Elections Results Maps

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

After a while, all the numbers start to swim in front of your eyes - and it can be hard to find meaning amongst the digits. A nice little map can help so much. So, here ya go.

(There's a few counties that don't have their election results online. I'll update when I get those.)

A few initial thoughts:

* On Measure 49, this was not a purely urban vote (as KGW-8 suggested tonight). It won majorities across rural Oregon - and even where it won a minority of the vote, all but three counties voted over 40% in favor. The Yes on 49 campaign successfully picked up support among populations that don't traditionally vote for progressive or environmental measures.

* Measure 50 bombed everywhere. I always figured that the key to victory for Measure 50 was a strong performance in the suburbs - where the earlier tobacco tax measure soared. Even in Multnomah County, Measure 50 had only a pale, pale blue victory. The Yes on 50 campaign clearly failed to win over the people who traditionally vote for progressive measures, nevermind everyone else.

Yes on 49

Yeson50

  • (Show?)

    Full disclosure: My company built YesOn49.com but I speak only for myself.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nice maps, I wonder what they would look like as cartograms adjusted for population.

  • (Show?)

    Fascinating question. Is there software that does that automatically?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wonder how those like Ted Ferrioli (who didn't appear to realize how Farm Bureau support for 49 told a story fairly early) are reacting to the numbers. Maybe they don't know public opinion among actual citizens (not just lobbyists, contributors, etc.) as well as they thought!

    As I recall, sending this out to voters was straight party line. If so, everyone who supported 49 needs to remind their legislators that the election result wasn't a partisan vote--esp. the counties painted blue and lavender.

  • (Show?)

    Good point, LT.

    Let's not forget that the M37 (and 39) clone in Idaho last year failed, winning only 24% of the vote.

    Oregonians In Action has done an excellent job of demonstrating that property regulation has gone too far in Oregon in the last few decades. A commercial real estate broker friend of mine -- probably my only friend who voted against 49 -- can build a compelling case, talking about his clients' M37 claims.

    The conclusion I draw is that the genuine victims, and the whining faux-victims, did an excellent job of uniting to appeal to voters' sense of injustice. In places like Idaho where property is not so heavily regulated (and perhaps eastern Oregon is similar in this respect), the outrage simply does not exist on a broad scale; people without a major axe to grind can see more clearly that the ability to influence how land is developed is a central element of self-governance.

    Anyway, I think the dialog on land use has only begun. Measure 49 is a major improvement over 37, but it's still a very broad brush. I hope that the spirit of compromise established by 49 will draw both sides into productive discussion, and reverse the polarization of this debate.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "The Yes on 50 campaign clearly failed to win over the people who traditionally vote for progressive measures, nevermind everyone else."

    I have a couple exceptions to take with that particular statement.

    What is progressive about taxing the very income group you presumably want to help?

    What is progressive about ignoring the biggest economic product related cost to Oregon - alcohol - and increasing a tax on a product that is already 80% tax in its price?

    What is progressive about instituting a program with a funding policy dedicated to eradicating it's funding? And then funding it how?

    What is progressive about making an unrelated segment of the population responsible for funding and entire state's responsibility?

    smoke and mirrors and one of the most cynical political games I've seen in some time.

    Note: Not one word regarding our Constitution.

    The goal is worthwhile, the means reek. Not progressive, worthy of the people who brought us HR2, same game.

  • verasoie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My letter to the Oregonian this evening in response to their article claiming that M49 won in urban counties and lost in rural ones:

    Sir,

    I have difficulty understanding how you can say that M49 passed in the "urban" counties, whereas it was defeated in the "rural" ones. I understand that the media may find it useful, even lucrative, to stoke the flames of an "us vs. them, rural vs. urban" divide in Oregon (I'm sure it sells more papers than suggesting that we all have common values), but the results of the election simply do not support this simplistic meme.

    For example, by no stretch of the imagination do Umatilla and Union qualify as urban counties, although they both passed M49. And Polk and Lincoln, Jefferson and Linn (I could go on) do not fit the bill either. You would do well to look at a map before reporting geographicallly inaccurate statements that discredit your professionalism (see here: http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/11/elections-resul.html).

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chuck, you see the tax as punishment for smokers, but the proponents see it as discouragement from smoking -- it creates a barrier to starting and a prompt to quit. Behavior modification is a very common goal of taxation, of course, and there are very solid economic reasons to tax tobacco and discourage its use. The price of tobacco does not pay all of tobacco's costs. Externalities like the cost to society of health care are not included, which is a market failure.

  • (Show?)

    It wasn't urban and rural (49), it was has claims/doesn't have claims. The vast majority of claims were in the western half of the state, and most of those in the Willamette Valley but also out Hood River, down into Lane, and Central Oregon. Think about Deschutes/Jefferson/Crook politically, and then ruminate on it passing over 50% in all three counties.

    (Don't know, but if the theory is right there's a fair number of claims out Pendleton/Hermiston way too).

    If you had claims going up in your neighborhood, you voted to prevent the strip malls and golf resorts. That seems about as simple an answer as there is for that vote pattern.

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I started on a population-adjusted cartogram, but I'm stuck on how to display counties with nearly 1/500th the population of MultCo. Either MultCo is larger than the page and Wheeler is tiny, or MultCo is reasonably sized and Wheeler is an indiscernable speck.

    I'm leaning toward making Wheeler, Sherman, Gilliam, et al. near-invisible. Does that make me an urban-centric snob?

