2010 Democratic primary is like one huge Texas Hold Em tournament
I've been playing Texas Hold Em lately. Probably way too much for my own good, so if my analogy is strained, you know what to blame. But as we approach the 2010 Democratic primary, it's a huge poker tournament. Let me explain.
Eric Zorn kicks off the campaign season with his call for Attorney General Lisa Madigan to go all in and announce now that she is running for governor. Think of the 2010 primary, as I have increasingly done, as a poker table. There are savvy players around the table. Lisa Madigan, Pat Quinn, Dan Hynes, Paul Vallas, Jack Franks, Alexi Giannoulias and, of course, Rod Blagojevich. These are all smart, aggressive, good players. And they are all holding their cards close to the vest.
Now, if someone bets hard (say, Lisa announces that she's all in, or Alexi announces he is running for sure), that will cause some players, even with good cards, to fold. No one is folding now. So who will go in first? If a player with a low chip stack goes all in (say, Jack Franks) and announces that he is running, will that cause anyone else to fold? Probably not. What if someone bets lightly by announcing an exploratory committee? Probably won't cause anyone else to fold. So who is going all in?
That's the delicious season of anticipation that we're in now.
Then the fun part is in the ripple effect. For the first time in a decade, lots of offices can open up. Senator Obama's seat will be open in 2010, as will every statewide state elected. So if both Dan Hynes and Pat Quinn run for governor, then Comptroller and Lt. Governor are both open. In other words, in one way or another, every part of the Illinois Democratic Party is around the 2010 poker table with seven different offices to fill, at least half of which are likely to be open seats. So everyone in the state gets to play. It's going to be very exciting.
People who are better at hold em than I am can explain how most of the game's success is in the strategy of betting. And over the next six months, we get to see how the best players in the party bet with the hands they've been dealt.
Cross-posted at Progressive Advocacy
9 comments:
Governor Blago is smart? A good player?
Perhaps the league up at Oxford Wisconsin needs an "smart", "good player" to round out there starting five.
Blago is one of the biggest dumbsh*ts in Illinois history.
good post
good analysis
BUT you take it for granted that Obama will win the Presidency and thus have a US Senate seat open in Illinois (which will probably go to a Democrat if that were to happen BUT that happening is far from a sure thing.
Obama has some real problems with credibility, perception, and with constituencies like Latinos and Blue Collar males Whites.
My bet is on McCain but Obama is a player for some time into the future.
I think your list is right:
Lisa Madigan
Paul Vallas
Alexi Giannulious
Pat Quinn
Dan Hynes
Jack Franks
Lou Lang
(and don't rule out Republicans as this is a seat they could take back)
While you are considering Obama a sure thing to fast--I do think you are right on Blagojevich being gone, done. Put a fork in Blago, even if he isn't indicted he will not be able to run or at least not be able to win.
I think Pat Quinn is strong because people want independence and are tired of pay to play.
There could be a downstate candidate like Glenn Poshard (somewhat of I told you so for those who supported him over George Ryan) People don't want a politician or not just a politician.
Pat Quinn is great even with conservative Republicans on corruption and more so on Veterans issues.
There could be some wild cards like that Millionaire Personal Injury guy from downstate (forget his name) that was going to run in 2004 I think but than endorsed Hynes I think.
Bill Daley is rumored to want it.
There could be a millionaire or billionaire who jumps in.
With this many whites and males there will certainly be another FEMALE and an AFRICAN AMERICAN candidate.
Perennials like ROLAND BURRIS or powerful SURPRISES like BILL DALEY or a downstater like GLENN POSHARD or a female like JAN SHAKOWSKY.
If the 19th ward factions don't go with Paul Vallas again or Vallas doesn't run they could support RICHARD DEVINE who wanted to run against Rod Blagojevich or former Sheriff MIKE SHEEHAN who always wanted higher office.
I would say that
LISA MADIGAN
and ALEXI GIANNULIOUS
would be top picks for a good battle
but don't count out wild cards
I don't see any Hispanics on the horizon but word is that MWRDGC Commissioner Frank Avila is running for LT Governor if his ally Pat Quinn does not run and may even have the Speakers nod.
But I would bet on a downstate LT Gov from Madigan
Alderman Dick Mell is supporting Alexi Giannulious as a cathartic way to relieve his failure with his own son in law in finding a new political son.
With a bitter primary fight, and 8 years of Rod Blagojevich--this is one office the Republicans could possibly take back even in their terrible state of dissaray. Although a Bush pardon of George Ryan via Big Jamie Thompson would hurt Republicans.
Some Republican possibilities:
STEVEN RAUSCHENBERGER
RON GIDWITZ
(don't worry, the terrible failure of Judy Barr Topinka won't run again)
JACK RYAN is rumored to be making a come back
SEN BILL BRADY
(even Oberweiss won't run again)
a surprise but possible winner is former Bear and Supreme Court Justice BOB THOMAS
maybe JOE BIRKETT but probably not
and JIM RYAN was too close to Stu Levine and too much family tragedy
Some other good Repubs could be AARON SHOCK in the future
and the legislator (I am sorry I forget his name) who is in Iraq from downstate
A BOB THOMAS v LISA MADGIGAN could be interesting
STEVEN RAUSCHENBERGER v ALEXI GIANNULIOUS
Blagojevich may not get high marks for governing, but only a very smart, savvy politician can figure out how to get elected Governor -- twice.
Your analysis of 2010 almost reminds me of 1994, when the Dems held half of the statewide offices, and none of those three announced to run for re-election. That's part of why the Dems lost everything (not, by any stretch, the deciding factor, but part of it). Will none of the current statewide officials whose terms end in 2010 seek re-election? I hope the same dynamic does not play out again.
Yes you have to be a smart savvy politician to get elected governor twice, unless, of course, you are running against the Illinois Republican Party.
I do take it for granted that the next President of the United States will be Barack Obama. How cool is that?
And the Governor still had to figure out how to win his primary in 2006. That wasn't obvious from the outset.
I think opening up seats, a la 1994, carries some small risks. Maybe 2010 will be an R year. But I doubt it. Given that 2008 is going to be like 1932 as a D tsunami, it would be hard to imagine voter sentiment (particularly in our blue state) turning so hard against the Ds by 2010, especially if the 2010 primary is as exciting and wide-open as I anticipate.
I don't necessarily think that Obama being President is that cool. He is too oportunistic a very ambitious typical politician without real substance and VERY RACIALLY DIVISIVE with questionable advisors. Michelle Obama and her lack of pride in being an American is scary as First Lady (and I am a Democrat)
I don't think that Rod Blagojevich deserves credit for his initial election--DICK MELL IS RESPONSIBLE--that was the brains and smart guys like Dominic Longo. The State was tired of Republicans after 26 years of Republican control and nobody wanted another Ryan after George Ryan. Downstate and Mell's wheeling dealing and fundraising elected Rod. In the general it was the state fed up with Republicans and Jim Ryan running a bad campaign and having the last name Ryan (and still doing well). 2006, Rod was the incumbent without an indictment (not true in 2010) and in the general well JUDY BAR TOPINKA was a terrible candidate. So DICK MELL IS SMART--ROD BLAGOJEVICH IS STUPID.
2008 will elect MCCAIN (my prediction) BUT Illinois will be a strong Dem year. Remember it was only 1994 that ALL Constitutional offices were Democratic and the HOUSE and the SENATE (but Madigan was much smarter than the idiot Lee Daniels, Pate Phillip maintained dominance until the 2002 election) Obama hurts the Dems especially in the South and the West, with Blue collar whites, males and veterans and Hispanics.
McCain will get more Hispanics than Bush. Go to a Hispanic veteran event--Sen Sandoval has a few in his rolodex--ask them who they are voting for.
The House and Senate will remain DEMOCRAT and KIRK COULD LOSE, WELLER's SEAT COULD GO DEM but NOT with a liberal (ask Frank Giglio) too many pro-life and pro-gun in Will County (including Democrats like pro-life Sangmeister) even Roskam could have a close race.
Obama helps in Illinois but in the rest of the country.
SEALS could win.
Mike Madigan is brilliant and cannot lose the House.
BUT Emil Jones seems like a greedy idiot. Insider deals, loans, and no good legislation and TENS OF BILLIONS in pension DEBT. Future generations will half to deal with the financial nightmare of the state.
This parlor game of speculation is an amusing mental exercise 2 years in advance, but somewhat of a time waster none the less because many other things will occur that will influence the potential outcomes before primary voters ever go to the polls.
That being said; I'll play along since I have wasted more valuable time on far less entertaining endeavors so if nothing else this a less of waste of time than other things I could be wasting it on this morning, so in that regard I can rationalize this as a productive use of my time while waiting for the budget to pass.
The game of Texas Hold'em is not at risk of its reputation through your analogy, because as have been proven time and time again, while not all people can play poker well, any idiot can pull up a seat at the table.
I think a better analogy however would be LIAR'S POKER, since all politicians entering a contested primary have either delluded themselves into thinking they have a winning hand, or believe they can bluff the opponrnts into believing that their hand is superior.
I also think you are presumptious with regard to a promotion for Senator O'Bama, but without that premise many of the other dominoes can not fall. The fact that many of the potential candidates you have suggested have not pulled up to the table yet however seems to represent more pragmatism than an absence of hubris, courage, or strategy.
I do think that you have overlooked several important aspects to this. First, by only assessing the Democratic primary, and trying to assume and predict their victory in the following fall election, this is myopic in not also recognizing they will have a Republican opponent. Despite the weakness of the Republican party apparatus, the Democrats stsint at the controls may have been perceived as so unnnecessariloy turbulent that the citenry may opt for a pilot that can get the plane to an altitude with smoothe air.
I also think you diminshed the need to have a more balanced ticket approach, and one that contemplates the growth in some areas of the state which will be rising up in terms of their ability to influence government. Your analysis, while it includes Franks, does not contemplate a potential candidate from Will County, Kane County, or Kendall County, all of which have grown exponentially.
Also, you have likely ommitted some potential or likely candidates from Cook. Sherriff Dart started running for higher office almost immediately upon taking up the current one, and has not sopped since.
Anita Alvarez, will likely be prodded to immediately consider higher office, and the anamolies of her victory may also have delluded her into believing that she could replicate a victory under different circumstances as well.
Since you have taken the time to entertain us with your analysis of the Democratic primary, it would be interesting to see your analysis of the possible Republican candidates for each office as well, in order to better consider the outcome of the fall elections 2 years from now.
Why not, they can't even accurately predict the weather for tomorrow, so your efforts at forecasting two years out have about the same odds of being correct.
Post a Comment