I know IP won't toot his own horn here, so I wanted to direct everyone's attention the News-Gazette article today from Kate Clements which continues the debate that we have been having on this website for 9 days.
We'll never know if this would have gotten into the newspaper without IP, but the headline of the article itself says “Jakobsson's ”Ëœlegislative update' triggers blog-site debate", which makes one think that it would not have.
Of course, one deceptive act by Jakobsson (sending out a false newsletter) has now revealed more duplicity. Only 25,122 households actually received the mailing, far below the number of households that are in the district (which has over 100,000 people). Who was excluded from the mailing? What selection set was used for the mailing? It appears that Jakobsson “targeted” this mailing, which is a de facto political move. When one uses taxpayer expense to send out a mailing, one would think that every tax payer would receive it. But Jakobsson has seen fit to discriminate against some of her constituents, maybe those she thought would be upset by the message in her newsletter.
Thanks, RoW for the accurate assessment of this mailing. But does anybody really think Naomi "targets" anything herself? She has proven time and again to be the biggest political puppet around. Her handlers and the big Dems control her right down to the toothpaste she uses.
You're right though, it is a de facto political piece.
Wow. Thanks, RoW. We should talk next week about who she mailed to and why she chose that list. Just a guess, but I imagine that she mailed only to people who vote regularly, which is another reason why I think it's a campaign piece that should have been paid for by her campaign.
Is 25,122 households really well below the amount of households in her district? She should have roughly 100,000 people in her district, and you figure at least two people per household, more in some cases, then it really isn't that low. I'm sure she only mails to people who are registered to vote, because it is the only way (that I can think of) to get people's address and name without paying for some type of direct mail service that advertisers utilize.
Plus, I bet a lot of those people are college students. I wouldn't be surprised if she skipped mailing to college addresses for the simple fact that they would probably have all moved over the summer. I think you are jumping to conclusions here and that this is not a "targeted" mailing.
First of all, with this community, the average is probably less than 2 per household because of the high percentage of apartment dwellers. Second, you all of people should not be condoning a government official from deleting campus addresses from a mailing.
Jakobsson has a few easy ways to deal with that. Mail to all registered addresses, which would get to all those thousands of students still here over the summer. Alternatively, she could have done the mailing when the students returned, instead of choosing a time which by your own admission discriminates against a huge percentage of her constituents.
BD, You rarely miss an opportunity to spin a conspiracy theory. Now here's one. Perhaps Jakobsson record of support for the University of Illinois is so bad she realized that doing a mailing that included students would not be a good idea, so she decided to do it when they would all be gone.
Or, maybe direct mailing to college students is impossible, so she communicates with them in a different way. Such as being on campus regularly and visiting different groups, ect. Sounds to me like she is in touch with the best way to communicate with her different types of constuencies. You suggest mailing to all registered addresses, which would reach thousands of students. But also, tens of thousands of those mailings would never reach anyone. Wasting all that money would be stupid.
The title of your post reads "...another Jakobsson deceit." I have not read Kate's article yet, but could you please explain to me what her deceit is? I am curious to know. Thank you.
BD - just once I'd like to see you make an argument supported by facts instead of mere supposition.
News Flash*Big Debbie is advocating special treatment for students. What about students who are here during the summer? Are they not entitled to a legislative update?
Big Debbie,
I know you are not really into facts and stuff, but let's start with some things we do know. According to the census bureau there are 4,981,258 households in Illinois. If you divide that by 118 state representative districts, that equals 42,214 households per district. At a bare minimum, that leaves her short 17,000 households.
I am sure if we just ask Naomi, she will tell us how she decided who got the update...
Big Debbie, when the County Clerk sends out the Voter Guide to all households in Champaign County next year, why don't you suggest that campus be skipped since we need to reach those students in a different format...
Big Debbie, when the County Clerk sends out the Voter Guide to all households in Champaign County next year, why don't you suggest that campus be skipped since we need to reach those students in a different format”¦
I sure hope that Shelden doesn't mail out a voter's guide next year. I mean, an elected official using taxpayer money for a mass mailing just days before they are up for election? I'm sure that everyone who is mad at Naomi would be furious if Shelden did this.
i guess you don't want more people to register to vote then...
According to the census bureau there are 4,981,258 households in Illinois. If you divide that by 118 state representative districts, that equals 42,214 households per district. At a bare minimum, that leaves her short 17,000 households.
50,000 grad and undergrad students who may or may not be on campus. Say, three per household. That would be 16,666 household. So, 334 fell through the cracks. I'm sure that it front page news about a massive Jakobsson conspiracy.
First of all, with this community, the average is probably less than 2 per household because of the high percentage of apartment dwellers.
That should mean that there is at least two, probably even more living in a house. Of the people you know who rent, do most of them live alone or with roommates?
i guess you don't want more people to register to vote then”¦
The guide is mailed out to registered voters, Ms. Factsandstuff.
so are you saying that you know for a fact that the update did not go to students? did you help naomi with the mailing?
the voter guide goes out to all households...that way those that are not registered have a chance before the deadline to register to vote, but i guess you only want "your" people to have a chance to register to vote...
BD - just once I'd like to see you make an argument supported by facts instead of mere supposition.
I totally agree with you. There is way, way too much supposition on this site. But I am only responding to the guesses about Naomi's actions that IP and RoW have made. I would love a debate about facts instead of guesses about people motives and thoughts. But on his post RoW is inferring that Naomi is not mailing out to everyone in the district because of some kind of sinister plan.
But Jakobsson has seen fit to discriminate against some of her constituents, maybe those she thought would be upset by the message in her newsletter.
What would you call that sentence? Based in fact? I find this sentence to be so preposterous that I don't know what to do or say to it. So, all I am simply doing is offering an alternative to that, a very probably and likely alternative to that, which is that she did not mail to campus addresses.
you're rigth big debbie, let's stop guessing. please ask naomi or kristen bauer who the mailing went to and then we can stop the suppositions...
This is typical NAOMI, this women has turned out to be nothing more than another DEMOCRATIC SHILL. Read the full budget package she voted for....plenty of WASTEFULL dollars being totally wasted on ridiculous pork. Of course when the DEMOCRATIC MACHINE calls, it's time to get on the bus....disgraceful.
BD- you're switching again, ignoring rg's comments and call for facts. You are also attempting to deflect attention from yourself by referring to another poster.
Your position, since you are engaging in the same behavior, is hypocritical.
If you want to debate, do so. What you are doing now is only making noise.
IP,
Unfortunately I have decided that this will be my last post. I was one of your early readers, and defiantly one of your first commenters, on this site. I really enjoyed the debates and discussions that we had early on. From debating your arch-nemeses, NJ, to mine, MS, I think we had some good discussions that I learned a lot from. You linked me to information that I was unaware of, and I hope at times I made you aware of new information that I came across.
However, over the past several months the quality of debate in the comments section has declined considerably. Now, whenever I post about something I care about I am forced to defend myself from anonymous posters more then comment on someone's point of view. I've been called everything from a liar to a stooge, and many, many people have said that I somehow in someway work for Naomi. By the way, that is not true.
On this thread alone people are telling me that I am not doing a good enough job rebutting peoples comments, when, if you look through them I have gone through and commented on every part of everyone's comments directed towards me. Maybe these people don't agree, fine. I can live with that. Half my family doesn't agree with my political beliefs. But it has become impossible to have any discussion on here. The vile-filth used to be tolerable and no one paid attention. Now it seems that the only commenters, except for a handful who have been around since the beginning (DL, RSW, Matthew, ect.) are spewing nothing that even resembles political debate.
BD- you're switching again, ignoring rg's comments and call for facts. You are also attempting to deflect attention from yourself by referring to another poster.
Your position, since you are engaging in the same behavior, is hypocritical.
If you want to debate, do so. What you are doing now is only making noise.
That was the last comment I read before deciding this. How am I supposed to respond to something that doesn't even make sense like this? In just as much time as it took me to comment on someone's post and hit refresh I see this. I went two minute between posts and they are saying I'm ignoring people. I just don't want to have to deal with these kinds of people anymore.
Also, today's post by RoW has also fueled this decision. First he is attacking Naomi for sending out a mailing, now he is attacking her for not sending it to enough people. He claims, with no evidence or reason, that Naomi is “targeting” her mailing. When I explain the numbers, I get attacked for suggesting that she doesn't mail to students. There was no apology or retraction on his claim that Naomi was “targeting” her mailing for political purposes. Only more attacks. And the title of his post is IP makes the NG, another Jakobsson deceit. What is the deceit here? That she didn't send her mailing to everyone? Has she stated publicly that everyone received her mailing? I missed that statement, please point it out. As long as people like RoW are using overblown rhetoric to make points without thinking them through I just don't think I can continue to be a reader of your site.
I can talk politics in my sleep. I love talking politics, and I think that debating issues and facts about public policies is one of the highest forms of conversation you can be engaged in. To say it the best, talking politics is beautiful. However, the Army of Anonymous Republicans has turned a beautiful thing ugly. And because of that I can look no longer. I hope that other people continue to read and comment on your site, however, I feel I cannot.
Best of Luck
BD
what was that? the communist manifesto?
you are complaining about anon posters?? Is Big Debbie your legal name?
this is typically when we lose Big Debbie. She is like an insurgent blogger. She flys in, drops a few bombs, and then scrambles before she can be confronted. she is not up to head to head debating...
Big Debbie, can i suggest another local blog that you may be more at home with? It discourages facts and rational statements, and promotes fantasy and conspiracy theories - champaignamerican.blogpsot.com
BD-
Since you are using my comments, I will respond.
1. I am not anonymous. Click my 'handle' and it takes you to my blog with my real name and photo. I don't know who you are. Only IP has access to your email or anything that might resemble identifying information.
2. Comments that are unsupported with facts are not debate.
I am sorry that you no longer wish to be a part of the discussion. It's hard to have one without an opposing viewpoint. But at the same time, quality debate requires facts, citations and proof, not mere supposition. None of us here actually know what Mark Sheldon, Rick Winkel or Naomi Jakobsson are thinking or what the intentions behind their actions, or inactions, are. To put ourselves into their thoughts without any evidence is a fallacy. Please understand my comments are not a personal attack, they are only intended to improve the quality of the positions offered. Attacking the quality of another person's argument is a time-honored, valid debate technique.
I hope you see this as constructive criticism and decide to return with a stronger position.
BD, here is my response. I have heard that the number of households in this district is more in the neighborhood of 40,000. The point of this post is to demonstrate that the legislative update is not sent to every household. That by its nature is targeted. Jakobsson has routinely claimed that this is not political, criticized Berns for mailings, and now has the nerve to underserve the very people you consistently claim are being abused by Republicans, the students.
I do not want to lose Big Debbie. She is an intelligent partisan. Like most liberals, I don't think that she is always intellectually honest, but more than a couple conservatives have the same vice. Don't go away, but answer a question.
Would it be acceptable for Republicans to make similar distinctions that discriminate against the student population?
Come back Big Debbie, come back!
But if you want the political discourse high, YOU have to keep the political discourse high. You can't presume conspiracy theories and assign motives of say, Mark Shelden or Rick Winkel, and then complain when Jakobsson is criticized.
RoW brings up legitimate concerns about the size of the mailing. I'm intrigued by the university aspect, aren't you? What you might try to do is find out from your sources who she mailed to.
But RoW's initial post is exactly what a good political blog site is all about. Deal with it.
Really the point of this mailing is that Naomi wasn't honest in several ways, but especially in her attempt to distance herself from the pension raid. I can understand if she doesn't understand pension accounting, after all her claim to fame her first legislative session was the passing of a mercury thermometer bill and trying to solve the school funding problem with a student created board game.
I find it admirable that she wants to hold ice cream socials and act as if she is "listening" to her constituents, good for her. But when the rubber meets the road, she is going to do what Mike Madigan wants her to do, otherwise she will have a primary and she will be gone, that simple.
If Naomi could have been honest with us and said the pension raid was a terrible vote like John Fritchey did, then people would have at least respected her more. But trying to spin this as if it isn't going to hurt anyone is ridiculous.
BD,
If you can't take the heat, ...you know the rest.
now that shelden has addressed big debbie's request (HB 715), i wonder if she will at least blog there???
I am sorry Big Debbie is leaving, but I understand it. I was appalled at how viciously folk went after her. It was neither fair, nor conducive to discussion. The reality is that RoW is correct: there are liberals and conservatives alike who get things wrong or who see only what they want to see in order to support their beliefs. What's unpleasant is seeing folk go after the jugular.
asking someone to stay on subject and stick to the facts is not "going for the jugular"...
I agree. I don't drop in to read namby pamby "can't we all just get along?" Talking politics is an acquired taste. Some people really enjoy it, some not. To each his own. BD says she likes hardball politics...maybe not as much as she thought.
Back to the real question: Will Naomi explain her legislative update mailing? It should be easy enough to find out. Stay tuned...
I can talk politics in my sleep. I love talking politics, and I think that debating issues and facts about public policies is one of the highest forms of conversation you can be engaged in. To say it the best, talking politics is beautiful. However, the Army of Anonymous Republicans has turned a beautiful thing ugly. And because of that I can look no longer. I hope that other people continue to read and comment on your site, however, I feel I cannot.
Big Debbie, I'm sorry to see you go, but I can understand why you'd want to.
I was offline most of this weekend and didn't track this thread, or else some of these comments would have been deleted. As it is, I'll leave them up so people can understand why you've left. Thanks for commenting, and I hope you'll continue reading (or even start your own blog.).
IP
IP, I agree with you 99% of the time, but I cannot on this one. I would like to know what in particular that you felt crossed the line. I re-read all the comments and don't see it. I understand that you don't want to lose any readers or commenters, but i am having trouble agreeing with you on this one.
Among local Democratic political junkies, there's a bit of a debate about this blog. Some of us enjoy reading and commenting, partly for the sheer entertainment value of good political debate, and partly to see how the "other half" lives. Others see it as a Republican echo-chamber, and a big waste of time. I'm usually in the first group, but threads like this make me reconsider.
Basically, RoW is accusing Jakobsson of "duplicity" because he speculates that 25,000 isn't the correct number of newsletters to send out, so there must be a political conspiracy involved. That's not factual debate -- that's a wild-ass guess, supporting a leap of logic, ending in an unfounded accusation.
Big Debbie tried to point out that 25K isn't that far off the number you should get when householding 100K residents, particularly in a relatively high density district like the 103rd. She also suggested that it's somewhat hypocritical to attack Jakobsson's taxpayer-funded mailings, while celebrating Shelden's taxpayer-funded mailings.
The result? A string of attacks against Debbie:
RoW: "BD, You rarely miss an opportunity to spin a conspiracy theory."
PB: "BD - just once I'd like to see you make an argument supported by facts instead of mere supposition."
Rantoulgirl: "Big Debbie is advocating special treatment for students."
Rantoulgirl: "Big Debbie, I know you are not really into facts and stuff...."
Rantoulgirl: "i guess you only want “your” people to have a chance to register to vote..."
PB: "BD ... What you are doing now is only making noise."
Those were just the attacks that came before Debbie stopped commenting. (I'm not even counting the Communist Manifesto crack -- apparently red-baiting never goes out of style!) The message is clear -- question Republican propaganda on this blog and face repeated personal attacks.
If you guys just want this to be a Republican echo chamber, then we'll stop commenting, and you can spend all your time debating whether Mark Shelden is merely "awesome" or if he's actually "super-duper-awesome." Doesn't sound like much fun to me, but I never saw the attraction in being a "dittohead", either.
Douglas,
Here is BD's quote on IP's post on HB 715.
Big Debbie Says:
August 12th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Just so everyone knows, Rick Winkel took the cowardly way out and didn't vote on this bill. Isn't that what we elected Winkel to do, make decisions on legislation like this? It's obvious that he didn't want to vote for it because it would enable students to register to vote more easily, but he didn't want to vote against it because it would pretty much prove what everyone already knows, republicans don't like students to vote. (Oh, and he was on the floor that day, he voted for other peices of legislation that were debated that day)
Is there enough name calling and conjecture in there and unsubstantiated charges to convince you that BD engages in just thetype of debate that she is complaining about. I could find a host of other examples of her doing this as well. I understand her leaving, I just don't appreciate her accusing others of the very thing she does herself.
IP, I agree with you 99% of the time, but I cannot on this one. I would like to know what in particular that you felt crossed the line. I re-read all the comments and don't see it. I understand that you don't want to lose any readers or commenters, but i am having trouble agreeing with you on this one.
Rantoul Girl,
You were one of the worst offenders. It is possible to attack someone's argument without attacking the person. Look through your comments in this thread. Nearly every comment opened with an attack on Debbie, rather than an attack on her arguments. Even if you feel like her arguments aren't worth rebutting, to then reflexively attack the person is, to me, beneath the level of discourse I'd like to see here.
Frankly, RoW and I started this thread with a guess - an educated guess, but still a guess. BD pointed that out, and didn't deserve to be attacked for countering our guess with one of her own.
Please remember that for every Big Debbie or Down Left that comments here, there are ten Red State Wannabes. Unless you want all our Democratic friends to stay away, I'd recommend that you consider how it feels to debate at ten-to-one odds. Please be extra careful about your tone, and avoid attacking the person.
I'm not saying that BD doesn't play for keeps, or doesn't cross the line occasionally, because she does and she's usually a very effective advocate for her point-of-view. But because she is the overwhelming underdog here, we should be more considerate of her, not the other way around.
Thanks,
IP
Douglas-
IP does a very nice job of making a post and supporting his argument or statements with links to factual information that uphold of his viewpoint. On the HB715 issue, I did the same thing. BD was arguing that somehow a nanny-state bill requiring a state institution to take a large group of people (she claimed 50K but is actually 40K according to the UIUC ) by the nose was needed to prevent student disenfranchisement, especially due to her perceived machinations of the current County Clerk. I countered her argument with facts showing that even if the CC exercised a potential lapse in judgement (I have no idea, to discredit her position it wasn't even necessary to review the Clerk's site) there was no reason those students could not have still registered to vote. Because underneath it all, that is the goal: empowering students.
On the Jakobsson issue I asked BD to use facts. Is there a problem with that? Quality debate needs citations. I didn't argue for one side or the other or even state my own position, I simply asked for facts.
My next comment seems to be the straw that broke the camel's back. For the record, right after I posted it I sent an email direct to IP apologizing for it and stating that I hoped it didn't drive BD away. IP can confirm this if he likes, I don't save a record of my outgoing email. But I feel like I should address the nature of those comments. BD (and others) somehow believes that simply by stating something it becomes true. None of us are really naive enough to accept that. When you argue or debate, if you want to do so from a credible position and contribute to the discussion you use facts and citations. You support your argument. Trying to guess why an elected official did something without evidence from some sort of source documentation is mere speculation, not debate. IP asked some very good questions in the post that deserve credible answers. Please note that he didn't conjecture about Ms. Jakobsson's motives, he asked for answers. What he got in response was conjecture.
Now perhaps my wording was a little harsh. I called her position (not her directly) hypocritical. Ask yourself, is it? A stone is a stone. A stone is not a turtle shell. If she wants to claim that she is tired of others doing the exact same thing she herself is doing, well, that's hypocritical. And never mind her remarks on anonymity. Would you like me to also address my comment about her 'making noise'? What do you call it when someone makes pointless remarks for apparently no reason whatsoever?
IP graciously offers Champaign County (and literally the world) his opinion and neatly states his case. That his site is so popular means he is offering a valuable service and has developed credibility for his viewpoints. He also very generously provides for commenting and discussion.
I apologize if my comments are misinterpreted as a personal attack on BD instead of simply directed at her argument. They were not intended to be personal.
Here are a few facts and estimations for perusal:
In November, there were 122,739 people registered to vote in Champaign County. Only 84,153 (69%) of these voted in the election.
In the 2000 census there were 2.33 people per household in Champaign County, lower than the Illinois average of 2.63. There were 70,597 households in Champaign County in that same census.
None of these are optimal figures, but they are at least facts.
The 2003 population estimate is 186,800 for Champaign County, and the 2002 housing unit estimate was 77,236.
79% of those people are over age 18.
That works out to something like 1.91 people per household who at the very least are over 18. Only 87% of these folks are actually registered to vote, which knocks out over 10,000 houses for mailing right off, bringing you down to 67,000 households.
The U of I has 22 undergraduate University residence halls that accomodate 8,540 students.
All of these undergraduate halls are closed for the summer.
If only 25% of the dormatory spaces were occupied with students registered to vote in the last election, that be 2,135 mailings that no one in their right mind would send out in the summer because they would not get anywhere.
The two graduate residence halls and two graduate apartment complexes are not included in any of the above figures. They are open over the summer.
There are 58 fraternities and 33 sororities. Each year these house around 1,800 students. Most of these are not occupied over the summer either. If only 25% of these are registered to vote at their campus address and are away for the summer, that is another 450 mailings not worth sending out.
Mail forwarding is available to these students, but most do not do so. It is best to just wait to send them mail after the school year begins and they have filled out the proper change of address forms.
Based on a pretty conservative estimate (25%) those are over 2,500 campus households to which it does not make any sense to send mailings over the summer. I suspect that figure is actually much higher considering the 23,000 applications and address change forms received between Quad Day and the October 26 at the Champaign County Clerk's office last year.
I am not going to draw conclusions about the validity of the Jaokobssen mailing based on all of this information. But these are at least facts and suppositions based on facts (wherein the suppositions are explicitly declared).
IP,
A sincere "thank you" for your reaction to this thread. I usually enjoy participating in this site, and I know Big Debbie does, too.
Prairie Biker,
As IP said, the original post was itself based on speculation. There's nothing out-of-bounds about that, but it does invite "counter-speculation". RoW started with a number, and speculated about what it means. Big Debbie offered a different, less nefarious explanation of the number. Both RoW and BD were guessing about what 25K mailings really means.
Why do you expect Debbie (a mere commenter) to have all the facts & figures at her disposal, but not RoW (the person who wrote the original quote, and essentially "started it")? There is a staffer somewhere who chose the newsletter's recipient list. That person knows why 25K was the number they sent out, but the rest of us are all just speculating. Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you were holding Debbie to a much higher standard than the original poster.
Douglas-
Thanks for pointing that out. I was hoping in my comment addressed to BD that others would take the hint as well.
However, RoW's post asked legitimate (although speculative) questions that should have been answered by something better than speculation. A whole string of 'maybes' doesn't lead anyone down the road toward answering the question. If you look at it this way, RoW's questions are an invitation for local democrats to prove him wrong. Kelly above provided an excellent response although it would be nice if she listed the sources for her figures. It could perhaps be argued then that Ms. Jakobsson was being responsible with taxpayers' dollars by not mailing her flyer to those who would likely not get it anyway. The best response would have been to get the answer from Ms Jakobsson herself. I asked numerous questions of her office during the last campaign and they were always very open and forthcoming with the answers. I think the question is still on the table though, and only Ms. Jakobsson's office can answer; why did she participate in an activity she criticized Tom Berns for and can easily be seen not as one of informing her constituency since it obviously was not mailed to her entire district, but as a political move perpetrated with taxpayer dollars?
All of the information in my above post came from one of these places:
US Census Bureau quickfacts for Champaign County
University of Illinois QuickFacts sheet
Illinois Handbook of Government
Champaign County Clerk Election Results Summary for 2004 General Election
News Gazette Article from October 26, 2004
But, there is something I did not take into account until my recent post to the new thread on this topic, which is that only about half the folks in Champaign County are in the 103rd. The other half or so are in the 104th, etc, as you can find from the Illinois Handbook of Government listed above.
I am going to test all these links after posting. There is no preview option so I am hoping my careful proofread was good enough.
It looks like you can't direct link to the election results summary above. To get it, go to the Champaign County Clerk's website, click on Election Services on the left, click on 2004 General Election Results about halfway down, and then the Official County Summary Final almost at the top.
Ms. Shimmin,
Your links are good, html works.
I think some of your calculations in your original post were based on population, not on registered voters. That's why the numbers are lower than you expect, I think.
But yes, much of Champaign County is in the 104th (eastern 1/4), 105th (northwest chunk) or 110th (southwest chunk). The 103rd isn't even all of Champaign (most of SW Champaign is in the 105th), but is all of Urbana.
They were based on the ratio of adult population to registered voters (registered voters found from that County Clerk link I gave directions to get to), which I think is about as decent a comparison we are going to get. There are 128,000 some voters in Champaign County according to that 2004 sheet. There are 147,000 some people over 18 living here according to the census. That means about 87% of the adult population and 79% of the population in general is registered to vote.
But the 103rd is but a small sample of Champaign County. I think though that given the demographics of the specific area we can apply those numbers and find that we are making a pretty conservative estimate.
Thanks Kelly!