Chicago Mayor Election 2011: Emanuel has big lead in Tribune poll

[Lunar]

The only question seems to be whether Rahm wins outright or is forced into a run-off first.

edit: Chico's not doing so badly with White voters

[Lunar]

Oh, wow. Last I heard, that local court decided Rahm was eligible. Didn't know that an appeals process was still going on. Anyone know how the State Supremes will decide?

I'm not entirely disconnected from the legal political types in Chicago, and my impression is that this is the first time people actually got hit by the reality that Rahm might not be on the ballot.  The case against Rahm was never trivial, but it seemed like he had generally beaten it back until now. It's fairly unique case law and given the dissenting opinion in the Appeal Court's ruling, it really could go either way.

[Lunar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/best-mayor-emanuel-tweets_n_813214.html

[Lunar]

I'd say Chico is the favorite if Rahm's off.

Aye, we'll see how he fairs when the spotlight is on him, but with Braun's huge unfavorables, he should get a lot of support.

[Lunar]

Rahm can pull a Murkowski and run as a write-in if need be.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/No_Rahm_writein.html

[Lunar]

Kicking opponents off the ballot, it should be said, is a time-honored Illinois tradition.

[Lunar]

Kicking opponents off the ballot, it should be said, is a time-honored Illinois tradition.

This one actually seems legitimate though.

Yeah, and I'm sure the lawyers bringing the suit have the noblest of civic intentions.

[Lunar]

Kicking opponents off the ballot, it should be said, is a time-honored Illinois tradition.

Something Barack Obama knows well.

Yup!

[Lunar]

Only in Chicago: http://www.gerychicoformayor.com/Polish/

[Lunar]

I continue to say that this is the best http://twitter.com/#!/MayorEmanuel

[Lunar]

I really don't like Rahm, but I don't feel like this court ruling was quite right.

Did you actually read the ruling or is this based on some sense of "fairness"?  

The law is what it is.  The judge who wrote the opinion is apparently well-respected.  We'll have to see if the Illinois Supreme Court even hears the appeal.

I think there's an emotional sense of wrongness associated with the concept of kicking off the leading candidate with a split court decision (2-1) and based off of strict local rules that wouldn't necessarily apply elsewhere.  There's a feeling that the courts should error on the side of leniency when it comes to ballot access, I think

What's legally correct, is, of course, another matter

[Lunar]

Of course, of course.  The law should be interpreted consistently, and if it seems wrong or outdated, be changed for future elections.  I wasn't commenting on that because I doubt anyone cares that I think that, I'm simply musing on the situation.

All I said was that there is a feeling of "wrongness" if you will, about the whole situation.  It's not surprising that it requires a leading candidate (as opposed to a clown) to almost get knocked off in order to draw sufficient attention to the rules to get them reformed. 

Usually knocking off opponents is a tool for stronger candidates to muscle out the weaker ones in advance, not the other way around.  As long as it was the outsiders getting the boot, naturally, it's not an issue of prominence among the rulemakers.

[Lunar]

I actually think that there should be a residency requirement for municipal office because those who don't live there don't understand the town's problems as well as those who do.  Someone who moves to Washington DC for two years isn't on the ground to hear about the local issues that matter most.  But to each his own, I suppose.

Regardless, I assume we can both agree that the residency requirements should be clear in advance and [in pragmatic terms] not result in prominent candidates discovering that they are not, in fact, eligible a few weeks before election day

[Lunar]

Also, although my above post is my main point, I'd also like to point out that emotionally, it feels like if voters feel that he isn't/wasn't on the ground enough to understand local issues, they could factor that into their votes instead of needing a legal solution to bar a flawed candidate from office.  Municipalities are also best not governed by idiots, but we don't require an IQ test to legally enforce it.

I actually think that there should be a residency requirement for municipal office because those who don't live there don't understand the town's problems as well as those who do.  Someone who moves to Washington DC for two years isn't on the ground to hear about the local issues that matter most.  But to each his own, I suppose.

[Lunar]

Actually, it also occurs to me that stricter election laws, as a whole, might favor establishment candidates over political newcomers and outsiders. This happens to be one of the cases where it is the reverse, but I'm curious about other prominent cases? Bysiewicz's run for AG in Connecticut?

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48260.html

2 page story on a fake twitter feed

[Lunar]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48260.html

2 page story on a fake twitter feed

My only question is how did they find a tweet from that account without a swear word in it for their graphic?

They had to look through hundreds of them most likely.  Great point.

I linked to that Twitter account in this thread, so I contributed to this!

[Lunar]

This was the woman that was trying to make Rahm's temperament a significant issue, using her one opportunity in a major debate to question Rahm about that

[Lunar]

http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/02/05/rahm-rips-public-sector-workers-in-campaign-ad/

[Lunar]

I look forward to the detailed results. Chicago is one of the most interesting places in North America.

SSP: "Ghosts of the machine? Chico's best ward tonight: the 14th, run by ward boss - and prominent Chico backer - Ed Burke."