What happens to Illinois without Obama?

[retromike22]

Hear me out, don't panic, I repeat don't panic... But how will Illinois perform without Obama on the ticket? Home states usually give a large margin of victory to their nominee (assuming they win the general) and no, I'm not saying that it's going to go for the GOP or even be a toss up state. But 2010 in Illinois really surprised me, with the closeness of the Governor's race and Kirk winning. Edit: 2014 Result: The GOP won the Governor's race, and Senator Durbin won by "just" 10 points, a lower margin than Gary Peters. In fact, Senator Franken got a higher % than Durbin.

So my questions are:

1. Will Illinois be under 10% victory for the Democrats?
2. Should the GOP make an effort here?

Also, I made this right now:

The Margin of Victory for the Political Party of a Presidential Candidate in their Home State, from their first national success to the next 3 Presidential elections.

In Georgia:
Carter 1976: 34%
Carter 1980: 15%
1984: -21%
1988: -20%

In California:
Reagan 1980: 16%
Reagan 1984: 17%
1988: 3%
1992: -14%

In Texas:
Bush 1988: 12%
1992: 3%
1996: 5%
2000: 22% (outlier due to Jr. Bush running)

Arkansas:
Clinton 1992: 18%
Clinton 1996: 17%
2000: -6%
2004: -10%

Texas:
Bush 2000: 22%
Bush 2004: 23%
2008: 12%
2012: 16%

Illinois:
Obama 2008: 25%
Obama 2012: 17%
2016: ?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Illinois will probably vote around how Michigan voted for Obama  in 2012.
Republicans should instead spend time on Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think Illinois dropped to its normal level in 2012 after going overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008. It'll probably drop a little bit for the democrats again, but I think a 55/43 victory for a democrat would be average.

[muon2]

12% sounds about right.

[DrScholl]

Obama did have a home state effect, much less so in 2012, so I think 2012 numbers are the new normal for Illinois and the state will vote about D+7 on average. In 2000 and 2004 it was D+7, so in 2012, it doesn't seem that Obama really got much of a home state effect.

[Mr. Illini]

Gen R vs. Gen D

57-42

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Gen R vs. Gen D

57-42

Not likely.
The highest Illinois will go D in a Clinton/Walker race would be 56%.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'd say 53% is about the floor for Democrats in Illinois in a generic Presidential race where the Democrat loses.


Because of Perot wrecking election numbers in the 1990s and Obama's home state advantage, 2000 and 2004 are the only recent "normal" elections. I'd say 53-54% the Dem is losing nationwide, while 55% is a close race and everything up would indicate a Dem victory(or a regional factor).

Either way, Illinois is pretty much gone(and has been gone) for the GOP for a couple cycles, thanks to Cook County's vote dumping and the diversifying suburbs(especially Will and Lake).

Only a very moderate Republican could win it, as GHWB did in 1988.

[IceSpear]

No Republican will ever win Illinois in a presidential year due to high Cook County turnout, barring some improbable scenario like the Dems nominating a scandal-plagued or otherwise toxic candidate.

They have a chance at pulling out very narrow wins in midterms though.

[eric82oslo]

Mind you that Hawaii treated Obama as his home state, both in 2008 and 2012. Illinois might actually treat itself as Hillary's home state, since she was born there (just like Obama was born & grew up in Hawaii). Don't know how many years Hillary lived in Illinois though?

[Indy Texas]

Still a safe D state. A generic Democrat should carry the state by at least 10 points even if they lose the election.

The other examples you cited are tricky because those states were trending away from the favorite son's party anyway, with the exception of Bush who was dealing with a 3rd party candidate muddying things.

[whanztastic]

A Republican candidate would be crazy to stop in Illinois for anything but a fundraiser.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

D+6 or D+7 like it was in 2000, 2004, and 2012.

[tmthforu94]

I don't know, I've won Illinois several times on the 2016 President Forever scenario, so Republicans should have a shot here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I suppose 54%-56%


It depends on the type of Republican who is running of course. Christie, minus the scandal of course, would do really well in inner and well to do suburbs that helped carry Kirk both in his House Seat and into his Senate victory, don't know if would do well enough to win.

Walker would do well enough down state and in the outer parts of Chicagoland to at least get into the low to mid 40's.


It is not New York or California, basically.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Whoever ends up defeating Kirk, Simon or Madigan, should he lose, will become the rising star in Illinois politics, Prez or JR Senator.

[Ebowed]

It was a double digit victory for John Kerry, while California wasn't.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

CA was a much different in 2004 than it is now, though. ILL is arguably more Republican and still can elect Republicans statewide. CA does not. Also demographically, CA is far more difficult for the GOP then ILL.

[pbrower2a]

Illinois hasn't been a swing state since 1988. Demographically it is more like Michigan than any other state, and neither Illinois (Ford 50-48) nor Michigan (Ford, 52-46) has voted for the Republican nominee for President in a close election since 1976.

Republicans like Gerald Ford and Democrats like Jimmy Carter are not in Governor's mansions or the Senate now so we are not going to see a replay of 1976 for a very long time.

More significant is the Favorite Son Effect. It's usually good for about a 10% swing in the vote. Clinton barely lost Texas in 1996, but Dubya won it on a Texas scale. McCain saw Texas swing about 11% with a national swing of 9%.

In a 50-50 election, Illinois would have some Democrats biting their finger nails and Republicans expressing some hope before the state goes roughly 52-47 for the Democratic nominee. Gore won it 54-43 in 2000, which is about how I reasonably expect Illinois to go in 2016. 

[New_Conservative]

Despite the strong conservative base in Illinois, there is no way we can win Illinois any time soon, unless we can better court urban voters.

[old timey villain]

You can't really compare GA, CA, TX and AR to Illinois when it comes to the home state effect. All of those states were either undergoing political realignments or demographic changes. Illinois seems to be in more of a holding pattern. Cook county and the inner suburbs are trending D while the rural areas are trending R, so they kind of seem to cancel eachother out.

I suspect the next Dem nominee will hold their ground in the urban areas but fall further in some rural areas, doing a few points worse than Obama 2012.

55-43

[seanNJ9]

Hillary doesn't have a real home state.

[Skill and Chance]

It seems that home-state bumps are bigger in smaller states.  Compare Clinton in AR to Bush in Texas or Obama in Illinois.  Usually, state of political career > state of birth when they are different, but Obama showed the opposite pattern.  Connecticut for example had completely disowned Bush.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

It seems that home-state bumps are bigger in smaller states.  Compare Clinton in AR to Bush in Texas or Obama in Illinois.  Usually, state of political career > state of birth when they are different, but Obama showed the opposite pattern.  Connecticut for example had completely disowned Bush.

Which helps explain Delaware recently.
Also, another reason for Kelly Ayotte to be the vice presidential candidate in 2016.

[Skill and Chance]

It seems that home-state bumps are bigger in smaller states.  Compare Clinton in AR to Bush in Texas or Obama in Illinois.  Usually, state of political career > state of birth when they are different, but Obama showed the opposite pattern.  Connecticut for example had completely disowned Bush.

Which helps explain Delaware recently.
Also, another reason for Kelly Ayotte to be the vice presidential candidate in 2016.

I think Susana Martinez would be even more valuable if she would accept it.  Sandoval also looks great on paper but he is openly pro-choice.