by Goldy, 02/27/2005, 11:46 AM

There has been some crowing over on the right-wing blogs about a recent Rasmussen Poll that showed Dino Rossi beating Maria Cantwell in a hypothetical match-up, 47% to 44%.

The poll also showed favorable ratings of Rossi 55%, Cantwell 54%, and Gregoire 50%. And on the issue of who really got the most votes in November’s gubernatorial election, 42% of respondents said Gregoire, 44% said Rossi, and 15% didn’t know.

Now I know my righty readers will accuse me of spin, but you know what…? As a partisan Democrat, I honestly don’t think those numbers look so bad.

Put aside the question for a moment of whether this was, or was not, a legitimate election, and you have to admit that Washington voters have been subjected to an intense and unprecedented propaganda campaign promoting the latter. And yet, after months of allegation after allegation that Gregoire and the Democrats stole this election through incompetence and/or fraud, public opinion on its legitimacy is well within the +/- 4.5% margin of error, and Gregoire’s favorables rank a couple points higher than her performance on election day.

With every day Gregoire holds the governor’s mansion, with every GOP defeat in the courts, and with every debunking of an allegation… the election contest becomes little more than partisan white noise. As it stands, Republican-leaning Rasmussen (Tim Eyman’s favorite polling company) already shows public opinion on the election and the candidates virtually split along the same lines as November. While I’m sure the contest will energize some of Rossi’s true believers during his 2008 rematch, for the general public that election will be a referendum on Gregoire’s job performance, not on a four-year-old election dispute.

I’m not saying the highly public election contest hasn’t negatively impacted Gregoire at all… just not nearly as much as I would have imagined, and surely not as much as Republicans would have hoped for.

If there’s any alarming data coming out of this poll, it is Maria Cantwell’s relative weakness… but that’s not such a surprise. Still 54% approval ain’t so bad, and the match-up with Rossi is purely hypothetical. As I’ve said before, I don’t expect him to run for the Senate.

So Republicans can crow all they want about these poll numbers. But they may end up eating a little crow come the actual elections.

113 Responses to “Crow all you want, eat all you crow”

1. torridjoe spews:

It’s also important to remember that the margin of error applies to EACH CANDIDATE separately. In other words, Rossi’s number could be anywhere from about 42 to 52, and Gregoire’s from about 39 to 49. The analysis of the gap is generally about 150-175% of the individual margin of error. That is to say, a base +-4.5 comes out to about 6 or 7 points at least, when assessing the gap.

I admonished Stefan to correct his post trumpeting “Rossi leads Cantwell,” to something like “Rossi and Cantwell functionally tied.” I haven’t checked back, but I would be surprised to see a change.

2. G Davis spews:

Polls are strange creatures. As with all statistics they can be manipulated to forward whatever agenda is at hand.

In short, I think they’re all poppycock. ;0

That said, I would personally be very open to any alternative to Cantwell AND Murray. Neither has shown any sort of political spine nor taken any sort of definable stance on any subject in the recent past.

At least as far as I have seen. I’m always open to being shown otherwise.

Rossi, however, has shown by his actions to be nothing more than largely a puppet mouthing *company* groupthink. He is the quintesential *worst of all evils* in my book.

Could be wrong, of course. Certainly have been before. ;0

3. RDC spews:

I wouldn’t even try to deflate Republican supporters like SP. Over-confidence is a disease usually fatal to politicians and their supporters. 2006? 2008? Who knows? Beware of the Tony Blair syndrome, is my advice. He is quoted as saying when first made Prime Minister: “I don’t make predictions. I never have, and I never will.”

4. Josef the Dinocrat in Marummy Country spews:

Okay, two things – one related to this post, the other not but important:

1. This poll does NOT note that Gov’r-elect Rossi has said time & again he will NOT run against U.S. Senator Cantwell, period. It’s ridicilous to continue to make such statements in my book.

2. My blog – click on my name – is going under renovation. So if you get weirded out, my apologies in advance.

5. Chee spews:

Rossi had nothing to crow about as long as he thought he was winning the election contest. Did Rossi scream foul. No. Did Rossi holler about felons voting. No. Did Rossi squabble over flaws and irregular procedures. NO. Did Rossi cry over illegal votes. No. It wasn’t until the annointed Rossi finally lost that he awoke from his entrancement to find for the very very first time in his political career that a crystal clear vision came to him that revealed his milk could have been dilluted by felons, illegal votes and other flaws. An afterthought that don’t it make his brown eyes blue.

6. Josef the Dinocrat in Marummy Country spews:

Chee, I have a simple response: We did NOT know of this until January!!!

7. Brenda Helverson spews:

G Davis is right. I didn’t support Cantwell so that she could vote to invade Iraq, to approve Alberto Gonzales, and to support the noxious class action bill. I am worried that she will support the horrible bankruptcy bill now before the Senate.

We can’t win a contest between a True rethugnican and a rethugnican-lite.

8. Mark spews:

Brenda @ 7

Uh-oh! We best kick anyone out who doesn’t fall lock-step (or is that goose step?) in line with the Party.

Could you also please explain at which point in the spectrum somone becomes a “rethugnican” — “lite” or otherwise? I mean, is it basically anyone that doesn’t believe 110% of what you believe? Does it start at the far Left with “True Believers” and then jump to quasi-Rethugnican at one degree right of Teddy Kennedy?

9. Aaron spews:

Don’t forget that Cantwell beat skelator, that counts for a lot. There are some issues that I disagree with her on, I find myself more often in agreement with Murray than Cantwell, but all in all I think she’s been an effective leader. Look what she’s doing on Enron. She’ll have my support.

One of the biggest advantages wingers enjoy over progressives and liberals these days is a willingness to set aside differences on some issues to advance a larger agenda. The first and foremost obligation we all have in a democracy is an obligation to work to form a majority. I think the notion of painting Cantwell as a republican of any sort (“lite” or whatever) is pretty insulting, and ignores a lot of good work.

10. Mark spews:

Aaron @ 9

That’s (former) Senator Skeletor [note caps] to you, son! ;)

You’re right on the “set aside differences” thing. And some of it puzzles, yet encourages, me since Republicans have always been portrayed as stodgy and inflexible. But now there is a groundswell of those on the Moderate Right who are willing to listen to the Moderate Left’s concerns and ideas — incorporating them where possible and hoping the Mod Left will reciprocate. If more open-minded, Moderate Democrats would speak up, I truly believe that the True Progressive Middle can be very powerful — and actually MAKE PROGRESS on the issues of the day.

11. Aaron spews:

There was a time in the past when Senator Skelator had some begrudging respect from some of those of us on the left, in particular for work he did for the environment. Unfortunately, he sold all that out and later moved in lock step with his regressive party.

Don’t you go trying to co-opt “progressive” for the Republicans. It is the party of anti-government and power more than anything else these days. To fail to recognize that is to miss most of what’s going on. You may think Kyoto wasn’t such a great deal for the USA, but it still should absolutely been adhered to while the notion of global warming (or global “climate change” as the republican framer propagandists prefer) is recognized by the entire world. As a society, we are not overtaxed, and taxation and government do not seriously impede our economy. The list goes on and on, but the republicans have amply demonstrated that they are the party of regression back to 19th century unfettered capitalism, not progress.

12. jim spews:

Josef @6:

Nice try…but the facts get in the way of your statement.

A quick review of SoundPolitics shouts ‘fraud’ on November 16th 2004….not January 2005 as you allege! And many, many times after that but before January.

Many people trumpted the pr-spin that if Gregoire won the final recount, it would be because of King County Fraud.

13. Mark spews:

Aaron @ 11

I’m not trying to co-opt Progressive for the Republicans. I’m trying to snatch it back from the clutches of blindered partisans and place it where it properly belongs — in the hands of Moderates of both stripes whose goal is progress, not a myopic agenda.

Republicans aren’t anti-government. They’re anti-overreaching-government. The Kyoto thing is much more complicated that just a bunch of enviro rules (e.g. the whole “developing nations” flap).

As for taxes, Aaron, I’d have to ask if you have ever owned or run a business. Especially for small businesses — the lifeblood of the Amercan economy — taxes and regulations are a huge issue. Even Dems recognize that by the fact that the Administrative Procedures Act and the Reglatory Fairness Act require cost-benefit analyses and Small Business Economic Impact Statements for proposed laws.

14. JCH spews:

Goldy, Perhaps you would like to thank the men and women in the US military today for giving you the freedoms you enjoy today, but would rather others “stand on the wall” because you are just a little too fragile to serve. [kind of like when Hillary said she tried to join the Marines. Goldy and Hillary......standing side by side, protecting America!! [hehe]

15. zapporo spews:

Wow, Republicans are ahead in this blue state? That is quite significant. When the truth about the most recent election spills out in court, I would be very suprised if there isn’t some backlash against the party currently in power. In the same token, it’s great to see wildly popular people like McKenna and Reichert doing a visibly great job for the state.

16. jim spews:

zapporo @15:

OK…since you used the word “visibly,” please name ONE thing that Reichert has done that is good for this state.

And, I ask you not to mention just following the republican party line on all votes thusfar and claiming that is good for this state.

I mean ONE thing that he has championed for our great state.

17. zapporo spews:

Jim @16 – I think you have the concept well in hand (e.g., following the republican line). Haha. What you say is true though. November and December aren’t typically whirlwind months for congress. I would say that my optimism for Dave has more to do with the fact that I know where he came from, the community and service clubs he has worked with, the fact that he is a pragmatic centrist conservative. Look at everything that law enforcement has to deal with and put up with. In my book, Dave Ross didn’t even come close in terms of real management experience, integrity, critical thinking, and leadership skills. And as the year rolls on I think that you will see that aspect in Mr. Reichert’s service.

18. jim spews:

Zapporo — we’ll see. Most of my republican friends were upset that Reichert was the nominee (they preferred Diane Tebelius).
The democrats had Alben, the republicans Tebelius (now *that* would have been a great race of issues, depth, etc.)…but both ended up with candidates based on name not on substance….

(PS…during the campain, Reichert was proud to be associated with Delay–hard to imagine that is “centrist” by any stretch of the imagination)

(PPS…I didn’t mention anything about your comment about McKenna…here’s a smart, hard working, well respected guy who already has done some very good things)

19. reggie spews:

The biggest problem I see is what Bush is going to do to this state as far as making us pay fair market value for our electricity. That will have far more impact on us than any taxes that may be imposed.

And who do we have to stop him let’s see we have a handful of weak kneed democrats screaming don’t screw us to a plethora of red state republicans who are already paying fair market value.

i have already warned my employees that if this happens I am going to move the company to a state that has better incentives than washington. The laws in this state are so repressive for business owners that it doesn’t make sense to stay here if we are paying the same electric rates as say nevada.

We have voted democratic but we didn’t pick this best representitives to represent us in THIS congress. Bend over Washingtonians for the screw job of your life.

20. Mr. Cynical spews:

Goldy–
Perhaps people will have some renewed interest once the actual trial starts, they see more and more of the hard evidence and the R’s start deposing Logan, Huenneken and their election staff.
Reality TV is popular you know. Nothing will be more riveting than watching these 2 DOOFUS’s try and explain what happened in this election and everything in that BIG BINDER<

21. Dave spews:

2008 is still a long ways off. If the Rossi campaign is still throwing a tantrum by then the voters will want absolutely nothing to do with him. Those poll numbers will change unless the Republicans’ attitude does.

22. marks spews:

Aaron @11

Mark has already given you some ideas to think about, but I think there are some other things you should consider:

“You may think Kyoto wasn’t such a great deal for the USA, but it still should absolutely been adhered to while the notion of global warming (or global “climate change” as the republican framer propagandists prefer) is recognized by the entire world.”

To your first point, for the United States emission controls rigidly instituted per Kyoto would trigger a depression The Kyoto agreement–if fully complied with–would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3% and not reduce thermal mean temperature by more than .19 degree Celsius by 2050.

For your second I agree global warming is a notion, and much more needs to be researched before we should become true believers. That does not mean we shouldn’t push market-based reforms in this area (see below). As an aside, ‘Climate Change’ is the UN term (IPCC), and Republicans had nothing to do with it.

As for your idealistic statement about it being recognized by the entire world, I have to point out: For Russia, China, and India, currently the fastest-growing emitters of CO2 on the planet, there are no controls for emissions per Kyoto beyond the window dressing of “limits” which they have not yet achieved and are not expected to achieve by the 2008-2012 target date.

At some point we (both the US and the world community) will need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel, not because of the global warming scarenario, but because it makes sense to do so. If you have an idea on how, I’d love to hear it…

23. marks spews:

Goldy,

As far as the senate race 2006, I actually don’t see any evidence of major disaffection. Polls are a measure of the moment. Thus, tj is correct for pointing out that this number has too much variance…

24. Aaron spews:

CATO on Kyoto? Give me a break. Those ideologues won’t believe in consequences from industrial pollution until the weather gets really weird, and it rains more in L.A. that it does in Seattle… They pop off a figure like a 2.3 percent reduction in GDP based on no documented assumptions, and with no cites of anything other than their asses. Did I say “asses”? I’m sorry, I meant their experts, the Charles River Associates. Try a google on that group, read who they have as clients, and read between the lines. They represent the status quo, not anyone who gives a rip about the future of this planet. Under “Environment”, they say about their clients: “We help them to respond to current regulatory and legal action, influence their regulatory and legal setting, and anticipate and adapt to future requirements.”

Read, “We make sure they can make more money”.

Before you go off on how keeping the corporations well fed is the salvation of everyone, keep in mind that if this kind of reasoning was always followed, we’d still have automobiles with plain glass windshields, and no safety belts or catalytic converters. Yes these things cost, and yes, we can afford them.

Regardless as to your interpretation of the specifics of the Kyoto treaty, the U.S.A. agreed to it, and then reneged without making any significant counter proposals. Basically, the CATO Institute is unwilling to do anything that involves any cost to us, the primary instigators of emissions that are recognized as significant by the vast majority of the scientific community. We’re pretty much saying to the rest of the world, “we like things just like they are, thank you very much” as we climb into our Excursions and Suburbans, off for another cross county commute alone on the freeways…

Treaties can, and indeed should be, modified. But just walking away is simply selfish. That’s what we’ve done under Republican leadership.

25. Aaron spews:

p.s. As to how to drive markets to recognize the need for fossil fuel reductions, how about this: stop subsidizing the automobile industry with income taxes. Fund road construction, highway patrols, and the rest of the infrastructure costs for our current forms of transporation systems from fuel taxes. At this point that would mean that about 1.5 billion per month would be needed to fund a war in Iraq that is largely happening to protect access to cheap oil for the automobile industry.

26. marks spews:

Very well Aaron. Your point is we should give up those Excursions and Suburbans. To what effect? Is there an upside? What do we use instead?

I do not see your reasoning as beneficial without a real solution…

And, as for agreement, the current administration did not make the agreement, and the Senate never ratified the treaty. So what now?

27. marks spews:

Aaron @25

“As to how to drive markets to recognize the need for fossil fuel reductions, how about this: stop subsidizing the automobile industry with income taxes.”

In that case, we would have to elect Republicans to the Michigan Senate seats.

28. Aaron spews:

Well if you need to pull a boat, maybe you should use a truck. But if you’re commuting, might I suggest a car.

The rolling living rooms so prevalent on our freeways are certainly not justifiable, and would go away by themselves if not for the cheap gas, subsidized tranportation support systems, and industry exploited loopholes versus regular automobiles.

29. marks spews:

Aaron @ 28

Now we are getting somewhere! See? It was not too difficult, was it? Baby-steps can bring change. I appreciate the ideas…

30. Don spews:

marks @ 22

You claim the Kyoto agreement “would trigger a depression” because “if fully complied with” it “would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3%.”

Let me get this straight. You support a president who lets factories and power plants spew pollution into the air because of a possible 2.3% decline in GDP. Let me ask you this? How much of a GDP decline do you think Dubya’s deficit spending will cause?

31. Don spews:

reggie @ 19

How would you rather have fighting Bush’s BPA rate plan — Gregoire or Rossi? Murray and Cantwell, or some Republican beholden to the White House and GOP Senate leadership for campaign support? I would suggest that if you voted for Bush and this thing goes through, you have no one to blame but yourself. It’s not something any Democrat wants. By the way, don’t let the door hit you in the ass as you’re leaving.

32. Erik spews:

The problem with Dino is that all he can do is twiddle his thumbs and have Lane and company rant for him for the next two years. I don;t see how that helps his candidacy.

Also, things are going to chance before the 2006 election.

If Rossi losses the election contest, he will be a losing GOP candidate which will hurt him. No one likes losers.

If Rossi wins the election contest, he will have to run for governor and not against Cantwell and the poll will not matter.

33. JCH spews:

28, 29….Agreed. I’m sure you were appaulded by the Kerry’s Gulfstreams [G-5], 180 ft floating SUV /SUV’s and mansions that costs hundreds of thousands to heat and cool. In addition, I’m sure you are equally upset with the Kennedy’s jets, SUV’s, power boats, and multiply mansions. Another case of “All animals are equal, but Democrat hacks are more equal than others.” [Like Don, Aaron and Marks........GD Democrat hypocites!]

34. JCH spews:

Don, Kyoto: third world and socialist countries attack on capitalism. And Don is leading the charge, as HIS “guvment” job is safe!!!!

35. zip spews:

Erik @ 32

Unfortunately, you may be correct. Rossi seems to be in an “all or nothing” position unless he can find himself a leader-like occupation if he loses the contest. Gregoire’s future electabilty seems irreparably harmed.

36. JCH spews:

Don, Aaron, Marks, and, yes, even Goldy……..”Who is John Gault?” [Here's a clue for you socialist libs: John was NOT mentioned in Bill or Hillary's books, so the question will be tough for you!]

37. torridjoe spews:

Isn’t it Galt? You’re speaking of a character in one of Ayn Rand’s ludicrous books, right?

38. Goldy spews:

JCH @36,

How old are you 18? 19? Grow up already and get over Rand. It’s just as pathetic as grown men dressing up as hobbits.

39. JCH spews:

Goldy, You trade “guvment” security for freedom. You are sad.

40. reggie spews:

Don @ 31

I will make more money in another state than I will here. I won’t be the only business to leave the state as other I have talked to are saying the same thing. In fact that dipshit Bagdad Jim is saying the exact same thing. How will that effect the budget shortfall in this state? How will that effect Cantwell reelection bid?

In the long run Don it won’t cost me a thing to pick up my company and move. But, it will cost you. So why should I care who is the president? It’s your state Don, you picked the people you are going to war with…the other states picked theirs..you wanna guess who gonna win? .

41. RDC spews:

toridjo, JCH, Goldy

It’s John Galt (not Gault). I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as an impressionable teenager. The memory calls to mind the words of Paul: When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things….

42. RDC spews:

JCH toridjo and Goldy

It’s John Galt (not Gault). I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as an impressionable teenager. The memory brings to mind the words of Paul: When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

43. Richard Pope spews:

Don @ 31

Bush should change the BPA rate plan a little bit to reflect political reality. BPA should continue to sell power at close to production cost in those areas that are drained by the Columbia River. Outside of the Columbia River drainage basin, BPA would sell power at the prevailing market wholesale rate. Since BPA was intended to promote the economy of the Columbia Basin — a historically impoverished area — this makes perfectly sense from the social justice perspective.

It would also make sense from the political reality perspective. Bush and the GOP did very well in the Columbia Basin counties — including those in the adjoining states as well. These areas would continue to enjoy cheap power. The Seattle Metro area, on the other hand, would pay market rates. Given the high average income level in the Seattle Metro area, our local economy can bear this.

44. torridjoe spews:

Why should anyone pay a market rate for power, when the entity producing the power is a fully public entity? That’s the whole point of government operation–you get it at COST.

45. Mark spews:

TJ @ 42

“That’s the whole point of government operation–you get it at COST.”

“Ahh, but at WHAT cost,” asked Faust.

46. Mark spews:

Me @ 45

Ratcha-fratchin’-rigga-frrggn’ delayed posts! It properly should be “TJ @44″ (unless, of course, other posts come up).

47. Erik spews:

Rossi seems to be in an “all or nothing” position unless he can find himself a leader-like occupation if he loses the contest.

That’s his problem. All he can lead right now is Lane and Vance. I don’t know if that’s going to be enough of a resume packer to get him another job in another 2 or 4 years.

Losing the governor’s race, then losing the election contest, and then running against Cantwell who is a moderate democrat.
I think that’s going to be difficult for him.

48. RDC spews:

Mark @ 46 Sorry about my delayed post (???)
Mark @ 45 Who/what is Faust? Who/what is Margarite? Who/what is Mephistopheles?

49. Dave spews:

Hey Reggie, instead of all the talk why don’t you pick up and leave? The grass is always greener, they say. We’ll see you back after you realize what a mistake you made.

Yeesh. Some people would walk straight off a cliff if you held a dollar out in front of their nose.

50. Chee spews:

Mr Cynical @ 20. Renewed interest in the Rossi case is doubtfull. Due to poor attendance at first Rossi hearings, last hearing was moved into a smaller space rather than use the large auditorium. They had anticipated more interest than they got. Frankly, Rossi and Party are soiling their own linen with their overkill. There is a growing majority in both parties that prefer to move on. Rossi’s loss doesn’t make or break their day.

51. reggie spews:

Dave @49,

What is obvious here is that

1) you don’t own a business so you don’t know what I am talking about (this was the crux of Rossi’s campaign that the laws in this state were anti-business….don’t believe me…ask boeing)

2) Because of the low power rates we enjoy in this state it is more cost effective to do business here than elsewhere. Until that changes I’ll stay put. As i stated in an earlier post…even Bagdad Jim agrees with that statement.

3) most often it is the people without money that tend to make statements like money isn’t everything or in your case saying that I would walk off a cliff if you held a dollar in front of my nose. It takes balls to start a business, to keep it running. It don’t take shit to go punch a timeclock at mcdonalds.

52. reggie spews:

while we are at it…

the polls also said that John Kerry was going to be our next president. They also said that people who voted for Bush were religious fanatics. The polls also say that Hilary Clinton is the front runner for the presidency in 2008 but that she won’t win because she has a higher “hate” number than GWB

I don’t think any of these statements are true…and i don’t believe any polls at all. People have got it figured out…they are lying to the pollsters to throw them off because for the most part they are being bothered at home on the phone. (with the exception of the exit-polls)

53. Diggindude spews:

The grass isnt “ALWAYS” greener, wa. is rated in the top ten for being business friendly by taxation.org.

54. Goldy spews:

Reggie @52,

I want to make absolutely clear that I was in no way vouching for the meaningfulness of polls such as the Rasmussen one I cited. It was bullshit. I was merely pointing out that if you were to accept their numbers, they’re not all that bad for the dems, all things considered.

55. G Davis spews:

Reggie, as a business owner I know you are correct…many businesses would do better in areas with lower power rates.

But I also know if you leave, someone else will fill any void your business left.

It doesn’t take balls to open a business…it takes a few loose screws! ;0 There are many out there just like you and I who would love to jump in.

Non of us are indispensible. You leave, someone else will open.

56. JCH spews:

RDC…….The flight of the “productive” away for the parasite liberals like Goldy, Don, and Hillary was predicted years ago. I suggest you put down “My Life” by Clinton and reread “Atlas Shrugged”. BTW, Bill Clinton was great in the “Fountainhead”. [hehe]

57. Richard Pope spews:

Diggindude @ 53

I looked at http://www.taxation.org . It is an interesting website. Hard to characterize these people. Actually looks like some sort of charitable organization designed to help other charitable organization manages their information technology needs more efficiently. I didn’t see anything on their site that would suggest that they rate states on the basis of being business friendly, or any other kind of similar statistical information.

58. Goldy spews:

Richard @57, Diggindude @53,

I think he might have meant the conservative TaxFoundation.org, Tim Eyman’s favorite tax think tank. They show that WA ranks the 9th most favorable business tax climate.

59. Diggindude spews:

Goldy @ 58
Thanks, sorry wrong url.
taxfoundation.org

60. Diggindude spews:

Although taxation.org is a very good site also, it seems!

61. RDC spews:

JCH @ 56

No, thanks. Once for The Fountainhead was enough. But since you offered the suggestion, I have one for you. Why don’t you try something more challenging, like, say, a McGuffy Reader or something from the Dick and Jane series.

62. Dave spews:

What is obvious here is that

1) you don’t own a business so you don’t know what I am talking about (this was the crux of Rossi’s campaign that the laws in this state were anti-business….don’t believe me…ask boeing)

Actually Reggie, I do run my own business and I think your threats are hollow. If you want to move out of the state hopefully that will allow someone with better personal character to fill the void left when you’re gone.

2) Because of the low power rates we enjoy in this state it is more cost effective to do business here than elsewhere. Until that changes I’ll stay put. As i stated in an earlier post…even Bagdad Jim agrees with that statement.

Yep, just like I thought – you aren’t really serious after all.

3) most often it is the people without money that tend to make statements like money isn’t everything or in your case saying that I would walk off a cliff if you held a dollar in front of my nose. It takes balls to start a business, to keep it running. It don’t take shit to go punch a timeclock at mcdonalds.

No, it takes a person with integrity to value something besides money – whether or not they already have it.

63. jcricket spews:

This statement is total bullshit “It takes balls to start a business, to keep it running. It don’t take shit to go punch a timeclock at mcdonalds.”

It takes no more balls to start a business than it does to do an excellent job working for someone else. It might take a different kind of business savvy to run a business than it does to be a staff person, but both people (if productive) are important (not indispensible) to the continued operation of that business. In fact, it might take more “balls” to admit that you don’t want to be one of the 8 out of 10 small business owners that fail, and instead want to provide a solid, steady economic base for your family, despite your dreams of independent wealth creation.

Besides, who’s going to work for all the business owners if we all suddenly “grow balls” and start our own businesses?

64. JCH spews:

63, JCricket…..”It takes no more balls to start a business than it does to do an excellent job working for someone else.” Obviously spoken by a “guvment” hack who has no clue about the risks of self employment. JCricket, I’m sure DON [another "guvment" hack, would agree with you] Atlas has Shrugged, JCricket, and the private sector tax base is mobile. Get it?

65. Don spews:

JCH @ 33

Jerkoff Creepy Hater appears to hold a grudge against people who marry money, I assume because he wasn’t able to.

JCH @ 34

Let’s see, hmmm, according to Jerkoff Creepy Hater we have to let power plants dump more sulfer and dioxin into the air in order to keep the world safe for capitalism. No comment, I’ll let that one speak for itself.

JCH @ 36

John Galt is the protaganist in a pulp fiction novel by a dead writer that enjoys a certain cult following and is sometimes mistaken for an economics textbook. (N.B.: Jerkoff Creepy Hater spells it “Gault” because he hasn’t read the book, he got his information about it by reading right-wing blogs posted by other right wingers who haven’t read the book either, none of whom can spell.)

JCH @ 40

You’re still here! Why haven’t you left yet?

RP @ 43

If BPA, which is in a budget crunch, has a choice between selling power to local farmers at cost or selling it to “foreigners” like Seattleites and Californians at market rates, who do you think they’ll sell the power to? You’re going to need some kind of allocation or rationing mechanism to make sure they dole out some power to the farmers, or the farmers will get none.

As for Seattle, we get the bulk of our power from City Light-owned facilities on the Skagit River. The real impact of a massive BPA rate increase would be felt by poorer communities served by PUDs in the small towns and rural areas of Snohomish County, the Kitsap Peninsula, and S.W. Washington.

Mark @ 45

At what cost indeed. Another option is to tear down the dams, then nobody will bicker over power rates, and we’ll have fish coming out of our ears.

Dave @ 49

With some people, you don’t even need the dollar.

@ Various

When Reggie gets done with his self-worship and Jerkoff Creepy Hater stops bashing me for a moment to come up for air, I’ll just repeat my original question: Who will do a better job of defending Washington’s economy against Bush’s BPA plan, a Democratic governor and Democratic senators, or a Republican like Rossi who is beholden to Bush and the national Republicans?

66. Mark spews:

Goldy @ 58, Diggindude @ 53,

“… TaxFoundation.org… They show that WA ranks the 9th most favorable business tax climate.”

This is a perfect case of misleading aggregate “statistics” because there is no weighting of the results, only a simple 1 – 50 ranking. If WA had a 95% B&O tax and no income tax, it still would rank #50 and #1 in those respective areas, but no reasonable person could argue that a state with 95% B&O tax was the 9th most business-friendly in the country.

67. JCH spews:

Don….”Jerkoff Creepy Hater appears to hold a grudge against people who marry money, I assume because he wasn’t able to.”…No Don. Unless John “Fonda” Kerry, I made my own. And IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, DON! [Hillary/Ward Churchill 2008!!]

68. reggie spews:

jcricket @ 63

Since when is it better not to try. you can learn a lot from opening a business that fails. I know several business owners that were on their third or fourth business before they made it. You show the same lack of reasoning I have come to expect from a certain former guv’ment lawyer.

i don’t just provide a solid economic base for my family, I provide a solid ecomonic base for all of my employees and their families.

69. dan spews:

Reggie @ 68
I would be interested in that solid economic Base you supply to your employees. Is it as good as Wall Marts plan?

Creepy Hater at All

stfu

70. Don spews:

JCH @ 67

Unless I’m mistaken, Mrs. Kerry’s money was made in the private sector, too; and last time I checked, this was a free country where she and Mr. Kerry could marry anyone they choose. By the way, do you believe that money “made in the private sector” is somehow holier than wages paid to public servants?

