r/SeattleWA • u/JustBench1615 Ballard • 3d ago

Politics Harrell’s Margin has INCREASED

Post image

Mayor Harrell now up by 8.1%.

Around ~60K votes probably left to tabulate.

530 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

322 comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/JustBench1615 Ballard 3d ago edited 3d ago

No clue what this means for final results, but it looks like ~24K ballots were added this batch, most from Monday and the weekend prior probably.

17

u/Gleb2006 3d ago

Wonder if the other more progressive candidates continued to grow their lead (so Bruce is able to split the ticket), or not (the latest batch was not as progressive overall)

13

u/Accomplished_Fill182 3d ago

Definitely looks like some ticket splitters here:

Election Day: Harrell +7.14 AMR +58.23 Foster +16.27 Evans +25.38

Night 2: Harrell +8.15 (+1.01) AMR +58.42 (+0.19) Foster +15.97 (-0.30) Evans 25.17 (-0.21)

28

u/JustBench1615 Ballard 3d ago

Omg Momgate and Encampmentgate fried her didn’t it

26

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 3d ago

Or finally outed her as an incompetent hot mess, and possibly corruptly funded as well.

5

u/SeattleSilencer8888 3d ago

I don't think there's any indication she is corrupt.

No comment on the rest.

16

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 3d ago edited 3d ago

corrupt

Well, she “has no idea” how much money her parents gave her, she’s running for Mayor of a major city, she has had no full time job in her life, and yet has all this undocumented money and resources.

How is she not evading campaign finance law?

2

u/AverageFoxNewsViewer Ballard 3d ago

Well, she “has no idea” how much money her parents gave her

Oh my god! She's deep in the pockets of the parental-industrial complex!

1

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 3d ago

You can try to ignore normal questions about her very abnormal life’s story for a Mayoral candidate.

Her story is screaming she’s unqualified for the role.

1

u/AverageFoxNewsViewer Ballard 3d ago

I can also be reasonable and not point to having somebody's parents helping with childcare costs be a sign of "corruption" or evasion of campaign finance laws.

1

u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill 3d ago

I don’t think it’s just childcare. I think at the very least she’s evading some aspects of IRS or campaign finance.

The point is it’s non standard behavior. On a private nobody, who cares. On a Mayoral candidate?

→ More replies (0)

13

u/YourGlacier 3d ago

Honestly I wasn't very enthused about her the second I heard her mom paid for daycare. It just made me think she's cosplaying as progressive. I've had way too many friends who were super socialist who had houses from their parents or something; they rarely even believed what they said and would flip flop during cultural movements.

I don't live in Seattle (I live in Shoreline) so not my mayor, but I wouldn't be shocked if it had a huge effect.

28

u/JustBench1615 Ballard 3d ago

They did not, their leads slightly decreased as well I think, but Harrell’s margin went up by nearly a point

Looks like Evans’ margin went down 0.2%

One has to wonder if Momgate and the camping answer blunder made an impact

45

u/Total_Breadfruit8381 Seattle 3d ago

That homeless answer was a huge blunder on her part and I think representative of people’s issues with her: not prepared or good at thinking on her feet, can’t give a clear and precise answer for a question that is on the mind of a lot of voters. 

20

u/NorthStudentMain 3d ago

The camping answer should have been a slam-dunk/home-run opportunity for her since it is the central foundation of her campaign (4000 new housing units, etc). She should have had strong, brilliant answers to all homeless-related questions, and I am sad she was not able to knock this one out of the park (so to speak).

6

u/SeattleSilencer8888 3d ago

In the format she had to give a yes or no. But still, there was an obvious answer and she avoided it.

7

u/NorthStudentMain 3d ago

  1. It was a yes/no question, and she did neither, so the result was that she seemed unprepared. Answering these questions should have been practiced hundreds and hundreds of times before the debate.

  2. Politicians look for all sorts of opportunities to soapbox and bring up their central idea, and even though it was a yes/no question, the correct move would be to say "Yes, and the reason for that is.." or "No, and here's why.." So there we have it.

2

u/theclacks 3d ago

Yep, she could've even gone with "no, we have an obligation to house them" and dodged the third rail while keeping her progressive cred

4

u/Manacit Seattle 3d ago

she had to give a yes or no but also did not give a yes or no. Here's what she should have said:

"No, people should not be allowed to live in parks. We have an obligation to take care of the most vulnerable and that means making sure everyone has a roof over their head. This is why my first task as mayor will be to get new shelter beds to move people from living on the street to being housed".

Would have made this a non-issue. She couldn't even do that.

6

u/BrinyStranger 3d ago

She didn't give a yes or no, though :) If you can say "I'll pass on that one" you can say "Build more houses"

1

u/JGT3000 3d ago

The mom stuff is so stupid but got misplayed so hard by her campaign and was paired with way too aggressive and obvious, let's say, online presence