21st Century Democrats will release a new poll later today, showing Democrat Darcy Burner with a 44% to 39% lead over Republican incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert in Washington’s highly competitive 8th Congressional District. 17% of voters remain undecided.
The robo-poll of 509 registered voters was commissioned by 21st Century Democrats (who endorsed Burner in July) and was conducted on August 28, the day after President George Bush came to Bellevue, WA to raise money for Reichert. 85% of Democrats support Burner and 82% of Republicans support support Reichert, but independents break decidedly toward Burner by a 40% to 24% margin.
President Bush remains exceedingly unpopular in the district, with only 30% of respondents rating his job performance as good or excellent. 96% of Democrats and 83% of independents rate the president’s job performance as fair or poor, along with a substantial 36% of Republicans.
Yes it’s early, and yes this is an internal poll from a partisan ally. But it shows that Burner’s message of fighting to bring the occupation of Iraq to a responsible close is resonating not only with Democrats, but with unaffiliated voters as well.
UPDATE:
21st Century Democrats has issued a statement:
“Darcy’s Burner’s phenomenal success in using the web to reach voters with her message about ending rather than extending the war is clearly resonating with Democrats and Independents in the district,” said Mark Lotwis, executive director of 21st Century Democrats. “These poll results and Sen. Rodney Tom’s decision yesterday to drop out of the primary race and enthusiastically endorse Burner demonstrate that Burner’s courageous and principled leadership on progressive issues is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.”
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of how many Independents are having buyers remorse from the last election. I don’t know if the poll asked about who they voted for prior, but it would be good to measure how many are switching.
Other than that, a hearty WHOOP!
That’s good news. Wouldn’t read too much into a small, partisan, robo-call poll. It does show that Darcy’s about where the pro-Darcy people have been saying she is.
We’ll see… Reichert was the only Repub frosh congress critter from a Presidential blue district to win re-election in 2006, a stark testimony to the weakness of Burner as a candidate. Burner hasn’t done anything to improve her (lack of) record in the public or private sector since then. But she has raised alot of money, and maybe money alone will be enough.
D8 voters, much to Goldy’s consternation, tend to look at the actual candidate, not just the party symbol (hence the vote for Kerry in 04 and against Burner in 06). It is too bad no Democrat with a proven record is in the race. Maybe they aren’t any living in D8?
@3 Funny you should mention that since a higher percentage of Republicans crossed over to vote for Darcy than Democrats crossed over to vote for Reichert in the poll.
Also of note, is that Bush’s approval rating is 10 points lower in the poll than his national average. The main difference being how the Republicans are viewing him. Democrats and Independents were polled at roughly the equivalent of the national averages.
And Michael Dukakis was up 18 points on GHW Bush in October 1988. So BFD.
You want a Big Fucking Deal? Check out this quote on Salon:
The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. “Tenet told me he briefed the president personally,” said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush’s response was to call the information “the same old thing.” Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. “The president had no interest in the intelligence,” said the CIA officer. The other officer said, “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”
But The Smart Democrats who want to win the White House refuse to impeach him so they can improve their political position.
Bush, our Commander in Chief, let our troops be inoculated with dangerous pharmaceuticals for Chemical Warfare knowing that there were no chemical weapons, and then beat the Democrats over the heads with not supporting the troops. As of today, there is no groundswell in Congress for impeachment.
It is apparent that neither political party supports the troops or defends The US Constitution.
HWGA @3,
Darcy has far better qualifications to represent the 8th than does Reichert. The big difference is this: Reichert is dumb as dirt.
Burner is exceptionally intelligent. (Look, I’m a professor at the UW and get to interact with numerous very smart people…and Darcy is really, really smart). This is why she was able to go from zero name recognition to earn 48.5% of the vote in 2006.
Finally, voters are sick and tired of failed Republican policies that have trashed our nation standing in the world, chipped away at our constitution, killed our young, emptied our coffers, and destroyed our environment. Reichert is, at best, an ineffective member of the minority party and, at worst, a contributer to these problems.
It might as easily be said that “The president had no intelligence”.
If we’d had leadership like this in 1941, the United States would have responded to Pearl Harbor by attacking Tanzania.
Yeah, well if we’d attacked Tanzania this last time we’d be a lot further ahead.
To Darryl at 6:
I worked at Microsoft for more than a decade. There are thousands of very smart people there, many of whom rose to much higher levels of responsibility than the low level management job Darcy had (including me), and many of whom have much higher levels of educational achievement (including me again). And many of those same people live in District 8. Maybe we should ask one of them to run?
Let’s be real here. A dead person with a D next to his or her name would have gotten 48% in 2006 in a district that went heavily Democratic in all the other races on the ballot. Goldy and you talk like Burner getting beat in a race not much closer than 2004 for Reichert was some sort of upset… but all around the US, Democrats taking on Republican freshman and even Republican vets in the House actually won, many times by large margins. It is very hard to find a case like D8 where the Republican won in 2006. Compared to her peers, Burner failed miserably. Any decent candidate with any record of public service, even a mediocre one (like Reichert’s) would have won in 06.
Oh please! Shall I email everyone the study/poll that shows that most of Washington voters, despite who they voted for, think Queen Crissy is an illegitimate “Governor”? So, hence on this pathetic and whiney liberal site- polls are only valid if it swings the Dems. way right? Hypocrits!! Check out the woman that got her dog registered. Maybe the dog was a felon too….or illegal.
re 3: You are such a weakly farting armpit of gaseous ‘centrist’ talking points. Have you noticed that Reagan Dunn’s campaign signs say: “RETAIN REAGAN DUNN!!”
I’m holding as hard as I can, but I don’t think I’ll make it to the election….
@3&9
If you know someone that would be better than Darcy feel free to try and get them into the race. It’s early enough that another D,R, or I could win it.
Since, or current choices are Darcy or Hair Spray we’re backing Darcy.
Should be “Since our.”
@10 I would rather you had posted a link to the study/poll.
As to the rest of your post… WTF? It might make sense to you, but its quite incoherent on this end.
Somebody registered a dog that might be a criminal or possibly an illegal alien?
And this is related to your derogatory feelings towards the governor how?
I understand you are trolling, but you could at least exhibit a coherent thought rather than spewing unintelligible gibberish.
I think more Republicans need to consider taking a ‘wider stance’— or maybe they already have and we’ll hear more about it the closer we get to the election.
It’s not a threat, it’s a promise. Republicans are the ones who opened this Pandor’s Box of scandal. You guys wanted to live by the sword, and it appears you’ll die by it, as well.
@14:
Uuummm…read the paper today about the dog and owner. Just pointing out how many things are wrong with the elections office and system, and how easy it is to have illegitimate votes. You can probably understand that; after all the People elected Rossi, and we got Crissy. That was a combination of factors, including buddy Dean “Incompetence” Logan’s “help”. I have the poll in a PDF format. I have emailed it to Goldy before-ask him. Otherwise, I do not have a direct link to it. I will send it in an email to you if you so desire.
@9
That ignores quite a bit of what happened in 2006, not to mention the necessary discussion of the frames that go into people’s voting patterns.
For one, the White House placed an extremely high priority on this seat and put together a GOTV effort in the 8th district that was unparalleled when compared to the seats where a Democrat unseated a Republican.
Second, Reichert was able to paint himself as a moderate and an independent even as those labels were much more apt for Burner. I personally think Burner could have done more to challenge this, but it would not have been easy. In the end, many voters were convinced that Reichert’s supposed “independence” was sufficient enough to keep them from seeing a vote for Reichert as a vote for Bush.
Third, with Reichert’s history as a sheriff, it was going to be difficult for any female Democrat to beat him in a district that contains so much of suburbia. Even though there isn’t a lot of crime in most of the 8th, the idea of it being just around the corner still factors heavily into people’s voting decisions. As a male, Dave Ross didn’t suffer from this as much.
Another area where Darcy had problems with political framing is around taxes and nanny statism. It’s much easier to paint a female Democratic candidate as a “nanny-stater” than a male Democratic candidate. It’s also much easier to convince people that a female Democratic candidate wants scary big government programs. The 8th district is hotbed of faux-libertarianism, people whose only interest in libertarian ideas is in order to lower their taxes, without much thought of what that actually means.
The framing issues that have hurt Darcy in the past are becoming harder and harder for Republicans to use, as their underlying inconsistencies are becoming more and more obvious. The idea that Republicans are better at keeping us safe is slowly eroding away, and the idea that government is useless is falling out of favor as we start to see some rot taking hold in what we’ve taken for granted.
I would love to see Darcy use these frames to her advantage over the next year, but what she has to regret from 2006 is minor and won’t be an impediment to winning in 2008.
re 17: An excellent comment, Lee. It neatly distills the Republican dilemma. I frame this issue by pointing out the gross hypocrisy of Senator Craigs ‘family values’, and his actual behavior.
“The framing issues that have hurt Darcy in the past are becoming harder and harder for Republicans to use, as their underlying inconsistencies are becoming more and more obvious.”
10 Sure, Markie-Poo, go ahead. We’ll just trash it along with the rest of the spam.
17 The point was well made quite a while back that Darcy’s run the last time around coerced the Publicans to funnel a lot of resources into defending a seat they’d had locked up for many years. Said resources being pulled away from other races surely helped some Dems get elected.
@20
I’ve always been somewhat fascinated by why that particular seat was chosen, and I can’t really find any great strategic reasons for it. It seems more symbolic than anything. I just don’t think any of the folks at the GOP could stand watching a brainy, progressive woman from Microsoft beating an old-school authoritarian Sheriff who supports the President 110% on Iraq.
By the way, I didn’t mean to be the big asshole in the other thread. I see that everyone jumped on my response to Richard Pope, and after I re-read it, I definitely see why. I totally wasn’t trying to censor him at all, though, I was kind of snarkily nudging him to write stuff like that on his main website more often. When he puts his thoughts together, he can be very eloquent and very effective.
Sometimes, I think I’m writing things in a snarky tone that really sound bad when they’re not read that way. :)
@19:
Typical. Of course you won’t see contrasting opinions. Have fun being a dumb sheep.
darcy burner is not even 40 yet–the age at which the late jennifer dunn had the first “key event” of her life according local media.
impeach hasselbeck & strong!
@21 Lee, you might be overthinking it. I suspect that they targeted the 8th because they thought that was a race they were more likely to win. They were in deep kimchee in many of the other races and they knew it.
This is based on nothing more than Occam’s razor.
-OM
Excellent! A poll which is more than two years old. That’s really relevant now. Thanks for sharing.
Let’s look a little further down that poll than the top question.
8. Regardless of who you voted for in November’s gubernatorial election, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Washington Republican Party?
Favorable 35%
Unfavorable 44%
Undecided 21%
10. Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Patty Murray’s job performance?
Approve 56%
Disapprove 36%
Undecided 8%
11. Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Maria Cantwell’s job performance?
Approve 47%
Disapprove 40%
Undecided 13%
See! Selective reading works well for Democrats AND Republicans.
25 Occam seems to be sporting a five-o’clock shadow.
@27 so ArtFart, do you have info you’re not sharing?
Don’t bogart that data, my friend.
@25
I certainly could be reading way too much into it. From what I remember, there were a number of very close races, but there seemed to be a focus on WA-08 that didn’t have a clear rationale from any polling I saw. In the end, unless one was involved with those decisions, you’ll never know what went into it all.
Braindead wingnuts @ all
Darcy Burner will help put an end to this.
Sit through the whole presentation if you’ve got a shred of brain matter left.
Dave Hairspray will of course go along to get along.
HWGA @ 9
“I worked at Microsoft for more than a decade. There are thousands of very smart people there, many of whom rose to much higher levels of responsibility than the low level management job Darcy had (including me), and many of whom have much higher levels of educational achievement (including me again). And many of those same people live in District 8. Maybe we should ask one of them to run?”
The fact is, Darcy DID run. Other folks did not. Darcy literally came from off the political map, ran a grassroots campaign and very nearly beat “the Sheriff.” BTW: your claim that she was a “low level manager” makes me believe you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. She was not a low level manager.
“Let’s be real here. A dead person with a D next to his or her name would have gotten 48% in 2006 in a district that went heavily Democratic in all the other races on the ballot.”
Nope. In fact, Darcy got more votes and a higher percentage of votes than any Democrat has ever gotten in that race.
“Goldy and you talk like Burner getting beat in a race not much closer than 2004 for Reichert was some sort of upset… but all around the US, Democrats taking on Republican freshman and even Republican vets in the House actually won, many times by large margins.”
That’s because we know how much money and resources the Republicans dumped into WA-08. The Republicans went all out with advertisements and voter contacts, and it worked for them in the 8th. But they lost a bunch of other seats in the process. This time, however, Darcy has the opportunity to start with wide name recognition. And Reichert is considerably weakened by (1) being in the minority party, and (2) having no real accomplishments after two terms.
Well it makes sense that she has the lead……she never stopped campaining after she lost the last time. Does she have a real job anymore, or has she turned into another professional politician…even when not elected?
Anyone but Darcy2008
24:
As long as they win, Hasselbeck and any other Seahawk R’s are still welcome. We’ll just boot their asses out of town when they retire.
After Darcy defeats Sheriff Blowdry next year, I’m going to gloat about it mercilessly and ceaselessly.
RR @ 34,
Weren’t you predicting the same in 06? Marcy still thinks the 8th is in Seattle. She still thinks she is running against President Bush and she still has that same problem. SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED!!!!!!!!! For once, why can’t you dems see that the darling of the democratic party isn’t what the 8th wants?
edawg says:
Well it makes sense that she has the lead……she never stopped campaining after she lost the last time. Does she have a real job anymore, or has she turned into another professional politician…even when not elected?
