Now you tell us to Discuss, Kari, instead of canvassing? :)

I'm amazed Hill's numbers are so high.

Here's what would make this really interesting: Sorenson pulls out, and asks his folks to back Jim Hill. Jim Hill's union base turns out their voters, skewing the pollster's "likely voter" pool. Kulongoski's base (ok, ok, people who find him acceptable) forget to vote.

So, Kulongoski is vulnerable. But not in trouble.

What this tells me is if we elect Kulongoski in the Primary that we will be handing this election to the Republicans in November. Those of us who don't want 4 more years of the same won't vote for Kulongoski in the General. Even if he wins the primary. That's why Westlunds numbers are coming from Dem's.

Scenario #1 Kulongoski, Westlund and Saxton - Saxton wins as Westlund and Kulongoski split the votes - Republican control of the Governors office (insert Mannix for Saxton - either way it's a right wing Republican)

Scenario #2 Hill, Westlund and Saxton - Westlund no longer pulls the Dem's away. Hill takes the Governor's office. The poll numbers show he can beat either Saxton or Mannix.

Those supporting Sorenson need to re-evaluate their position. Pete pulls votes away from Hill, not Ted, so if we want a Dem in Novemember ask Pete to support Jim Hill! It's a no brainer - Pete can't win but Hill can. After 15 months of campaigning Pete has only picked up 8% of the vote. Vote Jim Hill! Otherwise we are handing the Governorship to the Republicans. And that is not acceptable for Blue Oregon.

I'll wait until election night to see who wins the primary, and until the signature deadline to see if Westlund makes the ballot.

However, about this:

What this tells me is that Kulongoski is a shoo-in in the general election. Westlund is no threat. He won't even make the ballot. And Kulongoski has two great stories to tell, one explicit, one implicit. The explicit one is this: "I helped bring the State out of deep recession". The implicit one is this: "Unlike the Republican candidate, I'm not controlled by my Party's special interests".

There are people in this state who don't fit into the "lefty" or "moderate" label. They are tired of labels, tired of generalities. If they, or anyone they know, was employed in 2002 and has since been laid off, do they think the economy is doing great? Or could it be that "I helped bring the State out of deep recession". sounds rather hollow, as if people like those laid off since 2002 either don't exist or don't matter?

And as far as "special interests", that is in the eye of the beholder, and name calling doesn't gain votes. Mannix is the candidate of Loren Parks, Saxton has jumped on immigration along with his famous generalities. So, how does that win over people who might be voting for them in the primary?

Think of everyone who has been to an event (only Hill and Sorenson have done them, as far as I can tell) where a Dem. candidate for Gov. gave short remarks and then answered whatever issue questions there are. Even if they are tough questions which make the candidate sigh or exclaim some version of "oh, my!". As long as the candidate can then answer the question, that makes them someone willing to engage in dialogue with ordinary folks. Exactly where and when (other than strolling down streets in small towns without much advance publicity) has Ted done such events? Is he expecting everyone he met in bowling alleys in 2002 to vote for him without asking him questions about his term as Gov?

I went to one of the events where Jim Hill spoke and answered tough questions. It is one reason I chose to remain a Dem. and vote for him in the primary rather than re-registering Indep. and signing Westlund's petition.

Regardless of what bloggers say, individuals make up their own minds in ways that may not be known to activists (conversations with friends, for instance). In my life I have seen too many surprises to "know" how an election will come out. But then, I'm not making a living at politics, I've just been an activist for 30+ years.

TA- Of course Westlund isn't really gathering signatures yet. He can't even start validating signatures until 2 weeks after the primary is over. Why pour volunteer hours into gathering signatures if you don't even know if they are going to be valid? That wouldn't be smart campaign strategy...it would be a waste of time. It would be smart to wait until the matchbacks came back from the county clerks to target actual eligible voters. I’d suspect that’s what he’s doing.

Steven says: "And Kulongoski has two great stories to tell - "Unlike the Republican candidate, I'm not controlled by my Party's special interests".

