December 11, 2008
Mike Hope Wins Recount

Republican challenger Mike Hope, in his third try at Representative for the 44th Legislative District, has emerged victorious in the initial count, and now in the mandatory hand recount.

Representative-elect Hope won the first vote over incumbent Democrat Liz Loomis (who had been appointed to fill Sheriff John Lovick's seat) by 118, with 104 write-ins, out of 68,860 votes counted. He has won the recount by 138, with 63 write-ins, out of 68,897 votes.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at December 11, 2008 05:17 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Congrats!

Posted by: Michele on December 11, 2008 05:58 PM
2. Congrats! It's very well deserved.

Maybe Liz Loomis can complain to her mom some more.

Posted by: cliff on December 11, 2008 09:12 PM
3. Just how badly did they screw up on the write in ballots? To lose 40% of them on the recount says someone can't read. The 41 lost write in ballots must have been for Mike Hunt, not Mike Hope...

Posted by: arby on December 12, 2008 04:38 AM
4. "WHAT" you say??? King Co couldn't find enough votes to push Mike out. LOL

Bet some one is going to lose their job.
Quick, pull some ballots out of the back room. (to late)

Congrats Mr. Hope.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 12, 2008 06:05 AM
5. We had something similar down here in Clark County with the county commissioner's race.

On election night, former State Rep. Tom Mielke (R-Battle Ground) was down 4282. By the time it was all over and the election certified on Nov 25, he had won by 209; giving the GOP control of the county commission in an Obama county for the first time in 32 years; (Mielke actually gained 2 as a result of the recount from certification, where he had won by 207)

This represents a 4500 vote swing, post election night.

The "Dewey defeats Truman" headline in the Oregonian is here: http://www.oregonlive.com/metronorth/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_north_news/1225864506163170.xml&coll=7

I was the local consultant on the campaign. The morning after the election, with Tom down so far, my other local clients, many of whom who had backed him, were highly upset at the apparent loss. My take: he MIGHT win.... it IS possible... but it ain't likely.

Then, that day as the late votes continued to be counted, Tom gained a thousand votes, a break of about 58% right.

"HHHmmmmm" says I... We have enough votes left that if this trend continues, he can still win this... Of my 4 positive levels of confidence, with the lowest being "possible," and the highest being "absolute," ("Probable" and "likely" being levels 2 and 3) I moved it up to "probable."

Then.... then... the next day (Thursday) the break was so hard right that Tom wound up ahead 76, a one day, post election swing of 3300+, the hardest break I had ever seen in any election... something on the order of 63% for Tom.

The rest, as they say, is history.

On one hand, there's something to be said for elections this close. But for those working the campaigns, with the ballot-curing process in place (giving credit where it's due, the Luke Esser and Jeremy at the WSRP stepped up big time by staffing and keeping the Rossi office open until certification so they could coordinate the ballot chase, even coming down from Seattle to help with the ballot chase; and to the local Clark County GOP, who supported that effort with money and volunteers, making thousands of phone calls as a part of the ballot chase) it seemed like it was dragging on... and on.... and on... a Chinese water torture of an unending campaign... and hopefully, my last.

But it got done. The county moved right after voting for Obama (52% in Clark County) just a bizarre, bizarre outcome to what amounted to a race that many viewed as hopeless given the democrat's huge advantage in fundraising, MSM support (The Columbian only endorsed democrats for any open seat at any level) and Cowlitz megacasino developer David Barnett's latest effort at corrupting government by slamming in $76,500 last second dollars to buy a commissioner.

Posted by: Hinton on December 12, 2008 09:02 AM
6. Good.

I appreciated the personal responses that Liz always sent me when I wrote her. She would engage in actual discourse on the issues I wrote to her about, and would solicit ideas and such.

The problem with Liz is that I could always count on having to take time out of my day to explain why Washington State shouldn't restrict my firearms rights any further. Even the dumbest laws, when I wrote to her about them, would result in a 'well what do you suggest we do instead to curb this violence?'

She lived under the assumption that government's job is to pass new laws to solve every problem.

I look forward to working with Mike going forward.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 12, 2008 09:06 AM
7. arby: yeah, no idea what happened with write-ins.

Hinton: great work!

Andrew, yeah, typical Democrat. Reminds me of Hans Dunshee, the other 44th LD legislator.

When Robert Mak asked, regarding the state regulation of animal masseuses, "isn't this the way government grows and grows, by getting involved in these things?," Dunshee shrugged and said, "people come to ask us to do things, you know?," as if this in any way actually responded to the question. That was his response to pretty much every waste: "if people want it, and they come and ask for it ... ." The idea that he could, let alone should, say "No" was completely absent in his mind.

The Democratic Party should be renamed the Busybody Party.

Posted by: pudge on December 12, 2008 10:12 AM
8. There should be a post about the bailout fallout and its resurrection. Again, due to lack of a coherent message, Republicans are coming out looking mean. They need some communicators.

Now, the Bush TARP money will come with few restrictions. The UAW comes out ahead yet again once they adopt the Yasser Arafat and Kim Jong Ill negotiating tactics.

Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2008 12:47 PM
9. Many of the write in votes move to "undervotes" because the people will fill out an arrow but not put anybodys name in. Then it moves to the undervote pile instead. This doesnt happen until the ballot can be analyzed.

The best write in the entire recount "Liz Loomis Hates Trees"

Posted by: Blair on December 12, 2008 12:58 PM
10. HAHAHA

Posted by: pudge on December 12, 2008 01:02 PM
11. Actually I shouldn't laugh ... we're lucky someone didn't try to turn that into a write-in for Loomis.

Posted by: pudge on December 12, 2008 01:04 PM
12. HAHA that's hilarious

Posted by: Andrew Brown on December 12, 2008 01:15 PM
13. Swatter
they adopt the Yasser Arafat and Kim Jong Ill negotiating tactics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sweet! I just sprayed my my keyboard with Coke. 0-:

Someone have a paper towel.

Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 12, 2008 01:21 PM
14. Hope and change! (Someone had to say it.)

Posted by: Jim Miller on December 12, 2008 01:26 PM
15. Not so fast Pudge, the Democrat representative indicated he would argue to have it included in her pile. My guess is now that we know the final vote total, it may not happen, but you never know!

Here is a breakdown of my estimate for the 6 canvass board votes.
1 for Liz Loomis Hates Trees
1 For Mike Hope
4 for Liz Loomis

Mike Hope wins by 135 in the end. 134 if Liz Loomis really does hate trees.

Posted by: Blair on December 12, 2008 02:04 PM
16. Wow.

Honesty, they name is not "Democrat representative in the Loomis-Hope recount."

Posted by: pudge on December 12, 2008 02:11 PM
17. Mike's victory in the face of daunting odds and on the heels of two tough losses is a testament to his persistence and never-say-die attitude.

In case there is anyone out there that doesn't know this yet let me say it out loud: Mike Hope is the most relentless candidate I've ever seen. High intensity all the time. It's a wonder he sleeps during a campaign.

May his tribe increase.

Posted by: Chad Minnick on December 12, 2008 02:55 PM
18. Chad: add to his hard work that he also has a full-time job and he runs his own business.

I couldn't do it.

Posted by: pudge on December 12, 2008 03:40 PM
19. Good Job for Mike Hope!

Posted by: me on December 12, 2008 07:37 PM
20. Still making snide remarks about King County Elections I see. Get over it. It was a fair election for Gov back in 2004 and Dean Logan took the fall. The Judge said so.
Anyone want to debate that come over to my page on Blather and debate it with me.
Hmmmm?
Don't worry Pudge, I'll bake you a cake. You seem to be a fan of desserts.

Posted by: Joanie on December 13, 2008 10:56 AM
21. Joanie, I have never said that Gregoire did not legally win the 2004 election.

However, how can you say it was fair, and then say Dean Logan took the fall? The fall for what, if it was fair?

And no, the judge did not say the election was fair. You are completely making that up.

Posted by: pudge on December 13, 2008 12:23 PM
22. Joanie, you are delusional if you believe 2004
was an honest election. Statistically impossible
for having the outcome that happened. The judge
scorned the "culture" at King Co. government, but
he had no "law" that would allow him to do
anything. At least he didn't legislate from the
bench, which was the right thing to do, no
matter how painful. This election supposedly
broke attendance records which translates into
fraud on an even bigger scale at King Co.
All will come out even at the end of the day,
no matter how painful.

Posted by: mark on December 13, 2008 06:12 PM
23. Joanie,

It is impossible for the outcome of the 2004 Gov race to be legitimate. There were failures on every level in that one. On the Republican side the biggest failure was not preventing the certification of the King County results. Once the election was certified the only legal recourse required that it be shown who the illegal votes were cast for. With our system of ballot privacy that is of course impossible.

The Judge felt he had no choice but to rule the way he did but that wasn't a validation of the result it was simply a sign that our laws were out of date.

That election was like the OJ case. Everyone knew he committed the murders and all the evidence proved it but they screwed up the handling of the case so bad they couldn't convict him.

Posted by: Truth Detector on December 14, 2008 12:42 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?