A bullying, headstrong executive is on his way out. He departs with
his approval ratings down around his ankles, with his political capital
all used up on a controversial project that we’ll be paying for long
after he’s gone, and with the economy in the tank. Everywhere, voters
are clamoring for change.
Sound familiar? It continues. As the election cycle kicks off, an
unlikely candidate emerges to replace the departing executive. This
candidate doesn’t look like your typical politician. He’s less polished
than the others in the field, more willing to take risks, more…
authentic. He has a community-organizing background, a couple of
successful populist crusades under his belt, and a humble, transparent
style. He talks of running an “egoless campaign.” Younger voters get
him immediately. Eventually, people of all demographics begin to see a
man who possesses an unusual, powerful quality.
It’s a quality that has nothing to do with well-defined policy
positions—though he does have those—and everything to do
with gooey matters like disposition, idealism, and hope. This new
candidate, it turns out, is the right kind of mirror. He reflects back
to the people an image of what’s best about the place they love (and
also what’s worst, weirdest, and worth protecting). He is them.
On the stump, this candidate insists that we can do what others say
is too hard, too impractical. He is audacious: Alone among the
candidates, he repudiates the central, controversial project of the man
he now wants to replace—pledges to end the project, reverse it,
erase its stain. He does this despite many respected political elders
intoning that it’s too late, the die is cast, this project cannot be
undone. With his gutsy denunciation, this candidate gives voice to a
latent civic anger, becomes a vehicle for its venting.
It is, of course, an old story. It is the story of Barack Obama,
sure. But he’s only the most recent and well-known iteration of an
ancient narrative—the story of the heroic savior. In Seattle, in
the race for mayor, it has become the story of Mike McGinn: A
surprising leader steps onto the scene and finds that he is perfectly
matched for a defining time.
On primary night, in a close race where he was considered vastly
outmatched by the other candidates—the two front-
runners had
been running television ads for weeks, whereas McGinn hadn’t run a
single one—McGinn won. Joe Mallahan, the T-Mobile
executive with personal wealth and lots of wealthy contributors, came
in second. Greg Nickels, the incumbent, who’d been in contests like
this many times before, came in third. Which means he’s now out of the
picture.
That makes the race for mayor a contest without an incumbent, a
face-off between two untested men, a choice that is, either way, a
gamble.
But it’s also a choice between stark stylistic differences.
Mallahan’s main political accomplishment thus far has been to figure
out how much it costs to buy one’s way into a Seattle mayoral race.
(Over $230,000 of his own money and counting.) He wears suits, employs
tested political hands, brags about having the support of the city’s
“insiders.” Then there’s McGinn, who is no neophyte—he’s been a
lawyer, a neighborhood activist, and president of the local Sierra
Club—but has shrewdly embraced the chance to run as an outsider,
as the leader of an insurgent campaign. He says “grassroots” whenever
possible. He refuses to have an official spokesperson (he does the
speaking or simply allows the conduct of the campaign to speak for
itself). And as he bikes around town in shirt and jeans, he smiles
through an only somewhat trimmed, I-don’t-give-a-fuck, logger-chic
beard.
McGinn is the happy warrior, and the data shows him closing in. A
September 30 poll by SurveyUSA had McGinn and Mallahan tied, with
McGinn up two points from a poll conducted a couple weeks previous.
Most important, the September 30 poll showed McGinn grabbing younger
voters, middle-aged voters, and female voters from Mallahan. Quite a
coup for the candidate who spent only $2.03 per vote in the primary
(Mallahan spent $12.28 per vote), and an obvious sign of momentum.
McGinn has almost five times as many Facebook supporters as Mallahan
and more than three times as many Twitter followers—despite the
fact that Mallahan has raised nearly four times as much money as McGinn
(almost half of it, of course, from Mallahan’s own checking
account).
Many political observers have complained that this is a choice
between two men with far more hubris than experience. True, in the
sense that neither has held a serious elected office before. But in
this, the 2008 presidential campaign is again instructive. Back then, a
major concern about both Obama and John McCain was that neither man had
ever run anything larger or more complicated than his own campaign for
president. As a result, the execution of each man’s run for office
became the most important data point that voters had to assess how he
might govern. The style became the substance.
