Washington state megathread

[smoltchanov]

How come Cantwell underperformed so badly? It seems odd she only did 2 points better than Hillary, especially against a sacrificial lamb like Hutchison.

Polarization, as you yourself have said, and as I've pointed out elsewhere. She, Carper, and Feinstein all failed to clear 60%, like they had back in 2012. Chris Murphy in Connecticut fell short of that mark as well.

+100. That's why i say, that observing US elections became simply not interesting. No intrigue. Both in ideological positions of candidates, and results (with rarest exceptions). As "538" formulated: "it's all polarized, predictable and boring"....

[smoltchanov]

How come Cantwell underperformed so badly? It seems odd she only did 2 points better than Hillary, especially against a sacrificial lamb like Hutchison.

Polarization, as you yourself have said, and as I've pointed out elsewhere. She, Carper, and Feinstein all failed to clear 60%, like they had back in 2012. Chris Murphy in Connecticut fell short of that mark as well.

I mean, Feinstein was facing another Democrat, so that end of the comparison is not exactly parallel to the rest.

That is true, but De Leon was the de facto Republican in this year's senate race in California. Heavily Republican Lassen and Modoc Counties gave him more than 70% of the vote, and he won all of the other Republican counties in Central and Northern California. Yes, there was a turnout differential in those counties between the Senatorial and Gubernatorial races, but that doesn't change the fact that most Republicans who voted in the Senate race did so for De Leon. Feinstein's numbers also were down considerably in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County from what she got in 2012.

Lassen and Modoc are SO liberal? Or - De Leon is SO conservative?)))))))))))))))))

[smoltchanov]

How come Cantwell underperformed so badly? It seems odd she only did 2 points better than Hillary, especially against a sacrificial lamb like Hutchison.

Polarization, as you yourself have said, and as I've pointed out elsewhere. She, Carper, and Feinstein all failed to clear 60%, like they had back in 2012. Chris Murphy in Connecticut fell short of that mark as well.

I mean, Feinstein was facing another Democrat, so that end of the comparison is not exactly parallel to the rest.

That is true, but De Leon was the de facto Republican in this year's senate race in California. Heavily Republican Lassen and Modoc Counties gave him more than 70% of the vote, and he won all of the other Republican counties in Central and Northern California. Yes, there was a turnout differential in those counties between the Senatorial and Gubernatorial races, but that doesn't change the fact that most Republicans who voted in the Senate race did so for De Leon. Feinstein's numbers also were down considerably in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County from what she got in 2012.

Lassen and Modoc are SO liberal? Or - De Leon is SO conservative?)))))))))))))))))

What do you mean? The reason why Lassen and Modoc voted so strongly for De Leon is because they were casting a protest vote against Feinstein, and had no other option but him on the ballot. He was the "non-incumbent" candidate, and in spite of his liberal views, was someone "other" than Feinstein. That was good enough for them.

Obviously, it was a sarcasm.....

[smoltchanov]

^ What about this link:

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Legislative-All.html

?

[smoltchanov]

With Inslee basically running for president...
Who runs for governor in 2020? Who do you want?

On the D side, I think it's pretty obvious King County Exec Dow Constantine is in.
I believe AG Bob Ferguson and LG Cyrus Habib want the job.

After that, I can't really think of any high profile Ds that would take a stab at it with those fighting it out. I also think Claudia Balducci will run for King Co Exec if Dow makes it.

I definitely will not be supporting Constantine after his inept response to the homeless and housing affordability emergencies.

I think I'm in the Habib camp should he run.

No clue who wants to run on the R side given the inevitable, a D win.

wasnt the 2016 race under 10%? also dont washington got two republicans in the row office one of them could run,

Both are unlikely to run. They are nonoffencive (AFAIK) and competent, but Davidson mostly got elected because Democrats were extremely dumb, and ran 3 very serious candidates in top 2 primary. Republicans - exactly 2, and were lucky to get BOTH into run-off. Wyman? I like her a lot, and she is a solid moderate, but i don't see her running for anything, but her present SoS position.

[smoltchanov]

What about Cho - Degginger race in November? IIRC - one is very liberal Democrat, another - pragmatic moderate Republican. Both types of people have it's base of supporters, though first one seem to prevail in King county of late.

[smoltchanov]

So Sawant has pulled ahead!! Thank goodness.

No "thank goodness", but - damn!

[smoltchanov]

So Sawant has pulled ahead!! Thank goodness.

No "thank goodness", but - damn!

Yes, because a city councilperson winning re-election in Seattle is going to have a profound impact on life in Russia.

No. Because i visceraaly hate radical socialists...

