August 21, 2007
Snohomish County Primary Results...

...are in.

Though these are only preliminary the ballots counted thus far are likely to be at least half of the total tally (the Auditor's office is predicting 38% turnout). Thus, short of a huge shift in later ballots or in the absence of a nail biter of a race it's pretty clear where things are headed.

Initial observations:

1) Partisan primary turnout is indeed favoring Democrats as predicted, 59% - 38%.

2) John Lovick and Tom Greene look to be advancing to the general election in the Sheriff's race, with 38% and 35% of the vote in the three-way race respectively. That race looks mighty interesting for November.

My compliments to Rob Beidler. Though he finished third, I thought he ran a strong, energetic campaign. He simply ran into a very competitive field.

3) Sonya Kraski and perennial ballot presence Bob Dantini are advancing in the Clerk's race. More thoughts on this one to come later, but for now let me leave the reader with these nuggets: it pays to be the only female candidate in a qualified, multi-candidate field. It also pays to have high name ID like Dantini, even when you're unqualified for the office you're seeking (and you're only seeking it because you're term-limited out of your current job as County Treasurer).

4) I wasn't sure what to expect in the Democratic primary in the 2nd Council District, with two sitting legislators squaring off against each other. But Brian Sullivan is thumping Jean Berkey 60% - 40%.

5) Incumbent Gary Haakenson is having a very strong showing in the primary for the Mayor of the county's 2nd largest city, Edmonds. He's pulling almost 58%; well ahead of his closest competitor, outgoing City Councilwoman Mauri Moore who is drawing 22%.

Posted by Eric Earling at August 21, 2007 08:40 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Good comments.

Two additional observations in a race devoid of any real suspense. Aaron Reardon had significantly more write-in votes than no-name ID magician Jack Turk (both in real numbers and percentage). He also underperformed County Council Democratic candidates in the 2nd and 3rd Districts in terms of percentage. Doubtless he will win in November but if he does so by less than 60% against an opponent who is making his central campaign theme that he will spend no money on the race it will be something of a hallow victory.

Posted by: Stanwoodsage on August 21, 2007 08:40 PM
2. That is a pretty good percentage for Jack Turk. I left the space blank for the primary and didn't cast a vote for either candidate.

It sucks for Mr. Ledford but that's the way it goes.

It is very good for and if Beidler is being kicked out of the primary. Rob is a great guy and someday may make a great sherriff or other elected official as he does have political skills. But I am happy if these numbers hold because I think the best way that Tom Greene can be elected is through a race against Lovick. Greene can beat the experience drum and I think he can pull this off.

Lovick will now stop vacationing and start raising money which he didn't do too much of for the primary.

Posted by: A Roberts on August 21, 2007 09:25 PM
3. I know we weren't supposed to read much into the Cooper v. Sinclair primary race, Eric, but Ds voting 60% to 40% for a strong R?

Kraski did a good job targeting her mailings- it went to the wife, just like Eric alluded to as a reason for coming out well.

In other City Council races I looked at, the incumbents and those with name recognition did well.

Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2007 06:46 AM
4. WOW. Did you see Beidler's response in the Herald?

"Our message has been from the beginning hard-nosed crime fighting. People obviously aren't ready for that," he said.

Right Rob. Because people didn't vote for you, it proves that they don't want hard-nosed crime fighting, because you're the only one who can provide that.

I am so incredibly relieved that this hypersensitive and immature kid is almost surely going to lose the primary.

Greene will pick up almost all the endorsements Beidler had -- as well as some of the contributors! -- and I think we will be looking at Sheriff-elect Greene come November.

swatter: I do not understand your question. There WAS no Cooper vs. Sinclair primary race.

A Roberts: it does suck for Ledford. He was by far the most qualified and he ran a pretty good campaign insofar as getting endorsements. But apparently he just didn't get enough going on the ground.

Posted by: pudge on August 22, 2007 09:59 AM
5. The results show there was. The D got about 60% and Sinclair got about 40%. Everyone uses non-contested primaries as gauges if there is nothing else to go on.

Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2007 10:31 AM
6. swatter: no, the results do not show there was any such thing. That's like saying that the Mariners played against the Yankees last night. They are both gearing up for the same prize, the Wild Card, but they didn't, in fact, play each other last night.

There is no actual evidence whatsoever, of any kind, that the people prefer any Democrat to Sinclair. Only by taking the data to mean something it cannot mean could anyone come up with such a conclusion.

Posted by: pudge on August 22, 2007 10:59 AM
7. But Brian Sullivan is thumping Jean Berkey 60% - 40%.


That's because Brian Sullivan, while a liberal, is a fairly sensible, decent guy, while Jean Berkey is an alcoholic nutjob.

Just the facts, m'am.

Posted by: Cliff on August 22, 2007 11:49 AM
8. This was a pick-a-party primary, which means Cooper and Sinclair both received their party nominations. Period. History would suggest that the general could be much different -- in the 2004 primary Sam Reed, Doug Sutherland, Rob McKenna and Dave Riechert were all down by huge margins, and look where they are today. Reichert was also down in 2006. In the old days of the blanket primary you could sort of see how things were trending, but not anymore.

Posted by: I Voted on August 22, 2007 12:46 PM
9. By the way, this could also bode well for the other Cooper (BILL) in the general race in the 2nd Council District.

Posted by: I Voted on August 22, 2007 12:49 PM
10. Okay, let's put this another way. In the 3rd District, there were no contested elections for a party position. Yet, 8k Ds and only 4k Rs voted for their particular party.

Is there a huge party difference or are the Rs that much smarter in the 3rd, but if they are so smart, there are 4k dumb ones?

Posted by: swatter on August 22, 2007 02:05 PM
11. swatter, maybe they wanted to vote for Reardon. Or maybe they didn't care about who was on the ballot, since nothing was contested, so they just picked their party preference: that certainly doesn't imply they will vote for Cooper over Sinclair come November. Or maybe Democrat-leaning voters for whatever reason were just more likely to vote in the primary.

There's no conclusions that can be reasonably drawn here, except for one: it's important for Sinclair to get the vote out in the general election, if she wants to win. But that could've been said even without the primary.

Posted by: pudge on August 22, 2007 02:46 PM
12. Just like to point out to you guys that Snohomish County is as blue as King County, just a little different shade. Reardon would not be a darling of the King County Democrats but runs well in the mix of labor, moderate liberal and environmentally concerned voters in Snohomish County, sometimes called Scoop Jackson Country.

Just for your information there are seven legislative districts in the county; 1st-part, 10th � part, 21st � all, 32nd -part, 38th - all, 39th - part, 44th � all. When you look at the representation in Olympia you find six Democratic senators, ten Democratic representatives; the Republicans, one senator and four representatives. The last races for Legislature found the Republicans unable to find challengers for seven of the seats while the Democrats passed on two.
Look at the present county government, Executive, Prosecutor, three out of the five Council Members and all but one of the other Executive officers officially nonpartisan but are from the Democratic Party. The joker in the deck had Democratic Party endorsements last time (to our chagrin) and now he screwed up the Republicans by backing out of the Executive race.
Here are my predictions for November:
Executive � Aaron Reardon, D; the only way he�ll lose is if Truk can pull a rabbit out of my hat.
District 3 � Mike Cooper, D; the last time he lost a local race it was to Sinclair black in the Republican landslide of 1994 and that Nelson has held set for fourteen years will not matter.
District 2 � Brian Sullivan, D; too blue a district, the real race was in the primary, Bill Cooper was asked to drop out of the Sheriff�s race by the County Republicans and is their sacrificial lamb.
Sheriff � John Lovick, D; in this nonpartisan race (all races are partisan), he has picked up labor�s and other blue group�s endorsements plus the local Democratic Party organizations all will translate to people knocking on doors the republicans don�t had the people in the streets. Greene�s ties to homosexual baiting pastors and leaders of vigilante groups will energize the base.
Clerk � is a hard one to call Sonya Kraske ( co-endorsed by the County Democratic Party) will win this if hard work trumps Bob Dantini�s (also co-endorsed by the D�s) name familiarity (twelve years County Treasurer).
Treasurer � is similar to the Clerk�s race Jerry Lindsey is working hard but up against Kirk Sievers (retiring County Council), the Sievers family has held office in the county since the early 1900�s�Lindsey has the Democratic Party�s endorsement and Sievers has always run as a Democrat.

Auditor and Assessor � Cindy Portman and Carolyn Diepenbrock, both unopposed and are Democrats

What can I say � Snohomish is Blue.

