Tag: 2008 Elections

The latest in my postings on Oregon politics is a discussion of how I intend to vote when I get my ballot on Friday or Saturday. I am posting this now both to foster discussion and because, especially on the ballot measures, I am willing to listen to arguments on whether I am wrong to think about voting the way I intend to.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/sh…

In each case I post my vote and then explain why I am voting the way I am.

The Easy Stuff:

President-Obama/Biden (D)-Does anyone here really need me to explain why I am voting this way for President?  No, good.  Yes we will win Oregon!

Senate-Merkley (D)-I have supported Jeff throughout the primaries (I gave him my first donation last fall) and am not going to stop in my efforts to send this progressive to Washington.  Jeff is one of the smartest politicians I know.

Congress (OR-1)-Wu (D)-I am not the biggest Wu fan in the world but he’s done well enough to earn my vote.

State Rep (HD 27)-Read (D)-Tobias is a rising star in Oregon Democratic politics and I am proud to support him.

State Senate (SD 14)-Hass (D)-I helped out with his campaign four years ago when he was still a State Rep. and have always admired this former newscaster turned politician.

SOS-Brown (D)-Kate Brown will be a fine choice to replace Bradbury, all the desire to protect the vote without the random unproductive blasts of partisanship Bradbury has undergone at times.

AG-Kroger (D)-I supported his opponent in the primaries but am proud to support John as he becomes Oregon’s new AG.

Treasurer-Westlund (D)-Ben Westlund is one of my favorites, of any party, and is proof that some Repubs are smart enough to see the light.

Labor Commissioner-Avakian (Nonpartisan)-Brad was appointed to fill this job and will do well.

Statewide Ballot Measures:

Measure 54 (School Board Elections)-YES-Technical fix to an outdated clause.

Measure 55 (Redistricting)-YES-Another easy yes vote on a technical fix.

Measure 56 (Partial Double Majority Repeal)-YES-The double majority is one of the most anti-democratic laws out there and this will mostly eliminate it.

Measure 57 (Alternative Mandatory Minimum Sentence Measure)-YES-I’m not a huge fan of this but it’s a damn sight better than Mannix’s and if both pass the one with the most “Yes” votes gets enacted.

Measure 58 (ESL Teaching Limit)-NO-I am not going to support this measure first because its a Sizemore measure but then because it’s a piece of crap, limiting ESL teaching is a bad idea.

Measure 59 (Full Federal Tax Deduction)-NO-Back for a third try I am not going to vote for a measure that gives most of its benefits to a few very rich Oregonians.

Measure 60 (Teacher Merit Pay)-NO-This measure is nothing more than Sizemore’s latest attempt to f-k with the Teacher’s union.  Not to mention that the whole idea of merit pay is fraught with pitfalls.

Measure 61 (Mannix Mandatory Minimum Measure)-NO-Throwing everyone in jail who’s every done anything bad for a long time is NOT the answer.

Measure 62 (15% of Lottery Funds to Public Safety)-NO-I am voting no because this dilutes the funds given to education and parks from the lottery system.

Measure 63 (Exemption from Permit for small home renovations)-NO-Permits serve a good public purpose by making sure that all work done is safe.  When even the building companies oppose this measure you can be sure it is a bad idea.

Measure 64 (Ban on Public Employee Political Activity)-NO-Just another tool in Sizemore’s wars with public employee unions.  Another bad idea by Bill.

Measure 65 (Top Two Primary)-NO-If you want to vote in a primary, join a party.  In addition, this eliminates the role of third parties because they’d have to finish in the top 2 to make the general.  When Dan Meek opposes something like this, and he does according to his voter’s pamphlet statement, I know it’s a bad idea.

Local Measures:

Measure 34-155 (Charter Update)-YES-Some cleaning up of the Washington County Charter, looks good to me.

Measure 34-159 (Fairgrounds Bond)-YES-The Washington County Fairgrounds need this bond to keep pace with the times.

Measure 34-164 (Transportation Fee for New Developments)-YES-Builders ought to be charged more for infrastructure built as a result of new developments.

Measure 26-95 (Portland CC Bond)-YES-I went to PCC in lieu of my senior year of HS and its a great place.  Especially with the economy down and people needing to be retrained, PCC needs more facilities.

Measure 26-96 (Oregon Zoo Bond)-YES-The Oregon Zoo is one of the best in the country, this bond will ensure it stays that way.

Measure 34-154 (TV F&R Bond)-YES-Gotta love our local fire department.

Measure 34-156 (T Hills Parks and Rec Greesnspace Bond)-YES-Yes for more greeenspaces!

Let me know what you think.

In this edition of my irregular series on Oregon political news, I discuss another set of interesting stories that have popped up.  These include Sen. Wyden’s (D-OR) new ad for Merkley as well as the Bill Sizemore’s admission that he was using private foundation funds for his own purposes.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/sh…

Story List:

1. Wyden says we need Merkley in the Senate.

2. Sizemore admits to personal use of funds.

3. The Oregon Citizen’s Alliance and John McCain.

4. Debate Night in Oregon: Smith vs. Merkley tonight!

Wyden says we need Merkley in the Senate:

In a new ad released this morning, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who has never before done an ad for any one of Smith’s challengers, talks about why he needs Jeff Merkley to help deliver the change Oregon wants and needs.  The popular Senator is a true progressive, having stated his career as the Rep. for Oregon’s 3rd CD (currently represented by Rep. Blumenauer).

Video:

Sizemore admits to personal use of funds:

Story here: Oregon anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore admits personal use of funds

Anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore is known for many things, such as running a series of insane ballot measures every two years.  However, one thing he would prefer not to be remembered for is his mis-use of funds donated to nonprofit organizations under his control, which partially led to a judgment against him several years back for racketeering.  Under the terms of an injunction resulting from that lawsuit, such usage of funds was not allowed.  Despite this, it was revealed that Sizemore “wrote checks from the foundation account for $660,326, almost all of it for his own benefit. Sizemore also charged another $88,176 to a foundation debit card at Wells Fargo.”  Included in his purchases was a car for his wife, braces for his daughter, a time-share in Mexico and my personal favorite, 15 1-ounce gold pieces.  It seems that perhaps the real reason Sizemore doesn’t like paying taxes is that the pesky government insists he follow the law.

The Oregon Citizen’s Alliance and John McCain:

Story, as picked up by Raw Story: McCain connections coming back to haunt him

In a report during last night’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Keith reported that John McCain had attended a 1993 fund-raising dinner for the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA), a virulently homophobic group that was behind several ballot measures in the 1990s which would have effectively mandated discrimination against the GLBT community.  However, the fun doesn’t stop there as apparently, during the dinner, one of the speakers praised those who had shot abortion doctors.  This was no surprise to either of Oregon’s senators, both Republicans, who themselves refused to attend the dinner.  In fact, Senator Mark Hatfield, a liberal Republican (and I mean that, he would most certainly be a Democrat if he ran today) strongly urged McCain not to attend but McCain did anyways.

Debate Night in Oregon: Smith vs. Merkley tonight!

Finally, just a quick note that Gordon Smith will debate Jeff Merkley tonight from 7-8 PM Pacific (10-11 PM Eastern) on KGW (Channel 8 in Portland).  The debate is also sponsored by the Oregonian and streaming video will be available at: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/.  There you can also submit questions for the debate.

Let me know what you think.

One thing that has been consistent in the race for Kentucky’s First Congressional District is that Ed Whitfield and his supporters can’t stand to talk about issues, or anything of substance. Instead of talking about what Heather Ryan wants to bring to the next Congress, or how the candidates feel about Healthcare, Iraq, and the crashing Economy, they seem particularly angry at Heather and want to call her things like crazy, and fat.  

Well, in her press conference today she fired back at them with a biological excuse:

Congrats to Carl and Heather!!!!

No matter what anyone wants to call Heather the plain and simple fact of the matter is that she is the one that is not afraid to show up and debate the issues that effect this district and these voters. Is he actually scared of the “pregnant woman”??

I say he is afraid of the “courageous woman”, who is not afraid to stand up to him and debate him over his sorry record of representing our district, and will contrast their visions of representing these voters through the challenges of the next two years. The “intelligent woman”, knows the facts.

This is an insult to the voters of the First Congressional District, just as Heather stated, and shows the disdain of Ed Whitfield for anyone that would question his vision of deregulation, debt, recession, lost jobs, stagnant wages, and higher energy prices.

Whitfield is scared of debating his record of failure. From the failed “Contract with America” that devolve into a “Culture of Corruption”, Ed Whitfield has consistenty rubber stamped the failed policies of men like Phil Gramm, Tom Delay, Mitch McConnell, and President Bush. He is as complicit in the failures at the national, state, and local levels as any of them.

So this Press conference reaveled we will have a new Democrat voter in the First District in eighteen and a half years, and that like Mitch McConnell, Ed Whitfield is too cowardly to face his opponent and the voters. If I were them I wouldn’t show up to debate a Reeses Monkey!!

Heather Ryan has a new T.V. ad coming out, please help her run it so these voters get a chance to see the failed record of Ed Whitfield:

Crossposted on Daily Kos and Blue Jersey

Last night, I joined a rally of Lobbyists for Republican Scott Garrett, who gathered to thank Garrett for supporting the financial industry that has run our economy into the ground. Scott Garrett, who represents New Jersey’s fifth Congressional district, doesn’t just accept campaign donations and personal loans from the financial giants that caused our current economic crisis – he hired a former Countrywide lobbyist as his chief of staff. Garrett is among the nation’s strongest supporters for deregulation of the financial industry that puts profit before people struggling thanks to today’s economic crisis.

More and pictures after the jump…

My name is Erica, and this week I started working on the Dennis Shulman for Congress campaign. With ‘Lobbyists for Scott Garrett,’ our campaign is highlighting Garrett’s ties to both the housing crisis and the special interest culture of corruption. As a member of the House Financial Services Committee and Housing Subcommittee, Garrett is unduly influenced by the industry he is supposed to regulate. This week, the Shulman campaign released a new ad calling on voters to fire Scott Garrett for letting the greed and speculation run rampant under his watch.

See the ad here – Fire Scott Garrett

Shulman for Congress is also underscoring Scott Garrett’s record as one of the staunchest conservatives in Congress. By the end of 2006, the American Conservative Union had only given a “perfect” score of 100 to two members of Congress for their lifetime voting record – and Scott Garrett was one of them. Yet the district he represents, a politically moderate swath of suburban New Jersey – is nowhere near to the far-right views Garrett pushes in Washington. Voters here are looking for leadership to get our economy going again, work towards alternative energy solutions, and bring an end to the war in Iraq.

Our campaign isn’t afraid to take the fight to Scott Garrett and expose his corruption. We recently launched several websites to highlight Garrett’s atrocious record-including his support for Big Oil, his refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence for global warming, and his opposition to a woman’s right to choose, even for victims of rape or incest.



Garrett Caused the Crash

Scott Garrett and the predatory lenders are a case study in Washington’s corrupt special interest culture. Garrett has accepted more than three quarters of a million dollars from the financial industries he is supposed to oversee in Washington, and put his taxpayer-funded office in the hands of a chief of staff who had lobbied for Countrywide and Washington Mutual.

Oilmen for Garrett

Scott Garrett has voted to subsidize Big Oil, for drilling off the New Jersey shore and in the federally protected areas of Alaska, and has taken $69,000 from the oil industry.

Global Warming – It’s a Real Threat

Scott Garrett refuses to accept the overwhelming body of scientific evidence showing that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming and that it is a real threat to our way of life. He voted to remove language from an appropriations bill acknowledging that greenhouse gases cause global warming and that global warming is a real threat.

Your Choice Not Scott’s

In a district where 70% of residents support reproductive choice, Scott Garrett opposes a woman’s right to choose in all instances, even for victims of rape or incest.

Garrett Shrubs

Career politician Scott Garrett gets a huge property tax break because he says his brother sells $700 worth of shrubs annually. Garrett takes up to $41,000 a year in tax breaks meant for real farmers, and failed to disclose this shrub farm as required by federal law.

In what promises to be a tough race, the amazing outpouring of netroots support for Dennis’ campaign cannot be underestimated. The Daily Kos community raised $20,000 dollars for our campaign in September –  and we here at Shulman for Congress can’t thank you enough. With a horrendous right wing opponent, an inspiring candidate, and your help, together we can elect a strong progressive leader to Congress this November.

