Gordon Smith wants negativity
If Gordon Smith wanted to knock Merkley out in a primary, why would he bash Steve Novick on television just days ago? Smith's consultants wouldn't only reach this conclusion this week, right? And if not, why waste time taking shots at Novick on broadcast television?
Here's another theory: Gordon wants as much negativity out there about Merkley and Novick as possible. Which explains the first ad. The new one reflects the disparity of what's on television right now. Merkley's negative ad is already filling the airwaves and this new spot merely balances it out.
But if I'm wrong and Gordon Smith really wants Steve, let's give 'em what he wants. Merkley grossly underestimated Novick this primary and we can only be as lucky to have Smith make the same mistake.
That's how incumbent U.S. Senators lose.
|
May 9, 2008 |
Charlie Burr | Comments (62 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Emily George | May 9, 2008 2:53:31 PM
The flaw in this argument is that the first ad was really mostly an attack on Merkley.
The Merkley charge (ethics) is something that hurts him across all parties, including Dems.
The Novick charge (he loves taxes) is something that will primarily hurt Novick with R's and Independents. It may actually have helped Novick with base very liberal Dems.
It's very obvious Smith wants to run against Novick.
Only true hard-core Novickites can be deluded into thinking otherwise.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 2:53:58 PM
"Their respective endorsement pages along with the most recent public polling results say otherwise rather emphatically."
You're full of shit. You're not seriously saying that Merkley was planning all along to come from behind and win narrowly? That he always knew Novick would challenge him to the end?
Then why did Charlie Ringo dismiss his candidacy as unrealistic? Why did Kari Chisholm refer to Novick as Hofstra?
Posted by: Emily George | May 9, 2008 2:54:04 PM
The flaw in this argument is that the first ad was really mostly an attack on Merkley.
The Merkley charge (ethics) is something that hurts him across all parties, including Dems.
The Novick charge (he loves taxes) is something that will primarily hurt Novick with R's and Independents. It may actually have helped Novick with base very liberal Dems.
It's very obvious Smith wants to run against Novick.
Only true hard-core Novickites can be deluded into thinking otherwise.
Posted by: backbeat | May 9, 2008 3:00:43 PM
This is all very entertaining but I think the real problem will come in the general when the Democrat has to go up against Mr. Gravitas himself: John Frohnmayer.
Posted by: Ben | May 9, 2008 3:02:55 PM
Easy, TJ, easy. Enough vitriol for you?
I agree with Emily: the vast majority of Gordo's negativism has gone against Jeff here and I'd guess he doesn't want to see Jeff. So, take 'em down while you can...
Posted by: Ben Matasar | May 9, 2008 3:03:51 PM
Instead of trying to figure out what he means, let's not allow Gordon Smith to tamper with our primary at all.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 9, 2008 3:06:38 PM
In my experience, Republican motives are not always what they appear. When Karl Rove attacks Hillary Clinton, for example, I don't automatically assume hurting Hillary is the intended effect. I do fully concede it's possible that Gordon Smith will underestimate Novick. I'm cool with that.
Kevin: Of course Smith is tracking both candidates, but that's kind of my point. Smith's done so much research on both by now that if he was going to take out one over the other, putting that first spot up wouldn't have made a lot of sense.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 3:10:35 PM
"This is all very entertaining but I think the real problem will come in the general when the Democrat has to go up against Mr. Gravitas himself: John Frohnmayer."
If we choose Novick, that likely won't be a problem. It certainly is less of a problem than if Merkley's the nominee.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 9, 2008 3:15:49 PM
I will say this, Charlie. If Novick wins in a few days, I'll personally take great delight in trying to make Smith pay for underestimating Novick. But I stand by the fairly obvious conclusion that he would rather face Steve.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 9, 2008 3:16:45 PM
Instead of trying to figure out what he means, let's not allow Gordon Smith to tamper with our primary at all.
Excellent point. Go Novick!
Posted by: backbeat | May 9, 2008 3:20:37 PM
Instead of trying to figure out what he means, let's not allow Gordon Smith to tamper with our primary at all.
Word.
We already had Chuck Schumer, no friend of the Constitution, in our state trying to influence the outcome. I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see that the DSCC ad was against Smith generically.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 9, 2008 3:44:56 PM
When Karl Rove attacks Hillary Clinton, for example, I don't automatically assume hurting Hillary is the intended effect.
Of course in the past two months, Rove, his masters, and his fellow travellers have been playing kissy face with Clinton while savaging Obama.
I doubt that you're asserting that they want Obama to win.
Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2008 3:54:19 PM
Kevin: Of course Smith is tracking both candidates, but that's kind of my point. Smith's done so much research on both by now that if he was going to take out one over the other, putting that first spot up wouldn't have made a lot of sense.
Charlie, it makes perfect sense if Smith's internal numbers more or less reflected the SUSA numbers when he decided to run the first ad.
Emily is right about the first ad. Any reasonably intelligent progressive could watch that ad and immediately understand that trying to diss Novick on raising taxes can't possibly have been intended to hurt him in a Primary to be decided by the most tax-friendly demographic in the state. Clearly he was more worried about Merkley even then. But he attacked both because the polling showed rough parity.
Occam's Razor points directly at the polling no longer showing parity between Novick and Merkley.
Posted by: Nate Currie | May 9, 2008 3:56:52 PM
Hey, what happened to that awful hit piece on Novick? I'm still seeing it on the RSS feed. I know we don't pretend to be unbiased around here, but I'm glad someone realized that was a bit beyond the pale. I think I may have to stay away from here for a while. This place is getting really ugly...
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 3:59:07 PM
"Emily is right about the first ad. Any reasonably intelligent progressive could watch that ad and immediately understand that trying to diss Novick on raising taxes can't possibly have been intended to hurt him in a Primary"
Right...it would only hurt him in...a general election. So why attack him for that, unless he was considering the possibility of facing Novick in the general?
Chasing their tails over what Republicans are plotting is why Democrats lose races. Using Gordon Smith to prop up Jeff Merkley's campaign is really, really desperate.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 9, 2008 4:00:35 PM
Pat: Rove and the Republicans rightfully assume Obama will be the nominee at this point. Hell, maybe Smith just assumes Merkley will be the nominee because of his money advantage. I don't know. But I do know that when the speculation arose about Rove helping Clinton by attacking her early in the primary, Matthew Dowd of the Bush/Cheney2004 campaign admitted that they did the same thing four years prior against Edwards. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were right, but Dowd is on record saying they wanted Kerry so they attacked Edwards. His words, so this is not tin hat stuff.
On a different note, we're not gonna see eye-to-eye on this primary or maybe agree on a word of it, but I love what you write anyway. So, what happened to the post? You comment here all the time; you should post more frequently. I'm totally with Alworth on this. No reason that everything that goes up need be a tome.
Posted by: Emily George | May 9, 2008 4:02:25 PM
I'm not going to respond any further here, other than to say, after reading this and watching the ad, I went to www.jeffmerkley.com and donated $100. I hope others will join me so that Jeff can fight back.
And no, I don't work for Merkley or any organization backing him.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | May 9, 2008 4:06:59 PM
So, what happened to the post? You comment here all the time; you should post more frequently. I'm totally with Alworth on this. No reason that everything that goes up need be a tome.
It's pretty much what I said earlier on Jeff's comment thread. I posted, went back about a half hour later and saw your post and Jeff's sandwiching mine and decided that mine was redundant.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 4:15:38 PM
"I'm not going to respond any further here, other than to say, after reading this and watching the ad, I went to www.jeffmerkley.com and donated $100. I hope others will join me so that Jeff can fight back."
Funny, it was just mentioned in the other thread that Rove attacked a candidate so his supporters would give money and rally around--thus making it MORE likely that the person they were NOT attacking would be the nominee.
Hard not for it to be "plausible" when we know it's already happened before.
Posted by: Stephanie V | May 9, 2008 4:25:24 PM
Maybe we should take Smith at his word, and he's underestimating Steve the way Chuck Schumer and Jeff Merkley did.
Or else maybe Smith is playing a weird game of reverse psychology with us.
Hardly matters. Because neither is a reason to let him screw around in our sandbox.
We are Democrats and we get to choose the person we want as our standardbearer. Gordo has to take what we choose to dish out. I rather hope he HAS underestimated Steve -- it will be fun to observe as he figures that out.
Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2008 4:30:01 PM
Charlie,
I'm curious as to your reasons for putting this post up. Jeff already had a post up covering the same territory. You could have made the same points in the comment thread there.
Was the point of this post to essentially rebut Jeff? If so I must say that it's highly unusual.
