I agree with you on Covid, less so on the budget, but your point is valid. This isn’t a hold-my-nose and vote scenario, since I’m 100% certain he’ll do a better job in office than Bailey.
I get it, really. But this business of backing the other party’s candidates to help select your opponent in the general, while clearly legal and more widespread than I’d realized, is more than just an ethical concern. When your governor has so much money he can actually buy his opponents’ nomination, why would you believe that the game is remotely fair?
Nobody claims it’s fair. But this is just one minor aspect in which the electoral process in this country is unfair. Since one party wants to implement electoral reform and the other party seeks to undermine democracy completely, the only path to fairness is to play by the current rules, win, then make the rules fair.
Interesting to note that Trump didn’t endorse Bailey until after Bailey pulled ahead in the polls. There were 5 far-right candidates, and Irvin. 5 guys that you couldn’t tell the difference between. I’m sure Irvin was hoping that, as the only non-Trump loving non-mouthbreather in the race that the others would split the insane vote and he would grab the sane Republican vote. I’m sure that Trump couldn’t tell the difference, either, and was waiting for someone to pull away.
I was disgusted at how early in the campaign Irvin pulled the race card. From day one, his ads said “Pritzker is afraid of someone who looks like me and thinks like us.” Looks like you, how? Thin? Average height? Good head of hair? Black?
It was during my voting lifetime that Illinois had a string of moderate Republican governors - Thompson; Edger; Ryan. They won because they weren’t way the hell out on the right wing of the party. Once the primaries started producing far-right candidates, the Dems won handily, even with crap candidates like Blagoyovich.
(to show how much “influence” the newspapers have today, the Tribune endorsed Schimpf, who came in 5th with 4% of the vote)
Bailey was the one who successfully sued Pritzker over the mask mandates. That alone is a reason not to vote for him. Pritzker’s actually done a pretty good job - our credit rating has gotten better; I agreed with his actions during the pandemic; I have no reasons to not vote for him. I’m certain he ran those adds just to increase the infighting on the R side.
TIL…the ads should still paint him as a Wisconsin carpetbagger like the Kochs trying to corrupt Illinois politics.
You know what you never hear in right-leaning message boards and chatrooms? “But that’s not fair.” I don’t know what is in Democrats’ nature to be so obsessed with perceived fairness that we’ll start criticizing our own when they start fighting dirty. Obama’s famous “when they go low, we go high.” platitude turned my stomach at the time and is doing serious harm to our causes. We’ll collectively be much better when we accept that fairness is a imaginary concept in all circumstances and triply so in politics.
Also see Colorado, where Democrats poured a bunch of money into supporting the MAGA-hatted candidate in the Republican primary for Senate. They ran ads playing up his conservative bona fides. But he lost the primary, and the net effect may be to make the actual Republican nominee seem more moderate to voters in comparison.
It worked out for Claire McCaskill (once – she lost by six points in her next Senate race). But it’s a dangerous game.
Another reason (neverminding his Republican status) is that he is such a shameless ass kissing toady that he dressed up like Trump for the endorsement. What a wanker.
(I also posted that image in the Pit. It belongs in each place, IMO.)
Fucking with the other side’s primary is a long-standing Chicago tradition - I know, I used to live and vote in Chicago. My guess is that this is an attempt at the old “help the party nomination go to a guy who won’t win the general election” but, as you note, that can backfire.
I don’t think that’s usually true. It’s a fallacy that leads to a lot of bias. In data science/statistics/mathematics we often get caught up in randomness which is the equivalent of fairness in most technical contexts, yet defining random is highly subjective and the root of a lot of false or invalid results. Fairness is entirely relative.
Imagine you and your wife are splitting a piece of dessert. You want to split it “fairly”. Do you cut it precisely in half? What is half, two pieces of equal weight or equal surface area or equal volume? Is half actually fair if you and your wife have substantially different weights and caloric needs? What if your wife had a salad and you have a porterhouse steak with three martinis, is it fair to each have the same amount of dessert? What if she’s paying, is it fair that she gets to do the cutting? What if you’re ambivalent about sweets but she loves them, would equal portions be fair?
You get the point…fair is not a definable thing and thus is not a ideal (or even valid) goal.
The solution to this problem in my family growing up (and many others, I’m sure) was “you divide, I choose.”
I get your point about the mathematical and practical impossibility of perfect fairness, but from a more philosophical view fairness still seems to me like a useful idea – maybe not to attain some perfect fairness, but to prompt work toward something that’s more fair.
To take an obvious and simplistic example: It clearly was not fair that Blacks in the pre-civil rights South were prohibited from using public facilities their tax dollars helped build and maintain. Eliminating those prohibitions led to a more fair situation, though of course it was and is far from perfectly fair.
I recognize that most situations are far more complex than that, but if a higher degree of “fairness” isn’t what you’re ultimately trying to achieve, what’s the alternative? “Might makes right”? “I got mine”? “Pwn the libs”?
I think we’re both probably conflating two related but different ideas. The idea of “fair play” which the OP complains about and the idea of “equitable” in the context of resource distribution or freedoms.
I think think in the context of policy being wrapped up in fairness is a distraction. Where you end up is two groups each with their own definition of fair entrenched and screaming about the inherent unfairness of the other sides proposal. You fight about the definition of fair instead of fighting about the value of the policy. More time spent talking about outcomes is preferred to talking about perceived fairness.
I think you’re right. Resource distribution on any kind of macro level is far more complex than kids deciding who gets the bigger slice of pie, and the question of the best outcome for everyone is more important than what’s “fair” to one camp or another.
My take on fairness was more like, “Gee, I have two choices for governor – a billionaire, and a guy whose campaign was financed by the billionaire. That’s so unfair. Why even bother?”
I get the discomfort in this. But I don’t think it’s an issue of fairness. If we had real campaign finance laws and publicly funded elections you could maybe get wrapped up in that. But this is just two guys playing an inherently dirty game. I think of it like war. No one gets butthurt when one count kicks the crap out of another country because one side has more troops and better weapons. It can make you sad or angry, but I don’t think the part that bothers people is that the fight wasn’t sporting.
The Democrats just wasted at least $5 million in Colorado, trying to get the various nutcases in the Republican party to win their respective primaries. I’m happy to report that the establishment Republicans mostly won. As such, we now have a reasonable chance of taking back large chunks of Colorado from the Dems.
The solution to this problem in my family growing up (and many others, I’m sure) was “you divide, I choose.”
