Would "progressive" Atlanta ever elect a non-black mayor? (Buford: appointed, buy)

[Prytania]

New Orleans just elected a white mayor.
If people get fed up and are unhappy, anything is possible...regardless of race.

[neil0311]

"Content of their character" and not the "color of their skin" is what we should be concentrating on. The more we do that as a general rule in society, the better off we all will be.

[BringBackCobain]

To answer the OP's question, a white mayor can get elected in Atlanta, and in 2013 it will probably happen. But it wont be because the city is no longer majority black or how progressive it is. At the rate demographics are changing, Atlanta's white percentage is growing by approx. 1% and the black percentage is decreasing by approx. 1%. So, based on 2008 estimates, by 2013 the city will be about 43% white and 50% black.

The tipping point that will lead to a white mayor will instead be found in the percentage of registered and active voters. The proportion who are white will be larger than the city's respective percentage - it was almost 50-50 white-black in the 2009 election.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

To answer the OP's question, a white mayor can get elected in Atlanta, and in 2013 it will probably happen. But it wont be because the city is no longer majority black or how progressive it is. At the rate demographics are changing, Atlanta's white percentage is growing by approx. 1% and the black percentage is decreasing by approx. 1%. So, based on 2008 estimates, by 2013 the city will be about 43% white and 50% black.

The tipping point that will lead to a white mayor will instead be found in the percentage of registered and active voters. The proportion who are white will be larger than the city's respective percentage - it was almost 50-50 white-black in the 2009 election.

Perhaps you're correct, but you seem to imply that black voters won't vote for a white candidate and that the only way a white candidate can win is for a demographic shift to occur. That's a shame if true.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Perhaps you're correct, but you seem to imply that black voters won't vote for a white candidate and that the only way a white candidate can win is for a demographic shift to occur. That's a shame if true.

I agree. The misconception here is that each incremental change in population, for either group, will alter the likely voting outcome in equal measure, or indeed will have the same effect as in the past.

Keep in mind that many people moving into the city now and in future are coming from other parts of the country, or world, are college-educated and affluent (or affluent to be), may either be black or white, or from some other ethnic group entirely, and will be less likely to assume traditional Southern voting habits: i.e. vote for a white because their white or vote for a black because their black. And sooner or later - if not already - you'll have candidates who realize it's in their best interest to appeal to people beyond their racial group. So the table will be set for a Jewish person or an Asian newcomer to vote for a black or a white, whoever best appeals to their interests, and so forth.

[bikefrontier]

Originally Posted by neil0311

Perhaps you're correct, but you seem to imply that black voters won't vote for a white candidate and that the only way a white candidate can win is for a demographic shift to occur. That's a shame if true.

But like a previous poster said, if you look at the maps from this past election, and the fact that there hasn't been a white mayor in Atlanta for some time now (I believe since the last time the percentage of white voters exceeded the percentage of black voters, but I could be wrong), I don't think that assumption is very far off.

Sure, it is a shame that there may still be a racial divide. But don't you think that events like this at least somewhat justify the idea that race plays a large role in Atlanta politics?

With all that being said, I think the purpose of the posting is to decipher whether a racial divide (if it exists or not) controls the mayoral election. I, just as badly as everyone else, wishes race never came into any discussion, politics or not, but I believe (unfortunately) that it still does factor into the mayoral election process.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by akress

... I think the purpose of the posting is to decipher whether a racial divide (if it exists or not) controls the mayoral election. I, just as badly as everyone else, wishes race never came into any discussion, politics or not.

Nowhere does a racial divide control the mayoral election, or at least not entirely, but by the same token there is no place where it is completely a non-factor either. Michael Bloomberg's Jewish background, David Dinkins's blackness, and Rudy Giuliani's Italianness (or whiteness? hmm, which is it?) may have been on voters' minds as one of many factors, and in some cases (maybe even many) the decisive one. But the point is, there is enough of a varied dynamic at work for us not to simply assume "New York elects its mayors along racial lines". Something similar will eventually happen in the city of Atlanta, if it's not already happening now. It's just a matter of time.

[bikefrontier]

Sure, not in its entirety. By control I didn't mean the only factor, but simply one that has the ability to decide the election (and therefore control the outcome)

With that being said, I don't feel New York and Atlanta are comparable in this discussion. They have very different histories, especially as they relate to race and civil rights. I would argue that New York is much more mature as a city in those areas.

And I agree that it will eventually happen in Atlanta, but I don't think we are there yet based on what I've seen.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by akress

With that being said, I don't feel New York and Atlanta are comparable in this discussion. They have very different histories, especially as they relate to race and civil rights. I would argue that New York is much more mature as a city in those areas.

And I agree that it will eventually happen in Atlanta, but I don't think we are there yet based on what I've seen.

Really? I'm not so sure. New York City, founded by the Dutch, ruled by white patrician political interests for a large part of its history?

Just consider this: what chances do you think a black man would have had of being elected mayor of New York City in, say, 1942? Close to nil, I'd say. Remember, New York only had its first black mayor in 1990, almost two decades after Atlanta.

So it's funny how we look at Atlanta's election of a black mayor as evidence of it being "non-progressive", when the truth is that Atlanta enjoys a special distinction over many supposedly progressive cities for this very reason. This is something really worth pondering.

So I'm not saying there's nothing at all to what you say about New York's "maturity" vis-a-vis Atlanta - there is. It's just that the comparison is more subtle than may at first appear.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by SCAN5TI84

ive done more research on the subject of atlanta, and the research made me think: atlanta was often described as progressive, but based on history and past elections it seems unlikely that a non-african mayor will win an election in atlanta.

Au contraire. Only about 1,000 votes kept the city from electing its' first white female mayor last year.
There have been major demographic shifts in the city over the last 15 years. The 2009 election was evidence enough of that.