Strategic Vision released its latest poll of Washington voters today. It's interesting to compare today's answers with those of May 20, 2005, on the eve of the election contest. If present trends continue Sam Reed should not expect to be re-elected Secretary of State in 2008 and Mrs. Gregoire1 should not expect to be elected Governor in 2008.
| If the Election for Governor in 2008 was between the Democrat Christine Gregoire and the Republican, Dino Rossi, whom would you vote for? | ||
| Feb 2006 | May 2005 | |
| Gregoire | 35% | 38% |
| Rossi | 55% | 54% |
| May 2005: "Do you have more confidence, less confidence, or about the same amount of confidence in the election process as a result of the gubernatorial controversy?" | |
| More Confidence | 16% |
| Same Confidence | 10% |
| Less Confidence | 61% |
| Feb. 2006: "Are you confident that Washington has overcome the problems that hindered the 2004 Election and that there will be no problems with the 2006 Election? " | |
| Confident | 16% |
| Not Confident | 71% |
1 The poll taken immediately after the election contest trial revealed that although the trial upheld Mrs. Gregoire legal status as governor, more state voters disapproved of the ruling than approved of it and more voters were convinced that Dino Rossi was the legitimate winner after the trial than were convinced of this before the trial.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 15, 2006 03:08 PM | Email This
What I think is even more interesting is
the part you left out. The numbers in the
Cantwell- McGavick race.Could it be because
they are no different now than they were 7 months
ago. McGavick just is getting any traction.
Gee I can't imagine why.
Partisanship? I just posted that neither the Democrat occupant of the Governor's Office nor the Republican Secretary of State are likely to be in office after the next election. That's pretty even-handed and critical of people from both major arties.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 15, 2006 03:36 PMThe democrats have engineered a tiny amount (45 mil of tax cuts (none to the people who actually pay them). As of yesterday Gregoire called them massive tax hikes that she could not support and will veto.
Remember they raised over 10 Billion in new taxes, gave massive raises, and much higher overall spending in this state, just in one year. And they are not through yet.
They are killing their own party support in this state, and in November I hope the voters set this right.
We will have opportunities to kill the CAO Land theft through initiative.
We will have opportunities to get our $30 tabs back again for the third time through initiative.
We will have opportunities to elect officials who feel the pain of the unemployed in this state.
as for Reed, I don't think he's dishonest, I just think he isn't as on the ball as he could be about all this. Unless the democrat opposing him in '08 is someone like Tim Sheldon or Brian Sonntag, forget about any democrat getting my vote. Reed may just have to be the lesser of two evils. Otherwise , voting dem for this position is like putting Deanron in charge of the whole state. NO THANK YOU
Posted by: Misty on February 15, 2006 04:56 PMHeh Ron? Can You hear us Now?
Posted by: GS on February 15, 2006 05:05 PM For the uninformed Susan is not going to
run.I don't where you have been but that
has been known for almost 2 months now.
Its amazing the links some of you people
will go to prop up McGavick.Even blaming
someone who isn't running.
I wouldn't have any problem with being
more positive about McGavick if he was
being honest about what he stands for
And the character assassination he attempted
to use on Susan.
If he publicly admits that he and his campaign
attempted to malign Susan and her character.
If he also tells the truth about the situation
with the americans for tax reform.Then yes
I will back him.But lets not kid each other.
McGavick will never admit to any of it.
As far as Susan running is concerned I wasn't
blaming anyone. Its over she is not going to
run. So McGavick has a clear shot at Cantwell.
So there is no need to blame anyone else
for what happens.
All 98 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election this fall; and
Half of the Senate's 49 seats are up for election this fall.
If you want to take out your frustrations at the governor's race, get involved in YOUR legislative district this year.
If you want to send a message to the powers currently running the House, Senate and Governor's mansion, get involved in YOUR legislative district this year.
It's been done before in this state - 1994, to be exact. It can be done again, but only if people stop banging their keyboards, complaining about what's going on and actually get out and support conservative candidates in their state House and Senate races. This includes the primaries.
As for Sam Reed? He won't make it out of the primary in '08. I suspect Mike the Mover could take him out.
