Ed Murray all the way!
Can you create a poll of people that didn't file? You, Me, Mo from the pawn shop, Derek Erdman, Tim Burgess? seems like it would be more fun.
how can you not know about the most awesome Joey Gray?…
I'm for McGinn. More than anything else I want a real transit system in Seattle, and I don't want to see Murray fuck that up.
if the election were held today, i think i'd pick my butt.
I'm with iamkatia--Joey Gray is an awesome candidate. She is Tim Harris's partner. Jeebus, even an old pimp knows that!
I notice that you assigned Ed Murray the pink bar in the bar graph? Very subtle, Dominic. Very subtle.
Win with McGinn!
tainte: yeah well if my butt looked as good as yours, i might do the same. in the meantime there is an election for mayor.
They all are the same- Politicians and talk out of both sides of their mouth and twist it with a good spin.
It doesn't make any difference who is elected, as each has their own agenda and the citizen usually gets lost in the dust.
My choice is unchanged from the previous poll.

Which doesn't tell you much, does it?
Gray Panther, that defeatist nonsense is so so so so boring. Apathy for purity's sake because you don't dare want to waste time filling in a few bubbles? Come on.

You may not agree with their agendas to varying degress, but they ALL affect the city.

For me, I'm excited to see transportation/transit/cyclist+pedestrian works moving forward in ways that we'd only talked about for ages. We've got the foot on the gas at a crucial time. McGinn's been a champion for that and will continue to do so -- we're just getting started.

I also am content to have a mayor that spends more time in town hall meetings and reaching out to immigrant communities and advocacy groups than he does gladhanding with the city council. Moderate councilmembers can get their noses bent out of shape if they'd like, but they're their to serve the city, as is the mayor. Not their own careers.
Looks like McSchwinn peddles to an easy victory.
"Foot on the gas" hmm. Even our metaphors are car-centric. How about..."shifting gears"?
Ed Murray for Gayor.
Diaz is gone, McGinn still has a chance
A victory for McGinn means a victory for public transportation, for effective land use, for clean energy, for city-wide broadband, and for sustainability in general.

It's not clear what a victory for Ed Murray (or anyone else) really means, other than a defeat for McGinn.

Murray's candidacy website doesn't even have an "issues" page. I think that speaks for itself.
While Imkatia and others have the Joey Gray is awesome part right, Ballard Pimp is trading in very old information.
McGinn. This election is a referendum on new urbanism. Either we move forward with transit and walkable neighborhoods or we step back into old Seattle hand wringing. The worst outcome would be Steinbrueck.
Yes, the dark forces won that round, but I am voting McGinn as he was the only candidate who stood up against the TUNNEL OF DEATH as viaduct replacement.

McGinn also warned us of the need to replace the seawall if tunnel is happening, and the fucking City Council said what back then? "McGinn you don't know what you're talking about." They didn't want people to realize if you do the tunnel you have to throw in another $200 million bucks for the seawall.

So when the tunnel is too late to stop, what did the fucking City Council say? "Oh shit we have to rebuild the seawall." Exactly what McGinn was saying back in 2009, except now the seawall will be built at the new price of $300 million. Bunch of fucking liars, that City Council.
McGinn is my first choice and I can't even pick a second place - who other than McGinn will champion rail and lead on climate issues? He was the first Mayor in the US to divest a city from fossil fuel investments. Others are following, but he was the first and he helped start a coalition to get other cities to follow Seattle's lead. I provided a link below to the article about it.

Nobody in this pack of candidates can match McGinn on real progressive issues and sweeping changes that might give us a chance against climate change.…
Wow lots of McGinn comments, only ~40% of the poll vote. Hmmm where are my Bruce Bros?
Yeah, McGinn hasn't really disappointed me, other than pushing for the arena and Sonics deal. I generally like the job he's done, and it seams like the media establishment hates him, which is a good sign.

Murray's campaign seems to be running on vanity. And Steinbrueck... I really liked Steinbrueck when he was in the council. Steinbrueck, Licata, and Judy Nicastro. (Remember her?) And Heidi Willis! My god, the hit job that bozo did on her. (Only to get kicked out in the next election.) But now, I'm not sure what Steinbrueck's doing here. Coming to think of it, I don't know what Murray's doing here. We need him in the senate.

So it's McGinn all the way for me.
To me it looks like Snow White's Seven Dwarfs and we are looking for two Giants to pair off in November.
@18, Sorry about that, Tim. I haven't been keeping up. How long ago?
"McGinn. This election is a referendum on new urbanism. Either we move forward with transit and walkable neighborhoods or we step back into old Seattle hand wringing"

Yep, what college educated white people want, they get.
Joey Gray is a cyclist? The last time I saw her, she was riding her moped up the Dexter bike lane. I thought she was going to kill me.
I want Murray to stay in Olympia where he has proven to do a lot of good for many folks.
I still don't understand how McGinn can talk with that many SPD dicks in his mouth.
I'm leaning Bruce Harrell, but I'm comfortable with McGinn. Ed Murray has made some tragic errors on transit, and just doesn't seem to get mayoral politics; I wish he'd stayed in the Senate, where he was kicking ass. I agree with Keith Kyle @19 -- Steinbrueck is the worst on the list.
@30: Murray is still in the Senate.
@31 I think he means stay in the senate and not run for Mayor
Seeing as Slog readers seem to be even more liberal than the average Seattle voter, and McGinn still can't crack 40% doesn't bode well.
@33: With four legitimate candidates in the race (all of whom hold "liberal" stances on various issues), 38% is a pretty good number. If Murray makes it through the primary, McGinn will clean his clock in the debates.
The question comes down to this: Can Ed Murray do more damage to Seattle from Olympia, or from City Hall?
McGinn -- good on climate change, in a talking sort of way, what has he really done? we do not have a rail plan to ballard or w seattle.
since he got in, the DOJ found seattle police assault us regularly. mcginn denies this, and will not hold one single officer or supervisor responsible. major constitutional rights violation fail.

then he partnererd up to billionaires hansen, ballmer and nordstroms to let them get public goodies in a subsidized stadium deal. help the one percent much?

these acts deserve rejection at the polls, and any normal, good liberal democrat will do -- murray deserves props for getting equal rights done and being a real leader despite losing control of the senate. steinbrueck is good on city issues. harrell is part of the problem as he didn't really do anything to rein in spd. for all the mike bikes crap we were subjected to in the election, his buddying up to billionaires erases mcginn's liberal and progressive credentials totally.

that stadium would hurt middle class jobs and give huge megamillions of benefit to one percenters who use public finance to backsteap their equity boosts when they sell a team. this is romney style socialism for the rich. hansen turned onthe spigot to buy the team, too, throwing down hundreds of millions more for a price and his relocation fee -- he dind't need a nicel of public finance -- mcginn just shoved it at him needlessly and left a couple hundred million on the table.

"McGinn -- good on climate change, in a talking sort of way, what has he really done?"

No doubt, he still hasn't stopped it yet!
@36 -- We are studying a rail plan to Ballard right now. Go to the Seattle Transit Blog and search for "Ballard". You will find numerous articles about the planning work that is being done.

Most of the 1% could care less about the Sonics. If you look at the people in the rallies, or listen to the sports radio broadcasts, it should be obvious that most of the fans are middle or working class. The government will chip in far less than they did for either of the two stadiums (if things work out well, the government will end up paying nothing). It still might seem stupid (if you aren't a sports fan) but the same could be said for numerous government programs. If you don't like art, then funding anything art related seems stupid (especially since so many of those art projects go to already wealthy artists).
Ross, thanks for the reply. But we have studied this corridor many times. Schell studied it concluding monorail would work, ie, rail. All the current studies are faulty in that the real "work" here isn't "whether we need rail" -- it's the political work of getting a tax base to finance it! As for one percenters, they include ballmer, nordstroms and hansen no doubt -- they don't need public welfare to build a stadium.

I debate that "most" of the people going to games would be middle class. Certainly there is a large fan base rooting for the sonics.

"The government will chip in far less than they did for either of the two stadiums (if things work out well, the government will end up paying nothing)." this is a fraudulent statement. The government will pay the $272 in arena tax credits to hansen. The government will lose $330 million in real estate taxes. The government will make zero profit on its $200 million loan -- so it is "paying" the opportunity cost of providing that money, another $250 million.

You admit the govt. is chipping in. Why do we need to chip in anything much less $750 million to billionaires?

