Rauner says GOP will win 9 House seats next year to knock Madigan out of Speakership

— Tony Arnold (@tonyjarnold) August 16, 2017

While speaking to fellow Republicans at the State Fair this morning Governor Rauner announced his intention to try to win 9 seats in the State House next year. In 2016 the Republicans had a net pickup of four seats in the House and there are now 67 Democrats and 51 Republicans, the GOP would need to pick up 9 seats to win the majority in the House.

State House

Here are two lists side by side, one is a list of all the State House districts currently held by Democrats from most to least Republican and the other is a list of all districts currently held by Republicans from most to least Democratic.

State Senate

Here are two lists side by side, one is a list of all the State Senate districts currently held by Democrats from most to least Republican and the other is a list of all districts currently held by Republicans from most to least Democratic. The Senate currently has 37 Democrats and 22 Republicans, the Republicans would need to pick up 8 seats to win the majority.

Congress

Here are two lists side by side, one is a list of all the Illinois Congressional districts currently held by Democrats from most to least Republican and the other is a list of all districts currently held by Republicans from most to least Democratic.

Methodology - I combined the vote totals by district for the 2012 race for President, 2014 races for US Senate, Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller and Treasurer and the 2016 races for US Senate and Comptroller and then ranked them. I did not include the 2016 Presidential because the regional voting patters by party were substantially different than typical and were a) not necessarily indicative of relative party strength and b) probably unique to the dynamics of that specific race.

From time to time when the Governor files a new A-1 including (relatively) small donations from supporters someone will ask why donors are contributing to Rauner given his capacity to self fund. With such a large amount of the funding on the Republican side during the 2016 cycle coming from Rauner and just a few of his wealthy allies it's easy to mistakenly assume that his donor pool in 2014 was small as well but that was not actually the case.

Here is a breakdown of Governor Rauner's fundraising in 2014:

Citizens for Rauner, Inc.
Campaign Fundraising up to Election Day 2014

Fundraising on December 31, 2014

Not including the $20 million Rauner added on New Year's Eve 2014, he raised just shy of $70 million for the 2014 Governor's race, although about $8 million of that was transferred to the Illinois Republican Party. In 2014 about $46 million of Rauner's total came from himself, the state and national party and his few wealthy allies but he still raised over $24 million from traditional Republican supporters and other various donors. That is roughly comparable to the $23 million Rod Blagojevich spent in 2002 to win the Governor's race, a not insignificant amount. Even though Bruce Rauner is currently sitting on $70 million ($50 million from himself, $20 million from Ken Griffin) he's likely to continue to raise money from traditional sources for the remainder of the election.

Illinois is a big state covering all or part of ten media markets but in a Democratic primary anywhere from 70% - 80% of the vote is in the Chicago media market making it the main focus of most statewide Democratic primary campaigns. However as we discussed yesterday a small plurality may be enough to win the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2018 and roughly about a quarter of the vote in the Democratic primary will come from the other nine media markets which means you can't overlook the downstate vote.

In some past competitive statewide primaries we've had a downstate candidate who was able to rally and consolidate that vote. For example take a look at Glenn Poshard's vote map in the 1998 Democratic primary for Governor, prior to running for Governor he was a congressman in a district that ran roughly from Decatur to the Kentucky border and you can see on the map how he had almost monolithic support in his old district, ran strong in western Illinois and did around 50% in most of the counties in northwestern Illinois, the downstate vote belonged to him.

But in this cycle's primary the only downstate candidate is Bob Daiber, the Madison County regional superintendent of schools, and that vote is potentially up for grabs so let's look at some other similar races. Typically in competitive Democratic primaries the candidate with the financial advantage is the one that does best downstate. In the 2002 Democratic primary for Governor Rod Blagojevich was the first candidate on TV, had enough money to run ads statewide and he built up an early lead and held on to that lead after his opponents got on the air, he won 57% of the vote in the 90 counties outside the Chicago media market. In the 2010 Democratic primary for US Senate Alexi Giannoulias was the first candidate on TV, had enough money to run ads statewide and he built up an early lead and held on to that lead after his opponents got on the air, he won 44% of the vote in the 90 counties outside the Chicago media market.

Which brings us to 2004. The 2004 Democratic primary for US Senate was made famous because it launched the federal electoral career of Barack Obama, he won the nomination comfortably with 53% of the vote and his next closest competitor was Comptroller Dan Hynes at 24%. The end of the primary may have been anti-climactic but the race was fascinating and had some interesting features that may be relevant to the upcoming Democratic primary for Governor.

Blair Hull entered the race promising to spend up to $40 million, he actually wound up spending $29 million on the losing effort and he finished with 11% of the vote. Late in the campaign Hull's divorce file was unsealed and the ugly revelations coincided with a significant drop in his support resulting in a distant third place finish.

The simple takeaway from the Hull candidacy is even incredible personal wealth can't shield a candidate with skeletons in his oppo file but beyond that obvious observation there are a few more which I find interesting.

Prior to the release of Hull's divorce file in late February 2004 he was leading in the polls. A Tribune/WGN poll conducted in mid-February, about a month before the election, had him up 9 points on Obama and 13 points on Hynes who at the time was the only statewide elected official in the field.

Hull not only had a lot of money but he spent it early on statewide television and had much of the airwaves to himself. During the 2002 gubernatorial campaign Hull sat in on some strategy meetings at Blagojevich campaign headquarters and Hull's primary followed a similar playbook to Blagojevich's the cycle before. Both were the first candidate on TV, both spent enough throughout the state to build up an early polling advantage, especially downstate, and both tried to hang on to that early lead as their opponents got on the air late in the campaign. Blagojevich's early lead was enough to carry him to the nomination, Hull's lead wasn't sustainable against the combined factors of Obama's substantial political appeal and Hull's ugly divorce revelations.

At the time that Tribune/WGN poll was taken in mid-February Hull was polling at 30% downstate, ahead of Hynes who was at 20%. Hull was a relative newcomer and virtual unknown while Hynes had already been elected statewide twice, winning the Comptroller's office in 1998 and 2002, yet thanks to his unmatched TV spending Hull was 10 points ahead of Hynes at the time. Even when the race was over, when Hull finished with just 11% of the statewide vote he still won 24% of the vote in the 90 counties outside of the Chicago media market, due in large part to that early unmatched TV spending. Being the only candidate on the air is a powerful advantage in Illinois statewide races.

In our current Democratic gubernatorial race J.B. Pritzker is already up on TV with eight months still left before the primary (yes, that's crazy). Like Hull Pritzker entered the race largely as an unknown to most voters and again like Hull he has almost unlimited personal wealth that he's pledged to use for the upcoming campaign. Pritzker's unmatched TV spending will go head to head with Kennedy's name recognition for early support among downstate primary voters while rivals hope to play catch up at the end. Six of the nine downstate media markets are only partially in Illinois and partially lie in other states (Quad Cities, Quincy, St. Louis, Paducah, Evansville, Terre Haute) making them inefficient and expensive for advertising so the challengers going on the air later in the cycle will still need to be well funded to compete here. The downstate vote may only be a quarter of the statewide vote but traditionally the candidate with a significant financial advantage has been the beneficiary, a dynamic that we may see play out again in 2018.

Correction: an early version of this post failed to note that Bob Daiber is a downstate Democratic gubernatorial candidate.

Back in April Laura Washington wrote a column titled Message to Dems in governor's race: Listen to black community with the following premise:

The lineup for Illinois' 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary is firming up fast. So far, the six-candidate field is mostly white, and all male.

To win, one of them must energize and capture the party's crucial base. African-American voters should be asking: What have you done for me? What will you do for me?

Since then the Democratic primary candidates haven't really taken her advice but we're starting to see some movement. Over the weekend Chris Kennedy, son of Robert Kennedy, gave a lengthy speech at a south side church on the devastating impact of gun violence relating how it affected his childhood. Today Ameya Pawar is scheduled to give a speech in Bronzeville outlining his plan for criminal justice reform. To kick off his campaign Prizker announced his candidacy at a south side park district field house and featured a number of prominent community supporters. Prizker also made a $1 million deposit into Illinois Service Federal Savings, Chicago's last black-owned bank, which drew comparisons to Bruce Rauner who did something similar in 2014.

Kennedy has had the early support of black voters according to what little polling data has been publicly available. In a midterm primary, which typically skews towards older voters, the Kennedy name and family history will likely be an asset, as well as key endorsers like Rep. Bobby Rush.

In a field with so many candidates and a significant number in the top tier, any of whom are capable of making a strong showing, a relatively modest plurality may be enough to win the nomination. In the 2010 primary for US Senate Alexi Giannoulias won a three-way statewdie race with just 39% of the vote, in the 1998 gubernatorial primary Glenn Poshard won a six-way race with just 38% of the vote, in the 2002 gubernatorial primary Rod Blagojevich won a three-way race with 37% of the vote. Heck, in the 2008 Democratic primary for Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez won a six-way race with just 27% of the vote. In a primary with a large and well contested field it often doesn't require a majority or even a large plurality to win the nomination so winning over any sizable bloc of voters can be enough to secure the nomination.

Which brings me to Roland Burris. In 1990 Burris was elected Attorney General and in 1994 he ran for Governor, the first of three unsuccessful attempts. In the 1994 Democratic gubernatorial primary Burris got 36.5% of the statewide vote but came in 2nd to Dawn Clark Netsch's 44.4%. He tried again in 1998 earning 30.5% of the statewide vote but again finishing 2nd to Glenn Poshard who won with 37.6%. In 2002 he tried one last time earning 29.0% of the statewide vote but finishing 3rd behind Blagojevich's 36.5%. In each race his support fell a little bit from the previous cycle but even after his 3rd attempt he held together a statewide coalition of supporters that was still good enough for 29% of the statewide vote. The candidate field for the upcoming Democratic primary has a number of strong attributes but none began the race with a base as big as the former Burris coalition. Burris was an accomplished statewide elected official, he certainly assembled a coalition that included more than just black votes, but the black vote was a key component of that coalition and with the black vote uncertain in this upcoming Democratic primary a potentially very large voting bloc is up for grabs.

Can any one candidate win a majority of the black vote? That is difficult to say for sure but some recent voting trends suggest that it is certainly possible. It's impossible to isolate and calculate just the black vote for historical statewide races but we can look at a subset of the data and use it as a proxy. Below is a chart of the vote in Chicago's majority black wards, it does not include voters in the suburbs or downstate so it is an imperfect proxy but revealing nonetheless.

The leading candidate of voters in these black majority wards has had a mixed success rate, some of them won the primary while others didn't, still in each of them the preferred candidate not only won these wards but won them with a majority and not just a plurality which suggests that the candidate that is best able to appeal to this bloc of voters could potentially unite them in that support. In the case of the 2006, 2010 and 2014 gubernatorial primaries there were only two Democratic candidates so the leading candidate was guaranteed a majority, nonetheless the observation still holds.

Can any candidate in this field reassemble and build on the Burris coalition? Maybe, maybe not. Barack Obama was able to in 2004 when he won the US Senate primary with 53% of the statewide vote against a strong field, however Cheryle Jackson was unable to find the same success in the 2010 US Senate primary finishing 3rd with just 20% of the statewide vote.

There isn't a guaranteed path to the Democratic nomination through the black vote in Illinois, other paths have proven just as successful in recent statewide primaries, but there is an awful lot of votes here and it's not yet clear which of the 2018 candidates is going to win their support. It's only a matter of time before the campaigns recognize the math and start to vigorously compete for these votes. This part of the campaign has been surprisingly quiet so far, it won't stay that way.

It's the dog-days of summer and the Sox have lost about a hundred games in a row (estimated, roughly) so let's distract ourselves with a little fun with numbers.

