Goooooood morning: The National Weather Service predicts a 50% chance of rain today, with a breezy evening ahead. Meteorologists expect wind speeds to possibly top 29 miles per hour, so batten down your rotting porch pumpkins people!
Time to talk dollars: Want to tell the City Council how to spend your tax dollars? Go to public comment tonight at 5 pm at City Hall. Or you can participate remotely. You can go to tell them to support a capital gains tax, or oppose cuts to tenant services. Or tell the Council to respect the Jumpstart spend plan and actually use the payroll tax to pay for affordable housing, as it was intended. Check back on the blog for more coverage of the budget from Hannah.
ICYMI: With the blowout loss for former Council Member Tanya Woo, Hannah tells City Council Member Sara Nelson to count her days. Local politicos plan to mount a serious challenge to the conservative Council President Nelson next year in the hopes of ousting her and her pro-cop, pro-business agenda out of office.
Rob Saka Seeks Street Car phase-out: Saka proposed phasing out the South Lake Union streetcar and redirecting the funding to bus service in the City. The budget for the street car is about $4.4 million, which isn’t a whole lot of money when you consider Saka wants $2 million to remove the Delridge median so he can take a left turn.
Last week, the Office of Police Accountability (OPA) completed its investigation into Seattle Police Department (SPD) Officer Kevin Dave, who hit and killed 23-year-old Jaahnavi Kandula as she crossed through a crosswalk in January 2023. The OPA found Dave violated the department’s driving policies as well as its policies requiring officers to follow the law. The City must hold a Loudermill hearing for Dave, which allows him to tell his side of the story before deciding on his discipline, so it may be a couple months before we know the final outcome. In the meantime, Dave continues to fight the traffic ticket Republican City Attorney Ann Davison issued him for his killing of Kandula. Seattle Municipal Court shows Dave’s next hearing is scheduled for 8:30 am on December 18 in courtroom 301.
BREAKING: OPA concluded its investigation into SPD Officer Kevin Dave on Friday and sustained policy violations for breaking the law and vehicle operation. Next step will be deciding discipline for him.
— Ashley Nerbovig (@AshleyNerbovig) November 11, 2024
What’s your plan for this week anyway? Maybe you’re checking out Christmas Dive Bar? Or maybe it’s too soon? Maybe you’re trying to enjoy something with more Thanksgiving vibes? Well, as always, our sister publication EverOut has you covered with the top 41 things to do this week in Seattle.
Republicans likely to control the US House: As it stands, Republicans have won 214 seats in the House, with Democrats at 205, and 16 races yet to be called. To control the House, Republicans need only to pick up another four seats, which they seem highly likely to do. Congress returned to Washington this week, ready to start setting Trump’s right-wing agenda into motion.
Trump plans to pick Senator Marco Rubio for Secretary of State: The worst people in American continue to jockey for a position in Trump’s new administration, with Florida Republican Rubio possibly securing the role of America’s top diplomat, according to Politico. We’re sure to hear more names in the coming days, including people such as Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, who Trump may consider for Secretary of Education. The nightmare continues.
Israel kills 14 in Gaza: Two Israeli strikes killed 14 people in an area Israel had mostly declared to be a humanitarian zone. The deaths included at least two children, according to the Associated Press.
Migos’ “Bad And Boujee” (Feat. Lil Uzi Vert): Been a minute since I checked out Tom Breihan’s the Number Ones column, and I’m glad I plumbed it for a song today because I normally wouldn’t think about Migos around holiday season, but that’s when “Bad and Boujee” climbed to the number one spot on the charts, so I suppose that makes it a holiday classic.
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
I miss the days when Trump and Rubio just argued about who had the smaller dick.
First woman, chief of staff. First Latino, secretary of state. Based off of merit. Democrats can’t say the same, unless they are trying to glean votes by promising ‘dei type hiring’, by way of campaign promises.
Progressives abandon any pretense and principle that ending the filibuster is about promoting more democratic governance:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/with-trump-set-to-take-power-jayapal-backtracks-on-ending-filibuster/
@2 lol, Marco Rubio is not a “merit” appointment. Picking a Sec State isn’t like hiring a coder at Amazon.
@2 Don’t forget first neo-Nazi deputy chief of staff for policy. Talk about inclusion!
The streetcar is an expensive toy that now needs expensive upgrades and maintanance. Time for it to fade off into the sunset. Nothing more than a traffic headache for people trying to drive along the east side of the lake.
The Stranger staff is in for a rude awakening when they discover that a pro-cop, pro-business agenda is exactly what Seattle voters want now.
@3 breaking news, politics is a competitive endeavor with both parties seeking an advantage in order to implement their policies! Who’d have guessed?!
@8 except Democrats insisted the filibuster was a relic of Jim Crow and was designed to uphold white supremacy blah blah blah. Given their idealogical stance on the filibuster rather than viewing it as a political tool it now seems hypocritical to change course.
The filibuster is a relic of Jim Crow but anyone who pays any attention at all to politics should understand why a party heading into a slim senate majority wants it eliminated but feel differently when they’re in the minority. Just like the Republicans’ ever-convenient rules about election year SCOTUS appointments. Politicians politicking is how they do their job.
@8. I guessed its about power, not principle (@10’s efforts to have it both ways aside), long ago.
Greenwood Bob, Averagebob and others here try and suggest ending the fillibuster is about pricipled advancement of majoritarianism. Funny how their heroes and allies who hold office don’t share their commitment to the principle.
I told them that the fillibuster, and other barriers to pure majoritarian rule, would become the darling of Progressives if they lost, and here we are.
It turns out that having barriers to pure majoritarianism is a virtue in preserving liberty, not a vice.
@7 And that’s why voters confirmed Woo, right? Obviously, she won since she’s backing business and cops and that’s what Seattle wants!
Of course the power to block majority-supported legislation is about power you nitwit. The filibuster is not a “virtue” at all and apparently you have no idea what “have it both ways” means. It’s a barrier to political change and Americans would have a completely different view of the senate if it were able to function as an actual legislative body and not a graveyard for political progress in either direction.
If a majority of senators want, say, a nationwide abortion ban they should be able to pass it, reap the consequences, and let the next senate repeal it in 2 years. Eventually they might even learn not to play games with people’s lives and our legislators could get to the business of legislating instead of holding empty promises over the heads of voters knowing nothing can be achieved without 60 votes.
Lil’ Marco as Secretary of State? He’s such a lil’ guy, he’ll need to travel with his own special short guy podium, and cases of bottled water.
“Seattle Municipal Court shows Dave’s next hearing is scheduled for 8:30 am on December 18 in courtroom 301”
That’s an oddly specific tidbit – is Ashley hoping folks show up to harass the bad apple?
@12: Woo was an exceptionally beatable candidate, though. I wouldn’t necessarily read Rinck’s win as a citywide endorsement of progressive politics. Rinck will be up for re-election in 2028, on the same ballot as JD Vance vs Uninspiring Democratic Flip-Flopper. Rinck will either slide to the right and survive, or else she’ll, like, rename Laurelhurst Elementary after Yahya Sinwar or something and get booted.
@13, “It’s a barrier to change.”
Precisely.
Barriers to change are a virtue when Donald Trump won the popular vote, and “yes men” were swept into a majority in the Senate and likely the Senate.
I would expect that Progressive’s, having come up with change that other Dems, and swing voters don’t agree with, costing the Dems the Executive and Senate, will now embrace the fillibuster, and other anti-majoritarian institutions like courts and federalism, to stop the change the incoming majority wants.
Is this how boatgeek will also come to love the fillibuster and other roadblocks to majorities asserting their will?
An ever-present barrier to change means an entire branch of our government is completely useless. If the senate was actually expected to follow through on their promises they would be more apt to run on kitchen table issues and learn how to work together instead of holding voters hostage for decades with emotionally charged issues they are powerless to affect.
The filibuster is foundational to our country’s political polarization because we end up fighting endlessly over highly contentious issues instead of our elected leaders just running the fucking country like they’re supposed to. If we gave the senate the power to catch the car they keep chasing, within a few election cycles they will learn how to do their fucking job because voters would feel empowered to actually make them.
Without a dedicated lane or median to function in, the streetcar is just an expensive bus anyway.
Also, Huckabee will be U.N. Ambassador to Israel ffs.
‘citizens united’
is the cancer-ridden
brainworm eating up our
‘little democracy’ and spitting
out the RFKjrs wee Rubios & the djts.
as Horrific as they Are
‘republicans’ sure af
know the Art of
the Steal.
@17 “I would expect that Progressive’s, having come up with change that other Dems, and swing voters don’t agree with, costing the Dems the Executive and Senate”
Interesting, can you elaborate on exactly what it was progressives in particular changed that led to the loss? As someone who’s proudly not myopic I’m sure you aren’t just flailing to blame the people with whom you disagree for your preferred party’s comprehensive and embarrassing loss.
Those inconvenienced by the Delridge modifications over the last few years should now suffer more inconvenience to REMOVE the center median? I guess paying through the overtime nosebleed for infrastructure just to remove it again is a theme (Hello SLUT).
Any way we can get taxed more with LESS responsible spending?
Pardon my sarcasm, this is a shit idea.
@21, https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/voters-to-elites-do-you-see-me-now/
https://www.ft.com/content/f4dbc0df-ab0d-431e-9886-44acd4236922
@16 Rink will actually have to run next year along with Nelson for the at large seats. Woo was appointed which triggered the election this year but it was only for the remainder of Mosqueda’s term. Next year her seat and Nelson’s will be up and so she’ll have 10 months or so to make her case just as Woo did.
@21, https://open.substack.com/pub/theliberalpatriot/p/harris-lost-the-working-class?selection=ed1e717e-3488-450f-ae3c-beb0eb43295b&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
It’s pretty dimwitted though predictable to see reactionary centrists blaming the democrats loss on progressives, when the Harris campaign’s final pitch was liz and dick cheney’s endorsements, promises of lethal militarism, and an explicit appeal to conservative women.
Their decision to close on Bush-era conservatism was most likely due to an accurate reading of the current state of electorate, which is as unfortunate as it is rational, but the belief that this campaign was led by progressives is not supported by the Harris campaign’s platform or its messaging. The pitch to the left, if one was ever made, was basically “at least she’s not Donald Trump.”
@23 this is a direct quote from the ST article you linked, by David Brooks of all people, explicitly disagreeing with your argument:
“My initial thought is that I have to reexamine my own priors. I’m a moderate. I like it when Democratic candidates run to the center. But I have to confess that Harris did that pretty effectively and it didn’t work. Maybe the Democrats have to embrace a Bernie Sanders-style disruption — something that will make people like me feel uncomfortable.”
Can’t read the other because I don’t subscribe to the Financial Times but I’m sure Francis “End of History” Fukuyama had some very salient insights into what regular folks want.
@25 from the article linked in the blog post you shared:
“In line with our past research, we found that economically focused messages and messages that employed a populist narrative fared best relative to Trump-style messages … No surprise there. Meanwhile, Harris’s messages on abortion and immigration fared worse than any of the economic or populist messages we tested. Yet no message was as unpopular as the one we call the ‘democratic threat’ message.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/22/harris-working-class-voters-poll-election
Contrary to your assertion that progressives cost Dems the election, your own “evidence” suggests Dems’ failure was in refusing to listen to progressives and adopt their economic policies.
@28, “Harris’s messages on abortion and immigration fared worse.”
Yet that is what Progressives obsess about. How about not drowning out an economic message that you note could have suceeded, with a messaging focus that working class voters aren’t necessarily hostile to, but don’t really care about?
For the small part of the electorate obsessed with identity politics, were you better off not driving that to preeminence in Democratic messaging, in exhange for not having an overtly hostile Fascist-in-Chief going after identity groups for the next four years?
Politics is the art of the possible rather than maximalist objectives.
Democrat presidential campaign managers should pay more attention to their best resource: Bill Clinton. In 2016 he implored Hillary to campaign in MI and WI in the final days and in 2024 he implored Kamala’s campaign to respond the negative trans ads. In both cases, his advice fell on deaf ears.
