DuPage In Transition - Demographics And Politics Foreshadow Political Diversity
[Cross-posted at WurfWhile.com]
I became politically active locally almost three years ago with the Howard Dean campaign. I remember attending my first meetings at the township level and talking about Howard, and what his campaign represented. While generally received well, I found that people who had spent many years with the local Democrats were concerned that newcomers like myself would be gone with the presidential campaign. I, and a number of others from the DuPage for Dean campaign, stayed involved.
Dean supporters and other Democratic activists have sought to reinvigorate progressive politics in DuPage, and while we have made progress, it has fallen short of electoral success. We have, from time to time, reevaluated what it is we're doing, and discussed how to do it better. Its from analysis over the years that I feel confident in saying:
Things are about to change in DuPage.
I wish that a lot of the hardworking people who have devoted tremendous amounts of time and energy over the years working for progressive change in DuPage could get more of the credit. Their effort deserves recognition, and it has helped. But the change that is coming is not primarily my work, or the work of those who have worked with me, or even those whose work I have admired but not directly participated in. If we have worked with sticks scratching the ground to plant seeds, the change that is coming is a plow, and it will magnify our efforts and offer more meaningful harvest. The change is demographic and political - and it will revolutionize DuPage politics beginning (and perhaps winning) in 2006 and in 2008.
The Evidence
Demographically DuPage has turned increasingly Democratic as people from around the country move here and people from Chicago move to the suburbs. As DuPage loses older residents it tends to lose more Republicans. While Demographics alone likely would produce competitive races over time, political considerations accelerate the trend.
Politically Republican DuPage and Democratic Chicago have often left each other alone, each party ceding political influence over geography to the other. DuPage, while the second biggest county for Democratic votes in Illinois, has always lacked basic funding and infrastructure from the state Democratic Party. Likewise, the Cook County Republican organization this year had less money in the bank at one juncture than each of a number of Township Democratic organizations in DuPage. While the status quo no doubt reflects political wisdom and calculations, those calculations changed November 2004.
Christine Cegelis' 2004 campaign against Congressman Henry Hyde in the 6th Congressional District (encompassing DuPage and parts of Cook County) showed that demographic change combined with an unpopular president (and a disastrous U.S. Senate candidate) had worked wonders. While some Democratic nay-sayers have pointed to Christine receiving fewer votes than John Kerry in the district (a 3% gap) - that misses the point (see below). DuPage voters have been increasingly willing to vote for Democrats at the top of the ticket, but votes trail off for those lower down, where funding for Democrats (and name recognition) has been virtually non-existent. There was no reason that Christine Cegelis should have name recognition with her limited campaign dollars. There was every reason that Henry Hyde, the congressman since 1974, should win based on name alone. Christine coming up with over 44% of the vote was earth shattering for DuPage. It proved votes were there for a Democrat at the congressional level with adequate funding - something voters in Hyde's district hadn't seen since before he was elected. After his first election, Congressman Hyde had always won by over 60% and as much as 75%, with the exception of the challenge he faced in 2000 against Brent Christensen, a lawyer with labor union and airline ties, who had lived in the district 33 years and spent $250,000. The 2000 election also was a referendum on Hyde's leading role in the unpopular Clinton Impeachment proceedings - something that was history in the minds of most voters by 2004, if it was remembered at all.
Congressman Henry Hyde's Winning Percentages
(see this pdf):
2004 (56%); 2002 (65%); 2000 (59%); 1998 (67%); 1996 (64%); 1994 (74%); 1992 (66%); 1990 (67%); 1988 (74%); 1986 (75%); 1984 (75%); 1982 (68%); 1980 (67%); 1978 (66%); 1976 (61%); 1974 (53%)
Local and state Democratic leaders saw the 2004 election in the 6th District and were impressed. This year we see the results. Four Democratic candidates have run for the 6th Congressional seat (one has dropped out). The current candidates, independent businesswoman Christine Cegelis, Wheaton College Professor Lindy Scott and the recently entered Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth all have better organization and funding than the vast majority of Democratic candidates that sought to defeat Congressman Henry Hyde. Far from a Democratic stronghold, contested Democratic primaries in the 6th District occurred only half the time in the last decade - and all those primaries had only two candidates.
Democratic Primaries in the 6th Congressional District
2004 (contested (2) Christine Cegelis (won), Tom Berry); 2002 (Tom Berry, uncontested); 2000 (contested (2) Brent Christensen (won), Tom Cramer), 1998 (no primary candidate), 1996 (Stephen De La Rosa, uncontested) 1994 (contested (2) Tom Berry (won), Keith "Jekyl" Petropoulos)*
* After hitting "Jekyl" I figured the larger point was made!
While it took Brent Christensen $250,000 to get 41% of the vote in 2000 (3% less than Al Gore in the district, and 6% less than Gore and Ralph Nader combined), Christine spent only $197,000 and got 44% of the vote in 2004 (3% less than John Kerry). Less money yielded a better percentage of the vote with less of a spread between the congressional candidate and the presidential candidate (most of the 3% Nader vote was likely Democratic). Christine Cegelis' campaign sent a message: Democratic positions and values can win in the 6th Congressional District.
Beyond the 6th Congressional District
The 6th Congressional District isn't necessarily representative of DuPage, and includes parts of Cook County, but it is the harbinger of things to come. The 14th District of GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert, covering a small part of DuPage, is hardly a traditional place to find numerous Democrats seeking office. Despite long odds, there has been an energetic Democratic primary race with three candidates (two that remain). The active candidates, John Laesch, who has developed an organization quickly and looks to be the front-runner and Ruben Zamora, who ran an intense campaign for the seat in 2004, are both articulate progressives running serious, if underfunded, races. Neither candidate has illusions about their chances, but both are running to win and see merit in pinning Congressman Hastert down in his district - something deserving the thanks of all Democrats and progressives.
If the 6th and 14th District races have attracted the most attention until now, it's the 13th Congressional District that could be the most telling - if only because it lacks the 'Cegelis breakthrough factor' and has better odds than the 14th District. The 13th District is largely in DuPage County, with parts of Will and Cook Counties. The race against incumbent Congresswoman Judy Biggert (first elected in 1998) has attracted two Democrats, setting up a primary between Bill Reedy, a Downers Grove businessman and former minister, and lawyer Joseph P. Shannon, a partner at Dolan & Shannon, who lives Woodridge, and previously lived in Naperville for about eight years. Both candidates will be better funded and organized than Gloria Andersen's campaign against Congresswoman Biggert in 2004, which raised $37,000 and lacked even rudimentary staff, but still got 35% of the vote (the Biggert campaign spent $543,000). The winner of the Democratic primary will likely face Representative Biggert, who faces a primary challenge on her right from Bob Hart, a Naperville architect who was a write-in candidate in 2004 and will run on an anti-abortion platform.
Three contested congressional Democratic primaries in DuPage in one year - with nine candidates participating (seven left) - and other high caliber candidates seriously considering running. It is no stretch to say there were people that never would have believed it would happen. Ever.
The Future
While one (maybe two) Democratic wins are possible in 2006, I expect we will have at least one Democratic congressional representative by 2008. Optimistic? Perhaps. Realistic? Yes. Demographic changes, candidate quality and the political environment have improved that much.
What will take longer is for state and local level races to catch up to the demographic and political trends, but they will. With at least one Democratic congressional representative, DuPage will begin to build the infrastructure necessary to develop future Democratic officeholders. The people I have worked with these past few years have often recognized the deficit local DuPage Democrats face, locked out of power at many levels of local, state and national government (the main exceptions being State Senator Don Harmon, who's district is mostly in Cook County, our statewide officials and our (statewide) U.S. Senators). A DuPage Democrat in congress will set the stage for greater competition in DuPage elections. Greater competition tends to foster greater accountability in elected officials, regardless of party. It's something we can all look forward to in DuPage.
16 comments:
Harmon will lose his bid for re-election, but in the primary
You should bring Howard Dean to DuPage for a visit and some well publicized speeches.
How the demographic changes will play out is real interesting though. Illinois goes contrary to the way the trends are in the rest of the country.
