Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor of the largest city in Illinois.

IMO, this demonstrates:

• There is one party rule in Chicago, and for the most, part in the rest of the state.
• The state of Illinois will continue to slide downhill.
• The state has not "hit bottom" yet, and no serious attempt to deal with the problems will be made until it does.

Footnote: the problems here are as bad or worse than those in Wisconsin, but Governor and Legislature don't have the sense/fortitude/inclination to deal with them, so they merely postpone the crisis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1604483) I disagree with the man's politics, but there were PLENTY of people found on the street who readily admitted to voting for him. I haven't seen anything that showed the election was stolen. The people of Chicago will get what they voted for. Simple enough. Thats the way our system works. Sometimes the people want something I disagree with - but it would be hypocritical to just jump to "its fixed" because someone I didn't like politically won. .

I didn't say the vote was "fixed", but I will say that the courts wanted to set aside the residency requirements for him. If he hadn't had a defacto endorsement from Obama and Daley, and been the ruling party canidate, I doubt this would have happened in this state.

Hope is fine but will not solve the cities problems. Rahm has not put forth any plan or idea for dealing with the mess. The notion that he will cut the budget, eliminate waste/corruption, and change the culture in Chicago is laughable. As White House chief of staff, he has shown himself to be a liberal idealogue. Many in these parts consider him to be a political gangster. I should also point out that there was not a conservative or Republican running. Though there were 4 "major" canidates running, all were liberal Democrats. There really wasn't much of a choice.

How is expressing an opinion the same as a state legislator fleeing his state? I find this view odd.