With certified election results in hand, let us pause to consider Dave Reichert's final standing. Since his race wasn't called on Election Night, there will be the lingering impression in some circles that the race was tight in the end.
His final margin was 52.78% to Darcy Burner's 47.22%, or a 5.56% spread. That's nearly double his margin from 2006, when he won by 2.92%. Ultimately, the race was competitive, but not close.
Reichert has now defeated an exceptionally well-funded Democratic challenger, in a lean-Democratic district, in two of the most significant Democratic years in recent political history. Keep that in mind the next time he steps up to the plate. While the district remains fertile ground for the right Democrat, Reichert is no slouch as a candidate.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 26, 2008 07:52 AM | Email ThisAnyhow, you are right that given that he survived the two worst years for Republicans in recent history, he's likely to continue to win provided he doesn't get complacent.
I remember in '04, when Riechert announced for Congress, that I was kind of disappointed that he didn't run for Governor or Senator or another statewide office, something more "challenging". After all, Republicans have never lost in the 8th, so anybody was going to keep that seat, right?
In retrospect, he is probably the only person who could have kept the seat for us. Thanks a lot Sheriff Reichert!
Posted by: cliff on November 26, 2008 08:11 AMAnd, it should be pointed out, that Ditzy Darcy is a complete moron.
Posted by: Kato on November 26, 2008 08:13 AMAnd, it should be pointed out, that Ditzy Darcy is a complete moron.
Posted by: Kato on November 26, 2008 08:14 AMYup, it is indeed his biggest margin.
2004: Reichert - 51.50% | Ross - 46.70% | Margin - +4.80%
2006: Reichert - 51.46% | Burner - 48.54% | Margin - +2.92%
2008: Reichert - 52.78% | Burner - 47.22% | Margin - +5.57%
Darcy could have and should have win IF she had followed the classical mantra of ... all politics is local.
The "Plan" may or may not have been a good plan, but it had little to do with the average person in the 8th. The CV issue, even without the Seattle Times malfeasance, looked more than a bit silly. A wet behind the ears fiur eyed geek running against an experienced public servant?
I believe she w3ould have won IF she had gone after DR on local issues like high tech immigration, support for research at UW and Microsoft, John McCain's odd role in the tanker fight, stem cell research, global warming are all real issues in the eight that she could have and should have spun to her side.
Even "Plan" was poorly done as local politocs. The Committee she used contained no prominent local experts despite the great strength of the UW in this area.
So where next Reichert? If I were him I would be joining the small cabal of red dog Republicans ans supporting Obama in issues that mnatter to the 8th. Let Palin and Newto fight ove the flag, gays, fetal rights, etc. and DELIVER real representation to his rather unique localo District.
OE ... if he wanted to be REAL smart? He could switch parties. DR would be a welcome presence in this state and a very credible candiate for governnor in 4 years.
There's a message there for you kiddies.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 26, 2008 11:59 AMBesides Ragnut, I thought you pro-liberty and against the Govt. intervention in your personal affairs.
I am. That is why the Government shouldn't get involved in redefining institutions that are social constructs thousands of years old and exist outside of government.
Posted by: cliff on November 26, 2008 02:51 PMIf your view of things has even a remote clue, why, I'm sure such a move would win overwhelmingly.
But the victimhood of the left makes that impossible. You are waiting for someone else to come along and just hand you that non-existent right.
Because at the end of the day, the dirty little secret of your scam is this: You have the right to marry anyone you want... just like we do... (well, as long as it isn't your sister or your horse or something.) as long as they are of a different gender.
"Do you feel that Gay people some sort of special group that should be segregated out from society?"
Nope. This isn't Iran, where they would kill you.
And this would only amount to government discrimination if you were denied the right that we (and you) already have: that you, too can marry... just not to someone of the same gender... which is precisely the right I, as a hetero, happen to have... just like any gay.
Simple, really. And The Sheriff kicked Burnout's ass... just like this prognosticator said he would.
Posted by: Hinton on November 26, 2008 03:04 PMLast I recall, Reichert was a two term incumbent running against someone who has never held office. So the margin of victory by Reichert is singularly unimpressive. I realize you may have forgotten that congressman hairspray was the incumbent since his record is so dismally weak - but I guess in this election year where republicans were so thoroughly trounced, you do need something to get excited about. If that something is as stupid and ineffective as Reichert - well so be it.
Meantime, in the real world the democrats control the presidency, the House, the Senate (going for 60 seats and a filibuster proof majority), the Washington governorship, the two Senate seats, the largew majority of the House seats and the state legislature (House and Senate).
