|
|
-
Sarah Palin gave a strong speech as she accepted the vice presidential nomination from the Republican convention. She passed her first big test, alleviated worries among John McCain supporters, and served notice to Democrats that she will be a force to be reckoned with in the coming campaign.
Palin had a complex job to do on Wednesday evening. She had to introduce herself to the party faithful at the convention, she had to show her competence at speech making, and she had to reach out to those watching her on television.
The delegates loved her. Palin was sharp, funny, and biting as she extolled McCain’s qualities, told her own story, and began to take on the Democratic ticket. Inside the convention hall, a big success.
Palin showed she could give a speech well. She is articulate, she knows how to pace herself, and she can quiet a crowd down as well as rev it up. These are good signs for a candidate who will be charged with making speeches all across the country in the next two months.
Mixed reviews on whether she had an impact on those watching on television. The first two-thirds of the speech, in which Palin told her personal story, she was paying complete attention to the delegate at the convention. Lots of looking down and away from the camera. This tends not to work well with viewers who want to make a connection with a speaker.
However, in the last third of the speech, the part that was written by the McCain campaign for whomever would be picked as vice president, Palin spoke more to the camera. She became more engaging and her flashes of attacks and humor served her well.
Palin had been preceded by the Rudy Giuliani, the keynote speaker. Giuliani is not that good a public speaker. He had some great lines, he is fully committed to working for McCain’s election, but he kept stepping on applause lines and stumbling over words. He is still much more important as a symbol of the 11 September attacks and the U.S. response than as a deliverer of policy ideas. And one has to imagine that Republican image makers were cringing when Giuliani led the convention crowd in a chant of “Drill, baby, drill!” in support of offshore oil and gas exploration.
A word on the vetting of Sarah Palin by McCain’s campaign. Whatever the McCain campaign knew about Palin’s impending grandparenthood, the trooper scandal, or her newfound opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the campaign made a big strategic error by not releasing some of that information on its own. If McCain’s people knew any of these situations, they should have been on top of the stories and released the info early. Palin was introduced to the world on Friday morning—so release a full report on her Friday night or Saturday morning, explain why this makes her a good candidate (e.g. she’s dealing with family problems common across the country), and move on. Rumors of whether or not Palin should be dropped from the ticket could have been nipped in the bud. The McCain people did not do that nipping, and McCain’s candidacy began to hang on the quality of Palin’s Wednesday night speech. That was a heck of a gamble.
|
-
The Republican convention began in earnest on Tuesday. After a Monday of uncertainty as Hurricane Gustav slammed into parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, the convention was back on track.
This was the day we learned exactly how strongly John McCain would make his imprint on the convention. It was pretty strong.
President Bush spoke from the White House, extolling the personal story of McCain. The emphasis was on McCain’s judgment, his tendency to buck party leadership (Bush wryly noted his and McCain’s past disagreements on policy), and his reform credentials.
Fred Thompson’s folksy talk took a long turn toward the somber with a detailed recounting of McCain’s experiences as a POW in Vietnam. The message was clear—McCain’s character had been forged in a crucible of almost unbelievable savagery. The honorable scamp who had so many demerits at the Naval Academy became the determined and principled John McCain who would take on vested interests as a public servant.
Thompson also painted Sarah Palin as being part of the same reform culture. We will hear more about this on Wednesday when the speeches will culminate with Palin’s vice presidential acceptance speech. The best line of the night was Thompson’s observation that Palin is the only vice presidential candidate in the history of the republic “who can field dress a moose… with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt.” Wild applause from the crowd.
The most remarkable sight was that of 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman extolling McCain’s credentials in prime time. Invoking Bill Clinton (at the Republican convention!) and McCain’s taking on Republican vested interests with strong reform ideas (at the Republican convention!), Lieberman made the case that McCain has an independent streak that this country needs right now.
With a final appeal to “Americans” regardless of party affiliation to unite behind the strong reform ticket of McCain and Palin, Lieberman basked in the applause of McCain’s convention. The odds are very long that he will not experience a similar moment at future Democratic conventions.
