Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Washington

Primary results
Just to save time and hourly updates, how about leaving the current primary results (it's only likely to fluctuate by a percentage or two) until the election is certified or at least keep the updating to once a day until then. --Bobblehead 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this after updating... it said there are now 100% reporting, but not certified yet. Sounds fine to me.Emcee 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edit was the one that jiggled my memory. I was getting ready to make the updates myself earlier and then changed my mind about halfway through when I realized the numbers were changing as I was updating. As for the 100% reporting, that's just the precincts and is only the in person voters, so the tallies do not necessarily include the absentee ballots. --Bobblehead 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiring of rivals
Is three paragraphs really necessary for something that isn't even a campaign issue? At least, not yet. --Bobblehead 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a campaign issue. It definitely was for the LaMagna/Wilson hires, and Tran solicitation, and I'm pretty sure you will see more to come with the Dixon allegations.  The Seattle media does not like being stonewalled. Emcee 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you part of the "Seattle media [that] does not like being stonewalled"? It seems that you are unable to demonstrate that this is a big issue.  It is interesting that you claim "I'm pretty sure you will see more to come with the Dixon allegations".  How do you know this?  Are you hoping to use this article as a platform to spread this information? --Nottingham 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest focusing less on me and more on content. Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, is method of supplying information to people, yes.  I'm hoping to use this article to provide accurate and relevant information to people who are interested in the Washington United States Senate election of 2006, as I assume most editors of the article are.  My opinions on whether or not this particular allegation will see further coverage is based on my familiarity with the race and the media outlets that have been doing a lot of coverage on it.  I have been reading a lot and following it closely.  That's another reason why I'm contributing to this article, because I think that I have a good understanding of the race and the candidates and can be useful in improving the article.  Emcee 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You made claims: " . . . I'm pretty sure you will see more to come with the Dixon allegations. The Seattle media does not like being stonewalled." Now you seem upset when you are challenged on these claims.  It appears that you represent yourself as speaking on behalf of the Seattle media.  I have suggested many times to you that you should actually focus on the content and being accurate instead of making unsupportable claims, and of making claims that actually prove to be incorrect when someone actually reads the material wrongly cited as supporting the claim.  --Nottingham 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant major campaign issue.;) It hasn't had any effect on the election so far (similar to McGavick's DUI arrest and Cantwell's Iraq stance). It has more space in the article than some of the major campaign issues which seems inordinate given the minimal impact it has had on the campaign so far. --Bobblehead 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How are you measuring whether or not it has had an effect? And why would you add the McGavick section if you think it isn't an issue?  It's news on the election -- there has been nationwide coverage of the previous buy-out offers, btw -- and as long as it's cited, no reason not to include.  We don't have to include every detail, but we do want to give a true summary and impression of what actually took place. Emcee 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "there has been nationwide coverage" is a false statement. As you edited that section, it is disappointing that you apparently knowlingly made or edited a false claim.  Nationwide, as per Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006., means "extending throughout the nation".  There is a citation to a commentary in one newspaper from Washington, DC.  That is not "extending throughout the nation".  If there were "nationwide" coverage of these "buy-out offers" then presumably you would be able to reference coverage from several other states, such as Texas, Florida, California, New York, Wisconsin, and Vermont, to name some examples. --Nottingham 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary that I provide a citation for every sentence that I write on the talk page, but here's another from New York. As I mentioned above, I've done a lot of reading on the subject and can say with confidence that the buy-outs have been a significant part of the media coverage of the race.  Emcee 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have told you many times, that it would be constructive for you to quote facts instead of using your opinions. Obviously, it would also be constructive for you to stop using Wikipedia for your personal agenda as well, which you do by using it to promote your opinions instead of NPOV listings of facts.  The NYT article you cite has a brief reference to the accusations of Cantwell hiring opponents buried in the 19th and 20th paragraphs.  As for your remark "I've done a lot of reading on the subject and can say with confidence" I do not understand why you insist on making yourself and your opinions the issue.  You should leave your personal biases and agendas aside and focus strictly on facts.  --Nottingham 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cantwell and 44 LD endorsements
I meant to leave a note here when I made the update, but was rather harried and forgot. Anyways, Hope it's alright that I left just a sampling of the endoresments for Cantwell in the Dem Primary. I couldn't find a centralized source that listed the endorsements for all the LDs and while I did find links to most, if not all, of the LDs, I figured 44 separate links would be a bit much. --Bobblehead 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually think it's inaccurate -- some LD's end up not issuing endorsements at all, so just because Tran didn't get a particular LD doesn't mean Cantwell did. I would prefer to see a source that cites that she received 44 endorsements; in absence, you could cite them individually here, so they're not cluttering up the main page. Thanks for asking about it, I had meant to mention this. Emcee 17:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bobblehead -- I don't comprehend the last edit summary you made -- can you elaborate here? The "Several edits. the Cantwell's endorsements were mentioned several times." Anyhow, until the exact number of Cantwell endorsements is known, and since we know the exact number of the Tran endorsements, it just seems to make more sense to say something along the lines of: "Hong Tran got one sole endorsement and three split endorsements with Cantwell, while Cantwell got the sole endorsement in many of the other 45 districts." I guess the argument is that Cantwell deserves to be noted in the first half of the sentence because she got more? I think that is a bit extreme, and that syntax/readability should take precedence as long as the same information is conveyed accurately. Note the current sentence, "While some of Washington's legislative districts did not give endorsements for the primary election, Cantwell received the sole endorsement of many legislative districts in the state, http://www.34dems.org/endorsements.htm][17][18], while Hong Tran won the sole endorsement of one district, Cantwell's home district, the 32nd Legislative District, and split endorsements with Cantwell in the 40th, 25th, and 26th Legislative Districts." Emcee 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit as you see fit for grammar and what not. It seemed appropriate to have the endorsements mentioned in one sentence as they were all related, but it does create a rather long run-on sentence. The edit summary was in reference to Nottingham re-adding that Cantwell received 44 endorsements while leaving the original sentence that I added and you edited, having it referenced twice was just redundant. Made sense to have Cantwell first since she received more of the endorsements. Although, for readability, it probably should have gone Cantwell, joint, Tran. Just so the detail of Tran's solo endorsement is more closely associated with the "she won the endoresment" line. --Bobblehead 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

LD Endorsements
Well, here's the start of 'em. ;) Running low on time right now, so I'll add more as I find 'em.
 * Anyone know how King County Democrats works? In strolling through the page and the links there to the LDs, many of the LDs only have a primary endorsement announcement for the Judicial races and a link to a page of Candidates (which usually means these are the ones we endorse). Except for the 32nd (which has Tran as their sole endorsement) the rest seem to be deferring to the KCD endorsements.--Bobblehead 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

They each have their own endorsement meetings. kcdems looks like just a parent webpage of sorts for the LDs in the district. The 43d and 48th (both in KC) each showed their primary endorsement meetings. I don't see specific endorsements evenon this page for the whole of KC (KC young dems is a different thing, not an LD).Emcee 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note the Clark County "candidates" page is not the "endorsements" page. I.e., it just lists the remaining democratic candidates for office in 2006 that the Clark County democrats will be able to vote for -- sort of a list of links and info to inform voters about the potential choices (imagine that!) It appears they only endorse ballot measures and non-partisan positions, not primary endorsements. That covers LD 15, 17, 18, and 49.

Thanks for the link too the KC endorsements. I think you would have to list that separately, since it is not an LD endorsement though -- clearly the individual LDs had their own endorsement meetings. Emcee 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like what's below is all I'm going to be able to confirm without further digging. Most of the remaining don't have a website, haven't updated it in awhile, or have already updated their pages with General election endorsements and didn't keep their primary endorsements. Darn them. ;) --Bobblehead 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This comment from 25th District Vice Chairman Jim Morrell of Tacoma in regards to his district's shared endorsement of Cantwell and Tran is highly relevant: "[I]t wasn't a slap against Cantwell, but also it was kind of a feel-good vote, in that at least (people thought) 'I've said something about what's going on in Iraq' and stuff. It wasn't even about 'we shouldn't be there' but rather about how (the war) has been handled." http://seattlepi.com/local/285379_theothers16.html There seem to be no public quotes from the LD's supporting Tran. However, there is this quote from Morrell indicating that at least one shared endorsement of Tran was, at least to a District Vice Chairman, a protest against the war in Iraq, not support for Tran specifically. The Morrell quote should be in any section about LD Endorsements. --Nottingham 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The quote is acceptable for inclusion in the article. I'd personally prefer a trimmed down version of it. Something along the lines of "The 25th LD Vice Chairman stated the shared endoresement vote "wasn't a slap against Cantwell, but also it was kind of a feel-good vote" and it was about how the war was handled rather than troop withdrawls." But that's my opinion, so take it or leave it as you deem fit.;) --Bobblehead 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Legislative Districts themselves are not even democratic. One has to pay $20 to become a voting member eligible to elect the leadership of the Legislative District. Consequently, it is not clear what, if any, relevance a Legislative District endorsement has. From a Progressive or Civil Rights point of view, the Legislative District endorsement process would appear to be highly undemocratic. This would apply regardless of who was endorsed. Regardless, this is all largely irrelevant, since it appears that these are not issues driving the election. --Nottingham 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)The press made a deal about the LD endorsements, thus the article does. The undemocratic nature of LDs is beside the point.--Bobblehead 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Endorsements Chair, Harry George, told me that Hong Tran presented herself and her stands on the issues well and stood up well to the questioning of the members in receiveing a pretty solid majority vote for her endorsement. Senator Cantwell, on the other hand, did herself no great favor by sending out surrogates who had no real defense of her votes for the Patriot Act, NAFTA/CAFTA/OFTA, and (of course) Iraq. Harry was quick to point out that the debate last night was quite diverse and that Iraq only played a small part in the voting." As for the Morrell quote, it doesn't really add much -- we already know that Tran was campaigning largely on the war. Furthermore, if it wasn't a "slap against Cantwell" and was a "feel-good vote", in my mind, that means they're voting their conscience -- voting for a candidate that they might actually want, rather than against the candidate they they will eventually have to choose over the Republican.

LD endorsements generally decide who the active volunteers and Democratic PCOs in each LD will support and campaign for, through phone calls and doorbelling, etc. Politial parties are allowed to set their own terms of membership and exclusion. I would agree that it's not particularly Democratic (so said Hong Tran as well), but it's the reality of the current political system and relevant to the election.

You also mentioned previously that the LDs were notoriously unrepresentative of voter opinion. In Tran's case, she got 1 full plus 3 half endorsements = 2.5 LD endorsements out of 49 = 5.1% of the LD endorsments. Which is almost exactly what she ended up with in the primary election. Emcee 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're stretching a bit for the comparison of the percentage of LD endorsements versus actual primary results. Especially when you're comparing a limited local vote against that of a state result. A better comparison would be of the vote total for Tran in the LD vs the vote percentage she got in the endorsement meeting. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. I didn't see any of the other Candidates winning any LD endoresments, yet there they are with around .6-2% of the vote. --Bobblehead 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Might be a coincidence, might not, but in any case, it's pretty darn close to the actual voter percentage she got -- you can't say the LD endorsement results in her case were notoriously unrepresentative.  As for the other candidates, only Mover and Goodspaceguy got enough popular votes to correspond to even half of an LD's endorsement, but I don't think it's a big surprise that none of the democratic party faithful who are active enough to go be involved at their LDs viewed them as candidates to be taken seriously.Emcee 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

has been deprecated in HTML5, so we shouldn't be using it (and certainly not adding it) anymore anyway.
 * Could I persuade you to self-revert your last reversion? I'd appreciate it. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)