Big mistake. Not strategic. She should have run for the council seat. Or waited and run against Dan Strauss. She has virtually no name recognition, her legislative achievements occurred years ago, and Lorena Gonzales is an extremely strong candidate. And I support Farrell!

I went right down to the wire the last primary in choosing between Farrell and Durkan. I ended up making a last minute decision to vote for Durkan as she was the more well-rounded and Farrell seemed too much a single issue (transportation) candidate.

While I like Farrell I'm leaning towards Harrell this time as I think he'll have the best chance of defeating Gonzalez.

@1 Totally agreed. I also like Farrell, but I will be supporting another candidate in this race. What does her run achieve other than taking away votes from Echohawk and Gonzalez? This is an ill-advised political suicide mission. She seems like a policy wonk lacking the needed common sense and people skills to win elections. I simply don't understand why she waited until mid-March to get in this race and waste at least two months of valuable fundraising time. If she wants to be mayor badly enough to have resigned her State House seat in 2017, why couldn't she have spun up a campaign earlier? It seems like a well-intentioned, misdirected run that will only result in harming the campaigns of progressive women of color who actually have a chance of getting elected.

I'll just echo some of the sentiment here. She was clearly the best candidate last time, but The Stranger's endorsement of unqualified candidates and The Seattle Times endorsement of qualified do-nothing candidates did her in. I don't see how she will do better this time, running against two very good candidates. Both have served on the city council (unlike any candidate last time) and unlike her.

I like her -- I really do. But she should run for the city wide seat that Gonzales is leaving (maybe she can get appointed to it first). Or maybe she can challenge Pedersen (although that would require moving). It wouldn't make sense for her to challenge Strauss -- Strauss endorsed her.

We really should repeal the districts bullshit. Oh, and move the elections to normal years. That was obviously a right wing attempt to reduce turnout, and get more NIMBYs elected. Repeal the law and we can more easily get rid of idiots like Pedersen.

To reply to others who think this is just going to divide votes from other candidates who are basically the same, I think Jessyn brings a few unique things:

Transportation expertise
Climate and environment expertise
Governing experience from outside of Seattle
Experience working with neighborhoods (ie might help breakthrough opposition to density)

As much as I respect most of the other candidates in the race, I have a hard time wanting to stick with the same group of people running the city after our track record on homelessness, transportation, climate change (btw we are missing our GHG goals), etc. Do we really want the status quo on any of these fronts? On the flipside, someone without government experience might spend years learning the ropes.

i'm sure that her time as a senior vice president at a billionaire's thinktank really honed her progressive chops.

@1, Farrell would have to run for Dist 4 (Pedersens seat) unless she’s move recently. Strauss is a whole ‘nother district. And I like what @6 has to say. The Goldilocks of political experience not tainted by Seattle governance.

@6 I agree that Farrell brings those factors to the race, and I also don't think they're enough to make a difference. In an approval voting or RCV environment, Farrell's run would make a ton of sense but it serves little purpose given the existing field and Top Two primary.

Colleen Echohawk already has the "I'm a fresh face and I'm well qualified for the job" lane Farrell entered too late to seize. And Echohawk's close work with the city on homelessness as head of the Chief Seattle Club, and her experience helping select a past police chief are super relevant and mean she won't spend time needing to learn the ropes despite not having held elected office before. "I'm a qualified fresh face who likes buses and trains" will not be enough for Farrell to defeat her challengers.

@2, Durkan defeated Cary Moon. Jessyn Farrell did not contend Durkan.

How blatantly racist - Rich:

"When asked why she was jumping into another race for Mayor, particularly one with two leading women of color,"

Are you saying that our democratic process should be based on skin tone?

@10 Durkan, Moon, Oliver, and Farrell were all on the Primary ballot.

What part of Last Primary" did you not understand?

"I went right down to the wire the last primary in choosing between Farrell and Durkan."

