On the D side this is about what I expected. I expect Kulo to come in somewhere between a possible high of about 65% all the way down to 45%. Sorenson's #s seem suspiculously large, though, for someone who has had no advertising at all.

On the R side, I actually am somewhat surprised. My impression from talking to insiders I know is that Saxton was slowly but surely being reeled in by Mannix and that Jason Atkinson was charging hard. All that being said, I think either Saxton or Mannix is emininetly beatable this fall.

The thing for particularly the Republican primary this can do, of coruse, is give Saxton a ton of momentum, evne if its not very close to the right #s. People who are undecided in a race with no incumbent often go for the person they think is going to win (people want to vote for a winner) and this could be of significant benefit to Ron.

This poll seems to have major holes,

first one on the republican ticket 11% other? No way the other canidates have the name reconition to get 11% of the vote between all of them. Maybe 3-6%.

2nd Atkinson and Hill in other polls were climbing, Atkinson just released ads apprantely my guess is that they wouldnt have released ads if they werent in the race. Hill hasnt done anything in the past week to drop.

This poll IMO isnt very accurate. Ted K is obviously in 1st but its closer, then what this poll has Mannix and Saxton IMO are in a virtual tie well Atkinson probably is within 3-5% of the two.

David, I'd pay little heed to Republican insiders. They tend to be a deluded bunch. Check out the blogs and you'll see -- they assume that anyone who disagrees with them on anything is really a Democratic disrupter. So, Republican insiders think is leading doesn't really mean much. They only count those who support their chosen candidate.

As for the high number of "other," I suspect that represents a lot of voters who are dissatisfied with the choices. They'll end up casting a ballot for one of the "Big Three," but don't really want to DEFEND that choice, so they'll claim they are making a protest vote.

Over the years, I have come to take polls with a whole can of salt--starting with that Monday before the 1992 primary where the Oregonian published 4 polls on their front page the day before a polling place election and they were ALL WRONG ! Could that have had an effect on the primary that ended in recount?

This afternoon there was a call which began "Are you voting for Gov. Kulonoski? I said "You must be calling from out of state" and the person said yes. I said, "That figures, because Oregonians know the name is KulonGOSki--with a G in it. And no, I am not voting for Kulongoski, I am voting for Hill".

The tagline of the phone call was that it was paid for by the Kulongoski campaign. So, the man who created so many Oregon jobs hires an out of state phone bank and then thinks he can distract us over a casino ad?

A week from now we'll know the accuracy of the polls.

Oh Kari... a few weeks ago the talking point from the Kulo Campaign office was that Westlund was a danger because he was pulling too many Dems away from Kulo. Now the talking point seems to be completely the reverse: He's only supported by Republicans.

First Westlund's a danger to Dems, now he's taking votes from R's. First Ted wasn't going to run ads in the primary -- now he is. First Ted's in favor of sales tax, then he wasn't.

Kulongoski is quickly approaching ridiculousness.

I'm just glad Mannix finally seems to be dead in the water. He was a Tom DeLay wanna-be of the highest order.

Kulongoski is too much of a Reagan-Democrat for my taste, but at least he is predictable and benign.

The poll seems pretty reasonable -- a good sized sample with a focus on likely voters (although I'm a little nervous that they don't define that; self-reporting "likely" is much less accurate than actual previous voter history).

On the Democratic side, the polling breaks to Kulongoski because of his stronger support from older voters. Primaries are dominated by likely -- i.e., older (above 50) voters. The tracking I am doing indicates the average age of primary voters so far is 59; it will be down in the mid-50s by the end. General election average age is around 50, or just a bit higher than the average voter.

Likewise, Saxton appeals a bit more to older voters. But the really big news in this poll is that he is running ahead of Mannix with conservative voters. Unless this poll is completely out of whack, it's "Katie bar the door." The big question in the primary was whether Mannix's conservative base would abandon him. They are, in droves, despite the pathetic bleating of his true believers in the Oregonian letters to the editor.

It says here the primary is pretty wrapped up. Now the question of the year is: will Westlund get more than about 12% in the general. If so, Kulongoski has big trouble on his hands.

As does the state of Oregon.

Fred... I am an older voter....almost always voted for the Dems... But this year I will not vote for the 'do nothing" Ted in the primary, or in the general (assuming he is lucky enough to win the primary). Jim Hill has my vote.....he is the only one that can win in November. I was a school board member during the late 90's when Ron was with the Portland School Board...I like him....he did a good job as Chair, but he does not have the experience in finance or economic development that I see in Jim Hill.. So, this older voter is for Hill.....Sorry Ted you lost my vote after three years of "do nothing".

This voter over 50 returned a ballot for Jim Hill yesterday.

As far as this goes: Primaries are dominated by likely -- i.e., older (above 50) voters. The tracking I am doing indicates the average age of primary voters so far is 59; it will be down in the mid-50s by the end. General election average age is around 50, or just a bit higher than the average voter

It would be interesting to have actual data (not just "polls suggest") on how many voters under 30 there were this primary election.

Always lots of talk about "likely voters". But I would also caution about the "unlikelies". Campaigns which hone their approach to target "likely voters" can be swamped if the "unlikelies" vote. Not only young people, but others who don't always vote--and I seem to recall veterans are in that group as are others disgusted with the political process.

When the votes are tallied, the ballots of "unlikelies" are not put into a different pile!

Molly Ivins did a column about "unlikelies" several years ago, and Howard Dean's "show up everywhere, contest everything" strategy is aimed at mobilizing unlikely voters.

As Kari says on this morning's topic, the time has come to mobilize voters to return their ballots by the Tuesday deadline. That should mean ALL voters, not just those on some target list of likely voters.

<hr/>