The Party Divides

I thought you might be interested in WBEZ’s analysis of Illinois’s primary election results:

Illinois voters didn’t settle the ideological battles within the two major parties — they simply illuminated them, even with the impressive turnout among Democrats.

In the GOP governor’s primary, state Rep. Jeanne Ives hammered Rauner for his moderate stances on immigration, abortion and LGBTQ rights. That raises doubts about Rauner’s ability to build a winning coalition in a Democratic-leaning state. He gave a nod to his weaknesses on the right, saying he’s “heard” from “those of you who wanted to send me a message” and asking them to “focus on issues that unite us: reducing taxes, growing jobs and reducing corruption.”

The question is whether that approach, basically repeating his 2014 pitch as a Chamber of Commerce problem solver, can be enough without the national GOP wave that aided his initial election.

Perhaps Rauner’s best comfort is in his Democratic rival’s primary struggles. Despite his spending advantage, Pritzker couldn’t manage a majority after a primary race that featured his two closest competitors calling him a “fraud” and a “liar.” And Pritzker’s pledges to working families notwithstanding, the liberal groups and activists that have propelled the anti-Donald Trump resistance movement lined up mostly behind the second- and third-place finishers, Daniel Biss and Chris Kennedy.

Pritzker must hope that the most outspoken liberal branches of the party follow the lead of Indivisible Chicago, the local chapter of one of the leading national grassroots organizations that formed after Trump’s election to resist his agenda. The group called for party unity Tuesday, called Pritzker’s platform “progressive” and said he “represents a significant upgrade” over Rauner. Perhaps not a full-throated endorsement, but a first step toward what Pritzker needs.

Illinois’ top-billed congressional primary wasn’t in a battleground district that will determine House control in November; it was a safe Democratic seat in greater Chicago where seven-term incumbent Dan Lipinski, part of the dwindling Blue Dog caucus of moderate and conservative Democrats, nipped his more liberal challenger, political newcomer Marie Newman, by about 2 percentage points.

Lipinski, whose father held the 3rd Congressional District seat before him, had broad union support and nominal backing from national Democratic bosses including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But that didn’t play with Democratic voters increasingly displeased with Lipinski’s opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage, his vote against the 2010 health care law, and his late-breaking support for legislation to shield certain young immigrants called “Dreamers” from deportation.

Newman was endorsed by Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator and erstwhile presidential candidate, and liberal groups including the women’s advocacy organization Emily’s List, local Indivisible chapters and Our Revolution, the offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 campaign.

Even with Lipinski surviving, the fact that Newman battled him to a near draw will embolden liberals in other Democratic primary battles and in the larger struggle for party identity.

Not mentioned: Marie Newman fell just short of victory despite outspending Lipinski. Most of the money spent on the campaign by either side came from outside the district. When does foreigners interfering in our elections become a problem?