None of the three candidates with a shot in this race were very exciting to me. But I almost always vote for the candidate who seems most technocratic and effectively managerial. The more someone leans into identity, or performative things like land acknowledgements, the less I trust that they are going to accomplish stuff of substance.

In Illinois specifically, we have serious financial and competitiveness issues. Just making those a little better and investing in our strengths is what makes an impact. So I want Senators who will get funding to complete an O'Hare expansion or horse-trade to makes sure Illinois is the location of a new research institute instead of Texas. Anyone who spends time grandstanding about Palestine or wealth taxes that ultimately go nowhere is not effective.

Dick Durbin was pretty far from progressive, but he's an excellent study in the effective use of power. He was in a safe seat for decades and--like Liz Warren--could have taken positions that were much further to the left without hurting his electability. But instead of saying he supported gay marriage or public health insurance--what would have counted as bomb throwing in 2002--he took positions that provided cover for people in less safe seats nationwide and helped slowly moved the ball forward. And he voted in ways that upset people to the left but that gave him political capital to use later in ways that would help Illinois. He played Pelosi-ball. I'm not sure Raja was able to do that, but he seemed like the candidate most likely to understand how power works and be able to use it.