Hacks & Wonks 2024 Post-Primary Roundtable

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher - I'm a political consultant and your host on this livestream tonight. On Hacks & Wonks, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to Hacks & Wonks to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review shows delivered to your podcast feed. Full transcripts and resources and our shows are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes

Tonight, we're bringing you an insider's view of the recent Washington state primary election results. As political professionals, we always dive deep into the minutiae of campaigns and elections. But why should you, our audience, care about the analysis of campaign pros when it comes to state and local races? The truth is these elections shape your daily life in ways that you might not realize - from education funding to local infrastructure projects to housing affordability to health care - the outcomes of these primaries set the stage for policies that directly impact your community. By bringing together a panel of seasoned political strategists, we're offering you a unique lens through which to view these results. Our experts have been in the trenches, crafting messages, crunching numbers, and reading the electoral tea leaves for years. They'll cut through the noise and spin to give you insights you won't find in typical news coverage.

We're excited to be able to livestream this roundtable on YouTube tonight. Additionally, we're recording this and it will be available with a full text transcript on officialhacksandwonks.com.

Our esteemed panelists this evening are Riall Johnson. Riall is a partner at Prism West. Riall began working in political campaigns in 2012 after he retired from a nine-year career as a professional football player. His first campaign was as a field organizer in Cincinnati, Ohio for President Obama's re-election campaign, which was also where he started to get involved in politics. His focus has always been on the field side of grassroots campaigns. He's knocked hundreds of doors - thousands of doors - for campaigns in six different states, organized the collection of over a million signatures, and created grassroots volunteer programs that are still self-sustaining today. For the past few years, Riall has been focusing his work in his home state of Washington and his current residence of California, where he's led impactful campaigns focused on gun violence prevention, police accountability, and criminal justice reform. After directing ballot initiative I-940, Riall founded Prism West in 2018 to focus on getting progressive candidates of color in office to increase representation in government and bring real transformative policy to fruition. Many of his clients have broken many barriers by becoming the first of their demographic to be elected to their offices. Riall's currently heavily involved in ballot initiatives in California, such as the recent initiative for statewide rent control and a higher minimum wage for hotel workers. Welcome, Riall.

Next is Stephen Paolini. Stephen moved from Orlando to Seattle in the summer of 2016. A few weeks later, the Pulse nightclub shooting devastated his hometown. At the time, it was the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, a record now broken several times over. Heartbroken and pissed off, he joined the campaign to pass Initiative 1491: Extreme Risk Protection Orders as a Regional Field Director. Gun violence prevention passed on the ballot with 72% of the vote and in every legislative district except for one - what's up, Republic, Washington? Over the course of the next few years, Stephen worked and lobbied in the legislature to pass dozens of gun violence prevention legislation from protections for survivors of domestic violence to high-capacity magazines. On the ballot, he secured victories as the Field Director for I-940: De-Escalate Washington to make it possible to prosecute law enforcement for misconduct and was the Campaign Manager for I-1639: Safe Schools and Safe Communities to regulate assault rifles statewide. While the Program and Policy Director for Civic Action and Associate Regional Director for ADL, Stephen successfully lobbied for nation-leading overtime protections for workers in Washington, the Capital Gains Tax on windfall profits, justice for victims of doxing and online harassment, compensation for nonprofit organizations targeted in race-based attacks, and an innovative hotline model for responding to hate, bias, and extremism-related events in Washington and Oregon. Very important. As a campaign operative, Stephen has helped elect candidates at the local, regional, state, and federal level including current mayor of Tacoma Victoria Woodards, Seattle Councilmember Dan Strauss, Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and many more. He's currently a Principal at Bottled Lightning Collective working across the country to elect and re-elect Democrats in Oregon's North Coast, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and right here at home in Washington. Outside of politics, Stephen serves as the Chair of the Board for Community Passageways, a community violence intervention organization serving youth and adults in King County and across Washington state. Welcome.

And next, we have someone who almost doesn't need an introduction - Heather Weiner, who is just basically a legend in Washington politics. Heather is a recovering lawyer and owner of PowerHouse Strategic, a political communications firm. As a legislative counsel in Washington, D.C., Heather lobbied Congress to protect endangered species and places, including adding nearly 1,000 acres of salmon habitat to Mount Rainier National Park. Heather's won ballot initiative fights from Massachusetts to Nevada to Washington for health care, trans rights, and voting rights. She's been part of historic progressive wins, from the very first $15/hour wage win in SeaTac, to Democracy Vouchers in Seattle and protecting hotel workers in Seattle, to funding childcare and education through Washington's capital gains tax on mega-millionaires and billionaires. She and her team are currently working to defeat two bad initiatives on this November ballot - all those initiatives, statewide initiatives on the November ballot are bad - she's working on I-2109 and I-2124. Welcome, Heather.

Well, this is where we get to start talking about the races. So we just talked about Stephen - his experience working with Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez - so let's start with the congressional races. So in the 3rd Congressional District, we have Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in another race - a rehash of the race that she ran and won last time against Republican MAGA extremist, Joe Kent. Can you kind of brief us on what was at stake in this reelection bid and what turned out in the primary?

[00:07:26] Stephen Paolini: Yeah, I don't even know where to start. I mean, that race is a wild one - has always been. And obviously in 2022, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez pulls off a massive upset. I think it was - the final rating from 538 at the time was something like less than a percent chance that she would win that race. Obviously on the ground, that was not really borne out. I think that's one of those cases of sort of national politics, national polling creating a narrative that they don't actually have the sort of facts on the ground to verify. But nevertheless, she wins that race by just two votes in every precinct, beating back Joe Kent - who some have asked me this cycle - Is he moderating? Is he sort of calming down? I think that's a kind of a similar narrative to Trump where they try to spin this sort of conversation of - Is he becoming less extreme? The answer is, of course, no, he is just as extreme as he's always been - spinning conspiracy theories on all hosts of issues - I could use the whole show on that, I won't. But this year, things are looking positive. She won the primary with about 46% of the vote. Some people have noticed, obviously, that's less than 50%. I think it's important to remind people she won the primary in 2022 with just 32% of the vote, so she's gained significant traction even on a primary ballot with another Republican. This is a weird race for - I consider myself a progressive political consultant - it's obviously a weird race to wrap our heads around where she wins with 5% to 8% of Republicans, people voting for Donald Trump and then bubbling her name in. And that is a mind bender for me, but it is the truth. And so here - starting at 46%, obviously voter turnout increases in the general - it's a really great place to start. Don't let me fool you though - this is going to be a nail biter all the way through. I think this race is going to be in that a few hundred vote difference between Marie and Joe, and it's going to come down to every little thing and every piece of the puzzle to continue to win that. Obviously, holding on to that seat - really important for taking back the House - and the impacts that that has on people's lives are real.

[00:09:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, this is major. As you said, major for taking back the House at the federal level. Now, we could spend all day talking about the wild conspiracy theories that we have heard from Joe Kent, but do you want to just give a couple? Because it's - I have found that it's hard to do justice actually relaying this - we might later on provide some links for people to see it themselves because it sounds like you're exaggerating when you talk about it but this is so literal.

[00:10:20] Stephen Paolini: Right. Yeah - no, I mean 100% - it's like anything I could pick, there's probably another list of things I could mention. I mean, the top lines obviously - national ban on abortion - strong supporter of that. No exceptions - rape, incest, whatever you want to say. 20-year ban on immigration in general is something that he supports - legal and otherwise undocumented. Platforming literal white supremacists and white nationalists - he still has members of his campaign team that openly associate with white nationalists. The list goes on and on. I mean, he believes their FBI was responsible for the attempted assassination on former President Trump's life. He believes January 6th was an inside job. I mean, this is this year, right? This is not 2022 and he's had a huge makeover and somehow he's now moderate Republican John McCain or whatever. He is the same guy he's always been - not even really masking it. I think that desire to sort of see him as moderating is maybe just a little bit of - sometimes we all wish it were true. Like I genuinely wish he would be more moderate. It would make a harder race potentially for us, but nevertheless better for the country. That is just not the case - he continues to have these extreme beliefs and really out of touch, obviously, with his district. Although clearly in touch with a portion of the Republican base and that's challenging.

