Mayoral Primary 2017: Oliver Inches Up, Moon Holds Steady, Durkan's Lead Shrinks


Durkan's showing is lackluster. Maybe now some hacks in the media (ahem, Danny Westneat) will stop talking about her being a "heavy favorite" going into the General.

I'm not sure "lackluster" is the word I'd use in a race between 6 viable candidates where the winner raked in 30% more votes than the nearest contender. 30 points would be considered a landslide in a two-way race.

On the other hand, I wouldn't entirely discount the "to hell with Democrat machine politics" sentiment in the city, either; we'll see how many non-primary voters see Evil Clinton Face when they hear the name "Durkan."

"As an engineer . . ." is now stale, Cary. Just sayin'.
Nikkita Oliver has handled the post-primary situation with grace and wisdom. Even if Moon's edge edge holds(and it most likely will), Nikkita will be a big part of Seattle's future.

Is there anybody who's actually happy that the fall campaign for this job will be a race between two status quo types?
I'm with Doug (@1). Moon + Oliver > Durkan. The dynamic has changed considerably, in my opinion. Everyone expected Durkan to be in first, and a lot of people expected her to take a commanding lead (hovering around 40% or higher). But the electorate is split, and by no means has it rallied around the attorney. This race could get very interesting.

@3 -- I was thinking the same thing. There must be a joke in there somewhere, but I just can't dig it out. That being said, it is brilliant politics, and the more mainstream that phrase becomes, the better chance she has of beating the front runner. This is an engineering town (first with aeronautical, now with software) and that cuts across the activist stereotype. I'm sure Durkan was thrilled when the initial results came in, and she knew she wasn't going to face anyone with political experience. But now she may be facing someone who is not only smarter than her, but has a pretty good finger on the pulse of this city.

I still say the biggest challenge that Moon has is proving she can manage something as big as Seattle. If she can do that, she can win.
@2 read the totals again. It's Durkan 28.7 to Moon 17.4, so an 11.3% lead. If Oliver's voters combine with Moons, it's competitive. And many of Nikkitas voters hate Durkan
@4 Moon is status quo? Say what???

As far as Oliver, she should run for city council. Actually, so should Moon (too late now, though). I honestly don't get why people assume that you can go from basically nowhere to being mayor without a step in between. I get it, McGinn did it. But McGinn was terrible, and basically, he got lucky. The mayor had lost the support of the mainstream (because it snowed a lot) and the left (because he supported the stupid tunnel). So it came down to an unqualified rich guy, or an unqualified bike guy, and we chose the latter. But that doesn't mean that it was a great outcome. No one in their right mind would say that McGinn was better than, say, Norm Rice. That's because Rice knew his shit. He served on the council for years and years, then became mayor, and was a very good one. Experience matters.

Which is not to say that either candidate is a great one. Yes, Durkan has political experience, but she has no legislative experience, and no experience with city government. She is running as if she is Burgess or Harrell, but she isn't. She has the name (thanks, daddy!) and the bonafides (U. S. Attorney is something) but she is running as if she is ready to take over operations of one of the bigger cities in North America. She isn't. She will have to learn the ropes just like most of the candidates, and time will tell whether she is actually ready to do that.
Is there anybody who's actually happy that the fall campaign for this job will be a race between two status quo types?

Yes, because I love living in a city where the lesbian who sued the city to stop the police from abusing minorities is the "status quo" and leading candidate.

Yes, because Murray -- you know, the status-quo incumbent -- should have been in the race, not forced out by an anti-LGTBQ attorney in Tacoma bankrolling a bogus lawsuit and our local media playing up the discredited and bigoted stereotype of the predatory gay man.

Yes, because electing a gay woman to replace the gay man who got slimed has a great "f-u" feel to it.
@8 well said!
@2: Seattle votes 20-25% Republican. Durkan got all those votes...and little else. She's not getting Oliver or McGinn votes. Or many from Hasegawa or Farrell. Her road to 50% is rocky.
@ 10 I think she got a better shot than you give her I don't think one can say she won't get voters from the other candidates, none from Oliver sure but not sure can say that with other candidates voters.

@ 4 Yes I am excited Durkan is pretty awesome, she is liberal but not too liberal.

Plus maybe she can get Obama to come campaign for her.

"read the totals again."


