Sonny Crockett stubble for his official portrait? I predict a Drunk of the Week appearance.

He's easy on the eyes, that's for sure....

Oh, don't get excited, #3. He's just placing his chit on the table for when Jim *does* retire. He has no expectations of winning. The seat's going to be pursued by Murray, Constantine and every other local Dem with a profile and a pulse. If he runs respectably in '16, he'll have a leg up for when Jim does actually retire.

Kudos to him for the moxie to do this. And I think his point about driving Dem turnout (it will) in an election where we'll need those votes on other local and statewide issues is valid.

@4
So he runs, loses...and who the hell is he?
I don't think that NOT being if office gives him a leg-up for some future race.

Off topic: the number of posts with no comment option is increasing. Stranger Staff, is this a test, or a permanent change?

he has a very good point. mcdermott is really old (sorry, that matters - my dad is 79), and has been marginalized for his last 6 terms.

@6
Well, if they want to increase that practice, they should do that with the Friday afternoon posts, since those get filled up with the shitposters.

@6.....I agree, I've noticed that too.

Will this "announcement" actually open up his seat in the 43rd, or can Walkinshaw be on the ballot for both offices? If I recall, Ed Murray was still a state senator when he was elected mayor.

I'm thinking about what happened when Jess Spear challenged Frank Chopp, who is also checked out in a lot of ways. Jess would have brought bold new ideas and and amazing amount of energy to the WA State House (which is arguably at least as dysfunctional as the US House), but sadly she got crushed.

@10 - you cannot have your name on the same ballot for more than one office. Seattle Mayor is an 'off year' election so Ed Murray ran secure in the knowledge that if he lost he'd still be a state senator (and, incidentally, could have kept both jobs as far as state law is concerned; Sen. Tim Sheldon is also a Mason County Commissioner since that election is held in off-years). But for Walkinshaw, it's 'up-or-out' - if he wins he moves up to Congress, if he loses he's out of a job.

@5 - in the long run he benefits even if he loses since a run now (assuming it's a respectable campaign...) helps build his name recognition in the larger Congressional district (beyond his Legislative district) for another run in the future. I seriously doubt that's his strategy, though - he's in it to win it.

@13

Well maybe he has a chance.
I have no idea.

I expected that Sawant will run if there is chance to defeat McDermott.

@6 Writers and editors have the option to have comments enabled or disabled on any article. Thanks for commenting.

@16

You may be correct and if really chance to knock off Jim, I am sure that Sawant will join the race and will be funded by the Republicans who would love to see a socialist in Congress, one vote fewer for the Democrats and a way to make socialism look foreign.

@11 Mudbaby
You are mistaken about Speaker Chopp. He is so powerful that any legislation he personally backs is held hostage by the Republicans in budget negotiations, so much of what he does is through others, for the betterment of all. He is also responsible, in part, for reshaping the House Democratic caucus toward women and people of color. The House Democratic Caucus is the face of the future--a good story for The Stranger.

He doesn't appear to have done enough to even think about the job, little less win the election. We need to elect activists, not career politicians.

Brady is remarkably accomplished for someone his age. Can anyone point to a single accomplishment of McDermott's other than his liberal voting record? Happy to be educated, but I think I'm ready for new leadership.

@12: Thanks Steve.

And since Walkinshaw has now effectively told the 43rd to "suck it" after just two years on the job, it's pretty clear that he really is into politics to climb a ladder and not to actually get things done.

The only reason he was appointed to the legislature in the first place was because he packed a special meeting of the 43rd by recruiting PCOs from vacant districts, kicking aside a guy like Scott Forbes who actually gave a shit about the job. It felt icky at the time and this merely confirms the scumminess of the maneuver.

He's an Ed Murray/Jamie Pedersen toady. A corporate sellout under the guise of liberalism. He's no progressive and I hope McDermott's trounces his ass.

I'm all for fresh meat in congress and all, but I'd rather see progressives challenge less progressive office holders than "Baghdad Jim." It's along the same lines as the one thing I see wrong with Bernie running. We need more progressives in the legislative branch. Challenging McDermot won't help with that.

@21

Hmm, so he organized hundreds of people who hadn't been involved in state politics to get engaged with the 43rd... Apologies to the die-hard 43rders but that might be a skill we want in our representative. Now he wants to represent those same people at a level of government that better complements his areas of expertise (international aid). Yes, very scummy indeed.

@20 " other than his liberal voting record"

That's just it, McDermott has a record, while Malinowski has a resume largely composed of Princeton, Gates foundation and world bank, which aren't exactly known as bastions of progressiveness.

@15 Thanks for responding, Tim. I'm aware of how WordPress works. I'm pointing out that writers for the Stranger are opting to disable the comments option for their posts more and more frequently - I'm curious as to why, how long it will continue, and if the practice will continue to increase.

IIRC, Ed Murray ramped up to a similar challenge of McD back in the day, then thought better of it.

@25

I think we can both agree McDermott has a reputation as a liberal maverick on the far left, but anyone representing Seattle is going to vote the right (left) way, and I look forward to learning more about Walkinshaw's positions over the next year. I'm also looking forward to someone who is more than a cantankerous talking head on MSNBC representing me.

@23: It was hardly "hundreds of people", he only needed a few dozen (and some money for signage). And I doubt Walkinshaw did much of the "organization". It had Murray and Pedersen's fingerprints all over it.

It's funny that I haven't seen those same newly-engaged people at 43rd District events since.

@28 Seattle also votes for centrist Democrats who pretend to be more left than they are and we certainly don't need more fakes. I am also not sure what is your purpose in bringing up the far left when the American public at large on average agrees with McDermott on most issues. I think your bias may be showing.

@15 No comment, huh?

McD is a senior member - democrat- on the House Ways and Means Committee. That should count for something. WA state has a history of dumping reps. Like tom Foley, Spokane

Brady is a terrific guy. And he is going to get absolutely crushed. I agree this isn't a play for 2016-its a long game move. It's not a shot across the bow for Ed or Dow. Its a shot across the bow to Jamie Pedersen and Joe McDermott and possibly Pramila Jayapal. He's getting his name out to the entire 7th CD and Jim will probably be held to his closest margin in the past 20 years (and still likely will get 60%). [Read about the 1990 race between Chicago Alderman Ed Eisendrath and US Rep Sidney Yates for a parallel]

As for the 43rd PCO meeting, yes, Brady did stack the PCO roster 2 months before the House replacement session. He was an active volunteer in Ed's campaign and could see the chess board. Ed wins, Jamie moves up, House seat opens. His margin of victory in the PCO meeting was created by PCOs appointed under 43rd district rules who took the job for the sole purpose of voting for Brady in the eventual House replacement session. And Doug is right: almost none of them have been seen since. Lincolnian is wrong-they weren't being "engaged in the political process". Many were already somewhat involved to begin with...and they were there to stack the ballot box, all entirely within the rules. Scott should have seen this coming (and when the prospective PCOs stood up to be nominated, he DID know what was happening-rules did not easily permit the appointments to be rejected).

Yes, it did feel icky and, at the same time, it WAS a political process. Brady played it well.

The point about faux-Seattle liberals is spot on, but is unfair to Brady. He is genuinely far more liberal than Ed, Jamie P, & the rest of the Chamber Dems~~though he should really stop screwing around on housing affordability. Of course rent control needs to be part of the conversation--the answer? maybe, maybe not. Out of bounds for discussion as Ed and Seattle Department of Housing wishes? No.