IF you're feeling brave, put up a poll for people who voted for "not murray or mcginn" to proffer who they're voting for come the general election.

You can fill in a Murry vote for this ex-Steinbrueck voter.

Oh, come on, Goldy. You can do better than that.

I'm still unclear as to why I would vote for a career politician whose sole accomplishment in 18 years is handing the senate over two rightwing clowns.

If only we could vote you out Goldy. I would even put up with McGinn for 4 more years as the trade off.

Am I the only one that thinks there might have been a few McGinn/Murray flip flop typos in this?

Maybe I'm dumb but it seems like a few times a different name should've gone in certain places and my mind wasn't able to do all the swapping.

Murray's toast.

Nope. Nevermind I think I got it.

A more asinine (non-Mudede) post I don't think I've ever read.

Boy, Goldy, you are really having to reach for this, aren't you? When the incumbent gets only 27% of the vote, he's in big, big trouble. A primary election like this is in effect a referendum on whether you want to keep the current guy or go with someone new. "Someone new" got 73% of the vote.

(And #3, explain to me how Ed was supposed to control two DINO idiots in Olympia who had their own agendas to pursue and are clearly incapable of being reasoned with. It was the voters of Washington who voted for a Senate that was so closely divided that control could switch to the other side by only two asshats.)

This is getting really sad, and when MgGinn loses, I hope that your publisher Tim Keck never, ever, ever again uses the Stranger as a mouthpiece for a campaign

Holy fuck

@3 I'm with you.

In 2009 the election for Mayor was two relatively unknown entities. In 2013, for better or worse, we have very well known entities. The Slog is going to do their best to show all of Murray's faults, and the Times will be doing their best to show MGinn's.

The remarkable result of this election, at least to me, is that the gay candidate is seen as the safe, establishment candidate.

I look forward to three more months of new Slog commenter accounts crawling out of the woodwork to praise Ed Murray's leadership in Olympia, trash Mike McGinn as divisive, and avoid any mention of the tangible issues facing this city.

Not much different from this substance-less spin coming from Dwight Pelz.

@9 - it may well have been inevitable, but he didn't fight very hard. He just went all pouty and rolled over.
I suspect he will do the same for the downtown business lobby.
Weak, spineless toady.

It's the height of arrogance to think everybody who voted for a third candidate will now go to Murray as their second choice. Murray doesn't own them. Those votes are up for grabs, and Murray is going to have to earn them. And work to keep the ones who picked him in the primary, and even take some of McGinn's support. It's a whole new race now.

It won't be that easy. I wouldn't want to be the creature of the 1% in this race.

@8 I'm with you there. Between the two of them it's getting hard to bother to read Slog / The Stranger.

@1: I have no idea why a Steinbrueck voter would now support the Big Money candidate who hasn't a clue about Seattle neighborhoods. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I saw him make that quote on the news last night and immediately thought the same thing.

Because the issue with @1 is the support of an arena in SoDo. Murray was a "maybe" which is closer to a "no" than McGinn.
http://cdn3.sbnation.com/uploads/chorus_…

Goldy, I enjoy usually your writing agree with you on many things etc. but I must say you seem to have lost all perspective when it comes to Murray.

It's not that I care so much who you endorse but your clear hatred of one candidate has made these posts tiresome.

Pelz statement may have been an over reach, but yours is just poor reporting/opinionating. First of course McGinn is the mayor of the entire city while Murray is the State Senator for one Leg. District. These are not equivalent.

Second with such a wide field of candidates it seems clear that a vote against the encumbandt is much more of a statement then voting for any particular candidate.

Third Murray did win more votes than McGinn. That's saying a lot. Now Seattle voters are finicky, we accidentally got rid of our old mayor cuz we were mad about snow, and had a choice between 2 marginal candidates. So who knows what will happen.

But your vitriol against Murray is making your posts rather tiresome.

