Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[GeneralMacArthur]

Only about three weeks to go before election day, I'd label the races as follows:

Harrell vs. Gonzalez:  Lean Harrell
Davison vs. NTK:  Toss-up
Nelson vs. Oliver:  Lean Oliver
Wilson vs. Mosqueda:  Safe Mosqueda

We also have the Recall Sawant election a month later in December.  I would rank that as Lean Recall.  But it may be heavily dependent on the results of the November election.  If Gonzalez/NTK/Oliver sweep, I doubt Sawant gets recalled.  The normal, sane folks will just be too demoralized.

[Xing]

Not going to debate the definition of "sane", but my take is that Davison is heavily favored. In my 85%+ Biden precinct, I've seen nothing but Davison signs, often coupled with BLM signs and near cars with Biden/Harris bumper stickers. I'd rate the race at least Lean Davison, probably closer to Likely than Toss-Up, and while I'll have to end up voting for her, she's not making me at all happy about it. Harrell should easily win the mayoral race.

The leadership in my union seems to want to donate money to oppose the Sawant recall, while many actual members are, at the very least, not in favor of choosing a side. This is a real problem with our union, the disconnect between the leadership and the members, and I worry that this is what leads many people to have a negative view of unions. They see the political donations and over-the-top statements of the leadership, and don't understand the importance of the protection they offer to workers, especially when dealing with an organization that is bureaucratic at best, and happy to shaft its employees at every turn at worst.

[Roll Roons]

If Davison pulls this off, I guess it shows that even one of the most loony left places in the country has its limits.

[Xing]

If Davison pulls this off, I guess it shows that even one of the most loony left places in the country has its limits.

Most of Seattle really isn't that "loony." Left-wing, yes, but the loons are just very vocal.

[LePageFan]

Interesting small scoop I talked with someone heavily involved with the Washington redistricting and the person said that republicans worst case with redistricting is a no change map. Which tells me that republicans are going to come out of WA with at least a mildly decent win.

[PSOL]

The leadership in my union seems to want to donate money to oppose the Sawant recall, while many actual members are, at the very least, not in favor of choosing a side. This is a real problem with our union, the disconnect between the leadership and the members, and I worry that this is what leads many people to have a negative view of unions. They see the political donations and over-the-top statements of the leadership, and don't understand the importance of the protection they offer to workers, especially when dealing with an organization that is bureaucratic at best, and happy to shaft its employees at every turn at worst.

No, these people hate the very idea of unions, quite literally viewing any sort of social mobility or perceived break from people providing goods and services to them as an evil of itself. Employers especially do not like unions and don’t see you as someone worth giving a damn about.

Like I’ve said before, SAlt are basically progressive democrats with a liking for a certain aesthetic and a want to be a party for laborers. Their open door policy across the city provides the your union with a reliable voice in city hall more so than what the Democratic Party has offered in its time in Seattle. SAlt have also provided solidarity support in aiding strikes through fundings and adding strength in numbers to gain media attention to the strikes in Tyson Foods and Kellogg’s.

[Xing]

The leadership in my union seems to want to donate money to oppose the Sawant recall, while many actual members are, at the very least, not in favor of choosing a side. This is a real problem with our union, the disconnect between the leadership and the members, and I worry that this is what leads many people to have a negative view of unions. They see the political donations and over-the-top statements of the leadership, and don't understand the importance of the protection they offer to workers, especially when dealing with an organization that is bureaucratic at best, and happy to shaft its employees at every turn at worst.

No, these people hate the very idea of unions, quite literally viewing any sort of social mobility or perceived break from people providing goods and services to them as an evil of itself. Employers especially do not like unions and don’t see you as someone worth giving a damn about.

To be clear, I'm not talking about employers here. Yes, plenty of people are anti-union because they don't like employees having bargaining power. What I'm talking about is people who want to quit their union specially because they don't like the fact that the leadership is endorsing candidates/causes that they're not behind. To them, it feels out of place, or as if their voices don't matter.

[PSOL]

The leadership in my union seems to want to donate money to oppose the Sawant recall, while many actual members are, at the very least, not in favor of choosing a side. This is a real problem with our union, the disconnect between the leadership and the members, and I worry that this is what leads many people to have a negative view of unions. They see the political donations and over-the-top statements of the leadership, and don't understand the importance of the protection they offer to workers, especially when dealing with an organization that is bureaucratic at best, and happy to shaft its employees at every turn at worst.

No, these people hate the very idea of unions, quite literally viewing any sort of social mobility or perceived break from people providing goods and services to them as an evil of itself. Employers especially do not like unions and don’t see you as someone worth giving a damn about.

To be clear, I'm not talking about employers here. Yes, plenty of people are anti-union because they don't like employees having bargaining power. What I'm talking about is people who want to quit their union specially because they don't like the fact that the leadership is endorsing candidates/causes that they're not behind. To them, it feels out of place, or as if their voices don't matter.

Well that’s their problem then, because Socialist Alternative is the various trade unionists representative in Seattle’s city hall. Without them, the Bernie movement and Fight for $15 along with a whole host of other packages for working people would be laughed at as something not worthy of talking about.

SAlt has demonstrated numerous times that it isn’t some raging band of incompetent revolutionary-wannabes, instead it is a dedicated machine made up of the very trade unions it seeks to represent. Like, the way Kshama Sawant works on legislation and does civic activities is much more subdued than their rhetoric to the point that in actual effect she’s indistinguishable from a progressive democrat. The only difference is that she relies on a machine more grassroots based around collectives such as trade unions instead of the Democratic donor-funded one, leading to real progressive policies being passed and a tangible effect on the rest of the council. Why else would many Democrats endorse her campaign and vouch she is great to work with then?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Sawant only cares about herself.  She doesn't care about your union and she doesn't care about you.

She'll give lip service to your union if it secures the support of your union leadership, and she'll show up to your rallies and strikes if there's an opportunity to take credit for the outcome.  Other than that she couldn't care less.  She's not your friend on the council, she's not going to write any bills to help you or do any of the thankless dirty work or nitty-gritty stuff that would actually achieve positive legislative outcomes.

I've talked to a lot of folks about politics over the last few weeks and it seems like my hypothesis of the recall, that Sawant is in for a rough time if she doesn't have an opponent to demonize, is coming to fruition.  Sawant can't defend herself or her illegal activities, and the few positives she can point to are just things she believes but never does anything about, so it's easy to tell people "we can get someone who believes the same things, but is actually effective instead of a lawbreaking grandstander." Ordinarily she'd be able to counter this with a relentless, ruthless, expensive smear campaign to make sure people thought her opponent didn't believe those things.  But she has no opponent.  So she's lost her main strategy and she's floundering.

[PSOL]

That’s untrue given SAlt’s push for higher wages and affordable housing that Seattle acted as a spark to advance the movement, but ok, whatever you say GMac.

Again, whatever the result of these races, the fact of the matter is that a grassroots machine of the working class can achieve so much if they band together and work independently of being subservient to the Corporate approved candidates. The failings Socialist Alternative has is not based on their policies pushed or their practice, but their refusal to dig themselves in to their base through building workers committees to create a parallel economy and be fully independent of the soft left capitalists.

Hey, more proof that Kshama Sawant is a pragmatic technocrat.

[GeneralMacArthur]

That’s untrue given SAlt’s push for higher wages and affordable housing that Seattle acted as a spark to advance the movement, but ok, whatever you say GMac.

Oh Jesus, my sweet lord and savior, will I be glad to hear the last of this phony baloney claim that Sawant had literally anything to do with Fight For 15 beyond swooping in at the last second to grandstand and take all the credit.

[PSOL]

That’s untrue given SAlt’s push for higher wages and affordable housing that Seattle acted as a spark to advance the movement, but ok, whatever you say GMac.

Oh Jesus, my sweet lord and savior, will I be glad to hear the last of this phony baloney claim that Sawant had literally anything to do with Fight For 15 beyond swooping in at the last second to grandstand and take all the credit.

Well she did popularize the idea and brought it in to fruition. Like lmao why you so salty

[Xing]

Sawant only cares about herself.  She doesn't care about your union and she doesn't care about you.

Oh, I know that Sawant is a grandstander. I don't really want the union getting involved either way, since the membership is at least somewhat divided, and they shouldn't be endorsing anyone without at least a clear consensus. Even then, I have mixed feeling about unions endorsing political campaigns, rather than focusing on workplace issues, of which there are many.

[PSOL]

Sawant only cares about herself.  She doesn't care about your union and she doesn't care about you.

Oh, I know that Sawant is a grandstander. I don't really want the union getting involved either way, since the membership is at least somewhat divided, and they shouldn't be endorsing anyone without at least a clear consensus. Even then, I have mixed feeling about unions endorsing political campaigns, rather than focusing on workplace issues, of which there are many.

Is political power not a way to achieve workplace issues in the realms of safety, wages, and the very ability for people to organize in unions?

