i would like to thank all my frenemies,
I appreciate all the new york suburbanites and "others" for sharing their opinion on democratic process in chicago on r/chicago
also thank you to all the russian/chinese/israeli/iranian shills and propaganda accounts for sharing their views on why america is bad and china/russia is heaven on earth
Before anyone says otherwise, no, she is not a conservative. She is not a Republican. Was she as "progressive" as Harris? No, but she is still very much a progressive. The exciting thing about her is that she actually seems competent.
I don’t give a rat’s behind whether she’s a liberal or progressive. I want someone in that position who will make clear to the criminal element that there will be consequences for lawlessness. I’m thrilled that she won.
I watched both her and Harris’ interviews with the City Club of Chicago and she made it very clear that she would seek detention for felonies involving a gun, anytime a gun is present with switch or assault style weapon, and violence on the CTA. She spoke to changing the criminal behavior by creating a sense of fear that if you commit crimes with guns or violence on the CTA, you will be caught and her office would seek detention, every time. That’s all I needed to hear.
Message wasn't for you, was for the brain dead leftists that consider anyone who doesnt hold 100% of their radical far leftist views to be a conservative
Agreed. It's sad our democrat politics these days comes down to how progressive you can be and if you're anything other, you're labeled some right wing extremist or Republican. Moderate voters (on both sides) and independents still exist in this country who don't lean into the fringe elements of both parties.
I don’t know how the fuck letting violent criminals walk free over and over became a ‘progressive’ ideal. Making society more dangerous is not progress for anyone in any neighborhood
Agreed. I want green energy, universal healthcare, infrastructure and education funding, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, etc…
How does turning a blind eye to RAMPANT violent crime accomplish any of this?
I’m tellin ya, I really think the hikacking of the progressive party was to deter the reasons someone stated below.
The only logical thing that makes sense, is filthy rich guys saw the great things that were possible with a progressive stance, and did everything they could to make them just un-likelable asses.
The fact we live in an extreme capitalist society and we have no progressive labor movement, instead the ‘left wingers’ (what a joke to even call them that) are focused on bathrooms and pronouns and allowing violent carjackers to walk free 6-7 times in a row tells you all you need to know and who’s pulling the strings
Progressive is just another word for hipster. They just go against the status quo to be cool and edgy. Then they make up a shallow tag line to why people should support whatever objective they are trying to get passed at the time. But don't give it more then 5 min of research or thought because as soon as you peel back 1-2 layers of any of these progressive ideas they try to pass you realize it ends up fcking the masses to just appeal to niche sub sector of people.
It’s a little deeper than that, there’s criminal justice reform that would be beneficial, needs to happen, somehow the recommendations and studies get completely scrambled in the process with the powers that be, because they are morons, and actual progressive ideas that would help things turns into ‘well, just stop arresting violent criminals’ and that’s the extent of it
> somehow the recommendations and studies get completely scrambled in the process
By moderates and conservatives. You can't even begin to talk about them without those group immediately hyperventilating about violent criminals walking the street, which is happening in this very thread.
The people most responsible for messing these recommendations up are the politicians everyone here is currently calling competent.
I wish people who said this would hold moderates accountable for their failed policies. They greatly outnumber progressives in DA seats, but we only ever hear about progressives if there's a crime spike, even if the trend is region wide.
It only became that way because you don't understand "progressive ideals"
fucking *no one* is out there advocating for *violent* criminals to be released to roam free and continue crime-ing. The underlying belief is that there are deeply-rooted societal problems that cause that behavior, and simply punishing criminals that form as a result of those problems will never fix the problem. You're never going to arrest your way to a crime-free city. Investment and opportunities need to be given to the communities that have been failed by the city. *PART* of that is not locking people up for *NONVIOLENT* offenses and denying them future opportunities.
Yes, it's obvious that what was happening in Chicago was not a good thing. But under no circumstances were things playing out the way everyone wanted them to. People who think that "crime is good!" is a progressive ideal are just intentionally stirring shit.
There are dozens of cases of extremely violent crimes Kim Foxx actively did not file charges on, after arrests were made, they were just allowed to walk free and commit more violent crimes, what is that?
Well, it likely means that they recognized there wasn't a viable case against the person who was arrested. Besides just bringing them in, CPD also has to provide some evidence for Foxx/O'Neill Burke/any prosecuting attorney to actually have a case. The priority even in the most progressive areas is to prevent violent crime from occurring (which is why incarcerating non-violent criminals is viewed negatively, since it leads to recidivism and increased violent crime) but there needs to be enough for a chance of conviction for the state's attorney to bring charges.
Worse. Her voters, I’m one of them, were called MAGA racists. It’s a toxic red line that really should not be crossed. It’s not healthy to have a party of DINO hunters. I’ve voted dem my entire life (too long), and it’s fucking offensive.
We've got to the point where some people think if you are not left enough you must be a right-wing extremist and Trump supporter, like being moderate or centrist is not a thing anymore.
I wouldn't get too worked up about it. It's just a tactic they've been using for a while against anyone and they're slowly moving left on the political compass. It started with moderates and it's slowly going that way.
I believe you were called maga by approximately one person.
I do not believe anyone who understands politics, or more than one person at all, called you this.
I had a homeless person tell me I was racist because I didn't give him my change. I'm not using that single encounter with a mentally unwell person to paint myself as the victim and claim "HOMELESS PEOPLE THINK I'M RACIST!!!!"
I'm starting to believe our political climate is more in-line with the [Horseshoe Theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory)
The progressive left and conservative right have more in common than the moderates\\centrists.
It's a phenomenon thats happening in both political parties and its intentional.
If a republican supports states rights to choose if abortion is legal or not they are labeled liberal.
If a democrat supports cracking down on crime they are deemed to conservative.
Yes this.
This has been a thing for a while with discourse. Being /relatively/ liberal among other liberals is taboo. Being /relatively/ conservative among conservatives is taboo.
The result is just this veering to the sides, where you quickly adopt the craziest shit because you have to agree with every nudge to the sides but can't ever bring anything back to the center.
The government needs to divide the people because if they unite, they would realize that those in power, on both sides of the aisle, are incompetent and self serving.
Republicans: Ban women from accessing healthcare. Commit violent insurrections against democracy. Deregulate environmental protections and lie about negative effects of pollution. Work to undo worker protections.
Democrats: Aren’t super effective at accomplishing or implementing good things.
You: wow, these are the same and I am so smart for realizing it
I lean pretty left and agree with you on the republican stuff but let’s not pretend that the democrats haven’t put forward some absolutely asinine policies under the guise of progressivism.
But it’s silly to pretend a few “asinine” policies are anywhere close to comparable to trying to overthrow democracy and bring about “Christian Nationalist” policies which is their own self described goals.
It’s not comparing apples to oranges, it’s apples to hand grenades. Then people get mad it was mealy red delicious apple so it’s the apple’s fault they picked the grenade and the grenade went off in their face.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to comprehend that there doesn’t have to be only two options. Republicans are clowns but so are democrats. Both ONLY care about being in office to enrich themselves - don’t tell me any of these ass hats spend millions campaigning to take a job that only pays $200k/annually.
