Rahm Emanuel

Rahm Emanuel Wins Second Term as Chicago Mayor

In the end, not even close.



Rahm Emanuel looks set to win the run-off election for Chicago mayor by double digits, fending off challenger Jesus "Chuy" Garcia and securing a second term. The Democrat Emanuel fell 5 percent short of winning a majority of the vote in the general election in February, setting up today's run-off. Garcia was supported by a slew of progressive figures, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Jesse Jackson and Cornel West, who called Emanuel "too paternalistic." The oft-abrasive former congressman and White House chief of staff got the message. In one of his last TV ads, Emanuel offered that Chicago could do better and, "I hear ya," so could he.

Though Chicago's mayoral election is nominally non-partisan, both of the last candidates standing were Democrats and the run-off was framed as a show-down before far-left economic illiterates of the Bill de Blasio/Elizabeth Warren variety and a more moderate-ish brand of Democrat. For Chicago the stakes were dire, as John Stossel noted in a column last month:

Emanuel relishes conflict and famously said that in politics, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." That comment scared libertarians and conservatives, who know that government usually uses crises as excuses to increase its power. 

But here's the surprise: Emanuel has been in crisis mode for four years now, and sometimes he made the right decisions as a result. 

"Crisis" is not just political rhetoric. Mayor Daley and his predecessors pandered to a shallow public and gullible media by spending, borrowing and refinancing. Borrowing helped Daley stay in office for 12 years, but cities can't keep borrowing the way Chicago has. 

Moody's downgraded Chicago's credit rating almost to junk-bond level last year because the city promised to pay billions of dollars in pensions to city workers but doesn't have the money. 

Chicago is the next Detroit. 

Emanuel tried to do some sensible things. He privatized some jobs, giving private contractors a chance to prove that they do city work better than city workers do it. He closed 50 of the city's worst schools. But he made little progress in addressing the immense pension liability. 

As Stossel pointed out, Emanuel faced fierce resistance from public employee unions on dealing with the $20 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, and many lined up against him in the election. Chicago could still become the next Detroit. The city's voters have signalled, maybe, that they're willing to try to avoid that.

NEXT: Brian Doherty Talking Rand Paul with Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, 10 pm Eastern Tonight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia

    I still don’t understand why you guys write his name like that.

    You don’t write Joseph “Joe” Biden – and Chuy is the same sort of thing.

    1. The guy’s name is “Jesus Garcia”.

      In California or Texas, they’d understand, but in Chicago, a lot of people might think you were talking about a guy that was in the Grateful Dead.

      1. I think his point is why not just say Chuy Garcia since Chuy is short for Jesus. But it really isn’t important.

        1. Chicagoans don’t know what the hell that is either.

          They might think he was half Korean or something.

          It’s a confusing name for people who aren’t familiar with Latin culture.

          I empathize with the guy. My real name is Pepe Cunnilingus.

          I just use Ken Shultz to cut down on the confusion.

          1. Not Cuntilingus?

    2. I still don’t understand why you guys write his name like that.
      In the case of politicians and other public figures journalists tend to copy whatever the person uses in press releases. After all, it’s his name.

      1. I’m pretty sure no one calls him Jesus Chuy.

        1. “Jesus, Chuy, look at these miserable poll results!”

  2. The butthurt is epic.

    1. Ed, it’s wonderful. The Chuy supporters are the worst sort of leftist goons and I love watching these people lose.

      I never suspected I’d become a Rahm Emanuel supporter back when he was Obama’s chief of staff, and he’s made some horrible decisions (the $13 minimum wage is a joke, particularly in a city where there aren’t enough jobs for the poor), but if Chuy had won, this city would be Detroit Southwest within two decades.

      1. Agreed. The people who I knew that were Chuy supporters are outright morons and socialists. That was enough to convince me that this guy shouldn’t even be elected as dogcatcher.

      2. The Chuy campaign in a nutshell – a campaign flyer headlined by endorsements from Karen Lewis and Jesse Jackson Jr.

  3. Says it all about the Democrats that Rahm is the less worse option. I’ve thought for a while that the combination of the fall of the USSR, 9/11 and the Recession have the caused the Left to totally lose it. I mean they are seriously flirting with Communism! It’s not like the CPUSA has endorsed the Dem ticket since 1988, oh wait…

    1. What are you going to do, vote for a Republican?

      1. Libertarian?

          1. no, not same thing.

      2. I’ve voted for every Republican I had the opportunity to vote for in this state since I reached voting age. The Democrats have had such a hold on Cook County that they’re actively running it into the ground and in particular their populist idiocy is destroying the poor sections of Chicago.

        I would have voted for Rahm today, but unfortunately I’m technically the resident of a suburb and couldn’t vote in Chicago.

        The Republicans are scum and Bruce Rauner is already disappointing me, but breaking up the Dem machine is a worthy goal in its own right.

        1. Illinois is a lost cause for corruption. Lovely frozen California aka Minnesota is a lost cause for well intentioned stupidity. You tell me which is worse.

          1. What about the libertarian moment?

          2. I’ve spent the last year back in Minnesota after a decade away and it’s gotten so much worse. I cringe every time I interact with people here.

          3. Minnesota is nowhere near as bad as Illinois because Minnesota has the benefit of having no really fucked up inner cities of the sort that you see in Chicago. Or, for that matter, any really fucked up rural areas like you see in southern Illinois.

            It’s not even close. Illinois is a lost cause in the way Detroit is a lost cause. This state is going to implode due to its unfunded pension liabilities and the only thing that can be done is to slow the decline.

        2. You Know Who Else wanted to destroy an Dem Urban Machine?

        3. I KNEW IT!!!!1111!11!!1!11


        4. Vote on, Slayer of Huns. I was commenting on the voting habits of people who should otherwise know better, yet persistently don’t.

          1. Now that I think of it, I did vote for a female libertarian for comptroller entirely because she was a female libertarian and I felt she deserved to be rewarded for her effort to de-dudenize the party.

          2. This.

            I often find myself doing the same. Voting for pubs for state offices just because California needs a second party before a third party. Then federal offices are almost all L votes unless there’s a small l choice.

        5. You people make good hotdogs.

        6. I would have voted for Rahm today….

          The nation of Israel thanks you for your admission of support.

    2. Winston|4.7.15 @ 10:15PM|#
      “Says it all about the Democrats that Rahm is the less worse option.”

      Not to me. Let the Chi-Town folks strangle on some far-left twit for all I care.

      1. As Detroit shows they will never learn, alas.

        1. And as SF shows, we’re not far behind, if we’re not leading already…

    1. Is he running for president or something?

      1. The American people deserve a leader who won’t disrespect their intelligence

        And the pot calls the kettle… sorry, that’d be racist.

  4. Didn’t Howard Dean support Garcia? Ah the bountiful days of 2004 when Lew Rockwell and Reason thought he was the harbinger of a more libertarianish Democratic Party. Just like the days of 2008 when plenty of libertarians thought that Obama was going to bring sanity to the Dems.

    1. Define plenty?

      1. He basically means some of the writers here who got hoodwinked due to the fact that they live in the DC bubble.

        1. Which out of those left at Reason, Bailey and Chapman. And of those who left Cavanaugh and Ratfucker Weigel. Not exactly compelling or surprising.

          1. And Bailey’s not a libertarian. And Chapman’s…Chapman.

            1. Bailey’s a wet finger in the wind, looking for a puff of air to fill his tiny sails. Polemicism from an ignorant stance isn’t exactly liberty embodied, unless we mean the liberty to be a lying fucktard who ignores what’s not convenient to his shilly agenda.

        2. https://reason.com/archives/200…..as-numbers

          You should never take a politician at his word. But you should listen to what he campaigns on day after day, especially if he goes on to win big. Amid Obama’s host of illiberal campaign ideas?”fair” trade, centralized energy policy, New Deal?style infrastructure projects, more federal dollars into the sinkhole of public schools?the Democratic candidate also spiced his daily stump speech with a firm-sounding nod to fiscal responsibility. Coupled with a sorry budget situation that’s certain to get worse as a result of massive income tax losses from Wall Street, this commitment to fiscal sobriety may strangle many of Obama’s more expensive fantasies in the crib and crack open the door for ending or privatizing any number of inefficient federal programs.


          1. That article doesn’t support your assertion that “plenty” of libertarians supported Obama, in fact it refutes it. And the author, Welch, voted LP in 2008.

            1. I didn’t say that they supported him, but that they thought he would bring sanity to the Dems which the article states clearly.

              1. Even if that is what it stated “clearly” that would be one libertarian not “plenty.” But it “clearly” does not state that, it states that the budget situation would restrain Obama’s insanity despite what expensive fantasies he had.

                Are your retarded?

                1. Can you read? Welch clearly referred to Obama’s “firm-sounding nod to fiscal responsibility” might restrain him. Even then this is a statement that Obama might be more sensible after the big spending Bush years.

                  And you ignored my second link.

        3. He basically means some of the writers here who got hoodwinked due to the fact that they live in the DC bubble.

          DC bubble doesn’t “hoodwink” anyone not eager to be “hoodwinked,” so you might wanna reconsider the Whorish Tendencies of those you previously thought Voices of Liberty.

          Apparently The Nickster is so horny for sex with Millennials that he’s taken it upon himself to orient reason.com toward shallow conceits offered by trust fund kiddies who like “liberty” for sex and drugs and bilking others, but don’t like freedom where it may not smell like roses or taste like quinoa and kale.

    2. Somebody on a Chuck Schumer thread claimed that he wasn’t so bad before he became a Senator (though he did those comments at the Waco inquiry). And how can we forget Jim Webb who voted for Obamacare. So much for the sensible Democrats. Was the last one Alton Parker?

      1. Larry McDonald


        He was better than any Republicans of his time excepting, maybe, Ron Paul.

  5. Living in Chicago, I was bombarded by Chuy’s supporters and they were obnoxious as fuck. I hate Rahm but honestly, it’s great to see Garcia’s supporters salty tears of sadness.

    1. I can’t stand Rahm, but I’m terrified of “Chuy”.

    2. The derpiest thing I saw all day was the guy on a TV panel who complained that it was always “Mayor Emanuel” and “Chuy” – “that’s disrespectful, it should be Commissioner Garcia.” And all the other dopes on the panel nodded solemnly in agreement.

      I mean, christ, dude – it wasn’t Rahm’s people plastering the city with Chuy shit. (And both sides used “Rahm” quite liberally, as well.)

      1. Goddammit, I’m glad I missed that.

        Chuy went with Chuy because he wanted to connect as a ‘working class champion’ as opposed to Rahm’s support for vulgar oligarchs.

        Being called Chuy was part of Garcia’s campaign strategy and these idiots are now acting like it was a nefarious plot by his opponents. Also, who the fuck uses ‘Commissioner’ as an honorific, unless you’re talking about the police commissioner?

        1. I was gonna say Commissioner Gordon until I read the last dependent clause. Curse your nimble fingers and anticipatory mind.

        2. It was prime derp, for sure. But the entire campaign was solid, grade-A proggie derp… so it gives me a tiny flicker of hope that he lost pretty solidly. If even Chicago voters can resist a “more free shit” pitch, well, maybe there’s a chance for this country after all.

          1. “[…]so it gives me a tiny flicker of hope that he lost pretty solidly.”

            But it was a run-off, right? I mean, were there any sane candidates who didn’t make it? Rahm and Chuy is the best Chi-Town’s got?

            1. Sane mayoral candidates? In Chicago?!? Surely you jest, sir.

  6. So remember that old clich? of the villain tying the girl to the railroad tracks? Turns out you are thinking of Dudley Do-Right referencing Mack Sennett shorts that were parodying Victorian Stage Melodramas in which a Man was tied to a Railroad track. It hasn’t been taken seriously in over a century.

