Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Clock ticking on pension deal
Next Post: AFSCME in a trick box
Posted in:
* Charlie Wheeler takes a look at the election and changing demographics…
Suburban Democrats were prime targets for Republicans, but none lost. The only GOP gain in the area was a northwest suburban seat vacated by Jack Franks, who chose to run — successfully — for McHenry County board chairman.
One might suspect, correctly, that having President-elect Donald Trump at the top of the ticket was no help to GOP suburban challengers, despite megabucks campaigns. But more significantly, demographic trends have been working against Republicans, as southern and western Cook County towns become home to more African-Americans, and growing numbers of Hispanic and Asian-Americans move into the collars.
* It’s been my contention during numerous arguments since the election that this commonly used analysis looks at it backwards.
As Charlie rightly notes, Trump was surely no help to Republicans in the suburbs. So, by extension, Hillary Clinton was most certainly an advantage for suburban Democrats.
But, if that’s the case, then why didn’t the Democrats pick up any more suburban seats? They went after a bunch and failed everywhere. They also had their absolute top guy (Ald. Marty Quinn) running the race against Rep. Michael McAuliffe, but they had to pull out to save Rep. Sam Yingling’s hide. Yingling won by about 5 points this time around, but won by twice that four years ago. He barely beat his margin from the big Republican wave in 2014.
In a “normal” presidential year, the Democrats would’ve picked up at least some suburban seats and would’ve made the McAuliffe contest (where Clinton won by a significant margin) far more competitive than the 12-point blowout it wound up being and Yingling wouldn’t have been a problem.
The Democrats also won the comptroller’s race, but only by four points. That’s a dozen points off of Hillary Clinton’s margin and ten points below Tammy Duckworth’s. Susana Mendoza also trailed the top of the ticket in suburban Cook and Comptroller Munger won big in DuPage, despite Clinton’s and Duckworth’s wins there.
* Why did this happen?
The best explanation is the bigtime Raunerite money behind the “Fire Madigan 2.0″ program. It helped Republicans win Downstate races, prevented any losses in the suburbs (and put Yingling on the defensive) and kept Munger competitive in what should’ve been a landslide.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Clock ticking on pension deal
Next Post: AFSCME in a trick box
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good point Rich. There can be little doubt but that we’ll see this approach again in 2 years. The question I have is whether the Democrats can make a “Fire Rauner” argument that ties the Republicans to the Gov in the next cycle.
Comment by slow down Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:54 am
Not sure what Munger did compared to our beloved JBT in Suburban Cook but that might have been the difference in that race. Like OW said Munger should have started spending the money on TV a little sooner.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:58 am
RICH
Basing your conclusions on past history then why wont the Dems be substantially stronger in 2018 given the fact Trump will be President?
History indicates the party out of office usually does better than the party in the White House in off year elections.
Comment by MOON Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 9:58 am
I agree the Raunerite money had an effect.
I also have to wonder about the dropoff of votes from HRC to the down ballot positions. Suggests to me that a lot of the D party faithful that usually vote a straight ticket might have stayed home, assuming a HRC victory was a given. Don’t really know and suspect we’ll still be debating this until after the 2018 election.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:00 am
This makes some sense. Trump was very unpopular in and around the suburbs. Plenty of voters like myself that vote for democrats in national elections but wont support the democrats in Illinois as long as Madigan is still around.
Comment by Very fed up Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:01 am
Fire Madigan 2.0 worked about as well as it could have. Facing presidential year headwinds and a less than cordial voting bloc against Republicans would normally result in losses. We did okay in 2004 but got hosed in 2008 and 2012. We not only lost legislative seats in 2008 and 2012 but we also got our butts handed to us at the judicial and county levels. In presidential years all of that ties in together and the messaging and efforts really shined through.
People like Jill Bernas, Rob Drobinski, Brandi McGuire, Dwight Kay and Mike Babcock will be back. Senator Clayborne’s seat is up. After last week’s results anything is possible.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:01 am
Moon - but that means that Dems have to show up and vote in the midterms. There is no U.S. Senate race, and other than the 10th CD there will likely be no hot Congressional races. If the Dems find a lackluster candidate to face Rauner then their GOTV efforts will not be all that strong. Also - even though Rauner has h is own cash the RGA will certainly want to help out and help Rauner maintain the governor’s mansion. It is entirely possible that the Trump blowback may be restricted if turnout is poor.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:04 am
==So, by extension, Hillary Clinton was most certainly an advantage for suburban Democrats.==
That doesn’t really follow; a top-of-the-ticket that muffles enthusiasm on one side doesn’t mean the top-of-the-ticket on the other side inspires enthusiasm. And indeed, nationwide, Clinton had a lot of problems in the suburbs!
What is more likely is that the things we always thought were true are true: Democrats clean up in the city, Republicans clean up downstate, and the suburbs are split. Rauner’s weird approval ratings (highest in the suburbs, very low downstate) are meaningless.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:05 am
It is foolish for IL Dems to do nothing and just hope for a Trump backlash.
IL GOP did nothing in 2010 but hope for a presidential backlash wave to carry them over the top and a very unpopular Quinn won again.
IL Dems need direction and a message outside of the everyday budget back-and-forth.
Speaker Madigan needs to hand over the keys to the IL Democratic Party.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:05 am
===then why wont the Dems be substantially stronger in 2018===
1) That’s not at issue here. Not even addressed.
2) After Rauner’s election and after Trump’s election, are you really confident in making predictions two years out?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:05 am
Yes
The relative successes in the suburbs are based more on campaign funding and effectiveness, than on demographic changes. At least in the short term.
Comment by walker Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:06 am
None of which is to say that Madigan isn’t a problem for Dems; I think every Dem loss in the state (at higher than the county level) can be pinned on him, and that Mendoza only won because Munger didn’t do enough to tie her to Madigan (a mystifying failure!). But really, there’s simpler explanations.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:06 am
===compared to our beloved JBT in Suburban Cook===
Very difficult to do a direct comparison since it was a different type of electorate. This is heavily Democratic presidential, that was an off-year where the Republican candidate won the governor’s race.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:07 am
===I also have to wonder about the dropoff of votes from HRC to the down ballot positions===
Meh.
The tiny dropoff from HRC to Duckworth was probably more about Trump. The huge dropoff to Mendoza was more about Madigan.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:16 am
how and when did they pull out to help Yingling?
Comment by Amalia Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:17 am
I think the anti-Madigan ads went a long way to preserving basically the status quo around Chicago, but it will be very hard for the GOP to flip seats, especially in the suburban Cook areas nearest to Chicago, under the current map as so many areas favorable to them are in districts for lack of a better word “anchored” to the city to nullify their effect and create safe Dem districts.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:18 am
Could be. Madigan’s peeps certainly have done absolutely nothing to mitigate the systematic image-beating he’s taken over the years. If you don’t counter the message, why wouldn’t it take root?
I’m guessing it’s possible that the increased number of Dem voters that come out every presidential election are more likely to drop off as they go down the ballot, too.
Clinton +16, Duckworth +14, Mendoza +4 could be an indication of that.
I wouldn’t minimize the money Rauner put up, either. Clinton/Trump didn’t spend any money here, Trump got creamed. Kirk was abandoned by the money network and got clocked. Munger and GA GOP candidates had plenty of dough.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:20 am
Friday - you are partially correct. Brady’s people decided not to fully co-opt with the RNC, NRSC and NRCC on the final 72 hour, GOTV pushes, and that cost them dearly. Governor Quinn and Senator Kirk had several shared votes in the suburbs, and the Congressional candidates outperformed their expectations. You are correct, though, in that the laziness of expectations is a killer. I think that hurt Clinton and it could hurt Democratic candidates in Illinois and nationwide during the midterms.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:22 am
A hat tip to an - Anonymous - and to that point…
The takeaway from Mendoza, for me, given now what we do know and what was at stake…
Mendoza got “lucky” (for lack of a better word, that’s all) that in a campaign where the only gamble Munger had was how soon you blow the caps, and how close to you want to make that decision and… still have an electoral advantage of incumbency.
I felt, and said, with money as NO object, and Rauner needing a statewide win, given Kirk was going down and all but abandoned, Munger weeks and weeks and almost weeks earlier, they should have gone 2 maybe 3 weeks of positive saturation at a ridiculous level, then go 1, maybe 2 weeks of ridiculous negative towards Mendoza… then you get to where they thought they should begin.
The only campaign problem Munger faced was time and timing, and while an incumbent, Munger may have needed those 3-4 weeks to make and solidify who she (Munger) is/was and who Mendoza needs to be “seen”, as defined by Munger.
If polling was correct, Munger’s Crew cut the 8-point deficit in half, had all the money they’d ever need, and trying to keep Mendoza broke and off television was the gamble that proved smart in getting close, but weeks wasted prevented the Mendoza win.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:23 am
@Team Sleep
I agree laziness did hurt Democrats in Illinois and nationwide. But Hillary was the source of the laziness. Raunerite money helped downstate more substantially than I want to admit. But had the Ds picked anyone but HRC, I bet that money would have been muted somewhat. What a horrible candidate she was. (As much as a President Trump disheartens me, I feel absolutely no sympathy for Hillary)
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:28 am
Willy - your take on Munger needing to define herself (and needing to do it earlier) is spot on. Comptroller is a no frills, no flair office, and it likely needed a bigger emphasis during silly season.
Your post also reminded me of the “Who is Barry Bostwick” commercial for Pepsi Twist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrZ0RX5FkU
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:31 am
The national Democratic political establishment needs to rethink everything. Their misguiding thinking, which has trickled down to some state and local Dem operations, to essentially ignore a massive segment of the electorate and that demographic changes will spread magic fairy dust on the electorate to ensure victory is the foundations for the 20+ year decline of the Dem party to a true national minority party, with Illinois and the coasts being the exception. The National Democrats solution: keep essentially the same leadership that drove them off the cliff - brilliant!
Comment by Dave Fako Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:32 am
While “Fire Madigan” definitely had an impact in the McAuliffe race, it is silly to suggest that it accounts for a 12 pt. margin. I knocked on many a door in that district and the voters had plenty of negative things to say about Madigan, Rauner, incumbents in general, the entire system etc, etc. If anything the Dems simply underestimated that McAuliffe had significantly more local support than Skip had in his district 4 years ago.
Comment by Signal and Noise Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:34 am
- Team Sleep -
That was fun, a throwback too.
Mendoza underperforming at a 10-point level has to give Rauner’s Crew a clearer map to spending their $100 million to again defeat the Democratic nominee by swamping that nominee and finding margins where Munger found success in her race here in 2016.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:38 am
As much as Trump was a negative around Chicago, did he bring voters out in some areas downstate? Trump, plus the anti-Madigan message ended up working?
Picking one county, but in Massac County, for example, Romney received 4,278 votes (66%); Trump got 4,844 (72%) and it looks like turnout was up 3% across the county.
(Also if I’m reading this right, a sales tax was defeated by a single vote? Holy cow. http://wsil.images.worldnow.com/library/1c127f69-5281-4a6a-81ca-b770e56c1d8d.pdf)
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:46 am
It could still be some other weird effect. Hillary slightly outperformed in several Senate races and Rs won about 15 house seats Hillary won. It also seems to have been that way in several state leg races out of Illinois. I also do think the Raunerite spending helped downstate …unless something big changed media just gets lost on races that small in metro Chicago.
Comment by David Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:47 am
Yes, “Fire Madigan 2.0″ worked well because it was well funded … and will likely continue to be well funded. I doubt Rauner’s team will wait two years to rev it back up; no the anti-Madigan (and guilt by association to House Dems) messaging will continue on because the election of earlier this month settled nothing.
Comment by Deft Wing Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:49 am
===Trump, plus the anti-Madigan message ended up working? ===
Yep.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:49 am
People voted accordingly.
Comment by Hill Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:55 am
Yet another way to look at it…
The map was never designed for a 71 seat Democratic majority, but the shuffling out of so many downstate Democrats in the GA and yet Democrats in DuPage, for example, still eaked out wins…
… the location of the losses, not the losses themselves tell more about “Fire Madigan” and Trump more than anything(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 10:56 am
DuPage’s white society has gone from 80% to 70%. Do you think they would have a hard time voting for a minority? An Asian and Hispanic? I hope not. Or that guacamole ad was a winner
Comment by Rabid Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:01 am
===The best explanation is the bigtime Raunerite money behind the “Fire Madigan 2.0″ program. It helped Republicans win Downstate races, prevented any losses in the suburbs (and put Yingling on the defensive) and kept Munger competitive in what should’ve been a landslide.===
I disagree with this assessment. Rauner’s money certainly helped and certainly had an impact, but I personally believe that the Democrats (especially at the top of the ticket) failed to create a concise narrative or reason to actually vote for their candidates that resonated with the kinds of folks they needed to show up at the polls.
Illinois is part of a national trend, and in places like Iowa which was a Democratic rout that even picked off their Senate minority leader, there was not a billionaire blowing millions of dollars on their legislative races.
While Rauner certainly share some aspect of success at winning a few seats and not losing a statewide race as badly as they should have, I think it’s a mistake to isolate Illinois as being something other than a national trend.
If the Democrats can solve their messaging problem, they can win.
Every single one of them should ask themselves what three things they want the poor, lower class, and lower middle class to know about why they should vote for them and if it takes more than 30 second to tell them, they need to find a way to make it more concise.
Running as opposition without presenting a vision of a path forward is hardly a motivating campaign.
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:04 am
===If the Democrats can solve their messaging problem, they can win.===
Their messaging problem in Illinois right now is one guy. Ask anyone who walked a precinct.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:07 am
Rabid, Raja did well in DuPage. Tammy did well in DuPage.
DuPage GOP women split at the top. They dislike Hillary as a bloc, but they detested Donald. They did a lot of rationalizing. You could sense it and see it at doors. The Presidential race was compartmentalized for many voters in DuPage. What was conspicuous was how little that race came up at the door. Eerie, by comparison to other cycles.
Sadly, DuPage was always a tough slog for JBT, especially when she ran for Governor. Munger was known and well liked there this cycle.
Fire Madigan worked well and will work even more in a better election environment (mid terms) and more equity in the branding of it. Dems did a very good job of getting their natural constituency to vote and vote early in DuPage; especially multi-family living areas. They were early and effective with that. Trouble is “one year leases” cause a lot of migration and it doesn’t carry over unless you do it all again. It’s an expensive enterprise and requires a high tide ala Hillary vs. Donald. You can’t simulate that.
Comment by A guy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:15 am
Agree on Munger running out of time. Should have been spending heavier, longer. Her winning message was not as much the Madigan/Mendoza tie-in, as the “no budget no pay.” That was the bomb. That’s why she outperformed others at the top of the ticket.
Comment by walker Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:18 am
==… the location of the losses, not the losses themselves tell more about “Fire Madigan” and Trump more than anything(?)==
Yup.
==Their messaging problem in Illinois right now is one guy. Ask anyone who walked a precinct.==
Yup. If Madigan announced his retirement (AHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA), Democratic odds would shoot up.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:19 am
I think Wheeler has this right. Yes, it’s a Presidential year, but as we can see looking at all of the midwestern states — and the nation as a whole — this was not a normal Democratic turnout.
Two examples — Williamson County Presidential Trump improved over 2012 performance by 8%, and netted 3,700 more votes than Mitt Romney. John Bradley lost his district by 2,828 votes
LaSalle County in 2012 was an effective tie, Romney carried the county by 184 votes. In 2016, Trump got 54.2% and carried it by a margin of 7,000 votes. Skoog lost by 607 votes.
Similarly, in many metropolitan areas, Trump underperformed relative to Romney 2012. This is the most obvious explanation why, with very few exceptions (Skoog being one), almost every targeted race this year, regardless of which party won, was a blowout — despite the money and effort.
It would be one thing if this phenomenon had only happened in Illinois — but it happened across the entire rural areas of the midwest. To ignore the national trends and how it impacted Illinois is missing the forest for the trees, IMO.
Comment by ILPundit Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:20 am
ILPundit, your two examples were Downstate. This post is mainly about the suburbs.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:22 am
So true. Suburban women. Even broken down into Suburban Married Women and Suburban Single women, break all rules of partisanship. Regularly. They’re more often than not Inconsistent Independents.
Comment by A guy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:46 am
I see this as a one of the re-alignment elections…but the realignment is not what was expect and it is not between the parties. The parties will continue to exist almost in name only–it will be big money candidates–Brucie or T-Rump–or those who harness big money–Obama and now maybe Organize for America, Kochs, Adelson and who knows–all working through social media. They will be leading the marquee elections. Other races will just be scrambling to get a message through the clutter by grassroots, door to door or hoping to be adopted. It’s becoming Minow-esque–the media is the message.
Comment by d.p.gumby Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 11:55 am
Well, I was trying to draw an analogy based on pretty obvious trends in the Presidential race, and I focused on downstate because we don’t yet have easy access to precinct level data on presidential and legislative races. With downstate, you can look at county level info and make some reasonable assumptions.Besides, if in the only place that the GOP won seats, even the losing Dems were strongly out-performing the top of the ticket, then doesn’t that actually undermine the idea that the election results were all about money and anti- Madigan messaging?
To answer your question “why didn’t the House pick up more suburban seats?”, I would just point out that of the top 20 House races in terms of spending according to ILElection Data, only 8 were held by GOP incumbents. Of those 8, only 3 of them weren’t downstate.
Put another way, the Dems were already maxed out in the suburbs. Expecting them to score big wins when they were already pushing the limits of the map in the region isn’t a politically realistic expectation.
Comment by ILPundit Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 12:07 pm
==it will be big money candidates–Brucie or T-Rump==
In terms of campaign money, those two could hardly be further apart.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 12:08 pm
2018 Lisa Madigan runs for Gov. and MJM promises to step down if she is elected.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 12:25 pm
==2018 Lisa Madigan runs for Gov. and MJM promises to step down if she is elected.==
And he makes this promise to Lisa or to us? And, does it matter?
Comment by A guy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 12:38 pm
===it is silly to suggest that it accounts for a 12 pt. margin===
Never said it did. Re-read it. Try to respond to what I write, not what you see through whatever filters you’re wearing.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 1:04 pm
As a Democrat, I have been hearing that demographic trends mean the demise of the Republican party for years and years. Meanwhile, the number of elected Democrats nationwide continues to shrink and shrink. Democrats have lost blue-collar voters, rural voters, and gun owners, and now the Presidency. Free trade, unlimited immigration, and restrictive gun control have killed their chances with those voters forever.
Comment by striketoo Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 1:22 pm
===Put another way, the Dems were already maxed out in the suburbs===
You can make that argument and it’s a good one, but I’d still disagree. In a year like this, when HRC won the suburbs big, they should’ve picked up a seat or two.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 2:04 pm
Anonymous @ 12:25
If I was Lisa Madigan, I wouldn’t be looking for a path to the governor’s mansion, I would be worried about my re-election.
I agree with Rich that thanks to Rauner’s cash, the anti-Madigan stuff is working at a level it never has. It would be silly to think Lisa won’t feel the ill-effects. I’m a fan of Lisa’s — I think she’s been a real solid AG. But if the Republican nominate a good candidate, she”ll have her hands full.
Comment by Timmy G. Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 2:07 pm
When you think about it…Rauner has spent hundreds of millions of dollars (not counting the dark money) to barley win his gubernatorial bid and to pick up a few seats that for all practical purposes should have been Republican seats in the first place. Just a note: The GOP picked up a net gain in the House back in 2010 without Rauner (in fact Rauner helped Madigan back then)
So, not sure if anyone would say this is a great return on investment especially that at the end of the day the Governor still can’t figure out how to govern or how to balance the budget and now he has his “owned” GOP on the hook for approving what will eventually be a massive tax increase! Political points sure…but that just makes him the same as Madigan without the history of political success. They are both hurting the public and Rauner can hide behind the money but he can’t hide behind his failures.
Comment by Just saying.... Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 2:36 pm
===Their messaging problem in Illinois right now is one guy.===
Again, I disagree. What rebuttal exists for objections to that ‘one guy’ that a canvasser, etc, can offer to someone at the door?
That’s the messaging problem. One’s opponent saying bad things about them is expected.
===Ask anyone who walked a precinct.===
If we’re letting this establish legitimacy of opinion, I think it matters how many canvass packets in how many different districts, in how many different media markets, and to which universe of targeted voters?
Also — how many different states for an opinion informed by comparison.
All of those factors can impact the validity of the opinion.
Comment by Anon Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 2:56 pm
Anon, it’s simple then. Ask anyone who walked a precinct in each of the areas you highlighted. I’d suggest precincts in 117 House Districts would show you that “one guy” is the messaging problem. Various degrees of course, but this guy is an issue everywhere.
Comment by A guy Friday, Nov 18, 16 @ 4:19 pm