Just over a year ago, Sara Nelson was flying high, practically waving from cloud nine on election night. She’d pulled off a conservative coup of Seattle’s City Council. After two years as a conservative outcast, she now had a majority of fellow business-friendly colleagues who were set to remake local politics in their image —the city’s progressive constituency be damned. Down with police defunding, social housing, and new business taxes. Hello, drug ordinances, SODA zones, and rollbacks to gig worker pay. But her rise might be shorter than a Seattle summer.
The Seattle Times officially called the City Council Position 8 race for progressive newcomer Alexis Mercedes Rinck last Thursday night. Unofficially, politicos are calling next year’s race for City Council Position 9 for anyone who challenges current Council President Nelson. Rinck’s decisive defeat of the council’s nepo baby Tanya Woo marks not only a second rejection of Woo, but a sign of voters’ dissatisfaction with the conservative council they only recently elected.
“People are fed up with Nelson’s bullshit,” said Carrie Barnes, a major contributor to the Progressive People Power PAC that supported Rinck. “And we aren’t going to let corporate interests sneak her back into office in 2025 when less people vote. [Rinck] is just the beginning.”
The “It’s So Over” to “We Are So Back” Pendulum
The 2023 elections left Seattle progressives devastated. Big business and real estate interest poured more than $1 million into the seven council races. Without organized labor —the city’s other monied interest — counterbalancing them, the corporate PACs bought all but one of the seven seats up for grabs. Those PACs lobbied the council they bought to appoint Woo, their only failed candidate, to the citywide council seat ditched by former Council Member Teresa Mosqueda at the beginning of 2024. Five council members voted to install Woo and she quickly announced her intention to run that year to retain the seat.
Enter Rinck.
“I’m of the belief that big business shouldn’t be deciding who represents this City,” Rinck told The Stranger when she announced her candidacy in March. “You know, Woo was appointed by five people. I’m looking to be elected by 100,000 people.”
And as of Friday afternoon, 197,000 people voted for Rinck. She won 57.9% of the vote to Woo’s 41.6%. Her vote count trumps the combined totals of the 2023 city council victors and she scored 58,000 more votes than Nelson in her citywide race in 2021. The math is clear — Rinck represents more of the electorate than any other member and it’s not particularly close.
Rinck benefited from higher turnout driven by the presidential race at the top of the ticket. People of color and voters under 40 made up a slightly higher proportion of the electorate in the 2024 general than in 2023, according to Washington Community Alliance (WCA) data analyst Andrew Hong.
Nelson and, more recently, the Seattle Times Editorial Board, have argued against a popular democracy reform to combine even and odd year elections. They agree with proponents that this would increase turnout, but they don’t trust voters are smart enough to decide on so many elections at once. So while a higher quantity of voters cast a ballot in even years, Nelson reasons the votes are lower quality. It all sounds pretty damn racist, classist, and paternalistic when considering that more people of color, renters, and young people vote in odd years.
While the even-year boost helped Rinck, Hong says she didn’t need it to win. Her success in the primary actually reflects a turnabout in the electorate. A nearly identical voting bloc came out in the 2023 election as in the 2024 primary. So Hong deduces that Rinck somehow “convinced people who voted for moderates in 2023 to vote for her in 2024.”
Girl Bossed To Close To The Sun
That shift spells trouble for Seattle’s conservative-majority council as Rinck ran as a clear referendum to the newly elected council. Advocates warned that this council would attack renters’ protections, workers’ rights, gut funding for affordable housing, and bend over backwards to give the cops whatever they ask for. And as the year went on, the City Council proved those advocates right.
Nelson put herself in a position to shoulder unique blame for any perceived failures of the council. She played kingmaker, recruiting and supporting many of the 2023 winners. Then her stooges elected her president after spending two years as the body’s conservative outcast. And she immediately started making power moves, including firing the head of central staff Esther Handy. This is the precise shit that new, insecure leadership does when they want to ensure total loyalty. But Nelson may have power tripped flat on her face.
“The issues that this City Council has taken up under the leadership of Council President Sara Nelson are not popular amongst Seattleites,” says MLK Labor Council Executive Treasurer Katie Garrow. “In the 2025 campaign, we don’t need to persuade voters on our ideas. We just need to make it clear that Nelson was the leader of the council while these already unpopular positions have been pursued. It seems clear from Rinck’s success that they’re with us, not the council majority.”
Most notably, she’s burned any possible bridge with workers. SEIU 775 Secretary-Treasurer Adam Glickman said there’s nothing Nelson can do to win back support from labor, one of two major players in local political PACs.
Nelson wasted months on a controversial crusade against a newly passed minimum wage for gig delivery drivers. And as president, she oversaw Council Member Joy Hollingsworth’s “political suicide,” a short-lived attempt to permanently enshrine a tip punishment system for workers.
“It was sort of unbelievable that our leaders thought that was a position that Seattleites agreed with,” says Garrow from MLK Labor.
Even for voters who may not have workers’ rights top of mind, Rinck’s consultant, Erin Schultz of NWP Consulting, says voters might be frustrated by the fights Nelson and her majority picked.
The council did not explicitly campaign on wasting half their first year engaged in career-ruining battles against workers’ rights. They ran as a backlash to the collective hallucination that the previous council defunded the Seattle Police Department (SPD) — the City allocated $398 million to SPD in 2019 before the protests and have proposed $457 million in 2025. Voters may have expected to see more change to public safety.
At the same time, the City Council has not done much for the corporate donors who bankrolled their last campaigns – if only by virtue of not accomplishing much in general. Still,
Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce CEO Rachel Smith told The Stranger earlier this year that the business community felt satisfied with the council they bought. They may even gladly reward Nelson and the rest of the majority for stalling efforts to increase corporate taxes to address the budget shortfall in the ongoing negotiations
On The Flip Side
Not everyone forecasted Rinck’s win as a death knell for Nelson.
“Seattle City Council never really stopped being unpopular,” says Nelson’s consultant, Ben Anderstone of Progressive Strategies Northwest.
Anderstone echoed Hong’s analysis. Many of the same voters who went center in 2023 picked Rinck in 2024 and for “not-especially-ideological reasons,” according to Anderstone.
Rather, the data points to an anti-incumbent bias, rather than the electorate’s true progressive nature, says Hong.
“Seattle voters are uniquely reactionary,” says Hong. “They want change, and they’re impatient for change, so they’re not going to wait that long to vote out whatever the majority is.”
The 2023 council represented a backlash to the 2019 council, which rode into office on the backlash against Amazon’s attempt to buy the election. Hong says this trend indicates that centrists and progressives have both failed to solve the issues that voters care about most, particularly the housing and homelessness crisis.
Anderstone says that incumbents are not destined to lose, “but any incumbents need to effectively message around [voter’s] frustrations.”
Choose Your Fighter
Over the next few months, the chattering class will vet and prop up candidates to take on Nelson. It’s critical that consultants and endorsing bodies back the right candidate. If a progressive beats Nelson – and if Rinck resists the council’s conservative gravitational pull — the balance of power shifts. Right now, the council has enough conservatives to pass whatever legislation they want. But three progressives in Council Members Tammy Morales, Rinck, and the Nelson challenger could sway more moderate council members to join them in passing more progressive policies or blocking the most egregious legislation.
So far, it seems they are on the hunt for someone like Rinck.
Rinck’s consultant Schultz tells The Stranger Rinck is a “unicorn” of a candidate.
“It’s very rare that you have someone that brings real policy experience, is rooted in their values, and is connected with community,” says Schultz.
Schultz also commends Rinck for running a “badass” campaign. She earned early support from a broad coalition, which Schultz says helped legitimize her as a relatively unknown candidate.
Glickman says Rinck threaded the needle of appealing to progressives without losing moderates to Woo’s conservative campaign. When asked how she pulled that off, Glickman said, “If I had a total answer to that, I’d be the richest political consultant in the country.”
It won’t be hard to have a broader coalition than Nelson. As Upper Left consultant Michael Charles says, “Nelson has done no favors for herself by making allies that lead me to believe that she’ll run a strong campaign next year.”