    And the old “girl tied to a conveyor belt being fed into a buzz saw” was also a parody of Victorian stage melodramas and in the original it was a man too.


    1. PAUL RAND?

      Yes, I’m just being an asshole.


    2. Great link, Winston.

  7. Alec Baldwin dresses as Abraham Lincoln, speaks to a class at Occidental College.

    Baldwin as Lincoln: “There’s one thing I dislike, it’s all these actors regurgitating their opinions all day.” “I was killed by an actor.”


    1. What do you mean “relationship”? They’re *married.*

      Saying married people are “in a relationship” is like saying a MIT graduate “took classes at MIT” – accurate so far as it goes but doesn’t disclose the full depth of the commitment.

      1. I don’t know they’ve been married that whole time. I saw 20 years somewhere and wasn’t sure if they’d been married or together that whole time so I didn’t want to presume.

        1. “As of the writing of these words, Annie and I have been married for over 21 years.”

          1. 🙂

            1. I missed that. Sorry for my laxity in my reading of Brad Torgensen’s blog. 🙁 – Sad Face.

              1. GKC will not get a button for that bizarre bit of pedantry.

      2. I’m both married to my wife and in a relationship with her.

        1. Sure, and she’s your roommate, too, but to call her “your roommate” would mislead people, which was Notorious G.K.C.’s point.

        2. I’m a slave to mine.

        3. Huh, most people I know who are married are just married. Keep up the good wok.

          1. All of them are in relationships. Marriage is a subset of relationships.

        4. Yes, and a honeycrisp is an apple and a fruit.

      3. But I thought ever since teh gheyz gained the franchise it ceased to be worthy of respect?

        In all seriousness though, you might wanna take a look a the divorce rate in this country and the collapsing marriage rate as well. Straight men in my generation are no longer interested in marriage because we recognize marriage for what it is: a commercial/transactional relationship even while the society at large continues to pitch this folly of romance being the basis for a marriage. The problem there is that romance is a fleeting feeling (the old saw about “I love him but I’m not in love with him anymore”) and when it ebbs women have every incentive to pack up hubby’s bags, kick him outta the house, prevent him from seeing his kids outside of every other weekend, and fuck him for the first time in six months… except this time fuck him in divorce court.

        So nah, marriage doesn’t represent any more enhanced committment than “in a relationship” does anymore.

        1. Actually the divorce rate peaked in the early 80s and has been declining ever since.

          1. 65% of couples married in the 1970s and 1980s were still together for their 15th Anniversary. 70% for the 1990s. Not exactly a huge decrease. Source

            Meanwhile, since 1980 the number of marriages per 1000 people has plummeted from 10.6 to 6.8, a reduction of 35%. Source

            1. Even those stats are pretty wrong. The divorce rate statistics have always been complete horseshit.

            2. And the marriage rate statistics are have heavy demographic differences. The marriage rate for people with college degrees, especially white people and/or people with children, is staying pretty steady.

              1. Yes, the poor, less educated, and minority groups are all eschewing marriage more than the swapples. It should provide solid evidence against white supremacists claiming that minorites are inherently less smart.

                1. Doesn’t change that fact that even with the decline the a super majority of people will still get married and a solid majority (possibly a super majority, who knows the statistics are shit) of them won’t get divorced. Which belies the the statement that “Straight men in my generation are no longer interested in marriage.” And please, there is no way that the marriage rate for gay men is higher than straight men in states where they can get married.

        2. Ah, I see that you’re criticizing the divorce laws – thus rebutting the defenders of those laws. Of whom I am *not* one.

    2. It may sway some casual observers, but pointing out that you are in an interracial relationship or marriage will never faze SJWs. They will just accuse of fetishism (especially if your partner is an East/Southeast Asian woman) and/or neocolonialism*.

      *I don’t have any links for you because this isn’t the type of thing I keep cataloged, but that’s not a joke; it’s a real thing I’ve come across, although the fetishism accusation is much more common.

      1. Bingo! I’ve been told by proper white prog women the only reason white guys come to Japan is because they can’t get white girls. The fact that these women are mobidly obese and have awful personalities means my preference for thin, polite and intelligent Japanese women makes me a fetishist. Fine.

        1. Many use that line and it’s quite revealing, given that the implication is that Asians, as a race, have lower standards.

        2. All sexual attraction is fetishism. I am very much into redheads – I think about half the girls I’ve been with have had red hair. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many of them, which makes my particular interest a bit difficult to satisfy, but we all have our crosses to bear.

          Now, I guess my attraction to redheads is ‘fetishism,’ but it’s not like I’ll get with any redhead no matter how fucked up she is. There are standards outside my physical preferences that I take into account.

          Claiming that sexual attraction to a particular race is ‘fetishism’ is yet another example of progressives pathologizing normal human behavior. You can be attracted to a race because of certain physical attributes that race has, but that doesn’t somehow make you a ‘fetishist’ who is deserving of scorn for it.

          1. Irish, check out the quote I posted you-know-where (I am trying to keep my public footprint on these issues to a minimum).

          2. But her cooking is great. I bow my head in shame at reinforcing a negative stereotype.

          3. Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.7.15 @ 11:47PM|#
            “[…] I think about half the girls I’ve been with have had red hair.”

            Yeah, but you’re IRISH, for pete’s sake! That’s like saying krauts like blondes.

            1. Goddamn, I didn’t even think about that!

              No one in my family has red hair though. We’re all brunettes. So clearly you’re being racist and making assumptions, a fact which SJWs would not allow.

              1. So clearly you’re being racist and making assumptions, a fact which SJWs would not allow.

                Except white!

              2. “So clearly you’re being racist and making assumptions, a fact which SJWs would not allow.”
                Yeah, but as a kraut, I’ve always been partial to black-Irish women; blue eyes, black hair and milk-white skin. But I didn’t marry one…

        3. Proper women, in general, works. The more ‘proper’ the person the less permissible.

        4. And, of course, Asian women have no agency, moral or otherwise, and just decided to marry white guys because they’re white and foreign.

          1. Well, in your case she married you because you’re black and foreign.


            1. Because I enjoy role-playing negotiating the price for the “bar fine” every time I want to sleep with my wife?

      2. OK, I lied; I have one link. It is not quite what I’m talking about, but whatever, it’s derpy:

        Say Yes to Decolonial Love: 5 Ways to Resist Oppression in Your Relationships

        1. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

          I literally saw that link and thought ‘Is it Everyday Feminism?’ And it was!

          They’re the absolute worst. It’s like the craziest aspects of Jezebel, only that’s every one of their posts.

        2. Anytime we don’t consciously address our privilege, we are in the colonial mindset

          Carl, I will never click on any link you post again. Why you do that to me?

          1. Dude, I own my colonial mindset. It reads like this:

            “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well! We also have a custom. When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre. Beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

            -Sir Charles Napier

            1. I can’t get no Sati-sfaction.

            2. There’s another Napier quote:

              The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.

              Unfortunately, it seems that 200 years later, the Afghans and Iraqis have caught on.

        3. It’s also plundering attraction and sex with the fucking bulldozer of hyper-analysis.

    3. No lie told in the service of a supposedly higher cause, ever does justice to the higher cause

      There’s his problem. If the higher cause is simply to smear someone then that is the higher cause. Reminds me of an argument on FB a few years ago I had with some idiot UW professor over SS. He didn’t address my agruments and instead quickly called me a racist. A friend of mine then told the prof to LOOK at my profile picture where I’m standing with my Japanese wife and daughter. The prof then replies with, “well, he might not be racist, but he holds racist ideas.”

    4. Isabella Biedenharn has the intelligence of carpet tack. Socialist-bent rags hire cunts like her exactly because she parrots Marxist feminist hysteria. Their gimmick is nothing more than progressive panic porn and, man, does it ever fucking blow diarrhea on rationality and common fucking sense.

      1. AC, you sound sober this evening.

        1. I’m impressed I make any sound at all here in this binary vacuum 😉 and I rarely travel on Tuesdays.

        2. Sober sounds a lot more pissed off. Makes perfect sense now that I think about it.

    5. . . . gets libeled as a white supremacist racist for standing up to progressive orthodox.

      Of course he is – he’s just objectified her. Bet he even makes her degrade herself by giving my a blowjob.

  8. Not even Jesus Christ or the Superduper Alien Brains from planet Finkelstein can help Chicago- but when your fucking tons of decaying city are schlepping down the tubes clear to fucking hell you’ll curb that descent by digging and scratching the sides all the way down with bloody Rahm-sized fingernails which probably beats a quick trip into titanic decline greased with Chuy chit.

  9. The Chicago Machine always wins.

    Sorry, Chuy. It would have been interesting to watch you take the city down more quickly.

  10. 9 articles attacking Rand Paul on Salon’s front page. My favorites:

    Rand Paul’s terrifying vision for America: The truth about his plan for “Economic Freedom Zones”
    The senator’s detailed economic policy agenda is like something out of an Ayn Rand fever dream

    Rand on a stick: The Salon guide to Rand Paul’s online campaign store
    Rand Paul is running for president, and you can show your support by wasting your Bitcoins on useless crap!

    1. Those weren’t attacks they were educating you. You like being ignerint, Warty?

      1. And the ‘education’ has barely begun. Commie-kid was here late in a couple of threads whinging about Paul; expect more from every lefty source you find.
        The democrats have Shril, Biden and squaw Pants on Fire; Paul may be a long shot, but with a line up like that, you bring out the artillery early and start banging away!

        1. If Paul should manage to win the nomination, it will lay nakedly bare how the left only cares about one thing: stealing money from “teh rich”. Civil liberties, foreign interventionism, criminal justice reform…. none of it matters. All that matters is taking from people because of envy and jealousy and idiocy.

          1. Bitcoin will be the next roadz.

            1. “Bitcoin will be the next roadz.”

              Article in the Chron about the fed bureaucrat who stole the bitcoins characterized him as a ‘bitcoin believer’, as if bitcoin were some religious calling.

        2. But $5000 a plate dinners? Different cuz


          1. straffinrun|4.8.15 @ 12:22AM|#
            “But $5000 a plate dinners?”

            “President Barack Obama is hosting a $35,800 per person dinner tonight with hedge funders at Daniel on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. That’s a $5,000 PRICE HIKE from the fundraiser he held at the Red Rooster in Harlem back in March for $30,800.”

    2. The big knock on Rand around these parts is that he’s not sufficiently libertarian. There is some merit to that, but damned if the dude hasn’t made all the right enemies so far.

      1. Dunno yet, but he might be the first Rethug to get my vote.

      2. The way things are Rand even being slightly libertarian is too much for DC.

  11. You said it man. Nobody fucks with the Jesus.

    1. That carpet…
      Aw, the hell with it.

      1. They were Nazis Sevo?

        1. But at least they had an ethos!

          1. BTW, very soft porn that works; I’d go to Vegas (SFW):

    2. He’s cracking.

  12. The black community was supposed to be mad at Rahm for closing down the schools and stuff.

  13. The Daley machine still knows how to get those graveyard votes out.


    1. So were the ‘early and often’ votes enough to carry the day?

  14. Another Pet Peeve: a lot of people don’t realize that Father Knows Best was given that title to emphasize how unusual such a character was in the 1950s.

  15. I worked up the courage to watch that NC police shooting… what the fuck, man. The guy was “fleeing” at like 3 mph. The murderer doesn’t even bother to give chase, just starts blasting.


  16. The good news is now Chuy can go back to his regular job of copilolting the Millennium Falcon.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.