Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Gary Shumway and Andrew Nelson some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

14 ways to become Seattle's mayor

Sally Clark stands aside, while others are pacing around to challenge Mike McGinn in 2013. Here's the field and the time-tested ways to get to the finish line.

(Page 2 of 3)

Assemble the Big Five. These would be: greens, unions (especially city workers and the SEIU), minorities (especially blacks and hispanics), downtown developers, and cops-and-firefighters. These groups give money, provide volunteers, and have big stakes in the outcome since they do a lot of business with the city. They tie your hands once mayor, however, and can be a liability in an age of austerity-driven reform politics. Mayor Nickels excelled in putting this coalition together. Tim Burgess might have the best shot next time.

Independent, Self-Funded Type. Before Seattle politics got so cynical, the town admired people of this stripe, who promised to produce good public policy, not political paybacks. Joe Mallahan was cut from this cloth, though his inexperience was fatal, and it got him through the primary in 2009. Doug Jewett, the last Republican to run, in 1989, was an example, though not able to self-fund. Burgess, who did contribute about $60,000 to his first city council race, might be a self-funder this time (he won’t say if he would or could), and is also a best-practices policy guy.

North End, Up-Market, Research Economy. North Seattle is where the votes are, and where appeals for education reform resonate. Paul Schell got elected on a Northern strategy in 1997, but it’s easy for such a strategy to get tagged as elitist and too-white. A modern variation of this might be to run as a new-ideas technocrat, like some of the Microsoft alumni (Ross Hunter, Tina Podlodowski, Suzan DelBene) or other tech-venture types like State Rep. Reuven Carlyle.

Neighborhood Pitchforks. It used to be that there would normally be an establishment candidate friendly to “downtown,” and an unhappy insurrectionist talking about neighborhoods, high taxes and the dangers of apartment zones. The Schell-Charlie Chong race in 1997 was the last pure example of this, with the neighborhood guy — as usual — getting shellacked. Mayor Charles Royer, elected to the first of three terms in 1977, actually rode the neighborhood horse into power. Of the current contenders, Steinbrueck would be the most credible neighborhood tribune. The old issue for this politics, fending off apartments, has been overwhelmed by the Religion of Density.

Celebrity. Royer, a television personality, is the one example of this working, though it is a popular route to the city council, including such ex-journalists as Jim Compton and Jean Godden. Dave Stern, inventor of the happy face, is another minor celebrity who gained little traction. Likewise, former KIRO anchor Susan Hutchison bombed in her race for King County Executive. In other cities, the current flavor is a former basketball star, and if Lenny Wilkens suddenly moves to Seattle you’d have a real threat. Please, God, not Dale Chihuly.

Populist Backlash. During years of greater racial tension, we had a series of these candidates, normally framing the issue as one of law and order: Liem Tuai against Uhlman in 1973, Doug Jewett against busing in 1989, and Mark Sidran pushing for street civility in losing to Nickels in 2001. If the Seattle economy were worse, you might expect some populist anger, but this time most of the backlash will just be against McGinn and maybe bike lanes. Moreover, McGinn positions himself as a populist and anti-establishment guy whose heart is in Rainier Valley.

Symbolism. Seattleites, having things pretty good, feel free to vote for candidates that make the voter feel good about him or herself. Mayor Rice was a popular, effective, black mayor. McGinn is a green mayor. So what about a gay mayor, or a woman mayor? Or, like symphony conductors, how about a very young mayor? Another opportunity for voter-pride would be to stress density issues and those that seem linked to climate change. McGinn tapped this vein three years ago, but now it’s pretty much a cliché, claimed by all.

New Coalition.  The Big Five is pretty tired, and hard to lasso, but there are other interesting rising interest groups that have money and troops. Mayor McGinn smartly spotted two of them: bicyclists and the nightlife lobby. Another variant of this is to take the younger and more radical part of bigger groups, such as peeling off the anti-tunnel, anti-car brigades from the environmental groups, whose leadership backed Nickels but whose foot soldiers were restive.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Oct 31, 8:43 a.m. Inappropriate

Chihuly for Mayor: Two Ashtrays on Every Ceiling!

Splabman

Posted Wed, Oct 31, 12:19 p.m. Inappropriate

"..the Religion of Density" ha ha

I call it the religion of 'BIAW will save us by building big shiney buildings'.

Steinbrueck has tons more going for him than the arena deal. He could probably bring his connections to bear to get the sports fans an arena in a better place. He also gets the real social science behind how this city and region can grow up rationally, sans 'religion'.

