As Stefan and I have posted recently, the netroots are falling all over themselves to declare to anyone that will listen that Darcy Burner is riding an inevitable tide of liberal, Seattle...er...excuse me, I meant 8th Congressional District, enthusiasm to victory. They're clearly a bit ahead of themselves, but that would be polite analysis compared to their wildly misplaced hype for Peter Goldmark.
Peter, who, you say? No kidding. If one were to read Washblog, Evergreen Politics, or Horse's Ass here and here one would think this fellow stands a real chance. I not so humbly disagree.
Goldmark is running against Rep. Cathy McMorris in the 5th Congressional District. For those netroots enthusiasts who may have missed the 2004 election, here's a quick primer on McMorris:
She was a well-respected state legislator for 10 years, rising to the position of House Minority Leader at the age of 33. She crushed two credible opponents in a three-way primary for the Republican nomination, winning nearly as many votes as her opponents combined. She then trounced a well-funded Democrat in the general election, by an overwhelming margin of 60%-40% in what many analysts were expecting to be a competitive race.
All that indicates the voters in the 5th Congressional District have seen something about Cathy McMorris they like. On top of that, she's doing well in office, taking leadership positions and working well on behalf of her district. So could someone please explain to me why liberal bloggers think Peter Goldmark is the "real deal" to take her out?
McMorris' race isn't listed on any of the independent, national watch lists for Congressional races; not the Cook Political Report, not Larry Sabato's Center for Politics, not the National Journal. In addition, McMorris is easily outpacing Goldmark in fundraising.
Peter Goldmark seems like a decent, well-meaning fellow based on perusing his website. But that doesn't mean in the least he's a challenger to watch this election cycle. Yet more evidence the netroots is more anti-Republican emotionalism than serious political thought.
Goldmark served as the Director of the Department of Agriculture under Mike Lowry, if I recall. Not a bad person, per se, but stands no chance against McMorris.
The opposition is so desperate for any hope, they're losing all perspective ... assuming they had any to start with. Non-event in the 5th.
Posted by: jimg on July 17, 2006 10:59 PMI admit he has a very uphill battle, but don't fool yourself. Of course he doesn't have much name recognition - how many people know university trustees, or people appointed to State positions? Hardly anyone cares. People will know him in the end, which is what matters.
McMorris is basically thought of as super-conservative, which is her weakness. I think you assume too much when you mention the 'respect' McMorris has. The only thing going for her is money - I already see McMorris campaign signs all over the place - of course she has more name recognition =/.
The most important thing I've noticed in elections is character and personality, and Goldmark has a lot of it. He'll be out-raised 2 to 1, but he's a better candidate than Barbieri was, and will get the attention of the local media. Don't dismiss the race yet, he is a very unique candidate - and if he's able to get enough money to show himself to the voters he'll put up a great fight.
Posted by: Gerald on July 17, 2006 11:40 PMYou ask the question, "Peter, who, you say?", but don't bother to answer it, instead talking about McMorris.
Goldmark, as a 21st Century farmer who understands the pulse of the largely rural district that is the 5th. He has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and has used that knowledge toward the study of bio-fuels and how to turn the nations interest in alternative energy into an economic advantage for his region.
He was appointed Director of Agriculture by Governor Lowry in 1993. He has also served as Chairman of the Governor’s Council on Agriculture and the Environment in 1994-1996, as a member of the Governor’s Council for a Sustainable Washington in 2002-2003, and as a member of the Governor’s Council on Biodiversity in 2004-2005.
He is a founding board member and past Chairman of the Board of “Farming and the Environment,” a coalition of farmers, ranchers and conservationists founded in 1999.
He was appointed to the Board of Regents of Washington State University in 1996 and served as President of the Board in 1999-2000. He has served on the Board of the Washington State University-University of Washington Policy Consensus Center since 2003. He has also served on the Okanogan School Board for the past eight years.
His fundraising outpaced McMorris in Q2 $210K to $126K, so he is no slouch on that front either.
He believes in responsible gun ownership, and does not support environmental policies that ignore the effects on people who have to live with them - i.e. farmers and small business owners.
For those interested in finding out more you can go to http://www.votepetergoldmark.net/ or tune into KTEL AM 1490 (Walla Walla) at 7am on Thursday, where he will be a guest of "On the Grapevine" for the hour.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 18, 2006 08:30 AMBut, the folks in Eastern Washington are more concerned about Seattle stealing their pocketbook at every turn of the clock than about how to grow crops- which they can get from the Extension.
The State needs to get a majority of Rs on at least one side of the legislature to slow down the train wreck (pun intended) of mass transit (i.e. bilking of the taxpayer with new taxes).
