Proposals submitted to the Illinois General Assembly portal can be found here.

Data for the current map (2011 - 2021) can be found here.

Here are the precinct-level shapefiles from the Harvard dataset.

House: https://illinoiselectiondata.com/analysis/precinct/statewidebystaterep.php

Senate: https://illinoiselectiondata.com/analysis/precinct/statewidebystatesen.php

Note: the General Assembly has amended the 2021-2030 map, this data has been updated to reflect the amended map passed on 09/01/21 by the ILGA.

To navigate to these datasets without direct links you can go: Home --> Analysis (top nav) --> Precinct Level Election Results --> View Statewide Race by Districts (Table View)

To get these totals I took the shapefiles of the new maps and intersected them with the shapefiles of the results of the 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections. For precincts that are now in more than one district I prorated the vote totals by the land area of the intersection, so if 40% of the land area of Precinct A was in District 1 then 40% of the vote totals of that precinct were assigned to District 1.

Data Sources:

But the bars will be empty today as will most public places, this is the first time in a while we've held a primary during the middle of a global pandemic, and that disruption leads to far greater uncertainty. Ohio has cancelled today's primary but here in Illinois it will proceed as planned, although participation is certain to be smaller.

Our leaders are advising the public that it's too dangerous to eat a hot dog in the presence of strangers but they should also go vote, which is a bit of a mixed message (to put it diplomatically). Turnout will be lower for two reasons, 1) some people will be rightfully scared, particularly among older voters and other vulnerable communities, and will stay away, and 2) some voters will be disenfranchised when their polling place doesn't open due to the lack election workers, election equipment or both, and we've seen reports of these issues far greater than normal so far this morning.

It's almost impossible to predict what today's turnout will be. Below is a table showing the combined Democratic and Republican primary turnout going back two decades.

Combined non-pandemic turnout would have certainly been higher than 1.5 million voters. In fact, given turnout increases in other states in affluent suburban areas it's possible that the Democratic primary alone would have been higher than 2 million voters, driven by increases in participation in suburban and collar counties.

Here are the known early vote and vote by mail totals, as of this morning. Each election authority has to report these totals to the State Board but they have up to two days to do so, for some counties/EAs these totals may be current, for others they may be a day or two behind. (note: these totals don't distinguish between Democratic primary ballots and Republican primary ballots, these are just the combined totals)

At most half, and probably more like a third, of the people who would have voted in a non-pandemic election have already voted. That means a lot of people in the likely voter universe remain outstanding, some of whom won't vote for one of the two reasons above.

Also, as many as 165,000 vote by mail ballots could still be returned if they are postmarked by today. (note: this twitter thread shows how those numbers have grown over time)

Here's what to expect

Be patient. Only the results of large margin victories will be known tonight, if at all. More data may come in the next day or two, some data won't be in until two weeks later. Far less will be known about election results tonight than in any Illinois election in the modern era.

1) Don't automatically assume the first reported election results tonight include early vote. Each of the state's 108 election authorities (102 county clerks, plus 6 municipal election authorities: Chicago, Bloomington, Rockford, Galesburg, Danville and East St. Louis) have their own methods and procedures and it varies by election authority. None of them are legally allowed to count early vote and already received vote by mail ballots until after the polls close at 7pm. They can organize them, they just can't count them.

Today all staffs are strained. Many election day workers didn't show up and even regular staff may be unavailable due to self quarantine or other precautions. Some election authorities will count EV/VBM ballot first tonight, others will count them last once all of their other precincts are in and others won't count them until tomorrow or Thursday. Some of that happens in Illinois even during normal elections, today is not normal.

2) As many as 165,000 vote by mail ballots could still be returned if they are postmarked by today. Those valid ballots will arrive in the mail over the next few days and legally they can be counted if they are received any time in the next two weeks with a valid postmark. It should be noted that some of those ballots will be for the Democratic primary and some for the Republican primary, please don't automatically assume all will be returned and/or all will be for just one party's primary.

3) You will be able to see the totals by county/election authority of the number of ballots that remain uncounted or outstanding. These will be available on the State Board's website. Go to their homepage https://www.elections.il.gov/ --> (hover) Press Room --> Uncounted Ballots (righthand column under "Misc" heading).

4) In the days following today some election authorities will update their totals each day with newly received or counted data. Other election authorities won't make any updates after election night until the two weeks have passed. It will vary by election authority but in some parts of the state it may take the full two weeks before the results of close elections are known.

