Jan 28
David Miller commented on I Was at the Shooting at Twilight Exit.
@16 - Good point. Bet 99% of the folks in the bar were pretty glad to see them roll up.
Nov 14, 2012
David Miller commented on The Straight Dope.
I'm guessing a boatload (bongload) of people aren't aware you can't smoke weed in public and the ticket is $50.
I'm guessing that and no growing your own will be one of the biggest items necessary for the education campaign.
Dom, I assume the various indoor smoking provisions passed to prohibit tobacco smoke apply to marijuana, too?
I'm guessing that and no growing your own will be one of the biggest items necessary for the education campaign.
Dom, I assume the various indoor smoking provisions passed to prohibit tobacco smoke apply to marijuana, too?
Sep 20, 2012
David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
@18 - The data don't show we're wrong. It only shows what everyone has done in the past. I think both Dorsal and I wish we had started our campaigns earlier. I also think we're both against rolling over funds from the prior campaigns. The issue is when to allow people to start fundraising.
I think a year is about right, which places the start date July 1 of the prior year. If you're not thinking about your run at that point, you are already too late.
Starting Jan 1 leaves you not enough time to raise money ahead of the first endorsement interviews. The 6-7 months is not enough time to raise any serious money ahead of the primary.
If you're a challenger, you almost never get a donation on the first call. It takes meetings and multiple calls. If I can't make my first call until January, then I'm not going to see that check until February or March. An incumbent has an entire network of people that will write a check on the first call.
I think a year is about right, which places the start date July 1 of the prior year. If you're not thinking about your run at that point, you are already too late.
Starting Jan 1 leaves you not enough time to raise money ahead of the first endorsement interviews. The 6-7 months is not enough time to raise any serious money ahead of the primary.
If you're a challenger, you almost never get a donation on the first call. It takes meetings and multiple calls. If I can't make my first call until January, then I'm not going to see that check until February or March. An incumbent has an entire network of people that will write a check on the first call.
Sep 20, 2012
David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
@11 makes a good point. If you can only start fundraising on January 1, it really screws up the endorsement process for a challenger. Since the state and county insist on moving the primary earlier and earlier, the Jan 1 deadline is worse and worse for challengers.
If they really want to help, they should move the declaration date into March. It would help with endorsements and fundraising for challengers.
If they really want to help, they should move the declaration date into March. It would help with endorsements and fundraising for challengers.
Sep 20, 2012
David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
I didn't say I lost because I started too late. If I had it to do over again, or if I ever decide to run for office again, I would absolutely start earlier.
The fact CM O'Brien sponsored this is irrelevant. I'd have the same disagreement with this legislation regardless of which of the nine CMs sponsored it. This is bad legislation that provides a meaningful advantage to incumbents while sounding like reform.
FWIW, splitting the different between Harrell's amendment and O'Briens original concept -- so a fundraising start date July 1 of the prior year -- is an alternative I would support. January 1 of the same year is unreasonable. July 1 of the prior year works fine for me. I doubt you and I are that far apart on this issue.
The fact CM O'Brien sponsored this is irrelevant. I'd have the same disagreement with this legislation regardless of which of the nine CMs sponsored it. This is bad legislation that provides a meaningful advantage to incumbents while sounding like reform.
FWIW, splitting the different between Harrell's amendment and O'Briens original concept -- so a fundraising start date July 1 of the prior year -- is an alternative I would support. January 1 of the same year is unreasonable. July 1 of the prior year works fine for me. I doubt you and I are that far apart on this issue.
Sep 20, 2012
David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
I'm aware the overwhelming majority of challengers don't start until January 1. One thing I learned when I ran in 2009 is I should have started earlier. One reason challengers fail so often is they don't get out their early enough to start building name familiarity. At the very least, challengers should start July the year prior to their primary year, that way they catch a full year of events side-by-side with their targeted office holder.
The data shown in the article are accurate, but are merely a reflection of flawed conventional wisdom.
Limiting challengers to 7 months of campaign and fundraising before the primary is a terrible, terrible idea.
The data shown in the article are accurate, but are merely a reflection of flawed conventional wisdom.
Limiting challengers to 7 months of campaign and fundraising before the primary is a terrible, terrible idea.
Sep 20, 2012
David Miller commented on Why Did Bruce Harrell Weaken a Bill Designed to Clean Up City Elections?.
Harrell's amendment is very important and the full Council should pass it. We can quibble whether it should be 22 months or15 months or whatever. But only having a 7-month window to fundraise (start Jan 1 and raise until July 31because whatever you have in the bank on July 31 is what governs your early August primary advertising spend) is a HUGE disadvantage to challengers.
O'Brien's version was the Council Incumbent Perpetual Employment Act all dressed up as reform. I'm glad Council, the SEEC, and others saw through it.
David Miller
O'Brien's version was the Council Incumbent Perpetual Employment Act all dressed up as reform. I'm glad Council, the SEEC, and others saw through it.
David Miller
Jun 13, 2012
David Miller commented on Not Necessarily the Best or the Brightest—but Definitely the Richest.
District elections.
Mar 27, 2012
David Miller commented on Northgate Residents Pissed at City for Potentially Costing Them Low-Income Housing.
What will be most interesting is the reaction from the usual pro-density neo-urbanist blogosphere types. I'm not a big fan of litmus tests in land use because there are always nuances in land use, but this seems to be a pretty easy one.
Are Seattle's neo-urbanist bloggers actually advocates for affordable, community-oriented development around LINK stations? Or are they advocates for "whatever the hell the developer who pays my architect salary wants to do"?
Soap opera is right, and it's just now starting to get interesting... Nice article, Cienna. Thanks for shining some light on this.
David
Are Seattle's neo-urbanist bloggers actually advocates for affordable, community-oriented development around LINK stations? Or are they advocates for "whatever the hell the developer who pays my architect salary wants to do"?
Soap opera is right, and it's just now starting to get interesting... Nice article, Cienna. Thanks for shining some light on this.
David
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
