Nice headline catch by The Roundup -
The New York Times eloquently essentializes the LA mayoral results: Latino Defeats Incumbent in L.A. Mayor's Race.
Gotta love that ethnic-politicking.
So, that's over. Obviously, I'm displeased by the results. But a voting majority are pleased, so congrats to them.
By the way, the NYT lede says the vote "confirm[s] the rising political power of Latinos in the nation's second larger city."
Does it? And would we be lauding anglo bloc voting (if Villaraigosa's win is really a result of bloc voting, which of course, it's likely not)?
And I'll never understand the don't-vote-against-me-because-I'm-Latino-but-isn't-it-time-for-a-Latino-mayor rhetoric - though I suppose I should get comfortable with it since a vote is a vote, right? Seriously, though, it's a nuanced line of reasoning, isn't it - trying to find a way to downplay and play up one's identity at the same time.
I will never, however, criticize Villariagosa's lack of Spanish language proficiency. The one thing I hate more than the ethnic rhetoric undertones in this contest are the "who's the real Mexican" undertones that exist within the Mexican community and within the larger Latino community. If it's in the blood, it's in the blood.