Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
Just poking fun at the co-opting of the term progressives. Everything I've read and heard seems Shadid is the one talking sense. Mick is the one afflicted with magical thinking.
No co-opting about it. “Progressives for Mick” describes those people who traditionally vote for democratic principles and candidates in national and state elections, but will gladly turn to a more conservative candidate for Mayor.

It seems the people who have co-opted the term for their own use are the people who don’t recognize there is a significant difference between what progressive ideas mean on a federal versus municipal level.

Progressive or shall we say “liberal” politics are those where the ideas are inclusive of policies that are for equal rights (i.e. pro-affirmative action, gay marriage, against voter ID laws, etc.), and government support of programs for poverty, health, transportation, etc. In general, they want to see the country progress as a whole, and not just be inclusive for certain individuals and groups. (Gross over simplification, undoubtedly).

Progressive in terms of municipal parlance embodies the idea that you want to see your city progress in terms of moving forward financially, culturally and demographically. Development of infrastructure and new capital is paramount to such progress. In such context, it’s easy for “progressives” to vote for a mayoral candidate who is pro “progress” versus, despite his national political party affiliation, over one who is openly aggressive toward progressive capital ideas.

One can’t say that the original MAPS hasn’t allowed us as a city to make progress in terms of what we now have available for entertainment and quality of life options. One can’t argue (even David Glover) that the arena – voted on and paid for by the taxpayers – hasn’t allowed us to make significant progress in terms of creating glowing national publicity for our city and state.

Continuing this PROGRESS so we can garner more positive outcomes is exactly why those who typically may vote democrat and/or independent are staunchly pro-Cornett.

Oklahoma City is founded on a weak mayor/strong council city, and operates on a non-partisan level. Were it another system where national party affiliation played a greater role in the election and in local governance, we may be looking at an entirely different scenario.

So yes, lots of progressives are very pro-Cornett, because given the two choices, he is the only one who genuinely wants to see the great amount of progress Oklahoma City has enjoyed over the past two decades continue.