Thoughts on the results of the April 7 Chicago election
Before my mom headed off to a conference on the other side of the planet, she said that she was eagerly awaiting what I would write about the run-off elections.
No pressure. Especially considering that I had to cover suburban elections for work, so, as I expected, I couldn't even really start writing about it until Wednesday evening.
But pressure or no pressure, I knew I was going to have to write something. I spent far too much digital ink on the subject, both here and on Facebook and Twitter, not to comment at all.
Campaign signs near the Edgewater Library polling place
As my mom already pointed out on her LJ, the fact that Jesus "Chuy" Garcia managed to get 44.3% to Rahm Emanuel's 55.7%. Emanuel campaign spent more than twice as much as Garcia campaign. It set up an elaborate operation that drew on loyal aldermen (and their resources) for support. TV, Radio, social media and newspapers were blanketed with pro-Emanuel ads. And Garcia still got almost 45 percent. Last time a losing candidate managed to get a larger number was when Harold Washington became mayor back in 1983. And that was the most hotly contested Chicago mayoral race the last 100 years.
It's hard to overstate just how rare close mayoral races are in Chicago history. Harold Washington proved that it was possible to win against candidates with more money and connections and keep the seat in the next election, but it's extraordinary precisely because nobody has been able to replicate it since. You may recall that, when polls predicted the run-off in mayoral election, I couldn't quite bring myself to believe that it could realistically happen.
But now, we know better. The fact that Garcia was able to get as far as he did, in spite of all his disadvantages, shows that Emanuel can be beaten. And that is something that is going to hang heavily over the 2019 mayoral election.
Speaking of Emanuel's increased vulnerability... Remember how I wrote about Chicago Forward, an Emanuel campaign-controlled Super PAC that funneled money into 32 aldermanic races to support loyal aldermen (and, in two case, two new candidates with political connections) and/or dislodge the mayor's opponents? How, while 18 aldermen wound up winning, two lost outright and 13 races went into run-offs (12 of which involved incumbents)?
Now that the run-off races are over, we an safely say that not only did Chicago Forward fail to dislodge any of the mayor's opponents on the City Council, but several Old Guard candidates in what were supposed to be safe wards wound up losing.
Ald. Natashia Holmes (7th), whom Emanuel appointed to replace Sandi Jackson, lost her bid for re-election to Gregory Mitchell.
Incumbent aldermen also lost in the 18th Ward (Lona Lane), the 29th Ward (Deborah Graham), the 31st Ward (Ray Suarez) and the 41st Ward (Mary O'Connor). Graham and Lane were big benefactors of support from the Emanuel-aligned Chicago Forward super political action committee.
After a very, very close race, Ald John Pope (10th), a long-time Old Guard loyalist, lost to Susan Sadlowski Garza, a teacher and a daughter of a prominent labor activist. By mere 44 (!) votes, but still... Four years ago, even that would've been inconceivable.
Sure, there are races that disappointed me. Patrick Daley Thompson, nephew of Richard M Daley, won the 11th Ward seat. Tara Stamps, another teacher, failed to unseat Emma Mitts (37th), a fervent Emanuel supporter who was on record as saying that unions can go screw themselves. (and I'm not exaggerating the "fervent" part - she talks about the mayor's opponents during City Council meetings like they took a dump on a church altar and then proceeded to have a scatological orgy). And Ald James Cappleman (46h) who tried to kick Salvation Army, homeless people and pigeons (yes, really) out of his ward got re-elected.
(For those who've only recently started following this blog, the aforementioned attempt to kick out the homeless was what turned me against the man. I let him know over Twitter exactly how I felt, and got blocked for my trouble)
But even for all the disappointments (some more personal than others), the fact remains that Emanuel's attempt to create a more loyal City Council kind of failed. And he couldn't even protect some of his most loyal aldermen.
Mind you, Emanuel loyalists still make up a comfortable majority. And if there's one thing the 2011 elections have taught us, it's just just because candidates say they're going to be independent doesn't mean they won't vote with the mayor far ore often than not once they assume power. But again, the message is unmistakable. If Ald John Pope and Ald Rey Suarez (31st) can lose, are any of the loyalists really, truly safe?
Which brings us to the question that's been asked a lot over the past 48 hours. Is all of this going change the way Emanuel governs? Will we see a kinder, less pushy mayor who would show more respect for his opponents opinions? Will he try to work together with his opponents?
Personally, I don't think he really will. I've seen the way Emanuel runs City Council meetings. He may not be quite as harsh or as dismissive as before, but a tiger doesn't change his stripes. We know that he is willing to make some compromises on especially controversial legislation, like the 2012 public protest restrictions. But those compromises alter some surface details, scale back a few things, but keep the essence very much intact.
If he's going to compromise more, it will be more compromises like that.
The next City Council meeting - the last regularly scheduled meeting before the new aldermen are sworn in - is scheduled for April 15. It should be... interesting.
No pressure. Especially considering that I had to cover suburban elections for work, so, as I expected, I couldn't even really start writing about it until Wednesday evening.
But pressure or no pressure, I knew I was going to have to write something. I spent far too much digital ink on the subject, both here and on Facebook and Twitter, not to comment at all.
Campaign signs near the Edgewater Library polling place
As my mom already pointed out on her LJ, the fact that Jesus "Chuy" Garcia managed to get 44.3% to Rahm Emanuel's 55.7%. Emanuel campaign spent more than twice as much as Garcia campaign. It set up an elaborate operation that drew on loyal aldermen (and their resources) for support. TV, Radio, social media and newspapers were blanketed with pro-Emanuel ads. And Garcia still got almost 45 percent. Last time a losing candidate managed to get a larger number was when Harold Washington became mayor back in 1983. And that was the most hotly contested Chicago mayoral race the last 100 years.
It's hard to overstate just how rare close mayoral races are in Chicago history. Harold Washington proved that it was possible to win against candidates with more money and connections and keep the seat in the next election, but it's extraordinary precisely because nobody has been able to replicate it since. You may recall that, when polls predicted the run-off in mayoral election, I couldn't quite bring myself to believe that it could realistically happen.
But now, we know better. The fact that Garcia was able to get as far as he did, in spite of all his disadvantages, shows that Emanuel can be beaten. And that is something that is going to hang heavily over the 2019 mayoral election.
Speaking of Emanuel's increased vulnerability... Remember how I wrote about Chicago Forward, an Emanuel campaign-controlled Super PAC that funneled money into 32 aldermanic races to support loyal aldermen (and, in two case, two new candidates with political connections) and/or dislodge the mayor's opponents? How, while 18 aldermen wound up winning, two lost outright and 13 races went into run-offs (12 of which involved incumbents)?
Now that the run-off races are over, we an safely say that not only did Chicago Forward fail to dislodge any of the mayor's opponents on the City Council, but several Old Guard candidates in what were supposed to be safe wards wound up losing.
Ald. Natashia Holmes (7th), whom Emanuel appointed to replace Sandi Jackson, lost her bid for re-election to Gregory Mitchell.
Incumbent aldermen also lost in the 18th Ward (Lona Lane), the 29th Ward (Deborah Graham), the 31st Ward (Ray Suarez) and the 41st Ward (Mary O'Connor). Graham and Lane were big benefactors of support from the Emanuel-aligned Chicago Forward super political action committee.
After a very, very close race, Ald John Pope (10th), a long-time Old Guard loyalist, lost to Susan Sadlowski Garza, a teacher and a daughter of a prominent labor activist. By mere 44 (!) votes, but still... Four years ago, even that would've been inconceivable.
Sure, there are races that disappointed me. Patrick Daley Thompson, nephew of Richard M Daley, won the 11th Ward seat. Tara Stamps, another teacher, failed to unseat Emma Mitts (37th), a fervent Emanuel supporter who was on record as saying that unions can go screw themselves. (and I'm not exaggerating the "fervent" part - she talks about the mayor's opponents during City Council meetings like they took a dump on a church altar and then proceeded to have a scatological orgy). And Ald James Cappleman (46h) who tried to kick Salvation Army, homeless people and pigeons (yes, really) out of his ward got re-elected.
(For those who've only recently started following this blog, the aforementioned attempt to kick out the homeless was what turned me against the man. I let him know over Twitter exactly how I felt, and got blocked for my trouble)
But even for all the disappointments (some more personal than others), the fact remains that Emanuel's attempt to create a more loyal City Council kind of failed. And he couldn't even protect some of his most loyal aldermen.
Mind you, Emanuel loyalists still make up a comfortable majority. And if there's one thing the 2011 elections have taught us, it's just just because candidates say they're going to be independent doesn't mean they won't vote with the mayor far ore often than not once they assume power. But again, the message is unmistakable. If Ald John Pope and Ald Rey Suarez (31st) can lose, are any of the loyalists really, truly safe?
Which brings us to the question that's been asked a lot over the past 48 hours. Is all of this going change the way Emanuel governs? Will we see a kinder, less pushy mayor who would show more respect for his opponents opinions? Will he try to work together with his opponents?
Personally, I don't think he really will. I've seen the way Emanuel runs City Council meetings. He may not be quite as harsh or as dismissive as before, but a tiger doesn't change his stripes. We know that he is willing to make some compromises on especially controversial legislation, like the 2012 public protest restrictions. But those compromises alter some surface details, scale back a few things, but keep the essence very much intact.
If he's going to compromise more, it will be more compromises like that.
The next City Council meeting - the last regularly scheduled meeting before the new aldermen are sworn in - is scheduled for April 15. It should be... interesting.