HorsesAss.Org

Another poll has been released in the race between real-estate salesman and two-time gubernatorial race loser Dino Rossi (R) and Sen. Patty Murray (D). The Survey USA poll has Murray leading Rossi 50% to 48%. The survey included 609 likely voters.

As has been noted for their previous polls, something is “off” with Survey USA for this race. N in Seattle (among others) noted their “Metro Seattle” crosstabs were abnormal in the previous poll. Goldy thinks they’re still not quite realistic.

As usual, I’m interested in what the poll has to say about who would win in an election held now. Following a million simulated elections of 609 individuals voting at the proportions observed, Murray wins 635,301 elections and Rossi wins 353,991 times. In other words, this poll provides evidence that Murray would have a 64.2% probability of beating Rossi right now. Here is the distribution of outcomes:

With this new poll today, we have had a total of four polls taken in September:

	Start	End	Samp		%	%	%
Poll	date	date	size	MOE	Dem	Rep	Diff
SurveyUSA	19-Sep	21-Sep	609	4.1	50.0	48.0	D+2.0
Rasmussen	14-Sep	14-Sep	750	4.0	51.0	46.0	D+5.0
CNN/Time/OR	10-Sep	14-Sep	906	3.0	53.0	44.0	D+9.0
Elway	09-Sep	12-Sep	500	4.5	50.0	41.0	D+9.0

Murray has led in all four of these polls. In fact, she has earned at least 50% in each of the last four polls.

If we pool the respondents from all four September polls, we get a sample of 2,765 voters of which 2,658 went for either Murray or Rossi. Murray leads in the pooled sample 51.2% to 44.9%. Another Monte Carlo analysis gives Murray 991,344 wins to Rossi’s 8,375 wins. The evidence of these four polls indicate that Murray would have a 99.2% chance of beating Rossi in an election held this month.

Finally, here is the complete polling history for this race:

At this point, we can no longer debate whether or not Murray is vulnerable—there just isn’t much evidence for that. Perhaps the debate should turn to whether or not she will defeat Rossi by a single-digit or double-digit margin. Discuss.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOHdN8sdnwc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Now that’s a shit-kicker of a political ad.

Oh yeah, I did another post on Slog today: “Dino Rossi: Careless or Carefree?”

There’s been a lot of talk in recent weeks about some of Dino Rossi’s more boneheaded flubs. … Some have chalked off Rossi’s curious statements to strategy, others to a doctrinaire conservative ideology. But I have an alternate theory that I find at least as plausible: perhaps Dino Rossi just doesn’t care?

As always, read the whole thing.

The KING-5/SurveyUSA poll continues to be the most Dino Rossi-friendly poll in Washington state, but even the latest one reports a nine point swing in Sen. Patty Murray’s favor, giving her a 50-48% lead.

That said, I’m still not so sure about those cross-tabs. This new poll still only shows Murray with 52% of the “Metro Seattle” vote, up from a totally unbelievable 48% one month ago. By comparison, the final SurveyUSA poll of the 2004 season showed Murray with 58% of the Metro Seattle vote, while she ultimately went on to win over 65% of the King County vote on election day.

I’m not sure exactly how SurveyUSA defines “Metro Seattle,” but it’s sure as hell hard to imagine Murray winning only 52% of it.

Just got back from doing an interview with FOX News on I-1098. Yeah, I know, that makes me a media whore. But I heard they were interviewing 710-KIRO sports talker Dori Monson too, and I just wanted to bring him down to my level.

Anyway, I don’t have cable, and wouldn’t watch FOX News if I did, so on the odd chance any of my readers are watching Monday when the segment airs, I’d appreciate hearing back as to which clip they used.

According to our critics, bloggers like me aren’t really very good journalists. We’re partisan, we’re selective, and we don’t do our own reporting. Get your news from real journalists, like those at the Seattle Times, and you’ll come away much better informed.

Or will you?

Take this morning’s article on a plumbing screwup at Washington State Ferries headquarters, a story that’s making the top of the hour news on radio stations across the region: “Water fountains fed by heating, cooling systems found in ferries headquarters.”

Oh man… figures, doesn’t it? And you can see that instant, angry, government/union-bashing reaction in the comment thread on the Times website:

“This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, were talking Washington State Ferry System they have trouble keeping their ferries running.”

“Probably hooked up by the state Ferry engineers.”

“Wonderful that the State requires union workers paid union wages on contracts and this is what we get. But I’m sure the union will step right in and protect the lazy plumber who did this by saying they need ‘more training’.”

Only problem is, while none of the facts in the article appear to be obviously wrong (because apart from the addition of an administrator’s quote, all of the facts seem to have been pulled from a WSDOT press release), the Times article gave its government-hating readers exactly the wrong impression.

This wasn’t a screwup on the part of lazy/incompetent public employees, but rather the private sector.

For what the Times leaves out is that the building is owned and operated by Seattle uber-landlord Martin Selig, and that the water fountains were installed two-years before the Ferries moved into the building, not by union plumbers, but by a small, mom & pop, Kirkland-based contractor.

The Ferries and their workers were victims here, not the perpetrators. But you wouldn’t guess that from the Times’ factual reporting.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayCmNlo80a4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6saBwHM6VM[/youtube]

While most of the rest of the media, local and national, have so far been unwilling to mess with the accepted narrative, the folks at Talking Points Memo at least are acknowledging what’s been obvious on the ground for quite some time: Sen. Patty Murray just ain’t all that vulnerable.

While the political earth shifts around her, Sen. Patty Murray appears to have grounded herself in Washington state. While the national press largely passes her race by, Murray — who at the start of the summer was, according to conventional wisdom, a Vulnerable Democrat — appears to have built the momentum she needs to comfortably compete for a third term.

[…] If Murray was the Vulnerable Democrat in the original Washington state narrative, Rossi was (in the view of most Republican establishment figures) the ideal Formidable Opponent to defeat her. But as election season has proceeded, that storyline has proven to be more and more far-fetched. Murray, quite simply, is winning while Rossi is losing. And it’s been that way for awhile.

TPM goes on to graph the polling averages, emphasizing that the polls have been trending in Murray’s favor for quite some time. And while it’s still close, yeah, filter out that clearly bogus SurveyUSA outlier, and not quite so much.

So what’s to blame for Rossi’s lackluster performance at the polls? Well, one factor might be his lackluster performance on the campaign trail. Indeed, to say that his campaign is in disarray would imply a level of energy and passion, even negative, that Rossi has never been able to muster this cycle.

To paraphrase Clint Didier (the quote escapes me at the moment) before voters get excited about Rossi, Rossi is going to have to get excited about Rossi. And so far, we just haven’t seen that happen.

The 31st officially became the stupidest, most pathetic and most completely dysfunctional legislative district in Washington state yesterday, as three “prominent” Democrats (you know, about as prominent as a Democrat can be in cousin-marryin’ country) issued a press release announcing their endorsement of too-crazy-even-for-the-Republican-caucus state Sen. Pam Roach. Really.

So what prompted Yvonne Ward, Karen Willard and state Rep. Chris Hurst to make such a “painful and necessary” decision? Well, Sen. Roach may in fact be a gun-toting, mouth-foaming, flower-avenging wingnut, but unlike her general election challenger, fellow Republican Matt Richardson, at least she doesn’t, um, “sexually assault” young girls.

You know… allegedly. The Tacoma News Tribune felt too “uncomfortable” to repeat the Democrats’ charges, but lacking an attorney on retainer to advise me otherwise, I have no qualms about reporting the public statement of an elected official:

After carefully reviewing the extensive documentation relating to the criminal behavior of Matt Richardson extending back many years, we conclude that if he were elected to the Washington State Senate, the safety of children would be at risk.  Matt Richardson was charged with sexually assaulting two young girls over multiple years.  He pled guilty to the charges.  He then engaged in a pattern of seeking positions in schools with young children while hiding his history.

According to a criminal Affidavit of Probable Cause, Matt Richardson engaged in a persistent, ongoing sexual assault of two young girls.  After this incident, he engaged in inappropriate behavior in public school classrooms.  That pattern should stop at the steps of our Capitol.

Um… ya think? Finally, an issue on which Rep. Hurst and I can wholeheartedly agree.

Democratic State Representative Christopher Hurst, when faced with the prospect of a child molester in the State Capitol stated:  “Spirited political debate is a healthy process in our system of self-government.  However, there are times when a moral imperative becomes so great that it is necessary to set aside partisan differences in the interest of public safety.  This is one of those times.”

It certainly is. Though it’s a kinda ironic sentiment coming from a self-proclaimed “Independent Democrat” who tends to side more with Republican legislators than with his own caucus. Still, I think we can all join Rep. Hurst in his bold stance against electing child molesters to the Legislature.

As for Ward, who has long opposed Sen. Roach, and whose campaign for Roach’s seat I aggressively plugged here on HA in 2006, well, it’s hard to argue with her logic:

“I disagree with her on so many policy issues. But given the choice between a conservative Republican, and a conservative Republican with a history of sexual assaults against children, Pam Roach gets my vote.”

Hmm. Perhaps that should be Roach’s new campaign slogan. I can see the yard signs now.

Via email, Ward added that “painful” is too much of an understatement to describe her decision to endorse Roach; “torturous” would be more apt.

“Roach is like a cat with nine lives. Just when the stars seem to align so she can be ousted, her opponent turns out to be a child molester. Amazing.”

Yeah, I guess. But Richardson’s sexual assault conviction and classroom firing were public records, both of which have been previously reported in the press (so I’m not sure what’s provoked the TNT’s sudden disquietude), thus the bigger question here is… could the 31st LD Dems be any more incompetent?

I mean, when the Republicans put up a child molester and Pam Fucking Roach for chrisakes, the Dems might want to look at this as an opportunity to lock themselves in a room until they can agree to unite around a single Democrat, instead of suicidally splitting themselves between Ron Weigelt and Raymond Bunk the way they did. And then, once you settle on a Democratic challenger, you do a little goddamn opposition research and get this treasure trove of Richardson related muck to nasty-ass partisan bloggers like me weeks before the August top-two primary, instead of emailing me a press release weeks after.

Sen. Roach may be a shooting rampage waiting to happen, but at least she knows how to win a fucking election by cutting her opponents legs off at the knees and then sucking the marrow from his bloody stumps. Um, metaphorically.

And that’s a lesson the 31st LD Dems might want to learn if they ever want to send another Democrat to Olympia.

It’s Tuesday, which means it’s time for an evening of some politics under the influence. Please join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. beginning at about 8:00 pm. Stop by early for dinner.

Not in Seattle? There is a good chance you live near one of the 247 other chapters of Drinking Liberally.

There are different kinds of laws.

There are the laws of nature. There are the laws of man. And some would argue that there are the laws of God.

But here in Washington state, we also have the laws of Rob McKenna.

HA regulars are well familiar with our Attorney General’s efforts to redefine both the scope and obligations of his office, so it should come as no surprise to see McKenna’s imaginative approach to the law applied to more mundane issues, for example, our state’s formula for calculating increases in the minimum wage:

The state Department of Labor and Industries asked Attorney General Rob McKenna if the state would be able to increase the minimum wage if inflation increases, but not above the level the current rate is based upon. In an opinion issued Wednesday, McKenna said no.

See, in accordance with 1998’s Initiative 688, Washington state’s minimum wage is increased annually by the rate of inflation, specifically the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Last year the CPI-W actually decreased, so the minimum wage remained flat. This year the CPI-W is expected to increase slightly, but not by the amount it decreased the previous year. So McKenna says no minimum wage increase.

But what does the law actually say?

(b) On September 30, 2000, and on each following September 30th, the department of labor and industries shall calculate an adjusted minimum wage rate to maintain employee purchasing power by increasing the current year’s minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation. The adjusted minimum wage rate shall be calculated to the nearest cent using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index, for the twelve months prior to each September 1st as calculated by the United States department of labor. Each adjusted minimum wage rate calculated under this subsection (4)(b) takes effect on the following January 1st.

I’m no lawyer, but the language seems plain… so plain that it actually describes a mathematical formula that a software programmer might express as something like this:

if (CPIW > 0)
then mWage := mWage + (mWage * CPIW);

The if statement is necessary because the statute specifically uses the word “increasing” not “adjusting” or something like that. I suppose one might theoretically argue that the plain language of the statute permits increasing the minimum wage by a negative amount, but that’s not McKenna’s argument; if it were, then the minimum wage should have decreased from 2009 to 2010. It didn’t.

