HorsesAss.Org

This is a sad commentary about either (1) the state of the Washington state political press machine, or (2) Larry Ishmael’s PR abilities. Maybe both.

You may remember that Ishmael ran against Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) in 2006 and 2008. According to his video, he was busy working on a Ph.D. in Economics in 2010 (at the University of Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa, according to his bio). He expects to finish his PhD in December, 2012.

But for now…Heeeeee’s Baaaaack!

The “breaking” news is that Larry Ishmael is running for congress again in the 1st CD!

The “not so breaking” part about it is that Ishmael announced his candidacy sometime in mid-December. His You Tube announcement is dated December 12th.

A Google news search in the past month on his name reveals:

No results found for “larry ishmael”.

No announcement in a blogosphere search either. Huh.

How did I find it? While working on my Friday Night video thingie, I stumbled across his trove of seven campaign videos released since his announcement.

Sheesh!

Yo! Media…let’s pick up the pace a bit! Or maybe it’s…Yo! Larry…get some PR help!

Ishmael’s entry probably means there will be three Republicans in the race.

As an aside, when he ran in 2006, Goldy noticed that he was living in the 8th CD. That doesn’t violate the laws of man or nature or anything…it just a sign of political tone-deafness. So…it’s probably the latter. Sorry about giving you a hard time Media! Love ya! xxoo

Back in September, to great fanfare, well to some fanfare, to a Ryan Blethen column at least, The Seattle Times announced their great, their initiative, to have a conversation on how to fix everything wrong with King County, Washington State, and the Federal government. They called it, “Just Fix It.” And while they’re still cranking out editorials in an attempt to prove how much they hate state workers and people who rely on government services, their brilliant idea has stopped updating. The last piece in this series is from November (I think, it’s not organized chronologically, exactly).

Now, projects everywhere fall by the wayside. And if this project about how it’ll be simple to fix all of our problems turns out too difficult to maintain, well fine: I had pretty low expectations of it from the start. But they’re still promoting it at the top of Editorials and Opinion page on their website.

It will be worth listening to Governor Christine Gregoire on KUOW this morning at 9:00. Cool stuff is the table.

One big issue is yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that:

The State has failed to meet its duty under article IX, section 1 by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that falls short of the actual costs of the basic education program. The legislature recently enacted sweeping reforms to remedy the deficiencies in the funding system, and it is currently making progress toward phasing in those reforms. We defer to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty, but the judiciary will retain jurisdiction over the case to help ensure progress in the State’s plan to fully implement education reforms by 2018. We direct the parties to provide further briefing to this court addressing the preferred method for retaining jurisdiction.

As Publicola points out, this feels like

…one of those damning federal court orders to put a bankrupt business or corrupt union in receivership

The real problem isn’t that lawmakers somehow dislike funding education. Rather, the education funding problem arises from four issues:

1. The worst economy since the Great Depression that has resulted in drastic shortfalls in projected revenue
2. Another Constitutional duty, a balanced budget, that has resulted in massive cuts in numerous state services
3. Republican obstructionism in adequately funding the government
4. Lawmaker’s inability to raise new revenues with a simple majority to a great extent because of the 2/3 majority requirement in Initiative 1053

Many of us believe I-1053 is unconstitutional, and a July court case is pending. The Supreme court has previously weaseled its way out of making a decision about whether an initiative can impose a standard on lawmakers that trumps the state Constitution.

Yesterday Gregoire announced that:

…she plans to bypass the state attorney general’s office and seek court guidance on the constitutionality of a law limiting tax increases.

Gregoire, who is technically listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, said she is working with outside counsel to petition the courts for a ruling on Initiative 1053, which requires lawmakers to have a two-thirds majority to raise taxes.

Gregoire says, “fuck you, Rob McKenna,” and goes straight to the Supreme Court.

Given that I-1053 is one of the biggest impediments for lawmakers to adequately fund basic education, and given that the Supreme Court is now playing an active role in forcing lawmakers to meet this Constitutional duty, Gregoire’s request is an offer the Supreme Court cannot refuse.

I was recently reading Bus Chick’s year in review, and I was struck by this:

What’s a little kid-related bus inconvenience compared to no buses? Those of you who live in King County no doubt remember this summer’s terrifying, “we might have to cut 17% of your service” moment. The County Council passed the (temporary) congestion reduction charge, but the problem hasn’t gone away–for KC Metro, or for transit agencies across the state (CT and PT have already implemented drastic cuts) and the country. If the state doesn’t figure out a real solution to the transit revenue problem ASAP, those barely averted cuts will become a reality.

In the meantime, riders (including this one) are already feeling the pinch. Metro is closing stops, reducing hours, eliminating routes, and taking other steps to save money in anticipation of its bleak revenue future.

I agree and would add that the cost of riding is also up quite a bit. With fares up to $3.00 for 2 zones at peak times and with the upcoming elimination of the free ride area, the recession is really pushing the cost of riding onto riders and employers. Fortunately for me, my work pays for it, but that’s a cost to the company I work for is up.*

Last year could have been a lot worse for Metro. And while we celebrate that we avoided that, we should also realize what we’ve lost.

[Read more…]

– Hornswoggle is a great word.

– But as sure as the followers of Farrakhan deserved more than UFOs, anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories, those of us who oppose the drug-war, who oppose the Patriot Act deserve better than Ron Paul

– Richard Cordray will get a recess appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

– Application for Kanye’s Magical Awesomeness Factory

– I don’t agree with North Korea very often, but it’s true that both the regime and I think Mayan apocalypse is bunk (point 7). Although for very different reasons.

When Rep. David Wu (OR-1) resigned amid scandal last summer, Republicans smelled blood:

Several factors give newfound hope to the GOP: Wu resigned amid a sex scandal, damaging the Democratic image in the district. The party’s main candidate, Tualatin businessman Rob Cornilles, is returning as a more seasoned campaigner after losing to Wu last year. And Democrats face a potentially divisive primary race that could hurt their prospects in the January 2012 special election.

Yeah…not so much. Yesterday SurveyUSA released a poll for the race that shows Suzanne Bonamici (D) with 50%, Cornilles (R) at 39%, James Foster (L) at 2%, and Steven Reynolds (Oregon Progressive Party) at 2%.

Bonamici’s +11% lead shouldn’t be too much of a surprise…a mid-December Public Policy Polling poll also found Bonamici leading Cornilles by +11% (52% to 41%).

So…it looks pretty likely that Republican hopes in OR-1 will be dashed on January 31.

What Republicans just don’t get, is that, beyond the implicated politician, sex scandals tend to harm Republicans more than Democrats. The broader impact isn’t about what one person does. It’s about the fuckin’ hypocrisy.

Just a brief follow-up to my post over the weekend criticizing Dominic Holden’s coverage of I-502. Holden has a much more level-headed news piece out that talks about a potential solution to the DUI issue:

Now, to quell the infighting and ultimately support legalization, two lawmakers are crafting legislation they intend to introduce when the legislature convenes on January 9 that would give pot-using patients legal shelter. A bill from state senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36) would exempt patients from DUI convictions solely for the presence of THC. Instead, “proof of actual impairment is required,” according to a memo she circulated. Meanwhile, Representative Roger Goodman (D-45) intends to include a similar provision in a bill that more broadly addresses alcohol DUIs.

At a recent discussion of Kohl-Welles’ bill, this particular problem was discussed (Roger Goodman was in attendance for that discussion, which is why he’s also working towards a resolution in one of his bills). This development gives me a lot of hope that greater numbers of folks can eventually get behind I-502.

I don’t know if it’s the political winds, a change in Governor Gregoire, or some combination, but I’m glad she’s going to push a marriage equality law in the next legislative session. She seems to think the votes are there. We’ll see, but it couldn’t hurt to contact your legislators, to shore the support up.

Even if the votes aren’t there in the legislature, it’s worth pushing. This will happen one day, and the only way you get forward movement is to keep working and working and working.

There have always been 3 things needed to make this a law: the legislature to pass it, a governor who’ll sign it, and a public that won’t override it. Today we have a governor who says she’ll sign it and who says there’s a legislature that will pass it. But there is still the matter of what happens if it goes on the ballot.

I assume that Faith and Freedom and the other collection of assholes who put the domestic partnership law on the ballot after the legislature passed it will be able to gather enough signatures to put this on the ballot. I hope they don’t. Still, having seen no polling whatsoever, my initial thought is that it would be marginally good for Cantwell, Inslee and downticket races. It would probably be a winning issue for them to latch on to, and it would probably bring out youth voters.

But whatever happens going forward, thanks Governor Gregoire for a willingness to push this.

