32 Comments - Rep. John Fritchey - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 8:39 am: Rich, As you and I discussed last week, I think that there were a few factors in play. First, the female vote in the Primary was large and concentrated. I looked at numbers for the various races across the 32nd Ward and no other demographic explanation exists. One case in point, AmySue Mertens beat Ricky Hendon in the Bucktown section of the 32nd Ward by about 40 points. At the same time, a very similar challenger, Eddie Winters, got trounced by Annazette Collins in the ward by over 15 points. Same type of race, same messages, very different outcome locally. With respect to the Presidential race, the wards that you mention have two things in common. Like all other wards, they are unable to ‘deliver’ the vote in monolithic numbers as in the past. Additionally, they all have surging Latino populations, a constituency with which HRC has done very well. Put those together with the female issue, and there’s your outcome. With respect to the State’s Attorney race, I think that it was a combination on an underestimated, but qualified, candidate who also benefited from being both a female and a Latina, which may have been further heightened by women who voted for Barack wanting to vote for the female candidate in another important race. Her numbers may have been further pushed by people simply being bombarded by the ads in the race and essentially lumping all the male candidates together as part of the ’same old thing.’ Just my thoughts for this sunny morning. - Anon - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 8:59 am: Rich - are you sure about the 13th Ward being with Allen? I vote in the 13th, and that day there was no mention of CCSAO on their palm card or sample ballot… - Bill Baar - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:08 am: Couple this with Pera’s defeat and I think what your seeing is a warning to Obama to shed the left in Nov. There is a pattern here and the racial story masks the underlying trend. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:15 am: rich - i think a lot of people are getting this all wrong. the primary was not about “the year of the woman” in which women and hispanics voted their preferences instead of those of their ward bosses. the real story is the white guys (in the city and suburban cook) who voted for hillary and anita alvarez shunning the machine. while i don’t have any specific numbers to back this up, look at the wards and townships that don’t have heavy hispanic populations and you’ll see a lot of places where alvarez did really well. - Anon2 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:17 am: I believe the 13th Ward (Madigan) was neutral in the CC State’s Attorney race. As far as President, the powerful ward organizations precinct captains usually don’t do a lot of arm twising for President. As Tip O’Neil said, all politics are local. The captains in the 13th ward worked real hard for Gene Moore and Joe Berrios. These offices produce patronage jobs. Can’t wait to see who Madigan/Berrios will recruit to run against Houlihan for CC Assessor. - Amy - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:39 am: I’ve heard this story from boys in the pol world… the reason the women came out on top is that the boys backed them. Hogwash. The reason the story is out there is the boys want to claim credit for the numbers the girls got on their own. Unless someone has seen the palmcards featuring the name of the girls, it’s all a story by the boys to claim credit. - Pete - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:41 am: Its no secreat that Madigan doesnt care for Obama. One of Madigans top legislative leaders (Jack Franks) is co-chairing Clintons Illinois campaign. Madigan actively worked against Obama when he ran against Hynes and when Gianulias ran against Madigan’s “brilliant” comptroller candidate Mangieri. I cant speak for the others involved or the wards, but most of them run in the same circles. These guys deliver their wards time and time again… If they didnt, then something smells. - Garp - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:50 am: Most wards don’t try to push the president because they know they can’t compete with media on this level and don’t want to offend thier voters so they won’t vote for their other candidates. The Hillary/Obama totals were the result of voter preference. Tom Allen loss was due to several factors. Chiefly, the wards didn’t try hard for him. Some double crossed him, some didn’t think he was going to do as well as he did so they didn’t push him hard, some were just lazy and didn’t get the troops out in time to get to early voters and absentees. Basically, there were a lot of committeemen who woke up Wednesday morning and said, boy we could have won this thing if I would of done my job. Alvarez may end up being a great States Attorney but she won’t be good for the machine. - Ghost - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 9:58 am: The information is incomplete to draw any conclusions. The first question that comes to mind is how many people in the wards new who the ward bosses supported? If the vast majority had no idea who their ward boss supported, then the problem is the ward bosses failure to communicate thier pic clearly. If they all knew andd chose to ignore it, then this treends to endorsements having little influence. The secret support for HRC theory would carry more water if it looked like the bosses made their endrosements, but failed to get that message out. However they may have all just been lazy, assumed Obama who was polling well would do well, so why bother. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:04 am: Voters are not happy and are choosing their candidates. In today’s world, we are expected to be more data driven and informed, so we are undertaking the responsibilities that go along with this when voting. Ward bosses are listened to, palm cards are reviewed, but parties have lost their credibility with voters in this age of Blagojevich, corruption, Stroger, taxes, deficits, GA meltdowns, and intraparty warfare. Alvarez was seen as the clean break from this past. Clinton, unlike Obama, is not a part of the corrupt Chicago environment. They won. - RBD - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:18 am: When you are quite familiar with the candidates, how much do endorsements matter? Once you have determined whom you are voting for, do you even notice who got which endorsement (unless you are a political junkie)? We in IL are in the unusual position of knowing both candidates quite well. Who local big-mouths were “backing” in the presidential primary was likely to be ignored by a knowledgeable electorate. - Observer - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:40 am: Pete’s correct. MJM et al can deliver for whomever they choose. By the way, where was the Secretary of State White in all this? The top vote getter; the only african american statewide office holder. Interesting silence. - Lefty Lefty - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:47 am: Mark Pera losing Bridgeview and Mount Greenwood is a sign that Obama should drop the left? I don’t buy it. The south side is going to vote with their interests, and Lipinski’s re-election makes perfect sense to them. Most of them, too, are DINOs: anti-abortion, pro-military, etc. The other explanations offered for the Clinton/Allen wins seem valid. Also, the left loved Edwards until he dropped out. Rhetoric notwithstanding, Obama is playing the center very nicely as far as policy positions go. - Lee - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 10:52 am: White bigots are still alive and voting in sections of Chicago. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:07 am: In my short years in Chicago, I have yet to see proof of the ward boss effectiveness of the days of yore. I don’t even know what a “ward boss” is. Is that the alderman? The committeeman? These days, with independent voters, tv ads, mailers, etc., who needs a ward boss to tell them how to vote? Plus, voter turnout percentage is so low that you have to assume that those people making the effort to vote already know who they’re going to vote for. The ward’s palmcards are pretty much worthless except for down ballot races. That Cook County Dems withheld the Obama endorsement plus Madigan’s ward went for Clinton does not pass the smell test. - Amy - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:13 am: so, Lee, we are white bigots if we do not vote for Obama? some of us are just very much for Hillary Clinton and not at all interested in “we are the ones we are waiting for” osteenesque Obama. - Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:36 am: Isn’t it just that some of these Chicago machine wards fit the Clinton demographic to a tee? Go look at some of the other primary results around the country prior to the Potomac Primary. You’ll see what I mean. THe Potomac Primary marks a new stage of the campaign. Obama’s broken out of his box. This is now for real. Now, with regard to the attorney’s race, the mud kicked up about Suffredin’s imperfections was highly effective and it stuck. And Alvarez, who was both clearly qualified, and clearly screwed over by not getting her boss’s endorsement like she was promised, was very well placed to benefit seeing as she was the only other person besides Suffredin who wasn’t blatantly a hack. And she came across as being less of a hack than Suffredin to anyone who simply had the ads to go on, which was most of us voters. - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:39 am: Amy - Osteenesqe? Did you get that buzz word from the Clinton campaign? Give me a break. There’s nothing wrong with inspiring people - it’s a shame your candidate isn’t able to do more of it. It would have been great to have a female president. - Amy - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 11:58 am: bill s. no, i did not get the term from the Clinton campaign. as I did not get Rezkobama from them or Perarrogance from the Lipinski people. give a gal a little credit. - BannedForLife - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 12:56 pm: “Voters are not happy and are choosing their candidates. In today’s world, we are expected to be more data driven and informed, so we are undertaking the responsibilities that go along with this when voting.” When the leader takes a hit in a multi-way, it’s not necessarily 2nd place that is the primary beneficiary. Most polls and pundits had Suffredin in the lead the week before the election. Then Suffredin’s work fixing a landfill for Fred Barbara hit the papers. Sure, there’s racial & gender dimensions to Alvarez’ apparently come-from-behind victory, but another factor might simply be that she was the 2nd choice of some voters previously leaning toward Suffredin, in other words perhaps Suffredin bled more to Alvarez than to anyone else. - Anonymous45 - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:20 pm: God forbid if the Dems don’t nominate Obama and bring Chicago style politics to the nation’s capitol, just think of all the patronage jobs to be had and the possibility of escape from the quagmires of city and state government -here’s another thing I am gleaning from the Dem race and the media: Racism and discussions of race are are not allowed but overt sexist BS is still ok… the Alvarez win tells me the voters want a capable non machine candidate to do the job–I’m pretty sure she wasn’t a member of the Boys Club at the CCSA office… - wordslinger - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:22 pm: Ward bosses can’t compete with 24/7 media in high profile races. They still have influence further down the ballot. And in a primary, as long as you pull the right ballot, you’ll still get your tree trimmed or your curb replaced. - HappyToaster - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:35 pm: Am I missing something? Obama won the 33rd(Mell)by 10 points. He was up 30 points from the ‘04 primary in the other wards. Like AC said wards that were in Hillary’s strike zone. I expect 75-80% in those wards in a general matchup. John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. - Look Behind the Curtain - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 1:45 pm: Much of the answer to this riddle wth the State’s Attorney’s race is invisible to the naked eye which is just the way the riddlers would prefer it. The answer to this riddle can be found in the under-vote in the City of Chicago; which had the effect of increasing the influence of suburban women, and