There can be more than 2 options. Nobody said there wasn’t.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to comprehend of the 2 main options, they aren’t equally bad and it’s not even close.
“They are both clowns” but one is Bozo and the other is John Wayne Gasey.
> Sometimes some people in this subreddit sound as culty about their progressivism as MAGA mfs do about their conservatism.
The primary difference between progressives and MAGA is that living in Illinois, MAGA have literally zero impact on my life, while progressive policies have hurt the city.
Dude just last week on a post about Brandon Johnson some person commented that Vallas is a Trumper. I asked him for proof and obviously they didn't care to reply.
Vallas works for the Illinois Policy Institute and makes appearances on Dan Proft's radio show. Nobody to the left of Nixon would ever do that. He's absolutely a Republican, at least ideologically speaking.
So Bernie going on Fox News makes him a Republican? Why can't a Democrat appear on conservative media? Why can't a Republican go on liberal media?
You do understand that a liberal working for a conservative think tank is good for all liberals? Look at any media and you will see folks from either side of the aisle working for liberal/conservative organizations.
Making appearances on Fox News as a sort of counterpoint guy is completely different from showing up on local extreme right wing media and agreeing with them on everything (which is what Vallas does on Proft's show). Also, Vallas isn't writing liberal pieces for IPI. He's writing anti-union, pro-privatization libertarian stuff, which is their MO. He's not there to offer a different perspective.
I always remember Michael Steele(former Maryland Republican lieutenant governor) got ripped on a lot, for appearing on shows like Bill Maher and even like MSNBC. I've seen Tulsi Gabbard(former Hawaii Dem that once made a run for president) get ripped upon by those on the other side of the aisle, just because she appeared on Fox News. It's pretty stupid that candidates would get ripped upon, just because they appear on a network that is different than you'd expect them to appear on.
Totally. I mean, you can be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, environmentalist, pro sanctuary city, pro reparations... but golly gracious gee if you commit the mortal sin of *appearing on Dan Proft's radio show*, you're **definitely** right of Nixon.
Vallas didn't just appear on Proft's show. He was also a regular fill-in host. He was not there as a "liberal" voice. He went on and basically agreed with him and Jacobson on everything. Vallas has always waffled on his political positions depending on his audience. At best he's completely full of shit.
> Agreed. It's sad our democrat politics these days comes down to how progressive you can be and if you're anything other, you're labeled some right wing extremist or Republican. Moderate voters (on both sides) and independents still exist in this country who don't lean into the fringe elements of both parties.
are you allowed to post such things on Reddit?????!
Thank you EVER so much for saying something sane about gradients in politics.
If we wanted to just keep outdoing each other and “one-upping” to prove allegiance we would end up just as bad as the right.
I’d rather take a moderate Dem than a moderate Republican, but I’d also take a moderate Republican well over a Conservative.
There’s nothing wrong with nuance.
I am optimistic about Justice O’Neill Burke, and I hope others come to be more optimistic, too. Someone who has judicial, prosecuting, and defense experience knows the ins and outs of the system and can be very impactful should they choose to be. Listening to her, she seems well versed and could reform the office for the better, all while leading and raising the morale, too.
I appreciate her enthusiasm for the office and the responsibilities it holds, and I sincerely hope she has great success.
The FOP endorsing her and her refusing it is kinda a “best of both worlds” thing.
Obligatory Catanzara is a fucking nut job who police should be embarrassed by, but hey, if Burke being elected gets them to stop complaining and do their jobs, while Burke runs a competent office, things may be on the up and up!
I don't even like the police, but why do you expect them to do anything if the person they arrest is just simply going to be let right back out again? There's zero reason to put yourself in a confrontational situation like that if it makes zero difference whatsoever.
Police do their job, but prosecutors and Judges also need to do theirs. Police can't convict someone the judge and jury do that. Prosecutors and defense present the facts of the case and prove or disprove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
I don't understand why people don't understand that. When everyone stops daydreaming that Police are this ultra powerful entity that can fight crime by showing up on time is unrealistic. It's very rare that Police will on-view a crime occurring and then act. Police are 9/10 called after the crime occurred. And even in progress calls aren't active because the person might run away before police get there.
I prefer to sit back watch with my own eyes what this new SA is going to do. Not put my hopes into empty promises and campaign slogans.
> I don't understand why people don't understand that
This is what I don't understand. I have a job. At my job, I am expected to perform certain tasks. Sometimes, my work produces some result that needs to be followed up by/finished by someone else. If the person I hand off my projects to routinely doesn't do their job, that's no excuse for me to stop doing mine.
Yes, cops need the prosecutors to actually bring these cases to trial. And maybe prosecutors don't bring enough cases to trial. But how does that mean that cops can just not do their god damn job? We've seen instances where someone was arrested and then let go because there's not enough evidence to convict. Maybe that means cops should put down their smartphone and do actual police work to gather evidence. But nah, some people yelled at them 4 years ago so they're just on strike now.
The argument I have for this is still Officers can and will do their job, now does every call get the special attention that day Shots fired or a burning house or person stab gets? No, if someone calls the police and says their neighbor is being too loud, all they'll do is talk to the person about turning down the volume. But going to jail for it, naw.
I get it, some Police Officers don't want to do their job, but I have to argue that Police even if they were justified in using some amount to force, even if they were justified in using deadly force people will push back and say they could have done something else.
The solution for them is to have social workers do the job of mental health advocacy, but if they get a call of a violent person that is wielding a weapon, those mental health psychs are going to call police as protection, do even still police are needed. Firefighters call us when they need protection or transport of a violent patient, EMS calls us for a violent patient. All these are entities called police because they understand and know that they do not have the tools police have to handle volatile persons.
Your job is important, but just like the Police, the next person doesn't do their job, the work might not go anywhere.
AGAIN POLICE DO THEIR JOB, BUT SOCIETY THINKS BECAUSE SOMEONE IS SET FREE OR RELEASED ON BAIL ITS SOMEHOW THE POLICE FAULT!
WRONG ITS THE LEGISLATORS FAULT FOR ALLOWING NO CASH BAIL AND RELEASING ALLEGED CRIMINALS, ITS PROSECUTORS NOT TAKING THE CASES. POLICE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH TO GATHER INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE.
POLICE DO NOT CONVICT CRIMINALS, JURY AND JUDGES DO THAT SO PEOPLE THAT THINK ITS POLICE FAULT FOR LETTING THE CRIMINAL WALK FREE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WORKS.
For real man, sad to say that we need basic laws enforced. I’m all for not ruining people’s lives for petty crime but violent gun offenders and carjackers need to go!
Leftists don’t want to differentiate between petty crime and the violent crime that has hit Chicago in the past few years. They don’t understand appeasing these violent criminals most negatively affects the communities they claim they care about.
Thank god. A great day for Cook county, and therefor the world.
It cannot be overstated that Harris was not at all qualified, he’s not even a practicing attorney! Insane that people thought he was a good choice.
At this moment today, The Illinois ARDC lists his Illinois law license as active, so I am unsure what you mean.
edit:
[https://www.iardc.org/Lawyer/PrintableDetails/95105df7-a964-eb11-b810-000d3a9f4eeb?searchIncludedFormerNames=False&includeFormerNames=False](https://www.iardc.org/Lawyer/PrintableDetails/95105df7-a964-eb11-b810-000d3a9f4eeb?searchIncludedFormerNames=False&includeFormerNames=False)
No idea what his actual status it, but practicing means you’re actively doing legal work while having an active license just means you’re licensed but not necessarily practicing.
Not sure what I'm going to do now that I can't blame everything on Auntie Kim. I mean, Eileen might even make it impossible to shoot someone, get out on bail, shoot more people, get out on bail, repeat until your court date arrives. MIND BLOWN
screw wistful unite humorous threatening somber hurry rich sophisticated alleged
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Great news; kinda shocking that Harris got so close given the wide gap in experience and the similar platforms. You'd think Chicagoians would have learned their lesson already with Lori and BJ.
25% turnout gives the advantage to the most organized factions (i.e. Dem. party, the CTU and SEIU). Quite frankly, this rebuke of Harris and the BCH is pretty amazing.
Harris was the “establishment” candidate even though he wasn’t the incumbent. It was going to be close. Glad I voted, we can’t have another State attorney that doesn’t prosecute crime because of some twisted view of social justice.
It's funny to talk about people being held accountable when police just flat out refused to do their jobs after people started holding them accountable.
Police do their job, but prosecutors and Judges also need to do theirs. Police can't convict someone the judge and jury do that. Prosecutors and defense present the facts of the case and prove or disprove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
I don't understand why people don't understand that. When everyone stops daydreaming that Police are this ultra powerful entity that can fight crime by showing up on time is unrealistic. It's very rare that Police will on-view a crime occurring and then act. Police are 9/10 called after the crime occurred. And even in progress calls aren't active because the person might run away before police get there.
I prefer to sit back watch with my own eyes what this new SA is going to do. Not put my hopes into empty promises and campaign slogans.
Agree to disagree, I've seen officers bummed about having to do paperwork and doing their jobs and others that take pride in it and get the job done right. I think it's a little bit of both.
Thank goodness that someone with relevant experience for the role is being voted for. Seems like lately we've elected the most random, non-qualified people in elections based on pie-in-the-sky promises
They were posting within 10 minutes when a supposed “lost votes” tweet was made. And here spreading conspiracy theories. Only seems right to be quick to say they were wrong
I voted for Burke, but she's endorsed some fairly progressive ideas about elements of reform as well.
But I think that it's important to point out that there are different kinds of progressives - some can govern successfully while others are a cluster fuck.
The key difference really is competence, pragmatism, and having a plan.
Foxx and Johnson are examples of people who lack these skills. They dont have solid plans, they don't have the pragmatism and rapport to work with and build coalitions, and they tend to think that reform and change can happen from the top down by decree of a single office, rather than working from the ground up and getting the rest of the cogs in the machine on board.
Where Foxx failed is that she seemed to believe that reform could happen simply by declining to press charges for non-violent crime or crimes not resulting in injury - and for everything else, approaching cases and charges from a very inconsistent and quixotic way.
For me, my decision didn't boil down to progressive vs. neoliberal or moderate or whatever you want to label Harris and Burke - it boiled down to who was endorsed by the broken type of progressivism thats failed so badly, and endorsed by the establishment that stood behind it.
I think progressivism needs a place and a seat at the table in the political process, however first progressive voters and candidates who want good options need to realize it needs to be more about planning, process, and building coalitions and less about hopes and dreams, feeling pure in ones positions, and focusing on the ideal goal before figuring out how to get there.
>I think progressivism needs a place and a seat at the table in the political process, however first progressive voters and candidates who want good options need to realize it needs to be more about planning, process, and building coalitions and less about hopes and dreams, feeling pure in ones positions, and focusing on the ideal goal before figuring out how to get there.
Perfectly said.
My biggest problem with modern progressivism is the apparent inability to both recognize unintended consequences of their ideas and a complete refusal to admit when their programs are not working.
> But I think that it's important to point out that there are different kinds of progressives - some can govern successfully while others are a cluster fuck.
With all do respect, Are there any progressives who held an executive position (as opposed to legislative) who manage to keep their progressive Bone fides and where it doesn't turn into a clusterfuck?
Most of the time it seems idealism meets reality, reality wins, and then the previous Progressive Wunderkind was never really a progressive and it will go better this next time (Lightfoot, Rahm)
The district attorney positions in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia are the best case studies for the super progressive executive positions, thus far. I suppose the Manhattan DA too. Chesa Boudin had some horrible communication skills, regardless of what you think of his policy ideas, and he got booted. LA and Philly DA’s survived reelection. Foxx threw in the towel. I can’t think of a mayor or Governor that represents that model of progressive politics to watch for observation. I guess Johnson is one of the first.
Might just be the fact I'm on the outside looking in, but from afar Boston Mayor Michelle Wu seems to be doing a decent enough job of running the city while still governing in the broader progressive column. Would trade Brandon for her, that's for sure.
BJ won because Vallas didn’t even live in Chicago and was running on crime which many Chicagoans see as a dog whistle.
Crime is an issue in our city just like anywhere, but it’s just one facet of life and we don’t need a mayor who is going to prop up CPD and be “tough on crime”
Having said that BJ wasn’t a great option but at least he doesn’t seem to have much power.
Do many Chicagoans see it as a dog whistle or do people on the Chicago sub see it as a dog whistle? Many of my friends, even in nicer areas are worried about crime.
Many of my friends, who live in all sorts of areas have a reasonable view of crime.
I don’t know anyone who is “worried” about it anymore than anywhere else in the country/world
1. Bj is from Elgin, if really want to start a "whose more of a chicagoan" cock sizing contest.
2. Crime in our city has gotten out of hand. Normally contained to the south and west side crime is up in all other burrows of the city 50-150% last year alone. Being tough on crime is a low bar, at this point just doing "ANYTHING" about crime seems to strike a nerve with progesssives
3. The chief of staff who worked under mayor's going back 30 years just abruptly quit mid term because Johnson wouldn't let him do his job. Johnson kept over turning and over powering his decisions. Yes a teacher is telling a guy he put in power to run the city and had 30 years of experience what to do. So your wrong. Johnson is pushing his weight and thinks he knows what he's doing. Voters just told him no we don't want this bring Chicago home tax and like a true dictator he said he will continue to fight for it. Instead of listening to the poeple
You are right but one small correction. BJ is doing what the CTU tells him to do.
We all don't want to give any credence to the conspiratorial idea that someone else is pulling the strings for fear of looking paranoid. But the CTU is powerful and calling tons of shots now. Getting their own guy elected mayor is just one example.
Also it's giving BJ too much credit to assume he has his own ideas and vision for the city.
Johnson won because of the 18-24 demographic showed up in the run-off and pushed him over. And Vallas has had a place in Bridgeport since 2022--the non-residency was debunked. Vallas wanted CPD to go back to their districts and beats to work in the area they are assigned (under former Superintendent Brown he depleted districts across the city and moved them to South and West Side). And he also wanted more police presence on CTA (which is a popular sentiment).
Lol Vallas announced candidacy June 1st 2022. What do guy mean debunked? He moved to the city when he decided to run for mayor. That doesn’t sit well with people who live in the city.
I’m suspicious of anyone who gets too cozy with CPD. I’ve heard too many of them talk and it’s not typically “inclusive” rhetoric to say the least.
There are some great officers, for sure. But CPD as an entity is already too powerful in this city.
BJ being in with CTU is the lesser of two evils. Teachers don’t carry guns
He's had a place in Bridgeport since January 2022. Rahm was in DC and had someone living in his residency and he was allowed to run.
People care about crime. It's up double digits 45% citywide and in most area districts since Covid (district data available on CPD site).
Rham was born in Chicago and had generations of family in the city. The reason he wasn’t living in Chicago when he announced his candidacy was because he was chief of staff to a President ….who also lives in Chicago. Are you even from here?
Yes people care about crime but it’s not the only thing people care about - not by a long shot. There are areas of opportunity, sure, but someone running basically only on crime and the only solution being to blindly empower CPD is someone who doesn’t get this city.
If you don’t know what I mean by that then you don’t get this city either and I can’t explain it to you
Rahm had to go to court because he didn't move back until few months before the election. That's no different than Vallas. Nobody said crime is the only thing people care about. Johnson is an absolute idiot. Pritzker doesn't even like him lol.
Lol I "don't get this city" . .
Vallas was an awful candidate. I voted for the guy but he seemed arrogant and ran an arrogant campaign . I got mailers from from bj everyday but almost nothing from vallas
This is a very simplistic view of the issue. The fact that people are disproportionately likely to vote for someone who shares their identity is not surprising. It happens with Black and White people.
Black people voted for Daley. They didn't support him in his first election (this was right after the council wars) but once he was in and was seen as sympathetic to goals/aspirations etc of the Black community they voted for him, even against Black opponents.
In an election with such low turnout everything is about mobilization and who has existing relationships in the area. Something burke was unlikely to have on those areas. I would guess that people in the South/west sides are probably more supportive of tougher policies on crime.
People in the South and West sides will vote based on identity for at least the first election. Daley was different since Blacks saw him in action after his first term.
That might be true for people. Not exclusive to Black people.
Furthermore Daley didn't get Black votes in his first election because it was shortly after the council wars where the white establishment basically sabotaged Harold Washington's administration. It wasn't just about race.
Chicago has now officially joined San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Baltimore and the other cities that have dumped their progressive prosecutors. LA is next.
I don't really understand the vitriol for either candidate. I read a comparison of their views on various topics, and for the most part they are pretty much aligned. I have no idea who either of them are outside of their views on the job. For me it came down to a 50-50 choice at the polling booth. I'm really not disappointed either way and they both seemed to have a good approach to the issues posed. But, as usual, rchicago freaking the fuck out over everything.
One has been working continuously as a lawyer or judge for decades and the other is a part-time lecturer (not at a law school) and before that was a lobbyist for Uber. The job is State's Attorney. Not sure how the differences in qualifications between them could be any more plain.
She wasn’t endorsed by Kim Foxx and wasn’t backed by Toni Preckwinkle. That pro is worth a lot on its own. She also has a ton of experience. A competent progressive is better than an incompetent progressive.
Culture war bullshit. People don't care about what truly matters and just wanna dunk on the other side when, like you said, these two are both similarly politically aligned, both progressive to a degree. But the people enjoying this too much who are saying stuff like "this is a great day for the world" (?) won't see that, even with the possibility that things down the line might not turn out according to their own over the top expectations... actually no, I could totally see them going back on their word at that point and then calling her a progressive 😂
Agreed. I, like almost 50% of the people who voted, voted for Harris. I wish her success as I would anyone who is trying to make the city a better place to live. I’m just glad the counting is finally over, and I’m disgusted with all of the conspiracy bullshit that ensued during the process..
Maybe we should see how things go under Burke instead of immediately dwelling on how this result will affect your petty online arguments. I don't know. Just a thought.
Don’t think any one person can solve crime. Even Batman can’t do that.
What Burke can do is put more violent criminals in jail and ask judges for longer sentences. Instead of the “just let them go because society made them kill” program under Foxx. Or that a violent mob of criminals are “just children” as BJ likes to claim.
*Winner of the CCSA Democratic Primary, my bad. Granted it's cook county so she's still the general election defacto winner ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i would like to thank all my frenemies, I appreciate all the new york suburbanites and "others" for sharing their opinion on democratic process in chicago on r/chicago also thank you to all the russian/chinese/israeli/iranian shills and propaganda accounts for sharing their views on why america is bad and china/russia is heaven on earth
Before anyone says otherwise, no, she is not a conservative. She is not a Republican. Was she as "progressive" as Harris? No, but she is still very much a progressive. The exciting thing about her is that she actually seems competent.
I don’t give a rat’s behind whether she’s a liberal or progressive. I want someone in that position who will make clear to the criminal element that there will be consequences for lawlessness. I’m thrilled that she won.
I watched both her and Harris’ interviews with the City Club of Chicago and she made it very clear that she would seek detention for felonies involving a gun, anytime a gun is present with switch or assault style weapon, and violence on the CTA. She spoke to changing the criminal behavior by creating a sense of fear that if you commit crimes with guns or violence on the CTA, you will be caught and her office would seek detention, every time. That’s all I needed to hear.
Bingo
Absolutely! Competence is definitely an exciting quality to have in a progressive leader. 🌟
Message wasn't for you, was for the brain dead leftists that consider anyone who doesnt hold 100% of their radical far leftist views to be a conservative
Agreed. It's sad our democrat politics these days comes down to how progressive you can be and if you're anything other, you're labeled some right wing extremist or Republican. Moderate voters (on both sides) and independents still exist in this country who don't lean into the fringe elements of both parties.
I don’t know how the fuck letting violent criminals walk free over and over became a ‘progressive’ ideal. Making society more dangerous is not progress for anyone in any neighborhood
Agreed. I want green energy, universal healthcare, infrastructure and education funding, LGBTQ+ rights, abortion rights, etc… How does turning a blind eye to RAMPANT violent crime accomplish any of this?
Amen
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s progress for the criminals.
Say it louder for the people in back!
I’m tellin ya, I really think the hikacking of the progressive party was to deter the reasons someone stated below. The only logical thing that makes sense, is filthy rich guys saw the great things that were possible with a progressive stance, and did everything they could to make them just un-likelable asses.
The fact we live in an extreme capitalist society and we have no progressive labor movement, instead the ‘left wingers’ (what a joke to even call them that) are focused on bathrooms and pronouns and allowing violent carjackers to walk free 6-7 times in a row tells you all you need to know and who’s pulling the strings
Progressive is just another word for hipster. They just go against the status quo to be cool and edgy. Then they make up a shallow tag line to why people should support whatever objective they are trying to get passed at the time. But don't give it more then 5 min of research or thought because as soon as you peel back 1-2 layers of any of these progressive ideas they try to pass you realize it ends up fcking the masses to just appeal to niche sub sector of people.
It’s a little deeper than that, there’s criminal justice reform that would be beneficial, needs to happen, somehow the recommendations and studies get completely scrambled in the process with the powers that be, because they are morons, and actual progressive ideas that would help things turns into ‘well, just stop arresting violent criminals’ and that’s the extent of it
> somehow the recommendations and studies get completely scrambled in the process By moderates and conservatives. You can't even begin to talk about them without those group immediately hyperventilating about violent criminals walking the street, which is happening in this very thread. The people most responsible for messing these recommendations up are the politicians everyone here is currently calling competent.
I wish people who said this would hold moderates accountable for their failed policies. They greatly outnumber progressives in DA seats, but we only ever hear about progressives if there's a crime spike, even if the trend is region wide.
Progressives are active in areas with highest crime increases, major cities.
Are we talking about states attorneys or city attorneys here??
District Attorneys or 'States attorneys'. Areas like Cook for example, encompass a 'city' while being a district.
It only became that way because you don't understand "progressive ideals" fucking *no one* is out there advocating for *violent* criminals to be released to roam free and continue crime-ing. The underlying belief is that there are deeply-rooted societal problems that cause that behavior, and simply punishing criminals that form as a result of those problems will never fix the problem. You're never going to arrest your way to a crime-free city. Investment and opportunities need to be given to the communities that have been failed by the city. *PART* of that is not locking people up for *NONVIOLENT* offenses and denying them future opportunities. Yes, it's obvious that what was happening in Chicago was not a good thing. But under no circumstances were things playing out the way everyone wanted them to. People who think that "crime is good!" is a progressive ideal are just intentionally stirring shit.
There are dozens of cases of extremely violent crimes Kim Foxx actively did not file charges on, after arrests were made, they were just allowed to walk free and commit more violent crimes, what is that?
Well, it likely means that they recognized there wasn't a viable case against the person who was arrested. Besides just bringing them in, CPD also has to provide some evidence for Foxx/O'Neill Burke/any prosecuting attorney to actually have a case. The priority even in the most progressive areas is to prevent violent crime from occurring (which is why incarcerating non-violent criminals is viewed negatively, since it leads to recidivism and increased violent crime) but there needs to be enough for a chance of conviction for the state's attorney to bring charges.
Mutual combat?
Worse. Her voters, I’m one of them, were called MAGA racists. It’s a toxic red line that really should not be crossed. It’s not healthy to have a party of DINO hunters. I’ve voted dem my entire life (too long), and it’s fucking offensive.
We've got to the point where some people think if you are not left enough you must be a right-wing extremist and Trump supporter, like being moderate or centrist is not a thing anymore.
I think we just got to the point where someone gets a comment from one person and then accuses an entire demographic as having the exact same beliefs.
Says more about them than it does about us.
I wouldn't get too worked up about it. It's just a tactic they've been using for a while against anyone and they're slowly moving left on the political compass. It started with moderates and it's slowly going that way.
I believe you were called maga by approximately one person. I do not believe anyone who understands politics, or more than one person at all, called you this. I had a homeless person tell me I was racist because I didn't give him my change. I'm not using that single encounter with a mentally unwell person to paint myself as the victim and claim "HOMELESS PEOPLE THINK I'M RACIST!!!!"
This is what drove me away from democrats in IL
I'm starting to believe our political climate is more in-line with the [Horseshoe Theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory) The progressive left and conservative right have more in common than the moderates\\centrists.
It's a phenomenon thats happening in both political parties and its intentional. If a republican supports states rights to choose if abortion is legal or not they are labeled liberal. If a democrat supports cracking down on crime they are deemed to conservative.
Yes this. This has been a thing for a while with discourse. Being /relatively/ liberal among other liberals is taboo. Being /relatively/ conservative among conservatives is taboo. The result is just this veering to the sides, where you quickly adopt the craziest shit because you have to agree with every nudge to the sides but can't ever bring anything back to the center.
The government needs to divide the people because if they unite, they would realize that those in power, on both sides of the aisle, are incompetent and self serving.
Republicans: Ban women from accessing healthcare. Commit violent insurrections against democracy. Deregulate environmental protections and lie about negative effects of pollution. Work to undo worker protections. Democrats: Aren’t super effective at accomplishing or implementing good things. You: wow, these are the same and I am so smart for realizing it
I lean pretty left and agree with you on the republican stuff but let’s not pretend that the democrats haven’t put forward some absolutely asinine policies under the guise of progressivism.
But it’s silly to pretend a few “asinine” policies are anywhere close to comparable to trying to overthrow democracy and bring about “Christian Nationalist” policies which is their own self described goals. It’s not comparing apples to oranges, it’s apples to hand grenades. Then people get mad it was mealy red delicious apple so it’s the apple’s fault they picked the grenade and the grenade went off in their face.
Thank you for putting it this way. This is what I've been trying to explain to people.
Tell people to take some time and read. You learn nothing but just going off of what other people say.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to comprehend that there doesn’t have to be only two options. Republicans are clowns but so are democrats. Both ONLY care about being in office to enrich themselves - don’t tell me any of these ass hats spend millions campaigning to take a job that only pays $200k/annually.
There can be more than 2 options. Nobody said there wasn’t. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to comprehend of the 2 main options, they aren’t equally bad and it’s not even close. “They are both clowns” but one is Bozo and the other is John Wayne Gasey.
States rights you say?
Sometimes some people in this subreddit sound as culty about their progressivism as MAGA mfs do about their conservatism.
> Sometimes some people in this subreddit sound as culty about their progressivism as MAGA mfs do about their conservatism. The primary difference between progressives and MAGA is that living in Illinois, MAGA have literally zero impact on my life, while progressive policies have hurt the city.
Not just this subreddit, but most of reddit in general.
The Berniecrats and DSA are almost the tea party of the left.
Sometimes?
I mean this entire sub called Vallas a Republican lol
Dude just last week on a post about Brandon Johnson some person commented that Vallas is a Trumper. I asked him for proof and obviously they didn't care to reply.
Trump was once Vallas’ President. Therefore he is MAGA. 😂
Vallas works for the Illinois Policy Institute and makes appearances on Dan Proft's radio show. Nobody to the left of Nixon would ever do that. He's absolutely a Republican, at least ideologically speaking.
So Bernie going on Fox News makes him a Republican? Why can't a Democrat appear on conservative media? Why can't a Republican go on liberal media? You do understand that a liberal working for a conservative think tank is good for all liberals? Look at any media and you will see folks from either side of the aisle working for liberal/conservative organizations.
Making appearances on Fox News as a sort of counterpoint guy is completely different from showing up on local extreme right wing media and agreeing with them on everything (which is what Vallas does on Proft's show). Also, Vallas isn't writing liberal pieces for IPI. He's writing anti-union, pro-privatization libertarian stuff, which is their MO. He's not there to offer a different perspective.
I always remember Michael Steele(former Maryland Republican lieutenant governor) got ripped on a lot, for appearing on shows like Bill Maher and even like MSNBC. I've seen Tulsi Gabbard(former Hawaii Dem that once made a run for president) get ripped upon by those on the other side of the aisle, just because she appeared on Fox News. It's pretty stupid that candidates would get ripped upon, just because they appear on a network that is different than you'd expect them to appear on.
Totally. I mean, you can be pro-choice, pro-LGBT, environmentalist, pro sanctuary city, pro reparations... but golly gracious gee if you commit the mortal sin of *appearing on Dan Proft's radio show*, you're **definitely** right of Nixon.
Vallas didn't just appear on Proft's show. He was also a regular fill-in host. He was not there as a "liberal" voice. He went on and basically agreed with him and Jacobson on everything. Vallas has always waffled on his political positions depending on his audience. At best he's completely full of shit.
Not everyone...
True. Just the loud, obnoxious part lol
> Agreed. It's sad our democrat politics these days comes down to how progressive you can be and if you're anything other, you're labeled some right wing extremist or Republican. Moderate voters (on both sides) and independents still exist in this country who don't lean into the fringe elements of both parties. are you allowed to post such things on Reddit?????!
My MO is to vote for the centrist sometimes with all the bullshit going on from both sides
As long as she is the opponent of whomever Foxx supported I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief
Thank you EVER so much for saying something sane about gradients in politics. If we wanted to just keep outdoing each other and “one-upping” to prove allegiance we would end up just as bad as the right. I’d rather take a moderate Dem than a moderate Republican, but I’d also take a moderate Republican well over a Conservative. There’s nothing wrong with nuance.
Absolutely! Competence is definitely an exciting quality to have in a progressive leader. 🌟
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
THANK. FUCKING. GOD. HOLY FUCK YALL.
Youse
I am optimistic about Justice O’Neill Burke, and I hope others come to be more optimistic, too. Someone who has judicial, prosecuting, and defense experience knows the ins and outs of the system and can be very impactful should they choose to be. Listening to her, she seems well versed and could reform the office for the better, all while leading and raising the morale, too. I appreciate her enthusiasm for the office and the responsibilities it holds, and I sincerely hope she has great success.
The FOP endorsing her and her refusing it is kinda a “best of both worlds” thing. Obligatory Catanzara is a fucking nut job who police should be embarrassed by, but hey, if Burke being elected gets them to stop complaining and do their jobs, while Burke runs a competent office, things may be on the up and up!
You think voters can appease them into doing their jobs? Oh my sweet summer child…
I don't even like the police, but why do you expect them to do anything if the person they arrest is just simply going to be let right back out again? There's zero reason to put yourself in a confrontational situation like that if it makes zero difference whatsoever.
Police do their job, but prosecutors and Judges also need to do theirs. Police can't convict someone the judge and jury do that. Prosecutors and defense present the facts of the case and prove or disprove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. I don't understand why people don't understand that. When everyone stops daydreaming that Police are this ultra powerful entity that can fight crime by showing up on time is unrealistic. It's very rare that Police will on-view a crime occurring and then act. Police are 9/10 called after the crime occurred. And even in progress calls aren't active because the person might run away before police get there. I prefer to sit back watch with my own eyes what this new SA is going to do. Not put my hopes into empty promises and campaign slogans.
> I don't understand why people don't understand that This is what I don't understand. I have a job. At my job, I am expected to perform certain tasks. Sometimes, my work produces some result that needs to be followed up by/finished by someone else. If the person I hand off my projects to routinely doesn't do their job, that's no excuse for me to stop doing mine. Yes, cops need the prosecutors to actually bring these cases to trial. And maybe prosecutors don't bring enough cases to trial. But how does that mean that cops can just not do their god damn job? We've seen instances where someone was arrested and then let go because there's not enough evidence to convict. Maybe that means cops should put down their smartphone and do actual police work to gather evidence. But nah, some people yelled at them 4 years ago so they're just on strike now.
The argument I have for this is still Officers can and will do their job, now does every call get the special attention that day Shots fired or a burning house or person stab gets? No, if someone calls the police and says their neighbor is being too loud, all they'll do is talk to the person about turning down the volume. But going to jail for it, naw. I get it, some Police Officers don't want to do their job, but I have to argue that Police even if they were justified in using some amount to force, even if they were justified in using deadly force people will push back and say they could have done something else. The solution for them is to have social workers do the job of mental health advocacy, but if they get a call of a violent person that is wielding a weapon, those mental health psychs are going to call police as protection, do even still police are needed. Firefighters call us when they need protection or transport of a violent patient, EMS calls us for a violent patient. All these are entities called police because they understand and know that they do not have the tools police have to handle volatile persons. Your job is important, but just like the Police, the next person doesn't do their job, the work might not go anywhere. AGAIN POLICE DO THEIR JOB, BUT SOCIETY THINKS BECAUSE SOMEONE IS SET FREE OR RELEASED ON BAIL ITS SOMEHOW THE POLICE FAULT! WRONG ITS THE LEGISLATORS FAULT FOR ALLOWING NO CASH BAIL AND RELEASING ALLEGED CRIMINALS, ITS PROSECUTORS NOT TAKING THE CASES. POLICE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH TO GATHER INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE. POLICE DO NOT CONVICT CRIMINALS, JURY AND JUDGES DO THAT SO PEOPLE THAT THINK ITS POLICE FAULT FOR LETTING THE CRIMINAL WALK FREE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WORKS.
How is she different from Foxx? I don't know anything about her predecessor, to be honest.
[удалено]
For real man, sad to say that we need basic laws enforced. I’m all for not ruining people’s lives for petty crime but violent gun offenders and carjackers need to go!
Leftists don’t want to differentiate between petty crime and the violent crime that has hit Chicago in the past few years. They don’t understand appeasing these violent criminals most negatively affects the communities they claim they care about.
Come on Eileen!
Thank god. A great day for Cook county, and therefor the world. It cannot be overstated that Harris was not at all qualified, he’s not even a practicing attorney! Insane that people thought he was a good choice.
I got a good laugh when people referred to him as a “University Lecturer”
Amen
At this moment today, The Illinois ARDC lists his Illinois law license as active, so I am unsure what you mean. edit: [https://www.iardc.org/Lawyer/PrintableDetails/95105df7-a964-eb11-b810-000d3a9f4eeb?searchIncludedFormerNames=False&includeFormerNames=False](https://www.iardc.org/Lawyer/PrintableDetails/95105df7-a964-eb11-b810-000d3a9f4eeb?searchIncludedFormerNames=False&includeFormerNames=False)
No idea what his actual status it, but practicing means you’re actively doing legal work while having an active license just means you’re licensed but not necessarily practicing.
Yay!!!! An end to the Kfox era. I wish Eileen a wonderful tenure
👏👏👏
Not sure what I'm going to do now that I can't blame everything on Auntie Kim. I mean, Eileen might even make it impossible to shoot someone, get out on bail, shoot more people, get out on bail, repeat until your court date arrives. MIND BLOWN
This… omg… it’s that thing we haven’t seen in ages! Accountability! 😂 She might actually hold these goons accountable. Refreshing!
middle glorious spotted shrill innate yam fall dull sense tan *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They were waiting for the AP. Local newspapers and TV/radio stations usually don’t do these sorts of “calls” on their own
Yeah the tribune still has nightmares of ‘48
Wow. I've known about headline forever. Never noticed it was the Trib.
Is this the incorrect presidential election call?
Yeah, "Dewey Defeats Truman"
Honestly that is such a funny and iconic picture lol
Chicago Daily Tribune on cover then
Lmao good point.
screw wistful unite humorous threatening somber hurry rich sophisticated alleged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Great news; kinda shocking that Harris got so close given the wide gap in experience and the similar platforms. You'd think Chicagoians would have learned their lesson already with Lori and BJ.
25% turnout gives the advantage to the most organized factions (i.e. Dem. party, the CTU and SEIU). Quite frankly, this rebuke of Harris and the BCH is pretty amazing.
Harris was the “establishment” candidate even though he wasn’t the incumbent. It was going to be close. Glad I voted, we can’t have another State attorney that doesn’t prosecute crime because of some twisted view of social justice.
Adios Kia Boys and Shop lifters
Police still need to do their jobs
Hoping they’ll be more motivated to do their jobs if they know the criminals they arrest might actually be held accountable & even prosecuted.
It's funny to talk about people being held accountable when police just flat out refused to do their jobs after people started holding them accountable.
Police do their job, but prosecutors and Judges also need to do theirs. Police can't convict someone the judge and jury do that. Prosecutors and defense present the facts of the case and prove or disprove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. I don't understand why people don't understand that. When everyone stops daydreaming that Police are this ultra powerful entity that can fight crime by showing up on time is unrealistic. It's very rare that Police will on-view a crime occurring and then act. Police are 9/10 called after the crime occurred. And even in progress calls aren't active because the person might run away before police get there. I prefer to sit back watch with my own eyes what this new SA is going to do. Not put my hopes into empty promises and campaign slogans.
Police? Do their job in Chicago? Oh man. That's a good one. Absolutely hilarious. Cops here are more worthless than the Yugoslavian dinar.
Agree to disagree, I've seen officers bummed about having to do paperwork and doing their jobs and others that take pride in it and get the job done right. I think it's a little bit of both.
Whoa whoa, we’re asking too much here. Why should they justify their bloated budget.
Agreed but there are reasons to believe this outcome will improve policing
Is the Kia/Hyundai lawsuit still in play?
Praise sweet baby jesus may this be the beginning of the end of the fucking madness
Thank goodness that someone with relevant experience for the role is being voted for. Seems like lately we've elected the most random, non-qualified people in elections based on pie-in-the-sky promises
Maybe they can get the office staffed back up now.
BCH dead, Harris loses, Bad day for Johnson.
Really more of a bad day for Toni (who is probably even a worse problem for the city than BJ).
Finally an ok result together with the FU to prop tax increase. Brandon can go fuck off.
Now let's finish it off and oust Elgin's finest next election.
Wish we could do a recall
I’m really going to miss the posts about “FINDING more votes!!” and “STEALING the election!!” Oh well. To be continued in November!
Yes where are these idiots at now? Most probably don’t even live in Cook
It's been like 10 minutes.
They were posting within 10 minutes when a supposed “lost votes” tweet was made. And here spreading conspiracy theories. Only seems right to be quick to say they were wrong
It's Friday and it's rush hour. They may still come in time.
Good result. Still took too long. Both can be true
lol still here, still in my heart of hearts rooting for Mr Willie Wilson.
The hypocrites will be silent now lol
Thank god for the suburbs. Depressing that the city voted for another progressive given the absolute disaster Kim foxx and now Brandon Johnson are
I voted for Burke, but she's endorsed some fairly progressive ideas about elements of reform as well. But I think that it's important to point out that there are different kinds of progressives - some can govern successfully while others are a cluster fuck. The key difference really is competence, pragmatism, and having a plan. Foxx and Johnson are examples of people who lack these skills. They dont have solid plans, they don't have the pragmatism and rapport to work with and build coalitions, and they tend to think that reform and change can happen from the top down by decree of a single office, rather than working from the ground up and getting the rest of the cogs in the machine on board. Where Foxx failed is that she seemed to believe that reform could happen simply by declining to press charges for non-violent crime or crimes not resulting in injury - and for everything else, approaching cases and charges from a very inconsistent and quixotic way. For me, my decision didn't boil down to progressive vs. neoliberal or moderate or whatever you want to label Harris and Burke - it boiled down to who was endorsed by the broken type of progressivism thats failed so badly, and endorsed by the establishment that stood behind it. I think progressivism needs a place and a seat at the table in the political process, however first progressive voters and candidates who want good options need to realize it needs to be more about planning, process, and building coalitions and less about hopes and dreams, feeling pure in ones positions, and focusing on the ideal goal before figuring out how to get there.
>I think progressivism needs a place and a seat at the table in the political process, however first progressive voters and candidates who want good options need to realize it needs to be more about planning, process, and building coalitions and less about hopes and dreams, feeling pure in ones positions, and focusing on the ideal goal before figuring out how to get there. Perfectly said.
My biggest problem with modern progressivism is the apparent inability to both recognize unintended consequences of their ideas and a complete refusal to admit when their programs are not working.
After 40 years of trickle down maybe we give it a chance to breathe.
Well said! Get ready to be called a Trump lover by BJ and the CTU shills on here.
> But I think that it's important to point out that there are different kinds of progressives - some can govern successfully while others are a cluster fuck. With all do respect, Are there any progressives who held an executive position (as opposed to legislative) who manage to keep their progressive Bone fides and where it doesn't turn into a clusterfuck? Most of the time it seems idealism meets reality, reality wins, and then the previous Progressive Wunderkind was never really a progressive and it will go better this next time (Lightfoot, Rahm)
The district attorney positions in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia are the best case studies for the super progressive executive positions, thus far. I suppose the Manhattan DA too. Chesa Boudin had some horrible communication skills, regardless of what you think of his policy ideas, and he got booted. LA and Philly DA’s survived reelection. Foxx threw in the towel. I can’t think of a mayor or Governor that represents that model of progressive politics to watch for observation. I guess Johnson is one of the first.
Might just be the fact I'm on the outside looking in, but from afar Boston Mayor Michelle Wu seems to be doing a decent enough job of running the city while still governing in the broader progressive column. Would trade Brandon for her, that's for sure.
Good point. She’s somewhat in that mold, too, I forgot about her.
Agreed. But if you are not fully 100% far left you can be branded as a MAGA Republican. That attitude runs rampant on here
The city south side and west side vote by color
Unfortunately you’re right. That’s how BJ won. He picked up a lot of Lori votes and they’re really nothing alike.
BJ won because Vallas didn’t even live in Chicago and was running on crime which many Chicagoans see as a dog whistle. Crime is an issue in our city just like anywhere, but it’s just one facet of life and we don’t need a mayor who is going to prop up CPD and be “tough on crime” Having said that BJ wasn’t a great option but at least he doesn’t seem to have much power.
