Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[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.

[Calthrina950]

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.

Agreed. I've expressed my strong disapproval of Trump and the Republican Party in recent months, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to go and kick out all Republican politicians from office. Viewing the opposing party as one's mortal enemy isn't the healthiest way to approach matters, and could very well poison one's personal relationships, if they are unable to make a distinction between the personal and the political.

[Xing]

I could write a dissertation on the many ways in which "bOtH sIdEz" is a lazy, horrible argument, (and I've voiced my complaints about the Democratic Party quite a bit this year) but I think the pandemic serves as some of the strongest evidence and most relevant evidence against both sides being "equally bad."

Take Inslee's response to COVID-19 arriving here in Washington. We were the very first state to get COVID cases, and some of the early cases were in nursing homes, affecting some of the most vulnerable people. Inslee (and Dow Constatine as well) didn't hesitate, and were discussing how/when to close schools as soon as the first case arrived. He took very quick action in March, and while it was frustrating not to be able to live normally in the spring, the restrictions paid off, as we quickly fell far below many other states in cases and deaths. He prioritized lives, and considered livelihood when he could afford to, easing restrictions at the appropriate time. Take a look at Washington state now. We've got from 1st to 44th in cases per capita, 1st to 41st in deaths per capita, and while there have been some upticks now and then, they've died down over time, since Inslee hasn't rushed to re-open the entire state as quickly as possible. I hate giving classes online, but looking at the many outbreaks which have happened in schools and universities across the country, it's obviously the option that puts the healthy and safety of students and staff first.

Now look at his opponent, Culp. He pretty much parrots right-wing talking points, and if elected governor, he'd pretty much throw the hard work of Inslee, other Democratic officials in this state, and millions of residents in the trash. He wants to throw out the mask mandate immediately, re-open schools as quickly as possible (and we are NOT ready,) and pretty much treat the pandemic the way Trump and numerous Republican governors did; as a minor inconvenience that it's very dangerous and shouldn't make us live our lives any differently.

It's hard to stress how much worse things could be here. Had Inslee not taken COVID seriously, we could easily still be leading the country in cases per capita and deaths. We could have ended up with three to four times as many cases and close to ten times as many deaths. Realistically, the pandemic should not be a partisan issue. Prioritizing lives should be something we can all agree on, and making some sacrifices to avoid outbreaks and overly crowded hospitals should be a no-brainer. Honest Republicans could criticize Inslee on other issues, but should be able to acknowledge that he did a stellar job with his COVID response.

And yet, many Republicans have made this a partisan issue. Inslee gets called a "tyrant", measures that keep people safe are deemed "authoritarian", and many unironically care more about the economy and the DOW Jones than actual lives. The Republican reaction to this pandemic hasn't been very "pro-life", if you ask me. They decry simple measures like wearing a mask indoors in public; a minor inconvenience that has been proven to slow the spread and save lives.

This is the issue with the "bOtH sIdEz" argument. One side is clearly concerned with the health and safety of its people. You can criticize specific measures they might take, but it's hard to argue with their intentions. Another side throws caution to the wind, downplays the severity of a virus that can be deadly and has been for over 200,000 in this country, and puts the economy (most likely their pocketbook) over the lives of other people in their country. There is no equivalency to be made. The Democratic Party, while imperfect in many ways, has cared about and made an effort to protect American lives during the pandemic. The Republican Party largely hasn't.

I could talk about multiple other issues, but this is already getting to be one of my longest posts on this site, so I'll just mention that there are many other issues where this is easy to see. Take healthcare. You might not agree with the specifics of my position on healthcare. GMA certainly doesn't, but he would probably at least acknowledge that the intentions behind my healthcare views are to save lives and make it easier to get treatment. Can anyone argue in good faith that the Republican healthcare plan (when/if there actually is one) is aimed at saving lives and improving the quality of life for the majority of Americans?

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.

[Calthrina950]

snip.

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, and as anyone ought to be aware, I've been harshly critical of the responses of many Republican Governors, such as DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, Ducey, and Noem, to provide a few names. I've also been harshly critical of Trump's response to the pandemic. But I still think that it's a stretch to say that all Republicans are crazy, or that they are all in deep for Trump. Look at all of the Never-Trumpers and other Republicans who are opposing Trump this year. This is to say nothing of those Republican Governors such as DeWine, Holcomb, and especially-the trio of Baker, Hogan, and Scott-who have responded seriously to this pandemic and have had among the best responses of any Governor in the country to it.

[Xing]

snip.

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, and as anyone ought to be aware, I've been harshly critical of the responses of many Republican Governors, such as DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, Ducey, and Noem, to provide a few names. I've also been harshly critical of Trump's response to the pandemic. But I still think that it's a stretch to say that all Republicans are crazy, or that they are all in deep for Trump. Look at all of the Never-Trumpers and other Republicans who are opposing Trump this year. This is to say nothing of those Republican Governors such as DeWine, Holcomb, and especially-the trio of Baker, Hogan, and Scott-who have responded seriously to this pandemic and have had among the best responses of any Governor in the country to it.