So, regardless of the pregnancy of Palin’s daughter, regardless of the issues of vetting swirling around McCain and his selection of Palin, the message of the convention should build each day. McCain and Palin are in the race to continue the reforms they have proposed and forced through in the past. They will be a ticket that will clean up Washington. With McCain’s years of D.C. experience and Palin’s enthusiasm and fearlessness, the argument goes, these two can make our government one to be proud of.
Missing from all this? Exactly what are they going to reform? What changes will they make? What is their vision of Washington’s role?
Tuesday night was a different set of messages than McCain has been communicating for the past several months. Those messages stressed continuity with President Bush’s economic policies and Iraq policies. Those messages (reinforced by Laura Bush’s speech on Tuesday) stressed finding more justices like Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court.
That continuity, along with the strongly pro-life Palin’s nomination to the vice presidential slot, works well to get the Republican party faithful to unite behind McCain, especially evangelical voters.
Tuesday saw a message somewhat at odds with that Republican-unity theme, a message that McCain is sending out to independents and Reagan Democrats. We’ll know if it’s working in a couple of weeks.
|
-
By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor
The apparent pick of Alaska governor Sarah Palin to be the Republican vice presidential nominee is a bit of a surprise.
Palin was not among the short list candidates. Last night we went to be certain that Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty was the pick—and he was on the short list.
Palin, as an unknown on the national scene, will change the dynamics of the McCain campaign. She counters McCain’s age with her relative youth (she’s 44), she brings executive experience to the ticket (two years as Alaska’s governor), and her gender breaks barriers.
But beyond those obvious attributes, we will have to wait to see if she helps or hinders McCain’s presidential bid. Will she energize voters or mystify them? Will she be seen as a gimmick or as a potential president? We’ll know the answers in a few weeks.
The last time the vice presidential choice was this obscure was in 1988 when George H.W. Bush selected Dan Quayle. Quayle took a lot of heat, (he was “no John Kennedy,” according to Lloyd Bentsen, the Democratic veep nominee), but Dan Quayle also became the vice president of the United States.
|
-
By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst and Pacific University professor
Barack Obama came out swinging in his acceptance speech in Denver. Standing before a huge crowd (84,000 according to the people who read the barcodes on credentials), Obama set out the reasons why change is needed, what that change will be, and how his presidency will help the American people.
The real audience, however, was not the 84,000 who saw it in person, but the millions of people who are just beginning to pay attention to the political campaigns. We are finally moving into the actual election season. It’s not just political junkies who are watching and learning and making choices. The actual mass of voters who will decide the election is just tuning in.
Obama told of the economic hardship that so many Americans are facing. While he did not blame it directly on George W. Bush, the implication was clear. What he did blame on the Bush administration was the weak response to the economic hard times. And John McCain’s campaign proposals were right in line with Bush’s responses. In fact, Obama cited McCain advisors who said that the recession was all in people’s minds, not a “real” recession.
Obama ran with the theme that had run through so many speeches at the Convention—John McCain is tied tightly to George W. Bush in terms of the policies that McCain wants to continue. This is a good campaign tactic. At this point, the only president more unpopular than Bush was Richard Nixon in his late Watergate days.
To turn this point into a chantable slogan, we heard, “Eight is enough! Eight is enough!” It is not clear that invoking a television show from the Carter administration is a good campaign move.
After establishing what was wrong with McCain’s ideas, Obama moved into his policy goals. High wage jobs, cutting taxes on 95% of Americans (all referred to as middle class in his speech), getting rid of our reliance on Middle East oil in 10 years, guaranteed college education for those who commit to community service, access to health care.
To pay for all this? Closing loopholes that benefit big corporations, and ridding the government of redundant and outdated programs. This is the detail that could prove pretty tricky during the campaign. Those need to be hefty loopholes and fairly expensive programs if they are to provide the revenue for Obama’s ideas. But Obama is not going to say, “With me in the White House and Democrats controlling the Hill, we will responsibly raise taxes!” We all recall President Walter Mondale’s sweeping victory over incumbent Ronald Reagan in 1984 on the “pro-tax” platform.
On foreign policy, Obama stressed that he has the temperament and the judgment to make the hard choices for the United States. Once again hitting at McCain and Bush, Obama stressed that Iraq is the wrong war, and Afghanistan is the right war. With McCain we would continue to have “tough talk and bad strategy.”
Obama then went through a list of hot button issues that have been centerpieces of American politics for almost 30 years. He said we needed to agree to disagree, and in a civil manner on issues like abortion and gay marriage. We need to look at the human side of those who live with these decisions, to work on bridging the divides that split the American people.
Then, like Hillary Clinton in her speech, Obama talked directly to voters about their motivations and their decision making. “This election is not about me, it is about you.” It is about taking personal responsibility for change. The echo of JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country” was unmistakable.
The Republicans and John McCain, Obama asserted, are providing 20th century solutions to our current problems.
“Now is the time!” to move toward a 21st century presidency.
A strong speech. Obama was not as erudite as he has been in some of his speeches. This was a deliberate effort to connect with new voters. Those who support Obama do not need to be catered to as much at this point. From here on out, Obama needs to get the rest of those disgruntled Clinton voters to support him (a job for the Clintons…), and he needs to work on independents and blue collar Democrats. By focusing on economic concerns, he took a big step toward getting them to support him in the fall.
And, on a Oregon–side note, Obama’s 70,000-person rally on Portland’s waterfront was superceded by the 84,000 in Denver. But since Denver was a nationally advertised event (people drove for days to get there), I think Oregon and SW Washington can still be happy with our turnout last spring.
|
-
Jim Moore, KOIN Political Analyst, Pacific University professor
The great roll call of states began around 3:00 Wednesday afternoon. All those funny hats, all those names of Democratic office holders and candidates, all those pithy sayings about the states.
Then, as New Mexico was reached (after the prodigal states of Florida and Michigan got to vote), the roll call went back to Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois. Mayor Daley then flung the roll call to New York where Hillary Clinton herself called for Obama’s election by acclamation. It was so acclaimed by the united convention, and Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Clinton’s move for a unanimous vote was yet another step toward showing her supporters that she is fully committed to electing Obama in the fall. Interesting that the vote for Obama by the end of the roll call was about 5:1 over Clinton. Once Clinton released her delegates, there were movements for unity in many state delegations that resulted in huge numbers for Obama. Clinton supporters could still show their backing of Hillary, but it was clear that this convention had unified behind Obama.
However, all the states after New Mexico missed their time in the spotlight.
Oregon did get a brief moment with Jeff Merkley’s speech shortly after 4:00. He was one of four Democratic Senate hopefuls who addressed the convention. His line about Gordon Smith, “He talks like Barack Obama, but he votes like George Bush.” Interesting sidelight, Merkley was preceded by U.S. Representative Tom Udall, NM, Gordon Smith’s cousin.
Bill Clinton gave a muted speech, for Bill Clinton, but one that showed his love of the campaign. Questions about how strongly he would support Obama were put to rest with a strong endorsement of Obama, strong attacks on McCain and the Republican policies, and the punch and brevity of his speech. This is an ex-president who knew to subordinate himself to the needs of the party and the nominee. Bill Clinton is no longer the center of the Democratic universe.
John Kerry showed more life in his speech than he showed in his entire 2004 campaign. Hard hits at the Republicans on national security issues were followed by the “John McCain is my friend” caveat. All the U.S. Senators claim McCain as a friend, but partisan differences do not prevent them from really attacking McCain’s policy ideas. Kerry was especially effective comparing “Candidate McCain to Senator McCain.” Expect to hear more of that during the campaign.
Vice presidential nominee Joe Biden started out slow in his speech. His seriousness in enumerating middle class economic woes quieted the crowd. But, when Biden got to “John McCain is my friend,” he warmed to his role as the foreign policy expert and attacker. Two big campaign slogans ruled the rest of the speech—of John McCain, “That’s not change, that’s more of the same,” and “John McCain was wrong, Barack Obama was right.”
The Democratic strategy is clear—tie John McCain to George W. Bush as tightly as possible. Since Bush’s approval ratings are still at Richard Nixon’s Watergate levels, that seems like a sound strategy.
But the star of the night, the person who clearly grabbed the attention of delegates, leaped through TV screens to wake up viewers, and pointed the convention to its climax on Thursday was Barack Obama himself. A short speech after appearing on stage at the end of Biden’s time in the spotlight showed what these delegates are all about. And Thursday we’ll hear how he puts all these campaign themes and ideas together as Obama talks before tens of thousands at Mile High Stadium.
The takeaway points: Obama has the charisma, but he will need this entire list of supporting characters to reach out to crucial demographic and voting groups across the country. Hillary Clinton is crucial to winning blue collar whites, Joe Biden is crucial for gravitas on international issues, Bill Clinton is crucial for any other wavering Democrats. If Obama wins, it will truly be a victory for the party and its campaigners.
|
-
By KOIN News 6 Political Analyst Jim Moore
Tuesday’s speech by Hillary Clinton did all it was supposed to do. She wholeheartedly endorsed Obama’s candidacy, she made the case for why her supporters should support Obama, and she cemented her place among the most powerful players in the Democratic party.
With expectations running high—would she truly deliver her support to Obama, or would a tepid performance signal a huge split in the Democratic party?—Clinton came before the convention. Her lead-in was one of those feel-good videos that have come to replace true introductions of major speakers. Then, a confident Hillary Clinton began speaking.
This was the most relaxed and the most powerful speech I have seen Clinton give. On the campaign trail her speeches tended to be wooden and formulaic, while she was excellent with small groups. On Tuesday, she interacted with the thousands in Denver as easily as if she were in a constituent’s living room.
Clinton’s main argument was simple. She got into the presidential race to solve problems. She ticked off several—dealing with the issues of single mothers, helping families relying on minimum wage jobs, providing more support for our soldiers and their families.
Then the rhetorical magic occurred. Clinton emphatically said that her issues were Obama’s issues, that they were in total agreement on what the problems were and how to solve them. To elect Barack Obama is to elect a person who will bring Clinton’s concerns to the center of the policymaking process in D.C.
And if that was not enough, Clinton then went straight to her supporters. She asked them if they had voted for Hillary Clinton the person, or if they had voted to deal with the issues of the mother, the family, the soldier? The implication was right out in the open—a vote for Obama is a vote for Democratic shared values; a vote for anybody else (i.e. John McCain) is a vote against those values.
Then, with some witty attacks on John McCain (he and Bush have identical policies, so it only makes sense that the Republican convention will be in the Twin Cities), references to the growing role of women in politics, and a call to bring the Democratic party into the White House, she was done.
Four years ago on this night of the convention, a young man from Illinois electrified the convention with the keynote address. That was Barack Obama’s introduction to the national Democratic party.
After Tuesday’s speech, Hillary Clinton took the first step toward sewing up the 2012 nomination, regardless of her electoral strength (which is considerable), if Obama does not win this fall.
And now, we await the impact of the speech on Clinton supporters. Inside the convention hall her supporters were largely swayed to support Obama. What about those millions who watched on television
|
-
By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor
This was written as the candidates talked, so Obama went for the first hour, McCain for the second.
Barack Obama’s time with Rick Warren in front of the Saddleback church crowd showed a candidate at ease with a variety of issues, a candidate who was not afraid to talk about working with his opponent (on campaign finance reform) or in supporting President Bush (on fighting AIDS around the world), and a candidate who really seemed to be getting beyond his stump speeches to deal with Warren’s questions.
There were no bombshells or huge mistakes, so Obama’s performance will reassure his supporters and fail to sway his opponents. The true audience, however, are the 40% of American voters who are undecided between Obama and McCain. They were treated to a thoughtful set of questions and thoughtful answers. If the undecided are looking for a thinker, then Obama will do well.
The audience members were enthusiastic and polite. They almost acted like an audience at a late night television show—laughing and clapping as if on cue. The audience’s unspoken role is one of change in the electorate. From the early 1980s to the 2004 election, a megachurch audience would have been reliably Republican. That is changing. Evidence from the 2006 midterm elections and state elections across the country, as well as polling, show a group of religious voters who are no longer overwhelmingly Republican. They are not necessarily Democratic, but they are a key unknown in the 2008 election.
John McCain wants to keep the megachurch voter in the Republican party, or at least ensure that the megachurch voter casts a ballot for McCain. Barack Obama wants to provide that same voter with a place to go within the American political firmament—not just dissatisfaction with the Republican party, but an actual vote for Obama in 2008.
John McCain’s time with Rick Warren showed a candidate who emphasized his personal story. Many questions took him back to his experiences as a POW in Vietnam. McCain’s independence in Washington seems to flow from this formative experience. Many of McCain’s answers were directly from his books or from his stump speeches. But the relaxed McCain was a very effective communicator, one who mixed humor, policy, and life story in a very convincing way.
Just as with Obama, no bombshells or big mistakes. The big question—does McCain’s independent streak match up with the questioning going on among many megachurch voters? If so, he will do well among them. If his independent streak becomes associated with political expedience, those voters will remain on the fence or even move more strongly to Obama.
|
-
By Jim Moore, KOIN political analyst, Pacific University professor
Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate is not a revolutionary one.
The revolution lies totally with Obama himself—youth, race, ideas, and the enthusiasm among his supporters. Biden fills in some of the holes in Obama’s experience—mainly in foreign policy. Biden’s long experience in Washington, D.C., also helps with those who fear Obama might not have the expertise to understand the rather labyrinthine workings of our democracy.
Biden, however, brings some important problems to the campaign. The immediate one, one which the McCain people jumped on, was Biden’s belittling of Obama in some of the Democratic presidential debates. An important issue, not necessarily a problem, but not a help, is that Biden does not bring much to the ticket in terms of winning crucial electoral college votes. The only place where he might make a difference is in Pennsylvania; Biden was born in Scranton.
The selection of Biden has been compared to George W. Bush’s selection of *** Cheney as his vice presidential candidate in 2000. The idea is that Cheney’s years of D.C. experience balanced the “revolutionary” outsider who was candidate Bush.
The Biden selection also evokes John Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson to be the vice presidential candidate in 1960. Two senators, one who was very junior (JFK), one (LBJ) who was among the most powerful in the Senate. One about whom the electorate had questions about “presidential-ness” (JFK), and one who people agreed could step into the presidency at a moment’s notice (LBJ). The huge difference between the two sets of choices, however, is that LBJ had a very real impact on the votes in many crucial states. LBJ’s appeal to conservative southern Democrats was undeniable.
The opening speeches of the Obama and Biden in Springfield, Illinois, on Saturday August 23 were fiery, full of campaign themes (especially personal stories), and showed two experienced campaigners in action. Obama had one big gaffe (introducing Biden as “the next president... the next vice president of the United States...”). And Biden will eventually learn the name at the top of the ticket (“Barack Omerrick!”—the crowd then chanted “O-bam-a” for about half a minute).
Now, on to the Democratic convention!
|
-
Moore Musings
by James Moore
Barack Obama is off in Afghanistan and Iraq, and soon to visit the great cities of Europe. In his role as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, the trip will provide him with an opportunity to show voters in the United States that he has firsthand experience in these important places for U.S. foreign policy.
Polling consistently shows that voters believe John McCain has more foreign policy expertise and that voters trust him more as commander in chief. The visits may not help Obama to surpass McCain’s standing on this particular set of issues, but they will assuage those who want to support Obama but are worried about his international credentials.
Another interesting dynamic will be how Obama is treated by different countries and their leaders. McCain’s visit to Israel and other countries a few months ago had him meeting prime ministers and foreign ministers and looking quite presidential. Obama will get the same treatment. Part of this is planned by the campaigns, but most of it is because these different leaders are hedging their bets, hoping to make a good impression on the next president and lobbying for their governments’ pet projects.
In terms of the election, at this point it does not appear that foreign policy will be the number one reason voters support either candidate. That honor will go to economic issues, as it has for almost every election over the past 100 years. So Obama’s trip takes place in the summer when the electorate is not as attentive as it will be in the fall, it helps him to assure his supporters that their faith in him is not misplaced, and when he gets back the focus will once again be on economics in the United States.
Of course, there is a doomsday scenario, much talked about among some. What happens if there is another terrorist attack before the election? What happens if there is a major change in the dynamic in either Afghanistan or Iraq before the election? Arguments can be made by both the McCain and Obama camps that these hypothetical events could help or hinder their candidates. And both sides are right. In a drastic event, it is the appearance of “presidentialness” that makes the biggest impression, not necessarily the actions (or proposed actions by the candidates).