Posted by: swatter on July 18, 2006 08:52 AMYou should just give Peter's Campaign a call and find out for yourself. I'll bet a five dollar dog you yourself would consider voting for him over McMorris.
Posted by: Jimmy on July 18, 2006 11:14 AMYou should just give Peter's Campaign a call and find out for yourself. I'll bet a five dollar dog you yourself would consider voting for him over McMorris.
Posted by: Jimmy on July 18, 2006 11:14 AMGoldmark doesn't stand a chance, no matter how many volunteers he has posting his campaign's talking points on comments threads (particularly if they think labeling McMorris "ultraconservative" is the way to beat her in the 5th District).
Posted by: ScottM on July 18, 2006 11:55 AMMy point is McMorris has proven herself well in the district, not one the pro-Goldmark commenters is disputing that besides the usual anti-Republican memes. In case they didn't notice, Bush and Rossi won every one of the 12 counties in the 5th CD in 2004 - and on top of that, McMorris ran ahead of Bush in 10 of those counties, and Rossi in 11. Maybe that's why not a single independent analyst views this as a race to watch, as noted in my original post.
This is a GOP leaning district, where the incumbent was wildly successful in a competitive primary and a supposedly competitive general election in 2004. Now, people want to make hay of Goldmark's fundraising? He didn't even file any FEC reports for the 1st quarter, I guess he wasn't fundraising then like other Congressional candidates around the country. Now, Cathy McMorris has more cash on hand than Goldmark has raised all year, for a 3.5 to 1 cash advantage. I'm not disparaging the guy, I'm just saying the only people that think he has a chance are the netroots, and that doesn't bode well for him.
In what way have the postings here talking about Peter Goldmark been "in bad faith"? You made your point, and I and others have filled in the blanks regarding the candidate that you state no one knows about. Educating people about Goldmark shouldn't be considered an act of bad faith.
As for believing Goldmark has no chance in hell, well you can have that opinion. I think we've seen that this group has consistently underestimated Burner, and if you choose to do so with Goldmark that should bode well for his campaign too I'm sure.
No doubt the 5th is going to be harder for a Democrat to win than a Western Washington district. However, Peter Goldmark is not your typical Democratic candidate, or your typical liberal. He is very much the type of centrist candidate that could greatly benefit from the knock people might have with McMorris' voting record which leans further right than Hastings or Reichert.
He didn't even file any FEC reports for the 1st quarter, I guess he wasn't fundraising then like other Congressional candidates around the country.
Correct, he wasn't a candidate in this race until mid-March, so he didn't have a 1st quarter to report.
Here's what I think is more surprising: not that Goldmark raised $210K, but that McMorris only raised $126K. In fact it is her lowest 3 month total in the past year (Q2: $126K, Q1: $210K, 05Q4: $129K, 05Q3: $172K). That seems unusual to me. These don't look like strong numbers to me.
I fully expect Goldmark to do better in the next three months. I'd have said the same about McMorris, except the trends seem to be going against that.
And Eric, those of us who live in Eastern Washington know better that what you are suggesting. The 4th and 5th districts have strong democratic histories and when you talk to people out here as I do, we are sensing big changes. I live in the 4th and while I do not suspect Hastings challenger Wright to win, I think you can agree that it will be interesting to see the numbers from this candidate who is not raising money as well as previous dem runs in this district. It is a wait and see but it will be intersting.
On the other hand, Goldmark is raising good money in short order. He is the type of candidate that has huge family history in that district and is well respected. And like me, he is a centrist democrat that is appealing to republican voters disenchantment with McMorris' lack of performance. We keep hearing the national buzz about her being a rising star... from people who don't live here. It just isn't so.
I appreciate what you are trying to do here but unless you live out this way you don't really get a sense from folks. I seriously challenge you to contact his cammpaign, perhaps even interview him or send him some questions. You will like this guy and what he has to say.
Posted by: Jimmy on July 18, 2006 05:35 PMFair points. The point about "bad faith" is that my main argument is that a case hasn't been made that McMorris is vulnerable, in part because of the GOP strength of the district. Points made in rebuttal about Goldmark's resume are all well and good, but don't address my point about McMorris' strength.
As for fundraising, fecinfo.com shows Goldmark filing forms in the 4th quarter of 2005 as well, which is why the absence of 1st quarter fundraising struck me as odd. Moreover, I, like you I suspect, don't believe he'll continue to outraise her the rest of the way, and more importantly won't come close to catching up to her fundraising totals. And speaking of her totals, keep in mind she's on pace to be well over $1.2 million raised, which is a substantial amount of money for a race outside a major media market, and especially without the same support from party leadership and PACs one receives in a targeted race.
