Showing posts with label joe mallahan mike mcginn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joe mallahan mike mcginn. Show all posts

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Hang out with Mayor Mike McGinn

Great City:
Fête du Flâneur---An Urban(e) Party hosted by Great City

TO PURCHASE TICKETS, CLICK HERE

On Thursday, February 25, Great City presents the Fête du Flâneur, a Fantastic Urban-Themed Party. The Fête, a fundraiser for the organization, will feature a limited-admission private reception with Great City founder and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, City Councilmember Mike O’Brien and Deputy Mayor Darryl Smith. Following the early reception will be a celebration of enlightened, if fanciful, urban living featuring music, open bar, hors d’oeuvres, silent auction, an address by Mayor Mike McGinn, crowning of the Great City-Cascade Land Conservancy Mustache Challenge champion, Flâneur-inspired art, dancing and DIY costumes.

What: Great City’s Fête du Flâneur

When: February 25th, 2009

Where: Melrose Triangle Building, 1531 Melrose Ave, Seattle (On Capital Hill between Pike and Pine Streets just East of the freeway. click for map)

VIP Reception: 6:00 pm – 6:30 pm

  • With Special Guests: Mayor Mike McGinn, Deputy Mayor Darryl Smith and City Council Member Mike O’Brien
  • VIP Tickets: $145.00
  • Includes all drinks

General Admission: 6:30 pm – 9:00 pm

  • Open to the Pulbic
  • General Admission Tickets: $45.00
  • Includes one drink

Event Details

  • 6:00 – 6:30 pm VIP reception with Great City’s founder, Mayor Mike McGinn and former board members, Deputy Mayor
  • Darryl Smith and Council member Mike O’Brien
  • Silent Auction
  • Inspired art and DIY costumes
  • Performance Art
  • An address by Mayor Mike McGinn
  • Overview of Great City’s 2010 Work Plan
  • Hosted bar and snacks

Included in the evenings program will be:

The “Fete du Flâneur” takes its inspiration from a mid-19th Century movement in Paris which celebrated walking the city and reveling in the street life. Here in Seattle, we have an opportunity to make our streets engaging and active for walkers, bikers, shoppers, school children, and everyone in between – the flâneur movement has arrived!

TO PURCHASE TICKETS, CLICK HERE


Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Final Answer on the Seattle Mayoral: "The Lesson Learned"

Erica C. Barnett (Publicola):
Here are a few highlight quotes from PubliCola’s post-election forum at Del Rey last night, where the chief strategists for Team Mallahan and Team McGinn gave a packed room a candid look inside this year’s mayoral campaign.
(The Seattle Times, P-I, Seattle Weekly, the Stranger, and … The Oregonian?? all filed their own reports about our event this morning.)

On post-primary strategy:

McGinn strategist Bill Broadhead: Our first strategy was to start working with the Seattle establishment. We thought maybe winning the primary would make us a little more credible in their eyes. We spent maybe two weeks … calling the usual suspects, and it was pretty cold out there. … Then the strategy was to win with no money and no endorsements.

Mallahan strategist Jason Bennett: Coming out of the primary, we didn’t have any endorsements either. … The media’s perspective was, “Oh shit, what have we [voters] done?,” and that was the narrative for about a week and a half while Ed [Murray] was sort of floating balloons about whether or not he was going to do a write-in campaign. … We worked really hard to try to prevent Ed from jumping in. …

Mallahan strategist Jason Bennett

Mallahan strategist Jason Bennett at Del Rey last night.

Then, because the narrative of the previous week had been about the lack of experience of these two guys who had never held elected office before, our goal was to try to be perceived as the experienced candidate and pursue the endorsements.

Mallahan spokeswoman Charla Neuman: I had reporters say, “Oh, it seemed like you guys went silent” because we were so vocal before the primary and then right after the primary [people] felt like we kind of went underground. And there is some truth to that. … We spent time … at what Joe liked to call Mayor School.

About McGinn’s “evolving” position on the waterfront tunnel (although stopping the tunnel was initially McGinn’s key campaign issue, he later said he wouldn’t stand in its way, citing a nonbinding agreement between the city council and the state to build it):

Broadhead: He didn’t flip on the tunnel. The city council passed an agreement, nine to nothing, locking the city of Seattle into an agreement with the state. … One of the questions was, is this candidate a guy that understands the process? Does he understand that we’re a city of laws and agreements, and you honor agreements? Or is he just going to disregard everything in an effort to get his way?

Neuman: From everything that I’ve heard about Bill, he’s a smarter strategist than to pretend that was an accident. That was a brilliant move. Genius.

Broadhead: It was horrible politics. You don’t want two weeks out to have a headline saying, ‘[Candidate] backs away on signature issue.

Neuman: Yes, you do, when that’s what all the polls showed. …

The day that happened, I hadn’t done laundry in forever and … it was obvious, because I was wearing a black T-shirt with a Christmas tree on it. And when [McGinn's tunnel statement] happened, Joe came in and said, “Wear that T-shirt every day.” And for the first five minutes, I thought, “Yep this is my Christmas present.” Five minutes later… I thought, “this could work for him.”

Flip-flopping is an inside baseball game. And Mike McGinn is no John Kerry. He can articulate things very well. And that’s when I thought, this was genius. And yes, that’s when I started wetting my pants. I don’t think there’s a single person in here who can say with a straight face that, if there was any reason to hesitate for Mike McGinn, it was something other than him potentially wanting to obstruct moving forward with the tunnel. Anyone who was hesitant, who wanted to vote for Mike, this gave them the free pass that they needed. And anecdotally, you heard it every day after that. It was genius. Bill should take credit for it.

On each campaign’s biggest mistake:

Broadhead: This is the question that George Bush really fucked up, right? I’d say … the tone of the NRA robocall [which associated Mallahan with the pro-gun group because he didn't take a strong position on Nickels' ban on guns in city parks]. I’ll stand behind the message, [but] the tone was bad and I kind of wish we hadn’t done that.

Neuman: Biggest mistake, in my opinion … was I apparently garnered a reputation for hitting hard, I guess, during the primary particularly against Nickels, and I think that made some people uncomfortable.

During the time when he was trying to secure these endorsements… there was a vacuum that we did not fill, message-wise. We did not do a good enough job early enough to define Joe and to define Mike McGinn.

As far as the Southeast Seattle strategy … Joe was still uncomfortable being the politician. He didn’t want to seem like he was exploiting it, or using it for his own advantage. OK, it’s a campaign, you have to. So there were plenty of times when he was down there but he didn’t want to do that, to invite all the media. … During a campaign you have to promo everything. … He wanted the true relationships. He was still noble and green.

Bennett: We spent an enormous amount of time chasing McGinn on the campaign trail, and sort of reacting to stuff they were doing.

On Mallahan’s notorious lack of accessibility:

Bennett: In a loss, there’s a real propensity to try to self-preserve and say that there were these forces outside of our control or throw your candidate under the bus and we’re really conscious of trying to be perfectly honest and straightforward on this. Anybody who followed this campaign… I have to ask you if you feel like, [having watched] Joe Mallahan, putting him out there more would have been advantageous for the campaign. And whether or not that’s something that would have helped us. Then I would say that maybe it was part of our strategy not to increase the frequency with which he could be quoted.

Broadhead: Well, I’ve got to say, I didn’t expect to come here tonight and be in the role of defending Joe Mallahan. … But I think this guy did speak from the heart. He was credible out there on the stump. And quite honestly, he scared me as a candidate working on the other side. …. I think Joe is a very authentic guy. I think he got into it for the right reasons. … From my perspective, at least, the problem Joe had was that he had a movie in his mind of what running for office would be like. He’d be the outsider, business, social-justice guy that would come in and maybe clean up a corrupt system. And when Nickels lost the primary, the movie ended. And he didn’t know what to do past that point.

Neuman: The other big mistake we made in our TV, our mail, and out on the stump, is that we didn’t let Joe be Joe. … It’s tough to get Joe in a sound bite.

On how the two campaigns felt when the first returns hit on Election Night:

Broadhead: I have kind of a confession to make. I woke up this morning coming out of a dream where the election wasn’t quite in the bag. It was, like, two days before and I was like, “Oh, God, what are we going to do to nail this down? We had a vivctory party the other night—it’s going to be so embarrassing if we lose this.” And then I realized, oh, it was over. I’m still kind of having post-traumatic stress disorder.

Bennett: Yeah, we’re actually having post-traumatic stress disorder. So—sorry about your sad dream. How horrible for you.

[Editor's note: That was the funniest quote of the night.]

Neuman: Walking into election night, I thought that that was going to be our strongest night. I thought we needed to be up, because we would trickle down. So when I saw that we weren’t up, I wanted to vomit.

Bennett: Folks were like, what percentage do we have to have to feel confident of winning? And I said that we needed to have 52 percent. If we have anything less than 52, we’re toast. So the coma that was walking around on election night, that would be me, because I knew we were toast. … The primary behaved exactly like the general election for McGinn. So we knew shortly after the vote came in that we were done.

On the role of money in this year’s campaigns:

Broadhead: I think obviously it was not a deciding factor. I come out of a school of thought where you raise money, you go on TV, you do the mail, you raise points, you win the election. And this campaign was an eye-opener for me. If you gave me the choice, next cycle, of having the vote of the immigrant and refugee community in Seattle … and having, basically, the downtown checkbook, that would be a no-brainer for me. The immigrant and refugee committee … delivered votes for us.

Bennett: We knew we were never going to be able to compete on the ground game. … If you aren’t going to win on the ground campaign, you have to win on points and do the playbook that is tested and true. It is not fun to chase money, but we knew that was what we had to do.

Neuman: Even though it didn’t work out for us this time, I will always prefer having a financial advantage. I do think Seattle should rethink its $700 contribution limit. … In Seattle we pretend there’s no primary. We don’t have separate fundraising limits for the primary and general.

On whether McGinn’s grassroots strategy can be replicated successfully by another candidate:

Broadhead: There’s so many people that wish this was a one-time thing … that there was somebody behind the curtain that cast a magic spell for a few minutes and they can just go back to believing what they believed before and nothing really changed.

But I’ve got to to tell you, from someone in my position, the math has changed in Seattle. The fundamental political math has changed. And part of that is a demographic shift, part of that is a values switch, it’s a self-selecting thing of progressive voters moving to Seattle. … I think this model is open to whoever wants to follow it.

Bennett: What I hope is repeatable is that we don’t see the same six people cycling up the chain. …

The thing that wasn’t really talked about was the impact of Dow Constantine and everybody pushing the “oh, shit” button on him and pushing a great liberal, left, Seattle group out [to vote]. Referendum 71 [which Bennett also worked on] and [Initiative] 1033—we had to win those, and there was a great effort to mobilize that effort and that impacted the mayor’s race … When liberals are activated and they push the “oh shit” button, they rally together, and I think McGinn sort of benefited from that and I do think that’s replicable. I hope that’s replicable. … When liberals and progressives unite, they can make a big impact on a campaign. I hope that that’s the lesson learned.
Howie P.S.: Short story: Bennett consults for R-71 and Mallahan, R-71 (along with Dow and I-1033) pull out "Seattle liberals" who help tip it to McGinn . Oh, and Mallahan was a lousy candidate. And they didn't let "Joe be Joe" while Mike was left alone "to be Mike."

Monday, November 23, 2009

Seattle Mayoral race: the view from the insiders

Neuman and Bennett at the PubliCola event

Chris Grygiel (seattlepi.com):
"Genius."

That's how Mike McGinn's late-campaign position switch on the tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct was described Monday night by a political insider. That insider: Charla Neuman, the spokeswoman for Joe Mallahan's campaign, who spent months trying to defeat McGinn, who will become Seattle's next mayor in January.
At a lively and revealing forum at Belltown's Del Rey sponsored by PubliCola, the McGinn and Mallahan campaign leaders spoke about the just-completed election that McGinn won by a very narrow margin.

Interestingly, the most trenchant and complimentary observations about the individual campaigns came from the opposite camps. Take the question about the viaduct tunnel. Just two weeks before the Nov. 3 election, McGinn shocked many by saying he would no longer oppose the controversial, $4.2 billion tunnel replacement. McGinn made his announcement immediately after a City Council vote to move forward with the project.

McGinn campaign guru Bill Broadhead said his candidate made his statement after what he said was a surprise council vote, and McGinn wanted to emphasize he wouldn't "honor agreements."

"He didn't flip," Broadhead said.

McGinn did flip, and he flipped his way into the mayor's office, Neuman said.

"It was a brilliant move, genius," said Neuman, who added she initially thought McGinn's "flip/flop" would hurt him. "For the first five minutes, I thought, 'yep, this is my Christmas present.' Five minutes later, I thought, 'oh, fill in the blank with your favorite four-letter word.' This could really work for him. Flip-flopping is an inside baseball game. And Mike McGinn is no John Kerry, he can articulate things very well."

Neuman said McGinn's position change gave undecided voters a "free pass" to vote for him.

Other highlights from the forum:

# McGinn, the environmentalist and attorney who was shunned by the business, labor and political elite, spent time trying to woo them after he won the Aug. 18 primary. "It was pretty cold out there," Broadhead said. After they were rebuffed, the McGinn strategy was to win "with no money and no endorsements," he joked.

# Some of the Mallahan camp were terrified about a possible write-in candidacy by state Sen. Ed Murray, who represents the liberal 43rd District in Seattle. "I think both teams, were concerned about Ed Murray's write-in," said Mallahan strategist Jason Bennett. "We worked really hard to try to prevent Ed from jumping in. That was our immediate strategy after the primary."

# Mallahan, the T-Mobile executive, became the establishment candidate and that ultimately didn't help him. Also, both Neuman and Bennett said Mallahan, a notoriously unreachable candidate, was in some respects shielded from the press by the campaign. Also, Mallahan simply wasn't as good on his feet as McGinn, and that hurt them. Mallahan fared very poorly in the televised debates - "Charla and I can't be held responsible for what Joe said in the debates," Bennett joked.

# Broadhead, in perhaps the most insightful commentary about the whole election, came to Mallahan's defense. But he added that Mallahan's campaign was likely doomed when incumbent Greg Nickels was defeated in the primary.

"I know we've all been in campaigns, and Charla's right, you take the whole package. But I think this guy (Mallahan) did speak from the heart," Broadhead said. "He was credible out there on the stump, and quite honestly he scared me as a candidate working the other side. I don't know, behind the scenes, kind of what happened, but candidates don't always say the perfect thing. But if you draw a tight box around them, what you're giving up is authenticity. And authenticity is the stock and trade of politics right now. And if people don't believe you, even if you're saying the right thing, it doesn't matter. I gotta tell you, I think Joe is a very authentic guy and he got into it for the right reasons. It's obviously something he thought about for a long time. From my perspective, the problem Joe had in this thing is he had a movie in his mind of what running for office would be like. He'd be the outsider, business, social justice guy and come in and clean up a corrupt system.
When Nickels lost the primary, the movie ended. He didn't know...it didn't feel right to him...it was a guy living a movie that wasn't right for him."
Emily Heffter (Seattle Times)
In a post-election confession session Monday night at a Belltown bar, the chief strategists from Joe Mallahan's failed mayoral campaign portrayed their candidate as overly altruistic and so unable to stay on message that they hid him from the public.
Speaking frankly to a room full of people at a forum sponsored by the political blog PubliCola, consultant Jason Bennett said he doubted anyone who watched the campaign could seriously suggest that Mallahan should have spent more time in the public eye.

"I would say it was part of our strategy, not to put him out there more often," he said.

Mallahan was uncomfortable promoting himself and thought out loud too much, said his campaign consultant, Charla Neuman.

On the winning side, Mike McGinn's campaign consultant, Bill Broadhead, said he regretted the tone of a controversial robo-call the campaign made alleging that Mallahan was aligned with the National Rifle Association and wanted it to be legal for people to take guns to parks.

"I kind of wish we hadn't done that," he said.

And Broadhead revealed that after the primary, the campaign sought endorsements from labor and business groups, hoping that by winning the primary, they would have earned credibility among Seattle's power elite.

"It was pretty cold out there," Broadhead said, and added: "Then the strategy was to win with no money and no endorsements."

Later in the campaign, McGinn bashed Mallahan for taking donations from big labor and business.

Mallahan's consultants dished about the candidate's post-primary disappearance, when they were putting him through what the campaign called "mayor school," trying to get him up to speed on issues.

McGinn's consultant said a volunteer took McGinn to the Nordstrom Rack 30 minutes before the KING 5 debate to buy the sometimes sloppily dressed candidate a new red tie.

In the end, both campaigns said it came down to authenticity.

"We didn't let Joe be Joe," Neuman said.
Broadhead said the campaign never urged McGinn to shave his beard or speak through a spokesperson.

"If you draw a box around them, then what you give up is authenticity, and authenticity is the stock and trade of politics right now," he said.
Howie P.S.: I got there a little after six and the place was so packed I turned around and went back home.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

"Late Returns" (Seattle mayoral election)

Grant Cogswell (The Stranger):
How Mike McGinn Broke the Seattle Machine—and Why the City Will Never Be the Same--When you've fought every day for 10 years to turn a map you and a friend drew at a kitchen table into a $2 billion transit agency, and volunteered and done strategy for two winning underdog city council campaigns, and then run for city council yourself and nearly made it—to say nothing of half a dozen city and county ballot initiatives you've run, the first of which was called the region's biggest political upheaval of the decade on the cover of the Sunday New York Times—and in the end you lost most of your battles against WaMu or Paul Allen or the state or the Seahawks or the Mariners and had the gain sucked out of those battles you won, you know a couple things, or more precisely one thing: You know that the fix is usually in.
And you get pretty good at calling races.

