Mr. Illini maps Illinois: A Megathread

[Mr. Illini]

Starting a thread for 2018 maps from myself. I'll also be throwing in some maps from other years that I deem relevant as I anxiously await Election Day.

[Mr. Illini]

First off, as we gear up for the Cook County Assessor's race (you wouldn't think it would be an exciting office, but it is Cook County, after all), I've mapped a race that can give us some clues about what to expect on March 20.

This year, Joe Berrios, the incumbent, head of the Cook Co Dems, and machine favorite, faces off against progressive challenger Fritz Kaegi. Similarly, in 2010, Berrios faced a progressive challenger, that time in the general election.

Forrest Claypool, a progressive favorite (at the time - perhaps not so any more), jumped into the race as an independent. Berrios received machine support, including that of Michael Madigan. Claypool was backed by progressives like Jan Schakowsky. They faced Republican Sharon Strobeck-Eckersall. The final tally was Berrios (D) 48 - Claypool (I) 32 - Strobeck-Eckersall (R) 18.

The result: as is often the case in Chicago politics, unfortunately, clear racial lines exist. Berrios dominated communities of color - latina/o and black areas, predominately. Claypool performed well in white progressive areas like Evanston, Oak Park, River Forest, Lyons, Skokie, etc, while also winning in more moderate white areas like the north shore and near northwest suburbs like Elk Grove. The Republican predictably picked up Barrington and Lemont while also peeling off a couple of ~30% victories in areas like Schaumburg and Palatine as a result of the split Democratic vote. Berrios won the city with about 60% of the vote.

The map depicts a township map of Cook, with Chicago treated as one township. I am hoping to add Chicago detail.

Next month, expect challenger Kaegi to do very well in the communities that Claypool did well in. He won't receive many crossover GOP voters like Claypool may have in 2010, but he will also have the advantage of having a (D) next to his name, unlike Claypool, which makes a big difference in Cook County.

[Mr. Illini]

Below, the Chicago detail on the race above - 2010 Cook Co Assessor. Again, the trend continues: the whiter the area, generally the higher the Claypool percentage. This is even more true in city limits where the Republican is not a factor.

Berrios carried black and latina/o areas on the south and west/northwest sides. He also narrowly carried diverse areas on the north side, such as Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park. Claypool carried Irish communities on the far southwest and northwest sides as well as white lakefront wards containing neighborhoods like River North, Old Town, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, and Lincoln Square.

Next month, I do not expect that Berrios will enjoy margins in black areas that he received in 2010. This was likely a result of him having been nominated as the Democratic candidate. I predict that he will win those same black wards next month, but with numbers in the 50s rather than 80s, which makes a big difference for Kaegi.

The city alone:



And the city detail added to the county map (sorry for transparency lost ):

[Mr. Illini]

Also, we'll revisit a map that I shared elsewhere previously, the 2010 IL Senate Dem Primary map, including the inner ring of Chicagoland: Cook, Lake, and Will Counties.

This is relevant because I predict we will be able to see overlap in patterns in this map and in the Democratic primary for Governor this year.

Alexi won the city as well as black, latina/o, and white working class suburbs. Hoffman did well in white wealthier suburbs and especially white progressive suburbs.

I can see something similar happening with Pritzker filling Alexi's role and Biss filling Hoffman's role. Pritzker will take the two jurisdictions that went to Jackson. Where I think Kennedy can pick up ground is in the near western suburbs as well as potentially down in Will County and the northern portion of Lake.

[Mr. Illini]

With Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle up for re-election this year, I mapped out her momentous victory in the 2010 Democratic primary, running as a reformer and solidly ousting incumbent Todd Stroger and defeating several other challengers. I anticipate that she will have a similarly solid victory this year despite her political defeat on the soda tax issue.

The only other candidate that picked up jurisdictions was Terrence O'Brien. The areas he picked up - Stickney, Worth, etc - have disproportionately high Irish populations, which makes sense. He also did well in latina/o areas, which I cannot explain other than to hypothesize that it was opposition to Preckwinkle's pushing for criminal justice reform and the tension that exists between the black and latina/o communities over that issue.

Preckwinkle, running as a reformer, did best in white, wealthy, liberal areas such as Evanston, Oak Park, and New Trier (towns of Glencoe, Winnetka, Kenilworth, Wilmette).

I thought about adding city detail, but it looks like that is actually even more boring than the county township map below. Preckwinkle was weaker in certain areas, but she still won every ward. This surprised me, as I would have thought that Irish-dominant wards would have at least followed their suburban counterparts in voting for O'Brien, and was interested to see if any latina/o areas did as well as to see if Brown/Stroger picked up any black wards. None of that happened.

[Mr. Illini]

Maybe not as interesting for some as it is for me, but here is the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District primary on the Dem side from 2016. Durkan won and is up for a six-year term this year (was elected to a two-year term in the map below).

We see a bit of a unique pattern here. Racial lines are clear as usual, but they aren't as clear as they typically are. In fact, there is not complete unification among any racial group even though the patterns are still evident.

Among white areas, we see a division between more blue collar white areas - such as Orland, Worth, Lemont, and the far northwest and southwest sides - and the wealthy north shore, upper middle class northwest suburbs, and wealthy lakefront Chicago wards including Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and the Near North Side. Generally, the former went for Durkan and the latter went to Greenhaw. Why this is is not precisely clear. Durkan and Greenhaw took similar approaches to major environmental issues and Greenhaw had the endorsement of the machine, which usually deters wealthier white areas.

We also see some differences in black areas. The south side and south suburbs largely went for Durkan, but we see dissent among black wards on the lakefront. This is probably explainable by the fact that Greenhaw is a U of C professor and presumably resides in Hyde Park, so that is his home turf. Why the rest of the south side didn't go that way as well - since it usually leans toward machine-backed candidates, is not clear.

The southwest and northwest sides are historically largely dominated by Hispanic populations, as are a number of western Cook suburbs. These areas, however, did not vote similarly here. The northwest side - with large numbers of Puerto Rican voters - went to Greenhaw. The southwest side and the western Cook suburbs went to Durkan.

You may notice that the third candidate - Seo - picked up two wards in the city. Seo is of Asian descent and he won the ward that contains Chinatown. He also won a lone ward on the northwest side - why this is is not clear.

Apologies for the spelling errors in the images

[Mr. Illini]

Labor (CFL and allies) endorsed Durkan. If Greenhow was the machine candidate, why would the 13th Ward be all in for Durkan?

I don't know - do you have any thoughts as to why? Greenhaw was endorsed by the Cook Co Dems.

[Mr. Illini]

Amazing work man. Would love to see a preview of the primary in the 3rd if you can.

Thank you. I'll see what I can do. Will election data is not as conducive as Cook's. :/

[Mr. Illini]

Not directly related to 2018, but if you haven't seen it, check out Miles' excellent work on the 2014 and 2016 races in Chicago on Twitter!

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/969718784947904512

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/969783857439485952

[Mr. Illini]

In addition to more general comments over in the megathread, I hope to post some geography-specific comments in this thread as the results come in. Please join me!

[Mr. Illini]

Pritzker looks ready to win Lake County.

Rotering may also win Lake for Dem AG, her home county.

[Mr. Illini]

Chicago has posted their detailed results, though the site is not cooperating.

One early observation: Biss won a number of north side wards along the lake

First maps tonight! If this site will begin cooperating.

[Mr. Illini]

Miles is already killing it with a number of precinct maps, so first I am going to post here, followed by my thoughts.

All credit to Miles/DD!

IL-03


There is a pretty clear split between the city of Chicago and the rest here. Obviously the machine did its job in getting Chicagoans out for Lipinski. Over all, college educated voters went for Newman with non going for Lipinski, which Miles also noted. I am surprised that Lipinski did not do better in Lemont - a historically middle class town containing a good number of Irish and former Chicagoans. Generally a machine-sympathetic area.

IL-GOV (Chicago)


Wow did Biss do well on the north side! As you can see above, I hopped on this morning very quickly before heading off to work, and this is what jumped out to me. He did predictably well in gentrifying young Hipster areas like Logan Square and Wicker Park, but he also did very well in the lakefront wards like Lakeview, Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park. He also did very well in Lincoln Square - a quirky, family-oriented neighborhood.

Kennedy primarily picked up Irish neighborhoods. Pritzker unified black and Hispanic neighborhoods on the south and west sides, with large margins in black neighborhoods. That's where Kennedy was hoping to chip away, but it obviously did not work out.

Marijuana Legalization (Chicago)


Wow did pot also do well on the north side! No surprise there - white liberals tend to be sympathetic toward it. It barely lost anywhere - a few precincts on the far northside that are home to the city's Orthodox Jewish community. Generally speaking, it did best where Biss did best. It did worst in Hispanic areas.

Dem AG (Chicago)


Man, did black neighborhoods turn out for Kwame. Very stark racial lines here. Ruiz won a number of Hispanic precincts on the SW side despite doing poorly statewide but he wasn't so lucky in Chicago's NW side Hispanic neighborhoods. Quinn did well in Irish and WWC neighborhoods on the far SW and NW sides. The north side was more of a mix, with Kwame still doing best. Sharon Fairly, the third place finisher, won a number of precincts on the north side in Lincoln Park, Gold Coast, Lakeview, etc. I am going to do a countywide map and we will see similar trends - she did well in rich white areas. Then we'll need to discuss why - because I have no idea, and I voted for her.

Assessors race up next from me!

[Mr. Illini]

Non-Illinoisans may not care as much about this race, but for Chicagoans it was perhaps the most heated and passionate race of the primary. I had to map it first.

Cook County Assessor - Dem

Several months ago, the Tribune and ProPublica broke a massive story about Joe Berrios, sitting assessor, and his favorable assessments for clients of property tax attorneys that were making huge donations to his campaigns. With wide frustration in the county over the property tax system already present, this turned the Democratic primary for assessor in 2018 into a battle between Berrios, sitting assessor and chair of the Chicago machine's primary operating body, the Cook Co. Democratic Party, against a finance professional, U of C grad, and progressive insurgent Fritz Kaegi. For the first time in a while, it felt like a true us-against-the-machine race - and we won.

Below, a map of the county by township, with the city as one township:



It is rare that you can produce a map that features machine-sympathetic suburbs going for the machine candidate while the city defects to the challenger, but here we are. Chicago went for Kaegi over all in the 40's, and he dominated countywide. At the end of the night, he beat out Berrios by about 10%, and consider that there was a third candidate that got about 20% of the vote.

The townships in the south that went for Berrios are majority black townships. These were not overwhelming victories and were likely the result of the machine doing its work. In the west, the townships that went to Berrios are majority Hispanic, and they were big victories - he was over 60 in Cicero. Berrios is Hispanic himself and has a lot of weight in that community. The outlier in the NW is strange - that is Leyden township. Leyden contains towns like Rosemont, and the only reason I can think of it going for Berrios is that it is known for having some former city dwellers and had a strong mob presence - so maybe the machine did its job there.

Kaegi's best townships were wealthier progressive suburbs like Evanston, Oak Park, and River Forest. He also did very well along the wealthy north shore in New Trier township. Over all, he dominated the northern suburbs, which are very white and tend to defect from the machine. It was actually kind of close in Schaumburg. It is kind of surprising that Kaegi did so well in Lemont - an area known for having some machine strength.

Now, to the city detail. This is by ward, but I should note that I am using an old ward map - a few changes were made a couple years back, but they weren't material and I cannot find a conducive template to replace this with.



The big swath of green on the county map above that treats the city as one township gets a lot more complicated when you break out the detail.

Berrios won large swaths of territory on the south and west sides. These are black and Latino/a neighborhoods that are favorable to machine backed candidates. Although he won those areas, he was still laughably weak there. Most black wards that he won he got in the 40s in. He did slightly better in Latino/a neighborhoods, where he has a lot of personal influence, but still only in the 50s and occasionally the 60s.

Kaegi was very strong on the white north side. His best wards were 2 and 43. Ward 2 is on the Near North Side and also includes portions of West Town and the Loop. This is a very wealthy area. 43 is Lincoln Park - also wealthy and white. Those areas tend to have a lot of Kaegi's fellow financial professionals - and they don't like the machine very much, either. He also did very well in young, hip, progressive areas on the NW side like Logan Square and Wicker Park as well as the lake front wards including Lakeview, Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park. And, of course, Lincoln Square. Interestingly, Kaegi also won in WWC, police/fire heavy neighborhoods like Mt. Greenwood, Norwood Park, Edison Park, etc. Those neighborhoods are generally machine heavy. Also, note that he picked up Hyde Park's ward - he is a U of C grad, after all - as well as some near south side black wards. Those black wards on the nearer south side are somewhat gentrifying, both in terms of becoming a haven for wealthier African Americans as well as seeing some wealthier folks of other races moving in.

The ward in black was a tie.

Put it all together, and you get a map in which the ward lines generally blurred (sorry ) but you get the trends.



Worth noting that Raila is challenging the result after notes informing voters that she had been legally removed from the ballot despite her name appearing were distributed. She had been, but the ruling was reversed, and the notes were distributed anyway. She wants a special election.

Also, unfortunately, the areas that Berrios did best in were some of the areas most negatively impacted by his actions and policies. But, the machine is going to do what it is going to do.

[Mr. Illini]

More from Miles/DD:



Finally, some Kennedy green! It's still incredible how well Biss did on the north side. You can see that he also did well along Chicago's wealthy north shore. That part isn't so surprising - he represents the area. Evanston was his best area, which is a great fit for him - the area is very progressive and he also represents it. He also did well in Wilmette, which he also represents. Notice that Kennedy won Winnetka and Kenilworth, which are even wealthier and also fall in Biss' district.

The rest of the northern suburbs were pretty scattered. One trend is noticeable - Kennedy did well in wealthy areas (other than the north shore) - like Barrington and Palatine. Pritzker did better in more middle class suburbs like Schaumburg.

Pritzker did very well in the burbs due south of the city, which have large black populations. Kennedy did well in suburbs that tend to be more WWC like Orland and Lemont.

Altogether, a beautiful map, even though I didn't particularly care for the result.

[Mr. Illini]

Now for my next map: Cook County President

Many hypothesized that Toni Preckwinkle was vulnerable as the Cook Co Board President incumbent after residents were unhappy that she raised the sales tax following her promise not to do so as well as attempted implementation of a soda tax, which ultimately failed.

Bob Fioretti, an opportunist who has run for pretty much everything, decided to challenge her on a platform of shrinking Cook County government. He ended up losing fairly handily with Preckwinkle capturing 61% of the vote.

Below is the county map on the township level.



Fioretti did well among working class whites. He won a number of townships in the southwest, such as Orland and Lemont. He also, for some reason, did well in the Latino/a townships of Cicero and Berwyn. I would love to hear some perspectives on this as it's kind of strange - he pushed over 60% in Cicero. Preckwinkle was similarly weak in Latino/a areas previously, so my hypothesis may be that it is because she is viewed as a criminal justice reformer, an issue of tension between the black and Latino/a communities.

Preckwinkle did her best in white progressive areas. This is consistent with her insurgency in 2010 against Stroger, though I had expected that was going to fade as she is increasingly viewed as part of the establishment. It didn't - her best township was Evanston, where she was over 80%. She also did very well in other white progressive areas like Oak Park, New Trier, and River Forest. She did well but not as well in more middle class white northern suburbs as well as majority black suburbs down south.

It's worth noting that on the whole, Preckwinkle was stronger in wealthier white areas than she was in black areas. She has always been a favorite of progressives and anti-machiners, but her numbers were very depressed in black areas.

A map of the city:



A trend that did not carry into the city...Preckwinkle did not lose Latino/a areas like she did in the suburbs, with the exception of the east side ward way down south. She was a bit weaker in them. I would explain this as the machine doing its work - even though she is a favorite of progressives, she is still the sitting President and an ally of Cook Co Dem Chair Joe Berrios.

Fioretti won in WWC, police/fire heavy areas on the far NW and SW sides. Funnily, he did his best in Madigan's territory on the SW side. This likely has nothing to do with Madigan and most to do with Preckwinkle's general weakness in WWC areas.

Preckwinkle did her best on the north side - keeping with the progressive darling trend. She was in the 70's up and down the lakefront on the north side. She also did well in black wards along the lake due south, which tend to be wealthier and also house U of C.

Between her performance and Kaegi's for assessor, who said the Lakefront Liberal is dead?

And the combination:

[Mr. Illini]

Next, I've got the IL AG race in Cook (township) and Chicago (ward). This format is most conducive for gathering data, which is why I use it so much.

Cook by township, with the city as one:


Because so many individuals were in this race, we get a fairly pale map. However, you notice the exception to this is Kwame Raoul's performance in certain areas. These are majority black areas, where he was getting over 50% and 60% in certain areas. These being south suburbs. The city went to Raoul in the 40s. Quinn did best in areas that would be considered more WWC - Orland, Lemont, Palos, Leyden, Norwood Park, etc.

The northern suburbs - typically white and on the wealthier end - did not favor either Raoul or Quinn. Rotering picked up Northfield - not far from where she is mayor. Also, Fairley picked up New Trier, Barrington, and Wheeling. A definite trend is that Fairley - who I voted for - did best in wealthier areas. I really can't think of anything that would explain this other than that she got the endorsement of the Tribune, and perhaps wealthier/business individuals are more likely to read the Trib.

City of Chicago by ward:


Again, we see a pale map with the exception of certain large-margin Raoul victories. These, again, were in black areas of the city. In Latino/a areas of the city, Quinn generally won with small margins. This could have just been an anti-Raoul vote. Jesse Ruiz also picked up a couple of wards on the southwest side.

As for the white lakefront on the north side, it generally went to Raoul with smaller margins. Fairley picked up the 43rd, again a wealthier jurisdiction. I suppose the Tribune has weight in wealthy areas. Quinn won WWC areas on the far NW side and in Madigan's territory near Midway, but lost the ward on the far SW side containing Mt Greenwood etc.

And altogether:

[Mr. Illini]

The Biss support turns westward, almost as if directed by the Evanston panhandle, and then turns north through Glenview and perhaps back to lake front in Winnetka. While the Biss support does go into Wilmette, there is a strong Kennedy area in the center.

The pattern along the lake lines up fairly well with the demographics of the towns. Evanston and, to a lesser degree, Wilmette, are more dense and less wealthy than Winnetka, Kenilworth, and Glencoe. Glencoe has a larger Jewish population than Winnetka and Kenilworth.

So, the wealthy Christian areas broke for Kennedy while the Jewish and more urban, progressive areas went for Biss.

[Mr. Illini]

I decided to map the Republican gubernatorial in Cook/Chicago, which was interesting.

In all, the county looks very Blue for Rauner on the township level. He performed very well in the northern suburbs, which tend to be wealthier and whiter. He was over 70% in New Trier, his home township. Ives' best territory was in WWC areas like Worth and Lemont. Many townships had very few votes, which caused some patterns that I wouldn't have predicted. For example, Oak Park, a progressive bastion, went for Ives, whereas Orland, generally more WWC, went to Rauner. I would have thought that any Republicans living in Oak Park would have been among the moderate brand, though this was likely caused by low turnout in Oak Park. Republican turnout in those progressive areas was laughably low - in Evanston, just about 1,000 votes were cast in the GOP primary compared to over 20,000 in the Dem.



It is a bit of a different story in the city. It was pretty even if you're judging solely by area. Ives did well in majority-minority wards on the south side. Interestingly, she won most black wards on the south side but very few on the west side. I would be fascinated to know why. The map suggests that black and Hispanic Republicans are more likely to be socially conservative - or they just dislike Rauner. We also see a split between lakefront black wards on the south side and those inland. As discussed previously, the black wards on the lake are gentrifying, becoming home to a number of wealthier African Americans. Ives also did well in WWC areas - her best ward was down in the southwest, home to Mt Greenwood. Rauner's best territory was on the predominately white north side. He was over 70% in 42 and 43, encompassing River North, Old Town, Gold Coast, Lincoln Park. The total wasn't as split as the map suggests, however. Most wards had few GOP votes, but the areas that Ives won tended to have the least total number of voters in the GOP primary, with the exception of those WWC neighborhoods on the far NW and SW sides.



And putting it all together...

[Mr. Illini]

My observation above on Republican turnout prompted me to throw this together. Using gubernatorial totals, the # of ballots cast by Cook township. Barrington alone cast more votes in the Republican primary. Democrats were over 70% on the north shore in New Trier and Northfield and over 90% in Evanston and Oak Park. In fact, other than Barrington, the only two townships that cast less than 60% Dem ballots were Palatine and Lemont.

[Mr. Illini]

When you look at that map, it becomes really clear why Rauner struggled so mightily in places like suburban cook where he should have ran up the score.  So many of his 2014 voters voted in the Democratic primary this year.  Part of it makes sense, outside of people in political circles like this Rauner was not generally seen as in any danger.  I talked to many, many people who didnt consider for a second that he would lose to Ives.  The question for him is, how many of those people will come home this November.  Most will, but not enough.

I agree

[Mr. Illini]

Put these together for the cannabis legalization referendum from March.

City of Chicago:



Interesting that you can almost see a ripple of support spreading south and west from the area the measure received its strongest support - the north side. Areas north of Lincoln Park and east of the Kennedy were in the 80s in favor of legalization. The wards encompassing Near North Side and Lincoln Park were less supportive than the wards containing Lakeview, Lincoln Square, Roscoe/North Center, Uptown, Edgewater, and Rogers Park. The latter neighborhoods have more of a bohemian feel whereas the former are wealthier.

The measure received more support in black wards closer to the city's core - those black wards being wealthier than those in the heart of the south side. The measure did its worst in Madigan's territory on the far SW side near Midway - an area with a mix of WWC and Latino/as.

Cook County:



No township was lost in the county. The township that gave the most support was Evanston, in the 80s. This followed by Chicago and Oak Park, both in the 70s. The measure did well in black south suburbs and not as well in WWC townships SW of the city. Typically, townships like New Trier and Northfield are to the left of townships in the county (other than Evanston/Oak Park), but in this case they were on par, which isn't too surprising to me.

All in all, the divide between the city and suburbs is clearer than usual, even among similar communities, as you can see in more detail down below. There are likely different possible explanations for this and I am not necessarily sure what I think. Maybe more to come.

Together:

[Mr. Illini]

Time for the Democratic primary for governor..

City of Chicago:



A general trend is that wards that are plurality white went to Biss while communities of color went to Pritzker. Bucking this trend were some more WWC wards. Madigan's ward went to Pritzker as did the ward housing Mt Greenwood. Kennedy picked up the WWC wards housing Bridgeport and the far NW side. Wards with predominately latino/a populations were less sympathetic toward Pritzker and Kennedy's numbers were higher there, but they still went to JB for the most part.

Biss's best wards were 32, 47, and 50 on the north side. The 32nd overlaps a number of neighborhoods - primarily Lakeview, Roscoe Village, Wicker Park, and Logan Square. The 47th is mostly Lincoln Square and parts of Roscoe. 50th is Rogers Park.

County of Cook:



Obviously Pritzker did very well. His best performances were in the primarily African American south suburbs - Calumet, Bloom, Rich, and Thornton townships. Kennedy picked up four townships. Barrington is wealthy and River Forest/Riverside tend to have a lot of independents that may be looking for the Dem most likely to oppose Madigan. He also won Wheeling, which I don't have a great explanation for. Biss did best in Evanston, unsurprisingly. He also did well among the other north shore townships as well as Oak Park.

Together:

[Mr. Illini]

Below, I have mapped the votes cast in the gubernatorial race last March, Democrat vs. Republican ballots.

I will say - when I did this for Cook County alone, it was stark at how well Democrats did in the Cook County suburbs. I thought that this would be seen on the state level as well, but it wasn't really.

Democrats did "carry" counties downstate that they now have significant difficulty winning in statewide elections. These are the counties in the far southeast corner of the state (minus St. Clair). These are ancestrally Democratic counties where the majority is still pulling a Democratic ballot. It confuses me exactly what the folks in this area are thinking. I get that they continue to vote in the Dem primaries despite voting Republican in November, but I don't really get why Pritzker won these areas, which he did. Voters in these areas are going to the polls, pulling a Dem ballot, voting for Pritzker, and then many will vote against Pritzker in the general.

Outside of the swath of ancestrally Dem counties in the SW corner of the state, there are some great hyper-localized examples of this as well. 76% of Gallatin County voters pulled a Democratic ballot, but 62% voted for Rauner in 2014 - a 38 point swing. It was also stark in Fulton and Putnam Counties, both with over 60% Democratic ballots. Further, Macon County, containing Decatur, cast more Dem ballots than GOP, but it gave Rauner 61% in 2014.

There is also Alexander County, home of Cairo, a decaying old industrial town with a large African American population. 87% of Alexander County voters voted in the Democratic primary in 2018, but Rauner took a 49% plurality there in 2014 - a 36% difference.

An area typically thought to have strong ancestrally Democratic voting patterns - being the industrial counties in the NW of the state - did not show here. Rock Island was in the 60s in terms of Dem ballots pulled, but no other county in that area cast a majority Democratic ballots. Voters in this area can be seen as similar to voters in Iowa and SW Wisconsin and I would argue that weak Democratic performance here indicates that WWC voters in industrial areas are having no second thoughts about their newfound GOP allegiance.

Meanwhile, the strength of many county-level Republican organizations is evident in many of the corn-covered central IL counties. Iroquois, Ford, and Livingston Counties were all well into the 80s in terms of GOP ballots. Rauner did not hit 80 in any of those counties in 2014.

An area where the strong Democratic performance in the Cook County suburbs was matched was the collar counties. Over 60% of Lake County voters voted in the Democratic primary, and Dems carried all of what I consider Chicagoland (Cook, Lake, DuPage, McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Kendall, Will) except for McHenry County. Over 80% of Cook County voters participated in the Democratic contest. These numbers are bad news for Republicans and Rauner heading toward November.

[Mr. Illini]

Some more great stuff by Decision Desk/Miles.



Such a clear illustration as to how Pritzker was stronger downstate than he was in Chicagoland, which was a huge surprise to me. Kennedy had a spatter of support in farm townships through east central IL. Pritzker was especially strong in river communities in the StL metro east area.



The first thing that jumps out is Ives' strength in southeast IL. The area, anchored by Effingham, is most evangelical Christian of the state. She also did well in Rock Island County. The north shore stands out for Rauner - as opposed to most other collar townships that appear close to 50/50.



This one is my favorite. Gallatin County had zero townships with more GOP ballots than Dem, despite giving Trump 60+% in 2016. This is evident of a strong local tradition in the county, as almost no township bordering it was majority Dem. Dems were also strong in river townships in the NW. Champaign stands out as a dark blue dot in a sea of red. Dems did very well in Lake County - the map looks similar to the township map for President there from 2016.