Can we dump Trump?

The Washington Post is managing to tick off the sensibilities of many people who are looking forward to the 2020 election cycle with the goal of dumping that orange-tinted buffoon from the White House.

TRUMP: Is four more years really inevitable?

For the commentary by Hugh Hewitt basically implies that this upcoming presidential election is for Donald Trump to take. The 2020 election isn’t going to be close, is what we’re being told.

DESPITE THE FACT that various polls show the Trump presidency has never been popular amongst the masses, and only survives because of the incredibly outspoken level of support it draws from a minority of our society, many of whom do so because The Donald tends to give his backing to their own prejudices.]

As Hewitt feels, the one thing Trump has going in his favor is the economy. In short, it’s not in a recession or headed in that direction.

“Innovation is accelerating, not declining,” Hewitt wrote. “A recession before Election Day looks less and less likely by the day.”

In short, Trump will not be taken down by the very factor that caused many people to back Bill Clinton over incumbent George Bush (the elder) in the 1992 election cycle.

I’M NOT WILLING to totally dismiss this theory, because I happen to have a cousin who leans Republican and is nominally a Trump backer who defends his ideological choices by saying the state of the economy is really the only issue that matters.

All of Trump’s moments of stupidity and ignorance on so many issues that cause offense to the sensibilities of the majority of us? He argues they just won’t matter, in the end.

Which means that the masses of voters come Nov. 3, 2020 will wind up supporting, either enthusiastically or begrudgingly, the notion of a second term in office for Donald Trump.

BUSH: Trump won't lose due to economy

Something that I’m sure the man’s over-bloated ego will construe as evidence that we really, really love him – and that those of us who don’t want the return of Melania as First Lady can just go and “suck it,” so to speak.

NOW I DON’T doubt that Trump can win re-election, although I think the real factor at work is that many people just won’t be able to reach a consensus on who should be the Democratic challenger against Trump.

I actually think the dozens of candidates thinking they’re the only ones who could possibly run a winning campaign will actually result in enough electoral chaos so that none of them would be capable of getting enough voter support to prevail on Election Day.

Too many people who think that we have to have Bernie Sanders, Or Joe Biden. Or Pete Buttigieg. Or it has to be someone who specifically is NOT a white man. While refusing to consider anybody else. Democrats may not be capable of reaching a consensus candidate to challenge Trump.

Which could result in an election cycle that the masses find contemptible. They hate Trump, but can’t stand whoever it is that winds up getting the political nomination to run against him.

OR, WORSE YET. The confusion level is such that the same Electoral College mess that enabled Trump to win the presidency with 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton could kick in yet again. Right now, I'd have to think the odds are too great that Trump will once again get less than 50 percent of the vote.

BIDEN: Leading Dem, for now

Donald Trump could easily wind up as the two-term president who never took a majority of the vote and also was unable to ever get his popularity rating in polls above the 50 percent mark. In short, the man forced upon our society by an outspoken minority determined to force their ideological leanings upon the masses.

Some might think that a “victory,” of sorts. History would record Trump as a president no one wanted. But in reality, it would record him as a two-time victor – and further reinforce the leanings of the ideologues into thinking they’re the only people who really matter.

Some might want to think that the lack of a recession is a Trump accomplishment. But if anything, the fact that Trump has a snowball’s chance in that place ending in double-hockey sticks of winning re-election really ought to be blamed on the political ineptness of those who want to Dump Donald, but can’t quite figure out how to do so.

  -30-

Is the presence of Democratic Socialists in City Council really much change?

The concession by Deb Mell of her defeat for re-election to her City Council seat (the one held previously by her father since 1975) has some speculating about the significant change our aldermen will undergo.

RAMIREZ-ROSA: Head of new 'caucus?'

Particularly with the fact that this means there will now be six (out of 50) of the city’s aldermen choosing to use the political label of “Democratic Socialists” to identify themselves – rather than straightforward Democrats.

YET I CAN’T really see significant change in the ways of the City Council. Other than that there may be a few more loudmouths willing to refuse to speak in lock-step with the desires of the mayor.

Then again, with this new mayor who will take over May 20, these not-quite Democrats may well wind up being Lori Lightfoot’s biggest allies. Unless they decide they just want to be outspoken opponents of anybody who happens to be mayor.

