CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[bnk]

Daley will make the cut on the first run off but the problem with the poll is that 3 of the top five runners are minority leftist females. The female bloc will group to one woman left standing.

Doom is upon us.


I don't think is a sure thing at all even with all of the business money behind him for Daily to win the runoff.

What he is going to pick up 1, 2, and 3 % from Foretti, Vallas, and McCarthy? That's not enough votes right there.

[bnk]

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/gove...mpaign-sources


February 15, 2019 04:56 PM |updated 20 hours ago



Ken Griffin aims to give another $1M to Daley's campaign: sources



The financier's donations—potentially totaling $2 million—would make him the biggest contributor among the major businesspeople supporting Bill Daley's run.



Bloomberg

Ken Griffin has decided to donate another $1 million to Bill Daley's mayor campaign, sources close to Griffin say.


...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by bnk

Daley will make the cut on the first run off but the problem with the poll is that 3 of the top five runners are minority leftist females. The female bloc will group to one woman left standing.

Doom is upon us.


I don't think is a sure thing at all even with all of the business money behind him for Daily to win the runoff.

What he is going to pick up 1, 2, and 3 % from Foretti, Vallas, and McCarthy? That's not enough votes right there.

I’m not too sure that these leftist females all like eachother that much, though.

For example, I don’t see Mendoza voters supporting Preckwinkle.

I actually think that Preckwinkle is the most extreme of the bunch with her leftist stance. Everybody else (Mendoza, Daley, Chico, Vallas, Lightfoot) come across as more centrist to me. Even Willie Wilson got the endorsement of Chicago’s tiny Republican Party.

I have a suspicion that Preckwinkle’s base is deep but not broad. To win you need to broaden your electorate, and Preckwinkle is doing herself zero favors by alienating white people.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not too sure that these leftist females all like eachother that much, though.

For example, I don’t see Mendoza voters supporting Preckwinkle.

I actually think that Preckwinkle is the most extreme of the bunch with her leftist stance. Everybody else (Mendoza, Daley, Chico, Vallas, Lightfoot) come across as more centrist to me. Even Willie Wilson got the endorsement of Chicago’s tiny Republican Party.

I have a suspicion that Preckwinkle’s base is deep but not broad. To win you need to broaden your electorate, and Preckwinkle is doing herself zero favors by alienating white people.

That is exactly the case. I've been waffling between Mendoza and Lightfoot since I can't decide whether I prefer a reform-minded candidate vs a policy wonk with connections (who is not another Daley.)

Preckwinkle is a just another corrupt populist. The worst sort of leader. She will not get my vote under any circumstances.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m not too sure that these leftist females all like eachother that much, though.

For example, I don’t see Mendoza voters supporting Preckwinkle.

I actually think that Preckwinkle is the most extreme of the bunch with her leftist stance. Everybody else (Mendoza, Daley, Chico, Vallas, Lightfoot) come across as more centrist to me. Even Willie Wilson got the endorsement of Chicago’s tiny Republican Party.

I have a suspicion that Preckwinkle’s base is deep but not broad. To win you need to broaden your electorate, and Preckwinkle is doing herself zero favors by alienating white people.

I'm (probably) a Mendoza voter, because she seems like the best chance for a continuation of Rahm's neoliberal-ish policies. She won't admit that of course, but it's in her platform and public statements. No way in hell I switch to Preckwinkle if Mendoza doesn't make the runoff. They're just wildly different candidates. If all you see with these candidates is a liberal non-white female, and think they are interchangeable, you seriously need to look closer. Mendoza also seems like the strongest candidate for transit expansion out of the bunch (although even she isn't all that vocal about it).

I'd be okay with a third Mayor Daley I guess, but he just doesn't impress me as a candidate. The only thing I like is his DC experience, our mayor needs to be able to see beyond the insular Chicago-midwest perspective and the experience dealing with the Federal government doesn't hurt either.

My worst fear is like Preckwinkle vs Chico in the runoff. Ugh. Eff that.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm (probably) a Mendoza voter, because she seems like the best chance for a continuation of Rahm's neoliberal-ish policies. She won't admit that of course, but it's in her platform and public statements. No way in hell I switch to Preckwinkle if Mendoza doesn't make the runoff. They're just wildly different candidates. If all you see with these candidates is a liberal non-white female, and think they are interchangeable, you seriously need to look closer. Mendoza also seems like the strongest candidate for transit expansion out of the bunch (although even she isn't all that vocal about it).

I'd be okay with a third Mayor Daley I guess, but he just doesn't impress me as a candidate. The only thing I like is his DC experience, our mayor needs to be able to see beyond the insular Chicago-midwest perspective and the experience dealing with the Federal government doesn't hurt either.

My worst fear is like Preckwinkle vs Chico in the runoff. Ugh. Eff that.

But wouldn't it be awesome if we got Mendoza vs Daley or Lightfoot vs Mendoza or any combination like that? We could have a productive public debate about serious issues where half the conversation isn't redirected to rediculous pandering to special interests like the teachers union?

[Vlajos]

I was going to vote for Vallas, but now I am going with Daley because it appears Vallas has no chance of getting to the run off.

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I was going to vote for Vallas, but now I am going with Daley because it appears Vallas has no chance of getting to the run off.

Same here daley it is, Because in the end its going to be daley vs preckwinkle or one of the other female candidates.....

[ardecila]

I don't see a way Preckwinkle doesn't make the runoff, unfortunately. She's sitting in #1 right now, even if she falls it will only be to #2 position and then she still makes the runoff. Unless more scandal comes out... she has a very solid base that isn't gonna change their minds before the election.

There's still a lot of undecideds, but with such a large and confusing array of candidates and relatively minor differences between them, many of the undecideds will stay home for the first election and wait until the runoff narrows the field to two candidates that are easy to compare. Also it's Chicago, so the weather on election day is always a huge factor in determining whether undecideds and lukewarm supporters show up at the polls.

[LouisVanDerWright]

She's sitting at "number 1" well within margin of error with three other candidates. She may as well be sitting at "number 4"... That poll literally means nothing other than this is a 4 person race right now.

[moorhosj]

Anyone lumping Preckwinkle, Mendoza and Lightfoot together as "minority leftist females" and thus essentially the same candidate is outing themselves as insincere. It's the exact type of identity politics "conservatives" are constantly railing against.

Vallas is my first choice, but with him being so low in the polls I am looking at Lightfoot.

Do people really see Daley as some type of small-government reformer? A Daley?

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ The sad part is Bill Daley is easily the "best Daley" in terms of his credentials as a technocrat with new ideas which is why he hasn't run for Mayor or anything like that until now. He is much more similar to Rahm than anyone else in is family. But unfortunately he is a Daley which blights his potential as a candidate. He is saying things no one else dares propose like cut the number of aldermen and institute term limits (oh the irony right?).

[the urban politician]

I’m frankly kind of shocked and disappointed that there haven’t been more attack ads and alarm bells rung against Preckwinkle. She is clearly the tone deaf outlier here and a threat to everything that makes Chicago thrive amidst demographic decline.

Her actions show that she despises the taxpayer, cares little about public safety and controlling taxes and fees which are going up year after year. She’s never said a word about Chicago and it’s competitiveness in the world—and I’m wagering that she doesn’t even really care.

There are too many content people out there just humming along, and they will be woken up with a jolt if she becomes Mayor. All of a sudden people will think, “what the hell is going on here, how did we let this lady who seemed so ‘cool and hip’ become mayor?” She will be the class warfare Mayor with an arrow of disdain pointed squarely at anyone who is white or runs a business.

A Rahm—Preckwinkle transformation will make the Bloomberg—DeBlasio transformation look like an afternoon raft ride on a calm lake.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I’m frankly kind of shocked and disappointed that there haven’t been more attack ads and alarm bells rung against Preckwinkle. She is clearly the tone deaf outlier here and a threat to everything that makes Chicago thrive amidst demographic decline.

Her actions show that she despises the taxpayer, cares little about public safety and controlling taxes and fees which are going up year after year. She’s never said a word about Chicago and it’s competitiveness in the world—and I’m wagering that she doesn’t even really care.

I don't think Preckwinkle has a very high ceiling. She has a great chance to get into the run-off (largely due to CTU and other union support), but I think she loses one-on-one to Daley, Mendoza or Lightfoot.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I don't think Preckwinkle has a very high ceiling. She has a great chance to get into the run-off (largely due to CTU and other union support), but I think she loses one-on-one to Daley, Mendoza or Lightfoot.

i agree. sodawinkle has her fiercely loyal base (CTU and their ilk), but her negatives are really high among the john q. six-pack types.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i agree. sodawinkle has her fiercely loyal base (CTU and their ilk), but her negatives are really high among the john q. six-pack types.

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I don't think Preckwinkle has a very high ceiling. She has a great chance to get into the run-off (largely due to CTU and other union support), but I think she loses one-on-one to Daley, Mendoza or Lightfoot.

Seems plausible. Seems like all the more reason to use ranked-choice voting rather than a 2-candidate runoff election.

---

Me droning on about why ranked choice is better ...

We could very well end up with two people with institutional support, but who are very unpopular with most of the rest of voters. With the current system, say Vallas is hardly anyone's first or second choice, and only 7% picked him first and 7% second, but 60% would find him tolerable and rank him as a third choice, and then Preckwinkle got 15% of the 1st choice vote and 5% of the second-place vote, and zero as a third-place, and Daley got 14% of the first place, 6% of the second-place and also zero for third-place. We'd end up with two run-off candidates that each were not in the top 3 choices for 80% of voters and no chance to actually elect someone that 60% of voters might not be excited about, but would be comfortable with. That's the kind of thing that scares me in races with huge numbers of candidates.

That's pretty close to exactly how Trump won, for example, despite being a candidate that roughly 60% of the population is extremely unhappy with, and before he dominated the Republican Party, probably even 50% of Republicans were extremely unhappy with (now that he's elected, moderate Republicans mostly left the party or got radicalized in a echo chamber).

And even on the Democrat's side, probably 40% of Democrats strongly felt Clinton wasn't the best candidate for the general election, but her opponents split the rest of the votes up in such a way that Clinton managed to gain enough momentum to easily win the nomination.

So, basically, both parties fielded candidates that had some very strong advocates within their parties, but who all had very high negatives even within their own party, meaning that when they met in the general, neither outright had a majority of people wanting to vote *for* one of them, and they both were reliant on picking up voters who were mainly motivated by even stronger disdain for the competitor. In a better system, we'd be much more likely to end up with truly centrist candidates that would result in a more stable set of policies and, importantly, a more stable foreign policy.

[the urban politician]

^ Let the complacent be warned.

The Preckwinkle/CTU thugs probably have a solid a ground game, and could pull the election out from right under everybody else. They may have more motivation to vote than the happy-go-lucky guy on the north side who has ample distraction (ie texting their friends, meeting up and heading to the 'latest' Korean fusion spot, visiting a hip new spa, etc...)

[Rooster slayer]

^^ agree 100% with your analysis/ "droning on"..... bad system that needs to be updated.^^^^~

[the urban politician]

Building a More Dangerous Chicago
Mayoral candidate Toni Preckwinkle’s wrongheaded proposals would make the city even more crime-ridden than it already is.
Rafael A. Mangual
February 8, 2019

Chicago suffered 572 homicides last year and more than 2,900 shootings, and leading mayoral candidate Toni Preckwinkle says that lowering the violent-crime rate is a top priority. But her 15-point criminal-justice plan, “Building a Safer Chicago,” gravely misdiagnoses what’s driving crime and offers policy prescriptions that won’t make the city safer.

Preckwinkle assumes that crime in Chicago is driven by over-incarceration of individuals for “nonviolent” offenses; a lack of employment, resources, and investment on the South and West Sides; “lax gun laws in border states like Wisconsin, Indiana, and major gun hubs like Mississippi and Georgia”; and incompetence on the part of the Chicago Police Department. She’s wrong on all counts.

According to the Illinois Department of Corrections, the majority of prisoners in the state committed serious or violent felonies, not nonviolent drug offenses. Indeed, five violent-offense categories—homicide, sexual assault/rape, assault/battery, robbery, and weapons violations—account for 57.8 percent of all Illinois state prisoners, 48.1 percent of whom committed their crimes in Cook County. Only 16.1 percent of inmates were convicted of a controlled-substance violation.

Also, most shootings and homicides in Chicago are perpetrated by repeat offenders, on whom the justice system has been too lenient, not too harsh. According to a January 2017 study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, “around 90 percent [of those arrested for a homicide or shooting in Chicago in 2015 and 2016] had at least one prior arrest.” On average, someone arrested for a homicide or shooting had “nearly 12 prior arrests, with almost 45 percent having had more than 10 prior arrests.” These alarming statistics have led Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to call for tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

Yet the city’s judges don’t seem inclined to help. “Recognizance bonds are given to gun offenders, domestic abusers, and thieves with significant criminal backgrounds as if they are first-time arrestees,” said a Cook County assistant state’s attorney, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He noted that they “often return with a new charge before the original one is even litigated.”

Here's more--yes--this person actually wants to be Chicago's Mayor:

Finally, it’s surprising that Preckwinkle would blame the city’s violent crime on the institution doing the most to stop it. She calls the Chicago Police Department “one of the least effective large police forces in the United States,” but judicial and corrections systems consistently undermine the CPD’s efforts, releasing dangerous offenders or failing to sentence them to appropriate jail or prison time. Chicago has “the most police per capita of any American city with a population over one million people,” Preckwinkle points out, seeing this fact as proof of the CPD’s ineffectiveness.

Read more at the link above.

She's really that scary, guys

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ The good news is that as much as the bleeding brain liberal crowd loves her, other unions (like the Police Union) are likely to go after her twice as hard as the CTU will push for her. Also, as long as a Daley or Mendoza or someone like that makes it to the runoff, expect the Chicago business crowd to bury Taxwinkle under like $1 billion in campaign contributions. At the end of the day I expect folks like KG to torch any threat to their interests. Even in the worst case Chico-Taxwinkle runoff expect that crowd to simply buy off Chico and make him into Daley II the sequel.

Honestly, having one of these dipshit "let's buy votes from the union with taxpayer dollars!" types might bring about the fiscal apocalypse sooner which is ultimately what Illinois needs. This state and city are barely solvent in the longest post war economic expansion during the lowest interest rates in human history. Now imagine how quickly what little solvency we have goes up in smoke if the Fed is forced to actually push interest rates AND a recession ensues.

The reality is that the ultimate solution to our union and pension problem lies in the Supreme Court Building in Washington DC where the consequences of our grotesque fiscal mismanagement will ultimately be decided. Eventually inflation will rear its ugly head and eventually interest rates will have to rise which will inevitably lead to collapsing revenue for the state and city. I don't see how we don't achieve the first ever hard default of a US State some time in the next 10-20 years. At that point we will simply be locked out of the bond market and the budget will automatically balance itself until such a time as the Federal government works out what happens when a State goes belly up. To a degree I welcome our new cheesecake fiend in chief JB as he will undoubtedly push us ever closer to the edge... The sooner we go bankrupt and the Federal court system throws out our silly constitutional pension amendment, the better. Existing pensioners are likely to see a nice haircut, but what do you expect when you spend decades electing yourself a raise...