The following is my update of the races that will be contested next month in the state of Oregon.  My projections will be updated probably one more time shortly before election day.  I do not work for any campaign and my projections are my own.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://loadedorygun.net/showDi…

The reason for the title is simple, it is becoming clearer each day that Oregon, a blue state to begin with, is likely to experience another blue wave come this fall as the Democrats really have an opportunity to solidify our control of the state legislature for the next several elections.  This is especially true with the likely addition of a Congressional seat following the 2010 Census, meaning control of the legislature is of paramount importance.

The Statewide Layout:

Total Registered Voters: About 2.05 Million.

Democrats: 44% (+210k vs. Republicans)

Republicans: 32%.

Nonpartisan/Others: 24%.

Voter Registration Info: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/votreg/aug08.pdf

State Voter’s Guide: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov42008/military_vp.html

Key:

Size of Districts:

State House: Aprox. 55k.

State Senate: Aprox. 110k.

The incumbent is always listed first, or failing that, the incumbent party.  All minor parties are listed after the two major parties.

Party Key:

D=Democratic

R=Republican

G=Pacific Green

C=Constitution

L=Libertarian

I=Independent Party (This IS a political party, NOT those running as independents).

N=Not a member of a party, or what is otherwise known as independent.

Ratings:

Tossup-Margin less than 3%.

Lean-3-10% margin.

Likely-11-20% margin.

Safe-More than 20% margin.

Inc=Incumbent, Int=Interim Incumbent (Someone appointed to fill a seat until the next election due typically to resignation of the previous holder.  State law allows the party which held the seat to essentially appoint the replacement.  For example, when my State Senator resigned to take a job as the leader of a moderate Business Lobbying group, as a Precinct Committee Person I was entitled to vote for his replacement, which was then ratified by the County Commission).

Statewide Races:

Ratings Changes:

US President upgrade to Likely Dem-McCain closed his only office in the state, meaning it could well be a rout.

US Senate upgrade to Lean Dem-I was hesitant to do this for the longest time to Merkley is appearing to rise with each day as Smith falters.  This is a very tenuous lean dem rating, however.

State Treasurer downgrade to Likely Dem-No big deal, I just think with Allen Alley contesting this race, Westlund will not win by more than 15-18% or so.

US President

Candidates: Sen. John McCain (R) vs. Sen. Barack Obama (D), Ralph Nader (P), Cynthia McKinney (G), Bob Barr (L) and Chuck Baldwin (C).

Summary: McCain closed his only office in Oregon, thereby ending any real chance that McCain had in this state.  Count 7 EVs for Obama, with the only question being the margin.

Rating: Likely Obama.

US Senate

Candidates: Sen. Gordon Smith (R-inc) vs. Speaker of the OR House Jeff Merkley (D) and David Brownlow (C).

Summary: Jeff has surged pretty significantly over the past few weeks and now has the slightest of leads.  It’s not over by a long shot but if I had to guess, Merkley would win with Smith well under 50% approval.

Rating: Lean Merkley.

Secretary of State

Candidates: State Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D) vs. Eugene TV Reporter Rick Dancer (R) and Seth Allan Wooley (G).

Summary: Kate Brown is going to absolutely kick the crap out of Dancer.  Dancer isn’t even that good of a candidate and I have seen no sign of a campaign here.

Rating: Safe Brown.

Attorney General

John Kroger (D) faces only minor party candidates and should cruise.

State Treasurer

Candidates: State Senator Ben Westlund (D) vs. former Kulongoski staffer Allan Alley (R) and Michael Marsh (C)

Summary: Allen Alley is contesting this race, meaning it won’t be an absolute rout but should still be a very solid win for Westlund.

Rating: Likely Westlund.

Labor Commissioner (Technically a nonpartisan race, 2 year vacancy filling election)

Candidates: Former State Senator Brad Avakian (D-int.) vs. Founder, Instructor/Provider of a physical and mental fitness program Pavel Goberman (D) and Losing CD1 Candidate Mark Welzycko (D).

Summary: Avakian should have little trouble, given his status as a well known figure in state politics and the lack of funding for any of his opponents.

Rating: Safe Avakian.

Ballot Measures:

Measure Type:

C-Constitutional.

S-Statutory.

Ratings Changes:

Measure 61 to Tossup-Mandatory Minnimum measures typically pass, so I am changing this rating slightly.

Legislative Referrals:

Measure 54 (C):

Summary: This corrects a bizarre flaw in the state constitution that prohibits citizens under 21 from voting in school board elections (a provision which is, of course, not in effect but should be removed anyways).

Known Opposition: None.

Outlook: Safe Yes.

Measure 55 (C):

Summary: Minor fixes to the state’s redistricting process.

Known Opposition: None.

Outlook: Safe Yes.

Measure 56 (S):

Summary: Partially repeals the Double Majority law requiring that 50% of registered voters cast ballots in an election for a bond measure to pass for May and November votes.

Known Opposition: Taxpayer Association of Oregon (Far Right), Bill Sizemore (Sponsor of all things extremely libertarian).

Outlook: Likely Yes, the legislature’s approval should allow this one to win pretty easily.  The game is clearly on over this measure but I doubt it’ll have trouble.

Measure 57 (S):

Summary: Proposes an alternative to Kevin Mannix’s (R-Of Course) property crime sentence minimum initiative.  Focuses state policy on treatment rather than prison for low level drug and property crimes.

Known Opposition: Kevin Mannix and his crew.

Outlook: Leans Yes, my guess is that with both on the ballot, Mannix’s extreme measure will fail when compared to this one.  An interesting note is that if they both pass, the one with more yes votes gets enacted.

Citizen Constitutional and Statutory Measures:

Measure 58 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore.

Summary: This measure would require English immersion rather than ESL for children for whom English is not their primary language.

Known Opposition: I would think a lot of progressive groups will mobilize against this one.

Outlook: Leans to Likely No, similar measures have failed in the past, and this will be no different.

Measure 59 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

Summary: This is at least the third time that Sizemore and his gang have proposed this measure, which makes federal income taxes fully deductible on state returns.  This measure largely benefits high wage earners and would blow a huge hole in the state’s budget.

Known Opposition: A leading coalition of progressive groups will once again mobilize against this one.

Outlook: Likely No, the good news is that although Sizemore can qualify measures, he can’t pass them.  This proposal has failed by increasingly wider margins every time it’s been proposed.

Measure 60 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

Summary: This would require “merit-pay” for teachers in public schools.

Known Opposition: The Oregon Education Association will doubtless go all out against this measure.

Outlook: Leans to Likely No, in 2000 a similar measure was rejected with 65% of the vote.  This measure is really nothing more than Sizemore’s latest vehicle for attacking the Teacher’s Union, which has pursued his illegal activities (he’s been nailed for racketeering multiple times) constantly.

Measure 61 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix

Summary: This is Kevin Mannix’s draconian sentencing measure for property and low-level drug crimes.

Known Opposition: Most of the Legislature for one (See Measure 57) as well as most of the moderate and progressive groups in the state.

Outlook: Tossup, with the competing measure by the legislature, this one will be close, perhaps very close.

Measure 62 (C):

Chief Sponsor: Kevin Mannix.

Summary: Dedicates 15% of Oregon Lottery proceeds to crime fighting/prevention efforts.

Known Opposition: The current groups that receive lottery funds, schools and parks, have opposed this.

Outlook: Tossup, IMHO a bad idea but measures like this have fared pretty well in the past.  Still, I think its a bit more likely to fail than I thought in the past.

Measure 63 (S):

Chief Sponsor; Bill Sizemore

Summary: This measure would allow minor building changes without a permit.

Known Opposition: A wide coalition led by building companies.

Outlook: Leans to Likely No, when even the building companies oppose a measure designed to help them, you know its not a good idea.

Measure 64 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Bill Sizemore

Summary: Sizemore brings back an old and twice-failed idea to ban public-employee unions from using dues for political purposes.

Known Opposition: The progressive movement in this state will mobilize to kill this one.

Outlook: Likely No, Sizemore=without power, Public Employee Unions=Powerful, enough said.  

Measure 65 (S):

Chief Sponsor: Former SOS Phil Keisling (D)

Summary: Creates a Top-Two Open Primary in which all parties run their candidates on the same ballot and the top two, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election.

Known Opposition: Both the Oregon D’s and R’s oppose this strongly.

Outlook: Leans No, the state parties will spend a lot of $ to kill it, so I’ll list it as leans no for now.  Also the Oregonian is endorsing it, which typically means it’ll lose (the Oregonian has a history of endorsing losing candidates/propositions).

Congressional Races:

Ratings Changes:

OR-5 upgrade to Likely Dem-Schrader’s going to win, likely by more than Hooley ever did.

District 1: Wu (D-inc) will cruise.

District 2: Walden (R-inc) will have little trouble.  If the margin is under 10% that’s a victory for the Ds.

District 3: Blumenauer (D-inc) is well-loved in this district and for good reason.

District 4: DeFazio (D-inc) faces only minor party opposition.

District 5

Candidates: State Senator Kurt Schrader (D) vs. Businessman and 2006 R Nominee Mike Erickson (R).

Registration Info: 165k Ds, 144k Rs, 88k NP/Others.

Summary: Erickson is burning his money running two smear ads against Schrader but has yet to run a single positive ad.  The bottom line on this district is that, in the words of political analyst Larry Sabato:

Listen up kids: here’s not how to run for Congress. Lesson one: don’t pay for your girlfriend to have an abortion if you are a pro-life candidate. Lesson two: don’t lie about it when the story is confirmed by said girlfriend. Lesson three: don’t travel to Cuba, visit the famed Tropicana night club, attend a cigar festival and cockfight, and claim the trip was for “humanitarian purposes.” Lesson four: if failing to follow lesson three, don’t claim “I’ve never smoked a whole cigar in my entire life.”

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the campaign of Mike Erikson, still the Republican nominee for Oregon’s 5th Congressional district. Since the GOP primary, Erikson stock has fallen faster than Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and no Republican officeholder or conservative group has dared to endorse him. Once, the GOP was optimistic about its chances of capturing a rare swing district open seat, but no more. As it stands right now, Democrat Mark (sic) Schrader is a virtual lock (unless he has secrets of his own) to become the next Representative from the state of Oregon.  

  (Link: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2008/house/?state=OR)

Rating: Likely Schrader.  

Oregon Legislature:

Rankings:

Within each category, the highest rated seat is the one considered closest.  E.g. the highest rate seat in the tossup category is considered the most of a “tossup”.  Races within the “Safe” category are not ranked.

Key: *=Targeted Seat.

Oregon Senate

Current Composition: 18D, 11R, 1 I.

Projected Composition: 18D, 12R (1 I to D and one D to R).

Ratings Changes:

None.

Safe Races:

1 (Roseburg)-Kruse (R).

2 (Central Point)-Atkinston (R).

5 (Lincoln City)-Verger (D).

14 (West Slope/Beaverton)-Hass (D).

18 (Tigard/SW Portland)-Burdick (D).

21 (SE Portland)-Rosenbaum (D).

22 (Portland)-Carter (D).

23 (NE Portland)-Dingfelder (D), this is technically a net pickup of 1, as Avel Gordly is an I.

25 (Gresham)-Monnes Anderson (D)-This one may be a bit closer than expected because the Rs have fielded a candidate via write-in.  I still believe it is going to be Monnes Anderson by a lot though.

28 (Klamath Falls)-Whitsett (R).

29 (Pendleton)-Nelson (R).

30 (Ontario)-Ferriolli (R).

Lean Races:

*1st-27 (Bend)

Candidates: Marien Lundgren (D) vs. Chris Telfer (R).

Registration: R+3k

Summary: This is Ben Westlund’s seat and it would be a huge accomplishment to hold it (he won it twice running as a Republican).  That being said, I think its far more possible that a hold could occur now given the blue trend of Deschutes County, the center of this district.

Outlook: Leans Telfer.

2nd-9 (Stayton)

Candidates: Fred Girod (R-int) vs. Bob McDonald (D).

Registration: R+4k.

Summary: The fact that this race is even competitive ought to really scare the Rs.  Girod still has the edge though.

Outlook: Leans Girod.

3rd-12 (McMinnville)

Candidates: Brian Boquist (R) vs. Kevin Nortness (D).

