As Goldy pointed out, there was a new poll for the Washington gubernatorial race released today by Rasmussen Reports. The poll was taken on May 12 on a sample of 500 likely voters, giving it a margin of error of about 4%.

The poll shows Governor Christine Gregoire is leading Dino Rossi 52% to 41%. This double-digit (+11%) lead is substantially better that her +5% lead in a late-April Elway poll poll and her +4% lead mid-April SurveyUSA poll. Finally, the previous Rassmussen poll, taken in late March gave Gregoire a slim +1% lead.

My Monte Carlo analysis of the Elway poll indicated that Gregoire had an 89.9% chance of beating Rossi (but only if the election were held when the poll was taken). It is precisely because that probability is less than 95% (a rather arbitrary number offered as a reasonable cut-off “significance level” by the great statistician Sir. R.A. Fisher early in the last century), that the results are considered a “statistical tie” or “within the margin of sampling error.” But having a nearly 90% probability of winning is not the same as having a 50% probability of winning—something that is implied by the phrase “statistical tie.”

So lets repeat the Monte Carlo exercise to estimate Rossi’s or Gregorie’s probability of winning a hypothetical election held right now. I simulated a million gubernatorial elections of 500 voters each election. Each person had a 52% chance of voting for Gregoire, a 41% chance of voting for Rossi, and a 7% chance of voting for neither.

The result? Gregoire won every single one of the one million elections. In other words, the poll results indicate that, in an election held right now, Gregoire would win with certainty. There are some assumptions involved: the Rasmussen poll is unbiased and the sample was truly selected at random. So violations of those assumptions may offer Rossi slight chances. Furthermore, there is no question that things can and will change before November. But right now the best evidence available suggests that Gregoire wins.

There was another interesting finding in the poll. When the likely voters were asked their views on each candidate, 49% viewed Rossi favorably; 55% viewed Gregoire favorably; 45% viewed Rossi unfavorably; and 41% viewed Gregoire unfavorably. That gives Rossi a +4% spread between favorable and unfavorable, and Gregoire a +14% spread.

I’m thinkin’ the “We Wuz Robbed” meme isn’t really working out for Rossi….

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views)

Tomorrow (Friday) evening join Chip Hanauer, Darcy Burner, Major General Paul Eaton (Ret.), members of the Northwest Progressive Institute, Master of Ceremonies Mike West, Jazz guitarist Don Mock, and, um…me for an evening of politics, music, dinner, and maybe a beer or two.

The event is a fundraiser for the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI), an organization dedicated to fighting for progressive values and common sense policies for America and the Pacific Northwest region.

The NPI has been a mover and shaker in the progressive blogosphere around here—frequently working behind the scenes to get things done. I encourage you to take this opportunity to strengthen our movement and get to know some of the people at NPI.

The event starts at 7 PM at the Redmond Town Center Marriott. Tickets are $60 for individuals or $90 for a household.

More details (and advance ticket sales) are available here.

(Yep…this is an Open Thread.)

Was yesterday’s election a “game changer?” (No…not that one…the one in Mississippi-1, won by Childers.) And what are the implications for Dave Reichert and Doc Hastings? So…let’s say you attend a $33,100 per plate fundraiser. What kind of meal would you expect, and how should it be served? Goldy offers some disturbing possibilities. In any case, is John McCain violating the letter, or just the spirit, of the McCain—Feingold law? Who is to blame for Central Washington losing its nuclear waste to Idaho? Goldy and friends ask the tough questions so that you don’t have to…put down your beer to ask ‘em yourself.

Goldy was joined in political merriment by McCranium’s Jim McCabe, Executive Director of the Northwest Progressive Institute Andrew Villeneuve, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard (in the role of Goldy’s Ed McMahon).

The show is 47:08, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_13_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Last month, George Bush showed that he can reach for newer and greater heights when he broke the Gallup poll record for highest disapproval ever recorded for a president over the last 70 years.

The records keep rolling in…but, this month, Bush is an equal opportunity record-breaker. He has reached a new high and sunk to new lows for May:

The month started out with a new high (my emphasis throughout):

A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.