That's the point. Ted does not represent the Democratic Party nor does he care much about our issues as witnessed in the last 4 years of lack luster performance. This is a primary race among democrats. Democrats don't want to be dissed anymore. We should stand proud of our values! And we need someone in the Governor's office who is proud to stand with us.

Polls show you are wrong on Jim Hill, he clearly wins against both Mannix and Saxton.

From my biased point of view, this poll says that more than a majority of Oregon Democratic voters want someone other than Kulongoski to be their nominee and that Jim can with this election with the help of the undecided who know Ted but are still not supporting him. Undecided voters break heavily to the challenger not the incumbent.

This poll along with the www.sureveyusa.com poll showing Kulongoski at 33% clearly shows that Ted is a liability to Democrats in the General election. Ted is going to lose and it is up to Dems to decide whether he is replaced by a strong progressive candidate in Jim Hill in the May 16th primary or to Saxton/Mannix in November.

Four years ago Kulongoski gave up a 20 point lead to Mannix and won with only 49% and that was when he had universal labor and progressive support (Thank You Tom Cox!). This time around, as is evident on the many discussions on this site, many Democrats are already stating their intent to support Westlund if Kulongoski is nominated. Even his supporters and those that have endorsed Ted are disappointed in his administration.

How does that translate into victory against the well funded motivated Republican onslaught that is coming down the pipeline?

The only chance that Democrats have to hold onto the governor’s office is to nominate Jim Hill. Jim will unite the party. He will campaign hard everyday on the issues that matter most to Democrats. He will get on the phone and raise the money that it is going to take to match Saxton’s corporate backers or Mannix’s weird relationship with Loren Parks. With Jim Hill as our nominee, this becomes a nationally prominent race that will make history and give Democrats a reason to be excited in November.

I know that I am laying it on a little thick; however this is a critical turning point for Oregon Democrats and the future of our state.

The Jim Hill for Governor media campaign is now going full steam ahead with our ads running heavily in the greater Portland, Salem and Eugene regions. Our volunteers and labor supporters are continuing to work hard with nightly phone banks and weekend canvassing to get out the vote. (Plenty of volunteer opportunities ;-) Check out the website at www.JimHill2006.com.

The key to this race is going to be for Democrats to find the courage to support the one candidate who is committed to providing leadership for a change, who can unite the party and win in November. That candidate is Jim Hill.

TA, you will be pleasantly surprised.

The baseline for me is the right track/wrong track then factoring in the disapproval numbers.

48% believe the state is headed down the wrong track, however, only 24% have an unfavorable view of Ted. Pete and Jim haven't taken many shots from each other, Ted or all 3 Republican candidates so why would they have an unfavorable rating. Hill has a good image and decent name ID, Sorenson could win gov of Lane County, maybe.

So, if we are headed down the wrong track (at least according to a plurality of D primary voters) but, its not Ted's fault, then whose is it?

the 77% unfavorables for Bush is one answer. I assume the legislature would score poorly.

So, while Ted does not have outstanding marks in this poll its hardly as bad as some would make it seem. I would imagine a Republican consultant is going to define this as Ted's getting beat up.

I just don't see that. The numbers just don't correspond. He has 95% name id and only 24% unfavorables, with a 48% wrong track vote - maybe 24% ain't that bad...

Now, if the others (Hill and Sorenson) had really made an impact they would have bumped those numbers up. I still might vote for one of them though, its just a difficult choice.

If Hill and Sorenson seem to be running lackluster campaigns, look at the amount of money they've raised and where it has come from. It's tough to raise money to run against an incumbent in a primary, and the big donors you attract are likely to want their issues front and center.

Step 1: support petitions 8 and 37 to enact contribution limits.

Step 2: give public financed campaigns another effort.

Oh, ya, and realize what a crock of manure public campaign financing foes like Ginny Burdick are peddling. Public financing advantages challengers, not incumbents. Most of all, it advantages the voters.

