Winning one of the richest neighborhoods—barely!—doesn't make him a progressive.
Under fire for his record of kow-towing to the richest while hurting the poor and the brown in Chicago, embattled Mayor Rahm Emanuel's campaign is
defending him against charges that he isn't progressive enough.
The campaign data’s still being sorted through, but Emanuel’s campaign cites his wins in 35 of the city’s 50 wards, including the 51 percent of the vote that the mayor pulled in the progressive Lakefront neighborhood, compared to García’s 32 percent, as evidence that the votes don’t match up to their opponents’ rhetoric. In Hyde Park, part of the South Side area that Obama used to represent in Springfield, Emanuel pulled 44 percent, compared to García’s 34.
Rahm spent $7 million on TV and millions more on other campaign activity (staff, radio, polling, data, GOTV, etc). His entire war chest stood at $15 million, and a pro-Emanuel superpac spent hundreds of thousands more on negative ads. His opponents, let by Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, on the other hand, barely spent
a tenth of that.
All of this in a single city, remember. We're not talking the whole state of Illinois.
So thanks to all that spending, Rahm wins 51 percent in "Lakefront", which is not a neighborhood at all. Maybe the author meant Lakeview (Wrigleyville)? If so, that area is about 85 percent white, so the fact that Rahm could barely muster a slim majority in this racially polarized city despite outspending his opponents 10-1 ... doesn't exactly bolster his bonafides as a progressive.
Hyde Park is home to the University of Chicago, and is also one of the more racially diverse neighborhoods in the city: 47 percent white, 30 percent African American, 12 percent Asian, and six percent Latino. Not sure what Rahm's 44 percent there is supposed to tell us about his progressivism. And 56 percent of people there voted against him.
As these maps show, the whiter and richer the neighborhood, the better Rahm did. The browner the neighborhood, the poorer he did.
Now one could analyze these sorts of results by exploring the role of race in the election (goosed, of course, by Rahm's record school closings, a whopping 90 percent in African American or Latino neighborhoods), and use these election results to marvel at Chicago's continued racial polarization. But to point to Rahm's Wriglefield results as evidence of his progressivism is just bizarre.
Those results actually back up the reformer's argument: Rahm is great for the wealthy. He's their guy! He's fine on social issues while protecting their financial privilige. But for those struggling to make ends meet? He's a corporatist asshole Democrat. And if we learned anything in the first round, it's that this very progressive city voted for his more progressive opponents by a 55-45 margin. So let's help them finally get rid of Rahm, by chipping in $3 to Garcia's campaign!