Posted by: the blue guy on August 23, 2007 08:05 PM
13. My apologies, didn’t know that -- changing in to a long dasH would turn into �.

Posted by: the blue guy on August 23, 2007 08:12 PM
14. Ledford had the opportunity to do something about the labor dispute PRIOR to the election. He may have been more popular amoung the clerks office employees! Look at his endorsements. Look where his money came from. Clearly, Ledford WAS NOT THE BEST choice. He is not from this area, and has no intention of staying in this area. He's looking for job, and then return home to the south eastern part of the country.
Regarding Bob Dantini, what does the Treasurer know about the operation of the Clerks Office. He is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Who is going to train him? SONYA KRASKI BY FAR HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE TO SUCCEED AS THE CLERK OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY.

Posted by: Mary on August 24, 2007 12:21 AM
15. Ledford had the opportunity to do something about the labor dispute PRIOR to the election. He may have been more popular amoung the clerks office employees! Look at his endorsements. Look where his money came from. Clearly, Ledford WAS NOT THE BEST choice. He is not from this area, and has no intention of staying in this area. He's looking for job, and then return home to the south eastern part of the country.
Regarding Bob Dantini, what does the Treasurer know about the operation of the Clerks Office. He is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Who is going to train him? SONYA KRASKI BY FAR HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE TO SUCCEED AS THE CLERK OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY.

Posted by: Mary on August 24, 2007 12:21 AM
16. Ledford had the opportunity to do something about the labor dispute PRIOR to the election. He may have been more popular amoung the clerks office employees! Look at his endorsements. Look where his money came from. Clearly, Ledford WAS NOT THE BEST choice. He is not from this area, and has no intention of staying in this area. He's looking for job, and then return home to the south eastern part of the country.
Regarding Bob Dantini, what does the Treasurer know about the operation of the Clerks Office. He is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Who is going to train him? SONYA KRASKI BY FAR HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE TO SUCCEED AS THE CLERK OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY.

Posted by: Mary on August 24, 2007 12:21 AM
17. Ledford had the opportunity to do something about the labor dispute PRIOR to the election. He may have been more popular amoung the clerks office employees! Look at his endorsements. Look where his money came from. Clearly, Ledford WAS NOT THE BEST choice. He is not from this area, and has no intention of staying in this area. He's looking for job, and then return home to the south eastern part of the country.
Regarding Bob Dantini, what does the Treasurer know about the operation of the Clerks Office. He is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. Who is going to train him? SONYA KRASKI BY FAR HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE TO SUCCEED AS THE CLERK OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY.

Posted by: Mary on August 24, 2007 12:22 AM
18. Sorry for the repeat of my comment. Took a long time to post, thought I needed to help it along by hitting enter four (count them) times.

Posted by: Mary on August 24, 2007 12:29 AM
19. the blue guy: hm. So if Snohomish County is "as blue" as King County, why did Dino Rossi, Sam Reed, Rob McKenna, win in Snohomish? All lost handily in King. Heck, in 2006, John Groen, the conservative judicial candidate, lost by only 9 (nine!) votes out of over 100,000 in Snohomish: he lost by about 80K out of over 285,000 in King. Sorry the blue guy: you're not fooling anyone.

Mary: WHAT? First, what do you expect Ledford to DO about the labor dispute as the deputy clerk? Please tell us. No one else has been able to say.

Second, he is not FROM this area and has no intention of staying here? Are you kidding me? He has lived here for many years, his family has dug in their roots here. His grown son who knows no other home than Marysville was his campaign manager. Don't give me that bigoted provincialism nonsense. And why are you irrationally slandering the man that has lost, anyway?

Clearly, Ledford WAS the best choice. He had the most experience and the best qualifications. Yes, look at his endorsements. They were, by far, the broadest: he got them from labor, he got them from Democrats, he got them from Republicans, he got them from elected officials, he got them from political activists. What praytell do you find wrong with any of that?

That said, I agree with you about Dantini, and will likely vote for Kraski in the general, but your slander of Ledford is extremely distasteful.

Posted by: pudge on August 24, 2007 06:39 AM
20. the blue guy: also, Lovick is extremely unlikely to win this race. Name ID is the only reason he did as well as he did, and that can only carry you so far countywide in the general. Greene is clearly the best choice, and Lovick is going to have to do some serious work with the conservatives in North County to win this thing, and it's unlikely he can do that.

Yes, for some people, they will irrationally oppose Greene just because a certain reverend spoke at one of his events. That may turn out the anti-anti-gay base against Greene. On the other hand, it will also energize certain other people. It's not like Ken Hutcherson is unpopular. So by all means, if you want to make a SHERIFF race about GAYS, go ahead and try it. I don't think that will have as much effect as Lovick's voting record in the legislature to release felons into our neighborhoods and in favor of some convicted child rapists serving mere months in prison. You know, actual law and order issues.

I would put up Greene's friendship of Ken Hutcherson against Lovick's voting record on child rapists any day of the week.

As to Diepenbrock, why do you say she's a Democrat? I've heard rumors both ways, and she's never indicated to anyone a preference. And in fact, the Republicans like her a lot, and the Snohomish County GOP voted to jointly endorse Diepenbrock for Auditor. We didn't run anyone against her because we LIKE her. We think she's done a great job, regardless of rumors about party affiliation. Our party political director has been the most vocal advocate for her. I personally have not only voted to support her in the GOP executive committee, but have supported her individually as well: despite my public criticism of the Auditor's office, I think she has, since taking the job, done a fine job, and I am always glad to work with her when given the opportunity.

Don't be so sure about Cooper. Sinclair is extremely popular, and Nelson's very popular service down there will make a difference. This race is way too close to call. Neither candidate should feel the least bit comfortable.

Posted by: pudge on August 24, 2007 06:53 AM
21. I'm just saying look at who gets elected in this county in local races -- Democrats.
Lovick having to worry about North County conservatives, the north part of the county is only one county council district , every thing basically south and west of the Everett, Snohomish and Mill Creek is represented by Democratic state legislators and is has about three and half county council districts., the greater population base by three and half to one. He just has to get those Democrats out. As to grandstanding Republican efforts to get bills passed without careful consideration, the child protection bills that the Democrats got enacted in this state were lauded even by national Republicans as some of the toughest in the country. Even state Republican legislators supported them.


Posted by: blue guy on August 24, 2007 08:26 PM
22. blue guy: well, no, you weren't "just saying" that. You were pointing to nonpartisan races too, and pretending you know that our current Auditor is a Democrat to make that point, at the same time ignoring the fact that perhaps the most popular countywide official, Rick Bart, is a Republican. You also ignored the fact that until two years ago we'd had a Republican majority county council for a few years. And, of course, you ignored the fact that many major statewide races either went conservative/Republican in Snohomish County, or came extremely close.

Granted, the elected officials lean more Democrat since 2006 than it did before, but there's certainly no trend: the only constant trend we've seen in Snohomish County for many years is that no one party seems to be able to keep control for very long.

Now, on the sex offender legislation: I don't care how the legislation stacks up against "the rest of the country." That is a nonsensical metric. We need to find out what are the best laws for our problems, not find out how they stack up to other states. And yes, the Republicans voted for the legislation, because -- as I've stated in the past -- the new legislation was better than what we had before. But that doesn't mean it was good enough. It failed significantly on several major factors, including tough penalties for people who don't register properly, and cutting back significantly on the use of SSOSA, which does not make our children safer at all, but only further endangers them. The only time SSOSA should ever be used is if it is absolutely the only way to get a conviction.

The way to keep our kids safe is not to rehabilitate rapists. Even if we did that (we don't well-enforce treatment anyway), the way to keep the kids safe is to keep the rapists away from them. That's it, end of story. I would much rather risk not getting a conviction than incarcerate someone for a few months, when they will be free to rape again soon. That sentence is barely better than no sentence at all.

The unassailable fact remains that John Lovick voted in favor of allowing some child rapists to serve mere months in prison instead of years, and it is not "grandstanding" to point out the fact. On the contrary, it is our obligation as citizens to let everyone know what Lovick's actual record is on this issue, and to tell people we believe that he can't be trusted to be sheriff (even if he was qualified in terms of his actual law enforcement experience, which he is not).

You must not have kids if you think my caring deeply about putting child rapists in prison for years instead of months is "grandstanding."

Posted by: pudge on August 27, 2007 12:13 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?