Why I finally called the Senate Race for Merkley

By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor

I feel confident that Merkley will win by 25,000 to 50,000 votes.

At about 6:00 on Wednesday 5 November, Multnomah County and Lane county updated their numbers on the Smith-Merkley race.

When I got the new numbers, I did some quick math. I made an estimate of the number of ballots still to be counted in each county, then I applied the proportion that Merkley and Smith had received in all the counted ballots for each county to the estimated number still to go. From that I got estimates of the final tally in each county, and I added those numbers to the current totals.

                                    Smith                                   Merkley

Current total             693,526                               698,630

Counties with outstanding ballots—assuming an 80% turnout (statewide is 83% right now), and the estimate of the number still to be counted:

Clackamas                             46,535

Jackson                                  12,500

Lane                                       24,400

Marion                                   23,600

Multnomah                         108,700

All other counties have completed their counts.

Applying the percentages already voted in each county for Smith and Merkley to the estimate of ballots still to be counted:

                                    Smith                                   Merkley

Clackamas                 22,337                                     21,871

Jackson                        6,250                                     5,500

Lane                             9,272                                     14,152

Marion                       12,272                                       9,676

Multnomah                31,523                                    72,829

Adding together the estimates with the current vote totals:

                                    Smith                                   Merkley

                                    ≈775,000                         ≈822,000

Given the vagaries of voter turnout in different counties, and the possibility that these last votes might not break exactly the same way as the already counted votes in each county, I feel confident that Merkley will win by 25,000 to 50,000 votes.

President-elect Barack Obama

By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor

To tumultuous applause, Barack Obama and his family walk out onto the stage in Grant Park on Chicago’s waterfront.

A reminder that this was a message to the world by the millions who voted in this election, a message of unity, a message that we are all Americans.

In remarks about the support of his family, a reminder that his daughters will be taking a new puppy to the White House (Obama had promised them the dog no matter what the outcome), and a nod to his grandmother who died earlier this week, Obama emphasized his role as a family man who finds himself in an extraordinary role.

But the true reasons he won the election, Obama continued, were the volunteers, low-paid workers, and the voters who worked for Obama’s campaign over the past two years.

“The road ahead will be long,” but America will get there. Where? There are no specifics in this speech so far. This is a speech to the faithful, to the enthused. If this speech gathers some of the myriad Obama supporters into a spirit of neighbor helping neighbor, then the speech will be more than successful. It will be the beginning of a new way of thinking about government in the United States.

This is a differently serious Obama. This speech is the first speech of a new president. He feels the weight of the responsibility on his shoulders. I wonder if past presidents give him advice about how quickly his hair will turn grey with the stress?

“Yes, we can” is a strong slogan. Obama’s speech is an attempt to solidify that slogan into strong support for the policies that will be arriving from the Obama White House in January.

Obama will win, 6:20 p.m, Election night

By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor

With the call by CBS that Ohio has gone to Obama, it is impossible for McCain to win. Adding in California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii, and Obama has the magic 271.

Obama wins.

Unless a cataclysm occurs in the next 90 minutes…

By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor

The highest profile race, aside from the US Senate showdown, is for Oregon Treasurer. Pitting Democrat Ben Westlund against Republican Allen Alley, this race has taken on the highest profile because the economy has become such a huge issue in 2008.

Westlund came into the race as the favorite. He has a statewide presence due to his very public history in the Oregon legislature, and due to his active exploration of a run for the governorship in late 2005 and into 2006. But that name recognition is not very deep. One reason he dropped his gubernatorial campaign was that he discovered the being well known in Salem does not translate into being well known to the state electorate.

Alley started as the underdog. His expertise is being an entrepreneur in the burgeoning high tech field. But his move to the Treasurer’s race hinged on Alley’s position as an aide and advisor to Governor Kulongoski. Alley’s work on economic development issues, combined with his experience creating and running businesses gave him the background to try for the office.

Two credible candidates. One office that voters do not pay that much attention to.

Then the economic tsunami hit. And the ads from Alley quickly adjusted to focus on his actual experience managing assets. Some are a bit disingenuous. Investing decisions are a lot different from finding investors and creating products. But Alley is making an emphatic case that his private sector expertise will serve Oregon well in the Treasurer’s office.

Westlund has continued to rely on name recognition (although, remember, he does not have a lot of it—just more than Alley). In addition, he is running a campaign based on his legislative achievements and proposals. Apparently, as Treasurer, Westlund will increase health care for all of us.

Past state treasurers have tended to come from the Westlund mold. Former legislators, people who have been in the public’s employ, people who understand how Salem works.

However, those treasurers have made some interesting decisions.

Oregon was in at the beginning as Wall Street investment bankers began to exercise their muscle in the 1980s. With new rules, a bit less oversight, and a new attitude about what was possible, the leveraged buyout craze in the 1980s was partly funded by Oregon’s investment fund.

In the early parts of this decade, the Treasurer’s office came under intense scrutiny as PERS and other investments lost billions of dollars. PERS was eventually reformed by the legislature.

These two episodes, separated by about 20 years, point out the Treasurer’s job.

In the 1980s the state made an active decision to participate in an unorthodox and relatively new financial investment. It paid off. But it was risky.

In the early 2000s the state was buffeted by economic tides that were global in nature. There were no choices the Treasurer could have made to prevent the losses in Oregon’s investments during that time. Evidence? 48 of the 50 states had losses about as big as Oregon’s (in proportion to the investments, not in absolute terms—California has a much bigger fund).

Alley’s ads seem to say that he would make decisions that would prevent the 2001–2003 downturn. He can’t.

Westlund’s ads seem to say that the Treasurer’s job is an extension of being a legislator. It isn’t.

What we really need to know is simple:

Are these candidates 1980s-style risk takers?

Or are they 2000s-style money mangers who recognize when the substantial assets of the state are just drops in a much larger economic pond?

Voters will chose between the two based on feelings about the economy (depressing), television ads (not incredibly informative), the Voters’ Pamphlet statements (a bit better than ads), and party identification (bad year to be a Republican).

And we really won’t know how either of them will actually do in the office until one of them holds the position.

By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor

The first of just two joint appearances by Smith and Merkley, the stakes in this debate have been ratcheting up in the past couple of weeks.

The national trend is beginning to echo what we saw in 2006. Opposition to the Iraq occupation swept out even those Republicans who opposed the war.

In 2008, a similar tide seems to be rising against Republicans based on the economic situation. Gordon Smith needs to stem the tide by playing down his Republican identity and highlighting his personal identity as an Oregonian. Jeff Merkley needs to see if he can surf the tide by appearing to be a credible alternative to Smith.

Smith’s consistent, although small, lead in the polls has vanished. This is a statistically even race, and some indications are that Merkley is now ahead by a very small margin.

Just getting the debate on the schedule was quite the ordeal. Smith, as most incumbents will, wanted to limit the number of debates so that his superior name recognition would work for him. Merkley promised to debate anywhere, any time—as all challengers will promise. A number of proposed debates were shunted aside by the Smith campaign, and we ended up with just two. One in Portland, one in Medford.

Meanwhile, the race has tightened, the economy has become the huge issue that dominates everything, and Smith might be rueing his decision.

This is part of a national trend. Several strong Republican incumbents across the country are in trouble because they are being associated with the Bush administration and the economic meltdown. Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, even Mitch McConnell in Kentucky—all are in much closer races than had been predicted.

In past elections, Smith has performed pretty well in debates. And debates give him a highly credible way to communicate with voters, voters who are growing increasingly tired of the barrages of Smith and Merkley ads hammering at viewers on television.

But Smith has only given himself two chances to make this connection. He needs to dissociate himself from Bush, to show his “Oregonian” personality, the one that claims to be the heir to Mark Hatfield. It may take more than two debates to show that side of Gordon Smith.

Merkley still needs to introduce himself to voters in Oregon. But he also needs to stress that he is “senatorial,” that he understands the issues and provides a strong alternative to Smith. In addition, he needs to highlight his Democratic identity.

Early questions about the types of ads, the role of the Bush tax cuts, and the urban-rural divide in Oregon yield some awkward moments. Both Smith and Merkley assert that their ads are hard hitting, but that their opponent’s ads are dishonest and deceitful. It would be great if we could just run a couple of ads and have them both comment on what the heck they were thinking…

Whoever allowed the child to sit behind the Oregonian and  East Oregonian reporters asking questions—that was a bad choice. The kid’s mugging for the camera so he can see himself on the monitors.

About 40 minutes of questions from the panel of reporters yielded these findings:

1. Gordon Smith looks like he’d rather be any place in the world than at this debate. His answers got stronger as the debate went on, but he kept playing the role of the long-suffering older sibling in a contentious relationship. Not much new information about his stances on issues, but he did articulate strong differences between himself and Merkley.

2. Jeff Merkley is livelier than he has appeared in past debates. But he has a hard time getting through his memorized speechlets. Sometimes that led to seeming non sequiturs. Smith would wind down on the second part of an answer, then Merkley would aggressively jump in to counter the first part of the answer. Merkley is also good at articulating differences between himself and Smith.

3. As one of the reporters on the panel kept bringing up, neither Smith nor Merkley was particularly good at answering the questions. Both would wander off to their own ideas and points. The reporters seemed to eventually be worn down by the this behavior. They stopped pointing out the non-answers.

A 15 minute segment of questions from voters yielded much of the same. Both candidates relate to the pain Oregonians are feeling, both have ideas to solve those problems. Both feel the other candidate is totally out of touch with real solutions.

Interesting concluding statements.

Merkley—a vote for me is a vote for change. Gordon Smith got us into this mess and getting rid of him will get us out of it.

That puts a lot of responsibility on Smith’s career.

Smith—I have been an independent voice for Oregon. And, unlike my opponent, I understand rural Oregon, and I have been there for rural Oregon.

That’s a great appeal to about 25% of the electorate, a demographic that would vote for Smith in any case. What about the suburbs where political races are decided?

Final analysis. Strong supporter for both Smith and Merkley will be please with their performances. Those disgusted by their ads, and those who are undecided will probably have more questions than answers after watching these two.

For a sitting US Senator, and the Speaker of Oregon’s House, these two seem like amateurs in this setting. I am really surprised at their inability to shine in a debate format that is so common in both of their political lives.

The Democratic tide continues. Gordon Smith may survive it, but it won’t be because of this debate. And Jeff Merkley may try to float into office, but this performance was more floundering than swimming.

In some doubt just ten hours before the start time, the first debate between John McCain and Barack Obama started.

Moderator Jim Lehrer plunged into questions about the bailout plan, the nature of the economic crisis, and what to do about it. In effect, the plan to focus on foreign policy was thrown out the window, a decision that seemed to be embraced by the candidates.

The candidates were tentative on the first question. A format that was supposed to encourage debate and conversation between the two did not work, no matter what Lehrer did. Obama and McCain talked to Lehrer—just as they do on the floor of the Senate, where comments are generally addressed to the presiding officer.

Obama addressed his answers to the television audience, looking straight into the camera. In general, this is a better technique to grab the attention and sympathy of the television viewers, i.e. the voters in this election. McCain addressed his answers to Lehrer, so viewers saw his left ear and never got to look in his eyes.

Answers from both Obama and McCain were repetitions of what we have heard in their stump speeches.

The second question about the differences in their approaches to economic issues brought a much livelier and more informative debate. Both cite their records, both bring into evidence the records of the other, and a clear set of difference emerge.

McCain believes that the economy works best when there are fewer regulations. Obama believes that the economy works best when there are regulations that limit the actions of the wealthy and the powerful. They then argue about who the wealthy might be and what are unacceptable limits on the American people.

Lehrer asks what each candidate will forego in light of the cost of the bailout plans. Both go through their favorite bits of waste, but a quick back of the envelope calculation says that they are willing to cut about $20–30 billion (changing Defense contract practices, changing Medicare insurance reimbursement plans). These numbers kind of pale in light of the $700 billion bailout plan.

The numbers finally begin to add up when McCain notes that Obama has $800 billion of spending ideas, and maybe Obama should cut some of those programs. McCain still holds that he will cut waste in government and that will still work in light of the bailout costs. Obama’s response is that huge parts of his spending plans are vital—especially $300 billion of health care for those not covered under current systems.

Halfway through the debate, stagecraft is still pretty stilted. An occasional glance at the other candidate while that person is speaking, but Obama is still talking to the camera and to Lehrer; McCain is still talking solely to Lehrer.