Total votes for Durkan: 48,193
Total votes for Moon: 29,181

100 x (48,193 - 29,181) / 48,193 = 39% more votes than the nearest contender, as I said.
As an engineer I appreciate @12 is numerate vs @6 is not
Total votes for Durkan: 48,193
Total votes for Moon: 29,181
Total votes for Oliver: 26,946

It stands to reason that most of Oliver's votes will go to Moon. I would say 90%. So that means about 24,000 votes for Moon, and about 3,000 for Durkan. Add it all up, and Durkan would be ahead. It is hard to predict how the votes will go from the other candidates (or the people who didn't vote in the primary, but will vote in the general) but I don't think it is a stretch to say that just about everyone who voted for Oliver will vote for Moon. That is the point.

This looks like a very close race to me, as Durkan did not as many votes as a lot of people expected.

Today we're all re-learning the difference between a percent difference and a percentage point difference.
#8 is right!
Durkan spent over $200,000 for her 48,000 votes. That's almost $4.50 per vote. That high price is even more than Republican creeper Gary Brose had to spend to scrape togethe each of his 3,700 votes.

Cary Moon only spent about $3 per vote. Nikita Oliver spent less than half that, $1.30! Who knew? Oliver is a paragon of fiscal discipline and high productivity. And she's the only one not in debt. Guess she knows how to run an efficient operation. Way better than all those indebted business entrepreneur know-it-alls. And McGinn hardly spent more than Oliver for the votes she got.

People like them. Moon and Oliver are well liked. They don't have to blast expensive commercials at thousands of media consumers in the hopes that a few of them will be herded over into your corner. And people grow numb to that shit. Quick.

Durkan has a tough road ahead, and she's going to hit a steep wall of diminishing returns. She's going to end up spending $6, $10 per vote of developer cash against a self-stoking movement whose enthusiasm generates more enthusiasm.
I would guess that almost all of those supporting Moon and Oliver showed up for the primary, and that even if the two groups could stop sniping over who's the purer socialist and got behind one candidate, they would still get eaten alive by someone as experienced, smart, savvy and connected as Durkan. Wobbly politics and ideas in a city that's changing as rapidly as Seattle, are, at least to the adults in the room, even less appealing than they were a hundred years ago, and with even less chance of gaining any traction than they did back then.

"Move fast and break things." These new folks simply don't have the time or patience for the kind of circular firing squad we saw from the bleeding left during the primaries. They actually know how to get shit done, as the 75 constructions cranes we see downtown should make painfully obvious. That's why they'll back Durkan. Someone who also knows how to get shit done - and she's a progressive lesbian at that. Oh what a bitter pill that must be.
70% of Seattle voted for someone other than Durkan.

She will not be the next mayor of Seattle.
@8 you mean the federal establishment cop who spent her time paying pedophiles to entrap Muslims and shuttering legal pot shops? the cop who sent innocent activists to jail to "teach them a lesson" for not ratting out their friends?
We haven't had a good mayor since Royer. Rice sold off valuable city property to buddies at fire sale prices to cram everyone into an ugly, impractical building that the private sector couldn't fill. Schell was an ineffectual drip who only took a stand when he was at a urinal, Nickels let himself get walked over by a stupid snowstorm, McGinn was a mess who didn't understand government and alienated the worker bees of the city in order to schmooze up to the unions (most of whom don't even live in Seattle), and Murray went from blunder to blunder (the whole Seattle IT disaster being the worst manifestation, but the handling of the disposition of the Public Safety Building parcel being right up there.)

And I don't really see anything in the current crop that makes me feel like we're going to have anything better. Whoever ends up mayor (including Oliver, who could still pull this off), she'll surround herself with sycophants and empire builders, and decide to do one big stupid thing as her legacy, instead of tending to the needs of the city.

I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath. Something about Seattle politics assures that those who can't lead end up in positions where they are expected to.
I hope @13 isn't really an engineer, because @12's calculation isn't sound.

For example, 3 is 50% more than 2 bc 100% * (3-2)/2 = 50%.

Using the (incorrect) technique of @12, you get that 3 is 100% * (3-2)/3 = 33% (approximately) more than 2, which of course it is not.

The point is you need to divide by the "starting" value, not the ending value as @12 did.

I'm willing to give @6 the benefit of the doubt that they meant percentage point lead and were just using sloppy language.
Durkan and Farrell together have over 40% of the current vote total, and we have every reason to believe a voter who went for Farrell in the primary will vote for Durkan in the general. Oliver is a statement candidate whose statement is already made; if Oliver does squeak by Moon, Durkan will win the general election in a landslide.

Catalina dear, I am so sorry for your tough hangover this morning; perhaps some breakfast cocktails would do you right. Mayor Paul Schell revitalized the public library system and gave Amazon a sweetheart deal on space in PacMed; while both helped our great city, the latter's effect is obviously hugely beneficial. Nickels was a competent mayor who suffered from bad luck in our stupid primary system. McGinn was an epic incompetent, and Murray showed no interest in actually doing any of the things he claimed to want.

Any election where FOUR progressive women were the top vote-getters is a good one in my view; toss in McGinn's 7% (and sagging) result, and I'm feeling great going into the general.
@17 "Oliver is a paragon of fiscal discipline and high productivity."

You're kidding yourself if you think she wouldn't have spent more money if she were capable of raising more money - and probably not have gotten many more votes in the process, raising her cost-per-vote right up to the levels of the big-spending candidates.
Schell was an ineffectual drip who only took a stand when he was at a urinal
Catalina, you almost made me spit my morning coffee.

The point was rather that she apparently didn't HAVE to raise more money to convince a fairly substantial number of citizens to vote for her.
Primary votes mean little in the General election. Older people and activists vote in the Primary. Everyone else votes in the General.
" 70% of Seattle voted for someone other than Durkan."

By that logic, roughly 85% of Seattle didn't vote for Moon or Oliver. So what's left?
The Slog is goofing up again - you can't see new comments unless you put in another comment.

Tensor dear, I can assure you that I was sober as a judge when I wrote that. I didn't imbibe at all last night (which, granted, is usual for a Friday evening) and I never drink before the sun is over the yardarm.

As for Schell, he did what any other Mayor of Seattle would have done with Amazon (which wasn't going to leave Seattle). As for "revitalizing the libraries", I do think it's funny when people try to give politicians credit for things the voters did (like the claim that Ed Murray made gay marriage legal in WA state). The politicians may develop the policy, but it's the voters that give it the nod.

In the case of the library levy, it was typical dumb Seattle: saddle the system with a bunch of boutique buildings - like the ridiculous Central Library - that assuage our civic inferiority complex, but don't give it sufficient operating funds (that required another levy, under Murray)

I agree that it's shameful that we haven't had a woman mayor in almost one hundred years. (I would have voted for Phylis Lamphere, unfortunately I was only twelve) but I'm not confident that any of them will be any different than what we've seen before. But like I said, I'm always up for being pleasantly surprised.

This crabby without a happy night before? Oh, my, I'm very sorry for you, dear.

Mayor Schell was the driving force behind the citizen initiative which rebuilt the library system. (And, like the new buildings or hate them, you should know that capital and operating budgets should be kept separate.)

Murray did the long slog for marriage equality through the legislature, starting with civil unions. He did get the marriage bill passed and signed; the bigots forced a public vote and lost.

I hope it's Moon vs. Durkan in the general; Moon has some good ideas which Durkan could implement.

The starting value in this case is the total votes of the winner, that is the value that I am using as the basis of comparison to the nearest contender.

If you used Moon's total as the "starting" value, Durkan would have 65% more votes, but I went with the more conservative basis.

You defend @6, but that comment was nothing more than an attack on my arithmetic... and as I've shown, my calculation is correct.

I suspect the larger problem here is that we Americans are not used to seeing and thinking about elections with more than two viable contenders, and we have very little experience of close results in such a race. In this particular race Moon and Oliver are fairly close (Moon has ~7% more votes than Oliver), but Durkan and Moon are not-- Durkan is the clear, runaway winner of this race. Her wide margin of victory is not "lackluster."

It's another question entirely, however, whether this makes Durkan a "heavy favorite" in the general election; there's a lot more to consider than the votes each collect in the primary, as many commenters have noted.
Whether we get goo goo government or not, Trump is going to send National Guard troops, ICE agents, or fucking Blackwater mercenaries into Seattle if he hangs around in office much longer. If Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy and fucking Gorsuch rubber stamp the dear leader's whim, it will be "legal". We can at least pick a mayor who'd rather be dragged away to jail in handcuffs than be cowed by that fascist motherfucker.
@23 "we have every reason to believe a voter who went for Farrell in the primary will vote for Durkan in the general"

Not this voter! Moon is easily my second choice, and I'd go for Oliver over Durkan.
Why tensor dear, I'm as happy as a clam! I accompanied the neighbor children down to Lake Washington to see the Blue Angels, we sat on the boat and let them play with the steering wheel, and then we went for ice cream. It's the simple things in life that give us joy, after all - it's not just all about alcohol. It sounds like maybe you need to rediscover that?

