The lesson here is that the voters are perhaps not as crazy as the breathless media types describing them. And maybe -- maybe -- the populist hysteria has crested. But we have the inane November 23 deficit fix deadline on the horizon: another opportunity for angry partisan stalemate and for Obama to display his high-minded spinelessness. So I wouldn't relax yet.

I was surprised by the margin of victory for this year's liquor privatization measure, especially when considering the trouncing a similar measure got only a year ago. Some of its success may be attributed to the changes in the proposal to address some of last year's criticisms, and to Costco's willingness to make sure it outspent its opponents this time (by heavy margins); but I wonder if other factors were at play here as well. I wonder, for example, if the "Yes" campaign's willingness to expose the source of liquor industry money behind the "No" campaign's ads--which were rife with warnings about the evils of consuming liquor--were effective in showing the cynical motives behind the effort to defeat this year's measure. And I also wonder if the wild exaggerations and misleading claims by the "No" campaign actually backfired among voters who are tired of seeing the political process manipulated by unscrupulous political hacks and campaign consultants who are only out for themselves.

The Costco buyout of the liquor deal was more beneficial to the state. At least in the beginning. I'm suspicious that the next campaign we will hear about is to lower the costs to the sellers of the stuff. But at the legislature level where it's easier to buy the votes.

cocktails42: Actually I-1100 last year lost by only 53-47 percent, hardly a trouncing. The scare tactics about liquor flowing freely at every gas station and minimart worked that time, but this initiative addressed that issue and voters saw through the cynical ads from the liquor distributors.

All 'cept the Gov.?

On this morning's Diane Rehm show, Rehm introduced the hour by claiming that from coast to coast, voters had dealt a resounding defeat to "conservative" issues and candidates at the polls. Her guests, however, came in with analysis more in sync with Mr. Van Dyk's above. If I can detect a pattern in these poll results, it's far different than the one Rehm draws. I detect that voters are now rejecting more government interference in their lives, whether it comes from the left (Obamacare) or the right (draconian abortion controls), or even from crony capitalists (traffic cameras). It sounds to me like establishment liberals such as Rehm are now very firmly in "whistling past the graveyard" mode. Commentators on the right (such as Rush Limbaugh, who claims that social conservatism is the GOP's key to victory at the polls) would do well to take note of this potential sea change as well. The voters aren't in the mood for fringe ideological battles when the economy is struggling. Time for the Neros in government to put down their violins and start helping those, who value personal freedom and personal responsibility, put out the fire.

If the state wanted to fix some of it's financial problems it would create a state bank and deposit it's tax receipts there instead of banking with "Bank of America.".

As a state bank it could also lend money to cities and counties instead of those same municipalities issuing bonds. The interest paid would go to WA state residents instead of NY bankers.