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

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,691
Daps
203,913
Reppin
the ether
Further it also suggests the majority of DGA money is merely being spent on attacking Irvin (obviously for Bailey's gain)


You're saying "merely being spent on attacking Irvin", but they're attacking him for not being extremist enough. The main lines of attack appear to be that Irvin has supported Dems in the past, that he won't say that he voted for Trump or commit to supporting Trump in the future, and that he's not extremist enough on abortion or other hard-right Republican issues.

Are you really going to argue that spending millions of dollars pushing Republicans further to the right is the best way Democrats can think of to use the money donated to them?
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,985
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
You're saying "merely being spent on attacking Irvin", but they're attacking him for not being extremist enough. The main lines of attack appear to be that Irvin has supported Dems in the past, that he won't say that he voted for Trump or commit to supporting Trump in the future, and that he's not extremist enough on abortion or other hard-right Republican issues.

Are you really going to argue that spending millions of dollars pushing Republicans further to the right is the best way Democrats can think of to use the money donated to them?

It actually probably is the best way they can think of using the money because they prefer to scare their voters and run against villainous characters rather than make nuanced policy arguments with the assumption being that the average voter is too stupid or lacks the attention span to follow a detailed platform and make an informed decision
 

Rice N Beans

Junior Hayley Stan
Supporter
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
11,035
Reputation
1,615
Daps
22,845
Reppin
Chicago, IL
I'd rather they not spend money propping up lunatics. :yeshrug: We know Repub. voters will happily vote in lunacy. For the rare thinkers, this might sway some votes left, but I don't think it would be enough effect. Maybe there's more to it with some data, but I wouldn't know.

On the topic of Pritzker, he's done very well for a newbie in politics. His non-participation helped to bush Madigan, budget is on track for a surplus, and handled COVID relatively well. I hope he wins re-election, but downstate is quite the pair of cement shoes for progress in society. I expect it to be close, just because.
 

mastermind

Rest In Power Kobe
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
63,247
Reputation
6,207
Daps
167,596
It actually probably is the best way they can think of using the money because they prefer to scare their voters and run against villainous characters rather than make nuanced policy arguments with the assumption being that the average voter is too stupid or lacks the attention span to follow a detailed platform and make an informed decision
It sounds like what the GOP does with their fear mongering because they have no platform. :patrice:

It’s funny tho because this doesn’t work for Dem voters.
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,985
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
It sounds like what the GOP does with their fear mongering because they have no platform. :patrice:

It’s funny tho because this doesn’t work for Dem voters.

The right wing media does a majority of the heavy lifting there for them. All they have to say is that they love jesus guns and low taxes and their voters show up

Its just wrong on principle to devote funds to propagating opinions that you find dangerous to society and this is what Pritzker is doing here
 

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
19,269
Reputation
4,635
Daps
82,353
Reppin
The Arsenal
It actually probably is the best way they can think of using the money because they prefer to scare their voters and run against villainous characters rather than make nuanced policy arguments with the assumption being that the average voter is too stupid or lacks the attention span to follow a detailed platform and make an informed decision
would anyone be wrong to have that belief?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,691
Daps
203,913
Reppin
the ether
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


And "abuse power for own vested interests" is certainly a big part of the story here.



"In April 2019, it was revealed Pritzker and his wife, M.K., were under federal investigation for the tax breaks. M.K. Pritzker had directed workers to remove the toilets from the home during renovations so the mansion would be deemed uninhabitable, resulting in a property tax break. After an inspection was complete, she had them reinstall one toilet in J.B.’s 'hangout/meeting area.' J.B. Pritzker said he would pay the taxes when the tax dodge was revealed during his campaign for governor, but that has not cooled the interest of investigators. A 2018 Cook County Inspector General report called Pritzker’s actions a “scheme to defraud.”





