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.