WA-08: SUSA -- Burner (D) 50%, Reichert (R) 46%

[Lunar]

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=1e89f25b-f539-428b-bcd1-2d084fa17f20

[NSA is just two letters away from NSDAP]

I hope this is true. Burner's a major FF.

[HardRCafé]

This contradicts all other polls.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I didn't buy R+1 as party ID, and I don't buy D+9.  Consequently, I didn't buy Reichert +10, and I don't buy Burner +4.

Significant, though:  Burner leads by 18 among the 20% of voters who have already cast ballots.  If that holds up, Reichert is getting a lot less Obama cross-over in this district than he would hope.  Small MoE caveat.

[Sam Spade]

Both parties have been throwing significant money into this CD over the past week or so - I have to believe it's close.

[Sam Spade]

A question for the fascist:

What should be the correct party ID in the parts?

Moreover, what do you think of the degree fracas that's arisen today?

[Meeker]

Burner and the DCCC advertising has been really top notch recently. Reichert and the NRCC just got on the air though, so we'll see if these numbers hold.

[Meeker]

20% of voters have not already voted - that number's around 10%.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

A question for the fascist:

What should be the correct party ID in the parts?

Probably more Republican than the Presidential result, but I have trouble imagining R+2 in a congressional district Bush won by two points.

I'd say low to mid single digit D advantage is reasonable.

Irrelevant point I want to repeat:  This is not exclusively an affluent Seattle suburb district.  Maybe 4/7ths of the district is anything like that, max.  Obama is going to do very well in parts, but there are others where he will struggle mightily.

Moreover, what do you think of the degree fracas that's arisen today?

?

20% of voters have not already voted - that number's around 10%.

Yep.  RCV is gonna make things slower, I imagine.

(I was in a car that very nearly ran over Mike Carrell today.  I thought you'd appreciate that.)

[Sam Spade]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008298919_webburner23m.html

[Meeker]

20% of voters have not already voted - that number's around 10%.

Yep.  RCV is gonna make things slower, I imagine.

(I was in a car that very nearly ran over Mike Carrell today.  I thought you'd appreciate that.)

Next time you guys should skip the "very nearly" part.
 
A guy I know who volunteers at the Auditor's office was told that he didn't need to come in this week to sort ballots because they weren't getting as many as they expected. My theory was that people are taking longer to figure out their RCV ballot. You agree?

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

A question for the fascist:

What should be the correct party ID in the parts?

Probably more Republican than the Presidential result, but I have trouble imagining R+2 in a congressional district Bush won by two points.

Bush didn't win the district.

[NSA is just two letters away from NSDAP]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008298919_webburner23m.html

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/profile.php?user=6470257

As someone who has been on faculty at Harvard, I can attest that this is simply twisting words for political opportunism. Harvard doesn't have "majors". They only have concentrations. And they don't have "minors" -- so to gain other credentialed experience, someone gathers coursework in joint, or dual concentrations. However only one department can appear on any transcript. Period. Even if you had major coursework across three departments (say your joint major area was "Molecular Biochemistry", you would Biology, Chemistry and Molecular Biology courses) but you would have to designate ONLY one of those as the primary department and thus folks might think you had only biology OR chemistry OR molecular biology work.

Ms. Burner's description is accurate if you understand the Harvard system (which also until recently had a 14 pt GPA scale -- I don't hear folks calling Ms. Burner a 'liar' about any 12.76 GPA average that she likely had). You just need to understand the Harvard system and its terminology which is quite different from most University systems.

[HardRCafé]

Burner is in trouble tonight for lying about having a Harvard degree in Economics.

[Gravis Marketing]

What Burner did is more than getting a minor, but less than majoring in Economics.

As someone posted, Harvard has concentrations, but that's neither here nor there. You can't minor. You can major in subject X with subject Y, which is very difficult to do, because you have to get both departments to agree and the College has an interest in discouraging students from reaching for the most impressive looking diploma when they could easily get a strong education within a single major. To do what she did, not only do you have to fulfill course requirement in Economics, but you have to construct a thesis that draws on both fields and represents a true synthesis of the subjects.

She studied Economics in depth in college and her choice of degree does indicate that she had a strong interest that she devoted energy to above and beyond taking Ec10. It means she knows the subject probably better than 90% of her House colleagues.

That said, this is a beast to explain should it come to a simple yes-or-no. What I see as the outcome here is that they're getting free advertising for the fact she graduated from Harvard, which is something the meritocratic Seattle suburbs can respect. 

[Gravis Marketing]

This contradicts all other polls.

...which have all been earlier Survey USA polls or internals, no?

A lot of races that had seemed static appear to have leaped 5-10 points toward the Democrat since the financial panic.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

A question for the fascist:

What should be the correct party ID in the parts?

Probably more Republican than the Presidential result, but I have trouble imagining R+2 in a congressional district Bush won by two points.

Bush didn't win the district.

Oops, I meant Kerry won by two districts, otherwise that didn't make much sense.  And I also meant R+1.  Botched that one.

I hadn't heard about the degree thing until now (Sound Politics is all over it; mainstream blogs less so), so I guess I'll refrain from commenting, but it sounds like she has a semi-explanation.  Still a ding.

[Mr.Phips]

I believe Burner will win. 

[HardRCafé]

Reichert by 16,000 votes.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

A question for the fascist:

What should be the correct party ID in the parts?

Probably more Republican than the Presidential result, but I have trouble imagining R+2 in a congressional district Bush won by two points.

Bush didn't win the district.

Oops, I meant Kerry won by two districts, otherwise that didn't make much sense.  And I also meant R+1.  Botched that one.

I hadn't heard about the degree thing until now (Sound Politics is all over it; mainstream blogs less so), so I guess I'll refrain from commenting, but it sounds like she has a semi-explanation.  Still a ding.

Still doesn't make much sense.