Hill didn't do that much better than Sorensen. Doesn't look like the two of them together could have beat Kulo.-- All that soul searching- Oh well. Got to fight for Kulongoski now.

Voter turnout way down --- so how does VBM increase turnout? Kulongoski with over 50% --- how was voting for Hill being a "realist"?

What are the lessens for progressives?

Yes, you have to laugh at the Republican love fest. Mannix says, "Oh Ron I still love you!" excuse me why I go puke

The question is now, who will Westlund most attract voters away from Kulongoski or Saxton. You have to figure he'll attract voters from both sides, but where will he find the most support those that are liberal, conservative or middle of the road.

Saxton is pretty middle of the road, but has taken some a more conservative stance this time around. Can Westlund convince Republicans that Saxton is the wrong guy?

Can Westlund convince Republicans that Saxton is the wrong guy?

Saxton has got to somehow grab Atkinson's 45,000 voters AND find another 30,000+ moderates between now and November. Talk about a rock and a hard place. And that's without Westlund muddying the water. If the Christian Right stays home, and they well might, Saxton is toast.

Tim Hibbits said that there is a certain percentage of Democrats Ted will have to work hard to win back. He's right about that.

If Ted gets a totally new team and a totally new theme, he might have a chance.

If he takes the attitude "it is between me and that evil Saxton so of course you will support me because the party establishment supports me", then Westlund will look very appealing to a large chunk of people.

Stacy-

Great points and potentially compelling candidate, but the press release format doesn't fly in blogland... at least the comments sections anyway.

If he isn't already, Ben should take the time to read and comment here at Blue Oregon and other popular local blogs. It's not that we don't appreciate SOMEONE from a campaign dropping by, but trust me, it's worth his time to press some virtual flesh. If he has already and I havent' noticed, my apology.

Hokay, I'm done preachin'...

Yeah Stacey!

OK, you Kulongoski people, you have now seen an example of what graciousness and a problem solving attitude sound like.

If you take what Tim Hibbits said seriously and realize you have some work to do to win over those who have a "sour taste" from the last several weeks of the campaign, this could be an intelligent general election.

I suggest that lots of public appearances where ordinary folks are allowed to ask questions (as opposed to the way the primary was run) are in order.

I am pro-debate. There is nothing I would like more than to see Westlund, Saxton, Kulongoski (and is Joe Keating on the ballot from the Green Party?) talk about health care, the number of unemployed and underemployed Oregonians, how to reform the tax structure (as I think it was the Sunday Oregonian said, why should voters accept the GOP line that cutting capital gains taxes is a given--how does that help those financially struggling who don't have investments?), whether the property tax is more regressive than a sales tax, why there should be a double majority requirement in the May primary, how to fund both schools and public safety, whether there should be outside audits of school district budgets and the same fine tooth comb examination of school administrator pay packages that has been given to teachers for years.

And about PERS. This came in an email tonite from a friend who I think voted for Saxton (after considering not voting in the primary so he could sign the Westlund petition) : I never believed that it was PERS members who were responsible for any "mess" that PERS got itself into. It's too bad that some people took out their animosity about generous PERS benefits on the public employees who got the benefits. That was absolutely wrong!

I believe Ben Westlund is capable of serious discussion of those topics. Time will tell if the major party candidates can engage in such intelligent discussion (with the general public as well as debates with each other) or if we are to be subjected to 5 months of the same sort of brainless commercials we've been seeing for the last many weeks.

I wonder what political activity Mannix will take up now to keep himself riding on the Loren Parks gravy train.

Rich CorporateSon, Inc. is trying to get on the ballot too. Details are here: http://ecporegon.org/votecorporate/

I give credit to Tillamook county Jim Hill had about 1K to Ted's 1700.My stomach is full of the Big K and here goes a Demo for Saxton. No way would I vote for Manix. I hope the legislature is more even with a republican Governor. Moderate on both sides would be nice..ain't never gonna happen. So I can only hope one evens out the other.

huh?

What Ted needs to do right away is pin Saxton down as being too extreme for Oregon and make him own all his far right rhetoric before Saxton starts to move to the middle.

He can do this with a radio campaign. It would not have to be particularly negative-just lay out repeatedly what Saxton has said about things like abortion rights, PERS, etc. then make the simple statement that Saxton is out of the mainstream.

Most folks in the middle still do not know much about Saxton or his positions. I would bet that most of the votes he got from Republicans were folks looking for someone electable, not folks who were in love with Ron.

Ted knows exactly how to do this because Vic Atiyeh did it brilliantly to Ted in 1982. Remember those ads that started on Labor Day: "Vic's opponent, Mr. Kulongoski, too dangerous for me. Kulongoski has proposed dangerous plant closure legislation that will ruin Oregon's economy." Any of you who lived through that campaign remember those radio ads.

Ted needs to define Saxton before Saxton can re-define himself.

First of all, Ted needs to define Ted. This is what the Oregonian quotes him as saying

"I'm running against two Republicans, is how I look at it," Kulongoski said at his victory party, a festive affair tempered by the realization that a more difficult campaign awaits. Westlund, of Bend, recently dropped his Republican credentials. The governor said he will emphasize his plans to bring more stability to school budgets, to ensure more children are covered by health insurance and to boost the state's use of renewable energy.

So, Ted is saying anyone who is friends with Westlund is a Republican and he doesn't want their vote?

What is his plan to bring more stability to school budgets--something more intelligent than his sequel to the Minnis Plan he talked about last year? Does he believe the double majority should remain intact, be eliminated, be debated, be voided for primary elections (where the excuse that no one knows an election is going on is pretty thin)?

Is he going to get the votes of single uninsured adults by talking about insurance for kids? Or doesn't he care about the votes of uninsured single adults?

If he can talk intelligently about these topics (esp. if he talks to groups of ordinary citizens and answers questions) he has a chance.

But if the campaign theme is "Vote for Ted, the un-Saxton, un-Westlund candidate", it will be a long year.

And saying "define Saxton before he defines you" sounds like strategy and tactics, not communicating with citizens. If people care about health care and state trooper funding, how does that earn their votes?

To make a straight party pitch "as a registered Dem. you owe Ted your vote because he got the nomination" is just an invitation to re-register NAV.

The Constitution begins "we the people" and does not mention parties.

Actually, I liked what Steve Duin said today:

Independent Ben Westlund can't enter the fray fast enough. Ted Kulongoski, the anemic incumbent, is running against three Republicans this fall. And Saxton has picked an interesting word -- "change" -- to hang his campaign on, given the seismic partisan shift scheduled for Capitol Hill and all points west in November. Although the scale of the GOP's midterm elections disaster is still taking shape, the Republicans are on their way out.

Maybe it is because I grew up with a grandfather who was an anti-machine Republican and that I campaigned for Tom McCall shortly after moving here. Or that in my lifetime I have been registered in both major parties and that I have campaigned twice in my life for Indep. candidates whose names were not Nader (John B. Anderson in 1980, Brent Thompson in 1996).

I just don't see how saying "I am campaigning against 2 Republicans" funds the state police or the schools, recognizes how many Oregonians are unemployed or underemployed (why my friend who was a Republican staffer in the 2005 session was sour on any and all candidates for Gov.), deals with health care or the environment or any other issue.

Is Ted saying he doesn't want the votes of Republicans? Or is that just a cute soundbite because soundbites (not solutions) are what ordinary voters really want?

<hr/>