The May 29 Op-Ed page of the Kansas City Star reprints a part of an editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times in which that newspaper stumps for the idea of an early Illinois primary, based on the fact that according to an Associated Press analysis, Illinois "was the state that best mirrored the nation as a whole".

The quoted editorial goes on to decry Iowa and New Hampshire's places of primacy in the primary year, saying that "states that are so white, rural, and homogenous shouldn't play such a huge role in making decisions for the rest of the country".  Since Illinois is closer to the national average in terms of population by race and urban living, it claims, this is the state that should be higher up the chain in the primaries, and would give candidates a better view of how they'll fare nationally in a general election.

This contention, of course, is a load of cow droppings.

Illinois, if it is anything, is a prime example of how one major city can dominate an entire state.  Go ahead...name ANY other city in Illinois except Chicago.  BZZT...time's up.  Did you even come up with Springfield, the state capital?  Bet you didn't.  Even better, name a newspaper in Illinois that is NOT based in Chicago.  I can't think of any offhand, even though I'm sure there are many.  Face it, Chicago RUNS the state of Illinois as far as national perception is concerned; win Chicago, and you win the state.

It used to be that Illinois was a good telltale in the Presidential election.  From Eisenhower to Clinton, every winning candidate carried Illinois.  However, George W. Bush did not carry Illinois in either 2000 or 2004.  This indicates a shift away from the balance that Illinois has traditionally represented, and a progression towards the Democratic Party that has been in control of Chicago since at least the 1960s.

Look at the statewide offices.  Both Senate seats are held by Democrats, Richard Durbin and Barack Obama, neither of whom will ever be mistaken for a Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy.  Al Gore's campaign of 2000 was run by Dick Daley, latest in the family that has controlled Chicago for over four decades.  And yet the AP thinks that because of where people live and racial factors, Illinois is the best reflection of America as a whole?  I trust such is not the case.

If you were to look for the "perfect reflection of America", I might suggest my neighbor state of Missouri.  There are two major cities, neither of which are the capital (Kansas City and St. Louis; Jefferson City is the capital), but these are balanced by several other fair-sized cities and a healthy dose of rural population.  Missouri also has a better track record when voting for President; they have been right from the latest general election all the way back to Truman in 1948, and probably farther.  The general rule of thumb has been that you MUST win Missouri in order to win the White House, and candidates for that office come to the Show-Me State frequently to convince the voters that they belong in the Oval Office.

To my mind, Missouri has a better claim than Illinois to a "primacy primary".  The Cold Hard Fact is that NO state, controlled by one urban area to such a degree as Illinois is, can claim to be a "mirror of America", no matter what the numbers available to the Associated Press might say.  Numbers can have many different meanings read into them; it is my contention that the AP missed the mark here.