In the mid-1990s, the city seemed to know the planet was being ruined. Friends complained about the clueless mall-walkers that downtown filled up with once the single-occupancy hotels were pushed out and Nordstrom got its taxpayer-funded garage, but these same friends way too often didn't vote. Meanwhile, many of those who were politically engaged suffered the curse of progressive America, stuck in an outdated cultural rebellion that seemed to lay up indulgences for later compromise. By the time I finally left town three years ago, I thought the stupidity of this city was irrepressible, its progressivism a pose—irony of ironies being Greg Nickels killing a transit system and rubber-stamping a freeway at home as he went junketing with his global-warming crusade and built a career as an environmentalist on the national scene. (Watch him drop this crusade like a hot potato now that he has no future in office- seeking.) The politicos who flew the green banner proudest and still managed to win used it as cover to go along to get along or fight progress (I'm talking to you, council president Richard Conlin, instrumental in putting the knives into the monorail agency and backing the viaduct replacement tunnel right up to leading the 9–0 council approval last month). Saying you "support the environment" was like putting a 100 percent hemp Free Tibet sticker on the bumper of your car. You didn't have to really do a fucking thing.

The mayor's race this year seemed no change, equally hopeless. The characters in the primary: Nickels, under threat for killing the monorail or losing the Sonics, whichever pisses you off most and if it's both call me, we'll have a beer; a no-chance-Charlie named Mike McGinn whom The Stranger was backing—been there, dude; a random sports figure; a city councilwoman who I'd always liked personally because she's fun to drink with but who ran as the Downtown Seattle Association's best friend; and a cell-phone exec who looked like a cell-phone exec and proved to be the most entertaining candidate in the race, a train wreck of pro-business bromides and ill-advised shout-outs (he kept repeating that he proudly hailed from suburban Everett, "the Pearl of the [sic] Puget Sound," without the slightest clue this might be the wrong thing to say). After Nickels's hemorrhage in the primary—the severity of which no one had predicted and which could have been about his grab-it-all style, the Sonics, his relationship with neighborhoods, his faux environmentalism, the two weeks the city spent snowed in last winter after which he comically overrated his performance ("I give myself a B"), or all of the above—the cell-phone exec, Joe Mallahan, became the front-runner and the old establishment lined up to support him. McGinn's lead role in beating the roads-and-transit campaign two years ago was downplayed to invisibility among the people who "matter"—despite the impressiveness of his going up against the mainstream environmental organizations that were crying that transit couldn't win an election without being bundled with more roads, and then proving them wrong.

I came back to Seattle this summer to write and raise money to produce a film, not very interested in the mayor's race. Of course I hoped McGinn would win. But I didn't care much, didn't think it would ever happen, wasn't going to let myself get heartbroken again. I worked on Nick Licata's first campaign 12 years ago, and our post-campaign vacation (courtesy of the candidate) to Mexico was my first journey to the country I would later make my home. Mexico is warm, in every sense of the word. Seattle's uptight Puritan New England/ Scandinavian Protestant soul is intensified by winter depression, cold weather, the rain—all reasons I can no longer live here year-round, and why (I believe) the Northwest has made the greatest doomy art in America since the tales of Hawthorne, and why its cultural heroes die so young. You can't talk about Seattle without talking about the weather, and you can't go away and then come back without noting that it makes everyone here a little crazy.

For a week, I helped prepare for a McGinn fundraiser a friend held in the middle of October. Two years fighting cancer had left him with hundreds of pounds of pine needles in his gutters and walks; rain had rotted the wooden steps. I was doing it for my friend, because he cared, and because he had let me crash in his spare bedroom for weeks—not out of any passion for the cause. I wove a dozen strings of Christmas lights across the shrubbery to lead the hundreds we expected up the dark cul-de-sac from the cross street. The organizers arrived to a ship's canteen of food but booze for only perhaps 70—we could run for more. A dozen people trickled in. Then it was more like 20. Then about 30. After an hour or two had passed and the party was tilting past its peak, McGinn, who had been waiting for more folks to show up, spoke. In the old days, this party (good people, great food, hardly anyone there) would have signified his death as a candidate. He had a muddled message that night (I stopped listening halfway through), one-third of his opponent's war chest, and zero air of inevitability.

Sad and by now drunk, I sidled up to an earnest Licata staffer, and we both spoke at once—whispering so our voices wouldn't echo across the (empty) parquet floor: "It's not gonna happen." Around this time, I had run into a man at a Georgetown bar who was on the board of Yes for Seattle when I was its executive director at the beginning of the decade. Back then, a handful of plucky young enviros from campaign shops and nonprofits considered a short-lived "initiative factory" a viable strategy for greening the city a summer at a time. But things had changed. "Remember how much we cared about this city?" my friend said with a smile. "Isn't that just worlds away now?" I agreed and thought about how we sounded like the old hippies who'd cut their hair and sold out back when we started this war against their complacency.

It was painful to watch McGinn campaigning, because his agenda was exactly the one I fronted when I ran for city council in 2001 (plus consultants and savvy calculation). I hung back at the McGinn event, moved chairs, dimmed the lights when asked, ate sitting down, drank heavily. The candidate and I found ourselves going for the red beans and rice at the same time—we had never met before—and he recognized me, grinned broadly, and shook my hand. He said, "You've been through all this" or "You kind of laid the template for this" or "You helped us get here"—I would like to remember what exactly, but I could barely concentrate on what he was saying. I kept thinking about energy and idealism and hope and young hearts being thrown against this immovable thing. Wasted time. I could barely speak. He was nice. He was going to lose.

But there were things going on that I did not see.

The Tunnel (it should be capitalized, because if it goes through it will be the crowning disaster of this city for the next generation) is a monster born of compromise: $4.2 billion authorized by the state legislature would remove the viaduct and rebuild the seawall and Alaskan Way, replacing the state highway underground—on the condition that cost overruns are paid by the citizens of Seattle. Megaprojects, especially ones underground, always have cost overruns, Boston's Big Dig being the chief recent American example. But in Boston's defense, that project undid a snarl of highways to open up a most unique city's divided heart, on arguably the most vital road corridor in the world, I-95. The Alaskan Way Viaduct, by contrast, according to the Washington State Department of Transportation, carries only double the volume of traffic that runs every day on North 45th Street. That's all! To transfer a small ribbon of harborside roadway deep underground, everything else the city taxpayers cover—buses, libraries, parks, bond issues for schools and low-income housing, habitat restoration, parades, the arts, the homeless—is to be put at risk.

The rural GOP state reps—with the compliance of most of their ludicrously retrogressive Democratic state colleagues from Seattle—are willing to put up billions for the highway but not one cent for the reclamation of what might be the most scenic urban shore in America. We are on the hook for that, because the city's consensus- by-default in last year's election was to remove the viaduct without replacing it on the shore. And two weeks before the election, breathing the thin air of the Nickels administration, the city council voted unanimously to approve the deep-bore tunnel (in terms of engineering, the same technology that connects, say, Denmark to Sweden, or Manhattan to New Jersey) without opposition even from my old ally Nick Licata: His patch-up idea for the viaduct—strong on wishful engineering—was neither lovely enough for those wanting an open waterfront nor lucrative enough for the unions and construction lobbyists who finally got their way with Nickels and the council. (Steadfastly progressive on all other issues, Licata is understandably devoted to traffic separation due to an accident in which his stepson, a pedestrian, was tragically injured several years ago, and perhaps, in his unwavering allegiance to the less fortunate, believes the mad myth that the "poor" or "working class" depend on cars. Only 800 million of the six billion people on earth have access to a car: They're not the poor ones.)

And renowned environmentalist and new council president Richard Conlin? Except for his rare foray into real environmental advocacy on the ill-fated plastic-bag tax, Conlin, a characteristic light-green Seattle politician, has always been careful not to expose his flanks to conservative attacks or provide more than scant justification for his self-applied green label. While priding himself on deck-chair-rearranging legislation like the ordinance legalizing pygmy goats within city limits, he was instrumental in the slow assassination of the monorail project by Nickels, developer Martin Selig, and WaMu CEO Kerry Killinger—along with a rich supporting cast of real-estate barons; crypto-racist NIMBYs from Crown Hill block-watch groups, carefully phrasing their opposition to "outsiders" coming into their neighborhood; and well- intentioned light-rail true believers happy to let transit take a lifetime to get built. I suspect—after prolonged exposure to these people—Conlin's soft-enviro supporters are attracted more to what they hope he might be than what he is, with scant evidence beyond a yogic poise and goateed, unflappable calm that he is one of them. This year, a campaign as strong as council member–elect Mike O'Brien's would have dusted him.

It remains to be seen how hard the new council president will fight for the tunnel. You have to hope that McGinn's promised acquiescence to the council's decision begs a movement like the one that stopped plans for the Arboretum-destroying R.H. Thomson Expressway in the 1960s. No project since then here has been so stupid. There is no other word for it. It's not just the tunnel's concrete and the cars, the lack of exits downtown, the sprawl-multiplying effect, and the elitist gold-plated highway for drivers and the slow bus for the poor. If this were a transit system—$2 billion for 1.7 miles, not even counting the inevitable overruns—it would be a bad idea. In fact, it would be laughed out of existence. My darkest mind says if McGinn won only after accepting the eventuality of a tunnel, then what I decided four years ago after Nickels undermined the monorail is true: There is not a majority of voters in Seattle serious about sprawl; salmon-killing, orca-poisoning runoff; social justice; and climate change—and our "eco-consciousness" will continue as a back-and-forth shuffle of half-measures and corrections, a sham of image and self-regard. And something else: As I've aged, I've changed a little. I understand my Republican friends from high school who want to hunker down in their suburban homes in Texas and Florida, make their kids comfortable and safe, cook really good dinners, and ignore the fate of the world—but they don't act like they are any better than they are.

