[ahevia]

You did use “progressive slant” but for others reading this. That slant is just that. A slant. The city had the very opposite of progressive wins in last years city election cycle with quite a few moderates winning. It seems that slant might be wanting these days, our labor wins have seemed to run to the contrary though.

[robotblake]

Oh come on, this comes up every single time Seattle gets mentioned. Yes, some of the more "center" candidates won during the last election over "left" candidates but those same "center" candidates would also be considered "far left communist shills" by a large portion of the country at this point.

I'm probably in the "far left communist" camp in a lot of folks mind but it's important to be clear that this type of thing (when talking about the politics of a City, Region, or State) are extremely extremely relative.

Edit: I don't think we're disagreeing to be clear, I'm just tired of this whole "SEATTLE ISN'T PROGRESSIVE ANYMORE" rhetoric. Far right media groups use it as a rallying cry for their movements and I think it's important to recognize that despite things being slightly less progressive than they could be, doesn't mean the city as a whole is suddenly embracing nazi-ism or outright authoritarianism. We've got our issues but becoming a welcoming bastion of hate is not one of them.

Edit 2: Fuck Howard Schultz. His fragile ego and god complex are why we don't have an NBA team too. I view all of this union busting the same way I viewed him after that whole debacle, a megalomaniac who wants people to "believe" he's a savior when in reality he's just another rich dude who wants regular folk to worship him and throws a tantrum if he doesn't get what he wants.

[Schroedingersat]

Almost as if us election outcomes have nothing to do with what the constituents want.

[rayiner]

I feel like we are seeing in real time how swing voters and aspirational immigrants set the course of both parties. When Republicans win in 2022 focusing on inflation, crime, and the culture war, what should be the takeaway about “what constituents want?”

[Schroedingersat]

The takeaway should be that propaganda and limiting the options to the two worst via gerrymandering, FPP and other broken voting systems results in two options which are fundamentally the same but differ on fear of crime vs paying lip service to diversity. The very fact that you're attempting to lay the blame on swing voters and aspirational immigrants is proof that the system is fundamentally broken and completely uncoupled from the wants or needs of the majority.

Hugely popular measures that actually help the people rather than the rich are rejected bipartisanly at every single level of government in every country where murdoch reigns using the same garbage propaganda whilst privacy is removed, police powers are increased, and trillions of taxpayer dollars are sent to coal and oil barons or arms dealers based on votes taken in the middle of the night.

At a local level the 1% of NIMBYs are listened to over the 70% of people that actually want low carbon, more convenient transport or money to be spent on local parks and activities or increased housing density whilst budgets for the local PD to LARP as a special forces team are doubled without consultation and yet another poor neighborhood is demolished for highways. This happens no matter whether the local pro-facist or shit-light party is in power.

Painting a rainbow or the local indigenous flag on an intersection is completely meaningless when both parties agree to defund and privatise social services (or at the very best one party defunds and sells these things to their buddies for a song while the other party undoes 10% of the damage and pats themselves on the back).

[rayiner]

> The takeaway should be that propaganda and limiting the options to the two worst via gerrymandering, FPP and other broken voting systems results in two options which are fundamentally the same but differ on fear of crime vs paying lip service to diversity.

How does “gerrymandering” lead to under 30% of Hispanics approving of Biden?

> The very fact that you're attempting to lay the blame on swing voters and aspirational immigrants is proof that the system is fundamentally broken and completely uncoupled from the wants or needs of the majority.

I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m asking you to think honestly about what these folks really want, instead of what you wish they want.

> Hugely popular measures that actually help the people rather than the rich are rejected bipartisanly at every single level of government in every country where murdoch reigns using the same garbage propaganda whilst privacy is removed, police powers are increased, and trillions of taxpayer dollars are sent to coal and oil barons or arms dealers based on votes taken in the middle of the night.

The typical aspirational immigrant doesn’t care about any of these things. The top issue among Hispanics right now is inflation: https://www.newsweek.com/ominous-sign-democrats-poll-says-in.... The plurality want police funding increased: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/26/growing-sha...

Asians, the fastest growing minority group, were instrumental in recalling Chesa Boudin in SF, supporting it by larger margins than anybody else.

> At a local level the 1% of NIMBYs are listened to over the 70% of people that actually want low carbon, more convenient transport

This is urbanist fantasy. Most people, especially aspirational immigrants, don’t meaningfully care about “low carbon.” Most want a suburban house with a pool. As incomes among Hispanics improves, for example, pickup truck sales are skyrocketing in that demographic.

[robotblake]

What are you referring to with this? What outcomes are you talking about? What are you implying that constituents want?