IL-Gov. 2018 Megathread

[KingSweden]

I think it'll be Kennedy name/gloss vs Pritzker $/institutional connex. It'll be interesting either way

[KingSweden]

Saw every Democratic candidate last weekend (except Pawar). Very impressed by Biss and thought Pritzker also handled himself very well—I don't know if I'd vote for him in the primary, but I'd be comfortable voting for him in the general, his heart seems like it's in the right place. Chris Kennedy was, uh, an experience.

Straw poll afterwards (among College Democrats) had Biss around 75%, Kennedy and Pritzker around 12% each.

Kennedy that bad huh?

[KingSweden]

JB seems to actually have a pretty progressive platform, taking the Phil Murphy approach. Not a terrible idea.

[KingSweden]

Both Pritzker and Kennedy are awful candidates. Pawar is unelectable in a general and Drury is unelectable in a primary.

As I've said before, Biss is the man I'd want if I were a Democrat.

I don't think Pawar is helping himself with the mayor of friggin' *Cairo, IL* as his running mate, for that matter

[KingSweden]

Ok, is being Anti-Israel anti-semetic or did BDS talk about the Elders of Zion?  If the latter then yeah they'd be anti-semetic.

Here's the way I see it:

It's perfectly reasonable to think that Israel's settlements policy in the West Bank (occupied territories, as many would call it) is bad. It's reasonable to think that the Likud government's hardliners, prominently Netanyahu, and the ultra-hardline parties they coalition with, makes it harder to reach a resolution in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Those are reasonable takes, and I hold both of those positions.

Where BDS goes over the line is the idea that Israel should *uniquely* be punished, at a national level, for its "sins." Artists are pressured into not performing there. Academics are dissuaded from lecturing there. Universities are pressured into divesting from Israeli holdings (inspired by the SA apartheid campaigns of the 1980s). What's curious is that Israel is the ONLY country on earth BDS holds to this standard, and not a peep out of them about actual genocides, like Darfur or the Rohingya in Burma or the violent massacres of LGBT in Chechnya. Just Israel, for... building apartments in disputed territory?

That's not to say Israel should steam ahead with the settlement program. They shouldn't, in my view. But it's not hard to wonder if there's something, ahem, fundamental about Israel that makes it singled out by BDS when parties that are considerably worse get a shrug

[KingSweden]

Where BDS goes over the line is the idea that Israel should *uniquely* be punished, at a national level, for its "sins." Artists are pressured into not performing there. Academics are dissuaded from lecturing there. Universities are pressured into divesting from Israeli holdings (inspired by the SA apartheid campaigns of the 1980s). What's curious is that Israel is the ONLY country on earth BDS holds to this standard, and not a peep out of them about actual genocides, like Darfur or the Rohingya in Burma or the violent massacres of LGBT in Chechnya. Just Israel, for... building apartments in disputed territory?

That's not to say Israel should steam ahead with the settlement program. They shouldn't, in my view. But it's not hard to wonder if there's something, ahem, fundamental about Israel that makes it singled out by BDS when parties that are considerably worse get a shrug

Seems that the distinction is simply that Israel is more likely to be affected by a boycott than any of those others. Radiohead isn't doing concerts in Grozny, there aren't that many academics traveling to Darfur for conferences, and there aren't a ton of university investment funds that have invested in Burmese companies.

That is a fair and logical rebuttal! Suffice to say though that I'm strongly skeptical that most BDS supporters make the distinction for that reason

[KingSweden]

Also, I think that calling Israel an "apartheid state" is rather disingenuous. Israeli Arabs have equal rights and protections as Israeli Jews, and from what I remember most polling has them wanting to remain in Israel rather than joining a hypothetical Palestinian state.

It's absurd. So is "cultural genocide" and the other nonsensical phrases thrown around. It diminishes the horrors of real genocides and what black South Africans were subjected to under apartheid, and it destroys the credibility of people who genuinely do want to find a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli standoff

[KingSweden]

It disgusts how everyone from BDS to the UN consider Israel an apartheid state. It is nothing close to one.

And diminishes the utter horror of South Africa's apartheid regime

[KingSweden]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

Since you are more nuanced on this than many who share your ideological orientation (to your credit!) I'll ask: why Israel? Why a liberal democracy where Arab Israelis have full political rights? Why is the same standard not applied to other countries? I used examples earlier of the pogroms against LGBT in Chechnya (an extreme version of general Russian persecution against queer people), the Rohingya attacks in Burma, An *actual* genocide in Darfur. It's absurd to compare these places to Israel and that's the point - there is no comparison. Like the earnest question every time a terror attack in the West happens, "Why aren't we talking about this instead?" If there's genuine concern for human rights, focus the energy on boycotting the Middle East's one stable democracy on thuggish regimes engaged in ethnic and religious cleansing. There's the real outrage.

[KingSweden]

Fun fact: Turns out Ramirez-Rosa told Biss' campaign that he'd always opposed BDS shortly before his selection.

Rosa has opposed and continues to oppose BDS at a state and municipal level (voted against a resolution on the city council). He believes there is room for a nuanced debate nationally, Biss does not. Only the former issue came up, for obvious reasons, in the selection process for Lieutenant Governor of Illinois.


In other news, Biss is announcing State Rep. Litesa Wallace (D-Rockford) as his new Lt. Gov. candidate today. Rep. Brad Schneider, who de-endorsed Biss over the Rosa pick, has declined to re-endorse.

There's room for nuanced national debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  There is not any such room for "nuanced" debate over supporting anti-Semitic hate groups like BDS nor should there be.  They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms for the same reasons that it's vital for politicians to unambiguously condemn white supremacists.    

...but BDS isn't a hate group? You can't repeat something over and over and expect people who disagree with you to suddenly take your stance on the issue. I'm not passionate about this issue and I'm actually more sympathetic to the pro-Israel side (I can understand why Sunrise and such have the opinions that they do since they and their family actually a personal connection to Israel) than a lot of others on the hard-left, but boycott, divestment, and sanctions is a legitimate tactic of protest against nation-states one deems to be oppressive. You can disagree with their labeling of Israel as such, but neither BDS nor DSA are "hate groups".

Since you are more nuanced on this than many who share your ideological orientation (to your credit!) I'll ask: why Israel? Why a liberal democracy where Arab Israelis have full political rights? Why is the same standard not applied to other countries? I used examples earlier of the pogroms against LGBT in Chechnya (an extreme version of general Russian persecution against queer people), the Rohingya attacks in Burma, An *actual* genocide in Darfur. It's absurd to compare these places to Israel and that's the point - there is no comparison. Like the earnest question every time a terror attack in the West happens, "Why aren't we talking about this instead?" If there's genuine concern for human rights, focus the energy on boycotting the Middle East's one stable democracy on thuggish regimes engaged in ethnic and religious cleansing. There's the real outrage.

<insert position that I don't really care about re: settlements, gaza blockade, etc etc that you're conveniently ignoring>

Like I'll be real honest - the emotions and feelings I have about either side of Israel/Palestine could fit in a thimble with room for cream and a little bit of simple syrup. But pretending that Israel is morally blameless and just perfect is at odds with the facts.

And like, the fact that you're saying "well, they're not Al-Shabab" isn't really filling me with confidence.

 I was personally opposed to DSA endorsing BDS just because I know a lot of people's berserk button is primed on the issue, and whatever good we'd do in supporting it is vastly outweighed by the s*** we'd catch because of it, but I really admire CRR for sticking by DSA's position on the issue. And let's be clear, CRR's personal position on the issue is NOT full endorsement of BDS, but he was willing to stand up to the berserk critics anyway.

But it's perfectly possible to be against settlements (at minimum I think they should be halted) or think Likud is terrible (I wanted Boogie or whatever his name was to win in '15) or oppose the Gaza Blockade (I thought it was ill-advised at best). You can hold those positions, all of which are within the progressive mainstream, while NOT supporting BDS. collectively punishing all Israeli people over policy disagreements is absurd. Not to mention the modern desire to conflate all  expressions of Jewishness with Zionism (see: Chicago "Dyke March"), and the historically illiterate contention that Zionism is a form of white supremacy or fascism

Israel is not perfect. Israel has, typically when egged on by Likudniks (or worse) made resolution more difficult. But most counties are not morally pure in any way, and BDS has a singular focus on just the one country, with logically spurious reasoning.

[KingSweden]

What's the likelyhood that Biss, or Chris Kennedy drop out of the race?

I doubt either will—I thought Kennedy was looking like he might, but he also may just be disorganized and weird.

The Kennedy campaign's ineptness has really been remarkable

[KingSweden]

Rep. Scott Drury, the candidate of choice for Kingpoleon, Wulfric and literally no one else, has named his running mate. It's his campaign manager.

For Drury's running mate, would Jonathan Jackson or Kwame Raoul be interested, do you guys think?

No.

Drury sure is reaching out across all wings of the party with that one

[KingSweden]

Since Drury is no longer in the race, I have decided to support Rauner's re-election.

Still do?

Rauner Signs Bill Allowing State Health Insurance, Medicaid To Cover Abortions

I support this, but man is Rauner taking a gamble with GOP support here. Good for him.

[KingSweden]

I bet Pawar runs for Mayor in '19. Improvement over Rahm, at least, and probably more palatable to those not on the hard left than Garcia

[KingSweden]

Rauner Officially In, primary from Jeanne Ives incoming

*gets popcorn*

[KingSweden]

Per DKE legendary deadbeat dad and wingnut welfare extraordinaire Joe Walsh is debating an Indy run if Bruce Rauner wins his primary

*gets extra popcorn*

(I highly doubt Walsh runs fwiw)

[KingSweden]

I do wonder if such a boneheaded (yet incredibly brave) political move is part of an exit strategy for Kennedy who is now third in fundraising and likely trailing Biss in internal polling.

A Kennedy endorsement of Biss mixed with an aforementioned Sanders endorsement could make this an incredibly interesting primary. Defeating Pritzker would send a major sign to Democratic leadership nationwide.

Isn’t Pritzker basically following the Phil Murphy template? (For better or worse)

[KingSweden]

Kennedy's CoH is below $750k. Biss is fairly clearly the main opponent to Pritzker now

!!!! That’s it?! Yeah no kidding

[KingSweden]

What an utterly dreary affair the IL election has become, across the board. Everyone hates Rauner and nobody is particularly excited about the Dems.

[KingSweden]

Honestly at this point a meteor strike in Illinois might be a better option than any of the candidates

[KingSweden]

I admit this may sound ignorant but what's Rauner been like as a Governor, and what theoretically would Pritzker do/not do in comparison to Rauner?

At first I wasn't too fussed about Pritzker winning (I saw him as being a creature of Illinois Democrat Politics aka a scumbag) but the barrage of stories is making me wonder if I would actually be that upset if he somehow lost in 2018?

Like I assume there's much worse Governor races for Democrats to lose?

Rauner's been a standard 2010/2014 Midwestern GOP governor in the Walker/Snyder mold. After taking office in 2014, he refused to sign a state budget until the legislature acted on a number of his priorities, including weakening collective bargaining rights and making Illinois a right-to-work state. Democrats naturally refused to pass a budget with those provisions, and so the state went around two years without a budget. The state's credit is now more or less at junk level, and with no budget public schools (both universities and K-12) have struggled to keep the lights on and have seen declining enrollment. While some education funding continued through court orders, social service agencies in particular have been hit hard and often forced to close. Eventually, enough Republicans were willing to defy Rauner to pass a budget, and that's more or less where we're at now. Pritzker, if nothing else, would pass a budget to fund essential social services without conditioning it on gutting the unions.

Has Pritzker continued to try to model himself on Phil Murphy’s ‘17 campaign or no?

[KingSweden]

I’m really skeptical Ives knocks out Rauner

[KingSweden]

too bad "Blanching" sounds so much better than "Raunering"

IKR that second one just sounds dirty