Read Fertile Ground by Charles Mahtesian in Government Executive. His final two paragraphs should be sobering for Dems. That they're not playing out this way in Illinois should be sobering for Republicans,
Democrats are not only concentrated in low-marriage states but also in low-marriage congressional districts. Consider this: As of 2002, 55 of the top 60 congressional districts ranked by percentage of married people were represented by Republicans. That disparity was manifested on Election Day when national exit polls revealed that the Democratic share of the two-party vote among married women (under 65) with children was 43 percent in 2004, down from 49 percent in 1992. Among married men with kids, the Democratic share was even more anemic at just 38 percent, down from 46 percent in 1992.
Since the New Deal era, the Democratic Party has been accustomed to thinking of itself as the nation's majority party. This was true enough for decades but today, as political analyst Rhodes Cook has pointed out, Democrats are at best the plurality party. That leaves Democrats with one last option if they hope regain their former status: The party needs to figure out why the Census Bureau's marriage and fertility data so closely mirrors the 2004 electoral landscape.
Maybe it's because the Democrats have kept Dean far away? Or at least he's not well covered when he visits Illinois? Daley, Maidgan, Blagojevich etc aren't fools I think. Pay attention to Rahm too.
Hiram -
Thanks for recognizing what I've said along along, that Demographic trends are driving the political winds in DuPage County, just as they have in the South Suburbs, Lake County and Will County.
We may just have to agree to disagree on how to interpret Cegelis' election results. I'll just point out that as CapitolFax reported Tuesday, Melissa Bean outperformed Kerry by 8 points while Cegelis underperformed him by 3 points, so your "down ticket argument" doesn't really hold water. Note too that Bean bested Gore's '00 showing in 2002.
As Miller goes on to point out, Cegelis's name recognition this August, after non-stop campaigning in a political vacuum, was only 28% among Democratic primary voters. You can bet your bottom dollar it's even lower among independents. That pulls the rug from beneath your argument -- voters can't be voting "for" Cegelis if they don't know who she is, they were voting against Henry Hyde (as you hint, he'd long worn out his welcome).
By the way, keep up the hard work.
As rosy as Wurf and YDD, like to paint things (and they may well be right), they seem to have overlooked the fact that all the Democratic Gains have come during a time of Republican free fall in unity and organization.
Sure you own every statewide office (I view JBT as a Democrat). But don't forget that you've had virtually no competition since 1998.
In Congressional seats (where there is competition, the state is pretty evenly balanced.
You can crunch numbers all you want (it is useful). The fact remains that Roskam and (McSweeney or Salvi) aren't tired old dogs, but hungry new candidates dedicated to reorganizing Republican districts.
But if y'all want to run against Crane and Hyde, go nuts.
To Bill, thanks for your comments - I honestly need to think about them with a clearer head than I currently have to understand what you're getting at with Dean (perhaps I will still have questions then). If I'm not missing the obvious please elaborate.
To Yellow Dog Democrat, thanks for your comments too. I have to say though that I think you misunderstand part of my argument.
You write: "We may just have to agree to disagree on how to interpret Cegelis' election results. I'll just point out that as CapitolFax reported Tuesday, Melissa Bean outperformed Kerry by 8 points while Cegelis underperformed him by 3 points, so your 'down ticket argument' doesn't really hold water. Note too that Bean bested Gore's '00 showing in 2002."
My "down ticket argument" is pretty simple - in the two recent races against Henry Hyde that were 'seriously contested' there was a drop off from the presidential votes to the 6th congressional votes. Yet the difference from Brent Christensen in 2000 to Christine Cegelis in 2004 was an improvement in total vote percentage (41% to 44%) and a decrease in the spread between the presidential vote from more than 3% to 3% (unless you believe Nader votes were all non-Democratic votes without Nader running). None of this has anything to do with Melissa Bean, who lives in a different district with a different profile and history. Nor do I make any argument as to why Cegelis' vote totals were better - other than to indicate that voters presumably knew that they were voting for a Democrat and not a Republican (I explicitly recognize in 2004 she was underfunded and likely had name recognition problems).
