Nice message from Steve, but it's a bit ironic that this is posted just a couple hours too late for the filing deadline for contributions for this quarter. Bad oversight there (and no, I don't mean on Steve's part, but on the editor's).

I don't get it.

What happened to all that support from the DSCC.

They spent $400,000 paying Merkley's housecleaning bills so that he could spend his money on all those negative ads against Novick during the primary, as recently reported by Jeff Mapes but mysteriously (ha ha) absent from BlueOregon.

Merkley doesn't really need Oregonians' help, does he?

Well, on the national level we've got Democrats for McCain, the Party Unity My Ass crowd, and PUMA enablers like this, so why not a bit of Merkley-bashing here?

you can wish to replace Smith, and also resolve not to reward Merkley's behavior, lest we encourage more of it.

bwa ha ha hah ha ha ha ha

"The Oregonian reported on the big investment that the DSCC has made in Merkley's campaign."

That one misleading sentence was BO's entire coverage, kari. The fact that BO keep throwing that up as some kind of defense that BO did cover the story reveals what a shameless spnimeister BO really is.

BO didn't cover it, BO tried to bury the real story.

Have any paid political shills ever consider the idea that if they have to hide the truth from voters, they're doing something wrong?

You attacked me as a troll, Kari, but I'm a liberal concerned about party machinery trying to con the average voter.

So let me return your personal attacks with this:

My allegiance is to our democracy over any party, kari. And smug halfwits who try to obscure the truth from voters are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Disclosure: Chances are kari will delete this comment because he's a bully]

On the contrary, I view some of the pleas to just take it behind the gym or to just get along as evidence of a failure to recognize the divides that exist amongst those who identify themselves as liberal. Face it. We are a divided lot. You cannot magically make these divides go away. There must be work done to listen and understand the roots of these divides.

For some, it is rather easy to say "Smith=Bad Guy Who Takes Money From Exxon. Let's work to defeat him." For some of us, though, despite our distaste for Big Oil Smith, we still have a lingering distaste for Big Democratic Party Merkley. Jeff took a lot of money from a group that, in my opinion, seeks to change the course of politics by perpetuating the status quo. Some of us have grown weary of chasing our tails.

All of this does not mean that I will work against Jeff, but it does mean that I have a hard time getting my checkbook out for him.

Well. Isn't it nice to see how poorly Dems are getting along. This is a fine way to beat Smith.

If Merkley doesn't move to (or appear to move to) the center he won't have a prayer of beating Smith. But, you extreme lefties won't allow him to do what he needs to do to win. (Even Clinton & Obama know enough to do this). Some of you (including Merkley) are complaining about Smith's two-faced stategy. But, if you won't allow the Dem candidate to do the usual move to the center then he will lose to Smith. Are you sure you REALLY want to win?

The campaign tact should be: "Do you want a real Democrat or a jack-in-the-box RINO who pops up differently every day?" "Vote for the man who is CONSISTENTLY a Democrat," not the RINO who is one thing one day and another the next. A slogan could be: "Merkley -- the real Democrat running in this race." "Merkley: He's always been a Democrat, always voted like one." "Let's drop the RINO chameleon. Vote for Merkley."

Get with it you people. I'm a Republican who has had it with Smith. Why do you make it so easy for him to beat you?

By the way, are you complainers aware that Smith has his eye on running for President some day (possibly VP first). Well he has said so to confidants some years back. If you don't stop him at the pass NOW, you may be fighting against a potential President Smith.

Get your act together!!!!

Isn't the point of the primary to elect the BEST candidate, with the BEST chance to win the general election?

I think that what all this angst boils down to is that, were there public financing for the primary--or some means by which to make all else equal--Novick would have put the smack down on Merkley. The fact is, he had a substantially more exciting campaign and message.

Merkley seems like a really great guy who has done some amazing things with his life that demonstrate admirable principles and integrity. I would love to have him as a senator. But if he had to lean on a substantial and unfair monetary advantage (to feed Schumer's ego) in this primary in order to eke out a narrow victory over Novick, how will Merkley have a chance against the Smith Machine's fat bankroll? The Novick campaign did a LOT with a little, and that is going to be a fundamental component of success for a Dem in the general election against Smith. However, in nominating Merkley, we have put forth a candidate (or campaign) who has proven that he could do only a little with a lot.

Again, I wholeheartedly support Merkley, and I think he's a great champion of the liberal cause. But unfortunately, I just don't think he'll win, and I believe his nomination is another example of the best Democracy money can buy.

Kari,

Sorry, I am more of a "newbie" than a "concern" poster. I realized that my name could be problematic right after I pressed "post." I am 110% Dem. I don't want my dismay at the way things went with funding to be mistaken for being anti-Merkley or anti-Dem. I think Merkley's issue positions are great. I was just more excited about Novick's possibilities of becoming a real leader in the Senate who would draw focus towards Oregon. And I wish we could have had an even chance. I truly believe that Novick would have provided a stark contrast to a Smith who is fleeing toward the center. But again, I support Merkley at this point and will donate to Merkley if I can.

Steve Duin (Oregonian) pretty much put into his own words what I tried to point out above. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/base/news/121487551048280.xml&coll=7

"The Democrats can't counter with a maverick saga of their own because their free spirit, Novick, lost in the primary. Their campaign won't promote Merkley as a visionary but argue, instead, that Smith is a fraud...

Bloodying Smith, the D's are convinced, is better strategy and story line than promoting Merkley as a congenial wonk who will fit neatly into the new Democratic majority.

And the senator is convinced, I'm sure, that the nastier and bloodier it gets, the better it serves him and the clever marketing campaign that suggests he is all things to all people."

The present Dem strategy won't work. Neither will Novick people refusing to support Merkley. Let's face it. It is YOU who will be electing Gordon Smith again. He has never won without getting a significant number of Dem. votes. You are not even be going to take away the Dem votes he has been getting in the past because you will not get your acts together. You will not support the Dem candidate unless he dots every teensy weensy little far-left "i."

YOU have already given the win to Smith. Smith knows it; Merkley knows it. Steve Duin knows it. The Oregon Conservative knows it.

You do NOT really care if Merkley loses. The rhetoric on this page proves it.

Kevin: I HOPE it proves to be as (in)accurate as the Dewey headline. I hope there will be a Nov. 5th front page picture of Merkley holding up a paper with the headline "Smith Wins" and grinning in victory. I am not being denigrating; I am being realistic. The sentence to which you refer was, to be fair, precipitated by some logic----namely (and I think any reasonable person would agree) that Merkley will have to do a lot with a little to beat Smith; he just barely won the primary with 3x the money; and Smith will have 3-4x the money that Merkely will have.

Anyway, you are correct that the focus now should be on beating Smith and promoting Merkley. I was just reacting to some of the squabbling going on here with what I believe to be the reasonable assessment. Go Jeff!

Posted by: steve | Jul 1, 2008 2:09:55 PM

Steve, I have heard your point of view in conversations with others.

Today was the 2nd memorial service in as many weeks for an old family friend who was an active Democrat--some of the same people at both services.

In each case, the person who just died was an active Democrat, active with their family, in their church, in a chosen career, in their community, full of good works that many others had not known about until they were mentioned by speakers at the service.

Each person had passion, but that didn't mean just angry rhetoric---it meant working to make things better.

I think it was great that we had such a contested primary for US Senate---sometimes primaries don't have such passionate support on each side. The effort of winning a contested primary helps the nominee (as long as that person makes intelligent choices in the general election). There are personal connections formed in contested primaries which can last for years or decades.

But here's the deal: people argue over contested primaries long after the November election is over. The sense from some here is that there has never been a contested primary like this one between Novick and Merkley. I've lived through too many contested primaries to believe that.

Let's imagine for a moment that Steve and Jeff had equal amounts of money in the primary. How would Steve have spent that money? How would spending more money have convinced the neighbor who said "I'm glad Novick lost because I couldn't figure out what opening a beer bottle had to do with the US Senate"? Would Steve have done more ads, run a stronger field operation, appeared downstate more often in town hall meetings rather than just house parties? Would he have listened to those who said an AuCoin endorsement wasn't likely to win over the half of the Democrats voting in 1992 who didn't vote for AuCoin (the margin of the recount was 330 statewide)? Would more money have made up for those who said "we tried running someone who been elected to public office in 1996 and that's how we got Gordon in the first place"?
Would it have caused him to link that excellent poverty video to the front page of his website rather than "flammable pants"? Would it have enlarged his target audience beyond "we know what Democrats want"? In that, wasn't he like Hillary Clinton in believing there was a specific way to target Democratic voters in a year when there were newly registered Democrats that many activists had never met before--people who might be all over the lot politically but they wanted to vote in the truly contested presidential primary? What would Novick have done with more money to inspire more such people to actually vote in the Senate primary rather than leaving that line blank?

In 1982, Oregon Democrats in the new 5th District nominated a legislator who lost the general election to Denny Smith by something like 7 votes per precinct. Yes, that was a long time ago, but for some people Steve sounded a lot like that legislator--very strong language, very opinionated, and if swing voters in rural areas didn't like what Ruth McFarland said, tough luck. Enough money would have convinced people that Steve wouldn't make the general election mistakes Ruth made?

Steve got 43% statewide and won Multnomah and a couple other counties. Would more money have enlarged his appeal in the counties where he got 35% or less? How?

This is a turning point election--"Obamacons" from ordinary fed up Republicans to famous people such as law professor Doug Kmec (who worked for Pres. Reagan) and quite possibly Colin Powell think this country needs a new direction. There were people who went to see Obama when he came to Salem who historically were not active Democrats. Exactly how would more money have helped Steve Novick reach these people?

There are many people full of good works who are too busy being involved in their community to be actively involved in politics. There are others who struggle just to make ends meet, raise their kids, and maybe have a little fun in their spare time. It seems to me that they are the key to winning elections. Running ads won't work with people too busy to watch TV. Person-to-person conversation often changes more minds.

A Republican friend is offended by the Mike Erickson story and told me so. I told him Kurt Schrader is an old friend and he had a reputation as a very frugal Ways and Means chair. The friend said that sounded good and he would consider voting for Kurt.

That doesn't mean he will vote for Obama, or that he will vote for Merkley. But maybe he will be a vote for Kurt.

I am very proud of Steve for backing his primary opponent. I believe he should run for office again--but in Mult. County where he has proven he can earn votes.

There were women in the first half of this year saying of Hillary Clinton, "I want a woman president, not just this president".

There were people saying "Merkley for US Senate, Novick for Chief of Staff---that would utilize the greatest strengths of both of them".

I don't think there is anything Hillary could do to change the minds of the women mentioned--no matter how much money she spent. I don't think any amount of money could have changed the minds of the people who said "I've known Steve for years, and I am voting for Merkley" anymore than all the 1986 lobbying by those outside the 4th CD that "anyone who doesn't support Margie Hendricksen doesn't support women" prevented Peter DeFazio from getting the nomination. Having been one of the women supporting Peter, I still remember the peer pressure.

The voters got that one right. I believe the voters around the state spoke in this primary and I still don't see how having more money would have changed the result. If Steve Novick truly "had a substantially more exciting campaign and message" to folks outside Multnomah County, his supporters in the downstate counties could have gotten him at least 35% of the vote in more counties than actually happened.

Stephanie, Notice my above mention of the 1992 AuCoin primary victory. I didn't campaign for AuCoin that fall--but that didn't prevent me from campaigning for other Democrats. If you are willing to vote for Jeff, you are more forgiving than I was then (but then, the tone of this campaign was a lot more issue-oriented than the AuCoin attack commercials and other stuff which led a friend of mine to just ignore that primary as too nasty).

Stephanie, you are part of a large group of activists who survived a contested primary where you were very strongly supporting a candidate who you admired but who lost. Welcome to the club. Many of us have felt the way you feel at one time or another.

Two things have to be done:

First, from now until November, stop harping on whether Merkley was better than Novick or whether Merkley ran a dirty campaign. Just support Merkley over Smith. No distractions. Period.

Second, as soon as that election is over, then you can re-visit the campaign -- whether Merkley behaved appropriately could be on the table, and certainly whether Schumer behaved appropriately should be on the table. But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP.

as a former novick volunteer and someone who was angered/disappointed by merkley's primary tactics, and underwhelmed by his overall campaign i have put that all behind me. the only thing standing between me and donating to him is an error in resetting my password on actblue. at this point i'd even be willing to volunteer for him, but i'm afraid i won't have any spare time. that said...

having made it totally clear that i do not agree with the novick supporters who might not vote merkley, and even those who will vote but not donate/volunteer, i want to say;

when people ascribe motivations to former novick supporters, such as this quote from carla (not trying to single you out carla, yours was just the best example in this thread):

"Yes, there are divides among progressives, Democrats, conservatives, Republicans and Americans-in-general. But to make the divides more important than actually moving us in the right direction is not something that's defensible, in my opinion.

And that's what I sincerely see going on with a lot of the anti-Merkley stuff going on here and elsewhere by a handfull of Novick primary supporters."

and

"Its apparent that for a select few squeaky wheels, its not about putting a progressive in the U.S. Senate and getting rid of Gordon Smith. Its about nursing grudges and tantrums".

though the point may be relevent (if a tad hyperbolic), it misses the larger point: that merkley has a problem on the left. this is not due to a few squeaky wheel novick partisan bloggers; it is due to a not insignificant portion of the swing-left feeling alienated by the merkley campaign. some of us will (or have already) come back merkley, how many do so largely depends on merkley himself. i was going to wait until merkley reached out, but i lost patience and i am so tired of smith. i know others who are waiting and others who have bailed completely already.

so even though i''ve come back to merkley, i think it's really important the he offers some sort of gesture to those alienated by the primary and not run away from his left flank. he can win without us, but if he actually wants to win without us that does not bode well for how he intends to legislate.

so i will drop my criticism of merkley's primary campiagn until november, but i will not withhold criticism of his general campaign, just like i won't withhold criticism of obama. its too important to just shut up and go along as expected of us good democrats.

and in response to to jeff alworth, who said:

"I get that it sucked to have the DSCC dump a bunch of money into the race, but let's be honest--it was because they picked the horse they thought would beat Smith, not to advance some devilish anti-Dem scheme."

let's really be honest, unless we have inside information from either schumer or merkley, we won't really know why the dscc dumped all that cash into the primary until after merkley is elected to the senate and we see how he votes. i'd love to be convinced otherwise before then, but in my experience, in politics favors do not go unreturned and i don't see any reason to think otherwise in this case. still, merkley gets the benefit of the doubt until november.

LT:

I appreciate your email, and I believe it to be, for the most part (excluding digs at silly ads), well-reasoned. However, I believe that your focal question (how would more money would have enabled Steve to reach more voters outside of Multnomah County) has a response that would quite satisfy your curiosity. Quickly, though, I must reiterate that I am an admirer of Jeff Merkley's policy positions and his principles. From everything I've seen, he is a great person and would be a great senator, and he has done what it takes to earn his chance to be a senator. (I also think your idea about Merkley for Senate/Novick as his Chief of Staff was a good one.)

Anyway... To take one example: if Steve had had more money, he would have been able to establish a field office in, say, Lane County, to match the Merkley field office there. As it was, it was quite difficult to develop operations there and to effectively organize and recruit volunteers. That difference alone, one may safely assume, accounts for the narrow loss of Lane County. Furthermore, in relation to the coast and hinterlands: the more money one has, the more TV time one can purchase, and the more one can embed ones' name & image in the minds of distant or low-information voters. Lower-information voters tended to side with Merkley, as did those in outlying counties--and the two were often the same. It would be difficult to support an argument that their votes were due to truly informed support for Merkley rather than to the nearly 15-1 TV time ratio Merkley enjoyed--and his money purchased--in the waning weeks of the primary. It is instructive that polling consistently showed Novick ahead until the bitter end--coinciding with the extra TV time.

It is important to recognize, too, that Steve got enough votes to have won any prior Senate primary. It's not that he needed to get more votes to compete with Merkley. It's that Merkley had enough money to purchase the TV time to get the extra votes to get over the top.

Let's imagine for a moment that Steve and Jeff had equal amounts of money in the primary. How would Steve have spent that money? What would Novick have done with more money to inspire more such people to actually vote in the Senate primary rather than leaving that line blank

You ask what the two would have done with equal money; then you ask what Steve would have done with more money. But what if Merkley had had LESS money--what if it were up to actual grassroots fundraising instead of big party donorship? That was the underlying assumption of my post. And I think it is a more apposite hypothetical, since a corollary point of my post was that a primary's function should be to nominate the best-quality candidate as opposed to the "officially" endorsed/funded candidate. So--Novick had roughly $1M dollars; Merkley $3M. Say we give them both $1M. Novick runs the same campaign, but Merkley can't reach out to so many extra low-info voters. He can afford neither the TV time nor the extra Field Office (offices?). Who would win that race? The point of my original post was that with equal money, running the same types of campaigns that they did run, using the same tactics, MINUS all the extra TV time and the extra Field Office for Merkley, Novick would most likely have won. Ok. So, you were approaching it from the other side--give Novick $3M to match Merkley's. I think that makes for a closer race than a $1M race, because then both candidates would be reaching out to low-info, less-predictable voters. However, it would seem only reasonable to me to assume that Novick wins in a $3M level playing field as well, based on the numbers applicable to the actual primary. Why not? Is it not pragmatic to impute greater viability or tactics or message to a scantily resourced candidate/campaign that narrowly loses to one more heavily funded?

Does giving Novick an extra $2M erase a 15,600 vote margin in a 500,000 vote primary? Or would taking away about $2M or even $1M or even $500K from Merkley lose those extra 15,600 votes? Maybe not. Maybe Merkley would still have won. But I think the reasonable and objective person would be hard-pressed to say so.

"Anyway... To take one example: if Steve had had more money, he would have been able to establish a field office in, say, Lane County, to match the Merkley field office there."

Thanks, Steve, but perhaps you miss my point.

My point is this: some people are "low info voters" but some people are not.

And among both groups, what someone hears from someone they know is more powerful than what they hear from ads.

A Lane County field office wouldn't have affected the result in Marion/Polk, where politics is to some extent a local industry. And for every uninvolved neighbor who asks what opening a beer bottle has to do with the US Senate, there may be someone who has known Steve for years and chooses not to vote for him.

Just as importantly, there is the issue of faith in running of a campaign operation. Had Steve been able to open field offices in every W. Oregon county, would that have gotten more votes in counties like Marion, Polk, Linn?

