HorsesAss.Org

Of all the tidbits from last’s night’s post-mayoral-election consultancy tell-all, the conversation about McGinn’s tunnel “flip-flop” was the one I was looking forward to the most:

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 [would] “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.”

Huh.

And what did I write at the time?

McGinn’s admission that a 9-0 council vote (not to mention the pro-tunnel stance of the governor and the legislature) is not something a mayor is likely to overcome shows a pragmatic side that I wasn’t sure he had coming into this campaign, and should help assuage the concerns of some who feared a vote for McGinn would be a vote for gridlock, both figuratively and literally.

I’d previously argued that McGinn had “overestimated the breadth and depth of popular opposition to the tunnel,” and that if he ended up losing, this was the issue that might have done him in. So I’m feeling kinda smart right about now.

I think the tunnel has always been a much more nuanced issue than it is usually made out to be. And in the end, voters turned out to be pretty damn nuanced as well. Who’d a thunk?

A curious happening greeted my cross-country news browsing this morning as I searched for something blog-worthy in Washington state. I looked to Publicola for firsthand coverage of last night’s Publicola-sponsored, post-election face-off between McGinn consultant Bill Broadhead and Mallahan consultant Jason Bennett, but found zilch. Yet there was a link to coverage of the event smack dab on the front page of the Seattle Times web site.

Two ironies. Last year, Publicola didn’t even exist, yet it was the fleet-footed, political reporting startup that sponsored last night’s intriguing consultant confessional, not the lumbering Times. And yet, the Times scooped Publicola on covering its own event, and by a long shot.

Despite Frank Blethen’s triumphant decades-long quest to turn Seattle into a one-newspaper town, I guess a little competition can be a good thing.

UPDATE:
Oh, and there’s coverage in the P-I too. Lazy, late-sleeping, Publicola bastards.

“Bomb squad called to Bothell newspaper box Sunday morning.”

Turned out it was just the Sunday edition of the Seattle Times. Common mistake.

I flew into Philadelphia yesterday in time to watch the Eagles-Bears game with my family, one of those typically frustrating Eagles performances where they can’t seem to get any rhythm going, yet show flashes of brilliance, only to eke out an unsatisfying win or a disappointing loss in the fourth quarter.

Last night it was one of those unsatisfying wins, and in reading the headlines in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s sports section this morning I was reminded of Phillies hall of fame third baseman Mike Schmidt’s classic quip on the city’s demanding fans: “Philadelphia is the only city, where you can experience the thrill of victory and the agony of reading about it the next day.”

True to form, the Inquirer headlines were far from celebratory. “Birds claw back in fourth quarter, avoid a grisly loss.” “Stumble and fumbles mar win.” “In night air, whiff of desperation.” “Eagles lucky that Bears were worse.” Apart from the score, about the most positive thing the Philadelphia headline writers could manage was an eye-roll of a grudging acknowledgment: “At last, a comeback.”

Now compare that to the headline in the Seattle Times after the Seahawks’ thorough ass-whooping at the 40-year-old hands of Brett Favre: “Favre has masterful performance against Hawks.”

Yeah, sure, the Hawks lost 35-9, but Favre had a masterful performance, so what could they do?

My point is, if at times I come off as a little critical of our media… well… I come by it honestly. This is the way we were trained to celebrate a win, so just imagine the way Philadelphia responds to a loss. Don’t get me wrong… we love our Eagles. But it’s a tough love. A very tough love.

And as an inveterate newspaper reader, that’s exactly the same way I love the media.

Carla Axtman discusses the pitfalls of dealing with race in politics.

Last week’s contest was Placentia, CA. The winner was wes.in.wa, with an assist from Liberal Scientist, who provided this map of California oil wells.

I think the server clock on HA is off by a bit, so if this wasn’t posted exactly at noon, my apologies.

Here’s this week’s contest, good luck!

(There are more clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

With Senate Democrats securing the bare 60 votes needed to bring the healthcare reform bill to the floor for a full debate, it is important to note that had Washingtonians followed the Seattle Times advice, and elected Republican Mike McGavick over Democrat Maria Cantwell, healthcare reform would be dead. Completely and utterly dead.

