Green Prevails in Keeping Illinois Blue

Is it really just about the money?/Pixabay

In Illinois, Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker won re-election rather quickly. He got what he wanted in the primary with opposing candidate, Darren Bailey, instead of Richard Irvin. From the start, Bailey seemed like a mismatch for Chicago. As a farmer and senator from a downstate rural area, he seemed too far south to connect with northern Illinois. However, he did call Chicago a hellhole, upon which many agreed, as crime is a major issue and political platform.

Political commercials are supposed to be considered a crockpot full of malarkey. Yet, many base their vote solely on them, as they are pervasive. Bailey had a doozy working against him. In an interview, he responded that in the event of a rape or incest, a woman could still not have an abortion. He later stated (prior to the election) that he would not be able to enforce such a mandate because the “majority” would overrule. That statement needed to get more publicity; however, it would not likely have made a difference in the outcome.

Richard Irvin, on the other hand, had at least one commercial that made him sparkle.  He emphasized that ALL Lives Matter. He served in the Gulf War, was a prosecuting attorney, was pro-police, etc. However, he was running as a Republican. A black Republican. Pritzker needed the black vote, which would likely be secured by eliminating Irvin. Meanwhile, Pritzker was holding the Trump Card. Bailey was endorsed by Donald Trump, which would make him ripe for the picking and would not include corn, soybeans, or wheat from his farm.

Wheat Field/Pixabay

At one point, Irvin announced a press conference. He had an agenda but every time he was asked if he voted for Trump, he would not answer the question. He went off on a rehearsed tangent, as if no one would notice he was avoiding the lightning rod. Next, I was looking forward to the debates and dang burn it, Irvin did it again. No direct answer when asked who he voted for, just another tangent. Another disappointment. Irvin and his advisors needed a better strategy, as the conference did not serve him well.

There was something else that stood out for me about Irvin. In one of Irvin’s sparkling commercials, he was walking in slow motion wearing a business suit and a big smile. A white woman was walking near him, also with a business suit and smile. I thought she was a colleague but it may have been his wife. I cannot confirm if she was in the commercial, but he is indeed married to a white woman who looks similar.

My concern was that Irvin would be branded as an Uncle Tom, like Justice Clarence Thomas, another Republican with a white wife. It is not a secret that many black women resent their men with white women because their fishing pond is smaller. WTTW reports “There are far more black women than there are black men in this country, and that’s been for some time. From age 16 and forward, black women start outnumbering black men. For whites, that doesn’t happen until age 32,” said Cheryl Judice, a sociologist and adjunct faculty member in Northwestern University’s School of Education and Public Policy.

Furthermore, Governing.com reports that “gender imbalance [among blacks] reflects a number of factors, primarily mass incarceration and high mortality, and it’s present in hundreds of communities across the country. Nationally, the Census Bureau counts 88 black male adults for every 100 black women, while the ratio for whites is a more equal 97 men for every 100 women.” (I hope black women expand their own pond and consider dating outside of their race.)

Anyway, Irvin became the “first African American mayor of Illinois’ second-largest city, Aurora, where only 8 percent of the population was black in 2017,” as reported by CBS News. In 2021, Irvin won a second term with over 55% of the vote where the black population was at 10.5%. Clearly, he seemed to be doing an acceptable job and presented a refreshing threat. Pritzker and his allies launched a full assault of attack ads against Irvin to keep Illinois blue.

“Pritzker spent roughly $3.3 million on anti-Irvin ads since Memorial Day for the June primary election, while the Democratic Governors Association spent $9.1 million since the first week of May,” according to records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. Later, Pritzker spent “more than $167 million to defeat Republican Darren Bailey by nearly 13 percentage points in November,” according to newly released state and federal campaign records, reported by the Chicago Tribune on January 18.

While writing and researching this article, frankly, I’m disgusted. I came up with possibilities where Irvin may not have appealed to blacks, and I don’t know if I’m wrong. If it’s all about the green paying for smear commercials, are we that gullible that we blindly go along and base our vote on them? Just because we are inundated with them doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do some work on our own. We need to do our own research. Of course, candidates will be flawed. Most of us have skeletons in our closets. We need to consider the good and bad of a candidate and how their values coincide with ours. It’s really up to us.    

4 Comments

  1. People absolutely believe what they see on TV. TV used to be more truthful. Now it’s all cash driven politics. Whomever has the deepest pockets usually wins. Illinois is the perfect example. The Governor is loaded and not afraid to spend his birth given fortune in order to get his way. He started at least back in the Blago days when he was caught on recorded phone calls trying to buy a position in politics.

    Bailey and Irvin were outgunned financially by the Gov. They were both hoping that the people would vote in spite of the many smear commercials. But skin color didn’t matter. People mostly believe what they see on the tube. So the winning formula is to smear often for a long time. That will reach the most people. It takes big bucks to follow the new formula and the rich get their way.

    1. Yes, I do remember Pritzker in recorded messages back in the Blago days. I had never heard of him before that. It is pretty insulting to our intelligence that many just go along with the commercials, but if that’s what the majority based their vote on, then that’s it.

  2. Didn’t Pritzker contribute a huge amount of money to Bailey’s campaign to boost his position over Irvin? Who else in that position can say they contributed to their candidate’s campaign? Why would you do that? By doing so, Pritzker basically knocked Irvin out by manipulating Bailey into the position of front-runner.

    Bailey would have a hard time winning over northern Illinois being a hick candidate and against abortion. Politics is so riddled with lies and we, the majority of people, buy into that stuff. It’s not a fair contest and it just goes to show that the player with the most money can manipulate and change the playing field in his favor. Who loses? We the people. We lose.

  3. I heard allegations but could not find anything concrete that Pritzker gave Bailey money. It was my understanding that the real purpose of the smear campaign against Irvin was to help Bailey beat his more moderate rivals. So, it was an indirect contribution to Bailey. We, as a People, should be more aware of these shenanigans and not let the rich manipulators get away with it.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *