by N in Seattle, 11/10/2012, 1:19 PM

So Rob McKenna hides at home while sending out his campaign manager to let us all know that he’s bowed to the inevitable. Still, I suppose it’s better to confirm that you’re a wimp than to reiterate that you’re an asshole, à la John Koster. Sure, Koster had the cojones to make his own concession speech (though of course he was so thoroughly stomped that it could have been done at least two days earlier). But Koster didn’t have the common courtesy to call WA-01 victor Suzan DelBene beforehand … and then spitefully excoriated the WA GOP and the NRCC for their failure to back his teahadist jihad while conceding. We now see Koster and Kirby Wilbur dissing each other, while nobody takes the blame responsibility for the loss. Stay classy, Republicans!

But I digress. The sharp swing to McKenna prophesied (with zero supporting evidence) by the aforementioned campaign manager, Randy Pepple, didn’t happen on Friday. Oh, on a day when all but six counties updated their counts, he narrowed the percentage of Inslee’s lead by a tenth of a percent. But he fell about 1300 votes farther behind in the absolute margin, from 54,398 back to a deficit of 55,682 votes. Inslee did better in King County on Friday than on Thursday — not much surprise there — but he also ticked up his percentages in Benton, Clark, Kitsap, and Snohomish Counties; there was simply no sign of a turn to McKenna.

At 50.8% to 49.2%, Friday’s cumulative margins in the two remaining races under consideration — Secretary of State and I-1240 — were only slightly smaller than Inslee’s lead over McKenna (51.0% to 49.0%). And both moved in the wrong (IMHO) direction on Friday.

For SoS, Kim Wyman picked up 52.0% of the Friday ballots, thereby adding another tenth of a percent to her overall lead. Although Kathleen Drew did a bit less poorly in Thurston County on Friday, she also did less well in King and the other big counties in which she holds the lead. Since Tuesday, Wyman’s margin has ratcheted upward each and every day, 50.4 to .6 to .7 to .8. There’s no indication of a reversal in that trend, so it’s just a matter of time before Drew concedes. It’s the closest a Democrat has come to serving as Secretary of State since 1960, and it’s the only statewide office won by a Republican this cycle, but it’s still painful.

As good as Thursday had been for the opponents of I-1240, it was just the opposite on Friday. No got 54.4% of Thursday’s ballots while Yes pulled in 53.7% of Friday’s. That reversal was highlighted by the results in King County — it ran 61.7% No on Thursday, for a cumulative tally of 52.6% No … but 55.9% Yes on Friday. That daily outcome took fully 1.1% off of the cumulative percentage of No votes in King County. I have no explanation for these gyrations; the day-to-day differential is well beyond any sort of random fluctuation. Because of such inexplicable variation, I’m less willing to admit that the privatizers charter schools advocates have won. There’s still a ghost of a chance to defeat Bill Gates and Alice Walton, but it’s very unlikely.

Overall, 33 counties counted 269,657 ballots on Friday. That’s fewer than Thursday but more than Wednesday. The SoS estimates that 366,122 remain to be processed, which would take us to 79.7% turnout if correct. However, it isn’t correct. King County, for example, believes it will end up seeing perhaps 50K additional ballots by the time their tally is certified. I anticipate eventually getting closer to 85% statewide turnout than 80%.

According to the SoS’s schedule, additional counts are due to be received today from six counties: King, Kitsap, Kittitas, Pierce, Snohomish, and Whatcom. Mostly Democratic/liberal, mostly large/Puget Sound. Expect a larger Inslee lead and stronger Approve percentage on R-74 (it’s at 52.8% through Friday) in my next update of the ballot counting.

[UPDATE (2:50pm)]

A few minutes ago, I received an email from the Drew campaign. She has conceded defeat in the SoS race. (And of course, she noted that she had first called Ms. Wyman to congratulate her. Kathleen Drew is no John Koster.)

9 Responses to “[Updated]: E+3 — Gov. Inslee, and not much more suspense”

1. Roger Rabbit spews:

I was hoping for a Drew victory, and I’m disappointed, because I just don’t trust Republicans to run elections. (Do you?) I’m not suggesting Wyman is anything but professional, but … I just don’t trust Republicans to run elections. So Wyman would look better to me if she was an Independent or something other than an (R). I suppose it’s irrational, but I just don’t trust Republicans to run elections. Can anyone explain this?

2. N in Seattle spews:

Roger, everything I hear suggests that Wyman will carry on in the Munro-Reed tradition. That is, she’ll have a few annoying policy positions (like Reed’s wish to switch to “received by”) but will in general operate the office in a professional manner.

She’s no Harris, Blackwell, or Husted. Nor, unfortunately, is she a Deb Bowen.

3. Libertarian spews:

Greetings, my most excellent Neo-Socialist friends! Who can forget the 2000 election in which George W. Bush received the most electoral votes but not the majority of popular votes. Remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the progressives who wanted Al Gore for president? Wow! That was something.

Let’s fast forward now to 2012. I didn’t vote for either Obama or Romney, so I have no particular opinion on the 2012 presidential outcome. However, I noticed that Obama is saying he has a “mandate” from the populace due to the outcome of the electoral votes, which look impressive, to be sure. As I recall, Obama got about 52% of the popular to Romney’s 48%, a clear win, but not what I’d call a mandate. Why is Obama suing the electoral vote to declare a mandate in the 2012 election when so many of you progressives wanted to junk the electoral college after teh 2000 election? Aren’t you people beiong just as hyppcritical as the Republicans?

4. rhp6033 spews:

Yesterday the National Republicans responded to Koster’s spoiled=baby whine about them not supporing him. They pointed out that they had viewed his campaign organization months ago, and made a list of changes he needed to make and a time-table for those changes. He didn’t make the changes, so the Republicans budgeted their money elsewhere.

(1) Take out pistol. (2) Extend foot. (3) Shoot.

5. N in Seattle spews:

troll @3:

a) Spelling matters. You wrote “Why is Obama suing the electoral vote…” when (I hope) you meant to say “using“. :-)

b) We elect Presidents via electoral votes, not the popular vote (unfortunately). Only the electoral vote totals mean anything with respect to a “mandate”.

c) Not that either Bush or Obama said the word “mandate” in a post-election speech. Bush said he’d earned “political capital” in 2004 (not 2000). Not surprisingly, Obama’s statement was much more conciliatory:

Now, already, I’ve put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. I want to be clear — I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise. I’m open to new ideas. I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me, making over $250,000, aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes. I’m not going to do that.

d) In both of his elections, Barack Obama earned far more electoral votes (365, 332) than did George W. Bush (271, 286). He has vastly more reason to declare a mandate (which he didn’t do) than Dubya.

e) Your comment is completely off-topic. I’d delete it if I hadn’t decided to feed the troll respond.

6. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

Aren’t you people beiong just as hyppcritical as the Republicans?

I believe that would require breaking several laws of physics and thermodynamics. Just as one cannot exceed ‘c’, or achieve perfect efficiency, no one can be more hypocritical than a modern Republican.

7. Liberal Scientist is a Dirty Fucking Socialist Hippie spews:

but not what I’d call a mandate.

Well, there’s the rub. What’s a mandate? There is no objective definition. It’s a political maneuver…the mandate is a win you can leverage into forcing your opponents to surrender further power or policy concessions.

A mandate happens when you can convince people that you have a mandate.

The laws of politics are sometimes stranger than those of quantum mechanics.

In more direct answer to your question, I think most liberals would opt for a national popular vote. One citizen, one vote. Democracy.

8. Roger Rabbit spews:

@5(b) “In both of his elections, Barack Obama earned far more electoral votes (365, 332) than did George W. Bush (271, 286). He has vastly more reason to declare a mandate … than Dubya.”

And that’s before taking into account that presidential elections are heavily skewed toward consrvatives to begin with because of (a) the disproportionate representation of non-urban (i.e., red) states in the Electoral College, and (b) GOP vote suppression. In fact, Obama’s popular support — and therefore mandate — is much greater than either the PV or EV make it appear.

9. EvergreenRailfan spews:

2)I am hoping for a Sam Reed or Ralph Munro in our new secretary of state, but I would have been hoping for that in a Drew Victory too.