In this post, I argued that Congressman Reichert would defeat Darcy Burner by about eight points, basing that conclusion mostly on past election results. The post was pure analysis, and would have been written the same way, even if I didn't back Reichert — though I do, of course, like most sensible people. I wrote the post mostly to refute a rather silly New York Times article, which managed to ignore most of the 8th district.
In this column, Joel Connelly implicitly concedes that I am right, and that Reichert is the favorite. Connelly even repeats one of the points I made.
But more rural areas have come to see the Dems as the party of distant courthouses, out-of-touch regulators and spendthrift politicians.
(Connelly does not explain why rural voters might have come to that conclusion.) And I will add some data that I skipped in the original post. Twelve percent of the population of the 8th district is rural. Campaigning in Seattle is not, in general, the best way to appeal to those people. Or even to most people who live in Bellevue.
Some might wonder why I am so certain that Connelly agrees with me, since he is not bold enough to make an actual prediction, as I did. I am certain because Connelly wrote the column to warn Burner that she might be depicted as a liberal. In other words, if she continues to campaign as she has, she will lose. Which is what I said. In fact, I think it may be too late for Burner to change course, that she has already blundered enough so that, assuming no big mistakes by Reichert, she will be unable to catch up.
And he does go this far:
So, too, are the Burner backers who claim to have the hottest challenger in the country. The 8th District was not found on The Washington Post's most recent list of 20 House seats most likely to change hands in November.
Is Burner a liberal, a question Connelly ignores? She is, if we use the term as most Americans do when discussing politics. I generally avoid the term, for reasons I explained in this post. Instead, I would say that Burner is a leftist on some social issues (abortion, for example), more moderate on economic issues, and a leftist on foreign policy — at least while President Bush is in charge. But perhaps I am giving her more credit for consistency than I should.
It is good to have this support for my analysis, coming as it does from a man who votes rather differently than I do. (At one time we voted for much the same candidates. I would say I learned more from my mistakes than Connelly did from his, though I suppose he might disagree on that point.)
(Wonder how good my predictions have been? Take a look at some past predictions here and here. I should add that I expected Bush to win by 3 to 5 points in 2000, so I am not always right.
Do I think Connelly borrowed from my post? Probably not, since the analysis is one any informed person might make — even though it was too complex for Timothy Egan of the New York Times. I will leave it to other SP contributors to decide whether Connelly borrowed from their posts.
In the column, Connelly appears to refer to Sound Politics. But he does it indirectly. Maybe I am wrong, but isn't it good journalism to actually name the people, or in this case, the blog that you are discussing?)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 28, 2006 04:25 PM | Email ThisJC is an equal-opportunity non-namer - he didn't identify the "liberal bloggers" Burner was drinking with at the Montlake Ale House, either.
JC also touched on another issue discussed here:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006366.html
"If Burner is to stand a chance of upsetting freshman Republican Rep. Dave Reichert, however, Capitol Hill and Belltown need to be officially designated as Darcy-free zones."
JC says the events there were fundraisers, so the argument holds - plenty of money in Seattle for lefty candidates (regardless of location), but few votes.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 28, 2006 05:14 PMI think it's really pretty simple. I know a fair number of Democrats in the 8th. They are somewhat moderate, but they are socially left, fiscally left and many of them are unsure about the war. However none of them wants to be identified with the Nutrooters. As Darcy has wholly embraced the Nutroots support, and jumped on the defeatist bandwagon, she does not appeal to my 8th CD moderate Democrat friends at all.
When the dust settles and the analysis is all done after the election, it's going to be the adamant, angry Nutroots / Moonbat affiliation that is implicated for much of the Dems losses. Most Americans simply are not that negative.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 28, 2006 05:54 PM
Well, it would also be good manners, but Mr. C has never been accused of that. Of course, he lurks here to see what the rational beings think. He can't get that at the coffee houses and liberal hangouts where he goes to for the adulation and free beer.
It may be enough to sit back and watch the Dems self-destruct in the 8th District. Burner has thus far showed herself to be another empty suit with a D beside her name, who likes to flock to the liberal/socialist roost of Seattle for photo-ops. Fine strategy, but the Repubs (Reichert campaign) should not rest on their laurels and get proactive, led by a President with approval ratings barely 40 percent, if that. Reichert should emphasize his stand on securing the borders. Ms. Burner is apparently apathetic about that - she's also hoping that more felons and illegals with get their votes counted too, just like Deanron !
Posted by: KS on June 28, 2006 06:22 PMI'm a small government small r republican who's about one more stupid government program away from voting libertarian (what does a vote for a republican matter on my KC mail in ballot anyway), and Mr. Reichert seems a little too comfortable with pork and other neo-liberal causes.
Posted by: Dan on June 28, 2006 06:39 PMAnd I'll go farther than that. I glanced over a group of his columns recently and saw material I could agree with in at least a third of them.
There are, of course, some subjects on which he is hopeless. I blushed -- I really did -- when I read the interview he did with Clinton near the end of the 1996 campaign. The interview was done after the Chinagate broke, and Connelly did not ask a single question about that giant scandal.
But on other subjects he can be pretty good.
Posted by: Jim Miller on June 28, 2006 07:37 PMFor example, JD talks about 'patriotic Americans, also known as "Republicans," tut-tutting the quaint idea that we should take treason seriously.' You see the subtle twist here? The word 'treason' is used often on right-wing talk radio and JD twists that notion to refer to Republicans.
The most vicious and disgusting example is by those self-described Christians who disrupt funerals for soldiers who have been killed in Irag, because, they say, the U.S. is soft on homosexuals. Huh?
However, I heard a caller on the radio last night talking about why such a move is necessary.
"These are desperate times," he said repeatedly, as he also claimed these protesters' Constitutional rights would be infringed if they were stopped. Huh?
These aren't isolated examples. The huge anti-illegal alien arguments are being taken over by irrational twists and spins that the left likes to put on the issue. Listen to callers in to talk radio and see if you don't see what I mean. If you begin to think, "Huh?" I think you're seeing the Left at work.
Sorry this was so long, but I think it's an important insight.
Posted by: Mac on June 28, 2006 08:35 PMNow he he's on a quixotic quest to punish the Republican Party by withholding his vote. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I'm all torn up!
Admit it Liberal~John, you know what you've got to do, right?!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 28, 2006 08:54 PMFour points is a more realistic nunber.
As Burner fades national money (both Reichert's and hers) will flow to other competitve races, which works against heavily lopsided results like those you predict, Jim.
While Burner is a much weaker candidate than Ross is will be a tougher year for R's.
Posted by: Court Watcher on June 28, 2006 09:45 PMThank you! I wanted to see how all these "conservatives" would respond to a post that was straight from Ann Coulter. LOL - in very typical fashion. In this local in the Republican Religion it is more important to attend church then follow the beliefs.
Let's see who was that in the Dino Rossi suite at the Mariners Game during his run for Governor -- oh that was me. .... wonder why.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 29, 2006 04:39 AMHmmm...why would I take political advice from a person who disagrees with my politics, and practice personal reflection at the urging of someone who obviously doesn't?
Posted by: South County on June 29, 2006 07:04 AMWhat politics might that be? I'm a conservative, and since you disagree with me that must make you a Republican. The Republicans around here are so blind in the loyalty they have bought into big government, totally hypocritical when it comes to spending (Oh no Gregoire took a trip and spent some money, meanwhile Bush Adminstration is going into debt at a rate of $400B/yr.), sending US troops to prision, ignore treason, advocate suicide for people like me, ignore terrorist organizations of all types, do the potty language thing, always equate words with actions, decide that execution of the law is optional, wouldn't bring up Kelo for the longest time, rip conservatives (which is real funny when I use the words of people like Ann Coulter and the Hertiage Foundation).
Let's see in about 1 week George Bush will suddenly be pro-life again. They are on a weekly schedule to convince social conservatives that they care ... thus gay marriage, flag burning, next week should be pro-life week. The Republican party will be careful to make sure each fails so as ensure they can use these same issues for the next twenty years.
At least somebody at the white house has figured out that conservatives are pretty steamed with their performance. Over the past three weeks is the first time since 2004 where at least the language is not contrary to everything I believe. But this boy is not confusing pandering with moving an agenda forward.
If the election were held today Dave Reichert loses his job. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the Democrats lose - I think D. Reichert gets swept aside in the rout. "The Day After" election, think -- better not piss off all the real conservatives if you want to get elected, remember the illegals can't vote yet.
Why do I keep getting all these fundraising calls from the Republican Party and pleading letters from E. Dole ... how many times do I have to tell them -- they are not getting any money this year. Please note how far down the fundraising is this year .... waaaaaayyyyyy down. So apparently I'm not the only one pissed off.
Meanwhile, how's that suicide thing going?!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 29, 2006 08:38 AMThe original Fred.
Posted by: Fred on June 29, 2006 09:30 AM
Sorry, John. Please tell Dwight "Cuba" Pelz, he got it wrong again. Sending out faux "conservatives" to wreak havoc "from within" simply won't work. You liberals do not know what conservatives are all about - only that you hate them. And that hate will always trip you up.
Oh and remember John, the money the DNC is sending you for your efforts must be reported as income on your taxes.
Posted by: pbj on June 29, 2006 09:34 AMLet me review: The first post was a pure analytical piece, explaining why I thought Reichert would win. The second noted that PI columnist Joel Connelly implicitly agreed with my analysis.
Neither post discussed whether Reichert (or other Republicans) should win, so comments on that question are off topic. You are, of course, perfectly free to make those arguments elsewhere. But I would appreciate it if you would not comment any more on these two posts -- unless you can stay on topic.
And for all commenters, let me review this sensible advice from Volokh:
We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
That's just part of their advice; you can read the whole thing at the end of any of their posts, for example, here. I would suggest that Mr. McDonald study the fourth and fifth paragraphs of that advice carefully.
And I would like to remind others -- especially those who agree with me -- that it is best to avoid personal insults. If, that is, you want to persuade neutrals, as I almost always do.
Putting aside the individual race dynamics, 2004 was an astounding year for turnout – including an amazing 83% in King County. Granted Reichert had many strengths for a 1st time Congressional candidate, but if Democrats can’t beat the guy in a race for an open seat with their own well-known candidate and exceptionally high turnout (historically shown to benefit Democarts) then their task is not made easier by the fact turnout will be closer to 60% this year.
As much as Democrats and John McDonald are fascinated with an anti-Bush theme this year, current evidence suggests that won’t hold as they expect. As touched on in David Postman’s notes on the Cantwell race today (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/06/eighth_district_loses_spot_on_list_of_hottest_race.html) recent trends have show stabilization in Bush’s numbers and perceived anti-Republican sentiment. The analysis at both websites Postman uses, Sabato’s and the National Journal, elaborate on that trend.
Moreover, I haven’t seen this angle discussed yet, but recent news actually creates a great opportunity for Bush and Republicans – and I’m not even talking about the death of Zarqawi, the formation of Iraq’s new government, and Bush’s trip to Baghdad. Putting aside the lingering immigration debate, the two biggest issues of the day now are the NY Times running stories on anti-terror programs and today’s Supreme Court ruling on military tribunals for Gitmo detainees. These stories benefit Bush and Republicans for a couple reasons.
The first issue with the NY Times focuses attention on the Administration’s handling of the war on terror, generally a good topic for Republicans both with their base and with independents. In addition, the stark conflict between the Administration and the Times, with related Congressional outrage, is a boost for the general mood of the base heading into the election.
The second issue also focuses attention on the war on terror, with similar overall benefits. Moreover, as news reports and the written decision in the case indicate, this is an issue Congress can take up and authorize the military tribunals in question. Such a debate can only serve to benefit Republicans by robbing Democrats of airtime on other issues, emphasizing the war on terror, and generally appearing effective on an important issue. Meanwhile, the breakdown of today’s decision will magnify to the base the importance of Supreme Court nominations given that Alito joined Scalia and Thomas in supporting the government’s position and Roberts had to recuse himself since he previously supported the government’s position when this case was before the DC Circuit. In contrast, Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the court in giving precedence to international law, including the Geneva Convetions to which al Qaeda is not a party. These are issues that get parts of the base revved up.
Other issues will certainly come to the fore in the fall, but absent breaking events, the table is now set at least for July and August to be filled with conversations and debates about these issues. That can only serve to benefit Republicans as a whole, and deprive Democrats of public mood they need to have a prayer at defeating Reichert.
Good analysis, although off topic according to Jim Miller. I don't care.
Middle America is tired of insane liberals and insane liberal hyperbolic equivocations like Howlin' Howie yesterday equating our current body politick with the "dark" and "evil" McCarthyist 1950's. Gee whiz, (a little 50's lingo) "McCarthyism" played out during the administration of liberal Democrat Harry Truman.
Golly gofigure G-man.
Americans are not going to approve of tying any President's hands regarding prisoners of war . . . today's decision will not help the Democrats.
Only the left, with the help of the MSM, has a problem with Gitmo. I'm sure the decision won't stop them from claiming victory anyway. Just wait for the upcoming vitriol in the slimes letters to the editor, declaring their validation that Bush is "trampling our civil rights". Somehow I don't think the majority of Americans are too concerned about civil rights of Al Qaeda members.
Posted by: Palouse on June 29, 2006 02:22 PMCheck your history book. Don't you like Ike?
Posted by: Henry on June 30, 2006 03:35 PM