AHC: Civil Rights Leader Elected Senator/Governor

Eliminating white-favoring runoff elections is a good starter.
How? The two-party system would still be in place; only in rare occasions would there be elections without majorities. Unless there was some "African-American People's Party" which formed in the South, and the white vote was divided between the Dixiecrats and the Republicans.

EDIT: Unless you meant run-offs in the Democratic primaries preventing black candidates from winning the nomination.
 
Again the reason Dixon would have been "unbeatable" is because of his base, which was made up mostly of the traditional Democratic base (women and African-Americans).

Huh?

Blacks vote Democrat, right? 90+? Yeah. But blacks were (and are) only about 10% of the vote, and the Democrats in Illinois get over 50%.

What about "women"? Do women vote 90% Democrat?

Obviously not. There is a "gender gap", in that women have tended to vote more for Democrats than men; but that gap is not an absolute. For instance, Mitt Romney won the majority of white women last year.

If women...

middle-class liberal white women...

... and African-Americans either stay home on election day...

Who abstains in a Presidential election because of one candidate?

or vote for Clinton but skip Dixon's name on their ballots...

Speaking as one who has been an election judge in Illinois for 35 years, I can tell you that between 30% and 60% of voters don't even know who they're voting for, and follow party lines on everything but the highest profile races.

A voting bloc breaks heavily against its established tendency only when there is gross provocation. For instance, in 1972, blacks voted for Republican Bernard Carey for Cook County State's Attorney, leading to an upset. Why? Because the Democrat incumbent, Ed Hanrahan, had become infamous for leading police on a midnight raid in which two Black Panthers were killed in their beds. (Mayor Daley I recognized that Hanrahan was a liability, and tried to dump him. Hanrahan refused to quit, and was renominated with surprise support in Republican suburbs - Illinois has open primaries.)

And even Hanrahan got about 25% of the usual black vote.

There is a reason why he lost in the OTL. He angered a large segment of his base (women) with his Clarence Thomas vote.

He angered some women - white middle-class liberal women. That group does vote Democrat, and a significant chunk voted for CMB over Dixon because of his Thomas vote. CMB also benefited from Hofeld's attacks on Dixon's "conservativism"; she had been semi-known as a Good Liberal. So, a number of liberal women Democrats, and other liberal Democrats, preferred CMB to Dixon.

You have the mad notion that the Thomas vote was such a gross offense to all women that they would not vote for Dixon over a Republican who would vote to confirm any similar nominee.

Now if he attacked Jesse Jackson or CM-B too negatively he would have lost African-American support also.

Another mad notion: that daring to criticize Jesse Jackson would be such a gross offense that blacks would not vote for Dixon over a Republican.

You really don't get it, do you?

The Republican Illinois Senate candidate in 1992 was a nobody. No one had ever heard of him before. No one has ever heard of him since. The campaign fund was, effectively, zero. You can't beat Somebody with Nobody, unless Somebody self-destructs.

The result was 53% CMB, 43% the Republican, 4% other. 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. Probably any reasonably strong Republican would have beaten her. Dixon had a secure moderate-liberal record and superb name recognition.
 
Huh?

Blacks vote Democrat, right? 90+? Yeah. But blacks were (and are) only about 10% of the vote, and the Democrats in Illinois get over 50%.

What about "women"? Do women vote 90% Democrat?

Obviously not. There is a "gender gap", in that women have tended to vote more for Democrats than men; but that gap is not an absolute. For instance, Mitt Romney won the majority of white women last year.

The first problem is you're looking at this through the lens of 2012 and not 1992. You're looking at this with the 2012 political climate and not the 1992 political climate. Mitt Romney winning the majority of white women (NATIONALLY [which includes the deep south]) in 2012 has nothing to do with the 1992 Democratic senate primary.

Here is an article I found describing what was actually going on in Illinois during the Democratic senate primary in 1992.


By PAUL M. GREEN

Analyzing the Illinois primary vote
Braun's dazzling win as downstate fails Dixon;
Bush and Clinton pile up delegates

The late Harry Welstein, a longtime Chicago political operative, once said, "All elections eventually turn into multiple choice not essay exams." Harry's description fit the Illinois March 17 primary elections. No presidential contender in either party generated much enthusiasm. Voters frustrated over economic, social and political developments beyond their control hoped and wished that their choices could have been expanded. They grudgingly selected a presidential candidate for the Democratic and Republican parties.

Even the dramatic upset in the Democratic U.S. senatorial primary was more a rejection of politics as usual than a reaffirmation of the political party process. Indeed, if this primary election could have been an essay exam, it would have been far more interesting for political observers seeking to understand the malaise that has infected our political system. To paraphrase former U.S. Sen. Howard Baker's famous Watergate line, the real question is: "What do the voters want, and who do they want to give it to them?"

Carol Moseley Braun's triumph over Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Alan J. Dixon generated far more national media coverage than Illinois' presidential primaries. She also bested challenger Al Hofeld in the three-way Democratic primary. Conventional political wisdom suggests that if two strong candidates challenge a longtime officeholder in a primary, neither will be successful because of the likelihood that they will split the anti-incumbent vote. Unfortunately for incumbent Dixon, Illinois' Democratic senatorial primary did not follow the conventional script.

In almost tag team fashion but in very different styles, challengers Braun and Hofeld worked over Dixon, and in the end Braun out-counted the incumbent. What made Dixon's defeat so newsworthy were the candidates' backgrounds and campaigns.

For decades Dixon was the most successful Democratic candidate in Illinois politics. In 1980 he was first elected to the U.S. Senate, overcoming a Republican landslide vote for presidential candidate Ronald Reagan. Six years later Dixon won reelection by overwhelming the underfinanced campaign of state Rep. Judy Koehler. Always a winner, Dixon had developed strong political support among Republicans for his moderate views on many social and economic issues. It was this general perception of near invincibility that probably led him to cast an aye vote in the Senate confirmation of Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court justice. This single action combined with the general anti-incumbency mood produced a firestorm of criticism against Dixon and revealed his potential vulnerability to a primary challenge.

Braun, the Cook County recorder of deeds and former state representative, saw her opportunities and she took 'em. Using her gender and race as a vote base, she challenged Dixon. Her message to her party's voters was clear: She offered herself as a "true" Democrat. Ironically the fact that her campaign was so thoroughly disorganized probably helped her gain victory as it encouraged Hofeld, the very wealthy Chicago lawyer, to continue spending heavily on anti-Dixon media campaign advertising. To the end Hofeld believed he could win. The main result of his everlasting hammering of Dixon, however, was to help drive down the incumbent's support enough for Braun to win with 38 percent of the vote.

Four specific factors keyed the Braun victory:

� Braun's personality and charisma overcame her chaotic campaign to give alienated voters, especially women, an appealing alternative to Dixon.

� Hofeld, a man with no public record but much money and with the shrewd direction of consultant

David Axelrod, was able to piece together a campaign strategy that made his anti-Dixon attacks creditable.

Dixon stayed at the dance one song too long. The incumbent appeared old and out of touch with 1992 political realities. His own paid media advertising was terrible, and unfortunately for him his best campaign talk was his concession speech.

� Braun avoided the negatives (in Axelrod's words: "Braun remained below the fray"). Like the 1983 Democratic mayoral primary in Chicago when Harold Washington defeated two highly publicized protagonists, Jane Byrne and Richard M. Daley, Braun stayed clear of the vicious media slugfest between Dixon and Hofeld that wound up hurting both their campaigns.

Braun won with a majority of the Chicago vote, 40 percent of the suburban Cook County vote and 38 percent of the collar county vote. Only downstate did not give Braun a plurality.

In Chicago 15 African-American wards gave her over 80 percent of the vote; 12 other wards gave her at least 50 percent. She also ran especially well along the lakefront. Most surprising was her stunning performance in the heavily Jewish and predominantly white northside 50th Ward. In this ward Dixon beat Braun by only nine votes, and Hofeld came in a close third. Middle-class southside black wards gave Braun huge margin victories with the 6th Ward, formerly led by Eugene Sawyer and now led by Alderman John Steele, giving her a margin of more than 14,000 votes.

Dixon's best city wards were on the southwest side. House Speaker Michael J. Madigan's 13th Ward and Mayor Richard M. Daley's 11th Ward gave Dixon more than 60 percent of their vote. Dixon was able to win a majority of the vote in only three other wards (12th, 14th and 23rd). On the northwest side Hofeld slashed deeply into Dixon's numbers, holding the incumbent to low 40 percent plurality victories. Cut off from piling up huge margin wins on the northwest side, Dixon left Chicago trailing Braun by more than 123,000 votes.

In suburban Cook County Braun won 13 townships that had either significant black populations or liberal voting tendencies. She also ran well in rock-ribbed north suburban GOP townships where the usually overmatched Democratic voters were joined by GOP crossovers. Hofeld also did extremely well in these upscale suburban areas, matching Braun with 13 township wins. Dixon was left with only four township victories (Berwyn, Cicero, Stickney and Worth), doing well only in the working-class west and southwest suburban area.

Of special interest is the mammoth 9,610-vote margin given to Braun by the liberal and racially mixed Evanston Township. It shows that given the right circumstances, Cook County suburban Democratic primary voters can produce the massive margin numbers formerly associated only with Chicago. In only one Chicago ward, the 13th, was Dixon able to surpass the victory margin produced by Evanston Township for Braun.

In the collar counties, Braun and Hofeld ran neck and neck with Dixon coming in a distant third. Braun won DuPage, Kane and Lake counties, while Hofeld carried McHenry and Will. Dixon was shut out; he ran third in each of the five counties with his best showing in Will County with more than one-fourth of the vote.

Downstate was supposed to be Dixon's electoral hammer. Instead, in perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the Democratic senatorial primary, Dixon was unable to win a majority downstate. Dixon, the downstater from southern Illinois who has worked county fairs and court houses for decades, was denied the majority by two Chicago opponents who at the campaign's inception were unknowns south of Interstate 80 and west of Illinois 47.

It was obvious that Hofeld's massive statewide media blitz hurt Dixon badly downstate. The Chicago lawyer won almost one-third of the downstate vote and carried 15 of the 96 counties. Hofeld did best downstate in west central and northern Illinois. Although he was unable to gain a majority in any county, he scored plurality wins over Dixon in such important and populous downstate counties as Winnebago (Rockford), Rock Island and Peoria. Hofeld's day and night bashing of Dixon on local TV from Cairo to Freeport made the Chicago lawyer known, accepted and believed by many voters. Speculation suggests that if Hofeld had not been in the race using expensive and extensive TV campaigning, most of his downstate voters would have supported Dixon.

Braun won three downstate counties: Champaign, DeKalb and McLean (Bloomington-Normal). Each has a large state university campus where the anti-Dixon fallout from the Thomas hearings was demonstrated vividly. Braun also beat Dixon in Kendall and Winnebago counties, which Hofeld carried.

Dixon won 80 downstate counties. In 11 far southern Illinois counties he won over 70 percent of the vote, but all those counties are lightly populated. A Belleville native, Dixon ran far below form in his huge home southwestern Illinois county of St. Clair (61 percent) and in the adjacent and equally huge county of Madison (53 percent). Part of Dixon's problem was Braun's appeal to a sizable number of black voters in both counties, but Hofeld received 8,855 votes (26 percent) in St. Clair and 11,698 votes (34 percent) in Madison. Losing this large number of votes to Hofeld in these two traditional Dixon strongholds signaled the outline of the incumbent's defeat. Even with his loss of votes in Chicago and its suburban counties, Dixon still could have beaten Braun if he had thrashed Hofeld in the south. He could not and he lost.

10/June 1992/Illinois Issues

http://www.lib.niu.edu/1992/ii920610.html


That was the political climate back in 1992 surrounding that senate primary race.


You have the mad notion that the Thomas vote was such a gross offense to all women that they would not vote for Dixon over a Republican who would vote to confirm any similar nominee.

Another mad notion: that daring to criticize Jesse Jackson would be such a gross offense that blacks would not vote for Dixon over a Republican.
Ultimately the point is Dixon wasn't going to make it to the general election regardless. Whether women and blacks would have voted for him in the general election is irreverent. Because at that time and in that year he was not going to win the primary (which he didn't). Hofeld's attack ads along with Dixon running a bad campaign, along with an anti-incumbent mood, along with Dixon's vote to confirm Thomas, created a perfect storm that caused Dixon's defeat. The Democratic base showed by not voting for him in the primary (when you add together CM-B's and Hofeld's votes), that they didn't want Dixon anymore. They didn't have to worry about holding their noses and voting for Dixon in the general, because they got rid of him in the primary. 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.

You really don't get it, do you?

The Republican Illinois Senate candidate in 1992 was a nobody. No one had ever heard of him before. No one has ever heard of him since. The campaign fund was, effectively, zero. You can't beat Somebody with Nobody, unless Somebody self-destructs.

The result was 53% CMB, 43% the Republican, 4% other. 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. Probably any reasonably strong Republican would have beaten her. Dixon had a secure moderate-liberal record and superb name recognition.
Yet with all that "superb name recognition" he couldn't even get the majority of the Democratic base to vote for him in the primary. 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.

Also for months before the election Clinton had a strong lead in the polls in Illinois (he ended up beating Bush by 14% in Illinois). That likely also played a factor in Williamson's loss to CM-B. Perhaps if the presidential race had been more competitive in Illinois (or in 1992 in general) the RNC, NRSC, and the Bush campaign would have devoted more of their resources in Illinois. Which would have helped Williamson's chances that year by improving Republican turnout.
 
The first problem is you're looking at this through the lens of 2012 and not 1992. You're looking at this with the 2012 political climate and not the 1992 political climate. Mitt Romney winning the majority of white women (NATIONALLY [which includes the deep south]) in 2012 has nothing to do with the 1992 Democratic senate primary.
You're the one claiming that "women" collectively are a "Democrat base"
constituency comparable to blacks. Not true in 1992, not true in 2012.

In 1992, Clinton led among men by 4%, and led among women by 8%.

In 2012, Obama trailed among men by 7%, and led among women by 11%.

But they both got over 90% of the black vote. Also note that the "gender gap" was far closer in 1992.

Ultimately the point is Dixon wasn't going to make it to the general election regardless. Whether women and blacks would have voted for him in the general election is irreverent.

Two false claims. The discussion started about whether Jesse Jackson would have beaten Dixon in the primary. Initially, it was conceded that Dixon could have won the primary, but then came tha claim that he would have lost in the general election - specifically because "women and blacks" would not have voted for him.

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.

In other words, if a candidate lost in a primary, that candidate could not posslbly have won in the general election? That's obviously silly.

How about this?

In the French Presidential election of 2002, Jacques Chirac, the incumbent, got less than 20% in the first round. In the second round, he got 82%. This clearly included the 45% of French voters who voted for left-wing candidates in the first round and didn't want to vote for Chirac at all - but preferred him to Jean Le Pen. Not only that - over 2.5M additional voters turned out in the second round.

Or... Let's come back to the U.S. In 2010, Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican Senate primary in Alaska - and then was re-elected as a write-in. In 2006, Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut - and then was re-elected as an independent.

By your logic, both of those outcomes should have been impossible.

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.

Say what? These voters who wanted change from twelve years of Republican Presidencies wouldn't vote for a Democrat for the Senate?

Also for months before the election Clinton had a strong lead in the polls in Illinois (he ended up beating Bush by 14% in Illinois). That likely also played a factor in Williamson's loss to CM-B.

Nope. Braun ran ahead of Clinton by 180,000 votes. Williamson ran ahead of Bush by 400,000 votes.

Perhaps if the presidential race had been more competitive in Illinois (or in 1992 in general) the RNC, NRSC, and the Bush campaign would have devoted more of their resources in Illinois. Which would have helped Williamson's chances that year by improving Republican turnout.

Nope. In slating Williamson, Illinois Republicans effectively conceded the seat. Even after the nomination of CMB, who was very vulnerable, they still spent nothing on his campaign.
 
You're the one claiming that "women" collectively are a "Democrat base"
constituency comparable to blacks. Not true in 1992, not true in 2012.

In 1992, Clinton led among men by 4%, and led among women by 8%.

In 2012, Obama trailed among men by 7%, and led among women by 11%.

But they both got over 90% of the black vote. Also note that the "gender gap" was far closer in 1992.

Let me clarify what I mean then. Women (especially single women who were more likely to be upset over the the Thomas vote) tend to vote for Democrats in higher numbers than men do. You left out one little important factor about the "far closer" gender gap in 1992, Ross Perot. When you go deeper into the numbers looking at the 1992 presidential race Clinton won married women 41% to Bush's 40% to Perot's 19%. But when you look at UNMARRIED women Clinton won that group over Bush by 22% (Clinton 53%, Bush 31%, Perot 15%). Nobody knows how the women who voted Perot in 92 would have voted had he not been in the race. So I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. When I meant "women" as part of the Democratic base, I primarily meant that women (compared to men) tend to vote for Democrats more, especially single women voters. A Republican presidential candidate has not won a majority of the overall women's vote since 1988 (and that was only by 1%).


Two false claims. The discussion started about whether Jesse Jackson would have beaten Dixon in the primary. Initially, it was conceded that Dixon could have won the primary, but then came tha claim that he would have lost in the general election - specifically because "women and blacks" would not have voted for him.

For the umpteenth time, Dixon already had a problem with women voters going into that primary. 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. 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, would have enabled him to win that primary? Not even the great and wonderful Alan Dixon could have split the moderates with Hofeld, lose a majority of liberals to Jackson and still have won a three person race. Dixon was going to lose that primary regardless. Hofeld was taking moderate votes away from him and so he would have needed a majority of liberals to win.

In other words, if a candidate lost in a primary, that candidate could not posslbly have won in the general election? That's obviously silly.

How about this?

In the French Presidential election of 2002, Jacques Chirac, the incumbent, got less than 20% in the first round. In the second round, he got 82%. This clearly included the 45% of French voters who voted for left-wing candidates in the first round and didn't want to vote for Chirac at all - but preferred him to Jean Le Pen. Not only that - over 2.5M additional voters turned out in the second round.

Or... Let's come back to the U.S. In 2010, Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican Senate primary in Alaska - and then was re-elected as a write-in. In 2006, Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut - and then was re-elected as an independent.

By your logic, both of those outcomes should have been impossible.

You might want to read things more slowly so you will understand them better. Let me break down what I said for you.

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. Despite all of the attacks from Hofeld and the Thomas confirmation vote, if they truly wanted to send him back to the senate they would have first voted for him in the primary election. Nowhere in that comment did I say he could not have won the general election even though he lost the primary. I believe if Dixon had won the primary in 92 that he would have also won the general election too. BUT AGAIN, if he had attacked Jackson too negatively that would have hurt him with getting black and liberal voting to support him.

More than just votes matter when it comes to winning elections. 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? The Clinton campaign knew they were going to win Illinois long before election day. So they weren't to to spend a lot time and money in the state doing those things.

Dixon would have had to do a lot of work after the primary to repair his image with black voters. They likely still would have voted for him, but SOME might have skipped his name on the ballot. 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.

Say what? These voters who wanted change from twelve years of Republican Presidencies wouldn't vote for a Democrat for the Senate?

Read this closely.

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.

Nope. Braun ran ahead of Clinton by 180,000 votes. Williamson ran ahead of Bush by 400,000 votes.

Again you're forgetting (probably on purpose) the Perot factor. We don't know for sure how many people voted for Perot in Illinois that would have voted for Clinton had Perot not been in the race. We can guess though. If you take away a third of Perot's votes in Illinois (around 280,000 votes) and give them to Clinton, that gives Clinton a little more than 100,000 more votes than CM-B. Plus we don't know how many people who voted for Perot also voted for Williamson. You have to factor in the Perot voters if you want to compare the presidential results and the senate results. When it comes to Perot it is generally believed that around a third of his voters would have voted for Clinton, a third for Bush, and the other third would have not voted at all.

Nope. In slating Williamson, Illinois Republicans effectively conceded the seat. Even after the nomination of CMB, who was very vulnerable, they still spent nothing on his campaign.

Which pretty much what I said. The RNC, NRSC, and the Bush campaign did not put their resources into the state. Not because they didn't like Williamson, but because the polls likely showed for months that both Bush and Williamson were behind their opponents. 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.

First off, Williamson did better in 1992 than Paul Simon's opponent in 1990 (Lynn Morley Martin, 35%) and Dick Durbin's opponent in 1996 (Al Salvi, 41%). But no the Republicans did not invest in Williamson's campaign.
 
ASB idea:
Jesse Jackson moves back to SC after the MLK assasination. In 1974, the Republicans nominate William Westmoreland (2nd in primary OTL). CBS airs it's documentary (in 1982 otl) that sinks his candidacy. Democrats nominate restaurant owner and former NAAWP president Maurice Bessinger (5th in primary OTL). His background is swiftly brought up. Jackson surprisingly takes the lead.
 
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%.
 
Top