Week In Review: January 21, 2022 - Seferiana Day

Week In Review: January 21, 2022 - Seferiana Day

On today’s week-in-review, Crystal is joined by a new co-host, political consultant and founding partner at Upper Left Strategies, Seferiana Day. They discuss Corrections Officers and Public Defenders joining forces to demand a reduction in the county jail population to help address their COVID crisis, a new federal redistricting lawsuit alleging the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act, a new survey revealing 78% of Kroger (Fred Meyer & QFC in WA) workers struggle to afford food and shelter, and advice to people considering running for office in 2022.

As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com.

Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today’s co-host, Seferiana Day, at @seferiana. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.


“Public Defenders Union Joins Jail Guards' Call to Address COVID Crisis” by Paul Kiefer from PubliCola https://publicola.com/2022/01/17/public-defenders-union-joins-jail-guards-call-to-address-covid-crisis/

“Seattle Police Chief: No more stops for 'low-risk' traffic violations like expired tabs, biking without a helmet” from Capitol Hill Seattle: https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2022/01/seattle-police-chief-no-more-stops-for-low-risk-traffic-violations-like-expired-tabs-biking-without-a-helmet/

“New legislative maps illegally dilute Latino votes in Central Washington, lawsuit says” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/new-legislative-maps-illegally-dilute-latino-votes-in-central-washington-lawsuit-says/

“Fred Meyer, QFC workers struggle in Washington to make ends meet, new report shows” by David Gutman from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/fred-meyer-qfc-workers-struggle-in-washington-to-make-ends-meet-new-report-shows/

“WA Supreme Court upholds $18M campaign finance fine against grocery industry group” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/washington-supreme-court-upholds-18m-campaign-finance-fine-against-grocery-industry-group/


[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, 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 perspective on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome to the program for the first time today: our co-host, political consultant and founding partner at Upper Left Strategies, Seferiana Day. Welcome.

[00:00:52] Seferiana Day: Hello, thanks for having me.

[00:00:54] Crystal Fincher: Hello, hello - excited to have you on the program - a very talented political consultant and highly sought after political consultant. Excited to dive into some of the news of the week. And I guess just starting out, I wanted to talk about news that came out early in the week about the public defenders union joining jail guards to call to address the COVID crisis in the jails in Seattle and Kent that are under county control. Here, there's a huge surge of COVID-19 infections among staff and inmates at the King County jails that actually created this unusual alliance of corrections officers and public defenders, which should tell you how bad the problem is that they're coming together. They sent a joint letter to elected officials in Seattle and King County asking them to immediately intervene to reduce the jail's population and to stem the spread of the virus.

One of the quotes from the letter is, "COVID -19 should not be a death sentence for anyone held in jail or anyone working in a jail," the unions wrote. "The stark reality is that if no changes are made, people will continue to get sick and continue to suffer." Paul Kiefer from PubliCola did a great article on this, and just a problem that we've seen before - where people in jail for misdemeanors, petty thefts, pretrial where they have not been convicted of anything, or just waiting to be charged with some simple misdemeanors, and they're basically saying, "If this is not a serious charge, please let them out." What do you see when you look at this?

[00:02:44] Seferiana Day: Wow. Well, I'm just shocked, but also not surprised that this is happening in our system. I think it just really points to the fact that this is what's not seen by the general public - who knows what's going on inside the walls of the jail for this to come out. And for this alliance to form just shows the drastic nature of the problem and the fact that we're letting people really just kind of slip into jail. We don't understand what happens behind the door, behind the jail walls, and we almost have this hidden class of people, of citizens, of residents - and it's baffling to me, honestly.

[00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean our current system - if someone is convicted of something, they're sentenced to a term, but that does not mean that they should be treated inhumanely or left to suffer and die. That's unconstitutional. That is not supposed to happen. And right now you have corrections officers there themselves saying that you're jeopardizing everyone's safety, and asking for four real specific items. In their joint letter, they ask for - one, imposing immediate booking restrictions so that violent offenses are the only ones booked into county jail facilities. Two, stop issuing warrants for misdemeanor and nonviolent offenses. Three, immediately take all necessary steps to improve staffing and workplace safety in the jail. And four, make plans for the immediate release of all misdemeanor and nonviolent offenders. They're being very clear about this and saying that their safety, inmate safety, is at risk - that they cannot continue as they currently are, and enduring these staffing problems that they've been enduring, and just watching needless suffering.

Now, this is also happening while Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison has really expressed her intentions to move in literally the exact opposite direction - to more aggressively pursue misdemeanor prosecutions. There was a story by one of the court watch organizations - with great Twitter accounts, by the way, and court watching is very important - but asking for someone who was unhoused, and one of the conditions was that they have home monitoring for two months. But an unhoused person doesn't have a house to do home monitoring in. So because they didn't have a house, they then asked for jail, which is just criminalizing poverty and homelessness once again. And that's exactly the thing that corrections officers are saying that is unsustainable and that doesn't make any sense.

And also this week we saw SPD say that they're reconsidering and have moved some new items to the lowest enforcement priority section, so things like low-risk traffic violations for expired tags or biking without a helmet, which David Kroman had done a lot of reporting on at Crosscut - at how that disproportionately impacted unhoused people, that those things, according to the SPD Chief Diaz, quote, "These violations do not have a direct connection to the safety of other individuals on the roads, paths, or sidewalks. We know there are also reasons for concern that these violations may disproportionately fall on those who are unable to meet the financial requirements set forth by law." So, I mean, when you have the SPD chief saying, "Hey, this is basically criminalizing poverty, has nothing to do with public safety. Putting these people in jail doesn't make us any safer - let's actually use our resources on things that do," seems to make a lot of sense, but looks like a lot of tension between the Seattle City Attorney's office, and what SPD just said, and what corrections officers and public defenders are asking for.

[00:07:05] Seferiana Day: Yeah. I think it really speaks to just the unprecedented nature of the COVID crisis, that it's almost - I mean, we are two years in, and what is it going to take for us to change our systems? We're seeing them kind of fall apart in front of us, right? And so in prior years, when we've talked about reforms to incarceration or alternatives to incarceration, but it's taking a public health crisis for us to see that we don't need to be convicting these low-level crimes because it really is criminalizing poverty and putting people into jail to basically get COVID and die if they don't have the proper care that they need.

[00:07:48] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, no, absolutely. And to your point, this pandemic has really made plain and made worse so many preexisting conditions in society, and just our approach towards punishment and jailing people without connecting that to, "Hey, is this actually making the community safer? Is this helping these people to address the root causes of the problem so that this isn't a revolving door situation and you're setting them up for future problems, like the inability to get a job or the inability to gain housing?" So it really is a challenge. And, again, with our Trump-Republican Seattle City Attorney, with the charge-them-all, jail-them-all attitude, it just seems to fly in the face of what every other entity - law enforcement, those involved in the criminal legal system are saying and what the data shows. So just a mess that I hope is resolved, and we'll certainly be looking to Executive Dow Constantine, the King County Council, Mayor Harrell, and the Seattle City Council to hopefully take meaningful action or do what they can to influence that.

Another thing I wanted to touch on were - this week, we saw another lawsuit pop up - don't know how this one is going to end up, but certainly an issue that has been on a lot of people's radar - with the redistricting maps. There is a new lawsuit alleging that the legislative maps illegally dilute Latino votes in Central Washington. There's an article in The Times by Jim Brunner, another one in Crosscut detailing this - we'll put those in the episode notes - but a new lawsuit basically saying that, "Hey, this violates the Federal Voting Rights Act. And they have purposely split and diluted the Latino vote to dilute their power." It's a tactic that we've seen in several areas around the country to gerrymander and to disenfranchise non-white male landowners from voting. And so the lawsuit was filed on behalf of eight Latino and Latina residents of Yakima and Franklin Counties by attorneys with voting rights advocacy groups, including UCLA Voting Rights Project, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Campaign Legal Center, as well as Kennewick attorney Edwardo Morfin. So we will see how this lawsuit turns out. If you're asking me my opinion, I think it has merit. This has been talked about for the entire process through redistricting - that the maps that were proposed - most of them did not look like they adhered to the Voting Rights Act, particularly in Central Washington. What do you think about this?

[00:11:12] Seferiana Day: I mean, I think Central Washington, and Yakima in particular, for almost a decade has been kind of the center of a conversation around the Latino vote. And I believe in 2014 when they decided that - also because of a ruling - that they needed to redistrict the City Council races so that it would actually be representative because it's a predominantly Latino city and it was very, very segregated. And I believe a majority of the councilmembers there were white and they were from certain parts of the city. And so, just for a decade, it's been a hot topic of conversation - like who is actually representing this community that is largely Latino.

[00:12:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And I mean, it really is a move to create a permanent underclass. I mean, so many Latinos are working on farms there owned by white people who wanted to maintain power. And so they're bringing people there to work for them and to create a profit for them, but not wanting to share any power in how their communities are operated, and in fact operating with hostility towards people who they're bringing in to help them, and not recognizing their full humanity and only viewing them as instruments of profit and really subjugation - to work for them and do nothing else and to eliminate modes of mobility and representation to fight against unfair working conditions. We just saw a summer where farm workers died because they lacked adequate protections from the heat - during record heat. And I look at things like that and look at how so many areas in our system are stacked against them. And this is certainly a foundational one.

And so 2004 - Yakima County had to enter into a consent decree with the Justice Department because they would not provide Spanish language voting materials - again, to a population that they court and need in their community. And like you said, in 2014, they were ordered to change their council districts because of that. I mean, just a long history of problems - don't know if this is going to affect timelines or alter the current boundaries. Or even if found successful - is it just going to alter the boundaries in those particular areas while all the other ones stay the same? A lot of unknowns - we'll see how this unfolds. I'm not aware of an anticipated timeline that this may roll out in, so we'll just keep our eyes peeled on what happens here.

Another element that we saw this week were Fred Meyer and QFC workers struggling to make ends meet - after a new report - following a survey of grocery workers. What did you see here?

[00:14:30] Seferiana Day: Well, I just see the - I guess my biggest question around this is who decides when the pandemic is over? We're seeing kind of a piecemeal approach over the past two years of the pandemic - of hazard pay. In Seattle, we have hazard pay because the City has continued to keep it. But as this article states, Federal Way - that hazard pay lasted three months. And you've got workers across the state who have to go to work to feed their families, and they're being paid minimum wage. And it's just - it's a classic story, really - of corporations doing all they can to pay their workers as little as possible. And these are unionized workers, which to me is surprising, and makes me wonder what can unions do? What can even the public be doing to support these folks who are on the frontlines every day and have been there for the last two years, while many of us are in our homes? I'm working from home often, and these grocery workers are out there on the frontlines.

[00:15:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Out there on the frontlines dealing with - I mean, we see the stories everywhere. We see people acting ridiculous, locally and nationally, and that really falling on the back of service workers, grocery workers, people on the frontlines to not only manage their own jobs, but manage people acting ridiculously in their store, and needing to - better de-escalation techniques than police officers is what's being asked of them right now. And it really is a challenge. And specifically, it was a survey of more than 10,000 unionized Kroger workers in the Western US, and 78% are struggling to afford basic necessities like food and shelter. One third of those respondents were from Washington where Kroger owns Fred Meyer and QFC stores.

One of the issues is that a lot of them are only working part-time, so minimum wage doesn't cut it, and full-time barely. I mean, it's ticking up, but it certainly is far behind inflation and what the cost of living has been. And so to then be working 18 or 20 hours a week and to not know what that schedule is going to be - a city like Seattle has some scheduling regulations, but other cities do not. So someone who came in getting more hours and that can just be cut back and cut down - there's a lot of financial insecurity and everything that results from that. And so this is just kind of a glimpse into - even in a unionized workplace, there are still things that need to be improved. And one of the things that we see, and a worker says in here, is, "Hey, our union did negotiate benefits and some of them start at a certain amount of hours per week, but they keep scheduling us below that amount of hours, so they don't have to pay more and so we don't make enough money." That's a challenge.

And I know in that article, it also said that a new contract is going to be negotiated in May - I think it was local UFCW Chapter 21, I think it was, and that they're going to be looking for significant improvements. And I don't know the details, but certainly before the pandemic, I recall a lot of grocery stores talking about how hard times were, how challenging things were. And so in those negotiated contracts, it probably reflected that. Pandemic happened and things got much more dangerous for workers, but wow, the profits skyrocketed in grocery stores and that has not been shared with the workforce. And so just hearing about how just swimming in cash Kroger has been, how incredibly profitable they have been, and the kinds of bonuses that their executives are getting - and then hearing that a majority, a vast majority of their workforce is food-insecure, shelter-insecure, some are actually on public assistance, which basically means that the public is subsidizing the exploitative work practices of this employer. If they're not paying enough, they're just saying, "We expect taxpayers to pick up the bill and to subsidize our profit." It's not like they don't have the money. They're just keeping the money for themselves and expecting us to backfill it. And it just doesn't seem to make much sense.