Of course, the state legislation promising to hold Seattle responsible for any cost overruns is still fungible: Conlin—elevated to quite undeserved hero status in a recent feature in The Stranger—is on the record, along with McGinn, calling it unacceptable. They may get out of it just by treading water while this nightmare project kills itself. A tunnel entirely on the state's tab is hardly, as the conventional wisdom would suggest, a "done deal." Mayor Nickels has characteristically done his best to hide the bad news. Studies show drivers—maybe up to 40 percent of them—will avoid the tolls the tunnel will have and take surface streets, in the absence of fixes to the downtown street grid, which won't have been made because of the cost of the tunnel. People's Waterfront Coalition chair Cary Moon says, "There is unlikely to be a single bomb that sinks the deal, but an accumulation of risks and negative impacts that may capsize it at any time." And that infamous breeding ground of lawsuits, the environmental impact statement, hasn't been done yet, and it'll be a doozy—probably a decade of construction shutting down either end of the city center, a tunnel mouth under a national historic district, and more traffic on the roads (because planners are finally discovering increasing road capacity in turn creates traffic to fill it). All for twice the traffic on 45th, people.

The 9–0 council vote boggles the mind, but I was not surprised when McGinn gave a brief sidewalk interview immediately thereafter, expressing his intention to enforce the laws of the City of Seattle or some such soft capitulation. This was business as usual. What was the point of playing nice if you were just going to get the pants beaten off you anyway? The mayor-elect's hired consultants, the Mercury Group—who came out of nowhere two years ago to strategize McGinn and O'Brien's campaign against the roads-heavy, transit-light RTID—might have known what they were doing all along, or perhaps were just lucky, or perhaps were the beneficiaries of a late pivot on McGinn's part that no one on the outside saw coming. McGinn's politically unwise opposition to the deep-bore tunnel under downtown was turned to his benefit with a parsing Mallahan could not only not have made but probably didn't understand either. It allowed McGinn to sound reasonable (We won't drag this out forever Seattle-style) without stepping away from his principled opposition. It was no longer the viability of that opposition that was the focus, but the heart, the sense—sort of like the monorail movement without the agency, the contractors, the condemned blocks, the weirdos for and the wackos against—minus the unpleasant and messy difficulty, the endless dead-end corridors of Nickels's vaunted "Seattle Way" itself.

The election of a mayor here is as much about theme as city business: Norm Rice (mayor from 1990 to 1997) proved to America that a nice African American without too much style could win a white-majority town's approval; developer Paul Schell (1998 to 2001) was the perfect regent for the city's dot-com gilded age and wore the finest suits I've ever seen on a man; Nickels, who came after Schell, was fat and bought his suits from JCPenney or something, his election largely a reaction to the caviar scent of his unlucky predecessor. Nickels was a pure pol, dropping out of college to work for Rice on the council and hailing from West Seattle, where the 1950s seemed to last to the final years of the century. His Seattle Way was an elevation of process and a bow to thousands of volunteers who had spent years negotiating never-to-be-followed neighborhood plans and bought his bullshit hook, line, and sinker. His execution of this style took place in classic backroom deals and bullying, a Machiavellian level of information control: Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis was quickly nicknamed "the Shark" and reveled in the moniker. The theme by 2009, however, was that process had ruined our chance to build the West Coast's Central Park, instead ceding the whole neighborhood to billionaire Paul Allen; had lost us the Sonics; had worn everybody down until the establishment got the answer it wanted on the monorail; and didn't show up when it snowed for two weeks and business froze to a standstill.

Nickels rose through the system on the hidebound and conservative Democratic district organizations—in a city as Democratic as Seattle, power seekers who would be Republicans anywhere else learn to wear the costume. But the Howard Dean campaign in 2004—and then the Barack Obama campaign in 2008—brought out young and earnest people eager to learn the organizational ropes, people for whom (bless their little hearts) it was fresh. A bland establishment candidate like Mallahan found no safe purchase there. Before Facebook, the pyramid scheme of campaign influence involved mostly political consultants and PR firms and boards of not-too-concerned citizenry and economic development groups and the unions. When I ran, the radical, immigrant-driven unions that have reenergized the labor movement for the past decade had just begun their resurgence. McGinn won the support of the upstarts representing the truly low-income service industry, grocery and hotel workers and janitors, who have nothing to lose.

A decade ago, in Seattle politics, union meant the middle-class unions: the building trades and longshoremen, the firefighters, the police, teachers, and the umbrella (shifted left by recent chair and McGinn supporter Steve Williamson) of the King County Labor Council. Campaigns were afraid to print their own materials—which makes the most sense for a low-budget grassroots campaign—because a crucial secret handshake was the tiny union "bug" on campaign literature printed by a union shop, a matter of protocol that rendered labor's true ideological allies indistinguishable and gave accreditation to anyone who could afford it. Most of these organizations, it goes without saying, endorsed McGinn's opponent this year, as they endorsed mine.

The Municipal League does not endorse but gives individual assessments: Ludicrously, Mallahan, an irregular voter with a nearly nonexistent history of real civic engagement, got top marks ("Outstanding"), while McGinn rated "Good" (the "fuck you" of Muni League rankings). The spineless Washington Conservation Voters has consistently hedged its bets and threw its strong name recognition behind establishment candidates, while the Sierra Club, from which both McGinn and O'Brien sprang, was usually willing to take the risk of supporting candidates who backed an actual pro-environmental agenda, and for this it was considered "fringe." At the top of the power pyramid, fed credibility from below, lay the papers: the Seattle Times and the late Seattle Post-Intelligencer. When they were both still in physical existence and were both making endorsements (the online remnant of the P-I no longer does), they bolstered the authority of each other, the Times' suburban-oriented right-wing editorial board tipping city folk to listen to the P-I, the presence of which softened the umbrage with which the Times' views are now received.

What the papers gave to all this was a daily check-in on the conventional wisdom, and most of what made a candidate win was whether the establishment believed as a whole that he or she could or would win. Without the counterbalance of the P-I this time, the Times' pro-Bush, pro-Hutchison editorial page had no credibility with the voting public. Its editorial writer covering city races, the haughty Joni Balter, is the apotheosis of the Seattle false liberal, making ad hominem attacks on individual council members for their riskier efforts (Licata is a favorite target) with a strongly discernible scent of classism. It is refreshing to see the power of Balter—whom I have witnessed use the presence of her children as a human shield from being taken to task in a public forum—diminish to a shrill sound in the wilderness as far as city politics are concerned. The papers came out every single day; now, sources of information have scattered and require heightened attention.

Information moves faster these days, but is polyglot: Judgment comes slow. The surprising development in this age when high schoolers call handwriting "cursive" is that noncentralized information spurs independent thought. And pollsters still don't reach cell phones. As the actress Parker Posey has pointed out, the crucial thing to remember about the internet is it is not real: When it throws a bad vibe, gets dirty or smelly, insults you or shouts too much, you can click it into oblivion and drown the offending opinion in the fulsome flood of its worldwide web. But you cannot close out a recurring mood or a common dream, and this is why the internet has changed the way democracy works—maybe for the rest of human history.

Like Nickels in 2001, McGinn was in Southeast Seattle late in the campaign, speaking to community groups and churches, his words being translated into Vietnamese and Spanish, Lao and Amharic, the languages of Seattle's newest newcomers. The presence of volunteers drawn aboard during these pit stops gave the venue of his very brief acceptance speech, at the campaign's secondary headquarters off Rainier Avenue and Othello Street, a truly international flavor the night the final results came in. One senses that this actual contact and received help, rather than the usual name-check pandering, will bring these communities deeper into the city's social fabric and power structure. McGinn—and this is perhaps why the pundits as well as most casual observers rated his chances of victory so low—has a way of doing three or four things at once when it looks like he's doing nothing at all.

Among the people in the room for McGinn's acceptance speech that night was Aaron Pickus, the 23-year-old media-relations coordinator for the mayor-elect. A recent college grad (double major in linguistics and political science), he fell into the campaign when he found himself with extra time between his part-time shifts at a radiology clinic. He is so far from the ordinary portrait of an inner-circle city staffer— which he will almost certainly become, after landing a job in McGinn's transition team—that it's wonderfully, joyously laughable. (Pickus was once an intern at The Stranger.) When he returned my call on the weekend before the final tally came in, he was polite and humble. He confirmed for me what I believed had a crucial role in this campaign—the presence, early and wide, McGinn established on Facebook and Twitter. I am a Facebook junkie, but I have never explored Twitter. Tweets were effective for announcing volunteer opportunities and keeping people abreast of developments in the race. But Facebook, Pickus says, "took on a life of its own, with people commenting, tossing up ideas. It was a kind of nonscientific, rolling poll, a 24-hour town hall."

The primary, from a distance, appeared to be a fluke when McGinn came out on top. But look a little deeper: Mallahan, after dropping more than two hundred grand of his own money into his coffers, spent $12.03 for every one of his primary votes; McGinn spent $2.03. Which was a good thing, because Mallahan was poised from the start to raise the big money. He ended up laying down three times McGinn's total expenditure, and losing: McGinn's cost per vote in the general election only went up two cents, to $2.05. Cleve Stockmeyer, an attorney and activist I befriended in the monorail fight and a founder of the nascent Transit Riders Union, puts it this way: "Here's the new math: Mallahan had about 400 $700 donors on average"—the maximum legal individual contribution. "McGinn had about 700 volunteers, 300 of them hardcore. You spend about six months with a Colby Underwood [Mallahan's fundraiser, formerly Nickels's fundraiser] on the phone, massaging those checks out of the people who write them. Everybody knows who they are—there are only about 4,000 of those people. Seven hundred dollars buys you about 2,000 pieces of mail. Or you can just go on Facebook and rely on networks that already exist, that will respond or not to your ideas, and reach at least that many people. So one volunteer is worth one maxed-out donor." Except more than that, because Pickus tells me that McGinn had only about 250 active volunteers.

Election night I ended up—briefly—at McGinn's party on the corner of Pike Street and Harvard Avenue at the Cold-War- nostalgia-themed nightclub the War Room. Most of the people there, 200 perhaps, were in their early and mid-20s. I saw Marco Lowe, Nickels's one-time campaign manager and aide—also 23 when he ran Nickels's first mayoral run but the opposite of an Aaron Pickus. Lowe was wandering alone through the McGinn victory party, unrecognized by most. He must have been there as a supporter. If so, good for him. But the look on his face said he saw the destruction of all that a few thousand people—comfortable, well-connected people who had long compromised themselves and fed great swaths of their lives to the machine—had once planned.

Two nights later, I attended an art opening at Lawrimore Project in the International District for the ingenious and extremely civic art collective SuttonBeresCuller. Walking through the crowd—which felt more like a house party, as events at Lawrimore always do—I did an unscientific poll. Everyone I spoke to was for McGinn, some ecstatic with hope for the city's future. Even the less politically engaged were drawn to him: Eric Fredericksen, curator of the Sodo gallery Western Bridge, said he didn't have time to pay very much attention to the campaign, but saw "a man on a bike, and that really said something to me."

My business partner, the film director Daniel Gildark, told me once—about the worst of the monorail opponents—that there are some people who simply thrive on destroying things, on tearing good and careful efforts down. I recall these foaming goons when they would stalk into the Seattle Monorail Project offices to testify at the agency's public hearings, moving with spitting contempt past the models and images of our dream. That energy—a version of it—will serve the fight against the tunnel. But it is a destructive energy, souring all it touches, and even if and when a groundswell rises to carry their critique of the tunnel project into the mayor's mouth and onto the TV and computer screen (Nickels worked this against the monorail—merely repeating its opponents' distortions catapulted them to the front page), it is vital that the mayor's agenda avoids being swept up in a negation. The possibilities now are too great, and to lose them to a huge distraction—well, it would be better to stand apart, let the fools build their tunnel and let them take the blame when it's half-done and the bill come due.

Of course, the question under every progressive campaign from Obama down to McGinn is when and to what degree will those brave challenges be compromised, played game to larger goals or mere tenure. Let's hope that's not what happens. My heartbeat is steady. As the artist Ben Beres said to me the Thursday after the election, when the outcome of the mayor's race was still uncertain (though not Mike O'Brien's victory, or Pete Holmes's, or Dow Constantine's, to say nothing of Tim Eyman's long-due trouncing or Nick Licata's win of a fourth term over his strongest challenger yet): "This is kind of the greatest thing ever for Seattle."

Under McGinn, Seattle might actually become what it has long liked to think of itself as: a grassroots democracy; a city dedicated to environmental stewardship; young, smart, progressive. I would like to think—it would help me to feel better about the course my life has taken—that McGinn's victory is an aftereffect, at least in part, of the years of work Moon, Stockmeyer, Licata, Dick Falkenbury, Peter Sherwin, Pam Johnson, Knoll Lowney, and I put in. Except that, thanks to time, circumstance, technological change, and a new generation to whom the crisis at hand is plain as day, McGinn actually pulled it off. It might be possible that in the next 8—or 12, or 24—years, we could see a network of bike lanes and paths more extensive than any in the world; sidewalks in the North End; covered bus stops and public restrooms; affordable housing; sustainable jobs; less glitzy shit and more places that honor the pedestrian; a waterfront for human beings where we can look out on the finest urban sunset on earth, hearing and smelling the Salish Sea and meeting its denizens; a rail network connecting with fast buses to form a comprehensive and regular system of regional and local public transit; schools that are the envy of the nation (and a courthouse that doesn't send nonviolent offenders into that darkest stain on our national conscience, the privatized American gulag); clean runoff and plentiful, healthy salmon in Lake Washington; pleasant density here and wild country outside the city; street life (music, street food, arcades for shelter from the rain, skateboarders, etc.).

I'm only back in town long enough to pull together a budget for a feature film—a dark romantic comedy I wrote about Ukrainian internet brides slated to shoot this winter in Kiev and the Crimea. McGinn says one of his first orders of business is to get a rail line along the old monorail alignment from Ballard to West Seattle on the ballot and to build it within the decade. I'm not back in the game: Being an artist is more satisfying than politics ever was, win or lose. But I am suddenly optimistic, after so long believing there was no cause for hope here, and happy for my friends who live in a city that might now begin to match their great dreams.
Howie P.S.: I'm with #15 in the comments.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

"McGinn pulling away as late ballots come in"

Jim Brunner and Emily Heffter(Seattle Times):
Mike McGinn took a decisive lead in the Seattle mayor's race Friday night, leading by 2,384 votes.

Joe Mallahan would now have to get about 54 percent of the remaining votes to catch up to McGinn.
"It'll be tough to overcome," said Charla Neuman, Mallahan's campaign spokeswoman. She said Mallahan would spend the weekend evaluating the race. "It's still within the realm of possibility," she said.

McGinn was at home Friday night and could not be reached for comment. He said late Friday afternoon that he expected to win.

"Things look really good," he said.

Just days before the election, Mallahan, a 47-year-old T-Mobile vice president, appeared poised to win. He was leading in the polls, had raised more than three times as much money as McGinn, and was supported by the city's political and civic leaders.

But McGinn's volunteer-run campaign had held 25 town-hall meetings around Seattle and focused on gaining votes in Southeast Seattle, where Mayor Greg Nickels took most of the votes in the primary. McGinn picked up support from a number of immigrant communities there.

McGinn, 49, is an attorney and former Sierra Club leader who quit his job at a downtown law firm two years ago to run the nonprofit he started, Great City. He rode his bike to most campaign events and passed out "Mike bikes" stickers featuring his helmet-clad head.

McGinn spent just under $3,000 a month on overhead costs, relying on volunteers, many working full time. Mallahan spent close to $35,000 a month, including about $24,000 in salaries for his staff.

Mallahan had support from state leaders, including Gov. Chris Gregoire and leading state legislators, the chairman of the Washington State Democrats, Seattle's business community, most major unions, and police and firefighters.

Neither candidate has run for office before. McGinn raised $216,123. Mallahan raised $721,620, according to the latest disclosure reports.

McGinn said Friday he felt confident after Election Night returns showed him in the lead by about 900 votes. He had expected he might be behind in early returns, he said.

As the votes continued to be tallied, his internal campaign analysis showed ballots of older voters more likely to support Mallahan were counted first, meaning the remaining votes would likely trend in McGinn's direction.

"In the primary we saw that our lead expanded with the late ballots," he said. "I think we're seeing that."

The biggest issue in the race was a planned $4.2 billion deep-bore tunnel project to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

For most of his campaign, McGinn vowed to try to stop the tunnel, but two weeks before the election, he announced he would not. He said he was forced to change his position by an Oct. 19 vote of the Seattle City Council to move forward with the tunnel project.

Mallahan seized on the reversal, calling it a "flip-flop" and running an attack ad on television.

On Thursday, Mallahan said he had expected to see votes trend in his direction as later voters were influenced by McGinn's announcement about the tunnel.

McGinn said he thinks voters understood his nuanced position on the tunnel. "I think my opponent wanted to spin it in one way or another," he said. "I think Seattle voters are pretty smart."
King County Elections will release more vote totals Monday. Officials estimate about 80,000 ballots are left to tally countywide, which would mean about 30,000 in Seattle.
Howie P.S.: Chris Grygiel's seattlepi.com story adds this important detail:
McGinn...now leads by 2,384 votes - well outside the margin for a mandatory recount, according to the latest results posted Friday evening.