Next question: what are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain—his call for victory, and that our troops will come home in honor. The consequences of defeat would have been unthinkable for Iraq and for US standing in the world. An interesting assumption that the surge has created victory. There is scant evidence of that from military testimony in the last few weeks on Capitol Hill.

Obama—we need to look at how we got into Iraq. It was screwed up from the beginning, has cost way too much, and our presence created a new group of enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Question that focuses on Afghanistan?

More of the same from the Iraq answer. But Obama is filled with actual plans here since he feels that Afghanistan is the true front on the war on terror. So there are ideas about brigades, diplomacy, regional issues and the like.

McCain harkens back to the US support for Afghan groups fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s. We did not follow through in such a way that prevented the rise of the Taliban. Then McCain points out that Obama’s ideas on Afghanistan look an awful lot like the initial US post-invasion plans for Iraq, and those ideas did not work. McCain’s grasp of tribal loyalties in Afghan culture is a bit tenuous, but it’s nice to see an acknowledgement that cultural issues are important for the US military to understand.

The debate, in a moment of dueling wrist bracelets upon which are written the name of dead soldiers, comes down to this: McCain says we need to honor our dead with victory; Obama says we need to honor our dead by not allowing more to die in vain. Sometime in 1968–69, the American public shifted from the peace with honor argument to the waste of US lives argument. Here in 2008, public opinion is also making the shift to the waste of lives side. Obama may come out ahead on this argument.

On to Iran. Lehrer notes that his five minute discussion segments have all gone long, but that McCain and Obama are equal on time after the first hour.

McCain—Iran is a rogue state that might get nukes. We need a grouping of democratic and wealthy states (i.e. Europe and Japan) to put pressure on Iran to change. And aside from that, Iran is actively taking part in the Iraq violence as well. This is a reference to the “League of Democracies” idea that McCain has been floating for a few months. No other democracies are enthusiastic about such a grouping.

Obama—US policy toward Iran has been a failure over the past eight years, as evidenced by the Iranians bringing nuclear centrifuges on line. A bit of wishful thinking here—US policy toward Iran has been a failure since 1978, across three Republican presidencies and two Democratic presidencies. And the nuclear capabilities have generally come from either the US (leftovers from the Atoms for Peace kind of programs in the 1960s and early 1970s) and our European allies.

Then McCain almost makes one of those gaffes that can ruin a debate—he cannot quite say Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President’s name. But he gets it under control quickly and fluently uses the name twice more before he’s done with his answer.

The conversation takes an interesting turn. McCain accuses Obama of being an foreign policy neophyte who will meet with the leaders of countries that are more or less enemies of the United States (Iran, North Korea) without the proper agreements on what will be accomplished, “with no preconditions.”

Obama replies that diplomacy and talking are preferable to our current policies of isolation and increasing problems. And then Obama cites McCain advisors and Bush administration officials who have also said that talks without preconditions are necessary. And a nice zinger that will play well in Europe, Obama notes that McCain said he might not meet with the prime minister of Spain—Zapatero is a socialist and an opponent of US policies in the Middle East. Since Spain is a fellow NATO member, close US ally, and important member of the EU, this makes a point that foreign policy types will love. It’s unclear how well this point will score with most viewers of the debate.

A bit of fire—McCain begins to belittle this view with special reference to McCain’s friend of 35 years, Dr. Kissinger. The two talk over each other for a bit.

Question on Russia allows both to continue to show their difference. McCain says Obama is naïve (citing Obama’s response to the Russia-Georgia conflict in August). Obama says that McCain is rash and too wedded to 20th century views, not 21st century realities.

Interesting that Russia for both of them is primarily a country with border issues. The center for US foreign policy on Russia ought to be energy policy and the fact that the Russian stock market had to shut down for two and a half days last week while our financial crisis was peaking. Russia is looking more like a failed state in many ways—a failure that would make any issues with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran look very small indeed.

We wander on to energy. But not much different here from their stump speeches. Nuclear power provokes an argument about waste storage and reprocessing.

Final question: could there be another 11 September-style attack?

McCain: much less likely today. And the McCain-Lieberman commission made the difference with all its recommendation.

