In its post-election day editorial the Quincy Herald-Whig wrote: "The elections of 1986 did not produce all that many surprises — either on the national level or the state and local levels. With few exceptions incumbents did well. And Illinois politics survived the LaRouche invasion of the Democratic party." In short, the 1986 general election was boring. Overall in Illinois the campaigns can be summarized as "celebrity sweepstakes." The better known candidates won. All statewide races were decided primary night. Pollster and pundit predictions came true as candidates walked through their contests with little debate. Incumbents ran on their respective records while the challengers, unable to provide alternative, substantive programs, relied unsuccessfully on harsh and negative, paid campaign commercials. It did not work.

Besides James R. Thompson's unprecedented fourth gubernatorial victory and the failure of the LaRouchites to destroy the political process, two points — turnout and competitiveness — highlight the 1986 campaign.

Over one-half million fewer Illinoisans voted in 1986 than participated four years earlier (see table 1). Though raw voter turnout numbers were down everywhere, a regional breakdown depicts Chicago incurring the largest percentage decrease of the total statewide vote. Chicago's voter shortfall was made up slightly in the suburban 5 1/2 counties (DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will plus the 30 townships in suburban Cook County) and more substantially in the 96 counties covering the rest of the state. Simply stated, voting areas outside Chicago, either due to population growth or less apathy, minimized their vote production drop-off and thus were able to increase their percentages of the total statewide vote.

A generation ago the above scenario would have meant disaster for statewide Democratic candidates. But this is no longer the case. 1986 like other recent elections revealed a growing Democratic downstate strength, and it's not outlandish to predict that, given the political chaos in Chicago, the party's organizational structure may soon move to the calmer climate of central and southern Illinois.

1986 was also the year of the landslide. Good political competition was hard to find in Illinois. Incredibly, there was more competition in the traditionally one-sided congressional contests than there was in state legislative races. The curse of the cutback amendment strikes again! All that competition promised by changing to single-member House districts has not happened.

In five of 22 congressional races the winner received less than 60 percent of the vote. That means 23 percent of the races were competitive; in 1984 two races or 9 percent were noncompitive. Two of the competitive races were in suburban Cook and collar county districts where Republicans Jack Davis and Dennis Hasten won nonincumbent contests; two others were in southern Illinois where Democratic incumbents Melvin Price (21st) and Ken Gray (22nd) barely retained their seats. The other relatively close congressional contest was Democratic Lane Evans reelection victory in the 17th District in the westerm part of the state. It's important to note that Illinois Democrats hold an advantage in congressional representation because five of their 13 congressmen come from downstate.

In only five of 40 state Senate races did the winner receive less than 60 percent of the vote. That's 12.5 percent. Each party won an opposition seat thereby leaving the Democrats in control of the upper chamber. In the House only 20 of 118 found the victory registering less than 60 percent of the vote for a 17 percent record of competitiveness. Most of the competitive races were downstate with the Democrats showing surprising staying power. In fact, if the 85th House District (Kankakee and Grundy counties) recount between the losing incumbent, Ray Christensen, and his Republican challenger, Gerald Weller, goes their way, the Democrats may have added one seat to their lop-sided House majority.

16/February 1987/Illinois Issues

Given the bleak political rhetoric and catastrophic predictions following the LaRouche invasion into the March Democratic primary nominations, Democratic congressional and legislative candidates came out of the 1986 elections in excellent shape. Too bad the competitive electoral process did not do likewise. I wonder if it's possible to cutback the cutback amendment.

Democrats Alan J. Dixon (U.S Senate), Neil F. Hartigan (attorney general), Roland W. Burris (comptroller) and Jerome Cosentino (treasurer) rode roughshod over their beleaguered and overmatched Republican opponents. With only some slight variations, all four victory patterns were quite similar (see table 2). Dixon, Hartigan, Burris and Cosentino all did well downstate, they held their GOP foes down or even in the suburban 5 1/2, and then they annihilated their respective opponents in Chicago.

As readers of my Illinois Issues articles (now stretching back almost a decade) will no doubt remember, I have argued that "downstate is the key to victory in statewide races in Illinois." Recent election results, however, coupled with the ongoing political bloodbath in Chicago have forced me to reevaluate or at least modify my old theory. The new key to victory may be for the statewide Democrats to receive a united Chicago vote, while for Republicans it may be to splinter and divide the big city's returns. Any solid Democratic candidate who can combine landslide Chicago margins with growing party strength in suburban Cook and downstate will be hard to beat in a state-wide race.