Would CFR really make people jump out of the chairs and volunteer for Hill and Sorenson? Would it change the favorable/unfavorable on Ted?

In theory anything is possible I guess. But, we have to live under the rules we have for this election. I also don't know that with current legal challenges to limiting independent expenditures, that we wouldn't have a natstier race on our hands.

So, I see your point but, it doesn't change much this election cycle Tom. And, frankily I don't see how 8 and 37 help at this point.

On point 2, however, with the legal challenges to CFR public financing (like Connecticut, Maine and Arizona) seems like the way to go.

Oregon Governor Kulongoski pledges his allegiance to AIPAC and the Israel Lobby

Once again, Governor Kulongoski pledged his total support to the powerful Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) at their recent April 30, 2006 AIPAC meeting in Portland.

He was so bold as to claim that "Even in these partisan times, support for AIPAC is an article of faith for both political parties."

What? Support of a lobby for a foreign country is an article of faith? Even when they violate human rights?

As a recent, controversial scholarly article points out, the “Israel lobby” has an important influence on our foreign policy that is very negative: it helps to cause the US to abandon the principles of international law and international principles of human rights and justice and international institutions and has a terrible impact on our standing in the court of world opinion. (See “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, http://www.auphr.org/articles/?id=2675)

Kulongoski's statements simply re-affirm the importance of combating this lobby and all powerful lobby groups that corrupt and influence politicians away from our common interests, our respect for human rights for all people, equality, and the rule of law.

Sincerely,

Peter Miller Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights

See the Governor’s full speech at: http://www.governor.state.or.us/Gov/speech/speech_043006.shtml

Pat,

I campaigned with Jim Hill for over two years leading up to the 2002 primary. I am pretty sure you were not at the twenty or so forums that Jim attended with Bev Stein (and sometimes Ted) in addition to the dozens of appearances Jim made and the two years of eight hours of day of fundraising on the phone that raised $1.3 million (without labor support.)

Oh by the way, I also worked for Kulongoski in the General Election. Out of respect for Ted and appreciation for his campaign bringing me on to the team, I will not get specific about my work with him. I will however say that among the many reasons that I am back working for Jim Hill, is that he is the hardest working candidate that I have ever worked for (and that is saying something, props to Brian, Ron & Darlene).

As for Jim's message, you really should have come out to one of the two dozen our so events that Jim and Pete have participated in. PERS and Casinos almost never come up. Actually those issues only come up when vocal Kulongoski supporters (the few that we come across), use those issues to distract people from Jim's message of providing leadership on the issue of fully funding our schools, creating access to affordable healthcare and protecting our environment.

It is understandable that if you are supporting Kulongoski who has only recently starting "talking" about these issues, you might want to change the subject.

I suggest that you go to our website JimHill2006.com and watch our ad. Then tell us which two issues Hill's media campaign this year seems to hinge on...

I will give you a preview... 1. Education 2. Health Care

p.s. While you are at our website, take a minute to look at the ads that we ran four years ago. You might see some familiar themes i.e. funding schools, prescription drug plan, raising the cigarette and alcohol taxes. There is no bowling in there because the ads were pretty much dedicated to providing leadership on the issues in 2002 that are still the issues in 2006.

It is fun playing the Political Math making predictions about future, but "let's not start sucking each other's d**ks quite yet."

After the primary everything will change. New issues will come to the forefront and personalities of the candidates will become an immeasurable factor.

Dems you don't know if Westlund is good or bad for you yet.

Dems you don't know if Saxton/Mannix aren't going to say the right thing to scare SEIU enough to bring them back.

Dems you don't know how many Republicans are going to stay home because they are ashamed to be a Republican right now.

Dems you don't know!

So go vote, help a candidate and put your tray table in the upright position because it's going to be a bumpy ride.

I trust that Hill and Sorenson supporters will line up behind Ted after the primary because there's nowhere else to go. Westlund has some attractive qualities, sure, but he's basically a rural conservative with no real qualifications other than his dissatisfaction with both parties.

Despite what some call "lackluster" performance in his first term, I'm supporting Ted in the primary. I've known him since before his first run in 1982, and I trust his basic instincts. His handling of the PERS issue is a major plus, as far as I'm concerned. It took a lot of fortitude to stand up to the public-sector unions (just ask Tony Corcoran!) but it was a necessary step to begin restoring public confidence in Oregon state and local government. I say this as a PERS member myself. Sometimes you just have to be the grown-up in the room, and make the tough decision.

On other progressive issues, consider who he had to deal with in the House. We were never going to get a lot of progressive legislation with that configuration. Also Ted's ability to take aggressive action of any kind through the Executive Branch was severely limited by a terrible budget situation. So let's use realistic benchmarks to judge his performance by.

I think things would look a lot different if we can take back the House. The budget won't be so tight next biennium, and Ted will have much more flexibility to pursue things he believes in.

Democrats should be careful not to say or do anything during the primary campaign that will damage our new team in November and beyond.

The best way for Ted to rally the troops if he wins the primary is to let no one in his organization say anything like I trust that Hill and Sorenson supporters will line up behind Ted after the primary because there's nowhere else to go. Westlund has some attractive qualities, sure, but he's basically a rural conservative with no real qualifications other than his dissatisfaction with both parties.

History is full of campaigns where the primary winner did outreach to the volunteers for the other candidates and had a really smooth summer and fall. History is also full of "forget your guy who lost the primary, by being involved for a losing candidate you owe the primary winner all your spare time until November and you have no right to ask any questions because you lost the primary". And on campaigns with that attitude, there are supporters of the primary winner spinning their wheels---wondering "why don't those people who supported the primary loser give us unquestioning support like we demanded of them?" rather than wondering how to win the general election. The May, 1996 US Senate nominee's campaign was notorious on that subject, and there were more 3rd party and "other " votes than the margin between Smith and Bruggere. It may come as a shock to some, but general election votes are EARNED, and can't be demanded as long as there is a secret ballot.

Unlike some 3rd party campaigns in previous years, there are Oregonians who have met Westlund or heard nice things from friends, and comments like "Westlund has some attractive qualities, sure, but he's basically a rural conservative with no real qualifications other than his dissatisfaction with both parties" are not going to win over those who have been impressed by his budget knowledge or his life story.

Words to the wise---and if Ted's people think they can demand support from those who didn't vote for him, I would advise some remedial reading: the definition of "volunteer". It does NOT mean "using your spare time to do unpaid work you are told to do".

Jeff -- of course Westlund's more attractive to Dems before the primary. Even though "Sorensill" supporters may not want to admit it, everyone already knows who the Dem nominee is going to be. So of course dissatisfied Dems are looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Republican contest is a nail-biter right now, even though half the Repubs are going to be mighty dissatisfied in two weeks.

Assuming turnout is the same among D's, R's, and NAV's, and 50% of the voting independants cast their vote for the independant:

Westlund would need to get 30% of the voting Democrats and 30% of the voting Republicans to WIN. That scnario would produce 34.4% Westlund, 31-33% Republican (depending on split of non-Westlund NAV's), 32-34% Democrat (depending on split of non-Westlund NAV's)

This poll shows 37% of voting Democrats are now either neutral or somewhat unfavorable of Ted, 39% of voting Republicans are now either neutral or unfavorable of Saxton, and 41% of voting Republicans are now either neutral or unfavorable of Mannix.

Very interesting and unpredictable climate right now. Any one of the three major candidates could end up winning.

On that note, it would be nice if folks posting to these discussions would follow Jef & Kari's example by revealing if they are receiving money from the campaigns. I've noticed a few examples of folks who have not.

P.S. I am not receiving money from any of the campaigns.

