What's the Matter With Washington?

Jeff Alworth

I know that most of the readers here don't give two figs for what the GOP nomination process in Washington looks like, but from a purely theatrical standpoint, it's exceptional--absurdism on the order of Ionesco or Beckett.  In case you weren't following along at home, here's the thumbnail version: following the Super Tuesday results, in which John McCain had all but statistically locked up the nomination, disgruntled conservatives dealt him two quick losses, voting for Mike Huckabee in Louisiana and Kansas.  In Washington's caucuses, the two were in a close duel, with McCain leading Huckabee by less than two points with 87% of the votes counted.  And then a funny thing happened: state party chair Luke Esser called the election for McCain and stopped the count.

According to Esser, sometime overnight Esser did some sort of back of the envelope statistical analysis of the the margin of McCain's lead (1.8%) and the number votes left uncounted (13%) and decided that Huckabee didn't have a chance and he'd shut the thing down and declare McCain the winner.

So was that a good idea?  Here's Esser's rationale ...

“Maybe it would have been safer if I hadn't said anything. But it was an exciting and historic day for the state and I thought if I was confident about what the outcome would be I should share that with the people who had gone out to their caucuses.”

So it was just such a rollicking good time Esser figured he owed the participants a decision as long as he was confident what the outcome would be.

Of course, this didn't go down so well with the Huckabee campaign.  They have challenged the results and are asking Esser what's going on.  Talking Point Memo's Josh Marshall continues the narrative:

It seems that Washington State GOP chair Luke Esser spent most of the day avoiding calls from the Huckabee campaign. And when he finally got back to them he told a lawyer for Huckabee's campaign that they'd probably count the rest of the votes some time next week. When the lawyer, Lauren Huckabee, the candidate's daughter-in-law, requested that a Huckabee lawyer be present when the remaining votes were counted, Esser hung up on her. Before the hang up, Huckabee also asked Esser about the DIY statistical analysis he did to conclude that he should call the race (Esser's expertise in statistics apparently stems from previous work as a state prosecutor and a sports writer). Was there an analysis of what precincts the remaining votes came from? According to Huck campaign manager Ed Rollins, Esser admitted that he didn't know which precincts the remaining votes came from.

Esser's current position?  The party will try to get as "close as we can to 100 percent."   Apparently close now counts in horseshoes, hand-grenades, and the Washington state GOP caucus. Bizarre stuff from a party that looks to be in total disarray.

  • (Show?)

    Also worth wondering how much the King County Anarchist voters that almost cost Gregoire the last election by voting Libertarian, factored in to this one.

    The Third Place Finisher got 21% statewide, and won by a blowout in Spokane....

    Delighted to se the Repubs as the new beneficiaries of that little group.

    <hr/>

    As for Esser, I pity the fool sho stands in the crosshairs of the Huckadaughter.

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You'd better hope McCain doesn't get derailed. Because if he's the Republican nominee and the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton then he's probably got my vote. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

  • Urban Planning Overlord (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Make that "DOES" get derailed. This is Blue Oregon, after all.

  • tony (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Huckabee has every right to look further into this matter. Why would someone stop the vote counting with such a close race and 13% remaining? Has Washington had other mishaps like this? This is a travesty!

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When exactly was Washington state annexed by Florida?

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's a hilarious commentary by Josh Marshall from Talking Points Memo on Luke Esser's inept maneuver in Washington.

    Enjoy :

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/177863.php

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    from Urban Planning Overlord "Because if he's the Republican nominee and the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton then he's probably got my vote. And I'm sure I'm not alone."

    Obama will surely make a stronger candidate and recent polls confirm that.

    However, maybe even Hillary might beat McCain, described as "Bush on steroids" when his platform becomes more widely known and his personal record on family values is more widely distributed.

    His platform in quotes: On the Iraq war: " A hundred years in Iraq." On the economy: " The jobs are not coming back." On foreign policy: "There will be more wars." On Iran: " Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran...." to the tune of Beach Boys "Barbara Ann"

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay..I'm overdoing it here, but since we're talking about McCain, let's consider 'The Audacity of Gloom.' A great video of McCain quotes, with music, it's actually entitled, "A Candidate Inspires":

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

  • (Show?)

    UPO, just to clarify, your choice would be based on evaluation of personality and character? Because there's really not that much light between the policies of Obama and Clinton.

    Pat, blaming anarchists for Gregoire's tight win is like saying the Republicans are to blame. Maybe they should be Democrats, but they aren't. Real anarchists don't vote, not even for Ron Paul (who in any case is an authoritarian on women's rights, a follower of Millard Fillmore on the economy, and an ally of Confederate-nostalgia conservatives in the old South -- less a libertarian than a states' rights extremist).

  • (Show?)

    What's wrong with Esser is the same thing that will be wrong with the national DP if the ex-officio "superdelegates" overturn the primary/caucus results.

    In Washington, I guess they'll have to change their name from Republican to the Partybossitarian Party.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris sais-"UPO, just to clarify, your choice would be based on evaluation of personality and character? Because there's really not that much light between the policies of Obama and Clinton."

    There's a world of difference in leadership abilities, in historical record, (and baggage), and political liabilities ( 47% say they won't vote for Hillary at any cost). Then there's the Iraq vote. That was pure political calculation in my view on Hillary's part. She didn't even bother to read the NIE at the time on Iraq. She follows it up with a vote to support Lieberman's resolution on Iran giving Bush a "causus belli" to attack Iran. Then on Foreign policy she says she would never negotiate with enemies like Iran but accepts the Bush policy of isolation and regime change. I think Hillary is a good bet to attack Iran once if she gets into power.

    Then there's the issue of money and corruption. Hillary has taken more money from drug companies than all other candidates combined. And she's supposed to be developing a good health care policy for us! Yeah, that's character, that's judgment, but it's also policy. Then there's the the issue of who's president. She's put Bill Clinton front and center in this slimey campaign they both run. It's a co-candidacy and would be a co-presidency. I don't want it. I don't want to be defending the Clintons anymore about his zipper, about their Whitewater dealings and ties to corporations like Walmart. Then, certainly not last nor least, trade policy. Those two have ruined whole communities and industries with their give-away-the-store trade policy. NAFTA has brought a terrible result. Ross Perot was right! Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush.. for God's sake not another rerun of Dynasty!!

    Yeah.. there are differences a whole sackful!! And Obama has a much better shot at beating McCain, AP-IPSOS and Time polls say so this week.

  • (Show?)

    Unfortunately for the Huckster, Romney also got a huge amount of support in the caucuses. If the Romney-ites had flipped to Huckabee, he would have swept the races over the weekend.

    That said, Huck winning two of three and coming close in the third could have led to a punditry "this thing isn't over" spin. Instead, dead air. Interesting, for media so interested in horse races...

  • pdxatheist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Because if he's the Republican nominee and the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton then he's probably got my vote. And I'm sure I'm not alone."

    While I support Obama's candidacy as well, assuming Hillary pulls off what is looking like the increasingly difficult task of securing the Democratic nomination, I'm hoping that maybe these idiotic "my way or the highway" suicide voters on the left will be cancelled out by the disgruntled conservatives who hate McCain and have pledged to vote against him no matter what, and we can still eke out a victory.

    If someone considers themselves to be a progressive and votes for John McCain, that is asinine stupidity in the worst degree, and I challenge anyone to convince me otherwise.

  • (Show?)

    More on Esser. Nice passage from an article he wrote in college:

    Like any sport worth its salt, in politics you have adversaries, opponents, enemies. Our enemies are loudmouth leftists and shiftless deadbeats. To win the election, we have to keep as many of these people away from the polls as possible. Now your average leftist loudmouth is a committed individual and can almost never be persuaded to ignore his constitutional rights. The deadbeats, however, are a different matter entirely. Years of interminable welfare checks and free government services have made these modern-day sloths even more lazy. They will vote on election day, if it isn’t much of a bother. But even the slightest inconvenience can keep them from the polling place.

    Nice piece of work, this guy.

  • (Show?)

    Anyone remember a couple years ago when Dino Rossi raised such a big stink about voters being disenfranchised in King County? He's apparently planning on running for Governor again. I should think that if he isn't siding with Huckabee on this that Gregoire will effectively tag him as a flaming hypocrit. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, too.

  • (Show?)

    Bill R said: "47% say they won't vote for Hillary at any cost" 47% of who? Please clarify.

    47% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Look it up!

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is the same guy that suggested (jokingly?) that poll taxes and beatings to keep people from voting were good things!

  • (Show?)

    Bill R, thanks for the YT link. as wonderful as the original piece is, this one is hilarious. watching at work (during lunch), not such a good idea. far too much lol'ing. the real kind, where people stare.

    that's the way satire should work.

    oh, and on the actual topic: maybe we should be asking, What Would Vance Day Do?

  • (Show?)

    Pat, blaming anarchists for Gregoire's tight win is like saying the Republicans are to blame. Maybe they should be Democrats, but they aren't. Real anarchists........

    OK Chris, they're not real anarchists by your definition, and my Hairsplitter's at the shop for a tune-up so let's just call them a bunch of self-absorbed urban yuppies...

    They still almost cost Gregoire the election, not by refusing to vote, but by voting for a candidate that they knew could not win, thus empowering the people most bent on destroying the very environment that fosters and protects their rights to do whatever the hell they want whenever they want.

    Self absorbtion at election time can be overtly self destructive.

    My question on this thread was, did these same brainiacs commit the same folly in this cycle, and did that make this race a lot closer than it otherwise might have been?

    Of course, I'm rooting for all three of 'em to loose...........

  • (Show?)

    I don't know about the 47% number, as the poll I saw said 44%:

    "Clinton does have higher negatives than Obama -- and McCain. Forty-four percent of the public say they don't like Clinton, compared with 36 percent who don't like McCain and 31 percent who don't like Obama, according to the CNN poll conducted February 1-3." CNN.com

    Two polls conducted show McCain and Clinton in a statistical dead heat. The polls shows that Obama leads by 8 points in one and 7 in the other.

