Faithful readers of Sound Politics are well aware of the skepticism with which this site's contributors have greeted the rise of the netroots. Yes, they are good at raising money for candidates from outside their district, but that doesn't mean they're grounded in political reality.

Liberal bloggers have in recent months shown growing excitement for Democratic Congressional candidates in Eastern Washington. This author pointed out such enthusiasm for Peter Goldmark might be more anti-Bush dreaming than cogent political analysis. Post-primary seems like a good time to check-in on that notion, even as results continue to be tabulated.

Leading up to primary, such bloggers not only continued their drumbeat for Peter Goldmark, their euphoria prompted some puzzling preening about the potential pitfalls facing Rep. Doc Hastings, said preening found here and here.

So what were those primary results?

Despite a massive statewide advantage in Democratic v. Republican ballots, Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings steamrolled to strong showings. As of this typing, Hastings is capturing about 55% of the overall vote, and Republicans are totaling nearly 72% of votes cast in his district. Meanwhile, McMorris is cruising, with approximately 58% of the vote.

Even the eager netroots are now tempered about Goldmark (though hardly a word can be found in the liberal blogosphere about Hastings' strong primary showing). The NW Progressive Institute blog gamely tries to fill its readers with lots of theories as to why the race is still competitive. Evergreen Politics is mercifully more restrained, noting:

These numbers are not insurmountable for Goldmark. With his charisma and on-going voter interaction, he may still be able to reach those many voters who tend not to vote in the primaries.

Yet, as I've noted, Democrats seem to have their best comparative advantage over Republicans in the primaries, whereas parity with Republicans in general elections is more notable. Moreover, don't neglect the fact Cathy McMorris was popular enough win every county in her district in 2004, while running up a higher percentage of the vote than President Bush in 10 of the district's 12 counties, and higher than Dino Rossi in 11 of those 12 as well.

The netroots might be merely wrong about Goldmark, but the brief fantasy of trouble for Hastings should go down as one of the more ludicrous assertions of this campaign season. One would think most people of both sides of the aisle would know better than to buy into push polls, like those the anti-Hastings bloggers were fawning over, and which I've had the chance to read. Hint to readers of all political beliefs: whenever a pollster talks about "enough resources to reach persuadable voters," and then how their candidate improves in the polling once "comparatives" are used between the candidates you should be skeptical. The point of such polls is to prove to donors (or intemperate bloggers) that the race is worthy of attention, not to get an accurate read of the race. Such polls often include asking questions like: Candidate A wants to give your grandmother free prescriptions and your child a free college education, Candidate B wants to starve her out of her home and send your child to war, all to to make executives from pharmaceutical and big-oil companies rich. Do you prefer Candidate A or Candidate B?

But please, don't let facts get in the way of the netroots. Now we've got Horse's Ass braying about some great victory for Darcy Burner. Oh dear.

I guess I shouldn't be too critical though, these guys do give me great material.

UPDATE: 3rd to last paragraph edited.