Much of my own feeling about the idea of Democratic Socialists in the City Council is based on the fact that most of these so-called radicals (five of the six) are going to be members of the Latino caucus.

Jeannette Taylor, the new alderman of the city’s 20^th Ward on the South Side, is an African-American woman. She’s the lone exception.

OTHERWISE, THIS DEMOCRATIC Socialist movement appears to be something that is a part of the Latino segment of Chicago. It could mean that paying attention to the Latino caucus will be the thing to do for individuals who want to see government officials who can’t get along.

GARCIA: If they challenge Chuy, that's radical

Yet that isn’t a radical idea.

If anything, the idea that Latino politicos aren’t a single, unified voice is nothing new at all. It is the reason why Latino political power and influence isn’t anywhere near as strong in Chicago as it should be.

The city’s Latino political people have always been something to be split into two groups – known informally as the Daley-type aldermen and the activist-type aldermen.

BASICALLY, THERE WERE those people of Latino ethnic origins who made the effort to become a part of the city’s government establishment – figuring that to become part of the system would ensure that the Spanish-speaking enclaves those officials represent would get their fair share of the municipal pie.

MELL: No more!

They were the ones who would ally themselves with the former Mayors Daley and be supportive – figuring that they weren’t a strong-enough entity on their own to be able to resist.

Then there were the activist types – the ones who figured that being too close to the Daley or their backers would merely prevent them from trying to advance their own goals for their communities.

If anything, watching the Latino caucus throughout the years has always been an adventure in political infighting, and seeing how the two groups would try to undermine each other’s efforts. Come Elections Day, they’d each be endorsing opponents to the other side – with hopes they could knock off some incumbents and shift the balance to their side.

NOW, IT WOULD seem that some people who would have been outspoken proponents of this latter-type group are giving themselves the formal label of Democratic Socialists – which, simply put, believes in the social freedoms of Democracy while thinking that the business principles of capitalism undermines any effort to achieve a Democratic society

Although there are times I wonder if the people who spew such rhetoric have merely spent too much time in their youths wearing those t-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara on them – without truly comprehending who Che was or what he meant.

I also think that those people who focus too intently on the “socialist” part of the label are missing the point – as I suspect the real Communists of the world would view the Democratic Socialists as the ultimate hostile enemy.

So is Socialism spreading to City Hall? Most likely, not really!

IT’S MORE LIKE the outspoken portion of the Latino caucus has given itself a new label, and has one ally amongst the council’s Black caucus. As far as the partisan split of the technically non-partisan aldermen, it is one Republican (Anthony Napolitano) along with the six (incumbent Carlos Ramirez Rosa, 35^th Ward, Daniel La Spata, 1^st Ward, Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25^th Ward, 33^rd Ward, who beat Mell, Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, Andre Vasquez, 40^th Ward, and Taylor) Democratic Socialists.

Still likely to be the same nonsense at City Hall

Which means that 43 of the aldermen still identify themselves as standard-issue Democrats. Most of whom can’t “play nice” with each other – meaning the City Council still has potential for political chaos, just like usual.

  -30-

‘Big 10’ turf to be the key to comprehending 2020 prez election

They're the midwestern states that comprise the Big 10. Or maybe you prefer to think of them as the places where the Great Lakes are a daily reality of life.

Will Milwaukee get honors of helping 'dump Trump'

Our region of the nation is going to play a key factor in comprehending just how the will of the nation leans come the 2020 election cycle for president. As to whether we get “four more years” of Donald Trump or someone inclined to keep his perspective alive?

OR WILL WE see a return to sanity and a jerk back to policies less selfish and mean-spirited than the ones we’ve had the past two-plus years? Which if you look at the results of the latest Morning Consult “Tracking Trump” poll is the trend the Great Lakes region is heading toward these days.

A large part of the reason why Trump was able to win the electoral college (and a term as president) despite losing the popular vote by a significant margin is that many of the states of our region flipped over to the GOP column.

With many states having their more rural portions turn out to vote in stronger numbers – thereby enabling them to overcome the urban portions of their states.

Illinois may have significantly went for Hillary Clinton’s presidential dreams, along with Minnesota. But the rest of the region, including Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin felt compelled to back Trump.

Who will decide electoral outcome in '20?

