Offering frequent news and analysis from the majestic Evergreen State and beyond, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

How the counties could fall tonight: A projection map for Initiative 1033

Here's a little something to whet the appetites of those anxiously awaiting election results tonight who are not otherwise engaged in get out the vote efforts (and if you aren't, you better have at least contacted your closest friends and relatives and reminded them about the election).

The following is a map NPI created which predicts how counties are likely to vote on Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033. Note that this map is not based on any polls done on I-1033, but rather on historical data: election returns from previous anti-common wealth initiatives sponsored by Tim Eyman and others.

Initiative 1033 Projection Map

Blue counties are very likely to come out strong against Initiative 1033. There are three on the map: King, Whitman, and San Juan. (Surprised to see an Eastern Washington county there? Well, there are many kindred spirits out on the Palouse who believe in effective government).

Light green counties are the best pickup opportunities that the NO on Initiative 1033 coalition has. These include Snohomish, Whatcom, Skagit, Island, Kitsap, Spokane, Thurston, Jefferson, and Clark. If we win some of these counties, we should prevail in the election.

Orange counties are longshot targets, meaning these are counties that could swing our way if we have a really good night. These include Pierce, Walla Walla, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Cowlitz, and Mason.

Pink counties are counties where we probably won't win, although anything is possible. We should expect to lose Pacific, Wahkiakum, Lewis, Okanogan, Chelan, Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Douglas, Grant, Benton, Ferry, Lincoln, Adams, Franklin, Columbia, Garfield, Asotin, Stevens, and Pend Oreille.

Pundits like to talk about an "East/West divide" when discussing statewide ballot measures, but the reality is, there isn't any such divide.

Look at the map above.

The reason Tim Eyman initiatives have passed in the past is because they enjoyed support throughout Western Washington. King and San Juan counties were the exception. If the western counties consistently rejected anti-common wealth ballot measures, we wouldn't have much to worry about.

But historically, they haven't.

So winning means convincing voters in other western counties to join King and San Juan's voters in saying NO to 1033. That's all it takes. But it would be nice to see Spokane and Walla Walla in the NO column with Whitman. (Walla Walla memorably rejoined the state in 2005 when it turned down Initiative 912.)

As further proof that there isn't an "East/West divide", consider that the only county last year to pass Eyman's Initiative 985 was a western county, Pierce, which is the second most populated after King. Every Eastern Washington county, in contrast, turned the initiative down.

Beating back a statewide initiative like 1033 isn't about pitting regions against each other (East vs. West, urban vs. rural, etc.), it is about waging a strong campaign across the entire state. A statewide campaign can't be won if the campaign only takes place within King County and particularly Seattle.

The NO on I-1033 campaign, fortunately, was waged statewide, and because it was, we have a shot at beating Tim Eyman for the first time in an odd numbered year and saving our state from his most destructive idea yet.

Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home