71. Don spews:

reggie @ 68

Wrong. Your customers provide that base.

72. Diggindude spews:

mark @66
so you’ve debunked their contribution?

73. Mark spews:

Diggindude @ 72

“so you’ve debunked their contribution?”

Who do you mean by “their” and what do you mean by “contribution?”

Did you read the actual text of the original report (not just the chart)?

Did you read my data example?

Explain how said example doesn’t make weighting a prima facie issue?

74. zip spews:

Don @ 65

“Another option is to tear down the dams, then nobody will bicker over power rates, and we’ll have fish coming out of our ears.”

I’ve always felt that our low power rates could be considered as sort of a “payback” for the lost regional income from all the fish that are destroyed by the dams. If we lose the low power rates, we’re paying twice: once with our lost regional fish income and now again by paying market rates. Perhaps a Republican senator would be helpful to work the administration away from this market rate idea?

75. RDC spews:

zip….perhaps this is part of the Faustian bargain Mark referred to many posts back. There are several Republican Senators (Oregon and Idaho) who could be helpful. This is an idea whose time has come and gone, come and gone, come and gone, over the years…a la the TVA. Not much is likely to come of it, but vigilance is the price of low cost electric heating.

76. Mark spews:

Zip @ 74, Don @ 65

“Another option is to tear down the dams, then nobody will bicker over power rates, and we’ll have fish coming out of our ears.”

Hmmm…

Maybe we put tiny harnesses on the fish and make their flapping tails generate power?

77. Mark spews:

RDC @ 75

Any time the government “gives” the people anything, it eventually proves itself a Faustian bargain. There ain’t no free lunch.

78. Mark spews:

RDC @ 75

On a more serious note, I think you’re right when you suggest cooperation with GOP in neighboring states. Far too often, the goal of politicians seems to be inflicting short-term damage on the opposing party instead of considering long-term benefits to an entire region (i.e. more than just their most vocal constituents).

79. torridjoe spews:

For the record, both Smith and Wyden here in Oregon are totally on board together. They’re not that way all the time, but from what I’ve seen they do a much better job of representing the state as a unit, than many other D-R Senate pairs.

80. RDC spews:

Mark….I’m sure there are many who would jump on this sentiment as being hopelessly naive, but I try hard, even under what I consider to be woefully bad administrations, to not think of the people and the government as being separate entities, so have never had the mindset that government gives anything to anyone. Government, representing the people, just moves resources around, and in the process of doing good for some, sometimes does harm to others. As I see it, the problem with viewing government as separate from the people, is that it becomes easy to make government an enemy, rather than the neutral force it should be, a force to be directed by the will of the people. Those who make government the enemy waste energy demonizing that which has the potential to make life better for most, if not all, the people. In a practical sense, dealing in large numbers of people over the course of time, government is all we’ve got to accomplish much of the work needed to improve and advance our modern society. When we demonize government, we fall into the trap that Walt Kelly had Pogo put voice to: We have met the enemy, and they is us. Demonize a particular political party or a particular official, or a particular piece of legislation, but don’t demonize government. Without government, most of us would likely be hurling spears at each other rather than words, and we would live our lives in huts or caves, fearful of the night.

81. Mark spews:

RDC @ 80

While I agree with the concept of what you say, I have always had the feeling that the government — parties aside — has felt itself not only apart from the public, but to an extent ABOVE it. How else do you explain the patronizing attitude often found in legislation, where the only difference between the parties is the part of life to be legislated. I also believe that power corrupts and that many of those going into politics who aren’t already somewhat corrupted will soon become so. The ones who don’t either: get branded as “mavericks” (if they’ve acquired power), are politically neutered because they’re “difficult” (and didn’t acquire power) or simply quit in disgust. I’m sure you can find examples to the contrary, but that is my general feeling.

I’d be curious to know who, in 50 years, will be viewed by all sides as a great politician of our times.

82. RDC spews:

Mark @ 81

I reread my comment and, though I don’t disavow it, think it a bit long-winded.
We don’t disagree at all. In a way, your comment buttresses
mine. Corrupt politicians undermine government because they steal from the people. The only quarrel I have is in the way you express your sentiments. For example, “government-parties aside-has felt itself not only apart from the people, but to an extent ABOVE it.” There is a fine, but very important, distinction to be drawn here. Government doesn’t feel anything; it’s a concept. Government isn’t corrupt, for the same reason. Specific individuals working for the people; i.e., for government, may feel as you describe, and these same, or similarly situated people, may be corrupt. I think attacking government in general rather than these individuals in particular, undermines our best hope of making things better. That is one of the reasons why I am not a Republican. For some reason the GOP seems to attack “government” at every opportunity, in an almost mindless way. For many of the problems we face, my question to the GOP is, if not government, what?
If our time is from 1950 on, IMO there are no great American politicians on the national scene. Johnson, Reagan and Clinton all had the opportunity, and all failed. Of the three, I thought Clinton was the best, but I wouldn’t waste any time arguing with someone who favored Reagan. I don’t think history will treat either as anything special.

83. Mark spews:

RDC,

You’re right… the American concept of “government” doesn’t think itself above the people. In fact, one could argue that the pure concept of American government puts it “BELOW” the public, as its servant.

Trying to think of how better express what I mean… hmmmm…

Did you ever see the movie Dune? I guess I see the current IMPLEMENTATION of “government” — both at the state and national level — to be like the giant sand worms, merely under the temporary control of the rider. The fact that the government has a life of its own is shown by the fact that changing it is like turning an aircraft carrier at sea. Also, the actual cogs of the system, the lower-level employees, remain secure in their jobs from administration to administration — ensuring that wholesale change (shy of abolishing an agency) is nearly impossible. This is both good and bad. It prevents the whiplash between the parties, but it also makes it difficult if that aircraft carrier is headed straight into a hurricane.

84. Diggindude spews:

mark @ 73
Their contribution. Taxfoundation.org’s compilation, and concurrent conclusions.
Do you say you have disagreed with they’re assessment that washington state is in the top ten for business climate as a whole?
Why would you weight the results of a summarization? I think they’ve applied enough factors to the research, to suggest a fair account of the overall burden, borne by business in the states. I see you could disect the study as a means to detract from the generalization, to point specifically to certain tax burdens which may or may not affect certain states, in ways to deliberatly try to skew the conclusion, but overall, i felt the application as an aggregate, was fair.

85. Mark spews:

RDC @ 82

As for special politicians, I meant, “what would people in 2050 think of the last few decades — from President on down?”

Gotta put me in the Reagan column for two reasons. First, the Cold War. He didn’t do everything, but he scored inside the Red Zone (pun intended). Second, he exemplified what I, personally, think is a critical job of President — he embodied the job of national LEADER (coach, cheerleader, whatnot). Even Clinton studied Reagan’s public presentation.

86. Chee spews:

Mark @ 85:
There are no sacred cows and statesman left. Go back beyond Reagan to Pres. Roosevelt. He and his cute black scotty dog were highly thought of and fondly loved by many. His slogan was “at the wheel for a new deal.” When it came to wife Eleanor, he was ahead of his time. She wasn’t kept in the closet nor did he try to initiate a change to the marriage law. In his day and where it concerned Eleanor, the term “traveling companion” held less stigma than word “gay.” Not a new deal, but least he was behind the wheel.

87. Mark spews:

Diggindude @ 84

First of all, the survey is only for how business-friendly their TAX SYSTEMS are. Read the title of the report.

Second, it is clear you didn’t read the methodology for the ranking. Let me restate my very simple example of why the #9 ranking is totally misleading. WA is ranked #9, in part, because it is ranked #1 for income taxes and #50 for its punishing B&O and sales taxes. If WA were to implement a 95% B&O tax, it would still be ranked #50 on the B&O scale and would stil be #9 (or thereabouts) overall. WA gets 10 out of 10 points for the income tax thing and 1.7 out of 10 for the B&O/sales tax issues. The worst it could get is 1 of 10, even if the government seized every dime of revenue — which any sane person would admit is not “business friendly.”

Remember the words of Benjamin Disraeli – “Lies, damned lies & statistics.”

For some fun reading on how statistics can totally misrepresent reality, go look up the condition called Simpson’s Paradox.

88. RDC spews:

Mark 2 83

We are on the same page. Disagreement on policies, legislation, people, and so on, is to be expected. Without effective opposition, those in power become tyrannous or corrupt or both faster than the blinking of an historical eye. My point is that the language we use is very important. Generalizing that government is bad is not being critical, it is being cynical. Thoughtful criticism is constructive; cynicism by my definition isn’t thoughtful and is destructive.
Anyway, enough on this subject. Thanks for the exchange.

89. Diggindude spews:

Mark @ 87
I think your “very simple” assessment was too simple.
They said a combination of 109 variables.
5 indexes, 10 subindexes, 33 categories, and 109 variables.

“The worst it could get is 1 of 10, even if the government seized every dime of revenue – which any sane person would admit is not “business friendly.””

The states without income tax, were all given a score of 5. even the field.
Had the derived rate been higher than 8.75% for sales, and b&o, the tax friendly status would have reflected the increase.

90. Mark spews:

Diggindude @ 89

Did you actually read the report? If so, you’d know that all states with no income tax were scored a “1″ rank and given TEN points. The worst B&O/sales tax offender (WA) was given a ranking of “50″ and just 1.71 points. Those 10′s and 1′s are what make up the #9 ranking. Please explain how much worse than “#50 with 1.71 point” Washington could get if it had a 95% B&O tax? If the four other major factors remain constant and the fifth (B&O tax) is at the lowest score, how could WA rank any worse???

You also failed to acknowledge the fact that this only had to do with a business-friendly TAX system, not regulatory issues, etc. which are a major component of business-friendliness.

91. Mark spews:

Dud @ 89

Oh, one other correction… the effective sales tax in WA (according to the study) is 10.3%. Yeah! Way to go WA! Let’s encourage the populace to shop out-of-state and online!!

92. Diggindude spews:

Sorry, but again, you’re just wrong. They gave each state without income taxes, a rating of 5, to compensate.

93. Mark spews:

Dude @ 92 (BTW, didn’t mean to call you “Dud” before. Typo.)

“Sorry, but again, you’re just wrong. They gave each state without income taxes, a rating of 5, to compensate.”

READ THE REPORT — Page 6, Table 3. What was Washington’s score?!

Or perhaps you want to read Page 21: “After tallying up scores on both sub-indexes and all the variables that fall under them, the Corporate Income Tax Index scores four states at
or near a perfect 10:… Washington.”

Where the heck do you get a FIVE? Are you looking at the median number for “All US States?”

Perhaps you should also read the Methodology section: “The 2004 State Business Tax Climate Index is designed as a “relative” index rather than an “absolute” or “ideal” index… One problem associated with a relative scale, however, is that it is mathematically impossible to compare states with a given tax to states that do not have the tax.”

In other words, they acknowledge the shortcomings of the comparison and tell how they attempted to compensate. But when all is said and done, you’ve got apples and oranges in some cases and a true overall ranking isn’t.

94. Diggindude spews:

Mark @ 93
youre almost there……….keep reading.
you’ll see where they compensated.

95. Mark spews:

Dude @ 94

You are doing EXACTLY what Dems on this board accuse the GOP of — trying to distract from the real issue. You have yet to answer a SINGLE question of mine. Either that, or you just can’t read.

The end of the section you THINK you’re citing says that the AVERAGE score was five, not the score for a no-tax state. Read my points above. States with no tax got TEN, TEN, TEN points!