ILLINOIS LITERALLY FELT all alone and lonesome in our region that Election Night of 2016. If a Democratic presidential challenger is to have any chance of achieving victory in 2020, we’re going to have to go back to the days when the bulk of the Great Lakes region leans Democrat – with places like Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee turning out and leaving Indiana as the isolated freak of the region.

It is with that in mind that it makes all the sense in the world that the Democratic Party decided to hold their presidential nominating convention next summer in one of the most unglamorous of places – Milwaukee.

Much was made in the news reports of the convention location that this is one of the few times a nominating convention was held in a Midwestern city. Not since 1916 and St. Louis has such an event been held in our region of the nation.

With the exception being Chicago. We had the Democratic convention of 1996, and the historic memories of 1968 still linger in our political mindset. Before that, both major political parties used to enjoy our city.

WHEN RICHARD NIXON was nominated for president in 1960, it was our city that did the honors of hosting the event. Even though most Republican ideologues like to rant and rage that Chicago’s real part of that particular election cycle was providing enough inner-city and cemetery-based voted to ensure that Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy.

Not likely that Republicans would ever consider coming to our city for their political shows. In fact, next year they’ll be doing their honors in Charlotte, N.C. – the city that hosted the Democratic convention of 2008 that resulted in Barack Obama being presented to the nation.

The point being that I’m sure Democratic political operatives intend for a Milwaukee-based event to inspire Democrats of Wisconsin to turn out in force. To make sure that the Badger state’s 10 electoral votes are amongst the ones that wind up in the Democratic presidential challenger’s column.

Which could also inspire Democrats in places like Detroit to make sure that cities such as Grand Rapids, Mich., don’t out-vote them again, or that Ohio’s urban areas around Cleveland and Toledo don’t get drowned out by partisan opposition in Cincinnati.

BECAUSE IT’S VERY clear that if those Great Lakes states swing back over to the Democratic column, we won’t have a “President Trump” or anybody aligned with him any longer. Heck, it’s obvious that if Hillary Clinton hadn’t taken the region for granted in 2016, she would have got the Electoral College majority IN ADDITION to a popular vote win!

Checking out Aaron's one-time home

We would never have had to endure the embarrassment that a Trump presidency would have brought us.

Of course, we’d have had to endure years of partisan nonsense from Republican ideologues determined to show us they could dump on Hillary even worse than they did to Obama or to her husband, Bill.

So next year, when the political attention span of the nation focuses for a week on Milwaukee, keep in mind there’s a reason. Maybe you’ll even find a chance to enjoy a brew – along with being in the city that was home to one of baseball’s all-time greats, Hank Aaron. Or if you're feeling particularly lame, you can skip through the streets singing the "Laverne & Shirley" theme song.

  -30-

Freshman senator already declares candidacy for an Illinois top pol spot

I remember a time some two decades ago at the Statehouse in Springfield interviewing a legislator – Nancy Kaszak from Chicago’s Northwest Side.

STAVA-MURRAY: A freshman playing like powerhouse

What sticks in my mind about this interview was now unproductive it was. She wasn’t able to say much, ultimately explaining her ignorance on the issue by saying, “I’m a freshman” and that leadership hadn’t kept her fully appraised of this particular issue.

I COULDN’T HELP but think back to Kaszak when I heard this week about Anne Stava-Murray – a newly-elected Illinois House member from suburban Naperville. She hasn’t even taken office yet, but already has declared her political intentions for the 2020 election cycle.

She’s am ambitious sort, I’ll give her that. She’s going to run for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois that will be open next year. That, of course, is the seat currently held (and has been since 1996) by Richard Durbin.

Of course, the presumption is that Durbin will be seeking re-election. If he were going to try moving to another political post, the obvious shift would be to try becoming Illinois’ governor.

DURBIN: Does he have credible opponent?

But that would have entailed him being willing to give up his current Senate seat in order to run in last year’s election cycle – instead of becoming one of J.B. Pritzker’s political supporters. He wasn’t willing to risk his seat – and it may well be he enjoys being one of the Senate’s elder statesmen, with hopes his name will someday be held in the same regard as Everett McKinley Dirksen, who served in D.C. from 1933 until his death in 1969.

