Shaun King: "Atlanta Mayoral Race Shows What Happens When Progressives Dont Compromise"

[lapucelle]

"Keisha Lance Bottoms is not perfect. Hell, if you thought Vincent Fort was perfect, you probably aren’t from Atlanta. But I have to be honest with you: Hating good candidates because they aren’t perfect is getting old. Critique their policies. Investigate their decision-making and financing. Do those things!

But when a race comes down to a left-leaning Democrat and a right-leaning conservative, stop pretending like they are one in the same. Stop acting like the Democrat has cooties. Stop acting like you are so holy that you can’t lower yourself to vote or support a person endorsed by the establishment."

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/07/atlanta-mayor-bottoms-progressives/

[4now]

1. Election winning advice

[rogue emissary]

2. Man, it's really hard for some people to admit they were wrong and culpable.

[rpannier]

3. It's a weak analysis that ignores much of what the race was about

1. Many good Democrats did not support Mayor Bottoms. Former Mayor Shirley Franklin and Vincent D. Fort, Democratic Whip in the state senate were two who did not support Bottoms

2. There were issues involving gentrification and the displacement of long time Atlanta residents who are poor

3. A bribery scandal involving the outgoing mayor's administration who supported Bottoms, combined with the belief by many who would not support Bottoms, that she and the mayor had a deal where she would kill (or at the least hinder) the investigation

Nowhere in the article are those issues addressed at all, but did play an important role in the decision making process by people who live in the city


involving a fairly unpopular mayor, gentrification, displacement, changing racial demographics, a bribery scandal involving the outgoing mayor's administration who supported Bottoms, a split among Atlanta's political elite in the race and two candidates who neither were terrible

some articles, certainly not all

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/atlanta-mayor-keisha-lance-bottoms-mary-norwood_us_5a264b18e4b0f9f0203ed12c
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/05/atlanta-white-mayor-black-mecca-215681
http://theconversation.com/could-atlanta-be-on-track-to-elect-a-white-mayor-86970 (tbh: I had not heard of the Conversation until this race. the same article appears in sallon as well)
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2017/1204/In-Atlanta-some-black-voters-weigh-backing-city-s-first-white-woman-mayor

[tonyt53]

6. On this, I'll call bullshit. Your post is exactly what the original post pointed out.

You want a litmus test? Get used to losing elections. The Democratic Party is a very large tent. Start tossing out those that don't believe exactly as you do, and the Party collapses.

[Calista241]

7. Easy to say when you dont live here and have to deal with this shit.

Atlanta’s next mayor will be a republican if gentrification continues. Bottoms’ first priority for her administration, announced in comments this weekend, is about how our police force needs more cops.

Atlanta doesn’t need more cops. More cops means more arrests, more convicts, and more institutionalized black people. If they’re going to do anything for cops, they should give the ones they already have the raise they’ve been delaying for 8 years.

[Blue_true]

24. I completely disagree that more cops mean more arrests.

Yes, more bad cops with a clueless PC mean more arrests and maybe shootings. But big cities like LA and NYC have shown that both arrests and cop involved shootings drop when good administrators who know policing run departments.

[rpannier]

13. Please explain, with facts, how it is bullshit?

It was a criticism of an article written by someone who provided no facts to back up his points.
He claimed that it was some purity thing that made the race so close. Nowhere in the article did he post anything to support his point: not one exit poll, not one pre-poll, not one sit down with voters, nothing

1: Atlanta's gentrification has resulted in changing the racial dynamics of the city (that is from the article I posted above). The people moving in are wealthier and, in many cases white, and likely more conservative - but that's a guess on my part. (Something I admit that he did not).

2: There were prominent Georgia Democrats who either refused to endorse Bottoms or supported Norwood - including the Senate Minority Whip (which I mentioned above). Nowhere in his article does he mention that there was a split among elected Democrats

3: Mayor Reed's administration is involved in a bribery scandal. Adam Smith the city’s former chief purchasing officer pleaded guilty as part of a conspiracy and admitted taking payments in exchange helping a vendor win city contracts. A second contractor has also pled guilty.

4: As reported by the AJC, the main issues of the Mayor's race became procurement, ethics, transportation and affordable housing. At the Inman Park mayoral forum, the issues of affordable housing and corruption were the two main topics. Again, not mentioned in his article.

5: Former Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin and Chief Operating Officer Peter Aman endorsed Norwood. To be fair, Aman ran his entire primary campaign against Mayor Reed. So, that should be of little surprise. Former Mayor Franklin's endorsement should also surprise few since she and Mayor Reed had been at odds. (Reading the links provided would have provided that information)

There was no litmus test insisted upon or implied. My post was not about who should have won or lost. It's fairly obvious that Bottoms was better. My post was a critique of the article the OP linked to. The election was about gentrification and the displacement of long time Atlanta residents (mostly persons of color), while bringing in wealthier (often white) people to move in. It was about a corruption scandal involving bribery and city hall, it also had long time Georgian politicos supporting Norwood. Those were key factors in the race. The author of the article omitted that information, my guess is, because it didn't fit his narrative - but I can't prove that.

My apologies if the information provided does not fit the narrative you'd like

[tonyt53]

33. Actually, you just answered exactly how this is BS. Oh, my sister is a school teacher in Atlanta.

I tend to be on the same page as her, and when I read these statements to her, her reply was "bullshit". Yes, she is white, but single with two kids to raise with a husband that is a deadbeat. Wealthy, she isn't.

[Sophia4]

26. Pick candidates that pass the FDR smell test.

Democrats put up lousy, unattractive candidates and then complain that no one wants to vote for them. That's our problem.

I am a lifelong Democrat, and I approve this message.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

27. Are they lousier than the Republican alternative?

If you don't like the candidates, put yourself out there and run or encourage other people whom are better to run. And you can't do any of that, just vote D. They may be "lousy" and/or "unattractive", but Republicans will make everything worse with whatever time they are given in office.

[Sophia4]

29. Apparently a lot of Atlanta voters disagree with you.

Even Democrats have to have good personalities and be able to communicate well with voters. They also have to have impeccable records.

Democratic voters tend to be pickier than Republican voters. That's the reality the Democratic Party has to accept and respond to.

It's a shame, but we will get really good government if we Democrats run appealing, honest, capable candidates who can communicate well with voters.

When we pick "insiders" in the Party who aren't good at communicating with voters and who compromise on the Democratic message to please donors, we lose.

I'm not specifically speaking of Atlanta, but I see these kinds of losses all too frequently, especially at the state and local level.

[lapucelle]

38. The voters of Atlanta picked these two candidates.

[Sophia4]

39. Apparently, they goofed! It's a shame.

[lapucelle]

41. At least five Democrats other than Bottoms ran

for mayor in the November race. The party didn't "pick" the candidates.

[rdking647]

9. and this is how we got donald trump....

[rpannier]

11. Explain how?

I never made a moral judgement on the election or anyone who voted for Bottoms or her opponent. The author of the article painted the election as a bunch of disgruntled progressives who voted for Norwood because they wanted purity, without one iota of fact to back him up.

I followed the election from primary to the end. I disagree with people who think it's telling that so many of the people who didn't make it to the final round endorsed Norwood. TBH, I think that probably happens more often than people realize.

My point is/was and has been that this election was mostly about economics. Through gentrification many long time Atlanta residents lost their homes and were moved onto the streets, into substandard conditions or moved out of Atlanta. What you got in its place was more people with money who could afford to move into Atlanta -- most of whom happened to be white

The Mayor supported Bottoms. The administration is involved in a bribery scandal (that's kind of Trump-like) and there were rumors swirling that he and she had made a bargain; for his support, she'd drop the investigation. (I don't know if those allegations are true because they are rumors). But, there are people in Atlanta who felt they had merit

Did the better person win? Probably. It's hard to see how Norwood would be better. But, it doesn't diminish that there were/are African-Americans who suffered under previous policies by the outgoing mayor.
But, to make bold assertions without any facts to support it is kind of sloppy (IMO). A few interviews, exit polling, pre-polling, something would have been nice

One thing I did find interesting about the election was that almost every southern and western precinct went Bottoms, while almost every northern and eastern went Norwood. Briar Vista Elem voting area was kind of interesting because it didn't border anything other precinct.

If you're interested
https://www.wabe.org/runoff-election-map/

[Demsrule86]

18. Consider New York...the gentrification proceeds...should we elect independents? And do you really

think a fake independent would have stopped it? No, she would have pushed for more of it.

[Demsrule86]

14. The alternative was a conservative pretending to be an independent as it was her only chance...

So... Democratic always.

[Me.]

4. Considering His Previous Stance

I applaud this article +1

[rpannier]

5. I read the article twice

I found it to be lacking in any sort of statistical facts to back up his points; he had no exit polls, no interviews, nothimg really to support it, other than, 'this is what he believes to be the case.'

The election split many within the Atlanta and Georgia political class with a former mayor and the minority whip not supporting Bottoms. The outgoing Mayor who did support Bottoms , his administration is involved in bribery investigations. Gentrification, which has displaced a lot of people of color in Atlanta, also played a factor.
None of this gets even a modest amount of mention;. I think it's because it doesn't fit with his beliefs or what he wants to present. It would be nice if his article was a little more fact based and looked at the entire race, instead of what he concluded based on almost nothing. Which is pretty much what I wrote in the comments section at the intercept

[Me.]

8. If Supporters Of A Different Candidate THan A Dem

are going to stop kicking our party around and demanding so-called purity, ala SS with her there is no diff between HRC and Trump, then fine by me.

[Demsrule86]

15. It doesn't matter. When the general came, you had a choice...a conservative

masking as an independent or a Democrat.

[Demsrule86]

17. Vote for the Democrat...and this woman only ran as an 'independent' because she can't

win as a Republican.

[R B Garr]

32. This article is also written by an ex-Atlanta resident

and Bernie supporter. We should quit trying to explain away and distort his message to prop up a losing strategy—demonizing Democrats — especially with the pernicious lies that they are equal to Republicans.

[Ken Burch]

12. As I understand it, the Independent was basically a centrist, rather than a conservative.

And the issue was really the Democratic candidate's inability to hold the "Democratic base"-it's probably personality driven more than anything else.

Not sure what purpose is served by trying to make this into a municipal Bush v. Gore race.

[Demsrule86]

16. No she was a conservative who only ran independent because she had no shot at winning as a

Republican...doesn't matter we support Democrats not independents...particularly not conservatives pretending to be independent.

"ATLANTA - Political sources sent Channel 2 Action News a recording in which Atlanta mayoral candidate Mary Norwood appears to say she asked the Republican party to call her an Independent so she could win elections.

Channel 2’s Dave Huddleston talked with Norwood, who does not deny it’s her voice in the recording. However, she said the recording is edited and sliced together to make her say something that isn’t true.

“I called up the Republican party in Fulton County and asked if they could appoint me as an Independent,” Norwood can be heard saying.

The tape was sent to Channel 2 Action News one week before the runoff election.

“The thing is Atlanta is 8 percent Republican and 80 percent Democrat, so you can’t win if you are a Republican label,” Norwood can be heard saying on the tape."

http://www.wsbradio.com/news/local/source-sends-recording-mary-norwood-candidate-calls-fake/R62PgrXiS0gn4nYdKQRO9O/

Here she poses with an anti-LGBTQ official...and defends it...Guess who? Karen Handel. She did not support Ossoff either.

[Me.]

19. There You Go

How about we stop with the gaslighting when a candidate who isn't a Dem gets supported as, at the very least, an equal to the DEm or, in some cases, as better than. Against LGBTQ, posing with Handel pretty much is a huge hint as to what is what.

[NurseJackie]

22. Thank you! (It never ends, does it?)

Last edited Mon Dec 18, 2017, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

SSDD from now until the end of time, apparently.

[Me.]

34. Rats Gotta Rat

Worms Gotta Crawl.....

You forgot NT

[Ken Burch]

23. In any case, it's not as simple as blaming Sanders supporters.

If the candidate Bernie wanted only came in fifth in the primary there weren't that MANY Sanders supporters in the mix to start with.

I wish the Democrat had run better, but there's a need to be honest about this and recognize that the result probably owes, as much as anything else, local factors, such as the obviously conflicted feelings the Democratic base had about the Democratic candidate. If the base had turned out, this result would not have been a cliffhanger.

And frankly, the OP looks like it's just another excuse to browbeat Sanders supporters(a group NOT to blame for Trump)and to keep treating them as people we must try to win without. That's a luxury we don't have.

We don't have enough votes to win without them. THEY don't have enough to win without the people in this party, either. Both groups need each other.

There's no gain to the national party in a strategy of demonizing Sanders people and treating them like the only notion of working together we can envision is them just shutting the hell up and doing what they're told.

The war needs to end already. It's time to start doing the hard work of forging unity through respect and dialog.

Supporters of both Hillary and Bernie, at various points, have said things that did damage. Now, BOTH need to start pulling together, listening to each other, and finding some positive way of achieving victory.

[NurseJackie]

35. Not everything is about Bernie vs Hillary. Please stop rehashing the primaries...

Pretty-please?

PS: As of 5:13 pm, you're the ONLY one who has mentioned Hillary. The ONLY one. Go figure.

[Nevernose]

40. It was in the article

The whole thesis of the article was that progressive Sanders voters are sore losers who cost Democrats the election in the Atlanta mayoral race.

[NurseJackie]

42. Uh-huh.

" I’m not speaking in code here about Hillary Clinton, either. I’ve seen this in races all over the country."

[NurseJackie]

21. Wrong.

[tomp]

20. For the record....

...the establishment is the fucking problem.

And I'll stop being so "purist" when I finally see centrist democrats giving up something to the left wing of party, for once in my long life.

[Sophia4]

28. Right.

[Cha]

25. Mahalo for this, lapucelle!

[R B Garr]

30. Cha! So good to see you!

[Cha]

31. You, too, RB!

And, for the record.. Shaun King is exactly right on this..

[lapucelle]

36. ,,,

Mahalo, Cha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cha]

37. lol