The IL GOP Choice
Gov. Rauner and Rep. Ives squared off in what may be the only face to face meeting between the two. Rep. Ives took the chance to jump at Rauner, attacking him at every possible opportunity. She would interrupt often, going after Rauner's "betrayals" and lamenting that if she is not the nominee, Democrats will win in 2018. Ives arguments are essentially three main points.
- Rauner has lost the base.
- She has the ability to gain support from Democrats.
- Once people here her message, they will come out. Because as mentioned earlier, people aren't buying what Rauner and Democrats are selling.
As to point 1, Rauner still maintains a comfortable lead in polling. Clearly Ives is counting on the 30% of hard right conservatives to carry the day. Granted there is still time, and she ever so interestingly waited till after the debate to disclose her $500,000 donation from Dick Uihlein. Last year, Uihlein drew attention for being the "chief financier" of a leading pro-Roy Moore super PAC before the Alabama Senate election. He's been quiet since then. But now Ives has raised almost 1/4 the money 4th place Democrat Party candidate Chris Kennedy has. But back to the debate.
The link above goes to the discussion about the TRUST Act and the so called "sanctuary state" status. Here Ives stated that she was concerned with the Justice Department's recent inquiry, stating "I believe we should comply with federal law." When pressed, she said "My states attorney said it violates the spirit of cooperation between state, local and federal law enforcement." She finished with "This law makes us less safe." Considering that a federal judge ruled that administrative detainers violated federal law, Ives pressing to repeal said act would put her in defiance of said federal law. This I feel is the prime example of the mental gymnastics Ives plays. And just so you know, the lawyers are taking that McHenry county sheriff case to federal court, where they will likely win.
Ives has the "bold strategy" of playing the victim of a mean RINO Governor who betrayed the GOP, stating, "and then he doubled down on just ridiculing you if you were a social conservative.” I didn't realize Rep. Ives would join the social justice warrior victim hood club. Considering how much he helped pro-life candidates in the last election cycle, Ives' sob story will fall on deaf ears.
Of course, she again shows she is trying to make " Mark Kirk’ed" happen. To be clear:
Kirk still managed to get 75% conservatives to vote for him. However, that 11% drop from moderates did not help. Nor did that surge over votes from Cook County that wasn't there in 2010. As I wrote in my previous post, the idea that Mark Kirk lost because he wasn't conservative enough does not meet reality. However, Rep. Ives doesn't need to. Where she lives everyone agrees with her (at least in terms of a safe R district.)
In terms of "winning" the debate, there is a habit of usually deciding that the candidate that you support usually won. Resident old grump and cheap Mike Royko knockoff John Kass wrote, "he won’t debate her again, because she crushed it and she crushed him and it wasn’t pretty." Kass of course went on the repeat all the incorrect things I just mentioned, because apparently Ives not yelling "gays should burn" means she won.
This is the sentiment that Eric Zorn had as well. "She was forceful and non-wacky." I'm glad the so called "policy wonk" was non-wacky. What a high bar to jump. I guess Ives being rude and talking about the three things she knows while being angry made her an excellent debater. However, if Rauner went after her like I would have, she'd cry foul and try to make him look like he was harassing her because she's a woman.
The most fair recap of the debate I believe came from a comment on the Capitolfax website:
No knock it our blow from Ives. No unforced error by Rauner. She needed a game changer and it didn’t happen. Rauner needed to play conservative and avoid mistakes. They both did what they set out to do. But failing to create a moment that will be seen by many, means status quo remains in tact. Rauner wins unless something major changes.
With her recent big donation, maybe she can squeeze in a commercial or so. At the end of the day, Rauner still has the best chance to win. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either blinded with rage or lacks regard for political reality (which is essentially Illinois Review in a nutshell).
Ives and her supporters seem to have a kamikaze mindset. They would rather lose to a Democrat than not have Ives as the nominee. It's sad and churlish to think grown adults (and so called fiscal conservatives) that would rather believe lies and live in the super-minority than maybe vote for someone who checks 8/10 boxes.
My open challenge to debate Ives (or even an Ives supporter) still stands. After this debate, I'm convinced as ever than Ives is running to promote Ives, and would happily burn down the party to prove a point. Must be nice. The rest of the adults will try to focus on the task ahead.