The simple answer is it was a good ass kicking, but let’s look at some numbers:
2006 Cook County overall Democratic Turnout 228,418
2008 Cook County overall Democratic Turnout 439,008
Cook County Increase in Democratic Turnout 92% Increase
2006 Chicago Turnout overall Democratic Turnout 390,891
2008 Chicago overall Democratic Turnout. 637,031
Chicago Increase in Democratic Turnout 62% Increase
3rd District Numbers
2006 Cook County 3rd 35,829
2008 Cook County 3rd 59,369
Cook County 3rd Increase 66%
| 59,369 |
2006 Chicago 3rd 45,721
2008 Chicago 3rd 55,280
Chicago 3rd Increase 21%
Lipinski Numbers
2006 Cook 18,956
2008 Cook 30,080
Cook Increase 59%
2006 Chicago 25,445
2008 Chicago 31,594
Chicago Increase 24%
There aren’t any easy answers there. Pera underperformed his Ided voters a bit, but was in the ballpark. The problem is that you expect to hit those numbers and then exceed them.
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. The increased mobilization in the District was lower than the average overall and Lipinksi didn’t get a significant boost overall in percentages.
By those standards it doesn’t appear that Lipinski did anything amazing in terms of improving his standing, he just stayed even with past performance.
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.
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.
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.
—-
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.
===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.
—-
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.
Here’s a poll I posted about some time ago–and it is very similar to results John Sullivan had in 2006:
The problem is that there are few organized ways to reach voters in the 3rd to get the message out.
—-
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.
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.
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.