[00:12:05] Crystal Fincher: So what needs to happen in the general election for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to secure reelection?

[00:12:13] Stephen Paolini: Yeah, I mean for starters, I think turnout needs to be a lot higher than we saw in the primary. We've had really historically low turnout, right? We're looking at kind of like low 30% turnout in that district - that needs to be a lot higher. It needs to be closer to 60% for us to be able to pull out a victory again. And we have to walk this tight rope - the good thing about Congressman Perez is that she's her own person and she is really true to her district. I mean, she's somebody who lives in a home that she built herself, she gets her water from a well that she dug, she gets her internet from radio that she set up - this is a person that truly lives in her district. This is not somebody who is like - owns a rich mansion and is not in touch with the life of the people that live in her district. And for better or for worse, I think that informs in an authentic way this ability for her to kind of run a tight walk, where she is earning the vote of 10% of Republicans. And that may not make us happy in Seattle as progressive Democrats, but it is necessary to win this district. There's no math to sort of do a progressive turnout project to win in the Third Congressional District. It is unfortunately a race where you have to win a lot of moderates, a lot of independents, a lot of Republicans - hopefully without compromising your values to an extreme point and that's always the balance. And the encouragement as a team to Marie - to not let that make you somebody you're not, not let that sort of pull you to where there isn't a difference between you and the other candidates. Luckily I don't think we're at risk of that - with there's no difference between Marie and Joe - but certainly, she continues to do a good job, I think, of by and large focusing on how can she improve the lives of people in her district in an authentic way while speaking to those moderates that do believe in country over party.

[00:14:15] Crystal Fincher: Now, I want to talk about the Sixth Congressional District race, which was an open seat race to replace outgoing Congressman Derek Kilmer - highly esteemed in that district, very popular in that district. But this is a competitive open seat. We had Emily Randall, as well as DNR head Hilary Franz, running a competitive race on the Democratic side. And then on the Republican side, we have State Senator Drew MacEwen. When you're looking at this race, Riall, how did you see this shaping up? And what were your takeaways in the result here?

[00:15:03] Riall Johnson: I'm surprised that - I mean, as a casual observer, you would think that Hilary Franz, a statewide elected, would be the frontrunner and make it through here. So as a progressive, I guess you should be happy that Emily Randall made it through instead. So it's kind of - it's interesting and ironic - Hilary ran for governor and then just said, No, instead I'm going to run for this seat instead. And so it kind of, I think it affected voters - it looked kind of inauthentic and opportunistic, so I think that reflected and I think Emily Randall came off as a more authentic candidate among the Democrats. So I think that is, was what made the difference. I think it was just kind of a little overconfident in her name recognition and fundraising ability to think that she could switch those lanes in the middle of the race and also I'm saying - No, I'm just gonna - so it's like kind of like running for office just to run for office, instead of actually trying to do that. So i think that was the difference in my opinion, just from saying - well, if you knew the history, it's like she just decided to run for governor, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in this race and then transfer it over to a congressional race, and think ththat voters weren't going to notice. So I think in general that might have worked with the general election - more casual with name recognition - but this is a primary. The voters who do vote in those usually a little more knowledgeable, so I think they just saw Emily Randall as a more authentic candidate and that's - I think that was - that made the difference.

[00:16:46] Heather Weiner: I think you're right, Riall. And Emily Randall was a state senator who worked grassroots really hard in order to win that State Senate seat so the folks in Gig Harbor already had her name recognition - knew who she was, knew that she was a hard worker. She's renowned for excellent constituent services, so I'm sure that that really helped. I don't know if folks know, but Emily Randall was actually an organizer with Planned Parenthood so she knows how to work the ground. So I was also pleasantly surprised at how well Emily did. I was a little bit confused about why there was a Bitcoin independent expenditure for Emily - seems like Randall and Franz had the same positions on Bitcoin. So I'm not really sure if they just, like Bitcoin people do, took a bet and decided to bet on Randall - and saw that she was going to win and decided to put some money behind her. I thought that was a little bit odd. And if anybody knows what happened there, let us know. Because Randall doesn't seem - in my experience, knowing Emily the way that I do - doesn't really seem like her MO to be heavy into Bitcoin. Oh, that was weird. But otherwise - yeah, it was a pleasant surprise and I think also the excitement that people have over the new presidential ticket really translated into some great voter turnout among progressives that we normally don't see during the primary.

[00:18:07] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think you are both spot on with that. As we look in the general election with this matchup between Emily Randall and Drew MacEwen, what do you think needs to happen in this race for Emily to be able to wind up ahead?

[00:18:29] Heather Weiner: I think she needs to connect MacEwen to Trump. And just needs to raise money. I don't know - what do you guys think?

[00:18:38] Stephen Paolini: Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, go ahead, Riall.

[00:18:39] Riall Johnson: I think she's got some smooth sailing overall, but I want to just also say - I think with these congressional races, I think we do need to - we can't just let all these politicians off the hook about the Israel-Palestine situation. I think these are federal offices - they vote on this funding. Emily Randall pissed off a lot of progressives with her stance and I think it may not be a big factor, but it's something that needs to be addressed, I think. We need to know what, as progressives, what they stand on on these issues - because they're going to be taking these votes that are going to directly affect the war and the genocide that's happening in Palestine. So that's just my - I'm a leftist, it could be called divisive, but I think it's a valid position and a valid question. And we need to pressure these electeds during that. And the Republicans probably don't care, so it probably won't affect - you're going to choose the Democrat that might, you may have hope that they're going to vote for a ceasefire and end this conflict. But we still need to make sure that that voice is heard and that we still pressure these congressional seats - all 10 of them in the whole state.

[00:19:53] Stephen Paolini: That's such a good point, Riall - I just want to add in on that piece and throw out one other point which is - to start with as well, she has a huge advantage. This was a huge advantage in the primary as well. Planned Parenthood is by far the strongest political brand in Washington state. I mean, I've seen polling on this pretty consistently - doesn't matter what district you're in, Planned Parenthood is extremely trusted, extremely credible with voters. And so being somebody that has held a really powerful role within Planned Parenthood, who has proven their mettle on abortion rights - is just in a general election, in a primary, whatever race you're in - that is gold in politics. There are very few political brands that are even close to as meaningful in the minds of voters as Planned Parenthood is - in this state and a lot of other places. But to Riall's point as well, I think part of what makes that issue so tough in this race is a couple of things. One, I think there was a genuine feeling of betrayal among progressives on her position. I think people, whether it was an assumption or whether it was something that she directly communicated on - I don't know, I wasn't at that. I've had some conversations with progressive legislators that felt like she said one position to them about Israel and Palestine - she expressed a desire for a ceasefire, and then they were really surprised to see that pivot happen. I think it's obviously important to point out - it's under duress. I mean, in this country, AIPAC is consistently one of the largest spenders - pro-Israel lobby in congressional campaigns. The reality of - if I'm in her shoes looking at a primary, similar to sort of the Bitcoin independent expenditure that was about a million and a half dollars - that's more than any of the candidates raised. AIPAC could have added a few zeros to that - like not even ironically, they could have put $20 million into the race overnight if they felt that there was a material difference between the two candidates. And so, does that make it better or worse? I'm not sure, to be honest. But i do think Riall's point's really well taken, which is that for her to continue to mobilize progressives there's going to be some real questions about her position on that and finding the right balance. And I don't think that these issues need to be sort of all or nothing per se, but I think that's important for her to address, so just agree with your point there, Riall.