And yes, I fully understand the difference between Capitol and O&M (as we say at the city). Politicians like Schell do also - but they just want to go to groundbreakings, rather than figure out how to keep all the Taj Mahals going once they are built. We see the same problem with SPS. Thanks to the largess of Seattle voters, they are swimming in capitol funds, but a friend who is a teach reports that he still has to pay for many of his own supplies.

And yes, Murray played a role in getting gay marriage passed. So did all the activists and volunteers and - most importantly - voters who voted for the right thing.

I'm sorry that my skepticism of the candidates has affected you so. It's long been my assertion that the abandonment of Seattle by the GOP has left us with banal Democratic candidates who pay a lot of lip service and use a lot of buzzwords and have rather milquetoast administrations, full of a musical chairs sort of arrangement for staffing. And now it's getting to the point where the left is fighting amongst itself because there is effectively no right in Seattle. As the town gets wealthier, and more and more new people arrive, I fear that we may see traditional coalitions fray, and that's not good for anyone.
"Not this voter! Moon is easily my second choice, and I'd go for Oliver over Durkan."

That's an interesting choice! Care to explain your reasoning? (I'm very serious.) Were you a voter in Farrell's constituency?
@31 no it wasn't an attack

In a one on one race, yes Durkan leads Moon by 30 or so, but this was a jungle primary
Remember GA-06? How everyone thought Ossoff would win because he was so far ahead, then it just turned out the GOP vote was split? Something like that could happen here too, where Durkans vote consolidates immediately, but thenMoon overtakes her

Remember Brady vs Pramila? The general went from 42-21 to 56-42. It's very possible that Moon will see similar gains to Brady, which means, guess what, Durkan isn't so inevitable

I think you might have missed what I said about the general election, so here it is again, quoted directly from @31:

"It's another question entirely, however, whether this makes Durkan a "heavy favorite" in the general election; there's a lot more to consider than the votes each collect in the primary, as many commenters have noted."

@6 was absolutely questioning my figures, as you'll see if you read it again, and as I've shown, the numbers plainly say that in this primary the total vote count for Durkan is 39% higher than that of her closest competitor.
@33 Almost entirely strategic. I assumed Durkan would get one of the two general election slots, and thought Farrell, being the most politically experienced, would be the strongest head-to-head candidate against her. All three (Farrell, Moon, Oliver) are acceptable in terms of their platform and general ideological worldview, though Moon and Oliver should probably have run for council or some other lower office first.
@35 Ooops, comment #38 was meant for you

That's an interesting way to look at it. I had expected Farrell to do better than she did, and I assumed experience was the attribute a voter for Farrell or Durkan would prize. Thank you for answering my question.

See you at the general election!
I'm sorry that my skepticism of the candidates has affected you so.

I'm sorry no Mayor we've elected in the last forty years has passed your many rigorous purity tests, dear, but you're not, in fact, dragging everyone else down with you; as my comments throughout this thread clearly show, I'm happy with the results of our recent primary election, and am looking forward to our general election.

Although I can now easily understand how enforced sobriety, combined with crowds, children, loud noise, foul air, and an unwatchable air show created your wonderfully dyspeptic delivery. I hope you've since had adult time sufficient for recovery.

P.S. It's a "capital" budget, as opposed to, say, "Capitol Hill." Toodles!
@33 I'm with you. Voted for Farrell. Moon was my second choice (I finally gave in to the fact that MDS, McGinn Derangement Syndrome, made McGinn a nonviable opponent to Durkan.)

Wont vote for Durkan. But I won't vote for Oliver either. With Trump in the White House, I'm not voting for a Sawant aligned candidate like Oliver. Sorry. Just not going to risk raising the platform of more Shock Doctrine socialists.
People who feel that Murray is being forced out of re-election by anti-LGBT forces, and not because of morality, have a disgusting similarity to Trumpists citing fake news.
...MDS, McGinn Derangement Syndrome, made McGinn a nonviable opponent to Durkan.

