It has been conventional wisdom in recent elections – especially since all-mail voting became the law in 2011 – that ballots counted after election night tended to favor the more liberal candidate in a race. It seems more Republicans tended to vote soon after receiving their ballots, while more Democrats waited until the last weekend to send their votes in.
That trend has been turned on its head this year. Whether it was because Republicans were waiting because they were unsure of what to do in the presidential race, or because their campaign operatives did a better job of getting their less-likely voters to cast a ballot, things have been looking up since November 9 for the GOP.
Consider that since election night Republicans have come from behind to take the lead in two State House races (Jay Rodne in the 5th and Jim Walsh in the 19th), and have extended close leads in the 5th, 17th and 28thdistricts. What appeared to be a marginally good election day for House Speaker Frank Chopp and his team – picking up two or three seats – has since returned to the same margin the Democrats had before election day, a slim 50-48 advantage.
And even that edge could be in jeopardy, as Republican incumbent Rep. Teri Hickel now trails by only 806 votes (50.9-49.1%) in the Federal Way-based 30th District, after being behind by 1,129 on election night. She still has a long ways to go, but with perhaps more than 7,000 votes still to count, she could cause Chopp a few more sleepless nights.
Another Democrat who probably isn’t sleeping as well is the 5th District’s accidental State Senator, Mark Mullet. Elected on a fluke in 2012, Mullet led Republican Rep. Chad Magendanz 53.1-46.9% on election night, and had an advantage of more than 2,800 votes.
That margin is now 830 votes, Mullet’s percentage is 50.6%, and King County may have more than 8,000 votes to count.
A Magendanz win would be critical, as it would give the Majority Coalition Caucus – assuming Democrat Tim Sheldon continues to caucus with the GOP – the same advantage (26-23) it had going into the election, as opposed to the one-vote lead (25-24) that is currently in place.
Whatever the reason for this after-election success, Republicans will certainly take it, after watching leads disappear in recent elections.
No word on “respected” (um, by whom, again?) Sen. Litzow, whose “unprepared” opponent seems to have benefited from the support of President Obama.
Meanwhile, can we assume you’ve already re-threaded the stale conspiracy theories about “liberal voter fraud” if the Republicans mentioned in this post go on to lose?
Of course we can.
No word on any other candidate nationwide that benefited from the support of “respected” (um, by whom, again?) President Selfie Stick. after all, it’s King County liberals electing the “unprepared” opponent (D) simply because of the (D) after her name.
Meanwhile, can we assume you’ve already re-lied about your affiliation, comrade “I’m not a Democrat”?
Of course we can
No word on any other candidate nationwide …
No, Shift does not seem to have posted multiple times about any candidate other than Ms.Welllman. Is there a post here that I overlooked?
…”respected” (um, by whom, again?)
Yes, Shift used the adjective “respected” to describe Sen. Litzow. However, Shift has yet to say who, exactly, “respected” him or why Shift believed him to be “respected.” All we can say right now is it appears a majority of Sen. Litzow’s neighbors haven’t “respected” him enough to actually have voted for him.
You seem completely unwilling or unable to cite another candidate nationwide who benefited from the support of President Selfie Stick (D), or who exactly “respects” him. Given his 8 year Reign of Error, driving voters away from your Democratic Party in such numbers that offices held by Democrats nationwide are at their lowest numbers in a CENTURY, it appears only King County liberals are gullible enough to “respect” his partying with Jay-Z and Beyonce.
“You seem awfully fond of holding fact-free assumptions”
We must have totally missed the fact that comrade “I’m not a Democrat” finally declared his affiliation. It’s understandable, who would want to be the turd in the punchbowl (D)?
You seem completely unwilling or unable to cite another candidate nationwide who benefited from the support of President…
Yes, Shift has apparently decided to ignore any such cases, and I’m continuing to follow Shift’s lead on that. You’re free to complain to them all you like. (Good luck with that.)
…driving voters away from your [sic] Democratic Party in such numbers that offices held by Democrats nationwide are at their lowest numbers in a CENTURY,
And yet, the “respected” Sen. Litzow was unable to ride this massive wave to his re-election. Instead, his opponent, with President Obama’s support and assistance, seems to have done what not one single Republican has done, anywhere in Washington state: she retired an incumbent.
We must have totally missed the fact that comrade “I’m not a Democrat” finally declared his affiliation.
Link, please, or no credit.
No, Shift has not decided to ignore anything. You can’t cite a case because no such cases exist, Buraq also took time out his busy schedule of partying like a rock star with Jay-Z and Beyonce to do a fundraiser and a campaign ad for Greenie (D) (which, of course, you never saw, not even once) Looking at the election returns, you’ll see Greenie (D) would have lost without the King County liberal faithful (you) voting for the (D), proving twice over that gullible King County liberals are only ones left that “respect” President Selfie Stick (D) and believe the lies that spew out of his piehole.
“driving voters away from your [sic] Democratic Party in such numbers that offices held by Democrats nationwide are at their lowest numbers in a CENTURY”
Are you so much of an idiot that you vainly try to point out a spelling error that isn’t there? It’s YOUR Democratic Party, YOU own it. Do you really read that as YOU’RE? Try reading comprehension, comrade grammar master. Moron.
“Are you taking my willingness to folllow (sic) Shift’s lead as proof I’m a Democrat?”
That’s how you point out a spelling error, when it’s actually there. What does YOUR flaky idea of willingness to folllow (sic) Shift’s lead have to do with proving YOU’RE a Democrat? You sound even less lucid than normal. Did you have a stroke or something?
Other than the lame “I’m not a Democrat” lie, we have no evidence or proof to cite of YOUR affiliation because you steadfastly refuse to disclose it. It’s totally understandable, though. Nobody wants to admit to being the turd in the punchbowl (D).
You can’t cite a case because no such cases exist…
So you and Shift completed a comprehensive survey of all state legislative races across the entire country? (Sure you did.) I have in fact responded to every case Shift cited, and the result was a “respected” local incumbent Republican losing his seat to a Democrat after President Barack Hussein Obama assisted that local Democrat. (If you want Shift actually to conduct that survey you just pretended to have completed, go talk to Shift about it. Good luck with that.)
Are you so much of an idiot that you vainly try to point out a spelling error that isn’t there?
No, I was not. That’s not what I meant by tagging your error.
It’s YOUR Democratic Party, YOU own it.
That’s the error I was tagging. I’m not a Democrat, and no amount of your claiming I am, or falsely claiming that I have admitted to being one, will ever change that.
Try reading comprehension, comrade grammar master. Moron.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and while having even a tiny little bit of knowledge is not usually your problem, the sheer novelty of your actually having some tiny little bit of knowledge tripped you up here. The tag “[sic]” denotes any pre-existing error in the source material, which here is your tiresome, groundless, and tiresomely groundless claim that I’ve ever belonged to a political party. (I don’t need any Party Bosses to tell me how to vote, comrade, and you’re just going to have to console yourself with your having absolutely no idea how anyone else could possibly function without being told exactly what to do.)
…we have no evidence or proof to cite of YOUR affiliation because you steadfastly refuse to disclose it.
I have nothing to disclose. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any political party. (See how I phrased it in exactly the same way in which the greatest political heroes of your life always did?) Since the very closest you’ll ever come to “winning” an argument is to make groundless accusations against your opponent, and then demand your opponent prove a negative, you have to go that route. Pathetic.