When it came to mayor, did two-thirds of city's electorate channel their inner Rhett Butler and "not give a damn?"

As I write this late Tuesday, it seems that Mayor Rahm Emanuel failed to take a majority of the ballots cast in Chicago's municipal election.

He clearly got more votes than any other individual candidate. But his vote total came to about 46 percent early in the evening, and eventually dropped to 45 percent by night's end.

IT SEEMS THAT the mayor will have to face off one-on-one against Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, who came in second in the mayoral race taking 34 percent of the vote.

The other candidates all came in far lower than that, although there are some political observers who are crediting black businessman Willie Wilson (11 percent) with costing Emanuel an outright victory. The assumption being that most of those people wouldn’t have voted for anybody – which means Emanuel’s vote total would have surpassed the “50 percent plus One” standard that would have been instant victory.

I have to admit that these figures don’t particularly interest me. The one that catches my attention is the fact that it seems voter turnout in this mayoral election reached a record low.

Lower than the 33.08 percent that was reached in 2007 when Richard M. Daley ran for his final term in office against opposition to whom even the label “token” would be an overstatement.

THE EARLY ESTIMATES was that about 31 or 32 percent of all the registered voters in Chicago bothered to use an early voter facility or show up at a polling place on Election Day.

That makes about 68 percent of the would-be voters (I’m not counting city residents who are too lazy to even register) who couldn’t be bothered to cast ballots.

For all those people who are waking up Wednesday with a disgusted mood because of how the election turned out (either because you’re establishment enough that you wanted Emanuel re-elected, or you’re contrarian enough to think that any of the mayoral challengers were going to do better than they did), I’d have to say “stifle” (the Archie Bunker in me comes out at times like this).

So many of you couldn’t be bothered to take a stance.

IF ANYTHING, IT would appear that candidate William “Dock” Walls  (a.k.a., "Mr. 3 percent") may have been correct in making his concession statement, while also saying he has no intention of making a fourth bid for mayor come the 2019 elections (I’m skeptical of that statement).

“You can’t save people who aren’t ready to be saved,” Walls told those who gathered for his Election Night event. It’s up to the electorate to act. If they fail to do so, then complaints truly aren’t worth hearing.

Talk truly can be cheap!

I must admit to finding one benefit to the fact that so many people didn’t bother to vote – counting votes really went by quickly.

I SPENT MY time watching election results on a CLTV/WGN-TV combo Tuesday night, and that 46-34 percent tally for Emanuel/Garcia was reached by 7:50 p.m., with ballots in 71 percent of precincts citywide having been counted by 8 p.m.

Many aldermen already knew by that point that they had been re-elected, while Rey Colon of the 35^th Ward knew he lost to Carlos Ramirez-Sosa.

Emanuel had Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., introduce his Election Night speech at about 9:30 a.m., partly in Spanish. Which I suspect was meant to thwart any possibly rhetoric about how this was a Latino electoral victory to have a Chuy vs. Rahm run-off.

Emanuel, the man once despised by Latino activists and Gutierrez himself for the way he as White House chief of staff discouraged President Barack Obama from taking on immigration reform as a priority, now wants us to think he loves Latinos.

I CAN’T EVER recall an election cycle where it was so obvious so early how things would turn out. Considering there were precincts on the North lakefront and Northwest sides of the city that remained open late because of technical problems, we literally had some people still casting ballots when things were already settled.

Yet for many Chicagoans, it probably didn’t matter. I’m sure they had other issues they considered much more interesting than a mayoral campaign. They may claim the weather insurmountable – temperatures expected to drop as low as 1 degree below zero on Wednesday.

Which is when the Chuy vs. Rahm brawl that culminates April 7 begins!

  -30-

What happens to opponents following the Tuesday municipal elections?

Jesus Garcia may wind up being the “big” winner of this election cycle, even if he doesn’t wind up winning a mayoral election either Tuesday or in April.

Garcia has been on the local political scene off-and-on for the past three decades, and has served at City Hall, the Statehouse in Springfield and at the County Building.

THE LATTER IS his current place of political occupancy – he’s been a county board member for the past four years and just got himself re-elected to another four-year term back in the November election cycle.

Which means he doesn’t face political oblivion if he doesn’t win on April 7, or finishes lower than second place on Tuesday.  If anything, he’s now a county board member with a bit of the public spotlight glowing off him.

He has a chance to be one of the power players on the county board; and definitely one of the more significant of the 17 commissioners.

He’s probably not going to become the equivalent of Commissioner John Daley, D-Chicago, in terms of being significant in the way Cook County government does its business (the Daley brother is the county board’s finance committee chair).

BUT HE’S CERTAINLY going to draw more attention than someone like Gregg Goslin, R-Glenview, whom I wonder if even northwest suburban residents are aware of who he is.

A return to the county board following the municipal elections could give Garcia the chance to have so many political observer eyes focused on him that he becomes someone significant.

If he handles himself right, he could become a political powerbroker in his own right. People could wind up benefitting in the key issues and the constituency that he claims to represent during his mayoral campaign.

If anything, I wonder if he could wind up being one of the most successful mayoral also-rans on the local political scene.

CURRENTLY, I’D HAVE to say that niche is filled by Timothy Evans.

Remember when he challenged Richard M. Daley back in the late 1980s when the future mayor was trying to win his first term (actually, the right to finish what was left of the late Harold Washington’s mayoral stint)?

Evans was a significant part of Washington’s allies in the City Council, and he managed to dominate the African-American vote the same way Harold did. Only he couldn’t take any significant white or Latino vote like Washington, so he wound up losing.

Yet Evans is now the chief justice of the Cook County court system. Which isn’t a bad post to have. I can think of a lot of political people whose over-bloated egos would be thoroughly satisfied if they could wind up with such a position some day!

IT’S NOT LIKE some of the other Daley challengers throughout the years, such as Danny Davis or Bobby Rush – who remain in Congress but clearly have shown they will never advance any further than their own particular neighborhoods in terms of being taken seriously.

Garcia, if he conducts himself properly in coming weeks, could provide himself a chance to move up in authority. Or else he could be the guy who quickly gets forgotten except for the confines of his home Little Village neighborhood.

We’ll have to wait and see.

As for the other mayoral challengers, I’m not sure what to think. Second Ward Ald. Robert Fioretti had to give up a chance to keep his City Council post in order to run for mayor, and I suspect his outspoken demeanor as an alderman will ensure the powerbrokers will go out of their way to keep him outside the political structure.

IS HE THE new member of the “ancient history” club that now includes people such as Richard Phelan and Jack O’Malley -- the one-time county board president and state's attorney, for those who have forgotten?

Willie Wilson likely also will not have much of a political future. Although I’ll admit it would be interesting if whoever does wind up winning the mayoral post were to consider making the one-time McDonald’s franchise operator-turned-millionaire into some sort of adviser to government.

He does have some ideas worth considering (albeit not his suggestions of doing away with the police superintendent’s post) and he speaks for a constituency that does not get listened to often enough.

And as for William “Dock” Walls? We’ll likely see him again in 2019 when he again tries running a token bid for mayor and takes 2 percent of the vote – making him the 21^st Century equivalent of Lar “America First” Daly, who ran for mayor and so many other political posts during his life without ever winning a thing!

  -30-

Hizzoner hopefuls to debate each other

Defining a debate can be tricky. But we’re approaching that point in the mayoral campaign cycle in which the five people with desires to work on the Fifth Floor of City Hall will actually face off – trying to show the public that they’re not inept and praying that their opponents commit a major gaffe that erases their chances of electoral victory.

By tricky, it becomes important to consider whether an alleged debate actually includes the significant candidates, or is merely a chance for a lone candidate to show themselves off without any pesky opposition to challenge them.

I BRING UP this point because the Center for Working Class Studies at the University of Illinois – Chicago is having a “debate” on Friday.

Yet the only two candidates who are expected to show up are Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, D-Chicago, and 2^nd Ward Alderman Robert Fioretti.

Which means the people who bother to watch the event on Chicago Access Network will have a chance to see if one of the two can create the perception of themselves as the legitimate challenger to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and the image of the other as a political bumpkin in over his head.

Emanuel himself will not be there. Neither will Willie Wilson, who is hoping that the millions of his own money he plans to spend on his campaign will help him be so dominant among African-American voters that both Fioretti and Garcia wind up becoming the bumpkins who don’t deserve to be taken seriously come the Feb. 24 municipal elections.

FOR THE RECORD, Emanuel’s campaign has said he is participating in five debates – although only two of those are traditional debate formats where candidates face questions and rigidly-timed periods in which to answer them.

Those debates will be the League of Women Voters event to be held Feb. 5 and a Feb. 10 event by the Chicago Urban League.

Other events that could wind up having all the major mayoral hopefuls include a Feb. 4 broadcast of “Chicago Tonight” on WTTW-TV, and appearances before the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.

Admittedly, those newspapers likely will put video of those interviews on their websites for political geeks to ponder over. But their real purpose is to provide the quotes and other information that the newspapers will use when preparing their editorials in mid-to-late February about how enthusiastically they wind up backing the re-election of Rahm Emanuel.

DOES ANYBODY DOUBT that the two major newspapers will take such a stance? Particularly when one regards just how enthusiastic they were in offering their official support for Bruce Rauner to replace Pat Quinn as governor in last year’s statewide election cycle.

I’m likely to try to watch all of these events in some form or another, even though all they usually wind up doing is reinforcing the beliefs of the hard-core supporters of each candidate.

The people who want Anybody But Rahm probably already have the talking points drafted in their minds about how inept Emanuel will be during the upcoming debates.

For all I know, they’re probably also going to claim he is behaving in a cowardly manner by not showing up on Friday and at other events being sponsored by organizations that wish they could get the public attention that is derived from sponsoring a political debate.

I NOTICED THAT Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis told the Chicago Sun-Times on Thursday how Garcia will overcome his “mild-mannered sweetheart” temperament to ravage Rahm’s reputation and make him out to be completely inept at representing the needs of the “average” Chicagoan.

I’m sure the Emanuel backers are ready to claim how all the other candidates don’t have what it takes to address the diverse set of problems that confront Chicago and other urban areas in the United States.

And as for Wilson, the man who already is attracting derision for the fact that responded to a Chicago Tribune candidate questionnaire by saying on many issues that he can’t develop specific solutions until after he is put into office. We’re supposed to trust that he’ll figure things out!

I’m sure that Wilson’s campaign guru, outspoken former alderman and state senator Rickey “Hollywood” Hendon, is counting on reaching out to voters who despise all the other mayoral candidates that they won’t care what Wilson actually says during a debate.

  -30-

Does Rahm have half? Can he keep it?

“The only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.” Or so goes the old political cliché.

So what should we make of the fact that a new poll shows Mayor Rahm Emanuel with just enough support to win the mayoral election outright on Feb. 24 and not have to rely on an April 7 runoff to keep his current political post?

THE POLL BY Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, published this week by Crain’s Chicago Business, says exactly half of the people questioned would vote for Emanuel, rather than one of his four opponents who remain now that the Chicago Board of Elections has finalized the ballot and five other candidates are now gone.

It seems that the past month of campaigning by Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia has put him ahead of the other candidates with 22 percent support and 2^nd Ward Alderman Robert Fioretti taking 13 percent (unlike past polls that showed the two of them at about 16 percent support each).

As for the two African-American candidates, Dr. Willie Wilson (the man who turned McDonalds franchises into a personal fortune) has about 7 percent and William “Dock” Walls has 2 percent.

But the latter figures are the ones most likely to change, since it was earlier this week that Wilson put some of his own money into his campaign fund and reportedly will start flooding the radio airwaves with his ads.

HIS CAMPAIGN PLANS to focus on the roughly one-third of Chicago that is African-American, and he hopes to build up a strong base amongst the black population that is appalled and disappointed by Emanuel’s first four years as mayor.

That “7 percent” is bound to increase. Much of that may come from the number of voters who are still undecided. But if he can tap into the black people who were willing to go for Rahm because Fioretti and Garcia are just too alien for them to support, then we could still have that run-off election that seems to be the dream of everybody who wants to Dump Emanuel.

Although I wonder if it does get reduced to two candidates in a run-off, will all the backers of the three “losers” find the Emanuel alternative so incapable of supporting that they’ll just decide to stay home on April 7?

Does Emanuel wind up winning regardless?

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, because election cycles like these that depend on negative emotion depend also on the whim of the public. How many will care enough to take the time to vote come Election Day?

As one who personally finds the concept of Garcia as mayor to be intriguing, I’ll be the first to admit I’m not sure he can rise above his current level of support. Maybe 25 percent tops – one quarter of Chicago isn’t enough to win. Particularly if his campaign fails to catch on amongst the city’s Latino population.

So what’s going to happen on Election Day (or days, if we really have to have two mayoral elections this time around)?

It was earlier this week that another poll showed Emanuel with merely 44 percent – not enough to avoid the dreaded run-off (I say dreaded because anything that forces us to endure another month-and-a-half of campaign activity is not a plus).

THIS NEW POLL is interesting because it shows Emanuel with the potential to get enough support come February because he’ll have the kind of cash to build up a public image of himself as an education reformer that will be forgotten come early May when either Emanuel or a new mayor is sworn into office.

But we still have a month-and-a-half to go before that first Election Day date, and three months until the second.

The only thing I’m willing to predict is that by that time, most people will be eagerly awaiting the coming of a new baseball season (spring training for the White Sox begins Feb. 24 Election Day and Opening Day is the day before April 7 Election Day) – just because it means the political people will finally have to shut up with their campaign trash talk for another season.

  -30- 

Are we really moving past racial factors?

EMANUEL: The front-runner?

On the surface, the Chicago Tribune gave us positive news this weekend. The newspaper commissioned yet another poll related to the upcoming municipal elections, this time trying to get a sense of how much racial and ethnic factors will play in terms of how local voters pick whom they will vote for.

That poll gave numbers that are being interpreted as saying that people are not as hung up on racial factors as we were some three decades ago. The number of people who will vote for anybody but Carol Moseley-Braun would appear to be on the decline.

MOSELEY-BRAUN: The consensus?

YET I’M SKEPTICAL, and not just because of the reality of political polls that some people will say what they think they’re supposed to, but will act very differently.

In short, I wonder how many people who said they won’t take race into account when they cast their ballots will react very differently, either at an early voting center beginning next week, or at a polling place on Feb. 22.

Anybody who has read my other commentary published at this weblog knows I believe these Election Day results are going to tell us how much we truly have advanced when it comes to matters of race and electoral politics.

CHICO: The multi-ethnic candidate?

We may have elected a couple of African-American senators, a state attorney general and secretary of state, and sent one of our own African-American politicos to Washington to be president since the days of Harold Washington.

YET I STILL wonder how many local voters view those offices as being less important than those of city government, particularly that of mayor?

The reality of our city government in recent decades is that while there have been African-American and Latino people who have held citywide office, it has always been on a slate of candidates with a white guy, Richard M. Daley, at the top.



DEL VALLE: ¿El candidato tranquillo?

I wonder how many people are going to let this be an issue because it gets at their gut feelings about what they think our society should stand for. Some people have their hang-ups that no amount of rhetoric will overcome.

Which is why I plan to look at the voter breakdown from the Feb. 22 elections (and the April 5 run-offs, if they become necessary) to see how people have actually voted.

AS MUCH AS I want to believe the theme that we’re not as hung up on race in electoral politics as we were back in 1983 (I was a high school senior back when Washington got elected mayor, and can still remember the very real, and intense, resentment felt toward the idea that African-American people could comprise a voter bloc large enough to win an election), I’ll believe it when I see it with actual voter turnouts – not the results of a poll commissioned a month before the election!

For the record, 75 percent of people questioned for the poll commissioned by the Tribune said that a candidate’s race will have “little or no influence” on their vote. Another 70 percent said they do not think a mayoral candidate would show favoritism toward people of their racial or ethnic background.



WATKINS: Worthy of more attention?

That sounds nice. But all it may really mean is that racial and ethnic bias in the 21^st Century is more subtle than back in the Days of Reagan. We won’t hear any stupid jokes about Moseley-Braun resembling “Weezie Jefferson” or many attempts to make us think Rahm Emanuel was once in the Israeli army – and therefore not a “real American.”

Part of the reason I am skeptical is that I acknowledge that our city is still significantly divided when it comes to race – with the downtown area often being the only place where one can find anything resembling co-existence on a regular basis.

WE ALL GO to work together during the day, 9-5, Monday through Friday. Afterward, we go back to our home neighborhoods, which may well be shifting in terms of ethnic and racial breakdowns in recent years, but still remain heavily separated.

WALLS: The perennial dreamer



That same Tribune-commissioned poll said that 57 percent of white people surveyed thought their neighborhoods were safer than the rest of the city, compared to only 42 percent of Latinos who thought that or 26 percent of African-American people – who by the way also had 70 percent say the neighborhoods they live in are NOT very diverse.

Which means that even in the new century, we have certain people living in certain sections, and certain non-Anglo individuals living in places where they’re not all that exposed to other people. It’s like they’re living in an alternate Chicago – one that other people would prefer not to have to think much about.

That is why I think some voters will have that gut feeling come Election Day, no matter what they say now or what they know on an intellectual level is the “proper” thing to do.

WE’RE NOT GOING to get the ugly bluntness of the past. But anybody who thinks we have put this factor behind us for good is being delusional.

Then again, they’re probably the same kind of people who can’t comprehend how the Chicago Cubs have gone so many years without a championship.

  -30-