The poll you cite from Miller was far from perfect, but having said that it certainly is not positive news for Christine. Ceding that larger point to you (and Rich), I do have criticism of the first three points Rich makes about the poll. Here they are:
1st Point: "Just 28 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in her district knew who Christine Cegelis was. Remember, this is after her high-profile race against Hyde and a strong effort to keep her campaign going in the months since then. Cegelis has burned through a bunch of money in the past year to keep her name out there, but just over a quarter of Democratic primary voters recognized her name in August."
Christine's race was "high profile" after the 2004 general election vote - not before. There was one debate during the campaign to a restricted audience. Hyde refused to engage Christine during the 'race' limiting her media exposure. Christine had no money in the race (spending under $200,000).
Rich also writes "Cegelis has burned through a bunch of money in the past year to keep her name out there" - As of last reporting period it was about $100,000 spent since last election I think - add it to the $200,000 from the prior campaign and you still have a substantially underfunded candidate spending in the neighborhood of $300,000 for an election and a roughly one-year post-election effort.
2nd Point: "48 percent of those same likely Dem primary voters knew who Peter O'Malley was, even though he had never run for office before. O'Malley dropped out of the Democratic primary race a couple of months after the poll was taken (the poll was not conducted by or for O'Malley's campaign)."
O'Malley's a great name normally - you might even know one (I know one named Tim) - but I've never met a Cegelis that wasn't Christine. Having Pat O'Malley as a notable state politician who served ten years in the Senate and ran for governor in the 2002 Republican Primary makes for greater confusion in name recognition. Sure he was an out of district Republican and not a Democrat - but he also notably bucked his party from time to time - making him seem like an 'opposition' candidate. I'm not disparaging Peter O'Malley when I say that he wasn't able to run hard in the race (which is why he dropped out) - it defies belief that more people really knew Peter than Christine - even though Peter had run once, years before, for Dupage County Board. I'm not sure Peter even gathered petition signatures - and if he did I doubt it was many.
3rd Point: "Before he dropped out, the poll showed that O'Malley was leading Cegelis 26-19 (or 22-16 excluding "leaners") in the primary. Even with that high margin of error, a seven-point lead is still pretty solid - about an 86 percent probability that O'Malley was ahead and the result wasn't due to sampling error."
I've showed the error in point two. Put simply, since Peter wasn't running much, hadn't advertised much if at all (with what money?) and had significantly less overall press than Christine (given that she had run the election before), it's hard to imagine it could possibly be true.
extreme: don't be fooled into thinking that the even division of gop-dems in congress is due to better competition at this level. it's not. redistricting (as well as the traditional urban-rural divide) has more to do with our makeup in congress than competition; and congressional redistricting in illinois tends to be an afterthought.
moreover, i think you are a little too rosy about the illinois republican party. it's not merely the waft of scandal that permeates the illinois gop; they've missed the boat wrt all the gains made by republicans and the conservative movement outside the state (i know, i know, illinois is different; illinois is unique). they don't train activists like republicans elsewhere; they don't employ the ttp of republicans elsewhere; they aren't organized like republicans elsewhere. illinois republicans are much closer to illinois democrats organizationally than to republicans in most other states.
moreover, for whatever reason, illinois seems to have missed the intraparty conflict between economic and social conservatives that most other states went through in the 1980s and 1990s. it seems to me that this is unfolding now, so it's hard to tell how quickly republicans can recover and unite (it will take years, i would think).
having said that, it remains to be seen how well roskam will do. he's got the right ideas about the campaign *but* he's running into the same legacy problems that democrats are. obviously, the chambliss 02 (for its use of field and technology as well as running against a war hero) and bush 04 ohio models are attractive, but it remains to be seen if roskam has the ability to pull it off. these are grassroots-intensive models. it's important to remember that the ohio effort took years to develop, and the chambliss field team did herculean work. i don't see evidence of either in roskam's campaign.
Hiram, re: Dean
I think he's a disaster. Bring him to Dupage he could reverse the Democratic gains you see.
His greatest appeal would be to the isolationist, Pat Buchanen right and he'd just cement their alliance with the anit-war left.
He'd convince everyone else the National Democrats have gone to the dogs.
That's why the State's Democrats keep him away or under wraps when he shows up.
Re: my earlier comment - based on the timing of the poll, Peter O'Malley couldn't have been gathering petition signatures - my mistake in suggesting it was a possibility.
To Bill - suspected I was reading a sarcastic take, but hey, it was late. Dean is far from perfect - but he's also been demonized. One can argue how right he's been on the issues (he's not perfect) - but he's been better, and often earlier, than most other politicians on key issues (mistake of going into Iraq, healthcare, need for Democratic 50 state strategy, etc.)
Hiram -
I agree with you that people probably were confusing Peter O'Malley with other O'Malley's, and posted such on CapFax, although he might have picked up a little name recognition from his County Board race.
My point is that the Democratic gains against Hyde have less to do with the Democratic candidate than they do with demographic shifts in the district and increased voter dissatisfaction with Hyde.
And the earlier point made by another poster -- Roskam is no Hyde -- is well-taken. Roskam is a smart politician and a very hard, grassroots campaigner. He's far, far to the right, but good at concealing that fact from mainstream voters and the media.
Bored Now,
I agree with your point that the Congressional "parity" is due in large part to redistricting.
I'm not sure where you get that I have a "rosy" view of Republicans prospects here in IL.
We are a leaderless disaster. I just think that a good candidate and a good campaign can hold the 6th and 8th districts.
Your comments seem to point out that it is almost all about "organizing", with the job being easier to do around an exciting (or at least good) candidate.
I tend to agree. That is one of the reasons I'm so anti-Topinka. The party won't organize around an anchor sinking to the sea floor.
Having no ideological grounding, the Republican Party here has no leader, no ideas to run on, and/or no other organizing principle.
Therefore, it's only raison d'etre (at least in State Races) is the acquisition and holding of power. As Wurf and YDD point out, the Dems are far better than Reps at that game, and always will be.
I meant "take back" the 8th, BTW.
That'a all real interesting, but I think I'll put my money on Roskam and Biggert, two fine people and two excellent legislators.
Extreme Wisdom,
Re: Having no ideological grounding, the Republican Party here has no leader, no ideas to run on, and or no other organizing principle.
I read Major Garrett's The Enduring Revolution
How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation a few weeks ago.
Garrett's sees it's influence all over. Maybe Illinois Republican's should consider agreeing on a contract with Illinois.
Bill,
How about;
1. Constitutional Changes
a)A SPENDING CAP on all State & Local Government funds (Inflation+Population Growth)
2. Conversion of all Pensions to "Defined Contirbution" (Defined Benefit is unsustainable)
3. Binding Referenda/Initiatives - allowing voters to bypass our ossified & sclerotic poltical class.
A Bold Education/Tax Reform Plan
1. Abolition of Local Property tax for schools and education being funded 100% from the State, with an inflation indexed scholarship for each child - chosen by the family
2. Abolition of the School District and conversion of every school to an Independent Charter.
____
Feel free to add your own.
In a year with a Blago/Topinka race, a well-funded, credible conservative (I know - it's hard to conceptualize in IL), running on the Republican Platform and the items above, could split the Liberal vote and energize "good government" types on both sides of the aisle.
Even if that person lost (a strong likelihood), it would provide a "Goldwater" moment that Illinois' right sorely needs.
If you are going to dream, do it in the Extreme.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
This is a nice start. I'd like to see something radical with Medicaid because it's such a huge chunk of the budget.
There's got to be some good things going on in other States we could add.
I want to start a Medicaid thread here next year.
For now, I've been dithering away my xmas vacation blogging the past few days.
I gotta kick the habit for a while at least. My wife thinks I'm nuts.
Merry Christmas to you too.
The emerging Democratic contigent in DuPage will look different than the Chicago machine. Suburban interests will trump party ideology, especially in statehouse races but in US congressional races too. Think "Jack Franks" rather than "Carol Ronen"...or a slightly rightward "Melissa Bean" type of candidate rather than a "Jan Schakowsky".
Even in IL as a blue state, these legislators will act as "shadow RINOs" and duPage will be a "good ol' boys & girls" network of bi-partisan interests.
Look at what is happening in Will now. More often than you think, the likes of Weller and Moustis are teaming up with the likes of Halvorson and Walsh to protect their common interests, at the expense of party unity (on both sides) and the Chicago machine.
Post a Comment