Anyone but Darcy2008
And that is relevant or logical, how?
IAFF Fireman says:
RR @ 34,
Weren’t you predicting the same in 06? Marcy still thinks the 8th is in Seattle. She still thinks she is running against President Bush and she still has that same problem. SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED!!!!!!!!! For once, why can’t you dems see that the darling of the democratic party isn’t what the 8th wants?
She is not qualified? And how is Reichert qualified? Just because he holds the office? That makes him a master Congressman? Take some logic classes buddy.
To wit, prove she is not qualified. You saying so doesn’t make it so.
DARCY YAWN
And Congressman Dave is the life of the party…
SeattleDan says:
“You saying so doesn’t make it so.”
Quite a witty retort SeattleDan. Are you 8 years old?
IAFF fireman’s got it exactly right – Marcy Bruner is not qualified – she has no community service and was nothing more than an average manager at MSFT. The Dem’s didn’t even think enough of her to give her a token task force or advisory board assignment to help beef up her woefully lacking resume. Since 06 she has only one more line to add to that resume – LOSER in an election that swept weak Dems into office everywhere else in the country.
And somebody needs to remind her that Bush isn’t running in 08. Bruner will have to hitch her pathetic excuse for a star to Hilary’s wagon – now THERE’s a scary combination.
Nah, I’m going on ten. Thanks for your job recommendation. That sure turned my head around. You have no links, no proof, nothing to say. And the incumbent is qualified because he was in Law Enforcement. Damn me. And Reagan was qualified to hold office because he was an actor? Try again.
BTW, her name is Darcy. Not Marcy. Darcy.
Not Marcy? Darcy? Geez, have you ever heard of sarcasm?
Sarcasm. Sure. I know of it. You damn well made it clear in print. My fault. You’re a comic genius.
And speaking of wit and sarcasm, there ds, I know you would have fit in well with the Algonquin Round Table group, or Oscar Wilde’s group of wits. Or they would have eaten you up alive and spit you out as distasteful. So get a grip there, pal. To be witty, you need to have some wit and some genius. I suspect you lack both. But, then again, I’m too dense to understand your sarcasm.
SeattleDan: Prove what makes Darcy qualified. What are her “stellar” qualities? What would drive the “mASSes” to vote for her?
I droppped in here just to see Mark1’s inevitable posts. They’re usually fun reads. I think he outdid himself this time with “I have a link to a poll, but I won’t post it.” Imressive, as always. I hope he doesn’t try to get a job at Microsoft, because the interview would shred him.
I thought that the qualifications for the House of Representatives was in the US Consitution, Article I, Section 2:
Dave Reichert spent a decade or two in an executive branch office, much of it as an admimistrator. How that “qualifies” him to legislate is beyond me, and his mostly empty record does not reflect well on his “qualification.”
Half of us voted for her already. This recent poll shows that more will this time.
But you already have your answer; you have just rejected it. Try to get this: Dave Reichert is out of touch with what people in his district want, and Darcy better reflects their views. Have fun in 2008-2010. Try to get a better candidate.
@41: And OBTW, the Republicans are STILL running against Bill Clinton. When are y’all going to realize he’s been out of office for over six years now?
-OM
@47 Daddy dumbass,
I said I have it in a PDF file format, not as a link. God you’re an idiot. Simply provide me your email addy and I’ll be more than happy to send it.
It wouldn’t be a Darcy Burner thread without you calling me an idiot, dumbass (although spelled differently), or some such. Thanks for the memories.
I’m at curtand2000@hotmail.com.
You should check out http://www.ipcc.ch. Interesting place.
No worse than your Microsoft slam. Anyway, regardless, I will send it to you for your review. Let’s agree to disagree on the issues and leave it at that. :)
Puddybud says:
SeattleDan: Prove what makes Darcy qualified. What are her “stellar” qualities? What would drive the “mASSes” to vote for her?
Typical troll tactic. I don’t have to prove anything to you. You’re misdirecting the argument. You prove to me that Reichart’s a good Congressman. Which means, pretty much, proving the deeds and goodness of the Bush Administration, for which Dave rubberstamps.
Please take a college entrance course on Logic. You don’t possess anything aking to Logic in your mindset. It will do you good. Believe me.l It’ll help.
SeattleDan: Uhhhh no I am not misdirecting anything. This is real politics DONK! Sorry the real world scares you!
Let’s understand the debate here. She’s the challenger. She has to prove her worth.
Now applying logic, you side says she needs to be voted in. Why Darcy Moonbat!? You can’t create a good argument SeattleDan.
Waaa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaa