Atanus Won!

Foolmewunz said:
That part's a given. It's still Illinois and it's still 2014, right? The part being questioned is whether there's any evidence that the Democrats in that district turned out in those numbers and that they're on record as saying they voted for the fundie.
Click to expand...

“My advice is that, if you are a suburban or downstate Democrat or Independent and you care about public education, you should vote in the Republican Primary for Kirk Dillard,” said Illinois Education Association President Cindy Klickna in the union’s endorsement of Dillard.

These people are Jan Schakowsky's bread and butter. do you think that when they pulled the Republican ballot they also voted for the more credible Republican candidates or the nut jobs?
 
Foolmewunz said:
I think it's a safe Democratic seat. Re-districting had almost no impact on the last election. The Disenfranchise 'Em movement isn't going to have any effect on suburban Chicago, especially those particular suburbs. Guess what minority is real big in places like Skokie. Does the name ring a bell?
Click to expand...

IIRC that is where Kaiser Soze was in a barbershop quartette.
 
16.5 said:
The fact is that virtually no democratic candidates had primary opponents, so lots of democrats crossed party lines to vote for this nut job, as well as to attempt to defeat Bruce Rauner.
Click to expand...

Rauner is self defeating

(Oberwies, also. Love his milk, hate his politics)
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
That part's a given. It's still Illinois and it's still 2014, right? The part being questioned is whether there's any evidence that the Democrats in that district turned out in those numbers and that they're on record as saying they voted for the fundie.
Click to expand...
2014 Primary

Jan Schakowsky unopposed - 17,828 votes 42%

GOP combined votes - 24,580 58%

----------------------------------------------------

2012 Election Results

Jan Schakowsky - 119,934 60%

Timothy C. Wolfe - 80,883 40%


So either there was a huge sea change in the 9th District and it is now solidly GOP or a lot of Dems were voting in the GOP primary. I know which I think is more likely, YMMV
 
WildCat said:
2014 Primary

Jan Schakowsky unopposed - 17,828 votes 42%

GOP combined votes - 24,580 58%

----------------------------------------------------

2012 Election Results

Jan Schakowsky - 119,934 60%

Timothy C. Wolfe - 80,883 40%


So either there was a huge sea change in the 9th District and it is now solidly GOP or a lot of Dems were voting in the GOP primary. I know which I think is more likely, YMMV
Click to expand...
Apparently. I didn't think those "let's vote for the worst guy in the other primary so our guy will win the general" efforts ever panned out.

So who's going to start posting tweets @anus?
 
WildCat said:
2014 Primary

Jan Schakowsky unopposed - 17,828 votes 42%

GOP combined votes - 24,580 58%

----------------------------------------------------

2012 Election Results

Jan Schakowsky - 119,934 60%

Timothy C. Wolfe - 80,883 40%


So either there was a huge sea change in the 9th District and it is now solidly GOP or a lot of Dems were voting in the GOP primary. I know which I think is more likely, YMMV
Click to expand...
Or you are comparing a midterm election to a presidential year, and the two are almost impossible to relate. The turnouts are almost an order of magnitude different.

Daredelvis
 
16.5 said:
But it is cool. I actually live in that precinct. And I talked to people on Saturday, Monday and Tuesday who had pulled Republican ballots to vote for this nutjob and Dillard.
Click to expand...
I don't find your anecdotal evidence convincing but I must say that WildCat's statistics are, if not persuasive, damned informative.

In short, I don't fully disagree with your earlier assertion.

Also, let me add that I think jj is being wildly naive in this situation. Schkowsky (sp?) will win this walking away even if she dies before the election.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
I don't find your anecdotal evidence convincing but I must say that WildCat's statistics are, if not persuasive, damned informative.

In short, I don't fully disagree with your earlier assertion.

Also, let me add that I think jj is being wildly naive in this situation. Schkowsky (sp?) will win this walking away even if she dies before the election.
Click to expand...

Not sure what is so controversial about it. They are Illinois democrats, jobbing elections is something they learn with mother's milk.

we were laughing about it on St. Patrick's day.
 
WildCat said:
2014 Primary

Jan Schakowsky unopposed - 17,828 votes 42%

GOP combined votes - 24,580 58%

----------------------------------------------------

2012 Election Results

Jan Schakowsky - 119,934 60%

Timothy C. Wolfe - 80,883 40%


So either there was a huge sea change in the 9th District and it is now solidly GOP or a lot of Dems were voting in the GOP primary. I know which I think is more likely, YMMV
Click to expand...

1. Interesting numbers. Did you disqualify 100,000 voters? The Wiki page on that election has it as 198,000 (D) and 99,000 (R). 66% - 34%. That tends to better support your contention, but we strive for accuracy here in Politics.

But looking at '12 v. '14 with the elections you've chosen is kind of like comparing the seeds in a watermelon to those on a strawberry.

In the 2012 primaries, a Presidential Election year, the Dem primary (with a totally insignificant "challenger") attracted 52,000 votes. So Jan's loyalists apparently didn't turn out in the 2014 GOP primary. She got 52K in her own primary in '12 and 200K in the Gen'l Election.

This doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you've provided an in-apt comparison.
 
SezMe said:
Also, let me add that I think jj is being wildly naive in this situation. Schkowsky (sp?) will win this walking away even if she dies before the election.
Click to expand...

Well, you might consider something other than naivete...

But I won't exactly faint if the Democrat wins, either.

On the other hand, if this was Ohio ...
 
daredelvis said:
Or you are comparing a midterm election to a presidential year, and the two are almost impossible to relate. The turnouts are almost an order of magnitude different.

Daredelvis
Click to expand...
It's not the turnout that's important, it's the ratio of GOP vs. Dem votes.
 
Foolmewunz said:
1. Interesting numbers. Did you disqualify 100,000 voters? The Wiki page on that election has it as 198,000 (D) and 99,000 (R). 66% - 34%. That tends to better support your contention, but we strive for accuracy here in Politics.
Click to expand...
Yes, accuracy. That's why I went to the Illinois Board of Elections for my numbers. You went to Wiki? :rolleyes:
 
Foolmewunz said:
Did you go to a different Illinois Board of Elections Illinois 9th Congressional District Results 2012 Elections than this one:

http://ballotpedia.org/Illinois'_9th_Congressional_District_elections,_2012

That Illinois Board of Elections seems to confirm the results I mentioned and which is very likely the source of the Wiki article, since THEY AGREE 100%.
Click to expand...
D'oh! I followed a link from the BoE that took me here. I think that is just the suburban Cook County numbers. :blush:

At any rate it's even more lobsided using the total numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom