Last night was the best night for the Champaign County GOP since at least 2002 (two Rick Winkel victories for State Senator) or 2000 (Tim Johnson for Congress), but maybe going even further back than that.
Let's remember what really happened last night, after all the smoke has cleared:
- The Republican Mayor was re-elected unopposed
- For a City-Wide Council seat, a Republican who had never before run for office defeated a Democrat incumbent by over 1,100 votes
- Also for Council, the leading Democrat vote-getter was a former County Board Chair who lost by almost 1,100 votes
- The Champaign County Democrats pushed three candidates for Council and two for Unit 4 School Board. All were defeated decisively.
I think there were two themes to last nights results (at least in the City of Champaign).
The first is partisanship partisan affiliation. The key issue in this race wasn't the smoking ban, as its proponents finished in first and fourth through sixth. The key dividing line between the victors and the vanquished is partisan affiliation. Even Tom Bruno, a Republican-leaning independent, ended up as the leading vote-getter but was publicly endorsed by Republican Mayor Jerry Schweighart in a letter and a radio ad.
In addition, by looking at results precinct-by-precinct, turnout was significantly higher in GOP precincts. Rep. Tim Johnson lost the City of Champign last November, getting 46 percent of the vote and winning 15 out of 40 precincts. Yesterday, turnout in those 15 precincts was 25.7 percent. In the remaining 25 precincts, turnout was 13.6 percent. And even in some high-turnout precincts lost by Johnson (City of Champaign 20 & 21, for example) Burno and Feinen ran well ahead of the pack, and Foster finished a strong third.
GOP voters were clearly motivated, and the County GOP organization did an excellent job of organizing and working door-to-door and via phones to turn out key voters.
The second theme was personalities. A good friend mentioned to me yesterday that he thought Tom Bruno, Deb Frank Feinen and Karen Foster would win because none of the Democrat At-Large candidates had "crossover appeal," i.e., they seemed unlikely to attract votes beyond their base. To some degree, that's true. In 31 of the 40 precincts, the GOP candidates were clumped into either first-second-third, or fourth-fifth-sixth (including every precinct in CC 20 through 38). They vote results make it appear as if there were two distinct slates, and that the Democrat slate had a had time picking up independents in swing precincts like CC 20 and CC 25.
I was most surprised by Annette Williams finishing in sixth place. I thought her radio and her more visible activity would make her the leading vote getter, and I thought her and Foster would battle it out for the third seat. I was also very surprised by the margin of victory for the three GOP candidates.
For Unit 4 School Board, I agreed with the Conventional Wisdom that Greg Novak and Sue Grey were going to win. I thought Kristine Chalifoux would do very well, but I was worried about the fourth seat. In the end, Scott MacAdam won it pretty handily, finishing 700 votes ahead of Melodye Rosales. I had forecasted that race versus the 2006 School Referendum results, thinking that the latter might be predictive. But it wasn't, partly because the referendum did so poorly everywhere, and because the Novak-Grey-Chalifoux-MacAdam group did so strongly just about everywhere other than North Champaign. Greg Novak finished in first or second place in 43 of 51 precincts. For Sue Grey, it was 40. For Chalifoux and MacAdam, they finished in the top four in 46 and 32 precincts, respectively.
I was most suprised here, as I was in the Council races, by the margins. Novak and Grey got twice as many votes as Melodye Rosales. Novak got four times as many votes as the incumbent, Minosca Alcantara. And I was also surprised by Alcantara's last-place finish. I thought she'd be in fourth or fifth.
Personally, it was a great night for me. I actively helped all seven of the winning candidates, working on everything from candidate recruitment, fundraising, strategy, message, mail, radio and GOTV. I helped some more than others, and by no means are their victories to be attributed to little old me, but I am extremely gratified that all seven were victorious. We had great candidates and a great team, and this was the product of a lot of hard work by many people.
After last November's painful loss to Sen. Mike Frerichs, I had a number of conversations, discussing the question of "where do we go from here?" As a Party, I advocated that we get organized and active and work to support our local candidates in the Spring 2007 elections. I never thought everyone would come together as well as they did, and I'm happy to have been part of the team. Now we need to build on this foundation, and re-dedicate ourselves to making the Champaign County Republican Party the clear choice for voters desiring quality representation, open government, common-sense, diversity of ideas, cooperative problem-solving and a positive outlook. Let's keep the Champaign County GOP moving in the right direction.
Congratulations to the winners. And congratulations to everyone who ran - as candidates, your involvement is awe-inspiring to me, as I've never been brave enough to put my own name on the ballot.
do you think that the newly-annexed subdivisions had a significant impact on the city elections?
"do you think that the newly-annexed subdivisions had a significant impact on the city elections?"
Significant, yes, but not decisive.
The margins were too large throughout the City.
I have to disagree---#1 was broad appeal and quality of the winners not partisanship.
"I have to disagree---#1 was broad appeal and quality of the winners not partisanship."
Sorry - I made a little correction above. I think the first theme is partisan affiliation, not necessarily partisanship. Poor phrasing on my part.
For the second theme, by personalities I mean the quality and appeal of candidates.
My two themes, for me, were equally important.
I would love to hear from someone who split their ticket for Champaign city council - who did you vote for and why?
Here are some tables with precinct-by-precinct results for these two races, with turnout (click on image for larger version):
Council (including Primary results):
Unit 4:
I agree with Oil Man. I think quality was important, too. Williams was always a non-starter. Someone had to get 6th in the primary. She did. End of story. Beyond that, neither Avery nor Rosales had reputations as hard-workers. Avery's non-attendance record on the County Board hurt her, and Rosales hurt himself everytime he opened his mouth. More than that, neither campaigned particularly hard. They stood people up, didn't show when they said they would, and let others knock on doors for them. Williams and Avery almost never came to a Council meeting and I think the only reason Rosales did was because he was on the Council. Still, he missed more Council meetings than anyone else up there.
