So, does Rahm's victory in Chicago tell us anything?

[MineralMan]

He won fairly handily and in all wards, apparently, regardless of their makeup. Clearly, he was challenged by his opponent, who people here on DU are saying is more progressive and more to their liking. But the challenger lost.

Was he not progressive enough to attract voters in numbers large enough to win? Did people overestimate Chuy's appeal and ability to bring out the vote? Are people more comfortable with incumbents, overall? Do a majority of voters in Chicago prefer someone who is a moderate Democrat? I don't know what the turnout was for this election, but if it was low, was that a factor in Rahm's win? If there is any actual evidence of election fraud, was that widespread enough to affect every ward in the city?

Finally, does this election tell us anything about the 2016 presidential election? All of these questions are worth discussing, I think.

I don't live in Chicago, so my opinion about candidates there is irrelevant, but it seems worthwhile to look closely at this election and see what it says to us about upcoming elections in 2016. Smart political people look at things like this to help them make decisions. I'll be especially interested in hearing from people in Chicago who were following this closely, since it affects them more than anyone else.

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. Money talks and wins elections now

and he had a ten times money advantage but still it was 45 to 55...... he got the money.from republicans and corporations.

money buys elections now.................
vote Hillary she's are only hope now..............LOL

[MineralMan]

5. Money has always been important in elections.

I don't know where Rahm's money came from, actually. I wasn't really following this campaign. It's irrelevant to me.

We have a bunch of elections in 2016, and money will play a role in them, too. That's a given, since there's no possibility of changing how campaigns are financed before then. So, I'm not sure the money thing is really relevant, either. I'm trying to figure out whether Rahm's win means anything as we move toward 2016.

The elections are coming. So, how do we win? Are we going to back candidates who will almost certainly lose? I'm not sure I see any possible benefit from that. Clearly, from the Chicago results, we can't count on voters turning out to help progressives actually win elections. Apparently that idea is proving to be incorrect, if this election is any evidence.

Once again, we're trying to figure out a way to get the best possible result, given the current conditions. That certainly makes sense to me. Chuy lost. So, what does that tell us about how people actually vote?

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. That's why Hillary

went to the banksters for her multi money speaking tours.

which you see as no problem......... because that's they way it is.

As was slavery in the south.

[Thinkingabout]

14. Why does other politicians go to the same sources and you only mentioned Hillary?

you apparently only see it as a problem when you want to bring up Hillary, why not the others?

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Why don't you

see what a sellout is

[Thinkingabout]

24. Okay

Sellout: One who betrays a cause for personal advancement.

Are you promoting yourself?

[Ichingcarpenter]

44. Yes .......... I'm a sellout.....for personal advancement........LOL

You really are like a river of intellect on the shallow end.

[Thinkingabout]

46. Start the advancement of yourself, maybe running for office in the next election, show what

you are about and what you want to do.

[Ichingcarpenter]

49. My brother was the county judge of Travis county for three terms

I was a labor organizer in Texas, Florida and Hawaii plus Acorn VP in Austin.

Think about it............. what the fuck have you done?

[leftofcool]

86. Quite frankly, many of us do a lot for our party and country and our communities..........

We just don't feel the need to brag about it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

102. like you have DONE NOTHING

IN YOUR LIFE.

[Long Drive]

111. Poster was asked what has he done

And he replied. You need to read the thread. Quite frankly.

[MineralMan]

20. You don't know how I see things.

You claim that I don't see money as a problem. You're wrong. I do, however, see it as a reality we have to deal with. Changes in campaign financing are a long way off, and to get them, we have to win. I can't affect how campaigns are financed, so I have to deal with things as they are, whether I like them or not. I don't have to accept them or support them, but they are a reality.

I do not have time to speculate on what might be or what could be someday. There's an election coming up. There's one this year, but it's a local election in Minnesota, and is all about mayors and council members and school boards. Not all that much money is spent in those elections, but they make a huge difference to people.

Turnout will be very low, as it is in all odd-year elections. It's a time when progressives can make a big difference, if they will turn out and vote. And yet, they don't. In fact, the only faces I see at the polling place are those who vote in absolutely every election. They will always show up.

[Thinkingabout]

27. With over 50% not voting, this same group who cries they do not have a candidate they are

motivated by then get their candidate out and on the ballots, over 50% will get their candidate elected. This is a tired talking point, one which seems to justify doing nothing but complaining later.

[MineralMan]

37. Yup. We have elections. Someone wins.

Those who turn out get to decide who wins. We always seem to forget that, but we never stop complaining about it. Only the voters get to decide. Everyone else is irrelevant. That is the fundamental fact about elections in the United States. Those who show up and vote make the choice. Those who don't vote have no say in the matter at all.

It's amazing that so many can't see that.

[F4lconF16]

79. You forget that if they don't vote

You get screwed as well. You can blame them all you want, but you need their votes.

[MineralMan]

83. Who are they?

Those who don't vote are not worth discussing. Only people who vote matter in an election. I don't blame the non-voters for anything. That was their choice. They didn't register their opinion in the election. Non-voting is just non-voting.

The trick is to get people out to vote. That's what every candidate is trying to do. If you get more of your voters out, you win. If not, you lose. That's what I'm about in elections. The most effective use of my time is to work to get voters out to vote. I have no other platform, really, so I canvass in my own precinct. I talk to people and try to convince them to go to the polls and vote for the people I'm in favor of. If a candidate has enough people doing that, he or she can win, regardless of other factors like money and advertising.

It's been done, and is being done in almost every election. It works best for local offices, up to the congressional level, but it does work.

Presidential elections are a whole other thing. Local grassroots efforts don't do much good, really. The only way they benefit a presidential election is to increase the number of voters who go to the polls. It's a good thing, but it's not enough.

[JI7]

98. If it was just money republicans would have california

[Ichingcarpenter]

103. tHATS A BULLSHIT STANCE

GIVE ME THE DATA TO PROVE THAT.

[octoberlib]

2. Yes. Most Americans don't care enough to get off their asses and go vote.

40% turnout is still less than half.

[bullwinkle428]

3. Charles Pierce had an interesting piece on one particular influence on the race he

found rather unseemly, as it were:

"Now that the Supreme Court has legitimized influence-peddling and privatized political corruption, it's more important than ever to watch politicians campaign and try to puzzle out what they owe and to whom they owe it before voting for them. In Chicago, it looks like Rahm Emanuel, the least excusable Democratic politician of his time, is going to get re-elected mayor, and that he's going to do so with the help of big-time Republican donors, including a guy who simultaneously is trying to make Scott Walker the president of the United States.

Asked Monday to address the large sums he's raised, including some from Griffin, Emanuel sought to convey that his campaign also is supported by everyday Chicagoans. "None of these people look like Ken Griffin to me. They look like people who are building a Chicago," Emanuel said of the hospitality workers he had just finished visiting. "These are the people that make sure Chicago wins." Emanuel then tried to offset his support from wealthy business owners and Wall Street investment executives with the backing he's received from several unions. "While you may want to say Ken Griffin or other people, then you have to also include all the members of (the hospitality workers union), all the members of the carpenters union, all the members of the electrician workers, all the Teamsters, all the laborers, all the bricklayers, all the painters and the thousands of people who are building a new Chicago," Emanuel said. "They are not from the 1 percent, but I'll tell you who they are. They're Chicago's future."

The point is not all the other people who have given you money. The point is that no Democrat ever should take half-a-million bucks from somebody like Ken Griffin under any circumstances. Anything that Griffin wants in return is guaranteed to be counter to any policy a Democratic politician ought to support.

While he has rarely commented on his political donations, in 2012 Mr. Griffin said he considered himself a "Reagan Republican" and that he thought the rich have "insufficient influence" on the political process.

That should have been enough to read Griffin out of Democratic politics forever. But it gets worse. For example, Griffin thinks Emanuel went soft on knuckling the teachers in the Chicago public schools."

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34203/rahm-emanuel-and-his-friends/

[kysrsoze]

10. Completely agree with you.

[kysrsoze]

4. I don't think Emanuel won handily.

The final outcome was 56% to 44%. Emanuel outspent Garcia 6 to 1, with $30M in campaign spending, including a lot of slimy attack ads. Voter turnout was low at 28%. I talk to many, many people and read a lot of local message boards, and Emanuel is not well-liked. He is viewed as an autocratic, cronyist 1-percenter who doesn't care about anyone but his own self-aggrandizement. I think he's a terrible human being, with zero empathy - a perfect Third Way Democrat who pals around with Republicans, and have zero respect for him.

However, he does actually have an economic plan (some of which I agree with and some of which is made up of smoke and mirrors). Let's just say it's not going to get much better with him in office, but it could get worse under Garcia.

Garcia lost this election b/c he wasn't a strong candidate. He is well-spoken and says a lot of things I like. But when it came to telling everyone what he was going to do about the city's financial problems and improve things for its citizens (schooling, paying for more police, etc.), he had zero specifics. Garcia only ran after Karen Lewis bowed out due to a cancer diagnosis.

Much as I despise Emanuel, I couldn't in good conscious vote for Garcia, so I chose to sit this one out and not vote, for the first time since I was 18 years old. There simply was no good candidate to vote for, and that is really sad - neither one would be good for this city. Like Geddy Lee sings... "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

[FBaggins]

7. Twelve points is "handily"

Like him or not.

[kysrsoze]

9. If you say so. He couldn't muster 50% in the general.

People wanted better, and unfortunately all they got was Garcia. Had a real candidate run, Emanuel would have lost.

What's your point anyway, other than talking numbers? Do you live in Chicago.

[FBaggins]

15. What's my point?

I thought it was pretty clear. The OP is about him winning the runnoff handily You said that he didn't... but so far you've only offered evidence for why you don't like him... why a better candidate could have beaten him... and how he didn't win the general election handily.

All of that is just avoiding the question asked in the OP. Can we learn anything from the fact that he walked away with an easy win in the runoff?

My answer is already here. I haven't followed the race, but I suspect that the answer is "no".

[Bluenorthwest]

22. I sort of agree that a 12 point victory in a race with 28% turnout is less than 'handily won' at

least by my local Standards. 18 or 20 points with turnout over 65% is a handily won election. In my view, when turnout is that low even the winner should be bathed in chagrin. The actual victor was apathy. The winner was 'who fucking cares'.

[kysrsoze]

55. So your point is there's nothing to learn here. In other words, there is no point.

You pointing out your agreement that Rahman "won handily" is all we need to know. And regardless of my opinion on Emanuel ( which I should be allowed to voice, given I live here), I'll say one more time; Rahm is not well liked, money was a factor and a subpar candidate was run against him.

The OP stated his/her opinion this election was won handily, but given that supposition, the one thing he/she was asking was whether there was anything to learn from the outcome. Of course you, who admittedly didn't even follow the race, agree that Rahm won handily, so there is nothing to discuss or learn from this. The amount of discussion in this thread belies your notion.

[foo_bar]

31. for a mayor of Chicago?

According to Wiki's stats, it was the slimmest margin since Harold Washington '83. I mean, yeah, it wasn't a photo finish like Dinkins-Giuliani, but I don't know how far you'd have to go back to find an incumbent mayor of Chicago who won with a smaller spread. (I guess I could look it up.)

[FBaggins]

42. When both are of the same party? Yes

It was the largest such victory in the history of Chicago.

See? Two can play that game.

[jeff47]

61. That's because it's the first time that ever happened.

Which kinda dismantles your claims about it being a "clear victory". This was the first Chicago mayor runoff. Ever.

[FBaggins]

66. That was the point

The post I replied to tried to take something that hadn't happened before and compared it normal elections where a Democrat runs against a Republican in a heavily blue city. So I played the same game.

Which kinda dismantles your claims about it being a "clear victory".

Not at all. For all elections... a 12 point victory meets any reasonable definition of "clear". It doesn't mean that he has a mandate... or that people like him... but it does mean that he "won handily".

[jeff47]

68. As long as you also ignore the abysmal turnout. Then it becomes "clear". (nt)

[FBaggins]

72. Poor turnout doesn't make a victoy less clear

It can make claimed mandate less valid, but the win is no less clear.

[jeff47]

87. Sure it does.

When you are claiming a "clear victory", you are attempting to indicate very significant popularity. When only 28% shows up, and only 54% of that votes for you, you have a whopping 15% of the electorate backing you.

15% isn't very popular.

[FBaggins]

89. Only if you move the goalposts to an entirely different field.

When you are claiming a "clear victory", you are attempting to indicate very significant popularity.

Nope. You're saying that there's no question of the win. The other guy didn't "come close". There's no "if only it didn't rain" or "if only I hadn't run that add on the last weekend" or "if only I could have raised another million to pump my GOTV".

It has nothing at all to do with popularity. Unpopular people win clear victories all the time.

[MineralMan]

90. Only those who vote have their opinions counted.

Those who don't vote don't count. Period. So it is in every election. The winner is the one who gets more actual votes. Non-voters don't matter at all when it comes to elections. If they cared, they'd vote. If they don't vote, they didn't care enough to bother.

What part of that do you not understand?

[jeff47]

91. No, they are the ones who choose the winner.

The opinions of those who found both options unacceptable count too. They just don't select the winner of the election.

What part of that do you not understand?

The part where you think browbeating will increase turnout.

[MineralMan]

94. I'm results-oriented. In an election, only results

matter the day after the election. The opinions of those who don't vote are unknown, with regard to the election. They do not matter in determining the outcome.