Friday, November 06, 2009

"The Latest in the Mayor’s Race"

Erica C. Barnett (Publicola):
These numbers represent the majority of the votes that are going to come in today (a second drop is expected later tonight):

Mike McGinn: 75,657 49.99 percent

Joe Mallahan: 74,448 49.19 percent

That’s a margin of 1,209—significantly wider than yesterday’s 515-vote gap, and a gain of 694 votes.

The latest count is skewing hard toward McGinn, indicating a possible late surge: 51.36 to 47.96.

I’ve got calls out to McGinn and the Mallahan camp to see what they make of the latest numbers.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

"Mallahan and McGinn — two parties, two different approaches, one ‘razor thin’ lead"

Northwest Asian Weekly:
Joe Mallahan with his wife, Carolyn, and his daughters Irina and Masha

For this off-year election, the race to the mayor’s chair was closely watched due to the fact that incumbent Greg Nickels didn’t even qualify during the primary elections. The polarizing personalities of activist-cum-politician Mike McGinn and telecomm executive Joe Mallahan also make for an interesting look at citywide politics.
Each candidate’s supporters said much of what the average voter may have already suspected — Mallahan is looking to better what’s already here in Seattle, and McGinn is looking to improve and shake the status quo.
McGinn’s party was held at the War Room, a swanky and prominent hip hop club, nestled on Capitol Hill. It’s usually frequented for its world renowned Yo Son Saturday night event.

On Tuesday’s chilly election night, however, news vans were camped outside as McGinn’s supporters and volunteers headed indoors, awaiting the results inside the club.

Most volunteers were posted in the bar, taking turns signing a print of the battle scene from “The Return of the King,” the third “Lord of the Rings” film — a gift to McGinn from his volunteers and phonebankers — stemming from a reference he made early on in the campaign.

For the people who weren’t imbibing — families and the under-21 crowd — there was the dance floor, which had a makeshift press podium and a DJ set up with a televised news broadcast right behind him. A place that’s more known for stiff drinks and wall-to-wall dancing bodies, McGinn certainly made the most of his surroundings.
Mike McGinn with his wife, Peggy Lynch (left), and his mother-in-law, Reiko Lynch (Photos by George Liu/NWAW)

When he actually arrived, McGinn was met with a flurry of reporters, cameras, and questions, and he alternated between facilitating the reporters who had camped out for the last hour and hugging and greeting his constituents and volunteers — all of whom he knew by name. Hot dogs were served instead of hors d’oeurves, cocktails instead of wine.

Ky Ong Min, 17, volunteered with McGinn’s staff as part of a school project.

“I liked his plans with the schools,” she said.

When asked if she would vote for McGinn had she been of age, she enthusiastically replied with a yes.

“This was definitely worth trying,” she said of her experience. “Two months of volunteering is better than four years of the same [thing].”

McGinn led early on. He shouted, “Thank you, Seattle!” as his supporters cheered.

While hip hop music blared from the speakers at McGinn’s party, Mallahan’s soiree at the Edgewater Hotel was considerably different.

It was a more traditional campaign event. Hors d’oeuvres were lined up on tables, while attendees ran back and forth between Mallahan’s party and Dow Constantine’s, which was two floors away.

The crowd was a bit different, too. At McGinn’s party, many of the people present were young, tattooed, and mostly white. Mallahan’s crowd was, by and large, Seattle’s working class. “Firefighters for Mallahan” signs lined the hallways, where union workers were talking business on their Bluetooths or with one another.

Though young faces were scarce, it didn’t stop people from packing the room further, beer and wine flowing every which way.

As the party continued, word had spread about McGinn’s lead, though Mallahan’s supporters didn’t seem discouraged. “The lead is razor thin,” said one man, who asked to not be identified. “I’ve seen this before, and we still have a chance to win.”

“It’s a great Seattle tradition,” Mallahan said to his supporters. “We never have any blowout campaigns. I think this thing is far from over.”

Though the position is nonpartisan, Mallahan and McGinn are both Democrats. Mallahan is a vice president at T-Mobile. McGinn is a lawyer and former head of the local Sierra Club chapter.

As of press time on Wednesday, Nov. 4, Mallahan barely trailed McGinn 49.33 percent to 49.77 percent.
This election may not be called until the end of month, after all ballots have been counted. Even then, if the results end with a narrow margin, there may be a recount.
Howie P.S.: Late Thursday results from King County: "McGinn's lead over Joe Mallahan widens to five hundred and fiftten votes" (NPI Advocate).

"Mallahan, McGinn neck and neck in Seattle mayor race"(only half the votes have been counted)

KING 5:
New numbers released Wednesday afternoon show environmentalist attorney Mike McGinn' lead over T-Mobile executive Joe Mallahan in the race to be Seattle's next mayor is shrinking.

With 47% of the expected vote counted, the numbers show McGinn leading with a mere 462 votes at 49.77% with 52,238 votes, while Mallahan has 49.33% at 51,776 . About 105,000 votes have been counted. McGinn led by 910 votes on Tuesday night.
The all mail-in election opens new questions about late night voting. Tuesday night, McGinn supporters took an unprecedented step. After the 8:15 p.m. numbers came out, they gathered ballots from voters who hadn't mailed them and drove them to a SeaTac post office, where they could be postmarked before midnight.

"Well, we kept the whole team working hard, and they worked hard right through the last minute," said McGinn.

Mallahan reacted to McGinn's late night ballot deliveries.

"I have no objection to that. I actually hadn't thought about the legal implications of acting as an agent, carrying a ballot to a polling place, but when I first heard it I thought, 'That's just good organizing,'" said Mallahan.

But it's not sitting well with Washington's secretary of state.

"What they did is legal, but I don't think it's proper," said Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed.

Reed believes mail in election laws should change.

"It is another compelling reason to change laws to say the ballots have to be in at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day," said Reed.

In the August primary, McGinn and Mallahan outpolled Mayor Greg Nickels, a two-term incumbent, after he was dogged by criticism of the city's response to a December snowstorm that paralyzed Seattle for nearly two weeks.

Neither has ever held or run for elective public office before. One major difference between the two: McGinn opposes replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel; Mallahan supports the tunnel.
The biggest difference in where the candidates stood on the plan to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. Mallahan supported it, while McGinn based his campaign on opposing it.

Some pointed to McGinn's apparent flip flop on his opposition to the tunnel, as a critical turning point in the campaign. McGinn changed from outright opposition to saying he wouldn't oppose the tunnel, but would continue to ask tough questions about the project.
Howie P.S.: More details about how the votes are being counted here: "McGinn still leads Mallahan, barely" (seattlepi.com). For more details in how both campaigns turned out late voters and some analysis of Wednesday's count, see "Only 462 votes separate candidates in mayor's race" (Seattle Times). Eye-popping quote from the Times story: "King County Elections has counted about 105,000 votes, about half the expected total."

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Poll Analysis: Seattle Mayor and King Co. Exec.

Darryl Holman is a UW professor who knows his numbers. Apparently, in order to get his Ph.D. in anthropology, he had to take a bunch of math classes in college:
Poll Analysis--Seattle Mayoral Race:
A new KING-5/Survey USA poll in the Seattle Mayoral Race was released today. This race has Mike McGinn facing off against Joe Mallahan. Just last week, a Washington Poll poll had Mallahan leading McGinn by 44% to 36% with 20% undecided. The results suggested that Mallahan had an 89.9% probability of winning.

Today’s poll of 586 people (taken over the weekend) shows a tighter race with Mallahan leading McGinn by 45% to 43%. A Monte Carlo analysis (methods) consisting of 1,000,000 simulated elections using the proportions and sample size observed in this poll shows Mallahan winning 635,831 times and McGinn winning 352,638 times. Statistically, the results are a tie. But Mallahan has a small edge with a 64.3% probability of winning; McGinn has a 35.7% probability of winning.

The distribution of election outcomes from the simulation says it better than numbers (see chart above).

The red bars on the left are Mallahan wins, and the blue bars on the right are McGinn wins.

There are a number of possible confounders here that make this extremely close race even more uncertain. Most obvious is the age discrepancy in support which The Stranger’s Eli Sanders points out may lead to some systematic (statistical) bias:

Remember, too, that SurveyUSA only reaches voters with land-lines, and that some of McGinn’s strongest support is among younger voters—who frequently only have cell phones.

Who knows….

Poll Analysis--King Co. Exec. Race:
The non-partisan King County executive race has proud Democrat Dow Constantine squaring off against bashful Republican non-partisan Susan Hutchison. Last week’s Washington Poll gave Constantine a 47% to 34% lead over Hutchison.

A new King-5/Survey USA poll released today essentially confirms last week’s findings. The poll of 614 likely or actual voters gives Constantine a 53% to 43% lead over Hutchison with 5% undecided.

As usual, I’ll use the poll numbers and sample size to assess the probability of each candidate winning (methods are given here). The Monte Carlo analysis of a million simulated elections gives Constantine 962,298 wins and Hutchison 35,378 wins. That is, the poll result provides evidence that Constantine will win Tuesday’s election with a 96.5% probability. Hutchison has a 3.5% probability of winning. Here is the distribution of outcomes from the simulated elections (see chart above).

The red bars are wins for Hutchison, and the blue bars are Constantine wins.

This is the first big test since last November’s initiative made the Executive a non-partisan position. And it sure looks like the electorate won’t be fooled by this non-partisan stuff.

Howie P.S.: As if things aren't complicated enough, here's "King County's Ballot Scanners can't handle close Mayor's race?"(Washblog).

Monday, November 02, 2009

KING 5 Poll: "Seattle mayor's race in virtual tie"

KING 5:
The race for Seattle Mayor is a virtual tie the day before the election, according to the final KING 5 News poll before votes are counted.

The poll, conducted over the weekend by SurveyUSA, has Joe Mallahan ahead of Mike McGinn, 45 percent to 43 percent, with 12 percent still undecided. With a margin of error of ± 4.1 percent, it’s anybody's race.

Neither is surprised that the race is so close.

"I've always considered this a dead heat. It's the only way to run a campaign, so we've been working hard every day, every hour of the day," said Mallahan.

"I'm just pushing, just trying to sprint through the finish line right here. Keep talking to voters. Keep reaching out to voters. Keep the spirits of the team high. So, I'm not really nervous at all," said McGinn.

Twelve days ago, Mallahan had a seven point lead. Since then, Mallahan has gained 2 percent of the vote while McGinn has gained 7 percent.

This is the first poll taken since McGinn announced he would not try to block construction of the waterfront tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Until that announcement, the tunnel issue was the most notable difference between McGinn and Mallahan.

Mallahan, a T-Mobile executive, is notably ahead among older voters, Republicans, moderates and those with higher incomes. McGinn has the advantage among younger voters, liberals and those with lower incomes.

The survey polled 586 people who have either already mailed in their ballots or those who are likely to vote.

"The Last Minute Mayor Debate: Mallahan vs. McGinn in Studio" (with audio)

KUOW, with audio (53:59):
Time's up. Ballots are due tomorrow, either by mail or in a drop–box. Still undecided on the Seattle mayor's race? Or perhaps you're seeking validation of your choice. Today — a last minute debate between Seattle mayoral candidates Joe Mallahan and Mike McGinn. Their positions on transportation, education and the budget gap have evolved over the race. Where do they stand on the day before the election? Tune in to catch their closing statements. Also, undecided voters — here's your last chance to ask questions before you fill out your ballot.
Howie P.S.: If you haven't decided by now, I doubt this will help. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Sable: "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: Covering the Seattle Mayoral Campaign Trail"

Sable (The Sable Verity):
In four short days the polls will officially close and (hopefully) signal the crowning of Seattle’s next Mayor. No on can predict what will happen; we’ll either get the business executive or the former lawyer turned environmentalist.
It’s unlikely that anything earth shattering is going to happen between now and Tuesday, though if it does, of course I’ll likely write about it.

But this post is more about what the experience has been like to cover an election of this magnitude; interacting with each campaign, the candidates, the voters, other news media and volunteers. I’ve seen what’s behind the curtain, and it’s…interestin’…

“Anyone But Him”

Well before anyone had declared their candidacy for Mayor of Seattle, just about every single community had a gripe with Mayor Greg Nickels. His past few years in office have been unimpressive at best- harmful at worst.

The power of power had gone to his head. Nickels has long since held the opinion that he can do no wrong. Even if ever admitting to doing wrong- really, he doesn’t think he ever does much of anything wrong. That attitude coupled with his ranks always closed around him and we were a city of special interests and pet projects. Nickels wasn’t dumb (though at times ignorant and unaware), he was just self-serving.

Lest we forget, he had an established relationship and direct line of communication to the White House and was respected by the O Administration and Mayors and other leaders across the country.

At home however, voters were reaching their breaking point. Besides his staff, Nickels had few relationships to fall back on. Nevertheless, in early primary season he appeared to be a shoe-in for re-election as none of the other candidates seemed either viable or safe choices.

I’d long since been critical of Nickels and had my fill when his office told me the Mayor felt he “does enough” in south Seattle, when our kids are dying in the streets (this was pre-youth violence prevention initiative). Nickels was on tv boasting about lower crime in Seattle, there were a bunch of murders in the CD and South End. Yet he said nothing. He did nothing. That was just one of dozens of issues the Mayor was late on. Then, when the Great Snow (as I call it) hit in Winter 08/09- people from across the city were lining up to hammer the final nail in Nickels’ political coffin.

Primary season was busy and it was crowded. Everyone decided to run for Mayor, even those who shouldn’t have and those who didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. This was an 8 month marathon, not a sprint- I had no intention of focusing too much writing time on all primary candidates. That said, once all the candidates were official my daily email volume kicked up a few notches. If it wasn’t press releases, it was questions from readers, or rants about something a candidate allegedly said or did and what was Sable Verity gonna do? What would she write? Who would she support? And it wasn’t just for the Mayor’s race, it was city council, school board, port, city attorney and so on.

Meanwhile, I was praying for a new Mayor. I was praying that Nickels would get his arrogant butt handed to him. And somehow…it happened.

The tide turned. Two potential candidates other than Nickels began to emerge: Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan. People were looking to vote for anyone but the Mayor, and shortly after the primary it was clear that Nickels’ time as Seattle’s Mayor was done. He was out of the race.

Everyone Wants Something

Post Obama, people are much more into politics than ever before- they saw what they were capable of doing and they are feeling their power as voters.

Everyone wanted a piece of the candidates- media, reporters, bloggers, voters, political organizations, unions, big business, small business, private organizations, religious organizations, cultural organizations, neighborhood organizations- everyone wanted their questions answered and issues addressed directly from the candidates before committing their vote or endorsement.

Having realized they voted the devil they knew out of office, people turned to these two new, unknown candidates and a wave of panic hit the city- which one of these guys is right for the job?! The answer varies based on the political temperament of the holder.

McGinn was popular with his neighbors for his knowledge of city government and how to effect change for his neighborhood, which translated into a grassroots effort up North as folks realized the potential in having one of their own hold the highest office in the city. They jumped on board his all-volunteer staff and put in work.

Their efforts were paved much in part by McGinn’s opposition to the tunnel as the replacement of the deadly AWV which runs along the waterfront. Those in opposition stood firm- they said the replacement project would cost too much money and they were looking for their champion.

McGinn was that guy.

Mallahan came out of the business world with zero name recognition. People critiqued his public speaking and often commented that he seemed out of place. It didn’t take long for Mallahan to gather his sea legs, and his campaign took off from there. He’s taken his fair share of knocks, particularly by the media. If they aren’t dissecting his comments on youth violence, or a policy held by T Mobile, or lamenting their own limited access to the candidate, they’re miffed about his media team and lack of access to the candidate.

I had countless conversations with print reporters, bloggers, editors, radio newsies- all had an experience that left them miffed with the Mallahan camp- including the 7 minute press conference post-primary. Most got over it. Others held the grudge. People are silly if they think members of the media are not biased- we’re people too, right? At times I was shocked at just how biased some members of the media are, and how seemingly personal they’d take the actions or words of a candidate or members of his camp. The best newsies check their bias, or at least use it to their advantage. The worst- they pretend to be above the sotrm, but really they’re the ones churning the waters. I gained a lot of respect for people…I lost respect for some people too.

Taking such a strong stance with the media was a risky role of the dice for the Mallahan campaign- after all, the media has the power to slant anything in any direction it likes. It was fascinating to have these conversations with colleagues and share inside info and perspectives. I had a team of go-to people to talk to, bounce ideas off of, fact check with, etc.

Getting Access

Getting access to the candidates face to face was hard- but not impossible. My plan of approach was simple: don’t stop trying. I wanted to interview both candidates because I wanted them to address issues impacting marginalized communities in Seattle. It certainly wasn’t easy. I began before the Primary to secure interviews. But even before I had anything on the calendar, I was reaching out to both campaigns.

When I reached out to the Mallahan camp to talk or work on the interview or ask a clarifying question, I got a timely reply. When I tried the same with McGinn, I got nothing.

Securing the Mallahan interview took months to finalize. It wasn’t easy, but it wasn’t hard. I emailed, I called, I reminded that I emailed and called. I turned up the heat with some tweets and fb posts and comments here on the SV. I made my case. I never presented myself as more important than the next, just a writer with a niche audience that votes. So while they were immediately- at least to my face- gung ho about an interview, putting it all together took about 4 months- about a month longer than the UW Daily worked to get their Mallahan interview (they didn’t get it and endorsed McGinn this week). Mama always said, “the squeaky wheel…”

I was squeakin’.

I absolutely felt the SV site should get interviews with both candidates simply because of the readership- you. Did I think I was going to get the interviews? (lmao) Ummmm…no. I love ya’ll, but would you have really been all that shocked if neither candidate cared to take the time? I wouldn’t have been. I had higher hopes with Mallahan than I did with McGinn because Mallahan’s camp was at least responding to me when I’d ask clarifying questions along the way. Yeah, I was pushing, and squeaking trying to get that oil- but I wasn’t holding my breath either.

Wagging the Dog

Much about campaigning for office has to do with creating the appearance of something that may or may not actually exist. But that’s the nature of the beast, so that’s what both candidates set out to do. To the undecided voters they must give the appearance of broad-based support and appeal, an understanding of the issues, a commitment to finding solutions, even temperament and a winning personality. Much of that comes down to what is commonly known as “spin”.