Obama: “we are safer in some ways….” But there are problems with ports and chemical plants and new threats like a nuke in a suitcase. And Al Qaeda is still out there and “working in over 60 countries.” We need to restore American standing in the world to deal with these large international threats.

McCain takes it back to the idea that Obama is naïve and “doesn’t understand” the centrality of victory in Iraq.

Obama belittles the sole focus on Iraq as leaving bin Laden and Al Qaeda still out there and active. And, just to make it more interesting, China is stepping into the power vacuum left by the US because we are so focused on Iraq.

And what about the US as a symbol of freedom and progress for the world? Both think it is important. But McCain sees victory in Iraq as the way to do it. Obama sees Iraq as a diversion from what ought to be done.

A comment on the format: I like it! While not a true debate, the looser time limits let the candidates and moderator Lehrer get into a more natural flow, one that showed the difference between McCain and Obama. It also showed them spinning their wheels a bit, but that’s the nature of a discussion. Now if only they would actually address each other instead of talking to the moderator. I wonder if they are afraid of some kind of encounter that might appear to demean the other—when this happened in the primary debates, it really hurt the candidate accused of acting smug and superior.

Winners and losers: none. This debate will serve to reinforce McCain’s supporters and reinforce Obama’s supporters. The big question is that 10%–15% of still undecided voters and their reaction. Quite frankly, if any of them made up their minds tonight, they were leaning heavily to one candidate or the other already.

John McCain gave the most important speech of his eventful life as he accepted the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States.

His focus was simple—he and Sarah Palin will take back Washington, D.C. They will restore the capital city to the people of the United States, taking it away from the entrenched political parties (Republican and Democratic) and interests that have hijacked the government.

Once in office, McCain will lower taxes so that more money stays in our pockets, reduce regulations so that our economy can be more nimble and we can be free to make decisions about our lives, and work toward energy independence.

It was as if Ronald Reagan had returned to the Republican convention hall. McCain spoke as the outsider coming to town to clean up the mess.

The message was clearly geared to undecided voters watching on television. Polling has consistently shown that non-affiliated voters feel that D.C. is a morass of gridlock and corruption. Those who self-identify as Rs or Ds feel that the solution to D.C. gridlock is to have their party win big in elections. Non-affiliated voters just want some version of effective government to occur when lawmakers meet. McCain’s message was for them.

While not a spectacular speech, it was a solid piece of work. McCain is very effective in more unstructured settings, e.g. town hall meetings or talk shows. When he gives formal speeches, his style is often wooden—he seems embarrassed by the words coming out of his mouth. Thursday night he was comfortable with the words, and his use of the television camera was strong. He was clearly connecting with viewers.

However, there was an ideological balancing act that will be interesting to watch as the campaign shifts into high gear. McCain was clear that the denizens of D.C. are the problem. They need to be forcefully reminded that they do the people’s work. This is a version of Reagan’s assertion that government is the problem, not the solution.

But at the same time, McCain was proposing government as the solution for many issues. Incentives for ways to move toward energy independence, laws to protect and help those harmed in the economic downturn, and an activist foreign policy.

This was not Reagan’s idea of limited government. This is McCain’s idea about effective government. McCain invoked Lincoln, Roosevelt (Teddy, not Franklin), and Reagan, but his ideas seem to be closer to Roosevelt’s government activism.

The most moving part of the speech was McCain’s story of his time as a POW in Hanoi. We had heard the story throughout the convention, usually delivered in serious tones with somber music in the background. McCain delivered the story in his own plainspoken style. The most important element for him was not the suffering (the “living in a box” as it was put in the over-the-top video that introduced McCain), but the perspective his captivity gave him of his country. This was where his commitment to public service was born. His love for the United States, and his appreciation of what it did for its citizens, deepened and matured during those five and a half years.

So, now the Republicans and Democrats have given us their advertising about what they want to see the campaign conversation be about. McCain will get some kind of small post-convention bounce to match Obama’s small post-convention bounce, and then we will know the true starting point of the 2008 race for the presidency.

Since this election looks like it will be relatively close in terms of the popular vote, the real battles will be taking place for electoral votes. That’s what I’ll be paying the closest attention to in the coming weeks.