THE LONG-AGO Republican from Pekin who became among the GOP elder statemen with a reputation for being willing to work in a bipartisan political manner. A legend, of sorts, in the halls of Capitol Hill.

Except to people like Stava-Murray, who claims that if Durbin were serious, he’d have already formally declared his candidacy. Although I suspect he already has the beginnings of a re-election bid up and running in a low-key manner.

MADIGAN: Her 'real' opponent?

She’s already setting her sights on Durbin, which will have one political benefit for her.

It will help her erase the stink of being just a freshman representative in the Illinois House – one that she was definitely going to face because she has openly talked of the need to dump long-time (a full half-century) Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, from his political post.

SHE WAS IN full agreement with those Republican ideologues who tried running campaigns last year on the grounds that we need to “Dump Madigan!” and she publicly refused to take the aid that Madigan usually provides to Democrats to support his own Illinois House majority.

It’s not likely she’d have a lengthy future as a representative, since I don’t doubt the Madigan operation is already seeking someone more politically sympathetic to “Mr. Speaker” to challenge Stava-Murray come 2020.

DIRKSEN: Most definitely of the past

But by doing this, she’ll shift the story from her being a renegade legislator to her being one of Illinois’ top politicos (along with Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Gov.-elect Pritzker and whichever of the assorted characters manages to win the mayoral elections to be held next month and in April).

I don’t doubt that Democratic operatives will go out of their way to undermine Stava-Murray and try to ensure she returns to being a political nobody after next year.

BUT I HAVE to wonder what goes through her mindset – if she really thinks she’s the beneficiary of a revolutionary “movement” against Madigan, instead of someone who won because of the intense level of contempt many of us feel for Donald Trump!

TRUMP: His critics led Stava-Murray to win

To me, the explanation is that she’s from Naperville – which once was a part of the great DuPage County Republican organization that was among the strengths of the GOP nationwide.

There once would have been a time when Stava-Murray would have been a Republican aspirant for political office – except that the Republicans have gone so far overboard to become the political party of rural America that I suspect if she had tried to run in the Republican primary last year, she’d have lost. They wouldn't want her. She's a Democrat by default!

It may well be that Stava-Murray is showing off her political ignorance and doesn’t fully realize “which side” she’s on. For her sake, she’s going to have to figure things out and “pick a side,” or else it could turn into a bloody two years for her.

  -30-

Last-minute partisan acts so common

Wis. GOP trying to keep Walker spirit alive

I’ve been hearing many people complain about the politicians in Wisconsin, where the voters dumped Republican Gov. Scott Walker and a GOP-leaning attorney general.

All of which has the still-Republican-leaning General Assembly inclined to use its authority to impose limits on the kind of powers those two positions will have in the future.

Ill. GOP would do the same, if possible

IT’S AS THOUGH the one-time Party of Lincoln has truly been taken over by this Age of Trump we now live in – they want to make sure the Democrats who now hold those two Wisconsin state government positions can’t do anything to undermine the kind of things that Republicans imposed on the Badger State in recent years.

Sleazy? Authoritarian? Un-Democratic, if now outright un-American? All very definitely true. But also not the least bit surprising.

If anything, I’d be surprised if Republican partisans weren’t trying some sort of measures meant to penalize the kinds of people who (in their minds) had the unmitigated gall to vote against them.

For it could be said that Wisconsin voters, by dumping Walker, engaged in the same kind of sentiment we here in Illinois did by voting Bruce Rauner out of office. In many ways, Walker was exactly the kind of governor that Rauner wanted to be here in Illinois.

BUT WHILE WALKER gained national attention for the conservative measures he was able to enact into Wisconsin law during his eight years in office, Rauner’s national attention was for the way in which he was thwarted by the Democratic Party leanings of the Illinois Legislature.

I suspect Democrats in Illinois will go out of their way to erase any traces of the Rauner years. Similar to how Republicans are using the fact that they still control the Legislature in Wisconsin to force the continued existence of their way of doing things.

Wisconsin's progressive spirit merely history?

To hell with the will of the voters! It’s as though modern-day Republican partisans want us all to think they are the natural order of things, and that it was only the opposition's delusions that took away their authority to impose their will upon us all.

Yes, I believe the Republican actions are ignorant, overbearing and border on corrupt. But I’ve seen enough political people to know they’re not surprising.