It sounds like they've been beating the "Anybody but McGinn" drum pretty hard the last few days. That has not historically been a good campaign strategy. Murray is still ahead, but it doesn't seem like this is a good strategy for staying there.

@9 "When the incumbent gets only 27% of the vote, he's in big, big trouble."

Not in a 9-way Primary, with 4 candidates polling in double-digits.

@17: Because Mike McGinn wants to bulldoze those neighborhoods and build apodments?

@23, a clear majority still thinks someone other than McGinn would do a better job. What will convince them that he's the one? Hatred for Murray? He's not that unlikable.

The campaign strategy that is going to fail is the one coming from McGinn supporters trying to paint Murray as conservative and not from Seattle. It's not going to work because neither of those things are true.

Oh, and isn't anybody going to wish Murray well? He is getting married to his partner this weekend. Imagine that--Seattle could actually have a legally married gay mayor.

@21 A) How does the actual analysis in my post differ all that much from the analysis in your comment? What did I write? "You'd have to be an idiot not consider Murray the clear frontrunner."

B) How is this post in any way vitriolic? I mean, honestly, fuck, the defensiveness of Murray loyalists is truly astounding. Murray folk need to step back and take a deep breath.

@27 The irony of you telling anyone to step back and take a deep breath is amusing, to say the least.

@3: i've been telling people that for months. not to mention the timidity in the face of eyman, especially during gregoire's 8 years of limbo.

@3 For the win.

"If we're still on speaking terms" who is the thin skinned one here, Goldy?

I get you endorse McGinn, whatever. Nearly every time you write something negative about Murray though, you throw in a line insinuating he probably won't want to talk with you anymore and I hear a sad trombone.

The mayoral primary wasn't even on my ballot (Eastside) so I don't really care.

The pro Murray comments here are somewhat divorced from reality. I know Goldy sometimes goes over the top, and it has cost him some of his credibility, but I see nothing false or vitriolic here. He acknowledges that McGinn's talley sucks, so it's untrue to sat he's spinning the results, as some allege. But Pelz's spin is silly, and so is the notion (as expressed by a couple of comments on last night's thread) that all those non-McGinn voted were anti-McGinn voted that are now Murray's for the taking. Many of those votes really were for those candidates, and many voters are likely going to prefer McGinn as their second choice, not Murray.

I'm going to excuse most of this as disapointment that McGinn didn't get bounced at the primary like Paul Schell. But you people need to remember that just because Goldy and The Stranger are in the tank for McGinn, it doesn't mean that their every post is full of shit.

Bitch, please.

@27 I'm still waiting to hear a substantive reason to jump to Murray, other than that he will get along better with developers.

10 years ago I might have gone for the first gay mayor or whatever, but I've now been to my friends' gay weddings and running for mayor in Seattle doesn't seem like such a big political act. Once you see that "the first black president" is just as beholden to his money men as the last white Democratic president, it makes you more skeptical of the accuracy of your wishful thinking.

And what @3 said.

@36 Yes, gay is so last year, who cares? Also, Ed didn't REALLY do anything for gay marriage. And don't forget: Ed won't shut about being gay -- shut up Ed!

What next? Ed isn't really gay, it's all a big scam?

Goldy is right that the race is close. (Closer than the Times and Dwight Pelz would like you to believe.)
1. This was the primary, and the typical low turnout was the more-engaged voters. Overloaded with those who want anyone-but-McGinn and those who strongly support Murray.
2. When the turnout doubles for the general, it will add all those that haven't really been paying attention, or don't feel that strongly anti-McGinn. They will be fair game for McGinn to win.
3. If Murray wants a nasty campaign, McGinn has every bit as much ammunition against Murray. And when the conversation turns to Murray's deficiencies and negatives, it will be fun to watch.

Goldy, @27, relax a little. People get defensive of their candidates during a campaign.

You're not only defensive of your candidate, you're defensive of yourself. Not saying that's abnormal.
But if dissenting comments to your posts offend your sensibilities don't read them or chill.

Why is everyone under the impression the late ballots will be breaking for McGinn? The conventional wisdom yesterday morning was McGinn might finish 3rd or 4th.

Anyways, Harrell supported who needs to find a new candidate...

I like the assumption being made that everyone who voted for someone other than McGinn voted against McGinn, as if all of those votes will automatically go to Murray, because clearly any vote for someone other than McGinn is a stern rebuke of his policies or his beard or his bicycle or whatever. As if seventy percent of voters furiously filled in the ballot, white-knuckled and scowling "Take that, you miserable piece of mayoral shit!"

@29, @40 I'm rubber, you're glue!!!

@38 Hey, this isn't Alabama. Having a gay mayor on its own isn't going to change the political landscape. If you want to reward Murray as a celebration of marriage equality's victory in WA, you can. But I'm trying to figure out what he is going to do that I should think will be notably better than Mcginn and will offset the obvious downside of the fact that Murray is the chosen front man of the wealthy elite. I understand a candidate has to get money somewhere, but I also know that promises are always made to get that money, promises whose details are unknown to us.

I'm now fairly undecided on this mayors race. This is rare for me. I just don't have a strong opinion for or against either Murray or McGinn. McGinn had a rocky start and has made some mistakes, but I like some of the things he's done. I don't think he's been all that bad a mayor. I think Murray has been a pretty decent legislator, and I think his frustrating incremental approach to gay-marriage turned out to be dead on. But he has made zero compelling arguments why he would make a better mayor other than he's not-McGinn, and some of his campaign tactics are pretty off-putting.

Really, at this point, I'd be fine with either one of them.

Local election season is the worst for reading the Slog. Soon every other post will just be the writer gargling the genitals of McGinn, Sawant, or both at the same time.

Not until the coverage last night did I learn that someone could have a landslide victory with 33% of the vote when their opponent got over 50%.

But not being a Seattle resident I understand that obviously some of the spices are lost on me.

I do have to say though, seeing Goldy tell someone to take a breath and calm down was really hilarious. The icing on the cake was his criticism of someone as being too defensive. So at least there was that.

@ 6 Wow liberal are delusional and live in their own world.

@44 This isn't Alabama, you're right. So it's totally fine that we have an endless string of straight, white male leaders. That's the argument? Diversity not needed in Seattle?

@41 - the conventional wisdom that McGinn will pick up more votes in the continued counting is based on his record of, you know, picking up a greater percentage of votes in continued counting. The last election demonstrated that his get out the vote efforts are truly remarkable. I wouldn't be at all surprised if McGinn very nearly ties Murray, or slightly surpasses him. Which will get underplayed.

In the last primary, McGinn seemed to scrape by, but as the days went by he pulled further ahead on late counted ballots. Same in the general. He gets the late voting, younger ballots. Murray gets the older, voted 2 week in advance ballots. The trends will be interesting to watch.

@42: The assumption isn't that Murray gets every vote, just a majority of the 43 percent of Seattle voters who voted for other candidates and have already made the decision to fire Mayor McGinn.

@ 48, way to cherry pick and ignore the uncomfortable truths of @44's comment.

Your statement supports my impression that a meaningful number of Murray supporters are supporting him solely because he is gay, regardless of other issues.

Is that it? Vote for Murray to increase diversity among the white males?

@ 50, that's still a fallaceous conclusion.

Must be hard spinning and pulling for McGinn so hard all the time on one page, then having the cover of your magazine sell by making SPD corruption and racism (downplaying the racism aspect of the story...the reason WHY Holden stopped to record the cops in the first place) thats been defended by your fuhrer McGinn. Ive noticed this authors sublte vitriol towards issues involving certain communities of color in Seattle. I get a sort of 'Richard Cohen' esque "Trust me Im a liberal" vibe from this author.

Hey Goldy, do you actually hate the people victimized by McGinn and the SPD's policies (the poor, black/latino/native seattlites) or is it that their concens really dont and shouldnt matter to the cap hill, upper middle class raised, white and educated class?

@ rtm in past elections has Murray's lead lessened as votes were counted? If not, couldn't one say the exact thing about voters breaking towards Murray?

I haven't found any data on where in Seattle the uncounted ballots are and how those in that area have already voted. If it's out there, I'd love to see it. As using existing vote patterns to predict trend lines and outcomes is far superior than asserting McGinn will get more of the late ballots because that is what happened last time.

@54 You're right. I'm racist. That's why I support McGinn over the black candidate, Ed Murray. Careful I don't track you down from your IP and burn a cross on your lawn!

@54 One thing I have definitely not seen from the Murray campaign is statements about how he is going to be more confrontational with the SPD. Can you direct me to statements from Murray that he is going to challenge the SPD and the Guild more aggressively or effectively than McGinn?

@50 - And I just think it's a specious assumption to make at this point.

Put me down for the @3, @11 camp.

Ed Murray handed the State Senate to the asshole Rodney Tom.

NOTHING McGinn has (purportedly) done equals that.

No to Ed Murray.

@57, most of the electorate is ignorant and won't pay attention to the details of how Murray will or will not affect change.

In an ideal world, everybody would take the next 8-10 weeksto find out as much as they can about the candidates on the ballot. The reality? Oh, I don't like McGinn because he supported the cops. Or, I'm tired of gays thinking they can have equality. Yes, I'm being simplistic, but the reality is, I'm guessing 70% of the people voting in November have made the choice.

McGinn's best bet is to try and campaign for the minority vote, which will involve explaining his stance on the SPD. I think McGinn has lost most of Seattle north of the ship canal.

@51

I figured @48 was just moving the goal posts.

@3
That and marriage equality.
The fucker!

Goldy, @ 43, I have a force field the deflects your bounciness.

I'm voting for Ed Murray to further the progress of gay marriage in Seattle. The dream of mandatory random gay marriage for all adults and children may yet be achieved in our lifetimes.

@52 Newsflash: Ed Murray is a liberal democrat whose values are similar to many, many people in Seattle. And yeah, he's also gay. And yes, I would like Seattle to have its first gay mayor. Add to that the fact that McGinn has not impressed me with his accomplishments.

It's creepy that so many people on Slog are arguing that we shouldn't give a fuck about having more openly gay people in public office. Wow.

@ 66, at the city level, especially a highly progressive one like Seattle, I fail to see the big whoop in 2013. What LGBT issues can he champion for the city?

Sure, on a symbolic level, it would be cool. Pardon my ignorance, but outside of Portland I can think of no openly gay mayors of major American cities. But what pragmatic advantages are there to electing the gay candidate here?

@57, I'd like to see that, too. Murray hasn't uttered a peep about the SPD (or anything else substantive, for that matter).

What Murray allegedly does best is negotiate with right-wingers. This is not an applicable skill in Seattle, which is solidly liberal.

What utterly ridiculous logic Goldy. Elections are referenda on incumbents. Always. Unless you live in a gerrimandered district, but even then...

Voters don't 'vote against' challengers. Incumbents get their voters out, and the rest vote against the incumbent. They choose another choice because they don't like the one they've been living with for four years.

@67, Houston's mayor is a gay woman. Lexington, KY's mayor is gay. Lots of smaller cities have gay mayors -- Campbell, CA; Palm Springs; Hartford, CT; Gainesville, FL; Asbury Park, NJ; Chapel Hill, NC; Providence, RI.

@ 64, You are not helping McGinn with those types of comments. Murray isn’t a single issue candidate, but the tunnel vision suggestion by McGinners that he is (and the mocking statements made about equality) makes the McGinn camp appear resentful of Murray’s accomplishments as a leader for equal rights.

#67 The fact that you can only think of one other gay mayor in the nation should clue you in as to why this is important. (FYI Houston's mayor is a lesbian, there are some others, but really just a handful).
Did you know that feminists care about how many women are in elected office, or are heads of corporations, and so on? And African-Americans care about the same thing for African-Americans. And gay people (except maybe on Slog) also care about that same progress and visibility for gay people. This is pretty basic stuff.

@66 all other things being equal, then, sure, go for the diversity. I simply don't understand the point of Murray's candidacy other than that the traditional Seattle movers and shakers didn't like getting beat and want their own guy back in. From what I can tell, Mcginn has done a perfectly fine job of working with the big money people to keep Seattle humming.

I hear disapproval of Mcginn on police issues, but nothing from the Murray camp suggesting they would be different, let alone better. And, hey, if you can't resolve Rodney Tom, I can't see you have a hope in hell of taking on the Police Guild. And if his big money backers had wanted someone to take on the Guild, I figure they could have had that a long time ago. The deep pockets clearly don't give a rip about that issue.

My wife and others don't like apodments, and I've heard people blame Mcginn. Again, I've heard nothing from Murray that he will fight apodments.

Last night, Murray said he was running to be the "effective mayor of Seattle." I'm waiting to hear how he is going to be more effective than Mcginn at accomplishing things I think are important.

@57, 68, me too. Now that the primary's over Murray'd best get specific on SPD. On the other hand, if McGinn can convince me Murray wouldn't have done any better than he did on SPD (rehiring Diaz, sniping at the consent decree process), he's still got a shot at winning my vote. I don't particularly care about streetcars one way or the other, so that's what I'll be watching for.

I think linking Rodney Tom to Ed Murray isn't fair. Remember, Tom fucked over the Republicans before he fucked over the Democrats. Rodney Tom cares only about Rodney Tom.

I, for one, can't wait for the debates. Murray has said nothing interesting or new so I want to hear what this front-runner has to offer.

"how Ed was supposed to control two DINO idiots in Olympia who had their own agendas to pursue and are clearly incapable of being reasoned with."

Well, a seasoned legislator might have known a few tricks. Like ignoring them (even shunning them). Like making life at the Legislature very difficult. But I'm not a seasoned legislator. Ed Murray is.

@ 70, I'll take Houston. "Major" is the criterion, and Portland barely qualifies.

@ 72, no one is questioning why a gay person might want a gay mayor. But I should point out that you didn't address my question, which is about the pragmatic reasons. For example, in Seattle there are still major issues of inequality faced by women and minorities every day. Practical things that thr city can address, such as housing, rape crisis hotlines, wage standards, schooling, etc.

Pragmatically, I can see the advantage to having a gay mayor addressing civic LGBT issues. But aside from continuing gay bashing in Capitol Hill, which it seems the city is doing its best to combat, I'm unaware of major issues facing today's LGBT population in Seattle. I welcome enlightenment there.

Outside of being gay, Ed Murray is still a white, upper middle class male. I would expect him to govern from that perspective.

@77, you're assuming that Ed didn't try anything to rein in Rodney Tom just because Tom ended up bolting. Isn't it just possible that there wasn't anything on earth that would have kept that self-absorbed ninny from switching over to the Repubs?

It points out why Pick Two is stupid.

A better way is you vote for all candidates, ranking your favorite to your least favorite.

Each candidate who gets a first favorite vote gets 10 points. Earning a second favorite gets five points. And so on.

Candidate with the most points wins.

@ 78, Your speculation that Ed Murray would govern from the perspective of the upper middle class doesn’t hold water. He didn’t even start out near the middle class and hasn’t legislated from that perspective.

Plus, @ 78, who is McGinn if not an upper middle class white male? Are your expectations of his governing any different?

@ 81, in what way? What did he legislate from a different perspective? (Gay marriage is a classless issue, so it doesn't count. And I'll note you didn't dispute the white male perspective.)

I've seen several references in this and other threads to McGinn "rehiring" Diaz. This is incorrect.

Kerlikowske left to become head of ONDCP in 2009. Diaz was appointed interim/acting chief. A search process was begun. Nickels didn't make it out of the primary. This killed any actual selection work until after election and inauguration of new mayor (Jan 2010).

McGinn takes office. Creates a chief search committee with 26 members. The head-hunting firm hired by the city (Police Executive Research Forum) presents a short-list to the committee. The search committee names 11 semifinalists in April 2010. A month later they select 3 finalists.

The candidate widely viewed as the favorite withdraws his name leaving Diaz and a guy who had headed a tiny department (East Palo Alto). It was clear there were not enough city council votes to approve Davis, so McGinn's choice was to restart the process or go with Diaz.

That may have been a mistake, but he did not "rehire" Diaz. He did nominate him (based on a recommendation from a broad and diverse selection group and political reality) and the city council did approve him.

McGinn may not have been at his best in dealing with SPD, but the ongoing attempts to rewrite history here are ridiculous.

@ 82, I'm not the one touting "diversity" as an advantage of Murray over McGinn, so it's only Murray we're considering on this matter.

It would have been funner if Ed had entered into a "¿Quién es mas progresivo?" match. Good for our threads over the next weeks, for sure.

@66 "It's creepy that so many people on Slog are arguing that we shouldn't give a fuck about having more openly gay people in public office. Wow."

Ed Murray has already been in office for 18 years. So that would add zero people to public office.

Sally Clark is also in office. So is Tom Rasmussen. They are not raising the bar on progressive issues in Seattle. It's nice to have gay people in office, but Seattle has a long record as a gay-friendly city. I don't see what adding Ed Murray to the mayor's office elevates LGBTQ issues, since almost every candidate has similar positions on those issues.

Matt, McGinn does tout himself to be a champion for diversity but his record of accomplishments standing up for women, minorities, the poor, the environment, transit, are miniscule compared to Murray’s. I’m not saying that McGinn doesn’t in his heart intend to fight the good fight on those issues. I believe both of them do. I just don’t think McGinn is as strong of a leader as Murray or as capable of achieving his goals.
Being pro Murray and anti McGinn doesn’t erase, for me, the fact that McGinn wants good things for Seattle. So I think this attempt to make Murray a chauvinist conservative who only cares about gay issues is way too petty-minded and ignores all the work Murray has done for the state.
It surprises me to see how resentful the McGinn fans are of Murray and his accomplishments.

@ 88, it was "ian" who specifically brought up Murray's orientation as bringing diversity to City Hall. It was in that context that I made my comments @ 78 and @85.

I have no dog in this fight. My comments are being prompted by the (imo) over-the-top reaction of the pro-Murray camp to Goldy's (again imo) reasonable post, and ian's comments that Murray should be elected because he's gay - and really for no other reason, if you check out all his comments.

I see. Fair enough, Matt.

I have to agree with Matt from Denver. I'm gay and live in Seattle. I will be forever grateful to Ed for his role in getting marriage equality passed... But what does that have to do with being mayor of Seattle? McGinn is no less pro-gay than Ed Murray is. Seattle is arguably the most gay-friendly city in the country. There is literally nothing left on the gay agenda in Seattle. It's done. I cannot think of a single gay issue that Murray would support that McGinn would not.

I mentioned earlier that I am undecided in this race. I may end up voting for Murray. Or maybe not. But his being gay is completely irrelevant to me. It is a big deal in other political races, but it seems like a complete non-issue in a Seattle mayoral race.

So, why does Ed hate Seattle and our liberal beliefs so much, btw?

Oh, and meanwhile, thanks to Ed, the Port is shelling out $253,000,000,000.00 - yes HUNDREDS of BILLIONS - for a tunnel that none of us will be able to afford to use. Without a vote.

There's the big issue - 520 overruns mean we're not able to build bike lanes that carry 20 times as many people for 1/20,000th the price.

