It is a scary article if it is accurate.

I hope the "progressives" who are so enamored of Westlund will take a look at him and see that in reality, he's a Republican in an Independent's clothing.

I'm not involved in politics like I used to be, but I do have a hard time believing the state is turning conservative. Voter apathy is everywhere in the country, not just here, and largely that is because people have lost faith that our votes are actually being counted. But if you look at the culture of our young people, do you see conservatism there? I don't. We have an uninspiring governor, true, but look at Ron Wyden, who is entirely inspiring. And who do the Republicans have? The party is getting more right wing by the day, yet their "best" politicians either lie when it is politically expedient, don't really know what they believe, or are dim-witted to the point you can't intelligently debate them.

Except for the property rights movement, the right in Oregon is generally made up of goofballs, blowhards, liars, crooks, and incompetents and they're mostly being funded by an aging out-of-stater named Loren Parks. Where will their money come from after he's gone? I laugh every time I hear lefties talk about how formiddable or well-organized the right is in this state. I haven't seen it. It's amazing to me that in a culturally liberal state like Oregon anyone would think the far-better-organized and culturally-on-point left is in trouble.

To win in the arena of ideas, one must also state clearly what you stand for and allow the ideas stand on their own merit.

Absent from the tactical (listed above) is the call for communicating to the populace with repetitive emphasis of the specific views to which alliance is invited.

Articulate where you're going and what it'll be like once you get there more than how you're going to get there.

If the people know and endorse the "where" they'll figure out the "how".

The State is turning conservative because of the influx over the last couple of decades of sleazy Californians and other non-Oregon born people forcing their money and warped, mean spirited values down the throats of native Oregonians. These are people who scream "We know whats good for you no matter what you have or say".

...and they wonder why some Oregonians are so upset.

“Except for the property rights movement, the right in Oregon is generally made up of goofballs, blowhards, liars, crooks, and incompetents...”

That type of dismissive attitude towards the political acumen of the opposition is what gave us two terms of the Bush administration.

The map of Oregon counties published after the ‘04 election showed a state that was overwhelmingly red geographically. It wouldn’t take much to shift the entire state to the conservative side.

Unless you want to see a Saxton governership and a Republican legislature, progressives would do well to acknowledge how skillfully the right frames arguments and takes the initiative in political battles. As Cody wrote in his recent post, progressives should be emulating the think-tanks and tactics employed by conservatives which have been so effective for them.

Tit for tat is easy.

And who do Oregon Democrats have? The party is getting more far left wing by the day, while pretending to be mainstream, their entrentched politicians lie about every failed local policy, they have successfully avoided all accountability for their mismanagement, and are dim-witted to the point they can't even recognize the total absence of oversight.
The left in Oregon is generally made up of radical fanatics, goofballs, blowhards, liars, crooks, and incompetents and they're mostly being funded by tax dollars channeled through unions and public agencies. I also laugh every time I hear lefties talk about how the right is more scheming in this State. It's amazing that in this well funded,liberal machine dominated state anyone would play this rediculous card about the frightening right. Furhtermore, the lefties in this State take everything at face value that comes out of the mouths of each other on every policy or issue.

Is this formulaic drivel really the best we have to offer on the progressive side?

I first want to comment on #2 and Kari's irrelavant analogy between families and political movements. What you Kevin and Kari don't seem to understand, if your words are an accurate presentation of your beliefs (and I won't assume that only comment for discussion as if they were), is that the progressive/left/Democratic side is going through a period of struggle over the core political values that define the movement. There is a difference between working through that struggle to focus on how to win to defend those values, and the intellectually superficial misunderstanding of that process as diminishing the importance of resolving those differences to focus on winning.

And frankly, inexcusably dumb comments like: The stakes are high -- literally, people's lives and the fate of democracy itself are on the line, so perhaps we should set aside the need to be right in favor of the urge to be effective. and Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the damn good. Otherwise, you might just get the perfectly bad. don't help. These are the kinds of early lessons in politics communicated to junior high students as they are starting to learn about their role in society and a representative democracy. I hardly think this kind of juvenile lecturing by a 36-year old to an electorate that majority of which is old enough to be his parent is effective. And I hope that the 18-40 age group is a least mature enough to be beyond this type of communication. A pretty good argument can be made that a large part of the problem right now is precisely this condescending attitude folks like Kevin and Kari have toward the electorate.

