You wanna know how bad off progressives were in the election recently concluded on November 2? The election dawned with folks like the Seattle Progressive Coalition and Seattle Greens loudly trumpeting that their endorsements would usher in a new era of majority progressive rule in the Seattle City Council. And, indeed, their candidates (with the notable exception of the most progressive one of all, Daniel Norton) survived the primary election and moved on to the general. Where they got waxed.

Curt Firestone, who ran an aggressive and well-financed prog race against incumbent Margaret Pageler, gained exactly 13% more (35%) than Lenora Jones, an African-American who ran no campaign at all (22%) against incumbent greenie icon Peter Steinbrueck. Either Steinbrueck is weaker than most imagined--and the generally used figure is that being on the ballot in a two- person race is worth 25%--or Firestone bombed. Or both. If you figure that 22%-25% is the tally any candidate can get by being listed on the ballot, that extra 10% or 13% represents the base of solid progreesive votes in Seattle--not enough to influence much of anything, let alone win city-wide office. It might swing an otherwise close election, but the progressive bloc by itself is incapable at this point in time of electing anybody, and that's the cold truth. There's a lot of grass roots organizing that has to take place before anyone can talk about having a predictably progressive majority on city council.

Unfortuntaely, the biggest loser in the election seems to be the council's most progressive, and best, member, Nick Licata. Licata wrote fund-raisieng appeal leters for three candidates: Charlie Chong, Judy Nicastro, and Dawn Mason. All but Nicastro lost, and his support for Judy is tempered by his original support for her primary opponent, Daniel Norton. Licata simply doesn't have as many people who will vote on his say-so as he imagined; and he may have shown himself to be just vulnerable enough that he will have attracted an opponent from the newly emboldened downtown crowd in two years. Maybe someone who's been on TV for a few years will do the trick.

The losses of both Chong and Cheryl Chow showed, in a perverse way, the power of incumbancy. Had they not given up certain re-election to run for mayor two years ago, both Chong and Chow would still be on council. But as contestants for open seats they could not reclaim the seats that they probably figured at one point to to be rightfully theirs.

Meanwhile, the I-695 vote showed once again that Washington is a crappy state to live in if you're poor. After passage of I-695 we immediately saw a flurry of op-ed pieces reassuring us that the voters know best and the sky won't really fall in. No, not if you're well off; in fact, you'll save a good bit of money the next time the tab on that Lexus comes due. But if you rely on public transportation or a public health program, you're fucked. And don't even think about the desperately needed expansion of the state's Basic Health Plan, certain now to fall prey to other budget needs (like transportation) axed by I-695. Ironically, the Seattle-centric anti-695 campaign did a piss- poor job of letting rural Washington--which overwhelmingly supported the measure--know that they're the ones who will be hardest hit in the realm of lost basic services.

Speaking of transportation, it was a key issue in mail pieces by Wills and especially Jim Compton, even though there's not much Seattle's city council can actually do about the issue. The body that can, the County Council, got much worse with the election of presumably pro-sprawl David Irons to replace the council's strongest environmentalist, Brian Derdownski. With no funds coming from the state and lots of new developments in the East County on line, look for gridlock coming to a freeway system near you, soon. And a few light rail lines in 2010 won't help much, either. If they get built, which is a whole 'nother story.