner and J.B. Pritzker, both of whom are independently wealthy enough that they can afford to finance their own campaigns for political office, appear to have won their political parties’ respective primary elections.

Both of these guys are in desperate need of a hobby. Instead, they have chosen to satisfy their need to do something worthwhile with their lives by running for political office.

IN THIS CASE, both want to be governor of Illinois.

Rauner already has had four years in office, and he wants four more. Only this time, he wants to not have to deal with the Democratic Party officials led by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago – whom some can say earned his money the past four years by being the force that prevented Rauner from implementing what he wants to think of as “reform” but really are nothing more than union-busting tactics.

Rauner barely won a majority of GOPers

Pritzker, who for many years has been the rich guy whom Democrats turn to for financial donations in order to raise the money they need to pay for their political campaigns, has decided he’d like to be a political person in his own right.

Perhaps he saw the ego boost his sister, Penny, got from being a government official in her own right (she was U.S. Commerce secretary during the Barack Obama presidency) and thought it would be fun.

OR MAYBE HE just doesn’t want to be outdone politically by his sister? Who’s to say what made J.B. decide he’d like to be a politico.

Can J.B. top his sister, Penny, politically?

It certainly isn’t the money. For the just under $180,000 salary Illinois provides to its governor would be mere pocket change for Pritzker – whose family has an immense fortune that originated from the Hyatt Hotels chain.

Then again, money isn’t what entices Rauner.

This is the guy who’s paying to run a re-election bid AND also to fund several candidates for the General Assembly so that he might have a majority that would actually support him.

Ives sets her political legacy

IT’S NOT WRONG to say that Rauner has practically become the Republican Party in Illinois. A thought that offends the sensibilities of many of those individuals to whom ideology and social issue stances is their motivation for politics.

For Rauner is now a guy who took a significant financial advantage against a primary election opponent who borders on being a right-wing nutcase and barely won his primary by the skin of his teeth.

Jeanne Ives of Wheaton will be remembered for her whacked out stances on issues ranging from abortion to guns to gays and how she nearly won. Which already has many electoral observers saying Rauner ought to be ashamed politically and perhaps ought to begin preparing himself now for the big move out of the Statehouse Scene.

Then again, Pritzker is the guy whose overwhelming victory on Tuesday was less than a majority. Challengers Daniel Biss and Chris Kennedy combined were a majority. Most people who voted in a Democratic primary (myself included) wanted somebody other than J.B. to take on Rauner.

RAUNER’S GREATEST ASSET politically is that sense of apathy – if it lasts, the Democratic challenger will lag behind, while also getting smacked about with all the politically partisan attacks Rauner can come up with.

DAIBER: Couldn't even beat Tio Hardiman

For he has many millions more to spend as this election cycle likely tops 2010 in California as the most expensive gubernatorial campaign ever.

One final thought; I wonder what’s going through Bob Daiber’s mind right now. He’s the one-time Madison County regional schools superintendent who tried being the lone downstate Illinois candidate for governor and thought rural Illinois would turn out for him.

Instead, his 1.2 percent of the vote put him behind Tio Hardiman’s 1.7 percent. Talk about accomplishing nothing!

  -30-

Republicans think they ARE the govt? National symbols not for partisan use

Do we have certain Republican officials who are just clueless about the law? Or more likely they just believe that our government and its symbols are, by nature, representative of themselves?

What has my mind circulating are reports of recent weeks in which both gubernatorial candidate Jeanne Ives and President Donald J. Trump are forced to address allegations that they’re using government-owned and -controlled symbols for their own personal use.

WHICH WOULD PUT them in violation of federal copyright laws, in which the government would have the authority to demand that people wishing to use such symbols seek permission first.

Permission that most likely would not be granted, if either Ives or Trump had truly tried to follow the letter of the law.

In the case of Ives, she’s getting hit because of a new campaign advertisement – one that attempts to give herself some high moral purpose because she was once a cadet at the military academy at West Point (Class of ’87). Implying that it makes her somehow more honest than a mere politician like Rauner, or even a pot-shot at Barack Obama.

It includes a photograph of a youthful Ives in cadet uniform, the portion of the cadet honor code that says she will “not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do,” and a black-and-white depiction of the West Point logo.

THE LATTER IS what possibly puts Ives in legal ‘hot water,’ since the logo is regarded as the intellectual property of the U.S. Army and is not something that can be used by anyone for personal reasons without explicit permission.

