It's official: John Kitzhaber is Oregon's next Governor

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

The sun was out today, bright and shiny all day - and it foretold the outcome of the Governor's race for Democrats. This evening, after the media called the race and John Kitzhaber took the lead in the raw vote count, Chris Dudley conceded the race. (And here's the video.)

The 8 p.m. statewide ballot count now has 672,576 votes for John Kitzhaber and 663,407 votes for Chris Dudley. Update, 9:30 p.m. It's now Kitzhaber 677,567; Dudley 665,018. That's 49.00% to 48.09% - outside the 0.2% margin for a recount.

Kitzhaber will hold a press conference at 10 a.m. Thursday morning at Tanner Springs Park, NW 10th Avenue and Marshall Street, in Portland.

Congratulations to John Kitzhaber and everyone who supported him!

In other news:

  • (Show?)

    All I can say is, thank you all the GOTV volunteers in Mult. County. We all owe you, big time!

  • (Show?)

    Not an easy race. Well done all.

  • (Show?)

    I hope it's not too soon to say one slightly negative thing though and it really has nothing to do with Chris Dudley, but everything to do with the Washington, DC GOP MACHINE that bore down on this state. The RGA and outside interests poured millions into Chris Dudley's race, right down to providing a bus and a plane to ambulate around the state in. In the end, it was no match for Oregonians and OUR Bus Project. I am happy for democracy in Oregon this evening, considering the completely warranted funereal mood of Progressives in the rest of the country.

    • (Show?)

      Thank you Carla and every volunteer who worked on the GOTV! I knew Multnomah County would pull us through. Your tireless leadership is much appreciated.

  • (Show?)

    Total numbers are all that counts. But this handy interactive map does request a least a moment's regard out of respect for the vast size of the state and the numerous much larger-area counties that reflect very different geographical, economic and social realities from Multnomah County and often feel (and are) over-run and overlooked.

    http://gov.oregonlive.com/election/2010/Governor/

    • (Show?)

      Makes me wonder how much regard folks in Oregon's "red" zones give to progressives who live in those areas?

      In my experience, the answer is, "not much."

      • (Show?)

        Exactly. I know progressives in La Grande who make tremendous (and non-partisan) contributions to their communities, but it's as if there's only one way to represent the interests of the state's rural residents. Suggest that the resource-extraction/environment-destruction/profit-removal industries haven't been the best stewards of the land or of the rural workers who made those industries profitable in the first place (that and a goodly subsidy from all citizens, rural and urban) and you might as well turn yourself in for treason at the local Sheriff's office. (Though you might have to walk to get there, since someone's likely to slash your tires before you have a chance to drive there. And out there, it can be a long walk!)

    • (Show?)

      Good thing people vote, not acres.

  • (Show?)

    Wow!

    Both of you have a complete warped perception of rural Oregon. Sure there are "fringe" idiots out here, but to suggest those who live in "red" zones given no regard to liberals or progressives is absolutely false.

    I serve on several boards that include members of both parties. We are highly respectful of each other and work well, despite political differences.

    I remember Carla writing a post a while back about the urban/rural divide. While she's convinced it isn't that big of an issue, both of your comments only seem to exacerbate that divide.

    At least people like Jeff are gracious enough to say something respectful of the opposing party.

    • (Show?)

      There are people in rural Oregon and urban Oregon who've worked to stoke the perception of a divide. It mostly comes from conservatives, in my experience. And there's certainly no reason for progressives to begin to wield this cudgel. It's just counterproductive.

      • (Show?)

        Not trying to wield any cudgels, but my wife often traveled to many parts of rural Oregon for her work, and told me many times that the hostility (from having license-plate frames from a Portland auto dealer) was palpable. I don't think it is stoking the perceptions of the divide to acknowledge it.

        I just had an interesting Twitter conversation with someone who was ranting about how "People who say that 'PDX saves OR again' have never owned a business, a piece of property or have never been outside of MultCo" I replied that I live outside Multco, have owned a business and own property, and she shot back that she should have included all of Portland. I responded again that I lived in rural Clackamas County and she said she'd "take my word for it."

        Her Twitter page says, "I have a passion for the natural resource industry and defeating environmentalism..." which I think speaks to the heart of the urban/rural problem--too many people in rural areas have been duped into thinking that if we just let the resource exploitation industries run amok everything in the rural West will be like the good old days. Try to show them why they are wrong and are being taken advantage of, and you're told that stupid liberal city folk like you should just butt out.

        • (Show?)

          City people perceive hostility in rural areas.

          Rural people feel judged in the city.

          Can't we all just get along?

          I've been on both sides -- grew up in a town of 300 people and have lived in cities since my teenage years.

          The truth is, small town people are so used to seeing the same regulars over and over, that when someone new comes to town, it's news. They're just wondering what's going on.

          The old adage "they're more afraid of you than you are of them" is true for both of these groups.

    • (Show?)

      Actually, I farm and live part time in rural Oregon. I grew up in rural Oregon. I have much love for rural Oregon.

      I find the people kind, generous, straight-forward and reasonable. Until you start talking politics.

      The point of my earlier reply was that things cut both ways. Was she considering the views of a liberal who happens to live in Harney County? How do they feel about always losing the race for state senator? Perhaps they feel "overrun and overlooked."

  • (Show?)

    Two parties, one Oregon. Given how closely divided the legislature will be, and how big the issues they confront are, this should be the motto of the 11-13 Biennium.

    • (Show?)

      Agreed.

      We must also be mindful however that the vast majority of Oregon's population lives in the region that votes progressively. Attempts to drive any seriously hardcore conservative stuff through the legislature should and will be met with a big wall of 'no way'.

  • (Show?)

    Congrats to Kitz. You ran against a tax dodging, poor hating, inexperienced ivy league elitist and you survived by the skin of your teeth.

    I hope the results of this election are not lost on my blue friends.

    • (Show?)

      Those things were the narrative, yes, based on perceptions. But they all stem from Dudley's inexperience and his inability to wade off his talking points. In the end, in his interview with Laural Porter, I still didn't get the impression that he had boned up on the issues at all. Even in that speech on election night. I think we dodged a bullet and that is not lost on me.

    • (Show?)

      And what exactly is lost or not lost on you regarding this election?

  • (Show?)

    @Sally "and often feel (and are) over-run and overlooked."

    Heeere we go again.

    People vote, not land, not counties. More people in Mult co.

    • (Show?)

      "People vote, not land, not counties. More people in Mult co.

      Which is what I said in the first sentence. And asked for a moment's regard of the other part of the story.

      Seems that was largely too much to ask for.

      • (Show?)

        You're basically just stoking the division fire, Sally. It's counterproductive--no matter how you try and soften it.

        • (Show?)

          No need to stoke the fire, it is fully burning. The GOP ran a candidate that had no business being Governor, let alone dog catcher, and he almost won.

          We are a state that is dictated to by the whims of Portlandia and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

          • (Show?)

            It always burns after any election, even ones where Mult Co doesn't decide it (like all those times Gordon Smith won US Senate, for example).

            Certainly the Portland area is set to have stuff dictated to them in the legislature, given that there's going to be a tie in the House. And if Hughes holds on to the Metro Chair race--it's potentially happening there as well.

            If you (the collective, not personal) want to focus on one race and screech "Portland forces everything on all the rest of Oregon", it's certainly one way to go. But it discounts the legislature and the entirety of the rest of the metro region.

          • (Show?)

            "the whims of Portlandis"

            In a representative democracy the principle is one person to one vote. That's not going to change anytime soon. Thank God there is enough urban culture that recognizes the value of community that we have progressive candidates who can win. Rural America has fallen under the spell of Ayn Randianism insanity and Bible thumpers while forgetting that rural electification, irrigation projects, and highways funded by a strong federal government created rural America. And the GOP is now the property of certifiable loonies. I would say the only prospects for real change in our political culture that might favor someone like you is for someone like Bloomberg to come along and offer independents and centrists a new political party and marginalize the GOP to the politically insane.

            • (Show?)

              Michael Moore was commenting last night that we might see 4-5 candidates on the ballot in 2012.

              If the GOP nominates a mainstream candidate[Romney] you can expect the Tea Baggers to go with someone like Palin.

              If Obama continues to disappoint the far left, they might run someone in the primary as well [a la Nader].

              Don't count out Bloomberg making a run if he thinks he can win it.

              I am just hoping that one of the five might be worth voting for.

              • (Show?)

                Michael, I believe Bloomberg is alarmed at the polarization in the country. He has been a corporate Dem. and a corporate Republican who understands the need for rationality and responsibility in governance when it comes to a safety net, when it comes to immigration, foreign policy, and when it comes to business regulation. It would be a healthy thing for the country if someone with the stature and the money of Bloomberg could really establish a credible political center that marginalizes the insanity on the right, not just as a candidate, but as a movement.

                • (Show?)

                  First off, I agree with everything you just said[that has got to be a first :-)]

                  I don't think that Bloomberg is who you think he is. I now believe that he is nothing more than a power hungry opportunist. I was a huge supporter of his during the 2008 election cycle when he was teasing us with a run for prez. He was exactly what I thought we needed and I still hurt from his decision to bail on us then.

                  I crave the opportunity to actually vote FOR someone who I support instead of the person who I dislike the least. So many of my friends are like me, social liberals and fiscal conservatives(not in the political sense but in the real world sense).

                  One day, maybe we will have a viable third option. What a great day it will be.

          • (Show?)

            So-called "Portlandia" doesn't have "whims", Michael. People who choose to live in cities like Portland have opinions. And those opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

            Moreso, I'd say, because at least they're logical. When a teabagger simultaneously protests his taxes and the stimulus package, so clueless as to not know that the stimulus package had all sorts of tax cuts in them and that they were paying a higher tax rate under Bush, you know that this has nothing to do with any kind of coherent economic policy.

          • (Show?)
            "The GOP ran a candidate that had no business being Governor, let alone dog catcher, and he almost won."

            Wow. Given the voluminous posts around here by you defending Dudley and attacking Kitzhaber week in, week out, I feel like someone just fed me crazy pills to see you post such a comment.

            • (Show?)

              As I said many time, I was never defending Dudley. All I was doing was attacking the attacks against him.

              It is real easy for people to make baseless attacks. If they go unchallenged, well BO becomes Fox News.

              • (Show?)

                Right, so when others would say that Dudley wasn't qualified to be dogcatcher, that was baseless attacks. But when you say the same thing post-election, then your real take on Dudley's utter lack of merit to be Governor comes to the fore.

                (rolls eyes)

        • (Show?)

          It was a significant point, politely made -- and respectfully, something you could use a bit of, Carla, but I believe I've yet to see. Your constant air of superiority and disdain are tiresome.

  • (Show?)

    That "divide" mentioned above is severe, as the red-blue map shows. The half-million or so rural Oregonians--mostly working people, same as in cities--who voted for Dudley--what were they thinkin? I grew up in a working class family but only semi-rural so I don't understand. Does the fact that city taxes subsidize rural expenditures have anything to do with it? That conservatives may have an inherent, if almost subconscious, economic resentment to build on? What is a good study of this subject?

  • (Show?)

    Smack dab in the middle of MultCo. I have a redneck heart. I have lived in and loved the countryside from Oskaloosa, Kansas to Molalla, Oregon. The connection urban must have with rural is integral to progressive politics. We so often succumb to red/blue, black/white, either/or framework of thinking that we mistakenly apply it to rural/urban.

    That's just bull pucky.

    Green industry and sustainable agricultural practices benefit BOTH urban and rural Oregonians. Issues of civil rights have as much application in Baker as they do in Aloha.

    Gov. Kitzahaber spoke today about one Oregon - not a divided one.

    • (Show?)

      Tell it to the people in Klamath Falls. I'm sure you'll make a convincing case, even if it's true what you say. This is the town that embraced the KKK in their history, and undoubtedly they embrace the tea partiers with equal vigor. In the 1950s and 60s, when unions and union jobs existed Klamath Falls elected a Democrat named Al Ullman. But today they are too busy hating Latinos, Indians, and "libruls" to care about anything real. It's a sick and pathological culture. I know, because I've lived in it.

    • (Show?)

      It's worth remembering that some of this country's greatest progressive movements came from rural Americans - ticked off at the corporatists that came from the big cities.

      Rural Oregon and Rural America can be populist and progressive -- if we figure out how to communicate and organize.

connect with blueoregon