I am your moderator for tonight, but that is official
as of maybe two hours ago.
So I'm going to do my best with you all.
Hi, everybody.
I am not Naomi C.
I wish she could be here tonight.
I know she wishes she could be here tonight as well.
So you're stuck with me.
I am Alexis Mercedes Rinck, your Seattle City Council member,
but tonight your moderator for a really exciting and interesting
discussion that I know I'm going to be really excited to
dig into these questions with our two panelists for tonight.
So we're here tonight to really examine a notable
trend that's happening right now in Washington politics.
As Democrats are approaching a near supermajority in Olympia,
we're seeing an uptick in Democrat on Democrat primaries.
That reflects some deeper debates about the party's
direction, both nationally and locally, and I know
we're all feeling it.
The group chats are on fire.
So tonight we're going to be exploring some of this
intra-party challenges surfacing right now,
from local pressures like housing affordability and
zoning to public safety to also some generational
shifts that are happening, demographic changes, all in the
context of our broader national polarization that's going on.
So we're going to dig into the mechanics behind them from
fundraising and donor networks, labor and business influence,
endorsement dynamics, grassroots organizing, primary rules,
and how turnout will be shaping outcomes.
So looking at these real policy differences at
stake, we're going to talk about branding, moderate
versus progressive.
We're going to consider challengers as a part of a
broader movement or a collection of local insurgencies
looking at risks and benefits for a democratic
governance and electoral prospects and talk about how
these fights might change legislators behavior and
party strategy in Olympia moving forward and so we're
gonna dig right in right now into the race I know
everybody's talking about in Seattle's 43rd
legislative district a Senate Senate Majority Leader
Jamie Pedersen, architect of the Millionaire's
Tax, faces a millennial labor organizer challenger,
Hannah Sabio-Howell.
And similarly, right across Lake Washington, we have Rep
Amy Walen in Kirkland, who drew a primary challenger
after voting against the Millionaire's Tax.
And these contests show different framings between
performance and purity politics.
So my question to our two folks for tonight to kick us off,
in one sentence each, what is the core message incumbents
are running on in this cycle?
And what is the core message of their intra-party challengers
and they're running on?
Should I go first?
I mean, I'll answer the question that incumbents
should be running on.
I wouldn't say that all of them are, but the message that
they should be running on is that we're a fighter, we
stood up to Trump, and that we're Trump-proofing Washington.
That's the message that they should be on.
Now, most of them are too stupid to do that, and their
consultants, if they didn't hire me, are too dumb to do it.
But yeah, that's what they should be doing.
Yeah, I think that's actually about right.
I would add I think the message they are running on for the most
part is mission accomplished.
We promised progress and we delivered it.
I think there are some challenges with that, but
that in one sentence is about the message I think
most of them are running on.
I'll dive into then the second part of that question, which
is the message that a lot of challengers are sort of
sharing, which is what progress?
We look around at rents that have doubled, at childcare
that costs the equivalent of a college tuition, and a lot
of our friends choosing between putting food on the table
and paying for health insurance, and we're rightly, I think,
questioning what does that progress look like and for
whom and this is a really hotly debated part but that
I think is the core of the of the message tied to
as well if they had good ideas for how to solve those
problems they would have done it already and that
I think is sort of the core message across the
board for most of the the challengers.
And Dean, do you want to touch on the second
part? Yeah, and I honestly think there's a generational
divide in a lot of these races, not all, but
many. You know, there's like this perception that
the old establishment isn't getting it done, but then I
also think that there's this
interesting parlay with national politics, and that Democrats
are incredibly frustrated with with the Democratic Party.
And I think this has to do more with what's happening
in Washington, D.C.
than what's happening here.
You had all of the nonsense around the 2024 election,
Biden's mental health, his performance, him getting out,
Harris running, Harris losing, Trump coming back.
But it goes even deeper than that.
It goes all the way back to Democrats not standing up
up on the Supreme Court nomination or several of them.
It goes to the Democratic performance in Washington, DC,
or lack thereof.
I think we're all frustrated with that.
And that's playing out across the board in all races,
whether it be even here in Washington state.
And I think that Democrats being frustrated
with the Democratic Party is fair,
and it's a just criticism, and people should
be criticizing.
If you think back to Trump 1, Nancy Pelosi was a hero.
Chuck Schumer was a hero.
Our leadership were heroes.
And going to Trump 2, we're like,
can anybody identify the sound of Hakeem Jeffries' voice?
I don't even know if the guy knows how to speak.
And they're not standing up in the way we want them to.
Yeah, I think I'll just add real quick.
I'll just add some thoughts to that as well, because you
touched on this point, which is the Democratic Party today
is the most unpopular it has ever been in my lifetime and a
lot of other people's lifetime.
Right up there with data centers.
Legitimately. And it's not just that
Republicans pretty much hate us maximally.
That hasn't increased.
Their hate is already capped at the highest
you can hate someone.
And independents, you know, like us about as little
as they can throw us.
But really the difference is Democrats don't like ourselves.
Like we are in the midst of a real identity crisis
about what it means to be a part of this party.
And I think what you're, we'll get into this more
tonight, but like there is a, there's a social interpersonal
fight happening here.
And that is driving a lot of this.
Like, we don't like the policy outcomes that are
coming out of our party.
There's a growing salience that our party serves not a
general interest, but the interest of a handful of small,
either wealthy individuals or businesses or special interests,
whether they're labor unions or advocacy organizations.
There's a sort of general growing salience around the
idea that does this party serve us as a broad set of people,
or does it serve an elite that we are losing touch with?
And the final piece I wanted to add to that, because you talked
about this generational element, which is that my generation
is the first to really be substantially worse off
economically than our parents.
Like the idea of buying a home in the city of Seattle,
I'm going to, me and my partner both make, you know,
six figures, like it's still off the table, right?
And that's not just me.
I'm not like, oh, my God, woe is me, the consultant in Seattle.
The point is that our generation is feeling so disconnected from
being able to find a future that is financially stable, that
we can build a good life in.
And I think that's a real fundamental problem that the
party hasn't quite figured out how to talk about yet.
One pushback on that is that 30 years ago when I
was president of Young Democrats of Washington, a
couple blocks away, and had a few less gray hairs, we
were saying the same thing.
So we figured it out.
But that being said, I understand the frustration.
You know, you're not wrong.
Well, you've both brought up pieces just around
the generational divide that's happening within
the Democratic Party.
And I want to dive into that a little bit more because
you mentioned there was the obvious component with the
2024 presidential election.
I'd be remiss if we didn't bring up the Mitch McConnell of the
matter that we're currently in.
And so there are some real questions, but I
think we can all agree that with age can come.
Is there a Mitch here?
With age can come expertise and experience at face value I mean
we don't want to be ageist in this matter we we have a real
respect for also what our elders can bring into the situation so
a question to you both like how can we be able to talk about
age as an asset in one matter um And how can candidates that
are more established be able to really speak to that?
I mean, you know, so I ran the independent expenditures
for the Seattle mayor's race.
And, you know, that was the overwhelming issue, right?
And we put Katie Wilson's resume on mail pieces.
And, you know, we moved him from 40 points in the primary
to 49 points in the general.
Just couldn't get the last point.
But, you know, I mean, so, but the point is the
message has salience.
Is it enough?
In that race, it wasn't, you know,
and, but in other races, it may be.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's an interesting example.
I also, I ran the independent expenditure
for Katie Wilson.
We moved her from winning to winning.
Sorry. That's okay.
I'm just asking.
I'm sorry.
That's okay.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
And it's your life better yet?
I don't need to put the seal of the mayor up in front of me.
But no, but I think the point is, no, it's actually
a really good point.
I'm not just trying to be facetious about this, right?
Like that was 100% the issue, right?
Like putting up, is she experienced enough to be mayor?
Up against on our side, right, the conversation of like this,
what is the record that Bruce Harrell thinks is so great?
And our mailers talked about, you know,
rent doubling and childcare getting more expensive
and homelessness exploding and failed promises on shelter.
And the reason I bring that up is just to go back
to what I said at the start, which is the message of
incumbents is actually, I feel for it.
And I should say, because we didn't really
introduce ourselves at the front of this,
like I'm not just a consultant for a couple of challengers
against Democrats.
I also work for a ton of incumbents as well that are
facing challenges from more progressive candidates, too.
