"Am I missing something, or is interest actually low?"

You are not missing something....and you are quite candid.

Interest is low because nobody (even the Bluest of the Base) is very excited about Ted. His last term was marginal at best. Maybe 90% of the blame goes to Minnis (I doubt that very much), but regardless, Ted was the Gov, and the buck stops there (in most people's eyes).

Interest is low because Ted was not the leader many (most?) thought he couldv'e been and shouldv'e been.

When people ask: "Are you happy with the last four years?" Most people say "No".

What is the answer when people ask: "Do you want four more years of this?" or "Does Ted deserve four more years?"

Probably not an excited "Yes!!!" from most people.

Harry nails it, IMHO.

For what it's worth, coming from a moderate Independent like myself, Kulongoski is simply uninspiring. Contrast him with Kitzhaber. Kulongoski is arguably closer to me ideologically and yet I didn't vote for him last time and am seriously considering either a write-in or 3rd party this time. Kitzhaber is in my view to the Left of Ted and yet I gladly voted for him every time. Kitz inspired me... made me believe in him... convinced me that he was taking principled stands on the issues and let the chips fall where they may. Kulongoski has the exact opposite effect on me.

I wouldn't be very thrilled about a Democratic sweep. Too much power in the hands of one party is never a good idea. If the House really is that close, then I have no choice but to vote for Saxton - even though I really don't want to. Particularly if a Democratic sweep means "a legislative fix to Measure 37." That's a classic example of one party having enough power to do whatever they want, even if it is contrary to the will of the majority.

Interest is low because nobody (even the Bluest of the Base) is very excited about Ted. His last term was marginal at best.

I agree.

As a gay, married (in Canada) father of three, I've seen my children's schools suffer, and my basic civil protections erode. And where was Ted? Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber championed education, talked about it, took leadership roles, and publicly, passionately, and eloquently fought off anti-gay measures promoted by faith-based campaigners pushing their evidence-free religious prejudices on our state.

So like many I'll hold my nose and fill in the correct ballot circle (Saxton - no thanks!), but I'm certainly not excited or optimistic about the idea of Ted as my Governor for another four listles, leader-free years...

Yes, like many Oregonians this year, I'll be voting against Saxton rather than for Kulongoski. I'm much more excited about retaking control of the State House, and while I understand that we need to keep the Governor's Mansion blue, I'm so lukewarm about Kulongoski that I haven't bothered to get a lawn sign or anything (I'm not even sure I could get one past my wife, who doesn't like K much at all - though she will probably vote for him).

Its hard to believe that Saxton is doing as well as he is (which isn't that well, right?), but Kulongoski's consistently been one of the nation's least-popular governors over the past few years.

If Saxton wins, he'll be a pathetic one-termer who will be restrained by a Democratic state legislature. He won't be able to do too much damage, and Oregon Dems will have four years to find a better candidate for governor than Ted Kulongoski.

If Saxton wins it will be because of the campaign Kulongoski ran and not because Saxton is better than Ted. I like Ted and I think he's a good guy but man is he uninspiring. Maybe he isn't but his campaign staff did some poor PR. They really choked not going after Saxton's throat early. We should have learned what Kerry's campaign learned to late. If they campaign with lies you'd better be ready to counter with the truth and stick it to a weasel like Saxton.

I second all the Ted is uninspiring comments above. But Ted/the Dem's big mistake has been not nationalizing this election. All over the country people (Ds,Rs and Is) are pissed at Bush and the ultra-conservative Rs in charge nationally. And all over the country people are running local campaigns on national issues. But based on some passe, Oregonians are different mentaility, not here. Admittedly, Ted tried to paint Saxton as Bush II in one of the debates, but no one but die-hard political junkies are paying attention to the debates. Ted's whole campaign should have been about Saxton supporting Bush and Bush-like policies. I understand that Bush may have no meaning to local politics, but its where people are passionate, and more importantly for Ted (and the potential benefits of D controlled Oregon legislature) where people are passionately anti-R. By keeping the campaign local, the mood echos the local feeling about both the candidates--a big fat yawn.

i am happy to support kulongoski, in fact, i like that he works hard outside of the spotlight, does not stand on the bully pulpit, and took some necessary, but politically inexpedient, steps to fix oregon's finances (PERS is the best example. it was in the best interest of the state, but his worst political interest).

obviously, this is not the best recipe for political success, but it is refreshing for a change, imho. kulo's biggest problem is that he alienated his base, leaving him with luke warm democratic support. it is no suprise that republicans don't support him, and the the rest are mostly unengaged anyway.

saxton comes off as pretty slippery, even though ihappen to mostly agree with him on his "prominent" issue (education reform), but i will not vote for him. his stances on renewable energy and the environment are unacceptable. i usually agree with people like becky above, who feel that divided government is the best solution, but this year, i am voting straight dem. the republicans in this state have no interest in working together, compromise, or good government issues. on my key issue, renewable energy, they are completely beholden to the extraction industries, and won't do anything--oregon needs to be a national leader in this area, and the 25 by 2025 program will be a good start. i'm gonna give the dems a chance, if they blow it, 2 years is not that long. if they succeed, maybe the republicans will shape up to try to get a piece of their success.