Posted by: jimg on February 15, 2006 06:44 PMUnless you are inside the Blue Cocoon, the answers are pretty obvious:
Voters can see that the system is in no way prepared to handle a close race. And regardless of how many times Dean Logan says it's not his job to police elections, the fact remains that his department is responsible for processing registrations. Voters are not satisfied with the "not my job" defense, because the majority of us work in the private sector, and we know that's not an acceptable answer.
And voter see Sam Reed as a pollyanna. No matter how great Sam feels about the recent reforms, voters can plainly see that very little has changed.
Voters see that the rest of the enrollment processes in their lives; job applications, loan applications, vehicle registrations, building permits, etc. (many of them government run) all require identification and a fair amount of scrutiny. Voters can easily see that the voter registration process is so overly tolerant of abuse as compared to everything else in their lives that requires verification.
No one should be surprised by this poll unless they are a Democrat and think that everything is right on track for Donkey Glory this November and in 2008.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 15, 2006 06:47 PMThat's illusory, Stefan, I'd suggest.
It's well known that Sam Reed is not considered a "real Republican" by the hard Right because he made decisions which did not favor Rossi but met his own understanding of the law.
But be that as it may, I'll repeat what I said before: there is a lot of interesting and worthwhile stuff on this blog. But so many of the posts project such a silly sneering anti-"liberal" tone that it's a big turn-off and hurts any efforts you might care to make to bring liberals to your side. To call The Seattle Times -- a major bastion of the financial & social establishment in this city for a hundred years -- "left-wing" is just so silly and ultimately unproductive as persuasion.
Now if you don't give a flying f-- then you are doing the right thing. But if you are serious about changing politics in this State -- which I agree is a good idea -- then maybe you might want to tone down the cliches.
Just a thought. I'll sign-off now.
Posted by: Raw Data Complex on February 15, 2006 07:25 PM
She was not elected in 2004 but that didn't keep her out of office with the DEANRON machine in play.
Why can't liberals admit that they're liberals? Why can't people on the 'left-wing' of American politics admit that they're 'left-wing'?
As someone who knows as much about data as yourself (or at least as you think you do per your moniker) - you call the Seattle Times 'a major bastion of the financial & social establishment in {Seattle} for a hundred years'. That sounds like an opinion, an editorial. That's no more a 'fact' as calling it 'left-wing'.
The truth is that the Seattle Times HAS BEEN a major bastion of the financial & social establishment in {Seattle} for a hundred years, and the Seattle Times IS left-wing. Calling the Seattle Times left-wing may be silly and unproductive persuasion to YOU. Calling the Seattle Times a major bastion of the financial and social establishment in Seattle is silly and unproductive persuasion to US.
Furthermore, you claim that Republicans don't like Sam Reed because 'he made decisions which did not favor Rossi but met his own understanding of the law'. That's not only illusory, but incorrect. I don't like Sam Reed because I think his understanding of the law is flawed. I think that his first responsibility should be to maintain the integrity of our voting system, and that he and his office so totally failed on that charter that 70% of the people in our state don't have faith in the system.
For someone who pretends to have a 'Raw Data Complex', you sure do pose a lot of opinions with no relevant data to back them up.
Posted by: Larry on February 15, 2006 09:15 PMIt is incumbent on the Republicans to develop skills at cross-examining and rebutting the RAT lawyers clouding the issues with facts and become more proficient at framing the issues at hand and be more assertive about it, if they hope to regain one of the chambers in November.
Posted by: KS on February 15, 2006 09:26 PMThis may be news to you, but not everyone in this state lives in Seattle, or gives a rip what the leftists who live there think.
It's time to take this state back from Deanron and the Queen.
Phil "one track mind" Spackman,
Then vote for Cantwell,
already! Then go crawl
back under your rock.
Sam Reed is not considered a Republican - not because of his actions during the last gubernatorial race - but because he has routinely sided with, supported and actively worked to get liberal democrats elected.
If you knew of his actions in Thurston County prior to, and including, his time as SOS, you'd realize it's not a 'hard right' issue. A real Republican would stay out of the Democrat's primary in a county commission race. A real Republican would at least have some conservative principles instead of siding with and working behind the scenes with his liberal buddies like the Unsoelds, the no-growth enviros like the Carnegie Group and other hard left organizations in Olympia.
The only reason Sam Reed has an R behind his name is because it makes him look non-partisan. He's as partisan as they come. Unfortunately, it's liberal partisanship disguised as moderacy.
Posted by: jimg on February 16, 2006 10:15 AMosama mama, queen christen, bagdad jim, ron "tax to the max" sims,deanron, john "chambers creek" ladenburg, "billy bumble" mayor of tacoma and the list continues to grow!!!
Posted by: tacoma phlash on February 16, 2006 10:33 AMHis whole plan seems to be: cut taxes, cut regulations and stand aside. He doesn't want to DO anything. Another difference from a McGavick or even Gregoire, who at least have ideas.
And this is coming from a republican
Posted by: stuart on February 16, 2006 10:34 AMThat's why I say don't give money to the Party, only give it to individual candidates which you have personally vetted.
Posted by: JDH on February 16, 2006 11:01 AMI'm unfamilar with what Richardson has done, but I'll start looking it up.
Posted by: stuart on February 16, 2006 12:29 PMI'm unfamilar with what Richardson has done, but I'll start looking it up.
Posted by: stuart on February 16, 2006 12:29 PMhttp://www.governor.state.nm.us/governor.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson_(politician)
Posted by: Palouse on February 16, 2006 12:48 PM"Rossi, however, is nothing but an empty suit. The guy is one step above a used car salesman. To call him a buisness exec is a joke. The guy's a good talker and can make a sale, but that doesn't qualify you to be a CEO, let alone a govenor."
That's what they used to say about Ronald Reagan. Is Rossi the next Reagan? Hardly. But it proves that you offered nothing of substance and merely chose to slander Rossi without any corresponding facts. If you don't like him, surely you can come up with a FACT, rather than calling him things that aren't true (e.g. used car salesman).
If you're REALLY a Republican, you'd offer something of use to the debate. You didn't, and therefore you probably aren't.
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2006 02:00 PMReagan was the president of screen actors guild. He was involved in leadership throughout his acting career.
Rossi lied about being a broker -- and was totally misleading about the kind and size of business he ran (when the facts came out, he backpedaled faster than a VP who shoots his buddy)...
Rossi is a likeable guy...but substance free doesn't just describe his non-drug use!
Posted by: LovinUSA on February 16, 2006 02:13 PMTell us what we want to hear...unless it's SO unbelievable that even loyalists will balk.
But, live in your dream world...because we are not taking any steps backwards in this state and adding to the ridiculous republican majority in Congress.
That would simply be mass insanity.---something most Washingtonians are simply not capable of (thank goodness!)
Once again, not a fact in sight. Lied, misleading, whatever. Admit it, you used to post under the name 'Nelson'. Yaaawn.
You sure can stick in the jokes about the terrible hunting accident that our VP and his friend just suffered through. Do you always make jokes about other people's misfortunes? Only if they're Republicans, right?
Maybe I should stick in some jokes of my own. When you contend that Rossi lied, I could say 'At least he didn't do it to a Grand Jury and suffer the disgrace of being impeached!' Or I could say 'Sure, Cheney waited 18 hours to inform the press about the hunting accident, but at least he didn't hide Vince Foster's suicide note for 30 hours like Hillary!' See how that contributes to the debate?
By the way, the Republican majority is not only in Congress, but in the White House, the Supreme Court, and all the Governor's Mansions throughout our 50 United States. And Conservatives now control Canada and Germany, as well as our more staunch allies Britain, Australia, Poland, etc. So Washington may not be 'red' any time soon? So what? That'll just make Washington less and less important and influential on the national stage, which is a GOOD thing. We've cornered you so we know where you are.
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2006 02:57 PMYou're correct that he likes to revel at other's misfortunes, but it isn't like he shows any particular elan at it, right?
Posted by: alphabet soup on February 16, 2006 03:57 PMHe sure doesn't. He violates the first rule of telling jokes - he isn't funny.
Posted by: Larry on February 16, 2006 05:18 PM