Which most often is denied by the military, on the grounds that the Army does not want to appear to be endorsing a person or cause – in this case, a candidate for office.

There are those who might be confused enough to interpret the West Point logo as evidence that the plebes (first year academy students) who someday will be Army officers.

Does this cross over the 'letter of the law?'

Is Ives in trouble with the Army? Who’s to say? The Capitol Fax newsletter that initially reported on this issue couldn’t get Ives, or West Point, to comment.

BUT I DON’T doubt that Ives (as in the campaign that’s trying to lead her to electoral victory over Gov. Bruce Rauner come the March 20 Republican primary) probably thought it was a natural they could use the logo to depict her.

Just as I’m sure Trump thought nothing of using the presidential symbol on merchandise being sold on behalf of Trump – and not the presidency in a generic sense.

There have been reports of coffee mugs bearing the presidential symbol being sold at the gift shop inside Trump Tower in New York, along with golf tees bearing the presidential symbol intended for use at golf courses that are part of Trump-owned resorts.

As though when we see that eagle with the olive branch clenched to the left and 13 arrows to the right, we’re supposed to assume the image of Donald J. – and not of the larger entity of presidential authority.

HOW LONG WILL it be before the presidential ego becomes so large that an effort is made to rename the United States of America as “Trump, the Country.”

Can anyone envision Tammy doing this?

I don’t expect to see anybody prosecuted for these potential violations of federal copyright. Heck, I fully expect to see the conservative ideologues come to the defense of Ives and Trump by denouncing the issues as politically-partisan attacks.

Particularly in the case of Ives, whom they probably think is entitled to use military symbolism to tout herself because the state senator from Wheaton who is challenging Rauner is a Republican.

Now if she were a Democrat, they’d be out to put her head on a pike. Something along the lines of how they often try to treat Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who has military service (with significant combat duty) in her record that they often try to diminish.

  -30-

Truly offended? Or just candidates in desperate need of attention?

Jeanne Ives, the Republican state senator from Wheaton who wants to run for governor as the candidate who will impose conservative ideologue thoughts upon all of Illinois, is managing to play off so many stereotypes in her latest campaign advertisement that is drawing far more attention than it deserves.

You know, the ad that features a transvestite, a black union member, a non-citizen who shouldn’t be in the U.S. anyway and a slutty liberal woman who keeps needing abortions to terminate her pregnancies – all of whom “thank” Bruce Rauner for his policies since becoming governor early in 2015.

IMPLYING THAT NONE of these kinds of people would be supportive of an Ives governorship, and do you really want to be among these freaks of nature come Election Day?

This ad is bound to offend, although I’m sure the Ives camp views it as one where the people offended most are the ones who never would have considered casting a ballot for her in the first place.

Which is why I have found it interesting to see a few political candidates of the Republican persuasion who felt compelled to issue a public statement lambasting Ives.

Specifically, GOP attorney general candidate Erika Harold and state treasurer hopeful Jim Dodge are the ones speaking out when most establishment Republican types are keeping their mouths shut!

HAROLD: Crown not enough to win?

AND WHO, QUITE frankly, are among the fringe candidates that show how weak the Illinois Republican Party has become in this century. Surely, none of these people would have been taken seriously by the GOP of 1994 – the year that Jim Edgar got re-elected overwhelmingly and every single Republican running for state office also won.

Honestly, the only reason either Harold or Dodge will still be alive politically beyond March 20 is because they’re running unopposed in the Republican primary.

Now, they’re issuing statements condemning the Ives campaign’s bigotry – largely because it would seem they don’t want to get their unopposed candidacies dragged down in the muck of racial, gender or immigration politics before they even get started in their campaigning for the actual election come Nov. 6.

 

DODGE: Needs to break ties to GOP far-right?

It’s noble, but I suspect they wish they could get away with saying nothing. But unlike other candidates who have enough of a track record politically, they have to speak out now.

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, Harold is the one-time Miss America (2003) who has run for congressional posts from central Illinois (she’s an Urbana native), but has never won in her own primary.

While Dodge is a long-time official within municipal government in suburban Orland Park – a government I once covered back in my early late-1980’s days as a reporter-type person.

He tried running for Illinois comptroller in 2010, but failed. Like Harold, he’s only succeeding in this year’s primary because he’s unopposed.

Honestly, it’s not like Orland Park government is a path to higher office. I still remember when then-Mayor Dan McLaughlin tried running for state treasurer in 1998, only to lose to Judy Baar Topinka. McLaughlin went back to being mayor until losing his bid for re-election last year to a seventh term.

MAYBE DODGE THINKS being a suburban Republican (instead of a Democrat like McLaughlin) makes a difference. Although it could mean he gets caught up in all the ideologue nonsense that’s likely to hurt Republican candidates in general outside of the most rural parts of Illinois. Which makes their comment on such a campaign ad all the more essential.

 

IVES: How long until she's nobody?

The people who probably will see the Ives spot, focus on that frizzy-haired dame in the Chicago Teachers Union t-shirt and be particularly offended. Or maybe they’ll be most bothered by the masked-dude without the valid visa.

Although some have pointed out that the guy who appears in the mask is so clearly a white guy – possibly an Irishman of sorts. Could it be that no Latino actor could be found who would appear in such a tacky campaign ad?

Which will make it all the better if the Ives campaign withers away after the March 20 primary and becomes a soon-to-be forgotten memory – in large part because of campaign ads such as this.

  -30-

Who will we get to pick for Illinois governor – the all- nobody campaign?

A part of me wants to believe that Gov. Bruce Rauner has dug himself so deep into a partisan hole that there’s no way he can possibly prevail come the Nov. 6 general election, and that if the Republicans could have come up with a more rational candidate he probably couldn’t even win the March 20 GOP primary.

Which of these mediocrities ...

But then I look at the assortment of mediocrities that have cropped up on the Democratic Party side of the electoral equation and I honestly can’t help but think the 2018 election for Illinois governor is truly going to be a question of which candidate offends us the least.

IT’S ALMOST AS though Rauner hand-picked his opposition to provide as weak a challenger as he could face.

That was the reaction I had to learning of the We Ask America poll that asked people who amongst the six Democrats running in the primary would they vote for.

It truly was a choice of “None of the Above,” as “undecided” was the leading choice. Some 37.95 percent of those questioned said they hadn’t made up their mind yet. Amongst the actual choices, the so-called frontrunner, J.B. Pritzker, was in the lead with 29.79 percent support.

But considering that he’s the candidate with the personal fortune that he has shown a willingness to spend in order to campaign, you’d think he’d be the one so far ahead of the pack that the other candidates would be legitimately having thoughts of dropping out.

... actually stands a chance ...

NOT QUITE. IT seems that Pritzker’s millions haven’t been enough to sew up the primary election for him before serious campaigning began.

Which was supposedly the reason that Democratic Party leadership touted the Pritzker campaign to begin with – his money was supposed to make him unbeatable.

But it seems he can’t even dominate a political party fight. Which almost makes me wonder if it is time for Pritzker to give second thoughts to dropping out, on the grounds that he could save a lot of personal wealth from being expended on an ultimately unsuccessful electoral cause.

... of taking the oath of office ...

Now I know state Sen. Daniel Biss of Evanston has been crowing about this poll because it shows him in second place (third actually, behind Undecided and Pritzker). His 17.43 percent allows him to move ahead of Chris Kennedy, with 11.5 percent.

... to become Illinois' next governor?

NOT EXACTLY A high point for the Kennedy name, which I’m sure he got into this campaign thinking it alone would carry him to a Democratic primary victory. He could then step up the serious campaigning come the general election against Rauner.

Except that Rauner, during his limited appearances against GOP opponent, and state Sen. Jeanne Ives of Wheaton, has shown himself to be of limited ability.

IVES: Can she compete in GOP primary?

It’s as though he thinks he can get by with the same campaigning skills that allowed him to defeat Gov. Pat Quinn back in 2014. Quinn, of course, had enough people within his own political party willing to see him get knocked about that they didn’t care much if he lost.

He even had some rural Illinois counties with so much unrest that the ’14 primary challenge of Tio Hardiman managed to get some local victories. That’s the same Hardiman whose political dreams this year get him only a 1.73 percent level of support for governor.

YES, I'LL COME out and state at this time I won’t be surprised if – in the end – the primary winners turn out to be Rauner and Pritzker, and the 2018 gubernatorial election does turn out to be a battle of two rich guys willing to spend their own money to appease their egos with a government post. With Biss already pointing out that Pritzker is spending more on himself than Donald Trump spent of his own money to win the presidential election in 2016.

HARDIMAN: Can he do encore of '14?

But we’re definitely not in for any electoral cycle where the candidates will motivate us with rhetoric for the ages that will inspire us to want to reward them with our votes.

It’s more likely to turn out to be a campaign where we eagerly away the morning of Nov. 7, 2018 – the “Day After” Election Day so we can say to ourselves “Thank God It’s Over!”

Then, we can do the countdown to the 2019 brawl for Mayor of Chicago.

  -30-

EXTRA: Ives a movement, or nobody?

Just in case you think I'm underestimating the chances of Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jeanne Ives, a new poll released Wednesday would make it seem that Bruce Rauner is likely to win at least his primary bid for nomination to be in the Nov. 6 general election.

The poll conducted by the We Ask America organization indicates Rauner has 64.59 percent support -- and the Ives people would like us to think that is because the rest of Republicandom is solidly behind her.

BUT IT SEEMS the state senator from Wheaton only has 20.51 percent support -- with a remaining 14.9 percent being undecided.

Also not faring well for Ives is the fact that when asked their general of Ives, the most common response was "never heard of." Some 68.43 percent had that response. Only 13.92 percent gave her a favorable ranking.

Of course, just as those people who are determined to view Donald Trump favorably no matter how much of a rube he behaves as, I don't doubt the 13.92 percent are hard-core enough to think only their opinion matters.

It seems Ives has a long way to go to let potential voters even know she exists, if she's to have any chance of avoiding becoming a political nobody come March 21 -- as in the day after the Republican primary.

  -30-

Is Ives the gubernatorial candidate nobody wants to be associated with?

Jeanne Ives, the state senator from Wheaton who wants to challenge Gov. Bruce Rauner in the Republican primary, is becoming the candidate whom nobody wants to be associated with.

IVES: Offends Kennedy, Rauner

Ives, the woman whose campaign is based on the notion that Rauner is too liberal for Illinois (the reality is that she’s too conservative, but that’s a topic for another day’s commentary), is the woman who was in a candidate forum this week where she managed to offend Democratic hopeful Chris Kennedy to the point where he walked out in mid-event.

ON TUESDAY, IVES’ perception suffered another blow when Rauner himself said he had no intention of participating in a Republican debate against her that would have been held in Springfield.

Considering that the bulk of any Republican candidate’s voter support will come from the part of the state outside the Chicago area, it could be seen as foolish for Rauner to pass up the chance to appeal to his likely backers.

But Ives managed to show on Monday that her rhetoric is likely to be over the top – perhaps just as much as trying to get people to think Rauner is a liberal, even though the bulk of the Chicago-area vote certainly will turn out against him.

Her campaign may well turn out to be the one of the malcontents of our state expressing their opposition to the concept that everybody does not agree with their ideologue hang-ups about life and our society.

WHY SHOULD RAUNER give Ives the public attention of a one-on-one debate between the two?

KENNEDY: Walked out on Ives

I know many conservative-leaning people want to believe that right-wing outrage against Rauner is so intense (he’s not anti-abortion enough to satisfy them) that anybody could beat him come the March 20 GOP primary.

They cite Steven Baer, an ideologue who took about one-third of the vote in the 1990 gubernatorial primary against Jim Edgar. I’d argue that Ives could get about one-third of the vote, which would still make her a loser. And how many real people (as in non-political geeks) have a clue who Baer was? Or will remember Ives 20 years from now?

For the record, Ives’ offensive act was trying to say that we have so much gun violence in our society because we have many fatherless families. Which Kennedy took offense to because he, himself, lost his father as a young child.

RAUNER: Won't give her that much attention

HIS UNCLE, TOO. Remember that? Both of those stories were in all the papers and usually warrant a couple of sentences in the history books.

Personally, I’m inclined to think this would be an ideal world (or as close as we’d ever come to one) if everybody had a set of two parents to help raise them as children. But not everybody does, and we ought to be focusing on trying to help those youth who don’t have such circumstances.

Rather than holding them up to blame for societal flaws, which is all Ives and people of her ilk really are interested in doing!

Make people think that everything that is wrong with life is somebody else’s fault, and maybe it makes them feel a little bit better about their lot in life. But it doesn’t do a thing to make things better for the masses.

I HAVE NO doubt that if Ives were to get a one-on-one forum with Rauner, she’d really let loose with the nonsense talk. She’d probably also have the crackpots all peeved about Rauner not being conservative enough for them ready to proclaim her the winner.

PRITZKER: Will get own share of nonsense

Which wouldn’t really be true. In fact, such a forum probably would add nothing to the public understanding of who either candidate is. Just as I’m sure the various Democratic candidate forums (the first of which will be held next Tuesday in Chicago) probably won’t go any further than candidate J.B. Pritzker being the rich guy trying to buy himself an ego-bloating political post.

It’s bound to be a lot of nonsense-talk. The rhetoric will flow with the sounds of silliness. In that regard, we’re better off without a Rauner/Ives debate.

I’m sure those who merely want to smack Bruce about will have plenty of opportunities between now and the Nov. 6 general election – to the point where he’ll have more than his share of rhetorical bruises.

  -30-

Are Dems really a shoo-in for guv?

“Here’s the reality: While the state faces some unique structural economic challenges that will be a drag on any Democrat, the party does not need a billionaire to win this year’s gubernatorial election. In fact, they probably just need somebody with a pulse who isn’t a criminal or a serial sexual harasser.”
-- David Faris, associate professor of political science, Roosevelt University.

  -0-

PRITZKER: Should he be Dem favorite?

If only life (and electoral politics) were that simple!

David Faris came up with an analysis published this week in The Week where he is critical of the establishment Democratic Party line of thought that J.B. Pritzker, whose family has substantial-enough wealth that he can afford to pay for his own campaign to run for governor, ought to be the front-runner for the March 20 election.

FARIS ACTUALLY TOUTS the campaign for governor of state Sen. Daniel Biss, D-Evanston. He’s the one-time mathematics professor-turned-legislator who goes out of his way to espouse progressive thought. Whether he’s capable of turning any of it into public policy remains to be seen.

While Pritzker does have some progressive leanings, much of his campaign rhetoric focuses on the need to dump Bruce Rauner – and show how his Republican affiliation puts him in line with President Donald J. Trump.

RAUNER: Are his chances of  victory already nil?

Of whom many political observers are convinced will be the ultimate millstone upon every single political candidate who runs this year under the GOP label.

Faris believes that Pritzker, because he’s immensely wealthy and has the potential to pay his own way for a gubernatorial campaign, is actually no better than Rauner himself.

RAUNER, OF COURSE, being the man who beat Gov. Pat Quinn in 2014 with a self-funded campaign, and has already come up with some $50 million of his own money to pay for his 2018 bid – with much of that intended for use to support legislators who theoretically would be Rauner allies.

Because the reason that Rauner has been unable to achieve any of his anti-organized labor initiatives that (in his mind) were the reason he wanted to become Illinois governor in the first place, was a Democratic Party-dominated state Legislature that thwarted him at every turn.

TRUMP: Rauner's millstone come Nov. 6?

Many of those Dems feel comfortable knowing they won’t be grossly outspent by the Rauner machine during this year’s election cycle.

Which is why someone who has never held political office (although his sister, Penny, was Commerce secretary under then-President Barack Obama) comes across at this early date as the favorite to win the gubernatorial nomination.

I’LL BE THE first to admit Rauner has his political problems. Democrats already upset with Trump’s presidential presence enough to turn out to vote also are displeased enough with Rauner (those two years without a state budget) that they’ll be guaranteed to show up at the polling places come March 20 and Nov. 6.

Plus, Rauner has the right-leaning segment of the Republican Party convinced he’s not really one of them. Jeanne Ives, the state senator from Wheaton who likes to talk about her days at West Point, will take supporters from Rauner he really could use in a Republican primary.

IVES: Hoping to thwart guv March 20

So theoretically, Faris isn’t totally off-base in saying Rauner is beatable. Maybe even a serial sexual harasser could beat him. After all, that label could be applied to the president himself; it didn’t seem to impact his electability in 2016.

But life is never that straight-forward. Nothing is that predictable.

WHILE THERE MAY be some people who are ready to cast their ballot right now (and probably think it appalling they have to wait some two-and-a-half months to do so), there also are a significant share who are undecided. And don’t want to be bothered with having to think about it until just before Election Day.

BISS: Could he beat Pritzker in primary?

The fact is that Rauner is not going to go down without a fight – and he has the experience of having done this once before. His will be a campaign that will not lack the necessities, and he has the focus of knowing that some people will be willing to vote for him out of a sense of practicality – the same way they may have voted against Democrats/for Trump two years ago.

My own thought is that political candidates can go on the attack all they want; but in the end, they have to give voters a reason to want to cast a ballot for themselves.

Thus far, the reason to vote for J.B. or any Democrat is that they’re not Rauner. There may be plenty of time, but until they come up with a solid reason to be worthy of our votes, we can’t totally count out “four more years” of Bruce for Guv.

  -30-