Washington state megathread

[RI]

I rather like this look, but it's a little different. It's all three counties for the SC Pos 9 race, without the precinct lines. I like how three different candidates won the three major metropolitan areas: Hilyer won Seattle, Ladenburg won Tacoma, and McCloud won Everett. It also clearly shows the impact of county lines.



Edit: Added Thurston County.

Selected City Stats
Arlington: Sanders 33.19%, McCloud 28.13%, Hilyer 21.89%, Ladenburg 16.36%
Auburn: McCloud 28.58%, Sanders 28.37%, Hilyer 26.40%, Ladenburg 16.43%
Bellevue: Hilyer 42.21%, Sanders 25.06%, McCloud 21.90%, Ladenburg 10.60%
Bothell: Hilyer 31.50%, Sanders 30.29%, McCloud 25.25%, Ladenburg 12.78%
-Bothell (Snohomish): Sanders 31.28%, Hilyer 28.18%, McCloud 26.27%, Ladenburg 14.00%
-Bothell (King): Hilyer 34.04%, Sanders 29.53%, McCloud 24.47%, Ladenburg 11.85%
Edmonds: Hilyer 32.85%, McCloud 26.87%, Sanders 24.28%, Ladenburg 15.80%
Everett: McCloud 33.72%, Sanders 26.73%, Hilyer 22.50%, Ladenburg 16.66%
Federal Way: McCloud 27.54%, Hilyer 27.20%, Sanders 26.47%, Ladenburg 18.49%
Kent: Hilyer 29.24%, McCloud 27.97%, Sanders 27.80%, Ladenburg 14.75%
Kirkland: Hilyer 37.72%, Sanders 25.59%, McCloud 23.99%, Ladenburg 12.45%
Lacey: McCloud 31.76%, Sanders 29.20%, Hilyer 21.31%, Ladenburg 17.73%
Lake Stevens: McCloud 31.10%, Sanders 30.94%, Hilyer 22.27%, Ladenburg 15.32%
Lynnwood: McCloud 33.46%, Hilyer 25.31%, Sanders 25.12%, Ladenburg 15.79%
Marysville: McCloud 32.54%, Sanders 29.76%, Hilyer 19.97%, Ladenburg 17.45%
Mercer Island: Hilyer 50.79%, Sanders 21.10%, McCloud 18.99%, Ladenburg 9.06%
Mill Creek: Hilyer 31.65%, Sanders 29.50%, McCloud 24.54%, Ladenburg 14.02%
Mountlake Terrace: McCloud 32.83%, Hilyer 25.92%, Sanders 25.545, Ladenburg 15.55%
Mukilteo: Hilyer 29.17%, Sanders 27.30%, McCloud 27.17%, Ladenburg 16.13%
Olympia: McCloud 31.29%, Hilyer 31.11%, Sanders 21.01%, Ladenburg 16.59%
Redmond: Hilyer 39.61%, McCloud 24.66%, Sanders 24.62%, Ladenburg 10.89%
Renton: Hilyer 30.86%, McCloud 30.47%, Sanders 24.64%, Ladenburg 13.71%
Seattle: Hilyer 55.50%, McCloud 23.80%, Sanders 11.85%, Ladenburg 8.65%
Shoreline: Hilyer 41.18%, McCloud 26.32%, Sanders 21.24%, Ladenburg 11.03%
Woodinville: Hilyer 32.46%, Sanders 26.87%, McCloud 25.43%, Ladenburg 14.84%

[RI]

Washington doesn't have an income tax. Eyeman's initiative is a repeat of his past efforts to require the Washington legislature to have a 2/3 majority to increase any taxes. Basically it constricts their ability to do anything.

So that poll didn't include the income tax initiative?

There isn't one.

[RI]

Charter schools might fail...

Marijuana is in more danger than charter schools from those likely voter numbers. I wouldn't surprise me if they both failed, tbh.

[RI]

I got my ballot today. Here's what I'm voting so far:

I-1185 (2/3 Req): No
I-1240 (Charter Schools): No
R-74 (Gay Marriage): Undecided
I-502 (Marijauna): No
ESJR-8221 (Debt Limit): No
SJR-8223: No
ESB-6635: Maintained
SHB-2590: Maintained

President: Obama (D)
Senate: Undecided
Congress: Larsen (D)
Governor: Inslee (D)
Lt Gov: Owen (D)
SoS: Wyman (R)
Treasurer: McIntire (D)
Auditor: Undecided
AG: Undecided
CoPL: Goldmark (D)
SoPI: Dorn
IC: Kreidler (D)

Anyone care to persuade me on Auditor or AG?

[RI]

Realistic, I didn't know you still lived in the second!

Yeah, I'm still in that thin strip of coast left in the second.

Undecided on R-74?  Come on, man.  I've seen you write on the subject, and I just don't understand how you could vote Reject in good conscience.  It seems like taking out your frustrations with the modern treatment of marriage (which are fair) on the people who would probably be most likely to understand why the institution is important.

Otherwise...I'm curious why you're undecided on Senate, unless I missed that.

I'm voting for Watkins for Auditor.  Kelley's business dealings are just, I'm sad to say, signs of either incompetence or dishonesty.  I probably agree with Watkins on nearly nothing, but he seems like an ethical professional.  AG, I haven't really thought about that much, although Ferguson impresses me more personally than Dunn does.

I'll probably vote for R-74; I just haven't quite made the full commitment yet. As for the Senate, I like Cantwell well enough, but I also rather like Baumgartner as a person. He's an involved Catholic, and I'm sympathetic toward his schooling choices. Plus, Cantwell is going to win comfortably anyway, so I don't see much harm in voting for Baumgartner.

I have zero strong feelings about the other two races. I think I voted for Dunn and Kelley in the primary, but I don't have any attachment to them.

[RI]

I don't really know much about down-ballot offices in Washington, but how are the Republicans able to hold the SoS - or are they in danger of loosing it this year?

From my perspective, they've, at least recently, been running moderate/apolitical candidates from liberal areas of western Washington (ie Olympia) who haven't been threats to liberals. Sam Reed, the last SoS, I've met personally and seemed like a great guy. I'm voting for Wyman this time because she seems to be emphasizing modernizing election records much moreso than Drew. The SoS is a pretty-nonpartisan position (or at least it should be), and it seems like the Republicans, as of late, have done a better job in being seen as nonpartisan.

[RI]

As for the Senate, I like Cantwell well enough, but I also rather like Baumgartner as a person. He's an involved Catholic, and I'm sympathetic toward his schooling choices. Plus, Cantwell is going to win comfortably anyway, so I don't see much harm in voting for Baumgartner.

Cantwell is Catholic as well. Actually, Gregoire and Murray are Catholics too. Cantwell is a great senator in my opinion. She's definitely one of the quiter/under the radar senators out there. Speaking of radars, she's the reason why the Washington Coast has a new weather radar station - a huge help to forecasting. Anyway, it's little things like that, which really make me appreciate the job she's doing.

I like Cantwell plenty, but being a pro-choice Catholic Democrat isn't really a step up from your regular Democrat for me.

[RI]

What's up with Whitman County? Why did it have the largest swing to Romney in the state?

[RI]

I voted for Wyman for the record. She seemed to be much less political than Drew, and she talked a lot about digitizing records, which being an election data interested person was the primary issue I cared about in the SoS race. The current website is rather poorly designed.

[RI]

I put up some precinct maps from Snohomish County in my precinct map thread.

[RI]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

[RI]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

More to point, anyone who voted on the basis of whether they like or dislike marijuana is an asshole.  I've never touched the stuff, but I'm less of a fan of drug cartels and indefensible enforcement costs.  Personal dis(taste) for marijuana and its smokers is an incredibly juvenile basis for deciding such a significant public policy.

I would respectfully disagree with pretty much all of that, but I would also point out that my preferred policy option wasn't on the ballot (decriminalization, not legalization).

[RI]

You probably guessed I would say this from my username, but you guys out in Washington state must have nothing better to do than to sit around the house, get high, and watch the tube.

Not every Washington poster voted to legalize marijuana.

More to point, anyone who voted on the basis of whether they like or dislike marijuana is an asshole.  I've never touched the stuff, but I'm less of a fan of drug cartels and indefensible enforcement costs.  Personal dis(taste) for marijuana and its smokers is an incredibly juvenile basis for deciding such a significant public policy.

I would respectfully disagree with pretty much all of that, but I would also point out that my preferred policy option wasn't on the ballot (decriminalization, not legalization).

I'm not sure which part of that was remotely controversial?  I can understand opposing marijuana on the basis that it's bad for people, but that's not the same thing as opposing it because it's distasteful.  What possible relevance to public policy could that have?  How could it possibly be more relevant to the financial costs, public health concerns, law enforcement concerns, effect on cartel drug trade, and pretty much all of the factors involved?

(I was just responding to Oldiesfreak's post, by the way, not alluding to the reason why anyone actually voted or didn't vote on the measure...just in case it seemed otherwise.)

I wasn't completely sure about who you were responding to, but I thought that was the case.

Presumably if someone finds marijuana "distasteful" then there is reason behind it. If not and they still want to ban it, then you're probably right (though it's not guaranteed). Provided they have such reasoning, I see no reason why it would be any less valid of a basis for a vote than anything else. People's gut reactions to issues are probably the most widely used rationale for voting that there is, occasionally wrapped up in their own cherry-picked arguments that happen to align with that feeling. We all do it. Sure, it might not be the best reasoning, but I don't think it makes someone an asshole. It's simply not possible to remove emotion and viscera like that.

[RI]

I wasn't completely sure about who you were responding to, but I thought that was the case.

Presumably if someone finds marijuana "distasteful" then there is reason behind it. If not and they still want to ban it, then you're probably right (though it's not guaranteed). Provided they have such reasoning, I see no reason why it would be any less valid of a basis for a vote than anything else. People's gut reactions to issues are probably the most widely used rationale for voting that there is, occasionally wrapped up in their own cherry-picked arguments that happen to align with that feeling. We all do it. Sure, it might not be the best reasoning, but I don't think it makes someone an asshole.

Teenagers are being slaughtered and left in shallow graves in Mexico.  Let's assume, for a minute, that legalizing marijuana decreases cartel profits -- which I think the weight of the evidence pretty clearly shows (the arguments criticizing this assertion are pretty weak, IMO.)  Why would someone rationalize and cherry-pick for their personal distaste for potheads above their personal distaste for mass slaughter?  I don't care how natural that is, or how common it is.  I don't understand why using the inferior reasoning can be morally justified.  It's choosing to preference personal prejudice over much, much more important things -- even, albeit indirectly, people's lives.  How is it not self-centered, vindictive and abhorrent?

Assuming your premise is true, it doesn't follow that legalizing marijuana would end the cartels or the violence around them. They make more money off other drugs that aren't going to be legalized any time soon. You can't assume that a vote for legalizing marijuana is a vote to save teenagers or that a vote to keep it illegal is a vote to kill them. Also, I don't think that legalizing drugs is the solution to ending cartels anyway; they are symptomatic of deeper economic and social problems in Latin America (e.g. institutionalized cultural corruption makes policing impossible, and inadequate human capital from no infrastructure, inadequate schooling, etc. holds back economic development from providing a standard of living prerequisite to make people not have to resort to violent criminal behavior, etc.).

Regardless, oldiesfreak1854 is an odd duck, shall we say.

[RI]

King County maps shall be coming soon.

[RI]

^ I hadn't noticed they released them today! I thought they were going to make us wait until Tuesday. Looks like they've listed I-1240 three times, and are missing pot and gay marriage, so I'm guessing they mislabeled those two as 1240.

Yes, they did.

[RI]

President:

[RI]

Gay marriage:

[RI]

Marijuana:

[RI]

Finkbeiner % in Seattle neighborhoods? Precinct map of Chopp v. Sawant? Please please please?

They'll be in my next round.

[RI]

Obama % v. Approve R-74 % (red areas were more Obama, blue more in favor of gay marriage):

[RI]

Obama % v. Yes on I-502 % (red areas were more Obama, blue more in favor of legalizing marijuana):

[RI]

Yes on I-502 (red) vs. Approve R-74 (blue):

[RI]

Finkbeiner % in Seattle neighborhoods? Precinct map of Chopp v. Sawant? Please please please?

Chopp v. Sawant:



Also, Finkbeiner won several precincts in Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Seattle. I'll have Lt. Governor maps up soon.

[RI]

Lt. Governor:


Finkbeiner % in Seattle: