There appears to be a bit too much reading into the tealeaves of last night's election results, from both sides of the aisle. Over on the left, Goldy and Geov at Horse's Ass are not pleased, nor is dear Andrew at NPI. There's fair amount of jubilation on the right too, with the comments in this thread from here at Sound Politics last night giving as good as flavor as any. Not to discount the emotions of those that feel victorious or glum, but what did we really learn last night that wasn't already known? Not much.
1) Our state leans populist. Give the voters a chance to vote on a measure that seems to favor big business, especially those of ill repute like insurance companies and it's a no-brainer: when in doubt, voters prefer to stick it to the man. Thus, R-67 passed.
2) Our state doesn't like taxes all that much. So much so even Dave Reichert was able to make the issue a major part of his campaign last fall, running into the teeth of a Democratic year in a Democratic district. The general notion is supported by the last decade or so of electoral history. Voters voiced their disapproval of a murky, expensive car tab tax with I-695 and voted repeatedly for Tim Eyman's property tax restraint initiatives. They supported I-601 and they supported I-960, both designed to make it harder for state government to raise taxes. And of all of that occurred while voters consistently cast ballots favoring Democrats in statewide races.
Voters are willing to pay higher taxes to address specific problems when they think the money is actually necessary and will be reasonably well spent (see I-912, assorted school levies, etc.). They didn't support 4204 this year, however, to allow for simple majority passage of school levies, because the "yes" campaign never conveyed a message of why it was truly important. Voters are also prone to voting down complex, confusing measures (see Prop 1).
3) And speaking of Prop 1, the Puget Sound region can't find anything close to consensus on transportation. What a surprise.
More on that last point to come later, but the broader conclusion remains that we really didn't learn anything new last night. Analysis that voters are becoming more conservative or aren't acting properly progressive aren't on the mark (the latter point is mostly a function of liberals misreading the 2006 Election, just as many conservatives misread 1994) .
Even in the biggest partisan contest on the menu, the King County Prosecutor's race, a quasi-incumbent held a seat long occupied by moderate Republicans. In the process, he defeated a relatively unknown candidate who didn't garner widespread support, even in his own party. It's hard to see where that tells us anything about the future of other partisan races in King County.
While Satterberg's race might hearten some Republicans, their hearts should be chilled by the ongoing trend in Snohomish County. As late as 2005 Republicans held a 3-2 majority on the County Council. Now it's a 4-1 Democratic advantage. Meanwhile, 36-year old Democrat Aaron Reardon just cruised to re-election as County Executive without a competitive race; all this in a county where the only GOP legislators left standing are in the semi-rural 39th and 10th Districts (the latter of which is mostly comprised of residents from Island and Skagit Counties anyway). Those are troubling facts given that Dino Rossi won Snohomish County 49.9% - 47.7% in 2004.
The real challenge is that while Snohomish County was electing Democrats this year, it was passing I-960 while rejecting Prop 1 and 4204. Those facts point to David Postman's prudent citation of Chris Vance in a post that also fairly notes the core arguments above give Dino Rossi a nice little opening next year:
I was reminded this morning of something former state Republican Chairman Chris Vance once said. He was asked why Washingtonians approve conservative initiatives espoused by Republicans but vote Democrats into office. And they have done that over and over again:"They like our ideas, they just don't like us."
Long story short, it wasn't all that meaningful of an election. Are there some good nuggets for conservatives? Yes. Are there same disappointments for liberals? Yes. But it's nothing ground breaking based on what we already knew on November 5th. And as much as voters might be voting for some - emphasis on some - conservative ideas, the Republican brand name still needs some fixing, especially after Richard Curtis and Jim Dunn added to the, uh, merriment.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 07, 2007 09:25 PM | Email ThisI'm glad he was able to prove to me once again that Democrats will eat their own if they ever support a more qualified person from another party.
Jenny Durkan was smart enough to realize that the PAO is too important of an office to elect an unqualified and extremely partisan individual to the position.
Posted by: Scott Olson on November 7, 2007 09:55 PMGiven the races for the Port of Seattle, Seattle City Council, numerous school boards, etc, that people are ready and willing to throw folks out, if they're mad enough (which they are seemly at every level of government) and there is a *decent* challenger? (Sorry, Mr. Pope)
This may be good for folks named Rossi, but not so good for folks named Reichert, although my *decent* challenger rule will help there.
Posted by: kb on November 7, 2007 10:31 PMWA voters want all of the perks that the Progressives wave in front of them, but they certainly don't want to have to pay for anything themselves. And many have grown quite wealthy by making sound investments and other conservative behaviors. So they are very aware that making more, means government taking more.
Everything bodes well for more cultural restraint.
