What was the format of the program? Were there more questions? Did they just do a show of hands?

How did the other three candidates fare? More later?

--Bob

thanks for the update.
what were the statistics on the other candidates? i find kelley's 40-some-odd % an anomaly, given he's the former chair of this organization, so i'm interested in how everyone else did so i can wrap my head around what a more accurate number might have been.

even though i'm not a member, i guess i should have gone!

There was, however, a fascinating moment when a young woman took the mic to speak against I88/87 and went on some random weird tirade about economics and Jacob the Jew (and called the membership "fuckers") before she was booed out of the room. Who WAS that, and what was her gig?

My memory re the vote totals is a bit foggy. On the first ballot Dick had around 49%; someone (the I thought it was Pedersen, but perhaps Street) was second with just over 20%; Sherman was third with just shy of 20%. I think Dodsen was 4th; Street 5th; and Pure was 6th (with around 5%). I was more focused on the Kelley and Sherman numbers. When considering the percentages, keep in mind that the total of the candidate percentages exceeds 100% becasue about 20% of 250 or so ballots contained votes to endorse mulitple candidates. The muliti-vote ballots mean that the sum of the numerators for each candidate (total votes received) exceed the denomenator (total ballots cast).

--Bob

--Bob

Pretty pitiful for an incumbent sitting State Supreme Court Justice with a rabid radical right opponent, IMHO.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, whine.

To top it off, he's still in 5th place in the money race.

But hell, in a 6 way race, even Stephanie Pure could pull off a fluke win....

What you said in your original Alexander post was that "Justice Alexander was on the unopposed slate, but was pulled off it by the membership ..." Watcher pointed out that this was misleading, if not untrue. Per our rules, you and only you pulled Alexander off the slate.

You are right, of course, that the membership didn't vote to endorse Alexander. However, it isn't fair to claim that this was "pitiful." The reality is that he was on the unopposed slate and, as a result, didn't send a campaign representative to the meeting. Perhaps he should have anticipated your use of the procedural rules to torpedo him, but he didn't. Because his campaign wasn't there, the membership didn't get an opportunity to hear about his truely frightening opponent or the reasons why he merited consideration despite his regrettable vote on gay marriage.

--Bob

No Endorsement means exactly that - the only reason he wasn't soundly trounced was his opponent is a rabid right-wing fanatic who shouldn't be let near a traffic signal, let alone a Supreme Court bench.

personally, though, the only thing that matters is a. turnout in the primary and b. who those people vote for - there's not a lot of really interesting ballot issues in the primary. other than this race.

With six candidates, it's nearly impossible to get 60% of people to get behind one, so for Dick Kelley to get as much as he did speaks volumes.

Looks like the 43rd D's have their frontrunner, whether or not he got their endorsement.

As to questionnaires, those were litmus issues - one was literally, do you support same-gender marriage - guess what, if you don't we mention it. it's the 43rd, not some other district. And the Parliamentarian - the guy in the middle on stage - was specifically brought in to make sure we weren't out of line in what we questioned - notice how we always handed him the questionnaires?

Face it, you want the 43rd Endorsement, you need to support the district's values. Is it a tough line? Sure, but that's why our endorsement matters. Our chair was very strict on even what we could bring up from questionnaires ... bending over backwards to make sure it was non-partisan for the candidates.

You guys got more than 200 people at one of your LD meetings? Good gawd, I really need to move into Seattle. We're lucky to get 50 even at an endorsement meeting, and 30 at a regular meeting.

As to that "are you now or have you ever been" question - that's not McCarthyism at all. That question is quite routine for any Democratic (or Republican) party organization endorsement, whether it's an LD, the county, or the state. In order for a candidate to appear on the primary ballot as a Democrat, they have to swear that they are indeed a Democrat, and they have to explain the situation if they have ever been considered a member of another political party. I see nothing wrong with that.

Hell, the 'pugs probably require them to swear they're an evangelical homo-bashing fundy, these days.

Think Choice will never get to the Washington Supreme Court? think again.

Good work Will.

With six plausible candidates in the race, and most people unable to name one of their state laegislators (so it's not a front-of-the-brain race), endorsements are going to be one of the main ways anyone who bothers to vote will choose a candidate. Which endorsements matter are up to the individual voter.

Was I the only one insulted that Maria Cantwell decided to send her buyout project (former-opponent-turned-$8K/month-staffer Mark Wilson), as her speaker? Thank you for rubbing it in our faces, Senator.

I'm surprised that action didn't boost Hong Tran's votes. Maybe it did.

Sure didn't help endear Cantwell to me. But what would? Oh, yeah, a little apology and change of heart and tactics about the war. That would be nice.