So thank you, Frank Blethen, for consistently putting estate tax repeal above the welfare of your community.

I’ve been meaning to comment on David Brewster’s post-election analysis over at Crosscut — “A bad election for moderates” — but I just can’t work up the energy necessary to read it through a second time. So rather than a thorough, line-by-line fisking, I’d mostly just like to focus on the first few paragraphs.

I wish this change-election had gone further, empowering another new force: the independent center. Roping in disaffected independents is critical to resolving some of the big issues. But in most cases, the new faces from the vital center had trouble, and the electorate (and media) reverted to partisanship. What went wrong?

Start with Susan Hutchison, who bombed in her run for county executive against Dow Constantine, losing 59-41.

I’m not sure I buy Brewster’s notion that most independents are necessarily disaffected, or even that they are critical to resolving big issues, and I certainly don’t accept the existence of a partisan “electorate (and media)” as evidence that anything “went wrong.” And with Mike McGinn in the mayor’s office, and two newcomers on the city council, I don’t particularly “wish this change-election had gone further,” assuming that’s even what it was.

But the words “centrist,” “independent,” and “vital center” used in close association with the name Susan Hutchison? I mean… what the fuck?

Yeah, sure, Brewster goes on to criticize Hutchison for failing the “candor test,” but more from a strategery perspective than an ethical one.

I think her basic mistake was to rely on Dino Rossi’s aw-shucks strategy of brushing off all questions about divisive social issues, such as abortion (not a local issue, etc.) and her obvious-to-all past Republican leanings. Everyone knows, when you dodge issues like that, that you are probably on the conservative side, the less popular side, of the ledger, so nobody is really fooled.

“Probably on the conservative side”…? “Republican leanings“…? Hey David… could you throw in a few more caveats?

I thought the thesis of Brewster’s post was that this was “a bad election for moderates,” so how exactly is Hutchison’s failure to fool voters into thinking she is one, bad for Brewster’s mythical centrist voter?

But the stonewalling candidate looks inauthentic, untrustworthy, devious.

Hutchison didn’t just look inauthentic, untrustworthy and devious, she was inauthentic, untrustworthy and devious. That’s an important distinction.

It keeps the credibility issue alive in the media, enabling Constantine to win simply by charging that Hutchison was (gasp!) a Republican once.

“A Republican once“…? Yeah, like right up until the minute before she filed for a titularly nonpartisan office.

What kept the credibility issue alive in the media was Hutchison’s stunning lack of credibility. And by the way, what exactly is wrong with Constantine (gasp!) educating voters about Hutchison’s obvious-to-all Republican affiliation? Aren’t voters better served by being more informed, rather than less?

To get the independents’ vote, you have to level with them, avoid political evasions, be your authentic self.

Except, you know, when your authentic self is a far-right-wing, intelligent-design-promoting, climate-change-denying, in-bed-with-the-BIAW, ideologically rigid conservative Republican.

(Query: Can anchorpersons actually retain an authentic self after years on the banquet circuit and on the tube?)

Answer: Yes. And perhaps that helps explain why an aging Jean Enersen still has an anchor job while an aging Susan Hutchison doesn’t.

Too, Hutchison’s past, from what I can tell talking with people who knew her in unguarded moments in recent years, was quite conservative.

Again with the caveats.

She probably wasn’t going to be able to come off as a new version of Jennifer Dunn, the popular Eastside Republican congresswoman with many decidedly moderate views on education and the environment.

Jennifer Dunn wouldn’t be able to come off today as the kind of moderate Republican Brewster wistfully imagines her to be.

Not a good choice if the GOP really wants to capture the independents and the center.

“Capture” the center? And what… hold them hostage? Ship ’em off to Gitmo? Water-board them into voting Republican? Strikes me as an odd but apt turn of phrase, considering Brewster’s analysis thus far.

I agree that Hutchison was not a good choice if the GOP wants to appeal to independents and the center, but rather than attempting to capture these voters through lies and deceit, perhaps Republicans should attempt to remake their party by running and endorsing moderate, independent-minded candidates?

You can’t wish your past away, and if you don’t put those values out there, saying you’ve changed in some regards and want to build on some other beliefs you consider core, you just look false and unprepared.

Um… but what if, like Hutchison, you haven’t magically “changed in some regards” simply because the office you’re running for has recently been made officially nonpartisan? What if, like Hutchison, you are false and unprepared?

(Congressman Dave Reichert, for instance, hardly denies that he once was a sheriff.)

Huh? I think that parenthetical line is supposed to be a joke. Either that, or a sign of early onset Alzheimer’s.

The Democrats had only to warn that the “real” Hutchison (fill in the blank with whatever fears you may have) would emerge after the election. Who wants to chance that, particularly with someone so totally inexperienced?

Who would want to chance that? At last count, only 40.68% of King County voters… about the same percent that supported David Irons, a man whose mother accused him of beating her.

Which raises the question: how exactly does Brewster define the word “centrist?”

Is Brewster referring to the ideological center, a somewhat vague and fluid fulcrum between left and right, liberal and conservative, that tends to wander slightly over time? Or does he mean the electoral center, a still vague, but somewhat more quantifiable space that, in a given election, in a given jurisdiction, is large enough to hold at least a bare majority of voters?

By either definition I suppose Hutchison could accurately be described as a centrist… in, say, Lewis County, or in Alabama. But here in King County? Not so much.

Indeed in King County, it’s Dow Constantine who is the centrist, as evidenced by his ability to capture nearly 60% of the vote in a hotly contested race.

So who was this election really bad for? Not moderates. Not centrists. Not independents. It was bad for Republicans.

No doubt Brewster longs for some sort of Republican revival, whatever the label, if only to keep the local Democratic majority in check. Hell, I’m no fan of one-party rule either, and I too fear that without viable challengers from without or within, the Democratic leadership will grow fat, lazy and ineffective. But not having lived through the Dan Evans era, my political judgement isn’t clouded by a nostalgia that fails to differentiate between, say, the Bruce Chapman of then and the Bruce Chapman of today.

I’d argue that the center is alive and well in King County politics, and firmly in control of the reins of power. Both Ross Hunter and Fred Jarrett, who Brewster lauds as “highly regarded suburban moderates” would have been Republicans twenty years ago… in fact, just two years ago, Jarrett was. Now Jarrett has become the number two man in King County government, while Hunter will continue to control the House Finance Committee, from which he can effectively block the progressive tax structure reforms the more liberal wing of his caucus is quietly clamoring for. Indeed, as evidenced by their acquiescence on last session’s all-cuts budget, even the supposedly liberal Seattle legislative delegation reliably votes well to the ideological right of their constituents.

If anything, we don’t need any further checks on Seattle liberals, we need them to get up off their collective ass and deliver the economic justice and tax fairness they’ve been promising for decades. Or at least, get off their ass and try to deliver it. Trying would be a good first step.

As for Republicans, it’s not a rigidly partisan Democratic electorate that is denying them victory, even in so-called “nonpartisan” races, but rather the GOP’s own pathological slide to the far right. Had Hutchison won, based on name ID, smiles and lies, it would have done nothing to improve the GOP’s long term prospects, and nothing to serve the interests of the moderates who Brewster implies shared in Hutchison’s loss. Any Republican victory based on strategy alone will only delay the reformation the GOP needs to embrace in order to bring their party closer in line with the values of the majority of King County voters.

So if Brewster really wants to see local Republicans come back to a point of political relevance, my suggestion is that he stop coddling them. It’s not their strategy that is at fault. It’s not their lack of candor. It’s their extremist views.

And I just don’t see how the electoral loss of an extremist like Hutchison supports the thesis that this was a bad election for moderates.

Why am I drinking Mike McGinn’s wine? Because he was out of beer.

Yeah, sure, I didn’t actually work for McGinn, and in fact, I voted for Mayor Nickels in the primary. But I gave McGinn my vote in the general election, and since I don’t expect a job offer in return, and he was holding a victory party down in my neck of the woods, I thought I’d stop by and grab myself a free drink or two.

And it was quite a party, filled with folks celebrating not just a new mayor, but a new regime in which the powers that be, no longer are.

That said, there were still quite a few familiar political faces in attendance, but fortified by the good cheer of the crowd (and a little of Mike McGinn’s wine) I’m willing to give the new mayor and his supporters the benefit of the doubt. At the best, we could be on the verge of one of the most progressive and effective administrations Seattle has ever seen. At the worst, it’ll at least be fun to watch.

Cheers.

Internet Vices

Vote-by-mail advocates have long argued that the system increases voter participation, particularly in traditionally low-turnout off-year elections, and this recent general election certainly doesn’t provide any evidence to the contrary. Indeed, when compared to other cities, Seattle’s off-year turnout is simply off the charts.

HA comment thread regular N in Seattle, who also writes at Daily Kos and his own Peace Tree Farm, has painstakingly constructed a spreadsheet looking at the 43 U.S. cities with populations greater than 100,000 that held mayoral contests in November, 2009, and ranked by turnout, Washington state’s Seattle, Everett, Vancouver and Tacoma not only occupy the top four spots, but once you get past fifth place Stamford, CT’s 41.9%, the rest of the nation doesn’t even come close.

City	Pop.	Reg. Voters	Turnout
Seattle, WA	598,541	375,164	57.6%
Everett, WA	103,500	45,506	44.9%
Vancouver, WA	163,186	74,720	44.9%
Tacoma, WA	197,181	95,255	43.0%
Stamford, CT	119,303	57,304	41.9%
Toledo, OH	293,201	203,630	33.9%
Manchester, NH	108,586	58,212	32.3%
Cincinnati, OH	333,336	225,680	31.3%
Boston, MA	609,023	356,453	31.2%

The table above displays the top ten cities by mayoral race turnout in November, 2009; you can view the complete table here.

As can be seen, Seattle’s 57.6% voter turnout is simply off the charts, while even Tacoma, Washington’s poorest performing major city (and the only one without all mail-in elections) ranks far above all but Stamford. The average turnout across the 43 cities was only 23.8%, while the lowest was recorded in Durham, NC, where only 8.1% of registered voters cast ballots in a mayoral race that tossed out an incumbent.

To put this in perspective, Seattle’s population of just under 600,000 ranks 25th in the nation, yet only one city cast more ballots for mayor this November: New York, with a population of over 8.3 million. Houston TX, by comparison, with a population of over 2.3 million and a 19.1% turnout, cast only 179,000 ballots… about 37,000 less than much smaller Seattle. The level of voter participation isn’t even close.

And one can’t simply write off Seattle’s 2009 turnout as an anomaly due to contentious mayoral, county executive and ballot measure contests. In 2005, when Mayor Nickels was barely challenged by Al Runte, Seattle voters turned out at a similarly impressive 55.47% rate. And at 47.46%, even Seattle’s off-off-year 2007 turnout, with no mayoral or executive race on the ballot, would have topped the 2009 list.

In fact, at 38.6%, Seattle turned out a higher percentage of registered voters in this year’s August primary than all but one non-Washington city on the list could muster in the November general. That’s pretty damn impressive.

What explains the relatively high voter turnout in Washington state, and Seattle in particular? It would be a reach, given the data presented, to give all the credit to our vote-by-mail system, but it would be silly to ignore it as a major factor. Since 2001, as the percentage of Seattle voters casting ballots by mail has gone up, so has the turnout in comparable off-year elections. Vote-by-mail advocates promised higher turnout, and so far, that’s what we have seen.

But the turnout disparity is simply too great to attribute to vote-by-mail alone, as clearly there is something different about the political culture here that prompts greater voter participation, particularly in off-year elections. Perhaps the steady stream of ballot measures, as much as I hate them, keeps voters more engaged? And despite the lamentations of editorialists, perhaps too the interjection of partisan politics into allegedly nonpartisan races helps generate a greater level of voter interest? Or perhaps the near absence of public corruption in recent decades has failed to encourage the same level of cynicism and apathy that plagues other big cities?

Regardless, we’re clearly doing something right here compared to the rest of the nation, and that’s something of which all Washingtonians can be proud… at least, those of us who truly believe in democracy.

According to Publicola, Gov. Chris Gregoire told a Seattle audience last night that she would not accept an all-cuts budget in 2010… a 180-degree turnaround from her position heading into the difficult 2009 legislative session. What’s changed her mind?

Well, obviously, the $2.6 billion projected revenue shortfall is nearly impossible to fill in one year with less than $10 billion of discretionary spending on the chopping block, so as I wrote yesterday, some mix of cuts and revenue increases is the obvious and responsible approach to the crisis. But in another sense, nothing’s changed.

The economy was nearly as bad this time last year, and getting worse, and nearly everybody who studied the numbers understood that additional cuts would likely be needed in 2010 as revenues continued to fall. Had the governor and legislature taken a more balanced approach at that time, both the cuts and the tax increases, spread out over a full two years, could have been less severe and less disruptive.

I’m loathe to kick a gift horse in the mouth now that the governor is finally on board, but there was a failure of leadership last year — particularly from Speaker Frank Chopp and the governor — to do the right thing regardless of how unpopular it might have been with the editorial boards… and regardless of what campaign promises might have been made before anybody realized how deep the coming recession would be. Here’s hoping the Democratic leadership is willing to make up for last year’s lapse, not merely by considering some targeted tax hikes, but by allowing proponents to conduct a real debate about the merits of a high-earners income tax.

It’s not surprising, but the overwrought nature of this editorial in The Columbian is easily ascertained by reading the first sentence.

The tax-increase snake is not exactly back on the state’s budget table, but it has slithered under the door and is coiling its way up a table leg.

It goes on in that serpentine fashion for quite a while. It’s essentially an argument for making Washington another failed West Coast state, ala California and Oregon.

Digby at Hullabaloo comments on the fun they’re having in California, with protestors trapping some board of regents members in a building after they voted for a huge fee increase. One possible future, heh?

Of course, the editorial doesn’t mention that the newspaper industry just this year received a huge tax break.

The new law gives newspaper printers and publishers a 40 percent cut in the state’s main business tax. The discounted rate mirrors breaks given in years past to the Boeing Co. and the timber industry.

So the Legislature sure is on a roll mollifying Boeing and the wealthy publishers! Nothing like caving in and getting fucked anyway, it’s the Democratic Party Way.

As Digby points out, cutting government spending during a recession just makes things worse, but reflexive right-wing ideology is so ingrained in our culture after three decades of conservative stink tank bullshit that changing things seems like a hell of a mountain to climb.

Neoliberalism may be dead as a viable economic system, but its diseased zombie corpse haunts the offices of newspapers and the minds (such as they are) of those who get paid to attack the government, always and forever. You can almost envision them zombie-walking around the mall, zombie-spittle dripping from their rotted lips, droning “no unions–no taxes.” (Sorry, I tried to work a snake into the last sentence, but zombies will have to do.)

These people are nihilists of the most extreme order, and if they get their way they’ll drag all of us down with them.

Maybe it’s time we stop listening to lectures from people who fail at their businesses? The rest of us don’t want to live in a failed state, and we want basic services like schools, emergency services, parks and libraries. Our kids are going to need fantastic skills to rebuild this country, if we can ever wrest control of it from the greedy morons who nearly brought the whole thing down only a year ago.

We’re not out of the woods yet, either. If Washington adds itself to the ranks of the “Hoover” states, about the only silver lining will be that the last of the newspapers will surely go out of business.

With only a smattering of ballots left to count statewide, it is interesting to note that Seattle voters have thus far turned out a 57.56% rate, four and a half points higher than the county as a whole, and nearly seven points higher than the state average.

To put that in perspective, overwhelmingly liberal-Democratic Seattle is home to less than 10.5% of the state’s registered voters, yet accounted for nearly 12% of the 2009 general election vote. Had there been a close statewide contest, this turnout advantage certainly would have shaped the outcome.

I know we’re told that it’s the tea-partying Republicans who are supposed to be energized right now, but it didn’t turn out that way here in Washington state.