2007

I Got Your Message Right Here Mr. Mayor

ArchPundit March 1, 2007 1 Comment

Daley talks a little trash about the unions success on Tuesday:

“Where’s the message? Hello? I mean — come on. What message? I’ve been more [pro-] labor than they have. Every crane down here is labor,” said Daley, whose big-box veto cost him support from all but one major union.

As I’ve said before, the point of the union effort and especially SEIU wasn’t to have a big one-shot victory, though the results were pretty damn good for them.  It was to create a political operation that functioned in the City and in a particular time when the Machine is dying.  It’s certainly true that the Machine has been dying for years, but the Obama win and Sorich case have accelerated that process and left an opening for a new player.  That player is organized labor and SEIU in particular.

Before anyone jumps on me over the Big Box ordinance being bad and such, this isn’t an endorsement of that bill as I tend to think it would be best handled at the state level.  However, it spurred SEIU and the Chicago Federation of Labor into a serious effort to elect union friendly aldermen and  build that organization up.  This was the first real test and while they didn’t clear the table, the unions were 2-3-6 in the 11 races they targeted including 3, 7, 12, 15, 16, 21, 25, 37, 42, 43, and 50 winning outright in 7 and 42.  Losing outright in 12, 25, and 37.  Going to a run-off in 3, 15, 16, 21, 43, and 50.

Of those races they targeted, four SEIU made no endorsement:  25, 37 43, and 50.  In two of those the incumbent won outright and in two the runoffs only happened barely with both incumbents taking just under 50 percent of the vote.  It’s somewhat likely that candidate selection was a problem in these cases, but also that the incumbents will win in April.

That said, it looks like two of the runoffs are likely to go to the union backed challengers in  15 (actually open seat) and 16.  In the final two runoffs, I’d probably call the outcome a tossup with 3 and 21.  If the unions can deliver the votes with the superior organization in  what is likely to be very low turnout, those two are potential pickups as well.

Of the incumbents SEIU endorsed (they made endorsements in 37 of 50 wards and four of the non-endorsements are above) only three are headed to a run-off and none lost.  24, 35, and 50 are all incumbents endorsed by SEIU and in runoffs, but only Chandler in 24 appears to be in any real trouble having garnered only 36 percent of the vote to 20 percent for his nearest challenger. In 50 (Moore) and 35 (Colon) the incumbents received 49 and 46 percent of the vote respectively.  Moore’s is the most notable race since he had business interests pumping money into the race attacking him.

SEIU and CFL had a good election cycle given what I believe their objectives are in terms of long term movement building.  Daley might not care much because he probably thinks this is his last term.  Those who follow Daley will have to contend with the operation put together for this years’ race.

Statewide this is also a big win for Democrats.  Getting out the vote is tough in the City often times, but with the machine dying off, it was getting harder. This sort of operation will generally benefit Democrats and continue to provide large majorities coming out of Chicago for those Democratic candidates.

It’s All Over for McCain According to Tom Roeser

ArchPundit March 1, 2007 2 Comments

After all, McCain said that American soldiers’ lives had been wasted:

Dismissing the lost lives of American troops during wartime as having been wasted ranks is just about the all-time most catastrophic statement a presidential candidate can make. Saying the dead have died in vain is not only opposite to Abraham Lincoln (with whom Obama wants to be compared), it is a lethal dose of strychnine from which no ordinary candidate could be expected to recover. If Obama can make use of his blackness to overcome his slur, he would be seen as a true political wonder-worker. Chicago’s David Axelrod, his media guru, should be promptly elevated to the canonical status of the all-time great cosmeticians, the Democrats’ Jim Farley who sold the patrician FDR as a regular guy and the Republicans’ Mark Hanna who packaged William McKinley, the pal of the Wall Street plutocrats as the workingman’s friend. .

Here’s the statement 

It’s even the same context.  I have no problem with what either of them said, but I’m not part of the outrage machine.

test

ArchPundit February 28, 2007 6 Comments

test

Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?

ArchPundit February 27, 2007 2 Comments

Tonight on WTTW

“Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?” (10:30 p.m. Tuesday, WTTW-Ch. 11) has not only a catchy title but an intriguing concept at its core. In these days of megabucks candidates raising millions of dollars for statewide and even local races, let alone national contests, it is worth examining whether a grassroots politician with little dough and few connections can win a seat in Congress.

In 2004, then-29-year-old novice Jeff Smith — yes, he’s named Smith, just like the candidate in the Jimmy Stewart movie — decided to try just that. With no money, no political support from established party types and with an army of young volunteers, the educator mounted a race in the Democratic primary for a St. Louis-area congressional seat.

Russ Carnahan, scion of a Missouri political dynasty, was also in the race, and it’s a measure of Carnahan’s apparent lack of sizzle and Smith’s indefatigable energy that Smith, who was initially dismissed by other candidates and by the press, ended up being a credible candidate. Even if you’re not a political junkie, this documentary offers a sliver of hope that a candidate with no money for negative TV ads but lots of energy, yard signs and caffeinated volunteers can accomplish something in politics.

On the downside, “Mr. Smith” is far too long and doesn’t do a good job of tracking Smith’s progress to the front rank of candidates or putting the race in a local or national context.

The Facebook Group for the movie is here There are a bunch of still shots there as well–fortunately, Matt left out my brief shot in the movie.  I didn’t look good.  David Loebsack is in a couple scenes, as are several folks from the Chicago area.
MySpace here 

Robert Gibbs is the AntiChrist

ArchPundit February 26, 2007 4 Comments

Everyone thought it was Barack, but it’s actually Gibbs and I have photo proof:

Gibbs probably threw himself under the bus…

Original below the fold because it’s just too damn cute.

Desecration: Antichrist Takes the Throne (Left Behind No. 9)

Read More

Who Can Mutter More to Themselves

ArchPundit February 23, 2007 5 Comments

Me or Rich:

Next, you “experts” assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.

Wrong again.

In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they ”break late.”

Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama’s own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began ”breaking” in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.

This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn’t start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.

Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African-American voters. Obama is far less known. It’s perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama’s candidacy remains viable through early next year, I’d bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.

To recap, because I know you’re all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don’t automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.

I hope this helps.

And I mean this as a compliment to Rich, none of this is new and anyone who knows the first thing about African-American voting patterns understands the above.  The amazing thing is that Rich had to write it.
Hence, your national press corps is filled with morons.   Seriously, the national press works on nothing except gossip and conventional wisdom that has no historical basis.  It would be malpractice in most fields.