There is a Candidates' Call in Free for All Monday night, May 8th on the Victoria Taft Show from 7:30 till 9pm. I'm asking candidates from dog catcher to governor to call in and make their pitch. Expect questions. I and my four listeners will be filling out our ballots. Go here for the deets: victoriataftkpam.blogspot.com Bring it.

I just went and burned a sage brush to get clarity on these numbers. (Much better than reading tea leaves so long as you are up wind.)

It looks like Ted will win, Saxton will win, and Westlund is out there somewhere.

For Ted to win the general election, he will need lots of support from those places generally ignored in elections. In other words, he will need some help from the rural areas. -- Westlund you might think, being from Central Oregon, would get lots of rural support. But there is a little secret about the east side of Oregon - Deschutes County / Bend isn't like the rest of us, and we don't necessarily like folks from there. Just because he's from the "east side" doesn't mean he has "east side" support.

So, if I were Ted, I'd be out beating the bushes visiting the rural Counties - oops, he has already done that. Who marched in the Veterans Day parade a couple years back in Prineville? Ted. Who goes to soldiers funerals all over the State? Ted. No other Gov. has been seen as many times this side of the Cascades as Ted.

Hmmm, it's like he saw this coming.

I agree with Jef Green....Ted will lose in November. A vote for Ted in the primary is a vote for the Republicans in November....A republican friend of mine (yes I have some republican friends) said the Republican Party really is hoping that Ted wins the primary....that makes the race in November a "shoe-in" for Ron or Kevin... Jim Hill is our only chance... A vote for Jim will almost quarantee a Dem win in November. Jim is smart, compassionate, has the ability to united the legislative body, and can bring together a strong agency management team...

We (the Dems) have some choices this year...(thanks to Ted being Ted) we can now choose between three candidates.. Please read the candidates materials, and please look at Ted's record....the only logical choice is Jim Hill....

The thought of having Ron govern this state is very scarey.... Ted cannot win in November...

Go Jim Hill

TA, I'm going to vote for Sorenson because I so rarely get to vote for some one I believe in. At least I can vote for the guy I think would make the best govenor in the primary. That makes a positive statement. I don't believe I'll have that opportunity in the general.

Jeff,

I agree with you that the numbers for Westlund show more Democratic support, but Republicans are going to start supporting Westlund after the primary.

Republicans right now can choose the candidate they want from a wide variety of menu choices. But once they get stuck with red meat when what they really wanted was vanilla ice cream, 60% of them are going to start looking for other options.

Dems already know what's going to be served in November (pulverized duck) so they are already looking at other restaurants in the area.

After the primary the cards get shuffled again and by making predictions right now you are playing Blind Man's Bluff at a Texas Hold’em table.

Kari,

Ed is my Hero!

"I'm Winston Wolfe. I solve problems."

Though the general election is six months away, the issue of voter turn out will again factor into the equation. This is a non-presidential election year, and neither Wyden nor Smith are running. And the five congressional races are absolute yawners.

How about initiatives? Mabon and Sizemore are now anachronistic footnotes in Oregon politics. But the anti-abortion crowd will likely qualify its parental notification measure, and they claim 70% of Oregonians support that(?) Either way, that will draw committed conservatives to mail those ballots.

Will a boring gubernatorial race between Ted Hill and Ron Mannix be enough to leverage the Democratic registration edge? Never underestimate the power of apathy.

• Wes

Saxton will be the nominee. I have said it for five months. Mannix is old news, will be outspent, and won't have the mainline anti-poor/morally-neutral Republicans (aka "moderate") Republicans split between Saxton and Jack Roberts. This time, the anti-poor, anti-gay/women/christian-but-anti-new-testament aka wish-it-were-still-cool-to-be-racist-but-since-it-isn't-then-anti-gay-will-do will be split between Mannix and Atkinson.

Saxton will be the nominee. We don't need a poll to tell us.

Kulongoski cannot be re-elected without a miracle. There's almost no one who can glow about him with a straight face. He's one of the least most popular governors in the State.

The deeply disenchanted-with-Ted will more than flirt with Westlund (and Saxton!). And Saxton will benefit from a Republican party who can taste the governor's office for the first time in 20 years.

We have only two hopes:

(1) Win local and wait: Our only hope is helping Vicki Walker keep her Senate seat, picking up some seats in the house, and hoping for a young (now) inspiring (now and then) person to run for governor in 2010. Ouch.

(2) Hope for a Mobley Clone: Who will stand up for the babies!?!? Ted still has a chance if a legit lover-of-unborn-children-and-hater-of-gay-people runs as a Constitution Party candidate and goes big. Background for newbies: Dave Frohnmayer in 1990 wouldn't agree to give the religious right veto authority over appointments, so they ran Al Mobley--a strong third-party crazy--against him, and thereby threw the election to Barbara Roberts.)

But Saxton has shown he's willing to make dirty deals to protect his right flank (see McIntyre on TABOR and Lars Larson on immigration). He'll likely make the deal that Frohnmayer wouldn't.

Otherwise, I fear Ted is doomed. And a Saxton term as Governor will be TERRIBLE for the State. (Far worse than a Mannix term.)

A Saxton term as Governor will be terrible for Oregon. Worse than a Mannix term.

Here's what a Saxton tenure as Governor will look like:

--Saxton will try to tear down civil justice protections (i.e., he wil be for "tort reform")--not because there's any policy merit to anti-trial-lawyer stuff, but because it will gut a major public interest funder and make his corporate paymasters happy.

--Saxton will champion TABOR, which nearly ruined Colorado, before even their Republican Governor admitted it had to go.

--Saxton will try to crush public employees -- convincing the public that public workers should suffer the same benefit-slashes as seen in the private sector (without getting a raise in base pay to match the private sector).

--Saxton will work to open the forests for mass tree cuttings. In the name of "jobs" and "balance."

--Saxton will gut emissions standards. In the name of "transportation" and "economic growth."

--Saxton will veto any pro-land-use-regulation work.

-- Saxton might well propose (or at least sign) an elimination of the $50 tax credit...in the name of "trimming the fat."

--Saxton will forestall ANY school or health care revenue efforts (a deal he had to make to get McIntyre's support -- evidenced by his flip to OPPOSITION of Portland School funding). He will couch it in "performance audits."

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Saxton will be worse than Mannix for Three Reasons.

(1) Mannix is pro-big-prison and anti-gay, but he's not fundamentally anti-public services. (When he was a Democratic legislator, he never saw a gov't program he didn't like.)

Saxton has had to sign in blood with the economic right wing (timber, AOI, OIA, Lars Larson, and Don McIntyre), and he will have to stay true to them.

(2) Mannix will have a right-wing brand he will have to fight against. Saxton will have a "moderate" brand that will give him cover.

After Saxton wins the Republican nomination, there will be an Oregonian article that says something like "Oregon R's finally nominate moderate candidate." And when he pushed hard right, it will seem to some like "the middle" -- and thus move the definition of the middle even further to the right.

(3) Saxton will make it cooler for business people to be vocal Republicans again. Republican will mean "Country Club and socially disinterested" rather than "Christian Crazy" -- and that will yield more donations for the Republican party, thereby further increasing the money disparity.

The sky might really be falling.

Saxton is dangerous.

Sal,

Don't blame the Hill campaign for my honest fear-mongering -- I don't know if Hill should be the nominee. He has some weaknesses as a candidate. I might even vote for Ted (twice). I am merely focusing on the danger ahead. I really do fear that we could look back at 2005 as a high water mark for "Blue Oregon" ... until a new generation of brighter lights is ready for prime time.

(And I am not using my real name because I really am trying to be candid. I know that might seem weird.)

I'm voting for Jim Hill because I want to have the Democrat we'll have the easiest time electing in Novemeber. I believe that Kulongoski's record will be too much dead weight in the general election. It will be difficult to get the troops all fired up if we have to rally around him.

I'm voting for Jim Hill because I want a leader who is excited about leading our state. I want a leader who, when stymied by an uncooperative legislature, is willing to take the issues to the voters.

I want real leadership. That's why I'm voting for Jim Hill now, and that's why I hope to vote for Jim in November.

Of course, if we nominate someone else, I'll pull full-bore for the nominee.

Now that you know my bias, let me interpret those poll numbers for you. If Pete were to throw his support to Jim Hill, Jim would have 38% plus or minus 10 percent - you have to add the errors when adding the percentages - against Ted's 43 plus/minus 5. This puts them in essentially an even race. In statistics, unlike in politics, when you have poll numbers within the margin of error, they are considered to be too close to call. Nothing can be said about the comparison. That, together with the 19% undecided, means this race is down to who works harder in the next 11 days, and who works smarter.

And now let's talk a little bit about November.

I was looking over the numbers the other day. There's a theory that a major-Party candidate's performance will, on average, be proportional to the ratio of that candidate's major-Party voters in the district to the total number of major-Party voters in the district. That is, if you've got 793k Ds and 738k Rs, the others will split for the Ds at about 51%... actually, enough better than 51% to make up for the Ds who jump ship.

So all we need to do in November to win statewide is to get out the votes we're owed. That may be a challenge, but it's doable if we have a candidate people can get excited about.

If we don't? Goodbye Mahonia Hall.

I know quite well what it takes for us to get those owed votes - it's going to take a strong turnout in the I-5 corridor, and particularly in Portland. We can't afford to have a candidate about whom Portlanders are unhappy, and Portlanders are, by and large, far more excited about Jim Hill than they are about the incumbent.

Let's use some other previous elections:

Bill Clinton. Centrist Democrat from a conservative Southern state. 2 presidential terms. Survives impeachment. Survives Republican majorities. One of the longest bull markets in history.

John Kerry. Perceived as liberal Democrat from NE State. 0 presidential terms. Instead we endure 2nd term of W.

The left doesn't win elections. The center does.

Who does Ted K. and who does Jim Hill appeal to?

I think, strangely, Saxton winning the Republican primary would be a huge gift. The problem is not that social conservative voters will vote for Kulongoski or Hill or Westlund. Its that their ballots will go in the recycling. And that means they don't vote for any other Republicans either. That is assuming there isn't a viable social conservative independent candidate. Saxton winning also probably endss Westlund as a viable candidate.

I'm trying to figure out what makes Jim Hill more a "liberal" than Kulongoski. They both seem to be political moderates, Kulongoski has just had the opportunity to disappoint people. There is a danger that, without Mannix to scare them, a lot of people will express their dissatisfaction with Kulongoski by not voting. I agree that is less likely to happen with Jim Hill, but it has nothing to do with ideological differences between Kulongoski and Hill.

I wouldn't be willing to bet the farm on Jim Hill's ability to get people excited about the race. He comes off like a Poli-Sci professor giving a dry lecture, even when making a good point, to me.

With all due respect to "independent", Oregon isn't the country (e.g. We're missing a Texas, Thank God).

But if it were, "inde" should remember that Clinton's first victory was in a three way race against an incumbent President and an almost-certifiable millionaire populist in the middle of recession. His second was in the middle of the biggest economic boon the country has seen.

None of those conditions exist in Oregon today.

A better parallel with our current Governor might be Gray Davis-the former Governor of California. Davis ignored his base to the point that he couldn't even motivate them to show up to defend him against the recall.

While we aren't in a formal recall, the primary has the potential to act as such. Depending on who shows up (or mails in) to vote.

The wild cards are a question of how the undecideds break, and whether or not Sorenson voters are pragmatists or loyalists.

Like Disenchanted (above) I worry about the general. Given a choice between a perceived lame Democratic moderate (TK) and an unknown Republican moderate (Saxton, at least that's how he'll be painted), I am not confident Ted pulls it out. He'd need to unify the base AND pull some moderate Rs and independents. Given how he's governed, I'm not sure he can do the first, and the Republican candidates may do better at the second.

Either Hill or Sorenson could unite the base in November, but may not get the chance if they divide it in the primary.

Hold onto your hats, it's going to be a bumpy ride. D

I'm sorry to say it, but Ted will win the primary -- and he can't win the general. It's the general... not the primary... that will act as a de facto recall election.

If you think that an incumbent with a 33% approval rating, who is polling at 43% against a strong primary challenger and who has a progressive-courting Independent waiting in the wings is "in a pretty comfortable position", I have to say it is time for a reality check.

And again it is not like Ted is a strong campaigner. Let's not forget that he gave up a 20 point lead to Mannix four years ago, winning with just 49% after being bailed out by Tom Cox and the unions that are now not supporting him. Even the endorsements that he has received have all included something like “in spite of first three years in office….” The Republicans are chomping at the bit to get at this guy.

It is however not going to take a miracle for Democrats to hold on to the governor's office. It is only going to take Dem voters choosing a new leader in Jim Hill to ensure victory in November.

Ted’s numbers are falling and Jim’s numbers are rising. Even the “all knowing” Tim Hibbits says that Jim can win this race. If he does, Jim Hill will be the undisputed frontrunner in the general and maybe most important of all, we will be able to hold the Democratic Party together. What Democrat on this site can honestly say they won’t support Jim Hill in the general election? Be honest.

As for Westlund, he is getting attention for one reason only and that is the assumption that Kulongoski has a lock on the primary and there are a lot of Democrats and labor unions who either will not support Ted under any circumstances and/or recognize that he can’t win in November. These latest poll numbers show the assumptions about this primary are premature. Jim Hill can win this primary and unite the party going into the general election.

If you look at the numbers you will see that Jim has similar starting numbers against all of the Republicans, higher positive numbers than any of the other candidates and all of this without Ted’s record of failed leadership and the animosity of half the party/labor.

I know that this is yet another unsolicited tirade from Jim's campaign manager, however just because I am completely bias does not mean that this is not an honest assessment.

Oh by the way, I am curious for some feedback on what people think of new Jim Hill for Governor coffee shop ad. Apparently it has been featured in the 2006 Governor’s section on the new Hotline Web Ad-ict site sponsored by the National Journal. Kudos to Daren of Joe Trippi & Associates.

Love the coffee shop ad, although have yet to see it from the very beginning.

Was out campaigning for a local candidate today and talked with a fellow volunteer--asked about his Gov. primary vote. The fellow volunteer said he was leaning towards Jim Hill and I said "don't lean, and don't tell me we know who will win--you're looking at someone who was a recount observer in a close primary years ago that wasn't supposed to be close". Also said "Gee, I wish more people and not just Jim would talk about public school audits. " He said at the end, "OK, you've convinced me to vote for Jim".

For those of you who "know" how the primary will turn out, I'd remind you about an old proverb about counting chickens before they hatch.

I thought Mannix and Atkinson did well as did Ted and Jim (why did it take a TV show like this to show the Ted who won in 2002 and was known by many friends decades before that as opposed to Gov. Ted who seems like a different person?)

I thought Sorenson and Saxton revealed themselves as talking point people with little depth. Would Steve Bucknum and the rest of the Rural Caucus agree with Sorenson that there is no urban-rural divide?

Jeff, when I hear the word the Oregonian, it reminded me the Pravda (the Truth) newspaper in the former Soviet Union. The Oregonian is a Media Prostitute. Money is it's "God", for money this newspaper is selling our country. David Wu accepted $19,500.00 from the Sallie Mae Corporation, which is robbing students. And ....the Oregonian endorsed this garbage. Because of the media so many our soldiers died in Iraq. Ignore the Oregonian "polls", read the Voters' Pamphlet and this BlueOregon - it is the Real PEOPLE are talking.

Pavel Goberman - Candidate for US Reprs. 1st Congr. Distr. against David Wu. www.getenergized.com/vote.html