Skip to comments.Shock poll: Obama could lose Illinois
Posted on 08/20/2012 5:18:02 AM PDT by Zakeet
President Barack Obama could lose his home state of Illinois in November, a new poll shows.
A poll conducted by Illinois-based pollster and political strategist Michael McKeon found Obama leading Republican Mitt Romney by 49 percent to 37 percent in Cook County, the home of Chicago. That puts him ahead by a far thinner margin than expected in a county he should be winning handsomely.
Cook is the most Democratic leaning county in the state. It is also the most populous.
Those numbers do not bode well for the president.
He has to come out of Cook County with a big lead or hes gonna have problems downstate, explained McKeon, who said that based on the numbers he had seen, Obama polled only in the forties in downstate Illinois.
Its not like his policies are very popular downstate, McKeon said. Hes viewed as more part of Chicago than he is part of Illinois.
According to the poll, which surveyed 629 registered voters last week, Obamas problems are not in Chicago proper, but in suburban Cook County.
In the city of Chicago itself, he retains a 60-29 lead over Romney. But the Republican challenger leads 45-38 in the surrounding areas. Across the county as a whole, Romney leads 43-31 among independent voters, a crucial voting bloc. Romney also holds a 44-38 lead among male voters, and a 53-40 lead among white voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Thanks for the ping.
(If Chicago can’t cheat the vote - Obama has no chance of taking Illinois.)
She told us that Reagan could have won Minnesota with a couple more campaign appearance and they knew it. But Reagan knew he was needed more in helping with a handful of down ticket races in states which he had already sewn up, so he opted to help out the team rather than create history as the first president ever elected for an all state sweep.
As it turned out, the only campaign appearance he made in Minnesota was a late evening refueling stop in Rochester on election eve which was barely in time to make the 10 p.m. news.
He was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd. We voted and the morning after the election, my father work us up with an early morning phone call.
"Did you hear that they caught both those guys?" He asked.
Still wiping the sleep from my eyes (I'd just gotten married a few months earlier and was up late doing what many newlyweds do), I asked "Both what guys?"
"Both of those guys that voted for Mondale" chuckled my Dad.
They 'vote' the people who didn't bother to show up to vote. Put a camera outside the polling places ( cheating is usually done in black neighborhoods) and count the people who go in to vote. If a thousand more are 'voted' than went in, there's cheating going on.
Dems don't vote the dead intentionally - the dead are just swept up with the people who didn't show up to vote...
They 'vote' the people who don't show up to vote. In the old days of punch cards it was don't by taking stacks of cards, putting an ice pick over the chad area to be punched and hitting it with a hammer.
It's easy to stop this type of voter fraud: Put a camera outside the polling places ( cheating is usually done in black neighborhoods) and count the people who go in to vote.
If a thousand more are 'voted' than went in, dems are cheating.
Dems don't vote the dead intentionally - the dead's cards are just swept up with the people who didn't show up to vote... (I don't know how they do it with paperless systems - but I'm sure they're still voting the people who don't show up)
Well, duh! Also, his polling is strong in Chicago proper, but weaker in the 'burbs. Another duh!
Finally, I hate it when they say Chicago, vs "downstate". It's as if Chicago comprises the entire northern area of Illinois. It's not "downstate" but the rest of Illinois outside Chicago (except for a few liberal pockets of course). I live outside the Chicago metro area, including the 'burbs, and I'm sure not downstate. I'm 50 miles south (maybe less) of the Wisconsin border.
Reagan would have been the third president to win all the states—after George Washington and James Monroe. Of course there were a lot fewer states back then.
Much easier to teach goats to surf.
Goats having fun surfing.
If the bottom completely falls out then it is in the realm of possibility, though still not likely. What will happen is that the campaign may have to divert resources to run ads downstate as an insurance policy. If down-staters start seeing or hearing ads, then you know it's over.
Mondale carried MN and DC.
Gore is the only presidential candidate who didn’t carry his (more or less) home state that I can remember.
Even IF (big IF) Obama were to lose IL, he’d probably still carry HI.
In 1960 the Presidential election was stolen from Nixon in Cook County Illinois by the corrupt Mayor Daley Political Machine
I don’t buy it, as of today.
2004 kerry won only 15 counties and won the state by a huge margin.
Obama won 45 counties and won by a huger(huger?) margin.
There were approx. 247k more voters in 2008 than 2004....approximately the difference between the kerry\Bush totals and Obam-Biden in cook county.(mostly chicago)
If Obama only gets what kerry got in 2004, he still carries illinois by a landslide.
So, the question is, will blacks from cook county(chicago) stay away from the polls ? I don’t think so.
Also, even the 24 state re-election sweep by James Monroe in 1820 wasn't unanimous-- one New Hampshire elector voted for John Q. Adams and three electors abstained (Mississippi, Tennessee and Pennsylvania).
The very next election cycle (1824) was the first time that elector selection was made by direct popular vote and even then, it didn't become the only method until 1864.
I think Obama will probably win Illinois, but it won’t be anywhere near the blowout it was last time. Last time, he won in counties that NEVER go Democratic (e.g. McLean). Part of it was the home-state factor, and no doubt part of it was people who got caught up in the “magic.” The bloom is off the rose now. Republicans ran very strongly in 2010, especially in congressional races. Gov. Quinn barely won, carrying only Chicago/Cook County, and St. Clair and Alexander Counties. Interestly, he squeaked by in St. Clair, usually a Democratic stronghold. He lost Madison County, usually reliable for Democrats. Sen. Mark Kirk beat Alexi Giannoulias who, even though he carried the same areas Quinn did, lost bigger in some other places.
Sure, Obama gets the electoral votes in a blowout or a close race. But as a Republican in Chicago, I’ve learned to live by having lower expectations. To see Obama squeak by here would be only marginally less-satisfying than seeing him lose.
An odd feature of the 1820 election was that the electoral votes from Missouri were counted although its admission as a state was not official until August 10, 1821.
Thanks Perdogg. I would not be surprised, but of course, tipping them off means they’ve got time to falsify ballots and whatnot.
While I think there is practically no chance for Romney to win Illinois this year. He is the type of Repub that could when office statewide in Illinois. If he was running for Governor of Illinois Romney could win but President this year. Sorry...
37% in Cook means Romney wins, period.
Furthermore it means a Dukakis sized beatdown in the EC.
That said I don’t buy this anymore than I buy the crap polls that the media keeps telling me Obama is “expanding” his nonexistent lead in.
Freeper Phil Collins thinks the state will be close. And that the embattled Rep Walsh who barley won last time and has a worse district will win easily. I don’t agree at all but I hope you are right Phil.
If Romney does any better than Bush did in 2004 (44.5%) I’d be shocked. If this state is close to being close it won’t be close nationwide.
Agree with all that.
Those poll results aren’t news, to me. I’ve said, for the past six months, that IL will be close.