February 24, 2006

Rumler - Jacobs debate a reality?

I've just heard a report that something about a Jacobs - Rumler debate was aired on WQAD's 10:00 newscast. The person who saw this was maddeningly vague, but seemed to recall something about the Dispatch/Argus being involved. I can find nothing on either the WQAD or Dispatch websites, so can't verify if it's true or not.

I've also heard that the Illinois Quad City Chamber of Commerce may be interested in setting up a "forum" with the hopefuls.

I certainly hope that there is some validity to either or both of these reports.

I'll post any information one way or another as soon as I receive it. If anyone else saw this report, please let me know.

16 Comments:

At 2/25/2006 1:06 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

A reader provided their comment on this which I'll have to quote in order to omit their characterization of the performance of the contenders, since the thing hasn't even been aired yet.

They state:
"Yes, Senator Mike Jacobs and his opponent taped campaign messages that will air on WQAD's popular "Good Morning America" show. The debate features clips from both Senator Jacobs and his opponent."

First off, I suppose GMA is 'popular' in that lots of people watch it. Lots of people watch "The O'Reilly Factor" too.

I personally can't stomach such morning drivel. They're like a coffee addled adult version of Romper Room. Getting informed from morning shows is like eating powdered donuts for their nutritional value.

I'd also point out that airing two short clips of the candidates reading campaign boilerplate into a camera does not constitute a "debate" by any stretch of the definition.

The commenter then says that one candidate "performed well" and the other looked "downright unimpressive". I'll leave it up to you to wonder which is which. But it is instructive to note that the commenter for some reason forgot that Jacobs' opponent's name is Paul Rumler.

They then wrote the following: "For his part Jacobs is stuck in Springfield for the duration of tha campaign, giving his unemployeed opponent an advantage on the ground. Insiders fear this "homecourt" advantage helps Rumler and harms the Senator. Although Senator Jacobs is said to be raising money at an incredible clip, some fear his absence from the District will hurt him on election day.

Should Jacobs abandon his duties in Springfield to campaign at home, or stay on the job? This is the delima Jacobs faces. What will he do?

Time will tell."

First of all, this gang of goofs have sent literally dozens of comments, all trying to hype the "Rumler is unemployed" meme.

Why they think this is some smear that will really take hold is simply baffling.

Do they expect him to be bagging groceries at night and running for state senator by day?

It's valid to note that Rumler is free to campaign full time, but it's insane to suggest that this is somehow a negative.

From the above and many other such comments, there's obviously an effort to play the "lowered expectations" game with Jacobs.

The campaign must not like what they're seeing in all their many polls, as they're already starting to make excuses for why Jacobs won't do as well as expected, including one which suggested that a 53-47% Jacobs victory would be a "landslide" win.

I'd say that with his 10 to 1 money advantage, having literally the entire party machine and it's hundreds of workers at his disposal, the endorsements of every Dem office holder in the area, the support of the ultra-powerful speaker of the house along with his vast resources, and near universal name recognition, and at the same time considering that Rumler is running on a shoestring budget and is essentially unknown, Jacobs should by rights be expected to get about 70% of the vote.

That is about where I figure the "better than expected/ worse than expected" baseline for this race should be.

 
At 2/25/2006 1:40 AM, Anonymous Senior Editor said...

The WQAD story was one of the "Read it/Watch it" stories that are scheduled for the next day's Argus/Dispatch. The thrust of the article was that there is not much chance that there will be a debate. Jacobs says he doesn't see an advantage to debating Rumler and Rumler says he doesn't have the cash to spend on staging a debate.

 
At 2/25/2006 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Mike is "stuck in Springfield for the duration of the campaign", then why did I receive an invite to "visit" with him at the "Mercer County Democrat Soup and Chili Super" on March 4th?(By the way, I didn't misspell Chili Super, that's the way it was spelled on the mailer. Think they meant "supper" you know, like the LAST supper. Mike or his Bro. must have been in charge of spell check!

In the same vein as Johnny Cockren's famous line, I submit, "If he won't debate...he must vacate!"

 
At 2/25/2006 9:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rumler wins in a landslide."

- THE DOPE
1/13/06

On January 13, 2006, didn't you run a poll that showed Rumler defeating Jacobs in a "landslide?" Wasn't your poll number Rumler 81.82% to Jacobs 16.16%? Didn't you claim at the time that "Rumler has superior capability to get the troops to participate."

What changed in the past 45 days to convince you that your polling numbers were false?

By the way DOPE, in the real world of politcs a "53% to 47% primary victory" is a "landslide." Perhaps in blogland it seems like a small victory, but in Rock Island County it's a huge number for a first time candidate like Mike Jacobs. The 70% numbers are reserved for well-known incumbents like Barack Obama, Lane Evans, Denny Jacobs, Pat Verschoore and Mike Boland.

Given Jacobs' opponent hasn't held a job in eight months, he has had all the time in the world to go door-to-door, put up signs and raise needed campaign money.

I for one think Rumler shouyld have worked while seeking high office. For there is dignity in work.

By not working Rumler appears all too willing to live of the labor of his parents and friends. Not a very flattering trait for someone that so desperately wants to be a public servant.

In closing, why do you edit comments that favor Senator Jacobs, but let Rumler's Ramblers go on and on, and on? Just asking.

 
At 2/25/2006 11:30 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

One of these days I'll stop being surprised at your comments.

I'm aware that 70% majorities are fairly rare in politics, as you say. But also as you say, they're reserved for people like Jacobs who has all the massive advantages that I listed in the comment above. Given all that, I still don't see why any candidate with such a vast advantage shouldn't be expected to pull in somewhere in the 70% neighborhood. Just my opinion.

As to your complaint about supposed bias... (yawn)

I've cut dozens of comments which were anti-Jacobs and a few pro-Rumler comments as well where I felt they got too smart-ass, vicious, or were generally unfair or out of line or simply too stupid to exist.

I urge you and everyone else to realize that moderating comments is not an exact science. I can only call 'em as I see 'em and do my best to be even-handed.

It's been particularly frustrating lately, as like toddlers taking their first steps, some trolls have been trying to learn to discuss things like, well, at least Jr. High age kids.

I read their comments and as the words go by without anything too ridiculous or false, I start to get excited, wondering if they're going to actually make it to the end without being a putz and for once I can actually post their comment. C'mon, you can do it!

I'm rooting them on, the excitement is building... maybe they've, dare I dream it, learned how to discuss things without feeling the obsession to smear someone or overly fluff themselves.

It's getting near the end of the comment, I'm about to jump out of my chair and spill my drink all over the keyboard, and then....

Damn! SO CLOSE! But hey just couldn't do it. The last line is some jerky and distorted attempt to smear someone, twist or invent facts, or an out and out lie.

I take no pleasure in tossing comments. As a matter of fact, it bugs the hell out of me as it's depressing when people, despite having so much time, and having patiently and not-so-patiently explained to them in dozens of ways why they're out of line, continue to do the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, etc. It really is depressing, frustrating I guess is what it is mostly.

I want good comments, debate, and discussion. I don't like tossing bad comments, and it's especially frustrating when they're doing ok and then f*ck up at the last moment. One stupid thing and the whole comment is wrecked.

In some cases, it's so tragic that I'll reproduce the sane parts, even though I might disagree with what they say completely, just because I hate to see them wasted because of something out of line.

In your case anon, it was quoting an unamed person's assessment of this little statement reading contest before it even aired and anyone had a chance to see it for themselves. Do you think that's legit? I don't.

But like in any sport, you might argue the call of the ref or umpire, but in the end, it's their call.

And another thing which I'd assume most people would figure out just from common sense, but hasn't been the case. If you jump ugly with the ump about a thousand times, and despite several warnings you choose to ignore them and continue to piss him off, you shouldn't be surprised if on close ones, the call doesn't go your way.

And I'm putting you and all your pals on notice as of now. I will dump any comment which tries to suggest that the fact that Rumler isn't working a 9 to 5 job and is instead working a 6 a.m. to 9 p.m or later job trying to let people know who he is and what he's about and why they should vote for him is some sort of negative.

You're obviously pissed that he's able to campaign full time. Not to be harsh but, get over it, ya baby.

The Rumler is unemployed bull was stupid the first dozen times you've tried it here. And this isn't being biased against Jacobs or for Rumler, it's being extremely prejudiced against bullshit. That's all.

As to what your point is in quoting me at the top of your comment, I'll be honest. Your argument makes no sense because it doesn't come close to proving your conclusion.

What is it about my describing an 82 to 16 ass thumping as a landslide that confuses you? And even more so, what is it that has you thinking I now think the poll numbers were "false"?

Try to get in the same area code as some logic sometime.

And you don't get to tell me what I think. Someone else, maybe, but not you, OK?

Not only do you know that I don't think the poll was "false", you don't even present any evidence to cause anyone to think so.

It's been obvious for a long time, but you're truly a very confused and confusing person.

If you feel up to attempting to more fully explain how you think anything shows that my poll was false, have at it. Don't hurt yourself.

 
At 2/25/2006 1:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forty-five days ago YOU claimed Rumler was winning by a "landslide." Now YOU claim Jacobs is winning 70/30. Which is it DOPER?

 
At 2/25/2006 3:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that Blagojevich debated Eisendrath at the Chicago Tribune editorial board ... maybe that's an idea, folks. The incumbent with the big lead debated.

 
At 2/25/2006 3:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your poll on the RI County Sheriff's race is giving Huff a lopsided victory right now, and Rumler won the Senate poll awhile back. I wonder if there is a strong anti-incumbent feeling out in voterland that we aren't aware of, that you are picking up on?
Maybe voters are seeing things not run well at the county level and taking it out on Grchan. And they see problems at the state level.
Just a thought.

 
At 2/25/2006 3:29 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I hate to pick on you, as you're obviously mentally challenged, but try to follow along here, or perhaps have someone else help you.

I want you to understand that your mind is not always your friend. As we've all seen, sometimes it plays tricks on you.

Sometimes, your brain will tell you that you see things which really aren't there. Things which don't exist, and never did exist... except of course, in your brain. (what's left of it)

You see, somehow, your brain tricked you into thinking that 45 days ago, you'd seen me claim that Rumler was winning by a landslide.

But you know what? That silly little brain of yours is playing tricks on you!
Bad brain! Bad, bad brain!

You never read me claiming that Rumler was winning by a landslide, not 45 days ago, not 5 days ago, not 1005 days ago, not with a goat, not on a boat, not ever.

What you saw and what you think you saw are two different things.

You saw me say that Rumler won the POLL by a landslide. Do you know what a poll is? No, not that kind of poll that's out in your playground, this kind of poll is where people are asked a question and they give their answers, and then their answers are counted in order to see what these people think.

But, and here is where I want you to really pay attention,... I reporting the fact that Rumler won the poll by a landslide. I did not say that he was "winning" by a landslide. Maybe you can get a helper to explain this difference to you because once you understand it, you won't be so confused and frustrated and maybe you'll quit wiping your boom booms on the bathroom wall. I know it's pretty hard for you to figure out. Maybe someone can draw some pictures to help.

You do need to work on this though, as hard as it may be for you, because that silly old brain not only tricked you once, but he tricked you twice! (but your brain still likes you, so don't start hitting yourself in the head with that wiffle ball bat because you're angry with it. That will only make things worse.)

Bad old brain made you imagine that I'd said that Rumler was now "winning" by 70 to 30%.

Mr. Brain is very clever, but go back and read everything I wrote, or better yet, have a big person read it for you. Slowly.

Let's play a game! See if you can see where I said anything like that. I'll wait.

OK, did the nice lady read it all to you? Did you find the place where I said that Jacobs was "winning" by 70%? No? Then I must have said 60%. No? Oh my!
What DID I say? You're laughing because I don't know the answer. I'm sorry, why don't you just tell me.

That's RIIIIIGHHHT! I didn't say anything like that. Nobody is "winning" right now. At least it's impossible to say.

At the risk of confusing you even more, I'll let you know that what I did say was that for many reasons, I think that all things considered, Jacobs would be expected to get 70% of the vote.

In other words, just imagine a track where people run foot races. There's a starting line, and a finish line.

My opinion is that before the race starts, Sen. Jacobs (you?) is lined up almost 3/4 of the way down to the finish line and Rumler is starting from.... the starting line.

I guess you might say that in my opinion, Jacobs has about a 3 to 1 advantage over Rumler before the race even gets going.

If Jacobs ends up beating Rumler by more than the advantage he started with, then it will mean that Sen. Jacobs did very well indeed and was the faster of the two.

But if Rumler beats Jacobs, it would mean that Jacobs was REALLY slow, spent his time trying to trip up Rumler and ended up getting passed, or more likely, he fell on his face every 6 inches.
This would mean that Jacobs was so slow that he couldn't win even with a huge head start, or that Rumler is the world's fastest candidate.

Again, maybe someone can draw you a picture of this.

I hope this helps you out. I like you, but it's not appropriate for you to be trying to get into discussions with the adults.

If your helper is reading this, this is for her - please try to keep Chester off the computer.

Thanks.

 
At 2/26/2006 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike has to go. He won't debate for selfish reasons. God forbid the voters got to see their fair Senator in action. I thought Mike was a "big" and "tough" guy? Why are his size 12's fleeing?

 
At 2/27/2006 7:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To say it is selfish is as true as saying that Rumler is unemployed so he can run for Senate is selfish.

 
At 2/27/2006 9:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I should point out that Mike would be unemployed too, if it weren't for his father. Don't think we've forgotten how he got his job with Jesse White...

 
At 2/28/2006 7:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't forgotten that. Judging by the silence from the spelling-challenged-Senator, he hasn't either.

 
At 2/28/2006 8:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mike Jacobs did a great job for Jesse White. Improving the Drivers liscense fascility. Better staffing it with more employees. Fighting to keep the Aledo fascility open as it was facing doom. This was a great day for Mercer County. He is now fighting hard for us and will be a great leader for the area.

 
At 3/01/2006 7:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rah, rah, goooooo Mikey!

I wonder if there are still some newspaper articles on the web from the time that Mike got the job with Jesse?

 
At 3/01/2006 12:33 PM, Blogger tiz said...

Anon 7:49, I played around on google and couldn't find anything. I was also curious who else held this esteemed position with Secretary White. The two phrases "Downstate Liaison" "Jesse White" put together pull up a bunch of articles about Jacobs, but none about his predecessors or successors. So, since we're talking about jobs and prestige and whatnot, who else has been or is Jesse White's "Downstate Liaison"?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home