IL-Gov. 2018 Megathread

[President Johnson]

I hope Rauner pulls this off by turning into an election machine vs. people instead of Democrat vs. Republican. His victory speech sounds like he quite understood that.

And RIP to the People's Pat. You will be missed.

[Bojack Horseman]

I’m very glad to see Ives’ showing. With half of his party turned against him, he’s more than likely circling the drain.

[Del Tachi]

Interestingly, only 57% of Pritzker's statewide vote came from Cook while Kennedy and Biss both got >60% of their votes from there.  Since Pritkzer's victory was more dependent on minority voters, I expected the opposite but I guess Pritzker really crushed it in non-Chicagoland areas.

[Donerail]

Interestingly, only 57% of Pritzker's statewide vote came from Cook while Kennedy and Biss both got >60% of their votes from there.  Since Pritkzer's victory was more dependent on minority voters, I expected the opposite but I guess Pritzker really crushed it in non-Chicagoland areas.

Pritzker had the money to have a full-fledged field operation outside Chicagoland, is the big difference there.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I can't say that I was too surprised at the results here but the numbers were certainly interesting. Rauner barely getting renominated and Kennedy doing almost as well as Biss were both the highlights of the night.

[Mr. Illini]

We need not pretend that the Pritzker nomination is a result of the Chicago machine. He did well statewide. It's a result of $$$$.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

We need not pretend that the Pritzker nomination is a result of the Chicago machine. He did well statewide. It's a result of $$$$.

I don't know about the Chicago machine, but the statewide party apparently embraced him early on (like almost a year ago) because he had the money to self fund. Which is hilarious (in a bad way)

[Mr. Illini]

We need not pretend that the Pritzker nomination is a result of the Chicago machine. He did well statewide. It's a result of $$$$.

I don't know about the Chicago machine, but the statewide party apparently embraced him early on (like almost a year ago) because he had the money to self fund. Which is hilarious (in a bad way)

Yeah, but what really made the difference was his capacity to run ads early and often, which boosted his name rec and put him way ahead early.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Honestly, if I didn't know that conservatives love ruining it for themselves I'd think that Ives is some sort of Democratic plant. Not only does she refuse to support Rauner, but she won't even call him to concede, because she expects him (the winner) to call her (the loser). I mean, Christ, how pathetically petty, or just not-very-bright, can you be?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/bruce-rauner-endangered-illinois-governor-479339

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Interestingly, only 57% of Pritzker's statewide vote came from Cook while Kennedy and Biss both got >60% of their votes from there.  Since Pritkzer's victory was more dependent on minority voters, I expected the opposite but I guess Pritzker really crushed it in non-Chicagoland areas.

Pritzker had the money to have a full-fledged field operation outside Chicagoland, is the big difference there.

Right, like he was spending on staff approximately 66% of Biss's total budget.

We need not pretend that the Pritzker nomination is a result of the Chicago machine. He did well statewide. It's a result of $$$$.

I don't know about the Chicago machine, but the statewide party apparently embraced him early on (like almost a year ago) because he had the money to self fund. Which is hilarious (in a bad way)

Yeah, but what really made the difference was his capacity to run ads early and often, which boosted his name rec and put him way ahead early.

To put it super simplistically, I think you can attribute his performance in Cook to traditional 'machine' tactics (or at least having CLF out to help him &c &c) while downstate the fact that he could go up early and, as SJoyce said, actually hire a downstate field operation helped him downstate. And as PW points out, CLF, Cook County Dems &c backed him because he promised to spend oodles of his own money on the race (and boy has he delivered!).

[MAINEiac4434]

Honestly, if I didn't know that conservatives love ruining it for themselves I'd think that Ives is some sort of Democratic plant. Not only does she refuse to support Rauner, but she won't even call him to concede, because she expects him (the winner) to call her (the loser). I mean, Christ, how pathetically petty, or just not-very-bright, can you be?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/21/bruce-rauner-endangered-illinois-governor-479339

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She wants him to lose to Pritzker.

[Oryxslayer]

Here are some of the 'fun' maps that I did yesterday in my limited free time. First off we have Biss + Kennedy vs Pritzker, wich is interesting because of the various divisions it show. Like is currently being discussed, JB racks up wins in deep downstate and in the driftless zone. However, in the Champaign McLean area, the opposition wins a bunch of rurals. There arn't many votes here, but the votes still come in. Perhaps this is the media market effect, since this region would have been Biss's target due to the colleges? Moving North, the suburbs are where the opposition gets their votes. Thiis one thinks is easily explainable - educated voters reject the machine. Finally, the overall statewide margin is reflected in Cook, signifying just how prominent the county is in Democratic Primaries.



The map of Kennedy vs Biss is also interesting. Kennedy, like Pritzker, dominates the rural, but there are not many votes out there left. Most of his margin is coming from larger lower-educated counties like Rock Island and St. Clair. Biss meanwhile gets his downstate votes from the universities and well-educated cities. Madison county is unique because a local candidate got a equal amount of votes to Biss and Kennedy, throwing the results. Moving North we see this pattern continue with Biss doing will in the collars, but Kennedy still keeping up. Biss also has a emanating power base in Rockford, one that matches his downstate margins. Once again Cook matches that statewide numbers in the D primary, signifying its importance.



My favorite map of the night is Ives vs Rauner, filtered on the 10% margin of victory. It is very rare that we get a map this fairly divided - usually candidates have bases they run up the score in. I place the blame on this being that Ives is from the Collars and ran most of her ads there, while Rauner ran a statewide campaign with his large warchest. This allowed each of the candidates to dig deep in to their opponents 'bases' with Ives winning/keeping the suburbs close, while Rauner won a bunch of area in the 'upper' part of downstate. The regional bases still came out, resulting in narrow margins everywhere. Rauner probably won his primary in the downstate suburbs like Champaign, St. Clair, Peoria, and McLean where he won larger margins then Ives could match in the narrow rurals.

Currently working on a district map, which is hard since every every county site needs to be checked for the uncontested primary results.

[DINGO Joe]

A map of change in turnout on the R side would be interesting.  It dropped substantially in metro Chicago and much of the Northern 2/3rd of the state, but in Madison and much of the Southern 1/3 it did rise.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

That map looks ugly.

It is really hard to understand how this happened.

In the South, Democrats overperformed substantially:

Most shockingly: Gallatin County voting more than 70% Dem after voting over 70% for Trump in 2016.

Other notes:

It is surprising that the statewide Democratic margin was insufficient to hold Winnebago County, despite Clinton winning there in 2016.

Henderson County came back to the Democrats after previously being among the 10 strongest swinging Counties to Trump in 2016.

It is surprising that the Democratic margin was insufficient to flip McHenry, McLean, Sangamon, Jo Daviess, Whiteside, and Knox Counties.

[ill ind]

Nothing surprising about the distribution of the Democratic vote.  The collar counties have been trending Dem and alot of Southern Ill votes like West Virginia.  Alot of local officials - Sheriff, County Treasurer, County Board Members, etc are Dems.  Primary voters go Dem to vote in local races and then vote GOP in top of the ticket races in November but stay Dems in local stuff.

[kph14]

Most shockingly: Gallatin County voting more than 70% Dem after voting over 70% for Trump in 2016.

Duckworth won Gallatin in 2016.

[Oryxslayer]

Most shockingly: Gallatin County voting more than 70% Dem after voting over 70% for Trump in 2016.

Duckworth won Gallatin in 2016.

If you checked out my maps from 2014/2016 you would realize gallatin is one of those counties that just has a strong D electorate locally/in the primary. Gallatin, Putnam, and Calhoun are all like this. The IL-12 downstate region as a whole is more friendly to dems in the primary than in the general.

[Atlas Force]

https://twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/976788805645684736

[GlobeSoc]

Most shockingly: Gallatin County voting more than 70% Dem after voting over 70% for Trump in 2016.

