is Illinois not to be taken for granted anymore?

[freepcrusher]

I was surprised how much Obama underperformed his 08 totals in his home state. This was most pronounced in non Cook Illinois where he dropped from roughly 55 to 48 percent of the vote. That probably bodes well for Kirk in 2016 without Obama on the ballot.

[Mechaman]

From what I've seen non-Cook county Illinois (yes it does exist) tends to have a heavy dislike for people in Cook county.  Obama's performance downstate in 2008 was nothing short of impressive, given that a lot of the areas he was winning were usually Republican areas.  I would argue that given how this election came out Obama actually kept up an above average performance in Illinois.  The thing to keep in mind while looking at Illinois maps is that normally it isn't rare for the Democrats to get around half of their total vote count from Cook County.  Obama, if these map results are accurate, has consistently performed well in downstate for a Chicago politician.  Sure, the results may look a little weak, but consider that he hails from a place in the state that a number of downstate residents think is Hell I would say he's doing pretty damn good in the state if he can win most of his votes Downstate than have to throw all of his marbles into Cook like a number of state level Illinois Democrats do regularly.  Hell:

Democratic Performance, Downstate vs. Cook County

2012: 50.5% Downstate vs. 49.5% Cook County
2008: 52.6% Downstate vs. 47.4% Cook County
2004: 50.2% Downstate vs. 49.8% Cook County
2000: 50.5% Downstate vs. 49.5% Cook County

As you can see, Obama at the very worst has reverted to 2000 numbers.  I consider that to be a promising result and that Democratic candidates for President do seem to give a damn about winning downstate votes.

My two cents.

[Franzl]

I was surprised how much Obama underperformed his 08 totals in his home state. This was most pronounced in non Cook Illinois where he dropped from roughly 55 to 48 percent of the vote. That probably bodes well for Kirk in 2016 without Obama on the ballot.

Kirk already almost maxed out his downstate numbers, and was relatively strong in the Chicago suburbs.

He won by 2% in the 2010 midterm despite this. Democrats should beat him basically in any non-GOP wave year.

And with Presidential year turnout...

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  I actually think the next Republican to win the Presidency will go the Midwestern route and pull within 53/47 here while picking up everything else west of NJ. 

[Sol]

I was surprised how much Obama underperformed his 08 totals in his home state. This was most pronounced in non Cook Illinois where he dropped from roughly 55 to 48 percent of the vote. That probably bodes well for Kirk in 2016 without Obama on the ballot.

Probably a lot of that is correction from 2008 home state swings.

I suspect that the GOP targeting the Midwest is pretty likely, but I think there's better states to go after, like Wisconsin or Minnesota.

[opebo]

Yes.  I actually think the next Republican to win the Presidency will go the Midwestern route and pull within 53/47 here while picking up everything else west of NJ. 

That sounds reasonable someday, but when do you envision this?  Soon or quite far down the road?

[Skill and Chance]

Yes.  I actually think the next Republican to win the Presidency will go the Midwestern route and pull within 53/47 here while picking up everything else west of NJ. 

That sounds reasonable someday, but when do you envision this?  Soon or quite far down the road?

Probably in 2020 and quite possibly in a rematch after the same Republican loses the electoral college while winning the popular vote in 2016.

[opebo]

Yes.  I actually think the next Republican to win the Presidency will go the Midwestern route and pull within 53/47 here while picking up everything else west of NJ. 

That sounds reasonable someday, but when do you envision this?  Soon or quite far down the road?

Probably in 2020 and quite possibly in a rematch after the same Republican loses the electoral college while winning the popular vote in 2016.

So, something like this:

I'm pretty skeptical about that, to say the least (it's only 8 years away), but anyway even if it did happen it might be a one-time thing, as that same map wouldn't work at all in 2024 because of reapportionment.

[tmthforu94]

I've always thought that with demographic shifts, you're going to see Democrats start controlling the Southwest and Republicans pulling through in the Rust Belt. We'll probably look back on this and laugh, but this is my idea of a swing map in 20 years or so:

[NHI]

I've always thought that with demographic shifts, you're going to see Democrats start controlling the Southwest and Republicans pulling through in the Rust Belt. We'll probably look back on this and laugh, but this is my idea of a swing map in 20 years or so:

I think you might be right.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I hope it's becoming more competitive again.  I think Kirk will probably win in 2016 because he is a moderate and seems to be well-respected.

[freepcrusher]

I was surprised how much Obama underperformed his 08 totals in his home state. This was most pronounced in non Cook Illinois where he dropped from roughly 55 to 48 percent of the vote. That probably bodes well for Kirk in 2016 without Obama on the ballot.

Kirk already almost maxed out his downstate numbers, and was relatively strong in the Chicago suburbs.

He won by 2% in the 2010 midterm despite this. Democrats should beat him basically in any non-GOP wave year.

And with Presidential year turnout...

well one thing that does hurt Kirk is that Illinois has not elected a republican senator in a presidential year since 1972.

[Gass3268]

I was surprised how much Obama underperformed his 08 totals in his home state. This was most pronounced in non Cook Illinois where he dropped from roughly 55 to 48 percent of the vote. That probably bodes well for Kirk in 2016 without Obama on the ballot.

Kirk already almost maxed out his downstate numbers, and was relatively strong in the Chicago suburbs.

He won by 2% in the 2010 midterm despite this. Democrats should beat him basically in any non-GOP wave year.

And with Presidential year turnout...

well one thing that does hurt Kirk is that Illinois has not elected a republican senator in a presidential year since 1972.

Exactly, Kirk's in trouble because he's going to have to go up against a presidential electorate.

I don't see Illinois being a issue in the future as long as Cook County produces the %'s that it does and there are still a few downstate areas that support Dems (Rock Island County, St. Clair County, etc).

[sg0508]

In presidential races, IL is firmly democratic and it's not even close.  The state still can elect republicans, but in my opinion, only in OFF-YEARS, i.e. midterms, when turnout is down.

[CountryRoads]

You people need to put down the pipe. The best I can see Repubs doing in IL is losing around 54-46.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Why is everyone freaking out? This is a normal downstate result for a Democrat in a somewhat tight election.

[dspNY]

Chicago dominates the rest of the state, so unless Chicago dramatically depopulates, IL will always be solid Dem

[Franzl]

I hope it's becoming more competitive again.  I think Kirk will probably win in 2016 because he is a moderate and seems to be well-respected.

What has been moderate about Kirk's voting record in the Senate?

[Lief 🗽]

I hope it's becoming more competitive again.  I think Kirk will probably win in 2016 because he is a moderate and seems to be well-respected.

What has been moderate about Kirk's voting record in the Senate?

Well, nothing about his voting record is moderate, but he is sometimes vaguely somewhat less pro-life maybe depending on the situation and the audience and the temperature that day than a Republican from Alabama, so by that metric he is a middle-of-the-road moderate.

[WalterMitty]

in theory it is quite easy for a republican pres. candidate to win illinois: win the suburban chicago counties and run up huge margins downstate.  the latter is quite easy.  but the gop needs to kick out the wingnuts to do the former.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The incumbent's home state usually trends (in the Atlas sense) against him his second time around. It happened in IL 2012, TX 2004, AR 1996, CA 1984, GA 1980, and CA 1972. After a term in Washington he's seen as more of a national politician and less of a local favorite so the opposite-party home state vote dwindles. As far back as the Atlas calculates swings the only exceptions are NY 1956 and TX 1992, both of which are weird cases since Eisenhower had no earlier state-based political career and Perot was from the same state as Bush.