While sorting through old clippings I found this column by Seattle Times editorial writer Lance Dickie. He made three predictions about last year's election — and got just one right, and that one the easiest of the three.
Here are three humble predictions for an election now mercifully only 10 days away:
- Democrat John Kerry will capture the White House. The surprise will be the number of Republicans who help him win the presidency.
- Democrat Christine Gregoire will be elected governor, as voters recognize one of the best-prepared candidates in state history.
- Republican Rob McKenna's combination of intellect and temperament will attract Democrats to his side and victory.
As you may have noticed, John Kerry is not now sitting in the White House. Nor, as anyone who studied the exit polls knows, did a large proportion of Republicans vote for him. (And not all of us would agree with Mr. Dickie's belief that he is humble.)
As those who followed our gubernatorial election controversy know, Christine Gregoire lost the election — if you counted only legal votes. The King County elections office had to break our election laws to drag her over the line in a disputed third count — and they did.
Rob McKenna did win, but then everyone here, except, perhaps, his opponent, knew that would happen
I don't mention this old column just to needle Dickie — though he does deserve needling for many other reasons — but to illustrate how partisanship can distort our thinking. Dickie erred in his predictions for the same reason that fans tend to expect more of their own teams than they ought. He so much wanted Kerry to win that he dismissed the evidence from the polls, and from history. This would not matter much if he were not an editorial writer for Washington's largest newspaper. But he is, and we have every reason to think that his partisanship biases the editorials there.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(My own prediction for the 2004 presidential race is here and my predictions for the 2002 Congressional elections are here.
Those interested in Washington state politics will want to read the entire column, if only for the unintentional humor sprinkled through the column. Saying, for instance, that Christine Gregoire, who lost millions of taxpayer dollars while mismanaging the Attorney General's office is "superbly prepared" may not have been intended as satire, but it should have been.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 28, 2005 01:11 PM | Email ThisYou ain't so wacko, Ha Ha!
Posted by: Gs on November 28, 2005 02:10 PMthat would make him 1 for 3 (as he correctly predicted McKenna's victory).
Chris(tine) Gregoire is possibly the most costly candidate our state's Governor race has ever seen. As attorney general, her errors cost taxpayers millions... and this fact was mentioned and caused numerous Democrats to vote against her (in a state where Democrats typically win rather handily in statewide elections).
Sadly, Chris(tine) is at it again, costing us an extra 3.5 cents per gallon at the gas pump (that's on top of the 28 cents per gallon that we already pay). Since the 28 cents are hardly doing much, I doubt the extra 3.5 cents that voters want to give to Chris(tine) will help.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostMillion$ on November 28, 2005 03:13 PMI noticed that AFTER I pressed send.
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on November 28, 2005 03:24 PMYou make an interesting point. While we may not all believe in evolution, the Seattle Times makes a great case study for the theory of "devolution", that is they are rapidly returning to slime!
Posted by: Fed Up on November 28, 2005 04:05 PMOh, grow up.
Posted by: Mike H on November 28, 2005 05:56 PMSo by my count, that's actually two out of three. Not bad for a pundit.
Now let's talk about Sharky's predictions .....
Oh, and "Lance Dickie" does evoke some disturbing thoughts.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on November 28, 2005 07:53 PMYou leftist moonbats will never comprehend that, so go ahead think what you will - but she'll screw you anyway, cause she doesn't care about you. Half-witz - this has nothing to do with Iraq...
Posted by: KS on November 28, 2005 08:16 PMYou express a lot of anger and call people names. But you say nothing to support your position.
Have you ever considered the possibility of reflection on your own position. Perhaps you are the one who is out of sync.
Gregoire won the election, fair, square, and according to state law. She was my first choice and so far, I think she's doing a very good job.
I can't disagree with the speculation that if the GOP had successfully disenfranchised enough King County voters, it may have resulted in a different outcome (as in Florida 2000). But the fact is they didn't. So we all have to 'move on' and get over it.
If you think about it really hard, you'll see that the occupant of the our guv's mansion really doesn't affect your day to day life that much (unless you're on Rossi's payroll).
Smile, you are lucky to be alive.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on November 28, 2005 08:37 PMName calling - I be guilty of that. You surprised me by not referring to Iraq, which you typically have rant on about, to change the topic into one that you can more easily counter - I am not a fan of why we are there, but it would help if you & left of center crowd would look at the big picture and realize why we can't cut and run in the situation that currently exists. Realize that the Islamofascists would love to see us cut and run and think about the long term consequences...
"Now let's talk about Sharky's predictions ....." Why bring Shark into this ? Jim Miller posted the article.
So, if 57% of people believe the media is controlled by jews, then we should think it so? Are we not a governed by laws, and not by men?
Posted by: Declan McManus on November 28, 2005 09:39 PMPosted by: timman on November 28, 2005 09:55 PM
The law is only able to protect us to a certain extent (if it was perfect, it would deter future violations, and nobody would ever be harmed by criminals again).
You've addressed your views as to who you think won the 2004 Governor's race. My view is that I don't know who actually received more votes. I don't think we will ever know for sure. One of you mentioned Florida 2000 and disenfranchised voters. Could you give me one Flordia 2000 example of a disenfranchised voter? I can. I was serving in the military at the time - those who served with me who were from Florida were also voting absentee (I voted absentee for Washington). As the absentee Florida ballots were coming in, the Gore campaign challenged (and won) some of the military ballots that were from certain places overseas (such as Bosnia). I once served in Bosnia, and thankfully my mail was always sent for free (instead of putting a stamp on the envelope, we were allowed to write the word "free" at the top/right corner, and the letter would be delivered). The Florida law required that "postage be paid" on the absentee ballot envelopes. Instead of just waiving this provision (becasue the law obviously hadn't contemplated the overseas military absentee ballots), the Gore campaign instead challenged and disenfranchised Americans who had volunteered to serve in our armed forces. Could the votes have been for Bush? Could they have been for Gore? We will likely never know.
I was in favor of a complete and accurate recount of Florida 2000 (throwing out the illegal felon votes, any double votes, the 'moron votes' on the butterfly ballots who can't accomplish what an average kindgergartener can, and for allowing the military overseas "free" votes). Fair is fair, and I think it could have been accomplished. I don't know who won that race, just like I don't know who won Washington 2004.
I suspect Florida 2004 was a lot more accurate than Florida 2000. Unlike Washington 2005, Florida 2004 actually made some great changes to their election laws (including the military "free" ballots).
If you can't just admit that the status-quo is unacceptable, then you're probably not really for a just and accurate democratic republic. That's fine, not everyone has to like the republican form of government, but don't pretend that you do (if you don't). There are countries out there who claim to be democratic republics, and yet are not. Perhaps you'd feel more at-home there. If you agree with me re: accurate and fair elections, then let's work towards making things right, instead of playing defense on things that are clearly wrong. I admit that Florida 2000 was handled poorly, as was Washington 2004 and 2005. Can you do the same?
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on November 28, 2005 10:01 PMI don't mean to go all Daniel Patrick Moynihan on you, but here goes-
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
YGCM$-
Game on.
Posted by: Declan McManus on November 28, 2005 10:22 PMI hope 'game on' means that you're willing to admit that the status-quo is unacceptable.
As I stated in previous posts, Washington 2005, Washington 2004, and Florida 2000 are unacceptable in that they don't give a reasonable person certainty as to what the final results were. I realize that newspapers like the New York Times (and others who are slightly to the left of Pravda) conducted recounts in Florida 2000 (all, or most, with Bush winning in each scenario). The problem is that it's not their job and they're not "official." The same goes for KCE and voter registration. It shouldn't be left up to the Sharks or the parties or others. It should be accomplished by KCE - and they're not doing it.
We can talk about "why" they're not doing it - I have my theory, but the facts (Moynihan's, mine, yours) are that it's not being done to the best of a reasonable person's ability. It needs to be.
"Game on"? It's not a "game" - it's serious stuff - and we (yes "we" - you and me and others) need to force gov't to fix it. I'll accept the outcome of an accurate and honest election - whether my candidate wins or not. That's what a democratic republic is all about.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostMillion$ on November 29, 2005 12:36 AM1. While his was the closest election for a sitting president in history, it was a decisive one. Nevertheless, "Kerry did not attract GOP voters and had trouble holding Democrat votes." In the only important context of this statement, if Kerry had won Republican votes in any discernable numbers, he would have won the election. More importantly, if he had won Democrats as substantially as any worthy candidate would, more Democrat votes could have at least helped him. As it was he lost.
After the 2004 election results were in, Independent Party Candidate Ralph Nader pointed out that:
Earlier in the campaign season, the bigger problem in 2000 wasn’t Democrats voting for him instead of Gore. It was Democrats voting for Bush instead of Gore. Looks like we have pretty much a repeat, according to this CNN graphic. 10% of registered Democrats voted for Bush this year, according to CNN’s exit polls. 10% would have won this election for the Democrats I suspect.At any rate, George Bush held his own party soundly giving up no noticeable GOP support to John Kerry with 62,040,606 votes for Bush to 59,028,109 for Kerry.
2. Pointy headed liberal airbags like you don’t like McKenna, so what? Rob McKenna was elected because he is an excellent man with a keen intellect and solid mature temperament.
3. Objectively speaking, Christine Gregoire wasn't elected to office, she was leveraged into it by a partisan King County Elections administration who used the courts to put her over the top. A false verdict either convicting or acquitting someone is still false regardless of its appearances or the consequences. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Lie away there thor, we expect nothing more or less from ya.
Good job.
Who ever said this was a game? I stated my position and you can continue to believe what you want. KCE needs to clean up their processes so the next time there is a close vote everyone will accept the results.
Posted by: timman on November 29, 2005 12:29 PMRich Kiker (unkil ditz): Self-rightous without a clue, predictably off topic, pointless, vapid, and has the same perverted sense of humor as Headless Lucy.
McManus likes Daniel Patrick Moynihan (dead): Phony, insufferably pretentious, blowhard, and pompous seven-faced liar. Good choice Mc.
Neither has an argument or a point, just an easy job with time to waste propping up the liberal Democrat line of bull$hit.
The liberals are particularly boring today.