Please be patient and lower your expectations. Conducting an election is challenging in the best of circumstances and these are extraordinary times. It will also be safe to assume that the remaining unknowns are larger than you probably expect.

Per Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Illinois state constitution there are two possible ways the proposed amendment could be ratified by the voters:

A proposed amendment shall become effective as the amendment provides if approved by either three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority of those voting in the election.

That means it will either need 60% of the Yes votes or it will need a simple majority of Yes votes among all ballots cast. There will be some voters who cast a ballot but for whatever reason don't vote on this item on their ballot, those voters are included in the simple majority calculation for the latter ratification method.

For those who are working to try to ratify the amendment which of the two methods is easier? That depends, specifically it depends on the dropoff rate, the percentage of voters who cast a ballot but don't vote on this measure. If the dropoff rate is 0.00%, if every voter who takes a ballot votes on the amendment, then the denominator of both calculations is the same and you only need a simple majority of voters to ratify the amendment. However as the dropoff rate increases so does the threshold for ratification. If the dropoff rate is less than 16.667% it's easier to get a simple majority of those voting in the election than three-fifths of those voting on the question, otherwise the 60% threshold is the only path.

Here's a table showing the ratification and dropoff history for amendments going back to the 70's, based on this data source (see notes 1 & 2 below for data concerns). In the 80's and 90's it was common to have dropoff rates that were very large but that has changed in recent years. Looking back on the last three amendments to go before the voters all three had a dropoff rate lower than 16.667%.

Oddly enough, of those three the transportation lockbox amendment probably had the most media attention, but it had a higher dropoff rate than either of those in 2014. That may be due to the fact that it was the only one of the three on the ballot in a presidential election year, where you have more low-information voters participating who may not vote all the way down the ballot.

Why have modern elections had a much lower dropoff rate than those from late last century? It's hard to say but a likely explanation has to do with changes in the way we vote. It varies county to county but many counties in the state now have touchscreen voting machines or other electronic methods and it's common for those voting systems to warn voters when they've undervoted any questions and we're seeing a significant reduction in dropoff votes now.

Here's a table of the Yes vote needed to pass the measure with a simple majority of all ballots cast at different dropoff rates:

If the dropoff rate for the upcoming vote is only 1% then it will simply need a Yes vote of 50.52% to pass, if the dropoff rate is 15% it will need a Yes vote of 58.84% to pass. It will automatically pass with a Yes vote of 60% or greater via the "three-fifths of those voting on the question" method.

Both sides are already spending on TV at a significant rate and that is before the measure has passed both houses of the General Assembly, it's likely that if the measure goes before the voters for ratification the media spending will grow even further. That kind of paid media attention will probably reduce the dropoff rate lowering the threshold needed for passage. That presents a difficult predicament for opponents, by bringing more attention to the measure, even negative attention, it will likely reduce the dropoff rate lowering the threshold needed for passage but they really don't have better options. If opponents encourage voters to skip voting on the measure then they run the risk of only Yes voters voting, which isn't an improvement.

What is clear though is that unless the Yes votes are well above 60% the outcome may not be known for certain until well after election day. It's entirely possible we have to wait until the vote totals are certified to be able to run the simple majority calculation on ballots cast.

Data Note 1: this was the data source for much of the historical data in the table above, however it has at least one error on it, probably a copy/paste mistake, the ballots cast number on the 2014 Voters Rights question is definitely wrong.

Data Note 2: for recent elections the ballots cast number is available via the State Board of Elections website in the Official Vote Total Book. However that report lists ballots cast numbers that are different in different locations. For example in the 2016 book it is listed as 5,666,118 on page ii for the purpose of calculating turnout but page vi lists it as 5,627,149. The 2014 book has the same issue, ballots cast is listed as 3,680,417 on page ii for the purpose of calculating turnout but on pages 4 and 8 it's listed as 3,667,206. Last week I emailed the State Board asking for a clarification, if I hear back from them I'll provide an update.

Free Stuff:

Candidate List: Candidate filing starts tomorrow Monday, November 19th and ends on Monday, November 26th. Candidates for Mayor, Clerk and/or Treasurer have to file 12,500 valid petition signatures while candidates for alderman have to file 473 valid petition signatures, along with other required documents.

We have a CANDIDATE LIST that will be freely available to all and updated throughout. Right now we have candidates listed for every citywide and aldermanic office, mostly a combination of incumbents, announced candidates, candidates that have created a fundraising committee with the State Board of Elections and candidate names that have been sent to us by the many helpful people who have offered suggestions on social media (thank you!). Starting tomorrow we'll update the candidate list noting those who have filed, adding those who filed who we weren't aware of and after the filling deadline passes we'll remove those that didn't file. Once the process for signature objections/challenges begins we'll keep track of all of those objections, those who were removed or withdrawn and those that won their challenges. Keep an eye on the CANDIDATE LIST, it will be updated throughout.

