HorsesAss.Org

Both SurveyUSA and Strategic Vision released new polls yesterday showing Gov. Chris Gregoire with a two point lead over Republican challenger Dino Rossi.

SurveyUSA shows Gregoire leading 50-48, well within their margin of error, yet finds Gregoire holding a more comfortable 53-46 lead amongst the 54% of respondents who said they’ve already voted.  Strategic Vision, considered by most observers to be a Republican polling firm, shows Gregoire leading 49-47, but doesn’t provide any crosstabs.

Considering the late stage of this race and the shitstorm of bad press Rossi is receiving this week, I’d guess these two polls just add to the cautious optimism of the Gregoire camp.  It is rather remarkable how nonvolatile this race has proven, given the unprecedented blitzkrieg of negative advertising.

Congratulations to the Seattle Times editorial board for finally surprising me with an endorsement, choosing Republican Marcia McCraw for lieutenant governor over the incumbent pseudo-Democrat Brad Owen.

But, uh-oh…

Republican Marcia McCraw has a complicated personal story that gives us pause, but she represents an opportunity for an infusion of new ideas and energy.

Now that’s a red flag if I ever saw one… reminiscent of when Joni Balter obliquely attributed David Iron’s mother’s refusal to vote for her own son to a “different family matter,” but refused to explain any further.  Yeah, the Times admits, McCraw has “a complicated personal story,” but don’t you voters worry your pretty little heads with grownup stuff like that.  We’ve endorsed McCraw, and that’s all you really need to know.

So what is so complicated about McCraw’s personal story?  Could the complication have anything to do with McCraw’s 2006 drunk driving conviction, a serious crime that’s killed almost as many political careers as it has innocent victims? (Which raises the question:  when McCraw and her boss Jane Hague go out for drinks after work, who’s the designated driver?)

Is it really possible that the same paper that turned a questionable parsing of the word “and” in Darcy Burner’s Harvard degree into a front page October surprise, has the balls to dismiss McCraw’s drunk driving conviction as shhhh… “a complicated personal story,” and just leave it at that?

Apparently… yeah.

Personally, I can’t bring myself to cast another ballot for Owen, but I’m sure as hell not voting for McCraw either.  But then, I’m not one of those coveted “low information voters” the Times apparently embraces as its target audience.

Via Ari Melber.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 363 electoral votes	Mean of 175 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 376 to 162 electoral votes. Obama would have almost certainly won an election held yesterday.

There were 21 new polls from 17 states released today. In addition, with one week to the election, today is the day that the “current poll window” is scheduled to change from 10 days to 7 days. Both polls and the polling window affect today’s results.

Now, after 100,000 simulated elections, Obama wins 100,000 times. Obama receives (on average) 363 to McCain’s 175 electoral votes. Obama still has a 100.0% probability of winning an election held today.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.

Join us at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally for an evening of politics under the influence. Officially, we start at 8:00 pm at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some folks show up early to enjoy the cuisine.

Tonight will be something of a pre-election party. We’ll raise a toast to Alaska’s outgoing Senator—whatever you think of his politics, the man has convictions! Likewise, we’ll raise a toast to Dino Rossi in hopes that he gets himself some convictions.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, McCranium shoud have the scoop on the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Huh.  Looking at these TV news clips of Dino Rossi, I’m kinda noticing a pattern.

More bad news for McCain:

Florida Governor Charlie Crist, to the shock and dismay of Florida Republicans, just moved to extend early voting hours, a move likely to widen the Democrats’ lead under a program on which the Obama campaign has intensely focused.

“He just blew Florida for John McCain,” one plugged in Florida Republican just told me.

That Gov. Crist “blew Florida for John McCain” by making it easier for citizens to cast their votes, tells you everything you need to know about the Republican Party and the electoral strategies on which they’ve long relied.

A couple days after the primary, Dave Reichert pissed off more than a few members of the press by issuing a media advisory promising a “major announcement,” only to produce delusional fringe “Democratic” challenger Jim Vaughn at the podium, offering his enthusiastic endorsement.

Well, since then, Vaughn and his bride Sally Daugherty have been regulars in the comment threads here on HA, leaving increasingly insulting and bizarre commentary, such as this doozy from earlier today:

7. Jim Vaughn spews:

Go Darcy. Go home. Go away. Better yet Go buy a smoke detector and be a responsible parent.

Jim

Classy.

Then, of course, there’s this piece of cogent analysis from a couple days ago:

Goldy your actions do not help the Democratic Party. The difference between you and pigs and hockey moms is not lip stick. Reason being you have your head so far up your ass that the only thing on your lips and coming out of your mouth is a bunch of SHIT.

Vaughn claims to be a Democrat, but what he really is, is a sore loser and an asshole, and I’m guessing, more than a touch crazy.  But since Reichert called a press conference to announce Vaughn’s endorsement, I can only assume that Vaughn speaks for the Reichert campaign.

I suppose that’s bipartisanship, Dave Reichert style.

Dear McPalin and others pushing this absurd nonsense: please define your terms. Here’s a dictionary definition of socialism: (you can go here and look it up at Merriam-Webster yourself if you want.)

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Yeah, we have to resort to publishing the dictionary definition because nobody even knows what kind of socialism we’re all supposedly pushing by hoping for a small adjustment in marginal income tax rates.

Might be a fun thing for people who get paid to write news articles to examine, since the “s” word is being thrown about on the cable tee-vee every five minutes or so.

Are Democrats in favor of the kind of “socialism” that provides very safe luxury automobiles, really fun kids toys and furniture you can put together with a hex wrench, or the kind of socialism where the urban populations are all forcibly removed to the countryside to work on the farms while Culture is Revolutionized?

‘Cause, you know, there’s a difference. If anyone actually cares.

I thought hating on France was idiotic, but hating on Sweden takes things to a whole new level. I’m pretty sure that any day now the McPalin supporters will demand the name of a popular Swedish food item be changed to “Freedom Balls.”

The stupid, it really does burn. Define your terms, McPalin, if you can.

Over at Effin’ Unsound, Lee applies a little logic to some of the illogical arguments being thrown against the I-1000 Death With Dignity initiative:

Think about what happened on 9/11 for a second. If you remember, there were people trapped on the highest floors of the second World Trade Center building who instead of perishing in the inferno behind them, decided to jump to their deaths. Should their death certificates say that they committed suicide?

It’s a great analogy I hadn’t heard before.  The Catholic Church, the main backer of the No campaign, considers suicide to be a mortal sin.  So… did the 9/11 WTC jumpers commit suicide?  Or were they murdered by terrorists?

And if choosing one certain death over another is not suicide in that situation, how is it suicide for the terminally ill?

Underestimate us at your peril…

Here’s what too many people still don’t understand — there’s nothing loony about the netroots. This isn’t fertile territory for the McKinneys and Kuciniches of our party. This is fertile territory for the Howard Deans of our party — sensible, pragmatic progressives who aren’t afraid to be Democrats. Why? Because we’re the nation. We’re not clustered in DC and NYC, we’re spread out over all 50 states, and we know better than anyone what it takes to win in our own backyards.

We didn’t rally around Webb, Tester, Schweitzer, Trauner, Brown, Massa, Burner and so many other moderate Democrats because they were little Kucinich clones, but because they were perfectly suited for the states and districts they seek to represent. It’s that simple. Howard Dean wasn’t an anomaly. He was our ideal.

Of course, there are fringe elements to every movement, but there is nothing loony about the netroots, which is merely a revitalized, grassroots progressive movement, distinguished by its highly effective use of new technologies to achieve greater efficiencies in organizing, messaging and fundraising.  And while our style and tactics may sometimes come across as unconventional, our political agenda is not.

No, what our critics miss is that the netroots are above all an exercise in political pragmatism, as embodied in our unofficial rally cry:  “More and better Democrats.”  Our emphasis on more Democrats is a simple recognition of reality:  a two party system in which the electoral success of the Democratic Party currently provides the clearest path toward a more progressive political agenda.  And our emphasis on better Democrats is a recognition that in terms of ideology, competence and ethics, our party is far from perfect.

