December 6, 2024 • 56 mins
On this week-in-review, Crystal Fincher and Robert Cruickshank discuss:
😖 Morales bullied out of office
✋ Rinck sworn in
🙅 SPS recall effort shut down
🔥 KC Exec race heats up
🤓 Final precinct data & election thoughts
💚 Green Jacket Lady is back!
As always, a full text transcript of the show is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.
Follow us on Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Bluesky at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Robert Cruickshank, on Bluesky at @robertcruickshank.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm apolitical consultant and your host.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:23):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcast toget the full versions of our Tuesday
topical show and Friday week-in-reviewdelivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, the most helpfulthing you can do is leave a
(00:43):
review wherever you listen.
If you missed our Tuesday topical showlast week, we chatted with Sukhi Samra
from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income,Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards, and
Dona Ponepinto from United Way PierceCounty about GRIT, a groundbreaking
guaranteed income pilot program inTacoma, that has not only demonstrated
(01:03):
positive economic impacts, but alsochallenged long-held misconceptions
about poverty and cash assistance.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friendof the show - someone we always enjoy
having on - chair of Sierra ClubSeattle, longtime communications and
(01:24):
political strategist, Robert Cruickshank.
Hey!
Thanks for having me on again, Crystal.
Absolutely.
Well, we got some really interestingand unexpected news this week.
Tammy Morales is going to beresigning from her Seattle City
Council seat as of January 6th.
(01:44):
How did you react to thisnews when you heard it?
What did you think of it?
And what reasons didshe give for resigning?
It was heartbreaking.
I've known Tammy Morales sinceher first campaign in 2015.
One of my most vivid political memorieshere in Seattle is knocking doors on
Beacon Hill for her in the pouringrain in October of 2015 and soaked
(02:06):
to the bone - it was totally worthit, because Tammy was fantastic.
That's a race she lost by maybe 400votes to Bruce Harrell that year.
I remember - I'll never forget- meeting with Tammy a couple months
after that election and saying,Well, what are you going to do next?
She looked me dead in the eyeand said - I'm going to run
in 2019 and I'm going to win.
And sure enough, that'sexactly what she did.
And she came back again and won in 2023when that right-wing corporate faction
(02:31):
threw everything they had at her.
She's done a great job representingDistrict 2, southeast Seattle,
a part of the city that we allknow is routinely neglected by
the power structure in the city.
And she had done a great job, but thatjob got extremely difficult in 2024,
with a new right-wing city council thatreally put a target on Tammy Morales'
(02:51):
back and made it extremely difficultfor her to do her job, made it difficult
for her staff to do her job representingthe needs of her constituents.
And in her resignation letter, she madeit really clear that the bullying and
harassment from her colleagues on theCouncil had gotten to a point where she
couldn't effectively do her job anymore.
I think it's horrible.
I think it's a really awful outcome forthis city - someone who's a two-time
(03:16):
election winner representing one ofthe most important parts of our city
that has often been shut out of power.
She has done great work and for her tofeel like she can't continue in office,
I think, is a wake-up call for thisentire city that something is very,
very wrong on the second floor of CityHall where the City Council offices are.
(03:37):
This should be a sign to everybodythat we need substantial change in City
Hall, on the City Council urgently.
We absolutely do.
And, you know, this wasn't covered superwidely for a long time - certainly,
listeners to Hacks & Wonks are nostrangers to the inappropriate behavior
and conduct that we saw from theCouncil majority towards Tammy Morales.
(03:59):
This was not about ideology.
Sometimes I saw some people who justlooked at the headline and was just like
- Is it because she's in the minority?
It was not that.
It really was about misconduct,bullying, inappropriate behavior
that ultimately disenfranchised thevoters of District 2 by shutting
(04:25):
Tammy Morales out of conversations,by shutting her staff out, by refusing
to work with her, by their behaviortowards them and really isolating them.
The really disrespectful dressingdowns that we saw - and other
useful context here is that themajority of the Council is new.
(04:47):
Tammy is one of the most experiencedpeople in just how does legislation
work, just in the ABCs and the 123sof government and legislation, how
the City and the Council functions.
And attempts to help were spurned.
And then seeing the consequences of thatbeing spurned - with so many missteps that
(05:07):
made it to the public, and attempts topursue their agenda that they then had to
go back on because they didn't understandwhat they were doing, or they found out
that what they were doing was very, veryunpopular in ways that Tammy Morales
was attempting to work with them on.
It was just really ensuringthat District 2 did not have any
(05:29):
meaningful representation, andwere not going to get anything.
And it's just so frustratingthat this is what we're seeing.
Some of those things happen nationallyand what's so concerning and worrying
about what we're seeing on the nationaland federal level about seeing very
qualified people being pushed out ofgovernment - which has happened under this
(05:51):
Council majority intentionally - seeingloyalists and new people who their number
one requirement is, Okay, you're alignedwith my agenda, you're loyal to me.
Doing government in thatsort of way is not healthy.
No matter what your ideology is, thatis just not a recipe for success.
How many times we're seeing thatnew initiatives are being announced,
(06:14):
legislation is being proposed, and theyhaven't even talked to the departments
involved in implementing that - who thenare warning about unforeseen consequences.
Or, okay, we're thinking aboutdoing this with legislation.
We need staff whose job it is tounderstand what the legislation
is, recap it, define it, providefinancial projections and the types
(06:36):
of outcomes you could expect to see.
And those experts coming back and saying- There are many problems with this.
We have lots of reservations.
We would not recommend this, orwe would amend it in this way.
And that feedback that doesn'tconform to their preconceived
notions being buried, and justignored, and then proceeding anyway.
There are really major competencyproblems here, and several ethical
(07:02):
questions that have popped up.
And so I think it is very important,regardless of the ideological
positioning and issues, for peopleto look at the conduct and behavior
of this Council and demand better.
Even if it's going to be in pursuitof what they said they want to
(07:22):
do, people may disagree with that.
At the very least, the floor shouldbe that it's done in a professional
and ethical way, and that we'relistening to evidence and guidance.
And if you decide to disagree with that,then justify that on the record instead
of acting as if that doesn't exist.
Those types of things are just reallyred flags and lead to the types of
(07:47):
problems that most people acknowledge andsee very plainly on the federal level.
Ignoring it here is how it grows that big.
And we can do better here.
The people deserve better.
And I hope this is really the wake-upcall needed for people to really
push and ensure that they are keepingeyes on this Council and holding them
(08:07):
accountable - because they are thereto serve the residents of Seattle.
Well, and this is something that ishappening more and more frequently
in local government here in Seattle.
I know we'll talk more about the schooldistrict later in our podcast today, but
we saw at the very beginning of this year,Vivian Song and Lisa Rivera essentially
(08:28):
bullied off the School Board as well.
I wrote an article back in August aboutthis - how local leaders at the City
Council under Sara Nelson, the SchoolBoard under Liza Rankin are pioneering
a new undemocratic Seattle process.
And part of that issilencing progressive voices.
And I think we need to note thatVivian Song, Lisa Rivera, and now
(08:49):
Tammy Morales - three progressivewomen of color - pushed out.
And pushed out in part by a moreright-leaning group who do not want
public scrutiny for the austerityagenda that they're pushing.
I think you can't divorceit from that either.
It is very ideological, but it'salso targeted towards people who
(09:11):
already have a hard time gettingheard in government anyway.
A progressive woman of color issomeone who has had to fight hard to be
heard by the political establishment,even in Seattle, for many years.
So this is, I think, extremely alarming.
I think it is connected to thewider political agenda that is being
imposed, certainly at City Hall.
And I think that the public doesn'tagree with either the pushing out
(09:33):
of Tammy Morales or the agenda thatthat Council majority is espousing.
And I think we will see hopefully nextyear in 2025 - with a mayoral election,
Sara Nelson's seat is up, Alexis MercedesRinck's seat is up, and now Tammy Morales'
seat will be up on that ballot too - goingto see, will the public stand for this?
(09:55):
Or is the public going to step in and say- We need different leadership in the City,
we need different policies at the City?
And we need a city government that willgovern in the right ways for Seattle,
including the values, the policies, andthe conduct that they have for each other.
Absolutely.
And the last thing I'll mention on thisis, to your point, this is certainly
(10:20):
a broader phenomenon than just theSeattle City Council - certainly
the Seattle School Board.
We've seen troubling thingsin the City of Burien - again,
issues of competency and conduct.
And oftentimes we do see issues ofcompetency and conduct align with
poor ideology that is not based inevidence or runs counter to evidence.
(10:43):
And I also have to mentionthe State Legislature.
And we heard words from KirstenHarris-Talley, former representative
of the 37th Legislative District - samekinds of underlying dynamics there
that certainly predominantly arebeing wielded against progressive
people, and most specifically,progressive women of color, mostly.
(11:06):
There are exceptions - certainlyHugo Garcia appears to be a target
of this down in Burien and otherswho have been forced from government.
But this is a problem that wehave to confront at all levels.
And it is not good enough tojust say - Well, there are two
teams, the D's and the R's.
And I'm a D.
And if the person has a D by their name,then, you know, hey, it's all good.
(11:30):
We can do better.
We should do better.
And when we don't, especially when it'swith people on "our team" or the party
you feel most aligned with - that justsets the table for worse to come and
permission to when seats flip in one wayor another eventually, that then that
(11:53):
just gets wielded for even worse, whichwe're seeing on the national level.
So we have to confront this.
We have to deal with thisand we have to demand better.
If we don't do this now, we maynot get a chance to fix it again
before damage occurs that cannotbe repaired more than has already.
Now, I do want to talk aboutexciting news for a number of
(12:16):
people - certainly newsworthy - thatthe newest member of the Seattle
City Council was officially sworn in.
Alexis Mercedes Rinck defeatedTanya Wu, who was appointed to
that seat, and is now the newestmember of the Seattle City Council.
She will be standing, as yousaid, for election next year
in 2025, along with others.
(12:37):
What do you think, especially followingthe upcoming departure of Tammy Morales
- what do things look like moving forwardfor Alexis Mercedes Rinck and how
can she best be set up for success?
I think Alexis Mercedes Rinck hasthe advantage of having seen the
City Council in operation for a year.
I think Tammy Morales had experience, hadworked very collegially with the Council
(13:03):
she'd been on the first four years, and Ithink was clearly taken aback and shocked
by the treatment she experienced in 2024.
Alexis Mercedes Rinck now knows toexpect that - does not validate it, make
it okay, but she now can be prepared.
And she can come up with strategies todeal with that, including working with
the public to push back against that.
And I think we're going to need tomobilize the public to go to our
(13:26):
city councilmembers and tell them- This is completely unacceptable.
I'm planning to contact Cathy Moore,who represents me in the 5th district
and say - I don't want to see this everhappen again and will be watching you
very closely to make sure it doesn't.
Alexis is also up for re-electionherself next year on the ballot - that's
helpful in a way because what it means isshe's going to have to go out there and
(13:46):
build that coalition and maintain thatcoalition that carried her to victory.
There are going to be a lot oforganizations that were invested in
her success here in 2024 and will beinvested in her success again in 2025.
And I think it helps.
You and I worked for Mike McGinn 10+ yearsago when he was mayor, and he got a lot
of stuff thrown at him unfairly too bymembers of the City Council and the media.
(14:07):
And one thing that became veryclear to us was the importance
of having external validators.
We saw this also with Mike O'Brien, whofor a long time on that City Council,
until the 2015 election, was the 1 inthe 8-1 votes - the one lone progressive
on the City Council standing up forwhat was right - and dealt with a lot of
flak for it, although certainly nothinglike what Tammy Morales has experienced.
(14:28):
So what you learned again is theimportance of having real strong community
allies - Tammy had that, to be clear.
But knowing now the part of beingan ally to a progressive elected
official means having their backwhen this awful harassment happens.
Yeah, I agree with that.
This may sound corny and hokey - bothof us have worked a lot with elected
(14:50):
officials in various capacities.
And it's a given you're goingto hear about negative stuff.
You should - they serve the public,people should let their voice be heard.
That's fine and to be expected - well,it should be fine and to be expected,
I know certain members of the SeattleCouncil majority have a different
opinion about that right now.
But that is part of the job and peopleknow that when they're signing up.
But when you are pushing for what you feelis right and you've heard in spaces before
(15:14):
that it does reflect the community, itdoes reflect the conversations that you're
having on doors that you're knockingon and people that you're talking to
- that's a really lonely position to be in,it's a really quiet position to be in.
And you often don't hearfrom people doing that.
And it's a hard thing to stay engaged.
I know it is - I recognizethat part of my job involves
(15:36):
following all this kind of stuff.
Would I do that to this degreeif I didn't have the job?
Probably not.
It's challenging.
But, to do your best that when thoseflags are raised to say - Hey, we're
making a big push here, we're reallytrying to get this legislation across
the line or really have to fight againstefforts to repeal something or to pass
(15:57):
a bad bill - that in some way, shape,or form that you show up and make your
voice heard, whether it's a phone callor an email or attending a meeting.
Really communicating directly with yourelected officials makes so much more of
a difference than I think people assume.
I think people think about sometimesthe federal and national stuff - and
I'm just one voice in tens of thousandsor millions or whatever that is.
(16:21):
On the city level, sometimesyou're 1 voice in 5.
On a bad day, you're 1 voice in 50.
And every single message is read,every single voicemail is listened to.
And if they agree or not, that's theirbarometer for how visible an issue
is going to be, how controversial anissue is going to be, whether they feel
(16:44):
safe taking that vote or that stanceor they don't, whether they feel like
- Okay, I am backed up by people here.
Because they're going to be finalizingthis with colleagues that have
different views with them, and they doneed to know that they have support.
And their colleagues need tosee that they also have support.
I think one of the things with thiscurrent Council majority is - so
(17:09):
many areas where they went wronginitially and it resulted in them
trying to do something and thenrunning into a brick wall, was because
they didn't listen to those signals.
Most good public officials do understandthat if they're hearing from something,
that is a concern from someone in theircommunity and that they at least need to
account for it - they at least need tohave an answer for it, to contend with it.
(17:30):
And so make your voice heard in anyway you can, be engaged - showing up
for meetings is a big deal - again,heavy lift for a ton of people,
completely understand that.
And one of the ways the deck is stackedagainst regular working people and
families who have all these obligationsand don't have a ton of free time
and availability to do these things.
But that is still really, reallyimpactful and consequential.
(17:53):
So I would just urge people to, as wemove forward, especially in this next
year, it's one of the most importantways you can engage to create change.
I think it's absolutely right.
And there are, like we've said, electionscoming up, there are opportunities to
speak up that are coming up at the city.
Certainly the Comprehensive Plan, Ithink, is going to be a big deal in 2025.
(18:14):
This is still a democracy.
We'll see what happens to thatdemocracy at the federal level.
We still have it at the state andlocal level, but the democracy
only sustains itself as long aswe fight for it and protect it.
I think we're starting to see locallyhere in Seattle is it's coming under
stress as well, and we need to step up.
Absolutely.
Now, I want to talk this week aboutanother major development in Seattle.
(18:38):
And that was the effort for theSeattle Public Schools Director recall
effort essentially being shut down.
What was this recall about?
Who was it targeting?
And what transpired?
Sure.
So let me say at the outset, I didsome media advising to this recall
effort, but it was really drivenby the five petitioners and their
(18:59):
lawyer who filed a petition torecall Board President Liza Rankin.
And it really started in September whenthe school board proposed closing 20
schools, including all the option schoolsand alternative schools in the city.
And a number of peoplesaid - This is terrible, we
need to recall the school board.
And so parents came together andthought - Well, can we actually do that?
And in California, for example,where recalls happen all the
(19:21):
time - you can recall an electedofficial for any reason or no reason.
As long as you get enoughsignatures, it goes on the ballot.
Washington is different.
In Washington state, you actually haveto file a list of charges, and you
have to have a judge sign-off on thosecharges before you go to the ballot.
So there is a legal test you haveto meet, but there's still like a
political smell test you have to pass.
(19:43):
Voters have to believethat this is reasonable.
Now, there are four schoolboard members who are still in
their first year on the board.
Can you convince thepublic to recall them?
Probably not.
That leaves three.
Brandon Hersey and Michelle Sarjuare not running for reelection next
year, they're on their way out.
Can you really ask the voters torecall board members who are in
(20:04):
their last year and ready to leave?
I don't think the public'sgoing to appreciate that.
So you're left with Liza Rankin, whowas elected last year as the board
president and the driving force, astrong supporter of closing schools.
So politically - sure,you can make a case.
You also have to make a legal case.
And what happened was peoplegot together and looked - Is
there a legal case we can make?
(20:24):
And the standard in Washington stateis you have to demonstrate that
the target of a recall committedmisfeasance, malfeasance, or
violated their oath of office.
You have to drop a list of chargesthat you file, and a judge reviews it.
So what you essentially have to dois prove that the target of a recall
basically committed a crime in office.
You have to prove this withoutany investigative resources at
(20:47):
all - you're just going purelyon what is in the public realm.
And that's hard.
There are a lot of recalls that are filedthat are quite legitimate - the person
in office has done terrible things,but are thrown out by a judge because
they just don't meet that standard.
One that stands out to me is in2020, when there was an effort to
recall Mayor Jenny Durkan for theway she brutally suppressed a lot of
(21:09):
the protests in the summer of 2020.
I thought that was a pretty slam-dunk caseof a recall, but judges did not agree.
And then at the same time, peoplefiled what I thought was a frivolous
recall against Kshama Sawant.
The state Supreme Court did let that goon the ballot, and the reason they gave
is that Sawant used her key card to unlockthe doors at City Hall to let protesters
(21:29):
in during lockdown in the summer of 2020.
And that was the justification toput the Sawant recall on the ballot.
So it's the weird thing, butanytime you deal with the legal
system, that's how it goes.
So I was at the hearing on Mondaywhen the judge reviewed this.
And Liza Rankin's lawyersopened by saying - This is just
harassment of an elected official.
(21:50):
And the judge immediately steppedin and said - Absolutely not.
This is entirely legitimate.
This is not frivolous.
Petitioners have a constitutionalright to file this.
Then the lawyer said - Well, they'rejust singling out one director.
You can't single out one director forsomething the whole board has done.
The judge shut that down too andsaid - This isn't a case of where you
hold everyone or no one accountable.
Petitioners have the right to holdany elected official accountable.
(22:14):
The judge went on and in a course of a90-minute hearing, ultimately decided
that that high legal bar was not met.
But did say that the petitionershad brought serious concerns.
And polling bears that out.
We did polling through a new PAC that wefounded called Washington Families for
Public Education, working with ChangeResearch at the Northwest Progressive
Institute, that found 55% of votersare dissatisfied with the direction of
(22:39):
Seattle Public Schools, 51% disapproveof the performance of the school board,
50% would vote for new school boardmembers, 54% oppose school closures,
and 41% would vote for a recall.
So the public is clearly there and wantschange, but that high legal bar isn't met.
Now, you might think that comingout of a recall like this, where the
(22:59):
public is clearly fired up for yourremoval, that Liza Rankin might have
recognized the need to make somepivots and address public concerns.
But no.
And in her comments to the media andto community members this week since
the hearing, has doubled down and madeit very clear she still wants to close
20 schools, she still wants to closethe option schools and alternative
(23:20):
schools and dual language programs.
Nothing has changed for her.
She's going to keep rolling on.
But there are four school board seatsup for reelection in 2025 - that is
control of the entire school board.
And so I think what you're going to seein 2025 is not only a important election
about the future of City Hall, but acrucially important election that will
(23:41):
decide the future of our public schools.
Yeah, extremely consequentialschool board elections.
And I would just say - wherever folksare listening, certainly we have a
lot of listeners in Seattle, but alsoin a number of other cities - school
board elections in every districtare very, very important this year.
Those are often races thatdo not get much attention.
(24:03):
Candidates often don't have much moneyto get communications out, so they
kind of fall by the wayside often.
This is not the year to tune out of schoolboard elections, no matter where you are.
Also, this is the year to make sureyour state legislators understand how
(24:24):
incredible incredibly important it is andurgent it is to provide the needed funding
for schools for your district to be ableto operate, get out of the deficit it
is likely facing because so many schooldistricts in the state are facing deficits
because of the state funding situation.
(24:45):
This is going to be a really importantyear - there's a lot going on.
State legislators are goingto have to multitask like
they haven't before, likely.
We don't know what curveballs arecoming from the federal level with
funding, but we know we have a fullplate already with the various issues
in the state that need to be addressed.
They can do it.
(25:06):
Sometimes it's like - Well, we only havea certain amount of time during session.
If they don't get to it, they'regoing to have to call a special
session, or just get to it here.
This is the time to plan and ensurethat they are making this a priority.
Because these issues from Seattle toevery other corner in the state, with
school boards and school districts,are really important and decisions are
(25:27):
going to be made this coming year thatare going to impact the way schools
and neighborhoods look and citiesbecome over the next decade and beyond.
I think that's spot on.
And just to add, Moms forLiberty is very much out there.
They are active - not just in WashingtonState, they're active in King County.
(25:48):
They actively recruit schoolboard candidates in King
County school districts.
Certainly that's the case inSnohomish and Pierce Counties as well.
They don't have a great trackrecord of winning, but every
once in a while - you just need acouple that they can sneak through.
And so I think there's going to be aneffort not only to address the problems
at Seattle Public Schools next year,but a organized effort to try to elect
(26:09):
people to school boards around theregion who will stand up for public
education, stand up for Washington'svalues against Moms for Liberty types.
Absolutely.
Now, I also want to talk about a bigposition up for election this coming year.
King County Executive Dow Constantinehas announced that he will not
(26:30):
be running for re-election.
And so far, King County CouncilmembersGirmay Zahilay, Claudia Balducci,
and King County Assessor JohnWilson have entered the race.
How do you see this race shaping up?
And what do each of thesepeople bring to this race?
I think it's going to bea very fascinating race.
(26:51):
This is the first time since 2009 whenthe King County Executive has been open.
And even before that, Ron Sims heldthat office since the mid-1990s.
So this will be only the secondtime in nearly 30 years that the
King County Executive has been up.
We have three candidates so far.
Others are likely to jump in.
I hear rumors essentially that AnnDavison, Seattle's City Attorney,
(27:11):
might be thinking about it.
I think you can count on someonefrom the right jumping in for sure.
But the three candidates you haveso far are quite interesting.
Girmay is the Seattle progressivecandidate, who has a strong community
base in central and southeastSeattle, who has been there since
2019 and has amassed a prettystrong record on the County Council.
(27:33):
So has Claudia Balducci, who comesfrom Bellevue, used to be on the
Bellevue City Council, and hasbeen there since the mid-2010s.
Claudia's strength - the mainthing she's running on right
now - is housing and transit.
That's not to say Girmay is notinterested or strong on those issues.
He is.
I think it's going to be a veryinteresting battle by those two to
scoop up the votes of your regularDemocratic voter in King County,
(27:57):
in Seattle, and on the Eastside.
And in south King County, where Ithink a lot of votes are up for grabs.
John Wilson, County Assessor,is out there - maybe try to be
more of a centrist Democrat.
He's going to have his work cut outfor him, especially if there is a
candidate on the right who wants to runas a Trumpist, crackdown on crime and
visible homelessness sort of person.
But it is a top-two election.
(28:19):
And so you're going to have two peoplego on to that runoff in November 2025.
And it's going to be very interestingto see which two those are.
There's a good chance that whoeverruns from the right is one of
those two - they'll have a fairlyclear lane all to themselves.
It'll be quite the contest, I think,between Claudia and Girmay to get
the votes to come in second place- maybe even first, it's possible.
(28:41):
But they're going to have to appealnot only to the Seattle progressive
voter, they're going to have toappeal to the Seattle centrist voter,
they're going to have to appeal to theEastside voter, your regular Democrat
in Federal Way or SeaTac or Burien.
And let's not forget southeast KingCounty - Covington, Black Diamond, Auburn.
Those cities have a lot of peopletoo, and that could be a place where
(29:02):
certainly a primary election can be swung.
And there are a lot ofDemocrats now living out there.
We tend to think of those as deep red,but that's not really the case anymore.
As Seattle itself and as the centralparts of King County have gotten
more expensive, a lot of peoplehave been priced out and pushed out.
So those areas out in easternand southeastern King County have
a lot of votes that are up forgrabs, and so I think you're going
(29:24):
to see a lot of these candidatestry to jockey for that position.
It will be interesting to me tosee what they wind up running on.
What are the issues that actually rise tothe fore and how candidates address those?
Girmay, for example, did vote earlierthis year to keep the Youth Jail open.
Interviewed by The Stranger about this,I thought Girmay gave a very accurate
statement as to that, pointing outthat his constituents want that open.
(29:46):
They want that option.
That is true.
But there are still also peoplewho want genuine reform and are
uncomfortable with having a youth jail.
So how are the candidatesgoing to address that?
So I think we're going to see a veryinteresting and I think positive
- hopefully, at least, among the Democraticcandidates - positive campaign about
issues, and how it is that we'regoing to move King County forward
(30:08):
with Dow Constantine stepping aside.
Yeah, it's going to be really interestingto see how they do approach the
issues, how they define themselves.
And particularly for the two whoare currently on the council, how
they contend with the votes they'vetaken and the bases that they have.
I think between Claudia Balducciand Girmay Zahilay, there's
(30:29):
a significant overlap betweenthe voters they are looking at.
I certainly absolutely agree that JohnWilson is likely to occupy a lane that's
more moderate than either one of those,but it'll be really interesting to see
who they define as their base and howthey see that, how they prioritize the
issues that are most pressing, how theytalk about taxation and revenue, how they
(30:51):
talk about public and community safety,what their vision is for really delivering
safety to everyone, how they talk aboutpublic health and the issues involved with
that throughout the county and region.
How they just approach issuesof the budget, overall, which
is a major issue in King County.
And certainly there's been calls for moretransparency in that budgeting process and
(31:14):
the way that that budget is put together.
I'm eager to see how this unfolds.
I think they certainly have a lot to offerand are running because there is a path
to victory for them - I can certainly seethat, at least for Claudia and Girmay.
I'm curious to see if AnnDavison does get in the race.
And what other people onthe right get in the race.
(31:35):
I know we saw Reagan Dunn - before,he certainly had other aspirations for
different offices, higher offices before.
So is he a name that's goingto get in there this time?
Curious to see.
And to see what kind of Republicanthey're going to run as - big
question with that in King County.
Is it going to be the more Dunn-esquetype Republicans that we've seen?
(31:58):
Or is it going to be closer to who thebase really is, even in King County
now, which is really a MAGA-alignedbase and agenda, which is going to sound
very different than what we've seen andheard before on the King County Council.
So I'm just really curious tosee how this unfolds and what
they view as their charge.
And how they plan to wield the power ofthe executive, especially in light of
(32:26):
what we see on a federal level - justhad a decision come down that King County
Airfield can be used - a judge overturnedKing County's policy of not using King
County Airport for deportation flights.
That's now going to happen.
So I think there's going to be agreater appetite to hear how they plan
to and how they foresee wielding theirexecutive powers as they move forward.
(32:50):
It's also worth noting that KingCounty Executive has historically
been a launching pad towards beinggovernor of Washington state.
But hasn't happened for RonSims or Dow Constantine.
Both attempted it.
Ron ran in the 2004 primary,lost to Christine Gregoire.
Dow was a candidate for a hot minutein 2020 until Inslee said he was
(33:10):
running again and became clear thatFerguson was lined up for 2024.
But whoever winds up becoming KingCounty Executive, King County is still
by far the largest county in termsof population in Washington state.
And if you're a county executivehere, you're automatically in the
discussion to be the next governorwhenever Bob Ferguson decides he's done.
(33:31):
Absolutely.
Now I want to move on andtalk about election results.
Now, a lot of people think - Theelection was on like November 5th.
We are a full month after that.
Why are we talking about results?
Well, we're talking about resultsbecause we just got final result data.
Takes a while to count all of thevotes - we have a vote by mail
(33:52):
state and that takes a while.
Elections get certified in late November.
And then we just got precinct datathis week - the final results.
So previous maps that you saw, previousdata that you saw - a lot of that is
just from the first night of results.
And as we know, in Washington stateand definitely in King County,
(34:15):
those results can shift quite a bit.
And so what it looks likehappened on the first night.
may look very different by the time allthe votes are counted, which is why if
you know me, you have heard me say - Let'swait to make all of our conclusions
until we have all of the data in.
Now that we do, there are anumber of interesting insights.
(34:37):
Some of them that contradictwhat we thought we saw or what
initial incomplete results showed.
Now that we have finalresults, things are different.
What are the most notable thingsto you about this election?
And what are some of those things thatyou saw that maybe turned out to be
different than we initially thought?
(34:58):
The first one is a lot of us in Washingtonstate took some comfort in the fact
that at least right after the election,Washington was the only state in the
country that did not shift towards Trump.
Well, it turns out we kind of did.
We had the smallest shift towardsTrump - much less than a percentage
point - a tiny, almost imperceptibleshift, but there was one.
(35:19):
So we can no longer say wewent in the left direction.
We did not.
So what we saw when we also look atthe results here in Seattle by precinct
- that there was a shift towards Trump,not just in Broadmoor and the places
that are wealthy and have a view ofthe water, but also to some degree in
places like Chinatown InternationalDistrict and in southeast Seattle.
(35:41):
While Broadmoor is still the Trumpiestprecinct in the city, those other places
I mentioned are not that far behind.
And I think what this means is thatfor Democrats and progressives,
there's work to be done.
Some of that shift was younger voterschoosing the couch over the ballot box
- dissatisfied with Biden, dissatisfiedwith Harris for whatever reason, and
(36:02):
we should look at what those reasonswere - not really feeling compelled
to cast a ballot in this election.
But some of that was votes for Trump.
And you have to take that seriously.
You've seen across the country - mostnotably in 2020, in the Rio Grande Valley,
heavily Latino part of Texas, but nowyou saw it in other parts of the country.
There was a shift in some placesthat are heavily populated by
(36:23):
people of color towards Trump.
You also saw, of course, a lot ofwhite people moving towards Trump - so
let's be super clear about that.
What this shows to Democrats andprogressives - I think there was a lazy
assumption in the 2010s and after the2020 election that voters of color were
just going to vote for Democrats andyou didn't really need to do much work.
(36:44):
And that was just wrong.
It's flatly wrong and it's offensive.
You still have to reach out to voters.
You have to talk to them, learn whattheir needs are, learn what they're
asking for, and inspire them to show up.
That is true of anyone.
That is true here in Seattle.
Now, what you see when you look atthese same precincts and districts
down-ballot, you're not seeing ashift, certainly in Seattle, towards
(37:07):
Republicans, generally speaking.
Democratic candidatesstill did pretty well.
Democrats picked up aseat in the State House.
They picked up a seat in the State Senate.
So you're not seeing a widespreadrejection of the Democratic Party, either
in Seattle, King County, or statewide.
You are not seeing thisstate start to Trumpify.
(37:28):
But you can't rule out that possibility.
You need to take, I think, veryclearly the lessons of this election
that Kamala Harris, for all hermany strengths - I was a huge Kamala
Harris fan and have been since Ifirst met her in 2008 in California.
I was super excited for this election.
A lot of other people weren't.
And we need to really go out and do thatdeep canvassing and research and ask why.
(37:54):
And be curious about it.
And not assume we know the answer andnot judge what the answer is, but just
go to folks and ask, especially folksin those precincts in Seattle that
swung to Trump - whether they swungto Trump because people actively chose
him or because people chose the couch.
That choosing the couch issue is so huge.
And certainly for people I workedwith during - certainly the general
(38:19):
election portion, but throughout theentire last cycle - that was a major,
major concern that many of us had.
Because there has been this assumptionthat voters are just going to show up
because obviously the other guy is worse.
That's not how votersmake their decisions.
(38:40):
It is important to note that typicallypeople who follow politics really, really
closely, certainly people who work inpolitics, think about politics differently
personally than a lot of other people.
Are working with a lot more informationa lot of times, are much more emotionally
invested, see more connectionsbetween what happens politically,
(39:01):
what they're saying, and policy, andhow it impacts their everyday lives.
But for a lot of differentreasons, people's general
experiences don't mimic that.
And so they're processinginformation a different way.
So if we sit here and say - Well,obviously this and that and that were
true, and the other guy's horrible, anddidn't you hear this and that and that?
All of that information doesn't flowthrough to the general voter, especially
(39:25):
those who are persuadable late in thecycle in the same way it does for us.
Like it or hate it, that's just true.
And so the notion - that just becausethe other guy is worse, I got this
in the bank - just does not fly.
And it didn't in this instance.
And that's what takingvoters for granted is.
(39:47):
That's what not showing up andreally meaningfully engaging is.
And I would add that I think we alsohave to deeply reexamine the model
that has us absent from communities andengagement for three and a half years.
And then we swoop in to ensurethat they vote with a couple
(40:10):
trite messages attached to it.
These days, in this media and informationenvironment, that's not going to cut it.
I think before, and certainly this isnot at all discounting the importance
of field, it's kind of doublingdown on the importance of authentic
(40:30):
engagement as field, but the way peoplereceive information now is different
than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago.
And so where someone could knock onyour door and - Hey, it's someone
oftentimes from a community youcan trust and understand things.
And, oh, this is a real person - Iattach credibility to this person in
(40:51):
a way that I don't attach credibilityto people who I see on TV or the news.
That's much more impersonal thanthis person talking to me in person.
That dynamic is different now.
And people do place a lot moretrust than they used to in people
they follow on TikTok, peoplethey follow on YouTube and online.
(41:13):
And that is functioning as the knock onthe door and the let me talk to you as
a trusted validator about this issue.
And so if you are coming to the door,you better be prepared to do that more
than once, to really listen, to haveit reflected that you're listening,
and to have an authentic response.
(41:36):
Or if you come back four yearslater, to have a way that you've
responded to what you heard before.
And I think those ingredientsare often missing there.
I think the way the media environmenthas shifted has changed that.
But that's one takeaway that Ithink - we need to shift towards more
community-based, authentic, continualengagement with communities on the ground.
