Beyond the obvious local interest in this year's Governor's race, expect the contest to grab a healthy share of national attention as well. For a flavor, read dispatches from Reid Wilson at Politics Nation here and here.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 18, 2008 11:36 AM | Email This1. Given discussion in Pudge's open thread about missing votes by national candidates running for office, I wonder if Washington's law to not allow representatives to fundraise while in session might be a good law for our national elected officials. Maybe they would have to do their job in a more timely manner if they wanted any chance at fundraising. It would also shorten the overall campaign timeframe.
2. I found Rossi's preliminary lead among independents interesting, although also perplexing. From previous surveys, it is generally assumed that the state is split into thirds (third Democrat, third Republican, and a third Independant). Given Gregoire leading (barely) overall, but losing the independants (right now), it appears that the survey didn't poll as many equal numbers of groups. If Rossi's independant lead is fact and the poll had included an equal number of independant voters as Republicans and Democrats, then I would expect Rossi to be leading right now. Hmmm!
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2008 11:57 AMHere is even worse news....
Nearly 50% of the assets in the State Retirement Fund are in Foreign & Domestic EQUITIES...stocks.
Since the date of this statement, the Dow/S&P/NASDAQ have DROPPED nearly 10%. Some foreign equities have dropped more than that. Generously calling it a 10% LOSS in principal value, this equates to another $3.7 BILLION in underfunding on top of the 6/30/07 $5 BILLION or a total of $8.7 BILLION!!
This should be Rossi's #1 issue.
Gregoire has failed to fund existing liabilities which are skyrocketing passing this obligation on to future generations while making it worse by new programs and additional hiring of State Workers and labor concessions.
WE ARE IN DEEPER SH*T THAN MOST OF YOU REALIZE.
Dino, start pounding on this FISCAL IRRESPONSIBILITY nad Budget shell-games.
We need a "Fresh Start" folks.
Hard to imagine any folks who voted for Rossi last time would now be voting for Gregoire, isn't it????
I know plenty of folks who foolishly voted for her last time because she was Dem and/or a woman who will not be fooled again.
The ONLY thing Gregoire has going for her is the anti-Republican sentiment. Hardly much of a testimonial to her performance.
If you really want Rossi to win, get off your sorry a$$e$ and volunteer TODAY.
Send $$...go door to door, make phone calls.
Had more people worked last time, he would have been governor.
Time for all of us to do some sole-searching.
The reason it does not add up to a Rossi lead even though he may have a slight edge in the Independant category is because Rossi does not have as strong of a republican following as Gregoire has on the D's side.
People do not see Rossi as signifigantly different from Gregoire in terms of what they find to be legitimate roles for a state government. Rossi has framed their difference in terms of who is a better manager which is just not worth getting excited about.
Posted by: Lysander on February 18, 2008 02:02 PMIf you think things are bad now, wait till the Ds win the presidency.
Posted by: swatter on February 18, 2008 03:37 PMJust remember, when the Ds did have the presidency the rate of spending was much lower than it has been in the last 8 years and that is even true after excluding the extra money spent on the war on terror.
In other words do not be scared into voting republican because of fear of a Democrat. It appears we are going to have the choice between two big spenders that are both power hungry. Do not support either.
Instead support Dr Paul until the convention. After the convention support a third party or no one. Do NOT support a big spender no matter what party they are from and how they try to scare you!
And you got some fast talking to prove that McCain is worse on spending than Obama and Clinton. Just read this thread and the post. The Ds have no conscience. At least the Rs talk a good story and there are signs they believe it.
Posted by: swatter on February 18, 2008 04:52 PMThe R's may talk a good story but history has shown they act worse (eg compare clinton years to bush years). I do not need to do any fast talking to show that they are both in comparison to what I want roughly the same. I think the federal government should at minimum be about half as big as it is now (meaning back to about the days of carter or reagan). McCain, Obama, and Clinton all want to increase some increment in the next 4-8 years. You can argue that McCain will only increase it 4% a year and Obama or Clinton will increase it 5 or 6% but in the end when you compare decreasing by 50% or increasing by 20-25% in the next 4 years that 20 to 25 difference does not seem important enough for me to waste my vote deciding which power hungry theif can take my money. I would rather look long term and work torwards the eventual revolution that Paul has started.
Even if a third party is not successful, that does not mean you wasted your vote. by not voting for a big spender like McCain, you are making a statement that can not be ignored by the major parties if enough people make the same statement.
Posted by: Lysander on February 18, 2008 06:07 PMBut I'm hearing positive comments about Rossi from guys I wouldn't expect it from. There is a perception that he is the nice guy, that the 04 election was compromised, and that Christine is mean.
Rossi enters the campaign with a natural PR advantage among the unwashed. It's just a question of whether he can keep it, and whether he can capitalize on it.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 18, 2008 07:02 PMLooking at it from their perspective (not too interested to dig into details on their own) it is true. Very little news of gregoire has got out and generally when she has made the news it is for scolding squabbling mayors and councils in the seattle metro area for not fixing transportation. When that is all you hear, and you see more jobs now than a few years back she does look like she is doing a good job.
Posted by: Lysander on February 18, 2008 08:04 PMHe virtually tied in 04 and now he is up against an incumbent. He has no chance. Well maybe if he came up with some specific programs he would cut he might have a chance to spark some interest but more of the same will be doomed to failure.
Posted by: Lysander on February 18, 2008 08:06 PMSecond, there is no indication that other than the "Peace Dividend" that Clinton reduced much spending the first two years of his administration. Most of the reductions came after the 1994 Newt Revolt and takeover of the House. Then, Clinton was at least smart enough to work with Congress and together they reduced spending, as opposed to the GW who is hell bent to do things his way or try to scare the public into convincing congress to buckle under.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2008 07:42 AMClinton also benefitted from the technology boom at the coming of the computer and telecom age. I remember spending about 100k per year to keep up my computers, equipment and software only to find it obsolete a few months later. And let me remind you, a good computer cost a minimum of 3k back then and software the same.
Posted by: swatter on February 19, 2008 10:11 AMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-NiQ4AHBRE
Posted by: A Concerned Washingtonian on February 19, 2008 10:52 AMBush increased the dept of eds spending by some obscene amount and created what will become as big of a burden on our society as SS and medicare in his corporate socialism prescription drug program.
The Republicans that Rossi is like are big spenders that like to distract us from that fact by pointing at the other guys. Do not fall for their smoke and mirrors!
Posted by: Lysander on February 19, 2008 05:59 PMNixon/Ford....6.4%
W. Bush........4.5%
Johnson........4.1%
H.W. Bush.....3.8%
Clinton..........2.1%
Carter...........1.6%
Reagan.........-1.4% (yep that's a negative no.)
From a great little book called 'Buck Wild' by Steven Slivinski. Also, it is true that Clinton's growth rate was much higher prior to 1994, when Dems still had the House.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 19, 2008 06:04 PM