Seminole Heights backs Redner
According to the today's Tribune" "Redner did well in Seminole Heights, a neighborhood that often votes liberal".
However, "Any chance Joe Redner had of winning Tuesday's runoff election depended on strong support from south Tampa."
It never came.
South Tampa precincts tended to favor Redner over incumbent Gwen Miller in the first election this month, when four other candidates were in the race. On Tuesday, according to a precinct analysis, a sizable number of voters who supported those other candidates backed Miller rather than Redner.
Miller clung to her east Tampa base, an area she represented for eight years. . . . . North Tampa mostly backed Miller. "
So what this mean for future elections with different candidates? Will Seminole Heights be targeted by some candidates as a block to woo?
22 comments:
It wasn't just Seminole heights. It was also Harbor Island, Davis Island, Hyde Park, Ballast Point and several other precincts scattered across Tampa. Basically, the most educated areas of the City. We knew she'd get the East Tampa vote. Those people couldn't pick a good candidate if they had to. And New Tampa?? Need I say more?
exactly!
he anon 5:45 - very good observations although I would interject that New Tampa (while indeed a sprawling area of crap) may actually be the most educated or at least in the top few neighborhoods given its geographic area and relationship to USF
Or it could be racism. Those areas you noted are also the most "pale" areas of the city. Sad.
Racism was certainly part of the election and will be for any election where there are candidates of different races. However that racism went both ways as it often does, there were folks that voted for Miller simply because she was the black candidate and folks that voted for Redner merely because he was the white candidate. Sad attempt at trolling there anonymous@8:36. Try again.
Er... "the most educated areas of the city" means pretty much nothing.
People with advanced degrees number less than 10% of the population. So even in Hyde Park, Seminole Heights, et al, you'll still find the "less" educated as the vast majority.
Your assertion is that "smart" people voted for Redner and your evidence is that white areas (which you are presuming are better educated) are the ones that voted in greater numbers for him. But just because people with post-graduate degrees live in these areas doesn't mean their numbers are sufficiently high enough to decide the vote. In fact, the few post-grads I know in Seminole Heights had Miller signs in their yard.
Based on the conversation here on this blog, most of what heard was that Redner was a protest vote. A vote for Redner was a thumb in the eye of the Mayor and City Council. Few touted Redner as someone that would actually do anything constructive. It would be interesting to see if a vote for Redner had statistical correlation to above-average dissatisfaction with city government.
For me, it was a vote against the idiots who can't handle their own lives but feel like they're qualified to tell the rest of us how we can (and can't) have our fun.
Ifly, I notice that you didn't take exception to the "trolling" with the Redner's voters being the more educated. I also notice how you try to be the guardian of web etiquette but you mysteriously only point out those posts with which you don't agree. Nice consistency. Me thinks your self-righteousness is a little self-serving. Are you Redner's punk?
Try again, troll. The comment about the educated areas was not necessarily a troll, just ignorance, the person posting probably actually believes that. The racism comment was nothing more than an attempt to incite controversy. If you actually took the time to read my posts, the answer to your final question would be obvious. Don't you have anything better to do? I at least attempt to maintain some respectful discourse on the blog hoping for some fruitful exchanges of knowledge and maybe even understanding. What exactly is your purpose here?
Your obvious purpose is to support your friends and your point of view behind the veil of self-righteousness. Who appointed you guardian of the web anyway?
Calling out a troll is not self-righteous, it's standard practice in online forums. Perhaps I was giving the troll(you?) too much credit for throwing the racism hand grenade, if you truly believe that I wouldn't mind discussing it. Forgive me if I generalize too much. The more right-wing and conservative camp tend to also be the more racist and classist, while the more left-wing liberal or libertarian folks tend to either for "relatively" good motivations(social conciousness) or not so good(liberal guilt as I think it's called)be more sensitive to diversity. I think you would find that more of the right wingers were against Joe and more of the lefties were for him, so the racism argument holds little water. Again, if you dispute it was a troll, and merely a mispoken attempt to generate discussion(perhaps next time pose a question such as "Does anyone think racism played a part in this?", I'll apologize for calling it a troll, but you(if you're the troll) came across as informed enough to know what you were doing. I myself am no guardian, but I will be an active participant of any forum of which I am a part and attempt to inject order as such. Feel free to jump in when you see the discussion getting out of line. It takes all of us to keep this from being a virtual cesspool.
Could it be that liberals consider themselves above racism and thus more prone to committing it? There were some obvious signs of racism from the left in this election, from the attempt to profit off of it, to Joe's declaration that he was blacker than Gwen, to the comments of her lack of eloquence (typically code for not-white). Is it not possible to assume that those that voted for Joe were willing to overlook these problems because racism is only useful when they can use it against the right (like you just did)? Joe himself expected racism to play a factor. Someone guilty of such racism might react with name-calling rather than consider the truth in it (like you just did).
My favorite part was how liberals were telling African-Americans they shouldn't be upset at Joe's remarks. This coming from the pale white liberal sections of town that have no connection to the city's people of color except to use their statistics for their own ends.
So if you can call troll, excuse me if I call SRLT (Self-Righteous Liberal Twit).
"Could it be that liberals consider themselves above racism and thus more prone to committing it?" What does this mean, exactly?? You are just putting together nonsense sentences that don't mean anything. As for the racism in the election: the only racism I see comes from East Tampa, majority black consituency that votes for a candidate JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK!! Had anyone in East Tampa done their homework, they would have seen that their BLACK CANDIDATE has done precious little for them in the 12 years she has been on City council.
reading anon 2:37 calls to mind when the gay neighborhood association pres. in St. Pete was arrested for popping a cap at the blacks that were harrasing him and vandalizing his house.
It was said that he used the N word during the confrontation. To which he responded, and I quote "I can't be racist, I'm gay"
I guess that means sodomy, along with kicking in the 'urban pioneer' gene turns off the racist one. At least according to him
First off, to what name-calling are you referring? Trolling? It was in reference to the comment not your character, but if you can't discuss this without name-calling (twit?) your position is already untenable. I already said if you intended honest discussion rather than just being an ass, I would retract the trolling acusation. If however you're big enough to admit that you were just stirring up the pot, because you chose to lob that nugget out with no supporting commentary, I'll let the troll comment stand on it's own merit. The only name I called was troll, not a character assassination, no personal attack, it's the accepted name for one who engages in trolling(see above) and I did so merely to identify you from the other anonymous posters. I have an idea as to who you are, but speculation is useless, as you don't feel that your words are worthy enough to be readily identifiable as your own, and don't seem prepared to discuss this as adults.
As for the racism discussion, do you wish to deny that many of Gwen's supporters did so solely on the fact that she was African-American? Racism is a fact of life, it will always play a part in any election for the forseeable future. It is also a two-way street. No single race, black, white, or any other is immune from prejudice based solely on a person's color. That being said New Tampa is quite "pale" as you like to put it, with folks turning out for Gwen, and Joe made headway in East Tampa as well, which indicates that there was votes across this divide you're harping on.
I have to admit this is the first time I've ever been accused of being a liberal, it's usually quite the opposite. Is attempting to have an adult conversation on politcs without personal attacks and slanted single comment posts with no supporting discussion a sign of being liberal, maybe I'm leaning more left as I get older. Racism was a factor, but Joe's background was the key to this race plain and simple. It boils down to the fact that Gwen won, racism wasn't what got people out in support of Joe, it was people fed up with the current state of affairs. Others have done a much better analysis than I can, so I won't try to reinvent it. I'll leave it like this, everything I type here, I do so with the idea that it will exist indefinitely, to be read possibly by my children, parents, spouse, employer and co-workers. Can you say the same?
Well said, Ifly.
Actually, you did use the term "troll" as an insult. That you are hilariously trying to say it was merely identification is just another example of your pervasive self-righteousness. Of course, if you are serious, please consider my self-righteous liberal twit comment to merely be one of identification.
You started with the insult, so now that the conversation has gone that way, live with it. And again, there are many transgression here and there on this cesspool and not a peep from you, the bastion of correct web presence.
You obviously voted for Joe, too bad for you. You obviously have a bias against the conservative/right. Your bias in obvious. So quit trying to play the part of the neutral mediator. And if you don't like insults, don't use them, you self-righteous twit (notice I dropped the liberal part).
Ifly, you really are too much of the web mother. No need for all the name calling.
Ifly, you really are too much of the web mother. No need for all the name calling.
Again, you're unable to actually hold a conversation, and can only effectively do nothing more than point and yell "nanny nanny boo boo your mama." Which further supports the original trolling assertion. I offered up reasons for why I called it a troll and you continue to dodge the issue and offer no rebuttal or accept the offered apology, if I were mistaken. It is apparent now that I wasn't, your intent is nothing more than to feed your ego and get attention, I truly pity you. I have absolutely nothing at all against conservatives and tend to fall more on that side of the aisle than the other. What I do dislike is ignorance and your continuted drivel is an example of nothing more than that. You persist in avoiding the topic and slinging mud. If you wish to actually discuss the issues, I would be happy to. Otherwise consider this the end.
Let me point out some more inconsistencies. You now claim to dislike ignorance but said nothing about what you admitted was ignorance (the assumption that those that voted for Joe were smarter).
You should take a close look at yourself and your own words. You immediately assumed what I initially posted was trolling, and you posted as such. You didn't assume it was a point which stands in its own merits. I did back it up with explanation. Read it again.
"There were some obvious signs of racism from the left in this election, from the attempt to profit off of it...etc"
You obviously voted for Joe, so you don't like the argument that some of his votes came from racism and some of those, many, were liberal whites who had no problem with his blackness comment, or his willingness to profit off of racism. That was my point. For the record, I really do believe that much of Joe's vote was from white liberals who were led by racism.
Of course, there are tons of comments that are meant merely as flame bait on this board and they pass unnoticed from your self-appointed position of guardian. Why? Why choose to point out some and not others? Oddly enough, you go after those that you don't agree with and correct them on their web etiquette. That is, by definition, self-righteousness. Get upset all you want, question other poster's motives and yours might get questioned as well. Funny how that works.
As a white "lefty" that voted against Redner (and thus, "for" Gwen), I find IFly's general conduct on this site refreshing. I know that if I engage him in discussion I'm going to get something of substance in return.
And ya know, with the number of actual trolls that drop poo-bombs in these threads, good on him for pointing them out. And if his biases result in him pointing out one set of trolls over another, so what? Someone else with different biases can point out the other ones.
Having a troll get pissed off because his flippant poo-filled post was quickly dismissed is a Good Thing (tm).
You know, I advocated against requiring registration. I even stopped using my own nickname as a result. I think I may have been wrong.
Post a Comment