Washington state megathread

[RI]

Statewide precinct map for President here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165333.msg3541557#msg3541557

[RI]

R-74 statewide map is up.

[RI]

I'll probably vote no on both initiatives. I think Alcon is spot on.

[RI]

Also, I don't live in King County so my opinion doesn't matter, but can anyone voice their concerns about Sawant? She seems pretty decent to me.

It kind of seems like she wants to run all the major businesses out of western Washington. Millionaire's tax? Almost doubling minimum wage? Force Amazon, Starbucks, etc. to unionize? New corporate taxes? I think she severely misjudges why the state is in the position it's in. Rent control is also generally a bad idea.

I also wonder if she would even have the authority to do half the things she suggests. If so, it seems a bit too much like playing with fire to me.

[RI]

I'm not sure if I understand this continued push for incremental increases in the minimum wage. Sure, if it were to keep up with inflation that would make sense, but inflation has been near zero for a number of years. Washington already has the highest minimum wage in the country, and no other state is particularly close. What I find most perturbing about this push is that there is no apparent long-term target in mind; it feels as is the goal is just to increase the minimum wage in perpetuity. Certainly this can't work forever; at some point we should start to see negative impacts from such increases that outweigh positive effects. We can't expect to continuously increase the costs of business without firms taking some measures to maintain their bottom line, whether in the form of higher prices, lower hiring, relocation, etc.

Is there some particular reason that Sawant wants a $15 minimum wage out of all the possible choices she could have picked? Is there some rigorous process she used to arrive at this number? Or is it that $15 is just a nice round number that works well as a slogan? If so, it seems a remarkably unscientific and dare I say dogmatic pursuit on her part.

Studies show that the minimum wage in and of itself has little impact on employment, and that its marginal increases have few short-term effects on the economy, though they do produce long-term distortions through less hiring in relevant industries, more underemployment, and decreased job length for workers at the minimum wage, with differential impacts depending on labor elasticities. As such, I don't have a problem with its existence, but its not a free lunch so to speak, and neither is increasing it continuously. I sympathize with its goals, but I think there are better ways to achieve similar outcomes.

[RI]

I'm not sure if I understand this continued push for incremental increases in the minimum wage. Sure, if it were to keep up with inflation that would make sense, but inflation has been near zero for a number of years. Washington already has the highest minimum wage in the country, and no other state is particularly close. What I find most perturbing about this push is that there is no apparent long-term target in mind; it feels as is the goal is just to increase the minimum wage in perpetuity. Certainly this can't work forever; at some point we should start to see negative impacts from such increases that outweigh positive effects. We can't expect to continuously increase the costs of business without firms taking some measures to maintain their bottom line, whether in the form of higher prices, lower hiring, relocation, etc.

Is there some particular reason that Sawant wants a $15 minimum wage out of all the possible choices she could have picked? Is there some rigorous process she used to arrive at this number? Or is it that $15 is just a nice round number that works well as a slogan? If so, it seems a remarkably unscientific and dare I say dogmatic pursuit on her part.

Studies show that the minimum wage in and of itself has little impact on employment, and that its marginal increases have few short-term effects on the economy, though they do produce long-term distortions through less hiring in relevant industries, more underemployment, and decreased job length for workers at the minimum wage, with differential impacts depending on labor elasticities. As such, I don't have a problem with its existence, but its not a free lunch so to speak, and neither is increasing it continuously. I sympathize with its goals, but I think there are better ways to achieve similar outcomes.

It costs more to live in Seattle than it does in the rest of Washington, even if you're just renting an apartment. Having the minimum wage for Seattle be the same for Yakima would be stupid, and $15/hour would be enough to be sure that every worker in Seattle can afford to live in the city and buy what they need to to survive.

I'm not really a fan of spatially heterogeneous minimum wages as it creates a clear incentive to relocate business to certain areas, but if Seattle wants to raise it that high, I don't live there so I don't really care. Heck, it might help my home county. I just think it's a short-sighted move to increase the minimum wage that drastically, and I think it may only make the cost of living situation worse by intentionally creating a supply shock. I suppose it might make paying rent easier, but food, gas, and a number of other costs would almost certainly rise. It's not like we're talking about a small increase here; raising the minimum wage to $15 is more than a 50% increase. The real problem that they should be looking into is how to decrease the cost of living, not increasing the minimum wage.

[RI]

That seems like a reasonable step. Are there any legitimate reasons not to upzone other than offending NIMBY types?

[RI]

Fine. But you've been plenty patronizing.

No, sugarlips, I've been condescending.

Just get a room already.

[RI]

Sawant is winning? I'm not sure if I should be terrified or amused.

[RI]

Sawant did her (not terribly impressive, but fairly orthodox) dissertation on South Asian economic development, not on public, monetary, or labor economics. Specialization is hugely important in doctoral-level economics; an economist who studies industrial organization, for example, should not be assumed to be highly knowledgeable about international trade or environmental economics or vice versa. She has done little economic research otherwise, and hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, held a research-based academic position. I doubt she has done empirical studies to support most of her political positions; rather, he biography seems to indicate that she started economics to question economic inequality. While she may be intelligent, she doesn't appear to be terribly influenced by academic (empirical or theoretical) research on areas she speaks so loudly on, but rather almost purely by ideology.

[RI]

Is there any good reason for voting for I-1351?

[RI]

There was a shooting at a high school near my hometown. Up to eight people, including the shooter may have been shot.

[RI]

The Washington Poll was released for KCTS9 yesterday.  As many of you know this poll is performed by the University of Washington on a yearly (or nearly yearly basis).

Would definitely post a link to the full results for you guys, but it looks like I am below the post number threshold to paste links.  You can find it pretty easily through Google.  You can also go to the KCTS 9 website and find by clicking "Election 2014" under the programs tab.

Disappointed in the survey this year.  Would have been great if they actually polled the house races rather than just asking about initiatives.  I guess the one nice thing is we have some confirmation that Elway Poll wasn't crazy when it said that it really is a possibility that both gun initiatives pass.

Also love the wording of question 34, "The America that you know and love isn't changing too fast, and will never change..."  Agree or Disagree?   What if there isn't much to love about the current America and you want it to change?

I assume you mean this? It's a nice LaTeX file.

[RI]

Really hoping I-1351 stays No. I'm not sure if it will or not.

[RI]

There's no way I-732 passes. Zero chance.

[RI]

My wife and I voted for Kasich today.

[RI]

Some municipality results for my home county (Snohomish):

DEMS
Arlington: Clinton 51.16 - 48.36
Bothell: Clinton 53.55 - 46.16
Brier: Clinton 55.30 - 44.44
Edmonds: Clinton 59.99 - 39.71
Everett: Clinton 50.44 - 49.21
Lake Stevens: Sanders 51.03 - 48.61
Lynnwood: 54.39 - 45.10
Marysville: Sanders 50.71 - 49.00
Mill Creek: Clinton 59.98 - 39.76
Monroe: Sanders 52.71 - 46.97
Mountlake Terrace: Clinton 51.06 - 48.67
Mukilteo: Clinton 59.40 - 40.42
Snohomish: Sanders 51.98 - 47.43
Stanwood: Clinton 51.44 - 48.18
Tulalip: Clinton 54.56 - 45.02
Woodway: Clinton 71.90 - 26.80

GOP
Arlington: Trump 79.55 - Cruz 9.22 - Kasich 5.81
Bothell: Trump 70.67 - Kasich 14.17 - Cruz 8.61
Brier: Trump 67.25 - Cruz 13.19 - Kasich 11.87
Edmonds: Trump 67.42 - Kasich 17.56 - Cruz 9.48
Everett: Trump 75.16 - Cruz 10.08 - Kasich 8.51
Lake Stevens: Trump 75.58 - Cruz 9.94 - Kasich 8.23
Lynnwood: Trump 73.19 - Cruz 11.31 - Kasich 8.45
Marysville: Trump 77.26 - Cruz 9.85 - Kasich 6.64
Mill Creek: Trump 69.18 - Kasich 16.19 - Cruz 9.46
Monroe: Trump 72.38 - Cruz 13.63 - Kasich 7.24
Mountlake Terrace: Trump 69.93 - Cruz 14.41 - Kasich 10.14
Mukilteo: Trump 70.85 - Kasich 13.92 - Cruz 9.69
Snohomish: Trump 70.65 - Cruz 12.46 - Kasich 10.41
Stanwood: Trump 73.68 - Cruz 10.53 - Kasich 10.16
Tulalip: Trump 82.87 - Kasich 7.34 - Cruz 5.81
Woodway: Trump 73.05 - Kasich 16.31 - Cruz 7.09

[RI]

Some other results:

Whitman County
Pullman: Sanders 53.26 - 46.74 / Trump 60.65 - Kasich 18.04 - Cruz 14.15 - Carson 7.15
Colfax: Sanders 62.50 - 37.50 / Trump 74.73 - Cruz 11.54 - Carson 8.24 - Kasich 5.49

Thurston County
Olympia: Sanders 54.22 - 45.78 / Trump 70.53 - Kasich 15.58 - Cruz 10.37
Lacey: Clinton 57.64 - 42.36 / Trump 70.37 - Kasich 13.35 - Cruz 11.85
Tumwater: Sanders 50.02 - 49.98 / Trump 73.98 - Kasich 12.68 - Cruz 9.71

Island County
Oak Harbor: Clinton 50.27 - 49.73 / Trump 66.83 - Cruz 17.51 - Kasich 11.40
Camano Island: Clinton 59.22 - 40.78 / Trump 70.90 - Cruz 12.94 - Kasich 12.73

Skagit County
Anacortes: Clinton 51.66 - 48.34 / Trump 75.14 - Kasich 13.40 - Cruz 8.42
Burlington: Sanders 51.20 - 48.80 / Trump 80.97 - Kasich 7.40 - Cruz 7.19
Mount Vernon: Clinton 50.44 - 49.56 / Trump 77.21 - Kasich 10.19 - Cruz 7.85
Sedro-Wooley: Sanders 54.77 - 45.23 / Trump 79.51 - Cruz 12.06 - Kasich 5.38

Jefferson County
Port Townsend: Sanders 58.60 - 41.40 / Trump 74.39 - Kasich 15.65 - Cruz 5.69
Port Ludlow: Clinton 61.55 - 38.45 / Trump 76.08 - Kasich 15.16 - Cruz 5.10

Clallam County
Port Angeles: Sanders 52.95 - 47.05 / Trump 78.12 - Kasich 9.22 - Cruz 7.76
Sequim: Clinton 55.65 - 44.35 / Trump 73.81 - Kasich 10.72 - Cruz 8.90 - Carson 6.57
Forks: Sanders 55.63 - 44.37 / Trump 77.98 - Cruz 12.39 - Kasich 5.50

[RI]

Seems fairly correlated with Trump's vote share, though not exclusively.

EDIT: R-squared of .38, but Garfield County is a big outlier. Remove it, and the R-squared jumps to .55

[RI]

Just waiting on Wahkiakum County and then I can make some statewide precinct maps for the presidential primaries

[RI]

[RI]

Anyone else vote in the primary yet?

My ballot
Senator: Mohammad Said (D)
Representative (WA-05): Dave Wilson (I)
Governor: Bill Bryant (R)
Lt. Governor: Steve Hobbs (D)
Secretary of State: Kim Wyman (R)
State Treasurer: Marko Liias (D)
State Auditor: Mark Miloscia (R)
Attorney General: Joshua Trumbull (L)
CPL: Hilary Franz (D)
SPI: Erin Jones
Insurance Comm: Mike Kreidler (D)
State Rep (LD-09): Mary Dye (R)
Supreme Court: Barbara Madsen

[RI]

You're in the 5th too? Which part?

Pullman, for now. Previously in Cheney.

[RI]

You're in the 5th too? Which part?

Pullman, for now. Previously in Cheney.

Very nice. We've lived in Spokane the last four years but are in the process of moving to the Seattle area again

I hope to move back to the west side in about nine months or so, but I'm glad to have lived over here. I've come to respect and appreciate both sides of the state in different ways.

[RI]

First results in from Lewis County. Vance leading all GOPers for Senate. Bryant up big. Wide open race for SPI. Hobbs leading Dems for LtGov. Treasurer currently R vs. R.