McCaina and Obama need to be working on their “steely resolve” and their “compassionate concern” responses to prepare for such an event. And they will both defer to President Bush, the actual leader of the United States until January 20, 2009.
|
-
KOIN News Political Analyst Jim Moore
John McCain is running an ad on Oregon television. It stresses his family history of military service, his personal story as a POW in Vietnam, and his commitment to keeping America safe.
Why is he doing this?
Polling from a variety of sources shows Obama with a fairly consistent 10% lead over McCain in Oregon. But, among national campaign strategists, Oregon looks like it could continue its role as a battleground state. Remember that Al Gore only beat George W. Bush by about 7,000 votes in 2000, and Kerry beat Bush by only about 77,000 votes (out of about 1.8 million) in 2004.
Electoral college math says that it is worth it for McCain to see if he can make Oregon a closer race. Looking at states across the country, McCain seems to have a pretty solid 190 to 210 electoral college votes (out of 270 needed). Obama seems to have fewer, about 150–180. Unfortunately for McCain, almost all of the states still up in the air seem to be leaning toward Obama right now. This means that the key states for both campaigns will be Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio—all rich with electoral college votes. And vaguely reminiscent of 2000 and 2004…
So, in those states in which McCain is within 10% of Obama, it makes sense for McCain to run some ads, try to change public perceptions, and at least make Obama spend more money in those states to counter McCain.
Will Oregon truly be a battleground state in 2008? I don’t think so at this point. After the 2006 election, it looks like Democrats will be well positioned across the state, and this includes votes for the presidency, as well as other statewide offices (with the exception of Gordon Smith’s U.S. Senate seat), and the state legislature.
McCain will stop spending money here if the poll numbers do not change.
From my point of view, as somebody who likes the political excitement of presidential candidates coming to town, I hope McCain is successful. That way we’ll see both him and Obama for more than a cursory fly-through in early September.
|
-
It’s finally June 3, the day of the last primaries in the 2008 season. Yes, it’s been a long time since January 3 and the Iowa caucuses, but it seems like even longer what with all those candidates campaigning throughout 2007.
While the Republicans decided on a candidate months ago (sorry, Ron Paul supporters…), the Democrats have limped to the end of the process. Tuesday night Obama will probably be within 15 or 20 committed delegates of having the nomination sewn up. Clinton will have to decide whether to concede or fight on in dnc committees and possibly the floor of the national convention.
There are somewhere around 170 superdelegates who have not yet stated their preferences for the Democratic nominee (that 170 is a very approximate number given all the different counts that are out there). Obama will need 15 or 20 of them to win. Clinton will need about 200 of them. Yes, that means that Hillary Clinton must get all of the uncommitted superdelegates, then she must persuade Obama superdelegates to switch allegiance. That’s a pretty tough road.
Will the Democrats change their nomination system? The conventional wisdom (which I agreed with up until a couple of weeks ago) was that an Obama nomination would mean that the party rules pretty much matched up with the enthusiasm of the voters, thus there would be no changes for 2012. Conventional wisdom also noted that a Clinton nomination would seem to be a victory for party rules and committees over the Democratic electorate’s preference for Obama, and that would trigger changes for 2012.
However, the uncertainty hanging over the process seems to have worn down a lot of people. It will not be a surprise if there is an Obama-led change to the rules for 2012. 2012 will be the 40th anniversary of the current system of proportionality and mandatory inclusion of different groups among delegations. That’s a long time for any political system to remain basically untouched. Watch for proposals to make the rules for selecting delegates more uniform among the states. The various primary and caucus systems will remain sacrosanct, but the ways that delegate are allotted could undergo radical change in many states.
In the next few weeks the key for the Democrats will be Hillary Clinton’s decisions. If Obama is to win and win strongly in November, Clinton must become his campaigner-in-chief. She’s got to bring the party together to support him. Obama can win without such support, but the Democratic party may not be in as strong a position as it could be if Clinton does not enthusiastically endorse Obama’s candidacy.
|
-
On paper, Gordon Smith is an incumbent without many worries for reelection. He is relatively popular in Oregon, he has won two out of the three statewide elections he has entered (last loss in January 1996), and he has a formidable reelection bank account.
