– Oh good, I can add sewage overflow to my list of worries.
– Even the sportswriters are acting like Politico.
– I like the idea of the price per parking spot of the Northgate parking garage. [h/t]
– Why do 13% of NRO readers hate America?
– I keep forgetting to post this, but I didn’t realize that dragon flies had a migration.
Free markets are often times the best policy. But so far (and yes, it’s early days) with liquor privatization, prices have gone up. Now if you think that markets are inherently good philosophically in all cases (or in this case) then the prices being up may be fine. And in the long run, maybe they start high but eventually go down or in the long run they won’t go up as much as if the state controlled distribution.
But I think if you’d told people a bottle of Jameson will go up couple bucks, and that’s generally true the initiative would have a lot less support. I mean whenever I was in Costco during the signature gathering and the campaign there were signs saying how much cheaper alcohol was in California. And attributing all of that to market forces over the big bad state government.
But market forces haven’t worked that way, at least not yet. And so while Costco will probably make a profit, the people who supported it at the ballot box may rightly be upset that they didn’t get the result they wanted. It may feel like more freedom to ideologues and people who make a greater profit. But for people who pay more, it’s just paying more.
We were told capitalism would bring down prices, and so far capitalism failed at that. I hope the next time we have a discussion of how to have markets in Washington, the proponents of more market solutions (and I may be one of them) will have the decency to use better logic than trust the market.
– Jamie Kilstein challenges Jonah Goldberg to a fight. [h/t]
– Bain Capital Owns and Controls Clear Chanel
– There are upcoming campaign kickoffs for Rob Holland and Hans Dunshee
– The Westboro Baptist Church is going to be in Olympia.
– It may be that President Obama’s evolution on gay marriage upsets fundamentalists more because they don’t believe in evolution than they don’t want gay people to have rights.
Number two in the series is another Seattle-area LD with an open seat. Two of them, actually, thought one of these will assuredly be filled by the incumbent whose seat will be open in this election. Confused yet? We’re talking, of course, about the 11th District.
NOTE: click on the “Click to continue” link below to view a key that defines what the various colors and other symbols on the maps actually mean.
Location — Tukwila, South Seattle, Renton, Kent
Senate: Margarita Prentice (D), 2012, retiring
House 1: Zack Hudgins (D)
House 2: Bob Hasegawa (D), running for Senate
The 11th District is one of the most oddly-shaped LDs in the state, seeming to wrap around the southern shores of Lake Washington without ever actually reaching the lake itself. It’s an industrial and commercial district, thrusting into the port-oriented southwest portion of Seattle in addition to Tukwila, parts of Kent, and some of Renton. Under the 2001 Legislative District map, the bulk of its land area was in that Duwamish River portion of the 11th District. The LD reached almost to the center of Burien. Perhaps your imagination is better than mine, because I can’t think of a metaphor that describes the shape of 11th Legislative District. Its 2001 borders, at the scale of 1:80,000, are shown below:
Viewed by itself, the new version of the 11th LD doesn’t seem all that different from the 2001 map. It remains misshapen, so much so that it (like the 2001 version) might remind you of this infamous image from a Massachusetts newspaper cartoon:
Gerrymander of 1812
Looking at the new 11th LD more carefully, though, we observe that it no longer approaches Burien. Also, its border has been “notched” to exclude central Renton, and the 11th extends farther to the east than had the 2001 iteration of the district.
The bulk of the 11th District falls within the 9th Congressional District, and it contributes appreciably to the fiction that the new WA-09 is a majority–minority district. A small portion of the 11th, mostly warehouses between I-5 and SR-99, is in the 7th Congressional District. The suburban-to-rural easternmost part of the new 11th LD falls within WA-08.
When the 2001 and 2011 versions of the 11th Legislative District are superimposed on one another, the locational shift is readily apparent. Some of the changes are fairly small (a precinct here, a precinct there). The loss of Highline and Burien is easy to see, as is the large swath of suburbia, perhaps even exurbia, that is now part of the LD. Industrial grit meets tract houses and strip malls.
While it is correct to say that Senator Prentice is retiring, I wonder whether she would have stayed on if she hadn’t been redistricted out of the 11th LD. One might almost suspect that the Renton “notch” I mentioned earlier was created so as to remove her from the district. Unlike Representative Kagi of the 32nd LD (who moved back into her district), Senator Prentice chose to retire rather than try to win office in her new LD, the 37th. Then again, the Senate seat in the 37th isn’t up in this election cycle, so unless she wanted to run for the House she would have had to sit out for a couple of years anyway. Might she unretire and take on Adam Kline in 2014? I have my doubts, as she would be 73 by then.
There’s no doubt that Bob Hasegawa will win the 11th LD Senate seat in November. Even with the addition of a lot of less-than-urban territory, this remains a solidly Democratic district. Hasegawa is well known as a leader in labor and social justice issues, fitting very well with the nature of the 11th. I would have called him a perfect fit if the 11th had retained its previous borders, but this isn’t quite the same district as before. His opponent is a token Republican who didn’t even name the correct office on her C1 form (it says “State Representative”).
Zack Hudgins briefly flirted with a run for Secretary of State this cycle, but decided against it a couple of months ago. So he’s running for reelecion to the House 1 seat. He’s opposed by a Democrat who got into the race when it looked like an open seat. Jim Flynn appears to be a serious candidate — his campaign treasurer is Phil Lloyd, whose other clients include Jim McDermott — but I don’t think Hudgins has all that much to worry about.
The big action in the 11th is in the House 2 seat, currently occupied by Hasegawa. Four Democrats are vying for the position, as well as a lone (irrelevant) Republican. All of the Dems have raised decent money so far; the one with the most name recognition, Port Commissioner Rob Holland, has taken in the least. Far ahead of the others, at nearly $250,000(!), is Bobby Virk. As I write this, only one Legislature candidate in the entire state (a self-funding Democrat running for the open Senate seat in the 27th LD) has taken in more money than Virk, who is definitely not trying to buy himself a place in Olympia. His personal contribution to his campaign is negligible.
Clearly, although there are nominally two open seats in the 11th Legislative District, one of those is already spoken for. In the House 2 position, I can’t imagine that Bobby Virk will finish third or lower in the primary. He has, after all, taken in more than three times what his opponents have … combined. Who will join him on the general election ballot? I have no idea. Perhaps someone more familiar with the 11th Legislative District can edify HA readers.
Last week’s contest was won by milwhcky. It was the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina, where a crazyperson told his flock of brain-dead followers that gays and lesbians should be rounded up behind electric fences.
This week’s contest is a random location somewhere on earth, good luck!
Numbers 22:29
Balaam answered the donkey, “You have made a fool of me! If only I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now.”
Discuss.
Ann Telnaes: SuperPAC influence.
Thom with The Good, the Bad, and The Very, Very Ugly.
Darcy Burner and Gen. Paul Eaton (ret): Responsible plan to end the war in Afghanistan:
Ann Telnaes: Memorial Day, 2012.
Illinois Rep. has a hissy fit over something or another.
Thom: Anti-Obama ad written and produced by FAUX “GOP TV” News?
Mr. Romney’s Run:
Obama celebrates Pride Month.
Maddow: Boehner playing politics instead of working on jobs.
WA State Republicans: “We’ve been Pfluged!
Stephanie Miller with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA): Checking in on the Affordable Health Care Act:
Baby Congress.
Wisconsin:
Jon does First Lady Michelle Obama.
President Obama honors Robert Allen Zimmerman (a.k.a. Bob Dylan) and some other folks.
Pulling out of Iraq.
Liberal Viewer: Sheriff scams Sacramento out of jail money.
Mark Fiore: Too big to fail.
Alyona’s Tool Time Award: MO Rep. Todd Akkin says voters shouldn’t pick Senators.
Sam Seder: Rush’s clueless food rant.
DOMA
Alyona’s Tool Time Award: Will GOP let NC Sink?
Ann Telnaes: Protecting U.S. babies.
Music Video: Obama was Foreign Born:
White House: West Wing Week.
Young Turks: Bizarre Republican violence.
Thom: Something rotten in Michigan.
Jon on NY soda ban.
Newsy: George Zimmerman’s bond revoked.
Florida is Up to Its Tricks Again:
Maddow: Montana is the best chance of saving US democracy from ‘Citizens United’.
Young Turks: Teabagger Rep. Joe Walsh says crazy, racist things.
Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.
The Seattle Times has an editorial about the Initiative 1053 ruling.
We do not argue that Heller is legally mistaken. The Washington Constitution does not allow an initiative to raise the threshold for passing a law. Nor does it disallow it. Given that the Supreme Court can decide either way, we believe the court should let the people have what they want.
If it doesn’t allow it, it’s kind of the definition of beyond the prevue of the initiative process. And as Goldy notes, the state constitution is clear about what requires more than 2/3 to pass. And it’s not taxes.
But whatever, this is a particularly poor way of putting it but the logic that a majority vote should trump the constitution is pretty pervasive. So in the spirit of goodwill, here’s a list of other potential initiatives we could have that modify what the state constitution does without, I guess, bothering to modify the state constitution. These are all things I’d support in theory, but should be overturned if they passed as an initiative. I’m not sure any of them would pass, but you never know until you try.
– Obviously, a requirement that it takes a 2/3 vote of the legislature to cut social services and education. They’ve been cut to the bone, and beyond. If that passed, maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about tax policy versus spending. Obviously, I support this in a world where there’s a 2/3 requirement to cut taxes, not in the ideal world.
– Severe gun control measures. Sure, the state’s version of the second amendment (article 1, section 24) is stronger than the federal one. I think there are some reasonable gun control measures that can be passed, but would run into that if we go too far. But never mind that if 50% + 1 voters say it’s a good idea, we can outlaw firearms.
– A parliamentary system. Sure, sure, our constitution is pretty clear about us having a bicameral legislature and an executive. But if the people vote for a different system, why go through the hassle of changing the constitution?
– Or we could maybe change how legislators are elected. A lot of democracies have the percent of the vote be the distribution in the legislature. If 50% +1 want it, no need for a pesky, difficult to get constitutional amendment.
Survey USA released a new poll for the new WA first congressional district today. The poll of 456 voters likely to vote in the August primary, and 661 registered voters (for a general election match-up), was taken on the 29th and 30th of May, surveys the open congressional seat and more.
For the Washington primary, the top two winners are Republican John Koster and Democrat Darcy Burner. Burner leads the crowded Democratic field by +10%:
The sample size for the primary poll is rather small. Nevertheless, we can make some inference about who will be Koster’s opponent in November. Darcy Burner has a little over 1/2 the “votes” (88 of 173) among those who chose someone other than Koster. A Monte Carlo analyses gives Burner a 56.3% probability of advancing to the general election. There is a 43.7% chance that Ruderman, DelBene, Hobbs, Ishmael or Rauniyar will advance instead of Burner.
The not-so-good news for Democrats comes from the head-to-head results of each Democrat against Koster:
In all cases, the poll results suggest that Koster has something over a 95% probability of winning. And that is not good news for Democrats.
There were a couple of other races that shed light on this poll. Mitt Romney leads President Obama in the district 45% to 44%. And Rob McKenna leads Jay Inslee in the district 52% to 38%. Wow…this is the same 1st district that I live in?!?
In fact, these numbers are so surprising that the election sleuths at Kos Elections (formerly Swing State Project) find the poll results implausible:
If you read a little further down, though, the poll’s credibility takes a major hit, when you see the presidential numbers: Romney leads Obama 45-44. This is a district that, adjusted for the new boundaries, went for Obama 56-42 over McCain. This is also the state’s median district (Obama went 57% in all of Washington in ’08), so Rob McKenna should probably be leading by a couple points in the gubernatorial race, but instead he’s up 52-38 over Jay Inslee. Either this sample is way off, or else Obama and Inslee are finding some way to get, say, 120% of the vote in WA-07 in statewide polls to compensate for such a steep falloff in Dem fortunes in the new 1st.
These are all good points. But I’d sure like to see some more independent polling for the district before I chalk this one up to being an outlier….
Scott Morgan has a post up today asking why Democrats continue to defend the drug war. He quotes Paul Waldman at The American Prospect, who wrote this:
At the moment, there remains a strong incentive to support the status quo, lest you be targeted in your next race as some kind of hippie-lover. The incentives on the other side, on the other hand, are almost nil. When was the last time somebody lost a race for being too tough on drugs? The half of Americans who favor marijuana legalization are not an organized voting bloc that gets together to punish its opponents at the polls.
Waldman posted that on Tuesday the 29th. On that same day, Texas Congressman Silvestre Reyes was defeated in a primary by El Paso City Council member Beto O’Rourke. O’Rourke decided to challenge Reyes after the longtime Congressman fought back against O’Rourke’s attempt to pass a city resolution calling for a broader debate on drug policy, including legalization. Reyes ran attack ads trying to paint O’Rourke as being soft on drugs. And it backfired. O’Rourke captured over 50% of the vote and prevented even a runoff.
While some may argue that there were several factors beyond the drug war that led to Reyes’ defeat, the Attorney General’s race in Oregon a few weeks ago was clearly an example of someone losing a race for being too tough on drugs. Former U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton was the early favorite to win the Democratic nomination for Attorney General, but his previous attempts to undermine Oregon’s medical marijuana laws came back to haunt him, as underdog Ellen Rosenblum attacked him over that and won a landslide victory. In that race, medical marijuana was clearly the main differentiator between the candidates, and the “tough of drugs” candidate got demolished.
Morgan sums it up really well:
Really, the whole notion that candidates who support reform will be labeled as “hippie-lovers,” is nothing more than a fictitious cliché without a single good example to justify its utterance. Instead, we’re witnessing the emergence of the exact opposite, a new dynamic in democratic races wherein a history of defending the drug war is a political liability that can be exploited to powerful effect by candidates who side with the majority of voters in favoring reform.
That’s why it’s so frustrating to see observers like Waldman, who supports reforming drug policy, nevertheless endeavor to uphold the notion that political realities require our leaders to do the wrong thing. If Obama were to read that analysis and find it convincing, Waldman would have succeeded in helping the President rationalize his refusal to support reform. We’re hurting our cause when we say stuff like this, and worse yet, the idea itself isn’t even true.
I’ve often argued that Democratic support for the drug war isn’t as much a result of special interest pandering as it seems (although that certainly happens). Much of it is just inertia from a time not long ago when this political calculus was actually true. But times have changed quite drastically in the past 10-20 years, and those who’ve noticed the change are being rewarded by the voters. And those who aren’t are finding themselves like Silvestre Reyes and Dwight Holton, wondering how they managed to lose to “some kind of hippie-lover”.
I still think a closed primary is better than an open one. But I’m coming around to the system we have. So reading my friend Ray’s piece on the California top 2 system, here are some rambling thoughts on the process here.
The goofiness of having Democrats run against Democrats in a general election is both the main hurdle to acceptance and what I’ve come to like about it. So, yeah, it makes it tougher for Democrats to elect the most liberal person in liberal districts. And it makes it tougher for the Democrats to control who is their nominee.
On the other hand, we’ll have campaigns in 2 of Seattle’s Legislative Districts doing independent GOTV. It can help statewide elections to have local elections that matter. And, I like having some choice in November.
I’d prefer if we went back to the old system, or better yet had a primary where Democrats couldn’t help pick the Republican nominee or Republicans pick the Democratic nominee. But I’m not as opposed to the system as I was when we got it.
A new poll came out yesterday in the gubernatorial race between Jay Inslee (D) and Rob McKenna (R) yesterday. The poll was by Seattle-based Strategies 360, and showed McKenna leading Inslee 43% to 39%. The poll was taken from 22nd through the 24th of May on a sample of 500 likely voters (MOE 4.4%).
Before I get into the analysis, I have two confessions.
First, I ignored the Strategies 360 poll from last September. Basically, I was told they were working as a partisan (Democratic) pollster, and for that reason failed my inclusion criteria. When I saw the results yesterday, I got curious and called their VP of Polling and Research, Kevin Ingham. He set the record straight. They don’t work for candidates, and their election polls are not done on behalf of a partisan client. Okay….they’re in!
The second confession is that there was another poll in May that I previously missed. It came out while I was off-line travelling for a couple of days, and by the time I stumbled across the poll it was old. That poll was from SurveyUSA and had McKenna leading Inslee 40% to 38%. The poll was taken on May 8th and 9th on a sample of 557 individuals (MOE 4.2%).
With two polls for May, one taken early, one later, I’ll analyze them together using a Monte Carlo analysis of a million simulated elections.
Between the two polls, there were 1057 “votes” of which 844 went for either McKenna or Inslee. Inslee received 407 “votes” (38.5%) and McKenna received 438 (41.4%) “votes.” The simulated elections were won by Inslee 221,876 times and McKenna, 770,944 times. Here is the distribution of election outcomes from the simulations:
The results suggest that, if the election was held in May, Inslee would have had a 22.3% probability of winning the election, and McKenna would have won with a 77.7% probability. By standard statistical inference, McKenna’s lead is “not significant.” He’s have to have a 95% or greater probability of winning for a “significant” lead. Still…I’d rather have a 78% probability than 22% probability of winning….