96. Diggindude spews:

I know what im referring to. You want to draw a finite conclusion from a relative summary.
The average boost to states without income tax, was 4.6.
I misread it the first time, thinking they averaged all states without the tax to a 5.
They DID average all other states, to compensate for the benefit given to states without the tax though, so the resulting discrepencies,are marginal at best.
Texas also scored a perfect “10″ even though they have an income tax, so where is the large deviation you refer to as “apples and oranges”?
You are trying to split hairs in an attempt to discredit the validity of this comparison, in order to spin it to where it becomes irrelevent.
You didn’t, it isn’t, you lose.
“”””””Washington is the only state with a gross
receipts tax on top of a high statewide general
sales tax.Those two taxes combine to bring
Washington’s effective rate to 8.75 percent, the
highest state-level rate in the nation. Local option
sales taxes are layered on top of that.”””””

If you want to examine the effect of taxation on business in washington state, as opposed to the effect of “NO TAXATION” at all, i could see your point.

97. Mark spews:

Diggindude @ 96

In order to put an end to this once and for all (and prove that you are WRONG), I contacted the authors of the study. I mentioned my example of “if WA had a 99% B&O (still ranking it at #50 in that category), would it still be #9 overall?” The official answer is:

“We are aware of this problem with the index are working to correct it in the next edition. That is a challenge with any index – how do you punish a state if it is already the worst?”

End of story.

98. Diggindude spews:

what does it mean?
nothing! geez!
like a little fuckin kid!

99. Mark spews:

Diggindude @ 98

I’ll try to speak slowly here… The AUTHORS of the Taxfoundation.org study ACKNOWLEDGE that their ranking system is imbalanced and that even if WA had a 99% B&O tax (a Dem fantasy, I’m sure), it would STILL be ranked #50 in sales taxes and #9 overall.

If anyone is being a “little __ kid,” it is you with your Dave-Chappelle-as-Lil’-Jon “Whhhaaattt???” every time someone says anything.

100. Diggindude spews:

its irrelevant, is what im telling you, but you have this need to win an argument i guess.
irrelevant, like your incessant ranting.

101. Mark spews:

Dude @ 100 (or is it troll?)

WHAT is irrelevant? The fact that the study is ADMITTEDLY imbalanced and can’t account for the relative impact of the various sections?

Your initial statement was that this study said WA was the #9 most business-friendly state. Goldy not only corrected your citation, he clarified that it referred to TAX SYSTEMS. I then presented the fact that it is imbalanced because WA can’t get any worse than #50 on the sales tax scale and therefore couldn’t fall below #9 overall even if it became a Socialist state. The AUTHORS OF THE ORIGINAL STUDY even admit this.

At this point, the only thing I’m disappointed in is the fact that I’ve been suckered into this BS game by a troll — you.

102. Diggindude spews:

the facts of the study, were not changed by you spinning it into something other than what it was. a relative comparison of the current state tax climate, compared to the rest of the country.
goldy’s only correction, was in spelling.
the state sales tax, is not 95%, therefore your suggestion, is bullshit.
the state sales tax could also have to be paid with your first born, but it isnt. you are trying to be mr spin doctor, and you spun out, now you attack me as a typical wingnut will do.
the study stands. you ARE the weakest link. good bye.

103. Mark spews:

The only “facts” in the study were the RAW pieces of data. EVERYTHING else — especially anything to do with ranking, valuation or relative importance — is (educated) OPINION. And, as I’ve said many times over, even the authors of the study admit that their aggregation formula is flawed.

My example of a high B&O tax is simply to prove that the FORMULA for aggregating the rankings is flawed. That is how you can easily challenge a formula — present data that will “break” it.

As for the correction, you said, “wa. is rated in the top ten for being business friendly…”

Goldy corrected you by saying, “WA ranks the 9th most favorable business tax climate.” [emphasis mine]

Face it. You’re all alone… spitting into the wind.

104. Diggindude spews:

im alone, with all the statisticians at taxation.org.

105. Mark spews:

Diggindude,

You and your friends at Taxation.org [sic] can go have a ball discussing a National VAT tax or whatever.

Meanwhile, the folks at TaxFoundation.org will be revising their ranking formulas to determine whether or not WA truly has a business-friendly tax system. As I said before, the authors of their study admitted that their formula is flawed — especially re: WA State.

106. Diggindude spews:

Typical republican spin with dwelling on where i misspelled the link. I expect no more from a self titled master manipulator such as yourself.
All you preposterous “what if” scenario spin, has done zip to the validity of the study.

107. Mark spews:

Dude @ 106

“Typical republican spin with dwelling on where i misspelled the link.”

No, you didn’t mispell it. You got it WRONG. Twice.

“I expect no more from a self titled master manipulator such as yourself.”

Duuuude… You need to chill on smokin’ the bud, Duuuude. At NO point did I call myself a “master manipulator” — which is what would be required in order for me to be “self-titled.”

“All you preposterous “what if” scenario spin, has done zip to the validity of the study.”

I’m just going to have to borrow a page from the Dem handbook and chant something over and over until I drill it into your skull:

The authors admit their own study is flawed.
The authors admit their own study is flawed.
The authors admit their own study is flawed.
The authors admit their own study is flawed.
The authors admit their own study is flawed.

Now all I need is a protest sign with a defaced photo of you and “Diggindude Lies” on one side and “Somewhere a village is missing an idiot” on the other.

108. Mark spews:

Me @ 107

Oh, and I know how to spell “misspell.” ONE missing letter is a typo — especially if I catch it 15 seconds after I post.

109. Diggindude spews:

thats great. but you are still wrong. being on the red team, doesnt mean you win. it just means you will stop at nothing until you do. so, i guess you will not stop.

110. Diggindude spews:

what you think is very important to me though, so please reply.

111. Mark spews:

You have yet to present a SINGLE piece of fact, formula or anything else that proves me wrong (and just saying “read the study” is not presenting anything). I, OTOH, not only have shown that I can “break” the formula, but I have the admission of the study’s authors that it is flawed.

In typical Lefty fashion, you have nothing but blather on your side. So unless you’re ready to quit saying “nuh-uhh… is NOT” as your only reply and start laying out a real argument for your side, I’m afraid this little game will have to end.

112. Diggindude spews:

im waiting on an email from them.

113. Diggindude spews:

i dont have to prove wrong, something that doesnt exist.
your fabrication doesnt exist. it was hypothetical, does not exist, therefore cannot be disproved.