Although Crosscut's title page blurb writer apparently can't distinguish Cantwell from Murray, the confusion disappears once you get into the article. As usual, Vance provides a thorough and knowledgeable stroll through the underbrush of the local political jungle.

The indignant howls of Seattle media pundits notwithstanding, I have a hard time believing that voters will punish Inslee for resigning his Congressional seat to run full-time for governor. Given the depth of public contempt for Congress (now about to receive another jolt courtesy of the fast-tracked and cynically labeled "JOBS" bill gutting investor protections), Inslee should be able to frame resigning his House seat as an act of purification.

It would seem to betray the very nature of the Republican party to blame the government for high gas prices and not have faith in the market. Gas is traded on a world market. While political pundits may still try to hold out gas prices as a 'mega event', today's internet-informed voter is much wiser.

Take a read from a recent NY Times article:

Price of Gas Matters to Voters, but Doesn’t Seem to Sway Votes
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/politics/gas-prices-matter-to-voters-but-they-matter-little-to-votes.html

From the article from Stacy Hawks, a 25 year old N. Carolina Conservative:
“What I look for in a candidate is whether or not they have experience, values, morals,” said Ms. Hawks. “Mostly, I want someone that I trust as a leader.”

Man, I had to wipe Chris Vance's drool off of my computer screen, he is salivating so much at the prospect of higher gas prices.

It is depressing that politics have descended so much that the politicos are rooting for higher gas prices and a war with Iran (which would drive gas through the roof).

And please, the Seattle Times is not "Seattle Media". Let's face it, Joel Connelly has drifted so far to the right he should move to Mercer Island along with teh Times.

Obama slim lead? Come on Vance you are smarter than that. Sure the popular vote polls might look slim, but the electoral collage numbers point to an Obama landslide.

You can do better, Vance.

Andy,

I would encourage you to look at the electoral map on realclearpolitics.com. Obama is ahead but the race is competitive.

And who would you regard as the Seattle media?

Not a bad opinion piece but you give Kilmer too much credit. His day job has been representing part of the I-5 corridor. That doesn't play well on the Olympic Peninsula.

All his education is geared around 'urban planning', and Agenda 21 style centralized planning. That's a trigger point.

He claimed "Norm Dicks may have been Washington State's greatest Congressman." Dicks was corrupt and Kilmer has attached himself to it. And he has the same problem Dicks did. A relative getting a job because of the appearance of getting government funding. In Kilmer's case, the News Tribune said, "Kilmer will have at least one natural ally among the Legislature’s budget writers. She’s married to Democratic Sen. Derek Kilmer, chief author of the Senate’s capital-construction budget." CRONYISM. Another aspect of cronyism is her admission of lobbying her husband's co-workers, "But Kilmer will try to convince fellow state leaders." I would like a good investigative reporter to look into whether she filed the appropriate paperwork on her lobbying. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation found David Dicks had failed with the PSP, perhaps Jennifer Kilmer has as well. And something else that few mention, "Jennifer Kilmer said she would look to continue recent growth in membership, ramp up the pursuit of large annual gifts of $5,000 or more, and expand outreach to people who might bequeath money to the society in their wills." It is well known that wealthy campaign contributors often skirt campaign financing laws by donating to 'spousal' causes. I'm not impugning her character or abilities, just the obvious connection that her employment of this taxpayer job appears tied to her husband's job as a budget writer. And lest we not show a connection to results, "The Historical Society’s museums were threatened with closure last year, along with the state museum in Spokane. But the Legislature ended up preserving them on a reduced schedule." Looks like Kilmer got a reprieve...from her husband's co-workers. http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2011/08/22/jennifer-kilmer-picked-as-director-for-washington-history-museum/

Another point needs to be made about Kilmer. He voted on the wood device ban, an issue that will turn many of the poor on the Peninsula away from him.

I am one Democrat who always enjoys reading what Chris Vance has to say about electoral politics...he is an astute observer and sees the strengths and weaknesses of all the candidates, be they Rep or Dem. But he did mess up on one thing in this otherwise excellent piece: He called Mr. Baumgartner a "credible" candidate against Sen. Cantwell...not in this universe he isn't!

It seems that there is a negative correlation between the economy and gas prices, when one falls the other goes up.

Either way it gives the party out of favor a failure to point to.

That's because oil is a commodity traded around the world but priced in US dollars. When the US economy, and therefore the dollar, is weak the number of dollars required to buy a barrel of oil goes up. Of course, the number of units of many foreign currencies required to buy a weaker dollar also goes down, so it mainly hurts the US.

I want to correct one mistake I made: Sen. Baumgartner, because he is running for a federal office, is not subject the state freeze on campaign fundraising during the legislative session.

It really is good to possess the capacity to examine a great high quality article with practical specifics on topics that plenty are interested on. The stage that the information indicated are all first hand on reside experiences even guide a lot more.

Most of the time I enjoy reading Chris Vance too. It is just depressing to me that he has to stoop to this gas price thing. The USA has almost no control over gas prices, except tax. We have some of the lowest gas taxes in the world, and as a result we are subsidizing autos out of the general fund. The talk about lowering gas prices and "drill baby drill" is just crap and everyone knows it.

realclearpolitics.com??? give me a break. That is far from an unbiased source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

I recommend the 538 blog:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

I don't believe Nate Silver is predicting the general election yet.

Seattle Media? I think crosscut does a good job! If I have to choose between the Times and the Stranger, I pick the Stranger. The Times is a mercer island paper.

Andy,

Fair or not, you don't think rising gas prices have affected the President's poll ratings and will continue to do so? I do. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293940/inside-gas-price-polling-numbers-j-t-young

I am not predicting anything; I am reporting how things look today. I am not advocating anything. Crosscut asks me to be an analyst, not a cheerleader.

And to most everyone in this state, the Seattle Times IS the Seattle media.

I would counter with this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/us/politics/gas-prices-matter-to-voters-but-they-matter-little-to-votes.html?_r=1

What I find particularly disturbing is this:

"Republicans have seized on the issue to attack President Obama’s management of the economy."

I find this unpatriotic. Do Republicans really believe Obama or anyone in power can change the gas prices w/o even more direct subsidies to Big Oil? Do you Vance? Your article is pandering to the worst in American politics up to and including the totally irresponsible sabre rattling for war with Iran.

Vance, I urge you to compare the two articles from the National Review and the NY Times.

The NY Times article is heavily cited with studies from reputable sources addressing the the correlation and possible causation between votes and gas prices.

The National Review article cites an ABC approval rating poll and that is all. Then it offers a very weak "proxy" argument at the end without any supporting evidence.

Andy,

The NY Times article acknowledges that gas prices affect polling.

My analysis is that despite good news on job creation, the President's approval rating is not improving and the reason is rising gas prices.

I never mentioned Iran, and I didn't offer my thoughts on energy policy or WHY gas prices are high. That is not my purpose here.

Agreed Andy. It's not the gas prices stupid. It's ridiculous and there is nothing that gives any credence to the notion that the President has any control over gas prices. And the polling doesn't show that President Obama is being hurt by gas prices.

In addition to Andy's sources, here's another. The Gallup Poll.

http://www.gallup.com/video/153347/Election-Matters-Debunking-Conventional-Wisdom-Gas-Prices-Gingrich.aspx

They debunk the 'conventional wisdom' that gas prices are hurting Obama's approval ratings. Watch the video. Their comments are "We find that just isn't so." and "Our poll didn't show it."

Vance, here is another article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/obama-sets-gas-prices-just-another-gop-myth.html

"My analysis is that despite good news on job creation, the President's approval rating is not improving and the reason is rising gas prices."

Where is your evidence to support this statement?

At what point does your reporting on a politically manufactured right wing meme become cheer-leading?

Here is the CBS poll that found roughly the same thing as the ABC poll

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57395703-503544/poll-obamas-approval-rating-sinks-to-new-low/

If gas prices are having no affect on polling, why has Obama's approval dropped 2% in a month, while all the other economic news is good? And why is he talking about energy every day?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/politics/obama-to-promote-energy-policy-on-4-state-trip.html?hp

None of this is an exact science. I believe gas prices are a big deal and affect voter attitudes, and that the bad news on gas is cancelling out the good news on jobs.