McGinn's current vote totals are inferior to those of Durkan, Moon, Oliver, Farrell, and Hasegawa, so I'd say he's a non-viable opponent to any viable candidate.

(Oh, and it's not "derangement syndrome," it's "memory of record in office.")

The anti-gay activist who forced Murray from the race by bankrolling a bogus lawsuit should be mightily pleased to have such a useful idiot as yourself saying exactly what he intended you to say.

What's it like, being such a helpless tool of a bigot?

Take your prattle about morality and shove it, loser.
@45: Oh, so then you're discounting the defendants, like Simpson, and the findings of Oregon CPS case workers decades before there this litigation? You're also discounting the news coverage, editorials and the stances of city council members? Not to mention the opinions of professionals dealing with sex abuse cases and sexual abuse survivor groups?

Any homophobia on the part of the a plaintiff's attorney is regrettable, but how does it change the facts of the case?

Strange that you're still carrying a torch for Murray. But that's okay. It doesn't change the facts of the case no matter how much you want it to.
Thank you for the spelling correction, Tensor dear. I really should pay more attention to what I am typing. After all, once something is out on the internet it's there forever, isn't it?

But I don't think you understand the concept of a "purity test": I voted for all of those mayors. I didn't preemptively sit home because I thought Norm Rice was going to sell off city property, and I didn't lock myself in the powder room for a good cry after Murray beat McGinn. You can be sure that I'll vote in the November election. That's the way adults do things. We make the best choice with what we have, and we live with the results of elections.

But really dear, what does it matter what I think? I'm just another voter, as is everyone else on Our Little Slog. Why get so tense and brusque? If you keep this up, you'll have quite a stressful summer and fall, so turn that frown upside-down! After all, it's just a local election, and you'll always catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar. Maybe you need to let go and let God?

And if you think the Blue Angels was unwatchable, you don't know what you're talking about. It was amazing, as always, despite it being overcast. It's hydroplanes that I don't get.

Durkan and Farrell together have over 40% of the current vote total, and we have every reason to believe a voter who went for Farrell in the primary will vote for Durkan in the general.

As others have noted, this is completely bonkers. Farrell and Moon have extremely similar policy proposals and values on housing and transit. I'm a Farrell supporter, and I know and have talked to many others over the last few months, and Moon was the second choice of most of us. There was much speculative chatter throughout the primary of the possibility that Moon, Farrell, and McGinn would "split the urbanist vote" leading to Durkan/Oliver. A read of STB's Farrell endorsement makes clear Moon is their second choice.

I suppose it's possible that some Farrell voters cared about experience and preparation much, much more than policy/ideology, and judge Durkan's experience more useful in preparing for the role of Mayor, and vote accordingly. But this is relatively rare; the research on voting behavior makes pretty clear "experience" concerns are almost always post-hoc justification for preferences based on something else. As anyone paying any serious attention to this races understands, Farrell voters are more likely to support Moon than Durkan.
@42 I did not even consider McGinn. He wasn't a terrible mayor -- I voted for him in '09 and again, a bit reluctantly, in '13 -- but I think that in the wake of Trump's election it's time for men, especially white men, to take a step back and let women run things for a while (say, the next 50 years or so). So I will not be voting for any more white men whenever there is a comparably progressive, viable female alternative (sorry, Jon Grant).
@49, no need to apologize, as Grant really isn't comparable to Mosqueda at all...
@48: I stand corrected. There was one reason to believe Farrell's primary voters would choose Durkan in the general election, and that was experience. While your effective straw poll is better than no poll, I wonder how many of those studies about experience had a race with the previously-failed amateur loudly clanging for restoration, obstreperously oblivious to how many of his fellow citizens really, really just wanted him gone. (After all, one cannot miss an example which simply won't go away.)

Why get so tense and brusque? If you keep this up, you'll have quite a stressful summer and fall, so turn that frown upside-down!

Catalina dear, I've made many statements here about how happy I am with our primary election results, and how I am looking forward to the general election. By contrast, you decided to harrumph us all the way back to the 1970's, then forward to almost a dozen years ago with your slap at our downtown Library. (You also made a dick joke about a dead man -- so very classy and relevant as we face the choice of which woman to elect mayor.)

