There doesn't seem to be an ounce of science in this. Speculation isn't worth the paper it's printed on. When I see some hard polling data, it will be more credible. If you want to get people scared and motivated, fine. There's a lot of time left and a big debate tonight. Turnout is right. Nationally turnout is going with Dems.

Patton P. and Bill R. both have a point. Someone once ran an ad saying "word of mouth is the most effective form of advertising".

I live in a "challenger doesn't have a chance" district, but one where there is unhappiness with the incumbent. As much as canvassing and other campaign tactics are important, so are conversations among people who live in a district.

Conversations which lead to comments like "Glad to meet someone who actually knows the candidate" or "Gee the incumbent was condescending in that debate" are valuable campaign tools leading people to actually think about the election. I've known too many "not a chance" candidates who won or ended up in a recount situation to trust this type of "insider" information.

The incumbent in my district is spending a lot of money on radio ads, but when I heard the ad I laughed---it is aimed at people already likely to vote for the incumbent, and it is a very generic ad with little relationship to actual interactions between incumbent and constituents (very few and far between in most cases).

So don't believe "insiders" as they may have no clue to what is going on in the population, and they may have a vested interest in the results.

If I read the prediction correctly, the republicans would have to gain a seat in the Oregon Senate to get to 12. I don't see that happening. There are only two open seats, and both Democratic candidates are likely to win. And I don't see any incumbent senator on the Democratic side who is in serious danger. Did I miss a hotly contested race on the Senate side?

can't wait to vote yes on 41.

Here are two concrete things I will do to make a difference:

1.) Join the Bus Project's Trick-or-Vote canvass.

2.) Work with Building Votes to make sure all the newly registered voters return their ballots.

I invite all of you (even Joe12Pack) to join me.

I'm going to two Bus Trips this weekend! We'll be headed to Washington County and Lane County. That's right, two Bus Trips for the price of one! (which is to say that it is free)

Would be interesting to know how many registered Democrats will not be able to hold their noses and vote for Kulongoski because they think he hasn't given them a reason and vote for him....

I think one of the smartest things Ted said tonite was "Hey! We made some mistakes last session! There are some things we need to do differently!".

No telling how Kitzhaber would have dealt with Karen Minnis as Speaker (he did pretty well making his position clear with Brady Adams as Sen. Pres.). If everyone who worked in the capitol would admit that when something like 1/4 of registered voters in this state refuses to choose a major party, talking about the R team vs. the D team just ignores a major segment of the population.

If Ted is re-elected, he will prove he has learned his lesson if he does things like refusing closed door budget negotiations and explaining his case to the public; and nominating people who he can proudly say "Today I am nominating ----- to the __. This person is the best person for this position because............"

Incidentally, I don't think Saxton is capable of that. About that document he held up---I went to the website and didn't see anything specific. Not even how he would "make sure there are state police on the highways 24/7". So how exactly does he propose to fund the state police while cutting taxes?

Having just had knee surgery, I'm not going to be out canvassing very much in the next few weeks, but I'll hit the phone banks.

I also have a few bucks left to donate to candidates. I've given my largesse so far to Brading, Caudle and Peralta. Who else could make good use of a $50 - $100 contribution?

This scientific research on how people make political judgements would seem to be particularly apropo at this point, when the real question is why we Democrats are not winning going away (and implicitly why it is how GOTV is done, and not GOTV per se is the key to winning):

Emory study lights up the political brain http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

What this research doesn't deal with is the political decision making of the mythical "independent". Since many such, "independents" self-identify as being emotionally opposed to the supposed partisanship and values of both sides, rather than rationally affirming what they actually stand for, it's a bit difficult to even frame a hypothesis that they inherently are more, rather than less, rational in their decision making process. Indeed, if the abstract of this to-be-published article accurately reflects the scope of the research it describes, and if the research is valid, than the issue when it comes to political decision making isn't partisanship at all anyway:

Political Campaigns and Open-Minded Thinking http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00479.x

but rather the vigor with which candidates campaign and step up to defend whatever governing values they espouse.

(This latter article may also provide a jumping off point for researchable hypotheses whether or how Oregon's VBM, in the way the two-week "election-day" disrupts the natural arc of campaigns historically, actually facilitates voters in being less open-minded when it comes to political decision making. The task would be to use Prof. Kam's methods to test the null hypothesis that the Oregon electorate expresses more open-mindedness in its political decision making. Anyone have any views on how the Kulongoski-Saxton numbers might speak to this null hypothesis?)

As a Democrat, I have continued to be disappointed that Kulongoski just keeps missing the mark when it comes to convincingly expressing values that motivate voters, if the totality of the publicly available numbers on his support is to be believed. Without a doubt, Saxton would be a disaster for our state as evidenced by his falling back on the old cliches of being anti-tax and anti-government. (Although the appeal of his argument says a lot about the disconnectedness of our state's electorate with the expressed concerns of our wider society.) But he and his side certainly have internalized the lessons of this research and how to use it to their advantage.

To a distressing degree, and for reasons that could range from arrogance to self-absorbedness to plain lack of ability, but which remain unclear to the public observer, the poll numbers strongly suggest our side has not. As LT has quite aptly put it:

If Ted is re-elected, he will prove he has learned his lesson if he does things like refusing closed door budget negotiations and explaining his case to the public; and nominating people who he can proudly say "Today I am nominating ----- to the __. This person is the best person for this position because............"

If we don't win statewide and nationally in this environment, we really need to give serious examination to the plausible argument that too many of our "experts" and "leaders" are anything but.

First-time canvasser here. I hit the bricks last Saturday with a partner and we contacted over 60 voters--it was easy and productive! There are a lot of receptive people out there who just need a simple and brief face-to-face conversation to help make up their minds. It only took two hours of my Saturday.

If this normally shy Dem can do it, so can anyone!