I’m not a political strategist, though I occasionally play one in newsprint.

Today’s topic is Gov. JB Pritzker’s Building Up Illinois Developments initiative (tinyurl.com/CNI-BUILD), largely overlooked here during the spring session if only because it seemed unlikely to pass as too many housing shortage stakeholders couldn’t find common ground.

With that plausible outcome now reality, and given the unofficial shift from general session into campaign season, it’s reasonable to question what (if anything) the failure might indicate about electoral consequences. As such there was little surprise when reporters broached the topic during a Monday session with Pritzker, who said he didn’t consider the situation a political liability.

“Are you kidding me?” he asked. “The question is, do you want to elect somebody who’s actually for building more housing, or somebody who doesn’t have any plan at all?”

At this point in the exercise the actual topic (building more housing) is irrelevant. You can drop in any other policy area (property tax reform, transportation infrastructure, prescription drug access, etc.) and the question is equally applicable: Do voters want somebody with a plan or someone who is merely opposed to the status quo?

Pritzker himself hinted as much by pointing to other goals that didn’t reach the finish line on the first lap. He shrewdly chose to focus on an accomplishment – new statewide limits on student cellphone use – rather than something still in the hopper, but the point remains: no idea is ever truly dead because anyone can always introduce a new bill.

One step further, the inability to get a legislative proposal enacted isn’t the same degree of failure as passing a law that courts eventually negate, or especially Pritzker’s most embarrassing political defeat, the 2020 graduated income tax referendum through which voters soundly rejected a signature campaign goal.

But the larger takeaway isn’t just “do you like the candidate with the plan?” but for voters to consider stump pledges in a greater context than what a promise says about a politician. In other words: can this person get their ideas across the finish line?

Narrowing focus on BUILD, it’s certainly logical to ask a Democratic governor why the supermajority Democrats controlling the General Assembly didn’t enact something a Democratic Illinois Supreme Court majority would likely preserve.

Widening the aperture to all politicians reminds it’s always a good idea to wonder if any candidate’s speech carries the same amount of plausibility as an elementary school student council hopeful who pledges to outlaw homework or provide free nachos in the cafeteria.

Politics and government aren’t the same. Success requires being wildly effective at both, often concurrently. Answers to “How will you accomplish these goals?” – if available – often say more than any speech.

• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.