Two weeks ago Natasha Korecki had an article in Politico where some party officials speculated the Illinois Governor's race could cost more than $300 million. Following that, here was my prediction on Twitter:

Not based on any inside info, just gut, I'm willing to put a bottle of Malort on the table & take the under on $300Mhttps://t.co/pLIStwUcnI

— IL Election Data (@ILElectionData) July 13, 2017

Obviously $300 million in spending is only achievable if the general election candidates are Rauner and Pritzker, which is by no means guaranteed. But for the purpose of this exercise let's say that they are the nominees of their respective parties.

Here's a little back-of-the-napkin for why I'm skeptical. The real question is how much will have to be spent on media buys (TV and digital) on top of everything else that will be spent (mail, production, operations, etc.) to hit $300 million? Let's try to guess at that.

Aside from Pritzker the other Democratic gubernatorial candidates have combined to spend about $1.4 million so far, let's say for argument's sake they spend another $15 million on top of that in the primary. For our general election predictions let's use Rauner's 2014 spending as a guide. In 2014 Rauner had about $6 million in production expenses, let's estimate that both Rauner and Pritzker will have about $7 million in production expenses this cycle. In 2014 Rauner directly spent about $3 million in mail plus had another $2.5 million from the Illinois Republican party for mail, for this exercise let's estimate they each spend about $6 million in mail. Let's give them each $1 million for polling, $3 million for materials (yard signs, buttons, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc.) and $15 million for operations (operations, travel, payroll, consulting, etc.). Throw in the $9.3 million that Pritzker has already spent plus the $4 million that Rauner has already spent and you've accounted for about $94 million without even getting to media buys for the rest of the cycle yet.

The figures above total $93.7 million dollars, an impressive figure but still far from $300 million. The rest has to be spent on media buys between now and election day (the amount already spent on media buys and other campaign expenditures is listed above).

I don't believe anyone is currently airing TV ads, although digital ads may be ongoing. But for argument's sake let's say both Rauner and Pritzker went back up on TV the day after Labor Day (a Tuesday) and didn't come down until general election day 2018 (also a Tuesday). That is 61 weeks. In order to spend the remaining $206 million you would still have to spend another $3.4 million per week combined (or $1.7 million per week for each candidate) for every week starting this September running through election day the following fall.

For reference, let's look at Rauner's media buys from the 2014 election cycle.

It wasn't until the final four weeks of the general election in 2014 that Rauner was spending $1.7 million per week, that is a healthy statewide buy. In order to spend $300 million on the Governor's race it isn't about spending even more money late in the cycle, that spending only has so much room to grow, the only way they can hit that target is to start spending heavily early. Another way of saying that is in order for the Governor's race spending to reach $300 million combined both Prizker and Rauner need to spend at a level that 2014 Rauner didn't reach until the final month of the election - for the final 61 weeks of this election cycle. That seems unlikely.

None of this really matters, it's all in good fun (and Malort), just a bit of an educated guess but I still want to take the under on $300 million. It will still be a ridiculously high number, 2018 will shatter all campaign spending records and has no worthy previous Illinois comparable. If it does somehow approach or surpass $300 million we will be well beyond Brewster's Millions absurdity.

Here are the totals for the statewide, leadership and party committees.

The Governor continues to lead all candidates, with about $68 million on hand. His committee only spent about $3.4 million this quarter but that is misleading for two reasons, 1) about half of that ($1.5 million) was a transfer to the Illinois Republican Party and 2) he ran a series of ads, the duct tape ads, that were paid for by an arm of the Republican Governor's Association and are not disclosed here.

On the Democratic side Pritzker added $14 million and spent about about $9 million, a little less than $6 million of that was on TV buys. His opponents are not yet on TV and are not expected to be for some time. Biss raised over $1 million for the quarter and has $2.3 million on hand while Kennedy raised just under a million and still has a little less than a million on hand. Pawar spent more than he took in which is atypical this early in the cycle and has a little less than a quarter million remaining while Scott Drury only raised $66K and has a little less than $350K on hand, if he is serious about running for Governor he'll need to step that up.