"The contractor who helped save Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker $331,000 in property taxes by removing toilets from a mansion was awarded nearly $9 million in a contract to convert an old Chicago-area hospital for use in the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. Department of Defense records show Bulley & Andrews was award nearly $9 million through a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to convert the old Westlake Hospital in Melrose Park into a COVID-19 care facility. The Corps last worked with the firm in 1944."




"The blind trust set up to manage Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s vast wealth bought stock in one of the state’s biggest Medicaid contractors in 2020, the same year his administration made several decisions that benefited the company’s bottom line. The purchase of stock in health insurance giant Centene Corp. was made on behalf of the billionaire governor by trustees at Northern Trust, appointed by Pritzker to independently manage his portfolio to separate those investment decisions from his role as the state’s most powerful elected official. The investment in Centene — which collected more than $2.6 billion from state Medicaid contracts in the first half of 2021 alone — demonstrates the pitfalls of a blind-trust arrangement that still leaves the nation’s richest governor open to potential conflicts of interest."

A BGA review of public records shows the purchase of Centene stock could have been made any time between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2020. While the blind trust is designed to guard Pritzker from knowing when the investment in Centene was made, actions taken by his administration nevertheless benefitted the big health care company. Starting in 2019 and continuing into 2020, Centene faced antitrust concerns during its $17 billion acquisition of Medicaid insurer Wellcare. The Pritzker administration helped Centene overcome federal antitrust scrutiny by reassigning thousands of Centene patients into other plans. The state of Illinois also oversaw Centene’s June 2020 acquisition of state Medicaid contractor NextLevelHealth Partners. The transfer gave Centene a toehold in the lucrative Cook County Medicaid market. And in September 2020, the state enrolled 36,000 juvenile state wards to a Centene subsidiary named YouthCare amid concerns from foster parents and child welfare advocates about Centene’s performance.




"The Pritzker administration is targeting a decree the state entered into in 1972 to combat patronage hiring, but Republicans said it should be expanded, not vacated. A filing the Illinois Attorney General made on behalf of Gov. J.B. Pritzker last month seeks to vacate a decree from 1972 about questionable hiring practices in Illinois State Government."




"Gov. JB Pritzker on Monday staunchly defended the politically-connected head of the state agency that regulates the scandal-scarred Commonwealth Edison power company and other public utilities. Pritzker's appointee as chairwoman of the Illinois Commerce Commission is Carrie Zalewski — whose father-in-law, former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski — profited from the broad and long-running bribery scheme ComEd has admitted to perpetrating in Illinois politics. According to federal court records unsealed Friday, the giant electric company acknowledged steering consulting contracts to allies of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, in exchange for favorable government action in Springfield."




"An investigation into Illinois’ largest-ever capital projects bill found nearly $4 billion in discretionary funds set aside for politicians’ pork projects, including $2 billion for Gov. J.B. Pritzker to spend as he saw fit – including on needs he saw driving around during his campaign."




"A new federal lawsuit accuses a “cartel” of influential large companies, including a company associated with the family of Gov. JB Pritzker, of exploiting political connections to improperly dominate Illinois’ marijuana marketplace."




"In Governor Pritzker’s State of the State address last year, he committed to fighting for a series of meaningful ethics reforms to address our endless corruption scandals and begin rebuilding Illinoisans’ shattered trust in their state government. The ethics bill the legislature passed last week falls short of every one of those promises."

 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,985
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
would anyone be wrong to have that belief?

its one thing to have that belief and appeal to your own voters with shiny things and its another to have that belief and help push an extremist opponent advance their message and gain traction for electoral purposes

that person gaining support means the ideas gain support and they dont just go away because they lose an election
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,985
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
And "abuse power for own vested interests" is certainly a big part of the story here.



"In April 2019, it was revealed Pritzker and his wife, M.K., were under federal investigation for the tax breaks. M.K. Pritzker had directed workers to remove the toilets from the home during renovations so the mansion would be deemed uninhabitable, resulting in a property tax break. After an inspection was complete, she had them reinstall one toilet in J.B.’s 'hangout/meeting area.' J.B. Pritzker said he would pay the taxes when the tax dodge was revealed during his campaign for governor, but that has not cooled the interest of investigators. A 2018 Cook County Inspector General report called Pritzker’s actions a “scheme to defraud.”





"The contractor who helped save Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker $331,000 in property taxes by removing toilets from a mansion was awarded nearly $9 million in a contract to convert an old Chicago-area hospital for use in the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. Department of Defense records show Bulley & Andrews was award nearly $9 million through a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract to convert the old Westlake Hospital in Melrose Park into a COVID-19 care facility. The Corps last worked with the firm in 1944."




"The Pritzker administration is targeting a decree the state entered into in 1972 to combat patronage hiring, but Republicans said it should be expanded, not vacated. A filing the Illinois Attorney General made on behalf of Gov. J.B. Pritzker last month seeks to vacate a decree from 1972 about questionable hiring practices in Illinois State Government."




"An investigation into Illinois’ largest-ever capital projects bill found nearly $4 billion in discretionary funds set aside for politicians’ pork projects, including $2 billion for Gov. J.B. Pritzker to spend as he saw fit – including on needs he saw driving around during his campaign."




"A new federal lawsuit accuses a “cartel” of influential large companies, including a company associated with the family of Gov. JB Pritzker, of exploiting political connections to improperly dominate Illinois’ marijuana marketplace."




"In a recent court filing, Governor Pritzker is seeking to vacate a set of court decrees that seek to prevent politically motivated hiring, as well as politically motivated firings or other punishments against public employees known as the Shakman decrees. "





"The political fallout for J.B. Pritzker may not be known for weeks, but it raises the issue about the importance of the African American vote for Democrats in the upcoming primary. Pritzker caused quite a stir among African American voters when they heard secret FBI wiretap recordings of phone calls with Rod Blagojevich, in which he disparaged two powerful and popular African American politicians, Emil Jones and Jesse White. The two came up when Pritzker and Blagojevich were talking about who should be appointed to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat."




"The blind trust set up to manage Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s vast wealth bought stock in one of the state’s biggest Medicaid contractors in 2020, the same year his administration made several decisions that benefited the company’s bottom line. The purchase of stock in health insurance giant Centene Corp. was made on behalf of the billionaire governor by trustees at Northern Trust, appointed by Pritzker to independently manage his portfolio to separate those investment decisions from his role as the state’s most powerful elected official. The investment in Centene — which collected more than $2.6 billion from state Medicaid contracts in the first half of 2021 alone — demonstrates the pitfalls of a blind-trust arrangement that still leaves the nation’s richest governor open to potential conflicts of interest."

A BGA review of public records shows the purchase of Centene stock could have been made any time between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2020. While the blind trust is designed to guard Pritzker from knowing when the investment in Centene was made, actions taken by his administration nevertheless benefitted the big health care company. Starting in 2019 and continuing into 2020, Centene faced antitrust concerns during its $17 billion acquisition of Medicaid insurer Wellcare. The Pritzker administration helped Centene overcome federal antitrust scrutiny by reassigning thousands of Centene patients into other plans. The state of Illinois also oversaw Centene’s June 2020 acquisition of state Medicaid contractor NextLevelHealth Partners. The transfer gave Centene a toehold in the lucrative Cook County Medicaid market. And in September 2020, the state enrolled 36,000 juvenile state wards to a Centene subsidiary named YouthCare amid concerns from foster parents and child welfare advocates about Centene’s performance.




"Gov. JB Pritzker on Monday staunchly defended the politically-connected head of the state agency that regulates the scandal-scarred Commonwealth Edison power company and other public utilities. Pritzker's appointee as chairwoman of the Illinois Commerce Commission is Carrie Zalewski — whose father-in-law, former 23rd Ward Ald. Michael Zalewski — profited from the broad and long-running bribery scheme ComEd has admitted to perpetrating in Illinois politics. According to federal court records unsealed Friday, the giant electric company acknowledged steering consulting contracts to allies of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, in exchange for favorable government action in Springfield."