The battle to defend and re-assert a set of governing values counter to the psychotic right-wing values holding sway today (and that rode in on a sea change in political affiliation by the 36 and under vote by the way) is not one that can be won by simply equipping folks with talking points if those talking points are not rooted in some deeper wisdom than is evidenced in Kevin's comments. I recently read an article that provides at least some of the perspective our side needs to become effective that I would recommend. I'm providing the full reference and abstract here so folks who care can find it. Maybe paul who comments here has some contrary or complementary insights to offer. (Sorry that due to copyright laws it's only available to non-AAAS members in old-fashioned print in libraries than oh-so-cool online format):

Science 30 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5782, pp. 1905 - 1908 DOI: 10.1126/science.1127891

Perspective Politics and the Life Cycle Donald R. Kinder The study of politics and the life cycle began with a rather single-minded focus on childhood and the family—on the idea, as Tocqueville famously put it, that the entire person could be "seen in the cradle of the child." Politics does begin in childhood, and parents do influence their offspring, but change takes place over the entire span of life. I take up the early emergence of partisanship and essentialism, the formation of generations, politically consequential transitions in adulthood, and the rising of politics and its final decline.

Department of Political Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA.

One typo above, I missed a comma that is essential to the semantics:

and I won't assume that, only comment for discussion as if they were

Jeff raises a good point about the Boomer crowd. I've recently been regaining contact with buddies of mine from the college days (age group late 40s/early-mid 50s) who were lefty and politically active. Cynicism abounds. Apathy is rising. An inclination to hunker down and withdraw is growing.

While many of us were reared during a Democratic era, we've matured during a majority of time where Republicans were in control. I think we need to get recharged and remotivated.

As for the conservative organizational conspiracy--well, heck yes, it's been here for a long time, despite what some of the cloaked conservatives posting here want to say and disclaim. Sorry boys, but I've been involved long enough and know enough folks to know darn good and well that you're being disingenious here. I forget the name of the conservative Democrat lege from Coos Bay who joined Norquist's operation back in the 80s, but he was instrumental in forming the Yellow Ribbon Coalition, which is one of the granddaddies of today's conservative activist organizations. Add in the anti-gay organizations of the 70s, the early editions of the OCA from the 70s and so on, and they've been here a while. And oh yeah, I have my sources in the Republican side of things as well, hearkening back to the era of the fine old tradition of Republican moderates who were proud to be part of the party of Lincoln.

One thing hasn't changed over the years--the conservatives aren't happy unless they own everything, and they whine about nasty liberal sorts who out their little schemes to Take Over The World.

I have also noticed a "inclination to hunker down and withdraw" amoung my liberal and progressive friends. I think because things are getting so ugly that it's hard to keep involved and not be depressed. This is especially true on the national and global level, but there is major trickle down to the local too. People are tired, they don't want to talk about "it". They want to feel good. What can we do about this?

(Since someone else has lately been posting under "Karl", to avoid confusion, I will from now on post under my name Karl Smiley)

I would like to compliment everyone on their responses to Red Dawn. I agree we need to circle the wagons, at the same time have we thought about coming up with a new strategy as a state party? We mention as progressives the lack of diversity in this state. Have we looked at the electoral map, and it seems to me the states that are blue tend to have something called, "DIVERSITY"

There are a few states that are exceptions to the rule of course, but looking at the last two national electoral maps, states trend blue when they have a very diverse population unlike Oregon. I think we are waking up to the fact if we do not face this issue, you can forget Oregon being the progressive state it has been.

Bests

. . ."so perhaps we should set aside the need to be right in favor of the urge to be effective."

If those words come from the mouth of a "progressive" then I guess I need a new label for my political beliefs.

I don't understand why many liberals and progressives give in so quickly to apathy when they feel the reds are about to take over. What would the Democrats in Montana have to say about that? While they're taking over in a very rural state, we all sit here and cry "boo hoo" when the WW sends out warning signals about a possible red invasion.

There are a lot of innovative, intelligent people in this state working on keeping Oregon a great place to live with better education, creating a cleaner environment and increased job opportunities through the use of renewables, advocating for a fairer tax system that doesn't put the majority of the burden on regular working folks... etc. As Kevin notes "circle the wagons" and become active in making these things happen.

Buck up and act like a Montana Democrat!

A trend I see here in Central Oregon is the increasing number of voters registering, or more oft than not re-registering, as non party affiliates. Not necessarily "Independent", but quite simply disgusted with both parties. The attack on Ben Westlund's Independent bid for the govonorship in the first comment to this otherwise excellent post (no Liberal I) is a classic example of what disgusts.