And so it is a real challenge to say, how do we talk about a
record that I'm proud of that was hard, particularly in the
context of Olympia, which for us normies that don't lobby in
Olympia, the kind of stuff that comes out of Olympia that people
are so proud of, it feels so big to the Olympia lobbyists.
But to the rest of us, we're like, that?
That was the big deal.
And two things can be true, right?
It was both hard to accomplish in Olympia
and also insufficient to tackle the problem.
Rivian can now sell cars directly.
Oh, my God.
Yeah, exactly.
And so in my past, I advocated for policy change in Olympia.
It took me two years to get a hotline for bias incidents
and hate crimes passed in Olympia.
I was so proud of it, right?
But that's the kind of thing that it's like historic change
got done and then also was largely meaningless to the
impact in people's lives and something we're going to keep
having to fight on and improve.
And so the point I'm trying to make is that there is a
real challenge for incumbents to figure out how do I take
credit for my record, but also not give off the idea
that I'm satisfied with it.
Like I am just as passionate about going to the mat to
make your life better as I was when I ran the first time.
And the incumbents that do that well will win and
those that don't will lose.
And challengers are necessarily asking, is the progress
you've gotten from these folks good enough yet?
Good enough for you?
Do you feel the impact in your life?
That is, I think, the central question Katie asked.
And it is part of why I think she won.
Is that an answer?
Yeah, I believe so.
And now is the part, the one of I'm sure
many times tonight where I remind you all, I got pulled
into this two hours ago.
So I apologize for not taking time
to let our panelists introduce themselves.
It's my first time here.
Okay, I'll try and curtail those excuses.
But I do want to give each of our
panelists just a moment to introduce yourselves a little
bit more.
You already got to know a little bit about them
and some of what at least what they were up to last year in
the independent expenditure world.
But maybe if you, Dean, would you like to go first?
Sure. Dean Nielsen.
I've worked in politics in Washington
State and around the country and the world since 1992.
I started when I was one and a half.
Just kidding.
So, no, I've seen a lot, been on both sides of most of
these fights, and, you know, love doing this type of work.
So our company, CN4 Partners, we are based here in Seattle, and
we have offices in Cleveland, New York, D.C., and Houston.
My name is Steven Paolini.
I'm a principal at Bottled Lightning Collective.
We're a small boutique political consulting firm
that is based here, actually in Tacoma, Washington.
But I live here in Seattle, and we do work
all around the country, including for most of the
Democratic congressional delegation here in Washington,
as well as several of the challengers running
against Democrats, too.
And as I kind of alluded to, we did the PACs for Katie
Wilson and Dionne and Alexis.
But I just bring that up actually, I'll turn it into a
minor soliloquy, which is to say like I think I sort of have the
impression of being primarily working with progressive
candidates, but there's a broader piece to
that too for me, and I work for a lot of folks
who both benefit and are challenged by this trend.
Yeah, I mean, you know, even though I have the tie and cuff
links in Rolex on tonight, I, you know, our firm is
working for Francesca Hong and, you know, in Wisconsin,
who may become the first socialist nominee
for a major party for governor of that state.
So, you know, if you have enough clients, you are on both
sides of many of these issues.
And, you know, some of this type of work is like
being a lawyer, right?
You know, and you go to battle for your client.
Going where the money is.
Yeah, we're all just blood-sucking vampires.
Yeah, totally.
It is a business.
I do have a payroll.
We all got to pay our bills.
I'm going to take us to our next question for tonight, which is,
how do these primary challenges fit into the national narrative
around the Democratic Party?
Now, we started answering that question, but I have more.
That narrative is that the Democratic establishment
has lost credibility with their voters,
who blame them for losing to Trump and who want them to be
more aggressive in fighting the Trump administration
and see the establishment as too beholden to big donors
and powerful oligarchs.
And there's certainly plenty of evidence to support
that narrative nationally.
Now, are there clear signs here locally that Democratic voters
are dissatisfied with their elected leaders in the same way?
I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks.
No, but New York Times did an incredible deep dive
on this a couple weeks ago in their polling segment.
And if you haven't had a chance to read it, I
encourage you to look it up.
But it was fascinating.
And they asked Democrats that very
same question.
And it was very interesting because a lot of
this is framed around, you know, progressives versus moderates
or socialists or whatever.
And what they found in their polling is that about half
of Democrats wanted the party to move to left, about
half of them wanted to move to the center to appeal to
moderates, to win a majority.
But, you know, all of them wanted Democrats to be fighters,
and they just thought that the party was lame, you know.
And they're not wrong, you know.
There is no leadership.
And so I think a lot of, in my mind, is around that context of
finding a voice and using it.
Yeah, I think that's real.
And the piece I'd add to that is I got a poll back for
one of the candidates I'm working for that actually
we asked this question of, what do you most blame for your
worsening economic condition?
I mean, it was phrased a little bit more objective than that,
but that was the essential thrust of the question.
And we asked about things like, is it Donald Trump's tariffs?
Is it mega corporations price gouging?
Is it policies coming out of Olympia?
And the majority of people actually said,
and this was a little bit more of a moderate district actually,
but a majority of them said policies coming out of Olympia.
And so I just bring that point up to say, right or wrong,
like I'm a progressive, I happen to agree with
most of the policies coming out of Olympia,
but I do think there's actually plenty of evidence
to suggest that there's a growing frustration with,
when we talk, I kind of touched on this earlier,
when we talk about something as being like
a big historic victory, you know, we delivered
historic investments in affordable housing,
I think there are a lot of people like me that are like,
okay, great.
Where could I have some of that, please?
Like my rent, literally my rent from
2016 to 2026 doubled.
And that is a lived experience that I
have. It's hard to argue with if your message is simply like,
oh, no, mission accomplished.
Like I did the thing.
Don't worry.
Like, I don't know why you're not feeling it.
But like I did make the investments that
would make your life better.
And so I think there is this tension around acknowledging
that hard things happened in Olympia that were unthinkable
even two or three or four years ago, but they have yet
to make the kind of impact in people's lives that you'll
see impact voters' behavior.
The other piece of this, too, is I do think there's this, I
mentioned this earlier as well, but I just want to reiterate it.
Like, I think there's this growing feeling among
the Democratic Party base that's asking the question,
what does our party serve?
Does it serve us or does it serve a shockingly small set of
powerful political stakeholders?
And I want to broaden that from just, it's
not just corporations.
I think it's wealthy individuals, it's corporations.
and I'm not blaming them.
I don't think that's like, I don't think they're evil.
I don't think corporations are evil,
but I think people's perception
that they are who these decisions
are made to benefit is a growing dissatisfaction.
And that's where you see a lot in polling and also
in election results.
Not taking money from corporate PACs
as a talking point when it's true
is like by in a way, the most persuasive
characterization of a candidate it for independents, lean
Republicans, and flaming socialists, right?
And so, like, I think there's a
hesitation or a feeling from incumbents or a feeling from the
establishment of saying, like, oh, that's just a talking point
that, like, DSA wants you to buy into.
No, no, no.
You're Trump splitting voter, right?
Like, the guy who voted for Donald Trump and also
for Marie Perez, which which is a confounding
concept to me, but like their through
line, for better or worse, was actually not taking
money from corporate PACs, which is insane to me,
but also like the truth.
And so I think there's this real rejection
and across the board in a lot of these races,
that's been one of the big through lines.
Trump did an excellent job of positioning himself
as kind of for the little guy and against big corporations
and in a way that many of us find really confounding,
but he did it.
And he also did it against foreign wars
and a variety of other things, most of which he's
completely gone against, particularly in the second term.
But he managed to sell that.
And it was real.
And you're absolutely right.
I mean, I think that, particularly in the age of AI,
I think that people are seeing themselves and their
careers and their jobs and everything that they've
worked for being flushed away.
And they're floating along these rivers like Flotsam
and Jetsam and these rivers of economic uncertainty.
And why am I here, right?
And I think even this is true of the tax increases
that Democrats passed in Olympia, $9 billion last
year, the millionaire's tax, capital gains tax, whatnot.
It's like, well, what did I get?
And that's what incumbents are going to have to
message and figure out how to sell what they did.
Because is it impacting your rent?
Is it impacting child care?
No, no.
I mean, realistically, let's be honest.
One other, no, I'll save that actually.
Turn it over in the middle.
He doesn't want to hear me yap that long.
Well, I want to build on this because both of you mentioned
the concept of a fighter and someone who's going
to fight for them, which begs the question,
what does it look like when an incumbent or a
challenger is expressing, you know, I'm going to
fight for you, what does that tactically look like
Like, and when have you seen candidates express that well
and kind of in what ways?
Yeah, I mean, I think this is one of the big contrasts
that comes out of the, like, who you're choosing
to take money from piece.
This is a it's not just a it's just it's not just a talking
point right like choosing not to if you're if you're
going up against a lot of power and money and
institution and endorsements and you're actively choosing not
to take money from people that might willingly give it to you
that is like an active choice and certainly as a bloodthirsty
consultant my recommendation is typically take every
dollar you can get, right?
And yet, I think there is, one of the ways people
demonstrate well that they're going
to fight for you is by saying, I'm actively
not going to take money from these special interests,
these PACs, these corporations.
And that polls, by the way, extremely well.
And we've seen it across the country.
Candidates that take that position are winning everywhere.
The other piece that I think is really,
is fascinating to me personally, as we look at
Washington state's political dynamics specifically,
is that there's this kind of growing progressive
infrastructure that is putting real money and
power and boots on the ground in a way that, at least for the
time that I've been working in politics, I haven't quite
seen before.
I'm seeing Working Families Party
and Transit Riders Union union and Tech for Housing
and Tech for Taxes and groups I actually hadn't
even heard of before this election cycle who
I love like Progressive Victory show up and launch
canvases with 20 or 30 or 40 camp people and go out and
hit doors and be really good at it like they have trained they
They have practiced.
They have talked about it.
I'm used to sort of like the folks on my progressive side
being like, yeah, totally.
I will join you in a tweet storm about this issue all day.
And then like I talked to them about knocking on
doors and they're like, okay, that's not for me.
And so I'm seeing this growth of like really putting our
money where our mouth is.
a little self-interested here, but I think a part of
that is some of the PACs that we've talked
about in Seattle where we've made
the decision to say, we don't want to just rely on
when a handful of powerful unions that we love
are ready to make a decision to support a candidate.
We want to go out and raise money for ourselves.
And even sometimes when they're not that interested
in a candidate, like Katie Wilson had two
unions that endorsed her, right?
But we still managed to raise half a million dollars,
not quite your almost $2 million,
but half a million dollars to communicate on her behalf.
But that was a lot of progressive donors
and activists and organizations that typically might have
been tweeting on Bluesky or whatever, is
it still tweeting?
But they were like, no, no, no, I'm gonna put $10,000
where my mouth is.
That's something that's new, I feel like,
where they're responding to fighters
and they're saying, like, I get that this game requires
real money and power behind it, and I'm not just going to
let the other side do it.
Like, we're going to play our part, too.
That was super interesting to me.
No question.
I mean, there's a lot of energy on the left.
I mean, and I think the rise of the Democratic Socialist,
you know, which, you know, a decade ago was
kind of isolated to Bernie Sanders, right?
But now this is a real thing, and in the 43rd District,
it's probably a third of the voters, you know, because
this is billed as a 43rd District debate, right?
So we should probably touch on that.
But, you know, it is a real segment of the
primary electorate.
I mean, they've more or less taken over the Democratic Party
and most of the Seattle LDs.
And I think progress and evolution are a
good thing, frankly.
And I personally would like to see a European
multi-party system, but as the political science
student I once was, but we are in a two-party system,
and we're fighting over what the heart and the soul of
the Democratic Party is, And I think that's a
debate worth having.
But I also think that this is happening because, you know,
it's not just in this race.
It's in the 46th and Gerry Pollet.
It's in the 32nd with Lauren Davis.
It's in the 23rd with, you know, Tarra Simmons.
It's, you know, this is happening kind of
all over the place.
It's the Amy Walen race.
It's in a variety of places.
And I think this is one reason this is happening
is that Democrats have had a very healthy majority
in Olympia for decades in the statehouse since 2016,
17-ish in the state senate.
And there's basically a lack of a functional Republican Party.
If this was an era where we were like, oh, we need this
one seat, you know, like don't fuck with this type of thing.
Like, you know, we're just going to hike it up and, you know,
support this person.
I mean, you know, 10 years ago, there
was Democrats in the state, in the state legislature that were
anti-choice, that were anti-gay, that were, you know, anti-every
tax, that were anti-virtually everything that most people
in this room probably believe in.
And all of those people are gone.
I I mean, you know, it's funny
because it's like some of the people that are now labeled
as being, oh, they're so conservative as a Democrat.
It's like 10 years ago they would have been
a flaming liberal.
But the center has changed and the center has shifted.
And that's not a bad thing, but it just we have to
recognize it is what it is.
There's no functional Republican Party in the state.
And so the tension is becoming versus what
kind of Democrat are you?
Are you a moderate establishment Democrat or are you a
progressive fighter Democrat?
And that coalition shifts around a variety of issues, around
taxation, around public safety, are probably the two
biggest areas I see in the party right now,
but sometimes other things.
Yeah, one little tiny point I want to make,
and then obviously we'll get to these issues more later too,
but one of the surprising facts actually is the
Democratic Socialists in Washington State and Seattle
have actually not endorsed any of the challengers running
against incumbents this year.
And so I think the idea that that's a big part
of this here locally is just not true, which is...
Well, but not the organization, but the people.
Maybe, I mean, but my point is that it's a real contrast
between what you saw in New York,
where Brad Lander and Claire Valdez,
and that whole Mamdani slate was a full DSA Mamdani
slate of candidates with a very specific
prescription around DSA, and that is just, like,
not the dynamic here yet.
who knows if that'll change.
I'm not as up on the idiosyncrasies
of New York DSA versus Seattle DSA.
I will say I do a lot of work in Oregon as well.
DSA is a much bigger part of those intraparty challenges.
But I will also add there's much fewer intraparty challenges
in Oregon this year.
One of the reasons why, I think, is that the party there
has done a much better job of planting a flag on what
the places where they're gonna go out and challenge
Republicans. It was my first time and I found it
so different than what I'm used to in Washington
State but I went to the Democratic Party of Oregon's
conference this year because we were doing a ton of
work for their caucus and
it was like a it was a total rah-rah like I felt
like I was in a cult in a good way where they were really
gassing us up about like we're gonna go we're gonna take a
bite out of the senate majority leaders or the senate minority
leaders district we're probably gonna lose by 10 points
but we want to get it to five like it was like
it was it was like nasty and personal in a way that
I dug like it was like we're gonna go and make
it close in a district we we have no business making it
close in and we're going to raise a shitload of money to
do it.
And I was super into it.
Right. And I actually think that like a lot of the people
like me who might've been more on the like DSA progressive
leftist background, we're like, hell yeah, like let's
go. Right.
And part of it is too, they were like, and when
we get this super majority, we're going to enshrine
reproductive rights.
We're going going to tax the rich.
We're going to do all of these awesome things.
And so I guess it goes back
to your actual question, which was like, is there any evidence?
This is a question a while ago, whatever.
But is there any evidence that people
are dissatisfied with what we're approaching this
year? I think there's a bit of tension.
I feel tension.
I'm not dissing any of the historic
achievements that came out of Olympia when I say like, man,
I feel it's a bit of like a, it's an intense marshmallow
test. It's like, you need to care a lot about
this thing that maybe possibly potentially will
make an impact in your life some many years down
the road.
And that's a harder sell than I think I'm
getting in the places I do work like Oregon or New Hampshire,
where the battle lines are just a little bit clearer.
And I think a lot of these challenges,
one of the things I love about them is like,
man, they would be the first person on the bus
from Seattle to Yakima to go knock doors in the 14th LD.
If that was like meaningfully on the table
and we've just sort of like given up,
maybe that's not fair and you can correct me,
but I feel like genuinely, like we've just given up on
districts that Harris won.
I feel like that.
I feel that the interest groups have decided,
fairly or unfairly, we have enough Democrats.
Yeah, I think you're right.
And that's actually the point I'm making is like I –
there are – I mean, I don't want people to know this.
Like there are enough districts in Washington State that
Harris won in 2024 that if we won those at the local level,
we would have a supermajority.
I mean, I have a – What are we doing here, guys?
I have a candidate in the 18th legislative
district in Clark County.
Let me know when the next door knock comes.
Randi Knott, right?
And she is getting pummeled by the RIEs because they're
afraid that she's going to win.
And there's no help from the Democrats.
And she has not even been able to amass enough money from the
Democratic interest groups to send out a single piece of mail.
Not one.
Which is bullshit.
Keep calling people.
Keep calling the unions.
Keep calling all this.
You know, and so the Republicans are so freaked
out that this woman is going to win that they've now sent
out three pieces of mail.
And the interest groups are kind of like, well,
we have enough Democrats to pass whatever we need.
So whatever.
Yeah. And Harris won that district.
Absolutely. By four points almost.
We won the state senate seat.
And Marie Perez won that district by almost six points.
So, like, this is a district we could clean
house in if we wanted to.
I'm on your side on this one.
Tell me when the IE is on.
No, it's okay.
Call Kurt.
Yeah, you're not like me, man.
On that note, though, let's talk about some of
our local challengers.
But before doing that, I jotted this down.
A cult in a good way means it's a good cult.
Like it's working.
That is.
So whatever they're doing in Oregon, I'm scared.
Or we could take a few notes.
So, but taking us to, like, let's talk about some of
the challenges that's going on right now, because some
insurgents really are leaning on grassroots and labor networks,
but others are leaning on to tech, public safety, or
technocratic solutions, so fundraising and endorsements
between all of those may vary.
Now, are these Democratic challengers in Washington a
part of a coherent movement, or rather are they a patchwork
of local insurgencies?
And from that point, what do they
share, and how do they differ?
Yeah, I mean, I'll jump in.
Like, I don't think, in contrast to a place like
New York, I don't think they're a slate, right?
There was a much clearer, this is a slate of people that
are challenging incumbents, we're going to support all
of them, knock doors for all of them, raise money
for all of them in New York, that I just don't think
has materialized here in Seattle at all.
The mayor has endorsed a couple of folks, but it's
not across the board, and it's not nearly as cohesive.
What is interesting to me, though, on the flip
side of that, is the set of organizations that
have been willing to buy into those challenges.
It's groups like The Urbanist, Working Families
Party, AFT Washington was a surprise to me that endorsed
multiple challengers against incumbents as a union,
Tech for Housing, Tech for Taxes, Progressive Victory.
I could go on and on and bore you with acronyms.
But there is a shared infrastructure that
is willing to jump in and support challenges.
Just as interesting to me, although, on the other side,
is pretty much uniformly, larger unions have been
pretty much disinterested in any challenge,
regardless of the idiosyncrasies of the race,
who has more experience, what their voting record is.
Is by and large, large unions have pretty much
passed on every challenge, for the one exception,
I believe, of Amy Walen versus Jessica Forsythe,
where the contrast is so clear because of the
millionaires tax vote,
which I think gets to some other fundamental issues.
But pretty much everywhere else.
Tarra Simmons versus Daria Ilgen.
Ron and Will versus Jerry.
Kelabe versus Sharon Tomiko Santos.
I won't name all of them, but like pretty much across
the board, unions have chosen to back the incumbents.
And the same.
Lauren Davis, you know.
Yeah, Lauren Davis versus Imraan.
The same set of progressive groups have actually
backed pretty much all of the challengers.
And that speaks to this like bubbling and growing
infrastructure that I think is really fascinating.
The one other piece I want to add to that without
rambling too long is that I think the Democratic Party
as a vehicle for grassroots activism is pretty much dead.
Like there is no meaningful door knocking grassroots
campaign coming from the state Democratic Party or really
the caucuses of any kind.
For better or worse we could debate that instead
what we're seeing are these progressive organizations
like Working Families Party that are stepping into that vacuum
Common Power is another group that I think is super
interesting they helped a ton with Katie Wilson's
race and they really put their money where their
mouth is like those guys knocked like 30 000 doors
right which is a lot of doors in a local race like
this and that's actually like really interesting and it speaks
20 doors an hour do the math guys you know it's
like that's a lot of that's a lot of people it's
not just Bluesky warriors right like that's that's real boots
on the ground and I mean and and you know I I think that's
very true and I think that you can if you think about the 1960
1960s style organizing structure, right?
You had the Democratic Party
was the only multi-issue,
you know, kind of committee that worked on campaigns.
And then you had a variety of single issue, you know,
committees like, you know, the choice groups,
the environmental groups, whatever, you know, labor, et
cetera, that were single issue, but that did multiple functions,
right? And so now that there's all of these other,
in the new organizing model, kind of post-2000,
in a lot of ways, you're seeing multi-issue committees that
have multiple functions that are not the Democratic
Party and that are more appealing to people, frankly,
like some of the groups that you mentioned.
So the question is, are they a part of a patchwork
or is it a coherent strategy?
Yeah, I'm struggling with that question
because ultimately I think if you force me into one of them,
which is totally your job, I think I would ultimately say
it's a patchwork of candidates.
I don't necessarily see a slate.
I think it can become one, but it is not always one.
You know, I think there's a race specific, you know,
candidate specific things.
I've seen like a couple of times, I guess the one
example I might give was like Hannah and Kelabe and Sharon
Tomiko Santos in that seat.
They've kind of like gravitated a little bit
more towards each other as a little bit of a slate I
don't quite see that with like hannah and will or
hannah and ron in the 46th which is not like a
shot at any particular race I just I just don't
I guess I'm confidently saying like I don't really
see them as running as a slate really at all
I don't think they're approaching it but you also
have these Democratic incumbents that some of
whom may have strayed on one issue right you know
whereas like the Hackney race is about about public
safety right but he was fine on the millionaires
tax right you know for progressive so it depends on
it depends on the dynamics of the individual race
to a certain extent.
Is that an answer?
Sorry, I was trying.
I think you all are unpacking this really well
in a very interesting way.
And it does bring us to this matter of,
you know, our primary battles nationally
have produced some energizing upsets
and also costly intraparty wounds.
Washington's deep blue status doesn't,
changes, but doesn't eliminate general election risk
risk, or legislative costs.
So could repeated intraparty fights in Washington
weaken Democratic electoral prospects
or legislative effectiveness, or could they strengthen
accountability and policy innovation?
Yes.
Sorry, go ahead.
No, I mean, I think yes to both of your questions.
I mean, look, I think that challengers to incumbents are
a good thing as, you know, from a little D democracy
point of view, right?
I mean, obviously, if I'm working for somebody, I'm
like, oh, I don't want to even challenge you because
I want to win the race.
I mean, my job is to win, right?
And the easiest way to win is to not have a
candidate against you.
But, you know, from the little D democracy standpoint, are
there a lot of incumbents across America that are not
challenged that should be?
Absolutely. And this is on both parties.
This is on both progressives and
moderates and everything.
You know, should people be held accountable for their votes?
And should voters get a real choice?
Absolutely. Should they get it every
election? Absolutely.
Do they?
No. Almost never.
I mean, I live in the 46.
Gerry Pollet is my representative.
This is the first time I've ever had a chance to weigh in
on somebody against him, ever.
He was appointed to the seat.
Nobody meaningful ever challenged him.
And, you know, you may love him, you may hate him, but you
didn't really get an opportunity to replace him either way.
I mean, yeah, there's been challengers, but they've
been lame, you know.
So I think from a little D democracy point of view,
challengers are an excellent thing.
Now, can they cost you a seat?
I mean, would you have Marie Gluesenkamp Perez
if the incumbent hadn't lost her congressional race?
Debatable answer, probably not.
So, you know, and these things happen on both
sides of the aisle.
You know, if the wrong person, quote unquote, comes out of
the primary, does it change the dynamics of the race?
Absolutely. Now, do I see Republicans somehow having
a surge in Washington and taking back the House or
Senate? No.
I mean, again, lack of a functional Republican
Party in Washington was one of the points I made
earlier. They're probably the lamest I've ever seen them.
Yeah, I think I want to take this in a slightly different
direction, which is to say this idea that because Ron or Will
is challenging Gerry Pollet or Kelabe is challenging Sharon
Tomiko Santos or Hannah is challenging Jamie Pedersen,
The idea that those challenges are the reason that your
candidate in the 18th LD or Dimas in the 14th LD or in the
17th LD are not getting the kind of resources that they should
if we were serious as a party about growing our majorities.
That idea, like that decision, you said it earlier, was
a decision made about not feeling that growing our
majority is all that important.
We have the votes we need to get what we want.
I'm not blaming the folks that make those decisions.
It's your money.
It's your time.
It's your energy.
put it where you want.
My only problem with it is the only person that's
responsible for that decision is the person who made
it. Don't put that on us.
You made a call about your politics,
great. Own it.
And the reason I get so worked up
about that piece of it is I think that accusation
is fundamentally an admission that our party is fragile, that
it is so weak that a challenge to an incumbent of 20 plus
years grinds the whole damn thing to a halt.
And what I think a lot of challengers, or maybe this is
just me and I'm putting it on my challengers, are pushing for
is like can we reach for something a little bit
beyond the horizon that says there it's possible
to have a democratic party that is truly truly multicultural
multi-generational diverse in ideology and economic background
that could sustain more than just one thing at a time
that would be, I guess what I'm trying to say ultimately is
like, I think we are so reliant on the donations and the energy
of one or two major political stakeholders, whether they be
massive corporations or individuals or special
interests or labor unions, that without their
interest, we can't do anything.
And I don't blame them.
Like I think all of us in this room have taken
too many shortcuts.
Like we have relied on their
power and we have pretended or deluded ourselves into
thinking that their power is our power.
But it's borrowed power and if you
want power you have to take it yourself.
And for me, that's like the fundamental
charge here of like, can we dream of a party
that could sustain a big tent?
Like, I don't mean that as a cliche.
Like, I believe in a Democratic Party, as hot
takey as this might feel to many of my friends on
the progressive side as well, like I believe in a
Democratic Party that can sustain Marie Perez and
Hannah. Like that is my party.
I don't find that to be hypocritical at all and
I would challenge us to reach to not just 50 plus
1 but 60% of the votes and And to consign these MAGA
people to history by beating them so thoroughly.
That's what I want.
And I want to be with you, Dean, on winning in the 18th LD.
There's nothing I want to do more than run a kick-ass program
in the 18th LD, and I can't, and I find that to be outrageous
and absurd and unserious as a party that we're not planting a
flag and saying, Harris won this district by almost four points.
We should clean house.
What are we talking about that we're giving that a
pass and that your candidate can't even send a mailer?
Are you kidding me?
That's crazy.
So anybody wants to donate, randiknott.com.
But, no, I mean, seriously.
That's absurd.
I think we're in total agreement here.
I mean, and I tell my candidates all the time, you
have to chart your own course.
You have to, you know, create your own destiny.
And I also agree with you that, you
know, that we, you know, in a two-party system, which
we are for better or for worse, that we should be
able to sustain both visions.
and, you know, a bird needs two wings to fly, and I'm
fully supportive of that.
And, you know, it just has to be the right
wing in the right place.
You know, and, you know, there's lots of very prominent
Washington politicians that started by beating
incumbents, you know.
Bob Ferguson.
Bob Ferguson, Gary Locke, Greg Nickels all beat
incumbents in their first race.
Fun fact you know and so it's not these are these
are people that beat incumbents of their own party
and so this isn't necessarily a new thing I think what
the new thing is this year is how many there
are and it's an unprecedented number that are so
well funded they're running serious campaigns
campaigns, whether or not the interest groups are part of it.
Like this Will Dreher guy comes out of nowhere and raises
$280,000 in five minutes.
I mean, Ron Davis, who has been a
fixture of Seattle politics, raises $150,000 or so.
I mean, these are real challengers.
This isn't some guy that puts his name on
the ballot that raises $10,000.
You know, these are real people that are running real
campaigns and it's impressive.
- It's no Goodspaceguy, that's for sure.
- One other piece I wanna add, at risk of like,
I know you have more questions, but one other piece
I wanna add is like,
I believe fundamentally, this is gonna keep happening.
This isn't going away.
We're not gonna stop seeing Democratic on
Democratic challengers unless the Republican
Party wakes up tomorrow and decides it's
gonna be serious and start competing
in Washington State, like which I don't believe
will happen and so part of why I bring that up is
like we've got to figure out how to be able to have
good fights righteous fights fights where we
disagree and I go to the mat with you which we're
on the opposite side of a fight you're working
for Jamie I'm working for Hannah.
Cool. Let's go to the mat.
And then tomorrow I want to wake up, win or lose.
And I want to help you in the
18th. And that is, that is what we have to be
about. And I am like, I am begging.
This is like my mantra in the morning when I wake up,
I am begging people to chill out and just see the bigger picture.
We will fight today.
I am counting on you tomorrow.
That's not a future thing.
Several years down the road, that's literally tomorrow.
And we have to find a way to just be humans with each other
and hold that tension and fight really viscerally
and still love each other afterwards.
And if you want to look at like, oh, we beat Ron,
or we beat Hannah, or we beat Kelabe,
or we beat Jessica Forsythe and that's it,
you are missing the forest for the trees, man.
They are tapping into something real
and you have to recognize that and appreciate that.
Or I guess we can just lose our democracy,
which is actually how I feel about this.
I think the downside of not figuring out
how to do this well,
practicing fighting with one another well,
is that we just don't have a democracy afterwards.
For any of you that have kids, it's like
having siblings, right?
They're not always on the same page.
And we can practice politics in a way where we can disagree
and not be disagreeable.
And I think that's what we should all aim towards, right?
And, you know, I think we've, you know, I think many of
us that are practitioners have accomplished that, not
all, but I think many of us have accomplished that.
And I think the electorate needs to be able to
have these conversations.
I mean, you know, like Tim Burgess and Kshama Sawant were
elected on the same ballot by the same voters, and they're
running citywide, right?
I mean, that means there are people that voted for both.
And those are two very competing visions.
And, you know, that's okay.
And we can have those conversations.
Because I was one of them.
I was a Sawant and Burgess voter.
And you can have those tensions.
And I think those tensions are healthy and they're good.
And these are good things in democracy.
But her behavior after she got elected,
I'm going to have some disagreement with.
Remorseful.
I mean, the nice thing about elections
is you can fix them afterwards.
Well, this is an exciting night for me.
I've never met a Sawant and Burgess voter.
Wow. So we've talked about New York a little bit.
Now I actually have a question about New York.
Who wrote this question?
Is Seattle New York?
Obviously not.
But to draw on that, thank you.
I wish you'd be proud of who we are.
Better transit.
But drawing on that, Katie Wilson.
Better pizza.
We do have better pizza.
Katie Wilson just endorsed Hannah Sabio-Howell and Ron Davis
right after Mamdani scored huge political wins with his slate
when the insurgent congressional candidates he
backed went three for three, knocking off Democratic
incumbents in the New York City primaries.
So how do you see Wilson's decision to
intervene in these races, and how important are the
outcomes of these races for her political future?
Yeah, I can jump in.
I should disclose, too, like I worked on her IE.
I have actually never met Katie Wilson, so I have zero insight
into her psychology at all.
but I'm going to pretend I do, which is to say, I think
part of how she got elected is without any real major
special interests making her campaign happen.
And because she got elected without them, I think
rightly she doesn't owe them anything.
And so to me, this isn't that surprising.
I understand the comparison to
New York.
You'd have to ask her if that was like the main
leading factor, certainly like post hoc, ergo propter hoc,
like it happened after, so therefore it was because of it.
But ultimately what I think this is about is she sees in those
two candidates a similarity to her of people who are running
righteous progressive challenges to incumbents
do not have the support of any of the kind of main
institutional progressive establishment forces
that also didn't support her and I think there's
a little bit of like I see in you a little bit of myself and
I want to support that person and lover or hater like
that's her psychology.
I think there's a I think there's like a really positive
thing to that which is like real tough change does require
a little bit of tension with the status quo.
Like if it were easy to get big stuff done uh it
would have happened already and you're necessarily
going to ruffle some feathers with with establishment
players whenever you try to do something meaningful and
so I think we could use a little bit more of like
a you guys didn't help me so I don't owe you
anything mentality next time maybe you'll help her
but I'll be more crass I think she was getting too
much from her base for not weighing in and I
think she was responding to
the people that got her there which is fair I mean you know we
all have our constituencies and And I think she was
responding to hers.
I'll also say that, you know, if you have, you know, the big
brass ones to go up against the Senate majority leader,
he better win, you know.
And so we'll see because he's going to win that race.
Now, as a follow up to both of you, I mean, what does it mean
specifically for Mayor Wilson's political future based on the
outcome of some of these races?
How much do you think those are tied?
I think she'll be judged on what she does for the city.
And frankly, I'm rooting for her.
I live in Seattle.
I have a house in Seattle.
My kids are in school in Seattle.
I want her to do well.
I want every mayor of Seattle to do well,
whether or not I think that they should be there or not.
And I'm rooting for her.
and for the next three years, I'm going to do what
I can to support her and then I'll judge her then.
If she does a fantastic job, I'll be like, well,
I'm not going to take on a challenger against you
because you made Seattle a better place.
And ultimately, if she does that,
and I hope she does,
then she should be reelected with 100% of the vote.
Yeah, I think I agree with that to a certain extent.
I mean, part of the subtext here is like an implicit
threat that if you make an endorsement in these races and
then you lose, that whether it's the Senate majority leader
or Gerry Pollet or anyone else, that they're going to
punish you for that decision.
I think in every accusation like that, there's also a
confession of a kind of politics that's very transactional
and very personal, and for me, very dark and unfortunate.
Like, I don't think you as a Senate majority leader or
as a state representative or as a state senator of any
kind, like leave Pedersen out of it in particular.
Like, I think punishing your political opponents is a
like, it's just bad for me, bad politics, bad democracy.
you are elected by the people of Seattle to make
Seattle a better place.
If you're feuding with the mayor of Seattle because you
didn't like how she endorsed, like that is a transactional,
personal, negative politics that I just don't agree with.
It may be true.
It probably is true.
Is that true on the reverse, though?
I mean, you know.
Is she punishing?
I mean, this goes both ways here.
But I don't know.
Is the mayor?
But let me give you an example then.
I mean, if you want to go there.
Like, Mayor Wilson was actively pushing for a policy
championed by the Master Builders Association that
donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose her.
And yet she was still doing that because she
thought it was right.
Now, it caught flack with her base and it might be dead.
But my point is, clearly not a transactional politician.
Otherwise she would have said, oh, guys that just
spent hundreds of thousand dollars against me,
click, leave me alone, right?
So I think there's a, I'm just going to
push back on that talking point because I think
there is a better politics we can aspire to.
And if you're admitting to the
idea that I will actively punish the city of Seattle for the
mayor's decision to endorse against me, that is a
confession. I don't think that's what Pedersen's
saying, by the way.
I think he's better than that.
I hope he's better than that.
But I would find that to be an objectionable
style of politics.
How do you punish your own electorate?
That makes no sense.
But that being said you know to take
personalities out of politics is impossible I mean how do
you take people out of politics but we just we I
just went on a whole tirade about how we need to fight
hard and go to the mat together and then wake up in
the morning and say I will knock doors with you in
the 18th LD or in the 17th LD or the 14th LD.
The difference is I mean that.
I genuinely mean that.
And I will have zero doubt in my mind if Pedersen
is reelected that I will go, not that he would
ever ask me, and help him with whatever progressive
policy he's pushing.
To me, it's a righteous,
important fight that we do because that's democracy baby.
Like it's all good.
And I just I'm asking, I'm begging as
a person with no power that we aspire to that.
No, no, apologies needed.
That was beautiful.
Moving us along though, so we know that we've
talked a little bit about this matter, but persistent primaries
can prompt sitting lawmakers lawmakers to move left, signal
more boldly, or double down on pragmatism to keep coalitions
together and pass legislation.
And Washington's near supermajority raises the stakes
for internal caucus strategy.
Now if challengers keep gaining traction, how do you think
that will change the behavior of sitting Democratic
legislators in Olympia during next session?
me first okay um I would say I think it could
be a real sea change in attitude and this is also
kind of how I felt a little bit about Katie in general and now
the I will admit uh the jury's still out on the success of
that right like it's been a somewhat rocky first six months
but the politics that that Mayor Harrell presented
I'm not even really blaming him for but it's based
in this idea of if you satisfy the political
stakeholders you've done enough to win re-election
I've always not quite believed that and I think
what Katie was calling on is like doesn't matter
if you've answered the phone call at midnight and
done what these individual interest groups want
you to do, you actually have to deliver something
meaningful that voters want you to do.
I think that's pretty much the same basis
as the challengers in general because it kind of calls
the question on this whole house of cards, this whole
kind of fragile ecosystem that says as long as
as you ultimately answer the phone call and vote the right
way when the whip cracks, you will be protected.
If that's no longer true, it does change behavior.
I think, of course, it does.
And it changes people's calculus.
We can all disagree.
I would say probably for the better.
Like if you are if you feel fundamentally accountable
more towards outcomes and less towards whether you've
satisfied interest groups, I think that is a better
way for democracy to work.
And that is the question I think that the challengers represent.
And it's so hard.
I mean, look, I really get it.
Like, I think politics is the art of holding tension between
what is and what could be.
And part of what we're feeling right now is, like, we want
to hold on to this status quo because we're so fearful
of what could come after it.
And my point is, my belief is, like, the harder you hold, the
tighter you grip, the more blood drains from your fingers and
the more it might just slip.
right and ultimately I think there's just a better
balance of ambition and um and just and and feeling
like we've done enough and and so I I do really
believe that like some of these challengers not
all of them even need to win but a few of them and frankly maybe
we've already actually seen the impact of this.
Like I would argue that some of
these legislators in the legislative session already
reacted to the concept, to the potential of getting
a challenger.
Hot take, would Jamie Pedersen
ultimately have voted against the estate tax if he wasn't
fearful of getting a challenger?
You tell me, I don't know, I'm not actually
asking you.
The point is...
How would I know?
I'm not I'm not really
trying to go there.
My point is just to say, I think people are
already reacting to this reality of like,
oh, I need to like step up my game.
Something I heard in the Seattle Times article, for example,
is like, I'm reacquainting myself with the district.
Like, hell yeah, dude.
Like, you got to go knock on doors.
That's great, whether you win or lose.
Like, a lot of my friends support Pedersen,
not jabbing at that at all.
But like, I think it's awesome that you've got to go
run a real campaign.
My friend Dean gets to make a shitload of money.
Everyone wins, right?
Like, no one loses.
Consultants for president.
No, I mean, there's a lot of things that you
said that I agree with.
I mean, the satisfying interest group thing.
I mean, that's why Greg Nickels lost a generation ago, right?
I mean, you know, these are dynamics that have
presented itself before.
And, you know, if you think about these politics, I
mean, I think that there's a lot of these races that are
moderates versus Democrats.
I mean, clearly that dynamics playing out in 43rd and
in the Amy Walen race.
But there are other races where there's other things
and dynamics at play, like the Tarra Simmons, which is
about her personal behavior.
And, you know, and I think that these are fair
conversations to have.
I mean, she has an amazing personal story about how she
overcame her personal situation and then got to the legislature
and kind of got to bed on her personal side of the equation.
Not on the legislative side, but the personal side.
And, you know, and then you have Melanie Morgan down in Pierce
County where she has a 98 percent voting record with labor
and they didn't endorse her.
And so it's like, you know, you have these these other
situations that aren't neatly described as progressive
versus versus moderate that are also interesting.
The David Hackney situation is interesting.
The Lauren Davis race is interesting.
And so these are things that are not neatly carved up into left
versus moderate, that dynamic that we love to put things into.
We talked a little bit about endorsing organizations
like unions, like business and other funders.
How do you see business, labor and other funders
deciding between incumbents and between incumbents and
challengers in Washington state?
And what do you think those choices indicate
about the Democratic Party?
I think the business community is lost in a lot
of ways because, you know, historically they would
gravitate to the Republicans.
A lot of more Republicans personally.
And they're trying to figure out a way to be relevant in this
one-party state that they're now in and and I think we
we act like oh Washington state's been blue and you know
and because we've been we won the presidential race here since
you know since 1988 right But in the legislative level,
they have been relevant for a long time, and they've had
the state senate off and on until about eight years ago.
Right. And so so they've had power and they haven't really
figured out a way to equate to this new normative reality.
And, you know, where they'll fund Republican challengers
against Democrats that vote with them more often than not.
And so then that makes Democrats even less
likely to be with them.
So they're really kind of lost in a lot of ways.
And, you know, and labor has their own challenges.
It's like, you know, like how they, you know, in the
mayor's race, you know, is that Katie Wilson
kind of came out of those types of movements,
although not directly labor, did not get labor union
endorsements right off the bat.
So it's like, how do they acquaint, you know, like the
politics are changing, but the interest groups are kind
of in a lot of ways locked into like old school D versus
R fights because that's how they're kind of oriented and
they need to change as well.
Yeah, I think that's spot on.
I mean, and part of this too is like Washington's in this
weird spot where a lot of the other places we're kind of
talking about, like New York has been solidly a trifecta
state for I don't know how long, like decades at this point.
Washington State I mean we had a Republican Senate majority
in 2017 so it's not that long for us to go I mean it's kind of
quite remarkable like to go so dramatically from we are a split
chamber Republican Democrat chamber to suddenly now
we're like basically a super majority and the
fights we had not so long ago like somebody can
reasonably have started their career thinking of
themselves in the dynamic of I'm going to be
battling Republicans to now at this point,
like those guys have no power and we can ignore
them entirely.
That's a, that's actually kind of
a jarring, uh, I think a lot of the incumbents are
caught in that actually, where they're like,
dude, what do you, what do you want from me?
Like I did all this cool stuff
that would have never been possible when I first
got elected.
And then it's like, yeah, bro.
But like you got elected and when they're Republicans,
we're way past that.
I mean, Amy Walen's district, 28% Republican vote.
Vancouver, Washington, 38% Republican vote.
I mean, it's just like, it's kind of crazy.
It's been a really dramatic shift,
and I think a lot of people have felt like the
ground moving under them, and I have some empathy
to that of like, oh my God, I don't really know
where to put my next foot.
You know, you brought up a really interesting point
that we're not talking about today,
because it's really not, it is still D versus D,
it's just not challenger versus incumbent.
I am seeing the business community
actually spending a lot of money in open seats for Democrats,
whether it's in the 24th legislative district
or the 42nd legislative district,
where you are seeing the sort of moderate business community
playing in a significant way for these open seats.
And I kind of am a little surprised by
somebody smarter than me can tell me why,
but I don't really see a progressive vehicle
on the opposite side of that.
I sort of expected that to be, whether it's New Direction
or a different pack or something like that,
that would typically play that role.
We're kind of not seeing that.
What it reminds me of, sadly, is like 2023 in Seattle, where
we had more moderate candidates running that had pretty
significant spending from real estate, master builders, other
sort of those set of business community interests.
And labor, again, this sounds
like criticism, but it's really just me stating
reality like took a pass on that year.
I think there was maybe a total of like
ten thousand dollars of spending across all seven
district-wide races.
They sort of took a pass on
that and then we saw progressives like really
lose in a big way.
I'm not trying to make Seattle the
center of the universe and like apply that to everywhere
but I kind of, it's just a it's not a contrast
I'm just building on your point about like whether the business
community is lost in the forest.
They might just be like playing the long game in a way that will
work out really well for them, where they could run the table
on a bunch of legislative races that no one's paying attention
to because they don't happen to fall on the I-5 corridor.
Because the progressive community,
including the progressive establishment community,
is so focused on, I don't know if I want
to blame my challengers, but I think they're focused
on like millionaires tax, defending against no
hate in Washington.
Well, Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.
Like there's a bunch of other stuff that we care about
that I think we're just like leaving a lot
of battles unfought.
I don't have a crystal ball.
Talk to me after the election.
But I do worry as a progressive, like, that
feels like a bad dynamic.
But anyway, I mean, some of these people are
people I work for, so.
Well, it is my job to make Seattle the
center of the universe.
But, and I say that also knowing that our local issues that
we're facing here from runaway housing costs, zoning reform,
the millionaire's tax, policing, public safety debates, how
we're responding to the crises that the federal administration
has put us in, have animated a lot of our recent primary
fights in Washington.
So which Washington-specific or federal issues over the
last few years are most responsible for provoking
these intra-party challengers?
I think it's just a lame response of the
National Democrats, right?
Like, they just suck.
You know?
They're awful.
I mean, has anybody been proud of anything that's
come out of Chuck Schumer's mouth in the last two years?
I haven't.
Hakeem Jeffries?
Any of them.
I've just gone home at night
and been like, what are these people doing?
Nothing.
Look, I know enough about the
legislative process to know that they don't
have a lot of levers, but try.
You know?
I just don't...
They're not my heroes.
Yeah, I would, I actually totally agree with
what you're saying.
I would probably add to that, like, a little generic
affordability in general, but I'll specifically target
housing and childcare to me, feel like issues that I'm
pretty depressed about as a political operative.
Like, we have, this is something I find really hard
for incumbents to talk about, like you've delivered
hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable
housing and yet my lived experience yeah maybe I'm
just a whiny millennial but like my lived experience
is my rent doubled in that time and so it's
just a hard sell to me to be like we did it
mission accomplished I did the thing and I will
now a little bit more seriously I would argue
like there's not been enough of the conversation
focused on like what makes housing cheaper and
faster to build like I would actually argue
there's a missing like we attacked this mainly
from a subsidy policy lens and not enough from a
fundamental permitting reform, building reform, environmental
review reform lens.
Maybe that's too nerdy.
But that's to me a big thing.
We have done a lot of this to ourselves.
I mean, try to get a building permit in the city of Seattle.
I've done it twice.
It sucks.
It takes years.
It's horrible.
And if you're building something, that costs you money.
Right. I mean, like all of these
things, these progressive reforms that we've done, and
they're all good things for the environment, for whatever
cause that we champion them for.
But at the end of the day, they end up adding to the cost.
And just be real about it.
Acknowledge it.
You know?
And at the end of the day, some things we should
add for the cost for.
like we're giving people living wage it's like well maybe maybe
restaurant prices are going to rise because we're actually
paying people in the back of the house
a living wage that's a good thing in my opinion and
maybe you need to go out one less time a week because of that
deal with it you know but but at least be honest
about it so yeah I I think I think housing is a
a big part.
The other one I would say is childcare
for very similar reasons.
We've attacked childcare from like a subsidy
lens of we're going to expand, you know, working
connections, the program that gives families, you know,
subsidies for childcare programs.
But fundamentally, we've also like made
it a lot more expensive to open a childcare center
in the state of Washington.
And I don't want to to get too policy wonky about
it, but the point is, I think those two issues in particular,
there are real critiques that the status quo has done a bad
job of addressing those issues.
Maybe we've sacrificed in some respects.
There's a tug and pull.
On one end, there's the quality
of the thing, right?
High quality early learning for
kids. On the other end, there's the affordability
of the thing.
Maybe we've just done a little bit
too much towards the quality and not enough
towards the affordability.
Like I'm not a candidate for office,
but like, I just think there's a fundamental problem when
you tell people I'm passing a capital gains
tax, it's a quarter million dollars a year.
And also by the way, your childcare went
from, I wrote a report for a candidate that was like
a child care plan and I put in some numbers that
I had pulled from 2021 and it said child care in the
city of Seattle costs $16,000 a year and then the person I asked
to look at it was like hey bro I can't file child
care for less than $50,000 a year in the city of
Seattle and I was like well right so there's just a
problem here I think with those issues and that's
that is feeling a lot of this.
I mean, you know, what's the line?
It's like, you know, you can have
something cheap, fast, or good, and you get two of
the three, you know, and you don't get all three.
Put that on a mailer.
Well, building us on this point, you know, we've
talked a little bit about how challengers are facing
barriers. They don't have institutional ties
and connections to big organizations yet.
They have lower name recognition,
and that means often a steeper fundraising hurdle.
Yet, we are seeing some of those challengers leverage online
fundraising and lean into those activist networks to close the
gaps. So practically speaking, what barriers from fundraising,
endorsements, community recognition, organizational
capacity are really constraining challengers in
Washington and how have you seen successful challengers
overcome those barriers?
So real quick I'm gonna do something totally
inappropriate which is to say we have ten minutes left
for this conversation.
That's a really great question.
I think maybe we could ask the audience one
quick question.
Sorry this is totally messed up.
You didn't put that on my
paper. I didn't know we were doing audience questions.
We could ask the audience one question and then and then try
to close.
Oh I'd love that.
Okay, all right.
I'm so sorry.
Okay. I'm going with the first hand that just went up
So going back to the last thing you said, Steve, that
fallacy and bargain on the supply side, which requires
that business continues to supply more of the cost to
fund our social solutions.
And labor is complicit in that because at the end of
the day, it's county and city employees that are
benefiting, not employees.
How do you square that?
You're putting me on the hot seat, man.
That's right.
That's what friends do.
I love it.
You said that earlier.
You're so right.
Look, I think we have to understand our friends are
still people we negotiate with.
We don't just give them everything they want.
That was the answer.
I know.
And as much as I love, like, I love a lot of
these advocacy groups and unions and organizations.
And yet, it's a negotiation.
And the fundamental thing that we're negotiating towards is
better outcomes for people.
And we can't sacrifice at the altar of a good deal for our
political partners an actual product that is good for people.
That's a hot take.
It's probably why I'll never be in elected office.
that's my genuine belief.
So I work for seven teachers unions around the country.
And some of my less progressive friends say,
you know, well, they stand, you know,
they fight for bad teachers.
We all know who the bad teacher is
and they're standing up for them.
And like, well, that teacher paid dues into the union,
you know, and they're entitled to representation too,
you know, and you're misunderstanding
misunderstanding what the point of a labor union
is and an association and you know they they need
to have somebody that has their back you know with a lawyer
and and legally and and you have to understand the role and you
could disagree with that bad teacher quote-unquote um but but
it doesn't mean that that role doesn't need to be played and
and you know and to understand what everybody's role
is in the ecosystem.
And that's okay.
I'm going to take another question.
I saw a hand here.
Thank you, gentlemen.
First of all, if you'd like to feel a sense of welcome
to the caucus, anytime, please do join us.
Speaking of the ecosystem, you both give it your opinions
and to direct candidates who say,
win races, and in my experience, consultants are very
focused on winning or losing in the battle.
So, like, what accountability or responsibility do you feel were
your candidates' behaviors once they actually are in office?
I think that's a fair question, and it's something
I struggle with personally.
There are candidates that I have not taken on because
they're too far away from my personal views.
However if you do that too much you don't have any
clients so um so you have to
you know you have to be careful I mean you know like your firm
does Fetterman and MGP and some people that are a little
different than your seattle clients you
know and I've worked for people that are a little out
of step with my personal views and so so you know it's it's a
challenge you know it is fundamentally a challenge
and um you know like I I don't work for anybody
that's anti-choice I don't work for anybody that's
anti-gay um I have my lines that I that I don't
cross um some things are a little grayer and and
I I have to limit it to that I I you know I I don't
work for anybody's anti-union that's the other thing
and you can you can view that as what under
the lens is what you will um but um and I've not taken on people
a second time you know like you He went in there and
did something bad.
I used to represent David Sawyer in Olympia.
And then when he went down there and did bad things,
I exited stage left.
You know, so.
Yeah, I think about it pretty similarly.
I mean, you mentioned Fetterman.
That's an example of a client we worked for when he
first ran as a progressive.
And then once he got into elected office, I won't opine on
why, did not turn out that way.
And we dropped him as a client.
I think all of us struggle with this exact question.
For me, the through line for my work is about,
it's my belief in a big tent party, ultimately,
that I want to work for the people
that I think are the most representative
of the community that they're running in.
That's the through line for me and it's why I don't lose
any sleep over these races.
It doesn't mean I don't feel any consternation over them.
I disagree virulently with a lot of my clients
on politics all the time.
And yet the through line for me is I feel like they are the
best representative of their district that I can make happen.
If I am wrong, I am happy to be wrong.
Right. If somebody else can win, and
this is actually just, I'm just bringing us back to the point.
I don't find it offensive at all that somebody runs
against Marie Perez or Adam Smith or Marilyn Strickland
or Chris Pappas or Maura Sullivan, like Deb Haaland,
like all of my clients.
It's not offensive to me at all.
I think if you can win, if you can better represent this
community, like I will, I will literally, I will knock
on doors for you tomorrow, the day you beat me, because
I want to win that district.
I'm doing what I think is right.
I'm doing what I think can get us that vote in Congress.
if I'm wrong I will be the first volunteer on
your on your docket that is my mentality about it
and I I get it if people don't love that I'll
give you an example I got hired by a New York
group that wanted to save Republicans in Nebraska
that were anti-death penalty Nebraska has a unique
legislature which are unicameral one house and
they're all nonpartisan so these races were all death
you know anti death penalty Republicans versus pro
death penalty Republicans and they were all Republicans
they were horrible on every other issue and but
you know it's kind of like well looking at the choices
choices, this person sucks and this person sucks less,
okay, that's okay with me.
And, you know, so it's, again, representing their community.
It's, you know, figuring out is that a choice that's
okay with your values.
And, you know, I mean, even if I was there myself,
I don't think I'd agree with 100% of my own vote.
So, you know, so you do your best.
And then I just want to add this question.
OK, yeah.
I'll just wait.
I want to make sure we have our next questions go forward
in the back.
It's really nice to hear something about party structures
going up and everything.
I have a saying that in Seattle, there are only two people that
vote in Seattle.
A million people could vote in Seattle,
but I don't believe there are only two major voters--
The Stranger and Seattle Times.
So when we talk about door knocking or party structure or
even policies and everything, how do you break?
And it's something I want you all to address with boldness.
You know, it's not wrong to call out the media.
How do you now tell people to break away from the two
major voters in Seattle?
Because they play a major role in wherever
we have it in Olympia, or wherever we have
in City Council, wherever we have in King County.
How do you address that now in this day and age?
- Woo boy.
- Great question.
- Sure, I'll do it.
Look, I think this goes back to me
to a point I made before, which is that borrowed power
is always just borrowed power.
And as a progressive community, we've been too lazy in letting
other people make decisions that we need to make for ourselves.
We've been too complacent in letting single newspapers,
cheat sheet, be a replacement for knocking on doors
and raising money and talking to our neighbors.
And, you know, is this the year that breaks?
I have no idea.
I will just say like at the end of the day voters
vote not papers and yeah like typically it's made
a big impact I'll go to the mat and see if we can
if we can change that you know and I just think
my pitch to everyone is like take over your own
agency and this isn't about The Stranger like
Like, The Stranger is whatever it is.
To me, this is about everything that I've been
trying to talk about.
Like, as a Democratic Party, I think we have
taken too many shortcuts.
We have just been like, in some ways, it's like, I want to
complain about the decisions that labor unions make,
but I haven't put my money where my mouth is.
Like, I'm still relying on their money to win
any race in this city.
So like who do I who am I to complain?
At the hand that feeds me right until I put my money
where my mouth is and I try to change it my damn self
And and I think that's what this comes down to me
like it's a reckoning about
There's a salience in the party right now that we're we're
subservient to just a handful of individual stakeholders
corporations individuals unions special interests
If we want to change that, it's going to be
a lot of work to do it.
But I think the upside is, the place I want to end personally,
is I am not interested in a party that is pushing
for 218 votes in the House or 50 votes in the Senate.
I want a party that can win 60 votes in the Senate
and 280 votes in the House.
I am pushing for a party that is stronger than one decision
maker. I don't want it to be one point of failure that if
one individual political director says, oh, I
don't know, I've got other priorities this year, that
suddenly we can't act.
To me, that's nonsense.
And I think we've all just called the question on
our own complacency.
Maybe we're satisfied with it and we prefer to
just diffuse our responsibility to somebody
else. I think ultimately this is a real test of that
and we'll see.
And I think that's a question that Seattle
is going to grapple with and who knows.
In any other city I work in, this wouldn't even be
a question.
There's no powerful force like this in Portland,
Oregon, right?
But it is something that's
unique here.
And I like to think Seattle's not like
so exceptional that it's unique that one paper
will always have power, or the other paper will always
have power.
I think it can conform to the same political
realities that literally every other city in
this country conforms to.
And there's also like four newspapers in Portland, you
know, like why do they have more for half the population,
which is kind of crazy.
But, you know, thinking about that question and it's very
interesting because, you know, I don't know about legislature,
but for city council and mayor, if you didn't get the
Seattle Times or The Stranger, you didn't get through, you
know, for the large extent with one notable exception,
which was Teresa Mosqueda.
Right. And and she beat that system.
And do you know why?
Because she actually ran a real campaign, you
know, and she had real support and real organizing.
I mean, she came out of labor and was an amazing labor
union organizer and she busted her ass and did it
and came out of that primary.
And I have a lot of I have a lot of respect for her and
admiration for her for doing it.
But by and large, the Politburo on the left and
Politburo on the right have picked our candidates.
And sometimes in the general, one wins.
Sometimes the other wins.
And I think it's a little absurd.
But you're right.
And no other major city in America does
this exist except here.
And I think that takes us to time.
So everyone, can we give it a hand to Steven and Dean?
Thank you.