And another thing--winning friends and influencing people sometimes comes down to things that don't cost money. I got a call during the primary from a friend who grew up in Linn County, is old enough to have actually gone to Wayne Morse rallies, and has been active in politics his entire adult life. He called me up during the primary to discuss what he had read on Blue Oregon. He said of what he saw of the Novick campaign and what he read on BO "These people don't know how to win a statewide campaign!".

I had the "gall" to relay that here, and there were BO people who said unless my friend posted his own thoughts, no one had to believe he even existed. Steve himself told me in an email once that many people he met did not read BO, but to read the debate here you'd think some believed every good Democrat blogs regularly.

Money would win over someone alienated by such remarks?

This goes back to the old debate about the role of money in politics. Sometimes it determines results, sometimes it does not. What if the "we know what's best" attitude some saw in the Novick campaign had gone along with Novick having more money than Merkley? How do you know Novick's numbers in downstate counties would have been over 35% in each county?

Maybe this is a debate which cannot be resolved.

But I will tell you this about the 2010 primary. No matter how much money is involved, if there are competing candidates, I already have the criteria for who I will support. First, the more public appearances around the state/ district the better. Second, people have the right to listen to a speech and either like it or dislike it, and communicate that to their friends.

Suppose Candidate A talks about specific legislation, talks about accomplishments and plans for the future, talks about issues and priorities which match what I care about, uses diplomatic language rather than angry/acerbic language. Suppose my perception of Candidate B is someone who is running a know-it-all acerbic "we'll tell you which issues matter" campaign. I WILL vote for Candidate A over Candidate B! I wiil vote that way if A is well funded or poorly funded, has major funders or grass roots funders, or whatever.

I am proud to have supported Peter DeFazio over Margie Hendricksen, someone both in 1982 and 1984 against Ruth McFarland, Lonsdale over AuCoin in 1992 and Bruggere in 1996. I place the campaign Steve ran in the category of the candidates I didn't support. I was frustrated because I could see several ways that Steve Novick could have appealed to people like me, but he didn't do them.

Now, exactly how would a Steve Novick even with twice the money of Merkley have won the vote of someone like me--considering in the end I voted for the legislator over the non-legislator in 2 other primaries as well as US Senate?

That is my question. But it requires thought and considering a point of view a person doesn't share. I have never believed money could overcome strong feelings. And the "low info voter" in many cases can be persuaded to look at a particular candidate because a friend speaks well of that person. Such people were in downstate counties and I knew some Novick supporters in this area. Why would it have taken extra money for those supporters to have argued with their friends, persuaded other friends to give him a look? And if someone didn't like the beer ad or thought the pull the plug ad was too angry for their taste, how would more money have changed their minds?

Am I not reasonable and objective because I voted for Merkley having known both men for years?

You may well be reasonable and objective. I would not question your Merkley vote.

I agree with your points about high-information voters, all of whom have their own points of view and reasons for voting the way they do. I also agree with your points about the power of peer-to-peer communication. And yes, I'm sure some folks had issues with Novick, and didn't vote for him because of them; you are clearly one of them. However, if you were to really look at it, THAT is where the Novick campaign excelled--peer-to-peer communication. It had to in order to offset the gains made on the TV.

You continually bring up the "downstate counties" and the 35% number. However, that blurs the focus on the meaningful numbers and issues here--namely, how many votes may be ascribed to the extra money and TV time? Do you really think that the few people who didn't like Novick are more than a drop in the pan when compared with the amount of people reached by a huge TV campaign? I mean, that is the point of all this rhetoric. Anyway, this is going nowhere, and I wish you the best, and I'm sure we all hope Jeff wins in November. Go Dems.

Kevin,

Theoretically, you're right. If the political equivalent of Tiger Woods ran against Steve, even I wouldn't think twice of voting for Novick. After all, Tiger is from another planet (I still can't get over that U.S. Open and it's been a couple of weeks since it has ended).

But practically, I can't imagine a candidate that I'd rather see in power than Steve. He's no Tiger. But ... as mere mortals go, he's extremely impressive. Being with him on the night of the election (as well as meeting folks like Stephanie V for the first time) was a great experience for me, and I'm sure everyone in that ballroom felt the same way. I'm proud of the way Steve has handled the Merkley-Smith campaign as well and it's hardly surprising; after all, this whole thing started as Steve's campaign to unseat Smith. He wants that to happen in the worst way, whether it's him or Merkley who gets to cross the line first.

So anyway, get Merkley in the Senate. Then get Novick ... [I won't say where ... but somewhere worthy of his skills].

"Do you really think that the few people who didn't like Novick are more than a drop in the pan when compared with the amount of people reached by a huge TV campaign?"

I'm not a paid staffer--I don't know if there are any studies showing that TV ads matter more than any other form of campaigning. (Willie Brown was asked once what was the most powerful campaign tactic from a list incl. TV ads, door to door, mail, telephoning, etc. He said "do it all and hope it is enough".)

I have no respect for the cynical staffers who say things like "people say ads have no effect on them, but they do". That's like saying that in a focus group of 30 people, each person speaks for a group rather than just themselves. Oregonians are famous for making their own decisions.

If it were really true that showing an ad enough times would indoctrinate people to vote for a candidate, Wyden would not be in the US Senate unless he had run in the May primary for the full 6 year term in 1996. When Smith and Wyden did their first joint town hall meeting, Ron explained one reason why they decided to do it. "We heard there were people who just didn't turn their TV on until the election was over " because they got so sick of the ads--esp. the "We're all real tired of career politicians" sanctimonious Jan. 1996 ad.

You could have the money to run ads every hour on the hour, but if people have turned off their TVs in disgust, isn't the money spent on the ads wasted? And in Jan. 1996, there were people equally sick of the ads from both candidates--look at the number of votes Karen Schilling got as a 3rd party candidate.

So, no, I don't take it as an article of faith that as long as a campaign has X number of dollars to spend on TV they will win, any more than I believe that if a legislative candidate can afford to mail something every week all fall that candidate will win--I saw the opposite happen in my district.

It might be a worthwhile discussion for those who supported Merkley and Novick to talk face to face in conversations of 2 or more people and express their views of the campaign. Neither campaign was perfect (I despaired early on that the only choice was between "have a tap with Tester" and "Stand strong with Steve" as if there was no room for downstate people who didn't agree with either of them on what was important.)

I do know that on successful major campaigns I have supported, TV alone was not the reason for winning. The campaign that won was the one with the most folks saying to friends and anyone else they talked with "I like ___ because, and that is why I am supporting this person and voting for them". I once knew someone who leans Republican who voted for someone because a person he respected had watched the young man grow up and trusted him, and that was all this person needed to know.

TV ads only work on people who watch TV and don't mute the ads. I've seen political ads where I would stop what I was doing to watch the ad, and others where I change the channel or walk out of the room.

I'd be careful about this:

But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP.

Anyone who as much as had a Merkley or Novick bumpersticker on their car OWES Steve their vote for whatever he runs for? Without input into what kind of a campaign is run or the office chosen? Even if one's close friend runs against him? Even if there is a major issue debate where Steve is on one side and some who were active in the 2008 primary are on the other side? Good sentiment (I hope Steve is someday elected to office) but impractical (how would that be enforced?) Potential way to lose friends and alienate people who will make up their own minds, thank you very much. And if there is that sort of peer pressure they will just not get involved in politics, mark their ballot in secret, and never say how they voted.

Steve is a very bright guy. Someday he will be in elective office if he does it the old fashioned way--earns it.

Steve has graciously supported Merkley in the general election, something which shows great character. But he needs to decide whether it would be better to run for federal, state or local office, and if so whether to run for an office other than statewide office. And he should take a page from organizations who do "lessons learned" exercises after any endeavor---what worked well, what should be done differently in the future, what mistakes were made.

There are a lot of contested races at all levels going on this fall. There will also be ballot measures.

Here are some of the percentages for Steve in counties where he won less than his statewide average of 43%

38% Linn County 41% Yamhill County 33% Marion County 36% Polk County 34% Jackson County 33% Douglas County 39% Deschutes County

If he were to visit any of those counties--the county party meeting or HQ, help campaign for legislative and other candidates, ride the BUS when they go to places like that to campaign for legislative candidates, it would be great for all concerned. Steve could learn more about local issues and local political figures, he could listen to concerns (which might be different than what he said during the campaign) and engage in lively discussion with locals. That could break down perception that Steve knows what people should believe and tells them they must agree with him a lot better than any ad ever could.

Who knows, he might run into people saying to him "Always wanted to ask you...." or "you had my vote until....and then I decided to vote for Merkley". These might be ideas which never occurred to anyone on the campaign.

I just saw a Merkley ad involving veterans. I never understood why Steve didn't devote more attention to veterans in the primary. Some might see it as a "conventional" ad in that it isn't edgy like the Novick ads and not likely to get national publicity. But the goal of political ads is to win elections, not just for the ads to be praised in the national media.

No, Stephanie, it could mean the opposite. Darlene Hooley, Mike Kopetski, Ted Kulongoski, Jim Hill, Randall Edwards and others were elected to higher office after being elected as Oregon legislators. Kopetski had been a staffer before his first run for Congress. When he ran as St.Rep. Kopetski, he was ultimately successful.

Now did I just insult the legislature by saying that? Steve could be a dynamite legislator and have a record of legislation to talk about when he ran for higher office.

In response to this comment: "But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP." I got the following response:

"Anyone who as much as had a Merkley or Novick bumpersticker on their car OWES Steve their vote for whatever he runs for? Without input into what kind of a campaign is run or the office chosen? Even if one's close friend runs against him? Even if there is a major issue debate where Steve is on one side and some who were active in the 2008 primary are on the other side?"

I made a simple statement -- support Merkley now (enough with my friend Steve) ... and then fight like hell to support Novick post-election. Why analyze this to death? Sure, if Novick turns out to be a homicidal maniac and uses his hook to stab old ladies, then don't vote for him. There. Can we get back to the point?

Novick is an incredible talent who is smart enough to figure out how to serve as Governor, Senator, Congressman, or dog catcher. Those of you who underestimate him forget the fact that he basically thrashed Merkley's butt except for the fact that he never sold one man on his candidacy (Schumer) and that was the man whose support (or at least neutrality) he needed the most. Shame on Schumer, but shame on everyone else who is obsessed with Schumer in the middle of a general election race. BUT THE PRIMARY IS OVER AND STEVE LOST. DEAL WITH IT. STEVE IS DOING IT, SO WHY CAN'T EVERYONE ELSE?

Steve ran for office to unseat Smith. Now, Oregon has a chance to do that ... and replace Smith with a progressive who is an extremely competent legislator. How is this not a great opportunity? If Merkley is elected, the entire western seaboard can go blue in the Senate. Even if you are unsure about Steve -- and shame on you if you are -- don't take the bait. Stop debating this. CONCENTRATE ON MERKLEY VERSUS SMITH FOR NOW.

Sheesh.

"Its awesome that Steve is doing this. I've been a fan for a long time now" Posted by: carla axtman

Don't you mean "a big fan again"? Cuz you weren't so hot on him a few months ago.

"a lack of support from Oregonians will lead to a lack of support from the DSCC. The two go together." Posted by: Kari Chisholm

The DSCC didn't seem to care about Merkley's lack of grassroots support during the primary. Has anyone done the math? I'm guessing Merkley got more money from DC than he got from OR.

"BUT THE PRIMARY IS OVER AND STEVE LOST. DEAL WITH IT. STEVE IS DOING IT, SO WHY CAN'T EVERYONE ELSE?" Posted by: Daniel Spiro

Calm down, Daniel. It appears that your way of "dealing" is denial. If neither "major" candidate pleases me, I won't vote for either. You realize as an Oregonian, you can still vote your conscience, right?

"I don't delete comments because people disagree with me. Occasionally, when something is violent, or racist, or homophobic, or when someone impersonates someone else, we'll wipe out that comment -- but we'll always leave a note to that effect. We don't capriciously delete comments here." Posted by: Kari Chisholm

Baloney. The royal "we" doesn't perhaps, but "you" have on occasion deleted comments that simply upset you and did not fall in to any of the categories you described.

You need to communicate better with you coeditors, because sometimes they have no idea what your doing.

"C'mon... it's really really REALLY not that complicated. The DSCC exists for one purpose and one purpose only. To elect more Democrats to the U.S. Senate. They protect incumbents and support challengers.

They decided that Merkley had a better chance of winning than Novick. It's perfectly reasonable to dispute that judgment. But let's not go imagining bizarre conspiracy theories. All they want to do is win. "

1) nothing is that simple B) you always throw out this line: "let's not go imagining bizarre conspiracy theories", and it is rather insulting.

there is no conspiracy theory. the dscc exists for the reasons you mentioned, and the leaders of the dscc also have an institutional interest in maintaining and expanding their own relative power. i'll repeat, this is not a conspiracy theory, this is a fact of a politics that is accountable only to big money.

notice i did not imply that i think merkley will be a stooge for schumer and the dscc. i just said that being honest we won't know until the votes come in. if you have inside information, or some evidence that shines more light on the situation, please share it. right now i'm thinking that there is a decent chance of merkley governing as a mostly solid policy wonk progressive, ala someone like sherrod brown. but then carla makes it sound as if the merkley campaign could care less about winning with the left flank and i get worried.

"I don't think (nor do I think you believe) that the sum total of grassroots organizing is campaign donations. Its phone banking, canvassing, GOTV and a whole host of other grassroots activities."

Right on Carla!

This debate has been going on for over a decade, so it is not a debate specific to the 2008 primary. A relative has been reading Obama's autobiography and expressing approval of his community organizing on the S. side of Chicago. Perhaps that is why his campaign was better organized to deal with the realities of the 2008 presidential campaign than the great Clinton machine, even if she was seen by many as inevitable nominee from the day she declared until Obama won Iowa.

Money helps, but it is not "all that matters". HOW the money is spent, how the campaign is organized, if there is a significant field operation (including volunteers in various counties who talk with their friends, organize events, etc), if people hear the candidate speak AND like what they hear, if voters feel there is an exchange of views rather than the candidate telling them what to think or that some issues are not open to discussion---all these are factors in a campaign which cost little or no money.

I saw Steve speak to Marion Demoforum early on--maybe June 2007. The young woman who was my guest was not overly impressed with his speech--"nice guy, but..". She was glad when she heard Steve would have a primary opponent as she thought that would be a good thing. Would campaign money have changed her mind (she doesn't actively follow politics, which is why I thought she should see a candidate speech in person)?

I saw Jeff speak at a town hall meeting at Willamette U. in a meeting room, introduced by a college student there. There were people actively engaged with Jeff in issue debates during this meeting, and a few who said "thank you for your efforts in the legislature passing----". Would more money spent on ads have changed their minds?

I've been involved in primary campaigns where volunteers argued with the candidate on any number of issues--from political issues to how the campaign is run. The side of the debate saying Wyden shouldn't run negative commercials in Jan. 1996 won the argument and may have won the election when Ron sided with them. The only cost associated with that debate was the long distance bills of downstate people calling Wyden's Portland campaign office.

Perception IS a big deal. If the money had been equal but the perceptions had not changed, would that have meant money was a factor? Or would that have meant there are factors in campaigns which aren't primarily related to money?

RE: DSCC spending & unfairness. check out these comments from a year ago. They predicted this. (from http://thomsword.blogspot.com/2007/07/steve-novick.html)

maloney said... if the primary is clean, which i think it will be, then yes. i think he does have the experience and the ability to become our new Junior Senator.

i think something that gets lost, is that he's done campaigning before. he's just never been the "star" of the campaign.

as long as Merkley and Novick focus their energy on Smith, and (here's the important part) there isn't any dirty pool from the national or state Dem mechanism in trying to keep donors from giving to Novick, i think he can win the primary.

my one fear, and this pure speculation at this point, is that County Democratic Parties will be "strongly encouraged" to endorse Merkley over Novick. There are lots of FuturePAC alums on Merkley's team, and i'm afraid they might try and use their weight to influence local party bodies in that way.

(i'm not saying this is going to happen, i'm just saying it could.)

i think if people make their decision based on who has a better chance at beating Smith in the primary, then i think Novick is lookin' pretty good. I just hope, as i've said before, that the D$CC stays out of the primary.

July 29, 2007 9:06 AM
Thom said... as long as Merkley and Novick focus their energy on Smith, and (here's the important part) there isn't any dirty pool from the national or state Dem mechanism

Novick promised a positive campaign at the WashCo Dems meeting described above, even as he acknowledged the entry of Oregon House Speaker Merkley into the race.

Colin, you are spot on regarding the importance of the County Machines. If Novick's reception in other counties is anything near the positive response he got in Aloha, he certainly does stand a fighting chance.

July 29, 2007 9:33 AM
Cyclogeek said... Maloney, your last comments prompted me to emerge from my lurking. I am disturbed by the prospect that the national Democratic party may influence the campaign process. Novick shares my values. I want to see a campaign uncluttered by national party influence. The national Democratic party should give Novick a chance.

July 29, 2007 9:53 AM
maloney said... Hey Cyclogeek,

It's not necessarily (just) the national Dems that we need to be concerned with. The state has a party machine too. Theoretically, the DPO (Democratic Party of Oregon) and the Legislative machines (FuturePAC for the House and the Senate Democratic Leadership Fund for the Senate) should stay neutral in a contested primary.

However, this is real life, and sometimes they will use their weight to "encourage" donors to give to particular candidates, or to NOT give to particular candidates.

There are machines at the County level too. They'll typically hold interviews with candidates and will often endorse one candidate over the other. If the larger party mechanisms have been putting pressure on them, it can get ugly. There are often the "active" Dems (or Republicans) in a district/precinct/county who do the canvassing, phone banking and Get Out The Vote operations.

While the nominee will be selected by individual members of the party, these institutions play a HUGE role in determining who people vote for.

Say you live in Washington County, and you're undecided whether to vote for Novick, or Merkley or Jeff Golden. The Washington County Dems have made the decision to endorse Golden, and someone you respect on the city council has endorsed him too, then your decision will probably be (to some degree) swayed.

It can be done innocently, but it can also be deliberate and the line is fairly fuzzy sometimes. In this election, with strong support for a candidate like Steve Novick, I think there's the temptation to use influence in a way that's questionable if you prefer another candidate.

Merkley's team, which is forming, seems to have a number of FuturePAC insiders as a part of it, and i get nervous...

July 29, 2007 7:57 PM

But how many county parties endorse? Some are scrupulous about not taking any stand in a primary. Unless a party went on record (and someone can point to that public record) I have no evidence that most county parties endorse, or that it has any effect on the general electorate.

And regardless of the crack about a Future Pac mindset, I never had anyone tell me I OWED my vote to Merkley.

However, when I made a comment on this blog saying that I had known both gentlemen for years but on a certain topic I thought Merkley had a point, someone called me a "Merkleyite" and someone else said they had known I was a Merkley supporter long before I did.

In reaction to that, I put a Merkley bumper sticker on my car and if anyone asked about it, I said it was in reaction to people on a blog trying to push me around.

OK, in that scenario, suppose DSCC had endorsed Novick--not just given money like DSCC did this time, but started a whisper campaign like they did for Bruggere in 1996. In what way would the bloggers mentioned above have won my vote?

Both men started out not being well known outside the political world.

Sorry, I don't think money had anything to do with activists telling friends their opinions. During the primary, I had a very intelligent conversation with a local friend who supported Novick. He said he supported Novick because....., and I said I admired some of the work Merkley had done and a speech I had seen him give. I also said I didn't see how I could sell Novick's acerbic language to friends of mine who are swing voters (voted for Kitzhaber in 1994, Gordon every time he ran, Bush and Hooley in 2004).

Hate to break it to you folks, but I will continue to believe that while money has a role, conversations like the one in the above paragraph will take place whether outsiders contribute money to a candidate or not. Which is why I believe personal communication is more powerful than money, no matter what name anyone calls me.

LT, it is people like you that who deserve many thanks and props for choosing your vote according to the information you actively seek out--speeches you attend, blogs and articles you read. I admire people who put TV ads on mute, as you said you do, and I am one of those people. But the bottom line, there are a lot more people who don't seek out that info, who watch TV all day, who really don't know anything about politics, but do vote. And a host of these people don't vote for anyone but president and senator. And it is this type of person's vote that is up for grabs in publicity campaigns. If their votes weren't up for grabs, you wouldn't see so much money thrown around in political races. Were there about 15,000 such votes up for grabs in the senate race this year? Out of over half a million, I think it's pretty clear that is a reasonable assumption. I wish everyone voted like you do. But only a minority of people do. And until that day, money talks, and principles walk. Sorry LT, but that is just the way it is. The Novick campaign did what it could to change that, to appeal to people's principles, to represent the average Joe. It lost to out-of-state money. Period.

Steve, how many of these people do you actually know?

"But the bottom line, there are a lot more people who don't seek out that info, who watch TV all day, who really don't know anything about politics, but do vote."

What about the people who are so busy making ends meet, raising kids, etc. that they rarely watch TV? Do you have any evidence about how they vote?

I have worked on too many campaigns (most notably volunteering on the campaign of Jim Hill for State Rep. when my boss called me a poor deluded girl to think a black would ever win in S. Salem) where "that's just the way it is" turned out not to be true. The Eugene McCarthy campaign certainly wasn't supposed to scare the daylights of out LBJ.

Your point of view including this, "And it is this type of person's vote that is up for grabs in publicity campaigns. If their votes weren't up for grabs, you wouldn't see so much money thrown around in political races"

is a school of thought in politics. It is the one-way school of politics--inflict commercials on voters who are not politically active but do watch commercials, and you will win.

There is another school of political thought which says someone could have the money to run their commercials every day, perhaps every hour on the hour. They could have the money to send out multiple mailers into the mailboxes of people who don't spend much time online.

But still, the personal factor (a conversation with a person they know, a candidate that they or a relative/ friend has known for years and talks about often, an opportunity to watch a TV debate and discuss it with friends, a canvasser coming to the door, a town hall meeting, an insightful remark made by someone at work or other place where the voter talks with others, all sorts of such one-to-one or small group conversations) can have an effect on voting behavior. Consultants don't like this school of thought, because there is little or nothing they can do to influence it.

This is a larger point than just Steve v. Jeff 2008.

We saw a great test-case in Jan. 1996. Some people turned off their TVs, some discussed the ads. A young man working in a retail store where I was working on weekends was out in the parking lot when I left and wanted to discuss the Wyden bumper sticker on my car. This was before the change to 100% positive, and he asked why I would have that bumper sticker given that I was so down on negative ads. When I said I'd known Ron since 1984 and was involved in an internal campaign debate about those ads, he said "OK that's different if you actually know him".

I heard conversations in the grocery store that month after Karen Schilling was included in one debate. The discussion was that she was more down to earth than either of the men, and if you check the Jan. 1996 election returns, she and the other 3rd party candidates did well enough that the margin between Ron and Gordon was smaller than the 3rd party vote.

One more thing: the beer ad got national publicity, but what evidence was there that "average Joe" responded to it? The woman who cuts my hair ought to fit into that category, and she never could figure out what opening a beer bottle had to do with US Senate.

The Democratic Party is running an ad some Novickians might regard as too conventional. But it addresses veterans issues--something more important to many in the average Joe demographic than an argument about which politicians said and did what in 2003. It is my contention that HOW money is spent can be as important as the amount of money. We will never know if Steve could have gotten more votes downstate (or convinced those who left it blank to vote for him) had he done an ad like the current veterans ad with Merkley at the end instead of the beer ad.

And after 30 years of political involvement, the LAST way to win my support/agreement on anything is to say "that's just the way things are, nothing anyone can do about it".

Meredith Smith told all county parties that? If I talked to the local county party chairs they would tell me that?

TJ, your comment about the night before the KGW debate caused me to email a friend of mine: a downstate Novick supporter active in both county and state party activities, someone who supported Meredith's run for state chair (were you there at the state central comm. meeting the day Meredith was elected state chair in an election which was closer than some expected?).

My friend just wrote back. He contradicted you.

"I would be very surprised if this were true. Meredith tends to avoid getting involved the affairs of local county parties from what I have seen. To the best of my knowledge she has also carefully avoided making personal endorsements in contested democratic primaries. If anything I think she would recommend that County Parties not endorse candidates in contested races. I have seen no credible evidence to believe she would act otherwise."

You have a right to believe anything you want. But unsubstantiated charges are no way to persuade people of your cause. I choose to believe a friend over someone I have never met.

Now, if all you want to do is vent your anger, that is another story.

If anyone finds a copy of that email, Jenni, it should be printed and Meredith should be asked about it to her face. If I'd gotten something like that, I'd have gone to the source---not blamed a large group of people but rather the sender. And yes, I have done things like that in the past.

But as many Democratic emails as I get, I never saw anything like that. And the Novick supporter I mentioned is on State Central Comm. and he had no idea what was being talked about. So the generalized notion that the party backed Merkley in the primary doesn't seem to hold water. Perhaps someone sent out an offending email, but without hard proof that Meredith herself sent it out, the rest of us are not required to believe it. Rumors do no one any good.

