Google Ads


Site Stats

WA-Sen: It's Still Going to Be Murray and Rossi

by: Crisitunity

Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM EDT


SurveyUSA for KING-TV (8/6-9, likely and actual voters, 6/25-28 in parentheses):

Patty Murray (D-inc): 41 (37)
Dino Rossi (R): 33 (33)
Clint Didier (R): 11 (5)
Others: 10 (6)
Undecided: 4 (19)
(MoE: ±3.9%)

While Dino Rossi has been, in public, trying to stay above the fray and treat his advancing from Washington's Top 2 primary as a given, he's also been trying to consolidate support from various right-wing kingmakers (Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn), which suggests he's at least somewhat sweating the challenge from various teabaggers on his right flank. SurveyUSA's new poll (of likely and "actual" voters, the latter being those who've already sent in their mail-in ballots) shows that there his efforts may be warranted, as he's flat while everyone else is gaining: principal Tea Party opposition Clint Didier, Democratic incumbent Patty Murray, and the vast hodgepodge that is "other" (partially fellow teabagger Paul Akers, who's in the low single digits, but also 12 other assorted dreamers and cranks). Rossi, of course, is in no danger of losing his ticket to the big dance in November, but he probably wants to avoid an embarrassing finish in distant second.

As with the previous SurveyUSA poll, one red flag for Murray is that Rossi + Didier > Murray. PPP's recent poll of the primary is an interesting comparison point, because their numbers for the Republicans are pretty similar while finding Murray further along (Murray 47, Rossi 33, Didier 10, Akers 4)... but they don't include an "Other," suggesting that SurveyUSA is finding at least a handful of folks who prefer Murray to the GOPers but, given the full panoply of options, plan to waste their primary votes on one of the perennial candidates who are self-described Dems (like the ubiquitous Mike the Mover).
Crisitunity :: WA-Sen: It's Still Going to Be Murray and Rossi
Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

WA-Sen: It's Still Going to Be Murray and Rossi | 43 comments
41%
Murray better hope it goes up from there on election day. Remember what the Hotline said:
If Murray pulls in 50% or more of the vote on primary day, that would have to be considered a smashing victory for her. But due to the factors described above, she would still be in pretty good shape, arguably, with anything over 47%. Any vote total in the 44%-46% range would have to be considered something of a "yellow alert" for her, and she would be in real trouble if she pulled in anything less than 44%.

I think she probably ends up around 45, with enough undecideds going for her.  
The author of that Hotline piece hasn't examined past primary performance
Murray pulled in less than 44% of the primary vote in '92 and then grabbed 54% in the general. In 1998 she had 58% of the vote in the general but only 45% in the primary. She on with 55% in the general in 2004 had less than 44% in that year's primary.

I suspect that she will do better in this year's jungle primary than she did in past primary elections because this is our first that is almost entirely vote by mail and that should increase Democratic turnout a bit but Washington is a state that has historically had low Democratic turnout in primaries.

[ Parent ]
Was that
a jungle primary? I know WA has changed back and forth, like LA.  
[ Parent ]
Hang on, there was no blanket primary in 2004.
In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held Washington's blanket primary system unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the political parties' right of free association.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/election...

And while Murray did get less than 44% in 1992 (she got 28%), she wasn't running as an incumbant.

[ Parent ]
Another thing
Can anyone imagine getting polled and having to listen to all those names? It must take forever! There are 14 people!  
Make that 15
Sorry for the multiple posts!  
[ Parent ]
Great, is this the crappy system we californians get to look forward to?
One question about the CA way, does it take top to winners or top two winners per party? if its top two per party, the GOP could easily clear the field for one of their dudes, and have CA votes vote for the less electable dem if there was more than one of them on the ballot.

Ugggg

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

Are you saying ugggg
just because all 15 names are in the same box rather than multiple boxes?  And then six in multiple boxes in the fall?

The old way is "ugggier".

(Top two, ignore parties.)

[ Parent ]
Top two winners regardless of party


30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
question to wash residents
does anyone like this system?

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
I liked it when I lived in WA
The mechanics seemed no different from regular primaries -- IF I remember right, Ds get a D ballot, Rs get an R ballot

and it was all put together as totals, giving everyone a feel on how close the general would be.

[ Parent ]
The "D" ballot and "R" ballot was our old system.
Washington voters now all get a ballot with every name.
[ Parent ]
It's not as bad as you might think
I know it sounds really bad in theory, and everyone got pissed off when CA voted to make the switch... but in practice it's really not that bad.

The largest consequence obviously is that it brings every candidate toward the middle... pandering to the base is much less important in winning your primary. Beyond that, it works surprisingly well.

If anything, in solidly Democratic states like WA and CA it's a very good thing, because we stand to lose the most to lower-tier third party candidates stealing votes. The Republicans may feel differently.

