Peter Goldmark, the Democrat challenging Spokane Congresswoman Cathy McMorris, is something of a nutcase. He reportedly told a Seattle fundraiser that "9/11 was directly attributable to George Bush and the Republican administration." His ads show him riding a horse and promising to "fight for the people of Eastern Washington". More accurate to show him kissing the rear end of the horse and fighting for the liberals of Western Washington. Horse's Ass blogger David Goldstein bragged that "Peter personally reached out to me" for fundraising help. Most of Goldmark's support is from outside the district:
(chart key same as earlier version)
The national climate has made this race competitive. McMorris is ahead, but if Goldmark pulls an upset, it will be because McMorris' supporters grew complacent and let Goldmark's out-of-district funders lead in the last-minute advertising buys.
This in a primary where democrat votes exceed R votes almost everywhere in the state. So, what's with these fringe leftists? Maybe Goldy can tell us... but does Fidel Pelz snap his fingers, and the leftist nutburgers just puke out checks into hopeless-for-them political races?
Sheesh.
Posted by: Hinton on October 22, 2006 09:10 AMBut even in the Okanogan County 5th District Congressional results, it was ALMOST a dead heat:
McMorris 2964
Goldmark 2996
And as Hinton correctly alluded to above, District-wide the results were:
McMorris 73902 - 59.2 percent
Goldmark 50866 - 40.8 percent
Couple other reasons I am confident McMorris will take Goldmark in the General:
As a candidate for PUD Commissioner in Okanogan County this year (I lost the primary), by far the most common, non-partisan feedback I got from Okanogan County residents was that they absolutely HATED the ''pick-a-party'' primary. My sense is that the (D)s mostly got over it and voted. Some conservatives were I believe so ticked off that they (foolishly) either didn't vote at all; or did not vote for the partisan offices.
Pick-a-party SUMMARY: My sense is that McMorris will gain proportionally in the General, compared to the primary.
Remember that the 5th District really is quite conservative (VERY conservative, compared to Greater Seattle). Quite a few people have been writing letters to local 5th District papers, pointing out the funding statistics Stefan presented in his handy graphical aide and other details about Goldmark's background; i.e.:
A socialist in cowboy hat and boots is still a socialist.
Even so: Stefan is certainly right about complacency having been the iceberg that sunk a lot of seemingly safe political ships....
Guess I should send McMorris another check. :-]
SIDEBAR: IMO Cathy McMorris is doing a REALLY good job as a freshman member of Congress:
Head of the NEPA task force; brought a Congressional field hearing on forest health to Okanogan early this month (that I and about 500 other Okanogan county citizens attended); etcetera.
Here's my idea:
All the campaign finance reform becomes a tax structure to fund neutral election activities (all-candidate issue debates) and voter fraud investigation.
Tax rate starts at 0%. (A local voter contributes to the campaign of anyone he can personally vote for, tax free.)
If the contributor cannot vote for the candidate, tax goes up 20%. (Essentially anyone other than a individual voter, including corporations and parties.)
Also, funds donated in excess of $X, where X is some contribution cap, are taxed at 20%. This includes a candidate's loans or donations to their own campaign. (This replaces the millionaire's rule.)
If the contributor is furthermore from outside the voting district, tax goes up 20%.
If the contributor is furthermore from outside the state, tax goes up another 20%. (i.e. An out-of-state billionaire contributor trying to buy a seat in another state to support his national party interests.)
The taxes are paid by the receiving campaign or candidate. The funds go directly to the voting auditor at the level of the office sought: local, county, state or federal. The auditor's jurisdiction includes anyone that contributes to the campaign, even if they are from out of state.
The basic idea is this: within a voting region (local, county, state or federal), an election should be the province of the voters in that region. Outside interference should be minimized. Outside interference is translated by the tax structure to activities that require candidates to explain their own ideas about issues, which should be stabilizing.
An out of state billionaire would think twice about trying to buy a local seat for his favorite party hack if the hack couldn't articulate a good plan for local transportation improvements. 60% of this out-of-state billionaire's contribution would go towards funding a public debate that would undoubtably expose this flaw. Then again, if that party hack was also smart, had good well-thought-out ideas on the issues, and could be persuasive... the billionaire wouldn't have to contribute, because that person would probably already be winning.
It is high time that the most potentially damaging job in our nation, that of politician, be taxed to combat the damage that they do.
Posted by: gmcraff on October 22, 2006 04:17 PM1. With around half of the registered voters in the 5th CD in Spokane county, it doesn't really matter how Okanogan County votes. This really gals my relatives in Omak. Urban Spokane County will decide this race. Urban areas tend to vote for more Democrats and Spokane is mighty fond of Democratic State Senator Lisa Brown. So things are looking good on that front.
2. I always get a good laugh out of Republicans complaining about Democrats raising money from out of district. I'm assuming your mad because we're stealing a play out of the Republican play book. Jesse Helms pioneered the technique, we just updated it from direct mail to being web-based. Helms never won his races by more then 54-55% and couldn't have won without out of state cash.
Posted by: me on October 22, 2006 10:55 PM