Unfortunately Seattle is stuck in her middle-of-the-road ways, however I punched it twice for Carmen Rivera and Kim Khanh Van, although she couldn't succeed against the white status quo weenie-wagger fraternity.
Seattle squares prefer white power, although there is huge progressive movement taking shape in South King County. The idiotic campaign to put Sawant's head on a stick is a manifestation of the Seattle anti-progressive chill.
Voters tend to go along with the Seattle Times recommendations, which run traditional and conservative.
as @2 alluded to one of the problems here is how you define "progressive". If any of the aforementioned candidates had run in Seattle they would have been decried as tools of big business and neo-lib corp democrats. Conversely if any of the "progressives" from Seattle including Mosqueda had run in the burbs they would have been defeated by even wider margins.
One of the issues with Seattle politics is that the candidate running furthest to the left gets to wear the label of Progressive no matter what their policy positions include. No Dem ran on abolishing the police and ceasing prosecution of misdemeanors anywhere in the country. NKT and Oliver were not progressive Dems and labeling them as such only serves to drag down other Dems who were running.
Seattle election results were a lot different than the MSM portrayed them on election night.
In fact, the City Attorney race is still neck and neck right now.
But, hey, spin that like the out of touch mainstream media if you want.
@7 the city atty race is over and Davison won by 4 pts and 10k votes. How is that neck and neck?
reading progressive journalism is so weird. they're always telling you everyone's racial background. it's really weird for people who grew up watching Serbs fighting Albanians and Croats on TV. why do these people seem to want Tigrays marching to fight Amhara militias in the US? for all their criticism of "white supremacy" they have way too much faith in the resilience of US order and public safety. we are humans just like the countries that explode into ethnic and sectarian violence, so please stop pretending that a handful of deaths of unarmed people at the hands of police every year is worth immolating US society over. people come here from everywhere and make it
the postmodern left has too many political-moral criteria. Black people joined the racist 1930s New Deal Democratic Party en masse because it was good on the economy. let's be good on the economy. the principal problem in the Puget Sound area is housing costs. you can call yourself progressive without prioritizing upzones as long as you want to subsidize a pupusaria? the TOD around Kent's rail station should be gargantuan. the barely-used public golf courses should be large neighborhoods unto themselves
1: "Voters tend to go along with the Seattle Times recommendations, which run traditional and conservative."
Until this year, for most of the past 10 years, this statement of your is just straight up factually wrong. The Stranger had a FAR better endorsement hit rate over the past 10 years, until this year-when, for reasons passing understanding, they completely misread the mood of the electorate and anger over encampments. Sandeep Kaushik's piece in PostAlley really does nail the mood of the voters exactly. You can be mad about that. But Sandeep is right...and admitting that and understanding it is critical to actually moving voter opinion.
7 "Seattle election results were a lot different than the MSM portrayed them on election night."
No, they weren't. The vote counts are basically done. NTK lost by 4 points. Nikkita lost by 8. Lorena by about 16.
If for no other reason than you want to do better next time, stop pretending this election in the city was good news for your candidates. In addition to that being, well, just wrong, its also really poor political analysis which requires sober, honest, and candid assessment. "But, but but...an abolitionist won the primary!" Yes...and then got defeated in Seattle by a putative Republican in a city where the Orange Asshole got 8%.
This was not a good news election for you- digging in that it was is pretty much a clarion sign of deeply misreading voters. To change their minds, you can't do that in politics.
12: I agree with that completely, but here's the crux for me: if a publication is going to hold itself out as journalism - particularly political journalism - being completely dialed out of where the electorate is = not an option. They need not change a single endorsement or position. To quote Bill Broadhead on Hacks & Wonks, right now, the Stranger "...needs to get better. It used to be run by really smart people who understood politics. Today it's like children playing with a nuclear bomb."
In order to even be able to pen a persuasive endorsement (ideally, something more than "fuck fuck fuck, we love weed"), an editorial board has to know where voters are starting. The Stranger showed virtually no sign they understood where voters were. (Erica Barnett was at least marginally better- and certainly did better journalism, if having most of the same blindspots.)
In their "5 Takeaways from the Election piece" by Rich and Hannah, the Stranger resorted to "you're all a bunch of corporatist conservative single family home owning low tax rate loving heartless soulless homeless-hating faux liberal motherfuckers for not voting the way we told you" (in a city that voted 92% for the President and approves every levy that comes to the ballot). While that might feel good to write, as persuasive journalism....well, it leaves a little something to be desired.
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.