For the umpteenth time, Dixon already had a problem with women voters going into that primary.
You keep repeating that as if it was true, when what you mean is that Dixon had a problem with single white liberal women voters. Which is true. Those voters were about 5% of the total electorate, and about 10% of the Democrat primary vote. CMB was a clear alternative to Dixon on their particular concerns at that time, and they chose CMB over him. Unanimously? I doubt it.
And some of those voters would have chosen almost any woman over any man out of gender solidarity, regardless of how he had voted on the Thomas nomination.
IF he had attacked a black candidate and civil right leader like Jesse Jackson too negatively that would have hurt him with black voters IF he somehow won the primary (which he would not have). Going too negative on Jackson might've hurt Dixon so much with black voters that it would have helped Jackson win the primary.
In your dreams. Jackson had far too much baggage to draw more than black votes and a few whites. Of course, if Dixon had appeared in Klan robes, brandishing a noose for the uppity ______...
Dixon was already being attacked by Hofeld and fighting with Hofeld over the moderate wing of the party. Dixon would have needed liberal Democrats to win the primary since Hofeld was taking moderate Democrats away from him.
Explain how Dixon losing half of the moderate Dems to Hofeld and angering liberal Democrats (many of who are black) by attacking Jackson...
Explain how Hofeld gained moderate Democrat votes by attacking Dixon. Moderate Democrats liked Dixon. Therefore any attack on Dixon should have alienated them.
Ah, but Dixon is a white male. Jackson is black and therefore sacred. Any political attack on a black is by definition
Racist!!!!! and will backfire.
I said:
"If the Democratic base wanted to vote for Dixon in the general election, they would have put him there by giving him a majority of the vote in the primary. "
Meaning if the majority of the Democratic base (the people who voted in the Democratic primary) wanted to send Dixon back to the senate for another six years. They would have voted for him in the primary.
And if the majority of the Democratic base (the people who voted in the Democratic primary) wanted to vote for Moseley-Braun in the general election, they would have voted for her in the primary. Which they did not. 62% voted for candidates other than Moseley-Braun. 65% voted for candidates other than Dixon.
I believe if Dixon had won the primary in 92 that he would have also won the general election too.
Then what was
all this about?
BUT AGAIN, if he had attacked Jackson too negatively that would have hurt him with getting black and liberal voting to support him.
Sure. If Dixon ran ads saying "Vote for me, not the ______", that would sink him. That's obvious.
What is not obvious, or even true, is that Jesse Jackson is or was some sort of sacred figure, and that any criticism at all of Jackson, even as a rival candidate, would mortally offend every black voter in Illinois.
Apparently the idea is that Illinois liberals and blacks feel that a black/female candidate like Jackson or CMB should be allowed to attack white/male candidates at will, but no white/male candidate should ever criticize
them.
Well... I disagree.
More than just votes matter when it comes to winning elections.
The votes are what get counted. All the yard signs and donations in the world don't count. In 2010, Republican Joel Pollak ran against U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky. I live in the district. Pollak raised more money and generated a lot more publicity than previous Republican challengers. I saw hundreds of Pollak yard signs where I'd never seen a trace of Republican support before. I didn't think Pollak would win, but I thought he'd at least cut into Schakowsky's majority. He barely cracked 30%.
Do you think if Dixon had beaten Jackson with a lot of negative campaigning that would have encouraged black Democrats to volunteer for him? Canvass (mostly in Chicago) for him? Donate money to his campaign? Phone bank for him? Drive people to the polls on election day for him? Welcome him to speak at their churches? Put out yard signs and bumper stickers? Tell there friends and family to vote for Dixon? Get more people registered to vote?
They weren't doing any of those things
for Dixon before 1992.
Dixon would have had to do a lot of work after the primary to repair his image with black voters.
For what? Daring to oppose a black candidate? More precisely, not stepping aside for a black candidate who chose to run against him?
Black Illinoisans are not that tribal, that presumptuous, or that hypersensitive. They would mostly support Jackson in the primary, but they know he's a showboater and a self-promoter. Marion Berry famously said "Jesse don't run nuthin' but his mouth." If Jackson chose to challenge a prominent Democrat who had never done anything to offend blacks, and got his ass whipped - BFD.
(Voting to confirm a black man to the Supreme Court was not offensive to blacks.)
And if a primary between Dixon and Jackson was really nasty, Jackson (if he truly thought he could win) could've ran as an independent in the general and taken votes away from Dixon.
That would pretty much guarantee unanimous centrist support for Dixon. Jackson might have drawn 30% or 40% of black votes as an independent, and maybe 5% of white votes. But as an independent, he would have no chance, and few voters would waste their vote on him. Unless, of course, Williamson was so far behind that a protest or whimsy vote for Jackson was harmless. Which is probable. The most likely outcome would be Jackson 10%, Dixon 60%, Williamson 30%.
You said:
"But bear in mind that CMB was a black, a woman, and unknown except as a flaming liberal from the most liberal area of Chicago. Those factors turned off a lot of centrist and conservative Democrats, especially Downstate."
I said:
"For the loss of centrist and conservatives Democratic votes CM-B got because she was black and liberal, she likely made up for with newly registered black and college aged voters who wanted change from 12 years of Reagan/Bush policies."
Meaning that the centrist and conservative Democrats Braun lost to Williamson (the Republican), were likely replaced with newly registered black and college aged voters who had never voted before. Voters upset over the recession and 12 years of Reagan's and Bush's policies and wanted change.
I'm still at a complete loss to understand who you are writing about. What you seem to be saying that in 1992, there were voters who
1) were black or college aged
2) were newly registered
3) were opposed to continued Republican policies
4) voted for Moseley-Braun in November
and
5) would not have voted for Alan Dixon in November
Are you claiming these people registered to vote after CMB won the primary, and that they would not have registered otherwise? That's pretty silly.
Or that they would have voted for Williamson, despite being opposed to Republican policies? Even sillier.
Compared to Dixon in 1986, CMB ran 10 points behind downstate, and 13 points behind in
Cook County. That's how many centrist/moderate Democrats and independents she lost.
Is it really plausible that against a hard-right Republican, with multiple Reagan and Bush appointments, CMB got that many more votes than Dixon would have from extreme liberals particularly opposed to Reagan/Bush policies?
IF the state and the 92 election had been more competitive, the Republicans would have put more resources into the state which could have helped Williamson. I'M NOT SAYING HE DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE WON IF THAT HAPPENED. I'm saying it would have increased his chances.
There were 9 states where Bush trailed Clinton by 13% or more. Of these, AR, CA, IL, MD, MA, NY, and VT had Senate races. (CA had two.) If the NRSC was going to abandon a race, New York (Bush -16) would be likely - but the candidate there was incumbent Al D'Amato, who won. Vermont (Bush -14.3), where the Republican was challenging incumbent Pat Leahy, would be another obvious write-off - but the candidate was Vermont Secretary of State Jim Douglas, not a place-holder. In California (Bush -13.4), one Republican was political commentator Bruce Herschensohn, who lost by only 4.9% (with much support from the NRSC).
On the other hand, Bush won North Dakota by 12.1%, yet Republicans made little effort in either 1992 Senate race there. Republicans wrote off the Illinois Senate race before the primary. Once Williamson was nominated, that was it. Greater Republican effort for Bush in Illinois wasn't going to do more for Williamson than the landslide for Bush in North Dakota did for Steve Sydness, who lost to Byron Dorgan by 21%.