April 6, 2016
NO "TRUMP BUMP," OR "CLINTON SURGE" IN ILLINOIS PRIMARY

ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART

by RUSS STEWART

Mark Twain once remarked that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. To analyze politics, one must recognize bumps, damn bumps, and damnable statistics.

For Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the March 15 Illinois primary was bumpless and bumpy. Two myths were punctured. All those aging baby-boomer women who supposedly craved to have a woman president in their lifetime failed to give Clinton any bump. And a lot of angry, working-class anti-Obama white Democrats, who supposedly wanted to “send a message” to Washington, did give Trump a bump by flocking into the Republican primary – with minimal impact.

As detailed in the adjoining chart, the 2016 Republican primary turnout, in Chicago and the suburbs, was roughly double that of 2008. Turnout increased countywide by 139,847, from 172,235 to 312,082, but Trump got only 126,218 votes (40.4 percent). Some may argue that those 126,218 constitute “crossover” Democrats who took a Republican primary ballot to back Trump. But statistics don’t lie: 59.6 percent of the Republican voters rejected Trump. In some city wards and suburban townships (see chart), Trump’s vote hovered around a third. That’s no bump.

As for Clinton, her 2008 Illinois presidential primary drubbing by Barack Obama is explainable. Clinton, although born in Illinois, was an expatriate, and then New York’s senator, while Obama was then Illinois’ black junior senator. Obama crushed her 743,686-314,634 in Cook County, and 1,281,902-655,671 statewide, getting a huge minority vote. But 2016 was supposed to be different. 2016 was supposed to be the coronation of “Queen Hillary,” with all those past pro-Obama votes snugly in her purse. Symbolism was then and still is the rage and the mantra: America elected a black president in 2008, and it is time to elect a woman president in 2016. Never mind that vast numbers of people think that Obama as president has…well, to be diplomatic, shortcomings. Like humungous shortcomings. Like get that guy out of there. And Clinton, Obama’s secretary of state for four years, is Obama, Part II – a third Obama term. More of the same.

Yet it has become acutely clear that voters don’t want more of the same – even Democrats. Obama’s 2008 “change we need” is a non-starter in 2016. At an earlier presidential debate, Clinton was asked what she would “change” if president. “Look at me” was her answer, as if different chromosomes and skin pigmentation was all that was necessary.

On March 15, Clinton topped Bernie Sanders, a kooky 75-year old Vermont senator and avowed socialist, 628,147-531,864 in Cook County, and 981,418-953,112 statewide. You read that right. In Illinois, where the philosophy of Karl Marx is not quite discernable, home-stater Clinton beat Sanders by 28,306 votes in a turnout of 1,950,716. Even Bruce Rauner won by more than that. Yet the media mavens think she’s “inevitable”? Get real. In Chicago, where every ward Democratic committeeman, as well as the esteemed – and I use that term advisedly – Mayor Rahm Emanuel backed her, Clinton won by only 375,055-315,953, a margin of 59,102 votes. In the suburbs, Clinton won by just 253,092-215,911, a margin of 37,181 votes.

Sanders had no tangible campaign, no media advertising, no precinct operation, and no money. Clinton is on track to raise $1 billion. So the Illinois choice was simple: Do we, or do we not, want Hillary? Almost half the voters – and, remember, these are supposedly Democratic voters –  don’t want her. What about all those rabid, sexist Republicans who hate her guts?

As set forth in the chart, the Democrats’ non- or anti-Clinton vote, combined with the 1,385,000 Republican turnout, is about 532,000 in Cook County, 315,000 in Chicago, and 960,000 statewide. That puts Illinois’ anti-Clinton base at about 2.4 million   Of course, only about half of the voters turn out in primaries; on March 15, in both parties, it was about 3.3 million statewide. In November, turnout will be around 5.8 million statewide. And the pro-Sanders vote cannot logically be construed to be pro-Trump or pro-Republican. They simply don’t like her brand of pay-to-play politics, and don’t want Bill and Hill back in the White House. But Clinton should win Illinois.

However, one vote stat is telling: Maine Township. Clinton was born in Park Ridge, sand went to the local Maine Township high school, where she was a “Goldwater girl” in 1964. In 2008, she won the township, which includes Park Ridge and Des Plaines, 10,334-9,781 over Obama; on March 15, she topped Sanders 10,737-9,784. Here is Clinton, Obama’s heir apparent, and she gets 403 more votes than she got in 2008, and Sanders gets more votes than Obama. And on the Republican side, township turnout (see chart) surged from 8,173 in 2008 to 14,135 in 2016, with Trump getting 6,236 votes (44.1 percent). That’s a non- or anti-Clinton vote of 16,020, compared to Clinton’s 10,737.  Did somebody say “inevitable”?

But Trump has real problems. The presumption that tens of thousands – millions, nationwide -- of disaffected white Democrats will embrace his candidacy has not been borne out by voting statistics thus far. To be sure, there is a “Trump bump”; in Illinois ’ primary, Republican turnout over 2008 almost doubled.  It went from 895,000 in 2008 to nearly 1.4 million in 2016. In Chicago’s far northwest side 41st Ward, for example, crammed with police and firefighters, Republican turnout spiked from 3,517 in 2008 to 6,228 in 2016, an increase of 2,711, or 77 percent; Trump got 3,331 votes. In the Democratic primary, Sanders beat Clinton 6,683-5,985. Of the total primary turnout, one-third of the 41st Ward voters took a Republican ballot, but nearly half of those “Republicans” (2,897) didn’t vote for Trump.

“I didn’t want to vote for Hillary (Clinton),” one 41st Ward cop told me. “But I wanted to vote for Anita (Alvarez)” for state’s attorney. “So I took a Democratic ballot, and voted for Sanders.” In November, he said, “I’m for Trump.” Is he the norm? Or an aberration?

On Chicago’s Southwest Side, turnout was up; it spiked from 4,860 in 2008 to 10,289 in 2016, but Trump’s vote was 5,632 (54.7 percent). Were those “Trump Democrats”? Or were some of those anti-Trump Democrats voting in the Republican primary?

The same trend was obvious in the northwest suburbs and northwest side. In every township, 2016 turnout doubled over 2008, but in none did Trump’s vote nudge much past half. The more affluent the area, the lower his vote. In Maine Township, Trump got 44.1 percent; in Niles Township (Skokie, Lincolnwood), Trump got 40 percent; in Leyden Township (Rosemont and western suburbs), Trump got 54.5 percent; in Norwood Park Township (Norridge, Harwood Heights), Trump got 56.7 percent; in upscale Northfield Township (Glenview, Northfield), Trump got just 30.2 percent. And in the affluent far northwest suburbs, Trump got 42 percent in Schaumburg Township and 40.6 percent in Elk Grove Township.

And Clinton fared no better. Over Sanders, she won her ancestral Maine Township by 953 votes, Norwood Park Township by 9 votes, Niles Township by 1,105 votes, and, surprisingly, upscale Northfield Township, by 3,635. But she lost Leyden (342), Elk Grove (200) and Schaumburg (357) townships. Remember, these are Democrats voting in a Democratic primary…and they’re not voting for her.

In Chicago, the trend was identical. Back in 2008, when she opposed Obama, Clinton won the 38th, 41st and 45th wards, as well as the 11th, 13th and 23rd (see chart).  On March 15, she lost every one of them to Sanders. In fact, she lost all 11 “white ethnic” wards.  She won only four white-majority Lakefront wards, and no Hispanic wards. It was Clinton’s 60-70 percent showing in the black wards and townships that provided her margin of victory. Outside of Cook County, meaning the collar counties and Downstate, socialist Sanders beat her roughly 439,000-377,000. Amazing. There’s a lot of Hillary-haters.

So what if the November choice is Clinton-Trump? That’s not, based on the Illinois returns, the usual least-worst choice. It’s more like a do-I-slash-my-wrists or do-I-cut-my-throat choice.

Thank you President Obama. You’ve definitely given us “change we need.” Our next president will be the most least-hated. Or is it the least most-hated? Whatever.

E-mail Russ@russstewart.com or visit his website at www.russstewart.com.