Alternative theory: the electorate was tired of the status quo, and opted to elect new leaders with different policy agendas.

I wonder how long the tantrum will continue at the Stranger?

“City insider and allegedly bad boss Maritza Rivera…”

CM Sawant hired staffers to City Council’s District 3 Office without regard to merit, and fired them without regard to job performance. She took her hiring and firing orders from the Executive Committee (EC) of Socialist Alternative. This was a violation of city Ethics rules, and possibly illegal as well.

(https://sccinsight.com/sadocs/)

The result? Even after learning all of the above, the Stranger still endorsed her for every subsequent election. Because worker rights.

Also, if you don’t want a loser of the general election to get a seat on the Council, then perhaps you should not have floated the names of three former candidates for City Council, who all together couldn’t win a single primary?

https://www.thestranger.com/news/2023/11/09/79247811/who-will-replace-teresa-mosqueda

(For readers averse to Twitter / X.)

Every registered Seattle voter gets a $100 worth of publicly funded democracy vouchers to donate to these campaigns. There’s a way to move the funding needle, but is there a will?

This article really needs a chart. The prose is fine, but for this sort of thing, a chart makes it much easier to understand.

@1 "Alternative theory: the electorate was tired of the status quo, and opted to elect new leaders with different policy agendas."

You are saying that money had no influence on any of the races? Oh, that is so cute. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny too?

With some races (like District 5) money was irrelevant. That race was over in the primary. In most of the other races though, small factors had a big impact. A lot of it was about getting out the vote. Very few progressives voted this time around, allowing more conservative candidates to win several races.

Alternate theory: people are so disgusted by the direction the failed Mayor and "new" city council are taking, and we will see a massive backlash soon.

Unless they actually build public housing and stop subsidizing suburban non-voters who don't actually live here.

You can see it brewing in Vancouver BC and San Francisco already, Seattle is not immune.

From Crosscut.com:

“Ron Davis, who lost a close race for District 4, said the main problem he sees with vouchers is how they shift power toward independent expenditures because of the limits the system places on other candidate fundraising. He would try to fix that by increasing the size of vouchers -- maybe $100 for the primary and $100 for the general election -- and make it easier for residents to access them.”

Oh, by all means — let’s try to level the playing the field by injecting more taxpayer dollars into the mix! What could possibly go wrong?

https://crosscut.com/politics/2023/11/seattle-city-council-candidates-got-24m-democracy-voucher

so - among the baddies:

Bruce Harrell Supporters (58.6% of votes)
Ed Murray Supporters (presumably before all the awful stuff came out...)
Jenny Durkan Supporters (which I take as voters - because by the end she had no supporters)

"Blue Check" Twitter account holders (but not those who promote Twitter by posting links in their articles)

"People Who Do Not Read The News" and "Bourgeois" - really?

The real message here is that there is "US" and "THEM." And that's a bad look.

Money can't overcome a determined, un-monied electorate:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/03/anti-trump-group-ads-backfired-00125087

In the example offered, I wish money had been effective.

Just keeping track of TS various excuses for why their platform lost. First there were the missing ballots and out of service drop box, then it was those dang Gen Z kids who were too busy listening to Chinese propaganda on Tik Tok to fill in a bubble and drop a pre stamped item in the mail and now it’s the evil real estate lobby and their money. This last one is perplexing because in 2019 money produced the opposite result. Not to mention St Theresa them tilting the playing field by disallowing any businesses from donating to local elections. Looking forward to the next article in the series about how Zionism is to blame.

It's a day ending in Y, so The Stranger is still desperately smearing liberal Democrats by claiming they're conservatives. Stop trying to make fetch happen. It's not going to happen!

END
'Citizens
United' & let
OUR Politicians
regain Free Will.

if you can only
Purchase Lawmakers
if you can Afford to then
that Ain't Democracy. it becomes

rule by Plutocrats

giving us a 'choice' between
the Lesser of Two Evils and
RWNJs like el trumpfster.

when 'Free Speech'
is For Sale it makes a
Mockery of Democracy.

perhaps citizens united
was not a factor here
but that don't make
it go Away which
it'd Better and
Pronto.

@2 At least one more day: Rich Smith provided a link to this screed in this morning’s Slog.

(That being said, I think we’re going to be reading The Stranger’s whining and excuses about the election for a long, long time. But that’s their right as “Seattle’s Only Newspaper.”)

@7 Yep, I'm saying that election spending has little to no effect on the outcome of an election. It's silly to think a majority of the electorate was swayed by mailers, which is, of course, what the Stranger is suggesting here.

Although there is usually a correlation between election spending and election outcomes, as I'm sure you would conceded, correlation does not imply causation. If you research this issue, you'll find the majority of studies conclude spending is not a deciding factor in election outcomes. This 538 article links to some of the more relevant studies: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/

I'm certain you can easily find many additional studies reaching the same conclusion. Alternatively, you could review Hannah's recent post which concludes most campaign spending is a waste of money: https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2023/2023/09/21/79175822/how-local-political-consultants-make-their-money.

You might also ask yourself why you should take Hannah seriously. She has no relevant training, education, or experience in this field. And, as I noted above, although in this piece she claims campaign spending had a decisive impact on the outcome of the election, 2 months ago she wrote that mailers and TV ads (where campaigns spend the bulk of their donations) have little to no impact.

Have a nice weekend!

Han-Han, I know you want to believe that "conservatives" taking over the City Council, but it's just not true. Hell, most of the incoming councilmembers are to the left of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. In any sane mind, they'd be considered run-of-the-mill liberals... but we all know you and The Stranger are anything but sane.

But no mention of the ---$2.4 million--- in democracy vouchers?

https://crosscut.com/politics/2023/11/seattle-city-council-candidates-got-24m-democracy-vouchers

seems odd not to bring that up in a story about election funding...

Unless you’re actively working to usher in the end of capitalism and the grand revolution that will bring us CHOP/CHAZ citywide, you’re a “conservative”.

“As the third-highest cost per vote in the council races, and business’ only real loss, Woo’s campaign shaped up to be the biggest waste of money this cycle.”

That judgement may be excessively harsh, and also premature. CM Morales was a well-funded incumbent with great name recognition, and first-time candidate Woo almost beat her. It recalls the situation in Seattle’s last general election, when on election night, well-financed incumbent CM Mosqueda led by just a few percentage points over a complete nobody, who had spent almost nothing. As the only Stranger-endorsed candidate who’d survived that night, CM Mosqueda’s initial poor showing may have contributed to her decision to leave office prior to her term expiring. When she departs office, this will complete the sweep of the Stranger’s candidates in the November 2021 election. Tanya Woo’s excellent performance in this election may yet contribute to an early exit for CM Morales, and for the same reason: it shows CM Morales’ vulnerability to a serious challenger.

Obviously, there's too much money in politics, but I wonder how effective any of that money is, especially on the local level. At Chez Vel-DuRay, expensive glossy mailings go straight into the recycling, and we don't watch local TV or listen to local radio. We read The Seattle Times (except for the Editorial Page, which is ridiculous), the SECB endorsements and the Voter Guide, but that's about the extent of it.

As I have said before, I voted for Tanya Woo not because I am a fan of hers, but because I think Tammy Morales is a bad council member, and that our district suffers because of her indifference to the needs of her district. She appeals to the very poor and the rich white liberals who regard the very poor as a homogenous group that is akin to mascots or pets. That all well and good, but it doesn't get the garbage picked up or the potholes filled or make the streets safe, and administering city government is a council person's core function.