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    JX, while I admit "there are very solid economic reasons to tax tobacco and discourage its use" I cannot believe that you seriously propose that was the intent of M32H! There is no way to justify putting the burden of financing the public healthcare system on the backs of smokers. I think we both know that the intent was to shift healthcare costs which the broad electorate was unwilling to assume onto an unsympathetic minority. I am not surprised Oregon refused to approve such an unfair tax scheme.

  • (Show?)

    "There is no way to justify putting the burden of financing the public healthcare system on the backs of smokers."

    How about smokers being the ones putting the burden on the public for financing their health care?

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's not as though M50 was the sole source of funding for OHP. But I'd welcome your support for my campaign, Ed.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The healthcare industry should be part of the "commons" that all citizens pay into to share the cost. It would be a different debate to apportion healthcare costs on the basis of adjudged propriety of the healthcare one exercises for himself, and one that M32H gave only a very weak consideration.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry JX, I am just not cynical enough to even suggest that the R's should be in charge of tax policy! (again)

  • (Show?)

    Color me soooo unsurprised.

    The Yes on 50 campaign clearly failed to win over the people who traditionally vote for progressive measures, nevermind everyone else.

    What "Yes on 50" campaign? Direct mail I received went 20:1 against (and that is no exaggeration). TV ads were probably more like 40:1. There was no coherent "Yes on 50" campaign and "No on 50" ran an amazing (though expensive) campaign.

    Though I voted for 50, I'm having trouble getting too upset that it failed. It wasn't a very good measure, plain and simple. I think Oregonians want a more comprehensive health care and revenue solution, and unless they get it, or someone bothers to make the case why they can't have it (which the "Yes on 50" folks never even attempted), they will continue to vote down mediocre band-aid solutions like this one.

    During this next "emergency session" the legislature needs to come up with some solutions and put them to a vote, and if/when they fail, they need to go to the voters and explain why. Since they new they were going to have to refer a health care and tax measure to the voters anyway, there was no excuse for not coming up with at good bill. Our leaders got lazy and referred the same bill they tried to get to appeal to Republicans across the aisle rather than crafting one that might actually appeal to voters. Here's hoping they do better next time...

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ed, I'll bite. What's M32H?

    Also: my proposal is to call the Republicans' bluff. They don't want people to quit their donor-lobbyists' products, and they don't want to fund health care. But they claim they do. So let's have them put up or shut up.

  • bama_barrron (unverified)
    (Show?)

    now that measure 50 has gone in flames, like it should have, perhaps it is time to really work on the problem ... we need a national health care plan that covers everyone. with a national health care plan in effect; we wouldnt need an unfair and limited plan like measure 50. i voted against 50 for the simple reason its passage might have allowed politicans and others to follow up on doing what is desperately needed.

  • bama_barrron (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oops it is too damn early...

    insert "not" before to follow up in the last sentence.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry JX, I ran out of brain power due to the late hour... I pledged in another election-night thread here not to use the two numbers which had been pounded into my consciousness by the non-stop measure ads, hence the conversion to hexadecimal: M32H = Measure (3 X 16) + 2 in base-16 notation.

    Yeah, I know... high geek-factor.

  • admiralnaismith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The message from Measure 50 was that corporate overlords could get people to vote themselves mandatory wedgies if they decided to spend enough money on the effort. Wide margins of popular support for Measure 50 in August; Reynolds spends a godzillion bucks, they all dutifully line up to vote no.

    Of course, we learned that message earlier when Monsanto got people to vote not to know whether their food was genetically modified. Maybe next time, we can just vote to have sick children taken to Mount Hood and exposed so they won't be a drain on society. Give 'em some cigarettes, it'll dull their hunger pangs while they wait to die of exposure.

    As Karl Rove is rumored to have said, "Hit a man over the head with a fish, and he'll have a headache for a day. Teach him to hit himself over the head with a fish, and he'll have headaches for the rest of his life."

  • (Show?)

    does anyone actually believe M50 lost based on the issues? it lost because of how many millions of dollars? we Oregonians love to tout how progressive, involved, informed, etc we are. but all anyone need do is spend enough money, and the ignorant monkeys grab the right banana attached to the right string.

    the tobacco companies argued (dishonestly) about the sacrilege of what was being done to the Constitution. i heard those ads over and over on the radio at work, and i don't even watch tv. or get the mailers (luckily having just moved and not be Mr Resident here). the brainwashing effort was amazing. and successful. for the tobacco companies, just a minor charge to their operating expenses. a good investment to keep business going strong.

    and Oregonians obediently said, sure. we're for sale.

  • (Show?)

    I think 50 would have passed (narrowly ) if they had not attached it to the Oregon Constitution. My understanding is that there was room for debate on the interpretation that you need 36 votes to refer a statutory ballot measure involving a tax increase to Oregon voters. In light of this result, I'd be very interested to know whether or not that opinion is open to being revisited.

    In any case, I can't help but wonder whether the folks at Our Oregon will now get to work on collecting signatures to either repeal the double majority or to modify the constitution to permit statutory changes to taxes to be referred to Oregon voters on a simple majority.

    So long as I'm making the ask, I'd also like to see an initiative to eliminate the corporate kicker.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One note about Eastern Oregon: If it says "tax" on it, they will vote NO on it no matter who is sponsoring it or who is putting money into it. To those in Eastern Oregon - it's a behavioral response. Tax = NO.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The goal is worthwhile, the means reek. Not progressive, worthy of the people who brought us HR2, same game.

    Thus demonstrating, once again, the value of focus groups combined with enough money to define the debate.

  • Jan Dougall (unverified)
    (Show?)

    David Banis in the Portland State University Geography Department can make the cartograms so that each county's area is proportional to the population (or number of votes, or whatever). I'm pretty sure he modified a program created by a current graduate student.

  • naschkatze (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm so pleased Measure 49 passed. Measure 37 was, how ironic, a welfare program for Republicans. We live in Deschutes Co., and I agree with Eric Parker that in Eastern Oregon it is difficult to pass anything with a tax built into it, but this area is changing demographically which the response to 49 indicates.

  • (Show?)
    How about smokers being the ones putting the burden on the public for financing their health care?

    So do drinkers, over-eaters, uninsured motorists, etc. What's your point?

    By glibly ignoring other major contributing factors, such as drinking and obesity, you really just underscore the fact that this is about sticking it to a hated minority.

  • trishka (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i'm not at all surprised that M50 went down. it was a problematic measure, and that combined with the gobzillion dollars spent by the tobacco lobby was a bad combination.

    disclaimer: i voted for it, so please no accusing me of being a shill for big tobacco. just realistic, that's all.

  • (Show?)

    "By glibly ignoring other major contributing factors, such as drinking and obesity,"

    Don't make stuff up, Kevin. I've said before alcohol needs to pay its fair share, because it's currently not--and you can't tax obesity because there's a legitimate, necessary purpose for food products.

    But in any case, that's ridiculous thinking--other risk factors exist, so let's ignore this one!

  • (Show?)

    Having spent the last weeks pushing for this, I think it's important not to let the issue drop: 100,000 kids still need to be insured. Now it's in the legislature's hands again, and I hope the mandate to handle it themselves is clear.

  • Eric Parker (unverified)
    (Show?)

    My hope is that since the people have spoken and have voted NO on M50, we don't see anything like it again for a few years. If we do see it (or any other tax like it) in the next election, it only shows how we tend to abuse the referendum/initiative system. When we say NO, we mean it.

    We have said NO on M50. We should not have to vote on anything like it again. Please listen to the people for once and give us something else to consider.

  • (Show?)

    with $12 million-plus spent on tv, radio & direct mailing, what the people voted for on M50 was the willingness to not make a decision. they whored their vote for money.

    but the real blame goes to the Republicans in the Legislature, particularly in the House, who adamantly refused to lift a finger to help these kids in need. the tobacco companies did what they always do: spend money to make money, and ignore the death and destruction their products cause (right, Mom?). the GOP did what it always does: pretend to be principled, fight for political opportunity, and ignore the death and destruction that follows.

    so the next step is not to figure out what tax might work, or what shifting of monies might be necessary; the next step is to get more Democrats into the House and work to help Republicans who do care about the kids in this state (and there are more than a few, i'll grudingly admit) find the political will to do the right thing next time around. M50 was a desperate attempt to overcome Republican intransigence. now we need to remove that barrier by removing the Rs who, like Minnis and Scott, put power and ideology above service to the people of the state.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Yes on 49 campaign successfully picked up support among populations that don't traditionally vote for progressive or environmental measures.

    I think it is extremely odd to call Measure 49 "progressive or environmental".

    From my rural perspective, it was a typical house keeping measure. It fixed a voter measure that turned out to have some major problems. Rural people were at the table while the discussions went on about the fix, were there when the plan to fix the problem(s) was selected, and thereby through inclusion in the issue from start to finish voted in favor of this measure that afterall has more to due with rural people than urban people.

    There is nothing therefore particularly progressive or conservative in this measure. While impacts upon limited water resources was a sub-set issue, again that is neither progressive or conservative - but science regarding how much water exists. Somehow urban people have convinced themselves that rural people in Oregon are anti-environment. This is total nonsense. One of the primary reasons people choose to live in rural areas is that they don't want the noise and pollution of urban life. Everyday when I go outside I am grateful for the crisp and clean air here, and my neighbors frequently make similar statements.

    Measure 49 was not "progressive and environmental", it was common sense.

    And if that lesson is learned, more measures that make sense for all of Oregon can pass in the future.

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Very informative maps. The one regarding M50 particularly shows how out of step Mult. Co. is with the rest of the state regarding tax measures and the depth of the urban-rural divide.

    ”...does anyone actually believe M50 lost based on the issues? it lost because of how many millions of dollars..”

    I know it’s hard to lose an election you believe passionately in but your statement sounds like pure sour grapes. Voters weighed the facts and voted with their heads.

    Give them credit. Try presenting a better measure next time if you want a different result.

  • (Show?)
    But in any case, that's ridiculous thinking--other risk factors exist, so let's ignore this one!

    No more ridiculous than - this risk factor exists, so let's ignore the others!

    BTW, foodstuffs are routinely taxed in one way or another. Of course if M50 had relied upon some form of tax on foodstuffs then you might have had to actually put your money where your mouth is and help pay for poor kids healthcare. But hey, ignore that too.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Eric Parker wrote, "One note about Eastern Oregon: If it says "tax" on it, they will vote NO on it no matter who is sponsoring it or who is putting money into it. To those in Eastern Oregon - it's a behavioral response. Tax = NO."

    Untrue.

    Did you know that since 1990, 96 libraries have either been built (new structures) or expanded (new wings) in Oregon? And most of these are in "rural" Oregon. Did you know that many school districts in rural Oregon pass bonds for new buildings? Here in Crook County, we passed a $20 million bond for a new High School and a $1.7 million bond for a new library - since we voted against Measure 5 (property tax limitation). Please remember that Measure 5 that started the anti-tax campaign off in Oregon did not pass in rural Oregon with the exceptions of Wasco and Jackson Counties. It passed with a large enough margin in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties to push it over the top Statewide. If you want to point and anti-tax finger in any direction, start with "urban" Oregon.

    The business that rural Oregon is anti-tax, and no "tax" measure will pass here is ignorance speaking to banality.

    The key, just like I noted in my post on Measure 49, is that rural people need to see things from a practical standpoint, and they are conservative regarding principles. The main unanswered point of the anti-Measure 50 campaign was the business about amending the Constitution. Another unanswered point was that we already have a health plan. The TV ads we got here raised questions that were not answered by the pro-Measure 50 groups. -- I'd like to think that voters were "informed" when they voted, but the information they got was extremely one-sided.

    In my County, about 20% voted for Measure 50. Yet, we have one of the State's highest rates of uninsured children. You can bet on the interest in solving that problem, but the solution was not seen as matching the problem.

    Measure 50 was fatally flawed. You can't blame that on rural conservatism.

  • (Show?)

    I am extremely disappointed to see the 100,000+ kids not get coverage, but this measure was just one battle in a much larger effort to expand coverage to ALL Oregonians. Voters may have said no to this Constitutional amendment, but that's not the end of the discussion. Not by a long shot.

    My public relations firm tried to help Measure 50 from afar. We represent the Lance Armstrong Foundation, and worked with local media during Armstrong's visit a few weeks ago. Endorsing the campaign was the right thing to do. Our firm even did some pro-bono media training for Measure 50 spokespeople late in the campaign.

    The yes side was run by a lot of hard-working folks who faced a blizzard of tobacco company spending. It's hard to win under those circumstances. But not impossible. I hope after people get some well-deserved rest, there's some meaningful analysis about lessons learned and next steps. For all I know, this is happening now.

    I've been on the losing side of a campaign, and it's the most goddamn frustrating thing in the world. But you can learn from defeat, pick up the pieces, and come out stronger next time.

    I should also add: HUGE congratulations to the Measure 49 folks. As one of the 13 Enviros, I couldn't be more happy with the result. Measure 50 was a missed opportunity, but Measure 49 was by far the most important thing on the ballot. Great campaign, great work!

  • (Show?)

    M49 was commonsense--very few who voted for M37 wanted to completely gut governmental zoning powers, which is what M37 turned out to have done.

    M50 was unfair and, as Chuck Butcher points out, sanctimonious and patronizing. (I voted for it as a "greater good" option, but was holding my nose.) Many people I spoke to voted against M50 not because of what it did to the Constitution, but because they saw it as inherently unfair--if M50 had gone farther and included a boost on alcohol taxes it would have seemed more balanced and one of the major arguments against it would have been removed.

    Attempts to control tobacco consumption through tax policies are not seen by everyone as "progressive" as much as they're seen as part of a creeping nanny-state. Minnesota A.G. Humphrey learned this the hard way when he staked his bid for that state's governorship on his shakedown of big tobacco and ended up losing to professional clown Jesse Ventura.

    Children's health care should be attempted again, hopefully via the normal legislative process, and the means to pay for it should include a broad range of taxes, including both tobacco and alcohol; two major contributors to health and social ills.

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The only thing good about the M50 campaign is that we succeeded in wasting several million from the tobacco companies.

    Incidentally, it was upsetting to see the super-majority-needed-for-tax-increases passing in Washington!

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    100,000 kids still need to be insured. Now it's in the legislature's hands again, and I hope the mandate to handle it themselves is clear.

    I agree, Jeff, but Merkley was quoted last night as saying that he thought the interim session was "too soon" after the vote to address the issue. I don't think those kids without health care would argue that it's "too soon", however. So if you want to get this done, we first need to bring our own leaders in line. And as I argued in the M50 thread, Merkley and Kate Brown and other Dem leaders need to acknowledge their own mistakes here -- that the gamble they took by trying to fund kids health with a narrow, constitutional tax failed. It was the wrong way to get those kids insured.

    I also argued in that thread that Gov K has the administrative authority (some might say "obligation") to enroll at least 50,000 of those kids RIGHT NOW. He doesn't need a new law or a new tax to do it -- although he will need to either cut a lower priority government program or use the excess revenue that is expected in 2008 to pay for it. But if funding kids health care is that important -- and I think it absolutely is -- then the Governor can make that happen.

  • Portland Dem (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This is a way too harsh statement: The Yes on 50 campaign clearly failed to win over the people who traditionally vote for progressive measures, nevermind everyone else.

    Could they have done things differently - Yes

    Could they have overcome the $11 million - Probably not

    Should the blame fall on the shoulders of a Democratic Majority led Legislature - I think so.

    I'm sorry, but the only finger I'm pointing at today is the Leadership and then big tobacco. The Measure 50 folks had an uphill battle the whole way.

    *Note to Jeff Merkley, have fun running against Gordo with this under your belt.

  • (Show?)

    Uh, yeah Peter... the amount of money the tobacco companies spent easily set their botton line back at least several hours.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    we Oregonians love to tout how progressive, involved, informed, etc we are. but all anyone need do is spend enough money, and the ignorant monkeys grab the right banana attached to the right string.

    T.A., this is really insulting to those who voted against M50 on principled reasons, and the disrespect it shows for your fellow Oregonians is not going to help move the debate forward. Besides, you can't make the argument above without also arguing that all those who voted for M49 were duped by the legislature's politicized ballot title and the "dishonest" ad campaign in favor. Do you believe that?

    I tend to take voters' intentions at face value. They liked M49, so they voted for it. They didn't like M50, so they voted against it. We should spend more time coming up with progressive policies that voters will support instead of blaming our failures on others.

  • (Show?)
    but all anyone need do is spend enough money, and the ignorant monkeys grab the right banana attached to the right string.

    Contempt for your fellow Oregonians fairly oozes from your comment...

    Here's a suggestion. Take it or leave it as you see fit: insulting Oregonians when we don't all do what you think we ought to do, for the reasons you think we ought to do it, is a sure-fire recipe for elective failure.

    Nobody wants to cooperate with a condescending prick. Which I believe you'll find that Dale Carnegie said using other words in his infamous, and truly excellent, book How to win friends and influence people.

  • (Show?)

    There is nothing therefore particularly progressive or conservative in this measure.

    I strongly disagree, Steve. Oregon has the most progressive land-use planning in the country, designed particularly to prevent sprawl into rural lands. M37 undid that, so passing M49 was a recognition that we had scrapped everything about land-use planning that was worthwhile. It restored some measure of progressivity back into land usage.

  • Bert Lowry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm glad to see Steve Bucknum call out Eric Parker for his slam on Eastern Oregonians. People in small town Oregon frequently have a much better idea of their best interest than Portlanders think they do.

  • andy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    M50 was a turd of an idea and it deserved to go down in flames. I would've voted no on it without the tobacco companies spending a dime to convince. All I had to do was read the measure and I knew it was getting a no vote from me. I'm glad it failed, now lets see if the folks in Salem who created that turkey learned anything.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Remarkable how folks can find a justification for providing protection to the corporate drug traffickers who wreak disease, disability, and destruction to the human race. Tobacco companies should be on the same par as the meth producer and seller. As for the victim addicts, if they can be motivated to quit by pricing them out of their addiction, so much the better. Big tobacco presently costs all of us in spades for their drug trafficking in higher medical bills for all those insured or uninsured who are slowly or more quickly dying from their addiction. Check out the nursing homes and hospitals. Those who are there for vascular disease, strokes, lung cancer, kidney disease, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease are there, courtesy of tobacco pushers. And we are paying for it, in Medicaid, in higher insurance premiums and all the other costs associated with disease, disability, and death. So give yourself a big pat on the back, all you who voted against Measure 50. Not only do you not care about children, but you don't even care about your pocketbook.

  • (Show?)

    "Uh, yeah Peter... the amount of money the tobacco companies spent easily set their botton line back at least several hours."

    Reminds me of a joke Leno or Letterman told after one of the really bad Wall St days: "The stock market was so bad today Bill Gates lost nearly 100 million dollars, and has...oh wait, he just made it back."

  • (Show?)
    So give yourself a big pat on the back, all you who voted against Measure 50. Not only do you not care about children, but you don't even care about your pocketbook.

    Conversely, you care so much about your pocketbook that you'd rather see a disadvantaged minority fund healthcare for kids then have to help pay for it out of your monies.

    If the setting were the parable of the Good Samaritan then you'd be one of the wealthy fatcats passing by on the other side of the lane, leaving it to the Samaritan of modest means to do the right thing and actually share from his own modest means.

  • Katy Daily (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari -

    I called the counties you are missing for the BM49 results (I should have asked for 50 as well but I'm not thinking too clearly this morning.) Here they are - I'll let you do the math:

    (county, Yes, No) Gilliam 427 to 356 Grant 966 to 1714 Harney 898 to 1700 Sherman 297 to 429 Lake 779 to 1722 Morrow 1269 to 1353 Wallowa 1537 to 1596 Wasco 4181 to 3626 Wheeler 344 to 281

    Note that M49 passed in Gilliam, Wasco and Wheeler counties as well as the 18 other counties we knew about last night for a total of 21 out of 36 counties. This alone should debunk the completely erroneous assertion from all the media I've seen that this vote was along urban/rural lines (or party lines for that matter.)

  • Katy Daily (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Correction: Wallowa 1573 to 1596

  • (Show?)

    Bill R. writes: "And we are paying for it [tobacco-related illness], in Medicaid, in higher insurance premiums and all the other costs associated with disease, disability, and death."

    If you reduce it to pure economics--ignoring the human suffering for a moment--does tobacco really cost that much more money after you figure in the lower social security payments resulting from all those premature deaths? Really--has anyone done that cost analysis? I'd be curious to know.

  • (Show?)

    James X: if the population adjusted map shows Multnomah as a blob and a rural Oregon county as a speck, that's precisely what it needs to show. While Kari is correct to point out that M49 won in some rural counties (thought the N/S divide is fascinating), when population adjusted, the KGW rural/urban interpretation may be correct.

    RE: M50, the spending ratios were nowhere near the 40 or 50:1 that people are claiming here. We saw lots of Pro 50 ads on TV and received mailers.

    The problem with M50 is epitomized by the well-meaning friends that I had to explain the measure to. The pro 50 ads relied on nothing more than pictures of cute kids without really explaining why it was necessary to amend the Constitution (and how common amendments are), nor how this was blocked in the legislature.

    The "fairness" and "Constitution" issue resonated with a lot of folks whom I spoke to over the last week.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    James X:

    Behavior modification is a very common goal of taxation

    Bob T:

    But it shouldn't be becuase it encourages busy-bodies to decide which behaviors are vulnerable to being dumped on by "democracy".

    James X:

    Externalities like the cost to society of health care are not included, which is a market failure.

    Bob T:

    Well, only if you don't understand its meaning. It's actually a failure of collectivism because when individuals are not held accountable for the consequences of their actions, all bets are off. When a biker, for example, crashes and has serious head injuries due to not wearing a helmet, there is no obligation by everyone else to pay his bills. If you demand that they do, then you are no longer talking about "the market", but policy.

    Bob Tiernan

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Katy. I'll get on that!

  • James X. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree that our constitution is a sacred document meant only to be amended to give lottery funds to parks (1998 M66), general obligation bonds to seismic rehabilitation (2002 M15) and tax breaks on mobile homes (2004 M32). Not for taxes on specific products, which is unprecedented. Other than with the lottery thing.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If you reduce it to pure economics--ignoring the human suffering for a moment--does tobacco really cost that much more money after you figure in the lower social security payments resulting from all those premature deaths? Really--has anyone done that cost analysis?

    The analysis is complex, but it has been attempted. My understanding is that when looking at GOVERNMENT programs only, smoking probably saves money. It's not just Social Security savings, but also Medicare since many smokers never even make it to 65. Those that do often die horrific, expensive deaths, but so do most old people given modern medicine. The non-smoker who dies from some other malady at 85 usually costs Medicare less since the non-smoker consumed lots of health care between 70 and 85 and still usually has high end-of-life expenses.

    However, when looking at ALL social costs of smoking (government costs and private costs), smoking is a net drain since everyone pays higher premiums because of smokers, health care inflation is higher, time off caring for them, etc. But as I said, the analysis is so complex it's hard to really nail everything down for sure. What we do know is that less smoking makes everyone healthier, so in my opinion the state should raise the tobacco tax during next year's interim session and make smoking cessation programs avaialable to every person who wants to quit.

  • (Show?)

    OK, the maps are now updated. Just three counties left for Measure 50 (apparently, they're on lunch break!)

  • (Show?)

    Even our Junior Varsity team wins Measure 49 against the best they got.

    That is, even if you remove the votes of the five arguably "most urban" counties (Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Lane, and Marion) we won the rest of the state.

    Boo-yah!

  • (Show?)

    The "voters were bought" / "whored their vote for money" line is really weird. Those phrases mean that people sold their votes, got money in return. They didn't. They got smarmy annoying ads.

    The "brainwashed" argument put forward by Ross at least makes internal sense, although it is stupidly insulting, unevidenced, and insofar as we might substitute "persuaded by clever framing" speaks as much to the failures of M50 supporters to have an effective campaign offering other frames as anything else.

  • (Show?)

    Rural urban is an inadequate framing anyway. I'd really like to know what happened in the suburbs, exurbs and on either side of urban growth boundaries.

    When I drive down the valley there is a whole lot of country that I'd be hard-pressed to call rural, urban or suburban; maybe it would be something like fairly dense rural or very open suburban, though in a lot of case maybe interurban would be more descriptive.

    But in general in the U.S. a majority of the population is suburban now (though suburbs vary widely). I'm not sure if that's true in Oregon or not, but if it isn't, I bet it's a plurality.

    It may be that counties aren't the best units, though they may be the best available.

  • (Show?)

    RE: M50, the spending ratios were nowhere near the 40 or 50:1 that people are claiming here.

    I'll assume this is aimed at me since I was the only one who mentioned ratios, though, it's tough to tell since I said nothing at all about spending (though I will in a minute). I was speaking anecdotally about direct mail that I personally received and TV ads that I personally saw. Unless you've been going through my mail and/or have a camera hidden in my living room, you're in no position to rebut my figures. I'll elaborate though...

    To the best of my recollection, I received only one piece of pro-50 mail (the same day as my ballot). On the other hand, not a day went by that I did not receive at least one piece of anti-50 mail. Some days I got two or three or even four pieces (due to my history as a some-time smoker, I'm on the mailing lists for Camel, Marlboro, andand Winston and all three were sending out their own mailings in addition to the crap from the anti-50 committees). Conservatively, I'd guess I got at least 40 pieces of anti-50 mail. It might've been much more. Since I couldn't believe that the pro-50 folks only sent out one piece, I figured I missed one, and gave them credit for two. Thus my estimated ratio of 20:1.

    The TV estimate was much more arbitrary and based simply on my impressions. However, given my TV watching habits, you probably won't be very surprised. See, I don't really watch much TV at all. In fact, aside from The News Hour a few times a week (ad free, of course), just about the only ad-sponsored TV I catch is a football game or three on the weekends. I dunno if anybody recalls watching college football over the last few weeks, but I think 40:1 is a pretty fair estimate. They decided sports-watchers were a prime audience and went after them with serious saturation. Actually, I don't think I saw a single pro-50 ad during those times, but caught a glimpse of a couple during other times. Anti-50 ads, on the other hand, ran almost one per break all game long.

    The anti-50 campaign, in addition to being very well funded, was very well run (though perhaps poorly coordinated, as I received such an ungodly number of mailings from each of the individual manufacturers as well as the committees). They carefully targeted their messages to different audiences. On TV, I repeatedly saw the ads about 50 modifying the constitution and how not all the money would go to children's health care. By mail I got those messages plus many more about how much the price of cigarettes would go up, and how unfair that was to poor smokers like me. They were even registering voters in convenience stores (where smokers go to buy cigarettes, of course).

    I have no idea what the overall spending figures for the campaign was, but I've seen $11 million tossed about as an anti-50 number. I'd be surprised if pro-50 spent a tenth of that amount. I think there was a lot of over-confidence, even in the face of huge opposition spending, that Oregonians would ultimately do just about anything to pay for health care for kids. Clearly, that wasn't the case.

  • (Show?)

    So wait, let me get this straight, Nate. You mean the campaign that had less money sent out less mail? Wow. Thanks for clearing that up!

  • (Show?)

    Torrid,

    The whole idea of taxing consumer items based on health costs seems highly problematic to me.

    When people calculate the cost of tobacco to the healthcare system do attribute all the costs of diseases for which smoking is a risk factor to smoking? Because most of those diseases are also caused by other things, including alcohol, fat, sodium, overweight, sedentary life, stress, birth control pills etc. etc.

    But there might be ways to capture some health costs related to some foods. Tax trans-fats (not dietarily necessary or nutritionally useful) and high-fructose corn syrup products at the wholesale level, for instance. It's probably just over the line of impracticability, but try to figure some way to tax excessive portion sizes at restaurants.

    Or raise meal taxes on all restaurants in chains of more than 3, then abate the taxes for providing smaller portions sizes, offering fresh fruit and vegetable and juice options, reducing sodium content of foods, or other things that would enable individual behavior we want to encourage to improve population health.

    Point in general being to move reduction or capture up public health costs upstream, go after them at the vendor level, since the food issues aren't discrete objects like cigarettes but ingredients and portion sizes, where the choice of what's offered isn't up to the consumer but the vendor.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, next time are you going to use more interesting maps that skew county shapes to account for population sizes? Or are you a tool of Red America? :)

  • (Show?)

    Kari, next time are you going to use more interesting maps that skew county shapes to account for population sizes? Or are you a tool of Red America? :)

  • David the troll (unverified)
    (Show?)

    RE: Measure 50 You will find Symathy in the Dictionary between SH*t and syphilis just below scrotum. Any bunch of clowns that have the nerve to cry over that measure deserve what they get. I would have voted for it except that Constitution clause Sucked and I Don't give my freedom away.

  • Red Cloud (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Are there breakdowns by precent or that show how rural voters voted?

  • Peter Bray (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Red: I assume that will be in the State's official election posting on I believe Dec 6...

  • Mike (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So let me see if I understand.... Voters smart for seeing through money spent by evil developers on 49, but voters dumb for being duped by evil tobacco on 50. Half of voters smart, other half dumb. That sounds about right.

  • (Show?)

    Evan, I'd love to. Got a map of Oregon adjusted for population? (FYI, we did talk about this about 71 comments north of here.)

  • (Show?)

    M50 was won by spending an ungodly amount of money. pure and simple. had the spending been even, so that people got the same amount of pro as against ads, i don't think health care for kids loses to something as esoteric as the constitution. Oregonians had no qualms about taking away a basic civil/human right (M36) just because it was stuck in the Constitution. when someone does something because of money, well, it's ain't really democracy. why is it worse for politicians to be bought than voters?

  • Larry Caldwell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks to Steve Bucknum for so ably representing rural thinking on the ballot measures. Many rural voters opposed M49 because it was just a housekeeping measure that did almost nothing to resolve the underlying problems of either M37 or the body of Oregon land use regulations.

    M37 just created a privileged class of a few old geezers and several huge corporations. Real estate agents may have been drooling over the possibilities, but it did nothing for any individual under about 60 years of age. M49 put a leash on the corporations, but still does nothing for the average citizen.

    There are vast areas of the state that have less population today than they had 100 years ago, but the land use regulations (as opposed to laws) generally prohibit development of any kind. This has left rural areas in a situation where urban voters have decided to limit resource utilization like logging and mining, touting the value of the lands for recreation. The catch-22 is that it is not legal to develop facilities to attract and accommodate the hypothetical horde of tourists.

    The state needs to establish rural enterprise zones to allow controlled development outside of an urban growth boundary. After a few decades, the more successful enterprise zones could incorporate as new towns, but that needs to be planned from the very beginning. Rural people may not favor Simpson Lumber turning the Coast Range into condos, but that does not mean we are opposed to rural development.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff Alworth responded to a comment of mine:

    Steve: There is nothing therefore particularly progressive or conservative in this measure.

    Jeff responds: I strongly disagree, Steve. Oregon has the most progressive land-use planning in the country, designed particularly to prevent sprawl into rural lands. M37 undid that, so passing M49 was a recognition that we had scrapped everything about land-use planning that was worthwhile. It restored some measure of progressivity back into land usage.

    And I respond to that:

    Jeff, Senate Bill 100 and the land use planning system that has evolved may be perceived as progressive from the exterior, but the evolution of the land use system was nothing but conservative, and by that I mean conservative in the sense of conservation. Way before we had an environmental movement, we had a conservation movement. Farmers, hunters, and rural folks worked to conserve what we had. The land use laws that preserved farm lands were a natural extension of the older conservation movement.

    Laying claim to the work of the late 1970's by calling it progressive is okay on one level I suppose, but I find that unnecessarily polarizing. All of Oregon worked County by County to make land use planning work, and I would be hard pressed to call all of those thousand of people who on the ground around the State made the system work out "progressives". Some were as far right as you can go.

    I think it is far more important if we share a vision or a direction regarding the future (and I assume we are probably in 90% agreement regarding land use issues), that we use language and invoke history that is inclusive. All sorts of people stand shoulder to shoulder regarding our Oregon and its lands who disagree about everything else. Our land use laws have not been truly overruled over the decades in spite of many attempts. In fact, printed right in Measure 37 it said that it was NOT a substitute for land use decisions. What Measure 37 was about was a perception of fairness. What Measure 49 was/is about is a perception of abuse that undermines the prior concept of fairness. These words, "fairness", "abuse", etc. are neither progressive or conservative. They are part of the common tongue, part of the shared existance we have. It is beyond bi-partisan.

    So Jeff, I disagree to my core. Measure 49 has nothing to do with a progressive agenda in the minds of the vast majority of voters. Measure 49 has everything to do with a core identity - being an Oregonian.

  • Steve Bucknum (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Larry Caldwell writes,

    "Thanks to Steve Bucknum for so ably representing rural thinking on the ballot measures."

    I'm always a little nervous when someone appears to agree with me, and then in the next sentence goes the other way:

    "Many rural voters opposed M49 because it was just a housekeeping measure that did almost nothing to resolve the underlying problems of either M37 or the body of Oregon land use regulations."

    Sorry Larry, you left me there. Most of us think that Measure 49 goes a long ways towards fixing many problems from Measure 37.

    Larry, you then go on with some truly uninformed generalities:

    "There are vast areas of the state that have less population today than they had 100 years ago, but the land use regulations (as opposed to laws) generally prohibit development of any kind. This has left rural areas in a situation where urban voters have decided to limit resource utilization like logging and mining, touting the value of the lands for recreation. The catch-22 is that it is not legal to develop facilities to attract and accommodate the hypothetical horde of tourists."

    True, parts of Oregon such as the Coast Range, Wheeler County and other east side ranching areas, etc. have less population. But, pointing at urban voters for limitations in extractive business isn't exactly accurate. There are more limitations to be sure, but most of that came out of Washington DC. Most of the limitations are reasonable, and set standards to conserve and preserve our lands. Mining, logging, ranching, and farming are still happening. During my brief time on the Crook Co. planning Commission, I voted approval for four different mining operations.

    But where you really leave the page entitled "reality" was your comment about tourist facilities being illegal. Ever hear of a destination resort? Here in Central Oregon we are being overrun by these tourist sites. Lets see how my memory goes: Sunriver, Eagle Crest, Crooked River Ranch, Ochoco West, Three Rivers, Pronghorn, Dry Creek Air Park, Brasada Ranch, Remington Ranch, and there are a couple of others under development whose names I don't recall at this time - all within a 75 minute drive of my house. And other tourist facilities: Mt. Bachelor, The Inn at the Seventh Mt., Hoodoo, Lake Billy Chinook resort, most of Bend, the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests including many/many camping sites, and so on. And as for that all American invention, the motel - well we've got a couple of those too. Yikes!

    Yes, recreation is an important part of our economy. And you can bet we are making money on it.

    Larry I appreciate your good will, but I wish you'd become a little better informed. Broad sweeping comments that just happen to be wrong don't support your position (or mine) very well.

  • Jack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I haven't read all the comments, but I happened upon this post after I had already done my geographic analysis of the M49 vote (ArcGIS is a wondrous thing).

    I mapped the county-level data from BO.com's M49 thread, then analyzed the stats by subregion. Here's what I found:

    Willamette Valley (Lane, Linn, Benton, Polk, Marion, Yamhill, Clackamas, Washington, Multnomah, Columbia) 407,194 Pro (68.3%) 188,813 Con

    Coast (Clatsop, Tillamook, Lincoln, Coos, Curry) 34,735 Pro (63.4%) 20,085 Con

    Eastern Oregon as a whole (inc. Hood River) 64,656 Pro (49.9%) 64,924 Con

    Central Oregon (Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes, Crook, Wheeler) 32,398 Pro (54.7%) 26,811 Con

    Southern (Josephine, Jackson, Douglas) 43,311 Pro (39.7%) 65,872 Con

    BOTTOM LINE: The Willamette Valley carried M49, but the Coast and Central Oregon also came out in favor of the measure. Eastern Oregon as a whole was split almost down the middle, but Southern Oregon was staunchly opposed. Guess they're hoping to sell out to the Californicators so they can then bitch about how Californians have ruined the Umpqua and Rogue valleys.....

  • Jack (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Whoops, forgot to link to my map. It's here.

    http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7863/mym49maprx2.jpg

  • (Show?)

    Jack THat is a FAR better map. Thanks! It shows (for example) how Wallowa county BARELY voted no, completely contrary to the Oregonian and KATU urban/rural spin.

    This is really a northern valley / gorge vote vs. cattle farming and southern oregon split.

    And I wonder if the Southern vote is influenced in part by the large number of transplants in the past decade who are not familiar with Oregon's land use traditions, and how they have protected both urban AND rural interests.

    I will look into the population adjusted one, Kari. Maybe Mikey and I can take a run at it.

  • Larry Caldwell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To respond to Steve Bucknum about tourist sites, I'm not familiar with all of them, but Sun River and the Crooked River Ranch predate any land use laws in Oregon. I remember during the summer of 1969, I was contacted by a telephone solicitor trying to sell me lots at the Crooked River Ranch - $500 for an acre of land, $50 down, and they would carry the paper. Of course, I laughed at him. At the time you could buy an acre of fertile farm land in the Willamette Valley for $350, and view property in the Eola Hills for $50 an acre.

    I suspect all the other resort sites were platted long before SB 100. Oregon land use laws were written to confine urban sprawl, and are total nonsense where there is no urban area in the area. For instance, there are no destination tourist facilities anywhere near Oregon's Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The nearest destination lodge is at Asotin, Washington. That is thanks to land use regulations written to keep Portland from sprawling onto fertile farmland.

    Oregon's land use laws are unnecessarily punitive toward rural economies. They need serious revision. Besides rural enterprise zones, it should be possible to get a building permit on any legal lot of record. In my neighborhood, if you have less than 160 acres, you don't get a building permit. There are half a dozen 40 acre parcels within 5 miles of my house that have no residence, because it is not legal to build on them. That is total nonsense.

  • Jessica Vazquez (unverified)
    (Show?)

    unenlivening cheepily theca coadministration fibrocarcinoma mantis vasocorona purdah Or Emet: Valencia, California http://www.ueapme.com/

    <hr/>

connect with blueoregon