We'll have post-mortems on the state GOP's legislative implosion later, but here's what other folks are saying about it. Thursday's article in the Times and Thomas Shapley's laphamized Sunday column in the P-I attribute the statehouse losses mainly to the national pro-Democrat wave. That's undoubtedly a contributing factor, but there has to be more to it. If you look at the numbers still being reported in King County, Dave Reichert is faring much better than most of the Republican legislative candidates who intersect his district. (esp. districts 45,47,48). If voters mainly wanted to throw the bums out in Washington DC, they've chosen an odd way to accomplish that.
The other explanation offered is that voters are endorsing Mrs. Gregoire and the Democrats in the legislature. But the latest Strategic Vision poll seems to disagree.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 10, 2006 06:24 PM | Email ThisWe need to work on positive and constructive ideas, such as education funding. Many of the ideas proposed by Rep. Glenn Anderson in his "Minority Report" are actually doable this year. Gregoire has done -- and will do -- nothing to address education funding inequities accross the state, or the pitiful lack of funding for special education. But the Republicans in the legislature could stand as a group on this one, and get enough Democrats to join in on this.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 10, 2006 08:28 PMOn the other hand, it was perceived to be a major problem, and opposition to the law was widely viewed as being anti-gay. Many other states have laws against anti-gay discrimination, and there is no compelling harm to be caused by having such a law.
The GOP's strident opposition to the prohibiting anti-gay discrimination was extremely noticeable in 2005 and 2006. And then the attempt to have a referendum on the matter was an absolute fiasco. Putting the matter in Tim Eyman's hands? And those pastors looked so ridiculous -- they couldn't hardly even get people in their own congregations to sign the petitions, much less circulate them.
In King County, the GOP legislators who voted against the anti-discrimination law (Luke Esser and Toby Nixon) were defeated. Only the two legislators who voted in favor of the law (Fred Jarrett and Skip Priest) were re-elected. Another legislator who voted in favor of the law (Rodney Tom) felt the GOP had become so unpopular that he felt compelled to switch parties.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 10, 2006 08:45 PM71% said NO.
And here is the reason the PI wants Dino to just go away--
#9: If the Election for Governor in 2008 was between the Democrat Christine Gregoire and the Relpublican Dino Rossi, whom would you vote for?
51% say Dino
44% say Mrs. Gregoire
5% undecided. She is toast.
Posted by: Michele on November 10, 2006 08:57 PMHines lost by 20%, I guess no one want's to turn Washington into Idaho.
You folks need to start running better folks.
Posted by: me on November 10, 2006 09:31 PM
In the House seats the Democrats picked up, it appears in all but one case (the 6th in Spokane), they had a significant financial advantage.
It is a bad year for Republicans no doubt. But what could have been the loss of just a few seats was made much worse by the fact that Republicans did not raise enough money.
Posted by: b2 on November 10, 2006 11:08 PM
Despite this obvious result, the entire GOP caucus (save Finkbeiner) locked up with Val Stevens and did the same stupid thing twice in the past two years. And they put Stevens on the air to share her mean wackiness with all of us.
It helped beat Nixon, Esser (especially) and Schmidt around here, and Benson over in Spokane.
GOP identification as gay-bashers hurt candidates across the board.
Young voters don't get it. Most people in the state are pretty reasonable and they don't get it.
Why doesn't the state GOP get it and listen to the people it wants to lead?
The civil rights law enacted with great fanfare last year was an extremely modest and fair step forward. It didn't impact any religious views in the least - in fact many more people of faith supported it than opposed it. Most people saw that and wondered why the GOP reacted as if the state's hair was on fire.
It was really dumb. And wrong.
Posted by: thor on November 10, 2006 11:18 PMhttp://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/11102006news75520.cfm
Even if Campbell doesn't beat Dunn, I think he did pretty good for spending less than $100 on his campaign. ;-)
Posted by: Randy Mueller on November 11, 2006 12:06 AMNow, what should the Libertarians and the Greens do if they are smart?
Posted by: RonK, Seattle on November 11, 2006 09:56 AMMr. Reichert, who bragged about the "Fs" he received in high school during his first campaign is the best they can do? And only squeak by a complete inexperienced unknown? And do it with a large R stronghold counted in?
I'd be rethinking...
Posted by: Tom on November 11, 2006 04:49 PM1) They continue the George Bush style formula -- pandering to the Religious Right, and racking up debt to do it -- and drive away moderates in the process ..
2) They return to being real Republicans, fiscally responsible, and ignore the wack job personal morality crusaders they've allowed to run the party in recent years.
Let me cite one example for you folks. My fiancee's father, a lifelong R, Sno-ho county resident born and bred, voted for Republicans since Ronald Reagan. At dinner a week ago with no prompting out of the blue he says, "I can't believe I'm voting for Maria Cantwell."
This bombshell was met with shrugs, so a couple of minutes later he repeated it, again with no previous conversation... "I can't believe I'm voting for Maria Can't Vote Well."
So see, even your propaganda registered on this KVI listener, age 55, but none the less, what mattered to him was:
1) Budget busting republicans' management of the national debt.
2) Who got us into a war in Iraq, the neocons..
3) who seem more obsessed with gay marriage than with fiscal responsibility
4) who nonetheless have scandals left and right themselves.
I asked him, OK, so why are you voting Democratic. He cited three things:
1) Cantwell's defending Snoho PUD against Enron. That was heroic work. Swing voters noticed.
2) Mike! as he put it "talking out both sides of his mouth." Face it guys. Everyone knows someone that's been shafted by an insurance company. It is easy to make an insurance company profitable -- don't pay some claims, and lay some people off! Then he took a bonus for doing it. Not the most compelling narrative to be coming out in public with.
3) "I don't give a damn about gay marriage, I just want them to run the government responsibly."
So there you have it. Learn from this if you want to, or keep practicing the politics of personal destruction, keep slinging the mud, keep acting like Bush and Rove Republicans -- while you continue to miss the fact that the Democrats quite possibly are in the process of becoming the new Moderate Majority .. if they manage to ignore their loony fringe .. and manage to practice fiscal responsibility instead of classic Democratic porkbarrel politics -- which lets be honest, in the last 10 years, has more and more been a Republican speciality than a Democratic one.
Posted by: DaveD on November 12, 2006 08:12 AM"What did the State Republicans run on?"
I don't know of a single issue they put out there that was different than the Ds.
I can't even tell you who the R leadership is.
Even Dan Kristianson had a hard time against someone who didn't run for election. And then there was Kim Halvorson who ran an energetic, but 'no issue' race. Other times, she would have won, but there was no pressing issue to get that final 5% over on her side.
Posted by: swatter on November 13, 2006 07:29 AMI mean, I can guess, but if I'm guessing than so are most voters, and that just allows the Dems to paint the Republicans as a bunch of dangerous wingnuts. If you don't define yourself, your opponent will define you, and that's bad.