[00:22:11] Riall Johnson: I think it shows that they could be influenced by money, whether they're getting it or not, which is like - what's the difference - if they're scared of it, or if they're taking it. If they're influenced by it, then I think that that's going to - I mean, she came off as a more authentic candidate. And I think that's going to - maybe that will come up. I hope that - I like to test politicians that way. I like to question that to say - Where does your stance? What is it? How resolute is your stance? Is money going to sway your stance? Then why are we voting for you? And I think that is overall - that's why you see the Uncommitted campaign's gaining momentum because it's like - what's the point of us voting for you if you're just going to sell us out just to stay in office or for the money? So I think that needs to be addressed and hopefully people in that district press her on it because I think we need more people standing up to these lobbyists in Olympia - I mean, in D.C. - and Olympia too, but definitely D.C. as well.

[00:23:14] Crystal Fincher: Now, I want to talk about the statewide races. Normally, when we talk about statewide races, we would start talking about the governor. But there is still a statewide race that is undetermined - still - on Monday after Election Day. We schedule this livestream, always, the Tuesday after Election Day - a full week. We're going to know who's there by now. We still cannot call this race for Commissioner of Public Lands. This is a race that has Jaime Herrera Beutler on the Republican side, along with Sue Kuehl Pederson, who are both Republicans and fairly well known across the state. And on the Democratic side, you have several candidates - Kevin Van De Wege, Patrick DePoe, and Dave Upthegrove - being who most people thought going into this would be the three top Democratic candidates. Really, we have a situation where Democratic votes were spread widely among five different Democratic candidates here. And in Washington's top-two primary system - where just the top-two vote-getters, regardless of party, make it through. As opposed to the more common process of a party primary where one person from each party makes it through, or with ranked choice voting where people mark their choices in order of preference. This sets us up for a situation - which has happened before - where a party can get a majority of votes in a race, overall, yet be locked out of the general election.

[00:24:55] Heather Weiner: Come on, Democrats - get it together. Come on.

[00:24:59] Crystal Fincher: I still think that Dave is going to eke this out and make it through to the general election - will be curious to hear your takes on that. But Heather, what do we need to do about this top-two system? And what do you think about this race moving forward?

[00:25:19] Heather Weiner: Look, we could do a primary system like what a lot of other states do - where you declare your allegiance to a party and that's where you vote for the top candidates in the party. I like the top-two - I think this is, it makes things interesting - but I don't want things to be this interesting, this dramatic. Like this is a little bit too much even for me. And I think part of this is the Democratic Party nice - where they're super nice to each other and they don't want to push each other out - and that's why we had a very crowded ballot with all the different Democrats. And the Democrats were doing so well in these other races where there was a more limited field, and here we had too many Democrats running. I mean, Rebecca Saldaña dropped out - she was another Democrat who was running. But then we just had a wide variety of choices for people to go for. And we had a ton of independent expenditure money coming in for Kevin Van De Wege who I thought was going to be doing a lot better considering how much money was coming in for him on the IE. And Patrick DePoe had The Seattle Times endorsement - here was somebody who was not really well known, person of color - I thought he was also, he did fantastic for being an unknown person coming in. Yeah, this was just a mess. Somebody needs to be mean.

[00:26:38] Crystal Fincher: Stephen, what do you think here? What happened? And what needs to happen?

[00:26:43] Stephen Paolini: Yeah, I mean - I should be forthright with folks - Patrick DePoe was a client of the firm and I, and also now a friend through the course of that campaign. And he is an incredible human being. And I just want to start by saying - I still think, I'm selfishly about this, like celebrating how competitive and how close he was to potentially being our next Commissioner of Public Lands. What that means is the most competitive candidate - Native candidate - statewide for an executive office in our history of our state. And also, you can look at the country and count the number of times that's happened on one hand. And so, the pressure of being somebody from a reservation with 1,700 people on it, and fighting tooth and nail - in many cases - against sort of expectations of, You're not viable. And what that means is pretty thinly veiled code for - You're not white. You're not from the community we expect you to be from to be a competitive candidate statewide. You don't have the rich people Rolodex that we expect you to have. So you guys can probably tell - I'm still not completely over the emotion of - I am so proud of what he was able to do as a person, how close we got.

That being said, I struggle with this question of what we do about it, because I don't know that I have an answer that I am okay with. At the end of the day, I do feel like it's worth saying - in this race, there was an attempt to consolidate candidates. And where that applied was almost universally on the few candidates of color in the race. I know Senator Saldaña faced clear pressure. Senator Das faced clear pressure. Patrick DePoe faced a lot of pressure to drop out and consolidate because of the very real threat of two Republicans making it through. That there was so much pressure on these candidates of color - who frankly have a very strong argument, it is not like they're just running for running's sake - there are big differences between their views on issues, particularly on the issue of environmental justice, and Councilmember Upthegrove's. Now, he's got a general election campaign, hopefully. I do think he will pull this out in the end by a couple hundred votes, and it was way too close for comfort, and that's so frustrating. But there are differences. There are differences about how we prioritize issues. Is it just about the sort of complete - this is shorthand, I'll say - like white progressive environmentalist issues? Or are there other issues of equal importance? Tribal sovereignty, how we uplift marginalized communities, and a record of doing that. And I think that's a real part - there was a reason people supported Patrick DePoe and Saldaña and others. And it was not just for vanity. These were not vanity campaigns.

I'll say one last thing before I stop talking, which is - if you want me to tell you what I think we really should do about it. Frankly, my question is - as a party, why did we fail to have an actual effective voter turnout program in the primary? Voter turnout in King County was way too low. And frankly, if voter turnout in King County was five points higher, this would not be a close race at all. Upthegrove would be ahead by 10,000 votes, and we would not be sweating it. But because we saw among the lowest voter turnout in King County in decades for a presidential year election, that has led to this possibility for Republicans to win. So that's my take. I think we should invest in primary voter turnout programs as a party - that's my answer to this top-two problem, not how do we get people of color to drop out of the race.

[00:30:30] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I-

[00:30:31] Heather Weiner: Well, just be clear - I was not talking about them.

[00:30:34] Stephen Paolini: I did not mean to imply that at all-

[00:30:35] Heather Weiner: No, no - I'm talking about some - I'm talking about Kevin. Go ahead Riall, sorry.

[00:30:38] Riall Johnson: I think when you say not being nice, the not nice guy was the one in the lead. And the one who played the least nice of the three major Democrats - or four, if you consider, and five if you consider Rebecca and Mona Das dropped out. I'm gonna try to make this quick, but this reminds me of the story - because I've had so many candidates of color that have challenged the system and challenged the status quo against other white Democratic candidates, I get these emails all the time from either the candidate themselves or a local donor or influencer. This happened in particular - one is Carolina Mejia, when she was running a primary with two other white males in the Democratic primary - and we got a message from the largest donor in the county to ask, him saying - You need to drop out pretty much because we're going to risk having two Republicans in the general. Same situation and, of course, the two white guys went after Carolina - said, You need to drop out - you're the most unlikely. And lo and behold, Carolina won. I was rooting for Patrick, too. I've known Patrick since high school - he's a great guy.

[00:31:47] Stephen Paolini: I had no idea you guys knew each other - that's so cool.

[00:31:50] Riall Johnson: He used to be my older brother back in the day. And so, I think he ran a great race. And I was very pleased to see him doing that well. The thing is, it's just like - Yeah, why is it on him to drop out when it's - I think it's just, I don't know. It was just - I've seen these politics. I've seen these types of where they try to push out and consolidate. And Upthegrove was actually notorious for it.

[00:32:18] Heather Weiner: Well, good points. Both of you guys make very good points. And you're right - now I'm reconsidering the way that I said that because the being mean tends to fall down on people of color and women. And particularly women of color, right? That's where the pressure really comes down. So fair points. I think I was thinking about being mean - me being mean.