How did the fearsome Democratic foursome do it? In Chicago each garnered over 80 percent of the vote as they won the city with victory margins ranging from 450,000 to 525,000 votes. None of their Republican opponents won a single city ward (state treasurer candidate Michael Houston came the closest with 43 percent of the vote in the far northwest side 41st Ward). Dixon's winning percentage was over 70 percent in 49 of the 50 wards, while Hartigan, Burris and Cosentino ran almost as well throughout the city. Every black ward in Chicago gave the foursome at least 90 percent of their vote, while black and southwest side ethnic wards vied margin-wise for top honors (many ethnic wards matched black wards in victory margins due to higher turnout). Given the city results in the races for governor and secretary of state as well as in James O'Grady's successful Republican bid for Cook County sheriff, it is quite apparent that ticket-splitting has come to most nonblack Chicago neighborhoods.

Suburban 5 1/2 totals reflect the general popularity of the wining statewide Democratic candidates. All four carried suburban Cook County and ran reasonably well in the five collar counties. Dixon even outpolled his opponent, Judy Koehler, in the collars; he won three of the five counties.

In suburban Cook the foursome ran best in those townships having a substantial number of black, Jewish and liberal voters, although ethnic Stickney made each of the four's list of top five townships percentage-wise. As in the past, their Republican opponents' best suburban areas were the northwestern part of Cook County (Barrington, Elk Grove and Palatine townships) and Cicero.

The collars, the region where Republican statewide candidates must do well, was a great disappointment to the GOP's lineup against the awesome Democratic foursome. The Democrats garnered between 42 percent and 52 percent of the vote against the GOP's Koehler (U.S. Senate), Bernard Carey (attorney general), Adeline Geo-Karis (comptroller) and Houston (treasurer). All four Democrats carried Will County (Dixon also won Lake and Kane counties). Interestingly, in the last decade Republican strength at the local and county level has grown in all five of the collar counties, but the GOP has not yet been able to guarantee this vote power to all of its statewide candidates.

In the rest of the state's 96 counties, all four Democrats won. As expected, Dixon of Belleville squeezed Koehler of Henry from any wins in southern Illinois as well as from Chicago. The senator's combined victory margins from his home area of St. Clair and Madison counties was over 50,000 votes. His partners in the foursome all listed St. Clair as a top margin county, and once again these winning Democrats received similar support throughout the state.

Hartigan and Burris did lose a handful of central and southeastern Illinois counties. Dixon lost the same handful plus those counties surrounding Koehler's home base in west central Illinois. Cosentino lost many counties throughout the state but was still able to produce a comfortable 50,000-vote downstate margin over his downstate opponent, Houston, who is mayor of Springfield.

All in all, each of these victorious Democrats should be quite happy with their statewide results. Dixon is still the unquestioned top Democratic vote-getter in Illinois; Hartigan, despite a forceful primary challenge and a well-known general election opponent, won two convincing victories in '86 and now appears positioned for a shot at the Executive Mansion in 1990; Burris won his typical landslide reelection victory and seems ready again to go for a higher statewide office; and Cosentino is back in his old job and again a major player in Illinois Democratic politics.

Gov. Jim Thompson is the Mississippi River of Illinois politics: "He just keeps rolling along." Secy. of State Jim Edgar is politically the state's Ohio River: "A tributary of the Mississippi that is branching out on its own." Both men won easy reelection victories as Illinois voters split their ballots for them and the Democrats' fearsome foursome. Edgar's victory first. It was a mercy killing as the incumbent annihilated LaRouche Democrat Janice A. Hart and Solidarity party candidate Jane N. Spirgel. Edgar nearly matched Dixon's 1978 record secretary of state reelection results — known as the state's only perfect game: Dixon won every county in Illinois, every township in Cook County and every ward in Chicago. (See table 3.) The only downside for Edgar in 1986 is that in two statewide elections he has not yet been tested politically. But when you win by over 1.5 million votes, who needs tests.

February 1987/Illinois Issues/17

Spirgel wins the John Wayne "They were expendable" award from the movie of the same name. Obviously Spirgel had no chance from the outset, but she still conducted her campaign with spirit and good humor. To her lasting credit she defeated Hart.

In retrospect, the secretary of state's race was over before the Democrats held their slating session in November 1985. Only die-hard Democrats can argue that Spirgel or defeated primary candidate Aurelia Pucinski could have beaten Edgar in a one-on-one contest.

As for Thompson, he won his fourth term by outcampaigning, outspending and outmaneuvering his formidable Democratic opponent, Adlai E. Stevenson III. Thompson clearly triumphed (see table 4). The governor's reelection victory was impressive if not masssive. The LaRouche invasion obviously affected the gubernatorial campaign and the final results, but the depth and breadth of Thompson's win make it highly speculative whether the original Stevenson-George Sangmeister ticket could have won. Undoubtedly, such a contest would have been closer than the actual one, but much of Thompson's 1986 pickup over his 1982 match with Stevenson came from Chicago where factors far removed from the dreaded LaRouchies caused a pro-Thompson vote turnaround. Despite the LaRouchies and the Chicago party problems, Stevenson's 1986 gubernatorial campaign missed some key opportunites to turn a seemingly inevitable Thompson victory into a horse race.

Perhaps the turning point in the Thompson-Stevenson contest was their first debate in mid-September. Stevenson was ready. After months of delay and indecision his ballot position was secured under the banner of the new Illinois Solidarity Party. His campaign staff was organized under the highly competent leadership of party professional William Filan; and for the first time since the primary Stevenson appeared to have his political focus under control.

The debate held in Chicago was the high watermark of the Stevenson campaign. The challenger made the incumbent seem indecisive and weak as he attacked the governor on almost every issue. Stevenson appeared confident and aggressive as he tweaked Thompson on his leadership capabilities, the state's economy and the building and upkeep of the State of Illinois Center in Chicago. In this debate Thompson looked like a man who was afraid to let loose as he sought sanctuary in taking the high road. With few exceptions Thompson's defense was timid and emotion-filled instead of being sharp and hard-hitting. Even a Chicago Sun-Times poll released on debate day (it's amazing how coincidences happen in campaigns) showing Thomspon sitting on a 26 percent lead did not dim the euphoria of Stevenson's staff.

Unquestionably this was Stevenson's time to open up all his guns on Thompson, gain campaign momentum and close the gap between them. He did not do it. The moment was lost, and hopes for a miraculous comeback quickly faded. The last six weeks of the Thompson-Stevenson campaign were uneventful as each man went almost somberly through his prescribed litical rituals.

Where did the Thompson votes come from? In Chicago the governor won 13 wards; in 1982 he carried two. He ran exceptionally well on the city's heavily ethnic northwest side and in a few southwest side wards. For years Thompson has been courting these voters and their Democratic leaders; in 1986 in his second race against Stevenson, this courtship was mated. Thompson also carried the Yuppie, independent lakefront 43rd Ward. The two most interesting Thompson victories in the city, however, were in wards 47 and 50.

The 47th is the northside bailiwick of former Chicago Park Supt. Ed Kelly who still serves as the ward's Democratic comitteeman. In 1982 Kelly held a Democratic fundraiser that found Thompson but not Stevenson on the invitation list. The far northside 50th is the most Jewish ward in the city, Stevenson's U.S. Senate record on Israel pushed this heavily Democratic ward into Thompson's column. In both the 47th and 50th wards the governor's strong showing did not come as a shock or a disappointment to the local regular Democratic party kingpins.

18/February 1987/Illinois Issues

Stevenson's Chicago strength rested mainly in the wards. Some ethnic wards like party chairman Edwan Vrdolyak's 10th did give Stevenson solid victory margins ( the 10th Ward was not only Stevenson's best margin victory in a white ward, it outdid some of Stevenson's best black wards.) Despite strong efforts by the Democratic party to educate voters on how to bypass the LaRouche Democratic candidates (punch 1 for the Democratic party, punch 2 for the Stevenson-Michael Howlett team and punch 3 for Spirgel), they failed to prevent LaRouche Democrat Mark S. Fairchild, the lieutenant governor candidate, from siphoning off 10 percent of the city vote from Stevenson-Howlett. Thus overall, compared to 1982 in Chicago, there was significant lower city turnout, decreased Stevenson victory margins in several ethnic wards, far more Thompson ward victories and the drainage of 80,000 votes for LaRouchite Fairchild (running with a "no candidate" blank for governor under the Democratic party). Unlike four years earlier. Stevenson's Chicago vote margins were no match for Thompson's expected vote power elsewhere in the state. As in 1982 Thompson carried 28 of 30 suburban Cook townships (he lost the same two townships, Evanston and Calumet). His percentage and margin figures were also remarkably close to his 1982 totals. Again the governor demonstrated potent strength in northwest Cook County. Even though Thompson will never be a poster boy for this area's conservative GOP leadership, these leaders as individuals have supported him strongly in all his gubernatorial campaigns. Of some special interest was Thompson's strong showing in southwest Worth Township, his second best margin of the Cook County townships. With ethnic Democrats making major inroads into Worth Township politics in the last few years, Thompson's big vote there demonstrated that his ethnic appeal transcends Chicago's boundaries.

As in 1982, Thompson's best percentage win of the state's political regions came from the five collar counties. Led by DuPage and McHenry counties, the collars gave him nearly 70 percent of their vote. The consistency of collar county voter support for Thompson is remarkable. The governor's 1986 victory margin over the combined totals of Stevenson and Fair-child nearly matches his 1982 gubernatorial margin. As in northwest Cook County, collar county conservative GOP leaders may grumble about the governor's moderate Republican philosophy, but when election time comes around, they punch Thompson's number.

Downstate also did an electoral rerun of 1982. Thompson's 1986 margin of victory from these 96 counties almost exactly matches his previous margin if the Stevenson and Fairchild totals are lumped together. In 78 of the 96 downstate counties Thompson won a clear majority of the vote while in 10 others he received a plurality. Percentage-wise, north central Illinois was his best downstate area though tiny Monroe County in the southwestern part of the state made his top three list. As for winning vote margins, the state's largest counties reflected Thompson's general popularity by providing him his best results. Sangamon and Winnebago counties ran neck and neck for high margin honors, but of more interest is the listing of St. Clair and Madison counties in his top 10. Voters in these twin towers of Democratic downstate power split their tickets like mad for Democratic Sen. Dixon and Republican Gov. Thompson.

19/February 1987/Illinois Issues

Stevenson's downstate figures were terrible. He won only eight counties, and only in four (Gallatin, Fulton, Saline and Franklin) did he receive at least 50 percent of the three-way gubernatorial vote. Rock Island County gave him his highest victory margin (3,483), but few other areas around the state were kind to the man who called Bloomington in downstate McLean County his "ancestral home." In fact McLean County gave Thompson his third best downstate victory margin (9,813 votes).

The gubernatorial results show two men moving in different political directions. James Thompson has wiped away the embarrassment of his surprising eyelash 1982 victory over a supposedly helpless, underdog — Adlai Stevenson. Thompson is now positioned to move into the national arena and the nation's highest or second highest office.

Stevenson's elective political career is over, and though he did not revenge his 1982 narrow loss, he did in the end go down to his final defeat in-style. Stevenson also deserves praise for persevering against the LaRouchies. His formation of the Illinois Solidarity Party isolated Hart and Fairchild and minimized their contamination potential for the rest of the Democratic ticket. To be sure Stevenson's pre-primary strategy was terrible, and he must carry the most blame for the LaRouche fiasco; given some of the post-primary scenarios, however, Illinois Democrats did very well in the November elections, and for that Stevenson deserves some credit.

What does it all mean? Illinois politics goes on. More and more voters across the state seem willing to support individual party candidates and not entire party slates. Splitting tickets is here to stay. Illinois elections, in the words of the Peoria Journal Star, now emanates a "non-transferable luster." The impact of political coattails (transference of voter support from popular candidates down to their party running mates) has diminished. Voting in Illinois is now simply "Punch and Choose."

A final note: Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this unusual Illinois election year were the political confessions of the two top losing candidates, Judy Koehler and Adlai Stevenson. Both admitted in post-election interviews that throughout the entire general campaign they knew they had no chance for victory So much for the phrase, "the only poll that counts is the one on election day."

Paul M. Green, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Administration, Governors State University, thanks for their assistance Merle Janowitz of the State Board of Elections and Connie Kaplan and Eunice Coorla of the Chicago Board of Elections.

20/February 1987/Illinois Issues