Olympia Time

History, politics, people of Oly WA

Category: WA3

TDN uses initiative results to draw a bad conclusion in WA3

December 28, 2009 / / 0 Comments

The WA3 may very well be a swing district, but you shouldn’t use the recent ballot initiative results to prove it, as the TDN did last week:

While voters across the state soundly defeated a Tim Eyman anti-tax measure and, by a narrower margin, supported the rights of same-sex couples in November, Southwest Washington voters in the 3rd Congressional District had other ideas.

By a small margin, the 3rd District backed Initiative 1033, Eyman’s proposal to cap government tax collections. And by six percentage points, the 3rd District defeated Referendum 71, which extended rights to elderly and same-sex couples similar to those given to married couples.

The numbers, released this month by the Secretary of State’s office, are further evidence that the district can be fickle about its politics — and why political pundits say next year’s battle to replace outgoing Congressman Brian Baird will be a donnybrook that could become the most expensive campaign in state history.

As I wrote last week, there are two reasons to reject this premise:

1. If you are using initiative results, the 3rd was much more conservative last time there was an open race, when Baird beat a Republican by a healthy margin.

2. The No on 1033 campaign did not compete on the air in SW Washington. If they had spent any money in the Portland television market, the narrow win by 1033 would have been a loss.

No so much a leftist rejection (and not so tough terrain) in the WA3

December 20, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Clark County Politics and Politico (and I’m sure tons of people in the next few months will do the same) dusted off the election results from last month to predict a Democratic loser in the open WA3 race. It seems like a good strategy, but it appears to me that saying that an approval of I-1033 and a rejection of R-71 doesn’t necessarily predict a loss for a Democrat next November.

Here’s why.
The last time there was an open seat in the WA3, Brian Baird beat state Rep. Don Benton 55 to 45 percent (Baird pulling down 49k in Clark County, Benton 46k). If the logic that CCP holds was true back then, WA3 voters, and Clark County voters in particular, should have approved some liberal ballot measures in 1997/98.
Well, turns out that didn’t happen. Turns out the WA3 voters seemed more conservative back then then they are now.
In 1997, voters in the counties that make up the 3rd (couldn’t hit it on the nose) rejected a measure that would have given homosexuals workplace protections. Anyone would admit that this measure was considerably more limited in scope that this year’s. But, it actually did worse in 1997 than the more broader measure this year (44 in 1997 to 47 approval in 2009).
By the way, here are my calculations, the data is of course from the Secretary of State’s office.
A year after Baird was elected, the voters in the counties that make up the 3rd (again, not exactly the same) approved Tim Eyman’s first anti-tax initiative I-695 with a whopping 61 percent. Ten years later I-1033 barely skates by in the 3rd with a 50.27% yes vote.
Not exactly a conservative mandate, and not a good way to explain how a conservative will win in 2010. If Brian Baird was able to beat Don Benton with similar ballot measure results reflecting an even more conservative WA3 in the late 90s, a Democrat should actually have a better time this time around.

But, I don’t think there’s any connection between ballot measures and congressional elections, and here’s why:

Measures are a statewide vote and congressional campaigns are regional. This matters in the sense of where a particular campaign will spend its money. A campaign for or against a ballot measure will seem to spend t.v. money where its most needed, Seattle and Spokane (where the people are) and the Tri-Cities (probably because its pretty cheap).
One of the places where they won’t is in the Portland market because its expensive to spend there and you’re spending on very few of the Washington residents in the SW corner of the state who make up that particular market.
And, that’s exactly what No on 1033 did last year. That campaign spent money on television advertising in every part of the state, except where it would reach voters in Brian Baird’s district. Negative advertising in ballot measure elections tends to convince people to vote no as a safe alternative.
So, if the I-1033 campaign had given SW Washington (and therefore the 3rd) the attention it had given the rest of the state, that measure would probably have failed there too.
Hardly a “leftist rejection in the 3rd.”

Olympia will be on the sidelines in the WA3

December 18, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Though Politico first called the WA 3rd an “Olympia area district” when this entire replacing Baird drama started, its quickly sussing out to be all about Vancouver. Or near Vancouver.

With all due respect to Cheryl Crist, that Brendan Williams held onto his hat yesterday put the final nail in the coffin for any major influence Thurston County liberals will have in this election. And, even though Denny Heck graduated as a geoduck and now lives in Olympia, the last people who successfully elected him to anything were in the 17th LD.

Even one of Heck’s biggest political achievements is one of those cross boarder issues that only people who live in Washington but shop in Oregon care about:

Q. What was your proudest accomplishment during your years in politics?

A. The Tuition Reciprocity Act, which allowed people in Clark County to attend Oregon state universities at resident tuition rates. There was no publicly supported four-year college or university within commuting distance. You could go to Clark College, which I did, but if you were place-bound, you could not complete your college education unless you could afford the non-resident tuition rates at Portland State University or the private college rates at University of Portland and Reed College, etc.

Olympia-as-a-city isn’t even completely in the district. A good portion of the NE part of the city is in the neighboring 9th, along with a good portion of the rest of urban Thurston County.


Olympia and Vancouver are the two liberal bookends to a district that is mostly Republican (aside from Grays Harbor and Pacific County, but they elect a different sort of Democrat). But, Olympia is not in the gravitational pull of Vancouver, and it’ll be troubling to watch how we’re pulled into and possibly muted in this election.

So, what are these political differences that I vaguley refer to that separate Vancouver from Olympia?

1. General garden variety “I live so close to Oregon” issues. If a big city like Vancouver didn’t exist in the 3rd, these wouldn’t crop up because you wouldn’t have a large enough constituency that wanted to shop tax free. Or, go to school in Oregon, or want to treat Oregon like it was part of Washington or vice versa.

2. Columbia River vs. Puget Sound. Both are big natural resources arenas with different issues. Which gets your attention, which gets the money?

3. Evergreen State College vs. WSU Vancouver. Even though Evergreen was established with at least the partial mission of being the 4 year institution that serves Southwest Washington, one could argue WSU Vancouver now either actually fills that role or competes very closely with it. Although it has about half the enrollment of Evergreen, it is much closer to the region’s population center and has a more mainstream brand. What would serve you better as a congressman? Building up WSU Vancouver or Evergreen?

4. Transportation. How we get to Seattle vs. how we get to Portland.

Can the Tea Baggers scuttle Jamie Herrera?

December 17, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Well, this is interesting news. The most interesting thing so far I’ve seen out of the new, exciting and open WA3:

Our resident political opportunist, Jaime Herrera, is an interesting person. She portrays herself as something of a conservative. But a questionable voting record serves to make me wonder. Is she exaggerating about that the same way she exaggerated about her background to get the appointment in the first place?

My complete familiarity of her appointment process and the horrific manipulation of it was something I’d mentioned in the past. This made it pretty clear to others with information exactly where I stood.

So, we begin with today’s tidbit: the fact that Jamie Herrera appears to have been ACORN’S Representative in the House.

ACORN and SEIU are synonymus with leftist thuggery of the variety we’ve seen practiced over the past several months in support of Obama. Who hasn’t seen the tapes of ACORN’s corruptive influence?

Well, here’s a few of the votes that Herrera took that tends to show exactly where she stands on those issues important to the SEIU… and, by extension, to ACORN.

It seems like conservatives down Vancouver way were ready for Rep. Herrera to get into the race so they could start painting her.

Last time around, the Republican chamber of commerce centrist got beat out by the Ron Paul sort of candidate. This was despite her getting the endorsement of the organized Republicans in the district.

So, if one of Herrera’s opponents can raise a little money and tie her name with ACORN in the district, is she toast?

© 2025 Olympia Time

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