As I said, yes, there are some, but the problem is drawing the equivalency between Democrats overall taking the pandemic seriously, while a handful of Republicans and a minority of Republican governors do. There isn't equivalency, and while there are exceptions to the rule, you have to look at the big picture. It's fine to praise Phil Scott, and I'll acknowledge that he's handled the pandemic well (though it's easier to slow the spread in a state like VT, which is quite sparsely populated) but you should do so knowing how unrepresentative he is of Republicans as a whole.

[Calthrina950]

snip.

I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, and as anyone ought to be aware, I've been harshly critical of the responses of many Republican Governors, such as DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, Ducey, and Noem, to provide a few names. I've also been harshly critical of Trump's response to the pandemic. But I still think that it's a stretch to say that all Republicans are crazy, or that they are all in deep for Trump. Look at all of the Never-Trumpers and other Republicans who are opposing Trump this year. This is to say nothing of those Republican Governors such as DeWine, Holcomb, and especially-the trio of Baker, Hogan, and Scott-who have responded seriously to this pandemic and have had among the best responses of any Governor in the country to it.

As I said, yes, there are some, but the problem is drawing the equivalency between Democrats overall taking the pandemic seriously, while a handful of Republicans and a minority of Republican governors do. There isn't equivalency, and while there are exceptions to the rule, you have to look at the big picture. It's fine to praise Phil Scott, and I'll acknowledge that he's handled the pandemic well (though it's easier to slow the spread in a state like VT, which is quite sparsely populated) but you should do so knowing how unrepresentative he is of Republicans as a whole.

I think you're misconstruing what I was trying to say. I would agree that Democrats have generally taken this much more seriously than Republicans have, and I'm not going to argue otherwise, although I do believe several Democratic Governors (i.e. Cuomo, Newsom, Whitmer), deserve criticism for their responses and have often gone overboard with the restrictions that they have imposed. What I'm getting at is that not all Democrats or all Republicans should be painted with the same brush, and the example that I just provided helps to provide further support for this claim. We have Republican Governors such as Scott, Hogan, Baker, and DeWine who have done well in responding to this, just like we have Democratic Governors, such as the ones I just named, who have run less than stellar responses.     

[RI]

There was a bomb threat against the ballot drop box at Everett Mall today. Police had the entire area cordoned off when I was leaving mass.

[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.

[Alcibiades]

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 one big tent party, and it is the Democrats.

[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"....

[Alcibiades]

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.

[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"...

[Alcibiades]

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.

[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.

[kph14]

Statewide turnout has hit 52.6% of all registered voters. In 2016, turnout was at just 52.3% the day before the election!

Statewide   4,866,924   2,560,531   52.6%

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/ballot-return-statistics.aspx

[Seattle]

Statewide turnout has hit 52.6% of all registered voters. In 2016, turnout was at just 52.3% the day before the election!

Statewide   4,866,924   2,560,531   52.6%

https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/ballot-return-statistics.aspx

And that's already ~75% of 2016 total turnout.

I think it's pretty clear (this was obvious from the record breaking August primary) that this will be WA's highest turnout election ever and that 90% RV turnout is not unlikely (79.4% in 2016).

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

[Left Wing]

It’s likely not going to be that close but why did you use such an old picture of Culp?

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

It’s likely not going to be that close but why did you use such an old picture of Culp?

Eh, jungles are pretty good predictors on the statewide in Washington lately, and that is close to the jungle results overall. What are you talking about? That is Loren Culp now.

[Roll Roons]

Random question: How come jungle primary results in Washington tend to be good predictors of the general while those in California often aren't?

[Left Wing]

It’s likely not going to be that close but why did you use such an old picture of Culp?

Eh, jungles are pretty good predictors on the statewide in Washington lately, and that is close to the jungle results overall. What are you talking about? That is Loren Culp now.

That’s a picture of him when he was like 25 or something
This is him now:

[S019]

Asking our Washington posters: do we have any updates on how things look in WA-08, because that was very close in the primary, which is often predictive of generals in Washington?

[Left Wing]

Asking our Washington posters: do we have any updates on how things look in WA-08, because that was very close in the primary, which is often predictive of generals in Washington?

My anecdotal evidence is that Kim Schrier ads are on TV constantly and I’ve only ever seen her opponent’s ad once.

[Xing]

Asking our Washington posters: do we have any updates on how things look in WA-08, because that was very close in the primary, which is often predictive of generals in Washington?

Schrier will probably be fine. I think the primary results were a bit more favorable for the Republicans because there were more competitive primaries for them.

[lfromnj]

Random question: How come jungle primary results in Washington tend to be good predictors of the general while those in California often aren't?

Washington is much more white, which means turnout closer is usally more equal between ED and primary day. Infact I think WA Primary can sometimes favor Democrats compared to GE day because college whites are the highest turnout group and in WA they overwhelmingly vote D.