A forum for comments about Naperville news and issues.

Dems overtake DuPage

| 25 Comments | No TrackBacks

As recently as a few days ago, DuPage County clung to its belief that it was the greatest Republican stronghold in Illinois and one of the nation's reddest counties by hosting not one but two of the GOP frontrunners for the presidential nomination--John McÇain and Mitt Romney. Then election day came, and for the first time in history more voters in DuPage picked Democratic ballots than Republican. What's going on?

People voting in the Democratic primary outnumbered those participating in the GOP primary by 24,000. Of the county's 549,621 registered voters, 20 percent selected Republican ballots while nearly one-fourth voted Democratic.

What's the story beyond the numbers? Is it the historic nature of the Democratic primary--between a woman and a black--that made Republicans pull Democratic ballots? If so, were people voting FOR a particular Democrat or AGAINST a particular Democrat? What other reasons might explain the shift toward Democratic dominance in DuPage?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1683

25 Comments

I would guess that Ms Senger will have quite the fight on her hands in November if the weak Republican party in the area continues it's dismal efforts of late.

Sorry, A.D., the article on Carter is a one-sided hack job. I agree with you about not enough time having passed to judge the Clinton and Bush administrations. But the same is really also true of Carter, though, FWIW, historians and political scientists tend to put him somewhere in the middle. As for Bush, his legacy will rise or fall with what eventually happens in Iraq; things are going to have to get a whole heck of a lot better there, though, for it to be assessed as anything other than a big mistake.

Interesting take on the Clinton bond deal. I doubt he would have gotten much support on either side of the aisle for sinking government dollars into the private bond market, though. I also think your timing is off. The stock market was booming throughout Clintons' Presidency, but we didn't have a surplus until the last year or three of the second Clinton administration. So it was the stock market that created the surplus, not the other way around. For that matter, there wasn't even a real surplus when you remove Social Security from the equation.

Too many people look at things in isolation and never bother to connect the dots. Clinton administration spends to much buying back U.S. Treasury Bonds. Say the goverment issues a 30 year bond at par (100), then interest payments are made over the next 30 years and the bond will be retired at par. With interest rates in the mid-single digits it does not make sense to have repurchased those bonds at 130-135 or more. However, that is what the government did. A rational person would have bought the higher yielding investment grade corporate bonds to pay the interest owed and kept the difference.

Aside from wasting the surplus, it signals to the fixed income markets that there is a big buyer in the market with no regard for price. The spread between U.S. Government Bond and Corporate Bond yields becomes abnormally large, which is the problem Long-Term Capital Management had. This led to falling interest rates, which led to the stock market bubble, which led to rising interest rates, which led to bursting of the stock market bubble, which led to falling interest rates, which led to the housing market bubble, which led to rising interest rates, which led to the bursting of the housing market bubble. This bursting of the housing market bubble is what we are dealing with currently. Following the simple chain of events leads to the cause, which in this case just so happens to have it beginings in 1997, give or take a year.

Reread the Carter article and use the same logic and it will be easy to see why he is the worst President in history. Not enough time has passed to see if Clinton was a good President or not. Judging the current President in historic terms does not make any sense until we can see how all of his actions play out.

I don't think we should read too much into more Democrats voting in DuPage. I watched the news on cable election night and the commentators stated that in every single state there were more Democratic ballots being cast. It's not that DuPage voters are suddenly different, it's just that the ones who decided to vote were Democrats. When turnout is only about 25%, that means 3/4 of voters aren't being counted. It's not that they are Democrats now, they just didn't show up to be counted. In the general election I'm sure DuPage will be a Republican bastion once more.

I couldn't agree more with Satyen Motiani's post. I do however wish there was some type of alternate reality simulator to see what would happen if Ron Paul actually got elected. Things like abolishing the IRS and switching to the gold standard do sound interesting, but I can't see it being anything other than a train wreck in practice.

This is no surprise to me. Many DuPage voters are fed up with the increasingly hard-line stance of conservative candidates on foreign policy and social issues. As a young voter, candidates like Mike Huckabee scare me, and the failures in Iraq lead me to the Democratic Party, especially since Ron Paul doesn't have a realistic chance of winning.

So long as Mayor Daley and Todd Stroger continue to tax and spend Crook County into oblivion, people will continue to move out of there and in to DuPage. The result, DuPage is going ever Democrat. Great - let the scandals begin.

On media bias, Dick Kay, former political analyst for NBC 5 and Jerry Springer both commented on election returns on the 820 - AM, the "Progressive" talk radio station during the 2/5 primary. Dick Kay is now working for Gov. Blago

Now, tell me again about media bias...

My 2 cents worth...

The IL Republican Party has almost completely imploded. It's almost non-existent. I personally felt dis-enfranchised in the US Senate race when they put some dude from PA get on the ballot against Obama after it seemed Jim Oberweis (the #2 in vote count in the primary) seemed the logical choice. Then you've got the licenses for bribes scandal that sent Ryan to prison, and who's standing next to him ? Jim Thompson. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

I was amazed when Judy Biggert's team called my house Monday night after she (or her staff) hadn't even bothered to respond to me about some legislative issues I asked them about last year. Judy and Mark Kirk didn't support the Pence Amendment, which would have defunded (at least from the federal government under Title X) Planned Parenthood. I would say all Republicans should have voted for this amendment on fiscal grounds alone, and it only lost by ~25 votes. So it's not like this was pushed by some "vast right wing conspiracy". But Judy and Mark Kirk did not, and voilla, we now have the Nation's largest PP in Denny Hastert's (former) district.

There have been lots of Democrats moving in from all over the state; it's a nice county to live in. If you were moving to Naperville from out of state (job relo for instance) wouldn't you choose to live in Naperville or Wheaton ? I'd say it's pretty likely they would definitely be on your list to check out. It just happens that a lot of these people are Democrats.

The days of Republican Dupage are almost over.

My 2 cents worth...

The IL Republican Party has almost completely imploded. It's almost non-existent. I personally felt dis-enfranchised in the US Senate race when they put some dude from PA get on the ballot against Obama after it seemed Jim Oberweis (the #2 in vote count in the primary) seemed the logical choice. Then you've got the licenses for bribes scandal that sent Ryan to prison, and who's standing next to him ? Jim Thompson. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

I was amazed when Judy Biggert's team called my house Monday night after she (or her staff) hadn't even bothered to respond to me about some legislative issues I asked them about last year. Judy and Mark Kirk didn't support the Pence Amendment, which would have defunded (at least from the federal government under Title X) Planned Parenthood. I would say all Republicans should have voted for this amendment on fiscal grounds alone, and it only lost by ~25 votes. So it's not like this was pushed by some "vast right wing conspiracy". But Judy and Mark Kirk did not, and voilla, we now have the Nation's largest PP in Denny Hastert's (former) district.

There have been lots of Democrats moving in from all over the state; it's a nice county to live in. If you were moving to Naperville from out of state (job relo for instance) wouldn't you choose to live in Naperville or Wheaton ? I'd say it's pretty likely they would definitely be on your list to check out. It just happens that a lot of these people are Democrats.

The days of Republican Dupage are almost over.

"Worst President: Carter (http://www.therazor.org/?p=822)"

Interesting link. Apparently, Carter was responsible for the economic mess during his Presidency, even though he inherited most of the problems that were supposed to have caused that mess (high inflation, high fuel prices, deficit spending, etc). Carter also is the President who appointed Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve. Volcker deserves much of the credit for the economic boom of the 80's. As for, lack of readiness on the part of the military, military spending under Carter was higher than it was under Gerald Ford.

"The current financial mess has its origins in Bill Clinton's term as President when they spent the surplus on way overpriced Treasury Bonds that were rising in price even though the Fed was increasing interest rates."

So Clinton is responsible for the nation's economy SEVEN YEARS after he left office? Hmmm. Also, I'm no economist, but I thought the sale of Treasury bonds are how the government borrows money (the Treasury is a department of the U.S. Government, after all). Why would the government be borrowing money when there's a surplus? Also, why would the government borrow money from itself? How does that work, even? For that matter, if the government is buying bonds at a high interest rate, that should be a good thing, because that would mean the government is earning a lot of money on those bonds; of course, since the government, in the form of the Treasury, is also PAYING that interest, it's a zero sum game.

Worst President: Carter (http://www.therazor.org/?p=822)

The current financial mess has its origins in Bill Clinton's term as President when they spent the surplus on way overpriced Treasury Bonds that were rising in price even though the Fed was increasing interest rates.

Forget all the political help Obama received from Rezko over the last 17 years and that he still owns the house Rezko helped him buy. He is more liberal than Clinton with serious flaws in his policies.

If the media properly focused on the issues, the two worst Democrats would not be the only ones left.

Hopefully, come November the hype is replaced by substance and the Democratic Candidate loses in a landslide. But he/she will still take Illinois because Chicago will always be vote early, vote often even if you are dead.

U.B.,

They already won. We now have DHS.

Socialism comes to DuPage County. By the way, one speech at a convention qualifies no one, including Barack, to be President of the United States. If I wanted the state to take care of me I would move to Cuba. Bush is certainly no prince but is a God next to either Obama or Clinton.

Iraq and the war on terror, tax cuts, gun control, borders, free speech and Supreme Court appointments are at this point in time of very great concern. Political rhetoric without substance equals a lack of true leadership. God help us if the socialists win in November.

Well, there again, it depends on what our definition of "terrorist" is. I'd lump the OKC and Anthrax attacks as rogue nutcase "terrorists". Otherwise, we'd need to count the Unabomber in there too.

But we digress. I agree with the other comments. I think a lot of people want to see Obama as president who are either Independents or Republicans who like what they see in Obama. So those people picked up a "Democratic" ballot. That's not the same as declaring oneself a "Democrat".

I'm an Independent who requested a Democratic ballot so that I could vote for Sen. Obama. In 2000 I voted for Sen. McCain during the primary. If Sen. Obama receives the Dem. nomination, then I will vote for him in November. Otherwise, I will vote for Sen. McCain.

If there is any doubt that Washington is broken, just read the posts on the below topic. People are desperate and will to try anything, even voting democratic. And then, in 4 years, if it is Washington as usual and the politicians have not addressed real issues such as social security, medicare, and out of control boondoggle spending....well, then we will give the republican crooks another try.

Just as we threw out the republicans in Springfield and got more of the same from the democrats, we will likely get the same from Washington.

We need term limits!!!

http://tinyurl.com/2xegdu

J,

The plans for those cuts to the military were drawn up during the Reagan/Bush years. Remember someone's theme back at the beginning of the War on Terror? (Do more with less)

Actually, j, you're wrong. A week after 9/11, a terrorist of some kind attacked numerous political and media figures with anthrax shipped through the mail.

The way I count it, the Clinton years had the same number (2) of terrorist attacks as the George W. Bush years did. Clinton was in office during the World Trade Center truck bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. Bush was in office during the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks.

Could it have anything to do with the media saying McCain would win by a sizeable margin days before the vote? Um, yes. The big turnout was because Billary and Nobama were neck and neck in Illinois.

Just to keep things in perspective: during the Clinton years, Bill proclaimed proudly about how they were balancing the budget by cutting Government jobs. It sounded great, but what got buried in the small print was that those "government jobs" were being cut out of our military. So naturally the next administration had to rebuild that after we'd been attacked.

Also keep in mind how many succesful terrorist attacks have been perpetrated in this country since 9/11. I count zero.

So you can say the Bush administration is a failure, but maybe "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is'.... is".

Maybe it has something to do with the huge job losses in this country and other anti- citizen /pro-business priorities of the Bush administration. As more jobs are offshored, more illegals allowed inside this country and more homes foreclosed, does anyone recall Bush blabbing how his tax cuts would create 300,000+ jobs a month. Last month, the US created a negative job growth and in December 07, the US created a dismal 18,000 jobs. The only people that are really helped by Bush are the wealthy; they love the Bush tax cuts.

I wouldn't read too much into it. The Democratic primary is more exciting and since you could ask for either party going into the booths it was easy to ask for a Democratic ballot (which I didn't).

Let me be clear on this: I am a Republican, but if Obama gets the nomination there's a very good chance I'll for vote for him. Not because he's from Illinois. Not because he's a Democrat, or black, but because I believe he is the type of leader this country needs right now.

The republican party is broken and has become just another political party of tax and spend. If we want tax and spend, we might as well vote democratic. The Democrats and Al-Qaeda could not have dreamed up a better recruiting tool than George Bush. He is without a doubt the worst president this country has ever seen. Massive budget deficits with BILLIONS more wasted in Iraq combined with failed leadership in Washingtom DC has resulted in millions of frustrated citizens flocking to the democratic party.

Judy Biggert, a supposed republican, is a tax and spend alcoholic who never saw a budget deficit she couldn't support. She has become a joke.

Ad to this the polictical corruption of the unions who launder money to support liberal democrats and even some liberal republicans and the country is going down a rat's hole.

Can the democrats do any worse? Probably, but you can be assured they will get a chance come November after the BUSH nightmare.

We can only hope that many of those democrats who will be elected will be responsible Blue Dog democrats like Melissa Bean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

Note from host:

We're allowing this post, with the understanding that we think the commenter probably meant to say he thinks Biggert is a tax-and-spend-aholic, which we would interpret as an opinion about her votes and positions. We would not allow the post if we felt the commenter 's use of the word alcoholic was a literal description.

What is going on?

1. A primary being held too early - in the middle of winter rather than in the spring.

2. A rather quiet Republican race, compared to the Clinton-Obama media circus.

3. A biased media, trying to energize and influance Democratic votes. Don't snicker; ever since the Sun Times took over the Naperville sun, the Naperville Sun has been getting worse.

I assure you that Republicans and conservatives will be out in full force to vote against the She-Devil (Clinton) and this generation's Jimmy Carter (Obama)

Note from Moderator: Sure, blame it on the "biased" media. It's always the media's fault. ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.

The voting was no suprise. It was a hhuge Democrat event with a serious aprtially black candidate and woman candidate to select from and BOTH being "homers". Also, there was a lot of buzz around town that there was a Republican move to vote for Ms Clinton.

I was more perplexed by the sensationalist headline of the Sun ("Shocker in DuPage as 30,000 more voters went Dem..."), when the article itself set the number at 23,113 (and the post above at 24,000).

Can anyone in editing add and subtract? Or even talk to each other?

Sloppy, lazy, don't care.........?

Leave a comment

Naperville Potluck

The Sun invites you to share opinions about news and issues. Have a question? E-mail us.  

Pages

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Naperville Sun editors published on February 7, 2008 6:46 AM.

Election '08 . . . the day after post-mortem was the previous entry in this blog.

Naperville referendum in select company is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.