* In speaking today with the Chicago Board of Elections, it seems like everybody’s trying to get their hands on the racial makeup of the city’s voters. The Board doesn’t have it, but Sen. Dick Durbin tried to lay out the ethnic situation…
“In the population, there are more Hispanics than blacks [and] more blacks than whites. In the voting population, there’s more whites than blacks, [and] more blacks than Hispanics. So Mayor Daley has put together a coalition of mainly white voters and Hispanics, and enough blacks to get a majority. And the liberals would come his way, usually. Not his father, but for him. Now, you put in a black or a Hispanic or a white [candidate], and you say, ‘OK, what’s your coalition?’ You can’t do it alone. No single group can do it.”
He’s right about the coalition aspect, but wrong about the numbers. There are more whites living in Chicago than blacks and more blacks than Latinos, according to the 2000 Census.
The Chicago Elections Board estimates about 15 percent Latino registered voters, but they admit it’s just a rough guess.
* However, the folks at the Illinois Manufacturers Association ran the city’s Census block groups through the voter file and have come up with this breakdown of the city’s registered voters by race and ethnicity…
* Black: 40.2%
* White: 35.6%
* Latino: 13.5%
* Asian: 3.6%
* Other: 7.1%
Including “other” into the mix means whites and Latinos increase by about three points each. Also, keep in mind that “registered voters” doesn’t equal turnout. Latino turnout is notoriously low. Black turnout has been very strong.
*** UPDATE *** From the IMA we get 2008 turnout…
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
And while we’re at it, the website Radical Cartography has a map of the city’s racial breakdown…
* Meanwhile, Congressman Bobby Rush says he’s the George Mitchell of Chicago politics…
Rush says he is focused on trying to unify African-Americans around a single “consensus candidate.”
“I’m trying to be a diplomat, a local George Mitchell, to try to help my community out of this maze that exists,” he told the Chicago News Cooperative, referring to the former Senator and Middle East peace envoy for the Obama administration. “And I’m having some success in it.”
If he’s having success, there’s no evidence of it yet. African-American folks like Larry Rogers, James Meeks, Terry Peterson, Jesse and Sandi Jackson, Jim Reynolds, Rickey Hendon, Carol Moseley-Braun and a cast of dozens still to be named are all out there floating their names. Congressman Danny Davis thinks he’s the one who could unify the city…
Davis thinks he could be the one to lead Chicago’s disparate factions to the promised land, saying that he could unify “all the different groupings of people” jockeying for power since Daley said last week he would not seek a seventh term next year. He said hundreds of people, “everywhere I go,” have asked him if he would run in the Feb. 22 election.
Now, a lot of the people mentioned above and many, many others are floating their names so they can be in on the game later. They’ll announce that they’ve decided not to run and are throwing their vast support to such-and-such candidate. Try to remember that as we move forward.
* On to the Latinos, where yet another Hispanic politician is claiming he’s in. Newly appointed Illinois Commerce Commission Chairman Manny Flores is confirming a report by Windy Citizen that he is circulating petitions and will make a “special announcement” this Saturday.
Other Latinos talking about the race are Congressman Luis Gutierrez, City Clerk Miguel del Valle and Gery Chico. And Rep. Mendoza wants to replace del Valle…
A possible successor to City Clerk Miguel del Valle has emerged, one week after del Valle joined the stampede of mayoral hopefuls.
State Rep. Susana Mendoza, a Southwest Side Democrat, told the Chicago News Cooperative on Wednesday that she is gathering the voter signatures that would qualify her to appear on the ballot for city clerk in the Feb. 22 election.
* This was big news today…
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met privately with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Wednesday night to discuss the race for mayor of Chicago, a post for which both men are potential candidates. […]
“Rahm and I agreed that the city’s financial crisis puts Chicago at a tipping point. The ramifications of this tipping point could tear at the social, political and economic fiber that holds our city together and makes it great,” Jackson said. “Both of us are very concerned about the upcoming November 2nd election and the subsequent municipal elections, and agreed that every possible contender should conduct their effort on the moral high ground because our city deserves a very serious debate about its economic future.”
Jackson has had some harsh words for Emanuel, so if he and Emanuel stick to their pledge it could lower the temperature gauge a bit. But that’s just them. And Jackson talked a bit of trash today to RollCall…
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) may not be ready to announce whether he will run for Chicago mayor, but he is already talking tough about taking on another potential candidate — Rahm Emanuel.
“I know what it takes to compete against Rahm,” Jackson said Thursday of President Barack Obama’s chief of staff.
* But is Jackson actually backing state Sen. James Meeks? The Senator seemed to indicate that to Kristen McQueary…
[Meeks’] candidacy is telling on several fronts. It indicates that U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), of Chicago, isn’t running, nor is his wife, Ald. Sandi Jackson, of the 7th Ward. Meeks and Jackson remain tight. They wouldn’t run against one another.
“I am godfather to his children,” Meeks said.
Thoughts on all this?
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:34 pm:
I think the preliminary 2010 numbers are going to show Chicago more wealthy but polarized between extreme wealth and poverty, with the black middle class bailing out of the city. Down 100k if I recall right. No idea who benefits or is hurt politically by those numbers. It means no easy job for whomever replaces Daley.
- Loop Lady - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:41 pm:
May I please have some of what Danny Davis is smoking?
He can’t be serious! We need more than a man with a deep voice and a long history of self promotion and very little bringing home the bacon…
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:46 pm:
Rahm starts with the best chance of “inheriting” some of the Daley coalition. The problem for the rest is that there is simply no time and too many other candidates for much fruitful coalition building to counter Rahm’s early start.
I think we’ll see a boatlod of candidates in the primary, more than 10, each of whom thinks he/she can put together the winning coalition. Unfortunately, only the top two will get a chance and then, and only then, will the coalition solidify. And it will solidify against an unacceptable candidate rather than for a preferred candidate.
In April, it will be the lesser of two evils that wins.
- Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:47 pm:
Interesting post. Was Jr. trash talking Rahm before or after the meeting?
He really ought to be the guy for the black community.
I wonder if Rahm is trying to muscle him or coerce him?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:48 pm:
After. The meeting was last night.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
How the heck can the senior Senator from Illinois think that there are more Hispanics than Blacks in Chicago? It’s just astounding to me that he could get it so wrong.
- Hammer - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:52 pm:
Didn’t Congressman Davis pull this nonsense before the Cook County Board President’s race too?
We get it. You no longer desire to be in Congress. So resign so that we can get some fresh blood in and grow new leaders downticket in 7. Man up.
- Ghost - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:54 pm:
The game is afoot. All the players will try and gather groups behind them, even if they do not plan on running. part of this dance is gathering enough control of a voting block to have influence with the canidate, and the right to be part of the kingdom for backing wo ever floats to the top as the actual canidate. Until the smoke clears on who is gathering support toi grner unfluece v an actual run, its hard to tell how this will all come donw.
I have yest to see a name which strikes me as somone who can unfiy the different voting blocks, or even carry a substantal majority of one of the large voting blocks.
I still like Claypool best, if he were an option
and my personal favorite, but big underdog, is Sandi Jackson.
- KGB - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 1:55 pm:
Using 2000 Census figures to predict demographic percentages is a mistake. A lot of things have changed in 10 years. There are many more Hispanics in Chicago since 2000 and fewer blacks and whites.
However, the voter turnout percentages are still pathetically low for Latinos. The only chance a Latino candidate has is to register new Latino votrers and work heavily on turnout. Oh, and form a multiracial coalition.
- Pat Collins - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:02 pm:
only chance a Latino candidate has
Given that this is chicago, how much would anyone like to bet there are people passing petitions in those neighborhoods, with the intent of “sucking up” good signatures to make a later challenge possible and so kick off a dangerous candidate?
I would expect such activity to be targeted, and well disguised.
- ZC - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:12 pm:
Here’s a possible theory …
The process could feed on itself. The more candidates who jump in, the smaller the amount it might seem you need to make it to the run-off, and the greater the incentive for more Tier II candidates to say, “What the heck, I’m in.”
But the news media will only have the window to cover a handful of the most competitive candidates. So name recognition and money will still be key, and will more or less lock in for you a certain percentage of the vote. So throwing in a kitchen sink of candidates, ironically, might only accentuate the initial advantages of the front-runners with name recognition. (Just ask Mike Quigley). The more candidates who run, the more the feeling might be to encourage still more candidates. But at the same time, the better the odds of the front-runners become. With 14 people on the ballot, the person with the best-recognized name citywide should just have a huge advantage. Rahm’s name recognition and media coverage “base” might hold up better in a field of 14 candidates than in a field of four.
I’m NOT sure this is correct, incidentally, but it’s something I’m chewing over.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:14 pm:
ZC, keep chewing. You’re onto something.
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:14 pm:
Yes the air is going to be complete gone for November…
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:19 pm:
This is an invaluable post, Rich. Since I don’t really care how the Chicago mayoral race shakes out, I’d rather post about these demographics on the state-wide races. I believe that these demographics signal the nail in Quinn’s coffin. Does anyone really expect blacks to turn out in this election?
Late last year Democrat pollsters predicted low voter turnouts for blacks in the 2010 elections since Obama is not on the ballot:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters
Democrats need unusually high numbers of black turnout to compensate for the energy of the Republicans (and the Tea Party). 538 has analyzed the 2010 primary and said for the first time EVER the number of Republican primary voters have exceed the Democrat turnout:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/primary-voter-turnout-stays-low-but-more-so-for-democrats/?hp
Black turnout has been reported as up to 15% lower than white turnout in some states, and much lower than the traditional black turnout for an off-year election.
Here is an interesting breakdown for Chicago’s primaries:
http://chicagoreporter.typepad.com/chicago_reporter/2010/02/primary-voter-turnout-quite-healthy-in-some-areas.html
So, it would seem that the lack of black turnout may be a real influence in the election chances of Quinn. I think he’s toast, especially with an energized conservative electorate with a bona fide conservative at the top of the Republican ticket.
Alexi/Kirk has slightly different dynamic. The same lack of energy among blacks severely impact Alexi. However, the lack of dynamic support for Kirk is what has made the poll results so close to date, and may actually be cause him to lose the election.
Interesting times, wot?
- archpundit - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:31 pm:
===(Just ask Mike Quigley)
It’s a very good point, but there is one other possibility–Bill Brady. If the biggest names split the vote, someone with a core base of support, but relatively poorly known can pull off a victory.
- Been There - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:33 pm:
I also think ZC’s thinking has some merit. But that won’t get Rahm over 50%. Not by a long shot. So all those others still think they can come in 2nd. Rahm can walk all over some of those who may come in 2nd but will have a tougher time if its the more prominent names. Such as Dart or Jackson.
It will be interesting to see which contender Rahm goes negative on. Or maybe prop up someone for 2nd place so that he can easily crush them later.
- Luke - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:40 pm:
Rich, thanks for putting the census link up. Since 1995 the number of African-Americans living in Chicago started to decline. The trend continued from 2000-2010, according to census estimates. How all of this will play out is anyone’s guess. The 2000 census was the first census in which number of African-Americans living in Chicago declined.
- Northsider - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:43 pm:
Several people have asked me about running for mayor, too, and I’m thinking about it.
Which is to say, I’ve had several conversations about the mayor’s race and I’ve thought about it quite a bit.
Aren’t delusions of grandeur fun?
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:56 pm:
Hell, Northsider,
With so many people in the race, you might win the primary if you can get your family to vote for you…
- ZC - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 2:56 pm:
Archpundit,
Dr. Victor Forys for Mayor!!
- Obama's Puppy - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:10 pm:
How many of these organizations that are registering voters will be doing “dry runs” in November?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:13 pm:
===will be doing “dry runs” in November? ===
Voter reg ends pretty soon, so they’d better ramp up now.
- anon III - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:32 pm:
ZC: Betting on making the run-off is a losers’ game. It rests upon the assumption that the candidate will not prevail in the first vote, but will survive to the second. Sounds like the Chicago Olympic bid.
The next mayor of Chicago –like the last– will be a candidate that builds his (her) coalition before the first vote.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:35 pm:
Very dangerous when we start talking about race in Chicago. However, between both Blacks and Hisp. 2/3 of Chicago is minority. Blacks hold a slight edge overall.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:38 pm:
It’s not dangerous to talk about race. It’s dangerous to inflame racial divisions. Huge difference.
