A fundamental premise Chris Vance's analysis of Dino Rossi's defeat is that the Obama tide - coupled with a very inopportune trainwreck of economic news - gave the Democratic ticket an insurmountable boost.
Probably. All things considered, there was almost no way a well-funded, incumbent, Democratic Governor was going to be defeated in a blue-state the way November 2008 played out. That said, I think Vance and some other GOPers are missing the fact that the combined messaging of the Gregoire campaign and her independent allies beat the Rossi campaign and his (emphasis on the comparative advantage in the closing weeks between the independent groups more so than the campaigns) .
There are few things the Rossi could have done differently, his campaign in 2008 was even better in many respects than the splendid run of 2004. Yet, there was a modest yet significant advantage gained as undecided voters finalized their choices that should not be ignored.
Nonetheless, other notable evidence of the significance of the Obama factor showed itself in Georgia this week. On November 4th, Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss won a 3% plurality victory. Yesterday, he won the resulting run-off 57% - 43%.
That's a mighty different composition to the electorate without Mr. Hope and Change at the top of the ballot.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 03, 2008 10:07 PM | Email ThisThe Obama factor was huge. And guess what? It won't be there in 2010.
So who is running against Patty Murray this time?
If the Dow hadn't dropped 25% I would agree with you. I just think events played a far greater role than did the advertising or the day to day media coverage of the campaign.
The campaigns were battling on TV and radio for months, and Dino was winning as late as Sept. 29th. Then the Dow collapsed. After that the campaign's tracking polls showed Dino rising and falling in conjunction with the stock market and national events.
Despite all the problems Republicans have right now, I think Dino would've won if the market crash hadn't happened. I know the campaign's leadership shares that view.
Posted by: Chris Vance on December 3, 2008 10:31 PMhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Subpoenas_issued_in_US_Attorney_firings_1203.html
To think "any" Republicon will be able to defeat Patty Murray, after all she has done, or at least tried to do for veterans would be utter lunacy. Georgia is Georgia. This ain't Georgia. This is a blue state, getting bluer by the minute.
Americans can now see first hand what happens when you put Republicons in charge. It will take decades to undo the damage the Bush Crime Family, and their GOP allies, and trickle (yellow) down economics did to her this time.
The Republicons had their turn. Now the adults are back in charge. We have a lot of work to do!
By the way, if Gregoire was a better campaigner, and had a better message, the margin of victory would be twice what it was. I was impressed by Rossi's tactics, and some of his commercials though. They were very good considering the word Republican (which he refused to use) makes most "aware" Americans want to puke. He should have lost by a far wider margin.
The Republicons just better hope the Obama administration will be able to clean up this mess / nightmare. We now know just how bad unregulated capitalism can be. Time for something better. Something more reality based......
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 3, 2008 10:34 PMHas he forgotten Clinton so soon?
That's Rich.
Clinton set the bar so low that, in fact, Bush COULD pardon "everybody."
Facts, indeed.
Great Pissy Pants Vance snarks, keep em comin.
Posted by: DaveD on December 4, 2008 06:14 AMChris @ 2 -
I think we largely agree. I think the lion's share of Gregoire's margin is indeed a function of Obama and the events in question.
Yet, I think we're fooling ourselves if we don't assess what happened in the closing weeks, particularly from the independent groups, and figure how such performances in future races can be improved (acknowledging the fact that the Rossi campaign was obviously very, very good all things considered).
As I said, it was a modest yet significant issue...that would have received much more discussion had the margin been closer to 2004.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 4, 2008 08:28 AMAnd how pardons have anything to do with a Patty Murray race is beyond me. And beyond you, too.
Andrew Brown: That existed in 2004 too, and Rossi won the first two counts. So no, that is not why he lost.
Rick D.: Don't believe the hype. The country has not moved ANY further to the left. At all. There's no evidence to support it.
They know it's not those things, so they aren't interested in voting for it. They take our failures of the past 8 years and assume that's the best we can do, so why should they want that? Like pudge said, this country hasn't necessarily moved to the left, it's just that we've moved to some point on the right that leaves them no pragmatic option but to vote against it.
That's why we need to go back to our roots, build a new reputation, and do things right this time.
Pudge - Rossi still lost in '04.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 4, 2008 08:59 AMWith vote-by-mail, I'm sure the GOP had a few more drop-offs, but can Obama really be responsible for that? Obama certainly got a boatload of new registrations. But Gregoire won by a Kerryesque margin. But I think the Georgia example is way too extreme to be analogous. The Washington Democratic base ain't nothing like the Georgia base; the vast majority of these people would have been voting anyway.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2008 09:35 AMAnd many of them only voted for Gregoire because they were voting for Obama.
Everything -- everything -- I have ever read about the downballot effect suggests the vast majority of its effect relates to turnout dynamics. As I said, VBM and the nature of the Democratic base in Washington mutes this effect somewhat.
Gregoire received a 6.48% margin of victory. That was 12.17% of her vote-share. That's a heck of a lot of people to vote Democratic down-ticket just because they voted Obama, even if you ignore "bipartisan" split-voters. I just don't see much indication, from the legislative returns vs. 2006, that Gregoire's downticket margin improvement can be attributed to Obama's presence. I mean, isn't it generally accepted that off-General voters in WA tend to be more Democratic? In light of the LD returns, do you really think we should just down-adjust all Democratic margins by 7 points for a non-General?
I'm just not understanding the specifics of your argument. If you're arguing that Gregoire benefited from Obama, almost definitely. But if you're arguing that the race in an Obama-free vacuum would have been highly competitive, I think you'll need to present more evidence.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2008 09:51 AMConsidering the margin by which Dino lost the election I would say your tracking datum was inaccurate to be kind.
As a conservative I find it dismaying the seeming level of denial, and the continuous lack of improvement that has been made in the state of Washington in the last two or three election cycles. Even here in the 22nd district Brendan Williams ran unopposed.
The problems for you Mr. Vance and Dino Rossi and the rest of the Republican party go far beyond the rise and fall of the stock market. I find it disingenuous of you to make the claim that this was the cause of Rossi's defeat.
We as a party in Washington have failed to find solutions to this issue for long enough. It is time to change how things are working in our party, how we are allowing our party to be perceived, and it is time to have a coherent strategy that will begin moving this party in the direction of sustainable success.
C.
Posted by: Tschida on December 4, 2008 10:10 AMI don't think I do at all. I think the case has been well-made.
I've yet to see an explanation or indication of any of the following:
1. That 12-15%+ of Gregoire's voters cast ballots for her solely because of Obama's presence;
2. That the "drop-off" voters outside of this General are more likely to be Democrats, flying in face of state primary and mid-term history;
3. That the legislative results were an apparent anomaly, even though they should logically be *more* affected by the Downballot Effect (less familiarity and more partisan votes) than the gubernatorial race.
By whom has the case been well-made? And where? A link would be appreciated. The only writings on this matter I've seen are Chris Vance's, and his central contention (that events not turnout patterns doomed Rossi) seems to fly in the face of your claim. In fact, he presents strong evidence that there was no such wave of new, young Obama voters to break the traditional Washington State turnout dynamics.
So, where's this counter-argument?
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2008 10:26 AMIf the economy had not tanked, I think that he would have won by a close margin, but alas - it did and the Obama wave took effect. Her linking of him to George W Bush may have been the lynch pin, because she repeated it over and over again and it evidently got some traction.
Posted by: KS on December 4, 2008 05:39 PMWell, I always knew that you were stupid but you also ignore the facts. The largest paper in Seattle endorsed (The Times)......Rossi.
So much for your pathetic lack of facts and sorry judgement. Rossi lost because he came out with a transportation plan that was pure fabrication. He screwed up the numbers, lost the debates and the voters decided they wanted an adult in tough times - not a whiner from the last election who could not even add up his OWN budget projections for transportation.
Posted by: correctnotright on December 4, 2008 08:35 PMAny ideas?
C.
Posted by: Tschida on December 5, 2008 11:30 AMI'm inclined to agree with this
assertion as Dino didn't do a very good job of defending himself on this issue.I know the
whole thing was bogus but it worked anyway.
West of the mountians you have the Deep Blue Sea(ttle) but even that 10% of the states voters isn't having the impact it used to have.
Without Obama Rossi wins this one, even with him he may have won it without the economic mess. That we can guess at, and debate, but what you can't debate is the reality of the vote totals.
People that rushed to the polls to vote for Obama in many cases did so and then left the rest of the ballot blank. Over 20,000 in King County cast ballots but didn't vote in the Governors race.
Rob McKenna won King County with nearly 54% of the vote. Sam Reed was close behind at 52%. 2 years ago Dave Richert lost King County but won re-election based on heavy support in Pierce. This time he won by his largest margin of he three elections and carried King County with over 51% of the vote. The GOP picked up seats in the legislature as well.
In Pierce County the GOP took the Executives Position as well as sweeping the county council races.
Yes we will always see the Soviet Republic of Seattle go heavy to the farthest left candidate you can get but the futher you go from blue ground zero the more red you see.
In 2010 you can bet the GOP will pick up seats everywhere, including Washington, and will probably take control of congress. The state level will see further gains.
Despite what the media promotes this state is not solid blue.
Posted by: Truth Detector on December 8, 2008 09:35 PMWest of the mountians you have the Deep Blue Sea(ttle) but even that 10% of the states voters isn't having the impact it used to have.
Without Obama Rossi wins this one, even with him he may have won it without the economic mess. That we can guess at, and debate, but what you can't debate is the reality of the vote totals.
People that rushed to the polls to vote for Obama in many cases did so and then left the rest of the ballot blank. Over 20,000 in King County cast ballots but didn't vote in the Governors race.
Rob McKenna won King County with nearly 54% of the vote. Sam Reed was close behind at 52%. 2 years ago Dave Richert lost King County but won re-election based on heavy support in Pierce. This time he won by his largest margin of he three elections and carried King County with over 51% of the vote. The GOP picked up seats in the legislature as well.
In Pierce County the GOP took the Executives Position as well as sweeping the county council races.
Yes we will always see the Soviet Republic of Seattle go heavy to the farthest left candidate you can get but the futher you go from blue ground zero the more red you see.
In 2010 you can bet the GOP will pick up seats everywhere, including Washington, and will probably take control of congress. The state level will see further gains.
Despite what the media promotes this state is not solid blue.
Posted by: Truth Detector on December 8, 2008 09:35 PM