Illinois

[opebo]

To those saying that all the GOP needs to do is win back the collar counties, you are sorely mistaken. In 2010, the Tea Party year, Brady swept the collar counties, but still lost. It was close, but he couldn't get the victory despite effectively winning everything but Cook County. It takes a lot to get this state to flip.

Didn't Quin win with (nearly) just Cook county alone?  I mean his vote margin total from the 2-3 other counties he won was just in the hundreds or maybe a thousand or two.

It is quite possible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Illinois winning just Cook county, isn't it?

[pbrower2a]

45+ state GOP sweep

Illinois is closer to 50-50 than the 2008 and 2012 elections suggest.  It would have been 55-43 in a 50-50 election with a Favorite Son, and without a Favorite Son it would have gone about 50-48 D in a 50-50 election. Figure that Barack Obama is about a 10% advantage, and with him no longer on the ticket, the state will be far closer in 2016.

A 53-47 win for the Republican nominee, the mirror image of 2008, flips Illinois to the GOP for the Presidential nominee in 2016.

The Favorite Son effect is real. Clinton lost Texas by 5% in 1996; Dubya won it by 22% in 2000 and 23% in 2004; McCain won it by 12% in 2008. To be sure, the Perot vote of 1996 probably came more from R-leaning voters than from D-leaning voters; add the Perot vote to the Dole vote in 1996 and Clinton lost the state by 11%, which is about how Obama lost the state in 2008.

It would take about a 35-state win for the Republican to win Illinois. I could imagine the Republican losing Michigan and New Mexico but still winning Illinois. That would take a strong Republican and a weak Democrat. It's the sort in which Pennsylvania is called around 9PM for the Republican.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

45+ state GOP sweep

Illinois is closer to 50-50 than the 2008 and 2012 elections suggest.  It would have been 55-43 in a 50-50 election with a Favorite Son, and without a Favorite Son it would have gone about 50-48 D in a 50-50 election. Figure that Barack Obama is about a 10% advantage, and with him no longer on the ticket, the state will be far closer in 2016.

A 53-47 win for the Republican nominee, the mirror image of 2008, flips Illinois to the GOP for the Presidential nominee in 2016.

The Favorite Son effect is real. Clinton lost Texas by 5% in 1996; Dubya won it by 22% in 2000 and 23% in 2004; McCain won it by 12% in 2008. To be sure, the Perot vote of 1996 probably came more from R-leaning voters than from D-leaning voters; add the Perot vote to the Dole vote in 1996 and Clinton lost the state by 11%, which is about how Obama lost the state in 2008.

It would take about a 35-state win for the Republican to win Illinois. I could imagine the Republican losing Michigan and New Mexico but still winning Illinois. That would take a strong Republican and a weak Democrat. It's the sort in which Pennsylvania is called around 9PM for the Republican.

Consider also, that Clinton was perceived as a more moderate Democrat than any of the Dem nominees since then.  That probably had a lot to do with Texas being closer in '92 and '96.  Texas may have been safely R in presidential contests by the early 90s, but it was still a mostly Democrat state at the state level (i.e. Ann Richards, Bob Bullock).
As for Perot as a spoiler, that can easily be debunked.  The exit polls from 1992 showed Perot taking an equal share of voted from Clinton and Bush I.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Quinn w support of simon won carbondale and east st louis. He wont count on support this time.

[pbrower2a]

45+ state GOP sweep

Illinois is closer to 50-50 than the 2008 and 2012 elections suggest.  It would have been 55-43 in a 50-50 election with a Favorite Son, and without a Favorite Son it would have gone about 50-48 D in a 50-50 election. Figure that Barack Obama is about a 10% advantage, and with him no longer on the ticket, the state will be far closer in 2016.

A 53-47 win for the Republican nominee, the mirror image of 2008, flips Illinois to the GOP for the Presidential nominee in 2016.

The Favorite Son effect is real. Clinton lost Texas by 5% in 1996; Dubya won it by 22% in 2000 and 23% in 2004; McCain won it by 12% in 2008. To be sure, the Perot vote of 1996 probably came more from R-leaning voters than from D-leaning voters; add the Perot vote to the Dole vote in 1996 and Clinton lost the state by 11%, which is about how Obama lost the state in 2008.

It would take about a 35-state win for the Republican to win Illinois. I could imagine the Republican losing Michigan and New Mexico but still winning Illinois. That would take a strong Republican and a weak Democrat. It's the sort in which Pennsylvania is called around 9PM for the Republican.

Consider also, that Clinton was perceived as a more moderate Democrat than any of the Dem nominees since then.  That probably had a lot to do with Texas being closer in '92 and '96.  Texas may have been safely R in presidential contests by the early 90s, but it was still a mostly Democrat state at the state level (i.e. Ann Richards, Bob Bullock).
As for Perot as a spoiler, that can easily be debunked.  The exit polls from 1992 showed Perot taking an equal share of voted from Clinton and Bush I.

Perot was more likely to take votes away from Dole in 1996 than from 1992 for the simple reason that Dole was not a Favorite Son in Texas. 

[pbrower2a]

This is what the map looks like with Illinois on the bubble.

I counted the states -- 36 states and one of  Maine's electoral votes going to the Republican.

Republican winner 332 EV (probably about 54% of the popular vote)
Democratic loser 186 EV (probably about 45% of the popular vote)
Illinois up for grabs 20

[Mr. Illini]

To those saying that all the GOP needs to do is win back the collar counties, you are sorely mistaken. In 2010, the Tea Party year, Brady swept the collar counties, but still lost. It was close, but he couldn't get the victory despite effectively winning everything but Cook County. It takes a lot to get this state to flip.

Didn't Quin win with (nearly) just Cook county alone?  I mean his vote margin total from the 2-3 other counties he won was just in the hundreds or maybe a thousand or two.

It is quite possible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Illinois winning just Cook county, isn't it?

He got some help from the Metro East suburbs of St. Louis and a couple of reliably Democratic counties in deep southern IL. Here is the Wikipedia map (keep in mind the colors are reversed).

Result:
Quinn/Simon (D) 46.8%
Brady/Plummer (R) 45.9%

[sg0508]

Mark Kirk's performance in Cook (losing by a 2:1 margin) and in the surrounding suburban counties was far, far stronger than his gubernatorial partner on the GOP ticket.

[Mr.Phips]

Illinois may be safe D in presidential elections, but as Vosem has said, Republicans are often competitive in statewide contests.  This is evidenced by the elections of Judy Baar Topinka, Dan Rutherford, and Mark Kirk in 2010, as well as the near-election of Bill Brady.  That being said, it would probably take a more moderate Republican and a big sweep for the GOP for it to go for a Republican, but it wouldn't be an upset because in those circumstances such an outcome would be a distinct possibility.

2010 was a GOP wave year.  That's like saying Tennessee is competitive because of Harold Ford's near win in 2006.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Illinois may be safe D in presidential elections, but as Vosem has said, Republicans are often competitive in statewide contests.  This is evidenced by the elections of Judy Baar Topinka, Dan Rutherford, and Mark Kirk in 2010, as well as the near-election of Bill Brady.  That being said, it would probably take a more moderate Republican and a big sweep for the GOP for it to go for a Republican, but it wouldn't be an upset because in those circumstances such an outcome would be a distinct possibility.

2010 was a GOP wave year.  That's like saying Tennessee is competitive because of Harold Ford's near win in 2006.

True, but it wasn't as strong a GOP wave as people think it was.  Anyway, Kirk is by no means a goner in 2016.  He'll definitely have a close race, but there's no guarantee he would lose.

[Mr.Phips]

Illinois may be safe D in presidential elections, but as Vosem has said, Republicans are often competitive in statewide contests.  This is evidenced by the elections of Judy Baar Topinka, Dan Rutherford, and Mark Kirk in 2010, as well as the near-election of Bill Brady.  That being said, it would probably take a more moderate Republican and a big sweep for the GOP for it to go for a Republican, but it wouldn't be an upset because in those circumstances such an outcome would be a distinct possibility.

2010 was a GOP wave year.  That's like saying Tennessee is competitive because of Harold Ford's near win in 2006.

True, but it wasn't as strong a GOP wave as people think it was.  Anyway, Kirk is by no means a goner in 2016.  He'll definitely have a close race, but there's no guarantee he would lose.

It was the best midterm election for Republicans since probably 1894.  Kirk cannot possibly survive Chicago turnout in a Presidential year.  He might keep it within single digits, but will almot certainly lose.

[freepcrusher]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
It was the best midterm election for Republicans since probably 1894.  Kirk cannot possibly survive Chicago turnout in a Presidential year.  He might keep it within single digits, but will almot certainly lose.
[/quote]

it depends on who they run. Against a Madigan, Foster or Simon then yes, he will likely lose. But if they run a charlatan like Bustos then he will win.

[Mr.Phips]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was the best midterm election for Republicans since probably 1894.  Kirk cannot possibly survive Chicago turnout in a Presidential year.  He might keep it within single digits, but will almot certainly lose.
[/quote]

it depends on who they run. Against a Madigan, Foster or Simon then yes, he will likely lose. But if they run a charlatan like Bustos then he will win.
[/quote]

I think even Bustos would win.  He would need someone like Roland Burris or JJ Jr running to win.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was the best midterm election for Republicans since probably 1894.  Kirk cannot possibly survive Chicago turnout in a Presidential year.  He might keep it within single digits, but will almot certainly lose.
[/quote]

it depends on who they run. Against a Madigan, Foster or Simon then yes, he will likely lose. But if they run a charlatan like Bustos then he will win.
[/quote]

Heck, Kirk would pummel someone like Pat Quinn with his reprehensible approval ratings.  All depends on the candidate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dold was a Kirk clone and lost in a prez yr, Dan Hynes, Chris Kennedy, and Mike Quigley in that order would be the strongest candidates.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Dold was a Kirk clone

lol no

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dold was a Kirk clone

lol no

Every ad that Dold ran had a Mark Kirk face on it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You guys need to remove your liberal politics from this.  Kirk is by no means a dead man walking, as you'd like to think.  Sure, it'll be harder for him since it'll be a presidential year, but unless the Democrats can run a viable candidate (and at this point, it's much too early, so any potential candidacies is mostly based on wishful thinking), he still has a good shot at winning.

And besides, people overestimate coattail effects.  So many people split their tickets nowadays that high turnout in Chicago is no guarantee he'll lose.  Besides, he's more of Illinois' kind of Republican (i.e. moderate.)

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

You guys need to remove your liberal politics from this.  Kirk is by no means a dead man walking, as you'd like to think.  Sure, it'll be harder for him since it'll be a presidential year, but unless the Democrats can run a viable candidate (and at this point, it's much too early, so any potential candidacies is mostly based on wishful thinking), he still has a good shot at winning.

And besides, people overestimate coattail effects.  So many people split their tickets nowadays that high turnout in Chicago is no guarantee he'll lose.  Besides, he's more of Illinois' kind of Republican (i.e. moderate.)

I agree completely.  It's pretty funny how many Dems here think Begich, Landrieu, Pryor, Heitkamp, and Donnelly can hold on despite their deep-red states, but it doesn't work the other way around. 

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Dold was a Kirk clone

lol no

Every ad that Dold ran had a Mark Kirk face on it.

Dold tried to present himself as a Kirk clone. Doesn't make him one (and indeed, this is why he lost re-election).

[DS0816]

In 2004, George Bush trounced John Kerry in Indiana by a larger margin than Kerry won Illinois by. Four years later, under very specific circumstances and in a Democratic wave year, Indiana flipped blue for the first time in 44 years.

The last time Illinois went Republican was in 1988. Before that, it voted Republican in the prior 5 elections. What circumstances would it take for a GOP upset win in Illinois, similar to Obama's win in Indiana?

A realignment.

Illinois and Indiana are former bellwethers. Ind. was a former bellwether during the first few decades of the Republicans competing in presidential elections. From 1856 to 1996, Ill. backed all winners except in 1884, 1916, 1976, each Democratic victories in which Ill. carried for losing Republicans. George Bush underperformed in 1988 Ill. and it easily flipped for Bill Clinton who, likewise, flipped out of the White House Bush with Election 1992. The state was moving heavily toward the Democrats that George Will noted in an article he wrote just before that year's election. It's a state, like neighboring Kentucky and its neighbor Tennessee, which eventually found one of two parties more reliable for its politics; therefore it is no longer competitive.

The Republican party's No. 1 problem is … the party.

[Emperor Charles V]

In my TL, this is how Illinois will vote in the future:

2016: Cuomo (D)
2020: Booker (D)
2024: Rubio (R)
2028: Newsom (D)
2032: Schock (R)
2036: Sandlin (D)
2040: Boller (R)
2044: Boller (R)
2048: Henrie (R)
2052: Perry (D)
2056: Eastman (R)
2060: Eastman (R)
2064: Torrey (R)
2068: Torrey (R)
2072: Caldero (D)
2076: Rothstein (D)

Summary: Lean Democrat, then Tossup, then Lean Republican