Leg Dist, 47 Primary - Who's who? Kauffman vs. Crawford?

[Union Thug]

Hi there-

Visiting the websites for Kauffman and Crawford, I've failed to find much to contrast them in terms of political philosophy. Both have a decent set of endorsements.

Do any of you have any info on these candidates?

[eridani]

1. Kauffman was there first

One of the few Native Americans to run for state office, backed by the Progressive Majority. Crawford seems a decent enough guy, and has a lot of name recognition from being Chief of Police for Kent for quite a while. The thing is that you don't know who actually has the best ground game until you hold the primary.

[Johnyawl]

2. I'm active in the 47th, here's the scoop...

Kaufman became active in the 47th last year, and almost immediately announced her desire to run for the Senate seat held by Steve Johnson(R). The Dems in the 47th were ecstatic, as Johnson, who had done zip as a Senator, was perceived as vulnerable, and Claudia Kaufman seemed an ideal candidate.

Then several things happened:
1) Steve Johnson decided NOT to run for re-election (choosing to run for the Supreme Court instead)
2) The republicans recruited Dave Reicherts little brother (a state trooper) to run for that Senate seat, confident that Congressman Reichert's popularity would carry his brother into office.
3) meanwhile, the Kaufman campaign got off to a slow, rather inept start
4) the Dems panicked
5) thinking they needed a stronger candidate, and looking to negate the 'law enforcement' advantage of Reichert and his little brother, the Dems recruited Crawford, former police chief of Kent to run.

THEN...
6) Reicherts little brother looked at his brothers poll numbers, and Crawfords popularity in Kent (a BIG piece of the 47th)and decided that a previous back injury made it impossible to run, and dropped out.
7) the republicans recruited a non-entity to replace Reichert.
8) Kaufman raised a bunch of money, brought in professional help, and kicked her campaign into high gear

So we now have the situation where we have TWO strong Democratic candidates battling in the primary to face a weak republican candidate.

I don't care who wins the primary, I think we can put this Senate seat in the (D) column.

Ain't politics fun?

[geniph]

3. They're both good candidates, and good people

It's a pity the primary is contested, but as my husband outlined in his post (Johnyawl is my husband), things got a little confused there for awhile earlier this year. Whichever one wins the primary will make a great state Senator.

I will admit that I support Claudia Kauffman, as I was one of those in the 47th who was a bit taken aback by the political maneuverings that made Ed Crawford a candidate. Ed is a wonderful candidate, but I really don't think they should have gone out and recruited someone when they already had a candidate. Claudia's campaign did make some early missteps; they were terrible about responding to those who were interested in volunteering, she wasn't (initially) doing the things a candidate has to do (schmoozing and doorbelling), and Ed WAS a much better candidate against Reichert's little brother - but now that Little Bro has dropped out of the race, either one should essentially make mincemeat of what's his name, whoever the low-level functionary is that they found to run as an R.

We're turning the 47th Blue! Just a few years ago, the 47th was represented by three Republicans, and this year, I believe we will win both House seats and the Senate seat for the state Democrats.

In terms of philosophy - well, both are very pro-education (both have been active in local childrens' and school services), both are pro-union, pro-environment, pro-choice. Ed's a teensy bit more oriented to the law & order side of things, and Claudia is more attuned to the needs of people of color and the underprivileged. Claudia works for the Muckleshoot Tribe at present (she's a member of the Nez Perce herself), and Ed is a retired city of Kent police chief (he retired when the new mayor was elected, as he'd worked for her opponent).

[eridani]

4. The one thing we don't know is--

--who has the better ground game. That's what primaries are for, IMO.