That was fun. Seriously…we had a terrific turnout with lots of new faces last night at the Montlake Alehouse. And the contest itself was quite amusing. So here are the thoughts that I came away with.

• Mitt wins by the slimmest of margins—eight fucking votes! Eight votes!
• I couldn’t really hear Santorum’s victory speech. Based on how long it went on, I assume he was just filibustering or trying to put people to sleep before Mitt’s victory speech.
• My favorite (straight) MSM post-game quote (so far) comes from CBS, “Santorum pulled off a stunning come from behind performance in Tuesday’s Iowa caucuses….”
• How much of a fucking loser must Mitt Romney feel like now? Four years of nearly continuous campaigning since the 2008 Iowa caucus…Mitt goes from 30,021 votes in 2008 down to 30,015 in 2012.
• In the mid-December debate open thread I wrote :
  

  And how ’bout that Ron Paul at 18%!?! Most of the other nutberger candidates have had their fling with the pole position…Ron Paul should get his shot, too. And to top the whole thing off like a layer of creamy chocolate frosting, we should get Rick Santorum [the] next week.

  So…the MSM meme that the Santorum surge was totally unexpected isn’t quite right.

• This is almost pathetically sad:
  

  Michele Bachmann told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she’s staying in the presidential race as the only true conservative who can defeat the sitting president, despite a bleak showing in the Iowa caucuses.

  This borders on delusional—Bachmann currently polls worse against Obama than even Rick Perry.

  And either she was “misunderinforming” people or needed time to sober up or chat with God. Because this morning she surrenders.

• Rick Perry, either more sober or with God on speed dial, surrendered last night.
• The real winner last night: Barack Obama. Really, he won both caucuses.

More fun next Tuesday!

Well…here we go. At least I think so. I have a few errands to run this afternoon, so I wrote this post well in advance and scheduled it to fire off at 5:00 pm, when the Iowa caucuses start. So…I might still be stuck in traffic or fixing a flat tire or even dead right now.

So…feel free to go on (and on and on) without me, and I’ll catch up right after I order myself a beer. I mean, unless I’m dead.

We will mostly focus on the Republican caucus this evening because, as the LA Times points out:

For Democrats, the process will be simple since President Obama is the party’s de facto nominee.

(And for the benefit of our “low-information commenters” [a.k.a trolls] I’ll point out that, no, “de facto” is not some kind of racial epithet.)

The LA Times does a pretty good job of describing the Republican caucus. But…the Republican Party of Iowa does a better job…they have it down to bullet points:

All caucus participants arrive at their precincts where they will sign in at the door upon arrival. Caucuses will begin at 7:00PM CT.

That would be 5:00 our time.

The caucus meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. A caucus chair and secretary will be elected by the body to run the meeting and take notes.

What! No reading of the Constitution?!? What a bunch of Constitution-hating reactionaries! (And shouldn’t the second sentence be its own bullet point?)

After the chair and secretary are elected, candidate representatives from each campaign are given time to speak on behalf of their candidate.

Here is where uncomfortable things might happen—like, say, Santorum getting smeared by a Paulinista.

Once the speakers have finished, sheets of paper are be passed out to every registered Iowa Republican from the precinct. Voters then write down their candidate preference.

Wait…where is the part where they check for government-issued photo ids?

All votes are then collected.

Every vote is counted. The caucus chair and secretary will count the votes in front of the caucus and a representative from each campaign is allowed to observe the counting of the votes. The results are recorded on an official form provided by the Republican Party of Iowa and are announced to the caucus.

A caucus reporter is chosen to report the results to the Republican Party of Iowa, accompanied by campaign representatives to verify the results reported to Iowa GOP officials.

Republicans sound so distrustful of Republicans!

RPI officials do not count results; they aggregate them from around the state and report them to the media. To ensure consistency in reporting, campaign representatives have the opportunity to be present with RPI officials as votes are reported to the public.

I hope they at least add them up (which is kind-of like counting). I mean, I don’t want to listen to the reports from all 1,774 precincts.

We will be reporting the votes for Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Buddy Roemer, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, “No Preference,” and “Other.”

“No Preference” votes include those who vote “present,” “no preference, “uncommitted,” or “none of the above.”

That’s the process…enjoy!

5:31: I got here a bit late, and there were three new attendees to chat with. CNN is on the teevee, but I might be totally antisocial and put headphones on to listen to NPRs coverage of the circus caucus.

