Select Page

Why Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Lost 

Why Chicago Mayor Lightfoot Lost 

When Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot entered the race in 2019, she was not expected to be the winner. 

In the first round of balloting, she faced two major and much better-known opponents – former Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley, the son of the legendary Mayor Richard J. Daley, brother of Mayor Richard M. Daley, and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. 

It was widely predicted that Daley would easily garner more than 50 percent of the vote in the first round – avoiding a runoff.  After all, this was Chicago where “Mayor Daley” was considered one word.

That did not happen, however.  In a major turn of events, Daley did not reach the 50 percent threshold.  In fact, he did not even make it into the top two to qualify for the runoff.  He was out.  It was shocking in a city where Daleys never lose.

The runoff was between Preckwinkle and the little-known Lori Lightfoot, president of the Police Board.  That had the odds makers betting heavily on Preckwinkle.  Chicago has had black mayors and a woman mayor, but never an openly gay mayor.

Lightfoot’s sexual preference was believed to be a stumbling block among the white – largely Catholic – Democrat voters– and a high percentage of black Baptist voters.  (I have to digress here.  This was another example of how the left and the media assume the American people are racists and homophobes.  And another example of just how wrong they are.)

In the final round, the people of Chicago opted for change.  They elected outsider Lightfoot over the establishment’s Preckwinkle.

Lightfoot had a good start, but it did not last long.  Her handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic and the George Floyd riots were getting more criticism than praise.  Her generally far-left approach to issues ran across the grain of a lot of Chicagoans.  One might say that Lightfoot was heavy-handed.  (Sorry about that.)  Crime and taxes were also driving voters and employers out of the Windy City.

Lightfoot engaged in a number of embarrassing theatrics – singing, dancing, and putting on costumes. Apparently, she did not know that it is only in the circus that you send in the clowns during a disaster.  And finally, there was that ever-present crime issue that went from god-awful to disastrous during her term. It was so bad that Lightfoot, the former president of the Police Board, lost the police union endorsement to an opponent, Paul Vallas.

Lightfoot came into the 2023 mayoral election as an underdog.  Polling consistently showed her coming in third against former school board chief Paul Vallas and teacher union official Brandon Johnson.  (No, his slogan was not “Let’s go, Brandon.”)

When the result came in, it was the first time in 40 years that an incumbent Chicago mayor was ousted – and that was Mayor Jane Byrne in 1983.  She had ousted incumbent Mayor Michael Bilandic four years earlier.  Putting aside the Bilandic/Byrne defeats, the previous time an incumbent Chicago mayor was defeated was in 1955 when a young Richard J. Daley knocked out Mayor Martin Kennelly in the Democrat primary.

What is amazing about this round was the miserably poor showing by Lightfoot.  She only got 17 percent of the vote.  What?  That means that only one out of seven voters cast a ballot for the incumbent.  That is not a defeat.  That is a humiliation.

Vallas got the lion’s share of the vote at 34 percent.  Johnson got 20 percent.  That does not mean that Vallas has the advantage.  In fact, he is the underdog for the final round.  By most analysis, the Lightfoot voters are likely to go with Johnson – as are the majority of the 29 percent of voters who split among the six other candidates.  

But … you cannot completely count out Vallas.  Chicago Voters have a history of surprising results.  Stay tuned.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

12 Comments

  1. Tom

    Wow, some of these names, Prickwinkle, Johnson, Bilandic, all sound like they are out of some kind of 25 cent peep show or something!

    I am glad she lost. I seem to recall that her good start only lasted no more than six months. And then she became a woke princess.

    But my comment will focus on homophobia the left claims many of us have. As an independent / unaffiliated Christian, bible reading and believing voter, engineer, mathematician, and scientist whom uses the bible as his moral code, I am against homosexuality because our creator says it is an abomination to him, not because I have any kind of phobia (an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.)

    Lets understand something here. I have no phobia (irrational fear) of gay people, trannies, etc. They do not scare me at all. I couldn’t care less about them or their sexual preference. I have worked with them, bunked in the Navy next to one named Brown, and I have had a few clients that were homosexual. I do have an aversion to them teaching little children through books, kids shows, Disney movies, drag shows, that makes homosexuality and transgenderism appear normal and confuses young impressionable minds. I taught kids for ten years in middle school. They get very confused very quickly, and putting this stuff in their psyche causes them more problems then they already have. What I do fear as a believing Christian is that the God of our universe has created an sexual order that works to fulfill his “Great Commission” to go forth, populate and subdue the world. And He has stated through his Word in the bible that anything outside of the sexual order He created for his pleasure and purposes, is “an abomination” to Him. Just read Old Testament, Deuteronomy 22: 5 to 8, or read about the destruction of Sodom, Old Testament a city destroyed by God for its wickedness that, with Gomorrah, traditionally typifies depravity (Genesis 19:24) this city as representing homosexuality. All through the Old Testament, you see time and time again where the God who created the universe destroys those cities and countries that practice things that are an “abomination” to Him and His order. Therefore, I have a rational fear (based on scripture) of one day God allowing the destruction of the USA for the totality of the same kinds of wicked practices: Homosexuality, transgenderism, murder, lying, stealing, adultery, slandering God, blaspheming the Spirit of God, cruelty, taking advantage of the poor, widows, and orphans, and general immorality and moral decay. Just read the book of Isaiah to see what happens to these kinds of societies and armies. These kings, and these armies, and their population’s debauchery and immorality are documented facts in history, and so is their demise just as well documented. And the USA is undeniably heading in this direction, becoming the Babylonia of the West, a classic harlot.

    So it is not the people that I fear, it is the God of the Universe whom has been amazingly consistent in allowing cities and countries whom practice these forms of wickedness to be destroyed, or to simply crumble and fall from within, one by one through history. The only nation that has survived all of this is Israel. How amazing is that, that same God said He would never abandon Israel. So I think there is something to this God – In my humble opinion. Its time that people get “woke to God and what He is doing” rather than woke to their own vices, pleasures, and justices.

    So please refer to me not as a homophobe, no, not at all. I AM A GODAPHOBE!!! AND PLEASED TO BE THAT!!!

    • Mike f

      Shocking that so many people are like you, and pick and choose what they want to believe out of the “good book” that had its origins over 2000 years ago. Tom, let me give you some information-a lot has been learned in the past 2000 years. Women are no longer considered to be property of men, it is considered very poor form to own slaves and homosexuality is not something that a person just decides one day to indulge in-it is a characteristic that some people are born with. To say otherwise and to blame your beliefs on words contained in a 2000 year old piece of literature shows a distinct lack of intelligence, but then you vote Republican too?

      • Tom

        I have never considered property but you would be surprised how many countries still do. So your global comment does not apply like you think it does. I have never owned a slave nor do I intend to. Actually you are in the same slime bucket with the rest who think that homosexuality is not a decision, it actually is a decision just like heterosexuality is a decision. My point was not to teach this as a decision to little kids that are not yet close to puberty, but your anger stopped you from seeing my point. That “2000 year old piece of literature” is still valid today. You have every right to not believe in it, I will not stop you, nor will I insult your intelligence as you just have done to me. I am not blaming my beliefs, I am firm in them being correct. You are like many of the proponents of moral decay, you insult those with rational thoughts, and you try to make irrelevant the bible, because you know that it speaks against what you believe. It is your biggest enemy so you try to diminish its value. If you ever read the book of Isaiah you will find those battles and destroyed countries and cultures in the anals of secular non-biblical history. Therefore, the bible is relevant. We all will meet that God one day. Good luck! I am an independent/unaffiliated voter, as I said before. I vote by issues and who I feel can do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

      • Tom

        By the way Mike f, there is no scientific proof that there is a “gay gene” as you seem to purport. See these articles to enlighten:

        “https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/”

        “https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms”

        In the end, sexuality cannot be traced to DNA. Sexuality is very complex. And within all of that complexity, a person makes many decisions that will influence the perception of sexuality and partner selection.

      • Tom

        Hey Mike f, I found an interesting article for you to read at “https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/homosexuals-despite-the-assertions-more-likely-to-commit-sexual-abuse/” Fact is there are more heterosexual child sexual abusers than homosexual child abusers. BUT, that is total numbers only because there are 44 hetero’s to every homo. When you did into the numbers what is found is that the homosexual child sexual abuse rate is off of the chart, its getting that bad! From the article, it says,

        “Reisman noted, first, that 17-24 percent of boys are abused by age 18, nearly as many as the 25 percent of girls. Then, she noted, since heterosexuals outnumber the homosexual population about 44 to 1, as a group the incidence of homosexuals molesting children is up to 40 times greater than heterosexuals.

        “You’re looking at a much higher rate of abuse,” said Reisman, a former university research professor who had completed a study titled, “Crafting Gay Children.” Department of Justice data at the time showed the rate of abuse by homosexuals as “off the charts,” she said.

        An extensive analysis titled “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse” by Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., senior fellow for culture studies at the Family Research Council in Washington, is available on the Internet at “www.frc.org/get/is02e3.cfm”.