Thanks to all for the feedback, and of course especially for the props.

Not worth getting into a whole thing with AskQuestions1st, except to say that before lecturing on maturity, grow a first and last name. I put myself out there in a spirit of helpfulness not well rebutted by calling me inexcusably dumb. (Which is not true. I totally have my excuses.)

Wanted to also say that I really appreciate the thought behind Nate's analysis. I think it is important to understand as he does that these are just reg numbers -- but I caution that they aren't meaningless, and Oregonian's views haven't been static on issues we care about.

That said, Nate's totally right that when we are talking about people (especially young people) registering NAV and voting progressive, who cares about the party branding. Everyone in Oklahoma is a registered Democrat and it don't mean diddly squat. Unfortunately, folks here are not registering D for reasons that do affect their vote, and even the base voting NAV's don't wipe out all the new reactionary votes crawling up the corridor.

The debate and the demographics in Oregon are shifting away from us, and I do think we're going to see it very definitely and very soon in electoral outcomes if we don't have a focused reponse.

My sense is the governor's race this year absolutely deserves to have panties in a twist because of these underlying dynamics. In a two-way race, the changing vote share (percentage of D's and NAV's likely to vote D, R's and NAV's likely to vote R) based on projected turnout and models of likely voting behavior would make this year potentially even closer than 2002. In a three, four, five, or six way race the winner is just flat-out gonna be the base that is less divided.

Again, thanks to all for weighing in.

Oregon has been a swing state for years and to call us "blue" has probably been misleading, even in recent years. Republicans Nixon and Ford won narrowly (Eugene McCarthy on the ballot in '76 proabbly cost Carter Oregon), and Democrats Dukakis, Gore and Kerry won narrowly. Durign that time, Republican Reagan and Democrat CLinton won solidly. Some of the blue collar Democratic counties like Linn and Baker have gone Republican (Coos and other coastal counties seem to be moving in that direction), while historically Republican Washington County has turned blue. We can never assume that Democrats are going to win statewide, even though that's what has happened in most elections for enarly 20 years.

And just to clarify, I didn't mean that progressives (especially bloggers) shouldn't think critically, just that we reconcile public expression to constructive intent.

As someone once said, philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways...the point, however, is to change it.

Re our level of color mix: Since I moved here from Colorado in August, I have characterized Colorado as "swing toward red" (we occasionally get a Ken Salazar) and Oregon as "swing toward blue" (we get the occasional Gordon Smith).

But we progressives must never forget that all politics is local: you can end up with GOP governors in Minnesota, New York, and Massachusetts, and Democratic governors in Montana, Arizona, and Kansas.

And we are certainly at risk of having a Republican governor in Oregon next term, because of our local conditions.

So the real struggle for November is three-fold:

1) mobilizing the blue base (reminding our friends and neighbors of the life-and-death stakes -- just as Saxton is focused on in courting the hard right, giving the lie to his prehistoric moderation),

2) fighting effectively for hearts and minds in the suburban purple neighborhoods (focusing on the common good, where the traditional conservative social fabric is fraying severely as diversity grows, government shows confusion, and Bush weakens), and

3) undercutting red motivation (by respectfully pointing out to those of goodwill the error of their ways, more in sorrow than in anger, always trying to teach them that we are all in this together).

Not easy, but do-able.

Thanks for the plug Kevin but lets not forget that Building Votes is a non partisan program, intersted in registering all voters with an emphasis on engaging young people in the politcal process.

Nate writes: "Now those are some reasons to oppose Westlund (I notice the Irish Potato Famine didn't make the cut)."

Ouch!! A direct hit, and a welcome bit of humor on this thread. Thanks!!

Now to Kari's post and Nate's retort....I agree with Kari, Sen Ben is very vulnerable to Kari's points.

But the bigger point is that Sen Ben actually is drawing much (maybe most...see the surveys?) support from Gov Kulo. The progressives that I talk to don't like Saxon, but are no way happy about what TeddyK did not do the last 4 years. It goes back to Reagan's question: "Are you happy with the last 4 yrs?" Most progressives answer "no" or "not really". Hence the lowest rates in the nation for Kulo. Many just don't think he did much this last time around, and maybe it is time for a new (more independent) direction instead of the same old tired Kulo. So Westlund is quite appealing to a wide variety (yes, including D's) of voters who are not happy with Kulo.

Kevin -

Thanks for illustrating the point so well why our side has it so screwed up it when it comes to effective political action:

Not worth getting into a whole thing with AskQuestions1st, except to say that before lecturing on maturity, grow a first and last name. I put myself out there in a spirit of helpfulness not well rebutted by calling me inexcusably dumb. (Which is not true. I totally have my excuses.)

Although I wouldn't pretend to equate my comments with some of the important political essays in the history of our country, for those like you who apparently may not have been paying attention in history or civics, the Federalist Papers were published starting in 1787 and it wasn't until five years later when it was became known that Madison, Hamilton, and Jay likely were the authors. To this day we don't know for sure who authored some of those essays.

Furthermore in a 1995 ruling, the Supreme Court stated:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Quite frankly, those of us concerned with the content of the political could care less that you believe there is anything relevant, much less honorable, in having your name attached to your comments. That you explicitly refused to respond to the content of the point and instead decided to bluster about putting your name out there tends to illustrate the point well. The people we need to win to our side don't really care who you are, they will respond more (negatively) to attitudes that don't exactly reflect effective governing values.

You might want to read the article cited and learn something. Pay particular attention to the distinction made between political beliefs and political action. And also to the salutory value of partisanship in representative democracies.

Until someone can show me anything that demonstrates that actual voting patterns are shifting, rather than simply party registration, I'm going to continue to be skeptical (keep in mind, Kerry won Oregon by significantly more than Gore did).

Yes, he did. Precisely my point. The 76,000 vote margin came only after we looked at the underlying party performance structure in the spring of 04 and said oh, crap: we gotta change the math. We then poured our efforts into registration and turnout. In the end, we registered 140,000 voters and worked turnout with paid canvassers in 20 counties, or the state wouldn't be blue right now.

70% of those new voters were under 35. Most of them are already gone off the rolls now. So those voters, not to mention that level of resource commitment, won't be back in 2006. It's up to us now. Which scares me, too. So these trends are real, and can influence the vote if we let them. Just subtract 140,000 (the voters we added) from 76,000 (the votes we won by) and let me know how you do. And remember that's not to mention the record turnout we achieved from previously registered voters in 2004. That's why unity and turnout in 2006 is so critical.

As for Ms. Severino: I assure I am well aware that the Bus voter reg program is strictly non-partisan. That don't mean progressives shouldn't be lined up outside your door to volunteer. Good on ya for protecting and defending integrity in the process. I remember too well the Republicans voter reg in 2004, which destroyed Democratic cards across the country (and yes, here in Oregon, too.)

For a reminder: http://www.kgw.com/election2002/stories/kgw_101304_news_voter_fraud.2a2c6f98.html

As I said at the time, it's one thing for Republicans to be opposed to Democrats, quite another to be opposed to democracy itself. Shameful.

Someone earlier noted the effect of purple suburban voters. That's so simple, yet brilliant. We need to look no farther than the two critical races in East MultCo to see how party registration interacts with voting patterns to blend red and blue into a third hue.

House District 49 Karen Minnis (R) v. Rob Brading (D)

Dem Reg = 10,874 - 41% Rep Reg = 8,559 - 32% NAV Reg = 6,188 - 23%

Measure 36 (Nov 2004)

YES = 15,307 NO = 9,064

Measure 30 (Feb 2004)

YES = 3,676 NO = 11,583

House District 47 - Jeff Merkely (D) v. Bruce McCain (R)

Dem Reg = 13,309 - 45% Rep Reg = 8,811 - 30% NAV Reg = 5,967 - 21%

Measure 36 (Nov 2004)

YES = 16,308 NO = 9,913

Measure 30 (Feb 2004)

YES = 4,692 NO = 12,393

So, despite substantial Dem registration edges, these two House districts overwhelmingly passed M36 and absolutely hammered the income tax surcharge measure.

Minnis, who knows she is fighting for her political life, nevertheless knows her district votes more conservatively than the registration would suggest.

More surprisingly, so does Merkley's district. And we have already seen that the R's favorite consultant, Chuck Adams, is busy reminding Jeff's district that he was on the wrong side of those two issues.

If I were Ben Westlund, I would adopt purple as my campaign color, and explain why.

• Wes

Just subtract 140,000 (the voters we added) from 76,000 (the votes we won by) and let me know how you do.

Without any knowledge of how that 140K votes actually split, this is a stupid comment. The voter registration drive might have actually decreased the winning margin if over 50% of those voters voted red. And there is considerable evidence that was the case across the country in 2004. Does anyone scientifically valid data that speaks to the split (if anyone cites private polls, they need to provide the actual methodology and poll questions.)

Here's the reality in politics:

America Needs a New Direction http://www.dccc.org/multimedia/archives/new_directions/

GOP Howling Over Democratic Web Ad http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/13/D8IRCB380.html

Spratt asks Democrats to pull video http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060713/APP/607130947

Until Democrats and progressives can articulate and defend values in a bare-knuckles way without apologies, the kind of tactical numbers strategy you're fixated on here is pathetically irrelevant. The strategy of trying to win by a few points, where those few points are not people who have been viscerally moved by events and a clearly articulated set of values they identify with, is not sustainable (as Looper admits).

The difference in the red victory in 2004 (which even if all the votes have been counted in Ohio and elsewhere, still would have been close a draw) is based on voters who, rightly or wrongly, believed that they were voting if their (eternal) life depended on it. Despite the pontificating here, a lot of the big talkers here including Looper, just don't communicate a message that they are about anything more than lecturing to voters about how they should vote to the benefit of the lecturers. As a progressive, what Looper and at a lot of NW/Oregon "progressives" make me do is wonder just what has gone wrong.

As far as the Bus Project - I have yet to hear anyone articulate how this project has any connection to how and why people become politically involved and make voting an essential part of their life. It does give the participants a chance to believe they are doing something meaningful, independent of whether there is any evidence suggesting that is true. Here's the real question: How does a book by a failed political presidential campaign director like Trippi (Kennedy 80, Mondale 84, Hart 88, Gephardt 88, Dean 04, and oh yeah, Bradley for Ca. Governor 81) who has demonstrated that he just may not understand what motivates voters to vote as they do, get on the reading list?

Wes of course has put his finger on the point that the reason why people vote as they do is based on how each specific voting decision comports with their values. The failure of the progressive side right now is to clearly articulate a set of progressive values which trumps the set of values people are voting on now.

The "purple" nature of voting patterns reflects the deterioration of the civic culture in our country in the absence of effective progressive political action (or even traditional conservative action). And by definition, an independent who would run on the basis of embracing that deteriorated state really would not be offering a vision of how to move forward to a better state.

Interesting you should mention Merkley, for a couple of years now he and Rosenbaum have struck me as examples of leaders on our side who have just plain failed to inspire. Oh they are popular enough with a segment of their district sufficient to elect them, but that segment in itself is not one that the larger electorate identifies with particularly closely.

What's the point of asking questions first if you're not interested in listening -- or learning -- from the answers?

And yes, Trippi didn't win the Dean race, or the others you listed. What's YOUR track record?

Without any knowledge of how that 140K votes actually split, this is a stupid comment.

I'm not sure calling other people stupid is gonna be a persuasive message for you on this strand. But nice message discipline nonetheless.

I was talking about the progressive votes we added last cycle. I can't be sure how the rest of the new reg split (although of course we had a pretty good idea), but this ain't my first time at the county fair, brother.

And you certainly don't know enough about me to declare that I'm about telling voters how to vote for my benefit. Moving issues that matter in people's lives is both my strategic and personal motivation. That's why I'm a progressive, and what gets me out of bed every morning to do the work I do. So put a sock in it, anonymously.

Wes -- really solid stuff there. I've looked at those same numbers in 49. The NAV and party share breakdown (percentages of D's who vote for D's, and R's who vote for R's) really does change greatly by district and deserves the granularity you provide in contrasting 36 and 30. For a really good time, compare the minimum wage to anti-gay marriage results by house district.

Wish I could spend more time. Thanks again for the exchange. Wes and Nate -- for more info you guys should talk with Josh Berezin, the datageek at OurOregon. He's the guy who really knows this stuff cold. Josh@ will get you there.

All the best --

Looper -

And you certainly don't know enough about me to declare that I'm about telling voters how to vote for my benefit. Moving issues that matter in people's lives is both my strategic and personal motivation. That's why I'm a progressive, and what gets me out of bed every morning to do the work I do. So put a sock in it, anonymously.

