North Shore congressional primary tight

[brooklynite]

Source: Chicago Tribune

A management consultant from Deerfield has opened up a lead in a North Shore Democratic congressional primary contest tonight.

With nearly 90 percent of the vote counted, Brad Schneider of Deerfield had 48 percent to 40 percent for Ilya Sheyman, a 25-year-old political activist from Waukegan.

John Tree of Long Grove had 8 percent and Vivek Bavda of Mundelein had less than 6 percent.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-north-shore-congressional-primary-tight-20120320,0,557352.story

[AleksS]

1. That's too bad. Ilya's a good progressive

That's too bad. Ilya's a good progressive, something we need more of in congress. Instead we get another pandering "worship the job-creators" GOP-lite.

Well. Maybe the votes aren't all in yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[Ken Burch]

2. A Schneider win would be a tragedy, guaranteeing a passion-free race in the fall.

It's completely disgusting to see a candidate pretend to be a "progressive" while attacking MoveOn from the right(Schneider's ads basically implied that MoveOn was this year's "international Communist conspiracy"...and NO Democratic campaign should ever use that kind of talk. MoveOn's role was far more legitimate than the wealthy hacks who bankrolled Schneider).

No Democrat should ever want to see a "management consultant" defeat an energetic, committed activist. Nothing good ever comes of an outcome like that. Nothing progressive is possible as a result.

It looks like Schneider's minions managed to sell the bogus line that he was entitled to the nomination for being older, blander, and richer.

It's going to be nearly impossible to keep the young people who worked for Ilya anywhere close to the Democratic Party now, since Schneider doesn't care about any of the things they believe in.

It's now strictly a fight for a victory in name in that district...great...the path that doomed us nationally in 2010.

How could this happen?

[RBInMaine]

7. It happened because the other guy got more votes. Can't have sour grapes or blame him.

[Ken Burch]

10. This is Illinois. You can't assume the other guy actually DID get more votes.

Or that massive pressure wasn't applied to force "the other guy" through.

Schneider's campaign acted as if he was simply entitled to the nomination from the get-go.

That should bother you.

[brooklynite]

11. ...or just MAYBE...

..a district held by a Republican isn't that progressive.

[Ken Burch]

12. This district isn't the same district that the 'pug took in 2010.

It was drawn to be a DEM district.

Now, that can't happen, since no one is going to feel any enthusiasm about the guy the hacks forced through.

Why would ANYONE want a "management consultant" to be a Democratic nominee?

[brooklynite]

13. True, but...

...it's also not a solid Blue Democratic district.

[Ken Burch]

14. Sheyman could have won in the fall if the "pros" got behind him

It was never a choice of the blander, less-progressive candidate or defeat.

[joshcryer]

15. Lake County is all paper ballots.

Only parts of Cook County, Prospect Heights, Northbook, Wheeling, have mixed paper ballots and DREs with VVPAT.

If you're going to allege fraud, please provide evidence rather than unsubstantiated supposition.

[Ken Burch]

16. Sheyman was 18 points ahead in the last poll

SOMETHING weird had to have happened. If not fraud, some sort of massive pressure from the state party(which is normally expected, in most state, to be neutral in contested primaries)had to have been applied.

It's not as if Schneider had anything special to offer.

[joshcryer]

17. PPP apologized for their failed poll.

There's 2 reasons I think this may have benefited Sheyman. The first is that on the message testing poll a much higher percentage of Schneider supporters hung up in the middle of the call than Sheyman ones, presumably because they thought the poll was being too negative to him, even though the poll tested negatives against both candidates and was nothing out of the ordinary for the polls we conduct. I think it's possible that when we called again for the tracking over the last week Schneider voters may have been more reluctant to participate. We actually had a different person record the tracking poll than the message poll so people previously called would hear it with a fresh ear but there may have still been some aspect of that.

The 2nd reason I think respondent fatigue would have helped Sheyman's numbers is that we did continuously find that his supporters were more excited than Schneider's were, and that may have extended to their being more excited to answer polls than Schneider's were too.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/our-polling-in-il-10.html

Fraud is a big deal. If it happened it needs to be investigated rather than rumor mongered when our guy loses.

For what it's worth I was disappointed when I saw Sheyman lost and I thought he was a shoe-in, myself.

[Wilms]

18. Like paper ballots provide security?

More like a false sense of it. What was used in FL2000 and OH2004? Paper.

If you're going to assert security, please provide evidence rather than unsubstantiated supposition.

[joshcryer]

25. Paper ballots allow for transparency and for observers.

DRE voting machines don't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Politico reporting Sheyman has called Brad Schneider to concede

https://twitter.com/#!/HotlineJosh/status/182285906672234496

[Ken Burch]

4. Well, he's a good sport.

And he'll work for Schneider....Schneider would never have worked for Ilya.

I knew you'd enjoy it that the hack won.

You can't deny that this result is a slap in the face to the young in that district.

[AleksS]

5. The young, the progressives, anyone not a republican.

It's a slap to anyone not a republican, really.

I mean this Schneider guy has donated to repub. candidates (recently too, 2010, IIRC) and is GOP in all but name. Well. I mean, I guess that's at least better than having someone who's ALSO republican in name. I mean, he counts towards deciding who the speaker is, and anything to keep that overgrown oompah-loompah Boehner away from the gavel. But that's the only reason to prefer this Schneider guy that I can think of.

[Ken Burch]

6. I just don't get how any Dem voter could ever forgive a candidate

who donates to the other side?

[RBInMaine]

8. Then why didn't those PRIMARY voters vote for Sheyman? Wish they had, but a race is a race.

[Ken Burch]

9. Remember, this is Illinois.

You can't assume those people DIDN'T cast their votes for Ilya.

I'm wondering what kind of pressure the state party leadership applied in those last few days to get what they wanted in the 10th.

It looks like the progressive candidate was once again "Cegalised" in Illinois(and somebody's going to show up here arguing that all the arrogant hardball is ok because their tolerance of two or three token progressives in the Illini Congressional delegation Jan makes imposing centrist hacks in the important races acceptable.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Are you suggesting that the Democratic Party committed election fraud?

[angel123]

21. The reason could have been that there were two progreesives competing against each other.

I will not vote for Brad in the hope that Dold wins again, then we can try again in two years. If Brad wins this term, we may be stuck with him for years. I am more concerned about the 10th district. Brad is to close to Nethanyahu. After the way he insulted our president, I have no use for him.

[Ken Burch]

23. I don't take it that far-not voting for Schneider won't help anything.

n/t.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. It was a slap in the to those who wanted to nominate a candidate who is unelectable in

a swing district.

[Ken Burch]

20. How do you know he was unelectable?

It's not like the choices were a bland centrist or certain defeat. ANY candidate is electable if the party gives that candidate its full support.

Schneider was never the only electable candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. How many swing districts are currently represented by progressives?

[Ken Burch]

24. In the Eighties, Paul Simon was elected to the Senate from Illinois and Tom Harkin from Iowa

at a time when those states were solidly "Red States&quot we hadn't carried Illinois for the Democratic ticket in 20 years by the time Simon was elected in '84, and Iowa went for Reagan in '80 and '84 while electing Harkin).

Taking a swing congressional district, as compared to a hostile entire state, is a much simpler task. Grayson managed it in '08, but the party basically wrote him off in '10.

And some swing districts in Washington and Oregon have been made solidly Dem by progressive incumbents.

It's not like Sheyman was running in rural Arkansas.

(point to ponder...if Dold is re-elected in the 10th this fall, it may well be because the Illinois Dems wasted money that they could have used to get behind any Dem nominee and make that nominee competitive in an arrogant effort to impose THEIR preferred nominee at all costs. That's probably why Tammy Duckworth failed in the 6th in '08 after the Illini Dems moved heaven and earth to impose HER as the nominee over Christine Cegelis.)

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Grayson was running against a scandal-tainted incumbent in a year when when Republicans were

much more disliked than Democrats.

Iowa and Ohio have been swing states, won by both parties for governor and President.

What makes you think that Sheyman can do what no other progressive can do anywhere in the country, win in a swing district?

[Ken Burch]

28. Republicans are much more disliked than Democrats THIS year

The approval ratings for the Boehnerhaus have been below 20% for months now.

And the examples of Harkin and Simon I gave you above proved that progressive candidates can flip swing and(in Simon's case at the time)deeply "Red" states. Compared to their accomplishment, flipping a few votes in a swing district is not THAT difficult.

And you can't assume that swing voters in a swing district are rabidly anti-progressive. They may vote "R" because the 'pug incumbent is personally powerful(this is what re-elected Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield to the Senate in an Oregon that was turning bluer and bluer throughout their careers) or the past Dem candidates in the district may simply have not had effective organizations, or not received the backing they were entitled to from the state Dem organization(this is why Christine Cegalis got 44% against Henry Hyde-higher than any D had pulled against Hyde for decades-rather than actually pulling off the outright upset she could have achieved WITH full party backing).

So no, we DON'T have to nominate only anti-progressives in swing districts. To follow THAT strategy(centrists only in swing seats)is to assume that the discussion is over for all eternity, that the Right has won the argument forever, and, really, that history is at an end. Why limit our party and ourselves by such a bleak, ultimately defeatist approach?

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. So then why aren't there any progressives representing swing House districts?

[Ken Burch]

30. I'm talking about the prospects for this year

And it's been proven to you that progressives CAN take swing seats(including the swing U.S. Senate seats in Iowa, Illinois and, as I forgot to mention at the time, Minnesota both in the Eighties AND in 2008).

Your "ONLY centrists can take swing seats" argument does not hold up. In fact, it's discredited by many other races, such as the failure of the Tammy Duckworth in the Illinois 6th in 2008 and the defeats of centrist Dems in dozens of swing seats all over the country in 2010.