All for a vanity tunnel we can't afford.

@88, thanks for the measured tone, it's refreshing in this race. McGinn has done many things for minorities and disenfranchised groups, though it hasn't really made it into the media. The primary thing he did was actually reach out to them and make sure that their voices were considered in city policymaking. In past times (and in most cities, states, so on), their voices of these groups has historically been ignored because they aren't resource-rich constituencies that can help city politicians get re-elected. In police reform, for example, he brought local community organizers and activists (like Harriet Walden) to the table, which many did not want - they preferred to have "respectable" civic leaders who were part of elite networks and had less fire in their bellies. He also, when he came into office, created a Homeless Advocacy Board of local advocates in order to help ensure that the homeless community - one of the most disenfranchised groups in politics, always - would have a permanent voice in city hall.

McGinn has presided over a sea change in Seattle politics, a leveling of the hierarchy of influence, and the mainstream media's missed it. People who have historically had the most influence - such as the Downtown Business Association and the wealthier members of society - are having to compete with more voices in city hall and are not as easily getting what they want. On the other hand, formerly disempowered and disenfranchised groups like blacks, hispanics, and the homeless, have unprecedented access to city hall. This is a large reason why he's been called "divisive" - he has fought for and represented a far broader group of interests than the city council, which is largely a bastion of Seattle's elite crust. And for that reason, many longtime activists in African-American issues, farmworker and migrant rights, and many other issues, are extremely passionate supporters of McGinn. (Some such people are Charlie James, Estela Ortega, Harriet Walden, Flor Azevedo Avendano. And many, many others. These are all respected longtime activists and community leaders.)

This kind of stuff almost never happens in politics, as most politicians' main desire is to get re-elected, and the safest way to get re-elected is to cater to the well-heeled power elite. Those power elite have a lot of influence over media coverage (think: the conservative family behind the Seattle Times), and through the media they can prioritize or downplay stories about the mayor in order to create a public narrative that serves their interest.

@56

Goldy:

Nice deflection. How about instead of looking for the 'black candidate' in the race (particularly ones with no black candidates), maybe try supporting the candidate who doesnt have a record of backing violent bigots in the police department and engaging in policy programs that leave out certain members of the community (black and native) in favor of others?

Kinda hard for McGinn supporters to defend SPD banner waivers that McGinn went to bat for like Shandy Cobaine, Rich O Neill, Brian Pomper, Chief Diaz and technically Ian Birk. So instead whenever the SPD and the DOJ is mentioned, or social programs for whats left of the African American and Native communities in Seattle, you guys duck and cover like a tornado drill.

Also, maybe ease up on the threats there sonny. Not that I think you could/would burn a cross in my yard (or that you would have a problem with Seattle law enforcement doing something metaphorically similar to a person of color in the metro), but if you want to have a dialogue on it, Id be happy to engage you more directly via email or something else.

There is a reason why so many commenters here disagree with you and McGinn. Its not just at the Slog either. Take a gander at Komo, the Times or any of the other Seattle news papers. Better yet, check publicola or some of the Seattle blogs. People outside of the 'upper middle, faux environmentalist, white faux liberal' crowds cant stand McGinn. There is a reason for that. If you cant defend or even acknowledge the flaws of your candidate, youre going to lose your cool or have to ignore every conversation on him.

@74:

Yes, Murray is so inneffective about transportation. Tell me again the wonders McGinn has done with Seattle traffic of the non-bicycle kind?

Oh yes...he hasnt done any wonders. Its actually WORST than it was under Nickels. Fewer lanes, longer lights, longer commuting times. But who cares, as long as the rich upper crust who can afford to live close enough to their work where they can take their bikes are doing fine! Right?

[PS I wanted to end by saying 'PERIOD', ala what you did with that little 'Case Closed' weak kneed definitive prediction claim (a bad one considering McGinn got less votes and is polling below Murray), but that seems more like something done by closeted right wingers, aka McGinn voters]