For most campaigns, today (Friday) marks the end of the persuasion/identification phase of the campaign and begins the mobilization phase. All the indicators available to me suggest that this race ends pretty much where it began. There has been very little movement in the race, in part because no campaign seems to have broken out of the mold, and the short time frame was diminished by the major media's virtual black-out on the race. (The New York Times has given more coverage of the special election in Buffalo than the local papers combined.) So I won't be at all surprised if this race concludes just as it began where the first benchmark polls had it.
But this special election tests some prominent theories about what is effective in campaigns and elections. Each of the major campaigns (and more than one of the second tier campaigns) have pursued a different emphasis among the basket of tactics available to campaigns. The Feigenholtz campaign has gambled on television driving turnout (or lack thereof). The Quigley campaign has put all it's eggs in the direct mail basket. The Fritchey campaign has blanketed the district with signs -- and I've seen more large signs than yard signs on his behalf. The Geoghegan campaign is counting on the netroots. The Forys campaign is betting that microtargeting ethnics will prove decisive. O'Connor seems to be betting that he has tight control over his ward (and a neighboring one), and that his ward organization is sufficient to pull out victory.
Because everyone has been knocking on doors and running their phone banks, these tactics seem to be what separates the campaigns in this special election. One of them will win on Tuesday (although I'm not counting on that fact necessarily being known on Tuesday -- or even Wednesday). What I do think is that we are going to be surprised. I have severe doubts that the most obvious choice will wind up the winner. That may depend on who you think is the obvious choice.
I have long argued that Sara Feigenholtz was running a Hillary Clintonesque campaign. From the beginning, she has run as if she were the front runner, as if her election was inevitable. She had the most money, the biggest staff, etc. What she did not start with was the most name recognition. And both she and her supporters have been remarkably sensitive to any suggestion that didn't favor their point of view.
There have been two knocks against Feigenholtz from the beginning: the first was that she was running a negative campaign, and the second was that she was the most isolated candidate in the race. The Chicago Tribune tried to make something of her failure to talk to their reporters, but David Ormsby showed that Feigenholtz would talk to the press. She just wouldn't talk to the critical media (apparently, myself included). Her campaign has surrounded her with a protective bubble -- and given the criticism she received after the IVI/NDFA forum, there may be a reason why. She may be the weakest element in her campaign.
Unfortunately, the decision to go negative by the Feigenholtz campaign (given her association with Emily's List and her campaign manager, I assume it was part of her campaign plan all along) failed to understand the political environment in which this race would be fought. Going negative is an effective campaign tactic -- if used carefully *and* correctly. Feigenholtz has done neither.
Given the wide reports of message testing early on by the Feigenholtz campaign, we have to assume that linking Mike Quigley to Todd Stroger was the most effective message to move the electorate they found in their polling. As Going Dirty notes:
The linkage tactic, perfected by President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection team, remains a tried and true method of negative campaigning, particularly when the opponent is a divisive political figure. It is likely to only increase as advances in digital technology have made it easier for ads to morph photographs and to employ other visual gimmicks. The strategy has proved among the toughest for candidates to combat, because they are tacitly forced to answer for the actions of others.
Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. David Mark. Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Lanham, MD. (p. 123)
The problem with Feigenholtz's attempt at linkage is that they started too late and Mike Quigley effectively anticipated the strategy, and probably effectively innoculated himself from the charge (given the short time frame it would be made). Feigenholtz needed weeks of making and reinforcing this charge for it to be effective in driving votes away from Quigley (who, presumably, must be seen as the front-runner by the Feigenholtz camp). The reason for this is simple -- she was making a charge that contrasted drastically with Quigley's reputation and the prevailing impression about him with voters. Negative campaigning has been most effective when it reinforces voters' preconceived notions about candidates:
Negative campaigning has worked most effectively when a candidate's attacks, charges, and accusations play into preconceived notions about the opposition. In effect it has ratified in voters' minds doubts they already had about the candidate. Negative campaigning has often failed when those seeking office have hurled out charges that did not square with the opposition's voting record or stands on issues.
(Going Dirty: p. 169)
The other problem here is that there doesn't appear to be a large pool of voters who are undecided or willing to move from new charges (especially ones that are contrary to voters' preconceptions). In every single campaign office I've visited, canvassers and phone banks report overwhelmingly positive results from the people they talk to. What this tells me is that the campaigns are still successful with personal contacts among the unaware electorate. I simply do not see any sign that turnout will be large enough for there to be a large undecided pool, people who will vote who may change their minds. Feigenholtz's negative campaign needed to start earlier to dampen enthusiasm for Quigley among his supporters. 5 days out isn't long enough.
It is also possible that this particular Congressional district is too dense for this tactic to work on an apparently beloved political figure in the district:
Negative campaigning works least effectively in small population states or districts. There voters can often feel a personal connection to their elected leader and an attack on a candidate is viewed almost like a slap in the face to a family member.
(Going Dirty: p. 177)
Mike Quigley's campaign is also gambling, but in this case, on the belief that mail can pull him over the top. Get Out the Vote! argues that six pieces of mail is the optimum number (p. 59), but they've already sent out ten pieces. I'm betting there is more, to boot. Quigley's advantage remains that he started the race as the best known candidate in the district *and* the fact that he was on the 5th district primary ballot a year ago. He benefits from the other candidate's inability to break out. But, if Quigley wins, I'd bet that his mail house argues that they were the reason he won.
Quigley's problem is that he didn't raise enough money to break out himself. Had he brought in another 100k to 150k, he probably wouldn't be facing the onslaught of negative ads from Sara Feigenholtz because they would know that he had the resources to respond. The knock on Quigley continues to be his fund-raising -- something that probably won't matter as much if he wins the primary. Only Rahm's return could seriously challenge him.
John Fritchey's campaign is bringing two things to the table (that differentiate him from the others): signs and technology. Normally, I would argue that the campaign that excels in introducing new technology to the race wins. I don't know if the use of an automated townhall this late in the campaign is enough to be decisive. Getting into 5500 households, though, this late in the campaign is an impressive feat. Since we have little indication what kind of followup the campaign did with participants (did they ID supporters among listeners?), it's difficult to judge whether this could vault Fritchey to the front of the pack. It has the potential to do so.
More conventionally, the Fritchey campaign used conventional tactics in Chicago elections to increase his visibility. No one could go around the 5th without seeing one of his signs. Other than that, Fritchey has a fairly balanced campaign plan. His indecision in getting in the race has prevented his campaign from getting the number of IDs it would have if he had started sooner.
Victor Forys has been running a guerrilla campaign -- unless you are in the Polish community. In that case, you would probably think that you are overexposed to his candidacy. The Polish-speaking media has been good to Forys and his campaign, and there hasn't been a week since these roundups began where I wasn't seeing new items in a language I can't read. Forys' advantage is not simply that he is Polish, but that the Polish community exhibits a great deal of pride in his candidacy and (as yet) no one has been able to plant a wedge between Forys and the rest of the electorate.
In fact, it appears that SEIU (which is supporting Feigenholtz, presumably because of her emphasis on health care) has a number of Polish-speaking members in the district. One of them told me, in my ventures into the 5th cd, that she was telling the union that she'd support Feigenholtz, but that she and her family had already voted for Forys. Ethnic pride trumped union loyalty, I suppose. She got real quiet (and the conversation ended) when I asked her her name.
What no one knows is who's got 6,000 IDs. All the campaigns are out there, drumming up votes. The 2008 (Democratic) primary universe is quite large (94,406 voters), and most of the campaigns have focused on them. So far as I know, no one has employed Catalist or Strategic Telemetry to model the electorate for rapidly expanding their GOTV universe. Of course, this could be because none of the campaigns probably have the ability to knock-and-drag 6,000 voters to the polls, let alone an enhanced (or modeled) voter universe.
Who wins this election will undoubtedly be the campaign with the best election day. I'm counting on Quigley and Fritchey to have solid election days, given the past experience of their campaign managers. Feigenholtz' campaign manager had a less than stellar election day in Will County with Debbie Halvorson -- but Halvorson still won. They know that they have to do better in the 5th and if SEIU takes over their operations, they clearly have a chance. I don't know what to expect from the rest of the campaigns.
I *expect* Mike Quigley to win this seat, but I won't be shocked if another candidate comes out ahead. I honestly can't see Sara Feigenholtz -- the presumed front-runner -- pulling it out because I think their campaign has been indecisive (eg, going negative too late when it was obvious from the beginning that this is what they would do) and been a bit too quick to act outraged at the smallest slight. Something about that feels wrong, like they are not firing on all cylinders yet. Now is the time that it matters. If the district sends a Chicago pol (O'Connor) or a Polish-American (Forys) to Congress, it will be because the race is a lot tighter than the candidate's polls suggested. Which would be par for the course in a special election. Everyone thinks that turnout will be larger than I do (I think we are looking at a low 30k turnout), but that's because they assume more normalcy than I do. I didn't think anyone would go to the polls undecided or without a strong candidate affiliation. This assumption has proven to be wrong to a slight degree. The question is, by how much? If there is a low turnout, I'm blaming the newspapers, who couldn't be bothered to cover this race. The New York Times has spent more ink on the special election hundreds of miles from its readership than has our local papers. They couldn't really be bothered.
