Poll Shows Mixed Outlook for Washington State Initiatives, Democratic Advantage in Statewide Races

“Brian Heywood and Jim Walsh’s I‑2066, I‑2109, I‑2117, and I‑2124 are still polling under fifty percent, NPI’s research affirms” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Kamala Harris has a fifteen point lead over Donald Trump in Washington and a twelve point lead in Oregon, NPI polls find” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Maria Cantwell coasts towards another easy win for reelection to the U.S. Senate with fifteen point October lead over Raul Garcia” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Still tied in Southwest Washington: NPI’s October 2024 poll of WA-03 finds Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Joe Kent dead even” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Democrats have a twelve point generic congressional ballot advantage in Washington and an eight point one in Oregon” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“76% undecided in race for Washington State Supreme Court, Position #2; Dave Larson has four point lead over Sal Mungia” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Bob Ferguson heads into general voting period with the largest head-to-head lead for governor we’ve seen in our polling” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Democrat Nick Brown has a seven point lead over Republican rival Pete Serrano for Washington State Attorney General” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Democratic Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck leads Republican challenger Dan Matthews by twelve points” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

“Washington’s Democratic Secretary of Steve Hobbs has a thirteen point lead over Republican challenger Dale Whitaker” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.

Today, I am thrilled to welcome back to the program Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute. Welcome back!

[00:01:01] Andrew Villeneuve: Thank you so much for having me.

[00:01:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, I just want to start off talking about - what the Northwest Progressive Institute is and does?

[00:01:12] Andrew Villeneuve: Absolutely - so we're a nonprofit strategy center. We are engaged in research and advocacy that will lift everyone up, raise everyone's quality of life - make us happier, healthier, more prosperous. And the work we do is both electoral - so we're involved in fighting ballot measures or supporting ballot measures - and we're also involved in the legislative arena. But we believe that research and advocacy are connected, so we work to connect them together and make sure that progressive causes are getting the support they need across the board.

[00:01:43] Crystal Fincher: Excellent. So now we're going to be talking about a number of poll results today. First, let's talk about the initiatives - I'll cover the topline results, and then we can discuss the results in more detail. So we'll start with Initiative 2066, which would prohibit the state from discouraging or penalizing access to natural gas. It would also force gas companies, utility companies, and cities to provide natural gas, even if other energy sources cost less and pollute less. So this one is going to impact people's energy bills. The Yes vote - people who do want to prohibit that and to mandate that natural gas is made available - the Yes responses are at 41%, No at 32%, and Not sure at 26%. Initiative 2109, which would eliminate the capital gains tax on the wealthy - that's a tax that's paid by about 0.2% of Washington state's population - and those funds provide billions of dollars for education funding in the state. So the Yes vote on that is 34% - those are the people who want to repeal the capital gains tax. The No vote, or people who want to keep the capital gains tax, is 48%. Not sure at 17%. Initiative 2117, which would repeal the state's Climate Commitment Act - known as Cap-and-Invest, Cap-and-Trade - which aims to limit pollution from the state's largest emitting sources and industries. Companies buy allowances through the carbon auctions for their excess emissions, and those funds fund the state's climate mitigation efforts, responses, upgrading infrastructure, that type of stuff. People who said Yes, they want to repeal it, are at 32%. Those who favor No, they want to keep the Climate Commitment Act, at 45%. And those who aren't sure are at 22%. Finally, with Initiative 2124, that would allow workers to opt-out of the WA CARES program, the state's long-term care insurance program - which would effectively end the program, repeal the program - and that program covers things like in-home caregiving, residential care, home accessibility needs. Those in favor of repealing the WA CARES program at 37%, No at 36%, and Not sure at 27%. So it looks like we have a couple of close results there. What did you see behind these numbers?

[00:04:25] Andrew Villeneuve: So I'm really glad you asked about the initiatives. I've been spending a lot of time working on these, especially 2066, the first initiative that voters will see - it was the last one to qualify, but it's the first one on the ballot. And of course, I'm voting No on all of them. I hope everyone listening will vote No on all of them - they're all destructive. 2066 is particularly insidious because it doesn't look as destructive as you might think when you read the ballot title, but it's actually very destructive - because it takes away tools that utilities like Puget Sound Energy need to keep prices stable for folks as we transition away from fossil gas. And the initiative would destroy those tools, so it would make the utilities' job harder when it comes to protecting economic security for their ratepayers. And that really doesn't make sense. If you like gas, the initiative will not help you keep your gas because there's nothing in state law that is threatening to take away your gas - contrary to what the proponents are saying. And if you want to transition away from gas, the initiative makes that harder unless you're already really affluent and can afford it. Because the market will keep speaking - those who have the money will keep installing heat pumps and they will keep making the jump to more efficient forms of energy and heating and cooling. But those who can't afford that will get left behind unless we support them and facilitate the transition. The initiative is taking away the tools that not only the state government and utilities have to facilitate the transition, but they're also putting these cuffs on local governments like Seattle or Redmond, where I live, and saying local governments cannot discourage the use of gas. That doesn't make a lot of sense because local communities should be able to choose a future where there's cleaner energy. We know that gas is dirty and dangerous. Think about that explosion in Greenwood from a few years ago, like leveled almost an entire city block - that just reminds us how dangerous this source of energy is. The newest research also shows it's far more damaging than we thought. Liquified natural gas is actually dirtier than coal, according to the newest research. So anyway, 2066 is a measure that's a question mark. And the reason I'm talking about it so much is because the polling really doesn't indicate what's going to happen with it. It's under 50% - so we find it at 41% Yes and 32% No. So it could go either way. It could pass - the No forces have not been able to take a lead so far. But Yes is under 50%, so it really matters how those undecided voters fill out their ballots. If people break Yes, we could lose. If people break No, we can win. So that's really the key driver here - is these undecided voters who have not yet made up their minds. I don't know that we're going to get any definitive polling before the election results roll in that would say one way or the other. Because the case all along - since we started polling this initiative months ago - the case has been that we keep seeing under 50% Yes, but No is not greater than Yes, which is not the case for the other initiatives. For the other initiatives, we've been able to find that No has overtaken Yes - there are more people planning to vote No than vote Yes, there's still some undecided for the other three. But the other three look like they're on a trajectory for failure, whereas 2066 is really the question mark.

Now, in terms of degrees for the others - 2109, which is the attempt to repeal the capital gains tax and defund the Education Legacy Trust, costing childcare and education billions, just so the wealthy can have a huge tax cut. That one has the worst prospects - it's probably dead as a doornail. I just can't see our polling and everybody else's polling being wrong about this - there is no poll that has 2109 ahead, nobody who does credible polling has found it leading - so that's encouraging. It could lose by a lot. When people are looking at the ballot title, they're going to see - because of a law that we got passed two years ago at NPI, we worked very hard on this law - it requires people to be notified when there's a fiscal impact, requires that a statement be added to the ballot title saying these are the fiscal impacts. That's right there saying this is going to cost education, childcare, school construction, higher education, all the listed public services there. I think people are going to say - Wow, I don't want to defund education, I'm going to vote No. And that information we have not historically had in response to a tax cut measure - it's typically been hidden, now it isn't. Because of our transparency law, there's no longer a way to hide it - it has to be right there. The proponents can't get away with pretending that there's no impact - they have to answer for the impact that their initiative would create. So 2109 looks like it's going to fail.

2117, the repeal of the Climate Commitment Act, is also not in very good shape. Brian Heywood, I'm sure, will be furious when things don't go the way he wanted. But what we're seeing is that we're getting closer and closer to a majority of No. And that was exactly the outcome we've been trying to get to this whole campaign - we've been looking to build a supportive majority that wants to protect our clean air and water and soil - and we are getting there. We have plenty of money to work with on that campaign. People might have seen the ads with Bill Nye saying - Look closely, 2117 is written to confuse you - those ads are up on TV now. So we're looking very good there. Latest poll - our poll has 45% No, I think SurveyUSA is 48% No. And I think Strategies 360 and KOMO also found that No is well ahead - so that's good news. So 2117 is the second-most likely to fail.

And then that brings us to 2124, and this is the assault on the WA CARES fund. It would make it possible to just opt-out, which would cause the system to collapse - because as anyone who understands deferred pay systems knows, if people can just opt-out, then that means that the system's financial underpinnings can fail. It's really a system where - everybody in, nobody out. If people can just leave the system and either not participate, or if they're in a position where they can become freeloaders - which is a problem many unions have to deal with, the freeloading issue - that really destabilizes the system and it causes a financial collapse. And actuarial analysis has shown, modeling has shown that WA CARES would fail if the initiative were to pass. So defeating it is very important so that we can keep our access to long-term care and not leave people at the mercy of unaffordable private insurance. This measure is more confusing - the ballot title is very confusing. If you don't know what "RCW" is, you don't understand the reference to "RCW 50 dot something, something, something," you might be like - Well, I don't understand what I'm being asked - that's a very understandable reaction to reading the initiative's ballot title. But it is helpful that the ballot title discloses that long-term care would be negatively affected. This is, again, because of our transparency law. So we find that right now voters are split on this one. 37% say they're voting Yes, 36% say they'll vote No. But SurveyUSA's poll found that 49% were going to vote No, and only 30-something% were going to vote Yes. I attribute that divergence to the fact that I think people in their sample probably had seen the No on 2124 ads, and fewer of the people in our sample might have seen them. And that's common in polling - where between samples you could get a group that might be more aware of something and less aware of something else. It just depends on who's answering the phone or taking the survey on the web - you're just going to get that variance. But if you look at the body of polling, it doesn't look good for 2124. Anytime a measure is in the 30s and the Yes is so under that 50% mark, you have to be worried if you're a proponent. So right out - looks like three of the measures could be on track to fail, but nothing is guaranteed. And the fourth measure, 2066, is the real question mark. So that's why I serve on the No on 2066 steering committee and I'm working every day to make sure that we defeat this terrible initiative - because that's the one that needs the most work.

[00:12:15] Crystal Fincher: Definitely. And these final weeks, the few weeks before the election, when people get their ballots - and people think, especially people who listen to shows like Hacks & Wonks - it's easy to underestimate how tuned out people generally are to political things, how much they aren't paying attention. People like us have been tuned in since these initiatives started gathering signatures, as it went through the Legislature - the entire process. Most people are just kind of figuring out that there's an election with these initiatives once they receive their ballot, which is why you see so much of the political advertising - the mailers that you get, the banner ads that you see as you're browsing online - most of those occur in those final few weeks before the election, because that's when people finally start paying attention and they're looking for and receptive to new information about the races and the initiatives. So these races - we see some of those big undecided numbers - that communication really does inform how those races shift.

[00:13:26] Andrew Villeneuve: What you said about how political insiders may think completely differently about these things than other folks is spot on. We have to remember there's this thing called the curse of knowledge - we don't know what it's like for us not to know what we know. For me to put myself in the mode of a regular voter, like I really need to almost forget what I know about all these races and sort of blank my mind for a second. When you do that, it's a very useful exercise - being able to imagine being somebody else is really powerful. And I think that a lot of people lack for imagination and I wish they would hone that talent because you can imagine what it's like to be somebody else - you just have to work at it.

[00:14:05] Crystal Fincher: So now let's cover federal races. We'll start with president - no surprise here - Kamala Harris is winning in the state of Washington in this poll. Those who say they would vote for Kamala Harris for president are at 55%, those who say they would vote for Donald Trump for president at 40%, Another candidate at 2%, and those who aren't sure at 4%. Not many people who are unsure there, and Kamala Harris is comfortably ahead in Washington state. For Senate, which is a race between the Democrat incumbent, Maria Cantwell, and Republican Raul Garcia. Those who prefer Maria Cantwell are at 53%, Raul Garcia is polling at 38%, and those who aren't sure at 9%. So that also doesn't appear to be a close race. The 3rd Congressional District, which is a race that lots of people around the country are paying attention to, with Joe Kent and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. In this poll, Joe Kent received 46%, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez 46%, and those who aren't sure at 8% - so this is essentially tied. What did you see? What's going on here?

[00:15:19] Andrew Villeneuve: So we looked at the entire statewide ballots this year, as well as WA-03. This is the district where Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is seeking re-election against Joe Kent, who she defeated two years ago. Marie prevailed narrowly by just a few thousand votes and has been a good representative for Washington state in Congress. She doesn't always vote with the Democrats, whereas Joe Kent would be a fascist who supports Donald Trump in Congress. So there's a very clear choice in that district. But because of its Republican lean, we find that the race is tied - 46% say they're voting for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and 46% say they're voting for Joe Kent. The rest are undecided. This is a very close race and it could help decide the House majority. As for statewide races, we're still in the process of releasing the results, but I can tell you this - Kamala Harris is going to win the Evergreen State. We've had a 15-point lead for her - 55% say they're going to vote for her, 40% for Trump. We also found that Maria Cantwell is well ahead of Raul Garcia - 53% say they're going to vote for Cantwell, 38% say they're going to vote for Garcia. And we found that Democrats have a nice lead in the congressional generic ballot - 51% are voting for Democratic candidates in their districts, 39% for Republicans. Of course, what district you're in is going to matter because some districts are very safely Democratic and others are Republican. So these state-level results don't actually yield district-specific intelligence - but still, it's nice to know that a majority of Washingtonians have decided they want to continue to be represented by Democrats.

[00:16:53] Crystal Fincher: I want to talk about the 3rd Congressional District race results a little bit more. So as you said, the path to gaining Democratic control of the House of Representatives likely runs through the 3rd Congressional District in Washington - extremely competitive race, one of the biggest upsets two years ago - and so now trying to hold on to that seat is Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. And as you said, a traditionally red district. How does that compare to prior results that you've seen? And what groups is Marie Gluesenkamp Perez doing most strongly with? What groups does she look like she has a chance to be able to persuade?

