The U.S. Senate has passed a major milestone - they were able to start debate on the massive health insurance overhaul bill. Republicans don't like it because it has a public option, taxes ultra-plush health insurance plans that pay for unnecessary services, taxes elective cosmetic surgery, and has cuts in Medicare.
Unfortunately, there are three Democrats, and one cranky old man from Connecticut who also don't like the public option, and one who doesn't like that there's no super staunch, anti-choice language in the bill.
And what is the rationale behind not supporting the public option: these Senators do not want to do anything that may harm the profits of the for-profit health insurance industry.
I didn't realize that people's health should be something considered profitable.
The one thing that I fear so many people miss, however, is that we are already paying taxes for the lack of full health insurance coverage across this country. Never mind the premium share that can easily be counted as a tax, just paid to corporations, but also the fact that, as premium holders and tax payers, we are already paying for emergency care that, were these 40 million plus uninsured Americans insured, would be unnecessary. Preventative treatment works. Visiting your family doctor before an infection festers into an emergency works, and saves money. The fact is that a universal health care system would cost less in taxes to fund than we currently pay for health care premiums.
There's plenty more that can and should be done to mend our horrid health care insurance and delivery system in America, but the Public Option is a good start. The requirement to have insurance (which in turn lowers the overall cost per actuary tables) is a good start.
Of course, education is another enormous piece of the puzzle. Another part of what forces costs up for health care is how much it costs to be one of the people providing the care. Not just doctors and ARNP's, mind you, but nurses, medical technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, pharmacists, optometrists. They all pay higher and higher tuition and books and practicum costs to be in their profession. And we can, and should, do better for education in this country.
I could get into the higher education portion, but instead I'll focus on the lower years.
What saddens me greatly in this country is our obsession with testing, and testing well. Don't get me wrong - I like testing. I like having something with which we can measure progress of pupils in the classroom, and, by extension, those teaching these kids.
However, this focus on making all learning being about scoring well on tests is doing a disservice to our communities. It is taking away the things that make our children grow up into members of our country with ideas, members with passion.
Specifically, the fact that arts are cut first disgusts me.
Kids need the arts. Be that drama, choir, band, or other artistic classes, these encourage our youth to become passionate about what they care about. These classes encourage children to think creatively, to look outside of the box, and to work as a team for a final product that is better than were we to go it alone.
I recently heard that my old school district, which is poised to open it's second high school (because voters were okay with over 3,000 students in a single high school for far too long), is going to cut arts out of one to favor the other. I'm not going to pretend I understand the geographic boundaries of the two schools, or if there is choice that is available to students, but cutting of arts is bad.
Children and youth do better at math and science when they learn music. They appreciate history and social studies more when they act out history on stage. They have a better grasp on reading and writing when an elective, fun class is putting those words into action or song.
And it sometimes gives them a reason to show up at school in the first place.
I know that we luck out in Seattle, with a new School Board member who gets the importance of arts and languages. I just hope that ou legislators get it this coming legislative session, and stop the cuts to schools that lead to the cuts in fine arts.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What I really want for Christmas
It is amazing. "The Holidays", as we call them, are upon us. In a week and two days time, I'll be stuffing my face with turkey and mashed potatoes, followed by a healthy serving of pumpkin pie. That's what I do for Thanksgiving, because it's awesome like that.
And then shopping season, of sorts, begins.
Lilian will require birthday gifts, and Christmas gifts (yes, it's true, I'm an athiest or agnostic, or something like that, but I do love Christmas), and Sergey gets a treat for New Years (damn Russians). Then there will be gifts for office mates (typically in the form of me bringing up coffee for the group), something for my family members, and this and that.
But, more importantly, I'll be receiving gifts (whoever said Christmas is a time for giving obviously has never received anything rad in their lives). This becomes a tricky situation every year.
See, I happen to be quite finnicky with what I want, and it changes regularly. For clothing, if I don't participate in the purchase, I likely don't wear it. I find myself with fewer need for house wares than most. I have all of the entertainment things I need (although, I confess, I would gladly accept a cherry red Les Paul Special, but that's just being greedy), and even a few that are completely superfluous (although, again, I wouldn't say "no" to a PS3).
So, what's a girl to ask for?
Well, all things considered, I don't really want anything directly. I've watched over the last year as our economy in this country and state have gone south. I've watched friends lose their jobs, only to become perpetually unemployed. I've seen more and more people living in squalor, and more and more services being cut due to budget constraints (although SHARE/WHEEL may very well deserve it).
So this year, I am going to say very clearly that Christmas is very much a time for giving. And everyone else should do the same.
That's not to say that we shouldn't continue with our consumer friendly ways. Consuming is a good thing. It allows us the opportunity to create more jobs. But perhaps it would be better to consume by purchasing toys and donating them to Toys for Tots instead of giving ten shiny new pieces of plastic to children that already have plenty. (http://www.toys4tots.org/)
Perhaps it would be better to purchase a boat load of socks and donate them to Heroes for the Homeless. (http://www.heroesforthehomeless.com/)
Perhaps it would be better to purchase a couple warm jackets, and donate them to St. Francis House, where they'll be freely distributed to those most in need. (http://www.svdpseattle.org/StFrancis.htm)
Or the good old fashioned purchasing of food, and donating it to your local food bank (and by food, I mean actual edible stuff, not cans and cans of clam chowder, or whatever is on sale).
We can still be consumers (which is good for the economy), while also doing something good for others. And for those thinking about getting me a gift (or paying down my credit cards ;-)), buy socks. Lots and lots of socks. I'm just going to give everything away, anyways.
And then shopping season, of sorts, begins.
Lilian will require birthday gifts, and Christmas gifts (yes, it's true, I'm an athiest or agnostic, or something like that, but I do love Christmas), and Sergey gets a treat for New Years (damn Russians). Then there will be gifts for office mates (typically in the form of me bringing up coffee for the group), something for my family members, and this and that.
But, more importantly, I'll be receiving gifts (whoever said Christmas is a time for giving obviously has never received anything rad in their lives). This becomes a tricky situation every year.
See, I happen to be quite finnicky with what I want, and it changes regularly. For clothing, if I don't participate in the purchase, I likely don't wear it. I find myself with fewer need for house wares than most. I have all of the entertainment things I need (although, I confess, I would gladly accept a cherry red Les Paul Special, but that's just being greedy), and even a few that are completely superfluous (although, again, I wouldn't say "no" to a PS3).
So, what's a girl to ask for?
Well, all things considered, I don't really want anything directly. I've watched over the last year as our economy in this country and state have gone south. I've watched friends lose their jobs, only to become perpetually unemployed. I've seen more and more people living in squalor, and more and more services being cut due to budget constraints (although SHARE/WHEEL may very well deserve it).
So this year, I am going to say very clearly that Christmas is very much a time for giving. And everyone else should do the same.
That's not to say that we shouldn't continue with our consumer friendly ways. Consuming is a good thing. It allows us the opportunity to create more jobs. But perhaps it would be better to consume by purchasing toys and donating them to Toys for Tots instead of giving ten shiny new pieces of plastic to children that already have plenty. (http://www.toys4tots.org/)
Perhaps it would be better to purchase a boat load of socks and donate them to Heroes for the Homeless. (http://www.heroesforthehomeless.com/)
Perhaps it would be better to purchase a couple warm jackets, and donate them to St. Francis House, where they'll be freely distributed to those most in need. (http://www.svdpseattle.org/StFrancis.htm)
Or the good old fashioned purchasing of food, and donating it to your local food bank (and by food, I mean actual edible stuff, not cans and cans of clam chowder, or whatever is on sale).
We can still be consumers (which is good for the economy), while also doing something good for others. And for those thinking about getting me a gift (or paying down my credit cards ;-)), buy socks. Lots and lots of socks. I'm just going to give everything away, anyways.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
And Then....
So here is what Seattle looks like, starting in 2010:
Mayor: Mike McGinn
City Attorney: Pete Holmes
City Council President: Richard Conlin
City Council:
Sally Clark
Tim Burgess
Tom Rasmussen
Sally Bagshaw
Nick Licata
Bruce Harrell
Jean Godden
Mike O'Brien
What an interesting mix. And issue number one: the budget.
I really think we're in for an interesting four years. Of the candidates up for re-election in two years, I would only guess that Bruce Harrell would be in any danger of a strong challenge, and CW is that Jean Godden retires, and Jessie Israel runs for that seat (maybe even against Dorsol Plants...ooooh, that would be an interesting race!)
But what do we do until then? Here's some things that I think are awesome possum.
The Tim Burgess Panhandling Ordinance - This is a.o.k. After a bit of watering down, we have a proposal that bans panhandling in front of ATM machines, to people getting in and out of cars, and no touching. A bit more in the way of definitions (what is the area around an ATM? Not to people getting in and out of cars, how many steps from the car before it's okay? What about people who just sit with a sign near where people may get in and out, is that the same as verbal panhandlers?) is needed, but this is a common sense bit of legislation. I was at an ATM just yesterday, and had a rather noisy panhandler shouting for cash to everyone who went to use it.
Small Parks (and I mean really small parks) - I love parks, I really do. I like that we have some pretty cool parks here in Seattle. Do I love parks more than libraries? Not so much. However, I don't want to see funding for either cut...but then there are those small parks. Those ones that take up half a block in either direction in the middle of a neighborhood. What if the city turned those over to the Neighborhood Councils? Allow the NC to arrange for basic maintenance (mowing and the like), and in exchange, any major renovations, when they're due and there's money, would have majority input from the NC.
Plastic Bags - I did not support the bag tax. Nope. Didn't like it. I thought it was too broad, with the paper bags being included, and was a bit off topic during a recession. However, I do agree that one thing we can and need to do as a city is lower our waste output, and overall, this is good economically. What about those fancy biodegradable plastic bags? Why not ban plastic bags, allow those biodegradable plastic bags, and require all paper bags be at least 75% post-consumer product? Give small businesses a few years to get into the swing of things, and *BAM!*, less non-biodegradable waste.
Public Safety - the gun ban is ridiculous. A great idea, sure, but completely unenforceable. Instead, let's work with the Legislature to make a minor change to that pesky RCW. And then ban guns in parks. Make it a misdemeanor to carry a gun in a park, and just add that on to any other crime being committed by someone carrying a gun in a park.
Music and Nightlife - Nowhere was this issue more prevelant than in the City Attorney's race. When asked at the Eastlake Community Council forum his opinion on some of the issues surrounding residences moving into traditionally commerical areas, Mr. Conlin hedged, stating that current noise ordinances should be enforced, and the city should work to help businesses better soundproof their facilities. Mr. Ginsberg called for exemptions to certain areas, specifically the Pike/Pine corridor on Capitol Hill, Pioneer Square and Belltown. Hell, even Mr. Rosencrantz (in a separate instance) brought up the idea of variable noise ordinances, depending on neighborhoods.
All of these miss out on one major point, and that is the indoor smoking ban, with the 25 foot buffer. Now, I am all for indoor smoking bans. Awesome. Fine. However, perhaps it is time for Olympia to revisit this initiative, and allow for outdoor areas that are confined by the business, where they can better keep an eye on their patrons. With the emphasis of mixing residences with nightlife, it is important that we start considering this issue, and look at ways to make sure that we can maintain a vibrant nightlife in this city, while also encouraging more people to live downtown, near where they work, and negating the need for cars.
We have plenty of other major issues coming down - transportation, the economy, taxes, wooing new employers, South Lake Union, sidewalks, violent crime. It's going to be a busy four years.
Mayor: Mike McGinn
City Attorney: Pete Holmes
City Council President: Richard Conlin
City Council:
Sally Clark
Tim Burgess
Tom Rasmussen
Sally Bagshaw
Nick Licata
Bruce Harrell
Jean Godden
Mike O'Brien
What an interesting mix. And issue number one: the budget.
I really think we're in for an interesting four years. Of the candidates up for re-election in two years, I would only guess that Bruce Harrell would be in any danger of a strong challenge, and CW is that Jean Godden retires, and Jessie Israel runs for that seat (maybe even against Dorsol Plants...ooooh, that would be an interesting race!)
But what do we do until then? Here's some things that I think are awesome possum.
The Tim Burgess Panhandling Ordinance - This is a.o.k. After a bit of watering down, we have a proposal that bans panhandling in front of ATM machines, to people getting in and out of cars, and no touching. A bit more in the way of definitions (what is the area around an ATM? Not to people getting in and out of cars, how many steps from the car before it's okay? What about people who just sit with a sign near where people may get in and out, is that the same as verbal panhandlers?) is needed, but this is a common sense bit of legislation. I was at an ATM just yesterday, and had a rather noisy panhandler shouting for cash to everyone who went to use it.
