Post navigation

Prev: (08/20/19) | Next: (08/21/19)

So, which District 3 neighborhoods voted for the Speak out Seattle candidate?

With reporting by Margo Vansynghel

If the advocates of pro-policing and anti-street disorder efforts in Seattle like Speak out Seattle, Safe Seattle, and People for Seattle really are sweeping in a wave of change in the city, this is what it looks like in District 3.

CHS started the week showing you Election Night heat maps for the top two candidates moving through to November’s General Election in D3.

Here is the Election Night map for the person who cam in third and will not advance — Pat Murakami.

Supported by an endorsement from Speak Out Seattle, a pro-policing and public safety group which has opposed the head tax and safe-consumption sites, Murakami outpaced many expectations and should finish with around 13% of the vote but falling well short of Egan Orion and Kshama Sawant

The map shows Murakami’s election night results, representing a count of about 60% of ballots. Although we’ll still have to wait until King County certifies and releases precinct-level data later this week for the final totals, the mapping trends will likely continue — and, should be of interest to Orion’s campaign.

Like Orion, Murakami did well in Madison Park, where she received 33% of the votes and outperformed Orion in half of the precincts covering the area.

Maybe the endorsement and Photoshop-fabricated mailers from the Moms for Seattle Political Action Committee, which was launched by wealthy homeowners (and, as The Stranger and others reported, consultants) in June with a $6,605.68 party at the Seattle Tennis Club in Madison Park, helped?

Murakami also did well in North District 3, particularly in the Montlake/Portage Bay area; as well as a sliver of North Capitol Hill precincts near I-5, where a group of North Capitol Hill homeowners called CHARM (Capitol Hill Against Rezoning Misuse) mounted a last-ditch effort against MHA upzoning in Eastlake. The group circulated a Valpak flyer warning about “loss of public view and decreased property values” that seemed to endorse Murakami.

South of Broadmoor and North D3, however, the picture looks different.

Despite stapling an ungodly number of campaign signs to utility poles on major arterials in the Central Area (and elsewhere), Murakami struggled there.

And while CHS touted Murakami’s “community ties, especially in south Seattle” as her biggest strength ahead of the election, in her home turf area below I-90, Murakami was easily bested by Sawant.

As for the Speak out Seattle-type efforts, the wave doesn’t seem to have played a major role for Murakami, at least. The “anybody but Sawant” vote geographic breakdown from 2015 will look pretty familiar. It is a near exact mirror of the divide we see playing out again in 2019.

BECOME A 'PAY WHAT YOU CAN' CHS SUBSCRIBER TODAY: Support local journalism dedicated to your neighborhood. SUBSCRIBE HERE. Join to become a subscriber at $1/$5/$10 a month to help CHS provide community news with NO PAYWALL. You can also sign up for a one-time annual payment.

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

30 thoughts on “So, which District 3 neighborhoods voted for the Speak out Seattle candidate?

  1. Wow. Editorialize much? Maybe Murakami’s performance exceeded expectations in certain echo chambers, but her support was fairly obvious to many people in D3, including this Logan Bowers supporter. And you have certainly made an effort to explain away that support with repeated derogatory comments about organizations supporting her and their tactics. And your reference to those “ungodly number” of telephone pole posters is so rich in irony (who perfected that method of campaign promotion?) that it seems unnecessary to address it here.

      • Although Murakami did have pretty extensive knowledge of policy and an understanding of D3, I thought Bowers would be more effective bringing a more moderate approach to the Council and might be able to work better with the more left members of the Council (Mosqueda, Gonzales, etc.). I also calculated Murakami would not beat Sawant in the general because, justifiably or not, she would be unacceptable to a larger percentage of the D3 electorate than would Bowers. I am not looking for a revolution of leadership here, just a more moderate and civil problem solving voice on the Council for D3. Bowers seemed like that guy to me.

      • @Glenn: I voted for Egan Orion for the same reasons you cite for Bowers. We need a more moderate City Council if we are to make any real progress on homelessness, crime, etc.

        Virtually all who voted for Murakami will vote for Orion in the general, and he will also pick up significant numbers of votes from those who voted for Bowers and Nguyen. Sawant is in trouble.

      • Let’s not count our chickens before they hatch, Bob.

        I think Orion’s best argument against Sawant is: You’ve been on the council for six years and all of our problems have gotten worse, not better, so it’s time for a different tact. If you can’t do it in six years, you’re not going to accomplish anything relevant in 4 more.

      • I hope Orion wins, but Sawant is still the favorite. I have complete confidence that every Murakami and Bowers voter will vote for Orion. I have only moderate confidence that Nguyen voters will vote Orion. Although Nguyen self-admittedly doesn’t support Sawant, I don’t know if Nguyen’s supporters got the memo. I have very high confidence that DeWolf voters will vote Sawant. I hope that people who didn’t vote in the primary election will turn out for the general election.

      • @Evan: “I have complete confidence that every Murakami and Bowers voter will vote for Orion.”

        Be careful of the word “every” – I’m just one person but once you use that word I can prove you wrong. I voted for Bowers, and now will vote for Sawant. The reasons are complex, but I can quickly say that I’m a highly informed voter who’s been following this race very closely, and who has many dimensions along which I judge each candidate. My order of preference was/is Bowers, DeWolf, Nguyen, Sawant, Orion, Murakami.

        Actually I had Sawant and Orion pretty darn close — not because they’re similar, but because I lie in between but slightly closer to Sawant’s policies, but prefer Orion’s coalition-building style.
        But his highly disingenuous “No PAC money” posters tipped the scale for me.
        (Yes, I know Sawant can be disingenuous too, but that was already baked into my calculus that put them even for me).

      • @SM
        There is a difference between:
        1. Not outright accepting PAC money
        2. Someone like Tim Burgess forming a PAC of their own accord and then endorsing candidates throughout the district races.

        Option #2 is what happened, your anger should lay with the PACs, not Orion. Orion could literally ask them to not endorse him, not send out mailers, etc. but PACs have no obligation to desist. He basically got free support, I honestly don’t see how that’s an ethics issue.

        P.S. if you have a source for Orion directly accepting PAC money, I’d like to see it, truly. I’ll switch to Sawant if the ethical dilemma is great enough.

      • @Evan: yes, I understand the difference, and realize that #2 is what has happened. (You mention Burgess, but my understanding is that CASE has spent more on his behalf than People for Seattle). If he had taken PAC money directly, his poster wouldn’t be disingenuous; it would be lying. That’s why I used the word “disingenuous”.

        Note that the poster just says “No Corporate PAC money” – no subject, no verb, no further distinction of the type you mentioned. The Stranger’s description captures my take well: “The ad is factually accurate and, at the same time, completely misleading—a superb illustration of our new post-Citizens United world of confusing, unaccountable politics.”

        I’m not a knee-jerk opponent of large corporations; I love my Microsoft Office and my Starbucks latte and my Amazon Prime. And I think their presence improves many aspects of our city even as their rapid growth creates other issues. But I do think they get far too many tax breaks–Amazon especially–and have far too much influence on our politics. So I was already weary that they were spending so much on Orion via CASE. You mention that he could ask them to stop but they wouldn’t have to heed him, but as far as I know he didn’t (if you have evidence he did please tell me).

        But then the purposefully vague poster on top of it is just way too much “having your cake and eating it too” for me. I see it as a reflection of other things likely to come.

        So, yeah, I really really didn’t expect to be voting for Sawant in the general. But at this point I am. That said, Orion could yet surprise me, sincerely apologize and take down the signs, ask CASE to stop supporting him, and possibly convince me back. I’m not holding my breath though.

      • @SM
        I appreciate your response, it gives me better insight to how another voter sees the distinctions between Sawant and Orion.

        At this point, I’ll leave you and any other readers this: just because Candidate X receives support (directly or indirectly) from this or that individual/collective/PAC, does not necessarily make them a shill for said entity. It could very well be that the supporters are casting a vote against Candidate Y, or that they earnestly think Candidate X is a good leader and they’re not expecting some kickback.

        I don’t know if Orion has made a behind-closed-doors deal with Amazon, Starbucks, etc. Maybe he has, but I’m not going to assume that must be the case just because he has their support. What I think is a more likely explanation is this: CASE, People for Seattle, landlords, etc. realize that Sawant sees them as malicious by default, and that’s such a toxic attitude to engage. Sawant believes she can enact some legislation with only the input of her supporters and that businesses/landlords will just turn the other cheek.

        A good example is the $15 minimum wage, which I called out earlier as being a middling victory now that I look back. ( Sure, some workers gained and good for them, but a not insignificant number also had their hours reduced, perks revoked like free parking spot or free meal during shift, etc. Supporters of this idea really thought businesses would just eat this increased cost? That’s simply not how the market works, and I believe Orion understands this. He understands that you have to incentivize the behavior you want to see, rather than demonize basic market forces.

        Similarly, when it comes to Saba’s on 12th, Sawant is missing the mark. Instead of coming up with a way for the City of Seattle to help with relocation, or coming up with an incentive for the developer, she instead just wants to developer to bear the cost of Saba’s relocation. It’s well-intentioned, but also unrealistic.

  2. So, the strongest support for the pro-policing candidate who ran a fear-mongering campaign with faked images came from the precinct including a wealthy gated community. No shocker there.

    People keep commenting that Murakami has a strong grasp of policy and issues, which is clearly false. Remember her cruise ship for the homeless idea, or her refusal to ride light rail after dark? Murakami is completely out of touch with reality, much like her walled in supporters in Broadmoor.

    Thankfully, she didn’t make it through the primary.

    • Murakami had a few ideas I thought were “novel,” the cruise ship being one of them. But I spent quite a bit of time speaking with her and I was impressed with her broad and specific knowledge of many issues relevant to the council and D3. While she may have had her own perspective on some issues, she seemed in touch not out overall.
      And if we are going to assess the candidates for the “out of touch” characteristic, does Sawant’s stated desire to nationalize all fosiil fuel prodicers and re-purpose them to produce solar panels and other green energy products qualify her as out of touch with reality? I think so. In my opinion, Sawant envisions a fleet of cruise ships, so to speak, whereas Murakami envisioned only one.

      • And if we are going to assess the candidates for the “out of touch” characteristic, does Sawant’s stated desire to nationalize all fosiil fuel prodicers and re-purpose them to produce solar panels and other green energy products qualify her as out of touch with reality? I think so. In my opinion, Sawant envisions a fleet of cruise ships, so to speak, whereas Murakami envisioned only one.

        No Sawant supporter here, but:

        Norway has long nationalized their oil company and sells their oil around the world for a lot of money. They then use that money to better their country: nationalized healthcare, top-notch, free education, world-class transportation and (ironically) moving themselves towards an oil free country.

        Here, we “lease” our oil fields to for-profit companies that come in, drain the oil, leave the environment in shambles and then walk away with massive profits and taxpayer subsidies, with little contribution back to our country.

        Doesn’t sound so crazy to me.

      • So, Fairly obvious, we disagree on the issue of nationalizing key private industries in our country. Fair enough. But we can still speak rationally to one another (like we are) and with some work perhaps come up with a reasonable compromise that meets some of our priorities. Those are the kind of people I want on the Council: reasonable problem solvers who don’t demonize others for their ideas and beliefs. Sawant doesnot qualify so I think she should go.

    • And let’s not forget that in addition to being classist, Murakami has also been expousing racist ideology and continues to denigrate people of color with her dog whistle rhetoric. —consistent and well documented since her last run for office. Perhaps the Seattle Tennis Club can create a position for her behind their security guard staffed gates where she can mingle with the “right” kinds of people.

  3. @Derek
    Sincere ask: please list out some of her accomplishments or on-going efforts that you are a big fan of. I would like to know what an avid supporter thinks of Sawant.

    • I’ll tell you why I support her: because she pisses off people like you, Bill, and Jim.

      Oh, and I’m not rich. Unlike a lot of poor white Republicans in the Midwest and South, I vote MY economic interests, not that of tech tycoons.

      • @not.going.anywhere
        You support Sawant because she aligns with your economic interests, that’s fine. For the record, she doesn’t piss me off, she disappoints me. I voted for her in 2015 and am not seeing enough results. She delivered on $15 minimum wage but that’s not as great a victory as I thought it would be.

        P.S. honest question: who are Bill and Jim? I don’t see those users in this thread, and I’m not sure if you’re referring to another local elected official.

      • That is just about the most superficial, petty reason to vote for someone that I have ever heard.

        Says the guy who on every Sawant article proudly proclaims how anyone who runs against Sawant gets his vote, for the sole reason of running against her.

      • Says the guy who takes every chance he gets to attack me…

        Your analogy is a false one. It’s true that I would vote for almost anyone against Sawant, but so what? I’m sure I am not alone in this sentiment. But I am voting FOR Egan Orion because I think he will actually represent D3, and because we need more moderate voices on the City Council.

      • Your analogy is a false one.

        It’s true that I would vote for almost anyone against Sawant, but so what?

        I split them up for dramatic effect, but those sentences were back to back.

        Says the guy who takes every chance he gets to attack me…

        Bob, pointing out your self-righteous hypocrisy is not attacking you. And if you feel that people pointing that out IS attacking you, well maybe the internet is not for you.

      • @FairlyObvious:
        Here is why your analogy is false and illogical…

        I criticized “not.going.anwhere” for his/her petty/superficial reason (to piss people off) for supporting Sawant, and I think this is a very valid criticism. My opposition to Sawant is not petty/superficial ….it is based on her far-left ideology, her grandstanding, her inability to work with other Council members, and her lack of responsiveness to her constituents in D3. So, no hypocrisy.

      • Bob, you also missed another reason not.going.anwhere voted for Sawant: “I vote MY economic interests, not that of tech tycoons.”

        So it wasn’t just to piss you off.

  4. I’d say I’m interested in how the SOS vote maps against a crime map, but I can pretty much tell by looking. I assume these people can’t walk down 3rd without peeing themselves in fear.