Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Washington Democrats are very loyal in a way that does make it structurally difficult for Republicans to breakthrough. This is true in Oregon and California as well (and increasingly in Nevada, Colorado ... maybe Arizona?)

I believe it is due to relatively high and consistent voter turnout, especially because Democrats rely on a voter based of college educated voters who turnout consistently. I think the only way to get Republican opportunities would be to completely shift the brand of the party a la Vermont's Phil Scott.

However I don't know if the WA GOP would ever be comfortable becoming an anti-Trumpist, moderate party. There is a large number of voters in Washington who dislike taxes and are pretty moderate (the left is very loud, but still a minority) so an environmentally savvy, low-tax, professional Republican could eventually take the helm... but only if the entire legislative GOP becomes less susceptible to big scary news stories and conspiracies like Culp.

It's pretty remarkable how similar the WA Republican Party sounds like the CA Republican Party (Though I guess it shouldn't be given their both west coast states).

So basically, the WA GOP can’t really figure out to get a wide base of support in the state and it’s only going to get more difficult unless Seattle stops growing and becomes more economically depressed.

Not to mention Californians like me moving out there on a daily basis (Myself hopefully included soon)

Do Californians tend to move to Seattle, the surrounding cities, or the rural areas?

Anecdotally speaking, I'm looking at moving to anywhere in the Greater Seattle metro, with an emphasis on Olympia & Tacoma. I'm sure my list is very similar to other transplants.

[RI]

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.

[Frodo]

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.

I wait with bated breath.  I'd be curious to see your justification on why these voters would want to vote Republican.  Especially considering how the GOP has seemed to double down on white grievance politics.  Or is this predicated on developments at the national level, especially after Texas eventually flips to Democrats, forcing the GOP to finally change its strategy of white nationalism, opening the door to statewide efforts like what you are about to outline here?  

[ottermax]

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.

This concept probably would work in theory, but I believe a lot of the voters in question are very low turnout especially for state elections.

Also in my experience there is significant animosity in many of these communities between rural "Anglo" Washingtonians and Hispanic communities that may be difficult to overcome.

Especially because the elections for governor are paired with presidential elections perhaps the best way for the GOP to elect a governor is to put up a very palatable candidate and hope for a landslide for the GOP at a presidential level that makes WA closer?

Another plausible option is a recall election?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Sawant Recall effort IS A GO!

[RI]

Culp is running for WA-04.

[Seattle]

I don't think Culp will be successful. Pretty much ensures an R-R race where Newhouse will surely pick up the 30% of the electorate that regularly votes D and thus win.

[Xing]

Unless Newhouse somehow gets 3rd place in the top two primary, I don’t see Culp beating him.

[Canis]

Washington Democrats are very loyal in a way that does make it structurally difficult for Republicans to breakthrough. This is true in Oregon and California as well (and increasingly in Nevada, Colorado ... maybe Arizona?)

I believe it is due to relatively high and consistent voter turnout, especially because Democrats rely on a voter based of college educated voters who turnout consistently. I think the only way to get Republican opportunities would be to completely shift the brand of the party a la Vermont's Phil Scott.

However I don't know if the WA GOP would ever be comfortable becoming an anti-Trumpist, moderate party. There is a large number of voters in Washington who dislike taxes and are pretty moderate (the left is very loud, but still a minority) so an environmentally savvy, low-tax, professional Republican could eventually take the helm... but only if the entire legislative GOP becomes less susceptible to big scary news stories and conspiracies like Culp.

It's pretty remarkable how similar the WA Republican Party sounds like the CA Republican Party (Though I guess it shouldn't be given their both west coast states).

So basically, the WA GOP can’t really figure out to get a wide base of support in the state and it’s only going to get more difficult unless Seattle stops growing and becomes more economically depressed.

Not to mention Californians like me moving out there on a daily basis (Myself hopefully included soon)

Do Californians tend to move to Seattle, the surrounding cities, or the rural areas?

Anecdotally speaking, I'm looking at moving to anywhere in the Greater Seattle metro, with an emphasis on Olympia & Tacoma. I'm sure my list is very similar to other transplants.

Nice! Most California people I know looking to move are also looking at Seattle or the Seattle burbs I'm looking to go there too after I finish college which won't be for about another couple years or so unless I get into a school in Washington and am up for paying out of state tuition. But when I move I'm looking at Skagit and Whatcom Counties because I have deep family ties to that region I normally go up there once a year since I was a baby I used to go lobster fishing with my grandpa I love it there and the cities of Anacortes and Bellingham are really nice I'm not really a huge fan of the big city aesthetic so I'm probably gonna stay out of the Seattle metro but I also like how Skagit and Whatcom are positioned close enough to Vancouver Seattle and a couple of other big cities so its not far from a lot of em.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

/snip

Anecdotally speaking, I'm looking at moving to anywhere in the Greater Seattle metro, with an emphasis on Olympia & Tacoma. I'm sure my list is very similar to other transplants.

Nice! Most California people I know looking to move are also looking at Seattle or the Seattle burbs I'm looking to go there too after I finish college which won't be for about another couple years or so unless I get into a school in Washington and am up for paying out of state tuition. But when I move I'm looking at Skagit and Whatcom Counties because I have deep family ties to that region I normally go up there once a year since I was a baby I used to go lobster fishing with my grandpa I love it there and the cities of Anacortes and Bellingham are really nice I'm not really a huge fan of the big city aesthetic so I'm probably gonna stay out of the Seattle metro but I also like how Skagit and Whatcom are positioned close enough to Vancouver Seattle and a couple of other big cities so its not far from a lot of em.

Having lived in SoCal all my life, I'm tired of the hustle-and-bustle and suburban jungle aesthetic. However, I'd still like to be near a big metro. Bellingham looks and sounds really interesting, but Olympia has the benefit (Or drawback to some folks) of being within 2 hours of Portland. No matter where/if I end up in Washington, I think it'll be a breath of fresh air (Figuratively & literally).

This is all talk though. I've never been to the PNW, though I'll be traveling up there for 2 weeks in August. I'll try and hit up Bellingham, but it may be a little too far out from my plans. It's also just as likely that I'll end up moving to Sacramento in leiu of Washington or Oregon. Either way, I don't see myself in SoCal 5 years from now.

[Canis]

/snip

Anecdotally speaking, I'm looking at moving to anywhere in the Greater Seattle metro, with an emphasis on Olympia & Tacoma. I'm sure my list is very similar to other transplants.

Nice! Most California people I know looking to move are also looking at Seattle or the Seattle burbs I'm looking to go there too after I finish college which won't be for about another couple years or so unless I get into a school in Washington and am up for paying out of state tuition. But when I move I'm looking at Skagit and Whatcom Counties because I have deep family ties to that region I normally go up there once a year since I was a baby I used to go lobster fishing with my grandpa I love it there and the cities of Anacortes and Bellingham are really nice I'm not really a huge fan of the big city aesthetic so I'm probably gonna stay out of the Seattle metro but I also like how Skagit and Whatcom are positioned close enough to Vancouver Seattle and a couple of other big cities so its not far from a lot of em.

Having lived in SoCal all my life, I'm tired of the hustle-and-bustle and suburban jungle aesthetic. However, I'd still like to be near a big metro. Bellingham looks and sounds really interesting, but Olympia has the benefit (Or drawback to some folks) of being within 2 hours of Portland. No matter where/if I end up in Washington, I think it'll be a breath of fresh air (Figuratively & literally).

This is all talk though. I've never been to the PNW, though I'll be traveling up there for 2 weeks in August. I'll try and hit up Bellingham, but it may be a little too far out from my plans. It's also just as likely that I'll end up moving to Sacramento in leiu of Washington or Oregon. Either way, I don't see myself in SoCal 5 years from now.

Nice! Hope you have a fun trip!  WA is a really beautiful state also once you get out of Seattle the lack of traffic is going to feel amazing lol compared to Socal that's another reason I really wanna live their in Downtown Seattle the traffic is a little LA esique but the rest of the state has very clear roads. The Air Qaulity is also a lot cleaner than in Los Angeles. Let us know how your trip goes in August!

