Quote:
and even though he wasn't invited, i'll add my take on Walls. "Doc" Walls: Always manages to get the 12,500 signatures needed to get on the ballot, but never manages to expand his support beyond that, no matter how many times he tries. |
actually, looking deeper into Walls' campaign record, it's even sadder than i thought. this is his 3rd run for mayor.
2007: 12,500 ballot signatures - 40,368 actual votes (8.8% of the total vote) 2011: 12,500 ballot signatures - 5,291 actual votes (0.9% of the total vote) 2015: 12,500 ballot signatures - ? actual votes in 2011 he got 12,500 people interested enough in him to sign his ballot petition, but couldn't even convert half of those people into actual votes. yikes. |
Quote:
how can someone this unprofessional believe he has a snowball's chance in hell of being the mayor of chicago? i'd chalk it up to a publicity stunt, but he's apparently dumped 2 million dollars of his own money into his campaign coffers. that's a pretty damn expensive stunt. surely there's a cheaper way to buy publicity, no? |
^ Caught both of the televised debates last night. Yeah, this one does not appear headed to a run-off.
I rewound Wilson's closing remarks for the ABC7 one a few times. That, I've never seen before. Perhaps it's happened previously somewhere in rural Alabama, but it sure was new to me. |
^ Damn, I missed that. Can you post it here? I need a good chuckle
|
Looks like both Crains and the Tribune endorsed Emanuel today.
......as if that were a hard decision. Either, a) lose all credibility, or b) endorse the only person who seems capable of doing the job |
Fioretti's solution to everything appears to be raising taxes.
|
here's a good article from the reader. click the link, its worth the read.
Quote:
|
^ You know what - when the question was asked in one of the debates "why is Chicago still so racially segregated"? I immediately said that is a fantastic question. A lot of the questions posed were boiler plate blah blah blah, a few of them were good - but that one, that one was just great....
|
Quote:
Let's just say that based on your old signature alone, I think you would indeed get a kick out of it! ;) |
More from that article.
“Some people say that I talk with a slur. And I do. And that I only have a seventh-grade education. And I do,” Wilson said. “I had one person come up to me and said ‘Well you’re getting in this race, you should get somebody to teach you a little bit about how to pronounce the words.’ And I told them ‘Don’t you know, if I wanted to speak OK, I have enough money to pay for 20 teachers around me.’” |
Let me fix that article:
Quote:
|
Random thought:
I was just hearing today on the radio that apparently Rahm and Rauner talk daily now. They have always been friends, but now they are plotting together to fix all of our woes. That's what I like to see! Rahm might be key to getting some minimal level of cooperation out of the Democrats in the House and Senate for Rauner on important issues. Rauner's election is, in my opinion, a major coup for Chicago in state politics. Rahm is his staunchest Democratic ally and, as I mention above, therefore key to getting some minimal level of cooperation out of state Democrats in the Senate and House. The Democrats are already very pro-Chicago, but now the Republicans must cooperate with them if they want their Republican governor to get anything done. Rahm being in his ear constantly means that the downstate Republicans (who Rauner is now the ring leader of) will have pro-Chicago policies shoved down their throats because that is likely what Rahm will demand in return from the governor in exchange for Democratic cooperation in the house and senate. Honestly, Rahm Emmanuel is a majorly brilliant politician and Rauner is essentially his ally. I am not saying I know this for a fact, but it's pretty clear to me that Rahm was a huge contributor to getting Rauner elected and it was an immensely shrewd political move. Who cares about party lines when you have as much in common as Rauner and Emmanuel? Now we have a "Chicago" governor and "Chicago" controlled house and senate. Notice how Rauner has been killing off the peripheral and downstate pork projects left and right? That's not a coincidence especially when considering the state has committed to various projects within city limits as of late... |
Quote:
Rahm Emanuel 41.7% Jesus Garcia 16.6% Willie Wilson 9.7% Bob Fioretti 6.7% William Walls 1.7% Undecided 23.5% I think many of you are underestimating the chances of a runoff. I believe a strong majority of those undecideds are anti-Rahm voters who are undecided about which of the other candidates to vote for. I live near Midway and people out here don't really like Rahm Emanuel at all, even machine people who were rock solid behind Daley 8+ years ago don't have the same loyalty to Rahm, not even close. Most rank and file neighborhood people are talking about their Aldermanic races (like where I am in the 23rd) and not the Mayor's race but there is still a lot of anybody but Rahm sentiment out there. Sure some of the undecideds will go Rahm's way and he will end up with 45%+ of the vote but he will fall short of the 55% he got last time which doesn't give him much margin for error to get 50%+1. The mere fact that Rahm is in danger of a runoff in spite of the challengers having trouble with raising money, ground game and even message says something. If there was a well funded challenger with a strong message a run-off would be a shoe in. As it stands I give the chances of a runoff as being 50/50 and if there is a runoff Rahm has a 50/50 chance of winning that. If Rahm avoids a runoff it will be by a squeaker of barely 50%+1, I actually wonder if there may even be some kind of a recount to see if there will be a runoff, I think it will be that close. Personally I think a runoff would be exciting for the city, at the very least keep the discussion going about the future of the city, even if the challenger fails and Rahm wins in the end so be it. |
I disagree that Rahm would have a 50/50 chance of winning a runoff. Not sure where you are getting that.
Also, your "most recent poll" is quite outdated, and is at least older than the last debate, if not the one before it. Your poll is from January 31, which means that data it uses is probably a few days older than that. |
Quote:
We are admittedly only a few weeks into Rauner's tenure, but what more can the state do for Chicago than what we already received under Quinn and Blago? Rahm pushed many signature projects forward under Quinn's capital program. I don't see a huge upgrade in funding levels coming from the state anytime soon though, just a continuation of the existing. Certainly no game-changers in terms of transit funding, schools funding, etc. |
Quote:
When I said Rahm would have a 50/50 chance of winning a runoff I meant that his campaign money could still overcome a challenger like Chuy Garcia, although the anti-Rahm vote would be motivated behind that one challenger and voter turnout might increase. Do you think the chance of him winning a runoff would be more or less than 50%? |
Quote:
Also, what makes you think Rahm would have any chance of losing a runoff? Chuy is going to get less than half as many votes as Rahm, it would take an absolute miracle for him to more than double his vote count. Rahm is going to dump money on his competitors in the next couple of weeks and push his numbers over. If you split the undecideds along the same lines as the results, Rahm beats the runoff by about 1%. That's also assuming that Rahm doesn't push that ratio up at all with his mountain of cash. |
Quote:
Looks like the debates did make a difference. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.