(42:04):
I did speak with the folks over atWashington Community Alliance Data Hub
and their senior research analyst, Dr.
Tim O'Neal, who gave this littlewrite-up, so I'll just quote him.
"Notably, aside from Biden's 2020vote share at 58%, Harris's 2024
vote share at 57.7% was thehighest for a Democratic nominee
(42:25):
for president since Lyndon B.
Johnson in 1964 at 62%, which was alsothe last time Democratic candidates swept
all statewide offices in Washington state.
Conversely, although Trump's 2024vote share was slightly higher than
his 2016 and 2020 vote shares, hereceived a smaller share of the
overall vote than most Republicannominees over the same time span.
(42:48):
Since 2016, Spokane, Whitman, WallaWalla, Benton, and every county in
western Washington except Cowlitz havemoved to the left, with the largest
swings in northwest Washington - theIsland, Jefferson, and Clallam counties.
Although the margin in 2024 was slightlycloser than in 2020, both nominees
received fewer votes than in 2020.
(43:10):
Trump received 58,144 fewer votes than hereceived in 2020, while Harris received
128,060 fewer votes than Joe Biden.
Throughout Washington state, there was asignificant negative correlation between
the change in turnout from 2020 to 2024and the shift in votes away from Harris,
but not the shift in votes towards Trump.
(43:33):
This effect was seen at the congressional,legislative, and county level - and was
more tightly correlated with drop-offof young voters and voters of color
than with the overall electorate.
Most areas of the state that saw thegreatest shift towards Trump in 2024,
including the Yakima Valley, Seattle'sInternational District in Chinatown in
(43:53):
south Seattle, which we just discussedearlier, also saw the greatest drop in
turnout of young voters and voters ofcolor, suggesting that this improvement in
those areas was more likely attributableto voter apathy than voter realignment."
Certainly underscores a lotof what we just talked about.
Yeah, I think that's right.
And I think this should not be comfort forDemocrats in Seattle or Washington state.
(44:16):
These should be warning signs that - sure,Democrats swept statewide offices.
Great.
Sure, they added a little bitto their legislative majorities.
Great.
But voter apathy is becoming a problem.
You saw that even though theBiden administration had some real
significant accomplishments in itsfour years, it was nowhere near
enough to overcome that voter apathy.
(44:39):
And in some cases, certainlyfueled it, especially when you
look at Biden's foreign policy.
So Democrats here in Washington say youneed to be really careful about this.
They need to understand what their voterswant, pay attention to those voters who
dropped off, and make sure that they'redelivering and doing that year-round
organizing work that you mentioned.
A colleague of mine, Ned Resnikoff,wrote a great article right after the
(45:01):
election called "The Party Should Throwa Party," which is basically calling
for this, saying that political parties,especially Democrats, need to show up
regularly, having community events incommunities you're trying to organize.
I'd go a step further and say youshould also be partnering with the
organizations that know those communitiesbest rather than trying to supplant.
How ever you do it, Democrats need to showup and show up often rather than just come
(45:25):
around at election time asking for a vote.
Absolutely.
That is foundationally critical movingforward, I believe, and certainly
have taken that to heart in the workthat I do, which is aligned with that.
But the era of the late cycle canvass,people parachuting in to different
areas that are targeted, that don'teven live there, that have that going
(45:47):
on - that is not providing and will nolonger provide the returns necessary
to win elections on the statewide andnational scale if we don't shore this up.
And I will mention the concerns aboutapathy and not feeling included,
(46:08):
listened to, like there's genuine powersharing and a feeling of obligation
to deliver for - I can certainly speakon that about communities of color.
That was not a new thing this cycle.
That was a takeaway after 2016 and 2020.
And I think now we're in thefind out phase of that, where
(46:29):
lots of warnings before andlike - Hey, pay attention to this.
And certainly some peoplesaw that, there was certainly
attention to that in the state.
But we're also working with federalforces and the party as a whole from
the national level on down does haveto reckon with the need to continuously
and authentically engage with allfacets of their constituencies.
(46:51):
And certainly we can listthe top constituencies of the
Democratic Party really easily.
And if you allow those to erode,we get results on the national
stage that are what happened.
And so fortunately, that impact has notbeen as pronounced, that whole dynamic has
not been as pronounced on the local level.
But here we have continued warning signs.
(47:13):
So the party here - locally, the countyparties, legislative parties, state
party - all have their work cut out forthem in addressing this moving forward.
Yep, I think that's right.
And hopefully we will see leadershipin this state - not just the party
leadership, I think the Washington StateParty, Democratic Party leadership gets it
- Shasti Conrad, the people around her do.
(47:35):
But it's the governor, the legislativeleadership, I think, that really
need to step up here ratherthan just cruise along as usual.
That is exactly correct.
I will also add this one otheraddition from Tim O'Neal at Washington
Community Alliance Data Hub.
The statewide initiatives 2109, 2117, and2124 way overperformed Kamala Harris in
(48:01):
rural Washington, showing that people tendto support progressive taxation, even if
they don't support Democratic candidates.
This is not a dynamicunique to Washington state.
We've seen this with statewideinitiatives and deep red states that
have passed minimum wage, passingObamacare, passing paid family leave,
(48:21):
certainly abortion protections.
But progressive taxation, makingthe tax system more fair - we are
seeing record income inequality.
People can see plainly thegreed at play in our systems.
It was notable to me that we sawmultiple congressional candidates here
in Washington, including Kim Schrier andothers in competitive districts, running
(48:45):
on preventing the Albertsons-Krogermerger because of how bad it would be for
Washington residents and the impact thatit could have in raising grocery prices.
These types of things - taking on directlygreed, right-sizing our tax system, and
supporting progressive taxation - youdon't get many instances where you
(49:07):
have an entire state resoundinglysay, Oh, no, no, no, we want this tax.
We value this tax.
This is completely aligned withour interests - way more than
so many other things we talkabout and assume are popular.
And speaking of things we want theDemocratic elected leadership in our state
(49:27):
to hear, this is certainly one of those.
This is basically a can't loseissue in Washington state.
Few things poll this highly.
We rarely see statewide initiativesthat get this level of support.
And so I would just say - mygoodness, that should be at the
(49:47):
top of every advocacy reminder.
That should be part of everyone's talking.
That should be part of everycandidate questionnaire.
This revenue is sorelyneeded in every single way.
We talked about needing to fund ourschools, talk about immigrant needs.
We talked about so many things fromchildcare to housing affordability
are directly impacted by this.
And so, that was one of the brightspots in the country - there was a
(50:12):
call yesterday with colleagues ona project from across the country.
And my goodness, this is one of thetop lines that like, look at this.
This is possible.
Change is afoot in ways that a lotof people who've been around for
a long time - 10, 20 years - justkind of assumed it never would be.
But we are here now andwe need to work with it.
(50:33):
That's exactly right.
You mentioned the statewide initiatives.
Initiative 2109, which would haverepealed the capital gains tax, was
rejected by 64% of voters in Washingtonstate, including voters in almost
every county in eastern Washington.
This was a broadly popular tax,the capital gains tax, which
targets wealthy individuals.
(50:54):
The State Legislature has abudget deficit to fill, they
have schools that need funding.
One thing that would immediately riseto the top of my list - why don't
you expand that capital gains tax?
You don't have to tax anyone additionally,but you can raise the rate from 7%
to 9%, for example, and get more outof the people you're already taxing.
The public clearly wants that.
It is popular everywherein Washington state.
(51:15):
And the Democratic majority should listento that and do that rather than listen
to wealthy donors and their lobbyists whomay not want them to go down that route.
We're tight on time and about to wrap up.
But my goodness, if you knowme, and probably on this program
several times before - I couldtalk about it for a whole show.
But, the party does have to decide whetherit truly represents its donors or the
(51:40):
people on the ground who they serve.
That's going to have to bea hard, firm decision made.
And this is one of those issuesthat will clearly determine the
choice that people make on this.
Last thing I want to mention - do youremember Green Jacket Lady, Robert?
How did she come to be known?
Sure do.
In 2023, Fox News went to Seattle Centerto do person-on-the-street interviews to
(52:04):
ask people - How awful is it in Seattle?
Isn't it unsafe with all this visiblehomelessness and public drug use?
And they stuck a microphone in frontof a woman wearing a green jacket at
Seattle Center on her way to the ballet.
And she just laughed and scoffed at this.
They asked her - Do youfeel unsafe in this city?
She's like, No.
And she just was completelydismissive of these right-wing,
(52:30):
scaremongering, fear-mongeringquestions she was being asked.
And Fox News included this inthe clip and she went immediately
viral, known as Green Jacket Lady.
And she prefers to be known as GreenJacket Lady, prefers to be anonymous - I
don't actually know what her name isand respect the desire for anonymity.
Well, she showed up on Blueskyrecently and told that story of what
happened that day, and how she heardabout it, and the fame that she got.
(52:54):
And how gratifying it was thatthe public responded really well.
And she, I think, had her finger onthe pulse of this city and is one of
us - a Seattleite in a green rainproofjacket was on her way somewhere,
the ballet, like any of us might be,rejecting right-wing fear-mongering.
And that is a reminder tome - one, she's awesome.
(53:14):
And two, most Seattleites agree with her.
We don't support this right-wingfear-mongering that has captured
our city council, that has capturedcertainly the federal government.
And when she appeared on Bluesky this weekand told that story, she's got essentially
a hero's welcome from people there,which is a reflection, I think, not of
(53:35):
the fact that she herself is brilliant,but the public is really hungry for that
affirmation of our city's core values- that are welcoming, that want safety, want
people to get treatment, but are opposedto the Andrea Suarez, Ann Davison, Sara
Nelson, Donald Trump, Brandi Kruse agendaof really hurting people who are in need.
(53:58):
That's not what we are aboutas a city, and we need to come
together and chart a better course.
Absolutely agree.
And it was just a delightful momentin my week to see - think I got tipped
off in a group chat or something- like, Green Jacket Lady's back.
What?
Saw her up there.
But yes, just spoke to what so manyof us just think and feel so deeply.
(54:21):
It's not that there are no problems,but these trite, reactionary, punitive
kind of ideas that are floated.
And really just the perverse exploitationby Fox News that was attempted there.
They're really just selling their ownads by demeaning a city, demeaning
(54:43):
people, and derailing attempts to trulymake more people more safe and healthy.
It's just really frustrating,and I think she just so perfectly
spoke to that and mocked itbecause it's completely unserious.
It's an unserious assertion.
It was just wonderful to see thatthen and to be reminded of that.
(55:07):
And also to learn - she made that jacket- which was another wonderful thing.
So Green Jacket Lady even madetheir own green jacket - just
delightful, industrious, and iconic.
And with that, we thank you forjoining Hacks & Wonks on this
Friday, December 6th, 2024.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
(55:28):
Our insightful co-host today waschair of Sierra Club Seattle,
longtime communications and politicalstrategist, Robert Cruickshank.
You can find Robert on Blueskyat @robertcruickshank.com.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can follow me on Bluesky at@finchfrii, with two I's at the end.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks whereveryou get your podcasts - just type
(55:50):
"Hacks and Wonks" into the searchbar and subscribe to get the full
versions of our Friday week-in-reviewshows and our Tuesday topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
We may be publishing a little moresparsely than that during December.
We'll let you know why in January.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com and
(56:11):
in the podcast episode notes.
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Welcome to Hacks & Wonks.
I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm apolitical consultant and your host.
On this show, we talk with policy wonksand political hacks to gather insight
(00:23):
into local politics and policy inWashington state through the lens of those
doing the work with behind-the-scenesperspectives on what's happening, why it's
happening, and what you can do about it.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcast toget the full versions of our Tuesday
topical show and Friday week-in-reviewdelivered to your podcast feed.
If you like us, the most helpfulthing you can do is leave a
(00:43):
review wherever you listen.
If you missed our Tuesday topical showlast week, we chatted with Sukhi Samra
from Mayors for a Guaranteed Income,Tacoma Mayor Victoria Woodards, and
Dona Ponepinto from United Way PierceCounty about GRIT, a groundbreaking
guaranteed income pilot program inTacoma, that has not only demonstrated
(01:03):
positive economic impacts, but alsochallenged long-held misconceptions
about poverty and cash assistance.
Today, we're continuing our Fridayweek-in-review shows where we review
the news of the week with a co-host.
Welcome back to the program, friendof the show - someone we always enjoy
having on - chair of Sierra ClubSeattle, longtime communications and
(01:24):
political strategist, Robert Cruickshank.
Hey!
Thanks for having me on again, Crystal.
Absolutely.
Well, we got some really interestingand unexpected news this week.
Tammy Morales is going to beresigning from her Seattle City
Council seat as of January 6th.
(01:44):
How did you react to thisnews when you heard it?
What did you think of it?
And what reasons didshe give for resigning?
It was heartbreaking.
I've known Tammy Morales sinceher first campaign in 2015.
One of my most vivid political memorieshere in Seattle is knocking doors on
Beacon Hill for her in the pouringrain in October of 2015 and soaked
(02:06):
to the bone - it was totally worthit, because Tammy was fantastic.
That's a race she lost by maybe 400votes to Bruce Harrell that year.
I remember - I'll never forget- meeting with Tammy a couple months
after that election and saying,Well, what are you going to do next?
She looked me dead in the eyeand said - I'm going to run
in 2019 and I'm going to win.
And sure enough, that'sexactly what she did.
And she came back again and won in 2023when that right-wing corporate faction
(02:31):
threw everything they had at her.
She's done a great job representingDistrict 2, southeast Seattle,
a part of the city that we allknow is routinely neglected by
the power structure in the city.
And she had done a great job, but thatjob got extremely difficult in 2024,
with a new right-wing city council thatreally put a target on Tammy Morales'
(02:51):
back and made it extremely difficultfor her to do her job, made it difficult
for her staff to do her job representingthe needs of her constituents.
And in her resignation letter, she madeit really clear that the bullying and
harassment from her colleagues on theCouncil had gotten to a point where she
couldn't effectively do her job anymore.
I think it's horrible.
I think it's a really awful outcome forthis city - someone who's a two-time
(03:16):
election winner representing one ofthe most important parts of our city
that has often been shut out of power.
She has done great work and for her tofeel like she can't continue in office,
I think, is a wake-up call for thisentire city that something is very,
very wrong on the second floor of CityHall where the City Council offices are.
(03:37):
This should be a sign to everybodythat we need substantial change in City
Hall, on the City Council urgently.
We absolutely do.
And, you know, this wasn't covered superwidely for a long time - certainly,
listeners to Hacks & Wonks are nostrangers to the inappropriate behavior
and conduct that we saw from theCouncil majority towards Tammy Morales.
(03:59):
This was not about ideology.
Sometimes I saw some people who justlooked at the headline and was just like
- Is it because she's in the minority?
It was not that.
It really was about misconduct,bullying, inappropriate behavior
that ultimately disenfranchised thevoters of District 2 by shutting
(04:25):
Tammy Morales out of conversations,by shutting her staff out, by refusing
to work with her, by their behaviortowards them and really isolating them.
The really disrespectful dressingdowns that we saw - and other
useful context here is that themajority of the Council is new.
(04:47):
Tammy is one of the most experiencedpeople in just how does legislation
work, just in the ABCs and the 123sof government and legislation, how
the City and the Council functions.
And attempts to help were spurned.
And then seeing the consequences of thatbeing spurned - with so many missteps that
(05:07):
made it to the public, and attempts topursue their agenda that they then had to
go back on because they didn't understandwhat they were doing, or they found out
that what they were doing was very, veryunpopular in ways that Tammy Morales
was attempting to work with them on.
It was just really ensuringthat District 2 did not have any
(05:29):
meaningful representation, andwere not going to get anything.
And it's just so frustratingthat this is what we're seeing.
Some of those things happen nationallyand what's so concerning and worrying
about what we're seeing on the nationaland federal level about seeing very
qualified people being pushed out ofgovernment - which has happened under this
(05:51):
Council majority intentionally - seeingloyalists and new people who their number
one requirement is, Okay, you're alignedwith my agenda, you're loyal to me.
Doing government in thatsort of way is not healthy.
No matter what your ideology is, thatis just not a recipe for success.
How many times we're seeing thatnew initiatives are being announced,
(06:14):
legislation is being proposed, and theyhaven't even talked to the departments
involved in implementing that - who thenare warning about unforeseen consequences.
Or, okay, we're thinking aboutdoing this with legislation.
We need staff whose job it is tounderstand what the legislation
is, recap it, define it, providefinancial projections and the types
(06:36):
of outcomes you could expect to see.
And those experts coming back and saying- There are many problems with this.
We have lots of reservations.
We would not recommend this, orwe would amend it in this way.
And that feedback that doesn'tconform to their preconceived
notions being buried, and justignored, and then proceeding anyway.
There are really major competencyproblems here, and several ethical
(07:02):
questions that have popped up.
And so I think it is very important,regardless of the ideological
positioning and issues, for peopleto look at the conduct and behavior
of this Council and demand better.
Even if it's going to be in pursuitof what they said they want to
(07:22):
do, people may disagree with that.
At the very least, the floor shouldbe that it's done in a professional
and ethical way, and that we'relistening to evidence and guidance.
And if you decide to disagree with that,then justify that on the record instead
of acting as if that doesn't exist.
Those types of things are just reallyred flags and lead to the types of
(07:47):
problems that most people acknowledge andsee very plainly on the federal level.
Ignoring it here is how it grows that big.
And we can do better here.
The people deserve better.
And I hope this is really the wake-upcall needed for people to really
push and ensure that they are keepingeyes on this Council and holding them
(08:07):
accountable - because they are thereto serve the residents of Seattle.
Well, and this is something that ishappening more and more frequently
in local government here in Seattle.
I know we'll talk more about the schooldistrict later in our podcast today, but
we saw at the very beginning of this year,Vivian Song and Lisa Rivera essentially
(08:28):
bullied off the School Board as well.
I wrote an article back in August aboutthis - how local leaders at the City
Council under Sara Nelson, the SchoolBoard under Liza Rankin are pioneering
a new undemocratic Seattle process.
And part of that issilencing progressive voices.
And I think we need to note thatVivian Song, Lisa Rivera, and now
(08:49):
Tammy Morales - three progressivewomen of color - pushed out.
And pushed out in part by a moreright-leaning group who do not want
public scrutiny for the austerityagenda that they're pushing.
I think you can't divorceit from that either.
It is very ideological, but it'salso targeted towards people who
(09:11):
already have a hard time gettingheard in government anyway.
A progressive woman of color issomeone who has had to fight hard to be
heard by the political establishment,even in Seattle, for many years.
So this is, I think, extremely alarming.
I think it is connected to thewider political agenda that is being
imposed, certainly at City Hall.
And I think that the public doesn'tagree with either the pushing out
(09:33):
of Tammy Morales or the agenda thatthat Council majority is espousing.
And I think we will see hopefully nextyear in 2025 - with a mayoral election,
Sara Nelson's seat is up, Alexis MercedesRinck's seat is up, and now Tammy Morales'
seat will be up on that ballot too - goingto see, will the public stand for this?
(09:55):
Or is the public going to step in and say- We need different leadership in the City,
we need different policies at the City?
And we need a city government that willgovern in the right ways for Seattle,
including the values, the policies, andthe conduct that they have for each other.
Absolutely.
And the last thing I'll mention on thisis, to your point, this is certainly
(10:20):
a broader phenomenon than just theSeattle City Council - certainly
the Seattle School Board.
We've seen troubling thingsin the City of Burien - again,
issues of competency and conduct.
And oftentimes we do see issues ofcompetency and conduct align with
poor ideology that is not based inevidence or runs counter to evidence.
(10:43):
And I also have to mentionthe State Legislature.
And we heard words from KirstenHarris-Talley, former representative
of the 37th Legislative District - samekinds of underlying dynamics there
that certainly predominantly arebeing wielded against progressive
people, and most specifically,progressive women of color, mostly.
(11:06):
There are exceptions - certainlyHugo Garcia appears to be a target
of this down in Burien and otherswho have been forced from government.
But this is a problem that wehave to confront at all levels.
And it is not good enough tojust say - Well, there are two
teams, the D's and the R's.
And I'm a D.
And if the person has a D by their name,then, you know, hey, it's all good.
(11:30):
We can do better.
We should do better.
And when we don't, especially when it'swith people on "our team" or the party
you feel most aligned with - that justsets the table for worse to come and
permission to when seats flip in one wayor another eventually, that then that
(11:53):
just gets wielded for even worse, whichwe're seeing on the national level.
So we have to confront this.
We have to deal with thisand we have to demand better.
If we don't do this now, we maynot get a chance to fix it again
before damage occurs that cannotbe repaired more than has already.
Now, I do want to talk aboutexciting news for a number of
(12:16):
people - certainly newsworthy - thatthe newest member of the Seattle
City Council was officially sworn in.
Alexis Mercedes Rinck defeatedTanya Wu, who was appointed to
that seat, and is now the newestmember of the Seattle City Council.
She will be standing, as yousaid, for election next year
in 2025, along with others.
(12:37):
What do you think, especially followingthe upcoming departure of Tammy Morales
- what do things look like moving forwardfor Alexis Mercedes Rinck and how
can she best be set up for success?
I think Alexis Mercedes Rinck hasthe advantage of having seen the
City Council in operation for a year.
I think Tammy Morales had experience, hadworked very collegially with the Council
(13:03):
she'd been on the first four years, and Ithink was clearly taken aback and shocked
by the treatment she experienced in 2024.
Alexis Mercedes Rinck now knows toexpect that - does not validate it, make
it okay, but she now can be prepared.
And she can come up with strategies todeal with that, including working with
the public to push back against that.
And I think we're going to need tomobilize the public to go to our
(13:26):
city councilmembers and tell them- This is completely unacceptable.
I'm planning to contact Cathy Moore,who represents me in the 5th district
and say - I don't want to see this everhappen again and will be watching you
very closely to make sure it doesn't.
Alexis is also up for re-electionherself next year on the ballot - that's
helpful in a way because what it means isshe's going to have to go out there and
(13:46):
build that coalition and maintain thatcoalition that carried her to victory.
There are going to be a lot oforganizations that were invested in
her success here in 2024 and will beinvested in her success again in 2025.
And I think it helps.
You and I worked for Mike McGinn 10+ yearsago when he was mayor, and he got a lot
of stuff thrown at him unfairly too bymembers of the City Council and the media.
(14:07):
And one thing that became veryclear to us was the importance
of having external validators.
We saw this also with Mike O'Brien, whofor a long time on that City Council,
until the 2015 election, was the 1 inthe 8-1 votes - the one lone progressive
on the City Council standing up forwhat was right - and dealt with a lot of
flak for it, although certainly nothinglike what Tammy Morales has experienced.
(14:28):
So what you learned again is theimportance of having real strong community
allies - Tammy had that, to be clear.
But knowing now the part of beingan ally to a progressive elected
official means having their backwhen this awful harassment happens.
Yeah, I agree with that.
This may sound corny and hokey - bothof us have worked a lot with elected
(14:50):
officials in various capacities.
And it's a given you're goingto hear about negative stuff.
You should - they serve the public,people should let their voice be heard.
That's fine and to be expected - well,it should be fine and to be expected,
I know certain members of the SeattleCouncil majority have a different
opinion about that right now.
But that is part of the job and peopleknow that when they're signing up.
But when you are pushing for what you feelis right and you've heard in spaces before
(15:14):
that it does reflect the community, itdoes reflect the conversations that you're
having on doors that you're knockingon and people that you're talking to
- that's a really lonely position to be in,it's a really quiet position to be in.
And you often don't hearfrom people doing that.
And it's a hard thing to stay engaged.
I know it is - I recognizethat part of my job involves
(15:36):
following all this kind of stuff.
Would I do that to this degreeif I didn't have the job?
Probably not.
It's challenging.
But, to do your best that when thoseflags are raised to say - Hey, we're
making a big push here, we're reallytrying to get this legislation across
the line or really have to fight againstefforts to repeal something or to pass
(15:57):
a bad bill - that in some way, shape,or form that you show up and make your
voice heard, whether it's a phone callor an email or attending a meeting.
Really communicating directly with yourelected officials makes so much more of
a difference than I think people assume.
I think people think about sometimesthe federal and national stuff - and
I'm just one voice in tens of thousandsor millions or whatever that is.
(16:21):
On the city level, sometimesyou're 1 voice in 5.
On a bad day, you're 1 voice in 50.
And every single message is read,every single voicemail is listened to.
And if they agree or not, that's theirbarometer for how visible an issue
is going to be, how controversial anissue is going to be, whether they feel
(16:44):
safe taking that vote or that stanceor they don't, whether they feel like
- Okay, I am backed up by people here.
Because they're going to be finalizingthis with colleagues that have
different views with them, and they doneed to know that they have support.
And their colleagues need tosee that they also have support.
I think one of the things with thiscurrent Council majority is - so
(17:09):
many areas where they went wronginitially and it resulted in them
trying to do something and thenrunning into a brick wall, was because
they didn't listen to those signals.
Most good public officials do understandthat if they're hearing from something,
that is a concern from someone in theircommunity and that they at least need to
account for it - they at least need tohave an answer for it, to contend with it.
(17:30):
And so make your voice heard in anyway you can, be engaged - showing up
for meetings is a big deal - again,heavy lift for a ton of people,
completely understand that.
And one of the ways the deck is stackedagainst regular working people and
families who have all these obligationsand don't have a ton of free time
and availability to do these things.
But that is still really, reallyimpactful and consequential.
(17:53):
So I would just urge people to, as wemove forward, especially in this next
year, it's one of the most importantways you can engage to create change.
I think it's absolutely right.
And there are, like we've said, electionscoming up, there are opportunities to
speak up that are coming up at the city.
Certainly the Comprehensive Plan, Ithink, is going to be a big deal in 2025.
(18:14):
This is still a democracy.
We'll see what happens to thatdemocracy at the federal level.
We still have it at the state andlocal level, but the democracy
only sustains itself as long aswe fight for it and protect it.
I think we're starting to see locallyhere in Seattle is it's coming under
stress as well, and we need to step up.
Absolutely.
Now, I want to talk this week aboutanother major development in Seattle.
(18:38):
And that was the effort for theSeattle Public Schools Director recall
effort essentially being shut down.
What was this recall about?
Who was it targeting?
And what transpired?
Sure.
So let me say at the outset, I didsome media advising to this recall
effort, but it was really drivenby the five petitioners and their
(18:59):
lawyer who filed a petition torecall Board President Liza Rankin.
And it really started in September whenthe school board proposed closing 20
schools, including all the option schoolsand alternative schools in the city.
And a number of peoplesaid - This is terrible, we
need to recall the school board.
And so parents came together andthought - Well, can we actually do that?
And in California, for example,where recalls happen all the
(19:21):
time - you can recall an electedofficial for any reason or no reason.
As long as you get enoughsignatures, it goes on the ballot.
Washington is different.
In Washington state, you actually haveto file a list of charges, and you
have to have a judge sign-off on thosecharges before you go to the ballot.
So there is a legal test you haveto meet, but there's still like a
political smell test you have to pass.
(19:43):
Voters have to believethat this is reasonable.
Now, there are four schoolboard members who are still in
their first year on the board.
Can you convince thepublic to recall them?
Probably not.
That leaves three.
Brandon Hersey and Michelle Sarjuare not running for reelection next
year, they're on their way out.
Can you really ask the voters torecall board members who are in
(20:04):
their last year and ready to leave?
I don't think the public'sgoing to appreciate that.
So you're left with Liza Rankin, whowas elected last year as the board
president and the driving force, astrong supporter of closing schools.
So politically - sure,you can make a case.
You also have to make a legal case.
And what happened was peoplegot together and looked - Is
there a legal case we can make?
(20:24):
And the standard in Washington stateis you have to demonstrate that
the target of a recall committedmisfeasance, malfeasance, or
violated their oath of office.
You have to drop a list of chargesthat you file, and a judge reviews it.
So what you essentially have to dois prove that the target of a recall
basically committed a crime in office.
You have to prove this withoutany investigative resources at
(20:47):
all - you're just going purelyon what is in the public realm.
And that's hard.
There are a lot of recalls that are filedthat are quite legitimate - the person
in office has done terrible things,but are thrown out by a judge because
they just don't meet that standard.
One that stands out to me is in2020, when there was an effort to
recall Mayor Jenny Durkan for theway she brutally suppressed a lot of
(21:09):
the protests in the summer of 2020.
I thought that was a pretty slam-dunk caseof a recall, but judges did not agree.
And then at the same time, peoplefiled what I thought was a frivolous
recall against Kshama Sawant.
The state Supreme Court did let that goon the ballot, and the reason they gave
is that Sawant used her key card to unlockthe doors at City Hall to let protesters
(21:29):
in during lockdown in the summer of 2020.
And that was the justification toput the Sawant recall on the ballot.
So it's the weird thing, butanytime you deal with the legal
system, that's how it goes.
So I was at the hearing on Mondaywhen the judge reviewed this.
And Liza Rankin's lawyersopened by saying - This is just
harassment of an elected official.
(21:50):
And the judge immediately steppedin and said - Absolutely not.
This is entirely legitimate.
This is not frivolous.
Petitioners have a constitutionalright to file this.
Then the lawyer said - Well, they'rejust singling out one director.
You can't single out one director forsomething the whole board has done.
The judge shut that down too andsaid - This isn't a case of where you
hold everyone or no one accountable.
Petitioners have the right to holdany elected official accountable.
(22:14):
The judge went on and in a course of a90-minute hearing, ultimately decided
that that high legal bar was not met.
But did say that the petitionershad brought serious concerns.
And polling bears that out.
We did polling through a new PAC that wefounded called Washington Families for
Public Education, working with ChangeResearch at the Northwest Progressive
Institute, that found 55% of votersare dissatisfied with the direction of
(22:39):
Seattle Public Schools, 51% disapproveof the performance of the school board,
50% would vote for new school boardmembers, 54% oppose school closures,
and 41% would vote for a recall.
So the public is clearly there and wantschange, but that high legal bar isn't met.
Now, you might think that comingout of a recall like this, where the
(22:59):
public is clearly fired up for yourremoval, that Liza Rankin might have
recognized the need to make somepivots and address public concerns.
But no.
And in her comments to the media andto community members this week since
the hearing, has doubled down and madeit very clear she still wants to close
20 schools, she still wants to closethe option schools and alternative
(23:20):
schools and dual language programs.
Nothing has changed for her.
She's going to keep rolling on.
But there are four school board seatsup for reelection in 2025 - that is
control of the entire school board.
And so I think what you're going to seein 2025 is not only a important election
about the future of City Hall, but acrucially important election that will
(23:41):
decide the future of our public schools.
Yeah, extremely consequentialschool board elections.
And I would just say - wherever folksare listening, certainly we have a
lot of listeners in Seattle, but alsoin a number of other cities - school
board elections in every districtare very, very important this year.
Those are often races thatdo not get much attention.
(24:03):
Candidates often don't have much moneyto get communications out, so they
kind of fall by the wayside often.
This is not the year to tune out of schoolboard elections, no matter where you are.
Also, this is the year to make sureyour state legislators understand how
(24:24):
incredible incredibly important it is andurgent it is to provide the needed funding
for schools for your district to be ableto operate, get out of the deficit it
is likely facing because so many schooldistricts in the state are facing deficits
because of the state funding situation.
(24:45):
This is going to be a really importantyear - there's a lot going on.
State legislators are goingto have to multitask like
they haven't before, likely.
We don't know what curveballs arecoming from the federal level with
funding, but we know we have a fullplate already with the various issues
in the state that need to be addressed.
They can do it.
(25:06):
Sometimes it's like - Well, we only havea certain amount of time during session.
If they don't get to it, they'regoing to have to call a special
session, or just get to it here.
This is the time to plan and ensurethat they are making this a priority.
Because these issues from Seattle toevery other corner in the state, with
school boards and school districts,are really important and decisions are
(25:27):
going to be made this coming year thatare going to impact the way schools
and neighborhoods look and citiesbecome over the next decade and beyond.
I think that's spot on.
And just to add, Moms forLiberty is very much out there.
They are active - not just in WashingtonState, they're active in King County.
(25:48):
They actively recruit schoolboard candidates in King
County school districts.
Certainly that's the case inSnohomish and Pierce Counties as well.
They don't have a great trackrecord of winning, but every
once in a while - you just need acouple that they can sneak through.
And so I think there's going to be aneffort not only to address the problems
at Seattle Public Schools next year,but a organized effort to try to elect
(26:09):
people to school boards around theregion who will stand up for public
education, stand up for Washington'svalues against Moms for Liberty types.
Absolutely.
Now, I also want to talk about a bigposition up for election this coming year.
King County Executive Dow Constantinehas announced that he will not
(26:30):
be running for re-election.
And so far, King County CouncilmembersGirmay Zahilay, Claudia Balducci,
and King County Assessor JohnWilson have entered the race.
How do you see this race shaping up?
And what do each of thesepeople bring to this race?
I think it's going to bea very fascinating race.
(26:51):
This is the first time since 2009 whenthe King County Executive has been open.
And even before that, Ron Sims heldthat office since the mid-1990s.
So this will be only the secondtime in nearly 30 years that the
King County Executive has been up.
We have three candidates so far.
Others are likely to jump in.
I hear rumors essentially that AnnDavison, Seattle's City Attorney,
(27:11):
might be thinking about it.
I think you can count on someonefrom the right jumping in for sure.
But the three candidates you haveso far are quite interesting.
Girmay is the Seattle progressivecandidate, who has a strong community
base in central and southeastSeattle, who has been there since
2019 and has amassed a prettystrong record on the County Council.
(27:33):
So has Claudia Balducci, who comesfrom Bellevue, used to be on the
Bellevue City Council, and hasbeen there since the mid-2010s.
Claudia's strength - the mainthing she's running on right
now - is housing and transit.
That's not to say Girmay is notinterested or strong on those issues.
He is.
I think it's going to be a veryinteresting battle by those two to
scoop up the votes of your regularDemocratic voter in King County,
(27:57):
in Seattle, and on the Eastside.
And in south King County, where Ithink a lot of votes are up for grabs.
John Wilson, County Assessor,is out there - maybe try to be
more of a centrist Democrat.
He's going to have his work cut outfor him, especially if there is a
candidate on the right who wants to runas a Trumpist, crackdown on crime and
visible homelessness sort of person.
But it is a top-two election.
(28:19):
And so you're going to have two peoplego on to that runoff in November 2025.
And it's going to be very interestingto see which two those are.
There's a good chance that whoeverruns from the right is one of
those two - they'll have a fairlyclear lane all to themselves.
It'll be quite the contest, I think,between Claudia and Girmay to get
the votes to come in second place- maybe even first, it's possible.
(28:41):
But they're going to have to appealnot only to the Seattle progressive
voter, they're going to have toappeal to the Seattle centrist voter,
they're going to have to appeal to theEastside voter, your regular Democrat
in Federal Way or SeaTac or Burien.
And let's not forget southeast KingCounty - Covington, Black Diamond, Auburn.
Those cities have a lot of peopletoo, and that could be a place where
(29:02):
certainly a primary election can be swung.
And there are a lot ofDemocrats now living out there.
We tend to think of those as deep red,but that's not really the case anymore.
As Seattle itself and as the centralparts of King County have gotten
more expensive, a lot of peoplehave been priced out and pushed out.
So those areas out in easternand southeastern King County have
a lot of votes that are up forgrabs, and so I think you're going
(29:24):
to see a lot of these candidatestry to jockey for that position.
It will be interesting to me tosee what they wind up running on.
What are the issues that actually rise tothe fore and how candidates address those?
Girmay, for example, did vote earlierthis year to keep the Youth Jail open.
Interviewed by The Stranger about this,I thought Girmay gave a very accurate
statement as to that, pointing outthat his constituents want that open.
(29:46):
They want that option.
That is true.
But there are still also peoplewho want genuine reform and are
uncomfortable with having a youth jail.
So how are the candidatesgoing to address that?
So I think we're going to see a veryinteresting and I think positive
- hopefully, at least, among the Democraticcandidates - positive campaign about
issues, and how it is that we'regoing to move King County forward
(30:08):
with Dow Constantine stepping aside.
Yeah, it's going to be really interestingto see how they do approach the
issues, how they define themselves.
And particularly for the two whoare currently on the council, how
they contend with the votes they'vetaken and the bases that they have.
I think between Claudia Balducciand Girmay Zahilay, there's
(30:29):
a significant overlap betweenthe voters they are looking at.
I certainly absolutely agree that JohnWilson is likely to occupy a lane that's
more moderate than either one of those,but it'll be really interesting to see
who they define as their base and howthey see that, how they prioritize the
issues that are most pressing, how theytalk about taxation and revenue, how they
(30:51):
talk about public and community safety,what their vision is for really delivering
safety to everyone, how they talk aboutpublic health and the issues involved with
that throughout the county and region.
How they just approach issuesof the budget, overall, which
is a major issue in King County.
And certainly there's been calls for moretransparency in that budgeting process and
(31:14):
the way that that budget is put together.
I'm eager to see how this unfolds.
I think they certainly have a lot to offerand are running because there is a path
to victory for them - I can certainly seethat, at least for Claudia and Girmay.
I'm curious to see if AnnDavison does get in the race.
And what other people onthe right get in the race.
(31:35):
I know we saw Reagan Dunn - before,he certainly had other aspirations for
different offices, higher offices before.
So is he a name that's goingto get in there this time?
Curious to see.
And to see what kind of Republicanthey're going to run as - big
question with that in King County.
Is it going to be the more Dunn-esquetype Republicans that we've seen?
(31:58):
Or is it going to be closer to who thebase really is, even in King County
now, which is really a MAGA-alignedbase and agenda, which is going to sound
very different than what we've seen andheard before on the King County Council.
So I'm just really curious tosee how this unfolds and what
they view as their charge.
And how they plan to wield the power ofthe executive, especially in light of
(32:26):
what we see on a federal level - justhad a decision come down that King County
Airfield can be used - a judge overturnedKing County's policy of not using King
County Airport for deportation flights.
That's now going to happen.
So I think there's going to be agreater appetite to hear how they plan
to and how they foresee wielding theirexecutive powers as they move forward.
(32:50):
It's also worth noting that KingCounty Executive has historically
been a launching pad towards beinggovernor of Washington state.
But hasn't happened for RonSims or Dow Constantine.
Both attempted it.
Ron ran in the 2004 primary,lost to Christine Gregoire.
Dow was a candidate for a hot minutein 2020 until Inslee said he was
(33:10):
running again and became clear thatFerguson was lined up for 2024.
But whoever winds up becoming KingCounty Executive, King County is still
by far the largest county in termsof population in Washington state.
And if you're a county executivehere, you're automatically in the
discussion to be the next governorwhenever Bob Ferguson decides he's done.
(33:31):
Absolutely.
Now I want to move on andtalk about election results.
Now, a lot of people think - Theelection was on like November 5th.
We are a full month after that.
Why are we talking about results?
Well, we're talking about resultsbecause we just got final result data.
Takes a while to count all of thevotes - we have a vote by mail
(33:52):
state and that takes a while.
Elections get certified in late November.
And then we just got precinct datathis week - the final results.
So previous maps that you saw, previousdata that you saw - a lot of that is
just from the first night of results.
And as we know, in Washington stateand definitely in King County,
(34:15):
those results can shift quite a bit.
And so what it looks likehappened on the first night.
may look very different by the time allthe votes are counted, which is why if
you know me, you have heard me say - Let'swait to make all of our conclusions
until we have all of the data in.
Now that we do, there are anumber of interesting insights.
(34:37):
Some of them that contradictwhat we thought we saw or what
initial incomplete results showed.
Now that we have finalresults, things are different.
What are the most notable thingsto you about this election?
And what are some of those things thatyou saw that maybe turned out to be
different than we initially thought?
(34:58):
The first one is a lot of us in Washingtonstate took some comfort in the fact
that at least right after the election,Washington was the only state in the
country that did not shift towards Trump.
Well, it turns out we kind of did.
We had the smallest shift towardsTrump - much less than a percentage
point - a tiny, almost imperceptibleshift, but there was one.
(35:19):
So we can no longer say wewent in the left direction.
We did not.
So what we saw when we also look atthe results here in Seattle by precinct
- that there was a shift towards Trump,not just in Broadmoor and the places
that are wealthy and have a view ofthe water, but also to some degree in
places like Chinatown InternationalDistrict and in southeast Seattle.
(35:41):
While Broadmoor is still the Trumpiestprecinct in the city, those other places
I mentioned are not that far behind.
And I think what this means is thatfor Democrats and progressives,
there's work to be done.
Some of that shift was younger voterschoosing the couch over the ballot box
- dissatisfied with Biden, dissatisfiedwith Harris for whatever reason, and
(36:02):
we should look at what those reasonswere - not really feeling compelled
to cast a ballot in this election.
But some of that was votes for Trump.
And you have to take that seriously.
You've seen across the country - mostnotably in 2020, in the Rio Grande Valley,
heavily Latino part of Texas, but nowyou saw it in other parts of the country.
There was a shift in some placesthat are heavily populated by
(36:23):
people of color towards Trump.
You also saw, of course, a lot ofwhite people moving towards Trump - so
let's be super clear about that.
What this shows to Democrats andprogressives - I think there was a lazy
assumption in the 2010s and after the2020 election that voters of color were
just going to vote for Democrats andyou didn't really need to do much work.
(36:44):
And that was just wrong.
It's flatly wrong and it's offensive.
You still have to reach out to voters.
You have to talk to them, learn whattheir needs are, learn what they're
asking for, and inspire them to show up.
That is true of anyone.
That is true here in Seattle.
Now, what you see when you look atthese same precincts and districts
down-ballot, you're not seeing ashift, certainly in Seattle, towards
(37:07):
Republicans, generally speaking.
Democratic candidatesstill did pretty well.
Democrats picked up aseat in the State House.
They picked up a seat in the State Senate.
So you're not seeing a widespreadrejection of the Democratic Party, either
in Seattle, King County, or statewide.
You are not seeing thisstate start to Trumpify.
(37:28):
But you can't rule out that possibility.
You need to take, I think, veryclearly the lessons of this election
that Kamala Harris, for all hermany strengths - I was a huge Kamala
Harris fan and have been since Ifirst met her in 2008 in California.
I was super excited for this election.
A lot of other people weren't.
And we need to really go out and do thatdeep canvassing and research and ask why.
(37:54):
And be curious about it.
And not assume we know the answer andnot judge what the answer is, but just
go to folks and ask, especially folksin those precincts in Seattle that
swung to Trump - whether they swungto Trump because people actively chose
him or because people chose the couch.
That choosing the couch issue is so huge.
And certainly for people I workedwith during - certainly the general
(38:19):
election portion, but throughout theentire last cycle - that was a major,
major concern that many of us had.
Because there has been this assumptionthat voters are just going to show up
because obviously the other guy is worse.
That's not how votersmake their decisions.
(38:40):
It is important to note that typicallypeople who follow politics really, really
closely, certainly people who work inpolitics, think about politics differently
personally than a lot of other people.
Are working with a lot more informationa lot of times, are much more emotionally
invested, see more connectionsbetween what happens politically,
(39:01):
what they're saying, and policy, andhow it impacts their everyday lives.
But for a lot of differentreasons, people's general
experiences don't mimic that.
And so they're processinginformation a different way.
So if we sit here and say - Well,obviously this and that and that were
true, and the other guy's horrible, anddidn't you hear this and that and that?
All of that information doesn't flowthrough to the general voter, especially
(39:25):
those who are persuadable late in thecycle in the same way it does for us.
Like it or hate it, that's just true.
And so the notion - that just becausethe other guy is worse, I got this
in the bank - just does not fly.
And it didn't in this instance.
And that's what takingvoters for granted is.
(39:47):
That's what not showing up andreally meaningfully engaging is.
And I would add that I think we alsohave to deeply reexamine the model
that has us absent from communities andengagement for three and a half years.
And then we swoop in to ensurethat they vote with a couple
(40:10):
trite messages attached to it.
These days, in this media and informationenvironment, that's not going to cut it.
I think before, and certainly this isnot at all discounting the importance
of field, it's kind of doublingdown on the importance of authentic
(40:30):
engagement as field, but the way peoplereceive information now is different
than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago.
And so where someone could knock onyour door and - Hey, it's someone
oftentimes from a community youcan trust and understand things.
And, oh, this is a real person - Iattach credibility to this person in
(40:51):
a way that I don't attach credibilityto people who I see on TV or the news.
That's much more impersonal thanthis person talking to me in person.
That dynamic is different now.
And people do place a lot moretrust than they used to in people
they follow on TikTok, peoplethey follow on YouTube and online.
(41:13):
And that is functioning as the knock onthe door and the let me talk to you as
a trusted validator about this issue.
And so if you are coming to the door,you better be prepared to do that more
than once, to really listen, to haveit reflected that you're listening,
and to have an authentic response.
(41:36):
Or if you come back four yearslater, to have a way that you've
responded to what you heard before.
And I think those ingredientsare often missing there.
I think the way the media environmenthas shifted has changed that.
But that's one takeaway that Ithink - we need to shift towards more
community-based, authentic, continualengagement with communities on the ground.
(42:04):
I did speak with the folks over atWashington Community Alliance Data Hub
and their senior research analyst, Dr.
Tim O'Neal, who gave this littlewrite-up, so I'll just quote him.
"Notably, aside from Biden's 2020vote share at 58%, Harris's 2024
vote share at 57.7% was thehighest for a Democratic nominee
(42:25):
for president since Lyndon B.
Johnson in 1964 at 62%, which was alsothe last time Democratic candidates swept
all statewide offices in Washington state.
Conversely, although Trump's 2024vote share was slightly higher than
his 2016 and 2020 vote shares, hereceived a smaller share of the
overall vote than most Republicannominees over the same time span.
(42:48):
Since 2016, Spokane, Whitman, WallaWalla, Benton, and every county in
western Washington except Cowlitz havemoved to the left, with the largest
swings in northwest Washington - theIsland, Jefferson, and Clallam counties.
Although the margin in 2024 was slightlycloser than in 2020, both nominees
received fewer votes than in 2020.
(43:10):
Trump received 58,144 fewer votes than hereceived in 2020, while Harris received
128,060 fewer votes than Joe Biden.
Throughout Washington state, there was asignificant negative correlation between
the change in turnout from 2020 to 2024and the shift in votes away from Harris,
but not the shift in votes towards Trump.
(43:33):
This effect was seen at the congressional,legislative, and county level - and was
more tightly correlated with drop-offof young voters and voters of color
than with the overall electorate.
Most areas of the state that saw thegreatest shift towards Trump in 2024,
including the Yakima Valley, Seattle'sInternational District in Chinatown in
(43:53):
south Seattle, which we just discussedearlier, also saw the greatest drop in
turnout of young voters and voters ofcolor, suggesting that this improvement in
those areas was more likely attributableto voter apathy than voter realignment."
Certainly underscores a lotof what we just talked about.
Yeah, I think that's right.
And I think this should not be comfort forDemocrats in Seattle or Washington state.
(44:16):
These should be warning signs that - sure,Democrats swept statewide offices.
Great.
Sure, they added a little bitto their legislative majorities.
Great.
But voter apathy is becoming a problem.
You saw that even though theBiden administration had some real
significant accomplishments in itsfour years, it was nowhere near
enough to overcome that voter apathy.
(44:39):
And in some cases, certainlyfueled it, especially when you
look at Biden's foreign policy.
So Democrats here in Washington say youneed to be really careful about this.
They need to understand what their voterswant, pay attention to those voters who
dropped off, and make sure that they'redelivering and doing that year-round
organizing work that you mentioned.
A colleague of mine, Ned Resnikoff,wrote a great article right after the
(45:01):
election called "The Party Should Throwa Party," which is basically calling
for this, saying that political parties,especially Democrats, need to show up
regularly, having community events incommunities you're trying to organize.
I'd go a step further and say youshould also be partnering with the
organizations that know those communitiesbest rather than trying to supplant.
How ever you do it, Democrats need to showup and show up often rather than just come
(45:25):
around at election time asking for a vote.
Absolutely.
That is foundationally critical movingforward, I believe, and certainly
have taken that to heart in the workthat I do, which is aligned with that.
But the era of the late cycle canvass,people parachuting in to different
areas that are targeted, that don'teven live there, that have that going
(45:47):
on - that is not providing and will nolonger provide the returns necessary
to win elections on the statewide andnational scale if we don't shore this up.
And I will mention the concerns aboutapathy and not feeling included,
(46:08):
listened to, like there's genuine powersharing and a feeling of obligation
to deliver for - I can certainly speakon that about communities of color.
That was not a new thing this cycle.
That was a takeaway after 2016 and 2020.
And I think now we're in thefind out phase of that, where
(46:29):
lots of warnings before andlike - Hey, pay attention to this.
And certainly some peoplesaw that, there was certainly
attention to that in the state.
But we're also working with federalforces and the party as a whole from
the national level on down does haveto reckon with the need to continuously
and authentically engage with allfacets of their constituencies.
(46:51):
And certainly we can listthe top constituencies of the
Democratic Party really easily.
And if you allow those to erode,we get results on the national
stage that are what happened.
And so fortunately, that impact has notbeen as pronounced, that whole dynamic has
not been as pronounced on the local level.
But here we have continued warning signs.
(47:13):
So the party here - locally, the countyparties, legislative parties, state
party - all have their work cut out forthem in addressing this moving forward.
Yep, I think that's right.
And hopefully we will see leadershipin this state - not just the party
leadership, I think the Washington StateParty, Democratic Party leadership gets it
- Shasti Conrad, the people around her do.
(47:35):
But it's the governor, the legislativeleadership, I think, that really
need to step up here ratherthan just cruise along as usual.
That is exactly correct.
I will also add this one otheraddition from Tim O'Neal at Washington
Community Alliance Data Hub.
The statewide initiatives 2109, 2117, and2124 way overperformed Kamala Harris in
(48:01):
rural Washington, showing that people tendto support progressive taxation, even if
they don't support Democratic candidates.
This is not a dynamicunique to Washington state.
We've seen this with statewideinitiatives and deep red states that
have passed minimum wage, passingObamacare, passing paid family leave,
(48:21):
certainly abortion protections.
But progressive taxation, makingthe tax system more fair - we are
seeing record income inequality.
People can see plainly thegreed at play in our systems.
It was notable to me that we sawmultiple congressional candidates here
in Washington, including Kim Schrier andothers in competitive districts, running
(48:45):
on preventing the Albertsons-Krogermerger because of how bad it would be for
Washington residents and the impact thatit could have in raising grocery prices.
These types of things - taking on directlygreed, right-sizing our tax system, and
supporting progressive taxation - youdon't get many instances where you
(49:07):
have an entire state resoundinglysay, Oh, no, no, no, we want this tax.
We value this tax.
This is completely aligned withour interests - way more than
so many other things we talkabout and assume are popular.
And speaking of things we want theDemocratic elected leadership in our state
(49:27):
to hear, this is certainly one of those.
This is basically a can't loseissue in Washington state.
Few things poll this highly.
We rarely see statewide initiativesthat get this level of support.
And so I would just say - mygoodness, that should be at the
(49:47):
top of every advocacy reminder.
That should be part of everyone's talking.
That should be part of everycandidate questionnaire.
This revenue is sorelyneeded in every single way.
We talked about needing to fund ourschools, talk about immigrant needs.
We talked about so many things fromchildcare to housing affordability
are directly impacted by this.
And so, that was one of the brightspots in the country - there was a
(50:12):
call yesterday with colleagues ona project from across the country.
And my goodness, this is one of thetop lines that like, look at this.
This is possible.
Change is afoot in ways that a lotof people who've been around for
a long time - 10, 20 years - justkind of assumed it never would be.
But we are here now andwe need to work with it.
(50:33):
That's exactly right.
You mentioned the statewide initiatives.
Initiative 2109, which would haverepealed the capital gains tax, was
rejected by 64% of voters in Washingtonstate, including voters in almost
every county in eastern Washington.
This was a broadly popular tax,the capital gains tax, which
targets wealthy individuals.
(50:54):
The State Legislature has abudget deficit to fill, they
have schools that need funding.
One thing that would immediately riseto the top of my list - why don't
you expand that capital gains tax?
You don't have to tax anyone additionally,but you can raise the rate from 7%
to 9%, for example, and get more outof the people you're already taxing.
The public clearly wants that.
It is popular everywherein Washington state.
(51:15):
And the Democratic majority should listento that and do that rather than listen
to wealthy donors and their lobbyists whomay not want them to go down that route.
We're tight on time and about to wrap up.
But my goodness, if you knowme, and probably on this program
several times before - I couldtalk about it for a whole show.
But, the party does have to decide whetherit truly represents its donors or the
(51:40):
people on the ground who they serve.
That's going to have to bea hard, firm decision made.
And this is one of those issuesthat will clearly determine the
choice that people make on this.
Last thing I want to mention - do youremember Green Jacket Lady, Robert?
How did she come to be known?
Sure do.
In 2023, Fox News went to Seattle Centerto do person-on-the-street interviews to
(52:04):
ask people - How awful is it in Seattle?
Isn't it unsafe with all this visiblehomelessness and public drug use?
And they stuck a microphone in frontof a woman wearing a green jacket at
Seattle Center on her way to the ballet.
And she just laughed and scoffed at this.
They asked her - Do youfeel unsafe in this city?
She's like, No.
And she just was completelydismissive of these right-wing,
(52:30):
scaremongering, fear-mongeringquestions she was being asked.
And Fox News included this inthe clip and she went immediately
viral, known as Green Jacket Lady.
And she prefers to be known as GreenJacket Lady, prefers to be anonymous - I
don't actually know what her name isand respect the desire for anonymity.
Well, she showed up on Blueskyrecently and told that story of what
happened that day, and how she heardabout it, and the fame that she got.
(52:54):
And how gratifying it was thatthe public responded really well.
And she, I think, had her finger onthe pulse of this city and is one of
us - a Seattleite in a green rainproofjacket was on her way somewhere,
the ballet, like any of us might be,rejecting right-wing fear-mongering.
And that is a reminder tome - one, she's awesome.
(53:14):
And two, most Seattleites agree with her.
We don't support this right-wingfear-mongering that has captured
our city council, that has capturedcertainly the federal government.
And when she appeared on Bluesky this weekand told that story, she's got essentially
a hero's welcome from people there,which is a reflection, I think, not of
(53:35):
the fact that she herself is brilliant,but the public is really hungry for that
affirmation of our city's core values- that are welcoming, that want safety, want
people to get treatment, but are opposedto the Andrea Suarez, Ann Davison, Sara
Nelson, Donald Trump, Brandi Kruse agendaof really hurting people who are in need.
(53:58):
That's not what we are aboutas a city, and we need to come
together and chart a better course.
Absolutely agree.
And it was just a delightful momentin my week to see - think I got tipped
off in a group chat or something- like, Green Jacket Lady's back.
What?
Saw her up there.
But yes, just spoke to what so manyof us just think and feel so deeply.
(54:21):
It's not that there are no problems,but these trite, reactionary, punitive
kind of ideas that are floated.
And really just the perverse exploitationby Fox News that was attempted there.
They're really just selling their ownads by demeaning a city, demeaning
(54:43):
people, and derailing attempts to trulymake more people more safe and healthy.
It's just really frustrating,and I think she just so perfectly
spoke to that and mocked itbecause it's completely unserious.
It's an unserious assertion.
It was just wonderful to see thatthen and to be reminded of that.
(55:07):
And also to learn - she made that jacket- which was another wonderful thing.
So Green Jacket Lady even madetheir own green jacket - just
delightful, industrious, and iconic.
And with that, we thank you forjoining Hacks & Wonks on this
Friday, December 6th, 2024.
The producer of Hacks & Wonksis Shannon Cheng.
(55:28):
Our insightful co-host today waschair of Sierra Club Seattle,
longtime communications and politicalstrategist, Robert Cruickshank.
You can find Robert on Blueskyat @robertcruickshank.com.
You can follow Hacks & Wonkson Bluesky at @HacksAndWonks.
You can follow me on Bluesky at@finchfrii, with two I's at the end.
You can catch Hacks & Wonks whereveryou get your podcasts - just type
(55:50):
"Hacks and Wonks" into the searchbar and subscribe to get the full
versions of our Friday week-in-reviewshows and our Tuesday topical show
delivered to your podcast feed.
We may be publishing a little moresparsely than that during December.
We'll let you know why in January.
You can also get a full transcriptof this episode and links to the
resources referenced in the showat officialhacksandwonks.com and
(56:11):
in the podcast episode notes.
Thanks for tuningin - talk to you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com