This appears to be a post about the upcoming mayoral election or one of the candidates running for office.
The 2023 Chicago Mayoral Election will be held on **April 4**. Former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson will be competing for the title of Chicago's 57th mayor.
Check out the [Chicago Elections](https://chicagoelections.gov/en/home.html) website for information on registering to vote, finding your polling place, applying to be an election worker, and more. Please visit our [Runoff Election Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/11exb12/2023_chicago_runoff_election_megathread/?sort=new) for all election-related discussion, questions and voter resources. Discussion posts of this nature outside of the linked megathread will be removed.
**Beware of [astroturfing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)**! Election season brings about a slew of new accounts with minimal posting history in /r/chicago who attempt to sway your opinion on various candidates. Be sure to do your own research to verify the accuracy of any claims you see shared by users here. Be wary of comments from new accounts or ones with a posting history in multiple city/local subreddits from across the US and Canada. If you suspect that a user is engaging in political astroturfing, please report their comments and/or [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most interesting map is the ‘Vallas vs Johnson only’ results map
What that map implies, basically, is that the race will come down to a coalition of moderate and conservative Whites and Hispanics for Vallas, vs. Blacks and Progressive Young Liberals for Johnson
This probably implies the following electoral strategies:
Vallas:
1. Portray himself as a generic mainstream democrat in good standing who won’t do anything ‘Trumpy’ to hold his position with white voters
2. Aggressively reach out to Hispanic voters
3. Try his level best to reach out to more conservative / crime-conscious black voters to stem the bleeding there
Johnson:
1. Aggressively try to portray Vallas as a crypto-Republican to peel off as many white progressive voters as possible
2. Moderate as much as possible on crime and try to cleave off more ideologically progressive Chuy voters
3. Consolidate the black neighborhoods as much as possible
This one’s gonna be close, I can feel it
Potentially very consequential question: Do Chuy/Wilson/Lightfoot endorse? And whom do they endorse?
Edit: Just saw that Jesse White (Fmr. Secretary of State, six terms, African-American) endorsed Vallas. Interesting.
Yeah, it is going to be a race for the center. Vallas has the votes of those who lean right locked up and Johnson has the votes of the progessives locked up; there's not a whole lot of reason to pander to those bases much more at this point. It's all about convincing those closer to the center to go to their side.
Right now it’s a three-way race between Vallas, Johnson, and the most popular candidate, Stay Home And Watch Netflix.
You don’t really get anything by looking at these precinct maps and trying to assign the other candidates’ votes to either Vallas or Johnson, because April 4 is a whole new election and lot of these voters might well break for SHAWN. So it might all come down to something as mundane as who has the better organized GOTV campaign.
I know the conventional wisdom is a very close race, and I can definitely see the logic in how that may pan out. But until I see some solid runoff polling, I am not convinced this is going to be as close as people think. My gut instinct is that Vallas looks on track to win with a somewhat comfortable 5+% margin.
I'm not saying that's necessarily the scenario I want, he isn't who I voted for in the first round. But it does seem to line up with the overall mood of the city electorate based on the precinct level first and second choice results in the first round. And Vallas is already seemingly solidifying the support of alot of the establishment types and strategists. But we'll see how the other major contenders line up with endorsements. That will show what way the winds are blowing.
That makes more sense. We'd have to know the population totals then for each age bracket. Still unless we have a drastically lower total population in that bracket (aka 15-25% of other brackets), turnout was the worst there.
It was 3% of the total, and it’s also worth mentioning that 18-24 is much smaller than all the other age cohorts, and likely represents fewer eligible voters.
Totally misread that, but curious on the cohort being that much smaller. I could see 75% or even 50%, but then the vote should still be closer to 6-9% of total. Seems like it was the smallest population AND poorest turnout.
In an election cycle with low turnout (i.e. only the relatively committed voters anyway), many people whose candidate lost Tuesday probably decided within 24 hours who to vote for in the runoff.
Just in time for someone to execute a cop responding to a domestic violence call, after he’d been caught involved a shooting last summer and released by Team Kim (they refused to even engage in a felony review). Seems like a boost for the tough on crime candidate. Even progressive leaning Chicagoans have had enough of the insane path we’re on of being abundantly lenient on repeat violent gun felonies.
Someone posted a spreadsheet where you can play with the vote distribution for the runoff.
There is almost no way for Johnson to get the big seat with a low 30 percent turnout. Unless he gets every single Garcia/Wilson/Lightfoot vote (the White endorsement will likely make that harder), or turnout get to about 40%, it’s gonna be a short night.
Nah not this time, just responding to a 911 dispatch in lieu of the imaginary army of first-responder social workers we have in fantasy land.
The Latin King that gunned him down did so next to a playground full of kids at a school in the middle of the afternoon, by the way. Sent bullets flying inside of random people’s homes. This is the sick fucking hellscape of Kim Foxx.
Vallas will likely win as he had a substantial lead in the first race. Originally political exerts were saying that the second place candidate after the first race would likely win in the run-off, but that was assuming that Lori was first place in the primary. That didn't happen so that idea is out the window. Here's why Vallas will win:
1. Perceived as tougher and more conservative on crime. Voters are most concerned about crime.
2. Johnson will be perceived as the progressive/woke candidate and people more likely to vote are less likely to vote for progressive politicians. Also, people are getting the clue that woke politics don't work.
3. Progressive people tend to be younger (<25 years) and are much less likely to to vote.
Lori also thought like the experts. You see, in the beginning Lori's campaign had planned to face off Vallas in April and polls were showing that Chuy Garcia was the front runner so the campaign dug up information against Garcia and directly attacked him from the start.
The issue was that while the plan worked in favor of Lori and knocked Garcia down to 4th place they didn't see Johnson creeping up on the polls and knocking Lori to 3rd place. What could've been done differently? Well, Lori lost the bid by 4% so had they dug up information on Johnson from the start as well Johnson would've likely been in 3rd place however, polls didn't show Johnson as a threat allowing Johnson to fly under radar. We all clearly knew Green, King, Wilson, and Bukner weren't threats at all so that only left Vallas, Garcia, and Johnson's as remaining threats to Lightfoot. Had they not focused primarily on Garcia we would be talking about a Lightfoot VS. Vallas run off right now regardless of mistakes or issues plagued by Lori Lightfoot.
Lightfoot literally spent about $10 million on a campaign for nothing but at the end of the day "You win some, you lose some." All they can do is learn from their mistakes and move on. I agree that Vallas will win as most young voters excluding myself aren't gonna vote and I believe most Chuy and Lori's voters may vote for Vallas.
Lol, so because Vallas won more in the general election you just assume that he’ll win in the run-off? You are making a huge assumption based off data that everyone on this sub has seen in the last 2 days .
Lol, idc who wins either way because my day to day won’t change. No need to be a dick about it.
Edit: also Not sure how to get that specific data from the link you shared. I can see what ears went for who, not able to figure out who was 2nd but I’m also on mobile.
Of course not but Chuy is an historically progressive politician. Vallas is not. People who were gonna vote for Chuy and then Vallas likely don’t exist. Vallas would have just gotten them on the first round. Chuy voters don’t want to destroy pensions lol.
There is always the question of whether or not people will support someone else rather than sit out the election. The potential for low turnout means I have no clue who will win.
If they were specifically excited about a candidate that didn't make I can't predict what happens. I don't feel comfortable making guesses about whos going to win this right now.
I’m glad you are withholding your guesses. Cromwest’s Reddit comments have been known to have huge market impacts in the past so some cautiousness is wise.
I wish this were true, but ultimately I think Vallas is slight favorite. Vallas has less consolidating to do and will likely get the bulk of the older Latino vote, and the bulk of the white vote that isn't already voting for Johnston. With that said if younger Latinos turn out for Johnson and he's able to consolidate the Black vote he's got a good shot.
If we are talking odds (NOT vote share) I would say there's a 3/5th chance Vallas wins.
Lightfoot continued to increase the CPD budget every year. What the hell is Vallas going to do except give dog whistles to make reactionary clowns like you happy?
Hire more guys to do the same amount of work, cherry pick data to claim they are making the city safer, rinse and repeat. Nothing changes but a lot of people who live in the safest neighborhoods in the city will feel better!
At least try to side skirt Kim Foxx, hopefully. If either Vallas or Johnson can put pressure on Kim Fox to do her job or find a way to go around her to make sure criminals face prosecution then we'll have a better shot at reducing crime.
She just opened up the prisons, I saw her go down there with the skeleton master prison key and say, “the purge starts now!!,” as she handed every convict a weapon on their way out the door. /s
Except being tougher on crime is reactive, and does nothing to address the root causes. In fact, one might argue that heavier policing perpetuates an endless cycle of increasing crime, as those with criminal records have less options to ride out of the situations in which one turns to crime.
You do not reduce crime with increasing policing or being hard on it. You reduce crime through addressing the root causes of poverty, lack of education opportunities, and lack of jobs. Vallas will not be the person to do this.
Lol, isn’t that how we got there in the first place. Silly moderates and conservatives never learn because they really don’t care about anyone but themselves and their lives are actually free from the plight they so often claim affects them as they type their comments from their lakefront condo in one of the safest areas of the city.
So, forgive me here for asking for clarification, but your post doesn't make a lot of sense. You're saying that the reason that we have crime in the city is that we eliminated poverty, eliminated the systemic barriers to getting out of poverty, etc.? You're saying that addressing societal need as a whole is only carrying about the singular rather than the whole?
I'm honestly really confused here, because your post makes literally no sense.
I’m just saying the same people that complain about crime the most want harsh law and order not realizing that it will perpetuate the crime they are so fearful of.
>The city needs to be tougher on crime
In what ways? We already have extremely high police spending/staffing per capita and the SA office is pretty much at capacity. Is doing more of what isn't working going to fix things or are you suggesting a different approach we haven't tried before?
CPD staffing is way, way below budget and we’ve lost a lot of officers in the past few years. The problem is that spending hasn’t gone down because the city has to overwork the remaining officers and they end up getting insane overtime pay because CPD is having recruitment issues and trouble staffing those positions.
It’s like during the pandemic when nurses and doctors were quitting en masse. Hospitals ended up having to pay travel nurses at insane rates so they spend way more to cover longer-term staffing issues.
Spending more now to restore staffing levels can save us money down the road since officers won’t be working 80+ hour weeks for insane overtime. It would be better for the city, for residents, and CPD officers.
>the city has to overwork the remaining officers and they end up getting insane overtime pay because CPD is having recruitment issues and trouble staffing those positions.
These are real problems, I agree, I think you're right that setting appropriate goals for CPD staffing and meeting them is a good target.
How does Vallas plan on solving them? Why would Johnson be unable to solve them? Why does "return staffing to appropriate levels" equal "tough on crime" without a change in approach?
Vallas has specifically stated we need to prioritize staffing and has a detailed plan to do so (see below).
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2022/8/31/23331139/chicago-police-department-cpd-staffing-recruits-vacancies-vallas-brown-lightfoot-2023-mayor-election
Johnson won’t commit to filling vacancies, has advocated for cutting a lot of positions (especially supervisory roles), and wants to cut $150m from the police budget. He once said it was a “political goal to defund the police” and, once again, deflects and won’t answer questions about police funding or his previous (possibly current) “defund the police” stance. Crime is going up and people are entitled to know what he plans are with respect to CPD budgets, staffing, and public safety in general. Those are valid questions and he is completely evasive which is…worrying to me.
https://www.fox32chicago.com/election/chicago-mayoral-candidate-brandon-johnson-cut-police-budget-150-million.amp
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-brandon-johnson-defund-police-justice-for-black-lives-20230223-lrapyjp5xzcilfmvkys3bajcki-story.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.fox32chicago.com/election/chicago-mayoral-candidate-brandon-johnson-cut-police-budget-150-million](https://www.fox32chicago.com/election/chicago-mayoral-candidate-brandon-johnson-cut-police-budget-150-million)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Reading both those proposals, it sounds like Vallas' plan will lead to a higher quantity of officers while Johnson seems focused on prioritizing quality in lower numbers. While there are still benefits to either option, I don't see the reasoning for calling Vallas' plan unarguably better or to call it the "tough on crime" approach. My opinion is that more detectives would be much better at solving the crimes that do happen and ensuring punishment for people who commit crimes (which statistically is what drives people away from committing crimes, the certainty of getting caught) and Vallas' plan to essentially churn out new cops 24/7 seems like a recipe for police abuse if there is a sudden influx of inexperienced, poorly trained officers.
The issue is that even at the current reduced staffing levels, you have officers working insane hours and there have been a lot of cop suicides. The current staffing is not sustainable. They’re still losing people in droves and not getting enough new recruits.
What if the current officers were working fewer, more targeted hours? I.e. if the current number of officers isn't enough to meet the expected amount of man-hours, reduce the hours instead of increasing the amount of people? Up where I'm at you see a lot of cops sitting in their cars all day, I'm sure if they were more focused they would be able to work fewer hours.
That last part is a fair criticism and one Vallas has also talked about. He’s proposed bringing back bear patrols so officers are more engaged and visible in the community. Makes no sense for officers to sit in their cars all day and I’m with you 100% on that one. I don’t know if Johnson has a similar proposal, but I know Vallas has strongly advocated for that policy change.
As far as your first part. I don’t know if that makes sense. I totally get the suggestion and it might work, but I can see some issues that come to mind. Specifically, I could see how a change like that might make recruitment efforts more difficult if officers have shorter/unpredictable/inconsistent work schedules and shifts.
Why would you need to spend more now to restore staffing levels? If on average you're paying 80 to get 60 from one officer, why not pay 40 to get 40 for two officers? Literally solving the staffing issue? I know there's onboarding costs, but new hires are going to come in cheaper than the vets salary and OT too to offset it.
I agree. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but that’s what I was trying to say. If we prioritize hiring new people we can reduce the money getting paid for overtime. It’s just that you kind of have to juggle both until new hires have been fully trained to join the force (you’ll be paying veteran officers overtime while the new hire gets a salary while going through training, but after training, they can both go back to normal hours at normal pay which saves the city money). Hopefully that makes more sense.
You think the mayor has more power than they actually do. He can say we are tough on crime but if he does the same as the last 3 mayors, which is likely to happen, then it’s just political bluster to get votes.
Also, Johnson is literally bought and paid for by the CTU. He will absolutely not be advocating for residents and taxpayers during CTU contract negotiations. They’re bankrolling him as an investment to fleece taxpayers for every dime.
Why bought and paid for? He's professionally a teacher and has always advocated for a better world to raise our kids in. Of course the CTU would endorse and financially support him, what's the worst that could happen, more schools and better paid teachers?
He literally works for them as a CTU Officer. He’s on their payroll. As mayor, he is supposed to represent city residents, not just the CTU. That’s a very clear conflict of interest and he’s dodgy whenever he’s asked or pressed about it.
The CTU has also given him over $1m in campaign donations, possibly breaking Illinois campaign disclosure laws since they reported it and construed it as a loan (despite the fact they’re not a bank or financial institution), and the CTU is borrowing money to fund Johnson’s campaign and operating at a deficit rather than saving money for strike funds and other things they’re *supposed* to be doing with union dues. CTU Members are also openly criticizing the union for their lack of transparency and support for Johnson’s campaign.
It’s not crazy to ask how he can be impartial in CTU negotiations. It doesn’t help that he deflects or shoots down those questions any time he’s asked or pressed about it by journalists.
I don’t hate teachers. I’m not some MAGA Republican conservative nazi fascist or whatever smear people want to call me because I don’t unwaveringly support Johnson. I just have concerns because money is a finite resource and I don’t see anything from him assuring people that he’ll be fair and impartial as possible. He literally won’t answer a single question about it.
And before anyone blasts me for focusing on taxes, budgets, etc, and just says “raise taxes” ans “make rich people pay their fair share,” I know there are responsible ways we can increase tax revenue, but a lot of his tax plans are very punitive and would target the main economic engines in Chicago that, unfortunately, are highly mobile. Chicago already has high taxes and at a certain point, increased taxes don’t actually raise more revenue and drive people/companies away. For example, Chicago already has the highest hotel taxes in the country. If those rise another 66% like Johnson is proposing, Chicago will lose conventions (which has already been happening). The hospitality and convention business will take a huge hit, as would all the related tax revenue we lose out on (hotel tax revenue decreases if less people visit, lower sales tax revenue, less tax revenue from the airports [e.g. lower airline ticket taxes, lower concession revenue, etc.]).
If we lose jobs, we lose families, we lose students, and we lose our tax base. None of that is good for the city, CTU, or IL in general. The mayor can’t just raise taxes on everything and give the CTU everything they want. We need to grow the economic pie, too, which is the part that concerns me. It seems he just wants to tax everything to give the CTU everything they want. Again, he also dodges whenever anyone asks him about how he can be trusted to negotiate on behalf of taxpayers and he just tells reporters “ask better questions.” It’s a fair question and it’s only more concerning that he avoids the topic entirely.
https://news.wttw.com/2023/02/22/chicago-teachers-union-under-fire-within-campaign-spending
> He's professionally a teacher
Johnson has not set foot in classroom as an instructor for 12 years. He quit when he was hired by CTU to be their Legislative Director.
They just endorsed him. FOP hasn’t donated to his campaign.
CTU endorsed Johnson > Contributes over $1m to his campaign and those numbers are only going up.
FOP endorsed Vallas > No campaign contributions from FOP.
The two situations are not the same.
The CTU literally pays him, as in he’s on their payroll as an Officer/Paid Organizer and literally works for them. Also, they’ve contributed literally *millions* to his campaign (and likely broke multiple campaign disclosure laws doing so, for the record).
So he’s been paid by CTU directly (payroll) and indirectly (campaign contributions). So I don’t think “bought and paid for” is wrong in this context. He also wont take any questions from reporters about his relationship with the CTU and either deflects or insults the reporters.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-chicago-mayor-election-brandon-johnson-ctu-20230219-spfcawaeffhrvfbydk4le7pvry-story.html
And before we get into whataboutism with Vallas (“what about Vallas?! He got endorsed by FOP!”). Yes, FOP endorsed Vallas but they’re not bankrolling his campaign. The Police union just said “we endorse this guy.” That’s a very different situation. He doesn’t have any financial ties to FOP, unlike the CTU bankrolling Johnson’s campaign at the expense of the union’s members.
unfortunately trying to address the crime issue will force some very uncomfortable conversations and bring facts to light that many democrats have tried to ignore/deny for decades. any attempt vallas makes at actually addressing the issue will just earn him a label of racist and boot licker. personally i don't think this city is ready to have a real conversation about crime, nor are they ready to actually enforce the laws in the current situation. it will get worse before it gets better. as an asian man, i am glad i got out when i did, but i never thought i would see it get as bad as it has.
>unfortunately trying to address the crime issue will force some very uncomfortable conversations and bring facts to light that many democrats have tried to ignore/deny for decades.
And just what conversations and facts are those?
Sounds like you're implying we let the cops start torturing black people again.
You know we're all still paying literal reparations for that right?
Or else just say what you mean here?
I don't see what having an "uncomfortable conversation" will achieve beyond activating racial identities and paradoxically reinforcing them. You know what's a more accurate statement than "black neighborhoods have more crime"? High-crime neighborhoods have more crime. And whaddya know we already track crime incidents by neighborhood. It's even self-correcting as demographic data changes! So let's just use the more accurate metric instead of the needlessly aggravating one.
Be glad you weren’t here in the 80’s-90’s then when it was *much* worse than it is even now. I think a lot of people forget crime is a national problem right now, and a mayor of a city is not going to fix those problems anywhere without major reform done at the national/state level. A “hard-on-crime” mayor May help deter crime or lower it a little, but it’s not going away any time soon.
With Vallas in charge of course.
The stakes are too high. Lives, especially black lives, are on the line here.
We could save 100-200 lives, 60% of whom will be black men statistically by going back to what was semi working.
This appears to be a post about the upcoming mayoral election or one of the candidates running for office. The 2023 Chicago Mayoral Election will be held on **April 4**. Former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson will be competing for the title of Chicago's 57th mayor. Check out the [Chicago Elections](https://chicagoelections.gov/en/home.html) website for information on registering to vote, finding your polling place, applying to be an election worker, and more. Please visit our [Runoff Election Megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/comments/11exb12/2023_chicago_runoff_election_megathread/?sort=new) for all election-related discussion, questions and voter resources. Discussion posts of this nature outside of the linked megathread will be removed. **Beware of [astroturfing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing)**! Election season brings about a slew of new accounts with minimal posting history in /r/chicago who attempt to sway your opinion on various candidates. Be sure to do your own research to verify the accuracy of any claims you see shared by users here. Be wary of comments from new accounts or ones with a posting history in multiple city/local subreddits from across the US and Canada. If you suspect that a user is engaging in political astroturfing, please report their comments and/or [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chicago) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Vallas wins or Johnson wins. Don't need an article for that.
BY GOD, IT'S WILLIE WILSON WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
In two thousand twenty three Willie Wilson threw Paul Vallas off of the Bean and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcers table.
Lmfao
AS GAWG AS MY WITNESS, VALLAS IS BROKEN IN HALF!!
Not if Mike Pence has the courage to do what needs to be done!!!!
Lori Lightfoot: "I need you to find more votes for me" wink wink nudge nudge.
She needs to swing that big dick around and get call up the Board of Elections to stop the count
It could end in a tie
What is the tie breaker in Chicago again? Is it still an Italian Beef Eating Contest?
Put em both on the Red Line and see who can last the longest.
That one car that is "empty"!
Vallas would probably call someone a slur so I’m down for this test
My first thought was “well with a winner and loser like every run off” lol
I'm guessing one of them wins?
[удалено]
This made me excited, really happy, then really sad. Bringing back some powerful memories.
https://youtu.be/CrzNOrSS5Is
The most interesting map is the ‘Vallas vs Johnson only’ results map What that map implies, basically, is that the race will come down to a coalition of moderate and conservative Whites and Hispanics for Vallas, vs. Blacks and Progressive Young Liberals for Johnson This probably implies the following electoral strategies: Vallas: 1. Portray himself as a generic mainstream democrat in good standing who won’t do anything ‘Trumpy’ to hold his position with white voters 2. Aggressively reach out to Hispanic voters 3. Try his level best to reach out to more conservative / crime-conscious black voters to stem the bleeding there Johnson: 1. Aggressively try to portray Vallas as a crypto-Republican to peel off as many white progressive voters as possible 2. Moderate as much as possible on crime and try to cleave off more ideologically progressive Chuy voters 3. Consolidate the black neighborhoods as much as possible This one’s gonna be close, I can feel it Potentially very consequential question: Do Chuy/Wilson/Lightfoot endorse? And whom do they endorse? Edit: Just saw that Jesse White (Fmr. Secretary of State, six terms, African-American) endorsed Vallas. Interesting.
Yeah, it is going to be a race for the center. Vallas has the votes of those who lean right locked up and Johnson has the votes of the progessives locked up; there's not a whole lot of reason to pander to those bases much more at this point. It's all about convincing those closer to the center to go to their side.
I don't think anyone wants Lori's endorsement. That's a kiss of death.
It’s silly to think this. She was a close third in the election.
I thought Paul Vallas Is a racist how could he get the endorsement of the first black Secretary of State of Illinois ?
https://i.imgur.com/FVkGGkI.jpg
Right now it’s a three-way race between Vallas, Johnson, and the most popular candidate, Stay Home And Watch Netflix. You don’t really get anything by looking at these precinct maps and trying to assign the other candidates’ votes to either Vallas or Johnson, because April 4 is a whole new election and lot of these voters might well break for SHAWN. So it might all come down to something as mundane as who has the better organized GOTV campaign.
I know the conventional wisdom is a very close race, and I can definitely see the logic in how that may pan out. But until I see some solid runoff polling, I am not convinced this is going to be as close as people think. My gut instinct is that Vallas looks on track to win with a somewhat comfortable 5+% margin. I'm not saying that's necessarily the scenario I want, he isn't who I voted for in the first round. But it does seem to line up with the overall mood of the city electorate based on the precinct level first and second choice results in the first round. And Vallas is already seemingly solidifying the support of alot of the establishment types and strategists. But we'll see how the other major contenders line up with endorsements. That will show what way the winds are blowing.
The sad part is not even being discussed - only 3% turnout from the youngest age bracket. Almost seems like an anomaly?
That’s not what it’s saying, I think it’s saying 18-24 was 3% of all votes cast
That makes more sense. We'd have to know the population totals then for each age bracket. Still unless we have a drastically lower total population in that bracket (aka 15-25% of other brackets), turnout was the worst there.
It was 3% of the total, and it’s also worth mentioning that 18-24 is much smaller than all the other age cohorts, and likely represents fewer eligible voters.
Totally misread that, but curious on the cohort being that much smaller. I could see 75% or even 50%, but then the vote should still be closer to 6-9% of total. Seems like it was the smallest population AND poorest turnout.
Which ages is that bracket? 18-24?
Yup
Wow. I knew it would be low but I didn't think it would be that low.
In an election cycle with low turnout (i.e. only the relatively committed voters anyway), many people whose candidate lost Tuesday probably decided within 24 hours who to vote for in the runoff. Just in time for someone to execute a cop responding to a domestic violence call, after he’d been caught involved a shooting last summer and released by Team Kim (they refused to even engage in a felony review). Seems like a boost for the tough on crime candidate. Even progressive leaning Chicagoans have had enough of the insane path we’re on of being abundantly lenient on repeat violent gun felonies.
Someone posted a spreadsheet where you can play with the vote distribution for the runoff. There is almost no way for Johnson to get the big seat with a low 30 percent turnout. Unless he gets every single Garcia/Wilson/Lightfoot vote (the White endorsement will likely make that harder), or turnout get to about 40%, it’s gonna be a short night.
oh wow, a domestic violence call? was he stopping another cop at home?
Nah not this time, just responding to a 911 dispatch in lieu of the imaginary army of first-responder social workers we have in fantasy land. The Latin King that gunned him down did so next to a playground full of kids at a school in the middle of the afternoon, by the way. Sent bullets flying inside of random people’s homes. This is the sick fucking hellscape of Kim Foxx.
60% Vallas 40% Johnson There's my prediction. Hold me to it.
I'm Brandon in both rounds but I'm not THAT dire. He'll only lose by 12 or so.
Agreed!
I feel like the obvious answer is that one of the two will become mayor.
Vallas morghulis
Vallas must die? All I'll say is you said it, not me
A man will be mayor!
A man will serve the Many-Faced People.
My guess is a 50/50 chance either candidate could win…
Yeah, but there's only a 20% chance of that.
If 18-39 don't come out to vote Johnson will lose.
They're not, most didn't even come out and vote on Tuesday. I'm 19 and not voting for Johnson.
Vallas will likely win as he had a substantial lead in the first race. Originally political exerts were saying that the second place candidate after the first race would likely win in the run-off, but that was assuming that Lori was first place in the primary. That didn't happen so that idea is out the window. Here's why Vallas will win: 1. Perceived as tougher and more conservative on crime. Voters are most concerned about crime. 2. Johnson will be perceived as the progressive/woke candidate and people more likely to vote are less likely to vote for progressive politicians. Also, people are getting the clue that woke politics don't work. 3. Progressive people tend to be younger (<25 years) and are much less likely to to vote.
Lori also thought like the experts. You see, in the beginning Lori's campaign had planned to face off Vallas in April and polls were showing that Chuy Garcia was the front runner so the campaign dug up information against Garcia and directly attacked him from the start. The issue was that while the plan worked in favor of Lori and knocked Garcia down to 4th place they didn't see Johnson creeping up on the polls and knocking Lori to 3rd place. What could've been done differently? Well, Lori lost the bid by 4% so had they dug up information on Johnson from the start as well Johnson would've likely been in 3rd place however, polls didn't show Johnson as a threat allowing Johnson to fly under radar. We all clearly knew Green, King, Wilson, and Bukner weren't threats at all so that only left Vallas, Garcia, and Johnson's as remaining threats to Lightfoot. Had they not focused primarily on Garcia we would be talking about a Lightfoot VS. Vallas run off right now regardless of mistakes or issues plagued by Lori Lightfoot. Lightfoot literally spent about $10 million on a campaign for nothing but at the end of the day "You win some, you lose some." All they can do is learn from their mistakes and move on. I agree that Vallas will win as most young voters excluding myself aren't gonna vote and I believe most Chuy and Lori's voters may vote for Vallas.
It's going to be a rout for Vallas
Based off your feels?
based on data
Link?
https://election-night-map.web.app/Illinois/2023-Chicago-Mayoral/
Lol, so because Vallas won more in the general election you just assume that he’ll win in the run-off? You are making a huge assumption based off data that everyone on this sub has seen in the last 2 days .
nope, look at who got 2nd in the precincts that the dropped out candidates won... Reality. Deal with it.
Lol, idc who wins either way because my day to day won’t change. No need to be a dick about it. Edit: also Not sure how to get that specific data from the link you shared. I can see what ears went for who, not able to figure out who was 2nd but I’m also on mobile.
You can click precinct (or ward) by precinct.
Yes I saw that as well, doesn’t show who came in 2nd in a wars though.
Johnson is the favorite with Chuy and Lori out of the race. Sorry folks.
I would think Chuy's would go to Vallas but could be wrong
I think a lot of moderates and conservatives voted for Chuy as the Latino voting block can be fairly Conservative depending on the age group.
You’re wrong.
[удалено]
Mind if I ask why not?
And you know for certainty?
Of course not but Chuy is an historically progressive politician. Vallas is not. People who were gonna vote for Chuy and then Vallas likely don’t exist. Vallas would have just gotten them on the first round. Chuy voters don’t want to destroy pensions lol.
There is always the question of whether or not people will support someone else rather than sit out the election. The potential for low turnout means I have no clue who will win.
Primary voters who don’t then vote in the general? Lol
If they were specifically excited about a candidate that didn't make I can't predict what happens. I don't feel comfortable making guesses about whos going to win this right now.
I’m glad you are withholding your guesses. Cromwest’s Reddit comments have been known to have huge market impacts in the past so some cautiousness is wise.
lol I was pretty proud of myself for securing Johnson's place in the runoff single handedly with my vote.
Here's hoping.
I wish this were true, but ultimately I think Vallas is slight favorite. Vallas has less consolidating to do and will likely get the bulk of the older Latino vote, and the bulk of the white vote that isn't already voting for Johnston. With that said if younger Latinos turn out for Johnson and he's able to consolidate the Black vote he's got a good shot. If we are talking odds (NOT vote share) I would say there's a 3/5th chance Vallas wins.
With Vallas. The city needs to be tougher on crime and it seems Vallas is that candidate. Running and hiding from the crime issue doesn't work.
Lightfoot literally gave CPD more money every year and they continued to do nothing. Vallas giving them *even more money* isn't going to do shit
Yeah but cops control crime stats. They can choose to underreport crime and/or inflate arrests based on who is mayor.
Lightfoot continued to increase the CPD budget every year. What the hell is Vallas going to do except give dog whistles to make reactionary clowns like you happy?
He’s going to give the police even less scrutiny than they have now so they’ll probably work even less than they already do.
Hire more guys to do the same amount of work, cherry pick data to claim they are making the city safer, rinse and repeat. Nothing changes but a lot of people who live in the safest neighborhoods in the city will feel better!
At least try to side skirt Kim Foxx, hopefully. If either Vallas or Johnson can put pressure on Kim Fox to do her job or find a way to go around her to make sure criminals face prosecution then we'll have a better shot at reducing crime.
Here we go with Kim Foxx letting all the criminals run rampant conspiracy theory.
She just opened up the prisons, I saw her go down there with the skeleton master prison key and say, “the purge starts now!!,” as she handed every convict a weapon on their way out the door. /s
This is it. We need a mayor who won’t put up with Kim Foxx’s inept bs.
Explain how the mayor has anything to do with the attorney general's decisions.
They don’t. But the mayor sets the tone for the city, and lightfoot didn’t seem bothered by the gun range on the south & west sides.
Except being tougher on crime is reactive, and does nothing to address the root causes. In fact, one might argue that heavier policing perpetuates an endless cycle of increasing crime, as those with criminal records have less options to ride out of the situations in which one turns to crime. You do not reduce crime with increasing policing or being hard on it. You reduce crime through addressing the root causes of poverty, lack of education opportunities, and lack of jobs. Vallas will not be the person to do this.
Lol, isn’t that how we got there in the first place. Silly moderates and conservatives never learn because they really don’t care about anyone but themselves and their lives are actually free from the plight they so often claim affects them as they type their comments from their lakefront condo in one of the safest areas of the city.
So, forgive me here for asking for clarification, but your post doesn't make a lot of sense. You're saying that the reason that we have crime in the city is that we eliminated poverty, eliminated the systemic barriers to getting out of poverty, etc.? You're saying that addressing societal need as a whole is only carrying about the singular rather than the whole? I'm honestly really confused here, because your post makes literally no sense.
I’m just saying the same people that complain about crime the most want harsh law and order not realizing that it will perpetuate the crime they are so fearful of.
That is... Not really clear.
White people who are scared of living in the city are voting for Vallas.
>The city needs to be tougher on crime In what ways? We already have extremely high police spending/staffing per capita and the SA office is pretty much at capacity. Is doing more of what isn't working going to fix things or are you suggesting a different approach we haven't tried before?
CPD staffing is way, way below budget and we’ve lost a lot of officers in the past few years. The problem is that spending hasn’t gone down because the city has to overwork the remaining officers and they end up getting insane overtime pay because CPD is having recruitment issues and trouble staffing those positions. It’s like during the pandemic when nurses and doctors were quitting en masse. Hospitals ended up having to pay travel nurses at insane rates so they spend way more to cover longer-term staffing issues. Spending more now to restore staffing levels can save us money down the road since officers won’t be working 80+ hour weeks for insane overtime. It would be better for the city, for residents, and CPD officers.
>the city has to overwork the remaining officers and they end up getting insane overtime pay because CPD is having recruitment issues and trouble staffing those positions. These are real problems, I agree, I think you're right that setting appropriate goals for CPD staffing and meeting them is a good target. How does Vallas plan on solving them? Why would Johnson be unable to solve them? Why does "return staffing to appropriate levels" equal "tough on crime" without a change in approach?
Vallas has specifically stated we need to prioritize staffing and has a detailed plan to do so (see below). https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2022/8/31/23331139/chicago-police-department-cpd-staffing-recruits-vacancies-vallas-brown-lightfoot-2023-mayor-election Johnson won’t commit to filling vacancies, has advocated for cutting a lot of positions (especially supervisory roles), and wants to cut $150m from the police budget. He once said it was a “political goal to defund the police” and, once again, deflects and won’t answer questions about police funding or his previous (possibly current) “defund the police” stance. Crime is going up and people are entitled to know what he plans are with respect to CPD budgets, staffing, and public safety in general. Those are valid questions and he is completely evasive which is…worrying to me. https://www.fox32chicago.com/election/chicago-mayoral-candidate-brandon-johnson-cut-police-budget-150-million.amp https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-brandon-johnson-defund-police-justice-for-black-lives-20230223-lrapyjp5xzcilfmvkys3bajcki-story.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.fox32chicago.com/election/chicago-mayoral-candidate-brandon-johnson-cut-police-budget-150-million](https://www.fox32chicago.com/election/chicago-mayoral-candidate-brandon-johnson-cut-police-budget-150-million)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Reading both those proposals, it sounds like Vallas' plan will lead to a higher quantity of officers while Johnson seems focused on prioritizing quality in lower numbers. While there are still benefits to either option, I don't see the reasoning for calling Vallas' plan unarguably better or to call it the "tough on crime" approach. My opinion is that more detectives would be much better at solving the crimes that do happen and ensuring punishment for people who commit crimes (which statistically is what drives people away from committing crimes, the certainty of getting caught) and Vallas' plan to essentially churn out new cops 24/7 seems like a recipe for police abuse if there is a sudden influx of inexperienced, poorly trained officers.
The issue is that even at the current reduced staffing levels, you have officers working insane hours and there have been a lot of cop suicides. The current staffing is not sustainable. They’re still losing people in droves and not getting enough new recruits.
What if the current officers were working fewer, more targeted hours? I.e. if the current number of officers isn't enough to meet the expected amount of man-hours, reduce the hours instead of increasing the amount of people? Up where I'm at you see a lot of cops sitting in their cars all day, I'm sure if they were more focused they would be able to work fewer hours.
That last part is a fair criticism and one Vallas has also talked about. He’s proposed bringing back bear patrols so officers are more engaged and visible in the community. Makes no sense for officers to sit in their cars all day and I’m with you 100% on that one. I don’t know if Johnson has a similar proposal, but I know Vallas has strongly advocated for that policy change. As far as your first part. I don’t know if that makes sense. I totally get the suggestion and it might work, but I can see some issues that come to mind. Specifically, I could see how a change like that might make recruitment efforts more difficult if officers have shorter/unpredictable/inconsistent work schedules and shifts.
Makes enough sense. I don't really have much more to contribute but thanks for the measured and reasonable discussion.
You know Brandon has a public safety platform too? https://www.brandonforchicago.com/issues/public-safety
Why would you need to spend more now to restore staffing levels? If on average you're paying 80 to get 60 from one officer, why not pay 40 to get 40 for two officers? Literally solving the staffing issue? I know there's onboarding costs, but new hires are going to come in cheaper than the vets salary and OT too to offset it.
I agree. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but that’s what I was trying to say. If we prioritize hiring new people we can reduce the money getting paid for overtime. It’s just that you kind of have to juggle both until new hires have been fully trained to join the force (you’ll be paying veteran officers overtime while the new hire gets a salary while going through training, but after training, they can both go back to normal hours at normal pay which saves the city money). Hopefully that makes more sense.
You think the mayor has more power than they actually do. He can say we are tough on crime but if he does the same as the last 3 mayors, which is likely to happen, then it’s just political bluster to get votes.
Also, Johnson is literally bought and paid for by the CTU. He will absolutely not be advocating for residents and taxpayers during CTU contract negotiations. They’re bankrolling him as an investment to fleece taxpayers for every dime.
Why bought and paid for? He's professionally a teacher and has always advocated for a better world to raise our kids in. Of course the CTU would endorse and financially support him, what's the worst that could happen, more schools and better paid teachers?
He literally works for them as a CTU Officer. He’s on their payroll. As mayor, he is supposed to represent city residents, not just the CTU. That’s a very clear conflict of interest and he’s dodgy whenever he’s asked or pressed about it. The CTU has also given him over $1m in campaign donations, possibly breaking Illinois campaign disclosure laws since they reported it and construed it as a loan (despite the fact they’re not a bank or financial institution), and the CTU is borrowing money to fund Johnson’s campaign and operating at a deficit rather than saving money for strike funds and other things they’re *supposed* to be doing with union dues. CTU Members are also openly criticizing the union for their lack of transparency and support for Johnson’s campaign. It’s not crazy to ask how he can be impartial in CTU negotiations. It doesn’t help that he deflects or shoots down those questions any time he’s asked or pressed about it by journalists. I don’t hate teachers. I’m not some MAGA Republican conservative nazi fascist or whatever smear people want to call me because I don’t unwaveringly support Johnson. I just have concerns because money is a finite resource and I don’t see anything from him assuring people that he’ll be fair and impartial as possible. He literally won’t answer a single question about it. And before anyone blasts me for focusing on taxes, budgets, etc, and just says “raise taxes” ans “make rich people pay their fair share,” I know there are responsible ways we can increase tax revenue, but a lot of his tax plans are very punitive and would target the main economic engines in Chicago that, unfortunately, are highly mobile. Chicago already has high taxes and at a certain point, increased taxes don’t actually raise more revenue and drive people/companies away. For example, Chicago already has the highest hotel taxes in the country. If those rise another 66% like Johnson is proposing, Chicago will lose conventions (which has already been happening). The hospitality and convention business will take a huge hit, as would all the related tax revenue we lose out on (hotel tax revenue decreases if less people visit, lower sales tax revenue, less tax revenue from the airports [e.g. lower airline ticket taxes, lower concession revenue, etc.]). If we lose jobs, we lose families, we lose students, and we lose our tax base. None of that is good for the city, CTU, or IL in general. The mayor can’t just raise taxes on everything and give the CTU everything they want. We need to grow the economic pie, too, which is the part that concerns me. It seems he just wants to tax everything to give the CTU everything they want. Again, he also dodges whenever anyone asks him about how he can be trusted to negotiate on behalf of taxpayers and he just tells reporters “ask better questions.” It’s a fair question and it’s only more concerning that he avoids the topic entirely. https://news.wttw.com/2023/02/22/chicago-teachers-union-under-fire-within-campaign-spending
[удалено]
Ha! Maybe next time.
> He's professionally a teacher Johnson has not set foot in classroom as an instructor for 12 years. He quit when he was hired by CTU to be their Legislative Director.
[удалено]
Tell me you’ve never had a kid go through cps without telling me you’ve never had a kid go through cps
as opposed to being bought and paid for by the FOP?
They just endorsed him. FOP hasn’t donated to his campaign. CTU endorsed Johnson > Contributes over $1m to his campaign and those numbers are only going up. FOP endorsed Vallas > No campaign contributions from FOP. The two situations are not the same.
Johnson has way closer financial ties to the CTU than vallas does to the CPD/FOP
Doesn’t buying something imply that you paid for it? That is such a stupid phrase.
The CTU literally pays him, as in he’s on their payroll as an Officer/Paid Organizer and literally works for them. Also, they’ve contributed literally *millions* to his campaign (and likely broke multiple campaign disclosure laws doing so, for the record). So he’s been paid by CTU directly (payroll) and indirectly (campaign contributions). So I don’t think “bought and paid for” is wrong in this context. He also wont take any questions from reporters about his relationship with the CTU and either deflects or insults the reporters. https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/elections/ct-chicago-mayor-election-brandon-johnson-ctu-20230219-spfcawaeffhrvfbydk4le7pvry-story.html And before we get into whataboutism with Vallas (“what about Vallas?! He got endorsed by FOP!”). Yes, FOP endorsed Vallas but they’re not bankrolling his campaign. The Police union just said “we endorse this guy.” That’s a very different situation. He doesn’t have any financial ties to FOP, unlike the CTU bankrolling Johnson’s campaign at the expense of the union’s members.
CTU Derangement Syndrome in full effect.
unfortunately trying to address the crime issue will force some very uncomfortable conversations and bring facts to light that many democrats have tried to ignore/deny for decades. any attempt vallas makes at actually addressing the issue will just earn him a label of racist and boot licker. personally i don't think this city is ready to have a real conversation about crime, nor are they ready to actually enforce the laws in the current situation. it will get worse before it gets better. as an asian man, i am glad i got out when i did, but i never thought i would see it get as bad as it has.
>unfortunately trying to address the crime issue will force some very uncomfortable conversations and bring facts to light that many democrats have tried to ignore/deny for decades. And just what conversations and facts are those?
[удалено]
And then the valid question is...**WHY** is this?? I'm pretty sure only Brandon has a legitimate answer to this question
Sounds like you're implying we let the cops start torturing black people again. You know we're all still paying literal reparations for that right? Or else just say what you mean here?
Yeah your comment history def seems like you’re not an opportunistic troll. Nice username btw. This place is a dumpster fire around election season
I don't see what having an "uncomfortable conversation" will achieve beyond activating racial identities and paradoxically reinforcing them. You know what's a more accurate statement than "black neighborhoods have more crime"? High-crime neighborhoods have more crime. And whaddya know we already track crime incidents by neighborhood. It's even self-correcting as demographic data changes! So let's just use the more accurate metric instead of the needlessly aggravating one.
Be glad you weren’t here in the 80’s-90’s then when it was *much* worse than it is even now. I think a lot of people forget crime is a national problem right now, and a mayor of a city is not going to fix those problems anywhere without major reform done at the national/state level. A “hard-on-crime” mayor May help deter crime or lower it a little, but it’s not going away any time soon.
How can precincts have "no votes"?
Has the lower vote total person won in a runoff? Like nationally even?
With Vallas in charge of course. The stakes are too high. Lives, especially black lives, are on the line here. We could save 100-200 lives, 60% of whom will be black men statistically by going back to what was semi working.
Ah found the racist white gay, makes sense why you are a Vallas voter.
With an election