The Democrats put up lousy candidates. I aknowledge and applaud all the work the Republican party did, but defeating those three wasn't a tough test of party unity. And I'm glad about that. I still believe partisanship has no place at the local level, and I hope the City Council members are strong enough to act independently and serve their constituents, even if it means that they anger their own parties in doing so.
"The Democrats put up lousy candidates. I aknowledge and applaud all the work the Republican party did, but defeating those three wasn't a tough test of party unity."
I think the quality of candidates is somewhat indicative of the relative strength and organization of the two parties for this particular election. The Democratic candidates weren't very strong, but they were the only candidates willing to make the race.
And they couldn't even find someone to run against Mayor Schweighart.
Quality of candidates is a huge factor. But that quality is also somewhat ascribed to each Party, especially as each Party was so active in recruiting and supporting candidates.
"I still believe partisanship has no place at the local level, and I hope the City Council members are strong enough to act independently and serve their constituents, even if it means that they anger their own parties in doing so."
Being supporting by one's own Party doesn't mean an official cannot be independent. Tom Bruno is a great example. I'm glad partisanship was a large factor in the election. When it comes to governing, I'm confident that all the Council members will work for the benefit of the City.
Let's not forget that Giraldo Rosales was not just a partisan candidate, but served as a partisan member of the Council, publicly stating that on some decisions he would do what the Democrats wanted rather than what he thought was best. I think that cost him dearly, and I think that lesson will be remembered as the new GOP members look to govern.
While I agree that it was a great night for Republicans, I think that some of that success may be due to the unappealing candidates that the Democrats put up. I don't know what the results would have been had we been faced with candidates who were less devisive. I know that my vote for at least one of the Republicans, who I have major disagreements with in terms of spending, was fostered by the fact that I dreaded what would happen if one of the Democratic candidates won.
CD,
It sounds to me like you are averse to "typical" Democrat ideology. If Obama had campaigned on the same "platform", could he have got your vote for the council?
A couple of quick points:
First, I voted. My wife didn't (she usually does) and I didn't notice a single "I Voted" sticker at school yesterday. Almost nobody I know was talking about this election unless I geekily brought it up. I can't think of a single friend who had a sign in the yard, or who even voted yesterday.
Ok, so I have some lame friends. No question about it. But I think the bigger point here is that this is not a mandate of where the citizens really are. It's obvious from your numbers above that the vast majority of citizens did not vote in this election. Many probably didn't even know there was an election yesterday, judging from the polls.
No question that it was a good night for the Republicans and I am really impressed by your organization and your ability to take advantage of the political climate. No question you guys deserve the win.
But I would advise caution when throwing around words like "Renaissance". Remember, this is a county that handily passed the anti-war and impeach-the-President items a mere six months ago. This is a big win for the Rs, but I am chalking it up to low, low, low voter turnout. It is not a sea change, imo, and definitely not a mandate to swing the City hard to the right.
A good friend mentioned to me yesterday that he thought Tom Bruno, Deb Frank Feinen and Karen Foster would win because none of the Democrat At-Large candidates had "crossover appeal," i.e., they seemed unlikely to attract votes beyond their base. To some degree, that's true.
Based on what I heard from another Democrat yesterday, I sensed that Feinen and Foster had crossover appeal. (We didn't talk about Bruno.) I'm not sure that some of the things that Avery and Williams did helped their campaigns; it sounded like the rallies they held related to a recent arrest actually antagonized some other Dems.
BTW, thanks to the GOP folks for being so gracious when I walked into what I thought would be an informal gathering of folks from IP to talk about the election results. :)
"But I would advise caution when throwing around words like "Renaissance". Remember, this is a county that handily passed the anti-war and impeach-the-President items a mere six months ago. This is a big win for the Rs, but I am chalking it up to low, low, low voter turnout. It is not a sea change, imo, and definitely not a mandate to swing the City hard to the right."
Turnout in the Council races was about 18.5 percent, just a little lower than it usually is for Illinois Presidential Primaries, and about half of what we saw in November 2006. It seems low, but it's pretty high by municipal standards, IMO.
Your examples of how the City voted just six months ago prompt me to bring up an interesting point of why yesterday's results are so important. Last November, Democrats were very motivated, and Republicans were deptressed. Six months later, the situation, at least in Champaign, seems to be reversed (I'll be able to test this in few weeks when I can tell you what turnout was among Republicans versus Democrats). That reversal is significant, and one of the reasons why I identified partisan affiliation as so important yesterday.
"I would love to hear from someone who split their ticket for Champaign city council - who did you vote for and why?"
Bruno, Feinen, Foster from an independent-frequently-left-leaner:
Bruno -- strong history, hard worker, makes sense, definite crossover appeal
Feinen -- smart, also works hard (maybe more than she bargained for, but she's a big girl), probably too partisan but nobody's perfect
Foster -- got a chance to talk to her, and although she's conservative I liked her education background and preferred her to the Dem options
Dems: I know Giraldo well and I enjoy talking to him because he's knowledgeable and always interesting. I just don't think he represents me very accurately on the Council. Avery? Didn't like her history on the County Board nor her attitude during the vacant council seat interviews. Hey, in the absence of other data, I think that's valid. Williams? Despite the fact that others say she carried on a pretty visible and audible campaign, she didn't really register with me.
I was very disappointed when I looked at my ballot -- other than the City Council and School Board races, most sections featured unopposed candidates. I had no problem voting for some of them, but even in those cases I wish there was competition to ensure that every candidate would work to earn his/her position.
Another thing really bothers me and I don't know how to fix it: what about those folks who would like to take an active role (city council, mayor, etc.) but simply can't afford to do it if they make the time commitment the position deserves? Three of the current Council members are essentially retirees, and four more are self-employed. With Foster's election and Rosales' ouster, that makes 4 retirees and 4 self-employed. Given the modest salaries/stipends offered to Council members and the mayor, how else could one afford to do this? And if this is true, it seems unavoidable that this would skew the makeup of the Council.
Its ironic that Teacher Man is using the same excuses that some Republicans used in the last election to dismiss the significance of their losses. Not to mention that his logic is flawed: It's not indicative of the citizenry because the majority of citizens did not vote AND liberal referenda passed in the last election...where the majority of citizens also did not vote. Sorry, you can't have it both ways, Teach. The only opinions that matter on election day are from those that actually make it to the polls. Last time it was Democrats, this time its Republicans. Next time...who knows?
The only opinions that matter on election day are from those that actually make it to the polls.
I agree wholeheartedly and that is why I have a lot of respect for what the local Rs have pulled off. My point, which I think will be borne out by the party affiliation numbers, is that most of the City missed the election, for whatever reason. I mean 19% turnout is really low. I don't know if that is consistent with historic numbers, but it basically means 2 out of 10 voters actually bothered to vote yesterday. In November it was actually a 54% turnout (not sure how that works out to double 18.5, but whatever), which means yesterday's turnout was actually about a third of what we saw in a midyear election.
But what I find particularly interesting is the low numbers during what is one of the most politically active decades we've seen. Record money pouring into Presidential contests, news shows with record viewership, high turnouts in elections, yet less than 20% for City Council?
This election might mean a lot of things, but it's definitely not a mandate for anything. I'd proceed carefully if I were an R.
Oh, ps - what the Dems did in November is still amazing. Taking Winkel's seat, re-electing a corrupt Governor, and taking the entire Congress with a sitting wartime President is unheard of in modern politics. Every unbiased observer (even Mr. Bush) acknowledged that the voters sent a clear message on that day. To equate those victories with a City Council race in which the highest turnout was in conservative districts, and over 80% of registered voters couldn't even be bothered to vote doesn't make sense.
Turn out tends to drop more and more the more local the scope of the election is and of course increases as the scope is more regional or national. It just doesn't get the same level of attention in the media or by other groups. There's not as much money being pumped in for advertising and getting people involved. And the public generally has no idea who the heck these people are, what they do exactly, or what they've been doing to be really worried about it. Information about the candidates that are in the news or advertisements often get lost on people who have no idea who the heck these people are. With larger elections they often can't help but know who they are because they are constantly bombarded with the information and the information gets absorbed a bit more. Local elections tend to require that a person go out and dig up the information themselves. Like who in the sam heck is the Park District guy and why would I vote for this one or that one.
I've never missed a Presidential election... but I have, in the past, found out about local elections occuring after the fact and suddenly started noticing that those yard signs "Hey, those are new!" after I knew to be looking for them. I missed an off year congressional/State election only once. So even my own personal voting habits seem to fit the general publics. But I've been trying to correct that in the last few years and become more aware of local issues.
--
http://glock21.blogspot.com
"In November it was actually a 54% turnout (not sure how that works out to double 18.5, but whatever), which means yesterday's turnout was actually about a third of what we saw in a midyear election."
Sorry, TM - I was running off memory, and I made a mistake. I try to block out as much of November as I can. :-)
"I mean 19% turnout is really low. I don't know if that is consistent with historic numbers, but it basically means 2 out of 10 voters actually bothered to vote yesterday."
In context, 19 percent is not low for a municipal off-year election in Champaign. It's significantly higher than the last comparable election, in April of 2003.
That said, elections are always about turnout. November was terrible for Republicans, especially in Illinois, because we couldn't turn out our voters and because independents didn't like our candidates. The converse is true of yesterday's election.
In my opinion, your discounting of these results because they're local races with low turnout illustrates perfectly why I think they're important - these elections were completely local - no Springfield or Chicago money or staff, no high-profile campaign by out-of-area people. It was as isolated as an election can get, focused on local issues, local candidates and local organizations. And for years, the presumption was that the Democrats' local organization would run circles around the local GOP. Yesterday, for one day at least, the local GOP turned out to be more motivated and better organized. That's significant, regardless of turnout.
That said, there are still plenty of bright spots for local Democrats. Dodds won unopposed, Urbana is still Urbana, and you still have the majority on the County Board. This isn't about Republican domination of Champaign County - it's about one election where the GOP did better than the Dems.
"I don't know if that is consistent with historic numbers, but it basically means 2 out of 10 voters actually bothered to vote yesterday."
- Yeah, those are the ones that cared enough about local politics to get to the polls. The Republican win was indicative of those voters current beliefs about local government. Last November, the 54% of registered voters (not all citizens) that cared enough about State and National politics had a stronger belief in the Democrats, which was reflective of their beliefs about state and federal government at that time. The generally low turnout rate doesn't take away from wins or losses and says much more about our citizens than it does about parties or candidates. Some consider the GOP win last night to be amazing because massive momentum seemed to be with the Democrats since the last election. Apparently, that momentum did not carry down to the local government level. My point is, Dems can be dismissive of the results, but it will be at their own political detriment during the next municipal elections.
ps - The low turnout in Champaign was similar to other cities . Bloomington had only 11% and Chicago had 26% turnout.
Last night was the best night for the Champaign County GOP since at least 2002 (two Rick Winkel victories for State Senator)
I would say better, since the Winkel win was counterbalanced by the Berns loss.
How does this change the partisan balance of power on the City Council? Are the Republicans in charge now or are the Dems still in control despite losing Rosales?
It would be interesting to see how turnout correlates with home ownership. Looking just at a handful of precincts, it seems like the homeowners turned out:
CC02: 183 voters in November -> 21 yesterday (11% of November's turnout)
CC03: 182->14 (8%)
CC04: 306->16 (5%)
CC05: 451->10 (2%)
CC07: 213->18 (8%)
CC08: 170->16 (9%)
CC20: 660->377 (57%)
CC21: 403->236 (59%)
CC22: 306->174 (57%)
CC23: 346->190 (55%)
CC24: 1003->530 (53%)
Think of it this way: if I'm just renting or living in a dorm, I care about who's running the country since I plan to live in the USA after I move. But I don't have a lot at stake in local elections. If I'm a homeowner I am worried about the value of my house and the quality of the schools.
Great points, Ammonium.
Rn4cvrlib wrote: "Teacher I think you need some education..."
That guy is the LAST slackjaw with business telling anyone to get educated. Half of his sentences are just incomplete fragments and the other half are run-ons. Some people are just oblivious idiots, and they're mostly knee-jerk conservatives like this clown.
Someone starts with an insult, and then somebody responds with one.
That's enough. I really don't want to start deleting comments, so please stop attacking each other.
Anon, back under rock.
What do you mean attacking each other why don't just tell anon to quite attacking people.
:Some people are just oblivious idiots, and they're mostly knee-jerk conservatives like this clown."
I agree. Rn4cvrlib should take 06:54 PM, Anonymous' advice and pepper his remarks with more cerebral adjectives like knee-jerk, idiots, clown, and slackjaw. I would also suggest dolt, blowhard, ignoramus, whiner, and my all-time favorite, "nattering nabob."
Well, to clarify - I am not trying to spin anything here. I have acknowledged at least two times already that the Republicans have a big win on their hands and they deserve it. Not sure what else I can say on that one.
My point is that this isn't some sort of city-wide mandate on ... say ... the smoking ban. When less than 20% of just the registered voters bother to vote in an election it is difficult to call the results a mandate. Do the math ... if Bruno got less than 5000 votes from a town with an adult population of close to 60,000 then he really only has the support of around 8-9% of the citizens. And this guy voted for the smoking ban last time!
So yes, it's a big win. And no, I am not trying to deny the victory. I am just attempting to share some perspective here and remind people that there is no mandate to do anything at this point. In my opinion the new Council will repeal the smoking ban at its own peril. This town is trying to have a lot of progressive-styled growth. To repeal the ban will make us look like the podunk hicks that a lot of folks already take us for. There is money involved - investment dollars. If the Rs want to take down the smoking ban then they'd better be ready to have a discussion about the future of development in downtown as well. These things are all inter-related and unless we have a philosophical change of heart on progressive development I don't see the smoking ban going down.
Just my two cents. Enjoy the victory!
eggs ackley: the full incantation, of course, would be "nattering nabobs of negativism." Verbal spells don't work as well if you leave part of them out...
The problem becomes what constitutes a mandate or not then. The applicable definition in Merriam-Webster is that a mandate is "an authorization to act given to a representative."
I understand the idea that a lower voter turnout means that very few people are involved in the authorization making it unclear whether or not any actions by those representatives are supported by the whole, but, it is a fairly good indicator that of the people who are really concerned that most of them do support the action.
If a poll came out tomorrow that shows an overwhelming opposition to a particular action, then it may be wise for those elected officials to heed the views of the people. If it only shows a small opposition or more support then it is probably safe to assume that the issue was either not too critical for their voting decision or includes people who did not believe it critical enough to vote over.
The problem with the term mandate when it comes to specific issues is that unless their is a referendum on a specific issue it is hard to say what the people's mandate would be, though even with lower turnout it would still fit the definition of a mandate. The authorization isn't by definition dependent on a majority of eligible voters supporting it which would require over 50% turnout and overwhelming support. As far as electing representatives we are electing them under the impression that they will act in certain ways on various issues and that by supporting them, we may not support every act, but their overall actions that they are promising to take. In this sense it is still a mandate though it may not qualify as a mandate on individual acts but more generally on their collective acts.
As a politician I would be far more hesitant to claim a mandate if I had a plurality victory as opposed to a majority victory as most voters voted against me, though I still won over more voters than anyone else so it is not as if I have no right to be in office and make good on my policy stances, though it would probably be a good idea not to do anything that would offend the majority of voters as a stronger candidate may oppose me later. Alternatively having a majority win may be a safer place to claim a mandate but focusing on an issue that your supporters considered secondary and were split on could cost you that majority later by making it a primary issue for the next election.
So the mandate issue may be a bit muddled when dealing with representatives, but the inherent checks on running amok with one's policy in the need to be re-elected does tone down the risk of policies of secondary concern being abused while allowing voters primary policy issues to be represented well.
--
http://glock21.blogspot.com
"What do you mean attacking each other why don't just tell anon to quite attacking people."
It doesn't matter who started it. Responding in kind perpetuates it, and makes the thread degenerate.
Everybody needs to be more civil. Be the bigger person, laugh off the insults, and try to be productive.
"My point is that this isn't some sort of city-wide mandate on ... say ... the smoking ban."
I agree. I think the smoking ban wasn't a very big factor at all.
"When less than 20% of just the registered voters bother to vote in an election it is difficult to call the results a mandate. Do the math ... if Bruno got less than 5000 votes from a town with an adult population of close to 60,000 then he really only has the support of around 8-9% of the citizens. And this guy voted for the smoking ban last time!"
I disagree. The results are a mandate, not for an issue, but for those candidates who secured overwhelmingly more votes than anyone else who was running. It's pointless to try to guess what might have happend with 100 percent turnout. The people who voted did so overwhelmingly for Bruno, Feinen and Foster, and that's a mandate.
"If the Rs want to take down the smoking ban then they'd better be ready to have a discussion about the future of development in downtown as well."
It's not about Rs wanting to repeal the smoking ban. (Just ask Mike LaDue) In fact, it's not about the ban at all. The leading vote getter was anti-ban. It's not a mandate on the ban. It's a mandate on the candidates who were on the ballot. Nothing more, nothing less.
My point is that this isn't some sort of city-wide mandate on ... say ... the smoking ban. When less than 20% of just the registered voters bother to vote in an election it is difficult to call the results a mandate. Do the math ... if Bruno got less than 5000 votes from a town with an adult population of close to 60,000 then he really only has the support of around 8-9% of the citizens. And this guy voted for the smoking ban last time!
Let's see:
Deb Frank Feinen won with 4468 votes.
Karen Foster won with 3909 votes.
The smoking ban won with 5 votes.
And you're talking about a mandate?
I think we need to have a referendum in Urbana on whether the Champaign City Council should be selected by Urbana voters.
"I think we need to have a referendum in Urbana on whether the Champaign City Council should be selected by Urbana voters."
Indeed.
And I think it would pass overwhelmingly.
Um ...IP.... the leading vote getter was Pro-Ban....I know what you meant.
I have extremely negative, insulting things to say about a lot of people here. I won't say them. You shouldn't either.
I think this election proved two things:
1) College votes really can and do swing elections here. Frerichs would not be in the Senate if the turnout on campus was not as high as it was in Nov. Carrie Melin would not be on the County Board without student votes. Julia Reitz would not be states attorney and Naomi would not have been elected nor overwhelmingly re-elected without student votes. When students vote, and they did in big numbers in '06 (for an off year election) and '04, Champaign went solidly Dem as did the County. There was dismal turnout yesterday on campus mainly because none of the candidates, on either side, addressed them in any meaningful manner. I'm proud to say that I was helping the three Dem candidates and time and time again we suggested that they should reach out to campus and do a proactive outreach there, much like candidates do in Carbondale where student are much more engaged in the council politics, and our overtones fell on deaf ears.
2) The Democrats put up candidates that had major faults in just about every post and we suffered for it, rightfully so. Avery is too polarizing and generally perceived as lazy in both our Party and the general public. Roasles, while accomplished in his own right, never seemed engaged in this race and even as a Vice Chair of the Dem Party refused to run as a Dem candidate, something that turned off a lot of loyal Dem volunteers and donors. Williams generally seemed most engaged in the process but as a VERY fresh candidate and coulnd't grasp in time how to run an effective operation. Locally Dems I think were burnt out. we worked our tail off to get Sen. Frerichs where he is now and I think that many are taking a break from local politics and focusing more on getting involved in presidental campaigns. Trust me, numbers at meetings, social hours, '08 meetings, and general Party functions have been very high for an off year, but the focus is on the national scene, not locally. We were not happy with the candidates mainly because they were not willing to act as candidates who actually wanted to win, I'd even venture to say that two of them thought they were owed a win and acted as such, a major turn off in my book.
IP and others, you have to admit that while this election was a good night for Republicans it is not indicative of what the true nature of CU really is. Students make up a huge population of voters here and when they do vote, as they do in just about any statewide election, the twin cities remain and even grow bluer. Frerichs on over 60% in both cities in November and he did so by running as a progressive Democrat. Jacobsson will be safe here for as long as she likes, despite the grumblings in the Party of her being somewhat of an airhead on most issues, because this is a solidly Democratic district. However a disclaimer is necessary, both the 52nd and 103rd do not include the newer more conservative side of town, ie SW Champaign, and when those new areas are included in city wide totals it will swing back to parity between the parties.
So my final observations from this election are that if Democrats put up candidates who want to win, have an appealing personality, and are willing to work for that victory, we will be successful. The Township Supivisor is a great example of that just like Sen. Frerichs is. Republicans views '07 as their first and most likely best chance to rebuild their farm team, something they despertly need especially if they want to field even a semi-competitive candidate v. Frerichs. They knew that in '08 and '10 they would be wiped out in what is sure to be Democratic years since that is when students and lazy Dems (of which there are plenty) turn out. In that regard you guys did a good job and put the necessary resources into that effort since you are smart enough to realize this was your last true chance for the next two years. Champaign will continue to grow Democratic because of demographic changes while Democrats simply need to focus on where we found success in past years; fielding good candidates who want and are willing to work for a win. If that happens the money will appear like it has in the past and we'll move right back to where we've been for years; making gains across CU.
PS- You really should be congratulating the local business community who last night flexed their muscles much like the labor unions did up in Chicago. When they TOTALLY band together and support the same candidates, which they almost exclusively did with Bruno, Finen, and Foster, they create a very well funded noise machine that voters pay attention to.
Julia Reitz would not be states attorney and Naomi would not have been elected nor overwhelmingly re-elected without student votes.
Good post, Urbanaboy, but I take exception to one thing: Rietz won 63-37. Even without the student vote, she had that one in the bag.
I have no problem being civil. I do have a problem being attacked personally and those attacks going unanswered people start to think their valid undermining my credibility.
I would disagree on the smoking issue it was a big issue in the election. Many of the people that gave money on both sides gave it based on the smoking ban. People that I spoke to as I knocked on doors commented on the smoking ban on both sides. The voters voted and that's all that matters what everybody else thinks means nothing as would some poll. Fenien, Foster and Jerry won yes the Mayor won the the clean aire people could have ran someone against him and they didn't. or couldn't find the support or candidate strong enough to beat him.
It's a mandate on the candidates who were on the ballot. Nothing more, nothing less.
I agree, and I think this was the point I was trying to make all along:
IP and others, you have to admit that while this election was a good night for Republicans it is not indicative of what the true nature of CU really is.
You guys did a great job taking advantage of the political climate on April 17, 2007. You got some big wins and have some strong people in office. Again, congratulations.
But this victory does not signal a shift in the political allegiances of most residents. Like it or not, this remains a Blue town. The Council would be wise to govern with that in mind.
I've said enough and made my points as clearly as possible. Thanks for the discussion!
As Oil Man pointed out early in this post. The City of Champaign election for city council seats are nonpartisan. Let's hope that the canidates that were elected feel responsibility to all the people of Champaign and not to some local political power brokers in either political party.
With this election behind us, I think we ought to start thinking about some of the elections ahead. It isn't too early to start looking for candidates who can be elected and who represent the will of the people. The City of Champaign Township Supervisor's office would be a good place to start.
"I have no problem being civil. I do have a problem being attacked personally and those attacks going unanswered people start to think their valid undermining my credibility."
Answering the attacks in the manner you do undermines your credibility to a much greater degree than the original attack.
Be the bigger person, and ignore them or laugh them off. It will do wonders for your credibility and for the level of discussion on here.
Like it or not, this remains a Blue town. The Council would be wise to govern with that in mind.
The Council should govern as they campaigned. To do otherwise destroys their credibility, and negates the mandate of those that voted in THIS ELECTION. If they govern as cons, then get beat by libs in a future elections, so be it. But to just immediately concede that conservative policies are "losers", before you even get sworn in, would be idiotic, and quite disheartening.
not an attack, run4cover, just a suggestion: if you use a little punctuation, your posts are easier to read
rsw,
Teacher Man lives and works in Urbana. Responding to his feelings about Champaign elections is pointless. He doesn't have a horse in the race.
PB,
I really don't see how that's relevant. Please discuss the arguments, not the people.
Thanks.
Teacher Man, are you saying that Champaign is a blue town? Why do you say that? If that were the case, wouldn't voters just have ignored the personalities of the candidates and pulled a straight Democrat ticket?
Does any one else think it is odd that the Champaign City Council almost always
votes 9-0 and every single issue with very little discussion or debate. Who's
in charge? I can't believe they can agree on everything. Is it all cut and dried
before they even get to the meeting. Who decides how they'll vote?
"Teacher Man lives and works in Urbana. Responding to his feelings about Champaign elections is pointless. He doesn't have a horse in the race."
One other response to this: I, too, live in Urbana, yet I was most certainly involved in the Champaign Council races, and will continue to be involved in and discuss Champaign politics.
The City Mgr, Steven Carter is the dog, and for the most part the council is the tail in Champaign.
Bingo. I am sure most 9-0 votes are proposals from City management. That said, it has to be a tough spot, a part-time councilman opposing the full-time professional city manager.
Would anyone please tell me whether the Democrats or Republicans are now in charge of the City Council? Did losing Rosales tip it to the GOP?
Found somewhere on another thread:
4 GOP (Feinen, Foster, McIntosh, Mayor), 4 Dem (Pirok, Ladue, Dodds, Jackson) , 1 GOP/Ind (Bruno)
Thank you.
The City Council frequently votes 9-0 because the City Manager arranges for them to meet in small groups with staff on controversial items in order to avoid the Open Meetings Act. While that technically meets the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, it doesn't make for a lot of open government, just lots of votes that are 9-0 without much discussion.
Dear Champaign Dweller:
Please name some of those controversial items where they met in small groups. And your source for such information, please. Inquiring minds want to know.
Or are you just speculating?
iI'm not speculating. Ask anyone who ever worked at the City if that isn't the process that they followed and continue to follow. They used to have all sorts of meetings about all sorts of things, including development, the Boneyard, the solid waste issue, etc, etc, etc.
If you really want to sway the Council, show up at the study sessions...or contact your Councilperson shortly thereafter. The straw votes taken at that time are a good indication of the way they are going, and usually stand, but there is room for sway before they take THE VOTE. But by the time the Council actually meets to vote, their minds are "usually" made up, and you will be hard pressed to change them. That and, ANYONE is free to give private input to any Councilperson at any time. Their email adresses and phone numbers ARE public. You need not wait for a meeting to tell them what you think. Not everything needs to be a public spectacle...... Just write or call them.
Also, our Council tries pretty hard NOT to be partisan on every given issue. Fixing potholes and annexing land isn't something to argue about for the point of arguing. Champaign is really good at not wasting time arguing for the heck of it. "Picking fights" in public coucil is no way to efficiantly deal with an issue. Rosales liked to do that, and where did that get him? Council members are free to talk one on one about any issue before them, without having a "meeting". In fact, I believe they can talk in whatever number is less than a quorum without violating the meetings act, which in our Council's case, I believe is 4. I could be wrong, but I think this is the case.
Reading some of the exchanges posted, I am reminded of watching the council meeting last year in which the "smoking ban" was passed ( I feel compelled to point out to those who don't quite get it, this was not a ban on the act of smoking- as a resident of CU your are still free to smoke, however, you are no longer able to force those around you in a closed environment to inhale your "exhaust fumes." I suggest those of you who find that statement objectionable look up the meaning of consideration). Before the final vote, Herr Schwiegart took it upon himself to address those in favor of the "ban." I can't give you the verbatim quote, but paraphrasing, he felt the need to admonish those in support of the "ban" for not having the 'guts' to put the issue on the ballot for all of the voters of CU. He declared that if they had done so, they would have been re-soundly defeated. I believe Chancellor Schweigart made those statements with the absolute belief that the proposition would not be passed. The look on his face two minutes later when the vote roll-call was taken, and the "ban" was passed, was,as they say, priceless!
The point I try to make with this is that in spite of the abysmal voter turn-out that seems to be the norm for CU, to take the results form last weeks elections to be any sort of mandate along partisan lines, would be premature and potentially devastating to the party who claims to have interpreted the "voice of the people." Before you convince yourself of the reversal of any council decisions, keep the image of "Jerry-so-sure-of-himself" Schweigart in the back of your mind. Another couple of facts to consider: over 700 communities in America including over 40 in Illinois alone, have enacted prohibitions on smoking. Of those, exactly Zero have overturned or repealed the ban. I am continually amazed at how we think we are so significantly different than the rest of the country. The "ban" will NOT be repealed. I am as confident saying that as I was in saying that the "ban" would pass initially. To back that statement up, I will offer the same proposition as I did when the issue was before the council last year: I had stated to many publicly that I was so confident that the "ban" would pass and that if it didnt, I would quit bartending in CU (I've also stated that if business wasn't the same or better for bars in CU by the end of the calendar year I would quit. Judging by the vast amount of sources I have both within the bar/restaurant business as well as the distributors that service them, things are starting to come back to normal for most of those who suffered a down-turn in business. By fall only those representing the hard-core smokers will still be bitching. With the exception of bars like the Tumble Inn, Hubers. the American Legions, etc., the idea that all the other bars have to cow-tow to roughly 20% of the population, smacks of the bleeding heart liberalism that so many of you despise).I vow to quit bartending if the "ban" is repealed I have traveled across the nation. I have never, repeat never, seen a community so socially revolved around drinking. People in this town go out to see and be seen. The number of patrons that will decide to sit in their basement and drink as opposed to going to their local watering hole is minuscule. I have already seen the most ardent of my customers coming back to the bar after a brief attempt to drink in Savoy or elsewhere. Nobody gives a shit about them at BW3, the Senators Inn, Old Orcahrd, or anywhere else for that matter. Question it as you may, but the "Norm" factor is more important to most customers in this town than the fact that they could by their alcohol of choice at the grocery store for significantly less. Being recognized and in some way appreciated at the neighborhood pub is as important as the temperature of their beverage, and substantially more important than the ability to smoke a cig at the bar.
I contend that if you are still having problems at your bar with decreased revenues, you have a problem with your business acumen. Anyone in business for themselves will tell you that current revenue is no guarantee of future success. It is an ever changing dynamic, and those prepared for that will succeed, while those who sit around and make excuses will spend their days dodging calls from their creditors. There are MANY, MANY, bars in CU who are doing as well or better than before the "ban." I wonder if the owners who are still crying about their regulars leaving them high and dry, realize that a sizable part of the community has decided their is no reason to go into their particular establishments. People want to enjoy themselves when they are out, not be pawns in some owners perceived chess match ( in another post I talked about having gone into The OII, Pia's, Chief's, among others, and being summarily dismissed once my drink was served. If these places had any concept of attracting and retraining new business, it it now way shape or form shows itself).
Still Bartending A Year From Now
People keep bringing up the smoking ban as if it were the decisive issue last week. It was a factor, but it clearly wasn't the most important factor, as I wrote in the original post.
How can I be so sure? Because Tom Bruno finished first, Deb Frank Feinen in second, and Karen Foster third, and they don't agree on the ban.
IP-
Understand your concern- I was just addressing the seemingly consistent theme among these posts and the ongoing commentary I hear in the bars.
Wishing the council could vote me a better golf game
Bartender,
Thanks - it's not just you. The NG ran yet another breathless, alarmist story about the smoking ban today, as if that was the only issue worth discussing in the entire election.
No mention of how the new Council will address Section 8, the Township, tax rates, downtown, fringe roads, the TIF, relations with the UI or Unit 4. Just speculation about the smoking ban, and even that all starts with the same fact: the City won't do anything until they figure out whether the State passes a ban, so it's all pointless anyway.
"No mention of how the new Council will address Section 8, the Township, tax rates, downtown, fringe roads, the TIF, relations with the UI or Unit 4."
Of course not. The N-G's business is selling soap. There are serious issues facing the council. However, at the same time there's no need to trivialize the threat of the government usurping the rights of private business owners. The issue isn't just about smoking. Smokers are just easy targets.
Champaign will modify the ban no matter what the state does. And I hope that sends a message to our representatives that we downstate folks are quite capable of making our own decisions, thank you very much.
Just speculation about the smoking ban, and even that all starts with the same fact: the City won't do anything until they figure out whether the State passes a ban, so it's all pointless anyway.
You're probably right... but quite a few folks have been coming up to me and telling me they hope otherwise. They're telling me they voted as they did primarily because they disagreed with the ban. Bruno got quite a few anti-ban votes (mine included) because there are, indeed, other important issues. Given a choice of four pro-ban candidates to fill the third spot, and given my mostly conservative leanings, it was a pretty easy decision for me.
Of course, the smoking ban is a topic that I'm a magnet for by now, so I'm not by any means claiming to be getting any scientific sampling here. :) But just today, three non-smoking co-workers approached me to say pretty much the same thing: "I really am enjoying not smelling like smoke after going to a bar, but I just don't think that's a decision the government should be taking away from businesses. And that's why I voted the way I did."
I think a lot of folks will be very disappointed if the topic isn't placed on the Council's agenda right away.
I am continually amazed at how we think we are so significantly different than the rest of the country.
I'm still keeping an eye on Hawaii, myself... http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/docs/getstatus2.asp?billno=HB792
I think that people should be allowed to smoke in bars, as long as it's just marijuana and not tobacco.
Tuesday's 4-3 vote brought applause, hugs and tears as bar owners celebrated. One shouted, "Minneapolis, here we come!" -- a reference to the fact that bar owners said they would next seek to roll Minneapolis' ban back. Hennepin County Commissioner Penny Steele, who supported the amendment to exempt bars who earn more than 50 percent of their net revenue from liquor sales, fought back tears as she thanked the bar owners and referred to them as "courageous people" for opposing the anti-smoking lobby.
"Today the little guy won. It's great. It's a great day," said Martin Duffy, who had testified on several occasions that his Osseo bar was hurt by the smoking ban. "It's a miracle. It's a bloody miracle. There's no money behind us. There's huge money behind them."
Senate Bill 500 now is in the House, having passed the Senate overwhelmingly. The House is made up of 118 members and it takes 60 votes to have a majority. Already 33 House members have asked to be listed as sponsors of the bill in the house and it is set for hearings on Thursday April 26 at 8:30 am.
It should pass easily.
