Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

On second thought…

Posted in:

Illinois

* This came in from the Illinois Republican Party yesterday. It’s the number of Republican primary ballots cast statewide since 1988…

Year GOP Ballots Cast
1988 899,153
1990 805,381
1992 878,438
1994 729,372
1996 868,030
1998 759,102
2000 781,318
2002 946,339
2004 702,658
2006 751,627
2008 883,647

Except for 2002 (when there was a super-hot Republican primary for governor), Tuesday was the biggest primary for the GOP since 1988. So, perhaps drawing too many conclusions from Tuesday’s huge Democratic turnout is premature.

* And this was forwarded to me by our blog friend JakeCP…

Chicago ‘04 GOP Primary vote 27,729
Chicago ‘08 GOP Primary votey 41,535

Those aren’t huge numbers, but it’s a lot of growth - almost 50 percent.

* Still, this meme will not die soon. From the AP…

It could be a long, long year for Illinois Republicans. Their U.S. Senate nominee is virtually unknown. They’re playing defense in at least four congressional districts. Illinois voters cast nearly 1.1 million more Democratic votes than Republican votes in Tuesday’s primary.

Things are definitely bad. No doubt about it. And - besides the primary turnout stuff - most other signs point to them heading for a lousy year. But the big Dem vote should be taken in some context, and so there you have it.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 9:53 am

Comments

The chart above lacks context without 2 other charts. we need: # of registered voters, and Democratic Party primary ballots cast for the same years. The little uptick in 2008 is tempered by the higher # of people and voters in the state since 1988, and the possible higher % of Democratic and D-leaning independents since then to the population as a whole. Gimme the demographics, baby.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:01 am
I wonder why in 20 years Republicans have never broken 1 million votes.

Comment by Levois Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:01 am
I wonder how many IL Dems will go home and cry their way through election day if Savior Barack isn’t the nominee?

Comment by Frankie Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:13 am
this shows the potential (esp. in the City of Chicago) for the GOP to make some gains, however incremental. Backlash against Todd Stroger & crew?

Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:14 am
The growth in Chicago GOP turn out is the more interest figure of group. Yes ILGOP is in bad straights but it far from being a dead party, the party needs to under go a serious rebuilding effort over the next few years.

Comment by RMW Stanford Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:16 am
Here’s why it will continue:
Traditionally, the GOP has won statewide races thanks to Dem candidates who didn’t have overwhelming Chicago and Cook County appeal, so many traditional Dems stay at home.
Coming out of the city, the GOP could rely on strong suburban turnout to turn the tables and then hope to split if not win downstate.

For evidence, look at Peter Fitzgerald’s win over CMB, Edgar over Hartigan and so on.

Lately, the problem for the GOP has been energized Chicago and Cook Dem turnout to bury the GOP candidate from the start, the suburbs are increasingly Democratic so the GOP can’t make up ground there and even if downstate votes blood red Republican, there’s not enough voter turnout to make up the difference.

I don’t see anything from Tuesday to suggest this is ending soon.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:28 am
Frankie brings up an interesting point, if the Democrat race becomes a long drawn out one and bitter and Clinton wins in the end, will that affect either Democrat turn in Illinois or cause them to skip the top of the ticket when they vote.

Comment by RMW Stanford Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:38 am
It’s interesting that the lowest number of Republican ballots cast was in March of 1994.

Unless my calendar is out of whack, didn’t the Republicans capture the majority in the Illinos House in the November 1994 election, which propelled Lee Daniels to be elected Speaker of the House for the 89th General Assembly in January, 1995? Didn’t they also capture all of the Statewide Constitutional offices in the November 1994 election as well?

What haappened between March 1994 and November 1994 that either increased the number of Republican votes, or decreased the number of Democratic votes, such that the Republicans were able to accomplish this feat? Was this a function of more independent (non-primary voters)voters tilting Republican, or more Democratics and D-leaners staying home?

I would have to ask that; if O’Bama is not on the ballot in November, and we have another stellar legislatve/budget session with Democratic in-fighting like the last one, could this be damaging enough to the Democratic Party that it could cost them the majority in the House again?

I don’t know enough about the indivdual races across the state to know whether enough of them are perceived competitive enough at ths point for that to happen, but I have to believe that another session like the last one could very well lead to a “throw the bums out” mentality for all legslative incumbents. This would seem more likely to adversely impact the party in power, with the most incumbents at risk to lose.

Comment by Historical Anomaly? Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:42 am
In Illinois there was still perceived to be a bit of a horse race on the presidential side. Anyone not in a coma knew IL was in the bag for Obama on the Dem side. That’s the sole reason for the uptick in R ballots taken. Pretty simple.

But it certainly had nothing to do with any organized party effort, or the presidential campaigns themselves. No presidential campaign had a serious organized effort here, at least not after Rudy had to pull up stakes.

People just came out on their own. A presidential race creates its own energy with all the national coverage.

As a Republican I also wouldn’t crow too much about being almost back to a 1988 figure. And let’s remember Illinois had many fewer citizens 20 years ago.

