Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Senate cancels Monday session *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* I’ve already told you about the poll that showed Gov. Blagojevich’s job approval rating was worse than President Bush’s. But I told subscribers about the poll’s crosstabs, which has even more bad news for the governor. That’s the subject of this week’s syndicated newspaper column as well.
His base is deserting him…
Blagojevich has courted black voters for years, and it paid off. He scored higher in most black Chicago wards and Cook County townships than Cook County Board President Todd Stroger did in November. According to official exit polling, Blagojevich won 80 percent of the black vote last fall.
But the details of the Rasmussen poll have Blagojevich’s current approval among black voters at 41 percent and his disapproval at 57 percent. That’s a worse showing in that demographic than any poll I can find since the man was first elected.
The governor also is doing worse with female voters than with male voters, according to Rasmussen. Eighty-four percent of women rate his job performance as either fair (30 percent) or poor (54 percent), while “just” 70 percent of men rate his performance as unsatisfactory. That’s truly astonishing when you consider that the governor’s sweeping and much-publicized health care proposals are aimed right at women and minority voters. Also, Blagojevich won a majority of the female vote last fall, 53 percent, while getting just 45 percent of the male vote, according to the exit polling.
The governor also is getting clobbered by his own Democratic voters. Just 29 percent of Democrats said he was doing an excellent or good job, while 71 percent rated him negatively.
There was one consolation for the governor in that Rasmussen poll. While 53 percent of all voters blamed the governor for the seemingly never-ending “budget stalemate” and just 19 percent blamed the state legislature, only 11 percent of black voters blamed the governor for the current mess in Springfield, and a solid majority of 57 percent blamed the Legislature.
* On a completely different front, Jim Edgar was asked recently about the never-ending Statehouse feud…
Asked about the drawn-out budget impasse, Edgar fingered the current executive, as many others have.
“Ninety percent of this is the governor as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I can’t understand for the life of me why he wants to keep fighting” House Speaker Michael Madigan.
The former governor added that he believes lawmakers would have come up with a budget by early July if it weren’t for Blagojevich
Maybe earlier.
* And if you want to recap this awful year, then by all means go here and relive the blow-by-blow, courtesy of the Associated Press…
March 5: Gov. Rod Blagojevich proposes privatizing lottery to reduce pension debt.
March 7: Blagojevich proposes biggest tax increase in state history to support health insurance and schools.
March 11: Blagojevich says he is on “the side of the Lord” in tax battle.
March 13: Chicago mayor criticizes governor for saying his tax plan goes after “fat cat” businessmen.
March 21: Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and Comptroller Dan Hynes criticize Blagojevich tax plan.
And on, and on, and on, and on.
* More session-related stuff, compiled by Paul…
* Infighting, gamesmanship dash progress in Springfield
* Statehouse Insider: Governor and Speaker’s ‘tit for tat’ continues
* A heated summer with little progress
* Ed Wells: Illinois politics at play, it’s sad for us
* Schools dragged into capitol spat
* Illinoize: Sen. Millner on Guerra
* Schoenburg: Talk of impeaching governor dies down for now
* Legislators, governor get retroactive raises
* State funding for bridges still up in the air; more here
* Pension’s appetite worries lawmakers
* Congressmen to state politicians: Finish construction plan
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 8:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Senate cancels Monday session *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Here’s a snafu with the Rasmussen poll and your analysis: There seems to be confusion linking voting for someone to approving of him.
What I voted for in the general election was, at best, the hope of a Governor Quinn. My opinion of Blagojevich has always been extremely negative but I did vote for him.
Please explain why even 5% think the Governor is doing extremely well. What was the margin of error in the survey?
Comment by RBD Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 9:17 am
Rich - a quick question.
That Rasmussen poll was shopped around to almost every media outlet (including ours). Yet, you were pretty much the only person to write about it.
Why is that?
Comment by s Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 9:45 am
They never shopped it to me. I wrote about it here on the blog after Paul linked to it. I’d have to go back to see where he got it. Frankly, I don’t remember, other than I do know absolutely that Rasmussen didn’t “shop” it to me.
Most reporters don’t write about polls that their own outlets don’t produce. This is a ridiculous rule, but it’s their rule not mine.
As for me being the only one, I think Bernie also did a piece on that poll in his column after I did a blog piece here.
Your questions were a bit misleading, and a little insulting, in other words.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:00 am
After going back and looking at Paul’s post, I remembered that I was the one who sent the story to him.
I was in Chicago, on vacation, watching TV in my hotel room and saw the last half of the Fox Chicago story that they did on the poll, which they apparently commissioned.
So, again, I’m not sure what your premise is. 32 did a piece, Bernie did a piece, and I covered it as well. I guess the better question is, why didn’t you?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:04 am
Sometimes a bad governor can be worked around, and over time the damage done by a bad governor can be fixed.
But sometimes a bad governor comes on board when a state can least afford one. This is what is happening now.
Houston will surpass Chicago as our nation’s #3 city, if it hasn’t done so already. After New Orleans sank, hundreds of thousands left for a better life in Houston.
Just how global can Chicago be as #4? Just how important can Illinois be when it appears that the 21st Century has been routed away from us?
We didn’t get where we are today with governors like Blagojevich. We got here in spite of governors like him. We were the boomtown of the 19th Century. We made the industrial revolution happen in the US. We fed the world. Our banks created wealth. Folks from nearly 1000 miles away came by train to shop here. Catlogue shopping was invented here. Chicago worked and we succeeded.
Not anymore. We have not been keeping up. Worst, we have been slipping. Our skyscrapers continue to rise, but our families are leaving. Apartments and condos are going online, but not for families with children.
There is a difference between having 2 million young families in Chicago and having 2 million seniors. Chicago is becoming a place for retirees with ties to Chicago who don’t mind freezing winters. One has a future, and the other hasn’t.
So you see, we are in a competition. We do not need a government like the one we currently have. Not only are we struggling with a state budget meltdown, we are struggling with who gets our budget - our future or our past.
Cities with booming economies can throw money at their mistakes. Chicago no longer can. We must now decide whether we will succeed in this century, or whether we will go the way of other Midwestern cities with glorious histories; Detroit or St. Louis.
Chicago is becoming regional. Our economy is more dependant on the Midwestern economy more than ever, instead of a national or global economy.
This is a really bad time for a governor like Blagojevich - a really, really bad time.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:04 am
I can find out why - But I think someone had said it was a bad poll.
Not that I challenge the results. Just that someone here said it was a bad poll.
Comment by s Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:12 am
“Chicago is becoming a place for retirees with ties to Chicago who don’t mind freezing winters.”
Quick question - have you ever been to Chicago?
The reason population is down is because of the “yuppie boom.” Large lower-income families are leaving, being replaced in gentrified, popular neighborhoods with yuppie singles and couples.
Population thus goes down, but prices go way up. You can’t find a house with land on the popular north side for less than $750k. And good luck at that.
Comment by s Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:15 am
Well, Rasmussen has a pretty good reputation among pollsters, so I can’t imagine why somebody would say it’s a “bad” poll.
Plus, as I pointed out in the column, it tracks well with another poll done in July. That’s one reason I gave it credence.
So, again, I can’t fathom why someone would dismiss it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:19 am
===You can’t find a house with land on the popular north side for less than $750k. And good luck at that.===
That’s one reason why I left.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:21 am
Yuppies?
What is this, 1985?
Before you get all delirious over the promise of “yuppies”, yuppies don’t have kids. So, how do you expect Chicago to grow? Hold a Shaker convention? - Oh, that’s right, they died out too.
Cities without children are like churches without children - dying ones.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:23 am
Yea, not to mention the building boom.
If you hadn’t been in some neighborhoods in 5 years, you wouldn’t recognize them.
Down goes a house, up goes a 3-flat.
Down goes small retail buildings, up goes 100-unit condo and retail complex.
Comment by s Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:24 am
I don’t think s necessarily meant that as a great thing. He was pointing out the error in your argument. And it’s valid. Although, there are plenty of transplanted suburbanite retirees moving into Loop highrises. I know several. They don’t have kids, either, and they pay top dollar.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:26 am
“yuppies don’t have kids”
That was exactly my point. Hence the smaller population.
I would say there are plenty more households, just smaller in size.
But here is the thing - those yuppies have only been moving in over the past 5 years.
In terms of relationships, they are still in the dog stage. Soon, it will be the kid stage, and then the school-age kid stage.
Comment by s Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:27 am
“The raises take the base pay for a lawmaker to $63,143 from $57,619.”
That’s almost 10%. Educators can only receive–at most–a 6% increase without incurring huge pension penalties for the district. That 6% is in all monies, so if a teacher gets a 5% increase, and takes on a coaching job that pays more than 1% oh her salary, the district has to pay the additional pension obligation.
I understand the purpose of the limit on school raises, but the law is too strict.
So who is paying the pension obligation for a 9.6% increase for lawmakers? Along with the rest of us, a lot of teachers are paying, that’s who.
Comment by Fan of the Game Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:29 am
I think the proper term you are looking for is not “yuppie” but DINKS (double income no kids). As far as the poll, I have seen and heard it several places. No one seems surprised. I will confess that I was surprised to see he was polling with lower favorables than George Bush, however. That little fact speaks volumes to how poor a job he is doing.
Comment by Leigh Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:44 am
It is only considered a “bad poll” by those who don’t like the numbers.
Comment by True Comparison Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:46 am
Yuppies indeed do have children. DINK’s (double income no kids) do not.
I suppose it really makes no difference in who conducts a poll as to whether you give it credibility. If the results are to your liking, then it’s credible. If the results are not, then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Personally I LOVE these poll results. Rasmussen rocks.
Comment by Little Egypt Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:48 am
Perhaps they saw the extreme low job approval and decided it couldn’t be true. I initially thought that, but remembered that other July poll which matched up pretty well - and which I barely mentioned, if at all, for that very reason. That’s why i went back the next day and did a full posting on it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:50 am
To bad this isn’t an election year for governor.
Comment by Anon Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 10:53 am
Vanilla Man,
Chicago’s population is roughly 2.9 m.
Houston’s is 2.0 m. They have a long way to go before they overtake us as the #3 city.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:05 am
VanillaMan — If you’ve seen Chicago recently, you’ll see that there are more skyscrapers being built here than anywhere else in America at the moment. The downtown is *filled* with construction — major construction.
If you’re concerned about Chicago — I’d say your concern is somewhat misplaced.
Chicago is doing fine — and it’s far from some “regional.”
Comment by Macbeth Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:27 am
OD,
Chicago is losing 10,000 people a year and Houston is gaining 30,000 people a year, according to the US Census estimates over the last 6 years. If this 40,000 person differential continues, the two cities will reach equilibrium somewhere around 2023 or so. A lot can change between now and then.
-s- and VM
DINK’s sort of covers the empty-nest retiree couples as well as the childless working couples. I’d say that both these categories of childless couples, as well as working singles and retired widows/widowers/divorcees moving up, comprise 80-90% of the folks moving into the ritzy condo’s, but I’ll defer to the 2010 Census to tell us more. Those who wish to promote the city’s future, and who dismiss or ignore the trend of moderate-to-high income families with children leaving or avoiding the city as a residence, do so with at least one hand tied behind their back. And some traditional low income families - immigrants, particularly - are either bypassing the city or leaving it sooner than their forebears in the past.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:32 am
I polled myself and found that my opinion of the gov was much lower than the optimism of the Rasmussen poll.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:32 am
Ok, so all these either DINKs or seniors are buying up all the very high priced condos and houses being constructed. With all the extra tax revenue coming in and no children to educate, shouldn’t the CPS be swimming in extra dough instead of crying for more? And don’t say that all the new construction is in TIF districts. Chicago hasn’t TIF’d all its real estate (yet).
Comment by Bluefish Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:34 am
Chicago’s metropolitan area, which includes the six “collar counties” and part of northwestern Indiana, is still #3 by a large margin over Dallas-Fort Worth, Philadelphia-Camden, Houston and Miami. The suburbs are growing like crazy and most places north of I-80 are booming.
No matter what pundits say, Adam Smith’s take on the “invisible hand of the market” will always hold true, even when the “business climate” of a state and country are in a capitalistic system. Illinois can be deemed as unfriendly to business as people want to make it, but in my opinion a lot of that comes from parts of southern and central Illinois that are hit hard by recent and past plant closings and energy/coal facility shutdowns. There is just not enough of a population cluster in major downstate areas to attract large businesses or conglomerates. The Metro East is doing well, but many other areas are not.
Still, Blago’s job performance has been awful. We live in a political era that screams for compromise and bipartisan solutions; both of those ideas require compromise and wit. Blago does not like to compromise, and I don’t know if he has the smarts to run a large state. He deserves the poor approval rating, and I don’t think his press staff can spin this one away.
I realize that polls should not drive a politician to only act how a “majority” of the populous wants him or her to act. But at some point, very low marks should cause a leader to pause.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:44 am
I don’t consider myself and spouse as DINKs. We are seniors, retirees, empty-nesters and/or snow birders but please don’t call me a DINK. I have two sons whom I am very proud of so that will never, ever make me a DINK. I still like the poll and I give a huge amount of credibility to the poll conducted by A Citizen.
Comment by Little Egypt Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:45 am
Sorry, I meant to say that a state or country can still experience business and trade success even when the business climate is not a favorable one. I need more coffee.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:47 am
“moderate-to-high income families with children leaving or avoiding the city as a residence”
That happened in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
I would venture to say they were mostly gone by the 90s.
Now they are coming back.
Comment by s Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 11:48 am
LE-
My apologies - I should have re-worded my original post to say that DINKs and empty-nesters share many of the same socio-economic characteristics as far as immigration to Chicago.
Team Sleep-
I agree that Will and Kane are booming, and look at the #2 percentage growth county in the US, Kendall. In that respect, IL is doing pretty well for a midwestern state because you don’t see anything this big happening in WI, OH, or KY. It does have long term social implications for the city of Chicago, Cook County, the suburbs, and the balance of power and investment that Cook has the #2 largest numeric drain of people, out of 3,077 counties in the US.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 12:09 pm
-s-
Without their children.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 12:09 pm
I find it amusing that politicians are worrying about pension growth after screwing with the money that should have gone into the fund for decades! Shades of the social security debacle there. The state first has to meet its promises, so if we have to cut every last thing out and just pay pensions and current salaries, then that’s what we have to do. Sooner or later, you do pay the piper.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 12:16 pm
Vanilla Man also overlooks geography. Chicago proper is only about 225 sq. mi. Houston is geographically huge, encompassing large swaths of what would normally be suburbs. The actual city borders of L.A. are also much larger that Chicago. To give it a more proper size comparison, expand Chicago to most of Cook County, and Chicago bumps up to around 4 million, although the L.A. metropolitan area remains larger.
As far as the Governor, he’s obviously not listening, since he hears a higher calling. But, hey, Messiah Complexes can be fun!
But just wait until those CTA “Doomsday” cuts and fare increases hit in Chicago this week. They are for real, and will last for a while even after the money gets approved. THEN take a poll - all of these guys are playing with fire.
Comment by Anon Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 12:48 pm
Six, I agree. Unchecked growth is not always a good thing. In some areas, it is completely unavoidable (think Tokyo and Hong Kong). In other areas, such as Shanghai and some of the major metro areas in India, the boom could have been avoided or a little more spread out. People living on top of one another is a terrible development.
But what can be done? Unless you artifically hold down real estate prices in the city and in Cook County, people will continue to move out of the main metro area and into surrounding counties.
I do think, though, that part of the recent housing “crisis” is directly related to overzealous appraisers. Too many appraisers overvalued homes, and it worked. But now people are facing real dilemmas, and it will be interesting to see if the housing market keeps declining and what that will do overall to developers, agents and buyers in the Chicago area.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 1:05 pm
The Chicagoland area is not in economic meltdown. Chicago and Cook County have some real issues — the long-term risk is that our area becomes like the Detroit area (which for years has had many wealthy suburbs surrounding an isolated and poor city; now even the suburbs are struggling). That won’t happen in the lifetime of the current Mayor Daley, although it will be his successor’s greatest challenge. It will also not happen during the term of our current Governor.
The good of a stalemate like this is that certain policies bad for the long-term health of the state that might otherwise emerge from unified rule (by either party) will not emerge, because the lack of harmony prevents their passage. The bad of it is that a lot of action that’s sorely needed might not happen, with the most obvious example being the draw-down of federal transportation funds.
Comment by Gus Frerotte's Clipboard Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 2:06 pm
All the scathing newspaper editorials and related radio and TV coverage of the budget impasse, seem to have taken a toll. The governor’s posturing as a champion of the working people has been exposed as a fraud. People seem to have paid more attention to than CF bloggers - myself included - have assumed.
Madigan’s road show on the impact of specific gubernatorial line item vetos should drive Blago’s numbers down more.
How low can he go? When will the Governor act/recognize the need to compromise to stop his political hemorrhaging??
Except for the native Texans and some sun belt types, I think most of us metro Chicago residents would rather live,work and do business in Chicago than Houston. Although Van Man may not be able to appreciate it, Chicago is a Great American city and Houston will alwsys be an also ran, notwithstanding long-term population trends.
Comment by Captain America Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 3:07 pm
TS-
I doubt land within Chicago can be made “more affordable” overall unless the market dictates it. When the government tries to intervene, the “invisible hand” will often move in another direction, with unintended consequences.
Portland, OR has tried to establish urban growth boundaries to limit sprawl, a noble idea. However, one of the net effects seems to be a rationing of desirable, developable land driving up real estate prices inside the boundary.
International Falls, MN offered free land to settlers who met certain conditions, as a way to promote growth in the area. There were a few takers, but they didn’t exactly cause a stampede.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 5:16 pm
“Blago does not like to compromise, and I don’t know if he has the smarts to run a large state.”
This quote says it all. The governor’s personality traits won’t allow him to back down without a fight. He was a Golden Gloves boxer and still is. He baits his opponents, he stirs the pot, he calls them names - in other words, he’s a bully. He surrounds himself with the same type of people and some even worse. He is caught in his own web of narcissism which is given confirmation by his staff, so-called friends and hangers on. He needs some kind of intense therapy but given his penchant for being all-knowing, he will never get it. And once removed from office, he will not know how or why it happened.
Comment by Disgusted Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 5:53 pm
blago’s budget perfomance and lawsuit against mm is a new low, this city is not yet in crisis, but it also doesn’t look like one trying to get the olymplics,
Comment by dave the dude Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 8:53 pm
Six, that’s exactly my point. Forced-down real estate prices could have disastrous long-term consequences.
Eventually, Chicagoland will reach to Rockford, Kankakee and DeKalb.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Sep 10, 07 @ 9:41 pm