Political realignments occur regularly. When Democrats consistently win in historically Republican areas, like northern metropolitan-area suburbs, or the Republicans consistently win in historically Democratic areas, like the Deep South, it’s not an aberration.

But there’s a new factor: unalignment. The American electorate is divided into thirds: Democratic, Republican, and unaligned independents. For this the thid r group, which is heavily white, affluent, suburban and secular, voting Republican is seldom cool or acceptable.

Hardcore Democrats disdain Republicans as macho, war-like, tight-fisted, mean-spirited, intolerant, bigoted and dictatorial. That’s expected. Hardcore Republicans deride Democrats as squishy-soft on national defense and terrorist issues, and obsessed with creating a Utopia on earth. That’s expected.

What’s unexpected is that independents, driven by the “politics of culture,” have turned strongly against the Republicans. For them, issues like abortion rights, gun control, gay rights, immigration reform resonate, and to them, Republicans are on the wrong side. In their estimation, traditional Republican issues—tax cuts, spending slashes and reduced government—have utterly no appeal. They look up government as now good.

For this change, Republicans can blame Bill Clinton. Back in the 1990s, Clinton declared that spending was an “investment”: Taxes were not “wasteful,” or squandered on the poor or undeserving, but were instead seed money for a product which would pay future dividends in the form of a better-educated populace, more effective and cheaper medical care for more people, a sounder infrastructure, and a more protective national security. And people bought it.

Through the 20th century and into the 1990s, Republicans championed limited government, lower taxes, reduced spending and a strong national defense. They practiced the “politics of economics”: Minimizing taxes on the “haves,” minimizing spending on the “have nots,” and restraining government expansion. “Tax cut” was the magic word – as it put money in the pockets of voters.

But the prosperity of the 1990s, the prodigious spending of the George W. Bush Administration, and Iraq have shredded the Republican message. A growing number of affluent suburban voters with net worth of $1 million or more living in homes valued at $500,000 and up, are contemptuous of “tax cut” rhetoric. They no longer perceive government, be it local, county, state or national, as inept, intrusive or irrelevant. To them, like Starbucks, government provides specific services, from which they derive specific benefits. They can afford the tax burden.

Voters expect essential services, such as education, police protection, street maintenance, mass transit and refuse disposal. But they want more. They demand Internet access in libraries, sports and crafts programs at park districts, landscaping and tree-planting on public property; in short, they want their city or neighborhood to have an ambiance, a vibrance and pleasantness, which only local government can provide. They expect their county government to provide health care, their state government to provide Medicaid and transportation subsidies, and their federal government to provide social security and a plethora of other subsidies.

And they expect a multitude of social services. For every problem, another government agency is the solution.

Democratic politicians have been quick to understand that their task is not to restrain government spending, but rather to enlarge it and direct it to their community. Saddled with Iraq and an unpopular president, Republicans face the danger of becoming culturally Old Hat and economically irrelevant to swing voters. Increasingly, more Democrats running for local office have succeeded in portraying themselves as sensible, reasonable and enlightened. After 9/11, the Republican “macho” position was gratefully embraced. Now, six years later, in some of the more affluent suburbs and outlying city neighborhoods, “sensitivity” is ascendant.

At present, Democrats have a 37–22 majority in the Illinois senate. Of the 59 districts, 17 are in Chicago (all held by Democrats), 21 are in the suburbs and collar counties (with Democrats holding a 11–10 edge), and 21 are downstate (with Republicans holding a 12–9 edge). Just a decade age, Republicans held almost all the suburban districts.

In the Illinois House, Democrats have a 67–51 majority. Of the 28 Chicagoans, only one is a Republican. Of the 45 suburban and collar county districts, Republicans hold 24 to the Democrats’ 21. Of the 45 downstate seats, Republicans hold 26 and Democrats 19.

The question for 2008 is not whether Democrats will win more Republican-held suburban seats, but how many. Here’s an early look at possible turnovers:

26th Senate District (western Lake County, including Libertyville, Mundelein and Lake Zurich; eastern McHenry County, including Wauconda and Cary; and Barrington in Cook County): This district went 60.1 percent for Bush in 2004, and has always had a Republican state senator. Incumbent Bill Peterson, first elected in 1992, is retiring. Republicans are nervous. Their candidate is Dan Duffy, a wealthy Barrington businessman who has pledged to spend at least $50,000 of his own money. The Democrat will be Round Lake Mayor Bill Gentes.

