The experts don't think Ted is threatened.

At Campaigns & Elections magazine - a trade rag for political consultants - they did a poll and asked one question: “Which currently Democratic-held governor’s seat is most likely to change hands in 2006?”

What did the insiders and experts say?

By a large margin, nearly twice that of the second-place finisher, 37 percent of site visitors cast their vote for Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. ... Finishing in second place, with 19 percent, was Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle. ... Maine Gov. John Baldacci finished third in C&E’s poll with 15 percent of the vote. ... Fourteen percent of site visitors chose Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich as the most endangered incumbent. ... Only 12 percent of site visitors picked Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski as the governor most likely to lose this November.

Read the rest. Discuss.

Comments

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Polling with Ted has been running tighter than with these other governors from what I've seen. So I'm wondering what numbers they are looking at that we don't know of.

  • future salem staffer (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The argument that is being made with this article is specious. Just because Ted is less likely than other govenors to get the boot doesn't mean that he will be spared from the voter's wrath. From where I sit, I see a disenchanted grassroots, weak t.v. commercials, and a lot of moderates looking for the slightest excuse to vote for someone else. We really shouldn't be taking this race for granted like the headline implies. Be afraid that there might be Republican "Govener" sworn in in 2007.

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I know one thing abotu Oregon and that is that if we work our asses off we'll almost certainly win and if we don't who the f-k knows. So, as Kari has said repeatedly, never rest, never tire, never stop. For the next 17 days make as many phone calls, canvass tripps, lit drops, GOTV efforts, etc. as you possibly can.

    It sounds hackneyed and simplified but it matters greatly. We have a political system that is a zero-sum game in elections, so therefore we must we can and we will win.

  • humm dinger (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I LOVE C & E !! Problem is, less than 1% of their highly educated readership can even find Oregon on a map of the West coast. This one is meaningless.. work work work !! Carrie

  • randy davis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    check it out if ou missed it

  • (Show?)

    When is Saxton planning on making his move? He doesn't have the votes as it stands. The structure is against him--registration disadvantage, incumbency, likely imbalanced partisan turnout--and people don't like him, or at best don't dislike him any worse than Ted himself.

  • David (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree Torrid. I think he's stalled. He additionally ahs the problem of being a Portland based R in a state where the R base is no big fan of PDX to say the list.

    That being said, it's still possible he could win of course at this point.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The internal polling I've seen shows Saxton with negative favorable/unfavorable ratings. He is not well liked or not known at all. I'm not impressed with his ads. And having your wife singing your praises for pete's sake in Hallmark coloring... sheesh... He is only popular with the country club Repugs. The social conservatives knows he views them with contempt. Nevertheless we have to point out the differences and get our folks motivated.

  • James J (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If we motivate, activate, energize & GOTV, we will win with Progressives across the state, including Governor Kulongoski and the targeted Legislative races.

    Thousands of new voters have been registered: younger voters, Hispanic voters and those pissed off at CheneyBushCo despotism. We must do everything possible to encourage those new voters to vote Progressive.

    Let's get creative and fun with our motivating...like the folks involved with the amazing Bus Project and Defend Oregon have been doing.

    Get out and talk to people, pass out campaign material in the strees, at coffee shops, malls & campuses.

    Above all let's persuade people to VOTE IN THEIR OWN INTEREST! Help them to know that creeps like Saxton represent the 1-2% of the most wealthy among us and the megacorporations, NOT the vast majority of citizens.

    Tell voters to look at where the big corporate money is being spent, then ask them to vote for the Progressives who truly represent them.

    Remind voters who the genuine non-profit, public interest, environmental, pro-labor and civil/human rights organizations are endorsing: the Progressives!

    Thanks for anything any of you are doing out there to educate, advocate, energize and get out the Progressive vote. That's all we should think about in the next two weeks! Fight the tendency to become over confident or complacent.

    Peace & Justice! James J. Eugene

  • Tana P. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is what bothers me. We register lots of people that will just never turn out. Plus, a lot of our registations don't make a lot of sense, bad names, addresses and so forth. We register everything that says they're not registered or need updating. Doesn't matter that we run up 15,000 "new registrations" that are problems themselves, when the Oregon Republican League machine register 7,000 -10,000 (whatever it is now) that will actually vote. I'm a good piece worried here. Tana

  • James Mattiace (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am also a fan of C & E and a little disappointed that they took down the "oddsmaker".

    That being said, I am quite a bit skeptical of the national folks making predictions about Oregon. This state is a unique blend, and the voters may just give Dems the House and Senate, and put the Governor in Republican hands. They'll probably also reject 48, but pass 41. I can also see 46 passing and 47 failing.

    Its discouraging and not entirely logical, but it's happened plenty of times. Likewise, Springfield voters will probably reject the operating levy for the new jail they just approved a bond to build (exactly what happened with the juvenile justice center in the 90s)

    James Mattiace Also in Eugene

  • gobytrain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm worried too, so keep in mind that it's a numbers game.

    Mention the Governor's name in line to the grocery store clerk (they have to be polite), the bank clerk, the postman, the barista. Even if it's only to remind people to vote, more voters mean more democrats.

    Prepare a tag-line that you're comfortable with, make it humorous ("vote early and vote often") or serious ("can't trust 'em with the country, can't trust 'em with our kids, can we?), but use it to show your enthusiasm for our candidate and the process everywhere you go.

    Our competitors are not embarrassed to espouse the most outlandish nonsense, so don't be demure in our passion for our hard-working representatives. If you yell louder and less self consciously for your football team than your candidate, you need to reassess your priorities.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    gobytrain has a point.

    The "professionals" who read C & E magazine won't be deciding this election. It will be decided by the votes of the postal employee, the store clerk, bank clerk, barista, etc.

    And it may be decided by something as simple as whose voice they want to hear for the next 4 years ("that Saxton has a whiny voice" ) or his attitude about answering questions ("in my job I have to answer any question asked, be courteous, pay attention to details and he doesn't answer questions so why should I vote for him?").

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As disappointing as his tenure as governor has been and as mismanaged as his campaign for re-election has been, Guv K still has incumbency going for him. He can also count on the vast majority of Democrats, while being very upset with him, holding their noses and voting for him since Saxton is no alternative for them.

    That, along with a number of votes that will be cast for third-party candidates which otherwise would have gone Saxton’s way, spells a win for Ted in a close race.

  • (Show?)

    If by 5 means "close," I think Buckman is right on here.

  • Erik Sorensen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Polls are just fun and that is about it. Actually, polls are a lot like trolls, mostly worthless in the large picture. People who are gonna sit by and wait for the polls are probably going to wake up on November 8th to see a House and Senate still controlled by Republicans and Ron Saxton as the new Governor of Oregon.

    As for Carrie's comment,

    I LOVE C & E !! Problem is, less than 1% of their highly educated readership can even find Oregon on a map of the West coast. This one is meaningless..

    So true

  • captain dandy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was unaware that Ted has a voice LT. I could never get a response from him regarding leaving folks with developmental disabilities on a waitlist for help. In fact, I lodged a complaint about his neglect with Protective Services, but they covered quite well for him. As for Ron; I vividly recall him retreating to a back room without saying anything at all when confronted by the Education Crisis Team at a PPS school board meeting a few years back. We knew he'd run for governor at some point, and Ronnie Herndon called after him that it wouldn't be an easy task when he finally did. Both these guys are talking up a storm now, but when they should have had plenty to say, chose instead to be silent. I think Ted is threatened more by the results of the last 4 years of his life than by his opponent.

  • gobytrain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree LT!

    "That Saxton sure does have a whiney voice" would actually get more milage than, "While on the school board, Saxton voted to spend over $3 million for new office furniture and travel for administrators, while cutting programs for students and eliminating over 50 teaching positions"

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    gobytrain- talking to everyone is pretty much the stupidest idea to get a Democrat elected with poor approval ratings. Elections are not about the shotgun approach, they are about the sniper approach. Sure maybe in downtown PDX you want to talk to everyone, since 80% are going to vote Democratic anyway...but try to apply that to Salem, Bend, Medford. That's not how local Democrats get elected...and that's not how Ted will get elected in '06. Outside of the PDX-metro area, conversations have to be targetted. That's why campaigns produce walking lists for their canvassers; they select voters who have a higher likelyhood of voting for or being convinced of voting for their candidate. No campaign I know sends canvassers out into a neighborhood without a map and a list and says...knock on every door you see. There's a reason for that, and it's the same reason we don't try to activate everyone and their mother. Oh, and if you want proof...just look at the 2004 election. High voter turn out, ACT was talking to everyone and their mother, GOTV was insane (people getting 3-5 calls/night), and Bush still won. More voters does not equal a Democratic win.

  • gobytrain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think you missed my point and it sounds like you're suggesting that we should just sneak our candidate in under their noses. I don't belive that's how anyone gets elected.

    My suggestion was actually partly inspried from a story Howard Dean told at the rally last week (too long to get into) and a quote from his blog that if we, "are willing to ask for the vote in Republican-leaning areas, not just Democratic areas -- you can win."

    The really only reason for targeted canvassing is simply because parties have to use their limited resources strategiclly. I'm suggesting to use one's own resources strategiclly as well. This task should actually be easier for Democrats since they are the majority of registered voters.

    I also think that your "proof" actually supports my argument. The republican party did exactly what I'm suggesting, despite Bush's poor approval rating, and fuled their base. They not only "asked" for votes, they put a moral imperitive on not voting for their candidate. Your the first person I've heard suggest that we lost in '04 because we over rallied the vote.

    PS: Let's leave the name calling to the Republicans, they're better at it, and it's not sexy.

  • Mister Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If this isn't a nail-biter of a race, then why do suppose Kari keeps pounding away on "Saxtonville"?

  • gobytrain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ah, Mister Tee, you've evolved into incorporating the three letter word (w-h-y) into your provocations. I'm proud of you!

    Considering the mess that the republican party has made of the country, we're hotly aware of the stakes in this election.

    All over the country incumbent Republicans are getting the boot because of their lack of fiscal responsibility, moral ambiguity and cronyism that has cost lives (New Orleans) and money (where should I start?).

    So yes, such a model in Oregon gives us shivers, even with a twenty-point spread.

  • Stacey Dycus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "are willing to ask for the vote in Republican-leaning areas, not just Democratic areas -- you can win."

    Sure, but as JTT points out it is how you ask for the vote. As someone who has worked red zones for 10 years, I can say it takes a different kind of messaging here- guns as an example. Plus, tactics in rural areas have to be different, you can't do doors when people live acres apart. It's a lot more complex than asking for their vote. It has to start with investment in rural candidates- (this is a plug for everyone to give to a Democrat house candidate oustide the I-5)

    <h2>But to the topic, Ted won Bend last time, but Ron has some real momentum here in central Oregon, he is not as scary as Mannix was and the Bend Bulletn endorsed Ron last weekend. I'm getting mail almost daily from Ron. A concern for Ted is that GOTV efforts will not be on the level of past years because there are no real hot local races driving D turn-out.</h2>
elsewhere

connect with blueoregon