In the August primary, City Council President Sara Nelson suffered a crushing primary defeat at the hands of progressive challenger Dionne Foster. But as she heads toward the general election, she told her donors that she’s “scrappy,” that she’s been the “underdog” before, and that with their help (for the low, low price of $650) she’s going to bounce back. Her plan to compete? More of the same, with a desperate dash of anti-authoritariansm.
In a recording of a recent virtual meeting obtained by The Stranger, Nelson addressed supporters to “shore up” their confidence in her.
“I’ve been told I need to bump up my sort of anti-Trump rhetoric, or acknowledge that we’re under attack, or whatever,” Nelson said. “But I follow that with, so who do you want leading? Who do you want on council? Do you want some inexperienced leader with a steep learning curve, or do you want someone who’s proven she can take on hard fights and win. So that is some of the messaging around what we’re being told now that I have to do.”
A few minutes later, Nelson’s campaign manager Nathan Haerr asked her to talk about how she’d “carry different messages into different areas.”
“Rule number one is you, you don’t necessarily say different things,” she said. “You don’t want to be caught in inconsistency. I know that, besides the Trump thing, the top three issues [are] affordability, public safety, moving the needle on homelessness.”
According to Haerr, you should expect her new tough on Trump image on the campaign trail. But in this “brutal,” low-attention span media environment, they’d need an “army of ambassadors” to like and share their social media content (including her new blog, and TikToks, which will be coming soon, they said). And since many of them had already maxed out their donations, it’d be great if they could find three new donors or host a fundraising event, he said.
“It costs money to buy digital ads, it costs money to buy mailers, it costs money to go up on TV,” he said. “And we’re shoehorning our message into this tough environment of Sara—is that one person that is going to stand up to Trump.”
Does the shoe fit? We’re not so sure. Or whatever.
In a statement, Nelson said there was nothing new about her being a “strong voice against Trump’s overreach in Seattle politics and, more importantly, advancing policies like” legislation backing the state’s healthcare shield law.” She also cited her support for sanctuary city policies and “our policies defending Seattle’s autonomy.”
“Here’s what I think about the threat to Seattle: Trump has made it clear he won’t respect blue cities or let us protect our own people,” she wrote. “His recent comments about Portland show this isn’t theoretical—it’s a direct threat. Throughout his presidency, he’s targeted our immigrant neighbors, attacked cities trying to address homelessness compassionately, and used federal power to punish places like Seattle for their values.”
Nelson showed her steadfast commitment to sanctuary city policies just last week when she voted to expand a police CCTV network even after state lawmakers, activists, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, the Seattle Community Police Commission and more than 100 public commenters warned the federal government could use the city’s surveillance tech against immigrants, abortion seekers and trans people, or whatever.
“It shouldn’t take consultants to remind you to stand against hate and fear,” Foster said in a statement to The Stranger. “At a time when our laws, rights, and communities are under real threat, we need leaders who understand the crisis, share our values, and will not back down from defending our people. Sara’s cynical admission that she sees this issue through an opportunistic political lens tells us everything we need to know.” (The Stranger endorsed Foster in the primary election.)
Before Nelson talked about her very authentic messaging, her political consultant, Ben Anderstone, gave his explanation for the “striking” election results. In 2021, Nelson won with 54 percent of the vote. Much of that support came from older, wealthy, home-owning neighborhoods. But this year, the city has swung against the “three major candidates”: Mayor Bruce Harrell, Nelson, and City Attorney Ann Davison.
Older homeowners still supported them. But while Nelson held up relatively well in Rainier Valley, Dunlap, and Brighton, she lost voters in the “fleece belt” in and around Ballard and Fremont, he said. This contingent of educated, liberal-minded, REI-shopping homeowners who are well-off, but not wealthy, moved to the center in 2021 because “the defund the police issues and other issues really were a challenge with these voters.” This year, the libs are very energized by national politics, which may be “influencing how they’re seeing local issues,” Anderstone said.
Davison’s swing looked similar to Nelson’s, he said, while Harrell took the biggest hits in diverse areas. That turnout was so depressed in Broadmoor, Delridge, Windermere and Laurelhurst, and renter-heavy neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, West Seattle, Uptown and Lower Queen Anne came out in droves, suggested younger, progressive voters were activated, “quite possibly by national stuff.”
“And what this tells us is that there is a macroenvironment that is driving these voters towards more, sort of, what they perceived as left-wing candidates,” Anderstone said. “So that is our primary challenge on the ground, electorally, for persuasion.”
The key to a Nelson win was getting centrists to vote at all, convincing the restless liberals in the “fleece belt” to vote for her, and emphasizing that Nelson is the person who can “put up systems that are resilient to whatever is happening nationally,” he said.
As for the rest of her electoral plans, Nelson said she’d hold to her experience as “someone who’s proven she can take on hard fights and win” and define Foster, who has never run for public office, as inexperienced and unqualified. (In a statement to The Stranger, Foster said she did more to advance progressive policy running the nonprofit WA Progress Alliance than Nelson had in her “divisive three years on City Council.” She also pointed to her experience as a senior policy advisor to the city, “And I’ll let my lived experience speak for itself,” Foster said. “To try and erase my resume is deeply offensive.”)
To defend her own record, Nelson also said she would emphasize that she’s not responsible for Mayor Bruce Harrell’s inaction on “public safety,” “graffiti,” or “what have you.”
“That’s what happened at Lake City recently,” she said, referencing an incident last month when she set up a press conference in front of the soon-to-be-closed Fred Meyer, and residents turned it against her, angrily accusing her of inaction. She admitted that she should have been more “attuned” to the neighborhood.
“What I need to say over and over again is, look, I am showing up for you, and I am continuing to hold the executive accountable,” she said. “And then mention all the ways I’ve done it already, and we’ll do it going forward, because the council passes the laws, but the executive is supposed to implement. That’s my standard answer on that.”
I’m surprised she turned on Harrell like that at the end there. Is this election gonna be a centrist bloodbath?
I suppose Nelson’s anti-Trump posturing isn’t quite as facially risible as Ann Davison’s, but it’s worth noting that another centrist darling, Jenny Durkan, ran MUCH harder against Trump than either of them, and we know how that turned out.
Yep, she won. Was that your point?
This is the best the Stranger can do with “… a recording of a recent virtual meeting…” with Nelson? Weak.
@1: Note that she criticized Mayor Harrell’s “inaction,” whilst the Stranger has been criticizing his actions. The voters will decide whether to agree with the Stranger, saying Harrell has gone too far, or agree with Nelson, saying Harrell’s “inaction” is the problem. (Yet, somehow, I just don’t see the Stranger admitting that more sweeps are the will of the voters if both Harrell and Nelson win.)
@3 Not that she won, but that the rest of us lost.
speaking
of Weak:
“I’ve been told
I need to bump up
my sort of anti-Trump
rhetoric, or acknowledge
that we’re under attack, or whatever . . .
So that
is some of
the messaging
around what we’re
being told now that I have to do”
she Did say. but
moving from the middle
even just a little’s Not
gonna keep Cadet
Bonespurs at bay
FDR
Deserted
his Class and moved
to The Left prodigiously and
was Elected Prez FOUR fucking Times.
The time for timidity
has Long since
Passed.
6: It’s just one out of nine council members, only a blemish on Seattle progressive purity politics.
“Seattle
progressive
purity politics”?
giving
Seattle
what, Two
Progressives
(should Dionne
Foster defeat Sara
Nelson) on the City Council?
Big journeys Begin
with Small
steps.
@8 too bad the upcoming journey for Seattle with Wilson and the other endorsed Stranger candidates will be akin to a ride aboard the Event Horizon.
‘She also cited her support for sanctuary city policies and “our policies defending Seattle’s autonomy.”’
Be careful what you wish for.
‘ICE stated in an email that, due to sanctuary policies, the agents “are forced” to conduct operations within communities, sometimes acting in large groups, to apprehend violent criminals released from local custody. A spokesperson denied that the agency was deliberately targeting certain cities.
‘“While it takes two officers to make an arrest in a controlled, custodial environment, it takes eight to 10 officers to make an at-large arrest in the community,” said an ICE spokesperson in an email.’
(https://www.wsj.com/us-news/ice-boston-tough-tactics-da882816?mod=hp_lead_pos7)
Cities are not sovereign; they do not have the power to make their own immigration policies. Attempts to stop ICE from deporting illegals will simply bring more ICE officers into communities, with the concomitant danger of more violence in those communities.
Lefty-liberals thought we could create an easy way out: declare “sanctuary cities,” whilst not doing the hard work of reforming federal immigration policy. The election of Trump has now revealed “sanctuary cities” for the mere virtue-signaling they always have been. A Harris administration might have allowed that deceitful status quo to continue, but the hard left’s absolute, intolerant insistence upon All Gaza All The Time meant Trump’s election was not prevented.
Enjoy your ICE.
That photo is hilarious! Everyone is so happy and engaged, though no one has even touched their drink and the tapas have yet to arrive (nothing for hoodie guy, thank you). There’s even a Sound Transit bus rolling by with the URL visible. Subtle and perfect! (Though do I see red sweater guy staring at Asian cutie’s tits…)
@10 lapping up conservative propaganda and holding the left somehow responsible for Trump’s authoritarian misdeeds per usual. You’re like an abused mom who yells at her kids who tried to defend her from their dad for making it worse.
@10 By definition, a principled stance that carries real, tangible costs is not “virtue-signaling.” It’s virtue. The word has no meaning otherwise.
DOUG. @11: “That photo is hilarious!” As is DOUG.’s comment @11. Nothing like a totally authentic, organic, believable photo of Sara Nelson hanging with the younger generation.
@12:This from the guy who always blames the Democrats for whatever Trump does.
Priceless.
@15 “no, you” huh? Your debate skills are impenetrable
“suffered a crushing primary defeat”
Seeing as how Seattle’s primaries are basically meaningless, that’s not saying much.
@13: ‘By definition, a principled stance that carries real, tangible costs is not “virtue-signaling.” It’s virtue.‘
What “real, tangible costs” does Seattle, Boston (the focus of the Journal’s article), or any other “sanctuary city,” pay?
Also, what good is having “virtue,” via declaration of a sanctuary city, if ICE will simply barge in and deport illegal immigrants anyway?
@18 You provided the answer to that question yourself: it’s the risk of having ICE simply barge in and deport illegal (and legal) immigrants anyway. Plus the risks of funding clawbacks, malicious “investigations” and/or prosecutions, and full-on military occupation, as DC has already experienced and other cities (probably including Seattle, sooner or later) soon will. Standing up to Trump’s corrupt dictatorial power grab carries real costs that not all localities are willing to pay, but Seattle thus far is standing firm. If that’s merely “virtue-signaling,” what would real virtue even look like in this case? The whole concept becomes meaningless.
@19: “… it’s the risk of having ICE simply barge in and deport illegal (and legal) immigrants anyway.”
That can happen whether the place has labeled itself a “sanctuary city” or not.
‘Plus the risks of funding clawbacks, malicious “investigations” and/or prosecutions, and full-on military occupation, as DC has already experienced and other cities (probably including Seattle, sooner or later) soon will.‘
Again, that can happen anywhere. Trump is more likely to target liberal cities generally, and liberal cites are more likely to call themselves “sanctuary cities,” but that’s demonstrating correlation, not causation.
“Standing up to Trump’s corrupt dictatorial power grab…”
Like it or not, ICE enforces the law. They may do it in an abusive manner, but they’re still enforcing our laws. Labeling this a “corrupt dictatorial power grab,” simply makes it sound as if you don’t care much about the actual meanings of words.
“… carries real costs…”
Like what? What “real costs” does Seattle pay? What federal monies got redirected away from Seattle specifically because Seattle declared itself a sanctuary city? What bad thing has happened to Seattle which hasn’t also happened to non-sanctuary liberal cities?
@20 “What bad thing has happened to Seattle which hasn’t also happened to non-sanctuary liberal cities?”
Can you name a “non-sanctuary liberal city?”
And in case you are somehow actually unaware Trump is targeting sanctuary cities:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
“Sec. 17. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to the maximum extent possible under law, evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds. Further, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall evaluate and undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction’s practices that interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.”
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/06/nx-s1-5288871/justice-department-sues-chicago-and-illinois-over-sanctuary-laws
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/trump-administration-sues-new-york-immigration
@21: Like their URLs, neither of the last two articles you cited article mentions Seattle. Therefore, my question, ‘What “real costs” does Seattle pay?’ remains completely unanswered. Thank you for your usual informed, insightful, and relevant contribution to the dialogs here. (Bonus points: the second article is about the feds suing New York State, not New York City, although I find your confusion of the two completely unsurprising, to say the least.)
Your first citation seems a bit behind the story. Luckily, though, Seattle has not waited to get attacked directly by Trump, but has taken proactive steps to protect federal funding:
“City Attorney Ann Davison also joined a lawsuit with other sanctuary cities threatened with the loss of federal funding unless they comply with immigration enforcement.” (https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/04/04/79998324/protect-immigrants-tax-the-rich)
As this is such an important issue to you, you’ll be voting for her, right?
@22
Bro, just research the history of the 1850s already. We have been here before with the Underground Railroad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_liberty_laws
@23: It’s good to see even our modern “progressives” recognize the cynical exploitation of undocumented labor inherent to our tolerating illegal arrivals. (Comparing the Underground Railroad to ICE pays the latter a compliment it does not deserve, but yes, I agree: better for you to overstate your point, than not to make it at all.)
@22 Can you name a “non-sanctuary liberal city?”
Seattle has already tried ‘progressive’ governance. Remember Sawant, Herbold, Lewis, Gonzalez, and Mosqueda?
What were the results: higher rents and cost of living, soda taxes, crime, skyrocketing gun violence, unchecked shoplifting which increased food prices, restaurants and businesses closing, boarded up downtown while Bellevue boomed, human trafficking, #1 in drug overdoses, needles in parks, #3 in homelessness behind NYC and LA.
Are voters really that feeble-minded and forgetful?
@24 Few if any progressives would deny that contradiction. Indeed, that’s why most Americans outside MAGA-world (including the previous three Republican presidents) have long favored some kind of comprehensive reform that would both streamline the immigration and work authorization processes AND extend at least some legal protections to migrant workers. But in the meantime, what it comes down to is individual agency and basic human rights. Those who have chosen to cross the border without documentation have made the formidable decision that the uncertainty, exploitation and prejudice they will likely suffer in the U.S. is preferable to the political and/or economic oppression they suffered in their home countries — even after factoring in all the risks and costs of the actual journey. Except for the tiny handful who pose a genuine threat to the safety of others, they deserve our support and (to the extent possible) protection, regardless of who they end up working for or under what conditions. So-called sanctuary laws that seek to place the burden of immigration enforcement on the federal government (where it rightly belongs, since states and cities have no authority over the national border and no role in setting immigration policy) are an important part of that effort. Seattle and other cities with these laws absolutely need to hold firm on them. When push comes to shove in Seattle, as I very much believe it will, I have very little confidence that Nelson, Davison or Harrell will do so. No one should be fooled by vague, tepid anti-Trump gestures like the one this article describes. Talk about virtue-signaling!
“No one should be fooled by vague,
tepid anti-Trump gestures like
the one this article describes.”
and No one can Sell
it like ole wormmy
“Talk about virtue-signaling!”
Indeed.
I’m ready for all three of them to go. Nelson, Davison and Harrell need to find new jobs, away from Seattle politics. I’m sure they have good contacts in their years of sucking up to rich folks so no worries about any of them becoming homeless.
I’m hopeful voting for an experienced boots-on-the-ground candidate will give Seattle policies that benefit the majority of citizens.
@27: “@24 Few if any progressives would deny that contradiction.”
What contradiction does @24 contain? It consists entirely of references to white Americans’ centuries-old practice of stealing the value of labor from darker-skinned persons, whilst giving them little (if any) human rights in return. It notes this dismal practice continues to this day, with illegal immigrants as the exploited laborers.
“Seattle and other cities with these laws absolutely need to hold firm on them. When push comes to shove in Seattle, as I very much believe it will, I have very little confidence that Nelson, Davison or Harrell will do so.”
