In 2004, Tom Cox(Libertarian) helped Chuck Riley get elected and
Diana Mandaville(Independent) helped Larry Galizio get elected too.

Minor party and independent candidates can and will be spoilers for and against us in 2006 statewide.

Pat,

Very true...Mr Pender did an "insert foot in mouth."

Why only Libertarians..I want Consitution party member run in ever race and I would not mind see the American Patriot Party up here too. More conservatives on the ticket the better!!!!

Skim one or two or three percentage points off the conservative side is a great thing for us.

Yes, I agree with you Pat--try to get the DPO/SDLF/FuturePAC to connect with the Greens/Socialist/other progressive minor party voters in the ultra close races to win.

Yes, I agree with you Pat--try to get the DPO/SDLF/FuturePAC to connect with the Greens/Socialist/other progressive minor party voters in the ultra close races to win.

But in order to get Greens (and others,incl. Indep/NAV registrants and those leaning that way) on the same page, it is necessary to confront a few things.

Grass roots activists vs. Future Pac seem to be a culture clash.

And how many regular Democrats understand, for instance, that the alliance against the AuCoin nomination extended from a Green who posted AuCoin's mixed history on environmental / timber issues on CounterPunch to Ted Ferrioli sending out an email saying almost nothing about AuCoin and mainly asking "what is wrong with Chris --- who is in there now?". It was an amazing coalition. Anyone who could assemble that sort of coalition in an election would have a real winner.

Serious soul searching which addresses the viewpoints of both grass roots and Future Pac, and which discusses such things as why Kulongoski's AuCoin nomination failed (Forestry Board? Who did they think they were kidding? ) would be healthy and a way to heal rifts among people who all want a more common sense House than we have at the moment.

How in God's name does anyone at the DPO keep their jobs?

Christ almighty. Third parties don't matter or make a difference?

Neil in your spare time do you antagonize pit-bulls while smelling like pork-chops?

If poking people in the eye is your idea of a good time, fine, but please don't do it when you are the mouth piece of the Democratic Party!

Neil.....please......Pretty Please.....when the press calls from now on don't.....I MEAN DON'T......call them back.

You are band for one year! Once the elections cycle is over you can talk to them again.

I'm a registered democrat, but often find myself voting for greens and independants because I can't stand to vote for the "dempublicans" that the party puts on the ballot. We have a few (I'm especially supportive of my rep.-DeFasio), but have far too many who are complicit in the "New World Order"- maybe with a little "noblesse oblige" thrown in, or too cowardly to stand up, lead with the truth and be a true opposition party.

I have had the wonderful opportunity to be mis-quoted by the press several times. I have even had quotes made up where a reporter took what he thought I might mean, and wrote out something as if I said it.

So, before you all roast Neel on the open spit, slow down a minute.

And, by the way, Neel's comments about the fringe left marginalizing itself might just be true - look at what has been written so far on this thread.

STEVE:

I too have been miss-quoted. But why in God’s name would Neel even go there. The message and tone should have been, "We are democrats, which means we love as many voices at the table as possible. We are excited to discuss the myriad of issues that are facing our state such as Affordable Health Care, Quality Schools, and Creating Family Wage Jobs with every party."

No where in that statement could you get, "Third parties don't matter."

Neel is the Director of the DPO which means he represents all Democrats. He was off message and he showed himself to be an elitists prick, or at the very least a Portland Limo-Liberal. Regardless he made all Democrats look bad. That is why he is banned from talking to the Media.

PS: Have you ever noticed that every person named Karl is crazy...just an observation.

So long as the left and the right argue in favor of two different forms of Tyranny, the divide between them will be so small that any third party with an ounce of competence can play kingmaker in any election.

To the moderate voter, who is often deciding between the lesser of two evils, the choice between left and right is like choosing between a flaming red hot poker and bamboo shoots. If the establishment plays this game for too long, they just might lose their two-party stranglehold on the election system.

Wes Wagner NW Meridian

Wes,

Your statement is coming on fast--If the establishment plays this game for too long, they just might lose their two-party stranglehold on the election system. I think that the duopolistic power is showing solid weakness. More and more younger voters are choosing to be NAV or just don't vote. So that in the short run will help the extremes--since that a minor party or independent candidate doesn't win more than once(or retires from politics) in a campaign in a major state or race. The only fluke is Rep. Bernie Sanders, the socialist lean Independent that votes more democrat then most Democrats. Will Rep. Sander run for the Senate show the people that the D's and R's could be no longer the status quo at the national level? Will one of them became like the Federalists????? Or will there be splitter groups like the Whigs or the National Republicans or the Jeffersonian Republicans that be the final demise of a closed representative government that turns in to a more European parlimentary style system?????

Thank you Wes Wagner!

Terms like "fringe left" need to be identified. A friend of mine from a hotly contested Dem. primary in the 1990s (we cohosted an event that drew over 60 people to my friend's home to hear the candidate speak) got disgusted and left the Democratic Party. By 2005 he was a Green posting Les AuCoin's timber/forest record on CounterPunch after the Gov. nominated AuCoin to the Forestry Board. Any definition of "the left" which does not address whether fed up Democrats like my friend can be brought back into the Democratic mainstream to help elect Democrats (isn't that the purpose of this thread?) does not contribute to the discussion.

And as to the remark "...that the party puts on the ballot...", please folks, let's get real.

The Democratic Party or the Republican party in the 21st century do not choose the candidates, pay their campaign staff, run the precincts, etc. in the way people imagine. First of all, does "the party" include everyone from county chairs to the DPO staff? Where are groups like Future Pac or other legislative caucus operations on that heirarchy?

Often, candidates decide on their own whether to run for office, hire their own staff, choose whether or not to accept advice from the party, caucus, etc. All it takes in the current system to win election to public office is to earn more votes than any other candidate. A candidate who does not have the blessing of the party or the caucus (or for that matter has supporters from many members of both parties or no party) who gets more votes than other candidates will win the election.

My own former state rep. (who did a really good job) decided to run on his own, and survived a primary with 2 other candidates: one who decided to run on his own and one actively supported by the House Majority Leader. He then won in a district which had elected Republicans more often than Democrats.

At a time when over 20% of registered voters don't choose a party, and something like 7 Oregon House elections were decided by under 1,000 votes, it is a myth to think parties make all the decisions about who is elected.

Often, "I've known --- for 20 years" or "I like --- because..." or "I was insulted when__ {said/did} that...." have as much power to influence elections (esp. legislative or lower) as all the paid party staff, professional consultants, pollsters, etc. Voters DO have the right to make those decisions for themselves.

Back in the 1930s before primaries, "the parties" really did choose candidates at state conventions. In Michigan, until WWI vets like my grandfather broke county party machines, the "bosses" would draw state convention delegate names out of a hat, feed them a big meal, pay their train fare to the state convention, and then expected them to vote for the nominees the "bosses" wanted. And the candidate for Gov. was allowed to choose the nominees for AG, State Treasurer, etc. I inherited my grandfather's clippings. His side and the machine side tied in a vote at the county convention, so 2 slates were sent to the state convention for the credentials committee to sort out. At the convention, the slate supporting my grandfather was chosen. He was nominated by the convention to be the AG nominee although the candidate for Gov. had wanted someone else. He was elected AG that fall.

I always thought the Progressive Movement originally arose to combat situations like a party machine choosing candidates without public input.

Whenever anyone talks about "the party running candidates" I think about that. I inherited a poster with the entire party slate (GOP in my grandfather's case) pictured. When was the last time in the memory of those reading this blog either party did that?

Above, Aaron claims, "Diana Mandaville (Independent) helped Larry Galizio get elected too."

Aaron's assertion presents no evidence and is arguably the antithesis of the true impact of Ms. Mandaville's (Here first name is Diane, not "Diana.") candidacy in my 2004 race.

First, Ms. Mandaville was a pro-choice, pro-union Democratic Legislator in California. The Republican in my race was anti-choice and anti-union. It's unclear how this profile would "help Larry Galizio get elected..."

Second, Ms. Mandaville, knowing that her most promising voters were moderate to progressive pro-choice Democrats and Independents, spent more time contrasting herself with me than with my Republican opponent. Again, how does this "help Larry Galizio get elected..?"

Finally, while it could be argued that because Mandaville and the Republican in the race, Suzanne Gallagher, were the only women in the field, that Mandaville's candidacy ultimately hurt Gallagher more than Galizio, Aaron's post makes no such argument. In fact, no argument is made at all.

As a former debate coach at PCC, I have enormous appreciation for the clash of ideas and thoroughly enjoy a rigorous intellectual exchange. And this is a primary reason why Blue Oregon can be such a useful site to visit. In that spirit, I would encourage Aaron to present some evidence for the claim made in the first post in response to the article.

Cheers, Larry Galizio

Representative Galizio:

You did a very nice job outlining your point and it was well received.

But please, if not your sake, then for the sake of the party...please stop posting on blogs!

It is no win situation for you to post on this (or any) site, besides occasionally verbally taking down some 45 year old dumb ass that lives in his mother’s basement. Now this can be fun, but at the same time it is akin to pulling the wings off an annoying fly.

You are going to be in a real fistfight this election cycle and you don't want to give Chuck Adams and the Republicans any ammunition to use against you.

You are a great writer and your augments are always cogent, but for your sake I hope never to see a post from you again.

Sincerely with the best of intentions,

Winston

Does anyone have any numbers on how Greens, Libertarians, or other 3d parties or independents have done historically in elections across the state? I've always wondered why a state with such extremes in political ideology can't get a independent/3d party candidate elected.

I mean, have we hever had PGP representatives for Portland? Libertarians for Pendleton? How about in local city government?

I mean, have we hever had PGP representatives for Portland? Libertarians for Pendleton? How about in local city government?

Brent Thompson, the 3rd party candidate who got the most 3rd party votes in the 1996 US Senate election between Smith and Bruggere, was (or had been) an Ashland City Councilman.

Whether that was a partisan post or whether he ever specified a 3rd party label while running (elected to several terms, as I recall) I do not know.

nader- Yes, in fact Ashland has quite a Green Party contingency on the School Board.

Winston,

Please stop taking cheap shots and personal pokes at people. I've seen too many blogs wrecked by that sort of thing.

Have you ever noticed that guys named Karl don't have a sense of humor?

Just kidding....Sorry Karl!

Libertarians running a real race for office usually do quite well for a 3rd party candidate (often scoring north of 5% and quite often getting more votes than the difference between the two major candidates).

When they run for non-partisan offices they win over 2/3rds of their contested elections.

Wes Wagner NW Meridian

Winston-

What's so crazy about what Karl said? I think he's absolutely right. Sounds like you forgot to take your happy pill.

Kari,

I concur with your response to our friend Mr. Wolfe.

I suppose it makes sense if your online moniker (Winston Wolfe) is infamous for covering up illegal and violent acts that one would exhibit an extra degree of paranoia. Despite the good intentions, it's impractical advice.

In 2004 I knocked on 6,000+ doors and offered to debate my opponent since I believe candidates and elected officials have a responsibility to voice their policy proposals and to communicate openly with people. If anything, in state races at least, voters are overexposed to consultant-produced material and underexposed to face-to-face communication with the candidates themselves.

A better argument might be made that candidates and representatives need to do more listening and less talking. If that's what Mr. Wolfe meant in his original post, then I'm with him on that one.