Posted Wed, Oct 31, 2:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Is it possible that a very prosaic subject could be a ticket to the Mayor's office? City government has for years been postponing the day of reckoning with the backlog of street, bridge, and other infrastructure repairs. Pothole fixes wear out, both physically and politically. Add in the unfunded costs of the 520 project. A candidate who levels with the city's taxpayers - that postponing a real fix greatly increases life-cycle costs since deeper repairs are needed - might strike a cord. We all use the streets, even bicyclists. It could be combined with a realistic (affordable) plan for transit investments, one that recognizes that matching funds will not be forthcoming from the feds as they have in the past to build a network of streetcar lines to every neighborhood, which seems to be the current Mayor's vision.

Posted Thu, Nov 1, 9:58 a.m. Inappropriate


a realistic (affordable) plan for transit investments, one that recognizes that matching funds will not be forthcoming from the feds as they have in the past to build a network of streetcar lines to every neighborhood

Not sure what you’re talking about there, Dick. There will be plenty of money from the feds coming available for worthy transit projects.

I don’t want to get too technical here, but Dick may not be aware that the “Surface Transportation Authorization” measure President Obama signed in July was as fat as the last one.

The big FHWA/FTA transit funding grants will be coming from the pool of federal dollars available under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). On July 5, 2012 it was signed into law. Its financing provisions apply to FY'13 and FY'14, and they are as generous as were provided during the last fiscal cycle. Long story short, there’s a fairly deep pool of “New Starts” (and other) grant money that can be tapped by transit services providers that have worthwhile projects.

crossrip

Posted Thu, Nov 1, 10:21 a.m. Inappropriate


OT: So Dick Nelson – mind if I ask you a question? Apparently when you were a state legislator you were a co-sponsor of the regional transit authority enabling statutes. Did you and your colleagues make a conscious decision to disregard what the US Supreme Court said about how only administrative powers may delegated to appointive-board municipalities?

Old-Metro just had been struck down two years before, due to how its structure violated the 14th Amendment. I’ve got to believe 14th Amendment issues were addressed when the regional transit authority statutes were in the sausage-making process. Why didn’t you guys provide regional transit authorities with a directly-elected board? That’s what the federal constitution demands when municipalities are granted all those broad and discretionary infrastructure planning and siting, taxing, bond-selling, etc. powers. A US Supreme Court opinion addresses that issue: the 1967 _Sailors v. Kent Bd. of Education_ opinion.

crossrip

Posted Thu, Nov 1, 8:26 a.m. Inappropriate

The article refers to onetime mayoral candidate Dave Stern as "inventor of the happy face"; and his campaign button duly riffed off the famous image. Yet there are other claimants to the title of its 'inventor' (with illustrator Harvey Ball being the Wikipedia favorite). So, despite the temptation around here to make Seattle the center of the universe, I wish this claim about Mr. Stern could be stated with some cautionary language ('alleged', 'self-proclaimed', etc.).

Posted Thu, Nov 1, 11:20 a.m. Inappropriate

"The Religion of Density." Yes, just look what it's wrought in NYC right now--gridlock. NYC validates my opinion that the density and mass transit folks simply don't get it--it just doesn't work when there's any disruption in services like electricity, or when nature poses an on-the-ground weather challenge. While we aren't likely to have any hurricanes, I decline the invitation to get stuck in the kind of mess we're seeing in NYC. Plus I decline the invitation to live in tenements, on floors so high that I could be trapped in my home for days without power and food. Let the density and transit lovers relocate, the sooner, the better.

mspat

Posted Thu, Nov 1, 5:34 p.m. Inappropriate

" Let the density and transit lovers relocate, the sooner, the better."

Now, now the current Mayor is not the only NYC import, just the one with the current power to match his interest in putting our money where his mouth is.

afreeman

Posted Thu, Nov 1, 4:57 p.m. Inappropriate

Not sure why you make the statement that "the leading challenger is thought to be" Councilman Burgess. Whose thought is that, and what criteria have been applied?

As for your simultaneous thought that the big news is Ms. Clark's not running, I would say that's not news at all (since it would be very premature, and ill-advised, for this talented young councilperson to make a run now). Far better for her to commune with sympathetic contacts in the press, some of whom might help lay name-familiarity foundation stones. I wonder how that could be done?

Among the names you mention, surely there must be an appealing, youthful, forward-thinking, articulate person with deep historic Seattle connections and an intuitive feel for our region and its needs. Mustn't there?

I think I'll take that thought to one of our small city parks--perhaps one that affords a sweeping view of Elliott Bay--on one of these last fall days for contemplation.

Seneca

Posted Sat, Nov 3, 5:43 p.m. Inappropriate

What? No mention of Dennis Kucinich?

animalal

Posted Sat, Nov 3, 7:10 p.m. Inappropriate

Brewster, this is such a weak article. A bunch of names that have been thrown around for 2 years now and some made up "types" of mayors. Perhaps it's time to stop playing King Maker. That time was a decade (or two) ago, not that the old establishment doesn't wish it were still so...Brewster as a Top Civic Pundit.

The Burgess is Top Contender posit is weak. The only person besides yourself who has decreed that is...Burgess. Though the way he kisses up to the downtown establishment means soon enough there are likely to be more backers. A non-downtownie Master of the Universe doesn't have to mean we have to be stuck with Amateur Hour McGinn, either.

You wrote off Harrell as a someone without a base,which is pretty funny. For anyone wanting a leader both good in business AND social justice, Harrell fits the bill. Anne Levinson is another who is strong in both areas. And neither fits the stereotypical Middle-Age-to-Old-Age White Business Guy image that is awfully passe, given the diversity of thought, income and ethnicity that is the Seattle today.

There are quite probably other names that also fit the bill, but one would have to do more thought analysis than bringing out the tired old Steinbrueck saw and newly tired Burgess boost.

Posted Sun, Nov 4, 4:19 a.m. Inappropriate

Clark is not talented. Clark may be a bunch of peoples favorite little pet; but she is not a "talented councilperson". Clark even got her council position through being a pet. She was appointed, originally. Clark is a run of the mill, will do anything for the wealthy interests, politician. Clark cares little about anything but herself. She belongs in no elective office. Ballmer, and Hansen, probably have a job for her.

Burgess is another will do anything for the wealthy interests. Butgess is subservient to lobbyists, like Christian Sinderman. A citizen can never count on Burgess to stand for anything, or to do anything other than provide tax exemption, and free public funds to wealthy individuals. Burgess only represents the interests of the extremely wealthy. Burgess belongs in no elective office.

Harrel? Get Real. Harrel used the most amount of money in Seattle history to get his council position. Harrel will say yes to free public money going to wealthy interests before there is even a request, or plan. Harrel is a joke. A bad joke. Harrel belongs in no elective office. Sorry, being what some call a "minority" does not mean you are special, I know some racists are all hung up on skin color, and ethnicity. So, Harrel is supposed to get a pass because of his skin color. So, if Harrel's skin color was white, then he would be passe? I think that the racism is passe; but hey, if you wish to base your vote on race, what can I do about it.

None of the publicized possible contenders for Mayor, including Mcginn, should be elected to any office. Perhaps, Steinbruck, but he is not as yet running. Finally, Really, Clark is a "talented councilperson"? No, she is not.

jhande

Posted Sun, Nov 4, 8:19 a.m. Inappropriate

Burgess is considered the leading challenger because he is almost certainly going to run and has a proven ability to raise money from the traditional Seattle donor groups. He's a flawed candidate, sure, but right now he appears to have the inside track with members of the downtown/lawyer power base.

Steinbrueck remains a factor because he's well known, he has the ego to think he has a chance, and there are still some positive feelings towards him (and his family) among city voters.

Harrell is iffy because he's a decent campaigner, but can't shake that "second place thing." People think he's OK as a councilmember, but when it comes time to vote, Seattleites are likely to choose a more impressive candidate.

I agree with David's analysis that Clark isn't a factor. She simply won't run against two or even one of her colleagues, and she's not strong enough to scare anyone out of the race. Sally is just too conflict-averse and too eager to please everyone; the same personality traits that have held her back as a Councilmember.

Ed Murray has a lot of strengths and rates above most of the people on this list, especially if R-74 wins, but he's a loudmouth and mayoral campaigns provide lots of chances to say something stupid.

McGinn's probably going to run again and he still has a base in the low twenties. He's got a reasonable chance to make it through a primary, but less of a chance of repeating. Beyond that, his presence in the race makes it hard for anyone off the political radar to make a strong run.

Maud Daudon and Ron Sims are interesting names, nothing more. What exactly has Maud done, except serve as sidekick to a failed mayor (the almost-forgotten one-termer Paul Schell)? Sims slept through his third term as County Executive and got into hot water as HUD deputy because of his aversion to both Washington DC and hard work.

McGinn and Burgess will probably run and Steinbrueck may run if he feels like it. If that's the case, there's only space for one or two more viable candidates and they're probably on this list.

In order for Anne Levinson or any of the other non-traditional candidates on this list to be a factor, they would need to get in the race very quickly and outmanuever the established politicos. I don't think it's likely, but we'll find out very soon if one of them will take a shot.

Mannix

Posted Mon, Nov 5, 10:57 p.m. Inappropriate

All these people and their dreadful ideas are the reasons Seattle is no longer affordable for middle class people like my partner and I. As of this month we cease to have to deal with the never ending increase in our property taxes, nanny statism, the Seattle "process" and the Seattle "freeze". Good riddance and we will not let the door hit us on the arse on the way out.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »