A thread on Illinois Pundit the other day pointed out Rudy Giuliani leading in one of the primary polls here in Illinois. People outside of the State may think nothing of it. Illinois has been a blue State for quite a while now so it would only make sense to them that Republicans here might lean towards the candidate who has more socially liberal stances, right?
Perhaps. But if you look at our last governor's race there was bitter debate over the fact that the primary winner happened to have some socially liberal stances. Not only did she lose the general election, she actually got less support than the prior GOP candidate did who ran on a more conservative platform just 4 years earlier. What really rubs salt in the wound is the Democratic candidate isn't very well liked even among Democrats but he still made gains. The result was that the Democratic Party has a lock on power in Illinois government but there is so much malice between the General Assembly and the governor that they can barely get anything done in spite of their super-majority.
Can a socially liberal Republican stand any chance in a statewide race in Illinois? Given the fact there are no statewide Republican offices at the moment a better question might be can any do so?
The following is a map of the GOP voter differences in the last two governor's races in 2006 and 2002.
The percentage of votes lost from the prior election are shown in varying shades of red with the most extreme losses of 25% or more shown in yellow.
The percentage of votes gained are shown in varying shades of blue with the most extreme gains 25% or more shown in green.
The darker the shade the more extreme the losses or gains.
The most extreme losses or gains of 25% or more are in contrasting yellow or green to help with clarity.
It should be noted that this map does not take into account the extreme differences in population and population density from county to county in Illinois and that this map is solely to show as a percentage how voter support for the GOP dropped or rose from county to county.
What does this map show us?
Are we looking at a reflection of national issues hurting support for republicans generally? Or is there a bit more to it than going on in Illinois.
For some historical county by county maps of election turnouts in presidential elections Dave Leip's Atlas is pretty helpful: Illinois Election Maps (One thing to note on his maps though is that the typical Red/Blue distinction is reversed since he started making these before the current Red/Blue became synonymous with Republican/Democrat).
Overall the GOP had over a 14% drop from their previous governor vote totals.
Blagojevich had a 6% drop.
The number of people who actually voted for governor only dropped 1.5%. The explanation was the relatively strong showing by the Green Party candidate, Whiney, who more than tripled the 3rd party showing from 2002 even before figuring in the others. Blagojevich came up over a 110,000 votes shy of his earlier totals and a more liberal 3rd party candidate picked up over 360,000 votes. Meanwhile the GOP bled off more than 220,000 votes.
Can we safely say that many of the democrats who voted for Blagojevich to begin with probably stuck with their vote in spite of his obvious flaws and that many who didn't probably secreted off to vote for Whitney just so they could leave the ballot box with a clear conscious, not having voted for Blago or their arch nemesis, the GOP?
What happened to the GOP support. It sure didn't go to Stufflebeam who only pulled a meager 20,000 votes or so. Perhaps all looked lost so why bother. Perhaps they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Republican with social liberal views. Did the conservatives say "Why bother?"
Looking at the map it seems that many conservative areas of the State have resigned themselves to what we're seeing now in the Chicago Democrat Assembly. The Democrats will win, there's nothing we can do to stop it, so let's just pop some popcorn and watch the carnage unfold.
Will Illinois conservatives turn out for Rudy? If 2006 is any indicator the same forces are at play. It wasn't like Illinois was really expected to become a swing State anyways but at this rate it's starting to look more like a GOP gallows. In the middle of the land of self-government people in downstate Illinois are voiceless and becoming resolute to remain that way. Meanwhile our urban overseers work tirelessly to crush one of the most fundamental concepts of American democracy... that regionalism and decentralization, where feasible, in democracy helps promote liberty and self-government.
But what does it matter if you're outnumbered? Trying to get more people out the polls and compromise on issues and support more "big-tent" ideas so that you won't be outnumbered anymore just doesn't make any sense... or something. It's about principle! Where have I heard this before... oh yeah. The Libertarian Party, who's unwavering micro-tent of ideas has managed to ensure that they can't even successfully beat independent or other 3rd party candidates in the Presidential race these days... in spite of their much larger and longer standing national organization.
Granted I'd rather gain a foot over an inch... but it sure beats losing a mile. Speaking of which, Justice Stevens is getting up there and could be looking to retire as soon as a Democrat gets his foot on the White House lawn. How about some pragmatic principles? Strategic?
I'd be wary of drawing conclusions about the 2008 Presidential race, or about any future party strength, based on the 2006 Governor's race, which was one of the strangest, most-personality-driven statewide races I can remember.
For a better indication of generic party strength, it might be better to look at a race where most people didn't know much about two fairly evenly-matched candidates candidates, like the State Treasurer's race.
Definitively ID-ing trends is even harder.
Great post. You hit it on the head that JBT was too much of a social liberal to carry any kind of wide spread enthusiasm. Is Rudy the same kind of candidate? It's hard to say, but the office of President has a responsibility that the Governor doesn't hold as directly, that of national security. It is Rudy's strength on that one issue that will garner more support from conservatives than JBT did.
IP... you're probably right. It just seems like there's a great unwillingness to compromise among the more conservative Republicans adding to their woes, which isn't going to help them retake the State considering the way it's been going lately.
From the Illinois exit polls:
There's more people voting who consider themselves Democrats than Republican... the Independents lean more towards the Democrats. Of the Democrats and Republicans it's the Republicans who are more likely to vote Democrat than the other way around (opposite of the national trend in 2004).
The self proclaimed conservatives somewhat outnumber the liberals but the liberals vote roughly 90/10 democrat whereas the conservatives only vote about 80/20 republican. Half the voters identified as moderates and they lean towards the democrats.
I'm not sure how a Republican can win a statewide race in Illinois unless he can appeal to moderates, but if he/she appeals to moderates and the conservative Republicans sit it out they're still dead in the water because the Democrats aren't going to cross over to any significant extent.
Looking at the regional breakdown it's a bit shocking to see how dominated we are by Chicago Democrats because the rest of the State is so divided. When we elect someone like Frerichs to the GA we only help propagate that problem, not because he doesn't personally represent the area on many issues, but because he helps hand the leadership right up to our urban masters so little of that representation, nor most of downstate's ever matters.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock21,
I don't agree with your premise that JBT was a moderate. She was a fiscal moderate and a social liberal. That is why she held little enthusiasm amongst Republican conservatives. The reason she had any support is that those conservatives that were paying any attention knew what would happen if Blago stayed in office. And, as it has played out, the concern was justified.
And, as I said above, I'd be wary of drawing any conclusion about ideology or party strength based on JBT vs. Blago - that was the most personality-driven statewide election that I've ever seen.
IP... aye... the other numbers don't look very good either though. It's not just Topinka and Blago, it's the whole sorry state of the IL GOP that's bugging the crap out of me, and mainly due to the massive imbalance of power. I know it predates the 2006 stuff and there are many other factors going on there and otherwise, but I guess in primary season especially the big tent/little tent issue always seems to weigh heavier on my mind. Especially in Illinois where it seems to be a factor. But the last several years have been such a mess I honestly can't say it is the biggest factor or even close. Just one of many.
Handymom... I'm an independent with fairly askew views so I'm typically never too enthusiastic about any given candidate as much as I'm voting for a viable lesser evil. It doesn't make much sense to me how someone who'd be aware enough of two candidates' fiscal liberalism/moderation and social liberalism/moderation and see that one, even if only marginally better or worse, is worth voting for or against, but still not vote. I know that's just the way it is, but I don't really understand the logic, if any, behind the decision.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock 21 - My guess is that most conservatives lost interest when the candidate that emerged from the primaries was a candidate that was too far from their views to support. They didn't see enough of a difference between JBT and Blago so they checked out. That's the nature of political elections.
IP - I understand your hesitation to draw any coorelation between the JBT/Blago election results and 2008.
If Rudy wins the nomination there will be no difference in the outcome, between Rudy/Hillary and Blago/JBT.
Talk about fear-mongering.
Basic simply reality not fear.
Run4cvrlib... are you talking about voting outcomes in Illinois, or actual difference in outcomes in how they'd run the country? You might be right that Rudy may get his butt handed to him in Illinois, but I think it is really hard to say that the outcome if he won versus Hillary wouldn't be vastly different.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think that the race will turn out the same Hillary will beat Rudy. The conservatives in the party will stay home because they won't vote for Rudy he's even more liberal then JBT. She wasn't bad on gun rights, better then him on Gay rights and was against Partial Birth which Rudy is for. Some in the party believe because polling shows Rudy is ahead, because of his higher name recognition which is fleeting, he will draw democrat moderates. They said the same thing in the Blago/JBT race and they were wrong then and they are wrong now and it's not the first time. Why would the Moderate democrats vote to give the White house to Moderate Republican, when they can vote to put a Moderate of their own party in the White House, even if it is Hillary? Also they expect normally moderate or independent states that are trending democrat to go to Rudy there is no real differene in the two to do that.
While I trust Republican Presidents to do what they say their going to do when they get into office more then a Democratic one, A promise to put up only strict Constitutionalists judge’s by a moderate candidate makes me a little nervous, especially when his history has been so socially far left.
If conservatives can't see the difference between Hillary and Rudy it's because they refuse to look at anything but the similarities and they are for all intents and purposes resigning themselves to Hillary's election because they'd rather have a full blown Democrat than compromise, which to me is just juvenile. It strikes me as "taking the ball and going home" political games.
That said I think a more conservative candidate, especially a moderate conservative, has a fairly good chance of winning if and only if he can convince the swing voters that his policies just make plain sense. This seemed to be Reagan's knack. It didn't really matter that he was a conservative playing ball in a fairly Democratic leaning court. It's probably unwise to neglect the base because they are obviously unwilling to compromise, but I think, especially now compromise might be their only realistic option. Neither party has a base that constitutes the majority. Compromise is essential.
As far as the comment about the Supreme Court appointments the difference between Hillary and Rudy is like playing Russian Roulette with either 6 bullets or 1. Sure you'd rather have a better option, but of the two choices, we know which one is the lesser evil.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
The solution, of course, is to motivate the base by nominating Alan Keyes for President!
The nice thing about Keyes was that he would have voted the way I would have wanted him to on many issues, and the rest of the issues he'd never get enough support to pass stuff... and even if he did I doubt it'd last long in the courts. He was a total scumbag imho. I'd rather get to know Obama any day. But Obama was far more likely to vote against my political positions on the federal level. So I compromised. Personally I would have rather had the guy who tried to sleep with his own wife in a Parisian sex club... she was a hot actress after all. Throw in some past marijuana usage and he could have been President. But alas that pesky R next to his name.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock are you saying there is a difference between Hillary and Rudy? I think that on only some fiscal issues there maybe some difference but I am not sure there are. I also said if Rudy wins? The nominations there are others running in the republican primary. The only real difference is of course Rudy isn't Hillary, Which is really good for us.
I am only stating what I believe will happen based on my observation from being involved in many elections. Conservatives generally vote based on ideological beliefs, Life, Gun Control and Family values issues it's not a matter of just taking their ball and just going home but their conscience. Just like when moderates decide to close their wallets when the candidate is not to their liking. Some of it the party tries to bridge that gap as much as possible and I think we have to depending on the district and to win but Rudy is the Bridge to far.
Even Romney is a closer match, maybe the Conservative Moderate; I am still waiting for Fred.
Dan, Alan Keyes I could call him for you.
"I think that the race will turn out the same Hillary will beat Rudy. The conservatives in the party will stay home because they won't vote for Rudy he's even more liberal then JBT. She wasn't bad on gun rights, better then him on Gay rights and was against Partial Birth which Rudy is for. Some in the party believe because polling shows Rudy is ahead, because of his higher name recognition which is fleeting, he will draw democrat moderates. They said the same thing in the Blago/JBT race and they were wrong then and they are wrong now and it's not the first time. Why would the Moderate democrats vote to give the White house to Moderate Republican, when they can vote to put a Moderate of their own party in the White House, even if it is Hillary? Also they expect normally moderate or independent states that are trending democrat to go to Rudy there is no real differene in the two to do that.
While I trust Republican Presidents to do what they say their going to do when they get into office more then a Democratic one, A promise to put up only strict Constitutionalists judge’s by a moderate candidate makes me a little nervous, especially when his history has been so socially far left."
This comment makes me so angry, and is so factually incorrect, that I should just ignore it.
But I can't. So I'm going to respond, not directly to run4cvrlib, because I don't think he's realized just what he's saying, but rather to an entire group of short-sighted scorched earth Illinois conservatives.
The comment that I quoted above isn't analysis, as it's not based in any sort of evidence or data. It is an opinion based on wishful thinking - it's a threat, really. And that disgusts me.
I am amazed that some Illinois conservatives are so rigid that they would rather defeat JBT than Rod Blagojevich. And I am amazed that some Illinois conservatives think that strategy has worked so well in Illinois that they'd like to export it to national races.
I am also amazed by Republicans who mouth empty words about being open and willing to grow the party - the so-called "Big Tent" - but then threaten to withhold support from a nominee because the nominee doesn't agree with them on every issue.
It's as if you're willing to allow pro-choice people to join the Republican Party, but if any of them should dare run for (and perhaps even win) a nomination, you're going to make threats about supporting Democrats. Again, it's worked so well in Illinois, why not take it national?
Nobody makes the same threats against Thompson. Nobody even makes them against the two candidates with long, long records of actually implementing anti-conservative policy, John McCain and Mitt Romney. But yet some feel comfortable enough making them against Rudy.
Frankly, if you want to stay home because the GOP nominee might agree with you on every issue, then so be it - stay home, or work for the Democrat nominee, just as has been done in Illinois. You'll get exactly the government that you deserve, just as we have in Illinois.
I am just disgusted.
Gee, I guess I won't make the same direct attack against you (however I do know what I am talking about) but others sure like dishing it out to but you don't like taking it. Romney's a Mormon so he's not fit, Thompson's to lazy and the rest are so far down in the pack they don't count. These may not be words directly from you but that's what I have heard from people helping in Rudy's campaign. I have been helping in this party for a few years now and you know whom I have helped and to say that I don't see the big picture would be a little silly. I think the people that don't see the big picture with the big tent are the ones that keep forcing JBT and other more moderate people down the throats of all those hard working grassroots groups that I keep asking to help the party. They have minds of their own, they vote for whom they want, it’s not a threat, it's just their right.
Any conservative who is paying enough attention to politics to post here would understand the need to vote for JBT, even if they had major disagreements with her platform. I would guess that most who consider themselves conservative are not that politically active. Most conservatives who stayed home were not trying to defeat JBT.
I still believe the difference between JBT/Blago and Rudy/Hillary is national security. That is what will make conservatives care enough to get out and vote.
"Gee, I guess I won't make the same direct attack against you (however I do know what I am talking about) but others sure like dishing it out to but you don't like taking it. Romney's a Mormon so he's not fit, Thompson's to lazy and the rest are so far down in the pack they don't count. These may not be words directly from you but that's what I have heard from people helping in Rudy's campaign."
Have you heard anyone in Rudy's campaign say that they would support the Democratic nominee if Thompson/McCain/Romney wins the GOP nomination? Because that's the threat you made above, if Rudy wins.
"I have been helping in this party for a few years now and you know whom I have helped and to say that I don't see the big picture would be a little silly."
I think you're amplifying ill-advised threats made by people who would rather beat a moderate Republican than beat a liberal Democrat. And I don't think that's helpful. In fact, I think such threats are disgusting.
And I'm not targeting you, because I think you're just echoing what you're hearing from other conservatives in Illinois. Thankfully, these sorts of threats aren't as prevalent on the national stage, because they're not helpful.
"I think the people that don't see the big picture with the big tent are the ones that keep forcing JBT and other more moderate people down the throats of all those hard working grassroots groups that I keep asking to help the party."
If a moderate candidate wins the Primary, than nothing is being forced down anyone's throat.
If you can't beat Rudy in the Primary (without resorting to these ridiculous threats about supporting a Democrat if he wins), then the Party chose someone other than your candidate in a fair contest - why be so vindictive about getting beat in a fair fight that you'll support a Democrat?
Fight it out in the Primary, but fight fair and fight clean and then support the nominee. Is that so hard?
Why would you rather beat a moderate Republican than a liberal Democrat?
Sheesh.
Handymom... not sure if that rings true in Illinois... most Illinois voters didn't trust Kerry to handle terrorism (53%) yet over 20% of those same people who did not trust him to handle it voted for him anyways. Didn't matter that most people trusted Bush to handle it (55%). They still voted for the other guy because other issues took primacy over national security in their minds (or they didn't see any real difference between the two on that issue).
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Are those numbers for self-described conservatives or all voters?
I think the flaw in my argument might be that Hillary has deftly created the illusion that she would be strong on national security while still maintaining her lead with her base. This could blur the distinction between Rudy/Hillary, just like JBT/Blago, and passive conservatives would once again stay home.
handy... all
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Rudy v Hillary would be the WWE of presidential campaigns, brutal and toxic to anyone in the ring, but sheer hillarity to the fans in the stands (assuming you either don't take it too seriously or you hit up the bud light vendor a few too many times).
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
IP, there is one thing you need to understand. (and maybe you do, but let me reinforce it) Some people simply cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. I am not saying it is right or wrong, they just can't. Their conscience will not allow it. How many people is that? I don't know. But these people are not "Republicans" - they are people of a movement. They don't see their cause advanced by voting for a candidate "from their party" that doesn't support what they think is THE most important issue of our time.
For the record, I voted for JBT, and would probably vote for Rudy if he is the nominee, but I wouldn't be putting a bumper sticker on my car.
"IP, there is one thing you need to understand. (and maybe you do, but let me reinforce it) Some people simply cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. I am not saying it is right or wrong, they just can't."
I understand that. I don't understand why that is (i.e., as a political tactic it doesn't make any sense to me), but I understand that it's a fact; that it's a reality.
"How many people is that? I don't know. But these people are not "Republicans" - they are people of a movement. They don't see their cause advanced by voting for a candidate "from their party" that doesn't support what they think is THE most important issue of our time."
I'm OK with that.
I'm not OK with the threat of "I'm taking my ball and supporting a Democrat" from people who otherwise claim they should be given a greater role in GOP leadership.
And I'm not OK with some sort of made-up analysis that two candidates are equivalent, when they're clearly not, and when the comparison is clearly used as a scare tactic and a negative attack within the Party.
"For the record, I voted for JBT, and would probably vote for Rudy if he is the nominee, but I wouldn't be putting a bumper sticker on my car."
For the record, I voted for JBT too, and would probably vote for McCain or Romney if he is the nominee, but I wouldn't be putting a bumper sticker on my car, either.
But you won't see me threatening to campaign for the Democrats if my nominee doesn't win - as someone who has accepted a leadership role within the GOP, I think that's irresponsible and disgusting. And yet we see this all the time with various Illinois Republican constituencies. They clamor for more power and a greater role in leadership, but abandon the Party when the Primary results don't go their way.
I understand that. I don't understand why that is (i.e., as a political tactic it doesn't make any sense to me),
For most of those folks, I don't think it is a political tactic. (For some of those website guys it obviously is).
"For most of those folks, I don't think it is a political tactic."
Point taken. It is, but they either don't realize it, or won't admit it.
If the goal is to end abortion as soon as possible, then as a tactic, the fastest way to get there is to support even pro-choice GOP candidates like Rudy and JBT, because elected their Dem opponents would be negative progress. On issues of Life, on the margins, even Rudy and JBT are better than Clinton, Obama and Blago.
I'll always take marginal progress over retrogression, but what do I know?