Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rides For Moms Provides Transportation To Prenatal Care
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
Posted in:
* Should Illinois Democrats try to do this, too? Explain your answer…
Wow. Looks like Minnesota Democrats are going to be running a candidate in every single state House seat.
That's something that even state parties with hegemonic control in deep-blue states don't do (see: the Massachusetts Democrats) https://t.co/H4cJPITbVJ
— Lakshya Jain (@lxeagle17) June 10, 2024
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 1:50 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rides For Moms Provides Transportation To Prenatal Care
Next Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
They should, but the IDP is so Chicagoland area heavy there is zero institutional knowledge remaining of how to run a campaign in a legislative district without a college town Downstate.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 1:55 pm
There’s no party building advantage to watch an unfunded Democrat get 18% against Blaine Wilhour.
Comment by Mr. Jimmy Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:00 pm
Of course. You can’t win the battles you don’t fight.
Comment by Nathan H Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:04 pm
Yes, but it takes a few cycles to get there. The DFL has been working on this with a significant rural outreach despite dismal results since the 2016 wipeout. Start in the closer places, but really pay attention to the county chairs and them building at least some sort of infrastructure in each county.
Comment by ArchPundit Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:06 pm
Call me crazy, but I think both parties should run someone in every race all the time, even if they will only get 18%
Comment by JB13 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:08 pm
I think they should. Normally I’d say it’s a resource issue, but JB gives them an opportunity to try it for an election or two. May not bring any victories, it would help bring a little counter programming to the MAGA expletive deleted storm downstate gets most of the time.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:11 pm
I think it is a good idea. Location does not matter in a statewide race. A properly vetted candidate can motivate Democrats in areas where they are not the majority to stay engaged. I think at the end of the day it is a positive.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:12 pm
Yes, they should. As Nathan H said above, you can only win if you fight/participate.
As several Democrats elsewhere have shown, they can win in places where you might not expect if they put forward the right candidate and focus on the right issues.
Comment by Techie Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:18 pm
The Dems in red and deep-red states need to do this even more, especially if mainstream Dem candidates can be found, especially young people.
Comment by Ares Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:21 pm
The raison d’etre of democracy is to have choices. Yes. They should. There are a lot of great bs political arguments for them not to. But I don’t care.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:25 pm
Yes. You never know if a place is potentially getting open until you try there. Also, there’s always the chance of a major scandal with an incumbent that won’t bow out alienating enough voters to let your guy slide in even temporarily. Heck, that national Dems had a Democratic senator from freaking Alabama for that very reason for a brief bit in the past few years.
Comment by TJ Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:35 pm
Sure they should but oops, can’t slate them now…
Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:36 pm
They have been trying to run candidates in races at every level, but the last few cycles have wiped out the bench. There are pockets of state where well liked Democrat candidates lost big in 2022, 2020.
Comment by Route 50 Corridor Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:44 pm
I’ve always encouraged the GOP to do this. Sure, they will not win (but flukes can happen) but you are giving every Republican in the State a chance to vote for a candidate. That always seemed important to me. I’d think the Dems would want that too.
Comment by Lurker Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:47 pm
===Should Illinois Democrats try to do this, too? ===
Yes. What is the over all long term goal of state parties? If the answer to that question is representing voter throughout the state it can be very helpful if they have an effort to attract voters throughout the state that goes beyond having statewide races that can choose to ignore areas where they do not think they need to get any votes.
The idea of running where the votes already are is not a sustainable practice for a state political party. Part of the process needs to be building and maintaining support for the ideas and values that the party brings to governing. Abandoning and ignoring entire house and senate districts create echo chambers that allow for the most ridiculous and dangerous partisan dialog to continue to thrive as it continues unquestioned, unanswered, and ignored by an apparatus that would seek to forget the population that once defined part of the base of the party.
The progressive income tax ballot measure failed because in huge chunks of Illinois there was only the voice of opposition that told every lie it could think of to justify it.
It is also good practice in retail politics to talk to people who are against the party because of the name, not because of the policy.
Illinois Democrats have been fantastic stewards for the more rural districts in Illinois that send unopposed loons to the legislature. Why not take some time and effort to let them know what your party is doing for them instead of letting some grifter convince them that they’re poor solely because all of their tax dollars go to Chicago.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:47 pm
===They should, but […]there is zero institutional knowledge remaining of how to run a campaign in a legislative district[…]====
Fixed this for you. It is really more of a national problem than a Chicago vs Downstate problem. Look to our neighbors whose citizens must flee to our state to exercise their basic human rights.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 2:49 pm
Everyone should be held accountable at the ballot box. Competitive elections are the only way to do that.
Comment by JSI Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:17 pm
The problem with this approach is that you are unlikely to recruit quality candidates to run in a throw-away race. The candidates that you do get are unlikely to be the best representatives of the brand. A parade of unqualified candidates may calcify the bad reputation of that party in the district and make that district even harder to win. There has to be more stratergery involved other than just throwing sacrificial candidates onto the ballot.
Comment by Duck Duck Goose Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:20 pm
republican unopposed wins with 100% of the votes. Send a message to the incumbent, give voters a chance
Comment by Rabid Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:21 pm
Absolutely should and so should the Republicans. I know in most cases it would take an act of God to get the minority party in but as is always said you can’t beat somebody with nobody. And I really wish the Republicans had a primary choices. I would like that best of all as a matter of fact
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:31 pm
Fair maps drawn by an independent commission would be a good start. No sense wasting resources on districts so heavily gerrymandered that the outcome is almost certain.
Comment by Wilson Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:35 pm
==I’ve always encouraged the GOP to do this. ==
I find the framing fascinating. Living in the city, I hear a lot about places Democrats have “left behind.” Meanwhile, Republicans continue to completely write-off cities, without non-stop exposés from NYT, New Yorker, and the like.
Comment by supplied_demand Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:47 pm
No. And have 80 and 50? If the past budget hiccups proved anything, it is easier to manage less members.
Comment by Could Soon Be Required Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 3:55 pm
Absolutely. I’m sick of parties trying to pick their voters, the goal should be to organize and attract new ones.
Comment by Excitable Boy Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:23 pm
Yes, to the extent feasible. (In other words, don’t run a George Santos just to have a name, any name, on the ballot.) I think it is good to have a choice, and hear differing viewpoints. Your party may not win this time, or next, but times change, people change, though they won’t swing to you if they don’t know you’re there or they think you don’t care enough about them to ask for their votes.
This is something both parties should do. The Dems write off downstate, ILGOP writes off Chicago. That shouldn’t be.
Comment by JoanP Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:26 pm
Folks remember that time that the GOP let a literal Nazi win their nomination? In general I think a State Party shouldn’t just ignore districts they don’t think are competitive.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:37 pm
I think they should openly solicit candidates, and see what happens. The Party always decides where their funds go, but having a candidate is better than not if the goal is to win.
At the same time, I would suggest providing funds for campaign materials should be an expectation of the party, since winning be the publicly stated goal of the Party.
Comment by H-W Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:39 pm
No need to run candidates in every district. They already won the seats they wanted by gerrymandering. Also, if you can’t control 78 members and barely pass a budget, what would you do with 88?
Comment by Spooky32 Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:42 pm
Yes.
Even a losing candidate has the ability to move the discussion. Maybe the candidate will lose, but maybe that candidate was able to get a conversation started in an area where it has never existed before. That conversation keeps happening after the race is over, people form opinions and some people might change their minds.
Then the next election happens, and people remember that previous conversation and now the conversation has a starting point it didn’t have before.
In the long-term a failed previous campaign might end up being what is needed to lay the groundwork for a successful future campaign.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 4:44 pm
Yes … and they should run people for as many local government races as they can. On my more cynical days, think the reason Illinois Pols aren’t more serious about local government consolidation is both parties use them as farm teams.
Comment by Anybody Remember Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 5:13 pm
What The Invisibleman said, run to encourage discussion and advocate for ideas. Run to talk about what the Dems have done for those deep red republican strongholds. Run good people to counter the demonizing of Democrats. Of course, you have to find someone to run…not an easy task when the odds are stacked against you.
Comment by froganon Monday, Jun 10, 24 @ 5:50 pm
Not in legislative races. If the Illinois maps were drawn in a less partisan fashion, the answer would be yes. But our maps are drawn in a way that there are very, very few purple districts. It would be a waste of limited resources to allocate funds to races where the electorate is indeed deep red. On the flip side, would it make sense for the GOP to run a campaign against Chris Welch? Against Kelly Cassidy? Against Debbie Myers-Martin or Lisa Hernandez? Of course not. Illinois is not Minnesota.
Now that being said- I believe this approach would most definitely make sense at the local level. Run Dems in Muni, County and Township races to build the bench and to give people options. A good ground game could actually deliver some results. No need for expensive TV ads and districts are small enough to walk, walk and walk.
If our maps were less precisely partisan, I’d say yes. But they aren’t. It is literally throwing money away to run these candidates in legislative races. Use that strategy in down ballot races- but those races aren’t sexy…
Comment by Retired School Board Member Tuesday, Jun 11, 24 @ 8:53 am