I remember Ringo vs. Witt. Witt had actually said some rather intelligent, independent-minded things at the end of session or whenever, and it looked like he'd be a tough opponent. He might have been had he continued in that attitude, but when he went negative, that opened up the floodgates. And of course in response to an attack every statement he'd made previously which was recorded on film was fair game. As I recall, the Oregon Bus Project was involved in that campaign, and did a good job.

On the larger point, were the Republicans to ever nominate someone of the quality of Max Williams (or like the Vinick character now the GOP nominee on West Wing)there are a number of Oregonians (myself included) who would not automatically vote for the Democrat unless it was someone of equal quality and stature.

And I am afraid there are those at DPO and FuturePac who have not come to grips with that possibility.

First off, gosh, this humble troll said something worthy of its own thread?

THAT'S gotta irk a certain fan of mine on this site... <nobr>;-)</nobr>

Second, since LT mentioned The West Wing (one of my all-time favorite shows), isn't it interesting that in Hollywoodland both major parties could field moderate, reasonable candidates who take strong principled stands on the issues like the characters of Vinick and Santos (who is clearly set up to take that fictional nomination)?

Sadly, in the real world I don't think either would have a chance of getting to that level. Can you imagine a GOP candidate actually building enough support with a message of "my religion is none of your business"? And can you imagine a Democratic candidate with serious fundraising issues making it past Super Tuesday?

Now here's a case where I wish life would imitate art...

Vinick reminds me of a certain AZ Senator. And yes even though I'm solidly left, I would have voted for McCain over Kerry if I had that choice. 6 years later I'm still mad that the Republicans picked Bush instead of McCain. So yes, it IS about people and not just message.

The notion that Oregon Dems are only in power thanks to weak Republican candidates is absurd. President Bush was not a weak candidate. Darlene Hooley and David Wu, both of whom represent marginal districts (Hooley more than Wu), beat very credible, attractive, and moderate Republicans last November. Hardy Myers beat Kevin Mannix twice in races for AG, both times Kevin outspent Hardy two-to-one. Kevin also mounted a more-than-credible (not to mention well-funded) challenge to Ted in 2002.

The list goes on. I'm not saying we should get complacent -- WE SHOULDN'T. But I fail to understand why we Democrats are always in-fighting and being so hard on our elected officials. They're doing a damn good job getting elected, staying in office, and serving us well.

In a previous post (in response to the "Democratic Messaging Part 2" discussion), William Neuhauser claimed that Democrats have locked-up statewide races thanks to demographic factors. He is dead wrong. Democrats only have a very slight registration edge over Republicans in Oregon, and let's not forget that John Kerry won here by only about three percent of the vote.

What is so frustrating about this discussion is the impossible amount of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Why does this guy Jenson think that from his 14 years of volunteering on state rep races in Washington State, he has a better understanding of messaging than Darlene Hooley and Earl Blumenauer? Why must we insist that our Democratic candidates only win because either their Republican opponents are too weak or demographic trends have "locked up" the state for Democrats?

Let's not get complacent. Let's continue to work hard to SUPPORT or elected Democrats. But let's just admit that they win because they're good at what they do. They're a savvy bunch. They run good campaigns and they do good work while in office.

Rupert --

"Let's continue to work hard to SUPPORT or elected Democrats. But let's just admit that they win because they're good at what they do. They're a savvy bunch. They run good campaigns and they do good work while in office."

Hear hear.

I think multiple factors go into whether a candidate wins or loses. In no particular order:

• the overall demographics and political leanings of the polity they're running in

• that candidate's ability to connect with people on a retail level.

• that candidate's knowledge and capabilities with marshalling resources (money, time, message) to convince people to either vote for them or not vote for their opponent.

• a mix of local/national, economic/social, trends/issues which have captured the public's attention, for whatever reason, close to the time of the election

It's always these 4, in some combination. Anyone who does well (as the final vote count is pretty much the only verifiable hard currency of politics) can be judged to have mastered the art of all four of these factors.

If you'll notice, two of these factors are pretty well within the candidate's control, and two are not.

Can't speak to Jensen's experience or motivations towards messaging, but the balance of his thought seems to be he could do a better job at it than someone who's ran and won multiple times. That strikes me as a bit presumptuous, and I have said so, repeatedly.

Not to say we should bow down before Lord Earl and Lady Darlene, but for crying out loud, they've shown they can master the four factors. I don't defer to them always -- when I disagree they hear it -- but I give them the respect I feel they have earned. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't give them money and I would support other Dems in the primary against them.

Talking a good game in the salons is one thing -- actually making it happen is another.

I think David Wright's post was less about campaigning and more about ideas; and as a Democrat, I agree with him.

Reasonable and articulate moderate Republicans could do well in this state, especially in state Senate seats, Congressional seats, or a governor's race, which by their nature, favor candidates with broader geographic appeal.

The Carville-Greenberg memo was addressing the Democratic Party as a national entity and national leaders of the Party. The memo was NOT addressing the particulars of Oregon and its elected officials.

It's a good memo. If I was advising Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Howard Dean, I'd recommend that they utilize its advice. However, the memo has limited relevance to Darlene, Earl, and David, and even less relevance to Ted and other Democrats at the state level.

