Chicago - Mayoral Race - Rahm Emanuel Wins

[Steely Dan]

^ chico, de valle, and meeks aren't gonna roll over for rahm.

[Nowhereman1280]

Its going to be simple Chico vs Rahm...

Though a friend (who will go unnamed) of mine who is running is planning on suing Rahm over residency the moment Rahm files his signatures. That will cause my friends name recognition to go through the roof and he may pose a slight threat especially if his suit prevails...

[the urban politician]

From Hinz's blog:

Emanuel gets huge mayoral boost from Dart's departure
Posted by Greg H. at 10/27/2010 11:24 AM CDT

Can you say "Mayor Rahm?"

There's no way other way to spin it.

[the urban politician]

Here's why (at least at this point) I'd like to see Rahm win:

1. Chicago needs a star Mayor. Chicago doesn't need some random dude from some local office that nobody outside of Chicago has ever heard of.
2. Chicago needs clout--national clout--or else it will continue to be blocked out by New York or Los Angeles
3. Related to #2, Chicago's financial powerhouse, CME group, really needs a friend who is connected to Washington right now. Other exchanges can easily eat into its business if a few basic rules are changed (and Wall St heavy hitters are trying to change these rules)
4. Rahm brings national connections and personal success as a private investor to the table (he made millions in investment banking). He understands the business world
5. Rahm will be a tough, take-no-prisoners type, a type of leader that Chicago does well with
6. He's been outside of Chicago for a while. I think Chicago needs an outside perspective--somebody who has lived elsewhere, seen different things, maybe has some new ideas

Sure, my perspective is subject to change over the next few weeks/months as these contenders talk about their ideas/vision for the city. I'm not 100% sold on Rahm. But for now, a big-shot city like Chicago needs a big-shot Mayor, not some mild-mannered nice guy who nobody will pay attention to. That's my initial impression and I'm sticking to it!

[urbanpln]

I've totally agree, especially with number six.

[Steely Dan]

i'm waiting until the candidates outline their platforms and provide ideas for their leadership of the city.

the only one i can cross off my list out of hand is Meeks. as an agnostic fundamentalist, i like church and state to be staunchly separated.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm waiting until the candidates outline their platforms and provide ideas for their leadership of the city.

the only one i can cross off my list out of hand is Meeks. as an agnostic fundamentalist, i like church and state to be staunchly separated.

you should have seen Meeks trying to get the Gay vote a few weeks. What's he crazy?

In 2007, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement."

Meeks also actively campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature. He was the only African American in the Illinois Senate and House to vote against the bill.

The 54-year-old Meeks is allied with Americans for Truth, a Naperville organization which the SPLC labeled as a hate group earlier this year.


he is an idiot.

I hope he runs and gets completely defeated by a landslide

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'm waiting until the candidates outline their platforms and provide ideas for their leadership of the city.

the only one i can cross off my list out of hand is Meeks. as an agnostic fundamentalist, i like church and state to be staunchly separated.

this seems to be the most sensible approach to the mayoral race, AND Meeks.

[ardecila]

This election is turning out to be a pretty racially-divided one, with one major candidate from each major racial group in the city. (Then there's Gery Chico, of questionable ethnicity.)

I hate to be cynical about this, but the conservative Meeks will probably capture a very large portion of the relatively-conservative black vote, and I don't see how del Valle or Emanuel can make a dent in that.

[Steely Dan]

^ you have to remember that in mayoral elections, if no one gets over 50% of the vote in the first go round, it goes to an automatic top 2 run-off. i do feel that Meeks' base is large and passionate enough to possibly propel him to number 1 or 2 in a crowded field, but i highly doubt that he can get over 50% in that crowded first round (it will be very hard for any candidate to do so). and in a run-off situation, i'm HIGHLY skeptical that Meeks can win in a two way city-wide race against other likely top finishers like Emmanuel, Chico, or de Valle. Meeks' positives are HUGELY positive amongst his base, but they turn into big negatives for him city-wide. think about harold washington and jesse jackson. then think about how non-black chicagoans generally regard those two political figures. and then think about which end of that spectrum meeks is closer to.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ you have to remember that in mayoral elections, if no one gets over 50% of the vote the first go round, it goes to an automatic top 2 run-off. i do feel that Meeks' base is large and passionate enough to possibly propel him to number 1 or 2 in a crowded field, but i highly doubt that he can get over 50% in that crowded first round (it will be very hard for anyone to do so). and in a run-off situation, i'm HIGHLY skeptical that Meeks can win in a two way city-wide race against other likely top finishers like Emmanuel, Chico, or de Valle.

May Jebus help us all if Meeks can get 50% of the Chicago vote.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that Meeks can get a majority in an election that's being 1. nationalized and 2. his conservative cred won't get lost on Chicagoans who'll be motivated to at least vote against this turkey (even if it means holding one's nose and voting for Rahm).

[Steely Dan]

^ besides, if it does come down to an emmanuel vs. meeks run-off (an entirely plausible scenario), which side are you gonna bet your money on to run the more aggressive, successful campaign?

[Tom In Chicago]

Tom Dart is out. . .

. . .

[Tom In Chicago]

Guess I should have realized that it wasn't news at 4:42pm. . . nevermind

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Here's why (at least at this point) I'd like to see Rahm win:

1. Chicago needs a star Mayor. Chicago doesn't need some random dude from some local office that nobody outside of Chicago has ever heard of.
2. Chicago needs clout--national clout--or else it will continue to be blocked out by New York or Los Angeles
3. Related to #2, Chicago's financial powerhouse, CME group, really needs a friend who is connected to Washington right now. Other exchanges can easily eat into its business if a few basic rules are changed (and Wall St heavy hitters are trying to change these rules)
4. Rahm brings national connections and personal success as a private investor to the table (he made millions in investment banking). He understands the business world
5. Rahm will be a tough, take-no-prisoners type, a type of leader that Chicago does well with
6. He's been outside of Chicago for a while. I think Chicago needs an outside perspective--somebody who has lived elsewhere, seen different things, maybe has some new ideas

Sure, my perspective is subject to change over the next few weeks/months as these contenders talk about their ideas/vision for the city. I'm not 100% sold on Rahm. But for now, a big-shot city like Chicago needs a big-shot Mayor, not some mild-mannered nice guy who nobody will pay attention to. That's my initial impression and I'm sticking to it!

You know, this post actually makes a lot of sense. Ive been mulling over who I would vote for for quite some time now, you may have swayed me a little. I'm still gonna wait and see though, and probably wont make up my mind until the final week.

The only one I am ruling out, like apparently most on here, is Pastor Meeks. I still laugh about when he got out of his car after he was stopped by a police officer, and complained about a gun being pulled out on him; as if he was all high and mighty. Shit, Ive had police pull guns out even when you politely sit in the car with hands on the steering wheel!

[urbanpln]

I'm african american and i will not vote for Meeks. None of my friends and most of the african americans I know are not voting for Meeks. He's even less popular among 20 something college educated blacks.

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by urbanpln

I'm african american and i will not vote for Meeks. None of my friends and most of the african americans I know are not voting for Meeks. He's even less popular among 20 something college educated blacks.

Ditto.

Just because Meeks has a following doesn't make him popular among the black community (ie, his followers don't reflect the Chicago black community at all.) My mother always raved about how she doesn't like him.

[ardecila]

I'm curious about del Valle or Chico. Do we know anything about them, besides the fact that Chico is the "unofficial official" Daley candidate?

If either of them has the stuff, I'm not gonna pledge my support to Rahm automatically...

[Attrill]

I need to see a solid budget plan and approach to fixing the city's structural revenue problems before I'll commit to anyone.

Right now there are still 15 candidates either running or actively collecting signatures. Depending on who stays in the race I don't think Meeks stands a chance of getting 50%. Walls and Cooper will definitely be staying in, so he'll lose some of his base to them. Mosley-Braun and Davis are still collecting signatures, and could certainly cause some headaches for other candidates (in the end I think they'll strike a back room deal with other candidates in exchange for dropping out). Fioretti was also strengthened by Dart dropping out, and it will be interesting to see if he can get the backing of some of the precinct captains that would have backed Dart. He has a good shot at it.

Chico and Del Valle both have people in place on the ground, and plenty of local connections. If it comes to a run off for either of them against Emanuel they are both in a good position to pick up the supporters of local pols. Both are experienced Chicago politicians who I would never classify as "mild-mannered nice guys". Neither is a naive goo goo either, they've both been working with the Chicago business community for decades. Emanuel needs to start outlining some of his positions and plans, and visiting local ward organizations or else he's in for a really big surprise.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

5. Rahm will be a tough, take-no-prisoners type, a type of leader that Chicago does well with

Enh - what has he accomplished in DC over the last year or two? It has been VERY hardball politics in DC since 2009 and most of the tough administration wins can be credited to Biden working the senate - not to anything Emanuel has done. He has a tough reputation, but since the late 90's I don't see any results to back up that reputation.

Also, I don't think Daley was really into banging heads. He was much more into lining up support and making deals before he told anyone what he was doing. He definitely didn't filter himself, which got him a bit of a reputation for being tough, but he has always been much more of a deal maker than a head banger. Chicago is a weak mayor system, just look at the beginning of Harold Washington's time in office to see what happens to a mayor with an adversarial relationship with the City Council.

(that's not to say I'll never vote for Emanuel, but I need to see his plans and if he can build a coalition in the city).

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by GregBear24

The city has become better over the years from an aesthetic view, but population certainly hasn't grown.

You might have to eat those words in a month or two when the official 2010 Census results come in.

You are probably going by the "census estimates" from 2009 which shows a small population decline in Chicago from 2000 but those "census estimates" are known to be very inaccurate, in the late 1990's those same estimates said that Chicago was still showing small population decline but when the official 2000 census results came out we had a population increase of 112,000 or 4%, the first increase since the 1950 Census.

It seems you just threw that "stat" in there for the sake of an ideological talking point that "liberal" areas are in decline but as I said people like yourself may be distancing yourself from that statement in the near future.

Also as far as your diatribe is concerned I need to point out to you that candidates in Chicago run as "non-partisan" on the ballot, sure a candidate can declare their party affiliation to the voters and most of them will be democrats in this city there is nothing stopping a Republican from running. There have been Republican mayors in NYC and LA during the past 21 years Daley has been mayor of Chicago so as long as your side has a defeatist attitude all you have to do is look in the mirror for the reason a Republican hasn't come forward to run as of yet.