Maps, Maps, Maps: If you're interested in past elections we have MAPS for the 2011 and 2015 Chicago Municipal elections. For the three citywide offices (Mayor, Clerk & Treasurer) we have MAPS for the entire city by both ward and precinct. For every aldermanic race in those two cycles we have results MAPPED by precinct.

For example if you wanted to see the results of the 2015 Chicago Mayoral runoff between Rahm Emanuel and Chuy Garcia those maps can be found here: (Emanuel by Ward/Precinct, Garcia by Ward/Precinct). If you want to see an example of an aldermanic race here are the mapped results by precinct for the 2011 election in the 47th ward between Ameya Pawar and Tom O'Donnell: (Pawar by precinct, O'Donnell by precinct).

Note: precinct boundaries change all of the time and in Chicago they were different in 2011 and 2015. You can download a list of the number of Chicago precincts in each ward in each election here.

Vote History: If you'd like to see statewide election results for each ward our ANALYSIS section has vote total history for statewide races by ward for general elections as well as Democratic and Republican primaries going back to the 90's.

Subscriber Info:

Immediate Notifications: Subscribers can SIGN UP to receive immediate notifications of selected campaign finance filings, a great tool for campaign managers to keep an eye on the latest developments from their opponents and for PAC directors trying to stay on top of the latest developments in various campaigns. Subscribers can sign up to receive notifications of specified filings within a minute or two of being filed (my server checks for new filings every 2 minutes). You can choose whether to be notified by email, text or iPhone alert.

A Basic subscription is $15.00/month and allows for up to 10 different types of notifications along with full access to all up to the minute information on districts, races and campaign financial reports for the current election cycle. For anyone who needs to track more than just 10 types of notifications a Deluxe subscription is available for $30.00/month for unlimited notifications along with full access to all up to the minute information on districts, races and campaign financial reports. Step by step instructions are available along the right side of the SIGN UP page.

Note: the iPhone app is still the best way to receive immediate notifications but the app itself is a bit out of date. I hope to update the features available in the app soon but I have to buy a new Mac first so it won't be right away.

District Financial Profiles: Subscribers also have access to the financial profile for every race, both citywide races and aldermanic races. Here's an example, here is the current financial profile for the likely candidates in the 14th Ward: example. These profiles show the current cash and past spending for each candidate's committee plus any affiliated committees. For example Alderman Burke has his own candidate committee along with the ward fund and his Burnham Committee PAC. Wherever possible we've tried to include these affiliated committees. Subscribers can view these totals for every race in the SUBSCRIBERS section.

Current Cash - All Candidates: Subscribers also have access to the current estimated cash position of all candidates, here's an example. This report combines the cash on hand from the last quarterly filing plus any cash reported on A-1's since minus any cash out reported on B-1's since (unlikely for these committees but it's there anyway) and this gives you an estimated cash available. Because we see large cash in on A-1's in between quarterly filings but do not have much info about spending this total does not take into account any normal spending by the committee since the last quarterly report so it's more of a guide than an exact approximation. As with the district financial profiles we've also included the affiliated committees as you can see in the example below Toni Preckwinkle. Subscribers can view these totals for every race in the SUBSCRIBERS section.

I hope you find these resources useful. Good luck!

Here you can find the historical totals for early vote, vote by mail, absentee, grace, provisional and same day vote totals, where available. For some years we have county by county totals with more granular data. This dataset is not perfect but it's a helpful guide and as far as I know it's all there is.

• Early Vote - Historical Totals

I ask you to review the Illinois election code and consider making some changes. It is currently impermissible for county clerks (or municipal election authorities) to count the ballots of completed early voters and/or the ballots of completed vote by mail voters prior to the polls closing at 7pm on election night.

In 2014 the Attorney General provided clarification to the LaSalle County State's Attorney on this matter after reviewing the clear language of the law and concluded that "no absentee voters' ballots or early voters' ballots should be placed into the tabulators prior to 7:00 p.m. on the day of the election." She shared this opinion with all of the local election authorities.

I hope that the General Assembly will consider reviewing this matter and consider permitting the election authorities to count completed ballots as they see fit so long as they do not release or make public any results before the polls close, for two reasons:

1. To give voters greater confidence in our electoral process, election night is the time of year when voters are most closely paying attention and our current setup increases the likelihood of providing them with only partial results on election night.
2. To give election authorities greater operational flexibility rather than needlessly forcing them to complete so many tasks all at the same time.

