FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL – A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

First of all, I want to admit that this will be a very myopic look back at the 5th congressional race. I don’t know most of the details, so I’d love to hear from you to correct our collective view of what happened.

TURNOUT:
About 59,000 voters cast ballots in the election, including nearly 55,000 in the Dem side, about 4,000 on the GOP, and 500 greens. Most districts have about 450,000 people old enough to vote, so this is 13%, though the news calls it 17% (of registered voters).

Jesse Jackson’s special election drew 100,000 a decade ago, and last year’s special in California, to replace Tom Lantos, drew 86,000. But only 45,000 turned out to decide Bobby Jindal’s successor in Louisiana a year ago. Maybe Bobby’s belief that noone pays attention led to his dismal rebuttal to the president in February.

ELECTION COSTS:
The city board of elections issue a politically-inspired press relesae noting the cost per-voter of the primary, timed to help Democrats quash the idea of an election to replace Sen. Burris by making it sound expensive. One suspects they wouldn’t have been touting their own inefficiency if Mike Madigan hadn’t asked them to. After all, they spent $1.5 million running an election in about 480 precincts. The county spent 1/10th as much on 1/5th the precincts.

If we merged the two boards, could we save enough that we could afford to replace Burris?!

COMPETITIVENESS:
The degree to which this was up for grabs is shown by the 7 candidates who were somewhat competitive, the 5 in double digits. In the Jackson contest in 1995, though all the candidates were elected officials, 3 of the 5 failed to make double digits, and Jackson beat the third place contender by 40%. Quigley only outpaced the #7 candidate by 17% If Charley Wheelan somehow piques Carol Marin’s fancy back in January, how much would things have changed?

WARD & TOWNSHIP ANALYSIS:
Quigley’s vote was very consistent throughout the district. He won 23% of the vote overall, taking a low of 13% in the 36th ward and in Proviso and Leyden townships, and a high of 35% in his home 44th ward. His totals were in the 20’s in most wards. In fact, he only got more than 50% in just 4 of 570 precincts! But he fell below 10% in very few places.

Fritchey won more than 30% in two wards – 36 and 33, but he fell below 10% in 4 major wards – 40, 43, 44 and 46. Like Rod Blagojevich in the governor’s race, he ran better in places where people didn’t know him – his district is overwhelmingly in 32 and 47, where he only mustered 25%, and in 33, he did better in precincts that aren’t in his district than in precincts that are. Fritchey has to be worried that Waguespack and Quigley might find a mutually attractive challenger. Add an aggressive Trib editorial board, and he has real problems.

One mystery is why Feigenholtz chose not to mail to the entire district. She clearly had enough money, yet my reports suggest she did little west of Kedzie. Compare her totals in Leyden and Proviso. She actually takes a majority of votes in more precincts in Proviso than Quigley does in the entire district, taking 45% of the vote. But she is nearly shut out in Leyden, with just 16%. In Melrose Park, the Serpico organization surely brought her across, to their credit, but they did so by appealing to women. Her campaign didn’t even bother to get her message to women in Leyden, 36, 41 and 45. I’m sure the argument went that women on the northwest side wouldn’t be keen on a lakefront liberal. But the Melrose Park results disprove that. She could have racked up a lot of votes out west, but someone in the campaign had a mind too narrow and stereotyped.

Equally clearly, while women may vote preferentially for women when they know little about other candidates (as in a judge race) or when they’ve been given a reason to rally (as with Carol Braun defeating Sen. Dixon), women were not particularly motivated to vote for women here. The two women together took about 18% of the vote. More women voted for the male candidates than for either of these two. Wags two months ago were saying that Marge Laurino might run “to dilute the women’s vote” on behalf of one of the machine candidates. What a waste of time that would have been!

Bottom line, Feigenholtz would have won a normal primary, but she made few voters feel strongly enough about her to get to the polls just for her in a special.

ORGANIZATION ON THE GROUND:
I think one of the signs of a reliance on organization is disparate results -- precincts where a candidate does very well, side by side with ones where he does poorly. Few organizations can really go door to door in every precinct, and the results reflect those differences.

The 47th Ward was supporting Fritchey, who got more than 50% in 3 precincts, and less than 10% in 2. He did better than his district-wide average in 47, but he’s also the incumbent st. rep. there. One senses that not all the captains were as enthused as their alderman. Alderman Banks in the 36th gave Fritchey more than 40% in 8 precincts. But Serpico gave Feigenholtz outright majorities in virturally every Melrose Park precinct.

O’Connor lost only 4 precincts in his home ward (5 if you count a tiny split precinct that Tom Geoghegan won with 5 votes!). He took 53% overall there, meaning a quarter of his district-wide vote total came from a ward that was 1/20th of the district. Not bad for a favorite son candidate who seemed unininterested and was left out of the running by many observers. If Fritchey could count on support like that in his own district, he’d have won handily.

A WIN FOR REFORM?:
The Trib and Sun-Times both touted the Quigley victory as a big win for reform. Others immediately countered that Quigley took just 23%, and that had the machine edged one of their candidates out, their combined total would have handily defeated Quigley.

I find this unconvincing. Even combining Fritchey and O’Connor, you only scratch up 30% of the vote, and my ward analysis shows that many of O’Connor voters were people who knew him well in his ward. Could either of these candidates have pulled together 3/4th of their combined vote? I doubt it.

Further, you surely have to call the Wheelan and Geoghegan votes reform votes. Assuming Quigley pulls 3/4th of their votes if they weren’t in the race, he’s still beats a machine candidate. Feigenholtz had sources of money that wouldn’t necessarily have been open to Quigley, but one assumes many of her voters would have gone to him.

The real question is where would Forys’s votes go? How many are loyal machine voters from the NW side who took a walk on their captains (and on Fritchey)? How many are conservative Democrats who found a Polish favorite son, and would otherwise split their votes, but probably leaning away from Quigley and Feigenholtz? And how many wouldn’t have voted?

RAHM’S SHADOW:
These are questions that will echo in future elections. I don’t believe anyone but Rahm Emanuel can beat Mike Quigley in this district. If Rahm really wants the seat back, Quigley won’t deter him. The organization will support him, and he’ll have plenty of money. Can Quigley rally the Poles? Can he give his supporters real achievements (as a freshman)? Can he build his reputation beyond basic name recognition and some mildly positive awareness in pockets of the district?

Will Rahm’s role as the ‘bad cop’ for the President show him in a poor light? Can he maneuver and remind 5th district voters of his local roots even while he’s chief of staff? Does he really mean to resign at the end of this year (as he’d have to do to run in 2010)? By 2012, would Quigley establish himself beyond Rahm’s power to interfere?

That would be a battle for the soul of the Democratic party in Chicago. As a fan of politics, I’d like to see it.

This Race is Torture

John Fritchey

For Congress ... For Clout

That's whats written on the poster-board hanging from the fence in front of nearly every empty lot or construction site in the northside neighborhoods of Johns Center & Fritchey Square. No? OK. They actually say "For Congress… For Us." And the neighborhoods are still officially called North Center & Lincoln Square. But it's an honest mistake.

Picture being water-boarded. Now picture staring into the smiling face of your local powerbroker, begging for the permit you'll need to pay your mortgage and kids tuition, heavy poster-boards leaning against the counter, as you hope that taking one is all it will take to save your business. Poster-boarding is our very own, local form of "intense interogation."

To those new enough to the city who notice Chicago's torturous political poster-boarding, and to those vigilant veterans who've always noticed, and to those whose recollection has been refreshed (Grazie alla Blagojevich), there is a perfect example of the "Chicago way" on display in the Fifth Congressional District.

Or maybe this is just cynical. All the builders and business owners may just find themselves with a sudden and complete commonality of values in one another; a once in a lifetime synergy of interests making it clear that among 23 candidates in total, and 12 Democrats in particular, there is only one possible - rational choice.

But just for a moment what if?

What if the developers, builders, businesses, and empty lot owners are being subjected to poster-boarding?

Poster-boarding is the process - express, implied, or ingrained – of extracting political support from companies and people who rely on the city for their financial well being. To loosen the squeeze, to grease the skids, to stop the pain, businesses, developers, builders, generally "the beholden," all tell their "beholders" what they want to hear – in this case apparently – "I'm for John Fritchey," or "I'm for John Fritchey the most."

And then these people who do business with the city will prove their devotion by competing against each-other for the honor of displaying the most visable, largest poster-board they can find.

To be completely fair, lets assume that all parties involved in this play are free from any illegal, immoral, dishonest or untrue intentions – and further, that none asked or insinuated that political support of any sort would loosen the squeeze or grease the skids or stop the pain – the ingrained culture that leads to poster-boarding should still be stopped.

In fact, that particular type of culture, "ingrained culture," is the only one that can be stopped at the ballot box. This is an entirely circumstantial case but it begins from the unavoidable, and of late rather "unimpeachable," (pun intended), premise that the "Chicago Way" is "Pay to Play."

Since the thesis is that there are "beholders," (read: aldermen, zoning board members, etc.) who are being beholden too, test it by looking at the interests of the "beholders" who support and endorse the candidacy of John Fritchey.

Above is a small sampling from our neighborhod. Feel free to post, it shouldn't be hard, look next door or across the street.

Ed Burke and Ghostly Silence

At least two local columnists, Mary Mitchell & then Carol Marin, noticed the ever-ridiculous Ald. Ed Burke (Dem - I.O.C.) comparing Roland Burris to Martin Luther King. He even quoted King's line "you will remember not the words of your enemies, but the silence of your friends."

Somehow, neither brought up my favorite story about Ed Burke's silent friends. After all, Ed has good reason to thank his silent friends. His silent dead friends.

In 1997, the Sun-Times questioned whether his legal clients might be paying him not for legal help, but for his vote on the council, since he had repeatedly voted on bills directly affecting companies paying him for legal advice. Burke asked that his votes be changed to 'abstentions' and blamed the conflict of interest on a man who everyone knew had no interest in the subject -- Alderman Tom Cullerton. He claimed that Cullerton had recorded his vote inaccurately. Culleron couldn't contradict Burke, since he had died three months earlier. (see Sun-Times, June 10, 1997)

By the way, it's a wonderful concept, this changing your vote to abstention after the fact. Retroactive Abstention! Even Sarah Palin's daughters could practice abstention retroactively. The problem being that by the time Burke decided to abstain retroactively, you and I had already been screwed.

And back in 1995, Burke had an uglier situation. One of his finance committee employees admitted she was a ghost payroller, doing no work for two years while on the city payroll and reporting to him. But again, Burke had a silent dead man at hand, his recently departed staffer Howard Lindsey. Burke claimed Lindsey "connived" with the sister of (current) Ald Marge Laurino, and that he had no idea what was going on. (see Sun Times, Jan. 30, 1995)

Some are haunted by the ghosts of dead men. Ed Burke has the clout to command dead men to bury his ghosts. Silently.

Wrigley Field: A Case of Bipredatory Cooperation

After reading a proposal that our state government should buy Wrigley Field from the Cubs, I have a suggestion. In the unlikely event it happens, I think we should honor an old tradition of naming stadiums for their owners (like Comiskey and Wrigley itself) and call it Chumley Field.

Allow me to explain, because you'll need some background to see how the name fits.

I recently watched a Discovery Channel show. Dolphins corraled a big school of little fish - chum fish - and they were swimming through the chum picking them off. Other predators, like barracuda and big tuna, discovered the swarm, and they were swimming through and gobbling down what they could.

I like to call this "bipredatory cooperation".

The spirit of bipredatory cooperation runs deep in Illinois. We have a cuddly Dolphin party that travels in daffy, playful groups, loved by everyone, and a stern Barracuda party that taps into our firm belief that everyone should sink or swim on their own merits. Barracudas aren't loved, but they are respected.

In Illinois, the dolphins and the barracuda love to hunt us chum fish -- voters, taxpayers, government employees whose pensions aren't funded. Like when Governor Blagojevich (D - Chicago) appointed Stuart Levine, of the barracuda party, to a state hospital board. Levine gave the governor's campaign more than $4,000 in contributions, and took some $9.5 million in chum, before he was swallowed up by the Feds. Or there's Joe Kotlarz, once a dolphin alderman in the city, who got rich at the barracuda-controlled State Tollway Authority along with former Gov. Edgar's (B-Charleston) boyhood pal Bob Hickman. Like Levine, Hickman and Kotlarz also spent some time in the federal fish tank.

And all too frequently, the prime beneficiary of the dolphins and barracudas swimming in circles is a Big Tuna, or at least one of his heirs, like the blunt-nosed fish with his garbage hauling contracts.





So you think you're onto me, now. That we'd call Wrigley Chumley in honor of ourselves, the chum fish who would 'own' the stadium. But that's not my whole meaning.

Because the proposal for the takeover comes from a truly odd fish. Jim Thompson was once a governor from the barracuda party, with a background prosecuting dolphins.

Thompson was appointed by Blagojevich early last year to chair the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. That makes him more or less the owner of US Cellular Field, and its little known conference center, where meeting space isn't exactly rented out to the public at a publicly announced rate -- instead, connected people like Todd Stroger ally Rupert Graham can "facilitate" getting meeting space. All in the spirit of bipredatory cooperation, of course.

But Thompson is most famous as head of the audit committee for Conrad Black's Hollinger Corporation while Black looted $80 million dollars from the Sun-Times. Thompson was called as a witness in the trial that sent Black to prison, and pressed on what he knew about Black's thieving, Thompson repeatedly responded in something like the immortal words of Tennessee Tuxedo's walrus friend Chumley -- "gee, Tennessee, I done know."

After his ridiculous testimony, colleagues at Winston and Strawn have taken to calling Thompson Chumley behind his back.

Chumley came up with the idea as a favor to Sam Zell (himself a sort of albacore tuna -- high in the food chain, where the mercury and other toxins accumulate like well, like tax fraud indictments.) Zell's buy-out of the Tribune is in trouble because the cash just isn't there, and a few million in chum could help him keep it all together. As a former "friend of Conrad", Chumley knows just how valuable it can be to do favors for a newspaper owner.

Chumley's problem is he doesn't know which school of fish he swims with. This time, he seems to have alienated a powerful dolphin, Mayor Daley, who doesn't want Wrigley off the tax rolls. That would cost the city, county and schools about $1.5 million, though Mark Brown thinks this is already ridiculously low, and you can always judge for yourself at the Assessor's database, where you can add up the assessments of surrounding parcels to find that Wrigley is undervalued by at least half.

So Chumley Field, for Jim Thompson, the former barracuda who is in WAY over his head but still might pull it off, and for us, the chum fish, who don't know enough to stay away from the sharks and barracudas.