Here's the list of House sponsors:
House Sponsors
(Rep. Karen A. Yarbrough - Annazette Collins - Karen May - Barbara Flynn Currie - Carolyn H. Krause, Sara Feigenholtz, Kathleen A. Ryg, Elizabeth Coulson, Jack McGuire, Sandra M. Pihos, Paul D. Froehlich, Eddie Washington, Constance A. Howard, William Davis, Harry Osterman, Wyvetter H. Younge, Julie Hamos, Fred Crespo, Kevin Joyce, Cynthia Soto, Rosemary Mulligan, Al Riley, Deborah L. Graham, Elizabeth Hernandez, Monique D. Davis, Marlow H. Colvin, Esther Golar, Elaine Nekritz, Luis Arroyo, Daniel J. Burke, David E. Miller, Joe Dunn and Mary E. Flowers)
Hearings
Environmental Health Committee Hearing Apr 26 2007 8:30AM Capitol Building Room 114 Springfield, IL
Mollie "Studebaker" Fenwick-
If you and Moon-grrl are two different people, I swear I will become a Mormon and marry you both. If you are the same person, I will marry you twice. As someone who has had to break up more bar fights than I care to recount, I long for the day when customers sit back smoke a collective joint, and the biggest concern is whether or not there is enough Frito's in house to satisfy everyone.
How's this for a bumper sticker:
"Don't Hate: Cheech and Chong In '08"
Man, spring must be in the air. Bartender is talking about marrying not one, but multiple people. Perhaps it is time for an intervention.
--
http://glock21.blogspot.com
Glock 21-
You are a very perceptive person. An Intervention won't be necessary, but perhaps the collective blog community could help out (Habitat for Humanity style) and construct some new digs for myself and the potential Mrs.Bartender(s). It doesnt have to be quite along the lines of MTV Cribs, but please keep in mind my need for both a "Zen" center and at least one bowling alley. I will take it upon myself to procure the ubiquitous copy of "Scarface" as well as the 3-4 bottles of Crystal that must occupy the refrigerator at all times. Word to your mothers.
Sorry... I'm still stuck in the conservative way of thinking... one wife and one mistress? Fine. Multiple girfriends? Great! But once you start talking about more than one wife I start thinking about burning your house down and exiling you to Utah. No one should ever be that masochistic! All that nagging... all that psychological warfare... man, it's a wonder Joseph Smith survived just at the mere suggestion of the idea!
</tongue-in-cheek>
--
http://glock21.blogspot.com
Glock 21-
You've got me wondering if I should take a closer look at Romney. Maybe I should shift sides altogether( once you go Mormon you never go ack!). The idea of a bartender's "compound" is intriguing and quite tantalizing. I'm curious, should I tack up fliers around the neighborhood in hopes of getting good "recruits," or should I just stick to the E-Bay?
Your last line makes me think of watching Kinky Freidman's press conference last year, announcing his running for the Governor of Texas. When a reporter asked him what he thought of the idea of gay marriage, Friedman replied, while Cooley puffing from a rather large stogie, that it was his belief that " gay people had every bit as much rite to be as miserable as the rest of us!."
If they are two different women, how does bartender and "moon-ebaker" sound?
What if there was this compromise:
Bars are smoke free from May to November. This seems to be the time that the greater community wants to patronize bars. WITH the favorable weather.
From my POV, it seems like bars exist on regulars from "first frost" until "last snow".
But the "high season" seems to be when the weather is nice until it turns cold.
If that be the case, why not make THAT the non-smoking indoors season, and leave it at that.
Just a thought, but it seems to me that would end many peoples complaints...
I am a smoker, and this would be OK with me. And I LIKE the idea of some time of year when I can go to my local bar and not be smoked out. YES even smokers don't like being in a "SUPER-smokey"bar. But we accept it too, or we wouldn't be there! AND, if it's too much, we leave. Simple as that.
BUT!!!, as year-round-regulars we don't like being treated as second or third class citizens either!!! I go to MY local bar three, maybe four days a week, and I don't like "once-a-monthers" who tip like crap( thus irritating "my" bartender and "souring our time"), telling me what to do!! I am NOT a drunk, but me and "my" bartender have a good relationship( I spend $20 and tip her/him $5, I make "high-ish" 5 figures, my chidren do not starve) we have some conversation, we blow off some steam, I hear about their kids lives, they hear about mine, we laugh..I go home to my family, and I don't smoke at home...Wife's rules..and I totally agree..bad example for our chidren...I hope they grow up to not smoke!!!.......... BUT THAT'S WHY I go to a bar!!
I also hate smelling like beer too...can you legislate that too PLEASE! (sarcasm)
I don't mind being pushed outside to smoke when the weather is nice AND my local bar gets a lot of business because of it. I just get P/O'd when it's cold as all get out, and ALL my fellow patrons are huddling outside so we can smoke, when the bar is now CLEARLY empty(because we're all outside), and it's CLEAR that the "smoke free people" are nowhere to be found, or REALLY scarce to be seen!.
Time to start my day and make breakfast for the kids, after my shower and such. Just registering in...won't be out as much next week, time to start the vegatable garden. I don't mean to offend anyone..just putting in my two cents......
My main point is, does it HAVE to be a fight. OR, can it just be a simpler negotiation. That's all. WHY the "ALL OR NOTHING"?
Mollie "Studebaker" Fenwick-
If you and Moon-grrl are two different people, I swear I will become a Mormon and marry you both.
Oh goody! Wally already tells me that I'm a moron, so we should be perfect for each other.
ouch!
Oh, sorry, you said "Mormon." My bad. Would that limit how much booze we could have at our wedding?
The amount of booze would be limited ,only, by time, body weight, and the number of blunt objects in the room. The last concern can be corrected, however (incidentally this solution works for infants and toddlers as well) : NERF furniture!
Writing out Ken Jennings invitation right now