Donors were also not served well by Kamala’s celebrity showcase extravaganza, as we’re finding out those details.
@11 The reason I supported ending the filibuster to allow Biden to pass a progressive agenda, and still agree they should have is precisely because I expect the new GOP Senate Majority Leader to bow to Trump and do so. If the Senate Republicans recognize they will need it the next time they are in the minority with a Dem in the White House, and do not eliminate it, then you will be proven right. Should they end it, then I will have been proven right that the Dems should have repealed it to pass a new voting rights act to end voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering when they could. I think their failure to do so is part of how Trump won.
@31 do you have examples of voter suppression? Asking people to show id to vote is not suppression when nearly every other country in the world has that requirement. Beyond that what do you got? Also not sure how gerrymandering would impact a presidential election. That only impacts districts and Dems do it as much if not more then R’s (see NY and here in WA)
@28 could you provide an example of a progressive economic policy? The only thing I have ever seen come out of progressives is using the government to promote their social agenda via high taxation. That is hardly an economic policy.
@31, “pass a new voting rights act to end voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering.”
How much of what would have been passed would still be in effect after a court challenge at SCOTUS? So you would lose both the just passed policy, and the filibuster that protects electoral minorities from having the majority that won the last election from putting a boot on their opponents back and force feeding every wet policy dream of theirs down the other side’s throats.
As far as gerrymandering, its an equal opportunity sport.
Why not admit that your desire for Federal laws to restrict gerrymandering are to try and get for your ideology what you could not get by winning legislative majorities in states that send too many people of an ideology you oppose to Congress?
My kid lives in New Mexico. After the 2020 Census, legislative Democrats carefully carved up Albuquerque into three Congressional Districts radiating all the way out to the State’s borders so that instead of having a predominantly Dem, urban District, a predominantly Rep rural District, and the third district being a toss up, so that they can now run the tables, by narrower margins, in all Federal House districts. Other communities are carved in similarly Frankensteinish ways. It’s part of the spoils of winning a legislative majority.
The N.M. Legislature did an equal hatchet job on Legislative House and Senate Districts.
The same arguments that AOC makes that Congress would have more Liberals and Progressives without gerrymandering, cuts the other way in California and New Mexico. Republicans as a percentage of the California and New Mexico electorate get many fewer seats in both state’s Legislatures than they should if legislative districts were not gerrymandered. But AOC doesn’t complain about that. She argues she is being principled, when she isn’t.
It’s the hypocrisy about it, while claiming its a hill of principle that people should join them on dying on, that drives me nuts.
I can’t stand Trump. He is a narcissist who wants to be a fascist. His one redeeming characteristic, is that what you see is what you get. He is awful, but unlike AOC, as one example, he is AUTHENTICALLY awful. If an elected official is IN-AUTHENTICALLY virtuous, are they virtuous at all?
The virtue of commenters here, is they are authentic for the most part. Here is what I am for, and why. If you don’t like it argue with me, or don’t, but it’s what I support. They are even authentic in being inconsistent in application of their stated principles. I.e. Here is the principle at stake in this issue, that if applied gets an outcome I like; however, I won’t apply it to this other issue, because I don’t like the outcome it would lead to on this other issue.
@29, Are the identity politics in the room with us right now? All I heard about from the Harris campaign was inflation, the military, and Liz Cheney. Every election democrats run on the republican platform from 20-30 years prior, meanwhile the GOP is speed running to fascism and centrists are still calling democrats the extremists. You all suck shit.
@32, Raising or lowering taxes is the literal foundation of any economic policy.
In 1980 Reagan cut the top marginal tax brackets and ushered in the “trickle down” era, allowing rich people to retain a larger share of their wealth while cutting social services and wealth redistribution programs with the expectation that this will somehow spread the wealth around. Instead, this has increased the tax burden on people of lesser means and promoted wealth inequality.
Progressive economic policies would entail reinstating higher marginal tax brackets and using the revenue to fund programs that promote economic growth and the general welfare — things like education, housing, and health care. The republican plan for all of these things is to defund them and let the market take care of it. That has effectively been our policy for 4 decades now — even obama’s modest tax increases to support the ACA were cut — and we have nothing to show for it but spiraling costs and poorer outcomes across the board.
@11,
I can’t fathom how/why you or anyone else would require Dems to act in ideologically pure fashion with respect to the legislative process when that process is so heavily skewed against them in procedural terms in the first place. The most logical thing Dems can and should be doing is working to disband the Senate (and the Electoral College, obviously) outright, as they’re institutions that actively and overtly undermine minority rights. Until such a time that they can achieve that (admittedly wildly ambitious) goal, they should be using all legal means at their disposal to advance their agenda.
I honestly can’t even say whether the existence of the filibuster is justifiable on moral grounds or not, simply because the institution itself is so inherently undemocratic as to render the entire point moot. Unfortunately, it’ll be decades or more before Dems realistically have the opportunity to fix the institutional process, as to do so would require cooperation from the very folks who are empowered and financially incentivized not to do so.
Also, you’re an idiot.
@26, @34:
“It’s pretty dimwitted though predictable to see reactionary centrists blaming the democrats loss on progressives,”
Sawant campaigned for Trump.
“All I heard about from the Harris campaign was inflation, the military, and Liz Cheney.”
All anyone heard from progressives was Gaza, and demands for an (illegal) embargo against Israel.
I’m sorry the mean lady didn’t tell you exactly what you wanted to hear. The choice was her or Trump. Progressives didn’t care.
“You all suck shit.”
Finally, a point of agreement.
36, not sure what conversation you think you’re responding to but sawant isn’t a democrat and my entire point is that progressives are not now and never have been the target demographic for the democratic party’s election messaging
@29 it seems like the problem is you have no idea who progressives are or what they want. Abortion and strengthening the border (Kamala’s immigration platform) are not progressive priorities. Idpol is not a progressive priority it’s what corporate libs use to distract from progressive priorities.
@32 off the top of my head the Green New Deal, which like it’s namesake was primarily a jobs program
@33 “My kid lives in New Mexico. After the 2020 Census, legislative Democrats carefully carved up Albuquerque into three Congressional Districts radiating all the way out to the State’s borders so that instead of having a predominantly Dem, urban District, a predominantly Rep rural District, and the third district being a toss up, so that they can now run the tables, by narrower margins, in all Federal House districts.”
Why even write something so easily falsifiable?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico%27s_congressional_districts
@28 In fairness focusing on abortion wasn’t a bad strategy for Dems given that it clearly propelled them to much better than expected wins in the ‘22 midterms and the post-Roe state races.
@30 Anti-trans ads were definitely the “defund the police” bogeyman ads of this cycle, the upper Midwest was absolutely blitzed with the clip of Kamala supporting gender affirming healthcare for trans inmates. Debbie and a couple of the data gurus have talked about how impactful that was, but it obviously isn’t comfortable for many to talk about.
@38: “Idpol is not a progressive priority”
Idpol (haha, what a phrase) is absolutely a progressive priority. In fact, it is a higher priority than almost any other. They are proudly and happily dying on that hill.
The progressives I know care most about foreign policy, health care, and housing — at least the ones who don’t identify with or routinely vote for democrats. For all the attention that “identity politics” get it has almost zero impact on policy or votes.
@39, That is an accurate representation of what happened in the New Mexico has a result of the the 2020 census and redistricting. Prior to 2020 the districts were as represented to you. One strong D, one strong R, and one toss-up. The Gerrymander in the wake of 2020 carved up ABQ into a portion of each district so they are all now slightly, but comfortably D. There is no way a R can capture one of those seats because of redistricting.
https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-new-mexico-decision-congress-f1e8f6d200d8226a9b581648db8809a1
I am not complaining about that. That is the spoils of Dems controlling that state’s Legislature during redistricting. The State’s R’s took it to Court, and both the State and Federal Courts said, in long legalese essentially said, “Cry me a river. It’s a legislative matter.”
@40, In 2024, the exit polling shows that reproductive choice didn’t do anything to help D’s. It wasn’t the issue that enough voters were deciding on to matter. I don’t think it hurt them per say, other than the fact that swing voters in particular were thinking to themselves, “D’s are talking reproductive choice, and R’s are talking jobs and immigration. I’ll decide who to pick based on the latter, not the former.” What was the D’s answer to jobs and unlawful immigration? Reproductive rights, which wasn’t exactly on topic for the voters in question.
@35, You wrote, “all legal means at their disposal to advance their agenda.”
Would you prefer Dems not have the undemocratic Senate and filibuster to stop the guy who won the popular vote and the party that has likely won the House from advancing their fascist agenda?
It cut’s both ways and not just in the current moment.
Remember Iran/Contra. That arose because Reagan could get funding for the Contra’s through the House, but it got filibustered in the U.S. Senate. So Reagan asked for a workaround and we got an illegal one (with enough deniability for Reagan to survive).
We need checks against the guy in the Whitehouse and tyrannical majorities.
The same undemocratic Senate and filibuster that thwarts the things you want enacted, also thwarts the R’s from dismantling things you value, when your party loses the Whitehouse, Congress, or both.
@43 from 2002 to 2020 every single year at least two of three districts were won by Democrats. In the new map only two districts contain any part of ABQ. What you wrote is demonstrably false, and sharing a news article about the state GOP’s failed legal challenge to the redistricting does nothing to change that fact.
@37: So, Sawant has become an unperson in the ranks of progressives, eh? Progressives’ insane focus on Gaza, despite “Gaza Isn’t Driving Votes,” distracted from the need to stop Trump. (Amazing how fast the whole “uncommitted” thing got disappeared too, eh?)
Talking about the wonders of progressive tax policy, in Seattle, during a Trump transition, is the very definition of wasting time. Seattle’s voters have seen their tax money extravagantly squandered by progressives, with no positive impact on homelessness, crime, education, or anything else. Start building a real coalition, with (gasp!) liberals and (worse!) Democrats, at both local and state levels, or all of your progressive bona fides will remain just empty talk.
I think the Dems lost because they spend all their time on the defensive. They allowed the conservatives to control the discussion. Trans athletes, inflation, border…
An example is the comments in the slog today. Here a group of conservatives (who for some reason think they are not conservatives because they maybe voted against Trump) are making the good people of SlogCommentland defend the hypocrisy of the Dems, who now might have to use the filibuster to slow down the Republican President/House/Senate/Supreme Court/states.
Kudos to them for steering the discussion away from the obvious hypocritical flaws of their party (does anyone in their right mind think Trump hasn’t paid for an abortion and likely tried to expense it, does anyone think Elon is going to cut back on government waste when it comes to SpaceX funding?).
Naturally since they represent a party that has no moral basis (winning at all costs is successful, but not a moral strategy) they have to go after that in the other party.
Almost two years to finalize the first step of accountability proceedings for an incident in which a civilian was killed by a police officer? This has got to change.
Let’s put a six month deadline for this first step in all cases of accused misconduct, and another six months for appeals, etc. Chief acts, when necessary within one year.
@47: “I think the Dems lost because they spend all their time on the defensive.”
About Gaza, a topic almost nobody in the U.S. cares about. And they were playing defense against progressives, not Republicans.
“Here a group of conservatives (who for some reason think they are not conservatives because they maybe voted against Trump)…”
Almost everyone in Seattle voted against Trump. You know who didn’t? Sawant, the longtime leader of progressives in Seattle.
@45, In the prior map only one district contained ABQ. Now all three districts contain parts of the ABQ Metropolitan Statistical Area (Census Bureau Definition of ABQ). Redistricting is all about demographic areas as measured by the Census. They gabbed enough of the ABQ MSA to pack each District with enough ABQ MSA Dems to turn all Districts Blue.
The equivalent in WA would be to grab pie pieces of the Census Bureau’s Seattle-Tacoma MSA to create as many Dem leaning Districts as possible. E.g. The 8th CD which contains eastern portions of the SEA MSA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area?wprov=sfla1