McGinn is, quite simply, running the better campaign. He plays
offense almost every day (last month, when Mallahan was quietly
preparing to announce a new addition to his advisory team, McGinn
scooped Mallahan by making his announcement for him). He offers idea
after new idea (a plan for a new light-rail line along the west side of
Seattle, a plan for dealing with gang violence, a plan for fixing the
crumbling South Park bridge). He has a core conviction—that
digging a new tunnel through downtown Seattle is a costly mistake that
doesn’t fit with the character or future of this city—and even as
events seem to be making it harder and harder for him to turn his
conviction into action (the city council is expected to sign an
agreement later this month with the state on funding for the tunnel),
his willingness to stand up and call it a mistake is energizing to a
significant portion of his base.
Mallahan, by contrast, is running a cookie-cutter campaign designed
not to ruffle or offend. He’s selling himself as more of the same at a
time when Seattle wants change.
As an idea, as a promise, and as a person, he’s simply wrong for
this civic moment. Picture both candidates in your mind and ask this
simple question: Which of these guys feels like the mayor of the
Seattle I want to live in?
The answer is obvious. 
Yossarian, I heard your holier-than-thou screaming the first time around.
And use some line breaks.
Please.
Also, using Nazis in your argument does not make it stronger or more coherent.
In the past, I would fill-in my ballot according to The Stranger’s mock ballot page, or at least, go with their endorsements on the politicos and referendums I was undecided about. I will no longer trust The Stranger on their endorsements after they endorsed McGinn, whose sole reason for becoming mayor is to defeat the tunnel and whose sole agenda will distract him from other more important issues. Not that Mallahan is any better, but at least he doesn’t have ONE pet peeve. McGinn must be obsessive-compulsive; he just won’t let go of the tunnel. Enough on the viaduct already! We, the citizens of Seattle, are tired of that issue already!!! Let’s move forward, instead of in reverse. McGinn boasts progressiveness–harping on the viaduct issue is not progress. If McGinn would let go of defeating the tunnel, he would get my vote as the lesser of two evils. But, not presently.
@54: I’m not seeing that. Look at McGinn’s platform. Under “Transportation” he briefly mentions the tunnel, along with several positions on improved public transportation. And there are a dozen other sections on the page, all with lots of detail. Perhaps the tunnel opposition is one of his more controversial positions, but he’s hardly obsessed with the issue, from my point of view.
@54, you’re just being dishonest.
McGinn has released an 18-deck slide show showing his alternative plan to the viaduct replacement — one that might actually make sense and help transit.
Further, he’s the only candidate really talking about helping our school system and DISCUSSING taking it over if we continue to let it fail — that politicians talk the talk on “improving schools” in order to win elected office but never holding themselves accountable. My uncle is a teacher and he says it best: we always talk about paying teachers more and helping schools during the rhetoric of a campaign but we immediately forget about it when it comes time to actually do so.
He also talks about internet infrastructre. Does anyone besides me hate dealing with Comcast? A fiberoptic network — IF we could do it, and I have some concerns — would be a public utility versus a hugely expensive cost to the taxpayer and would catch our city up with the 21st century.
McGinn has a lot of ideas. We need to discuss them, see if they’ll work, if we can afford them, etc. Mallahan spends his time talking about why we whouldn’t vote for McGinn instead of talking about his own record. Mallahan doesn’t talk at all about any specific project or team he lead at T-Mobile besides the (admirable) one of providing phones to poor people. He never mentions, besides volunteering for Obama, any real civic involvement and engagement he had in a leadership role where he made a serious impact on society.
McGinn has done all of these things. He has won at the ballot box. He has taken leadership roles on issues directly connected with the public’s interest and city/state government. He is qualified to be mayor.
Oh yeah, when you use a Nazi comparison, you lose the argument. You try to force us to defend what someone isn’t versus what they are. Nice fucking try.
While ihacker69 @54 is obviously being dishonest about McGinn, it seems that Yossarian is being disingenuous.
Yossarian, let me get this straight. So, because Mike McGinn may have, at times during his career, been a corporate shill for moneyed interests, we progressives should abandon him and his progressive agenda when the alternative is someone who has established himself in this race as the corporate shill for moneyed interests. This is a little like the argument going around about McGinn that goes something like, why vote for the guy you agree with for fear that he might disappoint you when you can vote for the guy you disagree with? It’s like, why risk failure when you can guarantee failure?
Yossarian, you’re obviously sophisticated enough that you don’t believe in, and you’re not motivated by, the arguments you’re making.
The Stranger and its readers seem to generally have drank the McGinn KoolAid.
Here’s a guy groomed and sponsored by Vulcan and supported by a lot of urban development professionals who will continue to suck at the tit of the city’s consultant dollars and benefit from unbridled growth offered by McGinn.
The myth that we can build our way out of our sustainability problems is part of the successful greenwashing of development. It is under this mantle that McGinn – McGreen – is now running.
A little bit of research by Eli or Domenic would uncover that. Or their intentional editorializing is overlooking these facts for whatever reason. But journalism standards are certainly questionable here. Totally lame.
Sadly, there are many who do not take the time to learn what is going on and only fly with The Stranger’s endorsements (I used to be in the same league). These same people that think to themselves – “gosh, I’d love to live in a Great City”. They eat free food and drank cheap beer at Great City events (paid for by the developers who are happy that those young hipsters are so gullible) and drink that KoolAid…
@paulwashere @cressona
You people are so self-righteous. Stop your namecalling, if that’s all you can do. Dishonest? Whatever you’d like to call me to defeat anything I’m trying to say.
I was simply repeating what I took from The Stranger’s first endorsement of McGinn. From that article, it seems that McGinn’s great fantasy is to defeat the tunnel. Well, I’m all for the tunnel.
I AM commenting on The Stanger’s endorsement in The Stranger online, am I not? I’m not referring to any other publications or reports regarding McGinn’s issues.
Thanks for your judgment, but I pride myself on living honestly.
ihacker69 @59, don’t start trying to backtrack on your dishonesty. You weren’t describing The Stranger’s coverage of Mike McGinn’s campaign. You were describing Mike McGinn’s campaign. And in doing so, you were lying about it.
And I quote: “McGinn, whose sole reason for becoming mayor is to defeat the tunnel and whose sole agenda will distract him from other more important issues.”
Listen, if you feel so strongly that Mike McGinn is the wrong person to be mayor of Seattle, you should be able to make that case without grossly misrepresenting him.
Sorry ihacker69, I don’t recall calling you any names, though you did call McGinn obsessive-compulsive, and I misidentified another blogger’s comments who made the Nazi comparison, which was not you. Sorry about that.
I’m not being self-righteous. You said McGinn was one issue, and I listed a bunch of others.
I am under no circumstances voting for Malloran, I am just stating the obvious fact that the knight has tarnished armor.
As someone who has worked with Mallahan I can tell you this:
His mouth and ego are about the same size: X large!
Really, the man purchased his way into this primary, and he has to go negative all the time because he has no ideas of his own. That is, until Carla and his highly priced advisors tell him what to say.
I’m telling you, if Mallahan wins the election, he will make Nickels look like a long forgotten hero of yersterday.
No McGinn, no more green-no-car bullshit for the rich… We pay like 10% sales tax and have no options to get around… Transit is slow and infested with mental illness and thugs, bicycling with vehicles is obviously for some rich sadomasochists… who can afford to live close to work or don’t work at all…
What about a simple quality of life for most of the people?! I don’t want to get on a bicycle and kill myself while inhaling all that carbon monoxide from idling vehicles, or being hit by a bus… that’s retarded! Why we are not talking about express bus service from Queen Anne/West Seattle/ Capitol Hill to the eastside? Every damned metro bus goes downtown, wtf?! we don’t all need to be downtown creeping through the blocks and listening to some mentally ill spitting out profanity just so we can change to another bus… This is bad enough, we do not need more service like this McGinn!!!
Times changed, this environmental agenda just traps people in poverty and creates more obstacles when we need to get around to sustain our lives here.
McGinn is just totally clueless about the quality of life for the poor. Making the commute harder by adding more dysfunctional slow crime infested bus service, reducing traffic lanes, and puncturing roads with crosswalk and bike lanes… this did not help anyone in the past 10 years… just created more traffic, conflicts, injuries, deaths, and lawsuits.
I don’t know the other guy, but definitely not McGinn!
McGinn was there for the Approve 71 rally. support him. http://www.flickr.com/photos/soggydan/40…
I like McGinn but his planned alternative to the tunnel–tear down the viaduct and extend Alaskan by 1 lane–positively BLOWS. Can someone help me understand why this important infrastructure choice should not be ruinous to McGinn’s campaign?
@cressona
Go drink some more Kool Aid.
I agree, I don’t get it. I kind of like the cut of McGinn’s jib EXCEPT for his idiotic stand against the tunnel. It’s not his hard line position against the tunnel that is forcing me to vote for Mallachump, it’s his irresponsible (and environmentally retarded) push for a highway along the waterfront as the solution. I live near the Market within sight (and earshot) of the viaduct and am horrified at what his surface/transit plan will force upon those of us who have to live 24/7 with whatever ‘solution’ is forced upon us.
Is comparing McGinn to Obama supposed to make me vote for him? Yes, Obama promised to remake this country. And, oh, yeah, nothing f-ing happened. We still live in a pile of sh*t and he is hellbent on reliving the first two (f-ed up) years of the Clinton reign. Comparing McGinn to someone who is busy breaking campaign promises left and right is not really helping your argument to vote for him.
What about McGinn’s representation of a predatory lender in lawsuits against people losing their homes while he was at Stokes Lawrence? It doesn’t make a difference to me what he did as a lawyer, but I’ll bet it might to those of you reporters and supporters who keep lubing the constant McGinn hand-job because he’s supposedly a “community activist.”
Those who said that McGinn needs to dump his tunnel opposition are absolutely on the mark! But for that, he would have my vote. I CANNOT vote for someone who will bring back that debate (even though McGinn’s position is the one that I originally supported). He needs to recognize that politics is compromise, not everyone got what they wanted, but all were consulted and came to agreement after a long, drawn out debate. Move on and win. Stay stuck in the past, and the race goes to Mallahan (who’s such a douchebag I would never want him running the city).
Eli,
I know it’s convenient for you (and the rest of the media/blogosphere) to tell yourself that “style becomes substance” because it gives you an excuse for writing about style rather than substance, i.e., absolves you from doing hard work involving actual facts/research….but asking us to vote based on our “feelings” and evoking “ancient narratives” or “defining times” or “civic moments” as an endorsement for a candidate is very, very silly.
I don’t see how it’s any different from the media urging us to vote for Bush in 2000 on grounds that, “Picture both candidates in your mind and ask this simple question: Which of these guys would I rather have a beer with?” And we all know how that turned out.
“A bullying, headstrong executive is on his way out.”
If we elect McGinn, we’ll be saying this again four to eight years from now.
This might be good, if it wasn’t from the Stranger staff…The Stranger is a slanted as Fox News. Sad.
One Issue in this Debate: Transportation, including a Seawall and Viaduct replacement. I am not for a surface option, for that would ruin part of the charm of our city. I am not for a replacement, as the viaduct is as ugly as the troll in Fremont. I am for a tunnel, and for a guy that is flip flopping on the only reason he is IN this campaign (if he weren’t the only one to oppose it running for mayor, you tunnel-opposition folk would have spread your vote amongst a few leaving Nickels and Mallahan to fight it out now), he offers me no confidence. I like his public transportation agenda, but I have no faith he can do anything. At All. Tunnel.
just now read this article.
reads like an ayn rand novel.