        Dailey, in his study spanning 13 pages and 76 footnotes, wrote, “Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offense. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.”

        What an eye opener, huh????

        • larry Horist

          Tom .. Not sure why I am even wondering into this quagmire, but I was curious. Here is what I found from the National Institutes of Health. I am not taking sides on this one, but I found that the data is all over the map based on research assumptions. Here is the headline and opening graph from the NIH.

          Prevalence of Childhood Sexual Abuse among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People: A Meta-Analysis

          “In order to determine the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, we conducted a meta-analysis that compiled the results of 65 articles across 9 countries. The results revealed no significant difference in the prevalence of child sexual abuse between homosexual and bisexual people for both sexes.”

          I did note that the headline referred to “Lesbian, Bay and Bisexual People” while the copy only said “bisexual.” Not sure what they means in terms of the comparable claim. So, I have added murky info into an already murky situation…lol. I cannot even draw on personal experience because the first time I was hit on by a gay guy, I was about 21 years old. He was a local priest.

          • Tom

            I appreciate your investigation Larry. Yes it is murky, and that is by design. As you are well aware, often the conclusion of articles are in favor of the group funding the research. We see this in your latest blog with Fauci and NIH funding studies to discredit the lab leak theory where many of us, including me, were labeled conspiracy theorists. Well it is no different when the funder is a pro-LGBTQ group – they like to keep it murky too. LOL

            For instance, in your research the conclusion of that NIH article was “no significant difference in the prevalence of child sexual abuse between homosexual and bisexual people for both sexes.” Notice the word, “prevalence = the fact or condition of being prevalent; commonness. BUT!!! Prevalence is not the same as rate – which is what my articles discuss and what LGBTQIA+ people do not want you to know about!!! And notice the study is only of segments of the LGBTQIA+ community, heterosexual universe is not compared at all. In other words, they are saying that among different segments of LGBTQIA+ you will not see a significant difference in child sexual molestation and abuse – its all about as common among the segments. They are saying “we all do it about the same!” This is how they make it murky which is why I gave hard core stats on rate that compares LGBTQIA+ to Heterosexual universes based on science and surveys.

            The devil is in the detail of the numbers. The stats say that Hetero Universe is 44X larger than LGBTQIA+ Universe, BUT, the rate of child sexual abuse is 40X greater (steeper on a graph) among the LGBTQIA+ Universe than it is among the Hetero Universe. I believe the reason for this amazing stat is simply law of supply and demand! In the much smaller universe there is less available adult partners, so the propensity to look at child partners is greater because placing children in the mix increases supply of partners.

            Another reason for the murkiness is that the NIH article was only an “article review” and one can be sure that some if not many of those articles reviewed were written by pro-LGBTQIA+ groups because they like to make it murky so others do not see what is going on. Again, they want to get your eyes away from the numeric facts and confuse you on their social facts from articles often written by them. What I gave was scientific facts, i.e. the 23&Me database used for genetic survey to locate a “gay gene” concluded there is no gay gene – which destroys Mike f’s statement that many LGBTQIA+ people do not have a choice that they are gay. Mike f is eluding to the old argument of “Environment versus Heredity”. The actual facts say that there is no genetic source for a person being LGBTQIA+. Even several of the LGBTQIA+ articles I reviewed admitted this. This means it is environment which includes decisions being made by these people throughout there lives that got them to where they are now. My first cousin is one of these people. He had a nice girlfriend Gerry growing up. He parted ways with her when he started associating with a wealthy man who employed him, bought him gifts, flew him to his restaurants, and showered him with money. My cousin led a seedy life after this, and after several bankruptcies, later did jail time for elder abuse and financial exploitation of his mother, my favorite aunt. He stole all of her retirement money and made her poor, and got HIV Aids along the way. Along the way in his sexual journey he attempted a pass on me while I was sleeping, but it woke me up. My decision was hell no! And I never stayed at their house again, ever.

            You see, “prevalence” or widespread, or commoness only speaks to both existence and amount over the specific domain. As you pointed out in a previous blog when you said that 70% of Americans are accepting of LGBTQIA+. Yes, Americans do accept the fact that LGBTQIA people exist and should be treated fairly. I am one of them, just like I accept the pimple on my nose and how to deal with it. Just as teenagers accept that they will get some acne pimples in their face. But rate, now that deals with how much the amount is growing and how fast. This is what they do not want you to look at and why they make it murky. And they do not want you too look at the shocking amount of child sex abuse which is growing in their ranks. And they do not want Americans to look at how homosexual unions do not produce children and thus contribute to population decline and employee shortages – which is why many of them are anti-Christian. The Christian belief is in direct opposition to them, and you saw it in Mike f’s response.

            I thank you for your answer and research and the chance to discuss this very important topic! I appreciate you!

          • larry Horist

            Tom … I was not picking a side in terms of your views on homosexuality. I will give you my generally view. I see homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle — meaning not how most people engage sexually — but I do not consider it innately evil or destructive to society. Yes, some gays do bad things and those should be addressed on a case-by-case basis much like we would deal with heterosexual crimes. I do agree with DeSantis in keeping certain sexual content out of the early school grades. Kids are not ready for detailed adult sexual content — gay or straight. I guess I am more libertarian on the gay issue. And I am just not into stereotyping or characterizing groups of people in a prejudicial manner.

        • frank stetson

          Tom, IMO, you seem a decent chap; inquisitive, open minded, fact-based, and objective, IOW – a good egg. You seem to have this bug for gays and illegals that seems at odds with the rest of your character as I have witnessed here. I am guessing you never speak out about this in public and have never harmed any of these folks or even treated them badly, much less as “abominations.”

          My bestie friend growing up had conservative parents of the racist variety. But they were racist in words, in private. In public, never, and never did I see them do anything remotely racist to any person minority. Quite the opposite.

          That said, your recent analysis seems a tad biased, or at least the reports have the perception of bias.

          Having thrown the gauntlet of analysis paralysis by moral-asis, I thought I’d take you to task, figured low hanging fruit since your source is Baptist Press. Baptists? Come on Man :> Just a quick Media Bias check ought to do you in: uh oh — just left of center and highly factual according to my God, well, one of them: Media Bias. Nicely played….

          Being a junk yard dogma specialist, I dove ever deeper eventually discovering that your author is one Judith Anne Reisman, best known as the founder of the anti-Kinsey movement, an arch conservative, frequent contributor to far right rags, and a doctorate in communications….oh boy.

          Her daughter was molested, fell into depression and died 15 years later of an aneurism which Reisman blames on the incident, proof positive of her cause. according to her.

          According to WIKI: “The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Reisman as a “conspiracy theorist” and a promoter of “sexual pseudoscience” in regard to her views on Kinsey.”

          Also in your mix is Dr. Timothy Daily who does not have a WIKI, is of the same ilk as Reisman, and presumed biased based on past actions.

          Both of these folks are listed by the SPLC as hate group members with Daily’s work having “pushed false accusations linking gay men to pedophilia”.[

          Houston: I think we have a problem here.

          Like the studies you lambasted, these folk’s tend to cherry pick amongst studies, put apples in with the oranges, squeeze well, and tell you it’s banana cider.

          You may be right, but you may be crazy, and I think you need to do some more looking. I have no actual info to change your opinion, however……

          THERE IS NO GAY GENE, scientifically proven, however, in the complex tableau that makes up an individual’s sexuality: “Genetic heritability — all of the information stored in our genes and passed between generations — can only explain 8 to 25 percent of why people have same-sex relations, based on the study’s results.” Aha, heredity can be in the mix!

          More important, and IMO the right thought thus far: “Sexuality cannot be pinned down by biology, psychology or life experiences, this study and others show, because human sexual attraction is decided by all these factors.”

          My source: * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms*

          Lots of factors, especially grooming, being hit on by your priest, or a weird cousin, can turn folks gay every time :>)

          Just kidding.

          Fact is, it’s a complex situation tween gene’s, experiences, timing, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

          As long as we do unto others, what others do unto consenting, of-age, partners in private should just stay there. I find grading people based on race, creed, religion, sexual preference, political party, whatever to be stupid.

          Back to some real issues. Lorie Lightfoot’s time has passed. It wasn’t that swell to begin with. Not sure being gay had much to do with it, but really don’t know, don’t care. After all, forget it Tom, it’s larrytown.

          • larry Horist

            Frank Stetson … I am not going to get into the weeds on this one, but using the Southern Poverty Law Center demolishes you counterpoint. Do you really view them as unbiased and credible??

  2. Thomas

    The carpet muncher sholdnt have had the job

    • Tom

      Oh I don’t know Thomas. Larry explained it rather well that she was an outsider in a time when it appears that Chicago citizens were tired of status quo candidates and looking for an outsider. My feeling is everyone needs a job regardless of sexuality and she earned that job with a successful campaign. Now four years later, folks sent her a message that they did not like the job she did. That is the system. Name calling never helps the issue.