Yes, as usual it's not that el'phants win, it's that Dems lose. This 'lection is Ted's to lose. It's House Dems to lose. It's Senate Dems to lose.

Guess what's happenin' now?

An uninspirin' mess'ge and slick poly-wonks gets us 16 in the Senate, no change or +1 at best in the House, and Lord help us all an el'phant in the Gov barn.

Press folk sensed that months ago. So did most folk who've been 'round the block a time or two. Seems most folk figgred that out, 'sept some city-slicker per-gress've types. "Xplains the open mouth and glaze in yer eyes look y'all are showin'.

Thanks boys fer givin us Dems our worst nightmare.

The poster wrote:

"real tax reform that would stabilize funding, create a rainy day fund, and make taxes fairer"

You'll never get any tax reform without a real spending limit in place, even if you won Mahonia and both houses.

Any significant proposal would have to go before the voters (by referral or referendum) and they aren't going to support "tax reform" when they know that it really just code for "tax increases".

If there was a real spending limit in place, like, oh...I don't know...Measure 48, then the voters would at least be assured that any proposed "tax reform" would be revenue neutral (why increase taxes if you can't spend the results?).

Of course, progressives won't accept a spending limit while there is "just so much more that government needs to do..." That attitude is so out of touch with political reality that it is laughable.

A recent poll showed that two out of three voters who support creating a rainy day fund think it should be created out of existing tax revnues (as opposed to new revenues or using the kicker).

If M48 doesn't pass, progressives will have missed their best opportunity to build a rainy day fund and lay the groundwork for "fairer taxes."

*Yes, I'm a troll, but I'm not going to say anything vitriolic or bash on Democrats, so don't be clicking on over to actblue. And yes, this is off-topic, but I really have to say this.

Does Stan Pdgorny's writing style bother anyone other than me? Comments are my favorite part of blogs but trying to read Stan's is way too difficult. Is it too much to ask, Stan, that you speak/write in proper English? Please?

See, I wasn't being mean...no donations!

I've got one really good reason to vote for Kulongoski: He can hold the line.

Hasn't anybody learned anything from the past 6 years? Republicans try to make it seem like there is very little difference between them and the Democrat -- like Bush did to Gore in 2000 -- in order to get their foot in the door and get elected. Then, once they're in office, they demonstrate exactly how much difference there really is (do I really need to make a list here?).

I see Saxton following the same playbook. He tries to portray Teddy K as a do-nothing Dem who doesn't offer proposals, get anything done or really even vary too greatly from Saxton himself. This is just his strategy to weasel into office. DON'T BUY IT.

Teddy K., as the Governor of Oregon, really just needs to do his best to hold the line. He needs to protect the land use system, protect the environment, keep the schools open, keep the police force staffed, and balance the budget. Anything else is gravy.

Sure, we would all love to see a progressive reformer in the statehouse, one with real vision, charisma, and the ability to make Oregon into an even better state. Don't be fooled, however -- this man is most definitely NOT Ron Saxton. At least with Kulongoski, if such a character were to come along and dominate the legislature such that it were to produce some good bills, he would sign them.

So, why will I be voting for Kulongoski, even if he's not my dream candidate?

Because he'll hold the line. He'll keep the state from sliding backwards. He'll at least carry the torch for all the accomplishments which have been made thus far.

And who's to say that he won't, like Clinton in his second term, manage to pull off some rather impressive accomplishments that just can't be predicted yet? I'm willing to take the gamble that he might.

Kulongoski -- good enough for me.

When Oregon was flat on its back with the highest unemployment in the nation Ted Kulongoski took office.

How could Oregon get flat on its back to begin with inasmuch as a two term (8 years) Democrat was leading our state down to that level?

Just sayin'.

