Search Results for: ’

I’m shocked but not surprised. From The Hill:

The Secret Service may investigate a fax sent to a Democratic lawmaker that depicts President Barack Obama as the Joker and warns of “death to all Marxists.”

The black-and-white fax portrays Obama in makeup similar to that worn by actor Heath Ledger in his portrayal of the Joker in last summer’s “The Dark Knight.”

On Obama’s forehead is a communist hammer-and-sickle insignia, and beneath the image is the text: “Death to All Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!”

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) received the fax and passed it along to U.S. Capitol Police.

I’m sure the state’s editorial boards will renew their calls for civility on the left.

One little fact that is consistently being overlooked, even by some traditional media reporters, is that Baird had never scheduled any in-person town halls in August to begin with. A right-wing Portland radio host and a Republican blogger from Clark County started demanding that he do so, for obvious partisan effect. And if there’s one thing we know about Baird, it’s that you don’t get anywhere by pushing him.

I listened to his telephone town hall, and he took calls from quite a few Republicans, including some party chairs and the very same right-wing blogger who has teamed up with the Portland radio host. Much to my surprise, the format actually seemed to work pretty well.

Updated twice

The 6th batch of R-71 data was delivered this morning. The SoS office is pooling numbers from the morning and evening counts, but I’ll treat them separately just so that we can look for big swings in the “semi-batches”. Also, the SoS totals don’t seem to match the daily totals today, but what’s a signature-validation watcher to do? I’ll use the daily counts.

The total signatures examined is now 29,937 (about 21.7% of the total). There have been 3,968 invalid signatures found, for an cumulative rejection rate of 13.25%. The invalid signatures include 3,506 that are not found in the voting rolls, 113 duplicates, and 349 that did not match the signature on file. There are also 89 signatures at various states of processing for a missing signature card (by now, some may be good and some rejected–I’ll treat them all as good until I learn otherwise).

The 113 duplicates suggest a duplication rate of about 1.74% in the total petition. Using the V₂* estimator, the number of valid signatures is expected to be 117,049 leaving a shortfall of 3,528 signatures from the 120,577 needed to qualify for the ballot. The overall rejection rate should be about 14.99%.

Here is a snapshot of the trends:

Still no unexpected deviations as the counting continues. R-71 continues on track for failure.

Updated

Dave Ammons has posted some new information about the signature validation process and the numbers that have been posted by the SoS.

Elections Division has decided that a more accurate cumulative error or rejection rate (currently 11.63 percent) should reflect the sizable number of signatures that have been going from the rejected pile to the accepted stack after a master checker reviews the checker’s decision to reject. That is 409 so far. As previously discussed, also nearly 100 signatures that have been set aside because there was no voter signature on file will be shifted over to the “accepted” stack once the counties send the person’s electronic signature.

In other words, the SoS office wasn’t giving us the number of invalid signatures. What they were giving as “invalid signatures”, were only invalid in a first-stage of checking. A second-stage check has resulted in some signatures being considered valid again. All I can say is unbefuckinglievable!

I’ve already been treating the “missing signature” counts as valid signatures. But without knowing the ACTUAL number of invalid signatures by category, it is difficult to project whether I-71 will make the ballot.

Update 2:

I’ve run three scenarios based on incomplete numbers posted at the SoS site.

We know there were 409 signatures that failed at the first checking phase that were subsequently accepted in phase 2. We don’t know which of the bad batches they came from (signatures not found on voter rolls, duplicate signatures, or signature mismatches) .

If I had to guess, I think the majority came from the signature mismatch pile. But there were only 349 signature mismatches, so we have 60 that were either considered duplicates or not found on the voter rolls. Subsequently, they were considered not duplicates or found on the voter rolls. Both seem equally likely (or unlikely) to me, but I don’t really know what the “Master Checker” does.

So here is what I did. First, I assumed 349 of the 409 came from the signature mismatches. The remaining 60 I dealt with in three ways:

1. Assume there are 60 fewer duplicates.
2. Assume 60 signatures were subsequently found in the voter rolls
3. Assume a 30/30 split between duplicates and “found”

Remember, 120,577 signatures are needed to qualify. Here is what happens using the V₂* estimator:

1. The measure makes the ballot with 120,519 120,591 signatures. The estimated duplicate rate for the entire petition is 0.78%, and the overall rejection rate is 12.42%.
2. The measure fails to make the ballot with 119,375 signatures. The estimated total duplicate rate is 1.66% and the total rejection rate is 13.30%.
3. The measure fails to make the ballot with 119,983 signatures. The estimated total duplicate rate is 1.22% and the total rejection rate is 12.86%.

Obviously, the biggest determinant of R-71’s fate is the number of duplicate signatures in the phase one check that are subsequently accepted in phase two. With any luck the actual number of signatures rejected in each category will be released.

The full numbers from Wednesday’s counts were released this morning by the Secretary of State’s (SoS) office. They’ve driven another nail in the coffin of R-71.

A total of 23,457 signatures have been checks, which is 17% of the total. Overall 3,054 invalid signatures have been found and eliminated, including 68 duplicates, 2,764 individuals not on the voting rolls, 221 signature mismatches, and 69 signatures for which the corresponding signature is missing.

The cumulative error rate is 13.3%, if the signatures with missing signature cards (hereafter “missing”) are thrown out, or 13.0% if the missing signatures are fully counted. As Goldy has explained, the cumulative error rate for the sample is misleadingly low. This is because duplicates are exponentially underrepresented as the sample size goes down.

Given the number of duplicates found in this sample, the best estimate is that is about 1.7% of signatures are duplicates on the petition. That gives an estimated total rejection rate of 14.7% (treating all “missing” signatures as valid). A rejection rate over 12.4% keeps R-71 off the ballot.

Rather than focus on percentages, we can use the number of good and bad signatures to estimate the expected number of valid signatures. This figure shows the daily estimated number of valid signatures on the petition (red line) and the number of signatures required (blue line) for the measure to make the ballot:

These estimates are conservative because I am assuming all “missing” signatures will be treated as valid. (I’ve changed my methods a bit since yesterday—a journey through the methodological details begins below the fold).

The important things to notice here are:

• The estimates are stable rather than bouncing around from day to day. This means that there is little evidence for non-sampling error. Such errors can arise if batches of petitions showed widely different error rates (more generally, from non-independence among signatures on petitions and in batches of petitions).
• The 95% confidence intervals are now so small that sampling error is no longer relevant. If God plays dice, she clearly doesn’t want R-71 on the ballot.

The trends, so far, indicate that, short of a miracle, this measure will not qualify for the ballot.

At this point, I am going to totally geek-out and discuss methodological stuff. If you’re interested, venture below the fold.

[Read more…]

Another half a notch in my belt today as the Seattle Times endorsed Jordan Royer and Robert Rosencrantz for Seattle City Council Position 8. I had predicted Royer, and if they went for a dual endorsement “here’s the reach… Forch.”

So far I’ve been dead on for all my flat out predictions, but missed the mark on the two on which I issued caveats, the admitted reach on Forch, and an ill-advised second-guessing in the City Attorney race. They always like to throw in one predictable surprise, and these two races seemed like the most likely suspects, but alas, I picked the wrong one.

Coming up soon, my last remaining prediction, the Times’ presumed “No” endorsement on the Bag Fee measure.

From an article at The Hill about former GOP administration staffers running for Congress comes this little tidbit from David Castillo, a Republican candidate intending to take on Democratic Rep. Brian Baird, WA-03.

“I’m going to try to cajole [Bush and Cheney] to come out and do an event for me,” said David Castillo, a former deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Veterans Affairs who also worked in the Homeland Security and Labor departments. “As we progress, I’m hoping to utilize my Bush-Cheney relationships to the fullest extent I can.”

That would be bad news, at least in terms of fundraising, for the other announced Republican candidate. But I really don’t know the landscape on the GOP side, maybe Bush and Cheney would help both of them, that would be cool. Lots of photos.

Last week I stuck my neck out and predicted the Times endorsements in the Seattle City Council races:

Conlin, Bagshaw, Licata and Royer in the City Council races… If they do dual endorsements in Council Districts 4, 6 and 8, throw in Bloom, Israel, and here’s the reach… Forch.

Well, today the Seattle Times endorsed Bagshaw for Position 4, and Licata and Israel for Position 6, proving me right on the money. I’m a psychic.

The headline on the Seattle Times front page asks “137,689 names later, gay community asks: How did they do it?” in regards to Referendum 71, while over on Slog, Dominic Holden looks at the apparently low invalidation rate on the first batch of signatures and declares “This (Probably) Means War!“…

In case you haven’t heard, a preliminary check of signatures for anti-gay Referendum 71 shows the measure may qualify for the ballot. Some quick math: Elections officials scanned 5,646 petition signatures and found that 4,991 were valid as of last Friday, says secretary of state’s office spokesman David Ammons. That’s a 11.34 inaccuracy rate (which is unusually low compared to a standard inaccuracy rate for Washington petitions of only about 18 percent). Referendum backer Protect Marriage Washington submitted 137,689 total signatures, which would give them a 14 percent cushion. But they’re beating that cushion by nearly three points. If they keep it up through the rest of the signature count, the religious bigots will succeed at putting domestic partner rights of gay couples up to a public vote in November.

Geez… doesn’t anybody read HA on the weekends?

First of all, even if the invalidation rate was as low as 11.34%, they are still not “beating that cushion by nearly three points,” for the media (aided by a lack of clarity on the part of the SOS) is comparing the invalidation rate to the wrong number. R-71’s sponsors submitted 137,689 signatures, 17,112 (or 14.20%) more than the 120,577 minimum required. But since the invalidation rate is calculated against the signatures submitted and counted, so to must the so-called cushion, coming to a 12.43% (17,112/137,689) threshold for invalid signatures beyond which the measure fails to qualify for the ballot.

So based on the raw data from the first batch of signatures processed, R-71 is squeaking by, but by little more than a point.

But, as I explained on Saturday, the reported 11.34% invalidation rate on the first batch of 5,646 signatures is deceptively low because such a small sample cannot reflect the true percentage of duplicate pairs within the total universe of 137,689 submitted signatures. The reason, if you think about it, is obvious, but rather than trying to explain this again myself, I’ll just let the Secretary of State’s Office do so in its own words, from a 2006 FAQ regarding the rejection of I-917:

Duplicates play an important role in the state’s formula that determines the rejection rate on a random check.

In the normal course of events, finding duplicates in a random sample bears directly upon the size of the sample being done.

For example, a random check of 100 names out of 266,006 would not be expected to find any duplicates, but a random check of 200,000 names would be expected to find duplicates. Thus, the size of the pool increases exponentially the likelihood of duplicates.

Finding duplicates in a small 4% sample suggests that the number of duplicates that exists in the entire pool is exponentially larger.

The mathematical algorithm adopted by the state contains calculations designed to account for this dynamic.

Thus, the state is not able to finally determine the rejection rate on a particular initiative simply by looking at the signatures approved and rejected. The formula also calculates the acceptable number of duplicates for the sample size.

The SOS doesn’t specifically share its algorithm for projecting duplicate signature rates, but from the data provided in the I-917 FAQ, one can make a pretty good guess. The SOS reported 24 dupes found amongst 10,819 signatures sampled out of 266,006 submitted, yet projected a 5.45% duplication rate… exponentially larger than the 0.22% rate within the sample itself.

So how did the SOS come up with that larger number? They appear to be dividing the number of dupes by the sample ratio (sample size over total submitted), and then dividing the quotient by the sample size, as in:

( 24 / ( 10,819 / 266,006 ) ) / 10,819 = 5.45%

Run the data from the first batch of R-17 signatures through the same equation and rather than the current 0.12% duplication rate, you get:

( 7 / ( 5,646 / 137,689 ) ) / 5,646 = 3.02%

Now, separate the 7 dupes from the other 633 signatures rejected in the first batch, and you get a projected total invalidation rate of 14.23%… not at all bad by historical standards, but nearly two points worse than what is needed to qualify.

So… how reliable are these projections? It’s hard to say. The sample size is pretty small, and we have no reason to believe the first batch was particularly random. Furthermore, while I’m no statistician, the formula above does strike me as rather unsophisticated. (That said, Darryl ran his own simulations on the same data and came up with a slightly higher projected duplication rate of 3.25%.)

What I can say with absolute certainty is that the duplication rate is dramatically underreported in the first batch, and that it will steadily rise as the aggregate sample size gets larger, increasing the total invalidation rate with it. Thus, while the press may hope for the contentious R-71 to qualify for the ballot and continue to generate headlines, in answer to the Times’ question, “How did they do it?”, the most likely answer will be:  “They didn’t.”

Speaking of editorial endorsements, the Seattle Times endorsed Pete Holmes today in the Seattle City Attorney race, marring my near perfect record on predicting their editorial endorsements over the past few cycles.

Well, sorta marring my record. In contrast to my other unwavering predictions, here’s what I wrote last week:

As for City Attorney, I’m guessing some on the board are tempted to go with Holmes, if only to show they’re willingness to toss out an incumbent (there’s that predictable unpredictability) but I’m betting they stick with Carr.

So I successfully predicted that this was the race in which they might go for the more liberal, less establishment candidate, but I failed to predict the ultimate outcome of their internal debate. A qualified miss on my part, but a miss nonetheless. Damn it.

The Secretary of State’s office is posting totals to its blog from the signature verification of Referendum 71, and reports that the first day’s totals show the signatures to be relatively “clean” thus far.

During the first day of signature-verification for Referendum 71, over 5,000 voter signatures were scrutinized and the error rate was 11.34 percent.

The State Elections Division crew turned up 4,991 valid signatures out of the 5,646 they reviewed. A handful were duplicates or the signature didn’t match the voter registration card. Almost 600 petition signers were not found on the roll of registered voters.

The early error rate — the count could take the better part of a month at the current pace of checking by about 20 crew members – was running cleaner than the historic average of 18 percent. Sponsors, a campaign group called Protect Marriage Washington, submitted 137,689 signatures. That is roughly 14 percent more than the bare minimum, 120,577, required to secure a place on the November ballot.

Taken at face value that should be encouraging news to R-71 backers seeking to put our state’s recently expanded domestic partnership rights before a vote of the people. But, well… I’m not one to simply take such things at face value.

First of all, at 11.34%, the reported error rate is actually a lot closer to the threshold than it first appears, for while it is true that sponsors submitted roughly 14% more signatures than the bare minimum, the actual maximum allowable error rate is (137,689 – 120,577) / 137,689, or 12.43%.

On the basis of this first batch of signatures, R-71 would appear to be skating by on the low end of the 11% to 16% rejection rate typically seen on all volunteer signature drives, but the raw error rate on such a small sample is deceptive as it does not account for the exponential increase in duplicate signatures as the universe of data expands. That’s why when performing a statistical sampling of submitted petitions, the Secretary of State’s Office attempts to adjust for duplicates using a complex but straight forward algorithm as defined in WAC 434-379-010.

Breaking down the data, of the 655 signatures rejected in the first batch, only 7 were duplicates, yet even this small number plugged into the statistical sampling formula suggests that R-71 would not qualify for the ballot. If we assume that this first batch of signatures, roughly 4.1% of the total submitted, represents a random sampling (and this is not a safe assumption), then it appears that R-71 would likely fall one to two thousand signatures short.

Of course, that margin is still awfully close, and we’re dealing with a very small data set. But for the moment at least, I’m cautiously optimistic that R-71 will fail to qualify for the ballot.

As Seattle Transit Blog reports, a Who’s Who list of sore losers and usual suspects have filed suit against the state, seeking to prevent it from allowing Sound Transit to use the I-90 bridge center lanes for light rail.

Their argument is simple: They claim that if the I-90 express lanes were paid for with gas tax money, they can’t be used for transit.

Really? Is that their argument? That once gas tax money is used to build a piece of infrastructure, Article II, Section 40 prohibits it from being converted to transit in perpetuity? What a load of crap. If there is an Article II, Section 40 violation here it was when the state used highway funds to help build center lanes it understood and agreed would be permanently committed to transit.

Just another delaying tactic from hypocrites like Michael Dunmire, who fervently defend the will of the people only when the people agree with them.

The Washington Legislature’s Joint Transportation Committee is meeting this morning to hear testimony from an independent expert hired to determine what, if anything, Sound Transit might owe the state for the right to cross the I-90 bridge, and I’m guessing some legislators aren’t gonna like what they hear.

Over at Seattle Transit Blog, Ben Schiendelman has a great recap of the issue and the consultant’s preliminary report, but the takeaway is this: Sound Transit owes the state squat. Under the terms of agreements signed by federal, state and local authorities, “the I-90 center lanes have been permanently committed to transit use since 1978,” and would only be used for cars until a transit agency needed them. Furthermore, the consultant determined that WSDOT only contributed to 2.5% of the cost of the relevant, impacted portion of the I-90 corridor, and thus any claims for compensation would be limited to that.

But as Ben points out, even that 2.5% figure may be a stretch:

Whenever Sound Transit builds an improvement, such as an HOV lane, on WSDOT property, some portion of the value of that improvement is ‘land banked’ — such that if Sound Transit needs highway right-of-way, it can draw from this land bank rather than have to actually pay. Sound Transit has quite a bit in this land bank, and that as well as the Sound Transit contribution to R8A could both be considered credits if WSDOT were able to charge for use of I-90.

The Land Bank Agreement considers full payment as the value of 20 years of use. While the land bank agreement may not apply to this particular transaction, it’s still interesting here: as the center lanes have been used by “highway vehicle , including single occupancy vehicle, travel” (pg. 26) for over 20 years, it’s also arguable that the state investment for the center lanes may have already been fully returned.

The report doesn’t bode well for legislators hoping to slow or kill construction of the voter-approved East Link light rail line, or for, say, House Speaker Frank Chopp, who reportedly hoped to extort a billion dollars or more out of Sound Transit to help offset the outsized costs of his Mountlake Tunnel. It’ll be interesting to see how legislators react.

My recent post on Rick Steves interest in running for Rep. Jay Inslee’s seat should it come open received an enthusiastic response for bloggers and commenters nationwide. But it also drew a denial from Ashley Sytsma, the publicist at at Rick Steve’s Europe Through the Backdoor:

I think you were right when you wrote that Rick has one of the best jobs in the world. Right now he’s in Europe researching his guidebooks and writing scripts for upcoming Rick Steves’ Europe episodes. If you’re interested, you can read more about it in Blog Gone Europe.

As for any political aspirations, you can be assured that he has no intention of running for office. As a supporter of the Democratic Party, he occasionally contributes his time by speaking at local fundraisers and events.

Okay. I guess I’ve got no particular reason not to take Steve’s publicist at her word. But then, 2012 is still a long ways off, so Steve’s got plenty of time to change his mind.

UPDATE:
Turns out, speculation about a Steves run first hit print way back in December.

A lot of other blogs and newsy sites tend to shut down over the weekend, but not HA, because we’re writers, and write is what we do. So in case you missed it, here’s a summary of the some of the more important stories, commentaries and observations posted over the weekend:

Is the public option a “slippery slope” to single-payer?
Gov. Howard Dean spoke about healthcare reform at Town Hall Friday night, and as he was finishing signing books, I asked him if Republican critics are right when they claim that the public option is merely a slippery slope to a single-payer system. And his answer…? Listen to the audio for yourself.

Stars and Steel Bars
King County Initiative 100, whose aim was to prevent the building of a new jail, fell short of the number of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. But as Lee reports, the campaign did raise an important question as to why “we’re considering such a costly infrastructure investment that hardly anyone wants and is not necessary”…?

U.S. Rep. Rick Steves?
Those righties who just hate travel writer Rick Steves for his outspoken advocacy for ending our prohibition on marijuana, and who spit up bile watching his humanizing PBS travelogue of Iran, will go absolutely nuts at the thought of Steves running for Congress. But word is, that’s exactly what Steves plans to do when Rep. Jay Inslee steps down to run for governor.

Inslee announces agreement on Medicare reimbursement
And speaking of Rep. Inslee, the WA-01 Democrat held a sparsely attended press conference Saturday to announce a major healthcare agreement he helped broker, that nobody in our local press seems interested in covering. I’ll have more later today.

It was hot last night at Seattle’s Town Hall, both literally and figuratively. Outside, advocates of a single-payer healthcare system were chanting and leafleting. Inside, as Gov. Howard Dean spoke about healthcare reform, the crowd was only slightly less boisterous.

Though friendly and receptive as Gov. Dean took the podium, when it came time to take questions from the audience it quickly became apparent that the many of those inside shared the sentiments of those on the street, with some of the questioners filibustering their opportunity at the mic to take an uncompromising stance in favor of single-payer, and opposed to anything less. It was apparently a familiar scene for Gov. Dean, who had just arrived from a similar engagement in Portland, OR, where several single-payer advocates had to be removed from the audience after disrupting the proceedings.

Gov. Dean, a licensed physician and former presidential candidate and DNC Chair, is on tour promoting his new book “Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform,” but for many true believers, Gov. Dean’s prescription—take a public option and call me in a decade—isn’t real enough. What plays out is the sorta classic confrontation between idealism and pragmatism that so often undermines reforms coming from either end of the ideological spectrum, leaving those in the mushy middle so firmly in control. And it’s the kinda confrontation that the insurance industry and big pharma are counting on to stave off reform for another generation.

As Gov. Dean repeated throughout the Q&A, he’d personally prefer a single-payer system, as it’s the only reform that can guarantee universal coverage while quickly providing the level of savings needed to get our healthcare costs under control. But as he also repeated, polling consistently shows that the general public just isn’t there yet, let alone the laggards in Congress, so while single-payer shouldn’t necessarily be taken off the table, it would be unrealistic to expect it to move any further… at this point in time.

And here’s where that confrontation between idealism and pragmatism really comes into play. Public option opponents on the left dismiss the proposal as mere half-measures, while public option opponents on the right attack it as a slippery slope to single-payer. And they’re both right. The question is, will the lack of enthusiasm for the public option from idealists on the left ultimately play into the hands of the pragmatists on the right in their efforts to scuttle any substantive reforms at all?

As I’ve argued before, the public option is a slippery slope to single-payer, if implemented and executed correctly. Now some might characterize this admission as cynical and dishonest, but good policy done right is inherently a slippery slope toward better policy. As it should be. And it’s a slope we slide down only with the approval of a majority of voters.

So after he finished signing books I asked Gov. Dean whether he believed the public option would be a slippery slope to single-payer. I wanted him to say yes, and I sensed that he wanted to say yes as well. But he’s too smart for that… and too pragmatic. Instead, he enunciated what I think is the most rhetorically effective response I’ve ever heard to the right’s slippery slope argument, a response that totally undermines their objection, even without denying it:

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/dean.mp3]

This will be the change that the American people want at the pace that they want it. So the opponents have no right to make that argument. The Republican ability to make that argument assumes that they know better than the American people, that they’re so smart that the American people have no right to make up their own mind.

That’s what this bill is about. This bill is not about whether to have a single-payer or a public option or a private system; this bill is about whether the American people get to choose for themselves, or whether congressmen take it upon themselves to override the will of the American people and do something different. It’s a straight up vote between whether you’re in favor of the health insurance industry, or whether you’re in favor of your constituency. Everybody’s going to have to make that vote, and we’ll be watching.

The same could be said to the uncompromising advocates of a single-payer system.

I may not live to see the bottom, but I still believe that the public option will ultimately set us down that slippery slope to single-payer, and my sense is that many of its proponents believe the same, whether for pragmatic reasons, they’re willing to publicly say so or not. If given the choice, many Americans will flock to the public option, and if private insurers simply aren’t able to compete, I’m alright with that. It is ironic, after all, that those who insist there is no fundamental right to basic health care, also tend to be those who insist that there is a fundamental right to selling private health insurance.

Of course, there isn’t. And if the single-payer advocates can be as patient as they are passionate, I’m confident the American people will ultimately prove them right.

Staying true to their suburban sensibilities, the Seattle Times endorsed State Sen. Fred Jarrett for King County Executive today, just as I had predicted way back on June 25th:

Well, no, the Seattle Times hasn’t officially endorsed Fred Jarrett for King County Executive yet, but this morning’s editorial lauding him pretty much telegraphs that they will.

[…] The only question remaining is whether the Times endorses one or two candidates in the August primary, and if the latter, whether they’re crazy enough to endorse Susan Hutchison?

Well, they did do a dual endorsement, and no, they’re not crazy enough to endorse Susan Hutchison. State Rep. Ross Hunter gets the second, equally enthusiastic nod. No surprise there.

I suppose I could fisk the editorial; after all, there are plenty of passages with amusingly twisted logic such as:

King County has had just one executive from the Eastside, who served briefly as interim exec in the early 1980s. It isn’t so important where an executive hails from except it is a good idea to occasionally mix it up to offer different perspectives.

Get it? It isn’t so important where an executive hails from, except that we’d rather he’d hail from the Eastside. Fair enough. Stupid logic, but fair enough.

But you know what? It’s too nice a day to waste much time reading a Seattle Times editorial endorsement, let alone writing about one. What’s really important here is that it keeps my batting average predicting their endorsements near perfect.

And now that I know they’re doing dual endorsements in the primary, I’m ready to go out on a limb and make my next prediction: Joe Mallahan and (surprise!) Mayor Greg Nickels in the mayors race!