Search Results for: Dave Reichert

As reported yesterday on Slog, the Rothenberg Political Report, a highly respected and non-partisan political newsletter, upgraded Washington’s 8th Congressional District race between incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert and up-and-coming challenger Darcy Burner from “Lean Republican” to “Toss Up/Tilt Republican”… ranking it as one of the 14 most competitive races in the nation.

That’s right, WA-08 is more competitive than high profile CA-50, in which the much ballyhooed Francine Busby is fighting to succeed the recently convicted Duke Cunningham.

Burner had been maligned by Republicans (and ignored by some Democrats) as a “third tier” candidate with little chance of defeating Reichert, but the “Burner Buzz” (not to mention her impressive fundraising performance) has opened eyes in the other Washington. Locally, the GOP echo machine has graduated from snidely dismissing Burner’s candidacy, to ineptly attempting to smear her.

And in what is surely bad news for Republican hopes to retain control of the House, Burner isn’t the only unheralded Democrat displaying unexpected strength:

While Democrats have failed to recruit the top tier candidates that they would like in places such as Arizona 1, Pennsylvania 15, Missouri 6 and Iowa 2, they have broadened the playing field elsewhere and recruited enough credible lower first-tier/upper second-tier hopefuls to win the House if the Democratic wave is big enough in November.

[…]

We believe that the House definitely is “in play,” and the key to whether Republicans can maintain control is whether they can discredit individual Democratic challengers who otherwise would be positioned to win. We are increasing our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 5-8 seats to 7-10 seats (they need to net 15 seats for control), with a bias toward even greater Democratic gains.

Of course, all this horse race analysis means zilch if we don’t all do the hard work necessary to help the Dems take control… and locally, that means helping Burner win in November.

The political pundits now all agree — Burner can win this race — but only with your help. If you haven’t already volunteered or contributed, do it now, for if the Republicans retain absolute control in DC, we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

As has been widely reported, Rep. Dave Reichert told a crowd at yesterday’s fundraiser that Vice President Dick Cheney offered to “campaign for your opponent if it’ll help.”

Well, Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has sent a letter to Cheney taking him up on his offer:

April 19, 2006

Office of the Vice President
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Vice President:

During your recent trip to Washington State to support White House endorsed candidates, you were quoted by both Seattle newspapers as telling 8th District Representative Dave Reichert that you would “campaign for your opponent if it’ll help.”

As Reichert’s Democratic opponent, I would like to take you up on your kind and thoughtful offer and I cordially invite you to come and spend a day campaigning with me in the 8th District. The district reaches from Microsoft’s Redmond Campus to Mount Rainier National Park and offers a microcosm of America. Here are some of the events I would like to plan for your visit to the 8th.

Let’s start at Mount Rainier where we can take in the beautiful and precious parklands and forests. Here you may be able to see clearly why our district so opposed the Republican plan

Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos fame reports from his “Crashing the Gate” book tour, and recaps for his readers some of the “local buzz” he’s picking up along the way. First stop, WA-08:

Darcy Burner is taking on freshman Republican Dave Reichert in WA-08. She will report numbers of over $300K for Q1, which is impressive. But more so than that, the Washington state blogosphere helped her raise over $90K online in the closing hours of the fundraising quarter without any national buzz. That’s not Daily Kos or Atrios, that’s the local bloggers, and $90K is more than what we “big boys” can usually raise. If that’s not a sign of the growing power and influence of the local blogs, I’m not sure what is.

I think perhaps more than any other race, WA-08 has the potential for being a true testing ground for some of the strategic rethinking Markos and co-author Jerome Armstrong propose in Crashing the Gate. We have a smart, energetic candidate in Darcy Burner, well matched to a district that should be “swing,” but which hasn’t swung into the Democratic column since, well… forever. She is also a candidate that has recognized and embraced the power of the netroots since well before declaring her candidacy.

But equally important, Washington state has quickly evolved some of the most influential and mature local netroots in the nation… a loose coalition of bloggers who have enthusiastically embraced Burner in return. Unlike the high-profile candidacy of say, Paul Hackett, where national netroots raised gobs of money for his Ohio campaign, it was local bloggers who jumped on the Burner bandwagon early, helping to push up both her fundraising totals and her profile — and with zero national support.

Andrew Villeneuve at NPI has been in the Burner camp since day one (almost from the day we first met her at Camp Wellstone,) advising her campaign and personally introducing her to his fellow bloggers. While I waited for the field to shake out before publicly endorsing her, I’d been in regular contact with the Burner campaign for months.