Because election authorities are not allowed to count early/VBM ballots prior to the polls closing many don't start counting them until after they get all of their election night precinct totals completed and reported. This often means that on election night even if you see 100% of the precincts reported in a particular county they may still have plenty of early and vote by mail ballots in hand that still need to be counted, which can give a misleading impression to people watching the returns at home.

On the afternoon of general election 2016 I looked up the current totals for early vote and vote by mail and posted that 352,428 vote by mail ballots had already been returned while another 1,390,019 had early voted statewide. Combine these figures with the 44,722 grace period voters and it adds up to at least 1,787,169 ballots completed prior to election day. The total number of ballots cast for the 2016 general election was 5,666,118 which means that 31.5% of the total ballots cast in Illinois in the 2016 general election were already in the hands of the various election authorities by the morning of election day.

To point #1 above, it's concerning that voters at home watching returns on election night are led to believe that most or all of the vote has been counted, especially in very close races, when in reality as much of a third of the vote in hand may not be included in the returns even though 100% of the precincts are listed as reported. It is potentially misleading and can cause mistrust. In the State Treasurer's race of 2014 Tom Cross went to bed on election night with a lead of about 22,000 votes. However, many early vote and vote by mail ballots still were left to be counted and once they finally were, along with properly postmarked late arriving mail ballots, the outcome flipped with Mike Frerichs declared the winner by about 9,000 votes. Providing the public with one expected outcome on election night based on partial information in a very close race only to have the outcome change days later can erode confidence in our electoral system, which may be unnecessary when a better alternative is available.

To point #2 above, we should give our election authorities greater flexibility to meet their enormous election day tasks, including counting and tabulating results. Not that long ago the only way a registered voter in Illinois could vote was in his/her polling place on election day or via absentee ballot if and only if they met the qualifications to vote absentee. However since 2006 we have added early voting, vote by mail and in-precinct same day registration. In the last 12 years the complexity of conducting an election has grown exponentially, and in most cases without a corresponding growth in the resources necessary to manage this complexity. The state's 109 election authorities come in various sizes and each has their own challenges but all would benefit from greater flexibility for meeting the enormous demands placed on them on election night.

There are reasonable arguments against my proposal and they should be carefully considered by the General Assembly before enacting any legislation, some of which were mentioned at the end of the Attorney General's letter.

1. It is possible that tabulating election results prior to the completion of the vote could give one party an advantage or could affect the outcome of the election if that information were to leak.
2. Additionally by waiting until after the polls close to count any/all ballots the election authorities may ensure that each political party, candidate and/or qualified civic organization has the opportunity to observe the entire ballot counting process.

These are valid concerns that would require thoughtful safeguards to protect the electoral process. I'm hopeful that the General Assembly will consider a bill this session to improve our process, take testimony from interested parties to ensure that no other unintended consequences arise that haven't been previously considered and can craft and pass legislation that would improve our current system.

Update:

After talking with some people today I'm told that while election authorities are still not allowed to count results of ballots received prior to 7pm on election night there was some language added to the election code that gives them some additional flexibility, specifically:

(10 ILCS 5/19-8) (from Ch. 46, par. 19-8)
Sec. 19-8. Time and place of counting ballots.
(b) Each vote by mail voter's ballot returned to an election authority, by any means authorized by this Article, and received by that election authority before the closing of the polls on election day shall be endorsed by the receiving election authority with the day and hour of receipt and may be processed by the election authority beginning on the day it is received by the election authority in the central ballot counting location of the election authority, but the results of the processing may not be counted until the day of the election after 7:00 p.m., except as provided in subsections (g) and (g-5).

I'm told that this language allows the election authorities greater flexibility in handling some of the more time consuming tasks prior to election night while still not technically counting totals until after the polls close.

I often tweet out many of the most interesting campaign finance news just moments after the latest reports are filed because I've programmed my server to send me an alert anytime something interesting happens, now I want to extend that functionality to you. For just $15/mo (roughly the cost of a single cab ride) you can sign up to receive immediate notifications for various types of filings. This is great for campaign managers who need to keep an eye on their opponent(s), you can sign up to receive an immediate notification any time one of your opponents has a new filing. You can receive a notification in any or all of three different ways, 1) by email; 2) by text message and/or 3) by iPhone/iPad notification from the app (this is the quickest and most reliable of the three options).

Full Subscription Details and Instructions

In addition to notifications subscribers will have access to the SUBSCRIBERS section (in the nav bar above). There are all sorts of great reports in the subscribers section including district profiles, financial summary reports for each race, cash on hand reports for every state and federal candidate, leadership committee and IE committee as well as summary and detail reports for all IE spending. The reports cover all statewide, legislative (state senate and state rep), congressional, Cook County countywide and Cook County board races. Click on the SUBSCRIBERS section link to see a list of all the reports that subscribers will have access to.

For anyone that might be interested or is considering signing up take a look at the subscription details and instructions page. There you can find tables that specify the type of notifications you can sign up for and all of the reports that are available to subscribers. There is also a step by step instruction guide on the right side that explains how to sign up.

Who should subscribe:
- Campaign managers
- Opposition researchers
- Consultants
- Anyone who is closely tracking any or many races

Who maybe shouldn't subscribe:
- Congressional campaigns - unfortunately there just isn't enough new info on a day to day basis to justify paying a monthly fee

New iPhone/iPad app

A new Illinois Election Data iPhone/iPad app is now available in the App Store.

The app is now available in the App Store and is free to download and it contains plenty of useful information at no additional charge. In addition to all of the freely available information, subscribers can log in and access all of their subscriber data through the app including instant notifications.

Congressional District Profiles

I have district profiles like this for every congressional, state senate, state representative and Cook County board district in the subscribers section. However since congressional races don't really generate enough new content day to day to justify a subscription I'm releasing these congressional district profiles for free.

Other Options

ILED subscriptions are not for everyone, some of you need access to this type of information occasionally but not often enough to justify a monthly subscription. You may remember that last cycle I helped publish something called "The Illinois Racing Form" with The Daily Line (formerly Aldertrack). I am no longer involved with the publication of the Racing Form but I think they are doing that again this cycle. I believe they plan to generate a large document with plenty of useful campaign info that they will update from time to time that is available for a one-time fee. Check with them for details but something like that may be a better fit for some of you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

In the 2014 cycle Rauner contributed almost $38 million to his own campaign fund, but $10 million of that came after the election and was actually used in the 2016 cycle to help the Republican legislative effort. This fall when it was reported that the Governor's personal earnings had reached $188 million, up from a pauper-like $58 million the year before, there was speculation that the Governor would spend even more this cycle. This $50 million reported today is listed as a contribution, not a loan, and while he could always refund part or all of it at some point in the future it certainly sent a message.

But in addition to the political ramifications of an influx this size the timing is also relevant. You may recall that the Governor gave his campaign fund $2 million in February of this year and another $5 million in September, in fact $7,750,000 prior to today for this cycle, however the contribution limits have not been lifted for the upcoming Governor's race even though these amounts are greater than the $250,000 in personal funds that would normally lift the caps. Here's why from the relevant section of the law, relevant emphasis mine:

5/9-8.5 Limitations on campaign contributions. (h) Self-funding candidates. If a public official, a candidate, or the public official's or candidate's immediate family contributes or loans to the public official's or candidate's political committee or to other political committees that transfer funds to the public official's or candidate's political committee or makes independent expenditures for the benefit of the public official's or candidate's campaign during the 12 months prior to an election in an aggregate amount of more than (i) $250,000 for statewide office or (ii) $100,000 for all other elective offices, then the public official or candidate shall file with the State Board of Elections, within one day, a Notification of Selffunding that shall detail each contribution or loan made by the public official, the candidate, or the public official's or candidate's immediate family. Within 2 business days after the filing of a Notification of Self-funding, the notification shall be posted on the Board's website and the Board shall give official notice of the filing to each candidate for the same office as the public official or candidate making the filing, including the public official or candidate filing the Notification of Self-funding. Notice shall be sent via first class mail to the candidate and the treasurer of the candidate's committee. Notice shall also be sent by e-mail to the candidate and the treasurer of the candidate's committee if the candidate and the treasurer, as applicable, have provided the Board with an e-mail address. Upon posting of the notice on the Board's website, all candidates for that office, including the public official or candidate who filed a Notification of Self-funding, shall be permitted to accept contributions in excess of any contribution limits imposed by subsection (b). If a public official or candidate filed a Notification of Self-Funding during an election cycle that includes a general primary election or consolidated primary election and that public official or candidate is nominated, all candidates for that office, including the nominee who filed the notification of self-funding, shall be permitted to accept contributions in excess of any contribution limit imposed by subsection (b) for the subsequent election cycle. For the purposes of this subsection, "immediate family" means the spouse, parent, or child of a public official or candidate.