[Seattle]

If you're looking for something in-between a small town and the Big City, Bellingham can't be beat. Much better than Olympia - though there are a lot of good state jobs in Oly, so that's also a different kind of draw. If you're wanting to try Seattle-on-the-cheap for a bit and also take a break from suburbia, then Tacoma proper is great. Solid downtown core + nearby neighborhoods with lots of cute older buildings, stunning views of the Sound and Rainier, plus better food/bars/culture than either Bellingham or Olympia. Just don't try to commute to Seattle.

[Xing]

Tacoma has improved over the past few years, and the northern part, especially near Old Town, is quite nice. It's a very different city once you travel south of 6th Ave, but 6th Ave itself has some good restaurants. Just beware of traffic if you try to head north. Bellingham is cool, but it's quite a drive from Seattle, so that's one thing to keep in mind. If you want a suburban sort of place that's less crowded than Seattle but not too far away, Edmonds and Lake Forest Park are nice as well, and quite scenic. I personally wouldn't recommend living in Olympia, since it often has a lot of traffic and not nearly as much to offer as Tacoma, but if you don't mind a bit of traffic, it's not necessarily a bad choice.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Thanks all!

I've had Tacoma on my radar and I'll be checking it out on my trip (Along with Olympia), but it seems more like the type of 'concrete jungle' I'm wanting to avoid. Isn't the Tacoma Aroma still around (albeit on a smaller scale)? And does Olympia have a rep of a boring town or something?

My naivety might be showing, but I feel like Puget Sound traffic wouldn't be as sluggish as LA/OC traffic. Nonetheless, it's a concern of mine but not as much as the a**hole drivers out here speeding everywhere and refusing to use a turn signal . I would say Washington drivers aren't as bad, but that may change if us Californians keep migrating north.

I haven't looked into much else north of Seattle. Lake Forest Park looks very nice. And given all the praise, I might have to take a detour to Bellingham!

[Seattle]

Well what do you consider to constitute a concrete jungle?

Most of Seattle proper could be hardly described as how I imagine that to be. Most neighborhoods have strong urban tree canopies. Single family homes and lawns abound, whether they're on streets that are in a rectilinear grid or spaghetti style.

And no, Tacoma aroma is not an issue unless you're in the industrial port area. Yes, Olympia certainly has a bit of boring reputation, again, thanks to it housing a lot of well-paying bureaucracy state jobs. If you vibe with Bellingham, you're going to have to move there it has that effect on people.

I'm sure LA/OC traffic is worse in aggregate because people tend to live much further from where they work, that's why you should definitely be sure to find housing close to your place of employment. Commuting from Everett to Seattle or Tacoma to Seattle is probably LA-esque, but the commute from the southern King County suburbs to downtown Seattle would probably not seem so bad in comparison to LA. The Puget Sound region is N/S in orientation, so it's a given if you are going up or down, you'll end up hitting traffic.

No one has mentioned Bremerton, or if you have the money for it, Bainbridge, which are both on the water and 30 minute ferry rides to the heart of Seattle. Lots of forest out there.

[RI]

Inslee lifts the mask mandate for the vaccinated.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Inslee lifts the mask mandate for the vaccinated.

Most importantly, he's lifting most COVID restrictions by June 30.

Not bad for a state that, in the last month, said were in the beginnings of another surge & was pushing counties back a phase/tier.


Inslee: Washington to lift COVID-19 restrictions by June 30 — and right now, mask rules eased for vaccinated people

OLYMPIA — Washington’s broad COVID-19 restrictions will lift by June 30, if not sooner. And starting immediately, fully-vaccinated people will have fewer requirements for wearing masks, and can attend weddings, funerals and sporting events without capacity limits applying to them.

Gov. Jay Inslee’s announcements in a news conference Thursday marked by far the most dramatic easing of restrictions since the coronavirus pandemic roared into Washington last spring.

It came just hours after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced a leap toward a return to pre-pandemic life,  saying fully vaccinated people could stop wearing masks outdoors in crowds and in most indoor settings.

Sitting down to his conference table in the Capitol, Inslee removed his face mask, a staple worn at public appearances since end of last June, and announced Washington will lift the state’s broad COVID-19 restrictions by June 30.

A full reopening would come sooner if 70% or more of state residents over the age of 16 have gotten at least their first shot before then, said the governor. Currently, 57% of Washingtonians 16 and up have gotten at least one shot, according to Inslee’s office.
[...]

Washington will also adopt the CDC guidelines, Inslee said, and starting immediately, the state will ease restrictions for groups of fully vaccinated people.

For example, events like outdoor and indoor sports won’t have capacity limits for the number of attendees who have been vaccinated. Likewise, weddings and funerals will be allowed at full capacity if the attendees have all been vaccinated.

In the meantime, starting Tuesday and until a full reopening date, all of Washington’s 39 counties will be in the third and least-restrictive phase of the governor’s current “Healthy Washington” plan.

Thursday’s announcement marks a turning point for Washington after more than a year of unprecedented restrictions to curb a pandemic that has fundamentally reordered social and economic life.

Most counties — including King and Snohomish — are currently in the third phase, which allows indoor spaces like stores, venues, restaurants and fitness centers to operate at 50% capacity.

Thursday’s developments may bring a measure of certainty after an uncertain few months where Washington experienced a fourth surge. Just two weeks ago, King County was seeing public-health metrics that would have driven indoor occupancy down to 25% under the Healthy Washington plan.

Meanwhile, a handful of counties — including Pierce — last month rolled back to tighter restrictions amid a surge in new coronavirus cases.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslee-washington-to-lift-covid-19-restrictions-by-june-30-sooner-if-vaccination-goal-reached/

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Well what do you consider to constitute a concrete jungle?

No one has mentioned Bremerton, or if you have the money for it, Bainbridge, which are both on the water and 30 minute ferry rides to the heart of Seattle. Lots of forest out there.

1. Concrete jungle may not have been the right phrase. I'm more talking population density. Though based on my research, even Greater Seattle would be less dense than my current residency (NW Riverside County).

2. I've had Bremerton on my radar. Looks nice, love its proximity to Tacoma/Olympia/Seattle/Portland and an hour commuting on the ferry sounds more pleasant than an hour of stop-and-go traffic. I'm not sure as well from the lack of mentions. Do they have a bad/boring rep?


Here's how I'd rank my interest in Washington metros at the present time. I expect it to change a lot once I actually venture up there.

1. King County (Not Seattle proper)
2. Olympia/Lacey
3. Bremerton
4. Bellingham
5. Tacoma

[RI]

Went to a Snohomish County GOP rally yesterday and had the "pleasure" of listening to Loren Culp speak. He led with "How many of you actually think Biden won?" and dropped a "I won more votes than any Republican in Washington state history" line before trashing Kim Wyman (who, of course, won more votes than him). Made me seethe a bit. Absolute joke of a candidate who is everything wrong with the party.

Some of the local candidates were decent if generic (the county and city elected officials were pretty solid), some were a bit kooky (one told a bizarre story about being contacted by a Nigerian Pentecostal woman who said God told her to contact her and that she needed to spend the night at her place in order to take back America), a couple were clearly in the Q camp (save our children from the secret govt pedos and all), and some not-all-there protestor with a bullhorn shouted over everyone from time to time calling Republicans pedos. About what I expected, all told.

[Canis]

Went to a Snohomish County GOP rally yesterday and had the "pleasure" of listening to Loren Culp speak. He led with "How many of you actually think Biden won?" and dropped a "I won more votes than any Republican in Washington state history" line before trashing Kim Wyman (who, of course, won more votes than him). Made me seethe a bit. Absolute joke of a candidate who is everything wrong with the party.

Some of the local candidates were decent if generic (the county and city elected officials were pretty solid), some were kooks (one told a bizarre story about being contacted by a Nigerian Pentecostal woman who said God told her to contact her and that she needed to spend the night at her place in order to take back America), a couple were clearly in the Q camp (save our children from the secret govt pedos and all), and some not-all-there protestor with a bullhorn shouted over everyone from time to time calling Republicans pedos. About what I expected, all told.

Do you plan on getting involved with the WA Gop? Just saying if you wanted to with your knowledge of political demographics you could try political consulting that's something I've been looking to do

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm surprised this wasn't posted earlier, but there was an ALG poll for Seattle mayor done May 10-16 (500 respondents).  The primary is August 3.

Harrell 23%
Gonzalez 11%
Echohawk 7%
Farrell 7%
Sixkiller 5%
Houston 3%

https://www.postalley.org/2021/05/28/an-early-poll-in-the-seattle-mayors-race-with-one-big-surprise/

I'm hoping this is a sign of some coalescence around Harrell as the sane candidate.  If the poll is to be believed, he'll easily make the top two.  He's definitely my pick and I plan to volunteer for his campaign in the general.

My thoughts on some of the other candidates:

Andrew Grant Houston -- literally a scam campaign.  His campaign has been soliciting donations by gong around and asking people to donate to "end homelessness" and his justification is that by electing him mayor we will end homelessness.  The only things I ever hear about him in the media are him complaining about how unfair the race is.  This guy is a Paperboy Prince tier candidate and I'm not sure why he gets taken seriously.

Sixkiller:  I don't know why this guy is running.  The city pretty much unanimously wants to move on from Durkan.  If you're on the left you probably call her "Gas Mask Jenny" and think she's the devil incarnate.  If you're in the center you probably think she's weak and ineffectual and a lousy politician who lets the city council trample all over her.  If you're on the right you don't live in Seattle.  Ironically Durkan has gotten significantly firmer on encampment removals ever since the city council got rid of the nav team last summer, which is to her credit.  But I don't see why anyone connected to the Durkan administration would think they have a shot in this race, especially a no-name like Sixkiller.

Farrell:  Farrell ran for mayor last time too, and I remember not liking her because she took some really lefty positions, but a lot of people in hindsight decided they loved her more than the actual final two candidates.  Apparently that was all malarkey given she's only at 7%.  My understanding is that she's really big with the biker/transit groups, which is irrelevant to me because I walk or run everywhere.

Echohawk:  I have no idea who this person is, but she's raised an enormous amount of money.  Early on I was under the impression that she was backed by Seattle's leading voice of sanity, ex-mayor Tim Burgess, but I was mistaken and she appears to be running as basically Lorena Gonzalez lite.

Gonzalez:  The quintessential PNW politician, in the worst way possible.  Gonzalez has been a pathetic leader of the Seattle City Council, one of the worst political bodies in America.  The SCC loves to waste its time passing all sorts of broad, sweeping, revolutionary legislation that's either completely empty rhetoric, or full of unconstitutional clauses making it guaranteed to get shot down by the courts.  Then they can all brag about all the great stuff they've done and point fingers at the courts for ruining their progressive utopia.  Meanwhile they've done all sorts of very real, tangible, incredibly damaging stuff, primarily to satisfy the activist groups that are their political base.  Reckless, immature, and incredibly frustrating, they're also incredibly unpopular.  Gonzalez thinks she can win by running on that record.  Just kidding!  She's running a campaign that's almost entirely based on identity politics, name recognition, and the sense that she's the "default" choice, which will only be enhanced when she inevitably gets the endorsements of a bunch of her fellow councilmembers.  She's been considered the prohibitive favorite ever since she jumped in but Harrell is a serious challenger.


At this point I will be shocked if the top two aren't Harrell and Gonzalez.  They were relatively collegial when they served on the council together, but I expect the campaign to involve lots of vicious, ugly, false attacks on Harrell from Gonzalez-aligned groups that she'll pretend she's never heard of, while she promotes herself as the squeaky-clean progressive minority woman you can feel good about voting for.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Some more interesting news from the home front.

