Saturday, November 21, 2020

ON MIKE MADIGAN, BUFFERS, LIGHTWEIGHT OPPONENTS, BEING LIKE MIKE, AND ILL-CONSIDERED WISHES

 

11/21/20

 

The nation’s eyes may be focused on the increasingly pathetic attempts of President Trump to hold onto an office he clearly lost earlier this month.   One would think more attention would be paid, both by political enthusiasts and by the President and his team, to the senatorial races in Georgia, which are truly undecided and on which much of the country’s future depends.  (See MOST OF THE PUNDITS WERE HUMBLED BY THE ELECTION RESULTS…BUT NOT YOURS TRULY, 11/6/20.), but I digress.   Here in Illinois, though, true political junkies are focused, for at least the next week or so, not on the Don Quixote in the White House or on the really important races in Georgia, but, rather, on what we consider the real politics, i.e., state and local politics, specifically, the future of House Speaker Michael J. Madigan, the longest serving state house speaker in our nation’s history.

 

Yours truly, while generally not hesitant to make predictions on most things political, will not even attempt to make a prediction on either the legal or political future of the Speaker.   I will, however, point out, as have many in the local media and in politics, that the Speaker’s legal fate lies largely in his most trusted and loyal majordomo, Michael McClain, who acted in the Commonwealth Edison Affair (See “COULD THIS BE THE END OF (SPEAKER MADIGAN)?”, 7/18/20) and, one suspects, plenty of other dealings of Speaker Madigan, as the Speaker’s primary, and probably only, buffer.   Everything had to go through Mr. McClain, providing Mr. Madigan with plausible deniability.   So if Mr. McClain should start cooperating, it’s curtains for Mr. Madigan if, indeed, Mr. Madigan has committed any crimes; it is useful to note that, at this stage, the Speaker has not been charged with or indicted for anything.  It would not be going too far to conjecture that the indictments of former Commonwealth Edison CEO Anne Pramaggirore and lobbyists John Hooker and Jay Doherty were designed with little else in mind but to get them to flip on Mr. McClain, intensifying the pressure on Mr. McClain to flip on Mr. Madigan.

 

On the political front, it looks like, despite Mr. Madigan’s protestations to the contrary, his opponents, at last count, had the votes to oust him as Speaker and that if he loses his speakership, he will probably lose his position as head of the Illinois Democratic Party.   His opponents’ primary argument against Mr. Madigan, i.e., that he has acted as an ankle-weight, or worse, on the Democratic Party in this state due to his vast unpopularity among broad segments of the electorate, has plenty of merit.   Candidates for Illinois House and Senate seats, and even U.S. House seats, that could be branded with the “friend (or stooge) of Madigan” label were confronted with a headwind that more of them than expected could not surmount.    More importantly, Illinois Supreme Court Justice Thomas Kilbride was defeated for retention largely because he was labelled, rightly or wrongly, as “Madigan’s Justice.”   The scarlet letters in Illinois politics in 2020 were clearly “FOMM,” i.e., “Friend of Mike Madigan.” 

 

On a more personal level, as many of you know, I occasionally give talks to small groups on Chicago and Illinois politics.  Over the last several years, the first question in the Q&As following these presentations has invariably been something to the effect of “How do we get rid of Mike Madigan?”   One might argue that DuPage County, where most of these talks take place, is a Republican county and a natural breeding ground for distaste of the Speaker.   But at least the first of those assumptions has been invalidated over the last few years, primarily by President Trump (See PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED, 4/22/20), but also by demographic factors far beyond the control of either Mr. Trump or Mr. Madigan.   People outside the 13th Ward and its environs simply do not like Michael Madigan.

 

Despite current appearances and the validity of the anti-Madigan arguments, however, yours truly is in no hurry to pronounce Mr. Madigan politically dead.   Though a sufficient number of Democrats to defeat him have declared that they will oppose Mr. Madigan when he runs for re-election as Speaker, don’t count him out yet.   He is smarter than perhaps his entire caucus combined and he is dealing with politicians from Illinois, who happen to be an especially meretricious lot and who, at least as a group, have never been known for displays of courage or coolness under pressure.   He could still win yet another term as Speaker despite the length of the odds he currently faces.

 

While yours truly is no fan of Speaker Madigan, I have to admire the guy simply because he does what he does better than anybody certainly in the state of Illinois, probably in the country, and maybe in the world.  You don’t stay on top of the heap of the tumultuous politics of the state of Illinois for 37 years on the basis of good looks, congeniality, and a talent for, er, obfuscation, the predominant traits of most of our state’s, and nation’s, politicians.   Nobody since one of his mentors, the late, great Richard J. Daley, has practiced politics with the aplomb of Speaker Madigan.   Even though I, and most people, don’t like the results of the application of Mr. Madigan’s overwhelming political skill and power, we have to admit that nobody plays the game more effectively than Mike Madigan.  