I am one of probably many Democrats who will vote for Saxton this election. I don't buy the arguments that Ted has been a good leader. I have spoken to several legislative Ds who desperately wanted his leadership during the last session, but he was nowhere to be found. He strikes me as someone who likes being governor, but doesn't have the interest or energy to do much as governor. He campaigns like he wasn't governor the last four years, except when he is put on the defensive. You can't sit on the sidelines for four years and then unveil some interesting policy ideas in the months leading up to the election and expect the voters to buy it. And I am sorry, but the bad economy excuse only goes so far.

Beyond my problems with Ted, I actually think Ron will be a good governor. I know Ron and he is not the right-wing racist wacko that some on this site make him out to be. Although I do not agree with all of his policy positions and I dislike a lot of the rhetoric I have heard from his campaign, I think he will work on the issues where we really need strong and courageous leadership (education, economic issues, and trimming the fat in Salem) and I have no fear that he will push the kind of extreme right wing social issues that would make me oppose most R candidates. More importantly, I think Ron is a smart and consciencious guy who will make good decisions and be a great executive.

Finally, and I know many of you will disagree, but I think Ron will ultimately be good for the Democratic party in Oregon. We can't support poor leaders like Ted simply because they are Ds. I think that by sending a message that we are willing to take our votes elsewhere when our leaders fail us, we will prevent our public officials from simply going through the motions. Plus, I think a shake up in Salem will be good for future Democratic office holders who will not feel obligated to retain failed programs and unimaginative bureaucrats.

Scott,

You're an idiot.

It seems that Ted's campaign has gone from lame to flat out weird. Yesterday morning as I was leaving the house for work I came upon a huge vote-for-Ted sign hanging on my front door knob. It was obviously meant to appear to anyone looking in the direction of my house that I support his sorry ass. Quite the contrary. Neither he nor Ron will be getting my vote. They are equally Republican Light. Perhaps one of the folks here could tell him that such tactics are slimy and dumb, much like his last term has been.

I'm a D but I'm voting for Saxton. Kulongoski is a nice man but he has morphed into what he was in the late 70's and early 80's, an out-of-touch left winger. It is apparent that he loves to dream up new government programs for every social problem and thinks if they were "properly funded" and we had a "fair" tax system, Oregon would be wonderful. It is obvious, however, that if K were re-elected, Oregon voters are not going to approve any of his new tax schemes. He will then get discouraged and disappear again, just as he did throughout the 2005 legislative session. Most of the editorial boards in the state think Saxton is smart, creative and has the kind of energy a governor needs. I don't agree with his right wing stand on some issues, minimum wage, pay day lenders etc., but on trying to upgrade our educational system without new taxes, I am willing to give that a try. What exactly is wrong with merit pay for teachers?

Brilliant and cutting analysis Karl. And I think it is pretty pathetic to assume that anyone who claims to be a D that is voting for Saxton is a troll. I am not a troll, and whether you like it or not, there are many, many smart, thoughtful, and politically active Ds that will be voting for Saxton this election.

All,

I don't think Ron Saxton is a right wing nut job per say. I just think the Republican party has been taken over by evangelical fascists. Once he is elected he is going to have to answer to his "base" if he wants to get reelected. So as much as all of you wonderful Dems that plan on voting for Saxton want to pat yourselves on the back for shaking things up in Salem you're really doing nothing more than contributing to the people that have caused our national nightmare. Think about moderate Repubs. Lincoln Chaffee for example. The guy almost lost his primary to a wack job because the "base" wanted someone more conservative. Unfortunately we did the same thing to Joe Lieberman. Voting for Republicans now only gives the ultra conservative Republican's more power. You vote for Saxton and watch what the mega bitch (yeah I said it cause she is) Karen Minnis starts rolling out of the House. You want a work stoppage in Salem...elect Saxton. The Dems are going to lock up the Senate and nothing is going to see the light of day for another 4 years.

All the rhetoric about who is worse... Ted or Ron, demonstrates my point EXACTLY, we have allowed our state to deteriorate to a point where the debate is akin to "what is more painful... poison oak or poison ivy? When are you all going to wake up and realize that the democratic party has become the republican party? The fact that Ben Westlund dropped out because he has calimine lotion should tell you that it's time to seriously look at what you really want for Oregon, more tax breaks for the rich or a state that TRULY cares for its' people. The time to care is NOW.

Poll already came out at Ted has a 4.5% lead. As for Dems being apathetic. I never said I didn't like Ted I just think he's kind of a boring guy. A really great governor though!

Captain Dandy. Westlund was/is a Republican. Ted is not. If you can't see the difference between a Repub and a Dem nowadays you are blind as a bat and have the brain size of a rat. So keep throwing your vote away on a worthless meaningless 3rd party candidate or learn that we have a 2 party system...pick one.