I’m sorry, you must’ve missed my comment @22. Here, I’ll help you out on that:
“City Attorney Ann Davison also joined a lawsuit with other sanctuary cities threatened with the loss of federal funding unless they comply with immigration enforcement.” (https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/04/04/79998324/protect-immigrants-tax-the-rich)
So, now that you’re aware of this (months-old) news, have you still “very little confidence” Seattle’s City Attorney will (continue to) “hold firm” on this issue?
Oh, and on the topic of merely talking vs. actually doing:
“Indeed, that’s why most Americans outside MAGA-world (including the previous three Republican presidents) have long favored some kind of comprehensive reform that would both streamline the immigration and work authorization processes AND extend at least some legal protections to migrant workers. […] Talk about virtue-signaling!”
Thank you for this sentiment; I could not possibly agree more.
@30 “So, now that you’re aware of this (months-old) news, have you still “very little confidence” Seattle’s City Attorney will (continue to) “hold firm” on this issue?”
Ya who’s ever heard of a politician not following through on promises made or actions initiated during an election cycle?
Still waiting for you to name a “non-sanctuary liberal city” btw
@31 My intent was to acknowledge that opponents of mass deportation are often accused of implicitly supporting migrants’ exploitation by unscrupulous employers — and that this is a real tension that can only be resolved by comprehensive immigration and labor law reform. In the meantime, though, I argued that we should do our best to defend those who made the difficult and emotionally wrenching choice to migrate, whether or not we think they chose wisely.
I’m aware of the lawsuit that Davison belatedly joined and I agree that it’s one factor to consider in evaluating her overall political record. But having done so, I’ll stand by my opinion.
@29: “…Nelson, Davison and Harrell need to find new jobs, away from Seattle politics. I’m sure they have good contacts in their years of sucking up to rich folks…”
Nelson and her husband founded Fremont Brewing, and the beer garden named for it. Their brewery is one of the largest in the city. I doubt very much they have any need to go “sucking up to rich folks.”
Look, I get it: you were just trying for a cheap, drive-by smear. But all you did was make yourself look ignorantly mean-spirited.
@32: “I’m aware of the lawsuit that Davison belatedly joined…”
If you’d followed the link I’d provided back to the story at KOMO, you’d have seen the suit runs past one hundred pages. It was filed on the 27th of February, a Thursday. The announcement of Seattle joining it came on the following Tuesday, the 4th of March. That’s THREE business days. How much faster did you want the city’s attorneys to read it, analyze it, and decide if joining it was good public policy?
@34 OK, fine: I’m aware of the lawsuit that Davison ~expeditiously~ joined and I agree that it’s one factor to consider in evaluating her overall political record. But having done so, I’ll stand by my opinion.
@35: “No matter how many times I get my facts wrong, I stand by my opinion.”
Care to tell us exactly what “real costs” Seattle pays for having declared itself a “welcoming city”? Because it certainly appears the only persons paying anything for that policy are the folks in detention facing deportation, who believed in Seattle’s now-hollow promise to protect them.
@36
WOW. the
BLATANT* LIE:
@35: “No matter how many times I get my facts wrong, I stand by my opinion.”
it’s almost like
you’ve Completely
Given Up, Wormtongue.
you do Realize
that this Will go on
your Permanent Record?
*see: @35
@25: “‘Can you name a “non-sanctuary liberal city?”‘
No. If none exist, then any attempt to claim a liberal city’s declaration of itself as a “sanctuary city,” “carries real, tangible costs,” as @13 claimed, will fail per the logic I described @20. So, even if CKathes (or anyone else here) were ever to supply an actual example of any “real, tangible costs,” incurred by a liberal city’s declaration of itself as a “sanctuary city,” there would be no way to know for sure.
However, this seems like a purely academic concern, as no one here has yet provided so much as one single example of those “real, tangible costs,” and even the commenter who made that claim seems to have completely lost all interest in supporting it, so I guess we’re done here.
Whoops, forgot this one:
@31: “Ya who’s ever heard of a politician not following through on promises made or actions initiated during an election cycle?”
Yes, why didn’t City Attorney Davison file or join a lawsuit against the Trump Administration any sooner than 1Q 2025? Why not in all of 2024, 2023, or 2022? She was in office during all of those years. Why did she not sue the Trump Administration then, huh?
Obviously, the only reason you can ever know is her political favoritism. No other possible reason will ever occur to you.