My cumulative thoughts on the Governor's race, in Q&A format...

Much has been said about Obama's coattails dragging Gregoire across the finish line. Are the gubernatorial results really that simple?

No, but it's no small part of it. Obama beat McCain by 17%, while Rossi lost to Gregoire by a 6.5% margin (as of this typing). Had everything else gone perfectly, it's highly plausible Rossi would still have ended up a point or two short in the end based on the performance of the national ticket.

Looking at it a little different way, the exit poll in this race asked "how George W. Bush is handling his job." Rossi rolled amongst anyone willing to say they "somewhat approve." He even won those who "somewhat disapprove" by a 67% - 29% margin. Yet, among the 57% of voters saying they "strongly disapprove," he lost 17% - 81%. That's a brutal, partisan headwind.

Examining yet another metric drives home the point. In 2004, Rossi won voters earning $50-75k a year 58% - 41%. He likewise won voters earning $75-100k by a 50% - 47% margin. This year, those same groups went against him 47% - 50% and 40% - 57% respectively. That's a 20% swing in the margin in both income brackets, constituting the heart of the middle class.

Those demographics are exactly who has been most adversely affected by declines in the housing market and the savaging of 401(k) accounts. It puts the electoral challenge facing a Republican near the top of the ticket in even clearer focus. And there's not a damn thing Rossi could have done about that.

You said "had everything else gone perfectly." What didn't?

I regret to say the Gregoire campaign, among other observers, had a point in their post-election memo [pdf]:

Dino Rossi and his friends at the BIAW, Republican Governor's Association, State Republican Party and Washington Association of Realtors spent an unprecedented amount of money on misleading, negative attacks and it backfired. Given that Rossi spoke to the camera in most of his commercials, few voters delineated between negative attacks coming from his campaign or from special interests.

Putting aside the Gregoire camps' spin, the sheer volume of negative attacks by the RGA and the BIAW created a unique problem for Rossi. The success of his 2004 campaign was largely a function of his upbeat, forward-thinking message. Many of his campaign's ads in 2008 replicated that theme with skill.

Nonetheless, many voters don't differentiate between ads from campaigns and ads from independent entities (another reason our campaign finance system is flawed). The cumulative negativity of anti-Gregoire ads rubbed off on Rossi in public perception, while also creating a more crowded media environment that complicated his campaign's ability to embed their message.

Hey, wait a minute. Evergreen Progress, and Gregoire herself ran lots of negative ads. Isn't that a double standard?

In a way, but Gregoire's electoral appeal has never been based on likability, so there are fewer consequences for her to be in a starkly negative campaign than Rossi. It's similar to how Maria Cantwell could beat the living tar out of Slade Gorton on TV in 2000 and still win election. She's doesn't exactly give off that "I'd sure like to have a cup of coffee with you!" vibe. Campaign mud is less of a problem for such candidates.

Ok, Earling, let's say you're correct on all that. Does the problem of too much negativity from pro-Rossi groups fully explain Gregoire's improved performance over 2004?

No. In retrospect I think it's safe to say the disingenuous but consistent attacks against Rossi on the minimum wage left a mark, dovetailing with bigger concerns about the economy. The Gregoire campaign and her allies were obviously searching for a target, especially after Evergreen Progress's summer ads proved so ineffective and Gregoire's own stem cell ads were so roundly criticized. Once they had that topic in the minimum wage, they went after it repeatedly and with gusto.

Did voters really think Rossi would slash the minimum wage? No Governor can do that alone and our Democratic Legislature would never consider any tinkering with the issue.

True. But, I think it created adequate doubt, on top off the albatross already hanging around the neck of most Republicans thanks to the cumulative effect of 43's approval ratings, actual economic events, and John "what is this economy of which you speak?" McCain.

The best negative ads in politics hit somewhere that is believable. Low-information voters are inclined to accept that a Republican would cut the minimum wage - or generally be unsympathetic to the plight of lower-income working folks - based on existing stereotypes. Having that idea rammed home with thousands of TV ad points was particularly damaging in a time of economic uncertainty. Thus, the ads hurt with the very group of voters - albeit not a very large one - who were still undecided about the race.

So, what's to be done about the minimum wage issue then?

I'd say it's a bit like the abortion issue in Washington state politics. The general feeling of the statewide electorate is pretty clear on that, and there's no use in arguing about it. There are bigger and more winnable issues out there.

If I was a business group, I wouldn't ask candidates about the issue because the only thing substantive that can come of it on the foreseeable political horizon is business-friendly candidates in competitive races getting beat-up on the topic. And if I was a Republican candidate in such a race, I would answer "Thanks for the question, but I think the voters of this state have already spoken very clearly on that issue. I believe there are more productive ways to talk about improving our state where we have a real chance to get something accomplished, like..."

You get the point.

Ok, but let's go back to the negative ads you were talking about. What could the BIAW & RGA have done differently?

Obviously, mixing in some positive messaging about Rossi would have helped - and the Rossi campaign could have perhaps adjusted to go all-positive in their TV buys (yet another devilish twist on independent spending that candidates can't control). Gregoire started the race with relatively high unfavorables, part of the reason why the race was so competitive for so long in what otherwise should have been a blowout year for a Democratic incumbent in a blue state. There was only so much higher Gregoire's negatives could go. Mixing in some pro-Rossi messaging would have been helpful. The two pro-Rossi groups combined for roughly $12 million in spending. There was no sense in all of that being anti-Gregoire.

What about the ads themselves, they were hitting some good points, right?

Sure, to a degree. Gregoire's over-spending and the budget deficit (with resulting potential tax increase) were obviously problematic for her. But let's not kid ourselves and say all the ads were good. For example, the RGA's money-burning dude was worthless and counter-productive (more negativity with no pro-Rossi message). Likewise, BIAW's closing ad just wasn't very good.

Hey, I thought last one was pretty funny!

Sure, to some people it was. Look at it this way though: do you really think that ad did much to influence the low-information swing voter that Rossi won in 2004 with his upbeat message? The swing voters in this race, particularly women, weren't going to be convinced by another generic-looking attack ad. At that point anti-Gregoire ads were already beyond saturation point.

You're being kind of hard on BIAW, aren't you?

Not intentionally. They practice a very hard-nosed brand of politics. Indeed, they often revel in being abrasive. That has its place in politics, but ultimately it's not a great strategy for winning the votes of swing voters who tend to reject heavy partisanship and the attacks that go with it. More succinctly, the results of the last two election cycles in which BIAW has played expensive hardball bear out that their approach isn't necessarily working too well.

Granted, they had a much better record in the legislative races in which they played this year (the 6th, 25th, 26th, & 44th LDs), all of which were victories - assuming Mike Hope survives a recount in the 44th. But, those efforts were only via direct mail. They weren't high profile, negative TV campaigns that concurrently garnered a disproportionate amount of negative earned media. BIAW's ads had a net-positive impact on the race in the early months by keeping Gregoire a bit on her heels, but by the end they were a net-negative.

Fine, but isn't the Seattle-area MSM always going to pick on the BIAW - especially with Democratic talking points encouraging them on?

You bet. It isn't fair, but neither is the MSM's left-of-center tilt. It is what it is and everyone simply has to adapt to it.

Big picture, BIAW is doing something right and just. They're a member-driven trade association advocating on behalf of their members. They can and should keep doing that. They simply need to find a way to do that smarter given the realities of the political environment in which they're operating.

Alright, any other lessons learned from this year's ad campaigns?

Yep. I don't ever want to see another sex offender ad in this state from or on behalf of a Republican candidate. Whatever the individual merits of the issue, there is too negative a taste in the electorate's mouth between HROC's errant use of the issue in past election cycles (thankfully not reprised this year) and the RGA's own work on the topic in this cycle.

Despite the way in which the ads put Gregoire on the defensive, they indirectly promulgated a notion that Rossi wasn't in touch with the issues at the top of voters minds. Rossi actually was, as his own campaign showed. But again, voters didn't differentiate amidst the glut of anti-Gregoire TV ads.

Ok, but this isn't a very festive discussion here, Earling. Any good takeaways from this election?

Yes!

Rossi kept the race close because he ran as a forward-looking candidate, in touch with and concerned about the issues voters care about. A number of effective Republican legislative candidates were able to concurrently utilize that formula and conduct largely successful campaigns (credit to HROC and the broader business community - via BIAW & Enterprise Washington - for their roles in that!).

That's clearly a direction GOP candidates in 2010 and 2012 should follow. In the midst of difficulty, the way forward is rather clear. Republican legislative candidates - absent the tide of negative TV ads on both sides of the race complicating their election - were able to make laudable progress toward increased electoral competitiveness.

Quality, principled candidates + constituent friendly agendas + smart, effective campaigns = highly competitive races...and very often, success.

More, please.