With November 8th only a month away, we’re starting to see new polling released on a near-daily basis. Today, KOMO TV and Strategies 360 released a new set of results from a recent poll they collaborated on, while Tina Podlodowski’s campaign distributed findings from a poll showing Podlodowski narrowly ahead of incumbent Republican Kim Wyman in the contest for Washington Secretary of State.
With Governor Jay Inslee and U.S. Senator Patty Murray widely expected to cruise to new terms, and Attorney General Bob Ferguson without a Republican opponent this year, the marquee matchups are further downballot.
Perhaps no contest is considered to be as close as that for Secretary of State. Incumbent Kim Wyman is the only Republican currently serving in the executive department, and faces an incredibly strong Democratic challenger in former Seattle City Councilmember and experienced business leader Tina Podlodowski.
In the August Top Two election, Wyman garnered 47.9%. Podlodowski finished only 23,882 votes behind, capturing 46.13% of the vote.
Democrats are fired up about Podlodowski’s chances, while Republicans are increasingly nervous about Wyman’s.
Podlodowski’s campaign has just given them another reason to be concerned by releasing fresh polling that shows Podlodowski ahead.
Normington Petts — which also counts Hillary Clinton, Jason Kander, and Tammy Duckworth as clients — reports that in a survey conducted from September 27th-29th of six hundred likely November voters, 35% of respondents said they planned to vote for Podlodowski, while only 31% planned to vote for Wyman.
“Podlodowski leads despite the fact that nearly twice as many voters know Wyman,” noted NP’s Jill Normington in a memo prepared for public distribution.
“Not only is Podlodowski already ahead of Wyman, the majority of undecided voters are Democrats. Of the 34% who are currently undecided, 53% are Democrats, while 25% are Independents and 22% are Republicans. Moreover, the undecided voters at the Secretary of State level are voting for Governor Jay Inslee for reelection 51%-21%. If Podlodowski has the necessary resources to persuade these undecided voters, she will be in a strong position to win in November.”
The Normington Petts survey has a margin of error of ±4.0%
Meanwhile, Strategies 360 and KOMO TV have released results that show U.S. Senator Patty Murray with a comfy lead over Republican challenger Chris Vance.
“In this poll of 500 likely voters interviewed statewide, 57% said they would vote for Murray, as opposed to 36% for Vance,” reported KOMO’s Robert Mak. “Murray, first elected to the Senate in 1992, maintains a high approval rating with 57% viewing her favorably, and 30% having an unfavorable impression.”
KOMO/Strategies 360 also released results for three of the six initiatives that are appearing on Washington’s ballot. They found:
- 62% support for Initiative 1433 (minimum wage and paid leave);
- 79% support for Initiative 1491 (extreme risk protection orders);
- 42% support for Initiative 732 (CarbonWA’s tax swap scheme).
Back in June, NPI and Public Policy Polling asked a sample of likely voters about these same initiatives, and found the following:
- 58% support for Initiative 1433 (minimum wage and paid leave);
- 73% support for Initiative 1491 (extreme risk protection orders);
- 52% support for Initiative 732 (CarbonWA’s tax swap scheme).
I‑1433 and I‑1491 polled 4% and 6% higher, respectively, in the KOMO/Strategies 360 poll than in our poll, which suggests that voters are actually becoming more enthused about these progressive ideas, not less. That’s encouraging.
The same cannot be said about CarbonWA’s I‑732, a proposal to levy a tax on pollutants and use the revenue to cancel out sales and B&O taxes — including much of what’s left of Boeing’s already-reduced tax obligations.
With a month left to go, I‑732 is under water. Only 42% of respondents surveyed by KOMO/Strategies 360 indicated support for I‑732. 37% indicated opposition, and 21% reported that they are undecided.
Undecided voters can swing yes or no, as CarbonWA pointed out several weeks ago after Stuart Elway published research showing lackluster support for I‑732 and a high number of undecided voters. However, it is more common for undecided voters to break no than yes when a strong opposition campaign is in place to effectively make the arguments against. When in doubt, people tend to vote no.
I‑732 arguably faces stronger opposition than any of the other initiatives on the ballot this year. Though NPI would very much like to put a price on pollution, we oppose I‑732 because we believe it is fatally flawed. So does the labor community and progressive organizations like OneAmerica.
KOMO/Strategies 360 appear not to have polled on I‑1501, I‑1464, or I‑735, which are also on Washington’s November 2016 statewide ballot.
You folks need to reevaluate your mistaken opposition to 732. Much of what you say is demonstrably inaccurate.
Polling is increasingly favorable for I 732
In August it was 34% for, 37% against, 30% undecided
The last poll is 42% for, 37% no, 21% undecided
I 732 is now ahead and undecideds are moving towards it as they learn more about it.
I 732 is the most progressive, pro-environment measure in decades and it is stunning you folks are not supporting it.
A carbon tax is supported widely as the most effective way to reduce carbon usage. The funds are used to make our state tax system less regressive, something all progressives support.
The revenue-negative estimates have been proven to be in error (check Sightline) and I732 is very, very close to neutrality. You can’t do any better.
Do you folks want to end up like the Nader supporters who helped elect Bush? Do you want to have the responsibility of defeating the most progressive, effective means of reducing carbon usage available? You are working against facts and your own interests. Can you reconsider?…cliff mass
Cliff, it’s October. Ballots are about to drop. An initiative that’s well under fifty percent is in bad shape — period. Below fifty percent is a place that a Yes campaign does not want to be.
Are the numbers for I‑732 in the Strategies 360 poll better than the August Elway poll? Sure… but they’re also worse than NPI’s own poll back in June, which I referenced above and which you omitted in your comment.
Add in our research, and you can’t say “polling is increasingly favorable for I‑732”. We found I‑732 with 52% support statewide in June. Best showing we’ve seen for it. KOMO/Strategies 360’s research puts I‑732 at 42% support. And keep in mind that on the other initiatives they tested (I‑1433, I‑1491), they found higher support than we did. Those campaigns are clearly in a position to win.
How the undecided voters break will certainly matter. But as I said above, when in doubt, people tend to vote no.
We disagree with your characterization of I‑732. There is very little about it we find progressive.
Yoram Bauman has admitted that CarbonWA crafted I‑732 in order to go chasing after Republican voters, who polling consistently shows are simply not interested in putting a price on pollution. As he said:
We can do so much better than I‑732.
I‑732 dedicates no money to tackle our massive infrastructure deficit and ease our transition to a clean energy economy. Instead, revenue would be used to cancel out other taxes, including much of what is left of Boeing’s tax obligations.
I advise you to stop trying to shame people into supporting I‑732 by telling them that if they don’t vote for I‑732, they will be akin to Nader supporters/Bush enablers. You’ve been saying this a lot, Cliff, and it’s not helping your cause.
We’ve been discussing I‑732’s flaws here on the Cascadia Advocate periodically for over a year. Our assessment is that I‑732 is bad policy. NPI therefore recommends a NO vote on I‑732.
The real climate action plan on the ballot this year is Sound Transit 3, which we strongly support. In the words of Michael Brune:
We agree and we urge a yes vote on Regional Proposition 1.
Andrew writes that Sound Transit Proposition 1 would reduce an estimated 793,000 tonnes of GHG annually.
I‑732, if approved, is expected to lead to a 10% reduction in WA’s annual emissions of 83 million tonnes of GHG. Do the math… that’s 8.3 million tonnes annually, or more than 10X what Proposition 1 hopes for.
https://yeson732.org/plain-language/
While I think that Proposition 1 is worthy to vote for, it’s no substitute for a carbon tax.
While I would also vote for a carbon tax that provides lots of revenues for crumbling infrastructure and green jobs, the fact is that a) tax increases are a tough sell in our state; and a) no such alternative initiative exists on the ballot — nobody but CarbonWA i732 managed to get off their butts to write one. We can’t afford to wait another 4 years. I urge a “yes” vote on i732.