Garrett... writing that I must have either an optical or mental disability as my reason for believing that Dempublicans are alive and well in Oregon is indeed interesting. Further, the language you use to make your point is helpful to my cause. Thank you!

Once again it's been made clear to me how the good Dempublicans in our state feel about people with physical and/or mental disabilities. Other than his language, Garrett sets a stellar example of the notion that people who are different have something inherently "wrong" with them. If you follow that belief you will come to a place where you see them as less deserving than their non disabled peers. Eventually you arrive at a place where you see what all the good Dempublicans currently in place in our legislature have done.

They have behaved very much like the Republicrats in charge at the federal level of government in Washington . They have shrouded themselves in secrecy in regard to $28,000,000 earmarked for adults with developmental disabilities which was spent in other areas of the state budget. They have refused to answer or even admit to this truth although DAWG Oregon proved it last March. Why? because like their Republicrat brethren in D.C., they can.

You might wonder (out of curiosity more than concern) how this could happen. It's mainly because people like the Dempublicans on Blue Oregon go along with whatever their legislature decides. Back in April I told the story on this website with very little response from its' readers, contributors, or administers. The only reason that makes sense for this complete lack of response (never mind "outrage") would seem to be the scenario I just layed out.

So when you tell me there is a difference between these 2 parties and/or these 2 candidates I would respectfully disagree.

Garrett, One reason this is such an uninspiring Gov. campaign is insults such as yours.

Captain Dandy. Westlund was/is a Republican. Ted is not. If you can't see the difference between a Repub and a Dem nowadays you are blind as a bat and have the brain size of a rat.,

First of all, one does not earn support by insulting people--something most adults realize. And in a state where a significant fraction of voters are not partisans (in many legislative districts the number of NAV/ 3rd party registered votes is larger than the victory margin of the legislator elected in 2004), the "blind" person would be the one who thinks as long as major party voters turn out they will decide the election.

Second, Westlund was a maverick that some Republicans wanted to disavow long before he dropped party registration. And look at who won the Democratic nomination as a write in the year he was elected to the Senate in his own right after being appointed to fill the vacancy when Sen. Clarno left for a federal job. Speaker Minnis didn't consider Westlund a loyal Republican--as I recall, she bounced him out of a committee chairmanship when he was a state rep. He is now one of 2 members of the Oregon caucus, the 3rd caucus in the Senate and the one which has promised to hold open caucuses.

Third, I'll bet you voted for Ted in the primary and were part of the target audience for Ted's "I'm running against 2 Republicans" remarks. Ted might be in better shape today if he had tried to compete for Westlund supporters (not to mention Hill supporters) after the primary instead of acting as if he was entitled to everyone's vote. It took me until late summer/ early fall before I was finally able to talk with someone involved with the campaign who admitted they realized Ted actually made some mistakes this year.

Fourth, Welcome back, Capt. Dandy--it is good to see you again. I remember your earlier comments. If Garrett is so clueless he doesn't realize there are Oregonians who feel ignored by the political process, that is Garrett's problem. "Ignored" Oregonians have tipped elections before and they could do that this year.

Paul writes: I'm distressed that his campaign is not making the same sort of positive arguments.

First, the initial spots coming out of Ted's campaign were making precisely these type of positive arguments. More importantly, it's a huge mistake to infer that Ted's going to lose because of trend lines driven by 2 mil+ of unanswered Saxton ads.

Of course Ted's support is going to go down over that period. Any candidate's numbers would. But the campaign has been up on air for weeks now, and there are now two sides to this argument.

As to "liberal-leaning ballot measure support eroding," that's kind of a head-scratcher. Virtually every measure since the begining of time has had its support decline over the course of a campaign -- that's really basic, ballot measure 101 stuff. I think the analysis of this as declining support for progressive measures overall-- if that's what was intended -- is equally off-base.

Also, the only measure enjoying full progressive support is ballot measure 44 (prescription drugs) and I don't know of anyone predicting a loss there.

Thanx for your welcome back LT. You were and are probably one of the very few people on this site who seem to care about the underserved people in this state.

Perhaps it's a demographic thing such as poor people can't afford computers, or are too disenfranchised to want to write, or are too uneducated by our public schools (thanks to Ted and Ron), or are afraid of losing what little they have by pissing off the powers that be.

<h2>My name is David Thomas McDonald. I am not a troll but am definately on paTROLL. I am an activist on behalf of folks who don't express their pain for the above reasons. I have adopted the name of CAPTAIn DANDy to express my joy in the struggle. Deal with it Republican Lights. I am the conscience you all are SUPPOSED to have.</h2>