Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle

[Alcon]

This poll was just the City of Seattle, to be clear, in case that affects your vagina status

[Meeker]

This poll was just the City of Seattle, to be clear, in case that affects your vagina status

Ah. That it does, that it does...

[bgwah]

The Stranger's endorsement of McGinn certainly makes things more interesting.

[Alcon]

what the hell sam reed's office

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know why this is happening, but could they possibly have botched this one more?

[Meeker]

Yeah... I really thought Sam Reed was better than this. Very disappointing.

I'm starting to smell a lawsuit... if there does turn out to be some fishy business here or even the possible appearance of some, or the margin is extremely close, you can be sure both sides will sue for all it's worth.

Which could turn out to be rather good for us, considering ballots need to be printed in mid-September. I suppose a court could just go ahead and put it on the ballot and then throw the results out should they decide that it didn't legally get on the ballot.

Although then there's the possibility of the incredibly awkward and bizarre situation whereby the law is rejected by the voters but the court then rules that the referendum never should've been on the ballot, thus putting the law back into effect. You think the backlash over the 2004 Governor's election was bad... ugh...

[Meeker]

Title change

[Holmes]

On the flip side, I guess the numbers are encouraging because the opposition was basically saying this was marriage and was running on that, and they hardly went over the minimum requirement. Their ads were all "THIS BILL WILL ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AND CHURCHES WHO DON'T OBEY WILL GET THE DEATH PENALTY! STOP THIS BILL NOW!", so I don't think their signature gathering strategy was much different in the Idaho part of the state.

[bgwah]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2009621555_hutchison08m.html

Nice to see the media finally showing Hutchison for the demented psychopath she is.

[Alcon]

OK, so I've been doing some math about Referendum 71's chances.  (Warning: Math.)

In order to make it to the ballot, Referendum 71 needs 120,577 signatures.  The total number of submitted signatures was 137,689.  That leaves 17,113 invalidations needed to miss the ballot, or a maximum invalidation rate of 12.43%.  Don't believe any other number you read -- this is the ACTUAL under/over for validation.

So far, of those signatures, 35,866 (26.05%) have been checked.  Note that this contradicts with the total the state reports (35,296) for reasons I can't figure out, and will ignore. 

Now, the number of those ballots initially rejected has been 4,822 of these 35,866 (13.44%).  That, obviously, would be about one percentage point too many to qualify for ballot access.  However, due to the Secretary of State's double-checking, it has been determined that 759 of the rejected signatures (15.74% of total rejected) were, in fact, valid; another 34 (0.71% of total rejected) are pending.  We don't know anything about the rate at which the Penders will be accepted, so I will assume they are all rejected for the time being.

The current adjusted non-acceptances are 4,063 of 35,296 (a current invalidation rate of 11.51%).  This means Referendum 71 is making the ballot by the margin of about one point.  It also, obviously, means the rejection rate has some catching up to do -- from now on, the rejection target rate for Referendum 71 to miss the ballot is 12.74%.

In order to miss the ballot, 13,050 of the remaining 102,428 signatures need to be rejected.  Considering that so far at least 15.74% of initially-rejected signatures have later been accepted, that means that (unless checks are done the same day), you'll need to see a reported non-adjusted invalidation rate of about 15.12% daily, maybe more, to see this fail.

How's that looking?  Well, the non-adjusted rates from the last week showed rejection rates of 11.34%, 12.98%, 14.36%, 14.20%, 14.42% and 12.91%.  The good for Decline to Signers:  There are some days where the reject rate approached 15%, and the trend (generally) is toward higher rejection rates.  The bad news:  The trend doesn't appear linear, and even if it were, it probably wouldn't be enough.  So, the only thing going here for Decline to Signers is more likely to be with them than not.

The takeaways:

1. We have nearly three-quarters of the signatures left to check.  There is still good time for this to fluctuate, and if the initial 26% does not include later-day sloppiness, there is still some chance for this to fail.

2. There's some unclarity on how the "Master Checker" statistics are being reported.  If Friday's total (12.91%) included Master Checker adjustments, that indicates a stronger linear trend toward rejections.  If the total doesn't include Master Checkers, or even worse for Decline to Sign, if the Master Checkers weren't yet done on Friday's, there's no good news for Referendum 71 opponents (or neo-proponents?) there.

2b. Several sources report that the "master checkers" may not make decisions for several days.  The more cases there are of this in the above (could they have really completed Friday AM's checks before the end of the counting day?), the worse for Decline to Sign.  However, I'm not sure that the SoS is really talking about their process enough to make this anything more than an educated inference.

3. Unless the first quarter of signatures are being done in order, and they are meaningfully cleaner, or double signatures really increase big time, this thing is probably headed for the ballot.

4. I will probably know a bit more in a few days, either from anecdotal reports of the order of the count, about Master Checkers and their effect on last week (check for a bump -- or not -- Monday), and from the negligible Pending signatures that may very well decide this thing.

Stay tuned.

[Alcon]

While I'm waiting on news from the Secretary of State's office, SurveyUSA poll news:

Obama approval is down to +15%, about following national trends.

And in a poll of 579 likely and actual voters, far too many of whom are under 35 (we don't vote, guys, seriously!):

Nickels 22%
Mallahan 19%
McGinn 15%
Donaldson 11%
Drago 7%
Campbell 3%
Garrett 3%
Sigler 1%
Undecided 20%

Bag Tax:

Yes 43%
No 54%
Undecided 3%

Among those who claim to have already voted, Nickels (26%) leads Mallahan and McGinn (19% each).  However, Mallahan does substantially better among older voters than Nickels, and older voters will turn in more ballots -- eventually, they're slow.

Bag Tax trails 62%-35% among those who have already voted.  It fares similarly (64%-30% no) among the old.  Looks like it's headed for a decent failure.

Overall:  Good news for Mallahan, "eh" news for Nickels, bad news for McGinn, worse news for Donaldson, predictably awful news for Drago, and no one else matters in the remotest.

***

County Executive poll:

Hutchison 39%
Constantine 13%
Hunter, Jarrett 8%
Phillips 6%
Goodspaceguy, Lippmann, Lobdell 2%
Undecied 20%

Hutchinson's position is even better than it looks here:  while she receives a plurality in every age group, she does better with age, up to 47% among seniors.  Also troubling to Democrats is her 48% among the relatively menial number of King County residents who claim to have already cast ballots as of a few days ago when the poll was taken.

Still, though, 11% can be a heck of a lot to make up in King County.  (Although it should be noticed this poll skews horribly young for a Primary, it wouldn't be as bad in a General.)

[Meeker]

Yeah, it's gonna be Nickels and Mallahan. Not quite sure how the general will turn out though... but I'd give the clear edge to Nickels.

[Alcon]

Yeah, it's gonna be Nickels and Mallahan. Not quite sure how the general will turn out though... but I'd give the clear edge to Nickels.

Wouldn't it be hilarious if an electoral freakout resulted in Mallahan/McGinn?  Turnout would have to be low and skew middle-aged crunchy, though.

Updated post with County Executive polling, by the way.  Hutchison's performance is impressive and this was before her record leaks headlined with how she got fired over calling out sexual harassment.  I'm honestly a bit surprised.

[Meeker]

How is Hutchison doing so well? I mean I get that she's the only Republican in the race, but how do so many rank-and-file Republicans know that? Or is it just carry over from her news anchor days?

Maybe I just underestimate the intelligence of the electorate.

[bgwah]

Was that SUSA poll taken before or after The Stranger's endorsement of McGinn?

And, if you guys remember, polling also showed Irons close to winning in 2005. Of course Sims won with a comfortable margin in the end. The Seattle Times article is just the beginning, there are three months left for everyone to realize what a crazy Hutchison is.

[Alcon]

Referendum 71 follow-up:

I asked SoS Spokesman Dave Ammons about whether the "Master Checkers" are done with Friday's batch, which is obviously really significant to trending and all.  He replied that he has no idea (in no caps, how casual!) but will probably ask Monday afternoon.

Anyway, I'll keep up on that.  Or Dave Ammons will.  Probably.  Maybe.

[Frodo]

As a supporter of his efforts to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bore tunnel (and finally get something done for a change instead of continually going through the endless Seattle process...), I'm endorsing Mayor Greg Nickels in this race, but I would be just as happy with Joe Mallahan if he were to win this. 

[Alcon]

Referendum 71 update -- Tuesday, August 11th
The answer to my question was what Decline to Signers didn't want:  The Master Checkers were, indeed, behind.

Today's update includes only signatures reviewed by Master Checkers, which accounts for the decline in total reviewed signatures.  I think this is a good idea.  There's not much to release information where some of the signatures are double-checked and some aren't.  The SoS's office still says this is "too close to call," because duplicates will increase.  They sure need to start increasing soon, or this thing is on the ballot.

Checked so far
Last binder checked: 140
Total checked so far: 33,214 (24.12%)
Today's rejection rate: n/a

Accepted: 29,572 (89.58%)
Pending: 12 (0.04%)
Rejected: 3,450 (10.39%)

Futures
Trend: -0.0089 (yes, the rejection rate trend is slightly down so far)

Progress toward ballot placement: 24.68%
Progress toward failure: 20.16%

Future rejection rate needed to fail: 13.08%
...versus current cumulative rate: +2.69%
...versus current daily rate: n/a

Edit: And here is a more statistically grounded version of what I was doing.  Hooray!  Same conclusion, though.  Unless there are some weird-ass clusterings going on, this thing is going to make the ballot.

[Alcon]

Strategies 360 (who?) poll of 500 voters (whatever that means):

Nickels 24%
McGinn 16%
Mallahan 15%
Drago 8%
Donaldson 6%
Undecided 26%

Nickels favorability is at 33%-53%

Bag Tax is failing 40%-53%

And for King County Executive:

Hutchison 31%
Constantine 13%
Hunter 6%
Jarrett 5%
Phillips 5%
Undecided 38%

[bgwah]

Seems to be in line with other polls.

It looks like Dow Constantine will be the next King County executive.

Nickels looks likely to make it to the general election, with McGinn and Mallahan battling it out for the second spot... Would be interesting either way. Nickels would be the more liberal candidate against Mallahan and the more conservative against McGinn, IMO.

Alcon, why don't we have Seattle mayor maps for past elections? Primaries and generals? Hmm!??!?!

[Alcon]

Referendum 71 update -- Wednesday, August 13th

Checked so far
Last binder checked: 213 (skipped 206, 207, 209 & 212)
Total checked so far: 48,299 (35.08%)
Today's rejection rate: 11.03%

Accepted: 43,147 (89.35%)
Pending: 21 (0.04%)
Rejected: 5,121 (10.60%)

Futures
Trend: +0.05

Progress toward ballot placement: 35.78%
Progress toward failure: 29.92%

Future rejection rate needed to fail: 13.41%
...versus current cumulative rate: +2.81%
...versus current daily rate: +2.38%

[Alcon]

Alcon, why don't we have Seattle mayor maps for past elections? Primaries and generals? Hmm!??!?!

Are there any that would fit in with shapefiles of major elections?  Precinct changes in Seattle happen constantly.

Turnout rate in King County is currently 9.8%, and 9.5% in Seattle.  That is godawful, especially in an all vote-by-mail election.

[ajc0918]

Seems to be in line with other polls.

[Meeker]

I would try to give some insight into what type of voters are mailing in ballots through my super-awesome Democratic party contacts, but the WA Dems don't purchase matchbacks during off-year primaries. Can't imagine why.

I still think Mallahan will make the second spot - he's a better candidate for the olds. I think Constintine is pretty clearly going to make it into the second spot in the Executive race as well.

[Frodo]

Can anyone explain the differences in policy positions between the various King County Executive candidates? 

[Alcon]

Weird update -- Few signatures checked (seems like they were filling in some binders they skipped), but a somewhat higher rejection rate.  Seems like there were a few messy binders (206 had a 20% rejection rate -- not duplicates, though.)

Referendum 71 update -- Wednesday, August 13th

Checked so far
Last binder checked: 220
Total checked so far: 50,493 (36.67%)
Today's rejection rate: 11.53%

Accepted: 45,099 (89.32%)
Pending: 19 (0.04%)
Rejected: 5,394 (10.68%)

Progress toward ballot placement: 37.40%
Progress toward failure: 31.52%

Future rejection rate needed to fail: 13.44%
...versus current cumulative rate: +2.76%
...versus current daily rate: +1.91%