Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Poll: Jackson still has strong majority, most voters “happy” with ballot choices
Next Post: Media needs to get in the game
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
I published a poll last month showing indicted former state Rep. Derrick Smith (D-Chicago) leading third-party candidate Lance Tyson in the 10th House District race by a mind-boggling 47 percent to 9 percent.
Since then, there’s been a lot of grumbling about how Chicago voters ought to know better. After all, Smith was indicted for allegedly taking a bribe and was expelled from the House by his colleagues. It was all over the news. People should know that, for crying out loud.
At the time the poll was taken, however, Tyson hadn’t spent much, if any, money on his campaign. He isn’t a known quantity in the district. And he’s not a Democrat, at least not on the ballot.
The poll of likely voters presented a choice between Smith and Tyson and gave their party affiliations. Smith won the Democratic primary election in March, while Tyson belongs to the newly created “10th District Unity Party.”
Persuading voters to take a look at third-party or independent candidates is never easy. Go back to 1986 when members of Lyndon LaRouche’s cultish organization won some statewide Democratic primary races in Illinois.
Democrat Adlai Stevenson’s running mate was beaten by one of those candidates, and Stevenson had to form a third party to run for governor. Stevenson, who had nearly defeated Republican Gov. Jim Thompson four years earlier, got just 40 percent of the vote as the Solidarity Party candidate in 1986.
This in a year when Democrat Neil Hartigan won the attorney general’s race with 62 percent and Democrat Alan Dixon won the U.S. Senate race with 65 percent. But Stevenson’s Solidarity Party candidate for secretary of state received just 17 percent against the LaRouche Democrat’s 15 percent.
Voters are hard-wired to look at party affiliation. If you say “Democrat” or “Republican” to a voter, he or she knows what you’re talking about. If you say “10th District Unity Party” to a voter, you’ll likely get a blank stare and plenty of suspicion, especially if that candidate is completely unknown.
And the same goes for independents. Just ask Forrest Claypool, who was a well-known Cook County politician and ran as an independent candidate for county assessor two years ago. Claypool spent a pile of money, yet received just 32 percent of the vote against Democrat Joseph Berrios.
So, it should’ve been little surprise when polling last month showed that independent candidate Dee Beaubien was getting only 26 percent against Republican David McSweeney in the 52nd House District battle. Beaubien has a pretty well-known name because her late husband served in the House.
Unlike Lance Tyson, she had spent a considerable amount of money by last month. But that “independent” label was hurting her, even in an area where voters pride themselves on their independence.
Beaubien recently put $100,000 of her money into her campaign, which means that the state’s campaign contribution limits are gone in this race. Once a self-funder breaks the $100,000 mark, all caps are off.
McSweeney countered with $70,000 of his own cash, plus Jack Roeser’s Otto Engineering put $100,000 into the contest for McSweeney. It’s now a free-for-all. Well, not free, exactly.
It’s going to be a financial bloodbath if the House Democrats stay in the race, the pro-choice Personal PAC goes all in against the pro-life McSweeney and Beaubien keeps her checkbook open.
Lance Tyson, on the other hand, is still struggling to raise money. He’s reported receiving or loaning himself just $33,000 in contributions since Sept. 28.
Beaubien and Tyson really have two opponents on the ballot — their actual opponents and the legions of voters who can’t get past party labels.
Beaubien is better positioned financially to overcome both, but she’s being matched at least dollar for dollar so far by McSweeney. Tyson will have the media behind him and presumably some ground troops. But both candidates are running straight uphill because it’s hugely difficult to undo decades of voter behavior.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible. The Rev. James Meeks ran as an independent against a Democratic incumbent and won a state Senate seat from Chicago in 2002.
But Meeks was extremely well-known in the district because his church has tens of thousands of members. He also spent more than $400,000 to win the race and got big help from some major unions and area politicians.
So it can happen. Independents and third-party candidates can win. But it’s awfully rare.
* Former Chicago Ald. Ed Smith sums up Lance Tyson’s problem…
“Right now [Derrick Smith] is the only Democrat on the ballot,” Ed Smith said. “The other candidate is running under a different party. So you would have to go outside of the Democratic Party to vote for [Tyson].” […]
“If Derrick Smith was a guilty candidate, I would not be working for Derrick Smith. But he is not guilty,” Ed Smith said. “He has not had a court trail. He has not been tried by his peers. He is a qualified and bonified candidate who is on the ballot as a Democrat.”
* Meanwhile…
Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday became the latest high-profile Illinois Democrat to back the candidate running against expelled state Rep. Derrick Smith.
Quinn and Secretary of State Jesse White — who was once a Smith supporter — appeared at a news conference on the city’s West Side to back Chicago attorney Lance Tyson, a candidate chosen by Democrats after Smith was indicted on federal bribery charges and refused to step down.
“When we elect someone to office they must have an ethic of service, and that’s what Lance Tyson is all about,” Quinn said at the event held at a senior center. […]
Speaking to a crowd of about 50 people Sunday, Tyson called himself “the real Democrat” in the race. He said the nation is watching to see whether voters in a state known for political corruption will “step up” for character and integrity.
“I have faith, and I believe that all the other Democrats have faith we’re going to do the right thing here,” Tyson said.
* Ben Joravsky got a call from someone who claimed that former Rep. Smith had campaigned at his door...
“You’ll never guess who just showed up at my house,” Johnny said.
“Michael Jordan?” I said.
“No, Derrick Smith.”
Pause.
“I don’t believe you,” I said.
“It’s true. About 15 minutes ago—he rang the doorbell and everything.”
“You mean, the guy’s actually campaigning?”
“I’m telling you—he’s going door to door, up and down the block.”
“Did you ask him why he hasn’t called me back?”
“No, but I told him, ‘You about to go to jail, man.’ He told me, ‘I didn’t do nothing.’ I said, ‘I heard they caught you on tape.’ And he said, ‘They didn’t catch me doing nothing, man.’ That’s not a bad campaign slogan, when you think about it.”
“What?”
“‘They didn’t catch me doing nothing, man.’ He should put it on his billboards.”
* And Cal Skinner has been documenting House Speaker Michael Madigan’s support for Dee Beaubien. Ms. Beaubien not only has to fight the problems associated with being an independent, she also has to deal with the fact that her “independent” candidacy is backed by the House Democratic machine…
Dee Beaubien Contributions from Democratic organizations and special interests through October 18, 2012:
* Friends of Michael J. Madigan – $66,000
* Lou Lang – $5,500
* Barbara Flynn Currie – $1,500
* Democratic Party of Illinois – $150,771.51
* Democratic Majority – $89,171.80
* Personal PAC – $106,223.59
* Planned Parenthood – $500
* Equality Illinois – $418
* Fred Eychaner $5,000.00
* Labor PACs $50,750.00Total – $475,834.90
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 10:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Poll: Jackson still has strong majority, most voters “happy” with ballot choices
Next Post: Media needs to get in the game
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Ed Smith…astounding.
Comment by amalia Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 10:43 am
Dee Beaubien: With participation like that from the Democratic party, all you can say to her is welcome to the mushroom patch!
Comment by in absentia Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 10:52 am
===“‘They didn’t catch me doing nothing, man.’ He should put it on his billboards.”===
That is too funny. I am sure there are a lot of Pols in Illinois that could use that same slogan.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:04 am
===They didn’t catch me doing nothing, man.===
That’s hilarious.
It’s accurate though. The FBI caught him doing something, counting out $7,000 in his car and writing and signing a letter.
If the FBI caught him doing nothing he’d still be in the House.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:04 am
“He is a..bonefied candidate…”
Huh?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:15 am
Just watch… Dee Beaubien is going to beat McSweeney in the 52nd.
Comment by dave Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 11:42 am
Runoff elections and debates that allow more than 2 parties are what we really need. A runoff would allow people to not be “forced” to vote for the lesser of 2 evils in a runoff scenario that would allow, Greens, Libertarians, etc a better shot. Who wouldn’t want to see a Green face off against a Dem for the final Vote or a Libertarian vs a Rep?
Comment by Shemp Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 12:36 pm
Best. Billboard. Ever.
Comment by Colossus Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 1:46 pm
The fact is that Cross has to spend a small fortune defending a seat in a deep red district. Just another place he’s playing defense, trying to stop the bleeding.
Comment by reformer Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 2:21 pm
Why don’t all the elected Democrats who endorsed Tyson write him a check.
How much did Jesse White give to Lance Tyson? Derrick Smith is a problem he created.
Comment by Hacks Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 2:33 pm
Although instant runoff voting would be ideal, just removing the party from the ballot would be a simple fix to this issue.
Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 4:05 pm
===would be a simple fix to this issue. ===
Yeah, that’ll happen.
Never.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 4:06 pm
Removing the label won’t happen but since they never put it on their campaign literature it should happen. Either let voters know if you’re Republican or Democrat in your commercials and literature or don’t have it on the ballot.
Comment by formerGOPer Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 4:21 pm
===Removing the label won’t happen===
Well, then it’s not a simple fix.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 4:22 pm
Back a candidate to hold a spot knowing your against his re-election. That’s very “ethical”from two Mr. Cleans.
Comment by jt Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 4:34 pm
Not be a total noob but a few people I know we debating this- Do third parties get the non-profit indicia? Because if they don’t that is a cash advantage that is hard to make up?
Comment by Come on man! Monday, Oct 22, 12 @ 6:11 pm
Sorry, I repeat myself. DIdn’t see my first comment posted when I did the 2nd.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Tuesday, Oct 23, 12 @ 10:01 am
Even if the third party candidates don’t win this time, by receiving more than 5% of the vote they will make it easier for someone to run for that office next time around because they won’t have to collect as many signatures.
Comment by Nick Kruse Wednesday, Oct 24, 12 @ 6:57 pm