The issue will be government. Duffy will run against Democratic incompetence in state government in general, and against Governor Blagojevich in particular, stressing corruption and fiscal issues. Gentes will run as a local official who is capable of “bringing back the bacon” – meaning state funding for local projects. A generation ago, Gentes would have been toast. Now, he has appeal. The outlook: Duffy is a narrow favorite.

33rd Senate District (Park Ridge, Des Plaines, Mount Prospect, Elk Grove): The deft positioning and campaigning skills of Democrat Dan Kotowski got him elected in 2006 by 1,434 votes, and he will be tough to dislodge in 2008.

Kotowski is a career do-gooder, having worked for various gun control groups. He moved from Chicago to Park Ridge, and began his senate campaign in early 2005, going door-to-door. In this historically Republican district, which Bush carried in 2004 with just 50.5 percent, party organizations have collapsed. There are no precinct captains on the street, and voters have no inclination to join either party.

In 2006, the appointed incumbent, Republican Cheryl Axley of Elk Grove, ran an insipid campaign. Kotowski ignored social issues like abortion and gay marriage, trumpeted gun control, refused to endorse Blagojevich, and promised to be a “responsive and accessible” senator. Since he was in the precincts, and Axley wasn’t, he won.

For 2008, Elk Grove Township clerk Mike Sweeney is the Republican nominee. The outlook: Now that Energizer Bunny Kotowski is in office, he appears unbeatable.

27th Senate District (Palatine, Prospect Heights, Arlington Heights, Inverness, north Hoffman Estates, south Buffalo Grove): Republican Wendell Jones, a staunch conservative who succeeded Peter Fitzgerald (who was elected U.S. Senator in 1998), retired in 2006, and Republican Matt Murphy barely kept the seat. The Jewish vote in Buffalo Grove gives Democrats a base.

A social conservative, Murphy beat liberal Republican Rita Mullins, Palatine’s mayor, in the primary, and then topped Democrat Peter Gutzmer by just 3,183 votes (52.6 percent). Gutzmer is running again in 2008. The outlook: Unlike 2006, Gutzmer will be heavily funded. If Republicans cannot save an incumbent like Murphy in a 52.7 percent Bush district (2004), then all hope is lost. My judgment is that Murphy will win.

65th House District: If Republican incumbent Rosemary Mulligan were any more liberal, she’d fall off the left end of the political spectrum. First elected in 1992, when she beat anti-abortion firebrand Penny Pullen, Mulligan is adamantly pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. Yet she faces a tough race in 2008 against Democrat Aurora Austriaco, an attorney who will run to Mulligan’s left.

The focus: guilt-by-association. Austriaco will be funded by Springfield Democrats and trial lawyers, and will play the “party” card, tarring Mulligan with the party of Bush. And Austriaco will align herself with Kotowski, who will easily carry her district, the east half of his senate district. The outlook: Mulligan was unopposed in 2006, and got 65.9 percent in 2004. I predict Mulligan will win with 55 percent in 2008, after spending a bundle.

66th House District (Elk Grove, Mount Prospect, Rolling Meadows): Like Mulligan, incumbent Republican Carolyn Krause, a former Mount Prospect mayor, has served since 1992, and is a moderate on social issues. She is retiring in 2008, and Republicans have a primary between Elk Grove Village trustee Christine Prochno, who is endorsed by village mayor Craig Johnson and Krause, and challenger Laurie Bartels. The Democrat will be Mark Walker, who lost a 2005 bid for Wheeling Township supervisor, and who is employing a “Kotowski strategy” for 2008, working precincts daily. The outlook: Walker will attempt to piggyback on the Kotowski campaign, but Elk Grove is also the base of Sweeney (as it was of Axley). Prochno is favored, but will lose if she campaigns as lackluster as did Axley.

56th House District (Schaumburg, Roselle, Hanover Park): Like those long-ago Tareyton cigarette ads, proclaiming the smoker would rather “fight than switch,” Republican incumbent Paul Froelich decided he rather switch than fight. An ardent Reaganite, foe of abortion rights and gay marriage, and the Schaumburg Township Republican committeeman, Froelich said he was “horrified with Bush,” insisted that his “values aren’t changing,” and switched to the Democrats last summer.

Democrats don’t want him. Republicans hate now him. The Republican organization collapsed. The outlook: Froelich will lose.

_________________________________

Riuss Stewart is a regular political analyst for The Chicago Daily Observer and a member of its editorial board.