Could Democrats Sweep?

In today's Oregonian, they're taking a look at whether Democrats could possibly pick up the four seats required to win control of the Oregon House.

For the first time in 16 years, the Democrats could control the governor's office and both houses of the Legislature, giving rise to a potential sea change in Salem. ...

Democrats look to have a lock on two seats now held by Republicans, in Salem and in Hillsboro. They're also running hard at Republican incumbents in Eugene and Newport, but the GOP is fighting to pick up seats in Tigard and Woodburn.

The marquee legislative race Tuesday is a bitter brawl in east Multnomah County. House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, has spent a record $1 million trying to fend off Democrat Rob Brading.

Of course, that's going to take two more days of strong Get Out The Vote operations. As Lisa Grove wrote over the weekend, the numbers aren't good enough to coast the last two days.

So, get to work!

Read the rest of the O's story. Discuss.

  • Aaron B. Hockley (unverified)

    I just got done watching a Democratic grassroots video where one of the central themes that having the executive branch and both houses of Congress controlled by the same party was a bad thing.

    But if it's Democrats then it's ok?

  • PSjackson (unverified)

    I went walking for Rob Brading yesterday. His people are hitting the streets very hard. I talked to alot of indepdents holding ballots. After the knock and talk I had the feeling they will break to Brading. It seems to me that Minnis does not have a street program - she went all media. I did not see any door hangers or supporters walking for her. I did see alot of her mailers in recycling bins though. I get the feeling that the votes Minnis was going to get, have been cast and put in the mail. Brading on the other hand has a program to bring votes and ballots in to the last second. Conlusion- Breading wins.

  • (Show?)

    No, Aaron, it's only a bad thing if it's Republicans. The Democratic party is not identical to the Republican party. We've been in charge of all three branches of Federal government plenty of times, with little harm to the nation. (Unless you think passing the Family Medical Leave Act constitutes "harm".)

    Taxes do not rise dramatically under Democrats; in fact, they tend to fall for lower and middle income households. We also balance the budget. It's all good.

    Remember. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is pretty easy to understand. The Democratic Party believes that America both is, and should act, like the good guys. Republicans are the party of polution, torture, no-bid sweetheart contracts, screwing the poor, impoverishing our children through crushing debt and strangling school funding, and generally acting like America's answer to the NAZI party.

    I'd like be more positive about it, but unfortunately, it really is that simple.

  • (Show?)

    Racism. I forgot. Judging by this year's crop of ads, they've also become the party of racism.

    Abraham Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave.

  • alantex (unverified)

    Um, Steven, The republicans have been the party of racism ever since Nixon and company pursued their "Southern Strategy" in 1968. Without appeals to racism, the republicans would have faded away by the 1980's, probably accompanied by the rise of some sort of populist/racist Southern-based party with major ties to certain urban areas in the North and Midwest. The republicans latched on to the racist backlash against the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s and have cultivated it ever since.

  • JHL (unverified)

    Aaron -- good point. I wouldn't choose to trust either party to run everything, but if I had to choose one, I choose the Democrats. Easy.

    Though I'm less concerned about it at the state level because of the initiative system. Understanding that an extremist session will beget a counter-extremist initiative on the ballot next session is a good way to encourage cooperation and moderation within the legislature. (We hope.)

    Though... don't go around thinking that
    Democratic video (on YouTube) is totally grassroots. I know I've seen plenty of those people on TV commercials and such... the fifth person to talk is that dude from "The Matrix."

  • (Show?)

    Steven, I was with ya up until the N-word. Despite all their failures and all their corruption and evil, let's not conflate the Republican Party with the Nazis.

    Why not? Because it cheapens the deaths of 10 million people. The Nazis were a unique horror visited upon the world, and we shouldn't minimize that by suggesting that it's similar to anything happening in the United States in 2006.