The only rebuttal posts I've ever seen were either when an individual editor had been directly attacked in another post or when a "notable comment" was put up in a post of it's own. This post of yours seems to set a new precedent because you were never attacked nor does it spring from a comment.
I ask because after all the grief that TJ et al have given me over posting policy her I'm a bit surprised to see an Editor taking a tact that I'd be roasted alive for taking, not to mention that my post would get yanked.
What gives?
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 4:47:47 PM
"I ask because after all the grief that TJ et al have given me over posting policy her I'm a bit surprised to see an Editor taking a tact that I'd be roasted alive for taking, not to mention that my post would get yanked."
Huh? Are you saying it's against BlueO policy for one editor to answer another one in a separate column? If not, what's your point?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 9, 2008 4:48:13 PM
Charlie recognized that my post was so insightful, nay powerful that he thought it would easily turn the election to Merkley. He had no choice.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 4:51:12 PM
"Charlie recognized that my post was so insightful, nay powerful that he thought it would easily turn the election to Merkley. He had no choice."
A possible scenario, just not a plausible one...
:)
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 9, 2008 4:53:06 PM
I ask because after all the grief that TJ et al have given me over posting policy her [sic] I'm a bit surprised to see an Editor taking a tact that I'd be roasted alive for taking, not to mention that my post would get yanked.
I congratulate you on being the first pro-Merkley contributor to decry the terrible unfairness of Blue Oregon. And why should Kari and Jeff get all the meta love?
Anyway, I posted this when there were two posts up from both Jeff Alworth and Pat Ryan on the same subject. So in the interest of both balance (in a two-to-one sort of way) and adding a different perspective, I thought it deserved its own piece.
We're all keenly aware of where you are on this race, Kevin. Novick could save the world from an asteroid and you'd still spin it for Merkley. We get it. Merkley. You dig 'em.
Posted by: Pat Malach | May 9, 2008 4:54:25 PM
Alworth with the fourth-quarter TD for the Patriots.
But there's still time on the clock for Hofstra.
Posted by: Stephanie V | May 9, 2008 4:54:55 PM
I'm really glad we can still joke here and there about this stuff.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 9, 2008 4:55:39 PM
A possible scenario, just not a plausible one...
:)
Thank you and good night! Have a good weekend, oh blue-hearted ones, I'm off for a beer.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 9, 2008 5:00:34 PM
I've got nuttin but love for Alworth. He knows I take it seriously, not personally. :)
Posted by: Sal Peralta | May 9, 2008 5:07:30 PM
I doubt Gordon cares all that much which of these candidates he draws. In either case, he has a mountain to climb in terms of the state's Democratic voter registration edge, and in either case he's going to have a truckload of money to spend in the Portland media market, which he carried in his last election.
The ad was symbolic of the fact that he has the money to make sure that one of the first things that voters would hear about either of his opponents would be negative.
If he really wanted to, he could flood the airwaves with negative ads against one or both of these candidates and tip the primary election, since neither has the money to counter him.
Posted by: s.gothman | May 9, 2008 5:17:10 PM
I am disheartened to hear Democrats easily swayed by whatever Senator Smith has to say on the matter. The ballots counted on May 20th are ballots cast by Democrats; Senator Smith is a Republican who is trying to interfere and cause chaos and fracture the Party. Speculation on whom Senator Smith wishes to face is irrelevant. As Democrats, we should pay no heed to what he is doing at this point, only who you feel would defeat Senator Smith November 4, 2008, and best serve Oregon starting January 3, 2009.
Posted by: Emily George | May 9, 2008 5:17:46 PM
I'm not going to respond any further here, other than to say, after reading this and watching the ad, I went to www.jeffmerkley.com and donated $100. I hope others will join me so that Jeff can fight back.
And no, I don't work for Merkley or any organization backing him.
Posted by: Kev | May 9, 2008 6:36:22 PM
It would be a tough blow to the DSCC to see Novick come out of this primary. The DSCC recruited Merkley after Novick was already in the race, and that fact alone would make Novick a tough sell to national donors. But given how relatively weak of a campaigner Merkley has proven to be, Novick may be the stronger choice.
If I were Smith, I'd get a good laugh at Schumer over a Novick win, but I don't think strategically either is clearly weaker than the other for the fall. Merkley has more institutional support, but Novick is a much more aggressive campaigner. It's a wash.
Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2008 6:55:23 PM
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 9, 2008 4:53:06 PM
Okay...
