Gov. J.B. Pritzker's Trump Feud: Will It Cost Him in the 2026 Governor's Race?

Gov. J.B. Pritzker is more than likely to win a third term as Illinois' governor, however, I find myself wondering if he's going to take a serious beating for his ongoing feud with our 47th POTUS Donald Trump.

In a recent wide-ranging interview with POLITICO at Chicago's iconic Manny's Deli, Pritzker sat down for a candid conversation covering everything from the 2024 election fallout to his sharp criticisms of Trump, his influence in state politics, and speculation about a potential 2028 presidential run. The governor didn't hold back, framing Trump's leadership in stark terms and doubling down on the confrontational style that's defined much of his time in office.

Pritzker has positioned himself as one of the leading Trump antagonists among Democrats. In the interview and recent statements, he highlights what he sees as damage from Trump's agenda to working families, farms, retailers, and more—while criticizing policies on tariffs, immigration enforcement, and broader governance. He portrays the current administration in strong language, calling out tones of political violence and authoritarian tendencies.

Check out the interview here [VIDEO]

NoCapFund: Why do we have 435 members in the House of Representatives?

 I had to attributed this to another YouTube channel - No Cap Fund - because I don't want to see this blog go on a Mr. Beat overload. He had talked about this in the past and have one video to show about it.

Mr. Beat wants to uncap the number of members in the US House of Representatives and he goes through the history of apportionment of representatives. Uncapping the number of representatives doesn't involve a constitutional amendment, it involves an act of Congress.

Mr. Beat has been attempting to get his congressman to take a stand on this issue although it appears a candidate for Congress is willing to take this issue on. And also it appears an Illinois Congresman Sean Casten seems ready to take on this issue as discussed in a live stream.

Here's the most recent video on this topic that Mr. Beat made [VIDEO]

My position on this is ambiguous. 

I can believe as stated in this video that polarization is a very serious thing that's worth putting a damper on. Does this necessarily mean more representatives? Does this mean a far more ideologically diverse representatives?

I do like the idea of bringing down the number of people in each district. Say perhaps instead of the 800K population per district we instead create more districts that perhaps could be about half that or less. 

Another thing noted is that if you mess with the number of representatives, you may also mess with the Electoral College count - now that's in the constitution (electoral votes are no. of representatives + Senators). Perhaps this means a recalcuation of the Electoral College math.

How could I sell this for say minority districts perhaps this might mean it would be easier in this state at least to create districts for Hispanics, Blacks, and others depending on where they may reside. I want to eliminate gerrymandering and who knows if this may address that. However, the states control drawing congressional maps more than the federal gov't does.

I think this is worth a discussion as opposed to killing this because reflexively we may decide there shouldn't be more politicians. Should we have more than 435 representatives? What do you think?

The Recount: Why Expanding Congress Would End Gerrymandering

 Gerrymandering has been in the news lately. Texas recently approved a mid-decade redistricting plan thought not without controversy and states like Illinois and California are looking at creating their own plan. The ongoing controversy is partisan in practice with Republicans assuring they remain in control of the house while Democrats want to insure their own political power.

With this said when you watch the video below, consider this video I posted last year from Mr. Beat where there is an argument to expand the US House of Representatives. Let's add to this the possibility of using proportional representation that insures minority parties doesn't get shut out.

Most other nations on the globe either elect their legislatures this way or at least form their governments via proportional representation. And with this to work to determine members of the US House of Representatives what might help this along is expanding the members of the House as Mr. Beat discusses.

First watch the video [VIDEO]

IMHO, I think we do need to expand the number of Congresspersons (hey I like that better than Alderperson). I'm not entirely sold on proportional representation, but let's talk about it. We could expand this to state legislatures or even city councils (mostly big cities).

However, let's bear in mind this video is starting off talking about gerrymandering. The question is about creating fair maps.

Iowa is showing creating maps that largely considers county boundaries. Also why is there gerrymandering? These are districts drawn with political considerations and from what I know about redistricting in Illinois for example, it's to ensure that politicians get to retain their seats or more accurately to ensure politicians get to maintain their constituencies.

