The Stranger’s Eli Sanders has been on top of the Danielson-Gonzalez Supreme Court race for a long time now. In fact, I think he deserves some of the credit for raising awareness that led to an election result in which a highly qualified candidate with the Hispanic surname defeated the highly unqualified candidate with the lilly-White surname.

But even in victory, Eli has an important point to make about failure:

The results are now clear: rural voters, for the most part, pick the white guy over the Latino guy.

If Gonzalez hadn’t spent over $260,000 to combat this dynamic—and if urban Washingtonians hadn’t sounded the alarm—then we’d now have a Justice Bruce Danielson.

This is a disgracefully ignorant and dangerous way to pick our supreme court justices.

There is another point to make here as well.

The deal is this. Every single county East of the Cascades went for the white guy. Most of them did so by 60% or more, including Adams and Douglas counties that went for Danielson by over 70%.

The counties with the highest proportion of Hispanic population (from 2010 census data) are Franklin (63.8%), Adams (57.9%), Yakima (45.6%), Grant (39.5%), Chelan (27.5%), Douglas (26.7%), Walla Walla (21.4%), Okanogan (19.2%), and Benton (18.0%).

All of these counties but Benton voted for Danielson in excess of 60%. That’s right…Franklin county, with a 63.8% Hispanic population went for Danielson by 64.3%. And Adams county, with a 57.9% Hispanic population went for Danielson by 70.6%.

Now, there may be several reasons why counties with a high proportion of Hispanic individuals have voters that overwhelmingly vote Republican and vote against a highly qualified individual with a Hispanic surname running for Supreme Court.

The Hispanic population may be younger, so that many are not old enough to vote. A certain proportion may be non-citizens. A lower rate of English literacy among Hispanic voters may suppress voter turn-out. Hey, there may even be some fraction of Hispanic voters who really believe it’s in their best interest to vote Republican (yeah…right!).

What we can say is that the interests of the considerable Hispanic population in Washington state for whatever reasons are not being served by our electoral system.

I find that disgraceful!

I don’t know what the story is behind this failure. Frankly, this looks like a failure on the part of Democrats to conduct effective registration drives, voter education efforts, and put GOTV operations into the field in these counties.

Whatever the reason, it needs to change!

Election results:

• Whew! Gonzalez ahead in Supreme Court race
• First CD: DelBene and Koster
• Gov: “Inslee earned 46.8 percent of the vote and McKenna earned 42.9”
• Seattle libraries, county juvenile-justice levies are up
• Re: last night—Publicola election miscellanea
• WA SOS elections page
• Nationally, a rough night for incumbents

A brief history of that Badass Harry Reid

Washington fights to keep tourism alive.

The MittVeePstakes are heating up.

“Mitt Romney is laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984.”

Caught on video: Hillary Clinton dancing in South Africa!

It is election day in Washington state. So fill out that ballot, drop it in the mail or a drop box and then join us for an evening of politics, conversation, and election watching over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. Tonight the Tri-Cities and Vancouver, WA chapters meet, and Thursday night Drinking Liberally Bremerton meets.

With 231 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state four in Oregon and three more in Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter near you.

Curiosity didn’t kill the Rover. But controversy erupts.

Tomorrow is election day. Having difficulties completing your ballot? Here is the Progressive Voter’s Guide from Fuse.

Actual Headline: “Northwest ties to Hiroshima remembered on A-bomb anniversary”. Ummm…are we supposed to celebrate or something????

Sour note: Sikh Temple shooter was “a ‘frustrated neo-Nazi’ who led a racist white supremacist band.”

The good news for Mitt is that he “probably earned more than $50 million, and possibly as much as $60 million from the Italian directory sale of Seat Pagine Gialle SpA…. The deal turned into one of the biggest windfalls of his tenure.” The bad news: Mitt can’t really go to Italy anymore.

More science for the nutbaggers to deny: The impact of ocean acidification on shellfish.

Saving Town Hall: Stanwood edition

Saving Town Hall: Darrington edition

Romney outraises Obama for third month in a row.

WA-10 Republican candidate Stan Flemming’s “atypical loan pushed the boundaries of federal law.”

