I seem to recall 1183 polling at under 50% in favor headed into Election Day last year. And then it passed with 60%. So really, what do we know?

It's likely I already voted.

Ah, the peace of ignoring phone calls.

"The poll found Inslee leading Rob McKenna 47.9 to 44.7 percent among likely voters...But Inslee's lead slips to only 47.1-46.3 among likely voters."

WTF? Did someone leave out some critical words here? Because reading on from there it continues to make no sense. I'm especially taken with the point that young voters cannot be likely voters because they haven't established a voting record. Pure idiocy: what he MEANS is, I can't characterize young voters because I don't have their voting record, NOT that they're unlikely to vote, which is an entirely different question.

"The poll found Inslee leading 47.9 to 44.7% among likely voters. But his lead slips to only 47.1-46.3 among likely voters." Huh??

@3, @4 Already fixed that. It's registered voters vs. likely voters."

California's marijuana Prop 19 broke towards the Yes side in 2010, although eventually losing by a few points. Care to provide some actual research on your assertion that "initiatives tend to break heavily toward the No side," in particular for an issue like marijuana or alcohol? Yes on 502!

@6 Well, I suppose if I had the time I could find you the research, but I assure you that those people most familiar with the ballot measure industry will tell you that absent a lopsided media campaign, undecideds TEND to break toward the no vote. Note in my post the use of the word "TEND." There are exceptions. But anecdotal evidence aside, I stand by my assertion.

I think we can all agree that no matter the outcome of many of the races, we can look forward to a November filled with re-counts, demands for re-counts and court challenges to the election results.

If there is one thing we should have learned by now, if you don't like an election result bring on litigation.

@8 Actually, no. Recounts are rare, particularly in statewide races. Even rarer are lawsuits challenging the outcome of elections. (Lawsuits challenging the the constitutionality of ballot measures, that's different.)

@9 - Maybe we're jaded by the multitude of recounts and close calls we've seen in the last twelve years.

@10, I think they just seem like close calls due to how slow the results come in. But in fact, the only statewide recounts I can think of were Gregoire/Rossi in 2004 and Cantwell/Gorton in 2000.

@11 - That's in Washington, which I see was your point, but perhaps our increased exposure to the national political stage makes it seem like more. There was the recount in Florida in 2000, and the recounts and lawsuits over Al Franken's victory in Minnesota.

You want to know how to drive one of the phone volunteers nuts? Politely listen to the whole thing. Then at the end, say, "Dang it, I mailed in my ballot yesterday and I voted for (name of the opponent, or the opposite position in the referendum). I sure wish you had called 24 hours ago, because I never would have voted that way if I only knew."

That'll teach 'em to call at dinner time.

Or better yet: "R-74? Damn right I voted to reject that one. Someone's got to tell the religious nutcases to mind their own business!"

@13 for the win.

And then shout "Seattle Oilers! RAH! RAH! RAH!" at the close.

That will confuse the heck out of 'em.

Anyone, including the fully baked who bothered to read the pot referendum would have to vote against it. Hand someone sitting next to you at a party your joint and you're committing a class one felony distribution offense.

#16, I will vote against every form of legalized marijuana just for the hell of it.