Poll: Bottoms or Norwood? (Atlanta, White: expense, locations, homosexual)

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

East Atlanta, particularly a few precincts in Atlanta-in-Dekalb, delivered the election for Bottoms, which is surprising.

Not really. Those same districts were the difference maker in 2009 as well. This is this narrative of how as the city of Atlanta becomes "whiter", it's more likely a white candidate would become mayor becomes untrue in it's simplest form. That person would also have to be progressive and also carry southwest and southeast Atlanta. Why? Because the people gentrifying this area are mostly left leaning progressives, but not numerous enough on their own to win an mayoral election outright without the help of another section of the city.

This is something that doesn't even have postulated. Look at the results from the first round in November. Woolard dominated these areas, and she was the standardard bearer for progressive voters in that part of town. But she didn't take any other part of the city, so she didn't make the cut.

Those types of voters aren't going to vote for a Mary Norwood, so guess who they picked instead.

[AnsleyPark]

From the AJC:

Atlanta Mayoral Runoff Election 2017: precinct results map

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Zanarkand A East

I'm relieved that the 8th largest metro in the U.S. won't be led by a little old lady.

How come?

[3rdbass]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Not really. Those same districts were the difference maker in 2009 as well. This is this narrative of how as the city of Atlanta becomes "whiter", it's more likely a white candidate would become mayor becomes untrue in it's simplest form. That person would also have to be progressive and also carry southwest and southeast Atlanta. Why? Because the people gentrifying this area are mostly left leaning progressives, but not numerous enough on their own to win an mayoral election outright without the help of another section of the city.

This is something that doesn't even have postulated. Look at the results from the first round in November. Woolard dominated these areas, and she was the standardard bearer for progressive voters in that part of town. But she didn't take any other part of the city, so she didn't make the cut.

Those types of voters aren't going to vote for a Mary Norwood, so guess who they picked instead.

Sounds like a good summation. I fall into this type of SE Atlanta resident who is a progressive white voter that went Woolard in November and Bottoms in December. I couldn't see Mary being the type of Mayor I envision for the City of Atlanta.

[oldschoolChevy]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

From the AJC:

Atlanta Mayoral Runoff Election 2017: precinct results map

There isn’t anywhere I see in SW Atlanta where Norwood got single digit numbers, but I see more than a few districts in Buckhead where Bottoms got single digit numbers. Looks like the myth that is perpetuated by some on here about Blacks not voting for White candidates isn’t as true as they would like to make it seem, and may even in fact be the other way around.

[-thomass]

Originally Posted by oldschoolChevy

There isn’t anywhere I see in SW Atlanta where Norwood got single digit numbers, but I see more than a few districts in Buckhead where Bottoms got single digit numbers. Looks like the myth that is perpetuated by some on here about Blacks not voting for White candidates isn’t as true as they would like to make it seem, and may even in fact be the other way around.

You’re really splitting some hairs to proof a point huh

[Forhall]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Not really. Those same districts were the difference maker in 2009 as well. This is this narrative of how as the city of Atlanta becomes "whiter", it's more likely a white candidate would become mayor becomes untrue in it's simplest form. That person would also have to be progressive and also carry southwest and southeast Atlanta. Why? Because the people gentrifying this area are mostly left leaning progressives, but not numerous enough on their own to win an mayoral election outright without the help of another section of the city.

This is something that doesn't even have postulated. Look at the results from the first round in November. Woolard dominated these areas, and she was the standardard bearer for progressive voters in that part of town. But she didn't take any other part of the city, so she didn't make the cut.

Those types of voters aren't going to vote for a Mary Norwood, so guess who they picked instead.

I agree with this. It breaks down to there essentially being 3 different core voting bases in this city. There are the black voters, who generally vote for the black candidate. They make up about 50 percent of possible votes. Then you have the two white groups - left leaning voters on the east side (Woolard type) and affluent slightly more conservative northern/Buckhead whites who love Norwood.

Because of that, it's hard for a white candidate to ever win. Unless a complete disaster, the black candidate will sweep the black votes. The white candidate must somehow build a coalition of two polar opposites in order to win the white vote, left leaning and conservative. That's nearly impossible, one group of white voters will always be apathetic.

So while Atlanta is getting whiter, the only way a white candidate could win mayor is:

1. They somehow appeal to both conservative and liberal whites.

2. The black candidate is an absolute disaster with no support from the outgoing black mayor.

3. The white population of the city actually grows to a large majority.

4. So many black candidates run and only 2 white candidates, and the run off goes to two white candidates that each got around 20 percent.

I think 4 is the most likely scenario if Atlanta were to ever elect a white mayor.

[-thomass]

Originally Posted by Forhall

I agree with this. It breaks down to there essentially being 3 different core voting bases in this city. There are the black voters, who generally vote for the black candidate. They make up about 50 percent of possible votes. Then you have the two white groups - left leaning voters on the east side (Woolard type) and affluent slightly more conservative northern/Buckhead whites who love Norwood.

Because of that, it's hard for a white candidate to ever win. Unless a complete disaster, the black candidate will sweep the black votes. The white candidate must somehow build a coalition of two polar opposites in order to win the white vote, left leaning and conservative. That's nearly impossible, one group of white voters will always be apathetic.

So while Atlanta is getting whiter, the only way a white candidate could win mayor is:

1. They somehow appeal to both conservative and liberal whites.

2. The black candidate is an absolute disaster with no support from the outgoing black mayor.

3. The white population of the city actually grows to a large majority.

4. So many black candidates run and only 2 white candidates, and the run off goes to two white candidates that each got around 20 percent.

I think 4 is the most likely scenario if Atlanta were to ever elect a white mayor.

Is Emory getting annexed? That’s a whole new white/progressive voting base.

[oldschoolChevy]

Originally Posted by -thomass

You’re really splitting some hairs to proof a point huh

Sure am, but just remember that I wasn’t initially the one that was going around beating my chest about it either. A few people in here felt it was necessary to open that box, I’m simply responding to that garbage.

[-thomass]

Originally Posted by oldschoolChevy

Sure am, but just remember that I wasn’t initially the one that was going around beating my chest about it either. A few people in here felt it was necessary to open that box, I’m simply responding to that garbage.

Fair enough