That means sometimes in other states outside of Iowa, cities might get split up between different districts. An example of Massachusetts the point was made that to ensure there is a Republican district there is to create a heavily gerrymandered map to elect one Republican there to Congress. Massachusetts was said to have voted 36% for Republican Donald Trump in 2024 for President, however, all Congresspersons elected from there are Democrats.

Has this video educated you on gerrymandering? Do you think we need to change how we draw our districts?

Today is January 6, the day to certify the 2024 Presidential Race

 This shows how in tune I am with the political scene right now.

This time four years ago, outgoing President Donald Trump held a rally where he asked his supporters to go to the U.S. Capitol to protest the count of those electoral votes in a joint session of the U.S. Congress. Which quickly became an "insurrection". It was a very scary day and I just couldn't believe that our democracy, our republic seemed to be underseige by "mob violence".

It seemed one side had to defend themselves and the other side played offense trying to paint the insurrectionists as anti-democracy or traitors. January 6 for some became a day of great rememberance. However, seemingly this day was also forgotten by a number of Americans.

Furthermore the man who won the Presidential Election for 2024 was not supposed to be in that race. There were court cases, even an impeachment trial commenced even before he left office. And guess what on this day, in 2024 he's the one who's vote are being certified in front of Congress.

If the so-called insurrection was used to try to keep him out of the White House, it helped to bring him right back in. I'm sure someone out there is protesting this. I see the incumbent President who beat him in 2020 isn't exactly organizing a rally to fight this. And the woman, the 2024 winner vanquished has to preside over the count to certify the 2024 electoral votes.

Barring any news reports of any "trouble" this should go relatively smooth. Though since President-elect Donald Trump is definitely a very polarizing figure there probably will be some protests from some members of Congress trying to object..

And just think with the "insurrection" of 2020, whatever objections to that race between President Trump and then President-elect Joe Biden fell apart once the U.S. Capitol was secured.

At this point whatever unfolds, you can see on C-Span if you don't want any editorializing of the proceedings. Or you can watch this live stream via FOX News. [VIDEO]

Resyndicated: Grover Cleveland and Donald Trump - The Only Double Presidents Compared

 

[VIDEO] I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving.

The YouTube channel Resyndicated (the voice over artist sounds a lot like former Republican nominee for Governor Darren Bailey) did a recent video discussing the historical notes of Grover Cleveland & Donald Trump. They were the only two men who were elected to two non-consecutive Presidents in American history.

Donald Trump achieved that feat earlier this month after defeating Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 Presidential race. Trump had earlier served from 2017 to 2021 and will become the 47th President in 2025.

For Grover Cleveland he served one term from 1885 to 1889. However, after losing the 1892 race he again one the race against the man who defeated him in 1892 - Benjamin Harrison - and won another term from 1893 to 1897.

Of course there were other candidates who not only sought their party's nomination for President multiple times although they weren't successful in their bids for the Presidency. However, there were other Presidents who had sought non-consecutive terms from Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore, to Theodore Roosevelt. The most likely man to have been able to won another term as President was Roosevelt who ran again in 1912 though the winner of that election was ultimately Woodrow Wilson.

Anyway I hope you enjoy the history shared in this video.

60 Minutes: How President-elect Trump won Pennsylvania

 

[VIDEO] To be honest there were some aspects of this story I wish was handled differently. They had to mention that President Trump is a convicted felon. Then they mentioned those people who were an election denier (2020 race).

What is accurate is that the Democrats misread the electorate. That although Trump has his flaws (yeah being a felon isn't necessarily a flaw, there are much more real flaws than that), a lot of people chose him over Vice President Kamala Harris. No one uses the term "kitchen table" issues, but that term would be the key one to use here.

The cost of housing, groceries, and let's not forget about gas. Those were issues that people were following throughout these last four years of the Biden presidency. And also as a consideration people might remember Trump's presidency at least before the pandemic in 2020.

It's amazing that this was a landslide. Trump's victory in 2016 he lost in the popular vote but he was able to get a majority of electoral votes to secure the presidency. This year he won in both the popular vote and electoral votes. He was able to sweep such battleground states as North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and most recently Arizona.

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania certainly helped Trump secure the presidency for the second time.

One last takeway, there was no enthusiasm for the Vice President who sought to become America's first woman president. She had a lot of flaw and the more voters knew about her, I'm sure those flaws turned them off.

As I've learned about voter turnout. Let's say a particular base isn't that enthused by a candidate they're most likely to vote for they won't vote. They may just stay home instead. As with 2016 there was more enthusiasm for President Trump.

Grover Cleveland

 On Tuesday night, 45th President of the United States Donald Trump (2017-2021) became only the second man to have served one term, lost his re-election bid, and then get elected to yet another term as President. He defeated in a landslide Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday and was able to repeat his feat from 2016. Better still he not only wins in the Electoral College, he also wins handily in the popular vote - something he didn't do in 2016.

He shares this historical footnote with only one other man, his name is Grover Cleveland who was the 22nd (1885-1889) & 24th (1893-1897) President of the United States. Oh and an interesting footnote here, just as happened with Trump in 2016, Cleveland actually won the popular vote in 1892 and yet lost in the Electoral College to his successor Benjamin Harrison - the 23rd President (1889-1893).

Grover Cleveland

I'm sharing this most recent story I found this morning from Spectrum News. While it appears to have only been published to YouTube a day ago just from the way they were talking it had to have been produced before Election Day 2024. [VIDEO]

PBS Frontline - The VP Choice: Vance vs. Walz

 

[VIDEO] Another look at the Presidential running mates for 2024 U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) running with former Pres. Donald Trump vs. Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) running with Vice President Kamala Harris. This documentary looks at the evolution of both men.

It was reported when Sen. Vance became Trump's pick how he used to be very opposed to President Trump and then later he came around. And it was enough for him to be the VP running mate.

And then Walz as a school teacher and then later a congressman and Governor of Minnesota.

Is there anything you got from the story of both men?

60 Minutes: This Wisconsin county has backed the winning presidential candidate for the last 6 elections

 

[VIDEO] Door County, Wisconsin right at the top of the eastern peninsula of the state. This county could "decide" the the next P.O.T.U.S. And Wisconsin is a battleground state.

In the 2016 election Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania made the difference and handed the 46th P.O.T.U.S. Donald Trump the White House. Those states proved pivotal for Joe Biden in 2020 where he was elected the 47th P.O.T.U.S. and he effectively flipped those states back to blue. Oh yeah let's not forget nominally these are often blue states. Perhaps Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are more purple than blue.

And also add that 2016 and 2020 the results in those elections for President were very close. Narrow margins and in 2020 certainly in Detroit, MI or Philadelphia, PA there were allegations of "voter fraud".

Regardless, whether you vote early or wait for election day next month vote. Make sure it counts, the race shouldn't just be "decided" by one county in the whole nation! 

Timcast IRL: Prof Who Predicts Kamala VICTORY Claims Trump CAN’T WIN, But His Own Model Says Trump Will WIN

 

[VIDEO] Prof. Allan Lichtman uses trends and history to predict how any given election will go. He has gotten some attention in the past month predicting possibly a Vice President Kamala Harris victory in November.

Prof. Licthman uses thirteen keys which was looked over in terms of the coming presidential election by Tim Pool with his guests on the IRL podcast. Stole this from Wikipedia although how it's looked at in the podcast it's not necessarily in the same exact order.

Key 1: Party Mandate

Key 2: No primary contest

Key 3: Incumbent seeking election - eh false

Key 4: No third party - true

Key 5: Strong short-term economy

Key 6: Strong long-term economy

Key 7: Major policy change

Key 8: No social unrest

Key 9: No scandal

Key 10: No foreign policy or military failure

Key 11: Foreign policy or military success

Key 12: Charismatic incumbent - false

Key 13: Uncharismatic challenger - debatably false

I've left most of those false and would prefer to let Lichtman explain why his keys describe a VP Harris election victory.

If six or more of these 13 keys are false the incumbent party loses. In 2024, the incumbent party in the White House are the Democrats. However, President Joe Biden chose to drop out of the race weeks before the DNC convention in Chicago. Vice President Kamala Harris took Biden's place at the top of the ballot, however, there was no primary challenge and there were no issues at the Democratic convention in August. Also it sort of helps that VP Harris isn't the incumbent President, however, she serves under current President Biden.

Everything else I won't comment on, however, Lichtman has set his keys to at least to four which for him predicts a Democrat win in 2024. However, as you see by my own statement so some select keys I have my doubts.

Yes Trump is divisive so I can understand why charisma could be an issue there. Kamala as the "incumbent", however, is lacking the charisma department herself. 

Let's not forget and even Lichtman might emphasize, who wins in this election isn't up to his keys. It's up to you as the voter so don't take these predictions for granted. Cast your ballot for the candidate of your choice! 

Monsieur Z: The Reform That Could Fix The Electoral College

 [VIDEO] We're in an election year and this subject will likely come up depending upon the outcome.

I could see this election being a situation where like in 2016 or 2000 the popular vote winner loses in the Electoral College. How does that happen because the President of the United States isn't elected directly by the people. He (or she) is elected by the Electoral College.

As Monsieur Z explains in most states when we vote for our choice for President in November (or when you early vote) you're actually voting for the slate of electors who will actually vote for the President. Usually these slate of electors are pledged to vote for their party's nominee for President. Whichever candidate wins the popular vote in a given state they win their party's slate of electors.

Of course as Mr. Z explains that practice had evolved overtime. The system was conceived at a time when political parties weren't even a consideration and once they became important then the politicians tried to game the system and get it to benefit them.

So, what to do when the nation as a whole is polarized? Also what about the polarization of different states?

In that second question let's say a state is a lot like Illinois downstate may vote Republican, however, the Chicago area votes heavily Democrat. And the Chicago area has most of the state's population. Meaning odds are the state will vote heavily Democrat for President.

What if to mitigate some of these nuances from state-to-state you redraw the states. You attempt to evenly distribute the regional differences of each state to ensure better representation of these differences. That's the Utahism Mr. Z is discussing?

Regardless this Electoral College is something that we will be discussing as we get closer to Election Day. Are you voting?

CapitolFax: Pritzker hasn’t received VP vetting materials from Harris but doesn’t shut down speculations that he’s interested

My .02¢ on this is VP Harris' choice won't likely be Gov. Pritzker although he would be more in line with a certain segment of the Democratic Party. Her best bet is a more moderate choice. Time will tell, it's interesting they (or perhaps even Republicans) have a process to vet potential running mates.

Check out all the react and stories at CapitolFax

Pritzker hasn’t received VP vetting materials from Harris but doesn’t shut down speculations that he’s interested https://t.co/ga2xuj8xhi

— Capitol Fax (@capitolfax) July 23, 2024

President Joe Biden drops out of the 2024 presidential race

The rumors were ongoing with this. Some earlier reports had Joe Biden dropping out of the 2024 race on Sunday (yesterday). However, it seemed as if the President was going to stay in this thing. 

And then I saw this on Instagram yesterday.

C-Span: JD Vance acceptance speech for GOP Vice Presidential nomination #RNCConvention

 

[VIDEO] US Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) speaks on Wednesday nite at the Republican Nat'l Convention in Milwaukee, WI. He's former Pres. Donald Trump's choice for a VP running mate which he announced on Monday. We seem him speak to a nat'l audience in prime time last nite.

A 36 min speech airing which showed without interruption and without commentary on C-Span.

Any thoughts on his speech?

J.J. McCullough: RESIGN? Trudeau and Biden's overlapping leadership crises

 

[VIDEO] The differences & similarities between the respective leaders of Canada and United States. Duration is over 20 mins for this video.

Allow me to add that Canada has a slightly different electoral system to our nation. Canada has a parliamentary/Westminster system of gov't vs. the USA which is a republican form of gov't.

The next elections in Canada is at least next year, and there is a strong possibility that Canadians may want a change in their gov't. This could lead to Prime Minister Trudeau opting to stand down before the next election and his party chooses another leader in time for the next election. I see no indication that he would although I'm not an ardent follower of Canadian politics.

And now Joe Biden. Before the recent incident in Pennsylvania regarding President Donald Trump - the GOP nominee for President - the news cycle was dominated by whether or not he'd drop out of the race. My thoughts are why wasn't this discussed well before the summer. Someone should've been working on him at least 6 months ago. There is no strong indication that he would drop out and if he did we'd have a bit of a scramble to determine who would run in his place.

Even if he stayed in the race indications are that he would likely lose his rematch with his predecessor President Trump.

Some contrasts here are ages. Trudeau is in his early 50s and his background showed no indication that he could one day become a nat'l leader in Canada. He's also the son of a Canadian Prime Minister in the late Pierre Trudeau. He had talent that led him to becoming not only the leader of Canada's Liberal Party it also led him to the office of Prime Minister, Canada's head of gov't.

Biden on the other hand is aged 81, the oldest President ever elected. He's spent most of his life in politics being elected to the US Senate aged 30 in 1972. He was Vice President under Obama from 2009 - 2017. Then he runs for President in 2020 in a chaotic year and after two other earlier tries he finally succeeds. Whether I like it or not...

Of course I may also add it's debatable if he has the same talents that Justin Trudeau has as a politician. Although we may cringe at Trudeau's attempts to connect with the youth.

Sorry for my longwinded response to this video however time will tell the results of the 2024 race and certainly we will see what happens in Canada once election season commences there as well.

Iowa Caucus time - undecided voters sit with Ron DeSantis

 

[VIDEO] The new year is 2024 and what's the significance? It's yet time for another Presidential Election. And soon it will be time for one of the earliest presidential primaries, the Iowa Caucuses.

And so far the last almost three years IMHO has been very rough with Joe Biden in office. Right now the news has been about rising crime, a porous border (here in Chicago we're concerned about the migrants being bused from Texas and what to do with them when "Chiberia" weather hits), and then foreign affairs we got wars ongoing in Ukraine and in the Middle East conflict has again flared up between Israel and the Palestinians.

So in the next presidential election who might be best to usher in peace in Ukraine or even cool the tensions between Israel and the Palestinians? Who might be able to best ease the issues of inflation so that Americans will get more bang for their buck when it comes to buying food at least? And then someone needs to close that border and insure common sense measures to allow people to immigrate to America legally.

So anyway I asked all these questions and perhaps some if not all were address to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis who engaged with undecided Iowa voters in this recent segment from Iowa TV station KCCI. Gov. DeSantis who is lauded as a very strong state governor and was considered by many - inlcuding me but what do I know - as a future President. However, his rollout has been rough.

As of now the current front runner for the Presidency who could defeat President Joe Biden is former President Donald Trump whom himself was defeated by Biden in 2020. It would be interesting to see how 2024 will unfold.

Oh and the Democratic National Convention will be in Chicago for the first time since 1996! 

Chicago politics #ChiMayor23

 

Two days ago we had an election. The sitting mayor of Chicago placed third in this election, she didn't make the run-off. Paul Vallas who was formerly the CEO of our public schools and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson failed to get to 50% of the vote and are in a run-off to take place on April 4, 2023.

Regardless we will have a new mayor on May 15, 2023.

Lightfoot proved to be abrasive and undiplomatic. She wasn't a politician and some may say she made all the rookie mistakes. She assumed she had the power thought not just a position or a title. She forgot that politics isn't subtraction it's addition. 

She couldn't help but alienate people on the Chicago City Council. Indeed she lost a city council endorsement or two in the lead up to the election. The worst one when an Alderman had shot himself accidently and she failed to even check out him - wow! And of course what many would cite is that she definitely lost the voters who helped her in a runoff four years ago.

What's shocking is that the Black wards of the city still voted for her. But then I understand 83% of Chicago voters wanted Lightfoot gone.

Chicago is a solidly Democrat city. A Republican would have a difficult time winning in this city. Voters seem to only want to vote for a Democrat. With the two in the runoff I see a choice between a more law and order candidate vs a very progressive candidate who may well offer more of the same from Lightfoot.

I wish I can predict where this mayoral race will go on April 4. Vallas got a plurality but then again that's no guarantee he'll win the runoff. What will happen in a month's time.

Can Paul Vallas or Brandon Johnson get the endorsement of the other candidates and will allow one of them to take the mayor's office? Will Gov. JB Pritzker get involved in this race? Will Chicago choose the faces of the Fraternal Order or Police or of the Chicago Teacher's Union?

As for Lightfoot well she's a lame duck. I won't say her voice means nothing - and especially now she's still mayor as we learned a police officer was killed in a domestic incident. Her police chief is leaving - all candidates in this race wanted to fire David Brown save for his boss Lightfoot.

I see an opportunity for a new direction, even a city so heavily Democratic. Our city could reverse most of trends seen in other cities in America. Solve our many social issues - especially the homeless. Hopefully we can get a handle on violent crime in ways that Lightfoot wasn't able to.

And perhaps Chicago voters will recognize that so-called "progressive" policies are destructive.

See you on April 4th!

Mr. Beat: Why do people not vote?

 

[VIDEO] Mr. Beat's latest video just in time for the midterm elections this coming Tuesday. I haven't watched this video and am sure he doesn't discuss what's likely to happen on Tuesday, however, probably a plausible explanation that he may offer.

Democrats aren't as energized as perhaps Republicans and Independents might be. We have an unpopular Democrat President in Joe Biden and the Democrats in general are getting hammered as far as economic & public safety issues. Republicans and Independents are motivated to throw Democrats out of office up and down ballot.

So this probably shouldn't be a prediction post, I will offer one - although Mr. Beat probably isn't offering a prediction as he's explaining something - Republicans will take the US House. Democrats may hold I'm not convinced that will happen. Here in Illinois, status quo Darren Bailey won't beat Gov. Pritzker. I don't think Democrats are particularly energized anywhere in America. Just my two cents.

Hopefully you gained something from Mr. Beat.

Mr. Beat: The electoral college still sucks

 

[VIDEO] Mr. Beat does an updated video to the topic of why he wants to abolish the electoral college. The electoral college is how in this country the President of the United States is formally elected. When we go to the ballot box during an Presidential election who we're actually voting for in most states are a slate of electors who pledge to vote for a particular candidate.

Want to see Mr. Beat's previous video on this topic click here.

ILL gubernatorial election 2022

 I haven't done a very good job of following the election since the June 28 primary. For the Governor's race it will be state senator Darren Bailey for the Republicans vs incumbent Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Rich Miller on his blog on Wednesday showed some polling numbers Pritzker is ahead. Not too surprised there isn't much noise of note coming from the Bailey campaign aside from him moving to the former Hancock Building so that he can get a feel for Chicago.

Poll! Illinois Governor’s Race!! pic.twitter.com/9OdW1EDkGO

— Tahman Bradley (@tahmanbradley) September 28, 2022

We're approaching almost a month before the general election and my gut tells me this race will be close. I will legit give Gov. Pritzker the edge although this is how I can boil this election down at this point crime vs abortion.

Over the summer Roe v. Wade was overturned by the US Supreme Court so there will be a faction of the American electorate that will be energized in that fight. Also the issue of crime across the country has gotten the attention of the media. Americans want safe streets and the headline seems to be that politicians are handcuffing police from doing their jobs and elected prosecutors are unwilling to enforce the law and prosecute crimes.

Incidentially another piece of analysis is that Mayor Richard Irvin who ran in the June 28 primary portrayed himself as very tough on crime. Some might say in the Republican primary crime wasn't the primary issue although Irvin unfortunately got hit with charges of being very disingenuous as far as what he believes in on issues of abortion or even who he voted for in 2020 or even support for BLM. So I suppose if crime didn't motivate voters to choose Mayor Irvin then what motivated them to choose downstate state senator and farmer Bailey.

Almost a month away! General election is November 8, 2022 and early voting according the Chicago Board of Election (assuming you're in Chicago) will commence October 7, 2022. I hope you're registered to vote!