by Jon DeVore, 12/29/2009, 12:05 AM

It’s likely that the next Congress-creature from the great district of WA-03 will be from Clark County. If you don’t believe me you can go look stuff up. Sure, anything is possible, but, er, um, the next Congress-creature will probably hail from Clark County. It’s unfair to everyone else, it sucks, I know, I used to live in Cowlitz County. But them’s the breaks.

I guess it’s open to debate whether candidates who lived here twenty five years ago or who were parachuted back home during a major sex scandal are “from Clark County.” I suppose they are, in a factual sense. Whether the voters care will be another question.

I guess if anyone can go home again then I’m a lock back in Johnson County, Kansas. Well, I would be if I could cut myself really, really big checks. Must be nice. That’s an awesome message in 2010, BTW.

15 Responses to “The next Rep. from WA-03 will likely be from Clark County”

1. Mathew "RennDawg" Renner spews:

This race could be very intersting. With all the people currently running and with so many more thinking abouting entrting the race. This could result in, with our top two primary system, two nominees of the same party.

2. Mr. Cynical spews:

This will be one of those “swing” Districts.
Republicans will nationalize the issues….and there are plenty of them.

If this trend holds up for 10 more months, it will go Republican–

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. Thirty-six percent (36%) give the President good or excellent marks for handling the economy while 47% think he’s done a poor job in this arena.

As 2009 comes to an end, the private sector and public sector are experiencing two different economies. Government employees tend to believe the economy is getting better while those in the private sector hold the opposite view. That’s a big change from the beginning of the year when those on the public payroll were a bit more pessimistic than private sector workers.

The second paragraph is telling….the disconnect of Government workers.

3. Alki Postings spews:

#2 – If you worked in both the government and private sector (I have) you’d understand government jobs are always more ‘stable’ and therefore those folks feel less fear during rocky economies than private sector. If you work for a government institution (like Homeland Security) there’s less risk of loosing your job just because the economy turns down. Always been that way. Nothing new to that in the last 100 years. If you work for John Deere out of Moline Illinois, then your jobs come and go with the whim of yearly profits.

And facts are bitch…even with this MASSIVE fall of support for Obama, it’s still TWICE the approval index of YOUR last President.

…just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved. That gives the President a -30 rating on the Presidential Approval Index.

So Obama has a LONG LONG way to go to even MATCH the massive dislike of the last Republican. This is why it’s going to be hard to ‘automatically’ turn this into a “lets vote Republican” year. Obama might suck, but FAR less than the last Republican. Kinda hard to argue with YOUR OWN facts. LOL.

4. Alki Postings spews:

P.S. Plus IF (big if) by the next 2 years Obama has gotten even half our troops out of Iraq, start pulling out of Afghanistan, signed ENDA or ended Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he’ll regain much of his crumbling liberal base. If the economy if on the rise, it will be hard to argue for “change” then too. We changed from a horrible collapsing economy under a Republican, started a slow recovery under a Democrat…and your argument is we should go back to the Republicans? Er…why would that be again? Even if things aren’t SUPER under Obama and he didn’t turn out to be magical and fix all problems in a year, he can easily argue it’s been a MUCH better year than the last year W. was President (when my 401k fell by 39%). Granted the markets aren’t REALLY the responsibility or under control of the Presidents, but they get blamed or rewarded for their movement anyway.

I love the folks who think Obama is in trouble for being TOO liberal. His loss of support is for not being NEAR liberal enough. Remember, he WON the election PROMISING something close to universal health care (what we’ll get is less), promising to close guantanamo (hasn’t happened), promising to pass ENDA (hasn’t done it), promising to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (hasn’t done it), promising to get out of Iraq (hasn’t done it). His drop in the polls isn’t because he’s gone TOO far, it’s because he hasn’t done the things he WON THE ELECTION promising to do. Plus the economy hasn’t been magically fixed in 10 months.

5. Blue Collar Libertarian spews:

Be interesting if we get two Republicans in the final. Wonder what the supporters of Top Two will say then.

6. Jason Osgood spews:

Blue @ 5

Which supporters are you referring to? Sam Reed? The newspapers? The Grange?

I don’t recall there being any other supporters of Reed’s broken Top Two Primary scheme.

7. Blue Collar Libertarian spews:

Newspapers. Both the Colombian and the Olympian have written favorable editorials.

8. Jason Osgood spews:

Blue @ 7

Of course.

Reason isn’t much of a factor on matters of policy. There’s just too much to know, the details too arcane.

Persuasion is most contingent on reputation and affiliation.

So when Sam Reed shows up and says “Top Two Primary good, is pro-voter, increases competition.” the listener bases their decision on what they think of Reed, not the merits of the Top Two System.

It doesn’t matter that everything Reed said in support of Top Two is factually incorrect. And it doesn’t help to point these things out. As Lee Atwater taught us, if you’re explaining, you’re losing.

(Note: I don’t fault Reed for playing the game well and getting what he wants. Hate the game, not the player. It’s just that his interests and the interests of democracy aren’t compatible. Hence my opposition.)

9. Matthew spews:


And everything Reed says about the two-top is correct. It does increase turnout, does give voters more choices, and does increase the competition (especially in the general election in strong-Democratic or strong-Republican districts).

If the Democrats or the Republicans are smart, they will weed out their own candidates, so that only one collects all their party’s votes and advances to the general. But they have to do their own dirty work.

If they don’t, they won’t have the government-funded election process do it for them. Instead, the primary election will determine who the voters prefer, not who the parties prefer.

Count me as a top-two supporter.

10. Jason Osgood spews:

Matthew @ 8

Care to back up those assertions with some data?

I’ll even accept anecdotes and well reasoned hypotheticals.

11. Roger Rabbit spews:

Running for Congress is a hobby for the rich. No one of ordinary means can afford to be a Congress critter. That’s why Congress represents the rich, and only the rich.

12. Perfect Voter spews:

Matthew @9, Top Two gives voters more choices? History so far doesn’t support that. First off, it gives voters only two choices, since no 3rd party candidate can survive a primary vote and win a position on the November ballot. And in some districts (mine, for instance) we had two Democrats in a November race, leaving nobody for Republicans to vote for.

Top Two has made a hash of things.

13. Mathew "RennDawg" Renner spews:

Who supported top two besides Sam Reed and the Grange, The people of the State of Washington. Didn’t it pass with over 70% approval. I voted against it myself.

14. Jason Osgood spews:

Dawg @ 13

Right. I-872. Stupid mistake. Thanks for correcting me.

15. Mathew "RennDawg" Renner spews:

We all make mistakes. Even the majority can be wrong at times. I-872 for example. That is why I am so glad that our basic civil rights are not subject to majority rule.