Atlas Forum

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections => Topic started by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 02:13:58 am



Title: Washington '18: The Calm Before the Drizzle
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 02:13:58 am
Well it's filing week in Washington. The reason I bring this up as a slight matter of interest is because of the effects the bizarre new top-two primary is having on the ballot. Party selections are now done by having a candidate fill in a sixteen character space with the name of their party, and you can put whatever you want so long as it isn't vulgar. The current choices of labels by various candidates:

Prefers Democratic Party
Prefers Republican Party
Prefers Democrat Party
Prefers G.O.P. Party
Prefers R Party
Prefers D Party
Prefers Green Party
Prefers Libertarian Paty
Prefers Party of Commons Party
Prefers Independent Party
States No Party Preference

The whole "Prefers G.O.P. Party" strikes me as the silliest, but several incumbent legislators are using it.


*** mod note (7/27/2018):  changed '17 in title to '18


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 02:28:21 am
Wow I was just going to post something about this...

I really hate this system so far... :P

So by the end of the week should we know who all the candidates are?


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 02:37:39 am
So by the end of the week should we know who all the candidates are?

Yea - none of that "parties have a week to fill vacancies" anymore. It's a free-for-all, every man for themselves filing bloodfest.

And this system sucks.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 02:43:15 am
Did the Republicans ever find a candidate for State Auditor? Or Insurance Commissioner? Hopefully not.

I would love to see the Republican fail to make it to the general in the 7th district.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 03:06:39 am
Did the Republicans ever find a candidate for State Auditor? Or Insurance Commissioner? Hopefully not.

I suspect someone will file eventually, even if it just a Brad Klippert/Hong Tran type. There is a Constitution Party candidate for State Auditor (hasn't filed yet though), so Sonntag won't be running unopposed.

I would love to see the Republican fail to make it to the general in the 7th district.

There's a chance that may happen in the 6th District even. There's a Democrat running to Norm Dicks' left who is generating a fair amount of interest amongst liberals in the party. Him doing well plus low Republican turnout could yield interesting results.

The Treasurer race may also give us a double D general if we're lucky.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 03:16:20 am
Did the Republicans ever find a candidate for State Auditor? Or Insurance Commissioner? Hopefully not.

I suspect someone will file eventually, even if it just a Brad Klippert/Hong Tran type. There is a Constitution Party candidate for State Auditor (hasn't filed yet though), so Sonntag won't be running unopposed.

Hahaha yeah, I know about the Constitution Party candidate. I would love to see a D vs. C race, which is why I really hope the Republicans don't run a candidate.

Quote
I would love to see the Republican fail to make it to the general in the 7th district.

There's a chance that may happen in the 6th District even. There's a Democrat running to Norm Dicks' left who is generating a fair amount of interest amongst liberals in the party. Him doing well plus low Republican turnout could yield interesting results.

I kind of doubt it, but I guess we can hope.

Quote
The Treasurer race may also give us a double D general if we're lucky.

I highly doubt that. Martin is a good candidate and should easily get on the general ballot. I hope Sohn is the Democratic candidate. McIntire probably wouldn't do as well.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 03:25:43 am
McIntire is a weirdy. He gives me the creeps.

There's also a Legislature race up in the San Juans that is D vs. G right now.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 03:29:37 am
Yay, San Juans <3

Isn't there likely going to be a D vs. D race in the 43rd district?

I remember in 2004 or 2006 when they had a primary for the seat that Jamie Pedersen eventually won... All six Democrats got more votes than the Republican. Beautiful!


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 03:38:23 am
Yay, San Juans <3

Isn't there likely going to be a D vs. D race in the 43rd district?

I remember in 2004 or 2006 when they had a primary for the seat that Jamie Pedersen eventually won... All six Democrats got more votes than the Republican. Beautiful!

I'm not sure if Pedersen is getting a challenger or not. The 36th District House seat should be D vs. D, and probably the 33rd District House seat as well (both retirements). The 40th District Senate race maybe D vs. D as well.

There's also probably going to be some R vs. R races in the Eastern Washington for the House. The 4th, 7th, 8th and 14th are all strong possibilities due to retirements.

EDIT: And 46th District House could be D v. D as well... so many fun possibilities.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 03:48:50 am
Oh, I was probably thinking of the 36th district...

I didn't mean Pedersen was getting challenged, just using the primary he won as an example of how easy it would be to have no Republican on the general ballot in the 43rd.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 09:45:32 am
Someone has filed under the label "Prefers America's Third Party"

Our primary is a joke


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 02:35:49 pm
How much longer until we get "prefers topless party" :( :(


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 04:59:42 pm
A lot of the Democrats who filed as "Prefers Democrat Party" yesterday have now switched to "Prefers Democratic Party". I wonder if the State Party yelled at them


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 03, 2008, 05:21:43 pm
sharon K. Nelson, candidate for State House, seems to have forgotten to capitalize her name


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 03, 2008, 06:08:53 pm
I'm a little surprised no somewhat serious Republican has challenged Reed in the primary so far.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 12:39:35 am
A few random updates:

- Prefers G.O.P. Party is very common - I'd say at least 1/4 of the Republicans have chosen that, including The Dino himself.

- The Constitution Party is running several candidates for statewide office, and one for Congress. Considering that the Constitution Party has been basically non-existent in the state for many years now, it's an impressive turnaround on their part. The Libertarians have a candidate for only one office (WA-05) as far as I can tell - an unfathomable decline compared to just 6 years ago.

- Speaking of third parties, there looks to be three opportunities for third parties to get to the November ballot. Only the incumbent Democrat and a Constitution Party candidate have filed for State Auditor, and the Democratic v. Green race for a State House seat up in the San Juans is still without a Republican. An Independent is also the only person running against the Senate Majority Leader in her Spokane district.

- And on a personal note, the candidate for State House whose campaign I'm supposed to be managing doesn't have an opponent as of right now, and we don't know of any in the wings. Kind of pathetic on the local Republican Party's part - just 5 years ago they controlled all three seats in this district and Bush actually won it with 51%.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 06, 2008, 12:43:14 am
- And on a personal note, the candidate for State House whose campaign I'm supposed to be managing doesn't have an opponent as of right now, and we don't know of any in the wings. Kind of pathetic on the local Republican Party's part - just 5 years ago they controlled all three seats in this district, and Bush actually won it with 51%.

I have no idea what you're going to have me do after the PAC stuff now.  :(

Kerry got the 51% actually, but I think it used to be really solidly GOP on the state level, didn't it? If the GOP can't recruit for seats like these, they might as well just rename to the Eastern Washington and Lewis County Party and stop bothering.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 01:07:49 am
- And on a personal note, the candidate for State House whose campaign I'm supposed to be managing doesn't have an opponent as of right now, and we don't know of any in the wings. Kind of pathetic on the local Republican Party's part - just 5 years ago they controlled all three seats in this district, and Bush actually won it with 51%.

I have no idea what you're going to have me do after the PAC stuff now.  :(

Kerry got the 51% actually, but I think it used to be really solidly GOP on the state level, didn't it? If the GOP can't recruit for seats like these, they might as well just rename to the Eastern Washington and Lewis County Party and stop bothering.

I could've sworn Kerry got 51% as well, but I checked my super-secret internal Democratic Party stuff before I posted it and they said Bush got 51% so I went with that. Regardless, it's pathetic they can't field a candidate. In 2002 they were running unopposed or winning 75% of the vote. In 2000 our Democratic Party consisted of five people who met in a livingroom. Now we have around 50 very active members, both of the State House seats, and the best they can do is one sub-par candidate for arguably their second or third best shot at a House seat in the entire state.

As for what we ourselves going to end up doing... I don't really know. There will still be a campaign even without an opponent though.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 06, 2008, 01:18:42 am
Prefers Grand Old Party Party

lol Republicans

Dino is a tard.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 10:34:24 am
A Republican filed to run for State Auditor, dashing the Constitution Party's general election hopes. Sad day


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 11:58:13 am
And here's something interesting - an incumbent State Representative from Olympia has filed as "Prefers Progressive Dem. Party". Now we get into the fuzzy area of whether or not that qualifies as a third party getting elected to the Legislature. Irrelevant for practicality purposes, but absolutely critical for the pedants amongst us.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 06, 2008, 12:01:40 pm
Looks like these are the presumptive races.

Governor: Christine Gregoire* (D) v. Dino Rossi (R)
Lt. Governor: Brad Owen* (D) v. Marcia McCraw (R)
Secretary of State: James Osgood (D) v. Sam Reed* (R)
State Treasurer: Jim McIntire/ChangMook Sohn (D) v. Allan Martin (R)
State Auditor: Brian Sonntag* (D) v. Dick McEntee (R)
State Attorney General: John Ladenburg (D) v. Rob McKenna* (R)
Commissioner of Public Lands: Peter Goldmark (D) v. Doug Sutherland* (R)
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Kreidler* (D) v. John Adams (R)

I recognize most of the non-factors.  Marcia McCraw is a do-gooder/Seattle lawyer, Dick McEntee's wife was an anti-abortion activist and he's a local GOP guy in the Tacoma suburbs and John Adams is a re-hash candidate from 2004.

But who's James Osgood?


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 12:07:04 pm
But who's James Osgood?

Blogger from Seattle. He's obsessed with election security stuff (anti-VBM, anti-optical scan, etc.) He claims the Democrats will support him, but I highly doubt it. The guys over at (un)Sound Politics have already endorsed him.

So basically a Democrat running to the right of a Republican in a very good Democratic year for an office that has overall little to do with partisanship. Only in Washington!


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 06, 2008, 12:12:07 pm
Oh, my bad.  It's Jason Osgood.  When I Googled James Osgood, some Democratic CEO from Sammamish came up.

So, he's angry about mail voting and runs this (http://blog.zappini.org/) blog, and that's it?

This may be the first time the Democrats have taken no serious effort to challenge Reed whatsoever...should be interesting to see how big of a landslide he gets.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 12:16:38 pm
We should've run Dean Logan :(

There would've had to have been a pretty amazing Democrat for me to not support Reed though, so I'm fine with a non-factor running.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 12:21:09 pm
Mohammad Hasan Said files!


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 06, 2008, 12:31:24 pm
Mohammad Hasan Said files!

No politician refuses to use "the" in ballot statements quite like him <3


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 06, 2008, 12:38:37 pm
In other good news for democracy, only one of the 22 Judicial races in Pierce County is contested.

Why do we even bother electing these guys? It just wastes time and paper.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 06, 2008, 01:46:51 pm
Congressional competition.  This year's round of jokes, for state outsiders' sake:

1st – Jay Inslee* (D) v. Larry Ishmael (R)
Ishmael is a business consultant and Issaquah School Board member.  Unfortunately for him, Issaquah isn't any more in the First District than it was the last time he ran, so he's still a filthy carpetbagger.

2nd – Rick Larsen* (D) v. Rick Bart (R)
Rick Bart is the Snohomish County Sheriff and uses the email address theoriginalposse@live.com.  God help us all.

3rd – Brian Baird* (D) v. Michael Delavar (R)
Michael Delavar is a pilot with a suspiciously good web site (http://www.delavarforcongress.com/) that makes it obvious that he's a right-winged Paulite (http://www.politickerwa.com/bryanbissell/578/catching-challengers-michael-delavar-high-flying-fiscal-conservative-runs-3rd-distr).

4th – George Fearing (D) v. "Doc" Hastings* (R)
According to the web site of Leavy, Shultz, Davis & Fearing, George Fearing is a "brilliant attorney and an indispensable asset to our firm."  Fortunately for Leavy, Shultz, Davis & Fearing, he will continue to be.

5th – Mark Mays (D) v. Cathy McMorris Rodgers* (R)
Mark Mays is a Spokane psychologist, attorney and professor, which probably one-ups challenger Barbara Lampert’s progressive platform of “I’m retired, so I’ll file for every office in the world ever.”

6th – Norm Dicks* (D) v. Doug Cloud (R)
Who cares?

7th – Jim McDermott* (D) v. Steve Beren (R)
Beren is a former socialist who found Jesus after 9/11 and apparently doesn’t realize that no one really cares.

8th – Darcy Burner (D) v. Dave Reichert* (R)
Actually somewhat competitive.  Personally, I think the Democrats would have been better-off with Rodney Tom.

9th – Adam Smith* (D)
Unopposed so far, surprisingly.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 06, 2008, 03:22:05 pm
I'm disappointed with the Secretary of State race. If the Democrats could've found a qualified candidate it would have been an easy pick-up. :(

Remember in 2000, the 7th district was D vs. G vs. L? I would've loved to see another Green run and stop the Republicans from getting on the general ballot. haha.

Doug Sutherland has won by small margins both times he's been elected, IIRC. I wonder if Goldmark has any chance of taking him out.

I support Burner of course, though she's kind of a disappointing candidate. In 2004 the Democrats run a radio show host and barely lose. In 2006 they run a..., hey I don't even know what Darcy Burner does, and she barely loses.

So sad to think that if the Democrats would just run a state legislator from the Eastside they would easily win this, yet they keep throwing the opportunity away and making it competitive. Sigh.

If Burner wins this year, I don't expect her to get re-elected too many times if you get my drift...


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: ottermax on June 06, 2008, 06:35:31 pm
I like Darcy Burner. She is a good candidate but she just didn't know how to run a campaign last time. I hope she has learned and will be better this time around.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 06, 2008, 08:57:06 pm
Someone named "Cleaver" has registered under the SalmonYoga Party.

This is officially a joke.

Someone named Thomas Thomas is a Republican candidate in the 24th.  Apparently it's even a real name.  And Will Baker has filed!  Hooray!


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Verily on June 06, 2008, 10:39:15 pm
Someone named "Cleaver" has registered under the SalmonYoga Party.

This is officially a joke.

Someone named Thomas Thomas is a Republican candidate in the 24th.  Apparently it's even a real name.  And Will Baker has filed!  Hooray!

There's a local politician around here named Daniel Daniel.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 07, 2008, 01:07:26 am
I've got some more comments and analysis to add later, but for now I'm quite pissed off at the 28th District Republican Party. You are a joke.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 07, 2008, 01:26:06 am
So many third party candidates! This would be really entertaining if we still had normal elections... :(

Anyone know why the Constitution Party is back all of the sudden? And, as someone pointed out earlier, why the Libertarian Party is running so few candidates?

Anyway, glad to see the Democrats are actually running candidates in the 5th legislative district this time. :)


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 07, 2008, 07:29:32 am
I guess the CP just got really organized this year, and probably more importantly, got some sort of big fundraising score. I know their Auditor candidate is very serious - not sure if the other ones are just there to fluff the ballot. Regardless, glad to see them still surviving.

My only theory with the LP is that they're really cash strapped. In 2006 they tried to pool all their resources to get the 5% necessary in the Senate race to achieve major party status, but they obviously couldn't try anything like that this year so I'm not really sure what their strategy is going to be. Maybe they want to save their money and spend it campaigning for Barr/Root rather than spending it on filing fees for offices that won't even make it off the August ballot? Or they just have no money at all.

And the Greens made it to the general in the San Juans! :D


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Hash on June 07, 2008, 04:58:17 pm
The Republican congressional challengers are hilarious.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 07, 2008, 06:50:13 pm
This thread makes Washington politics seem like the funniest thing since the Three Stooges.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 07, 2008, 10:12:38 pm
Didn't notice this before - Ruth Bennett, the LP's 2004 nominee for Governor, is in a one-on-one race with an incumbent Democratic House member. She'll be lucky to break 10%

So we have a D v. G, a D v. L  and two D v. I races for State House, and a D v. I race for State Senate. We won't know about quite a few D v. D and R v. R races until the August primary, but several appear likely in addition to the 5 that are assured (5 Republicans for the House in District 7, 2 Republicans for the House in District 8, 3 Democrats for the Senate in District 11, 2 Democrats for the Senate in District 22, and 2 Democrats for the House in District 32).

8 Senators are unopposed for re-election, as are 19 Representatives, which I'm actually pretty sure is down from last year.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 07, 2008, 11:54:15 pm
Every election should be D vs. G!


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Kevinstat on June 08, 2008, 02:18:45 pm
Does Washington have any two-winner elections?  And how will those work.  In Nebraska's nonpartisan races which have "top two" primaries, if x candidates are to be elected in the general election, the top 2x candidates in the primary advance to the general election ballot.

I know the two state Representatives elected from each State Legislative District in Washington are elected in separate contests, but there may be some two-winner contests for other offices.  There are in Maine for county charter commissions (those elections are nonpartisan, with no primary or party designations listed) when they are on the ballot, with two charter commissioners elected from each county commissioner district conditional on the concurrent referendum approving the formation of the commission passing (it usually doesn't).  Only one county, Aroostook, has adopted a charter I believe, although Knox County does have an elected Budget Committee unlike all other counties (Aroostook County has an elected Finance Committee) so perhaps they have a charter as well.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 08, 2008, 03:25:17 pm
Does Washington have any two-winner elections?  And how will those work.  In Nebraska's nonpartisan races which have "top two" primaries, if x candidates are to be elected in the general election, the top 2x candidates in the primary advance to the general election ballot.

I know the two state Representatives elected from each State Legislative District in Washington are elected in separate contests, but there may be some two-winner contests for other offices.  There are in Maine for county charter commissions (those elections are nonpartisan, with no primary or party designations listed) when they are on the ballot, with two charter commissioners elected from each county commissioner district conditional on the concurrent referendum approving the formation of the commission passing (it usually doesn't).  Only one county, Aroostook, has adopted a charter I believe, although Knox County does have an elected Budget Committee unlike all other counties (Aroostook County has an elected Finance Committee) so perhaps they have a charter as well.

I'm not aware of any. There are some counties that have adopted their own charter so their elections will differ from most counties and might not even use top-two (see Pierce County), but even in those counties I can't think of any office with two winners.

Speaking of Pierce County, the Assessor-Treasurer race has six candidates with fairly good name recognition countywide and voters are only allowed to rank three. I have a great suspicion that thousands of voters are going to exhaust their three choices before we have a winner... at which point all hell breaks loose. Can you feel the impending disaster?


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 08, 2008, 04:24:17 pm
More statistics about why this system sucks:

- In 92 out of the 124 races (74%) on the ballot, there is only one or two candidates on the ballot. So the primary is meaningless, but we're still going to spend money and time on it.

- There are 207 candidates for the Legislature this year, as opposed to 233 in 2006. So we get fewer choices.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: ottermax on June 08, 2008, 06:46:12 pm
More statistics about why this system sucks:

- In 92 out of the 124 races (74%) on the ballot, there is only one or two candidates on the ballot. So the primary is meaningless, but we're still going to spend money and time on it.

- There are 207 candidates for the Legislature this year, as opposed to 233 in 2006. So we get fewer choices.

How many races were there in 2006? There are going to be flaws in the first year of this system. People will get used to it and then elections will become interesting.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 08, 2008, 09:06:30 pm
More statistics about why this system sucks:

- In 92 out of the 124 races (74%) on the ballot, there is only one or two candidates on the ballot. So the primary is meaningless, but we're still going to spend money and time on it.

- There are 207 candidates for the Legislature this year, as opposed to 233 in 2006. So we get fewer choices.

How many races were there in 2006? There are going to be flaws in the first year of this system. People will get used to it and then elections will become interesting.

The same number of races.

There are always going to be flaws in this system. It sucks.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: CultureKing on June 08, 2008, 09:26:01 pm
anyone have any comments or knowledge on the 35th LD house race? I want to know a little bit more and also see if anyone thinks it could turn into a D vs D race after the primary...


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 08, 2008, 09:46:26 pm
My Chem teacher is good friends with one of the candidates, says he's a good guy. I highly doubt it'll turn D v. D, but Washington voters are weird and at this point I wouldn't put it past them. Who knows, it may become very common for single-party generals in relatively competitive districts depending on the candidates. We just won't know until we've gone through it at least once.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: jimrtex on June 09, 2008, 10:41:29 pm
More statistics about why this system sucks:

- In 92 out of the 124 races (74%) on the ballot, there is only one or two candidates on the ballot. So the primary is meaningless, but we're still going to spend money and time on it.

- There are 207 candidates for the Legislature this year, as opposed to 233 in 2006. So we get fewer choices.

How many races were there in 2006? There are going to be flaws in the first year of this system. People will get used to it and then elections will become interesting.
Actually there are 274 candidates this year, including 13 independent or 3rd party candidates.   In 2006, there was a single 3rd party candidate.

In 2006, there were 65 D v. R races where the primary was meaningless, and 21 D and 14 R races where both the primary and general were meaningless.  There were also 1 D v D primary, and 1 R v R primary where the primary was decisive.

In 2008, there are 57 D v. R races and 5 D vs. independent/3rd where the primary is redundant*, and
18 D and 9 R races where the primary and general are meaningless*.  In 2008, there are 2 D v D races, and 1 races with 3 D's only, and 1 race with 5 R's only.  In 2006, these would have been decided in the primary, but in 2008 they will be open to all voters without having to deliberately cross over.

So the number of races that were somewhat degenerate in form has dropped from 102/124 (82%) to 89/126 (72%).  Because there are an odd number of LD/senate seats, one election always has one more race, and there is also a special election for the remaining 2 years of the LD 34 senate seat.

* Washington has a formal system of write-in candidacies, and counting write-in votes, but does require a candidate to have 1% of the vote to advance to the general election.  A write-in candidate can actually declare his party preference, and if he does finish in the Top 2 and receive 1% of the vote, that preference will be shown on the general election ballot.  Given that many voters will skip a race with an unopposed candidate, someone with a minimally organized write-in campaign could secure a place on the general election ballot, which would make the general election an actual contest.

It is quite possible that there will be more participation in the primary by independent and non-partisan voters.  While in the past these voters could participate, they may have been more reluctant to interfere in what was formally a partisan primary.

There will always be many legislative seats that are uncontested because they are held by an incumbent.  The voters already elected them once, and unless the voters decide they made a mistake there is really no recent to expect a different result, and it costs money to run a political campaign, and even more for a successful one.  If a seat is open due to retirement or term limits, it will attract a bunch of people who see an opportunity.  But afterwards, the challengers may be more lackluster.

Washington's system of two representatives per LD, but separate positions may also reduce the number of contested elections.  It appears that it is fairly common practice for one party to contest only one position in a LD.  There are a certain share of voters who will deliberately split their vote.  If they are forced to vote for a D in one position, they pay pick the R in the other position to balance their vote.  If they had to choose between a D and R for both positions, they might still split their vote, but these ticket-splitter might not do so in a consistent fashion, which will simply result in a more dominant party sweeping the election.  In 2006, 14 of 49 LD's had that pattern.  In 2008, there are only 6 such candidates.

Of course it is possible that some of the additional candidates are attracted by the novelty of the system, and may not be serious candidates.  This may include candidates who filed with a preference for the Republican or Democratic party, but who did not have much connection to the formal party.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Alcon on June 09, 2008, 11:44:28 pm
Jim, I'm convinced.  You are a robot.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 10, 2008, 12:00:04 am
Yea, I can't compete with that.

System still sucks though.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 10, 2008, 12:17:11 am
More statistics about why this system sucks:

- In 92 out of the 124 races (74%) on the ballot, there is only one or two candidates on the ballot. So the primary is meaningless, but we're still going to spend money and time on it.

- There are 207 candidates for the Legislature this year, as opposed to 233 in 2006. So we get fewer choices.

How many races were there in 2006? There are going to be flaws in the first year of this system. People will get used to it and then elections will become interesting.

The same number of races.

There are always going to be flaws in this system. It sucks.

Perhaps eliminate the primary unless more than two candidates are running?


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: HardRCafé on June 10, 2008, 04:57:47 am
Considering that the Constitution Party has been basically non-existent in the state for many years now, it's an impressive turnaround on their part.

As much as I would like to forget the Craswells, it is a stretch to say the Constitution Party has been basically non-existent in Washington of all states.

I wish Osgood were worth endorsing.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 10, 2008, 06:27:54 am
Considering that the Constitution Party has been basically non-existent in the state for many years now, it's an impressive turnaround on their part.

As much as I would like to forget the Craswells, it is a stretch to say the Constitution Party has been basically non-existent in Washington of all states.

I wish Osgood were worth endorsing.

Craswells haven't said anything in years - they keep to themselves and won't do any media interviews.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: bgwah on June 13, 2008, 04:51:36 pm
So, can this just turn into our general Washington discussion thread? :)


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Meeker on June 13, 2008, 04:54:02 pm
So, can this just turn into our general Washington discussion thread? :)

Aye. We have enough Washingtonians around to warrant one.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 13, 2008, 06:06:53 pm
Randy Dorn was just endorsed by the Washington Democrats for Superintendent. Color me a little surprised.

Perhaps a little amusingly, I was talking to the closest thing that the Washington Democrats have to a party elder the other day and he said that Booth Gardner was seriously considering running for Superintendent.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 13, 2008, 06:40:45 pm
Randy Dorn was just endorsed by the Washington Democrats for Superintendent. Color me a little surprised.

Perhaps a little amusingly, I was talking to the closest thing that the Washington Democrats have to a party elder the other day and he said that Booth Gardner was seriously considering running for Superintendent.

Running for attorney general would've been more helpful...


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: Kevinstat on June 13, 2008, 09:04:09 pm
Perhaps eliminate the primary unless more than two candidates are running?

The one problem with that is that the system would be disjoint if that were done but voters could still vote for write-in candidates in races with a primary, and (while they possibly could have; I've heard Hawaii has no write-in candidate option for at least many of its elections, not just runoffs) the Grangers might not have wanted to bar write-in candidates from running, particularly in races where only one candidate was on the primary ballot.  Can a write-in candidate in an otherwise one-candidate primary get on the general election ballot if they get enough votes?  Is there a minimal number of votes for each office that a write-in candidate needs to get on the general election ballot (provided of course they are among the top two candidates in the primary)?  I imagine it isn't simply 1 vote for all offices.  If that were the case in Maine the Maine Green Indepdendent Party might actually field candidates in all "top ticket" races (for Governor where they always field a candidate, and for U.S. Senate and Congress where they never have fielded an official party candidate although they tried to for the Senate 1996 when they were an official party but that guy had to run as an Independent because not enough voter enrollments had been successfully done), plus a majority of Legislative races instead of the 10 or 13 respectively of 186 they ran candidates in 2006 and are doing this time.  A Republican write-in candidate tried to get on the ballot for state Representative but I've heard he got only 33 write-in votes where 50 were needed, so the Democratic incumbent in that race will be unopposed in November as will 6 other incumbent House Democrats and one Democratic Senator (the former 19-year State House Speaker) who is trading seats with the incumbent State Representative.  One incumbent Republican Representative is unopposed, one incumbent Independent Representative (a former Democrat) who seems rather cozy with the Republicans now has only a Democratic opponent, one incumbent Democratic Representative who replaced a resigned Republican in a special election last November has two Independent opponents but no Republican opponent, and one incumbent Democratic Representative has only a Green Independent opponent.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on June 14, 2008, 03:45:13 pm
What do people think of Ladenburg's chances in the Attorney General race, or for Burner in the 8th?  I plan to vote for Ladenburg (and don't live in Burner's district) but frankly I am skeptical about their chances.

I could not bring myself to vote for Deborah Senn in 2004.  She was a bad candidate.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 14, 2008, 05:49:35 pm
Beating McKenna will be tough, but Lautenberg is a smart campaigner and will do what's necessary to win. That's going to be the closest statewide race this year.

Burner will win this time around. They've learned from last time, and the extra help from Obama should be enough to push her over.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 14, 2008, 06:02:53 pm
In a not so shocking move, Jim McIntire was just endorsed for State Treasurer at the Democratic Convention.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 14, 2008, 06:18:14 pm
Idiots.

The Washington State Democratic Party is lucky that the only other state party more retarded than them happens to be the Washington State Republican Party.

Oh, and Lautenburg will lose.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 14, 2008, 06:57:27 pm
Idiots.

The Washington State Democratic Party is lucky that the only other state party more retarded than them happens to be the Washington State Republican Party.

Oh, and Lautenburg will lose.

That's the spirit! :D


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 14, 2008, 07:21:07 pm
The Democratic Party just perplexes me with some of their candidates. Sometimes it seems like they want to lose.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on June 14, 2008, 07:26:59 pm
Bah...I liked the Korean dude a lot more.  Looks like I'm voting for Martin.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 14, 2008, 07:27:10 pm
The Washington Democratic Party can probably best be described IMO as a herd of cats. The vast majority of the party activists are cats. They may have good intentions, but they lack long term vision or understanding. They're also just sort of weird and don't fully how things work in the world.

Then there's a group that herds them. They understand what is necessary to win, how it is to be done, and do the grunt work necessary to pull of victories. They also feel like they are constantly surrounded by idiots that they must humor.

Unfortunately, the cats are so numerous they sometimes win out.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 14, 2008, 07:29:00 pm
Bah...I liked the Korean dude a lot more.  Looks like I'm voting for Martin.

McIntire isn't on the ballot yet! I'm still voting for Sohn in the primary.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 14, 2008, 07:31:02 pm
Bah...I liked the Korean dude a lot more.  Looks like I'm voting for Martin.

McIntire isn't on the ballot yet! I'm still voting for Sohn in the primary.

Yea, Sohn could still make it. The voters of Washington have a long and wonderful record of telling the state parties to f**ck off.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 14, 2008, 07:35:16 pm
Apparently Sohn wasn't even at the convention. He probably knew what was up.

Sohn is leading in fundraising though, so he's still got a shot (Mark Dayton anyone?)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 14, 2008, 07:36:23 pm
Bah...I liked the Korean dude a lot more.  Looks like I'm voting for Martin.

McIntire isn't on the ballot yet! I'm still voting for Sohn in the primary.

Yea, Sohn could still make it. The voters of Washington have a long and wonderful record of telling the state parties to f**ck off.

I sure hope so.

Once Martin is elected, he has that seat for life. He's like McKenna--the type of Republican who, once established, will be able to win other statewide offices like Senator or Governor.

The Democrats have (or had...) an opportunity to stop him in the infancy of his political career. Now they may have to face his wrath in the future.

Martin is dangerous and must be destroyed now or never.


Title: Re: Washington Filing Week
Post by: jimrtex on June 15, 2008, 01:57:44 pm
Washington has a fairly formal system for handling write-in votes.  Since most voters vote by mail, it is relatively easy to cast a write-in vote (it's also not like you are standing in a voting booth after standing in line for 15 minutes, and trying to figure how to do a write-in on a voting machine).  On the other hand, because many people vote early, they may not be aware that anyone is running as a write-in candidate.

In 1994, Linda Smith won the GOP nomination for Congress, and then went on to be elected.  The original GOP candidate had informally dropped out.  She also had been a state senator and been involved in several initiative petition drives.  She sent out mail to everyone in the district explaining how to do a write-in vote.   The election was done under the blanket primary system, where both Democratic and Republican nominations were on the same ballot.  In each race, voters could vote for any candidate, but the winners were determined on a party basis.  So a Democratic voter might decide to vote for a Republican candidate.  This could be either because they wanted that person to be elected, or because they wanted that candidate to be the Republican nominee, or because they wanted a candidate that they perceived as being weaker to be nominated, or perhaps simply because there was a choice on the Republican side, and only one candidate on the Democratic side who was sure to be nominated.  Since there wasn't a Democratic race for the nomination, some people may have voted for her because of the novelty of write-in voting.

In Washington, write-in candidates may declare they are running for office.  The total number of write-in votes is counted, but they are not counted for individuals unless there is a possibility of it changing the result, either by causing a write-in candidate to be nominated or elected; or by causing a result change among those who are on the ballot.  This would include overvotes, undervotes, and write-ins of the following form:

[X] John Smith
[X] Write-in John Smith

[ ] John Smith
[X] Write-in John Smith

[ ] John Smith
[ ] Write-in John Smith

all of which are valid votes for John Smith, but not machine-countable.

In Washington, originally the blanket primary was only used for the Republican and Democratic (or any other major parties) primaries.  Candidates of 3rd parties and independents would be direcly by party conventions or petition, and then have their name placed on the general election ballot.  Around 1970, a satirical party nominated a slate of candidates and received about 3% of the vote.  After that, the legislature required that nominees of 3rd parties and independents appear on the primary ballot, and that they receive 1% of the vote in order to appear on the general election ballot.  So on each office, a voter could participate in the Republican primary, the Democratic primary, or support the nomination of a 3rd party or independent candidate.  Since voters may tend to choose a race where they think there is meaningful choice, they may skip over the 3rd party nominees.  It might be hard to get supporters of a 3rd party to vote, simply to rubberstamp the nominations.

After the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional, Washington switched to a Pick a Party Primary, where a voter receives a ballot similar to the the blanket party ballot with all (major) party candidates on the ballot.  But a voter had to mark on the ballot which party he was voting for.  Only votes for that party's candidates would then be counted.  In effect, a voter had to choose which party he was a member of, but that would then be a secret choice.  The Pick a Party Primary included a 1% provision, and this would be a challenge for the Libertarian Party, which briefly became a major party.  Since they had few contested nominations, voters might not pick their primary to vote in.  In 2004, they did have a contest gubernatorial nomination and this may have attracted enough voters to the Libertarian primary to secure a place on the general election for the statewide candidates.

When the Grange filed their initiative for the Top 2 primary, it was based on the law for the blanket primary, which was still being appealed before the 9th Circuit.  It retained a 1% provision for advancing to the general election.  It also specified that two candidates advance to the general election.  This was done for at least two reasons.  The Grange was trying to preserve the form of the blanket primary, as much as possible, and had generally produced two nominees, one Republican and one Democrat, for the previous 60+ years.  In addition, the US Supreme Court, in overturning the blanket primary in California, had suggested that a non-partisan primary in which the field was winnowed to 2 (or some other number) of candidates would be constitutional - since that would removed the unconstitutional feature of the blanket primary, where Democrats could participate in the nomination of the Republican candidates and vice versa.

The provision for two candidates advancing to the general election. along with write-in voting (and formal write-in candidates) means that there is the possibility in races where only one candidate filed for the primary ballot, the two candidates might be on the general election ballot.  The write-in challenger would need to get 1% of the votes in the race.  Since many voters will skip a race with a single candidate, especially if that candidate had expressed a preference for a party they did not care for, the 1% threshold will be an even smaller share of those who voted in the primary.  In a legislative race this might means 100 or 200 write-in votes could secure a place on the general election ballot for a write-in candidate who was somewhat organized.  It will also probably require hand counting of all ballots in those races where only a single candidate filed, since it is possible that 20 to 40% of the ballots skipped the races, and would have to be examined to make sure nobody wrote in a name.

The rules that the Secretary of State promulgated for the Top 2 primary do recognize the possibility of write-in candidates.  A declared write-in candidate may indicate a party preference, and if he advances to the general election, his preference will appear on the general election ballot.  In addition, a write-in vote for such a candidate is not required to include the party preference of a candidate to be valid.

Write-ins and write-in candidates are also possible in the general election.  However, a candidate that was eliminated in the primary, whether they were on the ballot or a declared write-in candidate, may not be a declared write-in candidate in the general election, and any casual write-in votes for such persons are void.

Washington also has true non-partisan elections.  These are used for judges and also the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  In these races, there is no party designation on the ballot, and any voter may vote.  Further, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary (held in the same election as the partisan primary), they are elected in the primary.  Otherwise the top two advance to the general election for a runoff.  Parties do endorse candidates in the non-partisan elections.

Hawaii does not have write-in voting.  This was challenged before the US Supreme Court, which essentially ruled that write-in voting is an essential part of voting in the US, but that Hawaii's electoral system provided a functional equivalent.  Elections in the United States were originally entirely write-in.  Voters would write the name of their favored candidate on a piece of paper and drop it in the election box (or in some cases vote in public or by voice).  Parties could still endorse candidates, but these were more like suggestions.  As a convenience to their partisans, parties would provide pre-printed ballots, though voters could cross out certain candidates or write an alternative name in.

In the early 1900s, the Australian ballot came into use, and quickly became universal.  An Australian ballot is printed by the election officials and includes all the candidates running for office.  It provides better ballot secrecy, makes it easier for a voter too choose among parties, and makes ballot stuffing harder.  But since write-ins were always a part of the election process they were permitted on the Australian ballots.  Later, the introduction of voting machines made it harder to cast a write-in vote, but it never became impossible.

In Hawaii, there is no write-in voting, but it has a late primary (September), has very minimal ballot access requirements for the primary, and all candidates including independents appear on the primary ballot, which is a pick a party format.  If an independent candidate receives 10% of the total vote, or if the leading independent candidate outpolls the nominee of any party, his name will be on the general election ballot.  Since very few voters participate in the 3rd party primaries, this latter standard is easy to surpass.

The Supreme Court ruled that in Hawaii since someone can get on the ballot with little effort, fairly close to the general election, that there was no reason to require write-in voting, especially given that they would require more effort by the voters.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 18, 2008, 01:02:15 pm
Fun in the 46th District!

(
Img
)

PolitickerWA:

Quote
The 46th Legislative District's race to succeed Rep. Jim McIntire for state representative in Position 1 has been no stranger to controversy this spring. There is a debate over who actually won the district line from the precinct committee, and now the two leading Democratic candidates are arguing over whether one of them is even in the race anymore.

On the afternoon of Friday, June 13, Erica C. Barnett at The Stranger reported that Scott White, a leading candidate, had withdrawn from the race upon receiving the news that he had come down with a case of pneumonia.

That Friday, White attempted to withdraw his withdrawal, and when he spoke with PolitickerWA.com White reiterated that he was still in the race, and even touted the sole endorsements of both the Washington Education Association and the Washington Conservation Voters, two highly influential interest groups in the Seattle area. White acknowledged that he had come down with a terrible illness, which he recently found out was walking pneumonia, and in the heat of his suffering felt that he would not be able to campaign for too long a time.

But the question remained, since the report came a day after Thursday's withdrawal deadleine, and was still not fully substantiated (despite this image of the King County elections website obtained by The Stranger), what did White do and when did he do it?

Back on May 15 the 46th LD Democrats held a meeting of Precinct Committee Officers to select an official nominee for the district in line with rules the state party instituted upon passage of the "top two" primary. Gerry Pollet won the nomination in a close vote of weighted PCOs, yet later that night Scott White claimed, both on his website and in an e-mail to PolitickerWA.com, that a misplaced ballot was found, thus handing the nomination to him. Regardless, Pollet, who had an uncounted ballot of his own that was disqualified for being written on the wrong colored piece of paper, remained the nominee.

Despite the nomination loss, White maintained a substantial lead in all of the normal electoral metrics. As of the end of May he had outraised Pollet $49,000 to $23,000 and, despite having greatly outspent Pollet, still held a $4,000 cash on hand advantage. White also had the endorsements of nearly every elected official in the greater Seattle area including the full 46th District delegation. This all made it so much of a surprise that White had apparently withdrawn.

Upon hearing the news, Pollet came to the conclusion that if White had truly withdrawn, state law would not allow him to "un-withdraw" pursuant to state election statute RCW 29A.24.131. It states, "No filing fee may be refunded to any candidate who withdraws under this section," and the law is otherwise very clear that upon submission of a filing withdrawal, a candidate submits his or her filing fee.

So it would seem that if White had formally submitted a withdrawal form, he would be forfeiting his filing fee and, since the filing deadline had passed nearly a week ago, would be unable to regain entry to the ballot.

On Monday, upon returning home from the state Democratic Party convention, Pollet submitted a public records request to King County Elections asking for any documents submitted by White pertaining to a withdrawal of his candidacy.

King County provided a fax from White on Tuesday afternoon, which was obtained by PolitickerWA.com. Although the fax has a hand written note on it saying "late withdrawal", the time stamp at the top of the fax clearly shows that it was sent on Thursday at 13:29, prior to the Thursday afternoon deadline imposed by the Secretary of State's office and King County.

Adding further intrigue to the story is the fact that the fax number the document was sent from is the fax number for the office of King County Executive, where White works as a Special Projects Manager. Sending faxes for political means from a King County office is a clear violation of ethics.

Pollet has requested that White be removed from the ballot in accordance with what he says are election laws that preclude White from withdrawing his withdrawal. Given the overwhelming Democratic slant of the 46th District, such a move would all but hand him a seat in the legislature.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 18, 2008, 01:49:35 pm
Washington is weird.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on June 19, 2008, 10:26:07 pm
Washington is weird.

That's why we love it!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 21, 2008, 02:34:38 pm
So Reichert is leading Burner 51-45 in a SUSA poll.

What a shocker! Ugh, I hate the Washington State Democratic Party. What is with their fetish for the worst possible candidates?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 21, 2008, 11:38:42 pm
Rodney Tom wouldn't've been polling any better...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 21, 2008, 11:45:25 pm
Rodney Tom wouldn't've been polling any better...

Yeah right. An old school Republican, who, after seeing his party taken over by religious fascists, switched parties to the one that best fit him in the 21st century. Sounds a lot like the 8th congressional district to me.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 21, 2008, 11:48:27 pm
Rodney Tom wouldn't've been polling any better...

Yeah right. An old school Republican, who, after seeing his party taken over by religious fascists, switched parties to the one that best fit him in the 21st century. Sounds a lot like the 8th congressional district to me.

Ah yes, we all know how well Medina realtors who drive Mercedes connect to folks in Eastern Pierce County. Tom's name recognition also would've taken work, and he would've lost some women to Reichert.

And the only reason Tom became a Democrat is that he wanted to be a Senator.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on June 22, 2008, 01:39:30 am
I think Darcy Burner is a great candidate, but she really hasn't been doing much campaigning. She needs to start stepping it up!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on June 24, 2008, 10:33:41 am
Here's something a little curious. In the Insurance Commissioner race, the Spokane County Republican Party Chair filed... but as "States No Party Preference". I have no idea who the hell the Republican that's running is, but Fackler may make it to the general if he gets the word out.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on June 24, 2008, 09:31:37 pm
Here's something a little curious. In the Insurance Commissioner race, the Spokane County Republican Party Chair filed... but as "States No Party Preference". I have no idea who the hell the Republican that's running is, but Fackler may make it to the general if he gets the word out.

He could be protesting the new primary system, which the parties hate with a passion.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 29, 2008, 02:39:48 am
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AH2tUr8Xzaw


Well, I'm supporting Reichert now!!!!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Rev. Matthew on June 29, 2008, 02:57:34 am
Darcy supports terrorism? I didn't know!~


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on June 30, 2008, 03:40:38 pm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/368912_kingco30.html

Phillips vs. Sims for county executive next year? Sounds interesting.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on July 01, 2008, 04:32:02 pm
Darcy Burner's house was completely destroyed in a fire this morning. :(

Fortunately the entire family, including the puppy, made it out OK.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on July 01, 2008, 04:54:21 pm
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/011010.html

I wonder when they'll start blaming Republicans.

*laughs*


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on July 11, 2008, 01:07:49 am
I was reading on HorsesAss about "Don't Let Seattle Steal This Election" signs with "Dino Rossi for Governor" on them in Eastern Washington.

Disgusting. Reminds me why I refuse to vote for the Repulsive Party.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: MarkWarner08 on July 11, 2008, 02:01:46 pm
I was reading on HorsesAss about "Don't Let Seattle Steal This Election" signs with "Dino Rossi for Governor" on them in Eastern Washington.

Disgusting. Reminds me why I refuse to vote for the Repulsive Party.
That reminds me of the RNC's '06 MO "zip code ad."  It's easy to forget that regionalism can be a potent tool in elections.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on July 18, 2008, 11:43:51 am
(
Img
)

Most campaigns try to avoid photos like this. But not Dino!


This thread has been very quiet, which is quite upsetting. Updates coming soon include:

- An engaged couple running against each other for State Legislature
- The Commissioner of Public Lands fondles an employees breast... and none of the papers cover it
- A top recruit of the House Republicans who thinks that global warming "may be a good thing... I like a warmer climate"
- Much, much more!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 18, 2008, 01:23:29 pm
(
Img
)

Most campaigns try to avoid photos like this. But not Dino!


This thread has been very quiet, which is quite upsetting. Updates coming soon include:

- An engaged couple running against each other for State Legislature
- The Commissioner of Public Lands fondles an employees breast... and none of the papers cover it
- A top recruit of the House Republicans who thinks that global warming "may be a good thing... I like a warmer climate"
- Much, much more!

Fun!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 01, 2008, 04:40:22 pm
It's August with 19 days until the primary. What shall we expect in the next 3 weeks?

Also, which races will be one-party or involve a third party at the GE level in your opinion?



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 01, 2008, 05:00:20 pm
Also, which races will be one-party or involve a third party at the GE level in your opinion?

Only statewide office with any real potential of this is State Treasurer, and it won't happen.  WA-7 has been mentioned too, but none of the non-McDermotts are enough to block the reflexive GOP vote for Steve Baren.

Other than that, no Republican has filed for:

- District 1 (Pos. 1 & 2) [Bothell-S Snohomish County]
- District 19 (all seats) [Aberdeen-Kelso/Longview]
- District 22 (Pos. 1) [Olympia]
- District 24 (Senate) [Olympic Peninsula]
- District 28 (Pos. 2) [University Place-DuPont]
- District 32 (Pos. 2) [North Lake Washington-Woodway]
- District 34 (all seats) [West Seattle-Vashon]
- District 37 (Pos. 1) [East Seattle]
- District 38 (Pos. 2) [Tulalip-Everett]
- District 40 (Pos. 1) [San Juans-Bellingham]
- District 41 (Pos. 2) [Bellevue-Issaquah]
- District 43 (Pos. 1) [Central Seattle]
- District 49 (Senate) [Vancouver]

Total: 18

Assuming we're counting Rep. Brendan Williams filing as "Progressive Dem. Party" as Democrat.

And no Democrat filed for:

- District 7 (Pos. 2) [NE Wash.]
- District 9 (Senate) [SE Wash.]
- District 12 (all seats) [N-Central Wash.]
- District 13 (both seats) [Ellensburg-Moses Lake]
- District 14 (Senate) [Yakima West]
- District 16 (Senate) [Pasco-Walla Walla]

Total: 9

District 40 Pos. 2 will be Democrat vs. Green.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 01, 2008, 05:11:50 pm
There are also several districts with both Democrats and Republicans who have filed that only members of one party are likely to make it to the general (the 8th, 14th, 20th, 35th and 36th all come to mind).

For it to happen in the Treasurer's race it would require a perfect storm of Democratic loyalists sticking to McIntire, Independent Democrats and Independents moving towards Sohn, and also very low Republican turnout. That actually sounds kind of like what's happening, but the chances are still very low. I'm a little more hopeful than Alcon though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 01, 2008, 05:21:35 pm
Allan's endorsed by Murphy...I see him getting more cross-over mostly by virtue of that.  Not that Republicans probably pay much attention to that race.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 01, 2008, 10:27:47 pm
One of the GOP candidates for State Rep. in my district lists his occupation, unironically, as "Tetris player."

The other seat's candidate (who will advance) is running on an anti-communism platform...again.

Don't you just love the WA GOP?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 01, 2008, 11:19:49 pm
Allan's endorsed by Murphy...I see him getting more cross-over mostly by virtue of that.  Not that Republicans probably pay much attention to that race.

Yea, Martin putting that in his voters pamphlet (which is where the vast majority of voters will make their decision) was a smart move. The only real way is if Democratic base and Independents split just right and, again, if there's really low Republican turnout.

And you're aware of the "interesting" situation involving the two running against Flannigan, right?

I also didn't know you were on a first name basis with the Republican nominee for State Treasurer :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 02, 2008, 11:56:15 pm
Yea, Martin putting that in his voters pamphlet (which is where the vast majority of voters will make their decision) was a smart move. The only real way is if Democratic base and Independents split just right and, again, if there's really low Republican turnout.

And you're aware of the "interesting" situation involving the two running against Flannigan, right?

I also didn't know you were on a first name basis with the Republican nominee for State Treasurer :P

Oops, haha.  I have no idea where that came from.  Martin.

But, yeah, that's fun to follow.  Honestly the guy seems a little nutso, although I don't know him.  You probably might ;)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 03, 2008, 02:07:22 am
Oops, haha.  I have no idea where that came from.  Martin.

But, yeah, that's fun to follow.  Honestly the guy seems a little nutso, although I don't know him.  You probably might ;)

The guy's statement in the Voters' Guide was written solely to draw as many Republican votes away as possible. They figured he could do it by sounding as conservative as possible, but he just sort of came off sounding crazy. I would've gone about it in a different way, but whatever. He's perfectly sane (and liberal) in real life.

Smeall didn't even show up to the 27th LD endorsements meeting. She works at a Summer Camp on the Key Penninsula and thus has very little time to actually campaign (probably why she wasn't at the LD meeting as well). She's basically clueless.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 03, 2008, 11:05:00 am
I actually assumed he was crazy because of the letter he sent to Dale Woodard (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/columnists/callaghan/story/392705.html). 

So, the guy isn't actually a McCain supporter?  Now I'm really confused.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 03, 2008, 11:57:02 am
I actually assumed he was crazy because of the letter he sent to Dale Woodard (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/columnists/callaghan/story/392705.html). 

So, the guy isn't actually a McCain supporter?  Now I'm really confused.

Yea, I don't quite understand why they were trying to knock Woodard out of the race. It seems like having him would split the Republican base and make it easier for Smeall to advance to the general.

But no, he's not a McCain supporter. He's listed as a Likely Democrat in our database.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 03, 2008, 12:03:29 pm
I actually assumed he was crazy because of the letter he sent to Dale Woodard (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/columnists/callaghan/story/392705.html). 

So, the guy isn't actually a McCain supporter?  Now I'm really confused.

Yea, I don't quite understand why they were trying to knock Woodard out of the race. It seems like having him would split the Republican base and make it easier for Smeall to advance to the general.

But no, he's not a McCain supporter. He's listed as a Likely Democrat in our database.

Yeah, he voted D in the primary (hence the Likely D designation - it's the only thing causing that), but all of his ballot statements go on about "McCain, Rossi, Wiley for a better future!"  He totally has me confused.

Unless he went to the caucus and really wanted to vote in the advisory primary (and legally), it don't make much sense to me.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 03, 2008, 05:41:51 pm
I actually assumed he was crazy because of the letter he sent to Dale Woodard (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/columnists/callaghan/story/392705.html). 

So, the guy isn't actually a McCain supporter?  Now I'm really confused.

Yea, I don't quite understand why they were trying to knock Woodard out of the race. It seems like having him would split the Republican base and make it easier for Smeall to advance to the general.

But no, he's not a McCain supporter. He's listed as a Likely Democrat in our database.

Yeah, he voted D in the primary (hence the Likely D designation - it's the only thing causing that), but all of his ballot statements go on about "McCain, Rossi, Wiley for a better future!"  He totally has me confused.

Unless he went to the caucus and really wanted to vote in the advisory primary (and legally), it don't make much sense to me.

He's only pretending to be a Republican so he can sap votes from Woodard, thus causing Smeall to make it November with Flannigan. It's all a ploy.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 04, 2008, 08:02:45 pm
I got my ballot today. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 04, 2008, 11:49:54 pm
I got my ballot today. :)

Who're you voting for SPI?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 05, 2008, 12:19:48 am
I got my ballot guide today (and voter registration card -- again?  whatever).  I realized that the only race I genuinely care about is having Sohn beat McIntire.  Otherwise, this is all just advisory crap.  I'm thinking I just may vote for my favorite kook in all of the other races.

If WA-27 was competitive, I'd vote Woodard...but it's not, and D vs. D would just be so funny.  Maybe I should vote Smeall just for the hilarious remote chance?  Who's with me?!

Definitely vote for Smeall. I just talked to her today and she's very excited. She's also the only non-crazy sounding candidate in the TNT's questionnaire.

I think I mentioned this before, but I grow more confident that Sohn will win everyday. McIntire's people are going bezerk, and McIntire himself is getting pretty pissed off.

Make sure to vote in SPI though, that's a very important contest. And the Judicial races will be decided in the primary.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 05, 2008, 12:47:02 am
I'm thinking I'll vote Dorn for SPI... Not positive though.

I saw some Sohn signs today between Woodinville and Redmond. :) I also read that Sohn has raised the most money of any of the three candidates.

I'm almost definitely voting Fairhurst for Supreme Court... Not sure what to do about the other the SC race. :\


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 05, 2008, 01:02:58 am
Bergeson isn't as evil as some (including Otherphil) make her out to be. She's made some mistakes and we've got quite a few problems still to solve, but everything Dorn is saying he wants to change is basically already being worked on by Bergeson's office.

The local candidate for State Senate is a public school teacher and knows more about our school system than anyone I've ever met. She says that on a 1-10 scale of awfulness Bergeson is a 9.5 and Dorn is an 8. She wanted Semler until he dropped out.

I passively favor Dorn, and would suggest voting for him if only to keep Bergeson under 50% and thus send them both to the general where you would then have more time to think.

Sohn has signs up all over the state, and he's been getting some surprising support from within the party that I wouldn't have expected even a couple of weeks ago. I'm pretty sure my LD is going to endorse him this Thursday. I also learned the other day that the reason he didn't attend the State Convention was because a family member was sick, so the anger at him from within the party from "blowing them off" is really quite unfounded.

Fairhurst is wonderful and absolutely deserves re-election. Johnson isn't wonderful but he's better than the other two.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 05, 2008, 01:37:38 am
Another random suggestion to Alcon: Vote for Richmond. He's been working hardest of all the candidates and deserves to be in the general.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 06, 2008, 12:59:07 am
Goldmark is outstanding. I had a chance to talk with him at a Conservation Voters meeting, and I've never meet anyone who knows more about land conservation and development. Besides, Sutherland is an idiot who knows nothing about our environment, is in bed with the timber companies, and fondles his employees breasts.

If you're looking for a crazy to vote for in the SPI race, pick Hansler. I met him at the 27th LD meeting (which shows he's actually trying unlike the others) and he gave me a copy of his book "Purls of Wisdom". It's about 70 two page essays about his views on things, including how AIDS can be spread like influenza and how there are two types of X genes - the talking gene and the shopping gene - which explains why girls are the way they are.

He's a winner.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 07, 2008, 12:16:24 am
Bergeson scored the endorsement of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Major coup.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 07, 2008, 05:21:28 pm
I just read Rossi's statement in the voter's pamphlet. I was honestly a little nervous at first that it might be something good, but now I'm wondering how the heck this guy isn't trailing by 20 points.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 08, 2008, 10:36:01 am
Preliminary data I'm seeing says that Democratic turnout is much, much higher than Republican.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Frodo on August 09, 2008, 11:12:30 am
A question for Washington residents:

What are the prospects for Sound Transit 2 (http://www.future.soundtransit.org/) passing muster with voters this November?  Do you think it will suffer the same fate as Proposition 1 (combining mass transit expansions with highway construction) did?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 09, 2008, 11:56:39 am
Difficult to say. There were two distinct coalitions that killed the first one - the environmentalists and the anti-tax faction. The environmentalists claim it was their doing, but I think the exit polling and common sense makes it clear that it wasn't them. They'll vote for this one, but will they be able to make up the 5% it lost by in 2007? And will some voters be turned off by the lack of highways in the new one and switch to the "No" side?

You also have to keep in mind that the voter universe will be vastly different (registered voter turnout in 2007 was around 49% - it's going to be closer to 85% this year).

All things considered, if I had to make a prediction, I'd say it fails narrowly. But I really just don't know.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 09, 2008, 11:57:29 am
Preliminary data I'm seeing says that Democratic turnout is much, much higher than Republican.

How could they tell that without having seen ballots?  People in the Dems' database as being Democrats are turning out more, or what?  I think that might be slightly skewed, since the Dems have caucus info for them and not the GOP.  So, there are probably a lot more active Republicans (if they didn't vote in the primary) who fall under the radar.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 09, 2008, 12:05:09 pm
Preliminary data I'm seeing says that Democratic turnout is much, much higher than Republican.

How could they tell that without having seen ballots?  People in the Dems' database as being Democrats are turning out more, or what?  I think that might be slightly skewed, since the Dems have caucus info for them and not the GOP.  So, there are probably a lot more active Republicans (if they didn't vote in the primary) who fall under the radar.

Yea, I raised that concern with people as well and we modified our formula to affect % of identified folks turning out instead of raw numbers.

However, "Democratic" turnout is surpassing or very near to surpassing 50% depending on the area, so the unidentified No Data's isn't really relevant in that case.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on August 10, 2008, 09:35:45 pm
This was how I voted in the major races --

U.S. Rep. District #3:  Cheryl Crist (D)
Governor:  Christine Gregoire (D)
Lieutenant Governor:  Didn't Vote
Secretary of State:  Sam Reed (R)
State Treasurer:  ChangMook Sohn (D)
State Auditor:  Brian Sonntag (D)
Attorney General:  John Ladenburg (D)
Commissioner of Public Lands:  Peter J. Goldmark (D)
Insurance Commissioner:  Mike Kreidler (D)
Superintendent of Public Instruction:  Randy Dorn
Supreme Court Justice Pos. 3:  Mary Fairhurst
Supreme Court Justice Pos. 4:  Charles W. Johnson
Supreme Court Justice Pos. 7:  Debra Stephens



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: MarkWarner08 on August 11, 2008, 01:47:15 pm
How is Peter Goldmark doing? I read somewhere that the current Land Commish gave an inappropriate back rub to a female staffer.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 11, 2008, 02:15:15 pm
How is Peter Goldmark doing? I read somewhere that the current Land Commish gave an inappropriate back rub to a female staffer.

He's outraising his opponent, and the only press Sutherland has gotten recently is the fondling story. Sutherland also has never receive more than 50% in an election.

I'm not quite certain he'll win, but he's doing much better than Ladenburg. I put his odds at a little greater than 50% though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: MarkWarner08 on August 11, 2008, 02:43:14 pm
How is Peter Goldmark doing? I read somewhere that the current Land Commish gave an inappropriate back rub to a female staffer.

He's outraising his opponent, and the only press Sutherland has gotten recently is the fondling story. Sutherland also has never receive more than 50% in an election.

I'm not quite certain he'll win, but he's doing much better than Ladenburg. I put his odds at a little greater than 50% though.
Thanks for the info. Goldmark reminds me of Ben Westlund -- they're both cowboy environmentalist Democrats from Republican areas.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Torie on August 11, 2008, 10:09:32 pm
Er, you are voting in the General election already?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 11, 2008, 11:22:41 pm
MY BALLOT! ;D

County initiative 26:
Part 1) No
Part 2) Council-proposed alternative

U.S. Rep. District #8:  Darcy Burner (D)
Governor:  Christine Gregoire (D)
Lieutenant Governor:  Brad Owen (D)
Secretary of State:  Write-in: Dean Logan
State Treasurer:  ChangMook Sohn (D)
State Auditor:  Brian Sonntag (D)
Attorney General:  John Ladenburg (D)
Commissioner of Public Lands:  Peter J. Goldmark (D)
Insurance Commissioner:  Mike Kreidler (D)
Superintendent of Public Instruction:  Randy Dorn
Leg Dist #5 Senator: Phyllis Huster (D)
Leg Dist #5 Representative #1: Joe Viebrock (D)
Leg Dist #5 Representative #2: David Spring (D)
Supreme Court Justice Pos. 3:  Mary Fairhurst
Supreme Court Justice Pos. 4:  Write-in: Freedom Fighter
Supreme Court Justice Pos. 7:  Debra Stephens

And a bunch of other county judges that nobody cares about....


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: MarkWarner08 on August 12, 2008, 12:09:32 am
Here's my ballot (or will be when I go to the office to cast it tomorrow).  Governor's race was a coin-flip and I might accidentally vote for someone else, or if the mood strikes.

Congress: Richmond (D)
Governor: Rossi (R)
Lt. Governor: McCraw (R)
Secretary of State: Reed (R)
Attorney General: McKenna (R)
Auditor: Sonntag (D)
Treasurer: Sohn (D)
CPL: Goldmark (D)
Insurance Commissioner: Kriedler (D)
SPI: Dorn
27th - Senate: Faulk (R)
27th - Rep #1: Smeall (D)
27th - Rep #2: Darneille (D)
SSC Pos 3: Fairhurst
SSC Pos 4: Johnson
SSC Pos 7: Stephens
COA D2P2: Houghton
PCSC: Hecht

Weirdest ballot ever.  A lot of it was arbitrary, too.  Whee.
Why did you switch to Rossi?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 12, 2008, 12:26:18 am
^ Alcon gets a boner over how "undecided" he is.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 12:55:29 am
And a bunch of other county judges that nobody cares about....

I'm actually psuedo-working for a few of those judicial candidates. Do you remember who you picked?

And tsk, tsk at Alcon for Rossi and Hecht.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on August 12, 2008, 01:10:42 am
And tsk, tsk at Alcon for Rossi.

I agree! 

Er, you are voting in the General election already?

No, it's the primary.  Candidates from all parties are on the ballot, Top 2 advance to the general.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 12, 2008, 01:30:32 am
And a bunch of other county judges that nobody cares about....

I'm actually psuedo-working for a few of those judicial candidates. Do you remember who you picked?

And tsk, tsk at Alcon for Rossi and Hecht.

Umm

Tim Bradshaw
Jean Bouffard
Holly Hill
Laura Gene Middaugh
Jean Rietschel
Mariane Spearman


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on August 12, 2008, 03:00:50 am
Why did you switch to Rossi?

This is a big surprise.  (Lack of finality noted.)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 11:32:17 am
And a bunch of other county judges that nobody cares about....

I'm actually psuedo-working for a few of those judicial candidates. Do you remember who you picked?

And tsk, tsk at Alcon for Rossi and Hecht.

Umm

Tim Bradshaw
Jean Bouffard
Holly Hill
Laura Gene Middaugh
Jean Rietschel
Mariane Spearman

Eh, 1/3. At least you bother to vote in them

Same goes for Armijo.  I've read some not-so-flattering stuff about his conduct before.  I don't know the guy, so it's hard to say how true that is.  I'm working under the delusion that close primary = tighter ship.

You realize that they don't appear on the November ballot, right?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 12, 2008, 12:41:51 pm
Eh, 1/3. At least you bother to vote in them

1/3? I fail? :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 01:13:45 pm
Eh, 1/3. At least you bother to vote in them

1/3? I fail? :(

Spearman is a whore.

At least you didn't vote for Cahan *shudders*


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 12, 2008, 03:02:42 pm
Well, voted.  Left PCO blank, since I forgot I'm in a new precinct now and don't know either.  Switched my SPI vote to Fackler.  I'll be voting Kreidler almost certainly, but Fackler is only a joke, while Adams is a joke and a half.

I also switched from Johnson to Beecher.  Johnson is safe, and Beecher seems very amiable, and kind of libertarian-ish (but not in a libertarian way.)  Besides, Vulliet (two jokes in one bad Italian suit) has no chance.

You realize that they don't appear on the November ballot, right?

Ughh, I'm so bad at this.  Oh, well.  Armijo is almost certainly safe.  My first mis-vote!  This can be our little secret (I'll kill you all in your sleep if I have to)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 12, 2008, 05:29:29 pm
LOL@the Dean Logan vote, by the way.

At least someone thought it was funny. I felt so clever when I decided to that.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 06:37:10 pm
LOL@the Dean Logan vote, by the way.

At least someone thought it was funny. I felt so clever when I decided to that.

I told my father he should've done it and he agreed (he left the race blank since Osgood is crazy and he hates Republicans).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 12, 2008, 07:06:00 pm
I'm disappointed by Osgood.  I was hoping he'd bring a valid discussion on arcane balloting issues to the table.  Apparently, he mostly brings crazy.  The Stranger's Election Control Board endorsed Reed and called Osgood "paranoid," "sweaty" and a "nervous wreck."  They also said he went off on "Orwellian tirades about ballot barcodes."  That's the harshest I've ever seen them to anyone who agreed to meet with them.  And he's a Democrat.  Their I-26 anti-endorsement (non-partisan King County offices) capped off with: "if sex offenders have to register, so should Republicans."  They like their Democrats.  I haven't gotten the crazy vibe otherwise, but still.

They did make an exception on that, endorsing "anyone but Brad Owen."  Apparently he uses all of his time spent not being Governor to "tour the state with his crappy-ass rock band and crusade against pot."  Several inanimate objects received the endorsement over him.  I voted for the "empty bag of chips" (Marcia McCraw) over the "crusty come sock" (Jim Weist).  Ah, Seattle!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 07:36:54 pm
As much as I love the man, that's a pretty accurate account of Brad Owen. He has a fairly large staff and no one really knows what they, or him, do. He also has a very extensive alcohol collection in his office.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 12, 2008, 07:45:26 pm
As much as I love the man, that's a pretty accurate account of Brad Owen. He has a fairly large staff and no one really knows what they, or him, do. He also has a very extensive alcohol collection in his office.

Yet he's anti-pot?  I might have to vote for the Republican.

Because, you know, if you want revolutionary government, and internally consistent substance use positions, you vote for the Washington GOP.  Yeah.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 07:51:14 pm
As much as I love the man, that's a pretty accurate account of Brad Owen. He has a fairly large staff and no one really knows what they, or him, do. He also has a very extensive alcohol collection in his office.

Yet he's anti-pot?  I might have to vote for the Republican.

Because, you know, if you want revolutionary government, and internally consistent substance use positions, you vote for the Washington GOP.  Yeah.

His focus is on controlled substances and kids, although I'd be shocked if he was pro-legalization.

If you can't stomach him then write-in that Nirvana guy.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 12, 2008, 07:54:04 pm
Haha.  I kind of hope he'll run for something eventually.  He's a very sharp guy.  I'm not voting on pot, though, so it doesn't matter anyway.  It's a useless office and Owen hasn't blown it up, so I'll probably go for him.  I assumed the Stranger was mashing things to be edgy anyway.

By the way, just noticed -- happy birthday. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 08:01:04 pm
Haha.  I kind of hope he'll run for something eventually.  He's a very sharp guy.  I'm not voting on pot, though, so it doesn't matter anyway.  It's a useless office and Owen hasn't blown it up, so I'll probably go for him.  I assumed the Stranger was mashing things to be edgy anyway.

Pretty much. Owen has done nothing to warrant being removed, and I highly doubt McCraw knows the Senate rules as well as him. I kind of doubt anyone knows the Senate rules as well as him.

But he's kind of a weird guy... he tells his staff to call him Governor when Gregoire is out the state. Whatever.

By the way, just noticed -- happy birthday. :)

Thank you! Mother made one cake and decided it wasn't moist enough, so she made a second one.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Kevinstat on August 12, 2008, 08:51:20 pm
When do the polls close your time, and does Washington State use (Pacific) Daylight Savings Time?  (Is it about 6:51 p.m. there as I type?)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 09:04:34 pm
When do the polls close your time, and does Washington State use (Pacific) Daylight Savings Time?  (Is it about 6:51 p.m. there as I type?)

Yea, PST (three hours ahead of you). Polls close at 8 pm, but because we're heavily vote-by-mail you'll get a big chunk right around 8:30 - 9, a trickle of polls, and then a significant amount the next day. Close races won't be able to be called till Thursday, if not later.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on August 12, 2008, 10:30:13 pm
Osgood is crazy

I'm disappointed by Osgood.  I was hoping he'd bring a valid discussion on arcane balloting issues to the table.  Apparently, he mostly brings crazy.  The Stranger's Election Control Board endorsed Reed and called Osgood "paranoid," "sweaty" and a "nervous wreck."  They also said he went off on "Orwellian tirades about ballot barcodes."  That's the harshest I've ever seen them to anyone who agreed to meet with them.  And he's a Democrat.

What rock did the Washington State Democrats dig Osgood out from under?  Why the f**k are they backing a candidate supported by (un) Sound Politics (http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010832.html)?  The least they could do is find someone qualified.  As a Dem I am embarrassed that the party put up such a candidate for a statewide race.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 12, 2008, 10:52:50 pm
^ LOL Eric Earling.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 12, 2008, 11:46:05 pm
All the Dems are endorsing him just because he has a D by his name. They have no idea who he is.

I was at the 27th LD meeting and they blanket endorsed the entire slate of unopposed Democrats running for statewide office, including Osgood. No debate. People just have no idea who he is and automatically support him.

The people running the local Democratic parties frequently have no idea what the hell they're doing.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on August 13, 2008, 03:09:44 am
They did make an exception on that, endorsing "anyone but Brad Owen."  Apparently he uses all of his time spent not being Governor to "tour the state with his crappy-ass rock band and crusade against pot."

I wonder if I could become the only one to donate to both Rossi and Owen.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on August 13, 2008, 03:12:16 am
Owen and his staff also conferred with Gov. Christine Gregoire and her staff on a proclamation proclaiming March 10, 2008 as “The Ventures Day” in Washington state.

"I urge all citizens to gather their 45s, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs and iPods and play The Ventures music on this special observance,” the governor’s proclamation states. (http://www.ltgov.wa.gov/PressCoverage/newsreleases/03062008Ventures.htm)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 13, 2008, 05:32:57 am
Owen and his staff also conferred with Gov. Christine Gregoire and her staff on a proclamation proclaiming March 10, 2008 as “The Ventures Day” in Washington state.

"I urge all citizens to gather their 45s, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs and iPods and play The Ventures music on this special observance,” the governor’s proclamation states. (http://www.ltgov.wa.gov/PressCoverage/newsreleases/03062008Ventures.htm)

Yea, that's pretty typical Owen.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 14, 2008, 09:25:49 pm
Turnout in King County isn't going well. Not good news for the Governor.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 16, 2008, 03:10:07 pm
I just want to puke every time I see an ad for the scumbag. He really is disgusting.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 16, 2008, 06:26:49 pm
I just want to puke every time I see an ad for the scumbag. He really is disgusting.

Agreed, there is just something not right about Rossi...

Turnout in King County isn't going well. Not good news for the Governor.

Turnout is down here in Thurston as well but after phone banking for about 6 hours and going door-to-door today I am finding that people just prefer to wait until a little bit closer to election day (most of them had sent their ballots out either yesterday or even today).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 16, 2008, 06:38:22 pm
So, anyone want to give a prediction of how Cheryl Crist will do against Brian Baird in the primary? She is running as an anti-war democrat against Baird (remember Baird recently came out for the war, after opposing it from the start, the only congressman or even elected official I know to have done so).

My guess (based on absolutely nothing):
Baird: 55%
Delevar: 22%
Crist: 12%
Webb: 11%

Watch as this prediction becomes a laughing stock in only four days time. By the way I know nothing about the republicans, except that they will easily lose to Baird.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 16, 2008, 09:51:03 pm
Turnout in King County isn't going well. Not good news for the Governor.

Turnout is down here in Thurston as well but after phone banking for about 6 hours and going door-to-door today I am finding that people just prefer to wait until a little bit closer to election day (most of them had sent their ballots out either yesterday or even today).

Most do vote later, but turnout is lower right now compared to this time in previous years.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 17, 2008, 01:22:50 am
Pierce County turnout stands currently at 20%.  Returns are down 18% (not percentage points) from 2004, which is pretty sad-ish, considering that more people are vote-by-mail now.  That is, uselessly, up 2% from 2006.

King County is doing even worse, at 17%.  Pierce County typically has the state's lowest turnout.  This probably says more about KingCo having awful turnout than Pierce doing well.

Turnout elsewhere seems wildly variant:  27% in Benton, 19% in Clark, 37% (!) in Pacific, 17% in Snohomish, 24% in Spokane and 27% in Yakima.

Chelan County gives too much information (file (http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/chelan/Documents/ballots%20returned%20august%2015%202008.xls)), none of it what I wanted, but apparently only about 1-in-200 voters so far forgot to sign their ballots.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 17, 2008, 01:37:58 am
Some of the smaller counties, like Pacific, have such a small population that you can't really read too much into their turnout percentages, it's just sort of a year-by-year randomness.

King is the really worry though. This just confirms what those within the party have known for months though, which is that the Gregoire and coordinated campaigns are completely incompetent.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 17, 2008, 01:44:06 am
predicted turnout is 46%. I have a feeling that we will end up still being up from 2004 because of the popularity of the top-two primary. Just give people time.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 17, 2008, 02:00:35 am
The current trend line is right below 2006 turnout (39%). I'm pretty sure Sam Reed was full of crap. We'll see


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 17, 2008, 02:19:48 am
Some of the smaller counties, like Pacific, have such a small population that you can't really read too much into their turnout percentages, it's just sort of a year-by-year randomness.

King is the really worry though. This just confirms what those within the party have known for months though, which is that the Gregoire and coordinated campaigns are completely incompetent.

Why does it matter? It's just the primary. Would a warning to the Gregoire campaign that they need to do a better job really be a bad thing?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 17, 2008, 02:24:14 am
Some of the smaller counties, like Pacific, have such a small population that you can't really read too much into their turnout percentages, it's just sort of a year-by-year randomness.

King is the really worry though. This just confirms what those within the party have known for months though, which is that the Gregoire and coordinated campaigns are completely incompetent.

Why does it matter? It's just the primary. Would a warning to the Gregoire campaign that they need to do a better job really be a bad thing?

It gets the Republicans excited and helps Rossi bring in out-of-state money (and makes in-state donors focus on the race more).

On the other hand, you're certainly right, it would give the Gregoire campaign (and a lot of the lazy party activists) a needed wake-up call that we can't just waltz to victory.

So positives and negatives.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 17, 2008, 02:28:26 am
It gets the Republicans excited and helps Rossi bring in out-of-state money (and makes in-state donors focus on the race more).

Maybe. Seems like the closeness from 2004 (not to mention the high name-recognition he already has from it) would already help Rossi out a lot in those areas--so much that I'm not sure there's much room for improvement. But I don't know...

Too bad this silly mail-voting will make it take forever (relatively speaking of course) to get results. :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 17, 2008, 02:33:36 am
It gets the Republicans excited and helps Rossi bring in out-of-state money (and makes in-state donors focus on the race more).

Maybe. Seems like the closeness from 2004 (not to mention the high name-recognition he already has from it) would already help Rossi out a lot in those areas--so much that I'm not sure there's much room for improvement. But I don't know...

You're probably right to some extent, but as we saw in 2004 every little bit can make a big difference.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on August 17, 2008, 03:38:28 am
I'm pretty sure Sam Reed was full of crap.

Heresy!  Sam Reed is full of only golden caramel and delicious milk chocolate.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 17, 2008, 07:13:28 pm
It's too bad this has been taken over by partisans.

I just talked to one of the leaders of the state Democratic Party and the arguments they offer are just full of holes and completely nonsensical. The main argument is that we should be like the rest of the other states in the country and be "normal." The top-two primary according to the Democratic Party of WA will hurt third parties and lower voter turnout. How can this be true if voters chose to have a top-two primary? It really isn't confusing, but the parties make us think that it is. And this is an exciting chance for third parties to actually become part of the system. Take advantage of it Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists! You guys actually have a chance now!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Associate Justice PiT on August 17, 2008, 10:05:59 pm
It's too bad this has been taken over by partisans.

I just talked to one of the leaders of the state Democratic Party and the arguments they offer are just full of holes and completely nonsensical. The main argument is that we should be like the rest of the other states in the country and be "normal." The top-two primary according to the Democratic Party of WA will hurt third parties and lower voter turnout. How can this be true if voters chose to have a top-two primary? It really isn't confusing, but the parties make us think that it is. And this is an exciting chance for third parties to actually become part of the system. Take advantage of it Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists! You guys actually have a chance now!

     They can get 15% now! Nevertheless, I like this system. Be nice if we adopted this in California. Then we could have competitive elections in the Bay Area. ;D


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 17, 2008, 11:02:42 pm
How can this be true if voters chose to have a top-two primary?

Because voters are capable of making a decision that will decrease turnout? What you're saying isn't logical.

And this is an exciting chance for third parties to actually become part of the system. Take advantage of it Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists! You guys actually have a chance now!

No, it excludes them nearly completely. A third party will never be on the November ballot for a statewide election until we get rid of this horrid system.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on August 18, 2008, 01:37:06 am
The Top 2 Primary isn't perfect, but I resented the hell out of the "Pick A Party" primary.  If we go back to that system I will stop voting in the primary (except judicial races).  I really wish we could go back to the old blanket primary which unfortunately was declared unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 18, 2008, 02:29:57 am
The Top 2 Primary isn't perfect, but I resented the hell out of the "Pick A Party" primary.  If we go back to that system I will stop voting in the primary (except judicial races).  I really wish we could go back to the old blanket primary which unfortunately was declared unconstitutional.

Agreed, the blanket primary was best. But really I don't mind this primary system very much... its kind of like a dry run through for the races in November and in some cases when a party is split between a number of candidates it opens up the possibility for third parties.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 18, 2008, 09:05:09 am
in some cases when a party is split between a number of candidates it opens up the possibility for third parties.

But excludes them 99% of the time...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 18, 2008, 02:06:41 pm
So, how do you guys think Sam Reed will do in the general? I'm feeling fairly certain he'll hit 60%. 70% wouldn't really be out of the question, either.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 18, 2008, 05:22:42 pm
in some cases when a party is split between a number of candidates it opens up the possibility for third parties.

But excludes them 99% of the time...

It won't be that way once people get accustomed to the top-two primary. This year will look bad, but once people start to understand that they really have a choice in the first round, I believe we will see much more third party growth (esp. if the two main parties become corrupt).
Eventually this will really help to decrease partisanship and polarization.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 18, 2008, 09:19:22 pm
So, how do you guys think Sam Reed will do in the general? I'm feeling fairly certain he'll hit 60%. 70% wouldn't really be out of the question, either.

I am guessing 70%+, perhaps even breaking 80%. I don't even know any democrats who voted against him, he really did do a good job in 2004 of remaining impartial.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 18, 2008, 09:25:02 pm
By the way LD 35 should be interesting tomarrow for state Rep. Fred Finn should advance, but I am not so sure about who else, I think there are two dems and one weak republican in the primary so it could be interesting (Daugs is interesting, he could either do quite well or fall flat on his face).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 18, 2008, 10:39:57 pm
The SOS race will be interesting to see the absolute floor vote of a Democrat running statewide. I predicted Reed gets ~60-65%.

My highly scientific and wonderfully accurate predictions in a moment...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on August 18, 2008, 10:41:28 pm
The SOS race will be interesting to see the absolute floor vote of a Democrat running statewide. I predicted Reed gets ~60-65%.

My highly scientific and wonderfully accurate predictions in a moment...

That is my prediction as well. 


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 18, 2008, 10:53:58 pm
Alrighty, here we go. A bolded name means they will be the top vote getter. Two names means those are the ones advancing to November.

US Congress, Dist. 1: Inslee
US Congress, Dist. 2: Larsen, Bart
US Congress, Dist. 3: Baird, Webb
US Congress, Dist. 4: Hastings, Fearing
US Congress, Dist. 5: McMorris, Mays
US Congress, Dist. 6: Dicks, Cloud
US Congress, Dist. 7: McDermott, Beren
US Congress, Dist. 8: Reichert, Burner
US Congress, Dist. 9: Smith

Governor: Gregoire, Rossi
Lt. Governor: Owen, McCraw
SOS: Reed, Osgood
State Treasurer: Martin, Sohn
State Auditor: Sonntag, McEntee
Attorney General: McKenna
CPL: Goldmark
SPI: Bergeson, Dorn
Insurance Commissioner: Kreidler, Adams
Supreme Court: Fairhurst, Johnson, Stephens

Legislative races later on tonight if I have time...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 19, 2008, 01:31:24 am
There's also a new SurveyUSA poll out that has Dorn up 43-32-9. Kind of shocking, especially since that's an 11 point jump for Dorn in less than a month.

I guess we'll see if it's right in 20 hours...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 19, 2008, 02:07:49 am
The Seattle Times's ridiculously un-random straw poll (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/08/a_primary_straw_poll.html):

SPI
Dorn 57%
Bergeson 32%

Supreme Court
Fairhurst 66%
Bond 34%

Johnson 77%
Beecher 16%
Vulliet 7%

Secretary of State
Reed (R) 67%
Osgood (D) 25%
Montgomery (C) 5%

State Treasurer
Martin (R) 53%
McIntire (D) 28%
Sohn (D) 20%

State Auditor
Sonntag (D) 73%
McEntee (R) 21%
Freeman (C) 6%

Lt. Governor
Owen (D) 59%
McCraw (R) 21%
Wiest (R) 8%
Bell (D) 6%
Peck (C) 6%

For some reason, Governor and WA-8 only have like 10 votes apiece.  The rest have several hundred.  Anyway, take that as you will.

Edit: Which, since it has Larsen leading Bart 50-46, should be with a grain of salt.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 19, 2008, 02:55:17 am
I wish I had time and data to do an analysis of every race, but alas I don't. So here is my prediction for my own LD. Note that this isn't what the final tally will be, but this is what the results tomorrow night this time should read. And I spent the past three hours or so trying to perfect this, so they better end up being pretty friggin' close.

Srail (D): 51.2% (10,100)
Carrell (R): 48.8% (9,700)

Kelley (D): 59.8% (12,000)
Dooley (R): 40.2% (8,000)

I can already feel the egg on my face...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 19, 2008, 12:17:35 pm
FWIW, looking at the data I've seen, Gregoire should win Pierce County. Narrowly.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 19, 2008, 05:48:18 pm
Alrighty, here we go. A bolded name means they will be the top vote getter. Two names means those are the ones advancing to November.

US Congress, Dist. 1: Inslee
US Congress, Dist. 2: Larsen, Bart
US Congress, Dist. 3: Baird, Webb
US Congress, Dist. 4: Hastings, Fearing
US Congress, Dist. 5: McMorris, Mays
US Congress, Dist. 6: Dicks, Cloud
US Congress, Dist. 7: McDermott, Beren
US Congress, Dist. 8: Reichert, Burner
US Congress, Dist. 9: Smith

Governor: Gregoire, Rossi
Lt. Governor: Owen, McCraw
SOS: Reed, Osgood
State Treasurer: Martin, Sohn
State Auditor: Sonntag, McEntee
Attorney General: McKenna
CPL: Goldmark
SPI: Bergeson, Dorn
Insurance Commissioner: Kreidler, Adams
Supreme Court: Fairhurst, Johnson, Stephens

Legislative races later on tonight if I have time...

Shouldn't Goldmark have an opponent?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Dan the Roman on August 19, 2008, 08:55:34 pm
Alrighty, here we go. A bolded name means they will be the top vote getter. Two names means those are the ones advancing to November.

US Congress, Dist. 1: Inslee
US Congress, Dist. 2: Larsen, Bart
US Congress, Dist. 3: Baird, Webb
US Congress, Dist. 4: Hastings, Fearing
US Congress, Dist. 5: McMorris, Mays
US Congress, Dist. 6: Dicks, Cloud
US Congress, Dist. 7: McDermott, Beren
US Congress, Dist. 8: Reichert, Burner
US Congress, Dist. 9: Smith

Governor: Gregoire, Rossi
Lt. Governor: Owen, McCraw
SOS: Reed, Osgood
State Treasurer: Martin, Sohn
State Auditor: Sonntag, McEntee
Attorney General: McKenna
CPL: Goldmark
SPI: Bergeson, Dorn
Insurance Commissioner: Kreidler, Adams
Supreme Court: Fairhurst, Johnson, Stephens

Legislative races later on tonight if I have time...

You think Burner will come second this round given the way primary turnout has been going this year? Especially with all the competitive contests on the Democratic side?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 19, 2008, 10:48:47 pm
There are now results on the Secretary of State's homepage. Gregoire is doing very well, somehow she is ahead in Adams, Skamania and Spokane counties...

ChangMook Sohn looks to be headed towards defeat.
:(


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Sam Spade on August 19, 2008, 11:50:53 pm
Y'all think you could go any slower in counting votes.  thanks!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 19, 2008, 11:58:01 pm
Y'all think you could go any slower in counting votes.  thanks!

Counting is basically done for the night.
:(



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 12:24:13 am
Y'all think you could go any slower in counting votes.  thanks!

The joys of absentee voting!

There will be another deluge around 10:30-11 PST. Pierce and King should be wrapped up by midnight to 3 AM.

If I have time I'll try to explain why it takes so long...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 20, 2008, 01:06:10 am
Early results map:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=5&elect=6&fips=53&f=0


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 01:11:32 am
Biggest surprised of the night: WTF @ 27th, Position 1?

Or maybe Anderson being behind. Makes no sense.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 20, 2008, 01:18:06 am
Biggest surprised of the night: WTF @ 27th, Position 1?

My mind is still being blown.  Seriously, who did the Republicans vote for in that race?  Either Democratic turnout was astronomically above the 63-35 (or so) split that's standard for us, or Flannigan drained a huge number of votes from Woodard.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 20, 2008, 01:18:52 am
Early results map:

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=5&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

That map is beautiful for Gregoire.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 20, 2008, 01:32:32 am
^ Yeah, winning the second, third, fourth, and fifth largest counties in the state (that she lost in 2004) isn't a bad sign---but who knows what will happen come November. We've never had a primary like this so we can't really draw any parallels. But if she wins Pierce and Snohomish in the general, she's almost definitely won the election.

In other news, incumbent Republican Glenn Anderson is narrowly behind his Democratic opponent for State Representative in the 5th legislative district (mine!). Anderson didn't even get a Democratic opponent in 2006. It would make me very happy if we finally had a Democratic legislator. We're pretty much the only triple Republican district left in suburban Seattle, I think--at least in King County. It's pretty awful knowing you're from the district that spawned Dino the Despicable. :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 01:53:02 am
WTF is going on in Whitman County with Aiken?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 20, 2008, 01:55:31 am
WTF is going on in Whitman County with Aiken?

I think Eunice Coker's staff messed up.

The 28th LD Senate race is currently tied, 5790-5790.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 01:59:28 am
WTF is going on in Whitman County with Aiken?

I think Eunice Coker's staff messed up.

But he also does well in other parts of Eastern Washington as well... maybe he ran some sort of insurgent regional campaign.

The 28th LD Senate race is currently tied, 5790-5790.

We are also currently laughing our heads off.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 20, 2008, 02:01:40 am
^ I'd say there's about a 90% chance Whitman County just messed up. Their elections are run by absolute retards.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 02:09:46 am
While we wait, something fun I learned tonight: If you hang out at the Auditor's office when they release results, McCarthy comes out and personally gives them to you.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 02:13:23 am
King and Pierce are the only counties that will be releasing results for the rest of the night.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 20, 2008, 02:44:40 am
Turnout is frighteningly horrible in King and Pierce unless that does not count the uncounted ballots.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 20, 2008, 02:56:46 am
I'm so dismayed by ChangMook Sohn's loss.

But Gregoire is doing spectacularly and looks like she will win in Nov. with the help of higher turnout particularly in King County.

Did anyone notice the rather high numbers for the Constitution party? 6.52% for SOS!?

Disappointment with Burner, however when you add her total with the other two Democrats, she wins. I suspect that the GE will help Reichert, but it is a presidential year, so the Obama-effect may cancel out the Reichert-Green River Sheriff effect.



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 20, 2008, 03:17:05 am
I was expecting McIntire to win, but I thought it would at least be relatively close... His nearly 30 point loss is very surprising.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 12:32:41 pm
Did anyone notice the rather high numbers for the Constitution party? 6.52% for SOS!?

That was another very odd thing. The Constitution Party got 3% in one statewide race and more than 6% in two others. Ellen Craswell's revenge?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on August 20, 2008, 12:44:39 pm
Odd?  You have a safe Republican incumbent Republicans hate.  This is simply them having a temper tantrum.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 01:14:09 pm
Odd?  You have a safe Republican incumbent Republicans hate.  This is simply them having a temper tantrum.

... which doesn't explain the State Auditor or Lt. Governor results.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 20, 2008, 04:22:06 pm
Whitman County has been fixed. Aiken is now getting 2%, with Rossi at 48 and Gregoire at 45. How the hell do the people running their elections let this sh*t slip by? There is little doubt in my mind that they have the worst elections department in the state. Probably also the most corrupt--but whatever.

Also interesting that a "No Party Preference" person got 10% for Insurance Commissioner.

Cheryl Crist actually came sort of close to making it to the general. It would've been funny if Western Washington's most Republican district had two Democrats in the general... Perhaps if there were just one more Republican running! Oh well.

Disappointing numbers for Burner.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 20, 2008, 04:24:57 pm
Also interesting that a "No Party Preference" person got 10% for Insurance Commissioner.

He's part of the Spokane County Republican establishment--no idea why he ran as an indy.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Sam Spade on August 20, 2008, 05:15:02 pm
Is the ballot counting for the primary going to last another two weeks?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on August 20, 2008, 05:40:43 pm
Legislative races that will not be D v. R.

LD3 Se  D v I (I had 22%)
LD7 R1  R v R (5 R's in primary)
LD8 R2  R v R (2 R's in primary)
LD11 Se D v D (3 D's in primary)
LD12 R2 R v R (1 R in primary vs. WI R)
LD22 Se D v D (2 D's in primary)
LD27 R2 D v D (2 D's, 2 R's in primary, D vote was 70-75% for other positions)
LD36 R1 D v D (2 D's, 1 R in primary, D voter was 82% for other position)
LD37 R2 D v L  (D v. L in primary, L was 11%)
LD38 R1 D v I  (D v. I in primary, I was 41%)
LD41 R2 D v G (D v. G in primary, G was 19%; R for Senate had 37%)
LD46 R1 D v D (2 D's vs 1 R in primary, 82% D for other position)
LD49 R2 D v I  (D v. I in primary, I was 35%)

The positions where two candidates from the same major party, were either not contested by the other party, or were in districts that were overwhelmingly one-sided (75%+ for one party).

The 5 positions where it is D vs. non-R, were all positions where there was no R candidate.  Two of the independents appear to have credible support.

There are two posititions where a R filed as a write-in candidate and will apparently qualify for the general election ballot.

LD28 R2 D v R (R WI v unopposed D)
LD49 Se D v R (R WI v unopposed D)

There are 24 positions where there was a single unopposed candidate.  It is my interpretation of Washington statutes that all ballots not cast for the single candidate will have to be examined for write-ins, with the 2nd place finisher placed on the general election ballot.

LD1 R1  D v WI
LD1 R2  D v WI
LD7 R2  R v WI
LD9 Se  R v WI
LD12 Se R v WI
LD12 R1 R v WI
LD13 R1 R v WI
LD13 R2 R v WI
LD14 Se R v WI
LD16 Se R v WI
LD19 Se D v WI
LD19 R1 D v WI
LD19 R2 D v WI
LD22 R1 D v WI
LD24 Se D v WI
LD32 R2 D v WI
LD34 Se D v WI
LD34 R1 D v WI
LD34 R2 D v WI
LD37 R1 D v WI
LD38 R2 D v WI
LD40 R1 D v WI
LD41 R2 D v WI
LD43 R1 D v WI


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on August 20, 2008, 06:01:33 pm
Is the ballot counting for the primary going to last another two weeks?
Yes.

Voter Turnout (http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/VoterTurnout.aspx?ElectionID=25)

You will notice that for most larger counties, the next update is at the end of the day on Wednesday.  For smaller counties, it looks like they will wait until Friday.  One outlier is Columbia County which looks like they will wait for the two week period to be finished before they count again.

Voters in King County appear to be favoring non-partisan elections without partisan labels, over the alternative of non-partisan elections with partisan labels for county offices.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Sam Spade on August 20, 2008, 06:19:40 pm
Oh geez.  Thanks.  Yet another reminder of how much I despise Washington - when New Mexico does this it's funny, when Washington does it, it's annoying...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 20, 2008, 06:40:47 pm
You will notice that for most larger counties, the next update is at the end of the day on Wednesday.  For smaller counties, it looks like they will wait until Friday.  One outlier is Columbia County which looks like they will wait for the two week period to be finished before they count again.

Important note:  Don't trust those estimates, especially "next count" or "ballots left to count."  King County's first projection (based on those numbers) was turnout of 18%--and they haven't updated "ballots left to count" since.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 06:58:38 pm
Yea, the "Ballots left to count" number is pulled out of their ass. They have no idea how many they're going to get in the mail Hence why respectable counties, such as Pierce, wait much longer before providing estimates.

But for all the complaining about this taking so long, the final results aren't going differ by more than a percent or two from the first round released at 8:30 last night.

So it takes much longer to get a final number, but you know the winnner much quicker. Unless it's a really, really close race.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Bacon King on August 20, 2008, 08:55:20 pm
There are 24 positions where there was a single unopposed candidate.  It is my interpretation of Washington statutes that all ballots not cast for the single candidate will have to be examined for write-ins, with the 2nd place finisher placed on the general election ballot.

There could be a good bit of potential hilarity in those districts. The top write-in could be anyone from Mickey Mouse to Dino Rossi to Oprah.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 20, 2008, 10:29:17 pm
There are 24 positions where there was a single unopposed candidate.  It is my interpretation of Washington statutes that all ballots not cast for the single candidate will have to be examined for write-ins, with the 2nd place finisher placed on the general election ballot.

No. State law says that you must receive 1% of the primary vote in order to advance to the general election, thus avoiding a situation like this.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: frihetsivrare on August 20, 2008, 11:22:00 pm
This isn´t surprising, but I voted for only one winner, Doug Ericksen for State House.  I was very impressed with how the Constitution Party did, 3.35%, 6.45% and 6.73%. 

This may have already been stated, but in Legislative district 7 every candidate prefers the Republican Party or GOP Party.  One position had five candidates.  One district in Seattle had all Democratic candidates for one posititon, but one from each major party for the other.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 21, 2008, 01:02:10 am
Could someone do a map for the SPI race?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 21, 2008, 01:23:46 am
Could someone do a map for the SPI race?

Pretty darn boring.  Like the last time, Bergeson won strongly everywhere, except where there's a lot of insurgent voting.  And for some reason, the Wenatchee metro, which hated her in 2004 too.

I can make a map, but were you looking for a data upload?  Probably a lot more interesting.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 21, 2008, 01:49:08 am
There isn't an option to upload SPI... :(



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 21, 2008, 02:02:18 am
I just wanted to see where Dorn's strongest areas were, and reading the county list wasn't too easy to visualize.

My suspicions were that he did well in the East and in the Southwest. I could be very wrong though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 21, 2008, 02:17:49 am
I just wanted to see where Dorn's strongest areas were, and reading the county list wasn't too easy to visualize.

My suspicions were that he did well in the East and in the Southwest. I could be very wrong though.

Haven't memorized the county outlines and general metro areas?  Shameful!  (and good for your health.)

Dorn was competitive in the Tri-Cities (I didn't notice that he won Benton County, which is Kennewick and Richland); and the Wenatchee area.  He also did rather well in the suburbs, but not "ring cities" like Bremerton and Tacoma, which is interesting but seems to fit.

Beyond that, Bergeson's performance was kind of weird.  She ran pretty mediocre in the Seattle metro (see: suburbs?), but did really well in theoretically WASL-hostile areas like the San Juan Islands and Port Townsend.  She did OK in areas where the insurgency/Constitution vote was high this year (the Northeastern forestlands); politically "traditionalistic" areas (the coast and the Cowlitz); and in (non-suburban) conservative areas less prone to insurgency (the rural East counties).

If I had to write a litmus test for results, with the highest level being county, I'd say the basic formula for high Dorn performance was a "yes" answer to this pair of questions:

Does the public school system need fixing?
If so, does it need a drastic change?


I also get the impression that something local is going on in Wenatchee.  It stood out less this year, but in 2004, it was just too intense for it to just be the above criteria.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 21, 2008, 02:23:17 am
I just wanted to see where Dorn's strongest areas were, and reading the county list wasn't too easy to visualize.

My suspicions were that he did well in the East and in the Southwest. I could be very wrong though.

Haven't memorized the county outlines and general metro areas?  Shameful!  (and good for your health.)

Dorn was competitive in the Tri-Cities (I didn't notice that he won Benton County, which is Kennewick and Richland); and the Wenatchee area.  He also did rather well in the suburbs, but not "ring cities" like Bremerton and Tacoma, which is interesting but seems to fit.

Beyond that, Bergeson's performance was kind of weird.  She ran pretty mediocre in the Seattle metro (see: suburbs?), but did really well in theoretically WASL-hostile areas like the San Juan Islands and Port Townsend.  She did OK in areas where the insurgency/Constitution vote was high this year (the Northeastern forestlands); politically "traditionalistic" areas (the coast and the Cowlitz); and in (non-suburban) conservative areas less prone to insurgency (the rural East counties).

If I had to write a litmus test for results, with the highest level being county, I'd say the basic formula for high Dorn performance was a "yes" answer to this pair of questions:

Does the public school system need fixing?
If so, does it need a drastic change?


I also get the impression that something local is going on in Wenatchee.  It stood out less this year, but in 2004, it was just too intense for it to just be the above criteria.

I met someone from Wenatchee and the schools there are in need of drastic change especially since they are about one-third Spanish speaking. Yakima is similar.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 21, 2008, 03:26:12 am
Some interesting county results for Congressional races:

ADAMS COUNTY
75.59% McMorris Rodgers (R)
7.52% Erickson (R)
6.90% Mays (D)
5.72% Lampert (D)
2.62% Yearout (C)
1.66% (L)

COWLITZ COUNTY
52.44% Baird (D)
17.12% Crist (D)
15.60% Delavar (R)
14.84% Webb (R)

Basically, Cowlitz County is awesome and Adams is reminding us that nobody is f**king with their reputation as the worst county in Washington.


ALSO:
State Treasurer:
(
Img
)
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=8&elect=6&fips=53&f=0


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 21, 2008, 04:53:41 am
Some interesting county results for Congressional races:

ADAMS COUNTY
75.59% McMorris Rodgers (R)
7.52% Erickson (R)
6.90% Mays (D)
5.72% Lampert (D)
2.62% Yearout (C)
1.66% (L)

COWLITZ COUNTY
52.44% Baird (D)
17.12% Crist (D)
15.60% Delavar (R)
14.84% Webb (R)

Basically, Cowlitz County is awesome and Adams is reminding us that nobody is f**king with their reputation as the worst county in Washington.


ALSO:
State Treasurer:
(
Img
)
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=8&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

Whoot! Go Thurston for giving Sohn his largest share of the vote!!


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 21, 2008, 10:59:22 pm
Dino the Despicable is now ahead in Cowlitz, Clark, Spokane, and Skamania.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 21, 2008, 11:08:41 pm
Yea, the Republicans statewide had a really good day in absentee returns. A lot of the legislative candidates gained a point or two as well.

Perhaps a bunch of military ballots arrived.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 21, 2008, 11:14:37 pm
Dino the Despicable is now ahead in Cowlitz, Clark, Spokane, and Skamania.

Did late returns (or ballots just arriving in the mail) favor Rossi then?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 21, 2008, 11:36:27 pm
^ I guess so. Though Gregoire is still doing pretty well in Snohomish and Pierce. She also has a solid lead in Grays Harbor, which she narrowly lost in 2004. This makes me feel a little bit better about November. It would be very sad to see the Despicable One mercilessly rape and murder our state every day for four years. :(

Also, I made a map of the Congressional races. Red is Democrat/Green and blue is Republican/Constitution. Independents and Libertarians were excluded.

(
Img
)

Reichert narrowly "won" the primary with 48%. Democrats combined beat the only Republican. Of course, this was the case in 2006 as well. Still, Darcy should probably do at least as well as she did in 2006 I think, if these primaries are any indicator... hard to tell...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 21, 2008, 11:37:28 pm
Later absentee ballots tend to be more Republican, at least for the last few years.

It also, of course, depends on how much of a given day's load is King County.  But there are obvious gains here.

Gregoire losing Cowlitz is weird, especially since Goldmark and Ladenburg both won it.  Speaking of that, what's with Ladenburg in SW Wash. in general?  I'd say media markets, but um, were there actually advertisements for this all?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on August 21, 2008, 11:48:15 pm
Anyone have any info or ideas about the two remaining candidates for state treasurer? I really liked Sohn but I am not so sure about the other two.

The republican was endorsed by Murhpy and I really respected him and meanwhile McIntire... well I just don't know a ton about him.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 21, 2008, 11:56:48 pm
Anyone have any info or ideas about the two remaining candidates for state treasurer? I really liked Sohn but I am not so sure about the other two.

The republican was endorsed by Murhpy and I really respected him and meanwhile McIntire... well I just don't know a ton about him.

McIntire is one of the smartest members of the State House and really knows economic issues. From speaking to him he also really, really wants to win. Both he and Martin would be excellent at the job, so you can't really go wrong.

The peak of Martin's political career will be State Treasurer. He just happens to have a profession that requires election. McIntire could potentially go higher. He's a politician who has an interest in doing the job of State Treasurer and would be really good at it.

I hope that makes sense.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 22, 2008, 01:16:10 am
Gregoire is still leading in many of the counties she lost in Western WA and Asotin. Cowlitz is odd though...

I'm still rooting for Burner. I think I'll join her campaign. She needs help and I'll be happy to provide it.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 22, 2008, 02:23:11 am
I'm definitely voting for McIntire in the general. Would've been nice to have Sohn, but McIntire will do...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 22, 2008, 02:29:08 am
I'm definitely voting for McIntire in the general. Would've been nice to have Sohn, but McIntire will do...

What convinced you, the (D) next to his name, or the "Prefers Democratic Party" in the primary? :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 22, 2008, 02:31:31 am
I'm definitely voting for McIntire in the general. Would've been nice to have Sohn, but McIntire will do...

What convinced you, the (D) next to his name, or the "Prefers Democratic Party" in the primary? :P

The fact that Allan Martin is Dino Rossi's sex kitten.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 22, 2008, 02:38:35 am
I'm definitely voting for McIntire in the general. Would've been nice to have Sohn, but McIntire will do...

What convinced you, the (D) next to his name, or the "Prefers Democratic Party" in the primary? :P

No, silly, you know me better than that. It's the fact that Martin has a "Prefers Republican Party" by his name and his Democratic opponent isn't Osgood-awful. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: ottermax on August 22, 2008, 02:46:20 am
Martin looks like he will win though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 22, 2008, 03:04:19 am
I'm definitely voting for McIntire in the general. Would've been nice to have Sohn, but McIntire will do...

What convinced you, the (D) next to his name, or the "Prefers Democratic Party" in the primary? :P

The fact that Allan Martin is Dino Rossi's sex kitten.

I'm afraid to ask just in case that isn't a metaphor.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 23, 2008, 01:17:53 am
Here are the current swing by county numbers in excel and map form.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 23, 2008, 03:02:30 am
Hecht's percentage has consistently gone down every day, so I did some quick math to figure out what it would take for Armijo to pull off a win. He'd need 57% of the remaining vote, AKA he can't win.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on August 24, 2008, 06:42:16 pm
There are 24 positions where there was a single unopposed candidate.  It is my interpretation of Washington statutes that all ballots not cast for the single candidate will have to be examined for write-ins, with the 2nd place finisher placed on the general election ballot.

No. State law says that you must receive 1% of the primary vote in order to advance to the general election, thus avoiding a situation like this.
Washington law also says that if the number of undervotes and write-in votes is sufficient to change a result, that they be counted.  If there is a single candidate on the primary ballot, it is quite likely that the number of undervotes is greater than 1%.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 24, 2008, 07:12:22 pm
Geez, I thought people would think my swing data & map were interesting. :(

Also, if we adjust the turn-out numbers to account for the low turn-out in places like King County to resemble those from 2004, then Gregoire got about 52.5% to Rossi's 47.5%. Of course, that excludes that 8 or 9% of people who voted for the other random candidates. But who knows what the hell is going to happen with them...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on August 24, 2008, 07:36:19 pm
Geez, I thought people would think my swing data & map were interesting. :(

Also, if we adjust the turn-out numbers to account for the low turn-out in places like King County to resemble those from 2004, then Gregoire got about 52.5% to Rossi's 47.5%. Of course, that excludes that 8 or 9% of people who voted for the other random candidates. But who knows what the hell is going to happen with them...

I think it is interesting.  It appears that Gregoire has improved her standing in conservative eastern and southwestern Washington, but was undone by low turnout in King County.  They should make a point to work on that for the general.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 26, 2008, 11:47:21 pm
There are 24 positions where there was a single unopposed candidate.  It is my interpretation of Washington statutes that all ballots not cast for the single candidate will have to be examined for write-ins, with the 2nd place finisher placed on the general election ballot.

No. State law says that you must receive 1% of the primary vote in order to advance to the general election, thus avoiding a situation like this.
Washington law also says that if the number of undervotes and write-in votes is sufficient to change a result, that they be counted.  If there is a single candidate on the primary ballot, it is quite likely that the number of undervotes is greater than 1%.

Can you rephrase that? I don't quite understand what you're referencing.

Regardless of which of us is technically legal correct however, in speaking with the elections officials over the past week I can tell you that they're using my interpretation.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on August 27, 2008, 02:56:48 pm
Skagit has fallen to the dark side.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on August 29, 2008, 08:52:20 pm
No. State law says that you must receive 1% of the primary vote in order to advance to the general election, thus avoiding a situation like this.
Washington law also says that if the number of undervotes and write-in votes is sufficient to change a result, that they be counted.  If there is a single candidate on the primary ballot, it is quite likely that the number of undervotes is greater than 1%.
Can you rephrase that? I don't quite understand what you're referencing.
There is a fundamental right to cast a write-in vote.  If a machine-counted ballot does not indicate a choice, then the presumption should be that it is a possible write-in vote.  In a race where there is only a single candidate on the ballot, there are likely to be 20 to 30% of the ballots with no choice indicated. 

See for example LD1 where the uncontested House races had about 70% of the vote cast in the contested Senate race.   While many of about 8,000 voters will simply have skipped the House races, the presumption should be that every one of the ballots has a write-in vote.  Washington law requires possible write-in votes to be tallied if it would have an effect on the outcome.  If there is a person who receives 1% of the vote, then they would be placed on the general election ballot.  This would be a change in the outcome.  1% is only about 200 votes.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 29, 2008, 09:52:36 pm
Why would an undervote be presumed to be a write-in?  The machine automatically distinguishes those from write-ins.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 29, 2008, 11:07:15 pm
Why would an undervote be presumed to be a write-in?  The machine automatically distinguishes those from write-ins.

^^^


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on August 31, 2008, 11:26:23 am
Why would an undervote be presumed to be a write-in?  The machine automatically distinguishes those from write-ins.

[X] Rossi
[  ] Write-in ______________

[X] Rossi
[X] Write-in Rossi                   

[  ] Rossi
[X] Write-in Rossi                   

[  ] Rossi
[  ] Write-in Rossi                   

[  ] Rossi
[  ] Write-in ______________
Rossi for Governor

Are all valid Rossi votes.  In a machine tally, only the first will be counted.  The 2nd will be counted as an overvote, the 3rd as a write-in vote.  The 4th and 5th will be counted as undervotes.

Washington law is explicit that if the total number of machine-tallied write-in votes, undervotes, and overvotes for an on-ballot candidate could change the outcome of an election, that the ballots be hand counted, since it is possible that all were marked in some way that was a valid vote.

In the case of a person who has not filed for the offfice, the following are valid votes (assuming they can figure out who Alcon is).

[  ] Rossi
[X] Write-in Alcon                     

[  ] Rossi
[  ] Write-in Alcon                     

[  ] Rossi
[  ] Write-in ______________
Alcon for Governor

None of these can be machine-tallied.  Again, Washington law says that they be hand counted if it is possible that they would change the outcome.  It doesn't matter that most undervotes are probably of the form:

[  ] Rossi
[  ] Write-in ______________

The law presumes the possibility that they are all valid votes.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 31, 2008, 12:36:29 pm
All ballots are looked at in person before being sent through a machine to avoid a situation like this. There are tables and tables of workers who look at ballots that have been filled out incorrectly and fill out substitute ballots that can be read by the counting machines.

The only time a ballot is counted as an undervote is if you literally did not make any mark or indication in regards to that race.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on August 31, 2008, 12:58:15 pm
Ah, interesting, thanks :)

I'd been told that the Tabulator machine separates out any ballots with extraneous marks, but maybe law still demands that the undercounts be checked?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on August 31, 2008, 01:04:54 pm
I'd been told that the Tabulator machine separates out any ballots with extraneous marks

That's correct, but at that point they've already been through a hand check and any ballots with potential problems should have been dealt with. There are a very, very small amount that are rejected by the machines, but those are just dealt with by having a substitute ballot sent in its place.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 04, 2008, 05:30:47 pm
Walla Walla is the only county with ballots left to count. The rest have their final results.

King County is going to release precinct results tomorrow!! Of course, I'll probably be in Rossiland, which is sad, but I'm used to it. :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 05, 2008, 08:02:11 pm
Results from my Sammamish precinct. Gregoire won :)

GOVERNOR      
52.58%   102   Gregoire
45.36%   88   Rossi
1.03%   2   Joubert
0.52%   1   Aiken
0.52%   1   Baker
0.00%   0   Tudor
0.00%   0   Badgley
0.00%   0   White
0.00%   0   Lopez
0.00%   0   Said
   194   TOTAL
      
LT. GOVERNOR      
52.78%   95   Owen
31.67%   57   McCraw
11.67%   21   Wiest
3.33%   6   Bell
0.56%   1   Peck
   180   TOTAL
      
ATTORNEY GENERAL      
57.37%   109   McKenna
42.63%   81   Ladenburg
   190   TOTAL
      
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC LANDS      
54.91%   95   Goldmark
45.09%   78   Sutherland
   173   TOTAL
      
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER      
58.01%   105   Kriedler
31.49%   57   Adams
10.50%   19   Fackler
   181   TOTAL
      
SECRETARY OF STATE      
59.89%   112   Reed
32.09%   60   Osgood
6.95%   13   Montgomery
1.07%   2   Greene
   187   TOTAL
      
STATE AUDITOR      
63.64%   119   Sonntag
31.55%   59   McEntee
4.81%   9   Freeman
   187   TOTAL
      
STATE TREASURER      
47.34%   89   McIntire
41.49%   78   Martin
11.17%   21   Sohn
   188   TOTAL
      
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION      
43.31%   68   Bergeson
37.58%   59   Dorn
5.73%   9   Hansler
5.10%   8   Duncan
4.46%   7   Blomstrom
3.82%   6   Blair
   157   TOTAL
         
State Representative #1 Legislative District 5         
55.62%   99   Rodne   R
44.38%   79   Viebrock   D
   178   TOTAL   
         
State Representative #2 Legislative District 5         
61.02%   108   Spring   D
38.98%   69   Anderson   R
   177   TOTAL   
         
State Senate Legislative District 5         
54.30%   101   Pflug   R
45.70%   85   Huster   D
   186   TOTAL   

         
State Supreme Court         
68.49%   100   Fairhurst   
31.51%   46   Bond   
   146   TOTAL   
         
State Supreme Court         
65.94%   91   Johnson   
27.54%   38   Beecher   
6.52%   9   Vulliet   
   138   TOTAL   

U.S. Congressional District 8         
50.79%   96   Burner   D
42.86%   81   Reichert   R
3.70%   7   Vaughn   D
1.59%   3   Arnold   D
1.06%   2   Todd   NP
0.00%   0   Orlinski   NP
   189   TOTAL   


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on September 05, 2008, 09:11:20 pm
Could you do my precinct? Fry Cove (thurston county) 094


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on September 06, 2008, 01:03:59 am
I'd been told that the Tabulator machine separates out any ballots with extraneous marks

That's correct, but at that point they've already been through a hand check and any ballots with potential problems should have been dealt with. There are a very, very small amount that are rejected by the machines, but those are just dealt with by having a substitute ballot sent in its place.
King County reported roughly 2 to 3% write-ins in every legislative race where there was only candidate on the ballot.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 06, 2008, 01:16:59 am
I'd been told that the Tabulator machine separates out any ballots with extraneous marks

That's correct, but at that point they've already been through a hand check and any ballots with potential problems should have been dealt with. There are a very, very small amount that are rejected by the machines, but those are just dealt with by having a substitute ballot sent in its place.
King County reported roughly 2 to 3% write-ins in every legislative race where there was only candidate on the ballot.


Yes, however, they only count who those write-ins were for if someone has filed a Declaration of Write-In candidacy or if it is clear to election workers that a candidate may make the general election ballot.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on September 06, 2008, 02:12:48 am
Could you do my precinct? Fry Cove (thurston county) 094

Candidates receiving 5% or more:

U.S. House of Representatives
Brian Baird (D) 57.1%
Cheryl Crist (D) 17.5%
Michael Delevar (R) 17.2%
Christine Webb (R) 8.2%

Governor
Christine Gregoire (D) 58.3%
Dino Rossi (R) 37.6%

Lt. Governor
Brad Owen (D) 63.1%
Marcia McCraw (R) 15.1%
Jim Wiest (R) 12.6%
Randel Bell (D) 7.4%

Secretary of State
Sam Reed (R) 71.0%
Jason Osgood (D) 23.9%

State Treasurer
Allan Martin (R) 35.4%
Jim McIntire (D) 34.1%
ChangMook Sohn (D) 30.5%

State Auditor
Brian Sonntag (D) 72.2%
Richard McEntee (R) 23.2%

State Attorney General
Rob McKenna (R) 54.2%
John Ladenburg (D) 45.8%

Commissioner of Public Lands
Peter Goldmark (D) 55.5%
Doug Sutherland (R) 44.5%

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Randy Dorn 40.3%
Terry Bergeson 39.7%
Enid Duncan 7.2%
John Patterson Blair 5.9%
Don Hansler 5.9%

Insurance Commissioner
Mike Kriedler (D) 67.2%
John Adams (R) 23.9%
Curtis Fackler (NP) 9.0%

State Rep Pos. 1
Kathy Haigh (D) 70.9%
Marco Brown (R) 16.6%
Brad Gehring (R) 12.6%

State Rep Pos. 2
Fred Finn (D) 59.7%
Randy Neatherlin (R) 21.8%
Darryl Daugs (D) 13.3%
Herb Baze (R) 5.2%

SC Pos. 3
Mary Fairhurst 64.3%
Michael J. Bond 35.7%

SC Pos. 4
Charles Johnson 62.4%
James Beecher 29.1%
Frank Vulliet 8.5%

COP Div 2 Dis 2 Pos 1
Robin Hunt 66.7%
Tim Ford 33.3%

Thurston Superior Court Pos 3
Carol Murphy 56.2%
Charles Williams 43.8%

Thurston Superior Court Pos 7
Gary Tabor 71.6%
Ed Holm 28.4%


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 06, 2008, 02:26:22 am
This primary has given me great hope that Peter Goldmark will be able to win :)

But it has also confirmed my suspicion that John Ladenburg is completely f**cked :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on September 06, 2008, 02:35:14 am
I did a little academic exercise and took the PCO results where there were just a D vs. R, in Kitsap County.  I eliminated rates where one of the candidates was a public figure, which always brings more votes for them.

The result: pretty much identical to 2004, very slightly more Dem.  Same deal in Okanogan County.

So, basically, the superior Dem turnout thing didn't seem to be in play.  In fact, Dem turnout may have been lower -- and that's not even adjusting for low-ish turnout in King County.

I wouldn't bet on Goldmark, but I think he definitely stands a chance.  He's also likely to benefit from Obama on-ticket.  He seems like that kind of candidate.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on September 06, 2008, 06:21:15 am
All ballots are looked at in person before being sent through a machine to avoid a situation like this. There are tables and tables of workers who look at ballots that have been filled out incorrectly and fill out substitute ballots that can be read by the counting machines.
In other words, there is no point whatsoever to machine counting.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 06, 2008, 10:52:56 am
But it has also confirmed my suspicion that John Ladenburg is completely f**cked :(


Yeah

but then again, knowing Washington Republicans, you have to figure there is about a 3-4% chance McKenna has a gay sex scandal come out over the next two months, in which case we'll be glad Ladenburg isn't a complete sacrificial lamb. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 06, 2008, 01:56:29 pm
All ballots are looked at in person before being sent through a machine to avoid a situation like this. There are tables and tables of workers who look at ballots that have been filled out incorrectly and fill out substitute ballots that can be read by the counting machines.
In other words, there is no point whatsoever to machine counting.

No. The workers don't count the ballots, they just look for incorrectly filled out ballots. It's a quick scan of the ballot from top to bottom, takes a few seconds at most.

Counting the ballots by hand would take unbelievably longer.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on September 06, 2008, 03:43:33 pm
All ballots are looked at in person before being sent through a machine to avoid a situation like this. There are tables and tables of workers who look at ballots that have been filled out incorrectly and fill out substitute ballots that can be read by the counting machines.
In other words, there is no point whatsoever to machine counting.

No. The workers don't count the ballots, they just look for incorrectly filled out ballots. It's a quick scan of the ballot from top to bottom, takes a few seconds at most.

Counting the ballots by hand would take unbelievably longer.
Oh right, the old problem of having too many different races on the same bit of paper, meaning loads and loads of sorting work.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2008, 05:38:33 pm
Final results for Governor: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=53&elect=6&off=5&year=2008

(
Img
)

My questions:

1) Any ideas on why Gregoire won Island?

2) What about Rossi winning Cowlitz? Even Ladenburg almost won that county.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2008, 05:54:24 pm
And how did Joubert get 2.6% in Cowlitz?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2008, 06:00:43 pm
The most interesting election, in my opinion: Attorney General

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=9&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

(
Img
)

Go figure, here Island is McKenna's best non-Lewis county in Western Washington.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2008, 06:03:19 pm
Ladenburg didn't win King?

Wow. I hadn't realized that.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2008, 06:06:37 pm
Ladenburg didn't win King?

Wow. I hadn't realized that.

Yeah. I feel sorry for him...

But then again, Jason Osgood lost f'ing Seattle. So it could be worse. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2008, 06:08:52 pm
Ladenburg didn't win King?

Wow. I hadn't realized that.

Yeah. I feel sorry for him...

But then again, Jason Osgood lost f'ing Seattle. So it could be worse. :)

Did Osgood win Waldron?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on September 07, 2008, 06:09:16 pm
Gregoire didn't do so well among downscale, non-elderly voters.  I have a list of selected trailer park precincts statewide.  Together, she did only like 5-10 percentage points better in margin than Osgood.  In a few, she lost while Osgood won (ouch).

Cowlitz County is probably the most "downscale" county in Washington state.  Looking at the precinct results, it looks like Gregoire's weakness among downscale Democrats hurt her, here.  She fell virtually everywhere, save for a middle-class pocket of Longview around Sacajawea Park, and the suburbanizing Mt. Solo area.

As for Island -- locally anemic turnout has a lot to do with it.  Oak Harbor has a fairly transient population base.  Inactive voter rates are rather high there.  Turnout vs. 2004 was 53% in Oak Harbor, compared to 63% countywide.  That couldn't help the GOP, especially considering transient voters are more likely to be military.  Whatever the case may be, Gregoire improved fairly dramatically vis-a-vis Kerry around Oak Harbor.  Of the 17 Island County precincts where Gregoire outpaced him by 4% or more, 15 were in the Oak Harbor area.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on September 07, 2008, 06:13:30 pm
Did Osgood win Waldron?

Yeah.  Osgood 40, Reed 12, Montgomery 5, Greene 1.  That's the best a Republican has ever done on Waldron.  Waldron has one family of three reliable Republicans, a few staunch Democrats who will vote for Reed, and then everyone else are just massive Democratic hacks. I'm surprised Montgomery got 5.  I doubt they had any idea of what the Constitution Party is.

Osgood also won Langley, Nespelem and Port Townsend.  He probably carried some others (Index, Elmer City, and the Mexican towns in Yakima County would be good bets), too.

The Seattle results are funny.  Osgood barely won Capitol Hill -- in fact, he had to make up for a deficit in the 15th Avenue area down around Broadway.  That is really and truly pathetic.  Interesting race, though.  We got to see what are the truly hackish Democratic parts of Seattle, and they're not totally what I expected.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2008, 06:37:43 pm
State Auditor: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=11&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

(
Img
)

Any chance Sonntag will ever run for Governor? ;D


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2008, 06:38:58 pm
State Auditor: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=11&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

(
Img
)

Any chance Sonntag will ever run for Governor? ;D

100%. Wait for Gregoire to retire.



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on September 07, 2008, 06:41:01 pm
State Auditor: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=11&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

(
Img
)

Any chance Sonntag will ever run for Governor? ;D

Can't wait to vote for him.

I know the Constitution Party was helping a bit more this time and all, but it's kind of depressing that Will Baker could manage to get an almost identical map.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2008, 07:11:23 pm
Oh wow, I thought Sonntag-for-Gov was just wishful thinking on my part. I didn't know there was a good chance of it actually happening. That's awesome. If Gregoire wins re-election this year, which I think is looking likely at this point, and Sonntag serves at least two terms... we would be at least 36 years of nothing but Democratic Governors. Great. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2008, 07:14:14 pm
Jay Inslee will also run, and possibly Frank Chopp as well. And McKenna. Blech.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 07, 2008, 07:18:27 pm
^ Yes, McKenna is more likely to be Washington's next Republican Governor than Rossi. I've felt that way for a while. But I'm fairly certain he would lose against Sonntag. That would be a great way to get rid of McKenna. :)

Inslee would be an okay candidate, though I would rather not run candidates from Seattle/Bainbridge when possible... As for Chopp, I hope you're kidding. I kind of doubt the Republicans will ever regain the legislature. At least not for decades. He should just be happing being in control of the House for as long as he wants. :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 07, 2008, 07:26:16 pm
^ Yes, McKenna is more likely to be Washington's next Republican Governor than Rossi. I've felt that way for a while. But I'm fairly certain he would lose against Sonntag. That would be a great way to get rid of McKenna. :)

Inslee would be an okay candidate, though I would rather not run candidates from Seattle/Bainbridge when possible... As for Chopp, I hope you're kidding. I kind of doubt the Republicans will ever regain the legislature. At least not for decades. He should just be happing being in control of the House for as long as he wants. :P

The Chopp thing I've only heard once, but it was from a pretty good source. Inslee has been planning his ascension for years now though.

Maybe Pam Roach can run again.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on September 07, 2008, 08:28:04 pm
^ Yes, McKenna is more likely to be Washington's next Republican Governor than Rossi. I've felt that way for a while. But I'm fairly certain he would lose against Sonntag. That would be a great way to get rid of McKenna. :)

Inslee would be an okay candidate, though I would rather not run candidates from Seattle/Bainbridge when possible... As for Chopp, I hope you're kidding. I kind of doubt the Republicans will ever regain the legislature. At least not for decades. He should just be happing being in control of the House for as long as he wants. :P

The Chopp thing I've only heard once, but it was from a pretty good source. Inslee has been planning his ascension for years now though.

Maybe Pam Roach can run again.

Ewww... Pam Roach....


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 08, 2008, 01:56:07 am
Insurance Commissioner: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=53&elect=6&off=13&year=2008

(
Img
)

Not terribly interest. Kreidler always seems to get about 54%. Adams has been his opponent before, maybe even twice...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 08, 2008, 02:42:32 am
Kreidler's sort of a weird enigma. I've never met anyone who's ever seen him, and he never has any campaign material.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on September 08, 2008, 03:03:56 am
^ Yes, McKenna is more likely to be Washington's next Republican Governor than Rossi. I've felt that way for a while. But I'm fairly certain he would lose against Sonntag. That would be a great way to get rid of McKenna. :)

Inslee would be an okay candidate, though I would rather not run candidates from Seattle/Bainbridge when possible... As for Chopp, I hope you're kidding. I kind of doubt the Republicans will ever regain the legislature. At least not for decades. He should just be happing being in control of the House for as long as he wants. :P

The Chopp thing I've only heard once, but it was from a pretty good source. Inslee has been planning his ascension for years now though.

Maybe Pam Roach can run again.

LOL at Pam Roach running for Governor.  I would watch just for the sheer entertainment value.  Anyone who touches her roses is in for it!

My fear is that Sonntag/Inslee/Smith/Chopp/Sims et. al. will bloody one another up during the Democratic Gubernatorial Primary as McKenna glides uncontested through the Republican Primary and then to victory in the general.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 08, 2008, 03:34:05 am
^ Yes, McKenna is more likely to be Washington's next Republican Governor than Rossi. I've felt that way for a while. But I'm fairly certain he would lose against Sonntag. That would be a great way to get rid of McKenna. :)

Inslee would be an okay candidate, though I would rather not run candidates from Seattle/Bainbridge when possible... As for Chopp, I hope you're kidding. I kind of doubt the Republicans will ever regain the legislature. At least not for decades. He should just be happing being in control of the House for as long as he wants. :P

The Chopp thing I've only heard once, but it was from a pretty good source. Inslee has been planning his ascension for years now though.

Maybe Pam Roach can run again.

LOL at Pam Roach running for Governor.  I would watch just for the sheer entertainment value.  Anyone who touches her roses is in for it!

My fear is that Sonntag/Inslee/Smith/Chopp/Sims et. al. will bloody one another up during the Democratic Gubernatorial Primary as McKenna glides uncontested through the Republican Primary and then to victory in the general.


Even worse than that would be the Democrats bloodying each other up and splitting the vote so badly that McKenna and another relatively sane Republican can both sneak through to the general election.

I suppose on the plus side that would be the end of the Top-Two forever..


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 08, 2008, 03:47:12 am
^ I would say there is about a 0.5% chance of McKenna getting serious opposition within the primary from another Republican.

As for the rest of that scenario... Smith, too? Ahh. I like him, but I kind of doubt he would take on those guys... I still don't believe Chopp will run. I can't imagine a Democratic candidate who would do worse statewide. Sims would also be an almost guaranteed loss as well.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 08, 2008, 03:57:21 am
Yea, I'm pretty sure the field would clear for McKenna rather quickly as well, but never underestimate the clusterf**ck that is the WSRP.

And Smith isn't going to run for statewide office while there's still a Democratic majority in DC - it's also why he decided not to run for AG or Pierce County Executive this year.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on September 08, 2008, 11:36:47 am
Kreidler's sort of a weird enigma. I've never met anyone who's ever seen him, and he never has any campaign material.

I saw him. Once.

He's a pretty quiet person really the only reason any of us knew who he was owned to him being introduced to everyone.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 08, 2008, 04:11:19 pm
Commissioner of Public Lands: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=10&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

(
Img
)

Goldmark does well in parts of Eastern Washington (his home county of Okanogan, as well as Spokane and Whitman counties), but does very poorly in traditionally Democratic parts of Western Washington. If Goldmark wants to win he's gonna need to improve his numbers in the South Sound and coastal counties.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on September 08, 2008, 10:39:37 pm
Commissioner of Public Lands: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&off=10&elect=6&fips=53&f=0

(
Img
)

Goldmark does well in parts of Eastern Washington (his home county of Okanogan, as well as Spokane and Whitman counties), but does very poorly in traditionally Democratic parts of Western Washington. If Goldmark wants to win he's gonna need to improve his numbers in the South Sound and coastal counties.

Thurston will likely stay for Sutherland in the general, because of our dependence on the government for the local economy people tend to back incumbents on the state-wide level.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on September 09, 2008, 01:26:45 am
I'd been told that the Tabulator machine separates out any ballots with extraneous marks

That's correct, but at that point they've already been through a hand check and any ballots with potential problems should have been dealt with. There are a very, very small amount that are rejected by the machines, but those are just dealt with by having a substitute ballot sent in its place.
King County reported roughly 2 to 3% write-ins in every legislative race where there was only candidate on the ballot.


Yes, however, they only count who those write-ins were for if someone has filed a Declaration of Write-In candidacy or if it is clear to election workers that a candidate may make the general election ballot.
RCW 29A.24.311 is clear that write-in votes are valid for undeclared candidates, so long as the office being sought can be determined from the ballot.

RCW 29A.60.021 (1) Says that a write-in vote for an undeclared write-in candidate in a general election are not valid if the candidate had lost the primary either as an on-ballot or a declared write-in candidate.  But this is a meaningless restriction, unless write-in votes for other undeclared write-in candidates are valid.

RCW 29A.60.021 (4) says that write-in votes are to be tallied if the number of undervotes and write-in votes is greater than that of an apparent qualified nominee.  While one could literally interpret this to mean that write-in votes don't have to be counted unless it appeared that there were two on-ballot canidates it would produce the following perverse outcome:

Candidate A and B are on the ballot.  Candidate C is not on the ballot.

Candidate A gets 96% of the vote.  Candidate B gets 1% of the vote.   There are 2% write-in votes.  These are examined and it is found that Candidate C has been nominated.

Candidate A gets 96% of the vote.  Candidate B gets 0.5% of the vote.   There are 3% write-in votes.  Since Candidate B does not have 1% of the vote he is not nominated, and therefore for the write-in votes are not tallied.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 09, 2008, 01:31:38 am
Look, dude, you can quote the RCW's until the cows come home, but I'm telling you right now that the way the counties are interpreting the laws is the way I'm describing them. And that's all that really matters.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on September 09, 2008, 01:42:50 am
All ballots are looked at in person before being sent through a machine to avoid a situation like this. There are tables and tables of workers who look at ballots that have been filled out incorrectly and fill out substitute ballots that can be read by the counting machines.
In other words, there is no point whatsoever to machine counting.
Statewide Standards on What is a Vote (PDF file) (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/_assets/elections/2008StatewideStandardsonWhatisaVote.pdf)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: jimrtex on September 09, 2008, 01:46:48 am
you can quote the RCW's until the cows come home, but I'm telling you right now that the way the counties are interpreting the laws is the way I'm describing them. And that's all that really matters.
It doesn't matter whether the counties interpret ballots in a manner that is consistent between counties and complies with the law?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 09, 2008, 01:51:18 am
you can quote the RCW's until the cows come home, but I'm telling you right now that the way the counties are interpreting the laws is the way I'm describing them. And that's all that really matters.
It doesn't matter whether the counties interpret ballots in a manner that is consistent between counties and complies with the law?

It doesn't matter for practical purposes of the discussion we were having. Maybe they should do it a certain way, but that wasn't my point. My point is that they're doing it the way that I've described, so what they should be doing isn't significant to analyzing what is actually happening.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on September 09, 2008, 02:35:20 am
Yea, I'm pretty sure the field would clear for McKenna rather quickly as well, but never underestimate the clusterf**ck that is the WSRP.

And Smith isn't going to run for statewide office while there's still a Democratic majority in DC - it's also why he decided not to run for AG or Pierce County Executive this year.

I heard that Smith is tired of traveling to D.C.  Admittedly, that was pre-2006 elections.  In any case, my concerns still stand.  The Dems have a pretty deep bench for Governor once Gregoire leaves, but that isn't necessarily a good thing given the fractious nature of the party.  There will be a scramble for the Democratic nomination.  Hopefully there won't be a major schism afterward. 


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 09, 2008, 05:57:17 pm
Any Democrat/anti-Republican who doesn't support Sonntag (especially if the Republican is McKenna) is utterly insane.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 16, 2008, 12:58:05 am
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008181318_webbiaw16.html

lol Republicans


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 24, 2008, 01:02:01 am
http://www.king5.com/news/specials/politics/stories/NW_092308POB_rossi_republican_label_lawsuit_TP.a6d625f6.html

Idiots


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 25, 2008, 04:54:07 am
^ lol! Like any WA party chairman, Pelz is just another loser who couldn't get elected to a real office. Okay, he was on the county council but he lost his re-election effort in a primary etc etc who cares.

Did anybody watch the debate? They're both pretty boring people.




Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on September 26, 2008, 12:34:32 am
Did anybody watch the debate? They're both pretty boring people.

I did.  The level of hostility between the candidates was notable but not surprising.  They started attacking one another in their opening statements, not waiting for the question and answer period.

A good moment for Rossi and a bad one for Gregoire came on crime.  Gregoire tried to suggest Rossi had never done anything about crime.  He gave a long list of the police guilds which had endorsed him, including the King County and Seattle Police Guilds and was able to list several law enforcement related accomplishments.  It was an effective rebut to her attack.

Gregoire, for her part, did a good job exposing Rossi's fraud of a transportation plan in spite of her problems on that issue.  She showed a strong grasp of policy.  Her answer on energy was emblematic of her approach -- a recounting of her accomplishments and the policy specifics she emphasized, followed by an attack on Rossi's record.  There were several issue questions:  energy, education, health care -- where Rossi basically went AWOL.  Voters who closely follow education issues are not going to be impressed by Rossi attacking Gregoire and then sentimentally rambling on about his late father who used to be a teacher.  It doesn't tell us anything about his education plans.  OTOH, for voters from who don't focus on education, Rossi's answer might have sounded heartfelt.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 26, 2008, 04:11:22 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1p3tLKE-A

I wish Gregoire had good commercials like that.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 27, 2008, 01:28:46 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1p3tLKE-A

I wish Gregoire had good commercials like that.

I just saw that on KIRO - great ad. Ditching her '06 ad people for this new team was a great decision.

In other news, Sutherland forgot to show up to a debate with Goldmark and the Democrats' lawsuit was laughed out of court.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on September 27, 2008, 01:42:49 am
and the Democrats' lawsuit was laughed out of court.

I really feel bad for all of the local Dem officials who had to pretend that wasn't the bullsh**ttiest bullsh**t in the history of bullsh**t.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 27, 2008, 03:36:49 am
and the Democrats' lawsuit was laughed out of court.

I really feel bad for all of the local Dem officials who had to pretend that wasn't the bullsh**ttiest bullsh**t in the history of bullsh**t.

Fortunately for us, the Average Joe seemed to be under the impression that there was at least some sort of legal basis for it (why else would it have been filed, right? They wouldn't just file something without any facts to back it up!)

The underlying goal, however, was to get the general public more aware that GOP=Republican, so they kind of succeeded in that sense. It didn't really get that much coverage though, what with the crazy national events going on.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 28, 2008, 08:17:04 pm
SUSA polls the SPI and AG races:

Dorn: 40%
Bergeson: 35%
Other: 7% (WTF?)
Undecided: 18%

McKenna: 53%
Ladenburg: 39%
Undecided: 8%

I'm surprised to see Dorn doing so well, but I'm also skeptical of the poll's accuracy...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 30, 2008, 05:20:32 pm
Gregoire actually had a good ad on the radio today! :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 30, 2008, 06:51:20 pm
Gregoire actually had a good ad on the radio today! :)

Was it the one about Rossi praying for Bush's economic plan?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on September 30, 2008, 08:35:31 pm
^ Yes. She needs a TV version of it. Not only does it "take advantage" (doesn't seem like the right term, but whatever) of the current economic situation, it subtly reminds voters that Rossi is a Craswell type that mixes religion with government.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on September 30, 2008, 09:12:33 pm
Hopefully she can capitalize on the BIAW stuff that came out today. I'm not holding my breath though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Frodo on October 03, 2008, 05:27:30 pm
Yea, I'm pretty sure the field would clear for McKenna rather quickly as well, but never underestimate the clusterf**ck that is the WSRP.

It doesn't seem as if McKenna is interested in winning his party's 2012 nomination for governor (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/2008/10/03/mckenna_files_lawsuit_against.html).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 03, 2008, 06:07:07 pm
Yea, I'm pretty sure the field would clear for McKenna rather quickly as well, but never underestimate the clusterf**ck that is the WSRP.

It doesn't seem as if McKenna is interested in winning his party's 2012 nomination for governor (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/2008/10/03/mckenna_files_lawsuit_against.html).

Or, alternatively, is very interested in winning the 2012 General Election.

Rossi losing ain't necessarily bad news for him, and few Republicans are probably going to care about that linked thing.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: BM on October 13, 2008, 08:56:31 pm
What's the latest news on this race?  I know it's been considered the most heated election this year.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Daniel Z on October 13, 2008, 09:06:14 pm
What's the latest news on this race?  I know it's been considered the most heated election this year.

For most of the race Rossi has dominated in the media. Finaly Gregoire is on the air. I fear it will be too little too late though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 14, 2008, 05:52:26 pm
Someone asked me to send them Secretary of State Massacre results a bit back, but I honestly forget who.  So, I'm posting them here.

Here are the towns Osgood carried:

1. Nespelem, Okanogan County: 59-24 Osgood
2. Bingen, Klickitat County: 63-28 Osgood
3. Mabton, Yakima County: 59-29 Osgood
4. Port Townsend, Jefferson County: 56-37 Osgood
5. Wilkeson, Pierce County: 48-40 Osgood
6. Ruston, Pierce County: 51-44 Osgood
7. Langley, Island County: 50-43 Osgood
8. Wapato, Yakima County: 48-41 Osgood
9. Index, Snohomish County: 47-43 Osgood
10. La Conner, Skagit County: 48-45 Osgood
11. White Salmon, Klickitat County: 49-47 Osgood
12. Toppenish, Yakima County: 45-44 Osgood
13. Elmer City, Okanogan County: 45-44 Osgood
14. Granger, Yakima County: 44-43 Osgood

Basically:

Ethnic villages - Hispanic (3, 8, 12, 14) and Native American (1)

Working-class areas with Dem heritage - 2, 5, 6, 11 (Osgood did semi-OK in this type of place, yay straight ticket voting)

Hippieland - 4, 7, 10

<5% margins in Bainbridge Island, Bellingham, Coulee Dam, Kelso, Roslyn, Seattle, Skykomish and Winthrop.  Latah also counts, at 41-37, but the 37% is Montgomery (Osgood didn't break 20%)

---

Hope that's what you were looking for, Whoever.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 14, 2008, 06:01:53 pm
How many votes were there in Latah?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 14, 2008, 08:38:01 pm
How many votes were there in Latah?

46 - Reed 19, Montgomery 17, Osgood 9, Greene 1

Osgood also placed third in the towns of George (43 votes), Lamont (63 including surrounding rural) and Waverly (25).

He won all congressional districts (the 7th was 49-46), and all LDs but the 37th.

Relatedly, these results really make it clear where Gregoire's hurting.  Osgood actually overperformed Gregoire in nine towns -- Almira, Hamilton, Kettle Falls, Mesa, Northport, Riverside, Roy, Wilkeson.  Of those, only Kettle Falls had more than 100 voters (383).  Still, more dangerously, there were a lot of places where Gregoire just barely outperformed Osgood, including parts of the Cowlitz, the Yakima Valley, the basin land of Central Washington, etc.  Unlike those little towns, those places have population and also are microcosms of really important demographics.

Her 2004 problem with affluent suburbanites has turned to a problem with culturally conservative small-town voters (and Hispanics), including some normally straight-ticket ones.  This is why I personally think the stem cell ads were dumb -- that type of voter is really, really queasy about cultural issues.  Cowlitz County specifically h8s anything that could possibly be construed as abortion/suicide/whatever

I know she's trying to pad her margins in the suburbs, but I think that was a disasterous way of doing it.  My two cents.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 15, 2008, 02:44:11 am
I can assure you that everything you're saying is 100% correct in regards to targeting and advertising. You alone easily possess more knowledge in this regard than the entire Gregoire campaign combined.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 17, 2008, 12:00:57 am
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/july-dec08/wa_gov_10-16.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/july-dec08/wa_gov_10-16.html)

Gregoire (clearly French) is attacking Rossi for being Italian? Gregoire embodies so much that I hate and Rossi embodies so much that I love.  :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 17, 2008, 01:18:37 am
Gregoire never actually, um, what's the word... did that. The State Party put up a movie attacking Rossi's connections to the BIAW which vaguely parodied The Sopranos.



Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 18, 2008, 06:39:44 am
Some one has this in their sig;

(
Img
)

How dreadfully, awfully 1950's can you get... I mean... urgh...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 18, 2008, 10:01:20 am
Some one has this in their sig;

(
Img
)

How dreadfully, awfully 1950's can you get... I mean... urgh...

Torie has it in his signature.

I don't get what's 1950s about it. Is it the name "Dino" in handwriting? Maybe because he's sitting at a diner counter...? Other than that, I don't see it.

Al is just one of many that fears the power of Dino.  ;)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ronnie on October 18, 2008, 10:37:49 am
Some one has this in their sig;

(
Img
)

How dreadfully, awfully 1950's can you get... I mean... urgh...

Hi!  :)

Keystone, stop confusing me and Torie.  :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 18, 2008, 10:38:04 am
Some one has this in their sig;

(
Img
)

How dreadfully, awfully 1950's can you get... I mean... urgh...

Torie has it in his signature.

I don't get what's 1950s about it. Is it the name "Dino" in handwriting? Maybe because he's sitting at a diner counter...? Other than that, I don't see it.

Al is just one of many that fears the power of Dino.  ;)

I think it's the Mr. Rogers haircut.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 18, 2008, 02:20:57 pm
Some one has this in their sig;

(
Img
)

How dreadfully, awfully 1950's can you get... I mean... urgh...

Hi!  :)

Keystone, stop confusing me and Torie.  :P

Ah! Sorry!  :)

Some one has this in their sig;

(
Img
)

How dreadfully, awfully 1950's can you get... I mean... urgh...

Torie has it in his signature.

I don't get what's 1950s about it. Is it the name "Dino" in handwriting? Maybe because he's sitting at a diner counter...? Other than that, I don't see it.

Al is just one of many that fears the power of Dino.  ;)

I think it's the Mr. Rogers haircut.

...that many people in politics have.  :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 18, 2008, 02:58:23 pm
Dino should stick to his Adolf cut.  It's appropriate for him.

Anyway, I've decided I'm probably going to vote for Osgood. Sam Ree(tar)d is just such a piece of sh*t and write-ins aren't as fun.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 18, 2008, 03:14:54 pm
I don't get what's 1950s about it. Is it the name "Dino" in handwriting? Maybe because he's sitting at a diner counter...? Other than that, I don't see it.

The haircut is one thing, obviously. So is the setting, so is the shirt (though there's no tie). But there's more to it than that; the typefaces seem very fifties (as does the colour of the lettering) and so do the colours in the photograph.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 18, 2008, 03:22:10 pm
I don't get what's 1950s about it. Is it the name "Dino" in handwriting? Maybe because he's sitting at a diner counter...? Other than that, I don't see it.

The haircut is one thing, obviously. So is the setting, so is the shirt (though there's no tie). But there's more to it than that; the typefaces seem very fifties (as does the colour of the lettering) and so do the colours in the photograph.

The shirt looks normal to me. I wasn't aware that the color yellow (color of the typeface) and the color of the photo were '50s-esque.  :P

But hey, if this is the best that you can throw at Dino...   :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on October 19, 2008, 04:23:32 am
I don't get what's 1950s about it. Is it the name "Dino" in handwriting? Maybe because he's sitting at a diner counter...? Other than that, I don't see it.

The haircut is one thing, obviously. So is the setting, so is the shirt (though there's no tie). But there's more to it than that; the typefaces seem very fifties (as does the colour of the lettering) and so do the colours in the photograph.

The shirt looks normal to me. I wasn't aware that the color yellow (color of the typeface) and the color of the photo were '50s-esque.  :P

But hey, if this is the best that you can throw at Dino...   :P

Ok, how about the facts that:
1) He really knows nothing about how to run a state governement
2) Has not put out very many concrete plans
3) The plans he has outlined are seen as being unrealistic and slow-witted
4) He is horribly desperate to get the governorship (Hillary's desire for the presidency is nothing compared to Dino's want for the governorship, I think he would sell his children off if it came down to it).
5) What has he done over the past four years to be constructive and help the state? Not much, instead he has been giving "informational" speeches (of course he wouldn't campaign)
6) Tries to portray himself as a moderate eventhough its obvious he isn't

The list goes on and on...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 19, 2008, 11:28:42 am


Ok, how about the facts that:
1) He really knows nothing about how to run a state governement

Subjective. Can't be proven.

Quote
2) Has not put out very many concrete plans

Examples?

Quote
3) The plans he has outlined are seen as being unrealistic and slow-witted

"Are seen as..."

Well, obviously not the case with the voters. Again, this isn't really a "fact."

Quote
4) He is horribly desperate to get the governorship (Hillary's desire for the presidency is nothing compared to Dino's want for the governorship, I think he would sell his children off if it came down to it).

...looks like enough people agree that Washington desperately needs him.  ;)

Quote
5) What has he done over the past four years to be constructive and help the state? Not much, instead he has been giving "informational" speeches (of course he wouldn't campaign)

What would you like him to do?

Quote
6) Tries to portray himself as a moderate eventhough its obvious he isn't

Ok but I don't consider that a pressing problem. It's more of the fault of the voters if they can't see through it. Maybe they do see through it and just don't care.

Whatever the case, these arguments still aren't really that strong against the guy. We're going to have policy and style differences but my point is that the guy is clearly a very strong, capable candidate and WA Dems/Gregoire supporters are clearly worried.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 19, 2008, 11:51:40 am
  He's also almost not white.  The Barack Obama of Washington state!  For real.

Because he's part Eskimo and Italian? Ok...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 19, 2008, 11:56:58 am
  He's also almost not white.  The Barack Obama of Washington state!  For real.

Because he's part Eskimo and Italian? Ok...

Around here, that counts as almost not white.  He also has a funny name.  He's a foreigner, but we're tolerant of that.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 19, 2008, 11:59:27 am
My main concern about Rossi getting elected is fairly esoteric. The Democratic Governor streak since Booth Gardner has helped create one of the best state governments in the country. The same sort of people have been holding administrative and bureaucratic posts since the mid-1980's, so they've become very good at it. Governing magazine ranked our state government as one of the three best in the nation (along with Virginia and Utah).

If Rossi gets elected though, he's promised to cut 40% of state employees, and then the rest will get replaced in the typical party-changing fashion that both sides do when they come to power. Why anyone would want to do that to a state government that works so well is mind-boggling to me.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 19, 2008, 11:59:48 am
  He's also almost not white.  The Barack Obama of Washington state!  For real.

Because he's part Eskimo and Italian? Ok...

Around here, that counts as almost not white.  He also has a funny name.  He's a foreigner, but we're tolerant of that.

You agree about the awful fiftiesness of that photothingy?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 19, 2008, 12:10:46 pm
  He's also almost not white.  The Barack Obama of Washington state!  For real.

Because he's part Eskimo and Italian? Ok...

Around here, that counts as almost not white.  He also has a funny name.  He's a foreigner, but we're tolerant of that.

Just for the record (for those not aware that you're joking) - He's not a foreigner.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 19, 2008, 03:23:13 pm
Wow, the Spokesman Review endorsed Gregoire today. What a pleasant surprise. :)

lol @ McCain/Gregoire voters in Eastern Washington.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 19, 2008, 03:39:32 pm
  He's also almost not white.  The Barack Obama of Washington state!  For real.

Because he's part Eskimo and Italian? Ok...

Around here, that counts as almost not white.  He also has a funny name.  He's a foreigner, but we're tolerant of that.

Just for the record (for those not aware that you're joking) - He's not a foreigner.

I'm not sure we can believe a man with so many foreigners in his signature.

Rossi's also part Native American, not "Eskimo," which is an offensive term.

Please take your racism and leave our topic.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on October 19, 2008, 05:05:19 pm
Gregoire never actually, um, what's the word... did that. The State Party put up a movie attacking Rossi's connections to the BIAW which vaguely parodied The Sopranos.

I admired her strong repudiation thereof.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on October 21, 2008, 01:36:24 pm
Phil in terms of plans I was referring to his transportation plan, which has been attacked by all sides and basically all the experts. And I really do see a problem with people who claim to be moderates when in reality they aren't. They are purposefully misrepresenting themselves in an effort to get elected. The voting public has enough trouble as it is without that clouding their judgement.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on October 21, 2008, 05:38:16 pm
Oh by the way does anyone know how the state senate and house races are going? Is the trend towards Republicans or Democrats gaining seats? Or does it look like there will few if any changes (seems likely to me at this point). A supermajority would be nice as insurance against a possible Rossi win.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 21, 2008, 07:18:08 pm
There are really only two competitive State Senate races. Carrell (R) is locked in a tight re-election battle as always, and Rasmussen (D) is facing an aggressive challenger (and on top of that no one really like Rasmussen). Republicans would like to think they can take out Kastama (D) and Haugen (D), but they're not in any real trouble. Weird things might happen in the 40th (Open D). Democrats should be able to retain it though.

There's a number of competitive contests for the State House. Anderson (R) is locked in a surprisingly tough fight (maybe he should stop the hanky panky with Sen. Pflug - oops, did I say that?) Other Republicans who might be in trouble are Ahern and the open seats in the 17th and the 25th. Maybe the two in the 10th as well, but probably not. Democrats need to be concerned about Barlow, Loomis, Goodman, Simpson and the open seat in the 26th and possibly the ones in the 35th and 41st.

So overall I'd give the Senate a net change of +0 to both sides, but if anything were to happen it would be D +1 (Carrell). In the House it's probably going to be a Republican net gain of one or two. But a lot will depend on how influential Obama is with down-ticket races.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 21, 2008, 08:32:56 pm
My state legislators are f**king each other? How do you know?


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 21, 2008, 08:36:43 pm
My state legislators are f**king each other? How do you know?

Open secret down in Olympia. And the 5th District Republican Party.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 21, 2008, 08:41:59 pm
and I thought the Irons family was as weird as Sammamish/East Kingco politics would ever get


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 21, 2008, 08:54:45 pm
do you know how long they've been at it? Anderson is married... Pflug was until recently (is this what ended it?).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on October 21, 2008, 08:58:45 pm
There are really only two competitive State Senate races. Carrell (R) is locked in a tight re-election battle as always, and Rasmussen (D) is facing an aggressive challenger (and on top of that no one really like Rasmussen). Republicans would like to think they can take out Kastama (D) and Haugen (D), but they're not in any real trouble. Weird things might happen in the 40th (Open D). Democrats should be able to retain it though.

There's a number of competitive contests for the State House. Anderson (R) is locked in a surprisingly tough fight (maybe he should stop the hanky panky with Sen. Pflug - oops, did I say that?) Other Republicans who might be in trouble are Ahern and the open seats in the 17th and the 25th. Maybe the two in the 10th as well, but probably not. Democrats need to be concerned about Barlow, Loomis, Goodman, Simpson and the open seat in the 26th and possibly the ones in the 35th and 41st.

So overall I'd give the Senate a net change of +0 to both sides, but if anything were to happen it would be D +1 (Carrell). In the House it's probably going to be a Republican net gain of one or two. But a lot will depend on how influential Obama is with down-ticket races.

I live in the 35th, you have no reason to be afraid, Finn has strong support and his opponent is crazy radical (though will still likely get around 40-45% of the vote).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 21, 2008, 09:08:56 pm
do you know how long they've been at it? Anderson is married... Pflug was until recently (is this what ended it?).

Yup.

Started sometime in the last two years is my understanding. DeBolt is also messing around with committee staff.

Also, if anyone was curious, Gregoire is sick.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 21, 2008, 09:13:37 pm
do you know how long they've been at it? Anderson is married... Pflug was until recently (is this what ended it?).

Yup.

Started sometime in the last two years is my understanding. DeBolt is also messing around with committee staff.

Also, if anyone was curious, Gregoire is sick.

Is there a reason Democrats never choose to pursue these things? They knew what West was up to, left it alone, and he ended up as a disaster for Spokane.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: CultureKing on October 21, 2008, 09:15:29 pm
do you know how long they've been at it? Anderson is married... Pflug was until recently (is this what ended it?).

Yup.

Started sometime in the last two years is my understanding. DeBolt is also messing around with committee staff.

Also, if anyone was curious, Gregoire is sick.

Is there a reason Democrats never choose to pursue these things? They knew what West was up to, left it alone, and he ended up as a disaster for Spokane.
If that got released about Debolt his reelection could have been in serious jeopardy as Rechner was doing relatively well against him in his district...


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: HardRCafé on October 21, 2008, 09:30:07 pm
Is there a reason Democrats never choose to pursue these things? They knew what West was up to, left it alone, and he ended up as a disaster for Spokane.

But he was so good for business!

Disgraceful.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 21, 2008, 09:31:42 pm
do you know how long they've been at it? Anderson is married... Pflug was until recently (is this what ended it?).

Yup.

Started sometime in the last two years is my understanding. DeBolt is also messing around with committee staff.

Also, if anyone was curious, Gregoire is sick.

Is there a reason Democrats never choose to pursue these things? They knew what West was up to, left it alone, and he ended up as a disaster for Spokane.

Because there are also several Democrats who haven't exactly kept their pants on.

We hide their scandals, they hide ours.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on October 22, 2008, 02:29:28 am
do you know how long they've been at it? Anderson is married... Pflug was until recently (is this what ended it?).

Yup.

Started sometime in the last two years is my understanding. DeBolt is also messing around with committee staff.

Also, if anyone was curious, Gregoire is sick.

Is there a reason Democrats never choose to pursue these things? They knew what West was up to, left it alone, and he ended up as a disaster for Spokane.

Because there are also several Democrats who haven't exactly kept their pants on.

We hide their scandals, they hide ours.

Uh oh.  Has Gregoire's cancer come back?

What would really make me chuckle is if Jamie Pedersen was messing around with Marko Liias.   LOL.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 22, 2008, 05:25:30 pm
Back to my Sonntag question--if Rossi wins this year do you guys think it's likely that he would run in 2012? It would help me sleep at night knowing it was only a matter of time before he destroyed that slimy little prick. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 22, 2008, 05:27:30 pm
Back to my Sonntag question--if Rossi wins this year do you guys think it's likely that he would run in 2012? It would help me sleep at night knowing it was only a matter of time before he destroyed that slimy little prick. :)

He's definitely going to run. That's the only reason he's been putting out signs and billboards and crap this year.

Inslee, of course, will also run.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 22, 2008, 05:30:04 pm
Back to my Sonntag question--if Rossi wins this year do you guys think it's likely that he would run in 2012? It would help me sleep at night knowing it was only a matter of time before he destroyed that slimy little prick. :)

He's definitely going to run. That's the only reason he's been putting out signs and billboards and crap this year.

Inslee, of course, will also run.

Blah, Inslee should stick to Congress.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Frodo on October 22, 2008, 09:54:01 pm
You all are talking (well, typing) as if Governor Gregoire is doomed to defeat (at least coming up with scenarios involving Dino Rossi as a possible rising star for GOP hopes in 2012).  Is she?  I haven't seen any new polls out, but the most recent one I thought I have seen has her leading by about 1% -basically a dead-heat. 


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Daniel Z on October 22, 2008, 10:07:43 pm
You all are talking (well, typing) as if Governor Gregoire is doomed to defeat (at least coming up with scenarios involving Dino Rossi as a possible rising star for GOP hopes in 2012).  Is she?  I haven't seen any new polls out, but the most recent one I thought I have seen has her leading by about 1% -basically a dead-heat. 

The latest poll that had Gregoire by 1 also had Obama by 16. If Rossi is really running 15 point ahead of McCain, Gregoire is indeed doomed. Plus every other tv ad is a Rossi ad. I think Rossi would be more credible in 2016 if he wins reelection.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ronnie on October 22, 2008, 11:51:48 pm
It honestly depends on how well Obama performs here.  I certainly hope Rossi wins (looks at signature).


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 23, 2008, 12:31:12 am
You all are talking (well, typing) as if Governor Gregoire is doomed to defeat (at least coming up with scenarios involving Dino Rossi as a possible rising star for GOP hopes in 2012).  Is she?  I haven't seen any new polls out, but the most recent one I thought I have seen has her leading by about 1% -basically a dead-heat. 

The latest poll that had Gregoire by 1 also had Obama by 16. If Rossi is really running 15 point ahead of McCain, Gregoire is indeed doomed. Plus every other tv ad is a Rossi ad. I think Rossi would be more credible in 2016 if he wins reelection.

Really? I think Gregoire is more like to win under Obama +10 as opposed to Obama +15.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 23, 2008, 02:45:41 am
Burner up 50-46 in latest SUSA poll.

I don't really believe it, but perhaps this race will be closer than I thought.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Bacon King on October 23, 2008, 09:10:52 am
You all are talking (well, typing) as if Governor Gregoire is doomed to defeat (at least coming up with scenarios involving Dino Rossi as a possible rising star for GOP hopes in 2012).  Is she?  I haven't seen any new polls out, but the most recent one I thought I have seen has her leading by about 1% -basically a dead-heat. 

The latest poll that had Gregoire by 1 also had Obama by 16. If Rossi is really running 15 point ahead of McCain, Gregoire is indeed doomed. Plus every other tv ad is a Rossi ad. I think Rossi would be more credible in 2016 if he wins reelection.

Really? I think Gregoire is more like to win under Obama +10 as opposed to Obama +15.

Do explain.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 23, 2008, 02:42:51 pm
You all are talking (well, typing) as if Governor Gregoire is doomed to defeat (at least coming up with scenarios involving Dino Rossi as a possible rising star for GOP hopes in 2012).  Is she?  I haven't seen any new polls out, but the most recent one I thought I have seen has her leading by about 1% -basically a dead-heat. 

The latest poll that had Gregoire by 1 also had Obama by 16. If Rossi is really running 15 point ahead of McCain, Gregoire is indeed doomed. Plus every other tv ad is a Rossi ad. I think Rossi would be more credible in 2016 if he wins reelection.

Really? I think Gregoire is more like to win under Obama +10 as opposed to Obama +15.

Do explain.

The less young anti-old voters that show up, the better for Gregoire. And better for McCain, too, but he doesn't really have a chance regardless of that.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on October 24, 2008, 12:42:13 am
On another note, I noticed that Gregoire is winning the newspaper endorsement war this time.  Besides the Spokane Spokesman-Review, she also was endorsed by The Everett Herald, The Tacoma News Tribune and The Columbian (in Vancouver, WA) -- three of the biggest cities in Washington located in Snohomish, Pierce and Clark counties -- key areas in a statewide race.  These endorsements are reversals from 2004.  The Seattle PI and The Olympian reprised their endorsement of Gregoire.

Rossi got the endorsement of the state's biggest paper, The Seattle Times, which should be renamed The Estate Tax Times since that is their litmus test for endorsement.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 24, 2008, 11:22:06 am
Turnout:

King................15%
Pierce..............10.5%*
Snohomish...........10.5% (without Oct. 23 numbers)
Spokane.............21%
Clark...............16%
Yakima..............22%
Kittitas............23%

* - Likely lags due to RCV


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 27, 2008, 03:25:33 pm
UW poll, 10/18-26, 600 RV

Obama 55%, McCain 34%

Gregoire 51%, Rossi 46%

Initiative 1000 ("Death with Dignity") leads 56% to 38%

Initiative 985 (Eyman's congestion thing) leads 45% to 43%

Initiative 1029 (SEIU's homecare training thing) leads 65% to 20% (which may be the best-performing initiative I ever vote 'no' on)

Sound Transit proposition (what's the sample size on that?) leads 50% to 43%

The UW poll actually did kind of OK in 2006, better than I expected.  It predicted the initiatives fairly well.  I think we can pretty clearly say that I-1000 is passing, I-1029 is passing, and I-985 is a toss-up.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Meeker on October 27, 2008, 03:28:21 pm
I-1029 is pretty terrible. Oh well.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Alcon on October 27, 2008, 03:33:35 pm
To answer my own rhetorical question, +/-6.7%.  lol.

Yeah, I get the impression that people think I-1029 sounds good (which it does) and the only voters who are going "no" are the staunch anti-government types, always-vote-noers, and the few people who read newspapers enough to know how badly it will screw over folks with autistic kids.  Bleh.

I'm also a little disappointed that Eyman's thing is passing in a poll with a pretty clear left-ward tilt.  If Prop. 1 fails and that passes, I may have to get out the punching pillow.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on October 27, 2008, 03:59:22 pm
I had a very difficult time with I-1029, so much so that I did not vote on it.  On one hand, I feel that if we had some manna from heaven funding source it would be a good investment.  But in this economic environment I just don't feel comfortable with another mandate lacking a realistic and defined funding source.  Senior care is important but sadly there are other priorities I would put first.  Where are we going to get the money for this?

If those Gregoire/Rossi numbers are accurate I would be very happy.  Unfortunately, I think the race is slightly closer than that.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 27, 2008, 04:49:34 pm
I-985 doesn't seem like something that should be a statewide initiative.


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: Ogre Mage on October 27, 2008, 05:36:47 pm
Breaking News -- Judge rules Rossi must give a deposition about Buildergate BEFORE the election.

Quote
October 27, 2008

In a written decision, Judge Paris Kallas said today that Republican gubernatorial challenger Dino Rossi must be deposed before election day in the Buildergate lawsuit, which alleges the Republican illegally coordinated with the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) to raise supposedly independent funds that now benefit his campaign.

From the judge's decision:

As to the remaining challenge, Mr. Rossi seeks a protection order, postponing his deposition until after the Nov. 4 election. He argues that a pre-election deposition unduly burdens him by depriving him of critical campaign time. But for the reasons stated in this court's Oct. 27 order, granting early discovery, such burden is outweighed by the purposes of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. It is precisely because Mr. Rossi seeks public office that he must bear the burden of the contemplated deposition. The attorneys shall cooperate in scheduling the deposition and it shall be limited to a reasonable length, as well as limited in scope to issues related to potential pre-election relief.


The decision is a major victory for supporters of Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who hope Rossi's testimony in the suit could aid in Gregoire's re-election campaign. Even if the deposition doesn't yield any information detrimental to the Rossi campaign, it does, however, ensure another week of headlines about the lawsuit.

Kallas' decision comes the same day as a new poll shows Gregoire leading Rossi 51 percent to 45 percent.

More to come.

http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/18603/ (http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/18603/)


Title: Re: Washington '08: The chaos begins!
Post by: bgwah on October 27, 2008, 05:40:29 pm
Bad news for Dino. Something like this normally wouldn't matter, but when it comes to Gregoire vs. Rossi even a few hundred voters changing their minds could decide the election. :P


Title: Re: Washington '08
Post by: Nutmeg on October 27, 2008, 06:37:04 pm
Is there any way this thread could receive a new title?  The "chaos" has nearly run its course.


Title: Re: Washington '08
Post by: CultureKing on October 27, 2008, 08:35:24 pm
Is there any way this thread could receive a new title?  The "chaos" has nearly run its course.

In 2004 the chaos lasted until Spring of 2005 after the election.


Title: Re: Washington '08
Post by: Nutmeg on October 27, 2008, 09:15:37 pm
Is there any way this thread could receive a new title?  The "chaos" has nearly run its course.
In 2004 the chaos lasted until Spring of 2005 after the election.

Fingers crossed that it won't happen again.

In other news, there was a segment on this race on the national news this evening (ABC, I think), but it was on in a crowded restaurant where I was having dinner, so I couldn't hear it.  I only caught the part about Rossi's "GOP Party" ploy.


Title: Re: Washington '08
Post by: Meeker on October 27, 2008, 10:39:11 pm
Is there any way this thread could receive a new title?  The "chaos" has nearly run its course.

Noted.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on October 28, 2008, 12:50:39 am
I like the title.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 28, 2008, 04:26:09 pm
My Dad ended a phone call with me today with, "Rossi - GOP in Washington." Pretty random considering he wasn't told of my interest. Then again, my Dad was obsessed with Rossi/the recount fiasco in 2004 (as well as the loss of Tom Daschle).

The movement is spreading...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: CultureKing on October 28, 2008, 04:54:32 pm
My Dad ended a phone call with me today with, "Rossi - GOP in Washington." Pretty random considering he wasn't told of my interest. Then again, my Dad was obsessed with Rossi/the recount fiasco in 2004 (as well as the loss of Tom Daschle).

The movement is spreading...

You have given me a new found energy to work against Rossi. Thank you.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 28, 2008, 07:48:57 pm
My Dad ended a phone call with me today with, "Rossi - GOP in Washington." Pretty random considering he wasn't told of my interest. Then again, my Dad was obsessed with Rossi/the recount fiasco in 2004 (as well as the loss of Tom Daschle).

The movement is spreading...

You have given me a new found energy to work against Rossi. Thank you.

...

I don't know if that was serious or not but if it was, that says a lot about you. I don't even know you and you really don't know me (I can't think of many times when we've ever interacted) but I'm your motivation against a candidate? Sad.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on October 28, 2008, 08:45:49 pm
My Dad ended a phone call with me today with, "Rossi - GOP in Washington." Pretty random considering he wasn't told of my interest. Then again, my Dad was obsessed with Rossi/the recount fiasco in 2004 (as well as the loss of Tom Daschle).

The movement is spreading...
Nothing has ever been more satisfying to me in politics than the defeat of Tom Daschle


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Ogre Mage on October 28, 2008, 09:26:29 pm
Many of us were equally satisfied with the defeat of Rick Santorum in 2006.

I was and still am angry about a certain fiasco in Florida in 2000.  It was an election which actually impacted me and the consequences for our nation turned out to be disastrous.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on October 28, 2008, 09:34:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-t6YRbHcyQ

Not something you want in the last week of a close race...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 28, 2008, 09:45:12 pm
Many of us were equally satisfied with the defeat of Rick Santorum in 2006.


Good for you.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on October 29, 2008, 12:17:37 am
SUSA says Gregoire up 2: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=bde668c1-54fa-4303-89aa-7d69ad6e91a0

Strategic Vision agrees: http://strategicvision.biz/political/washington_poll_102908.htm


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on October 29, 2008, 01:23:29 am
Sutherland only up by 2 as well :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on October 29, 2008, 12:27:21 pm
Seattle Times endorsed McCraw. I'm starting to worry a little about Owen...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on October 29, 2008, 01:37:11 pm
Seattle Times endorsed McCraw. I'm starting to worry a little about Owen...

Based on what the Lt. Governor actually does, McCraw would probably be further to the left than Owen...unless she became Gov, then different story.  I doubt it will be competitive, but I do think it will be closer than expected.  Still, Owen was just totally crushing her in a previous poll, so...

Bergeson/Dorn voters don't seem to have much political correlation (other than far-righters for Dorn as an anti-Bergeson vote maybe) but it does sure have another:  the less establishment (in candidate, and vote frequency, speed and turnout, too), the much more likely a Dorn vote.

I find it interesting how awful McKenna is crushing Ladenburg (I expected that to tighten), and that Dorn seems to be polling ahead in several polls now.  Also kind of happy to see I-985 sucking, although I think initiative polling is always a dangerous game.  Wish there were a State Treaz poll.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on October 29, 2008, 02:42:06 pm
Seattle Times endorsed McCraw. I'm starting to worry a little about Owen...

The Times is a GOP rag.

I like Owen just fine. McCraw isn't ready to be Governor. Owen will do well in areas that other Democrats don't, which will make up for poor numbers in Seattle. I don't think he has a ton to worry about.

I saw a McKenna commercial today. Seems like a waste of money unless he's planning a run for Governor, which is probably the case.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: CultureKing on October 29, 2008, 10:23:31 pm
My Dad ended a phone call with me today with, "Rossi - GOP in Washington." Pretty random considering he wasn't told of my interest. Then again, my Dad was obsessed with Rossi/the recount fiasco in 2004 (as well as the loss of Tom Daschle).

The movement is spreading...

You have given me a new found energy to work against Rossi. Thank you.

...

I don't know if that was serious or not but if it was, that says a lot about you. I don't even know you and you really don't know me (I can't think of many times when we've ever interacted) but I'm your motivation against a candidate? Sad.

It is bad that I am motivated to work harder because I want to stop a person I see as incompetant getting a national following and thus a national influence? Rossi is already scandal-ridden, I don't see why he even deserves the chance to lead when already he has failed America trying to get there.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Keystone Phil on October 30, 2008, 12:18:22 am
My Dad ended a phone call with me today with, "Rossi - GOP in Washington." Pretty random considering he wasn't told of my interest. Then again, my Dad was obsessed with Rossi/the recount fiasco in 2004 (as well as the loss of Tom Daschle).

The movement is spreading...

You have given me a new found energy to work against Rossi. Thank you.

...

I don't know if that was serious or not but if it was, that says a lot about you. I don't even know you and you really don't know me (I can't think of many times when we've ever interacted) but I'm your motivation against a candidate? Sad.

It is bad that I am motivated to work harder because I want to stop a person I see as incompetant getting a national following and thus a national influence? Rossi is already scandal-ridden, I don't see why he even deserves the chance to lead when already he has failed America trying to get there.

It just warms my heart that you guys resort to calling people that you don't like "incompetent" (look up the spelling next time you want to throw that one around). You guys just love throwing insults around rather loosely.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: HardRCafé on October 30, 2008, 12:25:12 am
Rossi is already scandal-ridden,

Nice try.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008328186_edit30rossi.html

Now, Gregoire and her casino dealings, on the other hand.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on October 30, 2008, 12:38:21 am
Rossi is already scandal-ridden,

Nice try.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008328186_edit30rossi.html

Your evidence is an editorial from the Seattle Times?

Wow


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: HardRCafé on October 30, 2008, 01:01:55 am
Post-Intelligencer does not paint a whole lot rosier picture:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/385589_rossi30.html


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on October 30, 2008, 07:04:53 am
Nowhere else in the world, outside of the state itself, are people so obsessed with Washington politics.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Frodo on October 31, 2008, 11:13:41 pm
How is Proposition 1 (aka, Sound Transit expansion) faring in the polls right now? 


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 01, 2008, 04:05:30 pm
How is Proposition 1 (aka, Sound Transit expansion) faring in the polls right now? 

Generally passing, but we haven't had a reliable one in a while.

Now, confirmation that Gregoire has a youth problem (http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/mockelection/results8002.aspx?bt=2):  Rossi leads 51% to 49% among K-12 students.  Obama is ahead 61% to 33%.  (:P)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on November 01, 2008, 04:53:20 pm
"Initiative Measure No. 975 concerns vegetables"

omg adorable


ahahahahaha, Jason Osgood at 49.8%!


SPI decided by 4 votes. Oh sh*t, speaking of that... I totally forgot to vote on it!! I just put my ballot in the mail today, too. I told myself I would decide on that later and completely forgot. Oh well, I was having trouble deciding anyway. :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 01, 2008, 07:51:15 pm
The second wave of the UW poll is out.  It has only 387 respondents so it sucks, but a much better poll for the GOP.

Obama 51% (-4)
McCain 39% (+5)

Gregoire 50% (-1)
Rossi 48% (+3)

I-985:
Yes 40% (-5)
No 55% (+12)

I-1000:
Yes 53% (-3)
No 48% (+5)

I-1029:
Yes 60% (-5)
No 26% (+6)

Proposition 1 (which must have a hilariously insane MoE):

Yes 41% (-9)
No 49% (+6)

My guess is that combining the two polls gets you one, mediocre one of 987 RV's:

Obama 53%
McCain 36%
Other 5%

Gregoire 51%
Rossi 46%

I-985:
Yes 43%
No 48%

I-1000:
Yes 55%
No 40%

I-1029:
Yes 63%
No 22%

Prop. 1 (still ridiculous MoE):

Yes 46%
No 45%

Btw, GOP is closing the balloting gap here, unlike Oregon.  My bet is now that we'll be closer Presidentially then.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: HardRCafé on November 01, 2008, 10:42:48 pm
Btw, GOP is closing the balloting gap here, unlike Oregon.  My bet is now that we'll be closer Presidentially then.

Huzzah!


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on November 03, 2008, 09:24:19 pm
FYI - Due to the Pierce County RCV experimentation, the results will look like this for Gubernatorial results

8:30 PM PST - Absentee votes that have been received though the evening of 11/3 (about 55% of the total vote)

3:00 AM PST - Poll votes

6:00 AM PST and every three hours after that - More absentee and poll votes


And then the RCV algorithm will be released at 11:30 PM, for anyone interested in seeing how that goes


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 03, 2008, 10:24:33 pm
New SUSA:

Obama 56% (nc)
McCain 40% (+1)
Early: Obama +19

Gregoire 52% (+2)
Rossi 46% (-2)
Early: Gregoire +8

McKenna 59% (+2)
Ladenburg 36% (nc)
Early: McKenna +23

Dorn 45% (+2)
Bergeson 37% (-1)
Early: Dorn +7

Sutherland 48% (+2)
Goldmark 42% (-1)
Early: Sutherland +5

I-985 (Congestion)
No 45% (+3)
Yes 33% (+4)
Early: No +13

I-1000 (Death with Dignity)
Yes 55% (+1)
No 40% (+3)
Early: Yes +19

AG was really the race that didn't happen this year.  Wish they polled State Treasurer instead.

Nice how 15% of those who have already voted are undecided on I-985.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on November 03, 2008, 11:11:48 pm
Ladenburg's kind of a douchebag, so whatever. We'll have to deal with McKenna in 2012 though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Daniel Z on November 03, 2008, 11:49:36 pm
Ladenburg's kind of a douchebag, so whatever. We'll have to deal with McKenna in 2012 though.
Thats the main reason I voted for Ladenburg.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on November 05, 2008, 01:44:53 am
Looks like Gregoire wins.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 05, 2008, 02:48:18 am
I'm glad this is more conclusive. Rossi was right with Gregoire for a while, which made me worried the "GOP" gambit was paying off.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Ogre Mage on November 05, 2008, 03:11:11 am
Looks like Gregoire wins.

   And I am SO HAPPY.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on November 05, 2008, 05:02:46 am
Gregoire is currently at 53.5%. I highly doubt Dino Rossi will be able to overcome this even if late voters break heavily in his favor (which I doubt will happen).

For State Treasurer, McIntire is at 52.2%. I think it's safe to say McIntire wins.

Goldmark has 50.4% for Commissioner of Public Lands right now. This could definitely change still, and might even be likely at this point.

Darcy Burner also has 50.4% in the 8th District with a vote margin of less than 1,000. Personally I think late ballots will break heavily for Reichert and let him win, but I hope I'm wrong.

Proposition 1 (Mass transit) looks like it will pass. All of the initiatives have voted as expected.

King County has been extremely Democratic so far. Obama is currently at 74% and Gregoire at 69%. I'm not sure what happened here. I'm also surprised with Obama over 60% in Snohomish and at 58% in Pierce. One thing's for certain--John McCain was utterly decimated in suburban Seattle.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on November 05, 2008, 05:32:35 am
Burner's lead is down to 60 votes. I'm about 97% certain Reichert will win.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Daniel Z on November 05, 2008, 06:33:35 am
Good night so far.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 05, 2008, 02:25:04 pm
Terribly disappointing. I had very, very high hopes for Dino. Oh well. I hope he stays involved.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2008, 03:39:43 pm
Note that later ballots are more likely to be GOP, if history follows.  Either way, Democrats had a pretty amazing year all-around, and in Snohomish County especially.  The biggest swing was not in Okanogan County, surprisingly.  It was Lewis County.  Who would have expected?

President
Obama murdered in the Seattle suburbs.  Other than some mixed results among really low-scale voters in Eastern Washington, this was just a blowout.

(
Img
)

Governor
Well, I was right that Gregoire would do pretty badly among low-scale union workers.  On the other hand, she out-performed every other single group.  She may end up beating Kerry.  Who would have guessed?

(
Img
)

Lt. Governor
Were people seriously worried about this race?  The only demographic where McCraw is going to under-perform is among regular Stranger readers.  So, maybe Cap Hill.  Maybe.  In all seriousness, he did under-perform his margin a bit in King County, and I think a few voters went McCraw on social issues.  Otherwise, murder.

(
Img
)

Secretary of State
Reed underperformed in the Portland media market, as he's inclined to do.  But more than anything, he under-performed a little everywhere.  Certainly no 2-to-1.

(
Img
)

State Treasurer
This is a pretty unexceptional map.  Just two basic notes.  McIntire was very close in a lot of bigger counties (Clallam, Skagit, Spokane).  Also, Martin definitely won a lot of those governmental types who let Reed win Thurston 2-to-1, but not nearly enough.  Democrats are likely to retain.

(
Img
)

Attorney General
Could someone please, please explain to me how Jason Osgood out-performed John Ladenburg?  Please.

(
Img
)

Superintendent of Public Instruction
This is a pretty damn boring map.  The primary made it look like we might see some geographical distinctions.  They're still around a bit -- Dorn did well around Wenatchee and the Tri-Cities -- but things regressed to the mean.  The most extreme result was 57.8% for Dorn in Benton.  It'll take until precinct results before I know if there's any real pattern here.

(
Img
)

Insurance Commissioner
Boring and predictable map, but Okanogan being red here says a lot about demographic changes in that county.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2008, 04:40:46 pm
Yeah, second-wave absentees are much more Republican, it seems.  Spokane County just fell from Obama +3 to barely Obama +0.  It will likely flip to McCain.

On the other hand, King County is still underrepresented in returns.  It's 29% of the state's population and about 44% of remaining ballots.

Edit: Although Pierce County is not at all reporting remaining ballots.  Still, I doubt the Democrats are going to expand their margins much.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 05, 2008, 05:51:09 pm
Late ballot effect looks pretty big.  Wahkiakum swung something like 2.5-3%, and there are still military ballots out.  Obama will probably finish up 14% or 15%, is my guess.  Gregoire will tighten a few points.  That includes the high pending rate in King County.

The Presidential race in Okanogan County, write-ins only:

Ron Paul - 32 (not inc. "John Paul")
Hillary Clinton - 19
Bill Cosby - 2
Bob Barr (idiot) - 1
Jesus Christ ("because no one above is worthy") - 1
Mitt Romney - 1

The best part: 7 of Clinton's 19 write-in votes were misspelled.

In the congressional race, Ralph Nader (2) leads, tailed by Joe the Plumber (1).

Someone wrote in "Elvis" for every office on the ballot other than President.  And in the Attorney General race, someone actually wrote in "Undecided."  A Mr. Dick Wanker put up a strong showing in the 7th District, with three votes.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 01:13:24 am
OK, so the going rate seems to be that, in the later absentees, Obama loses about 4.5% and McCain gains the same.

Under this paradigm, I set all projected county turnouts to 2004 level * 10%.  A few counties may break this, but it should be about the going rate.

Extrapolated, assuming I did my math correctly, I can now extrapolate the following results.  In order for this race to tighten, you'd need either a comparatively low King County turnout or exponentially better GOP results in later balloting.  In order to make this a 15% win for Obama, McCain would have to swing late ballots like 15% or the aforementioned low Democratic turnout vs. 2004.

President
Obama 2,518,385 (57.97%)
McCain 1,755,114 (40.40%)
Other 70,688 (1.63%)

Margin: Obama +17.57%

I didn't check, but I assume Gregoire is seeing about the same loss.  As such, I can project the following mathematical results

Governor
Gregoire 2,273,159 (53.53%)
Rossi 1,973,025 (46.47%)

Margin: Gregoire +7.06%


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 01:40:30 am
What about the Lands Commissioner race?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 01:46:39 am
State Treasurer
McIntire 2,024,645 (51.38%)
Martin 1,915,540 (48.62%)

Margin: McIntire +2.76%

Commissioner of Public Lands
Goldmark 1,994,180 (50.63%)
Sutherland 1,944,850 (49.37%)

Margin: Goldmark +1.26%


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 01:57:09 am
:D

Can you do that with Burner/Reichert or is it too complex to break it up?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 02:03:54 am
:D

Can you do that with Burner/Reichert or is it too complex to break it up?

Well, Reichert leads and my methodology assumes that later ballots are going to be more Republican than current ballots...

But King County's dump today was actually slightly more Democratic, and then another more Republican one, I think.  That also happened in San Juan -- the dump today was 73% Obama when the original was 71% Obama.  I think Reichert briefly gained a bigger lead and then it shrunk?

In any case, my model says:

Burner 232,571 (46.51%)
Reichert 267,494 (53.49%)

But I'm way uncomfortable with using it this for this.  Either way, I do think Reichert will win.  King County's WA-8 portion is barely under-represented vs. Pierce County's (about 49% in vs. about 48%).  Late ballots being more Democratic seems a lot less likely than them being more Republican, even if they're barely more Republican.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 02:11:15 am
That's not what I want to hear Alcon >:(


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 02:35:07 am
Want some consolation?

King County just dumped about 75,000 new ballots.  The breakdown was essentially identical to the pre-existing Democratic margins, over 70% Obama.

Which oddly made my model's margin tighten, which doesn't make sense, since he beat expectations.  wtf?  arghh.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 02:37:39 am
Yea, I just noticed that. I'm unclear on whether these are poll or absentee votes at this point though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Ogre Mage on November 06, 2008, 02:40:55 am
Off topic, do you guys think the Lands Commissioner or the 8th Congressional District is the more important race?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: bgwah on November 06, 2008, 03:04:03 am
I would rather have Burner win if I could only have one of the two. It doesn't look like she will, though. :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 11:22:28 am
Commissioner of Public Lands
Goldmark 1,893,427 (50.21%)
Sutherland 1,877,463 (49.79%)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 12:13:55 pm
I don't like this model.  It's exponentializing more than I expected.  I'm going to create a new model tonight, which extrapolates uniformly based on new ballot returns.  This will bias toward the Democrats if late absentees are even more Republican than second-wave absentees, as I expect they will be.  But as it stands, my model is too biased toward the GOP.  I expect that the truth will be about 2/3 of the way between the current model and the new one.

I'll figure this out!


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 04:06:03 pm
OK, so here are the new models.  I also fixed a stupid Excel error that was causing it to inflate turnout drastically.

Model A (dumb projection) assumes that all future ballots will be cast in exact proportion to their current ratio.  This measure does not take into account the late ballot effect at all, and thus it has a Democratic bias.

Model A (Obama +19.79%)
Obama 1,857,676 (59.07%)
McCain 1,235,248 (39.28%)
Other 52,068 (1.66%)

Model B (old model) assumes that all future ballots will be about 4.5% more Republican and 4.5% less Democratic than current ballots.  This should be the most Republican-friendly model, and should become moreso as time goes on.

Model B (Obama +16.33%)
Obama 1,803,305 (57.33%)
McCain 1,289,619 (41.01%)
Other 52,068 (1.66%)

Model C (new model) takes the earliest number I have for each county, and then subtracts it from the current totals.  It takes this new number, which is the break-down for second-wave ballots, and extrapolates based on it.  I think this is the most neutral, but two things tell me it may have a slight Dem bias.  First, early King County second-wave ballots look more like first-wave ballots to me, but I can't tell.  Secondly, my suspicion is that last-wave ballots are even more Republican because they're more likely to be military.  On the other hand, if there is no new ballot information, Model C defaults to Model B's Republican-leaning methodology.  So, Model C's slight Democratic lean is probably neutralized at the moment.

Model C (Obama +17.76%)
Obama 1,825,548 (58.05%)
McCain 1,266,946 (40.28%)
Other 52,498 (1.67%)

My current margin projection would be about Obama +16.5-18.0%.  Unless of course my modeling has a fatal flaw, which is always possible.  We shall see.

Gov, Lands Comish, and Trez coming up.  I don't have older counts for these races, so we'll have to wait for new data to come in for Model C to work.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Why count ballots when you can guess?
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 04:27:10 pm
President
Model A (Obama +19.79%)
Obama 1,857,676 (59.07%)
McCain 1,235,248 (39.28%)

Model B (Obama +16.33%)
Obama 1,803,305 (57.33%)
McCain 1,289,619 (41.01%)

Model C (Obama +17.76%)
Obama 1,825,548 (58.05%)
McCain 1,266,946 (40.28%)

Likely range: Obama +16.5-18.5

Governor
Model A (Gregoire +9.82%)
Gregoire 1,726,993 (54.91%)
Rossi 1,417,999 (45.09%)

Model B (Gregoire +6.32%)
Gregoire 1,671,834 (53.16%)
Rossi 1,473,158 (46.84%)

Model C
Insufficient data

Likely range: Gregoire +6.5-8.5

State Treasurer
Model A (McIntire +5.75%)
McIntire 1,662,859 (52.87%)
Martin 1,482,134 (47.13%)

Model B (McIntire +1.88%)
McIntire 1,602,096 (50.94%)
Martin 1,542,896 (49.06%)

Model C
Insufficient data

Likely range: McIntire +2.0-4.0

Commissioner of Public Lands
Model A (Goldmark +3.77%)
Goldmark 1,631,765 (51.88%)
Sutherland 1,513,228 (48.12%)

Model B (Sutherland +0.06%)
Goldmark 1,571,510 (49.97%)
Sutherland 1,573,483 (50.03%)

Model C
Insufficient data

Likely range: Goldmark +0.0-2.0


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 05:56:52 pm
Unless King County stops delivering dumps that are more Dem-favorable than their initial results, which it just did for the third time in a row, Sutherland is toast.

Martin is now probably dead in the water either way.

Burner may hold on yet (she tied the latest batch), but it's unlikely.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 06:48:39 pm
Yea, Goldmark is now above 51%. What a wonderful treat! :D


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 06:52:47 pm
I also have a feeling that the Pierce County results are going to be more Democratic than the last few batches. Not as Democratic as the initial batch though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 07:08:00 pm
I also have a feeling that the Pierce County results are going to be more Democratic than the last few batches. Not as Democratic as the initial batch though.

I have a feeling you may be right.

Every single second-wave release so far today (Adams, Grant, King, Skagit, Whatcom, and Whitman, Yakima) has been better for Obama, and even moreso the down-ticket Democrats, than the initial results.  No idea why.  McCain may even fall under 40%, at this rate (maybe.)

But, seriously, if these sorts of numbers hold up in the Puget Sound, the Washington GOP is officially no longer a viable political party.  Gregoire is now projecting as beating Kerry's margin by nearly half a point.  That has to sting for the GOP.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 06, 2008, 07:57:05 pm
The AP just called the race for Goldmark! :D

And Bergeson has conceded :-\


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 06, 2008, 11:47:01 pm
(Blog copy)

Model A: "Dumb" model (no late ballot effect)
Model B: Old model (Republican adjustment method)
Model C: New model (New ballot extrapolation method)

Other than prez, Model C still could use some more information, but it's solid enough.  It's the best one.

President
Model A: Obama +19.14 -0.65
Model B: Obama +16.37 +0.04
Model C: Obama +17.83 +0.07

Governor
Model A: Gregoire +9.07 -0.75
Model B: Gregoire +6.31 -0.01
Model C: Gregoire +7.67

State Treasurer
Model A: McIntire +4.66 -1.09
Model B: McIntire +1.96 +0.08
Model C: McIntire +2.65

Commissioner of Public Lands
Model A: Goldmark +2.90 -0.86
Model B: Goldmark +0.22 +0.28
Model C: Goldmark +1.40

U.S. Congress - Dist. 8 (still not comfortable)
Model A: Reichert +1.48
Model B: Reichert +8.73 (lol, what can you do?)
Model C: Pending

All in all, we’re probably look at about Obama +17.5,  Gregoire +7.5, McIntire +2.5 and Goldmark +1.5.  I think, in pretty much every case, a slightly closer race (due to late absentees) is more likely than bigger Democratic margins.  I can’t promise anything, though.

Reichert looks pretty solid in WA-8 at first, but I want to give Model C a go when Pierce and King release new information tomorrow.  Why?  Because the late ballot effect seems much less pronounced here (especially King), and accordingly Reichert +8.7 is utterly ridiculous.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 07, 2008, 12:32:24 am
The release from Pierce County today still had a chunk of poll votes (I had thought they were done with those). Here on out will be absentee though, so now we'll be able to see if the Republican-gain-in-late-absentees trend continues.

Pierce also only counted something along the line of 27,000 ballots today. And there's still at least 150,000 left.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 07, 2008, 01:14:50 am
Not sure what way the poll votes are going to cut, though.

In the February primary, 59% of absentee voters voted Democratic compared to only 45% of poll voters.

In the August primary, Gregoire got 48% of absentee voters and 45% of poll voters.

Of course, dramatically different turnout situation...in a General, poll voters are probably more Democratic, you think?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 07, 2008, 01:17:19 am
Poll voters have always been more Republican for as long as I can recall... were they in the 2004 general?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 07, 2008, 01:29:42 am
Poll voters have always been more Republican for as long as I can recall... were they in the 2004 general?

I don't have the 2004 data file anymore, which sucks, because it cost $20.  I'll have to trust you on them being more GOP.  It sounds plausible.

If they're still more Republican, and that last batch was absentees+them, very good news for Democrats in Pierce County races.

Would also help explain why Marilyn Rasmussen is down.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: ottermax on November 07, 2008, 01:50:21 am
Pierce county is taking forever. I hope Burner pulls it off. We will just have to sit and wait.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 07, 2008, 09:51:07 am
Reichert now leads in King. I think she's done for.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 07, 2008, 10:53:07 am
Yeah, the latest King County batch was def. on the Republican side.  McCain actually got 31.2% of it (!!!!!!!!111~~).  Unless King goes back to more more-Democratic-than-before batches (wonder what that was) Burner is done for.  Although she probably is either way.

The CPL call was a mite premature, imho.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 07, 2008, 06:47:18 pm
Burner's margin continues to deteriorate. Oh well, wonder who we'll get to run next time...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 07, 2008, 10:34:38 pm
Burner = doomed

Model A: Reichert +3.1
Model B: Reichert +9.2
Model C: Reichert +5.3

Probably won't even be especially close.  Rodney Tom?  Can't believe the WA Dems nominated her again.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 07, 2008, 11:07:44 pm
Early results show that McCain did not break 33% in the 48th (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/results.aspx?District=48).  Words fail.

That's an 18-point swing from 2004 in a suburban district.  Tentatively, the 5th (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/common/maps/05dist.gif) swung 15 points; the 45th (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/common/maps/45dist.gif) swung 16.

This is an area where Bush generally declined between '00 and '04, and that trended Democratic during the 1990s.  This is also a very polarized area.  That's just all-around pretty incredible.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 08, 2008, 01:14:53 am
Bunney has narrowed the margin significantly. Crap.

And local crazy Dale Washam is somehow now poised to win the Assesor-Treasurer race. WTF?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 08, 2008, 01:35:58 am
Walsham is a local crazy who's been running for office for years. Never won anything (Thank God for it).

It's easy to see why he's winning based on the Voters' Pamphlet statements though - he effectively promises to cut or halt increases in property taxes.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 08, 2008, 02:18:51 am
Haha, 41% McCain in the 5th district! Owned. I hope my precinct hits 70%.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2008, 03:45:59 am
Newest King County bump was good for Burner.  Not good enough.  We've had five Kingco waves, and all of the remaining ballots would have to be 40% better for Burner than the best of those.  Reichert wins.

Can't believe the AP called CPL way before this race, but whatever


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on November 08, 2008, 08:44:41 am
Burner has conceded, apparently. Maybe she should try the state legislature next time.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2008, 12:02:35 pm
Early PierceCo numbers (this will become more GOP).  Includes only Pierce County portions (which is like 20 votes in Pacific), does not include consolidations.  Kerry in parentheses.

Municipality
Auburn: 55-44 Obama (49-51)
Bonney Lake: 51-48 Obama (46-52)
Buckley: 48-48 Obama (46-53)
Carbonado: 61-36 McCain (34-63)
DuPont: 50-49 Obama (41-57)
Eatonville: 49-49 McCain (43-56)
Edgewood: 51-47 Obama (47-51)
Fife: 61-37 Obama (57-42)
Fircrest: 61-38 Obama (54-45)
Gig Harbor: 53-46 Obama (46-53)
Lakewood: 56-42 Obama (51-48)
Milton: 55-44 Obama (51-48)
Orting: 50-48 Obama (45-53)
Pacific: 52-48 Obama (37-63)
Puyallup: 54-44 Obama (48-51)
Roy: 57-39 McCain (38-62)
Ruston: 66-32 Obama (63-33)
South Prairie: 52-48 McCain (46-51)
Steilacoom: 52-46 Obama (49-49)
Sumner: 55-43 Obama (52-47)
Tacoma: 68-30 Obama (62-37)
University Place: 59-40 Obama (52-47)
Wilkeson: 49-48 Obama (52-46)

LD
2nd: 50-48 McCain (42-56)
25th: 53-45 Obama (47-52)
26th: 52-47 Obama (46-53)
27th: 69-30 Obama (63-36)
28th: 56-42 Obama (50-49)
29th: 64-34 Obama (59-40)
31st: 51-47 Obama (46-53)

Predictably, McCain just lost it in the middle-class suburbs here too.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2008, 12:31:55 pm
Huh:

Fort Lewis Army Base (28-465 & 28-469)
Barack Obama 525 (50.68%)
John McCain 497 (47.97%)
Bob Barr 5 (0.48%)
Chuck Baldwin 4 (0.39%)
Ralph Nader 2 (0.19%)
Gloria La Riva 2 (0.19%)
James Harris 1 (0.10%)

???


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 08, 2008, 01:12:03 pm
What about the McChord precinct?

And can you do that for Gregoire/Rossi?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: CultureKing on November 08, 2008, 06:16:45 pm
Huh:

Fort Lewis Army Base (28-465 & 28-469)
Barack Obama 525 (50.68%)
John McCain 497 (47.97%)
Bob Barr 5 (0.48%)
Chuck Baldwin 4 (0.39%)
Ralph Nader 2 (0.19%)
Gloria La Riva 2 (0.19%)
James Harris 1 (0.10%)

???

Are those the voters for the entire base? I feel like there should be alot more...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2008, 11:08:28 pm
What about the McChord precinct?

And can you do that for Gregoire/Rossi?

Sure, I'll be happy to when I get home.

McChord was like 61% McCain, and I'm pretty sure Bush broke 70% in a walk.  I'll check.

Are those the voters for the entire base? I feel like there should be alot more...

Transitory population.  Many vote at home, many don't vote.  Besides, we're only half counted or so.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 08, 2008, 11:13:28 pm
I'm doing County Executive stuff that only Alcon and I will care about, but hopefully I'll have that done tonight or early tomorrow morning.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 09, 2008, 12:31:34 am
Pierce County ballot release tonight was really Republican, like Obama +5 at best, bringing the second wave ballots down to about Obama +8.  If that pattern continues, the county is going to tighten to single digits.

King County dump was slightly better for the GOP, but probably not enough to bring Obama under 70%.  Sutherland is looking a little closer to being hosed, principally because of this.

Meeker, to answer your question: McChord (28-467) is 62-38 McCain now, and was 72-27 Bush in 2004.  In 2004, Fort Lewis (now 51-48 Obama) was 59-40 Bush.  Smaller swing than I remembered, but still pretty big.

Governor
Auburn: 51-49 Rossi
Bonney Lake: 56-44 Rossi
Buckley: 52-48 Rossi
Carbonado: 66-34 Rossi
DuPont: 54-46 Rossi
Eatonville: 55-45 Rossi
Edgewood: 52-48 Rossi
Fife: 55-45 Gregoire
Fircrest: 58-42 Gregoire
Gig Harbor: 52-48 Rossi
Lakewood: 54-46 Gregoire
Milton: 51-49 Gregoire
Orting: 54-46 Rossi
Pacific: 57-43 Rossi
Puyallup: 51-49 Gregoire
Roy: 61-39 Rossi
Ruston: 60-40 Gregoire
South Prairie: 53-47 Gregoire
Steilacoom: 50-50 Gregoire
Sumner: 51-49 Gregoire
Tacoma: 64-36 Gregoire
University Place: 56-44 Gregoire
Wilkeson: 50-50 Rossi

LDs
2nd: 57-43 Rossi
25th: 51-49 Rossi
26th: 53-47 Rossi
27th: 65-35 Gregoire
28th: 54-46 Gregoire
29th: 62-38 Gregoire
31st: 54-46 Rossi


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 09, 2008, 12:41:29 am
The Seattle Times has officially declared Reichert the winner. They don't mention that they're the reason he won, though. :P

Oh well, the Times also took down Doug Sutherland, so at least it's somewhat even. ;)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 09, 2008, 01:02:24 am
Preliminary (although not really that far from done) Snoho results:

Arlington: 54-45 Obama (45-53)
Bothell: 62-37 Obama (55-44)
Brier: 64-35 Obama (57-42)
Darrington: 53-45 Obama (45-53)
Edmonds: 66-33 Obama (60-39)
Everett: 64-34 Obama (58-41)
Gold Bar: 53-44 Obama (49-49)
Granite Falls: 56-41 Obama (51-46)
Index: 83-18 Obama (76-23)
Lake Stevens: 57-42 Obama (49-50)
Lynnwood: 66-32 Obama (61-38)
Marysville: 55-43 Obama (48-51)
Mill Creek: 57-42 Obama (48-51)
Monroe: 55-43 Obama (46-52)
Mountlake Terrace: 70-28 Obama (64-35)
Mukilteo: 63-36 Obama (54-45)
Snohomish: 59-39 Obama (52-46)
Stanwood: 49-49 McCain (45-54)
Sultan: 52-46 Obama (44-54)
Woodway: 52-48 Obama (45-54)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 10, 2008, 11:43:16 pm
I think there's a chance that Seattle beat San Francisco.  A good chance, in fact.

Congressional district 7 returns:

Obama 120,114 (84.60%)
McCain 20,131 (14.18%)
Other 1,734 (1.22%)

Margin: Obama +70.4%

Now, at the time, Obama's margin was 44.3%.  It's likely to decline to about 42.0% if Obama holds up well in late-late KingCo returns.  I'll assume a decline of 2.3% or so.

Now, in 2004, WA-7 was Kerry +60.1.  Meanwhile, Seattle was Kerry +62.6.

That puts Seattle at about Obama +70.6%.  San Francisco, returns show, is currently Obama +70.2%.  Plenty of things could notch Seattle down a bit, but these early returns indicate Seattle is favored.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: ottermax on November 11, 2008, 01:23:19 am
How did WA-3 vote? (Or the district that has Olympia+Vancouver+Lewis Co., I believe)

Seattle loves Obama, no surprise... did any precincts vote for McCain?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 11, 2008, 01:34:54 am
How did WA-3 vote? (Or the district that has Olympia+Vancouver+Lewis Co., I believe)

Yeah, it is, although parts of the Olympia metroplex are in WA-9.

In either case, results aren't totally finalized, and I have no break-down for Skamania County (the Underwood area is in WA-4), but my results currently have Obama defeating McCain about 54% to 44%.

Seattle loves Obama, no surprise... did any precincts vote for McCain?

Unfortunately, it will be December until King County precinct results are out.  Obama's trouble spots are precincts 1992 (Broadmoor Country Club) and 1818 (Madison Park retirement condos).  Broadmoor went from 2-to-1 Bush in 2000 to about 57% Bush in 2004, and was a virtual tie in the primary.  But there is a rock-solid GOP base here, and McCain is a good candidate for the country club set.  So is Obama.  On the other hand, Obama risks losing some Clintonites in 1818, and there's hardcore GOP bedrock there.  There's also a Windermere waterfront precinct McGavick flipped that will likely go Obama, but other than that, it's slim pickings for the GOP.

Obama stands a chance at winning both, but I'm not sure it's likely.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 12, 2008, 01:18:07 am
Preliminary Snohomish map

I say preliminary for two important reasons:

1. My shapefile is from 2007; some precincts have been created/destroyed

2. These results are from Friday, and Obama has lost a few points (and inevitably a few precincts) -- but overall it's pretty accurate.  Obama's margin will probably decline +2.0%-2.5% from this map, but that's not going to change it drastically.

Grey indicates no votes cast, or too few votes to protect voter privacy.

(
Img
) (http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4451/snohomishws8.png)

For those less familiar with the area:

Labeled version of above (http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/1582/snohomishlabeledeh7.png)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 12, 2008, 01:33:21 am
Which precincts are within the Tulalip Reservation?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 12, 2008, 01:55:55 am
Which precincts are within the Tulalip Reservation?

Tulalip 1-4, Tulalip 5 (minus some industrial land), Shelton (minus one arbitrary block), Millard, Boeing, Coho, Tyee, Priest Point

See how you can draw a clean line at the top of the 38th LD, and then another along I-5?  Excluding the aforementioned area, that's all rez land.  There are tons of non-whites all over.  The Tulalip CDP is actually approaching 3/4 white, and it doesn't even include the even-whiter land in the non-"Tulalip" precincts.  The rest is a lot of downscale whites and terrible McMansions avoiding county land restrictions.  It's pretty awful.

The "Tulalip" precincts (especially the waterfront ones, 1 & 2) have a ton of affluent waterfront whites.  Tulalip 2 & Priest Point are a mix of poor Indians and rich whites (although the latter is heavily white), Tulalip 3-5 and the rest are a mix of Indians and the aforementioned awful areas.  I'm pretty sure all are at least 65% white, although Tulalip 2 may be a bit more diverse.

That area is not as ridiculously un-Indian as the Port Madison Reservation in Kitsap County (Suquamish is like 12% Indian at most), but it's up there.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 12, 2008, 02:03:39 am
God, I can't believe I stayed up this late.

Spokane County, which is like 95% counted:

(
Img
) (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/38/spokanesv2.png)

Labeled version (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/636/spokanelabeledry8.png), for those having trouble finding Spokane or something.

John Kerry's losing Cheney truly was a remarkable achievement.

Anyway, remind me to do Gov when Spokane is finished and also an Obama v. Gregoire map.  There's some weirdness there.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 12, 2008, 06:04:45 pm
New shading for Snohomish:

(
Img
) (http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3620/snohomishar6.png)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: CultureKing on November 12, 2008, 11:21:58 pm
God, I can't believe I stayed up this late.

Spokane County, which is like 95% counted:

(
Img
) (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/38/spokanesv2.png)

Labeled version (http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/636/spokanelabeledry8.png), for those having trouble finding Spokane or something.

John Kerry's losing Cheney truly was a remarkable achievement.

Anyway, remind me to do Gov when Spokane is finished and also an Obama v. Gregoire map.  There's some weirdness there.

Cool, I can tell which precinct is Gonzaga. (Hint it is one of the Obama > 70% precincts)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Bacon King on November 14, 2008, 02:40:29 am
Loving the maps, Alcon. :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 14, 2008, 04:22:02 pm
New Snoho in red (old on left, 2004 in parentheses):

Arlington: 54-45 Obama (45-53) 52-46 Obama
Bothell: 62-37 Obama (55-44) 60-38 Obama
Brier: 64-35 Obama (57-42) 63-36 Obama
Darrington: 53-45 Obama (45-53) 53-44 Obama
Edmonds: 66-33 Obama (60-39) 65-34 Obama
Everett: 64-34 Obama (58-41) 63-35 Obama
Gold Bar: 53-44 Obama (49-49) 52-45 Obama
Granite Falls: 56-41 Obama (51-46) 56-41 Obama
Index: 83-18 Obama (76-23) 78-21 Obama
Lake Stevens: 57-42 Obama (49-50) 56-42 Obama
Lynnwood: 66-32 Obama (61-38) 65-33 Obama
Marysville: 55-43 Obama (48-51) 54-44 Obama
Mill Creek: 57-42 Obama (48-51) 57-42 Obama
Monroe: 55-43 Obama (46-52) 52-46 Obama
Mountlake Terrace: 70-28 Obama (64-35) 69-29 Obama
Mukilteo: 63-36 Obama (54-45) 62-37 Obama
Snohomish: 59-39 Obama (52-46) 58-40 Obama
Stanwood: 49-49 McCain (45-54) 50-49 McCain
Sultan: 52-46 Obama (44-54) 50-48 Obama
Woodway: 52-48 Obama (45-54) 53-47 Obama

I'll make a map when they're totally done (10,000 more ballots to go)

Governor for the same:

Arlington: 53-47 Rossi
Bothell: 53-47 Gregoire
Brier: 56-44 Gregoire
Darrington: 53-47 Rossi
Edmonds: 60-40 Gregoire
Everett: 58-42 Gregoire
Gold Bar: 51-49 Gregoire
Granite Falls: Tie
Index: 73-27 Gregoire
Lake Stevens: 51-49 Rossi
Lynnwood: 60-40 Gregoire
Marysville: 51-49 Rossi
Mill Creek: 51-49 Rossi
Monroe: 54-46 Rossi
Mountlake Terrace: 63-37 Gregoire
Mukilteo: 54-46 Gregoire
Snohomish: 52-48 Gregoire
Stanwood: 54-46 Rossi
Sultan: 53-47 Rossi
Woodway: 55-45 Rossi


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 14, 2008, 06:25:48 pm
What makes Index so Democratic?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 14, 2008, 07:57:40 pm
What makes Index so Democratic?

Index is a resort town, but a weird one.  It's tiny, so there's not any service industry (one Korean market).  Basically it's a few hundred semi-hippies who just decided to live in nature, or something.  Either way, the presidential results deceptively under-rate its liberalness.  Back in the 90s, Index easily passed the gay discrimination initiative that failed miserably with over 60% (Seattle barely passed it), and also voted to decriminalize Schedule I narcotics, which even failed in Seattle.

It's also maybe one of the prettiest places in the state.

Down Highway 2 back into King County, there's a twinned town called Skykomish that votes similarly, although less Democratic.  It's totally different, though; it's a socially conservative old rail town.  It's also pretty unpleasant (in part because it's all torn up right now, but still, kind of a depressing place.)

Skykomish may be almost as Democratic, but its politics are way different:  It failed the King County Charter Amendment against gay discrimination that broke 70% countywide this year.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 14, 2008, 08:24:58 pm
Thurston County has been slowly drifting up toward 60%, and now stands at 59.996% Obama with about 7,000 ballots to go.  Counter to what I'd have thought, these super late ballots appear to be some of the most Democratic so far statewide.  I guess the expatriots are outvoting the military people.  (These are all international mail except for slow-counters like Pierce, right?  Why else would it take over a week for mail to arrive?)

Klickitat County reports that it's out of ballots, and Obama's lead has now gradually ticked up to an all-time high of 20 votes.  He probably has that.  Wahkiakum is the last question mark, my guess is still a flip to McCain.  It hasn't reported since counting every ballot the night of.  Obama led then, 1,112 to 1,100.

Edit: I don't get it.  I'd think at least some of these would be military ballots, yet today's Pierce County load was over 60% Obama.  ???


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 14, 2008, 11:29:04 pm
King and Pierce haven't actually received any ballots in several days. The ballots remaining are either provisional ballots or ballots that have been filled out incorrectly - ballots which, as we're learning in Minnesota, lean heavily Democratic.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 14, 2008, 11:33:54 pm
Ahh, ok.  That explains why "Other" is getting like 6% daily.  I gather provisional/question voters tend to be Democrats and/or total idiots

Are all 36,000 of King and 17,500 of Pierce provisionals/screw-ups?  That seems pretty high.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 14, 2008, 11:37:10 pm
Ahh, ok.  That explains why "Other" is getting like 6% daily.

Are all 36,000 of King and 17,500 of Pierce provisionals/screw-ups?  That seems pretty high.

I know in Pierce they are (RCV + lots of new voters = Hell for the Auditors office). Not quite sure about King, but the new voter surge may have caused that many.

You'll also notice that the number of ballots being reported daily has drastically decreased (Pierce only reported something like 2500 today). The same thing is causing this - it's taking them a long time to fill out replacement ballots.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 14, 2008, 11:40:54 pm
Oh.  This all makes sense.  It would be nice to have a break-down of how many RCV ballots are remaining vs. normal ballots.

So, McCarthy probably won, then?  And the latest TNT article implied that Washram won today's run, I think, although it was unclear if they were just reporting that he has a plurality, or both.

I bet the can't-fill-out-a-ballot-correctly vote was pretty lucrative for Washram.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 14, 2008, 11:59:27 pm
I'm *pretty* sure McCarthy has won. Lonergan's second preferences are breaking for Bunney at a much higher rate than they used to be (which is causing it to tighten more than I expected), but I don't think it'll be enough.

Also, the remaining ballots will be more Democratic overall, meaning more combined votes for Goings and McCarthy. However, these ballots were cast by people who were clearly confused by the system or had never experienced voting before, so I suspect the drop-off in people filling out second preferences will go up. So while Goings and McCarthy combined will get more votes in this remaining batch, Bunney may get more votes out of it overall due to Goings voters not bothering or understanding how to indicate McCarthy was their second choice.

The Assesor-Treasurer's race is still a free-for-all. I have a difficult time seeing a situation whereby Shabro wins, but Washam, Gelman and Lee all have a good shot at it. There's no way we'll be able to tell until the very last ballots are counted though - fifty to a hundred votes could drastically change the outcome.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 18, 2008, 07:22:33 pm
When's the last time a Democrat won Okanogan County but not Pierce?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 18, 2008, 08:10:24 pm
When's the last time a Democrat won Okanogan County but not Pierce?

1964 Secretary of State, maybe the weirdest (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1964&fips=53&f=1&off=7&elect=0) modern result I've ever seen.

Before then, a smattering of offices in 1916 (Lt. Governor, Attorney General, State Auditor), and the 1912 Presidential.

I'm pretty impressed Goldmark won.  He lost in the primary (usually where being local matters more) and did pretty awful in other counties with big timber.  But Okanogan is trending hard, and I guess Goldmark has the name ID there.  Still a bit of a coup.

The Democrats are going to have to hit their ceiling eventually in Okanogan.  There's no way that they can maintain these big yearly trends.  There's only so many votes in the Mazama Valley...I think :P

Then again, I wouldn't have expected it to be the second-biggest trender this year after 2004's huge swing.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 19, 2008, 08:18:10 pm
When's the last time a Democrat won Okanogan County but not Pierce?

1964 Secretary of State, maybe the weirdest (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1964&fips=53&f=1&off=7&elect=0) modern result I've ever seen.

What was with that?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 19, 2008, 08:29:14 pm
When's the last time a Democrat won Okanogan County but not Pierce?

1964 Secretary of State, maybe the weirdest (https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1964&fips=53&f=1&off=7&elect=0) modern result I've ever seen.

What was with that?

No idea


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 19, 2008, 10:01:26 pm
Last two days of Pierce County:

Obama 62%
McCain 36%

Gregoire 53%
Rossi 47%

McIntire 58%
Martin 42%

Goldmark 50%
Sutherland 50%

I was meaning to track County Exec too, but I forgot.  How's that changed?  Latest voters sure are weird downticket.  They seem to be voting like McIntire was the incumbent


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Ogre Mage on November 20, 2008, 01:41:05 am
Washington State GOP Confident Despite Loss

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008368718_gop09m0.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008368718_gop09m0.html)

After what happened in 2006 and 2008 in WA, it takes some level of delusion to feel good at this point.  Or maybe it is just a front.



Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 20, 2008, 02:12:20 am
Washington State GOP Confident Despite Loss

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008368718_gop09m0.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008368718_gop09m0.html)

After what happened in 2006 and 2008 in WA, it takes some level of delusion to feel good at this point.  Or maybe it is just a front.



My thoughts: Ever since the 2006 election, I've basically figured that in the state legislature, the Democrats had probably hit their ceiling. The only place Republicans had to go was up---they lost almost every seat they could possibly lose. A few suburban districts here and there may continue trending Dem and elect a Democratic legislator when one of the Republican incumbents step down (5th LD, for example), but the Republicans will regain some of the lean R seats they've lost (an incumbent Democratic Representative in the 6th district (suburban Spokane) who was first elected in 2006 has already been defeated, for example).

I expect Reichert to be the last Republican Representative in the 8th district for a long time. I'm fairly certain the Democrats will be able to take him down once they get a decent candidate. Whether that will ever happen is uncertain, though once Reichert steps down the Democrats should definitely win it.

The GOP is in deep trouble in suburban Seattle. Let's look at the Southern United States---in the 80s and 90s, we saw a lot of Democratic politicans ditch the party and join the GOP. This is quite indicative of a long-term change in the way the area votes. In suburban Seattle we've seen people like Rodney Tom and Fred Jarrett jump ship. It's clear that suburban Seattle is going Democrat and it won't be going back any time soon. We saw this happen in many parts of Seattle like Fremont and Wallingford in the 70s. They used to be Republican and then took a sharp-turn for the left. This example is probably a bit radical, but I do honestly think we're seeing the political Seattleization of suburban Seattle (particular the Northside and Eastside). It's true that some areas, like suburban Pierce County, are becoming the new Republican suburban strongholds, but quite simply they don't even come close to countering the Metro-wide Dem-trend.

As for statewide officials, they'll sneak in some Republicans for sure. Maybe even a Governor. Alcon and I agreed a while ago that Rob McKenna was more likely than Rossi to be the next Republican Governor of Washington. I think McKenna has a very good chance of being Governor eventually and I don't think he has hid his intentions to seek the office. Rossi had one important thing McKenna doesn't, though. Looks. Let's face it, Rossi only did so well because he was a handsome young man up against an ugly old woman. McKenna is an ugly nerd with glasses. It's not something I base my vote on, but considering how shallow your average swing voter is, it's definitely something worth considering. Sonntag is the only Democrat I'd be confident with against McKenna. Though the other mentioned names (Inslee, for example) would also have a good chance (though it's a risk I'd rather not take). I doubt Reed is popular enough with Republicans to make it past the primary and we just saw Sutherland go down this month. Allan Martin was an extremely strong candidate for an open office and he lost (and McIntire did pretty well in some traditionally Democratic areas for such a close election, surprisingly).

The GOP has yet another problem---Washingtonians often get their conservativeness out of them via referendums and initiatives, thus eliminating some of the need to vote Republican. I believe Chris Vance has talked about this.

So, McKenna aside, there aren't any truly worrisome Republicans out there yet. I doubt McMorris Rodgers will be leaving the House, but perhaps I've been misled. The Democrats will probably control the state legislature for decades to come. The Puget Sound is turning into the Bay Area 2.0 and Washington doesn't have enough populous Republican areas like Orange County (and much of Southern California)* to counter it.


*yeah, they weren't so Republican this year, but you get my drift


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 20, 2008, 03:13:34 am
I'm curious what you're referring to in regards to suburban Pierce County trending Republican. What specific areas?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 20, 2008, 03:35:44 am
I'm curious what you're referring to in regards to suburban Pierce County trending Republican. What specific areas?

I didn't say they were trending Republican. Maybe a 60% Republican rural area turned into a 57% Republican suburban area. That may be a swing to the Democrats, but in terms of raw votes, it's an increase for the Republicans (and will increase the R % in Pierce). Pierce is less reliably Democrat than it has been in the past. The county isn't dominated by Tacoma like it used to be. Pierce would've been Democrat in a 50-50 election 40 years ago. Now it would be Republican in such a scenario. When you look at the major areas of the Metro, suburban Pierce is the most Republican. I was thinking of areas like Graham but I'm really not very familiar with specific places in suburban Pierce.

I'll let Alcon give a more detailed answer...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 20, 2008, 03:44:31 am
Ah, I see what you're saying. I'm pretty sure I know which parts you're talking about, but Alcon would be able to be more detailed. Alcon, would you say it's sort of unincorporated hinterlands in the 1st and 3rd County Council Districts?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 20, 2008, 04:00:43 am
Yep.  The 1st was counteracted this year because Obama was a good candidate for Lake Tapps and some of the boom areas around Bonney Lake.  I think 2000->2004 was telling.  The Dem margins are going to revert some, but they're never going to return in a few places.  And that's why Pierce County is trending blue (although it won't this year)

I don't really think any part of suburban Pierce is a Republican stronghold.  There are some areas around Lake Tapps where Bush certainly thwumped Kerry, but Obama way brought down those numbers.

The real new bedrock GOP area in Pierce County is around Graham and the southern part of Elk Plain.  There are a lot of down- to mid-scale voters here, as well as some newer upper-incomers escaping urban life.  I guess that area is part of the Seattle-Tacoma metro by virtue of being part of the Tacoma metro (barely).  But I think the idea of including that area in the "Seattle metro" is ridiculous.  It's wayyy not.

Anyway, even Obama was running against population growth in a few areas around Bonney Lake.  Just eyeballing, and without my 2000 results, Gore also did better than Obama in parts of Graham and southern Spanaway.  I think those are more long-term impacts.  It's a mix of growth and a loss of Democratic cultural appeal.

Basically, in any area where tax-resenting middle-class people (many of them fundies) are moving into downscale "redneck" areas = bad news for the Democrats.  That describes a lot of Pierce County.  Obama's strong showing in developments and wealthy enclaves (which tend to share districts with the aforementioned areas) temporary hid what's a longer trend.

Although I don't think we'll be seeing anything crazy sharp like 2000->2004.  I could go into more detail why, but instead I'll just give some geopolitical shout-outs: Puyallup/South Hill, Tacoma 'burbs (Southwest and Northeast), Gig Harbor Peninsula.  I think you see where I'm going with that.

Anyway, the Dem worry for a while was that those exurban growth trends would continue while the inner 'burbs and "old exurbs" like Gig Harbor wouldn't move.  I doubt the GOP will get a Perfect Storm like that.  On the other hand, without a real bad housing market, and with few traditional inner suburbs, I think the basic trend is GOP.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2008, 04:19:06 pm
(
Img
)

Why did Gregoire do so badly in the south of the state [qm].


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 20, 2008, 04:30:35 pm
(
Img
)

Why did Gregoire do so badly in the south of the state [qm].

She did fine in every county except Wahkiakum (the tiny one) and Cowlitz (the one to the right of Wahkiakum), actually.  And Pacific, the red one, to some degree.

She's on track to lose Clark by 2 (Kerry lost by over 5), Lewis by 29 (Kerry lost by 32), Skamania by <5 (Kerry lost by >6).  On the other hand, she's going to lose Cowlitz by 7 (Kerry +3), Wahkiakum by 16 (Bush +7), and Pacific she'll win by 4 (Kerry +9).

These are areas where her earlier strategy of playing culture warrior probably worked out badly.  Cowlitz is strongly pro-life.  She just didn't do so well countywide in the primary, and that pattern continued into the General.  I'd have to see precinct results to get more detailed, but there's some oddity.  She did fine in Grays Harbor, which is kind of like Cowlitz except with more of a union tradition.  My inclination is that it's also less Catholic.  Although after Cowlitz's weird 180 on assisted suicide this year (worst county for it last time around, this time passed with like 60%), I don't know what to think.

Media markets may have come into play, as well.  Her performance in Clark isn't really all that amazing, considering how well she did in the Puget Sound 'burbs and her surprise endorsement by The Columbian (plus some other locally favorable news).


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 20, 2008, 04:46:19 pm
Yakima's question ballot batch was 64-35 Obama.  Which is, IMHO, a great argument for bringing back bilingual option ballots.

Pet cause, but seriously, didn't we used to have that option?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 20, 2008, 07:32:40 pm
(
Img
)

Why did Gregoire do so badly in the south of the state [qm].

Something else that is very strange about that map is that, despite Gregoire only getting 53% statewide, she won Island and Skagit counties, which would normally be Republican under such circumstances...


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: CultureKing on November 20, 2008, 07:44:38 pm
(
Img
)

Why did Gregoire do so badly in the south of the state [qm].

Something else that is very strange about that map is that, despite Gregoire only getting 53% statewide, she won Island and Skagit counties, which would normally be Republican under such circumstances...

Maybe they just wanted to keep the map looking neat and tidy.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 20, 2008, 08:13:29 pm
I wonder why King County just got rid of 15,000 already-counted votes while reducing their ballots remaining by 10,000?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 20, 2008, 10:14:14 pm
I wonder why King County just got rid of 15,000 already-counted votes while reducing their ballots remaining by 10,000?

They're trying to steal the race for Rossi!


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 20, 2008, 10:21:08 pm
Final Assessor-Treasurer/County Exec results were out at 6.  An update is posted but I don't know where the RCV algorithm run is.

My guess is McCarthy/Washram (ew) but I'm curious.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 20, 2008, 10:28:10 pm
Yea, final results were 50.75% McCarthy and 51.92% for Washam. The Round 2 elimination of Shabro is within recount territory though... I might send the Tribune an e-mail and try to stir things up.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Sam Spade on November 20, 2008, 10:57:06 pm
What are the odds that the Dems ever get a good candidate against Reichert? (not that this means they would win, which might depend a lot on the environment)  Burner performed worse than Ross did, which is hilarious in many ways.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 20, 2008, 11:02:01 pm
We'll certainly get a different candidate. Whether they'll be better is going to determined by primary voters... the field isn't going to clear like it has the past two cycles.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Ogre Mage on November 21, 2008, 01:16:56 am
Washington State GOP Confident Despite Loss

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008368718_gop09m0.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008368718_gop09m0.html)

After what happened in 2006 and 2008 in WA, it takes some level of delusion to feel good at this point.  Or maybe it is just a front.



My thoughts:
I expect Reichert to be the last Republican Representative in the 8th district for a long time. I'm fairly certain the Democrats will be able to take him down once they get a decent candidate. Whether that will ever happen is uncertain, though once Reichert steps down the Democrats should definitely win it.

The GOP is in deep trouble in suburban Seattle. Let's look at the Southern United States---in the 80s and 90s, we saw a lot of Democratic politicans ditch the party and join the GOP. This is quite indicative of a long-term change in the way the area votes. In suburban Seattle we've seen people like Rodney Tom and Fred Jarrett jump ship. It's clear that suburban Seattle is going Democrat and it won't be going back any time soon. We saw this happen in many parts of Seattle like Fremont and Wallingford in the 70s. They used to be Republican and then took a sharp-turn for the left. This example is probably a bit radical, but I do honestly think we're seeing the political Seattleization of suburban Seattle (particular the Northside and Eastside). It's true that some areas, like suburban Pierce County, are becoming the new Republican suburban strongholds, but quite simply they don't even come close to countering the Metro-wide Dem-trend.

As for statewide officials, they'll sneak in some Republicans for sure. Maybe even a Governor. Alcon and I agreed a while ago that Rob McKenna was more likely than Rossi to be the next Republican Governor of Washington. I think McKenna has a very good chance of being Governor eventually and I don't think he has hid his intentions to seek the office. Rossi had one important thing McKenna doesn't, though. Looks. Let's face it, Rossi only did so well because he was a handsome young man up against an ugly old woman. McKenna is an ugly nerd with glasses. It's not something I base my vote on, but considering how shallow your average swing voter is, it's definitely something worth considering. Sonntag is the only Democrat I'd be confident with against McKenna. Though the other mentioned names (Inslee, for example) would also have a good chance (though it's a risk I'd rather not take). I doubt Reed is popular enough with Republicans to make it past the primary and we just saw Sutherland go down this month. Allan Martin was an extremely strong candidate for an open office and he lost (and McIntire did pretty well in some traditionally Democratic areas for such a close election, surprisingly).

Yes.  This is very clear when you look at the representation in the state legislative districts underlying the 8th Congressional District.  There are almost no Republicans left, which is why the Dems keep trying so hard in the 8th, thus far without success.  Maybe Rodney Tom will take a crack next time.  I think Reichert is destined to go the way of Chris Shays.

IMO, the radical right statewide candidates the GOP ran in major races in 1996-2000 --  Ellen Craswell, Linda Smith and John Carlson -- helped turn the suburbs away from the GOP, especially due to social issues.  Then Bush caused the bottom to fall out.  Rossi's views were similar, but he was a better campaigner and better at hiding it.  However, he too cratered in the suburbs this time.  Some of it was due to Obama, but I also noticed a strong late swing among women voters to Gregoire in 2008.  I would hypothesize her attack ads on Rossi's social views may have had an impact.  Perhaps they were also unimpressed with his sham of a transportation plan.

McKenna has a strong chance to win the governor's race in 2012.  With his main rival now out of the way, look for him to consolidate party control over the next 4 years.  Nevertheless, the current state of the WA GOP is terrible:

--With Gregoire's victory, the WA Dems will hold the Governor's Mansion for 28 years.

--Congressional Representation:  6 D, 3 R

--Partisan Statewide Offices Held by Democrats [8]:  Both U.S. Senate Seats, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, Auditor, Insurance Commissioner, Lands Commissioner.

--Partisan Statewide Offices Held by Republicans (2):  Attorney General, Secretary of State.

I wonder what sacrificial lamb candidate they will run again Patty Murray in 2010?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 21, 2008, 01:39:57 am
Maybe they just wanted to keep the map looking neat and tidy.

It's an out of date map. Clallam and Mason have actually flipped to Rossi. Clallam is, of course, normally Republican with such statewide numbers. Mason isn't, and goes along with Cowlitz in lean D counties that Gregoire lost.

What are the odds that the Dems ever get a good candidate against Reichert? (not that this means they would win, which might depend a lot on the environment)  Burner performed worse than Ross did, which is hilarious in many ways.

Burner collapsed at the end because of some silly scandal where she said "major" instead of minor," basically. As for your question, one thing that's important to note is that following Democratic gains in the state legislature in 2004 and 2006, there are many more Democratic state legislators in the 8th district now than there were in 2004 (when Reichert first ran.) Basically there are many more potential challengers who could actually defeat Reichert now. Rodney Tom would be a strong challenger and was going to run for the seat before dropping out and letting Burner have the Democratic nomination. A real shame, too, since he would have actually won the seat.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Sbane on November 21, 2008, 01:48:03 am
That Reichert seat reminds me of my own district the 11th, a mix of wealthy social liberals and more conservative exurbians. But I guess Reichert isn't a total sh**t for brains like Pombo was. If the dems couldn't win that seat this year, they probably aren't winning it against Reichert.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Sam Spade on November 21, 2008, 11:06:44 am
That Reichert seat reminds me of my own district the 11th, a mix of wealthy social liberals and more conservative exurbians. But I guess Reichert isn't a total sh**t for brains like Pombo was. If the dems couldn't win that seat this year, they probably aren't winning it against Reichert.

Reichert is definitely not Pombo.  Pombo used to fit that CD decently, but it trended left and he was a standard conservative Republican.  Reichert is much closer to the middle, and fits this CD a good bit better, which is one of the reasons why I wonder how he'd fare should a decent environment arise (which he hasn't had since running, except 2004, but he wasn't an incumbent then).  Granted, Burner was always a terrible challenger, but still..

My comparison here is Kirk (IL-10) who pulled over 60% in the Republican favorable environments of 2002 and 2004 as an incumbent.  Not that I necessarily think Reichert could get there, as Kirk has pulled 53% and 55% these last two years against a Burner-like opponent, but it's something to think about.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 21, 2008, 06:45:35 pm
It currently looks like the race for the newly created King County Elections Director will be between Jason Osgood and Pam Roach. This has to be some sort of cruel sick joke. We're being Punk'd, right?


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 21, 2008, 06:59:21 pm
It currently looks like the race for the newly created King County Elections Director will be between Jason Osgood and Pam Roach. This has to be some sort of cruel sick joke. We're being Punk'd, right?

No. Noooo. NOoooOoooooooOoooooOOoooooooOoOoooo. Worst. election. ever. Just thinking about it makes me want to die.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 21, 2008, 07:22:12 pm
It currently looks like the race for the newly created King County Elections Director will be between Jason Osgood and Pam Roach. This has to be some sort of cruel sick joke. We're being Punk'd, right?

I wonder if Osgood will barcode Roach's flower vase


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Ogre Mage on November 22, 2008, 05:34:59 pm
It currently looks like the race for the newly created King County Elections Director will be between Jason Osgood and Pam Roach. This has to be some sort of cruel sick joke. We're being Punk'd, right?

:o :P

I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or scream.  This could be a meltdown of monumental tragicomic proportions.  If there is a debate on TVW between these two I would watch just to gawk at the train wreck.  The Horror Show that began with Julie Anne Kempf and had an even bigger sequel starring Dean Logan now seems destined for a Part 3.  AIEEEEE!


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 22, 2008, 09:09:54 pm
I still don't understand the OSPI results


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 22, 2008, 09:16:16 pm
I still don't understand the OSPI results

The best I could figure was that people in districts with lots of Mexicans were more pissed and anti-incumbenty.  Unless they lived in Yakima County in which case god I don't know.

I mean, Dorn clearly did really well in the Tri-Cities and Wenatchee area, like in the primary.  Otherwise it seems like a big mess of WTF.

Wasn't it supposed to be a referendum on the WASL?  I always thought the strongest WASL haters were pretty far-left but it seems that Bergeson did some of her best in liberal-saturated areas.

Maybe this all will make more sense with precinct break-downs but I doubt it.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: bgwah on November 23, 2008, 04:36:43 pm
A non-partisan race between two Democrats is going to confuse voters.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 25, 2008, 03:06:20 am
Certification day is tomorrow, so I'll have plenty of fun stuff.  Stupid King County, which will make us wait until December, not included.

For tonight San Juan County is in, and hopped above 70% just in the last report.

San Juan
Final: Obama 70.02%, McCain 28.09%

Mostly boring.  The two most extreme precincts swung toward McCain - he improved Bush's subpar Decatur/Blakely margin (57->just below 60%), and actually pryed off a voter on Waldron, bringing it down to 92-5 Democrat (down from 96-4).  Some third parties also joined in, which is typical.  Major anti-Bush vote there.

As for places with actual significant numbers of people:

Lopez Island went from 72-26 Kerry to 77-20 Obama
Orcas Island went from 65-31 Kerry to 73-26 Obama
Rural San Juan Island went from 63-35 Kerry to 73-26 Obama
Friday Harbor went from 60-37 Kerry to 65-32 Obama

Overall, Kerry +32.70 to Obama +41.93.  That's a swing of 9.23%, which (using the likely-high assumed national trend of 9.5%) is a GOP trend of 0.27%.  Which, really, when you get up around 70%, is to be expected.

Kind of funny to think it used to be the most Republican county in the state.

-

Governor: At Gregoire +13.04%, the biggest swing of the election.  She actually performed nearly identical to Kerry virtually everywhere, except a little worse on parts of San Juan Island.  The Waldron flipper was apparently McCain/Gregoire, and I'm sure will be tracked down, force-fed non-organic food, and limited to only one toilet (http://www.idiotlaws.com/dumb_laws/washington/waldron-island/).


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 25, 2008, 04:00:56 pm
Early PierceCo numbers (this will become more GOP).  Includes only Pierce County portions (which is like 20 votes in Pacific), does not include consolidations.  Kerry in parentheses.

Municipality
Auburn: 55-44 Obama (49-51)
Bonney Lake: 51-48 Obama (46-52)
Buckley: 48-48 Obama (46-53)
Carbonado: 61-36 McCain (34-63)
DuPont: 50-49 Obama (41-57)
Eatonville: 49-49 McCain (43-56)
Edgewood: 51-47 Obama (47-51)
Fife: 61-37 Obama (57-42)
Fircrest: 61-38 Obama (54-45)
Gig Harbor: 53-46 Obama (46-53)
Lakewood: 56-42 Obama (51-48)
Milton: 55-44 Obama (51-48)
Orting: 50-48 Obama (45-53)
Pacific: 52-48 Obama (37-63)
Puyallup: 54-44 Obama (48-51)
Roy: 57-39 McCain (38-62)
Ruston: 66-32 Obama (63-33)
South Prairie: 52-48 McCain (46-51)
Steilacoom: 52-46 Obama (49-49)
Sumner: 55-43 Obama (52-47)
Tacoma: 68-30 Obama (62-37)
University Place: 59-40 Obama (52-47)
Wilkeson: 49-48 Obama (52-46)

LD
2nd: 50-48 McCain (42-56)
25th: 53-45 Obama (47-52)
26th: 52-47 Obama (46-53)
27th: 69-30 Obama (63-36)
28th: 56-42 Obama (50-49)
29th: 64-34 Obama (59-40)
31st: 51-47 Obama (46-53)

Predictably, McCain just lost it in the middle-class suburbs here too.

New totals:

Auburn: 55-43 Obama (flip)
Bonney Lake: 49-49 Obama (flip)
Buckley: 50-48 Obama (flip)
Carbonado: 62-34 McCain
DuPont: 50-49 McCain
Eatonville: 51-47 McCain
Edgewood: 50-48 Obama (flip)
Fife: 60-38 Obama
Fircrest: 59-39 Obama
Gig Harbor: 52-47 Obama (flip)
Lakewood: 56-42 Obama
Milton: 54-44 Obama (flip)
Orting: 49-49 McCain
Pacific: 49-47 Obama (flip)
Puyallup: 53-46 Obama (flip)
Roy: 53-45 McCain
Ruston: 64-34 Obama
South Prairie: 51-45 McCain
Steilacoom: 52-46 Obama
Sumner: 54-43 Obama
Tacoma: 67-31 Obama
University Place: 58-40 Obama
Wilkeson: 49-48 McCain (flip)

Also: Obama carries Fort Lewis 50-48 (flip)

2nd: 51-47 McCain
25th: 52-46 Obama (flip)
26th: 50-48 Obama (flip)
27th: 68-31 Obama
28th: 56-43 Obama
29th: 64-34 Obama
31st: 50-48 Obama (flip)

I have full final precinct returns from: Asotin, Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Cowlitz, Douglas, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, Klickitat, Lewis, Lewis, Lincoln, Mason, Okanogan, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Thurston and Wahkiakum.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Meeker on November 25, 2008, 11:20:51 pm
Record turnout - 84.61%

yay democracy


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on November 26, 2008, 12:16:58 am
That's bad. Low turnout is the sign of a stable democracy.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Lunar on November 26, 2008, 03:30:50 am
Ok guys, Washington has been fully discussed.

It's complete.

Time to go home.

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 03:36:46 am
But we still have another 5 or 6 pages out of this thread - Alcon just got his hands on precinct data!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Lunar on November 26, 2008, 03:40:48 am
nooooooooooooooooooooooo


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on November 26, 2008, 03:48:07 am
Never! I would like to see this become an ever-lasting general Washington thread.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Alcon on November 26, 2008, 10:13:46 am
Oregon beat us, though: 85.56% turnout there.  Without poll voters, our turnout would have been 84.74% so they still win.  Lame!

And, yeah, this thread isn't done.  lord man, king county precinct results won't be out until December, you nuts?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 26, 2008, 05:24:13 pm
I now have every county but Adams, Columbia, King, Kittitas, Walla Walla, Whatcom and Whitman.

Highest Percentage of Vote
Obama
1. Port Townsend - 80.49%
2. Nespelem - 79.37%
3. Index - 79.21%
4. Mabton - 78.79%
5. Bainbridge Island - 77.85%
6. Langley - 77.74%
7. Wapato - 75.32%
8. Toppenish - 75.08%
9. Winthrop - 73.36%
10. Bellingham - 73.22%

McCain
1. Hartline - 74.70%
2. Mansfield - 73.41%
3. Waverly - 72.41%
4. Lynden - 71.47%
5. Reardan - 68.92%
6. Pomeroy - 67.09%
7. Napavine - 66.95%
8. Krupp - 66.67%
9. Kahlotus - 66.67%
10. Davenport - 66.63%

Lowest Percentage of Vote
Obama
1. Waverly - 24.14%
2. Mansfield - 24.28%
3. Hartline - 25.30%
4. Krupp - 26.67%
5. Lynden - 26.73%
6. Ione (+rural) - 30.09%
7. Reardan - 30.41%
8. Napavine - 30.46%
9. Pomeroy - 31.05%
10. Davenport - 31.27%

McCain
1. Nespelem - 15.87%
2. Port Townsend - 17.55%
3. Index - 19.80%
4. Langley - 20.25%
5. Mabton - 20.54%
6. Bainbridge Island - 20.79%
7. Wapato - 22.63%
8. Toppenish - 23.65%
9. Olympia - 24.64%
10. Bellingham - 24.85%

Biggest Swing
Obama
1. Riverside - +42.37%
2. Rock Island - +34.65%
3. Quincy - +29.97%
4. Creston - +29.80%
5. Warden - +27.39%
6. Winlock - +26.66%
7. North Bonneville - +26.45%
8. George - +26.45%
9. Toppenish - +26.05%
10. Royal City - +25.62%

McCain
1. Krupp - +14.19%
2. Hartline - +13.04%
3. Wilkeson - +6.75%
4. Sprague - +5.91%
5. Metaline Falls (+rural) - +4.45%
6. Vader - +4.38%
7. Ilwaco - +3.82%
8. Hamilton - +2.16%
9. Roslyn - +1.03%
10. Pomeroy - +0.94%


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 08:35:44 pm
How many people live in Krupp?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 10:51:21 pm
Are these all your personal photos? And if so, when and why did you take the time to visit all the hamlets of Klickitat County?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 11:06:59 pm
Are these all your personal photos? And if so, when and why did you take the time to visit all the hamlets of Klickitat County?

haha, yeah.  Knowledge Bowl meets in Camas.  Both times we detoured before meeting friends in Portland.

The first year we just got to Stevenson, but it was really nice, so we tried again the next year with my dad and made it all to Maryhill.  My dad and I like going to the small towns and my mom generously tolerates me.  It's kind of interesting to see the geography change from Western fir forests to high plains scrub-brush without crossing any major mountains.

needless to say it was the nicest part about being eliminated early :P

Haha, neat. We moved up to 2A this year so we'll get to go to Camas instead of crummy Spokane :D


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 11:11:41 pm
I thought you guys were like 3A or 4A? 2A is harder than 1A we think, but the coach really wanted to change for some reason...


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 11:17:38 pm
I'm pretty sure you guys are 4A, so fortunately we won't have to play your types. We go up against the likes of Fife (tremble in terror!)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 11:31:07 pm
I'm pretty sure you guys are 4A, so fortunately we won't have to play your types. We go up against the likes of Fife (tremble in terror!)

Hey, the eventual final winner in our league I believe was Stevenson (which is in Stevenson).  You never know

(Except with Fife.  There's nothing to do there but sell used cars and do meth or both at once.  You'll kill 'em)

We beat Stevenson in our final round... are they playing in two leagues? ???


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 26, 2008, 11:35:13 pm
I'm pretty sure you guys are 4A, so fortunately we won't have to play your types. We go up against the likes of Fife (tremble in terror!)

Hey, the eventual final winner in our league I believe was Stevenson (which is in Stevenson).  You never know

(Except with Fife.  There's nothing to do there but sell used cars and do meth or both at once.  You'll kill 'em)

We beat Stevenson in our final round... are they playing in two leagues? ???

Seriously?  I was so sure we played Stevenson.  They have 383 kids, so unless all of their kids play Knowledge Bowl...I don't know what town I'm confusing it with.

I remember it was tiny, and in one of the towns I passed.  I dunno, White Salmon?  Either way it was weird.

The captain of the Stevenson team was wearing a kilt... I could tell something was wrong with the place.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 12:13:29 am
Logical reason for the uber-Republican precinct in the South?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: MaxQue on November 27, 2008, 12:16:46 am
Knowledge Bowl. I'm happy than I googled that. I discovered than this was almost the same thing than ''Génies en herbe'' in Quebec.

I already was a provincial champion of that. Sure, the format is very different, but that is very cool to win against those private big cities schools when you come from a medium sided rural town with a public school.

Very good work on those maps. I have a question. Indian reservations vote for which party?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 12:22:25 am
Logical reason for the uber-Republican precinct in the South?

Went from 46-25 Bush to 40-17 McCain

Looks like this (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=45.609624~-122.462518&style=h&lvl=16&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5556114&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1).  No idea why it lost so many voters, but basically a blip.  Helps that it's a little unincorporated island -- no municipal taxes, attracts more Republicans.

Mostly a blip, though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 12:25:25 am
Very good work on those maps. I have a question. Indian reservations vote for which party?

Way Democratic.  Obama didn't really do so well in Reservation areas, slightly worse than Kerry in some -- Clintonites and some third-party leak.  Gregoire did better.  Obama still won them, though, and out-performed Kerry by a good stretch on some reservations.

I also think McCain improved slightly because politically apathetic Indians are more likely to consider voting Republican.  Poll places got eliminated since 2004.  Just a guess.  I'll have to look at it more.

The area around Nespelem on the Okanogan County map is Indian country, as is the random dark red in northern Kitsap County.  The red areas west of Bainbridge Island on the map area also part of Port Madison Indian Reservation, but I think it's like 10% Indian.  Most of it is Bainbridge-type spillover.

Obama's second-best county in the U.S., Shannon, South Dakota, is the Pine Ridge Reservation.  He did stellar with plains Indians, and in the Southwest, where he did tribal connections.  Not so much of that in the NW, obv.


Title: Re: Washington '08: Not fraudlent this time, just slow as hell
Post by: Lunar on November 27, 2008, 12:37:34 am
(
Img
)

:(


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 12:53:00 am
I just got a Pierce County shapefile from the Democrats guy!  :)

Next up:  Clark County swing map, then Pierce stuff.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 01:23:30 am
Can you do the County Executive race for Pierce? Or is the program not capable of doing a race with more than two candidates?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 01:56:43 am
Can you do the County Executive race for Pierce? Or is the program not capable of doing a race with more than two candidates?

This program = Me with an Excel sheet and a color palette I made :P It can do whatever information I modify the shapefile to contain the values of.

I can do it but it'll be 215% more of a bitch.  I also can only get what's included in the precinct file, of course.

I'll probably just take the margin scale and apply it to percent, or something.  I'll figure it out.

Oh, the guy from the Democrats emailed me back this along with the precinct shapefiles:

Quote
I'm the coordinator of the Maps and History project of the Washington State Democratic Chairs organization.  What we need are database digestible election results from around the state down to the precinct level.  Everything we have, we're putting up into the history pages that you can access on Fred's server.  If you have results from any elections that you don't see, please let us know what you have.

Eventually, I'd love to get these kinds of maps and history available for all 39 counties, free and online.

Pretty cool.  I guess I'll be in contact with him.

Just finished Pierce maps, uploading them now.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 02:11:37 am
Goddamn 28-451


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 02:20:46 am
Goddamn 28-451

What'd 28-451 do specifically among McCain precincts? :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 02:25:04 am
Goddamn 28-451

What'd 28-451 do specifically among McCain precincts? :P

It taints my visual continuity of the 28th. >:(

There are also other parts of the district that are just as rich as 28-451 and didn't have any problem voting for Obama. They need to get with the picture.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 02:28:49 am
Goddamn 28-451

What'd 28-451 do specifically among McCain precincts? :P

It taints my visual continuity of the 28th. >:(

There are also other parts of the district that are just as rich as 28-451 and didn't have any problem voting for Obama. They need to get with the picture.

You could always move here to the 27th, where we not only have visual continuity, but also not a single McCain precinct.  :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 02:37:13 am
Goddamn 28-451

What'd 28-451 do specifically among McCain precincts? :P

It taints my visual continuity of the 28th. >:(

There are also other parts of the district that are just as rich as 28-451 and didn't have any problem voting for Obama. They need to get with the picture.

You could always move here to the 27th, while not only do we have visual continuity, but not a single McCain precinct.  :P

But then I'd have to be a Tacoma elitist. :(  I'm much more comfortable in real Pierce County. :D


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 02:41:51 am
The perceptions, judgments and prejudices in my head are far more important. :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 27, 2008, 05:24:35 am
While I'm at it, any requests?

Pierce County Exec I'm up for.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 05:28:14 am
Do you have a Whitman map? That might be neat.

Also the Governor's race in Clark, maybe Goldmark in Okanogan


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 27, 2008, 05:35:30 am
No sleep till the maps are done!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 28, 2008, 07:27:14 am
Don't know if you already know about this/whether it might be interesting at all, but there's a link on the Redistricting Commission's website to shapefiles for Legislative Districts: http://www.redistricting.wa.gov/


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on November 28, 2008, 04:23:42 pm
McCain only had one >60 LD? Strange.

The West Seattle/Vashon district being >30 McCain also seems weird.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 28, 2008, 05:51:53 pm
Obama winning the 15th is just bizarre.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 28, 2008, 07:21:54 pm
Obama winning the 15th is just bizarre.

Not super-bizarre, but definitely impressive.  Lots of Hispanics in the Yakima County portion.  Cantwell won it, and Bush won it by less than 10% (9.99% actually).  It surprised me, though; I would have expected Obama to have fallen short by a point or two.  Basically, Obama rocked the towns along the Columbia River, did well-enough in the inland white areas (average swings), and cleaned up among Hispanics.

McCain had only one >60, and it was 62-37 (down from 66-33).  Bush had eight.  The GOP losing its shirt in Okanogan County, with Hispanics, and among urban Eastern WA swing voters pretty much shot him.

The West Seattle/Vashon district is going to be in the very low 20s, I just f'ed up the shading on that one.  Fixed now.

Btw: Nothing here contains write-ins.  Dave counts those as votes; I don't, because Washington state law considers rejected write-ins to be effective undervotes.  Plus I like King County being 70% shaded.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 28, 2008, 10:18:34 pm
Not mine, but interesting

(
Img
)

Spanaway (where Bush did pretty stunningly for a Republican in 2004) and Parkland seem to have been fit pretty hard, and Midland/etc. didn't hold up so well eitehr.

The growth areas are less interesting and have more to do with population changes.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: ottermax on November 29, 2008, 03:57:28 pm
I never realized how strongly Democratic Bainbridge Island was.

Anyways, the LD results are very interesting. It definitely gives a better picture of the election.

The changes in the Eastside are pretty clear. Only a few years ago, the Republicans were competitive in districts like the 41st, but this election we gave a >60% vote to Obama. Every district in King Co. voted for Obama!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: NOVA Green on November 29, 2008, 05:41:00 pm
And now, a place where people actually live!  Thank God for the flu, gives me an excuse to do this all day for three days.

Kitsap
(
Img
) (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/kitsap_new.png)

(
Img
) (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/kitsap_old.png)

Any word on naval base precincts? I know much of county's economic navy related, but curious about how Bremerton proper, and base precincts went this time around.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 29, 2008, 08:17:17 pm
Any word on naval base precincts? I know much of county's economic navy related, but curious about how Bremerton proper, and base precincts went this time around.

The Navy ship voters are put in with Bremerton 1, which is also a downtown precinct.  I'm not sure what proportion of the voting population they are, but they can't be super-Republican.  Obama won that precinct 64-34 Obama, after Kerry won it 58-39.

The Trident Naval Base precinct (from the top of Bainbridge Island all the way east, the darkest blue precinct) went from 76-23 Bush to 58-41 McCain.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on November 29, 2008, 11:40:42 pm
Yeah, the GOP is basically as dead on Bainbridge it is in Seattle.  Pretty funny to see rural McMansion precincts where Obama broke 80%.

Mason County (probably the most boringly even county in the state):

(
Img
) (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/mason_new.png)

(
Img
) (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/mason_old.png)

Can anyone guess where the two main indian reservations are?
;)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 29, 2008, 11:43:16 pm
Is there Indian land around Kamilche?  I thought it was just the Skokomish Rez in Mason, but there's gotta be some reason Kamilche is liberal.

Although it was barely >60 so it may just be a blip.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: NOVA Green on November 30, 2008, 01:19:08 am
Any word on naval base precincts? I know much of county's economic navy related, but curious about how Bremerton proper, and base precincts went this time around.

The Navy ship voters are put in with Bremerton 1, which is also a downtown precinct.  I'm not sure what proportion of the voting population they are, but they can't be super-Republican.  Obama won that precinct 64-34 Obama, after Kerry won it 58-39.

The Trident Naval Base precinct (from the top of Bainbridge Island all the way east, the darkest blue precinct) went from 76-23 Bush to 58-41 McCain.

Alcon, have you cross-posted this on the military vote thread in the '08 election results area?

It's starting to look like there is at least a +15 Dem  swing in NW base precincts. I would post some for Oregon, but I don't think there is anything outside of maybe a precinct with a slight Coast Guard influence... :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: ottermax on November 30, 2008, 01:49:18 am
I'm surprised areas of Mason Co. such as Hoodsport and other tourist resort areas were not as strongly Democratic. Obama did strongly among those groups, but maybe they don't actually live near the tourist resort areas (such as Alderbrook). Hood Canal... I wonder how many people actually vote in those precincts because most of the people there are summer vacation homeowners.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on November 30, 2008, 07:11:46 pm
Chelan has some... interesting precincts.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on November 30, 2008, 07:32:14 pm
Chelan has some... interesting precincts.

The shapes are weird because there are a few arterials and most people live within a few miles of them on off-roads.  After that it's basically National Forest Service land.  Makes things look really weird (and ugly).  The dark red is Holden Village, which is a spiritualist Lutheran camp or something.  Went 36-4-2 Obama.

Skamania kind of has that too, most of the interior precincts are really low-population.  Almost everyone lives near the river (unlike Klickitat, while has the Goldendale Valley)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on November 30, 2008, 11:06:23 pm
Is there Indian land around Kamilche?  I thought it was just the Skokomish Rez in Mason, but there's gotta be some reason Kamilche is liberal.

Although it was barely >60 so it may just be a blip.

Kamilche = Squaxin


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 02, 2008, 06:31:27 am
I was bored, so I made some maps! :D They're not as good quality as Alcon's because I'm not a demi-God. And I switched red and blue to make them usable to the general population.

28th State Rep. Pos. 1 on top, Pos. 2 on bottom

(
Img
)(
Img
)

The only sort of interesting things (although not unexpected) is Kelley doing worse in south Lakewood than Green - whether that was because it was Dooley's home turf or because it was Green's home turf is up for debate. Kelley also rocked the military parts of the district compared to Green (may have something to do with Kelley being in the military). Green lost 28-451 by 1 vote. It continues to be my least favorite precinct in the district (Giving Muri 70%? Really? I know he lives there, but you guys of all people should know what he's like...)

And now the painful one

(
Img
)

Um, yea... ow. Srail doing better in UP than Fircrest (compared to an average Dem who would get 43% of the vote) is probably attributed to parents of her students.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: platypeanArchcow on December 02, 2008, 02:07:08 pm
I was bored, so I made some maps! :D They're not as good quality as Alcon's because I'm not a demi-God. And I switched red and blue to make them usable to the general population.

Tip: don't use JPEG for images with large fields of even color.  PNG compresses such things better and doesn't introduce artifacts.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 02, 2008, 03:36:12 pm
Wrong colors! >:(


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 02, 2008, 03:39:36 pm
I was bored, so I made some maps! :D They're not as good quality as Alcon's because I'm not a demi-God. And I switched red and blue to make them usable to the general population.

Tip: don't use JPEG for images with large fields of even color.  PNG compresses such things better and doesn't introduce artifacts.

It's saved as a PNG file on my computer, but for some reason it switched it when I uploaded. I'll see if I can fix it.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 02, 2008, 03:50:04 pm
Images fixed.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on December 02, 2008, 05:42:47 pm
What about Thurston?

:(


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 02, 2008, 06:01:28 pm
What about Thurston?

:(

I have a probable Thurston source, but I want to try the county directly first.  I don't want to push my luck, since I already used them for Pierce.

I'll call the county now.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 02, 2008, 06:19:38 pm
I called Thurston.  They normally charge $50, but the lady working there said they'll probably make an exemption.  I just need to talk directly with the lady who specializes in shapefiles tomorrow.

I should probably have it tomorrow afternoon-ish.  Adams County should be up later this afternoon.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 02, 2008, 06:57:20 pm
Are there any Democratic precincts in Adams County?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 02, 2008, 07:11:52 pm
Are there any Democratic precincts in Adams County?

Othello Rural #1 is primarily Hispanic and any Democrat worth their salt should carry it.  Naturally, Kerry lost it by 14 points.

Othello #3 is similar, but more Republican.  Hard to judge by the 2006 Senate numbers -- Cantwell won it narrowly, and Obama should benefit from increased Hispanic turnout.  But Cantwell also did better in Adams County than Obama among whites.

There are two small Othello precincts:  One Cantwell won, but went 90% Bush; the other has a pretty strong GOP race, but small precincts can behave oddly.

Beyond that, we're getting into 30% margins (Ritzville Ward 1 & Othello #2), and then out into "it'd take a miracle."  I think Othello Rural #1 is at least a 60% shot, though.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Daniel Z on December 02, 2008, 07:14:39 pm
I called Thurston.  They normally charge $50, but the lady working there said they'll probably make an exemption.  I just need to talk directly with the lady who specializes in shapefiles tomorrow.

I should probably have it tomorrow afternoon-ish.  Adams County should be up later this afternoon.
Great!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 02, 2008, 10:18:11 pm
adams county sux

second day in a row she was going to send it before she went home.  boo.

King on Friday, at least.  Is it a little sad that that's the most exciting thing in my week?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 03, 2008, 12:17:37 am
OSPI! Bergeson in green, Dorn in yellow

(
Img
)

It really makes a lot of sense when you break it down by precinct.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 03, 2008, 12:44:33 am
Mind explaining that one?

Seems Bergeson did really well among old voters and areas that tend to like unthreatening incumbents...beyond that "gruhh?"

I'm planning to do a full-county SPI with King and Pierce, and maybe others if King and Pierce as a whole aren't boring.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: jimrtex on December 03, 2008, 01:35:39 am
 Washington Legislature History  (http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/lic/Documents/Subscriptions_End_of_Session_Historical/MembersOfLeg%202005.pdf)

You might be interested in this.  Starting on page 157 (162 of the .PDF file) you'll find legislative district maps since statehood. 

There is also some stuff on the territorial legislature.  Early on the the population centers were Vancouver, Clarke County (sic until 1924); and Olympia, Thurston County.  The next boom was in Walla Walla.  Tacoma and then Seattle were somewhat later developers.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 03, 2008, 01:54:59 am
Mind explaining that one?

Seems Bergeson did really well among old voters and areas that tend to like unthreatening incumbents...beyond that "gruhh?"

I'm planning to do a full-county SPI with King and Pierce, and maybe others if King and Pierce as a whole aren't boring.

Oh I have no idea what the hell it means - I was being sarcastic.

Older voters is somewhat of a common thread, although a few of those UP and Lakewood precincts aren't that old... I tried to piece something together on income but that basically falls flat when you look at the part of UP nearest to the water.

Nearly every precinct was >50% though, and most somewhere in the 50%-53% range, so I think which way a lot of these precincts swung was as close to random as election results can get.

Just a bizarre race overall.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 03, 2008, 02:03:18 am
Awesome stuff Jim.  I'll look at it more in the morning.  I knew that Grays Harbor County used to be Chehalis County, but not about Clark-with-an-"e."  Growth redistricting should be cool, too.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 03, 2008, 02:06:02 am
Washington Legislature History  (http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/lic/Documents/Subscriptions_End_of_Session_Historical/MembersOfLeg%202005.pdf)

You might be interested in this.  Starting on page 157 (162 of the .PDF file) you'll find legislative district maps since statehood. 

There is also some stuff on the territorial legislature.  Early on the the population centers were Vancouver, Clarke County (sic until 1924); and Olympia, Thurston County.  The next boom was in Walla Walla.  Tacoma and then Seattle were somewhat later developers.

Yeah. Southeastern Washington used to have as many people as the Puget Sound.

Awesome stuff Jim.  I'll look at it more in the morning.  I knew that Grays Harbor County used to be Chehalis County, but not about Clark-with-an-"e."  Growth redistricting should be cool, too.

I DID, CUZ I'M AWESOME.

Wasn't Kitsap "Slaughter County" originally?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 03, 2008, 02:08:29 am
Washington Legislature History  (http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/lic/Documents/Subscriptions_End_of_Session_Historical/MembersOfLeg%202005.pdf)

You might be interested in this.  Starting on page 157 (162 of the .PDF file) you'll find legislative district maps since statehood. 

There is also some stuff on the territorial legislature.  Early on the the population centers were Vancouver, Clarke County (sic until 1924); and Olympia, Thurston County.  The next boom was in Walla Walla.  Tacoma and then Seattle were somewhat later developers.

Yeah. Southeastern Washington used to have as many people as the Puget Sound.

Awesome stuff Jim.  I'll look at it more in the morning.  I knew that Grays Harbor County used to be Chehalis County, but not about Clark-with-an-"e."  Growth redistricting should be cool, too.

I DID, CUZ I'M AWESOME.

Wasn't Kitsap "Slaughter County" originally?

Yep, and Mason was originally Sawamish County.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: jimrtex on December 03, 2008, 08:50:42 pm
Awesome stuff Jim.  I'll look at it more in the morning.  I knew that Grays Harbor County used to be Chehalis County, but not about Clark-with-an-"e."  Growth redistricting should be cool, too.
I thought it pretty weird that Clarke was spelled with an 'e', especially since I guessed it was name for William Clark.  So I did a little bit of googling.  It was originally named Clark, when Oregon Territory created two counties north of the Columbia River.  The other was Lewis.  The 1850 Census for "Washington" is based on these two counties.

In 1853, an error by a clerk transformed Clark into Clarke County, and the name stuck until 1924.  I'm not sure if this was before or after Washington Territory was split off.

I have a census history of county population which shows the source counties for new counties, and it showed that all the counties from Whatcom to Thurston were formed from both Lewis and Clark counties.  So I spent some more time trying to find some old maps.

Incidentally, there is a musical group Lewis & Clarke, but they claim to be named after C.S. Lewis and Arthur C. Clarke.

I eventually found this animation:

 Washington Counties 1844 — 1911  (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Animation/wa.div.html)

As you can see, Lewis was the western county, and Clark was the eastern county, but the boundary was not the Cascade crest, but a north/south line to its west.   Soon counties were created from Lewis County on either side of Puget Sound and the eastern boundary of Whatcom, Island, King, and Pierce counties was established on the crest.

The SoS office has a bunch of historical maps (high quality scans), as well as an online exhibit of redistricting, which it includes oral histories, newspaper accounts, etc.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 04, 2008, 04:23:06 pm
King County canvass is out a day early.  And I have finals study.

grr!

A quick look-over then I really should focus.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 04, 2008, 04:38:08 pm
Early observations:

- Obama looks to have won every precinct in Seattle unless some weirdness happened.  Broadmoor flipped to Obama +7 (points, the best a Democrat has ever done there in history) and he broke 60% at the Madison Park condos-for-Bush precinct

- McCain retained ultra-partisan GOP Hunts Point by 12 points, so maybe the Gold Coast wasn't total murder

- Damn this file is huge


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 04, 2008, 04:52:09 pm
My precinct in Sammamish: 68% Obama

*falls on floor laughing at the dying Eastside GOP*


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 04, 2008, 05:25:24 pm
* = Contains portions of other counties.

Algona: 56-42 Obama
Auburn*: 56-42 Obama
Beaux Arts Village: 66-34 Obama
Bellevue: 64-35 Obama
Black Diamond: 50-49 Obama
Bothell*: 61-37 Obama
Burien: 67-31 Obama
Carnation: 62-36 Obama
Clyde Hill: 51-48 Obama
Covington: 55-43 Obama
Des Moines: 63-35 Obama
Duvall: 55-43 Obama
Enumclaw: 50-48 Obama
Federal Way: 61-38 Obama
Hunts Point: 56-43 McCain
Issaquah: 63-36 Obama
Kenmore: 67-32 Obama
Kent: 61-37 Obama
Kirkland: 66-33 Obama
Lake Forest Park: 74-24 Obama
Maple Valley: 52-46 Obama
Medina: 54-46 Obama
Mercer Island: 67-32 Obama
Milton*: 54-44 Obama
Newcastle: 61-37 Obama
Normandy Park: 59-40 Obama
North Bend: 58-40 Obama
Pacific*: 55-42 Obama
Redmond: 66-32 Obama
Renton: 67-32 Obama
Sammamish: 59-39 Obama
SeaTac: 66-32 Obama
Seattle: 85-14 Obama (beating San Francisco)
Shoreline: 73-25 Obama
Skykomish: 66-30 Obama
Snoqualmie: 58-41 Obama
Tukwila: 72-27 Obama
Woodinville: 62-37 Obama
Yarrow Point: 55-44 Obama

(Vashon Island was 80-18 Obama; as a whole, unincorporated was 60-39 Obama)

LD:

1st*: 61-37 Obama
5th: 57-41 Obama
11th: 71-27 Obama
30th: 59-39 Obama
31st*: 50-48 Obama
32nd*: 70-29 Obama
33rd: 64-35 Obama
34th: 78-21 Obama
36th: 84-15 Obama
37th: 86-13 Obama
41st: 64-35 Obama
43rd: 89-10 Obama
45th: 61-38 Obama
46th: 83-16 Obama
47th: 56-43 Obama
48th: 64-35 Obama

Final CD:

1st: 62-36 Obama
2nd: 56-42 Obama
3rd: 52-46 Obama
4th: 58-40 McCain
5th: 51-46 McCain
6th: 57-41 Obama
7th: 84-15 Obama
8th: 57-42 Obama
9th: 59-39 Obama


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on December 04, 2008, 08:07:07 pm
These results are insane... The Washington GOP should be freaked out right now after the drilling they got in various parts of the state. I am especially suprised at how pro-Obama WA-08 and WA-05 were (he only lost 05 by 5%!!!). Though I am a bit sad to see that my congressional district (03) has remained so moderate and is now more conservative than WA-08, eventhough we at least have a democratic congressman.

But seriously the results out of King county show that if the green party became serious they could actually out perform the GOP in a number of areas. That or the Washington GOP needs to drastically move towards the center/left.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: NOVA Green on December 04, 2008, 08:34:47 pm
* = Contains portions of other counties.

Algona: 56-42 Obama
Auburn*: 56-42 Obama
Beaux Arts Village: 66-34 Obama
Bellevue: 64-35 Obama
Black Diamond: 50-49 Obama
Bothell*: 61-37 Obama
Burien: 67-31 Obama
Carnation: 62-36 Obama
Clyde Hill: 51-48 Obama
Covington: 55-43 Obama
Des Moines: 63-35 Obama
Duvall: 55-43 Obama
Enumclaw: 50-48 Obama
Federal Way: 61-38 Obama
Hunts Point: 56-43 McCain
Issaquah: 63-36 Obama
Kenmore: 67-32 Obama
Kent: 61-37 Obama
Kirkland: 66-33 Obama
Lake Forest Park: 74-24 Obama
Maple Valley: 52-46 Obama
Medina: 54-46 Obama
Mercer Island: 67-32 Obama
Milton*: 54-44 Obama
Newcastle: 61-37 Obama
Normandy Park: 59-40 Obama
North Bend: 58-40 Obama
Pacific*: 55-42 Obama
Redmond: 66-32 Obama
Renton: 67-32 Obama
Sammamish: 59-39 Obama
SeaTac: 66-32 Obama
Seattle: 85-14 Obama (beating San Francisco)
Shoreline: 73-25 Obama
Skykomish: 66-30 Obama
Snoqualmie: 58-41 Obama
Tukwila: 72-27 Obama
Woodinville: 62-37 Obama
Yarrow Point: 55-44 Obama

(Vashon Island was 80-18 Obama; as a whole, unincorporated was 60-39 Obama)

LD:

1st*: 61-37 Obama
5th: 57-41 Obama
11th: 71-27 Obama
30th: 59-39 Obama
31st*: 50-48 Obama
32nd*: 70-29 Obama
33rd: 64-35 Obama
34th: 78-21 Obama
36th: 84-15 Obama
37th: 86-13 Obama
41st: 64-35 Obama
43rd: 89-10 Obama
45th: 61-38 Obama
46th: 83-16 Obama
47th: 56-43 Obama
48th: 64-35 Obama

Final CD:

1st: 62-36 Obama
2nd: 56-42 Obama
3rd: 52-46 Obama
4th: 58-40 McCain
5th: 51-46 McCain
6th: 57-41 Obama
7th: 84-15 Obama
8th: 57-42 Obama
9th: 59-39 Obama

Uber cool!!!

Wait to hear the phrase "Seattle Liberals" replace "San Fransisco Liberals" on O'Reilly.

Those numbers from Bellevue and Renton are extremely bad news for national Republicans...

It will be hard to see how a national ticket can be competitive in the NW again with numbers like these from suburban Seattle and Portland.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Sbane on December 04, 2008, 09:35:26 pm
Seattle is impressive, but I am way more impressed by those eastside numbers. Almost every single one above 60%...wow.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: ottermax on December 04, 2008, 11:39:22 pm
The Eastside swing is incredible. I am in utter shock. Wow... Sammamish almost at 60% for a democrat!! That's just shocking. Some of these swings are just unbelievable. Did any place swing for McCain? Could you do a map of the cities? And what about Unincorporated King Co.?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 05, 2008, 12:23:00 am
The Eastside swing is incredible. I am in utter shock. Wow... Sammamish almost at 60% for a democrat!! That's just shocking. Some of these swings are just unbelievable. Did any place swing for McCain? Could you do a map of the cities? And what about Unincorporated King Co.?

Skykomish barely swung - +35.71% to +36.45%.

A few scattered precincts swung McCain (noise happens), but no.

Not sure what you mean by a city map, something like this?

(
Img
)

Unincorporated King County was 59.7%-38.7% Obama.

Interestingly, there isn't a single Republican precinct along the immediate I-5 cooridor from Marysville to McChord AFB.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 05, 2008, 12:22:25 pm
The Sixth was only 57% Obama? What did Kerry get there?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 05, 2008, 12:27:00 pm
The Sixth was only 57% Obama? What did Kerry get there?

53%.  It's Gig Harbor + urban Tacoma + southern Kitsap/western Bremerton + Mason + Jefferson + Clallam + Grays Harbor.  Other than urban Tacoma and Jefferson, none of those areas are super-Democratic.

The Pierce County portion was only 56% Kerry, and under half of the district's vote.  The rest of the district was only 51%.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 05, 2008, 12:29:41 pm
Huh. I suppose Dicks' ritual pillaging of Doug Cloud's dignity gave me a false impression.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 05, 2008, 10:33:49 pm
Seattle neighborhood results:

Obama
1. Mann (Central District 23rd Ave/MLK) - 96.05%
2. Madrona - 93.76%
3. Minor (Central District 12th/23rd) - 93.73%
4. Broadway - 93.65%
5. Stevens (Cap Hill 15th Ave) - 92.37%
6. Leschi - 91.50%
7. Fremont - 90.73%
8. Mt. Baker - 90.35%
9. Atlantic - 90.24%
10. Phinney Ridge - 89.96%
...
84. Alki - 76.24%
85. Southeast Magnolia - 76.11%
86. Arbor Heights - 74.57%
87. Madison Park - 71.09%
88. Briarcliff - 70.39%

McCain
1. Briarcliff - 28.70%
2. Madison Park - 27.89%
3. Arbor Heights - 23.98%
4. Southeast Magnolia - 22.73%
5. Alki - 22.34%
6. Laurelhurst - 22.50%
7. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 21.92%
8. Fauntleroy - 21.19%
9. View Ridge - 21.08%
10. Pike Market - 20.90%
...
84. Stevens - 6.58%
85. Madrona - 5.38%
86. Minor - 4.74%
87. Broadway - 4.72%
88. Mann - 2.68%

Gregoire
1. Mann - 93.11%
2. Minor - 91.96%
3. Broadway - 91.91%
4. Stevens - 89.06%
5. Madrona - 88.71%
6. Atlantic - 88.37%
7. Columbia City - 87.72%
8. Wallingford - 86.78%
9. Leschi - 86.75%
10. Phinney Ridge - 86.61%

Rossi
1. Madison Park - 39.29%
2. Briarcliff - 37.40%
3. Laurelhurst - 32.52%
4. Southeast Magnolia - 30.71%
5. Arbor Heights - 30.19%
6. Alki - 29.70%
7. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 29.53%
8. View Ridge - 29.15%
9. Windermere - 28.82%
10. Pike Market - 28.53%

King County Charter Amendment No. 2 - Homosexual Discrimination
Yes
1. Broadway - 92.81%
2. Stevens - 89.98%
3. Fremont - 89.90%
4. Minor - 89.71%
5. Eastlake - 88.47%
6. Wallingford - 88.26%
7. Phinney Ridge - 88.00%
8. Montlake - 87.58%
9. Madrona - 87.30%
10. West Woodland - 87.12%

No
1. Rainier View - 30.49%
2. Briarcliff - 27.45%
3. Arbor Heights - 27.35%
4. South Beacon Hill/Holly Park - 26.01%
5. South Delridge - 25.80%
6. Rainier Beach - 25.48%
7. Madison Park - 25.37%
8. Brighton - 24.47%
9. South Park - 24.15%
10. Highland Park - 23.94%

Interestingly, the two blackest Seattle neighborhoods (~40%), the Central District districts of Mann and Minor, were strongly for this (86.7% and 89.7%, respectively).


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: NOVA Green on December 05, 2008, 10:43:05 pm
Seattle neighborhood results:

Obama
1. Mann (Central District 23rd Ave/MLK) - 96.05%
2. Madrona - 93.76%
3. Minor (Central District 12th/23rd) - 93.73%
4. Broadway - 93.65%
5. Stevens (Cap Hill 15th Ave) - 92.37%
6. Leschi - 91.50%
7. Fremont - 90.73%
8. Mt. Baker - 90.35%
9. Atlantic - 90.24%
10. Phinney Ridge - 89.96%
...
84. Alki - 76.24%
85. Southeast Magnolia - 76.11%
86. Arbor Heights - 74.57%
87. Madison Park - 71.09%
88. Briarcliff - 70.39%

McCain
1. Briarcliff - 28.70%
2. Madison Park - 27.89%
3. Arbor Heights - 23.98%
4. Southeast Magnolia - 22.73%
5. Alki - 22.34%
6. Laurelhurst - 22.50%
7. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 21.92%
8. Fauntleroy - 21.19%
9. View Ridge - 21.08%
10. Pike Market - 20.90%
...
84. Stevens - 6.58%
85. Madrona - 5.38%
86. Minor - 4.74%
87. Broadway - 4.72%
88. Mann - 2.68%

Gregoire
1. Mann - 93.11%
2. Minor - 91.96%
3. Broadway - 91.91%
4. Stevens - 89.06%
5. Madrona - 88.71%
6. Atlantic - 88.37%
7. Columbia City - 87.72%
8. Wallingford - 86.78%
9. Leschi - 86.75%
10. Phinney Ridge - 86.61%

Rossi
1. Madison Park - 39.29%
2. Briarcliff - 37.40%
3. Laurelhurst - 32.52%
4. Southeast Magnolia - 30.71%
5. Arbor Heights - 30.19%
6. Alki - 29.70%
7. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 29.53%
8. View Ridge - 29.15%
9. Windermere - 28.82%
10. Pike Market - 28.53%

King County Charter Amendment No. 2 - Homosexual Discrimination
Yes
1. Broadway - 92.81%
2. Stevens - 89.98%
3. Fremont - 89.90%
4. Minor - 89.71%
5. Eastlake - 88.47%
6. Wallingford - 88.26%
7. Phinney Ridge - 88.00%
8. Montlake - 87.58%
9. Madrona - 87.30%
10. West Woodland - 87.12%

No
1. Rainier View - 30.49%
2. Briarcliff - 27.45%
3. Arbor Heights - 27.35%
4. South Beacon Hill/Holly Park - 26.01%
5. South Delridge - 25.80%
6. Rainier Beach - 25.48%
7. Madison Park - 25.37%
8. Brighton - 24.47%
9. South Park - 24.15%
10. Highland Park - 23.94%

Interestingly, the two blackest Seattle neighborhoods (~40%), the Central District districts of Mann and Minor, were strongly for this (86.7% and 89.7%, respectively).

Request: Seward Park.... I want to see how the Orthodox Jewish population in this 'hood went. My sister lives in the neighborhood and I haven't bothered to check King Co. precinct results.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 05, 2008, 10:46:11 pm
Seattle neighborhood results:

Obama
1. Mann (Central District 23rd Ave/MLK) - 96.05%
2. Madrona - 93.76%
3. Minor (Central District 12th/23rd) - 93.73%
4. Broadway - 93.65%
5. Stevens (Cap Hill 15th Ave) - 92.37%
6. Leschi - 91.50%
7. Fremont - 90.73%
8. Mt. Baker - 90.35%
9. Atlantic - 90.24%
10. Phinney Ridge - 89.96%
...
84. Alki - 76.24%
85. Southeast Magnolia - 76.11%
86. Arbor Heights - 74.57%
87. Madison Park - 71.09%
88. Briarcliff - 70.39%

McCain
1. Briarcliff - 28.70%
2. Madison Park - 27.89%
3. Arbor Heights - 23.98%
4. Southeast Magnolia - 22.73%
5. Alki - 22.34%
6. Laurelhurst - 22.50%
7. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 21.92%
8. Fauntleroy - 21.19%
9. View Ridge - 21.08%
10. Pike Market - 20.90%
...
84. Stevens - 6.58%
85. Madrona - 5.38%
86. Minor - 4.74%
87. Broadway - 4.72%
88. Mann - 2.68%

Gregoire
1. Mann - 93.11%
2. Minor - 91.96%
3. Broadway - 91.91%
4. Stevens - 89.06%
5. Madrona - 88.71%
6. Atlantic - 88.37%
7. Columbia City - 87.72%
8. Wallingford - 86.78%
9. Leschi - 86.75%
10. Phinney Ridge - 86.61%

Rossi
1. Madison Park - 39.29%
2. Briarcliff - 37.40%
3. Laurelhurst - 32.52%
4. Southeast Magnolia - 30.71%
5. Arbor Heights - 30.19%
6. Alki - 29.70%
7. North Beach/Blue Ridge - 29.53%
8. View Ridge - 29.15%
9. Windermere - 28.82%
10. Pike Market - 28.53%

King County Charter Amendment No. 2 - Homosexual Discrimination
Yes
1. Broadway - 92.81%
2. Stevens - 89.98%
3. Fremont - 89.90%
4. Minor - 89.71%
5. Eastlake - 88.47%
6. Wallingford - 88.26%
7. Phinney Ridge - 88.00%
8. Montlake - 87.58%
9. Madrona - 87.30%
10. West Woodland - 87.12%

No
1. Rainier View - 30.49%
2. Briarcliff - 27.45%
3. Arbor Heights - 27.35%
4. South Beacon Hill/Holly Park - 26.01%
5. South Delridge - 25.80%
6. Rainier Beach - 25.48%
7. Madison Park - 25.37%
8. Brighton - 24.47%
9. South Park - 24.15%
10. Highland Park - 23.94%

Interestingly, the two blackest Seattle neighborhoods (~40%), the Central District districts of Mann and Minor, were strongly for this (86.7% and 89.7%, respectively).

Request: Seward Park.... I want to see how the Orthodox Jewish population in this 'hood went. My sister lives in the neighborhood and I haven't bothered to check King Co. precinct results.

Seward Park was 83.28% Obama, 15.62% McCain.  It contains a few diverse areas, and then a mix of whitebread and Ortho Jews.  Obama did very well there, probably thanks to the whitebread mostly.  Hard to tell though.  McCain didn't even break 10% on Millionaire's Row.  The rich swung in the city, too.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: ottermax on December 07, 2008, 10:44:04 pm
This makes me wonder how badly Huckabee would have done on the Eastside...


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: NOVA Green on December 08, 2008, 08:42:51 pm
WA_2008_President.xls (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/WA_2008_President.xls) (3.7 MB)

An easily-understood Excel file that contains results to county, congressional, legislative, municipal and precinct levels.  Enjoy.

Awesome work Alcon!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 10, 2008, 06:26:25 am
What does "split" mean on the Municipality tab? I thought it was cities that were in two counties, but you've got cities that I know aren't (Steilacoom for example).


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 10, 2008, 11:20:33 am
What does "split" mean on the Municipality tab? I thought it was cities that were in two counties, but you've got cities that I know aren't (Steilacoom for example).

They also include some unincorporated territory.  A few counties (Clark, Douglas, Pend Oreille and some Pierce) do this.  Annoying and pointless.  One precinct in Clark is split between Camas and Washougal, listed as "Camas city/Washougal city."


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 11, 2008, 01:13:27 am
How do they administer municipal elections when parts of the precinct are outside the city limits?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 11, 2008, 01:29:12 am
How do they administer municipal elections when parts of the precinct are outside the city limits?

Hmm, kind of like how I don't understand the Transit Area borders... Half of my precinct is in it (and got to vote on Prop 1) while the other half isn't.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 11, 2008, 02:01:30 am
How do they administer municipal elections when parts of the precinct are outside the city limits?

Precinct splits:  127.01, 127.02, 127.03, etc.  That's why we do ballot codes in Pierce County instead of precinct codes on ballots.  At least I think so, never seen a polling place with precincts split between districts.

Now, in light of that, as to why they have those four-vote precincts or whatever...I have no idea.  Wish I knew.  But at least they shouldn't split towns when they do.  That's annoying and stupid.  I don't care about sewer districts.

(Oh, and I just got an email that someone suggested the spreadsheet for the Swing State Project's CD collection efforts.  Pretty cool.  Wonder if that was someone here?  :))


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 11, 2008, 02:47:18 am
I think most of the very small precincts are just sort of a side effect of having so many different jurisdictions. There's so many different boundary levels that the only way to make the whole puzzle work is making these incredibly small precincts in some parts.

Or maybe not because apparently they split precincts up sometimes.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 11, 2008, 01:29:14 pm
President
Highest Percentage of Vote
Obama
1. Seattle - 84.67%
2. Port Townsend - 80.49%
3. Nespelem - 79.37%
4. Index - 79.21%
5. Mabton - 78.79%
6. Bainbridge Island - 77.79%
7. Langley - 77.74%
8. Wapato - 75.32%
9. Toppenish - 75.08%
10. Lake Forest Park - 74.32%

McCain
1. Lamont* - 82.24%
2. Hartline - 74.70%
3. Starbuck - 74.68%
4. Mansfield - 73.41%
5. St. John* - 73.22%
6. LaCrosse* - 72.59%
7. Washtucna - 72.41%
8. Waverly - 72.41%
9. Lind - 72.09%
10. Lynden - 71.47%

Lowest Percentage of Vote
Obama
1. Lamont* - 14.02%
2. Starbuck - 22.78%
3. St. John* - 24.05%
4. Waverly - 24.14%
5. Mansfield - 24.28%
6. LaCrosse* - 24.61%
7. Hartline - 25.30%
8. Washtucna - 25.86%
9. Lind - 26.36%
10. Krupp - 26.67%

McCain
1. Seattle - 13.87%
2. Nespelem - 15.87%
3. Port Townsend - 17.55%
4. Index - 19.80%
5. Langley - 20.25%
6. Mabton - 20.54%
7. Bainbridge Island - 20.78%
8. Wapato - 22.63%
9. Toppenish - 23.65%
10. Lake Forest Park - 24.42%

Bigget Vote Margin
Obama
1. Seattle - +233,680
2. Tacoma - +27,695
3. Bellingham - +18,989
4. Bellevue - +16,693
5. Shoreline - +13,711
6. Olympia - +12,344
7. Vancouver - +12,000**
8. Spokane - +11,319
9. Renton - +11,277
10. Everett - +10,648

McCain
1. Kennewick - +6,961
2. Richland - +4,959
3. Lynden - +2,909
4. Spokane Valley - +2,859
5. West Richland - +1,886
6. Pasco - +1,562
7. Moses Lake - +1,359
8. Oak Harbor - +1,000
9. Yakima - +998
10. Wenatchee - +897

Bigget Percent Margin
Obama
1. Seattle - +70.80%
2. Nespelem - +63.49%
3. Port Townsend - +62.94%
4. Index - +59.41%
5. Mabton - +58.25%
6. Langley - +57.48%
7. Bainbridge Island - +57.01%
8. Wapato - +52.69%
9. Toppenish - +51.43%
10. Lake Forest Park - +51.43%

McCain
1. Lamont* - +68.22%
2. Starbuck - +51.90%
3. Hartline - +49.40%
4. St. John* - +49.17%
5. Mansfield - +49.13%
6. Waverly - +48.28%
7. LaCrosse* - +47.98%
8. Washtucna - +46.55%
9. Lind - +45.74%
10. Lynden - +44.74%

Biggest Swing
Obama
1. Riverside - +42.37%
2. Rock Island - +34.66%
3. Quincy - +29.97%
4. Creston - +29.80%
5. Hatton - +29.08%
6. Warden - +27.39%
7. Winlock - +26.66%
8. North Bonneville - +26.46%
9. George - +26.44%
10. Toppenish - +26.05%

McCain
1. Starbuck - +31.90%
2. Malden* - +15.41%
3. Krupp - +14.19%
4. Hartline - +13.03%
5. Wilkeson - +6.75%
6. Sprague - +5.91%
7. Metaline Falls* - +4.46%
8. Vader - +4.38%
9. Ilwaco - +3.83%
10. Lind - +2.63%

Governor
Highest Percentage of Vote
Gregoire
1. Nespelem - 92.06%
2. Seattle - 80.21%
3. Port Townsend - 78.85%
4. Langley - 76.20%
5. Index - 73.27%
6. Olympia - 72.45%
7. Bainbridge Island - 72.21%
8. Mabton - 71.38%
9. Bellingham - 69.82%
10. Lake Forest Park - 68.64%

Rossi
1. Lamont* - 80.95%
2. LaCrosse* - 79.81%
3. Mansfield - 77.91%
4. Lynden - 76.57%
5. Endicott* - 75.37%
6. Napavine - 74.82%
7. Prescott - 74.79%
8. Waverly - 74.14%
9. St. John* - 73.60%
10. West Richland - 73.56%

Bigget Margin
Gregoire
1. Seattle - +196,007
2. Tacoma - +20,132
3. Bellingham - +15,305
4. Olympia - +11,298
5. Shoreline - +10,261
6. Spokane - +7,615
7. Vancouver - +7,100**
8. Bellevue - +6,974
9. Bainbridge Island - +6,908
10. Renton - +6,704

Rossi
1. Kennewick - +10,328
2. Richland - +8,609
3. Yakima - +4,193
4. Spokane Valley - +3,512
5. Lynden - +3,437
6. Pasco - +3,320
7. West Richland - +2,622
8. Wenatchee - +2,381
9. Moses Lake - +1,720
10. Sammamish - +1,289

---

* - Split.
** - Estimated, due to splits.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 11, 2008, 01:56:46 pm
Among places that cast 1,000 or more votes:

Highest Percentage of Vote
Obama
1. Seattle - 84.67%
2. Port Townsend - 80.49%
3. Bainbridge Island - 77.79%
4. Toppenish - 75.08%
5. Lake Forest Park - 74.32%
6. Shoreline - 73.24%
7. Bellingham - 73.22%
8. Olympia - 73.21%
9. Tukwila - 71.62%
10. Mountlake Terrace - 68.95%

McCain
1. Lynden - 71.47%
2. West Richland - 65.83%
3. Colfax - 64.33%
4. Kennewick - 62.22%
5. Dayton - 61.35%
6. Moses Lake - 59.69%
7. Liberty Lake - 59.64%
8. Ephrata - 59.58%
9. Richland - 59.53%
10. Selah - 59.02%

Lowest Percentage of Vote
Obama
1. Lynden - 26.73%
2. West Richland - 32.11%
3. Colfax - 33.56%
4. Kennewick - 36.14%
5. Dayton - 36.50%
6. Moses Lake - 37.78%
7. Ephrata - 38.13%
8. Liberty Lake - 38.56%
9. Richland - 38.70%
10. Deer Park - 38.79%

McCain
1. Seattle - 13.87%
2. Port Townsend - 17.55%
3. Bainbridge Island - 20.78%
4. Toppenish - 23.65%
5. Lake Forest Park - 24.42%
6. Olympia - 24.64%
7. Bellingham - 24.85%
8. Shoreline - 25.18%
9. Tukwila - 26.51%
10. Mountlake Terrace - 29.11%

Biggest Percent Margin
Obama
1. Seattle - +70.80%
2. Port Townsend - +62.94%
3. Bainbridge Island - +57.01%
4. Toppenish - +51.43%
5. Lake Forest Park - +49.90%
6. Olympia - +48.58%
7. Bellingham - +48.36%
8. Shoreline - +48.06%
9. Tukwila - +45.11%
10. Mountlake Terrace - +39.84%

McCain
1. Lynden - +44.74%
2. West Richland - +33.72%
3. Colfax - +30.77%
4. Dayton - +24.85%
5. Moses Lake - +21.91%
6. Ephrata - +21.45%
7. Liberty Lake - +21.08%
8. Richland - +20.82%
9. Selah - +20.22%
10. College Place - +19.75%

Biggest Swing
Obama
1. Quincy - +29.97%
2. Toppenish - +26.05%
3. Airway Heights - +24.56%
4. Forks - +23.77%
5. Sammamish - +20.87%
6. White Salmon - +20.86%
7. Cashmere - +18.07%
8. Cheney - +18.06%
9. Oak Harbor - +17.95%
10. Mill Creek - +17.79%

McCain
1. Sequim - -2.97%
2. Kalama - -3.40%
3. Ridgefield - -3.45%
4. Kelso - -3.81%
5. Black Diamond - -4.80%
6. Ocean Shores - -4.91%
7. Edgewood - -4.97%
8. Sumner - -5.73%
9. Milton - -5.81%
10. Auburn - -5.98%

Note: Those are all minus signs, that is, every municipality casting more than 1,000 votes swung to Obama.

Governor
Highest Percentage of Vote
Gregoire
1. Seattle - 80.21%
2. Port Townsend - 78.85%
3. Olympia - 72.45%
4. Bainbridge Island - 72.21%
5. Bellingham - 69.82%
6. Lake Forest Park - 68.64%
7. Tukwila - 68.60%
8. Shoreline - 68.22%
9. Toppenish - 65.48%
10. Friday Harbor - 64.15%

Rossi
1. Lynden - 76.57%
2. West Richland - 73.56%
3. Kennewick - 69.42%
4. Richland - 68.17%
5. Colfax - 66.83%
6. Ephrata - 64.97%
7. Selah - 64.81%
8. Othello - 64.81%
9. Prosser - 64.79%
10. East Wenatchee - 64.20%**

---

** - Estimated due to splits.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 11, 2008, 03:11:46 pm
I want Governor swings!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 11, 2008, 03:54:21 pm
Whatcom would be so much cooler without Lynden. :(


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 11, 2008, 04:38:39 pm
In a an early Christmas miracle, Jason Osgood has dropped out of the King County Director of Elections race and thrown his support behind Sherril Huff (the current Director by appointment). No one else has filed and there's been no peep from the Roach camp or anyone else. Filing closes tomorrow afternoon.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Daniel Z on December 11, 2008, 07:17:45 pm
The results from the non-Dutch areas of Whatcom look good.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 11, 2008, 09:03:47 pm
Roach filed. Damn.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 12, 2008, 04:49:11 am
Looking at Alcon's spreadsheet, is anyone else surprised by how well Gregoire did in the 5th CD and LD?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 12, 2008, 06:15:49 am
Looking at Alcon's spreadsheet, is anyone else surprised by how well Gregoire did in the 5th CD and LD?

Eh, Rossi only narrowly won Spokane County--which has almost 450,000 people, I think---meaning it makes up a pretty good majority of the 5th congressional district. It's easy to forget how Spokane-dominated the 5th CD is because of its large land area. The rest of the district is pretty sparsely populated, save for Pullman and Walla Walla.

As for the 5th LD... maybe a little, but I do live here. :P The GOP implosion on the Eastside was going to reach this area eventually. Plus, the August primary was actually a decent indicator of how areas were going to vote in November.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 12, 2008, 06:42:17 pm
LOL - David Irons filed for Elections Director. So much for the Republicans winning.

Also some guy named Bill Anderson filed. Anyone have any idea who he is?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 12, 2008, 11:57:07 pm
LOL - David Irons filed for Elections Director. So much for the Republicans winning.

Also some guy named Bill Anderson filed. Anyone have any idea who he is?

I think it's the same Bill Anderson who posts on Sound Politics, and maybe the one who used to be on charter review board.  He also apparently lost a Maine Coon (http://www.flealess.org/lostpets/archives/washington/washington_2004.html).

Probably not an especially serious candidate.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on December 13, 2008, 10:20:46 am
I posted a link to your presidential spreadsheet over at SSP; they seem to like it. (http://swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4145)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 13, 2008, 05:47:10 pm
Two more candidates filed: Chris Clifford, a bitter community activist who is convinced that Sherril Huff is a fraudulent criminal, and Julie Kempf, who got fired from the job in 2002 and got in the race because "she was threatened by political opponents who didn’t want her to run."

This is a pretty easy decision for me. To quote Dwight Pelz:

Quote
“Sherril Huff isn’t the Democratic candidate in this race, she’s the competent candidate in this race.”


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 13, 2008, 05:50:34 pm
Stupid question: Doesn't Sherril Huff live in Bremerton?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 13, 2008, 05:56:32 pm
Stupid question: Doesn't Sherril Huff live in Bremerton?

She's renting a house in Seattle as of last week.

A little self-serving, but considering the alternative candidates...


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 16, 2008, 04:02:40 am
Ron Sims is allegedly being vetted for a DC job. Expect a free-for-all of monumental proportions if he leaves.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on December 16, 2008, 04:25:17 am
Early prediction if King County Executive opens up: Larry Philips


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 18, 2008, 02:25:44 pm
48 hours since the last reply, we can't let that happen!

Franklin:

(
Img
) (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/franklin_new.png)

(
Img
) (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/franklin_old.png)

Obama improved enough to avoid the five R>90s Bush got in '04, inducing a 135-7 slaughter.  North Franklin is the most GOP part of the state.

I think I should be able to do Thurston today, too, which happily coincides with my getting ahold of a privacy-unprotected results file they accidentally made public.  Apparently when they put a "NOT PUBLIC!" tab in their Excel sheet, they were hoping we'd go on the honors system.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 18, 2008, 07:13:27 pm
Apparently when they put a "NOT PUBLIC!" tab in their Excel sheet, they were hoping we'd go on the honors system.

Morons


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Smid on December 18, 2008, 10:17:54 pm
Stupid question: Doesn't Sherril Huff live in Bremerton?

More importantly, doesn't MxPx come from Bremerton?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 18, 2008, 10:19:23 pm
Stupid question: Doesn't Sherril Huff live in Bremerton?

More importantly, doesn't MxPx come from Bremerton?

Are those really different questions?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on December 18, 2008, 11:10:54 pm
Apparently when they put a "NOT PUBLIC!" tab in their Excel sheet, they were hoping we'd go on the honors system.

Morons

Oh, I do love my county government. The moment you put a D next to your name is the moment you get elected.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 19, 2008, 12:42:32 am
Apparently when they put a "NOT PUBLIC!" tab in their Excel sheet, they were hoping we'd go on the honors system.

Morons

Oh, I do love my county government. The moment you put a D next to your name is the moment you get elected.

Which is pretty weird, since Thurston seems to have a huge thing for well-liked incumbent state Republicans.  Must be all the government employees...

Then again once they get in it's real damn hard to get rid of them :P


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 19, 2008, 12:43:49 am
What percent of Thurston County residents are state employees?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 19, 2008, 12:54:10 am
What percent of Thurston County residents are state employees?

About a third are government employees of some sort (state being a much higher composition than in most counties), although obviously secondhand political information is probably better all-around there.

But McKenna broke 60% in a walk, and Sutherland carried it by 7%.  So it's a little more than Sam Reed having been County Auditor there before he became SoS.

I've never really understood it, it seems a pretty extreme effect relative to the number of state employees.  It also doesn't seem to always come up unless it's a well-known incumbent (McIntire +2).


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 21, 2008, 01:28:15 pm
Spent the last couple of hours salivating in front of this thread...

Where's the Grays Harbor map though? >:( ;)

Oh, and could you tell me how the Spokane Reservation votes? :)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 21, 2008, 01:53:25 pm
Oh, and could you tell me how the Spokane Reservation votes? :)

Wellpinit was 80-19 Obama, up from 72-27 Kerry -- not one of the reservation areas where Obama declined, of which there were surprisingly many in WA (latent Clinton support?)

There's a lot more land that's on the rez, but that's really the only Indian precinct.  They (shock of shocks) don't vote much.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 21, 2008, 02:13:10 pm
There's a lot more land that's on the rez, but that's really the only Indian precinct.  They (shock of shocks) don't vote much.
Shock!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 21, 2008, 02:49:39 pm
What's with this Wilkeson place?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 21, 2008, 03:19:43 pm
:D Pierce County has secured itself as being the most analyzed county in the history of the Atlas.

Anyways, the massive Obama love on the bases still confuses me a bit. Did we ever check if something similar occurred on other bases around the country?

Also, what's the difference between Steilacoom and Steilacoom Heights? 451 and 452 vs. 453 and 464?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 21, 2008, 04:51:45 pm
Guest      01:47:28 pm     Printing the topic "Washington '08: What the hell just happened?".

We're famous!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 21, 2008, 10:54:46 pm
:D Pierce County has secured itself as being the most analyzed county in the history of the Atlas.

Anyways, the massive Obama love on the bases still confuses me a bit. Did we ever check if something similar occurred on other bases around the country?

Also, what's the difference between Steilacoom and Steilacoom Heights? 451 and 452 vs. 453 and 464?

I think (not at home) it's 451-3 vs. 464.  451-3 (IIRC) are Steilacoom city (split), 464 is totally unincorporated.  I had nowhere else to put it

The same sorts of swings happened at Fairchild in Spokane County, and Trident Naval Base near Bremerton (where the swing was something crazy, like nearly 30 points).  I get the impression it was pretty much universal.

I know essentially nothing about Wilkeson, maybe Meeker does, I've never been there.  It's by Carbonado (which barely swung Obama) and the two rural precincts around Wilkeson/Carbonado were both unchanged or barely McCain swings, I think.  Odd area (especially since Carbonado votes so drastically different from Wilkeson)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on December 21, 2008, 11:39:36 pm
I've never been to Wilkeson. Anything east of Bonney Lake is dead to me - even Orting is pushing it.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 22, 2008, 03:00:54 am
I've been to Bonney Lake, and that's in fact why it's dead to me

I just noticed now that Bremerton 109 is actually a military precinct too -- Jackson Park Naval Reservation, which houses family members stationed at Naval Base Kitsap.

Bush carried it 63%-36%; Obama won it 53%-43%, for an overall swing of 37.58%.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 22, 2008, 01:00:18 pm
Still no Grays Harbor map.

Oh come on. Do it for Kurt Cobain.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 22, 2008, 02:11:08 pm
Thanks!


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on December 27, 2008, 02:55:30 am
So, Alcon, did you end up getting Thurston county?
;)


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 27, 2008, 03:02:19 am
So, Alcon, did you end up getting Thurston county?
;)

Never sent it, and they're away for the holidays.

I just sent an email to bug a friend for it, we'll see.  Sorry about the delay.  I promise you'll get one in the end.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 27, 2008, 09:01:13 am
Re GH... the thing in the nw is a rez of course (what's it called again, Quinault?) but shouldn't there be a rez in the se corner as well (Chehalis)?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 27, 2008, 02:33:10 pm
Re GH... the thing in the nw is a rez of course (what's it called again, Quinault?) but shouldn't there be a rez in the se corner as well (Chehalis)?

Yeah, which means that the reservation there (a small one granted) has awful turnout, or the rural area around Oakville is quite conservative other than the Indians.  Probably a bit of both.  Blockhouse (the rural Oakville precinct) was Obama +3, while Oakville was only Obama +4.  In 2004, they were were Bush +16 and Bush +5, respectively.  But the rez area is only a few hundred, and the precinct is about 700.

I doubt they're unusually Republican for Indians or anything, I just think they don't make much of a dent in their precinct.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on December 28, 2008, 10:30:02 am
Wait... which one was Bush by 16?


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on December 28, 2008, 02:36:07 pm
Wait... which one was Bush by 16?

Blockhouse -> Bush +16 to Obama +3
Oakville city -> Bush +5 to Obama +4

Thurston shapefile from my friend is for 2004 (maybe I'll make a 2004 map!) and I'll have to re-contact the county Monday.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: CultureKing on December 29, 2008, 08:46:17 pm
wow. Obama won an impressively large amount of the rural vote. Can anyone guess where Evergreen is?
;)


Thanks Alcon.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on January 02, 2009, 03:31:08 am
Well, this is one of my rare total and complete F-ups.  I've been including a massive portion of unincorporated Spokane County as the City of Spokane.

The corrected total for Spokane is:

2004 President: Kerry 50.6%, Bush 47.6% (so it did vote Kerry after all)
2008 President: Obama 56.3%, McCain 41.3%
2008 Governor: Gregoire 55.9%, Rossi 44.1%

The 2004 polling places being named stuff like "FD 4 Sta 44 - Newport Highway" and "Airway Heights Community Center" should have probably been a hint.  I apologize for sucking so much. 


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Alcon on January 03, 2009, 02:00:08 am
Since no news is actually happening, random tinkering with returns from Washington state military bases.

In total, 4,230 ballots were cast in military base precincts, up from 4,204 in 2004.

Army
2004: 1,549 ballots; 59-40 Bush
2008: 1,802 ballots; 50-48 Obama
16% turnout increase, Obama swing 21.8%

Air Force
2004: 1,239 ballots; 75-23 Bush
2008: 1,057 ballots; 63-35 McCain
15% turnout decrease, Obama swing 24.0%

Navy
2004: 1,416 ballots; 74-25 Bush
2008: 1,371 ballots; 55-44 McCain
3% turnout decrease, Obama swing 38.1%

So, while McCain bled horribly among all sorts of military voters vs. Bush, his worst losses appear easily to be among Navy voters -- the very branch of service in which he and John Kerry served.  Hah.

Individual base information (2004 results in parentheses, turnout in brackets, Dem swing in red):

Fort Lewis AB (Tacoma): 50-48 Obama (40-59) [+16%] +21.8%

Fairchild AFB (Spokane): 65-34 McCain (21-77) [-10%] +26.0%
McChord AFB (Tacoma): 61-37 McCain (27-72) [-20%] +21.6%

Jackson Park NR (Bremerton): 53-43 Obama (36-63) [-4%] +37.6%
Trident NB (Silverdale): 58-41 McCain (23-76) [-5%] +34.4%
Whidbey NAB (Oak Harbor): 56-42 McCain (22-78) [-2%] +43.0%

OK, now someone think of news that is actually news


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: Meeker on January 03, 2009, 03:14:55 am
Washington State Legislature news!

Rep. Steve Hailey (R-Mesa) died last week. His death will trigger a special election this November (and an appointment sometime in the next few months). Democrats have no shot at the seat.

Rep. Bill Grant (D-Walla Walla) announced a while ago that he has terminal cancer. His condition is worse than the press is letting on, and he'll likely die within the next few months. The local Democratic Party will get to appoint any possible replacement, but I'm skeptical that the Democrats are going to be able to hold this seat with anybody other than Grant. "Skeptical" is probably the wrong word considering McCain won the district by 21 points and Rossi by 30. I'd probably be better off with "99.99999% certain." Grant is the only Democrat east of the Cascades who doesn't represent Spokane County.

Rep. Brendan Williams (D-Olympia) has joined AFSCME's lawsuit against Governor Gregoire relating to collective bargaining negotiations not included in the new state budget (apparently the unions would rather have their members fired than the remaining ones not get a 2.2% pay increase. Who knew?). Williams has been acting up more so than usual as of late. He's always been a thorn in the side of Speaker Frank Chopp (D-Seattle), particularly on the every contentious Homeowner's Bill of Rights, but the attention whoring is really getting out of hand. What's odd about this is that Williams announced earlier this year that he plans on retiring from the Legislature after his term ends in 2011. Why is he trying to increase his profile and liberal credentials when he's leaving? There's no place else for him to go besides House leadership - the Senate seat is secure (and leaving the House for a while wouldn't help him win it), there's no way in hell he'd beat Baird in a primary challenge nor would he be able to win it as an open seat, and the thought of him running for statewide office is even more laughable.

Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-Seattle) has all but announced that she'll be running for King County Council this year. Dickerson probably won't resign from the Legislature until after she gets sworn in at her new job though, so don't expect a special election here.

Sen. Pam Roach (R-19th Century) is continuing her quest for the position of King County Director of Elections. One can only pray that she'll be spending less time in Olympia in order to campaign, and that she'll resign her Senate seat out of anger when she loses in February. Prayer, however, has not been successful in past attempts to rid the state government of Roach.

Do you feel better after reading this? You shouldn't - I just wasted five minutes of your life. Sucker.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: bgwah on January 03, 2009, 03:21:35 am
Aww, too bad about Grant.

Would've been interesting to see him as a statewide D candidate.

I'm sure the Democrats could find a good candidate for that seat. One that would at least have a chance come 2010. But they'll make the worst possible choice, of course.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: NOVA Green on January 03, 2009, 04:02:59 am
Since no news is actually happening, random tinkering with returns from Washington state military bases.

In total, 4,230 ballots were cast in military base precincts, up from 4,204 in 2004.

Army
2004: 1,549 ballots; 59-40 Bush
2008: 1,802 ballots; 50-48 Obama
16% turnout increase, Obama swing 21.8%

Air Force
2004: 1,239 ballots; 75-23 Bush
2008: 1,057 ballots; 63-35 McCain
15% turnout decrease, Obama swing 24.0%

Navy
2004: 1,416 ballots; 74-25 Bush
2008: 1,371 ballots; 55-44 McCain
3% turnout decrease, Obama swing 38.1%

So, while McCain bled horribly among all sorts of military voters vs. Bush, his worst losses appear easily to be among Navy voters -- the very branch of service in which he and John Kerry served.  Hah.

Individual base information (2004 results in parentheses, turnout in brackets, Dem swing in red):

Fort Lewis AB (Tacoma): 50-48 Obama (40-59) [+16%] +21.8%

Fairchild AFB (Spokane): 65-34 McCain (21-77) [-10%] +26.0%
McChord AFB (Tacoma): 61-37 McCain (27-72) [-20%] +21.6%

Jackson Park NR (Bremerton): 53-43 Obama (36-63) [-4%] +37.6%
Trident NB (Silverdale): 58-41 McCain (23-76) [-5%] +34.4%
Whidbey NAB (Oak Harbor): 56-42 McCain (22-78) [-2%] +43.0%

OK, now someone think of news that is actually news

Thank you Alcon!

It doesn't surprise me too much that the Navy has swung the most, although I would be interested to see base precinct numbers from the Marines in Camp Pendleton and Fort Bragg between '04 and '08 to get a greater idea of the military swing between branches...

Any ideas of how to construct a more complete "base precinct" analysis? Just wondering if anyone else is covering precincts in other military communities or has access to data that others could filter through?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 03, 2009, 04:31:54 am
Also of note is that both special elections in the East will occur in 2009, and that means they'll be dealing with the lower turnout/slightly more conservative off-year electorate.

I don't think it's ever been mentioned, but gadfly candidate Brad Klippert actually got elected to the State House this year. Silly Yakima.

And I also changed the thread title to reflect the times.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 03, 2009, 06:02:50 am
Speak for yourself.  I got a $150 VISA giftcard for Christmas and I'm hiding it so the state legislature and axed WaMu employees can't get to it.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 03, 2009, 06:53:03 am
The Department of Revenue will happily take the $13.20 that is owed to them once you eventually spend it :D



Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on January 03, 2009, 07:57:33 am
Here is some news from Olympia: All the state workers are scared sh**tless!

As the new budget gets debated and is finally hammered out the state workers have gone almost into a frenzy. The number who will be laid off will be huge and until the budget is finalized no one is safe... I am just happy that my parents (both of whom work for the state) have other avenues of work available. But for Thurston county as a whole 2009 will very likely be a very bad year.


Title: Re: Washington '08: What the hell just happened?
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on January 03, 2009, 08:50:27 am
Since no news is actually happening, random tinkering with returns from Washington state military bases.

In total, 4,230 ballots were cast in military base precincts, up from 4,204 in 2004.

Army
2004: 1,549 ballots; 59-40 Bush
2008: 1,802 ballots; 50-48 Obama
16% turnout increase, Obama swing 21.8%

Air Force
2004: 1,239 ballots; 75-23 Bush
2008: 1,057 ballots; 63-35 McCain
15% turnout decrease, Obama swing 24.0%

Navy
2004: 1,416 ballots; 74-25 Bush
2008: 1,371 ballots; 55-44 McCain
3% turnout decrease, Obama swing 38.1%

So, while McCain bled horribly among all sorts of military voters vs. Bush, his worst losses appear easily to be among Navy voters -- the very branch of service in which he and John Kerry served.  Hah.

Individual base information (2004 results in parentheses, turnout in brackets, Dem swing in red):

Fort Lewis AB (Tacoma): 50-48 Obama (40-59) [+16%] +21.8%

Fairchild AFB (Spokane): 65-34 McCain (21-77) [-10%] +26.0%
McChord AFB (Tacoma): 61-37 McCain (27-72) [-20%] +21.6%

Jackson Park NR (Bremerton): 53-43 Obama (36-63) [-4%] +37.6%
Trident NB (Silverdale): 58-41 McCain (23-76) [-5%] +34.4%
Whidbey NAB (Oak Harbor): 56-42 McCain (22-78) [-2%] +43.0%

OK, now someone think of news that is actually news

For comparison: Alaska bases.

First the big bases:
Fort Wainwright (army, just outside of Fairbanks)
2004 1244 votes cast, 817 R, 411 D
2008 522 votes cast, 338 R, 176 D
Swing (just for lolz given the change in turnout/postal ballot utilitation) 1.6 to D

Fort Richardson (army, just outside of, and technically within, Anchorage)
2004 821 votes cast, 517 R, 295 D
2008 411 votes cast, 281 R, 123 D
Swing 9.0 to R (lol)

Eielson (Air Force, a little further outside of Fairbanks)
2004 1262 votes cast, 1058 R, 190 D
2008 641 votes cast, 497 R, 137 D
Swing 12.6 to D

Elmendorf (right next door to Fort Richardson)
2004 1106 votes cast, 897 R, 201 D
2008 1340 votes cast (what happened?), 990 R, 329 D
Swing 13.6 to D

now the tiny ones
Fort Greely (specialist army installation for arctic conditions training - it's at one of the coldest locations in the entire US. Semi-sorta-closed down. A little further out of Fairbanks than Eielson. Seems to be included in Delta Junction precinct, for which results below. Note that bulk of precinct population is not on-base.)
2004 348 votes cast, 278 R, 54 D
2008 348 votes cast, 286 R, 54 D
Swing 2.3 to R

Clear (Air Force. Missile launch site, really. Also near Fairbanks but towards the southwest rather than southeast. Precinct also called Clear, but includes territory outside of base. Not sure how many residents outside the base it includes, or even whether there are any - I think there are some, though.)
2004 89 votes cast, 59 R, 25 D
2008 81 votes cast, 59 R, 17 D
Swing 13.7 to R

Eareckson (Air Force. Not a separate base anymore, but an outlying bit of Eielson, and the last remaining military installation in the Aleutians. A radar station, really, with 27 residents as of Census 2000. Identical to Shemya Island. Included in Aleutians #1 precinct, whose polling booth is on Atka Island 12 degrees of latitude to the east. Obviously then, anybody interested in voting actually votes by mail.)
2004 32 votes cast, 16 R, 14 D
2008 44 votes cast, 22 D, 21 R
Swing 8.5 to D.



Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 05, 2009, 12:58:43 am
Bill Grant died yesterday morning.  RIP, by all accounts a good man.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 01:12:15 am
Very sad news. Grant has been a leader in the Legislature for more than two decades.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 10:29:00 pm
If these rumors about Gregoire and the Commerce Secretary turn out to be true then I will seriously consider killing myself out of disgust and depression.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 10:32:00 pm
Stranger interview with Gregoire spokeswoman:

Quote
Q: Is Governor Gregoire going to be Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary?

A: “We’re not able to speak to that so we’ll do a release in the morning.”

Q: Where is she?

A: “She’s out of state.”

Q: Is she in the country?

A: "I’m not allowed to say.”

Q: Is she going to continue as Governor of Washington State?

A: "I’m not allowed to say.”

WHYYY!?!?!?! >:(


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2009, 10:35:12 pm
She would be an odd choice for Commerce Secretary...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 10:37:27 pm
The other position she might be pursuing is Number 2 at the Justice Department or something.

For the record, Lt. Governor Brad Owen does not have a bachelor's degree.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2009, 10:38:52 pm
I've always had a feeling Owen has just been holding on to that seat for as long as possible and hoping that something would eventually happen. Much easier than getting directly elected, I suppose...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on January 05, 2009, 10:47:30 pm
but Owen is not very... intelligent.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 10:49:15 pm
The whole DC trip could just be to announce the stimulus for state budgets that she's been trying to get. Doesn't fully explain why she'd be so secretive and why her staff wouldn't confirm that she'd still be Governor. Maybe just to build up hype.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 11:01:27 pm
August 2009 Primary results:

Rossi: 26%
McKenna: 23%
Sonntag: 21%
Inslee: 17%
Owen: 14%

Top-two! Top-two!

I need alcohol...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Dr. RI on January 05, 2009, 11:11:44 pm
August 2009 Primary results:

Rossi: 26%
McKenna: 23%
Sonntag: 21%
Inslee: 17%
Owen: 14%

Top-two! Top-two!

I need alcohol...

Well, at least Rossi would lose in a landslide...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 11:13:34 pm
Actually, thinking about it a bit more, I suspect Owen would choose to just run for Lt. Governor again. Unless this has been some sort of secret desire of his for a while. I've never really gotten that impression though.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Daniel Z on January 05, 2009, 11:17:00 pm
The next Dixie Lee?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 05, 2009, 11:18:03 pm
August 2009 Primary results:

Rossi: 26%
McKenna: 23%
Sonntag: 21%
Inslee: 17%
Owen: 14%

Top-two! Top-two!

I need alcohol...

49% Republican in a primary? Really? I doubt that.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 05, 2009, 11:19:47 pm
August 2009 Primary results:

Rossi: 26%
McKenna: 23%
Sonntag: 21%
Inslee: 17%
Owen: 14%

Top-two! Top-two!

I need alcohol...

49% Republican in a primary? Really? I doubt that.


Perhaps not, but throw in one or two more Democrats who draw 3 or 4% of the vote...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 06, 2009, 12:31:59 am
Atlantic says it's not true:

Quote
Washington State political blogs are buzzing about a rumor that Gov. Christine Gregoire is headed to Washington to replace Bill Richardson as Barack Obama's Secretary of Commerce.

I'm not sure why Gregoire is going to Washington, but Obama aides say Gregoire is not a candidate for commerce.

This rumor is: FALSE.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 06, 2009, 12:38:46 am
Dwight Pelz also says that she isn't headed to Commerce.

I'm 90% sure at this point it's something about the stimulus.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 06, 2009, 01:48:39 am
This was a pretty brilliant media roll out by Gregoire's people. Every local blog and newspaper site has been buzzing with this, the local newscasts and radio broadcasts are leading with it, and it'll get stories in Tuesday's and Wednesday's paper. Not to mention the limited national attention it's been getting as well.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on January 06, 2009, 02:18:59 am
I feel like it is going to be the release of the stimulus package tied to the viaduct as part of the infrastructure piece of the "new", new deal.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on January 06, 2009, 03:51:00 am
I feel like it is going to be the release of the stimulus package tied to the viaduct as part of the infrastructure piece of the "new", new deal.

I suspect this to be the case as well.  Gregoire, Nickels and Sims delayed their decision AGAIN on the Alaska Way Viaduct until early 2009, which makes me speculate they are holding out for federal funding.  This is especially possible since Patty Murray chairs the Appropriations subcommittee funding the Dept. of Transportation.  Perhaps she and President-elect Obama will deliver manna from heaven for the viaduct.

After the Democrats won back the Congress in 2006, Mayor Nickels asked Sen. Murray for $10 BILLION dollars for the viaduct ($1 billion per year for 10 years).  LOL.  Not even Robert Byrd could get that kind of money -- at least not under President Bush.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 06, 2009, 10:34:48 am
She's just going to Iraq. Nothing to see here, kids; move along...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 06, 2009, 10:39:54 am
Why did she have to scare us like that? I was having Owenmares all night.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 06, 2009, 12:13:20 pm
Staff is saying the DOD wouldn't let them tell. I'm suspicious.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 07, 2009, 07:35:29 am
I didn't realize that Adam Smith's opponent was this crazy:

Quote
The only issue left over from the election is Barack Obama's citizenship. He has not proved that he is eligible for President. Many court cases are pending and third parties are pushing the issue. The Republican Party should have required the proof before the Democratic Convention instead of leaving it to third parties.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 07, 2009, 03:52:25 pm
Postma is actually the sort of candidate that I'm surprised didn't cause a small embarrassment for the GOP.  He isn't super-crazy, but he's one of those people who is convinced that reality is about 3 points further to the political right than it actually is.

I've head that he called Smith "capable" in public and privately said he suspected Smith had "communist leanings," lol.

I think the WAGOP's criteria this year was mostly "non-Paulite."


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 10, 2009, 04:31:16 pm
Anyone else sad about the news regarding the P-I? A chill goes down my spine every time I remember the Blethen Times will be all that's left.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 11, 2009, 05:09:22 pm
So...Sergio Armijo's kid, and some Broadway shop owners, say that Mike Hecht cruises underaged male prostitutes down by Club Silverstone.

Discuss!

http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/591174.html

(I like how the article says that Antique Row is known for prostitution, as if it wasn't all Club Silverstone.  Hot, sexy WWI-era lamps, anyone?)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 11, 2009, 05:12:59 pm
Michael Hecht? Michael Hecht? What kind of a sick joke is this? I suppose that there's "something of the night about him"?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 12, 2009, 12:03:42 am
LOL

I knew there was something weird about Hecht. Then again, the Armijo/Hecht grudge is the dirtiest feud in Pierce County...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on January 13, 2009, 02:36:53 pm
I love local politics


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 13, 2009, 08:18:25 pm
I was just thinking, for all the unending corruption in Tacoma, this is the only pure, consenting sex scandal I can remember.

weird.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 13, 2009, 09:58:51 pm
We're not too big on the sexual scandals. Or at least we're not public about them.

Anyways, the slime on the Pierce County Council has just picked Jan "Carbuncles" Shabro to be the next Auditor. I look forward to Katie Blinn crushing her this fall and delivering Shabro her third electoral defeat in four years. Maybe then she'll crawl back under her rock.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 14, 2009, 08:31:35 pm
We're not too big on the sexual scandals. Or at least we're not public about them.

Or maybe what they say (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/gritcity/?title=tacoma_sex&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) really is true.

Anyways, the slime on the Pierce County Council has just picked Jan "Carbuncles" Shabro to be the next Auditor. I look forward to Katie Blinn crushing her this fall and delivering Shabro her third electoral defeat in four years. Maybe then she'll crawl back under her rock.

Is there any guarantee that she would crush Shabro, though?  Shabro has the name recognition...

Anyway, I thought this (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/01/14/for_brian_sonntag_the_campaign_never_end) little anecdote sums up the next Gubernatorial race well (and, coincidentally, my opinions on Brian Sonntag and Brad Owen):

Quote
Sure, a swearing in ceremony is supposed to be serious. After all, most of these folks spent a lot of money to win these offices.

But Lt. Gov. Brad Owen felt the need to speed things along and lighten then up after Brian Sonntag took the oath for his fifth term as state Auditor. Unlike previous office holders who shook the hands of a few of the dignitaries on the rostrum in the House Chambers, Sonntag shook every single hand.

Owen started tapping his finger on the podium and then started humming the theme from Jeopardy. You know, the music that plays while contestants are trying to find the answer to Final Jeopardy.

Sonntag finally made it back to his seat and said in a stage whisper, "Hey, they're all voters."

As for Owen, I still most definitely don't regret voting for the Jewish lady who liked the gays.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 14, 2009, 08:35:41 pm
Sonntag '12

Too bad he's too old to serve as Governor for five terms :)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 14, 2009, 10:28:10 pm
Is there any guarantee that she would crush Shabro, though?  Shabro has the name recognition...

Shabro has name recognition out in the East, but the voters of this county are pretty good at figuring out who is the most qualified candidate in non-partisan races.

Wait... they just elected Washam.

Hmmm.

Shit.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 15, 2009, 08:29:33 am
McIntire, Dorn and Goldmark have all taken office now. Apparently Goldmark is the first CPL from east of the Cascades.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 15, 2009, 11:18:48 pm
McIntire, Dorn and Goldmark have all taken office now. Apparently Goldmark is the first CPL from east of the Cascades.

Politicians from Eastern Washington making it statewide is pretty rare. Eastern Washingtonian Democrats are generally pretty good candidates, though--I doubt Goldmark would have won if he were from King County (but otherwise the same), for example.

Pierce County Democrats are another winning strategy, based on my observations...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 16, 2009, 02:00:20 am
Word on the street is that the Chairman of the Pierce County Republican Party is about to become Deputy Auditor.

gag


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 20, 2009, 01:20:04 am
Voting has begun in the King County Elections Director race. If you're a person of faith, prayers for a non-Pam Roach outcome would be appreciated.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 21, 2009, 02:42:10 am
Summary of Sam Reed's top-two reform:

Quote
Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed has written a proposed bill that clarifies some problems with the existing “top-two” primary system. The bill defines a qualified major party to be a group that polled at least 1% for president in the last presidential election.

Existing law says a qualified major party is one that polled 5% for any statewide office at the last election in which a statewide office was on the ballot. That existing definition is no longer workable, however, because the “top-two” initiative passed by the voters in November 2004 says that parties don’t have nominees any longer, except for president. Under the existing law, there wouldn’t be any qualified major parties in Washington state after the U.S. Senate election in November 2010, because there would be no party nominees in that election.

The proposed bill also defines qualified minor party to be a group that submits a petition of 100 voters by the first Monday in March, asking that the group be recognized as a party.

Washington state primary and general election ballots, under the “top-two” system, give each candidate a chance to say which party he or she prefers. Assuming this proposed bill passes, candidates will not be able to say they prefer just any group; they can only say they prefer a qualified major party or a qualified minor party. In the 2008 elections, some candidates said they preferred “parties” that clearly aren’t organizations, such as the Salmon Yoga Party or the GOP Party.

One might wonder what difference it makes for a group to be a qualified major party. The answer is that qualified major parties get their own presidential primary, and they are permitted to elect party officers in the September primary. Also their presidential nominee is put on the November ballot automatically with no petition needed.

Sounds good to me.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 21, 2009, 02:50:10 am
Is there any chance Huff could lose this election? As far as I can tell there is one major Democratic candidate and two Republican (not to mention this is a very Democratic county).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 21, 2009, 02:53:46 am
I'm pretty sure she'll win, but then again I thought Dale Washam would get something like 10% of the vote down here. Non-partisan races in this state can get a little weird.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on January 24, 2009, 05:09:18 am
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/olympia/2009/jan/22/lisa-brown-early-contender-2012-governors-race/

Lisa Brown is thinking of running for Governor, eh...

ohhh, there are so many Democrats I like who might run for Governor in 2012... :(


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 27, 2009, 02:33:12 am
I'd be surprised if Brown runs... she's Queen of the Senate for the foreseeable future.

Two bits:

Larry Phillips (D) has announced his intention to run for King County Executive this fall (or should Sims take an Administration job sometime soon as is rumored). It's not 100% clear whether or not Phillips will stay in the race should Sims run again, but considering their less than warm past relationship I would be surprised if Phillips dropped out.

Also, turnout for the Director of Elections race is at 10.6% thus far. I have no idea what equivalent turnout is for any other election as King County doesn't post that, but there you have it.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 27, 2009, 02:36:12 am
Larry Phillips (D) has announced his intention to run for King County Executive this fall (or should Sims take an Administration job sometime soon as is rumored). It's not 100% clear whether or not Phillips will stay in the race should Sims run again, but considering their less than warm past relationship I would be surprised if Phillips dropped out.

Pretty much everyone who knows Larry Phillips is convinced that, if he doesn't run, it's not deference to Sims but a concession that he'd probably lose.  I think he'd make a race of it, though.

Also, turnout for the Director of Elections race is at 10.6% thus far. I have no idea what equivalent turnout is for any other election as King County doesn't post that, but there you have it.

Not good.  Off-year special election not-good.

Where are you getting that stat?  King County seems to have not even bothered to post it.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 27, 2009, 02:39:27 am
In Pam Roach news, someone noticed that she listed her brokering firm on her F-1 disclosure statement as "Les Schwab"

(
Img
)

i'd believe it.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 27, 2009, 02:40:45 am
http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/abstats/

I knew it was low, but is it lower than one would suspect for a special election in the early part of an off-year?

And major LOL @ Roachie. The King County GOP is refusing to phonebank for her (they're just all excited about David Irons and his 18%!)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 27, 2009, 02:46:47 am
http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/abstats/

I knew it was low, but is it lower than one would suspect for a special election in the early part of an off-year?

It's off-year primary low.  Which is kind of pathetic, since the only places where there are more than issue on the ballot are, I think, Enumclaw and Fall City.  It's probably slightly above average for election in the early part of an off-year, but considering how high-profile this race was (relatively) it's kinda low.  It always confuses me how many people vote in most primaries but absolutely ignore even special elections that get media coverage...but early returns are never really that indicative in King County, for whatever reason.

I'm having trouble envisioning Huff not winning at this point.  Who are Democrats going to split off with, the lady who got arrested for lying about ballots and now posts on HorsesAss?

edit: Oh yeah, the enumclaw/fall city thing is on what you linked.  heh.  I should really get eight hours of sleep one of these days.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 27, 2009, 02:54:36 am
I envision it going down something like this:

Huff: 40%
Irons: 25%
Assorted crazies: 20%
Roach: 15%

I might be overestimating crazy potential...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 27, 2009, 04:09:37 am
Did Toby Nixon endorse Kempf? My opinion of him would drop rather significantly if so.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on January 27, 2009, 04:18:26 am
Did Toby Nixon endorse Kempf? My opinion of him would drop rather significantly if so.

He kind of double-endorsed Kempf and Irons, I think.

I don't really know much about the Kempf story.  I didn't read into that much micro-drama.  I just know that she was arrested for lying about late absentees, claimed she never did, and the arrest was eventually kind of dismissed as an overreaction.

I wish there was some kind of King County 2004: The Novel online to fill me in on what I ignored at the time

But I don't see why a Democrat (which she obviously is), or a non-partisan, would vote for her over Huff or Irons


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on January 28, 2009, 11:06:57 pm
Turnout is going to be <30% at this rate...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 01, 2009, 02:09:58 am
I was just toying around with the elections archives on Sam Reed's website and noticed something odd. Chris Hurst (D), the current member from the 31st District, Position 2, was elected to the Legislature in 2006. Prior to that he had been elected to the Legislature in 1998 and 2000, each time receiving about 55% of the vote. He also narrowly lost a race in 1996 to the man he beat in 1998.

Then in 2002, Jan Shabro (R) (past County Councilmember and current County Auditor) ran for his seat. She was unopposed in both the primary and the general.

So not only did Shabro win an open seat without any challengers, the Republicans picked-up an open seat without any Democratic challengers. Does anybody remember anything about the circumstances here? It just seems so incredibly bizarre.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 01, 2009, 02:17:25 am
I was just toying around with the elections archives on Sam Reed's website and noticed something odd. Chris Hurst (D), the current member from the 31st District, Position 2, was elected to the Legislature in 2006. Prior to that he had been elected to the Legislature in 1998 and 2000, each time receiving about 55% of the vote. He also narrowly lost a race in 1996 to the man he beat in 1998.

Then in 2002, Jan Shabro (R) (past County Councilmember and current County Auditor) ran for his seat. She was unopposed in both the primary and the general.

So not only did Shabro win an open seat without any challengers, the Republicans picked-up an open seat without any Democratic challengers. Does anybody remember anything about the circumstances here? It just seems so incredibly bizarre.

Shabro pulled out at the last moment and the Democrats couldn't find a viable replacement.  I don't think there was much of a story behind it, but I don't remember why Hurst pulled out.  I'm not sure we ever found out the real reason.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 01, 2009, 03:51:31 am
News Tribune, October 2002:

Quote
Democrats took a painful hit in the 31st Legislative District before this fall's campaigns even started.

Chris Hurst, the two-term Black Diamond Democrat in the district's Position 2 seat, decided not to run again. Despite the razor-thin margin between parties in the Legislature, Democrats couldn't come up with another candidate. That means Pierce County Councilwoman Jan Shabro, a Republican, wins by showing up.

So we just sucked really hard. How pathetic.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 01, 2009, 04:05:38 am
yeah, I meant Hurst and not Shabro :P

I think there was probably an interesting internal struggle going on there.  It's very rare that an open seat just comes up 100% empty like that.

Could Shabro have been that much of a shoo-in?  Weird district back around '96


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 01, 2009, 04:09:26 am
Eh, you could be right. My understanding of the Pierce County Democratic Party at that time though is that it probably wasn't big enough for internal struggles... it was pretty terrible. I really wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't find someone willing to cough up the $400 filing fee.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 01, 2009, 04:17:12 am
Eh, you could be right. My understanding of the Pierce County Democratic Party at that time though is that it probably wasn't big enough for internal struggles... it was pretty terrible. I really wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't find someone willing to cough up the $400 filing fee.

Except I think it was a more King County district back then.  Hurst has since moved from Black Diamond to Greenwater.  I don't know, though, maybe it was even intra-county problems.  I think they tended to avoid doing things at the LD level back then?

Way before my time :P


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 01, 2009, 04:25:17 am
It's the same boundaries it has right now - were you just referring to the power base being more in King County?

The other weird thing is that the Tribune always went to Berendt for quotes in other articles about the race - never Jean Brooks (who was Pierce County Chair at the time) nor whomever was running the KC Dems at the time. Not only is it weird that the Tribune would think to go to the state party chair for a quote (they'd always go to Lawver these days), but stranger is that the State Party actually cared about a State Legislative race. These days they basically pretend as if they don't exist. Maybe it was a bigger priority back then because of the closeness of the balance of power.

But way before my time as well. Lots of different ways to speculate.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 02, 2009, 04:38:57 pm
It's official: Sims is leaving.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 02, 2009, 06:18:55 pm
I was getting kind of tired of Sims, to be honest.

He's still 10x better than any Repuke, though.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 03, 2009, 08:11:54 pm
Turnout was 17.0% as of yesterday.  At this rate, breaking 30% is a 50/50 proposition at best, and 33% would probably require a small miracle.  That's kind of pathetic turnout for a recognizable race.

Results in about five hours.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 03, 2009, 11:13:40 pm
15.5% turnout so far.  Even with institutional support, Irons is sucking.

Huff 44%
Assorted crazies 20%
Irons 19%
Roach 17%

Yeah, Huff wins.

In other riveting news, Fall City will probably have a parks district (59.3%), and the Enumclaw school levy is a nailbiter (51.6%).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 03, 2009, 11:33:02 pm
Sanity prevails. Turnout was pathetically terrible though.

Fall City will probably have a parks district (59.3%)

Definitely the highlight of my evening.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 03, 2009, 11:43:50 pm
This (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/02/03/state_rep_tom_campbell_is_running_for_9t) is easily the most interesting thing to happen this evening:

Quote
We have just heard a DC rumor (through the Republicans) that Adam Smith is close to getting the appointment he wants, in the Defense Department or possibly State Dept., and that the appointment may happen as early as tomorrow. Tom Campbell is running, whether or not Adam Smith runs again -- but we're pretty sure he won't. Did you catch Smith today on MSNBC, being interviewed about the Middle East and commenting about Afghanistan? My best guess is that Smith wants to replace Michael G. Vickers, Ass't Sec. of Defense for Special Operations, Low-Intensity Conflict, and Assymetric Warfare. Vickers was in the CIA with Gates; he ran the Reagan-era Afghan operations and his character had a speaking role in Charlie Wilson's War. Smith's Armed Services Subcommittee has jurisdiction over this area, so Smith would be the perfect appointee -- unless part of Gates' price for staying on was keeping Vickers and others.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 04, 2009, 01:38:42 pm
No dice: http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/02/04/smith_isn_t_getting_obama_job_so_the_gam


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 06, 2009, 05:36:38 am
Turnout up to a wonderful 22%. I never would've thought it could go this low with Vote-by-Mail. Anyways, I think the initial abstract is going to be posted on Friday.

There's a bill being heard in the House State Government Committee tomorrow that requires ballots to be received by 8 PM on Election Day. I suspect it's going to pass.



Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 06, 2009, 12:26:32 pm
Apparently I complained enough back in November that they're putting up an unofficial abstract :P Neat.  And the final is only two days after certification.

There's a bill being heard in the House State Government Committee tomorrow that requires ballots to be received by 8 PM on Election Day. I suspect it's going to pass.

Bleh, why?  I know Oregon has that law, but I don't mind stragglers.  They never determine elections really, and I'd prefer if any ballot competently submitted before polling closes were counted.

[Shrug]


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 07, 2009, 12:39:58 am
I take that back about the absentee ballot bill - the County Auditor's Association came out against it today. Basically it's just Sam Reed and a few House Democrats in favor.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 07, 2009, 12:55:13 am
The King County abstract will actually be an LD/CD breakdown, and was apparently not released today anyway.  right.

I take that back about the absentee ballot bill - the County Auditor's Association came out against it today. Basically it's just Sam Reed and a few House Democrats in favor.

On what grounds?  Speedy count?  Whatever.  I mean, if anyone should support the bill, it should be someone like me.  I like quick returns.  But I'd much rather not nitpick voters into being disenfranchised.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 07, 2009, 01:09:59 am
Yea, they basically just want to be able to count quicker. It would be nice but I don't particularly see a reason why it's necessary (especially when the trade-off is limiting even slightly the amount of people involved in the process).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 07, 2009, 01:13:31 am
Yea, they basically just want to be able to count quicker. It would be nice but I don't particularly see a reason why it's necessary (especially when the trade-off is limiting even slightly the amount of people involved in the process).

Would I be a total prick if I pointed out that a lot of the affected ballots (percentage-wise) would be military, and proportionately more Republican in general?

I'm sure that's not the only thing going on, but the Democrats should drop dumb crap like this.  It's bad for p.r.

I do like how the parties alternate between obsession with enfranchisement and electoral integrity, depending on whatever :P


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 07, 2009, 01:16:53 am
Yea, they basically just want to be able to count quicker. It would be nice but I don't particularly see a reason why it's necessary (especially when the trade-off is limiting even slightly the amount of people involved in the process).

Would I be a total prick if I pointed out that a lot of the affected ballots (percentage-wise) would be military, and proportionately more Republican in general?

I'm sure that's not the only thing going on, but the Democrats should drop dumb crap like this.  It's bad for p.r.

Well Sam Reed was the one who originally proposed it, so I think the Democrats have a pretty good counter if they're accused of something like that.

They also warmly received the Internet voting bill today, something which would bring more military voters than before. Only Osgood and his crowd opposed that.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 07, 2009, 01:27:02 am
15.5% turnout so far.  Even with institutional support, Irons is sucking.

Huff 44%
Assorted crazies 20%
Irons 19%
Roach 17%

Yeah, Huff wins.

In other riveting news, Fall City will probably have a parks district (59.3%), and the Enumclaw school levy is a nailbiter (51.6%).

Shouldn't Roach go under assorted crazies?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 11, 2009, 04:28:40 am
I learned today that there's a State Representative from East Wenatchee who is a fervent Ron Paul supporter.

A little frightening that those types actually hold public office...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 14, 2009, 01:42:14 am
Has Randy Dorn always been crazy or are these shower stories a new development?

Quote
“When the hot water starts going over my body,” he [Randy Dorn] says, “I start feeling a little better because we all want to get up and make a difference for kids. And then I start thinking about what I’m going to do the next four years and what you’re going to do with me!”


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 14, 2009, 03:24:47 pm
That's a little... odd.

While there's very little in terms of elections going on till August (although I for one am closely watching the Vashon Island School Levy. Will they build a new track? Find out March 10th!), the Legislature is amusing enough until April. After that we're in real trouble.

The King County Executive race may be interesting. Maybe.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on February 16, 2009, 04:55:54 am
The King County Executive race may be interesting. Maybe.

Dow Constantine has just declared for King County Executive.  I think it will mainly be between him and Larry Phillips, assuming Bob Ferguson stays out.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162077.asp (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162077.asp)



Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2009, 05:48:18 am
The King County Executive race may be interesting. Maybe.

Dow Constantine has just declared for King County Executive.  I think it will mainly be between him and Larry Phillips, assuming Bob Ferguson stays out.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162077.asp (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162077.asp)



I wonder who the Republicans will run? Some joke candidate like Irons or Rossi? Or maybe they'll be sneaky and somewhat intelligent and go for someone like Lambert or Dunn?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 16, 2009, 02:46:39 pm
State Rep. Ross Hunter, a smart and ambitious SOB, may enter the race as well. He'd be a major force as well.

As for the Republicans... I don't really know. There are certain people who would be good to get (Toby Nixon, Lambert or Dunn come to mind). I'd be rather surprised if Rossi was interested at all. It may go to Irons by default (if he wants it).

Then again, Pam Roach has been looking for a county job for decades....


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 02:51:09 pm
The Washington thread continues?


State amphibian: Pacific Chorus Frog, adopted 2007
State song: "Washington, My Home", adopted 1959
State flower: Coast Rhododendron, adopted 1892
State bird: American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), adopted 1951
State tree: Western hemlock, adopted 1947
State fish: Steelhead trout, adopted 1969
State insect: Green darner dragonfly, adopted 1997
State gem: Petrified wood, adopted 1975
[lol gay]
State fruit: Apple, adopted 1989
State grass: Bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum), adopted 1989
State tartan: one designed by Margaret McLeod van Nus and Frank Cannonita, adopted 1991
State fossil: Columbian mammoth or Mammuthus columbi, adopted 1998
State folk song: "Roll On, Columbia" adopted 1987
State ship: the Lady Washington, adopted 2007 (previously the container ship President Washington, adopted 1983)
State dance: Square dance, adopted 1979
[gay x 2]
State vegetable: Walla Walla Sweet Onion, adopted 2007
[gay x 3]
State Marine Mammal: Orca, adopted 2007
[anti-gay, so you're down to x 2 now]


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 16, 2009, 03:11:10 pm
The Walla Walla sweet onion was selected after fourth graders came and lobbied the State Legislature for it. The potato lobby killed it at first but then came around. It's a precious story of young kids learning about the legislative process and special interests coming around and supporting something contrary to their interests for the good of the state.

So why you hating, f*ggot?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 03:15:19 pm
why do you like fourth graders so much pedophile?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 03:16:24 pm
oh wait, I answered my own question

btw potatoes are really starchy and shouldn't count as vegetables.  but i do love them more than I love my legs (see flag).  Should we have a square dance to settle this?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 16, 2009, 03:19:14 pm
Squarin' numbers are just like women - if they're under 13 just do them in your head.

We're probably going to get a state candy this year - Aplets and Cotlets. Mmmm... delicious.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 03:22:13 pm
I don't understand that but it sounds illegal

LET'S DANCE


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 16, 2009, 03:23:46 pm
(
Img
)

And yes, they do teach square dancing in elementary school. One of my least favorite days every year.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 03:29:23 pm
my elementary school taught square dancing too but it's not because some punk state made it its official dance

this thread has taken a turn for the worse, somebody should quickly change it to discussion about someone's numbers that nobody cares about


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on February 16, 2009, 03:37:08 pm
What's going on?  I check back on this thread to see what people have said about the KC Executive Election and everyone has broken out into a round of do-si-do!  :P

Does Lunar have Washington state envy?  Because our state is so fabulous.

Back on topic, it is almost impossible for me to see a Republican winning the KC Election race, although I-26 (making King County races nonpartisan) makes me hesitate.  I thought that was a dumb change and if I lived in the county I would have voted against it.



Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 03:46:01 pm
somebody should quickly change it to discussion about someone's numbers that nobody cares about

the KC Election race,

thx


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 16, 2009, 03:59:05 pm
State Rep. Ross Hunter, a smart and ambitious SOB, may enter the race as well. He'd be a major force as well.

You mean that mofo who wouldn't take down Reichert?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 16, 2009, 04:00:38 pm
It also looks like Sam Reed's bill to modify the top-two primary is going to pass. Rather than just allowing whatever party label people want, there are three options:

1) Select the label of a major party (Under current state law this is any party who receives 5% in an even-numbered year. This bill would change the definition to any party receiving 1% in the Presidential race. For 2008 this would only include Democrats and Republican - last time someone else broke 1% was the Green Party in 2000).

2) Select an "unqualified party" label. You get to become an "unqualified party" by submitting the signatures of 100 voters.

3) Select "States No Party Preference".

While I despise the top-two, I find this change acceptable.

State Rep. Ross Hunter, a smart and ambitious SOB, may enter the race as well. He'd be a major force as well.

You mean that mofo who wouldn't take down Reichert?

Tom got in before him, and then Burner scared both of them. I would've sat that race out too.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 04:03:22 pm
What is your opinion on the Columbian mammoth?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 16, 2009, 04:05:35 pm
Better than the saber-toothed cat.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Bacon King on February 16, 2009, 04:54:37 pm
Walla Walla Sweet Onion? Psh, I bet its got nothin' on my state vegetable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidalia_onion).

PS. Vidalia is pronounced Vie-day-ya


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on February 16, 2009, 05:32:46 pm
reminds me of Wasilla











screw Washinton


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Hash on February 16, 2009, 05:37:53 pm
reminds me of Wasilla

They don't say "Was-say-la" now do they?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 16, 2009, 09:13:00 pm
Why don't people like the Walla Walla sweet onion? It tastes wonderful...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Bacon King on February 17, 2009, 03:34:30 pm
Why don't people like the Walla Walla sweet onion? It tastes wonderful...

Consider it a friendly state-to-state sweet onion rivaly.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 17, 2009, 05:23:15 pm
Speaking of agriculture, State Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Sunnyside) has been appointed Director of the Department of Agriculture. Yay bi-partisanship!

A replacement for his seat will be selected by the local Republican party and then an election will be held this fall for the remainder of the term. Obama narrowly won the district, but the local Democratic base is terrible. I'd say Strong Lean or Likely Republican at this point.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 19, 2009, 08:17:53 am
The replacement for Bill Grant (D-Walla Walla) will be chosen tomorrow. The top candidate appears to be failed Congressional candidate George Fearing (D-Pasco). If his 2008 performance is any indication then we're screwed.

Quote
Republicans already are lining up to challenge whichever Democrat is named to fill the 16th District seat left open by the death of Bill Grant in January.

Dayton lawyer Terry Nealey, who failed to unseat Grant in November, and Walla Walla County Commissioner Greg Tompkins both have announced their intentions to run for the seat this fall. That's when the person appointed to replace Grant will have to run to finish the remainder of his term.

Grant was re-elected in November, but announced in December that he had been diagnosed with a rare form of lung cancer. He intended to return to the Legislature but died Jan. 4, just over a week before the current session began.

Democratic leaders in the 16th District picked lawyer George Fearing, who lives in Pasco, as their top choice to replace Grant at a meeting Saturday. The two other possible replacements are Pasco Councilwoman Rebecca Francik and Grant's daughter, Laura Grant-Herriot.

County commissioners from Walla Walla, Franklin, Benton and Columbia counties will meet Feb. 20 to choose Grant's replacement from those three nominees.

Tompkins has recused himself from the vote because of his intention to run for the seat this fall.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on February 19, 2009, 11:15:37 pm
Technically this should go in 2010 Elections or Congressional Elections, but unless either Reichert or McKenna declares for the senate race, which is extremely unlikely, I think it is just of interest to us.

Quote
Sen. Patty Murray is up for re-election next year and the Democrat is well positioned against potential rivals, according to a new poll.

A DailyKos/Research 2000 poll has Murray leading high-profile Republicans by a wide margin in hypothetical 2010 matchups.

The survey showed:

    * Murray beating Rep. Dave Reichert 53 percent to 40 percent with 7 percent undecided.
    * Murray beating Attorney General Rob McKenna 55-39 with 6 percent undecided.

The poll of 600 likely voters was conducted Feb. 16-18 and has a margin of error of 4 percent.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162351.asp?source=rss (http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/162351.asp?source=rss)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 19, 2009, 11:24:15 pm
I thought McKenna would be posting better numbers than he is (not against Murray but his favorable/unfavorables).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 20, 2009, 12:02:34 am
^ I dunno, that poll seems a lil screwy. 1 in 5 of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of McKenna? Uh huh.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 20, 2009, 03:00:12 am
New state revenue projections have come out... they are not pretty. It is looking like an $8 billion deficit. Can you say massive state-level layoffs?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 20, 2009, 03:51:13 am
We really need to switch to an income tax.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 20, 2009, 09:19:49 am
The thread title remains appropriate.

The problem nowadays is that any new tax increase is going to have to be approved by the voters. If the Legislature sends it to the people and they vote it down then we need to call in a special session and make even deeper cuts.

It's just a messed up situation. Thanks Tim!


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 20, 2009, 04:28:10 pm
The thread title remains appropriate.

The problem nowadays is that any new tax increase is going to have to be approved by the voters. If the Legislature sends it to the people and they vote it down then we need to call in a special session and make even deeper cuts.

It's just a messed up situation. Thanks Tim!

I thought that initiative failed... Or at least was stuck down by the courts right?
You are talking about I-960, right?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 20, 2009, 06:38:32 pm
The thread title remains appropriate.

The problem nowadays is that any new tax increase is going to have to be approved by the voters. If the Legislature sends it to the people and they vote it down then we need to call in a special session and make even deeper cuts.

It's just a messed up situation. Thanks Tim!

I thought that initiative failed... Or at least was stuck down by the courts right?
You are talking about I-960, right?

It passed narrowly in 2007. I know there was a court challenge from the Senate Democrats but I don't think it actually got overturned.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 20, 2009, 07:19:35 pm
Gregoire has registered with the PDC to run again in 2012. Doesn't necessarily mean she will, but it's rather curious that she has.

Those two loud popping sounds you heard were Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna's heads exploding.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 21, 2009, 12:25:32 am
They appointed Grant's daughter, Laura Grant-Herriot (D-Walla Walla), to fill his seat. On the one hand her connection to her father might help her get retained. On the other hand the nepotism could be easy to attack. It'll be interesting to watch.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 21, 2009, 02:35:06 am
They appointed Grant's daughter, Laura Grant-Herriot (D-Walla Walla), to fill his seat. On the one hand her connection to her father might help her get retained. On the other hand the nepotism could be easy to attack. It'll be interesting to watch.

I think that was the right choice for the Democrats.  Bill Grant didn't keep winning because he was a Democrat.  And who is the Bill Grantiest pick?!

Plus, running negative on the LD level -- especially against the daughter of the recently deceased -- is a risky thing.  The GOP might not even have to bother to win this seat, though.  Hell, "Dayton attorney" (there's a high-octane job) might be enough.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 21, 2009, 10:03:38 pm
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown's Facebook status yesterday:

Quote
“Lisa Brown believes we can not responsibly deal with an 8 billion dollar deficit with an all-cuts budget.”

We're officially launching policy initiatives through Facebook status updates. God help us.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 21, 2009, 10:43:50 pm
Do they like being added by random constituents?

They actually get inappropriately happy when they receive friend requests in my experience.

Can I write on their wall "yo Jeannie, vote no on HB-7612 and we'll totally be BFF"?

That's actually the best way to contact them, IMO. Direct access. And they actually do listen when people tell them stuff. They're normal people (mostly).

Is acceptable to tag them for "Smack My Bitch Up" in that stupid 'songs and people' Notes fad thing?

Only if it's Dennis Flannigan.

totally unrelated:  I received my Tacoma School Bonds vote ballot today.  I assume I support it, but honestly I have no idea what the hell is going on...if you've heard anything that isn't obviously apparent.

The Voters' Pamphlet "Statement Against" was written by Will Baker. You make the call.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 21, 2009, 11:13:49 pm
I've met Dennis Flannigan like four times, and I'm 85% sure he's completely awesome (and/or crazy.)

When he showed up to vote at the polls when I was working, he said we looked overworked and asked me if I would like a muffin.  I said, yeah, I could use a muffin.  He replied, "I bet you would."  Then he went to vote, and immediately left.

I'm not sure whether he was messing with me or just forgot.  Either way, awesome.  (And his ballot statements are always good.)

He had no intention of ever giving you a muffin. His humor is always intentional.

Basically, the big objection I hear is, "no one has the money right now."  Isn't construction cheaper right now, though?  Seems like a good time to pass a construction bond...but the wording is unclear on how long it will take effect.

Yes, and that's a big reason why there's four districts doing it in March. Construction companies are desperate for business and will give lower bids right now. We're going to have to do this construction eventually so why not do it when it's cheaper?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 22, 2009, 02:55:38 am
Grant's daughter was one of the better picks for the seat. She might have a 15% or so chance of winning re-election---far better than the 1% chance any of the others had.

As for Gregoire in 2012... First, why would McKenna's head pop? If I were McKenna I would much rather run against Gregoire than someone like Sonntag. I think she we would be a weak candidate if she were going for a third term. I hope she doesn't.

So, all tax increases have to be approved by voters now, huh? Maybe I'm totally off here, but isn't this actually bad for Republicans? It just doesn't give them much to run on. "Democrats voted to raise your taxes...and YOU approved it!" just doesn't sound so great. Remember the gas tax increase? Yeah. I think this is the ideal system for a lot of independents and swing voters in Washington... They prefer Democrats but like them some Republican fiscal policies. They can feel safe knowing they can have Democrats in power who cannot raise taxes without their consent.

I suppose we'll find out in November 2010, won't we?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 22, 2009, 05:42:53 pm
Grant's daughter was one of the better picks for the seat. She might have a 15% or so chance of winning re-election---far better than the 1% chance any of the others had.

As for Gregoire in 2012... First, why would McKenna's head pop? If I were McKenna I would much rather run against Gregoire than someone like Sonntag. I think she we would be a weak candidate if she were going for a third term. I hope she doesn't.

So, all tax increases have to be approved by voters now, huh? Maybe I'm totally off here, but isn't this actually bad for Republicans? It just doesn't give them much to run on. "Democrats voted to raise your taxes...and YOU approved it!" just doesn't sound so great. Remember the gas tax increase? Yeah. I think this is the ideal system for a lot of independents and swing voters in Washington... They prefer Democrats but like them some Republican fiscal policies. They can feel safe knowing they can have Democrats in power who cannot raise taxes without their consent.

I suppose we'll find out in November 2010, won't we?

I don't think the average voter will think that through.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 22, 2009, 08:25:18 pm
The problem is if the voters don't approve the tax increases this November.

Democrats voted to raise your taxes and you rejected it. They're out of touch and LIBURAL.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 23, 2009, 03:19:20 pm
The marijuana decriminalization bill has become a small circus, because old white guys don't really know much about pot other than that it is frowned upon.

http://effinunsound.com/?p=1027

Not only does Jim Hargrove know nothing about marijuana, he's also for renewing prohibition.  Yes, for alcohol.  Since when is Jim Hargrove an idiot, or is this an isolated incidence?

Other exciting arguments:

Mike Carrell (R-Lakewood): Basically, "I've never been there, but I hear Amsterdam is a craphole."

Pam Roach (R-Auburn): Verbatim, "it is really a lot easier for parents when they can say ‘this is illegal.'" Note your own irony.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 24, 2009, 02:24:31 am
Jim Hargrove has a long and illustrious history of idiocy. He's basically our Ben Nelson/Mark Pryor.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 24, 2009, 02:33:16 pm
Looks like Locke will be the new Secretary of Commerce:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29355278/


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 25, 2009, 02:24:23 am
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008782111_webnoble24m.html

oops


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 25, 2009, 03:56:47 pm
Elections director maps tonight out of boredom/senioritis


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 26, 2009, 02:26:50 am
Best HA post... ever:

http://horsesass.org/?p=13147


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 26, 2009, 03:18:01 am
Best HA post... ever:

http://horsesass.org/?p=13147

That was teetering on the edge of the most awesome thing ever, until I noticed that the event's primary sponsor is the Stranger.  That pushed it over the edge.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Dr. RI on February 26, 2009, 12:16:44 pm
Question for my fellow Washingtonians: If Washington somehow manages to pull out an additional congressional district from the 2010 census (only possible if the DC bill passes and Utah gets its 4th before the census, I believe), what would the districts look like, and where would it go?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 26, 2009, 01:22:28 pm
Question for my fellow Washingtonians: If Washington somehow manages to pull out an addition congressional district from the 2010 census (only possible if the DC bill passes and Utah gets its 4th before the census, I believe), what would the districts look like, and where would it go?

That is a good question.  I'll say this:  I have yet to see a district plan offered that doesn't have a trans-Cascades district.  Should make things pretty interesting.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 26, 2009, 01:47:49 pm
Question for my fellow Washingtonians: If Washington somehow manages to pull out an addition congressional district from the 2010 census (only possible if the DC bill passes and Utah gets its 4th before the census, I believe), what would the districts look like, and where would it go?

That is a good question.  I'll say this:  I have yet to see a district plan offered that doesn't have a trans-Cascades district.  Should make things pretty interesting.

Of course you haven't, because not having one would be impossible...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 26, 2009, 01:52:18 pm
Question for my fellow Washingtonians: If Washington somehow manages to pull out an addition congressional district from the 2010 census (only possible if the DC bill passes and Utah gets its 4th before the census, I believe), what would the districts look like, and where would it go?

That is a good question.  I'll say this:  I have yet to see a district plan offered that doesn't have a trans-Cascades district.  Should make things pretty interesting.

Of course you haven't, because not having one would be impossible...

Maybe Hanford will explode before the next Census.

i win


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 26, 2009, 02:53:28 pm
I just want Olympia to not be divided anymore, its annoying.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 26, 2009, 11:23:17 pm
Darcy Burner, Version 2.0: http://delbeneforcongress.com/


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 27, 2009, 12:21:53 am
Darcy Burner, Version 2.0: http://delbeneforcongress.com/

It's almost like a cruel parody... :(


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on February 27, 2009, 12:31:09 pm
National Journal released its annual ranking of the most liberal and conservative senators based on their 2008 voting record.  And the most liberal senator in 2008 was our own, Patty Murray!  :D

I suppose, in fairness, Teddy was out for much of last year so maybe her trophy should come with an asterisk, lol.

Look for the WA GOP to attack her on this in 2010.  Not that it will help them.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-congress.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-congress.html)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on February 27, 2009, 01:36:49 pm
Darcy Burner, Version 2.0: http://delbeneforcongress.com/

It's almost like a cruel parody... :(

Dear lord no.

Burner would have been a good congresswoman once she got elected but she just couldn't get past that initial hurdle.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 27, 2009, 02:33:57 pm
I've never understood how Murray manages to have identical approval ratings to Cantwell.  I mean, huh?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 27, 2009, 10:32:37 pm
Joe Turner is angry: http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/02/27/democrats_say_they_get_so_little_credit_

Well worth a read.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on February 27, 2009, 11:44:55 pm
Aimee Curl wrote a good but long profile of Sen. Murray in the Seattle Weekly.  Some possible clues to her popularity can be surmised from reading it.  One passage noted:

Quote
Murray, seated in her office near a full-sized WSU flag (her alma mater) that towers in the corner, uses a basketball analogy when asked about the low expectations that still confront her. "It's easier to get to the basket if no one's blocking you," she insists. And her under-the-radar persona, the one still familiar to voters back home, may be the key to Murray's staying power, says UW's Olson. "That style of politics goes well with this state. Any more triumphalism doesn't sit well with the electorate."

Local consultant Butterworth agrees that Murray intuitively understands the limits of boasting to the public. "Somewhere along the line she got inoculated against Senate-itis," he adds, referencing the tendency to forget where one's from that often gets officeholders voted out.

As for the politics of 2010, former opponent George Nethercutt notes:

Quote
Nethercutt says no one's lining up to go after Murray in 2010. Butterworth concurs: "I don't think she has a vulnerability other than the things she can't control, the partisan mood when she's up for re-election."

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-28/news/patty-murray-s-unlikely-hill-climb/1 (http://www.seattleweekly.com/2009-01-28/news/patty-murray-s-unlikely-hill-climb/1)


I think this is the first time Murray has topped the NJ rankings.  Her 2008 liberal score of 92.7% is higher than her lifetime liberal score, which is 84%.  It's not clear if 2008 is an anomaly or if she is really moving toward Ted Kennedy/Jack Reed/Barbara Boxer land.

Cantwell's average lifetime liberal score looks to be in the high 70s, putting her firmly in mainstream Democratic territory.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 28, 2009, 08:27:37 am
p.s. i blame my productivity on the meth they put in mike's deluxe

(
Img
)

and no date :(
That looks like very soft cheap bread. And very cheap processed cheese. Not even the salad looks healthy. Quality of the sausage is harder to judge, although if it's good quality it's sliced too thin for maximum tastyness, which of course leads me to believe it's probably as crappy as the remainder.
So, it's not the meth. Just the general badness. Not that I'm complaining, though. Keep eating bad food and making great maps, Ben!


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 28, 2009, 08:32:54 am
deathdig - I-1000/Death with Dignity Cool one

(
Img
)

What's the bright red precinct here like; it seems to stand out on a couple other maps as well?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 28, 2009, 01:36:40 pm
I had a bad feeling about Hecht since the moment I met him. Excuse me whilst I rub this in the face of my Hecht-voting mother...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 28, 2009, 02:08:13 pm
deathdig - I-1000/Death with Dignity Cool one

(
Img
)

What's the bright red precinct here like; it seems to stand out on a couple other maps as well?

Grandview (http://46dems.com/kcdems/precinctmap.php?pct=479).  Random spot of farmland, 10 voters.

Populated areas it failed:

1. Lutheran retirement complex (in the northwest of the zoom (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2009KING/deathdig_old_seattle.png) map)

2. A few scattered working-class precincts in South Seattle

3. A weird cluster of four suburban precincts (see zoom map) that seem slightly less Democratic than they should be.  bgwah and I decided that it might be because of a conservative Lutheran church in the area.  Only real explanation for it failing this (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=11816+ne+142nd+st,+kirkland,+wa&sll=47.727821,-122.181487&sspn=0.002959,0.009656&ie=UTF8&ll=47.732252,-122.182775&spn=0.011142,0.038624&t=h&z=15&iwloc=addr&layer=c&cbll=47.72834,-122.183029&panoid=Ag-Ddoo-Nry5LFO5MtnfwA&cbp=12,76.33822352597898,,0,5) we could come up with.

4. Some Bellevue precincts filled with a mix of Indian immigrants and olds.

5. A Kirkland precinct with a Catholic university, that also swung from Bush +37 to a tie.  3:2 against Death with Dignity, though.

6. A slightly inexplicable new apartment complex just south of Seattle, which voted 97%-2% Obama and 2-to-1 "no" on Death with Dignity, easily the biggest failure in the county.  No real idea there on either count.

7. A mish-mash of older and more socially conservative precincts to the South, plus the Muckleshoot Rez (on the southern county border, guess where fromthe turnout map (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/king_turnout.png)!).

I assume (6) must include some Catholic areas, because I-1000 actually did fine in the most social con part of King County, the rural southeast outside of Enumclaw.  Yet another damn reason I wish the Census tracked religion.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 28, 2009, 02:12:10 pm
Sort of an enclave of not-yet-developped land. I approve of it.

But why is it its own precinct? ??? Oh, Washington State with its tiny precincts that make a mockery of the secrecy of the vote...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 28, 2009, 02:21:43 pm

But why is it its own precinct? ??? Oh, Washington State with its tiny precincts that make a mockery of the secrecy of the vote...

Kinda impossible to avoid.  It's wedged between SeaTac, Kent and Tukwila.  Don't hate though, privacy consolidations (and unnecessarily large precincts) turn into crap like this (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/pierce_old.png).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 28, 2009, 02:31:45 pm

But why is it its own precinct? ??? Oh, Washington State with its tiny precincts that make a mockery of the secrecy of the vote...

Kinda impossible to avoid.  It's wedged between SeaTac, Kent and Tukwila.
So? They could easily either have them vote in one of the neighboring precincts except for city elections, or (though that would be ugly) do a privacy consolidation with some other uninhabited scraps of land. Or just have one of the cities formally annex it.
Quote
Don't hate though, privacy consolidations (and unnecessarily large precincts) turn into crap like this (http://www.goldengiven.net/junk/maps/2008PREZ/pierce_old.png).
You mean those grey areas had votes cast and they weren't consolidated into something else but just not released?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on February 28, 2009, 02:53:46 pm
They could easily either have them vote in one of the neighboring precincts except for city elections
Too complicated. They print one ballot type per precinct.

or (though that would be ugly) do a privacy consolidation with some other uninhabited scraps of land
Only if they were all in the same Legislative District, County Council District, Congressional District, Fire District, School District, etc.

Or just have one of the cities formally annex it.
While this would be nice, cities generally don't make annexation decisions based upon precinct-privacy concerns.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 28, 2009, 03:01:53 pm
They could easily either have them vote in one of the neighboring precincts except for city elections
Too complicated. They print one ballot type per precinct.

While it does indeed make things a bit more complicated, it's not as if other states weren't doing the same thing... of course, in some states city elections are held on a different date.

The easiest thing to manage would probably be a privacy consolidation with a neighboring city precinct.

Incidentally, some German states have areas outside the municipal organization as well - most extensive in Bavaria. Hesse has a few. All but one are quite sizable, actually, and all but one (a different one) are entirely uninhabited. That one has two inhabitants at some inn in the middle of the forest. (The nearest inhabited area is quite near, actually, but is in Lower Saxony. The nearest inhabited area in Hesse is, like 10 km away or something.)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 28, 2009, 03:03:36 pm
1. Incorporated/unincorporated split precincts piss me off and are technically against Washington state law (doesn't stop about four counties), which is good, because they piss me off.  Even if it's just ten voters, it's not the right total, damn it!

2. They actually do that when they can (here (http://46dems.com/kcdems/precinctmap.php?pct=1114)), but they can't here.

3. I imagine that the Grandview people have intentionally avoided being in any of those cities.  That's generally how islands like this form.

4. No elections department actually cares about voter privacy.  They just start going with it if their elections software starts doing it automatically.

5. Small precincts are fun.

On Pierce, the gray precincts were consolidated in the sense that you can get their total by subtracting the given total from the county total :P


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 28, 2009, 03:11:27 pm
2. They actually do that when they can (here (http://46dems.com/kcdems/precinctmap.php?pct=1114)), but they can't here.
Makes sense, thanx.
Quote
4. No elections department actually cares about voter privacy.  They just start going with it if their elections software starts doing it automatically.
Or if there's a law to follow. Germany bans undersized precincts. Although the rule doesn't seem to be entirely hard and fast - Frankfurt's smallest precinct (about 200-odd registered voters) is that way because the nearest inhabited area is a good bit away, but presumably also because it's always been that way (ie if that neighborhood were built in that size today, they'd tell people to not be so frigging lazy if they want to vote.) Berlin actually does a results presentayshe consolidation for a small precinct of about 100 people on an island.

Quote
5. Small precincts are fun.
In a way. A low average precinct size is fun (f[/color=black]uc[/color]k privacy - well at least as we're still talking, say, 50+ or 40+ votes I agree with the sentiment). A wide variation is more annoying than fun - makes for stupid queries like mine that started this discussion. ;D


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 28, 2009, 05:09:07 pm
They could easily either have them vote in one of the neighboring precincts except for city elections
Too complicated. They print one ballot type per precinct.

My precinct was split between the transit-zone thing that voted on the light rail and what not last November. I was on the side of the subdivision's street that didn't get to vote, lulz (the borders make no sense IMO).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on February 28, 2009, 05:48:48 pm
They could easily either have them vote in one of the neighboring precincts except for city elections
Too complicated. They print one ballot type per precinct.

My precinct was split between the transit-zone thing that voted on the light rail and what not last November. I was on the side of the subdivision's street that didn't get to vote, lulz (the borders make no sense IMO).

There are places that don't split at all, but WA is not one of them.  In Clark County, Nevada, and New York City, you'll see pages of precincts that just contain a land parcel or two.  Some of them have no voters, some one house or a development, some just an apartment complex.  Pretty ridiculous.

I like the tiny-vote precincts but they do mess up maps.  Okanogan County is kind of fun -- its precincts are all between 40 and 150 voters.  But I think that the ideal precinct size in a populous county about 250-750.  To be fair to King, its precincts are optimally-sized otherwise, and they do a good job of actually making them neighborhood-relevant.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on February 28, 2009, 05:55:13 pm
4. Some Bellevue precincts filled with a mix of Indian immigrants and olds.

There also may be a large Mormon population in that area. I think there's a LDS church in the vicinity, nto to mention the Seattle LDS Temple just to the south by I-90.

Do you have a % Romney map from the primary for King County?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Ogre Mage on March 02, 2009, 03:42:03 am
The American Prospect has an interesting article on the failure of Darcy Burner's campaign in the 8th Congressional District.  The author of the story, Eli Sanders, has written the piece as a meditation on the limitations of the power of the "Netroots."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=anatomy_of_a_netroots_failure (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=anatomy_of_a_netroots_failure)

Some telling bits:

Quote
Ultimately, Republicans were able to successfully do with the "Burner is a netroots radical" meme what liberal bloggers had been able to with the Responsible Plan. That is, they got the mainstream media to notice and start chattering. Time magazine asked of the Burner-Reichert race: "Will the Netroots Sink a Microsoft Dem?" The Seattle Times led off Burner's candidate profile by juxtaposing her 8th District image and her netroots persona: "While her campaign talks up her blue-collar roots and family life, online activists from all over the country see her as one of their own."

Additionally, the very traits that made Burner so popular among liberal netizens probably were not so endearing to the blue-collar residents of the southern part of the 8th District (an area that is quite close to the Fort Lewis Army base and therefore also has a significant number of military families). Throughout the campaign, this area in particular provided a very strong reminder that offline politics is not the virtual meritocracy that members of the netroots have created. "It's a symptom of their idealism that they can pick someone like Darcy Burner, who's never run for office, and turn her into a first-tier congressional candidate," a Democratic consultant told me.

Quote
Heffter's front-page story cast Burner's economics-degree claim as an exaggeration and explained the "special field" situation. But politics is about what can be said in sound bites and simple language. All Reichert needed for a lethal television attack ad was a video clip of Burner saying, "I loved economics so much I got a degree in it, from Harvard," and one sentence torn out of the Heffter article: "Burner doesn't have an economics degree from Harvard." With everyone debating Burner's Ivy League pedigree, swing voters had another reason to either resent Burner as an elitist or to reject her as a liar.

The fury that Burner and liberal bloggers feel about the impact of the Heffter story and the ensuing television ads is connected to their frustration at being unable to drown it all out with their own version of reality -- and a reminder of the current limits of blog influence. Even though political blogs are powerful and growing more so all the time, they still are not nearly as influential as a mainstream newspaper article that gets turned into an effective television attack ad that gets turned into days of talk-radio chatter (as happened in this case).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 03, 2009, 11:14:39 pm
House catfight!

Tim Sekerak, House Counsel:
Quote
Subject: TrueLobby website

Many of you have received a message from the principal behind the website TrueLobby informing you that his website has been “approved for use” by the House and Senate. Let me clarify:

The website called TrueLobby is not currently blocked. We simply raised some questions about its use and needed to make clear to former Rep. (Mike) Sherstad that the use of this site by members and staff would be bound by ethics laws and House policies.

From page 86 of the Ethics Manual:

Public resources are entrusted to legislators and legis­lative employees to further the public interest. Appro­priation of public facilities, equipment, services, and personnel for personal benefit can undermine this trust and impedes the proper performance of government’s work. At the same time, legitimate need exists for lim­ited exceptions to this rule. Where use is incidental, infrequent, involves de minimis or no cost to the state, does not interfere with performance of official duties, and is reasonable in light of legitimate needs and ex­pectations of the public work force, neither the public trust nor government efficiency suffers to any signifi­cant degree. Adoption of this rule is based on the premise that all legislators and legislative employees will use good judgment to protect public resources and to fulfill the obligations stated in the policy of the ethics act: “State officials and employees of government hold a public trust that obligates them, in a special way, to honesty and integrity in fulfilling the responsibilities to which they are elected and appointed. Paramount in that trust is the principle that public office, whether elected or appointed, may not be used for personal gain or pri­vate advantage.” This trust is grounded in the personal responsibility of each legislator and employee.

The quote above makes it clear that the obligation to use good judgment rests with all of us individually. Social networking is an interesting phenomenon and the House has no desire to act like the internet doesn’t exist or isn’t useful in doing our jobs. But misinterpretation of the risks and rapid rules changes are inherent in the internet environment.

Questions to ask yourself:
(i) Will my personal use of public resources result in added costs or any other disadvantage to the legislature? Am I using this resource in order to avoid personal expense?
(ii) Are my supervisors aware of my personal use of public resources? Do I feel a reluctance to discuss this subject with my supervisor or my fellow employees?
(iii) Am I confident that my use of legislative equipment will not compromise the security or integrity of legislative information, software, or the legislative information network?
(iv) Are public resources being used for purposes that could be embarrassing to the legislature by creating an appearance of impropriety?

And of course, no campaign activity may be conducted on state time regardless of the website used.

This raises many questions, I’m sure. I’d be happy to try to answer them, if you recognize that sometimes the answer is ‘maybe.’ Thanks to those folks who brought this matter to my attention. It just helps me prove the point that House employees are trying to get this right.

State Representative Geoff Simpson:
Quote
Subject: RE: TrueLobby website

Thanks mommy. I need you to decide for me what websites I can and cannot visit.

House Clerk Barbara Baker:
Quote
Subject: RE: TrueLobby website

Rep. Simpson, despite repeated requests to keep staff out of his tirades, apparently is not able to do so. Our House counsel is respectful to the members of this body, and I expect members to return that respect (to him and all of our staff) unless there is a good reason not to, in which case my office should be notified.

That said, this message was not intended to decide anything for anyone. It was to explain the House position on a website developed by a former member, Mike Sherstad. This website has been the subject of much discussion and many questions.

The point here is not to start an email war. But I wouldn’t be doing my job if messages like this go unchallenged.

Barbara

Simpson again:
Quote
Subject: RE: TrueLobby website

Hopefully in order to remain consistent on your censorship of materials members may read, you will police each one of our desks and offices as well.

Keep in mind that these e-mails were sent not only to every member of the State House but to all of their staff as well.

God I love our state government.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 03, 2009, 11:25:50 pm
Geoff Simpson really is kind of a dick, isn't he?

They caught him on Sound Politics posting under a sockpuppet account.  Seems to have one heck of a temper, domestic violence issues aside.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 06, 2009, 02:29:08 am
Chirp...chirp...chirp.

Lame attempt at kicking some life back into this place (bold text makes it better, baby):

***

The State Senate has killed (http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/778274.html) the two-years-late wet dream of New Urbanists: rezoning Olympia's "isthmus" (which is not actually an isthmus) into a condo-friendly area.  This was an interesting below-the-radar issue (http://www.theolympian.com/buildingheights/story/479110.html).  Opposition was staunch almost to the point of rejecting the suggestion of any change whatsoever.  Regardless of the merits of the project, it showed just how knee-jerk of an anti-development town Olympia is.

Personally, I think Olympia [the city, which was for the rezone] should be able to do virtually whatever it wants, and I have no idea why the State Senate is intervening.  I also have no idea why the "no" votes were a roll-call of mostly-horribles (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5800&year=2009).  Maybe I should change my mind (at least there's Rodney Tom?)

***

As a cost-saving measure, the state is considering (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/03/05/25_more_state_parks_might_be_mothballed) closing the freaking Peace Arch...well, the state park.  Also on the cutting board:  Dash Point, Saltwater, Millersylvania, Flaming Geyser, a bunch of other ones I've never heard of.

***

I think more politicians should have blogs like Pam Roach's, so we can tell how batsh**t crazy they are.  Pam Roach's latest is about a Senate ethics investigation (http://pamroachreport.blogspot.com/2009/02/ethics-board-poised-to-quash-147.html) into her.  Some choice quotes:

On the woman who filed the complaint: "Let's not forget here that this woman was touted by CPS as just being wonderful...they were wrong...I was right."

On why she filed it: "...she was coached to do so."

On who did that: "Who coached her? Someone or some entity that knew an ethics board even existed. And, someone who knew I was even writing a blog. I am guessing either a CPS worker or the evil CASA who railed against me in court when I showed an interest in the Stuth case and then quickly bowed out as soon as the press entered the picture."

Actually, just read the entire thing.  And the second comment below, which is like a cross between a Lord of the Flies study guide and the Bible Channel.

Bonus fact:  One of Pam Roach's favorite things (http://www.blogger.com/profile/18192817037938680418) is The Sound of Music.  Really.

***

In conclusion, I'm already sick of seeing Dale Washam's face whenever I look at property assessments (http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/at/at.htm).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 06, 2009, 03:06:01 am
Ugh. We went over this issue for about two years in Olympia. I was happy when they finally passed it because we need some development downtown, we can't simply turn down every opporitunity that comes to us because it would "ruin the views" (of which there are none because there would be no buildings on either side of the one to be constructed). Also I am enraged that the state government would take sides in such a local issue, it is not their place. This is probably the one time I actually agree with Tim Sheldon... ew...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 08, 2009, 07:23:36 pm
Random hypothetical: Let's say the Top-two was in use in 1996. What would've been the result of the Locke vs. Rice general election?

I'm sure Locke would've won, but by how much? What would King County have looked like?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 09, 2009, 09:28:52 pm
State House voted 54-43 today to force Pierce County to switch to all-mail voting.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 09, 2009, 10:15:10 pm
State House voted 54-43 today to force Pierce County to switch to all-mail voting.

f**k!  Effective immediately?

Where's the vote list, out of curiosity?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 09, 2009, 11:04:14 pm
State House voted 54-43 today to force Pierce County to switch to all-mail voting.

f**k!  Effective immediately?

Where's the vote list, out of curiosity?

Assuming the State Senate passes it (a legitimate question mark) and Gregoire signs it (another question mark) then the switch would occur at the August primary.

All Pierce County voted "No" except for Flannigan, Darneille, Seaquist and Green. Stupid votes on behalf of the last two IMO (something which has been made clear to them if you catch my drift). Full roll call is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1572&year=2009


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 09, 2009, 11:12:48 pm
Meh, I am fine with that. It would be nice if the entire state used the same voting system. Also maybe then Pierce wouldn't be as messed up when it comes to reporting numbers in a timely manner (I realize this is just a dream).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 10, 2009, 10:48:52 pm
All the major school levies and bonds are going down hard tonight. Tacoma and Puyallup are failing 53 to 47 and Auburn is getting defeated by a 58 to 42 margin. Even Vashon Island rejected their bond (didn't even get a majority).

Doesn't bode well for any tax increases that might need to get approved this fall...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 10, 2009, 10:55:14 pm
Vashon rejected a school levy?!

The earth just ended.  I think it and Bainbridge Island are the only SDs to have never failed one.

Snoqualmie Valley's is passing no problem, assuming it makes turnout requirements.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 10, 2009, 10:58:03 pm
Carbonado is passing their's too. The small districts never seem to have much of an issue; don't know why.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 10, 2009, 11:19:08 pm
This might help explain why the Vashon Island bond failed:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/topstories/story/657680.html

Quote
A pair of construction bond and capital levy proposals totaling $314 million in Puyallup also lacked the big-number support needed for passage. The story appeared similar in Auburn, where the district was asking for about $285 million in bonds and levies and on Vashon Island, where the tiny school system wanted $75.5 million for major work on its high school, middle and elementary schools.

That's $7,458 per person on Vashon, or $47,484 per public school student.

I mean...damn.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 10, 2009, 11:22:01 pm
Yea, that is pretty ridiculous when one stops and thinks about it. Their high school is pretty terrible though; it needs a serious re-model.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2009, 01:21:43 am
Almost below-the-radar, if it weren't for Facebook: Jeannie Darneille's perennial Voting Rights Bill passed (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008838814_apwaxgrfelonvoting1stldwritethru.html) the House today, 53-43.

In the simplest terms, the current system requires that convicted felons:

A) Serve their full sentence, including community custody, parole and probation.

B) Pay all of their restitution fees and legal fees, without any consideration for indigence waivers.

Darneille's bill fully eliminates requirement "B."

Regardless of your feelings about felon/ex-felon enfranchisement, this bill does have one tangible benefit.  It is a hell of a lot easier to track felons based on state custody status, than by using the tangled mess that was the voting rights restoration process.  Keeps the rolls cleaner, and we need that.  I say this as a concerned citizen and a convicted felon.

Edit:  My guess is that the SoS's office pushed this bill privately, for that reason; it's not really a political winner at large.  This guess happens to be pretty un-guessy, considering that David Ammons (ex-AP, now-Reedite) was the first attaboy on FB.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2009, 04:05:05 am
Almost missed this, too.  The State House passed SB 5688 today.  SB 5688 expands Washington's domestic partnership law to basically be marriage-without-the-name.

The vote was 30-18.  Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee) was absent.  Can't imagine she would have voted yes.

Democratic switchers were Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam), Brian Hatfield (D-Raymond), Tim Sheldon (D-Umbass) and Paull Shin (D-Edmonds). 

Republican switchers were Dale Brandland (R-Bellingham), Cheryl Pflug (R-Maple Valley) and Curtis King (R-Yakima).

I thought King basically rode in on challenging Jim Clements from the right.  His vote for the "loose" domestic partnership bill last year was a surprise to me, and now this.  It's not like he's playing to his district's politics by voting liberally on gay rights.  Strange?

Anyway, opponents threaten Prop.-8 style campaign.  I'll go out on a limb and say that would be unlikely to pass, even if it properly materialized.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 11, 2009, 03:55:26 pm
King isn't as crazy as one might think at first glance. Still a little surprising though. Brandland and Pflug could potential be vulnerable for re-election obviously.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 11, 2009, 05:28:53 pm
Vashon rejected a school levy?!

The earth just ended.  I think it and Bainbridge Island are the only SDs to have never failed one.

Snoqualmie Valley's is passing no problem, assuming it makes turnout requirements.

Griffin School District has never failed a levy as far as I can remember.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2009, 08:45:27 pm
Weirdly active news day for the last few.

Guess what the Pierce County Assessor's Office failed to do last year with half of their assessed properties?

Assess them (http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/03/11/pierce_county_skipped_tens_of_thousands_).

That's a pretty high bar for screw-up for Dale Washam to reach, in fairness.

Maybe you'll know, Meeker:  Is this one of those done-but-not-talked-about corner-cutting things?  Seems like a pretty obvious violation of state law to me.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 11, 2009, 11:13:21 pm
Think of the census. Madsen was doing statistical sampling while Washam says they need to physically count everyone.

The difference from the census being 1) it's not unconstitutional, just questionably legal and 2) everyone does it.

So Washam is technically right but it's not like this is some massively neglectful scandal.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 12, 2009, 03:24:42 am
Also we have a new drug czar: Gil Kerlikowske!

Whoot


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2009, 05:08:20 pm
Well, the gay-marriage-in-name-only thing is obviously going to pass.  It has 57 sponsors in the State House.

Sponsoring Republicans are Maureen Walsh (R-College Place) and Norm Johnson (R-Yakima).  So, 2/3 of the 14th (Yakima)'s GOP delegation supports this.  Very strange (apparently the local GOP isn't happy with either.)

Non-sponsoring Democrats are Frank Chopp (D-Seattle), Laura Grant-Herriot (D-Walla Walla), Tami Green (D-Lakewood), Troy Kelley (D-Lakewoody Tacoma), Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way) and Tim Probst (D-Vancouver).  Obviously, Chopp will vote "yes."  Not sure about Grant-Herriot or Probst.  Miloscia is on the record as opposing.

Any idea about Green or Kelley, Meeker?  Is the 28th really this hostile to gay rights?  I mean, Seaquist sponsored the thing.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 14, 2009, 05:18:58 pm
Green is kind of queasy on gay rights stuff (it's the Mormon in her). She's coming around though and is better than she was even a few years ago.

Kelley is a Moderate Hero who is constantly convinced he's on the verge of losing re-election.

So basically both could vote for the thing and be perfectly safe but both may not for different reasons.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 14, 2009, 06:53:01 pm
These are the only interesting elections-related bills that are still alive:

- A bill to eliminate special elections in March and only allow previously failed tax levies and new bond issues in May
- A bill that would make it illegal to lie about your opponent
- The felon voting bill that was discussed earlier
- The bill to force Pierce County to switch to vote-by-mail
- A bill to stop sending ballots to inactive voters
- A bill that slightly modifies where certain candidates can file for office and abolishes the filling fee for PCO's


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2009, 08:21:31 pm
These are the only interesting elections-related bills that are still alive:

- A bill to eliminate special elections in March and only allow previously failed tax levies and new bond issues in May

What's the justification for that?

- A bill to stop sending ballots to inactive voters

To save money, or is this one of those "this will reform the election system even if we're not sure why" deals?

- A bill that would make it illegal to lie about your opponent

Should I be as skeptical as I am, or is this some sort of loophole?

- A bill that slightly modifies where certain candidates can file for office and abolishes the filling fee for PCO's

Sweet.  I'm totally filing for PCO next time.  I mean, why not.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 14, 2009, 08:57:04 pm
What's the justification for that?

It's not that inconvenient for school boards and such to wait a month or go a month before but it's rather costly and inconvenient for county auditors to have to constantly be running elections for the first five months of the year (and then the primary and general).

To save money, or is this one of those "this will reform the election system even if we're not sure why" deals?

It'll save money, but it also just sort of makes sense. You have to be really, really inactive to be labeled an inactive voter. It doesn't happen by mistake.

Should I be as skeptical as I am, or is this some sort of loophole?

It used to be the law and then was ruled unconstitutional (I wonder why...) This is Tim Sheldon basically re-writing the law to make it not unconstitutional. I'm rather skeptical though.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=5211&year=2009

Sweet.  I'm totally filing for PCO next time.  I mean, why not.

The $1 filling fee was really that much of a deterrent? ;)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2009, 10:30:39 pm
It'll save money, but it also just sort of makes sense. You have to be really, really inactive to be labeled an inactive voter. It doesn't happen by mistake.

As far as I know, only USPS returning mail makes a voter inactive.  Not voting doesn't make you inactive, to my knowledge.  One of my neighbors has been registered since the '70s or something, and has never voted.  He's still active.

The big downside is probably people who have their mailing and residence addresses switched on registration.  Whitman County did that to bgwah.  But now that there are no polling places, I guess that doesn't matter much.  With VBM, they're not going to get it anyway, if they've moved or have a wrong address.  So the only voters who will be "missed" are those that temporarily relocate.

Honestly, I didn't realize we did send ballots to inactive voters...so no qualms.

The $1 filling fee was really that much of a deterrent? ;)

Do you know how many Jack in the Box tacos I could get for that $1?

TWO AND A QUARTER!

Are you asking me to put democracy before tacos?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2009, 03:26:47 am
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/index.html#039070

sigh...

I mean, I understand that transportation infrastructure has to make concessions to current lifestyle.  But, every single freaking time in this state?

Thanks to people like John Bailo, natch:

Density breeds crime, pollution and low quality of life...always.  Once fresh Seattle neighborhoods that used to be like small towns have been hellified into urban concrete walled nightmares.  The "ligth rail" behemoth of Nichles, Sims and Gregoire will spread decay outward towards Redmond.  The only hope is to leave.

(One big sic.)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 15, 2009, 03:30:44 am
I first read that as "Bills to mandate dentistry around light rail stations are dead".

Now that's a bill I could get behind.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2009, 03:34:01 am
My favorite part is this one:

John Fox, of the Seattle Displacement Coalition, said that mandated density could leave already congested Capitol Hill, the University District, Roosevelt, Northgate and other neighborhoods around Sound Transit stations denser than any area north of San Francisco.

What kind of weird complaint is that.  First, it's wrong.  Vancouver has much denser neighborhoods.  So, basically, the complaint is that Seattle would be the densest city between San Francisco and Vancouver.  OH GOD NO, ANYTHING BUT THAT

I'm sorry, I had to treat your amusing post like it was serious so I could complain more


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 15, 2009, 03:48:44 am
Your outrage is legitimate. I'm just really tired and sick.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 16, 2009, 02:17:52 am
http://columbian.com/article/20090315/NEWS02/703159957/-1/NEWS

No comment.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on March 16, 2009, 02:50:59 am
Washington?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 16, 2009, 12:03:31 pm
Interesting article.  That kind of reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask:  Who the hell is Jaime Herrera?  I know that she was appointed in 2007, but as far as I can tell she just appeared.  She seems young, conservative and photogenic.  Clark County is also not a bad part of the state to be from, politically.  Does she have any future potential?

All I know about her beyond that is that I once saw her throw some papers on TVW, and was told she was out of order.  It was awkward and staged, but pretty funny

She was an intern in the State House a few years ago (2004ish I think) and then was a low-level staff for McMorris Rodgers for a little while. When Curtis resigned over the prostitution scandal the local GOP thought she'd be a good pick for some reason. Bit of an odd decision and one that I suspect pissed off some old dogs down there, but nonetheless a smart decision.

In terms of her long-term viability (and referring back to that article), Zarelli and Orcutt actually agree with and support the type of people that showed up at that event. Herrera just humors those types. With the right fundraising she could be a good candidate on a larger scale (WA-03...)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 16, 2009, 12:40:50 pm
Here's the extremely threatening e-mail that the Labor Council CC'd some Legislators on and thus caused Gregoire, Chopp and Brown to call the state patrol.

Quote
Subject: RE: Strategy Call on Worker Privacy Act Legislation

Brothers and Sisters,

Just a quick update on where we are on the Worker Privacy Act:

*

Great leadership call yesterday where folks agreed that we would push for passage in the House this week and then call for a union president meeting with the Governor and the Majority Leader of the Senate to move the bill through the rest of the process

*

Union leaders would send a message to the State Democratic party and to the Truman and Roosevelt funds from the House and Senate that "not another dime from labor" until the Governor signs the Worker Privacy Act.

*

To date the Governor has received 2,247 contacts on the bill; the Speaker of the House has received 236 contacts from his constituents; and the Majority Leader has received 275 contacts from her constituents; [all of these numbers are minimums - there are a number of contacts that we have not been able to log, e.g., the State Democratic party did a 100,000 piece e-mail last Friday and we know that over 11,000 folks downloaded the piece but they have no way of knowing how many followed through with contacts].

*

The Governor, the Speaker and the Majority Leader met this morning. While we don't have a report back yet we do have a meeting with the Speaker at 4:00 pm this afternoon. It is our hope that the Speaker will run the bill as the last bill on the floor tonight or tomorrow night.

*

See attached letter from Scott Carson of Boeing dated March 9 to the Governor, Speaker and Majority Leader. He is now dubbing the bill the "neutrality bill". Just another move to try and conflate our bill with the Cedilla bill which was struck down by the US Supreme Court last June.

I will try and send another update later tonight. Keep the calls into the three leaders coming.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 16, 2009, 06:37:09 pm
Seattle PI publishes their last issue tomorrow.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 17, 2009, 12:14:48 am
Aaaaand opportunistic feeding frenzy starts...NOW!

(
Img
)

Stay classy, newspaper business


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 17, 2009, 12:18:52 am
Seattle PI publishes their last issue tomorrow.

:(

It is sad to see the oldest newspaper in Washington go out like this.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 17, 2009, 12:41:28 am
Call me a heartless jerk, but the moaning and complaining the local media and politicos have been doing over this is rather pathetic. If the city really wanted the P-I that badly then there'd still be a market for it. Times change, get over it.

The horse whip industry isn't doing too well these day but that's just sort of how things go...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 17, 2009, 01:11:44 am
Former Republican and current State Sen. Fred Jarrett (D-Mercer Island) is entering the race for King County Executive. No Republican has announced yet, although the post is "non-partisan".


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 17, 2009, 01:31:44 am
haha, and dan savage is running for seattle mayor.  Oh boy.

Jarrett is a fascinating candidate who I do not think should be underballed.  What he lacks in charisma, he makes up for in being nearly perfect on paper.  Let's see which way "former Republican" plays in suburban City of Seattle.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 17, 2009, 02:14:59 am
haha, and dan savage is running for seattle mayor.  Oh boy.

Holy sh*t, he actually is. I thought that post was a joke until I read the entire Slog entry. Awesome.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 17, 2009, 03:58:16 am
Not sure how I missed this but the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is still alive - it passed out of the Senate by a 28-21 vote.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Dr. RI on March 17, 2009, 01:00:14 pm
haha, and dan savage is running for seattle mayor.  Oh boy.

Holy sh*t, he actually is. I thought that post was a joke until I read the entire Slog entry. Awesome.

I would so vote for him....if I lived in Seattle. :(


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 17, 2009, 02:29:56 pm
haha, and dan savage is running for seattle mayor.  Oh boy.

Holy sh*t, he actually is. I thought that post was a joke until I read the entire Slog entry. Awesome.

I would so vote for him....if I lived in Seattle. :(

Definately. I love the Stranger.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 17, 2009, 03:17:43 pm
Marilyn Strickland just announced for Tacoma mayor.  I'm not even sure if she'll end up facing substantial opposition.  The only other announced candidate is architect Jim Merritt, a local do-gooder who I doubt has enough political cache, compared to Strickland.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 17, 2009, 05:38:15 pm
Too bad Savage's candidacy is such a joke. If he were serious, it would be really interesting.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 17, 2009, 08:11:17 pm
Julie Anderson doesn't want to run and last I heard neither does Tim Farrell. Things may have changed for him since the '08 county council results though...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 17, 2009, 10:15:41 pm
Issues? What are those? This is Tacoma Democratic politics: egos, money and unions! :D

Farrell is certainly ambitious enough but he's got some, er, personal issues. I won't go into them right here.

I agree that Strickland is probably the favorite no matter who runs though.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 17, 2009, 10:33:36 pm
Issues? What are those? This is Tacoma Democratic politics: egos, money and unions! :D

I think that's Strickland's greatest risk.  She's never gotten "in" with the unions in town, from what I gather.  That having been said, attacking her on that won't be easy.  She's probably acceptable on all union issues.  If she had an Achilles' heel, it would be some grassroots "the teachers don't like her!" campaign.  That works great in Tacoma, appealing both to union people and North Tacoma bleeding-hearts.

Still, seems unlikely, and unless the race gets mean in an unpredictable way, I think she's probably in.

This is predictable, but as bad as expected: King County has a $50 million deficit (http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/164409.asp?source=rss).  (That's actually not as bad as a lot of urban counties.)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Lunar on March 18, 2009, 01:44:39 am
Washington?

I forgot I posted that at 3:50 am.  Classic Lunar.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 18, 2009, 02:39:14 am
Washington?

I forgot I posted that at 3:50 am.  Classic Lunar.

I'm happy that your crap state has apparently removed its fat self from our time zone


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 22, 2009, 04:06:54 am
Budget modification came out. Basically the state now has to cut hundreds of millions more than previously thought (this is the second or third time new numbers have come in and each time has shown revenues to get worse each time).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 22, 2009, 04:14:49 am
^ It's only get to get worse in this dumb sales-tax-only state...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 23, 2009, 04:26:32 pm
Random fact: Washington has only had four State Auditors since 1905.

https://uselectionatlas.org/WIKI/index.php/State_Auditor_of_Washington


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 24, 2009, 06:45:09 pm
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2316&year=2009

Brendan Williams and company says "fuck you" to Boeing.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 24, 2009, 09:57:47 pm
^ It's only get to get worse in this dumb sales-tax-only state...

Do you think there is any chance in the near future (say next ten years) that we change over to a progressive tax system? I know it would take a constitutional amendment...
:(


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 25, 2009, 02:52:21 am
Didn't notice this before but there's an odd amendment attached to the all-mail voting bill.

Right now precincts can be no larger than 900 poll voters. The bill changes that requirement to no larger than 2000 active voters. Then, should a precinct grow to more than 2000 active voters at some point in between precinct redistricting, the county central committee of each major political party may, if they so choose, order that there be four PCO positions for that precinct. So <2000 active voters, 1 PCO. >2000 active voters, 4 PCO's.

Why? I have no idea.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 25, 2009, 03:20:37 am
warning: Drunk posting!

Didn't notice this before but there's an odd amendment attached to the all-mail voting bill.

Right now precincts can be no larger than 900 poll voters. The bill changes that requirement to no larger than 2000 active voters. Then, should a precinct grow to more than 2000 active voters at some point in between precinct redistricting, the county central committee of each major political party may, if they so choose, order that there be four PCO positions for that precinct. So <2000 active voters, 1 PCO. >2000 active voters, 4 PCO's.

Why? I have no idea.

...poll voters?  Isn't that requirement kind of moot, now that they've forced a Pierce County conversion?  I'm assuming this, since PierceCo (and a few other counties) have way more than 900 RVs per precinct.

A 900 RV/precinct limit would be really nice, the 2000 limit is too Oregonian and I resent it, but even King County has some precincts nearing that size (one outside of Redmond, last time I checked)

Post-script: This is what I do when I'm drunk, what the hell?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 28, 2009, 08:58:56 pm
Puyallup plz


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on March 29, 2009, 03:01:12 pm
I always find it sad when a school levy fails.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 29, 2009, 10:13:39 pm
Possibly interesting SurveyUSA poll:

Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry?

Should: 47%
Should Not: 51%

Should Washington State law treat domestic partnerships in the same way it treats marriages?

Yes: 58%
No: 36%

Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children?

Should: 50%
Should Not: 45%

Cross-tabs look a little screwy though: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fa0ea620-2f9f-4aaf-9ffa-478251370a9b


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Dr. RI on March 29, 2009, 11:02:20 pm
Possibly interesting SurveyUSA poll:

Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry?

Should: 47%
Should Not: 51%

Should Washington State law treat domestic partnerships in the same way it treats marriages?

Yes: 58%
No: 36%

Do you think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children?

Should: 50%
Should Not: 45%

Cross-tabs look a little screwy though: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fa0ea620-2f9f-4aaf-9ffa-478251370a9b

Why are males more pro-gay rights than women?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 30, 2009, 12:22:27 am
The poll's internals are a bit strange. Eastern Washington is more pro-gay marriage than non-Seattle area Western Washington? eh.

White people approve 53-45, but Hispanics are 90% no? And Asians 83%? Although those two ethnic groups being against would not surprise me, I doubt it would be to that united against it.

Of course, the sub-samples are small. But if white people approve of it by an eight point margin, I suspect it would pass in a vote. And I agree that I highly doubt men truly approve of gay marriage more than women.

We would also need some context. I think the pro-side generally does a bit better if it's a vote to overturn gay marriage that has already been legalized by the courts or legislature.

In my opinion, I suspect Washington would vote in favor of gay marriage if there was a vote on it.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 30, 2009, 05:37:11 am
I agree, actually.  We haven't had a real statewide effort to legalize gay marriage formally.  In CA, Prop. 8's numbers steadily declined before leveling off.  I'd give an outright vote on gay marriage about 50/50 odds of passing WA.  I'd give a re-affirmation vote 2-to-1 odds.

Other interesting notes from the same polling round.

Sims approval ratings as KC Exec:

Approve 35%
Disapprove 51%

Greg Nickels approval:

Approve 39%
Disapprove 49%

Odd:  By a 59-30 margin, voters in Seattle say life is getting worse.  King County-wide, this number is 71-18.  Sucks to be in the suburbs, or weird sampling?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 30, 2009, 10:40:00 pm
Sims is a great county executive and I feel very lucky to have had him in control for the past 12 years. I hope he eventually ends up as the #1 over at HUD. I don't know of any politicians better for that job.

I don't quite understand the hate for Nickels, either. I would probably vote for him if I lived in Seattle.

Anyway, for the Exec race, I suspect a divided liberal/Seattle Dem vote will guarantee Jarrett a spot on the ballot in November... He's the perfect candidate for all of these Dem-trending suburbs (especially the Eastside), and considering there's a good chance there won't be any Repukes in the final round, I'm guessing Jarrett will utterly annihilate Constantine/Phillips in November.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 31, 2009, 03:20:34 am
David Taylor was appointed earlier today to fill the State House seat of Dan Newhouse, now Director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Taylor is an "agricultural consultant" from some hellhole called Moxee.

Obama won the LD, but Democrats will be hard pressed to find a qualified candidate to run against Taylor this fall (much less beat him).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 31, 2009, 03:24:56 am
I have never understood why Democrats suck in the 15th LD so much.  Klickitat and Skamania are ancestrally Democratic and are coming back to the fold.  It's increasingly Hispanic (Obama broke 50% in the Yakima County portion).  The white voters are working-class, and although they're quite conservative, Dukakis ran pretty well in some of these areas.

Maybe they shouldn't be winning at the LD level, but they should at least be able to field candidates that don't get their asses beaten.  Or am I crazy?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 31, 2009, 03:26:48 am
There's no bench.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 31, 2009, 03:29:32 am
There's no bench.

And by "there's no bench"...does that possibly mean that there's a theoretical bench, but they're mostly mayors with inconveniently Hispanic surnames?  :P

I don't really understand where the GOP's bench comes from either; it's a weird district with no political center.  Then again, where are the Democrats going to go.  Mayor of White Salmon?  Yech, I see their problem.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 31, 2009, 03:39:28 am
Everyone down there is involved in politics for one of three reasons: 1) They're farmers, 2) They're religious, or 3) They're Hispanic. The first two groups are Republicans and the third group isn't going to win the support of more than 40-45% of the district, so...

If we really tried I'm sure we could find some nice, middle-aged farmer type who was friendly with Hispanics. But no one in Olympia gives a flying f**ck about doing that.

Also, if one of those were to appear on their own, they're screwed. People down there associate the word "Democrat" with people like Christine Gregoire and Patty Murray and such. Our hypothetical "15th District Democrat" has no way to communicate his message to people that he's not like that. There's no fundraising base down there and, again, no one in Olympia gives a flying f**ck.

There are exceptions (the 8th District race and 14th District race this past year come to mind), but those were still pretty urban races. Rural races are anathema to the HDCC.

EDIT: I might want to add "Ron Paulites" to that first group of three. But that's a new development.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 31, 2009, 04:07:50 am
Patty Murray hasn't done too horribly down there.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on March 31, 2009, 04:31:03 am
Patty Murray hasn't done too horribly down there.

Yea, not the best example. I couldn't think up another name off the top of my head for "typical western Washington liberal Democrat" besides Gregoire.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 31, 2009, 04:52:05 am
Patty Murray hasn't done too horribly down there.

Yea, not the best example. I couldn't think up another name off the top of my head for "typical western Washington liberal Democrat" besides Gregoire.

That's because they tend to like them just fine. :)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 31, 2009, 05:29:36 am
http://horsesass.org/?p=14562

Wow... Geoff Simpson is awesome.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 31, 2009, 06:18:31 am
http://horsesass.org/?p=14562

Wow... Geoff Simpson is awesome.

No, Geoff Simpson is just a loudmouth jerk who happens to be correct, and know how to copy-paste.  Google pretty much any portion of his response.

Nonetheless, it does take cojones.  I'll give him that.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on March 31, 2009, 03:04:59 pm
http://horsesass.org/?p=14562

Wow... Geoff Simpson is awesome.

No, Geoff Simpson is just a loudmouth jerk who happens to be correct, and know how to copy-paste. 

Thanks, Moderate Hero

 
Quote
Google pretty much any portion of his response.

I can read the comments. And no, I don't expect Simpson to actually spend a ton of time researching and writing all of that himself to reply to some crazy biatch who doesn't even live in his district.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on March 31, 2009, 05:38:40 pm
I don't exactly know Puyallup that well, but I see no real patterns here.

(
Img
)

There were some pretty strong victories (>60) but it all seems pretty randomish.  Maybe you see something else, Meeker?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 04, 2009, 11:33:27 pm
There might be a revolt next week amongst House Democrats re: Worker Privacy Act. Stay tuned...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 06, 2009, 07:02:33 pm
Is there even a remote chance Washington voters would approve an income tax?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 07, 2009, 01:34:19 am
If it's just on the rich, maybe. If it's coupled with a sales tax reduction/elimination, maybe.

On the population as a whole on its own? No way.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 07, 2009, 01:39:31 am
If it's just on the rich, maybe. If it's coupled with a sales tax reduction/elimination, maybe.

On the population as a whole on its own? No way.

It would be worth considering if it eliminated the state sales tax.

Otherwise it seems like a waste of time to discuss it. Not to mention political suicide for the Democrats for no good reason...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 07, 2009, 01:52:43 am
If it's just on the rich, maybe. If it's coupled with a sales tax reduction/elimination, maybe.

On the population as a whole on its own? No way.

It would be worth considering if it eliminated the state sales tax.

Otherwise it seems like a waste of time to discuss it. Not to mention political suicide for the Democrats for no good reason...

I agree. Most Washingtonians would actually see a tax cut if we were to switch from a sales tax to an income tax.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on April 07, 2009, 03:23:36 am
How about a wealth tax instead?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 07, 2009, 04:22:41 am
Something to keep in mind is that a lot of Brown's rhetoric in recent days and weeks could be routed in her 2012 desires. An income tax is pretty much DOA in the House (Chopp has no balls) and Brown may just be spouting off this income tax stuff to endear herself to the left-wing of the party.

Left-wing and progressives + Eastern Democrats + Sonntag and Inslee splitting the remaining Democratic vote = Brown in the general?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 10, 2009, 08:34:15 am
Susan Hutchinson is running for King County Executive. lol.

Silly non-partisan rules mean a lot of people won't figure out she's a Republican (and a crazy one at that).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 10, 2009, 02:24:18 pm
The Republicans were going to find a sacrificial lamb sooner or later, I suppose...

Not convinced she'll make it past the primary, though. But Jarrett vs. Hutchison would be funny.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 10, 2009, 08:09:17 pm
I wouldn't be at all surprised if she finishes in third or even fourth.

Hopefully Pam Roach wants another bite at the apple.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 15, 2009, 11:57:41 pm
The State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 16, 2009, 12:42:27 am
The State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.

House crossover
Dems voting "no": Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle), Laura Grant-Herriot (D-Walla Walla), Zak Hudgins (D-Tukwila), Ross Hunter (D-Medina), Tina Orwall (D-Normandy Park), Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), Sharon Tamiko Santos (D-Vashon Island) and Alex Wood (D-Spokane).

Pubbies voting "yes": None.

Pretty impressive that the Democrats can bleed lots of urban-core reps (I wonder why?) and still carry a vote by 10.

Can't find the House version.  The companion bill doesn't list a vote?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 16, 2009, 03:36:52 am
Gay Marriage Except in Name is headed for Gregoire's signature.  The only Democrat to vote against it was Mark Miloscia (D-Federal Way).  The Republican co-sponsors, Maureen Walsh (R-College Place) and Norm Johnson (R-Yakima), both voted yes.  The Moderate Heroes apparently all fell in line on this'n, although I don't know who the two absent were.  Maybe Grant-Herriot decided to take a long lunch.

An announcement for a supposedly massive signature drive to land a repeal on the November ballot is expected tomorrow.  Assuming the drive isn't massively overstated, I look forward to the referendum going down in flames in November.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 16, 2009, 04:39:55 am
Three-cent sales tax increase is down 51-41 in preliminary polling, which wasn't as bad as I expected but is still bad -- especially considering healthcare was specifically mentioned in the question.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8fc5c7d9-733b-410b-b762-79792b147e63

An earlier poll found a more extreme undercurrent of tax hostility:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=192b5d4e-ed0b-43ee-96d8-8a40dec2df39

By a 74-20 margin, voters said that balancing the budget by increasing taxes was a bad idea.

The second poll is a bit weird.  Saving 10,000 college spots makes 29% of Washingtonians LESS likely to vote for such an increase, and only 27% more likely; but preventing larger class sizes and teacher lay-offs encourages people to vote yes 34-25.  Polls, whatever.

Still, proposals like this tend to degrade, not improve in the polls, and ten points down is a bad place to start.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 16, 2009, 04:16:33 pm
The State House just passed the National Popular Vote Compact 52-42 (it previously passed the Senate 28-21). It appears to have been amended in the House though, so back to the Senate it goes.

House crossover
Dems voting "no": Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle), Laura Grant-Herriot (D-Walla Walla), Zak Hudgins (D-Tukwila), Ross Hunter (D-Medina), Tina Orwall (D-Normandy Park), Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), Sharon Tamiko Santos (D-Vashon Island) and Alex Wood (D-Spokane).

Pubbies voting "yes": None.

Pretty impressive that the Democrats can bleed lots of urban-core reps (I wonder why?) and still carry a vote by 10.

Can't find the House version.  The companion bill doesn't list a vote?

Hudgins doesn't like the bill for a lot of logistical reasons (reasons that I completely agree with him on, FTR). All the Democrats that voted against it are his buddies (with the exception of Grant-Herriot who voted against it for other obvious reasons).

EDIT: It wasn't actually amended. Typo from last night.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 17, 2009, 08:43:14 pm
The last sentence makes this article.

Quote
MASON COUNTY, Wash. --  Mason County Commissioner Tim Sheldon said a budget crisis means the sheriff will have cut $382,000 from its budget which the sheriff said could mean up to five deputies yanked off the road.

The commissioner said he's confident Mason County residents can defend themselves from criminals if necessary.

"It's always open season on criminals in Mason County, and there is no bag limit," Sheldon said.

Sheriff's officials said they believe commissioners need to reconsider the cuts to the sheriff’s office and not condone vigilantes.

"We're just not a community of vigilantism, and no responsible politician is going to encourage vigilantism," said Dean Byrd of the Mason County Sheriff’s Office.

Sheldon said he's just warning criminals that people in Mason County have guns and know how to use them.

"You might expect a lead enema. I'm telling you, people in Mason County are fed up with crime. They know how to protect themselves," Sheldon said.

Residents don’t want to see any cuts to the sheriff’s office but said they are prepared to defend themselves if it comes to that.

"It's not a question of if you are going to have to but when you are going to have to," said Mason County resident Ron Adams.

Sheldon is also a state senator. Despite his comments, he said he does not want people to take the law into their own hands.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on April 17, 2009, 09:17:15 pm
State legislators can also hold a local office in Washington? I didn't think that kind of double-dipping was allowed outside of New Jersey.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 17, 2009, 09:51:12 pm
State legislators can also hold a local office in Washington? I didn't think that kind of double-dipping was allowed outside of New Jersey.

There was a Supreme Court case about it when he first got elected to both, and the court ruled that the only thing prohibited by state law was appearing on the same ballot twice. Since the County Commissioner elections are in presidential years and the State Senate elections are in mid-term years, Sheldon has no legal issues.

He's still the only one to do it/a douchebag/a DINO/I hate him.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 18, 2009, 05:00:05 am
Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle) has a bill relating to "protecting workers from human trafficking violations". It sailed through the Senate 46-0 and seemed like a fine bill to me at the time, but it barely passed the House today on a 50-48 vote. Anyone know what the hell happened?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on April 18, 2009, 09:10:56 pm
State legislators can also hold a local office in Washington? I didn't think that kind of double-dipping was allowed outside of New Jersey.

There was a Supreme Court case about it when he first got elected to both, and the court ruled that the only thing prohibited by state law was appearing on the same ballot twice. Since the County Commissioner elections are in presidential years and the State Senate elections are in mid-term years, Sheldon has no legal issues.

He's still the only one to do it/a douchebag/a DINO/I hate him.

I think I have more qualms with Sheldon than you do. He represents me... I hope that when there is redistricting Western Thurston county will not be in the 35th LD. That man needs to be taken out of the political arena.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 18, 2009, 11:58:20 pm
Ahh, here's that graph I was looking for:

(
Img
)

Not to mention this report: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/wa%20pr.pdf

I'm tempted to vote against any sales tax increase...Not because I don't support a tax raise, but because the Democrats need to grow a pair and replace it with an income tax.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: ottermax on April 19, 2009, 12:43:25 am
Ahh, here's that graph I was looking for:

(
Img
)

Not to mention this report: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/wa%20pr.pdf

I'm tempted to vote against any sales tax increase...Not because I don't support a tax raise, but because the Democrats need to grow a pair and replace it with an income tax.

but what if Bill Gates moves away... tear...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on April 19, 2009, 01:16:46 am
Ahh, here's that graph I was looking for:

(
Img
)

Not to mention this report: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/wa%20pr.pdf

I'm tempted to vote against any sales tax increase...Not because I don't support a tax raise, but because the Democrats need to grow a pair and replace it with an income tax.

Yup, Washington is the most regressive state. Notice the lack of an income tax (which isn't unique).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 19, 2009, 01:18:29 am
but what if Bill Gates moves away... tear...

Interestingly enough, Gates' father has been one of the biggest proponents of an income tax.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on April 19, 2009, 04:12:38 pm
but what if Bill Gates moves away... tear...

Interestingly enough, Gates' father has been one of the biggest proponents of an income tax.

Yep, I actually don't think Gates would have too much of a problem with it. If anything he would simply change residency but still live in Washington. The state really wouldn't lose much though because his operations and a lot of his spending would still be here.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 20, 2009, 05:45:16 pm
Haha sighh.  Democrats: WA-8 fail.  I think I'm going to start referring to Suzan DelBene as "Windows ME."  Or "Darcy Burner ME."  Or something.  I'm working on it!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009086085_delbene20m.html

(Bold to emphasize the funniest part)

Quote
Reichert's new challenger Suzan DelBene sat out several elections
Suzan DelBene, a Democrat who plans to challenge U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert in the 8th Congressional District, has raised $314,000 for her first political run. The former Microsoft vice president also skipped voting in nine elections in the past five years.

...

There's one notable difference, though, between Burner and DelBene. Burner voted in every primary, general and special election since 2000, according to King County Elections. DelBene did not cast a ballot in nine elections in the last five years. (Reichert has just one blemish; his absentee ballot for the 2007 primary was postmarked after Election Day making it invalid, according to King County Elections.)

As first reported by The Stranger's blog, DelBene failed to vote in last year's Democratic presidential primary and sat out November elections in 2005 and 2006 — neglecting to vote for Burner in a relatively close race in 2006.

"I'm not perfect, and I regret that I don't have a perfect voting record," DelBene, 47, said.

How will she persuade voters to elect her if she hasn't bothered to mark a ballot in important elections? "I bring a variety of things to the table, and you have to look at the total package and what people can do," she said.

...

Despite their similar paths to politics, DelBene said she's not a Burner clone. While Burner was a midlevel manager at Microsoft, DelBene was corporate vice president for mobile communications.

...

Bonus materials:  Super-awkward interview with a notably unenthusiastic Stranger (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/try-try-again/Content?oid=1220631).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 20, 2009, 05:48:49 pm
Yeah, I saw that... :(

REAL CANDIDATE, PLZ


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on April 21, 2009, 09:28:56 pm
Ugh... while I liked Darcy Burner it is time for a new candidate. I still don't see how she lost so closely twice in a row. WA-08 has trended democratic enough that we really should not be having all these problems defeating Reichart, though he has been very clever in how he has positioned and portrayed himself.

Oh and by the way there were about 4,500 protesters at the Olympia Tea-Party protest. That ranks amoung the highest in the nation. So listen up US! Washington has its fair share of conservative crazies too!


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 23, 2009, 10:53:56 pm
I think I need to move:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43491772.html


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 24, 2009, 12:27:39 am
I think I need to move:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43491772.html

Why do our municipal governments always seem to attract filth?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 24, 2009, 12:57:25 am
I think I need to move:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/43491772.html

Why do our municipal governments always seem to attract filth?

You think he's annoying, too? I don't actually know anything about his politics, to be honest. I didn't even know he lived here.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on April 24, 2009, 01:55:59 am
Why do you guys not like him? I have always liked Evening Magazine, and besides him being the host of the show has nothing to do with how good of a councilman he would be. He could be amazing... or horrible we don't really know until we get more info.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 24, 2009, 03:10:00 am
Does Curley have secret Nazi regalia in his basement?  Evening Magazine is fluff sure, but I don't find him all that annoying, and he doesn't scream "pure evil" to me in any way.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 24, 2009, 03:44:36 am
Does Curley have secret Nazi regalia in his basement?  Evening Magazine is fluff sure, but I don't find him all that annoying, and he doesn't scream "pure evil" to me in any way.

Nazi regalia? Pure evil?

Did I miss something?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 24, 2009, 03:53:06 am
Does Curley have secret Nazi regalia in his basement?  Evening Magazine is fluff sure, but I don't find him all that annoying, and he doesn't scream "pure evil" to me in any way.

Nazi regalia? Pure evil?

Did I miss something?

I figured he had some Hutchinsonian open-secret political views that might prompt Meeker's "filth" comment :P


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 26, 2009, 10:53:27 pm
It just occurred to me that I'd never actually heard Cheryl Pflug speak. I just did.

Oh my is all I have to say to her.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 26, 2009, 11:43:03 pm
Owen just had to break a tie on final passage. Extremely uncommon these days (even more so considering the body has an odd number of members).


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 02:01:41 am
OH NOES! It's 12:01 and the Legislature hasn't adjourned!


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 02:28:12 am
Still haven't Sine Die-ed. No idea what's holding them up; TVW cut away and is running promotional crap.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 02:39:47 am
Apparently there's an actual problem. From The Olympian:

Quote
Democrats ran out of time in the House to pass a levy lid bill that would let local school districts raise extra funds if voters approve.

And Gov. Chris Gregoire is huddling with House Speaker Frank Chopp and Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown on what to do.

They might need House Bill 1776, according to budget director Victor Moore, because it contains language that allows a cut of $60 million in levy equalization money that the majority Democrats' budget calls for.

It also appears they need SB 6138, which suspends a couple of school initiatives, Rep. Tom Campbell just said to me.

"We don't know if we are calling a special session or not," Gregoire spokesman Pearse Edwards said.

For all the confusion, lawmakers did get the major work completed. The Senate approved the capital budget, sending it to the governor. That means she has all three major budgets for construction, operations and transportation.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 02:41:06 am
Joe Turner from the News Tribune chimes in:

Quote
The governor just announced she would meet soon with legislative leaders to decide when to call lawmakers back into special session.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 02:44:06 am
Seattle Times homepage headline:

Quote
More to come: Washington Legislature runs out of time, Gov. Chris Gregoire calls special session.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 02:46:31 am
News Tribune again:

Quote
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, just told reporters that Gov. Chris Gregoire will "speak to legislative leader in the next couple of days" to see when they should come back. All the main budget bills are done, but there are a few other bills "necessary to implement the budget."

"We may come back for a very short session to implemeent these bills necessary for the budget," Brown said.

Later this week?

"Could be," she said.

I'm done tonight. More tomorrow. It's now 12:40 a.m.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 27, 2009, 10:19:20 pm
Gregoire to sign the National Popular Vote Compact tomorrow.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: ottermax on April 27, 2009, 10:21:37 pm
Gregoire to sign the National Popular Vote Compact tomorrow.

And where's the budget?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 28, 2009, 12:05:05 am
Gregoire to sign the National Popular Vote Compact tomorrow.

And where's the budget?

Her office is looking over all three... she'll probably veto minor sections in each but she'll sign the vast majority of it into law sometime in mid-May.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 29, 2009, 03:05:36 am
Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Bellevue) has announced he's running for King County Executive.

So the candidates are now three Democrats, a Republican-turned-Democrat, and Susan Hutchinson? Am I missing anyone?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 29, 2009, 03:17:10 am
My count is Constantine, Hunter, Hutchison, Jarrett and Phillips.

I frankly don't know much to differentiate Constantine and Phillips, but isn't Hunter supposed to be pretty smart?  I can't imagine he won't split the vote with Jarrett.  I truly have no idea who would win this field, but my bet is that the King County Democrats will crack the whip some.

P.S. Seattle Times stop calling Hutchison an "eastside" candidate thanks


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 29, 2009, 04:00:43 am
Hunter's very smart. Smarter than Jarrett for sure. Don't really know Constantine and Phillips well enough to make a judgment call though.

And of course they're all smarter than Hutchison. But so is officepark.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on April 29, 2009, 01:19:48 pm
Bleh, can't one of them run for Congress...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on April 29, 2009, 03:12:39 pm
Bleh, can't one of them run for Congress...

The upside for this race, at least for Jarrett and Hunter, is that they don't have to give up their seat in the Legislature to do it. Congress isn't so much the case (although Jarrett could do it in 2010 without risking his seat...)


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on April 29, 2009, 05:56:30 pm
One of the three remaining San Juan County Republicans has filed an initiative to repeal the National Popular Vote compact.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009146605_webreferendum29.html

The guy doesn't have any history of initiative success, and Shaw Island seems like an awkward place to run an initiative drive from, so I can't imagine he'll get very far.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on April 30, 2009, 02:23:38 pm
Washington has had its first 6 cases of Swine Flu:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5218-Seattle-North-American-Travel-Examiner~y2009m4d29-Three-probable-cases-of-swine-flu-identified-in-Seattle-Washington-State

Let the panic and then looting begin!


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 01, 2009, 12:14:31 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsgP_Ld4qB8

oh geez.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 01, 2009, 12:24:02 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsgP_Ld4qB8

oh geez.

Umm...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 01, 2009, 12:30:50 am
I get the feeling he'll be using the city council as a spring board for higher office. I wonder what party he'll go with...


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 01, 2009, 12:31:27 am
ooh, 1000th post!


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on May 04, 2009, 02:25:46 pm
Washington state politicians aren't very good at voting

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/politicsnorthwest/2009/05/04/seattle_mayoral_candidates_les.html

Quote
Publicola has a post this morning about the spotty voting record of Seattle's newest mayoral candidate, T-Mobile executive Joseph Mallahan. He has missed six of 18 elections since 2000, including the 2007 general election, when Seattle elected five new City Council members.

But he's not the only mayoral candidate with a less-than-perfect record, according to King County Elections.

Former Sonic James Donaldson did not vote at all from 2004 to mid-2007. He missed eight consecutive elections. Since then, he's missed only last year's presidential primary. That was commonly skipped among Democrats because so much was decided in the caucus process.

Norman Sigler, a corporate recruiter and professional matchmaker, missed the recent February vote on a new King County elections director. He also sat out the 2008 primary and 2007 school-levy renewal election. And he missed the primary in 2007 that whittled down big fields in several Seattle City Council and School Board races.

Former Sierra Club Chairman Michael McGinn has missed only a couple elections in the last decade, but he's been a big critic of the Seattle school district during his campaign, so it's notable that he didn't vote in the February 2007 that renewed the district's capital and operating bonds.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on May 05, 2009, 02:25:11 am
Apparently there are rumors that Gregoire could possibly be under consideration for the Supreme Court position. Personally I would like the national attention but in reality it would be horrible to have Owens as our governor. He would replace Gregoire if she left, right?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 05, 2009, 02:54:15 am
Apparently there are rumors that Gregoire could possibly be under consideration for the Supreme Court position. Personally I would like the national attention but in reality it would be horrible to have Owens as our governor. He would replace Gregoire if she left, right?

Oh, I saw something about that, too. Highly doubt it will happen, though.

But yes, Owens would become Governor under such circumstances.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 05, 2009, 02:57:08 am
I'd be shocked if it were to happen. If he wants a woman there are many better options.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Badger on May 05, 2009, 04:06:57 am
I'd be shocked if it were to happen. If he wants a woman there are many better options.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Frodo on May 05, 2009, 01:01:38 pm
Just how conservative is Lt. Gov. Brad Owens?  I always heard him talked about as a 'conservative Democrat', but what does that really mean in Washington state's context?  Is this primarily in reference to being 'pro-business', or what?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 05, 2009, 01:10:00 pm
Just how conservative is Lt. Gov. Brad Owens?  I always heard him talked about as a 'conservative Democrat', but what does that really mean in Washington state's context?  Is this primarily in reference to being 'pro-business', or what?

Eh, he's probably best known for opposing medical marijuana.

But personally, I think the dislike for Owen has less to do with his supposed conservatism and much more with his rampant douchebaggery, but that's just  me.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/otherlocalelectionstories/2008312163_owen26m.html

"He's been traveling around the state with his idiotic rock band, torturing middle-schoolers and high-schoolers"


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on May 05, 2009, 03:57:43 pm
Just how conservative is Lt. Gov. Brad Owens?  I always heard him talked about as a 'conservative Democrat', but what does that really mean in Washington state's context?  Is this primarily in reference to being 'pro-business', or what?

Being generally pro-business isn't a big deal in Washington state.  In the legislature it might challenge the Democrats' orthodoxy a bit too much.  But on the whole, Washington is a free-trade state.  We're full of well-off Democrats (even in Seattle) who like the idea of "trade" itself.

Owen's conservatism is more kind of an annoying anti-intellectual traditionalism.  He opposes gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization -- although really he has no idea why.  He's the sort of politician who's satisfied with "DARE sez" with no curiosity about the science or anything.  It's a Moderate Hero sort of thing -- a mix of emotionality and "it's centrist" to frame most of his positions.  And then he dedicates a lot of time to them, especially the anti-marijuana stuff.  He's amiable and reasonably effective but not especially useful.  I would not want him as Governor; he'd probably get steamrolled.

Plus, his rock band is kinda bad :P


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 05, 2009, 04:55:01 pm
He's also an idiot.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on May 05, 2009, 05:31:51 pm
He's also an idiot.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on May 06, 2009, 02:20:20 am
Um, so news!

Larry Stickney's group has filed an initiative to repeal the domestic partnership law.  Apparently, Pastor Joe Fuiten is already getting queasy after seeing some allegedly terrible polling numbers.  At this point, many social conservatives are hoping this thing doesn't make the ballot.  It's a hopeless cause.  I haven't seen a public poll, but I've heard things as bad as 2-to-1.

Fred Jarrett's campaign has released a poll for King County Executive:

Undecided 59%
Hutchison 20% ("Hutchinson" in the poll text, ouch)
Jarrett 7%
Constantine 6%
Phillips 5%
Hunter 3%

's all I got.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 06, 2009, 02:56:22 am
Um, so news!

Larry Stickney's group has filed an initiative to repeal the domestic partnership law.  Apparently, Pastor Joe Fuiten is already getting queasy after seeing some allegedly terrible polling numbers.  At this point, many social conservatives are hoping this thing doesn't make the ballot.  It's a hopeless cause.  I haven't seen a public poll, but I've heard things as bad as 2-to-1.

Fred Jarrett's campaign has released a poll for King County Executive:

Undecided 59%
Hutchison 20% ("Hutchinson" in the poll text, ouch)
Jarrett 7%
Constantine 6%
Phillips 5%
Hunter 3%

's all I got.

Do you think her 20%  is primarily because she has name recognition from being on TV?

Although, I suppose the vote not being split 4 ways like the Democrats probably also helps, too.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 06, 2009, 03:03:54 am
Egads. Hopefully everyone figures out who the Democrats are... damn non-partisan races.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Holmes on May 06, 2009, 03:14:52 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGo11tMoGw0

Holy sh**t you guys, your fundies are freaks.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Alcon on May 06, 2009, 10:05:10 pm
To be fair, most of the fundie community leaders in Washington consider this to be a completely lost cause.  They're getting mutilated in the polls and the news spin is awful (http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/05/wa_domestic_partner_foes_may_t.html).  At this point there's a growing cloud-of-doom feeling among the Christian right here.  It may be that a massive initiative failure will just expedite the march toward gay marriage.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: CultureKing on May 10, 2009, 10:02:49 pm
To be fair, most of the fundie community leaders in Washington consider this to be a completely lost cause.  They're getting mutilated in the polls and the news spin is awful (http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/05/wa_domestic_partner_foes_may_t.html).  At this point there's a growing cloud-of-doom feeling among the Christian right here.  It may be that a massive initiative failure will just expedite the march toward gay marriage.

I tend to agree. If the public overwhemingly votes to keep strengthened civil unions then it might send a message to the legislature that its ok to have outright gay marraige or it might even be possible to get it passed as a ballot measure. Personally I think Washington is ready and willing.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Holmes on May 18, 2009, 04:17:31 pm
Gregoire wants to see a bill on her desk. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/05/18/a-few-questions-for-the-governor) No specifics, just wants to see a bill on her desk.

Hello!?


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 18, 2009, 08:25:58 pm
I've heard her give a similar answer several times before. It's clear to me she'll sign the bill but there's no point in risking anything politically by saying she'd sign it before she does it.

Frank Chopp is probably too terrified to bring it up for a vote until at least 2011 though - and that's only if the 2010 elections go well for his caucus.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 22, 2009, 02:48:26 pm
The first patient to utilize the Death with Dignity law passed away last night - a 66-year-old Sequim woman who had stage 4 pancreatic cancer.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Badger on May 22, 2009, 03:16:31 pm
The first patient to utilize the Death with Dignity law passed away last night - a 66-year-old Sequim woman who had stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

R.I.P.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: Meeker on May 26, 2009, 03:41:04 pm
Pierce County Councilmember Dick Muri (R-Steilacoom) has announced that he intends to run against Rep. Adam Smith. Earlier State Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Roy) announced that he was running against Smith as well.

Both will get crushed, but what's with two not-complete-joke candidates running against Smith? Smith hasn't faced anything but gadfly candidates since he beat Tate in 1996 IIRC.


Title: Re: Washington '09: We have no money
Post by: bgwah on May 26, 2009, 11:09:03 pm
^eh, Chris Vance was a King County Councilman when he ran against Smith (in 2000 I think), or at least had been one recently IIRC. Still only got 35% of the vote, though! haha.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 01, 2009, 12:31:09 pm
It's filing week! Around half of all those fun city council, school board, park district, water district, fire district, etc., etc. seats are up for election this year, and the random nobodies who run our municipal governments have until Friday to indulge in their quad-yearly civic masturbation file for office.

Some counties also do their elections on the off-years, most notably King County (now featuring Super-Fair-and-Awesome-Non-Partisan™ ballot labels!) There's a special election in Pierce County for County Auditor that will probably be the last IRV election in Washington State for quite some time (voters in November have the opportunity to, and almost certainly will, ditch IRV for county offices).

Special elections also occurring for State House seats in the 9th, 15th and 16th LD's.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 02, 2009, 10:21:35 pm
Mike Fagan is running for Spokane City Council. Curious...


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 04, 2009, 12:02:00 pm
Krist Novoselic is running for Wahkiakum County Clerk. "Prefers Grange Party"


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 04, 2009, 05:36:00 pm
A man named "David C Roberts (Dave)" is running in the 16th LD special election. "Prefers ReganIndependent Party" (he's only allowed 16 letters and ReaganIndependent is 17).


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on June 04, 2009, 11:31:30 pm
Krist Novoselic is running for Wahkiakum County Clerk. "Prefers Grange Party"

I wish he had challenged Owen. Oh well, perhaps he (correctly) figures he needs to start small for anyone to take him seriously.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 05, 2009, 04:02:21 pm
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788607&fsrc=rss

I think I might be sick...


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 07, 2009, 10:44:34 pm
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=cd8c0ab8-ab65-4767-a525-bb41fac2daf8

Nickels approval stands at 31-56.  Individual issues:

Law enforcement: 55-55
City services: 34-57
City parks: 53-36

Quality of life 57-28 getting worse
Traffic 79-13 getting worse


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 08, 2009, 06:16:30 pm
...oh, and:

25% Mayor Greg Nickels
17% City Councilwoman Jan Drago
9% Ex-Sonic James Donaldson
7% Sierra Club Guy Michael McGinn
6% T-Mobile Guy Joe Mallahan
3% Tunnel-Hater Elizabeth Campbell
2% Unreachable and undocumented SWP member Mary Juanita Martin
1% "Executive specialist"/Mary-Juanita-Martin-loser-to Norman Sigler


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 08, 2009, 06:50:29 pm
McGinn is behind Donaldson? Ouch


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 09, 2009, 02:56:48 am
I like how the Democratic candidate for Dist 16 Pos 2 lists his mailing address as Idaho.  Lewiston is only, what, 300 miles from his "legal residence" in White Salmon?


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: CultureKing on June 09, 2009, 05:00:24 am
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788607&fsrc=rss

I think I might be sick...

I like our primary system, but calling Washington centrist just seems wrong. People need to remember that there used to be the saying: "the 47 states and the soviet of Washington"


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 09, 2009, 10:00:16 am
I like how the Democratic candidate for Dist 16 Pos 2 lists his mailing address as Idaho.  Lewiston is only, what, 300 miles from his "legal residence" in White Salmon?

Hahahaha, I hadn't even noticed that. Excellent.

District 15, btw


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 11, 2009, 12:27:24 am
Even worse of a candidate than I expected.

Quote
Hutchison: 'I don't have to say anything' to voters

Susan Hutchison, the front runner in the race for King County executive, fired back at County Councilman Dow Constantine Wednesday afternoon after he said she's too conservative for local voters and ducking an honest debate.

In a telephone interview with seattlepi.com Hutchison called Constantine a liar.

"This is inexcusable. In sum total he's accused me of being an extremist and I'm a moderate."

At a news conference Wednesday Constantine said Hutchison was against abortion, reportedly supports the teaching of creationism in public schools and has contributed to the campaigns of Republicans like George Bush and Mike Huckabee.

When asked what Constantine was lying about - specifically about abortion - Hutchison said she wouldn't talk about specific issues not germane to King County politics.

"They fall in the categories of lies," Hutchison said. "The guy doesn't know me, he's never met me. I'm not going to get specific any more than he would if he (was similarly questioned)....Why would a guy who's never even known me start accusing me of these extreme statements."

Hutchison said Constantine was himself ducking the fact that King County was in horrible shape, facing a $50 million budget deficit because of the poor management by people like Constantine.

"He's doing this to take the heat away," she said, "from the mess this county is in. It's a Hail Mary on his part."

Hutchison was asked what she would say to the voters to demonstrate that she is a moderate.

"I don't have to say anything to the voters," said Hutchison, a long-time local television personality. "They've known me for 20 years on the air. They've known me for another seven years as someone who has served in the community."

Hutchison said she's served on numerous boards and commissions and was never questioned about her views on social issues.

Constantine was pressed at his news conference why issues like abortion - which is a state issue - should be a part of the county executive's race. He was asked what specific, germane question he would ask Hutchison if given the opportunity. He responded: "Would you vote to hold the line on the urban growth boundary. Would you vote to stop development outside of our urban areas, except on a rural scale. And that's a critical issue with which we're faced every year as land speculators seek to move that boundary and gobble up our farm and forest land for more and more suburban development."

When asked about growth management issues Hutchison said "what I will do in King County is manage growth by bringing all the factions together. That is what I will do."

The question of whether a candidate is liberal or conservative has changed in county-wide races. That's because voters recently passed an initiative that ostensibly makes such offices nonpartisan - there's no "D" or "R" next to candidates' names.

Constantine, County Councilman Larry Phillips and state lawmakers Fred Jarrett and Ross Hunter are all elected Democrats who have long public records. Hutchison is running for office for the first time.

Susan Hutchison:  She doesn't lie about that one thing, and you know her from TV.  (Also no "N"!)


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 11, 2009, 12:40:37 am
Has anyone ever seen Hutchison and Pam Roach in the same place at the same time? I have a theory.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 12, 2009, 01:43:33 pm
King County Executive: Cash raised/Cash on Hand

Larry Phillips: $346K/$209K
Dow Constantine: $238K/$166K
Susan Hutchison: $124K/$95K
Ross Hunter: $117K/$112K
Fred Jarrett: $50K/$8K (Ouch)


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: CultureKing on June 12, 2009, 06:13:08 pm
What do you guys think of this Washington with 10 districts map?

(
Img
)

I know the Vancouver-Yakima district would be annoying because likely it would be republican (though Baird may be able to hold it, after all it doesn't include much of conservative Lewis county any more). The 5th district would be more competitive, while the 8th probably more democratic, I am not sure about the rest.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on June 12, 2009, 06:15:45 pm
It's alright I suppose. I wish we had 2010 numbers to play with!

Here's a 9 district map I made yesterday:

(
Img
)


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: CultureKing on June 12, 2009, 06:20:14 pm
It's alright I suppose. I wish we had 2010 numbers to play with!

Here's a 9 district map I made yesterday:

(
Img
)

Ewww... Somehow I end up in a district that attaches to the tri-cities eventhough I live in Olympia.

Is this a Gerrymander map or simply using every mountain pass you can to attach areas?


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on June 12, 2009, 06:24:05 pm
It's a Democratic gerrymander, of course. It's intended to have 8 Democrats and 1 Republican (in the red district).


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 15, 2009, 03:11:11 am
CK -- Cool map.  Aesthetically pleasing, too.

Baird could hold that district in a walk, but it would be extremely competitive.  Hard to tell how much of Yakima you put in, but Obama actually narrowly won the 15th LD -- South Yakima is a competitive area because of the Hispanic and Native population, and the Clark County portion is the only bedrock GOP area.  If you take Yakima City without its suburbs, you've still got an easy Baird victory.  The dude racks it up in even Lewis County -- he'd manage.

I like your setup around the Sound.  It makes the 8th actually cohesive, and gets rid of exurban Pierce hickland to the 9th (which is a lost cause for cohesive anyway).  On the other hand, I think its biggest weakness is the 6th -- Vashon+Tacoma+Centralia, now there's a district.

Kind of hard to tell without a zoom-in around Lake Washington (Yakima would be nice too), but Reichert would probably be the last GOP congressman from the 8th unless things turn around.

Also, you put Dicks and Inslee in the same district.  Not sure if that's fixable.  Although Inslee does have a record or not minding moves, and who wants to live in Belfair anyway? :P


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 18, 2009, 01:00:21 am
Chris Hurst won't run for WA-8 (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/17/hurst-wont-seek-8th-district-congressional-seat), denies that Suzan DelBene is a "Darcy Burner" trainwreck, and clearly wants someone else anyway.

McDermott starts a Public Works employment project for the completely guano batsh**t (http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0609/No_namecalling.html?showall).

Referendum 71 is now one percent more screwed (http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/883548.html).

Goldy should really stop "analyzing" poll numbers (http://horsesass.org/?p=17090) and go back to talking about seltzer or whatever (http://horsesass.org/?p=17085).

On the other side of the fence, why has Sound Politics turned into just being sporadic posts about Shawna Forde (http://soundpolitics.com/archives/013016.html)?  Why (now that she's apparently shot people) are they blogging about Shawna Forde at all?


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: JohnnyLongtorso on June 18, 2009, 06:31:36 am
Gee, I can't believe I'm on top of the Krist Novoselic story before you guys. He's dropped out:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/former_nirvana_bassist_now_for.html


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on June 24, 2009, 07:25:03 pm
Uh, huh:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=24aea2b0-ebf6-4c88-bcc8-0d8f5f8bc1b0

Hutchison 41%
Constantine 12%
Phillips 7%
Hunter 6%
Jarrett 4%
Goodspaceguy 3%
Lippmann 2%
Lobdell 2%
Undecided 23%

Way to go on this one, King County Democrats.

In other news: Will anyone really miss Kent? (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009376179_leakingdam24m.html)


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 24, 2009, 08:32:45 pm
Eh, they'll rally behind whomever comes in second. It's the highest profile race in the state this year (except maybe Seattle Mayor) so it's not like Hutchison is going to be able to sneak in under the radar.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on June 24, 2009, 11:42:47 pm
Uh, huh:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=24aea2b0-ebf6-4c88-bcc8-0d8f5f8bc1b0

Hutchison 41%
Constantine 12%
Phillips 7%
Hunter 6%
Jarrett 4%
Goodspaceguy 3%
Lippmann 2%
Lobdell 2%
Undecided 23%

Way to go on this one, King County Democrats.

In other news: Will anyone really miss Kent? (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009376179_leakingdam24m.html)

That is incredibly disturbing.

I still haven't decided who I will vote for in the primary, though I suspect it will be one of the Eastsiders.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Ogre Mage on June 26, 2009, 12:13:12 am
My prediction is that Hutchison will win the primary with flying colors and then she will lose badly in the general election.  Name recognition is a powerful advantage, particularly in a multi-candidate field.  Having multiple candidates in the race gives her more cover to duck specific questions about her record, which is what she has been doing.  She has only shown up to one or two candidate forums and appears to be running scared.

In the general election, there won't be anywhere to hide.

As an aside, the KC Executive race is illustrative of why I think the decision to make county races "nonpartisan" was a sham. 


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on June 26, 2009, 12:14:52 am
My prediction is that Hutchison will win the primary with flying colors and then she will lose badly in the general election.  Name recognition is a powerful advantage, particularly in a multi-candidate field.  Having multiple candidates in the race gives her more cover to duck specific questions about her record, which is what she has been doing.  She has only shown up to one or two candidate forums and appears to be running scared.

In the general election, there won't be anywhere to hide.

As an aside, the KC Executive race is illustrative of why I think the decision to make county races "nonpartisan" was a sham. 

^^^

All it does is reduce information given to voters; it does nothing to reduce partisanship.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: ottermax on June 26, 2009, 01:41:38 am
Well, I do know that people who would normally vote only for a Democrat like my mother, would probably vote for the person with the most name recognition, even if she does her research. Of course we live in Fred Jarrett's district and we don't watch KIRO (is that her station?), so I'm guessing name recognition won't help in our house.

It'll be interesting to see what happens as we get much closer to the election date.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on June 26, 2009, 01:55:03 am
I really have no idea who to support.

I'll probably go with the most pro-transit, anti-sprawl, pro-density environmentalist candidate. I just haven't determined who that is yet... :)


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on June 26, 2009, 04:56:48 pm
Seattle poll:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9b5e3974-aa50-4f8f-a325-b1109b0e187a

Mayor
24% Nickels
15% Drago
14% Donaldson

Bag Tax
47% Yes
46% No

I'm rooting for Nickels at the moment... In other interesting news, 12% of Seattleites consider themselves Republicans. GTFO, plz. :)


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: CultureKing on July 11, 2009, 09:05:57 pm
So... when is the King county executive primary?


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on July 11, 2009, 09:08:14 pm
So... when is the King county executive primary?

August 18th. Ballots are mailed July 29th.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on July 15, 2009, 02:21:15 pm
Washington hasn't elected a Democrat Secretary of State since 1960. Weird...


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: bgwah on July 15, 2009, 02:25:36 pm
Washington hasn't elected a Democrat Secretary of State since 1960. Weird...

Are you looking at those pages I made on the Wiki?

Well, we haven't elected a Republican State Auditor since 1928... so we win.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on July 15, 2009, 02:31:55 pm
Are you looking at those pages I made on the Wiki?

No, just Sam Reed's website. Apparently the guy before Ralph Munro runs the Discovery Institute now :(

Well, we haven't elected a Republican State Auditor since 1928... so we win.

:D


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Dr. RI on July 15, 2009, 03:13:01 pm
Does anyone know the current status of Ref. 71's sig gathering quest?


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Holmes on July 15, 2009, 04:25:23 pm
Yes, they claimed a few days ago that they have 75k. I don't believe that though.

Although they've been claiming that this is a same-sex marriage bill, priests will go to jail etc etc.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 16, 2009, 05:57:15 pm
Does anyone know the current status of Ref. 71's sig gathering quest?

They're either scrambling or doing just dandy, depending on how much you trust Gary Randall's report of drastically increased sign rates.

They claimed to have 75,000 signatures on July 11th.  They also claim to be receiving 8,000 a day, which seems a little unlikely if they've only managed 75k so far.  They need about 120,000 signatures by July 25th to qualify.  At 8,000 a day, they'd have 179,000 by the 25th.  More specifically, they'd need a little bit under 3,500 per day to qualify.

I tend to suspect that they're liar faces, although a >129% overstatement would be an impressive lie.  Reports are that they're peddling the whole thing as pro-gay rights (since it will be on the ballot, technically) and getting signatures on Queen Anne Hill.  Who knows, though.

Eyman's latest initiative (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009479207_eyman16.html) is on the ballot for sure, by the way.  No one else is trying.  I can't remember the last time we had so little initiative activity in a General election.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 20, 2009, 05:38:01 pm
R-71 petitioners say they'll submit signatures on Saturday.  Won't say how many they have now.  They've heavily been hitting up church congregations and -- Meeker totally called it -- Wal-Mart.

Also, for anyone in the Tacoma/University Place area, MISSED OPPORTUNITY (http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pol/1279945571.html).  And he was wearing camo, too :(


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Holmes on July 20, 2009, 05:39:00 pm
I'm willing to wager anyone that they don't even have enough. This was all a ploy to get some money into Gary Randall's pockets.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on July 20, 2009, 06:27:27 pm
R-71 petitioners say they'll submit signatures on Saturday.  Won't say how many they have now.  They've heavily been hitting up church congregations and -- Meeker totally called it -- Wal-Mart.

Also, for anyone in the Tacoma/University Place area, MISSED OPPORTUNITY (http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pol/1279945571.html).  And he was wearing camo, too :(

Don't worry, he's coming back: http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pol/1280199122.html


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 20, 2009, 07:46:10 pm
R-71 petitioners say they'll submit signatures on Saturday.  Won't say how many they have now.  They've heavily been hitting up church congregations and -- Meeker totally called it -- Wal-Mart.

Also, for anyone in the Tacoma/University Place area, MISSED OPPORTUNITY (http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pol/1279945571.html).  And he was wearing camo, too :(

Don't worry, he's coming back: http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/pol/1280199122.html

And apparently won't be changing his pants.

Or maybe his closet is full of them.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 24, 2009, 02:52:07 pm
Gary Randall says that Referendum 71 is "too close to call" (read: totally screwed)

http://referendum71.blogspot.com/2009/07/r-71-too-close-to-call.html

Quote
R-71 petition signature gathering count is too close to call, so we are asking for your help in making one last push.

We feel that by tomorrow morning we will have the 120,577 signatures required, however we also know that some will be invalidated for various reasons. We do not have an adequate cushion of signatures.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on July 24, 2009, 03:01:17 pm
The more I've thought about it though I think a crushing defeat for them could help spur the legislature into actually passing marriage equality...

I guess I'm still hoping it won't get on the ballot though.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 24, 2009, 03:14:43 pm
The more I've thought about it though I think a crushing defeat for them could help spur the legislature into actually passing marriage equality...

I guess I'm still hoping it won't get on the ballot though.

I'm of two minds.  I think results would be fascinating on one hand, but on the other hand, I do enjoy watching the Washington Christian right fall on their collective ass on this one.  But I also think the conventional wisdom is that this would be close, when I think it would probably fail pretty handily.  That would be good p.r. for the marriage equality side, I agree.  So I actually do want it on the ballot, although that's still mostly to see the results :P.

I'm a little worried that public support for gay marriage is going to stall in the upper 40's.  Also, an off-year General Election may not be the best time to get it on the ballot because youth turnout will suck.  I'd love to be the first state to have it stand up to a public vote; I really, really do not want to see it lose narrowly, as I suspect it would today.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Holmes on July 25, 2009, 11:37:40 am
Washington's same-sex couples have nothing to gain from a vote, they can only lose what they should have.

Fraud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47u2m4hH0SQ

I love how the woman at the beginning says she supports same-sex marriage, and gets fooled into signing. :/


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 25, 2009, 02:20:55 pm
Washington's same-sex couples have nothing to gain from a vote, they can only lose what they should have.

Sure they do.  A massive electoral victory that polls indicate would inevitably occur.  It wouldn't necessarily increase the number of their rights, but it would make the state legislature a little less queasy about the potential of passing marriage equality in the future -- although I hope they don't jump the gun.  That would find its way onto the ballot and actually be competitive.

Anyway, a few hours and we may have a better idea of whether this is all moot anyway :P  I suspect it will be.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Holmes on July 25, 2009, 05:42:57 pm
Mmm... I don't know. I don't doubt we can win at the polls, but I just don't think it would help get same-sex marriage through the legislature. What would be better instead, would be for Democrats to perform well in the 2010 elections, because I don't think the legislature would want to pass a same-sex marriage bill in 2010, during an election year, even if the domestic partnership hypothetically does well in the polls.

By the way, I'm not familiar with Washington referendum law - will we ever get the number of signatures?


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Alcon on July 25, 2009, 06:31:53 pm
I think they take a random sample, see if the random sample's invalidation rate justifies checking all the signatures, and count them if not.

Faith and Freedom Network claims they delivered 135,000 signatures with another few still coming.  That's more than the requirements, but they really needed 150,000.  Randall looked pretty beaten and said that an initiative might be next.


Title: Re: Washington '09: Nobodies run for stuff
Post by: Meeker on July 25, 2009, 11:29:38 pm
Brian Sonntag endorsed Susan Hutchison. Ewwww


Title: Re: Washington '09: A meaningless primary approaches
Post by: Meeker on July 26, 2009, 08:44:38 pm
Title change


Title: Re: Washington '09: A meaningless primary approaches
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 27, 2009, 12:32:27 am
Last night I had a dream that I was trying to get to my polling place in dark-fictional-unfamiliar-dream-Tacoma.  I missed a bus and had to run there and got there like 2 minutes too late.  I was a little distraught until the pollworker told me that there was nothing on the ballot.  Literally.  It was a completely blank piece of paper.

I agree with my subconscious.

Why in the hell are there 25 pages about it?


Title: Re: Washington '09: A meaningless primary approaches
Post by: Meeker on July 27, 2009, 03:28:28 am
Last night I had a dream that I was trying to get to my polling place in dark-fictional-unfamiliar-dream-Tacoma.  I missed a bus and had to run there and got there like 2 minutes too late.  I was a little distraught until the pollworker told me that there was nothing on the ballot.  Literally.  It was a completely blank piece of paper.

I agree with my subconscious.

Why in the hell are there 25 pages about it?

Imagine what it would be like if there was meaning to the primary.

The primaries for King County Executive and Seattle Mayor should actually be relatively interesting (especially the former if people are smart enough to vote in a way that makes the maps cool).

Will Alcon vote for über union hack Beckie Summers Kirby WHO IS IN THE POCKETS OF THE UNIONS? Readers want to know.


Title: Re: Washington '09: A meaningless primary approaches
Post by: Meeker on July 27, 2009, 04:33:24 am
Last night I had a dream that I was trying to get to my polling place in dark-fictional-unfamiliar-dream-Tacoma.  I missed a bus and had to run there and got there like 2 minutes too late.  I was a little distraught until the pollworker told me that there was nothing on the ballot.  Literally.  It was a completely blank piece of paper.

I agree with my subconscious.

Why in the hell are there 25 pages about it?

Imagine what it would be like if there was meaning to the primary.

The primaries for King County Executive and Seattle Mayor should actually be relatively interesting (especially the former if people are smart enough to vote in a way that makes the maps cool).

Will Alcon vote for über union hack Beckie Summers Kirby WHO IS IN THE POCKETS OF THE UNIONS? Readers want to know.

District 5?  You think I live in District 5?  You are dead to me.

(Not dead enough that I probably won't ask you for help on several votes.  But a lot deader than you were before.)

District 2 is full of sodomizers and arsenic. But that's probably how you like it, you sick freak.


Title: Re: Washington '09: A meaningless primary approaches
Post by: Meeker on July 27, 2009, 01:56:21 pm
Port of Tacoma -- Commissioner No. 1
I guess Connie Bacon, because no one else seems qualified.  I don't really like the job Bacon's done.  I think she's part of the Commission's problem, which is ignoring practical and monetary details in Port operations while chasing "big-picture" projects like green jobs.  I don't have a problem with chasing "green jobs," but when they aren't competent on the current concrete stuff, it's hard to be optimistic.  Anyway, Bill Casper seems fixated on port security issues that are beyond the Commission's scope, and Bernardo Tuma seems to run for offices without knowing anything about them.  I wonder which downtown restaurant he owns.  They never say.

Yup.