Oliver Can't Run a Write-In Campaign For Mayor


How about you just retract Keller's letter? Or better yet, expunge it. Put it where you keep Nate Lippens's work.
Dan you are too rich and arrogant to know what is really going on.

The Stranger never runs corrections or retractions. They do run "regrets" once a year, so I guess maybe we just wait for that to roll around again.
What is really going on?
Pull it down, it's a coverup. Leave it up, it's a... something else, I guess. And how does this post not qualify as a correction?

Thank you for playing Slog.
@5 You should pull it. It's irresponsible, and it doesn't even speak for a sizable percentage of the people who voted for Oliver.
I dunno, isn't WA 29a.24.311 just another piece of the white supremacist system Nikkita is fighting? I mean, it's just a little too convenient that this statute exists just in time to thwart her write-in campaign.

What about Oliver supporters writing in her name anyway and then, if she wins, she can use her lawyerly skills to take the case all the way to the WA State Supreme Court? They could hear that case right after they hear the case on the city-limits income tax on high earners.

In all seriousness, though, I thought for sure the original post was intended as satire. But now the comment that convinced me this wasn't satire has me suspicious as to some other not quite sincere motive.
@7 Oh, fuck off. Farrell lost; get over it. Don't attribute one person's opinion to their candidate, or to that candidate's entire base. You're a real winner for making fun of structural racism, though. Thankfully I'm not stupid enough to attribute that opinion to Farrell, or the rest of her base.
Sorry, Chareth, @8, but I'm not going away. Nikkita Oliver is no Barack Obama. She made herself the left-wing, people-of-color mirror image of Donald Trump by making identity politics and preying on people's ethnic and class resentments the core of a campaign that was otherwise devoid of any real substance or consistent ideology, although, just like Trump, she eventually grasped on to something.

Oh, and you know where I got the words "white supremacist system"? From Nikkita Oliver herself.

P.S. No, I don't speak for any other Farrell supporters, and I'm undecided now between the top two. I'm just thankful Ms. Oliver is not one of them. I just know that she and other charlatans like her aren't going away, which is why we on the progressive side need to be more vigilant than conservatives were about Trump.
Uh Dan, you are assuming Oliver supporters have clearly defined goals and basic reasoning skills to fulfill them. Big mistake buddy.

@2, you are too moronic to know "what is going on." Bigly.
@9 I don't see how Oliver is wrong. We live in a country founded on racism, built by slaves, and disproportionately imprisoning people of color. What part of that is incorrect? I don't take issue with the phrase, but rather your usage of it to mock someone who has to deal with that system everyday.

The Donald Trump comparison is laughable. I suppose, in your mind, a candidate shouldn't address racial or economic inequalities? Or should only do so using language that can't possibly hurt white-guy feelings?

I don't want to barrage you with questions here, but have you even looked at Oliver's platform? I don't want you to go away, but it would be nice if you read.

In an online world, corrections appear in the articles that they correct.

Or they do in outlets that at least try to stick to basic journalistic principles, at least.
@2: So what does your arrogance have to offer as a rebuttal?
@11, obviously I want candidates to address racial and economic inequalities, just like I want candidates to address the effects of globalization, the hollowing out of the industrial Midwest, and the opioid epidemic. But I also want candidates who are not clueless charlatans and sketchy liars. I don't want candidates who are all too willing to accuse others of racism like Oliver and Trump.

Oh, and yeah, I've looked at her positions. Anyone remembering the thing about that idea to "put a pause" on new development? Only a candidate who has dipped into the endlessly forgiving waters of identity politics could get away with a dangerous bit of policy cluelessness like that. Only a candidate like Trump. Or Oliver.

My fear is that in our lifetimes we're going to see a Trump-like figure rise up out of the Democratic Party on the national scale (about the time millennials are as old as boomers are now), and boy, it's not gonna be pretty.
@14 Well, that's a tired one. From the article you linked: "Oliver did not take that position during her kickoff Sunday and it is not included in the platform on her website."

I believe she also admitted that she misspoke. This is her actual platform on housing. You're the one distorting. Not a good look when you're calling someone a charlatan and a liar.

Again, not seeing any parallels between Oliver and Trump. No calls to violence, no personal insults, no history of Trumpian sexual assaults, no history of corruption, no inherited wealth... I could go on.

Moon has a similar platform to Oliver's, so I'm really, really confused as to how this is a toss-up for you. Shouldn't you be all in for Durkan if you believe those positions have no substance?
And yet the Stranger published that earlier dreck, and gave it credibility. Maybe do some basic research before publishing such a dumb and unworkable idea?
Calm down. It was a "letter to the editor" type post, not one done by a stranger staff. As such it should stay up. Anyone read the letters to the editor section? Lots of incorrect site.
Chareth @15: I believe she also admitted that she misspoke.

Gee, that's putting it so very kindly. Wanting to make affordable housing one of your core issues and then saying you want to "put a pause" on development is the sort of gaffe that should indicate, hey, maybe you shouldn't be running for mayor to begin with. It's kinda like trying to claim that you're a big-time environmentalist but to then engage in "war on cars" rhetoric.

But even deep into her campaign, she couldn't get her story straight on affordable housing. As Erica C. Barnett writes:
Oliver has proposed policies—like requiring developers to set aside a quarter of their units as affordable housing—that would make gentrification and displacement worse. “Make developers pay” is a popular rallying cry, but it doesn’t create affordable housing any more than increasing business taxes improves wages; in a city where housing prices are rising faster than anywhere else in the nation, the solution isn’t to restrict growth but to encourage it. The only city that has imposed a 25 percent affordable housing requirement on developers, San Francisco, is also the only city on the West Coast that is more expensive than Seattle, thanks largely to restrictive housing policies.

BTW, don't be obtuse. You know exactly what I mean when I make the Trump parallels. No, she doesn't have the same sordid personal history of Donald Trump. It's the public demagoguery surrounding identity politics I'm talking about and the willingness to play fast and loose with the truth (see the previous paragraph from the above Barnett story). It's only because she tapped into the well of identity politics that she was able to hold on to some kind of a base despite her laughable weakness on the real issues facing this city.
@18 Even better than I thought - she didn't misspeak, it was literally a joke Michael Maddox took out of context:

So Michael Maddux took my comments drastically out of context. Anyone who is interested should read the actual transcript of the conversation I had at the Shadow Council, which is a satirical comedy show that happened maybe a week or two [before] I announced. I’m not advocating that we pause all development in the city, we can’t do that. We have to build housing now.

Moon also calls for 24% affordable housing on her solutions page. Both candidates have nearly the same proposals. Repeating a capitalist talking point on affordable housing, as Barnett is doing, doesn't make Oliver a "liar". It means that her and Moon don't follow the same ideology, as Charles Mudede explains in depth here, and, with the help of Moon herself, here. I supported Oliver because of her policies, not because I was seduced by the spell of identity politics.

I honestly don't know what you mean with the Trump parallels; I wouldn't waste your time if I did. If you think speaking on behalf of minorities, a historically repressed population, is the same as fabricating statistics, telling lies about immigration, and stoking religious hate, then we have bigger problems. I have my own opinions on identity politics (this article covers them quite well), but I really don't see anything approaching Trumpian hate mongering from Oliver.

I'll leave it there for tonight. If Oliver doesn't make it, vote Moon!
I'm having a hell of a time with the idea that a (sort of) winner of an election has any obligation whatsoever to step down & hand victory to someone who lost. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the hell sense that makes? If Moon wanted to support Oliver she could have done so, but she obviously thought she herself would be the better mayor or she would not have gone through what it takes to run.
Ms Oliver: Correction, it's not just this country. By your definition the entire western world is a white supremacist system. And Asian cultures are even less tolerant of blacks than we are, to put it politely. This may not be true in Africa, at least not now, but in many of the countries on that continent simply being gay, transgendered, albino, from the wrong tribe, or family, or religion, or a woman, the list goes on, means your life and safety are in peril every day. Ask any young girl who's just gone through FGM which system she would prefer to live under.

My very progressive family fought for civil rights all throughout my childhood (founding members of the ACLU) and actually made some real progress. A lesson I've never forgotten. And I'm as sick and tired of people like Oliver branding us as a white supremacist system as I am sick of Trump calling us whatever comes out of that ugly little mouth of his on any given day. Both approaches serve one purpose - to drive their frothy true believes to the polls. Nuance, logic and reason are irrelevant. No thanks.
@21: "And I'm as sick and tired of people like Oliver branding us as a white supremacist system"

That this gives you the sads is not a valid reason why it's not completely true.
@18: you can clearly see in your link that Moon is NOT calling for a 24% MHA requirement like Oliver is. It’s clear that she wants to grow the share of below market rate housing from 6% to 4 times that. That’s because she understands a high requirement gets you nothing; 25% of zero is still zero.

Glad the stranger endorsed Moon over Oliver!
Chareth @19, it seems the more you try to defend the details of Nikkita Oliver's positions, the more you become a liar yourself. That's a real stretch to take the following from Moon and morph it into a 24% requirement for developers: "Exponentially expand affordable housing from only 6% of Seattle’s housing market toward a goal of four times this share."

And why am I calling Oliver a liar? Because she tried to claim that Barnett misrepresented her on her affordable housing position when it was nothing of the sort.

Nikkita Oliver is representative of a toxic, anti-American, racist element to much of the Black Lives Matter movement, and it's time that we progressives who want to live in a place that isn't dominated by zero-sum ethnic politics stood up to it, even at the risk of being called racist ourselves. Just as Nikkita Oliver is the mirror image of Donald Trump, sadly BLM seems to have been taken over by people who are the mirror image of Richard Spencer and the alt-right.
@24: "Nikkita Oliver is representative of a toxic, anti-American, racist element"

As much as I'm frustrated by the "vote your principles over reality" Steinbro crowd, this statement sounds more inline with anything David Duke or the old Dixiecrats had to offer.
People think your rhetoric supports a white-supremacist status quo because it does, throwing around "wah someone called me a racist and I can't ever say racist things because I am a good person" doesn't really absolve you from judgment for your proud, repeat mistakes.
@23 and 24: Hence the "nearly the same" part of my comment. Moon calls for taxation, using city bonds, and, yes, MHA requirements to reach that goal. Oliver shares many of the same policies, but with a potentially higher MHA requirement. Oliver explicitly states she supports Jon Grant's plan on her page, which Grant explains as:

I want to be crystal clear in how this higher affordability mandate would be implemented if I were elected. I would not support any inclusionary zoning proposal that would deter or prohibit development, or impose a blanket arbitrary standard. I would require the city to conduct an independent economic analysis for any proposed upzone of a neighborhood to determine if the developer can meet or exceed the 25% affordability mandate, and in any event, require the highest affordability standard supported by that economic analysis.

I don't see how pointing out the similarities between the two candidates is equivalent to a lie.

@24 So you believe a joke made on a satirical show recorded before Oliver announced her candidacy should count as her platform? That's incredible.

I don't think you can call yourself a progressive if you use cringe-worthy racial language. If you don't see the difference between a white supremacist and protestors demanding not to be murdered at traffic stops, or when they're walking down the street, or when they're picking their kids up from school, then you are an ally to Richard Spenser. That whole paragraph sounds like something a slightly more eloquent Donald Trump would say. Sad!

Congratulations on identifying one item from the long list of reasons running that letter was a really dumb thing to do.

(if I didn't know better I might have thought you did it to try to make Oliver and her supporters look silly; that's the only motive I can think of that makes any sense.)
Nikkita could run as a write in for City Council 9, of course.
27: You do realize that the cops killed 16 unarmed black men last year, a number that stinks, but pales in comparison to the 250 mentally ill people they killed? Hardly an epidemic, and for a community that's responsible for half the crime in this country, despite making up only a sixth of the population, that number strikes me as quite low, despite the tragedy of each death. No doubt I'll be a called a racist for pointing this out, but that's the go to defense of any criticism of the black community these days, and a classic example of blame shifting.

Is there racism in this country? Of course there is. But it's true for every other country as well. But any serious discussion about the causes has become a one way conversation, and, as the vitriol increases, one that many people like myself are avoiding more and more. Early in his administration, Obama spoke about the need for the AA community to own up to some of it's failings but he was shut down so quickly he never mentioned it again. And that's a far bigger tragedy the miniscule number of unarmed black men killed by cops every year, and a disservice to all.
@30 There's a lot to address in your comment. As far as we know, the police killed 1,093 people last year, 42 of which were unarmed black people. Whether or not this constitutes an epidemic in a cultural sense is subjective, I suppose, but the nature of these killings are certainly symbolic of the structure of our society, where (generally) white people acting on behalf of the state are allowed to act with impunity in order to control people of color. A police officer can show an obvious racial bias, act on it, and experience no consequences, even when video evidence of a murder exists.

You also mention that the black community commits disproportionate amount of crime. In considering that, we need to look at how much of black life is criminalized. For instance, the Justice Department found that the city of Ferguson was engaging in systematic discrimination against the black community, essentially funding their police department by harassing, arresting, and fining the black community. This is most likely true across the entire country, in varying degrees. It is also factual that people of color, obviously including the black community, are arrested far more often for drug use than other demographics, despite usage rates being nearly the same. When the administration of the law has a racial bias, there will be statistics to back that up.

These structural biases exist economically as well. The black community was hit much harder that other communities by the 2008 financial crash, losing half of their wealth due to the predatory nature of finance and the racially biased structure of society. I'm not looking to diminish class here, or give the impression that capitalism is a benevolent force in other communities (aside from that of the ownership class), but one should call out racial biases where they exist. Plus, I'm not even mentioning the crisis of unemployment which forces people of color into other, illegal economies to feed and house themselves and their families. Every community has issues it needs to face, including the black community, but addressing those issues alone will not change the overall structure of the system oppressing them. Furthermore, when people say that activists addressing these issues are equivalent to white supremacists, it immediately shuts down discourse and silences a community under attack.

I don't believe that anyone is racist for pointing out that racism is a global issue, or bringing attention to other communities impacted by police brutality. However, people should be expected to keep multiple ideas in their head at the same time, and act on them accordingly.

31: One of the most thorough studies of police killings was done by the Washington Post earlier this year - even creating their own database that goes well beyond the half-ass job the FBI does in compiling these statistics (thank you, Jeff).

What they reported, and I stated in a previous post, is that 16 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2016, down from 44 the year before. And many of them were killed by black officers. It's depressing either way, but also a red herring that generates far more heat than it does light. And although all the media coverage seems to have gotten the attention of most police departments, focusing on this issue to the exclusion of other more urgent issues is a disservice to everyone.

As for racism being a persistent and world wide scourge, I think the only conclusion to be drawn from it is that it's baked into our DNA - fear of snakes, fear of spiders, fear of others not from our tribe. And, unfortunately, that's a far more complex and serious problem than a few chickenshit trigger-happy cops. I'm not hopeless, but it's going to a long slog, and extremely frustrating for everyone who believes that all humans are of equal value.
@32. Introspection, self evaluation, and accountability are indisposable assets when aiming at self improvement. If you identify as a victim you have to exercise none of these...it's the other guy's fault. THEY have to change for things to get better. The victim and victim protection mentality is why I am skewing away from a life long socially liberal political bent.

It sounds like you've read the UCR. I have too. And if and when you bring these statistics and data to a discussion and ask questions like "what is wrong in the black community that they are responsible for so much crime with so little representation?". You usually get one of two answers. 1. YOU are racist. End of discussion. 2. The system is racially biased towards African Americans. If you follow up with a, "Ok, what institutions specifically?". The police is usually the only answer given. There are individual cops that are racist, yes, but on a whole, "what about the institution is racist? "Well, you just don't understand the struggle because you're racist.". The intensity of feeling doesn't make the argument, but it does shut it down. This abd many other reasons are why I am growing less and less supportive of the left and am wandering out on my own into the political wilderness. If you can't maintain logic or rational in the face of facts, you've lost me.

The question "What is wrong in the black community that there is such a high rate of crime, poverty, drop out rate, and single parenthood?", is one that can't be answered with one idea. And it definitely can't be solved with ideas like, "it's not your fault, you're the victim here.". America has gotten significantly less racist in the last 50 years and these problems have only gotten exponentially worse. It can't be solved by more government programs, diversity training, or implicit bias awareness either. It can only be answered by African Americans willing to look at their part in changing this currently horrible trend.

What laws (since crack/powder disparity, Jim Crowe) are different for white people than for people of color? Name one and I'll fight to the death to eradicate it along side all those in favor of justice. If you can't, then let's give free will and personal autonomy their due and say that people make their own decisions and should then live with the consequences. And if statements like that last one are shouted down as racist, then wtf are we even talking about anymore? If you aren't accountable for your actions, then I don't want to have anything to do with you because you are a sociopath or at the least ideologically ignorant.
@27: "If you don't see the difference between a white supremacist and protestors demanding not to be murdered at traffic stops"

They would rather care about their feelings of being attacked (thus this #alllivesmatter bullshit) more than people actually getting straight-up murdered.

The only thing more annoying than people not understanding the law here and or-bustism is the group of people who irrationally hate blacklivesmatter and claim imaginary progressive points as a reason why their beliefs couldn't possibly be racist.
@32: "As for racism being a persistent and world wide scourge, I think the only conclusion to be drawn from it is that it's baked into our DNA - fear of snakes, fear of spiders, fear of others not from our tribe"

White supremacism is not baked into our DNA, it is a system devised and perpetuated and that shitty people make excuses for (and develop new and horrific social science to justify.)

Evolutionary psychology just-so stories belong where they originated in the early days of anthropology. They have no biological basis, it's a series of retcons of modern conservative belief in an "academic" setting.
35: You need to do a little more reading, or look at some TED Talks. The science of genetics and behavior is in it's infancy, but already producing some fascinating stuff. My favorite is the identification of what is being referred to as the 'lazy gene'. As it turns out, laziness, basically sitting around with your thumb up your ass, is a very effective survival strategy in extremely harsh environments, such as during an ice age, because it conserves energy. You may have that one.

In any case, while the idea that genetics play no role in behavior might be the meme de jour among some social scientists, but if you said it to a neurologist, geneticist or anyone studying the human genome, they would laugh in your face.

What’s going on:
More people per capita in prison than any other country in the world. Pretty much poor people, people of color. Certain neighborhoods and homeless harassed daily by the police in this city. Many people murdered by the police nationally, many of the murdered are people of color and unarmed. By the way, Many of these prisons are private for profit - paid for by the federal government - our taxes.
More poverty due to loss of housing, jobs, illness, addiction, low wages and so on. Banks profit by the loss of peoples homes, banks profit from funding wealth not erasing poverty. The system needs cheap labor and endless resources to get the most profit ( capitalism).
Historically in north america genocide was done to native people to get this done. Slavery of black and indentured servants all in the service of profit. Etc., etc.,.....So much more.
An example of crude power - Lately, Mayor Murray would not meet with homeless people to stop the sweeps of encampments and he ignored their request. Usually if there is a sweep people have no place to go except the streets. Having no money is devastating. People are frequently treated as if they are worthless without it. Many injured by this system detest it and want radical change. That’s what is a least part of what is going on now. Thank you.
Our democratic republic was founded by capitalists and wealthy land owners, and was designed above all else to protect their interests - the sole purpose for creating a nearly all powerful Senate. But they were also products of The Enlightenment and would probably be horrified at what their idea of freedom looks like today.

But that's how capitalism works on a mass scale. It's like poker; some people are good at it and others aren't. But rules are rules, and like poker, in our capitalist system the winner gets the chips and the loser gets a one-way ticket to Polookaville. And I suspect the concept of 'income inequality' would have made them laugh out loud.
"You need to do a little more reading, or look at some TED Talks."

Hooo boy.
Agreed that capitalism is a casino economy and it is based on exploitation and unending growth. It is also destroying our environment and we do not have infinite resources. So the capitalists will die from bad air and other environmental calamities - including their unending wars for oil and other resources- that they are causing, just like everyone else if this continues. Others do not want to go along with this thank you and want this continuing lethal practice of greed to stop. It is infantile to want more and more and more. It is destroying other people’s lives and our precious, beautiful environment that belongs to everyone not just to greedy, rich people. Many of us want a better world than this and we will work for it.
And other times we will rest and take care of ourselves. We are not going away and we will not shut up about this rotten system that is killing our people and our water, air, and lands.
The basic truth of life is that the big yeasts eat the little yeasts. It's not a great system, but it is what it is.
Mtn. Beaver. Yeah, I heard you did't make the cut at TED Talks. They just can't handle the truth - stay strong.

Yeah, I thought that was a good one too.
Thanks seatackled. You can lead a horticulture but you can't make him think.
Why is everyone arguing in the comments here? Gee whiz.