My thoughts on the 2018 Illinois Primary
On Tuesday, March 21, the State of Illinois had its 2018 primary. The two major parties' nominations for U.S. House of Representatives, as well as a whole slew of state-wide, regional and local offices were on the line. Heck, in many cases, a Democrat nomination (or, in rarer cases, a Republican nomination) was as good as a victory in general election, since either there's no one running against them or the ones who are running against them have a better chance of becoming the next president of the Russian Federation.
A couple of takeaways.
As I wrote on Twitter, as someone who grew up in the early 1990s Russia, I'm uneasy about an oligarch like J.B. Prtizker winning the Democrat nomination. And... well, I can't say I'm entirely surprised that he won by as large of a margin as he did, and that he did as well as he had in the black neighborhoods, given how much time and effort Chris Kennedy spent there. But, if nothing else, this primary has shown that he can get votes in Chicagoland and downstate, which is going to come in handy come general election. The fact that he will be able to match Bruce Rauner on ad and election spending would help.
Speaking of Rauner, I'm surprised that his victory over Jeanne Ives was as close as it was. Do Republicas dislike Rauner that much? Do cultural issues matter more in Illinois than I expected? I suppose the next few months may give us a better idea.
And then, there is the race that it seemed like the entire English-speaking world paid attention to (even the freaking Economist covered it, for God's sake) - the 3rd Illinois Congressional district primary between the more socially conservative incumbent Dan Lipinski and more socially progressive challenger Marie Newman. The race attracted plenty of outside interest, with pro-choice groups and several of Lipinski's Illinois colleagues backing Newsman and the incumbent getting support from some labor unions, the bad old-fashioned Chicago Democrat Machine and Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates. Lipinski ultimately defeated Newman, but by a pretty small margin - and, comparing the election data from suburban Cook County and the City of Chicago, most of Chicago went for Lipinski, and most of the suburban voters went for Newman.
The big part of the reason why this race got some much national (and even international) attention is the because it touched on the question of the Soul of the Democratic Party. Since Trump's victory, there has been lots of back and forth about what the party should do to recapture Congress and the presidency. Should it moderate on social issues - or, at least, allow candidates who are pro-gun rights and/or pro-life? Or should it become more left-wing on social issues because compromises got it nowhere and the socially progressive message will resonate? To me, the correct answer has been, and continues to be "whatever works best in the area in question." Democrats didn't raise too much of a fuss when a pro-gun, socially moderate Democrat defeated Bobby JIndal to become the Democrat governor of Louisianan. Most recently, Conor Lamp won in Pennsylvania by emphasizing the hell out of his pro-union credentials and not being shy about his pro-gun views.
The 3rd District primary suggest that Lipinski's conservative social views may not resonate as much as they used to in 3rd District - but that doesn't mean it won't resonate elsewhere. And I think a recent State Journal-Register article is on to something when it argues that social issues aren't necessarily important if the candidate cares about issues that matter the most in their district and is willing to fight for them.
While the Republican 3rd District primary didn't get as much attention as the Democrat primary, it still made the new - for all the wrong. The only candidate to jump into the race is Arthur Jones, an actual Nazi and a Holocaust denier. The Republican Party didn't bother to field a candidate in this heavily Democrat district, and, by the time Jones filed, there wasn't enough time for the Republican Party to field an alternative candidate. And while it was able to throw him off the ballot back in 2016, Jones got better at doing things by the book, so there was no ground to remove him.
The fact that Jones won the Republican nomination isn't surprising, since, again, he was the only one on the ballot. But what did surprise me is how many people voted for him. In suburban Cook County portions of the 3rd District, out of 18,691 ballots cast in the Republican primary, 13,218 voted for Jones. That's the majority of the voters.
Jones got 3,082 votes in the City of Chicago portions of the district. The City of Chicago Board of Elections doesn't break down how many ballots were cast in the 3rd District Republican Primary overall. It is possible to do a precinct-by-precinct comparison between, say, how many people voted for gubernatorial nominees and how many people voted for the congressional nominee - but, unless somebody is willing to pay me for it, I don't have time for that. But a look at ward-level data for wards that mostly fall within the 3rd District give us some hints. In 23rd Ward, a total of 743 people voted for either Rauner or Ives - and 539 voted for Jones. In 13th Ward, 590 people voted for the gubernatorial candidates - and 468 voted for Jones. 11th Ward - the most ethnically diverse ward of the three - 639 voted for the gubernatorial candidates and 371 voted for Jones.
Now, it may well be the case that a decent chunk of those voters voted for Jones just because he had an R next to his name on the ballot. Neither party exactly has a monopoly on partisan blindness. But in situations like this... Like I said, Jones made local and even some national news. The fact that so many people voted for him - either deliberately or out of ignorance/partisan kneejerk reaction - doesn't look good.
Incidentally, yesterday, I tweeted out what were then the total City of Chicago votes for Jones... and that tweet exloded. As of this writing, it's still getting likes and retweets. It is, by far, the most popular thing I ever tweeted out. Which is insane.
And if you're wondering how many 3rd District Republicans voted for the actual Nazi within Chicago city limits - 2,539, per Chicago Board of Elections #IllinoisPrimary
- Strannik (@Strannik_REB45) March 21, 2018
In other races... While some people were surprised that Toni Preckwinkle won in spite of her support for the unpopular sweetened beverage tax, I was not. I like Bob Fioretti personally from his days as 2nd Ward alderman, but Preckwinkle has way more name recognition and way more of a record fighting for the communities she represents. And, aside from the aforementioned tax, people just like her.
The fact that Joe Berrios lost Democrat nomination (and election, since no Republican is running against him) for Cook County Assessor isn't surprising, either. Sure, he's part of the Chicago Democrat Machine, but his backing of candidates didn't mean as much as it used to in the recent years, and the Chicago Tribune/ProPublica Illinois expose on his unfair assessment practices was pretty damn damning, especially since it confirmed a lot of what people in lower-income parts of Chicago have long suspected but have never been able to prove.
Bushra Amiwala, Muslim-American candidate for Cook County Board of Commissioners' 13th District that I profiled back in November lost to the incumbent by a pretty decent margin. The other candidate I profiled didn't win, either. I'm not surprised, because neither had that much experience, or name recognition, to show for it, and most of the voters didn't really have any reason to dislike incumbent Larry Suffredin. But I would be surprised if Amiwala, at least, doesn't appear on the ballot somewhere four, or maybe even two, years from now.
Suffredin now faces Republican nominee Chris Hanusiak. I know the guy from his time as a Village of Niles trustee, and while he has his principles and he hasn't been afraid to speak out against corruption and tax incentives, I don't see him getting that much traction outside Niles and some nearby suburbs.
And over in the Austin Weekly News area, I was surprised to see incumbent Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin (D-1) lose the Democrat nomination to Chicago Teachers Union organizer Brandon Johnson. Boykin led the opposition against the aforementioned Sweetened Beverage Tax. After the tax was repealed, the county made cuts, because if the revenue generated from the tax wasn't coming in, they would either have to raise the revenue some other way or... Suffice to say, the labor unions representing most of the affected workers weren't amused, so they backed challengers to Boykin and other commissioners who supported the repeal. And those commissioners lost.
I mostly knew Boykin from events and meetings he attended in Austin. He struck me as someone who would have been a moderate Republican if being a Republican in the majority-black neighborhoods that made up a decent chunk of his district wasn't ballot box poison. While I didn't agree with some of his positions, I didn't think he had a serious opposition. And, indeed, Boykin won in the city - by five percentage points, but he still won - but he lost in the suburban portion of his district. And that, combined with the relatively small margin of victory in the city, was enough to give Johnson a slim edge. He won by 302 (302!) votes, which is just another addition to my "and people who say their votes don't matter" pile.
And now... as Chicago Sun-Times' primary results special section kept pointing out, even in races where there were no Republican candidates, the local committees could slate some candidates. Whether they do it or wouldn't is another question, but, as a reporter, I always like surprises. Plus, there is the not-so-small matter of the actual Nazi running on a Republican ticket. Illinois GOP is exploring its options, because, even though Jones is not going to win, having him on the ballot is pretty embarrassing.
On to the general election
A couple of takeaways.
As I wrote on Twitter, as someone who grew up in the early 1990s Russia, I'm uneasy about an oligarch like J.B. Prtizker winning the Democrat nomination. And... well, I can't say I'm entirely surprised that he won by as large of a margin as he did, and that he did as well as he had in the black neighborhoods, given how much time and effort Chris Kennedy spent there. But, if nothing else, this primary has shown that he can get votes in Chicagoland and downstate, which is going to come in handy come general election. The fact that he will be able to match Bruce Rauner on ad and election spending would help.
Speaking of Rauner, I'm surprised that his victory over Jeanne Ives was as close as it was. Do Republicas dislike Rauner that much? Do cultural issues matter more in Illinois than I expected? I suppose the next few months may give us a better idea.
And then, there is the race that it seemed like the entire English-speaking world paid attention to (even the freaking Economist covered it, for God's sake) - the 3rd Illinois Congressional district primary between the more socially conservative incumbent Dan Lipinski and more socially progressive challenger Marie Newman. The race attracted plenty of outside interest, with pro-choice groups and several of Lipinski's Illinois colleagues backing Newsman and the incumbent getting support from some labor unions, the bad old-fashioned Chicago Democrat Machine and Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates. Lipinski ultimately defeated Newman, but by a pretty small margin - and, comparing the election data from suburban Cook County and the City of Chicago, most of Chicago went for Lipinski, and most of the suburban voters went for Newman.
The big part of the reason why this race got some much national (and even international) attention is the because it touched on the question of the Soul of the Democratic Party. Since Trump's victory, there has been lots of back and forth about what the party should do to recapture Congress and the presidency. Should it moderate on social issues - or, at least, allow candidates who are pro-gun rights and/or pro-life? Or should it become more left-wing on social issues because compromises got it nowhere and the socially progressive message will resonate? To me, the correct answer has been, and continues to be "whatever works best in the area in question." Democrats didn't raise too much of a fuss when a pro-gun, socially moderate Democrat defeated Bobby JIndal to become the Democrat governor of Louisianan. Most recently, Conor Lamp won in Pennsylvania by emphasizing the hell out of his pro-union credentials and not being shy about his pro-gun views.
The 3rd District primary suggest that Lipinski's conservative social views may not resonate as much as they used to in 3rd District - but that doesn't mean it won't resonate elsewhere. And I think a recent State Journal-Register article is on to something when it argues that social issues aren't necessarily important if the candidate cares about issues that matter the most in their district and is willing to fight for them.
While the Republican 3rd District primary didn't get as much attention as the Democrat primary, it still made the new - for all the wrong. The only candidate to jump into the race is Arthur Jones, an actual Nazi and a Holocaust denier. The Republican Party didn't bother to field a candidate in this heavily Democrat district, and, by the time Jones filed, there wasn't enough time for the Republican Party to field an alternative candidate. And while it was able to throw him off the ballot back in 2016, Jones got better at doing things by the book, so there was no ground to remove him.
The fact that Jones won the Republican nomination isn't surprising, since, again, he was the only one on the ballot. But what did surprise me is how many people voted for him. In suburban Cook County portions of the 3rd District, out of 18,691 ballots cast in the Republican primary, 13,218 voted for Jones. That's the majority of the voters.
Jones got 3,082 votes in the City of Chicago portions of the district. The City of Chicago Board of Elections doesn't break down how many ballots were cast in the 3rd District Republican Primary overall. It is possible to do a precinct-by-precinct comparison between, say, how many people voted for gubernatorial nominees and how many people voted for the congressional nominee - but, unless somebody is willing to pay me for it, I don't have time for that. But a look at ward-level data for wards that mostly fall within the 3rd District give us some hints. In 23rd Ward, a total of 743 people voted for either Rauner or Ives - and 539 voted for Jones. In 13th Ward, 590 people voted for the gubernatorial candidates - and 468 voted for Jones. 11th Ward - the most ethnically diverse ward of the three - 639 voted for the gubernatorial candidates and 371 voted for Jones.