As for the rest, it's mostly too early. For the legislative races on the Democratic side they'll wait to see who wins the gubernatorial primary to see where the money is needed most, if it's Prizker much of the rest of the money will go to the legislative effort, if not then not. Although I do suspect that we will see some labor money flow to the Democratic caucuses in December, candidate committees are on two or four-year limit cycles but party committees and PACs are on calendar year so I suspect there will be a little bit of money movement before the primary, just not until the end of the year. On the Republican side I suspect it will be similar to 2016 where the bulk of the money came from the Governor and a few of his wealthy allies, but until they know who and how well funded the Democratic nominee for Governor will be I suspect you won't see much movement. With one exception ...

Here are the totals for Independent Expenditure Committees (SuperPACs).

If there is an effort on the Republican side to fund primary challengers to the House Republicans who either voted for the tax increase or the veto override it will probably be funded at arms-length from the party and if the 2016 cycle is any guide that effort will happen at an IE Committee. Liberty Principles has about $700K on hand, when the going gets serious that number will likely go up significantly. In 2016 Rauner transferred about $2.3 million to them in the primary (plus another $2.5 million in the general) but if they are serious about those primary challenges as promised by State Party Chair Tim Schneider then the amount needed will probably be higher this time.

It's early in the cycle so it's best not to read too much into these. Here are the totals for the statewide, leadership and party committees.

And here are the totals for Independent Expenditure Committees (superpacs).

Over the weekend Governor Rauner's campaign committee filed an amended quarterly report for the quarter ending 6/30/2015. The most notable change in this amended report is a reduction in the transfers out from $400,000 to $322,000, a reduction of $78,000.

You may remember that in May of the first year of his administration Governor Rauner made a contribution to every Republican member of the General Assembly, both Senate and House, totaling $400,000. Here's how it was described by the AP:

Gov. Bruce Rauner has started doling out money from his campaign fund to fellow Republicans as the Illinois Legislature approaches what could be difficult votes on several big issues. Rauner divided $400,000 among every Republican member of the Illinois House and Senate, spokeswoman Catherine Kelly said Saturday. The contributions, made Monday, come with just weeks to go before the May 31 end to the spring legislative session, and with Rauner looking to his GOP allies to support his pro-business agenda in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly.

The timing and political ramifications made some of these Republican beneficiaries uncomfortable, some did not cash these checks while others held them and did not cash them right away.

"I don't want to make it look like someone is influencing me from the administration. So, it's setting in a drawer and we're going to hold it," said state Rep. David Reis, a Willow Hill Republican, speaking of the checks worth $3,000 to $10,000 that Rauner sent to each Republican member of the House and Senate. "I thought the timing was unusual. So while we are debating issues, I thought it inappropriate to accept it," added state Rep. Keith Sommer, R-Morton. Rep. Dan Brady, R-Bloomington, also said the contributions felt odd. "While we appreciate the donation, I haven't made a final decision of where, if and when, that I'll do with the check," said Brady, adding he may even give away the money Rauner gave to him.

It appears the Governor's campaign filed this amendment over the weekend to remove the contributions that were never cashed. Here are the contributions that were listed previously that are no longer listed in the latest amendment, these were likely never cashed or otherwise considered contributed under the law:

And here is the list of contributions that remain, these likely were cashed.

Yesterday JB Pritzker's campaign announced that he had contributed $7 million to his campaign, on top of the $200,000 he had previously given. It appears that because of some technical difficulties the A-1 disclosing it didn't get filed, probably early next week.

If Pritzker has already committed $7 million towards the Democratic primary it raises the question of how much will it cost to have a chance in this primary? You probably don't have to spend the most money to win the nomination but each candidate will have to spend enough to communicate effectively. Here is a list of how much was spent by each Democratic candidate for Governor in the last four gubernatorial primaries that we have data for (the electronic filing era).

In 2014 Pat Quinn had token opposition and was able to get through the primary with just $2.8 million whereas the two most competitive primaries here, 2002 and 2010, each had $7.5 million spent by the winner. The 2006 number for Blagojevich is skewed a bit high because he started what was essentially a general election TV campaign in February and then didn't really come down until late summer so his TV numbers look high here.

What's the minimum amount that's needed to win here? It's hard to say but Vallas came just short spending $3.3 million and that was 15 years ago so costs have certainly gone up. It's hard to imagine a candidate winning this primary on less than that.