[00:32:37] Crystal Fincher: No, I think that those are both fair points. And I think there's another element in here too. I think among Democratic campaigns overall take - outside of this race - but in primaries where you need to draw a contrast? Draw a contrast - just in a general race - and I think that there is often a hesitation to do that. But I do think it has to be said in this race - because it is being said all around - that there are conversations that need to be had within the community of Democratic and progressive allies about how we recruit for these races, how we talk about these races, how we talk about who is and isn't viable. I have personally heard several times - I've been in rooms and have had to correct - and have heard that this, these types of conversations still continue where there are candidate recruitment efforts and you hear reference to - Man, this person's the ideal candidate. It's like a white guy business owner. It's like a white military veteran. And it all gets back to kind of middle-aged white guy there. And we have some excellent middle-aged white guy candidates - this is not to say that they're bad across the board. But to suggest that the community won't rally around them, won't turn out for them is false and it's offensive and it's actually hurting us in elections. Because if we look beyond the past decade, women of color - led by Black women - have outperformed other candidates. Period. Like that is it - they have outperformed in terms of final result, they've outperformed in terms of turnout. If you want to win a race in a swing district - we have examples in our Legislature right now - run a woman of color, run a Black- like when you talk about ideal candidate, those are the candidates who are flipping these seats and turning out people who have not turned out before. So, while-

[00:34:57] Heather Weiner: See Emily Randall - CD6.

[00:34:58] Stephen Paolini: I was literally about to just say that. It's like, if you want to talk about how we flipped, right? Her origin story is flipping a district that was held by a Republican in a very tight race, with - I think it came down to 60 votes the first time around? How do you get it done? You don't run the white moderate business owner - you run the gay Latina who works at Planned Parenthood. That's how you win.

[00:35:23] Riall Johnson: Yeah also - but win what though, in a way. This is funny and I don't want to be the naysayer because we have used this strategy. The thing is corporations and conservatives have hijacked this strategy and then we get people like Eric Adams and Bruce Harrell - and just because they're people of color, think they're going to do the right thing. Then they end up being just corporate stooges just with a different colored face. So it's just like - I think that we need to be very careful of that because then they become a shield for our white allies in the community to actually criticize, give valid criticism because then they get labeled as racist. So i think the Chamber has the perfect shield right now with Bruce Harrell in Seattle and you get that with Eric Adams in New York. And I can go a list of - there's video essays done on this by some people about how they have hijacked the DEI language and it's become this different conversation because now it's just divided us in a way, because now - how do we go after, how do we attack Bruce Harrell from the left when we can't even have a valid, legitimate, white, progressive candidate to go after him - that actually probably would be better for Black communities because he ain't done anything for the Black community since he's been in office.

[00:36:46] Heather Weiner: Well, as the person who worked for Lorena González, who was attacked - and she was attacked as racist - when she criticized him.

[00:36:54] Riall Johnson: Exactly.

[00:36:54] Heather Weiner: Oh, yes. She's a woman of color.

[00:36:57] Riall Johnson: So I think that we've got to be very careful about - yeah, we want to put these people out, but we still got to vet our own people too.

[00:37:03] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. We absolutely do. And I think what I appreciate about us and the conversations that we have, it's - yes, we're political consultants and we're working on elections. But I think we all recognize that the point of that is to get people in who pass good policy, who help people, who see and serve their communities. And if that policy end doesn't come with it, then it's all for naught - ultimately. Winning a race is just the beginning and there's a lot of work to be done following that.

Well, that is the Commissioner of Public Lands race. Let's talk about governor for a little bit. We have Bob Ferguson - we had a little saga of the Bobs Ferguson for a while there, we got past that. Bob Ferguson finished with 45.16% right now. And Dave Reichert - 27.39%, which is a challenging result - under performance - for a Republican. There were lots of candidates on the ballot. The kind of also-ran Democratic candidate was Mark Mullet, who - for all of his time in the Senate and all of his runs for office - is now at 6% of the vote. Semi Bird, on the Republican side - a more Trump-MAGA-aligned Republican is at 10.6%. So Bob Ferguson, Dave Reichert going through to the primary. Did any of you find anything notable in this race?

[00:38:55] Heather Weiner: Well, Stephen - you worked for Mullet, right? Tell us what you think.

[00:38:59] Stephen Paolini: No, actually - I didn't - my firm did though. That's a fair point. But a small distinction for me, because I've also been on the opposite side of advocating for stuff that Mark Mullet stopped for like a decade at this point, so that was a tough one for me. But setting that point aside, I will say that race is interesting for a lot of reasons. I'm a little disappointed that - I know Hilary Franz, obviously, was in the race for a little bit - I'm bummed that we didn't have a real primary because I think there are issues I'd love to hear stronger from from Bob - I don't really know his position on progressive taxes. From what i've seen in public safety issues, he's actually been really moderate in the way that he's positioned himself in this primary - that was a little surprising to me. So there are some of those issues that I wish that we had a little bit more litigation of - he's going to be our governor now for the next like 12 years - I would love to have heard just a little bit more from him about where he stands on some of these things. He hasn't run a really competitive race in, I don't know, three decades or something like that - so it's been a while. But I don't know - I mean, overall, it's not a completely surprising race. Reichert is a completely untenable and very weak candidate - I don't think he can consolidate his own base. He's had bad votes on abortion as a Congressman - he will never win in Washington State and that is a foregone conclusion. So, not an extremely surprising election really.

[00:40:39] Crystal Fincher: What do you think, Heather?

[00:40:41] Heather Weiner: Oh I just - I got to poke at Stephen, so i'm done. Riall, what did you think?

[00:40:49] Riall Johnson: I forget - is Mark Mullet - did he give up his Senate seat this year?

[00:40:54] Stephen Paolini: He did.

[00:40:55] Riall Johnson: So we're done - so we're done with him. So you don't have to waste any more time on him. I wasted - I actually, full disclosure as well - me, actually both me and Stephen helped Dave Reichert get in office. Well not me - me more so - we were both working at the Alliance for Gun Responsibility and he was the Democrat in the 5th LD, and he won by 400 votes. And I knocked thousands of doors in his neighborhood.

[00:41:18] Stephen Paolini: Yeah - you meant Mullet.

[00:41:20] Crystal Fincher: You meant Mullet - you said Reichert, you meant Mullet.

[00:41:20] Stephen Paolini: We knocked doors for Mullet back in whatever - yeah, for sure-

[00:41:24] Riall Johnson: Yeah so-

[00:41:25] Heather Weiner: All of - I did too.

[00:41:26] Crystal Fincher: All of us did. All of us did.

[00:41:29] Riall Johnson: We put a ton of resources to get that guy in office and he turned into the Joe Manchin of Washington.

[00:41:34] Heather Weiner: Yeah [laughter]

[00:41:36] Stephen Paolini: I tried to make it up. I did ballot curing for Ingrid - we got pretty close - like I tried to save my moral compass.

[00:41:43] Riall Johnson: He's been like my biggest sore - hey, we helped this guy get in office and then now he turns like this. And I'm so glad to be done with him, so no more time wasted.

[00:41:51] Heather Weiner: I brought a Teamsters truck into Mark Mullet's district - to phone bank for him - when I worked for the Teamsters. Yeah, I totally - I totally agree. Well, I think it's interesting - like this is back to the Public Lands seat, right - where we have these two very conservative senators. Who the Democrats are really - the caucus is secretly, not so secretly - very happy to get rid of because they drag a lot of their priorities down that they don't even make it out of Rules or much less to the floor because these two senators shit on everything - excuse me, I hope that doesn't get you banned. So in some ways, that's another reason why the Democrats weren't telling these guys to get out - because it was the sacrifice they had to make to get them out of the Legislature.

