Holy Jesus...these are your five takeaways on the election? Really?

I don't even know where to start.


Sheesh, talk about learning nothing after two fiasco elections in a row. Good luck kids, you're going to need it as you fail again. Continue your winning message of "screw the middle-class bougie bastards".


Hahahahaha… those are your “takeaways”? Yeah, that’s why the fringe left lost last night. Oh, and you didn’t lose to conservatives. You lost to moderate Democrats that are tired of the far left’s bull shit rhetoric.

You guys must be slipping, I didn’t see any of your t-shirt slogan takes like “Tax Amazon” and “Eat the rich!”.

I’m surprised you didn’t pull the voter suppression card but we all know Rich is waiting for the Sawant recall to play that one… “it’s so hard to have to fill out and mail in a ballot over three weeks!!!”


You are obviously unable to perform any sort of introspective analysis. You only choose the candidates with the "correct" answers. Everyone else is wrong, misguided capitalist pigs who don't care about homelessness or anything else but their selfish interests.

That's why your horrible candidates lost and why no one really respects the Stranger anymore. No introspection. No respect for alternate and even gasp liberal viewpoints. Your way is. the. only. right. way. Dunno. Sounds kinda autocratic to me.


@3 "Oh, and you didn’t lose to conservatives. You lost to moderate Democrats that are tired of the far left’s bull shit rhetoric."

Came here to post that myself.


The message this election sends to any Democrat who wants to win elected office in 2022 is "distance yourself from the progressive wing."


I haven't voted for a winning mayoral candidate since Mike McGinn four elections ago. Thanks to the SECB! Lol. But srsly, why do folks think Harrell is going to solve the homeless crisis? Wasn't he on the city council when homelessness became even more of a reality? He was even mayor for a bit. He and the current mayor are cut from the same cloth. Homelessness is not easily resolved, folks. Pyrrhic victory for Bruce, I'll wager.


Insanity: “And if backing Nikkita Oliver was a dumb move, then we'll probably make that dumb move again, and again, and again…”


You're both too stuck in ideological totalitarianism to understand, but most people just want to be able to take their dog for a walk without worrying about it getting stomped to death by a meth head.
So lets run on a leave the junkies in the park alone platform. Derrrrr


@9 Harell's opponent has been the head of the city's legislative branch for most of the past 2 years. She certainly didn't make any progress on solving the homelessness crisis during that time period.


"but really it's a lot of people who think they pay too much in property taxes to have to deal with poor people clogging up their running routes with tents."

No, that isn't true at all. How little The Stranger knows about the city it writes about. And just because they think that doesn't make it so.


@13 But what is Harrell going to do differently from Durkan, hbb?


Just finished reading Sandeep Kaushik’s “cringey analysis” that you so obstinately dismiss. Absolutely spot on.

In particular, he’s right about how The Stranger and the other Seattle "Actirads" totally misinterpreted the 2019 election as some sort progressive wave – touting Sawant’s reelection while completely ignoring Alex Peterson’s victory. In fact, 2019 was a reaction against Amazon and the rest of the local corporate community’s ham-fisted attempt to buy that election. Well, I guess in politics one failed overreach begets another, just like the one we saw last night.

Can’t say I’m surprised that you guys are learning nothing from this. That would require a level introspection and a capacity for nuanced thinking that you all are clearly incapable of.


Well… it be how it be. To be honest the slate elected would be hyper liberal anywhere but Sea or SF, here prosecuting property crimes makes you a conservative.


@15 I assume Harrell will be more aggressive in addressing problematic homeless encampments than Durkan--that's what he ran on. The election results suggest this is something a majority of Seattle voters want. I doubt he has much luck in actually reducing homelessness, but I give him better odds than Gonzalez.


@18 But are there adequate shelter beds for a the folks in parks and under highways? Cities all along the West Coast are required to provide shelter to folks before evicting them, as I understand. See Martin v. Boise:


After an absolutely embarrassing loss, these are the takeaways? I mean, a republican got elected in Seattle over your preferred candidate, how could that not sting? I guess this is how the SECB plans to keep its losing streak going. The only real victory you guys racked up was Teresa Mosqueda, who was able to just eek out a victory over some guy who may or may not really exist.


Hmmm, here are my takeaways

The abolish / defund the police message isn't shared by most people in this city. Claiming petty theft and assault is due to poverty and income inequality is bullshit and most voters saw through the gaslighting. We have an addiction problem and further enabling that addiction by allowing addicts to do whatever they want is not a solution.

The vitriol and demonization that has come to characterize the SCC has grown stale and tiresome. Homeowners are not racist because they don't want 8000 units put on their block with no supporting infrastructure nor are business owners greedy bastards because they want someone to stop stealing from them on an everyday basis. Imagine what could have happened if a serious candidate ran against Mosqueda. She barely squeaked through with no opposition. That is amazing.

Seattle voters are compassionate and progressive but even that has its limits. The notion that the "status quo" has been to sweep encampments and prosecute crime is false. The status quo was encouraging encampments and relaxing prosecution. That did not work and going further down that road was a dead end. No one is claiming to have solutions but doubling down on failure is not it.

No one and I mean NO ONE is criminalizing homelessness. They are going to enforce laws against criminal activity. The judicial system still has it within their power to utilize restorative justice and diversion programs. Not electing a demagogue to be the sole arbiter of right and wrong in Seattle will not lead to mass incarceration.

The Stranger continues to be encapsulated in an idealogical bubble and is disassociated from the reality of the city. It's a shame because they have a voice and power as evidenced by their ability to shape the primary. Hopefully they'll want to be part of the solution one day instead of chasing clicks but I doubt it.


Yes, because Sandeep Kaushik knows nothing about Seattle politics and The Stranger. "Cringey analysis" indeed.


The Stranger is definitely up its own ass, but that piece IS super fucking cringey. No adult who wants to be taken seriously on a serious topic should write like that.


@22, you nailed it, perfectly summarizing the reason for the votes coming out of my house as well as those of my neighbors and friends.


Sawant complained bitterly (is there anything she doesn’t complain bitterly about????) regarding the special recall election vs. being on last night’s ballot. One wonders if she isn’t counting her blessings after last night. Still, I’m looking forward to her going down hard next month.


"the candidates who proposed the correct answers"

infinity facepalm

The Stranger is dead and I grieve the loss of my dear friend.


If only a serious candidate had run against Mosqueda.

Voters hate The Stranger's vision for Seattle so much, they elected a Republican for the first time in 30 years. Keep telling voters they're stupid and greedy. Keep on enabling NTK's and Sawants and Nikkita Olivers. Great work, team. Keep up the Stalinist illiberalism. See how that goes.


The vote for Harrell reflected a vote for diversity - in this case the underrepresented characteristics were sanity, pragmatism and experience


@22 "The Stranger continues to be encapsulated in an idealogical bubble and is disassociated from the reality of the city."

Reminds me of an Episode of Star Trek where Crusher got caught in a static warp bubble that kept getting smaller and smaller until she was the only thing left in the universe.

That seems where Seattle progressives are heading, their echo chamber just gets smaller and smaller but since they don't interact with anyone outside the bubble they don't see it shrinking and think they make up the majority of the universe.


The Stranger deserves a lot of the blame for what happened. In one case (Seattle City Council Position Nine) I called it the day they endorsed Oliver. PubliCola -- a news organization made up of former Stranger reporters every bit as progressive as The Stranger -- endorsed Brianna Thomas. Thomas is just at progressive as Oliver, is more accomplished, and a much stronger candidate. She is also a lot more likely to actually accomplish the goals they share (given her experience). The Stranger chose the activist, mainly because they are an activist. It is sophomoric reasoning -- like voting for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore.

Then there was the endorsement of Nicole Thomas-Kennedy. Holy shit. She was a protest candidate, as she has said many times. She never dreamed she would make it past the primary. Your endorsement of Thomas-Kennedy even stated that "Pete Holmes has frankly done a pretty good job on the issues NTK is running on". You have one -- admittedly valid -- gripe about Holmes (in ten years in office) and just like that, you were willing to dump him for a protest candidate that clearly wasn't ready for the job (Davison is even less ready). You could have easily written a scathing criticism of Holmes' support of the police department's subpoena while also acknowledging that Thomas-Kennedy raises some good points AND still endorsed Holmes, for very valid reasons. But you didn't. You endorsed a protest candidate, in much the same way that Nader decided to just fuck up the country (and much of the world). It is as if you don't believe you have actual power, and responsibility. You do. Lots of people read your endorsements. They assume you have done the research, and figure you know who the good candidates are, and who are the loons. And yet your endorsements now make The Seattle Times reactionary editorial board sound reasonable! Holy Fuck, that is no easy task! As a result, it weakens all of your endorsements -- from mayor to school board.

Which brings us to the mayoral race. You actually picked the right candidate in the primary (Yay! Gold Star!). But during the race, you did her no favors. She was thrown in with the activists, when in reality, she is the most competent person to run for mayor since Norm Rice. Unfortunately, she ran against another extremely competent -- and extremely well liked candidate -- in Bruce Harrell. Your inability to address his strengths and weaknesses made it all the easier to just dismiss the entire endorsement. Harrell will be a competent mayor -- like the person leaving office -- but his positions are simply out of date. Painting Harrell as a good man, a good public servant, but simply out of date would have been easy, and effective. But instead you spread bullshit, and focused on his supporters. Yes, big money helped get him elected, but guess what? No one gives a shit. It gets almost everyone elected. That is a flaw with the system, not the candidate.

But more than anything you failed to address the biggest issue for most people in this race: homelessness. According to the polls, this is it -- the number one concern for Seattle voters. The irony of Harrell owning this issue while doing nothing to address the underlying causes of homeless just shows your level of incompetence. It isn't that hard to draw a line from homelessness to the cost of housing. It isn't that hard to draw a line from the high cost of housing to exclusionary zoning. Change the zoning, you have less homelessness. You would think that The Stranger would have some reporters capable of writing a very hard hitting, extensive article connecting these dots -- complete with numerous quotes from experts in the field as well as studies. But no. The Stranger completely ignored the most important issue of the campaign for voters, and gave voters little reason to doubt the bullshit coming from the Seattle Times.

You were stupid. You can pretend you stood on principles, or some bullshit, but you just fucked up, and the city will suffer as a result.


The writers put the “T” in Tendentious and Turgid. It must be a bit of hell to get collared by them at a party.


@30 It's so easy when anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a racist. Wasn't it just recently that calling people "scum" to dehumanize them was a mark of the oppressor? Are you sure you're still on the right side of history, comrade?


Hey, wanna know why Bernie Sanders is so popular with the left? Because he is actually a really good candidate. He is smart, capable, accomplished, and if you listen to him, it isn't hard to imagine him convincing much of the country to go along with what he is proposing, just as the country took a radical right turn with Reagan. And yet, if The Stranger were in Vermont, it would have to endorse his opponent, simply because they "proposed the correct answers to the problems the country faces". Yes, Sanders has done more, and will likely do more in the future. But what is important is the answer to the questions, not their record or likelihood of success.

Fuck. You still don't get it. It isn't just about electability -- it is about capability.


Congratulations to The Stranger for its choices and effectiveness. Well done.


Sandeep Kaushik's analysis is spot on, thanks for the link


Geez no readers here agree with The Strangers election choices? Daaaaang.