No, in his opinion, McKenna argues that the tension between the words “maintain” and “increasing” makes the statute’s language ambiguous, going to great lengths to confuse the matter by engaging in a bunch of mathematical gobbledygook, culminating in his adoption of an entirely extra-statutory “index-ratcheted calculation.”  McKenna also asserts that the statute does not define an actual formula for adjusting the minimum wage, when in fact the use of the word “by” in constructing the sentence clearly denotes a course of action: “by increasing the current year’s minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation.”

Q: How shall L&I “calculate an adjusted minimum wage rate to maintain employee purchasing power”…?
A: “by increasing the current year’s minimum wage rate by the rate of inflation,” that’s how.

That’s what the word “by” in this context means; the clause following it describes the method for achieving the intent stated in the clause that precedes it.

mWage := mWage + (mWage * CPIW);

Perhaps there is indeed a tension between the stated method and the stated intent, but the method is perfectly clear, despite McKenna’s elaborate effort to distract the reader with formulas and graphs… so clear that Oregon, which modeled its statute after ours, has already announced that its minimum wage will rise. One could even make a perfectly reasonable argument that the statute should behave as McKenna claims it does… but if so… well… that’s the sorta stuff that happens when we legislate via citizens initiative, and if the Legislature agrees that the statute needs to be fixed, they are always free to do so.

But Attorney General Rob McKenna should not be free to reinterpret the law by fiat.

It’s kinda an experiment, but between now and the election, I’ll be posting a few times a week on The Stranger’s Slog, in exchange for a larger audience and a little beer money. (I like beer.) And the first such post — “Pend Oreille v. Seattle and the Triumph of Socialism” — just went live:

This whole Boundary Dam controversy drives home for me a couple of lessons, not the least of which being the immense public benefit of public investment. Most Seattle residents and businesses have no idea how lucky we are to purchase our power from a city-owned utility whose primary obligation is to the rate payers, not the shareholders. Call it “socialism” if you like (and technically, it is socialism), but Seattle City Light has always proven a tremendous boon to our local economy.

Pend Oreille County rate payers also benefit from such socialism, both from the impact fees and wholesale power provided by the Boundary Dam hydroelectric project, and from the power generated by the Pend Oreille PUD’s own Box Canyon Dam, just up river.

But the bigger lesson is that today’s enormous political divide between rural and urban Americans as to the proper size and scope of government is largely based on a fundamental misconception about who is subsidizing whom. For without state and federal investments and subsidies in rural electrification, irrigation, transportation, communication, education and nearly every other “-ation,” much of rural America would have remained the same economic backwater it was prior to the admittedly massive expansion of government during President Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the next half-century of Democratic and Republican administrations that followed.

Anyway, I encourage you to read the whole thing, and comment here, there, or in both threads.

As for HA, don’t expect much of an impact from this diversion of energies. I’ll always link to my posts on Slog, so you won’t miss anything, and I always planned to post with more frequency as the election approaches, so there shouldn’t be a dearth of content here.

Courtesy of R.R. Anderson

Meet Dino Rossi’s newest campaign consultant:  John Carlson.

From: Dino Rossi
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:08 PM
To: Carlson, John
Subject: In case your staff didn’t pass it on to you.

John,

We are going after Patty every day and it has resulted in many articles on Iraq, Lobbyists  ……

We have a media plan in place that’s working.  We are ahead in poll after poll.  She spent millions in the primary and 54% told her she shouldn’t get 6 more years to raise our taxes…..  We spent $150,000 on air in the primary.  Most people are not going to pay attention until after labor day anyway.

Why don’t you call me if you have questions.  We are giving you plenty to talk about with the press releases below but it looks like you are not getting them.

Thanks for your help.

Dino

[Press Release links appended]

From: “Carlson, John”
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 18:47:17 -0700
To: Dino Rossi
Subject: RE: In case your staff didn’t pass it on to you.

Hi Dino,

Some context.

Yesterday I had intended to talk about your campaign for the first 20 minutes of the show.  I mentioned how well the Scott Brown event went, then played the Murray “Dino DC fundraiser” ad and pointed out that she was trying to make you look like the DC establishment while she was battling the insiders to fight for our families.  I said your campaign should aggressively respond to this BS, not least because she has had dozens of DC fundraisers over the years and was taking four times more PAC money than you.

Kaboom.

The lines absolutely caught fire.  Emails had been trickling in since before the primary from people saying that you lacked “fire in the belly” or “passion”, but I wrote them off as Didier supporters.   But yesterday the response that poured in wasn’t coming primarily from Didiots.  They are Rossi supporters who watched the Ds mislead voters by sliming you in 2008 and were going right back to that playbook.   They don’t want it to happen again.  And neither do I.

What started as an extended commentary from me became two hours of listener “venting”, a number of emails, all of which said essentially the same thing, and more calls today.   Not one of them was trying to get you to talk up abortion or any other social issue, but all wanted your campaign to take a tougher line on Murray.   Their thinking is that if the Ds can get away with tossing mud today, they’ll throw more next week, and more the week after that.   But if the tactic backfires, then maybe they’ll think twice.

FOR EXAMPLE:  How about an ad stating that Patty’s deliberate misstatements reveal how “desperate she’s become to stay in Washington, DC.”?  Voters across the board don’t like politicians who want to stay in Washington, DC.   Tie all of her attacks on you to that motive.  Not just to be in the senate, but to be “in DC” where she continues to drift out of touch.

Anyway, that’s the background on what touched all of this off.  I called you yesterday to tell you, but it went straight to voice mail.

I realize there is a difference between the KVI audience and the state at large (as I tell people, KVI is the primary, KOMO is the general).   But please realize that what your campaign heard these past couple days was coming from people who dearly want to see you win.  And with the exception of Terri, no one wants you to win more than me.  Well, OK, maybe the kids…….

JC

First of all, let me just state for the record that I genuinely like and respect John Carlson. He’s always been incredibly gracious and helpful to me, and I tremendously enjoy our conversations both on and off the air. But… if I were Rossi, I’m not sure I’d be taking campaign advice from a guy who garnered only 39 percent of the vote against Gary Locke, for chrisakes, let alone from the crowd wisdom of the callers at KVI.

And yet, just a couple weeks after Carlson suggests “an ad stating that Patty’s deliberate misstatements reveal how ‘desperate she’s become to stay in Washington, DC.’,” that’s pretty much the ad Rossi runs:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_1TDR_Cddc[/youtube]

As much as I generally like it when candidates talk for themselves, Rossi’s eye-on-the-interviewer/shit-eating-smirk demeanor does little to persuade voters that he’s got that “fire in the belly.” Furthermore, while a challenger’s goal is generally to make the election a referendum on the incumbent, Rossi’s first-person kvetching just comes off as narcissistic and defensive — you know, it’s all kinda about him. Which I suppose might even be okay, if so many voters didn’t already dislike him.

And while I know this is an extraordinarily negative year, in which challengers and incumbents alike must go extraordinarily negative in order to survive, Rossi still needs to persuade and collect about 80 percent of the undecided vote, and these are the folks who don’t trust either party. So at some point, Rossi’s gonna have to actually come out for something, other than, you know, just repealing Wall Street reform and rolling back reproductive rights.

TANGENTIAL ASIDE:
One other concern, Dino: you might want to look into who the hell on your staff was so indiscrete as to let this private correspondence ultimately fall into my hands, as I can assure you it didn’t come from Mr. 39 Percent.

And John, when Dino confidently assures you on Sept. 2 that he’s “ahead in poll after poll,” you might want to ask him for a look at his internals. I’m just sayin’.

UPDATE:
In the comment thread, John Carlson defends/explains his use of the term “Didiots”…

25. John Carlson spews:

“Didiots” does not refer to Clint’s voters, gang. It refers to the few of his supporters who refused to support Rossi after he won the primary because he’s not “pure” enough. Think of them the way liberals thought of Ralph Nader after the presidential race of 2000.

09/21/2010 AT 5:26 AM

Of course, for the moment, by that definition, the “Didiots” still include Clint Didier himself.  Still, I can empathize. In fact, that’s exactly my take on the better-than-thou Naderites who arguably cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

So in the spirit of conservative talk radio and all it stands for, I suppose it would be wrong of us to hyperbolize or decontextualize John’s statement for mere rhetorical effect or political gain.