Registration: R+2.5k

Summary: The Rs had to scramble to get Boquist to run for this fairly safe seat.  This district is certainly changing but I don’t know if it is changing fast enough or if Nortness is a good enough candidate to replace the well-known Boquist.

Outlook: Leans Boquist.

Oregon House:

Current Composition: 31 D, 29 R.

Projected Composition: 32 D, 20 R, 8 Tossups (all Rs) and it could be a lot worse for them.

Ratings Changes:

7 (Roseburg-Hanna (R) defending)-Downgraded to Likely Republican-I know the registration numbers or close but it is still Roseburg and Hanna has more than enough $ to fend off a challenger.

9 (Coos Bay-Roblan (D) defending)-Upgraded to Likely Dem-I just don’t see Arnie running into trouble in this rematch.

22 (Woodburn-Komp (D) defending)-Upgraded to Likely Dem-Komp’s opponent is a complete nut, enough said.

The following seats are rated either safe or likely:

1 (Gold Beach)-Krieger (R).

2 (Myrtle Creek)-Freeman (R).

3 (Grants Pass)-Maurer (R).

4 (Central Point)-Richardson (R).

5 (Ashland)-Buckley (D).

7 (Roseburg)-Hanna (R).

8 (Eugene)-Holvey (D).

9 (Coos Bay)-Roblan (D).

10 (Newport)-Cowan (D)-She won this seat by all of 750 votes two years ago and the Rs couldn’t find an opponent for her.

11 (Eugene)-Barnhart (D).

12 (Springfield)-Beyer (D).

13 (Eugene)-Nathanson (D).

14 (Eugene)-Edwards (D).

16 (Corvallis)-Gelser (D).

21 (Salem)-Clem (D).

22 (Woodburn)-Komp (D).

25 (Keizer)-Thatcher (R).

27 (West Slope, my district!)-Read (D).

28 (Beaverton)-Barker (D).

29 (Hillsboro)-Riley (D).

31 (Clatskanie)-Witt (D).

32 (Cannon Beach)-Boone (D).

33 (Portland)-Greenlick (D).

34 (Beaverton)-Harker (D).

35 (Tigard)-Galizio (D).

36 (Portland)-Nolan (D).

38 (Lake Oswego)-Garrett (D).

40 (Oregon City)-Hunt (D).

41 (Milwaukie)-Tomei (D).

42 (Portland)-Koppel-Bailey (D).

43 (Portland)-Shields (D).

44 (Portland)-Kotek (D).

45 (Portland)-Dembrow (D).

46 (Portland)-Cannon (D).

47 (Portland)-J. Smith (D).

48 (Happy Valley)-Schaufler (D).

53 (Sunriver)-Whisnant (R).

55 (Medford)-Gilliam (R).

56 (Klamath Falls)-Garrard (R).

57 (Heppner)-G. Smith (R).

58 (Pendleton)-Jenson (R).

60 (Ontario)-Benz (R).

Lean Races:

*1st-26 (Wilsonville)

Candidates: Matt Wingard (R-int.) vs. Jessica Adamson (D).

Registration: R+2k

Summary: Sometimes the opportunities just fall into your lap.  In this case, it turns out that Wingard has been arrested for using a screwdriver on his son.  The Repubs were panicked enough that incumbent Jerry Krummel resigned so that Wingard could go in as the “incumbent”.  Adamson is running a good campaign but it still is Wilsonville so Wingard has the edge.

Outlook: Leans Wingard.

2nd-19 (Salem)

Candidates: Kevin Cameron (R-inc.) vs. Hanten (HD) Day (D).

Registration: R+ less than 1k

Summary: This is a district that should be more competitive than it has in the past.  Cameron is vulnerable, especially to a good candidate such as Day.  Interesting fact, Cameron runs the cafeteria that operates in the basement of the Oregon Capitol that I ate in probably three times a week during the 2005 session.  Let’s just say, his food is much better than he is as a legislator but this is still a historically R-leaning district so he has the edge.

Outlook: Leans Cameron.

*3rd-49 (Gresham)

Candidates: John Nelsen (R) vs. Nick Kahl (D).

Registration: D+4.5k

Summary: Two years ago about the only major disappointment I had was Minnis winning this district.  Republicans think Kahl is a lightweight because he’s young and relatively inexperienced.  Kahl certainly would appear to face an uphill battle but this district’s D tilt should be enough to put him over the top.

Outlook: Leans Kahl.

*4th-30 (Hillsboro)

Candidates: David Edwards (D-inc.) vs. Andy Duyck (R).

Registration: D+2k

Summary: This is the Republican’s only targeted seat and Duyck might have been a good candidate ten or even four years ago.  Instead, I think that the longtime Washington County politician will fall short against Edwards, who ran a campaign fraught with problems, much of it self-inflicted, in 2006, and still won.  Hillsboro is changing and Edwards will take advantage of it.

Outlook: Leans Edwards.

5th-23 (Dallas)

Candidates: Jim Thompson (R) vs. Jason Brown (D).

Registration: R+2k

Summary: This open seat battle could be one for the books.  That being said, I have to give the edge to Thompson for now because it is an R-leaning district.

Outlook: Leans Thompson.

6th-18 (Silverton)

Candidates: Vic Gilliam (R-int.) vs. Jim Gilbert (D/I).

Registration: R+2.2k

Summary: Jim Gilbert is back for another attempt at an upset here.  This is clearly his best chance yet but it won’t be easy.  If the Repubs lose this district, it will have been a big night.

Outlook: Leans Gilliam.

7th-59 (The Dalles)

Candidates: John Huffman (R-int.) vs. Mike Ahern (D).

Registration: R+1k

Summary: This was the district that shocked everyone in 2006 as it was almost a D pickup.  However, I think Huffman will not be caught unaware as a result, though an upset is possible.

Outlook: Leans Huffman.

8th-15 (Albany)

Candidates: Andy Olson (R-inc.) vs. Dick Olsen (D).

Registration: D and R even

Summary: This district was not on anyone’s list but mine two years ago as potentially competitive.  Now with an even registration mix, a chance for an upset is there.  Olson, a former State Policeman, has the edge at this point though.

Outlook: Leans Olson.

9th-17 (Scio)

Candidates: Sherrie Sprenger (R-int.) vs. Dale Thackaberry (D).

