Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:04:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 ... 252
Author Topic: Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle  (Read 836985 times)
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4425 on: September 29, 2013, 08:36:48 AM »

How are people voting on I-522? I don't know much about the issue but I guess I lean 'yes' based on what I've read.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4426 on: September 29, 2013, 11:48:03 AM »

I will vote yes of course. But the powerful food lobby will presumably crush it.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4427 on: September 29, 2013, 12:08:59 PM »
« Edited: March 03, 2014, 06:22:44 AM by Grad Students are the Worst »

No.  Strong No.  I can't believe the Democratic Party is going for this anti-scientific, poorly-written crap.  There is no rational reason to believe that genetic engineering is any less safe than the selective breeding processes we've engaged in for hundreds of thousands of years.  So why label GMOs with a blanket scare label that provides no information other than the super-vague contains "GMOs"?  Because people have a vague, abstract sense that they're "weird"?

I'm just going to paste what I've already written on this:

I don't see why I-522 would make the market more competitive. Large companies are going to survive the regulatory burdens of I-522 much better than small producers and distributors. Large companies can reingredient and re-make all of their packaging much easier, plus the possible legal liability surrounding the "chain of custody" would be harder for smaller firms to manage. The threshold in this law to be labeled as GMO (0% by 2019, compared to 0.9% in Europe or 5.0% in Japan) forces these smaller firms to potentially bear responsibility for trace amounts of GMO. Besides, the conventional seed industry is only somewhat less of an oligopoly than the GMO seed one. This isn't "sticking it to Monsanto" -- outside of the unaffected sectors, agriculture pretty much dislikes this all-around,

Finally, I like transparency and good information, but this bill is so deeply flawed. My problems about the "information" argument is that the information under I-522 is incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate. For instance:

1. A ton of products containing GMO product are exempted, I assume because industries wanted them to. So, if you're at the supermarket and buy on the basis of assuming everything not labeled "May Contain GMO" doesn't contain GMO food, you're going to buy a lot of GMO products. (Not that this is really a change; you already have been forever.)

2. On the flip side, there are some instances in which something can contain no GMO elements but still be labeled. Sugar in the U.S. comes from two sources: sugar beets (mainly domestic), and sugar cane (imported.) The sugar refined from both is basically identical (sucrose plus stray minerals.) However, because sugar beets are a GMO product (they have a modified protein) the sugar from them will be labeled incorrectly. The same happens with canola oil and a bunch of other common products.

3. Voluntary label regimes (e.g., USDA Certified Organic) already exist. People who want to know what the buy is GMO-free already have the option. I-522 just basically creates a regulatory mandate that redistributes this cost from the Natural Foods set to everyone. Doesn't Washington already have a sufficiently regressive tax system?

4. The damn thing is a scare label. "May Contain GMO Products." Putting aside that most Americans have non-evidence-based fears of GMO technology, anything that starts with "may contain..." is a scare label. If cheese had a mandated label saying "May be manufactured in France," even that would probably freak people out. People are already freaked out enough about GMOs (sadly; they're potentially great technology for the world's poor) without the state government helping them freak out more.  This seems to have sunk the market for GMOs in Europe, for no good reason.

5. GMO is a method, not a result. Labeling something "May contain GMO" is about as useless as labeling something "May contain some sort of allergen," except even less helpful, because people are actually allergic to allergens.

I love information and transparency. I think I-522 is a bad initiative, and I'm disappointed we're wasting our time fostering potentially anti-science attitudes in the name of feel-good quasi-transparency that probably will actually confuse consumers more than inform them. I'm voting No.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4428 on: September 29, 2013, 12:10:00 PM »
« Edited: September 29, 2013, 12:39:41 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

I'm happy to answer questions, because I seriously hate this dumb, poorly-written initiative with a fiery passion.
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4429 on: September 29, 2013, 03:43:16 PM »

I'm happy to answer questions, because I seriously hate this dumb, poorly-written initiative with a fiery passion.
Could you try stating your issue with it instead of calling it dumb?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4430 on: September 29, 2013, 04:22:36 PM »

Devin, read the post I made above that one Tongue

Welcome to the forum, by the way!  I think you might be our first poster ever from Asotin County.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4431 on: September 29, 2013, 04:26:44 PM »

Welcome from Seattle! It's good to have some posters from over the mountains. Smiley
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4432 on: September 29, 2013, 04:37:22 PM »

I'm conflicted on I-522. On one hand, most GMO's are completely harmless and make food more affordable for the poor. On the other hand, f**k Monsanto.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4433 on: September 29, 2013, 04:49:28 PM »

Saw back a bit in the thread that the Senate Republicans have a new leader. Will this affect the MCC in any noticeable way?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4434 on: September 29, 2013, 05:06:03 PM »
« Edited: September 29, 2013, 05:18:57 PM by Grad Students are the Worst »

I'm conflicted on I-522. On one hand, most GMO's are completely harmless and make food more affordable for the poor. On the other hand, f**k Monsanto.

Monsanto will survive I-522 fine.  They don't like it, because agriculture broadly (and rightly) dislikes it, but it's not Monsanto that's going to get impacted most by this.  It's small family farms that don't have the money to spend on political fights.  Voting against this to spite Monsanto is like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Except your nose is Monsanto and your face is agriculture and good public policymaking.

Or something.
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4435 on: September 29, 2013, 11:18:20 PM »

Devin, read the post I made above that one Tongue

Welcome to the forum, by the way!  I think you might be our first poster ever from Asotin County.
Whoops sorry, also why thank you!
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4436 on: September 29, 2013, 11:24:50 PM »

Welcome from Seattle! It's good to have some posters from over the mountains. Smiley
Thanks, but I like it over there much better. Im from Clarkston which is full of meth heads.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4437 on: October 01, 2013, 11:22:57 AM »

Welcome from Seattle! It's good to have some posters from over the mountains. Smiley
Thanks, but I like it over there much better. Im from Clarkston which is full of meth heads.

You should visit rural Pierce County... or Aberdeen.... or Sequim... Wink

Though aren't you in the Palouse. That's some real beautiful countryside.

Have any polls come out for I-522? I'm still conflicted, though lean no.
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4438 on: October 02, 2013, 07:28:59 PM »

Welcome from Seattle! It's good to have some posters from over the mountains. Smiley
Thanks, but I like it over there much better. Im from Clarkston which is full of meth heads.

You should visit rural Pierce County... or Aberdeen.... or Sequim... Wink

Though aren't you in the Palouse. That's some real beautiful countryside.

Have any polls come out for I-522? I'm still conflicted, though lean no.
Yeah im in the Palouse it is very pretty around here. Its a great area for fishing hunting an boating.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4439 on: October 03, 2013, 04:20:23 AM »

Asotin County actually seems like a pretty interesting place politically!  Clarkston has weird ancestral Democratic tendencies that still show up down-ballot.  It also seems to be influenced by its attachment to Lewiston, Idaho, more than Washington state (not surprisingly I guess.)  There are some places (outside of Asotin, mostly) where Obama did much worse than any other Democrat.  Weird politics.  Seems pretty gorgeous, though
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4440 on: October 03, 2013, 10:03:57 AM »

Yeah. Didn't Cantwell actually win the county in 2006?

Cantwell has an odd electoral history in Eastern Washington, then going on to win Yakima County last year, but losing both Spokane and Whitman counties.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4441 on: October 04, 2013, 12:21:09 AM »

Yep, Cantwell won Asotin in 2006 and Yakima in 2012

This explains a bit about why Cantwell won Yakima County in 2012 (plus Hispanic turnout plus there being liberal whites in parts):

http://www.yakimaherald.com/blogs/checksandbalances/410268-8/gop-apple-grower-supports-cantwell
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4442 on: October 04, 2013, 07:23:46 PM »

Asotin County actually seems like a pretty interesting place politically!  Clarkston has weird ancestral Democratic tendencies that still show up down-ballot.  It also seems to be influenced by its attachment to Lewiston, Idaho, more than Washington state (not surprisingly I guess.)  There are some places (outside of Asotin, mostly) where Obama did much worse than any other Democrat.  Weird politics.  Seems pretty gorgeous, though
Clarkston itself is more liberal than the county because with most people making between 20-30 grand a year, and a ton of teen parents there is a strong dependence on welfare. Also the few people who do have good jobs are usually union workers. It is a pretty interesting place, but also very corrupt at the same time. I am running for City Council when I turn 18, on a reform platform like a Conservative Ross Perot. And yes it is very pretty if you are ever in the area take the Hells Canyon tour, expensive as hell but worth it.
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4443 on: October 04, 2013, 07:24:46 PM »

Yeah. Didn't Cantwell actually win the county in 2006?

Cantwell has an odd electoral history in Eastern Washington, then going on to win Yakima County last year, but losing both Spokane and Whitman counties.
Cantwell in popular here I even worked as a volunteer for her last year.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4444 on: October 04, 2013, 07:29:11 PM »

Yeah, I remember that endorsement. She was about 300 votes short of winning Kittittas County too. Even Chelan was relatively close at 53-46 or something.

So what was the reason for Cantwell's 2006 win in Asotin? In fact, her win was stronger there than in either Whitman or Spokane counties.
Logged
Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin
Devin
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 646
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4445 on: October 04, 2013, 07:32:46 PM »

Yeah, I remember that endorsement. She was about 300 votes short of winning Kittittas County too. Even Chelan was relatively close at 53-46 or something.

So what was the reason for Cantwell's 2006 win in Asotin? In fact, her win was stronger there than in either Whitman or Spokane counties.
Various reasons mostly a very effective door to door campaign, and get-out the vote operation.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4446 on: October 04, 2013, 07:40:32 PM »

Wow! I just realized Garfield County went from 55-42 to 64-36. That's a huge swing.

Columbia County went from 59-39 to 63-37, a decent swing.

I never realized how strong Cantwell ended up performing in Eastern Washington in 2006.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4447 on: October 08, 2013, 04:56:44 PM »

http://www.seattlemet.com/data/files/2013/10/attachment/132/SeattleResults.pdf


PPP has done their first poll of Seattle's mayor race, on behalf of the League of Conservation Voters (Who have endorsed Murray)

McGinn has a 30/49 approval rating, and Murray has a 56/19 favorability. Therefore it's no surprise that Murray leads McGinn 52/28.

Also of note: 96% of Seattle citizens plan on voting, with the remaining 4% are somewhat likely.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4448 on: October 08, 2013, 06:34:10 PM »

I assume they did heavy LV screening and that identifying as "not likely at all" got you booted.

That's a lot of undecideds for such a high-profile race, but I really don't think McGinn stands any real chance of pulling this off.  Much worse approval ratings here than in the last one.  Being an incumbent polling at 28% when only 21% of people have no opinion on you...yikes.
Logged
Seattle
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4449 on: October 09, 2013, 02:17:12 AM »

Sad Oh well, I hope Murray embraces pro-transit positions and continues McGinn's and really Nickels' pro-density leadership.

I don't think there's a way for McGinn to win with those numbers.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 173 174 175 176 177 [178] 179 180 181 182 183 ... 252  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 11 queries.