And the relationship has always been two-way: Burner not only actively sought our support, she also welcomed our input and advice. Burner and her staff trust us… and that trust has been returned in spades. When Burner stopped by Drinking Liberally last week to thank the netroots for helping her blow past her fundraising targets, she knew she wasn’t going to garner any new votes — hell, most of us don’t even live in her district. I’m guessing that part of the reason she stopped by was simply to share in the genuine excitement and enthusiasm of a gathering that was about as close as you can come to an election night victory party… seven months prior to the election.

Burner came to this campaign as a political outsider, a designation proven once again in yesterday’s Washington Post, which described her as a “third tier” candidate, citing the Democrats’ failure to recruit a stronger challenger. In fact, the Democrats didn’t recruit her at all. Nearly a year ago Burner told me she was running because she was absolutely convinced that, conventional wisdom be damned, she was the perfect candidate to represent the 8th District, and since then, she’s managed to convince an awful lot of other people, including me.

Would State Rep. Ross Hunter have brought more name recognition, money, and experience into the race? Absolutely. But I sincerely doubt that an establishment Democrat like Hunter could have garnered the kind of genuine grassroots excitement that Burner has generated over the past few months. Burner is for real, not because the consultants and power brokers say she’s for real, but because she has managed to prove herself to the grassroots, the netroots, and the party leadership.

Of course, with her early success comes risks. One of the things that Markos and Jerome rail against is the way the national party steps into local campaigns, bringing in their establishment consultants, and demanding the same-old losing strategies. This not only ignores and devalues the unique insight of local political talent, it stunts their development… and judging by the Democrats near permanent minority party status at the federal level, it doesn’t seem to be working.

But if the national party should respect local perspective and talent then the same should hold true for the netroots, and just as Burner has proven herself to the DCCC, so too have our local netroots proven to our national counterparts our ability to generate buzz and money beyond all expectations. We know the district. We know the candidates. We know the muck that’s going to make Reichert’s reelection a muddy row to hoe. So when we ask that Burner be “netroots edorsed” — with all the money, support, and attention that will bring — we ask the national netroots to trust our local judgement.

Burner has quickly gone from unknown, political neophyte to the cover of Roll Call, and while she and her campaign deserve most of the credit, I don’t believe she could have done it without the enthusiastic support of local bloggers. Now it’s time to help Burner move to the next level, and we simply can’t do it without a little national support.

Markos also saw fit to comment on Sen. Maria Cantwell… and it wasn’t so glowing. Tomorrow I’ll talk about the opposition Sen. Cantwell faces from local Democratic activists and what impact this could have on the entire Democratic ticket.

Geov Parrish has a piece in the current issue of the Seattle Weekly on Green Party senate candidate Aaron Dixon, and while I disagree with Geov’s broad condemnation of Sen. Maria Cantwell’s voting record, I know from our conversations that we share a lot of common ground… like our mutual criticism of the Greens’ failure to do the hard work necessary to build itself into a real party.

For example, if I were advising Dixon, I think maybe my first recommendation would be to, gee… I dunno… register to vote?

Yeah, that’s right… apparently the man so disgusted with Cantwell and the Dems that he’s willing to pour his energies into giving voters a third choice, isn’t even an active voter himself!

Go look it up in our good friend Stefan’s voter registration database, and you’ll find an Aaron L. Dixon, born Jan. 2, 1949, who registered to vote in 1998 at an address on the 500 block of 29th AVE S. But he’s listed as “inactive,” and there’s no record that he’s ever been credited with voting.

I suppose Stefan’s data could be wrong (it’s been known to happen) so I’ve made repeated inquiries with Dixon’s media contact (his wife Farah), and so far she has been unable to confirm or deny his voter registration status. She said she thought he voted in the last election, but King County’s voter database clearly doesn’t credit him with casting a ballot. And to further cloud his registration status is the fact that while he claims to live in the Beacon Hill neighborhood, the address on his inactive registration is smack dab in the Central District.

Perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation, and if so, I’ll print a retraction. (And if there is an explanation, then they need to get their media shit together, because I gave them every opportunity to refute this.) But it sure doesn’t look like during the past few years, Dixon has been much of an active voter.

So why the hell is he running for the US Senate?

Now I don’t want to get all high and mighty on him, but in my book, you don’t have much right to criticize the electoral process if you don’t participate. And if anybody should understand the importance of minority communities exercising their voting rights, it’s a longtime activist and former Black Panther Party leader like Aaron Dixon.