The 2016 cycle will be remembered for the most expensive state legislative races in our state's history ... so far. In all $134 million was spent on races for the Illinois General Assembly and another $39 million remained in the campaign accounts of the the winners, their challengers and legislative leaders. These eye-popping totals do not even include the $50 million Governor Rauner recently added to his campaign account or the $10.4 million that federal superpac Leading Illinois For Tomorrow (LIFT) spent on anti-Trump ads that also tried to tie Trump to Rauner or the $11 million spent in the Comptroller's race. It also doesn't include the more than $2 million that the Governor's IE, Turnaround Illinois, spent on ads promoting term limits.

Not only was there a massive influx of money this cycle but also significant amounts of money were moved around within the system making it hard to keep track of all the money without double counting it. Throughout the cycle we were tracking money raised to try to keep track of how much could be spent. Now that the cycle is over we have switched gears tracking money spent (plus in-kinds which is also spending) which makes it easier to eliminate double counting. See below for an explanation on the methodology.

Legislative Spending Totals

Here are the traditional spending totals for the General Assembly, this does not include transfers out but it does include in-kinds.

$75 million of that total was spent in the House compared to just $38 million in the Senate. Democrats actually spent more than the Republicans, $66 million to $47 million, led by the Senate Democrats who outspent their Republican counterparts $24 million to $14 million. In the House the Democrats outspent the Republicans $41 million to $34 million but much of that was due to the primary, in the general election the Republicans actually outspent the House Democrats $29 million to $27 million.

And here are the independent expenditure totals for the same period.

Taken together that is $134 million that was spent on state legislative races in the 2016 cycle.

Available Funds Left Unspent

In addition to that total there was money left over, here are the combined cash on hand totals for all of the legislative candidates as of 12/31/2016.

And here are the remaining fund balances for the leadership committees.

In addition to the totals above 114th House District Republican candidate Bob Romanik has not yet filed his 12/31/16 quarterly report, as of 9/30 he had $2 million on hand. Taken together there is still another $39 million left in campaign accounts that could have been spent this cycle and will likely be used as a head start for next cycle.

Comptroller's Race

The Comptroller's race cost $11 million. This total does not include the $3 million that Munger transferred to the party. Had she held on to that money and spent it on her own campaign this race could have even been more expensive.

Methodology

If you'd like to view the raw data that was used to calculate the above totals and/or you would like to perform your own analysis you can do so here.

The main problem with trying to figure out how much money was raised or spent on legislative races in a given cycle has to do with the potential for double counting money that was moved within the system. For example, the Governor started the cycle with $20 million in his account, all of which he moved to the Illinois Republican party. In turn they either spent some of that on legislative races as independent expenditures, spent some of that on legislative races which were reported as in-kind contributions to the campaigns or transferred it to the caucus leadership committees (HRO and the RSSCC). Those caucus committees either spent some of that on legislative races which were reported as in-kind contributions to the campaigns or made direct transfers to the candidate committees and then those candidate committees spent that money on their races. If you're not careful you could end up counting that same $20 million four times as it moved through the system and come up with $80 million when in reality it's just the same $20 million.

In order to eliminate double counting you can look at only the candidate committees of legislative candidates and only the spending line item (not transfers out) and the in-kind totals. Remember, even though our D-2's list in-kinds in the contribution section they are actually both a contribution and an expenditure. Add these up for all of the legislative candidate committees and you have your spending total.

You may be asking, what about all the money that the Governor had, or the state parties had, or the legislative leader committees had? For all of that money one of three things happened: 1) that ultimately got transferred down the chain to a candidate committee and the candidate committee spent those funds on their own race and is reflected in the totals above, 2) those party/leadership committees spent that money on behalf of a candidate committee and reported it to that candidate committee as an in-kind and then was reflected in the totals above or 3) those party/leadership committee spent it as an independent expenditure on behalf of a candidate committee and that spending is reflected in the totals above in the IE line item.

Now that the cycle is over just looking at the spending side allows us a much simpler method to determine the total amount of money involved without having to worry about double counting all the transfers of money.