Small Parks (and I mean really small parks) - I love parks, I really do. I like that we have some pretty cool parks here in Seattle. Do I love parks more than libraries? Not so much. However, I don't want to see funding for either cut...but then there are those small parks. Those ones that take up half a block in either direction in the middle of a neighborhood. What if the city turned those over to the Neighborhood Councils? Allow the NC to arrange for basic maintenance (mowing and the like), and in exchange, any major renovations, when they're due and there's money, would have majority input from the NC.
Plastic Bags - I did not support the bag tax. Nope. Didn't like it. I thought it was too broad, with the paper bags being included, and was a bit off topic during a recession. However, I do agree that one thing we can and need to do as a city is lower our waste output, and overall, this is good economically. What about those fancy biodegradable plastic bags? Why not ban plastic bags, allow those biodegradable plastic bags, and require all paper bags be at least 75% post-consumer product? Give small businesses a few years to get into the swing of things, and *BAM!*, less non-biodegradable waste.
Public Safety - the gun ban is ridiculous. A great idea, sure, but completely unenforceable. Instead, let's work with the Legislature to make a minor change to that pesky RCW. And then ban guns in parks. Make it a misdemeanor to carry a gun in a park, and just add that on to any other crime being committed by someone carrying a gun in a park.
Music and Nightlife - Nowhere was this issue more prevelant than in the City Attorney's race. When asked at the Eastlake Community Council forum his opinion on some of the issues surrounding residences moving into traditionally commerical areas, Mr. Conlin hedged, stating that current noise ordinances should be enforced, and the city should work to help businesses better soundproof their facilities. Mr. Ginsberg called for exemptions to certain areas, specifically the Pike/Pine corridor on Capitol Hill, Pioneer Square and Belltown. Hell, even Mr. Rosencrantz (in a separate instance) brought up the idea of variable noise ordinances, depending on neighborhoods.
All of these miss out on one major point, and that is the indoor smoking ban, with the 25 foot buffer. Now, I am all for indoor smoking bans. Awesome. Fine. However, perhaps it is time for Olympia to revisit this initiative, and allow for outdoor areas that are confined by the business, where they can better keep an eye on their patrons. With the emphasis of mixing residences with nightlife, it is important that we start considering this issue, and look at ways to make sure that we can maintain a vibrant nightlife in this city, while also encouraging more people to live downtown, near where they work, and negating the need for cars.
We have plenty of other major issues coming down - transportation, the economy, taxes, wooing new employers, South Lake Union, sidewalks, violent crime. It's going to be a busy four years.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
And my (almost) final blah blah blah about the election.
I've guessed (poorly), I've criticized, and I've been positive from time to time.
I think a little more positivity would be a good thing.
There were some sharp elbows this year, to be sure. Originally, what seemed to be the nastiest race (outside of the County Exec and Mayor's races) was the City Attorney's race. I typically came away with the impression that these two lawyers were not too fond of each other. Personally, I have always found Tom Carr to be respectful and nice. Of course, all of my interactions have been as an E-Board member of the 43rd.
The first time I met Pete Holmes, I was a *little* intoxicated, and he didn't hold that against me, and he, Dominic Holden and I engaged in a solid conversation about issues that matter. I think it took me awhile to realize I was speaking with a candidate, so I was a bit more off the cuff than I probably should have been.
While Pete was definitely not pulling punches, I didn't get the negativity from the Holmes campaign that I did from the Carr campaign. And John Brumbach - you are a genius.
I have joked about how boring the Position 8 race was. Then, a few weeks ago, I received an email from the O'Brien campaign all but calling Rosencrantz pro-life. I was furious. As a Democrat that is staunchly pro-choice, I don't like it when people say things that I know to be untrue. I always believed that it was in O'Brien's best interest to let the rumors circulate, but never say it himself. But then, shortly after that, he got back to the issues (even the tunnel, which I disagree with him on. Strongly).
What Rosencrantz did after that, though, was inexcusable. He let the mud fly, and took something out of context that he, himself, supported, and implied that O'Brien wanted to toll neighborhood streets. I think that jumping on the tolling issue would have been good, but doing so by saying "I support systemwide tolling, and this is what that looks like to me, here's the difference between me and my opponent on this" would have been fine. I didn't hear enough from the direct mail and television campaign about what Robert wanted to do, which made me sad, because on a lot of issues, I agree with him (except nightlife. I disagree. Strongly).
Mike continued, except for that one transgression, a positive campaign from pre-primary, all the way up to the general election. That positivity will be a boon to the City Council. Way to go, Mike!
Is it bad to call David Doud a slimey bastard? When he did what he did, Rob Holland basically said, "that's messed up, but let's talk about the issues". And look where that got him. Excellent job, Mr. Holland and Mr. Martin.
I think the real "boring" race was Tom Albro and Max Vekich. I found out last night, when I ran into Mr. Albro, that some people actually read what I write. But, as I said then, and say now, Tom and Max ran two great campaigns that focused on issues. I don't think I saw a single slight from either campaign against the other that was out of line (supporters don't count!), and they showed us what a gentleman's race looks like. As an aside - Why didn't anyone tell me that Mr. Albro is 74 feet tall?
Jessie Israel and Nick Licata had two very different campaigns. While Jessie had some interesting comments from time to time (ie: the Sonics), I personally believe that she had a positive campaign. She is a little bundle of energy, and I hope to see her run again in two years, with John Brumbach running the show.
Nick ran a quirky campaign, and also kept positive. I got to see him a few times out on the trail, and damn if I don't love his hats! Congratulations on a fourth term, Mr. Licata! And way to go Andy!
I got a robocall from the Bloom campaign. It talked smack about Sally Bagshaw. That made me sad. I get it - she was way ahead on election night in the primary. I get it - she had a lot more money raised, and a lot more "establishment" support. But she managed to continue talking about the issues. She was warm and welcoming the entire time. When she spoke, people nodded their heads. I don't think I heard a single bad thing about Mr. Bloom come out of her mouth. To the contrary, she would regularly cite his work, and what great things he has done, and she hopes he will continue to do. And I agree with her there, and trust that he will find an ally on the Council with Sally. Congratulations on a solid election, Sally! You earned it. And Kathy...you did pretty well, too.
And then there was Approve R-71. I hope the results continue to go well. The first results that I saw last night were aweful, and then they turned awesome, and then they got closer and closer. R-71 focused on families. The opposition used flat out lies to try to deny rights, and I am cautiously optimistic that the message voters have sent is that not only to families matter, but lies and innuendo are not Washington State values.
Finally - Kay Smith-Blum. No direct mail. No yardsigns. A campaign focused on internet GOTV efforts, and going out and meeting people. While she had ample ammunition to use against her opponent, she chose to take the high road, and focus on what she would like to do for our children. A solid win, and a solid new member of our Seattle School Board.
Overall, I am pleased with the results of this election season. We had good and great candidates running (for the most part), and in Seattle, I would venture that every candidate was running for the good of the city, and anticipate that every person who didn't win will continue to be active in their communities, and that we can all work together now to continue to make Seattle a better place to live, do business, have fun, and raise families.
I think a little more positivity would be a good thing.
There were some sharp elbows this year, to be sure. Originally, what seemed to be the nastiest race (outside of the County Exec and Mayor's races) was the City Attorney's race. I typically came away with the impression that these two lawyers were not too fond of each other. Personally, I have always found Tom Carr to be respectful and nice. Of course, all of my interactions have been as an E-Board member of the 43rd.
The first time I met Pete Holmes, I was a *little* intoxicated, and he didn't hold that against me, and he, Dominic Holden and I engaged in a solid conversation about issues that matter. I think it took me awhile to realize I was speaking with a candidate, so I was a bit more off the cuff than I probably should have been.
While Pete was definitely not pulling punches, I didn't get the negativity from the Holmes campaign that I did from the Carr campaign. And John Brumbach - you are a genius.
I have joked about how boring the Position 8 race was. Then, a few weeks ago, I received an email from the O'Brien campaign all but calling Rosencrantz pro-life. I was furious. As a Democrat that is staunchly pro-choice, I don't like it when people say things that I know to be untrue. I always believed that it was in O'Brien's best interest to let the rumors circulate, but never say it himself. But then, shortly after that, he got back to the issues (even the tunnel, which I disagree with him on. Strongly).
What Rosencrantz did after that, though, was inexcusable. He let the mud fly, and took something out of context that he, himself, supported, and implied that O'Brien wanted to toll neighborhood streets. I think that jumping on the tolling issue would have been good, but doing so by saying "I support systemwide tolling, and this is what that looks like to me, here's the difference between me and my opponent on this" would have been fine. I didn't hear enough from the direct mail and television campaign about what Robert wanted to do, which made me sad, because on a lot of issues, I agree with him (except nightlife. I disagree. Strongly).
Mike continued, except for that one transgression, a positive campaign from pre-primary, all the way up to the general election. That positivity will be a boon to the City Council. Way to go, Mike!
Is it bad to call David Doud a slimey bastard? When he did what he did, Rob Holland basically said, "that's messed up, but let's talk about the issues". And look where that got him. Excellent job, Mr. Holland and Mr. Martin.
I think the real "boring" race was Tom Albro and Max Vekich. I found out last night, when I ran into Mr. Albro, that some people actually read what I write. But, as I said then, and say now, Tom and Max ran two great campaigns that focused on issues. I don't think I saw a single slight from either campaign against the other that was out of line (supporters don't count!), and they showed us what a gentleman's race looks like. As an aside - Why didn't anyone tell me that Mr. Albro is 74 feet tall?
Jessie Israel and Nick Licata had two very different campaigns. While Jessie had some interesting comments from time to time (ie: the Sonics), I personally believe that she had a positive campaign. She is a little bundle of energy, and I hope to see her run again in two years, with John Brumbach running the show.
Nick ran a quirky campaign, and also kept positive. I got to see him a few times out on the trail, and damn if I don't love his hats! Congratulations on a fourth term, Mr. Licata! And way to go Andy!
I got a robocall from the Bloom campaign. It talked smack about Sally Bagshaw. That made me sad. I get it - she was way ahead on election night in the primary. I get it - she had a lot more money raised, and a lot more "establishment" support. But she managed to continue talking about the issues. She was warm and welcoming the entire time. When she spoke, people nodded their heads. I don't think I heard a single bad thing about Mr. Bloom come out of her mouth. To the contrary, she would regularly cite his work, and what great things he has done, and she hopes he will continue to do. And I agree with her there, and trust that he will find an ally on the Council with Sally. Congratulations on a solid election, Sally! You earned it. And Kathy...you did pretty well, too.
And then there was Approve R-71. I hope the results continue to go well. The first results that I saw last night were aweful, and then they turned awesome, and then they got closer and closer. R-71 focused on families. The opposition used flat out lies to try to deny rights, and I am cautiously optimistic that the message voters have sent is that not only to families matter, but lies and innuendo are not Washington State values.
Finally - Kay Smith-Blum. No direct mail. No yardsigns. A campaign focused on internet GOTV efforts, and going out and meeting people. While she had ample ammunition to use against her opponent, she chose to take the high road, and focus on what she would like to do for our children. A solid win, and a solid new member of our Seattle School Board.
Overall, I am pleased with the results of this election season. We had good and great candidates running (for the most part), and in Seattle, I would venture that every candidate was running for the good of the city, and anticipate that every person who didn't win will continue to be active in their communities, and that we can all work together now to continue to make Seattle a better place to live, do business, have fun, and raise families.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Intra-Party Blah Blah Blah
My calves hurt. That's all there is to it. It is a sad state of affairs, brought on by my own actions. Walking four(ish) precincts over the weekend for Joe Mallahan for Mayor was fun and tiring.
It was interesting, though, in that of the four precincts that got the full treatment, only one had actually been lit dropped by its PCO. I'm not sure whether the other three just didn't have PCO's, or if the members of the Party didn't feel the need to make that extra effort, to get out the vote for our candidates. Walking a precinct doorbelling is long, and a lot of work. Doing a straight lit drop is much easier, and I would venture a guess that most people could probably do their whole precinct, and two others, in as little as five hours.
And done. A reminder to voters to vote, a sample ballot of Democrat endorsed candidates, and free lit distribution for those who have been endorsed.
It makes me call in to question the importance of local LD endorsements. I've gone out and volunteered for four or five campaigns this year, and I've seen campaign volunteers from organizations that are non-partisan (technically), I've seen volunteers from labor, but I've seen very few actual Party members. That's not to say the people who donate, and go to special events...they may be there...but the regulars, the people who move for the passage of resolutions, who call for more accountability and responsiveness from elected officials...I see them at events, but actually hitting the pavement? Hitting the phones? Not so much.
But the one precinct that did get a lit drop, got a lit drop. In my district, I know that we have PCO's who make sure that every door gets our sample ballot, and some who will take lit from the campaigns as well. I don't know what our total PCO turnout was this year, but those sample ballots can be quite important for the non-sexy races - Port Commissioner, School Board, Charter Amendments (j/k). I can only hope that we are able to push out the Democratic vote for the candidates that we support best.
I have decided to update my predictions for the results. Again, not necessarily how I want things to go, just how I think they'll go.
Referendum 71 - APPROVED by at least 53%
I-1033 - NO by at least 50.01%
County Executive - VERY close, and too close to hypothosize on.
Seattle Mayor - MALLAHAN, 52%, McGinn - 40%, Write-In - 12%. I also expect to see a lot of under-votes for this race.
Seattle City Attorney - I have no idea. The late voters may be swayed by the cop being shot.
Seattle City Council, Pos. 2- Conlin, 64%, Ginsberg, 36%
Seattle City Council, Pos. 4 - Sally Bagshaw - 62%, David Bloom - 38%
Seattle City Council, Pos. 6 - Nick Licata - 56%, Jessie Israel - 44%
Seattle City Council, Pos. 8 - Either Rosencrantz, 52%, O'Brien 48% or O'Brien 58%, Rosencrantz 42%
Seattle School Board, Pos. 5 - Kay Smith Blum, 54%, Mary Bass, 46%
Seattle School Board, Pos. 7 - I have no idea.
Seattle Prop. 1 (Housing Levy) - Yes - 64%, No - 46%
It was interesting, though, in that of the four precincts that got the full treatment, only one had actually been lit dropped by its PCO. I'm not sure whether the other three just didn't have PCO's, or if the members of the Party didn't feel the need to make that extra effort, to get out the vote for our candidates. Walking a precinct doorbelling is long, and a lot of work. Doing a straight lit drop is much easier, and I would venture a guess that most people could probably do their whole precinct, and two others, in as little as five hours.
And done. A reminder to voters to vote, a sample ballot of Democrat endorsed candidates, and free lit distribution for those who have been endorsed.
It makes me call in to question the importance of local LD endorsements. I've gone out and volunteered for four or five campaigns this year, and I've seen campaign volunteers from organizations that are non-partisan (technically), I've seen volunteers from labor, but I've seen very few actual Party members. That's not to say the people who donate, and go to special events...they may be there...but the regulars, the people who move for the passage of resolutions, who call for more accountability and responsiveness from elected officials...I see them at events, but actually hitting the pavement? Hitting the phones? Not so much.
But the one precinct that did get a lit drop, got a lit drop. In my district, I know that we have PCO's who make sure that every door gets our sample ballot, and some who will take lit from the campaigns as well. I don't know what our total PCO turnout was this year, but those sample ballots can be quite important for the non-sexy races - Port Commissioner, School Board, Charter Amendments (j/k). I can only hope that we are able to push out the Democratic vote for the candidates that we support best.
I have decided to update my predictions for the results. Again, not necessarily how I want things to go, just how I think they'll go.
Referendum 71 - APPROVED by at least 53%
I-1033 - NO by at least 50.01%
County Executive - VERY close, and too close to hypothosize on.
Seattle Mayor - MALLAHAN, 52%, McGinn - 40%, Write-In - 12%. I also expect to see a lot of under-votes for this race.
Seattle City Attorney - I have no idea. The late voters may be swayed by the cop being shot.
Seattle City Council, Pos. 2- Conlin, 64%, Ginsberg, 36%
Seattle City Council, Pos. 4 - Sally Bagshaw - 62%, David Bloom - 38%
Seattle City Council, Pos. 6 - Nick Licata - 56%, Jessie Israel - 44%
Seattle City Council, Pos. 8 - Either Rosencrantz, 52%, O'Brien 48% or O'Brien 58%, Rosencrantz 42%
Seattle School Board, Pos. 5 - Kay Smith Blum, 54%, Mary Bass, 46%
Seattle School Board, Pos. 7 - I have no idea.
Seattle Prop. 1 (Housing Levy) - Yes - 64%, No - 46%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
