It's an interesting headline on the front page, but just about every county, even in places where PRitzker finished with just 15%, those counties still improved their metrics toward the Democrats in the gubernatorial election.

Without Crook county, Pritzker would have won Illinois. I haven't found a source where I could take away Will, DuPage, Lake, McHenry, Kane and Kendall and then see. I'm not willing to do that kind of match to see what it would be like without Chicagoland.

Absurd comments abound about "Well all those counties look Red, this was a Chicago thing."

PRoblem was, it wasn't. It was a vote of 'Populated Places'..

Just because Madison County still sold it's labor-loving soul to Bailey doesn't mean that support for Pritzker was nil. If 49,000 people sold their soul, 45,000 still voted for Pritzker.

Gallatin County showed 1,500 for Bailey and 400 for Pritzker, that's about 76% for Darren Bailey. So yes, it's a deeper shade of red.

But that kind of margin does not exist in POPULATED PLACES outside of Qunicy.

In POPULATED PLACES, they either went for Pritzker OUTRIGHT, or they were 'pink' counties, where JB still received a significant amount of votes, though he fell short.

ILLINOIS and not Chicagoland elected JB Pritzker.

But if you want to separate, Chicago would be happy to let you. Fewer counties they have to support with their taxes up there, and keeping that cash up there, they would be flush with cash if they didn't have to send money to keep that McKinley Bridge standing and pave Route 203 and other highways.

It's funny that the recipient counties want to cut themselves off from their donors.

Do you think you'd leach more from St. Louis or Indianapolis to take care of your basic infrastructure?

I'll stay with the one Illinois personally as we know it today.

Others, please read books, research your hotheaded political opinions and just understand the error of your ways.