We are still more than 12 months away from the next election, the 2018 primary, so this action will not remove the contribution limits. The Governor and any candidates who file against him still have to abide by contribution limits, even though the Governor has a $50 million head start and even though had this $50 million contribution come in April instead of today it would lift the contribution limits for all candidates of both parties.

Eventually there will be no contribution limits in the Governor's race, we repeatedly saw the threshold achieved in so many state legislative races that it will certainly happen in the Governor's race. But we're in a bit of a loophole in the language of the contribution limit law allowing the wealthy self-funders to stockpile large amounts of campaign cash without triggering the fairness mechanism that would lift the caps for the other candidates while they attempt to even the playing field. On the Democratic side some wealthy potential candidates have been rumored to be interested in the race, it will be interesting to see if they stockpile early cash in the next few months to get ahead of their less wealthy potential rivals.

The other interesting question is whether or not the Governor would have an advantage if the caps were lifted? There are numerous potential Democratic candidates but so far no rumored Republican primary challengers. If at any point the Governor decides he wants an expensive bloodbath on the Democratic side he only has to add $250,000 more, assuming that none of the Democrats do what's necessary to lift the caps first.

Contribution limits in Illinois have done nothing to limit money in the political system, there is more money than ever, but the rules are so convoluted that they keep creating these odd situations. With divided government that isn't likely to change any time soon.

The State Board of Elections made the precinct-level vote totals available late last week for the 2016 General Election and as promised I've compiled them, cleaned them up, made them available for download and incorporated them into my database. The full menu of options can be found here.

Having this granular data allows us to compile vote totals for any two areas that overlap. For example we can determine how each statewide candidate did by congressional or legislative district.

• View Statewide Race by Congressional Districts (Table View)
• View Statewide Race by State Senate Districts (Table View)
• View Statewide Race by State Rep Districts (Table View)

Note: these totals may differ from similar analysis performed elsewhere. Surprisingly enough, many districts only include partial precincts. Different methods for dealing with partial precincts can result in different totals.

In 2014 the Republican statewide candidates ran strong across the state, Rauner won 70 House districts, Topinka 69 and Cross 64. This cycle at the top of the ticket the Democrats came storming back with Clinton winning 77 of them while Duckworth won 74. As discussed in the post-mortem in some parts of downstate Trump's intensity of support was off the charts, it just wasn't broad enough to be felt throughout the state.

The Comptroller's race was a bit more even, Mendoza and Munger each bested the other in 59 House districts despite Mendoza winning statewide by 5 points. The House Republicans picked up a net of four seats and overcame the poor showing at the top of the ticket but still underperformed Munger, only winning 51 House seats compared to 67 for the Democrats.

Districts That Changed Hands

Let's take a look at some of the districts that flipped this cycle. In many cases the legislative incumbents outperformed the top of their ticket, unfortunately for this group it wasn't enough to hold onto their seats. There was a lot of ticket splitting going on though and in some cases there were very large discrepancies between what happened in the legislative race and the top of the ticket suggesting that voters were paying close attention and the campaign messages were getting through the clutter.

Sen-59   (R) Dale Fowler vs. (D) Gary Forby (i)   (Map)

Gary Forby was 10 points short of holding a district that Donald Trump won by 41 points, that's quite a headwind. Forby's district wasn't on the ballot two years ago when Rauner won it by 31 points but he did manage a big win in 2012 even with Romney besting Obama by 20 points. Munger did quite well here winning by 23 while Kirk managed to win by just 5.5 points. Perhaps as many as 17% of the voters in this district were Trump/Forby voters but it wasn't enough.

Rep-71   (R) Tony McCombie vs. (D) Mike Smiddy (i)   (Map)

Challenger Tony McCombie outperformed every other candidate here by a notable amount in defeating Mike Smiddy. In a district that Obama won by 15 points four years ago and that Rauner won by 14 points two years ago she won by 26 points in a year when Trump and Munger could only manage 6 point wins and Kirk managed a narrow 2 point victory. The voters seemed to really key in on this race at a much greater intensity than the others on the ballot this time.

Rep-63   (R) Steven Reick vs. (D) John Bartman   (Map)

When Jack Franks withdrew from this race to run for McHenry County Board Chairman (a race he ultimately won) it was going to be difficult for the Democrats to hold this seat and appointed replacement John Bartman could not, losing by 13 points which roughly mirrored the presidential race. As mentioned in the post-mortem Munger did much better in the collars than either of her two fellow Republican statewide candidates, 10 points better than Trump here and 13 points better than Kirk. Four years ago Romney won this district by almost 8 points, two years ago Rauner won it by 34, the Dems were just sunk without Franks.

