[Peace-discuss] interesting historical fact about the 13th district

[David Green]

Very interesting; one caveat, FWIW, is that the district was redrawn after
the 2010 census in order to obtain a possibility of a Dem victory (Tim
Johnson had represented the 15th district, which obviously at that time
included CU). The 2012 election taken from Gill was, ironically, the first
with the new boundaries that were drawn intending to give a D a chance.
It's also perhaps important to recall that upon Johnson's resignation,
Davis was selected to be the nominee by Republican operatives based on his
employment by, if I recall, John Shimkus; I don't believe he has ever faced
any opposition from within the party.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:06 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> interesting historical fact about the 13th district
>
>
>
> In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections the district supported Bush
> over Gore and then Kerry by a 55% to 45 % margin both times.
>
>
>
> In 2008, the year of the highest historical turnout for the district,
> Obama beat McCain by 54% to 46 %.
>
> In 2012 , a year of a much lower voter turnout than 2008, Romney barely
> beat Obama by less than 1 % of the vote
>
> In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton by 6 % of the vote.
>
>
>
> In 2012 Davis beat Gill by less than 1 % of the vote in a three way race
> with a so called “ progressive independent “ who came out of know where to
> run and agreed with every single position Gill supported and ended up with
> 7 % of the vote.
>
> The DNC/DCCC gave Gill no get out the vote money or staff because Gill
> refused to back away from his opposition to NAFTA and support for single
> payer. Also Gill beat Durbin’s boy in the Dem primary.
>
>
>
> I still wonder who “persuaded “ ( bribed ) the “ progressive independent “
> to run. He has since disappeared from all political activity.
>
> My speculation is that it was either the Koch brothers who threw a ton of
> money that year behind Davis or it was the DNC.
>
> I am inclined to think it was the Koch brothers but it could have very
> well been the DNC based on their historic pattern of throwing considerable
> time and resources against anti-corporate candidates in the Dem primaries,
> even when the anti-corporate Dem primary candidate had a better chance of
> winning against the republican in the general election. In essence the DNC
> would rather lose to a republican then have an anti-corporate Dem candidate
> get elected. Because for them ( DNC ) the maintaining and expansion of
> corporate neo-liberalism and their cash flow from corporate donors is the
> prime objective.
>
>
>
> David J.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20180321/db9acd3b/attachment.html>