I don't browbeat when I'm out canvassing. I work to convince people that their vote will matter, given the choices in that election. In every election, I have convinced people who started out saying they weren't planning to vote to go and vote. That's what GOTV is all about, and it's one method of electoral activism that reliably produces real results.

We're lucky in Minnesota, in that we have election-day registration at the polling place. I still carry registration materials with me, of course, but people here can go to the polls, even if they haven't registered. Some do at every election. Many did in 2008.

[jeff47]

101. And when the results are bad whomever wins?

There's a large generational divide. Your generation is large enough to receive political attention. Mine is not. As a result, your options were "get some of what you want" and "get hurt". Our options were "get hurt" or "get hurt less". There was no positive result.

That's changing as older Democrats inevitably "leave the voting pool". The party needs "the kids" now. But hurting the kids for 30 years isn't going to be undone by saying "You only count when you show up!". We showed up. We quickly learned we didn't count either way due to the results we got.

For example, the ACA. It's a good change overall. But Millennials still feel the immortality of youth, and GenX isn't old enough to be seeing doctors all the time. And it happened after many years of slashing Medicaid in order to pay for tax cuts, especially in states that now refuse to expand Medicaid.

Compare that to the other major 2009-2010 legislative work, the stimulus bill. Stimulus that would have directly helped Millennials and GenX was gutted and replaced with tax cuts. Yes, Republicans demanded it, but Democrats labored for decades to help create the beltway environment where tax cuts were the only way to get it passed. And a stimulus bill that was actually large enough was never politically possible because of the environment we created. Our party still doesn't forcefully attack trickle-down, for example. We've got poster children in Kansas or Wisconsin versus Minnesota, but you'll only see that discussed on places like DU.

You can't just say "your vote matters now". There is a history to overcome. We need politicians who do better, in order to overcome that past pain.

[MineralMan]

107. Then don't show up. See if that works out better for you.

I don't know what to tell you, really. Most people vote to support what they think are their best interests. People who don't vote apparently don't really care. I've been voting since 1966. Most of the time, I didn't get a lot of what I wanted, either. I started voting during the Vietnam War. I was your age once, too. I vote in every election. Sometimes the people I support win. Sometimes they do not. When they do not, I vote again in the next election.

I watched Richard Nixon get elected. I watched Ronald Reagan and two Bushes get elected. Did I stop voting because of that? Oh, Hell no. Do I get what I want? Not very often. Do I think the government is going to look after me? Not a chance. Do I vote every time I can? Absolutely, because that's really my only chance to move things forward, even if just a little.

Yes, there is history. I've seen a lot of it. I've seen the Voting Rights Act enacted. I've seen reproductive choice happen. I've seen wars come and go, starting with Korea. (I was born two weeks before the Hiroshima Bomb.) Often, I've watched as progress seemed to turn backwards. What could I do about that? I could vote. I could encourage others to vote. I could try to make a life for myself in the meantime. Many things have improved since that 1966 election. Some things have improved a helluva lot. Most of those things don't measurably improve my life, but they improve someone's.

Now, I'm almost 70 years old, and I'm still voting, canvassing for candidates and working on GOTV.

You want politicians to do better? Elect some who will. You won't always win. You won't always lose. If you give up, though, you'll lose more often than not.

I'm sorry you're young. Doesn't that sound silly? Of course it does. It's your time, too, just as it was my time, too, in 1966 when I cast my first vote. Sorry things aren't going as you'd like. The answer is to push for what you want. The answer is to vote and work to elect people who support your goals. Some people will vote with you, and some against you. That's how it goes in a system like ours. You want something better? Work to get it. I'll vote with you, probably 100% of the time.

Sorry, but that's as much as I can offer. I'm old, tired, and useless, you see.

[Major Hogwash]

118. Voters who were satisifed with Rahm didn't have to vote in order for Rahm to win.

Rahm had a commanding lead in the polls a week before the election.
All the yelling and screaming at the DU forum about what a bad guy Rahm is, was just hot air blown out of the window.

[MineralMan]

122. Yah, but a bunch of them turned out and voted for him.

Hence his win. Some people make it a point to vote in every election. I love people like that. They keep things moving in this country. People who don't vote? Meh. They don't matter much, really, unless I can talk them into voting.

[Major Hogwash]

129. Evidently not! With a poor turnout like this, nothing can be drawn from it to predict the 2016 . .

election.

[MineralMan]

133. That's not a particularly low turnout for an odd-numbered

local election year. Not really. Those local elections usually have a crappy turnout. I'd guess that the percentages would have been about the same there if the turnout had been much larger. Just a guess, though, since I don't really follow Chicago politics.

We're not very good at local elections in most places, it seems. A pity, too.

[Major Hogwash]

135. ***Please wait . . . flip flop in progress***

. . . 50% completed . . .

[Major Hogwash]

120. Absolutely! Clinton didn't win 50% of the vote in 1992, and yet he was President.

Poor turnout affected that race, as well.

[FBaggins]

124. More importantly, he won by almost 6% and better than 2-1 in electroral votes

Certainly a "clear" victory

[Major Hogwash]

132. Ahhh, the Electoral College!

My favorite subject.

[frazzled]

142. First runoff ever because the law was changed

in 1995, during the midst of Mayor for Life Daley's 20-year tenure. We've had 40 years of Daleys as mayor. Now it gets real. There were no Irish Daleys in the February race: just a Jew, a Hispanic, an Italian alderman, and two obscure black guys.

[octoberlib]

13. Thanks for your post.

This explains the low voter turnout. People just weren't enthusiastic about either candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

16. Why doesn't this over 50% offer another candidate? You can say people are not enthusiastic about

the candidates then the numbers are in the favor of presenting another candidate the over 50% wants and if they get out to vote then their candidate will be elected, it is about majority. It is time for candidates and voters to show up.

[octoberlib]

63. I don't disagree. I think the problem here was that

the original candidate , Karen Lewis, had to drop out due to a cancer diagnosis and Chuy wasn't prepared. Turnout seems to be a problem for us except in the Presidential election. I've wondered if simply making it easier to vote would make a big difference.

[Thinkingabout]

99. Easier voting would be very good. I have worked the past few years in a voting precinct and some

of voters are handicapped, we made accommodations, what was most important is these voters went to vote.

[jeff47]

65. Because any potential candidate will be shredded by the party machine

before they are able to line up enough support.

Three candidates show up to battle for the "unsatisfied" vote. They each have support at around 10% when they start because they are relatively unknown. They are all attacked by the party apparatus so they are unable to build on that initial support.

Result: Only the machine candidate is on the general election ballot.

[Chathamization]

67. But why do machine attacks work? It's not like people can't take 2 minutes and Google the positions

of each candidate. It seems that if people are too lazy to base their votes off of anything other than a 20 second TV attack ad, we have much larger fundamental problems.