5:40: I cannot really hear what is going on, but the whizbang graphic on CNN suggests that born-again evangelical Christians rate Santorum as number 2. That sounds about right.

6:07: It is a three way race between Paul, Romney and Santorum, so far. With something like 14,000 votes in…Huntsman has 106.

6:22: That is one hairy-ass microphone cover I see on CNN.

6:25: Santorum slides right by Romney to number 2!

7:04: Romney puts Santorum behind him!

7:05: ….and Santorum surges ahead of Romney!

7:06: I’m getting pretty excited about a last minute Huntsman surge!

7:08: With Santorum in the lead, one must ask: Don’t they have Google in Iowa?!?

7:12: It’s loud…I cannot hear the TV. People are talking to me. Santorum is all over the teevee. I don’t know how much longer I can hold out!

7:25: Promoted comment from Michael: “Romney 23%, Paul 23%, Santorum 23%. The Republicans are having themselves a three-way.”

7:30: Santorum may come out of this in the pole position!

7:38: Okay…so Michele Bachmann isn’t going to win this one. At least she has her Aimes Straw Poll victory to propel her into the lead. Go Michele!

7:40: Gingrich is going to win. I mean, just look at the numbers!

7:44: I heard on the news this evening that Gov. Gregoire has some sort of big announcement tomorrow related to gay marriage. Does this have anything to do with Santorum’s Iowa showing???

7:46: New update. Santorum is sandwiched in the narrow gap between Romney and Paul.

7:49: And, once again, and to Romney’s great shame…Santorum percolates to the top!!!

8:00: James Carville missed his calling in life. He should have been an evil villain in a Batman movie. The Snake™ (says N in Seattle and Rebecca, independently).

8:13: Wow…all night, Romney and Santorum have been swapping positions. Mitt’s on top the Rick’s on top, Mitt’s on top then Rick’s on top.

8:17: Newt speaks. “We are at the beginning of an extraordinarily important campaign.” Yes…there are books to sell!

8:29: Santorum squeaks ahead of Romney. Yeah…well, I cannot wait for next week’s New Hampshire primary, because I want to see Mitt Romney lick Santorum.

8:34: Michele Bachmann says thanks to the 5,891 people of her “home state” of Iowa that voted for her.

8:51: I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As Seattle’s Drinking Liberally organizer, I want to express our deep gratitude 2 u for making tonight so fucking enjoyable”

8:53: Now I just tweeted Dan Savage: “As the person liveblogging at HorsesAss, I want to thank you on everyone’s behalf for making tonight so fucking entertaining!”

8:55: Is that Rick Perry’s daughter standing behind him??? She has his eyes and Steve Tyler’s mouth. My GAWD! The Perry rumors are TRUE!!!!

9:08: My vision of a Santorum—Brownback ticket may yet be realized!

9:09: A decade and a half ago, I voted against Santorum. Even then, long before Dan Savage’s neologism, there was something really, really icky about the man and the candidate.

9:22: Santorum is on the teevee spreading his philosophy….

Please join us tonight for our first 2012 evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

Tonight is also the first of the Republican nomination contests. I’ll be there way early, for some liveblogging. I should be there shortly after 5:00 pm. So stop by early if you wish, or just swing by at our normal starting time of 8:00 pm.

We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

Can’t make it to Seattle? The Tri-Cities chapter of Drinking Liberally meets every Tuesday night, and Drinking Liberally Tacoma meets this Thursday.

With 231 chapters of Living Liberally, including twelve in Washington state and six more in Oregon, chances are excellent there’s one near you.

– It’s caucus day in Iowa, so here’s my uninformed picks:

Win: Willard
Place: Paul
Show: Perry

Also, that Willard and Perry are relatively close to each other.

– Although kids don’t like them some Perry.

– Is tolling on 520 changing your commute?

– Awwwwwwwwww.

– Washington had 2 of these views.

– Chris Polk will enter the draft.

Were you reading this blog during the 2008 election season? If so, you may remember my election prediction posts that took you over to Hominid Views. This year, I’ll post the election predictions here.

I’ve spend the past week collecting polls, updating the software, creating a clickable cartogram for the 2012 electoral college, updating the FAQ, and figuring out how to make it all work on Horsesass. The first analysis for the presidential election will be posted later today.