To be honest though, the consequences have been very minimal here.

[ Parent ]
I Hate it
It means the end for third parties and all independents (except for already well known independents).

What it means is that the two that are the most well known will always win.

And in some areas there will be two Republicans in November while in other areas there will be two Democrats.

It limits choices and it sucks.

If we had a closed primary Rossi would have to actually debate Didier, but as it stands, Rossi's best bet is to ignore Didier. How democratic is that?

[ Parent ]
Ah
hell I support taking third parties completely out of the equation. All they do most of the time is spoil races for both parties. Seriously, how many of us were cheering how Doug Hoffman sunk the GOP's chances of holding NY-23 while we were booing Michael Jackson (not the singer) for helping us lose a hotly contested house seat in Louisiana. And who could forget Florida 2000?

Our political system makes it almost impossible for third parties to flourish, even the British system, third parties usually only have 1 or 2 seats in parliament. And the Liberal Democrats party is always the third place losers behind the Conservative and Labor parties.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
If
there is a serious move behind a third party candidacy, since they can win. With the new ballot system in my home state of CA, I could possibly see a Green Party advancing to the general election. (Think SF areas)

Our Constitution did not limit the parties to just two (it didn't think there would be parties.) So I don't think we should be limited to the Democratic & Republican Parties.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

[ Parent ]
The only way third-parties have any real chance at any significant representation in Congress...
Is to get rid of an independent executive and switch to a truly proportional representation system (also I'd significantly increase the size of the House of Representatives and eliminate the Senate).

The fact is, the current system makes it next to impossible for a third-party to gain a significant power base (or when it does happen, they absorb one of the other parties and simply take that party's place).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
I was actually thinking that, Grady
I used to hate the Washington/California system, then I thought of some areas in California that are extremely liberal. Who's to say that in some of those places, a Green Party candidate, who can establish him/herself as the liberal candidate, can't advance to the general?

23, Male, PA-05 (summer) PA-12 (winter)
[ Parent ]
It will also offer opportunities to get rid of duds and machine hacks
Dollar Bill Jefferson survived once, Dan Burton twice because of divided opposition.  
[ Parent ]
when did divided opposition save Bill Jefferson?


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
He survived the Dem primary in 2008
Won the Dem runoff and lost in the general.
[ Parent ]
IMO
if he won the runoff then divided opposition didn't really save him.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Race saved him
He had a white opponent in the run-off, so he won. Divided opposition gave him  a white opponent.  
[ Parent ]
Not fair to LibDems
They may be in third, but they're the kingmakers.  
Besides, I actually wonder if this system couldn't actually help third parties in rare situations.  Remember that Matt Gonzalez, who, granted, had been a member of the Board of Supervisors, nearly became San Francisco mayor under it (and probably would have if what few GOPers and conservadems exist in SF didn't band together with the establishment Newsom). In fact, whenever either Lynn Woolsey or Barbara Lee retire, I'd like to see this theory put to the test.  Kriss Worthington for Congress, anyone (technically a D, but so Green-leaning, he'd been their best bet)?

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Liberal Democrats
were the kingmakers this time, but usually the Tories or Labor win a majority in Parliament. Yes, I could possibly see third party office holders in uber liberal or conservative areas of California. But third party candidates would have to find a way to counteract the major party machines that develop in those areas.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12
[ Parent ]
So how many 3rd party candidates get elected now?
Odds of a 3rd party candidate actually winning an election couldn't get any worse than they are now.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan
[ Parent ]
Yeah usually
But not in 1974, 1929, 1886, or 1885.  Alright, I didn't realize it was quite that uncommon.  It does happen with quite a bit more frequency in Canada.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
Woolsey is my Representative
 When she retires, she will probably be replaced by Jared Huffman. He is a fantastic state Assemblymember!! He keeps advocating for great environmental bills. I hope he eventually becomes Senator or Governor one day. He is in his 40's so he has alot of time left.  

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....




17, CA-06,  

[ Parent ]
I agree
I think we should have the option of third parties, but it should be very hard for them to get on the ballot, like a ridiculous number of signatures. I think the best way to go is a fusion voting system, where candidates can run for the nomination of multiple parties, like VT. I don't like the NY System because the other parties are selected by committees, not conventions or primaries.  
[ Parent ]
No, there are primaries in NY
at least for the Working Families Party. The only thing is, I guess because those parties are smaller, the committees have a lot more influence on the primaries. (Smaller, as in WFP had about 250 or so total registered under it in a quite liberal congressional district. Getting 30 of them to sign our candidate's petition was... fun.)

überliberal Democrat, male, OH-12 (college), NJ-09 ("home"), Mets, Jets
[ Parent ]
Disagree
I have never voted third party before but I think anyone should have the right to run for public office and we should not limit the potential of someone just because they do not want to be part of a two party system. That is what this law does. Sure there are cases like you describe but if I had to guess that accounts for about a percent of all third party runs. Normally it is just every day people who garner 1-2% of the vote and cause no trouble. I do support sore loser laws and that would have solved (well I think Owen may have won a head to head with Scozzafava) the two scenarios you describe.    

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
I agree
On sore loser laws. If you are going to run as an independent anyway, then don't run in the primary.  
[ Parent ]
On the contrary
this allows every person to run on equal footing.

That is why the two parties hate this idea, because it offers equal access to everyone.

[ Parent ]
Why would Rossi...
... have to debate Didier under the old system but not the new one? I don't get the logic.

As for 3rd parties and and Independents they still get there shot, just in the Primary instead of the General. I wish Minnesota would adopt this system, I am tired of people getting elected without ever getting 50% in an election.

"Where free Unions and collective bargaining is forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
It's an absolute that it increases choices
Everyone can vote for everyone.  The closed primary system prohibits people who would vote for 8 Dems and 2 Reps to not participate in one or the other primary.

Whether people think this is a good or bad thing is one thing, but there is no way to dispute that choice is not greatly enhanced by jungle primaries.  What follows is just a runoff between the top two where the majority rules, but everyone had a choice to vote for anyone the first time around.

[ Parent ]
Without IRV, that's actually dumb.
In a field of 10 people, any given voter is almost always going to have more than one preference.  Forcing them to vote for only one introduces a very strong herd mentality.
[ Parent ]
People only have one first preference
One of ten, one of two, whatever.  IRV is flawed because sometimes our priority is to vote based on opposing someone.  I seldom would give a shit about the difference between my 7th or 8th preference, but I will very often care about not seeing my worst preference win.
[ Parent ]
So rank your worst preference dead last
Really, few things have harmed this country more than the lack of a modern voting system.  Have we learned nothing from 2000?
[ Parent ]
You are missing the point
I have a first choice.  I don't give a crap about the difference between 2-9.  I don't want 10.

Obviously ordering them 2-9 is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter to me the difference between Romney, Pawlenty and Hoeven types.  I just want to not have Palin win.

In Kansas this year I'd want to vote for a Democrat, but then have the chance to make a pragmatic choice and vote for Moran over Tiahrt, even if Moran would be my 9th preference.

The correct parallel is a hung political convention.  If my person comes in seventh, I don't want to throw my support to someone in sixth.  I likely will want to immediately back a person in first or a person in second.

[ Parent ]
You may not care, but others may care very much
Why would you want to limit the choices of others when it doesn't inconvenience you in any way?  In your example, voting (1-8) random Democrats (9) Moran (10) Tiahrt would still put a tally in Moran's column if Moran and Tiahrt are the last two standing.

Also, in a political convention, the reason support tends to be thrown to the front-runners early in the process is that it can earn chits with the eventual winner.  Otherwise, delegates have no motivation not to migrate to the person most similar to their defeated candidate, regardless of their current standing on the leaderboard.  (And obviously, there are no such chits in a secret ballot election.)

[ Parent ]
If others care very much
then they should be able to express that.  What you advocate allows no tactical choice, no reconsideration, no flexibility.
[ Parent ]
Sooner or later, something like this will happen in CA or WA
California Attorney General Primary Election, June 8, 2010:

Steve Cooley (R) 1,012,294
Kamala Harris (D) 762,995
John Eastman (R) 737,025
Tom Harman (R) 391,618
6 other Democrats 1,512,893
4 minor party candidates 81,797

Total vote for Democratic candidates 2,275,888 (50.6%)
Total vote for Republican candidates 2,140,937 (47.6%)
Total valid votes 4,498,622

Notice Harris' narrow margin over Eastman.  If this had been a jungle primary and 25,961 additional votes had turned out for Eastman, he and Cooley would face off in the GE, despite an absolute majority of votes being cast for Democratic candidates (2,275,888/4,542,583 = 50.1%).

In fact, I think this is likely to happen in 2012 for CA-Sen, if Feinstein retires.  Unless one Democratic candidate laps the field in terms of early fundraising, I expect significantly more Democrats than Republicans will compete for the two GE slots.  Undoubtedly the DSCC and the CA Democratic Party are aware of the danger here, and will prepare for it by choosing a preferred candidate as early as possible and trying to force all others out of the race.

Where's the flexibility here?  As a Californian DTS voter, I now have less tactical choice than I did before Prop 14 passed.

[ Parent ]
Statewide that might be true
But where do you live locally as a DTS? It might improve your situation.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01
[ Parent ]
WA-Sen: It's Still Going to Be Murray and Rossi | 43 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox