The democratian's take: where figures don't lie, but liar's figure.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: NO candidate or campaign or anyone involved or in any way concerned with any candidate or campaign was aware of or approved or had input into this post.

Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the state house.)

Let's start with this peculiar bit of idiocy, shall we?

Our advice: Don't jump to conclusions about what happened Tuesday (except in four judicial races that were finalized in the primary). Many news stories remain to be reported before the Nov. 6 election. Many stump speeches remain to be preached, each potentially a gaffe-rich environment.

So.... what does the democratian do, immediately?

You guessed it: they jump to conclusions.  And this is, of course, their warning that they ARE going to engage in character assassination, exaggeration and bias, not to mention their downright lies, all in an effort to get their guys elected.

Of course, one has to wonder: how much did the democratian's fawning, one-sided, Boldt-is-perfect coverage (they never wrote ONE NEGATIVE THING ABOUT Boldt, even though, in the past, they DEMANDED HIS RESIGNATION FROM THE HOUSE. Now, why do you suppose that is?) actually hurt Boldt?  And given that it unquestionably set him up for failure, one wonders: who else are they going to hurt with their "support?"

Is David Madore for real?

Answer: Yes, indeed, and the Republican novice has a first-place standing in the primary to prove it. That, too, is an impressive showing in race for District 2 county commissioner, especially against a popular incumbent.

Bulletin:  an incumbent that has more than 7 out of 10 of his constituents vote against him is NOT "popular."

Reality is a difficult concept for this rag to grasp, isn't it?

Marc's decision to vote against the interests of the people of this county so he could continue to do the bidding of the downtown mafia, CRUDEC, Chamber of Horrors types has now come home to roost.  I warned him repeatedly, like I warned him when he voted on that unconstitutional gun ordinance and he told me that if I had a problem, I needed to take it up with the legislature.

Boldt has NEVER been at below 50% in a primary. And now, he's below 30%?

For any incumbent, this is a horrific outcome. And, once again, the democratian avoids the truth of this matter: Even if Boldt gets dragged into the general, he's crippled. Badly.

Which leads us to this:

Is Tom Mielke bullet-proof?

Answer: Not at all. Three-fifths of the electorate opposed him in the primary.

Is this where I point out that in the last primary, Tom had 25.1%, or three-fourths of the electorate "opposing" him?

And what do they call Tom now?

Commissioner.

And is this where I also point out that seven-tenths of the electorate opposes Tanner, even after outspending Mielke, say, 5 to 1?

For whatever the reason, the democratian chose not to present it that way.

I wonder why.

Now, if the democratian showing this leftist bias deliberately?  Or is this one of those times when it's genetic, and they would swear up and down they're not doing anything untoward?

My fave:

Do Columbian editorial board members know what they're talking about?

Answer: Depends on whom you ask; 78.5 percent of our primary endorsees either advanced or won.

There's a HUGE difference between who you endorse winning and who you predicted winning actually WOULD win.

Here were my predictions, done back in July:

Bold face likely General election winners.

Senate: Cantwell and Baumgartner

Congress: Herrera and Haugen

Governor: Two democrats: The Bobbsey Twins... unfortunately Hadian won't have the cash.

AG: Two democrats, Dunn and Ferguson.

Lt. Governor: Two unfortunates: Owen and Finkbiener

Treasurer: McIntyre and whoever the write-in is.

Auditor: Miloscia and Watkins

OSPI: Dorn and no clue.

Public Lands: Goldsmith

Insurance Commissioner: Kreidler and Reilly.

Secretary of State: Wyman and the democrat.

17th all the GOP.

18th all the GOP

49th all the democrats.

Commissioners: Mielke and Tanner (Too close to call)

Battan and Madore. (If Madore makes it into the general, he wins. If Boldt, then Boldt wins.)

Judges Wulle and Woolard.

Could have been better... and even with a remarkably weak local GOP candidate slate, save for the incumbents, it still appears that at the end, Clark County will be represented by 12 Republicans and 3 democrats in the legislature. 

Of those predictions, where did I go wrong?

Well, I blew it with Wulle.... he lost to a guy who couldn't even figure out the PDC rules... very un-judge like. I also missed the boat with Miloscia.

And, of course, there's a huge difference between PREDICTING... and ENDORSING.

I will only endorse conservatives.  But conservatives will not always win.

So, that brings us back to the question:

Does the rag know what they're talking about?

Not as much as I do, apparently. And this early campaign piece for their guys?

Lame.