HorsesAss.Org

So, only a week after the Seattle Times lauds Democratic challenger Suzan DelBene for her nuanced and knowledgeable stance on reviving the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act — a subject that came up at their joint editorial board interview — you’d think Republican incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert would at least be able to bullshit an answer on the issue.

Um… nope. In fact, at a candidate forum in Newcastle this weekend, Reichert said he doesn’t even know what Glass-Steagall is.

I don’t know what’s more insulting, the suggestion that Reichert is brain-damaged, or the insistance that he’s not.

More snark at Slog.

Last week’s contest had two winners. ‘Milk’ was the first to identify the house as the home of the Duggars, the Arkansas family with 19 kids who have their own show on TLC. And Brian wins for finding the view.

This week’s is just a random location, good luck!

Numbers 15:32-36
While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

Discuss.

Adam Nagourney in the New York Times was not paying much attention the first time California voters fought back against the drug war:

Washington has generally looked the other way as a growing medical marijuana industry has prospered here and in 14 other states and the District of Columbia, but Mr. Holder’s position — revealed in a letter this week to nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration that was made public on Friday — made explicit that legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring a whole new level of scrutiny from Washington.

To say that the Federal Government has “generally looked the other way” as medical marijuana has been introduced in over a dozen states is a fairly big misreading of the history. Previous to Obama, both the Clinton and Bush Administrations aggresively targeted medical marijuana providers in all states where it was legal. Under Obama, the DOJ publicly promised that they’d leave the states alone, but they haven’t lived up to that pledge. Even Congress has been unable to pass legislation that would’ve made it impossible to use federal resources to undermine state medical marijuana laws (side note: both Rick Larsen and Dave Reichert voted to continue to have the feds come into Washington to undermine our medical marijuana laws).

It’s worth pointing this out because Nagourney makes it sound as if this time it’ll be different. It won’t. As Dan Riffle points out in this post, the Federal Government would be powerless to overturn a successful vote in California to remove the state-level penalties on marijuana (even if whack-job Scientology-promoting sheriffs believe that they make the laws). Their only option is the enforce the law themselves, something that they have neither the manpower – or the political will – to accomplish.

Even so, it’s hard to know exactly how it will play out if Proposition 19 passes. Just because the Federal Government doesn’t appear to have much of a leg to stand on doesn’t mean that they’ll back down. It will certainly trigger some kind of a fight, but just as with medical marijuana, the will of the people and the forces of the market will eventually outlast it. But that’s still only part of what we’ll see if this domino falls.

What I think will be more interesting is to see what occurs outside of our borders. One of the particularly egregious aspects of our drug war is how effectively we’ve been able to force other countries to keep their marijuana laws in line with ours. In the recent ACLU forum, Rick Steves provided his perspective on this, noting that some countries enforce their marijuana laws solely to retain favored trade status with the U.S. If the U.S. isn’t able to maintain that level of control over one of its own states, it’s likely to change the perspective of those outside the U.S. looking in.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9SbDnoaYX8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

(And there are links to some 50 more clips from the past week in politics at Hominid Views.)

Click on over to Republican challenger John Koster’s website, and you’ll learn some interesting things about Democratic incumbent Rep. Rick Larsen’s “legacy.” Like, the fact that, apparently, he’s black.

Who knew?

Notice how the Grand Photoshop Wizards at the Koster campaign have attempted to color in Larsen’s and Pelosi’s complexion to match that of President Obama? Nope… no subliminal message there. And you won’t find one on Koster’s recent mailer either, which features the exact same picture on the front, while displaying a lilly white Koster and supporters on the back.

No doubt the Koster campaign will deny any mischief, but let’s just say you can color me skeptical.

I posted the results earlier today of the Washington Senate race based on KPLU’s news reports. At noon today, the KCTS/KPLU/Washington Poll top lines were released for public consumption.

In that all-important race between the single most powerful mom-in-tennis-shoe in the Senate & nation, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), and the single most sought-after motivational speaker on the foreclosure profiteering seminar circuit, Dino Rossi (R), we find Sen. Murray leading 50% to 42%. This makes five polls in a row that has Murray in the lead.

This poll surveyed 500 people from October 5th to the 14th. Hence, it overlaps every one of the other five October polls. Here is summary of all the polls this month:

	Start	End	Samp.		%	%	%
Poll	date	date	size	MOE	Murray	Rossi	Diff
WA Poll	05-Oct	14-Oct	500	4.3	50	42	D+8
SurveyUSA	11-Oct	14-Oct	606	4.1	50	47	D+3
CNN/Time/OR	08-Oct	12-Oct	850	3.5	51	43	D+8
Elway	07-Oct	11-Oct	450	4.6	51	38	D+13
Fox	09-Oct	09-Oct	1000	3.0	47	46	D+1
Rasmussen	06-Oct	06-Oct	750	4.0	46	49	R+3

What does this poll tell us by itself? A Monte Carlo analysis using the observed sample size and percentages gives Murray 902,830 wins to Rossi’s 92,001 out of a million simulated elections. That is, the poll provides evidence that Murray would have a 90.8% probability of beating Rossi in an election held now.

But we can pool the results from all six of the polls shown in the table. This gives us a total of 4,156 “votes”, of which 3,890 of them go to either Rossi or Murray. Murray gets 48.9% to Rossi’s 44.7% (or, if we look at just the votes for Murray and Rossi, Murray is up 52.2% to 47.8%). A simulation analysis finds Murray beating Rossi with 975,049 wins to his 24,332 wins.

The new KCTS/KPLU/Washington Poll has added a bit more certainty to Murray’s lead. Yesterday, this same analysis using all but today’s poll gave Murray a 94.5% chance of winning. Today, with six polls, we find that Murray would have a 97.6% chance of beating Rossi in an election right now.

Finally, let me address a meme about this race that has been quite prevalent in the recent media. There is an idea the the polls are “all over the place.” Maybe. But not really. Let’s look at results of polls taken in September and October:

Since these polls are taken on a sample of the underlying voting population, there is some uncertainty about the results. The vertical bars on the poll results show the plausible range that the voting population could have, given the margin of error inherent in the poll. (Other problems can lead to biased estimates; the margin of error only incorporates uncertainty reflecting the size of the sample.) And even then, by chance, we expect the true value to lie outside of the plausible range in about one in twenty polls.

Looking at the recent polls, it seems the last five polls mostly overlap, suggesting that the truth lies somewhere near a 54% Murray, 46% Rossi result. We also see this in early September. From mid-September to early October, Murray appears to do significantly worse.

Remember the discussion with the Elway poll last Tuesday? Elway was compelled to justify his noticeably higher numbers for Murray, and suggested that there was a difference between robopolls and live-interview polls. (Of course, if we consider the plausible range, the Elway poll fits right in.) The polls released since Tuesday support Elway’s suggestion.

Elway did not offer a hypothesis why robopolls would turn in different results than the live-interview polls, but I did. Via Goldy:

As Darryl suggested the other night at Drinking Liberally, what if the enthusiasm gap we’ve all been hearing about is largely manifested in who is or is not willing to give up ten minutes to interact with an automated poll? I know I’ve hung up on a couple robo-polls this year, but find it harder to do so with a real live person. Interesting hypothesis.

This looks right for all the recent polling. We see that the three live-interview polls (Elway, WA poll, and CNN) all post numbers on the high side and the robopolls (SUSA, Rasmussen and FOX News) all come in on the low side. That big dip in the middle is formed from six robopolls taken in a row. In fact, Rasmussen and FAUX News both use the same company—Pulse Opinion Research–to do their polling. It may not be chance that FOX New and Rasmussen both give Murray her worse performance in this series. And this would explain the question I posed in August, “What the hell happened to Survey USA?”

The robopoll/live interview/enthusiasm gap hypothesis was offered Tuesday before the three most recent polls were released, and I am now pretty confident that this is what is happening in the Murray—Rossi race here in Washington.

I am less confident about other House and Senate races nationally, but if it can happen here, it might well be happening elsewhere. I think there is a fair possibility that robopolls will systematically underestimate the performance of Democrats nationwide, which will make for a pretty darned interesting election night!

(Cross posted at Hominid Views.)

I did a lot of online fundraising for Darcy Burner over the last two cycles, and as proud and amazed as I was over the hundreds of thousands of dollars I helped raise for her, I was consistently disappointed by my failure to help her in my main capacity as a blogger: moving and shaping headlines.

Yeah, sure, the local blogosphere was instrumental in creating buzz around Darcy’s campaign in the spring of 2006, when nobody else was taking the 8th CD race seriously, but when push came to shove, I was never able to have the kinda impact I’ve had in countless other races. If anything, my fundraising efforts on her behalf were counterproductive in terms of my ability to influence media coverage. I don’t want to sound too narcissistic, but I couldn’t help but wonder if the Seattle Times’ over-the-top animosity toward Darcy might not have been at least partially directed at her enthusiastic supporters in the Netroots.

And so for that and other reasons, I’ve backed away a bit from activism over the past couple years, and focused more on the journalism side of what I do, pretty much abstaining from doing any candidate fundraising at all. Until now.

Seattle’s own Joan McCarter just announced on Daily Kos that Suzan DelBene has been added to their Orange to Blue ActBlue page… a testament to just how close the WA-08 race once again is. Of course, it’s also a testament to DelBene’s qualifications for office, and Reichert’s lack thereof, but she wouldn’t have been added at this late stage if there wasn’t reason to believe that the race is winnable.

I know the rest of the local media don’t believe it — they won’t believe it, because it fucks up their narrative of Democrats in crisis — but WA-08 has suddenly become one of the Democrats’ best shots at knocking off a Republican incumbent in an otherwise Republican-leaning year. Which would make a DelBene victory all the more sweet.

So please, give what you can, and help put WA-08 back in the hands of a competent representative.

No, Democrats are not in trouble in Delaware. Of course not. Democratic Senate nominee Chris Coons is going to wipe the floor with crazy teabagger Christine O’Donnell, and the Dems will pick up the state’s lone House seat as well.

And yet, both President Obama and Vice President Biden are making a high profile campaign stop in the Diamond State.

Huh. Guess that doesn’t fit in all that well with the Republican meme that Obama’s upcoming rally in Seattle is as sign that Democrats here are desperate.

KPLU is reporting that a new poll in the Washington senatorial race will be released today from The Washington Poll. The poll shows Sen. Patty Murray (D) leading real estate opportunist cum foreclosure seminar motivational speaker Dino Rossi (R) by 50% to 42%.

The sample size is 500 giving a margin of error of 4.3%. I’ll provide a more detailed analysis when the poll results are released.

The Washington poll is made using live calls (like Elway). This poll differs from most other polls in this race in that the results are of registered voters, rather than likely voters. The poll was sponsored by KPLU and KCTS-9 and conducted by the University of Washington out of the Political Science Department. (In the interest of full disclosure, I work for the UW; however, I have nothing to do with this poll.)

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told how dangerous I am, because, of course, I’m not nearly as civil as all those nice folks on the right…

Police arrested a man around 5 p.m. Thursday outside KSPS studios after he drove by a group of Sen. Patty Murray supporters waving a meat cleaver.

Meanwhile, inside the studio, Sen. Murray kicked ass… at least according to all the reviews I’ve read.

Yesterday I alluded to a new Survey USA poll that I thought would be released in a day or two for the Senate race between Sen. Patty Murray (D) and foreclosure seminar motivational speaker Dino Rossi (R). Well…it happened today.

The new poll has Murray leading Rossi, 50% to 47% from a survey of 606 likely voters taken from 22 October to 14 October. The margin of error is 4.1%.

This is the fourth poll in a row that has Murray leading Rossi. In fact, over the past month, there have been nine polls in this race (not including those released by the candidates or political parties). Murray has led in seven of the nine polls. Yeah…Rossi has a pair, but they are really pretty tiny (+1 and +3) compared to Murray’s (+3, +7, +13, +1, +1, +2, +5).

A Monte Carlo analysis of the SurveyUSA poll gives Murray 699,651 out of a million simulated elections. Rossi wins 290,266 times. In other words, in an election held now, Murray would have a 70.7% chance of beating Rossi, given the evidence offered in this poll. Here is the distribution of simulated election outcomes:

We now have five polls taken in October (the earliest poll was from Oct 6). Let throw them together for a better picture of the evidence. The five polls yield 3,656 “votes” of which 3,430 are for one of the candidates. Murray gets 1,781 “votes” (48.7%) and Rossi, 1,649 (45.1%). From the simulated elections, Murray wins 943,548 times; Rossi wins 55,016 times. Thus, the October polls, taken as a whole, support the idea that Murray would win with a 94.5% probability in an election held now. Here is the picture:

I’ve now written about new polls in this race for five days straight. If tomorrow bring us another poll then we can declare it WAPollpalooza week. And then maybe I can get some rest on the seventh day….

The Seattle PI’s David Horsey waded into the debate on California’s Proposition 19 this week. He looked to parallels with alcohol prohibition to understand our current predicament, but he missed the mark on a few of the details:

My mentor at the start of my journalism career was a man named William F. Asbury. He was a fine newsman and a recovering alcoholic. After he left the newspaper business, he began writing and lecturing about alcoholism prevention and developed a take on Prohibition that went against the conventional wisdom that it was an experiment in social control that did not work.

Apparently, not everyone was sneaking off to a speakeasy during the 1920s. According to Asbury, the ban on booze actually kept a lot of people away from alcohol, lowered the number of broken families and reduced the alcoholism rate.

That’s partially true, but it doesn’t tell the entire story. Once alcohol prohibition officially became the law of the land in 1920, alcohol consumption certainly decreased significantly. Since it was illegal, accurate statistics were hard to come by, but by looking at related statistics like alcohol-related deaths and arrests for public drunkenness, it’s believed that alcohol use quickly returned to about 60-70% of pre-prohibition levels. And in some cities, the number of speakeasies far surpassed the previous number of legal bars.

The gains that Asbury spoke of were a temporary one-time phenomenon that came from the shifting of alcohol production from legal distributors to organized crime syndicates. Once that transition ended, we saw the return of all the problems related to alcohol – with a grisly bonus in the form of significantly higher rates of crime from the organized crimes groups that were making obscene profits from the trade.

It’s likely true that a certain percentage of people who drank before prohibition refrained from breaking the law once it became illegal. But those were primarily folks who aren’t going to have a problem with alcohol ruining their lives in the first place. The barrier that prohibition put up only deterred the people least motivated to have a drink – moderate drinkers who aren’t going to wreck their lives on the stuff.

But there was one other particularly nasty aspect of alcohol prohibition that Horsey doesn’t discuss:

Amid this debate, one question sticks in my mind: What will this do to kids?

Like anyone who has raised children, coached a youth sports team or spent time in schools, I have seen how teenagers – especially boys – can be thrown off track by marijuana. The more they smoke, the less interested they become in school, in sports, in homework or in friends who don’t share their preoccupation with getting high.

Solid medical research has proven that human brains do not fully develop until a person is well into his twenties and that, the earlier a teenager starts using marijuana, the greater the risk of permanent impairment to the parts of the brain that govern rational behavior and mature judgment. The risk is exacerbated by the hugely increased potency of today’s drug, compared with the pot of the 1960s and ’70s. An early marijuana habit may enhance a kid’s prospects for winning a bit part in a Seth Rogen stoner movie, but cuts chances for achievement in most other endeavors.

I completely share Horsey’s concern here, and it’s one of the biggest reasons why we should be supporting Proposition 19 and an end to marijuana prohibition everywhere. While alcohol prohibition did manage to lower overall rates of alcohol consumption, that wasn’t necessarily true for younger people:

Drinking at an earlier age was also noted, particularly during the first few years of Prohibition. The superintendents of eight state mental hospitals reported a larger percentage of young patients during Prohibition (1919-1926) than formerly. One of the hospitals noted: “During the past year (1926), an unusually large group of patients who are of high school age were admitted for alcoholic psychosis” (Brown, 1932:176).

In determining the age at which an alcoholic forms his drinking habit, it was noted: “The 1920-1923 group were younger than the other groups when the drink habit was formed” (Pollock, 1942: 113).

Even worse, since there was a strong incentive to avoid getting caught with alcohol, drinking smaller quantities of more powerful forms of alcohol became more common. People carried flasks of homemade liquors as opposed to drinking less potent beers. When it came to preventing younger people from developing bad habits with alcohol, prohibition was a serious step back from the pre-prohibition era. And it’s very likely that if prohibition had continued for another generation that the end result would have been much worse than the problems of alcoholism before prohibition.

This is similarly true for marijuana prohibition today, as high school students continually report that it’s easier for them to obtain marijuana than alcohol. And compared to Holland, where marijuana sales have been tolerated for over 30 years, American teenagers use marijuana at a much higher rate. If Horsey is concerned about teenage drug use, his worries seem to be misplaced. It’s our current policies that put more young people at risk, not the policies that would exist with the passage of Proposition 19.