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

[Blkspice23]

If a white mayor is elected whats going to change??? too many people are so stuck on color are we in the 60s

[chiatldal]

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.

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.

He also implies that if the demographic shift occurs whites won't vote for a black candidate and the only way a black candidate can win if the demographics stayed the same. A very polarized view.

Have it occurred to any of yall geniuses that since most mayor candidates who are running are black it makes a higher odd of the mayor being black? The funny thing about the last election all mayor candidates no matter what party ran as their ideology with the center-left so it’s similar no matter who you picked. With that being said Mary Norwood part of the City Council beat the President of City Council Lisa Borders and was in a run off with Kasim Reed who undisputedly has more experience. But it would be more progressive to elect her really? It be more progressive to elected the best candidates if that person is white then that person is white if that person is black then person is black.

[bikefrontier]

Originally Posted by WilliamM

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.

I hardly think that dutch settlers in the 1600's is a valid comparison to the civil rights movement in the 1960's as it relates mayoral elections in 2009. Approximately 0 people from the 1600's are alive today, in contract to millions from the 1960's.

All I'm saying is that when you have an African american group in this city encouraging African american citizens to vote for an African american candidate simply because he is African american, race might still influence the election more than is should. We, as a city, need to mature beyond this type of stuff.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by akress

I hardly think that dutch settlers in the 1600's is a valid comparison to the civil rights movement in the 1960's as it relates mayoral elections in 2009. Approximately 0 people from the 1600's are alive today, in contract to millions from the 1960's.

All I'm saying is that when you have an African american group in this city encouraging African american citizens to vote for an African american candidate simply because he is African american, race might still influence the election more than is should. We, as a city, need to mature beyond this type of stuff.

There are always going to be stupid people. The people you describe, those trying desperately to cling to their power as it begins to slip away from them, are stupid, plain and simple. Fortunately, they will soon be (mostly) irrelevant.

Don't worry my friend. It will happen. It won't solve all our problems. But it will happen.

[johnatl]

Originally Posted by tonygeorgia

Would Progressive Seattle or Boston ever elect a black mayor?

Yes, in Seattle's case. Mayor Norm Rice served two terms, from 1989 to 1997. Norm Rice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is also Ron Sims, who was first elected to the King County Council in 1985. He went on to be appointed County Executive in 1996, and ran on his own winning by large margins in 1997, 2001 & 2005. He now serves as Deputy Secretary of HUD, being appointed last year.
Ron Sims - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by akress

I hardly think that dutch settlers in the 1600's is a valid comparison to the civil rights movement in the 1960's as it relates mayoral elections in 2009. Approximately 0 people from the 1600's are alive today, in contract to millions from the 1960's.

All I'm saying is that when you have an African american group in this city encouraging African american citizens to vote for an African american candidate simply because he is African american, race might still influence the election more than is should. We, as a city, need to mature beyond this type of stuff.

As for the Dutch settlers and the history of NYC, my only point was that we tend to throw around these terms like "progressive" and so forth and we often totally forget how even in places we assume are the leaders -- maybe even especially in their case -- things haven't been as smooth and one-side as we tend to think. The OP's apparent implication that Atlanta is not "progressive" because it still seems to only elect black mayors -- while there's some justice in looking at it critically -- is an example of this IMO. We forget history too easily and buy into stereotypical images of cities too quickly (and not just in the case of Atlanta - we immediately assume Atlanta is a 'runt' city and New York is the pristine specimen of all that's perfected and right about citydom - and to that extent our vision gets blurred). That's what I'm trying to get at here.

[johnatl]

Originally Posted by SCAN5TI84

would i, as a chinese american, hypothetically have a chance of winning a mayor election in atlanta?

Possibly. Atlanta voters in District 6 just elected the cities first Asian City Council member, Alex Wan. He's also openly gay.

[wxjay]

Originally Posted by WilliamM

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.

Actually, I find it more funny that to be considered "progressive" you have to elect a minority as a mayor. That's a very narrow criterion for calling a city or comparing among cities you consider "progressive." Shouldn't we consider economic conditions, social statuses, innovation, etc. to all qualify a city as "progressive"?

It seems to me that, unlike a previous poster, we are more concerned about race and ethnicity in this country now than ever, as we now use it as a litmus test of sorts to judge a city and its population. As an example, take a look at another thread in this forum on the renaming of the Northeast Line the "Yellow Line" and how this is considered offensive since it goes into the Buford Highway area that is highly populated by Asians. Just the other day some writer in the Washington Post criticized a Republican for saying that Obama spends more time getting 3-point shots than helping improve jobs in the country, and that writer actually called the politician racist for that comment. Huh? If anything, racial implications in elections and programs are heightened of late, not diminished.

[WilliamM]

Originally Posted by wxjay

Actually, I find it more funny that to be considered "progressive" you have to elect a minority as a mayor. That's a very narrow criterion for calling a city or comparing among cities you consider "progressive." Shouldn't we consider economic conditions, social statuses, innovation, etc. to all qualify a city as "progressive"?

It seems to me that, unlike a previous poster, we are more concerned abourt race and ethnicity in this country now than ever, as we now use it as a litmus test of sorts to judge a city and its population.

I hear you, but you have to understand, we're just now coming out (apparently) of a long period in which we began to exercise much greater vigilance with regard to the way that access to positions of power was dominated by the the privileges of a few groups, at the expense of others. As I said, just a half century ago you had to be pretty much of a certain class and group to be elected to most positions of power in this country (and that was the case no matter where you were, South, North, East, West, which we tend to forget when we look at liberal bastions like NYC and San Fran today). So it's understandable that even now the changes are going to be fitful and fraught with lots of kicking and screaming, just as the ones that got us to where we are now were. It's just in the nature of these things. But there's every reason to assume that generational and demographic changes are going to give us a picture in another 10-15 yrs that will be strikingly different in many ways than what our parents took for granted - just as we're already seeing huge changes from just a decade or 15 yrs ago. This is going to continue. Atlanta is only arriving at a tipping point in these matters now, but the next big wave of change has only just started.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by wxjay

If anything, racial implications in elections and programs are heightened of late, not diminished.

Just as prayer is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the 'race card' serves such a purpose for the politician.