[00:42:37] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think for this - one, there is a bright spot and then they're out of the Legislature - we've got Van De Wege, we've got Mullet who are no longer there. Some notable things for me - both in that Commissioner for Public Lands race and in this Governor's race - is how much money was spent to get this many votes by those moderate candidates. To have - I mean, what - over $700,000 in that Commissioner of Public Lands race in IE money to wind up under 10% in this race, where the base was already so fractured and that money evidently evaporated. The money that Mark Mullet spent in this gubernatorial race - and I think about all of the other candidates, about so many people who came so close across the state - and just that resource allocation there. And I think their analysis - the analysis that the Mark Mullet-Van De Wege prototype is somehow in demand. And especially with Trump, people want someone in the center who's going to do - like that theory has been tested and failed so many times, and I am just waiting for the day that we can move on from that. If that is part of someone's authentic story and they're fighting for the community - great. But if your whole thing is, I'm not a progressive like them - I'm the responsible moderate and I can get along with Republicans. The Democratic base - there's no appetite for that, there's no excitement about that, that is not turning people out, that is failing spectacularly. So we can move on. We can move on from that, in my opinion.

[00:44:23] Stephen Paolini: It is a new era.

[00:44:27] Crystal Fincher: It is a new era. Also, just want to see if anyone has any thoughts on the attorney general's race that saw on the Democratic side - Nick Brown facing Manka Dhingra - for Democrats kind of battling it out to face the Republican Pete Serrano in the general election. Nick Brown is making it through - we've talked about on the show before - I think he ran a, and is running a fantastic campaign. You talk about someone who's just getting out to every corner of the state - talking to voters, meeting people where they're at, and really not being afraid to talk about many of the issues there. But I also personally still have a tremendous amount of respect for Manka Dhingra - her leadership in the Legislature - finding a way to still push for improved legislation while navigating that caucus is not easy and she has done it very well, I think, for what the job was in front of her and what she's working with there. So I appreciate her run and I'm excited that she's going to be back in the Legislature working on behalf of the residents of the state. Anything notable in that race?

[00:45:51] Heather Weiner: I mean, I mean, yes - thank goodness we are not losing her. And I think what's interesting here is back to the state's rules about fundraising when Legislature is in session. So Manka was under a freeze while the Legislature was in session - she couldn't do any fundraising at all. And Nick Brown was able to go out there and fundraise, and so Manka came in with a quarter million dollars of her own money late to try to make up that difference in terms of fundraising - I think it was too little too late at that point, because Nick- Because during the session, Nick had been - I saw him everywhere. He was at every event. One time I saw him at two events in one day - there he is again. By the way - changed clothes, looks spiff, fantastic. So I think there is some level of - what we're seeing here is that people from the Legislature who are running are - handicapped is not the right word - but are not coming in with the full level that other candidates are against them. And I think the Legislature is going to start reconsidering whether or not they can fundraise during session because of that.

[00:46:56] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it's certainly a structural challenge. It's a disadvantage for people who - and it's not just candidates, sometimes it's people working within departments - and so it's a big challenge that sometimes prevents us from fielding the strongest field of candidates. Rebecca Saldaña certainly was put at a disadvantage by having to handle her responsibilities to legislate and govern, and being prohibited from raising funds at those times. But I think this is set up for a very strong general election by Nick Brown. Certainly going to have a lot of issues that are top of people's minds and that are used to people seeing the AG handle - I think Bob Ferguson is really passing the baton to him in a great way - we saw him being so active against the Trump administration and the contrasts at stake here are very stark. And so, quite a case that he has to make - and I think that connects with a lot of people. Now, I want to-

[00:48:06] Stephen Paolini: I just have one little thought I wanted to share about. I mean, I just wanted to echo what Heather was saying, though, because as you were saying it out loud - about the sort of fundraising freeze - it's a good point that none of the state Senators or Representatives that were then trying to go for higher office, for the exception of Emily, was actually able to do that effectively, right? Like Kevin had a really bad showing. Like we said, Mark Mullet did as well. Rebecca Saldaña, because of those fundraising challenges, left the race as well. So it definitely is not a good stepping stone - for better or worse - certainly for statewide office. And I think that's a really phenomenal point. And in some ways, the Randall example is an exception - it's in multiple ways, right? Because Hilary had also just spent all of her time fundraising for governor and then couldn't transfer that money over, so there wasn't a fundraising advantage when then she eventually ran for Congress. That also happened later in the cycle, where Kilmer retired or announced his retirement after the legislative session. So she didn't have to come up against somebody who was able to raise money for that race while she was in session.

[00:49:10] Heather Weiner: But Stephen - correct me if I'm wrong, but Randall could still raise for a federal seat.

[00:49:16] Stephen Paolini: Oh, you're right.

[00:49:17] Heather Weiner: Right? So-

[00:49:18] Stephen Paolini: You're so right.

[00:49:19] Heather Weiner: They can only run for federal seats, but not for state seats. Yeah.

[00:49:23] Stephen Paolini: Totally right. I just think it was a good point to emphasize that. I think this is a reality that - unfortunately or fortunately - state-level, leg-level office is not a good stepping stone for higher level office. Maybe it's a good stepping stone for federal office, potentially - but that's about it.

[00:49:38] Heather Weiner: I mean, look at Jayapal.

[00:49:41] Stephen Paolini: Yeah. And I also just think Nick the - my little hot take about the general election for Nick Brown - is it actually is a fun match up about gun violence prevention. So Nick Brown was the legal counsel for Initiative 1639. When i was running that campaign, he was one of the folks that really worked hard to write that initiative - when it was a bill in the Legislature and then as a ballot measure. Pete Serrano, his general election opponent, famously sued that initiative and a number of gun violence prevention initiatives. So you actually kind of have this matchup in the general election that is rooted in kind of a history of - obviously, Nick Brown won that legal case, I do think he's going to win this election case - but it's a fun piece of history I don't think people are aware of.

[00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about a significant election - special election, really - that we're seeing in the city of Seattle for the Position 8 citywide race. This seat was originally held by Teresa Mosqueda - very popular City Councilmember who was, because she was so popular, elected to the King County Council. After that, that created a vacancy and a candidate that actually lost to Tammy Morales, Tanya Woo, was then appointed to fill that seat by her colleagues - a number of the new councilmembers that are ideologically aligned with her. That was quite controversial - to appoint someone that just lost to one of their colleagues to the Council - but they did that. They then went on to attempt to lower the PayUp minimum wage legislation for gig drivers, potentially lower the minimum wage for tipped service workers and prevent a long-negotiated raise from taking effect, trying to defund community-based, equity-based initiatives within the city - A lot of things that they didn't quite talk about when they were running for election. There were some polls that came out in the interim that showed that, particularly for Tanya Woo and Sara Nelson, that their approval ratings were tanking, while support for things like progressive revenue, alternative response - things that the council basically said we are not going to do - those are still polling sky high. They said - You know, that poll is rigged, it's skewed - that doesn't matter. And then, in this election result, we had Tanya Woo, the incumbent, facing really three active challengers - Saunatina Sanchez, Tariq Yusuf, and Alexis Mercedes Rinck. Alexis consolidated a lot of the Democratic kind of allied support behind her, whether it was from endorsements, organizations, unions - most of them flocked to Alexis. And in a result that we don't really see very often in Seattle, we had the incumbent Tanya Woo, who is now at 38.3%, and the challenger Alexis Mercedes Rinck - over 50% right now, 50.1% - with Saunatina Sanchez 4%, Tariq Yusuf 3%, and Saul Patu 3%. So I guess, starting out here, Heather - what do you think is going on with this race? What was notable to you in seeing such a big number in a competitive, low turnout primary with Alexis Rinck getting over 50%.

[00:53:41] Heather Weiner: I really want to hear what Riall has to say, because Riall worked for Tammy Morales and helped to beat Tanya Woo. Riall, what do you think?

[00:53:53] Riall Johnson: I didn't work for Tammy last year. I worked for her first election.

[00:53:57] Heather Weiner: Oh, that's right.

[00:53:58] Riall Johnson: I haven't done candidates since 2021.

[00:54:00] Heather Weiner: Well, congratulations.