  • BlueNote (unverified)

    Let's hope we get some good government regardless of the labels people put on themselves. Bush Jr. style Republicans are out to screw everyone but the upper 1% and to steal everything that they can before the Dems take over. On the other hand, I am very nervous about the Dem's "vision" and I hope to God that the first 6 months of any Dem controlled Congress is not wasted with hearings about what happened during the last 6 years. It is history. We need to look to the future. This country does have problems. Medicare is one of the greatest programs in the history of the earth, but it is going to collapse if it is not restructured with new revenue sources and new qualifications (yikes - means testing!) in the next 3 - 6 years. Do we progressives have the balls (or ovaries) to lead, or are we going to be subjected to another 2 - 6 years of dancing around the big questions? If all we are going to get is dancing, I guess it does not matter all that much to me which party is playing the music.

    Stop the war now!

  • Ruth Adkins (unverified)

    The sub-headline on the O. story really frosted me:

    It's possible for Democrats to win the House, but raising taxes would still need GOP support

    This is lazy parroting of the GOP talking points--the notion that D's are all about "raising taxes."

    The headline should have read:

    passing legislation would still need GOP support or enacting reforms would still need GOP support

    or, my personal preference:

    actually getting good things done to make Oregon a better place for its citizens....

  • JHL (unverified)

    Ruth, while I agree entirely with your sentiment and think that sub-headline really cheapened the Democratic platform, it points to a small triviality in Oregon law of which many readers may not be aware.

    To pass most legislation, the majority party does not need any minority party support. 31 votes in the House or 16 in the Senate will get you there.

    But to raise taxes requires a three-fifths majority in each chamber. That means 37 votes in the House. (Which I don't think we're going to see.)

    So I think what the Oregonian was getting at was that the Democrats wouldn't have unbridled power to raise taxes even if they take the House... it wasn't merely a suggestion that they should play nice with the other side.

  • (Show?)

    I think it's actually 36.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, to me, morality is not a numbers game. But my response deserves a much more full examination than I can give justice to in a thread like this. Maybe I'll submit something on this topic when I'm not so busy.

  • GA (unverified)

    Yes let us hope Breading wins. Is he a write-in candidate? Moron.

  • Justin (unverified)

    Actually, Kristi, the Nazis helped kill approximately 60 million people during WW2, not a mere 10.

    However, the reference to the Nazi party and the current neo-Cons is not based on the result of the party being in power, but in how they have achieved that power: in 1933, after Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany and his Nazi party dominated the German version of our Congress, they went about rewriting all the laws to give themselves absolute power. First on the chopping block, of course, were the civil rights, giving modern day liberals residing in the US of A a very chilling premonition of what COULD be if only a certain little amendment was made to end term limits for the big GW.

    That fear surfaced approximately 2 years ago, soon after GW "won" his reelection. However, viewing his current approval rating, it is doubtful this could actually occur, as it seems as if most Americans (or at least a healthy chunk of them) highly disapprove of him and his cronies.

  • Justin (unverified)

    I meant Kari. Not Kristi. Sorry!

  • jrw (unverified)

    One of the most telling things for me is that someone who used to be as high up in the Republican party as I used to be in the Dems keeps on talking about leaving the Republicans. He's a Reaganite. But he absolutely, totally, despises the current crop of Republican leaders, both nationally and on the state level.

    For that matter, what did folks think about the Brent Walth article about Tom McCall in the Sunday Goryonion (Oregonian)? I'm not sure I agree with some of his conclusions. I do think that the folks with the potential to have that sort of nonpartisan dedication to what is good, and right, and true are out there.

    They just don't see the rewards in moving past small local offices in our current highly polarized political society.

    Can you blame them?

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)

    I think the issue of which Party controls how much of government being a good thing depends mostly on the quality of the individuals, not their Affiliation. Granted, the current GOP (nat/state) mostly sucks eggs and the moderates are going to take a hit in the House.

    <h2>I'm a hard working Dem activist, but my vote isn't a guaranteed thing. Usually...</h2>
in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon