Did Strategic Voting Take Down Nickels?

In the last few weeks before the August 18 primary election a meme sprouted that Nickels supporters should consider voting for McGinn because a Nickels/McGinn race would lead to a more progressive debate in the general election.  There was also talk among some Nickels supporters that voting for McGinn could be a good strategic move because it would be easier for Nickels to beat McGinn than Mallahan in the general election.  Of course in both cases, the operative assumption was that Nickels would make it through the primary easily.

Is it possible that there were enough of these strategic votes cast to tip the election away from Nickels to McGinn?

There are 379,721 registered voters in Seattle. Turnout projections are 33 percent, which means about 125,000 ballots were cast.  Assuming Nickels ends up at 26 percent, that’s 33,000 votes.   Nickels is currently behind McGinn by about 1200 votes, but lets make a guess that he finishes down 1500.   That 1500 is equivalent to four and a half percent of the estimated 33,000 votes he received.  But then we also must factor in that every Nickels supporter who switched to McGinn increased the split by two votes.  Which means 750 strategic voters would generate a 1500 vote split between McGinn and Nickels.  And that 750 is only about two percent of the estimated 33,000 Nickels voters.

By this back-of-the-envelope calculation, if one out of 43 Nickels supporters made a strategic vote for McGinn, it cost Nickels the election.   Possible?

My intial gut reaction is no.  On the other hand, I heard several politically sophisticated Nickels supporters talk about how they were seriously contemplating voting for McGinn.

There is no way to quantitatively verify this one way or the other, but perhaps we could learn something anecdotally.  What about it people?  Anyone out there willing to admit they did it?  Anyone know others who did it (no need to name names)?  Anyone care to venture a guess at how many may have done it?