Lastly, please don't lump me into what everyone else at SP has been saying about Burner. I give her more credit than that because she fits the profile of what I would pick if I was a Democrat trying to beat Reichert: a younger, professional woman - though her public service resume is sparse for a serious Congressional candidate. Her fundraising has been strong, to the credit of her and the Democrat establishment who supports her. That being said, the proportion of money from outside the district is not indicative of the support in the district she needs to win, especially against a relatively effective incumbent, with high name ID, who is well-financed, and who has the experience of winning a tough race in 2004.
She's a decent candidate, with good financial support, in a district that leans Democrat. But like Goldmark and McMorris, I don't see the case has been made to replace Reichert, and am thus critical of the bloggers that have been proclaiming Reichert's doom simply because the Democratic party and its supporters are helping Burner raise money and are thus excited about her candidacy. By nature of the district Reichert would probably have trouble getting more that 55%, but on the flip side, Darcy Burner is going to have a very difficult time convincing a majority of voters in the 8th Congressional District that she should replace Dave Reichert.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 18, 2006 06:01 PMYou say "the 4th and 5th districts have strong democratic histories." True in a historical sense, wrong in modern politics, especially since 1994. Have you noticed the shrinking number of Democrats you've been electing to the legislature from that side of the state? All you've got left is Bill Grant and the 3rd District if I recall correctly. Not to mention the steady tide of red for Bush, Rossi, etc, as I noted specifically above with the 5th CD.
I'm sure Peter Goldmark is a dandy fellow, politics aside. But you're not going to convince me based on Cathy McMorris' political history and the way this campaign has unfolded thus far that she's vulnerable.
And what would that be Eric?
It is the trolls such as Liberal~John and giffy that have sought to mischaracterize the candidates, not the SP "regulars". On this thread: http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006485.html giffy tried to reframe the debate into "communist" verses "crazy fundie" in a "moderate district". When I called him on it, he wussed out and said that he didn't mean what he said. His dodge is a variation on the old "everybody does it" scam. No, we haven't all done it - All I said about Burner is that she is an unknown.
You give too much to the enemy.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 18, 2006 06:34 PMMy whole point on that is that I don't agree with many commenters here the past several months who have been dismissive of Burner because of her comparatively weak resume. I think she'll be more competitive than those commenters might think, but not as competitive as liberal bloggers would like to believe - as my post you referenced indicates. That's it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 18, 2006 07:07 PMJust to finish my point against your comment of "bad faith" comments, perhaps next time you wish to write a piece that is supposedly about McMorris, don't feature Peter Goldmark in the title.
Regarding predictions for future fundraising, I think Goldmark will out fund-raise McMorris in Q3, but that McMorris will find more dollars, probably from a national source, in October.
My determination of whether a candidate is viable is a combination of how they've been able to fund raise and whether they fit a mold of a person and background that can resonate with voters. I think that both Burner and Goldmark have shown they can both raise money and fit the profile. As a resident of the 8th District I have been observing Burner from up close, and Goldmark from a distance, and frankly Goldmark has worked his way onto my radar, I haven't been seeking him out.
As for McMorris' vulnerability - any Republican running this year is vulnerable simply due to the fact the party is receiving poor approval ratings for their job in Congress, and because of their association with Bush. The most vulnerable of them are the first termers such as McMorris and Reichert. I've seen both McMorris and Goldmark speak to a room of voters and Goldmark's gravitas and authenticity have a way of grabbing hold of a room to a far greater extent than McMorris can muster.
Ironically it could end up that Goldmark wins a rural vote that is outweighed by the urban vote McMorris gets.
We'll see!
Posted by: Daniel K on July 18, 2006 08:07 PMI would call a city of 201,600, the second largest in Washington an urban area. At 440,000 Spokane County is a well populated area with a high population density (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/popden/colormap.asp).
Posted by: Daniel K on July 18, 2006 09:34 PM
It'll be tough for Goldmark in the 5th, but not impossible.
Many voters in the 5th have noticed that this Congress has been particularly fiscally irresponsible and corrupt. McMorris has so little clout that she can't reasonably be blamed for all that, but has anybody heard of her trying to do anything about it. She appears to mostly vote in lock-step with GOP leadership. Many voters in the 5th like more thoughtful independence.
Posted by: thor on July 22, 2006 10:31 AMMaybe in your mind.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 24, 2006 08:53 PMBut I think this year voters will have a real choice and that is good for voters in the 5th C.D. He calls himself an independent Democrat and anyone who has heard him talk knows that he is very knowledgable and is willing to speak frankly. It is refreshing to have a candidate who is engaged in the issues and who truly seems to relish campaigning without lots of political posturing.
Posted by: Steve Zemke MajorityRules Blog on July 26, 2006 10:07 AM