We had a breakfast meeting of Champaign County Republicans this morning. At it, we conducted a “scientific” poll, in which 34 people responded by private ballot to the following questions.
If the election were held today, who would you vote for GOVERNOR:
Topinka 50% (17 votes)
Brady 26% (9)
Oberweis 15% (5)
Gidwitz 9% (3)
For LT. GOVERNOR:
Rauschenberger 65% (22)
Birkett 32% (11)
Wegman 0% (0)
For the following offices, those present were asked to name the Republican candidate. We were trying to gauge name ID among the various candidates.
Dan Rutherford for Secretary of State 59% (20 of 34 people knew and wrote Rutherford’s name)
Stu Umholtz for Attorney General 12% (4)
Carole Pankau for Comptroller 15% (5)
Christine Radogno for Treasurer 41% (14)
Judy Myers for State Senate 82% (28)
Please discuss.
Brady's 26% surprises me a little bit. Guess it could be from his sen. district's proximity to Champaign County. But being so new and having such low name ID, that number's gotta be encouraging for him. An 11 point lead on Oberweis, too. Hopefully that's a trend we'll see more of.
BTW, thought Brady did great tonight, Oberweis did better than expected but also gave shallower-than-expected answers with his continuing to run for the "corruption tax" as a funding source. Gidwitz was just plain awful, and Judy was OK, but looked uncomfortable and frail. That frail part was a littl surprising to me.
Interesting night.
I watched a few minutes of it...from what I saw, Senator Brady (who I was already supporting) looked great!
Oberweis and Gidwitz were average at best.
Topinka really struggled. I think she wanted to keep her hands off of the hot pots...and it cost her...the other 3 have nothing to lose.
I just finished watching the debate and I can't believe what happened. I went in supporting Judy, and came out leaning towards Brady. Now, I really think Judy is a great person and has done a fantastic job in her office, and the party should be proud of her, but during this debate she offered no specifics and wasn't that well spoken, and she was the only one to read off of a script for opening and closing statements, and even some answers. There will be other debates so she may do much better next time, but she lost the lock on my vote, and I'm probably not the only one.
All four GOP candidates will be on debate tonight. It will answer reds questions and allot of others. I think the tent is big. the question is which candidate agrees with the most of us? That can beat the current Governor.
I'm very disappointed at the Rutherford numbers. You would think a guy who's district enters Champaign county would be known a little.
I was surprised by Judy Barr's 50%.
Other than "she says she is", what makes her a Republican? I have seen it posted that she won't pledge not to raise taxes, she is definately not the "family values" candidate.
Small gov't? Pro gun?
Judy supporters please educate me.
I think it's driven simply by "who can beat Rod." Even the most left-leaning Republican is better than Blago.
...reminds me of the quote, "The lesser of two evils is still evil."
Begs the question: do you vote to win or vote your conscience?
I know the reason why some Republicans say they will vote for her, but what is her platform, and how is it Republican?
Anon today...
I'm going to vote my conscience in the primary...for Brady....then I'm going to vote to win...Topinka...in the general
Um, 'big tent,' anyone?
For the 50% that seem to be confused on the governors race. I hope this will help.
CBS Channel 2 Chicago will televise the debate live from 6 to 7 p.m. January 25. Channel 2 Chicago will also carry the debate as live streaming video on its website, www.cbs2chicago.com.
The Champaign CBS affiliate will carry the debate live on its UPN station, WCFN ”“ 49.
What the heck is Gidwitz still doing in this race? He's been running TV ads since last summer and he's STILL in the single digits. Even after joining with Rauchy his numbers are still next to nill. He's not even pulling enough to be a threat to fellow-moderate Judy. Is this just an ego thing?
Run4, do you know who will be attending the debate?
Still no answer....
Matthew, I understand the "big tent" philosophy, but don't you have to have some conservative ideas to be in it? I just want to hear one or two.
Time to chime in here.
I have been called a RINO. I believe in a woman's right to choose, although I am personally against abortion. I believe in small government, but I believe we have a duty to help the poor.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I don't anyone carrying guns.
I think GW is an idiot and far worse then Clinton ever was. Clinton, after all, reduced the debt, expanded employment and the economy, and limited his wars to little ones. His Monica thing was no big deal.
Am I Republican enough to be in the tent?
Myers is running unopposed in this district and can't get a unanimous vote? What's with that?
It was a name ID thing. I'm sure some of the Young Republicans don't know about her yet.
I've often told individuals who disagree with candidates that the only person they'll agree with 100% of the time is the person they see in the mirror each morning. In order for Illinois Republicans to succeed, we must be a big tent. That isn't to say that Topinka or Brady or Oberweis or Gidwitz is the right or wrong candidate for the party. It's simply being open to the idea that they're all playing for the same team and one of them is going to win, and none of us are going to agree with that person 100% of the time.
To RSW and others above - being a Republican can mean many things to many different people. Some Republicans are socially conservative, others not. Some support libertarian principles. Some believe the Iraq war is justified, others believe its not, or we've spent too much money on it”¦
I believe Republicans support limited government and more personal freedom. That's my litmus test, and yes ”“ it allows me great freedom on choosing the candidates I support. I understand your concerns with Topinka. In answering your question, “what is her platform, and how is it Republican?” I suppose we'll see more on it in the upcoming weeks. Fiscal responsibility, the #1 issue to many voters, will certainly be the mantra of Topinka and every Republican candidate.
At what point, though, is a candidate not a Republican?
Is it when they're pro-choice (Edgar, Ryan, Thompson)? What if they're pro-choice, but support parental notification? What happens if they're in favor of the death penalty? I think, but am not sure, that Topinka's crowd would say she's pro-choice, favors notification, and supports the death penalty. So ”“ does that make her more or less of a Republican in your head?
RR,
small gov't is conservative
how can you support the 2nd amendment but not want anyone carrying guns?
the issues you listed seem to make you more in line with the Dems, so why don't you consider yourself one?
Am I Republican enough to be in the tent?
Cute, Judy.
Anony 11:35,
It wasn't a vote. It was whether those polled could recall Judy Myers name from memory when asked, "Who is the Republican running for Rick Winkel's State Senate seat?"
Surprisingly, Myers numbers (82%) were much higher than Rutherford's (59%), although Rutherford has represented parts of Champaign County for many years and is quite well known even beyond his district boundaries.
"Topinka's crowd would say she's pro-choice, favors notification, and supports the death penalty"
"Fiscal responsibility, the #1 issue to many voters, will certainly be the mantra of Topinka"
Thank you Jason, that is a start, and the first answer I have received. The fiscal responsibility issue will be no different than Eisendrath though.
Allkids, gov't support for stem-cell research, gambling, personal freedoms and responsibility vs. nanny state-ism, school vouchers - there are a lot of issues. I just need to hear that she has some conservative positions.
I think the most surprising and most alarming thing about these numbers is the Rutherford total. Given his notoreity in the area, he should be up at least 75 percent. For the Secretary of State office, it is all about name id, and Jesse White has a good amount of it.
"... nanny state-ism..."
This runs both ways, RSW. I've seen a lot of it from Republicans in recent years (national level, not necessarily locally).
And thanks, Jason, for your comments. I sometimes wonder if we should even have political parties, for reasons displayed with the upcoming GOP primary. Instead of holding someone steadfast to some supposed 'party ideals,' why not just have everyone be independent? As Jason said, we're unlikely to agree with a politician 100% of the time about every single issue, so why don't we just base our vote on who it is we agree with more? Politicians could fundraise on their own, without the help of a 'party' collecting money for them. It would be a totally independent system, with every candidate their own man (or woman), not bound to the rigidity that a political party sometimes demands.
Just a thought.
Parties are like brands - they are a short-cut for the voter (and the donors). Knowing nothing about the individual, the party affiliation gives you a clue about their stances. I know most of what a McDonalds is going to sell no matter where I drive, so it makes my decision easier.
Some people may not fit neatly into the party platforms, but that is part of why we have primaries. Judy not only has to convince the public she would make the best governor, but in the primary she must also convince Republicans that she is the best candidate from their party. I just want to hear that she is going to advance some of what I believe is the GOP agenda.
"Knowing nothing about the individual..."
Which is, IMHO, one of the big problems we face: many uninformed voters going to the polls and simply pulling the lever because of an (R) or a (D) behind a candidate's name. Is that what we really want?
It beats voting for "Johnson" over "Gonzalez" because you like the name better.