Looking back at my inbox I’d say McGinn spins harder than Mallahan (which doesn’t necessarily mean better). I have more press releases from McGinn in a week than from Mallahan in a month. Either McGinn really is working as hard as his press releases represent, or, his camp does a great job giving the appearance that McGinn is working really hard. Press releases, statements, plans, rebuttals, neighborhood walk-throughs, endorsements, viral videos, tv commercials, mailers, door knockers- they all add up to creating the appearance of a well wounded, politically astute candidate.

The Mallahan camp has also been clear that they don’t feel the need to advertise Joe’s every step, so they don’t. They say they’re taking a more nose-to-the-grindstone approach. Whether or not these efforts are working for either candidate will be up to the voters to decide.

Both camps are working to give the appearance of diverse support for their guy. Mallahan has an advisory board that looks like the We Are the World music video, and McGinn keeps getting his hand slapped by people who feel used. The most public incident was with Rob Holland, who is running for Port Commissioner. Holland says that while he gave the McGinn camp permission to use a photo of him and McGinn in tv ad, he didn’t understand the context of the commercial and didn’t approve of it coming across as an endorsement (this after he said he didn’t give permission at all- not cool). But Holland is not alone; there have been others.

McGinn was first to take up offices targeting the south end/minority voters will an office on MLK. He held an opening with volunteers and press. Mallahan recently opened an office on Yesler- they did not have an opening but use the space to reach voters in the CD and South of I-90.

Mallahan has worked hard to give the appearance of being a steady, strong, responsible candidate. He’s had some controversial things to say, but he’s stayed on message.

McGinn has worked hard to give the appearance of being the guy that will stand for the people, who will fight the status quo where it matters most. He highlighted this through most of his campaign by being against the tunnel as the replacement for the AWV, promising his supporters that if elected he’d stop the project. That all changed last week when he said he would not work against the tunnel saying it was the responsible thing to do if elected. That may be the case, but no one likes a flip-flopper, especially on a platform issue.

The Interviews

When the Mallahan interview came together, I was told I’d get 20 minutes to talk with him. A stupidly small amount of time that was in no way satisfactory to me. But I kept mum on it. I figured this was a tactical approach as much as a “gosh our schedule is jammed”. If the interview didn’t go well, they could cut and run at 20 minutes.

We met at his office by Lake Union. The 20 minutes came and went quickly, but the interview didn’t stop. A member of the Mallahan media team was in the room taking notes, but they never coached or guided answers or tried to censor questions. We talked for another 30 minutes.

I was genuinely engaged in what he had to say. I asked a question-he answered it. Nothing he said blew me over in a good way or a bad way. There were no real red flags. But I did notice that, while he falls into political-speak, there’s something about Mallahan that comes across- to me- as extremely authentic. I know people will swear on their grandmama’s ashes that he’s the fakest thing since Milli Vanilli, but I don’t get that energy from him. It was a simple interview. Cut and dry.

The responses were varied. Some thought he came off great, others thought he sounded like a jerk. Perfectly fine by me- it wasn’t for me to translate, it was for people to judge on their own. I didn’t do a lot of editorializing on the interview. I posted the questions in writing and his answers in audio, and added context to round things out and help it flow- but I didn’t have pom-poms out.

Prior to the Mallahan interview I’d received some ‘testy’ emails and comments from obvious anti-Mallahan folks, but nothing out of the ordinary. As soon as the Mallahan interview was posted, that all changed. First it came in the form of comments people were attempting to post to the site. Comments are moderated and we have a pretty thorough policy about what will and will not be posted- needless to say, these comments were not posted.

This went on for weeks and increased in severity over time. First I was just called things like a stupid blogger that no one cares about and who can’t spell. Then I was an Uncle Tom working for the establishment. Then I was a nigger. Then a fascist field negro. And then they took their efforts to twitter, and to the SV email box. Name calling, veiled threats (emailing me my home address), things like that. Some of it was really ignorant; some of it was really personal and hurtful. Some of it flat pissed me off.

It was disturbing to see the lengths people were willing to go to intimidate- in an effort to make me stop writing what I was writing and how I was writing it. Some used real names, others were fake- same for twitter accounts and emails to my home email (which isn’t public information). All came from the same 4 or 5 IP addresses and email accounts- of which 1 belonged to a senior McGinn volunteer who reports directly to the candidate. When it was brought to my attention that one of the people involved worked for the campaign, my heart sunk.

Here these folks were berating me for my coverage of the candidate, saying I was bought by Joe- well how does calling me names and trying to intimidate me, help me have a more rounded view of McGinn or how his supporters and volunteer staff operate on his behalf? They shot themselves in the foot with that one, completely defeating their purpose of attack.

Remember, the candidate represent the Mayor- the candidate’s staff represent what kind of people could be working in his administration- everyone knows those who work the hardest on campaigns wind up with a job if that candidate wins. That was cause for concern.

The situation about the volunteer’s involvement in the racism and intimidation was brought to McGinn’s attention and he replied “I’ll take care of it.” 3 days later a member of his campaign called me and said McGinn wanted to schedule an interview with me, so, we had our interview.

For his part, McGinn wasn’t happy. He stated clearly that harassment and intimidation were not tolerated, and I have no doubt- let me say it again for those who might need it twice- I have no doubt that Mike McGinn had nothing to do with what happened.

The volunteer who went all “rogue opp” still holds their place in the campaign.

It struck me a few days after my initial contact with McGinn that there was no apology. Let me be clear. I don’t need an apology nor was I ever looking for one. But to not even offer one, given the circumstances? I found that…telling.

My initial reaction to the entire situation of course, was to write about it. And I did. In a scathing post- now kept in my journal. I was furious that people were arrogant and supremisct enough to think that they had the right to stop me from expressing my views, to intimidate me based on my color (that’s so 1965), particularly those who did it out in the public with no shame. I went back and forth with whether or not to publish what I’d written, all of the documents and the names of those confirmed to be involved.

But it’s easy for incidents like these to get politicized, for people to rationalize and debate what did or didn’t happen, or, my favorite, talk about “intention”. You know, when people say “we’re sorry if…” and, “it wasn’t my intention…” The last thing I was going to do after being treated that way, was debate or defend what happened. Simple fact is, their conduct should never be rationalized or minimalized. Plus, writing about it only would have drawn attention away from the candidate and put it on people who really should be irrelevant- and I include myself in that group!

The emails, tweets and comments quieted down for a bit, but started up again after I posted my list of non-endorsements earlier this week. Such is the nature of politics, I suppose. For the record, I’ve had some great interactions with McGinn supporters, so, the bad apple hasn’t spoiled the bunch, as it were. Forgive and move on.

But never forget.

Back to the McGinn interview. It too was uneventful, well, except for that whole “whoa” comment that came when I asked for his personal working definition of equity. He stumbled pretty hard on that, and there was a big kerfuffle on the site in the comments about whether equity is an issue and whether McGinn’s flub should mean anything to people. I think equity is an issue in Seattle. Call me crazy.

McGinn and I met at a coffee shop. I don’t drink coffee and it was really noisy, but that’s where he wanted to meet. He was late, arriving on his bike. He had a lot to say, but sitting across from him I never made a connection. That said, I could also see the appeal that he has to people. I left unclear why he decided to run for Mayor.

If I had to compare the interviews and experiences to first dates, Joe would be the person I’d go out with again. He was on time, he was engaging, he proved to have at least minimal knowledge of things I cared about. Yeah we had a chaperone, but I’ll take a cautious chaperone- I’m an old fashioned kinda gal anyway. McGinn was late to our date, he took me someplace I didn’t particularly care to go, and he was disengaged. Sure, he went through the motions, but it felt like he only took me out because his mom made him- yanno? Oh, and he has wacky friends who don’t know how to properly, maturely express their feelings- a bit much in the drama department for me. Respectful in our interaction- not the guy I want to go out with again.

The Final Stretch

4 days left and both campaigns are scrambling to secure votes; there are many who are still undecided- one woman told me she is going to vote using the “eenie, meenie, minie, moe” method”- yeah.

McGinn has scheduled four more community forums in all 4 quadrants of the city at public libraries. Mallahan is attending some community events, include the Day of Rememberance at Greenlake on Sunday.

Many people have asked me “who is going to win”. I have no idea. I have my hopes, my suspicions, my doubts and fears and that’s it. I never put too much faith in poll numbers. We’re not going to know how this one turns out until the ballots are counted. If you’re a voter and you’re not sure about who to vote for, there’s plenty of information out there, including here on the site (some links are directly below). I would also encourage you to talk to your friends- ask them who they are voting for and why.

May the best candidate win.

Peace-

S.

More SV Election Coverage

We Don’t, But if We Did (our non-endorsements)

Deception on Your Ballot

Meet Mike McGinn

Is it Race-baiting?

It’s MLK, Not Empire Way

McGinn Misleads on Gun Law

Mallahan Upsets the Dust on Youth Violence

Meet Joe Mallahan