Chicago Election 2015

Chicago's recent election is one of the most exciting I have ever participated in as a voter, and one of the most important I have ever participated in as a voter. Given the difficult divides in our city, as well as the "Strong-Mayor" system and Mayor Rahm Emanuel's controversial and divisive policy approach, I cannot recall an election with higher stakes in my personal voting life.

I believe that there are several fascinating aspects of the run-off that will determine whether challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia pulls together the neighborhoods to win, or whether Mayor Emanuel will escape to govern for a second term. Frankly, there are countless dynamics to analyze:

1. Will 19 confirmed or apparent Aldermanic Run-Offs energize a lax voting body? 
2. To what extent will Chicagoans turn out in early April? 
3. How vocally will the Progressive Caucus support emerging aldermanic candidates that appear in run-offs? 
4. Where will the votes from Bob Fioretti, Willie Wilson, and William Walls go? 
5. Will the three defeated challengers endorse Commissioner Garcia? 
6. Will Commissioner Garcia stick with his recent "Crime Candidate" advertisements, or will he find a new issue to attempt to win-over undecided or moderate voters? 

These types of points could go on-and-on. Frankly, there are multiple sides to these issues. For example, Commissioner Garcia could decide to focus on any number of issues that Mayor Emanuel opposes, and attack the race in that matter (given the widespread electorate support for an Elected School Board, Garcia could use this platform as a starting point). He could also challenge Emanuel on education, Red-Light Cameras, the use of TIF surplus, TIF reforms, etc. It remains to be seen whether Commissioner Garcia will benefit from pushing Mayor Emanuel on one specific issue, or whether he will try a multi-faceted approach. While progressives might like to see their challenger tackle Mayor Emanuel with myriad issues and approaches, Garcia could potentially benefit from sticking to one issue (like red light cameras or an elected school board) that appeals to voters across racial, ethnic, and neighborhood lines. If a candidate such as Fioretti, Wilson, or Walls endorses Garcia, Garcia could benefit from using one specific meeting point with those candidates. 

Voters have many motivations, so I decided to collect three charts, using DNAInfo.com and NBC.com election data. In some places, the data appears to have conflicting reports, so I add "?" next to those numbers. These charts aim to collect a few key points of voter motivation:

1. How was voter turnout in my ward?
2. Will my ward have an Aldermanic Run-Off?
3. How did Garcia and Emanuel fare in my ward?
4. Which major challengers succeeded in my ward?
5. Is there a progressive caucus member in my ward? 
6. How many % points are Garcia and Emanuel fighting over?

Chart One: The Battlegrounds

There are arguably 18 wards that will feature solid battlegrounds: I selected these wards because:

• They feature some of Commissioner Garcia's best performances. 
• They feature some solid performances by other challengers. 
• Most importantly, they feature relatively low turnout, even in this election. 

(18) BATTLEGROUND WARDS	Garcia	Emanuel	Turnout	Alderman Run-Off	Remaining %	Note
22	70.8	20.8	27.5	No	8.4	Progressive Caucus Alderman (Munoz)
12	67.1	25.5	27.4	No	7.4
35	57.3	33.5	28.4	No	9.2	Solid voting for Fioretti
25	56.4	33.1	30.4	No	10.5
26	53.9	34.4	26.8	No	11.7
15	52.9	29.8	24.5	YES	17.3	Solid voting for Wilson
14	52.7	37.3	33.1	No	11.0
31	51.3	40.5	27.1	YES	8.2	Potential Emanuel rally with Suarez push
30	49.6	39	22.6	No	11.4
33	49.6	39.5	35.5	YES	10.8	Meegan challenges with 35%
1	49.0	39.4	28.8	No	11.5
10	47.5	37.7	35.6	YES	14.8	Solid voting for Fioretti
36	45.2	39.2	28.2	YES	15.8
49	44.1	43.6	34.7	No	12.3
23	43.6	39.8	42.5	No	17.6	Heavy voting for Fioretti
40	42.3?	47.1?	33.8	No	10.6	Heavy voting for Fioretti?
32	41.6	47.2	27.8	No	11.3	Progressive Caucus Alderman (Waguespack)
19	36.1	41.7	51.5	No	22.2	Heavy voting for Fioretti

The Run-Offs in 10, 15, 31, and 33 could be particularly important, given (a) the support for other challengers, (b) the potential for progressive developments in the City Council, and (c) the need for improved voter turnout (specifically in 15 and 31).

One of the most difficult aspects that Mayor Emanuel will face is heading into wards where Commissioner Garcia performed well, and attempting to sway voters that did not hit the polls. It remains to be seen if those voters that stayed home were already Emanuel supporters ("Oh, I won't vote, there's no way he loses"), or if those voters will be encouraged by Garcia's performance ("Oh, he really is a serious candidate, I'll vote for him"). 

Chart Two: Wilson Wards

I think it's easy for a lot of people to joke about Willie Wilson, given some of the reported controversies during the election, and his relatively apolitical demeanor during speeches and debates. Frankly, I was fascinated when Wilson prayed for closing statements, or prayed during his concession speech, and generally appeared to place his political race in the wider context of religiosity and thankfulness. Many of us are cynical, or want to play hard politics, so a Candidate like Wilson may seem less-than-serious, but Wilson's performance in 18 wards was very serious.

I collected these wards, given that they are (a) wards in which (either) Garcia and (or) Emanuel did not perform particularly well, and (b) wards in which Wilson thrived.

(18) WILSON	Garcia	Emanuel	Wilson	Turnout	Alderman Run-Off
24	23.4	36.4	30.3	26.7	YES
37	21.2	41.2	28.2	26.3	YES
17	24	40	26.6	28.4	No
16	26.1	39	26.6	22.3	Progressive Alderman Running (Foulkes)
28	22.2	39.8	25.9	22.9	No
34	20.7	45.3	24.9	32.4	No
21	22.3	42.2	24.5	33.4	YES
20	26.5	40.3	24.4	25.6	YES
9	22.1	43.2	24.0	32.1	No
6	23	42.5	23.5	30.7	Progressive Alderman (Sawyer)
8	24.1	43.3	22	35.5	No
29	25.1	42	21.9	30.3	YES
7	24.6	43.6	21.2	31.9	YES
27	21.7	48	18.9	26.5	No
18	32.8	38.7	16.6	38.2	YES
3	21.2	48.9	16.4	30.2	No
4	28.5	44.5	14.1	37.7	No
5	33.7	43.9	12.9	39.0	Progressive Alderman (Hairston)

These wards arguably have the most interesting combination of turnout issues / potential turnout increases, aldermanic runoffs, and, of course, endorsement potential for Wilson himself. Should Wilson choose to endorse one of the Mayoral Candidates, and the turnout stabilizes or improves, these wards will shape the results of the election.

Of course, there is the added bonus of watching Mayor Emanuel head into neighborhoods that his policies have not favored during his term. Will reconciliation be enough for the Mayor, or are residents and voters of these wards finished with the Mayor?

Chart Three: Emanuel Land
The biggest problem for Mayor Emanuel appears when one looks at 14 of his strongest wards: the Mayor (unsurprisingly) performed great along the lake, but those wards already featured some of the best voter turnout performances of the election. Granted, a handful of aldermanic run-offs remain in these wards, and given the relative affluence of some of these wards, one might argue that these wards are more likely to improve voter turnout than other areas of the city. However, some voters in these wards did support Fioretti and Wilson to some degree, which leads one to ask whether the voters that stayed home were progressives who did not feel motivated to vote (given Emanuel's strength along the lake); given Mayor Emanuel's performance, it's difficult to imagine that staunch supporters of the mayor stayed home. So, in the worst case scenario, even if Commissioner Garcia does not improve his performance in these wards, he could still potentially pick up votes from Fioretti or Wilson supporters (if those people return to the polls).

(14) Emanuel Country	Garcia	Emanuel	Turnout	Alderman Run-Off	Note
42	16.7	73.2	27.3	No	Moderate Fioretti support
43	18.4	71.9	33.3	No
2	23	64.9	30.7	YES	Moderate Fioretti support
44	27.2	64.2	29.7	No	Heavy voting for Fioretti
46	31.6	57.4	36	YES	Equal Wilson and Fioretti
50	32.5	55.1	31.8	No
48	37.6	52.2	37.2	No	Equal Fioretti and Wilson support
47	40.1	51.2	36.9	No	Moderate Fioretti support
13	37.3	51.1	45	No	Solid Fioretti voting
11	32.5	48.9	34.9	YES	Heavy voting for Fioretti
39	37.4	48.2	38.1	No
38	33.2?	48?	37.7	No	Solid voting for Fioretti
45	35.1	47.9	41.8	YES	Progressive Alderman Running (Arena)
41	31.1	47.7	41.5	YES

Basically, we have a real fight for Mayor in Chicago. One thing is certain: if you have any grievances with the City government, if you want the City government to reflect a specific political outlook, you have the chance to impact the government. Remember, the City of Chicago is ultimately OUR government. These politicians work for us, and if we believe that the city can improve, we need to vote as such.

Please direct comments or corrections to spectiveaudio [at] gmail [dot] com or @spectivewax (on Twtter)

Rectal Hygienics and Institutional Violence

EDIT (8:49 PM, March 31, 2019): I have never deleted a piece of writing that I have published. This is the first. I want to explain why; there are numerous editorials, analyses, and features I have lying around the Internet in which I no longer fully agree with what I've written. But I believe that part of this is a substantive part of writing: if you write on the web for a decade, your opinion is going to change over time (hopefully), you're going to learn from some things, learn new things, reconsider old facts, etc.

This isn't one of those cases.

I've come to understand both feminism and power in different ways, and institutional power in different ways. I no longer think that my original post has a valid point in any of these areas. It doesn't matter that I believe that my heart was in the right place at the time, or that I believe that I had anything valid to say about "feminism" at the time. What I did not fully grasp about the fact that it was not my place to speak about feminism was also that it was not my place to write criticism under any sort of guise of feminism, regardless of whether I believe I was saying anything worthwhile or not.

So I am deleting the original post. But I am leaving the subscripts that I left, because even that day that I wrote this post, I learned an awful lot and had a lot of good engagements about this post.

To this day I believe this is the most read post that I have ever written, outside of some Baseball things. But I don't think that's good enough reason to keep it: I now understand feminism, intersectional critiques of power and gender, and gender itself in completely different ways than when I originally wrote this post, so I am pulling it.

EDIT (8:55 AM, February 20, 2015): After sleeping on it, I thought I'd add another quick note, and reposition the edits I added yesterday (see the end of the original post). As I did with yesterday's update, I have not touched the original words. 

I want to add a clarification of why I think it's acceptable to frame this type of debate in terms of "feminism." I understand that it is unacceptable to present male violence as a form of feminism, and I agree with that. However, what I did not emphasize well enough in the original post is that I understand Rectal Hygienics to be delivering an institutional critique, which I first note in the third paragraph. The crucial element of my review is to place the spoken word / found-sound snippets from the LP at a level equal to the lyrics themselves; I believe if we take the band seriously, there is a sense that they are delivering these lyrics from the point of view of institutional-professional male violence. Perhaps it would have been better to call this a "critique of power" rather than "feminism," but I do think it's important to push the boundaries of institutional critiques from a feminist perspective; if we are truly to achieve feminist emancipation, one needs to ask whether that can occur within a professional-monopoly capitalist setting. 

I am skeptical that this can occur, which is why I think Ultimate Purity deserves to be taken seriously. I certainly understand that there are people that will not find this LP palatable, I certainly understand that people will feel repulsed, and I do understand that it's a violent LP. I think all of those are reasonable points of view, but I still think those criticisms / feelings can be waged without calling the band "misogynist." I believe a misogynist would expressly endorse male violence, and I find it hard to read Ultimate Purity through that lens. 

(I have changed the title to "Rectal Hygienics and Institutional Violence." The original post was "Rectal Hygienics as Feminism"). 

I think we need to ask this of feminism: can feminist aims be accomplished within capitalist / professional frameworks? I remain skeptical of this, and I believe that we can read feminism as an extremely effective weapon to also move away from professional-monopoly capitalism. 

If you don't think Rectal Hygienics are interesting or worth this consideration, I think that's fine; but, for those that listen to the album, struggle with the album, and love the album, I think it is worth asking these questions. This debate must be important, however, as this original blog post received more than 1300 views -- I find that stunning for an album released to a small scene, pressed in 500 quantities, and especially given that some have freely admitted they will not buy or listen to the album anyway. 

***

***

EDIT (2:08 PM Central, February 19, 2015): I have been discussing this issue with my friends for most of the day, and I have also seen critiques on Twitter that I take very seriously. First and foremost, I want to apologize for coming off as combative, and also for insinuating that "Feminism" is whatever I want to make of it. I certainly do not believe that I can decide what feminism is -- I believe, as I have learned, that feminism is the emancipation of women from gender roles (stated simply), and that there are many other complex historical issues and variations associated with that project. 

So, I certainly do not want to make it seem like I believe Rectal Hygienics are feminist just because I say so, or even that they're feminist at all (many people certainly disagree with that notion, and I think that is an entirely valid point). I want to add that, perhaps, a clarification might be that the Ultimate Purity album is valuable as a part of the larger goal of feminism to expose and combat violence. There are points in this article where this simply does not come across as clearly as possible; but insofar as feminists study rape narratives and deal with the realities of gender violence (in many, many different ways), among other projects, I think there are many ways that feminism can address violence. 

(Personally, I should also add that I believe that institutional factors impact human behavior as much as, maybe more than, individual motives. I especially believe this to be the case in our current culture, economy, etc. I believe that there are crucial institutional barriers that need to be addressed in order to achieve feminist aims. This does not mean that I do not think individual actions are important -- they are. But, I believe that critiques of power, gender, sex, etc., can be written from individual and institutional viewpoints. This is something I did not explain very well in this article).

It also bears stating that in no way do I condone gender violence, whatsoever. I abhor the very idea. In this case, I think that the challenging lyrics on the latest Rectal Hygienics record deserves some treatment beyond the basic sense of misogyny; I think there is a lot more going on there, and frankly, I'm also quite sick and conflicted about my own love of the album. I think Ultimate Purity is a brilliant noise album, but I have to personally come to grips with what the lyrics mean, or what the implications are.

I want to apologize to anyone I've offended with this, and I also want to reiterate that I do not mean this as some kind of "appropriation" of feminism. For that reason, I've changed the title from "Rectal Hygienics as Feminism." I also apologize if I've belittled or attacked Jes Skolnik. I certainly did not mean this to be a personal attack, but it is my own personal exploration that I've been concerned about since I first heard the album. 

Thank you for sharing this and reading it. More people have viewed this than actual copies of the LP were pressed. So, I'm certain that this is a challenging issue a lot of people are thinking about. 

With these edits, I did not change any of the original text. I want to admit that I was not as clear as I intended, and what I meant as a potentially empowering critique was not received as such, and that I was wrong in ways I did not intend.