Comment by GOPer Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 10:53 am
The Republican Party is not dead but is badly hurting. This can be seen in the actions of the state’s top Dems: Blago, Jones, and Madigan. Blago and Jones are acting like the party is dead and will never come back. They have total disregard for Rs and moderates because they believe they can advance their liberal Chicago agenda with no consequences attached.

The Speaker, a political genuis and much more understanding of the reality of the political climate in the state, knows that the party can come back strong if they are given oppotunity. The Speaker has constantly operated under the fear of the other two Dems disenfranchising downstate and moderate voters because he knows they will turn red as quickly as they turned blue after Ryan.

If Obama is not on the ticket, and if we have another long session with Dem infighting and endless streams of stories about corruption, the Repubs could make some advances. Taking back the House or Senate? Doubtfull at best. But they could wither away at the majority if they play on Dem discontent and the Chicago angle downstate.

Also, don’t forget that a very real possibility of a Dem convention brawl hangs over the horizon. If that does materialize, all bets are off as voters see the party self-destruct on national TV. And if Obama is not on the ticket, IL dems will be thoroughly dissapointed which could severely deflate turnout. If Hillary gets the nom, McCain will have a shot at winning Illinois and providing an enormous shot in the arm for the state GOP.

Comment by Bud Man Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:16 am
It would be interesting to see along side those numbers the actual number of eligible voters there are in Illinois along with those actually registered. In this day and information age it would appear that more people would get involved. Perhaps it is simply that people ate turned off by the process; Negative ads and politicians saying one thing and doing another. Hey…that sounds like Blagojevich. At any rate I don’t see these numbers of something in which to be proud. These numbers may be fact but are feel good at best. It says we need to find the key to getting people involved in the process; young and old alike.

Comment by Justice Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:27 am
In Cook County virtually every normally-Republican voter I know took out a Democratic Ballot: because that was where the action was (President, State’s Attorney, judges). Especially as to judicial candidates, the Dem primary essentially elects the Judges. Few of these voters will stay with the Dem candidates in the fall, so I wouldn’t read too much into the primary turnouts.

Comment by Legal Eagle Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:36 am
Historical Anomaly,
What happened in between March and November was a lenghthy overtime session over tax caps. The GOP wanted taxcaps everywhere. Madigan refused to let them be imposed on Cook County, bottling the plan up in rules and refusing the budge. The final deal contained only collar county caps and Republicans hit the campaign trail promising to enact them in Cook.

Republican candidates in key Cook suburban districts were able to campaign against the Dems saying they didn’t want homeowners to get property tax relief that other suburbanites were getting. Clearly that had some traction.

In November, Republicans won the House, swept the state, quickly expanded tax caps to Cook and the period Dems often refer to as the “reign of terror” was on.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:40 am
The Republican Party in Illinois can start by listening and implementing my idea of promoting a “Republican Guarantee” this November.

That guarantee pledges to voters that any Republican candidate or office holder discovered to have behaved in unethical behavior will lose their nomination or will not be renominated.

I leave it to the GOP to define how a candidate or office holder fails that ethical test.

Voters in Illinois need to believe that the men and women nominated by a political party have been vetted and will be guided by an enforced standard of excellence.

I recommend that both parties start considering this. We need to move beyond the Blagojevich/Ryan age where we watch our governors head for the Big House. We need a clean break. We need to break away from electoral dynasties, (Daley, Jackson, Lipinski, Madigan, etc). We can start doing this by demanding both political parties to enforce a higher standard regarding their nominee’s conduct.

There was no reason the Democrats had to sell their souls to Blagojevich/Rezko/Kelly and Co just to win an election. There was no reason the Republicans had to sell their souls to Old George in order to win in 1998.

It is time for the political parties to STAND for something! If the GOP goes first, (it has little to lose), this can help them this November.

Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:55 am
Frankie and RMW, keep dreaming.

–

As Six Degrees notes, what are the demographics?

The fact the GOP had a big turnout but was still overwhelmed in most areas (and statewide) by Dem voters can’t be discounted too much.

They can have big numbers, but still be weak overall.

Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:58 am
PS: in 2004 Bush got the most votes ever against a sitting president, and still won.

It’s a two-way street.

Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 11:59 am
==will be guided by an enforced standard of excellence.==
They will never be able to find any candidates.

Comment by Bill Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 12:16 pm
To Rob_N, what exactly is dreaming that Obama might not win the Democratic nomination, because that seem possible, if not the most likely scenario, or that is he does not win it that it could have an affect on voter behavior in Illinois?

Comment by RMW Stanford Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 12:46 pm
One of the biggest turnouts in the GOP primary and yet, it was still less than the Democratic turnout in suburban Cook and Chicago which came in at about 1,080,000.

Take out suburban Cook and Chicago…Democrats still beat the Republicans in turnout by about 100,000. Hillary Clinton got 660,000 votes or about 20,000 less as McCain and Romney together

It’s not just about standing for something, it’s standing for something people want.

Comment by archpundit Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 1:03 pm
If Obama loses the Dem nomination, HRC will not play well and will drag the rest of the party down. In Illinois, it remains to be seen what something like that would do. However, it might hurt a few Dem candidates in Congressional and state legislative districts to have their names lumped in with her’s.

I would even make the bold prediction that the GOP could possibly retake the U.S. Senate if HRC is the Dem nominee. All they need is three, and it can be done if the SRCC uses Hillary as a fundraising tool.

Comment by Team Sleep Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 1:08 pm
Michell Flaherty,

Thank you for the history lesson. that defintely puts things into better perspective.

So; given that the last protracted and acrimonious legislative session ended with a primarily Democratic supported Cook and collar County sales tax, and the current one could end up with a primarly Democratic supported massive expansion of gambling; including into Chicago, or a statewide income or other tax increase, even if it were to swap income for property tax monies like the Meeks bill, could this happen again in Illinois, if O’Bama is not on the ticket?

It would seem that it would be hard to structure a roll call for vote either gaming or an income tax increase without those suburban Democrat reps givng aye votes, yet financially I am not sure they can just push this off again until after the November election.

Comment by Historical Anomaly? Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 2:13 pm
Team Sleep - well, HRC will drag the ticket down, but given that the Republicans are defending about 2/3s of the Senate seats up this term, I think it’s wildly unlikely that they gain the Senate.

Comment by Some Guy Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 2:40 pm
RMW, the latter.

Partisan opponents (Hillary haters) seem to have this notion that Dems won’t turn out to vote for her.

I disagree.

She’s clearly getting great support in a good many states and, as Arch pointed out, even when she comes in second her ballot number totals are still better than the GOP frontrunners.

Coat tails are another story. In this year, if Dems can effectively show that the opposition-for-opposition’s-sake Republicans are the cause for the continuing Congressional morass, it may not matter who the Dem nominee is. All politics is local, and the GOP is defending more Senate seats (way more) and of those several of the GOP incumbents are showing poorly in approval ratings to date. In fact, if you drill down into polls showing dissatisfaction with Congress, the low approval ratings seem to stem from unhappiness with Republican obstructionism, not the Dem leadership or agenda. In other words, Americans want their Republican incumbents out of Congress.

Oh, and all the national Dem orgs are fundraising in prolific numbers, beating their GOP equivalents by healthy margins (save the DNC, which asks donors to direct money to state parties — I don’t think the RNC does that).

Comment by Rob_N Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 2:51 pm
Listening to the the boys and girls in the tin foil hats on radio it is hard to imagine HRC deflating turnout for Ds more than Whacky Jack McCain for the GOPs. But then maybe McCain puts Rommney on the ticket too. Is it too late for Cheney?

Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t have time to dig up all the numbers, but Primary turn out is much smaller than General turnout.

With that in mind, even if the numbers are correlated (high primary, high general), it does not necessarily translate to a benefit to the party with the higher turnout come November.

My bet is that Dem turnout in nearly always higher in primaries. They are the party of machines, big metropolitan populations, and doling out jobs and goodies.

This hasn’t won them much on the presidential side.

It would be interesting to see if there is any real correlation between respective party turnouts and presidential winners.

With the Dem turnout driven their own special brand of identity politics…

(Is a black woman black first, or a woman first?! )

…the general election population, which is more likely to frown on identity politics, may shun the people who engaged in it.

Regardless, the fact remains that Republicans in Illinois are in full blown collapse at the state level. It is only matter of time before this translates into the Congressional delegation being picked off one seat at a time.

Comment by Bruno Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 3:06 pm
Team Sleep, there is another theory on HRC voters.
They are the workers, the lunch bucket dems, plus some of the prochoicer crowd. HRC voters are more
likely to consider McCain if she is not the nominee because he is not the typical crazy Republican offered. On choice, he
is, but he is really not the right winger we have
been subjected to from Republicans.

It is far more likely that Obama voters will either go with Hillary, or just not show up. The reverse is not as true.

McCain has a possibility of putting back the Reagan Democrat coalition if Obama is the nominee.

Obama is Dean in another form, the most left-wing Senator. The extreme left tag cannot be applied to Hillary. Obama has not come under the kind of
attack that can be applied to him. the truth is
that Hillary is hardly going after him, not on his uber left politics and not on Rezko.

but when you add up the decriminalization of
marijuana, the soft on crime legislation, the
anti-death penalty push and toss in a side of
scummy big city buy me a big house with the indicted guy’s money, McCain will be after voters
HRC has cultivated.

Live by the super Left, die by the super Left.

Comment by amy Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 4:33 pm
It is only matter of time before this translates into the Congressional delegation being picked off one seat at a time.

Hmmm…Phil Crane > Melissa Bean. Already happening. 10th and 11th are a possibility this cycle, outside chance of 14th. If the 13th or 15th ever go D, we’ll have our own version of the PRI Party of Mexico, which held an iron grip on the country for much of the 20th Century.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Feb 7, 08 @ 5:11 pm