:::makes mental note - Charlie is armed and loaded with an itchy trigger finger:::
In hindsight I suppose I should have loaded my question up with partisan snark rather than opting for politeness. Especially if I'm going to be tagged with being the first pro-Merkley contributor to... how did you put that (?)... ah, "decry the terrible unfairness of Blue Oregon."
I suppose this too will be added to the catalogue of ways that the Merkley campaign has been too timid?
:::makes another mental note - LOOK AT THE DATE, IDIOT. THIS IS HUNTING SEASON AND YOU'RE WEARING A SIX-POINT RACK FOR A HAT:::
D'oh!!
Posted by: backbeat | May 9, 2008 6:58:34 PM
I've decided to wait until the last minute to cast my ballot, watching as these creepy ads play out. So far, Novick is looking better.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | May 9, 2008 7:23:40 PM
Hey "Kev" and "Kevin"... would you guys mind using your last name when you comment? Or at least, some sort of secondary identifier? Even just "Kevin X" or "Kevin from Tigard" would be fine.
Too many Kevins in Oregon politics.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | May 9, 2008 8:22:44 PM
Charlie, I am completely persuaded by your elegantly and concisely expressed point about Smith sowing negativism. I think we should all pay attention to that regardless of what we think about whether Smith is trying to influence the choice of Democratic candidate, or how.
This one is what in certain academic jargon would be called "overdetermined," i.e. has multiple true explanations.
I think Sal Peralta's comment pointing out how Smith has money to burn is an important context for the general negativism argument.
Clearly Smith's ploy isn't aimed at BlueOregon audience anyway.
If Smith were trying to hurt Jeff and help Steve, is it likely to work with a broader public audience?
Could he be trying to hurt Jeff not because he wants Steve as his opponent but just because he thinks he'll get Jeff and is starting early?
If Smith were trying to help Jeff with a briar patch ploy, is that likely to work?
What kind of difference would it make?
If there's no anti-Novick ad in a week I'll think we've seen the full cycle of what he's up to, until then I'm just not sure.
Could he be trying to fire up the R base and turn off independents from the idea of Democrats per se (again per Sal's registration deficit point)?
Posted by: Stephanie V | May 9, 2008 8:31:42 PM
Once again I am reminded of all the reasons I swore to trishka that she'd have to fight me for Chris Lowe.
Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2008 10:24:57 PM
If Smith were trying to hurt Jeff and help Steve, is it likely to work with a broader public audience?
What difference would it make - to Smith - if it is likely to work with a broader audience or not, assuming your hypothetical premise? If the point is to hurt Jeff then that's the point of the exercise. Playing to a larger audience would be icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
Could he be trying to hurt Jeff not because he wants Steve as his opponent but just because he thinks he'll get Jeff and is starting early?
That certainly is a plausible hypothesis. Whether or not he wants Steve, the point of the ad is to hurt Jeff. And the only reason to do that at this stage is if he thinks that's likely who he'll end up facing.
Could he be trying to fire up the R base and turn off independents from the idea of Democrats per se (again per Sal's registration deficit point)?
It makes no sense at all for Smith to get worked up about firing up the R base at this stage. Dampening the Indies at this stage only makes marginally more sense. And that only because we don't know what percentage of Indies will re-register back as NAV or potentially register as R's. But the conventional wisdom seems to be that more will remain D than has been typical in the last number of election cycles. As a long-time Indie I suspect the CW is correct, but to what degree is a total crap shoot. Where it would make a great deal of sense for Smith to try that general tact would be prior to the General rather than prior to the Primary.
Sal's larger point is a good one, but he doesn't connect the obvious dots. Money is a huge factor in all of this, as demonstrated by the size of the warchest Smith has amassed.
Yes, Smith has truckloads of money. And no, neither Dem candidate is likely to be able to match it dollar for dollar. But if one of them shows the potential to match 3/4 of it and the other only shows the potential to match 1/4 of it... Well, which would you want to face, all else being equal, if you were sitting on the largest campaign warchest in a major race?
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | May 10, 2008 6:26:19 AM
"We're all keenly aware of where you are on this race, Kevin. Novick could save the world from an asteroid and you'd still spin it for Merkley. We get. Merkley. You dig 'em."
That's the truth. Kevin gets the award for most one-sided poster in Blue Oregon. That's quite an accomplishment. He makes Lanny Davis look even-handed by comparison.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 10, 2008 8:00:06 AM
kevin, why would he attack the guy with less prospects for national fundraising in Merkley? You know it's been no contest who's the more appealing national candidate. Or have I missed a national profile piece or tv show that Merkley's been featured in?