THEY ACTUALLY REMIND me of the final days of 1996 – which is when the Republican domination of Illinois government that resulted from the November 1994 elections came to an end.

For the 1996 elections saw the return of Michael Madigan as Illinois House speaker. Which caused the soon-to-be no-longer Republican majority to engage in one final act of overbearance on their part before Madigan regained a say in the legislative process.

Remember back a couple of decades when state officials were determined to oppose then-Mayor Richard Daley’s desires to turn Meigs Field into a public garden of sorts? Which caused the Legislature to vote for a state takeover of the city-owned airport.

Which was little more than a “screw you” to Democrats and to city government officials (who are, by and large, the same thing). Which is why I always got a kick out of the eventual outcome of the Meigs debacle – with city officials sending in the bulldozers to demolish the airport (and carve giant “x’” into the runways to make them unusable) in the middle of the night.

IT MAKES ME wonder if Wisconsin officials will come up with some equally-diabolical means of getting back at their Republican counterparts for trying to limit the powers of future governors.

Meigs Field gone, despite last-ditch GOP efforts to try to preserve it

Which I don’t doubt in the least that Republican legislators would be more than willing to fully restore when the day comes that cheese heads re-elect a Republican to fill the post of the state’s chief executive.

This is all petty and ridiculous, and certainly not in the spirit of a government looking out for the best interests of its citizens.

But it is the reality we have devolved into in this 21^st Century – that of governments that think they can only operate if everything is rigged in their own ideological favor!

  -30-

Who’s the boss (and I don’t mean that old television program) of Illinois?

Will new governor have to take marching orders … 

J.B. Pritzker has been governor-elect for a week now and has already created a team of advisers (including Republicans such as former Gov. Jim Edgar and former Illinois Senate leader Christine Radogno amongst them) to advise him on how to go about actually running Illinois government.

Yet there are those who are persisting with such political rhetoric as to say the only person who’s really going to influence him is the guy who will actually run the state.

… from Mr. Speaker himself?

NONE OTHER THAN Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago. As though they can’t let go of all the trash talk that they tried to use to tie everybody in sight to Madigan so it would cost them re-election.

It didn’t work. Yet we’re still hearing the trash talk.

I got my kick out of the Daily Herald newspaper account where Jeanne Ives, the ideologue who tried (but failed) to beat Bruce Rauner herself, said she thinks Illinois is safe from any sort of progressive tax hike.

Although state government certainly could use the money to make real progress toward paying off all the bills it accumulated during Rauner’s partisan efforts to undermine organized labor’s influence, Ives said she believes Madigan won’t let the Democrat-dominated General Assembly approve any such thing.

Radogno and Edgar (below) … 

SHE SAYS MADIGAN is political astute enough to realize a large segment of the population would disapprove, possibly even revolt, and would start electing Republicans again if Democrats get to brazen.

“I think Mike Madigan will still run the state,” Ives told the suburban-based newspaper. “He is savvy and knows the state can’t withstand another tax increase.”

So is J.B. really nothing more than Madigan’s puppet; expected to sign off on whatever bills Madigan (with state Senate President John Cullerton’s cooperation) allows to get as far as the gubernatorial desk?

… are among those advising J.B. these days

Or is Ives, the state senator from Wheaton (no longer a bastion of the Republican Party) merely trying to maintain a semblance of relevance in today’s Illinois political age?

THIS IS A debate I have heard often – trying to figure out who’s really in charge these days! Because it is likely (if not downright predictable) that there will be a falling-out between Pritzker and Madigan. A rivalry will develop within the party over who ought to be listening to whom. Which is why people used to think Illinois would never have Democrats as governor -- Madigan wouldn't permit anyone who could undermine his influence!

Pritzker may well adopt the attitude that the people picked HIM to be governor, while Madigan may well feel J.B. is a political amateur who’s never run NOTHING and who ought to leave the governing to the big boys who have been doing this for awhile.

I’ve even heard it said that Pritzker is in a unique position to challenge such incumbent thought because he’s so wealthy. Similar to how Rauner tried to buy the Republican Party political structure to support his own desires, Pritzker has the kind of money to where he could be the guy that Democrats turn to for political support, instead of having to rely on Madigan’s labor connections to raise their political funds.

Particularly since within the Democratic Party structures across the nation, there are splits between establishment types supporting the current structure, and those who want a more politically progressive structure.

AFTER ALL, WHAT’S the point of having a not-so-liberal Democratic Party? You might as well be a Republican, is their attitude. Madigan himself is most definitely of the party’s establishment – a guy who backs the Democrats because of his support for organized labor and its interests.

IVES: Trying to retain relevance

There are times when he seems to dread having to deal with more liberal elements and social causes. Only backing them when he can figure a way to turn them to his own interests. But that may be the relevant point – Madigan is a political mastermind who can figure ways to use issues for a greater good, so to speak.

We all saw how Rauner’s efforts to use his money to buy a political party for himself failed to the point where some now wonder if the Illinois Republican Party has anything left worth use! Could Pritzker be just as inept without Madigan’s mindset on his side.

Could it be in everybody’s interest that the two men figure out a way to cooperate? Which could mean the true threat to the people of Illinois is that Democrats are not really the united force for liberal causes in the way that elements of the modern-day Republicans have become the party wishing to force conservatism down all our throats.

  -30-

Could partisan political “trade-off” be detrimental to Illinois’ future as state?

Does Bost's congressional victory ...

Some might wonder how President Donald Trump can be delusional enough to think his political interests succeeded on Election Day. Yet if one looks at the political maps in a certain way, it becomes apparent.

For it would seem the parts of Illinois that were already Republican are now moreso.

THOSE AREAS MIGHT well be the parts of the state that lie outside the Chicago metropolitan area. But those are often areas that think of themselves as an entity to their own.

… console Republicans for Roskam's loss?

Which means I’m not surprised many of those people are feeling thankful they have so thoroughly chased Democratic Party interests out of their portion of the state. They may think they now have domination of the only portions of Illinois that matter.

Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn a similar sentiment exists within the Chicago area that isn’t all too concerned about these political losses, because they managed to take portions of the outer suburbs that oft were represented by Republicans in the past, but have now swung over to the Dems. Heck, Illinois Republican Chairman Tim Schneider couldn't even win re-election to his post on the Cook County Board!

The bottom line is that Illinois’ congressional delegation come January will consist of 13 Democrats and only 5 Republicans – a two-seat gain for “da Dems.”

Are Underwood and Casten (below) … 

RANDY HULTGREN AND Peter Roskam will be gone, replaced by Lauren Underwood and Sean Casten. Throughout levels of government, the Republican Party became irrelevant throughout the Chicago-area.

Yet for those anxious to wear the Republican-tinged glasses to view things, Tuesday was the night that Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., fought off Democrat Brendan Kelly and Rep. Rodney Davis beat Democrat Betsy Dirksen Londrigan.

Albeit the latter was by a narrow voter margin of 50.51 percent to 49.49 percent.

But Davis is a member of Congress from the Champaign-area representing a swath of central Illinois, while Bost is from around Carbondale and is the lone representative on Capitol Hill of that region of Southern Illinois that thinks of itself as “Egypt.”

… gain, or losses, for Illinois?

THE FACT THAT Roskam and Hultgren will be gone? I’m sure the ideologues will think it was more important to keep Davis and Bost.

Heck, let’s note that when President Donald Trump felt inclined to come to Illinois to campaign on behalf of Republicans in general, he went to Bost’s district for a political “fly-in” rally. The president himself said earlier this week that Roskam’s defeat was because the two-decade political incumbent “didn’t want the embrace” of presidential support.

Although I suspect if Roskam had actively touted himself as a “Trump Man,” he would have had his political clock cleaned by an even bigger margin than the 52.84 percent to 47.16 percent tally he actually lost by.

What caught my eye in looking at the congressional district map for Illinois is that there is one point right down the middle of the state where one could go straight through from the Wisconsin border all the way to where the Mississippi and Ohio rivers converge (a.k.a., Cairo) and never set foot in a Democratic-represented area.

THE SAME WOULD apply if you traveled from the east edge of Illinois around Danville to the far west around Quincy. Nothing but political “red” on the map.

Too easy for Illinoisans to ignore other party

You’d be passing in between the Chicago and Quad-Cities areas, and also skipping over the Illinois portions of the St. Louis area – which, if you think about it, are the portions of Illinois that comprise nearly three-quarters of the state’s population.

Which is how Democrats were able to gain Illinois House seats in suburban portions of Illinois to once-again have a 60 percent “veto-proof” supermajority, while allowing Republicans to feel like they still kept control of the rural parts of the state. We in Illinois may come out of this year’s election cycle thinking our region prevailed, even though we’re progressing to the point of becoming two separate regions. 

Let’s hope Gov.-elect J.B. Pritzker wasn’t just paying lip service when he said this week Chicago will “have no more special a role” than other Illinois cities, because having us work together as a state is how we’ll be capable of accomplishing anything of significance in the future for all our benefit.

  -30-

How lacking we are in a legitimate comprehension of our very own history

Major ideologue shift from "Honest" Abe … 

It is an argument I often hear from ideologues about how the Democratic Party (although they usually leave off the “ic” out of a lame attempt to diminish the Dems image) is the one that gave us segregation and bigotry.

The ones who argue that the Republican Party is the so-called “Party of Lincoln” that freed the slaves and is the one that has done far more for black people than the open hostility they have received from Democratic politicos.

… to "Fake News" Donald

BUT IT IS one I heard again Tuesday from someone who felt compelled to turn to Facebook to say that that, “a vote for a Democrat is a vote for the party that fought a war to keep my ancestors enslaved.”

That same African-American individual also felt compelled to write, “even an illiterate, newly-freed slave knew not to vote for a Democrat.”

Writing as one who just over a week ago went to an early voting center in Cook County and cast a ballot that deliberately went against every single Republican option as a way of undermining President Donald Trump’s influence for the next two years, I’d have to retort that some people truly are dangerous in the way they try to use historic allusions to defend nonsensical historic claims.

Figures such as FDR, along with … 

Yet this woman’s Facebook ramblings are not unique. I’m sure I will hear similar nonsense-thoughts expressed again even after “Election ‘18” is long over-and-done with.

NOW I’M NOT about to deny that the original Republican Party that our state’s very own “Honest Abe” was a part of was eager to maintain the “union” of our nation, and was the opposition to the segregationists who were more than willing to engage in war to preserve the “Southern Way of life” that included chattel slavery.

… JFK and LBJ (below) influenced Dems shift … 

After our nation’s (very un-)Civil War, it was the structure of the Democratic Party that elected government officials who tried to evade the spirit of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments to the Constitution that essentially granted equality to all regardless of race by giving us the policies of “Jim Crow” throughout the South.

… away from segregation ways, … 

But anybody who thinks that’s the extent of the story is spewing nonsense more fake than anything Donald Trump has tried to proclaim as truth.

The reality is that the political parties began to shift back in the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt as president – who expressed some support for more progressive ideals and made them a part of the Democratic platform. Although one could honestly say FDR’s support for such ideals were more the doing of first lady Eleanor who got him to do things he might not otherwise have bothered with.

THEN CAME THE Civil Rights years of the 1950s-60s, which John F. Kennedy gave lip service to, but became reality with Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act into law in 1964.

… so naturally, Trump admires Jackson

That act passed with an off-beat combination of Democrats and just enough Republicans who didn’t oppose integrationist ideals to overcome those political people who seriously thought there was truth to the slogan, “Segregation now. Segregation tomorrow, and Segregation forever!”

As for those who thought there was legitimacy to the “old ways,” they were the ones who made the shift from the Democrats to the Republicans, led largely by the influence of Richard Nixon and later by Ronald Reagan who made the "seggies" feel welcome to the point where their grandchildren now run the GOP and make it quite less grand every time Trump opens his mouth.

Which means those people who try to claim that Democrats are the party of segregation and the old horrid ways are ignoring the massive transformation that occurred in our political structure.

NIXON: Won on a 'Southern' strategy

WHAT MAKES IT more ridiculous is when those same people try to argue that the reason the Democrats no longer represent what they view as “real” people is because of this shift. As though Dems gave up public interests to focus on these racial issues.

I also find it odd that Trump himself has often tried to claim a bipartisan nature of his own political ideology by claiming support and admiration for the presidency of Andrew Jackson. That early 19^th Century figure who was one of the first Democrats to be elected president and who often was backed by those who saw a sense of legitimacy to the old segregationist ways of our society.

Personally, I think people are entitled to vote how they want to. I comprehend that some black voters find a sense of hypocrisy in backing Democrats who seem more concerned with their own self-interests than anything involving the electorate.

So if this woman doesn’t want to vote for Democrats, that’s her business. Just realize that I (and just about anybody who’s ever read a history book of any type) are going to disregard her thoughts as the nonsense-ramblings of an ideologue – which actually is what she has in common with our incumbent president.

  -30-

Political thugs trying to scare people from voting for Democrats come Nov. 6

It shouldn’t be surprising that the bulk of political candidates for whom I’ve cast ballots for throughout the years have been Democrats – I’m urban in orientation and the modern-day Republican Party is largely a collection of rural types who are openly hostile to my existence.

A sentiment many of us should follow this year on Election Day

But I have to admit that in this year’s election cycle, I’m feeling extra-compelled to vote for Dem politicos – even if they don’t exactly bring to mind fond memories of JFK or FDR.

I MAY WELL go down the line and pick out a straight-ballot ticket. Even though Illinois a couple of decades ago did away with the option of allowing for a straight party-line vote with a single punch. An action, by the way, that was a product of the two-year mid-1990s time period when Republicans had full control of the mechanisms of Illinois government.

Yes, I can appreciate the flaws of the eight years we had of Barack Obama (he wasn’t tough enough in dealing with Republican ideologues who smacked him around all over the place, even though GOP partisans want to believe he was somehow running roughshod over everybody’s rights).

High-minded ideals … 

I’m not an apologist for Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter – the two other Democrats to serve as president in my lifetime. As for LBJ, I was just a newborn back when he was the boss whose record of supporting civil rights reforms offended conservative ideologues, and U.S. involvement in Vietnam managed to offend everybody else.

But I find the bullying nature of President Donald Trump to be so offensive that I feel the need to take whatever ballot action I can to try to undermine it. And realize fully that it will take a great majority of similar-minded voters to do so in order to create a balancing presence within the federal government.

… and actions of the past, or … 

NOT EVEN JUST a slim majority (remember the 3 million-plus more voters Hillary Clinton had in ’16, yet still lost?). It will take many people expressing their outrage at the ballot box.

Because we really need to make a statement come Election Day that a real majority of our society finds this Age of Trump to be downright appalling.

It feeds into the ideologue mentality, which is that everybody who isn’t like them ought to just “Shut the f*** up!!!” and do what we’re told by their like-minded souls.

… more present-day thuggery?

That certainly is how I’m perceiving the actions of recent days during which dangerous packages were sent to former presidents Clinton and Obama, one-time Vice President Joe Biden and even actor Robert DiNiro – who has had the nerve (as they want to perceive it) to express his own opposition.

THERE EVEN WAS an incident Thursday where the Statehouse in Springfield was on “lockdown” status – and a powdery substance in a baggie was found in a public restroom. Maybe some crackpot who thinks he can hit the halls where Democrats led by Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, do their work?

It seems to be that the thugs of our society are crawling out of the woodwork to try to terrify people into “voting the ‘right’ way” come Election Day.

And many of those individuals are the ones who get all riled up every time Trump feels compelled to talk up more trash. More “fake news” rants. In fact, I won’t be the least bit surprised if someone feels compelled to respond to this commentary with a ridiculous rant or two.

It actually has me wondering what would happen if the 2020 election cycle were to end with a Trump defeat in the Electoral College – would Trump try to concoct a scheme by which he refuses to leave the White House, and his supporters would mentally justify a coup d’etat on the grounds that we “need” The Donald to complete the chaos he has wrought in recent years.

IT WOULD CERTAINLY be in character with the kind of people who think the recent day’s actions are in any way justifiable.

It even fits in with the concepts being espoused by a new television spot funded by a Ricketts family-funded political committee (Todd is, after all, a Republican National Committee finance chairman); one that says “voting for any Democrat” will cause all kinds of chaos within our society.

Even though many would argue that all it would really do is bring to an end the chaos that has been wrought during these Trump Years.

But when you’re an ideologue inclined to believe everybody not like yourself is evil, then perhaps you’re willing to talk such trash. Which is something we all ought to be opposing in coming days as Step One in making our nation truly great again.

  -30-