[00:17:39] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, first of all, it's important to know for context that two years ago we polled this district - we were the only organization that publicly polled it - and we found Marie down by 3% and she won. So the fact that she's tied at this juncture now is encouraging for Democrats because it's better than what we saw two years ago. So she really does have a chance to keep this seat - and it's a better chance than she had when she was running against Kent the first time and trying to deny him the seat after it became open. But that doesn't mean that she's going to win - it means that she has a better chance than two years ago, but it's not the definitive word. In a toss-up race, everything makes the difference and it could go either way. So when we look at the crosstabs of the latest WA-03 poll, we do see some interesting divides. Women are far more likely to vote for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez - 54% say they'll vote for her candidacy, whereas 52% of men say they'll vote for Joe Kent. So there is a divide there - 40% of men say they're voting for Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, 39% of women are voting for Joe Kent. In terms of party, Marie does have the Democratic vote locked up. It's very clear that Democrats, regardless of how they might feel - most of them - about Marie's crossover votes, because she does sometimes vote for Republican bills. But by and large, Democrats understand the choice and they're not thinking of voting for Kent or sitting it out - people are committed. And that is important for Marie because she needs every Democratic vote in her column or the math is going to be difficult. So when I look at party, I see that fortunately for Marie, she's got that consolidated Democratic vote behind her - the base is there. And she also is appealing to enough independents and Republicans that she is competitive with Kent. Because Kent has like 83% of the Republicans and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has more like 90% of the Democrats. So that makes a difference - this is a district that looks like it's going to go for Donald Trump again, it is a Republican district. And so Marie's got to have people splitting their tickets in order to win - because some people are probably going to vote for Trump, and then when it comes to the House race, they're also going to be voting for her in some cases. And so that crossover support is absolutely necessary if she's going to keep a hold of this district and it's probably why she has declined to say that she's supporting Kamala Harris - what matters in this district is survival and she's doing what she needs to do so far to survive. I know her campaign welcomes financial contributions, volunteering, all of that. So again, it's the closest race in the entire state - at least above the legislative level, where we could talk about some of the races that we haven't polled that I think are going to be close - but WA-03 is the only statewide or federal race that looks like this.

[00:20:31] Crystal Fincher: Obviously, we are partial to Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and are concerned about what someone as extreme as Joe Kent would bring. Who does Joe Kent have the best chance of being able to persuade?

[00:20:46] Andrew Villeneuve: Joe Kent does well with some independents - he has 42% of the independents in our survey. He also does well with base Republican voters, of course - but they're still more undecided, not sure than there are with the Democrats. There's only 3% of Democrats who say they're not sure - that's less than half of the number of Republicans who say they're not sure. So Marie's really got to close the deal with some of these Republican voters. The ones who have already made up their minds for Joe Kent are probably a lost cause, but those who are not sure are the ones that she's got to reach. And it's a tiny sliver of voters - but in a district that's a toss-up, the tiny sliver of voters you're pursuing are the voters who will make or break the outcome. So for Marie, it really is that narrow, tiny group of voters that are not yet decided - those are the ones. And everybody else appears to have made up their minds.

[00:21:39] Crystal Fincher: Now, you mentioned an overall congressional ballot lead for Democrats in the state, which is consistent with how the state normally votes. In the Senate race, were there any particularly interesting findings that you saw there? Or did everything pretty much look like it looks in prior races?

[00:22:00] Andrew Villeneuve: We don't see Republicans being able to really compete in this Senate race because they don't have the resources to do anything - so it's been one of the sleepiest, quietest Senate races in Washington that I can remember. Maria Cantwell has not had too much to worry about because Republicans just aren't attacking her - they're not criticizing her, they're just leaving her alone. So it does not look to me like we're going to see anything resembling a race that's anything other than a landslide for Senator Cantwell. It will be a contender for the biggest margin possibly, given the lack of effort Republicans have made in criticizing Senator Cantwell this year.

[00:22:39] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. That makes sense. Now let's talk about the statewide races. The Washington Supreme Court Position 2 race between Sal Mungia and Dave Larson - Dave Larson is receiving 14% in this poll, Sal Mungia 10%, those who aren't sure 76%. In the governor's race, Bob Ferguson, the Democrat, is at 48%, Dave Reichert, the Republican, is at 41%, and those saying they're Not sure, at 10%. In the attorney general's race, Nick Brown, the Democrat, is at 46%, Pete Serrano at 39%, those who aren't sure at 15%. And the lieutenant governor's race, Denny Heck, the Democrat, 47%. Dan Matthews at 35%, and those who aren't sure 18%. So there are a number of interesting elements here in the statewide races. What did you see?

[00:23:40] Andrew Villeneuve: Bob Ferguson has a lead in the governor's race - there are 48% saying they're going to vote for Bob Ferguson, 41% say they'll vote for Dave Reichert. Additionally, Bob Ferguson - a plurality view him favorably - 43% have a favorable view of Bob's candidacy, 38% have an unfavorable view. That compares nicely with Mr. Reichert - 41% have an unfavorable view and 36% have a favorable view.

[00:24:04] Crystal Fincher: You're showing Bob Ferguson in the lead - does this look like it'll hold up? Could undecided voters do something unexpected here? And who is Bob Ferguson polling the strongest with?

[00:24:19] Andrew Villeneuve: Bob Ferguson does very well with Democratic voters, as you would expect. And importantly, Washington is so Democratic-leaning that you could actually lose Republicans and independents together and you can still win Washington - so that's important to understand in terms of the state's basic electoral makeup. In other polls, Bob Ferguson has a majority - there have been polls commissioned by Strategies 360 and KOMO, there have been polls from Elway, two of them, and there's been one from SurveyUSA on behalf of their clients like The Seattle Times and KING 5 and the UW Center for an Informed Public. And all those polls actually have Bob Ferguson with bigger leads than what we have - we're like the smallest lead that Bob Ferguson has among the four credible polls that have been out in the last few weeks. So that's really interesting - but our polling has also been consistent. Every sample is different, every pollster is different, every methodology is different. Our pollster tends to slightly underrepresent Democratic performance, which is funny because it is a Democratic-aligned firm working for a progressive organization. But people make the mistake all the time of assuming that a poll is flawed or leans in one direction because of the ideology of its sponsor - that is one of the most common mistakes that I see made in polling. And it's a mistake that careful poll scrutinizers won't make - because a subjective organization is perfectly capable of commissioning objective research, and we do. And there's always going to be little quirks and idiosyncrasies in sampling, and every pollster is going to be a bit different. So our pollster just happens to have a history - this has been true the entire time we've worked with them - of slightly under-representing Democrats. Performance by Democrats is usually better than what is in the polls. I think that is fine because when Democrats do better in an election than what the polls suggest, the poll isn't making the mistake of assuming they're going to do that well. It's being a little small-c conservative, if you will, and I don't have a problem with that. Also, polls are always taken before elections, of course. And it's true that during the lead-up to an election, you actually do have some people who are undecided. And so the poll is going to reflect that - the fact that some people have not yet made up their minds - whereas in the election, there is no Not-sure option. You can't just go - I don't know - you're either going to vote for a candidate, or you're going to sit out the election, or you're going to write in a name. But regardless, you're going to be making a decision. And in a poll, you don't necessarily have to make a decision - you can punt and say - I'm not sure. But again, that option won't exist for you later. So that is one reason why the polls differ from the election results.

[00:26:52] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and I think it's fair to say - barring weird circumstances, a candidate who is an outlier in some way - generally, people don't ticket split. So if you see someone who is voting D at the top of the ticket, odds are the majority of the races that they vote for down the ticket are going to be of that same party. It's one of the reasons why asking other questions about what other candidates they support can be useful in determining the poll. I do want to talk about the other statewide races that you polled. What were the results for those?

[00:27:27] Andrew Villeneuve: So for attorney general - that's one of the races that is very important this year because it is an open seat - Bob Ferguson is vacating the AG position to run for governor. For this position, we find that Nick Brown is ahead - he is the Democrat who got through to the general election. We had multiple Democrats thinking about running for AG, and then we had two who dived in and ran - Manka Dhingra and Nick Brown. Nick Brown was the candidate who placed second in the top-two - he and Manka Dhingra split the vote. And we find now that he's ahead 46% to 39%. So that is a good sign for Democrats - that down-ballot enthusiasm for Democrats is there, and people are planning on voting Democratic up-and-down the ballot for the most part. So when we're talking about down-ballot races, AG looks good - we have a nice lead there for Nick Brown. It's not a huge lead, but we don't typically see huge leads in these down-ballot races where voters don't know the candidates - 15% say they're Not sure in this race.

For the state Supreme Court, we had something very interesting - we found that 76% are not sure who they're voting for, 14% are voting for Dave Larson, who's backed by the Republican Party, and 10% are voting for Sal Mungia, who's backed by the Democratic Party. That's interesting because that's a nonpartisan race, there's no party labels, and people don't necessarily know who the candidates are - hence the three-fourths who are not sure. And we've seen interesting results like this before for state Supreme Court races where a lot of people say they're not sure and the person who is the more progressive of the two candidates doesn't have a lead - and it's simply because people are not familiar with the candidates. So if there's one down-ballot race that people should pay attention to right now, it would be state Supreme Court - because I think if people look into Dave Larson and his lawsuit against the governor's COVID-19 health policies and some of his other views and his history with the Republicans, they're going to be concerned - would be my guess. And Sal Mungia is a very respected attorney who has been endorsed by eight of the nine sitting justices and newspapers have endorsed him - and yet he's not leading in the poll. He won the August election, he has more money, he has a lot of advantages - and yet he's not ahead in the poll. And so it just shows you people don't know the candidates. Doesn't mean he's not going to win. In the past, we've had like Steve Gonzalez - a few years ago, he was behind in our polling and then he won easily. But it was only because the media then paid attention to the race and said - Here's who the candidates are. And people are like - Ah, okay. One of these candidates is a respected jurist who speaks multiple languages, whereas the other is a conspiracy theorist who doesn't want to be interviewed by Essex Porter unless he's live. So that was very important - that coverage helped explain the race for people. So the number one thing people might take away from this discussion is you need to let everybody you know, know that the state Supreme Court is an important position - we elect this for six years, and these are the candidates, and this is the differences between them.

[00:30:28] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely - that's really important. And just goes to show how important that partisan cue is for people making decisions, especially with candidates that they're not familiar with. Now, what did your poll results show for the insurance commissioner race?

[00:30:47] Andrew Villeneuve: Well, we find that Patty Kuderer is in great shape, and she has a seven-point lead over Phil Fortunato. So it's not unlike what we see in the other races. Typically, in the down-ballot executive races, we're seeing like a seven- to eight-point lead for the Democrat - somewhere in there, it just varies by race. So in the case of governor, we had that seven-point lead we talked about. And then for attorney general, we have that 46%-39%, so it's also seven points. So it's a very similar dynamic across the different races that we have on the ballot this year, and so the Democrats are doing pretty well. There's a larger number of undecided voters in some of the contests. For example, for AG, there's like 15% undecided. For insurance commissioner, there's 23% undecided. But generally speaking, a very large chunk of those undecided voters are Harris voters. So if they just keep voting Democratic down the ballot, then all the Democratic candidates get maybe a 5- to 10-point boost or something out of that. So you can expect that generally the Democrats will finish maybe around 57% of the vote or 56%, 58% - somewhere in there. Because in the top-two election - if you look at treasurer and auditor, those were two races that were like a dress rehearsal for the general because there was one Democrat and one Republican in each of those races - nobody else filed. And since state law requires those types of contests to be on the top-two ballot, even though there's no one to be eliminated, we had a situation essentially previewing the general election. So in those contests - Pellicciotti, who's our Democratic treasurer, he got like 57% of the vote. And then same thing with Pat McCarthy, our auditor - got about that amount too. So each of them facing one Republican, getting around 57% of the vote - that is a preview of what I think we'll see in the general election, where the Democratic candidate will generally have this base of votes to start with, and then Democratic-leaning voters will add to that base because they want to be represented by Democrats. And so every Democrat running statewide will likely do quite well this year. And that unfortunately leaves the Republicans with nothing, but that's their own fault - they created a situation where they're not competitive. And in our polling, people tell us it's because of what they believe. Like people have said - I would consider voting Republican again if the Republicans dumped Trump and all their ultra-MAGA garbage, and started behaving like a real political party again, and came back to reality, and started offering policies that would actually help me and my family. A lot of people think the Republicans are completely out there and have just lost it, so they're not going to consider voting for Republicans until that changes. And there's no sign that that will change in this election.

[00:33:29] Crystal Fincher: So what did your poll results show for the rest of the executive race - the auditor, the treasurer, and the Commissioner of Public Lands?

[00:33:38] Andrew Villeneuve: It's really the same story across the different races. We find like a seven-, eight-point lead for everybody. So, for example, Denny Heck got 47% in the poll, Dan Matthews, his Republican challenger, got 35%. That's a case where there's a little more room between the Democrat and the Republican, so instead of the seven to eight points, it's more like twelve. And then we also see-

[00:34:00] Crystal Fincher: And that is the race for lieutenant governor.

[00:34:02] Andrew Villeneuve: Exactly, lieutenant governor. And then for secretary of state, it was similar - 47% for Steve Hobbs, 34% for Republican Dale Whitaker. Hobbs and Heck are incumbents, so they get that extra margin there that we see - because they're unlike Patty Kuderer and Nick Brown and Dave Upthegrove - they're not running for open seats, there's a little more name recognition. Mike Pellicciotti is also an incumbent, but he has a little less name recognition because his position is more obscure. So he has 43%, Sharon Hanek has 36%. But remember, he got 57% in August, so you kind of have to factor in that performance when you're thinking about the race, because we do have that data available. Pat McCarthy got 44%, and her Republican challenger, Matt Hawkins, got 38% - this is for auditor. And then we also found, interestingly, 54% said they would prefer Democratic majorities in the Legislature, which is one of the best numbers for this question that I've seen. And 40% would prefer Republican majorities. I think the Republicans know we're not getting either chamber of the Legislature - we have no real pickup opportunities anywhere. I'm sure they're hoping that maybe one of the seats in the 42nd will flip, or maybe a seat somewhere else like in the 28th - but it just doesn't look that likely. And really they're playing defense all over the place - they're on defense in central Washington, southwest Washington, and also up there in the 10th District, which is Island County, Snohomish County area. So it really doesn't look good for the Republicans in the Legislature. And Dave Reichert seems to know this because in the second debate, he said - We're going to have a Democratic Senate, we're going to have a Democratic House. What do you have to lose by electing a Republican governor? basically, was his pitch.

[00:35:35] Crystal Fincher: Now, what did your results reveal about the Commissioner for Public Lands race - which was a very, very close race in the primary, with Dave Upthegrove winning by 49 votes out of almost 2 million cast? The challenger to Dave Upthegrove is Jaime Herrera Beutler, who is a former Republican Congressperson from the 3rd Congressional District who lost in the primary last cycle - was defeated by Joe Kent. Lots of people citing her vote to impeach Donald Trump, which was very unpopular with the predominant MAGA base of the Republican Party - and she was ousted. So people were wondering - okay, is she going to appeal more to Democrats? She has more of a moderate image. Is that going to make a difference - she might be more well-known across the state than Dave Upthegrove - that could make this race competitive? Is that what the poll results reveal?

[00:36:31] Andrew Villeneuve: Nope. The poll shows that Dave Upthegrove does the same as Nick Brown, 46%, and that Jaime Herrera Beutler is at 38% - so there's an eight-point gap there. And what that says is that partisanship is king. If you're running statewide in Washington state and you're fortunate not to be running for state Supreme Court or Superintendent of Public Instruction, which are the two nonpartisan races, being able to run as a D is big because that D does so much for you. It lets voters know where you are on the political spectrum. It lets them know what your values are, or at least gives them a clue. Dave Upthegrove is going to win, if for no other reason than he's a Democrat. That's good enough for a lot of voters - they don't want to be represented by Republicans, they don't like what the Republican Party's turned into. They might know that Jaime Herrera Beutler has voted to impeach Trump, but that's just not going to be the difference maker. They might appreciate that she did that. Some Democratic and independent voters might go - Ah, finally, a Republican name that I don't feel like vomiting over. But that still isn't going to make them check the oval for her - because in the end, you're looking at a Republican running the Department of Natural Resources. And a lot of voters just are going to be like - Why would I pick that when I have a Democrat I could vote for who will be someone who shares my values and principles? So that's what we see in the polling - is the partisan, the tribal nature of politics that has become so predominant now - that's what we see manifesting in this race.

And also, Herrera Beutler has a problem. To really be competitive, she needs Republicans to be solidly behind her - but a lot of Republicans despise her. If you look at the reception she got at the state convention, people were turning their backs to her, they were yelling at her, they were jeering at her. I think you're going to see some MAGA voters withholding their votes in that race - they do not want to vote for Jaime Herrera Beutler under any circumstances, they would rather skip the race or write in a candidate - so that will just cost her some votes. And those people aren't going to vote for Upthegrove either. But if they're not supporting Herrera Beutler, then it's like a little mini anchor dragging her down. And so Upthegrove really has the advantage in this race. He has already gotten over the big stumbling block, which was he had all these other Democratic rivals in the top-two and they were splitting the vote with him, and he needed to be able to get just enough votes so they could avoid the lockout. So that was the most difficult part of the campaign for him. He is by no means the candidate with the toughest race - like far from it. I would say that's Sal Mungia, who we talked about already - has the more difficult problem as he's not a Democrat, but he has values that align with Democrats. We all know how judicial races are - they're nonpartisan, but it doesn't mean that people don't have opinions and values. So Sal's got the tough race, in my book, of all the statewide candidates. Dave is doing quite well and can expect to be the next Commissioner of Public Lands - which is not to say that he's guaranteed to win, only that the probability that he will win is very, very, very high.

[00:39:34] Crystal Fincher: And what did the results show for the Superintendent of Public Instruction race?

[00:39:39] Andrew Villeneuve: This is our other nonpartisan race. And so, as you might expect with no party labels, there are more voters who are not sure - 61% say they're not sure who they're voting for yet, that's a super-majority. Chris Reykdal has 21% and David Olson has 18%. So when you look at those results, it's very clear it's a tighter race - people don't necessarily know who the candidates are. Chris Reykdal is the current Superintendent of Public Instruction - he's served a couple of terms now. He's a Democrat - he was a Democratic legislator before he was elected to the office. He's been endorsed by The Stranger and even The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times didn't want to endorse him, but they couldn't endorse David Olson because Olson is on video basically saying that we should let colleges and universities go bankrupt, it would be better for America - something in that vein is what he said. He definitely doesn't believe in higher education. When he's been asked about that, he has indicated that he just got caught up in the moment or something. But in addition to backtracking, he's also reaffirmed that he holds these extreme views. He's doing this Dave Reichert thing where in public, he tries to make himself sound more reasonable. When he's in front of ultra-MAGA audiences, he just throws out the red meat. So what does he really believe? It's harder to say, but I believe that when he's in front of those ultra-MAGA audiences, he seems to be comfortable with them. And I'm guessing that what he's saying there is what he really believes and that what he's saying in public is being toned down a bit so that he can try not to alienate voters who would find those comments alarming. The Seattle Times certainly didn't believe that what he was saying in front of Republican audiences were not his real views. And they said - We can't support somebody who believes these things. This is an automatic disqualifier, basically. So then they had to write an endorsement that explained why Reykdal merited another term because they had chosen to endorse him.