Folks interested in examining Electoral College scenarios may find Michael Tomasky’s Daily Beast article of interest:

So if Pennsylvania is off the boards, let’s look around. Imagine it’s election night, say 10:45 east coast time. Four eastern states haven’t been called yet: Ohio (18), Virginia (13), North Carolina (15), and Florida (29). Also, in some Western states, the polls haven’t closed, or the races are too tight to project just yet—Colorado and Nevada, say. Arizona has just been called for Romney. At this point, Romney actually leads, 188 to 182. In this scenario I’m assuming Obama has won Iowa (6), which is admittedly close but where his lead has been stable at three or four points, and New Hampshire (4), where Obama has a similar fairly small but stable lead, and Michigan (16), where the gap appears to be opening up a little.

So it’s a six-vote Romney edge. They’re feeling great up in Boston. Especially with the big Eastern four still up in the air. Right?

Not really. Let’s look at these West Coast states….

Read the rest here.

Mark Fiore: Bishops versus Nuns!

Pap: The psychology of Republican voters.

SlateTV: Contraception mandate is “like 9/11, Pearl Harbor.

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Illinois edition:

Willard:

• Jon on Mitt’s trip to London (via Crooks and Liars).
• Mitt Romney’s tax return hunt.
• Obama on Mitt Romney’s tax hike on the middle class.
• Young Turks: Mitt Romney, blaming job losses on President is “poppycock”.
• Behind the dressage: Rafalca.
• Sam Seder: Universal Healthcare is great…for everyone but america!
• Stephanie Cutter: Mitt’s tax hike!
• Ann Telnaes: Romney’s trip continues.
• Mitt Romney: Jobs creator!
• Young Turks: Why aren’t Birfers demanding to seem Romney’s tax returns?
• Pap: Mushroom Cloud Mitt should frighten us all.
• SlateTV: Mitt’s bad trip to Poland.
• Mitt won’t answer for his middle class tax hike
• Sam Seder: Romney spokesperson to reporters, “Kiss my ass.”
• Young Turks: Harry Reid hits Romney hard over (possibly) not paying tax.
• Maddow: Romney demanded past opponents release tax returns.
• Romney Spokesperson to Press: “Kiss my ass. This is a Holy site for the Polish people. Show some respect.”
• Zina Saunders: Romney, Job Creator.
• One more “unwelcomed moment” ends Mitt’s trip
• Romney: Russia is our number one adversary?!?
• Sam Seder: Harry is right to question Mitt’s tax returns
• Maddow: Romney caught in a lie on tax return demands.
• SlateTV: Mitt v. Harry.
• Jon: The gaffes continue in Israel and Poland (via Crooks and Liars).

Stephen ‘salutes’ Sen. McConnell for attempting to stop Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate (via Crooks and Liars).

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, California edition.

Analysis: How do Obama and Romney stack up on foreign policy? (via TalkingPointsMemo).

Music video: David LaMotte sings “Hope”.

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Minnesota edition.

Food Politics:

• Chick-Fil-A sets the record straight.
• Jon: Chicken sandwich activism (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• The official Chick-fil-A appreciation day video:
• Susie Sampson’s Tea Party Report: Chick fil-A vs. the Gays
• Rahm Emanuel welcomes you to Chicago.
• Sam Seder: hate a gay, eat a processed chicken.
• KFC loves gays!
• Stephen: Who Will Protect The Vegetables? (via TalkingPointsMemo).

Pap: Republican hate peddlers divide America.

Sam Seder and Sarah Silverman catch up on movies and politics.

Jon: Old Man Fight—Cheney vs McCain (via Crooks and Liars).

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Delaware edition.

Ann Telnaes: Justice Scalia on money in politics.

That Nutjob from Iowa:

• Rep. Steve King gets in touch with his inner Birfer (via Crooks and Liars).
• Doggies against Rep. Steve King (via Crooks and Liars).

White House: West Wing Week.

SlateTV: Tea-time in Texas.

Alyona: Is defense spending really our top priority?

Thom with The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Connecticut edition:

Sam Seder: Dems add gay marriage to their platform.

Stephen sacrifices a baby to appease Grover Norquist (via Crooks and Liars).

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Over at Slog, Paul Constant posts two new political ads, one from the Romney camp and one from Obama’s camp.

Let’s try an experiment.

Each ad has brief footage of President Obama. Can you tell which ad is attacking Obama just by looking at a screen capture of him?

Ad one:

Ad two:

Now, I realize that it is common to alter the shade and focus, and add effects to political hit ads. Color is typically washed out to display the opponent as less appealing, generic and gray. This can be seen in Obama’s ads where Romney ends up with a green-blue hue and raster lines running through the scene, giving an Orwellian feel (with, perhaps, a touch of Max Headroom).

How do the Romney people make Obama less appealing? They render him out of focus and darken his face.

Huh…why do you think they did that?

Here are the ads:

From last night’s Drinking Liberally:

Just before the June, 2010 Washington State Republican Party convention, WSRP chair Luke Esser sent a pledge letter out to the G.O.P. senatorial candidates who were challenging Sen. Patty Murray (my emphasis):

We the undersigned Republican candidates for U.S. Senate herby urge the Washington State Republican Party to not make a pre-primary endorsement or nomination of any candidate in this year’s race for U.S. Senate, and to offer equal access to party resources for all Republican candidates. A pre-primary endorsement or nomination would only serve to divide our party at a time when we all need to be united in the effort to defeat Patty Murray. [….]

As Esser explained to Politico:

I thought it would be a mistake for anybody to win an endorsement. I think the body and the state party believe at this point that we should have a competitive and vigorous primary. May the best candidate win.

That’s some pathetic spin. The back story is that the Teabaggers were highly energized with a strong presence at the 2010 convention. The Teabaggers were pushing for a Clint Diddier nomination over latecomer Dino Rossi. Diddier had just earned Sarah Palin’s endorsement. A nomination fight would have have gotten ugly!

There’s only one problem with not nominating anyone in 2010. Take it away, Goldy (emphasis in original):

In what could turn out to be massive political blunder with far-reaching consequences, a question has been raised as to whether Mitt Romney can legally qualify to appear on the Washington ballot under existing state law:

WAC 434-215-165 Presidential nominations by major political parties.

Nominations for president and vice-president by major political parties are conducted at each party’s national convention. Immediately following the convention, each party must submit a certificate of nomination and list of electors to the secretary of state in order to place the nominees on the presidential general election ballot.

That is the procedure by which presidential candidates from “major political parties” qualify for Washington’s general election ballot. But according to a public records request that was forwarded my way, the Washington State Republican Party may no longer be a major party:

RCW 29A.04.086 tells us that “”Major political party” means a political party of which at least one nominee for president, vice president, United States senator, or a statewide office received at least five percent of the total vote cast at the last preceding state general election in an even-numbered year.”

The problem for the state G.O.P. is that the Senate race was the only state-wide race in 2010. And, as far as anyone can tell, and consistent with Esser’s pledge letter and statement, there was no actual Republican nominee for statewide office in 2010.

The implication is that the WSRP is now, technically, a minor party in Washington state.

Why is this important? Well…it is embarrassing. Republicans losing major party status will be the laughing stock of Washington state…with some assistance from the Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, and Dino Rossi’s timorousness in announcing his run.

But the other, potentially more serious consequence, is that the WSRP would be required to nominate a presidential candidate according to the rules for a minor party:

(2) In order to nominate candidates for the offices of president and vice president of the United States, United States senator, United States representative, or any statewide office, a nominating convention shall obtain and submit to the filing officer the signatures of at least one thousand registered voters of the state of Washington.

and signatures must…

(7) Be submitted to the appropriate filing officer not later than one week following the adjournment of the convention at which the nominations were made.

The 2012 WSRP State Convention ended on June 2. Oopsiedoodles!

So, unless the state Republicans submitted those 1,000 signatures and complied with all the other requirements of RCW 29A.20.161, Mitt Romney is not eligible to be on the Washington state general election ballot.

Should that happen, the Washington state Republicans will be the laughing stock of the nation.

Please join us for an evening of politics and conversation over a pint at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

Tonight we will be joined by Secretary of State candidate, past Public Delegate to the United Nations, and former two-term Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels.

(During his last visit to Drinking Liberally, Mayor Nickels presented the chapter with a “Republican St” street sign. It still hangs over the bar, plastered with liberal political stickers.)

We meet every Tuesday at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00pm. Some people show up earlier for Dinner.

Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? Check out one of the other DL meetings over the next week. The Tri-Cities chapter also meets tonight. The Spokane chapter and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meet this Thursday. On Monday, the Yakima, South Bellevue and Olympia chapters meet.

With 230 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and four in both Oregon and Idaho, chances are excellent there’s a chapter near you.

Olympic GOLD:

• London Mayor dings Mitt (via Crooks and Liars).
• Sam Seder: Mitt’s blunders.
• Mitt #RomneyShambles
• SlateTV: Mitt’s no good, very bad week.
• Thom: Talking in code.
• “Was it something I said?” #RomneyShambles.
• Sam Seder: Has there ever been a worse Presidential candidate?
• Pap: Mitt Romney, The Olympic Ass Clown
• ‘Unbelievable,’ ‘Incomprehensible’: Krauthammer (!!!) slams Romney over Olympics comment.
• Michelle shows Mitt how it’s done.

Mark Fiore: ALEC Rock:

Voter Disenfranchisement:

• Alyona’s Tool Time Award: PA for it’s voter ID law.
• SlateTV: Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law comes under Federal scrutiny as Republicans admit Mitt agenda
• Charlie Crist blasts Rick Scott over voter disenfranchisement (via Crooks and Liars).

Obama: Weekly Address.

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Maryland edition.

Guns and Violence:

• Ann Telnaes: Our desensitization to violence.
• Mark Fiore: Gun Safety.
• Pap: The gun industry’s license to murder.
• Obama and Mitt square off on gun control.

Thom with Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Roy Zimmerman: Beer Party Anthem for patriots.

Context Matters:

• Stephen supports Mitt’s very, very honest ads. (via Crooks and Liars).
• Jon on Mitt’s phony, “you didn’t build that” attacks (via Crooks and Liars).
• Young Turks: About that ad.
• Obama: “I believe”.
• Ezra Klein (for Maddow): Quoting out of context (via Crooks and Liars).
• Stephen defends Romney’s “Anglo Saxon” remark (via Crooks and Liars).

Alyona’s Tool Time Award: Bachmann on her witch hunt.

White House: West Wing Week.

Homophobic Food:

• Jonathan Mann: Screw You, Chick-Fil-A.
• Conan: Chick-Fil-A’s New Mascot—Chaz The Intolerant Chicken
• Stephen is a Chick-Fil-A culture warroir (via Crooks and Liars).

Thom with some Good, Bad, and Very, Very Ugly.

Zina Sanders: Michele Bachman’s Christian Crusades:

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican Indiana edition.

Jon fingers some assholes.

More Mitt:

• Ann Telnaes: If dodgeball were an Olympic sport.
• Mitt won’t reveal what he’s hiding in his tax returns.
• Alyona: MItt’s foreign policy stuck in the Cold War.
• Thom: Why is Mitt making out with bankers?

Roy Zimmerman: Vote Republican, Kentucy edition.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Results of a new SurveyUSA poll in Washington’s first congressional district (via KING 5) are out. The poll was taken on the 24th and 25th of July on a sample of 563 likely voters in the district (4.2% MOE). The results:

• John Koster (R), 38%
• Susan Delbene (D), 17%
• Darcy Burner (D) 13%
• Laura Ruderman (D) 6%
• Steve Hobbs (D) 5%)
• Darshan Rauniyar (D) 2%
• Larry Ishmael (I) 2%

The best news about this poll is the 43% that Democratic candidates take, edging out Koster’s support at 38% (or 40% if you include Republican-turned-independent Ishmael). In head-to-head general election contests:

If the race were between Koster and DelBene, SurveyUSA finds it’s a dead heat—42% each. It’s also effectively a dead heat if it were Koster vs. Burner.

Of course, with 17% (primary) and 16% (general) still undecided, there is a lot of room for change between the end of the primary and the general election.

Gubernatorial candidate and former Congressman Jay Inslee released a quite positive introductory ad a couple of weeks ago:

The ad does a great job introducing him and his past service. It’s one of those ads that can build name recognition. That’s all good.

Now compare it to this latest ad that takes a quite different approach:

I like this ad in that it covers some of McKenna’s weaknesses that I have been highlighting recently—namely, his paranoid, vengeful bunker mentality with the press (and here and here) as well as his contemptuous attitude toward others (and here).

At least as a public figure, McKenna is not a very nice person, and this ad begins to needle at that chink in his armor.

The ad also picks up on another theme: McKenna’s statements of being unprepared in a couple of circumstances. This is probably excellent politics, but it isn’t a serious argument against McKenna. From what I can tell, McKenna does take his work seriously and is nearly always prepared.

So, why does a normally prepared candidate have to resort to saying he is unprepared? Quite simply, it allows him to dodge a troublesome question. He doesn’t have to lay out his position on health care reform or on gun control without first carefully constructing an answer designed to minimize any damage from unpopular beliefs he holds.

But, hell, if he is going to use “unprepared” as an excuse for dodging answers, it’s fair game to turn around and hit him for admitting he is unprepared!