    The story goes on to explain why Obama does better in the polls than Clinton. One reason is that Obama does better with Independents and Republicans.

    "But the big difference is men: Men give McCain an 18-point lead over Clinton, 57 percent to 39 percent, according to the CNN poll. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

    "But if McCain and Obama went head to head, McCain's lead among men shrinks to three, 49 percent to 46 percent -- statistically a tie.

    "Women, on the other hand, vote for either Clinton or Obama by similar margins.

    "Some Democrats may be worried about how Obama will fare with white voters. Whites give McCain a 15-point lead over Clinton, (56 percent for McCain, 41 percent for Clinton).

    "But Obama actually fares better than Clinton with white voters. McCain still leads, but by a smaller margin, (52 to 43 percent)."

  • (Show?)

    But 44% saying "they don't like her" is a far cry from not voting for her at any cost.

    I mean, hell, I didn't particularly like John Kerry either, but I voted for him.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay, here's a couple of older polls that say half or more won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances. I'm looking for the one I was referring to. Most recently her disapproval ratings have been 47% or higher but I am searching for the specific poll I saw that asserted they wouldn't vote for her at that number.

    <hr/>

    http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

    Released: October 20, 2007

    Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President

    <hr/>

    http://www.mcleancountypundit.com/2007/06/29/more-than-half-of-americans-wont-vote-for-clinton-poll-shows/ More than half of Americans won’t vote for Clinton, poll shows Survey provides a snapshot of the senator’s challenges as she seeks the Democratic nomination for president By William Douglas MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU Contra Costa Times Article Launched:

    WASHINGTON ­ More than half of Americans say they wouldn’t consider voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made available to McClatchy Ne

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Referring to the above -mentioned polls- One of the themes of this primary season has been the "Hillary hate" factor. And so polling organizations have periodically polled voters who are hard core and won't consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances. Seems like there has been some variability but it's always been high, from mid to high forties or as much as 50% or more. For whatever reason HRC has been a polarizing figure and seems to unite Repub voters. I think this is one reason why Obama consistently comes out better in match-ups with McCain or other Republicans, especially as he is better known. This doesn't mean HRC couldn't win, but her margins to bring about any victory are going to be very thin indeed.

    I haven't seen much data to suggest the "why" of this phenomenon, but in my own circle of friends and associates, male and female, there do appear to be those who like Hillary and those who can't stand her political persona, sometimes with reasons based on her actions, sometimes without. Until recently I had at least been reasonably accepting of her being the nominee even if she were not my first choice. Her vote on the Iran resolution probably confirmed my worst suspicions. As the primary season has advanced I have come to have a deep distrust and loss of respect for both of the Clintons, this from someone who was an enthused volunteer in the '92 campaign, met Bill Clinton, and went to the inauguration. I defended Bill through all his zipper problems and prevarication later on, worked hard to save his rear end when he was being impeached. I had driven in his motorcade when he came to Portland in the primary (a young and yet undiscovered Gwen Ifill was one of my passengers). But I'm quite sad at what's become of the Clintons, and believe their time has passed. I applauded HRC when she went to the Senate but I now believe she and Bill are bad for the party and bad for the country at the national level. I think Hillary should go back to representing NY and Bill should go back to charity work and spend some more time on inner reflection,maybe pal around with the GHW Bush show and take it on the road again.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    More evidence of the weakness of HRC with Independent swing voters, compared to Obama. These are two of the lastest from Gallup and Rassmussen. They mirror what the Time poll said this week- Obama by 7 over McCain, McCain and Clinton tie.

    From TPM Election Central

    *
      Pres '08
      Feb 12 Rasmussen
      McCain (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 44%
    *
      Pres '08
      Feb 12 Rasmussen
      Obama (D) 44%, McCain (R) 40%
    *
      Pres '08
      Feb 12 Gallup
      McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 48%
    *
      Pres '08
      Feb 12 Gallup
      Obama (D) 50%, McCain (R) 46%
    
  • (Show?)

    Actually in both cases it's Obama over McCain by 4, and in both cases I bet it all falls in the margin of error.

    And this is also in a time when Obama is on a roll, which may elevate his numbers.

    On "Hillary hate" there is a strong media-fed misogynist element to it, there was some good analysis after N.H. and why the media got that so wrong. If she's the nominee, we're going to need to have to come out strong against that.

    Just as if Obama is the nominee, we're going to need a strategy to deal with the covert racism factor, the people who say they'll vote for him in polls, but end up changing their minds due to racial doubt in the actual vote.

    <h2>This is tricky because the kind of racism involved isn't KKK-style race-hatred, and making people feel they're being accused of that won't help overcome what's actually happening or work for Obama. I don't have a good answer. But if we're going to focus on Clinton's problems with perceptions, we should acknowledge that Obama has some too.</h2>

connect with blueoregon