dimnishing the influence of union households; especially those union households who are employed n the public sector. - BannedForLife - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 2:04 pm: “With respect to the State’s Attorney race, I think that it was a combination on an underestimated, but qualified, candidate who also benefited from being both a female and a Latina … ” Alvarez also benefited from not being a registered lobbyist. - Captain America - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 2:14 pm: People can make up their own mind on a high level office like the Presidency without any advice form a ward boss and his minions. Obvioulsy, as noted by John Fritchey, women were eager to support a qualified female candidate for State’s Attorney, as well as other offices Allan was an extremely lackluster candidate - I still can’r figure out why the Tribune endorsed him. Organization and labor support almost enabled him to win despite his unimpressive persona. Despite her outstanding qualifications,electorally, Alvarez got very lucky in an extremely crowded field of male opponents. I’m happy with the outcome - she was my second choice. If I had not been committed to Larry Suffredin’s candidacy, I would have voted for her above all the others. - Just a student... - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 3:09 pm: Isn’t it great how everyone can sing AA’s praises now when nobody was giving her a chance before the election? - Prairie Sage - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 3:36 pm: Tommy Hynes went from being Senate President to Assessor, maybe MJM will follow in his footsteps. It would be a deft move to both raise money and eliminate a conflict a certain state race in 2010. Possible campaign slogan: “He knows where the loopholes are.” - Independent - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 6:10 pm: Allen had the backing of those Rich mentioned, and Milan had Devine’s backing. Cook Co. machine Dems must be kicking themselves for not brokering a deal to get Milan to drop out. Allen and Milan split the “establishment” vote enough for Alvarez to win. Allen only lost by 2600 votes, and Milan had 27,500. - Darkhorse - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 7:03 pm: Just a student– Some of us not only gave her a chance but thought she was going to win. Anita’s victory really has changed the way many of the old pols think - Bill S. Preston, Esq. - Wednesday, Feb 13, 08 @ 8:45 pm: Just a student- Darkhorse is right, some of us did think she was going to win (see my pre-election comment stating ‘watch out for women who voted for Barack to vote for AA to make up for it’). But you’re also right, because there really weren’t that many. And now they all want to say ‘I told you so.’ - Four Doors Down - Thursday, Feb 14, 08 @ 3:35 pm: Similar thoughts were posted in the Chicago Daily Observer: http://cdobs.com/archive/local-media-feeds /brookins-states-attorney-fiasco-rates-with- the-dumbest772/#your_comment Since my response there sort of fits here, might as well do the easy this and cut and paste: ====(snip)==== I think you take an unfair swipe at Alvarez over her tenure in charge of the politcal corruption unit and unfairly try to paint Alvarez’s victory as only based on her sex and heritage. In an election where John Burge was a poltical football tossed around by her challengers, Alvarez was the only one who could say she had successfully bucked the very long odds and achieve convictions against corrupt police officers. While others pounded their fists about corruption, she could say she had actually successfully prosecuted such cases. Similarly silly, was Allen’s efforts to paint Alvarez (and Milan) as responsible for Burge - when the record is that decisions on charging (or better said, not charging him) were made when they were in school. This made Allen look desperate and “political,” something I’d say most do not want to see from the State’s Attorney. Now with the primaries over, efforts to paint Alvarez’s victory as only or mainly due to her sex and heritage is demeaning and gives voters little credit. This is akin to saying that any successful black candidate only got their vote because of being black - it’s a backhanded and racist way of demeaning the candidate’s credentials by pulling out the race or sex card to rationalize the vote based on weak generalizations. Not fair when it’s a black candidate and not fair when it’s a Latina - especially someone as accomplished as Alvarez. Alvarez carried a lot of wards that are surprising - at some point you have to give her credit for being the one candidate that remained positive and focused on her very extensive credentials for the post rather than dropping down and slinging mud with the others. Come November I think you will see a fourth entry in the “dumb, dumber and dumberer” line up. The Dumbererer(?) entry will be Tony Peraica’s decision to run. Alvarez is the worst opponent he could have drawn, she’s not a political insider, has no ethical problems and is a likeable and talented person. Peraice can only run negative, has no real credentials to be State’s Attorney, has made very questionable decisions in the past (i.e. the drunken march on the County Clerk’s office at the end of his unsuccessful run for County Board President). Unlike some of the candidates Alvarez just beat, Peraica has nothing legitimate to throw at Alvarez. Add to this, there are many skeletons in Peraica’s closest unknown to the general public that will certainly come out now that the Democratic Party is getting in line behind Alvarez. Heck, even Cook County Republican Party leaders like Liz Gorman have their knives out for Peraica. This is going to be a slaughter. The long term effect being Peraica coming out of the slaughter in November vulnerable to even hold his Committee seat next time through. Keep an eye on Alvarez. At least you concluded your piece by noting she is the “right candidate.” ====(snip)==== One thing I forgot to add was Peraica getting sanctioned by a federal district court judge and ordered to obtain trainind the very day after trying to challenge Alvarez’s legal talent. This is going to be a fun election to watch. Sort of like passing by a car wreck, you just sort of have to look… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.