[00:19:30] Seferiana Day: Right. And this article talks about how the CEO himself brought in $22 million in 2020 - which is double the five years before, 909x more than the median employee at Kroger, that brought in $24,000. And that is the same for every corporation in America - that is the situation that we're seeing. And that is the inequality that's just being perpetuated by the pandemic - those that have to go to work every day and work for minimum wage at risk, risking their health. While you have "professional" workers able to work from home, able to keep their jobs, work in the comfort of their home and not be at risk, and continue making more money. And there's just a growing inequality there.

[00:20:33] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. Growing inequality, growing resentment, growing intolerance of it, because it really just seems like a callous, cold-hearted exploitation. And to a point you made earlier, trying to pretend the pandemic is over. And the pandemic keeps saying, "Pretend all you want. You're going to have to contend with me," as everyone at schools and businesses and looking at products that are having a hard time shipping because the supply chain problem is not this abstract thing. It's people are not there in the places to get goods from one place to another. It's people who are missing there - people who are sick, people who are taking care of family members, people who can't afford to stay at a job, can't afford childcare. These are people missing in this supply chain problem. So it is really offensive to think about everything we're trying to address in society and the revenue that we need, and so much of it is going to directly and indirectly subsidize these corporations who are not struggling. They're more profitable than they've ever been before, and it just seems absolutely backwards.

And this comes in a week where the Supreme Court upheld a judgment against the grocery industry, because while they were fighting it - they fought against hero pay while they're bringing in these record profits, and they fought against a food labeling initiative years ago and sought to cover up who was actually funding it. And just had a record fine of $18 million upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court because they spent more than $11 million and tried to hide that it was coming from Coca-Cola, and General Mills, Nestle - a big coordinated campaign that they tried to make it seem like it was Ma and Pa, locally-owned grocers. And they seem to have deep, unending pockets when it comes to fighting anything that would give their workers a couple more bucks and allow them to reliably feed and house themselves. And will spend tens of millions of dollars of doing that, raking in tens of millions of dollars in profit, and just doesn't make any sense. It would be cheaper to just pay them. But for some reason, that seems like a big problem. Anyhoo, we will move on from that, but we will also continue to keep an eye on what's happening there. And also hope that those UFCW 21 negotiations in May are very fruitful.

So I want to talk a little bit now just about where we find ourselves in this election cycle. You're a political consultant, as am I - lots of candidates are considering running for office. Every legislative district has elections this year. People are electing all of their representatives, some of their senators - all of their senators. And we'll see some open seats - as we've seen, there will be some challenges to incumbents, I assume, as we see every year. So in this time when people are considering running, what is the advice that you give to potential candidates as they're considering whether to actually go ahead and run?

[00:24:23] Seferiana Day: Yeah, I would say we work with a lot of first-time candidates. We work with a lot of candidates of color. We work with a lot of candidates who are more on the progressive, maybe a little more radical, spectrum or end of the spectrum. And I would say that one of the first things that I tell candidates that I work with who maybe haven't run before is that - even if you've been an advocate, you're about to enter electoral politics, which is a different beast. It's really about - I think there can be a tension between telling your story and being authentic to who you are and what your values and vision are, and kind of marrying that with the electoral process - which because the topics we talked about earlier around voter suppression, the lack of representation on a really systemic level - we're really trying to cater our message to people who vote, people who have access to voting. Which can sometimes go against kind of what you really - what you really dream of is that you're going to be able to turn out the youth vote, people of color to vote - and I think in reality, we're often trying to give that message to moderates, depending on the seat.

And I think this year we're looking at a prosecutor's race, which is countywide. We're looking at these legislative races where it's going to be a very important year. I think I'm nervous - seeing how we can maintain our majorities. And so it's really important that we're sending that message out to all voters. And I tell my candidates to really be ready to be authentic with themselves, but also to have conversations with folks that they may not agree with, and that it's important to talk to everyone, it's important to get your message out there.

[00:26:27] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I think that's right on. And for me, I think - I certainly tell people, "Hey, this is going to be different than something that you've done before." I really try and help people understand where they are and what they believe. And it's okay not to have all of the answers today, but kind of have a framework that you process information and policy through, or your own ideology. But really, elections are not about the candidate, they're about the voters and potential voters - people in the community. And your job is to connect with them and to communicate with them in the way that they receive information, which may be different than how they're used to delivering it.

And also voting is not a - as much as we like to think that it is, it is not a logical decision. It's an emotional decision, and people need to feel some kind of connection with you that you understand where they're coming from. And even if they don't agree with you completely - if they feel that you care about making their lives better, they'll hear you out, and they'll give you a fair shot most of the time. But getting your message to them is a challenge and oftentimes an expensive one. And doing the work to get those resources in to effectively communicate with people, enough people to win, is work. And so to be prepared for the work of campaigning, which may even - to your point, like someone who's been organizing for a long time, or an advocate for a long time, who has been around politics but hasn't run themselves, may have expectations of like, "Oh, I've done this before." And it isn't the same. Some of it is different. And so it's just important to know that.

And elections are weird and strange also. And so having people who have been through it to help you along - having a solid consultant is just really useful because there are a lot of weird things. There are a lot of things that are gate-kept. You look at our national election system - you look at what it takes to get on ballots, and it is not easy. There are tons of rules and regulations with campaign finance rules and everything with our PDC here, the SEEC in Seattle - you need people in your corner to keep you from falling into just weird little traps that would trap someone if you don't have someone actively saying, "Watch out for this."

So it's just a serious time commitment. It's not always fun. It's a lot of sitting on the phone. It's a lot of knocking on doors. And a lot of monotony to be prepared for it, but you then get to represent people. And that's when the real work starts. As hard as a campaign can be, actually being accountable for making those decisions is in many ways harder than the campaigning. So it's an interesting and challenging thing. You have successfully guided a lot of candidates through that process, particularly when it comes to, I guess, a couple of things. I mean, so both sitting here as consultants, as non-white consultants, and how, I guess, in terms of working with candidates of color and with white candidates - do people approach you differently with both of those?

[00:30:29] Seferiana Day: You mean do candidates approach me differently?

[00:30:32] Crystal Fincher: Mm-hmm [affirmative].

[00:30:33] Seferiana Day: Oh, yes. I would say, and there are times when I'm shocked because sometimes white candidates will rush over to us and want to work with us. And candidates of color are sometimes doubtful, to be perfectly honest. And I think that's hard. I think it can be really hard to know that we still after - this is our fifth year, we're entering into our fifth year - that we still have to prove ourselves, especially among candidates of color who expect a white consultant to kind of know what to do and they trust them. And I'm not saying that's every candidate of color. Obviously, we work with many, but I've encountered that as a woman consultant of color - that there's often doubt. And it goes unsaid - you kind of feel it. You're like, "Oh. They doubt the expertise. They doubt the experience and the perspective." And so you're always kind of trying to make up for that doubt that exists because I'm young and I'm Brown, and so yeah, I think that you do get approached differently. And I think as consultants of color, it's often assumed that we're the social media consultant or we're the [crosstalk] experts. And we have to remind people that we're general consultants - we do it all. And yeah, and it's kind of a constant, I would say, dialogue with folks just to remind them, like, "We know what we're doing."

[00:32:13] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. I mean, yes, that is definitely a thing. And I mean, we've talked about this a little bit before just in general conversation, but yeah, it's a weird thing. And I've experienced this off and on for the past 10 years where, yeah, sometimes candidates of color will be like, "Well, I think it's safer for me to go with a white consultant," and man, that's a loaded word - safer - and really the advice to candidates a lot of the time that I give, that I stand by, is, "Look to consultants who win races like the one you're looking to go into." That should be your primary lens and consideration. Can they win competitive races? Or is it a lot of incumbents? Are they working with candidates of color? Are they having races where they're looking like things are ahead and the polling looked good at one time, and then things just continued to decline? What is the track record of the consultant that you're looking at? And one of the good things about Black consultants, consultants of color in Washington, is the track records often speak for themselves, but it is a weird dynamic - that feeling like, "Well..." I think some of it is, "People might not give me a fair shake as a Black candidate with a Black consultant. So if I have a white consultant, they can do the work of talking to the community or something." It's a weird thing.

[00:33:50] Seferiana Day: [crosstalk]

[00:33:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And again, not with all candidates, but it has been a thing that has certainly happened, and it is a strange dynamic. And then sometimes I will get, I've actually gotten a ton, where white candidates will assume that I only work with candidates of color. And I don't do many candidate races anymore, but when I was, it would just be like, "Well, you work in urban areas," or, "You work with urban candidates or just candidates of color or something." It's like, okay, most of the work and candidates I did were in suburban and rural areas and really winning races in the places where, frankly, a lot of white consultants didn't want to work or feel like it was profitable to work.

And so it's just like, well, I'm kind of a suburban and rural person more than I am the super inside the city, in terms of winning elections. But it's just this weird thing, the assumption that people have. And certainly like you said, "Well, we want another general consultant, but you can do social media. Well, you do." It's just like, "What would make you think that I would just want to... No, that's not what... Unless you're going to pay me something that you're not going to be happy paying someone doing just social media, I don't know what that's going to accomplish," but it's an interesting thing.

I think generally at this point, candidates are just well-served by making sure their teams represent their community and all that that is, and that you have visibility into as many areas in your community - as many communities, organizations, interests - have a connection and visibility to those, have a broad cabinet. If everyone is saying the same thing, that's a red flag. If everyone is talking in the exact same way, that's a red flag, right? You need to make sure that you're able to hear, see, listen to everyone in your community, because solving for all of those problems only will give them confidence in you as a candidate. If you don't even see them, if you can't have a conversation in a way that they could hear, those are votes that you're not getting and that may hinder you from running.

But we'll see, it's not an easy process. It can be rewarding if this is what you really want. Have this be what you really want, have this be an office that you really want to seek. Offices are different. Some people love legislative positions, and that's really where they can excel and make a big difference, others more on the municipal level or on a county level, but be intentional about what you choose, if you're considering it. And man, go to trainings. Please get trained. Please get some real information from people who've been there and done that. And it utilizes a number of elements in organizing and certainly governing. Good governing includes good organizing, but the nuts and bolts of campaigns are not identical to that of kind of organizing to help educate a community or shift opinion over a long term, which is valid and necessary. Campaigns are just a little different. And so you just have to be prepared for that.

[00:37:39] Seferiana Day: I agree. And I think one last note that I have is just around authenticity and that that's - if someone's considering running - thinking about who can I work with, what team can I build around me that's going to let me be authentic to who I am so I don't lose myself in the campaign? Because when people are voting - yes, campaigns are - it's different than being in office, but when people vote for you, they're going to want to know that you're going to be the same person elected that you were on the campaign trail. And so having a team around you that will let you speak to your values and vision is really important.

[00:38:17] Crystal Fincher: Really important. And I'm glad you said that, and it is a red flag if someone is telling you, "Oh, just say this." That will never work. You have to believe what you are saying. If you don't, it's going to show, you're going to have a hard time being consistent with it. You're going to have to get used to talking to people and being able to disagree with them - it sounds so cliché - disagree with them without being disagreeable, have a conversation. I mean, I guess there are some times where it's fine to be disagreeable when you disagree with someone. But if we're not debating someone's personal identity or dignity, and it's details in a proposal or something, you can disagree, it's fine. And have those conversations. But you have to know where you stand and you have to be consistent with that. And if someone is telling you that you don't have to be, that's a red flag.

So just as people are considering - please do consider - we need more people running for office who represent more of the community. But just please make an educated, informed decision. Get a good consultant - Seferiana and Upper Left are good consultants, there are a number of good consultants out there, but definitely get one. Do some campaign trainings, really understand what you're getting into so you can adequately prepare for it. Those who come in prepared just have such an advantage when it comes to winning. There's so much that you have to do in a campaign and figuring out campaigning during a campaign - you just can't afford to do it. It just takes up too much time and resources.

So thank you so much for joining us today and for sharing your wisdom. Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM this Friday, January 21st, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler and assistant producer is Shannon Cheng. And our wonderful co-host today was political consultant and founding partner at Upper Left Strategies, Seferiana Day. You can find her on Twitter @seferiana, that's S-E-F-E-R-I-A-N-A. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave us a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.