@3 Interesting that you think Farrell pulls from the same voters that Gonzalez and Echohawk attract.

Gonzalez and Echhawk (Echohawk perhaps less so) strike me as part of the faction that wants to continue the failed policies of the current City Council. Farrell and Harrell both strike me as part of the reform faction that wants to change course.

There's no way I would vote for either Gonzalez or Echohawk in the primary. But I'm undecided (leaning Harrell) between Farrell and Harrell.

Can you please update to reflect ALL the candidates? In these two particular spots: "When asked why she was jumping into another race for Mayor, particularly one with two leading women of color," -- Nikkita Oliver is a non-binary POC. Add them. And here "In order of money raised so far, other candidates hoping to solve the city's problems include Chief Seattle Club director Colleen Echohawk, Seattle City Council President Lorena Gonzalez, architect Andrew Grant Houston, SEED development director Lance Randall, and former short-term Mayor (and longer-term Seattle City Councilmember) Bruce Harrell." Where is Nikkita's name on this list? They are currently running and raising money.

@14 Oliver is not running for mayor, they is running for City Council. Gonzalez must have cut some kind of deal with them.

@14 Nikkita Oliver is not running for mayor, which is why they aren't listed as a mayoral candidate.

@13 Farrell is politically left of Harrell and perhaps mildly right of Gonzalez and Echohawk, so she's much closer to their voter pool than Harrell's. And Farrell is endorsed by current city councilman Dan Strauss so she's not trying to run from the council.

Harrell does not have the base of support he once had. The most recent contest between him and Gonzales was roughly 50-50, and her popularity extends much farther now then it did then. He seemed really out of touch at his launch event. Perfect to lock down the moderate and NIMBY crowd.

So much has happened in our city since the last mayoral election, it'll be very interesting to see how much alignment there is between the voters and the direction we've been led under this council. So far I'm leaning toward Farrell. She's progressive, collaborative, and solutions-oriented without the sharp elbows or sanctimoniousness of Gonzales. But I agree with others that she has a narrow lane. For those who want a less-socialist progressive who maybe won't rile up the biz community as much, Farrell is a good choice.

@8 -- All the better. She should run against Pedersen. That would be ideal. It would be quite the contrast as well -- a race between an anti-transit NIMBY and a pro-transit YIMBY. I would likely give all my vouchers to Farrell.

So Rich doesn’t think a White woman should run for mayor if there is a POC woman is also running for mayor. Good to see Rich focusing on the important issues.

Rich, your bias is showing.

@19 -- Gonzales is the head of the city council. She is one of two city council members that represents the entire city. She is the most qualified candidate in the race.

Harrell is a close second, but he hasn't dealt with some of the more recent council members.

Your impressions of the candidates are simply your own. None of these candidates is running on one thing. They are all trying to be mayor, and the ones that are serious (like Farrell) know what it involves.

Enough of the reverse racism BS. Asking why you are crowding out candidates from groups that have a history of being crowded out is not racist. Rich was merely appealing to her social awareness of that fact so that she could state why it's important the she also run. It's not complicated or sinister.

Might I just add: One good thing about election season is that is helps sort out the SLOGers who don't actually live here.

@6 "As much as I respect most of the other candidates in the race, I have a hard time wanting to stick with the same group of people running the city after our track record on homelessness, transportation, climate change (btw we are missing our GHG goals), etc. Do we really want the status quo on any of these fronts? "

The failure on all of those issues has as much to do with the lack of experience than anything else. Look at the U. S. president for example. Obama is a great guy, and promised "Hope and Change". But he was new to the job, and didn't do shit. In a few short months, Biden has signed a bill that will reduce childhood poverty, and poverty overall more than any president since LBJ, if not FDR. He knows how to get things done. Experience matters.

Same with things at the city level. Durkan took the job, and didn't know how to run things. She didn't even know how to handle the police, even though she was part of the court order that the cops are still under. She didn't understand that it wasn't enough to hire a really good chief (who, by the way, was a candidate she completely ignored for a long time). Upper management for the police force is not the problem. Or at worst, upper management's heart is in the right place, but they don't want to piss off the rank and file. But the rank and file needs to change. A lot of them should be fired. I would even consider going "Full Camden", and rebuilding the police force from scratch.

The point is, you don't get real change without getting someone who knows what they are doing, and knows the problems we are dealing with. You can't blame Gonzales for the problems of the city, when the mayor, and other council members ignore them. For example, the biggest cause of homelessness is high housing prices. The biggest cause of high housing prices is our antiquated (and historically racist) zoning rules. But without leadership from the mayor, this won't change. It would change under Gonzales.

"I'm sure that her time as a senior vice president at a billionaire's think tank really honed her progressive chops."

Well, it didn't hurt. It is a progressive think tank, lead by a progressive billionaire. Articles by Hanauer: https://www.theatlantic.com/author/nick-hanauer/. More recent Seattle Times editorial: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/please-tax-my-capital-gains-profits-washingtons-crises-demand-it/

Jessyn's terrific. I voted for her in the primary in 2017, and I can only imagine I'll do so again this time around. And first chance I get, I'll contribute to her campaign.

Having said that, I'd been wishing for a City Council run from her. Really, Ross @5 almost exactly captures my sentiments, with the exception of "running against two very good candidates." I'd replace that with "two acceptable, high-profile candidates" regarding Gonzales and Harrell. I'm not against either of them, and I'm sure I could be FOR either of them eventually.

As for Farrell's "universal child care" plan, for now all it sounds like is nibbling around the edges to expand child care and pre-K, which is about all you can do at the municipal level. Consider this a case where the reality can never live up to the campaign slogan. Nor should it, in my view. I see real universal child care is something that has to be delivered, at minimum, at the state level. If I recall correctly, OK has one year of universal pre-K.

Like every announced candidate for mayor she dodges the fundamental question regarding police reform: supporting 100% civilianized investigations & oversight, like Newark & Nashville have. It is extraordinary that a consensus has developed among current candidates to just ignore this issue.

@23: The mere concept of "crowding out" by having an additional candidate in disgustingly undemocratic.

@29

It's elitist and I'm all for it. The top two primary is a farce. How the hell does letting Goodspaceguy on the ballot every year do anything but make a farce of democracy.

Thirty-six candidates for Governor, and Barney Fife comes in second?

There are currently 15 candidates for mayor and it appears as though all Jeffrey Applegate, Henry Clay Dennison, James Donaldson, Colleen Echohawk, Matthew F Ervin, Jessyn Farrell, M. Lorena González, Bruce Harrell, Rodney Holt, Andrew Grant Houston, Asukaa Jaxx, Thomas W Kennis, William Kopatich, Mona Radheshwar and Lance Randall had to do to get on the ballot is say "hey I'm running for mayor!"

That's insane and you know it.

In order to appear on the primary ballot candidates should be required to gather the signatures of at least 5% of the total votes cast in the last election.

Want to know why government is so fracked up in Washington? The number 1 reason is the damn top-two primary with the no party affiliation crap being #2.

The Democratic Party has such a week bench that it's hard to think of anyone not named Inslee who is remotely qualified to be governor. Meanwhile the best the Republican's could come up with was Barney Fife. Hell Mayberry was probably 10 times the size of Republic which means Barney Fife is probably more qualified than Loren Culp!

The top two primary is nothing but populist bull and all Populism gives you is Kshama Sawant or Donald Trump.

@31: Welcome to democracy, you ignorant fucking choad. You think the Democratic Party has a week (sic) bench? Bob Ferguson, who has won statewide three times already, and has campaigned in every corner of the state, is supremely qualified to be governor, and will lap the field when he runs.

@31 - I would note only that Loren Culp was not on the Dem bench. That alone suggests that it was stronger than the GOP one.