Seems that an economic lesson is in order for the fine voters of Washington. The math on R-67 is pretty simple. - by "sticking it to the man", they are only sticking to themselves. Any business, be it insurance or sub sandwiches pass on the cost of doing business straight to the consumer. Higher taxes on tomatoes? Tomatoes get more expensive by the cost of that tax and the man power it takes to administer it. Let lawyers sue for treble damages and whatever industry gets the attention will raise its prices as defending against and paying the suits increase the cost of doing business. And the costs of running a business are born by the customers as the end price of the products or services.
The only question now is by how much.
The fact is, Washington State voters like Republican ideas.
Chris Vance just doesn't like Republican ideas.
His openly avowed "loathing" for Tim Eyman is exhibit one.
If we were, on any consistent basis, the Party of small government, we could turn it around. Then we nominate George Nethercutt who runs on social spending. Then we run Dave Reichert who runs on social spending. Then we run Mike McGavick who runs on "being non-partisan," McAmnesty, and using the government to "solve problems," while our leaders seek candidates who "fit their district," which translates to: "mirror the Democrat incumbent."
Sometimes it works - and, long-term, that's even worse.
THIS is NEWS. From Andrew's article at NPI: "Here's an example of what I mean: yesterday, two of us represented NPI at a campaign luncheon for Chris Gregoire ..."
There's more than Andrew at NPI?!
I also love this bit, in an article about complacency, where he criticizes the pro-Prop 1 people for not spending enough money to fight with ads, he then attacks the Reject 67 people for trying "to buy the election." Ha! Kids.
Posted by: pudge on November 7, 2007 11:05 PMThat is a big Duh! It has nothing to do with the people running or the party label. It has more to do with Democrat propaganda and their willing accomplices, the mainstream media.
They sell the American people on the idea that Republicans are for big business and the exploitation of the working class, this fuels the prejudice that anyone would have if they believed such a thing. I would hate republicans too if I were sold on that idea. It is a matter of perception that the R's are so bad that I can't vote for one. If that perception is to change it will require a replacement of the heads of newsrooms across America as well as removal of lefty professors.
Don't beat yourselves up over the lies told by lefties with the ability to indoctrinate society.
Ask instead, how do we combat it.
"WA voters want all the perks that the Progressives wave in front of them, but they certainly don't want to have to pay for anything themselves."
You said a mouthful, as usual. Some liberals, the ones that actually work for a living, do actually climb down from their utopian pedestal and THINK once in a while. If they thought often enough, they might actually begin to embrace some elements of CONSERVATISM.
The exception seem to be the "limousine libs". Bainbridge Island is full of them. Fueled by "old money" they never worked for, they vote close to 75% Democrat (by polling data) and are more than willing to open their wallets (and everyone else's) to vote in favor of any spending measure or wingnut leftist on the ballot. Sad...
Posted by: Saltherring on November 8, 2007 06:37 AMIsn't Satterburg about the only incumbent that survived?
Posted by: Al on November 8, 2007 07:45 AMHowever, they also refuse to be played for fools.
After all the hoopla and the queen chained herself to the throne, we citizens went on our way thinking 'ok we're stuck, so we'll give them a chance' (just like the country did when the dems took over last year). The problem with the politicians and power hungry is that in their arrogance they took that attitude as a mandate and considered the voters stupid.
We know 'stuff' has to be funded and we are willing to do that... but we have a saturation point and WE HAVE REACHED IT. We are tired of the same political beggars coming to the well to sing us their sob stories and expecting our pockets to open. We are tired of being told schools, roads and fire trucks need more when we just gave them more. We are tired of unaccountability, we are tired of shell games, and most of all, we are tired of being thought stupid. We are tired of the boy needlessly crying 'wolf' as he steals our wallet.
That's what Tuesdays results told me... (except for 67... I don't know what the hell the electorate was thinking there). I doubt the power hungry beggars have sufficient introspection capabilites to understand our fed-upness.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 8, 2007 10:27 AMIt was about Insiders versus Outsiders.
The sh-t has finally hit the fans.
The original coalition was that the locals and native borns would run the government, and let the imports come in and work for Boeing and Microsoft and real estate and make lots of money.
Now, however, a lot of people are seeing (or thinking) that their share has been cut away. They're starting to question the Insider Coalition and instead of rubber stamping, they want to know who's getting what and why.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 8, 2007 10:36 AMJust how angry is the electorate?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 8, 2007 01:18 PMI don't know why the GOP is letting the Centralia faction of the party run roughshod against sitting legislators. And why now? They've known about Dunn for years.
Too many questions, with no answers from the Centralia faction.
Posted by: CCWatch on November 9, 2007 12:08 PM