Do read Matt's post below and the linked column -- "Why The Dems Don't Have A Chance Of Winning".
And locally, the Dem's hope for unseating Congressman Dave Reichert seems to have a particularly poor chance of winning --
* The Burner campaign pollster released some [wildly cherry-picked] numbers last week. The Burner fan blogs trumpeted it as great news. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out what was left out of the public version of the poll numbers and why these numbers are better news for Reichert than for Burner. (hat tip to Postman for posting the pollster's memo in the comments of this entry)
* Burner made much hay out of being selected for the DCCC's "Red-to-Blue" program. But compare her biography with the biographies of the other 20 designees. The group includes former Congressmen, a state Attorney General, state legislators and people who have founded and/or led sizable companies and non-profits. And then there's Darcy, who "most recently was an executive at Microsoft." (oops, and she wasn't even that). Putting her on this list only highlights her astonishing lack of relevant experience. Coming soon to this blog: more underwhelming details of Burner's so-called "community activism". Voters don't think of Congress as an entry-level political office and the contrast between the former Microsoft non-executive with no record of community service and Dave Reichert is as clear as it gets.
* Last but not least (for now), this is an exceptionally bad time for anybody to position themselves a "Netroots" candidate (not that there was ever a good time to go nutroots, but this is the worst time of all). And it's not just the ultra-left silliness, the fishy stock-touting or the cult-like organization -- there's also the astrology!
(Some might ask -- if Dave Reichert is in a relatively strong position and Burner isn't a viable candidate, why bother with this? No particular reason other than I find it interesting to observe that the local Democratic establishment and some in the media have an emotional investment in Burner that is wildly disproportionate to her actual strengths as a candidate).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 23, 2006 11:47 AM | Email ThisWhat was left out of the numbers? A direct, head-to-head poll of "If the election were today, who would you vote for: Reichert or Burner? And Reichert gets the nod?
Posted by: Lil 'ol me on June 23, 2006 12:38 PMI suppose it helps make her fund raising look legitimate
The only folks as far as I know who have anything but good things to say about Reichert are from fringes - of both sides.
Posted by: Deadwood on June 23, 2006 01:32 PM"The only folks as far as I know who have anything but good things to say about Reichert are from fringes - of both sides." -Then how come only 33% want to vote for him? A third on either side is a pretty big fringe.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on June 23, 2006 02:20 PMDarcy Burner is laughably inexperienced. But when you live in the insulated Nutroots world, anything seems possible.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 23, 2006 02:36 PMI did however take some time to check out who these folks are and was not surprised to find they are all "Prominent Democrats" supporting "Progressive" candidates. And before you go off - I don't trust polls conducted by any partisans.
So give us all a break Ben.
Posted by: Deadwood on June 23, 2006 02:44 PMI can't wait to hear what the community service is that you've been able to dig up. I haven't heard anything. I've got nothing on the state politics either.
That's why I wonder why the DCCC and EMILY's List are even wasting their time with her. They must be desperate, or they are as nuts as the nutroots.
Posted by: Janet S on June 23, 2006 02:54 PMIt may take several decades for Rubber Stamp Reichert to find a way to keep us safer -- but it's really the "feeling" that matters, huh?
Posted by: headless lucy on June 23, 2006 04:12 PMKerry was supposed to win easily, but that was a perfect example of how the DemoRats fell victim to their own wishful thinking. By ignoring the "silent majority", their candidate was sent packing and that continues to be true. The primary in California was really going to set the tone for a new DemoRat congress, but that didn't go as planned either.
Embellishing your resume seems to be ok for liberals. Ward Churchill had people defending his puffery and the local Dems seem intent on letting Ms. Burner continue to lie on hers. It just boggles the mind that the DemoRats don't care who their candidate is so long as they win. Ethics, morals, and personal responsibility don't matter. Too bad for the Dems that Mr. and Mrs. America don't see it that way.
Posted by: Burdabee on June 23, 2006 04:17 PMWhatever makes you all comfortable.
Posted by: David Goldstein on June 23, 2006 04:31 PMSo he is motivated to dig up as much dirt on Reichert as possible. He'll want to consult Larry Flynt, who will give him a crash course in how to implement the politics of personal destruction here - and when he does, it will be a bunch of half-truths packaged to make it appear to be plausible like all bonafide Democrats - living up to their sneaky party label. The October surprise awaits.
Posted by: KS on June 23, 2006 05:19 PMName recognition from 18% to 46%? Say it isn't so! That's going from a nobody to merely a total loser. Pray tell, what is Dave Reichert's name recognition? 98%, 99%, or 100%?
Dave is 'vulnerable to a challenge'...the poll 'foreshadow{s} a stong desire'...the electorate would 'consider voting for someone else' due to their 'strong desire for change'. Oh, and by the way, the Democrats still hate George Bush.
Can the Democratic Party emasculate Darcy Burner any more? They report on the percentage of voters that would 'consider voting for someone else'! Someone else? Aren't you talking about Darcy Burner? As Stefan pointed out, this lack of head-to-head numbers is an astounding omission.
This poll was set up to deliver the results indicated. The only redeeming quality of this report is that the Democratic Party probably paid tens of thousands of dollars for it - and once again, they spent a bunch of money for a big smokin' pile of poo.
Posted by: Larry on June 23, 2006 07:21 PMOf course I don't worry (although I would admit that I do have a concern or two).
I don't worry HL - after all I do know where you live. Should the world turn on its head and the Seattlunatics prevail, I always know where to go to seek remuneration...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 23, 2006 08:39 PMGoldy when you have a guest on radio show, grow a pair and take some phone calls. Maybe even a few dissenting calls. Typical Progressive, he wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, but only apply it to the right.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 23, 2006 09:56 PMJust some plain, frumpy woman in a pantsuit. Gets votes cuz she's a woman, not cuz she has any thing else to offer.
Posted by: righton on June 23, 2006 10:57 PMThere is no sum of money you could have paid me to abandon my pre-schoolers in favor of going to congress. (which happens to be an all-consuming job). What is she thinking? (and don't give me the feminist bull; young children need what they need, and that doesn't change regardless of whatever other thing adults claim to want)
Posted by: Misty on June 24, 2006 12:33 AM
As for me, I predict a Reichert win, unless King County starts "discovering" ballots days after the election.
It’s an amusing justification for ignoring the recent Rasmussen poll showing Cantwell’s declining lead. The really rich part though is Goldy’s claim that “Rasmussen is widely considered to be a partisan Republican pollster, and that computerized, auto-dial polls in general aren’t considered to be all that accurate.”
Oh, really?
A post-2004 analysis of polling during the Presidential race cited Rasmussen and other automated pollsters (like Survey USA) in general as being the most accurate, specifically saying “Rasmussen and SurveyUSA beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins.”
And who put together this analysis? That icon of the right-wing echo chamber, Slate magazine. See the report here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2110860/
You can read more analysis complimenting Rasmussen here:
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1097657667.shtml
here:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/page2/archives/000710.html
and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1274530/posts
Beyond Slate’s validation of automated polling you can read more on that specific angle here:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=1963
It took just a couple minutes of browsing the web to find the information above. As for information that Rasmussen is a “Republican pollster,” all I could find for such references were comments on a couple blogs…nothing else. Meanwhile, web searches were much quicker to validate that Rasmussen is actually an independent pollster, as supported by both his own website and media reports of his work.
My point in all this is not to say Goldy is wrong to be a bit skeptical of June polling for November elections. But he and his brethren should not be so quick to irrationally attack evidence that their preferred candidate is in trouble. Heck, even the PI reported on it (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/274851_senate22.html), while calling Rasmussen “an independent national polling firm.”
Not to mention one of the pollsters Democrats seem prone to support, John Zogby, showed the exact same trend for this race, a steadily shrinking Cantwell lead (down to 48-43), in results reported last Thursday on the Wall Street Journal’s website.
I don’t know what’s going to happen between now and November, but it seems to reason that Goldy & Co. might be better served focusing on real issues in the campaign itself rather than floating laughable excuses for data that upsets them.
Four years ago you folks wouldn't even be TALKING about the 8th District. Now you are, and FEVERISHLY so.
Your perfervid inside baseball rationalizations belie a certain...er, INSECURITY? ANXIETY?
BTW, PBJ, that would be "Herr," not "Heir." The inordinate frequency of such solecisms at this site speaks volumes.
Posted by: bartelby on June 24, 2006 07:44 PMPerhaps you missed the memo, but you might recall how much attention the Reichert/Ross match-up received in 2004 (not to mention the competitive primaries to select those two candidates). All the story lines from then are the same, competitive race in a district that has elected Republicans to Congress but has gone increasingly Democratic in statewide/federal races.
Moreover, the 8th CD race was one of the hottest local races in 2004, certainly the highest profile race in the Seattle media market outside of President & Governor that year.
Now, the only thing "feverish" about the race is the enthusiasm of the nutroots for their candidate.
Your fantasy-filled suppostions don't jive with reality.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 25, 2006 12:00 PMStefan claims Darcy Burner is not a viable candidate, but consistently posts about specious poll numbers and developments in her campaign. Perhaps folks are really worried about this race, with good reason. Look at the facts:
--Darcy is out fundraising Reichert most weeks. One of the biggest advantages of Republicans is the ability to outspend by a considerable margin. Burner will be able to get her message out.
--The 8th District is becoming steadily more Democratic. Each election shows this. The state Legislature is electing more and more D's. Republicans rarely win the race for president, perhaps the best barometer of how people feel about important issues. And the race in 2004 energized a non-existent Democratic base in the 8th.
--The president is almost to historic levels in his low approval ratings. Most people of all stripes view him as somewhat of an embarassment at least in terms of competence. Reichert is an unabashed supporter of the president and will have trouble shaking his lapdog record.
Don't get me wrong, if I were wagering on this race I would still have to bet on Reichert as a powerful incumbent. But on balance, methinks you doth protest too much. Darcy Burner is just as viable of a candidate as David Reichert. And this time he is running on a record, not as Sheriff Dave.
Posted by: keyless chuck on June 26, 2006 12:52 AMFrom experience, making bets with liberals is a losing proposition because they are deadbeats.
It is fun to harrass them when they inevitably lose though. In typical fashion, they usually lie their way out of it.
Dave Reichert will win along with the majority of the Republican candidates nation wide.
People like insane liberal John are busy making that a fait accomplis. His amplification of the N.Y Times, John Murtha,
Ted Kennedy and any other crackpot that intentionally helps our internal and international enemies is steeling conservatives' resolve.
Honest people are buying firearms and going to ranges around America in record numbers.
Gee whiz . . . gofigure.