However, some polling shows that Oregonians are growing tired of Senator Smith, especially because they associate him with the Bush administration.
The question: do these voters who want change simply represent the base of the electorate that would never vote for Smith? Or do they represent voters Smith has lost from the crucial center of the electorate—independents, liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats?
At this point, nobody knows the answers to these questions.
New Democratic nominee Jeff Merkley will have to work hard to show that Smith should be replaced. To do this he will have do several things. First, raise a heck of a lot more money than he was able to do in the primary. Second, get beyond the phrases (“…Smith supports the Bush-Cheney plans…”) that just appeal to those who would never vote for Smith. Third, make a strong case that Smith is so bad for Oregon that both of Oregon’s US Senators should come from liberal Portland.
Smith’s defense will be strong. He has changed his views on issues important to Oregonians—he now opposes U.S. Iraq policy more than most Republican senators, and he gave up his active opposition to Oregon’s assisted suicide law after the US Supreme Court upheld it. Smith emphasizes his Republican party membership as a way to fully represent a state with large portions of both Democrats and Republicans—Oregon currently has one of each in the Senate. Smith also emphasizes his residence in the non–Portland area—much of the state supports him simply because he knows about small town issues.
If Smith appears vulnerable, a large amount of interest group money will pour into this race. Republican groups will want to defend the seat. Democratic groups will want to take it.
Watch for significant resources to arrive for Merkley’s campaign during the summer and into September. If Merkley shows that he can use the money well and mount a strong challenge, more money will follow. If Merkley does not do this, watch for the national money to dry up and for Gordon Smith to be reelected rather easily.
And then there is the best hope for Merkley—that the 2008 election will be repeat of the 2006 election in which Republicans across the country lost simply because of their party membership and anger over Iraq. We will not have good idea of this possibility until late summer and early fall.
KOIN News 6 Political Analyst Jim Moore
|
-
![]() Oregon will play an important role in the fall 2008 elections.
The fifth congressional district seat, currently held by Democrat Darlene Hooley, is up for grabs. The Republicans see it as one of their best shots in the country to gain a seat in the House. Democrats want to prevent that, especially since Democrats look like they will pick up a number of current Republican seats in other parts of the country.
Republican nominee Mike Erickson came through a nasty campaign with a win. It remains to be seen if his issues of cutting taxes and bringing change to D.C. will resonate with voters in the district. In 2006 that same message from that same candidate was soundly trounced by a strong incumbent. Another issue Erickson will have to deal with is the fractures to the Republican electorate brought about by charges from his primary opponent. Most notably, the chair of the most prominent anti-abortion group in Oregon repudiated Erickson and called for him to quit the primary race.
Democratic nominee Kurt Schrader will have to step up several levels to earn the seat. His primary campaign was sleepy and underfunded. He will need to introduce himself to much of the district, then explain why he is the best candidate.
Outside money will be a big factor in the race. Interest groups with all sorts of agendas will be very interested in the district simply because of its importance in determining power within the House of Representatives.
And, as one extra fillip for consideration, every person who has held this seat (Denny Smith-R, Mike Kopetski-D, Jim Bunn-R, and Darlene Hooley-D) has been divorced while in office. I don’t know what this means, but it certainly stands out.
- Jim Moore, KOIN News 6 political analyst
|
-
![]() Voter turnout
It should be a large turnout for Democrats (especially all those newly registered Democrats) in the May primary. For the Republicans, not so much.
Statewide, the exciting races are on the Democratic ballot. However, we’ll see what happens in the fifth congressional district where Mike Erickson and Kevin Mannix have done their best to make Republicans know there is a competitive contest.
We won’t know the party breakdowns of participating voters for a few days. However, here’s what I think will happen: Democrats probably get 60–65% turnout. Republicans probably in the 50–55% range. Overall turnout somewhere between 55–60%. All this is based on historical trends, watching the patterns of returned ballots, and anecdotal evidence from around the state on the effect of political advertising, reports of political conversations among people, and the amount of money candidates are spending.
An interesting tidbit, the highest turnout in this record-breaking presidential primary season was New Hampshire’s 53%. Oregon will better that, but be far below our records—set in the 1960s—of almost 75% turnout.
All this turnout means that local districts that decided to put property tax measures on the May ballot will meet the 50% turnout requirement for their elections.
Something we’ll be watching carefully, how does a large Democratic turnout influence non-partisan races? For example, in Eugene the mayoral race pits the incumbent, Kitty Piercy, against her immediate predecessor, Jim Torrey. She’s a liberal Democrat. He’s a fiscal conservative Republican. With all the newly registered Democratic voters in Eugene (and one would think most of them are U of O students, probably Obama supporters), the presidential primary could be the most important dynamic in the mayoral election. Will those new voters read the Voter’s Pamphlet and go with Piercy? Will they simply not vote once they get to the other races on the ballot (probably everything below the U.S. Senate race)? All I know is that if I were advising either Piercy or Torrey, I’d point out that there a lot of unknowns in predicting this election.
|
-
![]() For the first time in over a decade, multiple new office holders have an actual chance to hold power in City Hall. One of the keys to these races, however, is that a candidate must get more than 50% of the vote to win outright in the May primary. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the election continues until November.
Some recent history: In 2004 Nick Fish beat Sam Adams in the primary, but Sam Adams went on to win in November. In 2006 Erik Sten barely got over 50% of the vote, thus avoiding a November election.
Mayoral race
Portland will definitely have a new mayor, but it remains to be seen if that will mean a new face in City Hall. Sam Adams and Sho Dozono have waged a lively campaign (and, as an analyst who likes lively campaigns, thanks to Dozono for staying in the race after being denied public funding) that seems to revolve around leadership style.
The key leadership question seems to be the same one that has been the centerpiece of mayoral campaigns since Bud Clark stormed his way into City Hall in the 1980s—does Portland want a City Hall insider (Sam Adams in this case), or does Portland want a City Hall outsider (Sho Dozono, but a pretty well connected outsider)?
Portlanders were satisfied with an “insider” when they put Vera Katz in office three times. But Portlanders went with the “outsider” when Tom Potter beat a city commissioner in 2004.
Whatever happens, the 50% threshold is crucial. Latest polls show Adams just below 50%, so this election could be in round 1 right now—round 2 to be played out in the fall.
City Commissioner race, seat 1
This seat will definitely bring in new blood to City Hall. There are six candidates, and none of them have served at this level before. Five of the six are getting public financing, so this is a real experiment to see how the public financing system works at getting new people to run for office in Portland.
Since there are six candidates, and since none of them has tremendous name recognition, this race becomes a contest to get second place and force a run-off in November.
Amanda Fritz has run for City Council before, but was one of the many who did not make it to the second round. However, this gives her a little more familiarity with voters. In addition, she has picked up a number of endorsements from media outlets. In a race with low profile candidates, endorsements can actually make a difference.
Charles Lewis got a media endorsement. That puts him on the list of possibles to get that crucial second place. [Full disclosure—Lewis was one of my students during his undergraduate years.]
Chris Smith, Mike Fahey, John Branam, and Jeff Bissonette (names are simply listed in reverse alphabetical order) are all running credible campaigns as well.
Quite frankly, any of these six could make it to the fall election. I have no expectation that any of them can get 50% in the primary.
City Commissioner race, seat 2
A race that opened up when Erik Sten resigned (remember, he was just re-elected two years ago…), this seems to be a one-person race with others vying to make it to the fall election.
Nick Fish is the favorite. He lost to Sam Adams in a city council race in 2004 (won the May primary, lost the November general election). However, best estimate polling shows that Fish has about 30%–40% of the vote.
Jim Middaugh has worked for Erik Sten for a number of years. So he would not be a new City Hall face, but he’d get to cast actual votes during council meetings. Polling shows him barely ahead of the rest of the pack to make it into the fall election.
Ed Garren, Fred Stewart, and Harold C. Williams Two (names listed in alphabetical order) are all hoping that one of them can outpoll Middaugh and make it into the fall elections. Combined, they are the group that will keep Fish from winning the seat outright.
|
|
|
