Riley Poll: Bad News for Smith, Good News for Measures 49 and 50

Jeff Alworth

Riley Research released results of polling done in early August and the numbers are fascinating--and very bad for Gordon Smith.  In a three-way race with Jeff Merkley (who filed only a week before the poll was conducted) and John Frohnmayer (who hasn't announced), Gordon Smith fares pretty badly for a sitting incumbent: he leads, but garners only 38% support.  Merkley was in second at 19% and Frohnmayer picked up 7%. 

No matter how you slice it, this is bad news for Smith.  In Survey USA polling, he's been closer to 50% (albeit on a steady trend down).  Jeff Merkley's candidacy had barely gotten going and surely hadn't had time to register with many voters--evidenced by the slim support among Dems of just 34%.  So these numbers are essentially a referendum on Smith, and the news ain't good.  He did poorly in Southern Oregon (34%), Portland (36%), and on the Coast (38%), and wasn't even able to crack 50% in his home region of Eastern Oregon.  Over a third (35%) of respondents are undecided; since they've had 10 years to evaluate Smith, it's safe to say they're shopping. And here's the worst part: things aren't going to get any easier for Smith as the campaign heats up and people learn more about Jeff Merkley.  This is  remarkable weakness for a mostly-unchallenged incumbent.*

In the ballot measures, both currently enjoy broad support.  Measure 49, which is a fix for Measure 37, has support from 58% of respondents; just 12% were opposed (30% were undecided).  In a similar vein, Measure 50 (the tobacco tax/health care legislative initiative) was leading 53%-28%, with 19% undecided.  These are pretty preliminary findings, though; respondents were only given the ballot title.  Things will change when people learn more.

Finally, Hillary Clinton leads the Democratic field with 26%, an eight-point margin over Barack Obama at 18%.  John Edwards was a close third at 17%.  In March, the numbers were Clinton 31%, Obama 21%, and Edwards 8%, so this is good news for Edwards.  Of course, Oregon's primary is late enough that these are academic.

_________________
*Novick fans have a right to gripe.  Steve has been the only candidate running against Smith for months, so he should have been included in the poll.  Mike Riley, who conducted the research, said he based his selection on who's likely to be on the ballot next November.  Still, since Novick's name recognition outside Portland is probably lower than Jeff Merkley's, this doesn't change just how weak Smith is right now.

  • Pat Malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Merkley's candidacy had barely gotten going and surely hadn't had time to register with many voters

    ....yet he's still been coronated as the Democratic nominee by yet another political insider.

    It's really not so much of a Democracy anymore, is it?

    Thanks for the asterisk, Jeff, and B-bye, Gordo.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

    I find myself delighted with the prospect of a progressive, a true liberal joining Ron Wyden in the Senate from Oregon. I believe this would be among the most principled, and effective leadership from any state despite the fact that one would be a freshman Senator.

    I would feel assured that when the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, FISA, and the myriad of executive orders that seem little more than an power grab by the President & Vice President, and the complete distortion of governance as a tool for enrichment and empowerment of the Republican National Committee, that either candidates will be diligent in standing against the administration.

    I have been very impressed by Mr. Merkley’s legislative prowess, and rise in the Oregon Democratic Party, I was very please with the occasions to speak to him on a broad variety of issues, and I felt compelled with volunteering for his candidacy.

    I have nothing negative to say of the opponents as I have always felt that if a candidacy had to destroy their opponent’s reputation to win they were never a real candidate to begin with. I believe Mr. Merkley has proven himself a candidate of progressive ideas, and deeds. I will be very interested in the primary for the Democrats, and will stand enthusiastically for Jeff Merkley's candidacy for the US Senate!

    Let's throw the bumb Gordon Smith to the curb where he belongs!

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ore. pres. primary is moved to Feb.5. Does that make us "academic"?

  • Jennifer G. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It does show the importance of electing progressive majorities to the legislature. I was at a meeting where they explained that both measure would most likely not pass if it were not for the Democrat majorities in Salem. By writing ballot titles that tell why we think they should pass, rather than the sterile titles written by the secretary of state, we move the polls by 40% or more.

    So investing time and money in electing Democrats to Salem help by making us spend less money on ballot measure, the righties have to spend more, and we still win because people see our message when they vote. It all ties together.

  • (Show?)

    Ore. pres. primary is moved to Feb.5. Does that make us "academic"?

    I was 99% sure that DIDN'T happen. Unfortunately, a lot of life seems to actually be happening in the 1% these days. I'll post a correction if someone can confirm I'm off in the weeds.

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That's right Jennifer G.

    Having the majority means that "progressive" Democrats never have to settle for an impartial, neutral ballot title like the rest of us.

    Congratulations. It's good to know that the arrogant culture of win-at-all-costs politics is not confined to the Bushies.

    Your time is coming too, perhaps sooner than you think.

  • (Show?)

    Unless there was a bill other than HB 2084, the presidential primary was not moved. The bill left the Committee it was in after a few work sessions, and then headed to Ways & Means. It never left.

    In searching the legislature's web site, I didn't find any other bills on this topic.

  • (Show?)

    58/12 might be decent news for 49, but 53/28 is not good news at all for 50. The Yes vote almost always comes down.

  • anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Don't get your panties all in a wad. Riley is the area's worst pollster.

  • (Show?)

    This does my heart good!

    We have to continue to get the word out. I keep running into good Dems (like my neighbors) who still think Gordon Smith is a moderate. The more we can expose his record, the better, and this poll is a great talking point.

    If you have the time or inclination, please write a letter to your local paper, especially outside of Portland. The DPO's StopSmith site has a handy form you can use and an extensive list of publications. Let's see if we can get letters in all the papers from Albany to Woodburn.

    I'm pretty happy to see the data on the measures too. Of course, the tobacco lobby hasn't really started spending money yet.

  • (Show?)

    Don't get your panties all in a wad. Riley is the area's worst pollster

    I don't know about the worst pollster, but as for the best -- the only poll numbers that get, my um, "panties in a wad" come from Lisa Grove.

  • Tyrone Reitman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jennifer G, Usually the Attorney General’s office drafts ballot titles. In this case the legislature opted to draft the ballot titles for Measures 49 & 50. If my understanding of the process is correct, this is a very rare occurrence and can only be done for measures referred to the ballot by the legislature.

    The ballot title is the single most important piece of information available to the voter in the voters’ pamphlet. Those first 15 words, the ballot title caption, is the first impression that most voters have of the measure. By taking that task away from the AG’s office for M49 & 50, the legislature is seen by many as unfortunately politicizing the ballot title process, and for some that’s enough to presume the titles are biased.

    Over at Healthy Democracy Oregon we will be exploring some ideas around restructuring the ballot title process to be a more open and collaborative process. Much like it is done in Colorado. I encourage you to check it out. However important, the ballot title process is just one issue with the initiative process that needs work.

    As we all know, ballot measures are a big part of Oregon politics. It’s long past due that we add some accountability and transparency to the process. At Healthy Democracy Oregon we’re working to provide an additional source of fair, trustworthy and easy to use information into the voters’ pamphlet. It’s called the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Let us know what you think.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I do wish we could get some standard metrics like re-elect numbers, favorability numbers, and comparative head-to-heads. I'm sure Frohnmayer threw people for a loop, given that he hasn't seemed to have made any noises about the possibility in over a year. That could easily throw people into the undecided camp, given they don't know where the guy stands on anything. Of the votes he did get in the poll, they came from Democrats 2-to-1 versus Republicans. He was, of course, a Republican candidate for Governor in 2000 and a Bush I appointee at NEA.

  • Coyote (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tyrone, doesn't it make you pause when you consider the fact that LOTS of people vote on a measure based almost entirely on how the title is worded? Is this rational governance? Or ignorant mob rule?

    If M50 passes, I'll know for certain that it's ignorant mob rule. That has got to be the DUMBEST idea I've heard in a long time, and it's a freaking constitutional amendment no less. How much political capital is going to be spent on pushing this financially unsustainable non-solution? How much attention is going to be taken away from fixing M37? Thanks to the ill-advised, illegal behavior of Multnomah County's activist commissioners, gay marriage took ALL the attention away from M37 in 2004. Are "progressives" going to sell the environment down the river yet again so they can push their social agenda?

    Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the proposed M37 fix, but M50 is just D.U.M.B. How is saddling the working class with yet another punitive puritanical sin tax "progressive"? How many of the so-called "progressives" here on BlueOregon smoke cigarettes? .......crickets....... So in other words, you're putting someone else's money where your mouth is. Y'all didn't feel strongly enough about poor kids' health care to actually spend any of your own money?

    And how much of this money is going to be spent on the children of illegal aliens while Oregon children remain uninsured or underinsured? Didn't you all learn anything from Washington's failed attempt to reform children's health care? It's not like it's ancient history....

    I won't expect an answer to any of these questions. Y'all can continue railing against Big Tobacco while remaining willfully and blissfully ignorant about the idiocy of this measure.

    And no, I don't smoke.

  • Tyrone Reitman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Coyote, Yep, it gives me pause. I think it’s an unfortunate reality that for a lot of voters in comes down to the measure’s title alone.

    However, I don’t think it proves that the process results in “rational governance” or “mob rule”. What it proves is that a lot of voters rely upon simplifications. There are a whole lot of reasons why you’d vote on the title alone (feel like that’s enough information for you, not enough time, no real interest, you vote with your friends, don’t feel like your vote matters anyway, etc., etc.), some better than others. (Same goes for signing petitions, which have that same 15 word title printed at the top.)

    Regardless of how that title is put together I think we’re shortchanging ourselves by voting on those 15 words alone. When it comes to ballot measures oversimplifications often mask complex issues with broad implications (whether intended or not). So while those 15 words are important, the issue here is much bigger than the ballot title process.

    When it comes to voting on measures, more readily available, trustworthy information would be a big plus to voters. How to do that in a way that’s meaningful, fair, and of real use to voters is the issue. Over at Healthy Democracy Oregon we think we’ve got a good way to do so, it’s called the Citizens’ Initiative Review. The effort to move this reform is still in its inception, and I encourage you (and of course anyone following this thread) to check it out.

  • (Show?)

    Survey USA just released their monthly Oregon Senatorial tracking poll... and the news is bad for El Gordito:

    Portland
    Approve 46% Disapprove 43% Not Sure 11%

    Rest of State Approve 45% Disapprove 44% Not Sure 11%

    Overall its 46% approved, with 44% disapproving, for a measly +2 net approval vs. Wyden's net +25% approval.

    H/T to TJ over at Loaded Orygun for posting on this.

  • Larry McD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Yo, Coyote... I got two words for you: Frank Luntz, A.K.A. "Big Lie" Luntz and/or Frankie da Fibber. He's the guy who figured out that if you put the right kinda lipstick on a warthog there'd be crowds of fools lined up to kiss it, even if the lipstick was the other end from the lips: The Clear Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, The Healthy Forests Initiative and, of course, proving his versatility by changing the perfectly appropriate Estate Tax to the Death Tax "because it only happens when you die."

    Actually, I'm kinda pleased to see that progressives are finally learning the value of Orwellian doublespeak... except, of course, that I think Healthy Kids is actually about keeping kids healthy. That said, I'm just still not sure whether I'm voting for or against it.

  • (Show?)

    Having the majority means that "progressive" Democrats never have to settle for an impartial, neutral ballot title like the rest of us.

    The Oregon Legislature has had the power to assign titles to legislation referred to voters since the public initiative system was first created.

    Democrats campaigned and won on fixing measure 37. It looks like voters remain solidly behind that agenda.

  • Ron Buel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is disappointing to me to see pollster manipulation. It is awfully early for Novick/Merkley numbers, because both are not well known. But Novick has a right to complain about being left out. The good news is that Smith is not doing very well against two people who have not run statewide before. What I am worried about is that those advising Novick -- Weiner and Lisa Grove-Donavon are quoted in the Tribune -- are going to advise him to go negative in the media against Merkley, much like Peter DeFazio did against Wyden in the U.S. Senate primary a few years ago. It certainly plays with Novick's combative, gut-fighting personality. But it does not serve progressives well. Making Merkley out to be somehow less liberal or less progressive or the quintessential insider may help Novick in the primary at this point in time. But its not accurate based on the things Merkley has fought for and championed in the legislature and in his career outside the legislature. It will not serve the effort to defeat Gordon Smith for Novick to go negative against Merkley, and defeating Smith is what Novick SAYS he most wants. But I think things like assuming that Merkley has an easy win will set the Novick troops off on this negative kick, and I do believe that this is THE natural way for Steve to campaign -- he's a great critic, and that's his strength. I can see it coming, but I hope I'm wrong. Say it ain't so Steve. Save the negative stuff for another day.

  • (Show?)

    What ways that Steve could use to distinguish himself from Merkley would you approve of, Ron? I think we're all still trying to get a handle on what is "negative," and what simply constitutes differentiation.

    For instance, are these negative?

    "I would have voted a different way than Jeff." "I don't share Jeff's opinion on the best way to reform (X)..." "I cannot support Jeff's call for (X)..." "I think Jeff's plan for (X) won't work, because..." "If you want someone who will approach that task this way, vote for Jeff. But if you want someone who doses it THIS way, then I'm your guy."

    I'm not suggesting in any way that these are planned statements expected to come from Novick; I'm just trying to come up with hypotheticals to more closely define what people mean when they say "no negative campaigning." If you mean direct mail hit pieces, things like "Jeff Merkley--bad for teachers, bad for Oregon", etc.--I don't think you or anyone have anything to worry about.

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon