So, does Rahm's victory in Chicago tell us anything?

[MineralMan]

35. Yes, that's pretty much the case.

Another reality we have to deal with during campaigns and elections. There are so many of those realities. But we ignore them at our peril, I think. Someone ran against Rahm Emanuel and lost. Now that the election's over, I'm hearing that he wasn't that good a candidate, or didn't "motivate voters." Yet, prior to the election, many people championed Chuy Garcia and said that he was the hope for the future of Chicago. Apparently, that wasn't the case.

Part of the problem is in thinking that the majority of voters believes the same as you or I believe. That's almost never the case. The majority of voters don't believe any single thing. They vote on their own, and for their own reasons. Similarly, those who don't show up at the polling place don't show up for their own reasons, which are also not the same reasons others don't show up.

When someone says, "Well, if only a candidate appeared who stimulated voters, things would change." That's sort of true. Barack Obama pulled that off. He got people to the polls who almost never vote. He won. Having won, though, he was immediately not good enough for some. Not progressive enough. Not bold enough. Not something enough. And so it goes.

Rahm Emanuel won re-election as Mayor of Chicago. Many who opposed him don't even live in Chicago. Their opinions didn't matter in Chicago. Chicagoans re-elected Rahm. That is the only thing that matters, really. Turnout wasn't spectacular, and was mostly people who always show up at the polling place. They are the people who decide elections - every time. They are the people who must be convinced, except in those very rare cases where some candidate fires up people who don't usually vote. Chuy Garcia didn't do that, so he lost.

But there's more to it than that. It's not simply enough to fire up some people. You have to fire up enough people to carry the election, which is why we have primary elections. There has been a long string of people in presidential primaries who fired up some people, but not enough people to carry them through the nomination process. Obama managed it, but most upstart candidates don't get that far.

In 2016, there is a strong front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Same one as in 2008. Obama nudged her out of the nomination that year. It will take someone equally capable to nudge her out this year. I'm not seeing anyone like that who will enter the primaries in 2016. Not in any way. Once again, we'll end up with a candidate getting the nomination who might not be the most exciting candidate ever. Once again, we'll be trying to get that candidate elected in November. That's how it works, most of the time, at least in Presidential races. Locally, and legislatively, it's a bit different, but not nationally.

Rahm Emanuel won in Chicago. He was elected by the minority of voters who can be counted on to vote in every election. Those voters matter, even if you don't agree with how they choose the person to vote for. They vote. Their votes count. That's the system we have right now, and it's not going to change by next year. Campaign financing isn't going to change. How we cast our votes isn't going to change. How those votes are counted isn't going to change.

So, we have an election coming up in 2016. We need to look at what happened in Chicago and see what we need to do to make sure Democrats win in 2016, not Republicans. It's not theoretical. It's actual. It's what will be happening.