At this point, I am only doing analyses of an Obama versus Romney general election. As much as I would like to see one of the weaker candidates take the G.O.P. nomination, I’m pretty certain Republicans will, as they did in 2008, act rationally, and chose the candidate that performs best against Obama in head-to-head polling. That is currently Mitt Romney. As the Republican primary circus continues, I’ll reassess. If, say, Santorum trickles on up to the front (eww!) or there is a crazy surge for Ron Paul, or the Mittster takes a tumble after unintentionally tweeting a photo of his underwear, or Rick Perry challenges the rest of ’em to a duel (and wins), I’ll switch do doing analyses for the new front-runner(s).

Later in the election season, I add senatorial and gubernatorial analyses as well.

When I post these analyses, there are occasionally naysayers. They complain that polls are meaningless, the analysis is flawed, or the results are not predictive, or “can’t we just wait for the ‘real poll'”, blah, blah, blah. I’ll repeat my counterargument.

It works the same way as the score at a sporting event. The first quarter score in, say, a basketball game doesn’t typically allow you to determine the eventual winner. The score, the spread, the amount of playing time remaining, and the recent changes in scoring momentum gives a good feel for how the game has progressed, who might win if things continue in the same vein, and what each team needs to do to attain victory. Somehow I think fans would not appreciate basketball scores being hidden until the the game has concluded.

Same with the election analyses. They aren’t predictions of the outcome on election day. Instead, they show the score so far. And the currency is a probability of winning, if the “game” ended now.

Another point from the naysayers in 2008 is that Nate Silver, now at the NY Times, does similar analyses, and everyone knows he is the best. Mr. Silver is an entertaining writer, and does a very nice job with graphics and site design. And since he does this stuff full time, he is quite prolific. Here is the problem I had with his 2008 analyses. He used a complicated (nearly proprietary) analysis that involved using information beyond simple polling data. This ancillary information was included as a pseudo-poll in his analyses. My preference is for a straightforward, data driven analysis that makes the fewest assumptions necessary.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating…so how did we each do in 2008? Here is his last pre-election post and here is mine. We both missed a single state—Indiana. The late polling in Indiana gave McCain a sliver of a lead, and the “big poll” came down in favor of Obama by a 1% margin.

For the electoral college, Mr. Silver projected a 349 to 189 victory for Obama and I projected a 364 to 174 victory for Obama. The actual result was 365 to 173. I was off by one vote.

This one vote discrepancy, in fact, reflected a weakness of my analysis. I ignored the possibility that either Nebraska or Maine might split their electoral votes. Nebraska’s 1st district did split in 2008, giving one of the state’s electors to Obama. If I had included this little detail, my projection would have been spot on. For the 2012 elections, I have already added separate analyses of Nebraska districts, and will do so for Maine when some district-level polling data becomes available.

For more information on the methods used, please visit the draft of the new simulation FAQ. Also if you have recommended changes or have additional questions for the FAQ, please mention them in the comment thread.

Update: The Obama-Romney analyses can be found here. There is now a side-bar blurb, too.

Just under the wire the Redistricting Commission have submitted their final Congressional and legislative maps. Now it goes to the legislature to basically rubber stamp it. So, I’d like to take this moment to add a few thoughts to N in Seattle’s post from the other day.

Congress:
• Even if Adam Smith is safe electorally, a majority minority district may force him to hire a more diverse staff (I have no idea what his staff looks like now) and recommend more non-white people to military academies. Members of Congress take their duty to represent their district very seriously, and do a lot of behind the scenes constituent service things that might have more of an immediate impact.
• While you still have to give the advantage to McMorris Rodgers in any race, her district has probably got a bit more liberal. Since she won every county against Don Barbieri and against Peter Goldmark, she’s probably safe, but the right candidate, a bit of luck, and maybe the right timing, I wouldn’t put it past a Democrat in that seat (but hope springs eternal with me).

Legislature:

• The 32nd and 46th seem to look quite bit different from how they’re currently drawn with the 32nd going pretty far North and the 46th going over Lake Washington and pretty far down. The rest of the Seattle area districts look pretty much the same to me on first glance, although I’m sure having typed that, someone in the comments will point out some glaring change.
• The 15th LD becomes the first majority Hispanic district in the state. At 54.52% of the population (as opposed to the % of voters), I don’t know if that’s enough to organize a majority of voters, but I suspect the Democrats will be aggressive in organizing there.

It’s almost 12:30, so I’m going to bed.