illinois?

[WalterMitty]

illinois is no longer within reach of the republicans.  it's really difficult to win an election when you automatically write off new york, california, and illinois.

at least the republicans are still somewhat competitive in state elections in california and new york.  the same cannot be said about illinois.

what went wrong in the land of lincoln?

[True Democrat]

Clinton revolutionized the state.  He would without Perot in 1992, but Illinois votes on economic issues, and they have recently become anti-defecit and anti-tax cuts.  Along with Clinton's moderate economic messages, the state has becoem democratic.

[King]

I still believe there is hope in NY, IL, and CA. Although we control of all of them in 1992, they have been swinging back.

[Rob]

Illinois is now bedrock Democratic. I don't see any Republican winning it in the foreseeable future.

[Erc]

Not that I'm very knowledgeable in state politics, but the IL implosion of the Republican party seems a lot like the CA explosion of the Republicans 15-20 years back.  We'll recover, but it will take a while.  A long while.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It's because the "Collar Counties" (the ring surrounding Cook) are nowhere near as Republican as they used to be, and without the old numbers they used to give Republicans, it's almost impossible to outvote Chicago. Unless the trend in these counties goes back to the Republicans, we can count on Illinois.

And California and New York are not trending Republican.

[True Democrat]

It's because the "Collar Counties" (the ring surrounding Cook) are nowhere near as Republican as they used to be, and without the old numbers they used to give Republicans, it's almost impossible to outvote Chicago. Unless the trend in these counties goes back to the Republicans, we can count on Illinois.

And California and New York are not trending Republican.

Although the collar counties contributed to the democratization of Illinois, I think the real gain cam in Cook County.  Look at these results of the Dem versus the Repub:

2004: Kerry + 41.1
2000: Gore + 40
1996: Clinton + 40.1
1992: Clinton + 30
1988: Dukakis + 12.4
1984: Mondale + 2.6
1980: Carter + 12.4
1976: Carter + 8.7
1972: McGovern - 7.4
1968: Humphrey + 9.5
1964: Johnson + 26.4
1960: Kennedy +13.1

Carter couldn't win the state in 1976 because he was only at + 8.7, but Kennedy won by 13.1 and won the state.

[Beet]

It's because the "Collar Counties" (the ring surrounding Cook) are nowhere near as Republican as they used to be, and without the old numbers they used to give Republicans, it's almost impossible to outvote Chicago. Unless the trend in these counties goes back to the Republicans, we can count on Illinois.

And California and New York are not trending Republican.

Although the collar counties contributed to the democratization of Illinois, I think the real gain cam in Cook County.  Look at these results of the Dem versus the Repub:

2004: Kerry + 41.1
2000: Gore + 40
1996: Clinton + 40.1
1992: Clinton + 30
1988: Dukakis + 12.4
1984: Mondale + 2.6
1980: Carter + 12.4
1976: Carter + 8.7
1972: McGovern - 7.4
1968: Humphrey + 9.5
1964: Johnson + 26.4
1960: Kennedy +13.1

Carter couldn't win the state in 1976 because he was only at + 8.7, but Kennedy won by 13.1 and won the state.

The same trend occurs in other urban areas of the nation. Take for example Philadelphia county:

2004: Kerry + 61.1 (win)
2000: Gore + 62.1 (win)
1996: Clinton + 61.4 (win)
1992: Clinton + 47.3 (win)
1988: Dukakis + 34.2 (loss)
1984: Mondale + 30.3 (loss)
1980: Carter + 24.7 (loss)
1976: Carter + 34.3 (win)
1972: McGovern - 11.1 (loss)
1968: Humphrey + 31.2 (win)
1964: Johnson + 47.2 (win)
1960: Kennedy +36.2 (win)

Kerry's margin in Philadelphia: 412,000
Kerry's margin in Pennsylvania: 144,000

[Beet]

By the way, the strategy for the GOP is clear. Evidence suggests that partisans who are surrounded by a heavily hostile environment tend to become discouraged. They lose interest in politics, participate less, and feel themselves inefficious. Thus when it comes to balloting time they turn out less. This applies to Democrats in rural areas as well as Republicans in cities.

However, the GOP seems to have gotten the message: in 2004 it heavily increased GOP turnout in Democratic areas in South Florida, critically reducing Democratic margins there, while the Democrats failed dismally to mobilize rural voters.