I mean, really… who the hell is Dixon to talk about “all the people fed up with the current political system” if he doesn’t vote?

One couldn’t help but wonder if the Greens’ recruitment of Dixon was demographically cynical considering his prior lack of history with the party, but an active voter registration is a technical prerequisite of candidacy, so you’d think they would have at least inquired about that one, basic qualification for office, huh? And it doesn’t say much about their GOTV potential when they can’t even get the top of their ticket to reliably turn out at the polls.

I personally sympathize with the Green agenda, but am endlessly disappointed by their half-assed and counterproductive strategy and execution. And as Geov points out, I’m not the only one giving a hostile welcome to Dixon’s largely fictional candidacy:

So far, the reaction to Dixon’s campaign among many progressive Democratic activists has been negative. In Seattle, Dixon’s home base, progressive bloggers mostly ignored or excoriated his campaign. Not one speaker on a panel of six of the most prominent local progressive bloggers, including myself, at last week’s “Podcasting Liberally” (www.podcastingliberally.com) defended Dixon’s campaign. Most, while professing sympathy for green ideals, savaged it and the Greens. What’s wrong?

“Aaron Dixon started out the campaign with two lies,” says David Goldstein of HorsesAss.org, Seattle’s best-known progressive blogger and a fierce critic of Dixon. “The first one being, ‘I can win’; the second one being, ‘There’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.'”

Though in all fairness, I suppose when it comes to the vote you don’t cast, there really is no difference between which party doesn’t get it.

The other day I pleaded with my fellow progressives to get real and accept the fact that our choice this November is between Cantwell and McGavick, and that sometimes, life forces us to compromise. I don’t expect the race to be nearly as close as it was in 2000, but if it is, even a pathetic showing by Dixon could be enough to give President Bush another rubber stamp in the Senate. And the political ramifications could be much broader.

Goldstein also points not only to the infamous “spoiler” factor but to the impact of Dixon’s presence on the ballot if the race between Cantwell and Republican challenger Mike McGavick changes from a comfortable Democratic win to a closer race of, say, 5 percent.

The loser, Goldstein says, will be Darcy Burner, whose challenge of U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert in the 8th Congressional District east of Lake Washington is the state’s second-biggest race this year. If Cantwell’s race is close, the theory goes, it costs Burner both campaign money and media exposure that will flow to the Senate race instead. That, Goldstein says, would hurt the chance to elect a progressive to Congress in a winnable race, all for Dixon’s quixotic bid.

Of course, Dixon disagrees… but then, what does he know about electoral politics? He doesn’t even vote.

In one of his signature fits of truthfulness, Sen. John McCain told John Carlson that the 8th CD race between Darcy Burner and Dave Reichert will be “a close one to watch.”

Hmm.

Well I’d certainly hate to make a potential GOP presidential nominee into a liar, so that’s why I urge you to make a generous contribution to Burner’s campaign. NOW.

See, Burner is working hard towards an end of reporting quarter goal of $320,000 cash on hand, and if she meets it, she’ll be eligible for $250,000 of DCCC “Red to Blue” money. Burner’s on the verge of becoming a national Democratic darling… but she needs your support to help push her over the top. So yank out your credit card, go to my Act Blue page, and give what you can afford.

Please help make Sen. McCain an honest man… and give to Darcy Burner.

CORRECTION:
I’ve been told that McCain’s exact words were that he called it a “tight race.” Same difference.

I think Eli Sanders may be in love, but too bad for him, Darcy Burner is happily married. Not that I blame him. A lot of people are falling in love with Burner… well, at least her candidacy anyway.

Burner is running against first-term Republican Dave Reichert in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, and Sanders’ feature in this week’s Stranger (“Fighting Mood“) is a great introduction to both the electoral dynamics and the candidate herself.

Darcy Burner is a military brat, computer geek, and former Microsoft executive. Howard Dean believes she can help the Democrats take Washington State’s 8th Congressional District and the U.S. Congress

In writing about the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s plan to file an initiative purging WA’s voter rolls, and forcing everybody to reregister, WashBlog’s Noemie Maxwell asks:

Why does the Evergreen Freedom Foundation pour probably hundreds of thousands of dollars – the talents and time of its staff members and dedicated citizen volunteers, into the project of convincing the voters of Washington State, despite all evidence to the contrary, that our government and our citizens cannot be trusted?

But to answer this and other questions about the EFF’s voter purge proposal, all one really needs to know about this initiative is that it is ILLEGAL… and they know it.

I’m no lawyer (much to my mother’s chagrin,) but most statutes really aren’t all that difficult to read, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — commonly known as “Moter Voter” — lays down very clear guidelines governing the circumstances by which states can purge voters from the rolls… and pandering, partisan paranoia is not one of them.

Go ahead, argue the EFF’s case all you want, but Sec. 1973gg-6 (a) ensures that in the administration of voter registration for federal elections, states shall:

(3) provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except –

( A ) at the request of the registrant;
( B ) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity; or
( C ) as provided under paragraph (4);
(4) conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters by reason of –
( A ) the death of the registrant; or
( B ) a change in the residence of the registrant, in accordance with subsections ( b ), ( c ), and ( d ) of this section;

That’s it. Once registered, a voter “may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except” at his own request, or due to felony conviction or mental incapacity, death, or change of address. There are absolutely no other circumstances under federal law that a registrant may be removed from the rolls. None. Nada. Bupkis.

There’s not much room for interpretation here, especially in light of the stated legislative intent:

The purposes of this subchapter are –

(1) to establish procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office;

Clearly, purging the entire voter roll and forcing everybody to reregister could only achieve the opposite.

Which of course, the EFF wouldn’t mind. But they’re not stupid, and neither are their lawyers, so of course they understand at least as well as I do that their initiative cannot possibly achieve their stated objective. Which brings us back to Noemi’s question: why would the EFF pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into such a blatantly undemocratic, illegal, and ultimately futile initiative?

Hmm. Well… because this initiative has absolutely nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of the voter rolls. No, this cynical little abuse of the initiative process is purely strategic, and is focused entirely on propping up the election prospects of Mike McGavick, Dave Reichert, and Republican state legislators.

You see, even a losing campaign can be a worthwhile investment if it pays collateral benefits on election day, and anybody who thinks initiatives are simply about passing laws, hasn’t been paying close attention to how the parties and their surrogates routinely use initiative campaigns to influence public opinion and strategically drive voter turnout. Indeed, some initiatives — like the EFF’s latest stinking pile of political bullshit — are entirely strategic, having absolutely no reasonably obtainable, direct legislative goals whatsoever.

So why would the EFF sponsor this initiative? Because they are a bunch of deceitful, manipulative, calculating liars, whose only goal is to seize political power for themselves and their right-wing fellow travelers, at any cost. It is fair to say that everything about this initiative is a lie, from their feigned concern over the cleanliness of our voter rolls (our Republican Secretary of State has found no evidence of illegal votes,) to their absolutely bizarre proposal to eliminate voter fraud by, um… eliminating voters.

I could spend pages refuting the EFF’s arguments, but to do so in the context of an initiative that clearly violates federal law is not only a waste of time, it’s exactly what the EFF wants. The entire purpose of this initiative is to rile up the paranoid Republican base enough to turn them out on election day, and I for one, am not interested in giving the EFF the bogus debate they want.

The EFF has proposed a laughable and illegal initiative, aimed at a problem that doesn’t exist… and it only deserves to be debated as such.

A little birdy has told me that contrary to prior reports, biotech entrepreneur Paul Abrams will not run for the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Dave Reichert in the 8th Congressional District. This leaves Darcy Burner as the only Democrat officially in the race, with a possible run still being mulled over by Montrail, Inc. founder and CEO Menno van Wyk.

Abrams certainly has a large enough personal fortune to finance his own campaign, but I think his dropping out is yet another indication of party support solidifying around Burner, who has proven to be a tireless campaigner and fundraiser. A year ago, few people would have given Burner a snowball’s chance, but now, the people in the know really believe that she can win in November.

UPDATE:
I just received an email from Menno van Wyk saying that he has informed Burner that he is not a candidate, and that he would do whatever he could to help her beat Reichert. So either my bird got Abrams and Wyk confused, or Burner is now running for the nomination unopposed.

UPDATE, UPDATE:
Well, another little bird tells me that my first little bird had it straight. Apparently, both Abrams and Wyk have dropped out, leaving Burner unopposed. It looks like we have a nominee.

While Rep. Dave Reichert and the GOP House collapse under the weight of an expanding ethical crisis, 8th District Democratic challenger Darcy Burner has adopted some “House Rules” of her own. Attacking Congress for putting the needs of high-powered DC lobbyists above those of taxpayers, she has enunciated a clear set of guidelines by which she and her staff will interact with lobbyists:

NO SECRET LOBBYIST MEETINGS: My office will report all meetings that any member of my staff or I have with a registered lobbyist, to be updated on my website once a week.