 

Consideration of Mr. Madigan’s skill, dedication, smarts, and consequent success leads to something that has been nagging at me for years, to wit, how much of the animosity directed toward Mr. Madigan from politicians of both parties, most of whom have come and gone since he became Speaker in 1983, arises not out of their being crusaders for good government and hence their  being shocked and appalled at Mr. Madigan’s real or imagined transgressions but, rather, out of a sense of envy?   How many, while publicly decrying the corruption, real or imagined, and/or the absolute dominance of Illinois politics of and by Michael Madigan are not secretly saying, or at least thinking

 

“Damn, I wish I could have done what that guy has done!  I wish I had half his power.  I wish that I could be ‘the guy,’ just like Mike Madigan.”?

 

How many of these scrub squad players, Democrat and Republican, care not a whit for good government, fiscal responsibility, or the other ideals for which they pretend to pine, but, rather, just want to be like Mike?

 

Two concluding thoughts...

 

First, it is sometimes said, admittedly usually incorrectly, that we can judge a man by his enemies.   Given that Governor J.B. Pritzker, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin and a whole host of lesser but perhaps equally dyspeptic light(weight)s have called for Mr. Madigan to step down from his speakership, his position as head of the Illinois Democratic Party, or both, what conclusions can we draw?   If a man can be judged by his enemies, how bad a guy can Speaker Madigan be?

 

Second, and more seriously, those of the press and in politics who are so fervently calling for the end of Michael J. Madigan ought to be careful what they wish for.

 

 

 

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, or at least used to work, in Chicago and Illinois politics. 

THIS WILL NEVER BE “BIDEN’S VIRUS”

 

11/21/20

 

I wrote this letter to the Wall Street Journal last week and it was published Monday.  I thought my readers who do not subscribe to the Journal, or who do not regularly read the “Letters to the Editor” Section, might enjoy it:

 

 

11/11/20

 

In his 11/11/20 Business World Column, Holman Jenkins contends that “It’s Biden’s Virus Now.”   From a policy standpoint, Mr. Jenkins is correct; come January, it will be up to the Biden Administration to eradicate, or at least manage, the coronavirus, a task that will doubtless be aided by the vaccines developed under President Trump’s unacknowledged Operation Warp Speed.

 

From a political standpoint, however, Mr. Jenkins could not be more wrong; this will never be “Biden’s virus.”  To the extent that Mr. Biden’s administration fails in its struggle against the pandemic, COVID will remain Trump’s virus and the Biden failure will be blamed on President Trump’s letting the virus get out of control.  On the other hand, to the extent that the new administration succeeds in its efforts against the coronavirus, the result will be portrayed as the enlightened Biden team’s triumph over the former administration’s incompetence and “denial of science” in the face of the Trump virus.

 

Most of us don’t care who gets the credit; we just want the COVID situation ameliorated so we can get back to normal.   But in Washington, where politics is everything, this will never be Biden’s virus; it will always be Trump’s virus and hence is a win/win for Mr. Biden.

 

Mark M. Quinn

Naperville, IL

Friday, November 6, 2020

MOST OF THE PUNDITS WERE HUMBLED BY THE ELECTION RESULTS…BUT NOT YOURS TRULY

 

11/6/20

 

While ballots are still being counted, which is a curious thing in itself, and there will be legal challenges, recounts, and the like, the outcome of this election is more or less known.   Most pundits and professional prognosticators were stunned by the outcome.    Those who make nearly obscene livings opining on the performance of those who make nearly obscene livings opining on elections have spent the last few days castigating the learned seers of the political world, rating their performance in line with, if not, somehow, worse than, their collective disastrous 2016 performance.   Those who contend that most members of the professional political projection profession should consider other lines of work are right; the “experts” whom we follow in the nation’s media, on virtually all points of the political continuum, blew it.   Except, of course, for one who is followed by only a loyal band of readers whose quality vastly exceeds its quantity.   Sadly, this wise pundit continues to do his tea-leaf reading for free.

 

Many years ago, my mother advised me that I ought to toot my own horn because, after all, nobody else was going to do it for me.   This is one of the pieces of advice my mom gave me to which I have nearly religiously adhered ever since.   In this instance, though I didn’t see this race as being quite as close as it has turned out to be, yours truly did a damn good job calling this one.   To wit…

 

On the popular presidential vote…

 

After admonishing those of my more optimistically liberal friends who were calling for a 60/40, or thereabouts, Biden blowout, I conceded that

 

 55/45 remains a possibility, however, though perhaps a fading one.  TRUMP WILL LOSE, AND PROBABLY LOSE BIG, ON TUESDAY, 10/27/20

 

So what was the popular vote?  As of 5:00 PM CST today (i.e., Friday, 11/6/20):

 

Biden                    50.5%

Trump                   47.8%

 Spread                 2.7%

 

That’s closer than I thought, and a lot closer than 55/45 that I described as a “fading” possibility.   But my numbers were far better than the learned experts’ predictions (mostly hopes, really) of a Biden blowout in the popular vote.

 

 

On the electoral vote…

 

I concluded that Biden would win with “at least 275 electoral votes, five more than needed.” .  TRUMP WILL LOSE, AND PROBABLY LOSE BIG, ON TUESDAY, 10/27/20.   Right now, and, barring some fruitful legal maneuverings on Mr. Trump’s part, (all but) President-Elect Biden should get 306 electoral votes. 

 

Why the disparity?

 

First, the words “at least” mean something.

 

Second, as I said in that aforementioned post,

 

In reaching my conclusion that Joe Biden has at least 275 electoral votes, five more than needed, I was perhaps too generous to Mr. Trump, giving him

 

Arizona,

Florida,

Georgia,

Ohio, and

Texas.

 

Apparently, my generosity got the better of me.   Mr. Biden wound up winning Arizona and Georgia.  He also won New Hampshire, which I called for Mr. Trump.  Mr. Biden also picked up one of the Congressional districts in Nebraska while I gave the whole state to Mr. Trump.   But Mr. Biden also lost one of the congressional districts in Maine while gave him the whole state.  Add those states and districts, net them, and you go from 275 to 306.   So Mr. Trump’s losing two states, Arizona and Georgia, accounted for nearly all the disparity between my projection and the apparent outcome.   That’s pretty good, if I can say so myself.   And that Mr. Trump managed to lose Arizona and Georgia, and that they were even close, tells you just about all you need to know about this presidential election, but that is another issue.

 

Not only was yours truly pretty much on top of the presidential election, but, long ago, in April of this year, I told you why Mr. Trump would lose the election, to wit:  PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED, 4/22/20

These relatively moderate, economically well-off while not being crazily wealthy, suburban counties are the core of the GOP’s strength.   The GOP does not win elections on the votes of the conservative true believers; it wins elections when it carries the moderate suburban districts inhabited by voters who work for a living, have accumulated at least a modicum of wealth, much of which lies in their homes, and whose primary interests lie not in politics but in maintaining the financial position they have built for themselves and in preserving the country and its system that has enabled them to do so.    And President Trump is not going to win in those counties, or at least he will not win by sufficiently large margins in those DuPagesque counties to overcome the big majorities Mr. Biden will run up in traditional Democratic bastions in both the working class and uber-rich precincts of the big cities.

Indeed, it was in the suburbs, most directly those of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Detroit, and Milwaukee, that Mr. Trump lost his bid for re-election.

 

 

 

On the Senate…

 

In the contest in which I most fervently hoped I would be wrong, it looks like yours truly was indeed in error in predicting the GOP’s losing control of the Senate in a very close race; see SO YOU WANT A TIGHT ELECTION THIS YEAR?   YES SIR, SENATOR!, 10/19/20.  In that perhaps overly analytical piece, I predicted GOP losses in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, and Maine.  Winning those four, assuming that the Democrats would lose their “accidental” seat in Alabama, would bring the Democrats to 50 seats in the Senate, which would be enough if, as I rightly predicted, a Vice-President Kamala Harris would be casting the tie-breaking votes in the new Senate.

 

The GOP indeed lost Arizona and Colorado but was able to hold onto Maine (Hey, at least Senator Collins has an “R” after her name.) and Iowa, the latter being especially gratifying; Senator Ernst is one of yours truly’s favorite senators from one of yours truly’s favorite states.   So it looks like the GOP will, thankfully, hold onto the Senate.

 

But it is possible that there is good news for yours truly’s prognosticatory reputation, but very bad news for the country, on the horizon.   As I wrote back on 10/19/20:

 

 

The Democrats, from my assessment of the numbers, might also pick up the Georgia seat for which a “jungle primary” special election is being held on election day, in which candidates of all parties will run with the first and second finishers competing in a run-off on January 5.   The current incumbent, Republican Kelly Loeffler, is weak and is facing a challenge from, inter alia, Republican Representative Doug Collins.   These two will split the Republican vote to a point at which the highest polling Democrat, Raphael Warnock, pastor of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, will face one of them in the run-off.    This could be interesting for the Democrats and disastrous for the Republicans.   There is also a chance that the Democrats could pick up the other Georgia seat; Senator David Perdue does not hold as formidable a lead as one would suspect for a GOP incumbent in Georgia over journalist Jon Ossoff; a few legitimate polls, including Quinnipiac, have Ossoff leading.   So it is not much of a stretch to give one of the Georgia seats to the Democrats, which would put it in the proverbial can for the Democrats.  

 

As I write this, it looks like both Georgia senate seats will go to run-offs.   While, judging from the strong performance of 3rd place candidate Doug Collins in the “jungle primary,” Ms. Loeffler should win her run-off, there is a very real possibility that Senator David Perdue could lose his run-off to Jon Ossoff.   And, who knows?  If what looks like the kind of vote counting that has gone on in Georgia in the presidential race prevails in the run-off races, both Republicans could be in trouble.   And if they both lose, we will have an effectively Democratic Senate with soon to be Vice-President Harris casting the deciding votes when the Senate is stuck at 50/50.    That would be very bad news for the country; never in my life have I more earnestly desired that one of my predictions, in this case my original prediction of a Democratic takeover of the Senate, remains wrong.