“No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president’s disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Bush’s approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively) but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s,” Holland added. “The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 66 percent disapproval in January 1952.”

Bush shows that he has also mastered the lows on Sunday when Rassmussen Reports gave their weekly and monthly approval/disapproval summaries:

For the week ending May 9, just 32% of Americans approved of the way the George W. Bush performed his role as President. That’s down two percentage points from last week and the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The decline in the President’s ratings come as the Rasmussen Consumer Index also hovers around record lows—72% of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse.

Sixty-five percent (65%) disapprove of the President’s Performance, up two points from a week ago.
[…]

The weekly figures also represents a two-point decline from the numbers recorded during the full month of April. During that month, 34% of Americans gave the President their approval. That too was an all-time low, the lowest full-month approval rating ever for the President measured by Rasmussen Reports.
[…]

Prior to this month, the President’s lowest approval rating was 35%, recorded in June, 2007. In two other months, his approval has been as low as 36% (May 2007 and March 2008).

And just yesterday, a new low from a new ABC/Washington Post poll:

Public disgruntlement neared a record high and George W. Bush slipped to his career low in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. Eighty-two percent of Americans now say the country’s seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the past year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And just 31 percent approve of Bush’s job performance overall, while 66 percent disapprove.

The country’s mood – and the president’s ratings – are suffering from the double whammy of an unpopular war and a faltering economy. Consistently for the past year, nearly two-thirds of Americans have said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. And consumer confidence is near its lowest in weekly ABC News polls since late 1985.

Bush’s approval rating has been extraordinarily stable – before today’s 31 percent it had
been 32 or 33 percent in nine ABC/Post polls from last July through last month.

Whew…and that is just the last couple of weeks!

As this election season geared up, we heard a lot of wishful thinking on the part of Righties suggesting that 2006 was the one and only opportunity for Democrats to make significant gains. In part the rationale seemed to be that candidates wouldn’t have a Bush administration to drag ’em down. Maybe…but there has been an avalanche of bad omens for Republicans lately: Bush’s new records, congressional special elections going Democratic in previously strong Republican districts, record high Democratic identity, and unprecedented fundraising asymmetries in favor of the Democrats.

Isn’t it time to reevaluate these Republican loyalists? I mean, when does the pattern of self-deception and delusions qualify as psychopathology?

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.

Tonight’s activity…perhaps a round of pin the flag on a donkey. Other than that, we will be focused on a most important election, which also gives us our theme song of the night: Black Water by the Doobie Brothers.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Goldy recently wrote about the signs of gloom and doom for the Republicans. The bad new and “expectations management” continues. Just look at a couple of the articles that hit the press this weekend:

Politico has the headline GOP getting crushed in polls, key races:

In case you’ve been too consumed by the Democratic race to notice, Republicans are getting crushed in historic ways both at the polls and in the polls.

At the polls, it has been a massacre. In recent weeks, Republicans have lost a Louisiana House seat they had held for more than two decades and an Illinois House seat they had held for more than three. Internal polls show that next week they could lose a Mississippi House seat that they have held for 13 years.

In the polls, they are setting records (and not the good kind). The most recent Gallup Poll has 67 percent of voters disapproving of President Bush; those numbers are worse than Richard Nixon’s on the eve of his resignation. A CBS News poll taken at the end of April found only 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest since CBS started asking the question more than two decades ago. By comparison, 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

Things are so bad that many people don’t even want to call themselves Republicans. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found the lowest percentage of self-described Republicans in 16 years of polling.

It’s hard to dismiss this stuff as “liberal media bias” when elections hand districts (with decades of Republican-control) to the Democrats. The article even has a Republican insider saying:

“The anti-Republican mood is fairly big, and it has been overwhelming,” said Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis.

That’s bad. I mean, at some point even the most heroic self-deception must fail, even in a community that is infamous for rejecting reality and facts.

The Republican gloom and doom is featured in this piece appearing in The Weekly Standard titled Gloomy Republicans: For good reason? by Executive Editor (and noted Wingnut) Fred Barnes:

First, the good news. Conservatives won a sweeping victory in an enormously important election the week before last. Unfortunately, it happened in England….

Alrighty then…. That’s the (totally irrelevant) good news. The bad news is that…

Prospects for Republicans in the 2008 election here at home look grim.
[…]

More than 80 percent of Americans believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Democrats have steadily maintained the 10 percentage point lead in voter preference they gained two years ago. And President Bush’s job performance rating is stuck in the low 30s, a level of unpopularity that weakens the Republican case for holding the White House in 2008.

There’s another piece of polling data that is both intriguing and indicative. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey last month, John McCain fared better with Republican voters (84 percent to 8 percent) than Barack Obama did with Democrats (78 percent to 12 percent). McCain was also stronger than Obama among independent voters (46 percent to 35 percent).

These are terrific numbers for McCain. But they aren’t enough. In the overall match-up, McCain trailed Obama (43 percent to 46 percent). The explanation for this seeming paradox is quite simple: The Republican base has shrunk. In 2008, there are fewer Republicans. [Emphasis added]

This same pattern holds here in Washington state. In the most recent SurveyUSA Washington head-to-head poll, Sen. John McCain gets 87% of the Republican support compared to 83% of Democrats who support Sen. Barack Obama. (One difference is that among Washington state independents, 55% support Obama and 34% support McCain.)

Overall, however, Obama strongly leads McCain, 53% to 40%. The reason for the double-digit lead is that only 28% of those polled admitted to being a Republican, whereas 41% fess-up to being a Democrat.

SurveyUSA polls provide data on the long-term trend in party affiliation. Here are the percentages since May of 2005:

The numbers show a slight decline of about 1.4% per year in Republican affiliation. At the same time, there is a 2.7% increase per year in Democratic affiliation. The big change is in independents, who have declined by about 4% per year.

The numbers support the notion that, in Washington state, independents are increasingly calling themselves Democrats. An analysis of correlations indicates that the increase in Democratic identity is most strongly associated with a concomitant decline in independents (r = -0.872). In other words, declines in independents “explains” about 76% of the increase in Democrats (found by squaring the correlation coefficient). The decrease in Republican identity “explains” about 20% of the increase in Democratic identity (r = -0.451).

The take-home message is that Republicans have good reason to be gloomy in Washington state. Their brand name is tarnished; the percent of Washingtonians admitting to being a Republican is declining. At the same time Democrats are experiencing growth.

And if Republicans are counting on independents to make up the difference, they are bound to be bitterly disappointed: there are even fewer independents than there were three years ago as former independents start calling themselves Democrats.

More on those McPastor problems:

(There are some sixty more media clips from the past week in politics now posted at Hominid Views)

Sen. Russ Feingold is offering a $5000 check to one of ten progressive House candidates. You get to help decide who gets the dough.

Cast your vote for Darcy in the Progressive Patriots Fund election today. Let’s show them the kind of strong grassroots support that has allowed Darcy to kick Reichert’s ass in dollars raised and number of individual contributors in every quarter since she joined the race this election cycle.

Did Obama just wrap up the Democratic nomination? Is Hillary’s gas tax relief a bunch of hot air? Would raising the gas tax be the responsible thing to do? Are Democrats dismissing Dino Rossi at their own peril?

Goldy and friends engage in some friendly sparring but, as the evening wore on, nearly ended up in a death fight over these and other big issues of the moment at the Montlake Ale House. Goldy was joined by blogging pioneer N in Seattle, the lovely, talented, and hard-working Molly, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, and HorsesAss personality Carl Ballard.

The show is 46:04, and is available here as an MP3 file.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_6_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. We meet at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E, although some of us will show up a little early for dinner.

Tonight’s activity will be a brawl over tonight’s theme song: either Goin’ Back To Indiana by The Jackson Five or Carolina in My Mind by James Taylor. So get past your bitterness, dodge a little sniper fire and get involved…in the political mêlée.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally . Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

(There are some 60 media clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)

Sen. John McCain explained his energy policy yesterday at a town hall meeting in Denver:

“My friends, I will have an energy policy…which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East, that will…then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

Did you catch that? McCain is suggesting that the real reason we are in Iraq is their oil.

War for oil is not a surprise to many of us. The surprise is that the likely Republican nominee for President, in effect, admits it.

McCain apparently tried clarifying his statement but, as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow point out, there were three different explanations by the end of the day.

Of course this war is about the oil. As was the Gulf War in 1991. Yeah…in that earlier war, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait first. The Coalition liberated Kuwait under the authority of U.N. Resolution 660. But would the U.S. bother to fight a war over Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait if it didn’t involve “our” oil supply? I mean, if Iraq had invaded and occupied, say, Namibia, would the U.S. respond with military force? Not likely.

In fact, South Africa did occupy, oppress, and commit atrocities in Namibia—in violation of numerous U.N. mandates. For some twenty years beginning in 1966, the U.N. passed a series of resolutions that condemed and declared South Africa’s occupation of Namibia illegal:

The General Assembly […]

3. Demands once again that the apartheid regime of South Africa immediately and unconditionally withdraw its illegal administration, occupation army and police force from Namibia;

But Namibia isn’t an oil producing country. No oil…no rush on that illegal occupation. No dead Americans, no dead South Africans.

You may well believe that the coalition’s war against Iraq in 1991 was justified by Iraq’s hostile actions and illegal occupation. But don’t fool yourself…when it comes right down to it, the action was about oil. And every time we fill our gas tanks, we purchase a little bit of human blood on the side.

Likewise, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not about WMD, terrorism, or human rights. It was about the second largest oil reserves in the world. It’s shockingly refreshing to hear McCain, a powerful Republican, actually fess up to the reason behind our military actions.

At the same time, McCain doesn’t seem the least bit bothered by the fraudulent claims made by the Bush administration that misled the Senate and the American people. He doesn’t seem troubled by the heavy toll in human lives (on the order of hundreds of thousands dead) and the untold number of injuries wrought by those lies. Apparently, McCain is just fine with those lies.

For McCain, it would seem, political party is thicker than blood.

Chris Grygiel at Strange Bedfellows reports on a new Elway poll that looks at the Washington state gubernatorial race. I’ll get to Chris’ odd take on the results below, but first I want to examine the poll in some detail.

The poll of 405 people shows Governor Christine Gregoire leading Dino Rossi 43% to 38%. The 5% spread looks to be a small improvement for Gregoire from the 4% spread she had in a mid-April SurveyUSA poll, and definitely better than the 1% spread in the early April SurveyUSA poll and the 1% spread in a late March Rassmussen poll.

The current Elway poll results do fall within its margin of error. Statistically, this means that the probability of Gregoire beating Rossi is something under 95%, based on what we can tell from a relatively small sample.

While it’s easy to dismiss the results as a “statistical tie” (especially when…you know…it’s your candidate who is losing) poll results can be more informative than declaring a “statistical tie.” They allow us to estimate probabilities that Gregoire or Rossi would win in an election held now.

The most intuitive way of extracting that information is to use Monte Carlo simulations of elections and simply count the number of Gregoire wins and Rossi wins. I simulated a million gubernatorial elections of 405 voters each election. Each person had a 43% chance of voting for Gregoire, a 38% chance of voting for Rossi, and a 19% chance of voting for neither.

Gregoire won 889,889 of the elections, and Rossi took 100,318. In other words, the poll results suggest that, in an election held right now, Gregoire would have an 89.9% of winning the election and Rossi would have a 10.1% chance of winning the election.

Here is a plot showing the distribution of votes in the million elections:

The area to the right of the red line shows wins for Gregoire and those to the left are wins for Rossi.

Chris Grygiel had an interesting take on this race (“Rossi gains on Gregoire in new poll,” reads the headline). He portrays Gregoire as losing ground with this poll, because she did even better in a January Elway poll. But the reality is that numerous polls have been taken since January, and the ground that Gregoire lost happened months ago.

A late February Rasmussen poll showed Rossi with a 61% chance of beating Gregoire. That turned around in late March and Early April when polls released by Rasmussen and SurveyUSA each gave Gregoire a 61% chance of beating Rossi. By mid-April, Gregoire was up to an 87% chance of winning an election. Now, in early May, the Elway poll gives Gregoire a 90% probability of winning.

Gregoire seems to have momentum on her side…at least, that’s what the recent polls say.