Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:50:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 252
Author Topic: Washington 2020: The Calm Before the Drizzle  (Read 836941 times)
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1125 on: August 25, 2009, 03:42:37 PM »

Wouldn't that just split the Lefty vote and elect Mallahan? Or is Murray hotdamn popular and might just push both people to the wall?

He's got more name recognition then either Mallahan or McGinn by a mile, and he'd have the heavy backing of the labor unions (all of which had been behind Nickels). I think you're right though that it'd much more heavily cut into McGinn's voting base.

It would also depend on the type of campaign he'd end up running. It could be a serious campaign about actually becoming mayor or it could be just about making a point for the grumpy Nickels supporters or it could be an extension of the R-71 fight and make it a whole gay rights thing. Murray is a gifted and powerful politician though, and he's being pushed into doing this, so I suspect it'd be a legitimate campaign.

I would have to learn more about Murray's position on urban issues like the tunnel, but I like his work in the state legislature.

I was always under the impression that Murray was just waiting for McDermott's seat, though...

That's been my impression as well. The Nickels faction may make a convincing case though (and it could potentially help him gain a higher profile for a future run at McDermott's seat).
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1126 on: August 26, 2009, 04:52:37 AM »
« Edited: August 26, 2009, 04:54:55 AM by Meeker »

Update on the Legislative races:

- The 9th District general will assuredly be a GOP vs. GOP race. Susan Fagan received 29% and Pat Hailey (wife of the deceased member) received 26% while the "Democrat" received 25%. Fagan and Hailey are clearly the most qualified candidates in the field so this is probably for the best. The county results here are rather remarkably polarized in some cases:

Adams: Hailey 50%, Fagan 16%
Asotin: Fagan 34%, Hailey 22%
Franklin: Hailey 81%, Fagan 8%
Garfield: Hailey 38%, Fagan 33%
Spokane: Fagan 27%, Hailey 18%
Whitman: Fagan 37%, Hailey 15%

- The Democrat who didn't submit a voters' pamphlet statement will be crushed by easily the least intelligent member of either chamber in November. A shame as Obama actually won this district.

- Rep. Laura Grant (D) (the only non-Spokane Democrat on that side of the mountains) has held on at 46% and will face Terry Nealey (R) in the general election. Nealey received 38% of the vote in a fractured Republican field, and was also the 2008 candidate against Grant's father, the late Rep. Bill Grant (D). The elder Grant received 52% in the 2008 primary and 54% in the 2008 general election, so the younger Grant is probably screwed. Stranger things have happened though.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1127 on: August 26, 2009, 04:13:06 PM »

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009737129_seiu_getting_to_know_mcginn_ma.html

Murray says there's a 25% he'll run and will decide by next week.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1128 on: August 26, 2009, 11:45:06 PM »

The last ballots seem to be trickling in... Hutchison has dropped every day, I think. She's now at 33.07%.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1129 on: August 27, 2009, 08:20:56 AM »

Nickels fell further behind... Sad Bag tax is up to 43%. Stupid Seattle.

Hutchison also dropped to 35.92%
I just read that Hutchison served on the board of directors for the anti-evolution "intelligent design" organization, The Discovery Institute.

Good grief! I know she's running for County Executive, a position that deals more with road grades, zoning and budgets rather than hot button social issues, but still--how is someone like that running strong in metro Seattle?
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1130 on: August 27, 2009, 12:50:27 PM »

Nickels fell further behind... Sad Bag tax is up to 43%. Stupid Seattle.

Hutchison also dropped to 35.92%
I just read that Hutchison served on the board of directors for the anti-evolution "intelligent design" organization, The Discovery Institute.

Good grief! I know she's running for County Executive, a position that deals more with road grades, zoning and budgets rather than hot button social issues, but still--how is someone like that running strong in metro Seattle?

Eh, George W. Bush got about the same %.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1131 on: August 27, 2009, 10:09:41 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2009, 10:30:16 PM by Ogre Mage »

Nickels fell further behind... Sad Bag tax is up to 43%. Stupid Seattle.

Hutchison also dropped to 35.92%
I just read that Hutchison served on the board of directors for the anti-evolution "intelligent design" organization, The Discovery Institute.

Good grief! I know she's running for County Executive, a position that deals more with road grades, zoning and budgets rather than hot button social issues, but still--how is someone like that running strong in metro Seattle?

Hutchison has the advantage of high name recognition because of her decades-long work as a TV Newscaster.  That is particularly a strong advantage in a multi-candidate primary.  She has deliberately attempted to obscure her extreme right views, a task made easier by the unfortunate passing of that measure which made this race "non-partisan."  The notion that this race is non-partisan is a sham.  Keep in mind that the Democratic vote was split between four candidates in the primary.  She had the Republican vote to herself.

The current results show Hutchison getting 33% of the vote.  Second place Dow Constantine has 27%.  Given she is the sole major Republican in the race against four strong Democratic candidates that is a poor showing.  If she posts similar numbers against Constantine in the general it will be a nuclear blowout.  My guess, however, is that she will pick up the assorted crazies votes as well as a small percentage of Jarrett's and Hunter's and will get 38%-40% in the general election.  That's still a loss by a huge margin.  All of Larry Phillips' votes and a majority of Hunter's and Jarrett's will go to Constantine.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1132 on: August 28, 2009, 01:41:08 PM »

Nickels fell further behind... Sad Bag tax is up to 43%. Stupid Seattle.

Hutchison also dropped to 35.92%
I just read that Hutchison served on the board of directors for the anti-evolution "intelligent design" organization, The Discovery Institute.

Good grief! I know she's running for County Executive, a position that deals more with road grades, zoning and budgets rather than hot button social issues, but still--how is someone like that running strong in metro Seattle?

Hutchison has the advantage of high name recognition because of her decades-long work as a TV Newscaster.  That is particularly a strong advantage in a multi-candidate primary.  She has deliberately attempted to obscure her extreme right views, a task made easier by the unfortunate passing of that measure which made this race "non-partisan."  The notion that this race is non-partisan is a sham.  Keep in mind that the Democratic vote was split between four candidates in the primary.  She had the Republican vote to herself.

The current results show Hutchison getting 33% of the vote.  Second place Dow Constantine has 27%.  Given she is the sole major Republican in the race against four strong Democratic candidates that is a poor showing.  If she posts similar numbers against Constantine in the general it will be a nuclear blowout.  My guess, however, is that she will pick up the assorted crazies votes as well as a small percentage of Jarrett's and Hunter's and will get 38%-40% in the general election.  That's still a loss by a huge margin.  All of Larry Phillips' votes and a majority of Hunter's and Jarrett's will go to Constantine.

Fair enough. I guess I was overfocusing on the fact she finished first by a healthy margin. Well explained.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1133 on: August 28, 2009, 02:40:15 PM »

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1134 on: August 28, 2009, 08:50:25 PM »

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow....
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1135 on: August 31, 2009, 07:23:50 PM »

I don't know if anyone put this up already, but Referendum 71 is officially on the ballot for November.

Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1136 on: August 31, 2009, 07:30:58 PM »

Sigh. Washingtonians, are you hopeful?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1137 on: August 31, 2009, 08:08:29 PM »

Yea, it'll be fine. Might even help the movement in the long-run.

It's true that off-year electorates in Washington are more conservative than on-year electorates, but I don't think it'll be by enough to make a difference. This year also might be different because of the high-profile nature of this ballot initiative as opposed to most off-years where everything on the ballot is boring as sh**t.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1138 on: September 01, 2009, 01:26:09 AM »

I would worry less about the conservatism of the off-year electorate and more about the age.  The "always vote" contingency is a big player in off-year elections, and the median member probably qualifies for AARP benefits.  But I agree with Meeker.  On the generic ballot issue question, this thing would be in the upper 60%s.  More realistically, I think it starts out in the low 60%s -- a few people will claim to support it as an alternative to gay marriage, but then revert when it's posed as a dichotomy.

Either way, I just don't see Reject winning.  Some political observers claim it might...I don't see it.  Like Meeker said, part of the off-year conservative lean is that the ballot is incredibly boring so the vote trends social conformist (and old, as previously mentioned.)  But with an issue like gay partnerships on the ballot, I'd be unsurprised if that weren't true (minus the old part, natch.)

Our apartment already has signage out, though, pointed toward the old people in condos, just in case.  Wink
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1139 on: September 01, 2009, 02:00:05 AM »

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge couldn't rule fairly in a case involving the legality of a gay partnership referendum is not the same as saying gay people can't be judges.   One is a statement that a judge with a (perceived) conflict of interest shouldn't hear a particular case.  Another is a blanket statement that simply wasn't made here.  Judges recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  She probably shouldn't here, but who knows what will happen?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1140 on: September 01, 2009, 02:18:21 AM »

cinyc,

She's an activist judge in that...she's not closeted about her homosexuality?  And she once called herself a "dyke" to the Seattle Weekly, the only gay-related thing in her career that I've been informed of.  Does doing that qualify someone as an activist?
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1141 on: September 01, 2009, 02:40:46 AM »

cinyc,

She's an activist judge in that...she's not closeted about her homosexuality?  And she once called herself a "dyke" to the Seattle Weekly, the only gay-related thing in her career that I've been informed of.  Does doing that qualify someone as an activist?

I don't know what evidence those who initially made the statement have or don't have about the judge's level of activism.  If all that they have is that she's openly homosexual and called herself a dyke to some newspaper, that's woefully insufficient grounds for recusal.  But if she's truly a gay activist who has been personally involved in the fight over the referendum, it might be.   That's why I said "Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge..." not this judge is (or isn't) a homosexual activist judge.

My main point is that the people who made the statement didn't say gay people can't be judges ever, as Holmes claimed, just that she may not be fit to hear this particular case.  The latter is unlikely from the evidence we have, but possible based on evidence we don't have which may or may not exist.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1142 on: September 01, 2009, 10:12:55 AM »

The people behind Referendum 71 say, gay people can't be judges!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge couldn't rule fairly in a case involving the legality of a gay partnership referendum is not the same as saying gay people can't be judges.   One is a statement that a judge with a (perceived) conflict of interest shouldn't hear a particular case.  Another is a blanket statement that simply wasn't made here.  Judges recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  She probably shouldn't here, but who knows what will happen?

Sorry, but no. She is a judge, and she rules over every kind of case that should come her way. To discredit her for one case because of her sexual orientation is to discredit her fully as a judge, even if it's just for one case. You can't pick and choose.

They are claiming, "only straight judges can make rulings about Referendum 71" because gay judges have personal bias, but in the end, everyone has personal bias. Their whole prerogative is to take down same-sex couples, I don't think they feel too well with a gay person with more power than they do.

Anyway, I stand by my claim that they don't think gay people should and can be judges because their heads are stuck so far up their asses that they think any ruling that conflicts with their own opinions is activism. Well, isn't that what their definition of activism is?
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1143 on: September 01, 2009, 11:35:43 AM »

cinyc,

She's an activist judge in that...she's not closeted about her homosexuality?  And she once called herself a "dyke" to the Seattle Weekly, the only gay-related thing in her career that I've been informed of.  Does doing that qualify someone as an activist?

I don't know what evidence those who initially made the statement have or don't have about the judge's level of activism.  If all that they have is that she's openly homosexual and called herself a dyke to some newspaper, that's woefully insufficient grounds for recusal.  But if she's truly a gay activist who has been personally involved in the fight over the referendum, it might be.   That's why I said "Saying that what the people behind Referendum 71 believe to be a homosexual activist judge..." not this judge is (or isn't) a homosexual activist judge.

My main point is that the people who made the statement didn't say gay people can't be judges ever, as Holmes claimed, just that she may not be fit to hear this particular case.  The latter is unlikely from the evidence we have, but possible based on evidence we don't have which may or may not exist.

By claiming that a gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that gay judges aren't capable of being impartial. And if you're saying a judge isn't capable of being impartial then you're also essentially saying they aren't capable of being a judge.

If the R-71 folks truly did feel that a gay judge was capable of making a ruling then they'd have no problems with this judge as there'd be no reason to think she couldn't be impartial on the issue other then the fact that she's gay.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1144 on: September 01, 2009, 03:23:24 PM »

Ed Murray isn't running for Mayor...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009786412_the_stranger_murray_wont_run.html

Sad
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1145 on: September 02, 2009, 12:31:47 AM »

By claiming that a gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that gay judges aren't capable of being impartial. And if you're saying a judge isn't capable of being impartial then you're also essentially saying they aren't capable of being a judge.

If the R-71 folks truly did feel that a gay judge was capable of making a ruling then they'd have no problems with this judge as there'd be no reason to think she couldn't be impartial on the issue other then the fact that she's gay.

No - by claiming that an ACTIVIST gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that ACTIVIST gay judges aren't capable of being impartial on CASES INVOLVING GAY ISSUES, not all cases generally.  And if you're saying an ACTIVIST judge isn't capable of being impartial on ISSUES ON WHICH THEY ARE ACTIVISTS, then you're essentially saying the judge is BIASED WHEN JUDGING A PARTICULAR CASE, not incapable of being a judge generally.

IF the proponents have actual evidence of the judge's activism (and, as I said twice before, it doesn't sound like they do), what they are asking is no different than if a school funding referendum were on the ballot and the judge vociferously protested or signed a petition against it.   Should he or she recuse himself?  Of course.  Does that mean he or she is unfit to judge in all cases?  Of course not.

The fact is that parties ask judges to recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  That their impartiality in a particular case is questioned doesn't make them unfit to judge generally.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1146 on: September 02, 2009, 12:44:58 AM »

By claiming that a gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that gay judges aren't capable of being impartial. And if you're saying a judge isn't capable of being impartial then you're also essentially saying they aren't capable of being a judge.

If the R-71 folks truly did feel that a gay judge was capable of making a ruling then they'd have no problems with this judge as there'd be no reason to think she couldn't be impartial on the issue other then the fact that she's gay.

No - by claiming that an ACTIVIST gay judge can't make a ruling on a gay issue is essentially saying that ACTIVIST gay judges aren't capable of being impartial on CASES INVOLVING GAY ISSUES, not all cases generally.  And if you're saying an ACTIVIST judge isn't capable of being impartial on ISSUES ON WHICH THEY ARE ACTIVISTS, then you're essentially saying the judge is BIASED WHEN JUDGING A PARTICULAR CASE, not incapable of being a judge generally.

IF the proponents have actual evidence of the judge's activism (and, as I said twice before, it doesn't sound like they do), what they are asking is no different than if a school funding referendum were on the ballot and the judge vociferously protested or signed a petition against it.   Should he or she recuse himself?  Of course.  Does that mean he or she is unfit to judge in all cases?  Of course not.

The fact is that parties ask judges to recuse themselves over actual or perceived conflicts of interest all the time.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  That their impartiality in a particular case is questioned doesn't make them unfit to judge generally.

But the only reason they think she's activist is because she's gay. They instantly assume gay=activist, which is obviously wrong and bigoted.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1147 on: September 02, 2009, 12:09:06 PM »
« Edited: September 02, 2009, 01:43:58 PM by Alcon »

As of 9:47, the first legal challenge to its ballot placement is pretty much dead -- King County Judge Spector ruled against it.  She said any challenge will need to be re-filed in Thurston County (Olympia), which we can expect to happen within five days.

A new Washington Poll out today (tiny and probably not great) basically finds that Referendum 71 has no chance of being rejected.  It isn't  specific to R-71, but it asks whether the respondent supports marriage (more rights than R-71), full domestic partnership (R-71), limited domestic partnership (less than R-71), or no recognition (obviously less than R-71).  MoE +/-4%.

Inferring the R-71 "results" from the poll:

"Approve" 66.0%
"Reject" 32.6%

Insanely high MoE crosstabs:

Men: 65-35 (+29)
Women: 68-31 (+38)

Liberals: 92-8 (+84)
Moderates: 78-22 (+56)
Conservatives: 39-62 (-22)

Republicans: 53-47 (+6)
Independents: 64-36 (+28)
Democrats: 86-14 (+71)

McCain: 39-61 (-23)
Obama: 88-12 (+77)

Rossi: 46-54 (-9)
Gregoire: 89-14 (+75)

Puget Sound: 71-30 (+41)
Eastern Washington: 58-42 (+17)
Other: 66-34 (+32)

18-34: 73-27 (+46)
35-49: 67-33 (+35)
50-65: 72-28 (+43)
66+: 60-42 (+18)

Income under $40k: 60-40 (+20)
Income $40k-$100k: 67-33 (+34)
Income over $100k: 77-23 (+55)

Active military: 53-47 (+6)
Veteran: 64-36 (+28)
No military: 70-30 (+41)

No college: 56-44 (+11)
Some college: 68-32 (+35)
College degree: 69-31 (+37)
Post-graduate: 75-25 (+51)

Born-again: 48-52 (-4)
Other religions: 71-29 (+41)

Oh, and Susan Hutchison has endorsed it.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1148 on: September 02, 2009, 03:12:51 PM »

Final primary results:

Hutchison: 33%
Constantine: 27%
Jarrett: 12%
Phillips: 12%
Hunter: 11%
Lobdell: 2%
Goodspaceguy: 1%
Lippmann: 1%

McGinn: 28%
Mallahan: 27%
Nickels: 25%
Donaldson: 8%
Drago: 7%
Campbell: 2%
Garrett: 1%
Sigler: 1%

Approved: 47%
Rejected: 53%
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1149 on: September 02, 2009, 04:49:24 PM »

Also turnout in King was 32.6% and 19.2% in Pierce.

Amusingly, according to the canvassing board report, 15 ballots were rejected in Pierce County with the explanation given of "Wrong Election".
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... 252  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 10 queries.