For those who haven't been keeping up, we've got three main races:

• Sawant recall
• Seattle mayor
• City council position 9

There's actually two at large city council seats up for grabs, but Theresa Mosqueda doesn't have any serious competition for re-election to position 8.  Position 9, vacated by Lorena Gonzalez to run for mayor (and, if she loses, AG), is the one up for grabs.

So here's what we've got:

Sawant recall

Based on what I've seen, I was skeptical that they would be able to gather the 10,500 signatures needed in the time frame, but it looks like they will succeed, and Sawant recall will make it to the ballot.  There hasn't been any polling on this, sadly, but I honestly have no idea what to expect.

Sawant is trying some weird 11th-hour gambit where she's gathering signatures for the recall petition for some strange reason.  Sawant claims it's to force them to meet an earlier deadline, which would supposedly be to her advantage, but this doesn't make any sense because the recall campaign has complete control over when they turn in their petition.  The actual reason is a mystery.  Most people think she wants to "gather signatures" and then throw them away.  My personal opinion, after years of watching Sawant shenanigans, is that she wants to create the talking point of "the recall wouldn't even have made the ballot if not for me."  Anyway it's truly bizarre that Sawant is campaigning to get herself removed from office.

Seattle mayor

Reminder that we're currently in a jungle primary where the top two advance.  The Seattle Times did a poll with Change Research, and just like last month's ALG poll, Bruce Harrell has a strong lead, while Lorena Gonzalez looks like his mostly likely opponent:

Harrell 20%
Gonzalez 12%
Echohawk 10%
Farrell 6%
Houston 6%
Sixkiller 5%

Very embarrassing for Jenny that her deputy mayor Casey Sixkiller is running behind meme-tier candidate Houston.  It's also embarrassing that Lorena Gonzalez, who was supposed to be the prohibitive favorite, is now in danger of falling behind political amateur Colleen Echohawk.

City council position 9

Nikkita Oliver (they/them) ran for mayor five years ago as basically Sawant's protege, and made a complete fool of themself before losing badly, so I thought at the time that we'd never hear from them again.  Oh was I wrong.  Oliver made a big name for themself as the queen of CHAZ, and somehow managed to be the only person to come away from that fiasco unscathed.

Oliver's competition for the seat is Brianna Thomas, basically Gonzalez's second-in-command and her designated replacement, and Sara Nelson, local small business owner and a regular face in Seattle politics.  The Change Research poll is as follows:

Oliver 26%
Nelson 11%
Thomas 6%

On the one hand, this looks like a runaway victory for Oliver.  On the other, Oliver is a known quantity in Seattle politics, so it's hard to imagine they'll pull many undecideds.  So I don't have a clear read on this race.  Nelson isn't a very good politician and was visibly tipsy during one of the candidate forums, so if she makes it to the general she'll probably accidentally use she/her pronouns to refer to Oliver and get crucified.

Other races

There are two other races that could get interesting.

I said Theresa Mosqueda didn't have any serious competition for her 8th position seat, but the Seattle Times poll only has her at 26%, with 55% undecided.  Mosqueda should be very well-known so that means there's a lot of people who know her, but don't want to vote for her again.  Put that alongside the low numbers for Gonzalez and this could be a warning sign for some serious anti-council sentiment, maybe a good sign for whichever nobody ends up as Mosqueda's opponent.

Pete Holmes may actually be the worst elected official in America, but for most of this year it looked like he would cruise to re-election unopposed.  Now, he has two challengers.  The first is Republican Ann Davison-Sattler, and the second is Nicole Thomas-Kennedy.  Thomas-Kennedy is an interesting candidate because she's (somehow) managing to run to Pete Holmes' left.  This is pretty unbelievable because Holmes literally doesn't do his job of prosecuting crimes at all.  But Thomas-Kennedy's platform is, why does "crime" exist at all?

The Seattle Times poll shows a tight race:

Holmes 16%
Thomas-Kennedy 14%
Davison-Sattler 14%

To be clear, I expect Holmes to easily win re-election.  But it is interesting that once again the incumbent has a terrible showing in the early primary polls.  I'd like to think this is a sign of some serious buyer's remorse after the extremist slate dominated in the 2019 elections, and maybe we can get rid of some of these morons.  I made my first ever political donation to a Republican in this race.  I'd rather eat my own hands than vote for Holmes, but that's what I'd have to do if Thomas-Kennedy is his opponent.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It looks like we now know why Sawant wanted to gather signatures for the Recall: she put together enough signatures to allegedly put them over the top, and now she can spend all her time claiming they have the signatures but are refusing to submit them for (insert shady reason here).

Of course the actual reason they haven't submitted her "signatures" is that a lot of them are most likely invalid or spoiled in some way.  Recall campaign is still recruiting signature-gatherers, they called me up just yesterday.

Either way it looks like this is going to get on the ballot, with the main question being one of timing.  Sawant is doing a good job muddying the waters with conspiracy talk to mute what would otherwise be a huge political victory moment for the Recall campaign.

https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2021/07/sawant-recall-campaigns-continue-to-duke-it-out-as-deadline-for-november-ballot-approaches/

[lfromnj]

LOL the new DA(City Attorney) of Seattle maybe someone who tweeted this
https://twitter.com/ntkallday/status/1298456807040413697

The incumbent DA is currently 3rd and the top 2 is this woman and a Republican.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yeah I've been waiting to update because the extremists always wait until the last minute to vote so normies like me always get excited on election night and then let down when the results swing by 10% or more following the mail-in returns.

It looks like the general election will be as follows:

City Attorney
The unexpected headliner of the election will feature an absolutely insane Twitter lunatic vs. a Republican.  Nicole Thomas-Kennedy is a 2000-follower Twitter nobody running on a platform of abolishing the police, abolishing prison, and refusing to prosecute any misdemeanors.  Since the entire point of the city attorney office is to prosecute misdemeanors, this is effectively a platform of terminating the office of city attorney and legalizing crime in Seattle.  She is also a complete Marxist lunatic with a solid track record of celebrating property destruction and saying utterly idiotic things.  My guess is she will win in a landslide since her opponent, Ann Davison-Sattler, is a completely sane and normal person who left the Democratic Party so she could run for Lieutenant Governor.  So all NTK has to do is say "eeeeeek! Republican!" even though Davison is only a "Republican" in Seattle.

The reason this race is so interesting is because the incumbent, the loathsome Pete Holmes, lost.  If you had asked me before this election what one outcome I would long for the most, it would be the defeat of Pete Holmes, the worst elected official in America.  But that was a hell of a rabbit's paw moment, because while Holmes' career is almost certainly over, he's likely to be replaced by the new worst elected official in America, a lunatic who literally wants to legalize all crime.

This race is utterly terrifying to me as NTK winning would be a disaster for our city.  But I'm pretty sure she will win because reeeeeee Republican

Mayor
As expected, Bruce Harrell and Lorena Gonzalez cleared the field.  This race is going to be a complete f---ing mess and I am really not looking forward to it.

City Council 9
In another race I'm really not looking forward to, Kshama Sawant's protege Nikkita Oliver and local brewery owner Sara Nelson are running neck-and-neck.  Oliver is basically running on the same platform as NTK -- abolish everything, legalize crime, destroy all businesses, eat the rich anyone who owns property.  Oliver getting on the council is less dangerous because they would be only one of 9 votes.  But along with Sawant and Morales, the lunatic bloc grows larger every year.  They're only 2 votes and a friendly mayor away from being able to pass legislation making it legal to steal from anyone who has a job.  If you think I'm exaggerating, you don't live in Seattle.

Nelson is a reasonable person, but a very poor politician, whereas Oliver pretends to be a professor/attorney but is actually just a career activist with plenty of experience whipping up crowds and delivering well-honed applause lines.  If I were Nelson I would find some excuse to just skip all the debates and make the race a referendum on Nikkita Oliver.

Sawant Recall
This is likely to be on the general election ballot (exactly which ballot it's on has been artificially turned into a controversial topic by the increasingly desperate Sawant campaign) and should be very interesting to watch.