And Kari, take it from someone who has 3 decades of political experience, saying someone is OWED an election victory is not always the best way for that person to win an election. "But most importantly, as soon as the November election is over, everyone who has supported EITHER Merkley or Novick should mobilize all the forces to ensure that Steve Novick is elected to a high position ASAP." may well be true.

But suppose in whatever next election there is an equally compelling figure (Didn't Earl B. once run against Vera Katz or someone equally popular?), saying that anyone who had so much as a Novick or Merkley bumper sticker on their car in 2008 OWES Steve Novick their vote and political support in 2010 is not only impossible to enforce, it just creates ill will for Steve. I hope Steve is elected to office someday, but I will drop out of politics before I will allow someone to tell me that I OWE my vote to a close personal friend, much less Steve Novick, a bright guy I have often argued with.

Thanks for the link, Stephanie. Here is the quote:

Novick’s statement—on top of the divisive presidential primary—inspired a letter from Meredith Wood Smith, Chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon.

“In the last couple days we have been receiving a lot of questions about how to deal with the contested primaries. Specifically the Presidential campaign has really heated up and the Senate Candidate Steve Novick's comments about supporting Independent Candidate John Frohnmayer in the General Election have generated a lot of controversy,” she wrote.

“To support a third party candidate-and thus make it more likely that candidate stays in the race-merely makes it easier for Gordon Smith to win re-election and continue his support of the Bush-McCain agenda. That agenda will lead to 100 more years in Iraq and more special interest control in Washington, DC," the letter continued.

Weigler said that “the [party's] responsibility is to unite the party, and Steve has made it clear he will support the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The issue got some further play in tonight’s candidate debate, when Novick continually emphasized how he stands behind his principles, regardless of the popularity cost.

He also reiterated—and perhaps clarified—that he is going to “throw [him]self into electing whoever gets this nomination.” Instead of saying that he would (in an ideal world) support Frohnmayer, however, Novick urged the Independent candidate to drop out and support the Democratic nominee. <<

Jenni read it as "TJ is referring to an email sent out by the DPO. A number of people felt that it unfairly attacked Novick and made it appear that the DPO was supporting Merkley."

TJ said,

"my one fear, and this pure speculation at this point, is that County Democratic Parties will be "strongly encouraged" to endorse Merkley over Novick."

They did end up receiving an unfair rebuke of Novick the night before the KGW debate, direct from the state party chair. Most unfortunate for them to pick a side like that. I hadn't recalled that someone had predicted interference, however. "<<

Here's the way I read it:

In the last 12 years there have been 3 US Senate elections involving Gordon Smith: Jan. 1996, Nov. 1996, November, 2002. In 2 of those elections (both the 1996 elections) the victory margin of the winning major party candidate was a smaller number than the number of votes for 3rd party candidates. Anyone who has been active in US Senate politics over the last decade and a half would know a third party candidate is a real danger to a major party US Senate candidate.

John Frohnmayer had a very inspiring message and a poorly organized campaign (couldn't build a crowd large enough to fill the auditorium reserved for an appearance, for instance). There was no way of knowing back around the time of the KGW debate that Frohnmayer might not improve the organization of his campaign to the point of getting as many 3rd party votes as Karen Schilling in Jan. 1996 (benefitted Wyden) or Brent Thompson in Nov. 1996 (benefitted Smith).

Argue with her choice of words if you wish, but I don't think Meredith was giving a directive to over 30 county parties, the members of the State Central Comm. etc. that they were supposed to support Merkley. I think she was doing her job worrying publicly about the effect of 3rd party votes on a Democratic nominee.

In a free country, 10 people can read the PolitickerOR story and come up with 10 different conclusions. If you think Meredith was telling county parties to endorse Merkley, that is your right. But someone else has the right to read the same article and say Meredith was being a concerned major party's chair looking out for the party's interest in the face of a 3rd party challenge.

Kari, My opinion of Steve Novick as a candidate is higher now than it was during the primary. I also think he could use some advice from people who didn't get involved at all in the US Senate primary---what would have caused them to get involved? Maybe some changes of tactics rather than beliefs (appealing to those who don't drink beer, for instance) would have made a difference.

All I'm saying is that without knowing what Steve would run for in 2010, if one's close friend or political hero might be running for the same office, etc. I believe it is a little early to promise to support a 2010 campaign.

Sometimes it happens that someone says "If you run, I'll support you" and then finds themselves in a jam when someone they admire or respect also runs for the office. What can one do in that instance except maybe sponsor a debate between the candidates?

That especially happened to one friend of mine in a local race. It was a tough spot to be in. He kept his word to the first person he'd promised support to. And then on election night when the equally qualified candidate won, he showed up at the election night party and said to the victor, "You'll do a good job--if I hadn't given my word early, I would have supported you".

That's what I was talking about. Saying now that Steve is the greatest candidate ever and should be elected to something in 2010 would not change that possibility. Any individual can say THEY will support Steve for whatever he runs for in 2010, but trying to persuade all those involved this year to do that is asking a bit much.

And if people's lives change so much in 2 years that they can't afford the time/money to be involved in politics, should they be expected to slight some other aspect of their lives because they promised 2 years in advance they would help out on a campaign? Most people would think that sort of thing to be folly, and would say "get a life!".

LT "(appealing to those who don't drink beer, for instance)"

Are you really saying that Steve Novick only appealed to the beer drinking crowd? If Jeff Merkley has a problem with this demographic, maybe it's because he's Gordon Light?

Smith = Rich Merkley = Well to do

Smith = Big home Merkley = Several small homes

Smith = Supports gay rights Merkley = Supports gay marriage (eventually)

Smith = Supported the war Merkley = Supported Bush in launching the war.

Smith = Big campaign war chest Merkley = Big brother with deep pockets (DSCC)

Smith = Independent who reaches across the aisle in the US Senate Merkley = Independent who reaches across the aisle in the OR house

Smith = Supports tax breaks for wealthy corporations Merkley = Supports tax breaks for wealthy individuals

I could go on, but I have no further interest in extolling the virtues of the "major" party candidates. I'm voting Libertarian.

Oh, and LT... you're the quintessential curmudgeon. Keep it up. Do you post elsewhere?

<hr/>