Seattle Also Elects A Socialist Mayor

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
So fascinating to me. On a national level when people are unhappy, they usually vote for the other party. But in these big urban areas Republicans aren't an option, so instead the shift goes further to the left.

As progressive as San Francisco is, we haven't elected a progressive Mayor in decades. In our election last year we elected, by SF standards, a real moderate and he's done a lot to turn the City around.

I try to think what differentiates cities like Seattle and NYC who will elect a socialist, and SF who won't.


What to know about Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson​


 
1779451222080.png
1779451241009.png
Seattle’s leftie-loonie new Mayor Katie Wilson admitted she was wrong to slam Starbucks and push for a boycott of the mega-coffee chain born in the now-dying City. Wilson, 43, issued a terse 'mea culpa' to the New York Times this week as questions swirl about whether the liberal Northwest city can attract and retain businesses, including Starbucks, which recently chose to expand its footprint in Tennessee.
It's now estimated that between 35 and 40% of all commercial and residential buildings in Seattle are nowvacant. That's a sinking ship that can't turn itself around, and it's well deserved.
 
cawacko said:
So fascinating to me. On a national level when people are unhappy, they usually vote for the other party. But in these big urban areas Republicans aren't an option, so instead the shift goes further to the left.

As progressive as San Francisco is, we haven't elected a progressive Mayor in decades. In our election last year we elected, by SF standards, a real moderate and he's done a lot to turn the City around.

I try to think what differentiates cities like Seattle and NYC who will elect a socialist, and SF who won't.


What to know about Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson​


Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about Seattle politics, nor little of San Francisco’s, other than a local history museum isn’t a priority, but from what you offered, and what I know of NYC, these candidates speak to voters bread and butter issues. To the average schmuck on the street working forty hours a week and a family to feed issues as public transit and better public schools sell, talk of millionaires fleeing the city and Margret Thatcher quotes don’t

I’d say Republicans don’t generally succeed in large urban areas because they have the reputation, even if not valid, of being the party representing rich white guys plus rural interests, and most of these areas have diverse populations. That plus the Democrats have established an entrenched party infrastructure the GOP lacks

And they are Democratic Socialists, not the Trotskyists the right loves to depict them as
 
archives said:
I don’t know anything about Seattle politics, nor little of San Francisco’s, other than a local history museum isn’t a priority, but from what you offered, and what I know of NYC, these candidates speak to voters bread and butter issues. To the average schmuck on the street working forty hours a week and a family to feed issues as public transit and better public schools sell, talk of millionaires fleeing the city and Margret Thatcher quotes don’t

I’d say Republicans don’t generally succeed in large urban areas because they have the reputation, even if not valid, of being the party representing rich white guys plus rural interests, and most of these areas have diverse populations. That plus the Democrats have established an entrenched party infrastructure the GOP lacks

And they are Democratic Socialists, not the Trotskyists the right loves to depict them as
Click to expand...
You're shifting the discussion. I never said anything about Republicans or these city's should vote for Republicans.

These big urban races often come down to (by local standards) a more moderate democrat vs. a progressive/dsa. These races are about local issues and competency; not R vs D and less about national culture wars (though they can certainly sneak in).

It's not like voters options are a DSA or a Republican.

So do urban more moderate democrats (and by moderate it usually means they aren't anti-police and they are open to new housing development) not care about kitchen table issues?
 
cawacko said:
You're shifting the discussion. I never said anything about Republicans or these city's should vote for Republicans.

These big urban races often come down to (by local standards) a more moderate democrat vs. a progressive/dsa. These races are about local issues and competency; not R vs D and less about national culture wars (though they can certainly sneak in).

It's not like voters options are a DSA or a Republican.

So do urban more moderate democrats (and by moderate it usually means they aren't anti-police and they are open to new housing development) not care about kitchen table issues?
Click to expand...
I thought “Republicans aren’t an option” was an inquiry as to why the GOP lacked a relevant presence in these elections.

I think in a lot of these elections the moderate candidate is largely the older traditional often incumbent figure while the more liberal one presents a new younger fresh image. The moderate is often focused on 24/7 nut and bolt realities, how much a program costs, while the other can be more promising not burdened discussing opportunity costs. If you want change, the later appears, though may not be, the way to go for seemingly the majority of voters

And all Democrats, moderate, or as you say progressive/socialists, never supported defunding police, funny how one misplaced slogan got so misrepresented
 
archives said:
I thought “Republicans aren’t an option” was an inquiry as to why the GOP lacked a relevant presence in these elections.

I think in a lot of these elections the moderate candidate is largely the older traditional often incumbent figure while the more liberal one presents a new younger fresh image. The moderate is often focused on 24/7 nut and bolt realities, how much a program costs, while the other can be more promising not burdened discussing opportunity costs. If you want change, the later appears, though may not be, the way to go for seemingly the majority of voters

And all Democrats, moderate, or as you say progressive/socialists, never supported defunding police, funny how one misplaced slogan got so misrepresented
Click to expand...
The battles are not over literally whether to abolish the police department.

The battles are over how much should we crack down on street and property crime, how hard should we prosecute it, how aggressively do we deal with homeless etc. Those are quality of life issues but they are also ideological ones.
 
The progression here will be, as it always is with Socialism...

Tax the Rich!
The Rich leave, avoid the tax, or eventually are no longer rich.

Tax corporations!
The corporations leave, avoid the tax, or go out of business.

Pay your fair share! Taxing now falls on the Middle Class.
The Middle Class leave or are no longer Middle Class.

We need more money!
Ask higher levels of government to bail them out.

With nobody left to tax, the city, state, nation, goes broke.
 
cawacko said:
The battles are not over literally whether to abolish the police department.

The battles are over how much should we crack down on street and property crime, how hard should we prosecute it, how aggressively do we deal with homeless etc. Those are quality of life issues but they are also ideological ones.
Click to expand...
I find that rather confusing

What I was saying that few really thought of not funding police, instead to look at reappropriating how money and efforts are spent within police departments. For example, don’t need to send multiple police units to deal with homelessness, drug overdoses, or all domestic disputes if you have social work personnel designed to handle such. In some cases this would even free up police to focus on more serious threats
 
archives said:
I find that rather confusing

What I was saying that few really thought of not funding police, instead to look at reappropriating how money and efforts are spent within police departments. For example, don’t need to send multiple police units to deal with homelessness, drug overdoses, or all domestic disputes if you have social work personnel designed to handle such. In some cases this would even free up police to focus on more serious threats
Click to expand...
I'll offer an example from SF. In 2020 I believe Chesa Boudin became D.A. He was well known as his parents were members of the Weather Underground. He was elected on a progressive platform including holding cops more accountable and putting less people in jail.

Within three years he was recalled because crime increased and people felt unsafe. Boudin called out people in City for turning to the right and falling for right-wing fear tactics.

So I'm not speaking about the theoretical debate over whether police officers should answer domestic violence calls. I'm speaking about how they speak about crime on the campaign trail and then how they handle it while in office.

In urban areas there is often a split between more moderates and progressives/dsa on this topic.
 
archives said:
Democratic socialists have been around for quite awhile, in fact, one of NYC’s greatest mayors, a Republican, was a democratic socialist. It is not the Trotskyist ideology you right wingers like to portray it as
Click to expand...
I haven't portrayed it as anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top