City Hall
The Old Seattle City Council Is the New Seattle City Council.
"Our" New Year's prediction that the city council will all get reelected was really my prediction: Josh and Bryce both disagree. (Bryce thinks Jean Godden and Bruce Harrell, specifically, are vulnerable. Josh thinks it's possible someone will lose over the tunnel.)
Here's why I don't:
1) Name recognition. I know, I know---no one knows who anyone on the council is. In a poll of 411 likely voters, a majority of voters said they have no opinion of every city council member but one---in the case of Bruce Harrell, fully 81 percent had no opinion of him (!!). Godden was the best known among all council members, with just 45 percent saying they had no opinion of her; consequently, of course, her negatives were higher than other council members, with 27 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion.
However, I think those very numbers demonstrate how hard it will be to take out an incumbent: When Godden, a newspaper columnist in Seattle for decades before she was elected in 2003, is only known by 55 percent of the city's population, what challenger stands a chance at boosting their name recognition above hers? Only another well-known, beloved Seattle personality would stand a chance of taking her down. I'm open to suggestions here, but I don't see anyone like that on the horizon. A cautionary tale for third-tier local celebrities: James Donaldson was a pro basketball star who played for the Sonics, and he came in last with just 8 percent of last year's mayoral vote.
2) Incumbency is still powerful. I'll concede that Harrell's low name recognition means he has less automatic gut support than Godden, but he also has kept a low profile on the council. He hasn't done much, but he hasn't pissed anybody off, either. In contrast, the candidate he beat, Venus Velazquez, lost because she got a DUI the week before the election, and the incumbent Godden beat, Judy Nicastro, was a polarizing and controversial figure on the council.
3) It's 2011. No Congressional races, no gubernatorial race, nothing, really, at the top of the ticket. Low voter turnout in off-year elections means conservative, pro-incumbent voter turnout. Unless the candidate is another Mike McGinn, with the ability to mobilize young and infrequent voters---and, again, I don't see anybody on the horizon (Cary Moon swears she isn't running), off-year elections give the advantage to incumbents.
4) About Cary Moon. I think she could beat Jean Godden. But she---as well as everyone I've heard rumored to be running---swears that she isn't interested. If nobody viable or exciting runs, nobody wins.
5) The McGinn factor. McGinn's frequent blunders in his first year---the surprise seawall proposal, the amazing disappearing "constitutional crisis " over signing tunnel documents, statements about the governor and legislature that blew up in his face, and any number of initiatives that went nowhere---have made the council look like grownups. Gov. Chris Gregoire won't even talkto McGinn anymore, saying she prefers to deal with the city through council president Conlin. The safe choice, in a time of uncertainty, is to keep the grownups in charge---and the grownups, for now at least, are the council.
6) Money ain't what it used to be. The amount of money it costs to win city elections has gone down in recent years, so the point Bryce makes about money---Godden has only around $30,000 on hand, and Harrell has just $73,000---isn't as important as it once was. By the end of 2009, the winning city council candidates in the two races where a seat was occupied by an incumbent had raised totals of $176,000 (Richard Conlin) and $140,000 (Nick Licata). The winning candidates in open seats raised more, but that's not surprising: Going from zero name recognition to winning a council seat costs money. And in one case, the winner (Mike O'Brien) was outspent by his top-spending opponent, Robert Rosencrantz, by nearly $100,000. And that was in a high-turnout mayoral election year. Judging by those numbers, and given that turnout this year will almost certainly be lower than in 2009, neither Godden nor Harrell is in bad financial shape.
Here's why I don't:
1) Name recognition. I know, I know---no one knows who anyone on the council is. In a poll of 411 likely voters, a majority of voters said they have no opinion of every city council member but one---in the case of Bruce Harrell, fully 81 percent had no opinion of him (!!). Godden was the best known among all council members, with just 45 percent saying they had no opinion of her; consequently, of course, her negatives were higher than other council members, with 27 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion.
However, I think those very numbers demonstrate how hard it will be to take out an incumbent: When Godden, a newspaper columnist in Seattle for decades before she was elected in 2003, is only known by 55 percent of the city's population, what challenger stands a chance at boosting their name recognition above hers? Only another well-known, beloved Seattle personality would stand a chance of taking her down. I'm open to suggestions here, but I don't see anyone like that on the horizon. A cautionary tale for third-tier local celebrities: James Donaldson was a pro basketball star who played for the Sonics, and he came in last with just 8 percent of last year's mayoral vote.
2) Incumbency is still powerful. I'll concede that Harrell's low name recognition means he has less automatic gut support than Godden, but he also has kept a low profile on the council. He hasn't done much, but he hasn't pissed anybody off, either. In contrast, the candidate he beat, Venus Velazquez, lost because she got a DUI the week before the election, and the incumbent Godden beat, Judy Nicastro, was a polarizing and controversial figure on the council.
3) It's 2011. No Congressional races, no gubernatorial race, nothing, really, at the top of the ticket. Low voter turnout in off-year elections means conservative, pro-incumbent voter turnout. Unless the candidate is another Mike McGinn, with the ability to mobilize young and infrequent voters---and, again, I don't see anybody on the horizon (Cary Moon swears she isn't running), off-year elections give the advantage to incumbents.
4) About Cary Moon. I think she could beat Jean Godden. But she---as well as everyone I've heard rumored to be running---swears that she isn't interested. If nobody viable or exciting runs, nobody wins.
5) The McGinn factor. McGinn's frequent blunders in his first year---the surprise seawall proposal, the amazing disappearing "constitutional crisis " over signing tunnel documents, statements about the governor and legislature that blew up in his face, and any number of initiatives that went nowhere---have made the council look like grownups. Gov. Chris Gregoire won't even talkto McGinn anymore, saying she prefers to deal with the city through council president Conlin. The safe choice, in a time of uncertainty, is to keep the grownups in charge---and the grownups, for now at least, are the council.
6) Money ain't what it used to be. The amount of money it costs to win city elections has gone down in recent years, so the point Bryce makes about money---Godden has only around $30,000 on hand, and Harrell has just $73,000---isn't as important as it once was. By the end of 2009, the winning city council candidates in the two races where a seat was occupied by an incumbent had raised totals of $176,000 (Richard Conlin) and $140,000 (Nick Licata). The winning candidates in open seats raised more, but that's not surprising: Going from zero name recognition to winning a council seat costs money. And in one case, the winner (Mike O'Brien) was outspent by his top-spending opponent, Robert Rosencrantz, by nearly $100,000. And that was in a high-turnout mayoral election year. Judging by those numbers, and given that turnout this year will almost certainly be lower than in 2009, neither Godden nor Harrell is in bad financial shape.