I have to agree with Cliff on your opposition to I‑732. It doesn’t make sense. I recently just registered in Clark County after living in Clackamas County, OR specifically to vote ‘YES’ on this proposition. As a former Oregonian (no sales tax) and someone who is currently unemployed, I can tell you how shameful it is for organizations purporting to be concerned about climate change AND low-income/minority communities to be actively telling Washingtonians to vote against this measure in the hopes that, someday in the future, we will have a ‘divine’ carbon tax scheme that exacerbates this state’s already horribly regressive tax system. It’s a sleight of hand and nakedly political agenda.
British Columbia passed a revenue neutral carbon tax in 2008 or 2009 and it has been successful. The entire country of Canada will now have carbon tax as well. Washington State now has that opportunity and you’re telling us ‘NO’ because it would cost the state of Washington $800 million over 3 bienniums?
Did you forget to tell voters what Washington’s annual revenue generation is and what percent that new shortfall would be?
Did you forget to tell voters that fixing the budget shortfall prior to putting it on the ballot was not politically feasible and that any changes to the tax system, including what Boeing pays, can be made after it passes?
Did you forget to tell voters that if it wasn’t revenue neutral or close to revenue neutral, as you have proposed, than you would be adding an additional sales tax to a state that has no income tax, thereby hurting low income communities not helping them?
Did you forget to tell voters that Washington’s true budget shortfall is the result of relying predominantly on a sales tax in the age of the Internet and that this new tax shift was never designed to fix that problem?
Did you forget to tell voters that Washington’s initiative process is governed by the single-subject rule and any alternative proposal including spending collected tax from a carbon tax on a host of environmental group’s wish list items could be open to legal challenge?
Did you forget to tell voters that Republicans and conservatives are also people, that their voices matter, that they vote, and that your Yoram Bauman quote is ironically apt?
Did you forget to tell voters that if they pass this measure now, it becomes more politically feasible for other states including Oregon and California, should its cap and trade system be deemed a tax and scrapped, to implement their own carbon tax schemes thus snowballing the movement to mitigate increasing global temperatures in a country with the technology and GDP to do it?
Did you forget to tell voters what the current costs and trends are for the price of renewable energy and that further subsidizing those industries runs the risk of entrenching corporate interests and idiosyncratic lobbying efforts for decades to come as was the case for fossil fuels?
Did you forget to tell voters that Washington’s energy production portfolio is already majority renewable when including hydroelectricity and that a carbon tax in this state is designed to mitigate transportation sector carbon emissions not energy production unless you think EV’s and vehicle automation are already mature and fully adopted technologies?
…And who in their right mind (out of all the things written in this post) thinks that Sound Transit 3 is the ‘REAL’ climate action plan compared to I‑732? Every transportation engineer would find that claim laughable. You want to wait until 2040 with all the known issues and uncertainties surrounding large transportation projects projected decades in advance to see which one reduced CO2 emissions more up to that point in time? Bye bye coastal Florida. For the record, Seattle is not the entire state of Washington. Just, you know, FYI.
You aren’t telling voters these things because, like the lobbying groups, you have a narrow focus and mindset on what is right and what isn’t. Frankly, I’m glad economists at UW and not environmental and labor groups wrote this proposition because they’re not up to the task. They miss the forest for the trees on issues of the gravest importance.
If you’re going to wait around to mitigate fossil fuel use by not compromising when the opportunity presents itself, your shooting yourself (and everyone else including Earth) in the foot (read: face). Get your act together. This is editorialized nonsense!
Dear Andrew and all
My personal and professional opinion is that some progressive groups like NPI who are opposed to I‑732 are clearly making perfect the enemy of good.
Andrew, I respect your opinion about I‑732 not putting the taxes towards infrastructure and other climate mitigation (or climate reduction) strategies, but I respectfully disagree that it is “fatally lawed”.. Just look at what you said about ST3 (which I also support):
“…the entire Sound Transit system by 2040 would reduce an estimated 793,000 tons of greenhouse-gas emissions annually…”
The operative part of that sentence is 2040! That’s 25 years from now, a time when scientists tell us that we will have already blown past the ability to keep warming to 2°C and ocean acidification will by some estimates have already doomed most of the world’s coral reefs.
That is unless we drastically reduce carbon pollution now, something which many economists and scientists alike agree that a carbon tax has the best chance of accomplishing.
Just as many of us in WA state voted for I‑502 despite its flaws, I would likewise suggest a vote on I‑732 even if you think it doesn’t go far enough.
You all know full well that taxes are VERY difficult to pass in this state, hence the revenue neutrality of this initiative. This is the same approach currently working well in British Columbia for the past seven years, and it is the strategy advocated by one of the leading (and original) voices in the USA arguing for urgent action on climate change: Dr. James Hansen.
As for the B&O tax credit, this is a drop in the bucket compared to the tax breaks that Boeing already gets, so I think this is a distraction from the real issue at hand. The bigger issue is this tax credit addresses a very valid concern with raising a statewide carbon tax: manufacturers may decide to relocate.
The key is this: polluters will pay more, thus incentivizing lower carbon manufacturing and other lifestyle choices throughout the state.
On such an urgent issue like climate change, we do not have the luxury to wait when we are so clearly long overdue addressing it. We need to act now and act boldly. Any slight variations from revenue neutrality in I‑732 can be fixed legislatively, but extinct animals and flooded islands can’t.
Please vote YES on I‑732.
Sincerely
Jason Hodin, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scientist
UW Friday Harbor Marine Laboratory
Friday Harbor, WA
Drew, Jason, thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.
I’m disappointed to hear proponents of CarbonWA’s I‑732 continue to hold up British Columbia’s experience as some kind of a success story, when it’s nothing of the sort. Drew, you wrote:
And Jason, you wrote:
Your comments lead me to wonder just how familiar you both are with the politics of British Columbia. I have been up there to cover their elections for NPI. I’ve met with activists and candidates; I’ve attended campaign events held by both of the main political parties (the BCNDP and the B.C. Liberals).
The reality is that B.C.‘s emissions have been going up, not down. The province is simply not the climate action leader it claims to be, as the B.C. Sierra Club will tell you. The carbon tax they have is not keeping emissions in check.
On Monday of this week, Food & Water Watch released a report examining B.C.‘s carbon tax, concluding it has been a failure. They note:
The full report is here.
When I was up in B.C. in 2013 for the provincial election, Christy Clark (who’s still in charge of the province) was boasting about how liquefied natural gas (LNG) was the future — and the key to financing B.C.‘s schools. I was horrified. She and her party pay lip service to the idea of climate action, but they seemingly haven’t met a pipeline or export terminal project they don’t like. The B.C. Liberals are gophers for the fossil fuels industry north of the border. In NPI’s view, they are one of the biggest groups of greenwashers in history.
To slow down our planet’s fever, we MUST abandon fossil fuels. We have to ban fracking (a position Bernie Sanders spoke to during his campaign and thankfully pressed Hillary Clinton to adopt), we need a moratorium on oil/coal trains, we need to put the kibosh on all proposed coal/oil/LNG export terminals — we need to take aggressive action to stop perpetuating our dependence on fossil fuels. We can’t wait to do this.
Under Christy Clark and the not-liberal B.C. Liberals, British Columbia is going in the WRONG DIRECTION. (Canada as a whole is having problems ending its fossil fuel dependency too.)
Yet, merely because B.C. has a carbon tax it imposed years ago under a different government, it’s misleadingly being held up as this shining role model, again and again, by CarbonWA representatives in presentations they’ve given across this state, as a validation of the approach they’ve chosen. The Yes on 732 camp is not telling people the whole story about what’s going in British Columbia. That upsets me. The team at NPI stands in solidarity with the tribes and progressive activists in B.C. who are fighting every day to stop bad projects like the Kinder Morgan pipeline.
We do not want to follow B.C.‘s lead on energy and pollution pricing — they are the poster child for what NOT to do!
If we’re going to implement a pollution tax here in Washington State, then let’s do it thoughtfully and let’s raise some revenue to address our infrastructure deficit. Instead of I‑732, NPI would like to see us come together as a state to craft a policy that has near unanimous support from progressives and also earns the support of biconceptuals and reasonable, environmentally-conscious conservatives. We reject as totally false the contention that it’s 732 or nothing.