[jeff47]

69. Because those "change" candidates only start with a sliver of support.

It's not like people can't take 2 minutes and Google the positions of each candidate.

It turns out candidates can lie on their web sites. So to actually determine someone's position takes a little bit longer than that.

In addition, the machine attacks will be over things not on the candidate's web site. Say, a candidate fired a pregnant woman from his business. Boy, that looks pretty bad. He must really hate women. And babies. My god he's such a misogynist bastard. Screamed from every rumor mill the machine can buy. And in the 12th paragraph in the small, local newspaper article about these attacks, it will be revealed that the woman was stealing from the cash register.

Early campaigns are extremely fragile. A few blows will keep the campaign from getting enough momentum to start being "the" challenge to the status quo. Which splits the support of the change-minded voters, and all of the change-minded candidates lose the primary. All three candidates get about 20%, and the status quo candidate wins with 40%. 60% wanted change, but could not agree on the agent to implement that change.

(Which, btw, is one of the reasons why instant runoff voting would be a very good idea)

[Chathamization]

70. How many machine candidates lie about progressive issues on their sites? I haven't seen any saying

they're for universal healthcare or raising taxes on the rich to get votes. It's not like Rahm was trying to hide his policies, or they were particularly difficult to find. Both men had records that were fairly easy to check.

It's also wrong to say that Garcia has only a sliver of support. I don't live in Chicago, and my e-mail was still full of messages from various progressive organizations encouraging me to support Garcia. Sanders endorsed him. If anyone was really confused about who was the progressive and who was the machine candidate, they must have been paying zero attention.

Which, honestly, is the case most of the time. It's not that people can't get the information, it's that the vast, vast majority of the time they don't care enough to look.

[jeff47]

85. You're talking as if there are only two candidates.

My scenario had 4. 1 machine, and 3 relatively unknown change candidates. Which change candidate do you vote for when all 3 of them say they're for universal healthcare and raising taxes on the rich?

How do you determine who's just saying that, and who will actually fight for that? With one 2-minute Google search?

It's also wrong to say that Garcia has only a sliver of support.

Good thing I wasn't talking about what actually happened in Chicago when I created a hypothetical example!

Which, honestly, is the case most of the time.

Nope. Most of the time there is one machine candidate. There are zero to a dozen non-machine candidates. If there's more than zero, it's usually 3 or more.

But you go right ahead and call non-voters lazy and dumb. I'm sure that will get them to do what you want real soon now.

[Thinkingabout]

100. When over 50% do not vote, then if this 50% got a candidate, went and voted who do you think

would win the election? Of course the over 50%.

[Chathamization]

144. In this case there were just two candidates. And the progressive had heavy progressive support.

You can argue that progressives lose because there are too many running, or they don't have enough support, or it's hard to tell who is the progressive and who isn't. But none of these things were the case here, and Rahm still one. None of those were the case when Rush Holt was running for the senate, and he still lost. It was clear to anyone who took even a glance at the campaigns that Zephyr Teachout was the progressive candidate, and she lost.

And when all of them lost, the majority of voters didn't even bother to show up and vote.

[FBaggins]

6. Probably not

I haven't been following the story, but I'd guess that while Republicans don't have enough power in Chicago to place one of their own into the seat... they do have enough to swing a low turnout runoff election.

[LeftInTX]

104. +++++

This happened in my local state senate run-off. It was between 2 democratic state reps. The more liberal candidate was more established, respected, better campaign funds etc. etc. The liberal candidate worked tirelessly in support of education and the Voting Rights Act. He was instrumental in bringing Voting Rights charges against the state of Texas after their last re-districting, arguing in federal courts and won the case. He should have won the election.

In the run-off the lesser known challenger ran to the right of him and pandered to conservatives. (It was pretty disgusting) The lesser-known conservative dem won. I'm sure it was due to republicans.

[FBaggins]

106. Changing the structure of elections has consequences

You don't always get what you hoped for.

[hobbit709]

8. Money talks and big money talks loudly.

[Zorra]

11. Yes. A few things, maybe...1) the majority of voters vote against their own interests

2) revolution is the only way to end corporate oligarchy in the US.

3) Electronic voting ensures that democracy can never be instituted in the US

4) all of the above

[Thinkingabout]

19. Did electronic voting prevent over 50% of the voters from showing up and voting?

[Zorra]

113. I don't know; but it's not likely. See #2 above. nt

[Thinkingabout]

127. This is true, and those who thinks it a waste of time to vote should be happy with whatever results

occurs. For the most part, I think many DU member are clued in, are interested in who is elected and where those elected stand on the issues. We see how the GOP is pushing, I know lots of people who votes are voting against their best interest but unless there are some severe issues which happen in my life, I plan to vote. I am motivated about getting more Democrats elected, plain and simple.

[Zorra]

134. Agreed. Yellowdog Dem in every GE since I was old enough to vote.

My nose has gotten a bit sore from holding it while voting so many times, but the the worst Dem is always way better than the best repub.

Now, on with the revolution...

[Thinkingabout]

137. Yes, we know who isn't for our issues, the GOP is still taking from the 90% and giving welfare to

corporations and those capable of caring for themselves. Not with my vote and not with my lack of voting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Who is going to run things in the aftermath of this "revolution"?

I suspect it is those who have no compunction about using force and using it randomly and indiscriminately, similar to the gangs that run our nation's prisons. Except if they were on the outside they would be ruling us.

[Zorra]

34. I don't know. Hopefully really smart and kind democrats, even better

than the democrats who started a successful revolution, and then ran things back in 1776.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. They were landed bourgeoisie slaveholders...

They were landed bourgeoisie slaveholders who largely extended the franchise to the similarly landed. They also weren't democrats...They were small r republicans...

“A republic, if you can keep it."

-Benjamin Franklin

In the absence of a sovereign the tough rule, like in every war torn area of the globe.

[Zorra]

105. Blahblahblah. Do you have any idea how simplistic and ludicrous your response is?

Jefferson is considered to be the founder of the Democratic Party; for the times, the systems they established were democratic far beyond any yet known in the colonial imperial Euro-christian world.

There is no sense even continuing a discussion after someone writes something that ignorant, or that deliberately deceitful.

No one here with half a brain and a even a rudimentary knowledge of history buys into your shallow half-truth neo-liberal corporatist bullshit.

I'm sorry if anyone thinks I'm being mean, but ridiculous bullshit neo-liberal RW propaganda on a Democratic board really needs to be called out for what it is...




Have a nice day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

140. Ooooooohhhhh, I'm so hurt by your puerile invective

The Constitution was based on the Federalist Papers...John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were small r republicans. At the time of its signing blacks couldn't vote, women couldn't vote, and those without land or income couldn't vote. America was to be led by an elite , chosen by the few.



You and your pals would be no more capable of armed insurrection than I am capable of beating up Brock Lesnar though I am confident I would fare better...



Have a nice day



KISSES
DEMOCRATSINCEBIRTH

P.S. I'm sorry if anyone thinks I'm being mean, but ridiculous name calling from the anonymity of an internet connection needs to be called out for what it is.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. I voted paper ballot in my ward yesterday

Which ward did you vote in?

I've never seen a pure electronic voting machine in a Chicago election. Even the electronic machines I've voted on have a verifiable paper receipt that scrolls under glass so you can verify the vote and stays in the machine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. At some point you have to faith in the system ...

You also have exit polls, adjusted not raw ones, and final pre-election polls to look for discrepancies...

I once suggested you get a receipt for how you voted before someone wisely pointed out it would be easy to sell your vote in those situations or that the system can be set up to give you a wrong receipt.

[frazzled]

18. Yes: you can't just be an "anti" candidate

You have to have a tangible agenda, especially at the city level. Chuy Garcia was a nice guy, but one who hadn't even thought of running for mayor six months ago. He was sort of anointed to be the anti-Rahm, and it wasn't enough. And it showed.

Another thing I think I learned: vilifying a candidate (which Chuy didn't do to excess but his supporters and campaign did) doesn't totally work. I spoke to many people who felt that the vilification went too far and was largely unearned (many of the charges made, such as being focused only on downtown and not on the neighborhoods were not only demonstrably false, but were things Richie Daley could have been accused of for 20 years, but people saw were changing significantly). It drove some people right into Emanuel's arms: there was a certain amount of backlash against the negativity from the challenging side.

[MineralMan]

23. Thanks for your response. That's exactly what I was

looking for. Since I didn't follow this campaign and election closely, I'm depending on people who did for useful answers. You've helped provide some useful information.

[CK_John]

25. Re-enforces that human nature hates and fears change.

[MineralMan]

35. Yes, that's pretty much the case.

Another reality we have to deal with during campaigns and elections. There are so many of those realities. But we ignore them at our peril, I think. Someone ran against Rahm Emanuel and lost. Now that the election's over, I'm hearing that he wasn't that good a candidate, or didn't "motivate voters." Yet, prior to the election, many people championed Chuy Garcia and said that he was the hope for the future of Chicago. Apparently, that wasn't the case.

Part of the problem is in thinking that the majority of voters believes the same as you or I believe. That's almost never the case. The majority of voters don't believe any single thing. They vote on their own, and for their own reasons. Similarly, those who don't show up at the polling place don't show up for their own reasons, which are also not the same reasons others don't show up.

When someone says, "Well, if only a candidate appeared who stimulated voters, things would change." That's sort of true. Barack Obama pulled that off. He got people to the polls who almost never vote. He won. Having won, though, he was immediately not good enough for some. Not progressive enough. Not bold enough. Not something enough. And so it goes.

Rahm Emanuel won re-election as Mayor of Chicago. Many who opposed him don't even live in Chicago. Their opinions didn't matter in Chicago. Chicagoans re-elected Rahm. That is the only thing that matters, really. Turnout wasn't spectacular, and was mostly people who always show up at the polling place. They are the people who decide elections - every time. They are the people who must be convinced, except in those very rare cases where some candidate fires up people who don't usually vote. Chuy Garcia didn't do that, so he lost.

But there's more to it than that. It's not simply enough to fire up some people. You have to fire up enough people to carry the election, which is why we have primary elections. There has been a long string of people in presidential primaries who fired up some people, but not enough people to carry them through the nomination process. Obama managed it, but most upstart candidates don't get that far.

In 2016, there is a strong front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Same one as in 2008. Obama nudged her out of the nomination that year. It will take someone equally capable to nudge her out this year. I'm not seeing anyone like that who will enter the primaries in 2016. Not in any way. Once again, we'll end up with a candidate getting the nomination who might not be the most exciting candidate ever. Once again, we'll be trying to get that candidate elected in November. That's how it works, most of the time, at least in Presidential races. Locally, and legislatively, it's a bit different, but not nationally.

Rahm Emanuel won in Chicago. He was elected by the minority of voters who can be counted on to vote in every election. Those voters matter, even if you don't agree with how they choose the person to vote for. They vote. Their votes count. That's the system we have right now, and it's not going to change by next year. Campaign financing isn't going to change. How we cast our votes isn't going to change. How those votes are counted isn't going to change.

So, we have an election coming up in 2016. We need to look at what happened in Chicago and see what we need to do to make sure Democrats win in 2016, not Republicans. It's not theoretical. It's actual. It's what will be happening.

[JonLP24]

50. Obama clearly campaigned & advocated policy views that he did 180s on

There are very real reasons why there is the difference & this involves numerous different issues especially regarding foreign policy & 4th amendment issues.

Check out his Day 1 Memo

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

I direct the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing the FOIA to the heads of executive departments and agencies, reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency, and to publish such guidelines in the Federal Register. In doing so, the Attorney General should review FOIA reports produced by the agencies under Executive Order 13392 of December 14, 2005. I also direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to update guidance to the agencies to increase and improve information dissemination to the public, including through the use of new technologies, and to publish such guidance in the Federal Register.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Freedom_of_Information_Act/

A lot said I agree with. However, torture photos & other things were blocked with the Bush era argument -- because of speculative or abstract fears.

A lot of the 180s boil down to this if you support them "Bush was right". Dusting off of the Espionage Act? Ashcroft began that one. Obama quite clearly said one thing & did another. It isn't like the "not good enough" isn't unreasonable.

[JonLP24]

26. Rahm had far more money

It certainly is an advantage. In addition to ads & various other things he even had cars in multiple locations picking people up & driving them to the polls. Not to mention the mainstream press & how they report the race.

That said, turnout was low. Lower than usual. Chicago has severe economic problems, massive unemployment, & heading into insolvency. I can't say why a lower than typical turned out for both elections but all I can say for certain what the race can tell us is money which Rahm had more of which he used to run attack ads and his last ad was "I can do better".

[MineralMan]

38. You mean he had a GOTV effort in place?

Shocking! Maybe we can all learn from that. You think?

[JonLP24]

60. It certainly helps to have the resources

but I agree it was a brilliant idea to have cars posted in several wards picking up people & driving them to polls.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. I think the election that tells us most about 2016 was the one in Ferguson.

nt

[MineralMan]

39. I certainly hope you're right.

Truly.

[msanthrope]

71. Let's hope. nt

[valerief]

29. It takes more and more votes today to challenge a single campaign dollar. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Emanuel got trounced in numerous Latino majority wards

Indeed, Chuy won most of the majority Latino wards fairly handily, as you say. So your statement that Rahm "won fairly handily and in all wards, apparently, regardless of their makeup" is not quite accurate. Rahm lost the majority Latino wards - really ALL of THEM - often in the 60-70% for Chuy range.

[MineralMan]

74. How many of those wards are there?

[alcibiades_mystery]

78. Chuy won handily in 16 of the approx 48 Wards

All the wards he won were majority Latino. This is about right, as "Hispanic" made up roughly 30% of the population as of the last census. It's truly bizarre to me how people are brushing off the lop-sided Latino vote here. Parts of Chicago - big parts - are overwhelmingly Latino population, and it is growing.

Somebody else even suggested that Rahm won all ethnic groups - oh, well, except for the ethnic group that makes up near a third of the population!

This is not, of course, to take away from Rahm's victory here. But your claim that he "won fairly handily and in all wards, apparently, regardless of their makeup" is simply false. He was defeated handily in a third of the wards. The make-up of those wards was central to his losing. He lost every majority Latino ward in the city. The election data utterly refutes your opening line.

[MineralMan]

92. Thanks. I did not have that information.

City-wide, however, Rahm won handily. That hasn't changed. I stand corrected about his winning in all wards. Rahm Emanuel will be the Mayor.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. Yes, he won handily

He's been an alright Mayor, and he will likely continue to be.

[MineralMan]

95. I'll have to take your word for his time as Mayor.

I really pay almost no attention to Chicago. While I have visited there a few times, it's not a city that interests me much. Maybe it should, but I just can't work up much interest in it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. Whatever

[AngryAmish]

32. Rahm had the only vote that counted and that was Michael Madigan's

Teachers can walk around all they want. Every ward boss knows not to cross the boss, and that is Mr. Madigan. He has this state locked up tighter than a drum.

[ieoeja]

33. Stupid works.

One of Rahm's campaign ads that played ceaselessly was a retired cop complaining repeatedly about Chuy raising taxes then ended with a quip that we need more cops.

Stupid #1. Retired cop whose salary was paid for by taxes complaining about taxes.

Stupid #2. Ad had to go back 29 years to cite a single tax increase.

Stupid #3. Complain about taxes AND complain about needing to spend more in the same ad.

[Starry Messenger]

36. He had 20 million dollars and is an incumbent?

Garcia didn't do too shabby with only 6 months to prepare and a tiny grassroots donor base.

If he runs again next time, I think he'll win. The first time running is often to gauge voter interest.

[MineralMan]

41. Indeed, I'm sure those things played a large role.

Incumbency and money always do.

That's a fact in our system. We always have to deal with that.

[99Forever]

40. It proves only one thing.

Even a completely corrupt assholes can buy an election.

[MineralMan]

43. So, do you suppose campaign financing is going to

change before 2016? Do you suppose it will change in a Republican administration?

That's the reality we must deal with, since we have no way to change it. Elections require money, and lots of it. Powerful grassroots efforts can sometimes overcome that, but they have to be funded, too.

Reality sucks.

[99Forever]

47. Fuck no.

With the corrupt scum we have in Washington DC?

Nothing short of a revolution will change it.

[MineralMan]

52. There's not going to be any revolution in the US.

It's not happening. There simply isn't enough momentum behind any such thing, especially on the left. On the right, there are far more people yammering about some kind of revolution, but they aren't going to have one, either.

If you're waiting for a revolution, you'll die waiting for it. If one happened to start, you might die in it. But I wouldn't worry much about that. I see absolutely no sign of a growing revolutionary spirit. None at all.

BTW, the 101st Chairborne Keyboard Brigade isn't going to start anything. Not even a strong GOTV effort. That's clear.

[99Forever]

56. Well no shit.

And so the corrupt corporate scum will keep feeding us slimy "enevitable" candidates and tools will keep telling we "must vote for them because the other team is more evil." And we'll slide further into oligarchy.


Yay for Team Blue.

[MineralMan]

75. Well, I'm not seeing anything in your posts that indicate

Last edited Wed Apr 8, 2015, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

that you have any ideas that can improve our system. You have lots of complaints, of course, but that appears to be where it stops. To me, that doesn't constitute activism. It's just complaining. What I have seen is very effective Democratic Party activism in some places. In those places, elected officials are progressive. In many cases, it has taken a number of election cycles to make that happen.

Where I am, for example, we finally got rid of a less than progressive state senator in our district in 2012. He was very conservative on labor issues. So, at the senate district convention in 2012, the delegates refused to endorse him. He ended up withdrawing his candidacy, because he knew he couldn't win without that endorsement. We ended up not endorsing anyone, and a candidate who is a Hmong immigrant and a labor and social progressive won the primary and the general election. I campaigned for him. I also was a caucus leader at the convention for him. He was the last in a long series of progressive candidates our districts have gotten elected.

Complaining does nothing. Hard work does something. I recommend the latter, if you want to make changes, and you can start right where you live. None of us on DU will have any effect on the Presidential election beyond our vote. Each of us, though, can have a powerful effect on our local elections, our state legislative elections, and even our congressional elections. That effect, however, comes from a concerted effort on the part of many people. It's hard work. I think it's worth it. You may think otherwise.

[99Forever]

146. What am I proposing to improve our sysytem?

How about running candidates that actually fight for Democratic values and aren't owned by the 1% for a fucking change. You remember change, it's that stuff they promise while campaigning then forget once in office. You remember, like putting people who willfully crash the economy and order and commit war crimes in fucking jail? Oh. Wait a minute, what was I thinking? What you do with them is reward them with hundreds of BILLION$ and appoint them to high powered positions in your administrations.

Sorry I blew up.

[MineralMan]

147. Where I am that's exactly who runs.

I have zero to do with candidate selection or endorsements anywhere else. I don't know where you are, but you'd be far better able to help with that there. At the presidential level, we both have one vote in the primaries.

I reward nobody with anything. I have nothing to offer any candidate but my support. I can't help you with your diffuse anger. Sorry. You're the only one who can act on your behalf, so I'll leave you to work in your own area.

I'm good with the people elected in my tiny corner of Minnesota. I don't know about where you are. That's up to you.

[Buzz Clik]

48. Chicago supports their mayor.

It may be shocking to those not living anywhere near Chicago, but they have supported some shady characters with great loyalty.

[think]

51. That a Republican billionaire got what he paid for:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/business/chicagos-odd-couple-mayor-emanuel-and-billionaire-republican-investor.html

[truebluegreen]

53. "Not as bad as the other guy"

is an insufficient reason to get out and vote. Garcia didn't have a plan and didn't motivate the voters to get out to defeat Rahm.

This particular rule can be seen in the election of 2010 too. Many, many people who were very enthusiastic about the Democrats and Obama in 2008 were less so by 2010.

[betterdemsonly]

54. Since 20% of Chicago voters voted for Romney in 2012

It tells us that the establishment candidate can't muster the votes of the majority of real democratic voters. They can't get a majority of Democrats even with no republican in the race and with all the republican money backing their candidate. This ought to worry the establishment for two reason. Hillary won't get GOP money like Rahm, so she won't have any advantage against a republican. Doesn't bode well that most dems don't care for 3rd way politicians. What happens when the n ext bank produced crisis hits? This maybe very soon according the the IMF. The corporate dems will be toast. Not even their advertising advantage will save them.

[Amishman]

73. I would guess that a lot of that 20% stayed home

It is unfair to assume that 20% of this election's turnout that voted for Rahm is the same 20% that voted for Romney. I think it is a fair assumption that a lot of Romney's 20% stayed home

[fredamae]

58. The GOP Machine was behind Rahm

as well as Third Way Conservative Dems.

It tells me we are still allowing the "FEAR, Doubt and Uncertainty" they want us to experience that is Always subtly suggested in Million Dollar ad buys to work on us and it works Because we're Human...

We need to learn to shut "them" Out.
We Immediately recognize their (Citizens United/Kochs/Adelson/Wall Street/Big Corp and more) influence everyday in many different ways.....and we criticize and disagree...Yet when it's down to the wire and it's just you and the ballot...we Cave and keep the status quo.

We need to "step out of our comfort zones"...realize whats happening to us, then defy Them by kicking "Their FEAR Mongering" tactics that they pay Huge sums of money to create.....to the curb.

At least this has worked for us..here.

[davsand]

62. Given the reports coming out of Chicago regarding doctored ballots it says something.

Rahm got nervous and pulled out all the stops. We had the usual Chicago style election with the reasonable and customary Illinois election hi-jinks. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17818/stories-circulate-of-voters-receiving-ballots-pre-checked-for-rahm-emanuel

BREAKING: In Chicago, Reports of Voters Receiving Ballots Already Marked for Emanuel
After a Facebook post suggested voting irregularities blew up, similar reports are emerging.
BY RICK PERLSTEIN

Email
Print
Around 10:30 this morning, Sam Dreessen, a 26-year-old unemployed DePaul University graduate (and former In These Times intern) who’s been voting in Chicago since 2006, walked into his polling place at Kozminski Community Academy on 54th and Drexel, a mostly black neighborhood in the city’s 5th Ward. He approached the election judge at the table and, like thousands of Chicagoans on this mayoral election day, received a paper ballot and a felt-tip pen. But, he says, one of the two blanks—the one you fill in to vote for Mayor Rahm Emanuel—was already filled in. Dreessen, a volunteer for Emanuel’s opponent, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, smelled a rat.

“I just said to one of them, the one who gave me the ballot, ‘This has already been filled out. I want one that’s blank.’ And he acted surprised. He said, ‘I don’t know how that happened.' And he even said there had been other ballots with similar problems.’ He gave me one that was blank, and I told him more than once that they should look at all the ballots, the ones that hadn’t been handed out yet, to see if this happened.”

--------------


Welcome to Illinois politics! Where we have the best government money can buy!

Laura

[NM_Birder]

64. yeah,

no matter how fucked up Chicago is, no matter how bad violent crime is, it will only ever be known as being the fertile garden that created Barack Obama. I guess it's better to suffer more Rahm, than admit one of Obama's "chosen" is a filthy dirtbag hood.

Obama created Rahm, and delivered him to Chicago, and apparently he is exactly what Chicago wants. bon appetite Chicago.

[pa28]

76. One of Rahm's own advisers was kind enough to share what it told him.

Accidental moment of candor: Rahm Emanuel adviser reveals what is wrong with Democratic politics.

“Unless they get the crazy lefty money machine going nationally, it’s not going to matter that there’s a resurgent left,” said an adviser to Mr. Emanuel who did not want to speak publicly about strategy. “The liberals at Heartland Cafe in Rogers Park can think great thoughts and read poetry for Chuy, but nothing else will happen.”

So the question smart political people, like the one quoted above, might ask themselves is this: why was Emanuel forced into runoff tight election contest despite a 6:1 spending advantage and a lackluster opponent?

[think]

77. Ya, the crazy left. Didn't Rahm have a few choice words for that?

[MineralMan]

80. That adviser is absolutely correct.

It does take money and organization to get someone elected, even as mayor of a large city. He's telling the truth. It's not a happy truth, but it is the truth. Without those things, it's going to be impossible to get someone outside of the mainstream elected. It can be done, but it's far from easy, and requires a large organization willing to raise the money and get out the votes.

That's simply reality. I've seen it happen in legislative elections in places I've lived. It's very satisfying to be part of such an effort. It's also very hard work that has to start long before the actual campaign begins.

If you're going to fight money, you have to have lots of people who are willing to put their time into the campaign. And that adviser is right: reading poetry and talking with others who have the same mindset as you have won't cut it. That affects only those who are there and listening. To win an election, you have to convince a much larger segment of the population. You can do it with expensive TV ads, or you can do it with grassroots activism, but unless you convince a majority of voters, you will lose.

It's very difficult, especially when there's an incumbent. Very difficult, indeed. Is it worth it? That depends on the individual situation and what's at stake. Whether to try is up to each person to decide.

[think]

82. Yep. Who needs the left when you have a GOP Billionaire stuffing your coffer?

Obviously not Rahm.....

[MineralMan]

84. The left needs the left.

It needs more people to take those positions. Rahm won the election. There it is. The left lost the election.

That's how things are. They're not going to change, either. So, it's going to take more than getting a few people to agree with you. How do you do that? You either raise a pantload of money or you mobilize a large force of grassroots activists. Campaign finance is not going to change anytime in the near future. So, if you want change, you're going to have to make that change happen, either by raising money or doing the hard work.

That's what that adviser said, too. He's right.

[think]

138. The left just got beat by a Democrat funded by the GOP. The party is the problem. Not the left.

When the Dem party turns to GOP billionaires as a way to win an election they are basically Republicans.

Say what you will about the left's problems but the left's own party just turned on them again....

[Chathamization]

145. Not sure about that

Despite what a lot of people seem to think, there's not automatic conversion from money to votes. So then you're going by what the money gets you - campaign literature, TV ads, people paid to knock on doors? Sure, that can help with people who base their choice on TV ads, mail ads, and people paid to ring their doorbell. I should say, though, that I get the impression that volunteers do a better job at this (and they can convince their family and friends, who are much more likely to listen to them than neighbors). Also, most campaigns have enough for a decent amount of mailers; I'm not sure how much need their is to flood people with them.

Endorsements? Built in base of supporters? Money isn't going to help you as much there (though it can be used as an aid to show how serious a candidate is). Neighbors willing to put up yard signs and host meet and greets? Again, money's not going to help you as much though some might view it as a show of how strong the candidate is - though there are other ways to do this as well.

I've seen plenty of campaigns where people poured money in and came out behind a less well funded candidate. Money is helpful, but it's importance tends to be greatly exaggerated.

[Major Hogwash]

125. " . . . can think great thoughts and read poetry for Chuy. . . "

That is hilarious!!

[former9thward]

81. He did not win in all wards.

No idea where you getting that from. Garcia won the Hispanic wards.

http://apps.chicagotribune.com/elections/2015-mayoral-results/

[Rex]

97. That you can cheat, outspend your opponent by a lot and still not win by much.

28% voter turnout... This country is embarrassing at times. The citizens of Chicago allowed a small number of them to reelected the incumbent. I hope the other 72% (pathetic) realize just how stupid they are by staying home and not voting.

[Maedhros]

108. It tells me that we have marketing campaigns, not political campaigns.[n/t]

[MineralMan]

109. What does that even mean? Campaigns are marketing.

They've always been marketing. Of course political campaigns are marketing. For Pete's sake!

[Maedhros]

114. They sell us products we don't need,

rather than letting us select our leaders.

[MineralMan]

116. Are there elections?

Do you vote in them? If the answers are Yes, then how are you not selecting your leaders?

See, what you're saying makes no sense. Typically, you have primary elections, general elections and sometimes runoff elections. You get to vote in all of them. There are campaigns, which are simply marketing efforts to get you to vote for a candidate. Heck, you can even become involved in your local party organization and play a role in choosing candidates. You could run for office, if you chose to. It's not that difficult to get on the ballot, especially locally.

That is the system we use. The candidate with the most votes is elected. Can you not vote? Are you somehow prevented from participating?

See, I'm not getting this at all. Of course there's marketing involved in elections. There always has been.

[Maedhros]

143. I have a friend very much like you.

He prefers to reduce all discussion to semantic arguments to avoid the need to think about unpleasant subjects.

What I do is largely irrelevant - elections involve very large groups of people. If elections were about issues, and if the electorate understood those issues, then I'd be more inclined to lend credence to your argument. But they are not, and it doesn't. In our system votes are not earned by politicians with superior ideas. Rather, votes are harvested from a barely-aware mass of distracted citizens, by armies of pollsters, image architects, market analysts, and spin doctors. They present fictional characters to the populace and tell us lies about them, and the best lies win. As voters, our effect on the political system is nil (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310).

Of course, there is much to be gained by convincing others that the status quo is just fine and nothing needs to be changed.

[Broward]

110. Yes, the system is broken.

[MineralMan]

112. I see. In what way is it broken?

Words are free on DU. You can write as many as you like. So, tell me how it is broken and how you would like to fix it, if you care to.

It's not enough to just say something is broken. My snowblower is broken. I checked it out, and it's not worth fixing for next season. I investigated. I discovered the problem and figured out what it would cost to repair it. It's 10 years old and cost $500 when I bought it. That means that my cost per year of owning it is only $50, which is less than the cost to have my driveway plowed out once.

So, I'm not going to fix it. I'll buy a new one next fall. When things are broken, I figure out what's broken and work out the cost of fixing it. Then I do a cost/benefits analysis to make a decision.

So, tell me how you think the system is broken. What's your plan for dealing with that?

[NCTraveler]

115. I believe there is truly a lot to be said about an excellent campaigner.

A good campaigner can come in many different forms. Obama and the team they assembled was one of the best. Rahm isn't much different. Rahm, by all accounts, is a ruthless campaigner. Read some of the things he has done in the past. He is Rove when it comes to campaigns. Please note that says nothing about ideology nor would I ever say they are the same. In personality though, they aren't far off.

I really don't think elections where individuals like Rahm are involved say much about the true thoughts of voters. W's team, with a strong emphasis on Rove, did a brilliant job against Kerry. It is what some of these people have the ability to do and is the only reason, in my mind, how someone like Obama would ever associate with such a man(Rahm). I do not think Rahm has ethics, even with respect to politics today, nor do I believe he has morals even remotely in line with what we expect.

Campaigners like Rahm are brilliant at voter suppression.

[BainsBane]

117. It tells me that residents of Chicago elect their mayors

not people on the internet who live no where near the city. It also tells me that too many people who live in red states love to point fingers at Democrats and Democratic voters in blue areas, while doing exactly fuck all about Tea bag dominance in their own areas.

[MineralMan]

121. Mostly, I don't know where DUers are located.

Many don't disclose even the state they live in. That makes it difficult to figure out whether someone is affected by an election or is just blowing hard about something they have no stake in.

I'm smart enough to know that I can affect little beyond my own local area. So, I put my efforts where they will have the most effect. That just makes sense to me. I can no more affect an election in Kentucky, say, than I can affect elections in France. Here in St. Paul, Minnesota, though, I can do something to affect things. So, that's what I do.

[BainsBane]

123. If everyone did the same

We would have a more progressive Democratic party throughout the country, as we do in the Twin Cities area.

[MineralMan]

128. Yes. I believe you're correct.

I recommend that for everyone. If everyone got seriously involved on a local basis, things would improve.

Too much to ask, though, I suppose.

My old congressional district in California was staunchly Republican when I first moved there. By the time I left, it had been a reliable Democratic district for almost 20 years. Changes can happen, but change takes hard work and time. Many times, people give up before even giving things a chance to happen. More's the pity.

[JEB]

119. Money trumps peace and nearly everything else in this country.

[MineralMan]

130. That's easy enough to say, I suppose.

[JEB]

149. Not something I want to say.

Money is deciding elections. No?

[MineralMan]

150. Depends on the office.

Up to the congressional district, it's entirely possible for a candidate to win without a huge campaign war chest, although many such races are fueled by money. Beyond that, from Senate to President, money is crucial. However, since those offices are so powerful, most huge contributors cover their bases by spending on candidates from both parties.

On the more local level, from state legislators on down, a dedicated candidate with plenty of followers can win through grassroots efforts. The state senator from my district, for example, won in 2012, against all odds, by enlisting the entire Hmong community here to campaign for him. He also personally walked most precincts in the district, knocking on doors. His budget didn't even allow for yard signs. I had my own sign made for my yard to support him.

[Vinca]

126. IMO, his opponent didn't inspire a great deal of confidence.

[WillyT]

131. Yep...

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026475493

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. Posted to for later ...

But will say it now ... maybe the messenger is at least as important as the message?

And, perhaps many over estimate the ability of a message to turn out the vote?

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. Damn, Ichingcarpenter's (rude) question to me got hidden ...

before I could respond by saying:

I'd be happy to common "life on the line" stories with him/her ... once he/she explained how asking questions, directly relate to, and a possible conclusion to be drawn from, this election is remotely related to that talking sh!t or placing one's life on the line.