@@RandomVidsforthoughtTrue butt parties do change if the Republican Party reaches a point of not being able to win they will shift their strategy a party that doesn’t change is only heading to a grave. If they shifted there platform and message and made a more pro urban agenda I see states opening up parties will always go where the votes are eventually the democrats used to be a rural party and now a-days they are a urban party if the republicans can’t win period their shift their message and focus on big states like California and New York and the like.
@@RandomVidsforthought Word!!! Red Cook county would be awesome. The only three counties that should be Democrat are Suffolk, MA/ St. Louis, MN/ and Prince George, MD.
There seems to have some north-south division in the state, with the GOP in the north and the Dems in the south, which they switched in the 21st century. That's very interesting
It’s not north-south. It’s urban-rural. Illinois is a large geographic state but the population is mostly in two pockets - the Chicago metropolitan area is by far the largest, and then the metro-east counties of St Louis. There are a few smaller pockets of population around the colleges - Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal, Carbondale, and Springfield. These areas are predominantly blue, although the metro-east is getting much more red leaning. The rest of the state has a small percentage of the population and is incredibly white, rural and relatively poor, and these folks vote the same way other white, rural, and poor parts of the country vote. It rarely matters in statewide elections - Chicago has so much of the population that unless there’s a massive vote split in the city, the rest of the state doesn’t matter. But local elections in these areas overwhelmingly go red.
That's because for most of the 20th century -- especially the first half -- Democrats were the populist, agrarian, and more socially conservative party. Republicans were center-left. I mean, look at 1912. There's a reason normally Republican counties went for the Progressive candidate.
@@pwbmd They were not ‘center-left.’ The Republican part has always been right-leaning relative to the Democratic Party, even if the two parties’ specific positions on specific issues and/or cultural support base and/or public image are always changing.; regional shifts in politics throughout history are the result of a complex number of social, political, economic, legal, demographic, and cultural historical factors. Also, Theodore Roosevelt was a right-of-center Candidate in 1912; the word “progressive” in American politics at the time had a much broader and very different definition than it does today. Let me put it this way: Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both unambiguously more similar in their political ideology to each other than to Woodrow Wilson, and William Howard Taft was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson; therefore, Theodore Roosevelt was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson. It’s that simple.
@@pwbmd Theodore Roosevelt was a right-of-center Candidate in 1912; the word “progressive” in American politics at the time had a much broader and very different definition than it does today. Let me put it this way: Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both unambiguously more similar in their political ideology to each other than to Woodrow Wilson, and William Howard Taft was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson; therefore, Theodore Roosevelt was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson. It’s that simple. Furthermore, Wilson was also a “progressive candidate” in both political ideology and self-identification. The reason why Roosevelt momentarily formed a new political party was because he wanted to run for president after losing the 1912 republican primary, and the reason why he called it the “Progressive Party” was to signify his political leanings WITHIN the scope of the Republican Party at the time. He was NOT the only “progressive candidate” in the 1912 election, and ge was certainly not the “most progressive” or most left-leaning candidate.
There was no “switch” in the north-south division. Rural Northern Illinois is still Republican-leaning; urban southern-Illinois is still Democrat-leaning. Also; most of the “north-south split” came from the fact that Northern Illinois was disproportionately white Protestant whereas Southern and central Illinois (with the exception of the far southern part of the state) were disproportionately white Catholic. (St Louis area and the Illinois River area especially so.)
@@canithyre2626 No no; I know that Massachusetts was the only state that went for McGovern; but I’m asking the single county in the southern part of Illinois that went for him; what was that?
I find it fascinating that other than the 1828 and 1832 elections, IL voted more Democratic in the 2008 election than in any other election to this day. It was even more Democratic than the 1936 and 1964 elections (they were both Democratic landslides/near-sweeps).
2008 was a massive political re-alingment in my opinion, maybe for the first time in history Democrats actually financially outspent Republicans and got more donations from large corporations and billionaires. Today, you have this weird Democrat coalition of rich neoliberal/neocon elite and literal socialists who despise each other.
Not truthfully, because of the party's ideological flip after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lincoln was progressive, and the Democrats are the party of progressivism now.
@@basil9973 I think it’s fair to say there were certainly more distinct factions within both GOP and Democratic parties, with sizable numbers of conservatives, moderates & liberals in both. That really started to wane in the mid-1990s, and is now nearly non existent. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin are the exceptions not the rules. Honestly, going back to that (factions within both parties) would be the best thing politically for this country. It would absolutely force both parties to work together and stuff would actually get done.
Went from a Dem stronghold to a Rep stronghold back to a dem stronghold
Maybe eventually back up a republican stronghold
@@Me-dp9jz in a few decade New York will be red and Texas will be blue
@@stevenplayzzz172 NYC still holds much sway in every election
@@RandomVidsforthoughtTrue butt parties do change if the Republican Party reaches a point of not being able to win they will shift their strategy a party that doesn’t change is only heading to a grave. If they shifted there platform and message and made a more pro urban agenda I see states opening up parties will always go where the votes are eventually the democrats used to be a rural party and now a-days they are a urban party if the republicans can’t win period their shift their message and focus on big states like California and New York and the like.
@@noahhumbard724 I respect your opinion
Seeing Cook County red is cursed
when was the last time cook county was red ?
@@TheNecropolis201972
The word is amazing.
@@CentralKentuckyElevators *World
@@RandomVidsforthought Word!!! Red Cook county would be awesome. The only three counties that should be Democrat are Suffolk, MA/ St. Louis, MN/ and Prince George, MD.
Fun Fact:If it wasn't for Cook County Illinois would've been red since 2004 except for 2008.
There seems to have some north-south division in the state, with the GOP in the north and the Dems in the south, which they switched in the 21st century. That's very interesting
It’s not north-south. It’s urban-rural. Illinois is a large geographic state but the population is mostly in two pockets - the Chicago metropolitan area is by far the largest, and then the metro-east counties of St Louis. There are a few smaller pockets of population around the colleges - Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal, Carbondale, and Springfield. These areas are predominantly blue, although the metro-east is getting much more red leaning. The rest of the state has a small percentage of the population and is incredibly white, rural and relatively poor, and these folks vote the same way other white, rural, and poor parts of the country vote. It rarely matters in statewide elections - Chicago has so much of the population that unless there’s a massive vote split in the city, the rest of the state doesn’t matter. But local elections in these areas overwhelmingly go red.
That's because for most of the 20th century -- especially the first half -- Democrats were the populist, agrarian, and more socially conservative party. Republicans were center-left. I mean, look at 1912. There's a reason normally Republican counties went for the Progressive candidate.
@@pwbmd They were not ‘center-left.’ The Republican part has always been right-leaning relative to the Democratic Party, even if the two parties’ specific positions on specific issues and/or cultural support base and/or public image are always changing.; regional shifts in politics throughout history are the result of a complex number of social, political, economic, legal, demographic, and cultural historical factors.
Also, Theodore Roosevelt was a right-of-center Candidate in 1912; the word “progressive” in American politics at the time had a much broader and very different definition than it does today. Let me put it this way: Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both unambiguously more similar in their political ideology to each other than to Woodrow Wilson, and William Howard Taft was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson; therefore, Theodore Roosevelt was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson. It’s that simple.
@@pwbmd Theodore Roosevelt was a right-of-center Candidate in 1912; the word “progressive” in American politics at the time had a much broader and very different definition than it does today. Let me put it this way: Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft were both unambiguously more similar in their political ideology to each other than to Woodrow Wilson, and William Howard Taft was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson; therefore, Theodore Roosevelt was unambiguously right-leaning in his political ideology relative to Woodrow Wilson. It’s that simple.
Furthermore, Wilson was also a “progressive candidate” in both political ideology and self-identification. The reason why Roosevelt momentarily formed a new political party was because he wanted to run for president after losing the 1912 republican primary, and the reason why he called it the “Progressive Party” was to signify his political leanings WITHIN the scope of the Republican Party at the time. He was NOT the only “progressive candidate” in the 1912 election, and ge was certainly not the “most progressive” or most left-leaning candidate.
There was no “switch” in the north-south division. Rural Northern Illinois is still Republican-leaning; urban southern-Illinois is still Democrat-leaning. Also; most of the “north-south split” came from the fact that Northern Illinois was disproportionately white Protestant whereas Southern and central Illinois (with the exception of the far southern part of the state) were disproportionately white Catholic. (St Louis area and the Illinois River area especially so.)
You should do Washington and Oregon next
3:51-3:56 Holy crap!! I know Nixon clobbered McGovern in 1972; but I’m not from Illinois. What was that single blue county in the south?
Massachusetts
@@canithyre2626 No no; I know that Massachusetts was the only state that went for McGovern; but I’m asking the single county in the southern part of Illinois that went for him; what was that?
@@patrickc3419 Jackson County
Wow; never knew until just now that Sangamon County (Springfield) never voted for Lincoln! 😳
I find it fascinating that other than the 1828 and 1832 elections, IL voted more Democratic in the 2008 election than in any other election to this day. It was even more Democratic than the 1936 and 1964 elections (they were both Democratic landslides/near-sweeps).
2008 was a massive political re-alingment in my opinion, maybe for the first time in history Democrats actually financially outspent Republicans and got more donations from large corporations and billionaires.
Today, you have this weird Democrat coalition of rich neoliberal/neocon elite and literal socialists who despise each other.
Illinois: The Land of Lincoln. How ironic is that?
Not truthfully, because of the party's ideological flip after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Lincoln was progressive, and the Democrats are the party of progressivism now.
@@basil9973 I think it’s fair to say there were certainly more distinct factions within both GOP and Democratic parties, with sizable numbers of conservatives, moderates & liberals in both. That really started to wane in the mid-1990s, and is now nearly non existent. Susan Collins and Joe Manchin are the exceptions not the rules. Honestly, going back to that (factions within both parties) would be the best thing politically for this country. It would absolutely force both parties to work together and stuff would actually get done.
My Home State!!!
Pls do Michigan
ein Beitrag des Montages, 26. Februar 2024
Is Illinois the most average US state?
nice
It used to be competitve so was Colorado now it deep blue
It's blue because of Cook County.Rest of Illinois is 60-70% red.
@@AFT_05G You mean Crook county! Its the most corrupt county in the US!
IT’s Illinoi
Not Illinois
Silent S
4:15 the last good IL decision.
Eh, i'd argue 1984 would be the last.Bush Sr. , just like his son, was a terrible guy he was elected only because he was Reagan's VP.
I don't think illinois will ever go red ever again.That state is cursed.
It has a chance, so does NY, VA, OR.
1960 was rigged in Chicago
yeah fr
Democrat 538
It's a communist strong hold
😂 your tears nourish the planet
@@Spawnofme I mean he's not wrong, you Dems abused the word liberal so much that it lost all of it's meaning.