1. - Kane Conservative - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:02 am:

   Why is it that every poll you see has sort of similar numbers, except the Dillard polls? In anything he releases he is always way out front. (I am really asking, since I am not particularly skilled at understanding polling). It seems the race is Ryan’s to lose. I do think its interesting that 27% is in the Moderate/Liberal/Very Liberal categories–that has to play into Schillerstrom’s hands since the others in the race are pretty darn conservative. It’s days like this I wish Matt Murphy hadn’t taken a back seat to McKenna!




2. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:07 am:

   Hilarious!
   Another Ryan?
   Please! Stop!




3. - Anon III - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:09 am:

   Political corruption is a “top issue” with only 3% of a self-described 72% conservative sample, but those same responders support a fundamental — and some might say, populist — change in the structure of the legislature by 59%. This seems contradictory.




4. - Gordon Shumway - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:09 am:

   Well at least Schillerstrom has Proft in this one.




5. - Deep South - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:10 am:

   The poll shows what every one of these guys/gals, GOP/DEM needs to know….”its the economy stupid.” It has to be job one…but there are those who simply won’t get it. Watch and see.




6. - Will County Woman - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:12 am:

   Yikes!




7. - Ray del Camino - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:13 am:

   The wording on that reform question is way leading and loaded. I wouldn’t put too much stock in the numbers. If I am Andrzejewski, I release this internal polling because 1) it shows me #2 in a crowded field, and 2) it makes everyone else train their guns on Ryan. It is not because I want to enlighten the world.




8. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:13 am:

   I am notoriously cheap, but I am ALMOST willing to bet 100 USD that that amendment, if its on the ballot fails, and miserably so.

   But it would be SOOOOO much fun to see Gov. Quinn take questions on it.




9. - Nobama Jackson - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:14 am:

   So much for the “Dillard bounce.” a dead cat looks like a superball compared to him.




10. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:15 am:

    The “interesting and leading question” is the language of the ballot question as it will appear in November (assuming I get a half million signatures) as an FYI.

    Since I wrote the amendment and petitions, I get to write the question… AG has very limited ability to change based on deception or fairness and I’m quite sure that’ll be another legal fight I’ll have if I can file this thing.




11. - Deep South - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:15 am:

    Hey Pat, so you’re cheap and you’d almost bet 100 USD. So maybe you’d feel pretty good about 50 USD?




12. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:18 am:

    How about you guys save the money and donate to the Putback campaign instead? ;)




13. - Bring Back Boone's - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:20 am:

    I thought that Adam Andrzejewski sold his biz for a bunch of money. Couldnt he be a self-funder?




14. - Bill - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:22 am:

    Anybody willing to spend his own money in this goofy race is too dumb to be governor.




15. - Catonian - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:24 am:

    Yeah, Ray. Because they weren’t going to be gunning for Ryan anyway, right?




16. - On to Victory - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:26 am:

    Way to go Jim Ryan!! You could not ask for a nicer guy to lead Illinois out of being a national joke. He deserves his vindication and opportunity to set things straight.




17. - OneMan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:26 am:

    Why spend your own money when you can raise huge amounts from others and all the fun that lead to with our last governor…




18. - raising Kane - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:31 am:

    These numbers are not actually much different from what I have seen in the past. I am somewhat surprised that Andy McKenna didn’t pick up more with that massive tv buy but the ballot test is often a lagging indicator. The Edgar glow has faded from Dillard and he will have to spend a couple of million to bring back (but at least he does have Edgar in his arsenal). I am surprised Adam is at 11 but I have seen private polls that have him at 8 so it is within the margin of error. Bill is right where he has been and probably won’t have the resources to move the needle much but could close higher if he gets a big downstate boost.

    The question for Adam is how much more of his own money will he invest to move those numbers? 11% to 30% will take at least a couple of million dollars on a really good ad. It is decision time for him.




19. - Ghost - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:33 am:

    I am surprised how well Ryan did; and shocked how poorly Dillard rated.

    I was trying to remember, has Ryan been going to these tea party meetings espousing the extreme right rhetoric we have seen of late from the canidates? If he has not been or has been more toned down on this topicthis could possibly reflect the impact of some of those extreme views with GOP voters themselves.




20. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:35 am:

    I’m not sure Jim Ryan has been much of anywhere. It seemed like his consideration and decision to run was last minute, almost as if it was a response to McKenna jumping in.




21. - KeepSmiling - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:35 am:

    I was one of the 500 polled on this one. Re: the top issues… I’m not surprised that corruption wasn’t higher because this wasn’t asked as a multiple choice question, but as a “what is the top issue for you” type of question. So I, and apparently quite a few others, simply responded “the economy”.




22. - Dirt Digger - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:46 am:

    That putback amendment is pretty amazing and hilarious.

    I think the more interesting question is whether 59% of R primary voters give “total support” to making every legislative district 14.9% African-American.




23. - Amendment - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:47 am:

    I would wholeheartedly support this amendment. Looks like I’m not the only one, which is a relief. The Legislature needs to be cleaned up. Term limits would be a blessing to this State. Too bad it would probably ‘grandfather in’ everyone who’s there now but at least it would prevent people from staying there forever. 100% support from me for the amendment.




24. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:53 am:

    –The Bambenek Put-Back Amendment shall convert the legislature to a unicameral body with three-member districts, establish term limits, reform legislative compensation, decentralize legislative power, establish transparency in the legislative process and other reforms.–

    Will it also whiten teeth and make your breath minty fresh?




25. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:55 am:

    Wordslinger-

    Nope, minty breath isn’t structural and procedural.

    Entire amendment text is at:

    http://www.putbackamendment.com

    All that stuff is in there.




26. - Downstate Commissioner - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:03 pm:

    Don’t understand why the putback amendment is “hilarious”; sounds pretty serious to me. The comment about African-Americans is nothing but offensive.
    Initial reaction is to oppose unicameral body, but it might work. Don’t like term limits in principle, but unfortunately the “throw the crooks out” attitude might carry this at an election. If polled, guess I would have been a “probably support” vote




27. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:12 pm:

    The Jim Ryan Campaign and the Kirk Dillard campaign should take heed to thess poll numbers, but for very different reasons.

    The Ryan team needs to look at the positive number view and shore up two avenues - the certain torpedoing of his legacy in Nicarico, and a poorly run race in the past GOPers remember. The voters will focus on what negatives will stick and it may be hard to change that perception. The GOP “regulars” are going to have to face the “elephant” in the room of a campaign last time, and lets be honest, that was horrible, unfocused, and less than pointed. Again, another hurdle of perception, but may be overcome by running a functional, respected campaign operation. It’s great to be “liked” and be seen as wam and fuzzy, but those two issues - legacy and operations, will be what gets Ryan to the finish line.

    Dillard must look at the perception of being “the Obama bi-partisian” and publically (media-wise) distance himself ahead of the spots that are sure to focus on those ads. Dillards numbers are abysmal and with a lack of a solid positive perception, this Obama-ing of Dillard could be done fairly easy. If the Dillard and Obama stickiness stays, part two will have zero affect.

    Part two?

    Jim Edgar as an actual help to a candidate. Dilard got the endorsement that is the cornerstone of his public service, and yet, Dillard himself must know how short those coattails are, and where others failed to use his former boss as the asset needed for victory. It appears Edgar is Edgar and has not moved any needles for Dillard by the simple announcement, by looking at these very early numbers before anything has happened to energize interest in any part of this race. History, as Dillard is a student of Illinois political history, must be changed as Edgar stumps for Dillard. The campaign trail is littered with likes of a Lolita, Judy, et al., the “Edgar endorsed and approved” candidates. The Edgar quandry on the trail and the “Obama Backer” can be taken from this poll as a snapshot of how Dillard is doing with these two prongs he is facing. Do people involved in thinking about Dillard thinking about the Obama ads? Do they know he is the “Edgar” candidate? Or worse, does anyone care about Dillard?

    Adam’s poll should be taken as seriouls as the 593 polls that wil come out before January, but Dillard and Ryan should realize inside these numbers hide some of their weakness still to be unleashed, and some strenghs yet to be refined.




28. - Lakefront Liberal - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:17 pm:

    “- KeepSmiling - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:35 am: […] I’m not surprised that corruption wasn’t higher because this wasn’t asked as a multiple choice question […]”

    This is my beef with questions that ask what your “top issue” is. Who has only one issue they think about when choosing a candidate? If pressed, yes, you might pick “economy” but this doesn’t mean that there aren’t other issues that you care about enough that they would influence your vote, possibly even more than your “top issue”. For example, I think that the economy is something most affected at the federal level, so even though I might rate “the economy” as my top issue it would probably not be my main deciding factor in choosing a gubantorial candidate.

    If people really wanted to find out what issues voters will base their decision on they should ask people to rate different issues on a scale of 1-5 or whatever, and the question should not be about what issues are most important to them, but what issue will be most important *when choosing a candidate for office X.* Right now my top issue is what I am going to have for lunch, but that will not be a deciding factor in my vote for governor! :-)

    Also, asking people vague questions about whether “the economy” or “health care” are their top issue does not tell you what they think your candidate should potentially DO about these issues. If “the econmy” is your top issue and you think the answer is getting more federal dollars for infrastructure and the candidate thinks the answer is tax cuts on businesses then even though the candidate is talking about “the economy” they are probably not winning your vote.

    And I say this in part based on numerous experiences knocking on doors and asking people to name their “top issue.” It is a miserable question that rarely illicits an informative answer.




29. - Johny Temp - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:22 pm:

    Does anyone really believe these poll results? Not me




30. - Anon - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:23 pm:

    Ludicrous. Adam is getting 11% of the vote statewide when only 33% have ever heard of him? Total nonsense. 55% of the vote coming from Chicagoland is high for this Republican Primary, too.

    And take a look at the issue part… One long narrative about Adam and then “now that you’ve heard more about the candidates…” LOL

    What a joke. Hope he didn’t pay too much for this.




31. - just sayin' - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:28 pm:

    Adam, the self-described outsider, resorting to the typical push poll. Kind of destroys his whole shtick in my view.

    The first part of the poll, before things got too tainted, is interesting however. And I’m actually not surprised. There is a lot of sympathy out there for Jim Ryan. He’s got that tale of personal and family tragedy that could carry him to the nomination, especially if all these candidates keep running snooze campaigns. The King of Snooze Jim Ryan could easily get the nomination in this environment. The Dems of course would crucify him again in the general.




32. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:33 pm:

    Ludicrous. Adam is getting 11% of the vote statewide when only 33% have ever heard of him? Total nonsense.

    Likely, but not necessarily so. It could be that people who have never heard of him are willing to vote for him since they want a REAL outsider.

    only 50

    Lets see if it gets on the ballot :) 500k solid signatures is not a trivial task.




33. - David Ormsby - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:33 pm:

    If my math is correct,actually “None of the above” is a close second at 26%.




34. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:39 pm:

    ===Ludicrous. Adam is getting 11% of the vote statewide when only 33% have ever heard of him? Total nonsense. ===

    Maybe, but he’s been advertising all by himself on the Fox News cable outlet. Lots of Republican viewers. With that fact in hand, it doesn’t seem completely inplausible and is why I didn’t dismiss the result.




35. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:44 pm:

    ===resorting to the typical push poll===

    That’s basic political illiteracy. Every pollster worth his or her salt asks push questions. The reason these push questions are not worth our time is because the pollster didn’t ask about all the candidates.




36. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:44 pm:

    Put ‘em back

    I think the two year residency requirement will get shot down in court. Nice that you give them six months to move after redistricting

    If a seat goes vacant it stays that way until the next GENERAL election? that kind of sucks.

    No bill shall receive its final vote unless it has been public in its final form for seven calendar days, which includes posting of the bill on the General Assembly’s website.

    Nice, but I am sure there will be a way to weasel out of this, just as Pelsoi did on health care.

    ) Each bill must be substantially similar to its condition when introduced. If amendments have significantly altered the nature of the bill, it must be reintroduced as a new bill and meet all of the requirements of a new bill.

    This is a lawyer’s perpetual employment clause.

    Sorry, but I’ll keep my 50, and use it to work against this.




37. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:03 pm:

    When’s the last time we had a seat go vacant for death? How much more likely is that seats are passed on like hereditary land grants?

    In a three-member district, a single vacancy isn’t a crisis that needs a special election to be solved, which coincidently, can’t be conveniently handled in a three-member district election.

    The two-year residency requirements is already present in the existing constitution, I don’t change it. I suppose they could shoot it down, but they’d have to shoot down the existing document too.

    As far 7-day public viewing… they can try to weasel out, I’m sure… but I don’t see how they can do it. Pelosi weaseled out of a standard politician’s promise. They bust the 7-day rule, I’ll go to court and invalidate the law. That’ll keep them in check.

    As far as “substantially similar”, I think for important laws they simply wouldn’t go there with amending and re-amending to run the risk of a suit to slap down the law, they’d just do it right. But “substantially similiar” is also a legal term with a fairly fleshed out meaning in case law. If anyone has questions as to what it means, since I wrote it, I’d be more than happy to give my opinion.

    But that’s not nearly as murky as you say it is, and it’s certainly not that likely people will push it. Especially when the stakes are high.




38. - JonShibleyFan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:16 pm:

    “Each bill must be substantially similar to its condition when introduced. If amendments have significantly altered the nature of the bill, it must be reintroduced as a new bill and meet all of the requirements of a new bill.”

    “Substantially” and “Significantly” are pretty subjective terms for such a specific requirement.

    Pat is right about the lawyers. This is a “choke the legislature” clause in the amendment.

    Your web site notes that legislators vote on legislation without seeing it. But the IL Constitution requires three readings of every bill, plus committee hearings and conference.

    And if you think the process favors lobbyists, brother, wait until you’ve seen term limits.

    But hey, thumbs-up on the very humble naming of the amendment.




39. - John Bambenek - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:24 pm:

    I’ll be the first to say that putting my name on it is a liability. I did it to keep some jacka$$ politician saying it was theirs, choking me out of the process and have the whole thing flounder. Note the two other efforts that haven’t gotten off ground and the stunt Brady pulled. It was a protection mechanism.

    You do know what a shell bill is, don’t you? I mean, are you new here?

    Most legislation is amended onto a shell bill after 5th reading. Like, oh, the state budget. Every year.




40. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:46 pm:

    Hey John, how about you mention the cummulative voting portion of your amendment and explain what it means? Or are you afraid that will turn people off? Is that pretty much the same reason you took down your parttimepundit website, because you’re afraid people won’t vote for Putback if they see the wingnut behind it? If you can pose the question on the ballot as written above you’re the biggest con-man of all.




41. - Easy - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:49 pm:

    you have to appreciate adam alphabet’s commitment to transparency. He’s the only candidate I can think of that would make public poll numbers that have him 20 points down.




42. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:50 pm:

    Agreed, Easy.




43. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:52 pm:

    vacant seats

    Why not hold an election at the next primary or regular municiple election (the one in April)?

    As for the 7 day and “same bill” rule, I am against that since I think it gives the courts too much lee way to knock out laws, like the SC does now on the “related subject” clause.

    I do like term limits though, I should have given you a big atta boy for that though.

    Then we can hear Mike M saying “these people are trying to end my career” just like his counterpart in CA did :)




44. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:53 pm:

    you mention the cummulative voting portion of your amendment and explain what it means?

    You know, we used to have that in IL. From 1870~ 1980…..




45. - votecounter - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:58 pm:

    Adam has also been on Rush Limbugh since july that I have heard, that and Fox news are the reason the people he is targeting know who he is. If he pumps in the right amount of dough he can win. The rest of the field has to determan if they go after Ryan or not. In my view they have to bring Ryans numbers down since all of the support is name recognition on Ryans part.




46. - Small Town Liberal - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 1:58 pm:

    Pat collins - I’m aware, and voters decided to get rid of it. If its such a popular idea now though, why wouldn’t Bambenek mention it as part of the question?




47. - Nobama Jackson - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:35 pm:

    Who’s advising 7% Dillard? All that bluster and 4th place in this field? He needs a new campaign squad




48. - JonShibleyFan - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:50 pm:

    Sure, I know what a shell bill is. Makes research on legislation a pain in the bee-hind at times.

    And I know that you know they serve a purpose that isn’t all the stuff of diabolical moustache-twirling evil geniuses, allowing the legislature some flexibility to deal with restrictive deadlines, among other things.

    Your eponymous amendment has a ton of moving parts; adding legislators, changing the makeup of the legislature, adding term limits, and creating a legal hurdle to passing amendments (a legal hurdle which would almost certainly open the window for any special interest group with money to legally challenge an amended bill).

    In short, it would almost certainly foment gridlock. Maybe that’s what you’re aiming for.




49. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 2:52 pm:

    Adam’s poll numbers are strong.

    But the real story is:

    - 74% of GOP voters are uncommitted.

    - only 23% of GOP voters rate government spending/corruption as their top issue.

    That tells me Republicans are spending way too much time talking about taxes, ethics, Blago/Burris and not enough time talking about jobs.




50. - Pat collins - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:04 pm:

    not enough time talking about jobs.

    Totally agree. It really IS the economy stupid.




51. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:34 pm:

    OMG, Pat Collins agreed with me…I might have to rethink everything.

    No, seriously, it really IS about the economy. And my guess is that the reason 74% of Republicans are undecided and 10% have defaulted to that old stand-by Jim Ryan is that these guys are all spending their time talking about Gitmo and dismissing global warming.

    That said, if Adam follows his own poll’s advice and actually spends his time and money talking about jobs while McKenna, the only other candidate with business credentials, spends his time and money talking about Rod’s hair, then Adam could do very, very well.




52. - LincolnLounger - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 3:39 pm:

    There’s a lot to like about the proposed Put-Back amendment (though not necessarily for its shepherd), but I think the unicameral quotient is too big of a change. What is the thinking there?




53. - The Prophet - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:29 pm:

    I was told when I first started getting interested in politics that I never should believe poll numbers. The man who told me this was a man who made his living by helping others get elected. He said that the only poll numbers that you can believe in are the ones that come out on election day.

    Jim Ryan is a likeable guy and respected. That having been said, this doesn’t mean that people would like to see him as their next governor. The gubernatorial race is still wide-open. The “silent majority” within the GOP will back the guy who they feel will watch their pocketbook for them. I wouldn’t write off Schillerstrom or Proft by any stretch of the imagination. Obama would have been looked upon as “dead last” on the Democrat list when he first began.




54. - Segatari - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 4:44 pm:

    I’m NOT voting for Jim Ryan…I cannot believe he’s polling this high.

    One thing you need to pay attention to - the conservatives make up 72% of the GOP. And what were the country clubbers doing? Trying to win elections with the remaining 27% of folks who were either moderates or pretend Republicans.




55. - Irish Eyes - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 5:22 pm:

    Can we have a bet about when Andy McKenna starts running ads hitting Ryan for his Stu Levine ties??? My bet is after college bowl season ends.




56. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 10:32 pm:

    Yeah, that putback amendment will happen about the time terrorists take up residence in Thomson Illinois.
    Oh, wait …

    If we go unicameral, what do we do with the Illinois Senate chamber? Rent it out for weddings?

    Rather than just try to undo the cutback amendment, why not one sweeping constitutional change to right all the past wrongs? Bring back the big House, throw out the ‘02 and ‘06 elections, instant run off between Jim and Judy for an 8-year term as gov, reinstate the scaffold act and cruising requirements for riverboat casinos and mandate that GOP insiders clear the decks for Peter Fitzgerald’s re-election to the U.S. Senate.
    What’d I miss?




57. - Sam Adams - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 11:55 pm:

    Anyone else notice that the sample seems to be overly weighted toward people 18-54 when I think conventional wisdom says that most off year primary voters tend to be older, in the 55+ group. What’s that mean?




58. - Jerry Vachaparambil - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 5:36 am:

    Adam is the best candidate in the race and I really hope he wins




59. - Spense - Thursday, Nov 19, 09 @ 6:20 pm:

    The best feature of the proposed amendment is that if 25 or more of the 177 senators want to vote on any legislation, then it HAS to be brought to the floor for a vote. I know of legislation that Madigan has kept buried for 5 and 6 years even though it is legislation that would pass by a majority if voted on. We don’t need dictators like Madigan stealing our voice & vote! I will be voting for the put-back amendment when it appears on the ballot next November!




60. - T.J. - Friday, Nov 20, 09 @ 1:05 am:

    This is the most confusing thing I’ve ever seen in Illinois politics. Eight years ago, Ryan didn’t lift a finger: didn’t attend debates, won an easy primary with just a plurality, and didn’t go after Blagojevich until late October. My friends used to mistake him for George Ryan and now mistake him for Jack Ryan. Who besides Democrats wants him back?

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.