So Bill Brady's now officially the Republican candidate for Governor of Illinois.
I see a lot of parallels between Brady's surprising victory and that of Creigh Deeds in the Democratic primary for Governor of Virginia last year. They both started out well behind in the polls and in the conventional wisdom of who the top candidates were, and they both rose to the nomination while the front runners in their respective races destroyed each other. Both instances are shining examples of the perils of going negative in a multi candidate primary- you never know who you're benefiting.
Deeds ended up being a first class dud in the general election, and early indications are that Brady might be as well. Even though we found Pat Quinn with only a 25% approval rating the last time we surveyed Illinois, the first two polls pitting him against Brady post-primary have shown him with an 11-15 point lead. And he's drawing negative attention already for making attacks against Quinn that he can't back up with facts.
In January we had Quinn down 6-7 points to Jim Ryan and Andy McKenna. This is one race where a crowded, divisive Republican primary has worked to the Democrats' benefit and the party can only hope there's more where that came from.
Deeds was no "first-class dud" in 2005 when he came within a percent of beating McDonnell for Attorney General. So why was Deeds ONLY a "first-class dud" when he ran against McDonnell again for governor? Could it be that Deeds was a "first-class dud" because he defended Obama and the Democrats' agenda of health care "reform" and "stimulus" spending and "cap and trade"? Could it be that having Obama campaign for Deeds (after introducing such a radical agenda in the midst of a recession) was the kiss of death for Deeds? Could it be that being the party of Obama will be the Kiss of Death for numerous Democrat candidates? And being the "party of NO" will be a badge of honor for Republican candidates. Americans are saying NO to Obama's agenda. Why would they not support those who are saying NO along with them?
ReplyDelete"the (Democrat) party can only hope there's more where that came from."
ReplyDeleteHoping for a divided opposition is the last hope of a radical and unpopular Democrat party.
The one poll was a DailyKos poll showing
ReplyDelete43% Giannoulias, 36% Kirk
46% Quinn, 35% Dillard
47% Quinn, 32% Brady
As you are aware, the DailyKos polls are strongly biased toward Democrats and inconsistent with most other public polling.
I'm not familiar with the second poll?
In any case, even the biased poll shows Quinn under 50% and extremely vulnerable, completely at odds with the situation in Virginia.
I think that the Scott Brown win in MA was also in a big part because with time people don't like one-party rule of a state (Wyoming D Gov, MA R Sen) and couple with corruption in D IL and good R wind and very unpopular D Gov, Brady might win, give him some time to introduce himself to ILers.
ReplyDeleteI think that because there are still many months to November and Quinn's approval is going down, not up, coupled with that now Republicans have a candidate to harp on it at every opportunity and when more things that happen will happen, Brady might win.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, we know that Deeds was not the reason the Democrats lost the governor's race because Democrats lost the Lt. Governor's race and the Attorney General's race by nearly identical margins.
ReplyDeleteDeeds was no "first class dud". The Democratic party label was a "first class dud" that doomed the chances of anyone who would run with that party label statewide.
Rasmussen has Brady leading Quinn by 10, 47-37.
ReplyDeleteExplain again how Brady challenging an extremely unpopular incumbent Governor is the same as Deeds challenging a popular incumbent Attorney General?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/illinois/toplines/toplines_2010_illinois_governor_march_8_2010