"Some Democrats fear that Bush, by having pushed for changes and by appealing to younger voters with his proposal for the accounts, will score a political victory even if he does not get the main element of his plan."

Must respectfully disagree with Mssrs. Greenberg and Carville. This is Washington echo chamber talk. First -- D's DO have a position on SS -- preserve the system largely as is, no private accounts, and find a way to extend solvency without harming benefits. That could mean any number of things -- including raising the cap on payroll taxes, which Sen. Graham (R!!!!!!!!!-S.C.) has already talked about.

Show me where in the approval numbers or the news Bush is winning on SS, or even harming Dems. He is in Iowa today trying to sell his bill. By all accounts the sale is falling flat. Check out Josh Marshall's site for reports of crowd reax in Bellevue, Wash. to Treasury Dept. baloney. They are not winning -- they are losing. This is not overconfidence on my part, these are facts. And the longer the GOP keeps this up the closer they get to '06, the more quotes our candidates will have with which to bash them over the head.

Since this is nominally about David's post, I'd like to respond to this:"The notion that Oregon Dems are only in power thanks to weak Republican candidates is absurd."
Nobody said it was the ONLY reason. But here we have an open-minded, moderate libertarian saying that it IS an important factor. You can say that it is absurd but you aren't going to learn anything from that. I think there is some truth to this "weak Republican" thing. Yes Mannix raises money, but he can't beat anyone. I know I didn't have to even think about my vote for Kulengoski because I could remember Mannix running on "I'm going to be tougher on crime and try more teens as adults" against Myers, so I knew I wouldn't vote for him for anything. Sometimes it is about voting against the worse one. Obviously it's not enough to just have a weak opponent, but it is a factor.

For anyone who still thinks Democrats are losing and Republicans are winning on Social Security, please read these quotes from the Washington Post:

"Today, the public has not found his personal account approach compelling," Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) said in an interview late Tuesday, less than 24 hours before appearing with Bush at Kirkwood Community College here.

Leach went on to say that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, a fellow Iowa Republican, "is convinced the momentum is not there, and I am convinced the partisan goodwill is not there."

Grassley, chairman of the Senate panel responsible for Social Security, said in a separate interview Tuesday afternoon: "I don't think [Bush] has made much progress on solving the solvency issue or what to do about personal accounts. It concerns me because as time goes on, I was hoping the president would be able to make my job easier. We are not hearing from the grass roots that, by golly, you guys in Congress have to work on this."

It was well over a decade ago that Carville and Begala helped get Clinton elected. As I recall, they were against Dean as DNC chair. Given my feelings on grass roots politics vs. consultants, all things being equal I would support Dean over Carville.

But this is a topic with Republican in the title, so I will say this about Jim Leach and Charles Grassley. They have not built careers in Iowa politics by saying "Yes, GOP leadership, whatever you say I will do". They both have "maverick" reputations incl. Grassley opposing Reagan on Pentagon waste.

Bush's Social Security proposal will never go very far without the help of Grassley, who is the chair of the relevant Senate Committee. Whether all minority Democrats in DC were silent for the next month, or didn't say a word that wasn't from an approved Social Security text (written by Carville or Jenson?) for the next month, if Grassley doesn't actively get his committee working on Bush's Soc. Sec. plan, it will not pass. That is the way the Congressional system works.

There was a time when Hatfield and Packwood were chairs of powerful committees. This year it is Midwesterners like Grassley and Lugar. And for a president so cocky he was going to browbeat Democrats in "red" states, to have to go to Iowa to shore up Republican support doesn't seem to me (or to some commentators) as evidence that Democrats are being steamrollered on this issue, no matter how worried some individuals may be.

Getting back to the thread/post about the relative strength/weakness of Rs in OR (versus the Ds)...does anybody really think the likes of Kevin Mannix, Minnis or whatever R you want to name are on a par with people like Vic Atiyeh, Dave Frohnmayer, Norma Paulus, Tom McCall? The R party in Oregon has seen MUCH better days and I think the point being made is valid...people like Ben Westlund and Max Williams are few and far between (and apparently not running for state-wide office any longer). The Ds in OR have been catching a break for awhile now. But there's also no sign of this changing anytime soon...

Maybe it only bothers me... In the 2004 general election, (unless i'm reading the campaign finance documents wrong), Karen Minnis spent an enormous amount of money (something like (150,000-200,000+), and the democrats spent less than 50,000. In that election Karen Minnis won by 1,500 votes. Maybe it's just me, but when the democrats have the opportunity to take out the most powerful Republican in the state, and we spend less than 1/4 of what they spend, we've wasted a great opportunity. The only way to beat Republicans is to be smart, with our messaging, our funding, and our ideas.

Maybe this is a stupid idea, but there should be a committee that's started right now, to raise the kind of money neccessary to remove one of the more powerful republicans from power. I think the 49th district should be a democratic district, and I wouldn't mind trying to make the 51st district democratic either. I know we have to always worry about holding onto districts like the 48th, where we only won by 700 votes, but I think people like the idea of giving money to take out someone powerful, and so maybe we'd be able to raise more cash if we had a focused statewide campaign effort against someone like minnis. Just my thoughts. -Chris

<hr/>