Could Jeff Merkley Beat Gordon Smith?
Note: This is the final of a three-part series of posts on the possible candidacy of Jeff Merkley for US Senator. Earlier, I wrote about his job as speaker and background and experience.
I spent the past couple posts talking about the impressive background Jeff Merkley would bring to a race against Gordon Smith. There's very little debate that he has the experience and skill to be a successful US Senator. The real question is whether he could beat Smith. Of course, they have elections to answer those kinds of questions, but based on a number of factors, I think Merkley is one of the strongest candidates Democrats could run against the incumbent. Here's why.
The Numbers
Let's start with the actual data points--past elections and polling--which augur good things for Dems in a bid to unseat Smith. First, the obvious: this is a Democratic State. Since 2000, there have been 12 statewide elections (including President), and the Democrats have won 11. Smith's victory over Bill Bradbury in 2002 was the lone exception.
Not only have Dems been winning, but they've been winning by bigger and bigger margins. Compare the results of the 2004 Presidential election with the 2006 Governor's results. It was essentially a two-person race, and Kerry won with just a four-point margin, 51.3% to 47.2%. In 2006, the three minor-party candidates took 6.4% of the vote, but Kulongoski--regarded by Republicans at the time as a weak incumbent ripe for the picking--won with an eight-point margin, 50.8% to 42.8%. Even more impressively, he improved on Kerry's percentage in 26 of 36 Oregon counties--despite losing votes to the three minor-party candidates. And Kerry and Kulongoski both did better than Gore and Kulongoski in comparable earlier elections. No matter how you slice it, the trends favor Democrats.
Other general data bear out the Democratic shift: party registration and voter self-identification are now tilting in favor of the Dems. Non-affiliated voters have turned away from Republicans. The current state of the national Republican Party has created voter backlash. Based on the corruption charges against Bush, the Iraq war, and general GOP-fatigue, it is very unlikely that voters will turn back toward the GOP before the election, which should give Democrats an advantage in fundraising and turnout.
And finally, Gordon Smith's poll numbers continue to erode. In June, for the first time in over two years, his approval/disapproval numbers were in a statistical dead heat (47%-45%). This slide has been evident for the past few months and continues to worsen. Perhaps worst for Smith, his numbers among Democrats and independents remain relatively high. Forty-six percent of independents support him and 42% of Dems (presidential approval, by comparison, is 22% and 9%, respectively). That leaves a lot of room for erosion in a competitive race. And a recent DSCC poll, where Smith's approval was at just 37% and his re-elect is a dismal 34%, suggests erosion may be starting already.
Statewide Appeal
For a lot of people commenting on BlueOregon and elsewhere, Jeff Merkley isn't a "first tier" candidate simply because he's not well-known statewide. If this is true, it may be an advantage. A number of Democrats with star power carry a lot of baggage with them. Candidates like Earl Blumenauer and Bill Bradbury definitely have better name recognition, but in many parts of the state, this amounts to mistrust they would have to overcome.
Merkley, on the other hand, is mostly a tabula rasa candidate. He can expect at least some measure of open-mindedness by voters. That gives him the opportunity to tell his story--one that doesn't sound like the traditional Portland Democrat. Merkley was born in Southern Oregon and lived there until grade school. His father was a mill worker, and the family moved not to Portland's urban core, but the outer Southeast, where he attended David Douglas High School. And that's the district he currently represents.
During his time in the Legislature, he didn't feud with rural districts, or even ignore them. Instead, he led a tour of rural districts to find out what kind of blow they might take if the Feds pulled their funding. He has an ease and comfort in small towns, and understands the issues and pressures confronting rural Oregonians. It's not just a superficial act; Merkley has a natural "Oregonian" quality that is evident in his manner (here's a clip where he talks about the rural tour).
Democratic Candidates don't have to win rural counties like Linn and Malheur to win statewide elections, but they have to do well enough so that their totals in populous Democratic counties carry the day. Merkley will naturally appeal to the voters across the state who cast ballots for Ted Kulongoski and Ron Wyden.
A Good Uppercut
Steve Novick cleverly jokes that he has a great left hook. Humor aside, it's a recognition that this is going to be a serious campaign, and any Democrat who hopes to win will have to go into the race ready to fight. Merkley, generally regarded as a squeaky-clean politician, fights fair, but he fights. But when tight elections lead to ugly smears, Merkley has shown he won't back down.
Recall that last year, Karen Minnis used her vast war chest to smear Rob Brading in an effort to hold her seat. Her allegations were either outright lies or highly creative mischaracterizations, and they were ugly. So, when Democrats learned that there was a skeleton in Minnis's closet, they decided to strike, issuing this ad in late October. It was brutal, but Merkley, who was in the decision-making process about whether to air the ad, doesn't apologize for it. Unlike Minnis's attacks, it was legitimate, if equally bare-knuckled. When Kerry was swift-boated in 2004, Dems were sick that he didn't fight back. If Smith pulls the same tactics out of the Rove playbook, Merkley will punch back hard.
National Backing
No matter how strong Dems are becoming in Oregon or how bad Gordon Smith's poll numbers get, it's unlikely that a challenger will be able to beat him without backing from the national party. The RNC knows how vulnerable Smith is, and the party will do what it can to keep the seat. The candidate who ultimately faces him needs to have national party backing, and I was delighted to hear that Merkley has already spoken with Chuck Schumer, the chair of the DSCC, about a possible run. Merkley's talent has been recognized on a national level, and the party appears ready to back him. (And that backing is likely to be huge. In 2006, the DSCC poured on $6 million to help Claire McCaskill defeat Jim Talent. And rumors abound that the number in Oregon might be as high as $5 million in 2008.)
The time for a Democrat to defeat Gordon Smith may never be as ripe. Jeff Merkley is the kind of candidate to appeal to a statewide electorate, he'll fight the good fight, and he'll have the backing, locally and nationally, to mount the kind of campaign that can defeat Smith. Right now he is a relatively unknown candidate, but he won't remain unknown for long if he decides to run. Short of Peter DeFazio, whose statewide appeal is the best among potential candidates, I think Jeff Merkley is the most likely to put together a winning campaign.
I've spent three posts now talking about why I hope Jeff Merkley decides to run. He's smart, experienced, talented, and likable. But he's also a good guy. I was initially drawn to him for his canny handling of the legislature, but it is his interest in good governance that has really carried the day for me. After a generation of GOP rule that has left us poorer, less well, less safe, and more divided, we need candidates of Jeff Merkley's caliber to fix the damage. Oregon would be very well represented. I hope he runs.
|
July 18, 2007 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (130 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Jul 18, 2007 10:33:01 AM
I think whoever the Democrats nominate will be highly competitive against Senator 'Salmon-killer' Smith. I foresee Smith's political fortunes as well as those of the Republican party continuing their death spiral until well past the next election cycle. Momentum is on our side. We just need to do the hard work necessary to achieve victory.
Posted by: BlueNote | Jul 18, 2007 10:37:01 AM
Merkley would seem to have an advantage over Novick in that many more people outside the Dem. activist community have heard of him and from what I understand, Merkley's politics are more likely to gain financial support from the mostly moderate Dems who control the national Dem party and the DSCC.
I still find it very hard to believe that if Gordo is as wounded and weak as has been suggested elsewhere, that the "big boys" of Oregon politics are going to let Novick or Merkley skip over them and into office as a US Senator. Of course, I am the same guy who could not believe the Dems would nominate pro-war Hillary, and that is looking more and more like a done deal with every passing day. Yikes!
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 18, 2007 10:53:27 AM
Peter, your vitriol about Merkley continues to mystify. I'd characterize the argument thus:
1. Oregon is a Democratic state, and voters are becoming more pro-Dem;
2. That Merkley isn't well-known is an advantage over so-called "first tier" candidates like Earl Blumenauer and Bill Bradley, who are famously hated in many parts of the state;
3. Merkley's orientation isn't Portland-centric, and unlike some Portland politicians, he will be comfortable campaigning in rural districts;
4. Merkley is a tough campaigner;
5. Merkley is almost certain to be backed by national Dems.
Again, if he is to win, he'll need to raise and spend on the order of several million dollars. You appear to think he's weak purely by virtue of his low name recognition. Explain to me how, after spending 5 million dollars, he's going to be unknown in this state?
You either forget or ignore the fact that Smith himself won the Senate seat straight out of the legislature. Was he the towering public figure you imagine the Dems need to run to win?
Come off it.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Jul 18, 2007 10:54:11 AM
Can Candidate X beat Gordon Smith?
My prediction is "yes." Smith has betrayed the people's trust. I didn't vote to elect him, but he did get my vote for re-election.
Now you can dump on me all you want. I've been reading BlueOregon long enough to view many pissing matches here of Olympic proportions. What is important to recognize however are the stats cited by Jeff above. A significant number of (D)'s and (I)'s still give Smith a favorable rating. It's possible that he might manage to keep their support and even win their votes if he is perceived as the Republican who managed to tip the balance and end the war. Here's what Smith won't have in 2008: The power of a committee chairmanship, the trust of voters who believed he couldn't separate his religious faith from his legislative duty,
and my vote.
I contributed to Draft DeFazio, Steve Novick and Stop.Gordon.Smith.com (and will be sending the latter another small check shortly to thank the trolls who lurk around BlueO). The point is, i'm not alone. And the extent to which more Blue Oregonians join me on this road to Damascus has a lot to do with how we conduct ourselves here.
Can Merkley win? Hell ya. And so can Novick. But as this post makes abundantly clear, we've got a real fight on our hands. Thankfully, the grass roots seem to have more fight in them than the Democratic leadership.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 18, 2007 11:02:34 AM
If we really believe that great candidates can't participate in politics unless they are a member of the wealthy elite/insiders circle - then we need to work our butts off to make that NOT be so. We should not accept that. If you want to accept it - fine - but stand aside while the rest of us actually work for a different result. The audacity of hope, right? Audacity is an awesome word.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard," John F. Kennedy, September 1962
Posted by: Freedom Advocate | Jul 18, 2007 11:32:33 AM
Haha, not surprised Smith is in trouble, givin his support for THOUGHT CONTROL!
What will it take for Oregon to fight!? This thought control bill is being debated on the Senate floor TODAY, and our Senator Gordon Smith previously voted for the bill.
Check out the video “Teletubby and Moses get arrested” at the U.S. Capitol in this demonstration about the Homosexual Agenda and its consequences on freedom of speech. Go to http://publicadvocateusa.org/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUBj51aLV1A
This shows Public Advocate demonstrating in Washington, DC, protesting the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act (H.R. 1592), which would add sexual orientation to federal hate crimes statutes.
Posted by: Anon Squared | Jul 18, 2007 11:54:14 AM
Does House Ladership pay the bills for this site?
Posted by: Anon Squared | Jul 18, 2007 11:54:37 AM
Does House Leadership pay the bills for this site?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2007 12:09:20 PM
AS(s).... Um, no. BlueOregon's revenues (tiny as they are) come entirely from the ads you see on the site.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 1:01:23 PM
I am not being vitriolic; rather, I am just responding to your overwrought pro-Merkely pieces. I don't feel that you have an accurate or comprehensive pulse on what it will take to beat Mr. Smith.
For example, your analysis makes no attempt to gauge Mr. Merkley's weaknesses. As such, your piece comes across as somewhat pallid electioneering for Mr. Merkley. At least passing mention of why Mr. Merkley might NOT be able to beat Gordon Smith is warranted, no? Without that, I don't see what your 3 piece special is for other than coronation.
Your "pluses" for Mr. Merkley's electability include a) the fact that he is a Democrat and b) the fact that he isn't well known.
You also seem to suggest that Merkley's outer-SE upbringing and mill worker father somehow makes him not "Portland-centric". Any honest appraisal of him will almost certainly draw a completely different conclusion. A job at the UN, or its proxy, and association with Portland's political coterie probably won't play well in John Day.
At the very least, Mr. Merkley's upgringing and Portland-focus may not be as big a liability as I suspect it will be; but it certainly doesn't somehow translate into a "statewide appeal" positive.
I also just find it weird to mention as proof of Mr. Merkley's "tough" campaign ability the fact that he possibly "approved" an advertisement in someone else's unsuccessful campaign. That is thin soup.
And, you are right, Mr. Merkley, if he is the candidate, will almost certainly get national backing. But how much, and who will come? And will we see a groundswell of national attention, via the media and progressive blogs?
You seem to somehow equate Mr. Merkley's possible candidacy with Mr. Smith's straight-out-of-the-state-legislature candidacy back in 1997. What you're perhaps forgetting is that Mr. Smith was succeeding a retiring and popular GOP senator. He was not challenging a 2 term incumbent. As well, Mr. Smith had already run and lost 2 years earlier for Packwood's seat... so he had a lot of name recognition.
I am certainly no expert in political prognostication. But I do not see Mr. Merkley as another Jim Webb or Jon Tester. These candidates ignited a huge groundswell of national progressive activism, perhaps most notably on DailyKos. That helped garner these candidates a great deal of national media attention.
They were able to do this because of their perceived outsider status: Tester as small-town rancher, and Webb as a pugnacious former Reagan appointee. Both have a kind of roll-up-your-sleeves gravitas that is refreshing and attractive. A clone of either of those candidates would work wonderfully against the dapper Mr. Smith.
Indeed, Mr. Merkley may make an excellent Senate candidate... in another state, or versus another type of candidate. We need a candidate that highlights and accentuates Mr. Smith's weaknesses.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 18, 2007 1:09:45 PM
On a similar topic, I see Gordon Smith once again worked it in his favor to be able to vote on a Democratic bill when it had no chance of passing.
No doubt he's heard that only 34% of Oregonians say they'd vote to re-elect him.
Disclaimer: I work on the Novick for U.S. Senate web site, but I don't speak for the campaign.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 18, 2007 1:14:14 PM
"highly competitive against Senator 'Salmon-killer' Smith."
Yay Liberalincarnate!
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 18, 2007 1:24:27 PM
Does House Leadership pay the bills for this site?
I have never received a dime for any blog post I've written nor from any campaign. I haven't even met Jeff Merkley, though I did talk to a number of people in preparation for this series.
Okay, Peter, maybe I misread you. But I think you've misread what happened in the last election.
I am certainly no expert in political prognostication. But I do not see Mr. Merkley as another Jim Webb or Jon Tester. These candidates ignited a huge groundswell of national progressive activism, perhaps most notably on DailyKos. That helped garner these candidates a great deal of national media attention.
Merkley IS Tester. They have very similar political backgrounds (he came out of the Montana State Legislature). The reason Tester was so successful was because he ran a great campaign. Webb wasn't really setting the world on fire until the famous George Allen "Macaca" comment. Do you have any evidence that either one of these candidates won because they were "outsiders?" Didn't something about their victories have to do with the guys they were running against--and how corrupt and incompetent they appeared?
I don't know what makes you so convinced, looking into the future of this campaign, that Merkley will fail to inspire if he runs. Where's your foresight come from?
Maybe Merkley will run and fizzle. I've made my argument about why I think the odds against that are long. But all you've offered is speculation about what Kos will do. That's not particularly convincing, either.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2007 1:38:06 PM
Peter -- Could you provide a source for your assertion that the World Affairs Council is "working for the UN or its proxy"? On an earlier thread, you asserted that the World Affairs Council was created by the UN. I couldn't find anything about that on the Oregon group's site. To the contrary, it appears that the Oregon group was founded by a group of Reed professors.
Furthermore, it seems that the World Affairs Council of America was founded in 1918. Some 27 years before the United Nations.
------
All in all, Peter, while I respect your arguments - it seems that your worldview starts from a notion that rural Oregonians are uniformly conservative retrogrades that can't be convinced to support a Democrat.
Funny thing, last I checked, every single statewide elected official in Oregon except Gordon Smith is a Democrat. And not counting Smith, the GOP hasn't won a statewide partisan race since Dave Frohnmayer in 1988.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2007 1:39:20 PM
Excuse me. And Bob Packwood in 1992.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 2:00:35 PM
Yeah, so humble pie on the World Affairs Council and UN relationship...
Yesterday, I did a search for "World Affairs Council" on Google. The number one listing leads me to www.itsyourworld.org ... The "About" page states: The World Affairs Council was founded in 1947 out of the interest generated by the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. (Note: this appears to be an affiliate of WAC, and not WAC itself.) I apparently read that yesterday in a hurry and assumed that it said that they were founded by the UN.
That said, I can't imagine that if the details of WAC were well-known to rural Oregonians they would find it something that aligned with their world view.
I never said nor do I think that rural voters are "retrogrades". I do think that they are largely conservative (e.g., check the results for the Governor's race), but they will vote for Democrats (e.g., check the Senate race).
That said, take a look at the breakdown for Smith's last race (here). He lost everywhere but Multnomah County. The problem wasn't rural voters: almost certainly they were going to vote for Smith. The problem was the suburbs and exurban areas of Clackamas and Washington counties. My point in raising the images of Tester and Webb isn't to suggest that we get a pugnacious populist to try to "pull a fast one" on rural voters. But, rather, that we get someone who can turn those counties besotted with swing voters and independents blue (or, in the case of the color coding on the maps I linked to, red).
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 2:02:04 PM
(I of course meant that in 2002 Smith WON everywhere but Multnomah county... wishful thinking apparently.)
Posted by: Laura Calvo | Jul 18, 2007 2:05:27 PM
We need a candidate that highlights and accentuates Mr. Smith's weaknesses?
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 2:07:29 PM
Oh, and just for fun, a couple of arguments that rural areas do house a large number of retrogrades... here and here and here.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 2:09:39 PM
We need a candidate that highlights and accentuates Mr. Smith's weaknesses?
Yes!
Posted by: Laura Calvo | Jul 18, 2007 2:12:27 PM
http://nuestravoice.com/nuestravoice/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/dmr_gsmith2.jpg
Posted by: Nate Currie | Jul 18, 2007 2:18:17 PM
Excuse me. And Bob Packwood in 1992.
Don't forget Jack Roberts for Labor Commissioner in 1994 (when it was still a partisan position). I remember because that was the last time I voted for a Republican for anything.
Posted by: Blueshift | Jul 18, 2007 2:18:21 PM
As a former volunteer with the World Affairs Council of Oregon, I can assure everyone that it has no connection to the United Nations other than the fact that both organizations have a focus on international affairs. The mission of the WAC of Oregon (which is part of the national organizations of World Affairs Councils) is to educate people about the world they live in by bringing that world to their doorsteps--through speakers, panels, art exhibits, etc.
Something possibly relevant in regards to pull with rural voters...the WAC of Oregon just opened up a satellite program in Bend last year, which has gotten a great reception, and WAC has been running local discussion groups in communities like Seaside and White City for years. So I'm not sure the argument that rural voters won't like Merkley because of his international connections is valid.
Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Jul 18, 2007 2:27:40 PM
Torrid Joe is getting me mixed up with "Unrepentant Liberal". While I appreciate the comparison, I cannot take credit.
Freudian slip? Do you have a crush on me?
Posted by: paulie | Jul 18, 2007 2:33:41 PM
In order for Smith to win he's got to depend on Southern Oregon and the rest of the 2nd Congressional district. We are working hard down here to prepare for supporting the winner of the Democratic primary, if there is one, to take on Smith.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Jul 18, 2007 2:36:32 PM
Excuse me. And Bob Packwood in 1992.
Just as Packwood had NOW (Nat'l Org of Women), Smith had the HRC (nat'l GLBT lobby). This combined with his incumbency and personal wealth provided for a trifecta which should have kept his seat safe until the Rapture. Nevertheless, he's vulnerable in '08. Maybe there is a god.
And now if you'll allow me to perform some pop psychology without a license...
I'm considered to be the wonk of the family and yet, for me, Merkley hasn't been much more than a name: "Jeff Merkley, [D] from Portland"; "Democratic leader, Jeff Merkley"; and now, "Speaker Merkley." I am grateful for this three part introduction. It's just the interwebs of course, so i consider the source.
Peter, it sounds like you already know Merkley and have a different candidate in mind. Mind sharing the name of your dog in this fight? And now a word on style. I didn't find your remarks vitriolic, nor though were they very constructive. You stated that Jeff's arguments in favor of Merkley were "incredibly weak" but your initial post in this thread didn't elaborate. Instead, you paraphrased (poorly at times) some of the information from Jeff's blog entry. You constructed a straw man, and didn't even follow through and argue against him initially.
For example, you drew from the article the fact that "Democrats generally win statewide races in Oregon" and portrayed this as an argument from Jeff in favor of Merkley to the exclusion of other Democrats. Do you get my point? Because i didn't get yours. Without (mis)characterizing anyone else's arguments in favor of Merkley, what disqualifies him in you opinion?
Let me end on that point (and i thought i had one?).
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jul 18, 2007 2:53:28 PM
As a short note, I am strongly in favor of Mr. Merkley running. I think that he has a resume of successful public service that would be more appealing to Oregon voters than all the other candidates presently in the race. Further, I think that this is important, because while Gordon Smith is beatable, that doesn't mean we're going to automatically be able to win with just anyone.
That said, I won't be for Mr. Merkley until he actually decides to run. I'm getting a little sick of having all the people with major chops getting cold feet about this race. I find Steve Novick's willingness to not dick around and just announce increasingly appealing.
So, Mr. Merkley. It will be a major undertaking. You probably have about a 70% chance of making it if you try (30% chance Gordo pulls it out with his sudden pretend "independence").
Are you going to fish or cut bait? It's time to decide.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2007 3:16:33 PM
Oh, and just for fun, a couple of arguments that rural areas do house a large number of retrogrades... here and here and here.
Peter, I think you inadvertently made my point -- and revealed your anti-rural bias.
Even on those election maps, the worst counties still had at least 30% vote on the progressive side of the issues. That's the problem with these red/blue maps (er, green.) They flatten out the diversity of the votes underneath.
Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon, just as Gordon Smith doesn't need to win in Portland. They each just need to do better than usual...
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 3:19:14 PM
I would prefer someone from outside the world of politics.
Besides what I have already said, Merkley appears to be wonkish and doesn't have a very commanding presence. He comes across as remarkably young, and not really in a good way.
I was 2 feet away from him as he gave a presentation last night and he just came across as boring. I don't think his delivery, or presence, are well-suited to a high-pressure media campaign. He is perhaps more perfectly geared for more low-key races. I don't feel that he has the gravitas and serious, commanding presence that is frankly necessary for a national campaign.
Here's the video that was linked to at the top. Check it out and see what you think.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 3:34:03 PM
Even on those election maps, the worst counties still had at least 30% vote on the progressive side of the issues.
Yeah, of course there's a significant minority in rural areas that are progressive. But when upwards of 40% of Harney County votes to KEEP racist language in the Oregon Constitution... well, that is noteworthy for the depth and strength of hardcore retrogression!
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Jul 18, 2007 3:54:33 PM
Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon
This is one of those facts (like "the Iraq war is lost") which, while not only true and important to grasp, is perhaps best acknowledged in secret amongst blue Oregonians.
Without enough support across the entire state, you're not going to knock off Smith (and yes, i hear your collective "duh"). Just a simple reminder that the Counties don't function like the Electoral College. It's not like all is lost in those rural red counties. Every vote, everywhere counts, and so again, while i agree with you Kari, and even with the sentiment because i understand the context. I say as well however that any candidate will need to win in rural Oregon in order to win the seat. (He or she just won't need a majority!)
(And could you imagine a candidate saying "I don't need the East or the South." !?
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Jul 18, 2007 4:13:46 PM
Thanks Peter for the honest assessment. I'll be making my judgments as i hear more from him (assuming he runs! - yes, get of the pot! --did I say that?!--)
And one should not discount your observations. The first i ever heard of Steve Novick was online (He's the candidate i currently support. Is he still the only candidate?) I was impressed first by his bio and then most certainly by his ideas. The hook thing became common knowledge of course, but i never saw him until Gay Pride as he marched by. I cannot lie, my first thought was "Oh, my god. He is so short. He's like a younger version of Hank Hills dad." You have to admit that Steve's physical stature will mean that some voters won't even give him the time of day. But by the same token, Obama will suffer a few points from an anti-black vote and i even know 2 elderly lesbians who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman! These things, no matter how superficial need to be placed in the respective candidate's negative column.
Again Peter, thanks for being open. Should Merkley become my man, i'll know better how to pitch him.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 18, 2007 4:15:58 PM
Peter, you asked what the downsides on Merkley as a candidate are, and I'd identify two: name recognition and speaking style. I honestly don't see the first as any kind of barrier at all, because in a high-profile race like US Senator, he's going to get the press. That he's such a strong candidate means it will stick with him. Media coverage will treat him as a candidate with gravitas--as they should with a candidate like him.
As to speaking presence, you're right--it's not a strength. But we've gotten though a whole raft of possible deal-killers (experience, skill, background, etc.) and the biggest drawback is that he's no Bill Clinton on the stump?
I can live with that; after all, Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, our two current Senators, aren't exactly Bill Clintons on the stump, either. Nor was your man Tester. You don't have to scintilate. You have to connect.
Posted by: colin maloney | Jul 18, 2007 4:32:35 PM
A Good Uppercut
Jeff,
with all due respect, a lot of us who volunteered for Rob Brading's campaign, canvassing in the crappy weather that we had that year, were really disappointed by that ad. Mark Foley and Karen Minnis may have in common the fact that they're both hypocritical Republicans, but the ad that was made to link them was, in my opinion, a mistake.
I phone banked for Rob, recruited volunteers, walked door to door, got Republicans to pledge to vote for him, gave him what little money I could, and got others to give money to him too. After that ad aired, thankfully near the end of the campaign, my efforts were really half-hearted. I thought Rob ran a great campaign, a positive campaign, and one that I was proud to volunteer for. Then FuturePAC came in with their ads, and it turned people off.
I still would have voted for Rob (didn't live in the district), but it would have been hard to say that he was a different kind of guy after seeing that ad. From my conversations with Marah, the campaign manager, there was a lot of "blowback," especially amongst the volunteers because of that ad in particular. If that's Merkley's brand of fighting, and he's the nominee, he'll have my vote, but not my time or my money. Sorry.
{{disclaimer: volunteering for Novick.}}
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 18, 2007 4:44:53 PM
I was 2 feet away from him as he gave a presentation last night and he just came across as boring. I don't think his delivery, or presence, are well-suited to a high-pressure media campaign.
Hmmm... I don't think Jeff spoke twice last night - so you must have been at the same "presentation" I was.
You must have been dozing off while the rest of the crowd was clapping and cheering. Merkley did great last night -- and his comments were perfectly modulated to the audience.
In any case, it sounds like you're not a fan. Got it. Message received.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 18, 2007 5:00:19 PM
Just an idle question ... if Merkley decides not to run, who will be the next "flavor of the month" on BlueO?
Posted by: Anon | Jul 18, 2007 5:13:06 PM
That ad by FuturePac was a necessity - you cannot just keep taking in the teeth from a pit viper like Minnis. She was flabbergasted anyone would dare give her a taste of her own medicine. I think she is still reeling from it. She thought nothing of smearing Rob in front of his family, friends and neighbors. She got hit back - with the truth. Unfortunately, I'm not sure she's a big enough person to actually learn a lesson from it. But thank God a message was sent to her and the other smear merchants - watch it. You are vulnerable and we won't hold back. If anything, I'm angry that Merkley waited until so late in the campaign to take that kind of action. I'm angry he didn't fight back against Chuck Adams' smear pamphlets sent to Merkley's constituents 8 months out.
So let's keep that in mind. Chuck Adams and Dennis Tuuni can't send out their trashy pamphlets until the candidate is identified with certainty. If we select now, they'll start the smear campaign now.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Jul 18, 2007 5:35:14 PM
Kari wrote: "Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon, just as Gordon Smith doesn't need to win in Portland."
Dan Lavey pioneered Gordon's strategy for winning. He and Smith postulated that they needed to "win" about 35 percent market share in Portland (and similarly in other population centers). That, for them, is winning in Portland. For us, denying Smith that kind of margin in the population centers and causing ultra-right fringe fanatics to sit on their hands are the keys to a campaign against Smith.
There is more than enough outrage about Gordon's votes that sides with the ruining of America by Bush and the rest of the Republicans. But I caution Laura and others that just simply arguing to the public that Bush and Smith are united at the hip will not necessarily wash with the people we need to vote for Merkley either in rural or urban settings.
As Merkley himself has said, there is a wave of disgust with what Republicans have done to America. And that message, properly framed and advertised, will resonate both in rural and urban Oregon.
WRT Merkley as a public speaker: I have not been bored by any of his talks. He may not be a glib orator (and God knows Gordon is glib), but he is "folksy," he does know what's right without consulting the oracles because he knows it in his heart, and he does communicate extremely well.
Last but not least, while Gordon has his church people, and they are plentiful, wealthy, and easily organized, we have our people. We are fixing to do a much better job of organizing and communicating with our people than ever before. And don't forget, the yahoos on the ultra right think that hate crimes law is thought control, hate gays, and will sit on their hands when they find out that Gordon has been playing footsie with Log Cabin Republicans.
With Schumer's money and our people power, Merkley can and will win.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 5:36:47 PM
You must have been dozing off while the rest of the crowd was clapping and cheering. Merkley did great last night -- and his comments were perfectly modulated to the audience.
He was speaking to an audience of House Democrat donors so of course they were cheering. Regardless, check out any of his YouTube videos to see what Mr. Alworth has acknowledged are his deficits in that area.
In any case, it sounds like you're not a fan. Got it. Message received.
I am a big fan of his. He did a great job this session, and I credit him for winning back the House.
That said, my only interest in the upcoming Senate race is to have a Democrat win. One would have hoped that this process, on this site, of naming candidates and discussing them would be so that we can throughly, and aggressively, vet their chances of winning. That is all I am doing.
If the purpose of this 3-part series on Mr. Merkley is simply to create a rah-rah comments section, please let us know ahead of time so that we can move comments that dare question their electability to another forum.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Jul 18, 2007 5:36:56 PM
Kari wrote: "Jeff Merkley doesn't need to win in rural Oregon, just as Gordon Smith doesn't need to win in Portland."
Dan Lavey pioneered Gordon's strategy for winning. He and Smith postulated that they needed to "win" about 35 percent market share in Portland (and similarly in other population centers). That, for them, is winning in Portland. For us, denying Smith that kind of margin in the population centers and causing ultra-right fringe fanatics to sit on their hands are the keys to a campaign against Smith.
There is more than enough outrage about Gordon's votes that sides with the ruining of America by Bush and the rest of the Republicans. But I caution Laura and others that just simply arguing to the public that Bush and Smith are united at the hip will not necessarily wash with the people we need to vote for Merkley either in rural or urban settings.
As Merkley himself has said, there is a wave of disgust with what Republicans have done to America. And that message, properly framed and advertised, will resonate both in rural and urban Oregon.
WRT Merkley as a public speaker: I have not been bored by any of his talks. He may not be a glib orator (and God knows Gordon is glib), but he is "folksy," he does know what's right without consulting the oracles because he knows it in his heart, and he does communicate extremely well.
Last but not least, while Gordon has his church people, and they are plentiful, wealthy, and easily organized, we have our people. We are fixing to do a much better job of organizing and communicating with our people than ever before. And don't forget, the yahoos on the ultra right think that hate crimes law is thought control, hate gays, and will sit on their hands when they find out that Gordon has been playing footsie with Log Cabin Republicans.
With Schumer's money and our people power, Merkley can and will win.
Posted by: BlueNote | Jul 18, 2007 5:43:13 PM
Here is a question for you pro and semi-pro political scientists. What impact will the (unfortunate but probable) presence of the two anti-gay ballot measures have on the Oregon 2008 US senate race? Will the Dems be able to distance their candidate from the ballot measures, such that the usual heavy anti-gay turnout by inner city and rural church populations will not result in a Smith victory?
I am not a troll and I hope Gordo loses by million votes, but this is something I have been thinking about.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 18, 2007 5:51:06 PM
"That ad by FuturePac was a necessity - you cannot just keep taking in the teeth from a pit viper like Minnis. She was flabbergasted anyone would dare give her a taste of her own medicine."
It certainly was NOT necessary. It can be argued whether it was a good choice to take on Minnis for her role in the situation, but there simply was no concordance with the Foley situation. He molested kids; Minnis protected her brother in law. It was an overreach, is what it was.
Lord knows I've advocated for forceful talk and unvarnished opinion by politicians. But it's a risky game, and you can't go for the jugular unless you have the goods. Even then, Brading had built a decent narrative that Minnis was running smear, and he was running clean. After that ad, forget it--op-eds shifted from talking about the Minnis smears to "they both do it." That helped Rob not at all, IMO.
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Jul 18, 2007 6:07:25 PM
elsewhere
No Link Between Anti-Gay Measures and Candidate Races
University researches studied voter turnout and voting trends in the 2004 presidential election in states where voters were also deciding on same-sex marriage bans.
Regarding voter turnout, county-level support
for the measures in the two states does
not appear to be linked to more citizens coming
out to vote. [...] Counter to some
postelection claims, there is no evidence from
either state that counties with higher proportions
of evangelicals, rural voters, or even supporters
of the gay marriage bans had higher
turnout levels than other counties.
Of course, much of the data came from Ohio, so maybe Diebold skewed the results?
Posted by: East Bank Thom | Jul 18, 2007 6:10:50 PM
emm... y'all realize i fetched that data myself. It's not a cut and paste from an earlier BlueO posting. Just sayin'. :)
Posted by: Trollbot9000 | Jul 18, 2007 6:16:56 PM
Seems to me the most important factor regarding Smith and one you far left yippers (or "progressives" as you prefer to be called) seem to be forgetting is Gordo's biggest weakness, which is the erosion of his conservative base. The guy's not at all popular with a sizable chunk of Oregonian's who label themselves conservatives, much like George W. However, he still has the mojo and name recognition to defeat a weak democratic candidate, which is all the Democrats have proffered up so far. It's easy to talk about Smith's low poll numbers, but let's not try to paint it like there's some Democratic love fest happening here. Most folks aren't overly enamored with politics in general, regardless of their party affiliation. Sure, the Republican brand is faring worse at the moment largely due to a very unpopular administration, but there is no mighty blue wave unless you think Delaware has big surf.
Get a real candidate of STFU already. Yeah, we get it. Gordon Smith is evil incarnate personified, the worst person in the world ever, blah, blah, blah. To the astute non partisan, it's just another way of saying "We got nothin'."
A REAL CANDIDATE
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 6:57:18 PM
Yeah, but Ron Paul went out of business, what, 15 years ago! It was a great restaurant on 23rd well it lasted!
Posted by: Trollbot9000 | Jul 18, 2007 7:07:14 PM
Right Peter, you get more coherent with every post. Yeah...
Posted by: E.P. | Jul 18, 2007 7:18:09 PM
Get a real candidate of STFU already. Yeah, we get it. Gordon Smith is evil incarnate personified, the worst person in the world ever, blah, blah, blah. To the astute non partisan, it's just another way of saying "We got nothin'."
A REAL CANDIDATE
This isn't a thread about presidential politics; thus, we need not discuss Ron Paul. All I will say is this: as an independent thinker, I would vote for him over a few of the Democratic candidates. Think 'patriot act' and 'iraq war'...did all of the Dem candidates vote no??
As for Jeff Merkley, I think he's got as good a chance as any of winning the nomination. Furthermore, I think Gordo has supplied us with so much ammo that it'd be tough for any of the candidates (Novick, Bates, Golden, et al) to lose.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 18, 2007 10:31:29 AM
Your arguments for why Merkley could win are incredibly weak:
1. Democrats generally win statewide races in Oregon;
2. Merkley isn't well known, and that's a good thing!
3. Merkley is from Portland, sure, but he is from the poor part of Portland, and his Dad was a mill worker!
4. Merkley may have been tangentially involved in an attack ad against a GOP candidate who went on to win her race;
5. Merkley "has already spoken to Schumer" and this may indicate he will be backed nationally!