Kerry +8 in Illinois (Mason-Dixon)

[agcatter]

Thanks

[CTguy]

I'm not sure I read that message about CT Republicans correctly.  But I don't think Republicans in Connecticut are consistent with Republicans on a national level.  

The vast majority of Republicans in this state (not that there are many) only vote Republican because of taxes.  They mainly live in the suburbs of NYC in the southwestern portion of the state.  There are very few Republicans in the state who are pro-life or pro-gun.  In fact about 25% of CT Republicans voted for Gore in the last election because of social issues.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why IS INdiana the way it is?  : P

Another good question is: Why has Kentucky declined so much?

[dunn]

Why IS INdiana the way it is?  : P

Another good question is: Why has Kentucky declined so much?

you are from KY, tou probably know better then us...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

you are from KY, tou probably know better then us...

The best guess is all the election rigging, but that doesn't explain why Kentucky has declined more than other states, where elections also are rigged.

It seems like the Democratic counties in Eastern Kentucky compose a much smaller percentage of the statewide vote than a decade ago, when the Republicans created a big stink over "vote hauling" because it allowed more poor people in rural areas to get to the polls.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

CT is hardly the most partisan. It has 3 Republican representatives to 2 Democrats, yet Gore carried every district in CT, and by a fairly wide margin at that.

California may actually be the most partisan state, since there isn't a single district Gore won that's held by a Republican, or a single district Bush won that's held by a Democrat. Arnold was an exception for fairly obvious reasons.

[Demrepdan]

Illinois outside Chicago has a Republican majority but a number of quite solidly Democratic areas as well. The outer Chicago suburbs are heavily Republican, however. (But trending Dem). So I guess if you'd removed Cook County but not the other suburbs it'd be quite similar to Indiana in results, but if you go only by rural Illinois, it'd be to the left of IN.

It takes a person who DOESN'T live in Illinois to answer that question. lol Bravo to you, sir!

[angus]

California may actually be the most partisan state, since there isn't a single district Gore won that's held by a Republican, or a single district Bush won that's held by a Democrat. Arnold was an exception for fairly obvious reasons.

An intriguing analysis.  I've had to bite my lip long and hard about that one.  For several thousand years.  In the end, I'd suggest you look elsewhere.  California has 20% registered Declined-to-State.  It has seen more evidence of party-splitting than most of Daniel Elazar's Idividualistic political states.  And, of all the states in which I've been registered to vote, I have noticed that the voters in this one are the most likely to be swayed to the 'other guy'.  You're right in that Davis was a particularly poor excuse for a governor, and that anomaly need not be registered for the moment.  Still, it's never a bad idea to set yourself on fire.

[Demrepdan]

Results from Illinois Presidential Primary:

John F. Kerry           72%
John Edwards            11%
Carol moseley Braun      4%
Howard Dean              4%
Al Sharpton              3%
Dennis Kucinich          2%
Joe Lieberman            2%
Wesley Clark             2%

Results from Illinois U.S. Senate Primary:

In short....Jack Ryan (R) will go against Barack Obama (D) in November.

[angus]

Ryan will win?  what's the vibe, demrepdan.

[© tweed]

Ryan will win?  what's the vibe, demrepdan.

I think the Dems are favored.
I'm not in Illinois though.

[muon2]

http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=186

One more data point as we try to build a "national" picture..

Mason Dixon - an A+ polling firm.  
Their sample size of 600 (+/- 4.0% 19 times out of 20) is a tad smallish - other than that an excellent firm.

Gore carried Illinois by 12.01% in 2000, so Bush down 'only" is actually kinda/sorta good news if for the GOP if it portends for a national trend... or it could just be the margin of error of the poll...

Illinois is highly unlikely to be a true battle ground state - if this state ever truly gets into play Bush is looking at a huge landslide..

One more data point on the map...

Why is Illinois so solidly Dem?  It surrounded by MI, IA, WI, and MN.  All can be considered swing states (MI to a lesser extant, i think its reliable Dem terriory) except Illinois.  Chicago i guess?

Illinois only looks solidly Democratic when the issues are national, much like a southern state looks solidly Republican.

Internally, IL can be classified in three areas. Southern IL is similay to KY and other border states - socially conservative, New Deal roots. Central IL is similar to IN, solid Republican, though it is Democratic along the Mississippi (esp. East St. Louis and Rock Island). Northern IL is a typical Great Lakes region - partisan lines are urban vs. suburban.

Within the state there is a general balance. The huge margins in the 2002 elections were a combination of the scandals attached to Gov. Ryan and the very partisan Democratic remap of legislative districts. Up to that point the Republicans could put together a coalition of suburbanites, central IL and conservative southerners to match the hugh margins from Cook County Democrats.  Once the GOP recovers from the scandals I expect the same competitive balance to resume.

[elcorazon]

http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=186

One more data point as we try to build a "national" picture..

Mason Dixon - an A+ polling firm.  
Their sample size of 600 (+/- 4.0% 19 times out of 20) is a tad smallish - other than that an excellent firm.

Gore carried Illinois by 12.01% in 2000, so Bush down 'only" is actually kinda/sorta good news if for the GOP if it portends for a national trend... or it could just be the margin of error of the poll...

Illinois is highly unlikely to be a true battle ground state - if this state ever truly gets into play Bush is looking at a huge landslide..

One more data point on the map...

Why is Illinois so solidly Dem?  It surrounded by MI, IA, WI, and MN.  All can be considered swing states (MI to a lesser extant, i think its reliable Dem terriory) except Illinois.  Chicago i guess?

Illinois only looks solidly Democratic when the issues are national, much like a southern state looks solidly Republican.

Internally, IL can be classified in three areas. Southern IL is similay to KY and other border states - socially conservative, New Deal roots. Central IL is similar to IN, solid Republican, though it is Democratic along the Mississippi (esp. East St. Louis and Rock Island). Northern IL is a typical Great Lakes region - partisan lines are urban vs. suburban.

Within the state there is a general balance. The huge margins in the 2002 elections were a combination of the scandals attached to Gov. Ryan and the very partisan Democratic remap of legislative districts. Up to that point the Republicans could put together a coalition of suburbanites, central IL and conservative southerners to match the hugh margins from Cook County Democrats.  Once the GOP recovers from the scandals I expect the same competitive balance to resume.

Huh?  I followed most of your analysis, but I don't see how a remap, however partisan, could have ANY impact on vote totals in a presidential election.  It's still one man one vote in Illinois regardless of your precinct, no?  I think the big thing making IL more democratic is that the suburbs are trending to the left.  I actually think if the repubs ever get their heads out of their arses and nominate someone more moderate, the dems could be in serious trouble in IL and a lot of other strong dem states (NJ, NH, ME, CA, MI, PA, WI, MN, etc.)  Many of those states are not so "liberal" as anti-right wing, and thus anybody but Bush states, for the most part.  Someone like McCain could carry all those states I think, plus quite a few others I didn't mention.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I haven't seen either candidate, but by all accounts Obama is an extraordinary candidate who has all the momentum right now.  I would predict a Dem landslide if if wasn't for Obama's unfortunately Muslim-sounding name, which is all many voters will ever know about him.  

It didn't hurt him in the primary though, and the GOP candidate strangely enough could suffer from the same name confusion that took down their last statewide nominee.   So hopefully it will be a wash on that ridiculously superficial aspect.

[CTguy]

Not sure about those other states but McCain couldn't win in New Jersey (probably not CA either).  New Jersey is probably one of the 5 most liberal states in the entire country.  

[angus]

I haven't seen either candidate, but by all accounts Obama is an extraordinary candidate who has all the momentum right now.  I would predict a Dem landslide if if wasn't for Obama's unfortunately Muslim-sounding name, which is all many voters will ever know about him.  

It didn't hurt him in the primary though, and the GOP candidate strangely enough could suffer from the same name confusion that took down their last statewide nominee.   So hopefully it will be a wash on that ridiculously superficial aspect.

Puts me in mind of the Crimson Tide!

[elcorazon]

Not sure about those other states but McCain couldn't win in New Jersey (probably not CA either).  New Jersey is probably one of the 5 most liberal states in the entire country.  

NJ went 56-42 for Bush Sr. in 1988, and barely for Clinton in 1992.  Bush Sr. was not an idealog, and NJ is socially liberal.  If the repubs ever nominated a social moderate or liberal, they would carry NJ; maybe not McCain specifically but someone who is openminded on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, school prayer, etc.).  Same with California.  Why do you think they were able to elect a Republican governor.  So long as the repubs nominate idealogs, the country is divided like 2000 with the coasts and upper midwest trending to the dems and the south & rest of the west trending repub, with the battlegrounds being the edges & Florida.  I think if the repubs went to the left socially, they would continue to carry all of the rest of the country, but would become viable almost everywhere the democrats now consider solid, particularly the states I identified.  CT is another state which I think would vote Republican under those conditions.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Not sure about those other states but McCain couldn't win in New Jersey (probably not CA either).  New Jersey is probably one of the 5 most liberal states in the entire country.  

NJ went 56-42 for Bush Sr. in 1988, and barely for Clinton in 1992.  Bush Sr. was not an idealog, and NJ is socially liberal.  If the repubs ever nominated a social moderate or liberal, they would carry NJ; maybe not McCain specifically but someone who is openminded on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, civil rights, school prayer, etc.).  Same with California.  Why do you think they were able to elect a Republican governor.  So long as the repubs nominate idealogs, the country is divided like 2000 with the coasts and upper midwest trending to the dems and the south & rest of the west trending repub, with the battlegrounds being the edges & Florida.  I think if the repubs went to the left socially, they would continue to carry all of the rest of the country, but would become viable almost everywhere the democrats now consider solid, particularly the states I identified.  CT is another state which I think would vote Republican under those conditions.

Remember tho, if the GOP starting trending left, they'd lose much of their base while only making states like CA competitive at best.  I don't see NJ as the place more moderate republicans anymore.  That's what Bush ran on in 2000, and he lost badly here.  The NYC area of North Jersey is nearly 80% democratic, and South Jersey subrubs are moving to the left as well.  The republicans really only have the NW part of the state.  

[elcorazon]

I don't think the repubs would lose their base.  I'm not saying they're going to become lefties, just that if they are moderates (willing to entertain the possibility of being pro choice, pro separation of church & state, etc.) they could retain much of their base, but could put in play many states that used to be solid republican as I mentioned above.  Maybe some of the states I suggested are too far gone, but I don't think states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, even Illinois are out of reach for moderate Republicans.  Taking those states, then adding the west and south, which are not going anywhere would be a winning strategy I would think.  CA & NJ & CT would be bonuses if they swung to the republicans.  My gosh, NY elects republicans to statewide office all the time, why wouldn't they do so in the presidential election with the right candidate?

[Gustaf]

I don't think the repubs would lose their base.  I'm not saying they're going to become lefties, just that if they are moderates (willing to entertain the possibility of being pro choice, pro separation of church & state, etc.) they could retain much of their base, but could put in play many states that used to be solid republican as I mentioned above.  Maybe some of the states I suggested are too far gone, but I don't think states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, even Illinois are out of reach for moderate Republicans.  Taking those states, then adding the west and south, which are not going anywhere would be a winning strategy I would think.  CA & NJ & CT would be bonuses if they swung to the republicans.  My gosh, NY elects republicans to statewide office all the time, why wouldn't they do so in the presidential election with the right candidate?

I don't think the GOP will be willing to betray its ideals while they can still win with their base.

[muon2]

http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=186

One more data point as we try to build a "national" picture..

Mason Dixon - an A+ polling firm.  
Their sample size of 600 (+/- 4.0% 19 times out of 20) is a tad smallish - other than that an excellent firm.

Gore carried Illinois by 12.01% in 2000, so Bush down 'only" is actually kinda/sorta good news if for the GOP if it portends for a national trend... or it could just be the margin of error of the poll...

Illinois is highly unlikely to be a true battle ground state - if this state ever truly gets into play Bush is looking at a huge landslide..

One more data point on the map...

Why is Illinois so solidly Dem?  It surrounded by MI, IA, WI, and MN.  All can be considered swing states (MI to a lesser extant, i think its reliable Dem terriory) except Illinois.  Chicago i guess?

Illinois only looks solidly Democratic when the issues are national, much like a southern state looks solidly Republican.

Internally, IL can be classified in three areas. Southern IL is similay to KY and other border states - socially conservative, New Deal roots. Central IL is similar to IN, solid Republican, though it is Democratic along the Mississippi (esp. East St. Louis and Rock Island). Northern IL is a typical Great Lakes region - partisan lines are urban vs. suburban.

Within the state there is a general balance. The huge margins in the 2002 elections were a combination of the scandals attached to Gov. Ryan and the very partisan Democratic remap of legislative districts. Up to that point the Republicans could put together a coalition of suburbanites, central IL and conservative southerners to match the hugh margins from Cook County Democrats.  Once the GOP recovers from the scandals I expect the same competitive balance to resume.

Huh?  I followed most of your analysis, but I don't see how a remap, however partisan, could have ANY impact on vote totals in a presidential election.  It's still one man one vote in Illinois regardless of your precinct, no?  I think the big thing making IL more democratic is that the suburbs are trending to the left.  I actually think if the repubs ever get their heads out of their arses and nominate someone more moderate, the dems could be in serious trouble in IL and a lot of other strong dem states (NJ, NH, ME, CA, MI, PA, WI, MN, etc.)  Many of those states are not so "liberal" as anti-right wing, and thus anybody but Bush states, for the most part.  Someone like McCain could carry all those states I think, plus quite a few others I didn't mention.

Sorry to confuse you with my reply. I had distinguished between  national contests and state control. To a casual outside observer one might expect an overwhelming Democratic base due to current control of the governorship and legistature.  I expect that both those results in 2002 were somewhat anomalous.

You are correct that moderate Republicans do well in IL. 30 consecutive years of governors until 2002 was largely due to the moderate stance they took.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't think the repubs would lose their base.  I'm not saying they're going to become lefties, just that if they are moderates (willing to entertain the possibility of being pro choice, pro separation of church & state, etc.) they could retain much of their base, but could put in play many states that used to be solid republican as I mentioned above.  Maybe some of the states I suggested are too far gone, but I don't think states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, even Illinois are out of reach for moderate Republicans.  Taking those states, then adding the west and south, which are not going anywhere would be a winning strategy I would think.  CA & NJ & CT would be bonuses if they swung to the republicans.  My gosh, NY elects republicans to statewide office all the time, why wouldn't they do so in the presidential election with the right candidate?

I don't think the GOP is very willing to nominate a moderate.  A pro seperation of chucrch and state Republican would scare off the religious right.  A pro-choice one would put off even more people.  A republican moderate enough to carry CA, NJ, MI, IL, etc. has little chance to win the nomination IMO.  Reagan and Bush carried those states because we nominated morons.  

[Demrepdan]

You are correct that moderate Republicans do well in IL. 30 consecutive years of governors until 2002 was largely due to the moderate stance they took.

26 consecutive years of Republican Governors....not 30.

1977-2003.

1977-1991 -Jim Thompson (R)
1991-1999 -Jim Edgar (R)
1999-2003 -George Ryan (R)
2003-Present -Rod Blagojevich (D)