But Nelson won’t rely on her merit to win anyway. Outside spending plays a huge role in who wins the election. Nelson had almost five times as much money behind her as her opponent Nikkita Oliver in 2021 and she won by about seven percentage points. Business way outspent labor in 2023, buying their corporate takeover. In 2024, business and labor spent roughly the same amount on their candidates, and labor won Rinck’s seat.
SIEU 775 will certainly play ball this go round. Glickman concedes that labor may have been a little “naive” for investing so little in the left-lane candidates in 2023, giving rise to the new corporate council. Now with more energy around fundraising with the launch of P3 PAC, designed explicitly to never let a corporate takeover like the one in 2023 happen again, progressives seem better positioned to compete with big business. But Glickman says Seattle can expect a “big, bitter, expensive” race.
I have every confidence that you and the other writers at the Stranger can help to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling someone unelectable in the general election through the primary and following that up by crowing about the amazing slate of school board candidates you helped elect.
The Heathers at The Stranger have their marching orders.
“the corporate PACs bought all but one of the seven seats up for grabs.”
It’s not possible to buy a city council seat. All of the council members were elected by Seattle’s liberal electorate.
lol at the notion the previous council represented the “people”. Just a reminder that they routinely had the lowest satisfaction scores of any of the various political bodies in the state. I would also note we had 10 years of progressive rule during some of the best growth years of the city and the only thing they accomplished was increasing homelessness on a massive scale, increasing crime, increasing drug overdoses and passing policy after policy that continually failed to accomplish it’s stated goal (ammunition tax – gun deaths are still an issue, soda tax – still a lot of fat people around, jump start tax – housing still an issue, rental protections – massive loss of rental units, minimum wage and worker protections – reductions in hours and loss of positions). Voters have short term memories and are more likely to blame those in office regardless of whether the issues stem from previous councils so I have no doubt that someone like Ron Davis has a better than average chance of defeating Sara Nelson however if anyone actually believe electing someone like Davis who will go back to the policy of demonizing business and landlords will do anything to improve quality of life in Seattle you are going to be disappointed (again).
To add onto @4, things were so bad that even Sawant didn’t run (and those that did only one survived).
What this election shows me is Woo was a weak candidate (due to similar circumstances like previous weak candidate Nikita Oliver). Candidate quality matters to Seattle voters – so only time will tell.
By the way, how’d Chaudhry do – last I checked Smith more than doubled her votes (that’s a true ass kicking, thus why TS has ignored that outcome).
@3: “It’s not possible to buy a city council seat.”
It’s not possible for the Stranger to examine any of the real reasons their candidates lose.
@5: “By the way, how’d Chaudhry do – last I checked Smith more than doubled her votes (that’s a true ass kicking, thus why TS has ignored that outcome).”
The Stranger doesn’t care. Eighteen months from now, they’ll start pimping yet another no-hope candidate in the 9th Congressional District, and six months later, Rep. Smith will effortlessly trounce that person, too. (And, as always, the Stranger’s ‘explanation’ for Smith’s victory won’t be that he’s spent half a lifetime learning what 9th District voters want, but rather because he “… wins elections on the defense industry’s dime…”)
The Stranger sacrifices hopeless 9th District candidates the way the International Solidarity Movement sacrifices idealistic young West Bank protestors.
@4 “There you go again” pushing your counterfactual argument. Homelessness massively increased almost everywhere in the US during that period whether or not progressives controlled local policy. Local policy that is otherwise mostly unable to deal with such a massive systemic issue especially when means of funding via local taxation is largely unavailable as it is in Washington state. You are trying to have the left hold the bag for decades of conservative policy that resulted into massive cuts to social programs when social housing was massively defunded, the mentally ill were pushed onto the street and jails, and economic inequalities reached robber baron era level.
@7 two things can be true simultaneously. Homelessness is largely a federal/state issue and is very difficult if not impossible to address at the city level. I disagree that conservatives are the sole cause of the spike in homelessness. As we debated yesterday there was ample opportunity for democratic administrations to put care in place and they chose not too.
What is also true is policies put in place by the previous council exacerbated the issue by creating an environment where being homeless became a one stop excuse to do whatever you wanted. Due to their laissez-faire attitude shoplifting skyrocketed, open air drug use and overdoses dramatically increased, public parks were overrun and destroyed and yes some people were even randomly assaulted by those suffering from mental health/addiction. Time and again we were promised from the previous council that this new policy or new tax was going to help turn the tide and time and again we saw the situation deteriorate further and the only ones who seemingly benefit were the care organizations who were feeding at the trough. You keep wanting to blame conservatives but the Dems have controlled WA state for the last 40 years and the progressives controlled the city council for the better part of the last 10. The only people who bear the blame for the issues in WA state are those who have the power to do something about it and have chosen not too.
@8 One can’t logically both claim that homelessness is mostly a federal issue that is nearly impossible to solve at local level then blame local politicians for a rise in homelessness that occurs almost everywhere in the nation. If you want Washington to deal effectively with the homelessness crisis you could at least have the decency to support effort at passing progressive taxation on high incomes and capital gain in order to fund effective solutions to offset the lack of federal support. City level policy may alleviate homelessness except when people lose their housing faster due to systemic issues than they can find housing, which is said to have happened during that period and is likely still happening
I say ‘conservatives policies cause homelessness’ and you appear to believe that using a rhetorical switch to ‘Republicans’ is sufficient to fend off abundant facts supporting my claim. Almost all Republicans are conservatives but not all conservatives are Republicans, which explains that some Democrats also vote against social spending that would alleviate the consequences of massive inequalities. Using the vote of conservative Democrats to not blame conservatives (most of whom are Republicans) is really really poor form and not logical.
Finally, homelessness is still rising despite its criminalization by the current city council so your rhetoric about tolerance is not supported by the evidence even if it is hard to directly witness every day in the street the consequences of your favorite conservative policies
@6: The worst part of the Stranger endorsements for CD9 is that all the challengers to Adam Smith they support have no — repeat, no — experience in elected office, or in government at all. All they ever have is a one-issue platform. It’s the height of insanity to promote challengers with such a lack of experience against a 13-term incumbent. None of them rise to the AOC level, nor has Smith ever ignored his district like Joe Crowley, the guy AOC beat.
As for Sara Nelson, the Stranger helped put her in office in the first place, and has never acknowledged their responsibility in that fiasco. It was the same dynamic as in their endorsement for hapless CD9 challengers — endorsing an unqualified candidate with NO governmental experience, Nikkita Oliver, in the primary against the experienced and attractive candidate Brianna Thomas, who would have mopped the floor with the sourpuss Nelson. Until there is a real live viable announced challenger to Nelson, screeds like Hannah’s are only so much bloviating bullshit.
In the August 2021 Primary election, Oliver and Nelson each received about three times as many votes as did Thomas:
Thomas 26,651
Oliver 79,799
Nelson 78,388
(https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/elections/2021/aug-primary/results.pdf)
I doubt very much the Stranger’s endorsement of Thomas instead of Oliver would have sent enough votes to Thomas to change those results.
Here we are. Let’s blame the candidates instead of you fools that backed Hezbollah. You won and we now have Trump. Could you be dumber? Could Kristofarian be dumber?
@11 — “I doubt very much the Stranger’s endorsement of Thomas instead of Oliver would have sent enough votes to Thomas to change those results.”
Then you don’t understand local politics. The Stranger and The Seattle Times are extremely powerful when it comes to the primary. Very rarely does anyone else get nominated. Numerous times there have been strong moderate candidates that both papers ignore. Thomas was one.
Oh, and the same thing happened in the City Attorney race. The Stranger didn’t endorse Holmes and he lost in the primary. We ended up with a right-wing City Attorney.
The good news is that The Stranger Editorial Board seems to be learning their lesson. Endorsing Rinck was huge. It is not that Rinck is a unicorn — she was very similar to Thomas — it is that The Stranger decided to endorse her.