Home » Featured, Headline

What’s What with Andy McKenna’s Negative Ads

Thomas F. Roeser 4 February 2010 7 Comments
The best analysis of what led to the virtual tie between Kirk Dillard and Bill Brady comes to me from a number of people who seem to agree with Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax. All along the smart prognosticators were saying it’s going to be knife-edge between Dillard and Andy McKenna.  Brady was regarded as not being sufficiently funded etc. True: then McKenna started in with the very negative ads zeroing in on Dillard and Jim Ryan.
The ads were too tough coupled with the fact that Andy was unwilling to go to many debates to fight for himself but let the negative commercials with a deep rolling baritone voice-over do his work for him. So psychologically many TV viewers got a bad taste in their mouths for both Dillard and Ryan.  Then after examining who was sponsoring the TV spots and seeing it was McKenna, they drew a bad conclusion about the negativity.  So in their winnowing out the list of recipients for their support, they dropped (a) Dillard, (b) Ryan and chose (c) Brady who didn’t run many commercials but who didn’t say anything bad about anybody.
Which if you follow that rationale means that Bill Brady owes a whole lot to Andy McKenna—or rather Big Andy, Sr. who bankrolled the kid’s campaign and paid for the commercials.
Interesting, what?
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer


  • Conservative said:

    Bradys TV spots were negative against Dillard (Tax increase and Obama) Ryan(Stew Levine) and McKenna (Hand in the GOP cookie jar) he ran them at the right time. There was nothing wrong in them but they were negative. With the other 3 doing most of the beating everything got mixed.

  • Windy City Commentary said:

    It’s not a virtual tie, Tommy. Brady won by 400 votes. Sorry, your guy lost, and will have to resort to Al Franken tactics to win. You made a bad choice to begin with. You can blame McKenna all you want, but chances are Brady has a better chance to beat Quinn that Dillard had anyway. The 2 Kirks would be DOA, if Dilly had won. Your Obama endorser of a candidate would not have done a thing for turnout of conservatives. Mark Kirk won’t turn out the vote either, and it’s likely the big bad banker will end up holding the seat. Illinois GOP Establishment is clueless.

  • Phil Krone said:

    Tom, you’re right on the money, not as usual, but rather often.
    This is known as the Blair Hull effect. In 2004 the twice elected Comptroller of Illinois (by more than a million votes each time) was defeated in the primary for U. S. by a Chicago state senator who had lost four years before in a primary against an incumbent congressman. Enter the millionaire who spends 29 million of his own money, a lot of it on negative ads directed at the frontrunner, the comptroller, not at all helping himself (he came in a very distant third), but increasing the viability of the virtually unknown Chicago state senator who did have a very special niche of the population as a true base. The State Senator came in first, the Comptroller second (but who came in first in more than 80 of Illinois 102 counties) and as I ssid, the big spender came in third.

    Or should we call it the Hofeld effect, which caused the defeat of Alan Dixon in 1992 allowing the very able but still relatively unknown recorder of deeds of Cook County to win. Again Dixon coming in a close third and Hofeld last.

    But Dillard wasn’t just crippled by the McKenna barrage (who is also in third place) he also faced the nostalgic former Attorney General and the outgoing President of the Du Page County Board both fellow DuPagers. Any rational observer knows that McKenna nominated Brady, just as Hull nominated Obama or Hofeld nominated Carol Moseley Braun.

    Geez, if Hofeld, Hull and McKenna gave half a million each to the U of I, a Hofeld/Hull/McKenna political science professorship could be endowed specializing in such strategies.

    If Brady bedcomes Governor he should offfer McKenna the Ambassadorship to Wisconsin.

    By the way Dillard never endorsed Obama., He spoke about his personal friendship and Obama’s character. Too many right wing Republicans, unlike you, are also idiots, and don’t understand that any Governor would like to have any President, regardless of party, answer their phone calls.

    I never endorsed Dillard during the primary because I thought it would hurt him. Had he been, or if he becomes, the nominee I would have worked hard for him openly. 400 votes is a small amount. We know what would hve happened in Florida in 2000 had there been a full recount. Gore would have won. (It was recoirded by the NYTimes and the Washington Post). The moral is: don’t count your boobies before they hatch.

  • Phil Krone said:

    I should have mentioned that I was happy that both you and Russ Stewart predicted the nomination of Hynes. Though you were slightly wrong, Hynes’ loss by less than 1% is well within the allowable standard or margin of error.

    Also choosing Preckwinkle makes up for that.

    Neither of you loses your prognosticator’s license.


    But Krone and Stewart both predicted Hoffman would win.

    Fortunately, you both crashed and burned, just like him, and he can crawl back into whatever hole he crawled out of.

    The people have spoken.

  • Mike F said:

    Geez, you guys. It’s just predictions. It doesn’t matter if YOU’RE WRONG!!!1!!

    Besides, the people have spoken. 28% of the registered voting people have spoken.

  • Windy City Commentary said:

    So Phil, It’s all OK? Dillard didn’t endorse Obama, they are just friends and Dillard vouches for his character. That’s more than a newspaper endorsement will give you. Your man Dillard is not the right guy. And in regards to McKenna, for once, we had too bad candidates beat each other up, and the good guy one. The 2 proud pro-lifers, Andrzejewski and Brady received a combined 35% of the vote; not too bad in such a crowded field. Oh, that darn right wing, they might actually turn back creeping socialism; but Tommy and Phil aren’t sure if that’s what they want, because that might undermine the smart guys in “conservative” Chicago media.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.