CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[twister244]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It should be obvious to everyone by now that Chuy isn't a progressive, or at least he is not the kind of progressive outsider-reformer that some people think he is. He pretended to be one in 2015 to lure gullible Bernie Bro voters. He's really just the new (Latino) face of the machine. But if he brings even a watered-down progressivism combined with his connections/insider status, he could be the best person to achieve progressive goals. Nobody wants to hear that yet. But we'll certainly hear about it after the runoff, if it's Vallas vs Chuy.

Idealists like Brandon Johnson, if elected, will find very quickly that even a fiery progressivism means nothing if you can't work the system. Our city is technically a weak-mayor system with a lot of power vested in the aldermen. The reason Chicago is known for iron-fisted mayors is because those individuals were just masters of working outside the system, horse-trading and cutting deals, even blackmail sometimes. I don't think Johnson can play the game - neither could Harold Washington. It's sorta like LBJ at the presidential level - he was the ultimate "beltway insider" and mastered the workings of Congress like a swamp dweller, but once elected he was able to use that power to pass the most progressive agenda since FDR.

Vallas is a (conservative-leaning) reform type. But it's important to remember that he is an outsider, just like Lightfoot, Brandon Johnson or Harold Washington. You may think this is a good thing, but it definitely impacts the ability of a mayor to cut deals and get stuff done.

Except that right now..... People are not in a "progressive" mood. We are still dealing with massive inflation and elevated crime. The last thing people want in this city is more taxes eating away at whatever little spending power they have, especially if a broader recession starts to settle in.

People want crime to go down. Plain and simple. Johnson can be as progressive as he wants with revenue generating plans, but people don't care about that right now. They want car jackings and homicides to go away. Vallas isn't perfect, but he's smart enough to see that crime is front-center for folks in the city right now.

Once that problem is tackled - THEN we can start to have a conversation about how to better structure our revenue to best serve the city. Part of the problem there will be eroding away the corruption of how we are throwing money at empty schools in this city.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It should be obvious to everyone by now that Chuy isn't a progressive, or at least he is not the kind of progressive outsider-reformer that some people think he is. He pretended to be one in 2015 to lure gullible Bernie Bro voters. He's really just the new (Latino) face of the machine. But if he brings even a watered-down progressivism combined with his connections/insider status, he could be the best person to achieve progressive goals. Nobody wants to hear that yet. But we'll certainly hear about it after the runoff, if it's Vallas vs Chuy.

Idealists like Brandon Johnson, if elected, will find very quickly that even a fiery progressivism means nothing if you can't work the system. Our city is technically a weak-mayor system with a lot of power vested in the aldermen. The reason Chicago is known for iron-fisted mayors is because those individuals were just masters of working outside the system, horse-trading and cutting deals, even blackmail sometimes. I don't think Johnson can play the game - neither could Harold Washington. It's sorta like LBJ at the presidential level - he was the ultimate "beltway insider" and mastered the workings of Congress like a swamp dweller, but once elected he was able to use that power to pass the most progressive agenda since FDR.

Vallas is a (conservative-leaning) reform type. But it's important to remember that he is an outsider, just like Lightfoot, Brandon Johnson or Harold Washington. You may think this is a good thing, but it definitely impacts the ability of a mayor to cut deals and get stuff done.

So true re: Chuy. It's frustrating to see such an obvious empty suit figurehead for the cook county machine gain so much traction. Hard to see how we'll ever break out of the cycle when pols like him just have to show up to become a frontrunner in elections.

I'm pretty sold on Vallas at this point. In a perfect world Kam would have a real shot, but I don't think he's got the juice this time around.

Vallas has decades of (successful) experience in civic admin roles--he's worked within the Chicago system before without getting swallowed up by it and has worked all over and gotten (mixed, but mostly successful) results. I was just recently reading about his time in Philly and he's still viewed as one of their best superintendents even 20 years later. I appreciate that he has partnered with lots of stakeholders from around the world throughout his career--Chicago needs someone who has a rolodex full of contacts outside of IL. The city is parochial enough.

I don't love his courting of the FOP or speaking at ultra-conservative events, but I'm of the strong belief that party politics do not matter in local elections. Pragmatism > ideology every day of the week when it comes to mayor.

EDIT: I'm not wealthy or a rabid anti-crime person, btw. My biggest issues are improved transit and growing the population. Crime--or the perception of crime--is arguably the biggest hurdle Chicago faces to accomplish major progress in those two areas.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Handro

Crime--or the perception of crime--is arguably the biggest hurdle Chicago faces to accomplish major progress in those two areas.