" It still might seem stupid (if you aren't a sports fan) but the same could be said for numerous government programs."

riiiiiight, subsidies to billionaires enabling them to make hundrds of millions of dollars are just like spending on roads, rail, busses, education and health. Spending for the one percenters is just like spending for the poor, I guess, in mcginn's world. This is my point! it's not the same and it's a betrayal of progressivism to go around claiming it is. why do you think people mistrust govt., when so called liberals try to justify aid to billionaires by saying it's like other govt. programs?

" If you don't like art, then funding anything art related seems stupid (especially since so many of those art projects go to already wealthy artists). " I would support cutting many wasteful art expenditures. Civil servants can put up $24 posters reproducing Monets and Picassos like college students buy. Art spending for paint brushes for school kids is a diff. matter. But yes, it's socialism for the rich to go spend $300,000 on ugly public art that most people detest and that enriches rich artists. Or to give chihuly a sweetheart deal at seattle center.

if you point to subsidies for opera or symphonies, (a) those are not as big as the $750 million subsidy for hansen, (b) they don't enable a private investor to make hundreds of millions of dollars on sale of team, and (c) I am not that supportive of those either. Not till we fund samba domes, fok ddancing facilities nd popular culture that people DO instead of just consume.

"We waste money on lots of things that enrich rich people" worsens the offense to progressive values, BTW.

And --- SPD. 20% use of force illegal. don't we have to hold mcginn accountable, since he was in charge and since he fights the basic conclusion that there is a problem to this day? he is a constitutional rights violations enabler dude -- not progressive!
I'm not sure Fnarf gets Washington politics.
@36 McGinn has done a lot more on climate than you are aware of. For example, he was the first US Mayor to divest a city from fossil fuel investments. Then he helped start a coalition to encourage other cities and institutions to follow Seattle's. At least 9 other Mayors have already followed McGinn's lead and more are in the process.

That's just one example, but McGinn is really great on climate and increasing Seattle's reputation as a leader on the issue. Here is a link to for more info:…
@41 not to mention how much steam the divestment movement has reached on college campuses. Climate change is one major issue that cities can lead on with far more force than it seems our state or federal government is willing to. McGinn's really spearheaded a number of environmental causes and we're only just beginning.

Whenever someone talks about transit or the environment, it's a no-brainer. McGinn's clearly the right candidate for them. With housing affordability, it's a slightly more complicated discussion but many people, including myself and the Low Income Housing Institute, strongly believe McGinn is the best candidate on this issue as well.

And with police reform. Yeah, I said it. This is the most warped conversation people have on the city level. We've had problems with police force for a long while, well before McGinn held office. But some very high profile examples have finally pushed this to the forefront of the conversation. An emboldened DoJ helps this as well (again, that's a good thing). Murray made a comment at one of the forum about Seattle being a rare city to be under this investigation, but the DoJ has expanded their police department investigations/monitoring to an unprecedented extent in recent years. We're one of 17 cities in the nation that had one initiated in just the last couple years.

When people harp on McGinn for not doing enough on police reform, it's generally about heads not rolling fast enough (and with the officer's guild/union rules in general, this isn't something a Mayor can just decree with impunity). Or it's about not being satisfied with the frequency and degree of condemnation (this is all perception-based, and can be refuted with a quick googling). Strangely absent from the conversation is the community police commission, the steady march of revisions and reforms, and the insistence that the department and local advocacy groups -- particularly from communities of color -- have a seat at the table and are helping craft sustainable, long-term solutions to reform.

It's frustrating, because this isn't a conversation you can have with rapid-fire soundbites and justifiable anger at embarrassing misuse of force and judgment by some in the SPD. But the truth of the matter is that the Mayor's done more substantial work toward true, sustainable reform than any Seattle mayor in recent memory. This is a major reason why I support him.
" For example, he was the first US Mayor to divest a city from fossil fuel investments. "

How much CO2 did that reduce?
Murray will win the primary, so i will vote for whomever other than Murray has the best chance of knocking McGinn into third place. If McGinn makes it into the general election, I'll vote for his opponent no matter who it is.
Mayor Mike McBike
It seems curious that overnight Ed Murray got so many votes, but not a single new comment. It's a lot like Bruce Harrell's votes.
@40 he never does.

I think he depends on Wikipedia to tell him what's going on.
I still support McGinn. Seven reasons here:…

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.