2013 Seattle Mayoral Race Thread

[Capitol Hill]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Inslee was not running against a governor who was seeking re-election. Murray would be running against a mayor seeking re-election.

So the implication is its impolite to run against McGinn because he's the incumbent? Then no current council member would be able to run against McGinn, either.

I believe Murray, Burgess, and others feel they can do a better job than McGinn. Whether or not they are currently office holders for another elected position is way down my list of concerns on their qualifications.

[mSeattle]

No. I separate Murray from City Council contenders. In Murray's case the implication is that we're losing DEM experience in Olympia at a time when the GOP-T is poised to begin making gains. Remember it's about privatizing profit and socializing pain. The real power to shape the country into this particular image is at the state level, not federal level as seen in the states that are passing "right-to-work" (a relative of union-busting), rejecting healthcare/insurance reform, or passing/protecting/rejecting civil rights, or pushing/rejecting other ALEC legislation.

As for city council members - who do not have to be accountable to anyone "on the ground" other than deep pockets - running against McGinn just follows in their stance from the beginning. They are welcome to run.

[bgwah]

Murray would be replaced by another liberal Democrat.

If he's running for Mayor then he probably knows Sheldon and Tom won't let him be majority leader.

[Capitol Hill]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

No. I separate Murray from City Council contenders. In Murray's case the implication is that we're losing DEM experience in Olympia at a time when the GOP-T is poised to begin making gains. Remember it's about privatizing profit and socializing pain. The real power to shape the country into this particular image is at the state level, not federal level as seen in the states that are passing "right-to-work" (a relative of union-busting), rejecting healthcare/insurance reform, or passing/protecting/rejecting civil rights, or pushing/rejecting other ALEC legislation.

As for city council members - who do not have to be accountable to anyone "on the ground" other than deep pockets - running against McGinn just follows in their stance from the beginning. They are welcome to run.

But my understanding of Murray running is that he feels he has a unique contribution to offer city government, and although he has a lot of institutional clout in the Senate, maybe he's just fed up with state politics. I know I sure as heck would be.

Of course, having just typed this, I do need to acknowledge that he did just run for reelection.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by bgwah

Murray would be replaced by another liberal Democrat.

If he's running for Mayor then he probably knows Sheldon and Tom won't let him be majority leader.

Maybe. Not guaranteed for long with gentrification. You can have a Log Cabin type get in there, happy that their gay rights and marriage equality are secured and start accelerating "private profit/socialized pain" in budgets, stand your ground racial/economic profiling @#$% etc...

We're leaning toward being a slightly more progressive (for the time being) "Texas".

[Capitol Hill]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Maybe. Not guaranteed for long with gentrification. You can have a Log Cabin type get in there, happy that their gay rights and marriage equality are secured and start accelerating "private profit/socialized pain" in budgets, stand your ground racial/economic profiling @#$% etc...

We're leaning toward being a slightly more progressive (for the time being) "Texas".

Check the 43rd district map:

http://www.senatedemocrats.wa.gov/se...istrictmap.htm

Do you honestly believe anybody who isn't liberal wouldn't be elected in this district?

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by Capitol Hill

Check the 43rd district map:

http://www.senatedemocrats.wa.gov/se...istrictmap.htm

Do you honestly believe anybody who isn't liberal wouldn't be elected in this district?

Are you asking "Do you believe anybody who isn't liberal would be elected..."? Are you asking "Do you believe that many residents of new and expensive housing, often moving in from the suburbs and exurbs will not be liberals"? My answer is "Yes". There may soon be some Blue-Dog corporate DEMs coming out of that district, advancing privatizing the profit and socializing the pain, not just for that district but elsewhere in the state.

[Capitol Hill]

I guess on this issue I must disagree with you. The 43rd is one of, if not the most, liberal district in Seattle. I just don't see anybody who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal winning here.

But even on the chance that someone that isn't deep navy blue wins in this district, I don't think that should be a reason for Murray not to run for Mayor. He feels that he has something to offer, and I am eager for this campaign, as I believe this mayoral race will be truly emtertaining.

[jam5]

I guess it is safe to say Sen. Ed Murray will be running for Seattle mayor, especially now that the Senate will be effectively Republican-controlled starting next month:

Democratic duo joins with GOP to shake up state Senate

By Brian M. Rosenthal
Seattle Times staff reporter

Something unprecedented happened in Olympia on Monday, but state legislative leaders disagree about whether it represents an innovative new governing model or an arrogant power grab.

Democratic State Sens. Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon announced they would create a majority power-sharing coalition with Senate Republicans, throwing control of the chamber into question.

While the new coalition pledged to start preparing for next month's session, Democratic leaders who now hold a slim majority signaled they will fight the proposal.

Tom, of Medina, and Sheldon, of Potlatch in Mason County, proposed they become the Senate's new majority leader and president pro tempore, respectively, with committee chairmanships split equally between Republicans and Democrats.

All 23 Republican senators have signed on, theoretically giving the coalition a one-vote majority in the 49-member chamber.

[jessejb]

Slimy pigs the lot of em.

[Matt the Engineer]

Originally Posted by jessejb

This is huge for me. I'd dump McGinn purely for the lack of progress on that alone.

So, you'll all be joining the McGinn campaign team now?

[Seasun]

There's a mention in this story that Steinbrueck is (was?) interested in locating the NBA arena in the Rainier Valley. I don't mind the Sodo location already preferred by the potential team owners but just out of curiosity - where could an arena possibly go in the valley? I assume near one of the few Link stations (Othello is the only only that looks to have real space) but unless he wants to displace an ethnic shopping center - I don't see a decent spot.

[Seasun]

OK I found this story about building an elevated arena near the Mt. Baker Link station. Bizarre. Peter should make sure articles about him don't mention this idea unless he's trying to appeal to obstructionist arena opponents.

Don't get me wrong - there are thousands of developable parcels (vacant and not vacant) but almost nothing of a large scale.

[mhays]

What an odd area that would be. It's way too dependent on a couple north-south avenues with very little east-west. Rail would help but not enough. It would mean less station-area density except on game days. Those who want garages next to rail stations might like it, but demand ought to be in the hundreds rather than thousands.

[alexjonlin]

What a completely awful idea. Looks like one of those endearingly anti-urban plans from the '60s you sometimes see around. All elevating things above street level does is kill the street...

[Matt the Engineer]

The Lowes in RV used to be some sort of ball field or arena. I've never paid attention, but there's a little booth in the exit lobby about the history.

I like about 0% of anything I've heard from Steinbrueck.

[Seasun]

Yeah - Sicks Stadium used to be where Lowes is. It was a big deal back in the day. My dad went there as a kid.

[jam5]

We finally have confirmation -McGinn wants another go at it:

Amid buzz about Kings sale, McGinn says he'll run again

By Lynn Thompson and Emily Heffter
Seattle Times staff reporter

Sounding more confident than combative, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced his re-election campaign in a small but crowded room at the Filipino Community Center in Southeast Seattle before an ethnically diverse group of cheering community activists, likely a peek at his strategy for re-election.

Notably absent were any of the city's political or business leaders, with the exception of City Councilmember Mike O'Brien, an old friend and fellow former Sierra Club activist who said he is impressed with McGinn's commitment to the environment and social justice.

The crowd was swelled by dozens of reporters chasing rumors of the possible purchase of the Sacramento Kings by investor Chris Hansen. McGinn worked closely with Hansen through much of the past 18 months to negotiate a deal for public financing of a new sports arena.

[bgwah]

Bgwah's useless suburbanite endorsement:

Lean McGinn for now. He's improved a lot over his first term. Steinbrueck is terrible and Burgess follows the political winds a bit more than I'd like. I like Murray but he hasn't given a good reason for running aside from having his job stolen by Rodney Tom.

[mhays]

Definitely Burgess. Though I agree McGinn has progressed from his awful start. It wasn't just the tunnel, but also his year or two of utter failure to reach consensus or nagivate any sort of collaboration on seemingly any topic.