NO HELPING MEMBERS CASH IN: No member of Congress with whom I have served who becomes a federal registered lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after that member has left Congress.

NO HELPING LOBBYISTS CASH IN: No former member of my staff who becomes a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my staff or me on any issue for 5 years after they have left my employment.

NO FAMILY LOBBYISTS: No direct relation of any member of my staff or of mine who is a registered federal lobbyist will be allowed to lobby my office or me.

NO LOBBYIST SPONSORED TRAVEL: All trips by my staff or me will either be official trips and thus paid by Congress or they will be paid by each person taking the trip or, if either partisan or campaign related, by my campaign funds.

NO LOBBYIST GIFTS: No gifts will be accepted by my staff or by me from any registered federal lobbyist.

COMPLIANCE: Any member of my staff who willfully violates any of these rules will be terminated.

What does this mean? Well, first of all, it means working for Burner won’t be a get-rich-quick scheme like some congressional gigs. It also means Burner’s staffers will have to work a helluva lot harder than most of their colleagues, as staffers often rely on their lobbyist buddies for position papers, talking points… even (gasp) drafting legislation.

It also means that a Congresswoman Burner would run as transparent and influence free an office as you’re likely to find in the Capitol.

Burner has challenged Reichert to adopt similar rules for the remainder of his term, and beyond. Fat chance. Reichert has proven to be a bit of an overwhelmed lightweight, captive to his professional staff and advisors, and there’s no way they’re going to let him throw them off the gravy train.

And you know what else his staff won’t ever let him do? Debate Burner. You know why? They’re afraid. (And so is he.)

The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. A couple of special guests are scheduled to stop by tonight: 8th Congressional District candidate Darcy Burner, and King County Bar Association President Roger Goodman.

Darcy, of course, is the woman who’s going to kick Dave Reichert’s sorry ass next November, and Nick’s email describes Roger as “a strong advocate of drug enforcement reform.” I think that means legalization. So come on down, get a few drinks into you, and then argue with Roger about the dangers of legalizing intoxicating substances.

Bellevue attorney Randy Gordon has dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination to challenge first-term Rep. Dave Reichert in WA’s 8th Congressional District. This leaves Darcy Burner as the only declared challenger.

While Gordon struggled to raise money, by all accounts Burner has exceeded targets set for her by the DCCC, Emily’s List and other potential big donors, and surely, her fundraising advantage must have played into Gordon’s decision to withdraw. In prior conversations, Gordon had assured me that should he drop out, he would actively support the eventual nominee, and thus I expect he will eventually endorse Burner.

In a letter to supporters Gordon said that he would “consider other elective positions.” I was unable to get ahold of Gordon for comment, but when I asked Progressive Majority’s Dean Nielsen for his take on the prospect, he was quick to respond:

“Randy’s a great guy, a great candidate and should really consider running for the state house.”

Run for the state house? Hmm. I believe Gordon lives in the 41st Legislative District, home of my favorite Republican, state Rep. Fred Jarrett. Jarrett is pro-choice, pro-environment and a just plain reasonable, thoughtful guy — I like to think of him as a Democrat with an “R” next to his name. Indeed, House Speaker Frank Chopp has been trying to get him to switch parties for years, but Jarrett refuses to leave a GOP that left his fellow suburban moderates long ago. No doubt Gordon would garner enthusiastic support from Chopp and Labor, both eager to put another progressive in the Democratic caucus… and it certainly would be fun watching the righties being forced to grit their teeth and spend scarce resources defending a moderate R.

Yeah, it’s kinda too bad to see one of the good Republicans targeted, but as was recently explained to me by somebody wiser in the ways of electoral politics, it’s always the moderates who are first to go in any legislative body. Why? Well, the reason they are moderate is that they usually represent districts where the other side holds an electoral advantage… a scenario certainly true of Jarrett and the 41st LD, which has grown increasingly blue over the past decade.

Personally, I like Jarrett. But I also like Gordon, and think he’d be an excellent campaigner and a great addition to the Democratic caucus. The 41st is a Democratic district, and it’s time we have a Democrat in Jarrett’s seat.

So, if Jarrett wants to avoid the toughest reelection fight of his career, it’s time to give in to reality and switch parties… and with the new legislative session about to begin, now is the time to do it.

My what a difference a year makes. It wasn’t so long ago that the national GOP had targeted Sen. Maria Cantwell as the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in 2006, while WA state Republicans were drooling over what they saw as the inevitable backlash over the 2004 gubernatorial election contest. Now, less than a year before the election, things don’t look so hot for them.

Last week I reported that both Rasmussen and GOP pollster Strategic Vision show Cantwell at the magic 50% or better against anointed challenger Mike McGavick… and now the new SurveyUSA poll is the latest to show Cantwell’s approval ratings tracking up, 55% to 34%, her net approval rising 9 points since last month’s survey. Far from being vulnerable, Cantwell now ranks right in the middle of the 100 senator pack, and most impressively, she now enjoys positive net approval across nearly every demographic group in the state.

What explains her sudden popularity? Well, she’s finally getting a little press around here, but my guess is that voters are beginning to pay a little more attention now that the 2005 election is over and McGavick is making a little more news. Absent an opponent, approval ratings can be a little nebulous, but voters, particularly Democrats and independents, are beginning to view Cantwell in the context of a head-to-head with McGavick. Indeed, Cantwell’s biggest jump was with voters who identify themselves as liberals. There may still be some resentment in this group over a handful of Cantwell’s votes, but they’re realists; no self-respecting liberal is going to hand this seat over to an insurance industry lackey like McGavick.

There was a time when state R’s expected the national party to pour lavish sums into this race, but it’s beginning to look like that money would be better spent defending Representatives Dave Reichert and Cathy McMorris. (And who knows… maybe even “Doc” Hastings.)

Jonathan Singer has an interesting piece on MyDD, presenting a model for Democrats taking back the House of Representatives in 2006. And what is that model? The overwhelming Republican sweep in WA state back in 1994.

Going into the 1994 midterm elections, Washington state Democrats appeared poised to continue their dominance. In both 1988 and 1992, the Evergreen state had thrown its electoral votes behind the Democratic candidate, and the state had not elected a Republican Governor since 1980. Looking more closely at the 1992 election, the Democrats won eight of the state’s nine House seats, winning the overall House vote by a 56 percent to 41 percent margin, and House Speaker Tom Foley, a Spokane Democrat, was at the peak of his power.

But come November 6, 1994, the Democrats’ fortunes reversed. Republicans won the statewide House vote by a 51 percent to 49 percent margin, defeating the Democrats in seven of the state’s nine districts for a net pick up of six seats, and GOP Senator Slade Gorton was handily reelected with 56 percent of the vote. What happened on election day, and the months leading up to it, should serve as a stark warning to Republicans who believe they are set maintain control of the House in 2006 and should further provide lessons to Democrat hoping to win back the lower chamber.

Singer notes that the GOP picked up seats in four Democratic-leaning districts in WA in 1994, and 16 Democratic-leaning districts nationally. He concludes that Democrats should not shy away from targeting Republican-leaning districts in 2006, particularly in Ohio, which somewhat mirrors WA in 1994.

Personally, I remain hopeful that Democrats will target the three Republican-leaning districts in WA state. Everybody knows that freshman incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert is vulnerable; the 8th District continues to lean Democratic in statewide and Presidential races, and should be within reach of a strong challenger (and I’m not yet convinced that either of the declared candidates, Darcy Burner and Randy Gordon, are up to the task.) But given the right circumstances, the right challenger — and enough money — Democrats could have a shot in Eastern WA too.

Representatives Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings have voted with the Republican leadership 98% of the time — often against the interests of their Eastern WA constituents — and each has their unique vulnerabilities. While McMorris has done little to distinguish herself during her freshman year, Hastings is finally making a name for himself as the do-nothing chair of the House Ethics Committee at time his own party appears to be collapsing under the weight of its own corruption.

Both deserve strong challengers who can make the 2006 election a referendum on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the rest of the Republican leadership. If Eastern WA voters are in the mood to throw the bums out next November, Democrats need to be prepared to offer them a viable alternative. There’s a chance McMorris may draw a strong challenger in Peter Goldmark, but Hastings seat has thus far drawn little interest from Democrats.

As Singer points out, the lesson both parties should learn from WA in 1994, is that Republican domination is not safe in any part of the country right now. Democrats have a shot at retaking the House… but only if we mount strong challenges in Republican leaning districts.

I’ve been struck down by that nasty cold that’s going around, and so last night the dog and I crawled into bed early and flipped on the TV, just in time to catch images of the White House being torn apart by a massive tornado.

There wasn’t much useful to learn from “Category 7: the End of the World”, other than the obvious fact that it was a really crappy movie. But since Hollywood is in the business of wish fulfillment, I did find two of the screenwriter’s plot devices rather interesting: a) in the event of a major catastrophe, what we need is not only a woman FEMA director, but a really hot one… and b) it was a happy ending, because although the White House was totally destroyed, sucking evil staffers high into the funnel cloud, the Capitol Building was left totally unscathed.

I appreciate the anti-Bush sentiment, but I’m guessing that Congress won’t fare so well during the political storm that strikes next November.

Of course, “2006 is a long way off” and “a lot can happen in a year” and “off year elections are not reliable harbingers of the future” and all those other precious pearls of political wisdom… but if things don’t get much better for the Bush administration between now and then, they can’t help but get a helluva lot worse.

Here in Washington state, the anti-Bush backlash already played a role in the 2005 election, with one of the most effective direct mail pieces in the high-profile King County executive race featuring the relatively undefined Republican challenger, David Irons, standing on a street corner sporting a crooked smile and a Bush-Cheney placard. Expect to see similar images in races around the nation next year.

No question, this was a terrible election for WA Republicans, up and down the ballot, losing not only the coveted KC executive race, but also crucial seats on several county councils. And of course, the biggest issue in the 2005 election was the GOP-endorsed Initiative 912, which failed by over seven points… an astonishing margin for an anti-tax initiative. Even the GOP cheerleaders on the right wing blogs were reduced to feebly touting Republican victories in non-partisan races.

A reliable harbinger for 2006? Maybe not. But the Democrats’ newfound confidence certainly bodes well.

Out East in the 5th Congressional District, Republican first-termer Rep. Cathy McMorris could face a tough challenge from Okanogan County rancher and former state agriculture director Peter Goldmark. Pundits have this labeled a safe Republican seat, but this is the district former Speaker Tom Foley held for many years, and Spokane, its population center, is only slightly tinged red. According to Progressive Punch, McMorris ranks as one of the most conservative members of the House… having voted with the discredited leadership nearly 97.5 percent of the time. McMorris isn’t just out of step with the nation, she’s out of step with her own constituency.

Under the right circumstances, with the right candidate, this is a winnable seat for Democrats… but even just making it competitive would be a huge strategic victory. If Republicans are forced to spend resources defending “safe” seats like McMorris’s WA-5, imagine the problems they’ll face in WA-8, where fellow first-termer Dave Reichert is already struggling to keep his grasp on a largely suburban district that has been steadily trending blue for years.

Yeah, I know, I know… the GOP holds a huge numerical advantage in the Senate, and Congressional redistricting has made it nearly impossible for huge swings in the House. Thus it will take a nearly perfect political storm for Democrats to seize control.

But Republicans are blind if they don’t see the storm clouds on the horizon.

[Cross-posted at Daily Kos]

I try not to get too caught up in the polls, especially the cheap-ass, robo-call variety that KING-5 commissions from Survey USA. Any race close enough to be worth the effort of polling is almost certainly too far within the poll’s margin of error to let either side rest comfortably at night. And with a large majority of voters now casting ballots by mail, even an accurate two or three day snapshot of voter opinion is only marginally useful in predicting the outcome of a three-week election.

That said, I’d rather be up than down, and with a recent round of polling results being bandied about in the comment threads, I thought I’d take a moment to share a few comments of my own.

Some of you may have noticed an apparently stunning turnaround in the race between Ron Sims and David Irons for King County Executive. On 10/17 Irons led Sims 46% to 43%. Two weeks later Sims leads Irons 48% to 41%. Of course much of this movement is likely explained by the rather zaftig +/- 4.1% sampling error rate. But the pollsters do point out one statistically significant shift:

Most of the movement is among women voters. Women support Sims by 21 points today, compared to 3 points on 10/17/05.

Why would women suddenly flock to Sims? Hmm, I dunno… perhaps it’s because he never beat his mother?

Of course, assuming these numbers actually represent a real swing in broad public opinion, there are a lot factors that might have contributed to the shift. Still, one can’t help but wonder how much of an influence Mrs. Irons’ story might have had on women… most of whom love their mothers, and many of whom are mothers themselves. Physical abuse and verbal harassment of women at home and in the workplace is much more common than we might like to admit, and so many women found a mother’s description of her own son’s abusive behavior both believable and disturbing. Knowing little about the Republican candidate other than his parents’ character testimony, it is not surprising if voters reject the undefined Irons’ “anyone but Sims” campaign.

The truth is, negative campaigning works, a fact that Karl Rove has made a career of proving. Had Christine Gregoire spent a million dollars during the final weeks of the gubernatorial campaign defining her opponent, there never would have been an election contest. Had the eminently fair-minded Dave Ross abandoned the moral high ground and gone negative on Dave Reichert’s ass, we’d likely have one more Democrat in Congress. I respect Ron Sims for refusing to sling mud… but not so much that I was going to sit back and watch him lose an election while voters remained blissfully unaware of Irons’ explosive temper and his well documented history of showing it. (Not to mention his pathological lying and embarrassingly inflated resume.)

Would I rather talk about issues? Sure… Sims kicks Irons’ ass there too. But I’m comfortable that my mudslinging was truthful mudslinging, and that I didn’t do anything to Irons he wouldn’t have done to Sims… had Irons actually had any mud to sling. (Remember, this is the guy who sprung a closed FBI investigation on Brian Derdowski the night before the absentee ballots dropped. What goes around comes around.)

All that said, I have no idea if my efforts have had any impact on public opinion, and I’m certainly not relaxing now that the KING-5 poll shows Sims with a 7 point lead. This race could still go either way, and anybody who throws away their vote on a third party candidate that is neither qualified for office nor has a snowball’s chance of winning, risks putting King County’s $3.4 billion government in the hands of a lying, resume inflating, mother beating, tantrum tossing, tool throwing, unqualified Bush Republican. Third terms are extremely difficult to win for any executive office, and Sims would be struggling regardless of the opposition. Irons biggest backers, the gambling and building industries, want you to believe that you have the luxury of casting a protest vote. You don’t.

Irons is all but guaranteed a floor of about 35% of the vote; this represents the Will Baker Wing of the Republican Party… those who will vote for any candidate with an “R” next to his name, regardless of qualification or pulse. Then there are those single issue voters who will reject Sims on Sound Transit or the CAO or the nixed SWA deal… or who have totally bought into the GOP bullshit that KC Elections is corrupt and incompetent. (It is not.) This puts Irons’ floor firmly in the low to mid 40’s.

The Democrats have their own robotic voters, but they are much less reliable than those in the GOP, eroding the D’s natural numerical advantage. The result is that Sims too has a floor in the low to mid 40’s, leaving the election in the hands of undecideds and would-be Greens. While I can certainly envision Sims winning with greater than 50% of the vote, Irons squeaking by on a 45% to 44% margin is just as likely.

So while I find the latest polls somewhat encouraging, I feel far from reassured. And neither should you. If you don’t want Irons to be King County executive… vote for Sims.

KING-5 also commissioned polls on Initiatives 900, 901 and 912, which make one thing perfectly clear: I-901, which bans smoking in public places, is going to pass. Of course, we all knew that.

We’ve also always known that I-900, Tim Eyman’s superfluous performance audits initiative is a bit of a toss-up. It’s a rather complicated subject likely to confuse voters, and so there’s the natural instinct to vote no. But it is vaguely anti-government, and voters like that, so I still think it’s likely to manage a couple point victory. Still, it won’t come anywhere close to passing with a kind of mandate that could be understood to say anything about the mood of the electorate.

But it’s the numbers on I-912, the anti-transportation initiative, that has spurred the most interest. Survey USA shows I-912 failing, 44% to 50%, but as encouraging as this may be, I’d take these results with a large boulder of salt. Eyman’s own anti-tax initiatives have routinely polled 10 points lower than the final vote — I suppose some supporters are embarrassed to reveal themselves as selfish bastards — so I-912’s defeat is anything but a sure thing. But clearly, the initiative has not generated the overwhelming support some had predicted.

A look at the crosstabs are in fact fascinating, with I-912 supposedly drawing only 43% in Eastern WA… statistically comparable to the 42% support in Metro Seattle. I find both these numbers hard to believe, but in different directions.

I’ve always felt this was going to be a close vote, and if voters really understood the gas tax and what it pays for, I-912 would go down to defeat. But win or lose, if Republicans were looking for some voter backlash to slap in the face of Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Democrat controlled Legislature, this poll suggests I-912 won’t be it.

So there you have it… I find the recent round of polling interesting, encouraging… but ultimately, meaningless. With the exception of I-901, these races are all too close to call. So don’t throw away your vote.