Now, it may well be the case that a decent chunk of those voters voted for Jones just because he had an R next to his name on the ballot. Neither party exactly has a monopoly on partisan blindness. But in situations like this... Like I said, Jones made local and even some national news. The fact that so many people voted for him - either deliberately or out of ignorance/partisan kneejerk reaction - doesn't look good.
Incidentally, yesterday, I tweeted out what were then the total City of Chicago votes for Jones... and that tweet exloded. As of this writing, it's still getting likes and retweets. It is, by far, the most popular thing I ever tweeted out. Which is insane.
And if you're wondering how many 3rd District Republicans voted for the actual Nazi within Chicago city limits - 2,539, per Chicago Board of Elections #IllinoisPrimary
- Strannik (@Strannik_REB45) March 21, 2018
In other races... While some people were surprised that Toni Preckwinkle won in spite of her support for the unpopular sweetened beverage tax, I was not. I like Bob Fioretti personally from his days as 2nd Ward alderman, but Preckwinkle has way more name recognition and way more of a record fighting for the communities she represents. And, aside from the aforementioned tax, people just like her.
The fact that Joe Berrios lost Democrat nomination (and election, since no Republican is running against him) for Cook County Assessor isn't surprising, either. Sure, he's part of the Chicago Democrat Machine, but his backing of candidates didn't mean as much as it used to in the recent years, and the Chicago Tribune/ProPublica Illinois expose on his unfair assessment practices was pretty damn damning, especially since it confirmed a lot of what people in lower-income parts of Chicago have long suspected but have never been able to prove.
Bushra Amiwala, Muslim-American candidate for Cook County Board of Commissioners' 13th District that I profiled back in November lost to the incumbent by a pretty decent margin. The other candidate I profiled didn't win, either. I'm not surprised, because neither had that much experience, or name recognition, to show for it, and most of the voters didn't really have any reason to dislike incumbent Larry Suffredin. But I would be surprised if Amiwala, at least, doesn't appear on the ballot somewhere four, or maybe even two, years from now.
Suffredin now faces Republican nominee Chris Hanusiak. I know the guy from his time as a Village of Niles trustee, and while he has his principles and he hasn't been afraid to speak out against corruption and tax incentives, I don't see him getting that much traction outside Niles and some nearby suburbs.
And over in the Austin Weekly News area, I was surprised to see incumbent Cook County Commissioner Richard Boykin (D-1) lose the Democrat nomination to Chicago Teachers Union organizer Brandon Johnson. Boykin led the opposition against the aforementioned Sweetened Beverage Tax. After the tax was repealed, the county made cuts, because if the revenue generated from the tax wasn't coming in, they would either have to raise the revenue some other way or... Suffice to say, the labor unions representing most of the affected workers weren't amused, so they backed challengers to Boykin and other commissioners who supported the repeal. And those commissioners lost.
I mostly knew Boykin from events and meetings he attended in Austin. He struck me as someone who would have been a moderate Republican if being a Republican in the majority-black neighborhoods that made up a decent chunk of his district wasn't ballot box poison. While I didn't agree with some of his positions, I didn't think he had a serious opposition. And, indeed, Boykin won in the city - by five percentage points, but he still won - but he lost in the suburban portion of his district. And that, combined with the relatively small margin of victory in the city, was enough to give Johnson a slim edge. He won by 302 (302!) votes, which is just another addition to my "and people who say their votes don't matter" pile.
And now... as Chicago Sun-Times' primary results special section kept pointing out, even in races where there were no Republican candidates, the local committees could slate some candidates. Whether they do it or wouldn't is another question, but, as a reporter, I always like surprises. Plus, there is the not-so-small matter of the actual Nazi running on a Republican ticket. Illinois GOP is exploring its options, because, even though Jones is not going to win, having him on the ballot is pretty embarrassing.
On to the general election