Rep-79   (R) Lindsay Parkhurst vs. (D) Katherine Cloonen (i)   (Map)

Cloonen won each of the last two cycles in what were essentially coin flips, races that were so close she won by about 100 votes each time. Two years ago Rauner won this district by 22 points suggesting that with enough investment it could be picked up, and it was Parkhurst won by 7. Four years ago Obama held Romney to a narrow 1 point victory here but in 2016 Trump won the district by 13 and Munger won it by 14. Cloonen was able to halve Munger's margin but it wasn't enough.

Rep-117   (R) David Severin vs. (D) John Bradley (i)   (Map)

They share the same voters so just like Gary Forby mentioned above John Bradley ran into a massive headwind that he just couldn't overcome. Four years ago Romney won this district by 22 points, two years ago Rauner won it by 32 suggesting that it was fertile ground for a pickup. Bradley lost by just 6 in a district that Trump won by 43 points and Munger won by 25. Perhaps as many as 21% of the voters here were Trump/Bradley voters but it wasn't enough.

Rep-76   (R) Jerry Long vs. (D) Andy Skoog (i)   (Map)

This area of the state appears to have settled into swing territory. Two years ago Jerry Long made a spirited challenge against long time incumbent Frank Mautino coming up just short. Mautino left the legislature to become Auditor General but the local papers were still regularly following the investigation into irregularities in his campaign fund. This time around Long was able to best Andy Skoog, Mautino's appointed replacement, by just shy of 2 points in a year when Trump won it by 9 and Munger by 5 while Duckworth enjoyed a 2 point win for the Democrats. Obama won it four years ago by 6 while Rauner won by almost 10 two years ago. We'll likely be keeping an eye on this area for the next few cycles.

Rep-112   (D) Katie Stuart vs. (R) Dwight Kay (i)   (Map)

Two years ago Rauner won this district by over 20 points but in presidential election years this looks to be a swing district. Four years ago Dwight Kay was re-elected in a narrow victory in a year when the presidential race here was essentially a tie. This time around Katie Stuart picked up the district for the Democrats by 3 points while the three statewide races were kind of all over the place, Trump won by almost 6, Munger won by less than a point and Duckworth won by more than 9. Even aside from the three statewide races the Republicans still did well here, the Republicans picked up the County Board Chairman's race from the incumbent Democrat and Mike Bost, Rodney Davis and John Shimkus all won the precincts they had in common with this district (Shimkus was unopposed). This area will almost certainly be heavily contested next cycle.

Targeted Districts Won by Incumbents

Here is a rundown of some of the Senate and House districts that were the focus of heavy spending where the incumbent retained the seat.

Sen-23   (R) Seth Lewis vs. (D) Thomas Cullerton (i)   (Map)

Four years ago I was surprised when the Democrats won this mostly DuPage County senate district and now four years later Tom Cullerton has retained the seat. Seth Lewis outperformed the top of his ticket, losing by only a little over a point in a district where Clinton won by 12 and Duckworth by 9. It wasn't all bad for the Republicans here, Munger won by over 4 but as we discussed in the post-mortem the power base of the Illinois Republican Party is moving from the collar counties to downstate so we're going to be seeing race outcomes like this one in the suburbs for the next few cycles.

Sen-49   (R) Michelle Smith vs. (D) Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant (i)   (Map)

Four years ago Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant won this district by a little over 6 points and this year despite all the spending it didn't change all that much, she won by a little over 5. Clinton and Duckworth won by more than 10, compared to just 7 points for Obama four years ago, while the Mendoza/Munger race was essentially a tie here. Rauner won this district by almost 14 two years ago but it isn't on the ballot next cycle so the Republicans will have to wait for the year of Trump's re-elect to make another attempt.

Sen-28   (R) Mel Thillens vs. (D) Laura Murphy (i)   (Map)

Two years ago the Republicans did very well in this district, Rauner won by 15, Topinka by 13 and Cross by 10. However in presidential years this northwestern suburban district trends pretty Democratic. Laura Murphy, who was appointed to the seat when Dan Kotowski left, won her first chance at re-election by 7 points in a district Clinton won by 20, Duckworth won by 13 and Obama had won by 13. The lone bright spot for the Republicans was Munger edging Mendoza by 2.

Sen-31   (R) Mike Amrozowicz vs. (D) Melinda Bush (i)   (Map)

Four years ago Melinda Bush won a relatively narrow 3 point victory, this time around she won by a more comfortable 8. Clinton won this far north Lake County district by 13 while Duckworth won by just 6 and Munger won by almost 4. Two years ago Rauner won this district by almost 19 points but it is not on the ballot next cycle so the Republicans will have to wait four years for another shot at it.

Rep-20   (D) Merry Marwig vs. (R) Michael McAuliffe (i)   (Map)

This was the most expensive race this cycle, much of it coming from the Republicans and much of that coming early as McAuliffe was up on Chicago broadcast TV in August during the Olympics, something completely unheard of for a legislative race. In the end McAuliffe overperformed all of the other Republicans winning by 12 in a district Trump lost by 8, Kirk lost by 6 and Munger only won by 5. Even in the wave Republican election year of two years ago Rauner only won this district by 6, although Topinka did win it by 16. It's a district that favors moderate Republicans.

Rep-45   (D) Cynthia Borbas vs. (R) Christine Winger (i)   (Map)

As the collars have been trending toward the Democrats this east-central DuPage district was one they hoped to put in play, but it's not quite there. Two years ago Rauner won this district by 28 points but Romney won it by just 2 in 2012 and Clinton won it by 2 this time. Christine Winger won it by a comfortable 7 and Munger won by 15 so it's still a Republican district for competitively contested elections. This may not be a district to keep an eye on two years from now but it seems likely it will be worth paying attention to in four years.

Rep-81   (D) Greg Hose vs. (R) David Olsen   (Map)

This is another one of those DuPage districts that could potentially be a swing district in four years but wasn't there this cycle. Four years ago Obama won it by less than two points while this cycle Clinton won it by 16 and Duckworth by 4 while Munger still prevailed by 12. David Olsen, appointed to the seat when Ron Sandack stepped down, managed a comfortable 7 point win.

Rep-118   (R) Jason Kasiar vs. (D) Brandon Phelps (i)   (Map)

Brandon Phelps hasn't has a Republican opponent in either of the two previous cycles under this map but during that time Republican statewide candidates have been running up big numbers in this district. Romney won it by 18, Rauner by 30 and Cross by 24. However Phelps, the nephew of popular former congressman David Phelps, maintains a similar local popularity winning this district by 17 points even though Trump won it by 39 and Munger by 22. Perhaps as many as 30% of the voters in this district were Trump/Phelps voters. This district is adjacent to the district John Bradley just lost and those two House districts make up the Senate district that Gary Forby just lost, this area is trending Republican rather rapidly but so far Phelps has been able to weather the storm. This area will likely be a focal point in 2018.

Rep-46   (R) Heidi Holan vs. (D) Deborah Conroy (i)   (Map)

This DuPage County district makes up half of Tom Cullerton's senate district and just as Cullerton did Deb Conroy was able to retain the seat. Two years ago Conroy defeated Heidi Holan by 5 points even while Rauner won it by 8, Topinka by 7 and Cross by 4. This time around in a rematch against Holan Conroy won it by 18, which was somewhat similar to her 15 point margin in 2012. This district has been reliably Democratic in presidential years, Obama won it by 19, Clinton by 23, Duckworth by 21 and Mendoza by 8. The Democrats appear to have a beachhead in this part of DuPage County.

Rep-111   (R) Mike Babcock vs. (D) Daniel Beiser (i)   (Map)

This district is adjacent to the district that Katie Stuart picked up for the Democrats from Dwight Kay and those two districts combine to form the senate district held by Bill Haine who was surprisingly unopposed this cycle. The Republicans put a surprising amount of money in this race, perhaps for good reason, Rauner won it by 17, Topinka by 10, Cross by 5 and this cycle Trump won it by 16. Despite all of that Dan Beiser won a rather comfortable 5 point race while Duckworth won by 11 and Mendoza narrowly edged Munger by a point. This looks like one of those areas where Trump was a strength but he didn't have much coattails, we'll see what happens in this district in 2018.

Rep-62   (R) Rod Drobinski vs. (D) Sam Yingling (i)   (Map)

Despite all of the heavy spending in this race the final margin wasn't much different from two years ago when these two candidates faced off, 4.8 points this year vs. 4.2 points in 2014. Two years ago Yingling won despite a strong showing from the Republicans, Rauner won it by 16, Topinka by 12 and Cross by 11 but in presidential election years the Democrats have done well here, Obama won it by 12, Clinton by 16 and Duckworth by 9. Munger did manage to win it by 2 and it seems likely that the Republicans will be back again in 2018 for another try.