[00:54:05] Riall Johnson: I did help - whatever I could, like as a volunteer for Tammy. I mean, Tammy was near and dear to me because she took a chance on me and my company when we were brand new, and she was our biggest client at the time. So I'm glad to see she won - beat Tanya - and Tanya's gonna go 0-2, I think, this year. And I think it's just like - Seattle's where - people go with momentum. The news cycles are so skewed to whatever - what's trendy and you get these whole, where it's like - and you see this nationwide. I live in LA now - I see the same thing, where it's like you show one video of a store being robbed and they say it's a crime wave and they blame - It's your, it's that one district councilwoman of color you got that why, in Capitol Hill and Rainer Beach, why your store in Ballard got robbed. Like it's just - it's crazy to think this when people don't realize we've had the same corporate bought mayor for the last 20 years of - just clone after clone - that just that has all, like 80% of the power in the city and the council is really not that influential as they think and they think. But they love to make scapegoats so now - it was always Kshama and/or Tammy, but now it's just Tammy that they made the scapegoat - I think she was really under fire. Now I think the city is seeing that now that the corporate is pretty much wholly assimilated the council into their entities and so now they have to take responsibility of all the problems that they say that they're going to fix, which they're not. So I think that's kind of reflection on that overall and then who people are in the city, where it seems like - Well, like who is Tanya Woo? They don't know - she hasn't done anything since she got in, she hasn't been - granted she hasn't been that long, but she didn't earn the seat. She lost her race and then got appointed, and I think, like I said, the momentum is swinging. I think it's swinging back away from that because it swung to the middle right in Seattle and that's why you had all these corporate candidates win last year. And now I think it's getting back. You're going to see some progressive momentum coming in this year. And I think Alexis has done a great job of consolidating that - of all the stakeholders and that - and got a solid win. And I think it's going to carry over into the November. I think she's running a very solid city race - she's doing everything right from what I see.

[00:56:36] Crystal Fincher: I think that's right. Certainly, just today - just hours ago - the Council did a number of things that upset a number of different people and a number of different types of constituencies around the city. So certainly, this is a reflection, I think, of the Council's misreading of their mandate and the misalignment there. But I don't want that to overshadow that - you don't get a result of 50% as a challenger in a primary, unless you're also articulating a positive vision that people are really getting behind. My read of it was that it wasn't simply a vote against the Council, it was also a vote for Alexis and the vision that she's articulating for helping people in the city, for right-sizing the budget, for making sure that people are paying their fair share, particularly corporations, and that a strong social safety net is really important to Seattle residents. And she is talking about that boldly and proudly. It's probably a good place also right now to talk about the 43rd Legislative District race that had - we talk about - my goodness, 50% being a great result. In the 43rd Legislative District race, which is a part of Seattle, Shaun Scott is just under 60% right now - 59% at the moment. And he faced a couple of moderate to conservative. challengers. Andrea Suarez, who's kind of notorious as...

[00:58:20] Heather Weiner: The notorious Andrea Suarez.

[00:58:22] Crystal Fincher: Yes.

[00:58:23] Riall Johnson: The Democrat?

[00:58:28] Heather Weiner: The Democrat. [laughter]

[00:58:30] Crystal Fincher: Who calls herself a Democrat because - took a lot of heat for fundraising, being willing to fundraise for Republicans, being aligned with some very controversial figures. They say that they're getting down on the ground and helping people who are homeless. Critics of that say that they are in fact not doing that - they're contributing to kind of the exploitation and poverty porn that we're seeing and really using them as a scapegoat to drive in culture war issues, and this - don't really seem to be aligned with Seattle. The majority on the Council helped to campaign for Andrea Suarez - they were out there, they're in pictures with her, they're supporters of her. But she actually didn't wind up even with The Seattle Times endorsement - that went to Daniel Carusello, who was relatively unknown, had some affiliations with Republicans before, kind of messaging as somewhat more pragmatic and moderate. He wound up with 16%, Andrea Suarez at 20%, to Shaun Scott's 60%. And again, certainly I think that candidate quality, or lack of quality, is at play here. These were not very strong candidates for this open seat that's being vacated by Frank Chopp, except for Shaun Scott, who, again, really articulated a vision and a bold and enthusiastic way to say - We're going to take care of people, we're going to put community first - and really driving that home. And so this is not his first race, but he built a lot of credibility and leveraged that and is running on that now. So looking at what Shaun Scott's talking about and obviously the community is responding to what Alexis is talking about - Alexis Rinck - and people responding to that. What do you think this says for, I guess, this election and the general election? And what's on deck for the Legislature, the Seattle City Council, and what lessons they should be taking from this?

[01:01:00] Heather Weiner: Well, first of all, let's just applaud Shaun Scott. So Shaun Scott is a hard - works really hard. Again, that guy is everywhere. He's been everywhere for years. He's worked really hard in that district. He ran for State Legislature - had a really tough race, didn't win it, but did a really great job. So first of all, just applause to him. Secondly - oh, he ran for council - Stephen just reminded me, not Legislature, getting confused. But secondly, I was really surprised to hear Stephen say that King County primary turnout was low because I felt like Seattle - and I didn't look at the numbers, so I'm just talking - but Seattle primary turnout felt to me that the progressives actually turned out because they're excited about what's, they're ready to vote for the presidential election now. They're excited about the new ticket. They're pumped up. They turned out. So I think that's part of why we saw progressive results in City Council. And I think also in the 43rd - why we saw those results. I think also Riall is 100% right. Pendulum swings and the pendulum is swinging backwards and voters are starting to realize that what they voted for was not the idealism that this DSA-Chamber slate has been selling.

[01:02:17] Stephen Paolini: I just want to throw out one other piece there, which is just that - the pendulum has swung, I think that's true. I also think it's important to point out that this Council got elected with extraordinarily disparate financial numbers - they benefited from independent expenditures that were well, in some cases double or triple, what both candidates collectively raised. Whereas the more progressive candidates did not get any real financial support from independent expenditures. If you go back in time to 2019, there was a lot more equality in that outside money. There was CAPE at the time - that was literally in opposition to the Chamber of Commerce - that was spending this historic money. And it was way more money than we've really ever seen in a Seattle City Council election from the corporate side, but it was at least matched somewhat on the progressive side by a combination of funders. In '23, we saw just the corporate side spent money. And we saw the progressive side sent almost nothing - I think the only person they really spent any money at all for was Councilmember Strauss, and that is it. So I don't know that there actually is a real mandate for this council. I think we, as progressives, just ceded the ground to them and let them compete with - I'll borrow, I guess, 12 men on the field instead of 11, you know, for a football reference, I guess - but that's, to me, the story. And then looking at this election, I just think it's important to say as well - what you said, Heather - that Shaun ran before and lost. And maybe sometimes as a candidate, that feels like the end of the world. But I just think that's such a powerful message - particularly young candidates of color, just young candidates in general - winning, winning is awesome. Sometimes losing is important too. And that he fought that really hard race and then kept working his ass off. Until then now he's got this just, I think, a pretty historic firs- time win as a candidate is really cool. And I hope that, as a consultant, as I try to get more young folks of color to run for office - he's really a model. I think he's blazing a path that says you can do this - you can win, you can take on that challenge - and that's really cool to me

[01:04:51] Riall Johnson: I think Shaun is running a great race and I'm proud to say he's a client - I don't even charge him really, because he does everything himself. I have nothing to do with Shaun, I just say - Yeah, call this, here's a list - that's pretty much it. And he wanted to do everything himself - puts that burden on himself and it's great because he hasn't really stopped running since 2019. And I see that with him and Alexis - they've been campaigning for longer. They put in the work before this race even started. They had the well intention - I think the other candidates behind them - they just kind of decided to run. Which can happen. You can win - sometimes you can when the right opportunity is right. But when you got someone as strong as Shaun or Alexis and you try to step in the race late and they've already put out the work and built those alliances, got that support early - it's a very hard tough wall to crack. And it's kudos to them - it's not an unfair advantage, I think - it's just they had the foresight to get that work in, build that support early and build that foundation. And I think Shaun did it even longer than Alexis. And to bring this up - we've talked about this before, I mean Stephen - when CAPE put that money in, they put up over $900,000, I think, between four progressives. They won three seats - they flipped three seats. They would have flipped Shaun's seat if they put money behind him. I think it goes back to Crystal's point of the disparity in investment when progressives do put up money - there's a huge disparity in racial equity when they put up $900,000 and only $23,000 of that went to candidates of color and $900,000 went to the white candidates that they supported. So fortunately, they really can't do that this year because the two main candidates in Seattle running or the only Seattle City Council progressive is a woman of color, so they have to back her. But when Seattle gets their - when the stakeholders on the left get their stuff together - I think they still need to be conscious of their own internal bias when they do that, so they do it right. Shaun Scott should have been running for re-election last year.

[01:06:58] Heather Weiner: Amen.

[01:06:58] Stephen Paolini: That's so true. I just want to point out one little tiny thing on that too, which is that it's not clear to me that Alexis necessarily is going to have an independent expenditure - and I think that matters. As political consultants, I'm just putting that out into the ether - you better believe Tanya Woo's supporters are going to have zero hesitation putting $300 grand into the general election. I have no doubt in my mind that the Realtors Association, that those groups are going to come together and make that happen. And is that enough to flip the election result? I don't know, but it is important to put out there into the world. I'm a little selfish because I am working on trying to make some of this happen, but we need to be serious about this and not let her get crushed by outside spending because we think we have it in the bag and voters are on our side. So sorry, Riall - sounds like you wanted to add-

[01:07:53] Crystal Fincher: No, I think that's-

[01:07:55] Riall Johnson: Well, I think that and also you look at the three candidates, going back to 2019, the three candidates they spent money on - Herbold, Strauss, and Lewis. Look what happened - did they stay progressive? Did they stay - so no. And Shaun Scott did. So it's just - where we put this money, I think the values need to be aligned and need to matter. So I think we just need to just make sure that this money comes with integrity as well.

[01:08:26] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think so. I think another important thing to take away from this is - this is how you set yourself up to legislate and govern successfully. I think we see two different models here, at play, on the Council. We saw these - the new crop of councilmembers who were elected last year, who didn't answer a lot of questions or who didn't come down conclusively on one side or another. Hey, do you support progressive revenue? Well, you know, I'll have to look at it - I'm interested in learning more. What do you think about the police contract? We'll have to get together and talk about it. And it was all of these - I will have to talk to community, we'll get everyone together and see - but nothing definitive. And in the direct voter communications - the mail, the ads - most of them were parroting progressive talking points. So, the regular people, who don't pay attention to politics every day and track this stuff regularly, heard things that they didn't find to be offensive. But people who were tuned in knew that that wasn't an authentic representation of who they were, where they were coming from. And so then they take office and they start this campaign of doing the things that they really wanted to do - but they didn't run on that stuff. So the public went - Whoa, what are you talking about? Lowering the minimum wage? What are you doing? What are you talking about? You didn't say this. We didn't want this. And there's just this dissonance. And then that concerned them with the pushback - they withdrew a number of their proposals. And so they're kind of stuck in this place where they ran and said things to give the impression that they were more progressive than they actually were. Their donors want a return on their investment that they did there, and they're waiting for results. And they can't do anything now without taking a lot of heat because they were not forthright about what they were going to do, so no matter what they do it makes people unhappy. Whereas you have Alexis, you have Shaun who are saying - Hey, I am absolutely in favor of this. You elect me - I'm going to fight for this. And realistically, that's why Kshama was basically Teflon - regardless of the recall campaigns, the challengers that were very well-funded and put up against her - she was absolutely transparent about what she planned to do. She fought for the people in her district. She represented that district and they trusted that she was doing what she said she was going to do. She was fighting there. There was no one who was surprised about anything that she was doing. And I think that is how you give yourself a mandate to really make progress. I'm really excited to see how this can turn out, and I hope more candidates take a lesson from that.

[01:11:30] Heather Weiner: Tammy Morales for Mayor.

[01:11:34] Crystal Fincher: I do - we're a little short on time. I want to talk about these initiatives - they're a very, very big deal. These statewide initiatives that we're going to see on our November ballots that are an effort from this MAGA Republican, hedge fund mega-millionaire - I don't know if he's a billionaire, a hundred mega-millionaire - and really an attempt to kind of defund government, push these culture wars through these initiatives. Kind of bottomless pockets when - in this situation they're dealing with it, and they're basically trying to undo a lot of the progress on climate action, on allowing people to age in place with long-term care - a lot of the progress that we have made, that people have been re-elected on, that has broad public support. They're saying - Yeah, we want to undo all of that. Heather, what's at stake here with these initiatives? And what needs to happen to make sure that these are not successful?

[01:12:41] Heather Weiner: So full disclosure, I'm working on two of them. Our team is working on both defeating I-2109, which is to take more than $2 billion away from childcare and education by giving a tax break to the super rich. And 2124, which is to take away long-term care insurance from people who have serious illnesses, disabilities, or are aging. Really fun, nice stuff. 2117, which is to cut billions in funding for transportation, firefighting, and other really important projects that are important to stopping climate change. So all kinds of really great things here - promoted by Brian Heywood, who is a mega-millionaire who moved here recently, also has a gazillion dollar home in Japan, he goes back and forth. And when he comes here to Washington state, he acts like he wants to run for governor and this is what he's doing - is running these big initiatives. Now, here's the good news. The good news is that these are all polling - well, most of them are polling horribly. Initiative 2109, particularly, is 62% No - again and again and again, in poll after poll after poll. It's done. It's going to be defeated. And this is the one that Heywood really cares about a lot because it's a tax cut for himself. 2117 also is polling No - 57% No. And 2124 is polling 50% No, 52% No. Usually the conventional wisdom is on initiatives - and you all know this, right? The conventional wisdom is if you are trying to get Yes on initiative, you got to start at above 50%, and you got to start maybe at 60%, because people tend to No. So right now, these initiatives are losing, which is great news for us. 2066 is the last one that you mentioned, and that one is the one to limit consumers' ability to get electrification and to take away protections against, again, greenhouse gases. Is this a hard fight? Yes. Yes, it's a very hard fight. But at the moment, the polling is looking pretty good.

[01:15:00] Crystal Fincher: Now, there was some reporting on polling that showed some of them may have decent prospects for passage. How did you read that? And is that accurate?

[01:15:10] Heather Weiner: Oh, that was The Seattle Times and another polling firm where they only read part of the ballot initiative, or sometimes they didn't read the ballot initiative at all. They just kind of made up fictitional language that they thought summarized the ballot initiative - not what voters will actually see. They didn't have the legally required financial impact disclosure on there. And so they just made up ballot initiative language, read it to voters, and then came back and gave the polling numbers. But polling that actually polls the actual language that voters will see shows that these lose.

[01:15:47] Crystal Fincher: That's a really important point because really you're trying to replicate the conditions under which people are going to be voting - both the messaging environment and what they're doing. So people see the voter guide statement, they see the question on the ballot, they're reading the question on the ballot. One of the most basic fundamental things that you want to do is ask the question as it's going to be on the ballot. You have to do that, at least at some point in the poll. Generally, it's really hard to get good, actionable, useful information when you don't do that. Curious choice to not do that. That's a pretty - you're going to ask one question. It's actually that question. So that's not even like two or three down the list - curious choice not to do that.

[01:16:34] Heather Weiner: You want to - anyway. So, I mean, there's all kinds of analogies that I could make here, but here's the thing. When we asked the reporters, when you said - why did you allow this to happen? Because these are smart people at The Seattle times who are allowing this to happen. They said the polling company told them it was too many words. But it was a digital poll y'all.

[01:16:52] Crystal Fincher: Interesting.

[01:16:54] Heather Weiner: So it wasn't like somebody was reading it out loud.

[01:16:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I think this is - there's a lot at stake. And really what we're seeing is a result of - the residents of Washington continue to elect Democrats to our Legislature and to these statewide positions. Republicans have not been able to effectively make a case to voters to get elected to office - That is not an avenue for Republicans to advance policy. So this is kind of the route that they're taking now. They don't have anyone viable enough, their ideas do not connect with the public - they can't pass them legislatively. But hey, they have Daddy Warbucks coming with the cash, and he can fund these initiatives. And it really would be rolling us back, setting us back. Climate change is here - we've got to mitigate the effects. We're dealing with wildfires, the challenges that come with them. We're dealing with trying to mitigate the impact on our water and our air. We're trying to make sure that we have safe places for people to live, whether being in their neighborhoods. And that is all going to be undone if these pass - the affordable child care, the social safety net that we value here would literally be undone. So, I mean, there's a lot of numbers involved in these things. They kind of did make it easy, and this is all part of a unified effort. And people just need to vote No. Initiative - just vote No. Vote No on those statewide initiatives on the ballot as part of this backhanded attempt at overreach and the only way that they can do. It's really challenging. Did you have some thoughts, Riall?

[01:18:53] Riall Johnson: Plenty, because I live and breathe initiatives. And definitely not these ones - I turned these down pretty easily. Also we know that there were seven initiatives - there were three others, and our Democratic Legislature passed three of them - like that. So I think half their job got done, so he's already kind of getting his money's worth already - because of our failure in Olympia. So yeah, vote No on all these - these are trash - trash Republican policy and it's pretty simple. But the Republicans nationwide - I've seen this trend nationwide - figuring out that they can run initiatives too and get these passed. We see in Walmart funding a pro-prison initiative last year. Chipotle funded anti-workers, fast food workers one. The oil companies did another similar one for Cal- they're gonna be on the ballot this year in California and it's just literally taking money from schools to fund prisons this year - it's funded by Walmart. And so because they have - you don't have to get 50% of the people to sign these initiatives, you only have to get 8% to sign them to qualify them. So it's very - if you have the money, it's easy to do. You can really spin these really easy on the ground. So the fact that they're on the ballot - it's not a heavy lift if you have the funding. If Democrats had the funding to get, they could pass 20 initiatives and people would vote for them because they're issues actually that they talk about but don't actually pass in Legislature - poll very well, they could pass these, but we just don't want to put the money behind them. So I think - qualifying and passing are different things. So I think someone has convinced Brian Heywood - hopefully he ends up wasting a lot of money by getting these failed, because it costs a lot to get on the ballot qualifying. If it's up to the people, I think it's gonna - hopefully they all fail.

[01:20:43] Crystal Fincher: Now we are about to close - we had planned on talking about a number of other races, but I guess just real quick, what are the top races that you're watching moving into the general election? We'll start with Stephen.

[01:21:00] Stephen Paolini: Yeah, I'll just - I'll try to give so few. Obviously, the Third Congressional District - I mean, can we hold that district? Can we potentially - there's really no mathematical path to taking back the House for Democrats that does not include holding that district, so that's obviously a huge race all of us should be invested in and trying to do. There's a few State Legislative races we haven't mentioned - 45th Legislative District Position 2, we have progressive challenger, union organizer in Melissa Demyan, who's running against Representative Springer. Full disclosure, I work for Melissa. She came really close in the primary. We're going to have much higher turnout in the general. If she wins, I think this is a great shot across the bow for progressives to say - If you're an incumbent and you are taking horrible anti-union votes, anti-climate votes, anti-abortion votes, you will lose your seat if a challenger takes you on, even when they're outspent 10 to 1. I think that is a huge, potentially rippling effect to other races. And then the last one I'll mention really briefly - kind of a hot take - R vs R race in Legislative District 2. So we have in Washington state, progressive state as we are, a literal local leader of a far-right anti-government militia organization - a violent extremist organization that in other states has committed truck bombings against federal buildings - who is leading currently in the primary and will face off against another Republican in the general election out in Yelm and Thurston County. To me, that is like - just as a human, just as a believer in democracy - I am terrified that we will potentially have a violent extremist as a state legislator. We saw that for a while and we finally did away with it. Now, my hot take is that as Democrats, we should try to figure out how to prevent that from happening. Anyway, those are the races I'm paying attention to.

[01:23:07] Crystal Fincher: What about you, Heather?

[01:23:10] Heather Weiner: I'm paying attention to LD 14, which is a Latino-majority district, where Curtis King is running for reelection but is being challenged by Maria Beltran, who is an amazing activist and community leader in the Yakima area. And although she did not perform as well as one would hope in the primary, I think that primary voters tend more conservative and I'm hoping that she has big turnout for the general. So that's one that I'm secretly watching. I'm, of course, watching CD6 for my friend Emily Randall. And here in the city of Seattle, really hoping that Tanya Woo finally gets the message and stops trying for Seattle City Council.

[01:23:57] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, for me - absolutely second what you said before there. Riall, any races that you are following in the general?

[01:24:08] Riall Johnson: Of course, I'll be following Shaun Scott. I think he's gonna win easily, but I love he is trolling the hell out of his opponent in a genius way and it's just hilarious to watch. And it's like - I wish I could say I was behind some of the stuff he's saying, but it's just all him and it's funny to watch. I'm looking forward to Tanya Woo getting kind of exposed with her, especially with her slumlord tactics that she's been using in real life, and seeing that put on full display for the whole city to see.

[01:24:41] Crystal Fincher: Yes, certainly. I am paying attention to a number of those. In addition, the 5th Legislative District race - that's the Issaquah, like North Bend area - has Victoria Hunt, who made it through a crop of Democratic challengers to face Mark Hargrove, who was districted into this district. He used to be a 47th District representative - conservative MAGA Republican - but now is in that 5th Legislative District race, so challenge there to follow. And then the 42nd District up north with Alicia Rule, the Democrat, facing Raymond Pelletti. And then Joe Timmons, who is looking strong against Kamal Bhachu. So really some close races there. That Larry Springer-Melissa Demyan race in the 45th is a big deal - certainly following those. And the Commissioner for Public Lands race, which may be a competitive race in the general, so we are hoping - I think, I think consensus? Dave makes it through? Guesses there?

[01:25:56] Stephen Paolini: Better knock on some wood - I don't know. Knock on a tree. I don't know.

[01:26:02] Crystal Fincher: I am hoping so. Squeaker - and it could be either way - but to me, it looks like there's enough to squeak through. But we'll continue - tomorrow's update is going to be pretty determinative to see what that is.

With that, this roundtable comes to a close. I want to thank our panelists - Riall Johnson, Stephen Paolini, and Heather Weiner - for their insight tonight and all the work that they do. They are involved in so much - I love working with them on different projects - just doing very, very good quality work. To you watching online, thank you for tuning in - thank you for your feedback and questions. If you missed any of the discussion tonight, you can catch up on the Hacks & Wonks Facebook page, YouTube channel, wherever we're at. Special thanks to essential member of the Hacks & Wonks team and coordinator for this evening and all-around just excellent human being, Shannon Cheng - running things behind-the-scenes and getting us all coordinated and together.

If you missed voting in the election - in the primary election - or know someone who did, make sure to register to vote. You can register to vote, update your registration, or find information for the next election at myvote.wa.gov. As a reminder, even if you've been previously incarcerated, your right to vote is restored and you can re-register to vote immediately upon your release, even if you're still under community supervision - very important.

Be sure to tune into Hacks & Wonks on your favorite podcast app for our Tuesday topical interviews and our Friday week-in-review shows or at officialhacksandwonks.com. I've been your host, Crystal Fincher, and we'll see you next time.