Yes. . . this is a very true statement. . . I've often said that it took a generation of us in the early 1990s who moved in and participated in making Chicago a great place to live, and it took less than a month to unravel that into the mess we have today - real or imagined. . .

The fact that this new generation of Chicagoans tolerate this level of crime, homelessness and drug abuse is very concerning for the future of the city. . .

With that being said, I'm probably gonna vote for Vallas. . .

. . .

[Kngkyle]

It's not surprising that Johnson wants to raise taxes across the board. How else can he give away what's left of the farm to his CTU handlers?

Vallas is the least bad option in my book, but I'd take Rahm over any of these clowns. I wish Vallas would talk more about transit.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

It's not surprising that Johnson wants to raise taxes across the board. How else can he give away what's left of the farm to his CTU handlers?

Vallas is the least bad option in my book, but I'd take Rahm over any of these clowns. I wish Vallas would talk more about transit.

I do too..... I would hope that after Vallas comes in, and after a year or two, there is some movement to improve transit from a Vallas admin.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by twister244

I do too..... I would hope that after Vallas comes in, and after a year or two, there is some movement to improve transit from a Vallas admin.

I doubt it. The people advocating for bus lanes, bike lanes, etc are very much not Vallas' base. His base are the most rabid cagers the city has, plus wealthier downtown commuters who just want the CTA cleaned up.

I guess we'll see when he appears at the Safe Streets For All forum next weekend, but I'm just expecting some vague talking points out of him.

https://safestreets4all.org/forum

[twister244]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I doubt it. The people advocating for bus lanes, bike lanes, etc are very much not Vallas' base. His base are the most rabid cagers the city has, plus wealthier downtown commuters who just want the CTA cleaned up.

I guess we'll see when he appears at the Safe Streets For All forum next weekend, but I'm just expecting some vague talking points out of him.

https://safestreets4all.org/forum

I don't know if I buy this claim. If that was the case, he wouldn't be up with Garcia getting the polling numbers he is getting. Based on feedback in this thread alone, I feel like Vallas has a growing base of middle voters that want to see crime reduced.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by twister244

Based on feedback in this thread alone, I feel like Vallas has a growing base of middle voters that want to see crime reduced.

Be careful with the sample size. This board was convinced that Kim Foxx had no shot at re-election. She won by 15%.

[marothisu]

I never considered Johnson ever, but when he was surging a little more I said "hmm maybe there's something to this guy?" Then I saw his tax plan and it was a big FUCK NO from me. HELLLLL no. The last city I lived in before this (NYC) had a 3.5% city income tax and we never saw it going to anything. In fact, I remember MTA raising their fares like 3 times in my time there, and roads hardly ever getting fixed, and streets still dirty (only COVID made it better, because nobody was coming outside for awhile in Manhattan at least). Everyone wondered why we were even being taxed and I would expect similar for Chicago with a city income tax. So yeah, been there done that. No thanks. There's other ways to get creative to get more revenue for the city besides more tax.

For me, pretty much every candidate kind of sucks. I would be more for Vallas at this point if he didn't align himself with Awake recently by speaking at one of their engagements. I think he has the most actual experience to run a big government like Chicago but I'd love to see more of a stance about improving public transit back to how it should be (i.e. fire Carter and get some competent people in there). The Awake thing kind of sucks too - even if he said "oops, I didn't do my homework on that one" what does that say about someone who's running for America's 3rd largest city and the main city of one of the top 15 largest economies in the entire world by metro area? You have to have your shit together and research things when you're in this big of a position.

Pretty much everyone else for me at this point is a no for me. I have no idea what Chuy offers that's new. Lightfoot shows she can't run a government this big and not piss off almost everyone (though she's done 1 or 2 good things IMO, but not even close to enough). Johnson wants to tax even more, after a lot of peoples' property taxes got raised a bit.

Buckner is the only other one I like because he does appear to be pro business, and wants to invest in CTA way more to bring it back to good status. I kind of like his shit talking to the Bears when they're asking for tax assistance and him just flat out telling them from a state level to get lost if it means taxing people even more. He has a few DUIs though so I have to question is judgement. Then again, nobody is perfect.


I'd say it's between Buckner and Vallas for me at this point. I didn't think I'd come around to Vallas, but at this point he may be one of the better options just from an ability to show he can lead large organizations perspective. Some people know my thoughts about crime, and there's definitely still issues - but something to reduce the perception of crime in the city would do a lot of good in the long run. If Vallas came out again and aligned himself with some obvious human rightsy types of things (i.e. LGBTQ people have rights like everyone else, people of all backgrounds should have opportunities, etc) it would make it a lot easier for me to go for him right now.

[Klippenstein]

I’m not sure why anybody would think that Vallas would be more successful than Lightfoot. With his political leanings, it seems he might be even worse at forming a functional city government. I’d much rather have Buckner, but it seems to me that the framing of Lightfoot’s leadership is similar to the framing of Chicago in the news. Rahm made many enemies in his time as well and many people on this forum seem to love him. Lightfoot has compromised many times to move things forward. I’m glad she’s not a shoe in, but it seems a better opportunity to push her to actually follow through on her lacking commitments and to reassess some things like CTA leadership. I hate to be advocating for Lightfoot, but I think she is carrying on Rahm’s legacy better than Vallas will. Just because Vallas is going to “clean house” at the CTA and CPD doesn’t in the slightest guarantee we’ll be in any better position than before.

[Kenmore]

i'm voting for the most anti police candidates possible

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

i'm voting for the most anti police candidates possible

It's likely that the most "anti-police" candidate would be the one who wanted to spend the most on police. Professionalizing the force, and policing the police takes investment. If someone slashes the police budget, we're still going to have police. They would just be worse and more poorly trained.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

It's likely that the most "anti-police" candidate would be the one who wanted to spend the most on police. Professionalizing the force, and policing the police takes investment. If someone slashes the police budget, we're still going to have police. They would just be worse and more poorly trained.

That's close to what Brandon Johnson and Kam Buckner are planning. They want to shift the load of 911 calls that don't require police to having health professionals deal with mental health emergencies, housing homeless people, and have violence interrupters break up fights and retaliations. That way the police budget gets reduced and the focus is shifted towards efficiencies in CPD, rather than throwing another billion expecting crime to go down

[CrazyCres]

Chicago mayoral candidates answer 23 questions

Divide the pack by their positions on key issues — at a glance. And, read their reasons why.

https://elections.suntimes.com/questionnaire/

[twister244]

Originally Posted by CrazyCres

Chicago mayoral candidates answer 23 questions



https://elections.suntimes.com/questionnaire/

Is LL trying to not get re-elected?

I don't understand how answering "No" instead of "Other" to questions 13 and 19 is in any way politically smart.

Also - LOL to Willie answering "Yes" to the dome question at the end.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by twister244

Is LL trying to not get re-elected?

I don't understand how answering "No" instead of "Other" to questions 13 and 19 is in any way politically smart.

Also - LOL to Willie answering "Yes" to the dome question at the end.

Wilson is such a clown.

Vallas seems the most pragmatic and detailed.

LL is just painted into a corner on so many issues.

Chuy was created by ChatGPT

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Handro

Wilson is such a clown.

Vallas seems the most pragmatic and detailed.

LL is just painted into a corner on so many issues.

Chuy was created by ChatGPT

Seriously though....

"An analysis by the University of Chicago found that CPD deployment does not match up with where most shootings take place. Would you urge the Chicago Police Department to alter its patrol plan, deploying more officers during hours when violence is highest?"

Why would anyone answer "No" to this question? Is there some political or policy angle here I am missing? LL is the only candidate that answered "No" to this question.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by twister244

Is LL trying to not get re-elected?

I don't understand how answering "No" instead of "Other" to questions 13 and 19 is in any way politically smart.

Also - LOL to Willie answering "Yes" to the dome question at the end.

You can read their more detailed responses. Speeding is a safety issue. I agree with LL on this. There are other and better ways to slow traffic, but speed cameras are effective at slowing traffic.

Regarding police deployment, she says that the UChicago study is old and doesn’t look at current practices. Not sure if that’s true, but that’s your answer.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by CrazyCres

Chicago mayoral candidates answer 23 questions



https://elections.suntimes.com/questionnaire/

It's unsurprising that Garica refuses to take a position on anything.

[BrinChi]

^ I think I understand why she said no. As the incumbent, to answer yes would imply either ignorance that she didn't know about this study, or incompetence that she couldn't influence CPD to make any strategy adjustments. Her answer claims that the study precedes recent updates for how CPD deploys its officers. Who the hell knows if that means CPD is now deploying officers in line with the recommendation of the study. But she hedges on that too by raising doubt about the assumption that more police patrolling = more violence prevention. After reading her answer, I thought it was pretty smart actually. Disclosure: I'm not voting for LL.