Goldy

NARAL Pro-Choice Washington is holding its 17th Annual Chocolate for Choice event on Tuesday, January 22… the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The event takes place at the First Base Club at Safeco Field, and tickets start at $35.

I’ve been invited once again to serve as a VIP Judge (along with folks like Darcy Burner, Dow Constantine, Jean Godden, Mike Kreidler, Larry Phillips and others), and let me tell you from personal experience that it is well worth the price of admission. Last year’s event featured an amazing and overwhelming selection of chocolate treats from some of the region’s best confectioners and pastry chefs, and of course, all proceeds go toward protecting women’s reproductive rights.

Hope to see you there; I’ll be the one stuffing my face full of chocolate.

Geez… if I ever run for office, I hope my fourth grade teacher lies.

Huh.  So first the state Democratic Party schedules its presidential caucus on a Saturday, and now we learn the county conventions are scheduled for Passover.  I’m loathe to attempt to speak for my fellow Jews, but… what are we…? Chopped liver?

On a side note, if you’re trying to make up your mind on whether to attend your county convention or your family seder, I’ve been to both.  It might be hard to believe, but county conventions are even more tedious and more frustrating than even the longest Passover seder (think of the platform debate as the four hundred questions,) and the food isn’t nearly as good.  Stick with the seder.

One of the big stories in the presidential primary season thus far has been the youth turnout.  Young people turned out in higher than expected numbers in both Iowa and New Hampshire, overwhelmingly voting with the Democrats.  And even in yesterday’s Michigan primary, where the GOP had a real race while Democrats refused to participate due to party rules, youth turnout was strong:

100,776 young voters aged 18 – 29 participated in yesterday’s Democratic Primary (choosing “uncontested” over Hillary Clinton, 48% – 43%). They were 17% of the Democratic electorate. Comparatively, 112,833 18 – 29 year olds voted in the Republican Primary, and they were just 13% of the Republican electorate.

That Democrats still managed to split the youth vote despite having no race in their primary is good news, and if this trend continues it bodes well for Democrats up and down the ticket next November.  And this apparent demographic shift could pay off huge dividends for years to come.  Young people now self-identify as Democrats in growing numbers, and as they age and participate more regularly in electoral politics, this new generation of voters could form the base of a new progressive majority.

Well, that was quick. Just a few minutes after the polls closed, NBC called the Michigan Republican primary for Mitt Romney. Of course Michigan, New Hampshire and Iowa are all moot, what with Guiliani’s brilliant Florida strategy about to catapult him back into frontrunner status.

Meanwhile, over in Bushistan…

Hmm. If that were Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards posing, imagine the outrage. Baghdad Barack? Hegira Hillary? Jihad John?

UPDATE:
I’m watching the Nevada Democratic debate right now, and all I can say is… fuck Tim Russert. I mean really, fuck him. He has this great opportunity to ask the three leading Democratic candidates (one of which will likely be the next president of the United States) about important issues facing our nation, and all he wants to do is focus on race and gender in the hope of sparking a cat fight. It ain’t working.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
According to the Seattle Times, it’s very, very close in Michigan. Mitt Romney “edges” ahead, just “narrowly” leading John McCain in early returns.

Um… the headline and lede were supposedly updated at 6:12 PM, at which time Romney was leading McCain by 9 percentage points, and projected by all three networks to be the winner.

Not that I’m implying an intentional bias, but narrow lead my ass.

Hillary Clinton’s poll-defying victory in last week’s New Hampshire Democratic primary had pollsters, pundits and conspiracy theorists scrambling to explain the difference between Barack Obama’s 8-point average lead in the preceding surveys, versus Clinton’s 2-point victory on election night. Polls are often wrong, but rarely this wrong, and so not surprisingly, the post election narrative was as much dominated by the unexpected nature of the results as the results themselves. Whereas Obama left Iowa with a surge of positive press, Clinton came away from New Hampshire with a gigantic question mark.

Over on Daily Kos, DemFromCT has an exhaustive roundup of the latest thinking on what went wrong (or what went right, depending on your perspective,) and while I tend to agree with the conclusion that multiple factors led to the pollsters’ pratfall, I think there is one theory that deserves closer examination, not in spite of its lack of supporting evidence, but because of it. Of course, I’m talking about the supposed “Bradley Effect.”

The Bradley Effect (also referred to as the “Wilder Effect”) describes the observed phenomenon in which black candidates score significantly higher amongst white voters in public opinion polls than they ultimately do on election day. This is popularly represented as evidence of a degree of racism amongst white respondents, who apparently shy away from telling pollsters their true leanings, for fear of being perceived as racist. But as Pew Research Center president Andrew Kohut explains in the New York Times, the demographic underpinnings of the effect are actually much more subtle:

In 1989, as a Gallup pollster, I overestimated the support for David Dinkins in his first race for New York City mayor against Rudolph Giuliani; Mr. Dinkins was elected, but with a two percentage point margin of victory, not the 15 I had predicted. I concluded, eventually, that I got it wrong not so much because respondents were lying to our interviewers but because poorer, less well-educated voters were less likely to agree to answer our questions. That was a decisive factor in my miscall.

It is not so much that white voters generally lie to pollsters, Kohut argues, but that “poorer, less well-educated” white voters — who we’re told are less likely to support a black candidate — tend to be under sampled in the typical survey. But I wonder if, in the context of a presidential primary, the Bradley Effect might actually insinuate itself into voter behavior in an even more subtle way, spinning questions about electability into a self-fulfilling prophecy? The most widely cited examples of the Bradley Effect come from general elections, but all things being equal, primary voters, particularly in our currently polarized environment, tend to be focused on selecting the nominee they believe to be most capable of winning in November. No doubt race has always been a dominant theme this election season, hence the big story coming out of Iowa being the unprecedented victory of our nation’s first viable black presidential candidate. But if New Hampshire voters — black and white alike — remained unconvinced that our nation is ready to elect a black man to the White House, might they ultimately cast their ballot for a white candidate, despite their honestly stated intention to vote for Obama?

So, does the Bradley Effect at least partially explain the pollsters’ flop in New Hampshire? Probably not… but that doesn’t really matter, for the very discussion of the Bradley Effect has the potential to impact the behavior of Democratic voters in primaries down the line.

In reality, the much ballyhooed polling discrepancy involved Hillary Clinton’s numbers only; Obama received pretty much exactly the same percentage of the vote on election night as the pre-election polls had predicted, so it’s hard to argue that the polls oversampled Obama’s support when he largely performed as expected. The data doesn’t necessarily disprove a Bradley Effect, but it doesn’t particularly support it either.

But it’s too late for pundits to take back their speculation, and it is unlikely that the specter of the Bradley Effect won’t continue to be raised in the days leading up to Nevada, South Carolina and beyond. On its surface the Bradley Effect, whatever its mechanism or evidence, appears to be a reasonable enough explanation for at least some of what we saw in New Hampshire, and if Democratic primary voters believe it to be true, it could influence their vote as well, not because they are racists, but because they perceive a substantial number of their fellow Americans to be racist themselves. If Obama subsequently underperforms pre-election polls in other contests, “evidence” of the Bradley Effect builds, as does its place in the public narrative. What results is a self-catalyzing recursive process in which Democratic primary voters, focused on electability, transform unsupported speculation of a Bradley Effect into a reality, withholding their genuine support for Obama because they believe he cannot win. It’s not racism per se that defeats Obama, but the perception of racism in others. (Which I suppose is racism, if only in a nuanced, institutional form.)

Of course, this is all just speculation. But speculation has an odd way of coming true, even when it’s not.

There’s a fascinating US Senate race going on in Oregon, where Republican incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith is viewed as eminently vulnerable, and two progressive Democrats are vying for the right to challenge him. Jeff Merkley is the Oregon Speaker of the House, an affordable housing advocate and former Congressional Budget Office analyst. Steve Novick is a successful environmental attorney, the US Justice Department’s lead counsel on the Love Canal cleanup settlement, a political consultant and activist, and a victorious opponent of Bill Sizemore, Oregon’s version of Tim Eyman. Both are passionate public advocates who rose from modest means to earn Ivy League educations and impeccable progressive credentials. Both appeal to Oregon’s netroots, for example, dividing my friends Carla and TJ over at Loaded Orygun. Both would surely serve the citizens of Oregon better than the Republican incumbent. I’ve had the opportunity to sit down and chat with both candidates, and find it really tough to take sides.

Forced to wager on the outcome, I’d guess the odds substantially favor Merkley, the more establishment candidate with better access to money and endorsements, but as always Novick is determined to make his perceived weaknesses his greatest strengths. Standing at four-foot-something, with a metal hook in place of a left hand, Novick’s promise to “fight for the little guy” is both ironically self-conscious, and, well, believable. No, Novick certainly doesn’t “look like the typical politician,” and in this anti-status quo year, it will be interesting to see if his promise not to “act like one” can catch on with voters enough to overcome Merkley’s inherent advantages.

I genuinely like both candidates, but I love this ad, which started airing today in Oregon. In the end, Oregon Democrats will likely make a decision as to which man is best able to beat Smith in November; if the Novick campaign continues in this theme, and manages to defeat the better financed Merkley, it will say a lot about the mood of this year’s electorate.

UPDATE:
Moments after posting I discovered an email notification that the Novick campaign had purchased an ad on HA. Just thought I’d mention it since I suppose the timing might look suspicious.

The Seahawks lost. I know, they lost back on Saturday, but apparently that’s still the big local story consuming half the front page of the Seattle Times. Also, police officers and city officials don’t see eye to eye when it comes to the disciplinary system, but anybody who’s ever watched a police show on TV knows that, and buying individual health insurance coverage sucks. Tell me something I don’t know.

Meanwhile, apart from a front page column from Nevada by Joel Connelly (apparently, not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas,) this morning’s Seattle P-I looks more like a PSA than a newspaper, continuing its (laudable) campaign against artificial butter flavor, and issuing a dire warning to pedestrians not to get hit by cars.

Good advice, but does anybody actually work at the Times or the P-I over the weekend, or does nothing ever happen around here on our days off? Sheesh.

In other news, God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7PM: Radio Kos: What really happened in New Hampshire?
Daily Kos contributing editors DemFromCT, DHinMI and MissLaura join me for a wrap up of Iowa and New Hampshire, and a look ahead to the remainder of the primary season. Did Clinton simply have a better ground game? Was Obama torpedoed by the “Bradley Effect”? Or were the pollsters just plain wrong? And what kind of bump will this give Clinton heading into the heart of season? Join the conversation.

8PM: Will Washington voters approve “Death With Dignity”?
Former Gov. Booth Gardner has filed a controversial initiative based on a similar Oregon law that would allow doctors to prescribe a fatal dose of barbiturates to terminally ill patients diagnosed with six months or less to live. Some oppose this measure as “assisted suicide.” Proponents call it “death with diginity.” Gov. Gardner joins us to discuss his initiative and take your calls.

9PM: Will Gov. Gregoire’s 520 bridge proposal float in Olympia?
Gov. Chris Gregoire has proposed early tolling on the 520 floating bridge to help pay for its replacement, touching off a debate on how we pay for our critical infrastructure.  Rep. Judy Clibborn, chair of the House Transportation Committee joins us to share her view of whether the proposal will float in the Legislature, and what else we might see on the transportation front in the coming legislative session.
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

Seahawks coverage is going late, so please tune in to an abbreviated “The David Goldstein Show” tonight, from 7:30PM to 10PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO:

7:30PM: TBA
The usual liberal propaganda

8PM: The Stranger Hour with Josh Fiet
The Stranger’s Josh Feit joins us for the hour for our regular look back at the week’s news, and a peek ahead toward what’s coming up. Did the “Bradley Effect” sink Barack Obama in New Hampshire? Will Gov. Gregoire’s 520 bridge proposal float? Can former Gov. Booth Gardner breath life into his death with dignity intiative? All that, plus a look ahead toward the coming legislative session.

9PM: Saturday night comedy with Julie Mains
If you enjoy my Saturday night chats with local comedians, you’ve got Julie Mains to thank for hooking me up with guests. Julie is the proprietor of the Mainstage Comedy & Music Club and an accomplished performer in her own right, an actress, singer and songwriter familiar to Seattle audiences. Julie joins me for the hour to make it full night of fast-talking, East Coast Jews.

Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).

I was listening to some music, when iTunes automatically played the next file in the cue: an old episode of Podcasting Liberally from June 6, 2006, with me, Molly, Will, Carl, Ed Murray, Dan Savage and Eli Sanders. It was kinda a blast, and I especially enjoyed listening to us make our presidential predictions. (Hey Will… how’d Mark Warner work out for you?) Feeling nostalgic? Tune in and enjoy the fun:

[audio:https://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/drinking-liberally-june-6-2006.mp3]

[FYI, I believe this was recorded the day before 710-KIRO offered me my show.]

Is the Oprah & Obama Show coming to Seattle in advance of WA’s February 9 caucus? That’s what the new blog Emerald City Scion wonders after gleaning this interesting little tidbit:

ECS has learned that talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey and Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barak Obama are on the guest list of VIPs invited to a post-swearing in reception for newly-appointed United States District Court (WD. Wash.) judge Hon. Richard A. Jones set for the end of this month. ECS has not been able to confirm whether either will attend the event.

I’ve joked (fantasized?) for some time that the race for the Democratic nomination will come down to WA’s caucus, but with the unsettled state of the race after Iowa and New Hampshire, that’s no longer so unrealistic. Coming just four days after Super-Duper Tuesday, WA could serve as the momentum setter in an otherwise split race. Under that scenario, an Oprah/Obama event in Seattle could pay off huge dividends.

Hmm.

I stopped by the open house at the Vance Building last night, where a bevy of progressive organizations have set up office, proving there’s camaraderie, if not necessarily safety in numbers. There was free food, always an attraction to starving bloggers, and the halls flowed liberally with booze and schmooze; it was kinda like a roaming, multistory Drinking Liberally, but with a less embarrassing ratio of men to women.

Wandering from office to office, each with their own special interests and their own particular agenda, a common theme arose in regard to expectations for the coming legislative session. It will be a busy two months the various activists and organizers told me, hopefully filled with some small victories on important issues. But the really ambitious agenda — the substantive legislation on issues ranging from tax reform to transportation to publicly financed campaigns and more — well, that would have to wait until 2009.

It was like a Passover seder (but with cheese on the crackers, and potable wine,) as a common prayer arose from the Vance Building last night: “Next year in Olympia.” Next year, I was repeatedly told, after Gov. Gregoire wins reelection, and the Democrats hold or expand their legislative majority, that’s when we can expect a truly progressive agenda. Next year, with the burden of electoral politics temporarily lifted from their shoulders, the Democrats would apparently be free to make progress on some of our most pressing issues.

Of course, a lot of things can happen in a year that can lead to an awful lot of disappointment. Voters don’t always behave the way we expect them to behave, and candidates don’t always run the kind of campaign they should. And even if we manage to keep our unchallenged hold on Olympia, the Democratic leadership there has often proven more bold at maintaining and expanding its majority than actually using it. Finally, even if an emboldened Gov. Gregoire does attempt to leave her mark during a second term, her agenda will necessarily be limited; even the most successful legislative session will leave the halls of the Vance Building scattered with winners and losers.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I were tasked with pushing a bill, I’d be pushing it hard in 2008, with the Democratic governor and near legislative supermajority we have now, rather than waiting for some political heaven on earth next year in Olympia. But then, I’ve never been a man of faith.

There’s been a lot of talk about transportation “governance reform” in the wake of Prop 1’s failure this past November, and one of the main arguments repeatedly proffered is that a directly elected board of regional commissioners would be more responsive and accountable than, say, Sound Transit’s current makeup of officials appointed by other elected bodies. This is an assumption that has been left mostly unchallenged by editorialists and other members of our media and political elite.

So I thought it might be constructive to test this thesis by comparing the highly publicized recent audit of Sound Transit with its much maligned federated board ($5 million of potential savings out of a $2.5 billion budget), versus that of the Port of Seattle with it’s directly elected commissioners ($100 million wasted, and a criminal investigation.) Um… ouch.

As Seattle Transit Blog points out, “Sound Transit is ‘definitely’ in the ‘good camp’ when it comes to audits”… at least that’s what Evans Anglin, the Accountability Audit manager for the State Auditor’s office told Sound Transit at a Jan 3 presentation:

“I think that you can give yourselves a small pat on the back for doing a good year, and if I may just step outside my boundaries a little bit and just reflect on the fact that I believe your performance audit also came out pretty well, so I think that we’re all aware of maybe a performance audit that came out recently that maybe wasn’t quite so, um, didn’t go quite so well, so I think you can kind of compare and contrast yourselves between those two audits and maybe get a sense of you know, things are going fairly well here from the perspective of the State Auditor’s office. Obviously a large complex organization, there’s always things, but we’re not seeing the kind of systemic problems that perhaps might exist in an organization like this with the magnitude of construction activity that’s going on.”

“Systemic problems”…? Um… like those at the Port of Seattle, with it’s elected commissioners? Anglin goes on to thank Sound Transit for its cooperation:

“Very roughly you might be able to divide the world of the governments we audit into two camps […] this is definitely one of the entities that fall into the good camp. Our audits are always well received, the recommendations that we make are always taken seriously.”

You know, unlike the folks at the Port of Seattle.

Compare and contrast operations at the Port of Seattle and Sound Transit, and there is absolutely no evidence that a directly elected commission is inherently any more accountable than a federated board. Indeed, anecdotally, one might reasonably conclude just the opposite. And yet “accountability” continues to be a rallying cry of the anti-rail schemers who look to governance reform as a means of lopping the head off of Sound Transit, and with it, the pro-rail/pro-transit aspirations of the majority of Seattle voters.

The folks who really need to be held accountable are the so-called civic leaders and media mucky-mucks who relentlessly malign a well-run organization like Sound Transit in pursuit of their narrow-minded, backwards-thinking, roads only agenda.

When congressional candidates release their fundraising numbers ahead of the federal reporting deadline, it’s almost always good news, and that’s no exception for Darcy Burner, who just announced record numbers for the fourth quarter of 2007. Burner raised $339,494 — more than $290,000 (86-percent) coming from 1495 individuals. That’s the most ever for a Washington state challenger in any quarter of an off year, topping the $305,000 raised in the previous quarter when Burner benefited from an unprecedented $123,000 netroots fundraiser.

Burner’s 2008 campaign has now raised $858,125 total, finishing the year with an impressive $607,144 in the bank… more than half a million dollars more than at the same point during the last campaign. These results will put her in the top tier of Democratic challengers nationwide, and are a clear sign of a strong campaign and a thirst for change in WA’s 8th Congressional District.

No peep out of the Reichert camp yet on his 4Q numbers. I wonder why?