As for Larsen, well, birds of a feather do tend to flock together.
Posted by Kato at July 23, 2010 12:59 PMUsing it to beat Koster would be a good start. Bye-bye.
Posted by ivan at July 23, 2010 02:12 PMI had no doubt that someone like you -- an official of the Democratic Party -- would hold such a position. But thanks for telling the rest of the world.
but the deathknell for gentleman farmer and college dropout koster was palin's endorsement.
but, uh, keep trying, pudge. it mist really hurt to always pull for the perpetual losers.
Posted by mike at July 23, 2010 10:42 PMFirst, you're a liar. Koster got his college degree.
Second, you're clueless. There's nothing about Palin's endorsement that will hurt Koster. The only people who would choose to not vote for someone just because Palin endorsed them are people who would never vote for Koster anyway: the people firmly on the left. The fact that Koster is getting more money from individuals, and a better response in the polls, than Larsen -- even better since Palin's endorsement -- is telling.
Third, actually, I win a lot more than I lose in elections: my three state legislators and county councilman (the aforementioned Koster) have won every election since I've lived in this state, as has my choice for most of the most important state offices (A.G., Secretary of State, Auditor), as have about half of my judicial picks. My pick for governor's won every time except for the two Gregoire/Rossi races (including in both California and Massachusetts). And my pick's won two of five times for the Presidency.
The main place I've lost (indeed, never won since I've started, except once in California for the House) are for U.S. Congress.
As usual, you just don't know what you're talking about.
You're a small fish in a rural backwater, and you talk about elections "you" have won? I can't quit laughing, Pudge, and it's not with you, it's AT you.
Ask any Democrat running if they support the notion that anyone of any religious faith is a "rapture monkey" or if any property owner who advocates for reasonable land use regulations is a "Land Raping Hillbilly" or any of the other Ivanisms accurately reflect the party positions.
If they say no, ask them why they accept his endorsement.
Posted by Smokie at July 24, 2010 06:55 AM
LOL, sure sign of a "loser" (f**ktards like yourself)
And you would be what ivan?
Far as gerrymandering. I'm pretty sure your party owns that one.
Posted by Medic/Vet at July 24, 2010 07:01 AMand now you are lying. koster has pulled in 90k LESS than larsen from individual contributions. so how would koster be getting 'more money from individuals'? oh yeah, douchenozzle ain't.
and palin's endorsement WILL hurt koster, not only with liberals and moderates, but most indepenents except the kind that always vote republiCON but don't want to admit it.
a lot of your 'picks' from 2008 went down in flames (hey, history will be repeating itself this year, too!)
Posted by mike at July 24, 2010 08:52 AMPlease, continue.
And please learn to read: I was responding to the claim that candidates I "pull" for lose, which obviously doesn't imply I personally "won" those elections, but -- obviously -- that they were candidates I was "pulling" for (though I did play a significant role in some of them, such as the brilliant and principled Val Stevens destroying convicted criminal Fred Walser in the last Senate contest).
Yes. Graduating from college is not "dropping out."
and now you are lying. koster has pulled in 90k LESS than larsen from individual contributions.
False. Try to keep up.
so how would koster be getting 'more money from individuals'?
Because since entering the race in January, he's received a lot more money than Larsen from individuals? Is math that hard for you?
and palin's endorsement WILL hurt koster, not only with liberals and moderates, but most indepenents except the kind that always vote republiCON but don't want to admit it.
Shrug. Keep thinking that.
a lot of your 'picks' from 2008 went down in flames
But even more of them won, including Mike Hope, Val Stevens, Dan Kristiansen, Kirk Pearson, Norma Smith, Barbara Bailey, Rob McKenna, Sam Reed, Brian Sonntag ...
(hey, history will be repeating itself this year, too!)
Shrug. Keep thinking that.
according to open secrete (your link) FEC data current through today for this election cycle:
larsen individual contributions: $454,536
koster individual contributions: $366,680
your right, math fail on my part, larsen's individual contribution advantage is only 88k more than the republiCON.
Posted by mike at July 24, 2010 09:16 AMEver hear of the question-begging fallacy? Doesn't seem like it. Please stop being repeatedly dishonest.
according to open secrete (your link) FEC data current through today for this election cycle
Yes. I wonder if you think this proves me wrong somehow. It doesn't. You're looking at 2009+2010. I was explicitly referring to 2010 alone. Larsen had a nearly $160K headstart in individual contributions in 2009, but Koster's outraised Larsen by more than $70K -- $366,680 to $294,817 -- since (and that's actually spotting Larsen a couple of extra weeks, since Koster didn't announce until mid-January 2010).
It's obvious: in 2010, Koster's been getting more individual financial support (and almost all of it from WA) than Larsen. Whether that reflects voter support or not, we don't know, but we do know that the two recent polls show Koster up by significant margins.
koster dragged his feet on entering, and during that feet-dragging period, significantly more people put money in larsen's coffer. since then, koster's pulled in a little more than larsen but that means squat. he's still way behind in the PAC and individual contribution count.
come on pudge, normally you get that.
Posted by mike at July 24, 2010 10:11 AMAnd again you prove you don't know what you're talking about: he didn't "drag his feet": he was running for County Council in 2009 (where he won by 17 points) ... and he got about the same amount in individual contributions in 2009 as Larsen did. The bonus? Those people can all still contribute to him again this year, even if they contributed the maximum last year.
since then, koster's pulled in a little more than larsen but that means squat. he's still way behind in the PAC and individual contribution count.
You're not making any sense, as usual. You literally said that Koster being up by $72K in individual contributions this year is "a little more," but that being down in the same measurement overall by $88K is "way behind."
Come on. No one can take what you're saying seriously, mike.
And I was not talking about the money for the sake of saying who has more -- there's no doubt Larsen has, and will have, more money, period. My point was to show it as a measurement of support, and Koster is getting more individuals, which suggests stronger support by the actual voters.
Yes, Koster is way behind in PAC money. Koster has only $9,500 in PAC money, compared to Larsen's nearly $600K. So Koster is liked more by the voters, and Larsen is liked more by the lobbyists. Thanks for helping to point that out!
Isn't it obvious that this is all Bush's fault?
Posted by Huey at July 25, 2010 04:03 PM