The larger trend in the election can be seen from the collection of polls:
A reasonable read of the raw polling data is that McKenna maintains a small lead over Inslee at this point in the race.
– These people aren’t advocating for “life.” They are advocating a political strategy that stigmatizes a legal medical procedure in order to punish those they see as sexually transgressive with either death or the financial instability that follows from a lack of reproductive choice. [h/t]
– The gun violence problem is in Seattle. The solution is in Olympia. Maybe, but let’s not ignore what Seattle can do and let’s also not ignore the gun violence in the rest of the state.
– Lord knows I’m a terrible speller. But Amercia?
– I found this piece on dead pigeons quite fascinating, but note there were some graphic videos/pictures.
– Sometimes I listen to Mariners games on the other team’s feed (you get a different assessment than from the Seattle announcers). Early this season, when they were playing the A’s, the radio guy said that there was another event at the same time as the game the following day, so everybody take public transportation. It wasn’t a wishy-washy you might want to consider type of thing. I don’t know if we need a system as comprehensive as BART before we can not be worried about getting stuck in traffic when we build sports stadiums.
| Obama | Romney |
| 99.9% probability of winning | 0.1% probability of winning |
| Mean of 326 electoral votes | Mean of 212 electoral votes |
My previous analysis of state head-to-head polls showed President Barack Obama leading Romney with a mean of 323 to 215 electoral votes. Obama had a 99.5% probability of winning; Romney had a 0.5% chance.
Six new polls have been released since then. I’ve also fixed a few minor errors (largely in older polls) thanks to some more help from Sam Minter:
| start | end | sample | % | % | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| st | poll | date | date | size | MOE | O | R | diff |
| CA | LA Times | 17-May | 21-May | 1002 | 3.5 | 56 | 37 | O+19 |
| CO | PNA/Keating | 21-May | 24-May | 601 | 4.0 | 48 | 44 | O+4 |
| MI | PPP | 24-May | 27-May | 600 | 4.4 | 53 | 39 | O+14 |
| MO | PPP | 24-May | 27-May | 602 | 4.0 | 45 | 44 | O+1 |
| WA | Strategies 360 | 24-May | 27-May | 500 | 4.4 | 51 | 40 | O+11 |
| WI | Marquette | 23-May | 26-May | 625 | — | 51.2 | 43.0 | O+8.2 |
That’s a rather blue collection of new polls.
Both of the current California polls have double-digit leads for Obama.
In Colorado, Obama squeaks out +4% over Romney, whereas the previous poll had them tied. Overall the trend in Colorado polls looks favorable for Obama:
Michigan gives Obama a remarkable +14% lead over Romney. One has to go back eight polls, to November 2011, to find a poll in which Romney is leading. Obama has managed to turn Michigan around, from toss-up to solid Obama, over the past six months:
In Missouri, Obama has a meager +1% lead over Romney. Up to now, Missouri has given a small edge to Romney over Obama. My hunch is that further polling would put the state back into Romney territory. Here are the polls to date:
The new Washington poll puts Obama at +11% over Romney. Both current WA polls give Obama double digit leads.
We have six current polls in Wisconsin. And all but one goes to Obama. With today’s poll, the trend cannot be considered good news for Romney:
Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 99,941 times and Romney wins 59 times (including the 13 ties). Obama gains three electoral votes for an average of 326 to Romney’s 212. If the election was held now, Obama would have a 99.9% probability of beating Romney, based on the polling data.
Here is the distribution of electoral votes [FAQ] from the simulations:
[Read more…]
As I was leaving work today, I was told to be careful. The implication, I suppose, that because of the awful things that had happened earlier today that with the suspect then still on the loose, that I should be afraid walking home. That perhaps I shouldn’t go out for dinner if I was planning it. That maybe I shouldn’t go out for a bike ride after work even if it’s nice out, because who knows?
And I appreciate the concern. I get the fear. But you can’t wall yourself off from life because of some slim possibility that something will happen. You can’t hide from fear. For those of us who live or work or play in Seattle, well, it’s our city.
It’s not the city of the gunmen. It’s not the city of the drug dealers or the gangsters. It’s not the city of criminals. It’s our city.
Obviously, none of this is to say that we should ignore crime or murder on a policy level, or that there aren’t policies that we should implement to prevent future tragedies of this nature. I hope this prompts us to look at our gun culture and our culture of violence. What it should mean is that we can still live our lives in our city.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!