[smoltchanov]

So to sum up, Amazon's money dump failed spectacularly.

By Amazon's standards this wasn't especially big money dump. And next time they may be quite successfull: the "progressives" will show the city's citizens their idiocy as politicians in years to come.

[smoltchanov]

https://twitter.com/KREMCasey/status/1261435381741809665

Good riddance!

He’ll probably be the GOP presidential nominee in the next decade.

With Republican party rapidly becoming cultist Trump organization - quite possibly....

[smoltchanov]

I absolutely agree, that "Black lives matter", but always ask myself - "what about other people lives". IMHO - they matter as much as "Black lives"....

[smoltchanov]

As a reference point, I voted for Tarleton.  There are no good Republicans.  Anyone calling themselves a Republican deserve to be kicked out of office.  Burn their party to the ground and salt the Earth.  The entire party is built on an utterly depraved and corrupt apparatus and most of Wyman's support is coming from a base of Washington Republicans who are fed a non-stop firehose of misinformation and downright lies through a variety of channels that have been intentionally cultivated by Republicans to disguise their duplicitous, malicious, partisan intent.  That's what the Republican Party is and Wyman is OUT with the rest of her accursed party.

Substitute "Democrat" in place of "Republican" - and you would get typical modern Republican argumentation. Equally flawed. When the only two big parties hate each other (and it's candidates) so much and so "tjhoroughly" - country is not in trouble, it's in a BIG trouble (almost on the brink of abyss). But - we shall see.

[smoltchanov]

Yes, I'm aware that there are some Republicans out there who are different. True. But when there's pretty much no ideological diversity among Congressional Republicans, and they side with Trump on every issue time and time again, while there is clear ideological diversity among Democrats, I have no patience for these arguments equating both sides.

One short question: where do you see a "clear ideological diversity among Democrats"? I don't see it, and the fact that there is very slightly more of ideological differences in modern day Democratic , then in Republican, party doesn't change the fact, that 2% is almost the same as 1%. When i began to study US politics almost 50 years ago - there WAS a diversity you mention (Thomas Abernethy was CLEARLY different from Bella Abzug), and, BTW - in Republican party too (they had people like Clifford Case, Jacob Javits and Ogden Reid, for example). Not anymore. So - you may get your degree, but your assertion will be false nevertheless.

[smoltchanov]

Yes, I'm aware that there are some Republicans out there who are different. True. But when there's pretty much no ideological diversity among Congressional Republicans, and they side with Trump on every issue time and time again, while there is clear ideological diversity among Democrats, I have no patience for these arguments equating both sides.

One short question: where do you see a "clear ideological diversity among Democrats"? I don't see it, and the fact that there is very slightly more of ideological differences in modern day Democratic , then in Republican, party doesn't change the fact, that 2% is almost the same as 1%. When i began to study US politics almost 50 years ago - there WAS a diversity you mention (Thomas Abernethy was CLEARLY different from Bella Abzug), and, BTW - in Republican party too (they had people like Clifford Case, Jacob Javits and Ogden Reid, for example). Not anymore. So - you may get your degree, but your assertion will be false nevertheless.

The Democrats run the gamut from people who would be considered centrist, or even centre-right, liberals in other countries to democratic socialists. Polarisation has almost exclusively been driven by the GOP’s lurch to the right; in the same period, the Democrats have moved much less further to the left. America has only big tent party, and it is the Democrats.

False.  The Democratic party doesn't have any center-right congressmen now, and very few (no more then 5) who may be called "centrist" (Peterson, Manchin, and that may be all). In fact, if we add governors to mix - Republicans now have more moderate (centrist) governors, then Democrats. Baker, Scott, Hogan vs JBE: 3-1. So, once again - patently false statement: Democrats are (may be) 5-7 years behind of  Republicans as far as polarization is concerned, but, surely - no more "big tent party" even on state legislative level. In fact - i know exactly 1 (one) Democratic state legislator, whom i may call a "conservative"  (with minor reservations), and no more then dozen or two, who are "right of center". Even 15 years ago there were dozens "really conservative" Democratic state legislators. Now "the difference" in almost all cases is between "simply left", "very left" and "radical left"....

[smoltchanov]

Yes, I'm aware that there are some Republicans out there who are different. True. But when there's pretty much no ideological diversity among Congressional Republicans, and they side with Trump on every issue time and time again, while there is clear ideological diversity among Democrats, I have no patience for these arguments equating both sides.

One short question: where do you see a "clear ideological diversity among Democrats"? I don't see it, and the fact that there is very slightly more of ideological differences in modern day Democratic , then in Republican, party doesn't change the fact, that 2% is almost the same as 1%. When i began to study US politics almost 50 years ago - there WAS a diversity you mention (Thomas Abernethy was CLEARLY different from Bella Abzug), and, BTW - in Republican party too (they had people like Clifford Case, Jacob Javits and Ogden Reid, for example). Not anymore. So - you may get your degree, but your assertion will be false nevertheless.

The Democrats run the gamut from people who would be considered centrist, or even centre-right, liberals in other countries to democratic socialists. Polarisation has almost exclusively been driven by the GOP’s lurch to the right; in the same period, the Democrats have moved much less further to the left. America has only big tent party, and it is the Democrats.

False.  The Democratic party doesn't have any center-right congressmen now, and very few (no more then 5) who may be called "centrist" (Peterson, Manchin, and that may be all). In fact, if we add governors to mix - Republicans now have more moderate (centrist) governors, then Democrats. Baker, Scott, Hogan vs JBE: 3-1. So, once again - patently false statement: Democrats are (may be) 5-7 years behind of  Republicans as far as polarization is concerned, but, surely - no more "big tent party" even on state legislative level. In fact - i know exactly 1 (one) Democratic state legislator, whom i may call a "conservative"  (with minor reservations), and no more then dozen or two, who are "right of center". Even 15 years ago there were dozens "really conservative" Democratic state legislators. Now "the difference" in almost all cases is between "simply left", "very left" and "radical left"....

Only in a big tent party would Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders both run for the same party’s nomination.

As you said, there are still some moderate Republicans at the state level, but while the centre-left makes up the majority faction of the Democrats, the centre-right is a minuscule portion of the GOP, with the hard right being dominant. The fact that Mitt Romney, a staunch economic conservative, is considered on the left of the GOP tells you everything you need to know.

No, i need to know (and know) much more..... BTW, Bloomberg is a solid liberal (some more moderate on economy) for me. So - not convinced))))  And majority faction of Democratic party is now "left" without "center"...

[smoltchanov]

Yes, I'm aware that there are some Republicans out there who are different. True. But when there's pretty much no ideological diversity among Congressional Republicans, and they side with Trump on every issue time and time again, while there is clear ideological diversity among Democrats, I have no patience for these arguments equating both sides.

One short question: where do you see a "clear ideological diversity among Democrats"? I don't see it, and the fact that there is very slightly more of ideological differences in modern day Democratic , then in Republican, party doesn't change the fact, that 2% is almost the same as 1%. When i began to study US politics almost 50 years ago - there WAS a diversity you mention (Thomas Abernethy was CLEARLY different from Bella Abzug), and, BTW - in Republican party too (they had people like Clifford Case, Jacob Javits and Ogden Reid, for example). Not anymore. So - you may get your degree, but your assertion will be false nevertheless.

The Democrats run the gamut from people who would be considered centrist, or even centre-right, liberals in other countries to democratic socialists. Polarisation has almost exclusively been driven by the GOP’s lurch to the right; in the same period, the Democrats have moved much less further to the left. America has only big tent party, and it is the Democrats.

False.  The Democratic party doesn't have any center-right congressmen now, and very few (no more then 5) who may be called "centrist" (Peterson, Manchin, and that may be all). In fact, if we add governors to mix - Republicans now have more moderate (centrist) governors, then Democrats. Baker, Scott, Hogan vs JBE: 3-1. So, once again - patently false statement: Democrats are (may be) 5-7 years behind of  Republicans as far as polarization is concerned, but, surely - no more "big tent party" even on state legislative level. In fact - i know exactly 1 (one) Democratic state legislator, whom i may call a "conservative"  (with minor reservations), and no more then dozen or two, who are "right of center". Even 15 years ago there were dozens "really conservative" Democratic state legislators. Now "the difference" in almost all cases is between "simply left", "very left" and "radical left"....

Only in a big tent party would Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders both run for the same party’s nomination.

As you said, there are still some moderate Republicans at the state level, but while the centre-left makes up the majority faction of the Democrats, the centre-right is a minuscule portion of the GOP, with the hard right being dominant. The fact that Mitt Romney, a staunch economic conservative, is considered on the left of the GOP tells you everything you need to know.

No, i need to know (and know) much more..... BTW, Bloomberg is a solid liberal (some more moderate on economy) for me. So - not convinced))))  And majority faction of Democratic party is now "left" without "center"...

Look at who holds all the Congressional leadership positions. Look at who the party’s presidential nominee is. The Democrats are clearly still run for the most part by centre-leftists, not leftists. There is no powerful moderate conservative equivalent in the GOP to the moderate liberal faction that dominates the Democratic Party.

As i said - Republicans are 5-7 years ahead on polarization issues. But - Democrats are very rapidly moving in the same direction. The difference - exist, but becomes more and more miniscule with every passing year. Soon there will be NO difference...

P.S. Some interesting data on subject:

https://fascinatingpolitics.com/2020/10/25/ideological-makeup-of-the-parties-1920-1970-and-2020/

The level of polarization NOW is even higher, then 100 years ago, when it was already high, and MUCH bigger, then 50 years ago. And Republicans are NOT the only one to be blamed for that.

[smoltchanov]

Wyman will take position in DHS, will be out as SoS.

Damn, that's a loss for us.  She's the only Republican I've ever voted for.

Well, Republicans managed to hold SoS seat since 1964 by running candidates like Wyman and Reed before her. But i doubt they have such candidates in this hyperpolarized mad world, where BOTH parties frequently run lunatics for office... (Seattle city attorney election is a good example)...

[smoltchanov]

The most embarrassing part of the night for Dems is that a Republican likely just won a race in Seattle.

Well that happens when the Democratic Party throws the progressives under the bus and form a grand coalition with the Republican Party with their billionaire-backed media blitz. Ultimately the progressive coalition could not beat it, in part due to Covid leaving them more cash strapped and with fewer core members (due to extraneous deaths) than usual, and in part with the progressive coalition failing to build dual power by not entrenching themselves—who right now are the most interconnected bloc with their voters and the public since the Socialist Party was relevant—even further into their voter base.

LOL Dems just lost an 80% Dem city, there’s no one to blame it on except for the psychotic candidate who wanted to abolish the police

+101%. Luckily "progressives" also lost referendum in Minneapolis and, most likely, mayorality in Buffalo. May be all that will make Democratic party more sane and less "Trump in reverse.."

[smoltchanov]

The most embarrassing part of the night for Dems is that a Republican likely just won a race in Seattle.

Well that happens when the Democratic Party throws the progressives under the bus and form a grand coalition with the Republican Party with their billionaire-backed media blitz. Ultimately the progressive coalition could not beat it, in part due to Covid leaving them more cash strapped and with fewer core members (due to extraneous deaths) than usual, and in part with the progressive coalition failing to build dual power by not entrenching themselves—who right now are the most interconnected bloc with their voters and the public since the Socialist Party was relevant—even further into their voter base.

LOL Dems just lost an 80% Dem city, there’s no one to blame it on except for the psychotic candidate who wanted to abolish the police

That is wrong, the Progressive coalition lost tonight, not establishment Dems

And thanks God for that....!!!

[smoltchanov]

Democrats finally got SoS office. And i don't see more Wyman-type candidates in present mostly "solidly conservative" Republican party of this state.  So, Democrats got good chances to hold it next year..

[smoltchanov]

General MacArthur sounds like his namesake when he talks about "socialism" lol

But how serious is Dave Reichert's candidacy? Surely the best anyone in the GOP could do here these days is what 55-45? Isn't he pro-life?

Well, someone in the mold of Kim Wyman or her republican predecessor (Sam Reed) could even win - narrowly. It's another matter how many such politicians remain in Republican party...

[smoltchanov]

General MacArthur sounds like his namesake when he talks about "socialism" lol

But how serious is Dave Reichert's candidacy? Surely the best anyone in the GOP could do here these days is what 55-45? Isn't he pro-life?

Well, someone in the mold of Kim Wyman or her republican predecessor (Sam Reed) could even win - narrowly. It's another matter how many such politicians remain in Republican party...

The issue is that, nowadays, there may be politicians like this in the Republican Party, but if enough of them exist to overcome a more Trumpy candidate in the blanket primary.

They actually can and do make the general, but they don't win regardless. I know of at least four anti-Trump, pro-choice R legislative candidates who made the general election last year, and all lost with maybe a four-point bump above Smiley.

Wyman won in 2020 nevertheless.... And rather convincingly (7+% margin). Despite state going heavily for Biden and most other Democratic candidates. If Massachusetts could go for Baker, Maryland - for Hogan and with Vermont - still easily going for Scott, Washington state can as well....

[smoltchanov]

I’d say that Reichert will probably end up between 45 and 47% if he makes the top two. There’s still some goodwill left for him, but there’s also a clear limit to how many voters are really persuadable, and it takes a lot for Republicans to get close. If he tried to basically run as a moderate, he’d risk not making the top two due to not having enough of a base of support.

I generally agree, though i always was (and IS) adamantedly opposed to "one-party system" in any part of any country (i am a "democrat", but -  not "Democrat"), so i deplore both situations in, say, Wyoming AND on Manhattan or in Bay area. The same applies here...