Democrats have spent $35 million trying to get a far-right extremist nominated for Illinois governor

[Professor Emeritus]

Bailey rose to prominence in Illinois politics by introducing legislation to kick Chicago out of the state. When the coronavirus pandemic began, he was removed from a state legislative session for refusing to wear a mask, and he sued Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, over statewide virus-mitigation efforts. Painted on the door of his campaign bus is the Bible verse Ephesians 6:10-19, which calls for followers to wear God’s armor in a battle against “evil rulers.”

He is the favored candidate of the state’s anti-abortion groups, and Friday he celebrated the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade as a “historic and welcomed moment.” He has said he opposes the practice, including in cases of rape and incest.

Bailey has upended carefully laid $50 million plans by Illinois Republican leaders to nominate Aurora Mayor Richard Irvin, a moderate suburbanite with an inspiring personal story who they believed could win back the governor’s mansion in Springfield in what is widely forecast to be a winning year for Republicans.

Bailey has been aided by an unprecedented intervention from Pritzker and the Pritzker-funded Democratic Governors Association, which have spent nearly $35 million combined attacking Irvin while trying to lift Bailey. No candidate for any office is believed to have ever spent more to meddle in another party’s primary.

The Illinois governor’s race is now on track to become the most expensive campaign for a nonpresidential office in American history.

Public and private polling before Tuesday’s primary shows Bailey with a lead of 15 percentage points over Irvin and four other candidates.

MAGA Voters Send a $50 Million GOP Plan Off the Rails in Illinois

LINCOLN, Ill. — Darren Bailey, the front-runner in the Republican primary for governor of Illinois, was finishing his stump speech last week at a senior center in this Central Illinois town when a voice called out: “Can we pray for you?” Bailey readily agreed. The speaker, a youth mentor from...

www.yahoo.com

I understand the sentiment but the unintended consequences of this are fukked up. You're spending $35 million to prop up a far-right agenda. Even if you succeed, you've spent all that money promoting extremist positions and gassing up a bunch of extremist voters. Imagine the good that could be done with that money. Why not spend $35 million on voter turnout in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin? Or spend $35 million actually addressing real problems instead of dumping it into political races?

And worst-case scenario, you have a Trump 2016 situation on your hands and the candidate you most wanted to face ends up being your nightmare.

 

[Pressure]

If voters vote for the far right extremist that's what they want.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If voters vote for the far right extremist that's what they want.

So....maybe Democrats in power should spend that $35 million on something that actually benefits their constituents, rather than throwing it away just to give lip service to far-right positions?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The guy sues Pritzker and Pritzker puts forward 35 million to help him win the primary

Wattba

 

[88m3]

 

[hashmander]

so a rich Democrat uses his own money to help his re-election chances.

 

[Pressure]

So....maybe Democrats in power should spend that $35 million on something that actually benefits their constituents, rather than throwing it away just to give lip service to far-right positions?

They don't appear to be strapped for cash. And they're helping fund the Abrams campaign just like they did in 2018.

I have no issue with them spending money to amplify the very real threat of far right extremism.

They're running the same game plan as Republicans electorally. Amplify a threat and run against it.

 

[Pressure]

so a rich Democrat uses his own money to help his re-election chances.

Dudes worth over 3 billion. Him spending 36 million on it is his prerogative.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

They don't appear to be strapped for cash.

Many of his constituents sure are.

Dudes worth over 3 billion. Him spending 36 million on it is his prerogative.

I know that for people who cape for rich establishment dems 24/7 it might seem like everyone's rich and the ultra-wealthy earn every cent they get, but some of us think that a lot of Pritzker's money was earned on the back of his poorer constituents and just maybe there are better things to do with it than pay campaign vultures to make far-right messages even more popular than they already are.

Pritzker is one of 11 billionaires in his family. And it takes very little research to see that his money management strategy is a web of tax dodges and self-serving schemes. Forbes 400 scores him a 3 out of 10 in terms of how self-made his fortune was. His philanthropic giving is also a 3, though even that much is debatable as several good-governance groups have pointed out that he basically gives as part of his tax dodges, so he's not so much giving his own money as giving "found money" that should have been taxes given to the government. And, of course, the biggest recipients of his giving are other rich folk, like his "give $100m to a law schools so they'll name the buildings after me".

I have no issue with them spending money to amplify the very real threat of far right extremism.

Amplifying threats in order to pursue your own cynical objectives is pretty sick. If you think it's a threat, why make it worse? Remember how happy the Clinton campaign was to see Trump get the nomination? We all know how that turned out. And even if the right-winger doesn't win, do you really think such cynical bullshyt is going to be immune from consequences outside of your own election? What if you help put a rocket in someone's back that then proceeds to influence their own congressional district or even out-of-state races?

 

[Pressure]

Cool so your issue is merely that the incumbent governor is a billionaire.

Glad we got that out of the way.

As far as the Clinton Trump comparison, you convinced me her issue was not campaigning. I don't see the parallel. Or are you changing your stance?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

so a rich Democrat uses his own money to help his re-election chances.

First off, he's just one contributor to the Democratic Governor's Association, so it's not just his money. He's using some of his own money but the DGA is funding the far-right Republican support as well.

And we're not going to discuss the potential harmful consequences of using tens of millions of dollars to push far-right narratives just to help your own reelection chances?


The candidate he's trying to destroy in the primaries is a moderate Black Republican mayor, while the candidate he's supporting is a far-right rural White legislator. In order to try to hurt Irvin (the black mayor), they trying to portray him as not sufficiently pro-Trump, not sufficiently pro-life, and not sufficiently "pure" because he's supported Democrats in the past. Besides the moral issues with that, do you not see the practical shortcomings of spending tens of millions in ads with the goal of making politicians more resolutely pro-Trump, more resolutely pro-life, and less likely to ever back or collaborate with Democrats? It's literally an attempt to make the country worse just so you can have that much more a sure thing of winning one election for a billionaire (one that was likely anyway regardless of opponent).

 

[Professor Emeritus]

They're running the same game plan as Republicans electorally. Amplify a threat and run against it.

Also, I'm not a fan of "copy the shyttiest things the Republicans do" as a campaign strategy.

Irvin, the moderate candidate Pritzker is attacking, is Black. Bailey, the extremist candidate Pritzker is supporting, is White. If Pritzker started playing on anti-black feelings among certain Illinois Republicans and started running ads that amplified anti-Black sentiment, would that be okay too? Or is that one particular far-right sentiment that shouldn't be promoted, but all the rest are just fine?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

As far as the Clinton Trump comparison, you convinced me her issue was not campaigning. I don't see the parallel. Or are you changing your stance?

This deflection makes no sense. Clinton's failure to campaign effectively in critical battleground states was one (of many) reasons that she lost. I've also pointed out that her lack of appeal to important demographics (black, young, liberal, rust belt), her self-inflicted scandals, the shytty manner in which the DNC treated the Sanders campaign during the primaries, the rise of social media influence, and Russian interference in the election all played a part.

But none of that has anything to do with the fact that her campaign's desire to see Trump with the Republican nomination was ultimately a terrible call. I'm not saying that's why she lost (perhaps she would have lost even worse to other candidates). But it made her loss that much more disastrous for the country.

In a similar way, Pritzker's elevation of a far-right extremist candidate may or may not make him more likely to win. But just like the Clinton campaign, it's quite possible that it will have negative effects far beyond the horse race. Are you really not even going to consider that promoting shytty ideologies might backfire?

 

[Pressure]

Took a moment to look at numbers published in May and found this tidbit which largely supports what @hashmander said:

Incumbent Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker comes from a family of billionaires — Forbes pegs his net worth as $3.6 billion — and he gave his own campaign a $90 million check earlier this year.

Further it also suggests the majority of DGA money is merely being spent on attacking Irvin (obviously for Bailey's gain)

The Democratic Governors Association, which has been largely attacking Irvin, spent $6.5 million.

All in all it looks like so much money is being spent because a bunch of billionaires on both sides are dropping over 130 million into the race.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

This deflection makes no sense. Clinton's failure to campaign effectively in critical battleground states was one (of many) reasons that she lost. I've also pointed out that her lack of appeal to important demographics (black, young, liberal, rust belt), her self-inflicted scandals, the shytty manner in which the DNC treated the Sanders campaign during the primaries, the rise of social media influence, and Russian interference in the election all played a part.

But none of that has anything to do with the fact that her campaign's desire to see Trump with the Republican nomination was ultimately a terrible call. I'm not saying that's why she lost (perhaps she would have lost even worse to other candidates). But it made her loss that much more disastrous for the country.

In a similar way, Pritzker's elevation of a far-right extremist candidate may or may not make him more likely to win. But just like the Clinton campaign, it's quite possible that it will have negative effects far beyond the horse race. Are you really not even going to consider that promoting shytty ideologies might backfire?

I agree with your takes on this

Its a nasty and risky play by Pritzker but such is politics. Theres no hope for it to be found. Its all a game. In a just world the incumbent would hope for the best possible candidate to win the opposing primary so in the event they lost the election, the state or country would be in reasonably good hands. Instead its cutthroat machiavellian chicanery from all involved with tax payers being played as pawns in a battle for which stooge can abuse power for their own vested interests