Registration: R+2k

Summary: Following a bloody and divisive R primary, Thackaberry has a real chance to pull an upset.  Add to that the fact that Sprenger has never won a general election here.  Still, this is definitely a district with an R tilt, so it’ll be an uphill battle.

Outlook: Leans Sprenger.

10th-6 (Medford)

Candidates: Sal Esquivel (R-inc.) vs. Lynn Howe (D).

Registration: R+3k

Summary: No one believed me two years ago when I said this seat would be competitive, and then Esquivel barely eked out a win.  My guess is that he won’t be caught napping this time, though.

Outlook: Leans Esquivel.

Tossup Races:

*1st-39 (Canby)

Candidates: Bill Kennemer (R) vs. Tony Forsberg (D).

Registration: D+1k

Summary: Kossack Mike Caudle almost pulled off a major upset here in 2006 against the then R-leader Wayne Scott. As an open seat race, this one is too close to call.  Both candidates are well known and respected in the community.  This one should be very close.  If I had to give an edge to anyone it would likely be the Republican because he is very well known in the area.

Outlook: Tossup.

*2nd-52 (Corbett)

Candidates: Matt Lindland (R) vs. Suzanne VanOrman (D).

Registration: D+2k

Summary: In case you’re wondering, yes Matt Lindland is indeed otherwise known as UFC fighter Matt “The Law” Lindland.  This is a dead tossup district this year and should be fun to watch.  If I had to guess, I’d give a very slight edge to VanOrman right now.

Outlook: Tossup.

*3rd-54 (Bend)

Candidates: Chuck Burley (R-inc.) vs. Judy Stiegler (D).

Registration: D+1.5k

Summary: This district has been trending blue over the past several years thanks largely to an influx of California retirees.  This could well be the year Stiegler, who barely lost to Burley in an open seat race here four years ago, breaks through and wins it.  Bend is probably the area that is suffering most from the recent economic downturn as its once booming housing market collapses, making this a slightly better seat for the dems.

Outlook: Tossup.

*4th-37 (West Linn)

Candidates: Scott Bruun (R-inc.) vs. Michele Eberle (D).

Registration: D+ less than 1k.

Summary: Bruun is a well-known figure in this district; his family has run a construction business for over 100 years in the area.  Still, this year he will have to fight hard to keep this swing district, which now has a very slight D edge.  Eberle is running by far the most ads of any candidate on either side of any legislative race so far, at least in my area.

Outlook: Tossup.

*5th-51 (Clackamas)

Candidates: Linda Flores (R-inc.) vs. Brent Barton (D).

Registration: D+1k

Summary: How I would love to get rid of the racist Flores.  Barton has as good a chance as anyone and has huge financial backing.  It would be so sweet if we could pull this off.

Outlook: Tossup.

6th-20 (Independence/Monmouth)

Candidates: Vicki Berger (R-inc.) vs. Richard Riggs (D).

Registration: D+1k

Summary: Berger is one of the last remaining liberal Republicans that Oregon used to develop like crazy.  She’s in for fight for her life this time due much more to both the state of the Republican party and the slight D registration edge though.

Outlook: Tossup.

7th-24 (McMinnville)

Candidates: Jim Wiedner (R) vs. Bernt Hansen (D).

Registration: D and R even.

Summary: This was the seat that Kossack Sal Peralta almost won in 2006.  If Hansen can run a good campaign, a win is definitely possible here.

Outlook: Tossup.

8th-50 (Fairview)

Candidates: John Lim (R-inc.) vs. Greg Matthews (D).

Registration: D+3k

Summary: How Lim keeps winning here is a mystery.  He probably wins but it’ll be closer than its been for a while.

Outlook: Tossup.

Well that’s it, let me know what you think.

As we enter the final stretch run of the 2008 election cycle, it’s time we took the pulse of the Senate again. You know what to do: Rank the Senate races (as far down the list as you wish to go) in order of their likelihood of flipping.

This diary is a fun one for me to write.  Simply put, it is about how the Republicans are absolutely losing faster than I even thought possible in my home state.  Be confident of a win in Oregon folks.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/sh…

This diary will consist primarily of three examples of how the GOP appears to be giving up on the Beaver State:

What McCain Campaign?:

Oregon was always at best a marginal swing state for John McCain.  However it appeared for a while that he might at least try and make a show of force to at least divert some of our efforts.  As a result of that he opened an office in Oregon City (which is a fairly competitive area in Clackamas County, the least blue county making up the Portland metro).  That office now appears to have closed and the McCain campaign has officially turned over all of its efforts to the state GOP’s small group of field offices.  If there was any doubt before, McCain has now basically conceded Oregon’s 7 EVs to Obama.

Gordon Smith’s New Ad shows he has trouble with his base:

In the new ad posted below, Gordon Smith takes aim at the longstanding criticism of rural Oregonians of the role Portland plays in controlling much of the state’s politics.  This is an ad that can only be truly seen as a panicked move spurred on by weak polling among his base.  Given that Smith, and other Republicans,  now face a 9% D vs. R registration gap (which was around 3-4% when Smith last ran), the fact that he is having trouble speaks volumes about how much Jeff Merkley is surging.

The ad:

The Oregon Dems aim for five state house pickups:

Just six years ago, after the 2002 election, the Republicans held the state house by a 35-25 margin, after 2004 it was 33-27 and the Democrats took control in 2006 by a narrow 31-29 edge.  This year, sensing GOP weakness in many areas of the state, the Oregon Democrats aim for a minimum of two to three pickups this year, with hopes for more.  The GOP is not offering much resistance, as their spokeperson said a recent article (linked below), “Right now, our focus is on keeping every single seat that we have.”

Link to recent article: Democrats hope to add numbers in Oregon House

Let me know what you think.

Growing up liberal during the Reagan years taught me to go into elections expecting to be disappointed. Watching high-ranking Democrats in Congress fail to challenge the premise behind the dreadful and unnecessary proposed bailout of Wall Street, I share thereisnospoon’s concern that Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.

But looking at the polling trends in the presidential race and in key Senate races, even a pessimist like me has to admit that a big Democratic wave seems quite possible.

