The Groups that Made a Difference
Updated: Apr 3
Which groups successfully impacted Chicago's elections? Below are some significant groups and how their endorsements fared.
These are endorsers that bring significant volunteer power or money with their endorsement and also endorsed in at least five wards with an open seat or an appointed (non-elected) incumbent (+ the Chicago Tribune because of wide readership). The numbers provided include only these wards + challengers who may make a runoff against an elected incumbent + the mayoral election. Wards where an elected incumbent received 50% of the vote are not included, as it is very difficult to say that the endorsing group played a significant role there. Many groups endorse many sitting incumbents who are likely to win, more to gain favor than to impact the election.
These groups are listed in order of success, with the most successful listed first. Some (CFL and SEIU particularly) did better just because they tend to only back candidates already more likely to win, so success % doesn't necessarily match impact.
Overall, within organized labor, more ideological groups like the Chicago Teachers' Union and Fraternal Order of Police had less success than more moderate groups. This is largely because they take more risks on candidates less likely to win but more matching their ideology. Progressive labor did far better than conservative labor though, with CTU far stronger than FOP and more moderate-progressive SEIU far stronger than more moderate-conservative LIUNA and Teamsters.
Within progressive organizing groups, United Working Families was the strongest and is consistently demonstrating their electoral power, while Democratic Socialists of America was the weakest and seems to have some internal work to do before the next cycle.
Business groups like realtors PACs had only moderate success in these competitive races, and I think their outcomes largely reflect the overall mixed success of wealthy donors in this election. Organized people and their pooled funds really can fight back effectively against wealthy donors.
Chicago Federation of Labor
3 wins - Gutierrez 14, Fuentes 26, Conway 34
9 runoffs - Robinson 4, Yancy 5, Hall 6, Guajardo 10, Lee 11, Mosley 21, Cruz 30, Knudsen 43, Dunne 48
1 loss - Williams 46
SEIU Healthcare and SEIU 73 (service employees union)
4 wins - Ramirez 12, Gutierrez 14, Fuentes 26 (not SEIU 73 endorsed), Conway 34
7 runoffs - Johnson, Robinson 4, Yancy 5, Hall 6, Guajardo 10, Lee 11, Mosley 21
1 loss - Janowitz 43
United Working Families
2 wins - Ramirez 12, Fuentes 26
5 runoffs - Johnson, Yancy 5, Hall 6, Torres Whitt 36, Clay 46
2 losses - Humphries 4, Sanchez 10
LIUNA (Laborers International trades union)
1 win - Conway 34
9 runoffs - Robinson 4, Yancy 5, Guajardo 10, Lee 11, Mosley 21, M. Scott 24, Cruz 30, Knudsen 43, Dunne 48
3 losses - Kearney 6, Abarca 12, Williams 46
Teamsters Union
3 wins - Gutierrez 14, Fuentes 26, Conway 34
8 runoffs - Robinson 4, Yancy 5, Hall 6, Guajardo 10, Lee 11, Gutierrez 30, Knudsen 43, Dunne 48
4 losses - Garcia, Abarca 12, Woodruff 24, Williams 46
Chicago Tribune
2 wins - Gutierrez 14, Conway 34
10 runoffs - Vallas, Robinson 4, Hall 6, Lee 11, Mosley 21, M. Scott 24, Gutierrez 30, Comer 43, Mathias 45, Walz 46
5 losses - Ward 5, Sanchez 10, Abarca 12, Perez 26, Freilich-Jones 48
Chicago Teachers' Union
6 runoffs - Johnson, Yancy 5, Hall 6, Mosley 21, Torres Whitt 36, Clay 46
3 losses - Humphries 4, Sanchez 10, Ward 48
The People's Lobby
4 runoffs - Johnson, Robinson 4, Hall 6, Clay 46
2 losses - Sanchez 10, Williams 30
Cook County College Teachers' Union
2 wins - Ramirez 12, Fuentes 26
5 runoffs - Johnson, Yancy 5, Hall 6, Torres Whitt 36, Clay 46
5 losses - Humphries 4, Sanchez 10, Taylor 11, Williams 30, Ward 48
Realtor Groups
3 runoffs - Lee 11, M. Scott 24, Gutierrez 30
3 losses - Abarca 12, Ascot 34, Peloquin 48
Fraternal Order of Police
3 runoffs - Vallas, Chico 10, Ciaravino 11
6 losses - Bunville 6, Reyes 14, Goree 21, Goldsmith 24, Perez 26, Botsford 43
Democratic Socialists of America
1 runoff - Clay 46
4 losses - Sanchez 10, Taylor 11, Williams 30, Ward 48
Personally, I think some of the other interesting points here are:
The two candidates who made the mayoral runoff had either big money or a big volunteer base from organizations like these, and had to have some level of both. Candidates that didn't have these failed. Lightfoot and Garcia particularly fell short on organized foot-soldiers energized about their campaigns and couldn't make up with it with cash as much as Vallas could (and also were known and uninspiring candidates).
Organized labor's rallying around Chuy Garcia-connected candidates in 10th and 14th - the new machine-ish coalition replacing the old one in growingly Latino areas
Where progressive organizing and labor groups were united, they won/made runoffs (Johnson-defeating more conservative-labor backed Garcia, Hall 6, Fuentes 26, Clay 46-defeating more conservative-labor backed Williams, and to some extent Robinson 4, Yancy 5, Ramirez 12). Where they worked against each other, these groups floundered and made openings for other candidates (Sanchez vs Guajardo in 10 leading to Chico large plurality, missed opportunity of getting Williams in runoff in 30, lack of unity in 48 leading to Dunne plurality, variety of incumbents winning reelection over more progressive challengers where labor stayed neutral instead of backing challengers).
Candidates with CTU and progressive organizing backing without SEIU lost (except Torres Whitt made a runoff and barely kept Villegas under 50%). Is that a sign of the real strength being in SEIU or SEIU's caution to endorse unless the candidate looks to have a strong chance of winning? Probably more the latter, but once they do get involved, their volunteers seem really able to help gather support.
Both 10 and 11 had multiple conservative police candidates, but the police union's backing made a dramatic difference in which candidate had very large support and which had very little. The police union's influence continues to fail to translate in majority-Black wards.