PAT QUINN, PENSIONS, AND THE UPCOMING ILLINOIS GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY: WHAT WOULD JIMMY STEWART DO?

6/5/13

In my post of two days ago (THE PENSION DEBACLE IN ILLINOIS:  MR. MADGIAN AS MACHIAVELLI, MR. EMANUEL LOSES A ROUND, OR MR. QUINN GOES TO SPRINGFIELD?, 6/3/13), I stated of Governor Pat Quinn (no relation)

He can, and probably will, conduct a sort of Mr. Quinn Goes to Springfield type of campaign in 2014, in which Mr. Quinn, a lifelong politician who has played “get along, go along” for the last 40 years, will be cast as a sort of St. George who battles the dragons of Mike Madigan and his minions.   The voters of Illinois might go for it; they have certainly gone for much more preposterous notions; see, as only the most salient example, the governorship of the man whom Mr. Quinn served as Lieutenant Governor, Rod Blagojevich.

Mr. Quinn seems to be doing just what I suspected he would do.  Already, he has called a meeting among him, House Speaker Mike Madigan, and Senate President John Cullerton to try to reach a solution to the pension problem.   Mr. Quinn called the meeting even though, according to Madigan spokesman Steve Brown, the Governor knew Speaker Madigan was not available.  If Mr. Brown is correct, what could be the purpose of such a meeting if not to highlight the inability, or the unwillingness, of the legislative leadership to solve the pension problem?

Mr. Quinn also said yesterday  

“I think it’s important for the speaker of the House to come to the realization that working with his counterpart in the Senate is the way to go to get comprehensive pension reform in this state.  We can do this.  The key is for the Legislature to do its job.  I’m ready to do my job and that’s to sign the bill into law.”

Mr. Quinn said this despite knowing full well that Mr. Madigan has never considered Mr. Cullerton a “counterpart” if the word “counterpart” implies anything like equality.  Mr. Madigan has always considered Mr. Cullerton at best a very junior partner and more likely, as I have said in the past, a sort of mini-me to Mr. Madigan, and perhaps deservedly so.  While Mr. Cullerton is obviously an accomplished pol himself, he doesn’t play in the same league as Mike Madigan.  No one does.

Mr. Quinn’s efforts to blame the legislature for the failure to enact pension reform and to set up the fast approaching 2014 primary as a Jimmy Stewartesque battle between the forces of sweetness and light vs. the dark side may be working.   Yesterday, House Minority Leader Tom Cross opined that Mr. Quinn does not wear the jacket for the legislature’s failure; the blame, according to Mr. Cross, lies squarely with Mr. Madigan.  Of course, in Illinois no one cares what the Republicans think, but one can be quite sure that Mr. Cross’s thinking reflects that of his suburban constituency, the type of voters Mr. Quinn, or his likely opponent Attorney General Lisa Madigan, will need to win in order to remain, or become, governor.

Mr. Quinn may need to tread lightly here.  As long as there is a chance that meaningful pension reform can be enacted into law between now and the primary season, he cannot afford to antagonize Mr. Madigan or Mr. Cullerton.   Solving, or even seriously mitigating, our pension problems while he is in office would give a huge boost to Mr. Quinn’s efforts to keep his job, so he doesn’t want to throw away an opportunity to do so.

But Mr. Quinn, despite all too frequent evidence to the contrary, is a clever fellow and a good politician.  He can probably attack the “do-nothing” legislature while not naming Mr. Madigan, or Mr. Cullerton, specifically and make it look to Mr. Madigan as if he is attacking Mr. Cullerton and to Mr. Cullerton as if he is attacking Mr. Madigan.   Though the above quote from Mr. Quinn, specifically

“…it’s important for the speaker of the House to come to the realization that working with his counterpart in the Senate is the way to go to get comprehensive pension reform in this state.”

seems to be a direct assault on Mr. Madigan, it is more subtle in its criticism of the Speaker than it appears at first glance and leaves plenty of room to place plenty of blame on Mr. Cullerton and on the nebulous “legislature.”   Such tactics might ultimately somehow shame the Speaker and the Senate President into actually doing something about the problem that is bankrupting our once great state.   Notice I used the term “might.”

On the other hand, Governor Quinn may have already come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that Mr. Madigan has decided to sabotage any hope at pension reform in the interest of denying Mr. Quinn the type of crowning achievement that could keep Mr. Quinn in, and Mr. Madigan’s daughter out of, the Governor’s mansion.   If Mr. Quinn has come to this conclusion, he will see no need for subtlety in his attacks on Messrs. Madigan, Cullerton, and anyone else he can demonize, and deservedly so, in his struggle for re-election.

Whether Mr. Quinn attacks subtlety or engages in a full frontal assault, he will be going after the legislature and “politics as usual” in his upcoming campaign for re-election.  It’s his only chance, and it’s a better chance than most people think.  

And however Mr. Quinn conducts his imagined or otherwise crusade of the virtuous against the cesspool that is the politics of this state, it will be interesting, as are all things in Chicago/Illinois politics,; see my books The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in our peculiar politics. 

THE CULLERTON PENSION PLAN: “THE (PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS) FAMILY DON’T EVEN HAVE THAT KIND OF MUSCLE ANY MORE”???

5/8/13 

On Monday, State Senate President John Cullerton unveiled the multi-faceted approach to pension reform that he formulated in collaboration with the leaders of the state chapters of AFSCME, SEIU, and the AFL-CIO along with leaders of the IFT and IEA.   As readers will recall, Mr. Cullerton was in something of a snit when House Speaker Mike Madigan came up with his own plan for addressing Illinois’ $100 billion unfunded pension liability and vowed to come up with his own plan; see my 5/2/13 piece MIKE MADIGAN’S PENSION REFORM PLAN:  “THE BEST THAT (WE) CAN HOPE FOR IS TO DIE IN (OUR) SLEEP.” 

Mr. Cullerton’s plan is complicated because it offers workers a menu of choices, but its common theme is a trade-off between continuing to receive retiree health benefits and having pension cost of living (“COLA”) adjustments grow at simple interest rather than compound .  Unlike Mr. Madigan’s plan, Mr. Cullerton’s union backed plan would not increase the retirement age for state workers or limit the amount of a worker’s pension subject to COLA adjustment.   Again, see my 5/2/13 piece for details of the Madigan plan.

The Cullerton plan has a few virtues.  One is that, since it does not directly reduce retirees’ benefits but instead offers workers and retirees something of a Hobson’s choice between health care benefits in retirement and reduced pension benefits, the plan is less likely than the Madigan plan to run afoul of the Illinois constitution’s provision that pension benefits of public employees cannot be “diminished or impaired.”   One wonders, however, given the highly politicized nature of the court system in this state, whether any plan with the full backing of Mike Madigan would encounter more than rhetorical resistance even in the state Supreme Court.

Another virtue of the Cullerton plan is that it has the backing of, and indeed was formulated in association with, the state’s public employee unions, who are apoplectic over the Madigan plan.   But one wonders (I’m not being disingenuous here; one really does wonder.) how much muscle the public employee unions have any more.  That Mr. Madigan, a life long ally of those unions, formulated a pension plan that ostensibly sent the unions through the roof indicates that perhaps Mr. Madigan, the state’s shrewdest politician, doesn’t think the unions hold the aces they once did.

Those virtues are more than offset by the Cullerton plan’s major weakness:  it does little to address the state’s gaping budget hole.  The Cullerton plan reduces the state’s $100 billion unfunded pension liability by $10 billion while the Madigan plan lops of $30 billion, and even that $30 billion is not enough.   If we insist on getting into the fantasy land of the distant future, the Cullerton plan saves the state $46 billion over the next 30 years while the Madigan plan supposedly saves the state $140 billion.   But that larger number depends on the state’s politicians’ keeping their promises, albeit, according to the Madigan plan, legally enforceable promises. (This enforcement mechanism would only force bankruptcy…if the state isn’t already in court by 2019, the date of the first enforceable payment…more quickly if the state’s finances don’t begin to show nearly impossible improvement.  But that is grist for another mill.).   And since when have this state’s, or any state’s, politicians kept their promises?   One of the reasons this problem arose is because our state’s “leaders” refused to honor promises to fund pensions.

Two other points worth pondering…

First, doubtless some will, if they haven’t already, argue that the whole Madigan/Cullerton plan is part of some Machiavellian dance to avoid doing anything about our pension problems.   The Madigan plan has passed the House, the Cullerton plan will pass the Senate, and the whole thing will die in conference.   This doesn’t make much sense, though.  Why would Mike Madigan so infuriate the unions, especially when his daughter is apparently conducting a campaign for governor, while achieving nothing?   The unions may not have the power they once did, but it makes no sense, especially to someone as savvy as Mike Madigan, to incur their wrath for nothing. 

Some might argue the unions are in on the whole conspiracy.  While this is plausible, remember the old adage about the reducing likelihood of keeping a conspiracy secret as the number of conspirators grows.   Talk of a Madigan/Cullerton plan to appear to be doing something about pensions while doing nothing is even too cynical for yours truly and assumes Mike Madigan is even more Machiavellian than he is…isn’t it?

 Second, even if something does get done on pensions, one cannot be sanguine about the fiscal future of our state.  Note John Cullerton’s comments as he unveiled his proposal

“We know we have to pass a pension reform bill this year.  We’re the worst funded in the nation.  It’s affecting our budget.  We have to free up money next fiscal year and fiscal years after that.  And that’s why we have to pass these bills.  We know that.”  (Emphasis mine)

One suspects that when the likes of John Cullerton speak of “free(ing) up money,” it’s not to roll back the “temporary” income tax increase he and Mr. Madigan passed with the help of Governor Quinn a few years ago.   Mr. Cullerton is talking instead of “free(ing) up money” for, you guessed it, more spending…on “the children,” or “public safety,” or “health care,” or any of the many anodyne labels politicians put on ladling out your money to their contributors.  What will have been achieved if we save money on pensions only to blow it on something else?

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

NEWS FLASH: GOVERNOR QUINN IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

3/7/13

Regular readers know that I am no big fan of Governor Pat Quinn (no relation).   We are generally on opposite sides of the political spectrum, though lately, given the mewing that has been emanating from those who claim to hold the conservative banner,  I’ve had a hard time determining where on the political spectrum I stand.  See my 2/28/13 post CHRIS CHRISTIE AND CHUCK HAGEL NEED NOT APPLY.   Beyond that, Pat Quinn’s career has been characterized by either misguided or malevolent demagoguery that betrays either a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth and prosperity are generated in a free market society or a desire for power and recognition so powerful and consuming that it rides roughshod over the facts, common sense, and, in some cases, decency.

All that having been written, I don’t believe that Mr. Quinn is a fundamentally indecent man.   Though he often substitutes emotion for sound thought and reasoning, he genuinely seems to care about the poor and downtrodden and feels a duty, on his part and on everyone’s part, to do what he can to ease the plight of our fellow citizens.  He feels, I suspect, that we are our brothers’ keepers, though he seems to think he is, or ought to be, first among equals in this duty to keep an eye out for what he perceives to be the little guy. 

Furthermore, the people I know who know Quinn, and who have known him for years, tell me he is essentially a good guy.   Some of these guys are pretty hard core conservatives, yet they still vote for Quinn.  Given what I have learned about what the role of ideology should be in politics when personal ties are in place, I don’t blame them for voting for a guy they know and like regardless of their lack of ideological affinity, but that is grist for another mill. 

I don’t know Pat Quinn, but, a long time ago when he was either State Treasurer or between jobs, he, I, and an economist friend of mine had a long lunch with Mr. Quinn to talk about the state’s finances.   While Mr. Quinn, being a politician, was doubtless more interested in political contributions (which didn’t come from either of us) than our opinions on money issues, he certainly made it seem that he wanted to hear what we had to say and he asked very good questions; the man clearly is intelligent.

Finally, when Pat Quinn, or any politician, is right, I, who have little or no regard for any but a very few people who practice his craft, have to admit that he is right.   And Pat Quinn was very right when, in presenting his budget, he pointed out the obvious, to wit, that we must do something about our pension problem in this state.  Yes, we all know that.   But a firm grasp of the obvious eludes most politicians, so the your typical pol deserves some credit even for stating what is plain to those of us who hold, in the eyes of the politicians, lower stations in life.  

The mutual desire of that Mr. Quinn and this Mr. Quinn to solve our pension problems arises from opposite motivations.   Yours truly would like to save the state from bankruptcy and perhaps cut taxes while Pat Quinn would like to find more money to blow on real, potential, or even perceived constituencies and thus help in his ongoing struggle to stay on the public payroll as long as possible.   Nevertheless, we both see the need for addressing this problem.

Further, Mr. Quinn was right when he said, in delivering his budget address

“We all know that we must reform the Illinois public pension system.   So, members of the General Assembly, what are you waiting for?  Illinois taxpayers are losing patience with your lack of action…It’s time for you to legislate.”

It is indeed time for the motley crew of no account poltroons that we call legislators to get off their taxpayer padded posteriors and do something.

As one might guess, though, Mr. Quinn’s call for the legislators to stop whistling past the graveyard didn’t sit well with those esteemed public servants on either side of the aisle.  Even the Republicans, who profess to want to “address our pension problems,” as long as it won’t cost their constituencies anything, had little good to say about the scolding Governor Quinn delivered.   The most inane of these comments came from Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R. Lemont).   Ms. Radogno, suddenly defending the institution she spends most of her time castigating, from the inside, opined that it was “unfair” (boo-hoo) of Quinn to lay blame on the lawmakers, arguing 

“Most of the work that has been done on pensions has come out of the General Assembly, and not out of the governor’s office.”

That statement was inane enough, given that NOTHING has been done on pensions by either the General Assembly or the Governor.   Most of nothing is still nothing.   But Ms. Radogno compounded this whopper by arguing that

“The governor should have turned and put that to the guy standing behind him in
a navy blue suit. ... I think people here are tired of his style of politics.” 

The “guy standing behind (Governor Quinn) in a navy blue suit” at the time literally but not nearly as figuratively as Ms. Radogno, in her febrile imagination, would like to believe, is House Speaker Michael Madigan.  (See, inter alia, my 2/28/13 post REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS:   CHICAGO POLITICS CLAIMS A “VICTIM” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD.)

Hmm…

First Ms. Radogno says that it is “unfair” (How I hate that word when used by adults!  When has fairness ever been a prominent feature of life?   But I digress.) of the Governor to blame the legislature for Illinois’ pension problems.   Then she says that Quinn should have “put that to the guy standing behind him in the blue suit,” none other than Michael Madigan. 

Does Ms. Radogno realize what office House Speaker Mike Madigan holds?   He is the Speaker of the House…and the House is half the legislature.   Further, if truth be told, the Speaker controls not only the House but, though his close association with (Some might say, with some justification, control of) Senate President John Cullerton, the Speaker also commands the other half of the legislature.  

So in Ms. Radogno’s world, we aren’t supposed to blame the legislature for the pension mess; we are supposed to blame the guy who runs the legislature, the guy who, for all intents and purposes, is the legislature.

In my 2/27/13 post MR. SUNSHINE ON ROBIN KELLY, DEBBIE HALVORSON, AND THE ILLINOIS 2^ND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT RESULTS, I wrote

Watching Ms. Halvorson in action could almost lead one to the conclusion that the Democrats of the 2^nd District should be excused for nominating Robin Kelly, or at least were smart not to have nominated Ms. Halvorson.  Ms. Halvorson was once Majority Leader of the Illinois Senate!  O tempora, o mores!  That such an unimpressive candidate, shallow thinker, and reflexive flip-flopper could actually have been the Majority Leader of the Illinois Senate explains a lot about the sorry condition of the state of Illinois.

Judging from current Republican Senate Leader Christine Radogno’s failure to understand that the legislature is the legislature, the quality of the leadership in the General Assembly has not gotten any better since the days of Debbie Halvorson.  If such a thing is possible, it may have gotten worse. 

No wonder why we find ourselves slogging through such deep excrement in this great hog producing state.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

WHATEVER SHE DOES, SHEILA SIMON OUGHT TO THANK PAT QUINN

2/14/13

Illinois Lieutenant Governor Sheila Simon announced on Wednesday that she would not be Governor Pat Quinn’s running mate when (if?) he seeks reelection in 2014.   This announcement apparently had been planned since December when Ms. Simon and Mr. Quinn (no relation) were trying to figure out a way to make it in such a manner that “nobody would come out looking bad,” and it has led to plenty of speculation about Ms. Simon’s motives and ambitions.

Most observers think Ms. Simon’s motive is to jump off the sinking ship that Mr. Quinn’s chance for reelection appears to be.   Clearly, no ambitious politician wants to be identified with a loser, and, right now, Mr. Quinn (no relation) looks like he will have a tough time getting re-nominated, let alone re-elected.  (I discussed the 2014 gubernatorial race in Illinois in one of my last posts on the now defunct Rant Political, LISA MADIGAN WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR ILLINOIS GOVERNOR, BUT WOULD SHE BE A GOOD GOVERNOR?, 1/23/13, which I have reproduced below.)  On the very day that Sheila Simon made her announcement, a poll by the (perhaps irony of ironies) Paul Simon Public Policy Institute showed the following preferences among Democrats for not all that hypothetical candidates for governor:

Attorney General Lisa Madigan                                                              31.9%

Governor Pat Quinn                                                                               22.9%

Former Commerce Secretary, et. al., Bill Daley                                      11.9%

The numbers don’t look good for the Governor, but they look a lot worse for Bill Daley.   Mr. Daley’s numbers surprise yours truly, but I digress.  Politics, though, is a fickle business and Mr. Quinn is, after all, the incumbent, so it’s still too early to completely dismiss Mr. Quinn’s chances.  Therefore, while one can certainly legitimately speculate that Ms. Quinn’s motives amount to the political equivalent of those of the poor souls on the ill-fated Carnival cruise wanting to get off the sailing sewer their ship has become, her motives may be simpler.

The post of Illinois Lieutenant Governor (“LG”) is even less consequential than that of Vice-President of the United States, which John Nance (“Cactus Jack”) Garner, who served in the latter post from 1933 to 1941, equated to a “warm bucket of (spit).” (Incidentally, Mr. Garner didn’t stay “spit.”  When the quote was reported, that word was substituted for another at least equally disgusting human emission because people had class in those days, but, again, I digress.)   In fact, the last Lieutenant Governor who displayed a record of accomplishment in that job was Ms. Simon’s father, who left the post in 1972 to run for governor.  The most telling evidence of the vestigiality of the LG’s office is not, as the media would have it, the resignations from that post in mid-term of Dave O’Neal in 1981 and Bob Kustra (sort of) in 1998.   No, the most telling evidence of the worthlessness of the office is that nobody missed either Mr. O’Neal or Mr. Kustra when he left.

Clearly, Sheila Simon is bored being LG, as would anyone of reasonable intelligence and sound work ethic; there is nothing to do as LG.   So there is plenty of motivation for wanting to leave that job even without taking into consideration Mr. Quinn’s unpromising chances at reelection.

What of Sheila Simon’s ambitions?

Most of the talk seems to revolve around Ms. Simon’s either challenging Judy Baar Topinka for Illinois comptroller or Ms. Simon’s running for Attorney General (“AG”) should Lisa Madigan make a run at Pat Quinn in the primary.   Both are plausible.   And, this being Illinois, one would be remiss if one discounted the possibility of a deal between Mike Madigan and Sheila Simon, something like (purely hypothetically, of course) having Ms. Simon make this announcement, further embarrassing and weakening Mr. Quinn, in return for Mike Madigan’s support in Ms. Simon’s run for AG.  And don’t even try to tell me that Sheila Simon has too much integrity to pull off such a deal.  Do you think even her father, much ballyhooed for his integrity, didn’t get involved in such dealing?   If you do, please catch a flight back to reality from the la-la land you currently inhabit, but I digress.

A more plausible scenario, if Ms. Simon seeks an Illinois constitutional office, might be a run for Secretary of State.  The current Secretary, Jesse White, one of the state’s most popular officeholders who routinely has won reelection by lopsided, even by Illinois standards, margins, is, after all, 78 years old and will be 80, and will have held the office for 16 years, in 2014.   He might want to hang it up and/or may be receptive to a “suggestion” by the likes of Mike Madigan, who runs the Illinois Democratic Party, that retirement might not be such a bad idea.   After all, Jesse White is, if nothing else, a loyal party guy.

There are other possibilities. 

Ms. Simon has said that she wants “a role where (sic) I can have an even greater impact” and “be the best advocate for the state of Illinois.”   What if the words “advocate for Illinois” were more carefully chosen than most people are assuming and indicate a desire to go to Washington to so advocate?

A seat in U.S. House, where her father ended up after losing his gubernatorial bid in 1972, does not seem realistic.  I am quite, but not completely, sure that Ms. Simon lives in the 12^th District, which has a brand new Democratic congressman in Representative Bill Enyart.   It is unlikely that she would challenge a fellow Democrat in a primary.  Her making a run in the 12^th  does remain a possibility, though.  The Simon name is magic in the southern stretches of Illinois, more than potent enough to overcome her, and her father’s, liberalism in a relatively conservative district and perhaps persuade a first term incumbent to step aside.   If I’m wrong and she lives in (or chooses to move to or run in) the 15^th  District, even the Simon name might not be enough for a Democrat to beat Republican John Shimkus in that heavily GOP district.

But how about the Senate?   Though Senator Mark Kirk is recovering and we all hope his recovery continues and he can continue to serve, it’s tough to recover from a massive stroke and fulfill the duties of a U.S. Senator.  (Even getting one’s hindquarters continually smooched and calling it a living is hard if one is sufficiently debilitated by  a stroke.)  His term lasts until 2016, and one assumes that the ambitious Sheila Simon does not want to wait that long to run for her next office.   But if Mr. Kirk’s medical challenges force, or persuade, him to leave office early, the Governor gets to pick his replacement.  That governor will be Pat Quinn until 2014 and, chances are, at least at this juncture, will be Democrat until 2018.   What better job is there than U.S. Senator?   And, in the proud tradition of Illinois politics, Sheila Simon’s following her late father to the Senate would keep it in the family.

Whatever she does, Ms. Simon ought to be grateful to Mr. Quinn.   Before he selected her as his running mate, even though she was his third choice, she was a former member of the city council in Carbondale with few political prospects, a bleak political future, and little going for her but a famous and popular name.   Now she is a serious contender for some jobs that would make far more seasoned pols salivate.   Hopefully, she will treat Mr. Quinn with the gratitude and respect such magnanimity deserves.

See my two books, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics and The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, for further illumination on how things work in Chicago and Illinois politics.  

PROMISED FORMER POST:

LISA MADIGAN WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR ILLINOIS GOVERNOR, BUT WOULD SHE BE A GOOD GOVERNOR?

1/23/13

Chicago Sun-Times columnist and political reporter Lynn Sweet indicated today what many have long suspected:   Attorney General Lisa Madigan is “seriously thinking” about running in the 2014 primary for Illinois Governor against unpopular incumbent Pat Quinn (no relation) and maybe former Commerce Secretary and Presidential Chief of Staff Bill Daley.   (See my 1/16/13 post, BILL DALEY:  POLITICIANS SACRIFICE MORE THAN THE REST OF US COULD EVER IMAGINE.) As usual, Ms. Sweet makes some great points and I would advise anyone interested in the byzantine politics of the Land of Lincoln and its largest city to read her column on page 2 of today’s (i.e., Wednesday, 1/23/13’s) Sun-Times.

Two additional comments, including some historical perspective, on a Lisa Madigan candidacy on which Ms. Sweet did not touch:

--Lisa Madigan would be a formidable candidate for governor, or senator, simply because she gets such fantastic press and hence has garnered accolades, or at least approval, from voters across the political spectrum.   Though Ms. Madigan is at least a reasonably liberal Democrat, even the most rock-ribbed conservatives find little bad to say about her.

One could attribute Ms. Madigan’s popularity to the good job she has done as Aspiring Governor (er, sorry…Attorney General) rather than to the good press that yours truly sees as the source of her sky high approval ratings.  The problem with ascribing her popularity to her skill as AG, though, is that it is difficult to garner ill-will, or to distinguish one’s self one way or the other, in that office.   The Attorney General in the State of Illinois is not a prosecutorial office.  It is primarily, as far as the public sees, a consumer protection office, bringing civil actions against big time polluters, purveyors of shoddy products, or sellers of flim-flam services.  It is hard to anger people when one is ostensibly standing up for the little guy against the evil designs of the darker quarters of corporate America.   Therefore, it would be hard for Lisa Madigan, or for any other Attorney General in this state, to look bad.

Even those people who could get upset with the Attorney General…alleged bad actors in the corporate community…are afraid to speak out vociferously, if at all, against Ms. Madigan because of the power of her father, House Speaker Mike Madigan.  (See, inter alia, my 1/9/13 post, ILLINOIS PENSION PROBLEMS:   SEND THE CHECK TO MY KIDS.)

While it is easy to predict that Lisa Madigan would be a formidable candidate for governor, because of the nature of her current office, it is difficult to determine how good a governor she would be.   That she has appeared to do a good job in an office in which it is virtually impossible to do a bad job is no indication that she would do a good job in an office in which it is virtually impossible to a good job.

--While it is possible to see a Quinn/Daley/Madigan race work to Lisa Madigan’s advantage because she is a woman, it is nearly as easy to see such a three way race working to Governor Quinn’s advantage because he is the incumbent.

However…

While incumbency, even an unpopular incumbency, such as Pat Quinn’s, is formidable, those of us who study, or even just remember, Chicago politics know that incumbency is not insurmountable, even with a divided opposition.   Remember the Democratic mayoral primary in 1983, when unpopular incumbent Jane Byrne was challenged by Cook County State’s Attorney Rich Daley (Bill’s brother) and U.S. Representative Harold Washington.   The results were as follows:

Harold Washington                   37%

Jane Byrne                               33%

Rich Daley                                30%

The dynamics of that race, especially in its racial overtones, were clearly different.   Nonetheless, its results should give pause to those who assume that an incumbent has a big edge, even in a primary, when his or her opposition, is divided.