My Quibble With Rich Miller

I have to take issue with Rich Miller's latest column.  First let me say that Rich Miller provides a tremendous service to those of us who like to follow Illinois politics.  He's one of the hardest working guys over at the statehouse and does a fabulous job of unearthing and conveying all kinds of information of value to political junkies.  Most of what I learn about what's going on in Springfield I learn from his reporting and website.  He's also a pretty nice guy.

Why all the qualifications?  Well, I'm going to offer a bit of a criticism, but want to be clear about how I view Rich and what he does lest my critique be wrongly interpreted as some kind of personal attack.  Far from it.  This is strictly on the merits.

I have for years believed that Rich tends to have a sympathetic bent toward the Democratic Party.  There's nothing wrong with that, as I don't consider him as vying to be an "objective journalist" in the same respect I would expect an employee of a major newspaper to be.  He's really carved out his own niche as, more or less, an avant-gard information maven.  When you think about it, he's been "blogging" with his Capitol Fax before blogging was even a part of our lexicon.  Pretty smart guy!

Will you get around to it already!  Alright, while it's no big deal to have sympathies one way or another that may from time to time come out in your coverage, such sympathies can color your perceptions of what is actually happening or might happen.

That's where my critique of Rich's latest article begins.  As I understand his column, Rich is essentially arguing that most Illinois voters are so upset with the Governor and the dysfunction in Springfield that they are just itching to take it out on somebody.  I agree with this general point.  He then states the following:

There will be an opportunity for Illinoisans to vent their rage next year without voting for a Republican, however. And, no, I'm not talking about the Green Party candidates.

The build-up to this sentiment is how voters have Bush fatigue and are angry with the President and, by extension, the national and state Republican Party.  Look, nobody is contesting that the Republican Party in Illinois has had, putting it rather kindly, a very bad run of luck in recent years.  Many of the problems are self-induced and many result from significant shifts in voter demographics.  I do believe it to be a bit of hyperbole to contend that dissatisfied Democrats and Independent voters in Illinois definitely wouldn't vote for Republican candidates in 2008.  That may be the case for hard-core ideologues, or perhaps those who inhabit the circle of folks Rich runs with, but isn't necessarily applicable to "soft-Democrats" and self-styled Independents.  These voters, joined by "soft-Republicans" are almost always up for grabs and candidates spend millions of dollars trying to woo them into their camps.

Back to Rich's argument.  He implies that, since there's just no way non-GOP voters can vote for Republican candidates because they're so mad at President Bush and his "brand" (despite the fact that a new nominee will be the face of the Republican Party on election day), Illinois voters will direct their anger at the Governor and statehouse dysfunction through the only possible recourse available.  What is that?  How about something as esoteric to average voters as a constitutional convention.   Maybe he's right, but I'm skeptical.  Discussing the pros and cons of a constitutional convention is an insiders game, and most voters simply aren't insiders. 

Rich didn't mention another possibility voters have to register their anger at their own party.  Short of voting en masse for the other party -- sometimes they stay home.  Many elections are won and lost based upon which side showed-up at the polls and which side threw up their hands and remained at home in disgust.  This is a very real possibility.   

Rich also didn't discuss the myriad of other factors that will be at play.  President Bush may not be registering very high in the polls, but there's a Democratic Congress in Washington with an even lower approval rating.  The Democratic base isn't exactly thrilled with the Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid Congress.  There's also a chance that the Democratic Party could nominate the very polarizing Hillary Clinton for President -- a development some view as a potential drag on the Party nationally.  Finally, and although it may be anathema for Democrats to want to admit it, the situation on the ground in Iraq has markedly improved from where it was just one year ago.  Don't believe it?  Ask yourself why Iraq has curiously vanished from the headlines over the past few months.  One more thing to consider.  What if Republican candidates for the state legislature run television ads where their opponents morph into Governor Blagojevich?

Factoring in these scenarios, what Rich has essentially concluded is that despite an historically unpopular Democratic Congress, a Governor with a frighteningly low approval-rating, a state legislature completely controlled by Democrats that is enveloped in the dysfuntion, a possible Democratic presidential nominee who polarizes the electorate and a possible Republican presidential candidate who will be a "fresh face," that non-GOP Illinois voters will most certainly not vote against Democrats on their ballots and probably wouldn't stay home.  That may be what Rich wants to believe will happen, ergo the previously mentioned bias, but it simply strains credulity.

I'll also offer a possibility that may actually embolden Democrats to look past the problems in Springfield.  There's a slim but very real chance that favorite son Barack Obama could overtake Hillary for the nomination if, as with Howard Dean, voters decide she is unelectable.  If Obama is heading the ticket next year, there could be a strong and enthusiastic showing for Democrats. 

One more point about a blue state like Illinois electing Republicans.  Louisiana, another blue state with a Democratic-majority and tradition that richly exceeds more recent trends in Illinois, just elected a Republican governor as voters exercised their outrage at a corrupt and dysfunctional political class that did them no favors following Hurricane Katrina.  I'll even bet at least a few Democrats voted for the new guy. 

Comments

[Nancy Hanks]

Glad to see your objections to a somewhat knee-jerk analysis of voter reaction. I saw this analysis and I didn't agree with it either because, as an independent, I think independents are looking at who is the best candidate given the election. We live in a two-party system so that really narrows the choice when it comes to an election and voting. A lot has been written about the fact that the 2006 turn-over in Congress, led by independents, doesn't necessarily indicate a loyalty to the Dems by indies.
Please see my blog The Hankster!
Thanks!
Nancy