Early Voting and
Vote-by-Mail (applications available now) begin in less than a month (more information at the County Clerk website
here). The primary election contenders have had their chance to get ballot petition signatures and get their name on the primary ballot. For people who are new to down-ballot election battles, the politics can seem bizarre and schizophrenic. Addressing the topic objectively may not be entirely possible and certainly unlikely to satisfy all perspectives. I'll do my best to rely on the public and private explanations I have access to in an attempt to leave my opinions out of it.
The Champaign County Democrats may have the more complicated and heated divisions right now, with contested races up and down the ballot (jump to
Democrats link).
Republicans for their part have fewer candidates, let alone primary opponents to them this year. As Tom Kacich of the News-Gazette explained a couple weeks ago:
Democrats have candidates for all five of the countywide offices up for election this year — even a contested primary for circuit clerk — while Republicans are missing candidates for state’s attorney and auditor.
There’s no Republican candidate in the 52nd state Senate District, which includes Champaign and Vermilion counties, and which a generation ago was solidly Republican. In 1988, for example, longtime Republican Sen. Stanley Weaver ran unopposed...
Democrats also have 15 candidates for various county board seats while Republicans have just five. The GOP has no contenders in districts 5 (traditionally a Republican district that includes rural precincts and parts of southwest Champaign), 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11.
Full article here with more details on how this pertains to Precinct Committeemen and judicial races in interesting ways as well. In this article and many articles since the results of the 2018 midterms came in, local Republicans have blamed voters being angry at Trump for the current power ebb. From a
post-election analysis:
Most local Republicans have blamed the dreadful showing in November on President Donald Trump (he got just 36.4 percent of the vote here in 2016) and to a lesser degree, former Gov. Bruce Rauner, who was atop the GOP ticket in November and got just 37.7 percent.
The election results, after the effort and money that Republicans put into the campaign, had to be distressing...
November's voting was one of those rare occasions where money did not result in election success.
That full article
here with lots of local midterm numbers. Kacich had
another article, about a year ago, explaining the long history of Republican Party domination in Champaign County politics here. From the midterm election to a year ago to now, the refrain remains the same. Local Republicans believe they're taking a hit for voter apathy against Trump:
The local GOP, he said, has begun a strategic planning process "to figure out how we can make the biggest impact and get people to maybe vote for the candidate as opposed to voting against Trump. That's about all we can do until he's gone."
Full article on the local party history
here. This view has been consistent from what I've heard both publicly and privately. As with most rural university towns, both parties have various concerns about students voting locally. Republican complaints can sometimes mirror those of moderate or nuanced Democrats as outsiders, uninformed, or not committed to the community for the long haul. Republicans can sometimes have strong additional concerns about rural conservative values being threatened by outsiders (with concerns ranging from forcing harmful policies to expanding corrupt government practices and power).
It's worth pointing out that, while universities tend towards being more liberal, conservative politics on campus is important locally. You'll see campus Republican and conservative groups involved in local elections, recent graduates volunteering or organizing field offices for local, state, and federal candidates, etc. Republicans may not be able to get the most votes out of campus, but even if it may be a hostile environment, it is where a lot of young conservatives are forged into organizers. Tom Kacich goes into more detail about Republicans and student voting in today's paper. Article available
here.
The Republicans continue to ask voters to view them as the more competent choice locally and to look past national politics. They're often quick to point out State politics in this blue state prone to Democratic scandals, however. When challenged on why they refuse to distance themselves from Trump, the national politician they blame for their local misfortunes, you may receive a similar politically expedient answer I have over the past few years: they need his supporters to win.
Democratic Party:
The national situation up the ballot for Democrats has a more traditional rift for Champaign County. The terminology used can be pretty divisive. Average news programs might call it establishment Democrats versus liberals, while people in those groups may prefer terminology that, fairly or not, casts their opponents as part of the problem or a fringe.
Kacich summed up the situation here last November:
Less than a year out from Election Day, the favorite local presidential candidate — based on campaign donations — remains Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders...
That Sanders is in the lead and Trump is in fourth place follows 2016 voting preferences, particularly in Champaign-Urbana. In that year’s Democratic primary, Sanders won Champaign County with more than 66 percent of the vote. (In Vermilion County he finished second to Hillary Clinton, 51.2 percent to 47.1 percent).
In the general election Clinton defeated Trump in Champaign County, 54.7 percent to 36.4 percent. It was a different story, however, in Vermilion County where Trump prevailed with 62 percent. Trump has raised $1,700 in Vermilion County this year. Sanders is second there with $676.
That full article
here. Local politics gets messier than simply being a liberal college town, however. The News-Gazette pointed out a familiar rift between Democrats in an
editorial a couple years ago (from its editors' conservative point of view, of course):
It's Petrie's independence that has caused intra-party critics to target her for defeat.
Petrie's greatest sin in the eyes of rival Democrats was her election to the post of board chairwoman on the strength of both Republican and Democratic votes, a move that caused the defeat of the choice of a majority of the Democratic caucus.
That full editorial
here. If you've been involved in local politics you may have already heard Petrie's arguments for not just registering voters, especially students, but educating them about local political issues. The general idea is here in one of her
letters to the editor. This bit of anecdotal history stood out to me given a new public rift in this year's primary race along similar lines. A candidate who allied with Republicans in what he believed was a beneficial pragmatic move versus more liberal candidates and students accused of being uninformed or loosely tied to the community.
County Board Chairman Rosales' wife
jumped into the political fray with accusations against local "Young so-called Progressives." The
full public post and commentary includes accusations of dishonesty, implications of racism, and contrasting ties and history with the community. Here are a few excerpts:
I have stayed very quiet regarding my husband’s grad student opponent since she threw her name into the race after 3-years of attending school in our county...
It seems she now has been soliciting donations, in part, stating untruths about my husband and using Michelle Obama’s mantra that “when they go low—we go high,” to justify these untruths. Unfortunately this young woman misunderstood who that message was intended for. “My” First Lady meant that to empower our integrity in spite of those who use alternate facts to discredit those they oppose—-much like what this grad student is doing to us...
My husband is known as an independent thinker who is bullied by no one and listens to all sides. This is not a popular position. My husband has said, “Today’s friend—and enemy —is decided by each vote. The responsibility of a politician is to make decisions on fairness and equity—and that is all they can do.”
Full post
here. And clarification
from the comments:
...sadly, those being challenged are the two African-American incumbents and Giraldo, an Afro-Cuban. In other words, the three Black folk. Even sadder, all three challengers have been recruited and are being sponsored by the Young so-called Progressives that happen to have always been 99.9% White. Perhaps a coincidence?
...
More disturbing still, the Young Progressives don’t know enough about our county government to train their candidates because most are students. Most who have never paid a mortgage or invested in our county. Furthermore, This group runs these students against candidates who have been invested in this community. People who are stakeholders...
The grad student that is running against Giraldo is expected to defend her research in May and is currently working on three papers in prep for that. These candidates are not serious constituents who plan to stay and live with the decisions they vote on.
In that
comment she also highlighted other recent appointed and elected students who have already left the County Board after graduating,
King-Taylor and
Vachaspati. The King-Taylor vacancy, in particular, caused a renewal of tensions among local Democratic Party members along racial lines and previous intra-party grievances (more at a recent Cheat Sheet post
here).
The fallout of that infighting played out during a televised
County Board meeting where accusations of racism ranged from implication to overt by the Chair of the Champaign County Democratic Party, Maryam Ar-Raheem, against other Democrats, including candidates, current and past elected officials (video of that
here). She made a passionate argument for ensuring diversity being represented in leadership roles and a view that minority candidates are targeted by other Democrats including with threats.
Some younger progressives believe these accusations are without merit, or at least not in this particular situation or that particular election race. Others agree that it is a legitimate perspective, but difficult or impossible to quantify. Others agree wholeheartedly that Democratic Party politics has an ongoing issue with race that young politicos may not fully perceive or understand. They believe that in some cases, intentional or not, they may be contributing to that ongoing problem.
Conclusion (of sorts):
For someone new to politics, it can be quite overwhelming and easy to incite passions and even anger by jumping into the fray. My advice is to assume people are sincere in describing their perspectives unless you're given good reason to doubt that sincerity. I recommend listening, trying to understand and educate yourself, and then make the best choice you can make at the time. You can try jumping right in arguing your own perspective, but veterans of these debates have been there and done that. Don't be surprised if it doesn't go the way you expect.