- Been There - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:42 pm:
===From the IMA we get 2008 turnout…===
I may be misinterpreting this but this seems to mirror their other chart showing percentage voter registration.
Usually voter turnout percentages is way lower in Hispanic wards compared to white and black wards. This would mean their percentage of total voters should be much lower.
- in the know - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:48 pm:
Could you get the IMA voter percents for 2006? I just think the numbers might be skewed because of the Obama Tsunami
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:48 pm:
Been There,
“Usually voter turnout percentages is way lower in Hispanic wards compared to white and black wards.”
Correct. This is demonstrated behavior across the US, not just Chicago.
- muon - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:52 pm:
It’s easy to overestimate whites in the Census figures. Hispanics are not a racial category, so Hispanics will also count in a racial group in addition to their Hispanic status. For example, the Census quick facts for Chicago in 2000 shows about 1.22 million whites, 1.07 million blacks and 750 thousand Hispanics. Yet the detailed tables on the Census web site show that there were only 907 thousand non-Hispanic whites. The correct order in terms of population in the city is black, white, and then Hispanic.
The 2006-2008 American Community Survey is the most recent data from the Census for Chicago. To get the best current estimate, one can assume that the difference between the reported white population and actual non-Hispanic white population follows the 2000 pattern. In that case the 2008 population would have 940 thousand blacks, 860 thousand whites and 760 thousand Hispanics out of a total of 2.72 million. In percentages that comes to 35% black, 32% white, and 28% Hispanic.
- Been There - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:53 pm:
Cincinnatus. Thanks, I know that. What I am saying is that there can’t be 12.86% of the voter turnout coming from Hispanics if they make up 13.5% of the registered voters. The turnout percentage has to be lower.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:54 pm:
Race and ethnicity have been the dominant conversation in Chicago forever — even before it was Chicago (Think French, British, American, Indian). Levi Boone raised the bridges to keep Germans out of the Loop in the Beer Riots. The Irish, believe it or not, were at the bottom of the heap for a long time.
It’s like that anywhere there are people from everywhere.
- A.B. - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 3:57 pm:
Ok, this might be a very ignorant question, but I truly raise it out of ignorance.
Culturally, is it just me, or does it seem more accepted for a white person to support a candidate of another ethnicity than for a person of color to support a white candidate, assuming both races are represented by decent candidates in the race. I am specifically thinking in terms of primaries or local elections.
- Northsider - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 4:03 pm:
Cincinnatus @ 2:56: Hah! Too bad they live in Evanston.
- Luke - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 4:06 pm:
Here’s some data on Chicago.
2000 stats:
pop. 2,896,016
Black/African-American- 1,065,009(36.8%)
White non hispanic- 907,166(31.3%)
Hispanic- 753,644(26%)
Asian- 125,974(4.3%)
mixed - 84,437(2.9%)
Indigenous- 10,290(0.4%)
2009
pop. 2,851,268
Black- 936,505(34.2%)
White non hispanic- 857,989(31.3%)
Hispanic- 770,386(28.1%)
Asian- 132,828 (4.8%)
mixed- 27,649(1%)
Indigenous- 3,434(0.1%)
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago/1042706-new-demographics-chicago.html#ixzz0zjFgl2n5
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 4:08 pm:
A.B.
Said another way, is their more social pressure on a black voter to support a black candidate over a white candidate than there is on a white voter to support a black candidate over a white candidate?
This is not an ignorant question in any way, shape, or form. It is a deeply sociological question that talks to prejudice, civil rights advances, bias and a rash of other issues. If you are looking to get a PhD, I’ll bet you could get funding for the work, a book, and a bunch of TV interviews out if this question.
I think I’ll spend an hour or two on it myself tomorrow, there has to be some research available.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 4:10 pm:
*there
(Sorry, Rich)
- JP Paulus - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 4:35 pm:
i think it’s a good question…one part of that, especially in Chicago, is history.
When Mayor Washington died, there were 2 black candidates that fought. Because of that, Daley, who had previously LOST an election bid for mayor, won.
And since that time, African Americans haven’t had as much power to improve their neighborhoods. The “inner city” (or really, more like mid-to-outer city) neighborhoods have been neglected in favor of downtown. South side, even Chatham, remains segregated (not by choice the residents).
A new mayor could shift focus to the neighborhoods.
Also, regarding the Hispanic vote….there are a lot more 2nd generationers out there, so the “traditional” small vote may be bigger than people think
- Amalia - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 5:58 pm:
A.B., that is a very good question. also, white people
do not consider themselves to be a group. there’s tremendous
fragmentation along ethnic group lines. when an African
American person points out to me that there is a white
person somewhere so I don’t understand that there is
not a black person, I might reply that the white person
is a man, or not of my religious or ethnic group. in
my ethnic and religious world I often feel left out, white
but not Irish Roman Catholic is not much on the political radar screen in chicago.
- Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Sep 16, 10 @ 7:20 pm:
I would say that the “white” vote could use some further stratification; especially in a prospective election like this one with a multitude of candidates. The “black” vote could be further disected as well.
With regard to the “whites” I think it would be meaningfull to have know the percentage of the “Jewish” vote, and the “Irish” vote, and it might also be interesting, although less impactful for this race to know the “Greek” vote as well.
With regard to the “Black” vote, the geographic concentration of “West Side” vs. “South Side” is worth understanding as well as the historicsl ability to mobilize voters to the polls by the sold “Black” wards.
The “Hispanics” already at a disadvantage in numbers will are also adversely impacted because they are fractured already between those of Mexican heritage and those of Puerto Rican ancestry.
The wild card in this entire quagmire melting pot could well end up being the “Asian” vote. While there are over a billion people in Chinatown, I think in the 8 square blocks of Chinatown the population is only about 850,000 so it would be interesting to see if there is anyone posted at the polling places checking regiostration cards there.
Much of this calculus does not yet contemplate at least one female candidate in the race, and there could be more. This also does not contemplate whether organized labor galvanizes behind one candidate, or becomes splintered as well.
this will not just be about coalition building in the end, it will be shaped by the dynamics of the candidate field.
- hisgirlfriday - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 12:09 am:
Yeah, Danny Davis is going to unify us all under Moonie leadership. OK…
Ugh. Rahm is looking better every day another clown comes out of the woodwork.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 6:59 am:
The wild card in this entire quagmire melting pot could well end up being the “Asian” vote. While there are over a billion people in Chinatown, I think in the 8 square blocks of Chinatown the population is only about 850,000 so it would be interesting to see if there is anyone posted at the polling places checking regiostration cards there.–
Hard to argue with that mastery of the facts, and dazzling use of metaphor. “Quagmire melting pot?”
- RobP - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 7:34 am:
The IMA chart showing 12% Latino turnout is confusing and misleading. Is the 12% based on total population, voting-age population, citizen voting-age population, registered citizens or what?
Because of noncitizenship and youthful demography among Latinos, if the 12 percent is based on total population it is a misleading pct. the Census Bureau’s Voting and Registration surveys routinely find that Latinos, Whites and Blacks have “turnout” around 90% when you look at the correct denominator: registered voters.
- Way Way Down Here - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 7:39 am:
===It’s like that anywhere there are people from everywhere.===
Word, nice sentence.
- Way Way Down Here - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 7:47 am:
That was not snark.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 11:09 am:
RobP - Registered voters.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 12:59 pm:
Anonymous: thank you. Can you clarify if the table is saying that 12pct of registered Latinos turn out to vote? That is not possible. There were 1,444,277 Democratic registrations in Chicago at the time of the Feb 2010 Democratic primary. If even a low 10% of all registrations were Latino, and if only 12% of those turned out, it would mean that there were only 17,300 total Latino voters at that time. That is not credible. The 12% Latino turnout claim must be based on something other than registered Latino voters.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 2:35 pm:
Latinos made up 12.86% of the voter turnout.
- RobP - Friday, Sep 17, 10 @ 3:13 pm:
Anonymous: that makes sense. Thank you.
Rich Miller writes above “Latino turnout is notoriously low.” That is incorrect. Turnout is normally defined as percentage of registered voters coming out to vote; Latino turnout nationally is comparable to white turnout.
Latino *registration* as percent of adults is another matter, due primarily to noncitizenship.