So, am I right to say this race is turning into a referendum on the defund the police movement? That's not how I'm reading it. As much as I think "defund the police" is a dumb ass phrase slapped on decent policies, I think if it were a straight referendum on defund this race would be much closer. NTK got 36% in the primary, Ann Davison and the incumbent split the remaining 64%. It's easy for me to see people wanted a change from Holmes but weren't rushing into the abolitionist camp. The poll link has a good write-up of the dynamics of the campaign. Davison and the Seattle Times have been seizing on NTK's tweets and other statements to make her out to be someone who lacks the temperament to lead a law department. Even lefty voters like myself be more comfortable with Davison being a Republican vs voting for an angry tweeter, despite local Democratic Party leaders saying, “You can’t call yourself a Democrat and support a Republican for this job." Endorsements from big name Dems and retired judges is probably helping Davison as well. I think NTK's decision to go all in on abolition vs being a progressive prosecutor who would advocate for the policies behind the Defund movement is hurting her in the couple polls I've seen. I get the whole "defund doesn't mean defund" and "abolitionism doesn't mean abolition" arguments and have had those discussions, but most folk hear those phrases and don't go investigating their "true" meaning, they look at the other options. Davison has no court experience, but blue ass Seattle might live with a red prosecutor and see who runs again in 4 years. Major hedge: if NTK eeks out a win on Election Day, I will not be surprised, but I've predicted a Davison win here.

What are the differences between being a supporter of defund the police and an abolitionist? Agreed. Defund the Police is probably more about reforming a 19th century policing model than it is about getting rid police entirely, but in today's politics its about calling at the most extreme element(sometimes lies) that get people to vote angry.

So, if we ignore the extremes, defund means doing what plenty of folk have been trying to do for decades: reforming policing and law enforcement from the ground up by reducing funds for police departments and transferring them to other responders who can de-escalate non-emergency situations and address community problems with kneeling on necks or feeling the need to pull out a gun. The problem with that is just what you said, it's easy to take it to the extreme and it's not helped by genuine defenders who introduce legislation to defund departments by 20-50%. Seattle cut it's police budget by about 20% in 2020 only to restore some of that this year. And Minneapolis' city council pledged to defund in 2020, only to disappoint after a few months and return to the more responsible line that "reform is a process, it doesn't happen overnight" line. Abolistionism is just that, abolishing, not even cutting. But, I think of "defund" as reform of enforcement agency responses and "abolish" as reform of the entire criminal justice system to the point where it no longer exists because there would be no need for it. The schools-to-prison pipeline and prison industrial complex are real and have been studied to death and activists/politicians have tried confronting them for decades, just like reform of police. Abolitionists want wholesale reform of that because despite having the highest incarceration rate on the planet, the US isn't the safest place and public safety won't come about by imprisioning primarily low-income and BIPOC people. Last time I read it, NTK's platform said as much and noted the City Attorney only prosecutes misdemeanors, not higher level or white-collar crime. Her platform didn't mention that higher-level criminal prosecution is the purview of the county prosecutor... Some abolitionists acknowledge that their goal is years off. Considering the history of this country, I'd say about two centuries off. My biggest issue, not that anyone asked, with "defund" and "abolish" are that they are dumb campaign lines. The policies behind them are sound, the intent is sound - make sure police and the entire criminal justice system serves everyone and doesn't just persecute people of color and poor folk. They're slogans that work well on twitter and campus rallies, but give people who aren't going to spend time reading campaign platforms or looking to see what defund "really means" an excuse to tune out decent policy. Maybe in 10-15 years the needle will move and defund will be an accepted part of the political lexicon and not sound so extreme even to my Black ass, but it ain't working for me now.

More on this race -- https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/23/seattle-city-attorneys-race-offers-stark-choice/?news-national

I'm not sure I want to call this race just yet. It's a hell of a lead, but Ann doesn't lead by more than 50% of the votes still out.