As the Illinois Democratic approaches, I find myself increasingly optimistic about Bernie Sanders' chances. I don't claim to have any hard data. I was talking with an Illinois State University professor whose insight and expertise I trust. He says there really isn't any hard polling data that he to which he has access. I base my analysis on some broad impressions of the arc of Democratic politics the past several years.

I live in a bedroom community in central Illinois. I just want to state that Illinois is not a state which traditionally has been hospitable to progressive politics. The Illinois' Congressional delegation includes Blue Dog Cheri Bustos in IL-17 which has a PVI +7, Tammy Duckworth, who is one of the more conservative representatives according to Progressive Punch, and Daniel Lipinski. Such a delegation can't be considered Progressive. I always tell people from outside of the state that the one fact that best sums up "bipartisanship" in Illinois politics is to remember this: "All you need to know is that 'Democratic' Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, and the billionaire Republican Governor Bruce Rauner are both members of the same exclusive Napa wine club that costs $150,000 just to join. Billionaire Ken Griffin, the state's richest person (and a contributor of Karl Rove's American Crossroads SuperPac) who believes the ultrawealthy have 'insufficient influence' contributes to both. You know they are looking out for the interests of the 99 percent.

One of the aspects of Bernie Sanders' appeal is a critique of political corruption. I think Illinois politics provides an interest test case.

At my most cynical, I would state that Bernie has no chance. The Chicago machine will crank out the votes for Clinton, she'll increase her lead, and the narrative that Clinton can't win outside of the South will be finished. But I think the battlefield is much more favorable to Sanders that it appears at first glance.

In reality, Chicago politics has seen increasingly higher levels of open rebellion the past several years. Chicagoans have shown themselves increasingly less tolerant of the establishment's neoliberal policies. Mayor Richard Daley was increasingly less popular near the end of his regime and left electoral politics just in time. Rahm Emanuel's disastrous "school reform" policy of closing Chicago Public Schools in African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods, and requiring teachers to work longer hours at lower pay led to an extremely popular teachers' strike led by a woman of color Karen Lewis against a Democratic administration. When Karen Lewis got brain cancer and did not run for mayor, progressives coalesced around Jesus "Chuy" Garcia. Garcia forced a run off and was defeated but received 45% of the vote.

Not only will these policies impact the ability of Rahm Emanuel to deliver huge majorities for Clinton, but I believe the year long cover up of the Emanuel administration in suppressing the video evidence in the police murder of Laquan McDonald and Hillary Clinton's inability to disavow Emanuel will cost her even more African-American votes.

I believe that Bernie Sanders because of his civil rights records working for desegregation in Chicago will do even better with African-Americans than he did in Michigan. The pictures of Sanders arrest were widely disseminated in the Chicago media. By the way, agitating for desegregation in Chicago in the 1960s was dangerous work. Martin Luther King was felled by a large stone thrown at his head in 1966, and King's movement was a failure in Chicago. So I believe, Clinton will not rack up the large majorities she attained in Detroit. But Clinton has shown that she does very well among wealthier Democrats. She will do quite well in the Chicago suburbs. Whereas the suburbs were once reliably Republican, many years of grassroots effort have turned a lot of areas "Blue."

A lot of pundits originally wrote off Illinois for Clinton since it is her "home state." I think Bernie's appeals against free trade may prove decisive down state. Many people remember the Clinton economy of the 1990s quite fondly. Compared to what came before and after, the Clinton economy looks like a veritable golden age. But the reality in Central Illinois was quite different.

Although a New Democrat, Bill Clinton campaigned as a populist in 1992. As Sylvia Nasar reported in a New York Times article entitled "The Richest Getting Richer: Now It's a Top Political Issue."

When Bill Clinton wants to galvanize his audience, he thunders from the podium that the top 1 percent of families got 60 percent of the gains from economic growth during the 1980's and owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Governor Clinton, the likely Democratic Presidential nominee, had been searching for months for facts to illustrate his claim that America's middle class benefited little from 12 years of Republican rule. The explosion of riches at the top struck him as a perfect vehicle. Not only did the widening gap between the rich and the rest of Americans conflict with traditional notions of democracy, but it also went right to the pocketbook sources of middle-class discontent.

In 1992, UAW local 974 in East Peoria was on strike against Caterpillar Tractor Incorporated. Bill Clinton found it advantageous to walk the picket line in front of the local press while campaigning in Peoria. After his election, the great wave of deindustrialization began in the wake of NAFTA. But something else happened on the ground that unless you lived there, you may not have know. Many areas of Illinois were ground zero on the war on labor. I would like to say that the Clinton record showed he was on the side of the workingman, but alas, he was not. He was more concerned with the bond market.

Did he intervene in the various Caterpillar strikes and lockouts in the 1990s? He sent a letter to the CEO of Caterpillar telling him to basically "cut it out." He admonished both sides to get back to the bargaining table. Clinton reneged on a campaign promise to outlaw the use of replacement workers for companies embroiled in a labor dispute. He felt our "pain" but was an innocent bystander since he didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to kill a filibuster. Of course they never actually brought it to a vote, so there was no record for Democrats to run for or against this change in labor law.

Many of you have never heard of the Staley Starch lockout in Decatur. A.E. Staley Company was purchased by a London conglomerate named Tate and Lyle. After years of worsening safety standards and labor unrest, the company locked out the workers. Congressman Glenn Poshard, a conservative Democrat from southern Illinois who represented the Decatur area took a delegation of workers to Washington D.C. to ask President Clinton and Secretary of Labor Robert Reich to intervene. They were told by Reich and Clinton that "their hands were tied."

During the 2012, campaign, the business practices of Mitt Romney's Bain Capital were an issue. Cheri Bustos successfully used the plight of the Sensata workers of Freeport, Illinois to win her campaign against Tea Party Republican Congressman Bobby Schilling. So the plight of labor and manufacturing is still relevant even today.

To sum up, I do not see the Chicago neoliberal machine winning by large enough majorities due to his slow motion fracture. I see Bernie Sanders getting a higher percentage of the African-American and Hispanic vote due to the unpopularity of Clintonite Rahm Emanuel. The issue of trade agreements will hurt the Clinton total. I also think that Bernie Sanders majorities in the rest of the state outside of Cook County, provided that his vote totals mirror the Michigan totals outside of Wayne County will be decisive. His majorities in the Champaign County where the University of Illinois resides, McClean County where Illinois State and Illinois Wesleyan Universities reside, and Jackson County where Southern Illinois University at Carbondale is located should be enough to win. Will Bernie get more of less of the 53% of the Democratic primary vote outside of the South if his form holds true?