News
Campaign Fizz: Mike McGinn Loses 2013 Election
• Last night's big loser, obviously, was Mike McGinn, whose anemic approval ratings can't be separated from the lousy outcome for tunnel opponents, who lost in a 40-60 trouncing. We met with the mayor this morning and will have more from that interview later this afternoon; however, McGinn said the vote "was not about personalities, it was about the project. What was in front of the voters was, should we proceed with the tunnel, and the public said yes. Clearly, they want to move ahead." Other city hall observers were less sanguine, predicting a rough road ahead for a mayor who could be opposed by Seattle state Sen. Ed Murray and city council member Tim Burgess. Or the right woman.
• In our interview, McGinn kept trying to change the subject from the tunnel defeat to his leadership on the upcoming Families and Education Levy and the November vote on the $60 vehicle license fee, saying those are the issues he plans to focus on in the coming months. But if the issue with the tunnel was, in part, that McGinn is toxic, will council supporters and advocate for education and transit want him out in front of either campaign in November?
• We didn't mention this in Fizz this morning, but one of last night's winners, in our estimation, is city council member Mike O'Brien. While other tunnel opponents were fulminating about "corporate contributions" and "being outspent ten to one"---blaming big money from vested interests and a "dishonest campaign" for their overwhelming loss---O'Brien acknowledged that the pro-tunnel camp's "message resonated better than ours."
“Frankly, I’ve been outspent on a lot of other fights. ... I’ve been working on this issue for six years and it’s exhausting, and so I appreciate that there’s probably a contingent of people just saying their slogan, ‘let’s move forward.’ I didn’t think the project was good enough to move forward with, but obviously the people did, so that’s what we’ll do."
• In contrast, McGinn didn't issue a statement until 10:25 last night---more than two hours after the results came in. We're a bit mystified as to why McGinn couldn't have prepared two statements---one if the tunnel won, and one if it lost---before last night, given that there were only two likely outcomes (the third being "too close to call.")
• Never mind Ed Murray and Tim Burgess---you know who should run against McGinn in 2013? His "mini-me," in the words of PI.com columnist Joel Connelly, O'Brien.
• Also at the PI.com, Chris Grygiel thinks tunnel proponents should thank McGinn for making the anti-tunnel cause unpopular; Joel Connelly says"Build the damn tunnel!"; and McGinn is still talking about "asking the hard questions."
• At the Seattle Transit Blog, Roger Valdez says it's time for the mayor to start thinking big-picture---and talking about land use, regional governance, and Sound Transit expansion instead of the tunnel.
• One theory among anti-tunnel forces is that the tunnel project will fall apart---due to cost overruns, revenue shortfalls, or a boring machine that gets stuck in the ground---within the next two years (and in time for the 2013 council election). With three pro-tunnel council members up that year (Sally Bagshaw, Richard Conlin, and Nick Licata), the theory goes, anti-tunnel candidates will be able to mobilize support based on the unpopularity of the project and take out one or more sitting council members.
We don't buy it; two years is too little time for such a significant voter reversal on the tunnel. And given that only two anti-tunnel candidates even ran this year (and one, Taylor-Judd, came in last in his race), we don't see a big anti-tunnel groundswell on the horizon.
• Seattle city council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen issued his own response to the tunnel vote today, vowing to "minimize [the] possibility" of "diversion of traffic from the tunnel because of [tunnel] tolls" and expressing confidence that the state will "indemnify the city" from the possibility of cost overruns.
• In our interview, McGinn kept trying to change the subject from the tunnel defeat to his leadership on the upcoming Families and Education Levy and the November vote on the $60 vehicle license fee, saying those are the issues he plans to focus on in the coming months. But if the issue with the tunnel was, in part, that McGinn is toxic, will council supporters and advocate for education and transit want him out in front of either campaign in November?
• We didn't mention this in Fizz this morning, but one of last night's winners, in our estimation, is city council member Mike O'Brien. While other tunnel opponents were fulminating about "corporate contributions" and "being outspent ten to one"---blaming big money from vested interests and a "dishonest campaign" for their overwhelming loss---O'Brien acknowledged that the pro-tunnel camp's "message resonated better than ours."
“Frankly, I’ve been outspent on a lot of other fights. ... I’ve been working on this issue for six years and it’s exhausting, and so I appreciate that there’s probably a contingent of people just saying their slogan, ‘let’s move forward.’ I didn’t think the project was good enough to move forward with, but obviously the people did, so that’s what we’ll do."
• In contrast, McGinn didn't issue a statement until 10:25 last night---more than two hours after the results came in. We're a bit mystified as to why McGinn couldn't have prepared two statements---one if the tunnel won, and one if it lost---before last night, given that there were only two likely outcomes (the third being "too close to call.")
• Never mind Ed Murray and Tim Burgess---you know who should run against McGinn in 2013? His "mini-me," in the words of PI.com columnist Joel Connelly, O'Brien.
• Also at the PI.com, Chris Grygiel thinks tunnel proponents should thank McGinn for making the anti-tunnel cause unpopular; Joel Connelly says"Build the damn tunnel!"; and McGinn is still talking about "asking the hard questions."
• At the Seattle Transit Blog, Roger Valdez says it's time for the mayor to start thinking big-picture---and talking about land use, regional governance, and Sound Transit expansion instead of the tunnel.
• One theory among anti-tunnel forces is that the tunnel project will fall apart---due to cost overruns, revenue shortfalls, or a boring machine that gets stuck in the ground---within the next two years (and in time for the 2013 council election). With three pro-tunnel council members up that year (Sally Bagshaw, Richard Conlin, and Nick Licata), the theory goes, anti-tunnel candidates will be able to mobilize support based on the unpopularity of the project and take out one or more sitting council members.
We don't buy it; two years is too little time for such a significant voter reversal on the tunnel. And given that only two anti-tunnel candidates even ran this year (and one, Taylor-Judd, came in last in his race), we don't see a big anti-tunnel groundswell on the horizon.
• Seattle city council transportation chair Tom Rasmussen issued his own response to the tunnel vote today, vowing to "minimize [the] possibility" of "diversion of traffic from the tunnel because of [tunnel] tolls" and expressing confidence that the state will "indemnify the city" from the possibility of cost overruns.