So no, dear, I'm feeling just fine about my city and its Mayoral prospects during this smoky Summer. (Maybe the haze will lift sufficiently so I can get a good view of an airplane now and again.) Please don't worry yourself on my account any more, 'k?
Tensor dear, I'm sorry that it upsets you that I don't subscribe to your catechism. It must be so difficult to not be able to handle any opinions other than your own.

And I'm doubly sorry that you thought that my line about Paul Schell - that he was only able to take a stand at a urnial - was a "dick joke". We obviously don't travel in the same circles. As for the part about him being dead, well, that happens to the best of us, doesn't it?

I'm happy you are happy with the choices we have. I can't say I'm unhappy myself. We'll see. As somebody once said, I'm easy to please, but hard to impress. It's the cross I bear.

And the Central Library is still an impractical eyesore. Rem Koolhaus really must have laughed all the way to the bank on that one. It's our version of the Springfield Monorail, only with dirtier windows.
@50 Nahhh, Grant has his quirks and foibles I'm sure, but he's smart, progressive, and has done some seriously good stuff. I'd gladly support him if he weren't running against a comparably progressive and electable woman. Blame it on Trump.
...I'm sorry that it upsets you...

The word you're looking for, dear, is "amuses". Really, trust me on this. For example:

It must be so difficult to not be able to handle any opinions other than your own.

This from someone who spent much of this thread telling me how I'm feeling, and pointedly ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Priceless!

We obviously don't travel in the same circles.

No, in mine using a urinal involves using a penis. But I don't pretend to understand your "circles," now, do I?

And the Central Library is still an impractical eyesore.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; practicality, not so much. What exactly about the architecture of the Central Library Branch precludes it from performing the essential functions of a library?
tensor dear, I can tell you're distraught. Would you like me to prepare a blanc mange and rub your wrists with eau de cologne? It really is calming. Or perhaps I could come and read the Bible to you? If this wretched haze ever lifts, I would be happy to take you out for a nice walk. I think you could use some fresh air.

Again, "amused" would have been a much, much more accurate choice. (And it becomes even more so with each of your additional comments.)

Would you like me to prepare a blanc mange and rub your wrists with eau de cologne?

That sounds a bit fancy for little ol' me. How about you just answer the question I asked? Surely a person with such strong opinions about a public library branch (!) can support them with facts, no?
@46: If you don't like getting lectured on morality, I suggest you not indulge in it yourself, especially since you're not very well-informed:

Oh, so then you're discounting the defendants, like Simpson,

The only place Simpson was a defendant was in his own criminal trials, where he was convicted for many crimes, including forgery. I'm not discounting at all that he was convicted for a crime of duplicity -- in fact, it's a major consideration whenever I consider any claim he makes.

...the findings of Oregon CPS case workers...

We know of one document, written by one case worker. Your use of plurals shows you're illiterate, innumerate, or just plain confused.

In that one document, the one case worker claims there is reasonable cause to believe Murray abused Simpson. That was not news, as Murray had already been investigated by the local police on suspicion of exactly such abuse. The local prosecutor declined to seek charges against Murray, exonerating Murray of the suspicion. (Simpson accused another former foster parent of similar abuse, and the police's investigation into that person ended the same way.) Why the case worker wrote such a redundant report remains a mystery.

You're also discounting the news coverage,

I'm not discounting it; I'm considering the sources: felons with convictions for crimes of deceit.


You're still confused. Editorials are opinions; opinions are not facts.

...stances of city council members...

Oh, you meant the folks who are *doing*
nothing to remove Murray from office? Their do-nothing stances say a lot more than the empty words some of them are spouting.

Not to mention the opinions...

Once again, opinions are not facts. Please make a note of this.

Any homophobia on the part of the a plaintiff's attorney is regrettable, but how does it change the facts of the case?

The only reason a "case" -- the bogus lawsuit, now withdrawn -- existed was because a known anti-gay bigot (who'd lost a political battle to Murray!) bankrolled said bogus lawsuit. Once he'd driven Murray from seeking re-election, he stopped bankrolling the bogus lawsuit. Therefore, there is no more "case" against Murray for anyone to discuss.

Strange that you're still carrying a torch for Murray.

I'm not. I'm upholding the high moral standards regarding presumption of innocence, skepticism of accusations, and the rigorous examination of all evidence. You're free to repeat unverifiable stories from unreliable sources if you like, and to confuse opinions with evidence, but in so doing, you abandon all claims to knowing what morality looks like.