Illinois results compared with the 2000 numbers are just amazing and curious.
Back then the results were:
GORE (D) : 2.589.026 votes (55%)
BUSH (R) : 2.019.421 votes (43%)
In 2004 we have:
KERRY (D) : 2.866.307 (55%)
BUSH (R) : 2.336.253 (45%)
Yep, you got that RIGHT.
In a year of turmoil, where the Republican party of Illinois is all but dead, when Bush was polling worst than in 2000, he "gains" 317.000 new votes respect to 2000, and Kerry, a better candidate than Gore, just "gains" 277.000 votes.
So, among new voters BUSH "WON" ILLINOIS 51% TO 49%, roughly.
Startling numbers, indeed.
Let's look at the Senate race now:
OBAMA (D) : 3.555.586 votes. (70%)
KEYES (R) : 1.376.044 votes. (27%)
Before you start yelling at me, I now someting about "cross vote" or "vote for the man not for the party" Political Science 101 type of rationale.
What is interesting here is that Keyes, a very bad candidate that was to the right of Adolf Hitler, performs as expected, very poorly.
The republicans did not like him and defected in mass to Obama. Great.
The problem is that Obama lost a primary about 6 years ago within the Democratic party and he is to the left of Kerry in many issues.
That capacity of the Illinois's voter to discriminate that way, tells me that they have a high degree of sophistication, pattern that does not match the American political reality. These voters don't leave the Senate choice in blank, they go and vote for the "lefty" Obama.
But, at the same time, they like Bush more than Kerry, right?, and they go back to vote for the Republican Presidential ticket.
OK, I think the DNC strategists will have their "hands full" in Illinois during the future because that is a case that requires study, you would think.
Well, I disagree.
I found out that Illinois uses the "optical voting system" in a large number of counties. No paper trail, of course:
http://www.elections.state.il.us/VoteInfo/pages/VotingEquip.htmSo, what else can I tell you, I think is clear that the "mandate" can be easily explained by this type of "statistical wonders."
Is the "Rovian" philosophy at its best. We will tamper with the vote in states where you expect to win so you will not care. Then we will tamper the vote in the South, in those states where you gave up early your option!
Is a simple and "brilliant" strategy.
"We create reality so you can study it later..."
"Then, when you're done with that, you'll have to study the new reality we created while you were busy with the old one..."
Amazingly simple, indeed.