How does the IL GOP move forward?

[Suburbia]

Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner will likely lose reelection in 2018 to Democratic opponent and fellow wealthy man J.B. Pritzker. Rauner, a first term governor elected in the 2014 GOP wave, faced a tough and dysfunctional term dealing with dysfunctional Illinois government.

https://www.forbes.com/profile/jay-robert-jb-pritzker/#19ccbaee1224

The Illinois House delegation is 11 Democrats, 7 Republicans. Vulnerable House GOP members include Peter Roskam, Mike Bost, Rodney Davis and Randy Hultgren.

They are likely to lose reelection (Roskam, Bost) this year in the House of Representatives because of the Democratic wave year.

How does the IL GOP move forward in 2019 and beyond?

[Roll Roons]

Davis and Hultgren are not that vulnerable. Even in the unlikely event that both lose, Shimkus, Kinzinger and LaHood will be safe.

While JB will most likely beat Rauner in November, he has a ton of baggage himself and the RGA/ILGOP can hammer him on that until the 2022 election cycle. At that point, they could be in a good position to take him down. Maybe one of the three above, a state rep/senator, Erika Harold if she wins AG, or even a non-politician dark horse.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

GOP isnt winning IL in a 2022 senate map and DUCKWORTH is up for reelection

[uti2]

GOP isnt winning IL in a 2022 senate map and DUCKWORTH is up for reelection

Not to mention that it's going to be hard enough as it is to find someone other than a Rauner-type capable of keeping up with Pritzker's spending.

[Virginiá]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

[uti2]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and it if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

Rauner's positions on social issues helped him in 2014, to be fair.

[jamestroll]

I do not dispute a Republican can win statewide in Illinois but on balance I think it will only become more Democratic.

Rural packing could severely the GOP there long term and many cities downstate have strong Democratic bases.

Illinois Attorney General is likely Democratic this year. Erika Harold will not be in any way relevant.

[Suburbia]

I do not dispute a Republican can win statewide in Illinois but on balance I think it will only become more Democratic.

Rural packing could severely the GOP there long term and many cities downstate have strong Democratic bases.

Illinois Attorney General is likely Democratic this year. Erika Harold will not be in any way relevant.

She could be in 2022 or 2026.

[jamestroll]

I do not dispute a Republican can win statewide in Illinois but on balance I think it will only become more Democratic.

Rural packing could severely the GOP there long term and many cities downstate have strong Democratic bases.

Illinois Attorney General is likely Democratic this year. Erika Harold will not be in any way relevant.

She could be in 2022 or 2026.

This year her race is likely a 55 Democrat to 45 GOP loss.

The more GOP friendly nature of down ballot races mixed with Democratic wave provides that result.

I am not anticipating Raoul wins DuPage county.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Frankly, I'm reaching the point where I think the GOP should be burned to the ground in certain states if only for branding reasons.

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and it if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

Rauner's positions on social issues helped him in 2014, to be fair.

[Tartarus Sauce]

The only thing that will be working in their favor is that Pritzker will be the governor and very likely a walking scandal machine.

[junior chįmp]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and it if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

Rauner's positions on social issues helped him in 2014, to be fair.

No it didnt...2014 being a wave year and a weak Democratic Party under weak ass Obama helped Rauner

[new_patomic]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and it if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

Rauner's positions on social issues helped him in 2014, to be fair.

No it didnt...2014 being a wave year and a weak Democratic Party under weak ass Obama helped Rauner

It's not mutually exclusive.

In 2010 in a similar wave environment Quinn was able to hang on by painting Brady as a extremist on, especially, social issues. That wasn't available in 2014.

[SATW]

I really hope Peter Roskam hangs on. Would be ashame if we lose him. Fantastic congressman.

[Ye We Can]

Ah yes the hero JB Pritzker and Mike Madigan will lead the Democratic party to a new Renaissance in Illinois and solve every inate issue in the state.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

I don't think the downstate Republicans are going to go for that.

More likely you end up with a Virginia-style situation where the GOP is controlled by low-population rural areas and has no ability to form a workable governing majority.

[Virginiá]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

I don't think the downstate Republicans are going to go for that.

More likely you end up with a Virginia-style situation where the GOP is controlled by low-population rural areas and has no ability to form a workable governing majority.

I think you are probably right, which is why I wrote "will need to," because my assumption is that, at least for the foreseeable future, Republicans in some states/regions are going to be held captive by a shrinking, uncompetitive base that has absurd policy demands and, like you said, is more or less unable to govern. This makes it really difficult if not impossible to nominate the kind of Republicans who can retake some lost ground. Either a reasonable moderate gets nominated in some sort of fluke or split-vote situation, or a True Conservative™ Warrior maybe wins in a R-wave / freak election result and leads a rather unpopular tenure, probably getting booted out next election.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

For starters, a good first step would I don't know, maybe not let a freaking nazi run unopposed for your nomination in a congressional seat.

[Virginiá]

For starters, a good first step would I don't know, maybe not let a freaking nazi run unopposed for your nomination in a congressional seat.

One might say that is a risk you have to accept if you want to move past smoke-filled back rooms.

However I do like the idea of the party being able to deny the nomination to someone under a limited set of circumstances, such as the person running being a Nazi or a criminal or something else blatantly unacceptable.  And by deny the nomination, I mean don't even let them get on the ballot. Although there might be some constitutional issues if the disqualifying stuff comes out after the votes have taken place, or are underway.

Seems like something the GOP ought to consider, especially after getting infected with the Trump virus and the recent surge of white nationalist/Nazi candidates.

[krazen1211]

I really hope Peter Roskam hangs on. Would be ashame if we lose him. Fantastic congressman.

Roskam won his first race in 2006. He is a smart and tough cookie.

[wesmoorenerd]

I really hope Peter Roskam hangs on. Would be ashame if we lose him. Fantastic congressman.

Roskam won his first race in 2006. He is a smart and tough cookie.

Too bad the cookie is going to crumble. The 2006 wave was a hell of a lot different from the 2018 wave in terms of which party is going perform better in which districts. That's why the prime targets of this year include places like Orange County that weren't competitive in 2006. Educated suburban districts are some of the hottest battlegrounds of the cycle.

[muon2]

Not sure. What I do know is that the ILGOP seems to be at risk for a Virginia-like shellacking if the suburban wipeout plays out in Illinois like it is everywhere else. They have a lot of vulnerable seats in the legislature, and if Democrats do wallop them like that, it might be enough to build a sustainable Democratic supermajority going forward.

^ Relevant because I think if that happens, future IL Republicans hoping to win the Govs office will need to adopt more of a Maryland-Massachusetts-Vermont-style Republican, where they essentially accept the partisan lean of the state and govern more like a manager than a partisan conservative. That absolutely means no Rauner-style hardball. Although may arguably be the case regardless of the size of a Dem legislature I suppose.

That has been the assumption of IL Pubs since the 1970's and before. Thompson, Edgar and Ryan constructed a 26-year hold on the mansion with that philosophy. The internal party think was that it was they only path to success and Topinka's nomination in 2006 was exactly of that style. However she lost to Blago. Then the moderate Dillard lost in a squeaker to Brady in the primaries who narrowly lost to Quinn in 2010. Dillard tried again in 2014 but Rauner's money and hardline anti-union but socially tolerant message won out. However, with each cycle the Pub primary electorate has grown less tolerant of compromise which is a problem. My guess is if Speaker Madigan leaves the scene there will be more of a push to return to the party philosophy that was successful in the 80's and 90's.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

They need to find a way to bring their moderate and conservative wings together, something neither of their primary candidates this year could do.  They can't be led by a right-wing firebrand as their standard bearer, but they have to put forward someone that at the very least is better than a generic Democrat for social conservative issues.

[ajwiopjawefoiwefnwn]

They need to find a way to bring their moderate and conservative wings together, something neither of their primary candidates this year could do.  They can't be led by a right-wing firebrand as their standard bearer, but they have to put forward someone that at the very least is better than a generic Democrat for social conservative issues.

And if they can't unite the party?
Does the GOP splinter into new parties/defect to 3rd parties?
Does the GOP lose a record number of seats?