I'm going to start an Anti-McGinn uprising for all us disaffected Mallahan supporters who are dismayed by his lack of support for The Tunnel. We'll call it Tunnel Everywhere Already and we'll throw TEA Parties.

Online, we'll tell everyone that, in spite of our dire predictions that McGinn would lose, we knew "progressives" in this city would pull this out. We were just warning everyone that McGinn would institute city-level socialism and greenwash everything for his corporate overlords.

We'll also make sure everyone is absolutely certain that in spite of our predictions that McGinn would make the city fail in the unlikely event he was elected, he's powerless against the City Council. We didn't think Mallahan would have a problem with them because he's Joe and he's the only one with wide support in this city, but McGinn will bow down to Conlin who will overstep the Separation of Powers mandated by the state constitution and city charter and rule this city with an iron fist.

So we're not worried about McGinn.

We just want to warn everyone about the socialism he's going to institute and how worried we are about McGinn. We also want to take those seditious papers that are complicit in installing this fascist to task for being the propaganda arm of his campaign. You helped fool this city, but we're smarter than that. When we see McGinn destroy this city, you'll be sorry.

Glenn Beck was right.

There can be little doubt that McGinn's last nuanced position on the tunnel was key to his success. His qualifications, pontifications, or what have you with respect to the tunnel did allow tunnel supporters to vote for him. Does is really matter if it was genius and cynical or pragmatic and honest? Either way, the strife of the issue remains. Can't wait to see the authentic drama play out.

I left the forum feeling kinda bad for Joe. It sounded like Charla and Jason ended up disliking Joe by the end of the campaign.

Classy. They probably got their final check from Mallahan that morning.

@4, @5. I was at the forum last night. I didnt feel like they dissed Joe at all. The questions asked were about mistakes they made on the campaign trail. Either they could have answered the questions honestly or given dishonest answers. Personally, I thought the honesty was refreshing.

"Charla and I can't be held responsible for what Joe said in the debates," Bennett said at the forum, which was sponsored by PubliCola at Del Rey in Belltown.

So Joe Mallahan was goin' rogue--from his own campaign.

Hey, Charla and Jason, here's a little dose of common sense you seem to be lacking. You say the more you let Mallahan talk, the worse it it was for the Mallahan campaign? Well, the more you try to rehabilitate your own images now at the expense of Joe Mallahan's image, the more petty, juvenile, and clueless it makes you look.

Well, you know what, I'll take back what I wrote @7. And I'll credit Forum attendee @6 for the perspective. It's one thing to reach out to local media to cover your own butt; it's another thing to simply give a frank answer to a question asked at a forum.

I'll take folks' word that Neuman and Bennett didn't sound like they had an ax to grind.

That said--man, he could have phrased it better than "Charla and I can't be held responsible..."

Whats really kind of amazing is that despite ostensibly being the candidate more in line with Seattle political sensibilities and running against one of the most boring and uninspired candidates we have had in a while, McGinn just barely won.

Coin flip election.

@8. It was a joke though. It was in response to a question about what Joe said at a forum. I thought it was funny...it got a good laugh in the room. It wasn't mean-spirited at all. It was light-hearted.

I actually think - as someone who helped create the image as to who the candidates were - that hiding Joe worked against his campaign.

In person, in small groups, he's very friendly and very effective, just as he was back when we volunteered at the Wallingford Wurst Festival (this is a long time back).

Never forget McGinn won by more than Obama or Gore did.

oh, and there never was a "flip-flop" - Mike was pretty consistent in what he said.

The tunnel's still dead, though.

@11: 2492 write-ins. If we gave them ALL to Mallahan, he still would have lost.

And I'll accept your prediction of McGinn's future since you probably couldn't accurately predict whether or not you'll take a breath in the next 2 minutes.

@9: 51.14% is "barely", huh?

@13: Most Mallahan supporters are unaware of the separation of powers and what McGinn's statement really meant.

I don't think I'd hire somebody with a history of stabbing clients in the back when they don't win.

@12, um no he didn't. He won by less than half of what Obama did.

@11, yeah really. I decided to exercise my right to a stupid write-in in that race.

@15. There was no stabbing in the back. Not even remotely accurate. The questions asked were about mistakes on the campaign...you either get skewered for being honest or you get skewered for being dishonest. I, and several others, preferred to know the the truth about the campaign. If anything, I got a far better impression of the campaign and saw Joe in a much better light to be honest.

It sounded to me last night that Mallahan HIMSELF hid from the press, more so than being hidden by his handlers (for instance campaigning in southeast Seattle without notifying the media).

I think Mallahan knew he was in over his head, and frankly I'm wondering if he's glad he lost...

@12: "as someone who helped create the image as to who the candidates were" -- AH HAH HAH HAH HAHA.

I voted for McGinn in the end, but you can rest assured that rumpled shirts played no part in my decision. "Authenticity"? There is nothing "authentic" about rumpled shirts and scraggly beards. Authenticity is a 100% bullshit concept.

Wait... Did I read that correctly?

Will @ 12, do you seriously believe you helped to define the respective images of the candidates? And are you unaware that Obama won by a pretty significant margin?

@22:

Blank votes, Seattle Mayor's Race 2009: 4.7% (~10,800)
Blank votes, Seattle Mayor's Race 2005: 7.4% (~14,400)
Blank votes, Seattle Mayor's Race 2001: 3.4% (~6,036)
Blank votes, Seattle Mayor's Race 1997: 4.5% (~8,900)
Average: 5%

This year's race was below average for blank votes.

@23 That's a disingenuous average. The 2005 Mayors race had a much higher percentage than the other three, so as the outlier you must dismiss it. From that, the 2009 Mayors race had the highest of the three non-outliers. If you go back farther than three samples you can have a much better average and then put 2009 into context.

@20, 21 - no, not the clothes they wore or how they spoke, the media image of what happened.

The main targets were the TV and print groups - not politically obsessed people, but the buzzwords that stuck around in people's brains.

And, bonus, I did it for free. People just repeated my very simple and short messages.

You politicos all incorrectly assume that long wordy messages resound with voters - they don't. It's all short things that bounce around inside their brain that they repeat as if its true.

Turning the anti-tax people against Mallahan was fun, mind you, seeing them slaughter one of their own. It was oh so fun.

P.S.: I said that about Obama to get you to move past the "close election" meme. See how that worked? LOL. Classic.

Besides, it's the electoral college that elects presidents, not the popular vote.

Baconcat at least understands that Council passes legislation, the Mayor only proposes and administers.

@25, its cute that you think rambling on slog affects things.

@26, WTF are you talking about? I don't see anyone accepting your silly assertion that it was not a close election, nor that it did not have a somewhat high rate of blank and write-in votes.

Will, you are delusional. Get help.

@24: Even discarding outliers from the past 20 years, you still find that 2009 was still pretty average in terms of non-participation as you end up with about 4-5% blank votes on average. You also have to pay attention to what you're comparing-- this is the first election in a long time between two unknowns with almost no name recognition, so naturally, people will abstain in a large number.

Check it out: http://www.seattle.gov/CityArchives/Fact… -- practically every mayor elected in this city held a prior office or some measure of clout in the city of Seattle.

Also: The margin between the two candidates was soft, but it was still a strong win for McGinn since close has been a little different in Washington State in the past decade.

@28 - still killed your precious Billionaires Tunnel.

Politics is about what happens, not being pure. Purity is all well and good, but what matters is the end result, and the fact that no bargains were made.

@32 - good point. While there was some spin in the perception of it, the televised debates played to McGinn's strong suit and worked against Mallahan. This swayed the last minute voters big time.

Can't tell you how many times I heard someone who doesn't follow politics much at all say something as a result of seeing the contrast in the TV debates. It reinforced the chatter they had heard and perceptions that were flying around and sealed the deal.

I think they're right. I went into the campaign pretty strongly in favor of Mallahan. But then I heard him debating on KUOW. Man, he was bad. His attempt to "stay on message" came across as a bunch of tired political cliches. I still ended up voting for him, but it was more like a coin toss after those debates.

I'm surprised we're up to 36 comments and no one's called bullshit on this sentence:

Mallahan, despite having raised three the times the money...

Using your personal wealth to fund a campaign is not the equivalent to actually "raising money".

@25, I want you to print "And, bonus, I did it for free. People just repeated my very simple and short messages." on a T-shirt, and wear it around.

@38 - I love you too.

Good point, @37.

Never bring a conventional political attack strategy fueled by money to a WTO-denying insurgent guerrilla political fight.