Gov. Quinn(D-IL) Target of Criminal Probe
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:33:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Gov. Quinn(D-IL) Target of Criminal Probe
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Gov. Quinn(D-IL) Target of Criminal Probe  (Read 1979 times)
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2014, 10:26:18 PM »

Why was this guy not primaried again? Jeez.

It's because of the mentality that seems to be in the Democratic party that if we have a competitive primary, we'll lose, in spite of all indications being the otherwise.

This makes perfect sense if the incumbent/frontrunner is very popular. It makes no sense at all for Quinn, who is about as popular as the clap.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 03, 2014, 09:00:21 AM »

Dammit.

At least he won in 2010 which really mattered to get the Congressional map passed.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 03, 2014, 08:56:07 PM »
« Edited: May 03, 2014, 09:32:16 PM by Clarko95 »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.
Logged
I Will Not Be Wrong
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,346
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 04, 2014, 06:15:31 PM »

R + 1.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 04, 2014, 06:25:26 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 04, 2014, 07:06:36 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 04, 2014, 07:50:46 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.
Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 04, 2014, 08:04:44 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.
It does matter because you're posing false equivalencies.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 04, 2014, 09:11:50 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.
It does matter because you're posing false equivalencies.

You're saying that Kirk won't have trouble in a presidential year? He barely won in a Republican year against an opponent with ethics issues, so what makes you think he won't have big problems in a presidential year?
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 04, 2014, 09:58:01 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.
It does matter because you're posing false equivalencies.

You're saying that Kirk won't have trouble in a presidential year? He barely won in a Republican year against an opponent with ethics issues, so what makes you think he won't have big problems in a presidential year?

Because that's over-simplifying how elections work? There are more variables than "Presidential election year = Democrats sweep the map". What if 2016 is a Republican year? What will happen when Obama is no longer on the ballot? Who will be his challenger, and will they have flaws? Don't be so confident with 2.5 years to go.

2010 was a close win for an open seat, in a blue state. It's not like Illinois has never elected a Republican before. He's a pragmatic Republican who did well enough in the collar counties + a good showing in Cook to win initially, and can improve his performance if he remains popular.   
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 04, 2014, 10:32:44 PM »

And he'll still win because Cook County is a powerhouse. NEXT.

Exactly, which is why Mark Kirk lost Alexi Giannoulias in 2010, right?


Quinn survived in 2010 by 30,000 votes. In the collar counties he won low-mid 50% ranges, primarily on his promise not to raise taxes, and his "reformer" image. There was still a "Let's give this guy a chance" feeling in Illinois, and Brady was big on social conservativism in a socially moderate state.

Mark Kirk won in the same election by 60,000 votes, blowing Giannoulias out of the collar counties (mid-high 50%) and wiping the floor with him downstate.

Quinn's goodwill is completely gone. Quinn is actually campaigning on making the tax increase he lied about permanent. Rauner is more like Kirk, being socially moderate and focusing mostly on the economy and budget problems. He picked a good running mate, and his campaign looks to do serious damage to Quinn.

I legitimately, sincerely believe Rauner could nartowly win this thing if he plays his cards right.

And even in 2010, the "moderate" Kirk only narrowly won. 2014 isn't going to be nearly as favorable to Republican as 2010. It's very unlikely an anti-minimum wage candidate in a heavily Democratic state will wi.
Kirk has the incumbency advantage now.

Doesn't matter, in a presidential year, Kirk is at a serious disadvantage, incumbent or not.
It does matter because you're posing false equivalencies.

You're saying that Kirk won't have trouble in a presidential year? He barely won in a Republican year against an opponent with ethics issues, so what makes you think he won't have big problems in a presidential year?

Because that's over-simplifying how elections work? There are more variables than "Presidential election year = Democrats sweep the map". What if 2016 is a Republican year? What will happen when Obama is no longer on the ballot? Who will be his challenger, and will they have flaws? Don't be so confident with 2.5 years to go.

2010 was a close win for an open seat, in a blue state. It's not like Illinois has never elected a Republican before. He's a pragmatic Republican who did well enough in the collar counties + a good showing in Cook to win initially, and can improve his performance if he remains popular.   

Illinois' PVI didn't change much from 2004, it was D+7 then, so Obama's home state effect didn't mess with the PVI that much. People were claiming that Scott Brown would crush Elizabeth Warren, because he was pragmatic and could do well with Democrats, and look what happened. Unless 2016 is a massive Republican wave, Kirk is the most endangered Republican Senator and the most likely to lose.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2014, 10:58:44 PM »

Gotta love Illinois Governors, lol.
Logged
ill ind
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 05, 2014, 10:28:42 AM »

  I believe this is entrirely mislabeled.  There is no investigation of Quinn himself.  This is the investigation of an anti-violence program funded by a grant from the Quinn administration just prior to the 2010 election, and the people who directly recieved those funds--including the spouse of the Cook County Register of Deeds. 

  Some of you guys are way off base here.

  Regardless: A We Ask America poll commissioned by Rich Miller of Capitolfax last week had the race tied with Quinn and Rauner at 44% a piece.

  Trust me, Rauner comes with truckloads of his own baggage, and it will come down to who can turn out their base in November.

Ill Ind
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2014, 11:35:47 AM »

Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2014, 09:48:08 AM »

  I believe this is entrirely mislabeled.  There is no investigation of Quinn himself.  This is the investigation of an anti-violence program funded by a grant from the Quinn administration just prior to the 2010 election, and the people who directly recieved those funds--including the spouse of the Cook County Register of Deeds.

It may not be investigating Quinn himself, but if it uncovers any criminal activity by his advisers, then that will be enough to damage him, even despite Rauner's own baggage.
Logged
GaussLaw
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,279
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2014, 09:17:58 PM »

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.