Steve Novick: Give Merkley the support he needs
Late last week, Steve Novick sent the following message to Oregon Democrats.
In its entirety:
The past few days have brought strong reminders of just how important it is to get rid of Gordon Smith - and just how hard we'll all have to work to beat him.The New York Times ran yet another story about Smith's favorite tax break - a massive giveaway for corporations (especially drug companies) that had money stashed overseas.
The Supreme Court shafted the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, cutting the punitive damage award against Exxon by 80% -- reminding us that there are many, many reasons to be scared of the Supreme Court that Bush, Smith and their friends have foisted on us.
Meanwhile, Gordon Smith is using his millions (raised from the Exxons and the drug companies of the world) to pretend that he is not now nor has he ever been a Republican. He ran an ad using renegade Democrats to falsely claim he was among the "first" to oppose the war. He ran another ad claiming that he and Barack Obama are best buddies -- this, from the state chairman of the McCain campaign!
The problem is that, as they say, money talks. Yes, there have been newspaper articles ridiculing Smith's ads - but not everyone reads the newspaper. If Smith's advertising barrage goes unchallenged, too many Oregon voters could be convinced that Smith is an heroic bipartisan statesman, deserving of reelection.
We can't let that happen. We have to give Jeff Merkley the support he needs to beat Gordon Smith. We have to give him the resources he needs to tell voters about Gordon Smith's real record, and contrast it with Jeff's record as a champion of the environment, of working families, of equal rights for all.
We need Oregon voters to continue to get to know Jeff - and his wife Mary -and his daughter Brynne - and his son Jonathan, who hasn't been in any ads yet, and deserves equal time!
As you know, the media and the whole political world closely scrutinizes the "quarterly reports" on how much each candidate has raised. This next quarter ends on Monday. It is vitally important that Jeff's numbers look good enough to keep this race on the front burner, and to keep the heat on Gordon Smith. Please, please give whatever you can for our next Democratic United States Senator.
Best regards,
Steve Novick
|
June 30, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (80 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 30, 2008 11:13:55 PM
Yes, definitely. It was quite the oversight on our part. But we wanted to get it up.
Of course, as long as they come in before the election, the contributions will still make a big difference!
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jul 1, 2008 9:02:40 AM
I don't get it.
What happened to all that support from the DSCC.
They spent $400,000 paying Merkley's housecleaning bills so that he could spend his money on all those negative ads against Novick during the primary, as recently reported by Jeff Mapes but mysteriously (ha ha) absent from BlueOregon.
Merkley doesn't really need Oregonians' help, does he?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 1, 2008 9:08:41 AM
Pat, stop trolling. It was reported on BlueOregon on Friday.
As for the DSCC, their support is critical, to be sure. But so is the grassroots support. In fact, a lack of support from Oregonians will lead to a lack of support from the DSCC. The two go together.
18 months ago, many commenters here at BlueOregon were wringing their hands, talking about 2002, and worrying that our Senate candidate would be abandoned by the DSCC. The consistent question from the naysayers was that the DSCC wouldn't help us beat Gordon Smith.
It turns out the nattering nabobs were wrong. The DSCC wants to help us beat Gordon Smith. That's a good thing. But it's just help - not a substitute for running an Oregon campaign and raising Oregon money from the Oregon grassroots.
The primary is over. At this point, you're either you're for replacing Gordon Smith with Jeff Merkley, or you're not.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jul 1, 2008 9:21:59 AM
Well, on the national level we've got Democrats for McCain, the Party Unity My Ass crowd, and PUMA enablers like this, so why not a bit of Merkley-bashing here?
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 1, 2008 9:24:17 AM
you can wish to replace Smith, and also resolve not to reward Merkley's behavior, lest we encourage more of it.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jul 1, 2008 9:25:26 AM
bwa ha ha hah ha ha ha ha
"The Oregonian reported on the big investment that the DSCC has made in Merkley's campaign."
That one misleading sentence was BO's entire coverage, kari. The fact that BO keep throwing that up as some kind of defense that BO did cover the story reveals what a shameless spnimeister BO really is.
BO didn't cover it, BO tried to bury the real story.
Have any paid political shills ever consider the idea that if they have to hide the truth from voters, they're doing something wrong?
You attacked me as a troll, Kari, but I'm a liberal concerned about party machinery trying to con the average voter.
So let me return your personal attacks with this:
My allegiance is to our democracy over any party, kari. And smug halfwits who try to obscure the truth from voters are part of the problem, not the solution.
[Disclosure: Chances are kari will delete this comment because he's a bully]
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 1, 2008 9:31:55 AM
Its awesome that Steve is doing this. I've been a fan for a long time now..glad to see it reaffirmed.
As for some of his supporters...those grapes sure are sour.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 1, 2008 9:32:23 AM
[Disclosure: Chances are kari will delete this comment because he's a bully]
Then you haven't been paying attention. I don't delete comments because people disagree with me. Occasionally, when something is violent, or racist, or homophobic, or when someone impersonates someone else, we'll wipe out that comment -- but we'll always leave a note to that effect. We don't capriciously delete comments here.
Maybe you've noticed a healthy amount of dissent around here?
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 1, 2008 9:34:45 AM
And smug halfwits who try to obscure the truth from voters are part of the problem, not the solution.
Mirror..mirror...
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jul 1, 2008 10:51:48 AM
joel dan walls: Well, on the national level we've got Democrats for McCain, the Party Unity My Ass crowd, and PUMA enablers like this, so why not a bit of Merkley-bashing here?
Why not indeed? The behavior of Steve Novick's supposed "supporters" like torridjoe and Pat Malach in the face of his appeals to help Jeff Merkley oust Gordon Smith shows that they were never really for their candidate at all. Instead, like the racists for Hillary, they were really just against the object of their hate.
However, in their case, their hate is paradoxically centered on the majority of Democrats, who positively refuse to abandon capitalism, which they have renamed "corporativism" to try to make a pejorative word out of it. The Democratic party, in their view, took a drastic wrong turn in the 1970s, when it failed to engage in political warfare against businesses, and instead turned towards cooperation to help advance the interests of the working class. As right wingnuts hate Democrats by pretending that we're Socialist and/or Communist, so these left wingnuts hate Democrats because we're not.
Again, there is no real answer to people who both think it's a good idea for Barack Obama to sit down and talk to murderous third-world tyrants, while at the same time hating and fearing all businessmen to the point that any Democrat who accepts their political donations - as we promise to raise their taxes - makes that Democrat an evil corporatist. Like the Hillary supporting racists, their hate of others exceeds their love of country (and even self-interest), so they refuse to put any kind of effort into removing the Republicans who are clearly damaging it.
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 1, 2008 11:11:24 AM
Smug half-wits like Pat Malach who use racist rhetoric to demean others only highlight their own profound hypocrisy by challenging others ethical choices.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 11:35:54 AM
Why not indeed? The behavior of Steve Novick's supposed "supporters" like torridjoe and Pat Malach in the face of his appeals to help Jeff Merkley oust Gordon Smith shows that they were never really for their candidate at all. Instead, like the racists for Hillary, they were really just against the object of their hate.
Once again, Steve Maurer gets it wrong.
Pat Malach, TJ, and a large number of the rest of us Novick supporters were and are very passionate supporters of our candidate. Having said that, even during the primary season we freely acknowledged our disagreements with him on one issue or another, but supported him because of our profound trust in Steve, his integrity, and his authenticity.
Here is one additional area where some of Steve's supporters happen to disagree with him.
Speaking purely for myself, I was opposed to Gordon Smith long before I had ever heard of either Jeff Merkley or Steve Novick, and I have expressed here and elsewhere my intention to vote for Merkley in November. I said as much to Jeff himself when he called me a couple of weeks ago.
But even so, the DSCC has made clear that when Chuck Schumer's ego is on the line it will step in with whatever amount of money is necessary to achieve the desired result, and so, no, I do not feel obligated in any way to extend financial support to the Merkley campaign. The money will be there, and I can spend my own more limited resources to support candidates for whom I feel some actual enthusiasm.
Lack of enthusiasm is not the same as "hate," to come back to Steve Maurer's choice of words. I don't hate Jeff Merkley. He isn't worth hating. I don't love him either. He just *is*. He is the Democratic nominee and because I care about beating Gordon Smith I have to vote for him. Full stop.
Here's what I told Jeff when he called me: I'm not excited about this right now, but I'm going to keep an eye on him. As Yogi Berra once said, you can observe a lot just by watching, and if I see anything that gets me excited, I'll step up without being asked.
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Jul 1, 2008 11:44:43 AM
So once again the focus has been taken off of the job of getting rid of Smith and back on to the petty each-other'ness. How about we try something new. If all you can do is think of some kind of insult against someone, how about you do us a favor and just not respond? This isn't ABOUT whether Pat likes Kari, or Kevin likes Pat, or Torrid likes the Democrats. Remember when this kind of crap was settled beetween folks behind the gym after school? Give it a try and leave the rest of us out of it.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 1, 2008 11:53:32 AM
So once again the focus has been taken off of the job of getting rid of Smith and back on to the petty each-other'ness.
Actually--that would seem to be the point of the exercise for those who continue to rehash the primary here.
Its apparent that for a select few squeaky wheels, its not about putting a progressive in the U.S. Senate and getting rid of Gordon Smith. Its about nursing grudges and tantrums.
I think its fantastic that Steve has stepped up to help Jeff. I heard him on KPOJ yesterday morning with Carl Wolfson, talking about how important it is to elect Jeff to the U.S. Senate.
Too bad that some of Steve's supporters aren't as savvy and gracious as he is.
Posted by: Lou | Jul 1, 2008 12:42:17 PM
On the contrary, I view some of the pleas to just take it behind the gym or to just get along as evidence of a failure to recognize the divides that exist amongst those who identify themselves as liberal. Face it. We are a divided lot. You cannot magically make these divides go away. There must be work done to listen and understand the roots of these divides.
For some, it is rather easy to say "Smith=Bad Guy Who Takes Money From Exxon. Let's work to defeat him." For some of us, though, despite our distaste for Big Oil Smith, we still have a lingering distaste for Big Democratic Party Merkley. Jeff took a lot of money from a group that, in my opinion, seeks to change the course of politics by perpetuating the status quo. Some of us have grown weary of chasing our tails.
All of this does not mean that I will work against Jeff, but it does mean that I have a hard time getting my checkbook out for him.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 1, 2008 1:45:07 PM
Stephanie V wrote... Speaking purely for myself, I was opposed to Gordon Smith long before I had ever heard of either Jeff Merkley or Steve Novick, and I have expressed here and elsewhere my intention to vote for Merkley in November. I said as much to Jeff himself when he called me a couple of weeks ago.
Stephanie is a model for how good Democrats ought to approach this. Fight hard and work hard for your guy in the primary, and then - when it's over - help elect the nominee.
I think some reasonable dissent and disagreement is fine. We don't all need to pretend that the nominee walks on water, but idiotic sniping, rehashing of old primary-era arguments, and outright bashing serves no one but the Republican.
I'm pretty sure Maurer's comments were not directed at Stephanie, or even the vast numbers of Novick supporters who are supporting Jeff Merkley over Gordon Smith. But rather, at just the small handful of people (something under a half-dozen or less) that can't seem to let go, and feel the need to gratutiously fire potshots on various blogs.
Posted by: C.C. | Jul 1, 2008 2:07:55 PM
Well. Isn't it nice to see how poorly Dems are getting along. This is a fine way to beat Smith.
If Merkley doesn't move to (or appear to move to) the center he won't have a prayer of beating Smith. But, you extreme lefties won't allow him to do what he needs to do to win. (Even Clinton & Obama know enough to do this). Some of you (including Merkley) are complaining about Smith's two-faced stategy. But, if you won't allow the Dem candidate to do the usual move to the center then he will lose to Smith. Are you sure you REALLY want to win?
The campaign tact should be: "Do you want a real Democrat or a jack-in-the-box RINO who pops up differently every day?" "Vote for the man who is CONSISTENTLY a Democrat," not the RINO who is one thing one day and another the next. A slogan could be: "Merkley -- the real Democrat running in this race." "Merkley: He's always been a Democrat, always voted like one." "Let's drop the RINO chameleon. Vote for Merkley."
Get with it you people. I'm a Republican who has had it with Smith. Why do you make it so easy for him to beat you?
By the way, are you complainers aware that Smith has his eye on running for President some day (possibly VP first). Well he has said so to confidants some years back. If you don't stop him at the pass NOW, you may be fighting against a potential President Smith.
Get your act together!!!!
Posted by: steve | Jul 1, 2008 2:09:55 PM
Isn't the point of the primary to elect the BEST candidate, with the BEST chance to win the general election?
I think that what all this angst boils down to is that, were there public financing for the primary--or some means by which to make all else equal--Novick would have put the smack down on Merkley. The fact is, he had a substantially more exciting campaign and message.
Merkley seems like a really great guy who has done some amazing things with his life that demonstrate admirable principles and integrity. I would love to have him as a senator. But if he had to lean on a substantial and unfair monetary advantage (to feed Schumer's ego) in this primary in order to eke out a narrow victory over Novick, how will Merkley have a chance against the Smith Machine's fat bankroll? The Novick campaign did a LOT with a little, and that is going to be a fundamental component of success for a Dem in the general election against Smith. However, in nominating Merkley, we have put forth a candidate (or campaign) who has proven that he could do only a little with a lot.
Again, I wholeheartedly support Merkley, and I think he's a great champion of the liberal cause. But unfortunately, I just don't think he'll win, and I believe his nomination is another example of the best Democracy money can buy.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 1, 2008 2:15:04 PM
Um, "steve", would you mind using a secondary identifier - so that we don't confuse you with all the other people named Steve around here?
Especially if you're going to be posting comments with such grave concern...
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 1, 2008 2:27:14 PM
On the contrary, I view some of the pleas to just take it behind the gym or to just get along as evidence of a failure to recognize the divides that exist amongst those who identify themselves as liberal.
I view it as a failure to see the forest for the trees.
The goal (in the short term) is to defeat Gordon Smith and send Jeff Merkley to the U.S. Senate for Oregon. That's a massive step forward for our state.
The long term goal is to make the U.S. Senate, House and Presidency more progressive.
Yes, there are divides among progressives, Democrats, conservatives, Republicans and Americans-in-general. But to make the divides more important than actually moving us in the right direction is not something that's defensible, in my opinion.
And that's what I sincerely see going on with a lot of the anti-Merkley stuff going on here and elsewhere by a handfull of Novick primary supporters.
Posted by: Steve M (not N) | Jul 1, 2008 2:35:42 PM
Kari,
Sorry, I am more of a "newbie" than a "concern" poster. I realized that my name could be problematic right after I pressed "post." I am 110% Dem. I don't want my dismay at the way things went with funding to be mistaken for being anti-Merkley or anti-Dem. I think Merkley's issue positions are great. I was just more excited about Novick's possibilities of becoming a real leader in the Senate who would draw focus towards Oregon. And I wish we could have had an even chance. I truly believe that Novick would have provided a stark contrast to a Smith who is fleeing toward the center. But again, I support Merkley at this point and will donate to Merkley if I can.
Posted by: C.C. | Jul 1, 2008 2:43:34 PM
Steve Duin (Oregonian) pretty much put into his own words what I tried to point out above. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/121487551048280.xml&coll=7
"The Democrats can't counter with a maverick saga of their own because their free spirit, Novick, lost in the primary. Their campaign won't promote Merkley as a visionary but argue, instead, that Smith is a fraud...
Bloodying Smith, the D's are convinced, is better strategy and story line than promoting Merkley as a congenial wonk who will fit neatly into the new Democratic majority.
And the senator is convinced, I'm sure, that the nastier and bloodier it gets, the better it serves him and the clever marketing campaign that suggests he is all things to all people."
The present Dem strategy won't work. Neither will Novick people refusing to support Merkley. Let's face it. It is YOU who will be electing Gordon Smith again. He has never won without getting a significant number of Dem. votes. You are not even be going to take away the Dem votes he has been getting in the past because you will not get your acts together. You will not support the Dem candidate unless he dots every teensy weensy little far-left "i."
YOU have already given the win to Smith. Smith knows it; Merkley knows it. Steve Duin knows it. The Oregon Conservative knows it.
You do NOT really care if Merkley loses. The rhetoric on this page proves it.
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 1, 2008 2:46:23 PM
Steve: But unfortunately, I just don't think he'll win, and I believe his nomination is another example of the best Democracy money can buy.
Honest question: The election is several months away yet and that being the case... what is the point in prematurely writing a denigrating epitaph which may well prove to be as accurate as the infamous headline declaring that Dewey had won?
As a general observation not necessarily aimed at Steve... I find it noteworthy that several commenters only seem to find getting a dig in at Merkley sufficient motivation to post a comment here and the rest of the time they are silent.
At some point actions need to match up with words in order for the words to be believable.
Posted by: Steve M | Jul 1, 2008 2:59:37 PM
Kevin: I HOPE it proves to be as (in)accurate as the Dewey headline. I hope there will be a Nov. 5th front page picture of Merkley holding up a paper with the headline "Smith Wins" and grinning in victory. I am not being denigrating; I am being realistic. The sentence to which you refer was, to be fair, precipitated by some logic----namely (and I think any reasonable person would agree) that Merkley will have to do a lot with a little to beat Smith; he just barely won the primary with 3x the money; and Smith will have 3-4x the money that Merkely will have.
Anyway, you are correct that the focus now should be on beating Smith and promoting Merkley. I was just reacting to some of the squabbling going on here with what I believe to be the reasonable assessment. Go Jeff!
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 1, 2008 3:06:25 PM
I can tell you right now that the DSCC is not going to fully fund Merkley's campaign. They'll give the campaign a sizable amount of money - but the majority of the funds are going to come from outside of the DSCC.
And if a campaign can't show good support from within their home state, then if funds become limited, they're going to be less likely to get as much funds as they need from the DSCC.
While Merkley may not be my ideal candidate, he's stick a heck of a good one. He'll go to DC and fight for Oregonians. When I write to his office, I'll actually be able to get a response. When we call and try to get an appointment with a staffer, we'll be able to instead of being kept outside and told to mail your concerns instead. I've been writing, calling, and visiting Gordon Smith's office almost as long as I have lived in Oregon. Do you know how many responses I've gotten? One - on the right of the citizens of DC to have the representation in Congress they deserve.
As soon as I have the funds to do so, I plan on giving to his campaign. My funds are limited for things like this, but he'll be on my short list for sure.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 3:35:16 PM
Jenni, you're a better person than I am. I am still angry about the primary campaign Jeff ran and the enormous stealth DSCC cash infusion that enabled him to win, however narrowly.
Not angry enough to vote for Smith, but certainly when you add that element to the whole bundle of my thoughts and feelings about this election, it adds up to this: I find myself in a place where I can't really motivate myself to lift a finger to help Jeff beyond darkening that oval in November.
Posted by: LT | Jul 1, 2008 3:37:07 PM
Posted by: steve | Jul 1, 2008 2:09:55 PM
Steve, I have heard your point of view in conversations with others.
Today was the 2nd memorial service in as many weeks for an old family friend who was an active Democrat--some of the same people at both services.
In each case, the person who just died was an active Democrat, active with their family, in their church, in a chosen career, in their community, full of good works that many others had not known about until they were mentioned by speakers at the service.
Each person had passion, but that didn't mean just angry rhetoric---it meant working to make things better.
I think it was great that we had such a contested primary for US Senate---sometimes primaries don't have such passionate support on each side. The effort of winning a contested primary helps the nominee (as long as that person makes intelligent choices in the general election). There are personal connections formed in contested primaries which can last for years or decades.
But here's the deal: people argue over contested primaries long after the November election is over. The sense from some here is that there has never been a contested primary like this one between Novick and Merkley. I've lived through too many contested primaries to believe that.
Let's imagine for a moment that Steve and Jeff had equal amounts of money in the primary. How would Steve have spent that money?
How would spending more money have convinced the neighbor who said "I'm glad Novick lost because I couldn't figure out what opening a beer bottle had to do with the US Senate"?
Would Steve have done more ads, run a stronger field operation, appeared downstate more often in town hall meetings rather than just house parties?
Would he have listened to those who said an AuCoin endorsement wasn't likely to win over the half of the Democrats voting in 1992 who didn't vote for AuCoin (the margin of the recount was 330 statewide)?
Would more money have made up for those who said "we tried running someone who been elected to public office in 1996 and that's how we got Gordon in the first place"?
Would it have caused him to link that excellent poverty video to the front page of his website rather than "flammable pants"?
Would it have enlarged his target audience beyond "we know what Democrats want"? In that, wasn't he like Hillary Clinton in believing there was a specific way to target Democratic voters in a year when there were newly registered Democrats that many activists had never met before--people who might be all over the lot politically but they wanted to vote in the truly contested presidential primary? What would Novick have done with more money to inspire more such people to actually vote in the Senate primary rather than leaving that line blank?
In 1982, Oregon Democrats in the new 5th District nominated a legislator who lost the general election to Denny Smith by something like 7 votes per precinct. Yes, that was a long time ago, but for some people Steve sounded a lot like that legislator--very strong language, very opinionated, and if swing voters in rural areas didn't like what Ruth McFarland said, tough luck. Enough money would have convinced people that Steve wouldn't make the general election mistakes Ruth made?
Steve got 43% statewide and won Multnomah and a couple other counties. Would more money have enlarged his appeal in the counties where he got 35% or less? How?
This is a turning point election--"Obamacons" from ordinary fed up Republicans to famous people such as law professor Doug Kmec (who worked for Pres. Reagan) and quite possibly Colin Powell think this country needs a new direction. There were people who went to see Obama when he came to Salem who historically were not active Democrats. Exactly how would more money have helped Steve Novick reach these people?
There are many people full of good works who are too busy being involved in their community to be actively involved in politics. There are others who struggle just to make ends meet, raise their kids, and maybe have a little fun in their spare time. It seems to me that they are the key to winning elections. Running ads won't work with people too busy to watch TV. Person-to-person conversation often changes more minds.
A Republican friend is offended by the Mike Erickson story and told me so. I told him Kurt Schrader is an old friend and he had a reputation as a very frugal Ways and Means chair. The friend said that sounded good and he would consider voting for Kurt.
That doesn't mean he will vote for Obama, or that he will vote for Merkley. But maybe he will be a vote for Kurt.
I am very proud of Steve for backing his primary opponent. I believe he should run for office again--but in Mult. County where he has proven he can earn votes.
There were women in the first half of this year saying of Hillary Clinton, "I want a woman president, not just this president".
There were people saying "Merkley for US Senate, Novick for Chief of Staff---that would utilize the greatest strengths of both of them".
I don't think there is anything Hillary could do to change the minds of the women mentioned--no matter how much money she spent. I don't think any amount of money could have changed the minds of the people who said "I've known Steve for years, and I am voting for Merkley" anymore than all the 1986 lobbying by those outside the 4th CD that "anyone who doesn't support Margie Hendricksen doesn't support women" prevented Peter DeFazio from getting the nomination. Having been one of the women supporting Peter, I still remember the peer pressure.
The voters got that one right. I believe the voters around the state spoke in this primary and I still don't see how having more money would have changed the result. If Steve Novick truly "had a substantially more exciting campaign and message" to folks outside Multnomah County, his supporters in the downstate counties could have gotten him at least 35% of the vote in more counties than actually happened.
Posted by: LT | Jul 1, 2008 3:41:42 PM
Stephanie,
Notice my above mention of the 1992 AuCoin primary victory. I didn't campaign for AuCoin that fall--but that didn't prevent me from campaigning for other Democrats. If you are willing to vote for Jeff, you are more forgiving than I was then (but then, the tone of this campaign was a lot more issue-oriented than the AuCoin attack commercials and other stuff which led a friend of mine to just ignore that primary as too nasty).
Stephanie, you are part of a large group of activists who survived a contested primary where you were very strongly supporting a candidate who you admired but who lost. Welcome to the club. Many of us have felt the way you feel at one time or another.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 1, 2008 3:58:04 PM
Stephanie:
No, I've just been in this position before. And me and a lot of activists felt the most we could do was vote for the candidate. And then the Republican won. It happened twice, and I swore to myself that next time would be different.
One of those races actually created enough of a division in the party that it is still trying to recover - and it's been about 10 years. In the meantime, the Republican Party in the county has been able to grow because the Democrats are too divided to fight for the area.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jul 1, 2008 4:09:20 PM
Two things have to be done:
First, from now until November, stop harping on whether Merkley was better than Novick or whether Merkley ran a dirty campaign. Just support Merkley over Smith. No distractions. Period.
Second, as soon as that election is over, then you can re-visit the campaign -- whether Merkley behaved appropriately could be on the table, and certainly whether Schumer behaved appropriately should be on the table. But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jul 1, 2008 4:15:15 PM
Hi Steve M. Welcome to BlueOregon. I want you to know that regardless of any other opinion you have, I fully recommend your first name and the starting initial of your last.
For the record, Kari is right. Stephanie has been intemperate, but then again, occasionally so have I. So while I don't agree with her "non-enthusiasm", and wish she'd focus a little more of her ire on Republicans rather than Democratic party leaders, she's no leftist version of Lieberman. Fundamentally she fights fair.
Insofar as Jeff Merkley is concerned, no matter how high his positives are or low his negatives, this election is really going to be about the incumbent - as it always is when you're talking about kicking out a long term office holder. No matter how enthusiastic partisans are about the new guy, what really moves swing voters is what they feel about the old one.
Jeff can't give Smith the truth he so richly deserves without some of the bad feeling about comparative advertising getting back on him. So that isn't really where Democrats need the major money to go.
Where's a good 527 when you need one?
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 4:22:31 PM
Steve got 43% statewide and won Multnomah and a couple other counties. Would more money have enlarged his appeal in the counties where he got 35% or less? How?.... I am very proud of Steve for backing his primary opponent. I believe he should run for office again--but in Mult. County where he has proven he can earn votes.
It's not a matter of enlarging his appeal, it's a matter of enabling his campaign to communicate with a larger group of people, and at least allow them to consider him.
This could have worked in two ways.
(1) Some Merkley voters might have been Novick voters if they had been better informed. Maybe some of those Democrats who never heard anything about Steve wouldn't have cared for him anyway, but if Jeff Merkley was the only Democrat they ever heard a message from (or about), it's not shocking that they might have defaulted into voting for him.
But scenario (2) is more interesting.
(2) As we all know, there was an enormous undervote in the Senate primary below the Presidential primary -- more than 80,000 Democrats failed to vote for any candidate in the Senate primary. Perhaps if Steve had had more resources to communicate to those voters who he was and what he was about, he might have appealed to at least 20% of them, which would have been enough to win the primary. He did do 43% statewide, after all. It isn't much of a stretch to say that he could have picked up more than 20% of the undervoters if he had been able to reach them.
I did not come here to refight the primary, but I think your question has a very strong answer that you are not acknowledging, and the unfair financial advantage Chuck Schumer's sponsorship afforded to Jeff Merkley is one of the main reasons why so many of us were and remain so deeply angry.
And, no, I also do not accept the premise that Multnomah County is the only place where Steve can get votes. Steve received an astonishing number of votes and support from all over the state while laboring under significant disadvantages. It's clear to me that he can get votes everywhere in Oregon.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 1, 2008 4:23:58 PM
But even so, the DSCC has made clear that when Chuck Schumer's ego is on the line it will step in with whatever amount of money is necessary to achieve the desired result, and so, no, I do not feel obligated in any way to extend financial support to the Merkley campaign. The money will be there, and I can spend my own more limited resources to support candidates for whom I feel some actual enthusiasm.
This meme is as weird as it is enduring. Chuck Shumer gets about 500% more vitriol in the comment threads of BlueOregon than does Bush. Yeah, he runs a political machine. It seems strangely naive to hate him for doing this. I get that it sucked to have the DSCC dump a bunch of money into the race, but let's be honest--it was because they picked the horse they thought would beat Smith, not to advance some devilish anti-Dem scheme.
As to the second part ("the money will be there"), this seems at odds with the facts. Smith had something like $8 mil on hand coming into this election. As a consequence, he's been blanketing the airwaves with ads since mid-June--nearly five months before the election. Don't chip into Merkley's account if you don't support him, but don't justify this by thinking Merkley can match Smith dollar for dollar without a HUGE fundraising push. Even with DSCC money.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 5:01:53 PM
Since when has it been Merkley's plan to try to match Smith "dollar for dollar?"
Posted by: petr | Jul 1, 2008 5:25:16 PM
as a former novick volunteer and someone who was angered/disappointed by merkley's primary tactics, and underwhelmed by his overall campaign i have put that all behind me. the only thing standing between me and donating to him is an error in resetting my password on actblue. at this point i'd even be willing to volunteer for him, but i'm afraid i won't have any spare time. that said...
having made it totally clear that i do not agree with the novick supporters who might not vote merkley, and even those who will vote but not donate/volunteer, i want to say;
when people ascribe motivations to former novick supporters, such as this quote from carla (not trying to single you out carla, yours was just the best example in this thread):
"Yes, there are divides among progressives, Democrats, conservatives, Republicans and Americans-in-general. But to make the divides more important than actually moving us in the right direction is not something that's defensible, in my opinion.
And that's what I sincerely see going on with a lot of the anti-Merkley stuff going on here and elsewhere by a handfull of Novick primary supporters."
and
"Its apparent that for a select few squeaky wheels, its not about putting a progressive in the U.S. Senate and getting rid of Gordon Smith. Its about nursing grudges and tantrums".
though the point may be relevent (if a tad hyperbolic), it misses the larger point: that merkley has a problem on the left. this is not due to a few squeaky wheel novick partisan bloggers; it is due to a not insignificant portion of the swing-left feeling alienated by the merkley campaign. some of us will (or have already) come back merkley, how many do so largely depends on merkley himself. i was going to wait until merkley reached out, but i lost patience and i am so tired of smith. i know others who are waiting and others who have bailed completely already.
so even though i''ve come back to merkley, i think it's really important the he offers some sort of gesture to those alienated by the primary and not run away from his left flank. he can win without us, but if he actually wants to win without us that does not bode well for how he intends to legislate.
so i will drop my criticism of merkley's primary campiagn until november, but i will not withhold criticism of his general campaign, just like i won't withhold criticism of obama. its too important to just shut up and go along as expected of us good democrats.
and in response to to jeff alworth, who said:
"I get that it sucked to have the DSCC dump a bunch of money into the race, but let's be honest--it was because they picked the horse they thought would beat Smith, not to advance some devilish anti-Dem scheme."
let's really be honest, unless we have inside information from either schumer or merkley, we won't really know why the dscc dumped all that cash into the primary until after merkley is elected to the senate and we see how he votes. i'd love to be convinced otherwise before then, but in my experience, in politics favors do not go unreturned and i don't see any reason to think otherwise in this case. still, merkley gets the benefit of the doubt until november.
Posted by: Steve M | Jul 1, 2008 5:40:37 PM
LT:
I appreciate your email, and I believe it to be, for the most part (excluding digs at silly ads), well-reasoned. However, I believe that your focal question (how would more money would have enabled Steve to reach more voters outside of Multnomah County) has a response that would quite satisfy your curiosity. Quickly, though, I must reiterate that I am an admirer of Jeff Merkley's policy positions and his principles. From everything I've seen, he is a great person and would be a great senator, and he has done what it takes to earn his chance to be a senator. (I also think your idea about Merkley for Senate/Novick as his Chief of Staff was a good one.)
Anyway... To take one example: if Steve had had more money, he would have been able to establish a field office in, say, Lane County, to match the Merkley field office there. As it was, it was quite difficult to develop operations there and to effectively organize and recruit volunteers. That difference alone, one may safely assume, accounts for the narrow loss of Lane County. Furthermore, in relation to the coast and hinterlands: the more money one has, the more TV time one can purchase, and the more one can embed ones' name & image in the minds of distant or low-information voters. Lower-information voters tended to side with Merkley, as did those in outlying counties--and the two were often the same. It would be difficult to support an argument that their votes were due to truly informed support for Merkley rather than to the nearly 15-1 TV time ratio Merkley enjoyed--and his money purchased--in the waning weeks of the primary. It is instructive that polling consistently showed Novick ahead until the bitter end--coinciding with the extra TV time.
It is important to recognize, too, that Steve got enough votes to have won any prior Senate primary. It's not that he needed to get more votes to compete with Merkley. It's that Merkley had enough money to purchase the TV time to get the extra votes to get over the top.
Let's imagine for a moment that Steve and Jeff had equal amounts of money in the primary. How would Steve have spent that money?
What would Novick have done with more money to inspire more such people to actually vote in the Senate primary rather than leaving that line blank
You ask what the two would have done with equal money; then you ask what Steve would have done with more money. But what if Merkley had had LESS money--what if it were up to actual grassroots fundraising instead of big party donorship? That was the underlying assumption of my post. And I think it is a more apposite hypothetical, since a corollary point of my post was that a primary's function should be to nominate the best-quality candidate as opposed to the "officially" endorsed/funded candidate. So--Novick had roughly $1M dollars; Merkley $3M. Say we give them both $1M. Novick runs the same campaign, but Merkley can't reach out to so many extra low-info voters. He can afford neither the TV time nor the extra Field Office (offices?). Who would win that race? The point of my original post was that with equal money, running the same types of campaigns that they did run, using the same tactics, MINUS all the extra TV time and the extra Field Office for Merkley, Novick would most likely have won. Ok. So, you were approaching it from the other side--give Novick $3M to match Merkley's. I think that makes for a closer race than a $1M race, because then both candidates would be reaching out to low-info, less-predictable voters. However, it would seem only reasonable to me to assume that Novick wins in a $3M level playing field as well, based on the numbers applicable to the actual primary. Why not? Is it not pragmatic to impute greater viability or tactics or message to a scantily resourced candidate/campaign that narrowly loses to one more heavily funded?
Does giving Novick an extra $2M erase a 15,600 vote margin in a 500,000 vote primary? Or would taking away about $2M or even $1M or even $500K from Merkley lose those extra 15,600 votes? Maybe not. Maybe Merkley would still have won. But I think the reasonable and objective person would be hard-pressed to say so.
Posted by: LT | Jul 1, 2008 6:10:34 PM
"Anyway... To take one example: if Steve had had more money, he would have been able to establish a field office in, say, Lane County, to match the Merkley field office there."
Thanks, Steve, but perhaps you miss my point.
My point is this: some people are "low info voters" but some people are not.
And among both groups, what someone hears from someone they know is more powerful than what they hear from ads.
A Lane County field office wouldn't have affected the result in Marion/Polk, where politics is to some extent a local industry. And for every uninvolved neighbor who asks what opening a beer bottle has to do with the US Senate, there may be someone who has known Steve for years and chooses not to vote for him.
Just as importantly, there is the issue of faith in running of a campaign operation. Had Steve been able to open field offices in every W. Oregon county, would that have gotten more votes in counties like Marion, Polk, Linn?
And another thing--winning friends and influencing people sometimes comes down to things that don't cost money. I got a call during the primary from a friend who grew up in Linn County, is old enough to have actually gone to Wayne Morse rallies, and has been active in politics his entire adult life. He called me up during the primary to discuss what he had read on Blue Oregon. He said of what he saw of the Novick campaign and what he read on BO "These people don't know how to win a statewide campaign!".
I had the "gall" to relay that here, and there were BO people who said unless my friend posted his own thoughts, no one had to believe he even existed. Steve himself told me in an email once that many people he met did not read BO, but to read the debate here you'd think some believed every good Democrat blogs regularly.
Money would win over someone alienated by such remarks?
This goes back to the old debate about the role of money in politics. Sometimes it determines results, sometimes it does not. What if the "we know what's best" attitude some saw in the Novick campaign had gone along with Novick having more money than Merkley? How do you know Novick's numbers in downstate counties would have been over 35% in each county?
Maybe this is a debate which cannot be resolved.
But I will tell you this about the 2010 primary. No matter how much money is involved, if there are competing candidates, I already have the criteria for who I will support. First, the more public appearances around the state/ district the better. Second, people have the right to listen to a speech and either like it or dislike it, and communicate that to their friends.
Suppose Candidate A talks about specific legislation, talks about accomplishments and plans for the future, talks about issues and priorities which match what I care about, uses diplomatic language rather than angry/acerbic language. Suppose my perception of Candidate B is someone who is running a know-it-all acerbic "we'll tell you which issues matter" campaign.
I WILL vote for Candidate A over Candidate B!
I wiil vote that way if A is well funded or poorly funded, has major funders or grass roots funders, or whatever.
I am proud to have supported Peter DeFazio over Margie Hendricksen, someone both in 1982 and 1984 against Ruth McFarland, Lonsdale over AuCoin in 1992 and Bruggere in 1996. I place the campaign Steve ran in the category of the candidates I didn't support. I was frustrated because I could see several ways that Steve Novick could have appealed to people like me, but he didn't do them.
Now, exactly how would a Steve Novick even with twice the money of Merkley have won the vote of someone like me--considering in the end I voted for the legislator over the non-legislator in 2 other primaries as well as US Senate?
That is my question. But it requires thought and considering a point of view a person doesn't share.
I have never believed money could overcome strong feelings. And the "low info voter" in many cases can be persuaded to look at a particular candidate because a friend speaks well of that person. Such people were in downstate counties and I knew some Novick supporters in this area. Why would it have taken extra money for those supporters to have argued with their friends, persuaded other friends to give him a look?
And if someone didn't like the beer ad or thought the pull the plug ad was too angry for their taste, how would more money have changed their minds?
Am I not reasonable and objective because I voted for Merkley having known both men for years?
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 1, 2008 6:11:50 PM
though the point may be relevent (if a tad hyperbolic), it misses the larger point: that merkley has a problem on the left. this is not due to a few squeaky wheel novick partisan bloggers; it is due to a not insignificant portion of the swing-left feeling alienated by the merkley campaign. some of us will (or have already) come back merkley, how many do so largely depends on merkley himself. i was going to wait until merkley reached out, but i lost patience and i am so tired of smith. i know others who are waiting and others who have bailed completely already.
Jeff may indeed have some problems with some folks "on the left". But then I'm "the left" too..and I think Jeff is incredible and exactly the kind of progressive that we need in the Senate right now.
If there is an "alienation" for some factions of the left--then perhaps those folks should stop waiting for the perception of being reached out to (cuz frankly, I think the campaign has made a concerted effort..as has Novick and Neville..to help bring folks along). There comes a point where people need to decide to take responsibility for reaching out too.
Maybe Jeff isn't your ideal candidate. Maybe Jeff isn't the ideal of others within that faction known as "the left". But Jeff isn't running to be the Senator for "the left". He's running to be the Senator for all of Oregon. And given the outstanding job he did as Speaker for all of Oregon..I'm thrilled that he might be that Senator.
Oregonians won't elect a person to the Senate that they perceive to be a hard-core, hard-ass lefty. They won't send someone that they believe to be a hard-core, hard-assed righty either. Jeff has to run a campaign that appeals to the most Oregonians possible.
If "the left" has a problem with that..then I'm curious as to how that group reconciles the idea that sending a great progressive like Merkley to the Senate is worse than keeping Smith in the seat?
This is a genuine question on my part.
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 1, 2008 6:24:28 PM
Daniel,
I very much agree with what you said up to the last part.
But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP.
I am very much open to voting for, giving money to and volunteering for a future Steve Novick candidacy. And the way he's handled himself since the Primary is at the forefront of my reasons why I am open to those things. But none of that is ever going to be a foregone conclussion for me, regardless of who the candidate is. The day that I stop weighing the actual merits of a choice once that choice has materialized is the day that I fail to fulfill my civic duty to myself and to my fellow citizens.
Odds on favorites going into a campaign? Yeah, I can get behind that. But my own personal view is that we each owe it to ourselves and our fellows to make informed choices with respect to who represents us in government. And that means not reaching decisions before there is a choice to be made. The alternative is to become that which we have been fighting against since 2000.
IMHO, as always.
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 1, 2008 6:37:42 PM
Chuck Shumer gets about 500% more vitriol in the comment threads of BlueOregon than does Bush.
That's what purity trolls do, whether they adhere to a hard-left ideology or a hard-right ideology. They have much more in common (ethically and intellectually) with their counterparts on the other extreme than anyone or anything else.
Posted by: Steve M | Jul 1, 2008 6:43:11 PM
You may well be reasonable and objective. I would not question your Merkley vote.
I agree with your points about high-information voters, all of whom have their own points of view and reasons for voting the way they do. I also agree with your points about the power of peer-to-peer communication. And yes, I'm sure some folks had issues with Novick, and didn't vote for him because of them; you are clearly one of them. However, if you were to really look at it, THAT is where the Novick campaign excelled--peer-to-peer communication. It had to in order to offset the gains made on the TV.
You continually bring up the "downstate counties" and the 35% number. However, that blurs the focus on the meaningful numbers and issues here--namely, how many votes may be ascribed to the extra money and TV time? Do you really think that the few people who didn't like Novick are more than a drop in the pan when compared with the amount of people reached by a huge TV campaign? I mean, that is the point of all this rhetoric. Anyway, this is going nowhere, and I wish you the best, and I'm sure we all hope Jeff wins in November. Go Dems.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 7:40:17 PM
As befitting my status as a Novick supporter, here's a sports metaphor that expresses my feelings pretty well: I'm an American League fan. I was raised in the American League (Baltimore), followed only the American League for many years of my life, and even drew a paycheck from the American League for five years. So I always support the American League.
Having said that, I am not a fan of the New York Yankees (who are in the American League), and any time the Yankees make it to the World Series, by definition, they got there at the expense of a club I liked better. So that makes things tough for me. But I *always* root for the American League, even if I can't bring myself to root for the Yankees. And that's how I get through the month of October in those unlucky years when the Yankees are in the Series.
Substitute "Democratic Party" for "American League" and you've basically got it.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 1, 2008 7:45:48 PM
...and I think Jeff is incredible...
Boy, when you're scanning a thread, you gotta be careful that you read further. Merkley, Jeff Merkley. And there I was getting all excited.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 1, 2008 8:07:02 PM
Stephanie, it's a bad analogy. I'm a Red Sox fan and the only team I can never tolerate winning is the Yanks. Leagues are a loose confederation of teams who want to beat each other up. Political parties are a tight confederation of people who want the same goals. The Democratic Party is like a team, not a league.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jul 1, 2008 8:19:44 PM
Kevin,
Theoretically, you're right. If the political equivalent of Tiger Woods ran against Steve, even I wouldn't think twice of voting for Novick. After all, Tiger is from another planet (I still can't get over that U.S. Open and it's been a couple of weeks since it has ended).
But practically, I can't imagine a candidate that I'd rather see in power than Steve. He's no Tiger. But ... as mere mortals go, he's extremely impressive. Being with him on the night of the election (as well as meeting folks like Stephanie V for the first time) was a great experience for me, and I'm sure everyone in that ballroom felt the same way. I'm proud of the way Steve has handled the Merkley-Smith campaign as well and it's hardly surprising; after all, this whole thing started as Steve's campaign to unseat Smith. He wants that to happen in the worst way, whether it's him or Merkley who gets to cross the line first.
So anyway, get Merkley in the Senate. Then get Novick ... [I won't say where ... but somewhere worthy of his skills].
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 8:53:04 PM
Jeff, with all due respect, it's MY analogy, and it's the way *I* think about leagues. It doesn't really help me for you to tell me I'm wrong.
Bottom line is: I root for the Ds, even when they are represented by someone I don't prefer or even hate. But I don't hate Jeff Merkley, despite my strong antipathy for many of his supporters.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 1, 2008 8:58:01 PM
let's really be honest, unless we have inside information from either schumer or merkley, we won't really know why the dscc dumped all that cash into the primary until after merkley is elected to the senate and we see how he votes.
C'mon... it's really really REALLY not that complicated. The DSCC exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To elect more Democrats to the U.S. Senate. They protect incumbents and support challengers.
They decided that Merkley had a better chance of winning than Novick. It's perfectly reasonable to dispute that judgment. But let's not go imagining bizarre conspiracy theories. All they want to do is win.
If they thought Novick was better than Merkley, they would have supported him. (And you can bet they studied the question very closely. Anybody considering a multi-million dollar bet is going to want all the info available.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 1, 2008 8:59:39 PM
And btw, Daniel Spiro's comment deserves to be repeated over and over and over again, until people listen. He's exactly right. On every count.
Two things have to be done:First, from now until November, stop harping on whether Merkley was better than Novick or whether Merkley ran a dirty campaign. Just support Merkley over Smith. No distractions. Period.
Second, as soon as that election is over, then you can re-visit the campaign -- whether Merkley behaved appropriately could be on the table, and certainly whether Schumer behaved appropriately should be on the table. But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jul 1, 2008 10:05:48 PM
TIME OUT.
WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
With all due respect, Kari, you are singing a far different tune today than you did a few short weeks ago.
I’m confused. I thought that you had stated very clearly that you did not think Steve was suited to elective office. Here’s a quote from a comment made by you in March.
And that about sums it up.Jeff Merkley's political career has been about bringing Democrats together to get things done. The pundits didn't think he could hold together an ideologically diverse 31-seat majority to achieve anything at all, much less the most progressive legislative session in a generation.
Steve Novick's political career has been about being a witty and biting political commentator, willing to slam Democrats for not hewing to his view of the Truth.
I've certainly cheered Novick from time to time as he's issued his sharp critiques and witty ripostes. He's often amusing, usually insightful, and always edgy. Personally, I'd love to see him take Lewis Black's slot on The Daily Show.
But that's a far cry from the skill set that's needed on the floor of the US Senate to actually get things done.
So... why would you recommend someone who can’t get things done for elective office? Either you didn’t really believe what you said then, or what you’re saying now makes no sense.
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: verasoie | Jun 30, 2008 11:09:09 PM
Nice message from Steve, but it's a bit ironic that this is posted just a couple hours too late for the filing deadline for contributions for this quarter. Bad oversight there (and no, I don't mean on Steve's part, but on the editor's).