August 26, 2006
McGavick in the News
Yes...but this isn't the post you think. I'll get to the more talked about news on McGavick revealing an old DUI arrest later since I just wrapped up some vacation time and am still catching up. In the meantime, here's this poll on the race between Maria Cantwell and Mike McGavick from Rasmussen Reports on which to chew.
Cantwell holds a 46%-40% lead that bears noting for three reasons: one, as Rasmussen notes, she remains consistently below 50%, always a danger point for incumbents. Two, Rasmussen's rolling three-month average remains at a consistent 6-7% point spread, prompting them to switch the race rating from "Democrat" to the more competitive "Leans Democrat." Third, all of this does not include the two third party candidates, Aaron Dixon and Bruce Guthrie, whose respective anti-war positions are expected to draw more votes from Cantwell than McGavick. The summation of that data should concern Democrats, and embolden Republicans.
Lastly, my previous post on the Reichert-Burner race included a discussion relevant to polling by Rasmussen that bears repeating here:
Moreover, Survey USA polls (and those from Rasmussen) are not easily dismissed as some would like to claim. Survey USA's own track record is well-documented at their own website, and for those looking for more independent sourcing, one can read this report from Slate (that lion heart of conservatism) extolling Survey USA and Rasmussen as the most accurate pollsters in 2004, an election festooned with more polling data in the closing weeks than even many political junkies could track.
The Slate report noted above specifically talks up Rasmussen's accuracy, after admitting their own skepticism of Rasmussen and Survey USA prior to actual analysis. Further polls from Rasmussen and Survey USA, in addition to John Zogby's work for the Wall Street Journal, should be worth watching given that the three seem to be the only reputable, indpendent pollsters tracking this race.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 26, 2006
12:40 PM | Email This
McGavick has been consistently between 36% and 40% in the Rasmussen polls. Until he gets to 45% I really cannot see him winning this race.
At the same time Cantwell's job approval rating at SurveyUSA at 55% is at high so she is showing strength.
What everyone will be waiting for is how these polls change next month after people have had time to digest McGavick's revelations and his .17 blood alcohol DUI.
2. Just posted a comment but it isn't displaying. Are comments not working?
3. Oops - there it is!
4. Daniel - I appreciate your generally thoughtful comments at this site, notably at the previous thread on Reichert v. Burner. But for the life of me, I don't see why McGavick's BAC has any relevance. I realize Horse's Ass and others are all worked up about it, but as a PR issue, a DUI is a DUI. Most adults have been around others who respond differently to various levels of inebriation. Who the hell cares what his BAC was? It doesn't change his own acknowledged mistake. Ride that horse if you guys like, but I don't see where it gets you anywhere, other than sounding petty and snarky, for which your side is already being chided on this issue.
Eric - When a politician comes out and confesses to his sins, while I'm glad to hear him/her do so, I cannot help but be distrustful about the motive. It is a common tactic to make such revelations with the hope that the public will perceive them to be the only ones we should know about. I don't believe that the public is well served if we only go by what the politician is stating, and I hope that the media will continue to investigate the candidate to make sure there are indeed no further skeletons in his closet that he has chosen to keep hidden.
.17 is a very high count, so my concern is that this problem is well and truly in his past. Was there a pattern of drinking, or blowing through red lights, or was this a lone incident? That's important to know. Hopefully McGavick himself will be forthright enough to ensure that the public is fully aware of his issues, past and present (if any).
Personally it changes little for me, but we heard how people like Dori Monson felt about the DUI, and not all will be as forgiving as Dori if they weren't as solidly behind the candidate as he. So my original point regarding the effect of the DUI on the next polls was simply a matter of taking into account the reality of such things to some voters.
6. I find it amazing how the Cantthinkwell supporters want to talk about anything
other than the issues effecting the
people of this fine state.
7. Our old friend "Steve"/"Conservative not Republican" is trying to make a comeback in the comments after being banned by Stefan and I. He's being deleted whenever we come across his comments.
Again, the third party candidates will not be in the debates if they do not get a percentage of the polls and they won't get a percentage of the polls if the polls don't mention the third party candidates name (which makes the polls instantly unscientific and partisan). This puts the already small budget and short staffed candidates in the unique position of having to develope mass interest AND name recognition with a fraction of the money that the two party syndrome has in thier war chests.
I'm not going to blame the media as I do not think that candidates are entitled to media coverage (though I know the media often neglects some campaigns that have very qualified candidates and/or popular messages). It is very intersting that the only way that dissenting voices get out there is when they have vast financial resources or notoriety like Perot or Nader. I believe this reflects how the media has gone from unbiased (or at least nonpartisan) reporting the news to the more aloof position of social pacifier.
People often ask, 'why don't the Libertarians run one of thier rich/famous members?' The problem in the past has been that Libertarians did not know how to run professional campaigns, so having a star without the ability to really support the campaign would not be a success.
Come on, We were everyday folks who had studied enough of the political scene to be dangerous. We knew that things were going the wrong way and we wanted to act on that knowledge.
Of course all this is changing as recently the Libertarian party both nationally and locally have realized the error of their ways and turned towards training candidates and training people to run excellent campaigns.
This explains how Bruce Guthrie has raised more money in one day than any Washington State Libertarian campaign ever has.
Well don't take my word for it, look at the professional web site they have up.
9. I have a difficult time believing the DUI thing is a major problem. Let's face it, it was 13 years ago. Can you think of any stupid and/or irresponsible things YOU did 13 years ago that you wouldn't even think of doing NOW? I'm sure even Maria can.
10. Firewalker - If this is the last of such incidents then I would agree, except you and I are not running for the Senate, and exclusive club of 100 U.S. citizens.
" Let's face it, it was 13 years ago. Can you think of any stupid and/or irresponsible things YOU did 13 years ago that you wouldn't even think of doing NOW?"
Yes, I can, but I was much younger then. McGavick was what, in his 40s? Who doesn't know better by then?
The DUI thing is a bit off-topic for this thread, however, since that's where the comments seem headed...
He was caught drinking and driving 13 years ago. It was probably a great wake up call for him, as was my own DUI. (Also 13 years ago, I was 19). One thing I've noticed among my own peers is that the people who have had one DUI tend to be much more likely not to drink and drive at all. (Multiple offenders are another story.) Those that have never been caught for a DUI seem to be the ones (that I know) that continue to risk driving after a few drinks.
Bottom line is that in a politician, I'm more concerned with someone that may be driving under the influence now. Not someone that did it in the past, got caught and learned from it. Since Mr. McGavick has one DUI and hasn't had another in 13 years it says a lot about how he learns from his mistakes.
Given some of the political functions I've been to, the drinking involved at some of them, and the lack of cabs around when I've left; I'd venture to guess that someone whith a DUI 13 years ago is the least of our problems.
As for him blowing a .17, at 19 years old, I blew a .13. Considered high, however, I was able to pass the road-side sobriety test and I wasn't even that much of a drinker. Those of you that dive after having 3 beers at a bar may be shocked to learn just how high you could register.
13. Cool site. Thank you!
14. Cool site. Thank you!
15. Cool site. Thank you!
16. Very good site. Thank you.
17. Very good site. Thank you.