In news, the Chicago Tribune had a single article that wasn't candidate-specific in nature. Of course, the New York Times also had a much more thorough article in print (and they don't even have two reporters supposedly covering the race!). The Sun Times notes that Candidates crowd into 5th District while the Pioneer Press covered another candidate forum. The Tribune did run run this article from the AP. But for *real* coverage of the race, you had to look elsewhere.
Congressional Quarterly thinks Every Vote Counts in Crowded Primary. Chicago Public Radio is more engaged (perhaps it should buy the Chicago Tribune): ramping up its coverage Wednesday and Thursday. The local ABC affiliate profiled the Democrats in the race here and here. Medill News Service wrote about about Big fundraising -- and spending -- in the race for Emanuel's seat
Once again, the blogs really are covering this race to an extraordinary degree. No, they don't have the Tribune's readership -- but that really only mattered if the Tribune was actually trying to cover the race. So the Trib's reaction to the blogs is really irrelevant; they've made themselves irrelevant in the race. Nate Silver revised his estimate of who would win. Rich Miller continues to break news (as he reminded me last weekend) in his roundups on Monday (with this breaking coverage), Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (with this breaking coverage). Progress Illinois continued its daily coverage on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. On Thursday, PI had this assessment of the candidates.
Jesse Greenberg continues to focus on the race, including this post about national coverage of the race, this one on Windy City's Twitter aggregator and a piece on how Advertisements Reflect the Candidate. David Ormsby tells about election day weather. AOL's Political Machine an poorly attended forum.
Paul Bryer
Paul Bryer wants you to know that his "priorities in Congress include: health care reform, fixing America’s damaged economy, expanding education opportunities for working families, energy independence and protecting American jobs." I asked them, What is your closing message to voters?
Paul ran in this race because these are tough times. We are in a crisis: a crisis of the economy, crisis of health care, and a crisis of government. It is time for solving these problems; not politics as usual.
Do you feel like you implemented your initial campaign plan? Did you have to change it significantly? (If so,) Why?
Yes, our initial campaign was successfully implemented. No changes we needed. We were the first on TV and the first in the mailboxes.
What is your campaign's prediction for turnout on Tuesday?
Turnout is predicted to be in the mid to upper 40s
Any new endorsements?
OMSPAC - American Association of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons
What volunteer activities are scheduled for the four days?
Saturday Canvassing from 10-2 and 2-5, Phonebanking 10-7pm
Sunday Canvassing from 11-2 and 2-5, Phonebanking 11am-9pm
Monday Canvassing from 10-2 and 2-5, Phonebanking 10am to 9pm
Tuesday All day election day activities from 7am to 7pm
Brendan -- brendan@bryarforcongress.com -- is their primary contact for people interested in volunteering.
Where will you be holding your victory party?
ELECTION NIGHT
When: Tuesday, March 3rd at 7pm
Where: Cullen's Bar and Grille, 3741 N. Southport Ave
Join us for appetizers and drinks while waiting for the election results!
All are invited.
Press Contacts: Joe Woodward (708)-526-3581
and Carrie Romano (773) 715-4866
Anything else you'd like for readers to know about your candidate and/or campaign?
Paul was joined with Charlotte Howard from The Economist on Thursday to document his campaign and efforts running as a non-politician.
The interview can be found here. Contributions to the campaign online should be made here.
John Fritchey
John Fritchey remains a formidible presence in the race. His "tele-townhall meeting" was probably the most innovative thing in the campaign, and his connection to 5,500 homes in the district is to be envied. After blowing his stack over Rich Miller posting Fritchey's second commercial first, Tribune reporter Dan Mihalopoulos was true to his word in writing a critical biography piece. Blogger David Ormsby (who, I believe is supporting Sara Feigenholtz) responds by noting that Fritchey is the Real Deal on Reform. Elsewhere, he's more critical negative party invites and his Paczki Day offerings.
What is your closing message to voters?
We hope that everyone who votes on Tuesday has taken the time to learn about John’s record in Illinois politics and his leadership on the issues that are important to the people of our state. For the past 12 years as a State Representative, John Fritchey stood up to government corruption and was one of the most outspoken critics of former Governor Blagojevich. He faithfully led the charge to cap property taxes and continues to fight for the working men and women of Illinois. In these unprecedented times, people are worried about keeping their jobs and staying in their homes. As a member of the United States Congress, John will continue his fight for the people of Illinois on a national level.
We would like to thank everyone who has come out and supported the campaign. The encouragement and assistance you have provided means the world to us, and we believe that your hard work dedication will pay off by sending John to Washington!
We have not only met, but exceeded all of the goals we set forth at the beginning of the campaign. During the past eight weeks, we have blown our fundraising goals out of the water, surpassed our voter contact numbers, and received more endorsements than any other candidate in the race. We have also integrated new media innovative voter outreach methods, including an announcement of John’s candidacy over Facebook and a Telephone Townhall held on Wednesday, February 26th. On this call, John interacted directly and took questions from over 5,608 voters in the 5th Congressional District who might have been unable to attend a public forum.
What is your campaign's prediction for turnout on Tuesday?
We are going into Election Day with strong support from volunteers and voters, and we are excited to hear the results on Tuesday night!
What endorsements have you collected since my last Roundup post?
We are happy to announce that we have received the endorsements of numerous local elected officials, including those listed below.
Northlake Mayor Jeff Sherwin
River Grove Mayor Marilynn May
Schiller Park President Anna Montana
State Rep. Luis Arroyo (D-Chicago)
State Rep. Lyons (D-Chicago)
Alderman Vi Daley
Alderman Manny Flores
Alderman Ariel Rebroyas
Alderman Gene Schulter
Alderman Patrick Levar
Water Reclamation Commissioner Frank Avila
What volunteer activities are scheduled for the four days?
We have scheduled phone banking every day until Tuesday, along with GOTV Canvassing Friday through Tuesday, with Saturday door knocking starting at 10AM and Sunday starting at 11AM.
Their Deputy Field Director, Brian Gorman, can be reached at 773.472.8683 or brian@fritchey.com if you want to help.
Where will you be holding your victory party?
Our Volunteer Appreciation Party will be held Tuesday at 8PM until 11PM at Paddy O’Splaines in Lincoln Square.
Anything else you'd like for readers to know about your candidate and/or campaign?
Over the past 12 years, John has tirelessly fought of the people of Illinois. He is determined to bring that same dedication to Washington.
“These are unprecedented times right now. Things are hard. People are scared. People are worried about staying in their jobs. Everywhere people are worried about staying in their homes. People expect and deserve more than just rhetoric. They expect action and they deserve action. They want someone who is going to be honest with them. Someone who is going to work hard and someone who is going to do what they say they’re going to do. But I do the job because I believe in it, and if you ever stop believing that you can make a difference, then you shouldn’t be here anymore. I’m still her because I believe that I can make a difference.” – John Fritchey
Fritchey's interview can be found here. You can donate to his campaign here.
Tom Geoghegan
Tom Geoghegan continues to light up the blogosphere. Laura Washington warns the rest of the pack to Beware of the G-man.. The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson compares Geoghegan to Obama and Reagan and gets endorsements from Michael Barone, Slate's Mickey Kaus and Salon's Joe Conason. If the liberal elite could vote in this race, Geoghegan would win in a landslide. Elsewhere, there has been a steady drumbeat on the blogs: Down with Tyranny, D-Day, on the hill, MyDD, http://techPresident and the G spot. Locally, Progress Illinois writes that Geoghegan Files Lawsuit To Force Senate Special Election and additional endorsements.
What is your closing message to voters?
Tom’s messages of universal health care, increasing social security and putting an end to the bank bailouts continues to resonate with fifth district voters. On the phone and at the doorsteps, people are telling Tom that these issues are important to them. Tom’s message of progressive change is also resonating in the blogosphere.
What endorsements have you collected since my last Roundup post?
Legendary Chicago progressives Hon. Marty Oberman, Hon. Abner Mikva, Dr. Quentin Young, and Hon. Leon Despres endorsed Tom Geoghegan for Congress this week. Democracy for America and Progressive Democrats of America are rallying volunteers and donors with hundreds of volunteers utilizing our virtual phone bank system.
What volunteer activities are scheduled for the four days?
We are canvassing this Saturday, Sunday and Monday and have phone banks scheduled right up until the polls close on Tuesday. Contact Jacob to volunteer:
Jacob Dusseau
Tom Geoghegan For Congress
4419 W. Irving Park
Chicago, IL 60641
(773) 853-0687
Jacob@tom09.com
Where will you be holding your victory party?
Tom and his supporters will be watching the returns at Paddy Mac’s, 4157 N. Pulaski Road.
Geoghegan's interview can be seen here. You can donate online here.
Victor Forys
Victor Forys is still sailing under the radar of most people. He writes his own blog post, Shame on Sara Feigenholtz, and continues to get coverage in the Polish News (here and here). Progress Illinois noticed this and reacted.
What is your closing message to voters?
Dr. Forys’ closing message to voters is the same message he has been delivering throughout this campaign. Everyone deserves decent health care. We must fix our health care system because it is right and because it is the only way to secure our economy in the long-term. We can make sure that everyone has health insurance and Dr. Forys' plan will reduce costs to businesses and help them compete in the global market place.
Do you feel like you implemented your initial campaign plan? Did you have to change it significantly? Why?
Yes. We wrote our final plan in early January and have stuck to it with very little deviation.
What is your campaign's prediction for turnout on Tuesday?
30,000 to 35,000
What volunteer activities are scheduled for the four days?
We have a free GOTV/Pulaski Day Rally on Sunday, March 1st at the White Eagle, 6839 N Milwaukee Ave in Niles, from 1pm to 4pm.
We are making phone calls and canvassing all the time. We will be meeting at 9am at our Belmont office (6115 W Belmont) to canvas on Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning. We will have phone banks running throughout the district over the weekend and on Monday and Tuesday. Email us at info@victorforus.com or call 773-685-1210 or 773-322-8608 to let us know if you will be coming.
On Pulaski Day (Monday), every one of our supporters will receive a knock at their door or a door hanger to remind them to vote on Tuesday. This is our biggest day of canvassing, starting at our Belmont office at 9am. It is Pulaski day, so if you have the day off, come help us at our Belmont office.
For Election Day, we will be meeting very early to open polls, post signs, canvas and make calls. We need additional volunteers to fill all of our shifts throughout the day. If you have a car or a van and can provide rides to the polls, please let us know. We have had 5 vans taking people to vote all day during early voting and we expect a very high demand from our supporters on Election Day. Email us at info@victorforus.com or call 773-685-1210 or 773-322-8608 to let us know if you can help provide rides to the polls.
Katie or Langston are their primary contacts for volunteers and can be reach by calling their Lawrence Ave office at 773-685-1210 or their Belmont Ave office at 773-322-8608.
Where will you be holding your victory party?
Martini Club
3124 N. Central Ave
Doors open after the polls close at 7pm.
The Forys interview can be seen here. You can donate online here.
Mike Quigley
Mike Quigley wants you to know that yesterday was a nightmare.
I woke up Thursday morning with one of my opponents comparing me to Nazi propagandists. By dinner time, I saw an advertisement from Sara Feigenholtz that flat out lies about my relationship with Cook County Board President Todd Stroger.
These folks have gone off the rails.
Welcome to front-runner status. When everyone in the race is attacking you, they've decided your the one to beat. Mike Quigley finds himself in that position.
The Phoenix, Loyola's student newspaper, points with pride: Loyola professor runs for Congress. The Chicago Tribune biography on Wednesday notes that he is running on a reform platform. For attacking him:
Congressional candidate Mike Quigley today compared opponent Sara Feigenholtz to Richard Nixon as he responded to her TV campaign ad attacking his reformer credentials just days before the Democratic primary to replace Rahm Emanuel.
“This is Sara Nixon,” he said. “In the 11th hour, when it’s much harder to combat an unfair charge, that’s when you do this, because you know that there’s limited ability [to respond].”
Quigley, a Cook County commissioner, was mad about a new ad that tells viewers he supported County Board President Todd Stroger's first budget and backed his election a few months earlier.
More naively, blogger (and, apparently, political newbie) David Ormsby wonders if Quigley was Fundraising off Feigenholtz’s Donor List.
Several of the candidates (not Sara, of course, because she apparently doesn't talk to bloggers who might be critical of her) have commented about how they all seem to be talking to the same pool of contributors. Charlie Wheelan made this very point to me yesterday, but he was by no means the first.
Ormsby continued his attacks here.
What is your closing message to voters?
There's only one candidate who's been endorsed by the Tribune and Sun-Times for his 10 years of fighting for reform and real change. Mike Quigley.
Do you feel like you implemented your initial campaign plan? Did you have to change it significantly? Why?
We had to be smarter about some things because of resources, but I don't feel like we undershot any of our goals.
What is your campaign's prediction for turnout on Tuesday?
Low. 35K-45K
What volunteer activities are scheduled for the four days?
all day, every day.
Where will you be holding your victory party?
call the campaign office.
What media attention have you received that you'd like people to know about?
progress Illinois had a great writeup of the policy differences. The tribune profiles of all the four major candidates show a stark difference, recommend any undecided voters read all of them.
Anything else you'd like for readers to know about your candidate and/or campaign?
When a campaign goes negative, they're not in the lead. If I'm one of Sara's donors/volunteers/backers, I'd be really nervous about the next 4 days.
Quigley's interview can be found here. Contributions to his campaign can be done here.
Charlie Wheelan
Charlie Wheelan wants to be known as the "Bright Knight." TimeOut Chicago noticed the web short, too. Wheelan talked with Nate Silver this week and convinced Nate to revise his election forecast in this race.
What is your closing message to voters?
After all that's been said and done, no other candidate has demonstrated as much know-how on the national issues that really matter, namely the economy and foreign policy.
Do you feel like you implemented your initial campaign plan? Did you have to change it significantly? Why?
We've made over 80,000 contacts and recruited hundreds of volunteers. No one knows what's going to happen on Tuesday, but we're going in feeling strong.
What endorsements have you collected since my last Roundup post?
77 economists from universities and financial institutions around the country have signed a petition saying they support Charlie's economic platform, including his carbon tax plan, his approach to the foreclosure crisis, and his support for a broader safety net for workers of all industries.
What volunteer activities are scheduled for the four days?
We're splitting our organizers and volunteers into two teams and that will be taking turns working on the phones and in the field to turn our voters out. A little competition never hurt anybody.
Contact Erik at (773) 472-9400 to volunteer.
Where will you be holding your victory party?
TBA -- our favorite bar Grand Central is closed on Tuesdays.
Wheelan's interview can be found here. You can contribute to his campaign online here.
Others
Patrick O'Connor got serious in the last two weeks, which is pretty standard for machine pols. The Tribune's bio writes:
O'Connor argues he would be a good congressman precisely because of his deep roots among Chicago's powers-that-be, reflected in his golf buddies as well as his virtual total obedience to Mayor Richard Daley for whom he serves as unofficial council floor leader.
"We all think we would like an independent voice in Congress, but I think we all want somebody that can accomplish things for the people they represent and can work with the elected officials" of the district, O'Connor said.
The Sun Times writes about O'Connor's denials that he's claiming endorsements from Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Dick Durbin. Otoh, Michael Daley has donated $1,000 to Patrick O’Connor and Dick Devine joins a list of O'Connor supporters that includes Democratic state Reps. Greg Harris and John D'Amico, state Sen. Ira Silverstein, and Alds. Bernard Stone (50th) and Margaret Laurino (39th).
Sara Feigenholtz continues to make waves. She launches the first attack ad of the campaign, which got lots of coverage. The Tribune's Clout Street blog notes the irony:
Feigenholtz was listed on Todd Stroger’s fall 2006 campaign materials as endorsing him, but she recently told the Tribune that she did not make that endorsement.
Politico stated the obvious:
The late attack ad suggests that Feigenholtz views Quigley as her biggest rival in next week’s Democratic primary. Both candidates are competing for the same constituency in the affluent part of the district near the lakefront.
In more "Chicago Way" tactics, a sign for Sara showed up in front of Rahm's house. But after a day of much consternation about how this came to be, I hear from a source in the White House that Rahm suggests that someone from the Feigenholtz campaign put it there. I'm sure the O'Connor campaign is sad they didn't think of it first!
Feigenholtz did get some sweet support this week. Dan Hynes came out for her, and SEIU went all in for her.
John Fritchey notes the irony here in this Tribune article:
Democratic opponent state Rep. John Fritchey said there is "no question" the union's ad money will affect the race.
"SEIU spent millions of dollars to get Rod Blagojevich elected twice, and they are going to try to use the same technique now," Fritchey said.
If Sara Feigenholtz wins the race, there will be no doubt why. SEIU will have dragged her over the finish line. She will owe them. We will know that the union covered her campaign's strategic mistakes and put her over the top.
Read more...