I fled Florida only to arrive and see a Republican elected for the first time in 30 years and a county electorate that is 50% 55+. So Boomer turnout is probably 90%+ and Zoomer turnout is probably, what? Like 15-20%? I guess some things are the same no matter where you are.


Wow. Wow, wow, and wow.

Time to go read Sandeep.


For any not aware, Sandeep Kaushik used to write for The Stranger


46 - here ya go -


@45 not everyone who isn't farther left than Bernie Sanders is a racist? you genuinely have the reasoning capabilities of a 4-year old, don't you.


@19 The scope of Martin is getting pretty far afield, but no, it's not as broad as you suggest:

"But Martin's holding is not as broad as Plaintiffs claim—at different times, the court explained that its holding is limited to the criminalization of “sleeping outside on public property” or “sleeping in public” or “sleeping outdoors, on public property” where there is no option of indoor sleeping. See, e.g., id. at 603-04, 617. In fact, the court explicitly characterized its holding “as a narrow one” that did not “dictate to the City that it must provide sufficient shelter for the homeless, or allow anyone who wishes to sit, lie, or sleep on the streets ... at any time and at any place.” Id. at 617 (citation omitted). As an example, “an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times *1109 or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible,” as well as “an ordinance barring the obstruction of public rights of way or the erection of certain structures.” Id. at 617 n.8. And “[c]ourts following Martin have declined to expand its holding beyond criminalization of homelessness.” Young v. City of L.A., 2020 WL 616363, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2020) (citing Aitken v. City of Aberdeen, 393 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1081-82 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (collecting cases)). “Martin does not limit the [c]ity's ability to evict homeless individuals from particular public places.” Aitken, 393 F. Supp. at 1082. Nor does it “establish a constitutional right to occupy public property indefinitely at Plaintiffs’ option.” Miralle v. City of Oakland, 2018 WL 6199929, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018)."

Gomes v. Cty. of Kauai, 481 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1108–09 (D. Haw. 2020).

The Aitken case cited in Gomes concerns a "sweep" in Aberdeen, it's worth a look if you want to get a better understanding of, say, how this would play out if City of Seattle cleared an encampment adjacent to a school following a shooting or whatever.


This was a great post! Please keep them coming, Stranger. It's like last November all over again, when Donald Trump insisted upon losing the election anew each day. The difference is that his losses in some states were indeed by small amounts. No such excuse applies here. The Stranger's candidates are losing by astounding margins. Not 'merely' double-digit margins, like the one by which Durkan defeated Moon; now we're talking dozens of percentage points. Gonzalez is President of the City Council, and Oliver has great name recognition, due in part to losing the 2017 Mayoral Primary election by a tiny amount. They are getting utterly crushed in massive citywide landslides.

Then there's Seattle's incoming REPUBLICAN City Attorney. Sure, she's the most RINO-y RINO who ever RINO'ed, but an R is a win, apparently. That right there tells you just how horrible a candidate NTK really was, but the Stranger still doesn't get it. Victim-blaming is always sleazy, nasty business, but even it doesn't usually go this low:

'The person who "effectively elected Republican Ann Davison" was the three-term incumbent who apparently spent more time sipping wine and watching the Olympics than running a meaningful primary campaign.'

Uh, Stranger? YOU ENDORSED SOMEONE ELSE. Even after saying this about Pete Holmes (that's his name):

'And FINE, some of us admit it: Pete Holmes has frankly done a pretty good job on the issues NTK is running on. He’s been an active partner in standing up the city’s diversion programs, and he’s excited about Seattle’s latest version of community court. He also has decades of experience in civil law, and he’s used that experience to help defend Seattle from lawsuits against the city’s tenant protections, worker protections, and progressive taxes.' (

But the Stranger was just soooooooo incredibly clever, endorsing NTK because it wanted Davison out of the race entirely, and smugly predicted she couldn't make second place if it endorsed NTK. From the same link: "...she could take second in this race if she got a last-minute injection of cash or a Seattle Times endorsement. Davison’s current fundraising numbers don’t support this fear, but we’re not taking any chances."

How's that working out for you? Please do tell us, over and over and over, again and again and again, in the coming days and weeks. Continue to self-praise your self-described godlike political brilliance, continue to deride the super-majority of Seattle liberals who utterly drubbed your candidates as mean-spirited, right-wing poor-haters. Go on, tell us that voting for Harrell was really a misogynistic vote against Gonzalez, that Oliver lost because of endemic racism in Seattle, that you still will take absolutely no responsibility of any kind for getting a REPUBLICAN elected to a citywide office. Nominate innocent scapegoats and blame them viciously; declare that even the tiniest question amounts to high treason, and punish, punish, punish accordingly. Repeatedly decimate everyone who has failed you, until nothing remains but a wasteland of vitriol. And please, keep on doing it, day after day, week after week, at least through next month's recall election. It's your only real option for helping Seattle.


Just rewards kids You reap what you sow.


@52 All very well said, but you overlooked this gem:

"While we’re not 100% sure it’s time for a change at this particular helm, we know we at least want Thomas-Kennedy to make it through the primary so we can find out more."

I presume they've "found out more" now.


52 as in fucked around and…


@55: Thank you for demonstrating that, like the Stranger, You Just Don't Get It. Keep on throwing your attempted insults at liberals who dared to think for themselves. Continue your name-calling against anyone who has the unmitigated gall to disagree with you. Furiously ignore the obvious wisdom @3: "Oh, and you didn’t lose to conservatives. You lost to moderate Democrats that are tired of the far left’s bull shit rhetoric." Bitterly castigate everyone here who chortles at just how much fail the Stranger packed into so few endorsements.

Remember, endlessly lashing out with rage against other commenters here may be a complete waste of time, but at least it doesn't require the courage to examine why you just got crushed in such a humiliating manner.


@40: Sanders? Spare me. The last thing this country needs after Trump and Biden is another octogenarian. Though it will get it in 2024 when Trump will be back in the WH courtesy of the Dems have immolated themselves.


@59: Thank you for supporting my point @58. (And you're right, the Stranger should eliminate comments, too. As I'm sure you'll continue to agree, what is dissent, if not treason?)


So in other words, no self-reflection, just a lot of immature navel-gazing, insulting the voters you're trying to win, and blaming all your failures on a grand conspiracy by all the groups you hate.


@55 Please identify all of the conservatives, libertarians and racists here using your infinite wisdom, and when gen z++ comes after you for supporting the slave labor used to make your smartphone I'll look forward to you willingly submitting yourself to the gulag. Maybe after a decade or two of re-education you'll come to realize that you're one of the racists, too.


My good old Aunt Ruby would have called this "diarrhea of the mouth. " Fuck you Stranger. funk you Rich Smith. and especially fuck you Mudede.


Good lord, this paper once won a Pulitzer. Now it couldn't win $1 on a pull tab.



This article could have been three sentences: We severely underestimated the anger and frustration everyday Seattleites feel about the completely out of control homelessness crisis. In future endorsements we will try and consider more widespread viewpoints amongst Seattle voters. We are sorry.


Boy, look at all this reactionary rabble. They put a Republican in the city attorney's office and blame the progressives for it, ha! I'm not sure how you idiots won, you fail at even the most basic logic!

Jesus so many of these comments are hilarious. Yes we lost a vote, but you act like you've beaten us for all time. Man that's funny. Clearly you all are so used to losing you have no idea how this "politics" thing works. Because guess what, now you reactionaries have power, you've got to govern! And you can't even blame the progressives for it any more!

Get much done? What a joke. Truly. You are all such hysterical sore winners, I don't think you'll even know what to do with your win. You'll wet you beds every night, and do nothing during the day but run cackling through the street screaming "the progressives lost! The progressives lost!"

So go fuck yourself until your sore. No really, do! And don't you worry, you'll have to defend yourselves soon enough. Because certainly the only thing that half wit Bruce Harrell will pass is turning Indigenous Peoples' Day into Italian American Appreciation of Native Genocide Day. And good on you, you sad sacks of human shit.

Oh, and fuck you reactionary scum bags. Your turn to go down will come soon.


67, don't apologize for doing what you think was right. The homeless crisis isn't your fault, nor is it the city council's. These idiots just don't want to look at homeless people, period. For most of them the minute they stop seeing them the problem is solved, just, like the rest of your garden variety reactionaries. They can gnash and moan, but all they will get done is having the cops crack open more skulls and push the homeless population out to the poorer neighborhoods. See? problem solved. Oh, and those truly sub-par individuals who actually believed "Compassion[less] Seattle" was a good idea, they will find out you can't just wish money to house the homeless into existence, as the reactionaries who came up with the measure told them they could, since they are too stupid to realize such things.

So yes, your endorsements didn't win this year. But Contrary to the sacks of human excrement who have been shit posting all evening here, not all is lost. Not even close. These people are far too mean and dumb to do anything good, and there will come a time when enough people will be motivated to want them out of power again. Just you wait.



I’ve lived in this city since 2003 and in the region since 1988. There’s always been homeless people and yes, it isn’t pretty.

But when I get e-mails every other day from my kids’ elementary school about needles and human waste and I go to work downtown and see rampant criminal activity and drug use, then the problem has metastasized.

The camps are filthy and the homeless folks there are shitty neighbors who could care less about the communities and neighborhoods they have invaded. I would like to see these folks get re-homed and the addicts and mental health people get the help they need and deserve. But I also want the criminal ass dope friends out. If this means sweeps so be it. They’re a scourge (that neither votes nor pays taxes).

Seattle City Council dropped the fucking ball on this issue big time and they all paid for it at the ballot box, a result justly earned and deserved. Will Bruce Harrell and co fix the issue? Time will tell and believe me I will vote his ass out too if the usual Seattle Process mucks things up.

But a change needed to happen. Too bad the Stranger and the Progressive Left failed to recognize how pissed Seattleites are about this issue. I usually align with these folks. Not this election.


@44 incorrect. I love Bernie, he proposes national solutions for health, education, housing etc. I sincerely doubt he believes small businesses run by mom and pop are rich and should be run out of business by property theft like the insane activist candidates and officials in Seattle. The adults don’t want homelessness criminalized, we just don’t want hepatitis outbreaks on the streets and meth heads punching our kids. Letting shanty towns pop up isn’t a solution. Refuse shelter is fine, if you don’t like it you’re free to move on.


Thank you tensor, well said! The stranger only has itself to blame for such significant loss.


Good ole stranger. Not satisfied till everyone is equally poor, every business burned down, and every jail closed. But they wouldn’t dare to take down the real bad guys: the cartels that are making mincemeat of the people on the streets. Cartels are having a heyday with the open market the radical left has set up for them. Some “compassion.”


@44 "I sincerely doubt he believes small businesses run by mom and pop are rich and should be run out of business by property theft like the insane activist candidates and officials in Seattle."

Then why did he endorse Gonzalez who has enabled shop lifting in this city?


Re the line "really it's a lot of people who think they pay too much in property taxes to have to deal with poor people clogging up their running routes with tents." No, it's about electing people to local office who can actually get shit done, people who can write competent policy and then implement it. All around Seattle today, what we see is evidence of City Hall dysfunction, of which people are rightly tired.


In addition to the council politics effect of swapping Nelson in for Gonzalez, note that Mosqueda survived essentially because no one ran against her. I mean, not that Ken Wilson isn't a real person who might very well have done fine, but in this election he was the kind of nobody you have to be if no one's ever heard of you, you have no backing and no credentials. Where Mosqueda is a photogenic incumbent with massive support from unions, establishment, etc. - and she just managed to survive, with what is it now, is she up to 7% lead?

In the next term, any initiatives advanced by Mosqueda will carry that stigma - she survived just by luck, and not because of any campaign circumstances but because her policy directions are so deeply unpopular that many people voted for anybody else.


@74 “Then why did he endorse Gonzalez who has enabled shop lifting in this city?”

The same reason Elizabeth Warren did. He asked his staff for a list of progressives to endorse in local races, and he endorsed those candidates without another thought.

Do you really think either Sanders or Warren had the time to research the local issues in Seattle?

Jayapal, on the other hand, should have known better. She at least had the good sense to stay away from the City Attorney race, but she should have done the same in the mayoral and council races.


EJ Dionne: “There was only one good thing for Democrats in Tuesday’s elections: A defeat so comprehensive and disastrous does not leave room for excuse-making, blame-shifting or evasion.”

Your move, SECB.


lots of ppl who claim to hate the stranger hang out in the comment section like it's a full time job, huh?
anyway, can't wait to be exactly here in 1-4 years, complaining about the status quo still because Seattle managed to elect a slate of candidates that is going to keep doing the same ineffective stuff we've always done. cool!


As someone who lives across from an encampment and just had their car broken into for the 5th or 6th time last night. Ha ha. Fuck you. Sweep time, parasites. If the city wants to put the junkies in box cars and send them out east, at this point, I am fine with that.


Fwiw. My preference was Echohawk. She wanted to put the homeless in shipping containers. Gotta give her credit for effeciency. Right next to the railways too.


@81 you really are a complete and utter piece of shit.


@81 this is who you have on your side, SECB. congrats.


Gonzalez lost because she is a bad politician and took some incredibly unpopular stances, some of which she could have brought voters along on.

First - 'No sweeps period'. This single issue probably destroyed her chances. Anyone with half a brain knows that taking such a categorical stance on a complicated issue reveals bad judgement. No one in Seattle likes that homeless camps get 'swept' and that we shuffle people on the streets around and around. However, most of us realize that some of these camps are just in terrible spots - our children's playgrounds, the middle of residential neighborhoods, etc. Also, what often starts as a small inconvenient camp often grows and grows in something that is not tolerable in terms of safety, property damage, and community quality of life.

Second - Upzoning the whole city. You know what's funny? I actually agree with this stance, the data supports it, research supports it - you know who doesn't support it? Practically anyone who owns a home and is older than 35. This is possibly the biggest underlying issue we can tackle to eliminate homelessness, but when you discuss it with most people - they will be against it. They don't know much about it, but they will be against it. I don't think I've heard a single compelling argument from Gonzalez during the campaign making the case for this. I think she hoped that by not mentioning it people would ignore it. Big mistake.

Finally, stop the 'tax the rich' rhetoric. A sizeable portion of Seattle works for Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, REI etc etc. We all know these companies should be doing more but anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that these companies are responsible for our soaring incomes and the soaring city revenue. This rhetoric may play better when city and state revenues aren't setting new records that comfortably beat the inflation index year after year for over a decade.

It's no surprise she lost by such a large margin. Her questionable judgement was on display the whole campaign and was capped off by a tone deaf attack ad.



You know, I actually agree with this. A deadlier variant would take care of the far right and the entitled white trash compromising the majority of the encampments around here. Fuck em both, and the crystal worshiping far left.


@52 -- Exactly. You can also point to their primary endorsement of Oliver over Thomas. In a different era, this would be the endorsement by The Stranger ( and if nothing else, we wouldn't have Nelson and Davison to deal with.

All of this hurt Gonzalez. It was very easy for Harrell to embrace the "extreme takeover" narrative described so well here: But Gonzalez also ran a really shitty race. The most effective ad run by Harrell is this one: This is a nasty, negative ad (not at all "Seattle Nice") and yet it was effective. Again, it painted Gonzalez as too extreme, and too ineffective when it comes to the issue voters cared most about (according to the polls before the election): homelessness.

So what was the response by Gonzalez: Nothing. Or at least, nothing about homelessness. She ran a bullshit ad about Harrell's response about Murray. No one cares about that, while many found the ad offensive. Not once did she go after Harrell on the homeless issue, even though it would have been easy. Fuck, The Seattle Times (news division) has more to say about the issue, pointing out that it was Harrell who voted against funding homeless funding, while Gonzalez was able to pass legislation, that will help fund housing next year. The big increase in homelessness, especially unsheltered, occurred when Harrell was on the council ( and yet Gonzalez never mentioned that. It would be really easy to point Harrell as the one who ignored the problem, while Gonzalez is the one who is actually providing solutions, but instead, she ignored the issue. This was a bone-headed move by a campaign. It enabled Harrell to own an issue that Gonzalez should have owned, and it helped lose her the race.

Of course she got little help from The Stranger. It wouldn't have been too hard to show that Gonzalez has a better record, has a more effective strategy, and is endorsed by more leaders on the issue than Harrell. But nope -- too much bother.


You completely missed the point.

You are blinded by your ideological zeolotry. However, the grown-ups in the room are taking the gloves off and tell you that we're done with the BS.

You've had your fun. You've had your kids killed at the CHOP/CHAZ by your wonderful summertime experiment last year. We're over it and we're done here. We don't elect racists (Gonzalez, proving it twice now - once with the Pride debacle, once with the Harrell smear ad). We don't elect crazy people who support arson and in a marked display of contradictory doublethink hate the rule of law WHILE BEING A "LAWYER" - and I put that in quotes because NTK is clearly not fit for purpose. We don't elect shrill activists who care more about grifting to the tune of $3M+ via KCEN's Black Brilliance Project study, than the black community they SUPPOSEDLY represent. And we'd like working bridges instead of people spending our taxes on pet projects instead of infrastructure for the past decade.

I want medicare for all. I want a solid social safety net. I also want extremists out of local politics - because that's what most of the people are - ideologue extremists.

Enjoy experiencing pragmatism for the first time -- Signed, A Sanders/Warren Supporter who voted for Wilson, Harrell, Davison, and Nelson.


I can summarize this drivel in two words … or perhaps just one. It depends on whether “butt hurt” or “butthurt” is correct.



I do! My list of undesirables is just slightly larger, to encompass the morons on the far left as well. May a plague sort em all out. Cthulu bless Covid!


Also. I'd like to thank the Russians and Facebook for helping the stupid to self-select out of the gene pool.


can't tell of meeb is lorena's disgruntled husband or just some neckbeard piece of shit who got lost on their way to 4chan lol


This is your reminder to everyone that the author of this condescending, arrogant, self-righteous screed is Rich Smith, age 35, who has only lived in Seattle for six years.

That's right. This guy who's SO SURE he knows everything about the city, and all you morons are just too stupid to listen, just moved to our beloved city since 2015. In a mere six years, he's got it all figured out. All you dumbshit homeowners who've lived here for decades and raised families in this city need to stop letting the big corporations and billionaires tell you how to think, and instead let Rich from Missouri tell you how to think!

It really is incredible just how much ego one has to have to think a few years of smoking pot in your Pike+Pine apartment and memorizing protest slogans makes you an expert on Seattle politics and gives you the authority to tell people who've lived here their entire lives that they're stupid fucking idiots and don't know their own city. Rich is like a minor character in a TV show who just exists to be hated by audiences -- a walking stereotype with no complexity.

Hannah Krieg is also on the byline. She just graduated from Mount Spokane High School three years ago.

Hannah: You've only been at The Stranger for a month or so and your first article was really good! Is this really the direction you want to head in your career? Is your ambition in 14 years to be a miserable, arrogant burnout like Rich? Go find better employment. You're capable of being a good journalist, but this whiny, entitled rant is just a humiliating black mark on your resume. If I were you I'd leave The Stranger and ask Rich to take my name off the byline.


This comment section and others in the Stranger in recent months is telling. Go to a political article and year ago and you would find predominantly woke and regressive entries (regressive is so more apt than progressive - there is nothing progressive about them).

Now one sees the Stranger comments full of centrists, or in Stranger parlance, "conservatives", who do not buy the failed story of Seattle politics.

And in other social media venues a similar change is playing out with those who believe in a clean city and personal accountability, and who are eschewing the everyones a victim narrative - gaining traction and visibility. They are organizing on a grass roots and community basis and perhaps might create a force to counter the radical left union dominance in prior city elections. How else can we explain the majority on the council who have been tone deaf and absent to their constituents on issues that matter to them?

Now that we have a settled election in 3 important races, the next step will be how and when will the tone and substance of local government change? Will we restore our police to a full force? Will the city attorney's office prosecute shoplifters and car thieves? Will over-parked vehicles be ticketed and towed? Will camps be swept and we stop deciding that it is OK to refuse shelter that does not allow your stolen stuff, dog and drugs to come along?

The joy felt in seeing the repudiation of the bullying wokesters brightens my heart and brings hope.


"There are two kinds of dumb: The person who gets naked, runs out in the snow, and howls at the moon. And there's the person who does the same thing in your living room. The first one don't matter--the second one, you're kind of forced to deal with."

"Translate. Is that some sort of threat?"


@102 You mean before The Stranger got co-opted by a bunch of ideologues who can't tell the difference between an ideal world and the world we actually live in, thus rendering themselves incapable of supporting necessary changes in the world we actually live in while we try to turn the world into the place we want to live in?


Hatred of Trump is NOT and endorsement of truly crappy progressive policies. "Progressive" is a dog whistle for Blue tarps, Two giant scoops of Foucault & Marcuse, and used syringes. Maybe we've cracked the code ? Eh, probably not, but there's a tiny drop of lube on the pivot of the pendulum.
BTW if you use the word "Reactionary" you have 125K in college debt and have false consciousness.


@99- You call everyone on here that doesn't agree with your politics "racist." How do you explain that the winning candidates received a majority of the POC vote? Do you consider these voters racists as well, or do they need someone like you to tell them what is best for them?


@99- Sorry, I ment @94, the meeb person


Lol. Cry more so called white 'progressives'. You will never learn any lessons. This is a Seattle electorate that voted 75% for Bernie over Hillary that has turned on you. You are happy to nominate a failed lawyer running racist ads against the black candidate. You blindly support racist white unions that exclude people of color. Your only interest is your own self. Your candidate in Buffalo won the primary and lost to the moderate running a write in campaign. Many of you such as Sawant played a pivotal part in Trump coming to power and people are catching on.


@108: So, you can smell the MAGA hats as other commenters type? Or perhaps you're a mind-reader?

Also, "Racist" actually has a useful meaning. Please stop trying to change it into, "people whom I can't stop from laughing at my failures."


Lol. Cry more so called white 'progressives' (the ones writing this column and those of that ilk). You will never learn any lessons. This is a Seattle electorate that voted 75% for Bernie over Hillary that has turned on you. You are happy to nominate a failed lawyer running racist ads against the black candidate. You blindly support racist white unions that exclude people of color. Your only interest is your own self. Your candidate in Buffalo won the primary and lost to the moderate running a write in campaign. Can you at least have a modicum of self introspection to go with your abundance of selfishness?


@64: I wrote nothing about whether or not you had recognized the possibility the Stranger's candidates would lose in humiliating landslides. I merely noted you're not coming to terms with those crushing defeats, and I speculated as to the cause of your ongoing failure to do so. Nothing you have yet written here has provided the least reason to question anything I did write.

@112: No True Scotsman, indeed. (Are you beginning to wonder why you just lost? Nope, didn't think so...)


A reminder, though- sweeping the camps has never done anything to address houselessness before, won't do anything now- and it is not a victory against houselessness to drive the houseless out of your town.

A lot of spiteful, vindictive posts have been made in this comments section- which is an odd reaction to a victory for what those making the posts wanted. Shouldn't you all just be happy? Why is it so important to you to flip the SECB off.

BTW, as to The Stranger before it was "co-opted by ideologues"- there was never a time when The Stranger would have endorsed a police fetishist like Harrell.


@115: "A reminder, though- sweeping the camps has never done anything to address houselessness before, won't do anything now- "

Travis Berge lived homelessly in the Pike-Pine corridor for the five years prior to his death. His mother repeatedly asked him to move to her home in Texas, but he refused. Near the end of his life, he shared a tent in Cal Anderson Park with Lisa Vach, whose friends had arranged housing for her in Tacoma. She refused their offer. Thus, Berge and Vach were living together when Berge -- a notorious user of meth' -- savagely attacked her, then left her to die. He fled into the Pump House at the park, dying in a vat of bleach there on the same night.

Now, imagine that we had not left them to their tent, but had rousted them repeatedly. Perhaps one or both of them would have accepted their offers of housing outside Seattle, and moved to those places? We'll never know, but our inaction could be a large contributing factor to their deaths. It's hard to imagine how things could possibly have ended any worse for them, if we'd simply enforced our laws against camping in our parks.

"A lot of spiteful, vindictive posts have been made in this comments section..."

Yes, indeed:

"Look at all the racist scumbags..."

" makes me happy to see piece of shit like you to have to choose between two Democrats."

" you not like seeing dead magats and nazis, you piece of shit?"

"So go fuck yourself until your [sic] sore. No really, do! [...] you sad sacks of human shit.

"Oh, and fuck you reactionary scum bags."

There certainly is a lot to criticize here, I agree. Do you have a few examples of "spiteful, vindictive posts" you'd like to quote? How about you find a few which wallow in the sewer as abjectly as the above quotes do?


O 88, the case for upzoning the whole city isn't as good as you seem to think. It hurt Gonzalez and Mosqueda, but not as much as it should have, because it's a scam. Real estate developers will see bigger profits, but they won't build more. There are a variety of logistical barriers that can get in front of building all the housing we need, when we need it, and in practice we'll never see much more than the record pace of a couple years ago, 10-12,000/year. They'll keep building that much, year after year, if the market is hot enough, but if it's that hot the rents will go up anyway. We had big upzones in 2019, and the results were super unimpressive. Zoning is not the problem. If we want to stabilize housing costs, we have to manage growth to a limit like 1% annual; if we can do that, we can support that growth for decades with no upzones. If we go back to the 4% annual of a few years ago (thank heavens it's unlikely), nothing we can do will prevent spiraling costs. Upzoning the whole city will just mean density increases farther from transit and services - more auto-dependent - with little if any real difference in overall capacity.

I don't pretend to know what all the voters are thinking, but I'm pretty they see what's going on and they know it doesn't have anything to do with the supposed goals - affordability, exclusion - just fig leaves over real estate developer industry deregulation that's no more "progressive" than when Reagan did that kind of thing.


58: Any hostile responses you've received in any comments section were your own fault- it was all down to your smug, arrogant "I know what the issue is and its just drugs and nothing else and sweeps are the only possible answer and anybody who disagrees with me is an idiot" attitude.

That, and you gave up the game in the post in another thread where you admitted your real agenda was to protect Jeff Bezos and his delivery service that anybody else could have invented and run just as well as any he did- and without the absurdly petty and invasive rules he imposes on his delivery drivers- from ever having to face even a tiny, trivial tax increase.

Whatever anybody can say about any of the political figures you harbor all that irrational rage towards, nobody should ever be carrying water for any corporate behemoth in any debate.

It looks like you're going to get more brutal, vindictive sweeps- even though none of the past sweeps made anything better anywhere they were done. And it looks like you're going to get your sadistic wish and drive huge numbers of your fellow human beings out of the town, even though doing that has never been any answer for anything.

Isn't that enough for you? Why are you pissing on people whose only offense is to disagree with your seeming wish to turn Seattle into the Singapore of the Northwest? Why are you act as if everybody was obligated to defer to you and what you presume to be your inherently superior wisdom?

If you want to support what you support, nobody can stop you- but you were never entitled to expect everybody to accept that your demand that every camp be swept is not totally inconsistent with progressive values.

You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to demand that everyone accept that you're a liberal when your views about the houseless are illiberal. Nobody was ever obligated to defer to your own self-delusions.

BTW, I repeatedly attempted to engage with you on the aspects of houselessness that were related with drugs, and offered alternatives to deal with that, but you refused to even consider any ideas other than your own "punish 'em for the SAKE of punishing them-substance use is never anything but a willful decision to be an inconsiderate jerk!" approach. Why do you totally reject any other ideas for working with people to get them off drugs besides the totally-discredited "Nancy Reagan on a very special 'Different Strokes'" strategy?


It's abundantly clear that voters are concerned with homelessness. It's also abundantly clear that when push comes to shove, the majority of voters don't see prisons as a place of incredible violence, dehumanization, and slavery. The forces creating homelessness in Seattle are much bigger than Seattle; they are global forces that are recreating the same patterns in cities around the world. Thus, the solution isn't entirely local, and frankly, to build the housing stock we need would A) cost about $15B-$30B (requiring major federal investment) and B) would devalue home ownership because housing as an investment can only rise if there is a scarcity. So yes, we are in a bind, but we still have the choice over our local actions and whether they are informed by fear or compassion. This election was a clear sign that fear is what animates the voters, and that if we can't solve homelessness, we can at least get it out of sight. This means an absurd amount of state violence done against people, but hey, I get it. It's uncomfortable to confront the consequences of our lifestyles, of our systems, of our economies. Liberals continue doing what liberals do: supporting horrifying regimes of violence as long as it's out of sight and out mind


NTK should not have just been defeated; she should also be disbarred. Cheering on arson is a bridge too far and should cost her her law license.


These sour grapes make outstanding whine.


@119: It's a mistake to think that density should only increase near transit. You assume that we can control people's behavior by only building in central areas near light rail and that those who move there will act as you have envisioned. There are plenty of people who need cheaper housing that cannot or will not forgo their car.

I have a family with 2 kids & a wife who works. We need a car. We want to live in the city to reduce commute times, have access to city amenities, and have access to childcare. No we don't want to live in the currently zoned high density areas to near the light rail to hear it dinging until 2 am, with little access to parks, and limited apartment sized units. Instead we opted for a townhouse in a neighborhood because we were uncomfortable extending ourselves financially to spend $800k on a house and quality of life is better for a family - my kids can run out the door and play in the street and go to the park nearby.

By restricting development in the city we are simply reducing supply, creating higher rents for everyone, and forcing many people out of the city. This creates longer commutes which is wasteful in all sorts of ways. I have yet to hear of any law that will restrict people from moving into the city of their choosing. Seattle is LUCKY to have a problem where people want to live here, it is certainly a better situation than the stagnant cities I have seen all over the U.S. with few job opportunities and boring city life.

IMO Seattle needs to come to grips with the fact that it is a major city now. We need to make way for those who wish to live here and come to grips with that fact that things need to change in order to have a livable city. If we don't bring down our soaring rents we are going to continue to have a terrible homeless problem. It's a situation that needs to be addressed comprehensively - high density zoning across the entire city to increase supply and bring unit prices down, increased city spending creating more shelter beds, public housing, mental health services, and addiction treatment services.

All the studies and policy analysis I've seen has shown that there is a direct link between the cost of housing and the number of homeless on the street. Likewise, the research is also pretty settled on the fact that the only way to bring down housing costs is to reduce building costs and upzone. It's not a panacea, but it will make a big difference in the long run.


@124 More people and cars are coming into Seattle regardless of whether you want them to or not. The question is: Are you going to promote policies that make the city more affordable for all people so their are less people living in their cars, the parks, and streets? The people moving here are doing just fine - they are coming for the jobs and have the money to pay for housing. However, if they can't find what they want they will spend what they have on the next best thing which pushes prices up all the way down the line.


When people automatically discount the possibility of managing growth within sustainable limits, and/or refuse to even consider it as a strategy that would work to control housing costs - when it's the only strategy that can work - I think the real motivations become clearer. Of course some of you genuinely believe this stuff, but it's like other forms of denial - e.g., some people genuinely believe ivermectin is a better answer than the "experimental" vaccines, but they've been duped. The reason upzones are an establishment progressive slam dunk, despite the fact that they keep failing to make any difference, is that it's the perfect combination - if you're an academic or a politician, the optics are excellent, and if you're in the massive real estate industry it's big money.

I'm in no position to tell anyone they can't have a car, but it's pretty obvious that the closer people live to transit, retail, etc. services, the easier it is to do things without driving.


@126 I didn't come out against public transit. I'm in for light rail, buses, car pools etc. I'm not in for only zoning certain areas as high density when it is clear that is not sufficiently addressing the issue.

I think you're mistaken that upzones are a slam dunk, even in the most progressive state in the country (California) upzones can't get passed. The only upzones you see in Los Angles are near light rail and downtown...big surprise that the costs have exploded all over there. Half hearted upzoning just concentrates people who have a certain lifestyle in mass transit areas, it does little to address the myriad people who need housing but can't afford a typical single family home. Or maybe we should just start cutting down the trees in all our undeveloped areas and put single family homes there. Is that what you mean by sustainable?

All this blowback just proves my point Gonzalez was running on a platform people don't like and are woefully under informed about. You can't simply ignore it and hope people will vote for you.


@119: Ha, ha, ha. So, "spiteful, vindictive" comments here are now just peachy with you, so long as you can blame their intended victim? That was a snappy volte-face, even for you. (Must be easy when you have no weighty moral principles to uphold.) And you still haven't given a single example of a "spiteful, vindictive" comment here, something I very quickly and easily accomplished. Maybe that's because all of the "spiteful, vindictive" comments here come from persons who happen to agree with you. Lovely company you're keeping.

If you follow the sorry trail of comments back from @58, you'll find our wonderful meeb @30, lashing out that all persons who dared to approve of Tuesday's election results were "racist scumbags." And you just claimed I deserve to have those words thrown at me because I -- unlike the Stranger and Seattle's City Council -- recognize that drug use drives homelessness? How on earth could it possibly be "racist" to look at Seattle's homeless population, and remark they obviously need addiction treatments they are not getting? As I've already commented here, "racist" is actually a useful word with a real meaning, and diluting it by hurling it in frustrated anger doesn't help anyone.

Hopefully, all unsanctioned encampments will now be cleared (because they have always been illegal, unhealthy, and generally dangerous), and Seattle will no longer watch uncaringly as homeless campers die brutal, horrible, preventable deaths. Impressively, you're castigating this welcome turn of events even before it can start happening, pitifully repeating your failed slogans as if anyone cares.

Lisa Vach was a human being. She had friends who cared enough about her to obtain housing for her. She died a violent death, at the hands of a known and notorious meth' user, because Seattle did not care enough to enforce laws against camping in parks. Let's hope Tuesday's election results ensure that brutally callous mistake never gets repeated.

@117: Because football games never have winners and losers. Thank you for validating my point, yet again. Please feel free to stop proving me right whenever you like.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.