ArchPundit

10 Responses to “ What Happened IL-3 ”

1. # 1 Ramsin Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   Thanks friend. Great wrap up. Ironically, the “netroots” organizing model seems to work better on the large non-local scale than the small, local scale.

2. # 2 ArchPundit Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   Hard to say. I do think many have overblown views of what the internet can do when it comes to local races.

   They can change the narrative and raise money and recruit volunteers. Beyond that you need to have a good ground operation and effective communication.

   I tend to think Pera had that, but probably the wrong strategy for the this type of election–with this many low information voters, I have to think that TV is the only way to go–your universe is too small for mailing lists.

   That said, it’s really hard to do effective TV in a race like this.

3. # 3 Rob_N Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   Ramsin,

   There are several local offices like village and township boards in which DFA’ers and others organized very successfully and surprised a lot of folks (2005 municipal races in particular). And, in other states Congressional and Senate races were put over the edge thanks in part to “netroots” efforts.

   Like any campaign, it likely depends more on the district (the locale, the demographics) than the office per se.

4. # 4 dan l Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   —-
   Given the anemic description of Lipinski’s campaign, the only answer I have is that this was a case of low information voters coming out and voting for the familiar name.
   —-

   Because high information voters would have inevitably chosen Pera? This netroots sense of entitlement is kind of amazing. The seat was never destined for Pera, regardless of what markos wants.

5. # 5 ArchPundit Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   ===Because high information voters would have inevitably chosen Pera? This netroots sense of entitlement is kind of amazing. The seat was never destined for Pera, regardless of what markos wants.

   No, because the polling pretty much shows that once people know of an alternative to Lipinski, they prefer it.

6. # 6 dan l Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   —-
   No, because the polling pretty much shows that once people know of an alternative to Lipinski, they prefer it.
   —-

   Being from the area, I find that extremely difficult to believe.

   It’s very much Go-Go Status Quo.

7. # 7 ArchPundit Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   Here’s a poll I posted about some time ago–and it is very similar to results John Sullivan had in 2006:

   01 Likely Democratic Primary voters +/- 5%

   Lipinski Re-elect 35 percent
   Wrong Track: 81 percent

   Generic Congressional Approval: 37 percent

   82 percent Less likely to vote for Lipinski on the issue of choice once they learn that he opposes a woman’s right to choose and supports criminalizing abortion even in cases of rape or incest

   83 percent Less likely they would vote for Lipinski after they learned that he voted for the Bush energy proposal and voted to allow drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge

   76 percent Favor a mandate calling for a pull-out of troops from Iraq beginning immediately with all troops out within a year as well as a cap on war funding to ensure the Bush Administration meets that goal

   17 percent Favor a proposal calling for a complete pullout within five years and no cap on funding.

   To put these in context, the District is rated +10 D by Cook, voted for Al Gore with 58% of the vote, and voted for Kerry with 59% of the vote.

   The problem is that there are few organized ways to reach voters in the 3rd to get the message out.

8. # 8 dan l Says:
   February 7th, 2008 at

   —-
   The problem is that there are few organized ways to reach voters in the 3rd to get the message out.
   —-

   ….and once voters find out it’s some foreigners medaling in their affairs, they’re going to be pissed.

   Make no mistake: That ridiculous winger missive with the “political punk” comments is over the top – but is not without a modicum of truth to the prevailing attitude in the area.

9. # 9 Ramsin Says:
   February 8th, 2008 at

   I agree with Arch–the “low information voter” thing, while often very annoying (it is essentially saying people are dumb) in a case like this it has a very literal meaning, because opinion polling on issues would have made Pera a more “natural” choice for voters.

   But, of course, that’s not how voters vote.

10. # 10 HeyOh Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at

    The ward and township breakdowns are posted now.

    Lipinski ran under his 2006 percentages in every ward and township except:

    Up 16 points in the Nineteen Ward and 7 in Worth Township.

    More votes were cast in the suburbs.