Down to 21; how few candidates will remain by the time it is all over

The “it” is the process by which we put together the ballot of candidates who we’ll get to choose from come Feb. 26 for who gets to succeed Rahm Emanuel as mayor of the city of Chicago.

Whose face will fill the blank come May inauguration?

Much attention was paid the past week to the candidates who actually came forth with nominating petitions seeking a spot on the mayoral ballot.

THERE ONCE WAS a time when some 40 or so people were talking about running for mayor. The Monday deadline for filing nominating petitions came and went with 21 people actually taking the step forward.

Yet in all honesty, I’ll be shocked if more than a half-dozen of them actually make it all the way to Election Day.

There are bound to be candidates who come to the realization before then that their mayoral aspirations are pure fantasy. Then there also will be those who will wind up feeling crushed – as though the “gods” of politics are conspiring against them to keep us from casting a vote for them.

I don’t doubt that every single one of the 21 who filed nominating petitions is convinced that they’re the only logical choice for mayor, and that everybody else would be doing themselves and the public at-large a whole lot of good if they’d only drop out.

MENDOZA: Could she fall short of backers?

THE PART OF the political process we’re now entering is the “challenges.” As in having their supporters file objections to their opponents – contending they didn’t meet the bare minimum requirement of 12,500 valid signatures of support for their candidacy from Chicago residents who happen to be registered to vote.

The fear of getting knocked off is what causes candidates to go overboard and come up with so many more signatures than necessary. Because invariably, somebody is going to get a signature from a suburban resident who just happened to be in the city at the time a campaign worker got their autograph.

Either that, or someone is going to think it incredibly funny to sign themselves as “Mickey Mouse” or “Donald Trump” or some other nonsense name. Which taints the nominating petition as a whole!

ENYIA: Kicked off ballot just for kicks?

Candidates now are looking for ways to kick their opponents off the ballot so as to boost their own chances of achieving political victory and being the one who takes the oath of office for mayor come May.

I WON’T BE surprised if candidate Amara Enyia winds up finding herself spending significant amounts of time fighting off a challenge. She’s the candidate who has gotten attention and money from rap music entertainers, and who claims she has more than 62,000 signatures of support.

Which actually is just more than the 60,000 or so that Toni Preckwinkle gathered for her mayoral bid.

I don’t doubt that the political geeks who specialize in this type of duty would love the chance to show that Enyia’s signatures are so tainted that she deserves to be booted from the ballot.

Even if she does remain through to Election Day, she could wind up spending her time with attorneys her campaign really can’t afford trying to justify her political existence. Which is actually a common tactic for dealing with fringe candidates who might have something serious to say. Neutralize them into oblivion!!!

I’M GOING TO be interesting in seeing how the candidacy of Susana Mendoza turns out. Because she started gathering mayoral petition signatures so late (she had to spend time getting re-elected as Illinois comptroller first), she only submitted some 25,000.

How many petitions do you figure he signed?

Could the same political geeks who pick apart Enyia wind up knocking off enough of Mendoza’s supporters to make her ineligible to run for mayor? Thereby reducing the number of legitimate mayoral candidates on the ballot.

Because the reality is the “law” with regards to ballot access is vague as to what exactly an invalid signature is. Basically, it is whatever the challenger says it is, and it becomes up to the would-be candidate to prove they didn’t do something wrong.

Definitely a process intended to weed out the no-names and bring us down to a manageable number of candidates from whom to vote – even if the end result is that we wind up with the same old names on the ballot every single election cycle.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: For now, the ballot (in alphabetical order) includes Catherine Brown D’Tycoon, Dorothy Brown, Gery Chico, William Daley, Amara Enyia, Bob Fioretti, LaShawn Ford, Ja’Mal Green, Conrien Hykes Clark, Jerry Joyce, John Kozlar, Lori Lightfoot, Sandra Mallory, Richard Mayers, Garry McCarthy, Susana Mendoza, Toni Preckwinkle, Neal Sales-Griffin, Paul Vallas, Roger Washington and Willie Wilson.

EXTRA: Oops! I almost skipped casting my vote for Toni Preckwinkle

I went to an Early Voting Center on Monday to cast my ballot for the upcoming March 20 primaries and I almost made a gaffe.

When I thought I had completed my ballot, I was informed that I managed to skip over one post – I somehow had left the position of Cook County Board president blank!

I WENT BACK and filled in the blank, making it for the record that I support the re-election of Toni Preckwinkle to a third term in the position. Even though her support of the pop tax last year was supposedly going to be the issue of outrage that would cause Chicago and the inner suburbs to revolt against her.

Remember all that?!?

People were so worked up over the sweetened beverage tax that they were making significantly-inconvenient trips to Lake County (either the Illinois or Indiana versions) to buy their cases of pop and avoid paying the penny per ounce tax rate.

Perhaps it’s because the gubernatorial primaries of both major political parties have caused enough scandal and outrage that people are focusing their attention on those issues.

MAYBE THE OUTRAGE of the electorate is more focused these days on the re-election chances of Cook County Assessor Joe Berrios and trying to dump the political insider in favor of a governmental amateur. Or maybe it’s just because Preckwinkle’s opponent, former Chicago alderman Robert Fioretti, is one step above a fringe candidate like gubernatorial dreamer Robert Marshall.

But when was the last time you heard anyone rant or rage about the pop tax; except for maybe the political crackpot-types who are determined to complain about something no matter what happens.

Is our political attention-span that limited? Most likely!

  -30-

It’s about time – ’18 election cycle’s “put up-or-shut up” moment arrives

Friday was the day retail fanatics felt compelled to queue up outside of their favorite stores in search of particularly-good sales for holiday shopping.

Never-was gubernatorial candidate Ameya Pawar will have counterparts following this week's nominating petition filing period.

Monday will see similar lines of political geeks – candidates in some cases, their operatives in others. Although those lines will be at Illinois State Board of Elections offices, as it’s finally time for people wanting to run for political office to file the nominating petitions to gain themselves spots on the March 20 primary ballots.

FOR ALL THOSE people who have been going about throwing out hints that they want to be candidates for electoral office, they’re going to have to show the required support levels indicating they’re deserving of a ballot slot.

Between 8 a.m. Monday and 5 p.m. Dec. 4 (a.k.a., next Monday), the candidates will file their petitions showing signatures of support from people indicating they’d actually vote for this person.

Now I know some people think this is unfair – they think it ought to be easier to actually get on the ballot. Let everybody on the ballot (they’d say); let the voters decide on Election Day.

Yet I think there is too much clutter in these early stages, and candidates for office ought to be capable of defending their ballot existence by showing some support.

JUST THINK THAT there are about eight people saying they want to be the Democrat running next year for Illinois governor and for state attorney general.

DAIBER: Will he continue to exist?

Most of us can’t even come close to naming all of them, and the only people who truly want all of them hanging around are the ones interested in causing political confusion.

As in the only way they can win is if enough people cast votes for them without knowing who they’re supporting. Which may sound ludicrous, but does anyone seriously think Mark Fairchild or Janice Hart would have won Democratic primaries back in 1986 based on their merits?

Yes, those are the two followers of Lyndon LaRouche who managed to win that year’s gubernatorial and Illinois secretary of state primaries, with voters not realizing their tie to the would-be presidential hopeful that some consider more fascist than Democrat.

MY POINT IS that there have been people trying to talk themselves up as candidates even though there’s really no evidence anybody wants them or would support them.

RAOUL: How many opponents will remain?

As for one-time gubernatorial hopeful Ameya Pawar who came to the realization a few weeks ago he couldn’t win the Democratic primary, he’s alone. Although it’s quite possible that many of the other seven people who think they’re going to be running for the office will fail to meet the standard to get on the ballot.

Their campaigns will end before they even began. Will Bob Daiber (the regional schools superintendent from the part of Illinois down near St. Louis) still be around?

Or will this officially become a less-cluttered J.B. Pritzker/Chris Kennedy political brawl? We’ll see come next week.

JUST AS MOST of us likely can’t even come close to naming all of the Illinois attorney general dreamers on the Democratic side. If a few of them disappear before ever becoming official, it will be more comprehensible to the electorate.

STROGER: Will he have valid signatures?

It will be the same for many other political offices. Personally, I’m curious to see the Democratic primary for Cook County Board president, where Toni Preckwinkle has two challengers talking up long-shot campaigns against her.

But Todd Stroger has only declared himself a candidate as of last week. Can he truly produce nominating petitions with enough valid signatures of support by this week?

Anything’s possible, but I’m sure that Preckwinkle operatives are counting on Stroger doing a sloppy-enough job that they can challenge his petitions and keep him off the ballot that way. Which means the serious politicking can get underway following this coming week, rather than the stupid speculation we've been engaging in up to this point.

  -30-

An ongoing education of the American electorate in ways & means of voting

The 2000 election cycle is the one that taught us about the “hanging chad,” and gave us a crash course in just how subjective the process of counting votes can be, while this is the year we learn of the realities of the Electoral College.
 

BIDEN: Will confirm next month that Trump won

I’m all for anything that gives the public a better comprehension of the processes by which we elect people to public office. Yet it disturbs me that it takes instances of screw-ups for the bulk of us to show any instance in learning the lessons.

I BELIEVE WE’D be better as a society if we put some serious thought into who we choose to hold public office. Yet we don’t. In fact, some of us seriously resent the notion that public office even exists, and that people like me think they ought to be thinking about it.

Seriously, I suspect that most of us remember the term “Electoral College” as something that came up in a high school class taken long ago that they promptly let slip from their memories. I’m sure that upcoming party with a beer keg was more interesting, and the alcoholic consumption probably killed off the brain cells that once contained government details.

So it takes an instance where a presidential candidate takes nearly 2.9 million more votes than her opponent, yet loses under the rules we have in place, to get people to think seriously about the Electoral College – which personally is something I consider to be an obsolete concept.

It was created at a time when the Founding Fathers believed the public (or at least the white, male portion of it) would not know enough to properly pick a president. So they were supposed to pick learned people to represent them, and those people would pick the president.

TRUMP: He and Bush beneficiaries of quirks

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE process has evolved since then into one where the electors are supposed to represent the mood of the people of their state. The electors who gathered in Springfield on Monday were Democratic partisans who made sure Illinois will go into the history books as a sensible place that resisted the rancid rhetoric and twittish Tweets of one Donald J. Trump.

But no one seriously expected any significant numbers of electors to change their stances. I suspect those who were chosen to back Trump’s campaign are taking pride in being able to say they gave us “President Donald J. Trump,” and probably think it was a sense of cosmic justice that their guy “won” despite losing the popular vote!

BUSH: Is he embarrassed by any tie to Trump?

All of this means that come Jan. 6, when Congress holds its joint session to formally affirm the Electoral College count taken Monday, I suspect there will be at least one (probably more) political pundit eager to proclaim the look of depression on Joe Biden’s face (don’t forget, he serves as Senate president) when he has to formally announce that Trump really will be Number 45 in the line of men who served as U.S. president.

Anybody who was paying attention in school would have learned about this lengthy process that leads up to the naming of a new president – although I’m sure there are those for whom this is new.

AND ALSO SOME who are upset that the unofficial vote count from back on Nov. 8 didn’t just make the whole thing official.

CLINTON: How many non-voters overcome Trump?

Just as I’m sure there were people who back in 2000 couldn’t comprehend the need for another vote count to answer questions about the one in Florida that first gave the state’s electors to Al Gore, then to George W. Bush, and left enough questions in the public’s minds that there are people who will forevermore think we don’t know what it was that Florida voters intended to do. Because a ballot's intent isn't always blatantly obvious.

Of course, understanding the process is one thing. Actually getting off one’s duff and casting a ballot is all the more important. Because of the evidence that certain segments of the electorate that might have been disgusted by the concept of “President Trump” were too lazy to bother to vote at all.

As odd as it might sound that Clinton needed more than her 2.86 million lead in votes to actually win this election cycle, that is the reality of our current system. The sooner we all realize that, the better off we will be!

  -30-

I cast votes for a whole slew of judges, but don’t ask me who any of them are!

I went to an early voting center on Wednesday and spent about 15 minutes going through the process of casting a ballot for the 2016 general election cycle.
 

Yes, I did!

The highlight may well have been getting my sticker that informs the public in so many languages that “I Voted!” Gee, aren’t I special?!?

FOR ANYONE WHO has read my commentary, it shouldn’t be any surprise that I couldn’t cast my vote against Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations quickly enough.

Aside from Miss Hillary, I also cast my votes for Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate (Tammy Duckworth), Cook County state’s attorney (Kim Foxx) and Illinois comptroller (Susana Mendoza). I also said "no" on road funds and on merging the recorder of deeds with the clerk's office, but "yes" for the earned sick time measure.

In the case of comptroller, I have noticed that many official endorsements are backing her opponent, Leslie Munger, on the grounds that Mendoza is tied in too tightly to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago; without noting that her opponent is nothing but a lackey for Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Independence is a dirty word, it would seem, when it comes to lower-level political posts.

BUT I HAVE to confess that when going through the process of filling out a ballot this time around, I was caught noticing the level of cluelessness I felt going through all those judges.

 

Would this "judge" have been better?

Some of whom I was asked to make a mark beside their name for retention, while others I was asked to vote “yes” or “no.” There were a couple of cases where I was asked to pick a name.

Yet as I write this, some five hours after I actually cast my ballot, I’m not sure I could name any of the people I voted for to serve as judges within Cook County. That truly is sad. It really is clueless on my part, and borders on political irresponsibility.

Yet I doubt I’m alone in this regard. I suspect that most of us don’t have a clue about judges, and have probably trained ourselves to not think twice about this. After all, how can you be bothered about screwing something up if you don’t give it any thought at all?

 

MENDOZA: She got my vote!

BEING A REPORTER-type person, I did recognize a few names of judges – either because I may have once covered some type of story that occurred in their courtroom, or perhaps because some of these names have popped up on enough ballots throughout the years that they’re somehow stuck in my brain.

Similar to how I can remember ballplayers of the early 1970s when I was a kid – Johnny Jeter is just one of many names that takes up valuable brain space that probably could be better devoted to something more useful in life.

But for the most part, I don’t know the legal qualifications of the people whom I voted for – which is exactly what (I suspect) the legal types like about it. Why get ourselves all worked up worrying about qualifications.

So long as they look authoritative while wearing a black robe, that’s all that matters to some people. Even if we wind up with incidents such as the one in at the sixth district circuit courthouse in suburban Markham where a judge let someone else don her robe and get a feel for the job -- even though the person wasn't a judge at all!

OF COURSE, I suppose I could have followed some of those ridiculous rules that political people concoct; in particular that one about liking the sound of Irish ethnicity names.

 

I know more about .244 hitter than judges

If anything, that so-called rule makes me inclined to vote against Irish names when I cast my ballot, figuring they don’t need my vote to win. Heck, there have been some times when I was sarcastically inclined to automatically vote for every Spanish ethnic name on the ballot as a way of mocking the so-called rule.

Not that such acts are any more responsible. Because in the end, the rule of thumb that ought to apply is, “You get what you vote for.”

And if you’re the type who didn’t put any thought into the ballot aside from wanting to back Donald Trump (or dump all over him), then you deserve whatever form of political abuse your mind concocts from the actions of government in coming years.

  -30-

Early voting a perk or scam? Or just a reason for malcontents to complain?

The early voting centers for Cook County opened this week, which means some people have already managed to cast their vote for Hillary vs. The Donald, and all the other political posts that are up for grabs this election cycle.

Cook County Clerk David Orr was among those who used Early Voting on Monday. Photo provided by county clerk's office

I didn’t get a chance to do so Monday, but likely will find time to do so in the next few days. The reporter-type person in me finds it easier to deal with working on Election Day if I don’t have to take time to wait at a polling place for my turn to cast a ballot.

I’M SURE MANY other people find a similar convenience, which justifies in their minds use of an early voting center. Of course, I’d argue anything that encourages more people to vote is a good thing. As it is, more than 25,000 people used early voting centers in Cook County on the first day they were available – a new record that nearly doubles the old mark set Oct. 22, 2012!

The only people who want to limit the vote are those people who fear that the electorate will toss them out of political office on their fannies, Which is our right as the public to do. It’s certainly more our right than those people who want to make a crusade out of packing a pistol in public – and probably wish they could carry one into the polling place on the off-chance someone makes them feel threatened.

Perhaps being near people who find it within themselves to back Hillary Clinton will terrify all those Trump-types to the point where they feel compelled to let loose.

But the bottom-line is that early voting has become a convenience factor. And while I like the idea in theory of a single day in which the masses of our nation come together to express our political will, it just might not be practical.

I’VE BEEN THINKING quite a bit about this in recent days, ever since I happened to stumble onto an Indianapolis radio station that had a knuckleheaded host complain about the early-voting concept.

He views it as being borderline subversive. He wants it totally done away with.

He thinks anybody who actually votes early is being irresponsible and ought to have their ballot taken away from them.

For he argued with a straight voice (I’d say straight face, but being radio, I couldn’t see it) that people who cast their ballots prior to Election Day are depriving themselves the information they’d get about all the candidates if they waited.

AS IN HE thinks there is something special about the inevitable tidbit of sleaze that gets spewed right before Election Day; in hopes that one candidate can use to scare off voters from casting ballots for their opposition.

Considering that Trump’s daughter-in-law recently went on a television talk show and told of the last-minute surprise that Donald has in store for Hillary (what, she wouldn’t say. We’ll just have to wait and see), I would expect that Trump will come up with some borderline-libelous tidbit about Clinton.

Then again, his whole campaign has been nothing but classless drips and drabs that were meant to take down others – but have only served to show the electorate just how classless and tacky Trump himself is.

Actually, I believe anybody who seriously lets themselves get influenced by the last-minute nonsense is the one who is potentially reckless enough that we ought to think of taking away their ballot!

BESIDES, I CAN’T help but think that most people have privately made up their minds. Anybody who is so indecisive that they don’t know yet between Clinton and Trump is just being wishy-washy.

If anything, I have been ready for the final vote for weeks now. Besides, if we’re really supposed to wait for all the trivial tidbits that can be offered up, perhaps we should postpone Election Day. Give even more time for us to supposedly learn more dirt about the people who managed to get their political parties’ presidential nominations.

But that’s not going to happen. I suspect most people want this whole nonsensical process to end – and will be prepared to stone me for even jokingly hinting that it should last any longer than necessarily.

In short, when I cast my ballot, it will be to ensure I express my say in this electoral process – one that Trump has tried to delegitimize as much as he can perhaps because he knows it’s not rigged; and he fears the outcome of an honest election.

  -30-

All the polls ask us to reassure political pundits they comprehend what goes on

My e-mail boxes have been getting cluttered in recent days with all kinds of quickie surveys, asking me assorted questions trying to gather a sense of where the mood of the electorate stands these days.
 

Antiquated art, but the voter sentiment still stands

With just over a month to Election Day, and actually only one more week for people to make sure they’re registered to vote, the time is running down.

THE MOOD OF certain political people seems to be getting shaky. One poll I keep seeing in my e-mail tells me how Joe Biden is voting for Hillary Clinton for president, along with Barack Obama. But what about me?

As though they think the bulk of us are going to be lazy slugs who will sit on our derrieres all day Nov. 8 and not bother to cast ballots – thereby leading to the worst case scenario in which the only people who vote are those crackpot conservative ideologues who actually think Donald Trump is fit for public office.

I literally get the sense from all these polls that pundits are putting them out to justify their existence – as though they want some sort of evidence that people are actually paying attention to anything they say.

It’s almost as though they’re trying to create a panic mode that scares us into turning out on Election Day (or to an early voting center if you’re so inclined to cast a ballot that way – beginning Oct. 24).

ON TUESDAY ALONE, I received two such questions – one asking me if I voted in 2008 and another wanting to know if I was supportive of the Barack Obama “legacy.” Somebody wants to know if I’m inclined to be P-O’ed enough to want to cast a vote of negativity.

And, if so, how can they swoop in and take actions meant to negate the effects of such a vote.

 

We could all use this wish in this election cycle

For the sake of disclosure, I must admit to ignoring all of these e-mail surveys, although a part of me contemplated taking the Mike Royko route (remember how the late newspaper columnist once suggested people lie to exit poll takers) and responding with false answers.

Just to make some survey compiler’s day by creating results to mess with his mind.

THIS MOST DEFINITELY is not an election cycle of a candidate hinting at “hope and change” for our society and how we can help accomplish something for the public good by expressing our will at the polling place.

This is more an election cycle of “fear and ignorance” (remember “Bull Durham?”) in which we’re probably going to come out as losers regardless of what the election results turn out to be.

It’s more a matter if a certain segment of our society that used to be able to count on concepts such as poll taxes to keep certain people from expressing themselves on Election Day wants to have some sort of assurance that they will remain the dominant presence – even though the demographics would say they’re not.

Now, we’re getting some states with Voter ID measures meant to ensure that election judges will have enough discretion to keep certain kinds of people from voting.

THERE’S EVEN THE fact in Illinois that a court tried to strike down the measure that actually permitted people under certain circumstances to just show up at their polling place and cast a ballot – while registering to vote at the same time. It was just Tuesday that an appeals court overruled that lower court -- although this case could keep bopping back and forth through the court system as someone hopes to get a sympathetic judge to rule in their favor.

The line of logic for its rejection was that certain rural counties didn’t offer the option. Although that is because those counties chose not to do so; mostly because their election officials contend it would be too much of a hassle for them to bother doing.

It is the reason why I made sure in the past week that my own voter registration is in-line, particularly since I moved from the address where I had been registered for the past several election cycles.

I actually tried the on-line option by which I sent new information to the Illinois State Board of Elections, which then theoretically notified the Cook County clerk’s office. We’ll see if it works – if I get ejected from a polling place that day, that means it didn’t.

  -30-

When is paranoia totally justified? Or, Get off yer lazy behind and Vote!!!

My step-mother’s sister, Betty, literally wagged her finger in my face this weekend while telling me it was absolutely crucial that I turn out and cast a ballot come Election Day this year.

 

TRUMP: He wants the presidential perks

She’s one of the people appalled by the existence of Donald Trump and has managed to get herself excited about the prospects of a “President Hillary Clinton” (although she flirted briefly with the idea of Bernie Sanders).

BUT SHE’S CONVINCED the natural apathy that afflicts people is going to cause too many to just sit on their fat behinds come Nov. 8.

Which, if it really happens, would enable the incredibly outspoken faction of our society that wants Trump in the White House (unless he decides the presidential mansion is unbecoming of him and he shifts operations to the Mar-A-Lago Club) to go out of his way to repudiate everything that has ever occurred that they disagree with.

Now I know some people are convinced that there are just too many checks and balances in place to allow Trump to do anywhere near the amount of damage he has pledged to do during his presidential campaigning. That line of logic is being spewed by those who seriously have their hang-ups about Hillary being anywhere near the political position once held by her husband, Bill.

But the paranoia about a Trump presidency persists – even though many (including myself) would argue there’s nothing “extreme” or “irrational” in their fear or “distrust” of “the Donald.” Even Hillary Clinton herself is more than willing to play off of it.

FOR I RECEIVED in my e-mail Sunday night a message from the Clinton campaign itself (and have since received two more similar notes), telling me how Trump’s fundraising is stepping up its work (supposedly $82 million raised during July), which boosts his chances of turning out the vote in parts of the country where the Electoral College favors them.

Trump is, “unqualified and unfit to lead our country – but the unfortunate reality we must confront is that he still might be able to win if he spends enough to convince voters otherwise,” was written on behalf of Hillary.

Of course, that e-mail then got to the real point – which wasn’t so much to remind us of how repulsive Donald Trump is but to tell us how we should donate more money to Clinton.

 

CLINTON: She wants campaign cash to stop him

The e-mail was set up in a way that I could “quick donate” as little as $3, figuring that a lot of petty donations from many people could add up to a significant amount. Of course, if I also feel compelled to be a more significant donor, they’re not about to refuse to accept my money.

NOT THAT IT’S going to influence me, because I generally don’t give money to political campaigns of any persuasion. In part because I’m cheap, but also because I don’t want any of these people thinking they can keep me on a list of individuals whom they come to expect for support. It's that old line of logic about a reporter-type person not wanting to create an impression of favoritism for anybody.

I may feel a twinge of guilt when I don’t make a donation to PBS or NPR (that's just because I'm cheap). But the campaigns are a different animal, and I don’t doubt that an operation as professional as the Clinton camp is capable of finding enough significant donors.

So their attempt to appeal to my sense of guilt and having a conscience isn’t going to get money from me. Besides, this particular e-mail reminded me that Trump has called women “fat pigs,” pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act, erect that nonsensical wall along the U.S./Mexico border and boost the deportation totals from this country.

Yet nowhere did she tell us any reason why we should think she's any better.

I KNOW THE strategy of political operatives is to go nasty on the opposition until just before Election Day, at which time you bring everyone home, so to speak, by telling us how nice the candidate is.

I also don’t doubt that Trump will spend the next couple of months committing countless acts of borderline libel and slander on the Clinton reputation – and threaten to sue anyone who calls him out on his trash talk.

 

Will enough people get their sticker?

This is the time of the campaign season we’re in now, with negativity that’s only going to get worse and worse after Labor Day when political activity traditionally reaches its peak prior to Election Day.

Yet for me, the rhetoric from Clinton and Trump is something I can bear with. It may well be my “Aunt Betty” with her incessant appeals to vote (that probably won’t let up until she sees me wearing an “I voted” sticker on Nov. 8) that will be hardest to resist.

  -30-

Turnout will determine just who prevails on Tuesday’s Election Day

By the time Tuesday night is complete, we ought to know who wins all these elections that have tried to dominate our attention span in recent weeks.



Would this Elvgren cartoon need Den socialist symbol ...

Heck, in some cases, we’ll actually know who will get to serve in public office for the next four years – I don’t know of anyone who seriously thinks the Republican nominee for Cook County state’s attorney has a chance of prevailing in November.

BUT ANYBODY WHO says now they know who the Democratic nominee for that post will be is lying – and any predictions you hear now that turn out to be correct come Wednesday will, in reality, be nothing more than lucky guesses.



... added for an update?

It’s Election Day in Illinois, and all across our grand state we will get the chance to express our preferences for U.S. president, a U.S. Senate seat and other assorted posts within Congress and the General Assembly.

Along with all those judges and other court-related positions at the county level.

The key question – the one that I’m focusing my attention on come Tuesday, is turnout. How many people will actually feel compelled to show up at the polling places to cast a ballot?

Let's hope voter turnout is larger than that!

HOW MANY PEOPLE will think it important enough to express their say?

Or the real question may turn out to be; how many people will be so pathetically lazy that they won’t bother to express themselves? In which case, I’d argue they deserve whatever they get in terms of actually manages to win on this primary election cycle.

Aren't we glad this isn't a scare sight anymore?

I found it interesting to see the statements that came from the Cook County clerk’s office that said the first day of early voting in Illinois (which was on Feb. 29) produced a record-high number of votes cast (including my own at the county courthouse in Bridgeview).

We also got statements about how the total for the early voting time period was close to approaching a record, and how there were a particularly-high number of people actually registered to vote.

ALL OF WHICH might mean people care about this particular election cycle enough to vote. Or maybe they don’t?

Because political observers have noted that the concept of using early voting centers has become so commonplace that it really has no direct tie to the overall voter turnout.

Early voting is for the people who are so hard-core that they made up their minds several months ago. As for those who aren’t that set in their ways, they wait until Tuesday.

Time for all of Illinois to do its civic duty

Or perhaps they don’t bother to show up at all, if they can’t ever make up their minds.

WHICH IF YOU think about it is kind of scary; our political structure for the next four years is going to be decided by the kind of people who are indecisive and who will cast their vote if it fits within their convenience cycle.

Kind of like my teenage niece, who while I was writing this particular commentary responded to her grandfather’s request for a plastic bag by flinging it at his feet, then acting as though she had been massively inconvenienced by the whole request.

Are we supposed to feel equally grateful to those who bother to vote? Should we think they did us a favor by voting? There are times I wonder if the ideologue Republican types aren’t completely off their rocker when they say we make it too easy for people to register and cast a ballot.

After all, it is one of the ultimate perks our structure of government gives us – we are given a say in deciding who gets to run our government. Instead of what some places have; a structure in which a Donald Trump wouldn’t even dream of wanting to be president because all he’d have to do is throw his money at the public officials to get them to do his bidding!

  -30-

Are we being teased by all these early ballots being cast in upcoming election?

With the exception of Monday’s snowfall, the weather this week has been fairly mild – which could make it less unpleasant for people to actually go out and cast ballots for the upcoming municipal elections.

That may account for the fact that the early voting centers open this week in Chicago have seen significant numbers of people show up.

THE CHICAGO BOARD of Elections indicated that through Thursday, there had been 44,291 people who had showed up to vote – more than the 21,557 people who cast ballots in the first four days of early voting prior to the Feb. 24 municipal elections.

Now I know some are going to point out that the early voting for that February election wound up being higher than any other early voting for city government posts – so it must be a sign that there is intense interest in the upcoming mayoral election.

Which I’d like to believe, but I’m not sure I do.

The fact I remember is that most of the early voting for those elections came in the final days of the two-week period in which people could cast ballots prior to Election Day. So being ahead of the pace for now isn’t that difficult.

THERE ALSO IS the fact that in the November 2014 elections for state and county government posts, there were a high number of early voters who participated.

Yet let’s point out that the overall percentage of people who voted for governor and the other posts last year wasn’t all that high. And the total number of people who bothered to cast ballots for mayor back in February stunk – it came within a few hundredths of a percent of being the lowest mayoral voter turnout ever.

What we’re seeing are the hard-core types who – for whatever reason – are capable of taking a day off during the week, and include a trip to the polling place amongst their daily errands.

These are the people who have that Rahm “hatred” that is getting them all worked up so they feel the fire in their bellies to partake in this political crusade – which has the potential to disappoint them come April 8 when they realize that perhaps the bulk of Chicago doesn’t care.

NEARLY TWO-THIRDS OF registered voters didn’t bother to vote back in February. It may turn out that the overall percentage of voters who bother to vote come 10 days from now won’t be any higher.

Which is a shame, since I really think people ought to express themselves politically – it is their government and they have every right to let it be known what they want, and expect.

It is this kind of apathy that ultimately makes political people think they can do what it is they want, without having to pay much regard to “We, the People” (remember that blasted U.S. constitution?), for whom the political people supposedly work for.

It also is the reason why I bothered to take the time Friday to get my “I voted!” sticker, which means I cast my actual ballot.

IN MY PARTICULAR part of the Chicago area, the elections aren’t that thrilling. Most of the votes I cast were for unopposed candidates. There were a couple of picks, but I was able to work my way through the whole ballot in a matter of a few minutes!

In fact, it took more time for the election judge to find my name in the voter rolls and program the card so I could use a touch-screen to cast my ballot than it did to actually vote.

Although the sun was shining and it wasn’t extremely freezing outside. Because I went in mid-day, there was no line. I was able to walk right up, cast my vote, then go back home within minutes.

Thereby reclaiming my Constitutionally-given right to complain about my elected officials and their actions; which are, after all, known to many political operatives as, “the People’s business.”

  -30-

No Romney for president in ’16; may we dump all the other recycled dreams?

Call me relieved to learn Friday that Mitt Romney has no intention of actually running for the Republican nomination for president in the 2016 election cycle.

Now if we could only get all the other past presidential candidates to give up their fantasies of working in the Oval Office someday and focus attention on trying to find someone new and forward thinking, then perhaps there’s a chance that Election ’16 won’t turn out to be a complete dud.

THAT ACTUALLY IS the sense I’m picking up at this admittedly early juncture about the people who want to succeed Barack Obama when he leaves the White House in early 2017.

A batch of rejects whom we didn’t think much of before, but who seem to have nothing better to do with themselves than make another bid for the highest office.

Apparently, it didn’t register with them when we, the people who make up the electorate, told them “No!!!!!” before.

They seem to think that if we see them once again, we’ll somehow think they’re more qualified than when they ran before.

WHEN REALLY, THESE repeat candidates remind me of the debate that often takes place when reviewing former professional ballplayers year after year after year for possible inclusion in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The player’s statistics don’t somehow magically improve in his athletic retirement. He’s no more qualified for Hall of Fame admission 20 years after he retires than he was when he was first eligible five years after retiring.

So when I look at polls with names such as “Huckabee,” “Paul,” “Perry” and “Santorum” on the Republican side, I think the same thing I felt for the possibility of a Romney campaign.

“You lost!” and “Get on with your life.” There’s nothing new about any of you that the public at-large didn’t previously dismiss. Your perennial presidential aspirations have become about as pathetic as the fifteen years that one-time Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins pitcher Jack Morris kept cropping up on the Hall of Fame ballot – only to fall short every single time!

I DON’T THINK much higher of the possible campaigns of the governors of New Jersey, Louisiana and Wisconsin – all of whom have hinted they might prefer D.C. to their respective Statehouse scenes.

But at least they’d be fresh faces of people to consider for the Republican nomination for president. So I really don’t want to hear anything about one-time Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin either!

Before any of you try to dismiss this as the rant of someone who just isn’t interested in Republicans, I have to admit to feeling something similar for the possibility of Hillary R. Clinton as president.

For what it’s worth, she had her serious bid for the White House in 2008, and she fell short. She came oh so close, but failed to win the Democratic nomination. Do we really need a repeat?

ALTHOUGH I WONDER if from the perspective of developing a political legacy, she achieved more in a career that saw her serve as a senator from New York and as secretary of state than she would have had if she had become president.

After all, she wound up gaining some respect for her performance in those roles, whereas if she had become president she merely would have become the target for all the ideological buffoons who hated her husband as president and would have been determined to “take her down” too.

Having to speculate about whether Hillary will run again for president is merely a reminder that the Democratic Party doesn’t seem to have anyone else with enough ambition to want the top post in federal government.

Particularly since the one candidate whom some Dems are eager to see challenge Hillary in a primary (Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.) has already hinted she’s probably not interested in doing so.

  -30-