Bush may as well forget Illinois.
Well, that’s a different topic for a different thread. But it amazes me how so many people think Illinois is solidly Democratic as of late. Illinois has voted for the winning Presidential candidate every single time in the 20th century except for 1916 and 1976. Accordingly, Illinois voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and then voted for Gore (who won the popular vote, but not the election) in 2000. And even the 2000 election was relatively close at 54%. Illinois has given you the allusion it is Democratic, simply because the Democrats have won the Presidency the past decade. Except for Bush’s election in 2000.
The northern half of the state is Democratic, and the southern half is Republican. Since nearly half of Illinois's population lies in the north and the other half in the south, the state is fairly evenly divided amongst Democrats and Republicans. You just need a few people from the north or south to vote for the other party in order to decide elections (including the swing voters of course.) This is what makes Illinois a swing state.
As far as the 2002 elections, Illinois voted for Senator Durbin by 66% (no big surprise) and also voted for the current Governor Rod Blagojevich (bla-GOYA-vich) with 52% of the vote (still pretty close). The Illinois General Assembly also went Democratic. Why did the Democrats win so big at the state level? Former Governor George Ryan is the answer. Nothing but corruption plagued his term of office, and the people of Illinois were ready for a change after having Republican governors for 28 years. Blagojecvich promised the voters he would end the corruption and "clean house". Voters of Illinois figured that it would be best to begin anew with new leadership. Thus, the Democrats had a big win at the state level in 2002. Again, Durbin won re-election, that isn't saying much though.
Also note that 10 of the 19 U.S. Representatives from Illinois are Republican. Therefore, there is a small glimmer of hope for the Republicans in Illinois. Many people have stated in other threads that it is the House of Representatives that determines which way the country is going, either Republican or Democrat, and since the House is in Republican control, that would lead you to the assumption that the majority of the country are Republicans. Then I suppose this logic can be applied to the state of Illinois. Since there are 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats, accordingly, Illinois’s political beliefs lie in the Republican arena.
The Democratic Nominee won't "easily" win Illinois, and neither will Bush. Illinois is a swing state and always will be for quite some time. No amount of state level corruption could stop this.
And furthermore, no candidate should ignore the Midwest states, since it is truly the Midwest that decides elections. I think this is the reason why most states go one way or the other. People say "Hey, those states aren't going to vote for us, so f**k em!" Thus, the state votes for the other party, and in essence f**ks the candidate.
But yes, it wouldn't surprise me if Illinois voted Democratic in 2004. Since current Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R) is stepping down, and with no good Republican contenders, and some good Democratic contenders, (including well known State Comptroller Dan Hynes) I would assume that the next U.S. Senator from Illinois will be a Democrat. The majority of the 19 Congressional districts will undoutedly stay in Republican control. But as far as the Presidential election, you can pretty much flip a coin. Although Bush's chances don't look too good. If Bush wins Illinois it will be 52% for Bush 47% for the Democrat. If the Democrat wins it'll be 55% for the Democrat, 44% for Bush.
Sorry for going on about this. Since this is a thread discussing Minnesota in 2004, I shouldn’t have gone on about Illinois. I predict in the near future, there will be threads for all the swing Midwest states, WI, IA, MO, IL, MI, IN (oops not Indiana
)
