Patty Murray
A candidate for U.S. Senator, State of Washington in the 2022 Washington General Election, Nov. 8
Party: Democratic
Age: 73
City: Seattle, Washington
Education: Received a bachelor's degree in physical education from Washington State University in 1972.
Work experience: Worked as a preschool teacher.
Political experience: Served as Washington's U.S. Senator since 1993. Served as a state senator from 1989 to 1993. Served on the Shoreline School District Board from 1985 to 1989.
Family: Married to Rob Murray. Has two children.
Contact information
Race Results
| Candidate | Votes | Pct |
|---|---|---|
| Patty Murray (D) | 1,741,738 | 57.28% |
| Tiffany Smiley (R) | 1,299,039 | 42.72% |
Related Coverage
After blocking plan that would have downsized Northwest VA hospitals, senators propose new path to modernizing VA infrastructure
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last year, a bipartisan group of senators blocked a controversial process that would have downsized VA hospitals in Spokane and Walla Walla as part of an effort to reshape the Department of Veterans Affairs’ nationwide system of nearly 1,300 clinics and hospitals.
Washington senators pledge to protect abortion access after 50-year-old Roe v. Wade was struck down
WASHINGTON – Washington’s Democratic senators on Tuesday pledged to block any effort by Republicans to further restrict abortion at the federal level after the Supreme Court last June overturned the Roe v. Wade decision, which had protected the right to terminate a pregnancy – with some limitations – for nearly half a century.
As U.S. government hits its borrowing limit, Northwest lawmakers signal high-stakes budget fight ahead
WASHINGTON – As the U.S. government on Thursday hit its self-imposed borrowing limit, Northwest lawmakers signaled the country could be in for a long fight in Congress over raising the debt ceiling that risks economic catastrophe if the parties don’t reach a deal on federal spending.
In a bid at ‘keeping child care on the agenda,’ Murray talks funding in Olympia
As Congress reconvenes this year, Murray will serve as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and as the first woman to serve as president pro tempore, which is third in line for the presidency.
Patty Murray makes history as first female Senate pro tem
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) was elected Senate president pro tempore Tuesday, becoming the first woman to hold the job since its inception and putting her third in the line of presidential succession.
‘Red wave’ washout: Skewed polls fed a false election narrative
Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, had consistently won reelection by healthy margins in her three decades representing Washington state. This year seemed no different: By midsummer, polls showed her cruising to victory over a Republican newcomer, Tiffany Smiley, by as much as 20 percentage points.So when a survey in late September by the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group showed Murray clinging to a lead of just 2 points, it seemed like an aberration. But in October, two more Republican-leaning polls put Murray barely ahead, and a third said the race was a dead heat.As the red and blue trend lines of the closely watched RealClearPolitics average for the contest drew closer together, news organizations reported that Murray was suddenly in a fight for her political survival. Warning lights flashed in Democratic war rooms. If Murray was in trouble, no Democrat was safe.Murray’s own polling showed her with a comfortable lead, and a nonprofit regional news site, using an established local pollster, had her up by 13. Unwilling to take chances, however, she went on the defensive, scuttling her practice of lavishing some of her war chest — she amassed $20 million — on more vulnerable Democratic candidates elsewhere. Instead, she reaped financial help from the party’s national Senate committee and super political action committees — resources that would, as a result, be unavailable to other Democrats.A similar sequence of events played out in battlegrounds nationwide. Surveys showing strength for Republicans, often from the same partisan pollsters, set Democratic klaxons blaring in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Colorado. Coupled with the political factors already favoring Republicans — including inflation and President Joe Biden’s unpopularity — the skewed polls helped feed what quickly became an inescapable political narrative: A Republican wave election was about to hit the country with hurricane force.Democrats in each of those states went on to win their Senate races. Murray clobbered Smiley by nearly 15 points.Not for the first time, a warped understanding of the contours of a national election had come to dominate the views of political operatives, donors, journalists and, in some cases, the candidates themselves.The misleading polls of 2022 did not just needlessly spook some worried candidates into spending more money than they may have needed to on their own races. They also led some candidates — in both parties — who had a fighting chance of winning to lose out on money that could have made it possible for them to do so, as those controlling the purse strings believed polls that inaccurately indicated they had no chance at all.In the election’s immediate aftermath, the polling failures appeared to be in keeping with misfires in 2016 and 2020, when the strength of Donald Trump’s support was widely underestimated, and with the continuing struggles of an industry that arose with the corded home telephone to adapt to the mass migration to cellphones and text messaging. Indeed, some of the same Republican-leaning pollsters who erred in 2022 had built credibility with their contrarian, but accurate, polling triumphs in recent elections.But a New York Times review of the forces driving the narrative of a coming red wave, and of that narrative’s impact, found new factors at play.Traditional nonpartisan pollsters, after years of trial and error and tweaking of their methodologies, produced polls that largely reflected reality. But they also conducted fewer polls than in the past.That paucity allowed their accurate findings to be overwhelmed by an onrush of partisan polls in key states that more readily suited the needs of the sprawling and voracious political content machine — one sustained by ratings and clicks, and famished for fresh data and compelling narratives.The skewed red wave surveys polluted polling averages, which are relied upon by campaigns, donors, voters and the news media. It fed the home team boosterism of an expanding array of right-wing media outlets — from Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and “The Charlie Kirk Show” to Fox News and its top-rated prime-time lineup. And it spilled over into coverage by mainstream news organizations, including the Times, that amplified the alarms being sounded about potential Democratic doom.The virtual “bazaar of polls,” as a top Republican strategist called it, was largely kept humming by right-leaning pollsters using opaque methodology, in some cases relying on financial support from hyperpartisan groups and benefiting from vociferous cheerleading by Trump.Yet questionable polls were not only put out by Republicans. The executive director of one of the more prominent Democratic-leaning firms that promoted polls this cycle, Data for Progress, was boasting about placing bets on election outcomes, raising at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.Other pollsters lacked experience, like two high school juniors in Pennsylvania who started Patriot Polling and quickly found their surveys included on the statistical analysis website FiveThirtyEight — as did another high school concern based at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts.Shaping perceptions across the ideological spectrum, the steady flow of data predicting a red wave prompted real-world decision-making that members of both parties now say could have tilted the balance of power in Congress.“These frothy polls had a substantial, distorting impact on how people spent money — on campaign strategy, and on people’s expectations going into the election,” said Steven J. Law, the CEO of the Republicans’ Senate Leadership Fund, which poured $280 million into the midterms. Its own private polling showed no red wave at all.‘Somebody Turned a Switch’There were ample reasons to expect a strong 2022 for Republicans. A president’s party tends to lose congressional seats in midterms. Soaring inflation and Biden’s languishing approval ratings only added to GOP hopes.But the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade and the stolen election fantasies of right-wing Republican candidates blew unexpected wind in Democrats’ sails.Summertime polls indicated surprising Democratic strength. “Red Wave? Hard to see one now,” Simon Rosenberg, a former adviser to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, headlined a June 21 post on the blog of his liberal advocacy group, the New Democrat Network.Later, when a cascade of Republican-skewing polls pointed to a major reversal, Rosenberg said in an interview, “it was as if somebody turned a switch on.”(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)Nationally, there was an uptick in support for Republicans in early autumn. It surfaced in surveys by firms across the industry, according to an analysis by Charles Franklin, the director of the Marquette Law School Poll — a fact that he said had been overlooked in post-election criticism of red wave polling. A New York Times/Siena College poll in mid-October showed Republicans with a 3-point lead nationwide, up from a 1-point Democratic advantage a month earlier.Indeed, Republicans won the national popular vote by 3 points, measured by the post-election tally of votes in House races. And they made gains in unlikely states like New York, even as Democrats prevailed in many of the races that counted most.But statewide polling in individual contests that would determine control of Congress had magnified effects, seeming to reinforce the idea of a red wave sweeping the country — which in turn reduced what proved to be a very complicated election to an oversimplified idea.Rosenberg, for one, noticed that some of the pollsters who were identifying unanticipated GOP strength in Washington state — Republican-aligned firms like Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage — were more consistently showing bigger Republican gains than the traditional pollsters were in other states.(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)In New Hampshire, nonpartisan polls by The Boston Globe and the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, showed Sen. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, holding a comfortable 8- or 10-point lead over her Republican opponent, Don Bolduc. But Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage had them in a neck-and-neck race. (She won by 9 points.)In Pennsylvania, the same two firms gave Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic Senate candidate, a smaller lead over Dr. Mehmet Oz, and eventually showed Fetterman trailing — a departure from nonpartisan polls like Marist and Fox News. (He won by nearly 5 points.)Worried that the GOP-inflected polls were wrong and were liable to persuade Democratic grassroots activists to give up rather than go out and knock on doors, Rosenberg used his podcast and his Twitter account to tell Democrats that their chances were better than they realized.His bullishness earned him ribbing and ridicule. In an August article calling him “the most optimistic Dem online,” Politico noted that at times it seemed that Rosenberg was pushing his relentlessly rosy view at “profound reputational risk.”By the fall, perceptions of a red wave were starting to affect strategies, pushing money toward mistakenly perceived trouble spots. Insiders in both parties, mindful of past errors, began to doubt their own internal polls.“We were limited in how aggressive we could get, because there was a feeling we were about to get absolutely smoked,” said Tim Persico, the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which oversees House races. “It comes down to what level of risk you are willing to take if your data is standing alone in a world where everyone else is telling you the opposite.”A case in point was Wisconsin.The state Democratic chair, Ben Wikler, was seeing private internal polling that showed his party’s Senate candidate, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, within 1 or 2 points of Sen. Ron Johnson, a right-wing Republican and purveyor of misinformation.But red-hued polling began to show Johnson pulling away. Data for Progress put the incumbent up by 5; Patriot Polling, run by the Pennsylvania high school students, had his lead at 8. By early October, RealClearPolitics was projecting that Johnson could win by as much as 7 points.Some major Democratic donors concluded that Barnes’ race was a lost cause, Wikler said, and that they should redirect their money where it could still help. “I had donors calling me to say they weren’t giving to the Senate race,” he said.Barnes lost by 1 point. While Democrats in the state debate whether more money would have made the difference — Barnes out-raised Johnson — Wikler pointed to the walloping Barnes took from outside groups supporting Johnson, which outspent those supporting Barnes by $26.4 million.“If you were going to allocate resources for maximum impact,” Wikler said ruefully, “you wouldn’t let Mandela Barnes be outspent by $26 million on independent expenditures and lose by 26,000 votes.”Polls heralding GOP victories hurt Republicans, too.Law, of the Senate Leadership Fund, relied on private polls that suggested Republican candidates needed to fight for every vote, but he watched in distress as many took victory for granted.“All of these effervescent polls and giddiness about a big red wave,” he said, “led some Republican candidates to believe all they had to do was play to late-night cable and the hard-core base, instead of reaching out to independent voters who decided the election.”His biggest frustration came in the Southwest. His internal polling showed that the GOP’s Senate candidate in Arizona, Blake Masters, faced long odds, and that the Republican hopeful in Nevada, Adam Laxalt, could win with enough financial support.Law pulled money out of Arizona. Still, as he poured cash into Nevada, moneyed allies continued to prioritize Masters, apparently trusting public polls suggesting that Laxalt had a solid advantage. Masters was defeated by more than 125,000 votes; Laxalt lost by 8,000 votes.Polling That Lifted RatingsPolls of political races weren’t just being used in 2022 to determine the state of play in those campaigns. Other agendas were also at work.Surveys creating the misimpression of a red wave proved particularly useful to right-wing media outlets. Among their audience, evidence pointing to Republican victories and Democratic defeats was in high demand — particularly on Fox News.The network’s own polling unit, respected throughout the news industry for its nonpartisanship and transparency, was not detecting a Republican wave. But in September, Sean Hannity’s prime-time show began showcasing pollsters Robert Cahaly of Trafalgar and Matt Towery of InsiderAdvantage, who predicted that Republicans would take the contests in Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia, among other places.Unmentioned was that the Fox News Poll, amply covered in the network’s straight-news programming, showed all those races leaning Democratic.(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage had long been viewed with suspicion in the polling industry for their opaque surveying methods.Cahaly and Towery have dismissed that suspicion as sour grapes. Both had gained notice in 2016 for seeing what mainstream pollsters did not: the true, and winning, strength of the Trump base.In 2022, their firms offered what the Fox News Poll could not: far more midterm surveys, and data that assured viewers their team was winning.(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)Towery declined to be interviewed but issued a brief statement acknowledging that getting it wrong “happens in this business” and noting that RealClearPolitics ranked his firm as the second-most accurate national pollster for the 2016, 2018 and 2020 cycles. Cahaly, ranked fifth in those cycles, asked to be sent written questions but did not respond to them. In a November interview with New York Magazine, he attributed his polling misses to weak Republican campaigns.Hannity, on his program, noted that he had emphasized to his audience the tight margins in competitive races. Fox News did not comment on its hosts’ use of polling.But history points to a likely explanation: ratings, which determine advertising revenue and have tended to rise and fall with Republicans’ prospects.“The culture of programming does not take kindly to narratives of ‘we’re behind’ or ‘we’re losing,’” said Jason Damata, the founder and CEO of Fabric Media, a media and advertising consultancy. “Fox has a profound understanding of what’s going to keep audiences coming back and being engaged.”(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)In 2012, Fox News ratings soared as its hosts predicted Mitt Romney would defeat President Barack Obama, then plummeted when he did not. In 2020, its ratings suffered briefly after it was the first news organization to declare Biden the winner in Arizona.By then, the Fox News audience could go elsewhere, and some did, buoying much smaller rivals at Newsmax, OAN and an expanding array of right-wing websites, online shows and podcasts.Like Fox News, those internet-based outlets relied on pro-Republican content to build their audiences. Unlike Fox News, they were not tethered to news operations that subscribe to traditional journalistic standards.This year, many presented the “red wave” as an absolute certainty.In fact, while Towery was making guest appearances on Fox News, many of his polls were sponsored by a conservative group called the Center for American Greatness — whose founder, Chris Buskirk, had also advised a super PAC supporting Masters in Arizona.Perhaps no platform gave more oxygen to the notion of a once-in-a-generation red wave than Bannon’s show “War Room,” a six-day-a-week podcast and streaming web show popular on the right.Often citing polling from Trafalgar and aggregations by RealClearPolitics, Bannon repeatedly predicted a pickup of 50 to 100 House seats for Republicans in the midterms.He also relied heavily on a pollster named Richard Baris, whose polling firm was given an “F” rating and banned by FiveThirtyEight. Baris consistently forecast a Republican landslide. “The levee’s about to break,” he said in mid-October.Baris did not respond to requests for comment. In an interview, Bannon said that “all the outside pollsters were clearly off,” adding, “Clearly, you can’t depend on polling being a referendum anymore.”(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)It is unclear whether such optimism is useful in motivating audiences to vote. Operatives in both parties have long debated whether confident predictions of victory inspire people to want to join the winning bandwagon, or breed complacency under the assumption that victory is already in hand.(BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM.)But Bannon applied that bullishness to another purpose: In the final two weeks of the campaign, he had more than two dozen candidates for office on “War Room” and urged his listeners to donate to them.Also exploiting red wave polling to raise money was Trump, who cited it in dozens of appeals for his Save America PAC.“The latest 2022 polls show that we are in a very good position to win big,” read one email, citing FiveThirtyEight and pointing to Senate races in five states — four of which Republicans ultimately lost.Democrats, too, exploited the red wave narrative to raise money.“What if I told you that a new poll has me TIED with my opponent,” Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, who would go on to win by nearly 5 points, wrote to supporters in late October.Whatever such pleas accomplished in generating donations, they drummed the idea of a red wave directly into the email inboxes of millions of Americans, making it that much harder to escape.(END OPTIONAL TRIM.)‘Red Wave’ Trickles AshoreBy late October, the Republican wave had surged into a “red tsunami,” a phrase uttered nearly 4,000 times that month on radio, television and podcasts, according to media tracking firm Critical Mention — a more than tenfold increase from September. References to a red tsunami nearly doubled again in the first eight days of November.The notion of a Republican rout fed a sense of Democratic bearishness that seeped into campaign war rooms, and even the offices of Biden’s lead 2020 pollster, John Anzalone.In an interview, Anzalone attributed his concerns to the tight margins many Democrats faced. “Were we all a little pessimistic about how the undecided vote was going to break? Yeah,” he said, noting how undecided voters have historically broken against the president’s party during midterms. “That didn’t happen this time. Does that make us wrong? Not if we showed it was a toss-up to begin with.”An idea that had begun on the fringes of the right — and been given credence by some nonpartisan national polls — had now taken hold among Democrats, whose fears were amplified by mainstream news organizations. By mid-October, headlines blared a series of dire warnings about a “red tsunami” and how the “Democrats’ feared red October has arrived.”“We thought for a little bit that we could defy gravity, but the reality is setting in,” Sean McElwee, the executive director of Data for Progress, told the Times.The gloomy polling averages and red wave headlines drove many Democratic officials into a defensive crouch.“Our internal numbers were actually really accurate,” said Ali Lapp, the executive director of the House Majority PAC, which spent more than $180 million to help Democratic congressional candidates in 2022. “The problem was that nobody dared to believe them.”She added, “Our insistence that we had a 50-50 shot of holding the majority wasn’t backed up by the media, and so many donors decided that they would put their late money toward Senate races instead.”Watching it all unfold from his offices in northwest Washington, Tom Bonier, the CEO of TargetSmart, a Democratic data clearinghouse, worried about the damage being done by overly Republican-leaning polls.He was certain Democrats were on track to have a surprisingly good year, as liberal and moderate voters alike protested the Supreme Court’s striking down of a federal right to abortion and rejected as too extreme many Republican candidates who continued to deny the results of the 2020 presidential race.But Bonier feared “the extent to which perception drives reality,” he said in a post-election interview.Perceptions of a looming red wave bred stories that sought to explain it, theorizing that voters cared more about crime and the price of gas than, say, abortion.Bonier saw a devious logic. He said he suspected that GOP-aligned firms were pumping out polls to help Republicans regain momentum that had shifted toward the Democrats.“That was the point of this red wave polling surge,” he said.As Bonier and Rosenberg pleaded with Democrats not to let unreliable polls dissuade them from donating to campaigns or knocking on doors, they repeatedly ran into skepticism from people citing the averages on RealClearPolitics and FiveThirtyEight.But the averages were being affected by a widening imbalance between a dwindling number of reliable, reputable nonpartisan polls, and a proliferation of questionable surveys.FiveThirtyEight itself flagged the imbalance: “Compared with past cycles, polls in 2022 are more likely to be sponsored or associated with partisan sources,” an article on the site said in October. “This is a problem because partisan polls tend to be more inaccurate.”(STORY CAN END HERE. OPTIONAL MATERIAL FOLLOWS.)The imbalance arose in part from an industrywide challenge. Traditional surveys using over-the-phone interviews, with human beings asking the questions, have grown astronomically more expensive as Americans become harder to reach and less willing to sit through time-consuming questionnaires with strangers.Reputable pollsters like Gallup and Pew have phased out “horse race” polling entirely; others have cut back. Quinnipiac University conducted just a few statewide surveys in the final stretch this year. “Frankly, cost is an issue,” said Doug Schwartz, Quinnipiac’s polling director.At the same time, it has never been easier or cheaper to conduct lesser-quality polls using internet questionnaires or automated phone services.One newcomer to the industry that illustrated the low barrier to entry was Patriot Polling, incorporated in September in suburban Philadelphia by two high school juniors.The pair — Lucca Ruggieri, 17, who identifies as a Republican, and Arhan Kaul, 16, who is more interested in data science than politics — met at a program for future leaders, joked about how terrible polling had been in recent elections and decided to take a stab at it themselves. At worst, they figured, they would bolster their college applications.A statistics teacher and local Republicans and Democrats gave them pointers. Ruggieri’s father agreed to pay for the automated phone calls, at about $2,500 a poll — compared with tens of thousands of dollars for polls relying on live interviews.The first survey they published was among the first in the nation to give Oz a lead over Fetterman. It caught the attention of FiveThirtyEight, which, after inquiring about their methodology, began to publish their results.Ruggieri was bowled over. “I wouldn’t think they would look at high schoolers,” he said.When critics questioned FiveThirtyEight for taking the youngsters’ polls seriously, an election analyst at the site called the critique “ageist,” saying “students can do awesome work.” Indeed, Patriot’s poll for the New York governor’s race roughly reflected the outcome, and its survey in the Arizona Senate race came closer to the final result than those of Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage.To Rosenberg and Bonier, teenagers weren’t responsible for the false red wave narrative — it was partisan pollsters, who flooded the market with outlier results and were abetted by the keepers of the polling averages.“We can’t trust the data on RealClearPolitics or FiveThirtyEight any longer,” Rosenberg complained on MSNBC in late October, “because it’s essentially Republican propaganda.”Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight’s founder, dismissed Rosenberg’s criticism by suggesting he was smoking Democratic “hopium,” saying on the site’s politics podcast that FiveThirtyEight’s model was devised to account for pollsters’ partisanship.Besides, he suggested, Democrats could always put their own credibility on the line by publishing their own equally partisan polls. Silver did not respond to repeated requests for comment.To Rosenberg’s consternation, while Democratic-leaning pollsters generally kept their numbers to themselves, one liberal group that did release its polls, Data for Progress, was reporting some results that resembled those of GOP-leaning firms, giving the red wave narrative a bipartisan imprimatur.After the election, detractors seized on earlier statements by the firm’s chief, McElwee, that he had been placing bets on the campaign in betting markets — at the very least, they believed, creating the appearance of a conflict. The firm and McElwee, who was forced out after the election, denied that his gambling affected its work product — he said he viewed it as a way to gauge accuracy — and blamed methods devised in previous election cycles to avoid undercounting Trump supporters.For their part, Ruggieri and Kaul, the Pennsylvania high school juniors, imparted some lessons they had learned before heading off on winter vacation.Kaul said polling should be used to “enhance analysis,” not in place of it. “It’s meant to give you a better look,” he said.Ruggieri boiled it down even more: “I think people should pay less attention to the polls.”This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Washington lawmakers secure $464 million in congressional earmarks while North Idaho’s representatives opt out
WASHINGTON – When members of Congress passed a $1.7 trillion spending bill last week to fund the government for most of 2023, they included more than $15 billion in funds directed to specific projects in communities across the country, including more than $464 million to Washington, according to disclosures from appropriators.
We the People: As head of Appropriations Committee, Patty Murray hopes to be role model for more effective Congress
Each week, The Spokesman-Review examines one question from the Naturalization Test immigrants must pass to become United States citizens.
Northwest lawmakers applaud Ukraine’s Zelenskyy in historic address to Congress
WASHINGTON – In a historic address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, exactly 300 days after Russia invaded his country, Ukraine’s president thanked U.S. lawmakers for their support and urged them to continue the humanitarian and military aid that has bolstered his country’s defense.
Murray, Schrier, WA Dems got campaign money from indicted FTX founder
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier and the Washington State Democratic Party received political donations from indicted cryptocurrency entrepreneur Samuel Bankman-Fried, who federal prosecutors say used embezzled money to contribute to political campaigns.