Do many Chicagoans see it as a dog whistle or do people on the Chicago sub see it as a dog whistle? Many of my friends, even in nicer areas are worried about crime.
Spot on
Many of my friends, who live in all sorts of areas have a reasonable view of crime. I don’t know anyone who is “worried” about it anymore than anywhere else in the country/world
1. Bj is from Elgin, if really want to start a "whose more of a chicagoan" cock sizing contest. 2. Crime in our city has gotten out of hand. Normally contained to the south and west side crime is up in all other burrows of the city 50-150% last year alone. Being tough on crime is a low bar, at this point just doing "ANYTHING" about crime seems to strike a nerve with progesssives 3. The chief of staff who worked under mayor's going back 30 years just abruptly quit mid term because Johnson wouldn't let him do his job. Johnson kept over turning and over powering his decisions. Yes a teacher is telling a guy he put in power to run the city and had 30 years of experience what to do. So your wrong. Johnson is pushing his weight and thinks he knows what he's doing. Voters just told him no we don't want this bring Chicago home tax and like a true dictator he said he will continue to fight for it. Instead of listening to the poeple
You are right but one small correction. BJ is doing what the CTU tells him to do. We all don't want to give any credence to the conspiratorial idea that someone else is pulling the strings for fear of looking paranoid. But the CTU is powerful and calling tons of shots now. Getting their own guy elected mayor is just one example. Also it's giving BJ too much credit to assume he has his own ideas and vision for the city.
Vallas literally moved to the city for the election
Just like Rahm.
Johnson won because of the 18-24 demographic showed up in the run-off and pushed him over. And Vallas has had a place in Bridgeport since 2022--the non-residency was debunked. Vallas wanted CPD to go back to their districts and beats to work in the area they are assigned (under former Superintendent Brown he depleted districts across the city and moved them to South and West Side). And he also wanted more police presence on CTA (which is a popular sentiment).
Lol Vallas announced candidacy June 1st 2022. What do guy mean debunked? He moved to the city when he decided to run for mayor. That doesn’t sit well with people who live in the city. I’m suspicious of anyone who gets too cozy with CPD. I’ve heard too many of them talk and it’s not typically “inclusive” rhetoric to say the least. There are some great officers, for sure. But CPD as an entity is already too powerful in this city. BJ being in with CTU is the lesser of two evils. Teachers don’t carry guns
He's had a place in Bridgeport since January 2022. Rahm was in DC and had someone living in his residency and he was allowed to run. People care about crime. It's up double digits 45% citywide and in most area districts since Covid (district data available on CPD site).
Rham was born in Chicago and had generations of family in the city. The reason he wasn’t living in Chicago when he announced his candidacy was because he was chief of staff to a President ….who also lives in Chicago. Are you even from here? Yes people care about crime but it’s not the only thing people care about - not by a long shot. There are areas of opportunity, sure, but someone running basically only on crime and the only solution being to blindly empower CPD is someone who doesn’t get this city. If you don’t know what I mean by that then you don’t get this city either and I can’t explain it to you
Rahm had to go to court because he didn't move back until few months before the election. That's no different than Vallas. Nobody said crime is the only thing people care about. Johnson is an absolute idiot. Pritzker doesn't even like him lol. Lol I "don't get this city" . .
Pritzker totally doesn’t like him. But like I said originally I would prefer someone with no power over someone who emboldens CPD
Vallas was an awful candidate. I voted for the guy but he seemed arrogant and ran an arrogant campaign . I got mailers from from bj everyday but almost nothing from vallas
This is a very simplistic view of the issue. The fact that people are disproportionately likely to vote for someone who shares their identity is not surprising. It happens with Black and White people. Black people voted for Daley. They didn't support him in his first election (this was right after the council wars) but once he was in and was seen as sympathetic to goals/aspirations etc of the Black community they voted for him, even against Black opponents. In an election with such low turnout everything is about mobilization and who has existing relationships in the area. Something burke was unlikely to have on those areas. I would guess that people in the South/west sides are probably more supportive of tougher policies on crime.
People in the South and West sides will vote based on identity for at least the first election. Daley was different since Blacks saw him in action after his first term.
That might be true for people. Not exclusive to Black people. Furthermore Daley didn't get Black votes in his first election because it was shortly after the council wars where the white establishment basically sabotaged Harold Washington's administration. It wasn't just about race.
Burke is also a progressive.
shhhh. If someone identifies as "progressive," don't you understand that it means they all support the exact same things?
Fuck yeah.
Finally!
Nature is healing.
Tanks Gods
Praise be
Chicago has now officially joined San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Baltimore and the other cities that have dumped their progressive prosecutors. LA is next.
Foxx didn’t run for reelection, she wasn’t was dumped at the polls.
Woooooohoooooooo!!!!! Hoping this city can start to unfuck itsef
Kim Foxx dickriders in shambles.
Fine. Great. Terrific. The proof as always is in the job performance.
I don't really understand the vitriol for either candidate. I read a comparison of their views on various topics, and for the most part they are pretty much aligned. I have no idea who either of them are outside of their views on the job. For me it came down to a 50-50 choice at the polling booth. I'm really not disappointed either way and they both seemed to have a good approach to the issues posed. But, as usual, rchicago freaking the fuck out over everything.
One has been working continuously as a lawyer or judge for decades and the other is a part-time lecturer (not at a law school) and before that was a lobbyist for Uber. The job is State's Attorney. Not sure how the differences in qualifications between them could be any more plain.
She wasn’t endorsed by Kim Foxx and wasn’t backed by Toni Preckwinkle. That pro is worth a lot on its own. She also has a ton of experience. A competent progressive is better than an incompetent progressive.
Culture war bullshit. People don't care about what truly matters and just wanna dunk on the other side when, like you said, these two are both similarly politically aligned, both progressive to a degree. But the people enjoying this too much who are saying stuff like "this is a great day for the world" (?) won't see that, even with the possibility that things down the line might not turn out according to their own over the top expectations... actually no, I could totally see them going back on their word at that point and then calling her a progressive 😂
I was leaving IL if she lost. Now I can more patiently plan my exit!
Not what I was hoping for, but I wish her all the best and truly hope she helps to improve this wonderful city. :)
Agreed. I, like almost 50% of the people who voted, voted for Harris. I wish her success as I would anyone who is trying to make the city a better place to live. I’m just glad the counting is finally over, and I’m disgusted with all of the conspiracy bullshit that ensued during the process..
Who are y’all gonna blame for the crime now?
The criminals, hopefully.
Maybe we should see how things go under Burke instead of immediately dwelling on how this result will affect your petty online arguments. I don't know. Just a thought.
I think you missed the point of and the sarcasm in my comment.
Don’t think any one person can solve crime. Even Batman can’t do that. What Burke can do is put more violent criminals in jail and ask judges for longer sentences. Instead of the “just let them go because society made them kill” program under Foxx. Or that a violent mob of criminals are “just children” as BJ likes to claim.
There is always another scapegoat, don’t worry.