Patty Murray vs. Dino Rossi: Analyzing the 2010 Washington State Senatorial Race

The 2010 Washington State senatorial race was crucial for Republicans, as it could have earned the GOP a Senate majority and eliminated the likelihood of Vice President Joe Biden’s casting a tie-breaking vote. A victory from Dino Rossi, the Republican candidate, would have given the Republicans their 51^st Senator and saved them the hassle of trying to win California, where polls have traditionally run against them (1, 68). The Democratic nominee, Patty Murray, ended up winning the race by 4.3% with 1,217,849 votes to Rossi’s 1,119,081 (12, 38, 41, 53). Given the race's significance, it is unsurprising that the Washington race was a campaign marred by mudslinging, ferocious debate, and “grossly malicious” advertisements (32, 39, 80).

Rossi faced three-term incumbent Patty Murray, a self-portrayed “Mom in Tennis Shoes” who “comes home every weekend” (33, 34, 44). Murray is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the Senate and is “ninth for bringing federal money back home” (33, 34). The first election she won was an upset primary victory over incumbent Brock Adams after a sex scandal in the 1992 Year of the Woman (33, 34). Her freshman term in the Senate was unremarkable. She pulled herself together for her second election, and when the “GOP picked the wrong candidate,” she won by a landslide, focusing on trade and transportation issues. She was also the only Senator during this time to campaign to chair the DSCC. Though the Democrats failed to defeat Republicans in 2002, the fundraising and networking skills she learned proved beneficial in Murray’s 2004 race against the largely unknown George Nethercutt, who hailed from less-populous eastern Washington. They also proved critical in the 2010 race. Her three main areas of issue expertise are veteran’s affairs, national security, and education (44, 75).

Washington is unlike most highly partisan states, placing relatively little emphasis on issues and ideology (1, 7, 24, 25, 45, 51). So when Patty Murray announced her intent to run for re-election in mid-March 2010, she was considered a near lock to retain her seat – until Dino Rossi entered the campaign in late May, crowded out some early GOP hopefuls, and beat Tea Party favorite Clint Dider in the primary (8, 9, 10, 31, 52, 67, 76). Rossi was aggressively recruited by national Republican officials to challenge Murray, and he performed successfully in attempting to turn Murray’s chief strength – her ability to deliver federal money – into a liability (22). As the race tightened and tension increased, Democratic heavyweights Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton campaigned on behalf of Murray on two separate occasions – October 12 and October 21 – to help get people, in the words of the First Lady, “fired up” (19, 20, 26, 73). Both participated in get-out-the-vote efforts, where Democrats’ doorknocking organization surpassed Republicans’ (70). Most polls predicted reliable but slim Murray wins; by the evening of Thursday, November 4th, the race was called for Murray (18, 41, 48, 53). Rossi conceded not long thereafter (12, 14).

Though both candidates tried to move to the center after the primaries, voters had no trouble differentiating between them, as they each packaged their platforms along respective party lines, irrespective of ideology and participated in two televised debates (7, 45, 51).

The most important issue in the race was the economy (43, 44, 66, 70, 75) – voters from every socioeconomic demographic feared the ballooning deficit, reckless federal spending, and the threat of losing their job. For years, Murray’s position in the Senate Appropriations Committee helped her bring dozens of federal projects to Washington state. Rossi, however, contended that she was a part of the problem because she helped develop the deficit (22, 61, 74); he adhered closely to the Republican talking points of less spending and lower taxes (22). This helped him appeal to a number of voters outside of the Seattle area, who sympathized with his pro-business arguments (30). Rossi vehemently argued that there is a difference between federal earmarks and state spending, that the state’s budget must be balanced according to state law but that the “federal budget doesn’t, and isn’t” (22, 43, 66, 75). He also was against “all…of the class warfare that Sen. Murray wants to play” and instead called for general tax relief on income and estate taxes (61). Finally, he planned to “repeal health care reforms and replace them with medical liability reforms, access to out-of-state carriers, and better health savings accounts” (43). He did not support stimulus spending because he believed it didn’t create jobs (43, 75, 85).

Murray, on the other hand, supported health care reform, Wall Street regulations, and federal programs designed to stimulate the economy (6, 13, 17, 29, 44, 75, 78). She continually tried to remind the aerospace industry “that she’s been at the forefront of trying to get the Air Force to buy the next generation of aerial tankers from Boeing rather than from a consortium that includes the European maker of Airbus” (70, 75, 86). Both ignored the fact that they each get money from special interests when castigating each other (6, 11, 13, 17, 29, 35, 40, 42, 44, 60, 75, 78, 85, 86).

Rossi and Murray agreed on two things, though: veterans and Boeing. Murray never skipped a beat to tout her support for veterans and Boeing’s efforts to win a contract worth $35 billion to build the next Air Force tanker (23, 63). Rossi lacked Murray’s leverage with older voters and veterans, so his efforts to mobilize that group of voters was not as successful as he would have preferred (70).

Murray was victorious because of the strong support she received in King County and other areas around Puget Sound, her appeals to veterans, aircraft workers, and women, her defense of her use of earmarks, and her support of health care reform and financial regulation (70). In order for Rossi to have won, he would have had to do more than simply appeal to undecided voters (8, 9, 10, 31, 46, 52, 59 67). He needed more votes from eastern Washington –particularly in Pierce and Kitsap counties - higher male voter turnout, an improved standing among women, an ability to convince prospective Murray voters to cross to the other side, and more negativity in advertising. His strong demographics – independent voters who swayed right in this election, leads in eastern Washington, Pierce, and Kitsap counties (62, 81), and voters who make more than $100,000 a year – certainly helped, but they were not quite enough to defeat Murray’s trump cards: King county, women, baby boomers, retirees, veterans, and those making less than $50,000. Rossi’s attack on Murray’s use of earmarks – tying them to the national deficit – did not net him that many extra votes, because votes were evenly split on earmarks and local spending. Rossi won anti-deficit supporters and Murray, the stimulus supporters (65, 82, 83).

Both garnered the vast majority of voters in their parties (nearly 1:1 for both), but there are three important notables: the gender gap, the age gap, and the regional split (71, 72). Polls suggest that Murray and Rossi split the male vote fairly evenly (48:51), but that she had a substantial advantage among women (57:36), that Rossi did well with young voters (45:36), and Murray did better with baby boomers (57:37). The latter probably helped Murray quite a bit in this race, because older voters are very likely to vote (7). With respect to the regional split, Rossi won eastern Washington with little difficulty, but faired horribly in the all-important King County (65, 68, 82, 83).