Looks like the Beaverton School District's funding measure is going to crash and burn without the double majority needed. That's too bad. I heard on OPB radio today that they're getting 700 new students each year. At that rate they'd need to be building a new school every other year or less just to keep up.

Any idea how many other school funding measures are going to lose because of the turnout?

Oh... my money is on Kulingoski to win for the reasons cited by Bergstein.

Compared to many other places, it is so easy to vote in Oregon. You can do it day over the course of a few weeks. If you do it sufficiently early, you can even drop it in the mail. Even if you wait until tonight or tomorrow, you can still use drop sites; I could see these being inconvienent in rural areas, but most Portland-area residents have no such excuse. I don't understand how people could be so lazy.

That should say "any day over the course of a few weeks".

The larger question, in a time a great political uncertainty, is why is Oregon's voter turnout this low to begin with?

Due to the lower turnout we are going to see more than the Governor's race be a surprise...

We are a severed country, yet, we continue to have apathy. That's a real big problem, especially since the right, while battered, and beaten of late, continue to get away with murder. Each day, it gets worse.

I think the turnout is a wake up call that we have to be more active on the ground, all the time, in neighborhoods, and regions that have and haven't been traditional targets for campaigns. All bets are off.

This has nothing to do with the 2006 Oregon primary, but 20 years ago this month, a relatively young, unknown, right-wing, ultra-conservative pastor from suburban Clackamas County named Joe Lutz got 40 percent of the vote against US Sen. Bob Packwood in the Republican primary.

I always think of that 1986 race when the subject of 'most conservative Republicans' and 'most liberal Democrats" comes up when talking about primaries.

Completely off the subject (sorry Kari):

That election is memorable because it was the first election in which I was old enough to vote. My polling place was the central branch of the Multnomah County library in downtown Portland. I remember voting for:

Neil Goldschmidt for governor. Rick Bauman for US senator. Vera Katz for state representative. Margaret Straun for Portland city commissioner.

Multnomah County commissioner Gordon Shadburne, who was runing for re-eIection, was linked just days earlier in the press to some sort of sex orgy. I don't remember the specifics, who his opponents were or for whom I voted. I may have voted for Shadburne. I had the hormones of an 18 year-old, after all. Anyone who could get some (and more) couldn't be all that that bad, I must have thought.

I also remember the top 'NYT' story in the box in front of the library that day being the Oregon Episcopal School/Mt. Hood climbing tragedy

I'm offically old.

I had some ideas about the 2nd CD race, but the low turnout probably makes mincemeat of them. I wouldn't even hazzard a guess. Chuck

Good luck, Chuck.

I'll bet y'all "dollars to donuts" more Portlanders voted for American Idol last week than vote in today's election.

If Channel 12 is reading, hardly likely, it'd be a GREAT story.

Very very sad, but great.

Paul,

You made a great point. Hill's Campaign made a huge error. To De-seat an incumbant you must do two things. 1.) Prove he needs to be replaced. 2.) Show you are a better devil then the one people already know.

Oregonians already thought Kulongoski was a Democrat-light. Hill should have focused on his record not bashing Ted. It cost him the election. Oops.

"Lots of cream, lots of sugar."

I second Jack R's analysis. I think Hill comes dangerously close, perhaps "we have to wait till the wee hours to know for sure" close to Kulongoski.

I think it's a fairly simple formula:

Union GOTV + Disaffected Activist Urban D base + historic low voter turn out = Hill coming in north of 40 %.

Speaking to the turnout issue, I can tell you that the student government at PSU is shooting for 1600 PSU student ballots. There are 25,000 plus students at PSU and the average age of student is about 28 years old. I think we're still shy of the goal.

Most student activists have been tied up in the immigration issue rather than working for candidates's campaigns.

I haven't voted yet because I got sent a Democratic primary ballot after re-registering non-affiliated when I signed Westlund's petition, and I haven't had time to go down to 1041 SE Morrison to straighten it out, if it can be straightend out in a timely manner. If not, I'll probably vote for Hill, not that I'm that much enamored with him. I think it would be interesting to set up a three-way race between a liberal (though Hill isn't all that liberal), centerist (which is what Westlund will turn out to be) and a right wing nutjo--er, conservative.

The race that interests me is Sten-Burdick-et al. And whether Sten wins it now or has to face a run-off. As a voter who is very close to the average age cited by John Calhoun, I don't think I'm alone in supporting Sten. Northwest Portland and the eastside bungalow belt will turn out in higher numbers than the rest of the city, and that's Sten's territory.

Low turnout may push the Listerines up in the standings, and thereby enhance Jack Bog's rep, but I still doubt that Lister hits double digits.

For Len, Kevin, and Winston... Low turn-out hurts Ted.....and really helps Jim Hill... The passionate union voters are the only ones voting in the primary....the other Dems are not voting, because they think Ted has it in the bag.. The recent polls cited are also wrong...

Wait until tomorrow morning... Ted 41% Jim 43% Pete 16%

This is my nonscientific poll....which is about as accurate as Len, or any other other polls...

Robert,

Are you drinking Kool-Aid? If yes, that would explain why you are hopelessly defending a man who will be lucky to pull 40%.

Also...can I have some?

"I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems...may I come in?"

Robert & Jack, the glaring problem that I see with your argument is that it ignores school levies around the state. Lots of those same citizens who don't much care about politics have kids in public schools and will be motivated to "turn out" just on that basis alone. That's not to say that they will constitute a majority of the turn out. But, it's a significant motivating factor that you've overlooked and which doesn't fit into your assumptions.

Can anybody argue that all 17 percent of those polling for Sorenson won't turn out? Who the hell knows who he is except for those who are dedicated, committed voters. If he is polling so high with registered voters, one could only assume that his numbers would be twice as high when the voter turnout is in the 40-45% range. It would shock me if most of those out there who say they are going to vote for him don't, where it wouldn't shock me if a lot of K voters stay home. Same goes for Hill. You call a good union member and ask them who they will vote for, the say hill, but lets face it, not all unioners are politicos and they just don't give a damn. I think it is appauling that even on this site, Pete hasn't been given a fair shake, and I am not even a staunch supporter. Only a few people who know me, know I voted for him. When asked who I think is good I say, "Pete is the best on the issues, Jim would be the best Governor/Manager, and Teddy is the best candidate, and then I leave it up to the person to decide what they want out of a candidate.

Can anybody argue that all 17 percent of those polling for Sorenson won't turn out? Who the hell knows who he is except for those who are dedicated, committed voters. If he is polling so high with registered voters, one could only assume that his numbers would be twice as high when the voter turnout is in the 40-45% range. It would shock me if most of those out there who say they are going to vote for him don't, where it wouldn't shock me if a lot of K voters stay home. Same goes for Hill. You call a good union member and ask them who they will vote for, the say hill, but lets face it, not all unioners are politicos and they just don't give a damn. I think it is appauling that even on this site, Pete hasn't been given a fair shake, and I am not even a staunch supporter. Only a few people who know me, know I voted for him. When asked who I think is good I say, "Pete is the best on the issues, Jim would be the best Governor/Manager, and Teddy is the best candidate, and then I leave it up to the person to decide what they want out of a candidate.

For all of those wondering about low turnout, I was thinking about a study (maybe it was a book) some years ago ---research on the effect of negative campaigns.

It was not long after those advertising professionals took out that full page ad after a particularly nasty election year (questioning whether candidates were criminals and other slimy tricks like that) and thought their industry (the one that advertises goods and services) had been maligned. They said "call them attacks or political dirty tricks, but DON'T CALL IT ADVERTISING!"

The study (awhile ago, as I said) was along the lines that there was not direct correlation that if, for instance, Joe Jones attacked Sue Smith that Joe would beat Sue in a landslide. What they found was something quite different--Joe's supporters would turn out (if they weren't turned off by the ads), Sue's supporters would be really angry and double their efforts on the campaign as well as voting. BUT, the great middle, the ones who had no connection to Joe or Sue might just get disgusted and say "Politicians are all alike" and not vote.

That, folks, is not apathy. That is anger at the process with people deliberately deciding not to vote. Same with cases where people return their ballots without all the ballot lines filled out. It might be "that judge or other position is not contested and I never heard of that person so why vote?. It might be what I did for state rep. last time--couldn't vote for the incumbent but was underwhelmed by the challenger who hadn't really campaigned.

And then there are those who say something like "Gosh! I am so busy! The election is THIS Tuesday? I won't get back from my business trip until Thursday!"

Not everyone watches television (some watch maybe 3 shows a week on broadcast TV and seldom watch the local news).

Seems to me it is the job of campaigns to reach those people in other ways (door to door being one of them). Someone who proposes solutions which get talked about in social circles would be a nice thing to see (I suspect that is part of Westlund's appeal).

And it seems to me that candidates who inspire the public are more likely to get people to pay attention sufficiently so they mark election day on the calendar or whatever.

Assuming the early projects on turnout remain correct (and of course they may not) what about all that talk a couple of weeks ago about how Vote-By-Mail increases turnout? Anne Martens, do you have a comment?

There is one possible alternative: That there are a huge number of Westlund supporters who haven't cast a ballot, but that would appear to not be very likely.