Yesterday was the deadline to file petitions for the March 2006 Primary, and there were a few interesting things.
There are eight candidates for Governor - five Republicans (Brady, Gidwitz, Andy Martin, Oberwies, and Topinka) and three Democrats (Blagojevich, Eisendrath and Philip Sitkowski). I have no idea who Sitkowski is. Andy Martin is a guy who sends out a ton of email, but that's about all I know about him.
There are five Republicans running for Lt. Governor: Birkett, Rauschenberger, Wegman, Lawrence Bruckner and Jeremy Cole. I have no idea about Cole and Bruckner, and only the slightest idea about Wegman.
Rex Bradfield filed for State Rep. against incumbent Naomi Jakobsson, and Judy Myers filed for State Senate in the open 52nd District seat. Neither will have a Primary opponent.
Locally, the big news is that the Democrats filed no candidates for any countywide office, including against County Clerk Mark Shelden. I wonder if the News-Gazette will now write an editorial about how pathetic the local Democratic Party must be to not be able to find an opponent for someone as vulnerable as Shelden.
In addition, the Democrats will have an interesting Primary in County Board District 9, with incumbent Board Chair Barb Wysocki and incumbent Steve Beckett being challenged by former Board member Bob Kirchner and Lisa Bell. There are no Primaries on the GOP side of the County Board races, and there are Green Party candidates in Districts 7, 8 and 9.
And, finally, here's the list of candidates for Precinct Committeemen. These are the people who will elect their Party Chairs in late March.
Yellow dog, He is all yours have fun. Can you let him run some capaigns? Maybe he will do as well as he has on the smoking ban.
I ran for office before. never again. It's a huge waste of time, you have to spend a lot of your own money and/or tap your friends, families, and strangers for money, half the people or more hate you, and for what? To get elected to a dead end job with no power (except a US or State Constitutional office) where others thwart your attempts at good government, and the media climbs all over you?
Only extreme egomaniacs or losers with nothing else going on in their lives run for office.
Inform me, oh wise one. Is there any mechanism for a party to put someone on the ballot after the primary if he or she did not file petitions? (Can the Dems run someone for County Clerk later?)
Yes, they can "slate" someone, which basically means the party organization can vote to fill a ballot vacancy with a candidate. I think the deadline for doing that is sometime in April or May. Slating can only be done in races for which no candidates of that particular party have filed. The GOP, for example, could still slate a candidate for County Board District 6, since no Republicans filed to run.
Well, I'm very happy about the Democrat situation in County Board District 9, and hope to see change there (if you know what I mean).
If I may expan upon something you pointed out, IP, I'd say that locally (aside from the Myers/Frerichs showdown, which should be good), 2006 looks like it will be the year of the non-challenge.
County Board Districts 2, 3 and 4 have no Democrats running. The Republicans can coast. Likewise, County Board District 6 (my district) has no Republicans running. Avery and Fabri can coast.
As you pointed out, the Dems did not field candidates for countywide office. The local countywide GOP can coast.
From the way it's been reported, Rex Bradfield is a bit of a maverick. The county Republican party made rumblings that it wasn't going to run a candidate against Naomi, and then in swoops Bradfield. I know nothing about him, and he may not turn out to be a formidable candidate. Personally, when I heard that the Champaign GOP was thinking of not running someone against Naomi, I thought it was a bad decision. I support Naomi - don't get me wrong - but it's true that in non-presidential years, the resident-Dem and campus-Dem voters don't come out as much.
This may be the reason why the Champaign County Dems didn't run for any countywide offices. Who knows? Personally, I think they're missed opportunities.
Yes, 2006 seems to be - on the local level, at least - the year of the non-challenge. A subtext comes to mind, as well.... "Pick Your Battles."
"... and he may not turn out to be a formidable candidate."
Oops. That should read without the "not."
"And, finally, here's the list of candidates for Precinct Committeemen."
I think this is missing a link?
Yep. Fixed. Thanks, and you make great points.
Andy Martin is Anthony R. Martin Trigona, a legendary former Champaign resident, a disbarred lawyer.
Really? I never made the connection - his crap just started showing up in my inbox a few weeks ago. But that makes sense. Here are the Google results. That probably explains how he found this site and why he started burying me with email.
What about the Precinct Committeeman Showdown in Cunningham 23? Former Democratic County Recorder candidate Rick Sommers is running against County Board Finance Chair Brendan "my business just failed" McGinty. This will be a race for the ages!
Didn't see that, but it's going to be an interesting offshoot of the battle within the Democratic Primary that is happening in County Board District 9. I wonder if Mike Frerichs is at all involved, given McGinty's public flirtation with a Primary challenge for Frerichs?
From http://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/results/2002/docs/03_19_2002_canvass.pdf
2002 Primary
Kirchner 975
Wysocki 1151
Beckett 1025
Stan Summers 665
Why do you believe Shelden is vulnerable? He hasn't screwed anything up that I can see
Why does the NG believe Jakobsson is vulnerable? To me, they're both about equally vulnerable - that is, they're both safe bets for overwhelming re-election.
2002 Primary
Kirchner 975
Wysocki 1151
Beckett 1025
Stan Summers 665
Wait... I'm confused.
I know that there are some county board seats which are just for two years, but I thought that McGinty took over from Kirchner in 2004, when Kirchner decided not to run again McGinty's is a four-year seat. Wouldn't that mean that Kirchner's was, as well?
That aside, your point is taken FunInCB9. A lot has happened since 2002, however, and feelings among some Dems have changed toward Beckett and Wysocki. The two big questions are:
1) Have the feelings among District 9 Dem voters changed?
and
2) If so, have enough of them changed to make a difference?
Guess we'll have to see this spring.
2002 was after the redistricting - all 27 seats were up, Kirchner drew the 2 year term, Beckett and Wysocki drew 4 year terms. Kirchner didn't run for re-election in 2004, giving way to McGinty.
Kirchner drew a two year term after redistricting. Beckett and Wysocki drew fours.
Thanks for clarifying!
There is one election tidbit that is blaring and shocking.
Besides the open seat in county board 7 the only Democratic incumbents to be challenged by the Republican party are Democrats that have voted with Republicans or at least some of their issues.
Wysocki and Beckett voted with Republicans to change the leadership and the dynamics of the board. They have since then taken up some of the Republican causes and reversed some of the Democratic agenda. How are they repaid for their dealmaking, moderation, and bringing Republicans to the table. They are 2 of 3 Democratic incumbents challenged by those same Republicans.
The third incumbent is Cowalt who recently voted with Republicans and the renegade 9 on the fringe roads issue. How is she repaid for her moderation and turning her back on her constituents? The local Republicans challenge her.
Yet some of the most die hard Democrats like Langenheim, Fabri, and Avery do not get challenged at all.
Beckett, Wysocki, and McGinty should fall on their swords and realize the disgrace and embarrassment they have become.
The local Republicans are showing their shrewdness by turning on the people who have been bringing them to the table.
Yet some of the most die hard Democrats like Langenheim, Fabri, and Avery do not get challenged at all.
They are the most die-hard and unchallenged because they are in such heavily Democratic districts. The GOP would like nothing more to beat Avery and Langenheim, but the districts were drawn to be safe for Democrats.
Which is also why Langenheim and Avery, et al, would prefer to (and have in the past) govern without input or participation from Republicans - because they don't need them in their districts, they act like they don't need them anywhere in the County.
So, IP you agree.
Avery, Fabri, and Langenheim would not work with Republicans so they don't get challenged.
While Wysocki and Becket give Republicans power and they get challenged.
So, IP you agree.
No, I don't.
Avery, Fabri, and Langenheim would not work with Republicans so they don't get challenged.
The two are mutually exclusive, and there's neither causation or correlation.
While Wysocki and Becket give Republicans power and they get challenged.
How, exactly, did Wysocki or Beckett "give Republicans power?" IIRC, the GOP voted for Wysocki without any strings attached, without asking for anything in return (and got nothing in return) simply because they were tired of Avery's autocratic leadership style, and wanted to stick it to her they only way they could.
Your whole premise is faulty, but you'll never admit it - because that would betry your dogmatic talking points.
That fact that you are arguing the point, IP, Mark Shelden, proves that it is true.
It is blatantly obvious that the people who worked most with Republicans or voted for parts of their agenda are the only ones, besides an open seat that is being challenged.
This is going to be a blast. Shelden is in District 9. Wonder if he's going to have a sign for Beckett?
That fact that you are arguing the point, IP, Mark Shelden, proves that it is true.
The fact that you're arguing against me proves that I'm correct.
It is blatantly obvious that the people who worked most with Republicans or voted for parts of their agenda are the only ones, besides an open seat that is being challenged.
It's blatantly obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. Can you answer the question I asked above, or are you just too dogmatic to even consider it? The question is: How, exactly, did Wysocki or Beckett “give Republicans power?” IIRC, the GOP voted for Wysocki without any strings attached, without asking for anything in return (and got nothing in return) simply because they were tired of Avery's autocratic leadership style, and wanted to stick it to her they only way they could.
This is going to be a blast. Shelden is in District 9. Wonder if he's going to have a sign for Beckett?
I imagine he'll have signs for the two Republicans who are running in his district.
There are 19 local races that I count - Judge Ford's race, 3 countywide (clerk, sheriff, treasurer) and 15 county board seats. Of those, the Dems have 7 incumbents that are running for re-election. Outside of their incumbents, they've only recruited 4 new people to run. Of those, 1 is a perennial candidate with no chance of winning (Bob Morrison), 1 was recruited at the last minute for an open Dem seat (Melin - CB7), and 2 were recruited to run against Beckett & Wysocki.
That's hilarious.
There are 19 local races that I count - Judge Ford's race, 3 countywide (clerk, sheriff, treasurer) and 15 county board seats. Of those, the Dems have 7 incumbents that are running for re-election. Outside of their incumbents, they've only recruited 4 new people to run. Of those, 1 is a perennial candidate with no chance of winning (Bob Morrison), 1 was recruited at the last minute for an open Dem seat (Melin - CB7), and 2 were recruited to run against Beckett & Wysocki.
That's hilarious.
I think that's worth promoting to a post of it's own.
Is there no bottom to the depths of depravity that you Republicans will sink? Have you no honor? Where are your manners? To be so rude to Matt Varble that he has not only joined the Democrats, but now is going to be a Democratic precinct committeeman is an unspeakably dirty trick. Fellow, Democrats, rally around. We need to reinstitute smoking at precinct committee meetings. Maybe we can insult him to the point that he will go join the Greens.
Actually IP, I think the dearth of candidates on both sides merits attention. Is it that bad to run for office? Are the numbers just too "fixed" to even hope to win an election as the party on the outs? Voter choice in state legislative races is at an all time low. Now it's creeped into our county.
I ran for office before. never again. It's a huge waste of time, you have to spend a lot of your own money and/or tap your friends, families, and strangers for money, half the people or more hate you, and for what? To get elected to a dead end job with no power (except a US or State Constitutional office) where others thwart your attempts at good government, and the media climbs all over you?
Only extreme egomaniacs or losers with nothing else going on in their lives run for office.
Merry Christmas!
"Only extreme egomaniacs or losers with nothing else going on in their lives run for office. "
Or concerned citizens. Sorry it didn't work out for you.
Thank you Mr. Oberweis
Maybe we can insult him (he who shall not be named) to the point that he will go join the Greens.
That's unlikely as (he who shall not be named) was spotted this afternoon meeting over lunch with Mr. Fabri himself.
"That's unlikely as (he who shall not be named) was spotted this afternoon meeting over lunch with Mr. Fabri himself. "
Fabri is taking the better to have him in the tent pissing out philosophy. MV is any party's worst nightmare.
IP,
According to your other website:
http://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/results/2002/docs/11_05_2002_summary.pdf
What you are saying is wrong. In 2002 the districts with the lowest margin between highest Republican total and lowest Democratic total are district six 3%, district five 4%, district seven 5%, district nine 8%, and district eight 11%
Whereas, the Republicans are challenging possibly two democratic incumbents in district nine, the second most liberal county district, the open seat in district second the 3rd most democratic, and the other incumbent in district five the 4th most democratic district.
At the same time the district that had the lowest margin district six and has two staunch democrats running the Republicans left alone.
This goes back to the point that the Republicans chose to attack the people who were working with them the most (Wysocki, Beckett, and Cowalt) while leaving alone those who are the most partisan (Fabri, Avery, Langenheim, and Betz).
IP,
To address your POWER argument.
The Democrats as a party have a 15 to 12 majority. That means if they wanted to they could have passed almost any legislation and never consulted with the Republicans.
Instead 3 renegades did the disloyal and disgusting deed of working with the Republicans who supported them for the leadership instead of the Democrats choice for leadership. Since that time the Repubicrat 3 have consistently worked with Republicans on many of their Republican issues while reversing the agenda of the previous Democratic leadership. Yes it is obvious a deal was cut where the Republicans divided the Democrats and supported the Republicrat 3 and in return the Republicrat 3 consult and help pass part of the Republican agenda.
What did the Republicans get in return? Let see: They got their way on the racial disparity report, zoning, fringe roads, etc. Yeah they got nothing.