But our motto also represents a pragmatic compromise… an effort to strike a balance between the need to improve the Democratic majority, and the need to expand it.  And that compromise is reflected in the candidates we embrace, on a district by district basis.

How well we’ve managed to strike this balance, we’ll learn in another week.

Speaking of partisan hacks, it looks like the stock market isn’t the only thing slumping these days…

All Washington’s major daily newspapers saw drops in circulation during the six months ended Sept. 30, according to figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, in Schaumburg, Ill.

The Seattle P-I’s average weekday circulation fell to 117,572, down 7.8 percent. The Seattle Times’ average weekday circulation fell to 198,741, down 7.7 percent. Sales of the Sunday paper, which contains editorial content from both newspapers, fell to 382,332, down 9 percent.

It is interesting to note that while circulation is falling at somewhat the same rate at both the Times and the P-I, the Times lost about 16,600 subscribers over the past six months compared to only about 10,000 for the P-I.

Of course, both of our dailies regularly draw over two million uniques to their respective websites each month, or about 75,000 a day.  By comparison, HA has recently been averaging about 100,000 uniques a month.

From Roll Call’s article about the WA-08 race between Democratic challenger Darcy Burner and Republican incumbent Dave Reichert, R-Wash.:

Burner said Reichert’s advertising firm, Media Plus, has made what she alleges amounts to an illegal loan of as much as $1 million to buy airtime in this last week before Election Day.

“From my perspective, when they are breaking the law and then use that money to go up on television to say that I don’t have a degree that I did in fact earn, do I think it’s getting nasty? Absolutely. But not on our side,” Burner said. “They will do anything to hold onto this seat, and they don’t care about the law or the truth.”

There’s still (barely) time to throw in one last bit of turkee to help Burner counter this ridiculous and deceptive bit of Seattle Times/RNC/Reichert bullshit. Democrats are hopeful of having a big night in one week, and Republicans are desperate to hang on to WA-08 as their potential losses pile up. Darcy has done as much as anyone to challenge the Bush status quo and having her break their back by defeating Reichert would be incredibly sweet.

I know everyone is probably pretty tapped out, but if you can, go visit Darcy. As we’ve seen, every small contribution adds up, and I’m guessing last minute media purchases are vital as this race goes down to the wire. Don’t mean to be theatrical, but if you’re going to donate one last time to Burner, do it this instant.

So let me get this straight… when Dave Reichert and the WSRP shop around the bullshit notion that Darcy Burner is lying when she sometimes describes her Harvard degree in computer science and economics as a “degree in economics,” the fair, balanced and impartial editors at the Seattle Times decide that’s worthy of a front page story.  But when a judge determines that the evidence implicating Rossi in the Buildergate scandal—a fundraising scam the PDC has already determined to be illegal—is sufficient to compel Rossi to testify under oath just days before the election… they bury that story in the B section?

And they have the nerve to call me a partisan hack?

Whether that proves harmful or helpful to Rossi remains to be seen, said Matt Barreto, a University of Washington political-science professor. “It could be a game-changer. But it’s not necessarily a nail in the coffin for Rossi. It depends on how he responds, what comes out and what the media coverage is,” Barreto said.

I don’t doubt that most reporters attempt to be objective, but if you believe in these final days of the election that the Times isn’t writing its headlines, placing its stories, and otherwise shaping its coverage so as to favor the candidates it prefers, well then, I’ve got an 8-lane 520 bridge to sell you.

Obama	McCain
100.0% probability of winning	0.0% probability of winning
Mean of 376 electoral votes	Mean of 162 electoral votes

Yesterday’s analysis showed Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. John McCain by 376 to 162 electoral votes, on average.

Today we got 35 new polls covering 19 states. The net result of all these new polls is…not much. Obama holds firmly to his lead today.

A Monte Carlo analysis utilizing 100,000 simulated elections shows Obama winning each and every mock election. Obama receives (on average) 376 to McCain’s 162 electoral votes. The analysis suggests that Obama would have a 100.0% probability of winning an election held today.

Detailed results for this analysis are available at Hominid Views.

Methods are described in the FAQ. The most recent version of this analysis can be found on this page.