I'll trade Reichert for all that any day.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 26, 2008 08:47 PMI guess you need to find a mirror and call yourself a moron.
wrong (You don't mind if I shorten your idiotic handle to "wrong," do you?) you've again shown both your ignorance... and your fringe blinders.
You spew: "Obama (the lying, empty suited, anti-American racist bigot) won by 7%. It was the largest margin by a non-incumbent in history.
It wasn't, of course. In fact, it isn't even close. But then, as a fringe left whack job, you're not all that big on facts, or you wouldn't BE a fringe-left whack job.
Since your first utterance was a lie, then there's no need to waste consideration on anything else you've written... is there?
Posted by: Hinton on November 26, 2008 10:34 PMAnd now they have to govern.
To quote AMV, "pass the popcorn", it's gonna be one heck of a show.
We'll be here to pick up the pieces.
Do give some credit where credit is due. Rossi and Reichert both got a ton of help from the grassroots, and significant assists from the county and state parties, who on balance, were in good working shape this time around.
Posted by: hinweis on November 27, 2008 02:56 AMObama (the president-elect) won by 7%. It was the largest margin by a non-incumbent in history. The margin is at over 9 million votes and still rising and is the largest margin in 24 years.
Funny, I can think of a non-incumbent MOPPING THE FLOOR with an actual incumbent. Not just a 9% popular vote margin (28% larger than the Marxist Messiah's margin), but with a steamrolling 10:1 ratio in electoral college votes.
Just pointing out another of your ongoing record of lies...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 27, 2008 07:15 AMI think you need to modify your statement to say "in the 21st century" rather than "in history". Just one example is the 1932 election of the "hero of the left", FDR. He won with 57.4% of the popular vote vs 39.7% for Herbert Hoover. That's a margin of 17.7% for a non-incumbent. Oh, he also carried the electoral college by 472 to 59.
Then there was the 1980 presidential election. Ronald Reagan (a non-incumbent) won that one by a margin of 50.7% to 41.0%--a margin of 9.7%. And Reagan won the electoral vote by 489 to 49.
So that is one on the left and one on the right that each refute your statement...
Posted by: Bill H on November 27, 2008 07:22 AMDave Reichert for US Senate - 2010!!
Posted by: diamondshards on November 27, 2008 07:54 AMIt's also worthy of note that Reagan wasn't just a "non-incumbent", he beat an incumbent, unlike any of the others mentioned.
So yah, basically, NotRight, you're ignorant of history. Given the fact that you are a liberal, however, that should come as no great surprise.
Posted by: cliff on November 27, 2008 09:02 AMObama won by 6.9% of the popular vote 365 to 173.
So basically, 4 out of the last 9 non-incumbents who won, won by more then Obama did. And two of those did so by beating an actual incumbent, not an open seat.
So yah, he was not only wrong, he was comically, wayyyyyyyy off the mark wrong.
Posted by: cliff on November 27, 2008 09:15 AMOtherwise, you guys are gonna be out in the cold for decades, and the Neo-socialist Democrats will run totally wild, turning this county into socialist state.
It's up to you guys. What's it gonna be?
It's going to be...
wait for it...
NOT TAKING ADVICE FROM OUR POLITICAL ENEMIES.
OK, do what you want, but be prepared to be the minority party for decades.
Sometimes the first step in recovery is to admit you've screwed-up. I have yet to see the Republicans admit that THEY lost the election due to their misdeeds, especially over the last four years. (I.e., don't get involved in a war unless you have a plan to win and get out.)
You guys can stay in the closet (and be irrelevant) or come out fighting against the leftists elites in the Democratic Party. I'd prefer it if you guys fought against the Neo-socialists getting ready to take control of the White House and gaining in the House and Senate.
I merely dislike the Republicans, but I truly hate the Democrats.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 27, 2008 11:40 AMYes, we screwed up in spending like Democrats and we screwed up in not ousting the Ted Stevens and Tom Foley's of this world from our ranks, and somehow allowing the party of Tim Mahoney and Bill Jefferson to come out as the "clean" party! LOL!!!
Anyhow, curious: Did you guys admit you "screwed up" and change your party when you got your a$$ handed to you in 2002 and 2004?
Posted by: cliff on November 27, 2008 11:55 AM
The following is the 1863 Lincoln Presidential Proclamation - celebrated shortly after Lincoln committed his life to Christ and celebrated while America was still in the midst of its Civil War. It was this proclamation which eventually led to the establishment of our national Thanksgiving holiday.
by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States of America
The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.
In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.
Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the field of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than theretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.
No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.
It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.
In testimony wherof I have herunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
[Signed]
A. Lincoln
Here is George Washington's Thanksgiving Day Proclomation given in 1789. Its a nice reminder as to WHY we celebrate Thanksgiving.
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also, that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wife, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us); and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 27, 2008 12:43 PM
Her patron Clownstein was heard mumbling some profanities about pigs in sexual acts.
Posted by: pbj on November 27, 2008 01:00 PMOne: Only the fewest of the few gay relationships are truly committed and monogomous.
Two: Call it a "civil union", the word marriage is for a man and a woman-period. You may get somewhere by acknowledging it IS different.
Three: Prop. 8 passed, the people have spoken, and it is so. Such the Democrat way to whine and call for another vote/recount or whatever until it goes their way. In the end, the party that brands itself the most tolerant cannot fathom or accept that other may not see things their way and ends up being the most intolerant. Good luck with that.
Posted by: MoldyGoldy on November 27, 2008 06:18 PMMeanwhile, you guys need to start writing your gushy thank-you notes to the editorial boards of the local papers, whose repeated endorsements of Reichert did so much for him. Show the deep love you have for the MSM, guys, or you'll look a wee bit churlish.
Posted by: tensor on November 28, 2008 10:39 AMMaybe it wasn't so much love from the MSM for Reichert as it was the absolute, complete lack of qualifications for Darcy?
The MSM can bend over backwards for those woefully underqualified, but you have to have SOME sort of experience that's at least relevant if you want to even maintain a shred of an impartial veneer...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 28, 2008 11:01 AMHypocrite.
Posted by: Hinton on November 28, 2008 11:22 AMDon't forget to include a bit about how great it is for outsiders to spend money on our local political races. You see, there's a local blog which claims even out-of-district money is suspect, and you have to go tell them just how wrong they are.
Now, sharpen your crayons, and get going.
Posted by: tensor on November 28, 2008 11:48 AMBut the real money out of state money is spent on senate races, where Maria Cantwell, during her '06 campaign received 55% of her funding from out of state. Patty Murray has received 47% of hers during '03-'08 from out of state. Murray's largest contributor continues to be Emily's List, an abortion industry PAC.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 28, 2008 12:55 PMAND baby bear-y the toddler president...complete with compliant and complacent MSM sycophants.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 28, 2008 12:58 PMYah, like every Democratic Representative from Washington between 1994 and 2006?
I'm sure you encouraged their defeat in favor of their potentially "more influential" Republican opponents, right?
Oh, and if what you say is true, it just proves that Democrats are power-hungry, ultra-partisan and totally uninterested in the true pubic interest and value partisanship above everthing else.
Republicans weren't like that. Even when Republicans were at the peak of their power. Norm Dicks exerted significant influence because he was fair and well respected by his colleagues. Interesting that the D's aren't planning to repay the favor.
Posted by: cliff on November 28, 2008 03:41 PMI'm NOT a Democrat, OK?
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on November 28, 2008 06:44 PMOh no, you aren't a Ron Paul supporter are you?
If so, you're even worse then a Democrat.
I think I speak for 75-90% of Republicans when I say I'd vote for just about any mainstream Democrat before Ron Paul.
Posted by: cliff on November 28, 2008 08:59 PMShe's so clueless, she is probably planning her senate or presidential campaign now.
Posted by: tom on November 29, 2008 06:06 AMAfter you apologize for being wrong, you can explain why you are so ignorant and can't use the "google".
Posted by: correctnotright on November 29, 2008 01:09 PMOoops - waitin' for my apologies from the fools who got it wrong.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 29, 2008 01:13 PMYou're still wrong. In absolute terms, the current margin was greater than that of the 1980 Reagan landslide (8.4 million advantage for Reagan, about 9 million for Obama).
Of course, the population in 1980 was 226 million, and in 2008 it was 305 million. On a population basis, Reagan CRUSHED Obama's margin. 3.7% of the total population versus 2.9%.
And the election of 1952 - Ike versus Stevenson - was a 4.2% blowout (US population of 157 million). But I guess you're one of those types that ignores the impact of inflation on your savings account, though... Right?
Only an ignorant would make claims about margin without considering the basis for the margin. I'd much rather than 10% of $1 billion than 100% of $1 million - would you? And would you count your 100% as greater than my 10%?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on November 29, 2008 03:44 PMOh, and if what you say is true, it just proves that Democrats are power-hungry, ultra-partisan and totally uninterested in the true pubic interest and value partisanship above everthing else.
Republicans weren't like that. Even when Republicans were at the peak of their power. Norm Dicks exerted significant influence because he was fair and well respected by his colleagues. Interesting that the D's aren't planning to repay the favor.
Year after year after dreary year, Rep. Pombo (R), of California, absolutely and unconditionally blocked creation of the Wild Sky Wilderness area here in Washington State. We have no evidence that Rep. Reichert ever even asked Rep. Pombo to lift this implacable opposition. (We would have heard the howls of Pombo's derisive laughter all the way from the other Washington.) Pombo's friends and neighbors unceremoniously ended his polticial career in 2006, and Sen. Murray was able to pass Wild Sky at last. Despite having done nothing to create Wild Sky, Rep. Reichert loudly demanded public credit for passage. Little wonder the Democrats feel no need to assist him.
Keep on living in your fantasy land, but do remember to write your thank-you note to your beloved MSM.
Posted by: tensor on November 29, 2008 03:53 PMThe over 9 million vote margin (and growing as the count still comes in) by Obama is the largest margin by a non-incumbent in history.
I love how you cannot admit when you are wrong and keep trying to rationalize it. The bottom line is that this was the largest vote margin in history by a non-imcumbent. It is also the most people who have ever voted.
Since 2006, the republicans have lost how many seats in the house and senate? The American people only tolerate lies, incompetence and corruption for so long....so long Bush, the worst President in history and the incompetent and corrupt republican stonewallers in congress (especially the republican caucus that voted for earmarks for the second year in a row).
Link: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002989103
Posted by: correctnotright on November 29, 2008 06:28 PMFirst off, you claimed his 7% margin was the largest in history for a non-incumbent. This was spectacularly wrong, it isn't even the 4th biggest in the past 80 years.
Then, you also said something about 9 million votes, which is totally meaningless, and anybody who understands these things know it. Counting absolute number of votes is moronic and a totally meaningless number. If someone won a nationwide election in China (if they had such things) by 9 million votes, it would be a very small victory and would say little about their appeal. If someone did it in Spain, they would have gotten virtually 100% of the vote.
You can try to claim a totally meaningless number is meaningful if you enjoy lying to yourself to make yourself feel better, but your reasoning is idiotic, and your original assertion was flat out wrong.
Posted by: cliff on November 29, 2008 08:37 PMAnd actually, the electoral college is the way to look at any presidential victory. On that basis, Obama falls short of Reagan's 1980 landslide by 124 electoral votes and Roosevelt in 1932 by (the equivalent of) 113 electoral votes (I normalized Roosevelt's votes to account for the 7 additional electoral votes available in 2008 vs 1932).
Finally, the whole "largest vote margin by a non-incumbant in history" statistic is not much more important than saying that McCain got more electoral votes from Texas than any non-former governor of Texas in history! Both may be true, but neither is especially impressive...
Posted by: Bill H on November 30, 2008 09:33 AMThanks for confirming the intellectual dishonesty and vapid self-interest (and navel gazing, mind numbing party line thinking) that goes on at this site. The inability to recognize facts, admit a mistake and then to name call about it shows not just a lack of maturity but a lack of intellectual curiosity exemplified by the Bush/Palin mindless kool-aid drinking followers.
Posted by: correctnotright on November 30, 2008 09:51 AMSome Democrats unhappy: 'If Rove likes us, we must be in trouble' --London Sunday Times
Most dispiriting of all for devotees of Obama's mantra of "change" was a qualified thumbs up from Karl Rove, the Machiavellian mastermind behind Bush's election victories. Rove declared that Obama's economic team was "reassuring", and that "he has generally surrounded himself with intelligent mainstream advisers". One Democratic strategist noted, not entirely facetiously: "If Rove likes us, we must be in trouble."
God, it's going to be FUN!
That is the quote.
Posted by: correctnotright on December 1, 2008 07:40 AMActually, you are in fact wrong AGAIN. There are exactly 538 votes available for the President of these United States of America. Candidate Obama will probably get 365, candidate McCain will probably get 173. And this will be a smaller margin that any of the other mentioned elections (including that little 489-to-49 drubbing that Reagan laid on Carter).
You don't actually believe that YOUR VOTE for the President went into a little total somewhere that was the final arbiter of the Presidential election, do you? Learn some civics, please!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 2, 2008 08:17 AM