Posted by: bdunn | May 10, 2008 9:05:40 AM
kevin, why would he attack the guy with less prospects for national fundraising in Merkley? You know it's been no contest who's the more appealing national candidate. Or have I missed a national profile piece or tv show that Merkley's been featured in?
Mark has jumped the shark, seriously maybe the guy (Merkley) who has the backing of the DSCC and has raised vasly more money from outside the state would have a better chance to continue doing that compared to the guy who has failed. If Novick was ever going to be able to raise money from outside of the state it would have been after his beer ad where he was introduced to the netroots but he failed to do so.
Especially with new polling showing that Merkley is only 3pts behind Smith in a general matchup. Merkley will draw bank just as he already has.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | May 10, 2008 10:11:57 AM
Much appreciated, Chris. This is also a great point:
Could he be trying to hurt Jeff not because he wants Steve as his opponent but just because he thinks he'll get Jeff and is starting early?
With Merkley's $250,000 loan and out-of-state fundraising advantage, it wouldn't surprise me if Smith thinks Merkley will be our nominee. Many observers have underestimated Novick's grassroots strength, so Smith certainly could be applying the same conventional thinking to the race.
The bottom line for me is that we should support the candidate we want and not let Republicans get in our heads. I support Steve because of three key criteria:
Who will make the best U.S. Senator?
Who will best take the fight to Gordon Smith?
Whose campaign is more in tune with the mood of the electorate?
I fully recognize many reasonable folks have taken a look and decided to back Merkley. But the last thing we should do is let Gordon Smith play any role in choosing our nominee. That includes backing Merkley on the basis of one TV spot late in the game.
Posted by: Kevin | May 10, 2008 11:10:29 AM
Who will make the best U.S. Senator? Who will best take the fight to Gordon Smith? Whose campaign is more in tune with the mood of the electorate?
The new poll by Rassmussen along with it's trend lines indicates that the answer is Jeff Merkley.
While the SurveyUSA polls have been Primary Election polls taken among Democrats (and showing Merkley surging), this Rassmussen poll is a General Election match-up which better indicates whom all Oregonians feel best meets your three criteria. What we see in both the P.E. polls and the G.E. match-up polls is a surging Jeff Merkley.
Right now with a margin of error of 4% we have Merkley and Smith in a statistical tie at 42% and 45% respectively. Novick lags behind Smith at 41% and 47% respectively.
All of that said... I am, perhaps naively, hoping that you won't once again make me regret opting for polite civility over snark.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | May 10, 2008 2:40:48 PM
I've got nuttin but love for Alworth. He knows I take it seriously, not personally. :)
Yeah, and it will be nice to be back on the same team. T-minus ten days and counting...
Posted by: DE | May 10, 2008 3:02:16 PM
I know two Smith campaign staffers. There is absolutely no question that they fear Novick, and would prefer to face Jeff.
Posted by: torridjoe | May 10, 2008 3:48:36 PM
"Right now with a margin of error of 4% we have Merkley and Smith in a statistical tie at 42% and 45% respectively. Novick lags behind Smith at 41% and 47% respectively."
Let's report properly. Both Merkley and Novick are in a statistical tie. Within the 95% it is possible Novick actually leads, 45-43.
Merkley and Novick have the same support +-1, you'll notice.
Your point falls apart, because everything you say about Merkley being close is also true about Novick.
Posted by: Kevin | May 10, 2008 6:21:17 PM
Rassmussen also included tracking stats from their February and March polls which are very revealing.
Merkley went from 18 points down to 13 points down to 3 points down - a statistical tie. That's a 15 point swing since Feb. and a 10 point swing since March.
Novick went from 13 points down to 11 points down to 6 points down. that's a 7 point swing since Feb. and a 5 point swing since March, half the momentum which Merkley has demonstrated.
Posted by: Hawthorne | May 10, 2008 6:26:20 PM
So if the Cubs are down by 8 after six innings and come back with 5 in the next two they have momentum, right Kevin?
They are also still behind.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2008 2:44:42 PM
Um... internal tracking polls showing that Merkley's surge continues unabated?
If Novick and Merkley are doing internal tracking polls then surely Smith is too.
Their respective endorsement pages along with the most recent public polling results say otherwise rather emphatically.