Duckworth won Gallatin in 2016.

If you checked out my maps from 2014/2016 you would realize gallatin is one of those counties that just has a strong D electorate locally/in the primary. Gallatin, Putnam, and Calhoun are all like this. The IL-12 downstate region as a whole is more friendly to dems in the primary than in the general.

Well, some counties in IL-12 flipped from 2014/2010 primary, so that's cool I think

[Green Line]

You can't put too much stock into D vs R vote totals in a primary.  Every year people do this and it never matters.

[muon2]

Here are some of the 'fun' maps that I did yesterday in my limited free time. First off we have Biss + Kennedy vs Pritzker, wich is interesting because of the various divisions it show. Like is currently being discussed, JB racks up wins in deep downstate and in the driftless zone. However, in the Champaign McLean area, the opposition wins a bunch of rurals. There arn't many votes here, but the votes still come in. Perhaps this is the media market effect, since this region would have been Biss's target due to the colleges? Moving North, the suburbs are where the opposition gets their votes. Thiis one thinks is easily explainable - educated voters reject the machine. Finally, the overall statewide margin is reflected in Cook, signifying just how prominent the county is in Democratic Primaries.
 

Nice work on the maps. Here's my take on the first (others to follow). Pritzker had a couple things going for him in the south. One was his money that let him go up on TV in small and large markets throughout the state, especially in St Louis to cover Metro East. The other edge was his union support, and the southern Dems still have strong union ties. Pritzker even spent the day before the primary down there to get turnout. It is interesting to note that his strategy was similar to the way Blago won a four way primary in 2002.

[muon2]

The map of Kennedy vs Biss is also interesting. Kennedy, like Pritzker, dominates the rural, but there are not many votes out there left. Most of his margin is coming from larger lower-educated counties like Rock Island and St. Clair. Biss meanwhile gets his downstate votes from the universities and well-educated cities. Madison county is unique because a local candidate got a equal amount of votes to Biss and Kennedy, throwing the results. Moving North we see this pattern continue with Biss doing will in the collars, but Kennedy still keeping up. Biss also has a emanating power base in Rockford, one that matches his downstate margins. Once again Cook matches that statewide numbers in the D primary, signifying its importance.

The downstate here isn't about rural, but it is about colleges and name ID. Biss had a good network in the college counties and Rockford where his running mate is a state rep. Elsewhere downstate Biss is largely unknown. If you are a Dem and not for Pritzker, you are more likely to go with Kennedy as a familar-sounding name.

[muon2]

My favorite map of the night is Ives vs Rauner, filtered on the 10% margin of victory. It is very rare that we get a map this fairly divided - usually candidates have bases they run up the score in. I place the blame on this being that Ives is from the Collars and ran most of her ads there, while Rauner ran a statewide campaign with his large warchest. This allowed each of the candidates to dig deep in to their opponents 'bases' with Ives winning/keeping the suburbs close, while Rauner won a bunch of area in the 'upper' part of downstate. The regional bases still came out, resulting in narrow margins everywhere. Rauner probably won his primary in the downstate suburbs like Champaign, St. Clair, Peoria, and McLean where he won larger margins then Ives could match in the narrow rurals.

I agree with a lot of this analysis, especially the role that Rauner's money played downstate. The main point I'd add is that the first major TV spot that Ives ran was deeply offensive to moderate Pubs in the suburbs and college towns. Without that ad, my guess is that Ives would have cleared a bigger margin in the western collars and been closer in some unhappy college towns. She would be the nominee if not for that ad.

[DINGO Joe]

What was the dynamic of the 2014 Republican primary?  Rauner got crushed in many downstate areas in 2014 by Dillard that Rauner beat Ives this year.  And Dillard was a Dupage legislator just as Ives was.  Was Dillard perceived as being to the left of  Rauner?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

https://twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/976788805645684736

Thats not you you spell Scott Walker...