You obviously have a problem reading and understanding plainly written text. What the post said is that you and folks like the Bus Project just don't communicate a message that (you) are about anything more than lecturing to voters about how they should vote to the benefit of the lecturers. Doesn't assert what you are, only that you and a lot of the "progressives" who hang out here are miserable failures at communicating even with people who ostensibly share progressive political values. So don't make a fool of yourself by berating the messenger. (And by the way, not my intent to convince anything here of anything. Heads are too hard and quite frankly the folks here just aren't important enough or in big enough numbers to be relevant to what actually happens on election day.)

listensecond -

I've read everything in the thread and have found anything particularly new or insightful (What's the point of asking questions first if you're not interested in listening). Least of from your comment in which you didn't answer the question about the book, which was: Why is it on the Bus Project reading list. I.e., what message does it convey that Bus Project folks think is relevant?

So let me make it clear to you when you ask What's YOUR track record?: I haven't put myself out there as a political consultant or pollster who is paid to claim to know how to win elections. What you and folks who agree with your comment just don't get, is that as a progressive I'm telling you why the message from a lot of folks popping off here ain't working even with the kinds of progressive folks I know. And if you can't communicate in a way that inspires some progressive voters who apparently have a whole lot more life experience than folks like Looper, you sure ain't gonna win many from any other segment of the electorate.

Nate Currie -

I'm not clear what you might be referring to with your comment correlation is not causation. (But I do like your earlier comments and largely agree with them). If you happen to be referring to Trippi and the people who believe he is right and the electorate is wrong, unfortunately the appropriate rejoinder is that "losing is losing". And that is all that matters in politics. Care to elaborate?

AskQ,

You are absolutely right, and brilliant. I only wish your goodnatured shyness didn't prevent me from congratulating you personally.

Nontheless, I'll be sure to work in your thoughts as appropriate. Good luck with your reading list. May I suggest, "How to win friends and influence people?"

All the best.

I want to suggest an off-the-wall idea about GOTV and voter registration. Most voter registration efforts are anonymous, people asking strangers if they are registered. But the voter registration roles are public and so is the list of who has voted. Why not publish them, both on the web and in local papers. Then enlist people to check up on their friends and make sure they are registered and that they have voted. The problem, of course, is that this is untargeted registration and GOTV. But if the object is to dial up Democratic turnout you can limit the list of voters to D's.

By publishing who has voted and who hasn't you would reward those who vote with some recognition. You would enlist the entire community in voter turnout and allow people to hold their friends and neighbors accountable while it still does some good. The voter registration phase could be done by a non-profit, the partisan GOTV phase by the party.

Its an off-the-wall idea, but it takes advantage of the longer voting period of vote-by-mail and it might might increase registration and turnout. Of course it might turn out more R's too ...

Thank God that this state is finally turning conservative! Maybe its finally time to get this crazy mixed up state back and track. Goodbye TEDDY!!!

Funny exchange, and mostly interesting minus the occasional blogger blowhard.

I work in politics, so I'm not going to give my name, so Looper doesn't think I'm just kissing his ass for a job or something. Still, reality is we would have been up a creek in 2004 without all that voter reg ACT and America Votes did. The Kerry campaign didn't know it. The party didn't know it. Looper did.

No one in MultCo is gonna figure out that our votes are getting canceled out until its too late, unless this kind of discussion gets their attention. Don't forget, once we get past the reg trend, there are still the problems we have holding our base and with turnout. So generally, we NEED to start out with a lead. We do take more independent votes but that usually just makes up for the D's we lose downstate.

End of the day, Looper is scary smart (I guess not all Yalies are idiots like Bush), always working for the win, and when he says there's a problem, and we need to get off our ass and register voters, I for one am reaching for a clipboard.

Save the Grizzly!

Ross: It's funny you should suggest that. We're already looking at using some cool software to enable peer-to-peer persuasion, but just yesterday I said to Kevin essentially what you just said: Is there a way that we could enable individual progressives to check up on their friends and co-workers, and ensure that they're registered and voting?

The data is public (though not free), and there's nothing especially challenging about software that lets people look each other up. There are a bunch of details to figure out, but the seed of the idea is planted. Anyone who'd like to discuss this further, or help out (geeks out there, give me a shout), I'm at [email protected].

Nate: Of course we know how many of the new registrants voted. The counties report when each individual's ballot has been cast, and campaigns track that information, so we can bug them remind them to vote, and then leave them alone once they do vote. In the end, they turned out at 80%, which is slightly lower than the general turnout, but very, very good for a population of mainly young first-time voters.

We haven't gone back through and verified the exact number of those voters that are still on the rolls, but the demographics of 2004's new reg would strongly indicate that they're mostly gone. Young people move a lot more often than the general population. Their registration doesn't move with them.

At any rate, no, correlation doesn't equal causation, but we're looking at causation here. Kerry would not have won Oregon without the new reg.

The only way is doesn't work is if you assume that ACT/America Votes/Looper & Co. are such unbelievable morons that MORE than 1 out of 3 voters they found were actually pro-Bush voters. That doesn't pass the laugh test.

I don't think that is obvious. It depends on how they did their screening when they registered voters. There have been plenty of assumptions about how people would vote that have turned out to be wrong. Organizations, using soft money so they can't id on a candidate, have done an ID on their issue instead. They think that because the candidates have clearly distinguishable positions on their issue people will vote the issue. They often don't.

it was that specific voter registration drive that made the difference.

That assumes none of the people who voted would have registered and voted without the voter registration drive. That's unlikely.

I support voter registration and GOTV, but its pretty easy to do it badly and do more damage than good. Mike Kopetski attributed his first defeat when running for congress to the Democrat's GOTV effort in his district. He had id'd those D's who were voting for him and had a plan in place to turn them out. The party proceeded to turn out all the D's, including those Kopetski's campaign was ignoring because they were voting for his opponent.

I am not saying Looper made any of those mistakes, but it is not "laughable" that they id'd a lot of Bush voters.

Ross is right that registration and GOTV can be done wrong. But if the people in Kopetski's district turned out his opponent's IDs, they should be dragged out in the street and shot.

ACT & friends didn't put ten million dollars into this state for us to float a paper airplane on the wind and see where it lands. It was a guided missile, targeting voters that were VERY likely to vote for Kerry. Kari's "67%" was a huge concession to make the point. These voters split on the order of 90-10 for Kerry. We know this because we targeted the work and we tested the results. That is, after we registered these voters, we called them and asked them who they were planning to vote for. But it was hardly a surprise that young voters in Multnomah County were not about to cast their ballots for George Bush.

Basically, we would have to be, like Kari put it, "unbelievable morons" to register 140,000 voters with absolutely no sense of who they intended to vote for.

And, well, we're not.

Thanks for an interesting conversation. I think Albert's got the right idea -- time to head into the weekend.

But if the people in Kopetski's district turned out his opponent's IDs, they should be dragged out in the street and shot.

The Democratic party, I believe it was the state party, turned out all registered Democrats - they didn't do any id for specific candidates. Kopetski did do id's and turned out only the folks he id'd as supporters.

it was hardly a surprise that young voters in Multnomah County were not about to cast their ballots for George Bush.

Obviously you did things right if you got a 90% Kerry vote. But there aren't 140,000 unregistered young voters in Multnomah County. So the net had to be wider than that to get that number. Its not unreasonable to ask whether the net got too wide.

As for being morons, there are plenty of examples of smart people doing dumb things for what they thought were good reasons. And how you get value from id and gotv is not as obvious as it appears to those who work with it everyday.

I think you will find a long history of GOTV by labor unions of their members, and by other interest groups based on issues, that didn't do any id for candidates, exactly the same mistake the Democrats made in Kopetski's district.

The Democratic party, I believe it was the state party, turned out all registered Democrats - they didn't do any id for specific candidates. Kopetski did do id's and turned out only the folks he id'd as supporters.

It's important to recognize that Kopetski lost that race in 1990. Sixteen years ago. Some 240 years in internet time.

Back in 1990, hardly anyone was using sophisticated computer modeling or database technology. Hell, Microsoft Access was barely in its infancy.

Things are different now.

Kari, My friends were recount observers on the 1988 recount--Denny Smith said all that last term that he'd won a "Boeing victory--707 votes". That was after the DCCC had decided Kopetski didn't have a chance (based on their poll conflicting with an Oregon poll which turned out to be more accurate--head of DCCC ended up sending Mike an apology letter as I recall). But it wasn't a campaign of cold hard technocrats, it was a campaign vibrant with friends of Mike, and a crusade to finally dump Denny and replace him with a serious member of Congress. Not to mention idiotic things Denny did. (The funniest of which were written up in a Steve Duin column close to 16 years ago --maybe Sept. 1990, with a wonderful title like "Up In The Air, Jr. Birdman".)

I was there in the room the night of the 1990 victory ( Denny was one of only 5 incumbents who lost that night) at about 11pm when the campaign manager came to the microphone and introduced "the Honorable Michael Joesph Kopetski". It had been a long road for those of us involved in the 1982 Congressional primary. Mike lost that, became a state rep, ran for Congress as a legislator. He followed the old Willie Brown advice "don't say one tactic is more successful than the next--do it all and hope it is enough". I worked on one of his volunteer phone banks. But there was also a spirit of electing someone truly representative to replace an out of touch incumbent. And Mike was as much a candidate who could explain his stands in detail rather than an ideologue of the sort who said "this is the way things are, don't ask questions". His town hall meetings when he was in Congress were a joy to behold--would clean up government if all elected officials had to answer questions about what the government was doing from citizens like he did. At one meeting, his plane had been delayed so the staff asked everyone to come back an hour later, and most did. Popular man!

Back in 1990, hardly anyone was using sophisticated computer modeling or database technology.

In 1988 Windows was barely in its infancy. But no sophisticated technology is needed to get the voter lists, call everyone, ask them who they are voting for and then call back the ones that say they are voting for your candidate.

The problem is that GOTV works best as part of a campaign strategy, not as an end in itself. And campaign strategies vary. There were Democratic candidates on the ballot other than Kopetski who didn't have the resources to ID their voters. Kopetski's campaign did it right, but it couldn't control what others did.

And that hasn't changed. We still got GOTV calls during the last election cycle from people who hadn't done any id beyond our membership in an organization or support for an issue.

Thanks, Ross.

The goal of a campaign (or at least the successful ones I've worked on) has always been to get more votes than any other candidate. That might be done by sophisticated get out the vote strategies using phone banks and a system to ID voters. It might be done by many people talking to their friends about why a particular candidate was better than the opposition. This is why I liked this statement of Ross:

The problem is that GOTV works best as part of a campaign strategy, not as an end in itself.

Historically, there are districts that were once represented by Democrats back in the days before computers were a campaign tool but are currently represented by Republicans. And in some of those districts, good old fashioned shoe leather grass roots campaigning is the main campaign strategy this year (aided by other methods, but not governed by them). And if those campaigns succeed in electing Democrats, it won't be due solely to the type of software used.

We've gotten lots of robo calls in the last few elections but that hasn't changed how we voted--finding a robo call on the answering machine, or having dinner or something else interrupted by a ringing phone with a recording when we answered is not going to cause anyone in this household to change a vote.

Piece of bull:

"Nashif says that won't be enough. He argues that Oregon Democrats have moved too far to the left of the electorate and that their future lies in a downward trend whose slope Looper knows better than anybody."

If any party has moved, it's the R's, who are encroaching on National Socialist German Workers Party territory. Yet, we hear all the time, from R's, from the DLC, from corporate schills [okay, that's redundant] that the Democrats have veered too far left. How so? By embracing F. Roosevelt's economics? By taking civil rights seriously? By failing to buy corporate greenwashing propaganda? By taking a dim view of militaristic imperialism?

Since when is civilized humanitarianism too far left?

By the way, Willy Week once called State Rep Dave Mcteague "a feisty bowling ball of a man."

Would those who claim that Looper and whatever GOTV efforts they participated in successfully garnered roughly 80% of those 140K votes for which Looper takes credit please just cite the empirical data that supports this? All the self-congratulatory theory why it should just is not really very intellectually sound.

And frankly Kari, given some of the logically disconnected comments here, and Looper's own presentation of himself here, I find your argument The only way is doesn't work is if you assume that ACT/America Votes/Looper & Co. are such unbelievable morons that MORE than 1 out of 3 voters they found were actually pro-Bush voters. That doesn't pass the laugh test. is what doesn't pass the critical thinking test at this point. If they really are as good as you say, ACT, America Votes, and last but not least Looper must have done the post-election work to gather the data to prove it. We could all learn something very useful if they do.

Kari, He wants border enforcement, but doesn't want to punish illegal employers.

       This is either a straight up lie, or you are very uniformed.   Either way it just goes to prove that you are a  propagandist  for the Democrats.  With that said Kari you can hardly call yourself a 'progressive', not when you spread ms-information like that.
        It also goes to show that people can not trust what you say.  Too bad since your life is blogging.

<h2>...which shows just how far from reality Westlund resides. The cost of stopping all crossings along thousands of miles of border would be huge. Low-wage jobs for illegals are an attractive nuisance. Not "putting the onus" on the businesses who hire illegals is Weatlunds way of reassuring business interests that he is securely in their pocket.</h2>