And Reykdal is a progressive. A lot of people blame him for what's going on with K-12 schools, like all the problems of K-12 schools are thrown at his door. But he's actually only one of several people with responsibility for K-12 schools. There are several agencies that share jurisdiction for education, it's not just the superintendent. And they don't actually set the budget for schools, nor do they make a lot of the decisions. They don't tell the school districts - Okay, this is what your budget's going to be. They set policies and standards for school districts. But school districts adopt their own budgets, which is why Seattle is currently having a discussion about closing schools. I mean, the superintendent isn't telling them to do that - he's not driving that discussion. They're driving the discussion because they've done a terrible job managing things - and now they're trying to figure how to patch a budget hole. And rather than actually going and pressing the Legislature for the resources they need, they're just like - Oh well, we got to close schools. Austerity's our only option. No, it isn't. And so that's disappointing. But the position that Chris is in is - he's got probably the hardest lift of everyone running for the statewide offices besides Sal, because again, that's the only position that's not partisan. There's no party label there. So Chris has got to explain what he's about and what his priorities are without any party label to help him. And that office is kind of obscure - it's way down the ballot. So Chris could still win. In all likelihood, he will win. It's just that his lead is nothing as comfortable as what the Democrats in the partisan races have - they're ahead by more because people can see that they're Democrats. But we couldn't say that Chris is a Democrat because the ballot has no party descriptor, so it wouldn't be fair in the poll question to put that in - because then it's not a real gauge of what the poll takers know.

[00:43:10] Crystal Fincher: Your polling - the NPI polling - has held up pretty well in prior races, so people eagerly await new poll results from NPI and pay attention to them when they come out. What do you think overall this polling shows for what people want to see as the direction of Washington, from what it looks like the preferences are for these candidates and initiatives?

[00:43:38] Andrew Villeneuve: So with respect to the overall landscape, we know that from our research - and this is the body of research that we've been doing for years - not just statewide polls, but local polls, congressional polls, district polls, etc, legislative district polls. It's really interesting when you look at the body of polling and especially diving into the why. Because in some of our polls, we are able to ask - Why are you voting for Democrats? Or why are you voting for Republicans? Or we can ask Biden voters - Is there anything the Republican Party can do to earn your vote in the future? Or we can ask Trump voters - Is there anything the Democratic Party can do to earn your vote in the future? But since Biden voters are the majority, the answers to those questions are a bit more interesting. So in the case of what the Republicans do to earn your vote, what we find is that most people say - Nothing. And then there are some people who say - Yes, there's something the party could do to earn my vote. So then, of course, we ask them - Well, what is that thing? Can you explain it? And it turns out most of the people who are saying yes, really mean no. They just want to tell us - Yeah, I would vote for the Republicans maybe in the future if they got rid of Donald Trump, got rid of J.D. Vance, got rid of all these characters, changed what they believe completely, dumped all this ultra-MAGA ideology, stopped marching towards fascism. They have like a checklist of things they want to see - If they did all that, then I would consider maybe voting for them. And it's really funny when you read these comments because it's like - we all know the Republicans aren't going to do any such thing. They're not going to transform overnight into a more reasonable party again. If they do transform, it will be a slow grind. It will be a process. It will not happen tomorrow, or next week, or even next year. So when we look at what most voters want - they want effective government, they want government that works for them, they want a government that is responsive to their concerns. People want housing. They want jobs. They want health care. They want a cleaner environment. They want a more just foreign policy. People are sick of the wars over in Gaza and Lebanon and Ukraine and so forth - we want the wars to come to an end, we want a ceasefire. These are the things that people want.

And Republicans aren't offering what people are looking for. And a lot of Washingtonians can intrinsically sense that, so they don't want to vote for Republicans for anything - which is why we're probably going to have a nine-member executive department that only has Democrats in it. And we're likely to have big Democratic majorities in the Legislature. How big? We haven't talked about this part in this discussion yet, but there is a chance that the Democrats could get enough seats that they could vote in their own constitutional amendments to voters - because voters make the final decision, but first they have to pass in the Legislature. So that would be tough - I think it's like four seats in the Senate and eight seats in the House. But are there enough pickup opportunities on the map that you could get to those numbers? Yes, because enough people are sick of the Republicans that all these opportunities have opened up. Doesn't mean it will happen - I think we may struggle to get to eight net gains in the House and four net gains in the Senate, but it is possible. And Republicans are certainly frightened by that possibility. If you look at their behavior, it is panic time. The resignation is already setting in in certain places - Republicans who know that NPI's polling is spot on, as you said, they can't dismiss the data because they're too smart for that. So some of them online, we're seeing the resignation like - Great, four more years of Democratic rule, that's what I have to look forward to. They're just not happy. But again, it's their fault. If they want to be able to appeal to Washingtonians, they're just going to have to change who they are and what they believe - I just don't think they want to.

[00:47:06] Crystal Fincher: I think that about sums it up. Well, thank you so much for your time today, Andrew, and for enlightening us with these poll results - really think that this is important for the state. Forget who it was - there was some elected or newspaper person being like - Man, we really would like more statewide polling, we are lacking for some of this statewide polling. And so your stepping in and doing this is very helpful and informative to everyone. So thank you for joining us today, and we will keep an eye out for the upcoming poll results. And again, just encourage everyone to vote as soon as possible - even I'm getting my ballot in early this year - and just make sure you make your voice heard.

[00:47:50] Andrew Villeneuve: Thanks so much - well said.

[00:47:52] Crystal Fincher: Thank you.

Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.