[Roll Roons]

Not sure if this was posted, but a poll was released for the City Attorney race a couple days ago.
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2021/10/ann-davison-pulling-away-from-rival-nicole-thomas-kennedy-in-seattle-city-attorney-race.html

Davison 43%, Lunatic 24%, the rest undecided. Honestly, this is probably a better parallel to Jones-Moore than Brown-Coakley.

[GeneralMacArthur]

They actually did polling, through Change Research, for all four citywide races:

Mayor
Harrell 48%
Gonzalez 32%
Not Sure 18%
Won't Vote 2%

City Attorney
Davison 43%
Thomas-Kennedy 24%
Not Sure 30%
Won't Vote 2%

City Council Seat 9
Nelson 41%
Oliver 37%
Not Sure 21%
Won't Vote 2%

City Council Seat 8
Mosqueda 39%
Wilson 31%
Not Sure 26%
Won't Vote 2%

The polls are very good news but I'm skeptical that they're legit.  The leftist candidates always close ground in the final days, especially once all the late ballots start shifting the results.  Last year we had really nice results on election night, and then all the races shifted 5-10 points to the left over the following week, resulting in a disastrous near-sweep of the council by extremists.

[bgwah]

I have some hypotheses about how Republicans might be able to put together a winning coalition, but doing so requires some major re-thinking of the electoral playing field which I don't think the state party is willing to consider at this time.

Do tell!

Alright, here's one of my ideas on how WA Republicans could put together a winning statewide coalition:

The most important thing to note here is that, for all intents and purposes, the core three counties of King, Snohomish, and Pierce are where the winner is decided. If a Republican wants to win the state, they need to win Pierce by a fair margin and at the very least come very close to winning Snohomish if not win it outright. They also need to keep the margin manageable in King; the absolute outer limit of how much they can lose King by is probably about 65-35 depending on how well they do elsewhere.

Traditionally, this manifested as winning cities like Sammamish, Newcastle, University Place, Bothell, Edmonds, Mukilteo, Mill Creek, etc. Basically anywhere higher in income and/or touching water not in Seattle.

However, I don't believe (outside of a few exceptions like Wyman) that this is a feasible strategy for Republicans in the short-to-medium term. These areas are exactly the types of areas which swung extremely hard away from Trump and the current Republican Party. Some of them may be able to be won back for a competent moderate-type, but these types of voters tend to be much more ideological and polarized. Fighting for these voters is swimming upstream against the current.

Instead, flip the script. Lean into the demographic and broader electoral changes which are happening and focus on lower income voters. Give up places like Sammamish and Edmonds. The goal should be to win over every possible voter outside of the white educated UMC. Go after Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, renters, union workers, and low-income workers of all stripes. Carve a red swath up and down Highway 99 to win Everett and maybe even Lynnwood from the inside out. Court voters in south King County: Kent, Auburn, Renton, Des Moines, even SeaTac. Bring down margins in southeast Seattle, White Center, Tukwila. Go after Lakewood, east Tacoma.

Here is a map, based on calculations from this thread, which shows the areas which have the highest prevalence of "simple" communitarian ideology and would likely be the richest targets as mentioned above: Image Link

Winning these types of voters also has secondary effects in potentially winning places like Pasco, Spokane north of I-90, and Skagit County while shoring up Yakima County. Kitsap would also almost certainly be more amenable to this type of party, outside of Bainbridge. The tricky part would be welding these voters on to existing Republican strengths without alienating too many of your own.

How do you actually win over these voters? That's a separate question I have some thoughts on, which I may post later.

In other words, the WA GOP needs Ann Davison to run for Governor in 2024.

Don't be stupid, WA GOP! Don't nominate another loser like Loren Culp. Nominate a brave and stunning woman like Ann Davison who can win in a landslide in 2024.

[Continential]

I have some hypotheses about how Republicans might be able to put together a winning coalition, but doing so requires some major re-thinking of the electoral playing field which I don't think the state party is willing to consider at this time.

Do tell!

Alright, here's one of my ideas on how WA Republicans could put together a winning statewide coalition:

The most important thing to note here is that, for all intents and purposes, the core three counties of King, Snohomish, and Pierce are where the winner is decided. If a Republican wants to win the state, they need to win Pierce by a fair margin and at the very least come very close to winning Snohomish if not win it outright. They also need to keep the margin manageable in King; the absolute outer limit of how much they can lose King by is probably about 65-35 depending on how well they do elsewhere.

Traditionally, this manifested as winning cities like Sammamish, Newcastle, University Place, Bothell, Edmonds, Mukilteo, Mill Creek, etc. Basically anywhere higher in income and/or touching water not in Seattle.

However, I don't believe (outside of a few exceptions like Wyman) that this is a feasible strategy for Republicans in the short-to-medium term. These areas are exactly the types of areas which swung extremely hard away from Trump and the current Republican Party. Some of them may be able to be won back for a competent moderate-type, but these types of voters tend to be much more ideological and polarized. Fighting for these voters is swimming upstream against the current.

Instead, flip the script. Lean into the demographic and broader electoral changes which are happening and focus on lower income voters. Give up places like Sammamish and Edmonds. The goal should be to win over every possible voter outside of the white educated UMC. Go after Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, renters, union workers, and low-income workers of all stripes. Carve a red swath up and down Highway 99 to win Everett and maybe even Lynnwood from the inside out. Court voters in south King County: Kent, Auburn, Renton, Des Moines, even SeaTac. Bring down margins in southeast Seattle, White Center, Tukwila. Go after Lakewood, east Tacoma.

Here is a map, based on calculations from this thread, which shows the areas which have the highest prevalence of "simple" communitarian ideology and would likely be the richest targets as mentioned above: Image Link

Winning these types of voters also has secondary effects in potentially winning places like Pasco, Spokane north of I-90, and Skagit County while shoring up Yakima County. Kitsap would also almost certainly be more amenable to this type of party, outside of Bainbridge. The tricky part would be welding these voters on to existing Republican strengths without alienating too many of your own.

How do you actually win over these voters? That's a separate question I have some thoughts on, which I may post later.

In other words, the WA GOP needs Ann Davison to run for Governor in 2024.

Don't be stupid, WA GOP! Don't nominate another loser like Loren Culp. Nominate a brave and stunning woman like Ann Davison who can win in a landslide in 2024.

Why would she even run in the first place because if she loses the Governors race, I presume she'll probably lose the next election for City Attorney unless Thomas-Kennedy or another wacko gets in the runoff in 2025.

[Canis]

Our team thinks it’s significant that voters of color prefer Davison by a more than two-to-one margin (44% for Davison, 21% for Thomas-Kennedy, 34% not sure) and voters in three of our four age brackets.

The youngest voters do prefer Thomas-Kennedy, but her advantage with them is not overwhelming: she has 36% support from voters ages eighteen to thirty-four, while Davison has support from 28% of that group.

Nearly a third of the youngest voters — 32% — aren’t sure.

From the poll Roll posted.

[GeneralMacArthur]

If WA GOP wants to win the governor's seat they need the Democrats to nominate some frothing lunatic like NTK.  But the statewide Democratic Party would never do something so damn suicidal.  It's just Seattle that has these insane politics.  It's not like Seattle Dems are behind NTK either -- the LD organizations making these endorsements are dominated by just the same extremist activists as every other organization in this city and don't actually represent local Dems at all.

[Roll Roons]

If WA GOP wants to win the governor's seat they need the Democrats to nominate some frothing lunatic like NTK.  But the statewide Democratic Party would never do something so damn suicidal.  It's just Seattle that has these insane politics.  It's not like Seattle Dems are behind NTK either -- the LD organizations making these endorsements are dominated by just the same extremist activists as every other organization in this city and don't actually represent local Dems at all.

Hate to burst your bubble, but this is the chair of the WA Democratic Party:
https://twitter.com/Tinapo/status/1451198703297974288

Or claiming that Davison is an "MTG wannabe":
https://twitter.com/Tinapo/status/1448693640339988489

[GeneralMacArthur]

If WA GOP wants to win the governor's seat they need the Democrats to nominate some frothing lunatic like NTK.  But the statewide Democratic Party would never do something so damn suicidal.  It's just Seattle that has these insane politics.  It's not like Seattle Dems are behind NTK either -- the LD organizations making these endorsements are dominated by just the same extremist activists as every other organization in this city and don't actually represent local Dems at all.

Hate to burst your bubble, but this is the chair of the WA Democratic Party:
https://twitter.com/Tinapo/status/1451198703297974288

Or claiming that Davison is an "MTG wannabe":
https://twitter.com/Tinapo/status/1448693640339988489

Oh I know.  Tina is awful.  But that doesn't really contradict what I said.  The state organization is dominated by Seattle loons.

[RI]

Wyman will take position in DHS, will be out as SoS.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Wyman will take position in DHS, will be out as SoS.

Damn, that's a loss for us.  She's the only Republican I've ever voted for.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Wyman will take position in DHS, will be out as SoS.

Damn, that's a loss for us.  She's the only Republican I've ever voted for.

You are a Republican.