"What you are saying is wrong. In 2002 the districts with the lowest margin between highest Republican total and lowest Democratic total are district six 3%, district five 4%, district seven 5%, district nine 8%, and district eight 11%"
Your numbers are skewed due to the fact that in districts 6, 5, and 7 there were six candidates (3R and 3D), whereas in district 9 there were five candidates (3D, 2R) and in district 8 there were also 5 candidates (3D, 2R).
The races will always be statistically closer when a full slate of six candidates are running.
Beckett and Wysocki are NOT Republicans, no matter how the left wing of the Democratic Party paints them. Republicans are challenging them (or whoever the Democratic Party nominates in March) because the goal is to have a majority on the county board, not just a chairperson who sides with the minority party every so often.
I'd say that Kirchner will knock off Wysocki in the primary. Beckett is safe.
If I were handicapping November races, I'd look for District 7 and District 9 to each send 1 Republican to the county board, especially if the GOP has a strong turnout for the Governor's race. While those districts have traditionally voted D, they are home to many independent voters.
On a side note - the comments in tonight's News-Gazette about Lisa Bell (running for District 9 as a D) and possible conflicts of interest made me think about a recent conflict of interest blow-up. Wasn't Laura Huth basically forced off the Urbana City Council for the exact same thing - being executive director of an agency (Habitat for Humanity) that receives grant money through/from the City of Urbana.
I'm sure challenges to her candidacy will be coming.
Am I hearing you all right that are only 3 County Board members who have been willing to vote the merits of an issue rather than the Official Party Line? If so, what are the other 24 there for, ballast? If most of the members are focused on "the enemy" rather than the County, we may as well have a 3-member County Board--the votes would turn out the same way and the meetings would be a lot shorter.
There is no other Republican strategy other than to find good candidates in EVERY race, especially if they are winnable. No mystery. I assume the Dems are the same.
I thought district analysis was based on races such as Gov and President? How can you base it on past CB candidates who might have had other issues. Can anyone remember Nomy Shareef?
another.gop.guy Says:
December 20th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
"There is no other Republican strategy other than to find good candidates in EVERY race, especially if they are winnable."
So why is Rex Bradfield running?
We'll see how much organized support Rex gets . . .
Concentrate your resources where they will be productive.
The Anonymous (Republican) 8:21pm said
In 2002 the districts with the lowest margin between highest Republican total and lowest Democratic total are district six 3%, district five 4%, district seven 5%, district nine 8%, and district eight 11%”ÂÂ
"Your numbers are skewed due to the fact that in districts 6, 5, and 7 there were six candidates (3R and 3D), whereas in district 9 there were five candidates (3D, 2R) and in district 8 there were also 5 candidates (3D, 2R). The races will always be statistically closer when a full slate of six candidates are running."
How can you even say this when district 5, one with not a full slate, had one of the lowest margins and district 8, other one with not a full slate, had one of the largest margins. This flys in the face of your argument
Even looking at 2004 numbers District 9 out of the 5 democratic county board districts had the 3 highest margin even though another 24% went to the greens
District 9 is one of the toughest battles for the Republicans yet they are slating full candidates against it. Why? They are hoping that the people who worked with them the most have so pissed off their base the voters will not vote for them and vote green or Republican, which is being argued above.
Bottom line is the Wysocki and Beckett sell-outs are being sold-out by the people who were helped by the Republicrat 3 from district 9.
Rex Bradfield is running because Rex Bradfield wants to run. It's a free world.
Apparently the County Board is broken beyond fixing, regardless of who is in control. Its a shame that the proposal for single member districts was defeated a few years ago.
The Kirchner way of the world, not unlike that of Republicans (Dykstra and Shelden) in the past, is that the party decides an issue and then everyone throws their vote behind it.
So with the current 15 dem to 12 republican split, in Bob Kirchner's world, if 8 dems out of 27 thought the county ought to be renamed Flatsburgh, the other 7 dems should support them and the motion carries 15 to 12, despite the fact that only 8 out of 27 thought it was a good idea.
That's "Good Government" Kirchner-style.
Weighing in, better late than never....
Your analysis of how Kirchner thinks, as well as Dykstra and Shelden for that matter, is simplistic and plain wrong. But if it makes you feel better and more insightful to know how someone else thinks, I guess you're entitled.
Who is this Phil Sitkowksi, he is a labor agent and where is he coming from. I seen him out downtown already, can he make a difference?
There are actually eleven candidates for governor. In addition to the republicans and democrats, the Constitution and Green parties are each running a candidate, and Jeff Trigg is running on his own.