Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Peters Expands Her Lead

Update from 8:30 pm ballot drop:

Peters -          52.03%  50,381
Dale Estey     47.67%  46,157

Peters is now up by 4,224 votes.

I think this is pretty much done but it's up to Dale Estey to concede.

End of update.

Latest results from KC Elections:

Peters -          51.78%  46,949

Dale Estey    47.90%   43,430

Peters is now up by over 3500 votes.  About 27.50% of the ballots have been counted.


mirmac1 said...

That's all she wrote!

Patrick said...


Anonymous said...

YES! I like this trend. Keeping fingers and toes crossed until the 8:30 dump.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

It should be Mirmac, but I won't pop the cork yet.

Instead, looking at the numbers, Peters picked up 53.5% of the last 14526 votes, which is 1018 more votes than Estey from the latest round of ballots. So, I'm certainly enjoying the trend.


Dora said...

Fingers crossed.

If Sue gets this race, all drinks are on me.

RickB said...

Geeky analysis stuff:

In 2009 (last mayor election), ~44% of registered voters cast ballots for school board positions. In 2011, this number was ~40%

Based on 410,373 registered Seattle voters using a conservative 40% participation rate, the estimated vote pool in this race is 164,149.

As of today's results, 90,704 votes have been posted for the Peters/Dale Estey race, leaving 73,445 remaining.

Dale-Estey would need to receive 52.4% of the remaining votes to tie.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that, Rick B. Does that seem likely?

I'd like to start celebrating, but it feels a bit too early to count unhatched chickens just yet.


mirmac1 said...

C'mon WSDWG, don't mess with the mood! : )


Depends if you use DeBell math or Peters math.

ben said...

Seattle School District No. 1 Director District No. 4
(Precincts ( 957/ 957 ) 100.00
Suzanne Dale Estey 46157 47.67%
Sue Peters 50381 52.03%

Anonymous said...

Peters is now up by 4200 plus votes as of Wednesday night.... Hooray.

-- Dan Dempsey

Christina said...

52.03% for Peters (50381 votes)
47.67% for Dale Estey (46157 votes)

8:30ish pm drop 6 November 2013

Anonymous said...

Peters got 55.7% of the last batch of 6k+ votes counted. I like where this is going, for lots of reasons.


Ebenezer said...

I'm happy for Sue Peters and Seattle schools - she ran a great campaign that was successful, yes, but it was also a campaign she could have been proud of even if she lost.

Dale Estey, on the other hand, could have run an ethical, clean campaign, gained name recognition, and even after losing, been a stronger candidate for another run at political office. However, after the way she distorted her record as well as Sue Peters', she's hardly an appealing candidate for future office, even to those who gave the big bucks to her school board campaign.

Dora Taylor said...

Some of us will never forget the campaign that Estey ran and will never let anyone else forget either.

Anonymous said...

mirmac1 - lol, thanks for that. ;) Give me Peters math over DeBell math any day.

OK, the trend is looking good. Almost ready to say "phew"!


Jan said...

I am with Dora -- both on the drinks (yeah!) -- and on the inclination not to forget the Dale Estey campaign. I cannot imagine who was giving her advice.


Dora Taylor said...

Let's determine a place, date and time and I will back up my promise. This goes down in the history books and will be part of episode number 5 of
The Battle for Seattle

My suggestion is my neighborhood hangout, Couth Buzzards on Greenwood Avenue, Tuesday, November 12th at 6:00 PM.

Dora Taylor said...

To Lisa Macfarlane and Suzanne Estey: And you thought it was a conspiracy theory?

Jan said...

Sounds good to me, Dora. Let's hope the numbers stay good!


dw said...

What date will the new Directors officially take office?

Oh, how I wish it was next Monday! ;-) Joking, of course, but Sue certainly wouldn't be pushing asinine 3-way, maximum-sized APP splits all over the north end. Just what everyone doesn't want!

What a disappointment DeBell has been in recent years. Glad to see him gone.

Melissa Westbrook said...

Here's what Board policy says about the oath of office:

"The oath will be given at the first official meeting after the election results are
certified, unless there are extenuating circumstances."

My recollection is that always seems to happen the first meeting in December. Otherwise, it would be November 20th. As I recall they do the oath just before the Board meeting.

This is good because the next Board retreat is Dec. 7th and a good time for new members to get up-to-speed.

Po3 said...

Estey conceded to Peters; from her FB campaign page:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained! Over the last several months I have had the tremendous honor of meeting with thousands of voters across the city and hearing their hopes and desires for high quality education for all of Seattle’s kids. It has been an inspiring and overall fun adventure. I have learned a great deal from hardworking educators and leaders throughout the District, families who are deeply invested in making public education work, and thoughtful student and other community leaders. We have helped push the District and the community toward finally making progress on long-standing challenges, and we have kept conversations focused on solutions.

It appears that the votes aren’t there to win this election, and I just called Sue Peters to congratulate her on a hard fought victory. I wish Sue and the entire board great success in their work for Seattle’s 51,000+ public school students. I am deeply grateful to each of our hundreds of generous volunteers, endorsers and contributors who pitched in to this great team effort, to my best friend and amazing partner, Mike, our wonderful sons, Dale & Noah, and to all of our family and friends for their unwavering support. Onward

Anonymous said...

What's been dismaying about this campaign is that I think both Sue and Suzanne came in to this with great intentions and different viewpoints that would have added immensely to the board. This election is not exactly what I would consider a "landslide." I think there is still a place for Suzanne in this conversation and she should not be demonized for all the problems that frankly are due to a complete lack of accountability from SPS. This campaign itself has been a nifty little distraction from the fact that SPS has not only NOT done their job, but has not done their job FOR YEARS! And frankly, the board hasn't done any better. My hope is that Sue provides transparency, civility, leadership, and above all she strives for the best opportunities for ALL children in this complicated district.

Open note to Suzanne-your prespective is still valued and bully for you (and Sue) for even running. It's easy for all of us to be armchair critics and I honestly wonder if everyone here who has been so disparaging on either side realizes the guts it takes to put yourself out there. We are LUCKY to have people so passionate about this topic.
--Work Together

Anonymous said...

Work Together--

I wish that Estey had not embellished her resume and used a dirty tricks campaign to demonize Peters. Then, I would also have encouraged her further participation in SPS.

As a teacher, I don't welcome the input of someone who has been so willing to trade ethics for a seat at the power table.

--enough already

dw said...

My recollection is that always seems to happen the first meeting in December. Otherwise, it would be November 20th. As I recall they do the oath just before the Board meeting.

Do the new Directors take their places immediately thereafter, or is there a later "start date" when they become the actual voting Board?

I'm wondering because consider this:

If the Board decided to just scrap this "3.0" plan from the district, I mean forget about any amendments or anything else, just vote NO and scrap the entire thing, then would a new Board be in place to vote on whatever the district was forced to come back with? Because at that point there would necessarily be a v4.0 plan. It's a little scary, just checking to see if this were the case.

I seriously doubt this will happen, and frankly, with Blanford likely replacing DeBell's corporate mindset (we'll see), the overall nature of the board may not be hugely different. However, it would be really interesting to see what kind of input and amendments Sue Peters could come up with to stop the wholesale destruction of APP. Not that that's the only problem with this plan, but it's a huge driver of much of the movement across the north end.