|
I have taken it upon myself to end the ridiculous notion that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is contemplating a run for the US Senate.
As of the end of 2008 Madigan had approximately $3.5 million in her Illinois campaign account, a total that is sure to grow on July 15 when fundraising totals for the first half of 2009 are made public. This money was not raised under FEC hard money regulations and cannot be used for a federal campaign. In addition, most of Madigan’s name ID and clout are on a state level, while other potential US Senate candidates have credentials that extend to DC (Kennedy’s last name; Giannoulias’ relationship with Obama and $1 million+ raised for a federal campaign).
Lisa Madigan is a powerhouse in the gubernatorial race, but after losing her funds and diminishing her name advantage she is a weaker candidate for the US Senate. In addition, the field has been cleared for her to run for Governor. That is why, despite the rumors, she is not even remotely considering a run for Congress’ upper chamber. Her name is simply being floated as a tactical move by Democratic strategists. This rumor was started and perpetuated by Democratic interests for several political reasons, and Republicans have been playing along needlessly. An examination of the thinking behind this move reveals a glimpse of the strategic games Democrats play on a regular basis.1
First and foremost, it befuddles Republicans considering a run for the US Senate, especially Mark Kirk. Notoriously tentative, Kirk has repeatedly delayed an announcement on his 2010 intentions, and one of the major reasons is his nervousness towards having to face Lisa Madigan. This gives those trying to convince Kirk to stay in the 10th Congressional District more time to dissuade him from running for the Senate, and rumors are that noteworthy Democrats are pushing his supporters to do just that.
Second, it puts Democrats in control of the timing. Now potential candidates in both parties must wait to see what race Madigan chooses, which forces them to play on the Democrat’s schedule. This affects candidates up and down the ticket as candidates are unsure of the state of their desired seat and local officials do not know where they must recruit replacements and challengers.
Third, it gives the DSCC valuable chips to show their donors and grassroots supporters they are recruiting the best possible candidates for Senate seats across the nation. As a young-looking, attractive female candidate, Lisa Madigan is the kind of recruit political organizations love to tout in fundraising mailings and action emails, even if they know she will never run for the seat.
Fourth, it gives Democratic leaders a small amount of additional control over potential Democratic Senate candidates as they must take into account Madigan’s possible candidacy. If used properly it gives them additional leverage over candidates in the race.
And last, it gives other Democrats play in the Governor’s race and allows them to raise their profile. Had Madigan made her decision public months ago, the opportunity wouldn’t exist for up-and-comers in the Democratic Party to “explore” a bid for the Governor’s seat as the media and public would not take them seriously. This is one of the most basic political strategies used on all levels, most notably once every four years as Presidential candidates choose their running mates. They typically float the names of a few candidates to give them publicity (think: Chet Edwards, Tim Kaine, Bobby Jindal, Eric Cantor) before settling on someone who most likely was the original choice.
This leads me to something I’ve been saying for several weeks: Republicans have a perfect opportunity to play this chess game. Since they know Madigan’s choice they should make their decisions and force her hand. Then, once she has announced, they should demand father Madigan’s resignation as speaker citing conflict of interest, nepotism, corruption and anything else they can possibly come up with.2 This allows them to tie Lisa Madigan to her father and gives them a line of attack against a relatively squeaky clean candidate without looking like they are attacking her directly. In addition, it would give the GOP rare leverage over the powerful Speaker and Chair of the Democratic Party.
Ultimately, a strategic move like this would result in either the resignation of the most powerful figure in Illinois politics or a crippling, yearlong attack against the likely Democratic nominee for Governor. In chess this is called a “fork” because no matter how your opponent responds you eliminate one of their valuable pieces.
****
1. For another example of this, see Politico’s profile of Obama’s & Rahm’s political savvy in their strategy for nominating Republicans to their administration: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23253.html.
2. Kristen McQueary did a great piece on this Sunday in the SouthtownStar: http://www.southtownstar.com/news/mcqueary/1609011,060709mcqueary.article.
|