"In Governor Pritzker’s State of the State address last year, he committed to fighting for a series of meaningful ethics reforms to address our endless corruption scandals and begin rebuilding Illinoisans’ shattered trust in their state government. The ethics bill the legislature passed last week falls short of every one of those promises."


Governor John Rowland went to prison for somewhat similar antics in my state. This is not unfamiliar to me

In the plea agreement, Mr. Rowland admitted to defrauding the Internal Revenue Service by failing to report gratuities, and to defrauding the people of Connecticut by failing to live up to his legal obligation to provide honest service.
Mr. Rowland is scheduled to be sentenced on March 11. While the charge against him carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a spokesman for prosecutors said, the plea agreement stipulated that under federal guidelines the sentence should be between 15 and 21 months.

Prosecutors said that Mr. Rowland had accepted $107,000 worth of free vacations, construction work on his cottage and other favors, and should have paid about $35,000 in taxes on the gifts.

They also accused Mr. Rowland of conspiring with his former chief of staff, Peter N. Ellef, and a prominent Connecticut contractor, William A. Tomasso, to steer state business to Mr. Tomasso's companies. According to the prosecutors, Mr. Ellef used his inside knowledge to tip Mr. Tomasso off to opportunities for state contracts, and worked to steer business to him in return for "things of value."
 

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
52,245
Reputation
19,140
Daps
284,800
I'm not following the logic of claiming this influences republican behavior. They're full on MAGA, they're going to vote for this guy no matter what and are quite energized. The problem of course for them is that it's Illinois, so he's gonna get blown out in a general election. I can see the sense in avoiding a more moderate republican candidate who could potentially win over moderate voters on an anti-crime platform, with inflation mixed in.

The DGA raised nearly 80mil in the first quarter of this year. They're swimming in cash, and the article states that 35mil is not just their funds but also Pritzker's own funds. I'd love to know how much of that 35mil comes from the DGA.



I was talking to someone yesterday who argued the Roe ruling would likely have limited impact on house races, where democrats are almost certainly doomed...but would have an impact on governor races. I thought it was interesting because at this point, a state's governor (and Sec of State) are largely what determines whether a woman can have an abortion or not. A blue state going red would result in that right being lost, making those races paramount. WI, PA, IL, etc. I don't think it's a stretch to say democrats will hold Illinois. But Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are tougher races while also having major implications for 2024's presidential race. If democrats spend a bunch of money slamming the extremism of their opponents in those states, while highlighting the fact that abortion rights will be taken away if a republican wins...seems like a good idea to me.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,691
Daps
203,913
Reppin
the ether
I'm not following the logic of claiming this influences republican behavior.

Everything I've ever read and learned in psychology suggests that $35 million in media and pushing more extremist persons into more prominent positions will have some impact on behavior.

Even if neither Bailey nor Irvin wins the general election, Irvin being the nominee over Bailey would give him a greater degree of power in the party going forward. It increases his prominence, increases his influence, increases the # of people who start stanning him. And the #1 factor that leads to changes in political positions is mimicry of heroes - people slowly take on the positions of the people they stan. This, obviously, is a part of the reason why the Republican electorate became more extremist after Trump gained power. So it goes against any reasonable analysis to assume that pushing more extremist politicians into more prominent positions won't have an impact downstream.
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,985
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
Everything I've ever read and learned in psychology suggests that $35 million in media and pushing more extremist persons into more prominent positions will have some impact on behavior.

Even if neither Bailey nor Irvin wins the general election, Irvin being the nominee over Bailey would give him a greater degree of power in the party going forward. It increases his prominence, increases his influence, increases the # of people who start stanning him. And the #1 factor that leads to changes in political positions is mimicry of heroes - people slowly take on the positions of the people they stan. This, obviously, is a part of the reason why the Republican electorate became more extremist after Trump gained power. So it goes against any reasonable analysis to assume that pushing more extremist politicians into more prominent positions won't have an impact downstream.

Not to mention that the GOP embraces these voters whereas the Democrats try to hide and stifle their most enthusiastic would be voters [progressives]
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,691
Daps
203,913
Reppin
the ether
Not to mention that the GOP embraces these voters whereas the Democrats try to hide and stifle their most enthusiastic would be voters [progressives]

Damn, that brings up a factor I've never thought of.

I wonder to what degree the Republican habit of pushing their most unapologetic conservatives to prominent positions has helped promote those positions, while the Democratic habit (at least since the 1990s) of marginalizing their most enthusiastic liberals has cast a wet blanket over public support for liberal ideas?

Like I said, psychological research shows that people tend to adopt the positions of those they stan. And Republicans have kept putting up extremist far-right politicians into power. Meanwhile Democrats keep putting mealy-mouthed centrists afraid to push strong positions into those same roles. Has that potentially resulted in less enthusiastic public support for liberal positions than otherwise would have been possible?

I've always thought the Democrats' failure to promote leftists has led to lack of enthusiasm among those who were already leftists and those who would benefit from leftist policies. But it might also have reduced the # of potential leftists full-stop and thus hurt the party doubly.
 

NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
46,328
Reputation
5,864
Daps
93,985
Reppin
Uncertain grounds
Damn, that brings up a factor I've never thought of.

I wonder to what degree the Republican habit of pushing their most unapologetic conservatives to prominent positions has helped promote those positions, while the Democratic habit (at least since the 1990s) of marginalizing their most enthusiastic liberals has cast a wet blanket over public support for liberal ideas?

Like I said, psychological research shows that people tend to adopt the positions of those they stan. And Republicans have kept putting up extremist far-right politicians into power. Meanwhile Democrats keep putting mealy-mouthed centrists afraid to push strong positions into those same roles. Has that potentially resulted in less enthusiastic public support for liberal positions than otherwise would have been possible?

I've always thought the Democrats' failure to promote leftists has led to lack of enthusiasm among those who were already leftists and those who would benefit from leftist policies. But it might also have reduced the # of potential leftists full-stop and thus hurt the party doubly.

Precisely
 

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
52,245
Reputation
19,140
Daps
284,800
Everything I've ever read and learned in psychology suggests that $35 million in media and pushing more extremist persons into more prominent positions will have some impact on behavior.

Even if neither Bailey nor Irvin wins the general election, Irvin being the nominee over Bailey would give him a greater degree of power in the party going forward. It increases his prominence, increases his influence, increases the # of people who start stanning him. And the #1 factor that leads to changes in political positions is mimicry of heroes - people slowly take on the positions of the people they stan. This, obviously, is a part of the reason why the Republican electorate became more extremist after Trump gained power. So it goes against any reasonable analysis to assume that pushing more extremist politicians into more prominent positions won't have an impact downstream.

I'd argue that the endless free promotion Bailey will inevitably receive from Fox News will give him a far larger platform on a much larger scale than targeted "this guy is crazy" ads playing in the suburbs and metro areas of Chicago. Now I could agree with you in the sense that spending so much during the primary season seems like a potential waste. Seems to make more sense to nuke him the minute he gets the nomination right? Speaking of which, I assume you agree ads should run highlighting this man's positions while contrasting them with Pritzker's record/views/etc right? Part of campaigning is defining and attacking your opponent. And if you're running against a right wing extremist in a blue state, why wouldn't you nuke him on that? Basically I feel like the cost and timing of this is a bigger (potential) problem than frankly examining the extremism of a candidate in television ads. I definitely think every democrat TV ad this summer and fall should pound on Roe v Wade, Rick Scott's social security/Medicaid plans, etc.

BTW looking at some of the ads on youtube...most of the Pritzker ones I see aren't even bad. Seems pretty standard shyt.


This one that Irvin is running seems like the most interesting attack on Bailey:
 
Top