Currently Democrats seem poised to pick up 12 to 18 seats in the House and five to six Senate seats. If we are on the verge of a wave, Democrats could win more than that, including a few districts where the Republican incumbent never saw it coming.

Waves can drag down well-funded incumbents with tremendous clout. Democratic losers in 1994 included House Speaker Tom Foley and my own 18-term Congressman Neal Smith.

This is a thread for discussing House districts and Senate seats that may seem likely Republican holds today, but which could shock us on November 4.  

I’ll get the ball rolling by telling you about Iowa’s two House districts currently held by Republicans.

In the fourth district (D+0), Becky Greenwald faces Tom Latham, who has remarkably little to show for his seven terms in Congress. I went over many reasons I think Greenwald can win this race here.

Latham understands that it will be a big Democratic year in Iowa, judging from his first television commercial (which glosses over his lockstep Republican voting record). David Kowalski noticed that Latham’s campaign website avoids mentioning that he is a Republican (see, for instance, this bio page). Aside from the odd newspaper clipping on his site that refers to him as R-Iowa, you would never be able to tell which party he belongs to.

IA-04 shows up as “likely Republican” on House rankings, in part because Latham sits on the House Appropriations Committee and in part because he has been re-elected by double-digit margins in the past. However, 2002 was the only time Latham faced a well-funded challenger, and that was a bad year to be a Democrat running for Congress. Greenwald had raised more by June 30 than our 2006 candidate against Latham raised during his whole campaign, and she’s fundraised aggressively since then. She is already up on television and recently got the endorsement of EMILY’s list.

Whatever pork Latham has brought back to his district is nothing compared to what Neal Smith brought to central Iowa during his 36 years in Congress, and that didn’t stop voters from giving Smith the boot in 1994.

Now let’s look at Iowa’s fifth district (R+8), where Rob Hubler is running against one of the most atrocious House Republicans, Steve King. I laid out my case for why Hubler can win this race at Bleeding Heartland, but here are the highlights.

Hubler is the first Democrat to run a real campaign against King, who does not have a big war chest and has not been campaigning actively. Although Republicans maintain a voter registration edge in IA-05, Democrats have made big gains since 2006, putting Hubler in position for an upset if he wins independents by a significant margin. King’s extreme views and tendency to make bigoted, embarrassing statements are a turn-off to moderates.

Also, an internal poll of the district for Hubler’s campaign showed the generic ballot for Congress virtually tied at 36 percent for the Democrat and 38 percent for the Republican.

Nearly three months ago, the editor of the Storm Lake Times newspaper wrote:

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Like I said at the top, upsets happen in wave elections. After winning in 1974, Tom Harkin represented most of the southwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for five terms, until his election to the U.S. Senate in 1984. Berkley Bedell represented most of the northwest Iowa counties now in IA-05 for six terms, until he retired because of health problems caused by Lyme’s disease.

Despite Sarah Palin’s presence on the ballot, I do not believe Republicans in western Iowa are going to be fired up to turn out this November. During the past month five separate polls have shown Barack Obama above 50 percent in Iowa and leading John McCain by double digits. McCain has never campaigned much in Iowa, skipping the caucuses in 2000 as well as 2008. He’s against ethanol subsidies, which causes him to underperform in rural Iowa. Certainly McCain lacks the appeal George Bush had to conservatives here in the last two elections.

Harkin is cruising against a little-known Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate, and King is not giving his supporters any reason to believe he’s concerned about Hubler. Why should the western Iowa wingnuts put a lot of effort into getting their voters out?

Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign has at least half a dozen field offices in both IA-04 and IA-05 to drive up turnout among Democrats and other Democratic-leaning voters.

Clearly, Greenwald and Hubler go into the home stretch as underdogs. But who thought Dave Loebsack was going to beat Iowa Congressman Jim Leach two years ago? Democrats put tons of money and effort behind a strong challenger to Leach in 2002 and came up short. As a result, Loebsack got no help from the DCCC or outside interest groups in 2006, and just about everyone viewed IA-02 as “likely Republican.”

Carol Shea-Porter’s amazing victory in New Hampshire’s first district seemed just as improbable two years ago. She was massively outspent by the Republican incumbent and got no help from the DCCC. By the way, NH-01 is D+0 and mostly white, as is IA-04.

The partisan lean and demographic profile of IA-05 (mostly white and largely rural) is similar to KS-02 (R+7), where Nancy Boyda came from behind to beat a Republican incumbent in 2006. The DCCC did get involved in that race, but it didn’t appear to be a very likely pickup before the election.

Two weeks ago Stuart Rothenberg mocked the DCCC for putting “absurd races” (including the Hubler-King matchup) on its list of “Races to Watch” and putting long shots on the “Red to Blue” and “Emerging Races” list. James L. already took down Rothenberg in this great post, so I won’t pile on.

I will say, however, that I have put my money where my mouth is by giving as much as I can afford to Hubler and Greenwald.

Somewhere, somehow, some unheralded challengers will give House or Senate Republicans the surprise of their lives on November 4. I ask the Swing State Project community, who’s it gonna be?

With the crashing of the economy, and the up-coming taxpayer bailout of hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars, Americans and Kentuckians need to take a hard look at the root causes of the reversal of budget surpluses into TRILLIONS of dollars of national debt. In Kentucky, one need not look past the failed Republican Congressional delegation of the time, many of which are still serving and running for re-election.

Led by Mitch McConnell, this bunch of Corporate Profiteers never met a Corporate Welfare or de-regulation bill they would not vote for. One need only look back to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which overturned many of the protections of FDR’s New Deal to find the root of our current woes. While there, one will also find that Kentucky Republicans were unanimous in their support, and failure of leadership.

But there was little dissent in 1999, when Sen. Mitch McConnell and the rest of Kentucky’s congressional delegation voted to deregulate Wall Street banking and investments. They – and most other members of Congress – brushed aside concerns that deregulation could create massive financial institutions that would be “too big to fail,” requiring a government bailout if they started to stagger.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

Of course as always with Kentucky Republicans, their votes garnered them huge dollars in campaign contributions from the very industries taxpayers must now bail out:

The Kentucky delegation went on to collect millions of dollars in combined campaign donations from the financial sector, while the banking, securities and insurance industries merged into the creature that is now collapsing and calling for government aid.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

The numbers are staggering:

McConnell has been individually feted in New York City by major banks, including a 2005 luncheon given in his honor by UBS and Citigroup, which raised at least $60,000 for his campaign fund. Former Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, who sponsored the Wall Street deregulation bill and then left Congress to become an investment banker at UBS, helped organize that event and donated $4,000 to McConnell.

Among others in the Kentucky delegation who voted for Wall Street deregulation in 1999, and who are still in Congress, Bunning got $2.4 million; Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Hopkinsville, got $697,116; Rep. Ron Lewis, R-Cecilia, got $551,266; and Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, got $406,765, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Totals are for donations from 1989 to 2008.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

As you can see, Congressman Ed Whitfield was not only tied up in the failure by voting for this bill, but actually was rewarded with $700,000 worth of campaign contributions for his irresponsibility, and failed judgement.

His response would be laughable if it was a joke, and not a $700 billion or more debt for our children and grandchildren to pay off:

A Whitfield spokeswoman likewise noted that her boss was far from alone in supporting the 1999 law, and she said the congressman doubted whether deregulation – as opposed to greed – led to the current meltdown.

“It’s always easy to point fingers and try to place blame when any kind of crisis arises,” Whitfield wrote in a statement. “Addressing our current financial situation and turning our economy around is a difficult challenge we as a nation face and we in Congress must address.”

In the immortal words of mothers everywhere, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you jump off of it too? That IS NOT leadership!! At Ryan for Kentucky, we submit that it was the greed of men like Whitfield, following the leader Mitch McConnell that led to the current meltdown. Their greed caused the de-regulation they profited from, and that went on to crash our economy.

Of course Exxon Eddie doesn’t want us to “point fingers” and “place blame” because he knows he showed horrible leadership and judgement, and profited handsomely to the tune of $700,000 to smear his opponents with. At Ryan for Kentucky, we submit once more that a Congressman who was so tied up with the terrible failure of 1999 has not the vision, judgement, courage, or leadership to “Address our current financial situation and turn our economy around”. This same failed leadership is what created this mess, led by all Kentucky Republicans in 1999, including Exxon Ed Whitfield.

In fact, Exxon Ed Whitfield and the whole Republican delegation lined up firmly behind now disgraced Senator Larry “Foottapper” Craig:

“The Financial Services Modernization Act overhauled the financial services industry by eliminating outdated Depression-era laws that have hampered the industry’s ability to increase its efficiency,” Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, wrote in a 1999 article on behalf of the Senate Republican caucus.

http://www.kentucky.com/210/st…

Is this the kind of leadership we need in Kentucky? Blindly lining up behind corrupt industries and leaders that crash our economy off a cliff? I submit that this debacle brings to light exactly why we need new leadership in Kentucky, including the First Congressional District:

This has left us with a huge opening against Exxon Ed Whitfield in this district. As you can see by his own statement, he knows he is intricately tied into this failure. All we need to do is let these voters know just how dirty his hands are.

Please consider supporting Heather Ryan in Kentucky’s First. With the resources to bring Exxon Eddie’s failed record in crashing the economy to these voters, she will win in a landslide. Voters of this district hate to see their tax dollars wasted, and will hold Exxon Eddie accountable. Please, contribute to expand our Congressional majority with real leadership here:

As of now, this race is on the map!!

The following is my analysis of the latest numbers put out by Survey USA.  I am choosing to analyze this both because I want to explain to folks what is going on but also because SUSA does provide crosstabs, making analysis easier.  This is NOT just another poll diary.

Cross-Posted from Loaded Orygun: http://www.loadedorygun.net/sh…

The Full SurveyUSA Poll is available at this link: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=2587d5be-1ce6-48a3-ad0d-3245a66a7a00.

General Comments:

This poll is fairly believable for the most part.  The sampling looks good, although some of the cross-tabs are a little weird (like McBush winning among Hispanics).  Still, they slightly oversampled Rs, and Ds to a lesser extent, giving Ds only a 7% reg. edge, when the real edge is around 9%.  I’m not quite sure what they consider to be the “Portland Region” but even that makes sense.  Some of the other demographic trends also suggest a fairly good sample, such as the percentage of regular churchgoers, which is within the accepted range of 30-35% (OR is the least churchgoing state in the US).

President:

Top Line (August Numbers in Parenthesis):

Obama-52% (48%).

McCain-41% (45%).

Obama strengths: Obama wins among men and women, but of course much more substantially among the later.  Obama wins among independents by 14%.  Obama also wins among those who say that anything besides terrorism or immigration are the most important issue (which only adds up to 13% of voters).  The most notable spread, however, is that, among the 65% of Oregonians who support alternatives to drilling, Obama wins 70-24%.

McCain strengths:  Strength is a relative term in this case but McCain is doing okay outside of Portland, only losing by 5% versus 15% inside Portland.  He is doing well among those who like Bush, which, and I am proud of Oregon for this, only includes 24% of voters.  There are no Palin approval numbers, so it is hard to tell directly what impact she has had.

What it means: Obama is well positioned to take Oregon fairly easily.

US Senate:

Top Line (August Numbers in Parenthesis):

Merkley-44% (37%)

Smith-42% (49%)

Brownlow (Constitution)-8% (8%).

Merkley strengths: Merkley is currently winning men, according to this poll and tied among women.  If he wins men, he wins the election without a doubt.  Merkley is also carried by his strength among younger voters, winning by 18% there.  He has stopped a lot of the bleeding of Dems to Smith, historically a Smith strength, or has at least grabbed an equal number of Republicans. Finally, among those who do not attend church regularly (42% of Oregonians), Merkley enjoys a 33% lead.

Smith strengths:  Smith remains fairly strong with many of the groups that have historically backed his candidacy, moderates, losing only by 7%.  He is favored by a substantial margin by voters older than 65, winning by 9%.  He is winning outside of Portland, by only by 3%, not a great showing for someone who is from Pendleton.  A Smith voter is a McCain voter as well, perhaps not surprising given their shared party ID.

What it means: Smith is in trouble.  His approval rating is down to 31% and among independents only 29% approve of him.  Merkley has nowhere to go but up, as although his disapproval is a little high (35% versus 30% approval) he is the challenger and is still relatively unknown.  If you ask me today, Merkley will more likely than not win this fall.

Let me know what you think.