Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s number: $95 million
Next Post: Daily Herald demands vote against Madigan
Posted in:
* Scott Kennedy ran the numbers and Hillary Clinton prevailed last month in ten more House districts than Democratic legislative candidates…
Lots of interesting stuff here, and I’m still processing it all, but go check it out.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 9:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s number: $95 million
Next Post: Daily Herald demands vote against Madigan
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Donald Trump under-performed the rest of the GOP ticket. Not surprising. In fact, I bet it is true in every Democratic state.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 9:50 am
Whoa.
The Munger/Mendoza 59/59…
Rauner should take solace in that as much as anything, including HDems underperforming Clinton.
Rauner, today, with nobody to beat somebody, has a winning situation, statewide, that will have a different voter universe to grab pluses from.
59/59… in a POTUS universe.
Mendoza’s underperforming is a big red flag, the HDems need to look at their underperforming as that red flag of Mendoza as bad as it is, and not dismiss the macro too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 9:53 am
And anyone tied to Madigan (especially Mendoza) underperformed Clinton.
Should be interesting for her running for reelection in an off year closely tied to the Speaker.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 9:55 am
“And anyone tied to Madigan (especially Mendoza) underperformed Clinton.”
That’s not exactly true. In all five of the Dem districts that went GOP this year, Trump won. In some of those, the Madigan backed candidate under-performed the top of the ticket (Smiddy), in some they over-performed (Bradley).
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:02 am
The difference for Clinton was due to manipulation of national headlines. How many times did you see the words “pu$$y,” “unfit,” “Russia,” etc., in negative reporting of Trump.
Rauner has done the same thing against Madigan, however self-funded, not collaborated as was done at the national level.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:05 am
- Lucky Pierre -
Can’t beat somebody with nobody.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:09 am
OW and Lucky - I don’t really understand, how is Mendoza’s performance a red flag? She underperformed Clinton, true. But considering she was pretty much completely unknown outside of Chicago, vastly outspent, going up against an incumbent, and was (rightfully) tied to the hugely unpopular Madigan - I would think she overperformed, if anything. I know I was shocked on election night that she pulled off the win.
Comment by Lincoln Clay Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:12 am
- Lincoln Clay -
When you are 14 points below both the POTUS and the top of the ticket (US Senate) candidate versus a relatively “known” Republican in a favorable Democratic POTUS universe… It’s underperforming.
The Mendoza campaign itself was “underwhelming”, at best.
The Labor and Democrats coming and “staying home” in larger pluralities allowed the 59/59 split to be a 4 point decisive victory, but well, well, below anything that can be seen other than underperforming within the POTUS universe.
It’s a red flag because outside the POTUS universe, the off-year can now try to bridge that 59/59 statewide and find a path to statewide victory.
Mendoza’s “win” is really a clear path for another statewide “Raunerite” victory too?
We’ll see.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:38 am
With numbers like that I would assume that Mrs. Munger will run again in 2018.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:41 am
**I would think she overperformed, if anything. **
The last Dem to not win statewide in a presidential year by at least 10 points was Dukakis. Mendoza only won by 5. She vastly underperformed the rest of the statewide ticket, and past tickets.
Now, that may not be Mendoza’s fault (alone). She got significantly outspent. But all that says is that money moves the needle, and the fact that Mendoza only won’t by 5% in a Presidential year doesn’t bode well for 2018.
Comment by JoeMaddon Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:42 am
OW and Joe Maddon - thanks! That makes more sense. I’m still surprised she managed to beat Munger, but I see what you both are saying.
Comment by Lincoln Clay Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:57 am
Joe - yes and I wonder if that makes other offices in play as well. Lisa Madigan is popular but what if Rauner funds a challenger against her and overwhelms her? What about Frerichs? He won by .25 points against the most humanly possible lackluster candidate in the history of forever. A well-funded GOP ticket can do well in 2018 regardless of a Trump downturn. I worry more about our Congressional candidates in 2018.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 10:57 am
Rauner (14) won by 4 points statewide and won 70 House districts.
Topinka (14) won by 4 points statewide and won 69 House districts.
Cross (14) lost by 0.25 points statewide and won 64 House districts.
Munger (16) lost by 5 points statewide and won 59 House districts.
Oberweis (14) lost by 10 points statewide and won 51 House districts.
Kirk (16) lost by 15 points statewide and won 44 House districts.
The House Republicans just won 51 seats (up from 47) and called this year a massive success. The real underperformers are the House Republicans, the last two cycles they’re basically performing at the equivalent of a double digit statewide loss.
And yet the lament “but the map!” rings out from Rockford to Cairo.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 11:07 am
Politico has a particularly good and hard hitting post- mortem on the Clinton campaign organization and decision making out today. The following paragraph caught my eye:
“But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 11:09 am
None of it bodes well for Dems in 2018.
Comment by walker Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 11:32 am
Aside from other factors, this really does indicate just how strategically those maps were drawn.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 11:43 am
Conventional wisdom says 2018 should be a good year for the Dems since a Republican is in the White House. Trump isn’t a conventional Republican. His support is cult like. The Dems could have some more problems statewide in 2018.
Comment by Old Timer Dem Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:01 pm
Great stuff. Undeniable signs of a “Madigan drag” for Dems, particularly in the suburbs. Downstate, it was Clinton who dragged down the Dems (look at the Forby numbers, ouch!)
It’s not all flowers and sunshine for the GOP, though. Look at some of the State Senate seats they hold in the burbs. Hillary won the 21st (Connelly), 24th (Nybo), and 27th (Rooney) districts. Probably the first time a Dem prez candidate has won in any of those places.
All three seats are up in 2018. Sure, it will be a different electorate showing up to vote in a mid-term, and each of those senators will be the favorite. But they could have trouble if it ends up being an anti-Trump wave election.
Comment by Roman Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:07 pm
==Hillary won the 21st (Connelly), 24th (Nybo), and 27th (Rooney) districts. Probably the first time a Dem prez candidate has won in any of those places.===
Um. NO. You need to look far as back as…Obama.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:20 pm
The most interesting part of this is comparing the State Senate and State House races to the presidential vote totals by district.
For example, Dale Fowler only got 55% of the vote in the 59th. Trump got 68.2% in that same district. From that perspective, Fowler way under-performed. Ironic that this is the race of your top GOP staffer, McNeeley. No offense intended to anyone, but it looks like any Republican would have won that seat and frankly the campaign under-performed badly.
Compare that to your top GOP House Staffer race. Trump got just 43.5% in HD20. McCaulife got over 56% there. So they way over performed the top of the ticket. That’s a staff that actually deserves credit for the win.
By this measure, your top GOP Senate Staff award should have gone to Derek Murphy (Trump got 41.2% in the 23rd while Lewis got 49%) or Adam Schuster (Trump got 40% in the 31st while Amrozowicz got 46%). These were the two top performing contested GOP State Senate races relative to the top of the ticket. Both lost, but if you’re evaluating campaign performance winning isn’t everything because not everything is in the campaign’s control. You have to compare results to expectations.
Interestingly enough the other GOP Senate WIN also under-performed the top of the ticket. Schimpf got 60.6% where Trump got 63.5%.
On the House side the winners did much better relative to Trump, in general. But the pickups are a mixed bag. Reick out perormed him by 4%. McCombie outperformed by 13%. Parkhurst basically matched him. Long and Severin under-performed.
The other two big House GOP defenses, other than McAuliffe, are also interesting. Bourne under-performed by 8.3%, suggesting a bad candidate or campaign staff or both. Wojcicki Jimenez over performed by 9.2%, suggesting strong staff/strategy/candidate.
The biggest GOP House loss of the cycle, Drobinski, still out performed Trump in his district by 9%, so there’s no shame in that loss. It was just a tough district.
Overall takeaways are:
1. GOP House did better than GOP Senate vis-a-vis Trump. Possibly just better organization?
2. The two “best performing” Senate races were losses, while the two wins appear to have won despite their local campaign efforts rather than because of them. No shame for the Dems running Simon or Forby, they appear to have done the best they could with the environment they were working in.
3. The GOP House pickups cannot be blamed on shifting demographics and Donald Trump. The House pickups and major defenses mostly outperformed the top of the ticket, suggesting that it was the Illinois GOP strategy and the Rauner money that won these races.
Point number 3 ought to make Dems very nervous for 2018, where turnout trends should favor the GOP in an off year.
Comment by Regressive Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:25 pm
===where turnout trends should favor the GOP in an off year===
Why? There’ll be a Republican in the White House. Remember what happened here last time that happened?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:33 pm
@Rich
That’s one theory.
But I’d say that the post-2008 Obama coalition of Democratic voters is generally just less reliable in non-presidential years (younger and more minorities.) The GOP coalition of older white voters votes more reliably. That effect would be even stronger if Trump can keep pro-labor White working class Illinoisans.
Comment by Regressive Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:45 pm
Trump was soundly rejected by the American people. Over 54% of the voters voted against the dope. Clinton received over 2,800,000 MORE votes than the orange. Of course he did worse.
Comment by Ron Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 12:45 pm
===That effect would be even stronger if Trump can keep pro-labor White working class Illinoisans. ===
Perhaps. But this is Illinois, after all. Quinn won during a huge GOP landslide. Rauner got 50.27 percent of the vote during another gigantic GOP landslide.
If you think there’ll be another GOP landslide in two years in the current GOP president’s midterm, then you can sleep soundly. Without that, you got headwinds. Period.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 1:37 pm
Regarding midterm headwinds and stronger Democratic electorates in presidential years, the folks at DKE have done some work that shows that in 2006 Dems most likely did not gain as much as they could have because of the presidential drop off. So even though the electorate might have a big drop off in Democratic friendliness in 2018, it’s not likely based on history to be big enough to sink Democratic chances to knock out Rauner or pickup congressional seats. Unless there’s some sentinel event, Republican fortunes will not be as good in 2018.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 1:49 pm
OW,Rich Rnug is really love your thoughts about what the above graphics mean for labor. Your thoughts are always extremely valuable to me. Thanks
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 1:52 pm
Follow up question. Do you think we cut down on the 2/5 ratio? I say mixed results. I think amongst the trades we lost ground on Trump. We got it down though for Mendoza but lost ground in iLga races, except for Kay/Stuart race. We also gained in the Kirk race. So mixed. Your thoughts perceptions?
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 1:58 pm
- Honeybear -
It’s very difficult, almost impossible to see the actual data impact without the breakouts of polling with labor voters, their rate of turnout vs. real overall turnout, the possible raw ballot equation that correlates to the polling.
All that said…
Katie Stuart was good…
Avery Bourne, Sara Jimenez, and the college towns… bad.
Without numbers, the Mendoza plurality could be Democrats and Labor staying “home” with Susana while other Dems and Indies went Munger(?)
Raunerites are touting, as they should, Bourne and Jimenez, as they both staved off the talk of Labor and blew the doors off their opponents.
I said often… 2, 3, no more than 4 races. That’s where Labor needs to be and Rauner, all day, and no quarter to Rauner.
Who’s to say, Rauner makes Labor peace with the Trades, tones down some rhetoric, gives in to the Trades on smaller things… two years is a long time.
The play Rauner ignored for the Home Run was to splinter Labor. He still can. Easily. If he wants to.
Does he want to?
Maybe Rauner’s Crew right now is looking at Munger and saying, “Off-year, $80-100 million, Madigan, villify public unions…”
Two years is a long time. Long.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 2:06 pm
===By this measure, your top GOP Senate Staff award should have gone to Derek Murphy (Trump got 41.2% in the 23rd while Lewis got 49%) or Adam Schuster (Trump got 40% in the 31st while Amrozowicz got 46%). These were the two top performing contested GOP State Senate races relative to the top of the ticket.=====
Wrong. Relative to the top of the ticket the best performing Senate race was the Thillens race (47% vs Trump 40%) run by little known Ben Tracy, and largely without ILGOP help. By the same measure it outperformed both rep races in that district, as well as Drobinski and Amrozowicz, which both got millions from the ILGOP. Keep an eye on Tracy, coming up through the IOP/IPI farm system.
Comment by Ben Tracy's Steel Jaw Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 4:55 pm
if you are a Dem and you lost a District that Clinton won, and you did not embrace her while campaigning, you might just give that a think.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Dec 14, 16 @ 8:21 pm