Chris, It could be the gas price/poll drop correlation is a result of the media push manufactured by Republicans, which you are cheer-leading here.

Remember that correlation does not imply causation. You have offered no proof of causation, just some silly questions.

President Obama may be talking about energy policy since it is a major issue of our day. Bringing down the price of gas is not energy policy, even though that is what Republicans want us to believe.

Over at horses ass they just posted a monte carlo analysis of Obama vs. Romney

http://horsesass.org/?p=42559&utm;_source=feedburner

Result: 100% chance of Obama victory.

Remember, popular vote != electoral vote.

It's a simple answer why Obama is talking about energy. It's because the Republican party spews such nonsense like the President should be able to wave a magic wand and lower gas prices. And Newt Gingrich says he'll have gas prices back to $2.00/gallon as soon as he's in office. How would that work?

If Mr. Vance wants to 'believe gas prices are a big deal and affect voter attitudes' as he states above, that's his right. But he shouldn't confuse his beliefs with solid polling results from respected polling companies like Gallup, who clearly state that the polling results do NOT show that the President's ratings are being hurt by high gas prices.

Thank you for backing me up, Richard. I respect and desire viewpoints from all points on the spectrum but what I can't tolerate is a lack of critical analysis or mindless parroting of obvious political rhetoric.

Guys, Gallup is saying one thing, ABC and CBS disagree. Candidates' actions are driven by polling. All the candidates, including Obama, are talking about gas and energy. If the Rs' attacks weren't moving numbers Obama would ignore them.

Chris. You're talking about 2 different things. There's the truthful question, "Does the President have the power to lower gas prices?"

Then there's the propaganda and spin from the usual channels that is SAYING that the President does indeed have the power to lower gas prices.

Propagandists like Gingrich state without question that he would wave his magical Presidential wand and *poof*, gas prices would drop to $2.50/gallon. Neither you nor Gingrich have explained what the President can do. Merely bringing this topic up makes the Republican party sound like they feel the government, not the market, has control over gas prices.

The reason that President Obama is responding is that propaganda works. The only way to fight it is by talking about it with truth and facts.

So in the end, you're correct Chris. The R's attacks are moving numbers. However, don't confuse that with the truth.

If the president were serious about energy independence he would be talking about Thorium salt nuclear reactors. Instead he's still a tool of the oil & gas lobby.

Still none current Republican Candidates stand a chance of winning against Pres. Obama. (Historically sitting presidents win, they have a huge advantage by being in office.) That's why the powers behind the current crop putting all that money into PACs will be either let Rommey run and let it go and try again in 2016, or force an open vote on the convention floor and draft in either Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. Either way it will be an interesting show, what with Occupy Wall Street in the streets of the cities at the conventions, the cops smacking the protestors, the backroom dealing etc.

Still if the banks start to tip over before the convention it will open things up a lot. Otherwise I figure the pretend and extend will go on into 2013 at which point the game will be up.

Read more here: http://www.gregpalast.com/the-billionaires-brokered-gop-convention/

No president is able to control gas prices short of raising or lowering taxes and those effects are usually not dramatic. But the fact remains that the voters tend to hold the president responsible for things in the economy that they don't like, and fair or not that's a reality that will have an effect at the polls. That said, this president seems to see energy prices as primarily an academic curiosity, not as a financial stress point for most people; ergo his insistence on an expensive "all of the above" energy policy which does little to help the average voter. Gas prices are certainly much higher in Europe, but they also have much better and less crowded roads and highways, and usually higher speed limits, as a return on their investment.

"In mid-September, 2008, after months of campaigning, Republican candidates John McCain and Dino Rossi were ahead in their races for President and Governor."

Wow, is that selective viewing of Realclearpolitics' polling data (with a link that doesn't work). Obama was ahead in national polling from the end of March, 2008, until the election, with the sole exception of the second week of September, when McCain polled at best 48.3 to 45.4. The economic crisis that then started to play out was certainly a factor, but your implication that McCain would otherwise have won is not obvious from the data you cite.

Gas prices are a blip in the minds of voters. Performance and expectations are more important.

Sigh. I wish voters were more informed.